FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297  
298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   >>   >|  
reciprocal; to make us entirely safe. Our security must be put into the bond and be faithfully preserved. The present _status_ of the States in the Union is deceptive. If I am to remain in the Union, it don't suit me. If I am to go into a southern confederacy, it is just what I should want. Beware, gentlemen of the North! You are cutting yourselves off from future glory and expansion. Mr. VANDEVER:--The gentleman from North Carolina wants the distinct recognition of slavery in the bond. I would like to refer him to the condition of this question when the Constitution was adopted. The men of that time would not assert such a position. They did not think it proper or necessary. If we adopt his views we attempt to sit in judgment on the men of that day. Mr. CALHOUN understood this matter perfectly, and in one of his speeches refers to the unwillingness of the Convention to recognize slavery specifically. The sentiment of Iowa is that no such recognition ought to be made now. I am opposed to the amendment. Mr. SEDDON:--I consider this an important amendment, and a very just one. The principle upon which we are proceeding is that of partition. We, with our property are prohibited from going north of the line. The exact correlative of that would be, that you should be prohibited from going south with your institutions. That we do not ask. On one side involuntary servitude is prohibited. On the other we simply ask that it may be recognized. We give up two-thirds of the territory altogether. All we ask is protection in the remaining one-third. What is the meaning of this proposition as it now stands? Who does not see that its meaning is ambiguous? It requires us to give up territorial protection, and leaves us with nothing but the shred of a right protected by the Federal courts. Once more let me tell you, that in my opinion the South will never consider this a satisfactory adjustment. You say we are protected by the principles of the common law. Who can tell what this will amount to? Assuming the territorial government to be favorable, it could do nothing. You leave it powerless. Suppose a citizen of Virginia emigrates to the territory south of the line with his property. He would have no earthly right except under the laws of Virginia. The power to enforce those laws is a thousand miles away. If we are to make a partition, let it be a partition. As the provision stands, it is the unfairest bargain ever made. It is all
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   273   274   275   276   277   278   279   280   281   282   283   284   285   286   287   288   289   290   291   292   293   294   295   296   297  
298   299   300   301   302   303   304   305   306   307   308   309   310   311   312   313   314   315   316   317   318   319   320   321   322   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

partition

 

prohibited

 

property

 

amendment

 
protected
 

territorial

 

Virginia

 

slavery

 
stands
 

meaning


protection
 
territory
 

recognition

 

courts

 

faithfully

 

ambiguous

 

requires

 

Federal

 

leaves

 

security


present
 

thirds

 

altogether

 

deceptive

 

recognized

 

remain

 
States
 
remaining
 

preserved

 
proposition

status

 

reciprocal

 
enforce
 

earthly

 

emigrates

 
thousand
 
bargain
 

unfairest

 

provision

 

citizen


Suppose

 

satisfactory

 

adjustment

 
principles
 

opinion

 
common
 

powerless

 

favorable

 

government

 
amount