"'ABOLITION.--The reader is referred to an interesting article which we

have copied from the Cincinnati Republican--a paper which lately

supported the principles of Democracy; a paper which has _turned_, but

not quite far enough to act with the Adamses and Slades in Congress,

or the Whig abolitionists of Ohio. It does not, however, give a

correct view of the strength of the abolitionists in Cincinnati. There

they are in the ascendant. They control the city elections, regulate

what may be termed the morals of the city, give tone to public

opinion, and "rule the roast," by virtue of their superior piety and

intelligence. The Republican tells us, that they are not laboring Loco

Focos--but "drones" and "consumers"--the "rich and well-born," of

course; men who have leisure and means, and a disposition to employ

the latter, to equalize whites and blacks in the slaveholding States.

Even now, the absconding slave is perfectly safe in Cincinnati. We

doubt whether an instance can be adduced of the recovery of a runaway

in that place in the last four years. When negroes reach "the Queen

city" they are protected by its intelligence, its piety, and its

wealth. They receive the aid of the _elite_ of the Buckeyes; and we

have a strong faction in Kentucky, struggling zealously to make her

one of the dependencies of Cincinnati! Let our mutual sons go on. The

day of mutual retribution is at hand--much nearer than is now

imagined. The Republican, which still looks with a friendly eye to the

slaveholding States, warns us of the danger which exists, although its

new-born zeal for Whiggery prompts it to insist, indirectly, on the

right of petitioning Congress to abolish slavery. There are about two

hundred and fifty abolition societies in Ohio at the present time,

and, from the circular issued at head quarters, Cincinnati, it appears

that agents are to be sent through every county to distribute books

and pamphlets designed to inflame the public mind, and then organize

additional societies--or, rather, form new clans, to aid in the war

which has been commenced on the slaveholding States.'"

I do not, sir, underwrite for the truth of this statement as an entire

whole; much of it I repel as an unjust charge on my fellow-citizens of

Cincinnati; but, as it comes from a slaveholding State--from the State

of the Senator who has so eloquently anathematized abolitionists that

it is almost a pity they could not die under such sweet sounds--and as

the South Carolina Senator pronounces them dead, I produce this from a

slaveholding State, for the special benefit and consolation of the two

Senators. It comes from a source to which, I am sure, both gentlemen

ought to give credit. But suppose, sir, that abolitionism is dead, is

liberty dead also and slavery triumphant? Is liberty of speech, of the

press, and the right of petition also dead? True, it has been

strangled here; but gentlemen will find themselves in great error if

they suppose it also strangled in the country; and the very attempt,

in legislative bodies, to sustain a local and individual interest, to

the destruction of our rights, proves that those rights are not dead,

but a living principle, which slavery cannot extinguish; and be my lot

what it may, I shall, to the utmost of my abilities, under all

circumstances, and at all times, contend for that freedom which is the

common gift of the Creator to all men, and against the power of these

two great interests--the slave power of the South, and banking power

of the North--which are now uniting to rule this country. The cotton

bale and the bank note have formed an alliance; the credit system with

slave labor. These two congenial spirits have at last met and embraced

each other, both looking to the same object--to live upon the

unrequited labor of others--and have now erected for themselves a

common platform, as was intimated during the last session, on which

they can meet, and bid defiance, as they hope, to free principles and

free labor.

With these introductory remarks, permit me, sir, to say here, and let

no one pretend to misunderstand or misrepresent me, that I charge

gentlemen, when they use the word abolitionists, they mean petitioners

here such as I now present--men who love liberty, and are opposed to

slavery--that in behalf of these citizens I speak; and, by whatever

name they may be called, it is those who are opposed to slavery whose

cause I advocate. I make no war upon the rights of others. I do no act

but what is moral, constitutional, and legal, against the peculiar

institutions of any State; but acts only in defence of my own rights,

of my fellow citizens, and, above all, of my State, I shall not cease

while the current of life shall continue to flow.

