Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)









THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

SPEECH OF HON. JOHN M. LANDRUM, OF LA., DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 27, 1860.


The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union--

Mr. LANDRUM said:

Mr. CHAIRMAN: That we are now threatened with great and alarming evils, no
one who will take a calm and unprejudiced survey of the condition of the
country can for a moment doubt. In the formation of this Government there
existed a spirit of harmony and concession from the citizens of each State
in this Union towards the citizens of every other State; and this spirit
was so plainly exhibited in the convention which framed the Constitution
of the United States--that it was so adjusted, so adapted to the wants of
all the States entering into the Confederacy--that it received the almost
unanimous support of the Convention. Harmony and concord and good feeling
reigned throughout the whole Confederacy. The citizen of South Carolina
rejoiced in the prosperity and commended the virtues of the citizen of
Massachusetts; and the citizen of Massachusetts responded to the feeling
of the citizen of South Carolina. That was the feeling which pervaded the
citizens of this common country when the Constitution was formed; and that
was the spirit which pervaded it for the thirty years afterwards during
which the Government was administered by the fathers of the Republic.

But now, Mr. Chairman, what state of things does this country exhibit? A
people discordant; a great sectional party formed, and the whole history
of the country ransacked in a search for subjects of denunciation on the
part of citizens of one portion of the Confederacy against citizens of the
other.

In that convention which framed the Constitution, which is the basis of
our Government, slave States were admitted without objection. Concessions
were made to slave States on every point that they demanded, and which
they deemed essential to the preservation and protection of their rights
in this Union. Ay, there was no objection then to the admission of a State
into the Union because she permitted slavery. So far from that, the
Constitution abounds with express provisions for the protection of their
property, and for the security of their rights. It was not objected to a
free State that she should form a member of the Confederacy because she
did not tolerate slavery. But the patriotic founders of the Republic
looked to the interests of the whole country, and sacrificed prejudices
whenever sacrifices were necessary, "_in order to form a more perfect
union_."

Contrast that state of feeling and that state of facts with the condition
in which we now see the country. Mutual denunciation is the business even
of the Representatives of the people on the floor of this Hall. Members of
Congress recommend the circulation of books calculated to sap and
undermine the foundations on which the whole fabric of wealth, of
respectability, and of civilization, of one-half the Union is based. We
meet here, not to strengthen the bonds that bind us together in the Union,
but to weaken them, as far as human ingenuity can do so. To such a point
has this state of things culminated, that the people of State after State
in the Southern portion of the Confederacy have met in convention and
declared their belief that there is a probability that the time is rapidly
approaching when they "_must provide new guards for their future
security_." The State which I have the honor in part to represent has made
that declaration. And it is charged here on the floor of this Hall, by
almost every member of the Republican party who has addressed this
committee on the subject of the state of the Union, that it is the
Democratic party which is responsible for this condition of things; that
the Democratic party have departed from the lessons of wisdom taught us by
the example of our forefathers, and have thus precipitated on the country
all these evils, by the manner in which they have treated the slavery
question.

It shall be my purpose, Mr. Chairman, in the short time allotted to me, to
endeavor to vindicate from the charge that party of which I am an humble
member. The district which I represent, and the State in which that
district is situated, are Democratic by an overwhelming majority; and I
assert here, and am prepared to prove incontestibly, that the Democratic
party are not the authors of the mischief under which the country labors.
I am prepared to prove that they have not departed from the lessons of
wisdom inculcated by the example of the founders of the Republic. I will
show, if history does not lie, that it is the Republican party, the
anti-slavery party, that is the cause of all the evils with which the
country is afflicted; and it is they, and not the Democratic party, who
have abandoned the legislative precedents and examples of our fathers.

Why, sir, how are we responsible for the slavery agitation that has
produced all the evils and mischief which afflict the country?

