3
Facsimile
Transcription
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 represen-
tatives, 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 re-
fuge 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 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 pre-
pared 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 per-
fect, 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 im-
posed on New York the obligation to comply with it, and it remains to be seen whether that state can occupy the posi-
tion in which she is involved by the course of her chief magistrate, whether as a member of the Union, she shall parti-
cipate 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 our-
selves, to submit our controversy to the calm reflection, that they may advise us if we have mistaken their constitu-
tional rights and our own, or aid us by their counsel and co-operation in our effort to re-establish the just and constitu-
tional 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 ne-
cessary and proper measure of redress which she may be forced to adopt," without indicating the character of the mea-
sures which are contemplated? It is because Virginia does not regard this question as her own, but as involving prin-
ciples 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 possi-
ble, 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 ne-
cessity to invite the non-slaveholding states to meet us in convention, as co-arbiters of this controversy, it would be need-
less 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 de-
votion 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 ques-
tion 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
Notes and Questions
Nobody has written a note for this page yet
Please sign in to write a note for this page