I shall, Mr. President, in the further consideration of this subject,

endeavor to prove, first, the right of the people to petition; second,

why slavery is wrong, and why I am opposed to it; third, the power of

slavery in this country, and its dangers; next, answer the question,

so often asked, what have the free States to do with slavery? Then

make some remarks by way of answer to the arguments of the Senator

from Kentucky, [Mr. Clay.]

Mr. President, the duty I am requested to perform is one of the

highest which a Representative can be called on to discharge. It is to

make known to the legislative body the will and the wishes of his

constituents and fellow-citizens; and, in the present case, I feel

honored by the confidence reposed in me, and proceed to discharge the

duty. The petitioners have not trusted to my fallible judgment alone,

but have declared, in written documents, the most solemn expression of

their will. It is true these petitions have not been sent here by the

whole people of the United States, but from a portion of them only;

yet such is the justice of their claim, and the sure foundation upon

which it rests, that no portion of the American people, until a day or

two past, have thought it either safe or expedient to present counter

petitions; and even now, when counter petitions have been presented,

they dare not justify slavery, and the selling of men and women in

this District, but content themselves with objecting to others

enjoying the rights they practise, and praying Congress not to receive

or hear petitions from the people of the States--a new device of slave

power this, never before thought of or practiced in any country. I

would have been gratified if the inventors of this system, which

denies to others what they practise themselves, had, in their

petition, attempted to justify slavery and the slave trade in the

District, if they believe the practice just, that their names might

have gone down to posterity. No, sir; very few yet have the moral

courage to record their names to such an avowal; and even some of

these petitioners are so squeamish on this subject, as to say that

they might, from conscientious principles, be prevented from holding

slaves. Not so, sir, with the petitioners which I have the honor to

represent; they are anxious that their sentiments and their names

should be made matter of record; they have no qualms of conscience on

this subject; they have deep convictions and a firm belief that

slavery is an existing evil, incompatible with the principles of

political liberty, at war with our system of government, and extending

a baleful and blasting influence over our country, withering and

blighting its fairest prospects and brightest hopes. Who has said that

these petitions are unjust in principle, and on that ground ought not

to be granted? Who has said that slavery is not an evil? Who has said

it does not tarnish the fair fame of our country? Who has said it does

not bring dissipation and feebleness to one race, and poverty and

wretchedness to another, in its train? Who has said, it is not unjust

to the slave, and injurious to the happiness and best interest of the

master? Who has said it does not break the bonds of human affection,

by separating the wife from the husband, and children from their

parents? In fine, who has said it is not a blot upon our country's

honor, and a deep and foul stain upon her institutions? Few, very few,

perhaps none but him who lives upon its labor, regardless of its

misery; and even many whose local situations are within its

jurisdiction, acknowledge its injustice, and deprecate its

continuance; while millions of freemen deplore its existence, and look

forward with strong hope to its final termination. SLAVERY! a word,

like a secret idol, thought too obnoxious or sacred to be pronounced

here but by those who worship at its shrine--and should one who is not

such worshipper happen to pronounce the word, the most disastrous

consequences are immediately predicted, the Union is to be dissolved,

and the South to take care of itself.

Do not suppose, Mr. President, that I feel as if engaged in a

forbidden or improvident act. No such thing. I am contending with a

local and "_peculiar_" interest, an interest which has already banded

together with a force sufficient to seize upon every avenue by which a

petition can enter this chamber, and exclude all without its haven. I

am not now contending for the rights of the negro, rights which his

Creator gave him and which his fellow-man has usurped or taken away.

