The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session Page: 41
viii, 784 p. ; 25 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Jan. 1844.
28th Cong 1st Sess.
APPENDIX TO THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE.
41
Jlbolition Petitions—Mr. Duncan.
H. of Reps.
domestic economy; and that the interests and pros-
perity of the District, equally with the principles of
humanity and patriotism, require its abolition?
Many other States in the Union have come to such
conclusions and determinations, and, through their
Legislatures, have consummated them. Why may
not the Sfc/fe of Columbia? The people have the
natural, political, and constitutional right to do so.
How dare we, then, interfere, for a day or a moment,
with' their right to do so? Have we a right to meet
the people of this District at the threshold of this
hall, with a rule, and say to them, you shall intro-
duce no petition into this hall on the subject of
slavery?
Mr. Speaker, with this view of the subject-
and I am able to come to no other from which I
can draw correct conclusions—I must say, une-
quivocally, that any rule that prohibits the people
of the District of Columbia from petitioning Con-
gress for the abolition of slavery within this Dis-
trict, is a violation of the Constitution and of their
rights.
I am opposed to the continuance of the 21st rule
on the grounds of expediency" and economy. It will
not be contradicted on this floor, when I assert that
two-thirds of this session, so far, has been consumed
in abolition squabbles; not alone with abolition peti-
tions, but by petitions and discussions on behalf of
the right to petition. Surely, the people, at whose
expense we legislate, and to promote whose inter-
ests and welfare we are assembled, will not long
tolerate such a worthless and extravagant sacrifice
of time, at so great an^ expense of their means, to
the almost entire exclusion of the substantial business
for which they have sent us. Our time is theirs;
our duties are at their disposal; and we are bound,
by every principle of duty to them, and of duty to
our station, and the oath we have taken, to
dispatch the business we have been sent to do in as
short a time, and as cheap a rate, as possible.
It will be urged that if the people of the free
States have no constitutional and legitimate right to
petition _ on the subject of slavery in the District of
Columbia, Congress is not bound to receive their
petitions. This objection is not without force; but
1 answer, so long'as the people claim to be the judges
of their grievances and the judges of what is proper
to petition upon, the objection will be without effect.
Hence it is we receive petitions every day for grants
which Congress has no power to bestow, and yet
petitions have not been rejected on that account.
I do not believe that the people of other States
have a right to interfere with the slave institutions
of the State of Columbia, any more than they have
to interfere with the institutions of each other; con-
sequently, I do not think that the people of the free
States have a right to petition Congress to abolish
slavery in the District of Columbia; because the
sovereignty of the District is as complete as that of
any other State in the Union. And so complete do
X consider .the sovereignty and independence of the
State of Columbia, and of each and every State in
this Umon—I mean sovereign and independent
within themselves, and sovereign and independent
of each other—that I repeat, the citizens of one
State, either in their individual or in their corporate
capacity, have no right to interfere in the institu-
tions, customs, usages, or laws, (not in violation
of the Federal Constitution,) of another. So far
do I carry this doctrine, that I maintain that there
would be as much propriety m the people of the
free States of this Union in petitioning the autocrat
of all the Russias to ameliorate the condition of, or to
emancipate, the sei fs of his vast dominions. Per-
mit me to illustrate further: when a boy, I was taught
many lessons of morality and religion by parents
who are now, 1 trust, reaping a reward in a higher
and better world than this. One of those lessons was
of Divine command—it was an order that we should
do all our work in six days, and rest the seventh.
