James Buchanan: Remarks to Congress on Slavery

Document Text

If any one principle of constitutional law can, at this day, be considered as settled, it is, that Congress has no right, no power, over the question of slavery within those States where it exists. The property of the master in his slave existed in full force before the Federal Constitution was adopted. It was a subject which then belonged, as it still belongs, to the exclusive jurisdictions of the several States. These States, by the adoption of the Constitution, never yielded to the General Government any right to interfere with the question. It remains where it was previous to the establishment of our Confederacy.

The Constitution has, in the clearest terms, recognized the right of property in slaves. It prohibits any State into which a slave may have fled from passing any law to discharge him from slavery, and declares that he shall be delivered up by the authorities of such State to his master. Nay, more; it makes the existence of slavery the foundation of political power, by giving to those States in which it exists Representatives in Congress not only in proportion to the whole number of free persons, but also in proportion to three fifths of the number of slaves.

An occasion very fortunately arose in the first Congress to settle this question forever. The Society for the Abolition of Slavery in Pennsylvania brought it before that Congress, by a memorial which was presented on 11th day of February, 1790. After the subject had been discussed for several days, and after solemn deliberation, the House of Representatives, in Committee of the Whole on the 23rd day of March, 1790, resolved—

“That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves or in the treatment of them within any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.”

I have thought it would be proper to present this decision, which was made almost half a century ago, distinctly to the view of the American people. The language of the resolution is clear, precise, and definite. It leaves the question where the Constitution left it and where, so far as I am concerned, it ever shall remain. The Constitution of the United States never would have been called into existence—instead of the innumerable blessings which have flowed from our happy Union, we should have had anarchy, jealousy, and civil war among the sister republics of which our Confederacy is composed—had not the free States abandoned all control over this question. For one, whatever may be my opinions upon the abstract question of slavery—and I am free to confess they are those of the people of Pennsylvania—I shall never attempt to violate this fundamental concept. The Union will be dissolved, and incalculable evils will rise from its ashes, the moment any such attempt is seriously made by the free States in Congress.

What, then, are the circumstances under which these memorials are now presented? A number of fanatics, led on by foreign incendiaries, have been scattering “arrows, firebrands, and death” throughout the southern States. The natural tendency of their publications is to produce dissatisfactions and revolt among the slaves, and to incite their wild passions to vengeance. All history, as well as the present condition of the slaves, proves that there can be no danger of the final result of a servile war. But, in the mean time, what dreadful action may be enacted before such an insurrection, which would spare neither age nor sex, could be suppressed! What agony of mind must be suffered, especially by the gentler sex, in consequence of these publications! Many a mother clasps her infant to her bosom, when she retires to rest, under dreadful apprehensions that she may be aroused from her slumbers by the savage yells of the slaves by whom she is surrounded. These are the works of the Abolitionists. That their motives may be honest, I do not doubt; but their zeal is without knowledge. The history of the human race presents numerous examples of ignorant enthusiasts, the purity of whose intentions cannot be doubted, who have spread devastation and bloodshed over the face of the earth.

These fanatics, instead of benefiting the slaves who are the objects of their regard, have infected serious injuries upon them. Self-preservation is the first law of nature. The masters, for the sake of their wives and children—for the sake of all that is near and dear to them on earth—must tighten the reins of authority over their slaves. They must thus counteract the efforts of the Abolitionists. The slaves are denied many indulgences which their masters would otherwise cheerfully grant; they must be kept in such a state of bondage as effectually to prevent their rising. These are the injurious effects produced by the Abolitionists upon the slave himself. Whilst, on the one hand, they render his condition miserable by presenting to his mind vague notions of freedom never to be realized, on the other, they make it doubly miserable by compelling the master to be severe, in order to prevent any attempts at insurrection. They thus render it impossible for the master to treat his slave according to the dictates of his heart and his feelings.

Besides, do not the abolitionists perceive that the spirit which is thus roused must protract to an indefinite period the emancipation of the slave? The necessary effect of their efforts is to render desperate those to whom the power of emancipation exclusively belongs. I believe most conscientiously, in whatever light this subject can be viewed, that the best interests of the slave require that the question should be left, where the Constitution has left it, to the slaveholding States themselves, without foreign interference.