And now for THE TRUE RELATIONS OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT TO SLAVERY.
These are readily apparent, if we do not neglect well-established
principles.
If Slavery be national, if there be any power in the National
Government to uphold this institution,--as in the recent Slave
Act,--it must be by virtue of the Constitution. Nor can it be by
mere inference, implication, or conjecture. According to the uniform
admission of courts and jurists in Europe, again and again promulgated
in our country, Slavery can be derived only from clear and special
recognition. "The state of Slavery," said Lord Mansfield, pronouncing
judgment in the great case of Sommersett, "is of such a nature, that it
is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political,
_but only by positive law_.... It is so odious, that _nothing can be
suffered to support it_ but POSITIVE LAW."[106] And a slaveholding
tribunal,--the Supreme Court of Mississippi,--adopting the same
principle, has said:--
"Slavery is condemned by reason and the Laws of Nature. It exists,
and can _only_ exist, through municipal regulations."[107]
And another slaveholding tribunal--the Court of Appeals of
Kentucky--has said:--
"We view this as a right existing by _positive law_ of a municipal
character, without foundation in the Law of Nature or the unwritten
and Common Law."[108]
Of course every power to uphold Slavery must have an origin as
distinct as that of Slavery itself. Every presumption must be as strong
against such a power as against Slavery. A power so peculiar and
offensive, so hostile to reason, so repugnant to the Law of Nature and
the inborn Rights of Man,--which despoils its victim of the fruits of
labor,--which substitutes concubinage for marriage,--which abrogates
the relation of parent and child,--which, by denial of education,
abases the intellect, prevents a true knowledge of God, and murders
the very soul,--which, amidst a plausible physical comfort, degrades
man, created in the divine image, to the state of a beast,--such a
power, so eminent, so transcendent, so tyrannical, so unjust, can find
no place in any system of Government, unless by virtue of _positive
sanction_. It can spring from no doubtful phrase. It must be declared
by unambiguous words, incapable of a double sense.
[106] Howell's State Trials, Vol. XX. col. 82.
[107] Harry et al. _v._ Decker et al., Walker, 42.
[108] Rankin _v._ Lydia, 2 Marshall, 470.
Slavery, I repeat, is not mentioned in the Constitution. The name
Slave does not pollute this Charter of our Liberties. No "positive"
language gives to Congress any _power_ to make a slave or to hunt a
slave. To find even any seeming sanction for either, we must travel,
with doubtful footstep, beyond express letter, into the region of
interpretation. But here are rules which cannot be disobeyed. With
electric might for Freedom, they send a pervasive influence through
every provision, clause, and word of the Constitution. Each and all
make Slavery impossible as a national institution. They shut off from
the Constitution every fountain out of which it can be derived.
_First_, and foremost, is the _Preamble_. This discloses the prevailing
objects and principles of the Constitution. This is the vestibule
through which all must pass who would enter the sacred temple. Here
are the inscriptions by which they are earliest impressed. Here is
first seen the genius of the place. Here the proclamation of Liberty
is soonest heard. "We, the People of the United States," says the
Preamble, "in order to form a more perfect Union, _establish justice_,
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, _promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty_ to ourselves
and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
United States of America." Thus, according to undeniable words, the
Constitution was ordained, not to establish, secure, or sanction
Slavery,--not to promote the special interests of Slaveholders,--not to
make Slavery national, in any way, form, or manner,--but to "establish
justice," "promote the general welfare," and "secure the blessings of
Liberty." Here, surely, Liberty is national.
_Secondly._ Next to the Preamble in importance are the explicit
_contemporaneous declarations_ in the Convention which framed
the Constitution, and elsewhere, expressed in different forms of
language, but all tending to the same conclusion. By the Preamble
the Constitution speaks for Freedom. By these declarations the
Fathers speak as the Constitution speaks. Early in the Convention,
Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, broke forth in the language of an
Abolitionist: "_He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery._
It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the
States where it prevailed."[109] These positive words, in harmony with
other things from the same quarter, show a vehement determination that
Slavery should not be national.
[109] Madison's Debates, August 8, 1787.
At a later day a discussion ensued on the clause touching the African
slave-trade, which reveals the definitive purposes of the Convention.
From the report of Mr. Madison we learn what was said. Oliver
Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said: "The morality or wisdom of Slavery are
considerations belonging to the States themselves."[110] According to
him, Slavery was sectional. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, "thought
we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slaves, _but
ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it_."[111] According
to him, Slavery is sectional, and he would not make it national. Roger
Sherman, of Connecticut, "was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as
making the matter worse, _because it implied they were property_."[112]
He would not have Slavery national. After debate, the subject was
referred to a committee of eleven, who reported a substitute,
authorizing "a tax or duty on such migration or importation, at a rate
_not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports_."[113] This
language, classifying _persons_ with merchandise, seemed to imply a
recognition that they were _property_. Mr. Sherman at once declared
himself "against this part, _as acknowledging men to be property_, by
taxing them as such under the character of slaves."[114] Mr. Gorham
"thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, _not as implying
that slaves are property_, but as a discouragement to the importation
of them."[115] Mr. Madison, in mild juridical phrase, "_thought it
wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be
property in men_."[116] After discussion it was finally agreed to make
the clause read:--
"But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not
exceeding ten dollars _for each person_."[117]
[110] Madison's Debates, Aug. 21, 1787.
