He quoted Douglas' speech in the Senate on June 9th, 1856, in which
he had declared that "whether the people could exclude slavery
prior to the formation of a Constitution or not, was a question to
be decided by the Supreme Court. * * * * When he says, after the
Supreme Court has decided the question, that the people may yet
exclude slavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that
it is not a question for the Supreme Court. * * * the proposition
that slavery cannot enter a new country without police regulations
is historically false. * * * Slavery was originally planted upon
this continent without these police regulations. * * * How came
the Dred Scott decision to be made? It was made upon the case
of a negro being taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota
Territory, claiming his freedom because the act of Congress prohibited
his being so held there. Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott
was not held there without police regulations? * * * * This shows
that there is vigor enough in slavery to plant itself in a new
country, even against unfriendly legislation. It takes not only
law, but the enforcement of the law, to keep it out. This is the
history of this country upon the subject. * * * The first thing
a Senator does is swear to support the Constitution of the United
States. Suppose a Senator believes, as Douglas does, that the
Constitution guarantees the right to hold slaves in a Territory.
How can he clear his oath unless he supports such legislation as is
necessary to enable the people to enjoy their property? Can you,
if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the
Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath without giving
it support? * * * * There can be nothing in the words, 'support
the Constitution,' if you may run counter to it by refusing to
support it. * * * * And what I say here will hod with still more
force against the Judge's doctrine of unfriendly legislation. * *
* Is not Congress itself bound to give legislative support to any
right that is established in the United States Constitution? A
Member of Congress swears to support the Constitution * * * and
if he sees a right established by that Constitution which needs
specific legislative protection, can he clear his oath without
giving that protection. * * * If I acknowledge * * * that this
(Dred Scott) decision properly construes the Constitution, I cannot
conceive that I would be less than a perjured man if I should
refuse in Congress to give such protection to that property as in
its nature is needed."
He then stated his fifth interrogatory: If slave-holding citizens
of the United States Territory should need and demand congressional
legislation for the protection of their slave property in such
Territory, would you as a Member of Congress, vote for or against
such legislation?
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