improper to question in debate the republican character of the slaveholding states, which had also a tendency, as one gentleman (Mr, Colston, of Virginia,) said, to deprive those states of the right to hold slaves as property, and he adverted to the probability that there might be slaves in the gallery, listening to the debate.] Mr. Fuller assured the gentleman that nothing was farther from his thoughts, than to question on that floor, the right of Virginia and other states, which held slaves when the constitution was established, to continue to hold them. With that subject the national legislature could not interfere, and ought not to attempt it. But, Mr. Fuller continued, if gentlemen will be patient, they will see that my remarks will neither derogate from the constitutional rights of the states, nor from a due respect to their several forms of government. Sir, it is my wish to allay, and not to excite local animosities, but I shall never refrain from advancing such arguments in debate as my duty requires, nor do I believe that the reading of our Declaration of Independence, or a discussion of republican principles on any occasion, can endanger the rights, or merit the disapprobation of any portion of the Union.
My reason, Mr. Chairman, for recurring to the Declaration of our Independence, was to draw from an authority admitted in all parts of the Union, a definition of the basis of republican government If, then, all men have equal rights, it can no more comport with the principles of a free government to exclude men of a certain color from the enjoyment of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness," than to exclude those who have not attained a certain portion of wealth, or a certain stature of body, or to found the exclusion on any other capricious or accidental circumstance. Suppose Missouri, before her admission as a state, were to submit to us her constitution by which no person could elect, or be elected to any office, unless he possessed a clear annual income of twenty thousand dollars; and suppose we had ascertained that only five, or a very small number of persons had such an estate, would this be anything more or less than a real aristocracy, under a form nominally republican? Election and representation, which some contend are the only essential principles of republics, would exist only in name — a shadow without substance, a body without a soul. But if all the other inhabitants were to be made slaves, and mere property of the favored few, the outrage on principle would be still more palpable. Yet, sir, it is demonstrable that the exclusion of the black population from all political freedom, and making them the property of the whites, is an equally palpable invasion of right, and abandonment of principle. If we do this in the admission of new states, we violate the constitution, and we have not now the excuse which existed when our national constitution was established. Then, to effect a concert of interests, it was proper to make concessions. The states where slavery existed not only claimed the right to continue it, but it was manifest that a general emancipation of slaves could not be asked of them. Their political existence would have been in jeopardy; both masters and slaves must have been involved in the most fatal consequences.
To guard against such intolerable evils, it is provided in the constitution
