The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Slavery Question, by John M. Landrum
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
Title: The Slavery Question
Speech of Hon. John M. Landrum, of La., Delivered in the
House of Representatives, April 27, 1860
Author: John M. Landrum
Release Date: March 23, 2011 [EBook #35662]
Language: English
*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SLAVERY QUESTION ***
Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)
THE SLAVERY QUESTION.
SPEECH OF HON. JOHN M. LANDRUM, OF LA., DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 27, 1860.
The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union--
Mr. LANDRUM said:
Mr. CHAIRMAN: That we are now threatened with great and alarming evils, no
one who will take a calm and unprejudiced survey of the condition of the
country can for a moment doubt. In the formation of this Government there
existed a spirit of harmony and concession from the citizens of each State
in this Union towards the citizens of every other State; and this spirit
was so plainly exhibited in the convention which framed the Constitution
of the United States--that it was so adjusted, so adapted to the wants of
all the States entering into the Confederacy--that it received the almost
unanimous support of the Convention. Harmony and concord and good feeling
reigned throughout the whole Confederacy. The citizen of South Carolina
rejoiced in the prosperity and commended the virtues of the citizen of
Massachusetts; and the citizen of Massachusetts responded to the feeling
of the citizen of South Carolina. That was the feeling which pervaded the
citizens of this common country when the Constitution was formed; and that
was the spirit which pervaded it for the thirty years afterwards during
which the Government was administered by the fathers of the Republic.
But now, Mr. Chairman, what state of things does this country exhibit? A
people discordant; a great sectional party formed, and the whole history
of the country ransacked in a search for subjects of denunciation on the
part of citizens of one portion of the Confederacy against citizens of the
other.
In that convention which framed the Constitution, which is the basis of
our Government, slave States were admitted without objection. Concessions
were made to slave States on every point that they demanded, and which
they deemed essential to the preservation and protection of their rights
in this Union. Ay, there was no objection then to the admission of a State
into the Union because she permitted slavery. So far from that, the
Constitution abounds with express provisions for the protection of their
property, and for the security of their rights. It was not objected to a
free State that she should form a member of the Confederacy because she
did not tolerate slavery. But the patriotic founders of the Republic
looked to the interests of the whole country, and sacrificed prejudices
whenever sacrifices were necessary, "_in order to form a more perfect
union_."
Contrast that state of feeling and that state of facts with the condition
in which we now see the country. Mutual denunciation is the business even
of the Representatives of the people on the floor of this Hall. Members of
Congress recommend the circulation of books calculated to sap and
undermine the foundations on which the whole fabric of wealth, of
respectability, and of civilization, of one-half the Union is based. We
meet here, not to strengthen the bonds that bind us together in the Union,
but to weaken them, as far as human ingenuity can do so. To such a point
has this state of things culminated, that the people of State after State
in the Southern portion of the Confederacy have met in convention and
declared their belief that there is a probability that the time is rapidly
approaching when they "_must provide new guards for their future
security_." The State which I have the honor in part to represent has made
that declaration. And it is charged here on the floor of this Hall, by
almost every member of the Republican party who has addressed this
committee on the subject of the state of the Union, that it is the
Democratic party which is responsible for this condition of things; that
the Democratic party have departed from the lessons of wisdom taught us by
the example of our forefathers, and have thus precipitated on the country
all these evils, by the manner in which they have treated the slavery
question.
It shall be my purpose, Mr. Chairman, in the short time allotted to me, to
endeavor to vindicate from the charge that party of which I am an humble
member. The district which I represent, and the State in which that
district is situated, are Democratic by an overwhelming majority; and I
assert here, and am prepared to prove incontestibly, that the Democratic
party are not the authors of the mischief under which the country labors.
I am prepared to prove that they have not departed from the lessons of
wisdom inculcated by the example of the founders of the Republic. I will
show, if history does not lie, that it is the Republican party, the
anti-slavery party, that is the cause of all the evils with which the
country is afflicted; and it is they, and not the Democratic party, who
have abandoned the legislative precedents and examples of our fathers.
Why, sir, how are we responsible for the slavery agitation that has
produced all the evils and mischief which afflict the country?
