upon the South to their utter destruction, to
compel obedience to the terms of the Consti-
tution. He admits that he would have vio-
lated the Constitution; he justifies the vio-
lations which .have taken place on the part of
the North, and which I shall show have
brought this terrible civil war upon us.
Now I desire to reply to a remark which.
the gentleman made, and at which I was
greatly surprised, that there was no property
in slaves by the law of nations. I was sur-
prised at that, because I supposed that in
this country that principal was so well known
that there could be no mistake about it
Have we not compelled Great Britian on
divers occasions lo admit the right of pro-
perty in slaves? Has not tills Federal Gov-
ernment compelled Great Britain to pay in
dollars and cents the value, of slaves which
she had improperly taken away from our
citizens—aye, sir, slaves that by her persua-
sion she induced to go on board of her ships ;
and which she acknowledged by treaty she
had no right, according to the laws of war,
to take? She agreed to return them. And
for those she carried to Great Britain or else-
where in her ships, she was subsequently
compelled, under negotiations conducted by
John Quincey Adams, to pay the value. And
not only that, but cargoes of slaves, by
stress of weather upon the high seas, on their
way from our ports lo New Orleans, slaves
belonging to the citizens of this country,
some belonging to the citizens of Maryland,
cargoes of slaves were driven by stress of
weather into Barbadoes or Burmuda. and
were there turned adrift by the British au-
thorities, so that they were lost to their
owners. The Federal Government made
claims upon the government of Great Britain,
and ultimately compelled her to admit that
the action of her authorities was in violation
of the law of nations; that there was a
right of property in slaves by the law of
nations. And she ultimately paid their
value, and that was not a great many years
ago.
Mr. STIRLING. My impression was that
the facts were the other way. Will the gen-
tleman give the reference ?
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, I cannot give
the precise reference. But if the gentleman
will examine the diplomatic correspondence of
this government, I think be will find it.
Mr. STIRLING. I think a reclamation was
made and refused,
Mr. JONES, of Somerset. No, sir.
Mr. SANDS. Has it been since 1808 ?
Mr. JOKES, of Somerset. Yes, sir; within
the last 25 or 30 years; I think some time in
the neighborhood of 1839. There were citi-
zen? of my own county interested in the
question. I know there were some other-
cases not paid for. But in those cases,
driven there by stress of weather, Great
Britain admitted that she was under obliga- |
tion to pay for the loss the acts of her author-
ities had brought upon us.
Mr. MILLER. I suppose the gentleman re-
fers to the case of slaves being taken from
one port of the United States to another.
Mr. JONES, of Somerset, Yes sir; in their
transit from one port to another, upon our
ships, which are just as much a part of our
territory as the State of Virginia. They
were on board our ships, protected by the
national flag, by the law of nations, which
was violated. and for which violation Great
Britain paid compensation when demanded
of her. And there has been no instance,
that I have come across, in which any gov-
ernment has taken away this species of pro-
perty without making compensation.
Great Britain herself, when, after twenty
years agitation of this question, under Wil-'
berforce and his coadjutors, influences were
biought to bear to induce her to pass an act
of emancipation of slaves in her West Indian
colonies—although she made it gradual, and,
as was very well slated here, she provided
not only for gradual emancipation, but that
they should serve five years of apprenticeship
—Great Britain herself, provided that
when emancipation did take place there
should be compensation to the owners for
the loss of their property. They did not put
it upon the ground of any French revolution-
ary doctrine of the right of man, to set these
slaves free; or upon this new gospel of an
anti-slavery God, and an anti-slavery Bible,
that slavery was a sin; a doctrine which, until
within the last century was never pretended
to be found in the Bible, and cannot be
found in any respectable commentator upon
it. It took its rise about the time that the
philosophy was promulgated, the political
doctrines, which culminated in the French
revolution with all its horrors, deluging the
land with blood; as it has culminated in this
country in all the horrors of civil war, des-
olating our land in blood. I think the
ship I spoke of, or rather there were two of
them, were driven into Bermuda by stress of
weather, perhaps one of them was wrecked
upon some other island, or upon some key of
the British possessions.
Now, upon what ground did the President
of the United States, in his appeal to the
BORDER=0 States, put this proposition of eman-
cipation? He did not put it upon the ground
of the rights of man, or the rights of con-
science, or that slavery was any invasion of
natural rights. He put it upon this ground:
" And the plan therein proposed, [resolu-
tion of Congress previously referred to] is
yet one of the most potent and swift means
of ending the war. Let the States which are
in rebellion see de finitely and certainly that
in no event will the State's you represent ever
join their proposed confederacy, and they
cannot much longer maintain the contest.
But you cannot divest them of their hope to |
