Polk_Letter_103_49954

Governor of Virginia Transmitting [illegible] -tions of the Legisl-tive of that state-[illegible] to a demand made of the Executive of New York for the surrender of certain fugitives from justice with a request that the [illegible] may be laid before the Legislature of Tennessee [illegible]-Mon 7 "10 1840 [illegible] Dec-10 "10 1840 (see little Book p.135)-

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Nov. 12th, 1840.

Sir, I have had the honour already to transmit to your excellancy a copy of certain proceedings of the general assembly of Virginia, in relation to the refusal of the governor of New York to surrender certian free negroes on the demand of the executive of this state. These fugitives from justice were charged with having stolen within the jurisdiection of Virginia, a slave, the property of a citizen of this state, and with having fled to the state of New York. By one of the resolutions of the general assembly of this state, I am instructed "to open a correspondence with executive of each of the slaveholding staes, requesting their co-operation in any necessary and proper measure of redress which Virginia may be forced to adopt." I forbore to address your excellency on this subject, until I had again and again endeavoured to induce the executive of New York to retract a position which is deemed utterly untenable, and destructive of the clear, acknowledged constitutional rights of the other states. The final and deliberatae purpose of the governor of New York, to adhere to so gross and dangerous a perversion of the federal constitution, having been at length announced to me, I have now no alternative, and in compliance with the resolution of the general assembly, must invoke on behalf of Virginia, and of every slaveholding state, the earnest and effectual consideration by your state of a subject which so nearly and vitally affects our common interests.

The report and resolutions which have been communicated to your excellency will apprise you of th egneral views entertained in reference to this controverys, by the last general assembly of this state, and by the governor of New York. Fortunately for the slaveholding states, the question involved has been so distinctly and emphatically settled by the plain terms of the federal constitution, that it is impossible for the ingenuity or prejudices of the human mind to deny or evade our just demand, without doing manifest violence to that sacred instrument. The slaveholding states stand now precisely where they stood when the constitution was submitted by the convention of 1787, and ratified by all the states, claiming the same rights and no more, which every state then readily conceded to us; and it seems to me that the qustion which has been forced on us by the refusal of the governor or New York to abide by the constitution, is one on which we can have little to apprehend from the justice and patriotism even of the non-slaveholding states. It is not a question whether slavery ought originally to have been introduced, or should continue to exist in this country. If it were, many of the states wholse policy on this subject differs from our own, could not fail to recollect their agency in introducing the present system of slaverr, and the very recent period at which some of them, and particularly New York, have abolished it within their own borders. The question is, wheter the constitution shall continue to afford to the slaveholding states, that protection which was expected by us and designed by all the states. It is well know that, thought most of the states held slaves at the period when our Union was formed, yet the subject of our slave population was the chief and most preplexing difficulty with the framers of the constitution. This was then, as it is now, one of those subjects where it is easier to feel than to reason, where misguided passion may mediate and accomplish more mischief that the judgment can redress, where the sacred names of philanthropy and religion may be invoked by demons to cover the blood-stain of their impious and cruel designs.

The federal constutution has been voluntarily ratified by each of the states, and its provision and al laws made in pursuance of them, are the supreme law of every state. This instrument as a compact between the states, permitted the importation of slaves from foreign countries for a spcified time, and fixed the maximum rate of impost duties which could be levied on them by congress. That time expired in 1808, though the states had generally ceased to avail themselves of this stipulated right long before. Still the right was guaranteed to each of the original states by the letter of the constitution.

The second section of the first article of the federal constitution recognizes slaves as an element of taxation and representation. The second section of the fourth article contains but three provisions, which are as follow: "1. The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. "2. A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the staet from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. "3. No person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labour may be due."

Here is the right of the master to his slave as property is distincetly recognized, not only in the state where the slave "is held to service or labour," but for the purpose of reclaiming and recovering him, in any other state to which the slavae may escape. The federal constitution does most distinctly and unequivocally recognize the existence of slavery in the United States; and congress, by their act of February 1793, have provided specific means for the security of the master's rights throughout the states.

