is forbidden by law. We claim that the right to hold
slaves is a natural right, recognized by the law of nations, and of
the world. I am quite aware that the North does not agree with our
opinion.
Mr. VANDEVER:--I would ask whether this normal condition is confined
to the blacks, or does it extend to all races?
Mr. BARRINGER:--Most assuredly it is not confined to a single race. It
extends to all races. Slavery of all races exists even in Europe.
Mr. FIELD:--Not now!
Mr. BARRINGER:--Perhaps not now, and why? For the reason that it has
been abolished by law, as in the recent case of Russia. Slavery once
existed in the Northern States. By law it was also abolished in those
States. We say that when slave property is on the high seas it ought
to be protected--the rights of the owner ought to be protected.
This question came up in the case of the "Amistead." Mr. ADAMS claimed
that although these slaves were recognized by the laws of Spain as
property, yet, when once upon the high seas, they were, by the law of
nations, _free_, and these slaves have never been paid for to this
day.
This amendment is highly important to the South. The concession we ask
is no greater than has been made before. In the treaties of 1783 and
1815, slaves were to be protected as property.
Mr. WICKLIFFE:--I do not wish to nullify the action, or change the
course of our Government on this question. Slaves upon the high seas
have always been recognized as property. Look at the treaty of 1815.
That recognized slaves as property, and those which were taken from
the District were paid for. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, took the same
ground now taken by the North. The Government took the opposite
ground. The question was ultimately referred to the Emperor of Russia,
who decided that property in slaves must be recognized by the law of
nations, and sustained our view. Take the "Creole" case also. But I
will not go over the ground. The "Amistead" case stood upon grounds
which were entirely different.
But it is not necessary to put this amendment into the Constitution.
The rights of the South in this respect are well enough protected now.
Mr. GRANGER:--I regret that the distinguished gentleman from Virginia
has again raised a question which was decided against him by a large
majority in the Conference a few days ago.
Mr. SEDDON:--The gentleman is quite correct. The principle must be the
same whether applied to the Territories or to the high sea
|