Abraham Lincoln

Federal Government to control as to slavery in _our Federal Territories_?

Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial

form an issue; and this issue--this question--is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood "better

than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did,

how they acted upon it--how they expressed that better understanding.

In 1784, three years before the Constitution--the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and

no other,[6] the Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that

Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and

voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the

prohibition,[7] thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor

anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other

of the four--James M'Henry--voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it

improper to vote for it.[8]

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the

Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of

prohibiting Slavery in the Territories again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two more of

the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the question.

They were William Blount and William Few[9]; and they both voted for the prohibition--thus showing that, in

Abraham Lincoln

65

---

their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the

Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. This time, the prohibition became a law,

being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.[10]

The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the

Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any

of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.[11]

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of

'87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by

one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from

Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches

without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to an unanimous passage.[12] In this Congress, there were sixteen

of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman,

Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus

King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James

Madison.[13]

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the

Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to

correct principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the

prohibition.

Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such,

approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his

understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the

Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal

Government the country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that

which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was made a

condition by the ceding States that the Federal Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded

country.[14] Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances,

Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did

interfere with it--take control of it--even there to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of

Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place

without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought.[15] This act passed both branches

of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original

Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and Abraham Baldwin.[16] They all, probably, voted

for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line

dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal

Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came

from certain of our own States; but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804,

Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of Louisiana. New

Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns

and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not,

in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it--take control of it--in a more marked and

extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in

relation to slaves, was:

Abraham Lincoln

66

---