template or could see the blood reeking from the bosoms of our wives and children, pouring from wounds inflicted through the instigation of these disturbers of our peace, and enemies of our lives and liberties. We should feel, and that acutely, too; we should revenge to the utmost their blood upon the heads of those who shed it. Mr. Speaker, we may suffer much in the conflict with which we are threatened; but be assured that, unless God in his providence has determined our fate otherwise, we shall drive back the storm; we will maintain our property, keep our slaves in subjection, and drive back, with a signal overthrow, these intruders upon our rights.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not, upon this occasion, enter the lists with the gentleman from Massachusetts, to discuss the "sublime merits of slavery," nor with the gentleman from Vermont, into a religious controversy, to prove that slavery is in conformity with holy writ. The latter gentleman may find, if he search his Bible, that the pa triarchs of old held their bondmen, as well as their free servants; and both sacred and profane history will teach him that slavery has existed, in one form or another, from the foundation of the world; and by not a few pious and learned divines it is supposed to be a curse pronounced upon the descendants of one of the sons of Noah. But into the philosophy or discussion of these matters I design not to enter. If it be a stain in our escutcheon, I wish to distribute the honor to whom the honor is due, and let our former mother, England, who bequeathed it to us, take her full share. But, sir, who for a long time carried on the African slave trade? The merchants of the North. Who navigated the slave ships? The seamen of the North. Yet they reproach us, having no further profits to derive from the prosecution of the slave trade.

The able and patriotic gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. INGERSOLL] has told us that slavery had been abolished in the North, because the nature of the soil and its productions did not longer justify their employment. A very good and sufficient reason, and withal true; and when we are in that situation that we cannot benefit ourselves by holding slaves, why, we will endeavor to imitate the noble example of our northern brethren, and emancipate too! Interest will certainly induce us to believe that slavery is an evil, as it did our northern brethren. When it is not our interest to hold slaves, then we will emancipate them, too, in imitation of this example.

Mr. Speaker, this question has not been brought upon us by ourselves. We have not interfered with thei nstitutions of the North; and why should they meddle with ours? I will here ask the honorable member from Vermont one question. Will he inform us what we are to do with our slaves, if we abolish slavery in Virginia? Is it intended to let them loose upon us, and to be located among us, upon terms of equality? If not, where have these benevolent schemers provided an asylum for them? But I will make one proposition to him, and to the abo litionists; and it is this: open your purse strings; give the best test of your benevolence; come among us, and buy our slaves, and you may emancipate them at your will, so you remove them from among us. That will be a better test of your sincerity and purity of motive than all your speeches and writings. Till you do this, I emphatically say, let us alone.

Sir, there is another reason why we should not meddle with this subject. What was the condition of things at the formation of the confederacy? During the arduous struggle of the Revolution, you were willing, gentlemen, to fight the battles of freedom side by side with slaveholders. Together the blood of our fathers was shed, and together their bones bleached the battle-field. You were willing to erect this Union in conjunction with the slaveholder, and with him to cement it together.

[H. of R.

To bring about so desirable an event, you agreed to restrict the powers of Congress, and prohibit their interference with slavery, and even for a time with the Afri can slave trade. But now it is all wrong. New-fangled doctrines have thrown new lights upon this subject, and you now reproach us with that very thing you have sworn to protect. Generous-minded people of the North! I again appeal to northern members, and em phatically ask, will you violate your plighted faith? Will you reproach those who confided in you, and in their confidence entered into a solemn league with you, and destroy those rights which you have pledged your faith to protect? I hope, I believe not.

Mr. Speaker, I had not intended, in the outset of my remarks, to have said so much in relation to these fanatics; but I trust the House will pardon my feelings on this occasion. I will now, sir, as briefly as possible, recur to the constitutional power of this House to legislate on the subject of slavery within the District of Columbia. I shall pass over the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky, merely remarking that, judging from this resolation, they seem to be fit companions for the abolition priests of the North, who have led some pious females so unwarily into their schemes. As to the article quoted from the Richmond Enquirer, I have only to say that the benevolence of its editor betrayed him into an error, of which I do not doubt he has long since repented. As to the quotation from the Richmond Whig, I have only the same thing to say. In either case, however, I will remark that they were urging the State Government, which they supposed had the constitutional right to interpose. As to the article signed "A South Carolinian," I do not believe it was written by a South Carolinian, but by some individual who assumed that name, for the purpose of giving more force to his remarks, South Carolina being an extensive slaveholding State.

