The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session Page: 382
xv, 408, 421 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this legislative document.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
382
CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
/; -'
ing this Union. He referred to die constitution of
Kentucky, and that of his own State. The only
difference was, that in the constitution of Arkansas,
although the legislature cannot emancipate slaves,
it is said, "unless with the consent of their owners,"
yet, whether those words were in or not, the own-
ers can emancipate their slaves if they please; and
so its will be in Florida, under the constitution now
. presented to Congress. The legislature of the State
caftnot emancipate the slaves of its citizens any more
than it can seize and forfeit their other property of
any sort; but, although it is not constitutional to
seize and dispose of private property by act of le-
gislation, it does not follow that the owners cannot
do what they please with their property: their
slaves are their property, and they may emancipate
them if they wish; it is only'guarantied to them, by
this constitution, that the legislature shall not do it
in spite of their wishes or authority. If municipal
laws are made that slaves may not be emancipated
without security being given by their owners that
they shall not become a charge on the community,
that is all the condition the owner will have to sub-
mit to.
Messrs. SIMMONS and HUNTINGTON ad-
vocated the amendment of the senator from Maine.
Mr. BERRIEN would gladly adopt the sugges-
tion of the senator from South Carolina, [Mr. Mc~
Duffie,] and abstain from discussion, and would
have, rejoiced if the vote had been allowed to be
taken without that species of opposition which in-
evetably excites feelings that cannot be suppressed.
Within his own bosom he found feelings awakened
on this occasion, which he did not desire to express
in this Senate. He was not allowed to look at this
subject without being transported to his own do-
mestic fire-side, and seeing the occupants that sur-
round it. With the feelings of a southern man, he
would gladly have postponed the admission of
Florida into the Union, because he believed that,
at the present moment, the interests of the South
were ^sacrificcd. It was a territory five hundred
miles m extent, embracing a vast Atlantic board,
and a line of boundary on the Gulf of Mexico of
great commcrcial importance—a territory that, in
due time, would have a population adequate to
entitle it to be erected into two Slates. Southern
men were in reality sacrificing; southern interests
by urging on the admission of Florida into the
Union as one State. It was running countcr
to the wishes of a majority of the people of that Ter-
ritory except as a counterpart to the admission of
Iowa. But all these feelings were silenced when, in
answer to tlie application for the admission of Flor-
ida, he was encountered by a proposition wheh
assailed him in his home—in his dearest interests;
and what was the proposition? The senator from
Maine moved to strike out essential provisions
of this bill. He (Mr. B.) called the attention
of the Senate to the two questions involved in the
proposition of the senator from Maine. He [Mr.
Evan*.J moved to erase fiom the constitution which
had been presented by the people of Florida, first,
thcjprovision which foi bids—not the emancipation of
slaves, (for the senator from Arkansas, though he
believed he was not a lawyer, had stated with legal
prtcision the operation of that clause,)—not indi-
viduals, but the legislature, from emancipating slaves;
and he moved to strike from that constitution the
provision which authorized the legislature of Flo-
rida to prevent the immigration of people of color
into that State. Now he (Mr. B.) did not mean to
shelter himself under the construction of the power
which was contended for by the senator from Ohio.
God forbid ! It stands on higher ground. He did
not mean to shelter himself under the proposition
that all you have a right to do in determining whether
you will admit a State into this Union is to ask the
question whether that State has a republican form
of government or not. No; the rights he advoca-
ted on this occasion stood on higher ground.
