never be tolerated at the South; why, then, should they be suffered here? [SENATE. that right did not depend on the constitution, but must presentation of a petition was in itself, virtually, a motion Mr. PRESTON replied with great warmth, and insisted that the distinction made by Mr. SOUTHARD was a distinction without a difference. He objected to all interference with the subject in any shape. The proposition was delusive, and he regretted that it had been advanced by the Senator from New Jersey. The South was sore on the subject. The attacks made upon them were violent and incessant. Their nerves were irritated. Propositions to meddle with the slave trade in the District were but an entering wedge. If Congress once tamper-might be raised, if any member chose to call for it. The ed with the rights of slaveholders at all; if the subject got the least foothold in the Senate, he would not give a rush for the rights of the South. He complained of the imputations cast by implication, in these petitions, on the people of the South, as violators of the laws of God, and living in open vice and wickedness, practising a standing sin, corrupting their own morals and those of their children. He considered himself as involved in the general denunciation. The charge was individually insulting, and was utterly false and calumnious, whether in its general or particular application. He denied that the language of the petitioners was respectful and decorous; it cast foul and false aspersions on him and his constituents, and ought not to be admitted into the Senate. He would not stoop to argue the truth of the charge; he pleaded to the jurisdiction; the Senate had no right to entertain it; the South would not consent to be arraigned at this bar. Mr. SOUTHARD defended the position he had taken. In the vehemence of feeling, men were often unable to see distinctions that were sufficiently obvious and palpable in their cooler moments. He appealed to the whole history of his life, to show that he had not advocated the principles of the abolitionists. He had cast no imputation whatever on the people of the South. He again ad verted to the course of distinguished Southern gentlemen in reprobating the manner in which the traffic in slaves was conducted within the District, and even to bills which had been introduced by them into Congress for the purpose of suppressing it. All he asked was, that two propositions, so entirely distinct as the abolition of slavery in the District and the suppression of crimes and enormities in the traffic in slaves, should be kept distinct from each other. The one he would not touch, and had always refused to touch; but on the other he was prepared to act. He complained that his proposition had been represented as delusive, and utterly dis claimed all intention of a gradual interference with the rights of the South. Mr. WEBSTER, who wished to present some petitions with which he had been charged on the same subject, so that the whole might be included under one. Having presented several petitions, he stated that the petitioners were undoubtedly of the opinion that these ten miles square were the common property of the peo ple of the United States; that they had a common interest in its condition, and in the character of its legislation; and he repeated the sentiment which he had often be fore expressed, that the prudent and expedient course would have been to refer these petitions to the Committee for the District, and let that committee present a report upon them. As to the right of petition, the gentleman from Delaware was certainly right; nor did the right of reception rest on any rules of the House; it had a deeper foundation in the right of citizens to address their Government on what they conceived to be grievances. The right of petition, though more emphatic in a republic, belonged to the people under all Governments, unless, indeed, a Government like that of Turkey; for even Governments usually denominated despotic were supposed in theory to be formed for the good of the people, and to proceed from them. It was obvious enough that the relation of Congress to the people of the District was peculiar, and its inhabitants very naturally thought that, in a matter which immediately concerned themselves, it was fit that they should take the lead. Most of the petitions referred to two objects: one was the total abolition of slavery in the District, the other was the regulation of abuses connected with it, some of which were ex As the subject was one of common interest, if a petition was decorous in its language, it was the right of the petitioners to have it received and considered, not to have it filed away, and a resolve immediately passed not to consider it. Such a process was not in any proper sense the receiving of the petition. The receiving virtually involved some consideration, and he could not see how the Senate fulfilled its duty unless this was done. Mr. PRESTON admitted that Southern gentlemen, especially Mr. Randolph, had taken the ground adverted to, but he strenuously insisted on the difference of cir-tremely offensive to the moral sense of the community. cumstances. The country had not then been filled with abolition principles; and what might then have been done very safely, would now be dangerous in the extreme. Nothing could be done on the subject of slavery in the District that would not immediately affect all the South. He knew nothing of