Illinois Transatlantic Slave Trade Commission

 

The Constitutional Debates of 1847

Edited by Clarence Walworth Alvord
University of Illinois, Vol. XIV

Illinois State Historical Library
Springfield - 1919

ILLINOIS HISTORICAL COLLECTIONS
Thursday, June 24, 1847

 

Mr. BOND offered a resolution that the committee on Rights be instructed to report a provision prohibiting free negroes from emigrating into this State, and that no person shall bring slaves into this State from other States and set them free, and that sufficient penalties be provided to effect the object in view.

He said, that he thought this the proper time to give this question a fair and calm discussion, and had so framed the resolu­tion as a test. He, proceeded to give his reasons for introducing the resolution, and to state the grounds he occupied on this question. In doing so, he said, he had no desire to wound the feelings of any delegate, or impugn the motives which governed other gentlemen who occupied a different position. There was no one who had a greater desire to do justice to that class of un­fortunate individuals, called free negroes. But they already had become a great annoyance, if not a nuisance, to the people of Illinois. While he would do the utmost to protect the rights of those who held this kind of property, which was recognized by the domestic institutions of sister States, he would do nothing to fasten more tightly the bonds by which these people were held in slavery. In his part of the State he had seen little settlements of these free negroes spring up, and their object was to aid slaves from the south to escape their masters. This was not right. But while he would not go to a man's stable, unlock it, and steal there­from a horse, he might, if he met a negro whom he thought was escaping from his master, not ask the man to give an account of himself, and thereby stop him in his flight. He considered that there was no use of extending our philanthropy in favor of these people, unless we were willing to admit them to the privilege of the ballot box, and give them all the rights of freemen and citizens of a free republic. Can we, or ought we to, do this? He would answer nay. After alluding to the objects of colonization, he said, that he wanted no persons to come into this State, unless they came with right to be our equals in all things, and as freemen.25

Mr. LOUDON offered an amendment; which was ruled out of order.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, that the people of his county were unanimous in their opposition to the emigration [sic] of negroes. The people of Schuyler and Brown were nearly all opposed to it. The negroes have no rights in common with the people, they can have
(A much longer account of Bond's speech may be found in the Sangamon Journal, July 1)

no rights; the distinction between the two races is so great as to preclude the possibility of their ever living together upon equal terms.

Mr. ADAMS moved to amend by striking out all after the word "resolved" and inserting the following: "the Legislature shall have no power to pass laws of a severe or oppressive character applicable to persons of color."

A motion to lay the amendment on the table was made, and the yeas and nays were ordered and taken—yeas 92, nays 46.

Messrs. CHURCH and PICKNEY explained their position on this question.

Mr. CYRUS EDWARDS' name being called, he rose and said, that if the vote were taken without a word of explanation, it might be inferred that those in favor of laying the amendment on the table, would be in favor of the adoption of the converse propo­sition to that contained in the amendment. He wished to exclude that conclusion, as far as he was concerned, and he would there­fore state that he should vote for laying the amendment on the table, under a rule which he had prescribed for himself, that in those points where he considered the constitution to he correct as it stands, he would make no attempt to alter it; and in relation to this subject, he considered the constitution as it stands could not be improved by any alteration.

Mr. LOGAN'S name being called, he rose and said that he thought it was necessary to make a brief explanation. It was a subject of a good deal of delicacy and one upon which it was diffi­cult at all times clearly to distinguish between judgment and pre­judice. He should vote to lay this amendment on the table, however, upon the ground that he regarded it more in the light of an abstract proposition than anything else. The question as to what laws would be oppressive, was one for the consideration of the legislature, and one which ought to be left to their judgment to determine.

Mr. MINSHALL'S name being called, he observed, that he considered such a provision as that embraced in this amendment wholly superfluous, and, he thought, the constitution, therefore, ought not to be encumbered with it. He would vote for laying the amendment on the table.

Mr. SERVANT'S name being called, he said he adopted the reasons stated by the gentlemen from Madison and Sangamon, and would vote yea.

The yeas and nays being taken they resulted as follows— yeas 92, nays 46.
The question then being on the adoption of the resolution—Mr. BOND desired the yeas and nays.

