A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention: For Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861Chittenden, L. E. (Lucius Eugene)
History
A Report of the Debates and Proceedings in the Secret Sessions of the Conference Convention: For Proposing Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, Held at Washington, D.C., in February, A.D. 1861
Chittenden, L. E. (Lucius Eugene)
Conference Convention (1861 : Washington, D.C.); United States -- Politics and government -- 1857-1861
Mr. GUTHRIE:--I submit to the Conference whether this amendment is
necessary or proper. Suppose some new question arises relating to
slavery which it may be greatly for the interest of the Territory to
protect. Suppose mines are discovered, and the Territory should want
slaves to work them. Shall we put it into the Constitution that no law
shall be passed to encourage their emigration?
Mr. BRONSON:--I see no need of it.
Mr. JAMES:--The point generally comes out. Now you say that you will
have the right to go into the Territory with your slaves, and no law
shall be passed to prevent you, no matter how much such a law would
promote the material interests of the Territory. The converse of this
you will not agree to. You are not content to let slavery stand by
itself, you must have it nursed by the Territorial Legislatures. Does
slavery always require such partiality? I say the power of the
Legislature should be exercised on both sides, or it should not be
exercised at all. I am trying to perfect the article. If it is to
pass, and go to the people as a measure of pacification, and if you
expect them to adopt it, you must not have it so one-sided and unfair.
The people will understand it--it will be our duty to explain it to
them, and to give them its history.
Mr. GUTHRIE:--But your amendment would prohibit the passage of a law
permitting the transit of a slaveholder through the Territory with his
property. Remember, also, that the prohibition only continues so long
as the territorial condition exists.
Mr. SMITH:--Before this vote is taken, I wish to call attention to the
character of the prohibition. "Nor shall any law be passed to hinder
or prevent the taking of such persons to said Territory, nor to impair
the rights arising from said relation," &c. Now, this is very broad.
Suppose a law giving the right of transit to the people of the free
States, or any law for their protection in the Territory, as
inhabitants, is held by the Territorial Judge to "impair the rights
arising from said relation." He holds it unconstitutional. Where is
the remedy? What views are entertained upon some of these points in
some sections of the South we know. If you do not adopt this amendment
it is quite in the power of the Legislature to exclude any person from
the Territory whose presence there may be thought injurious to
slavery. Did the committee intend this?
The question upon the adoption of Mr. FOWLER'S amendment resulted as
follows:
AYES.--Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut, New York, Indiana, Illinois, and
Iowa--10.
NOES.--New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, and
Ohio--10.
So the amendment was rejected.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account