How is the Democratic party responsible for that excitement, and for the
difference of opinion which pervades the Republic on that subject,
threatening a dissolution of the Union? Why, we are responsible for it
because we do not join the Republican party to exclude slavery from the
Territories? We are responsible for it because we do not oppose the
admission of a State into the Union when her constitution tolerates
slavery. We are responsible for it because we do not join in the
declaration that all men are created free and equal, and apply that
doctrine to the African slaves of the South; because we do not declare
that those slaves are equal to us, and therefore of right free.

We are required by the Republican party to unite with them in advocating
that doctrine, and to declare besides that slavery and polygamy are twin
relics of barbarism. If we join them in all these declarations of
principle; if we join them in advocating these measures, then, of course,
the country will be quiet. But, sir, who is responsible for the agitation?
Is it not the party that calls for legislation? Has the Democratic party
ever asked the national Legislature to establish slavery in her Territory?
No, sir; but the Republican party comes into this Hall and demands that
the power of the Government should be interposed to exclude slavery from
the Territories. Because we do not agree with them; because we do not
think as they do; and because we do not vote as they do; because we do not
acquiesce in these propositions, why, then we are responsible for this
agitation, and they are not! They ask us to adopt the maxim that no more
slave States shall be admitted into the Union, and because we do not agree
with them on that subject, we are the agitators, and they are not.

Mr. Chairman, from what source do we learn this new doctrine? Do we find
it in the legislation of our forefathers? Are there any restrictions in
the Constitution of the United States on the subject, or any grant of
power to prohibit slavery in a Territory when that Territory is organized?
Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States to justify
it--and I appeal to that as the very first example of our forefathers in
the administration of this Government--is there anything in that
instrument which authorizes you to say that a State shall not be admitted
into the Union because its constitution tolerates slavery?

I differ from gentlemen upon the Republican side of the House as to the
manner in which I would learn a lesson front the example of our
forefathers. I would not search for it in their private declarations. I
would search for their legislative record. We are legislators, and for our
legislation we want legislative precedents. I care not whether the
opinions of the founders of the Republic were for slavery or against it,
if the legislation of which they were the authors corresponded with the
views I entertain. What judge of any court, what lawyer who wished to
ascertain the true doctrine of a case, would search for the private
opinions of the judge when the reports bristled with adjudicated cases
from which he could learn the true doctrine which he had expressed under
oath and in the discharge of his duties? When you search for the opinions
of our ancestors to guide us as legislators, look at their conduct as
legislators, and not their private opinions. Every lawyer, every sensible
man, every rational man, knows that that is the true test of the opinions
of our ancestors upon a given subject. When they legislate under oath;
when they legislate for the good of the whole country, they lay aside
their private opinions and their peculiar prejudices.

Now, sir, what do we find in the Constitution of the United States which
inculcates the doctrine that slavery must not be extended into the
Territories? I call the attention of gentlemen to the first clause of
section nine, article one of the Constitution:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed upon
such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."

In order, Mr. Chairman, that there may be no mistake about the meaning of
that clause of the Constitution, I send to the Clerk's desk, to be read,
an extract from Elliott's Debates.

The Clerk read from Elliott's Debates, (Yate's Minutes,) pages 35 and 36,
as follows:

"By the ninth section of this article, the importation of such persons as
any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on such
importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

"The design of this clause is to prevent the General Government from
prohibiting the importation of slaves, but the same reasons which caused
them to strike out the word 'national,' and not admit the word 'stamps,'
influenced them here to guard against the word '_slaves_.' They anxiously
sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the
ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system
those things which the expressions signified: and hence it is that the
clause is so worded, as really to authorize the General Government to
impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to
become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a
servant, although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the
duty was only made to extend to the importation of slaves.

"This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the
convention; as the system was reported by the Committee of Detail, the
provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited,
without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight
States; Georgia, South Carolina, and I think North Carolina, voting for
it.

"We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that
their States would never agree to a system which put it in the power of
the General Government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that
they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their assent from such
a system.