Mr. CHURCH would not make a speech, but desired to offer a few remarks. Gentlemen characterized what he deemed sound principles on the subject under discussion, as abstractions. His object was not to deal in abstractions, but to view matters in the light of common sense. It had been stated that nature had set up a barrier against blacks as a race, and that the privileges of common humanity should not be extended to them. If this be so, nature was wrong; which he was not willing to admit. This doctrine was behind the spirit of the age, and if we were to sustain it, we should be the objects of scorn to the world. Would emi­grants from Pennsylvania and others imbued with sentiments of humanity, come to this State, if the proposition made here in relation to blacks were to become a part of our organic law? No, sir; and they would regard such a provision as violating, not only the plain dictates of humanity, but the principles contained in the great charter of our rights—the Declaration of Independence. He desired that on the subject of slavery, the Constitution should leave it where it was left by the Ordinance of '87—that there shall be no slavery or involuntary servitude in the State. Our present constitution provides for slavery as it existed when adopted; and although susceptible of a different construction, slavery was con­tinued for years, under the juggling of courts in their judicial decisions. Gentlemen here have gloried in this as a free State. He would indeed glory in such a State. And he was therefore opposed to engrafting in the constitution any doubtful provision, or one which required every officer of the government, from the Governor down, to be a picket guard, to oppress the colored race.
He wanted the constitution to be worthy of a free State—and to render it so, he would not have it, in the remotest degree, nor by any possible construction, sanction slavery, or oppress the colored race. He was opposed to laws on this subject, which were a blot upon our statute book, but would leave that matter with the legislature, with the confident hope that the dictates of humanity would control the action of that body, when it shall convene under the amended constitution, if we shall be so fortu­nate as to perfect a constitution which shall receive the sanction of the people.

Mr. CHURCH moved to lay the resolution on the table.
At the request of Mr. PINCKNEY the motion was with­drawn.

Mr. PINCKNEY said: Mr. President, I hope the motion to lay upon the table will be withdrawn, that I may have an oppor­tunity of explaining. It was not my purpose to agitate this question unless it were forced upon me; and I should have said nothing upon these resolu­tions of the gentleman from Clinton, had not the ayes and nays been called.
But as the case now stands, and driven as I now am, and have before been into a kind of dilemma, I claim and shall take the privilege of explaining myself. I have been, by what I consider the indiscreet zeal of gentlemen from the North and South, called upon to place my vote upon the journal, on questions that it did not suit my views either to favor or oppose, in the shape in which they were presented to the convention, but nevertheless, I voted unflinchingly, and without any effort at an explanation.

I am willing, sir, to occupy this position in silence no longer; the position is one forced upon me. It is a very singular position. How does it happen that at the North I am termed a pro-slavery man; and here, by some, an Abolitionist? How does it occur that in passing from my home to this place, about 200 miles, I find my principles identically the same, viewed in so different a light? I know not, except it be that I occupy a middle ground between two parties contending with each other, and as all mediators are, I am obliged to receive the blows and balls of both.  An Abolitionist! Why, Mr. President, I would as soon be called almost anything else on earth as a political abolitionist; and yet, I suppose I must patiently bear it, as there is no remedy.
The gentleman from Clinton has again sprung this question upon me, and the ayes and nays are called. To let it pass as I have others touching the same points, I cannot; and yet, I will barely explain.

The gentleman says, the time for action upon this subject has come, and we must defend our State. My own opinion was that the time had not come, and therefore I wished to let the matter rest; but, if the gentleman is correct, and the proper time is here in which we should act, it would seem as though we should first wipe out the dark stain that now rests upon our State. It be­comes us to remove the foul stigma, which some of our odious laws have brought upon us. I most unhesitatingly assert here before this body, and am willing to declare it before the world, that some of our late laws touching the treatment of negroes are a disgrace to our State; they would be a disgrace to any people claiming to be free, enlightened and humane.

The gentleman has an object in view in moving these resolu­tions—he would show by making them a part of our constitution—by keeping negroes out of our State under a heavy penalty, that we are determined to protect the rights of our sister States. Rights! What rights? The right to chase an oppressed and un­fortunate fellow being through our territory; to drag him to prison; to beat him, and at the same time to prohibit me, or any man on this floor from giving him a morsel of bread or meat, though he be starving? A right to compel us to force a perishing woman from our door; and drive her forth into the pitiless peltings of the midnight storm! Are these their rights? I can not admit them; they conflict with higher authority. They fly in the face of Jehovah. His law calls upon me to feed the hungry and succor the distressed. This with me settles all; and I shall endeavor ro obey it, notwithstanding these rights.