[111] Ibid., Aug. 22.
[112] Ibid.
[113] Ibid., Aug. 24.
[114] Ibid., Aug. 25.
[115] Ibid.
[116] Ibid.
[117] Madison's Debates, Aug. 25.
The difficulty seemed then to be removed, and the whole clause was
adopted. This record demonstrates that the word "persons" was employed
to show that slaves, everywhere under the Constitution, are always to
be regarded as _persons_, and not as _property_, and thus to exclude
from the Constitution all idea that there can be property in man.
Remember well, that Mr. Sherman was opposed to the clause in its
original form, "as acknowledging men to be _property_,"--that Mr.
Madison was also opposed to it, because he "thought it _wrong_ to
admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in
men,"--and that, after these objections, the clause was so amended as
to exclude the idea. But Slavery cannot be national, unless this idea
is distinctly and unequivocally admitted into the Constitution.
The evidence still accumulates. At a later day in the proceedings of
the Convention, as if to set the seal upon the solemn determination to
have no sanction of Slavery in the Constitution, the word "servitude,"
which appeared in the clause on the apportionment of representatives
and taxes was struck out, and the word "service" inserted. This was
done by unanimous vote, on the motion of Mr. Randolph, of Virginia; and
the reason assigned for this substitution, according to Mr. Madison, in
his authentic report of the debate, was, that "the former was thought
to express the condition of slaves, and the latter _the obligations
of free persons_."[118] With such care was Slavery excluded from the
Constitution.
[118] Ibid., Sept. 13.
Nor is this all. In the Massachusetts Convention, to which the
Constitution, when completed, was submitted for ratification, a
veteran of the Revolution, General Heath, openly declared, that,
according to his view, Slavery was sectional, and not national. His
language was pointed. "I apprehend," he said, "that it is not in our
power _to do anything for or against those who are in slavery in the
Southern States_. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of
Slavery more than I do; it is generally detested by the people of this
Commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come when
our brethren in the Southern States will view it as we do, and put a
stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions
naturally arise: _If we ratify the Constitution, shall we do anything
by our act to hold the blacks in slavery? or shall we become partakers
of other men's sins? I think neither of them._"[119]
Afterwards, in the first Congress under the Constitution, on a motion,
much debated, for a duty on the importation of slaves, the same Roger
Sherman, who in the National Convention opposed the idea of property
in man, authoritatively exposed the true relations of the Constitution
to Slavery. His language was, that "the Constitution does not
consider these persons as a species of property; it speaks of them as
persons."[120]
[119] Debates, Resolutions, etc., of the Convention of
Massachusetts, January 30, 1788.
[120] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 1st Sess., col. 342.
Thus distinctly and constantly, from the very lips of the framers of
the Constitution, we learn the falsehood of recent assumptions in favor
of Slavery and in derogation of Freedom.
_Thirdly._ According to a familiar rule of interpretation, all laws
concerning the same matter, _in pari materia_, are to be construed
together. By the same reason, _the grand political acts of the
Nation are to be construed together_, giving and receiving light
from each other. Earlier than the Constitution was the Declaration
of Independence, embodying, in immortal words, those primal truths
to which our country pledged itself with baptismal vows as a Nation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident," says the Nation: "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 consent of
the governed." But this does not stand alone. There is another national
act of similar import. On the successful close of the Revolution, the
Continental Congress, in an Address to the States, repeated the same
lofty truth. "Let it be remembered," said the Nation again, "that it
has ever been the pride and boast of America, _that the rights for
which she contended were the rights of human nature_. By the blessing
of the Author of _these rights_ on the means exerted for their defence,
they have prevailed against all opposition, and FORM THE BASIS
of thirteen independent States."[121] Such were the acts of the Nation
in its united capacity. Whatever may be the privileges of States in
their individual capacities, within their several local jurisdictions,
no power can be attributed to the Nation, in the absence of positive,
unequivocal grant, inconsistent with these two national declarations.
Here, Sir, is the national heart, the national soul, the national
will, the national voice, which must inspire our interpretation of the
Constitution, entering into all the national legislation and spreading
through all its parts. Thus again is Freedom national.
[121] Journal of Congress, April 26, 1783, Vol. VIII. p. 201.