I will now, Mr. Speaker, approach the constitutional question, and would solemnly ask if it is to be seriously argued that the sages of the Revolution, understanding liberty as they understood it, would have manifested so much caution in the framing of the constitution, by salutary restrictions upon this subject, and yet have been so incautious as to leave Congress in possession of this power any where? Where is it found? It is neither expressed directly or indirectly in any one of the provisions of the constitution. Again, sir, is it to be believed, for one moment, that the States of Virginia and Maryland, the foremost in the ranks of those who restricted the power of the Federal Government, would have given up a portion of their citizens, in order that there might be inflicted upon them an unlimited, unmitigated, and unrestricted despotism, reserving not even the right of representation?-for, if the argument of the gentleman from Vermont be true, this Government, within these ten miles square, is as despotic as that of Russia or the Grand Turk. Would the people of Virginia and Maryland have consented to pass off a portion of their citizens, like herds of swine, without one solitary act of restriction and restraint upon the power of the Federal Government over them? Would they have been willing to have erected a despotism in the midst of this Union? Sir, I cannot believe it. This very idea is preposterous. Fortunately for us, however, there is no proof positive on this subject. The language of the act of the Virginia cession is clear, unequivocal, and decisive upon the point, and it will be found to answer every argument urged by the gentleman from Vermont.

The proviso to the act of cession by the State of Virginia is in these words: "Provided that nothing herein contained shall be construed to vest in the United States any right of property in the soil, or to affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than as the same shall

be expressed, so that it be decisive and effectual. But I cannot go so far as to record my vote to affirm that slavery is an evil, because I will make no concession whatever to the abolitionists, who are not affected with it, and have nothing to do with it. This is a subject with which we have nothing to do, and my individual opinion need not be expressed. I say, sir, I am willing to make the most liberal concession that the nature of the case will admit. Now, let us investigate the true character of the question under consideration. Our brethren of the North have no direct interest in this question, but our interest is directly at stake; our lives, liberty, property, all are in danger. It has not originated in the South; nothing was heard of it until this abolition society awakened our fears, and alarmed us for our safety. The question, then, is, will you quiet the people of the South? Will you decide this question in such a form as to tranquillize their fears? We are all brethren of the great American family, and have been associated together for upwards of fifty years; let us, then, continue in the same bonds of fraternal love. The southern people tell you we wish to continue in fraternization and union with you; but their march is impeded, and their prospects blighted, by these harassing interferences with their rights. It creates a feeling of insecurity on the stability of our property. We ask, then, our brethren of the North to quiet us in the most decisive form they can, consistent with their duties. If they cannot sustain all the propositions that have been presented, they can either submit or vote for some one that shall be considered decisive. I have disposed of the question of laying these petitions on the table; that course is not decisive, and not adequate to the emergencies of the occasion. Many gentlemen are unwilling to reject any petitions, on the ground that it is the constitutional right of the citizen to petition. I myself, Mr. Speaker, have no objection to that course; but am prepared to vote not only that such petitions be not received, but, if I could do so, I would vote that they should be all thrown together into the midst of the Po

tomac.

Mr. Speaker, let us examine the proposition to reject, which will likely follow a reconsideration of the refer<ence. In the course of this debate, reference was had to the example of the Senate during the first session of the last Congress, to show that the rejection of this memorial would be disrespectful. Sir, the cases are not analogous. If my recollection be right, the vote of the Senate, in that case, was not upon a proposition to reject, but upon a proposition not to receive the paper. That was more disrespectful than to reject, because the motion to reject is necessarily made after the paper has been presented-after it has been in the hands of the Speaker, and read to the House; but the motion not to receive is in priority of all these formalities, and is therefore a more decisive expression of the disrespect of the body to whom it is offered. The motion to reject means, simply, to reject the application, that is, the prayer of the petitioners or memorialists, and nothing more. But it is contended that even this, as well as the motion not to receive, is at war with the right of petition. Now, sir, what is this right of petition? Gentlemen bring petitions here, present them, and ask reference to some committee of the House. Committees are not organized by law or by the constitution, but by a rule of the House, for its own convenience, and for the convenience of having that brought to its consideration which could not be conveniently done by the whole House. A committee sometimes reports, or passes over sub silentio, or asks leave of the House to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject; and cannot the whole House do at once what it may do on the recommendation of one of its own committees? Sup

[H. OF R.

pose the committee, to whom a petition may be referred, report that it should be rejected, where is the want of power or the disrespect on the part of the House to do the same thing without the reference? If the House confirms the report of the committee, it all amounts to the same thing-to rejection; and the only question is, whether the same thing shall be done di rectly without reference, or indirectly by reference and report, the House having determined its course before a reference is asked. Now, these petitioners know nothing about the formula of proceeding here, and it is the same thing to them whether their petition be rejected by a direct vote of the House, without going to a committee; or whether it go to a committee, who may report that it be rejected, and the House confirm that report.

