| [JAN. 21, 1836. Jeremy Bentham levelling Westminister, that does not glory of the past, whose hearts must beat with impulses open its battery and denunciations upon us. Even, too, and emotions of a new and degenerate nature, whose that prince of modern demagogues, Mr. O'Connell, in mothers must quicken with a new and unnatural offspring. the plenitude of his arrogance and vanity, must think Sir, I deprecate all party ties and party feelings in this fit to strike the vilest and basest notes, to call up the pas- matter. It is too solemn a subject for this. If there be sions and prejudices of the ignoble and low against in any man here who has any misgivings or trembling as to stitutions the true nature of which his ignorance forbade the future on this subject, let me say to him, this is no him to understand, and against a gallant people, whose place for him. If there be any representative here, from virtues his natural vulgarity could never appreciate. any part or portion of the slaveholding race, whose He talk about equal rights and public truth, when he heart is so bowed down in subserviency and servility to lives upon a splendid income raised by "grinding the party discipline and party organization as to be drawn face of the poor," by drawing the last farthing from a off on this question for the vile purpose of partisan asstarving and devoted people! And here I regret, deep-cendency and political triumph in the miserable conflicts ly regret, that a gentleman on this side of the Atlantic, of the day, let me say to him, this is no place for him, distinguished for his learning and elegant diction, has unless he is prepared to cover himself with prostitution. recently thought proper to echo back these notes, and If there be any gentleman here, from the same region, play a second part to this Irish demagogue, by publishing whose aspirations are to please the dominant interests of sentiments and a tissue of visionary declamation, calcula- | this confederacy by sycophancy and flattery, for the purted to have no other effect than to excite feelings, sym- pose of clothing himself in the livery and trappings of pathies, and prejudices, at war with the harmony of the office, this is no place for him, unless he is prepared to Union and the forbearing principles of the constitution, abandon the inheritance of his fathers, and cover his which he, as well as every other good citizen, has tacitly children with degradation and ruin. sworn to support. I allude to Dr. Channing, and I alJude to him with pain and regret. Instead of standing on his palmy eminence, with the benevolence and charity of an enlightened Christian, to pour out "oil upon the troubled waters," we find him inculcating sentiments and spreading doctrines calculated to alienate the affection and sympathies of the people of this Union from different sections. It Mr. Speaker, we cannot mistake all these things. The truth is, the moral power of the world is against us. is idle to disguise it. We must, sooner or later, meet the great issue that is to be made upon this subject. Deeply connected with this, is the movement to be made in the District of Columbia. If the power be asserted in Congress to interfere here, or any approach be made towards that end, it will give a shock to our institutions and the country, the consequences of which no man can foretell. Sir, as well might you grapple your iron grasp into the very heart and vitals of South Carolina, as to touch this subject here. Georgia has perceived this, and felt its full force. She, under these views, has recently passed a resolution declaring it unconstitutional for Congress to touch this matter here, and met the whole subject as became her and her interests. Under these circumstances, I was astonished to hear the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. HOLSEY] intimate that he was willing, for the present, to give this resolution the go-by. [Here Mr. HOLSEY explained that he was willing to meet the question when it came up at the proper time, in a distinct and independent resolution, &c.] Mr. P. then proceeded, and said that he would not press these circumstances at present. It is of no avail to close our eyes to passing events around us, in this country and in Europe. Every thing proclaims that, sooner or later, we shall have to meet the strong and the powerful, and contend over the tombs of our fathers for our consecrated hearth-stones and household gods, or abandon our country to become a black colony, and seek for ourselves a refuge in the wilderness of the West. It is in vain to avoid the contest. Mr. Speaker, as to the constitutional power of this Government to touch the subject in any shape or form, within the States of this Union, I disdain to argue that point. If the dominant interests of this nation should ever become so bold and reckless as to touch the matter, or exercise such a power, directly or indirectly, then, if we hold our seats on this floor, we shall become the slaves of slaves, and deserve our infamous destiny. if ever we should be forced to hold up the noble but mutilated parchment of the constitution as a shield between us and the Goths and the Vandals who may have come in to desecrate and desolate all that is venerable and fair in the institutions of our country, then indeed shall we have lived to see the day when conflagration shall sweep through the land and scath its living monuments-when the scattered fragments of a broken and dismembered empire shall exist here and there, only to mark where the republic once was. While I can