How is the Democratic party responsible for that excitement, and for the
difference of opinion which pervades the Republic on that subject,
threatening a dissolution of the Union? Why, we are responsible for it
because we do not join the Republican party to exclude slavery from the
Territories? We are responsible for it because we do not oppose the
admission of a State into the Union when her constitution tolerates
slavery. We are responsible for it because we do not join in the
declaration that all men are created free and equal, and apply that
doctrine to the African slaves of the South; because we do not declare
that those slaves are equal to us, and therefore of right free.
We are required by the Republican party to unite with them in advocating
that doctrine, and to declare besides that slavery and polygamy are twin
relics of barbarism. If we join them in all these declarations of
principle; if we join them in advocating these measures, then, of course,
the country will be quiet. But, sir, who is responsible for the agitation?
Is it not the party that calls for legislation? Has the Democratic party
ever asked the national Legislature to establish slavery in her Territory?
No, sir; but the Republican party comes into this Hall and demands that
the power of the Government should be interposed to exclude slavery from
the Territories. Because we do not agree with them; because we do not
think as they do; and because we do not vote as they do; because we do not
acquiesce in these propositions, why, then we are responsible for this
agitation, and they are not! They ask us to adopt the maxim that no more
slave States shall be admitted into the Union, and because we do not agree
with them on that subject, we are the agitators, and they are not.
Mr. Chairman, from what source do we learn this new doctrine? Do we find
it in the legislation of our forefathers? Are there any restrictions in
the Constitution of the United States on the subject, or any grant of
power to prohibit slavery in a Territory when that Territory is organized?
Is there anything in the Constitution of the United States to justify
it--and I appeal to that as the very first example of our forefathers in
the administration of this Government--is there anything in that
instrument which authorizes you to say that a State shall not be admitted
into the Union because its constitution tolerates slavery?
I differ from gentlemen upon the Republican side of the House as to the
manner in which I would learn a lesson front the example of our
forefathers. I would not search for it in their private declarations. I
would search for their legislative record. We are legislators, and for our
legislation we want legislative precedents. I care not whether the
opinions of the founders of the Republic were for slavery or against it,
if the legislation of which they were the authors corresponded with the
views I entertain. What judge of any court, what lawyer who wished to
ascertain the true doctrine of a case, would search for the private
opinions of the judge when the reports bristled with adjudicated cases
from which he could learn the true doctrine which he had expressed under
oath and in the discharge of his duties? When you search for the opinions
of our ancestors to guide us as legislators, look at their conduct as
legislators, and not their private opinions. Every lawyer, every sensible
man, every rational man, knows that that is the true test of the opinions
of our ancestors upon a given subject. When they legislate under oath;
when they legislate for the good of the whole country, they lay aside
their private opinions and their peculiar prejudices.
Now, sir, what do we find in the Constitution of the United States which
inculcates the doctrine that slavery must not be extended into the
Territories? I call the attention of gentlemen to the first clause of
section nine, article one of the Constitution:
"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed upon
such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person."
In order, Mr. Chairman, that there may be no mistake about the meaning of
that clause of the Constitution, I send to the Clerk's desk, to be read,
an extract from Elliott's Debates.
The Clerk read from Elliott's Debates, (Yate's Minutes,) pages 35 and 36,
as follows:
"By the ninth section of this article, the importation of such persons as
any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on such
importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
"The design of this clause is to prevent the General Government from
prohibiting the importation of slaves, but the same reasons which caused
them to strike out the word 'national,' and not admit the word 'stamps,'
influenced them here to guard against the word '_slaves_.' They anxiously
sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the
ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system
those things which the expressions signified: and hence it is that the
clause is so worded, as really to authorize the General Government to
impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to
become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a
servant, although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the
duty was only made to extend to the importation of slaves.
"This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the
convention; as the system was reported by the Committee of Detail, the
provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited,
without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight
States; Georgia, South Carolina, and I think North Carolina, voting for
it.
"We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that
their States would never agree to a system which put it in the power of
the General Government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that
they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their assent from such
a system.
