XXXI. 1819 CHAPTER found it to be a curse; if they desire to dissipate the gloom with which it covers their land, I call upon them to exclude it from the territory in question. Plant not its seeds in this uncorrupt soil! Let not our children, in looking back to the proceedings of this day, say of them, as we have been constrained to say of our fathers-we wish their decision had been different; we regret the existence among us of this unfortunate population; but we found them here; we know not what to do with them; it is our misfortune; we must bear it with patience! "To the objection that the amendment, if adopted, will diminish the value of a species of property in one portion of the Union, and thereby operate unequally, I reply, that if, by depriving slaveholders of the Missouri market, the business of raising slaves should become less profitable, it would be, not the object of this measure, but an effect incidentally produced. The law prohibiting the importation of foreign slaves was not passed to enhance the value of those then in the country, yet it incidentally produced that effect to a very great degree. The exclusion of slavery from Missouri may operate, perhaps, to some extent, to retard a further advance. But surely, when gentlemen consider the present demand, and the vast extent of country in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama requiring a supply, they ought not to oppose its exclusion from the territory in question. "But it is further objected that the amendment is calculated to disfranchize our brethren from the South by discouraging their emigration to the country west of the Mississippi. If it were proposed to discriminate between citizens of the different sections of our Union, and to allow a Pennsylvanian to hold slaves there while that power was denied to a Virginian, the objection might very properly be made. But when we place all upon an SPEECH OF TAYLOR. 678 XXXI. equal footing, denying to all what we deny to one, I am CHAPTER unable to discover the injustice or inequality of which honorable gentlemen have thought proper to complain. 1819. The description of immigrants may in some measure be affected by the amendment. If slavery shall be tolerated, the country will be settled by rich planters with their slaves. If it shall be rejected, the emigrants will chiefly consist of the poorer and more laborious classes of society. If it be true that the prosperity and happiness of a country ought to constitute the great object of its legislators, I can not hesitate for a moment which species of popula tion deserves most to be encouraged. In their zeal to oppose the amendment gentlemen seem to have considered but one side of the case. If the prohibition of slavery will tend to discourage migration from the South, will not its admission have the same effect with relation to the North and East? Whence came the people, who, with a rapidity never before witnessed, have changed the wilderness between the Ohio and the Mississippi into fruitful fields, erecting there, within a period almost too short for the credence of future ages, three of the freest and most flourishing states of the Union? They came, sir, from the eastern hive, from that source of popula tion, which, in the same time, has added more than a hundred thousand inhabitants to my own native state, besides furnishing seamen for a large portion of the navigation of the world; seamen who have unfurled your banner in every port to which the enterprise of man has gained admittance, and who, though poor themselves, have drawn rich treasures for the nation from the bosom of the deep. Do you believe that these people will settle in a country where they must take rank with negro slaves? Having neither the will nor the ability to hold slaves themselves, they labor cheerfully while labor is Vl.-U U CHAPTER honorable. Make it disgraceful, they will despise it. XXXI. You can not degrade it more effectually than by estab 1819. lishing a system whereby it shall be performed princi pally by slaves. The business in which slaves are principally engaged, be it what it may, soon becomes debased in public estimation. It is considered low, and unfit for freemen. Can I better illustrate this truth than by referring to a remark of the gentleman from Kentucky (Clay)? I have often admired the liberality of his sentiments. He is governed by no vulgar preju dices. Yet with what abhorrence did he speak of the performance by our wives and daughters of those domestic duties which he was pleased to call servile! What comparison did he make between the black slaves of Kentucky and the white slaves of the North, and how instantly did he strike the balance in favor of the condition of the former! If such opinions and expressions can fall, even in the ardor of debate, from that gentleman, what ideas do you suppose are entertained of laboring men by the generality of slaveholders? A gentleman from Virginia replies that they are treated with confidence and esteem, and their rights respected. I did not imagine that they were put out of the protection of the law. Their persons and property are doubtless secure from violence, or, if injured, the courts of justice are open to them. But in a country like this, where the people are sovereign, and every citizen is entitled to equal rights, the mere exemption from flagrant wrongs is no great privilege. No class of freemen should be excluded in this country, either by law, or by the ostracism of public opinion, more powerful than law, from competing for offices and political distinctions. A humane master will respect the rights of his slave, and, if worthy, will honor him with confidence and esteem. And it is DEBATE ON THE MISSOURI QUESTION. 675 XXXI. this same measure, as I apprehend, that is dealt out in CHAPTER slaveholding states to the laboring class of their white population. But whom of that class have they ever 1819. called to fill stations of any considerable responsibility? When have we seen a representative on this floor from that section of our Union who was not a slaveholder? Who but slaveholders are elected to their state Legislatures? Who but they are appointed to fill their executive or judicial offices? I appeal to gentlemen whether the selection of one who labors with his own hands, however well educated, would not be considered an extraordinary event? For this I do not reproach my brethren of the South. They doubtless choose those to represent them in whom they most confide, and far be it from me to intimate that their confidence is ever misplaced. But my objection is to the introduction of a system which can not but produce the effect of rendering labor disgraceful." Such speeches were very hard to be answered, and the excitement which they produced is not so much to be wondered at. Yet, with all allowance on this score, a strange degree of privilege was assumed by and conceded to the members from the South. The Hartford Convention was still the object of a vast deal of odium; all connected with it, or supposed to have favored it, were still subjected to a most rigorous political excommunication, on the bare suspicion, though the thing was strenuously disavowed by those implicated, of having secretly consulted about, or at least silently contemplated, the dissolution of the Union. Yet this same dissolution was now openly threatened by Southern members on the floor of Congress. What provocation the Hartford Conventionists had, we have seen. The provocation on the part of the South was their not being allowed to spread what CHAPTER they admitted to be a terrible evil over the whole terriXXXI. tory west of the Mississippi. A test of patriotic endur1819. ance and submission for themselves, so different from that laid down by the Southern politicians for others, certainly gave some color to the old complaints of the Federalists, that the Northern States had all along been regarded and treated as mere vassals. What in Southern representatives was but a manly refusal to submit to a domineering interference with constitutional rights, still continued to be denounced as having been in Northern men, under provocations ten thousand times greater, nothing short of, at least, moral treason. When the Arkansas bill reached the Senate, a motion was made by Roberts, of Pennsylvania, to insert a prohibition of slavery. This failed, 19 to 14, several of the Northern senators absent, and Taylor, of Indiana, voting against it. The bill then passed without a division. That new territory, more extensive than the present State of Arkansas, included the whole district north of the State of Louisiana, and south of 36° 30' of north latitude. It was presently organized, with Colonel Miller, late of the army, as governor. The proviso in the Missouri bill against the further introduction of slaves, though supported by some strong speeches in its favor, especially from King, was struck out, 22 to 19--Otis, of Massachusetts, Lacock, of Pennsylvania, the two Illinois and the two Delaware senators voting with the slaveholders. The clause for freeing the children of slaves received but seven votes. The House, by the close vote of 78 to 76, refused to concur in these amendments. The Senate would not recede, March 2. and so the bill was lost. The other proceedings of the session worthy of notice were a joint resolution for naming the public vessels |