Do not misunderstand me; while I would feed the unfortunate hungry negro, I would take no part in stealing or secreting him. The gentleman would put a stop to the system of stealing negroes and running them off through our State. He cannot more strong­ly disapprobate the "under ground railroad" than do I. It is a disgrace to any man to be aiding or abetting that system. I look with supreme contempt upon that man who enters the premises of a master for the purpose of enticing away his slave; who teaches that slave to escape at all hazards; to cut his master's throat; to steal his best horse, to ride him to death, and then steal another. These things I cannot approve, nor can I commend; nay, I must censure those who countenance them.

The gentleman says, if among us, they are not to have a vote, nor to hold office. My vote stands recorded upon this subject, and it agrees with his views. I am not for passing laws to give them the right of suffrage, but for a different reason from the gentleman's. It is simply this: no class of men in our popular government can enjoy equal rights and privileges with us, until the mass are willing to grant the same, all legislation to the con­trary notwithstanding. This alone is sufficient to determine my course with reference to the African suffrage. The people will not yield it. If any man propose to keep these unfortunate per­sons from our State by just and humane measures, I shall not object. I am in favor of removing them not only from this State, but from all the States, that they may in some other place enjoy human rights and privileges, in truth as well as in name; but I desire it not to be done by violence. I therefore concur with the gentlemen in giving the Colonization Society great praise; it deserves it; it has my best wishes and my warm support.

The gentleman from Brown expressed a view that I was sorry to hear on this floor. Is it possible that he would rather see this a slave State, than have it longer exposed to the ingress of negroes? Is it true that God has made so broad a mark of distinction be­tween blacks and whites, that the latter cannot endure the prox­imity of the former? My observations here teach me that they are somewhat intimate; but I forbear to dwell on what is so appar­ent to all, and I leave the subject.

Mr. TURNBULL said he considered this matter as properly belonging to the legislature, if it were necessary to make any en­actment in relation to it; but he was of the opinion that as it stood at present it was about as well as they could make it. Nothing was to be gained, he thought, by agitating the question.
(This account, the closing debate of the afternoon session of June 24, is taken from the Sangamon Journal, July 1.)

Mr. ALLEN said, he saw nothing in the resolutions to call out this discussion. He had listened to the gentleman last up (Mr.PINCKNEY) in his effort to define his position, but really did not know where he stood; on which side, or on both sides. He could not see what this resolution had to do with the present statute laws of the State. It only provided that no negroes should come here for the future. He was in favor of a prohibitory clause against their emigration [sic] into the State, for those that were here were good for nothing, either to the state, the church, or themselves. They were all idle and lazy and the part of the State that he came from was overrun with them. It had been the custom for some time for the people of Kentucky, Alabama and other states to bring their old and worn out negroes, and those whom they emancipated, into this State and into his section of country, and the people desired to prevent this, and to get rid of those already there.

Mr. PALMER of Macoupin thought the introduction of this subject was unwise and productive of no good. Almost all the evil growing out of the excitement upon this question had been produced by the persons occupying the extremes of both parties. On the one side were those who were honest, sincere and consistent in their opinion, and men of the most respectable character, who devote all their zeal, ardor and means for the accomplishment of their object; men of the one idea principle; and on the other side was a class of persons who, to check abolition, used the most violent language and often occupied very untenable ground, and they together have contributed, more than anything else, to create the great excitement on this question. He would ask gentlemen to reflect upon the consequences of this resolution. If it was adopted and its provisions inserted in the constitution, a large class of the community would be against its adoption. Why then unnecessarily provoke a battle against the constitution. Intemper­ance on one side was as bad as on another. Every impulse of his heart and every feeling of his, was in opposition to slavery, and if his acts or votes here would do anything to ameliorate the condition of those held in bondage no man would exert himself more zealously than he; no one would do more to remove the great stain of moral guilt now upon this great republic—but he looked upon every proposition either for or against that object as checking the good work, and sooner than adopt such a proposition as is now before them, every vote in his county would go to sustain the old constitution.
Mr. EDWARDS of Sangamon moved an adjournment.
Carried.