"A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot to take
this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to
agree upon some report which should reconcile those States; to this
committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been
reported by the Committee of Detail, namely: 'No navigation act shall be
passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each
House;' a proposition which the staple and commercial States were
solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under
the power of the eastern States, but which these last States were as
anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a
member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to
them. I found the _eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to
slavery_, were very willing to indulge the southern States at least with
temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave trade_, provided the southern
States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on
navigation acts, and after a very little time, the committee, by a great
majority, agreed on a report, by which the General Government was to be
prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time,
and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted."

Mr. LANDRUM. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are asked to legislate to exclude
slavery from the Territories, because slavery is a moral wrong, because it
is a sin against God, and because it is a crime against humanity. And we
are invoked to adopt that legislation by the example of our forefathers.

Now, what precedent do they furnish us in this clause of the Constitution?
The Constitution of the United States did make regulations in regard to
the slavery question. One of those regulations was to permit the African
slave trade until the year 1808. Now, sir, was there anything so morally
wrong in the African slave trade; was it any such crime against humanity
as to deter the ancestors of those gentlemen from coming into a Union
which permitted the African slave trade? Why, sir, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and New Hampshire, voted to extend the limitation against the
prohibition of that traffic from 1800 to 1808. Does the honorable chairman
of this committee (Mr. BUFFINGTON) blush for his ancestors because they
knew so little of the primary truths of common morality, as expounded by
the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. FERRY,) in the commencement of this
debate, soon after the organization of this House, in voting such a
provision as that?

The State of Massachusetts was a sovereign State before she entered into
this Confederacy, unabridged by any limitation. She could have prevented
her citizens then, as the United States does now, from participating in
the slave trade even between foreign ports in foreign nations; and yet
your ancestors not only voted with South Carolina and Georgia, who refused
to come into the Union unless the African slave trade was permitted so
long as they desired it, but in coming into that Union, it gave to the
citizens of Massachusetts, too, a like authority to engage in that trade.

What a sin against God, what a crime against humanity, did these
Massachusetts legislators vote to perpetuate! And yet, I imagine, the
honorable Chairman is proud of his ancestors; and we are told now that
because we will not join you in the hue-and-cry against slavery, and do
not legislate to exclude slavery from the Territories, we are the authors
of the evils with which the country is afflicted. You are not satisfied
with our silence, our inaction; you say that we want to perpetuate a crime
against humanity, and have departed from the lesson of wisdom inculcated
by our ancestors.

Sir, I believe in the teachings of the ancient patriots. I take their
precedents, and although not _now_ in favor of the reopening of the
African slave trade, because it is inexpedient, (though, as I do not
consider the question before the country, I confess I have not studied
it,) yet I venerate those legislators who sacrificed their prejudices in
order that they might get South Carolina and Georgia into the Union, who
refused to come in without it.

The gentleman from Connecticut, who first opened this debate, and who, I
believe, is not now in his seat, remarked in his speech, that evil,
disguised in whatever form it might be, would only produce evil; and
therefore you must first lay down a moral code, and no matter what results
it apparently leads you to, you must never violate it. Sir, his ancestors
told a different tale. They said, in admitting South Carolina and Georgia
into the Union, that, although they objected to the slave trade, more good
would be accomplished than by prohibiting the slave trade and losing those
two States.

That is the policy which guided our ancestors; and now, what do we ask?
What does the Democratic party ask? Do we ask this Government to legislate
slavery into the Territories? We have never made any such demand. We have
never _yet_ asked anything of this Government but to let it alone. And I
assure you, that New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, voted to
perpetuate the slave trade, and to give her citizens the right to engage
in it from 1800 to 1808, by that clause in the Constitution which gives
the citizens of each State the rights of the citizens of every other
State. She relinquished the power which they had to forbid her own
citizens from participating in the slave trade, and opened the door to
them. That is what your ancestors did in the Constitution under which this
Government was formed, and which is the basis of all its legislation. And
yet, you can give no legislative encouragement to slavery; you must
exclude it wherever you have the power to exclude it, not as a matter of
policy--at least that is not the ground upon which you base your
action--but because it is a moral wrong, and a crime against humanity.

