Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v4.djvu/500

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
484
On Slavery.Hayne.
[March,

gress,) of questions so intimately connected with the welfare of these whom I represent, I cannot consent to be silent. On the slave question, my opinion is this: I consider our rights in that species of property as not even open to discussion, either here or elsewhere; and in respect to our duties, (imposed by our situation,) we are not to be taught them by fanatics, religious or political. To call into question our rights, is grossly to violate them; to attempt to instruct us on this subject, is to insult us; to dare to assail our institutions, is wantonly to invade our peace. Let me solemnly declare, once for all, that the Southern States never will permit, and never can permit, any interference whatever in their domestic concerns; and that the very day on which the unhallowed attempt shall be made by the authorities of the federal government, we will consider ourselves as driven from the Union. Let the consequences be what they may, they never can be worse than such as must inevitably result from suffering a rash and ignorant interference with our domestic peace and tranquility. But while I make these declarations, I must be permitted to add, that I apprehend no such violation of our constitutional rights. I believe that this house is not disposed, and that the great body of our intelligent and patriotic fellow-citizens in the other states have no inclination whatever, to interfere with us. There are parties, indeed, composed, some of them, of fanatics, and others of political aspirants, who are attempting, vainly I hope, to turn the current of popular opinion against us. These men have done us much harm already, and seem still fatally bent upon mischief. But if we are true to ourselves, we shall have nothing to fear. Now, sir, if it is the policy of the states not to suffer this great question to be touched by the federal government, surely it must be the policy of this government, exercising a paternal care over every member of the political family, not to suffer foreign nations to interfere with it. It is their imperative duty to shun discussion with them, and to avoid all treaty stipulations whatever, on any point connected, directly or remotely, with this great question. It is a subject of too delicate a nature—too vitally interesting to us—to be discussed abroad. On this subject, we committed an error when we entered into treaties with Great Britain and Colombia for the suppression of the slave trade. That error has been happily corrected.

The first treaty has failed, and the second was nearly unanimously rejected by this body. Our policy, then, is now firmly fixed—our course is marked out. With nothing connected with slavery, can we consent to treat with other nations?—and, least of all, ought we to touch the question of the independence of Hayti, in conjunction with revolutionary governments, whose own history affords an example scarcely less fatal to our repose. Those governments have proclaimed the principles of "liberty and equality," and have marched to victory under the banner of "universal emancipation." You find men of color at the head of their armies, their halls, and in their executive departments. They are looking to Hayti even now with feelings of the strongest confraternity; and show, by the very documents before us, that they acknowledge her to be independent at the very moment when it is manifest to all the world beside, that she has resumed her colonial subjection to France. Sir, it is altogether hopeless that we could, if we would, prevent the acknowledgment of Haytien independence by the Spanish American states; and I am constrained to add, that I must doubt, from the instruments to be employed by our government, whether they mean to attempt to do so. We are to send, it seems, an honest and respectable man, but a distinguished advocate of the