how will you put a stop to them? By receiving these petitions and laying them on the table? No, no! The Abolitionists understood this too well? Nothing would stop them but a stern refusal, by closing the doors to them, and refusing to receive them.

Mr. Morris of Ohio, contended, that the titions contemplated no legislation by Congress, not within its constitutional power, exclusive legislation being, in his opinion, vested in Congress, both as to persons and things within the District of Columbia. In this view of the case he contended for the reception of the petition, and warned the Senate to be careful how it tread on this ground, lest, in its attempts to make petitions palatable, it does not abridge the sacred right of petition.

Mr. Porter of La., opposed the reception of the petition.

Mr. Buchanan had had in his possession several weeks a memorial from a meeting of Quakers, making the same prayer, which he had deferred presenting, because he believed that, by private consultations, some resolution might be devised upon this exciting subject, which would obtain the unanimous sanction of the Senate. He felt it, however, to be due to the memorialists, himself, and the Senate, respectfully but firmly to state the reasons why he could not advocate their views, or acquiesce in their conclusions.

*

*

which these memorials are now presented? A number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries, have been scattering arrows, firebrands, and death' throughout the southern states; the natural tendency of their publica tions is to produce dissatisfaction and revolt pe-among the slaves, and to incite their wild pas sions to vengeance. All history, as well as the present condition of the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of a servile war, but in the mean time what dreadful scenes may be enacted before such an insurrection, which would spare neither age nor sex, could be sup pressed; what agony of mind must be suffered, especially by the gentler sex, in consequence of these publications? Many a mother clasps her infant to her bosom when she retires to rest, under dreadful apprehensions that she may be aroused from her slumbers by the savage yells of the slaves by whom she is sur rounded. These are the works of the abolitionists. That their motives may be honest I do not doubt, but their zeal is without knowledge. The history of the human race presents numerous examples of ignorant enthusiasts, the purity of whose intentions cannot be doubted, who have spread devastation and bloodshed over the face of the earth." * * * "This being a true statement of the case as applied to the states where slavery exists, what is now asked by these memorialists? That in this district of ten miles square, a district carved out of two slaveholding states, and surrounded by them on all sides slavery should be abolished. What would be the effects of granting their request? You would thus erect a citadel in the very heart of these states, upon a territory which they have ceded to you for a far different purpose, from which abolitionists and incendiaries could securely attack the peace and safety of their citizens; you establish a spot within the slave-holding states which would be a city of refuge for runaway slaves; you create, by law, a central point from which trains of gunpowder may be securely laid, extending into the surrounding states, which may at any moment produce a destructive and fearful explosion. By passing such a law you introduce the enemy into the very bosom of these two states, and afford them every opportunity of producing a servile insurrection. Is there any reasonable man who can for one moment suppose that Virginia and Maryland would have ceded the District of Columbia to the United States, if they had entertained the slightest idea that Congress would have used it for any such purpose? They ceded it for your use, for your convenience, and not for their own destruclaws of Virginia and Maryland, then, and not tion. When slavery ceases to exist under the till then, ought it to be abolished in the District of Columbia."

If any one principle of constitutional law can at this day be considered as settled, it is that Congress had no right, no power, over the question of slavery in those states where it exists. The property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the federal constitution was adopted. It was a subject that then belonged, as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Southern States. These states, by the adoption of the constitution, never yielded to the general government any right to interfere with the question. It remains where it was previous to the establishment of our confederacy.

The constitution has in the clearest terms recognised the right of property in slaves. It prohibits any state into which a slave may have fled, from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such state to his master; nay, more, it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political power, by giving to those states within which it exists representatives in Congress, not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to three-fifths of the number of slaves.

After showing that Congress, on the 23d day of March, 1790, had so determined, and that the Union would be dissolved at the moment an effort would be seriously made by the free states in Congress to pass such laws, he

continued:

Mr. Buchanan continuing said, notwithstanding these were his views, he could not vote against receiving these memorials, but moved that the whole subject be postponed

"What, then, are the circumstances under until Monday next.

Mr. Benton concurred in the views of Mr. | tion be received, and it was decided in the Buchanan.

Mr. Tyler of Va., advocated their reference to the committee on the District of Columbia, in order that a report from that committee might be made which would dispose of the subject.

Mr. Brown of N. C., advocated laying them on the table without printing.

affirmative by yeas and nays as follows:-

YEAS.-Messrs. Benton of Mo., Brown of N.C., Buchanan of Pa., Clay of Ky., Clayton of Del., Crittenden of Ky. Davis of Mass., Ewing of O., Ewing of Ill., Goldsborough of Md., Grundy of Tenn. Hendricks of Ind., Hill of N. H Hubbard of N. H., Kent of Md., King of Ala., King of Geo., Knight of R. 1., Linn of Mo., McKean of Pa., Morris of Ohio, Naudain of Del., Niles of Conn., Prentiss of Vt

Robbins of R. I., Robinson of Ill., Ruggles of Me., Shep

ley of Me., Southard of N. J., Swift of Vt.. Talmadge of

ex-NY., Tipton of Ind., Tomlinson of Conn., Wall of Ñ. J...