No, sir! I am contending for the rights of the white person in the

free States, and am endeavoring to prevent them from being trodden

down and destroyed by that power which claims the black person as

_property_. I am endeavoring to sound the alarm to my fellow-citizens

that this power, tremendous as it is, is endeavoring to unite itself

with the monied power of the country, in order to extend its dominion

and perpetuate its existence. I am endeavoring to drive from the back

of the _negro slave_ the politician who has seated himself there to

ride into office for the purpose of carrying out the object of this

unholy combination. The chains of slavery are sufficiently strong,

without being riveted anew by tinkering politicians of the free

States. I feel myself compelled into this contest, in defence of the

institutions of my own State, the persons and firesides of her

citizens, from the insatiable grasp of the slaveholding power as being

used and felt in the free States. To say that I am opposed to slavery

in the abstract, are but cold and unmeaning words, if, however capable

of any meaning whatever, they may fairly be construed into a love for

its existence; and such I sincerely believe to be the feeling of many

in the free States who use the phrase. I, sir, am not only opposed to

slavery in the abstract, but also in its whole volume, in its theory

as well as practice. This principle is deeply implanted within me; it

has "grown with my growth and strengthened with my strength." In my

infant years I learned to hate slavery. Your fathers taught me it was

wrong in their Declaration of Independence: the doctrines which they

promulgated to the world, and upon the truth of which they staked the

issue of the contest that made us a nation. They proclaimed "that all

men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain inalienable rights; that amongst these are life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness." These truths are solemnly declared by them.

I believed then, and believe now, they are self-evident. Who can

acknowledge this, and not be opposed to slavery? It is, then, because

I love the principles which brought your government into existence,

and which have become the corner stone of the building supporting you,

sir, in that chair, and giving to myself and other Senators seats in

this body--it is because I love all this, that I hate slavery. Is it

because I contend for the right of petition, and am opposed to

slavery, that I have been denounced by many as an abolitionist? Yes;

Virginia newspapers have so denounced me, and called upon the

Legislature of my State to dismiss me from public confidence. Who

taught me to hate slavery, and every other oppression? _Jefferson_,

the great and the good Jefferson! Yes, _Virginia Senators_, it was

your own Jefferson, Virginia's favorite son, a man who did more for

the natural liberty of man, and the civil liberty of his country, than

any man that ever lived in our country; it was him who taught me to

hate slavery; it was in his school I was brought up. That Mr.

Jefferson was as much opposed to slavery as any man that ever lived in

our country, there can be no doubt; his life and his writings

abundantly prove the fact. I hold in my hand a copy, as he penned it,

of the original draft of the Declaration of Independence, a part of

which was stricken out, as he says, in compliance with the wishes of

South Carolina and Georgia. I will read it. Speaking of the wrongs

done us by the British Government, in introducing slaves among us, he

says: "He (the British King) has waged cruel war against human nature

itself, violating its most sacred right of life and liberty in the

persons of a distant people, who never offended him, captivating and

carrying them into SLAVERY in another hemisphere, or to incur

miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical

warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the

Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market

where MEN should be BOUGHT and SOLD, he has prostituted his

prerogative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or

restrain execrable commerce, and that this assemblage of horrors might

want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very

people to rise in arms against us, and purchase that liberty of which

he has deprived them by murdering the people on whom he has also

obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes committed against the

liberties of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit

against the lives of another." Thus far this great statesman and

philanthropist. Had his contemporaries been ruled by his opinions, the

country had now been at rest on this exciting topic. What

abolitionist, sir, has used stronger language against slavery than Mr.

