Part 18 (1/2)

”I would not have a slave to till my ground, To watch me when I wake--to fan me when I sleep;”

and much more of the same stuff!

In this way false ideas are inculcated throughout the North. The whole scheme is full of falsehood. It would be far better for each man to look for the beam in his own eyes before he troubles himself about the mote in his neighbor's.

England, also, has been very fierce in denouncing slavery in this country, and yet we have no slavery or misery to be compared with that existing in the India provinces. It is said that in a single season two hundred thousand of her subjects were starved to death in one province of Hindostan.

I might say the same thing almost of Ireland. Two millions have died there from famine, and G.o.d knows how many more would have perished but for the relief sent from this country. I say, and I have abundant reason for saying, that I never have, and I never will, favor any of these denunciations of southern slaveholders and slavery.

Let us rather look at this subject as members of a common family--let us acknowledge our mutual faults. The slave trade was once fostered by the North. That was when it was profitable, and when large fortunes were made in that trade by northern men. When it became unprofitable the North began to denounce it, and to call it sinful. Now, we fastened this inst.i.tution upon the South, cannot we permit her to deal with it as she chooses?

I do not say that there is a necessary conflict between the white and the black races, but I a.s.sert that they cannot unite--that they cannot occupy the same country upon an equality. Our free laborers of the North will not work with slaves or with blacks. I have had experience in this matter, and I know I am right. The only way we can do, is to divide the common territory--divide it fairly, honestly.

Suppose there were two sons who succeeded to a joint inheritance of lands. One says to the other, ”Your family is not so moral as mine, therefore your sons shall have none of the lands.” Would this be right or honest? Would any one attempt to justify it? And yet this is what extreme men of the North are practically saying to the citizens of the South.

The Missouri Compromise was intended to settle the rights of the respective sections in the territories. The line adopted was not unfair to the North. The same line will answer now. I am for adopting it and arranging this difficult subject finally.

But one and another says, ”Don't let us extend slavery.” To that I answer, that our action will not make one slave more or less. There is no question of humanity involved in our propositions. I cannot see what question is involved so far as the North is concerned. We need no more territory. We do not want New Mexico. We have territory enough now for one hundred and fifty millions of people, and enough for the expansion of our people for one hundred and fifty years.

If gentlemen are found here who wish to make trouble, who cannot see the peril we are in, and how easily we can avoid the danger which threatens us, I shall be much pained, but not half so much as I shall be, to see this Union broken up and the Government destroyed.

I was surprised to hear the a.s.sertion of the gentleman from Connecticut, that this was an unconst.i.tutional a.s.sembly. I hear to-day the statement made that it is a revolutionary a.s.sembly. If these a.s.sertions were true I would not be a member of it for one moment. If revolutionary, it is either treasonable or seditious. But it is neither. These gentlemen forget the const.i.tutional right of pet.i.tion.

We have the right to meet here. We have the right to do just what we are proposing to do, and the right is to be found in the Const.i.tution.

I am surprised, too, at the a.s.sertion, that there is a wish here to limit or cut off debate--that this resolution would cut off New York.

Would it not cut off Ohio? I have no intention of depriving any gentleman or any State of any right. I do not believe such an intention exists in the Conference.

Mr. MORRILL:--In my judgment many subjects have been considered here, and many things said to the North especially, that are superfluous, and much more that is useless. I have listened to the gentleman from Ohio and to some gentlemen who have preceded him. They have all referred, in terms which I do not choose to characterize, to the action and the opinions of the North.

The gentleman from Ohio refers in strong terms to what he calls the sentimentalism of the North. He has recited poetry which he says is popular there.

Now, once for all, let me ask those gentlemen who are proposing various methods of settling our differences: Do you propose to make war upon the _sentiments_, the _principles_ of the North? If you do, we may as well drop the discussion here. Our people, and we, their representatives, cannot meet you upon that ground. Our principles cannot be interfered with; we carry them with us always. Our consciences approve them. We can negotiate with you, and treat with you upon subjects which do not involve their sacrifice. If it is your purpose to attack them, you may abandon all other purposes so far as this body is concerned. The people of the North will never sacrifice their principles. It is useless for you to ask them to do so. It is entirely useless for you to urge war upon the sentiments or opinions of the North.

Again; let me tell you there is no disloyalty in the free States. The word dissolution has not been thought of there during the last half century. In all your discussions, in all your action, remember that we are loyal to the Const.i.tution and the Union.

Strong appeals are made here to the free States. You call them by the general name of the Northern States. Gentlemen undertake to pledge different sections to this or that policy. We are told that New York--that Ma.s.sachusetts--that Pennsylvania will adopt or will not adopt various propositions that are made here.

Sir, in my judgment all such questions are unworthy of our consideration. We spend time to little purpose upon them. The true question here is, ”What will Virginia do? How does Virginia stand?”

She to-day holds the keys of peace or war. She stands in the gateway threatening the progress of the Government in its attempts to a.s.sert its legal authority. Evade it as you may--cover it as you will--the true question is, ”What will Virginia do?” She undertakes to dictate the terms upon which the Union is to be preserved. What will satisfy her?

Mr. CLAY:--Has not Virginia spoken? Has she not already told us what she wants?

Mr. MORRILL:--I am coming to that point very soon. I a.s.sert again that Virginia must not be misunderstood in this matter.

The peril of the time is _Secession_. Six States are already in revolution. A distinct confederacy, a new government, has been organized within the limits of the United States.

Does Virginia to-day, frown upon this atrocious proceeding? No! so far from that she affirms that these States have a right to do what they have done. She boasts that she has armed her people, that she has raised five millions of money, and that she will use both to prevent the interference of the National Government with these States, now in revolution. Whether her course will conciliate the free States--whether under such circ.u.mstances the free States will negotiate with Virginia or others in her position, I leave for others to consider. It is my opinion that the people of this country will first of all _demand the recognition of the supremacy of the Government_.

Mr. RUFFIN:--No! I do not understand such to be the position of Virginia. She appeals to both sides to refrain from violence while these negotiations are pending.