Selections: Speech Of Mr. Giddings, Of Ohio: Upon The Propos...

(Concludd.) This brings me lo iny ncxt prpposition, to wit: " That slavery, existing-by force of positive rnunicipnl law, is neccssarily conjined to fhe territorial jurisdiclion of the poteer creating il." By this posilion, ï woulj be understood as paying that. the slave laws of a state coanot be.mnile io extend iïiio the territory of atnotier state or nation. 't'o givo an üiutralion, I will suppo-e, Mr. Chairmon, ihat you reVide in Virginia, and lold a slave, who is strictly such .: Ü:c. laws of tlmt t;trle. If j-ou take tbat slave rato Warvlnnd just ns scon as yw' crosa the lino into (iiat sfale the slave lawa of' Virginia cease to opérate upnn liim, ond you must t hen tiold liiai by viitue of the laws of Alaryland. lf the slave, nfter entering thp latter síclo, resista yotir autíiority, he must br? punisbed undcr the laws of Alarybnd, and nol unJer tliose of Virginia. If you tijen pass inlo Kcntiicky vvirh him, you will tlien hóM hitn by force of KenUicky lnws. Tf you pass óvef the riyerinto Obio, In.sk by virtue of whnt law you will then hold him in slavery? SiippG.;e he tlien vefuses to obey you, and you atlempt to chastise him, but hedèfenda liiuiscll mpnfully, and compels yoü to keep a respectful dislance: whcre then is yoür remedy? By what law will you punith Sir, our laws give him the èurre rijrht to profeet his person igninst you, that they givc you to proteel your per?on arainst him. He would find a? much law in Ohio to punish you for resisting an assault made by him as you would to punish him tbr resisting you. The slave laws of Virginia áo not reacli into Ohio. Thcy cannot opérate within our state. I do not speak of cases whoro the plave ' escapes'from a slave state: in such case, the master, under the federal constituí ion may pursue nnd ro-tnke liirn But I f? peuk of cases where the slave enters a frec state wirh the.-.ctntsfn ofhis master. And I say that such entry of a free ftate by consent of hia master, is ítself a perfect smancipation of the slave. In such case, thensiciit lio touchos the soil of a l'ree state, thíit instant the shack'es of' slavety faíl from his lnnb?, and he becomes a frukma.n. If, afSter that, the niaster attempt to chastise liim, or restrain hini of his libf-rtv, the slave ma defend iiimself wilh such forcé as shall be necessary topfotect his pgraon and his personal liberly. If, in doing tKi% lie shiy his fornier master,such elajing wojuldbe justifbblè botnicide. Por such uct eommilted in Ohio he could not be tried in Virginia, le would be tried in Ohio, by ühio lawp, and not by tiie laws of Virginia. In the lattcr stafe, such act would be the htghest crime, perbups, known to tslaws; while, in Ohio, it would be no crime - not even a misdcinonnor. Piecisely the samo rules and the same reasoninge apply to acts done or comtnitted on the high sous on board American strips. Tiiey are tho terrilory of the tjriiied Stiltes; Congress has junsi'jctinn over them, and uot the legislature of a particular staio. Virginia cannot legiglate for that territory. Sha can nu more extend lier slave lawa upon the ocean, than conti ress can extend ife jm$dictiw into Virginia to nbblish elavery. Tlie rights and pnwers between the state and national gnvrmtnents are equolly supreme and exclusive in this respect. The povvers and dulies of ench are clonrly dofined by the Constituí ion, and there is not th; lenst conflict ofjtir3diction between th m. Virginia holds hor flavos at the dic!.".tion of lier own wil], independent of Congress and the federal governinent, and of any and all the othcr stntes. But, sir, she must hold thnn tctlhin her own temtnnj, and she has no j power to take them npon thé terrilory of any ree sta! e or of the United States whero no Jaw of siavery exists. She can leerislate for her own territory but not for others. The doctrine which T have laid down is al most as old as the history of Enjfliili jurisprudence. As early as the levonth yoar of the ïeijrn of Queen Elizabeth, a Mr. Cartwright is said to have urouglit a clave from Ru?sia, ! and wonld scöurge him, for which he was cnlled to account," kc, (vide Rushworlh's Collections, 4C3.) At that early day, the law of Enwland djd not