Jefferson has done? "Cruel war against human nature," "violating its

most sacred rights," "piratical warfare," "opprobrium of infidel

powers," "a market where men should be bought and sold," "execrable

commerce," "assemblage of horrors," "crimes committed against the

liberty of the people," are the brands which Mr. Jefferson has burned

into the forehead of slavery and the slave trade. When, sir, have I,

or any other person opposed to slavery, spoken in stronger and more

opprobrious terms of slavery, than this? You have caused the bust of

this great man to be placed in the centre of your Capitol; in that

conspicuous part where every visitor must see it, with its hand

resting on the Declaration of Independence, engraved upon marble. Why

have you done this? Is it not mockery? Or is it to remind us

continually of the wickedness and danger of slavery? I never pass that

statue without new and increased veneration for the man it represents,

and increased repugnance and sorrow that he did not succeed in driving

slavery entirely from the country. Sir, if I am an abolitionist,

Jefferson made me so; and I only regret that the disciple should be so

far behind the master, both in doctrine and practice. But, sir, other

reasons and other causes have combined to fix and establish my

principles in this matter, never, I trust, to be shaken. A free State

was the place of my birth; a free Territory the theatre of my juvenile

actions. Ohio is my country, endeared to me by every fond

recollection. She gave me political existence, and taught me in her

political school; and I should be worse than an unnatural son did I

forget or disobey her precepts. In her Constitution it is declared,

"That all men are born equally free and independent," and "that there

shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the State,

otherwise than for the punishment of crimes." Shall I stand up for

slavery in any case, condemned as it is by such high authority as

this? No, never! But this is not all, Indiana, our younger Western

sister, endeared to us by every social and political tie, a State

formed in the same country as Ohio, from whose territory slavery was

forever excluded by the ordinance of July, 1787--she too, has declared

her abhorrence of slavery in more strong and empathic terms than we

have done. In her constitution, after prohibiting slavery, or

involuntary servitude, being introduced into the State, she declares,

"But as to the holding any part of the human creation in slavery, or

involuntary servitude, can originate only in _tyranny_ and

_usurpation_, no alteration of her constitution should ever take

place, so as to introduce slavery or involuntary servitude into the

State, otherwise than for the punishment of crimes whereof the party

had been duly convicted." Illinois and Michigan also formed their

constitutions on the same principles. After such a cloud of witnesses

against slavery, and whose testimony is so clear and explicit, as a

citizen of Ohio, I should be recreant to every principle of honor and

of justice, to be found the apologist or advocate of slavery in any

State, or in any country whatever. No, I cannot be so inconsistent as

to say I am opposed to slavery in the _abstract_, in its separation

from a human being, and still lend my aid to build it up, and make it

perpetual in its operation and effects upon _man_ in this or any other

country. I also, in early life, saw a slave kneel before his master,

and hold up his hands with as much apparent submission, humility, and

adoration, as a man would have done before his Maker, while his master

with out-stretched rod stood over him. This, I thought, is slavery;

one man subjected to the will and power of another, and the laws

affording him no protection, and he has to beg pardon of man, because

he has offended man, (not the laws,) as if his master were a superior

and all powerful being. Yes, this is slavery, boasted American

slavery, without which, it is contended even here, that the union of

these States would be dissolved in a day, yes, even in an hour!

Humiliating thought, that we are bound together as States by the

chains of slavery! It cannot be--the blood and the tears of slavery

form no part of the cement of our Union--and it is hoped that by

falling on its bands they may never corrode and eat them asunder. We

who are opposed to and deplore the existence of slavery in our

country, are frequently asked, both in public and private, what have

you to do with slavery? It does not exist in your State; it does not

disturb you! Ah, sir, would to God it were so--that we had nothing to

do with slavery, nothing to fear from its power, or its action within

our own borders, that its name and its miseries were unknown to us.