_Fourthly._ Beyond these is a principle of the Common Law, clear and
indisputable, a supreme rule of interpretation, from which in this
case there can be no appeal. In any question under the Constitution
_every word must be construed in favor of Liberty_. This rule, which
commends itself to the natural reason, is sustained by time-honored
maxims of early jurisprudence. Blackstone aptly expresses it, when
he says that "the law is always ready to catch at anything in favor
of Liberty."[122] The rule is repeated in various forms. _Favores
ampliandi sunt; odia restringenda_: "Favors are to be amplified;
hateful things to be restrained." _Lex Angliæ est lex misericordiæ_:
"The law of England is a law of mercy." _Angliæ jura in omni casu
Libertati dant favorem_: "The laws of England in every case show favor
to Liberty." And this sentiment breaks forth in natural, though intense
force, in the maxim, _Impius et crudelis judicandus est qui Libertati
non favet_: "He is to be adjudged impious and cruel who does not favor
Liberty." Reading the Constitution in the admonition of these rules,
Freedom, again I say, is national.[123]
[122] Commentaries, Vol. II. p. 94.
[123] These maxims are enforced with beautiful earnestness in
a tract which appeared at Baltimore shortly after the adoption
of the Constitution, with the following title-page: "Letter from
Granville Sharp, Esq., of London, to the Maryland Society for
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes
and others unlawfully held in Bondage. Published by Order of the
Society. Baltimore: Printed by D. Graham, L. Yundt, and W. Patton,
in Calvert Street, near the Court-House. M.DCC.XCIII."
_Fifthly._ From a learned judge of the Supreme Court of the United
States, in an opinion of the Court, we derive the same lesson. In
considering the question, whether a State can prohibit the importation
of slaves as merchandise, and whether Congress, in the exercise of
its power to regulate commerce among the States, can interfere with
the slave-trade between the States, a principle was enunciated,
which, while protecting the trade from any intervention of Congress,
declares openly that the Constitution acts upon no man as property.
Mr. Justice McLean says: "If slaves are considered in some of the
States as merchandise, that cannot divest them of the leading and
controlling quality of persons, by which they are designated in the
Constitution. The character of property is given them by the local
law. This law is respected, and all rights under it are protected,
by the Federal authorities; _but the Constitution acts upon slaves
as PERSONS, and not as property_.... The power over Slavery
belongs to the States respectively. It is local in its character, and
in its effects."[124] Here again Slavery is sectional, while Freedom is
national.
Sir, such, briefly, are the rules of interpretation, which, as applied
to the Constitution, fill it with the breath of Freedom,--
"Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt."[125]
To the _history and prevailing sentiments_ of the times we may turn
for further assurance. In the spirit of Freedom the Constitution was
formed. In this spirit our fathers always spoke and acted. In this
spirit the National Government was first organized under Washington.
And here I recall a scene, in itself a touchstone of the period, and an
example for us, upon which we may look with pure national pride, while
we learn anew the relations of the National Government to Slavery.
[124] Groves et al. _v._ Slaughter, 15 Peters, 507, 508.
[125] Milton, Comus, 456.
The Revolution was accomplished. The feeble Government of the
Confederation passed away. The Constitution, slowly matured in a
National Convention, discussed before the people, defended by masterly
pens, was adopted. The Thirteen States stood forth a Nation, where
was unity without consolidation, and diversity without discord. The
hopes of all were anxiously hanging upon the new order of things and
the mighty procession of events. With signal unanimity Washington was
chosen President. Leaving his home at Mount Vernon, he repaired to New
York,--where the first Congress had commenced its session,--to assume
his place as elected Chief of the Republic. On the 30th of April, 1789,
the organization of the Government was completed by his inauguration.
Entering the Senate Chamber, where the two Houses were assembled, he
was informed that they awaited his readiness to receive the oath of
office. Without delay, attended by the Senators and Representatives,
with friends and men of mark gathered about him, he moved to the
balcony in front of the edifice. A countless multitude, thronging the
open ways, and eagerly watching this great espousal,
"With reverence look on his majestic face,
Proud to be less, but of his godlike race."[126]
The oath was administered by the Chancellor of New York. At such
time, and in such presence, beneath the unveiled heavens, Washington
first took this vow upon his lips: "I do solemnly swear that I will
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and
will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States."
[126] Dryden, Epistle XVI. [XIV.], To Sir Godfrey Kneller.
Over the President, on this new occasion, floated the national flag,
with its stripes of red and white, its stars on a field of blue. As his
patriot eye rested upon the glowing ensign, what currents must have
rushed swiftly through his soul! In the early days of the Revolution,
in those darkest hours about Boston, after the Battle of Bunker Hill,
and before the Declaration of Independence, the thirteen stripes had
been first unfurled by him, as the emblem of Union among the Colonies
for the sake of Freedom. By him, at that time, they had been named the
Union Flag. Trial, struggle, and war were now ended, and the Union,
which they first heralded, was unalterably established. To every
beholder these memories must have been full of pride and consolation.
But, looking back upon the scene, there is one circumstance which,
more than all its other associations, fills the soul,--more even than
the suggestions of Union, which I prize so much. AT THIS MOMENT,
WHEN WASHINGTON TOOK HIS FIRST OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES, THE NATIONAL ENSIGN, NOWHERE WITHIN THE NATIONAL
TERRITORY, COVERED A SINGLE SLAVE. Then, indeed, was Slavery
Sectional, and Freedom National.