"A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot to take
this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to
agree upon some report which should reconcile those States; to this
committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been
reported by the Committee of Detail, namely: 'No navigation act shall be
passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each
House;' a proposition which the staple and commercial States were
solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under
the power of the eastern States, but which these last States were as
anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a
member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to
them. I found the _eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to
slavery_, were very willing to indulge the southern States at least with
temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave trade_, provided the southern
States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on
navigation acts, and after a very little time, the committee, by a great
majority, agreed on a report, by which the General Government was to be
prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time,
and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted."
Mr. LANDRUM. Now, Mr. Chairman, we are asked to legislate to exclude
slavery from the Territories, because slavery is a moral wrong, because it
is a sin against God, and because it is a crime against humanity. And we
are invoked to adopt that legislation by the example of our forefathers.
Now, what precedent do they furnish us in this clause of the Constitution?
The Constitution of the United States did make regulations in regard to
the slavery question. One of those regulations was to permit the African
slave trade until the year 1808. Now, sir, was there anything so morally
wrong in the African slave trade; was it any such crime against humanity
as to deter the ancestors of those gentlemen from coming into a Union
which permitted the African slave trade? Why, sir, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, and New Hampshire, voted to extend the limitation against the
prohibition of that traffic from 1800 to 1808. Does the honorable chairman
of this committee (Mr. BUFFINGTON) blush for his ancestors because they
knew so little of the primary truths of common morality, as expounded by
the gentleman from Connecticut, (Mr. FERRY,) in the commencement of this
debate, soon after the organization of this House, in voting such a
provision as that?
The State of Massachusetts was a sovereign State before she entered into
this Confederacy, unabridged by any limitation. She could have prevented
her citizens then, as the United States does now, from participating in
the slave trade even between foreign ports in foreign nations; and yet
your ancestors not only voted with South Carolina and Georgia, who refused
to come into the Union unless the African slave trade was permitted so
long as they desired it, but in coming into that Union, it gave to the
citizens of Massachusetts, too, a like authority to engage in that trade.
What a sin against God, what a crime against humanity, did these
Massachusetts legislators vote to perpetuate! And yet, I imagine, the
honorable Chairman is proud of his ancestors; and we are told now that
because we will not join you in the hue-and-cry against slavery, and do
not legislate to exclude slavery from the Territories, we are the authors
of the evils with which the country is afflicted. You are not satisfied
with our silence, our inaction; you say that we want to perpetuate a crime
against humanity, and have departed from the lesson of wisdom inculcated
by our ancestors.
Sir, I believe in the teachings of the ancient patriots. I take their
precedents, and although not _now_ in favor of the reopening of the
African slave trade, because it is inexpedient, (though, as I do not
consider the question before the country, I confess I have not studied
it,) yet I venerate those legislators who sacrificed their prejudices in
order that they might get South Carolina and Georgia into the Union, who
refused to come in without it.
The gentleman from Connecticut, who first opened this debate, and who, I
believe, is not now in his seat, remarked in his speech, that evil,
disguised in whatever form it might be, would only produce evil; and
therefore you must first lay down a moral code, and no matter what results
it apparently leads you to, you must never violate it. Sir, his ancestors
told a different tale. They said, in admitting South Carolina and Georgia
into the Union, that, although they objected to the slave trade, more good
would be accomplished than by prohibiting the slave trade and losing those
two States.
That is the policy which guided our ancestors; and now, what do we ask?
What does the Democratic party ask? Do we ask this Government to legislate
slavery into the Territories? We have never made any such demand. We have
never _yet_ asked anything of this Government but to let it alone. And I
assure you, that New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, voted to
perpetuate the slave trade, and to give her citizens the right to engage
in it from 1800 to 1808, by that clause in the Constitution which gives
the citizens of each State the rights of the citizens of every other
State. She relinquished the power which they had to forbid her own
citizens from participating in the slave trade, and opened the door to
them. That is what your ancestors did in the Constitution under which this
Government was formed, and which is the basis of all its legislation. And
yet, you can give no legislative encouragement to slavery; you must
exclude it wherever you have the power to exclude it, not as a matter of
policy--at least that is not the ground upon which you base your
action--but because it is a moral wrong, and a crime against humanity.