never consent to discuss the constitutional power of this Government as relates to the States, yet it becomes us to examine the powers under the constitution given in this District. Mr. Speaker, before we proceed on this point, it would be well for us to call to our minds the circumstances and causes that induced the acts of cession granting jurisdiction in this District. When Congress was in session at Philadelphia, a mob created great disturbance, and they found themselves unable, for want of authority, to protect themselves and their officers. Hence it became important that they should have some territory with exclusive jurisdiction over it. The object and sole desire of Congress was to be able to protect itself, its Virginia has but the other day passed a resolution to the same purport. She, alive to the deep stake she has in the question, has approached near to unanimity on it. The resolution, denying to Congress any constitutional power over the subject in this District, was passed by a vote of one hundred and fifteen to nine, in her House of Delegates. There, there is one subject at least upon which all parties can unite. I was deeply gratified to see that noble State speaking as became her ancient charac-officers, its public buildings, and make such other muniter. That proud State, justly proud, from having enrolled on the scroll of fame her hundred patriots, has felt her vi'al interests and honor concerned, and moved with a unanimity and spirit that became the land of Richard Henry Lee, George Mason, and Patrick Henry. I trust no son of hers here will fall below the position she has chosen to occupy. Before she can waver or falter on this subject, directly or indirectly, you must first break up the foundations of all her institutions; you must make a new race of people in her bosom, who must forget the cipal regulations as might be deemed necessary for the harmony, quiet, and independence of the Government. When we look at these circumstances, and then compare the clause in the constitution conferring legislative power, we can come to but one conclusion as to the great leading objects of the trust. The words are, that Congress "shall exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the JAN. 21, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [H. of R. important to ascertain whether slaves are private prop erty. And here let it be observed that there is a loose idea abroad, that we hold our rights to that species of United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful build-property under the compromises of the constitution. ings." "Exclusive legislation" here cannot mean absolute and unlimited legislation. This Government cannot legally exist in any position without all the restraints of the constitution binding upon it. It is created by the constitution, and cannot act in any sphere except under its specific grants; and to contend that it has all the powers here that the States can exercise within their territories, is a solecism in constitutional law; for the States can exercise all the powers not prohibited by the principles and spirit of their own constitutions, or the constitution of the United States, while this Government can exercise no power not specifically granted by the constitution, or absolutely necessary to carry into effect some specific grant. Exclusive legislation means that no other Government shall have concurrent legislation. Congress shall exercise “like authority" over all places purchased for forts, arsenals, &c. The legislation and authority exercised in this District, in like manner, shall be exercised over places purchased for forts, &c. If, then, Congress is unlimited here, then it is unlimited in those other places where public works are; and if slavery can be abolished here, then, in like manner, can it be abolished in all those places in the heart of a State where there may be public works, &c. All the power intended to be given was to enable this Government to protect and preserve its public works and improvements, and “like authority" was intended to be given in this District--authority that might be essential to carry out the legitimate objects of the original trust, and no more. Any exercise of power beyond the obvious meaning and plain intentions of the grant of power at the time it was given, is a violation of its spirit and perversion of its purposes. Again: The ninth section expressly excludes Congress from prohibiting the importation of slaves until 1808. If the clause giving "exclusive legislation" embraces the power to abolish slavery, then it was created without limitation at the date of the instrument. But if Congress had, before 1808, attempted to prohibit the importation of slaves, here or elsewhere, it would have been directly against the letter of the constitution. There has been no new acquirement of power since the date of that instrument, nor enlargement of the provisions of the clause granting "exclusive legislation.' We cannot do that indirectly which we cannot do directly: and if Congress had abolished slavery here prior to 1808, it would have been the most effectual measure to prohibit their importation; and this they were clearly and expressly prohibited from doing. I do not refer to this so much as being perfectly conclusive as to show that it was the whole spirit and intention of the constitution that this Government should have no power to disturb this delicate and exciting subject. We all know the extreme jealousy that existed amongst the States on this matter at the formation of the constitution--so