We are commanded by that order, not only to rest
ourselves and cease from labor, but we are com-
manded to permit our man and our maid servants
to rest. The command runs farther—we are to let
our animals rest. This, I repeat, is a Divine com-
mand—a law paramount to ail other laws, it trans-
cends all commands, and extends over the Crea-
tors dominions. And yet, in the face of this law
and in defiance of Omnipotence, the people of Ohio,'
without distinction, (and, perhaps, of some of the
other States,) are in the habit of working their
horses, mules, and oxen, on that sacred day. °They
will ride them under the saddle with whip and
spur, and drive them in carriages or wagons
under the lash. They will ride them or
drive them in this profane manner many miles
to public worship, or places less worthy; tie
them up for hours with nothing to eat but beech
bark or stake oats,' and return home in the same
cruel and profane manner. Kentucky is Ohio's
eider sister, and might feel disposed to exercise some
guardianship over her morals and her religious
institutions. Suppose the people of Kentucky
were to take it into their heads that the people of
Ohio were setting at defiance one of the Almighty's
sacred and imperious commands, in thus cruelly and
unlawfully enslaving their animals on that sacred
day assigned for the rest of everything that lives,
and in the exercise of a duty which they might think
they owed to their God and their conscience,
should pour in petitions by hundreds and thousands
to the Ohio Legislature, praying to abolish a prac-
tice so fraught with en] and impiety, viz: that of
working animals on the Sabbath day: is there
any man in his senses who would not look upon
such a proceeding as the ^result of fanaticism and
religious mania? Is there any person who would
not look upon it as an officious mtermedling with
the concerns and institutions of Ohio, unwarranted
by the Constitution of our country, and a violation
of her rights and sovereignty? And yet there would
be no more political impropriety in it, no more in-
consistency in it, than for one State to interfere with
the slave institutions of another. Ami to be told that
the negro and the horse, or the mule, are not to be com-
pared, or put upon the same footing? True, they
are not, in one sense; but in another, they are. In one
sense, the one is a responsible human being, the
other is an irresponsible brute. But when they are put
on the footing of property, they are the same; the
slave of Kentucky is as much the property
of his master as the "horse of Ohio is the property
of his owner; and the same character of laws which
defends the possession of the one, defends the pos-
session of the other." I do not say that such a
state of things should exist; but it does exist. I
speak of things as they are, not as they should be;
and if it is desired to change them, they must be
changed by moral and patriotic influences, and not by
unconstitutional legislation. If the philanthropists
of this country desire that slavery should be abol-
ished, they must take a new start. They must op-
erate upon the minds of the people: and if it is de-
sired that the District of Columbia should be the
first theatre of their experiments, they must com-
mence with the people. It is with them they must
first operate; and if they can succeed m convincing
them that slavery is an evil and a curse, and that
the laws of humanity, patriotism, and thsjjfttristian
religion, as well as their present prospeu^and fu-
ture welfare, all unite in demanding the abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia, the people of
the District will petition Congress to abolish it.
Then will abolition petitions demand and receive
the favorable action of Congress. I say that Con-
gress will be bound to act favorably on petitions in
favor of the abolition of slavery in tins District,
when the people of this District, or a majority of
them, shall' petition for it. It is the people of'this
District, and them alone, that have the right to peti-
tion; and the right in them to petition imposes the
duty on Congress not only to act, but to act in obe-
dience to the prayers of the petitioners. My con-
clusion, then, is, that the power to abolish slavery
in this District is with the people of the District and
with Congress—the fust to will, and the latter to no.
I will, m a short time, speak of the policy and ex
pediency of the general abolition of slavery, i de-
sire first to say tnat I am opposed to the existence
ot this twen'y-first rule, because I am opposed to
modem abolitionism as I understand it. Tins rule
manufactures abolitionists and abolitionism. All laws,
rules, and restraints, which abridge what are re-
garded as constitutional privileges, increase the anx-
iety to exercise those prn lieges, whatever thty
may be. It is so with this restraint upon the
supposed light of petition on the subject nf slavery.
The people believe they have a right to petition
Congress, for so says the Constitution. They be-
lieve they have a nglu to judge of their own griev-
ances, and on what subjects they ha\c a rieht to pe-
tition. They believe that the right of petition im-
plies and canies with it the duty to legislate. They
also believe, that to receive their petitions and lay
them on the table, is about equal to laying them
under the table, and tantamount to rejecting them,
and is a violation of that legislative duty Wnich the
right to petition imposes on the Legislature. Would
it not save time here, and would it not concur with the
generally received opinions of the right of petition and
the duties of legislation, to receive abolition petitions,
refer them, and report upon them, and give reasons
why their prayers cannot be granted? Such was the
course pursued with the Sunday-mail petitions, and
by that course was the subject put to sleep, never, it
is hoped, again to wake. Should such a course be
adopted, no committee will be found in this House,
so lost to themselves, to their duty, their oath, and
the Constitution, as to make any other than an un-
favorable report; and a report, though unfavorable,
if founded on the Constitution and illustrated with
reason, will do more to put down this fanatic philan-
throphy (if it deserves so good name) than any other
means which can be devised. And if that report be
made, whether favorable or unfavorable, the South
will witness a vote of this House that will convince
them that their institutions are safe.