permit one man to scoure another as a slave on British soil. Otlier caso3 occtined: and in 1773 the cclebrated case of Somerset was docidcd, in which 'this doctrine waa fully recugnised and establihed. ín that ca.sef a man had bronght to Englnnd his slave from Virginia, where siavery wasauthorized by the laws of the province. The inaaler had sent him on board a ship to be taken'to onrj of tho West India Islands. He was bronght bnfore Lord Mansfield on a " habens corpus," and, on the hearing of the case, the doctrine was laid down and recoxnised, that " siavery is opposed to naturalïaio and an abrid gement of nalvral righf, and can (kerefore ouly exist ly Jorce of posilive municipal efuir.tmmt, and must, of course, be slrictly r.onjintd to the territorial jvrisliction oj the power creating it." Thi: doctrine lias never been devhted from by the Enpflish courts pince that limf. Jn the case of Porbed vs. Cockrane, Holroyd, (justice,.) speaking of the rights of a master over his slave, says: - "VVhensrch riplits are recognied by law. fhey must be consideréd as foun.led, not upnn the law of nature, but upon ihe particular !aw of that country, a'd must bk co-f.xTrn51VE W1TH Tnii TERITORY QF THAT STATE. ' Justice Best says: Slavcry isa local laiv: - í herefore, if a m m wish to preserve his slnves let. him attnch them to him by afTection, or nnake fast the bars &f thoir or rivef. ivcll thf-ir chains; for tiiiü instas.-1 thky gkt BEYOND TOR LWITS WHERK SLAVERT ÍS RRCOGNISKD BY THE LOCAL LAW, THBT IIAVK KROKB5 rHRirt CHAINS, ïiJKY HAVE RSCÁFGD FROM THBlR prison, and auf. free ' Tliis, too, is the docrir e recop-fiised on tho continent, except whefe t has been clianod by particular ediets or ;nactments. It has also been followed by ;he supremo and circuit courts of the United Btates, and the courts of those stntes who rave published their decisipns, so (ar as they iave been called to pass jndgment on those nies ions. The doctrine laid down by the E cf'is!i :ourts does not apply to cases in thi l States where a slave 'escapes' fromaslavê state into a free state. In such case he'does lot gain his freedom. This distinction, how?ver, arises from the provisión of our federal, ü.mstitution. The framersof that instrument ivere well acquainicd with the law of siavery. rhe cr.se of Somerset had been deciáed nearly twenty years prior to the öonventibp that formed our Constitntion, and while these Statos were provinces of the mother country; he doctrine contained in that cai?e fi'as extremely intÊresiing to ih.ethen dilonies, in all of which, at that'time, siavery existed. Prior to the formation of the Constilulion, Massachnsetfs had abolishpd slavory; Vermont had nevor held sl.-.ves; New YorL and other States were t;iking ■ ineasures to aboiish it. - !:g cornmon law. üh it lh"n exisicd, if.', slave sliould esfcapë ihlo a free Stnle, hc would thereby g-aiu his (Vccdom. In this way, it was foreseon t!iat this species of seli'-oniaticipatiun wii:lii aroaily diminish the valué öf in ihe Soulhrrn States. Tiiis ovil, as thèy deejned it, jnrót be providcd atjaïnst; lor Llia't purpqse a clausé was iñsert&d ilint "no person hela to service or lahor in'one State, üpcaping int nno'. her, should be djscharged frorn such servicfl or labor." This pro) ia coníiíK'í! to c ises of espape, aad doe not npïly to cases wiVre a )avc is laken to a freo State, or goes there with ibe consent of his nasler. Such has been the uniform eourse of lecisions in both the slave and freo St:ite.s. - f might cite a t!"ain of decisions in Manlaud, Virginia, Kentucky Mississippi, nnd Loúisiana, is well as in Pennsvlvania, Iassac!)iisetts. ')i)io, and Indiana. I believe there is no con ■ j rariety of decisions on the subject. I íave een unable to íind a case in the reporta of tny State wlierc these doctrines are denied. - Phe dociiine appears never to have been loubted in tho Unit?d States until lately. - t a vcry early day after the foroiatioji of our i 3pnstituünn, wliüo Conpress sai in )hia, the State Pmnsylvania puseed a Jaw luthofizing and ejnppwering persons i ng from 'slave Staies3 nnd brinoiü their i laves with them, to hold cuch elayeó n that State for a certain pcriod. Tuis was I lone for the express ourppse of prever,? ing the 1 