much so, that it was one of the principal difficulties in forming a "more perfect union." Is it to be supposed that Virginia, sensitive and jealous as she was at that time on the subject of slavery, would have ceded a portion of her territory and citizens, if she had, for one moment, conceived that, under the clause in the constitution conferring legislative powers, they were to be thrown at the mercy of other interests, and other sections, antagonist to herself on this vital point? The fifth amendment declares that "private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compen sation." Much less can it be taken for private use. cannot be taken except for public use. It becomes, then, It sons. use. We hold them as original rights, before and above the constitution, coming from the States in their separate existence. The compromises of the constitution relate entirely to the relative representation that the States, as political communities, shall have upon this floor; but this is not the source of rights to us in this or any other private property. The constitution recognises them as private property: the second section, apportioning our representation, the clause enabling the owner to recover | his fugitive slave, and the clause sanctioning their im portation until 1808, all show that the constitution recognises them as property, as things other than perThe judicial tribunals of the non-slaveholding as well as the slaveholding States have all settled this principle. Then they cannot be taken except for public What is public use? If they were wanted on our public works, if they were needed in a great emergency, then might they be taken on just compensation. But if there be any one thing clearer than another, it is, that abolition was not the public use contemplated in the constitution. They cannot be taken without just compensation, even for public use. How can money be drawn from the public Treasury, except through ap propriation by law? There can be no legal appropriation, except to carry into effect some specific power granted in the constitution, or clearly implied as absolutely necessary to carry into effect some specific grant. There is no specific power to abolish slavery, and it, being itself a high exercise of substantive power, cannot be implied as absolutely necessary to carry into effect any other power. As well might we pass appropria tions to pay the people of this District for their cattle and horses, to give them the blessed privilege of running free and unrestrained over the barren hills and waste commons around this Capitol. As to principle and power, it is the same. But it is said, all the States may emancipate, and this District be left without the means of changing its condition. This is certainly any thing but a constitutional argument; for I answer, that even if this were to be the case, it is the constitution, and will be so until it is changed by the proper authorities. There is really no difficulty on this point, as those who choose can now emanipate by deed or will. In connexion with the constitution, let us for a moment examine the act of cession from Virginia. The proviso declares "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 the same shall or may be transferred by such individuals to the United States." Let it be understood that this follows immediately after the clause describing the tract of country and particular extent of territory ceded. I admit the terms are somewhat equivocal at first. If the words, "the rights of individuals therein," refer only back to control the property in the soil, then they were of no use; for, under the constitution alone, Congress could not have interfered in the freehold. One of the first principles of the magna charta is, that no freeman shall be deseized of his freehold without a judgment of his peers. If those words were meant only to limit the power of the Government over the freehold of a citizen, then they were useless verbiage. Those who inserted them must have meant something more. When we look at the sensitiveness of Virginia on the interesting and vital subject of the peculiar property of her citizens she was about to cede, we are led to believe that she must have meant, in the words "rights of individuals therein," other rights than those of "soil." Connec this with the clauses in the constitution, and no man can refrain from admitting that it is, to say the least of it, a doubtful power, which every patriot in a limited Government would refrain from claiming as under the constitution. But, Mr. Speaker, I take higher ground than this, and contend that, according to the bill of rights of Maryland, and the constitution of Virginia, those States themselves could not have ceded absolute and unrestrained power over private property of any kind in this District. The citizens of this District had peculiar rights secured in their property by the constitutions of their own States; and if Virginia and Maryland had attempted to cede absolute power over this subject, they would have violated the rights of their own citizens, and would have committed, not a legal act, but an act of force. Next to life and liberty, these citizens had, under the paramount laws of the two adjoining States, the rights of property secured in the most solemn and unqualified manner; and as well might Virginia now divorce from herself any portion of her freemen, and transfer them, bound hand and foot, to the jurisdiction of New York, as to have thrown the citizens of this District, in their rights to a peculiar property, upon