He gave lull play to the exeicise of that right if
it existed. He gave unrestrained liberty to the ex-
ercise of every power, except as restrained by the
common constitution of all. He gave unrestrained
liberty, too, for the arrangement of the constitution
of the State. And he said, then, if there is no pro-
vision in it forbidden by expiess inhibition in your
own constitution, you have no right to prescribe re-
vision. He believed that if a State asking to come
into this Union, came here stating she meant to pass
a law conflicting with the provisions of your own
constitution, you would have a right to turn upon it
the back of your hand; for notwithstanding such
provision would be inoperative, yet you want not to
admit a State into this Union, for the purpose of in-
citing bickerings and litigation. He gave to his op-
ponents the full extent of all the fight they would
have to except to whatever they could find in the
constitution of Florida, conflicting with the constitu-
tion of the United States. If they find in it any
thing of that kind; let them say to Florida, we will
not admityou. Having thusgivento hisopponents all
they could contend for, let it now be seen now those
provisions objected to by them conflict with the
constitution of the United States. The provision which
forbids the legislature of Florida from passing laws
for the emancipation of slaves: dia it inhibit
him, an individual slaveholder, from surrendering
his rieht to the property which he held? No; it only
said the legislature should not take his property
from him. It was inhibitory. But did it inhibit
him from his right to do as he liked with that prop-
erty? Those who live in slave States know very
well that when the constitution of any one of those
States designs to forbid individuals from emancipa-
ting their slaves, there is introduced into it a proper
provision that the legislature shall not have power
to emancipate slaves; nor shall any individual, with-
out the assent of the legislature. When the consti-
tution forbids the legislature from passing laws for
emancipating slaves, it expresses one thing; but
when it forbids not only the legislature from doing
this, but individual owners of slaves from emancipa-
ting their slaves, it does two things. If only one is
expressed, only one is meant. If both are meant,
both are expressed. But he (Mr. B.) did not mean
to insist alone upon that. He meant to meet the
proposition of the senator from Maine on another
and higher ground. He (Mr. B.) said that when
the senator attempts to interfere with the right of a
State to regulate domestic slavery, he usurps a pow-
er which the federal constitution does not confer on
the general government. There are differences of
opinion as to your power to emancipate slaves in the
District of Columbia; but no one says you have a
right to do * in the State of Florida, if she were ad-
mitted into the Union.
If you were to-morrow to pass a law fundamentally
forbidding the emancipation of slaves in this Dis-
trict, would youinterfeie should any person choose
to exercise his right of emancipating his slaves
willun your limits' All must agree you have not
the right to interfere. Why, then, make it a matter
of objection to Florida that she makes her declaia-
tion that when admitted she will exercise the right
which you all acknowledge that, when admitted, she
will have? He was perfectly astounded when he heaul
gentlemen on this floor, in the face of those who ac-
knowledged the rights of sovereign States, and that
they cannot do any thing at war -with the rights of
other .States, maintain the doctrinc that they have
the power of dictating to a sovereign State the reg-
ulation of its constitution. He was, it was well
known, a party man; a zealous member of the paity
whose principles he conscientiously believed were
best calculated to promote the best interests of the
country; but he was forced to say, there arc princi-
ples which rise above all party associations, becausc
they arc essentially vital—instinctive with life itself,
and self-preservation. This is one of those principles,
and he should, in duty to his constituency, to him-
self, and to every thing dear to him on earth as a
public or private man, cut himself loose from party
bonds if necessary, to defend and sustain those
rights.
He objected, then, to the proposition of the sena-
tor from Maine, because it was calculated to usurp
a power which the federal government did not pos-
sess; and no senator,011 his lndividualresponsibiiity,
would dare to avow that this government, in rela-
tion to any one of the States of this Union, had the
power to regulate its domestic slatery. How, then,
can you have a right, when a State presents herself
for admission into the Union, to object to her do-
mestic slavery? Is it because she declares that, when
admitted, she will exercise an inherent sovereign
power which you all concur she possesses the right
of exercising as a State? It seemed so preposterous
that he could hardly deem it necesssary to say an-
other word on that branch of the subject.
Mr. B. then proceed to the next branch—that re-
lating to the inhabition of colored immigrants, and
examined searchingly the grounds of objection to
the c!ause. He digued the judicial question of the
right, at great length,
Mr. RANNEGAN said he was at a loss to know
why his colleague [Mr. White] was in tavor of
the amendment proposed by the senator from
Maine, when in his own State there were so many
restrictions imposed on the blacks. The senator
knew very well that statutes had been passed to
treat them as paupers, unless they gave security for
good behavior, and these statutes were sustained by
the decisions of the Supreme Court of the State.
