Lynchburg Virginian

Here, sir. I paused from my man: and as Mr. Webster would say, "broad as it is Greey" — though I am covered through, although you went hoeshy "believe that Congress possesses the power to abridge my right truly to emigrate with my slaves to any territory of the United States." — will you be prepared to declare boldly and emphatically that any exercise of the power to that end would be contrary to the spirit of our institutions, unjust and dangerous." The delusion, however, was but momentary: for your fourth Resolution dispelled the exception at once. By this we are told, (after some preliminary tries, commonly called "abductions," ) that my right of free emigration with my slaves to territory acquired by the common blood and treasure of the whole nation." — depends for support and exercise, — not on any powers reserved to the States respectively or to the people in the amendment to the Federal Constitution — nor on the powers granted by that instrument expressly, but on the rights of the people from which we emanated or perished in! This position greatly distressed and perplexed me: I could not, for the life of me, perceive how my rights, as a citizen of Virginia, one of the original parties to the Federal Compact, could by any possibility be parted or abridged, enlarged or restrained, as against so many individuals who were yesterday first scattered over the territory." acquired by the common blood and treasure of the whole nation "I have Congress the pledged faith of Virginia that this power she has not heard to take absolutely possessed. Is found many power of except a. My perplexity was increased when I came to your eighth Resolution, which declares that, "the passage of a law by Congress, prohibiting the introduction of slaves into California and New Mexico, contrary to the wishes of the people of these territories, would be a tyrannical abuse of power — a gratuitous outrage on Southern feelings and manifest spirit of hostility to the rights of the South secured by the Constitution." I have been up and down the column, from the first to the last Resolution, to see if I could discover what these “…rights” were, which were "secured by the Constitution to the South." I could find no distinct enumeration of them: and was compelled to fall back on your second and third Resolutions, which seem to authorize the belief that, amongst these "rights," so "secured to the South BY THE CONSTITUTION," was that of "the Slaveholder freely to emigrate with his Slaves to any territory acquired by the common blood and treasure of the whole nation" But, here again, I was met by the counter declaration contained in your fourth Resolution which asserts, in substance, that if Congress should undertake to vindicate that "right," or to make it available to the Slaveholder to whom it was "secured by the Constitution," they would be guilty of 'unjust' legislation, and a tyrannical abuse of power."" And, sir, to add to the confusion — to wind up, as it were, into an indissoluble knot this tangled web of conflicting propositions, your fifth Resolution comes in, and announces the astounding fact that — notwithstanding all the considerations, mandatory and monitory, connected with the subject — all the perilous consequences likely to flow from the injustice — the outrages, and tyrannical abuses of power proposed in the cases you enumerate, — "the question of slavery in California and New Mexico is transient in its nature and no matter how decided by Congress, can never produce any practical effect."

Now, sir, being but a plain man, and of all living beings the least skilful at puzzles, I have been excessively annoyed in the effort to discover what all these propositions mean. The only conclusion which I have, as yet, been able to reach is, that they place Congress very much in the attitude of the man between the two shears of a hedge-trimmer, at the same time. I fear the legislature of Virginia will find itself, if not in a very similar, at least, in a sympathetic position. Observe, sir, I beseech you, how the matter stands — If Congress pass a law prohibiting the immigration of slave-holders to the territories of New Mexico and California it would be guilty of an act. ""contrary to the spirit" of our institutions, — unjust to the slaveholding States, — and an unwarrantable exercise of power which will interrupt the harmony of the Union."

If, on the other hand, in such pass such a law "contrary to the wishes of the people of the territories." then it would be guilty of a "tyrannical abuse of power." — a gratuitous outrage on feeling, and manifest a spirit of hostility to the rights of the South, secured by the Constitution:" Again, if on the other hand, it should not pass such a law, but by failure to legislate, allow, or by positive act permit, the Slaveholder to emigrate with his slaves to a territory acquired by a common blood and treasure of the whole nation." — then and in that event, — nothing fundamental principles asserted in your fourth resolution clearly establish, it will be guilty unjust legislation and a tyrannical abuse of power." by a lavisher forcing "domestic slavery on an unwilling people!