But is that all the legislation in the Constitution about slavery? Why,
sir, they inserted a clause in the Constitution authorizing the recapture
of fugitive slaves when they entered the sovereign territory of these New
England States which have now such an aborrence of the doctrine. As the
meaning of that clause has been a subject of dispute, I ask the Clerk to
read a short extract from the debates in the Virginia convention which
adopted the Constitution, in which Mr. Madison explained the meaning of
it. I hope I shall be able to show that we have some first-rate
pro-slavery legislation in the Constitution before I get through with this
argument.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are
free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are
uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, 'no
person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This
clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.
This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to
the General Government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves
now held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to its
representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They cannot
prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after that period
they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argued in this
manner: 'We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much
of the property now possessed has been purchased or otherwise acquired in
contemplation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves. What
would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia
would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.' I
need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment
of the Union would be worse. If those States should disunite from the
other States, for not including them in the temporary continuance of this
traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign Powers."

Mr. LANDRUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, those were the motives that influenced the
framers of the Constitution. The several States of New England which,
according to the testimony of Mr. Madison, had up to that time refused to
deliver up fugitive slaves, voluntarily renounced the right of prohibiting
it, and voted that the slave-catcher should have authority to enter
therein, and carry back his slave to bondage. Do I want any better
pro-slavery men than these? Where, sir, was this notion of "a sin against
God and a crime against humanity" when they voted for that clause?

I will again refer to the remark of the gentleman from Connecticut, which
I know he will not apply to his ancestors in Connecticut who voted for
this pro-slavery provision--that "evil, disguised under whatever form it
may be, can be productive only of evil." He would not denounce his
ancestors as hypocrites because they left out of the Constitution the
weird "slave;" for Mr. Roger Sherman says that the expression was
objectionable "to ears polite," I suppose. Mr. Madison and Mr. Yates tell
us what they meant by the description "held to service or labor." I know
the gentleman would not say that his ancestors were disguising in a
particular name an evil, and thereby adopting it.

No, sir; slavery was a good thing; but it had a bad name, according to the
polite phraseology of the day, and, knowing that "a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet," they changed the term "slave" to that of a "person
held to service or labor."

But, sir, in regard to this African slave trade provision, it was esteemed
so important that, although provision was made for an amendment to the
Constitution, applying to almost everything else within its compass,
except, I believe, to the clause, that no State should be deprived of her
equal representation in the Senate without her consent, this precious
article of the slave trade clause was not to be interfered with, under any
circumstances, prior to the year 1808.

I think, Mr. Chairman, I have disposed of the religious argument, the
moral argument, the conscience argument against slavery, derived from the
lessons taught by the example of our forefathers. Do not tell me any more
that Mr. Madison thought slavery was an evil; because these thoughts
controlled not the action of his public position. Do not tell me that
Washington and Jefferson were opposed to slavery abstractly, after that;
because we find even New England men, with all their prejudices, as good
pro-slavery men as South Carolina and Georgia wanted--for they were the
only States that made a question on this African slave trade. Whatever
future congressional protection to property may become necessary, all that
we have ever _yet_ asked, Mr. Chairman, is that Congress shall not
legislate at all on the question of slavery in the Territories. But your
patriotic forefathers did legislate. They legislated to protect the
African slave trade. They gave permission to the citizens of Massachusetts
to enter into the slave trade along with the citizens of South Carolina
and Georgia, and they gave us a fugitive slave law. That is the sort of
legislation which they gave us in the Constitution, which is the basis of
the Government under which we live.

