poses which have been avowed in this hall
by the advocates of this article.
Sir, it seems that gentlemen connect the
war, which unfortunately now so devastates
the land, with all their favorite articles.
When the fourth article of this Bill of Rights
was under consideration, we were told that
secession was the cause of the war, and that
that article must be put in the Bill of Rights
with a view to putting down the doctrine of
secession. And now when the twenty-third
article of the Bill of Rights is under consid-
eration, we are told that slavery is the cause
of the war, and hence this article must be
put in to put down slavery.
Sir, there is a more intimate connection
between these two than at the first blush
might appear. More than thirty years ago
it became my duty to discuss both of these
subjects upon this floor, and to discuss them
in connection, because there was then but
one question presented to the consideration
of the General Assembly of Maryland. There
had then appeared in the North—as if re-
viving from the grave, to which it had been
supposed to have been consigned by the com-
promise of 1820, under the eloquence and
patriotism of a Clay and those who co-oper-
ated with him at that day—there appeared
the demon abolition, which arose with threats
that have been now carried into execution, to
set aside the God of the Bible that we wor-
ship and the Bible in which we be-
lieve, and to inaugurate in their place an
anti-slavery God, an anti-slavery Bible, and
an anti-slavery Constitution. That was the
threat, and though there had been at that
time but one meeting held in Boston, at
which resolutions had been passed, in Janu-
ary, 1833, breaking the silence which had
been over this question, and the peace which
had prevailed for so many years, yet I thought
I saw then a purpose connected with circum-
stances of revenge against the South for her
opposition to the tariff, which created the
difficulties in 1833. The papers evidently
showed that they intended to repay the South
for her opposition to the tariff; an opposi-
tion which sprung out of a desire, not to es-
cape from the just liabilities, or taxes, or
duties, or burdens which were necessary to
carry on the government, but an opposition
which was based upon the fact that the pub-
lic debt was all paid; that there was an over-
flowing treasury and Congress was at their
wits' end to know what to do with the money,
and there were propositions to expend it in
internal improvements here, there, and every-
where, but which were stopped by the veto
of General Jackson—and propositions to dis-
tribute it among the States. The South
planted itself upon the ground that the tax-
ing power was given by the Constitution to
enable the government to execute its powers
according to the Constitution, and that when
money was raised for that purpose, and that |
alone, they had no objection to paying the
full amount required. But they did object to
having millions upon millions wrung out of
the tax-payers of the land to go into the
pockets of the collectors, to a great extent,
and what was left unsquandered into the
treasury of the United States. and then be
disbursed again to the States, never reaching
the payers of the taxes. Against this system
the South remonstrated, and against this
system the South was united; and against
this, when all other remedy seemed to her
hopeless, the State of South Carolina arose,
and immediately upon that controversy aris-
ing between South Carolina and the Federal
Government, the demon abolition arose in
Massachusetts.
There was a recommendation upon the part
of Virginia lo the Southern States, that a
National Convention should be called to
settle the difficulty between the Federal Gov-
ernment and South Carolina, instantly the
papers of the North said—when that National
Convention assembles there will be a very
good opportunity afforded to strike out of
the Constitution the article giving represent-
ation for slaves. Thus it was that the com-
promises of the Constitution were all disre-
garded—compromises which, it is admitted
on all hands by every statesman who has
ever spoken upon the subject, were the very
basis of the Constitution, and without which
we should have had no Union, no Constitu-
tion, no Federal Government, It is well
known that this question of slavery was one
of the difficult questions to be adjusted. It
is well known that it was adjusted in the lib-
eral spirit of compromise by our fathers in
the terms of the Constitution. It is well
known that the slave trade was even con-
tinued until 1808, as a compromise of con-
flicting rights, and of duties, and of invest-
ments—the North taking her full share of the
responsibility, being engaged in the trade,
and having been engaged in it for a great
number of years, under the authority of acts
of parliament of Great Britain. Not only
was this representation for slaves agreed upon
as one of the compromises of the Constitution,
but the rendition of fugitive slaves was ex-
pressly put in as an additional compromise
upon that subject.
And now, sir, upon this point I may ask—
how has the faith of the North been kept
upon these compromises of the Constitution?
We have heard the eloquent gentleman from
Baltimore city, (Mr. Cushing,) who has just
concluded his argument, state that he wit-
nessed the execution in Boston of that clause
of the Constitution. And that, although he
had been born in a slave State, and had
slavery prejudices, yet had he been a citizen
of Massachusetts, he would not have aided
in that enforcement. Then the gentleman
would have violated the compromises of the
Constitution, as now he would wage war |