the abuses to which Mr. SOUTHARD referred; but he knew how the persons who got up these petitions were skilled in dwelling on themes of that kind, and in presenting false and exaggerated pictures, with a view to rouse the feelings of the community, and inflame the fanaticism which was so widely kindled. Sure he was that, if Mr. Randolph could now be on that floor, he would be the very last man to advocate a tampering with this subject. Mr. BAYARD observed that it was very apparent that this was an exciting subject, and he had made the motion to lay on the table with a view to avoid the two questions of the right of petitions being received. The constitution, as at first draughted and presented to the States, said nothing about the right of petition; nor need it, for Mr. BAYARD further explained the ground he had before taken. While the people under every representative Government had a right to petition, the Legislature had a right to judge of the petition, when received. Suppose a petition should be presented to Congress, praying them to pass a resolution that there is no God, or that the President of the United States be beheaded, or any other request equally extravagant, would the Senate be obliged to entertain it? Certainly they had a right to exercise a sound discretion in the case, and that for this reason: these petitions did not possess the dignity or authority of having emanated from the majesty of the SENATE.] Abolition of Slavery. whole people. It was assuming too much to say that they spoke the voice of the people. They were sometimes signed by several thousand petitioners; but what was this, in comparison to the people of the United States? If the whole people spoke, Congress would have no discretion in the matter. Mr. CUTHBERT said that he had entertained the hope that the first decision in reference to these petitions would have been the last. He had hoped that they would all have been suffered to accumulate, and that one decision would have settled the whole. He regretted to find that there was a corps de reserve; that some had been kept back by the gentleman from Massachusetts, in the same manner as had been done by him last year. Mr. WEBSTER explained, and observed that he had not been in his seat when the petitions had been presented in the morning. Mr. CUTHBERT said that so far, then, he withdrew the charge; but he proceeded to refer to certain resolutions which had been adopted in Boston, in 1819, in which that gentleman had been concerned; one of which declared that Congress had authority to act on the sub. ject of slavery in the District of Columbia, and the other that Congress had power to regulate the transfer of slaves from one State to another. Пle adduced this to show that propositions on this subject did not stand insulated, but as fast as one was yielded another was pressed on. Was it surprising that the indignation of the South should be raised to the highest pitch on witnessing the commencement of a course which was to end in the ruin of the country? It was alleged, indeed, that there were some points on which Congress might act without leading to that train of evils so justly apprehended by the people of the South. But he appealed to every Southern Senator to say whether Congress could touch the smallest mite connected with the entire subject, without sending a thrill of dread and horror through all the South. All who understood the human heart must be aware that when a great and widely diffused scheme of alleged im provement was on foot, the smallest acquisition could not be made without exciting a hope among its advocates of final success. The very smallest concession by this body, in reference to slavery, would immediately be made to ring through the Union; yes, through the world, as giving ground to expect that the abolitionists would at last gain all that they sought. The cry would be raised, we gain one point to-day, and another to-mor row; and the slaveholders concede one thing after another, until the great, the long-sought, the inappreciable benefit of liberating the last slave will have been accomplished. And were gentlemen prepared to sow that seed, the harvest of which must be universal blood and devastation? Mr. C. took another view. Since the agitation of the abolition doctrine, there had been established a medium of intercourse with the slaves of the South, through which they were made to understand whatever is done in Congress. Take one step in this matter, and could any one satisfy the slaves that that step would be the last? It was impossible. The least tampering with the subject would excite apprehensions in the South which nothing could allay; would raise hopes at the North which nothing could quench, and would excite in the body of the slaves themselves expectations which must render them restless and discontented. He concluded by urging a total abstinence from all interference with the subject. Mr. WEBSTER, after referring to what had been said as to keeping back petitions, and observing that he presumed Senators were at liberty to choose their own time for attending to their own matters, and regulating themselves by their views of the convenience of the Senate and the despatch of public business, went on to speak [FEB. 6, 1837. of the resolutions to which Mr. CUTHBERT had referred. He had no recollection of the circumstance alluded to, or of what the resolutions contained; but there was not in his mind a