Pages
2
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Nov. 12th, 1840.
SIR,
I have had the honour already to transmit to your excellency a copy of certain proceedings of the general assembly of Virginia, in relation to the refusal of the governor of New York to surrender certain free negroes on the demand of the executive of this state. These fugitives from justice were charged with having stolen within the jurisdiction 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 the executive of each of the slaveholding states, 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 deliberate 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 no 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 the general views entertained in reference to the controversy, 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 the 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 question which has been forced on us by the refusal of the governor of 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 whose policy on this subject differs from our own, could not fail to recollect their agency in introducing the present system of slavery, and the very recent periods at which some of them, and particularly New York, have abolished it within their own borders. The question is, whether 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 known that, though 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 perplexing 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 meditate and accomplish more mischief than 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 constitution has been voluntarily ratified by each of the states, and its provisions and all 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 specified 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 state 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 therin, 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 the right of the master to his slave as property is distinctly 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 slave 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 recognized 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 governor 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-states any rule which its caprice or prejudice might dictate. If the federal
3
constitution has ceased 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 incursions 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 states 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 constitution, 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 sought 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 states are exposed to all the burdens of our federal compact, without deriving any equivalent benefit, to all the dangers of a delusive alliance, without the means of selfprotection 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 and chattels, and that the thief who steals a hat or pair of shoes will be surrendered to answer the criminal accusation under our laws, while he who steals or spirts 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 all the 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 consitution 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 stealing 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 least 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 controversy ; 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 insisted that the federal constitution 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 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 merely to vindicate her own rights, she could have done so by precipitating the 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 States 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 had 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 the 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 affected, 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 because 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 were a necessity to invite 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 indulged that reason alone will be found adequate to re-establish the principles and letter of the constitution in this essential particular, and we cannot 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 it has been founded. While she could not fail to be gratified by the voluntary sanction of their judgment in favour 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 conclusions 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 governor SEWARD. But two instances are remembered in which exectutive officers of the states have hesitated to comply with the requisitions of the act of congress, where
4
the peculiar interests 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 suffiecient to lay this general subject before the non-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 that there should be mutual confidence 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 resolutions 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 involved in this question, concur in our convictions of right, and in our resolution to maintain them.