On the sea an execrable piracy, the trade in slaves, to the national
scandal, was still tolerated under the national flag. In the States,
as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter of local laws, Slavery
unhappily found a home. But in the only territories at this time
belonging to the nation, the broad region of the Northwest, it was
already made impossible, by the Ordinance of Freedom, even before the
adoption of the Constitution. The District of Columbia, with its Fatal
Dowry, was not yet acquired.
The government thus organized was Antislavery in character. Washington
was a slaveholder, but it would be unjust to his memory not to say that
he was an Abolitionist also. His opinions do not admit of question.
Only a short time before the formation of the National Constitution,
he declared, by letter, that it was "among his first wishes to see
some plan adopted by which Slavery in this country might be abolished
by law";[127] and again, in another letter, that, in support of any
legislative measure for the abolition of Slavery, his suffrage should
"never be wanting";[128] and still further, in conversation with a
distinguished European Abolitionist, a travelling propagandist of
Freedom, Brissot de Warville, recently welcomed to Mount Vernon, he
openly announced, that, to promote this object in Virginia, "he desired
the formation of a SOCIETY, and that he would second it."[129]
By this authentic testimony he takes his place with the early patrons
of Abolition Societies.
[127] Letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 1786: Writings, ed.
Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 159, note.
[128] Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786: Writings, ed.
Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 159.
[129] Brissot de Warville, New Travels in the United States, 2d
ed., Vol. I. pp. 246, 247.
By the side of Washington, as, standing beneath the national flag, he
swore to support the Constitution, were illustrious men, whose lives
and recorded words now rise in judgment. There was John Adams, the
Vice-President, great vindicator and final negotiator of our national
independence, whose soul, flaming with Freedom, broke forth in the
early declaration, that "consenting to Slavery is a sacrilegious
breach of trust,"[130] and whose immitigable hostility to this
wrong is immortal in his descendants. There also was a companion in
arms and attached friend, of beautiful genius, the yet youthful and
"incomparable" Hamilton,--fit companion in early glories and fame with
that darling of English history, Sir Philip Sidney, to whom the latter
epithet has been reserved,--who, as member of the Abolition Society
of New York, had recently united in a solemn petition for those who,
though "_free by the laws of God_, are held in Slavery _by the laws of
this State_."[131] There, too, was a noble spirit, of spotless virtue,
the ornament of human nature, who, like the sun, ever held an unerring
course,--John Jay. Filling the important post of Secretary for Foreign
Affairs under the Confederation, he found time to organize the "Society
for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves" in New York, and to act as
its President, until, by the nomination of Washington, he became Chief
Justice of the United States. In his sight Slavery was an "iniquity,"
"a sin of crimson dye," against which ministers of the Gospel should
testify, and which the Government should seek in every way to abolish.
"Till America comes into this measure," he wrote, "her prayers to
Heaven for liberty will be impious. This is a strong expression, but
it is just. Were I in your Legislature, I would prepare a bill for
the purpose with great care, and I would never cease moving it till it
became a law or I ceased to be a member."[132] Such words as these,
fitly coming from our leaders, belong to the true glories of the
country:--
"While we such precedents can boast at home,
Keep thy Fabricius and thy Cato, Rome!"
[130] Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law: Works, Vol. III. p.
463.
[131] Life and Writings of John Jay, Vol. I. p. 231. Slavery and
AntiSlavery, by William Goodell, p. 97.
[132] Life and Writings, Vol. I. pp. 229, 230.
They stood not alone. The convictions and earnest aspirations of the
country were with them. At the North these were broad and general.
At the South they found fervid utterance from slaveholders. By
early and precocious efforts for "total emancipation," the author
of the Declaration of Independence placed himself foremost among
the Abolitionists of the land. In language now familiar to all, and
which can never die, he perpetually denounced Slavery. He exposed its
pernicious influence upon master as well as slave, declared that the
love of justice and the love of country pleaded equally for the slave,
and that "the abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest object of
desire." He believed that "the sacred side was gaining daily recruits,"
and confidently looked to the young for the accomplishment of this good
work.[133] In fitful sympathy with Jefferson was another honored son of
Virginia, the Orator of Liberty, Patrick Henry, who, while confessing
that he was a master of slaves, said: "I will not, I cannot justify it.
However culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to Virtue as
to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want
of conformity to them."[134] At this very period, in the Legislature
of Maryland, on a bill for the relief of oppressed slaves, a young man,
afterwards by consummate learning and forensic powers acknowledged
head of the American bar, William Pinkney, in a speech of earnest,
truthful eloquence,--better for his memory than even his professional
fame,--branded Slavery as "iniquitous and most dishonorable," "founded
in a disgraceful traffic," "its continuance as shameful as its origin";
and he openly declared, that "by the eternal principles of natural
justice, no master in the State has a right to hold his slave in
bondage for a single hour."[135]
[133] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.: Writings, Vol. VIII. pp.
403, 404. Summary View of the Rights of British America: American
Archives, 4th Ser. Vol. I. col 696; Writings, Vol. I. p. 135.