particle of doubt that Congress had an unquestionable right to regulate the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia, simply because they constituted the exclusive Legislature of the District. It appear ed to him little short of an absurdity to think that there were certain subjects which must be tied up from all legislation. And as to the other point, the right of regu lating the transfer of slaves from one State to another, he did not know that he entertained any doubt, because the constitution gave Congress the right to regulate trade and commerce between the States. Trade in what? In whatever was the subject of commerce and ownership. If slaves were the subjects of ownership, then trade in them between the States was subject to the regulation of Congress. But while he held this opinion, he had expressed none on the one side or the other as to the matter of expediency. He thought that ought to be discussed by those who were most concerned in it. A strong appeal had been made by the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] on the moral and religious aspect of this subject. The petitioners, he believed, felt fully aware of the extent of those considerations; but while he held the right of Congress to act on these petitions, he thought the more prudent course would be simply to refer them; and so as to the other subject, far be it from him to say that it was expedient for Congress to interfere, and to attempt to regulate the commerce in slaves between the States. It may have been discussed so far as related to the passage of laws to prevent slaves from running away, or restore them when they had. [Mr. SOUTHARD was here understood to say that laws had repeatedly been passed on that subject.] Mr. W. then asked whether, instead of exhibiting so much indignation that he should in 1819 have had any thing to do in carrying such resolutions as had been referred to, it would not have been better to show that the constitution, in speaking of trade and commerce be tween the States, did not mean to include slaves? While so much pains were exhibited to resist information on one side, there should not be pains to misrepresent on the other. To maintain the right of Congress was one thing, to hold the expediency of exercising it was another. Mr. CUTHBERT replied, and said that the country now knew what were the sentiments of the gentleman from Massachusetts, and it would be impossible for him to give any other cast to them than an encouragement to legislation on the subject of slavery. The time and the circumstances under which the resolutions were adopted rendered this impossible. They had been passed in 1819, just after the issue of the Missouri question; taken in connexion with the time and the circumstances, the doctrines in the resolutions were calculated to revolt the whole Southern States, nay, to revolt the entire Union. Mr. WEBSTER called upon the Senator to remember that he had not admitted that the doctrines referred to were contained in those resolutions. Mr. KING, of Georgia, made a few remarks, the ob ject of which was to show that the right of petition in the people was perfectly compatible with the rules of Congress as to the consideration of petitions, when presented; in illustration of which position, he referred to a petition recently presented by the authors of Great Britain, on the subject of copy-right. There was no obligation on the part of Congress to receive memorials; it was wholly discretionary; and so it might be in a multitude of other cases. On the general subject, all the South were perfectly agreed. Whatever he himself possessed of earthly good was connected with the tenure of slave property, and he perfectly agreed with the gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] as to any interference with it. Mr. RIVES said he had witnessed the whole course of this discussion with great pain and mortification. He did not say which side was to blame, but he could not help observing that gentlemen from non-slaveholding States stood in a very different position from their South ern brethren. They might sit with great coolness, and indulge all the delicacy of their feelings with impunity. They had no cause to be disturbed in relation to their own communities; but when they came on that floor, and gratuitously put forth their notions on a subject which so deeply concerned others, he contended that they were aggressors, and that gentlemen on the other side were acting on the defensive. To present a petition, if respectful in its language, was a duty which Senators were bound to perform; but when, not satisfied with this, they came forward and volunteered their own views on so hazardous and delicate a subject, and claimed for this Government new powers, the calculation must be extraordinary on the passiveness of the South, if gentlemen suppose they were to sit in silence. If a solemn decision of the Senate was entitled to command respect, he would call the attention of the Senator from Massachusetts to the overwhelming majority by which it had pronounced the determinaton that the subject of slavery in the District was not to be contested on that floor; a majority, if he recollected right, of 34 to 6. After such an expression of the views of this body, could any gentleman persuade himself that it was wise and patriotic to throw into the Senate such a firebrand? The Senator from Massachusetts held that there was no value in the