348 



CONGKESS, U. S. 



its tendency ; and I am not at all sure that it 

 is anywise patriotic, even in its design. Sir, it 

 is an ignoring of the policy which has always 

 been proclaimed by the party now in power. 

 I am not a member of that party, and I thank 

 my God to-day that I never was and never ex- 

 pect to be, especially after the introduction of 

 such a resolution as this into the Congress of 

 the United States. What was the declaration 

 made by that party before the recent presiden- 

 tial election ? What have been their declara- 

 tions ever since they came into power ? It was 

 that they did not intend nor contemplate any 

 interference with the subject of domestic sla- 

 very within the States. 



"It is folly to say that this is not an inter- 

 ference with the domestic institution of slavery 

 in the States. To be sure, it does not propose, 

 by force and in terms, to liberate the slaves in 

 the slaveholding States. It does not say, " If 

 you do not emancipate them, we will ;" but it 

 is an interference in this wise and to this extent : 

 it is an attempt to awaken a controversy in 

 those States, to initiate emancipation in those 

 States, to commence the work of abolition in 

 those States, by holding out pecuniary aid to 

 the States, by holding out an inducement. That 

 is virtually as much an interference as though 

 they had proposed directly and by force to 

 liberate the slaves in those States. It is not an 

 interference of the same character and of the 

 same kind ; but still it is an interference with 

 the subject of domestic slavery within the 

 States. 



" Now, sir, where is the propriety for the in- 

 troduction of such a resolution as this? Has 

 any one of those States asked your aid? Has 

 any one of them suggested that they would like 

 to be relieved from this incubus of slavery, if in- 

 cubus it be ? Have they called upon you for 

 advice ? Have the persons interested in this 

 question sent any petition here asking the Con- 

 gress of the United States to aid them in the 

 work of emancipation? If they have not 

 asked your aid, I submit that your proffered 

 aid is not very delicate, to say the least of it ; 

 and when I say this, I say it because, represent- 

 ing one of those States, the smallest slavehold- 

 ing State in the Union, I have a right to say 

 it, because my State has said it. 



" But, sir, there is another consideration in- 

 volved in this resolution. I should like some 

 one of the members of the Judiciary Commit- 

 tee, who are presumed to be gentlemen learned 

 in the law, to show me any authority in the 

 Constitution of the United States for this Gov- 

 ernment to apply money in freeing the slaves 

 in the States." 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, offered the follow- 

 ing amendment : 



Although the whole subject of slavery in the States 

 is exclusively within the jurisdiction and cognizance 

 of the government and people of the States respect- 

 ively having slaves, and cannot be interfered with di- 

 rectly or indirectly by the Government of the United 

 States, yet when any of those States or their peo- 

 ple may determine to emancipate their slaves, the 



United States will pay a reasonable price for the slaves 

 they may emancipate, and the cost of their colonization 

 in some "other country. 



Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, objected to the amend- 

 ment. He thought the President's resolution 

 carefully excluded the idea that Congress had 

 any right to interfere with slavery in the 

 States. It contained two or three simple prop- 

 ositions. One was that, whenever any State de- 

 sired to relieve itself of the existence of slavery, 

 the General Government would help that 

 State to the extent of its ability, without point- 

 ing out the mode or manner. It was a simple 

 proposition. It recognized the right of each 

 State to regulate and control its domestic insti- 

 tutions in the broadest terms. The language 

 was simple and plain. He hoped, therefore, 

 that no amendment would be allowed to pass. 



Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, admitted that the 

 general principle both of the original resolu- 

 tion and of the substitute which he had offered 

 was the same ; but the substitute proceeded to 

 define the nature and the extent of the assist- 

 ance that the Congress of the United States 

 was disposed to give to the States where slavery 

 existed or to individual slaveholders in those 

 States, provided they should proceed in the 

 work of emancipation. He wanted Congress 

 to express its will and its purpose in relation 

 to that particular view of this subject. The 

 original resolution on that point was wholly in- 

 definite. 



Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, desired to say 

 that he understood the resolution suggested 

 by the President covered two ideas : first, 

 emancipation by the States at their own pleas- 

 ure, in their own way, either immediately or 

 gradual ; and, second, the idea of colonization, 

 a thing believed to be necessary to go along 

 side by side with emancipation by nine tenths 

 of the people of the States interested, and with- 

 out which they declare emancipation impos- 

 sible. The resolution did not mention compen- 

 sation or colonization either, but implied and 

 looked to both. 



Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, said: "It is all 

 folly to say that the proposition made by the 

 President is the same as that made by the Sen- 

 ator from Kentucky. The Senator from Ken- 

 tucky proposes, in plain words, to pledge the 

 faith of this Government that the value of the 

 slaves shall be paid upon emancipation. The 

 proposition of the President promises nothing. 

 It does not say that slaveholders, when the 

 slaves are liberated, shall ever receive a dollar. 

 It is a vague, unmeaning proposition, saying 

 that Congress ought to cooperate ; not saying 

 that Congress will, not saying how Congress 

 shall cooperate, not saying that Congress shall 

 pay the value of the slaves, as is said by the 

 proposition of the Senator from Kentucky." 



Mr. Browning, of Illinois, insisted that the 

 joint resolution did not propose any interfer- 

 ence whatever on the part of the General Gov- 

 ernment with the question of slavery in the 

 States or elsewhere. It was simply a declara- 