the uurestrained and tender mercy of this Government. Again: No State, from the Potomac to the Mississippi, under its constitution as it now stands, has any right to abolish slavery without the consent of the individual owners. I assert this upon that great principle of English liberty which is incorporated into every constitution, that no freeman shall be deprived of his property but by the judgment of his peers or the laws of the land. The constitutions are the paramount laws of the land, which the action of no Government, constituted under them, can legally subvert. States may do unlawful acts, which their citizens may assent to or acquiesce in, but this does not constitute legal authority. Those States that hold slaves as property might, if they desired, assemble in their conventions, representing the sovereign power of the community, for the specific object of abolishing that property, and the people might choose their delegates for that alone. But this would be a reorganization of the body politic, above the constitution. And even in convention they would do it under the unwritten and organic law that governs all simple consolidated communities, and which exists from the necessity of the case, that the majority must govern. This exists only in a consolidated community, when it is thrown into its simple and original elements. And even then the minority acquiesces more from a calculation of expediency than obligation. Sir, if this view be true of the great principles that regulate even the power of the States on this subject, how futile and shallow is that argument which claims for this Government all the legislative powers here that the States have within their territories. But it is stronger than this. The Government of the United States can acquire no legal power, even by consent of citizens. It has no existence beyond the express grants of the constitution, and no power can be acquired for it by the action or acquiescence of the people, as people or citizens: this must be given by the States that made it, and who alone can alter it. There is a wide mistake and loose notion on the sub ject of the power of Government over private property. Gentlemen draw their ideas on this subject from the history of European Governments and the jurisprudence of Great Britain. If there be any one principle that has distinguished our Revolution from all others, it is this: that we have succeeded in limiting and restricting the power of Government over private property, and more effectually securing the rights of citizens thereto. If this was not the great principle of the American Revolution, then it has none. The line that separates the [JAN. 21, 1836. power of Government from private property is the line that defines the limits of liberty, in all countries. I know, sir, that the British Government, under the claims of omnipotence in Parliament, has again and again trampled over the great principles of the magna charta, and it is not there that we are to look for examples to define our notions of power in Government over the property of a free people. Under the plea of state necessity and the high prerogatives of police power, a country may be protected and a people regulated, but the Government may be a despotism. But in this country, with our constitutions and limitations defined, I deny the right to interfere with private property except by "due process of law," through the verdict of a jury of freemen. It is, however, suggested that, although you cannot pass an act to abolish slavery at present, yet you may pass it to take effect in future, upon the post nati principle. Let us examine this. If the rights of citizens be secured unqualifiedly at present under the constitution, how can you directly or indirectly interfere in the future? If I have a perfect right to my stock, I have a right to its proceeds, and the Government that attempts to cut off the right of proceeds is as absolute and despotic as that which would take the property itself. A free Government may regulate and shape "descents," to preserve and protect them for the benefit of its citizens; but no Government is free that, instead of a wholesome and judicious exercise of this power, usurps to cut them off entirely. If Government have no right to destroy the existing property itself, it has no right to destroy its proceeds. The principle and the power are the same in the one case as the other. Mr. Speaker, allow me to suggest to our northern friends the propriety, if they can, of taking these con stitutional grounds. I respectfully suggest whether it would not be better for them to raise the constitutional restrictions as a shield between themselves and popular fanaticism, than to rely upon the grounds of expediency. If they intend to save the institutions of this country, let them raise the constitutional powers against the movements for abolition in this District; let them go home with the constitution in their hands, to show that it precludes any interference. I entreat them to take this ground now, and make the issue with this abolition spirit, when the good and the virtuous have some power and control. Put them down now, by this and strong acts of local legislation, or you will be compelled to come bere and cry aloud to save this Union, after it shall be too late, when the beacon-fires of an indignant people shall blaze over a thousand hills, and the swords of a hundred thousand freemen shall gleam on high to avenge our wrongs and vindicate our rights. Mr. Speaker, it has been said that slavery is a "foul blot upon