reception of petitions, unless it were done in substance as well as form, and the petitions were duly considered. But the Senate, the very moment memo. rials on this subject had been received, instantly turned round and rejected them. Now, would gentlemen have so little regard to the peace of the whole community as not to abstain from agitating a subject of this kind? The gentleman from Massachusetts had taken occasion not only to read sentiments, from the memorials, which were obnoxious to the South, but had volunteered the expression of his own opinion as to the constitutional power of Congress over the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia. Wherefore introduce that subject again? Why put forward the expression of an opinion in regard to the regulation of trade in slaves between the States, to warrant which the Senator could find nothing in the statute book? He had told the Senate that laws had been passed on that subject, and with the sanction of the South. Mr. R joined issue with the Senator, and called on him to point to the law. He was very confident there was none. As to the laws to which he presumed the reference had been made, they did not touch the matter. Laws to prevent the escape of slaves, or to secure their restoration, were only in fulfilment of the constitution, which expressly provided for the de. livering up of runaways; and, so far from being an unfa vorable interference with the tenure of slave property, it was, on the contrary, a recognition of the right in slaves, and a guarantee of that right. Mr. R. had no objection that Senators should present their petitions, but he protested against the gratuitous exhibition of these horrid pictures of misery which had no existence. He was not in favor of slavery in the abstract. On that point he differed with the gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN.] But it was an existing institution; it was recognised and protected by the constitution, and he was at a loss to conceive why, on a subject of this character, honorable Senators would permit themselves to throw fire. brands into that chamber. The only pacificating course was that which had been proposed; which was, to lay the question of reception on the table. And gentlemen [SENATE. might be assured that, as often as these petitions were presented, the preliminary question of reception would be moved, and that motion, with its appendages, would as often, he hoped, be laid on the table. Was the mis. erable farce of receiving these petitions, and then immediately rejecting them, a thing worth contending for? Surely not. Mr. R. strongly disclaimed all desire to excite jeal ousy or ill feeling, but reminded Northern gentlemen of the very different circumstances in which they stood towards this subject. They might stir it with perfect safety to their constituents, and possibly with benefit to themselves; but it never could be mooted on that floor without exciting the profoundest feeling throughout the South. He begged gentlemen to desist from such a course. He used the language of expostulation, not of merace, although he felt that a proud consciousness of Southern rights might well warrant him in the use of other language. He appealed to the patriotism of the Senator from Massachusetts. He had on other occasions, and especially in defence of that very Union which is now again threatened, given proofs of it. Mr. R. did not doubt or call it in question. But he appealed to that feeling, and besought that Senator, and all others, to let this subject alone-not to invade the peace of the firesides of their brethren, and not to persist in a course which Southern men could view in no other light than as an aggression upon their dearest interests. petitions were brought forward, the only proper course was that which had been pursued on his own motion last year, and which had now been renewed in so honorable and peace-loving a spirit by the Senator from Delaware. When Mr. CALHOUN explained, and denied having expressed any opinion in regard to slavery in the abstract. He had merely stated, what was a matter of fact, that it was an inevitable law of society that one portion of the community depended upon the labor of another portion, over which it must unavoidably exercise control. He had not spoken of slavery in the abstract, but of slavery as existing where two races of men, of different color, and striking dissimilarity in conformation, habits, and a thousand other particulars, were placed in immediate juxtaposition. Here the existence of slavery was a good to both. Did not the Senator from Virginia con sider it as a good? Mr. RIVES said, no. He viewed it as a misfortune and an evil in all circumstances, though, in some, it might be the lesser evil. Mr. CALHOUN insisted on the opposite opinion, and declared it as his conviction that, in point of fact, the Central African race (he did not speak of the north or the east of Africa, but of its central regions) had never existed in so comfortable, so respectable, or so civilized a condition, as that which it now enjoyed in the Southern States. The population doubled in the same ratio with that of the whites-a proof of ease and plenty; while, with respect to civilization, it nearly kept pace with that of the owners; and as to the effect upon the whites, would it be affirmed that they were inferior to others, that they were less patriotic, less intelligent, less humane, less brave, than