But is that all the legislation in the Constitution about slavery? Why,
sir, they inserted a clause in the Constitution authorizing the recapture
of fugitive slaves when they entered the sovereign territory of these New
England States which have now such an aborrence of the doctrine. As the
meaning of that clause has been a subject of dispute, I ask the Clerk to
read a short extract from the debates in the Virginia convention which
adopted the Constitution, in which Mr. Madison explained the meaning of
it. I hope I shall be able to show that we have some first-rate
pro-slavery legislation in the Constitution before I get through with this
argument.
The Clerk read, as follows:
"At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are
free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are
uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, 'no
person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This
clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.
This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to
the General Government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves
now held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to its
representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They cannot
prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years; but after that period
they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argued in this
manner: 'We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much
of the property now possessed has been purchased or otherwise acquired in
contemplation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves. What
would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia
would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.' I
need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment
of the Union would be worse. If those States should disunite from the
other States, for not including them in the temporary continuance of this
traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign Powers."
Mr. LANDRUM. Yes, Mr. Chairman, those were the motives that influenced the
framers of the Constitution. The several States of New England which,
according to the testimony of Mr. Madison, had up to that time refused to
deliver up fugitive slaves, voluntarily renounced the right of prohibiting
it, and voted that the slave-catcher should have authority to enter
therein, and carry back his slave to bondage. Do I want any better
pro-slavery men than these? Where, sir, was this notion of "a sin against
God and a crime against humanity" when they voted for that clause?
I will again refer to the remark of the gentleman from Connecticut, which
I know he will not apply to his ancestors in Connecticut who voted for
this pro-slavery provision--that "evil, disguised under whatever form it
may be, can be productive only of evil." He would not denounce his
ancestors as hypocrites because they left out of the Constitution the
weird "slave;" for Mr. Roger Sherman says that the expression was
objectionable "to ears polite," I suppose. Mr. Madison and Mr. Yates tell
us what they meant by the description "held to service or labor." I know
the gentleman would not say that his ancestors were disguising in a
particular name an evil, and thereby adopting it.
No, sir; slavery was a good thing; but it had a bad name, according to the
polite phraseology of the day, and, knowing that "a rose by any other name
would smell as sweet," they changed the term "slave" to that of a "person
held to service or labor."
But, sir, in regard to this African slave trade provision, it was esteemed
so important that, although provision was made for an amendment to the
Constitution, applying to almost everything else within its compass,
except, I believe, to the clause, that no State should be deprived of her
equal representation in the Senate without her consent, this precious
article of the slave trade clause was not to be interfered with, under any
circumstances, prior to the year 1808.
I think, Mr. Chairman, I have disposed of the religious argument, the
moral argument, the conscience argument against slavery, derived from the
lessons taught by the example of our forefathers. Do not tell me any more
that Mr. Madison thought slavery was an evil; because these thoughts
controlled not the action of his public position. Do not tell me that
Washington and Jefferson were opposed to slavery abstractly, after that;
because we find even New England men, with all their prejudices, as good
pro-slavery men as South Carolina and Georgia wanted--for they were the
only States that made a question on this African slave trade. Whatever
future congressional protection to property may become necessary, all that
we have ever _yet_ asked, Mr. Chairman, is that Congress shall not
legislate at all on the question of slavery in the Territories. But your
patriotic forefathers did legislate. They legislated to protect the
African slave trade. They gave permission to the citizens of Massachusetts
to enter into the slave trade along with the citizens of South Carolina
and Georgia, and they gave us a fugitive slave law. That is the sort of
legislation which they gave us in the Constitution, which is the basis of
the Government under which we live.
There are other clauses in the Constitution, sir, which show that this
matter of slavery was not neglected. In the apportionment of direct
taxation and representation, it was stipulated that three-fifths of the
slaves should be represented on this floor. They were noticed, and noticed
as a degraded class, as unequal to free men; because, if they had been
considered equal to free men we would have been entitled to full
representation for them on this floor. But, sir, they were treated as a
degraded class--as a class unequal to free men. Their masters were given a
representation in this House in proportion to three-fifths of their
numbers, and the direct taxation was to be assessed at the same ratio on
the slave States. Now, I allude to this subject, not to show boastingly,
as it has been said on this floor, that we have a slave representation
here. In that very provision of the Constitution the people of the
northern States derived all the advantage--the people of the southern
States all the loss; for no money, scarcely, has ever been raised by
direct taxation. The money for the support of the Government is collected
in an entirely different manner. If taxes were assessed on that principle,
by a system of direct taxation, we would have derived some benefit from
the three-fifth provision; but, as it is, you derive all the advantage,
and we none of it.