Mr. Leigh of Va., advocated a distinct pression of opinion by Congress as to its constitutional power over the question.

Mr. Preston of S. C., thanked the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Buchanan) for the reprobation he had given the petition here presented.

Messrs. Calhoun and Brown continued the discussion, and the subject was postponed.

On the 11th of January, Mr. Buchanan presented the petition from the Quakers, which he had alluded to in his speech as having been in his possession for some time. He moved that it be read and its prayer rejected.

Mr. Calhoun demanded a vote on the reception of the petition.

During the pendency of the long debate on these petitions, Mr. Swift of Vt., on the 28th of January, 1836, presented another petition to the same effect from citizens of Vermont, which he requested might be read.

Webster of Mass., and Wright of N. Y.-36.

NAYS. Messrs. Black of Miss., Calhoun of S. C., Cuthbert of Geo., Leigh of Va., Moore of Ala., Nicholas of La..

Porter of La., Preston of S. C., Walker of Miss., and White

of Tenn.-10.

On the 11th of March, 1836, the question was taken on the motion of Mr. Buchanan, that the prayer of the memorial be rejected, and it was decided in the affirmative, yeas 34, nays 6. Every Senator who voted on the above vote was present, except Messrs. Calhoun, Clayton, Kent, Moore, Naudain, and Southard. Every Senator present voted aye on Mr. Buchanan's motion, except Messrs. Davis, Hendricks, Knight, Prentiss, Swift, and Webster.

The large number of petitions, &c., praying the abolition of slavery in the district, which were presented to the House during the first session of 24th Congress, gave rise to a variety of resolutions, motions, &c., with reference to the power of Congress over the subject, and the proper disposition which should be made of these petitions. Finally, on the 8th Feb

The petition was read, when Mr. Calhoun demanded the preliminary question upon its reception. The question was laid on the table on mo-ruary, 1836, Mr. H. L. Pinckney, of S. C., tion of Mr. Buchanan, to be called up again when the Senate was prepared to make a final disposition of it.

On the 9th of March, 1836, the question again came up on the motion to receive the petition presented by Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. Calhoun spoke at length against receiving the memorial.

obtained a suspension of the rules to enable him to introduce the following resolution:

"Resolved, That all the memorials which have been offered or may hereafter be presented to this House, praying for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and also the resolutions offered by an honorable member from Maine (Mr. Jarvis) with the Mr. Clay of Ky., did not agree with Mr. member from Virginia, (Mr. Wise,) and every amendment thereto proposed by an honorable Calhoun as to the rignt of Congress to refuse other paper or proposition that may be subthe reception of a petition. The right of peti-mitted in relation to that subject, be referred tion carried with it the right of being heard on to a select committee with instructions to reany subject that the body addressed had the port, that Congress possesses no constitutional power to act on. As to the right of Congress authority to interfere in any way with the to abolish slavery in the District of Colum-institutions of slavery in any of the states of bia, he was inclined to think, and candor this confederacy; and that, in the opinion of required the avowal, that the right did exist, this House, Congress ought not to interfere in though he was opposed to the expediency any way with slavery in the District of Coof exercising that power. He was opposed to lumbia, because it would be a violation of the the motion of Mr. Buchanan to receive and public faith, unwise, impolitic, and dangerous immediately reject the petition. He did not to the Union, assigning such reasons for these think it a safe, substantial, and efficient enjoy- conclusions, as in the judgment of the comment of the right of petition, to reject it with-mittee, may be best calculated to enlighten out its passing through the usual forms. That the public mind, to repress agitation, to allay right he thought required of them to examine, excitement, to sustain and preserve the just deliberate, and decide, either to grant or refuse the prayer of a petitioner, giving the reasons for such decision, &c., &c.

The question was then taken, Shall the peti

rights of the slaveholding states, and of the people of this district, and to re-establish harmony and tranquillity among the various sec tions of the Union,"

The resolution having been adopted, the following gentlemen were appointed the committee:-Messrs. Pinckney, of S. C., Hamer, of Ohio, Pierce, of N. H., Hardin, of Ky., Jarvis, of Mc., Owens, of Ga., Dromgoole, of Va., and Turrill, of N. Y.

On the 18th of May, 1836, Mr. Pinckney presented a unanimous report from the said committee, concluding with the following resolutions::

Resolved, That Congress possesses no constitutional authority to interfere in way with the institution of slavery in any of

any

the states of this confederacy.
"Resolved, That Congress ought not to in-
terfere in any way with slavery in the District

of Columbia.