where slavery did not exist? He was not aware that any inferiority was pretended. Both races, therefore, appeared to thrive under the practical operation of this institution. The experiment was in progress, but had not been completed. The world had not seen modern society go through the entire process, and he claimed that its judgment should be postponed for another ten years. The social experiment was going on both at the North and the South-in the one with almost a pure and unlimited democracy, and in the other with a mixed race. Thus far, the results of the experiment had been in favor of the South. South SENATE.] Abolition of Slavery. [FEB. 6, 1837. ern society had been far less agitated, and he would ven- Mr. WEBSTER could not perceive the cause of that ture to predict that its condition would prove by far the warmth which had been exhibited by the Senator from most secure, and by far the most favorable to the pres- Virginia, while he was so strenuously exhorting other ervation of liberty. In fact, the defence of human lib-gentlemen to keep cool. He did not, however, comerty against the aggressions of despotic power had been always the most efficient in States where domestic slavery was found to prevail. He did not admit it to be an evil. Not at all. It was a good-a great good. On that point, the Senator from Virginia and himself were directly at issue. Mr. RIVES said he had no disposition to get up a family quarrel on a theoretic question between those who were practically agreed. It was certainly very remarkable that the Senator from South Carolina should take him to task for representing him as defending slavery in the abstract, when every word he had since uttered went directly to prove that such was his opinion. Every remark he had made tended to that, and to nothing else. There they differed. Though he (Mr. R.) came from a slaveholding State, he did not be. lieve slavery to be a good, either moral, political, or economical; and if it depended on him, and there were any means of effecting it, he would not hesitate to terminate that coexistence of the two races to which the Senator from South Carolina bad alluded, and out of which the present state of things had grown. Yet none had therefore reason to doubt that he should defend the rights growing out of the relations of slavery to the uttermost. No interference with that relation could be attempted without great and abiding mischief; and, if such attempts were persisted in, they must and would inevitably lead to the rupture of those ties which now bound the States in happy union. Great as might be the evil, no remedy for it had been found; and if any were to be devised, it must proceed from those only who suffer the evil; nor would the constitution tolerate the remotest interference by others. When such interference should be forcibly attempted, Mr. R. was prepared to throw himself into the breach, and to perish in the last ditch in defence of the constitutional rights of the South. But he was not on this account going back to the exploded dogmas of Sr Robert Filmer, in order to vindicate the institution of slavery in the abstract. Mr. CALHOUN complained of having been mistepresented. Again denied having pronounced slavery in the abstract a good. All he had said of it referred to existing circumstances; to slavery as a practical, not as an abstract thing. It was a good where a civilized race and a race of a different description were brought to. gether. Wherever civilization existed, death too was found, and luxury, but did he hold that death and luxury were good in themselves? He believed slavery was good, where the two races coexisted. The gentleman from Virginia held it an evil. Yet he would defend it. Surely if it was an evil, moral, social, and political, the Senator, as a wise and virtuous man, was bound to exert himself to put it down. This position, that it was a inoral evil, was the very root of the whole system of operations against it. That was the spring and wellhead from which all these streams of abolition proceed ed-the effects of which so deeply agitated the honor able Senator. plain of it. But this he must observe, that that honorable Senator had never heard him say more in disappro bation of slavery than had been uttered by the Senator himself this day. He had used almost the very words of the petition which so greatly offended him, in declaring slavery to be an evil, social, moral, and political. Nor could that Senator express more strongly the want of power in the General Government to interfere with slavery in the States than Mr. W, had often and always done. The Senator had said, however, that those only were interested in this subject who were suffering in the immediate presence of the evil. This Mr. W. could not but consider as a great mistake. Mr. W., though living in a Northern State, and a State non-slaveholding, felt that evil, too, from the train of consequences which it inevitably drew after it. He had as deep an interest in the peace and the preservation of the Union as the Senator from Virginia. But what was there for that gentleman to complain of in the conduct of his fellow Senator? Some of them had received many abolition petitions. Had they presented them from day to day, and annoyed the Senate by a perpetual repetition of the same thing? Was not this the first time they had been brought forward? Mr. W. demanded the exercise of some candor and justice towards Senators