Journal of the Senate of the United States of America,
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1820.

...Mr. Tichenor communicated the following resolutions of the legislature of the state of Vermont; which were read:

STATE OF VERMONT.

IN GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
Nov. 15, 1820.

The committee, to whom was referred so much of his excellency's speech as relates to the admission of the territory of Missouri into the Union as a state, submit the following report:

The history of nations demonstrates that involuntary servitude not only plunges the slave into the depths of misery, but renders a great proportion of community dependant and wretched, and the remainder tyrannic and indolent.

Opulence, acquired by the slavery of others, degenerates its possessors, and destroys the physical powers of government. Principles so degrading are inconsistent with the primitive dignity of man, and his natural rights.

Slavery is incompatible with the vital principles of all free governments, and tends to their ruin. It paralizes industry, the greatest source of national wealth, stifles the love of freedom, and endangers the safety of the nation.

It is prohibited by the laws of nature*, which are equally binding on governments and individuals. The right to introduce and establish slavery in a free government does not exist.

The Declaration of Independence declares, as self-evident truths, "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."

The constitution of the United States, and of the several states, have recognized these principles as the basis of their governments: and have expressly inhibited the introduction or extension of slavery, or impliedly disavowed the right.

The powers of Congress to require the prohibition of slavery in the constitution of a state, to be admitted as one of the United States, is confirmed by the admission of new states according to the ordinance of 1787, and by a constitutional "guarantee to every state in the Union of a republican form of government." This power in Congress is also admitted in the act of March 6, 1820, which declares, that, in all that territory ceded under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36 deg. 30 min. north latitude, "slavery and involuntary servitude shall be forever prohibited."

Where slavery existed in the states, at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States, a spirit of compromise, or painful necessity, may have excused its continuance; but can never justify its introduction into a state to be admitted from the territories of the United States.

Though slavery is not expressly prohibited by the constitution, yet, that invaluable instrument contains powers, first principles, and self-evident truths, which bring us to the same result, and lead us to Liberty and Justice, and the equal rights of man, from which we ought never to depart. "In it is clearly seen a deep and humiliating sense of slavery," and a cheering hope that it would, at some future period, be abolished--and even a determination to do it.

It is apparent that servitude produces, in the slave-holding states, peculiar feelings, local attachments, and separate interests; and, should it be extended into new states, "it will have a tendency to form a combination of power, which will control the measures of the general government;" and which cannot be resisted, except by the physical force of the nation.

The people of the United States adopted the constitution "to form a more perfect union of the several states, to establish justice, to secure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty;" and have thereby blended, and inseparably connected, the interests, the safety, and welfare, of every state in the Union. We, therefore, become deeply concerned in the fundamental principles of the constitution of any new state to be admitted into the Union. Whatever powers are necessary to carry into effect the great objects of the Union are implied in the constitution, and vested in the several departments of the general government.

The act of the United States authorizing a provisional admission of Missouri into the Union as a state, does not pledge the faith of government to admit whatever may be its constitution or system of state government: for that constitution, by the act, must be republican, and not repugnant to the constitution of the United States.

From information, it is to be seriously apprehended that Missouri will present to Congress, for their approbation, a constitution which declares, that "the general assembly shall have no power to pass laws--first for the emancipation of slaves, without the consent of their owners, or without paying them, before emancipation, a full equivalent for such slaves so emancipated;" and, "secondly," to prevent emigrants from bringing slaves into said state, so long as slavery is legalized therein.

It is also made the imperious duty of its legislature to pass laws, as soon as may be, "to prevent free negroes and mulattoes from coming to, and settling in, that state, under any pretence whatever."

These powers, restrictions, and provisions, to legalize and perpetuate slavery, and to prevent citizens of the United States, on account of their origin, colour, or features, from emigrating to Missouri, are repugnant to a republican government, and in direct violation of the constitution of the United States.

If Missouri be permitted to introduce and legalize slavery by her constitution, and we consent to her admission, we shall justly incur the charge of insincerity in our civil institutions, and in all our professions of attachment to liberty. It will bring upon the constitution and Declaration of Independence, a deep stain, which cannot be forgotten, or blotted out. "It will deeply affect the Union in its resources, political interests, and character."

The admission of another new state into the Union, with a constitution which guarantees security and protection to slavery, and the cruel and unnatural traffic of any portion of the human race, will be an error which the Union cannot correct, and an evil which may endanger the freedom of the nation.

Congress never ought, and we trust never will, plant the standard of the Union in Missouri, to wave over the heads of involuntary slaves, "who have nothing they can call their own, except their sorrows and their sufferings," and a life beyond the grave, and who can never taste the sweets of liberty, unless they obtain it by force or by flight. Nor can a community made up of masters and slaves ever enjoy the blessings of liberty, and the benefits of a free government: these enjoyments are reserved for a community of freemen, who are subject to none, but to God and the laws.

The committee, therefore, submit for the consideration of the general assembly the following resolutions, viz:

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this legislature, slavery, or involuntary servitude, in any of the United States, is a moral and political evil; and that its continuance can be justified by necessity alone.

That Congress has a right to inhibit any further introduction or extension of slavery, as one of the conditions upon which any new state shall be admitted into the Union.

Resolved, That this legislature views with regret and alarm, the attempt of the inhabitants of Missouri to obtain admission into the Union, as one of the United States, under a constitution which legalizes and secures the introduction and continuance of slavery; and also contains provisions to prevent freemen of the United States from emigrating to, and settling in Missouri, on account of their origin, colour, and features. And that, in the opinion of this legislature, these principles, powers, and restrictions, contained in the reputed constitution of Missouri, are anti-republican, and repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and subversive of the unalienable rights of man.

Resolved, That the Senators from this state, in the Congress of the United States, be instructed, and the Representatives requested, to exert their influence, and use all legal means, to prevent the admission of Missouri, as a state, into the union of the United States, with those anti-republican features and powers in their constitution.

Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing report and resolutions to each of the Senators and Representatives from this state in the Congress of the United States.

In General Assembly, Nov. 15, 1820.

Read and adopted.

Attest,WM. D. SMITH, Clerk.

In Council, Nov. 16, 1820.

Read, and resolved to concur.

R. TEMPLE, Secretary.

State of Vermont, Secretary of State's office, Middlebury, Nov. 27, 1820.

I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original preamble and resolutions, on file in my office.

WILLIAM SLADE, Jun. Sec'y of State.

* - Well, what do you know, there are those pesky Laws of Nature again. Let's take a look at what the First Law of Nature is, shall we? To Wit;

"The First Law of Nature is that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use ALL helps and advantages of war."

- Thomas Hobbs, "Leviathan", (Outlines the Laws of Nature), 1651

That would seem to indicate that ALL forms of 'gun control' in America “are anti-republican, and repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and subversive of the unalienable rights of man”. Now, wouldn't it? It also makes the “compelling state interest” argument a totally moot point. For, We The People INSTITUTED these governments to “secure the blessings of liberty”. And, “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”. Correct? Or, can anyone tell me just where I might be off here? And, the above isn't even taking into consideration that “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms” was EXPRESSLY prohibited from ANY government interference in Amendment II. True “compelling state interest” is supposed to be for the inalienable rights of man. For, the "state" is just an artificial being that was created by We The People to serve us.

Don't know about you. But, I can see a very close corelation between 'gun control' and slavery. History has repeatedly proven the validity of that assertion....