A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Part 36

AYES.--Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Ma.s.sachusetts, New York, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Ohio, and Vermont--10.

NOES.--Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Virginia--10.

Thus the amendment was lost.

Mr. PRATT:--I wish to enter my dissent from the vote of Connecticut.

Mr. FRANKLIN:--I now offer as a subst.i.tute for the first section, as reported, the following:

Strike out after the words "United States," in the first line, and insert as follows:

"Not embraced by the Cherokee treaty, north of the parallel of 36 30' of north lat.i.tude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the _status_ of persons held to service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed; nor shall any law be pa.s.sed to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the common law. When any territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the const.i.tution of such State may provide."

Mr. FOWLER:--Let us first perfect the original. I move to amend by inserting after the word "prevent," in the first section, the words "or facilitate."

Mr. REID:--I think we ought to perfect the section before we vote on a subst.i.tute. I move to amend it by inserting after the word "line,"

after the words "territory south of said line," the following words: "involuntary servitude is recognized, and property in those of the African race held to service or labor in any of the States of the Union, when removed to such territory, shall be protected and"--

I have not expressed my views at large upon the subject of the committee's report. I have earnestly wished to settle the perplexing questions which now distract the country. I do not rise to make a speech. I have not come here to exact more than the North can honorably grant, nor to deceive the North in the result, if the rights of the South are not protected. Our property is involved in your action. You can afford to be liberal. If you intend to recognize property in slaves, write it down in the bond. If the North wants any protection, name it, and we will put it into the bond. If you fear that slavery may go north of the proposed line, we will give you any a.s.surance to the contrary. But I tell you that on the other side we require reciprocal terms. Nothing else will satisfy the public sentiment. Twelve months hence and we will not take what we now offer to take.

What are we talking about? Every one knows that the African race is better off at the South than it could be elsewhere. We do not wish to disrupt the Union. You are doing it on a mere Northern abstraction.

Suppose a foreign power asked you what you were fighting about, what would be your answer?

But I was saying that the only way is for the North to be liberal; to be reciprocal; to make us entirely safe. Our security must be put into the bond and be faithfully preserved. The present _status_ of the States in the Union is deceptive. If I am to remain in the Union, it don't suit me. If I am to go into a southern confederacy, it is just what I should want. Beware, gentlemen of the North! You are cutting yourselves off from future glory and expansion.

Mr. VANDEVER:--The gentleman from North Carolina wants the distinct recognition of slavery in the bond. I would like to refer him to the condition of this question when the Const.i.tution was adopted. The men of that time would not a.s.sert such a position. They did not think it proper or necessary. If we adopt his views we attempt to sit in judgment on the men of that day. Mr. CALHOUN understood this matter perfectly, and in one of his speeches refers to the unwillingness of the Convention to recognize slavery specifically. The sentiment of Iowa is that no such recognition ought to be made now. I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. SEDDON:--I consider this an important amendment, and a very just one. The principle upon which we are proceeding is that of part.i.tion.

We, with our property are prohibited from going north of the line. The exact correlative of that would be, that you should be prohibited from going south with your inst.i.tutions. That we do not ask. On one side involuntary servitude is prohibited. On the other we simply ask that it may be recognized. We give up two-thirds of the territory altogether. All we ask is protection in the remaining one-third.

What is the meaning of this proposition as it now stands? Who does not see that its meaning is ambiguous? It requires us to give up territorial protection, and leaves us with nothing but the shred of a right protected by the Federal courts. Once more let me tell you, that in my opinion the South will never consider this a satisfactory adjustment. You say we are protected by the principles of the common law. Who can tell what this will amount to? a.s.suming the territorial government to be favorable, it could do nothing. You leave it powerless. Suppose a citizen of Virginia emigrates to the territory south of the line with his property. He would have no earthly right except under the laws of Virginia. The power to enforce those laws is a thousand miles away. If we are to make a part.i.tion, let it be a part.i.tion. As the provision stands, it is the unfairest bargain ever made. It is all on the side of the North. In common fairness and honesty, I submit that the North ought to vote for this amendment.

Mr. ORTH:--There is much that is worthy of consideration in the remarks of the gentleman from Virginia. I hope earnestly that we shall not adopt a proposal of amendment that admits of two interpretations.

If I could vote for the report of the majority at all, I would throw around it all the protection it needs. This is a new and peculiar species of property which we are now making the Const.i.tution recognize and protect. If the South is ent.i.tled to the proposition itself, I think they are ent.i.tled to this amendment. After all, it is only making the amendment express just what we know its friends claim it implies.