There are other clauses in the Constitution, sir, which show that this
matter of slavery was not neglected. In the apportionment of direct
taxation and representation, it was stipulated that three-fifths of the
slaves should be represented on this floor. They were noticed, and noticed
as a degraded class, as unequal to free men; because, if they had been
considered equal to free men we would have been entitled to full
representation for them on this floor. But, sir, they were treated as a
degraded class--as a class unequal to free men. Their masters were given a
representation in this House in proportion to three-fifths of their
numbers, and the direct taxation was to be assessed at the same ratio on
the slave States. Now, I allude to this subject, not to show boastingly,
as it has been said on this floor, that we have a slave representation
here. In that very provision of the Constitution the people of the
northern States derived all the advantage--the people of the southern
States all the loss; for no money, scarcely, has ever been raised by
direct taxation. The money for the support of the Government is collected
in an entirely different manner. If taxes were assessed on that principle,
by a system of direct taxation, we would have derived some benefit from
the three-fifth provision; but, as it is, you derive all the advantage,
and we none of it.

The principle which governed the convention in inserting that provision
was the belief that this was the proportion in which the labor of the
slave contributed to the wealth of the country, comparatively to that of
the free man; and as, according to the political doctrines of that day,
taxation and representation went hand in hand, and as a slave produced
only three-fifths as much annual income as a free man, their masters were
only entitled to that much representation. So it is in the electoral
college. There the slaves are enumerated in the same proportion, and their
masters are deprived of a voice to that extent.

In that connection I want to have read the opinions of a venerable
gentleman, whose authority will not be disputed upon this floor by the
Republican party--the opinions of Mr. John Adams. The Clerk will read from
the Madison Papers, page 29.

The Clerk read, as follows:

"Mr. John Adams observed, that the numbers of people were taken by this
article as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects of
taxation. That as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you
called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some
countries the laboring poor were called freemen, in others they were
called slaves; but that the difference as to the State was imaginary only.
What matters it whether a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm
gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of
life, or give them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add
as much wealth annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the
one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more
profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred
slaves. Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen,
should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves.
Suppose, by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one-half the
laborers of a State could, in the course of one night, be transformed into
slaves, would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to pay taxes?
That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries--that of the
fisherman, particularly, of the northern States--is as abject as that of
slaves. It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for
taxation; and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index of
wealth. That it is the use of the word 'property' here, and its
application to some of the people of the State, which produces the
fallacy. How does the southern farmer procure slaves? Either by
importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he
adds one to the number of laborers in his country, and proportionably to
its profits and abilities to pay taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it
is only a transfer of a laborer from one farm to another, which does not
change the annual produce of a State, and therefore should not change its
tax; that if a northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it
is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the
southern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred thousand
freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thousand
slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property. That a slave
may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly called the wealth
of his master, than the free laborer might be called the wealth of his
employer; but as to the State, both were equally its wealth, and should
therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.

"Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted
as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as much work as
freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one. That this was proved
by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in the Southern Colonies
being from £8 to £12, while in the Northern it was generally £24."

Mr. LANDRUM. If we had a representation on this floor, as we ought to
have, on a total population basis, we should have sixteen additional
members, and the same additional number in the electoral college.

Well, sir, the Republican party has attempted to incorporate an additional
provision into the Constitution. Those clauses which have especially
provided for African slavery it is impossible to repeal; but into those
where slavery is not mentioned, they have attempted to interpolate a new
clause. The Constitution has provided that new States may be admitted into
the Union. In a Confederacy of one-half slave States and one-half free
States, or nearly in that proportion, and when there is a provision in the
Constitution that new States may be admitted into the Union, _without
qualification_, one would naturally suppose that there would be no more
restriction upon the admission of a slave State than upon the admission of
a free State.

Yet, sir, gentlemen on the other side propose to construe the Constitution
as if there were really there a restrictive clause against the admission
of any more slave States. And when we oppose that step they turn around
and say to us that we are the cause of all this excitement. It is they who
have caused the trouble. Like the old English gentleman in the play, they
say they are the best natured men in the world if we will only give them
their own way. All they want is to be permitted to have their own way, and
then there will be no excitement. We say that, as the Confederacy
consisted originally of free States and slave States, each new State, when
applying for admission, has the right to regulate the matter for herself.
You, gentlemen of the other side, say that, unless the new State prohibits
slavery, she shall not be admitted.