Lincoln, of Mass.; Mason, of O.; McCarty, of Ind.: McKen-
nan, of Pa.; Morris, of Pa.; Parker, of N. J.; Phillips, of Mass.;
Potts, of Pa.; Reed, of Mass.; Russell, of N. Y.; Slade. of Vt.;
Sprague, of R. L.; Vinton, of O.; and Whittlesey, of Q.
The third resolution was carried by a vote
of 117 yeas to 68 nays.

Every member who voted No on the last vote did so on this, with the exception of Messrs. Harrison, Kilgore, Lee and Parker. Messrs. Harrison and Parker did not vote at all on this vote. Messrs. Kilgore and Lec voted Aye. In addition to the negative vote as above stated, Messrs. Beaumont and A. Buchanan, of Pa., Corwin and Crane, of Ohio,

Garland, of Va., Glascock, of Ga., Granger, of N. Y., Haley, of Conn., Harper, of Pa., Holsey, of Ga., Howell, of Ohio, Judson, of Conn., Jones, of Va., Laporte, of Pa., Love, of N. Y., Patton, of Va., Pearce, of R. I., "And whereas it is extremely important Pickens, of S. C., Schenck, of N. J., Shinn, and desirable that the agitation of this of N. J., Steele, of Md., Storer, of Ohio, subject should be finally arrested for the Thompson, of Ohio, Wardwell, of N. Y., and purpose of restoring tranquillity to the public Webster, of Ohio, voted No on the third mind, your committee respectfully recommend resolution. the adoption of the following resolution: "Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers relating in any way or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon."

Mr. Hardin, of Ky., a member of the committee, deemed it necessary to say, as the report had been called a unanimous one, that he had attended none of the meetings of the committee, and there was a part of the report from which he entirely dissented; to wit, that the abolitionists were few. He believed there were a great many, and that the report had been got up to suppress that fact.

Messrs. Wise and Bouldin, of Va., Thompson, of S. C., and others, assailed the report. Messrs. Pinckney, of S. C., Howard, of Md., and others, defended it.

On the 25th of May, 1836, the first resolution was adopted by a vote of yeas 182, nays 9. The negative vote being Messrs. J. Quincy Adams, Clark, of Pa., Denny, of Pa., Everett, of Vt., Jackson, of Mass., Janes, of Vt., Phillips, of Mass., Potts, of Pa., and Slade, of Vt. Messrs. Glascock, of Ga., Pickens, of S.C., and Robertson, of Va., asked to be excused from voting and did not vote. Mr. Wise, of Va., and Thompson, of S. C., refused to vote n the question.

The second resolution was then adopted, yeas 132, nays 45.

The negative vote was as follows:

Messrs. Allen, of Vt.; Bailey, of Me.; Bond, of O.; Bordon, of Mass.; Briggs, of Mass.; Calhoun, of Mass.; Carr, of Ind.; Chambers, of Pa.; Childs, of N. Y.; Clark, of Pa.; Cushing, of Mass,; Denny, of Pa.; Everett, of Vt.; Fuller, of N. Y.; irennell, of Mass.; Hall, of Vt.; Hard, of N. Y.; Harrison, of Pa; Hazeltine, of N. Y.; Henderson, of Pa; Heister, of Pa.; Hoar, of Mass.; Hunt, of N. Y.; J. R. Ingersoll, of Pa.;

W. Jackson, of Mass.; Janes, of Vt.: Jones, of O.; Kilgore, 0.; Lane, of Ind.; Lawrence, of Mass.; Josh. Lee, of N. Y.;

In the Senate during the second session of the Twenty-Fifth Congress, the plan was invariably pursued of laying the question of reception upon the table.

At this session Mr. Calhoun introduced his celebrated resolutions, induced by the abolition petitions which were being flocked in upon Congress. These resolutions will be found at their appropriate place in this book, under the caption of Mr. Calhoun's name.

In the House, at this session, the excitement produced by abolition petitions, &c., was intense. A better description of that excitement, and the action to which it brought the House, cannot be better written than that from the pen of Col. Benton in his valuable historical narrative of his time in the Senate. I give a synopsis of Col. Benton's description of the scene in the House, on the 20th of December, 1837, during the proceedings on the motion of Mr. Slade, of Vermont, to refer two memorials, praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, to a select committee.

