Mr. CLAY:—I think the gentleman misunderstands the report. I have seen no proposition that proposes to confine or restrain emigration.
Mr. SMITH:—I concede that there is no express provision restricting emigration, but such I think will be the effect of the amendments.
By the third section, Congress is prohibited, forever, from interfering with the subject of slaves, and the sixth section makes the others, with certain provisions of the Constitution as it now stands, irrepealable and unchangeable. No matter how much the condition of the country may change; no matter if all but the most inconsiderable fraction of the people may desire to change them; these propositions must stand as long as this country stands, a part of its fundamental law.
These are the general provisions which the scheme contains. It is offered as a measure of peace; of conciliation; to calm and quiet the existing excitement.
I think I am right in saying that when you are making a constitution you should consider all the conditions of the people who are to be governed by it; that you should keep in view all sections and opinions. It is my belief that instead of calming the excitement these propositions will aggravate it—will arouse it to a pitch it has never yet attained. I believe this, because the entire proposition goes counter to the fundamental ideas upon which our Government is based.
It proposes to establish slavery South. Is not this the first time in the history of the Constitution that it has ever been proposed, by affixing an article to that instrument, to establish—to plant slavery in territory which was free when it was acquired? The ordinance of 1787 prohibited slavery from going into the territory which was acquired by it.
In similar language the article proposes to abolish slavery in the territory north of the line. It is well to consider what is the legal condition of that territory now. New Mexico and Arizona were free when we first acquired them. Is not this provision wholly unnecessary? Mr. Clay left such language out of the Missouri Compromise, as he avowed, on the ground that slavery could not legally go into territory free when it was acquired, without the aid of affirmative legislation. Previous and up to the year 1850, there was no difference of opinion among lawyers on this question. All agreed with Mr. Clay.
Now, slavery has gone into a portion of this territory; violently too; without such legislation. Limits are prescribed to it, it is true, but it is there, and in this way. That is the status which is to be recognized, constitutionalized by these articles. I am aware that there is a law of the territory that authorizes slavery, but slavery went there without law, in spite of the opinions and opposition of Mr. Clay.
This is shown by the debate of 1850. It is proposed now to convert the territory south of the line of 36° 30´ into slave territory, and to make that conversion irrevocable. Suppose these propositions had been applied at the moment the territory was acquired. Then certainly slavery would have been carried there by force of these articles alone. The principle would have been the same; one case being no stronger than the other.
Mr. President, I shall not enter into any discussion of the merits or demerits of the question in any other than its political aspects. I have nothing to say respecting the morals of slavery. If there is virtue in the institution, you have the credit of it; if there is sin, you must answer for it. And here let me say that you discuss the moral aspect of slavery much more than we do. We hold it to be strictly a State institution. So long as it is kept there, we have nothing to do with it. It is only when it thrusts itself outside of State limits, and seeks to acquire power and strength by spreading itself over new ground, that we insist upon our objections.