But this is not our lot; we live upon its borders, and in hearing of

its cries; yet we are unwilling to acknowledge, that if we enter its

territories and violate its laws, that we should be punished at its

pleasure. We do not complain of this, though it might well be

considered just ground of complaint. It is our firesides, our rights,

our privileges, the safety of our friends, as well as the sovereignty

and independence of our State, that we are now called upon to protect

and defend. The slave interest has at this moment the whole power of

the country in its hands. It claims the President as a Northern man

with Southern feelings, thus making the Chief Magistrate the head of

an interest, or a party, and not of the country and the people at

large. It has the cabinet of the President, three members of which are

from the slave States, and one who wrote a book in favor of Southern

slavery, but which fell dead from the press, a book which I have seen,

in my own family, thrown musty upon the shelf. Here then is a decided

majority in favor of the slave interest. It has five out of nine

judges of the Supreme Court; here, also, is a majority from the slave

States. It has, with the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of

the House of Representatives, and the Clerks of both Houses, the army

and the navy; and the bureaus, have, I am told, about the same

proportion. One would suppose that, with all this power operating in

this Government, it would be content to _permit_--yes I will use the

word _permit_--it would be content to permit us, who live in the free

States, to enjoy our firesides and our homes in quietness; but this is

not the case. The slaveholders and slave laws claim that as property,

which the free States know only as persons, a reasoning property,

which, of its own will and mere motion, is frequently found in our

States; and upon which THING we sometimes bestow food and raiment, if

it appear hungry and perishing, believing it to be a human being; this

perhaps is owing to our want of vision to discover the process by

which a man is converted into a THING. For this act of ours, which is

not prohibited by our laws, but prompted by every feeling, Christian

and humane, the slaveholding power enters our territory, tramples

under foot the sovereignty of our State, violates the sanctity of

private residence, seizes our citizens, and disregarding the authority

of our laws, transports them into its own jurisdiction, casts them

into prison, confines them in fetters, and loads them with chains, for

pretended offences against their own laws, found by willing grand

juries upon the oath (to use the language of the late Governor of

Ohio) of a perjured villain. Is this fancy, or is it fact, sober

reality, solemn fact? Need I say all this, and much more, as now

matter of history in the case of the Rev. John B. Mahan, of Brown

county, Ohio? Yes, it is so; but this is but the beginning--a case of

equal outrage has lately occurred, if newspapers are to be relied on,

in the seizure of a citizen of Ohio, without even the forms of law,

and who was carried into Virginia and shamefully punished by tar and

feathers, and other disgraceful means, and rode upon a rail, according

to the order of Judge Lynch, and this, only because in Ohio he was an

abolitionist. Would I could stop here--but I cannot. This slave

interest or power seizes upon persons of color in our States, carries

them into States where men are property, and makes merchandize of

them, sometimes under sanction of law, but more properly by its abuse,

and sometimes by mere personal force, thus disturbing our quiet and

harassing our citizens. A case of this kind has lately occurred, where

a colored boy was seduced from Ohio into Indiana, taken from thence

into Alabama and sold as a slave; and to the honor of the slave

States, and gentlemen who administer the laws there, be it said, that

many who have thus been taken and sold by the connivance, if not

downright corruption, of citizens in the free States, have been

liberated and adjudged free in the States where they have been sold,

as was the case of the boy mentioned, who was sold in Alabama.