Look at another clause of the Constitution:

"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United
States."

There is not a word there as to whether slavery shall be tolerated in
these Territories or not.

Such are the views, Mr. Chairman, and such the example of our forefathers
when they framed the Constitution. I take those examples of our
forefathers, and their legislative action under it, for my precedents. I
care not what their private opinions may have been; I want to know what
their legislative conduct was when they were acting on oath, for they were
men who regarded their oaths. They were men, sir, who did not believe that
the Constitution they framed would be contrary to the higher law, and that
it would be consistent with their oath of office to violate it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, what further was the action of the fathers under the
Constitution of the United States. I will refer back to one memorable
example which goes behind that instrument. In the treaty with the British
Government it was stipulated that the British should not carry away any
negroes or _other property_ of the American citizens. John Jay, John
Adams, and Benjamin Franklin signed that treaty; and this, sir, was the
language they used:

The British "shall not carry away the negroes or other property belonging
to the people of the United States."

Yet we are told that, according to the doctrine of our forefathers, there
can be no such thing as property in man. The language I have quoted occurs
first in the preliminary articles in 1782, and again in the treaty of
peace which was signed in 1783.

Kentucky was admitted into the Union as a slave State, without objection,
on the 4th of February, 1791. Now, if you had the right to exclude
Missouri because she tolerated slavery, why did you not have the same
right to exclude Kentucky? Why were conscientious scruples abandoned in
the case of Kentucky, and the Territory of Virginia given, by the
detaching of Kentucky, four Senators in the Senate of the United States,
instead of two? Our forefathers--yours and mine--voted for the admission
of Kentucky as a slave State. It will not do to say that slavery already
existed in Kentucky; because, if slavery be a sin and a crime and a curse,
then, according to your doctrine, it ought not to have been extended by
giving the slave States additional representation and power in the Senate
of the United States.

Why, sir, if it would have been bad faith to have excluded Kentucky, was
it not bad faith to exclude Missouri? Because in the ordinance
establishing the territorial government of Missouri, in 1812, there was no
Wilmot proviso, no prohibition of slavery? But slavery was permitted, as
we ask it shall be permitted now; it was protected by the courts, and no
complaint was urged within the Territory of Missouri, in regard to this
question of slavery until she applied for admission into the Union. If
your anti-slavery party, which I charge is the cause of all the evils with
which this country is afflicted, was right then in excluding Missouri,
because she did not abolish slavery, your forefathers were wrong in
admitting Kentucky. Either they were wrong and you are right, or you are
wrong and they were right. Between the two I have no hesitation in my
choice. Regarded as patriots, regarded as intelligent men, considered as
men who regarded their oaths, I have no hesitation in saying I believe
they were equally as honest as the Republican party of the present day.

In 1793 they gave us the fugitive slave law, there being only seven votes
in opposition to it, and some of those were from the South, I think--a
law, which if we attempt to enforce in the northern States we are met by
mobs, and bloodshed frequently follows. No southern man dares go into some
portions of the northern States and attempt to execute this law, except at
the peril of his life.

Such was the action of the founders of the republic, whose example we are
constantly called upon to imitate. Tennessee was admitted in 1796, with
slavery. The Territory of Mississippi was organized in 1798, by the
application of the ordinance of 1787 to that Territory, and the
restriction as to slavery removed. That was legislation under the
Constitution. These are the precedents we are to follow; and we are not to
go behind the Constitution and follow the precedent of 1787, when the
relation of the States to each other was entirely different from what it
is now under the Constitution.

Ah! but you say, Mr. Jefferson thought slavery was a great wrong. But the
acquisition of Louisiana in 1804 was a great right. Mr. Jefferson was then
President of the republic. He represented the people of the free States,
and he represented the people of the slave States; and no matter what his
private opinion might have been upon the question of slavery, or upon the
question of religion, or upon any other question, we, as legislators
sitting in this Hall, acting under oath, as he did, have nothing to do
with your private opinions upon the subject; but we have something to do
with your legislative action; and I call upon you, acting under oath, as
Jefferson did, to imitate his example. He acquired Louisiana through the
instrumentality of Livingston and Monroe, who signed the treaty. Slavery
existed in the Territory of Louisiana by the treaty by which she was
acquired, and by that her inhabitants were guarantied their rights of
property.

