« السابقةمتابعة »
trict. He held in his hand a resolution which he intended to move, and which he thoald move, by way of amendment, when this House entertained the resolution of the gentleman from Massachusetts, having for its object an inquiry into the conduct of these members, and, if they were found guilty, their expulsion from this body, as unworthy to hold seats on this floor.
"Mr. Giddings said, beforehe proceeded to comment on this extract, he would correct an error into which a gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanton) had fallen. That gentleman said that be (Mr. Giddings) denied all connection with the transaction in reference to these slaves. The remarks which he hod made were that he knew nor had heard nothing of the persons engaged in carrying these slaves away. He had not denied having enticed away the slaves himself. He had said nothing on that subject. When such a charge should come from u resectable source, he would consider the propriety of answering it. He did not fee] called on at this time to admit or deny it.
"He would now return to the gentleman whose remarks had announced his intention to expel bim (Mr. Giddings) from this House; and he would say to that gentleman that it was rather too late to attempt to seat his lips nnd the lips of Northern members to prevent the discussion of constitutional questions in this House. He gave notice to that gentleman and to all others, that, as he had the right to do it, he should say what he thought. He intended to call things by their right names, and, so fur as able, would make himself understood by this House: and, when this hall again ceased to be a place of free discussion, his constituents would bo represented by some other gentleman, or they would cease to be represented here. The slave power had once reigned trinmphant here. Not so at this time: we had regained the freedom of debate, and it would never a-min be surrendered. Gentlemen, in making such threats, appeared to forget that they were not now on their plantations, exercising their petty tyranny over slaves, who, in their degradation, crouched and trembled at their master's kidding. Or did those gentlemen suppose that they could bring the practices of their plantations into these halls? Those gentlemen should know that this was not the placo for that kind of demeanor. This was no place for the display of snpercilious dictation. It belonged not to the dignity of legislation. The American Congress was no place for the manifestation of those traits which characterize the overseer of the South. It would not be tolerated among men who'knew their rights, and possessed the spirit to maintain them. Such language ought never to be used among men who felt the dignity of their office. Was ho to stand there and not to speak what he thought? Why, such an idea was unworthy of a deliherative body in this land of freedom, And was more becoming of the tyrannies of Eiirope or of Turkey. He would tell those gentlemen, when he censed to have the right to speak freely in this House, he Would take his departure from it. His constituents sent him here to represent them, to express their wishes, and he should do it freely, without restraint, or not at all, notwithstanding the spasmodic eloqnenco of the gentleman who wished to have him expelled for exercising the right tip express his thoughts. Yes, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Haskell) wished to have him expelled for words spoken on this floor! Did not that gentleman know that such an attempt hud once before been made? And had ho not seen the consequence? Was he now to be told that he must ask Southern gentlemen for permission to «penk, and were they to be the judges of what ho should say, and when he should say it? Never, so long as his fellow-men were held in bondage in this district, would he submit to any restraint on the freedom of debate; nor so long as ho continued to hold a seat here would ho relax an iota of truth to please the slave power. He would not disguise the truth, even if its utterance should be the means of striking off the tbackles of every slave in the Vol. I.—U
Union. He had no fears of its affecting slave property hero. He would not hesitate from this forum to tell the truth to all who heard him. even if slaves wer; listening to him. If he had the power, he would give to every slave a perfect knowledge of all his God-given rights. He would open their minds to understand the oppression that weighed down their intellects, aud shut out knowledge and truth from their comprehension. He would give them a knowledge of the outrage npTM humanity which holds them as chattels, and subjects them to sale like brutes in the market. He would inform them that they came into the world from the hands of the same Creator as those who lord it over them; that they were brethren, created by the same hand, endowed with the same rights, and candidates for the same immortality.
"Mr. Gayle asked the gentleman from Ohio if the utterance of these sentiments was not in the hearing of the slaves.
"Mr. Giddings said the gentleman from Alabama could answer that question as well us himself. But this ho would say to that gentleman, that if the utterance of such truths would release them from bondage, God knows it should be done. Let gentlemen teach their bondmen to tremble, but let them not come here to threaten freemen. Gentlemen might hold their grasp on their fellow-men, iu:d deprive them of the rights conferred by the God who created them, and mike their lacerated flesh quiver with the lash, but they need not come here and tell him that he should only speak by their permission.
"Mr. Gayle inquired if the gentleman alluded to him when he spoke of the Mesh being made to quiver by the lash. Ho never used the lash on his slaves, who would not, however, accompany him here, because they were afraid that the Abolitionists Would skin them.
