The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Second Session] Page: 1,309
[599] p.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
1309
HISTORY OF CONGRESS.
1310
March, 1798.]
Georgia Ldmits,
[H. opR.
trary, it was his opinion, that if the slaves of the
Southern States were permitted to go into this
Western country, by lessening the number in those
States, and spreading them over a large surface
of country, there would be a greater probability
of ameliorating their condition, which could never
be done whilst they were crowded together as
they bow are in the Southern States.
Mr. Hartley said, he had himself intended to
have brought forward an amendment similar to
the present, but, on inquiry, he found so many
difficulties in the way, that he was obliged to
abandon it. He found it would interfere with,
and be a serious attack upon, the property of that
country. He was sorry it was not in the power of
Congress to gratify the wishes of philanthropists
in this respect, by doing away slavery altogether;
but this could not be done at present, and as he
believed the present amendment, if carried, would
be attended with bad effects, he should vote
against it.
Mr. Gallatin said, if he saw any of the great in-
conveniences wbich were foretold as likely to
arise from this amendment, he should certainly
vote against it. He should be extremely averse
to the adoption of any principle which should
either directly or indirectly lead to the produc-
tion of any commotion or insurgency in any State
where there is a great number of slaves. He did
not see how any such effect could be produced by
the present motion; for, notwithstanding what
had fallen from the gentleman from South Caro-
lina, it did not appear to him how a regulation
with respect to another Territory can affect the
peace, tranquillity, or property of any other State.
How the forbidding of slavery in the Mississippi
Territory could produce a worse effect than the
same regulation in the Northwestern Territory,
or in Pennsylvania, or in several other States.
The amendment, therefore, could not be opposed
on that ground; it must be on some other. Ought
it to be rejected on the ground of jurisdiction?
Certainly not. The United States intend to ex-
ercise jurisdiction over that Territory, and was
there any more reason for excepting this jurisdic-
tion than any other ? If we establish this Gov-
ernment we expect it to be permanent; aud if we
believe it is not conducive to the happiness of any
people, but the contrary, to legalize slavery, when
we are about to form a Constitution for a Terri-
tory, its establishment ought to be prevented. But,
if this amendment is rejected, we establish slavery
for the country, not only during its temporary
Government, but for all the time it is a State;
for, by the constant admission of slaves, the num-
ber will increase to a certain degree, and when the
Territory shall become a State, the interest of the
holders will be such as to procure a Constitution
which shall admit of slavery, and it will be there-
by made permanent. Having determined sla-
very was bad policy for the Northwestern Terri-
tory, he saw no reason for a contrary determina-
tion with respect to this Territory.
There was, then, only one solitary objection to
the amendment, and that might easily be obviat-
ed. It was with respect to the situation of the
people already settled there who are possessed 4gf
slaves. It would be extremely impolitic and un-
just to declare by ordinance that the people set-
tled there, either under the British. Spanish, or
Georgia Governments, should be deprived of this
kind of property; and if this was the effect of the
amendment, he would vote against it. Such a
regulation would be attended with the worst of
consequences ; but other words may be easily in-
troduced to guarantee the property of the persons
already settled there.
By the laws of the different States, Mr. G. said,
the importation of slaves is forbidden ; but if this
amendment does not obtain, he knew not how
slaves could be prevented from being introduced
by way of New Orleans, by persons who are not
citizens of the United States. He hoped, there-
fore, the amendment would be agreed to.
Mr. Nicholas believed it not only to be the
interest of the Southern States, but of the United
States, that this motion should be rejected. They
were to legislate for the whole of the Union, and
ought to consult the happiness of the whole. It
was not for them to attempt to make a particular
spot of country more happy than all the rest. If
it was a misfortune to the Southern States to be
overwhelmed with this kind of property, he asked
if it would not be doing service not only to them
but to the whole Union, to open this Western
country, and by that means spread the blacks over
a large space, so that in time it might be safe to
carry into effect the plan which certain philan-
thropists have so much at heart, and to which he
had no objection, if it could be effected, viz : the
emancipation of this class of men? And when this
country shall have become sufficiently populous
to become a State, and the Legislature wishes to
discountenance slavery, the increase of slaves may
be prevented, and such means taken to get rid of
slavery altogether, perhaps in conjunction with
other parts of the United States, who by that time
may be in such a situation as to admit of it, as
shall appear prudent and proper.
Mr. Thatcher was of an opinion directly op-
posite to the gentleman who had just sat down.
Indeed, they seldom did agree in sentiment; to-day
they differed very widely. He believed the true
interest and happiness of the United States would
be promoted by agreeing to this amendment; be-
cause its tendency was to prevent the increase of
an evil which was acknowledged by the very gen-
tlemen themselves who are owners of slaves. In-
deed the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Nicholas)
had frequently declared in that House, that slavery-
was an evil of great magnitude. In this respect
they agreed in opinion; for he considered the ex-
istence of slavery in the United States as the
greatest of evils, an evil in direct hostility to the
principles of our Government; and he believed
the Government had the right to take all due mea-
sures to diminish and destroy the evil, although
in doing it they might injure the property of some
individuals ; for he never could be brought to be-
lieve that an individual can have a right in any-
thing which goes to the destruction of our Govern-
ment, viz: that he can have a right m a wrong.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
Gales, Joseph, 1761-1841. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States, Fifth Congress, [Second Session], book, 1851; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29472/m1/49/: accessed April 19, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.