our national escutcheon," "an evil," that "all men are created equal," &c. Let us examine these propositions for a moment. "All men are created equal." What, sir, was the meaning that the author of the Declaration attached to this proposition? Was it meant that all men are created equally strong and of equal size? Surely not. Was it meant that all men were born free? From the child in the bulrushes up to those of the present day, there never was an infant wrapped in "swaddling clothes" that was born free. Was it meant that all men were born with equal rights, to an equal destiny? From the time it was declared that the iniquities of some should be "visited unto the third and fourth generations"-from the days of Moses and the children of Israel—the history of mankind proclaims that there is "an elect and chosen few," made the peculiar receptacles of the favors and blessings of an allwise and all-pervading Providence. This is the world as we find it, and it is not for us to war upon destiny. What, then, was the meaning? It was intended to de clare the abstract truth that all men were born equally entitled to political privileges. Let us look into this as practical legislators. Throw man back into a state of savage existence; proclaim his physical and brutal propensities triumphant, and himself lord of the recesses of the wilderness, and then this abstract truth may have some practical bearing. But, let him accumulate property; let his intellectual attributes triumph over his brutal nature; make him civilized, and send him forth, erect in the image of his Maker, with the light of rea son and benevolence beaming from his countenance, then his great characteristic is, that he becomes a social being. Organize him into society, to act with his fellowman, and then proclaim the abstract truth that all men are equal, as a great fundamental doctrine to be practically acted upon, and you do nothing more nor less than raise his hand against every other man, and every other man's hand against him; and, instead of its becoming a doctrine full of light and peace to a world sleeping in darkness and bondage, it becomes a doc. trine of universal discord, confusion, and ruin. True, it is an abstract truth; but, like all other mere abstractions, it can have no actual existence. True and practical liberty, in my opinion, exists amongst a people who live under a system of ascertained and well-reguJated law, that has grown up from time immemorial out of the experience and absolute necessities of the society that is framed under it; and for one people, living in a totally different region, and under totally different circumstances, to attempt to give a system of political liberty to another people, living under entirely different wants and necessities, is one of the most stupid pieces of folly that belongs to the age, and partakes deeply of that arrogance and presumption which would prompt a blind despotism to proclaim one universal aud consolidated system for the government of mankind. You In the nineteenth century, when the great institutions of civilization have their foundations laid deep in the wants and experience of accumulated centuries, let no man, in the madness and folly of his zeal, be so reckless as to proclaim a mere abstract theoretical truth, for the purpose of calling up the most envious and malignant passions of the human heart, which must result in pulling down all that is settled and peaceful, and spreading around anarchy and blood. Let no public man act upon a great people by experimental theories. may proclaim a truth, and form a system perfect in your own mind, but put it into practical operation, and you may bring misery and wretchedness upon a happy land. Look to the French nation for the last half century, that great source of lessons so full of practical wisdom. They commenced by declaring that "all men were created equal." And the next great solemn act was to declare there was no God, and that the "Bible was a lie." What was the result? After they succeeded in transferring the property of the nation from those who had accumulated it to those who had none, then they chanted hallelujahs to their imaginary system of equality, even while the blood of virtue and innocence flowed in wide-spread sluices from the guillotine, under the hands of Robespierre and Danton. The same sword that was raised on high at Lodi and Marengo, to vindicate the equal rights of republican France, was soon, very soon, grasped by the hand of a tyrant and despot, who waved it, dripping with blood, over an enslaved and unhappy people. Let no man proclaim universal equality as practically to be enforced in any society on earth, unless he is prepared to appeal to universal revolution to sustain it. Mr. Speaker, we are denounced before the world for holding a race amongst us in domestic servitude. It is not my province, nor is this the place, to expound the precepts of divine law; but I lay down this proposition [H. OF R. as universally true, that there is not, nor never was, a society, organized under one political system for a period long enough to constitute an era, where one class would not practically and substantially own another class, in some shape or form. Let not gentlemen from the North start at this truth. We are yet, as a people, in our infancy. Society has not yet been pressed down into its classifications, Let us live through an era, and then we shali discover this great truth. All society settles down into a classification of capitalists and laborers. The former will own the latter, either