 

XVI. FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1847
Prayer by Rev. Mr. BARGER.
Mr. THORNTON offered an amendment to the resolution pending at the adjournment yesterday—providing that the Legis­lature should have power to make all necessary laws in relation to negroes. In presenting the amendment he said, that he did so because he thought we should leave the matter with the Legislature for their action, and to public sentiment.

Mr. NORTON said, that he desired to state the reasons which would govern him in his vote upon this question, and why he should vote against the resolution and the amendment. He was happy to say that he did not find himself in the dilemma in which other gentlemen were placed. He opposed this resolution because he deemed it wrong in principle and wrong in practice, and could give the reasons for going against it without feeling himself called upon to define his position. He would give his views, founded, as he thought, upon principles of right. The resolution, as he understood it, had two objects—the first, the exclusion, by penal enactments, of all free negroes; the second, a prohibition against their emancipation and settlement in this State. The first of these he considered a direct infringement of the constitution of the United States, which he, as a member of the Convention, had taken an oath to support, and which was regarded as the glory of the country, and gave us a character abroad. No one would contend that we had the power to infringe that constitution in any of its provisions. That constitution says, "that the citizens of one State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities in the several States."
This resolution prohibits free negroes from coming into the State. Does that sacred instrument—the constitution of the United States—say "white" citizens. No, sir, you may search in vain in that instrument for the word white, or black, or yellow. What citizens does the constitution recognize?—All native born and naturalized citizens. He would refer gentlemen to the State of Vermont, no distinction is made in her constitution; there these people have all the privileges possessed by the whites; they have property and a right to vote. Go to Massachusetts, where he thought they had a little notion of what was liberty—government and right, and then- they are entitled to hold property, a right to vote, and, in theory, and not in practice, a privilege of a seat in the General Assembly. These men are citizens of those States. Can we say then that a citizen of Massachusetts, Vermont or New York shall be prohibited from settling in the State of Illinois, in direct violation of an article of the constitution of the United States? If that constitution can be violated in one provi­sion, it can be in another. Was any such distinction contemplated at the adoption of that constitution? Do you think that the men who framed that constitution would ever have permitted the word "white" to go into the constitution? Every delegate in the Convention that framed that constitution from the North—from Virginia and Maryland, would have voted against it. And if they had put it in, the constitution would never [have] been adopted by the people. He came not there to produce excitement by a discussion on this subject. He would rather have avoided it, but by the introduction of this resolution the question had been forced upon them. He would ask the gentleman who introduced this resolu­tion, if he remembered the time, when it was attempted to put such a provision as this in the constitution of Missouri, how the whole north opposed it, and that Missouri could never have been admitted into the Union with that provision in her constitution, without some explanatory clauses. The people would have let her fall into the dust before they would have consented. He was not prepared to say that those born in servitude and yet slaves are citizens, this question did not arise, and he was not disposed to argue it. The first principle of this resolution is unequal, unjust and opposed to the first principles of free government. These colored people came to this country not of their own accord, we brought them here, they cannot get away; it is said to colonize them, how? they cannot colonize themselves. He would not insert a provision inviting them to our State; nor would he have one to prohibit them. Is it just, equal or republican to say in our constitution that an honest colored man, with property and perhaps education, shall not come to this State because some men of color who are here are lazy? Our armies were now fighting at the south and the probability is that we will extend the area of our freedom, and that States are to come into the Union with people of every stripe and color, and can they come in without full and equal rights:  If this clause be inserted into the consti­tution he would guaranty 10,000 votes against it, and in the county of Will he would guaranty a majority of i,000. The whole north would oppose it. This resolution was the very thing to produce excitement; such things had been always the cause of it all over the length and breadth of the land. Having thus justified his vote, he did not consider he should define his position.

