صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

invasion of the British. Orders were immediately issued, calling for the entire militia to defend the advanced settlements. The father of Mr. Giddings had been a Revolutionary soldier, and permitted him to join the troops, although not subject to military duty, being less than seventeen years of age. After they had marched two days, it was thought proper to discharge one half of the militia; but Mr. Giddings remained with those who went forward, and continued with them until they were reliev ed by the regular army, in November following. During this short campaign the first battle was fought by the militia on that frontier. . It took place on the 29th of September, on the peninsula north of Sandusky Bay, between a body of some hundred and thirty Indians and sixty-five volunteers from our camp, twelve of whom were killed or wounded. In that battle Mr. Giddings participated. An account of it, written by himself some years ago, may be found in the "Western Repository."

In 1817 he was prevailed upon to engage in teaching a district school. He was not qualified for the business, but turned his attention wholly to it, and was able to effect a satisfactory completion of his engagement. He became a close student under a neighboring clergyman, and made rapid progress in grammar, arithmetic, and mathematics, and also acquired a pretty good knowledge of the Latin language. Having abandoned finally all further thoughts of farming, he commenced the study of the law with his friend and predecessor in Congress, Elisha Whittlesey. In February, 1821, Mr. Giddings was admitted to the bar. He settled at the county seat where he now lives, and commenced practice. He acquired business rapidly, and was soon among the leading members of the bar. In the same year he married Laura Waters, daughter of Abner Waters, of Trumbull county, farmer. He has, living, three sons and two daughters. In 1826 he was elected to the State Legislature, and in 1827 declined a re-election. He applied himself to his profession until 1838, when he was elected to the twentyfifth Congress, to fill the unexpired term of Elisha Whittlesey, who had resigned. Since that time he has been regularly reelected to every successive Congress. His politics are Whig.

On taking his seat as a member of the House, he found in full operation that peculiar policy by which, under the resolu

tions of Mr. Pinkney, of South Carolina, as embodied in the rule commonly called the twenty-first, all petitions relating to the subject of slavery were denied either a hearing, reference, or consideration of any kind, beyond the privilege of being laid upon the table. Like Mr. Adams, who had never failed to denounce this policy as an outrage upon northern freemen and northern rights, Mr. Giddings constantly assailed it, and at every opportunity endeavored to hold it up to the reprobation of the free states. He became a favorite medium through which petitions were presented from all quarters of the Union on the subject of slavery, and especially for its abolition in the District of Columbia; and he was soon marked down as an Abolitionist in the most reproachful sense of the term.

To what extent he is entitled to this designation, the reader may decide for himself presently. We have at all times understood him to assert the power of the Federal government over slavery in the District of Columbia. He held that, by the transfer of the district to the jurisdiction of the Federal government, the laws of Maryland and Virginia ceased to have force and effect when Congress took possession of the territory; that by the act of February the 27th, 1801, the laws of those states were revived and continued in force, thereby becoming, by adoption, the laws of Congress. And he contends, that by repealing those laws now, slavery would, ipso facto, cease to exist. Closely observant of his course as our duties have compelled us to be, we have never heard him utter the first syllable in assertion of the power of the government to interfere. with that institution in the states. On the contrary, we find his name recorded in the affirmative on the adoption of the following resolution, offered by Mr. Atherton, of New Hamp shire, in December, 1838:

"Resolved, That this government is a government of limited powers, and that, by the Constitution of the United States, Congress has no jurisdiction whatever over the institution of slavery in the several states of the confederacy."

And, on another occasion, he said, "I protest I will stand by the constitutional interests of the South as long as any man on this floor."

In respect to the slave-trade between the states, we have understood him to regard it as a matter over which Congress had

no constitutional control, and with which it could not in any manner interfere.

But we have his own avowal to the fact that he is an Abolitionist, and we find also on record his own definition of the term, as he considers it applicable to himself.

In a speech delivered by Mr. Payne, of Alabama, on the rules of the House, in January, 1844, that gentleman was addressing himself to the Abolitionists. The record says:

"Here Mr. Payne was interrupted by Mr. Giddings.

"Mr. Payne. 'Is the gentleman himself an Abolitionist ?" "Mr. Giddings. I am an Abolitionist.""

And in another place, he thus explains himself:

"I am an Abolitionist to the full extent in which I understand that term. I have conversed with hundreds, perhaps I may say thousands, but I have never heard one intimate any intention or wish to interfere politically with the institution of slavery in Kentucky, or any other state. They claim no such right, nor do they ask any such privilege. Gentlemen may consider me as speaking ex cathedrà, if they choose. I say that all imputations and charges of their desire to do so are, so far as I am informed, unfounded. On the contrary, they ask to be relieved from such interference and taxation for the support of slavery. We ask that the government should not interfere with it. Let us cease to appropriate the money of the free states for the support of slavery. Let Congress cease to involve the free states in the disgrace or support of that institution, and we shall be satisfied as to political action."

And again he says:

"The term abolition is one by which, probably, no two men understand the same thing. One attaches to it one sense, another attaches to it another. Going back to the origin of the whole matter-to the adoption of the Constitution to ascertain and develop the true point in controversy, I have compared my ideas on the subject with those of the slave-holders of the South-men of honor and of candor-with whom I have conversed, and I am yet unable to lay my hand on the constitutional principle which they deny and I maintain, or which they maintain and I deny."

It is well known-and by none better than by Mr. Giddings himself that a feeling of prejudice against him and his doc

trines has pervaded the House of Representatives for a number of years past. In all that he has done, we have understood him as contending for two great principles: first, for the free'dom of debate, as applicable to all matters touching the question of slavery; and, secondly, that the government possessed no constitutional power to tax the free states for, or involve them in, the support of slavery-as, for example, with reference to the Florida war and the case of the Creole. That war, he has always contended, had its origin in conflicting claims to negro property between the Creeks and Seminoles.

In the enforcement of these principles, no regard has been paid to time or circumstances, or to that more subtle and indefinable thing known as the temper of the House. We have seen him lash its inflammable elements into fury, he alone remaining calm amid the storm. No thoughts of expediency, no considerations of the fitness of things, seem to have found place in his mind. And if he has faithfully represented the senti ments of his constituents, even his enemies must award him the praise of having done that which others, of whom better things were expected, have, in respect to the same topic in another aspect, signally failed to do.

But it is fair that he should speak for himself. In 1842-3 he published, under the signature of "Pacificus," certain essays upon the constitutional powers of the Federal government over the institution of slavery. They are worthy the attention of the jurist and the statesman. In February, 1841, speaking in the House on the subject of the Florida war, he said:

"I hold that if the slaves of Georgia or any other state leave their masters, the Federal government has no constitutional authority to employ our army or navy for their recapture, or to apply the national treasure to repurchase them. We possess no constitutional power to do either. If, however, gentlemen of the South, who hold to a strict and rigid construction of that instrument, will point me to the clause of our constitution containing such authority, I will confess my obligations to them. Such power would necessarily include the power to tax the free states to an indefinite extent for the support of slavery, and for arresting every fugitive slave who has fled from his master, within the several states of this Union. Such power I deny most distinctly and emphatically. But, sir, we have as much

« السابقةمتابعة »