The principle which governed the convention in inserting that provision
was the belief that this was the proportion in which the labor of the
slave contributed to the wealth of the country, comparatively to that of
the free man; and as, according to the political doctrines of that day,
taxation and representation went hand in hand, and as a slave produced
only three-fifths as much annual income as a free man, their masters were
only entitled to that much representation. So it is in the electoral
college. There the slaves are enumerated in the same proportion, and their
masters are deprived of a voice to that extent.
In that connection I want to have read the opinions of a venerable
gentleman, whose authority will not be disputed upon this floor by the
Republican party--the opinions of Mr. John Adams. The Clerk will read from
the Madison Papers, page 29.
The Clerk read, as follows:
"Mr. John Adams observed, that the numbers of people were taken by this
article as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects of
taxation. That as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you
called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some
countries the laboring poor were called freemen, in others they were
called slaves; but that the difference as to the State was imaginary only.
What matters it whether a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm
gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of
life, or give them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add
as much wealth annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the
one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more
profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred
slaves. Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen,
should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves.
Suppose, by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one-half the
laborers of a State could, in the course of one night, be transformed into
slaves, would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to pay taxes?
That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries--that of the
fisherman, particularly, of the northern States--is as abject as that of
slaves. It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for
taxation; and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index of
wealth. That it is the use of the word 'property' here, and its
application to some of the people of the State, which produces the
fallacy. How does the southern farmer procure slaves? Either by
importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he
adds one to the number of laborers in his country, and proportionably to
its profits and abilities to pay taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it
is only a transfer of a laborer from one farm to another, which does not
change the annual produce of a State, and therefore should not change its
tax; that if a northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it
is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the
southern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred thousand
freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thousand
slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property. That a slave
may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly called the wealth
of his master, than the free laborer might be called the wealth of his
employer; but as to the State, both were equally its wealth, and should
therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.
"Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted
as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as much work as
freemen, and doubted if two effected more than one. That this was proved
by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in the Southern Colonies
being from £8 to £12, while in the Northern it was generally £24."
Mr. LANDRUM. If we had a representation on this floor, as we ought to
have, on a total population basis, we should have sixteen additional
members, and the same additional number in the electoral college.
Well, sir, the Republican party has attempted to incorporate an additional
provision into the Constitution. Those clauses which have especially
provided for African slavery it is impossible to repeal; but into those
where slavery is not mentioned, they have attempted to interpolate a new
clause. The Constitution has provided that new States may be admitted into
the Union. In a Confederacy of one-half slave States and one-half free
States, or nearly in that proportion, and when there is a provision in the
Constitution that new States may be admitted into the Union, _without
qualification_, one would naturally suppose that there would be no more
restriction upon the admission of a slave State than upon the admission of
a free State.
Yet, sir, gentlemen on the other side propose to construe the Constitution
as if there were really there a restrictive clause against the admission
of any more slave States. And when we oppose that step they turn around
and say to us that we are the cause of all this excitement. It is they who
have caused the trouble. Like the old English gentleman in the play, they
say they are the best natured men in the world if we will only give them
their own way. All they want is to be permitted to have their own way, and
then there will be no excitement. We say that, as the Confederacy
consisted originally of free States and slave States, each new State, when
applying for admission, has the right to regulate the matter for herself.
You, gentlemen of the other side, say that, unless the new State prohibits
slavery, she shall not be admitted.
Look at another clause of the Constitution:
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property of the United
States."
There is not a word there as to whether slavery shall be tolerated in
these Territories or not.
Such are the views, Mr. Chairman, and such the example of our forefathers
when they framed the Constitution. I take those examples of our
forefathers, and their legislative action under it, for my precedents. I
care not what their private opinions may have been; I want to know what
their legislative conduct was when they were acting on oath, for they were
men who regarded their oaths. They were men, sir, who did not believe that
the Constitution they framed would be contrary to the higher law, and that
it would be consistent with their oath of office to violate it.
Well, Mr. Chairman, what further was the action of the fathers under the
Constitution of the United States. I will refer back to one memorable
example which goes behind that instrument. In the treaty with the British
Government it was stipulated that the British should not carry away any
negroes or _other property_ of the American citizens. John Jay, John
Adams, and Benjamin Franklin signed that treaty; and this, sir, was the
language they used:
The British "shall not carry away the negroes or other property belonging
to the people of the United States."
Yet we are told that, according to the doctrine of our forefathers, there
can be no such thing as property in man. The language I have quoted occurs
first in the preliminary articles in 1782, and again in the treaty of
peace which was signed in 1783.
Kentucky was admitted into the Union as a slave State, without objection,
on the 4th of February, 1791. Now, if you had the right to exclude
Missouri because she tolerated slavery, why did you not have the same
right to exclude Kentucky? Why were conscientious scruples abandoned in
the case of Kentucky, and the Territory of Virginia given, by the
detaching of Kentucky, four Senators in the Senate of the United States,
instead of two? Our forefathers--yours and mine--voted for the admission
of Kentucky as a slave State. It will not do to say that slavery already
existed in Kentucky; because, if slavery be a sin and a crime and a curse,
then, according to your doctrine, it ought not to have been extended by
giving the slave States additional representation and power in the Senate
of the United States.
Why, sir, if it would have been bad faith to have excluded Kentucky, was
it not bad faith to exclude Missouri? Because in the ordinance
establishing the territorial government of Missouri, in 1812, there was no
Wilmot proviso, no prohibition of slavery? But slavery was permitted, as
we ask it shall be permitted now; it was protected by the courts, and no
complaint was urged within the Territory of Missouri, in regard to this
question of slavery until she applied for admission into the Union. If
your anti-slavery party, which I charge is the cause of all the evils with
which this country is afflicted, was right then in excluding Missouri,
because she did not abolish slavery, your forefathers were wrong in
admitting Kentucky. Either they were wrong and you are right, or you are
wrong and they were right. Between the two I have no hesitation in my
choice. Regarded as patriots, regarded as intelligent men, considered as
men who regarded their oaths, I have no hesitation in saying I believe
they were equally as honest as the Republican party of the present day.
In 1793 they gave us the fugitive slave law, there being only seven votes
in opposition to it, and some of those were from the South, I think--a
law, which if we attempt to enforce in the northern States we are met by
mobs, and bloodshed frequently follows. No southern man dares go into some
portions of the northern States and attempt to execute this law, except at
the peril of his life.
Such was the action of the founders of the republic, whose example we are
constantly called upon to imitate. Tennessee was admitted in 1796, with
slavery. The Territory of Mississippi was organized in 1798, by the
application of the ordinance of 1787 to that Territory, and the
restriction as to slavery removed. That was legislation under the
Constitution. These are the precedents we are to follow; and we are not to
go behind the Constitution and follow the precedent of 1787, when the
relation of the States to each other was entirely different from what it
is now under the Constitution.
Ah! but you say, Mr. Jefferson thought slavery was a great wrong. But the
acquisition of Louisiana in 1804 was a great right. Mr. Jefferson was then
President of the republic. He represented the people of the free States,
and he represented the people of the slave States; and no matter what his
private opinion might have been upon the question of slavery, or upon the
question of religion, or upon any other question, we, as legislators
sitting in this Hall, acting under oath, as he did, have nothing to do
with your private opinions upon the subject; but we have something to do
with your legislative action; and I call upon you, acting under oath, as
Jefferson did, to imitate his example. He acquired Louisiana through the
instrumentality of Livingston and Monroe, who signed the treaty. Slavery
existed in the Territory of Louisiana by the treaty by which she was
acquired, and by that her inhabitants were guarantied their rights of
property.
Louisiana was admitted into the Union, in 1812, as a slave State. I know
that specious objections are made in these cases. The objection has been
made that in Tennessee, in Kentucky, and in Mississippi, slavery already
existed; but, acting upon the principle upon which gentlemen here propose
to legislate, that whatever is wrong and evil can produce nothing but
evil--and you must follow it to its results, no matter where it leads
you--no question of policy can be entertained. Why did these eminent
opponents of slavery, as they are called, and to whose opinions we are
constantly referred, increase the slave power, and encourage slavery
aggression, as you term it? The only aggression slaveholders have ever
made upon the free States is a demand that they should let this matter
alone. Why do not members of Congress, assembled within these Halls,
imitate the legislation of these men? I assure you, there was no such
restrictive legislation in the Constitution, nor under the Constitution,
up to 1820; for in 1813, under the administration of Madison, I believe,
slaves were recognized as property, and taxed by the Government; and in
1814, in the treaty of peace with Great Britain, it is again expressly
stipulated that all slaves and other _private property_--I use the very
language of the treaty--in the possession of either of the belligerent
parties, should be returned to the other, which shows that they had no
constitutional or conscientious scruples against _protecting_ slave
property.
And yet we are told that we are the cause of all these mischiefs, because
we do not join with you in the declaration that there can be no such thing
as property in man; and that we have departed from the example of our
forefathers in not joining in that declaration. Sir, I would not use an
unparliamentary phrase; I would not say one word calculated to widen the
breach which now exists between the different members of this Confederacy,
for God knows no one deprecates it more than I do; but I do say that
intelligent gentlemen who stand upon this floor and make that declaration,
ignore the whole legislation of this Government, from the formation of the
Constitution up to the Missouri difficulty, in 1820. I say, if they are
familiar with the legislative acts of their forefathers, they must know
they are uttering that which is not true, when they say their example
teaches us that we should oppose slavery in every shape and form in which
we have legislative power.
Mississippi was admitted into the Union in 1817, and no objection was
raised that she was a slave State. But it was in 1819-'20 that the
struggle began for which you propose to hold us responsible. Why, sir,
after the Government had gone on thirty years without question, having
never asked, when a State applied for admission, whether she was free or
whether she was slave; while the whole country was living in harmony and
brotherly love and affection; while the southern State was proud of the
prosperity and happiness of the northern State, and the people of the
northern States rejoiced at the prosperity of the people of the South,
this hydra-headed monster of anti-slavery was then first produced; and
from that day to this, it may be said,
"Black it stood as night,
Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell,"
and has shaken the bonds of this Union from one end to the other.
What was the cause of the agitation of 1820? After you had encouraged the
citizens of Virginia and Kentucky and other States to settle in Missouri,
by protecting slave property in the courts of justice, you turned round
and said that Missouri should not be admitted unless she relinquished the
right thereafter to hold slaves; and you kept her out of the Union for one
year. The South, with that compromising and generous spirit which has ever
characterized them--I say so in no spirit of egotism, for I am describing
the people whom I represent--came forward and executed that memorable
relinquishment, agreeing that slavery should not go north of 36° 30´ if
you would permit Missouri to come into the Union. While we have voted for
the admission of free State after free State, without making it a
question; while we were then ready to vote for the admission of Maine, you
turned round and ungenerously--what your motives may have been God only
knows; whether to promote your political power or not it is not for me to
say--forbid Missouri coming into the Union unless she relinquished the
right to hold slaves.
Now, sir, who departed from the lessons of wisdom taught by the fathers of
the republic? Most of them slept in their tombs, and a wiser and purer and
holier race (in their own estimation) had supplanted them; and "the sin
against God and the crime against humanity" had to be blotted from
Missouri, or she could hold no place in the Union.
However, you made a good trade, and then the objection to the "sin against
God and the crime against humanity" was waived for a consideration. You
excluded the people of the South from all the territory north of 36° 30´,
and then Missouri was admitted into the Union with slavery.
[Here the hammer fell.]
Mr. LANDRUM. I would thank the committee to extend my time for ten minutes
longer.
General assent was given.
Mr. LANDRUM. I shall have to pass over a number of points which I should
have liked to touch on, and will only make this remark: that having all
the time a majority in the House of Representatives, and having secured an
ultimate preponderance in the Senate, you passed the tariff bills of 1824
and 1828, in which the southern section, now securely in the minority,
were to be made tributary to promote and pamper the industry of the North.
Then came the opposition to the annexation of Texas, because it was a
slave State. Then came the Wilmot proviso for Oregon, and for the
territory acquired from Mexico. Then followed the struggle of 1856, when
you boldly inscribed on your banner, "No more slave States to be admitted
into the Union." At all events, you insisted on "prohibition to slavery in
the Territories," and announced that our system of labor was a "twin relic
of barbarism" with polygamy. Then followed the enunciation, in the
platform of a great popular party, which struggled almost successfully for
the government of the country, that the whole people of the South who
owned slaves were living in that state of pollution and degradation which
characterizes the polygamist.
Yet we are told that we are the cause of all the trouble, because we do
not join in the hue-and-cry. Now, sir, what is the state of parties? The
greatest man, perhaps, of the Republican party--certainly the greatest in
influence, and the one whose prospects are first for the Presidency--has
declared that the three billions of property which we own must be
destroyed, stating that "you and I must do it," meaning that it must be
done by the present generation. Then follows the resolution of the
gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. BLAKE,] voted for by sixty members of the House,
declaring that slavery ought to be abolished wherever the Government has
the power to do it.
The gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. FERRY] will recollect his declaration
that some of us may live to see the day when this Confederacy may consist
of fifty sovereignties; and when that day comes, it will be their duty,
according to the principles of the Republican party, to change the
Constitution and to abolish slavery. And yet gentlemen seem to wonder that
the people of the South are talking about new guards for their safety.
Sir, the maxim laid down by Jefferson, that governments should not be
abolished for light or transient causes, is most true; but no less true is
the maxim that a people are always disposed to endure evils so long as
they are endurable, rather than right themselves by abolishing the forms
of which they are accustomed. Sir, what may be the action of Louisiana, in
any contingency that may arise, it is not for me to state.
I believe that the people of my State have too much at stake to attempt to
change their present institutions, or to make any new arrangement for
light or transient causes. We have an immense wealth, a vast commerce, a
city trading with all the States of the Union, whose forests of masts,
from which float the flags of all nations, denote that her commerce is
coextensive with the globe. The levee of her commercial emporium literally
trembles, in a frontage of nine miles, beneath the superincumbent masses
of merchandise. Reluctantly, most reluctantly, would that people take any
steps which by possibility could involve us in civil war and commotion;
and great, indeed, must have been their apprehension when they adopted, in
convention, March 15, 1860, the following resolution:
"That, in case of the election of a President on the avowed principles of
the Black Republican party, we concur in the opinion that Louisiana should
meet in council her sister slaveholding States, to consult as to the means
of future protection."
I have no idea that I am mistaken, when I state that no action will be
taken under that resolution, except on the most mature deliberation. But,
sir, whenever the people of Louisiana believe that their institutions are
in danger, and that it is the deliberate purpose of those who may get
control of the Government to spread over them that dark and benighted pall
which hangs like an incubus over the Central and South American republics
and the West India Islands that have emancipated their slaves, I tell you
they will act, and act effectually, too, for their protection and
security. And whatever course the majority of her people may choose to
take, her sons will sustain it with their lives, their fortunes, and their
sacred honor.
THOS. MCGILL, Print.
End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Slavery Question, by John M. Landrum
*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE SLAVERY QUESTION ***
***** This file should be named 35662-8.txt or 35662-8.zip *****
This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
https://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/6/6/35662/
Produced by Bryan Ness and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
will be renamed.
Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules,
set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project
Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you
do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is
subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
redistribution.
*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
https://gutenberg.org/license).
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the
collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an
individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in
a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check
the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning
the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or
re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked
to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg-tm License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or
distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
that
- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is
owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
License. You must require such a user to return or
destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
Project Gutenberg-tm works.
- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
of receipt of the work.
- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the
Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with
the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy
is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists
because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
and the Foundation web page at https://www.pglaf.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
https://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at
809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
[email protected]. Email contact links and up to date contact
information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
page at https://pglaf.org
For additional contact information:
Dr. Gregory B. Newby
Chief Executive and Director
[email protected]
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To
SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
particular state visit https://pglaf.org
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: https://pglaf.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
works.
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
https://www.gutenberg.org
This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