The governor of New York has refused to surrender these fugitives from justice on the demand of Virginia, because they are charged with having stolen a slave, and because slavery is not now recogized by the laws of New York. With the same propriety and for the stronger reason, he might, and no doubt would, (if the case had been left by the act of congress within the sphere of his official discretion,) refuse to permit a fugitive slave to be recovered by his master within the jurisdiction of New York. In fact the principles assumed by the govenor of New York in this case, would lead to the subversion of the federal compact, and leave each state in its intercourse with the others at perfect liberty to prescribe for itself and its co-staes any rule which its caprice or prejudice might dictate. If the federal

constitution has ceeased to be the supreme law in so essential a particular, our domestic institutions and our property are exposed to perils against which we have no adequate legal defence, either as it regards the insursions of the states or of the federal government. The construction which absolves one state, or any department of the federal or state government from its obligation to obey the constitution, necessarily absolves all other staes and all other departments. The state and federal judiciary of New York, its senators and representatives in congress, the judiciary, the representatives, the executives of other states, are no more bound to obey the constitutioin, than is the governor of New York. If the state of Virginia has no right to demand the surrender of a fugitive who has stolen a slave here and south refuge in the state of New York, because slavery is not recognized by the laws of New York, the owner of a slave can have no right to recover his property there, and the slaveholding staes are exposed to all the burdens of our federal compact, without deriving nay equivalent benefit, to all the dangers of a delusive alliance, without the means of self protection which have been surrendered for its sake. It is in vain for us to be told that the state of New York is prepared to acknowledge our perfect right of property in our lands nad chattels, and that the thief who steals a hat or pary of shoes will be surrenderred to answer the criminal accusation under our laws, while he who steals or spirits away our slaves, shall be permitted to do so with impunity, under the protection of that state.

The question which lies at the foundation of all the social relations between the states, is not, what measure of justice may be vouchsafed to us by the arbitrary pleasure of any state, but whether the rights and the remedies secured by our compact of union, and prescribed on the paramount authority of allthe states, shall continue to prevail.

It cannot be maintained that the constitutional rights of the slaveholding states have not been recognized by the laws of New York. They are necessarily recognized by each state of the Union so long as the federal constitution continues to be "the supreme law of the land." If the governor of New York admits that instrument to be valid and binding on the citizens and officers of his state, he cannot deny that the right of Virginia to make this demand is perfect, although the fugitives are charged with steealing a slave. He must succeed in establishing the authority of his state as paramount to the constitution of the United States, or he must admit that a law which the citizens of that state have ratified in convention as their supreme law, and which he and every other state officer has sworn to support as such, does recognize slavery, so far at leasat as to give to this state the right to demand the surrender of a fugitive charged with stealing a slave. And this is the whole extent of our controverys; for Virginia has not attempted to prescribe any new rule or social relation to New York, nor to interfere in any manner with those which she may have prescribed for herself. It is insised that the federal constitituion has conferred on Virginia the right to make this demand, and imposed on New York the obligation to comply with it, and it remains to be seen whether that state can occupy the position in which she is involved by the course of her chief magistrate, whether as a member of the Union, she shall participate in its blessings without sharing its responsibilities and its burdens.

Virginia is not without ample means of redress for all the wrongs which may be anticipated. She does not appeal to the states possessing a common interest on this subject with herself, from any distrust of her cause, or from any wish to involve others in the controversy on her account. She desires to shrink from no peril which threatens her alone, nor to avoid her just share of that which endangers the rights of any member of the Union. If it had been her object meerly to vindicate her own rights, she could have done so by precipitating this question to extremes, without consultation with her co-states. Had she followed the example of the chief magistrate of New York, and disregarded all constitutional obligations on this subject, she would have had no doubt of the sympathies, though she might not have deserved the succour, of those to whom she now appeals. But the constitution of the United Staes and the incalculable benefits of our union are too dear to every Virginian to be abandoned while there remains a hope of their preservation; and it has been deemed respectful to those states which are exposed to the same dangers, and which claim the same rights as ourselves, to submit our controversy to their calm reflection, that they may advise us if we have mistaken their constitutional rights and our own, or aid us by their counsel and co-operation in our effort to re-establish the just and constitutional relations of the states.

It may be asked, by what means shall this be effected, and why has Virginia asked you to "co-operate in any necessary and proper measure of redress which she may be forced to adopt," without indicating the character of the measures which are contemplated? It is becuase Virginia does not regard this question as her own, but as involving principles of the utmost consequence to all the states, that she desires to confer with her sister states as to the mode and measure of redress, instead of committing herself and them by action, the necessity of which she is anxious, if possible, altogether to avert. She desires to be assured by your authority that she has not mistaken her own rights and yours, and to obtain the benefit of your agency in effectually vindicating them.