Mr. DAVIS of Montgomery was not desirous of discussing this subject; but while he was sitting there, willing to let resolu­tions of inquiry, to which he was opposed, pass in silence, he was not willing that gentlemen should tell him that the green north was opposed to this and that subject, and if it passed, the green north would defeat it. Gentlemen get up here and unblushingly say that negroes are equal to them, and unblushingly say that they should enjoy all the privileges of life, social and political, and then charge the south with having caused the excitement. Who first introduced this matter by a motion to strike the word 'white' out of a resolution, and then moved the yeas and nays upon it. A gentleman from the north. It was the north that had caused this excitement and not the south. When, sir, I get up here and advocate that negroes are entitled to all the privileges of citizenship—social and political—I hope the tongue which now speaks may cleave to the roof of my mouth. There is a barrier between the two races which it is vain to attempt to destroy. He had not arisen to discuss this matter and create excitement, but to repudiate the assertion that our morals should justify us in admitting negroes to the enjoyment of our social and political rights. The gentlemen from the north speak their sentiments, and those of the south have the same right. He said that the object of the abolitionists was to dissolve the Union. He had no more confidence in the abolitionists than he had in the dark and damnable demons of the lower regions.

Mr. NORTON rose—but Mr. WILLIAMS claimed the floor as a peacemaker. He said the people had gone to great expense in calling this Convention to reform and revise the government, and not for the purpose of speaking or making provisions about negroes or other little things. There was [sic] the Legislative and Judiciary Departments which required reformation, and it was for this object that the people sent them there. He regretted that in carrying out these prin­ciples they had permitted those subjects to be introduced. He had no fault to find with the mover of the resolution or with those who differ from him.

The question was not an abolition one, nor one to admit negroes to social and political equality—but simply, will we permit negroes, after they have given security not to become a burden upon the State, and complied with our laws, to the poor privilege of cultivating our soil and breathing our air. He was not inviting them to come to the State. The African race had been degraded, not from their own crimes, but they had been raised in servitude and without education. Take the heroes of Buena Vista and Cerro Gordo and carry them into a foreign land, and subject them to servitude, and the 4th generation will be as degraded as the negro race. Mr. W. cited several cases which had come under his notice of negroes working and toiling for money with which they desired to purchase friends and relations then in slavery. In conclusion he said, the resolution was more suited for the 14th than the 19th century.

Mr. WITT moved the previous question.

Mr. LOGAN said, that this was a subject which he had always expected would agitate this Convention. At the same time, it was one which he hoped gentlemen would learn to discuss with temper.—He hoped that the discussion would proceed and with good temper, and that the Convention would listen calmly to what was to be advanced for and against the proposition. He trusted that the gag law would not be put in force on a question which a large number of the people considered of vital importance. He was not afraid to discuss any question on God's earth. He respected the abolitionists and believed them to be honest and sincere, and was willing to listen to what they had to say. He was certain the result would be to leave the constitution as it now is. The question was one which affected the interests and feelings of a large population of the State, not only abolitionists but others, and he was desirous that their representatives might be heard. Mr. SHIELDS thought that as the question had been discussed so fully in Congress and in other places, no new light could be thrown upon the matter now by a longer discussion.

Mr. HURLBUT hoped the previous question would not be seconded. There was no use in dodging the question, which might as well be settled now as at any other time. He was not to be affected by taunts from the north, nor will he suffer them to be thrown in his teeth from the south. He would discuss it on principles of law and morals.

Mr. DEMENT said, he would vote to sustain the previous question, because he intended to vote upon the question with those gentlemen who desired to be heard. He had heard sufficient from them, even before the discussion, to induce him to go with them on this particular subject. He hoped, therefore, they would not think hard of him when he voted for the previous question. He did not care for hearing an argument when his mind was made up.

Mr. SERVANT opposed the previous question.

Mr. WEST said, that although he was a young man, he did hope the previous question would not be seconded, because he had a desire to express his views on the subject. The county he represented had more of this population than almost any other, and he knew his constituents desired that their representatives might be heard. He would discuss the question with a proper temper.

Mr. MINSHALL was not afraid to hear the discussion upon this or any other subject; and he thought that if any steam had been engendered that it would be better to let it off at once.

Messrs. Hogue, DAVIS of Montgomery, and MASON, all opposed the previous question, and advocated a discussion now. And the vote was taken and the previous question was not seconded.

Mr. MASON moved to lay the resolution on the table, and that all the laws in relation to negroes be printed.

Mr. KITCHELL moved to lay the motion on the table. A division of the question was demanded, and the motion to print was laid on the table. The question was then taken on laying on the table the motion to lay on the table, and decided in the negative.