Letter to Dr. Price, August 7, 1785: Writings, Vol. I. p. 377.
[134] Letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1779: Goodloe's
Southern Platform, p. 79.
[135] Speeches in the House of Delegates of Maryland in 1788 and
1789: Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, p. 11; American Museum for 1789,
Vol. VI. p. 75.
Thus at that time spoke the NATION. The CHURCH also joined its voice.
And here, amidst diversities of religious faith, it is instructive to
observe the general accord. Quakers first bore their testimony. At
the adoption of the Constitution, their whole body, under the early
teaching of George Fox, and by the crowning exertions of Benezet and
Woolman, had become an organized band of Abolitionists, penetrated by
the conviction that it was unlawful to hold a fellow-man in bondage.
Methodists, numerous, earnest, and faithful, never ceased by their
preachers to proclaim the same truth. Their rules in 1788 denounced,
in formal language, "the buying or selling the bodies and souls of
men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them."[136] The
words of their great apostle, John Wesley, were constantly repeated.
On the eve of the National Convention, that burning tract was
circulated in which he exposes American Slavery as "vilest" of the
world,--"such slavery as is not found among the Turks at Algiers";
and after declaring "Liberty the right of every human creature," of
which "no human law can deprive him," he pleads, "If, therefore, you
have any regard to justice (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed
law of God), render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty
is due,--that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human
nature."[137] At the same time the Presbyterians, a powerful religious
body, inspired by the principles of John Calvin, in more moderate
language, but by a public act, recorded their judgment, recommending
"to all their people to use the most prudent measures, consistent with
the interest and the state of civil society in the counties where
they live, _to procure eventually the final abolition of Slavery in
America_."[138] The Congregationalists of New England, also nurtured in
the faith of John Calvin, and with the hatred of Slavery belonging to
the great Nonconformist, Richard Baxter, were sternly united against
this wrong. As early as 1776, Samuel Hopkins, their eminent leader and
divine, published his tract showing it to be the Duty and Interest
of the American Colonies to emancipate all their African slaves, and
declaring that Slavery is "in every instance wrong, unrighteousness,
and oppression,--a very great and crying sin,--there being nothing
of the kind equal to it on the face of the earth."[139] And in 1791,
shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, the second Jonathan
Edwards, a twice-honored name, in an elaborate discourse often
published, called upon his country, in "the present blaze of light" on
the injustice of Slavery, to "prepare the way for its total abolition."
This he gladly thought at hand. "If we judge of the future by the
past," said the celebrated preacher, "within fifty years from this time
it will be as shameful for a man to hold a negro slave as to be guilty
of common robbery or theft."[140]
[136] Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the
United States, Vol. I. pp. 213, 218.
[137] Thoughts upon Slavery, by John Wesley, (London, 1774,) pp.
24, 27.
[138] Minutes of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, 1787:
Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, p. 540.
[139] A Dialogue concerning the Slavery of the Africans; Works,
Vol. II. p. 552.
[140] The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave-Trade, and of the
Slavery of the Africans, (Providence, 1792,) pp. 27-30.
Thus, at this time, the Church, in harmony with the Nation, by its
leading denominations, Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and
Congregationalists, thundered against Slavery. The COLLEGES
were in unison with the Church. Harvard University spoke by the voice
of Massachusetts, which already had abolished Slavery. Dartmouth
College, by one of its learned Professors, claimed for the slaves "an
equal standing, in point of privileges, with the whites."[141] Yale
College, by its President, the eminent divine, Ezra Stiles, became the
head of the Abolition Society of Connecticut.[142] And the University
of William and Mary, in Virginia, at this very time testified its
sympathy with the cause by conferring upon Granville Sharp, the
acknowledged chief of British Abolitionists, the honorary degree of
Doctor of Laws.[143]
[141] Tyrannical Liberty-Men: A Discourse on Negro Slavery in
the United States, February 19, 1795, by Moses Fiske, Tutor in
Dartmouth College. American Quarterly Register, May, 1840. Weld,
Power of Congress over the District of Columbia, p. 33.
[142] Kingsley's Life of Stiles: Sparks's American Biography,
Second Series, Vol. VI. p. 69.
[143] Hoare's Memoirs of Sharp, p. 254. Weld's Power of Congress,
p. 34.
The LITERATURE of the land, such as then existed, agreed
with the Nation, the Church, and the College. Franklin, in the
last literary labor of his life,[144]--Jefferson, in his "Notes on
Virginia,"--Barlow, in his heroic verse,--Rush, in a work which
inspired the praise of Clarkson,[145]--the ingenious author of the
"Algerine Captive," the earliest American novel, and, though now
but little known, one of the earliest American books republished in
London,--were all moved by the contemplation of Slavery. "If our
fellow-citizens in the Southern States are deaf to the pleadings
of Nature," exclaims the last earnestly, "I will conjure them, for
the sake of consistency, to cease to deprive their fellow-creatures
of freedom, which their writers, their orators, representatives,
senators, and even their Constitutions of Government, have declared to
be the unalienable birthright of man."[146] A female writer and poet,
earliest in our country among the graceful throng, Sarah Wentworth
Morton, at the very period of the National Convention, admired by the
polite society in which she lived, poured forth her sympathies also.
