Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

RISE AND FALL OF THE SLAVE POWER

IN AMERICA.

CHAPTER I.

ADMISSION OF FLORIDA.

[ocr errors]

Slavery made a National Interest. — Equilibrium in the United States Senate. Iowa and Florida united in the same bill. Mr. Pettit's motion. Remarks by Mr. Levy, Belser, and Hunt. - Mr. Morse's motion. Remarks by Mr. Bayly. Mr. King's motion. - Mr. Evans's amendment on Imprisonment of Colored Seamen. Remarks by Walker, Archer, Berrien, and Choate. Amendment lost.

[ocr errors]

-

In the acquisition of Texas the Slave Power had compelled the nation to adopt and proclaim the principle that slavery had become a national interest, to be cherished by national legislation, cared for by national diplomacy, and defended by national arms. Having dragooned the government into the adoption of the principles and policy involved in the act of annexation, it became, from that time onward, more pronounced and aggressive. The slave-masters used the advantage, thus gained, in defiance of the laws of God, regardless of the rights of man, reckless of consequences, and seemingly indifferent to the requirements, or even the reputation, of consistency. Everything was made to yield to the exigencies of the system. Instead of the principle of the old Roman patriotic adjuration, that the Republic should receive nothing of detriment, putting slavery in the nation's stead, they made everything bend to that.

They had long pretended that the equilibrium between the free and slave States must be preserved at all hazards, and twice had they resorted to the violent device of arbitrarily linking two measures that had nothing in common for that

[blocks in formation]

purpose, in 1820 combining the bills for the admission of Missouri and Maine, and in 1836 those for the admission of Michigan and Arkansas. In pursuance of the same purpose and line of policy, they were now unwilling to receive without a consideration the free State of Iowa, which had framed a constitution in the autumn of 1844, and was asking for admission. Some makeweight must be found before this application could be complied with. This they managed to discover in an old constitution, framed by the Territory of Florida five years before. Though Florida was greatly deficient in numbers, and her constitution was very objectionable in some of its features, they seized this occasion to press its claims, and to make its admission a condition precedent to their consent that Iowa should be received. The House Committee on Territories reported in favor of the admission of the two in a single measure. In the closing hours of the XXVIIIth Congress the bill came up for consideration. Making the proposition still more odious, it was moved, in anticipation that the then unorganized portions of Nebraska would ask admission as a free State, that when the population of Florida, east of the Suwanee River, should exceed thirty-five thousand, a new State, called East Florida, should be created therefrom. A motion was made by Mr. Pettit of Indiana to strike out that proviso. The delegate from Florida, Mr. Levy, pronounced the motion a violation of the treaty with Spain, "a flagrant breach of trust," as well as a crucl piece of injustice to the people of Florida. The motion, however, prevailed, and the proviso was stricken out by a majority of forty-six.

This constitution of Florida not only expressly denied to. the legislature the power to emancipate slaves, but gave it the authority to prevent free colored persons from immigrating into the State, or from being discharged from vessels in her ports. Mr. Belser of Alabama, whose district bordered upon Florida, justified these inhuman provisions as simply precautionary measures, nccessary for the safety of his State. He maintained, too, that no slave State was safe without such provision, as "free negroes would go there," he said, "with no peaccable intentions, but with firebrands in their hands,

to excite disaffection among the slaves." Washington Hunt of New York, afterward governor of that State, characterized those provisions of the Florida constitution as not only violating the rights of the slave, but those of the master himself. Deprecating the recent action of the South by which she had abandoned her former position that slavery was local, and was predicating its action on the theory that the government was bound to aid in extending and perpetuating that system, he declared that it "betokened the approach of a period when harmony was forever to depart from our national councils."

Mr. Morse of Maine moved that so much of the act as related to Florida should not take effect until after a convention of delegates shall have stricken out these provisions. But the proposition was vigorously resisted by Southern members. Mr. Bayly of Virginia was especially arrogant and vituperative, as well as sarcastic and insolent. He said that they were indebted for this proposition to the "wisdom" of the gentleman from Maine, who "was not," he insultingly de clared, "very remarkable for his statesmanship." He denounced the amendment as "an unblushing attempt" of one who had never set foot on the soil of Florida to dictate to the people of that Territory. He characterized it as a bold assumption of superiority, which was "neither more nor less than unqualified arrogance." To this specimen of plantation manners Mr. Morse replied with dignity and effect, assuming the entire responsibility of his proposed amendment, and vindicating its pertinence, its justice, and its wise statesmanship. Though few came to his support in the debate, yet, when the vote was taken, his motion was defeated by cnly a majority of eight. An effort was then made by Preston King to amend the bill by striking out the proposition respecting Florida; but that was a point not to be yielded. The South was persistent, and, as usual, prevailed.

When the bill came up in the Senate Mr. Evans of Maine took occasion to refer to the laws of some of the Southern States for the arrest and imprisonment of free people of color; and he pronounced the operation of those laws to be harassing

to the people of the North. He said that he had known voyages to be broken up when colored seamen learned that they were destined to Southern ports, where they would be imprisoned on account of their race. The clauses in the Constitution prohibiting the immigration, or the discharge from vessels in port, of persons of color, he pronounced clearly unconstitutional. But Robert J. Walker defended the Southern view, characterizing these colored seamen as "dangerous persons," possibly coming from San Domingo and ready for any crime. Referring to the black laws of Ohio, he made the strong points that if a State had a right to restrict, it had the right to exclude, and that "if Florida had a right to exclude colored persons by law, she had a right to exclude them by her constitution."

Mr. Evans then proposed that Florida should be required to amend her constitution before admission. But his Democratic colleague, Mr. Fairfield, though admitting that these provisions were unconstitutional and that they ought to be changed, avowed his determination to vote for her admission, because, he contended, if she had a right to be admitted at all, she was entitled to admission on an equal footing with the original States.

[ocr errors]

But the opposition to the amendment was not as significant as were the reasons given therefor and the sentiments avowed therewith. Mr. Archer of Virginia contended that such a provision "belongs to that form of law which overrides all forms of political institutions or constitution, the law of selfpreservation." He curtly asked Mr. Evans, if a ship-load of "pestilent fellows" came into Virginia or South Carolina to stir up rebellion, whether the authorities should not seize them. "Yes, yes," replied Mr. Evans, "seize them, try them, and punish them, to your hearts' content; we do not complain of that; but what we of the North complain of is, that when one or two of our citizens go there in pursuit of their lawful business, and with no thought of stirring up rebellion, you seize and imprison them, not for the evil intents of their hearts, but for the complexion of their faces."

The same provisions were justified by Mr. Henderson of

« PreviousContinue »