Mr. GUTHRIE:--I would have preferred the direct recognition by express terms of slavery south of the line proposed, and I voted that way in the committee. I suppose, however, that the clause as it stands recognizes the _status_ there, as it now exists--that it prevents all interference with the _status_. Would you prefer to put into the proposition certain express terms which would destroy all chance of its adoption by the people? I do not think the world is governed by ideas alone. It is governed by ideas and material interests. The Const.i.tution of 1787 secured the interests of the slaveholder in the States. This clause does the same in the Territories. No man can be cheated by it unless he cheats himself. Gentlemen favoring the amendment must know that at least it will not improve the prospects of the proposition with the people. Do you wish to break up the Conference? This is an effectual way of doing it.

We ask for this proposition substantially as it stands. The North can give it to us if it chooses. If it will not, then we shall go home and tell our const.i.tuents. They must decide for themselves what they will do. This will settle the Territorial question effectually. What more do we want? The additional guarantees? These are provided for in the other clauses.

Mr. CHITTENDEN:--I call for a vote by States on Mr. REID'S amendment.

Mr. BARRINGER:--I shall vote for the amendment of my colleague. I have occupied no time in the general debate, but now I do desire to say a few words about this amendment, and the proposition to which it is offered. The amendment brings up the very _gist_ of the matter.

Differences of opinion exist as to the effect of the clause. The amendment settles them. This is no place to talk about devotion to the Union. To be a Union at all it must be one that recognizes and protects the rights of all. Any other Union is not worth the name; is not worth preserving. We came here, it is true, to save the Union. We came here to devise the means of saving it. Practically the Union is already dissolved. If not dissolved it is disintegrated.

We ask first, additional guarantees for our rights--for Southern rights. They must be such as will satisfy our people, and bring back the States that have left the Union. Short of this they will amount to nothing. I know the public opinion of the South on these important questions. I have closely watched its growth. My own convictions as to what it will require are decided. Unless you use language and adopt terms in your proposals of amendment which will satisfy the seceded States--which will induce them to return to the Union--your labors will have been in vain.

What is our claim? It is this, in short: We claim that every Southern man has the right to go into the Territories with his property, wherever these Territories may be. The Territories belong to both; to the South as well as to the North. We want equality. We have no wish to propagate slavery, but every man at the South does wish to insist upon his right to enter the Territories upon terms of perfect equality with the North, if he chooses to do so. He may not exercise the right, but he will not give it up.

We want a division of the Territories. We want to set up landmarks so that neither we nor our posterity shall dispute hereafter about the line.

North Carolina has instructed us to say to this Conference, that if the CRITTENDEN amendment can be adopted here, we can carry it almost with unanimity. There will be a struggle even with our own people, but we can induce them to adopt it.

We have three hundred miles of border in common with South Carolina.

Our trade and our a.s.sociations are in that direction. It is useless to deny that South Carolina has sympathizers among us in her recent movement. You must consider these things, and give us a chance. We must base our argument on principle; we must stand upon terms of perfect equality.

The proposition needs this amendment. As it stands it is ambiguous. It is worse than that, for its construction will depend on the opinion of a Territorial Judge.

Mr. CRISFIELD:--I come from a State that is deeply interested in the subject of slavery. Nevertheless, I shall vote against the amendment of the gentleman from North Carolina.

I belong to that cla.s.s of politicians which believes that the people of every section of the Union have a right to go into all the Territories of the Union, and take with them their property and hold it in safety. But we ought not, in our proposals of amendment to the Const.i.tution, to insist upon what will be repulsive to any section of the Union. I think the amendment is unnecessary--that the right we claim is sufficiently protected without it. As it stands, neither Congress nor the Territorial Government has the right to impair the _status_ of the slave. What farther protection do we need? What other can we have? Why should we insist upon the adoption of a new style of language? We ought not to be unreasonable; we ought to content ourselves with the proposition as it stands, and not put expressions into it which will make the whole repulsive to a large section of the country, and which, in all probability, will defeat the whole amendment when it comes before the country. I am not even sure that we could get it there. I doubt whether it would pa.s.s Congress.

This is a very serious and important question. We wish to stay the hands of extremists on both sides. We wish to stand by the Union. If war comes, our soil is to be the battle ground. I wish to avoid war. I will insist upon this, and I will consent to no extreme opinions.

Mr. VANDEVER:--I do not see why Mr. GUTHRIE cannot accept the proposed amendment. He and the gentleman from North Carolina are both aiming at the same thing. The amendment is certainly the clearest. Do you suppose the people are not going to understand the subject thoroughly?

Do you suppose that they will be deceived by any such transparent disguise of words? You do not pay them a very high compliment by such a supposition.

I must vote against the amendment, because I am opposed to the _principle_ of protecting slavery in the Territories. Such is the sentiment of the North. If it was not, I should vote for the amendment.

Mr. MOREHEAD, of Kentucky:--As I intend to vote against the amendment, it is due to the Convention that I should state the reasons for my vote. I am in favor of a clear recognition of all the rights of the South, especially of our rights in the Territories. I voted for the CRITTENDEN amendment in the committee. I thought the North ought, in justice to us, to adopt that amendment. We, in this Conference, have selected a Committee of One from each State--a committee of able men, and we have placed this subject in their charge. They have consulted together. They have ascertained the views and feeling of the different sections of the country; they have embodied the result of their labors in this report. The question now presented appears to my mind to be this: After all the time and ability they have given to their report in the present distracted and perilous condition of the country, shall I consent to put words into the amendment of the Const.i.tution which they recommend, that will ensure its defeat when it comes before the people?

I know as certainly as that G.o.d rules in heaven, that unless we come to some satisfactory adjustment in this Conference, a convulsion will ensue such as the world has never seen.

I have been travelling for nearly two months in the seceded States. I believe I understand the temper of their people. I have found there an all-pervading dissatisfaction with the existing state of things, but I have also found great devotion to the Union. I think we can yet save the seceded States. But at least let us save Texas and Arkansas. As it is, black ruin sits nursing the earthquake which threatens to level this Government to its foundations. Can you not feel it, while there is yet time to prepare for the shock? If this giant frenzy of disunion raises its crested head--if red battle stamps his foot, the North will feel the shock as severely as the South.

Such is the prospect before us, and near to us, and yet gentlemen say that they will not give _one_ guarantee to avert such dire calamities.

Will not the gentleman from New York do one thing to save that s.h.i.+p of State of which he spoke so eloquently, when she is already among the breakers, and driving so rapidly toward that rocky sh.o.r.e against which her ribs of steel cannot long protect her? We are patriots all--we are bound to act together--to do something--to do our duty, and our whole duty--to do what will ultimately preserve the Union.

Mr. PALMER:--A few days ago the Conference listened to a deliberate defence of the inst.i.tution of slavery by its friends from the slave States, in which at least one gentleman from a free State (Mr. EWING) partic.i.p.ated. That defence could have had but one object. That object was to place us who do not believe in slavery in such a position that we could not agree to a compromise without endorsing the views then expressed. Gentlemen expect us to give up our opinions and concur with them. I have but one remark to make to all such suggestions. We entertain our opinions on the subject of slavery; we cannot, we will not surrender them.

We are told that this contest must cease, or the Union must perish. I am inclined to think so myself. We stand ready to make any reasonable compromise to save the Union, short of sacrificing our opinions. You, gentlemen of the South, cannot be satisfied unless our capitulation is complete.

I do not a.s.sent to much that is said here about the Border States. If the Union is not dissolved until the Border States go to fighting each other, it will last forever.

Mr. REID:--If we all mean the same thing, let us put it into the bond.

Then there will be no room for misunderstanding or controversy. If you leave this article open to construction, nothing will be settled. The gentleman is mistaken if he supposes that I wish him to adopt my arguments. I do not. If this provision, as it stands, protects slavery in the Territories south of 36 and 30', why not say so in express terms? I question whether the article, as reported, recognizes property in slaves at all. I wish to settle the question now and forever. I do not wish to have my purpose perverted. I wish to carry home to North Carolina a reasonable story. We have given up all our rights in the territory north of the line. Let the North be reciprocal. What shall I tell my people at home? That I have given away their rights in more than one-half the territory, and have not even secured a provision protecting property in slaves in the remainder?

The vote, on the request of Mr. CHITTENDEN, was taken by States, and resulted as follows:--

AYES.--Virginia, North Carolina, and Missouri--3.

NOES.--Maine, New Hamps.h.i.+re, Vermont, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Iowa--17.

So the amendment was lost.

Mr. CARRUTHERS:--Tennessee approves the sentiment of the amendment, but she thinks the requisite security is already given.

Messrs. BUTLER and CLAY, of Kentucky, and Mr. DENT, of Maryland, asked to have their dissent recorded from the votes of their respective States.