Louisiana was admitted into the Union, in 1812, as a slave State. I know
that specious objections are made in these cases. The objection has been
made that in Tennessee, in Kentucky, and in Mississippi, slavery already
existed; but, acting upon the principle upon which gentlemen here propose
to legislate, that whatever is wrong and evil can produce nothing but
evil--and you must follow it to its results, no matter where it leads
you--no question of policy can be entertained. Why did these eminent
opponents of slavery, as they are called, and to whose opinions we are
constantly referred, increase the slave power, and encourage slavery
aggression, as you term it? The only aggression slaveholders have ever
made upon the free States is a demand that they should let this matter
alone. Why do not members of Congress, assembled within these Halls,
imitate the legislation of these men? I assure you, there was no such
restrictive legislation in the Constitution, nor under the Constitution,
up to 1820; for in 1813, under the administration of Madison, I believe,
slaves were recognized as property, and taxed by the Government; and in
1814, in the treaty of peace with Great Britain, it is again expressly
stipulated that all slaves and other _private property_--I use the very
language of the treaty--in the possession of either of the belligerent
parties, should be returned to the other, which shows that they had no
constitutional or conscientious scruples against _protecting_ slave
property.

And yet we are told that we are the cause of all these mischiefs, because
we do not join with you in the declaration that there can be no such thing
as property in man; and that we have departed from the example of our
forefathers in not joining in that declaration. Sir, I would not use an
unparliamentary phrase; I would not say one word calculated to widen the
breach which now exists between the different members of this Confederacy,
for God knows no one deprecates it more than I do; but I do say that
intelligent gentlemen who stand upon this floor and make that declaration,
ignore the whole legislation of this Government, from the formation of the
Constitution up to the Missouri difficulty, in 1820. I say, if they are
familiar with the legislative acts of their forefathers, they must know
they are uttering that which is not true, when they say their example
teaches us that we should oppose slavery in every shape and form in which
we have legislative power.

Mississippi was admitted into the Union in 1817, and no objection was
raised that she was a slave State. But it was in 1819-'20 that the
struggle began for which you propose to hold us responsible. Why, sir,
after the Government had gone on thirty years without question, having
never asked, when a State applied for admission, whether she was free or
whether she was slave; while the whole country was living in harmony and
brotherly love and affection; while the southern State was proud of the
prosperity and happiness of the northern State, and the people of the
northern States rejoiced at the prosperity of the people of the South,
this hydra-headed monster of anti-slavery was then first produced; and
from that day to this, it may be said,

  "Black it stood as night,
  Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell,"

and has shaken the bonds of this Union from one end to the other.

What was the cause of the agitation of 1820? After you had encouraged the
citizens of Virginia and Kentucky and other States to settle in Missouri,
by protecting slave property in the courts of justice, you turned round
and said that Missouri should not be admitted unless she relinquished the
right thereafter to hold slaves; and you kept her out of the Union for one
year. The South, with that compromising and generous spirit which has ever
characterized them--I say so in no spirit of egotism, for I am describing
the people whom I represent--came forward and executed that memorable
relinquishment, agreeing that slavery should not go north of 36° 30´ if
you would permit Missouri to come into the Union. While we have voted for
the admission of free State after free State, without making it a
question; while we were then ready to vote for the admission of Maine, you
turned round and ungenerously--what your motives may have been God only
knows; whether to promote your political power or not it is not for me to
say--forbid Missouri coming into the Union unless she relinquished the
right to hold slaves.

Now, sir, who departed from the lessons of wisdom taught by the fathers of
the republic? Most of them slept in their tombs, and a wiser and purer and
holier race (in their own estimation) had supplanted them; and "the sin
against God and the crime against humanity" had to be blotted from
Missouri, or she could hold no place in the Union.

