CHAPTER XXI.

The late Honorable Henry Clay's Compromise Resolutions on SlaveryExtract from the Speech which he delivered in Senate on that occasionThe Honorable Daniel Webster's Sentiments on same subject-Enthusiastic reception given to great men in America--The Earl of Carlisle's Description of the Congress of the United States-Distinction in regard to Color in the United States-Whether well founded.

The late Honourable Henry Clay, member in Senate for the State of Kentucky, and one of the greatest orators and statesmen of the age in which he lived, delivered in Senate, on 5th and 6th February 1850, an admirable speech partly in reference to this bill and the other" Compromise Resolutions," as they were termed, which he had brought forward on the subject of slavery. One of these enacted, that California should be admitted into the Union, without the imposition by Congress of any restriction, either as to the introduction or exclusion of slavery within her boundaries, this being left to California herself to decide, and she has decided in favour of exclusion. He maintains that Congress, the general government, has no power under the constitution of the United States to touch slavery within any of the States, and that, were it to do so" then," he adds, " Mr President, my voice would be for war; then would be made a case which would justify in the sight of God, and in the presence of the nations of

R

the earth, resistance on the part of the slave States to such an unconstitutional attempt."

Mr Clay deprecates, however, the introduction of slavery into the territory lately acquired from the Republic of Mexico, though supported by one party in Congress, chiefly, among other reasons, from its not existing there previous to its annexation, and concludes his argument on this head in these words :

"But if the two portions of this Confederacy should unhappily be involved in civil war, in which the effort on the one side would be to restrain the introduction of slavery into new territories, and on the other side to force its introduction there, what a spectacle should we present to the contemplation of astonished mankind! An effort not to propagate right, but I must saythough I trust it will be understood to be said with no desire to excite feeling -an effort to propagate wrong in the territories thus acquired from Mexico. It would be a war in which we should have no sympathy, no good wishes, and in which all mankind would be against us, and in which our own history itself would be against us; for, from the commencement of the Revolution down to the present time, we have constantly reproached our British ancestors for the introduction of slavery into this country; and allow me to say that, in my opinion, is one of the best defences which can be made to preserve the institution in this country, that it was forced upon us against the wishes of our ancestors, our own colonial ancestors, and by the cupidity of our British commercial ancestors."

The 5th Resolution relates to the abolition of slavery within the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive legislation of Congress in all cases whatever. This, however, he only proposed on obtaining the consent of the State of Maryland, and the people of the District, and just compensation to the owners of slaves within the District. This consent having been obtained, slavery was accordingly abolished in the District of Columbia in 1850.

The District of Columbia was ceded to Congress in 1790 by the States of Maryland and Virginia, for the purpose of establishing the city of Washington as the permanent seat of the Federal Government. It was originally ten miles square, but this no longer exists, the District

being now confined to an irregular triangle, on the Maryland side of the river, the portion ceded by Virginia having been returned to that State again in 1846. The Capitol, or House for Congress, is a noble building, 352 feet in length, covering an acre and a half of ground, and cost nearly a million sterling. Washington now contains 50,000 inhabitants, and they are erecting a monument in it that will be 600 feet high. A view of this stupendous monument appeared in the Illustrated London News of 6th July 1850.

Mr Clay, in reference to this Resolution, says

Sir, it is immaterial to me upon what basis this obligation to compensate for the slaves who may be liberated by the authority of Congress is placed. There is a clause in the constitution of the United States, of the amendments to the constitution, which declares that no private property shall be taken for public use, without just compensation being made to the owner of the property.

Well, I think, in a just and liberal interpretation of that clause, we are restrained from taking the property of the people of the District, in slaves, on considerations of any public policy, or for any conceivable or imaginable use of the public, without a full and fair compensation to the people of this District. But, without the obligation of any constitutional restriction, such as is contained in the amendment to which I refer-without that, upon the principles of eternal justice itself, we ought not to deprive those who have property in slaves, in this District, of their property, without compensating them for their full value. Why, Sir, no one of the European powers. Great Britain, France, or any other of the powers which undertook to abolish slavery in their respective colonies, has ever ventured to do it without making compensation. They were under no obligation arising out of any written or other constitution to do it, but under that obligation to which all men ought to bow with homage-that obligation of eternal justice, which declares that no man ought to be deprived of his property without a full and just compensation for its value.

Sir, the power exists; the duty, in my opinion, exists; and there has been no time-as I may say, in language coincident with that used by the honorable Senator from Alabama-there has been no time in my public life when I was not willing to concur in the abolition of the slave trade in this District. I was willing to do it when Virginia's portion of the District was retroceded, that lying south of the Potomac. There is still less ground

for objection to doing it now, when the District is limited to the portion this side of the Potomac, and when the motive or reason for concentrating slaves here in a depot, for the purpose of transportation to distant foreign markets, is lessened with the diminution of the District, by the retrocession of that portion to Virginia."

On coming to the 6th Resolution, prohibiting, within the District of Columbia in which Washington the capital is situate, the trade in slaves brought into it from other States to be sold therein, or transported to other markets, Mr Clay says—

66

Why should slave-traders, who buy their slaves in Maryland or Virginia, come here with their slaves, in order to transport them to New Orleans or other southern markets? Why not transport them from the States in which they are purchased? Why are the feelings of citizens here outraged by the scenes exhibited, and the corteges which pass along our avenues, of manacled human beings, not collected at all in our own neighbourhood, but brought from distant parts of neighbouring States? Why should they be outraged? And who is there, that has a heart, that does not contemplate a spectacle of that kind with horror and indignation? Why should they be outraged by a scene so inexcusable and detestable as this ?"

The 7th resolution (on which was founded the celebrated Fugitive Slave Bill) runs thus," Resolved, That more effectual provision ought to be made by law, according to the requirements of the constitution, for the restitution and delivery of persons bound to service or labor in any State, who may escape into any other State or territory of the Union." In commenting upon this resolution, Mr Clay, after adverting to the Act of 1793, (formerly quoted) as being still in force, proceeds thus

"I think, then, Mr President, that with regard to the true interpretation of this provision of the constitution, there can be no doubt. It imposes an obligation upon all the States, free or slaveholding; it imposes an obligation upon all officers of the government, state, or federal; and I will add, upon all the people of the United States, under particular circumstances, to assist in the surrender and recovery of a fugitive slave from his master.

Mr President, I do think that that whole class of legislation, beginning in the northern States and extending to some of the western States, by

which obstructions and impediments have been thrown in the way of the recovery of fugitive slaves, is unconstitutional, and has originated in a spirit which I trust will correct itself when those States come calmly to consider the nature and extent of their federal obligations. Of all the States in this Union, unless it be Virginia, the State of which I am a resident, suffers most by the escape of their slaves to adjoining States.

I have very little doubt, indeed, that the extent of loss to the State of Kentucky, in consequence of the escape of her slaves is greater, at least in proportion to the total number of slaves which are held within that commonwealth, even than in Virginia. I know full well, and so does the honorable senator from Ohio know, that it is at the utmost hazard, and insecurity to life itself, that a Kentuckian can cross the river and go into the interior to take back his fugitive slave to the place from whence he fled. Recently an example occurred even in the city of Cincinnati, in respect to one of our most respectable citizens. Not having visited Ohio at all, but Covington, on the opposite side of the river, a little slave of his escaped over to Cincinnati. He pursued it; he found it in the house in which it was concealed; he took it out, and it was rescued by the violence and force of a negro mob from his possession-the police of the city standing by, and either unwilling or unable to afford the assistance which was requisite to enable him to recover his property,

Upon this subject I do think that we have just and serious cause of complaint against the free States. I think they fail in fulfilling a great obligation, and the failure is precisely upon one of those subjects which in its nature is the most irritating and inflaming to those who live in the slave States. And allow me to say upon the subject, though it is perhaps going farther into detail than is necessary, that of all the exercise of power of those who attempt to seduce from their owners their slaves, there is no instance in which it is exercised so injuriously to the objects of their charity and benevolence as in the case of the seduction of family slaves from the service of their owner. The slaves in a family are treated with all the kindness that the children of the family receive. Everything which they want for their comfort is given them with the most liberal indulgence; and, Sir, I have known more instances than one where, by this practice of the seduction of family servants from their owners, they have been rendered wretched and unhappy in the free States; and in my own family, a slave who had been seduced away, addressed her mistress, and begged and implored of her the means of getting back from the state of freedom to which she had been seduced, to the state of slavery in which she was so much more happy ; and in the case to which I have referred the means were afforded her, and she returned to the State of Kentucky to her mistress."