collectively, through the Government, or individually, in a state of domestic servitude, as exists in the southern States of this confederacy. The only contest in the world is between the two systems. If laborers ever obtain the political power of a country, it is in fact in a state of revolution, which must end in substantially transferring property to themselves, until they shall become capitalists, unless those who have it shall appeal to the sword and a standing army to protect it. This is the history of all civilized people. There is not a Government in Christendom that does not rest upon this power, except our own, and here we have substituted for open force, constitutions, and the concentra. ted public opinion of communities. But we have not yet lived through experience, and it is yet to be seen whether bribery, corruption, and fraud, shall not take the place, for the present, of the constitution and public opinion, and finally force the old appeal to the sword. To illustrate this position, take one hundred men, and organize them under one government, and start them with your imaginary notion of all being equal. What is the result? The Creator has made some more active, more economical, more industrious, than others; and in five years, in all human probability, forty out of the hundred will accumulate property, while sixty will not. The political power must be supported by taxes and revenue; and if all have equal power, the sixty will lay taxes upon the forty, and distribute the revenue, not amongst the forty, but amongst themselves. This will in time substantially transfer the property of the forty to the sixty, or the former must appeal to the sword, when twenty out of the sixty will be paid to constitute a standing army, and form the basis of power in the forty. Let it be understood that, in the political action of classes, the restraints of public opinion and public responsibility do not operate through a series of years, but that man, acting in his collective capacity, is essentially impelled by his appetites, his passions, and his interests. It is only in his individual capacity that he becomes an intellectual, moral, and virtuous being. Let us analyze any Government on earth: take, for instance, the British constitution. The House of Lords represents the landed capitalists of Great Britain; the House of Commons the commercial and manufacturing capitalists; and both together represent the aggregate capitalists of the country. The King is supported as a third power, to check and balance the two other equal powers, and give vigor to the system. They are mutually interested in one thing only, and that is, to ascertain what the labor of the nation will live on, and all over and above that they take and divide among themselves and the interests they represent, by the power of raising revenue, and in its distribution. This they do in the ten thousand shapes and forms which human ingenuity and wickedness can invent: through a standing army and navy, the civil and diplomatic corps, and half a million of pensioned profligates, besides the whole system of taxation, by which all the burdens shall indirectly fall on one class, and the blessings on another. And this would inevitably be the result in every nonslaveholding State of this Union, in the course of time, under a separate and individual existence. As certain as destiny, property would there change hands, or those who have it would be compelled to appeal to the sword, or sink into political degradation. In addition to our infancy as a society, and the unparalleled superabundance of freehold, the Government here, through its distributions, has, to a certain extent, satisfied the laborers of the North, and diverted them from their capitalists at home. But nothing but open agrarianism can much longer keep in peace and subjection art excited and hungry multitude, who, under the cry of the "poor against the rich," may be raised, to clamor for vengeance around the vaults of hoarded wealth. The capitalists north of Mason and Dixon's line have precisely the same interest in the labor of the country that the capitalists of England have in their labor. Hence it is that they want a strong Federal Government, through which they may more effectually control the labor of the nation. But it is precisely the reverse with us. We already have not only a right to the proceeds of our laborers, but we own a class of laborers themselves. Hence it is that we want a strong Government at home and a weak one here, except so far as concerns our foreign relations. And hence it is that no doctrine that makes this Government controlled by the simple action of a majority of mere numbers, can be more desolating and fatal in its effects upon us. This, sir, is at the basis of all difference between the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States of this confederacy. But let me say to gentlemen who represent the great class of capitalists in the North, beware that you do not drive us into a separate system; for if you do, as certain as the decrees of Heaven, you will be compelled to appeal to the sword to maintain yourselves at home. It may not come in your day, but your children's children will be covered with the blood of domestic factions, and a plundering mob contending for power and conquest. Mr. Speaker, let us look for a moment into this modern crusade, raised all over the world against domestic servitude. The British Government violated the rights of property to emancipate a race in the West Indies, only to throw them upon the world, strolling