SPEECH OF MR. ROBERTSON, OF KENTUCKY, On the Bill to establish the Territorial Government of Arkansas.

[Congressional Debates, 18th of February, 1819.]

WHEN leave was asked to bring in this bill to organize a separate territorial government, for Arkansas, I explained the reasons which, in my judgment, should commend such a measure to the approval of Congress. I had consulted no person on the subject-not even the delegate from Missouri, from which the proposed territory was to be taken. But it seemed to me that the remote, forlorn, and almost lawless condition of the population of the Arkansas regions, demands, in resistless tones, a separate and efficient organization and government; and in this sentiment I am happy to find, not only that the worthy delegate from Missouri concurs, but that the vote on the leave proves the unanimous concurrence of this House also.

It would be useless, therefore, to repeat or enlarge on the suggestions made on a former occasion, to prove the propriety of passing the bill, as reported, nor is any argument as to any of the details of the bill necessary nowbecause no objection has been made, or is apprehended on any such ground.

The great and only proper subject of debate is, whether it should pass with the proposed interdiction of slavery, inserted in it as a condition of its passage. To that proposition I am altogether opposed, and if it be maintained, I shall vote against my own bill. My argument will be confined to a brief discussion of the amendment for interdicting slavery, proposed by the gentleman from New York, (Mr. Taylor) and urged with so much zeal and vehemence by himself and some other Northern members. And not intending to argue this grave matter in extenso, I shall content myself, on the present occasion, with a condensed outline of the principal reasons which convince me that the question, now agitated in a new form, for the first time, is indiscreetly proposed, and should be stifled in its

and long cherished opinions; and the general government, responsible to all, and the guardian of the national interests of all, as a faithful trustee, must, by its impartiality, moderation, and benevolence, conciliate the confidence and affection of all its citizens, North and South, East and West. This can be effectually done only by administering the government, (in its legislative function, especially,) in the spirit of compromise which brought it into being.

to

That spirit left slavery as a local concern, be disposed of by local interest and opinion, and it is the duty of Congress to abstain from any act which will disturb that wise and eventful adjustment of a matter which can never be otherwise settled, either justly or peaceably. Having prohibited foreign importations of slaves into the United States, Congress should leave, as the patriarchs of the constitution left, the domestic institution to the states, and the people of territories of the United States, to be disposed of as each separate community of freeinen may choose for themselves; and in this domestic aspect of slavery, Congress ought never to touch it or countenance any agitation concerning it among the states, or the people of the United States, in any form or for any purpose. It is a sensitive plant, which the national hand cannot touch without injury, or sense of outrage, or extreme danger of both.

Congress has, I admit, constitutional power to legislate over the District of Columbia, and over Arkansas, and over every other territory subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States government; and I concede, also, that this is so far plenary as to be subject to no other limitation than sound discretion and the federal constitution. In other words, that the legislative power of Congress is as comprehensive as that of the territory itself would be, if it, instead of the general government, were permitted to exercise all power over its own concerns, which might be consistent with the constitution or the United States. That constitution does not guarantee to the people of the territories the right to establish slaveryo It leaves that concern to the discretion of Con.t gress, and the will of the people of the territeries. But it does guarantee to every citizen of the United States his private property, against the power of the general government (execpt for taxation) without the consent of the owner or just compensation. Although, therefore,