The generous labors of John Jay in behalf of the crushed African
inspired her muse; and in another poem, commemorating a slave who fell
while vindicating his freedom, she rendered a truthful homage to his
inalienable rights, in words which I now quote as testimony of the
times:--
"Does not the voice of Reason cry,
'Claim the first right that Nature gave,
From the red scourge of bondage fly,
Nor deign to live a burdened slave'?"[147]
[144] Speech of Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim in the Divan of Algiers
against granting the Petition of the Sect called Erika, or Purists,
for the Abolition of Piracy and Slavery: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol.
II. pp. 517-521.
[145] An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements on
the Slavery of the Negroes. Clarkson's History of the Abolition of
the African Slave-Trade, Vol. I. p. 152.
[146] Algerine Captive, Vol. I. p. 213.
[147] The African Chief: My Mind and its Thoughts, p. 201.
Such, Sir, at the adoption of the Constitution and the first
organization of the National Government, was the outspoken, unequivocal
heart of the country. Slavery was abhorred. Like the slave-trade, it
was regarded as transitory; and by many it was supposed that they would
disappear together. As the oracles grew mute at the coming of Christ,
and a voice was heard, crying to mariners at sea, "Great Pan is dead!"
so at this time Slavery became dumb, and its death seemed to be near.
Voices of Freedom filled the air. The patriot, the Christian, the
scholar, the writer, the poet, vied in loyalty to this cause. All were
Abolitionists.
The earliest Congress under the Constitution attests this mood. One
of its first acts was to accept the Ordinance of Freedom for the
Northwestern Territory, thus ratifying the prohibition of Slavery in
all _existing_ territory. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance
of this act as a national landmark, especially when we consider that on
the list of those who sanctioned it were men fresh from the National
Convention, and therefore familiar with the Constitution which it
framed. The same Congress entertained the question of Slavery in
other forms,--sometimes on memorials duly presented, and then again
in debate. Virginia was heard by her Abolition Society denouncing
Slavery as "not only an odious degradation, but an outrageous
violation of one of the most essential rights of human nature, and
utterly repugnant to the precepts of the Gospel."[148] There was
another petitioner, whose illustrious services at home and abroad
entitled him to speak with authority rather than with prayer. It
was none other than Benjamin Franklin. After a long life of various
effort,--representing his country in England during the controversies
that preceded the Revolution,--returning to take his great part in
the Declaration of Independence,--then representing his country in
its European negotiations,--then again returning to take his great
part in the formation of the National Constitution, while all the
time his life was elevated by philosophy and the peculiar renown he
had won,--this Apostle of Liberty, recognized as such in the two
hemispheres, whose name was signed to the Declaration of Independence,
was signed to the Treaty of Alliance with France, was signed to the
Treaty of Independence with Great Britain, was signed to the National
Constitution, now set this same name to another instrument, a simple
petition to Congress. At the age of eighty-four, venerable with years,
and with all the honors of philosophy, diplomacy, and statesmanship,--a
triple crown never before enjoyed,--the patriot sage comes forward,
as President of the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania, and entreats
Congress "that it would be pleased to countenance the restoration
of Liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of Freedom
are degraded into perpetual bondage,"--and then again, in concluding
words, "that it would _step to the very verge of the power vested in
it for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our
fellow-men_."[149] Shortly after this prayer the petitioner descended
to his tomb, from which he still prays that Congress _will step to the
very verge of the power vested in it to DISCOURAGE Slavery_;
and this prayer, in simple words, proclaims the National policy of the
Fathers. Not encouragement, but discouragement of Slavery,--not its
_nationalization_, but its _denationalization_, was their rule.
[148] Weld, Power of Congress over the District of Columbia, p. 29.
[149] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., col. 1198.
Sir, enough has been said to show the sentiment which, like a vital
air, surrounded the National Government as it stepped into being. In
the face of this history, and in the absence of any positive sanction,
it is absurd to suppose that Slavery, which under the Confederation had
been merely sectional, was now constituted national. Our fathers did
not say, with the apostate angel, "Evil, be thou my good!" In different
spirit they cried out to Slavery, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"
There is yet another link. In the discussions which took place
in the local conventions on the adoption of the Constitution, a
sensitive desire was manifested to surround all persons under the
Constitution with additional safeguards. Fears were expressed, from
the supposed indefiniteness of some of the powers conceded to the
National Government, and also from the absence of a Bill of Rights.
Massachusetts, on ratifying the Constitution, proposed a series of
amendments, at the head of which was this, characterized by Samuel
Adams, in the Convention, as "A Summary of a Bill of Rights":--
"That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly
delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several
States, to be by them exercised."[150]
New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina, with minorities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, united
in this proposition. In pursuance of these recommendations, the
First Congress presented for adoption the following article, which,
being ratified by the proper number of States, became part of the
Constitution as the Tenth Amendment:--
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
[150] Debates, etc., of the Massachusetts Convention, February 1
and 6, 1788. Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV. p. 211.