mancipation of such síavc. by oporation of' i aw. The same ieasons gave rj$fl lo what t ïas nsually been termed the (inine rnonths' aw" of the Sta (e f New York. The reasons t br passing that luw were the same as thosc iwhicli urged liie passage of ihe law in Pennsylvania to whicli I have alludcd. Persons coming from the South, and bringing thoir servante witb. them, could rind no law by vvhich to retain tlicni in service, nor co:tld they take thejn back from wheiice they came; but, on the contrary, on entering' tfiat State, suc.'i sluvos were absolutely free, for the obvious rcason that therc was no law of sluvory there by which their right to defence was declitred (ii)l:nvful. For the purposo, thereforer cf enubling such porsons to hold thoir slaves for a cortain time after entering the Stntp, Piiid law was p-ssed. Thus, sir, has the law oF sluvery been dormcd nml held to be local by courts, and jurists, and legishitures, down to the time of this transaction on board the Creóle; I onght, perhaps, tósay rat hor tmtil tlio Wreek of the Comot and Encominm. In b-th ot' these casos our Executive made deirnnd of the j B.-itish Government for compensution uppp the assumed ground that slayery was a national institulioh, authorizëd by tne l'-vs of the ! G ivcnimotit. The British ministry appear not to have been awaro ot" the distinction existing between our. State aft] N-itionnI Governments in regard to slavory, and the whole nn.-ofiution was con lueted upoñ tito hypothesis tint slavery upon th was aiithorizcd by the laws of the Unit- cil Stntej. But, sir, them being n fu-h law, ir followa, 06 nn uneniable conclusión, that slavery is confined to the territorial jurisdietion of the severa! States authorizing ii, and tint he wh export? elAyes at thia day does so at hisown peril, precíáely aa much as !ie d'd who im])orted s)avés prior to the year 1308. He doos it without the protection of lnw, and he must rely upon chains and fetters and physical power for his safety. It appoarscqnuüy clearlhat persons held ns slaves in :iny State are instantly free the ,omentthey are taken, with the consent of their master.i, beyond the limits of the State on to the high seas: ílio persons on board the Crole, when ta!;en bpyond the jurisdicción of Virginia were absoliüely free - tHetf u-ere free in the considerption of all law) oolh hnnua and divine, po?sessing all righis incident to American liberty. Prom that moment they possessed the fnll, just, and indisputable riíit to maintai;) and défend their person.? and liberty with all the means and forre wtthin their power. Nor do I entertain the least doubt that. these rights would have been respected by the people of New York or Boston had thoy lnnded thero instead of going to Nassau. - They would have been receivedas freemen.and their rihts to the enjoyment of liberty would have been sustained in the United States court, or in the courts of either of the States. From the nrmient they Ieft the jaris.-liction of Virginia they wnre no loner sJav'esj their formei mastera bad no more claim to them thari Lhey hid to their masters who had previouöly held them in bondage. Mustera and slaves then stood upon the same leve!, hable to the saine luw.-1, and pessessing1 the game lenl right to liberty in every respect. It therefbre follows most clearly tiiar. their former masters have no claim upon the Brit is h Government, or any other persori, for their loss. It is equally ptön that we, asa nat ion, have not t!e sliadow cf a claim upon Ëngjftnd Céi sJaves; for, if we demand ihose persona pf Grent Britain, we shaJI mako a demand ot' freemen eclared such by our own laws and By tiic laws' of'England. " Bul it is said that a ñato) er of thnse persons werp Êfuilty of "icutiuy anu inurder," and'that it is the.dutj of this Government to obtain possession of them for tiie purpose of punibing them. It will scarceiy be expected i tint I shoij-l go into an arcrnin.