situated as they were; and he should take care that such represent ations were here made as should remove from them imputations which were not deserved. He had himself presented petitions to-day which had been accumulating in his drawer for two months. And he had presented them at the same time with other gentlemen. He had not debated the subject at large, but had confined himself simply to a renewed expression of the opinion that it would be a better and more prudent course to refer the petitions to a committee, and have a report upon them. This was not a novel opinion. It had been entertained by others in that body; and a former member from Virginia had imbodied it in a motion. He had expressed no opinion in which Southern gentlemen them. selves had not heretofore concurred. Where, then, was the right to complain? But an honorable gentleman from Georgia [Mr. CUTHBERT] had gone out of his way to bring into this debate a paper which somebody had given him, and which referred to opinions said to have been expressed by Mr. W. some twenty years ago. In those opinions, as here stated, Mr. W. saw nothing to retract. Neither now nor at any time, in that body or out of it, had any one heard from him any other opinion touching slavery in the abstract, or the power of Congress to interfere with it within the States, than had been expressed by the honorable Senator from Virginia hin self. His origin, his associations, his education, his habits of thought--all had taught him that slavery was an evil, and he held it to be an evil, moral, social, and political. Mr. RIVES thanked the Senator from Massachusetts for the edifying lesson of coolness he had given him. He admitted the perfect justness and propriety of it in a general sense. But he begged leave to remind the bonorable Senator that the spectator of a battle, occupying a distant and secure position, might look on with great serenity; while those who were in the midst of the con Mr. C. again adverted to the successful results of the experiment thus far, and insisted that the slaveholders of the South had nothing in the case to lament or to lay to their conscience. He utterly denied that his doc-flict, defending their lives and persons from the point of trines had any thing to do with the tenets of Sir Robert Filmer, which he abhorred. So far from holding the dogmas of that writer, he had been the known and open advocate of freedom from the beginning. Nor was there any thing in the doctrines he held in the slightest degree inconsistent with the bigi est and purest principles of freedom. the bayonet, would reasonably exhibit a very different temper and demeanor. The gentleman himself, if it so pleased his fancy, might disport himself in to sing squibs and firebrands about this hall; but those who are sitting upon a barrel of gunpowder, liable to be blown up by his dangerous missiles, could hardly be expected to be quite so calm and philosophic. The honorable gentleman claims great merit for the forbearance of himself and his friends, in holding back their memorials, and presenting them all at once. Now, sir, for myself, I had much rather take the medicine in broken doses, than in so large and overpowering a potion. Gentlemen have gone on, accumulating their petitions, day after day, and now come forward and precipitate them upon us like an avalanche. If these papers were presented one by one, as they are received, in the ordinary course of business, and permitted to take their quiet course to that "tomb of the Capulets" which the previous decisions of the Senate had prepared for them, I could find in my philosophy fortitude enough to bear it with patience. But when an entire day is set apart and consecrated to the business of presenting these memorials, in a long drawn and solemn succession, there is something in such a scenic parade which is well calculated to aggravate the annoyance to the sensibility of Southern men. Here we are, sitting day after day, among our brethren from the other States, perfectly unconscious of danger, while their desks are constantly filling with these combustible materials, and we know not the hour when we may be blown up by some great explosion. Permit me to say to honorable gentlemen that there is something of precariousness and insecurity in this situation, which is far from being comfortable. The gentleman from Massachusetts has taken occasion also to say that he had expressed no opinion, in regard to slavery, which was not sanctioned by my own sentiments. Now, sir, has the gentleman ever heard from me any thing to countenance his broad and dangerous notions of interference with the subject of slavery in this District? As to the evil, or otherwise, of slavery in itself; as to the existence or non-existence of a power in this Government to interfere with it in the States; these are mere abstract questions, leading to no practical consequences. The real and only practical question is as to the interference of Congress with the subject of slavery in this District. Here is the fulcrum on which the whole lever of abolition turns; and if you give a foothold here, it is virtually a surrender of the whole ground. The surrender of this "vantage ground" to the abolitionists, if I have not misunderstood the vote of the honorable Senator against rejecting the prayer of the petitioners during the last session of Congress, is precisely what he has already done, and is prepared still to do. I must now (said