"The immediate occasion of this contest,"

says Col. Benton, was the pertinacious effort of Mr. Slade, of Vermont, to make the presentation of abolition petitions the ground of agitation and action against the institution of slavery in the Southern States. Mr. Slade had moved to refer the resolutions presented by

him to a select committee, with instructions to report upon them. Upon making this motion, he commenced a violent assault upon the institution of slavery. Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina, interposed to warn him of the consequences of such an inflammatory harangue. Mr. Slade refused to desist, and was interrupted by a motion, made by Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, for an adjournment. The Speaker

[an upright and impartial southern man] ruled | Speaker that he had not yielded the floor, but this motion out of order.

his progress was interrupted by the condition "Mr. Slade was proceeding to discuss the of the House, and the exclamations of memquestion, 'What was slavery?' Mr. Dawson bers. Amongst them Mr. Holsey, of Georgia. again asked him to give way for an adjourn- was heard calling on the delegates from that ment, which was refused. Å visible commo- State to withdraw with him; whilst Mr. Rhett tion began to pervade the house-members was heard proclaiming that the members from rising, clustering together, and talking with South Carolina had already consulted togethe animation. Mr. Slade continued, and was and appointed a meeting at three o'clock, in about reading a judicial opinion of one of the the committee-room of the District of Columsouthern States, defining a slave to be a chat- bia. Here the Speaker succeeded in getting tel, when Mr. Wise called him to order for the floor, and stating the question to be o irrelevancy. The question being upon the ab-granting leave to the member from Vermon olition of slavery in the District, and the argu- to read certain papers, the reading of which ment upon the legality of slave title in a State.' had been objected to. Many members rose. The Speaker decided that it was not in order all addressing the chair at the same time, and to discuss the subject of slavery in the States. the general scene of noise and confusion conMr. Slade contended that he read the decision tinued. as he might have done that of an English court. Mr. Robinson, of Virginia, moved an adjournment. The Speaker decided the motion out of order, and Mr. Slade refused to yield the floor, and continued his speech. Mr. Slade proceeded at great length, when Mr. Petrikin, of Pennsylvania, called him to order. The chair did not sustain the call. Mr. Slade went on quoting from the Declaration of Independence and the constitutions of the several States, and had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. Wise called him to order for reading papers without the leave of the house. The speaker then said that no paper objected to could be read without leave of the house.

"Mr. Wise then said that the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question of slavery, going back to the very first day of its creation, instead of slavery as it now existed in the District, and the powers and duties of Congress in relation to it. He was now reading the State constitutions to show that as it existed in the States it was against them, and against the laws of God and man. This was out of order.'

"Mr. Slade explained, and argued in vindication of his course; he was about to read a memorial of Dr. Franklin* and an opinion of Mr. Madison upon the question of slavery, when Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina, objected to the reading. Mr. Slade, without asking the permission of the House, which he knew would not be granted, proposed that the clerk should read the document. To this the Speaker objected, that it was equally out of order for the clerk to read. Mr. Griffin withdrew the objection, and Mr. Slade proceeded to read the papers and comment upon them. He was about to return to the state of opinion in Virginia upon the subject of slavery before Dr. Franklin's memorial. Mr. Rhett inquired, "What the opinions of Virginia fifty years since had to do with the case?' The Speaker was about to reply when Mr. Wise rose, and, with much warmth, said: 'He has discussed the whole abstract subject of slavery-of slavery in Virginia-of slavery in my own district, and I now ask all of my colleagues to retire with me from this hall." Mr. Slade reminded the * See page 5-6.

"Mr. Rhett succeeded in raising his voice above the roar of the tempest which raged in the House, and invited the entire delegation from all the slave States to retire from the hall forthwith, and meet in the committee-room of the District of Columbia.'

"The Speaker rose to a personal explanation, and succeeded in recapitulating his decisions and vindicated their correctness. Had it been in his power,' he said, to restrain the discussion, he should have done so. But it was not.'

"Mr. Slade continuing, said the paper he was about to read was one of the Continental Congress of 1774. The Speaker was about to put the question of leave, when Mr. Cost Johnson inquired if it would be in order to force the member from Vermont to stop?" The impartial chair said, in despair, that it could not be done. The indomitable Slade proceeded in triumph. Then Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, a clear, cool-headed, sagacious man, interposed the objection that headed Mr. Slade.' The rule of the House required that when a member was called to order, he should take his seat; and, if decided to be out of order, he should not be allowed to speak again without the leave of the House. Mr. McKay stated the point of order, and said that he now ob jected to Mr. Slade's proceeding. 'Redonbled noise and confusion ensued a crowd of members rising and speaking at once, they at last yielded to the noise of the Speaker's hammer, and his apparent desire to read something from a book-recognised to be the Manualwhich he held in his hand, he at last succeeded in reporting the rule referred to by Mr. MeKay, and sustaining his motion. Mr. Slade endeavored to proceed. The Speaker directed him to take his seat until the question of leave should be put. Then Mr. Slade-still keeping on his feet-asked leave to proceed in order. On that question Mr. Allen, of Vermont, asked the ayes and nays. Mr. Rencher, of North Carolina, moved an adjournment. Mr. Adams and others demanded the ayes and noes upon this motion. They were called, and resulted 106 ayes, 63 noes-some fifty or sixty members having withdrawn."

The vote against adjournment follows: