been left to exercise their own free will and
judgment in the management of their own af-
fairs; the State of Maryland, with the insti-
tution of slavery, would have grown up to
be one of the greatest States, in point of
wealth and intelligence, in the country.
There is then no public necessity, so far as
the State of Maryland is concerned, to abolish
the institution of slavery.
Now, sir, has the Federal Government any
power to abolish slavery? There is but one
way In which the Federal Government can
take possession of private property, add that is
when the public necessities of the Govern-
ment require it; when the general interests
of the country require it; when some great
military necessity overpowers and overrides
every other right and title to property. Then,
and then alone, has the Federal Government
the right to take private property. But so far
from there being any such public necessity
for taking the property of the citizens of the
State of Maryland, I have shown that the
geographical position of the State of Mary-
land would render it incumbent upon the
Federal Government, if it consulted its own
interests, to let the institution alone here.
There is no public necessity requiring
any interference on the part of the Fede-
ral Government to destroy the status of
the' institution of slavery here. There
may be a necessity to take private pro-
perty in the shape of able-bodied men; and
then it can only be done after full and just
compensation. If then the General Govern-
ment, considering its position, has a strong
inducement to let this institution alone, if
there is no overriding necessity to destroy it,
I take it the Constitution itself, in that arti-
cle which says that private property cannot
be taken for public use except after just com-
pensation—that article places beyond all
doubt how this question should be deter-
mined,
This question has been a cause of excite-
ment with the Federal Government, and with
the legislators of the Federal Government for
years past; I admit all that. But there have
been a great many other exciting causes. The
tariff question has been equally an exciting
cause. But does it follow that because this
question has divided the people of the coun-
try, and because the ablest men of the coun-
try have been divided upon it, does it follow
therefrom that the institution itself must go
down as soon as there seems to be an appa-
rent numerical power sufficient to put it
down? I trow not. But to show how and
why it is that the institution of slavery has
so long been the bugbear of the abolitionists
of the North; and why they have so long at-
tempted to break down all these great land-
marks of the Constitution, and why they
have never, either at this day, or at any other
day, been willing to observe the constitu-
tional restrictions upon that subject; and to |
show that they have been looked upon as
having taken false positions, and as having
acted contrary to the opinions of the wisest
men of the country, it is only necessary for
me to refer to some of the standard authori-
ties of both sides—of both parties at the
North on this subject. Some of them have
gone so far as to say that if the North were
to violate the spirit in which this Union was
formed, and if they were to break up this
Government for the institution of slavery—
If we have to depart from the old principles
of the Constitution, if the North departed
from the old principles of the Constitution
and determined to violate that Constitution,
the Southern States would bejustifiable even
in dismembering this Union.
What does Mr. Everett say? He says in a
speech in Fanueil Hall, as late as February
2,1861:
"To expect to bold fifteen States in the
Union by force, is preposterous. The idea
of a civil war, accompanied as it would be
by a servile insurrection, is too monstrous to
be entertained for a moment. If our sister
States must leave us, in the name of Heaven
let them go in peace."
And what does Hon. Joseph Holt say in
respect to this right of the people to protec-
tion of person and property? He took the
ground that if the right to this property was
not strictly observed, and the States deter-
mined to have it preserved at all hazards,
and after exhausting their constitutional
remedies, found they could not get sufficient
protection and determined to go out of the
Union—does Mr. Holt say that the power of
the Government should be exercised to force
them to submit to any oppressive act—does
be say they should be forced to submit to
those laws nolens volens On the contrary, he
says the concentration of all political rule at
Washington cannot but be regarded as the
last calamity:
" The organization of a sectional party, is
a step, and a startling step, gained towards
that centralization which, as a fathomless
gulf, is ever yawning for your federative sys-
tem. * * * The concentration or all
political rule at Washington cannot bat be
regarded as the last calamity which could be-
fall the land which we all love so much.
* * * * Beneath the intense heat of
that new born sun, your liberties would
wither away as withers the green herb amid
the scorching sands of the African desert,' '
And what does Mr. Blair, the elder, say?
He says:
"Under no possible emergency, not even
in insurrection or 'mid the throes of civil
war, can this Government justify official in-
terference with the freedom of speech or of
the press, any more than it can with the free-
dom of the ballot. The licentiousness of the
tongue and of the pen is a minor evil compared
with the licentiousness of arbitrary power." |