Mr. HURLBUT said, he desired to discuss this question without branching off into a discussion of collateral subjects, or exciting angry feelings. He said he would rather vote for the resolution than for the amendment, because it was more direct; but he would vote against both upon principle. The constitution of the U. S. says, a citizen of one State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the other States. It is not in the power of the Convention to infringe this—they cannot get over it. A citizen of Massachusetts was entitled to become a citizen of any other State. The south had raised an enquiry whether the colored persons have the rights of citizenship; that question was not applicable here. The question was, have we the power to say that citizens of those States shall not come here. It will not do for Illinois to say that other States have not the power to make citizens, when she has made citizens of a class of persons in a way unknown to other States. Suppose we should pass a law that a citizen of New York shall not come into this State, how will you enforce it? The constitution of the U. S. directly over­rules it. As to the policy of the law: the gentlemen from the counties on the Mississippi, say they suffer from these free negroes —that is one of the evils of all frontier States; that they come there and are a bad population. But have we the power to make a penal law applicable to one class of citizens, and not generally. No doubt the State has power to pass a general law requiring all persons coming into the State, to give a bond not to become a burden on the State. N. York has the power to pass a law, requiring captains of emigrant vessels to observe certain restric­tions, but that is only the exercise of an internal police regulation and is general. Let us make a law as applicable to those who come into the State at the north, as well as those at the south, one is as good as the other and the only difference is, that one is white and the other black. Let the law be general; but if we pass a sweeping general law, which is special in its application, it must be apparent that it is unconstitutional. It was a thing which he never would consent to. He was not sufficiently acquainted with those parts of the State affected by these people to know if these laws are required; but he would believe the statements of the gentlemen, as it was not his design to impugn the assertions of anyone. He would vote against the resolution, if on no other ground, because its adoption would endanger the ratification of the constitution.

Mr. KINNEY of St. Clair said, that the present question was one in which his county felt a very lively interest. It was situated near St. Louis; they had already nearly five hundred free colored persons collected there from Missouri, and they were perfectly familiar with their habits. He was satisfied that a large majority of the people of his county would vote to sustain the resolution of the gentleman from Clinton. Those members from the northern part of the State did not know how lazy, and good-for-nothing these people were. If they did and could witness their worth­lessness their opinions would be changed. He was in favor of a fair and calm discussion of this question and saw no necessity for excitement. It had nothing to do with abolition and abolitionists, and appeared to him a mere question of State policy—a political question. It has been said by the gentleman from Will (Mr. Norton) that he has objections to this resolution because it infringes the constitution of the United States. He says that it guaranties to citizens of one State the rights and privileges of citizens of other States. He forgets that that article of the consti­tution has been construed to mean that citizens from other States shall be entitled only to the rights enjoyed by the citizens of the State into which they came. Have we not by our present consti­tution prohibited them from voting—a right enjoyed by citizens of our State—and has not that constitution been ratified by the Congress of the United States. He says we have the power to put these negroes under bond not to become a charge upon the State—this admission is all we want. Suppose a citizen of another State should come here, could we compel him to give this bond? No, sir; we could not. His argument, therefore, is ground­less. To carry it out, suppose in another State a negro was entitled to hold an office, and he came here to this State, would he not be entitled to hold office here too? The supreme court of the United States says that citizens of one State shall enjoy the same privileges as are enjoyed by citizens of the other States. The gentleman from Boone says he holds not to the grounds of the abolitionists, yet, he, (Mr. K.) was much surprised to hear him say that the foreigners, who come to our State, were no better than the negroes. It is not good policy to engraft upon our constitution—the fundamental law of the State—a prohibition against this class of worthless population, and his reason for it was that we are surrounded by a number of slave States, all of whom had an exclusive provision in their constitution against these free negroes. Where, then, do they go? They cannot reside in those States, and they all come into Illinois. When they get old, decrepit [sic] and good-for-nothing, their owners emancipate them and send them into this State. We may have laws upon our statute books against persons bringing or sending them here, but how can we enforce it against a man in another State. He would ask gentlemen to look at Ohio, the greatest abolition State in the Union, and when Randolph's negroes were emancipated the agent attempted to settle them in that State, but the people rose in a body and drove them back and would not allow them to come there. They did not want them, they knew what sort of a population they were, and how worthless and degraded they become, and how troublesome they always were. If we would allow the negroes any kind of equality we must admit them to the social hearth. It was then that equality commenced. We must live with them and permit them to mingle with us in all our social affairs, and, also, if they desired it, must not object to proposals to marry our daughters.