Mr. R.) address a few observations to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. CALHOUN] in regard to the controversy he has thought fit to get up with me in regard to the merits of the institution of slavery. I may say, sir, without fear of contradiction, that no Senator has exhibited a more determined spirit to resist any interference with the subject of slavery than I bave done. I deny wholly the power of this Government to act, in any manner whatever, on the subject, either here or in the States. I have been constantly ready to take the highest ground which has been proposed by any Senator here for repelling this inter. ference, by voting at once not to receive the petitions. But, sir, while I have been thus prepared and determined to defend the constitutional rights and vital interests of the South at every hazard, I have not felt myself bound to conform my understanding and conscience to the standard of faith that has recently been set up by some gentlemen in regard to the general question of slavery. I have not considered it a part of my duty, as a representative from the South, to deny, as has been done by this new school, the natural freedom and equality of man; to contend that slavery is a positive good; that it is inseparable from the condition of man; that it must exist, in some form or other, in every political community; and that it is even an essential ingredient in VOL. XIII.-46 [SENATE. republican government. No, sir; I have not thought it necessary, in order to defend the rights and the institutions of the South, to attack the great principles which lie at the foundation of our political system, and to revert to the dogmas of Sir Robert Filmer, exploded a century and a half ago by the immortal works of Sidney and Locke. This is a philosophy to which I have not yet become a convert. It is sufficient for me to know that domestic slavery, whether an evil or not, was an institution existing at the time of the adoption of the constitution; that it is recognised and sanctified by that solemn instrument; that there is no right in this Government or in the other States, under any pretext whatever, to interfere with it; that, in regard to the slaveholding States themselves, it was entailed upon them by a foreign and unnatural jurisdiction, in opposition to their own wishes and remonstrances; that there is now no remedy for it, within the reach of any human agency, and, if there were, it must be originated and applied by those only who feel the evil; and that any interference with it by this Government, or the other States, would, in violating the most sacred guarantees of the constitution, rend the Union itself asunder. In pursuing this course, I have the satisfaction of reflecting that I follow the example of the greatest men and the purest patriots who have illustrated the annals of our country-of the fathers of the republic itself. It never entered into their minds, while laying the foundation of the great and glorious fabric of free Government, to contend that domestic slavery was a positive good-a great good. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Marshall, the brightest names of my own State, are known to have lamented the existence of slavery as a misfortune and an evil to the country, and their thoughts were often anxiously, however unavailingly, exercised in devising some scheme of safe and practical relief, proceeding always, however, from the States which suffered the evil. Mr. Jefferson's writings, from the "Notes on Virginia" to the latest emanations of his great and patriotic mind, are full of the testimony he has borne on this question, in the most impressive language. In following such lights as these, I feel that I sin against no principle of republicanism, against no safeguard of Southern rights and Southern policy, when I frankly say, in answer to the interrogatory of the gentleman from South Carolina, that I do regard slavery as an evil--an evil not uncompensated, I know, by collateral effects of high value on the social and intellectual character of my countrymen; but still, in the eye of religion, philanthropy, and reason, an evil. But, evil as it may be, it is now indissolubly interwoven with the whole frame of our society; and, if remedy there be for it, that remedy can come from the hand of Omnipotence only. In the mean time, it is inviolably protected by the sanctuary of the constitution itself, and no attempt can be made to disturb it without aiming a parricidal blow at that instru ment, which forms alike the security of the rights and liberties of the whole nation. In occupying ground like this, I feel that I rest on solid and tangible principles, the force and justice of which every mind must acknowledge. On the contrary, by putting the defence of Southern rights on the abstract merits of slavery, as a positive good, as a natural and inevitable law of society, you shock the generous sentiments of human nature, you go counter to the common sense of mankind, you outrage the spirit of the age, and alarm the minds even of the most liberal and patriotic among our fellow-citizens of the other States, for those great fundamental truths on which our common political institutions repose. Unfavorable revulsions only, in the public sentiment, can be expected from bold abstractions of this kind; and nothing, I verily believe, has given so strong an impulse to the cause of the abolitionists as the obsolete and |