However, you made a good trade, and then the objection to the "sin against
God and the crime against humanity" was waived for a consideration. You
excluded the people of the South from all the territory north of 36° 30´,
and then Missouri was admitted into the Union with slavery.

[Here the hammer fell.]

Mr. LANDRUM. I would thank the committee to extend my time for ten minutes
longer.

General assent was given.

Mr. LANDRUM. I shall have to pass over a number of points which I should
have liked to touch on, and will only make this remark: that having all
the time a majority in the House of Representatives, and having secured an
ultimate preponderance in the Senate, you passed the tariff bills of 1824
and 1828, in which the southern section, now securely in the minority,
were to be made tributary to promote and pamper the industry of the North.
Then came the opposition to the annexation of Texas, because it was a
slave State. Then came the Wilmot proviso for Oregon, and for the
territory acquired from Mexico. Then followed the struggle of 1856, when
you boldly inscribed on your banner, "No more slave States to be admitted
into the Union." At all events, you insisted on "prohibition to slavery in
the Territories," and announced that our system of labor was a "twin relic
of barbarism" with polygamy. Then followed the enunciation, in the
platform of a great popular party, which struggled almost successfully for
the government of the country, that the whole people of the South who
owned slaves were living in that state of pollution and degradation which
characterizes the polygamist.

Yet we are told that we are the cause of all the trouble, because we do
not join in the hue-and-cry. Now, sir, what is the state of parties? The
greatest man, perhaps, of the Republican party--certainly the greatest in
influence, and the one whose prospects are first for the Presidency--has
declared that the three billions of property which we own must be
destroyed, stating that "you and I must do it," meaning that it must be
done by the present generation. Then follows the resolution of the
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. BLAKE,] voted for by sixty members of the House,
declaring that slavery ought to be abolished wherever the Government has
the power to do it.

The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. FERRY] will recollect his declaration
that some of us may live to see the day when this Confederacy may consist
of fifty sovereignties; and when that day comes, it will be their duty,
according to the principles of the Republican party, to change the
Constitution and to abolish slavery. And yet gentlemen seem to wonder that
the people of the South are talking about new guards for their safety.
Sir, the maxim laid down by Jefferson, that governments should not be
abolished for light or transient causes, is most true; but no less true is
the maxim that a people are always disposed to endure evils so long as
they are endurable, rather than right themselves by abolishing the forms
of which they are accustomed. Sir, what may be the action of Louisiana, in
any contingency that may arise, it is not for me to state.

I believe that the people of my State have too much at stake to attempt to
change their present institutions, or to make any new arrangement for
light or transient causes. We have an immense wealth, a vast commerce, a
city trading with all the States of the Union, whose forests of masts,
from which float the flags of all nations, denote that her commerce is
coextensive with the globe. The levee of her commercial emporium literally
trembles, in a frontage of nine miles, beneath the superincumbent masses
of merchandise. Reluctantly, most reluctantly, would that people take any
steps which by possibility could involve us in civil war and commotion;
and great, indeed, must have been their apprehension when they adopted, in
convention, March 15, 1860, the following resolution:

"That, in case of the election of a President on the avowed principles of
the Black Republican party, we concur in the opinion that Louisiana should
meet in council her sister slaveholding States, to consult as to the means
of future protection."

I have no idea that I am mistaken, when I state that no action will be
taken under that resolution, except on the most mature deliberation. But,
sir, whenever the people of Louisiana believe that their institutions are
in danger, and that it is the deliberate purpose of those who may get
control of the Government to spread over them that dark and benighted pall
which hangs like an incubus over the Central and South American republics
and the West India Islands that have emancipated their slaves, I tell you
they will act, and act effectually, too, for their protection and
security. And whatever course the majority of her people may choose to
take, her sons will sustain it with their lives, their fortunes, and their
sacred honor.

THOS. MCGILL, Print.