"Mr. Giddings replied that the gentleman's statement showed to what degree of degradation slavery can reduce the immortal mind. The gentleman from Alabama, it appeared, had succeeded to that extent, aud ho came here to boast ol it, He had carried his oppression so far as to blot from the intellect of his fellow-man his natural and instinctive love of freedom. Ho had taught his slaves to hug their chains, to shudder ut the thought of being free; and now stood up here, before the American people, and boasted of the success of his experiment. His whole statement was in keeping with the institution of slavery. It degraded the immortal mind, and reduced man to the level of brutes. He asked that gentleman if he taught his slaves to read the Word of God? or was it not an offense under their laws to teach slaves to read that sacred book? Was not such an offense punishable by incarceration in the penitentiary? They had only to go afewrwli across that river (the Potomac), and they would expose themselves to the penalties of such a law if they should attempt to teach slaves to read the Scriptures. Yes, to instruct slaves in the way of salvation, by enabling them to read the Word of God, was deemed a crime in this Christian land—this land of Bibles aud ministers, and sabbaths and of slaves.
"But to return to the proposition of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Haskell), who had expressed himself so strongly in regard to his exercise of the freedom of speech. The gentleman thought that he (Mr. Giddings) should hang a* high as Haman for thus daring to speak his sentiments. That he supposed to be slaveholding punishment for Bpeaking truth. But he could spend no more time upon the gentleman's proposition. Another gentleman from North Carohna (Mr. Venable) had spoken to the same effect on this subject. That gentleman seemed to intimate that he (Mr. Giddings) had treated the institution of slavery with great want of respect in saying that if a slave defended himself on Ohio soil, even to killing his master, they would not hang him to please all the slaveholders inChr.fr tendom. That gentleman, if he was not misinformed, belonged to, and was a member of, a church founded by that good man, John Wesley. He believed the gentleman from North Carolina was a Methodist, and yet the respected founder of that Church had denounced slavery as ' the mm of all villniniei.'
'• Mr. Venable said the gentleman was mistaken; he was a Prabyterian.
"Mr. Giddines. The gentleman was a Presbyterian, and yet he held slavery to be a blessing! Would the gentleman from North Carolina sit down with his slave and brother in Christ at the sacramental board commemorative of the Lord's Sapper and sacrificial death? Would he partake of the brood and winc in remembrance of the crucified Savior one day with his slave and brother, and on the next sell him who thus bears the image of God for paltry pelf, and still say he was a Pretbjterian? He (Mr. Giddings) denied it; the gentleman could be no Presbyterian. No man could be a Presbyterian who sold God's image, aiwl transformed the immortal mind into a state of degradation, and shut out the Scriptures of eternal life from his brother. It was impossible. He could scarcely realize that he lived in the nineteenth centnry, or in a Christian land. Ho could scarcely realize that he lived in an age when the principles of our holy religion were perverted for the purpose of degrading our fellow-man, and shutting out from him the hope of eternal life
"Mr. Venable begged to say to the gentleman from Ohio, as he had alluded to the subject of religion, that he was no Methodist, though he highly respected that sect. He was a Presbvterian; but he should not enter with tin: gentleman from Ohio into a religious discussion. He wished not either to hear any thing of the gentleman's history, nor should he stay to dilate npon his own; but he would refer the gentleman to the Epistle of Paul to Philemon, from which that gentleman would learn that Paul did not tell servants to run away from their masters, but to return back to them. When the gentleman from Ohio could bring evidence to show that he was better, wiser, and holier than Paul, ho would listen to his counsels, and not till then.
"Mr. Giddings said the gentleman from North Carolina was rather too much excited for a Presbyterian. But it was not enough that professors in this hall should pervert onr holy religion to the purpose of justifying the crimes of slavery, but the Scriptures of Truth were to bo prostituted to the maintenance of that institution. Had it como to this, that a member of this House and of a Christian church coald here stand up and justify what such a man as John Wetley had called, not murder, nor theft, nor adultery, but ' the tin of all villainiet' compounded f The substance of all their crimes are brought into the significant expression of slaveholding. He trusted that neither the gentleman from Tennessee, who was disposed to hang him, nor the gentleman who had felt hurt at his fanner remarks, would take offense at what ho was saying. If they did, he would inform them that they could probably find room in the Rotnndo until he should close what he had to say.
"It had been said in the other end of the Capitol, by a gentleman of high distinction, that the average life of slaves on the sugar plantations was but five years, and on the cotton plantations only seven years. Thus whole generations are murdered in those regions every seven and five years. Gentlemen would remember that he spoke from high authority—upon elaveholding data. And theso murdera were attempted to be justified by Scripture; and because he had denounced the srstem and the practice, he was deserving to be. not only mobbed, but hanged, according to the opinion of gentlemen in this hall. Indeed, it was attempted to involve St. Paul in these crimes by saying that he justified slavery while writing under Divine inspiration. If such was the fact, he would abjure bis religion and term Turk.
■ He would pas* over much which he had intended to say on some other topics, as his time was nearly exhausted. If he should write out his remarks, he might notice them. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bayly) had complained of his (Mr. Giddings's) want otrespect for the institution of slavery. That gentleman had, in his characteristic manner, assailed his (Mr. Giddings's) motives. Now. he would not stay to reply to that gentleman's censure, nor to his attempt to make them believe that slavery was a moral and justifiable institution. He would prefer to read a few passages from an author of that gentleman's own state. In Jefferson's Notes he found the following:
•' • There must doubtless be au unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either iu his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion toward his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and, thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, can not but be stumped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances.'
"This was from the apostle of Democracy, a native of the Old Dominion, whose emphatic assertion was, that 'that man must bo a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved' by slavery. Ho would commend these words to the consideration of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bayly). He would appeal to those present, when that gentleman delivered his speech on Friday last, if this description of the gentleman's manner was not true to the life I Were not his empty vaporinas, his unbounded vanity, a perfect fulfillment of this prophecy?
"That member, in his official station, had attempted to argue the House into the belief that slavery was a blessing. He would refer again to Mr. Jefferson's opinion, as recorded by himself. That statesman, in his Notes on Virginia, says:
". And with what execration should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the nmor pat Ha of the other; for, if a slave can have a country in this world, it must lje any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another; in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute, as far as depends on his individual endeavors, to the evanisbment of the human race, or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry is also destroyed; for in a warm climate no man will labor lor himself who can make another labor for him.'
•' This was the effect of slavery as portrayed in every portion of the slaveholding country. But as he had but a moment left, he would refer to that portion of the gentleman's speech in which he had declared that the Abolitionists looked to insurrection among the slaves. And, he would ask, who did not look to that result t Could any reflecting man shut his eyes to that inevitable consequence of slavery? Did not Mr. Jefferson look to such a finale of that system of oppression which now cripples the energies and impoverishes the people of the whole Southf Mr. Jefferson, speaking in the most emphatic language, says:
"' And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gilt of God; that they are not to be violated but with his wrath! Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is lust; that bis justice can not deep forever; that, considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of Fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural Interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.'
"No," concluded Mr. Giddings, "the Almighty has no attribute that will permit him to take sides with oppression, outrage, and crime. When the day of retribution shall arrive, a holy and just God can take no part with slaveholders.
"Mr. Giddings was here cut off by the expiration of his hour, and the whole subject was then laid on the table, as heretofore stated."
We will add to these extracts the following debate, as given in the official reports, which took place in the Senate on the 20th of April, on the bill introduced by Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, relating to riots and unlawful assemblages in The District of Columbia. The bill had its origin in the transactions connected with the schooner " PearL"
"Mr. Foote. 'On the 4th of March, 1837, the American people of all parties assembled at this Capltol for the purpose of witnessing the inauguration of a President of the United States. That President was a Northern man. I had the honor of listening to his inaugural speech; and in it he wisely and patriotically asserted a principle, of which I approved at the rime, which I still admire, and which has a close affinity to the question so suddenly presented to this body. Martin Van Buren dared to declare, in his inaugural speech, that though it was his opinion— and it certainly is not mine—that Congress has the power to abolish slavery in the District of Colombia, yet he conceived that the act could not be done without the moot odious and unpardonable breach of faith toward the slave states of the Confederacy, and especially Maryland and Virginia. This declaration, not altogether unexpected, gave temporary quiet and satisfaction to the South. I bad thought, until recently, that there were very few men in the Republic, claiming any thing like a prominent standing among their fellow-citizens, who entertained a different opinion from that thtrs expressed, or who, if entertaining it, would undertake to express it in the national councils of this Republic. But (he abolition movement has not been quite so successful as some desired it to be; and now we see plain indications that individuals—for I can not conscientiously call them gentlemen—asserting themselves to be champions of freedum, have resolved to carry into execution a scheme—an attempt to remove, by any means whatever, all the slaves now within this district; so that those who have been in the habit of retaining slaves in their possession will be discouraged from bringing others here, and that citizens who may hereafter settle here will, of course, on the principle of obvious pecuniary policy, decline bringing such property with them; and that thus, in this covert and insidious manner, the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia may be accomplished.
"'The attempt to legislate directly upon this subject in the national councils is at war with the Constitution, repugnant to all principles of good faith, and violative of all sentiments of patriotism. With whomsoever it originates, this movement, made directly or indirectly, within Congress or out of it, which has been so justly denounced by my colleague, is simply a nefarious attempt to commit grand larceny upon the owners of slaves in thi« district. I undertake to say that there is not a man, who has given his countenance to this transaction in any shape, who ia not capable of committing grand larceny; or, if he happened to be a hero (as such men are not), of perpetrating highway robbery on any of the roods of