Stronger words could not be employed to limit the power under the
Constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the
National Government, _particularly in derogation of Freedom_. Its
guardian character commended it to the sagacious mind of Jefferson, who
said: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this
ground."[151] And Samuel Adams, ever watchful for Freedom, said: "It
removes a doubt which many have entertained respecting this matter, and
gives assurance, that, _if any law made by the federal Government shall
be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution_, and
inconsistent with the Constitution of this State, it will be an error,
and adjudged by the courts of law to be void."[152]
[151] Opinion against the Constitutionality of a National Bank,
Feb. 15, 1791: Memoir, Correspondence, etc., Vol. IV. p. 523;
Writings, Vol. VII. p. 556. See also Letter to Judge Johnson, June
12, 1823: Memoir, Correspondence, etc., Vol. IV. p. 374; Works,
Vol. VII. p. 297.
[152] Debates, etc., of the Massachusetts Convention, February 1,
1788. See also Life of Samuel Adams, by William V. Wells, Vol. III.
pp. 271, 272, 325, 331.
Beyond all question, the National Government, ordained by the
Constitution, is not general or universal, but special and particular.
It is a government of limited powers. It has no power which is not
delegated. Especially is this clear with regard to an institution
like Slavery. The Constitution contains no power to make a king, or
to support kingly rule. With similar reason it may be said, that it
contains no power to make a slave, or to support a system of Slavery.
The absence of all such power is hardly more clear in the one case
than in the other. But if there be no such power, all national
legislation upholding Slavery must be unconstitutional and void. The
stream cannot be higher than the fountain-head. Nay, more, _nothing can
come out of nothing_; the stream cannot exist, if there be no spring
from which it is fed.
* * * * *
At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review
now this argument, and gather it together. Considering that Slavery
is of such an offensive character that it can find sanction only in
"positive law," and that it has no such "positive" sanction in the
Constitution,--that the Constitution, according to its Preamble,
was ordained to "establish justice" and "secure the blessings of
liberty,"--that, in the Convention which framed it, and also elsewhere
at the time, it was declared not to sanction Slavery,--that, according
to the Declaration of Independence, and the Address of the Continental
Congress, the Nation was dedicated to "Liberty," and the "rights of
human nature,"--that, according to the principles of the Common Law,
the Constitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually
for Freedom,--that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it
acts upon slaves, _not as property_, but as PERSONS,--that,
at the first organization of the National Government under Washington,
Slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere on the national
territory, beneath the national flag, but was openly condemned by
Nation, Church, Colleges, and Literature of the time,--and, finally,
that, according to an Amendment of the Constitution, the National
Government can exercise only powers delegated to it, among which
is none to support Slavery,--considering these things, Sir, it is
impossible to avoid the single conclusion, that Slavery is in no
respect a national institution, and that the Constitution nowhere
upholds property in man.
* * * * *
There is one other special provision of the Constitution, which I have
reserved to this stage, not so much from its superior importance, but
because it fitly stands by itself. This alone, if practically applied,
would carry Freedom to all within its influence. It is an Amendment
proposed by the First Congress, as follows:--
"No _person_ shall be deprived of life, _liberty_, or property,
_without due process of law_."
Under this great ægis the liberty of every person within the national
jurisdiction is unequivocally placed. I say every person. Of this there
can be no question. The word "person" in the Constitution embraces
every human being within its sphere, whether Caucasian, Indian, or
African, from the President to the slave. Show me a person within the
national jurisdiction, and I confidently claim for him this protection,
no matter what his condition or race or color. The natural meaning
of the clause is clear, but a single fact of its history places it
in the broad light of noon. As originally recommended by Virginia,
North Carolina, and Rhode Island, it was restricted to the _freeman_.
Its language was, "No _freeman_ ought to be deprived of his life,
_liberty_, or property, but by the law of the land."[153] In rejecting
this limitation, the authors of the Amendment revealed their purpose,
that no person, under the National Government, of whatever character,
should be deprived of liberty without due process of law,--that is,
without due presentment, indictment, or other judicial proceeding. But
this Amendment is nothing less than an express guaranty of Personal
Liberty, and an express prohibition of its invasion anywhere, at least
within the national jurisdiction.
[153] Journal of Federal Convention, Supplement, pp. 419, 441, 455.
Elliot's Debates, II. 484, III. 211, IV. 223.
* * * * *
Sir, apply these principles, and Slavery will again be as when
Washington took his first oath as President. The Union Flag of the
Republic will become once more the flag of Freedom, and at all points
within the national jurisdiction will refuse to cover a slave. Beneath
its beneficent folds, wherever it is carried, on land or sea, Slavery
will disappear, like darkness under the arrows of the ascending
sun,--like the Spirit of Evil before the Angel of the Lord.
In all national territories Slavery will be impossible.
On the high seas, under the national flag, Slavery will be impossible.