Slave power is seeking to establish itself in every State, in defiance

of the constitution and laws of the States within which it is

prohibited. In order to secure its power beyond the reach of the

States, it claims its parentage from the Constitution of the United

States. It demands of us total silence as to its proceedings, denies

to our citizens the liberty of speech and the press, and punishes them

by mobs and violence for the exercise of these rights. It has sent its

agents into the free States for the purpose of influencing their

Legislatures to pass laws for the security of its power within such

State, and for the enacting new offences and new punishments for their

own citizens, so as to give additional security to its interest. It

demands to be heard in its own person in the hall of our Legislature,

and mingle in debate there. Sir, in every stage of these oppressions

and abuses, permit me to say, in the language of the Declaration of

Independence--and no language could be more appropriate--we have

petitioned for redress in the most humble terms, and our repeated

petitions have been answered by repeated injury. A power, whose

character is marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit

to rule over a free people. In our sufferings and our wrongs we have

besought our fellow-citizens to aid us in the preservation of our

constitutional rights, but, influenced by the love of gain or

arbitrary power, they have sometimes disregarded all the sacred rights

of man, and answered in violence, burnings, and murder. After all

these transactions, which are now of public notoriety and matter of

record, shall we of the free States tauntingly be asked what we have

to do with slavery? We should rejoice, indeed, if the evils of slavery

were removed far from us, that it could be said with truth, that we

have nothing to do with slavery. Our citizens have not entered its

territories for the purpose of obstructing its laws, nor do we wish to

do so, nor would we justify any individual in such act; yet we have

been branded and stigmatized by its friends and advocates, both in the

free and slave States, as incendiaries, fanatics, disorganizers,

enemies to our country, and as wishing to dissolve the Union. We have

borne all this without complaint or resistance, and only ask to be

secure in our persons, by our own firesides, and in the free exercise

of our thoughts and opinions in speaking, writing, printing and

publishing on the subject of slavery, that which appears to us to be

just and right; because we all know the power of truth, and that it

will ultimately prevail, in despite of all opposition. But in the

exercise of all these rights, we acknowledge subjection to the laws of

the State in which we are, and our liability for their abuse. We wish

peace with all men; and that the most amicable relations and free

intercourse may exist between the citizens of our State and our

neighboring slaveholding States; we will not enter their States,

either in our proper persons, or by commissioners, legislative

resolutions, or otherwise, to interfere with their slave policy or

slave laws; and we shall expect from them and their citizens a like

return, that they do not enter our territories for the purpose of

violating our laws in the punishment of our people for the exercise of

their undoubted rights--the liberty of speech and of the press on the

subject of slavery. We ask that no man shall be seized and transported

beyond our State, in violation of our own laws, and that we shall not

be carried into and imprisoned in another State for acts done in our

own. We contend that the slaveholding power is properly chargeable

with all the riots and disorders which take place on account of

slavery. We can live in peace with all our sister States; if that

power will be controlled by law, each can exercise and enjoy the full

benefits secured by their own laws; and this is all we ask. If we hold

up slavery to the view of an impartial public as it is, and if such

view creates astonishment and indignation, surely we are not to be

charged as libellers. A State institution ought to be considered the

pride, not the shame of the State; and if we falsify such

institutions, the disgrace is ours, not theirs. If slavery, however,

is a blemish, a blot, an eating cancer in the body politic, it is not

our fault if, by holding it up, others should see in the mirror of

truth its deformity, and shrink back from the view. We have not, and

we intend not, to use any weapons against slavery, but the moral power

of truth and the force of public opinion. If we enter the slave

States, and tamper with the slave contrary to law, punish us, we

deserve it; and if a slaveholder is found in a free State, and is

guilty of a breach of the law there, he also ought to be punished.

These petitioners, as far as I understand them, disclaim all right to

enter a slave State for the purpose of intercourse with the slave. It

is the master whom they wish to address; and they ask and ought to

receive protection from the laws, as they are willing to be judged by

the laws. We invite into the arena of public discussion in our State

the slaveholder; we are willing to hear his reasons and facts in favor

of slavery, or against abolitionists: we do not fear his errors while

we are ourselves free to combat them. The angry feelings which in some

degree exist between the citizens of the free and slaveholding States,

on account of slavery, are, in many cases, properly chargeable to

those who defend and support slavery. Attempts are almost daily making

to force the execution of slave laws in the free States; at least,

their power and principles: and no term is too reproachful to be

applied to those who resist such acts, and contend for the rights

secured to every man under their own laws. We are often reminded that

we ought to take color as evidence of property in a human being. We do

not believe in such evidence, nor do we believe that a man can justly

be made property by human laws. We acknowledge, however, that a _man_,

not a _thing_ may be held to service or labor under the laws of a

State, and, if he escape into another State, he ought to be delivered

up on claim of the party to whom such labor or service may be due;

that this delivery ought to be in pursuance of the laws of the State

where such person is found, and not by virtue of any act of Congress.

This brings me, Mr. President, to the consideration of the petition

presented by the Senator from Kentucky, and to an examination of the

views he has presented to the Senate on this highly important subject.