it may be asked, why this appeal is made only to the slaveholding states. It is answered, that unless there was a necessity to invoice the non-slaveholding states to meet us in convention, as co-arbiters of this controversy, it would be needless to ask their counsel or co-operation in regard to a subject on which they may be supposed to feel no other than a general interest as members of the Union. The expectation is still confidently i ndulged, that reason alone will be found adequate to re-establish the principles and letter of the constitution in this essential particular, and we sannot with propriety ask that those who have no immediate interest in the question, should furnish arguments for us who have. Virginia has forborne to invite the co-operation of the non-slaveholding states, from no want of confidence in their devotion to the Union, and to the principles of mutual and just concession in which is has been founded. Whilte she could not fail to be gratified by the voluntary sanction of their judgment in foaour of our rights under the constitution, she has not desired to embarrass them, nor to commit herself by an appeal to their authority. Besides, this is a question on which all the states have continued from 1787 to the present time, to concur in the conclusion established by the constitution and maintained by Virginia, and it might be deemed disrespectful to presume that any state, even New York herself, would sanction the dangerous fallacies of governon Seward. But two instances are remenbered in which executive officers of the states have hesitated to comply with the requisitions of the act of congress, where

the peculiar interest of the southern states were involved, while it is a source of much satisfaction to know, that as yet, no state has deliberately sustained their heresies. The legislature of Virginia have therefore deemed it sufficient to lay this general subject before the nn-slaveholding states, without inviting their immediate co-operation. I have accordingly communicated the proceedings of our general assembly to all the states.

I am not instructed by the legislature to suggest any specific line of policy as likely to be adopted by this state, or to be recommended to you. Common interests and common dangers require tha there should be mutual condifence and concert between us. Should the state of New York, or any other state, persist in this arbitrary denial of our rights, you are apprised by the recolutions of our legislature, that the state of Virginia does not intend to submit to so dangerous and palpable a violation of our compact. We desire to know whether those states which, like ourselves, have peculiar interests involveed in this question, concur in our convictions of right, and in our resolution to maintain them.

There is no difficulty in finding means for our defence. The difficulty is, in being convinced that any portion of our countrymen will drive us to resort to them. There can be no more auspicious occasion than the present, for the slaveholding stated to demand an explicit understanding as to their constitutional rights, and to terminate forever the experiments which mischievous spirits have been alloed to make on our property and our peace. If there is any question connected with sourther interests which can be met with calmness and composure, with solemn deference for the established principles of abstract justice and cconstitutional law, by the whole American people, it is surely this. If the appalling dangers and florious triumpghs of which our Union has been the witness, can inspire no reverence for the past, will the sacred names of justice, findenity, patriotism and religion, avail nothing for the future? Has the maniac yell of fanaticism silenced all these? If it be so, it is time that the painful truth were known to all, and that we may no longer lean ona broken reed, which will o nly pierce our sides.

I have been encouraged, however, to hope for a more cheering result. I have thought thatt his questions was destined to arrest the serious attention of the states, and to revive the feeling and reflections which agve rise to our happy form of union, to remind us of the sacrifices and concessions whch established our national independence and prosperity, and to teach our countrymen that there is danger of losing the substance of the liberties now enjoyed, by grasping at the shadow of universal emancipation. If I am mistaken in this, Virginia may still derive some consolation from the reflection, that the danger was one which she did not seek and could not shun.

The legislature of New York, it is believed, have not concurred in the views of her executive, and thought the subject was submitted to them at their last session, they failed to express any opinion directly on the subject of this controversy. I should infer nothing unfavorable from this, but for the passage of an act by that body, after this subject was before them, giving or designing to give the right of trial by jury to slaves arrested in that state on the claim of their owners, and imposing very serious obstcles tothe recovery of this species of property, and very severe penalties on the unsuccessful assertion of the master's rights. A similar statute of that state, it is believed, has been heretofore annulled by the state judiciary, as contravening the federal constitution, and th act of congress of 1793.

The adoption of retalatory measures by the slaveholding states, if this denial of our rights is persevered in, would probably arrest the evil, and lead to a speedy adjustment of these questions. But as too early a resort to such means might probably preclude a dispassionate recognition of our rights, as as we cannot distruct the justice of our demands, and ought not to anticipate a want of fidelity inour countrymen to a constitution, which they like ourselves have sealed with their blood, and sanctioned by their oaths, Virginia is reluctant to follow the example of the governor of New York, and consider our federal compact at an end. It remains to be seen whether the expression of one common feeling and one resolution on the part of slaveholding states, will hereafter prevent some such necessity. It is very evident that the single infraction of the constitution which has occurred in this instance, if not redress, may elad to the total subverion of those amicable and intimate relations which that instrument was deisnged to establish between the states, and that in their intercourse with each other they will be exposed, under the construction of governor Seward, to all the inconveniences and all the dangers to which foreign and hostile nations are subject.

I have the honour, sire, to request that your excellency will bring this subject to the consideration of the legislature of your state, and to offer the assurance of the distinguished esteem, &c.

With which I am, Your ob't ser'vt Thomas W Gilmer

To His Excellency the Governor of Tennessee

PREAMBLE AND RESOLUTIONS

RELATIVE TO THE DEMAND BY

THE EXECUTIVE OF VIRGINIA,

UPON THE

EXECUTIVE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

FOR THE SURRENDER OF

THREE FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE.