but, availing myself of the latitude of debate hitherto allowed to gentlemen who have addressed the Conference in favor of the report of the majority of the committee, I shall endeavor to bring to the notice of this body, more fully than I have yet done, my views upon the general question presented for our consideration. For myself, I state at the outset that I am indisposed to the adoption, at the present time, of any amendment of the Constitution. To change the organic law of thirty millions of people is a measure of the greatest importance. Such a measure should never be undertaken in any case, or under any circumstances, without great deliberation and the highest moral certainty that the country will be benefited by the change. In this case, as yet, there has been no deliberation; certainly not so far as the delegates from New York are concerned. The resolutions of Virginia were passed on the 19th of January. New York (her Legislature being in session) appointed her delegates on the 5th of February. We came here on the 8th. Our delegation was not full for a week. The amendments proposed were submitted on the 15th. It is now the 20th of the month. We are urged to act at once, without further deliberation or delay. To found an empire, or to make a Constitution for a people, on which so much of their happiness depends, requires the sublimest effort of the human intellect, the greatest impartiality in weighing opposing interests, the utmost calmness in judgment, the highest prudence in decision. It is proposed that we shall proceed to amend in essential particulars a Constitution which, since its adoption by the people of this country, has answered all its needs, with a haste which to my mind is unnecessary, not to say indecent. Have any defects been discovered in this Constitution? I have listened most attentively to hear those defects mentioned, if any such have been found to exist. I have heard none. No change in the judicial department is suggested. The exercise of judicial powers under the Constitution has been satisfactory enough to the South. The judicial department is to be left untouched, as I think it should be. You propose no change in the form of the executive or legislative departments. These you leave as they were before. What you do propose is, to place certain limitations upon the legislative power, to pro hibit legislation upon certain important subjects, to give new guarantees to slavery, and this, as you admit, before any person has been injured, before any right has been infringed. There is high authority which ought to be satisfactory to you, that of the President of the United States, now in office, for the statement that Congress never undertook to pass an unconstitutional law affecting the interests of slavery except the Missouri Compromise. Well, you have repealed that. You have also every assurance that can be given, that the Administration about coming into power proposes no interference with your institutions within State limits. Can you not be satisfied with that? No. You propose these amendments in advance. You insist upon them, and you declare that you must and will have them, or certain consequences must follow. But, gentlemen of the South, what reasons do you give for entering upon this hasty, this precipitate action? You say it is the prevailing sense of insecurity, the anxiety, the apprehension you feel lest something unlawful, something unconstitutional, may be done. Yet the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Seddon) tells us that Virginia is able to protect all who reside within her limits, and that she will do so at all hazards. Why not tell us the truth outright? It is not action under the Constitution or in Congress that you would prevent. What is it, then? You are determined to prevent the agitation of the subject. Let us understand each other. You have called us here to prevent future discussion of the subject of slavery. It is that you fear -it is that you would avoid-discussion in Congress, in the State Legislatures, in the newspapers, in popular assemblies. But will the plan you propose, the course you have marked out, accomplish your purpose? Will it stop discussion? Will it lessen it in the slightest degree? Can you not profit by the experience of the past? Can you prevent an agitation of this subject, or any other, by any constitutional provisions? No! Look at the details of your scheme. You propose through the Constitution to require payment for fugitive slaves-to make the North pay for them. You are thus throwing a lighted firebrand not only into Congress, but into every State Legislature, into every county, city, and village in the land. This one proposition to pay for fugitive slaves will prove a subject for almost irrepressible agitation. You say to the State Legislatures, "You shall not obstruct the rendition of fugitives from service, but you may legislate in aid of their rendition "-thereby implying that the latter kind of legislation will be their duty. You thus provide a new subject of discussion and agitation for all these Legislatures. In the border States especially, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, you will find this agitation fiercer than any you have hitherto witnessed, of which you complain so much. You will add to the flame until it becomes a consuming fire. the You propose to stop the discussion of these questions by press. Do you really believe that in this age of the world you can accomplish that? You know little of history if such is your belief. Free speech is stronger than constitutions or dynasties. You might as well put your hands over the crater of a burning volcano, and seek thus to extinguish its flames, as to attempt to stop discussion by such an amendment of the Constitution. Stop discussion of the great questions affecting the policy, strength, and prosperity of the Government! You can not do it! You ought not to attempt to do it! I wish to speak kindly upon this subject. I entertain no unfriendly feelings toward any section. But while you are thus complaining of us in the free States, because we agitate and discuss the question of slavery, are you not, in a great degree, responsible for this agitation yourselves? Do you not discuss it and agitate it? Do you not make slavery the subject of your speeches in the South, and in the presence of your slaves? Do you not make charges against us, which in your cooler moments you know to be unfounded? Do you not charge us in the hearing of your slaves with the design of interfering with slavery in the States, with a design to free them if we succeed? You have done all this and more, and, if discontent, anxiety, and mistrust exist among your people, let me say that such discussion has contributed more to produce them than all the agitation of the slavery question at the North. But your amendments are not pointed at your discussions. That kind of agitation may go on as before. It is only the discussion on the other side you would repress! If the condition of affairs among you is as you represent it, have you no duties to perform; is there nothing for you to do? Should you not tell your people what we have assured you upon every proper occasion, that the Republican party has always repudiated all intention of interfering with slavery, or any other Southern institution, within the States? This you all know. Have you told your people this? If you would explain it to them now, would they not be quieted? Do not reply that they believe we have such a purpose. Who is responsible for that belief? Have you not continually asserted before your people, notwithstanding every assurance we could give you to the contrary, that we are determined to interfere with your rights? It is thus the responsibility rests with you. Although such is my conviction, supported, as I think, by all the evidence, I am still for peace. Show me now any proposition that will secure peace, and I will go for it if I can. We came here to take each other by the hand, to compare views, explain, consult. We meet you in the most reasonable spirit. Anything that honorable men may do, we will do. We will go back to 1845 when you admitted Texas; back to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. You certainly can complain of nothing previous to that time. If, since then, there has been any law of Congress passed which is unjust toward you, which infringes upon your rights, which operates unfairly upon your interests, we will join you in securing its repeal. We will go further. If you will point out any act of the Republican party which has given you just cause for apprehension, we will give you all security against it. We will do anything but amend the fundamental law of government. Before we do that we must be convinced of its necessity. When you propose essential changes in the Constitution you must expect that they will be subjected to a critical examination; if not here, certainly elsewhere. I object to those proposed by the majority of the committee 1. For what they do contain. 2. For what they do not contain. I do not propose to criticise the language used in your propositions of amendment. That would be trifling. I think the language very infelicitous, and, if I supposed those propositions were to become part of the Constitution, I should think many verbal changes indispensable. But I pass by all that, and come at once to the substance. I object to the propositions, sir, because they would put into the Constitution new expressions relating to slavery, which were sedulously kept out of it by the framers of that instrument-left out of it, not accidentally, but because, as Madison said, they did not wish posterity to know from the Constitution that the institution existed. But I object further, because the propositions contain guarantees for slavery which our fathers did not and would not give. In 1787 the Convention was held at Philadelphia to establish our form of government. Washington was its presid ing officer, whose name was in itself a bond of union. It was soon after the close of a long and bloody war. Shoulder to shoulder-through winter snows and beneath summer sunsthrough such sufferings and sacrifices as the world had scarcely ever witnessed the people of these States, under Providence, had fought and achieved their independence. Fresh from the field, their hearts full of patriotism, determined to perpetuate the liberties they had achieved, the people sent their delegates into the Convention to frame a Constitution which would preserve to their posterity the blessings they had won. These delegates, under the presidency of Washington, aided by the counsels of Madison and Franklin, considered the very questions with which we are now dealing, and they refused to put into the Constitution which they were making such guarantees to slavery as you now ask from their descendants. That is my interpretation of their action. Either these guarantees are in the Constitution, or they are not. If they are there, let them remain there. If they are not there, I can conceive of no possible state of circumstances under which I would consent to admit them. Mr. MOREHEAD: Not to save the Union? Mr. FIELD: No, sir-no! That is my comprehensive answer. Mr. FIELD: No, never! I would let slavery slide, and save the Union. Greater things than this have been done. This year has seen slavery abolished in all the Russias. Mr. ROMAN: Do you think it better to have the free and slave States separated, and to have the Union dissolved? |