In the District of Columbia Slavery will instantly cease.
Inspired by these principles, Congress can give no sanction to Slavery
by the admission of new Slave States.
Nowhere under the Constitution can the Nation, by legislation or
otherwise, support Slavery, hunt slaves, or hold property in man.
Such, Sir, are my sincere convictions. According to the Constitution,
as I understand it, in the light of the Past and of its true
principles, there is no other conclusion which is rational or tenable,
which does not defy authoritative rules of interpretation, does not
falsify indisputable facts of history, does not affront the public
opinion in which it had its birth, and does not dishonor the memory of
the Fathers. And yet politicians of the hour undertake to place these
convictions under formal ban. The generous sentiments which filled
the early patriots, and impressed upon the government they founded,
as upon the coin they circulated, the image and superscription of
LIBERTY, have lost their power. The slave-masters, few in
number, amounting to not more than three hundred and fifty thousand,
according to the recent census, have succeeded in dictating the policy
of the National Government, and have written SLAVERY on its
front. The change, which began in the desire for wealth, was aggravated
by the desire for political predominance.[154] Through Slavery the
cotton crop increased, with its enriching gains; through Slavery States
became part of the Slave Power. And now an arrogant and unrelenting
ostracism is applied, not only to all who express themselves against
Slavery, but to every man unwilling to be its menial. A novel test
for office is introduced, which would have excluded all the Fathers
of the Republic,--even Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin! Yes, Sir!
Startling it may be, but indisputable. Could these revered demigods of
history once again descend upon earth and mingle in our affairs, not
one of them could receive a nomination from the National Convention
of either of the two old political parties! Out of the convictions of
their hearts and the utterances of their lips against Slavery they
would be condemned.
This single fact reveals the extent to which the National Government
has departed from its true course and its great examples. For myself, I
know no better aim under the Constitution than to bring the Government
back to the precise position on this question it occupied on the
auspicious morning of its first organization by Washington,--
"Nunc retrorsum
Vela dare, atque iterare cursus
. . . . relictos,"[155]--
that the sentiments of the Fathers may again prevail with our rulers,
and the National Flag may nowhere shelter Slavery.
[154] The same progression in ancient Rome arrested the observation
of Sallust: "Primo pecuniæ, dein imperii cupido crevit. Ea quasi
materies omnium malorum fuere."--_Catilina_, c. 10
[155] Hor., Carm. I. xxxiv. 3-5.
To such as count this aspiration unreasonable let me commend a renowned
and life-giving precedent of English history. As early as the days
of Queen Elizabeth, a courtier boasted that the air of England was
too pure for a slave to breathe,[156] and the Common Law was said to
forbid Slavery. And yet, in the face of this vaunt, kindred to that of
our fathers, and so truly honorable, slaves were introduced from the
West Indies. The custom of Slavery gradually prevailed. Its positive
legality was affirmed, in professional opinions, by two eminent
lawyers, Talbot and Yorke, each afterwards Lord Chancellor. It was also
affirmed on the bench by the latter as Lord Hardwicke.[157] England
was already a Slave State. The following advertisement, copied from a
London newspaper, _The Public Advertiser_, of November 22, 1769, shows
that the journals there were disfigured as some of ours, even in the
District of Columbia.
"To be sold, a black girl, the property of J.B., eleven years
of age, who is extremely handy, works at her needle tolerably,
and speaks English perfectly well; is of an excellent temper and
willing disposition. Inquire of her owner at the Angel Inn, behind
St. Clement's Church, in the Strand."
[156] Case of Sommersett, Howell's State Trials, XX. 51.
[157] Ibid., 81.
At last, in 1772, only three years after this advertisement, the single
question of the legality of Slavery was presented to Lord Mansfield,
on a writ of _Habeas Corpus_. A poor negro, named Sommersett, brought
to England as a slave, became ill, and, with an inhumanity disgraceful
even to Slavery, was turned adrift upon the world. Through the charity
of an estimable man, the eminent Abolitionist, Granville Sharp, he was
restored to health, when his unfeeling and avaricious master again
claimed him as bondman. The claim was repelled. After elaborate and
protracted discussion in Westminster Hall, marked by rarest learning
and ability, Lord Mansfield, with discreditable reluctance, sullying
his great judicial name, but in trembling obedience to the genius of
the British Constitution, pronounced a decree which made the early
boast a practical verity, and rendered Slavery forever impossible in
England. More than fourteen thousand persons, at that time held as
slaves, and breathing English air,--four times as many as are now
found in this national metropolis,--stepped forth in the happiness and
dignity of freemen.
With this guiding example I cannot despair. The time will yet come when
the boast of our fathers will be made a practical verity also, and
Court or Congress, in the spirit of this British judgment, will proudly
declare that nowhere under the Constitution can man hold property
in man. For the Republic such a decree will be the way of peace and
safety. As Slavery is banished from the national jurisdiction, it will
cease to vex our national politics. It may linger in the States as a
local institution; but it will no longer engender national animosities,
when it no longer demands national support.