Congress may emancipate slaves in any of the in its results; for, sir, a spirit of prophecy is territories of the United States where it exists, not necessary to enable a statesman to foresee the exercise of that power is subject to the con- that all such Congressional action will awaken dition that any owner, who withholds his con- jealousies and excite alarm, which will contribsent to the act, shall be paid the value of his ute to the unnatural prolongation of the legal exslave or slaves so emancipated against his will. istence of slavery in Amercca, rivet chains for Yet, as property in human beings as slaves is slaves, and, in its ultimate issue, might probamerely legal, whether persons imported into a bly even dissolve the Union. territory subject to the jurisdiction of the Uni-: According to the principles of the Declarated States, shall be slaves there or not, must tion of Independence, principles consecrated be a question of local law, and depends, there- in the affections, and imbedded in the institufore, on the will of the law-giver, constitution- tions of the countrymen of Washington, every ally expressed. Of course the freemen of any separate community of freemen ought to regusuch territory, if permitted to exercise all leg- late their own social organization. Under the islative authority for themselves, could, with- protection of these principles, the citizens who out doubt as to the power, prohibit the institu- shall cast their lots in Arkansas ought to detion of slavery within their limits; and conse-cide for themselves whether slavery shall exist quently, Congress, as long as it shall choose to there or not, just as they would control all their legislate for any such territory, may interdict other domestic institutions and social relations the introduction of slavery as a domestic insti- at home. Against their will, Congress ought tution. But I deny that such legislation, by not to force the establishment of slavery or any Congress, would ever be NECESSARY to the pub-other domestic relation among them-against lic welfare, OR WOULD, IN ANY CASE, WITHOUT THE their will Congress ought not to prohibit slaveHEARTY CONCURRENCE OF THE SLAVE STATES, BE ry there. As long as it shall exist in any of EITHER JUST OR PRUDENT. Congress has no pow-the states of the Union, every territory of the er over slavery in any of the states of the United States, as well as each state, should be Union. Its continuance, therefore, in the allowed to participate in it or not, as each, for United States, under the guarantees of the fed- itself, may choose. Let them all alone, and eral constitution, depends altogether on the especially let it alone. This is the true and will of the respective states in which it exists. only safe policy. If, in climate, soil, and proAn expansion of its area would not, of itself, ducts, ARKANSAS be so adapted to slave labor augment its evils or prolong its existence, but as to induce a majority of the immigrants to it would certainly tend to meliorate its condition. to carry slaves with them from slave states, or Neither policy nor benevolence would circum- to incline a majority of its freemen to prefer scribe it within the states where it now exists. the institution of slavery, why not let the felt No such effort, by Congress, would be benevo- interests and inclinations of those who elect to lent, because deterioration in the value of slaves make that Southern country their home, deand an aggravation of the perils and privations cide its destiny as to the relation of slavery? incident to slavery in its best estate would be A transportation of slaves from states to territhe necessary consequences of all such unphilan- tories does not increase the number of slaves in thropic legislation. Nor would such legisla- the United States, nor establish a slavery that tive interference be politic. 1st. Because it did not already exist; and if left to the promptwould be inconsistent with true benevolence. ings of their own interests and feelings, the 2nd. Because it would, to a great extent, give people of Arkansas should choose to maintain to a section of the Union and one class of our the institution of slavery, Congress will not citizens a monopoly of the territories bought be responsible. What is it to Congress, or to with the money or the blood of all, and would, the cause of universal liberty, whether I shall therefore, seem to be invidious and unparental. continue with my slaves in Kentucky or re3rd. Because it would be inconsistent with the move them to Arkansas? And why should compromising spirit of the constitution-would Congress say to me, "you shall not live in be felt, by a large portion of our fellow-citizens, Arkansas unless you first sell or manumit as intended indirectly to operate to the dispar- your slaves?" Was the power to legislate agement of their property guarantied by the over that territory given for any such purpose? public faith, and might, therefore, not only al- Or could the application of it to such a purienate the affections of many from the national pose promote the harmony of the Union, or the government, but breed sectional collisions, and cause of emancipation, or the mitigation of generate and exasperate sectional parties-the slavery, or the aggregate prosperity and genmost dangerous to the Union of all others--eral welfare of the people of the United States? and on a subject most pregnant with unrea- SLAVERY IS GEOGRAPHICAL. Arkansas is in the sonable and uncompromising passions; and slave latitude. Citizens in slave states will lastly, because no such legislation can do any be more inclined than those in free states to practical good, and therefore, being gratuitous, settle there, as the people in the latter states would be the more unkind and offensive; for if will be more disposed than those of the forit could neither hasten the peaceful extinction mer, to settle in territories north of about 37 f slavery, nor improve the condition of slaves degrees, north latitude. Then, if Congress in the United States, by what just or prudent will legislate on slavery in the territories, motive of national patriotism could it be justi- sound policy and distributive justice and fied or extenuated? None but a morbid phi-equality would recommend that it draw a latlanthropy, false in its aims and perhaps fatal itudinal line, (say about 37 degrees north lati

of this young, robust, and promising Union, and finally, in the progress of desolation, may DESTROY ITS HEART FOREVER.