Suppose, however, that the Congress of tlie United
States should impose restrictions ution Florida, and
she came in: would not the people nave the right to
hold a convention in twelve nionths thereafter, and
insert in their constitution the very clause complain-
ed of? No power upon earth could make them
strike it out. The provisipn in the constitution of
Florida to which senators objected, Merely declared
that the legislature should not have the power to ^
wrest private property from the people which was
guarantied to them by th'c constitution. t But sena-
tors had said that Congress must examine the con-
stitution clause by clause before the State was ad-
mitted. He was surprised to hear that objection to
the admission of Florida coming from--the senator
from Rhode Island, [Mr. Simmons.] WhaX was the
fundamental principle of the constitution of Rhode
Island when admitted into the Union? He read a
few sentences to show that it established the law of
primogeniture as a republican principle. Vet Rhode
Island was not objected to when she came into the
Union; although her senator, sixty years afterwards,
opposed the admission of another State, because its
constitution gave to the people permanent control
over their own property. The constitution of North
Carolina also contained pi*ovisions conflicting with
the constitution of the United States; but it came
into the Union without objection, because the con-
flicting clauses became nugatory the moment she
was admitted.
There was, however, another and a higher prin-
ciple on which he opposed the amendment; and that
was because its adoption would be regarded as a
concession to the accursed spirit of abolition. On
this ground alone he placed his opposition; and in
doing so, he was sustained by 145,000 out of 150,000
of the voters, whig and democratic, of Indiana. He
should carry this principle through life, and yield
not an inch to the spirit which had worked mischief
for two hundred years; which lighted the fires of
Smithfield, and reigned in the dungeons of the in-
quisition. The senators from Maine and Massa-
chusetts were deeply enlisted m behalf of the rights
of their eolored citizens who came to the South;
what was the situation of the people of Indiana in
this respect? Indiana lay side by side of Kentucky,
where slavery existed, and yet the people of Indiana
did not complain of any of the laws of Kentucky
uflccting the inteicourse between the two States.
On the contrary, it was beautiful to contemplate the
relation in that gallant State between master and
servant. He believed it was true, as the senator
from Georgia [Mr. Berrien] had said, that, in no
State of this Union, were the blacks recognised as
fellow-citizens, enjoying All the same privileges with
the whites. As to the law of Massachusetts allow-
ing intermarriage between black and white people,
he behved that the negroes had protested against it;
for even they were opposed to amalgamating with
the whites. [Laughter.]
Mr. WHITE remarked that it was true the laws
of Indiana required free persons of color to give bond
and security for good behavior when they came into
the State. They were not, however, treated as in
the South—sold when they could not comply with
the law; but they were apprenticed as paupers, just
in the same manner that German or Irish emigrants,
or the vagianta of the country, were treated when
they were liable to become a charge upon the
pockets of the people. Lying so contiguous to Ken
tucky, Indiana had a right to" suppose that the
emancipated population of Kentucky would flock to
her territory; but the law referred to by his colleague
was, in its operation, almost a dead letter, so great
and unrestricted was the intercourse between the
tw© States.
But he did not so much object to the clause in the
constitution of Florida prohibiting emancipation.
The object of it might merely be to prevent private
property from being taken without compensation;
and this was guarded against once for ail by our
forefathers in the federal constitution. What he
particularly objected to was this: that the colored
man having no advocates here, Congress was called
upon to anticipate the judgment of the Supreme
Court, and decide against him. It was callea on to
sanction the constitutionality of the laws of the
southern States, prohibiting the landing of free per-
sons of color within their limits. It was, he thought,
a great grievance, that his constituents, who lived
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This document can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Legislative Document.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 14: Twenty-Eighth Congress, Second Session, legislative document, 1845; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2366/m1/398/: accessed May 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.