vagrants and vagabonds. And it is remarkable that the same minister who held in his hand the act of emancipation to the black man abroad, rose in his seat to congratulate the nation that he was enabled to withdraw troops from foreign stations, and to "place them in the manufacturing districts" at home, "to keep down insurrection and disturbance." While a mistaken sympathy, and bigoted | and fanatical religion, can prompt men to feel for the imaginary evils of the black or red man of distant regions, there seems to be no heart for the suffering and slavery of the white man at home. The same Government that suffered itself to he forced to an act of emancipation, through the influence of stupid fanaticism, aided by the instigations of the British East India Company, for the purposes of gain and monopoly, actually holds in political vassalage at home, Ireland-the land of genius and eloquence. While seven millions of men around them feel all the pressure of despotism and abject slavery, in want and misery, they have the hardihood and shamelessness to proclaim emancipation abroad. While England holds in bondage one hundred millions of human beings in her East India possessions, where, if any native should dare to raise a voice (even although that voice should be a female princess) against British clemency or the British Government, immediately fifty thousand bayonets would spring up for plunder and murder; yet, sir, while this is notoriously the case, she has the hypocrisy to preach universal emancipation. Take, sir, a case nearer home. In the city of New York it is that societies upon societies have been formed, and thousands upon thousands raised, to alleviate the [JAN. 21, 1836. evils of the far South, and to regenerate our country. Go into that city-visit "Five Points," and there gaze, if you can, upon the scenes of wretchedness, guilt, wo, and misery. Behold thousands upon thousands, of all hues and complexions, dragging their starving and emaciated forms from their dens and cellars into the light and warmth of day, to support sinking nature. I believe there is more want, more evil, and more suffering, in that single city, than exists from the Potomac to the Mississippi. It would take all the resources of their societies to relieve those who suffer at home. Yet the stupidity, bigotry, and fanaticism of modern days, which are sweeping through the land, seem only to seek out distant objects, where the imagi nation exaggerates evil, on which to exercise their blind and ignorant benevolence. Mr. Speaker, as to the particular treatment of those we avow to hold in bondage, and our peculiar rights in them, I scorn to vindicate either the one or the other here. But let me say, sir, that our system of domestic servitude, where all the sympathies and interests that can bind individual capitalists and individual laborers together exist, is the same patriarchal system that existed in the first ages of society. Our classifications is into blacks and whites; and we openly avow before the world that we own the former, through both intellectual and physical force. We have nothing to conceal or disguise. Ours is the ancient system of society that existed amongst the Greeks and the Romans, and, to a certain extent, in the feudal serf system of the Gallic race. And here let me refer, when the world supposes it full of intrinsic weakness and evil, let me but refer to a single instance. I allude to Attica, where there were 536,000 souls, and out of them only 122,000 free citizens. And where does the world look for the highest specimens of art, and taste, and refinementwhere for the loftiest and purest strains of poetry and eloquence--where for the noblest and most exalted examples of arms and patriotism, but to Athens? Ours is a frank and bold system, that sustains itself by open and undisguised power. And let me say that here consists the great difference between the ancients and the moderns: the former were more open, frank, and bold; the latter have more ingenuity, duplicity, and cunning. The modern system of ruling classes through the Govern ment, and party ascendency, rests upon duplicity, bribery, and fraud. Hence it is that there has not been, for the last hundred years, a statute passed in Great Britain, professing to give equal rights and privileges to the great mass of the people, whose preamble is not full of falsehood and bypocrisy. Public men are trained up, from the institutions of modern society, to practise deception, duplicity, flattery, and fraud, that one half of society may rule the other half. Look, for instance, to the State of New York, as things now exist there. We find an artful, profligate, and daring party, leagued together by moneyed corporations, by the distribution of offices, and the power and terror of perfect organization, for the open purpose of swaying the political destinies of the country. Sir, I solemnly believe that, for baseness of purpose and in degrading means, no party has ever risen in any civilized country to equal it, since the Jacobinic clubs of France held their midnight meetings; when no man dare whisper the secrets of his heart, even to the partner of his bosom, without being arraigned under their terrible inquisition. I appeal to the minority from that State, on this floor, to know if they do not live under a system of political vassalage, in which the dominant party openly spread out upon their banners, "booty--booty!" the "spoils of victory belong to the conquerors!" and under this vile standard call upon their mercenary bands to gather into |