Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 717 JANUARY, 1836.] Slavery in the District of Columbia. [SENATE. that subject. HIe had listened with pleasure the subject? That a limited number of individand profit to the able argument of the honora- uals, from what motive he would not attempt ble Senator from Virginia, (MAIA LEIGH,) upon to say, were making it their calling and busithe powers of Congress, and had marked his ness to increase that excitement, and to make concessions of power equal to that possessed by it universal? And might he not claim that the the Legislatures of the respective States of action of the Senate should be such as would Maryland and Virginia over the same subject be most likely to calm the excitement in all the within those States. He had not studied the States and in every section of the Union? question himself, because he was able to mark Mr. CALHOUN could not concur with the genout his own course, with perfect satisfaction to tleman from New York that so much delicacy his own mind, without examining either the was to be shown to the very small part of his constitutional powers of Congress, or the own State he referred to, that these petitions powers of those State Legislatures. He was were not to be rejeeted, lest the refusal to reready to declare his opinion to be, that Con- ceive them might be considered as a violation gress ought not to act in this matter, but upon of the right of the citizen to petition Congress. the impulse of the two States surrounding the But, said Mr. C., does the gentleman look at District, and then in a manner precisely gradu- our side of the question? If his constituents, ated by the action of those States upon the continued Mr. C., are to be treated with so same subject. Had the constitution, in terms, much respect, that their petitions are to be regiven to Congress all power in the matter, this ceived, what is to be considered as due to our would, with his present views and feelings, be constituents? The Senator considered the his opinion of the expedient rule of action, and petition before thle Senate as moderate in its entertaining this opinion, an examination into language —he did not say otherwise-language, the power to act had been unnecessary to deter- said Mr. C., which treats us as butchers and mine his vote upon the prayer of these petitions. pirates. The Senator said that they must reHe was ready promptly to reject their prayer,.ceive this petition, and reject it, lest it might be and he deeply regretted that he was not per- considered as violating the right of petition. mitted so to vote without debate. To receive it, and immediately reject it. This The refusal to receive the petitions, Mr. W. looked something like juggling. Was the petisaid, was, to his mind, a very different question. tion of sufficient consequence to be received, That was the question now presented. If the and at the same time of so little consequence refusal should be sanctioned by the Senate, as to be immediately rejected? Was it intendupon the broad ground of the subject prayed ed merely that this petition was to be put on for, and not upon the distinct objection of in- the files of the Senate as a record to show the decorous language or matter in the petition it- opinion entertained of the people of the South self, it would be considered and felt, in many by these abolitionists? sections of the country, as a denial of the con- The gentleman said that unanimity of opinion stitutional right to petition, and, as such, would in the Senate was very desirable. He said so be infinitely more calculated to produce and too. Let the gentleman and his friends join us, increase, than to allay, excitement. The said Mr. C., and in that way we can obtain prompt rejection of the prayer of these peti- unanimity of opinion. If, as the gentleman tions would express the sense of the Senate, in said, the petition was to be immediately rejectthe most marked and decisive manner, against ed, why receive it at all? Would the gentlethe objects of the petitioners. The refusal to man say that a refusal to receive the petition receive the petitions would raise a new issue, would press in the slightest degree on the coninfinitely more favorable, as he deeply feared, stitutional right of the people peaceably to asto the schemes of these mad incendiaries than semble and petition for a redress of grievances? all which had gone before this proposed step. If the gentleman had made up his mind to reHe entreated, he said, his brethren of the ject the petition, he could have no insuperable South to reflect before they gave this immense objection to refuse to receive it. He repeated, advantage to the agitators. He was aware that that so long as these petitions could be received the Southern feeling must be sensitive, perhaps in the Senate, so long would agitation on the beyond his ability to estimate, upon this subject subject continue. The question must be met of domestic slavery. The constitutional rights, on constitutional grounds, or not at all. the personal and private interests, the domestic Mr. MoRRIS observed that, in presenting peace and domestic security, of the people of these petitions, it was his sincere desire to the slaveholding States, compelled them to avoid any thing like agitation or excitement in feel deeply and keenly upon every agitation of that body. Although he had had these petithis delicate question. He could not be insen- tions in his possession for some days, he resible to the existence of these feelings, or to frained from presenting them until he had an their justice. Yet, might he not appeal to opportunity of observing what was done with members of this body from those States, and others of a like tenor. The question now asask them to remember that excitement, grow- sumed a grave aspect. The constitutional ing out of the same subject, was also prevailing rights of the people peaceably to assemble and in the non-slaveholding States? That the pub- petition for a redress of grievances was involved. lic mind in those States had become aroused to On the subject of these petitions, it was not his

Pages

About this Item

Title: Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.
Author: United States. Congress.
Canvas: Page 717
Publication: New York, [etc.]: D. Appleton and company [etc.]; 1857-61.
Subject terms: United States -- Politics and government

Technical Details

Collection: Making of America Books
Link to this Item: https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0012.001
Link to this scan: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/ahj4053.0012.001/719

Rights and Permissions

These pages may be freely searched and displayed. Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please go to http://www.umdl.umich.edu/ for more information.

IIIF

Manifest: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/api/manifest/moa:ahj4053.0012.001

Cite this Item

Full citation: "Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856." In the digital collection Making of America Books. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/ahj4053.0012.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed June 10, 2025.

Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856.

Annotations Tools

Actions

About this Item

Technical Details

Rights and Permissions

Related Links

IIIF

Cite this Item