They

But, say gentlemen, it conflicts with the right of petition-a sacred right, guarantied by the constitution. Sir, there is no man on this floor who respects the right of petition more than I do; but yet, with all this regard for the right of petition, there is some respect due to ourselves, and it must always be understood with some restrictions. The right of petition the right to petition for a redress of grievances affecting the petitioners themselves; but when pious and godly-given ladies, in some few portions of the North, are petitioning to redress my grievances, when I feel no grievance, when I know of no grievance at all, I humbly conceive it to be an improper and impertinent interference with my rights. Now, sir, pray, how are these good and godly and pious and Christian-like ladies affected by slavery in the District of Columbia? They are not living in the District of Columbia, but in Vermont or Massachusetts. are not affected by slavery in the District of Columbia. They are not stained by its guilt. They are not affected by its sins. Its blood is not upon their skirts. Why, then, should they ask a redress of the grievances of the people of the District of Columbia? Are not the people of the District themselves the best judges of their own grievances; are they not adequate to judge for themselves and to apply for redress of grievances, if they have any; and do they come here, or to their own Legislature, to ask redress? Sir, I must say I respect no petition coming from people who are not interested, directly or indirectly, on the subject about which they petition; and less so when its object is to interfere with the rights of others. When petitions come from those who feel and suffer grievance, couched in respectful language, I will then respect and hear them in the most respectful manThen, sir, why not come up directly to the question, and reject this petition, and all petitions of a similar character, instanter? I have referred to what has taken place heretofore in relation to petitions of this character, which I then thought sufficiently decisive--laying them on the table; but that was when the country was quiet, and had not been disturbed by the circulation of pamphlets and vile wood cuts among the slaves of the South. Then we were satisfied, because there was nothing serious to apprehend; the demon of discord had not then been stalking through the land; but now, sir, we see the danger, and all we ask is an express declaration on the part of our brethren of the North of their determi nation not to legislate upon this subject; this we have a right to ask and to expect. If we had the power, as as they have, we would not ask even this of them. sir; we could manage these fanatics exceedingly well, if we had them among us, but we cannot reach them as long as they confine themselves within the limits of other sovereign and independent States; we cannot, we will not, violate the jurisdiction of other States.

ner.

No,

But, say gentlemen, why press the constitutional question now? I reply, we press it from the most urgent and imperious necessity. It is due to our safety, to our

quiet, that we press it. Every other form in which this question has been presented has failed to secure us against the repetition of these memorials and petitions, exciting our passions, and endangering our safety. Nothing, it seems to me, short of a declaration, on the part of Congress, of their want of constitutional power, will restrain these fanatical crusaders from seeking the intervention of Congress in aid of their diabolical schemes, and perpetually harassing the country. I do not ask gentlemen to vote contrary to their sense of right. If they believe Congress has not the power, then this agitating subject will be put to rest, so far as Congress is concerned. If gentlemen think Congress has the constitutional power, let them say so; we shall not, if they decisively refuse all legislation upon the subject, upon grounds of expediency, complain of their opinions upon the mere question of power--a power which they do not intend to exercise, and sever the Union on that account. No, sir; we value it too highly, and love it too dearly. But if the power exists, this House cannot pledge its successors-the South has no security for the future. The constitution provides for its own amendment, by reference to the source of all power--the people. It will be our duty to seek through the people an amendment to the constitution, restricting the power of Congress upon this subject. Such an amendment must and will prevail, if the northern people are sincere, which I do not doubt, in their professions of attachment to the Union, and respect for our rights-seeing, as they must do, the infinite danger to our rights and our safety which would result from the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. This would test the true feelings of the North, and quiet the apprehensions of the South, and secure the Union against the most formidable enemy by which its integrity could be assailed.

Sir, I am anxious to see this distracting question put to rest, and that we may be able to say, with new feelings of national pride, in the language of the poet,

"Where e'er beneath the sun, by sea winds fanned, There floats the banner of my native land." Not, sir, the banner of a northern empire, not the banner of a southern empire, but the banner of the Unionthe banner which conducted the heroes of the Revolution to victory in the cause of freedom, and which has now waved in triumph for upwards of half a century, untarnished and unscathed. Sir, I hope this question will now end; that our northern brethren will meet it in the most decisive form, and give such an explicit expression of their sentiments as will tranquillize the South on the one hand, and silence the fanatics on the other.

