- 08 Aug 2012 01:46
#14026154
Wanted to share my favorite speech on American slavery.
After acheiving statehood in 1856, the state of Oregon, by and through its Legislature, thereafter set about forming a state constitution.
Statehood for Oregon followed on the heels of the Civil War. Slavery, still legal, was deemed a matter for individual states to decide under a now infamous Federal court decision known as Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Demographically, many southern confederates moved West after the Civil War and settled in Oregon.
One important issue before the Oregon Consitutional Convention was whether, or to what extent, free slaves would be allowed in Oregon.
I particularly enjoy this speech because, while obviously struggling with his personal beliefs regarding slavery, the speaker nevertheless honors our tradition as Americans to be a nation of laws, and not a nation of men.
---------------------------------
"The name of Mr. Watkins being called, he rose and said:
Mr. President: I arise with no intention of opposing or even retarding the final passage of this constitution. But, sir, the previous question having been applied, I desire to record the reasons which control my action; and upon the call of my name, rise to enter my humble but firm protest. I may remark that heretofore I have been opposed to the formation of a state government and have ever zealously opposed it at the polls; but, was there nothing in this constitution which I deemed inexcusably wrong, it should now receive my support. Its general features meet my approbation. That it is not expensive, that it will protect us in our lives, liberties and property, no one will doubt. But, sir, there is one article which must inevitably prevent my voting in the affirmative here, thought I may support the constitution before the people. I allude to that article in the schedule which provides that "if a majority of all the votes given for and against free negroes shall be given against free negroes, then the following section shall be added to the bill of rights and shall be part of this constitution: No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the adoiption of this constitutuion, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state or hold any real estate or make any contract or maintain any suit therein."
Mr. President, I have no desire to gain notoriety by dabbling with this black subject, and shall only utter my protest against the right of any man or set of men to place on any other man, be he white or black, without the pale of law. I am no abolitionish and have never uttered an abolition sentiment to any man living or dead. I believe, with many others, intelligent and true men, that slavery is a matter of local creation and local control; and outside of the municipality which creates and protects it is of no binding efficacy and force. That the right to hold men as slaves as property is special and not natural, and can only be legal where it is recognized by positive enactments of the lawmaking power. I would not, if I could, interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists. The people of the southern portion of the replublic do hold and, with my free consent, will hold men as property. They believe this to be right and proper. While I believe it to be wrong in the morals as in policy, and I only claim what I am willing to concede, that we both have equal rights to express our sentiments and determinations.
The black man in my estimation has as much right to live, eat, drink, read, think, and in the various avenues of life to seek a livelihood and means of enjoyment and happiness as has the proudest of Caucasian. And, when I say this, I do not consider that I am under obligation to treat him socially as my equal or my companion or to invest him with political privileges. But what is proposed in this constitution sir? That no negro shall maintain any suit. Under this barbarous provision (for I can use no milder term) the negro is cast upon the world with no defense; his life, liberty, his property, his all, are dependent on the caprice, the passion, and the inveterate prejudices of not only the community at large but of every felon who may happen to cover any inhuman heart with a white face.
Suppose, sir, as we are a commercial people, that some negro, unlearned and unlettered in your constitutional provision, who honestly earns his living by serving as cook or waiter on one of your many vessels, lands at the emporium of your commerce. His property may be taken, his life endangered, his limbs broken by some fiend in human shape; but your laws, framed to protect the weak, the innocent, the helpless, and to administer justice, could give him no redress. Sir, no power, no conceivable contingency of circumstances, no motives of interest however great, can induce me to vote either directly or otherwise, to sustain a proposition so radically wrong, or even give it my implied assent my submitting it to the people for their approval. I do not wish to see oregon filled with so undesirable a population as either negroes or Chinamen. I have an instinctive dislike for the mongrel races, be they red or black, and I am certain that nothing could more impede the progress and prosperity of this country, morally, politically, and financially, than to have it filled with hungry hordes of docile men, born to servility; and I would do nothing to encourage their migration hither. But the free negro has claims upon us which we can neither ignore nor destroy; he was born upon our soil, he speaks our language, he has been taught our religion, and his destiny and ours are eternally linked. Fate never forged bolts stronger than those which connect his future with ours; and, for weal or woe, we are in the same boat and must finish the voyage together. sir, to me the duty of the American statesman is a plain one, and that is to ameliorate, when it can be done with safety, and to see that tyranny forges no more chains. Could anything be done to prevent the negroes' emigration hither and at the same time stultify every sentiment of justice and humanity, I should not oppose it; but I can not purchase it at the expense of our good name abroad and by placing any person without the pale and protection of our laws.
Jefferson once said: "With what execration should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one-half of the citizens to trample on the rights of others, transforms those into despots and these into enemies; destroys the morals of one part and the patriotism of the other; and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God!" Sir, believing with Jefferson, that every human being has rights of which he can not be justly deprived, among which is protection in person and property, and believing this provision is unworthy of this convention, unworthy of Oregon, unworthy of our great empire of growing states, unworthy of our republican institutions, of the declaration of independence and the long line of amerliorations which have followed in the train of Magna Charta, unworthy of our civilization, past and future, and unworthy of our Christianity, I hereby enter my humble protest; and the secretary will record my vote in the negative on the final passage of this constitution."
The Oregon Constitution and Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, pp. 384-5, pub. Oregon Historical Society (1926).
After acheiving statehood in 1856, the state of Oregon, by and through its Legislature, thereafter set about forming a state constitution.
Statehood for Oregon followed on the heels of the Civil War. Slavery, still legal, was deemed a matter for individual states to decide under a now infamous Federal court decision known as Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Demographically, many southern confederates moved West after the Civil War and settled in Oregon.