-'nt to sliow !his allesation entirely nnfoundeil. "Mtitiny miy hodefmed as the resistance of legal ;hithority, lo whicli the mutineer hs vuluntarily heconie subject." Thus a soldier, having vohnitarlly enfèred tlie itrmy, having en and become si-.bject to the rulos and regülatioTiB j of hat service, 'would bo guilty ofmutiny if he rosisted the lawful commands of his officer. - But, sir, if yon orí were unlawfully t;ken by forre and aifainsl our will to nn eucampment, and an officer shonld attempt to control ou: movement, or to inflict corporal cl)as:isemont upon us; onr ic.,ist;;nce would be lawful, and not mutinous. fa man enter a ship as a sailor, havinff signed the ship's artieles and Biiboiirted voTuhlarily to the laws and regu!atioVs which jsfovern fbose r.mployed in that ca pacity. he thereby btcomes botind to obcy il proper orders of his captain, and other ofticrs, and resistance on his part to the legl orders of siicli pfficers would be mutiny. But, sir, if the sarn'e man were onlawfuliy and by force tfii;oi on board such ship agair. t hia will, no oorson conld urge that he w.is bound to ohey the captain, or that resiatance to the captains nurhoriiy wqtild be muüny or ahyöt'ner crime. .;. ond l iliinkiiem-mstrated to the ffiori'ofriïose who herd mo, thnl m n 8' tod upèn the Creóle wlbemMj re! and ftilly eraancipatetl from sUVery. It is nut pretended that thoy hü tUgneá the ship's articé, or in any waj ■ 'i tu perfairmthé sailore. ' Iï fqllpws that neitlur the . npr tïieir former o vnef p J any itliority over them; tlmy had be kon oh board -against their will and wktoui their le?al consent. Whils in thjs sitoation, the captain .ml former owneta were taking t!o;: to New Orleans to en-laye tliörn thetn as slavëfl.. Árid tb&qáeátíon anses, had they a rifcht to resiat tbis attenjpt oi the captain and sl.ive dealers? ïid resislance lo such :.n act conslitute imitiny? The ad itself waa unlawful- il was a violutiop of the dearest ri-hts of man; and will it be urged that they were bound to submit to it i nej hbd a clëar and indisputable , legal pgfit to resist all aifcr.pt to re-enlavo them byjustsiich deffreo of force as was' nécessary to tipiotap iheirliberív. lf.evW white rnan on board tbé sbip had preferred tbc loss of his own Ufe to the liberty of tjü? bcks, they Wöutdhave beenjustifie.1 ín slaymg evcry man who .nemntcd to ensJaye thein. I speak of legal iu.tiíication. Gentlemen may d.ffer as to he rr.oral rjgbl I om, . however, willing hal those wbo thicik they incurred moral gmlt hy issertüjg and maintaining their liberty shoukl henïselves net npon the same doctrine. But I will frankly say, bad I been in the cöndition n which thöy were placed, with the same aiernative before me - a cowardly submiesion o a slave dealer, with slavery and dej.-radation o myself and ofTspring, on one hand,or heroic cSbrt, wilh Oeedoir. to mysolf oud of&prlngr.on tlie otlicr - I could not have hesitated as to the moral duty. 1 should havn feit myself obJigiitéd, by every n.oral principio, to deferid the Ijberty wliich fiud hul bespwed pon mo 10 the extent of every uieans within my powor. To linvo basely surrendered up my liberly under such circnmátáhcesí and doömed tny posterity in coming timo to ari ignominioüs , would have incurreda fearfnl amount of inonti guilt, according lomy views of moral obligaxiot). Uut the Executive alijes tbat tKesé persons W5r; also guilty of murdcr. Tint crime ia definod by writers on law to be "tho külingwithout warrant or u.'.cuse ofany reraon creaturó in the public pouce, with maiice aforethousyht." Ifnd they no vyarpiiit or excusf? Was Hewell in tho oi ;' t fio public peace? l)d thoy exhibit VVhcn oog of tho sla. compfl tlipm to submiwion, n: ■■! io be f; i carrièd intó slayery, liioy viplence, nu:], in m him. In other words, tiiey .-!■ hirn in fendihg their per-. vvitn which tin: God of notnro e And this calle ! natuder y a ' o f Government," and those v. i . . :!,: t iirtr 3i'ir-r; y nnd person I I ofa foreicfii ( ' aa criini;i : to tho eiviüzrd world, that by ourlawf; ry oxiats apon the ñ ';■ ■■ ! .A con sbips; tha lared i;, crii fif a rn-ui wlio has !; : 'M c.trried to s.m n-rainst lus wil!, for tb.e. pnrpose o' ■ i to a and eold as n human r.hnltel, to berty. Qv, :h all dua n for tbose whó hpld tö thia docirinp, í must be pennitted to bív distinctly that I ropudiato it. Ií is a doctrine whirh catinot be sustained. My reasona I have already given. I have stntcd tfiat no such law exista. I unhesitatiiifílv challenge tbose who asert t'ie existente of such law to ive us the proof on which t!