Mr. ARMSTRONG moved to lay the substitute on the table, so as to get at the original resolution and make it a resolution of inquiry; but withdrew it at the request of Mr. WEST, who desired to express his views. He said, that the gentleman last up had alluded to what was
correctly the con­struction to be placed on the article in the constitution of the United States. He said, that it could hardly be presumed that a citizen of the State of Massachusetts should be entitled to the privileges of our citizens. He believed that free negroes living amongst our people was a great evil, and that the best way to remedy that evil was, by a prohibitory clause in our constitution, to confine them to those free States where they could find a secure and a more equal home. One of the primary influences which induced the people of his county to settle in Illinois, was that they might not only be relieved from the evil effects of slavery, but, also, of a colored population. These negroes were, mostly, idle and worthless persons, and his people were very anxious to get rid of them. He had received a letter from one of his constituents this morning, which said that several horses had been stolen, and that to guard against these negroes, it was almost necessary to keep a watch.
Allusion had been made, to Massachusetts. He loved and venerated that State, but there were principles contained in some of her laws which he never could recognize. The gentlemen from the north, who had spoken on this question, had come from counties which have but five, ten, or fifteen negroes; in our county there were 500, and he would say that the evil was 500 times greater. He hoped some provision would pass, so as to have this matter settled and prevent scenes of violence. We had already had such scenes—the scenes of 1837—and they were to be regretted, and they must ever cast a shame upon our State. He had heard it said in the Convention that in the canvass, the tree of public sentiment had been shaken, and that the fruits had been gathered in that hall; and when he looked around him he felt proud of his State, on account of her representatives, and he must be permitted to say, that he never before beheld such an august assembly.

Mr. DAVIS of McLean did not agree with the gentleman from Madison. He could not believe that the evil existed to such an alarming extent. He said that he was in favor of leaving the matter stand as it does in our present constitution, and was unwilling to pass any provision which would endanger the adoption of the constitution. He had no desire to engraft anything in that constitution which would offend the people of any portion of the State. He was satisfied that he was sent here to remedy certain great evils in the government, and after having done so was not disposed to have the work rendered useless or endanger its adoption by this or any other such provision. He would leave the matter for future legislation and public sentiment, to dispose of it as the times should require. He was opposed to allowing people of color the right to vote, and he regretted that the gentleman from Boone had said that people from other countries were to be put upon a par with negroes. This was casting another fire-brand into the Convention.

Mr. CHURCH said, he desired not to ma a speech for the purpose of making one, but merely to allude to some parts which had not yet been touched upon. He asked such a provision were inserted, how could it be enforced? The laws they had already were not sufficient to keep these people out. He would like to hear some gentleman define this. He had been a little amused, when this question came up yesterday, to hear the gentleman from Sangamon say it was nothing but an abstract principle. [He read from the constitution of the United States, Mr. LOGAN explained.] The gentleman from Montgomery had said there was a barrier between the two races—the blacks and the whites—if there was, why attempt to raise it higher. If nature had placed it there, leave it to nature, and not, by your laws, make the difference wider. Put this provision in the consti­tution and you exclude more whites from the State than you do blacks. We are unable to extend the report of Mr. C's remarks further. He advocated that the matter should be left to the action of the Legislature, and deprecated the introduction of this provi­sion into the constitution as unsafe, unjust, and impolitic. He also asked, if the ordinance was in force, and Illinois a free State, how was it that, at the last census, 380 slaves were returned?

Mr. LOGAN replied to the gentleman last up, and told the gentlemen of the north that when they said that if this provision was inserted in the constitution, that they would all vote against it, they should remember that the north was only a part of the State; that the State had two ends, and if the north voted against the constitution because of this provision, the south had the same right to say they would vote against it if it was not inserted. He advocated for some time a midway policy of leaving the matter to the Legislature. He was opposed to making this provision the all absorbing topic that was to influence the people's votes upon the adoption of the constitution. This would be the case in many of the counties, if this provision was inserted.

Mr. BROCKMAN said, that he was sorry to hear gentlemen

 

(More to follow…)