tude) south of which slavery may exist, but north of which it shall not. I would have no insuperable objection to this, although I would prefer total abstinence from all interference on Let us pause and soberly reflect before we that subject. No congressional act is necessa- take this rash and perilous step. Let us take ry north of that line, beyond which slavery counsel of our patriarchs of '88. Let us conif left to its natural current, will never run or sider our memorable past, and look, with palong continue, and any unnecessary act of in-triot's hearts and statesmen's eyes, to our terference by Congress will excite jealous feel- eventful future. Let us do as Washington, and ings, incompatible with the moral cement of Franklin, and Jefferson did, and would cer the Union. tainly do again were they now here. And if And now, Mr. Chairman. allow me to say, we shall all take this prudent course, I feel that if the proposed restriction be pertinacious- quite sure that the provision, now, for the first ly insisted on and maintained by the majority time, unfortunately agitated, will be rejected of Congress, that majority will heedlessly by such a vote as will rebuke all Congressional sow wind, and may, in time to come, woefully legislation on American slavery, and assure, reap the whirlwind. They may, and I fear as far as the national councils can assure, will, recklessly raise a storm that will scatter peace to our country, and to our Union the seeds of discord over this favored land-strength, and health, and hopeful influence Dragons' teeth, whose rank and pestilential over the destinies of our race, here and elsecrop, upas-like, may poison the vital elements where-now and evermore.

PRELECTION.

On the 17th day of December, 1819, Mr. Robertson, of Kentucky, submitted to the House of Representatives of the United States the following resolution, which was adopted:

"Resolved, That the committee on the Public Lands be instructed to inquire into the expediency of so altering the laws regulating the sales of the vacant lands of the United States, that from and after the

day of

, no credit shall be given thereon, and a less quantity may be purchased, and at a less price than is authorized by the existing laws." After consultation, it was deemed prudent to introduce the same subject into the Senate, whereby time might be saved in the discussion and progress of a bill.

And for that purpose, Mr. Leake of Mississippi, on the 20th of December, 1819, brought the subject before the Senate by a resolution, similar, in substance, to that previously adopted by the other House, on the resotion offered by Mr. Robertson.

Before the subject had been further acted on in the House of Representatives, a bill passed the Senate changing the mode of selling the public lands. That bill was reported by the land committee of the House, with amendments striking out the provisions for cash sales, at a minimum of $1,25 an acre, and for a sale of as small a quantity as 80 acres. Upon full argument, in committee of the whole, chiefly by Mr. Clay on one side and Mr. Robertson on the other, those amendments were rejected; and, on the question whether the House would concur in the rejection, for which Mr. Robertson contended, the vote was—yeas, 135; nays, 19; and on the next day, 20th of April, 1820, the bill passed by a vote of 133 to 23, of which 23 a majority were from the West. The yeas and nays were as follows:

Yeas-Messrs. Abbott, Alexander, Allen, of Mass., Anderson, of Ky., Archer, of Md., Baker, Baldwin, Barbour, Bateman, Bayley, Beecher, Boden, Brush, Buffum, Campbell, Case, Claggett, Clark, Cobb, Crafts, Crawford, Culbreth, Cushman, Cuthbert, Darlington, Davidson, Dennison, Dewitt, Dickinson, Dowse, Earl, Eddy, Edwards, of Conn., Edwards, of Pa., Edwards, of N. C., Fay, Fisher, Floyd, Folger, Foot, Forrest, Fuller, Fullerton, Garnett, Gross, of N. Y., Gross, of Pa., Hall, of N. Y., Hall, of Pa., Hall, of Del., Hall., of N. C., Hardin, of Ky., Hazard, Hemphill, Herrick, Hibshman, Hiester, Hill, Holmes, Hooks, Hostetter, Kendall, Kinsey, Little, Linn, Livermore, Lyman, McCoy, McLane, of Del., Mallary, Marchand, Mason, Meech, Meigs, Mercer, R. Moore, S. Moore, Monell, Morton, Moseley, Murray, Neale, Nelson, of Mass., Newton, Overstreet, Parker, of Mass., Parker, of Va., Patterson, Phelps, Philson, Pickney, Pindall, Pitcher, Plumer, Rankin, Reed, Rhea, Rich, Richards, Richmond, Robertson, Rogers, Ross, Russ, Sampson, Sawyer, Sergeant, Settle, Shaw, Silsbee, Simkins, Sloan, Slocumb, Smith, of N. J., Smith, of Md., B. Smith, of Va., Smith, of N. C., Southard, Storrs, Strong, of N. Y., Swearingen, Tarr, Taylor Tomlin