[Fragmentary section appears garbled in original, possibly continuing argument on resolutions and Mr. Van Buren.]

But, to put aside these incidental matters — will you allow me to ask you whether you have duly and fully weighed the case, size and substance of that general issue which displays itself in those positions that have led to this irrepressible conflict? The whole subject, it appears to me, resolves itself into the simple inquiry — Did the people of the Southern States, in that written instrument called the Constitution of the United States, know that their political rights as states, or their rights of property as persons, were inferior to those of the Northern States? Did they consent to hold and exercise these rights as States and individuals, subject to the opinions, judgments or determinations of the Representatives of the people of the Northern States in Congress assembled?

This, sir, is the great question at issue. These resolutions are but the appendages in the slave. If the affirmative be true, then I have only to say to them, in the language of Isaiah to Hezekiah, after he had exhibited the treasures of his household to the messengers of the King of Babylon — "Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, — and that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be carried to Babylon: nothing shall be left." But, sir, I never can believe that our ancestors, the foremost men of all history, did enter into such a weak, base and dishonorable compact. They never did regard themselves, or their political institutions, or their civil rights, as inferior to the men, the institutions, or the rights of their co-parties to the compact. I see no evidence of this in any clause of the Constitution. On the contrary I perceive throughout that instrument incontestable proof that they regarded themselves as equals in every respect. If I be in error, I hope you will pardon me; for the conviction is as honestly entertained as the contrary opinion is by Messrs. Giddings, Cass, Van Buren, Fillmore, Buchanan and others; and I claim for it the full benefits of that act of amnesty proposed in your second Resolution; for I, by no means, intend to controvert the position assumed, that a man "honestly" believes he has the right to knock out your brains, across the Ohio or not. You have not, indeed, always acted in conformity with this rule; for my memory is charged with the recollection of an especial instance against it. In December 1838 I was compelled to travel from Fredericksburg to Washington City in the Stage, during an excessively cold spell, (verbal co. lienatur.) in company with an esteemed friend, the late Hon. W. S. Archer, then a member of the Senate from Virginia. We had not proceeded far before we discovered that we had for a compagnon de voyage, an unfortunate citizen of New York, who had run mad as a morus multicaulis speculation in Florida, and was on his return, under guard, to his native city. He very unseasonably took up the opinion, no doubt "honestly," that we were not entitled to our seats; — and insisted upon an immediate surrender. My friend yielded at once, and retreated into the open mail cart; but being myself of a weakly and consumptive habit of body, I could not so easily yield my station to such a summons. I was agreed, however, "on which we might and did honestly differ in opinion" — and what I adhered to inn. I am willing to do to Messrs. Cass, Giddings, Fillmore, Benton, etc. nothing more. I am willing, — nay, most anxious to preserve the Union of the States on its original foundation of perfect equality, both in rights and privileges, benefits and burdens. But, sir, I never will consent to be a party to a compact which deems me, my children, and my fellow-citizens to be the worse half of who would draw — of water. You may call such a Union "glorious," — the word has a popular sound and happy associations dance to its tones; — but I am not to be deceived by words. I look to things. All history has taught me that the substance of free Republics is prone to give place to empty shadows — and that their outward organization, like the bones of a suspended skeleton, long creaks in the winds of heaven, after the living spirit has departed. Rome covered the earth with the wrecks of human freedom, while her standards bore the motto of liberty. I am for all the safeguards and guarantees of the Constitution. I will not yield up one iota of them. In this behalf, I will cavil on the ninth part of a hair. We must vindicate the Constitution. We must cease to rely on mere shilly-shally palliatives — and treat the disease as an actual derangement, functional or organic; and not as a mere hysterical paroxysm of the imagination. The body politic is deeply diseased. The insatiable love of office — the universal pursuit of Gold, have led to a total neglect of its condition. Your Resolutions show the necessity of a recurrence to fundamental principles. There is more than one passage in them which clearly indicates this; — and I will make them the subject of comment in my next.

A SLAVEHOLDER.