íy reiy. Sliow oa t!)o law; 1-iy it before tho country; let the peopie read and understaud it; cliow us the dccHon of .some court to that effect, Najrj í ctí iem to exhibit the opinión of nny ju ■ dicta of any reputabli j vist, sustainihg puch doctrine, given or writteo prior to the origin of thé preseni quostion, in which the slave dealnrs of the Soqlb insjst upwi the duty of Uiis nation to protoct them while pursuin? a traffic ín human ílesh. I have shöwn that theso persons were free, and it is admitted by all that Hewell was sl.iin while endeavoriu to reduce tham to slavery. They showed in wish to injure any peion who (lid not nssml them. No person will eay there was any exhibition of malice, which is so necessnry to constitute murder. Tlmy did not wantonly nssuil him, but they defended lhem.elve.s - They did not to go the cabin and attack hirn while asleép, bnt, when he cnmj on dfc!; und attemptedto kill them, the defended thênv selv-es by talííng tiía ufe. Thry uere plntíed in ího same situation preciseiy in which they would boye fpund theitnselves had they beeu attocked by a pírate fer íhe purposc of makinu theín prisoners, ro bo s I-1 asslavea iu AricT. Th'v liad pieciee'y :hc i.ihe riíit tp. defend themselves ífainst one as nnftiin t thg other. Heweü po.-'ses?eJ no more nothonty in law than tho pirfttes woúld i;ive posseed. Tiieir duíy to tlicmselves and oíFprin;r waa llie same in one case as it would have beq in the otlinr. In c.ther ciso they would have been actin i:i defence ofa rifflit bestowed upon them by God h.mseíf, and which they werp moraüy bound to nrotpct; and in prott-ctn? it they offended agfciñst no harnas i.nvr - [t is true tiiey took lile,'rnd tiiis is the only semblancG which íhe nct boars ío murdesr.-But the enere ínkin? of human life d;cspot troiistitute murder; if it did, pujr síierifti, who execute crimiimlá in pursiiáncé of timir eworg duty,' would fee. murdererá. IIj wlio küls tlie I t assnssin in self- cí'enco u-oild bo a r. lie tbat kills the p'.r.ite who wonlá take bis life to o')t;i lúa prpoeflj1 vvo;i! 1 be a mnrderer. Bnt every raaa is awaro that, in order to cons'.ilulc murder, theie ínuát !e a w.v.í '0:1 ai-t, a felpnioua inic)',: fhere mudt have been malice in theráind ofhim wlio committed the aot. Without these there ú no :rme. No gefftieoinn will urge thatthá persons on board tho Creóle were auctuated by my Liic!i feeliñg. Liberty wna théir object; it was tlieir aetuating motive, and not inalice. It is true they wero the unfortunalo KOiirj of África, Nuture hud given m durlc complexions. They had long been qpprejsaed by thoir white breliiren; they hud wo n 1 of si tvëry; taey 1 i beneáth tho h.h of the overáéje ; . torn from íheir iiomcs, t!G scènes pf :! 'ir c!; Idhötd, "rom tlicir v. :. ■■, md ti llrcn, and íh.-ir friénilö, tiipy were t I 1 tlio still (ioeper degradation ;' ■ '■■ no I slave rmrket. V:i'e thffla eitoated, libértyj with ai] á blessinzs b v a-i J to tlicm provi I exert suificient erif ' a"d liero: ■ 'j ■ mithoit lave offteedom wiiich iinpelled Ihem to re ist fu'rthefo Bccordance : . lonot _,cnti. ■. 'll'' civílized w ind. Yot, for the exhibition uikí i nL'' thoy hnvebcan cUrged as lilty of m ■ by men of legal intcUtgence, ! hud ene, I beleve, lias yet ussigned ns of such hnre; no one ha-s reférrefl ;is to tho !aw, or )ointe8 usto the decistrin ofany court, ö'r 'to he ooi.icr; of any jurist, in sup ort of Bucfa I would inost re.pectfüWy tquest üoii '.'pn.:i-iur:i lo stand lorfh boldly iü í-uplieir vie.v intry, and neet tlie quoslinn by'a.rgurnent and reasohs, nstead of agsutnpji i.hekr thwg efer 113 to the,Jav that -!e to o qnietiy to tho s!avo marfcet to be sold; tr, if they can 6nd no uf tbat deciiptio, í.s)oi:!d be piea.ed tu hear them, demónstrate Bífeli tu I:'ve brnn thjeir moral duty. I wojíiI :kc to propound to such gentlemen the quetiop, 'üad yon been on board the CreoJe, in thq same situation as those pér.-ons were pt ivhorn you uow spéak as "murdorer:-," vould pn liave tamely sub:.itted to tho orders ofa ilave traders? Would yon, with a craven lienrt aud covvardly spirit, have suiïbred youríelves to be quietíy carried to a slave ma ind 'sold into interminab.e bondugo? Would f'ou have sufi'ered yoursclvea to ba diar