As to the proposition of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. INGERSOLL, ] for whose patriotic feelings, exhibited upon this occasion, I cannot withhold the expression of my highest admiration, I can only say that it is true; but it does not meet the present case; the question before the House relates to the District of Columbia alone. The proposition of the honorable gentleman refers to slavery in the States. The proposition that Congress has no constitutional power to abolish slavery in either of the States of the Union need not be decided, because none assert it; and a decision of that question would in no wise decide the question arising upon this petition.

The only way in which the question can be presented so as to procure the definitive and speedy action of the House, will be by reconsidering the vote of reference, now sought to be reconsidered, which I earnestly hope will be done.

When Mr. GARLAND had finished his speech-Mr. MANN, of New York, moved the previous question.

The motion was seconded by the House, by a vote of 104 to 79.

[DEC. 23, 1835.

The question being then taken, "Shall the main ques tion be now put?" it was decided in the affirmative: Yeas 137, nays 71.

The CHAIR having stated the question to be whether the vote be reconsidered,

Mr. GLASCOCK asked, if it was carried in the affirmative, what would be the next question?

The CHAIR said it would be on the motion to commit. Mr. LANE moved an adjournment, but withdrew it. Mr. WHITTLESEY asked for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered.

The question of reconsideration being taken, it was decided in the affirmative, as follows:

YEAS-Messrs. Anthony, Beale, Bean, Beardsley, Bell, Bockee, Bouldin, Bovee, Boyd, Brown, Bunch, Burns, John Calhoon, Cambreleng, Campbell, Carter, John Chambers, Chaney, Chapman, Chapin, Claiborne, Cleveland, Coffee, Coles, Connor, Craig, Cramer, Cushman, Davis, Deberry, Dickerson, Doubleday, Dromgoole, Dunlap, Efner, Fairfield, Farlin, Forester, Fowler, French, William K. Fuller, Galbraith, James Garland, Rice Garland, Gillet, Glascock, Graham, Grayson, Griffin, Haley, Hiland Hall, Hamer, Hammond, Hannegan, Samuel S. Harrison, Albert G. Harrison, Haynes, Holsey, Hopkins, Howard, Hubley, Huntington, Huntsman, Ingham, Jabez Jackson, Jarvis, Joseph Johnson, Richard M. Johnson, Cave Johnson, Henry Johnson, John W. Jones, Judson, Kennon, Kilgore, Kinnard, Klingensmith, Lane, Lansing, Lawler, Gideon Lee, Joshua Lee, Thomas Lee, Luke Lea, Leonard, Logan, Loyall, Lucas, Lyon, Abijah Mann, Job Mann, Martin, John Y. Mason, William Mason, Moses Mason, Maury, May, McComas, McKay, McKeon, McKim, Mercer, Miller, Montgomery, Muhlenberg, Owens, Page, Parks, Patterson, Patton, Franklin Pierce, James A. Pearce, Pettigrew, Phelps, Pickens, Pinckney, Rencher, John Reynolds, Joseph Reynolds, Ripley, Roane, Robertson, Rogers, Schenck, Seymour, William B. Shepard, Augustine H. Shepperd, Shields, Shinn, Smith, Spangler, Standefer, Taliaferro, Taylor, Thomas, John Thomson, Waddy Thompson, Toucey, Towns, Turrill, Vanderpoel, Wagener, Ward, Washington, Weeks, White, Lewis Williams, Sherrod Williams, Wise-148.

NAYS-Messrs. Adams, Chilton Allan, Heinan Allen, Ashley, Bailey, Beaumont, Bond, Borden, Briggs, Buchanan, William B. Calhoun, Carr, Casey, George Chambers, Childs, Clark, Corwin, Crane, Cushing, Denny, Evans, Everett, Philo C. Fuller, Granger, Graves, Grennell, Joseph Hall, Hard, Hardin, Harlan, Harper, Hazeltine, Hoar, Howell, Hunt, Ingersoll, William Jackson, Janes, Benjamin Jones, Laporte, Law. rence, Lay, Lincoln, Love, Mason, McCarty, McKennan, Milligan, Morris, Parker, Dutee J. Pearce, Potts, Reed, Russell, Slade, Sprague, Storer, Underwood, Vinton, Webster, Whittlesey-61.

Mr. OWENS said, in consequence of the wide range which the debate had taken, he had determined to move to lay the petition on the table, with a view to prevent the continuance of the discussion upon the motion to commit. The same course he should pursue in regard to every similar petition which might be presented. His resolutions on the subject, which he had indicated to the House, he would offer when the States were called for resolutions. He moved to lay the petition and the mo tion to commit on the table.

Mr. WISE made a point of order. Had not the motion to reject precedence of the motion to lay on the

table?

The CHAIR said no motion to reject was before the House, and the motion to lay on the table was not debatable.

Mr. WISE called for the yeas and nays on the ques tion, and they were ordered.