One important issue before the Oregon Consitutional Convention was whether, or to what extent, free slaves would be allowed in Oregon.
I particularly enjoy this speech because, while obviously struggling with his personal beliefs regarding slavery, the speaker nevertheless honors our tradition as Americans to be a nation of laws, and not a nation of men.
---------------------------------
"The name of Mr. Watkins being called, he rose and said:
Mr. President: I arise with no intention of opposing or even retarding the final passage of this constitution. But, sir, the previous question having been applied, I desire to record the reasons which control my action; and upon the call of my name, rise to enter my humble but firm protest. I may remark that heretofore I have been opposed to the formation of a state government and have ever zealously opposed it at the polls; but, was there nothing in this constitution which I deemed inexcusably wrong, it should now receive my support. Its general features meet my approbation. That it is not expensive, that it will protect us in our lives, liberties and property, no one will doubt. But, sir, there is one article which must inevitably prevent my voting in the affirmative here, thought I may support the constitution before the people. I allude to that article in the schedule which provides that "if a majority of all the votes given for and against free negroes shall be given against free negroes, then the following section shall be added to the bill of rights and shall be part of this constitution: No free negro or mulatto, not residing in this state at the adoiption of this constitutuion, shall ever come, reside, or be within this state or hold any real estate or make any contract or maintain any suit therein."
Mr. President, I have no desire to gain notoriety by dabbling with this black subject, and shall only utter my protest against the right of any man or set of men to place on any other man, be he white or black, without the pale of law. I am no abolitionish and have never uttered an abolition sentiment to any man living or dead. I believe, with many others, intelligent and true men, that slavery is a matter of local creation and local control; and outside of the municipality which creates and protects it is of no binding efficacy and force. That the right to hold men as slaves as property is special and not natural, and can only be legal where it is recognized by positive enactments of the lawmaking power. I would not, if I could, interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists. The people of the southern portion of the replublic do hold and, with my free consent, will hold men as property. They believe this to be right and proper. While I believe it to be wrong in the morals as in policy, and I only claim what I am willing to concede, that we both have equal rights to express our sentiments and determinations.
The black man in my estimation has as much right to live, eat, drink, read, think, and in the various avenues of life to seek a livelihood and means of enjoyment and happiness as has the proudest of Caucasian. And, when I say this, I do not consider that I am under obligation to treat him socially as my equal or my companion or to invest him with political privileges. But what is proposed in this constitution sir? That no negro shall maintain any suit. Under this barbarous provision (for I can use no milder term) the negro is cast upon the world with no defense; his life, liberty, his property, his all, are dependent on the caprice, the passion, and the inveterate prejudices of not only the community at large but of every felon who may happen to cover any inhuman heart with a white face.
Suppose, sir, as we are a commercial people, that some negro, unlearned and unlettered in your constitutional provision, who honestly earns his living by serving as cook or waiter on one of your many vessels, lands at the emporium of your commerce. His property may be taken, his life endangered, his limbs broken by some fiend in human shape; but your laws, framed to protect the weak, the innocent, the helpless, and to administer justice, could give him no redress. Sir, no power, no conceivable contingency of circumstances, no motives of interest however great, can induce me to vote either directly or otherwise, to sustain a proposition so radically wrong, or even give it my implied assent my submitting it to the people for their approval. I do not wish to see oregon filled with so undesirable a population as either negroes or Chinamen. I have an instinctive dislike for the mongrel races, be they red or black, and I am certain that nothing could more impede the progress and prosperity of this country, morally, politically, and financially, than to have it filled with hungry hordes of docile men, born to servility; and I would do nothing to encourage their migration hither. But the free negro has claims upon us which we can neither ignore nor destroy; he was born upon our soil, he speaks our language, he has been taught our religion, and his destiny and ours are eternally linked. Fate never forged bolts stronger than those which connect his future with ours; and, for weal or woe, we are in the same boat and must finish the voyage together. sir, to me the duty of the American statesman is a plain one, and that is to ameliorate, when it can be done with safety, and to see that tyranny forges no more chains. Could anything be done to prevent the negroes' emigration hither and at the same time stultify every sentiment of justice and humanity, I should not oppose it; but I can not purchase it at the expense of our good name abroad and by placing any person without the pale and protection of our laws.
Jefferson once said: "With what execration should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one-half of the citizens to trample on the rights of others, transforms those into despots and these into enemies; destroys the morals of one part and the patriotism of the other; and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God!" Sir, believing with Jefferson, that every human being has rights of which he can not be justly deprived, among which is protection in person and property, and believing this provision is unworthy of this convention, unworthy of Oregon, unworthy of our great empire of growing states, unworthy of our republican institutions, of the declaration of independence and the long line of amerliorations which have followed in the train of Magna Charta, unworthy of our civilization, past and future, and unworthy of our Christianity, I hereby enter my humble protest; and the secretary will record my vote in the negative on the final passage of this constitution."
The Oregon Constitution and Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention, pp. 384-5, pub. Oregon Historical Society (1926).
Oh dear, what a joker. Its amazing how Liberal cretins still swallow his gumpf. You can get away with all manner of murder, torture and terrorism as long as you do the requisite Liberal hand wringing. Jefferson was one smart mother fucker. He knew slavery was doomed while it was confined to a minority of states and associated with the too public horrors of the transatlantic slave trade. By spreading slavery into the Louisiana purchase and abolishing the international slave trade which was no longer necessary as America had learnt to produce its own slaves, Jefferson hoped to get an America where the majority of the States would be slave states, so enacting his vision of a White man's boot grinding into a Black man's face for ever. Contrary to Marxist / Libertarian nonsense slavery was more profitable than it had ever been when that great beacon of Light and Liberty the British Empire abolished it.
- By Tainari88
- By ingliz
- By Pants-of-dog