The Abolition of Slavery | Page 3

same
opinions, and announced them as plainly as in 1842. Indeed, it is quite
likely that this earlier announcement of these views was the cause of
the secret hostility to the ex-President, which broke out so rancorously
in 1842. We have before us a speech by Mr. Adams, on the joint
resolution for distributing rations to the distressed fugitives from Indian
hostilities in the States of Alabama and Georgia, delivered in the House
of Representatives, May 25, 1836, and published at the office of the
National Intelligencer. We quote from it the following classification of
the powers of Congress and the Executive:--
"There are, then, Mr. Chairman, in the authority of Congress and of the
Executive, two classes of powers, altogether different in their nature,
and often incompatible with each other--the war power and the peace
power. The peace power is limited by regulations and restricted by
provisions prescribed within the Constitution itself. The war power is
limited only by the laws and usages of nations. This power is
tremendous: it is strictly constitutional, but it breaks down every barrier
so anxiously erected for the protection of liberty, of property, and of

life. This, sir, is the power which authorizes you to pass the resolution
now before you, and, in my opinion, no other."
After an interruption, Mr. Adams returned to this subject, and went on
to say:--
"There are, indeed, powers of peace conferred upon Congress which
also come within the scope and jurisdiction of the laws of nations, such
as the negotiation of treaties of amity and commerce, the interchange of
public ministers and consuls, and all the personal and social intercourse
between the individual inhabitants of the United States and foreign
nations, and the Indian tribes, which require the interposition of any
law. But the powers of war are all regulated by the laws of nations, and
are subject to no other limitation...It was upon this principle that I voted
against the resolution reported by the slavery committee, 'that Congress
possess no constitutional authority to interfere, in any way, with the
institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy,' to which
resolution most of those with whom I usually concur, and even my own
colleagues in this House, gave their assent. I do not admit that there is,
even among the peace powers of Congress, no such authority; but in
war, there are many ways by which Congress not only have the
authority, but ARE BOUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE
INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY IN THE STATES. The existing law
prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States from
foreign countries is itself an interference with the institution of slavery
in the States. It was so considered by the founders of the Constitution
of the United States, in which it was stipulated that Congress should
not interfere, in that way, with the institution, prior to the year 1808.
"During the late war with Great Britain, the military and naval
commanders of that nation issued proclamations, inviting the slaves to
repair to their standard, with promises of freedom and of settlement in
some of the British colonial establishments. This surely was an
interference with the institution of slavery in the States. By the treaty of
peace, Great Britain stipulated to evacuate all the forts and places in the
United States, without carrying away any slaves. If the Government of
the United States had no power to interfere, in any way, with the

institution of slavery in the States, they would not have had the
authority to require this stipulation. It is well known that this
engagement was not fulfilled by the British naval and military
commanders; that, on the contrary, they did carry away all the slaves
whom they had induced to join them, and that the British Government
inflexibly refused to restore any of them to their masters; that a claim
of indemnity was consequently instituted in behalf of the owners of the
slaves, and was successfully maintained. All that series of transactions
was an interference by Congress with the institution of slavery in the
States in one way--in the way of protection and support. It was by the
institution of slavery alone that the restitution of slaves, enticed by
proclamations into the British service, could be claimed as property.
But for the institution of slavery, the British commanders could neither
have allured them to their standard, nor restored them otherwise than as
liberated prisoners of war. But for the institution of slavery, there could
have been no stipulation that they should not be carried away as
property, nor any claim of indemnity for the violation of that
engagement."
If this speech had been made in 1860 instead of 1836, Mr. Adams
would not have been compelled to rely upon these comparatively trivial
and unimportant instances