It is much easier to make the mass of the people
understand that a given prayer cannot be granted,
than that they have no right to pray at all. Common
sense reason is sufficient for the former; but it re-
quires metaphysical reasoning to effect the latter—■
which a common sense mail cares but little to hear.
Abstractions and metaphysics have but little favor
with the mass of the people, and never can
be made to take the place of common sense. South-
ern gentlemen here never can succeed in convincing
the people that they have not the right to petition
Congress on any and all subjects; nor can they con-
vince them that they are not competent to judge of
what they shall petition for. This 21st rule puts it
in the power ofabolitionists to raise the cry ofperse-
cution. They complain that the doors of Congress
are shut against them. They say that Congress
has set itself above the people—that its members
are no longer their representatives, but their dicta-
tors. Such is the cry raised by this rule. .Hence
the flood of petitions for the repeal of this rule.
Before the adoption of this rule, we were flooded
with abolition petitions; now, we are flooded with
abolition petitions, and a flood of petitions for the
repeal of the 21st rule. Then we had a single
flood; now we have a double flood, still more deso-
lating and destructive of time. If it is desired to
diminish abolitionism, or prevent the multiplication
of abolitionists, abolish the 21st rule.
It is insisted by the advocates of abolition, that
the question of slavery in the District of Columbia
occupies different "round from slavery in the slave
States. Not so. The States of Virginia and Mary-
land had the power, and exercised it, of ceding a
portion of the territory of each to the Federal Gov-
ernment, for the purpose of a site for ihe Govern-
ment; the Federal Government had a right to, and
did, accept. But neither Maryland nor Virginia
had the power to change the character of the prop-
erty, either personal or real, of the citizens who
occupied the portions of territory so ceded; nor did
Congress acquire any right over the property of
the citizens of the ceded territory, which the Legis-
latures of Virginia and Maryland did not possess
when the cession was made. The Legislatures
of Virginia and Maryland had not then, nor
have they now, the 'power to abolish slavery
m their respnctive States, without the consent of a
majority of the citizens of their respective States; and
Congress could acquire no right by the cession which
the ceding party had not the power to grant; and this
brings me to the position which I before assumed,
viz- that when a majority of the people of the
District of Columhin shall will thd abolition of
slavery within their District, Congress will have pow-
er to execute their will, and not refoie. The ques-
tion of the abolition of slavery has become a sub-
ject of such general interest that it is time to begin
to consider the policy of such a measure. It is
time to examine and expose the effects upon the
community, as well ill the slave States as those
not so; also, what effect such a change would
have upon the slaves themselves. Suppose that
this new-born philanthropy s'uocid run so high,
and spread so wide, as to effect en emancipation
of all the slaves in the United Stater, what will be
the result? I believe the entire bbac population is
over three mdlions. The result., then, "would be,
to turn loose upon society, ana ova spread the
country with three millions'of iv.2\uauflins. paupers,
beggars, thieves, robbers, assassins, and despera-
does; all, or nearly so, penniless ar.a destitute,
without sknl, means, industry, or perseverance to
obtain a livelihood; each and ajl possessing, brood-
ing, cherishing, and spreading, revenge for sup-
posed or real wrongs. I ask, sir, could the most
fruitful imagination, or the wildest fancy, picture
scenes more horrible than would follow such a stats
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Congress. The Congressional Globe, Volume 13, Part 2: Twenty-Eighth Congress, First Session, book, 1844; Washington D.C.. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth2368/m1/51/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.