Sir, I feel, I sensibly feel my inadequacy in entering into a

controversy with that old and veteran Senator; but nothing high or low

shall prevent me from an honest discharge of my duty here. If

imperfectly done, it may be ascribed to the want of ability, not

intention. If the power of my mind, and the strength of my body, were

equal to the task, I would arouse every man, yes, every woman and

child in the country, to the danger which besets them, if such

doctrines and views as are presented by the Senator should ever be

carried into effect. His denunciations are against abolitionists, and

under that term are classed all those who petition Congress on the

subject of slavery. Such I understand to be his argument, and as such

I shall treat it. I, in the first place, put in a broad denial to all

his general facts, charging this portion of my fellow citizens with

improper motives or dangerous designs. That their acts are lawful he

does not pretend to deny. I called for proof to sustain his charges.

None such has been offered, and none such exists, or can be found. I

repel them as calumnies double-distilled in the alembic of slavery. I

deny them, also, in the particulars and inferences; and let us see

upon what ground they rest, or by what process of reasoning they are

sustained.

The very first view of these petitioners against our right of petition

strikes the mind that more is intended than at first meets the eye.

Why was the committee on the District overlooked in this case, and the

Senator from Kentucky made the organ of communication? Is it

understood that anti-abolitionism is a passport to popular favor, and

that the action of this District shall present for that favor to the

public a gentleman upon this hobby? Is this petition presented as a

subject of fair legislation? Was it solicited by members of Congress,

from citizens here, for political effect? Let the country judge. The

petitioners state that no persons but themselves are authorized to

interfere with slavery in the District; that Congress are their own

Legislature; and the question of slavery in the District is only

between them and their constituted legislators; and they protest

against all interference of others. But, sir, as if ashamed of this

open position in favor of slavery, they, in a very coy manner, say

that some of them are not slaveholders, and might be forbidden by

conscience to hold slaves. There is more dictation, more political

heresy, more dangerous doctrine contained in this petition, than I

have ever before seen couched together in so many words. We! Congress

their OWN Legislature in all that concerns this District! Let those

who may put on the city livery, and legislate for them and not for his

constituents, do so; for myself, I came here with a different view,

and for different purposes. I came a free man, to represent the people

of Ohio; and I intend to leave this as such representative, without

wearing any other livery. Why talk about executive usurpation and

influence over the members of Congress? I have always viewed this

District influence as far more dangerous than that of any other power.

It has been able to extort, yes, extort from Congress, millions to pay

District debts, make District improvements, and in support of the

civil and criminal jurisprudence of the District. Pray, sir, what

right has Congress to pay the corporate debts of the cities in the

District more than the Debts of the corporate cities in your State and

mine? None, sir. Yet this has been done to a vast amount; and the next

step is, that we, who pay all this, shall not be permitted to petition

Congress on the subject of their institutions, for, if we can be

prevented in one case, we can in all possible cases. Mark, sir, how

plain a tale will silence these petitioners. If slavery in the

District concerns only the inhabitants and Congress, so does all

municipal regulations. Should they extend to granting lottery,

gaming-houses, tippling-houses, and other places calculated to promote

and encourage vice--should a representative in Congress be instructed

by his constituents to use his influence, and vote against such

establishments, and the people of the District should instruct him to

vote for them, which should he obey? To state the question is to

answer it; otherwise the boasted right of instruction by the

constituent body is "mere sound," signifying nothing. Sir, the

inhabitants of this district are subject to state legislation and

state policy; they cannot complain of this, for their condition is

voluntary; and as this city is the focus of power, of influence, and

considered also as that of fashion, if not of folly, and as the

streams which flow from here irradiate the whole country, it is right,

it is proper, that it should be subject to state policy and state

power, and not used as a leaven to ferment and corrupt the whole body

politic.

The honorable Senator has said the petition, though from a city, is

the fair expression of the opinion of the District. As such I treated

it, am willing to acknowledge the respectability of the petitioners

and their rights, and I claim for the people of my own state equal

respectability and equal rights that the people of the District are

entitled to: any peculiar rights and advantages I cannot admit.

I agree with the Senator, that the proceedings on abolition petitions,

heretofore, have not been the most wise and prudent course. They ought

to have been referred and acted on. Such was my object, a day or two

since, when I laid on your table a resolution to refer them to a

committee for inquiry. You did not suffer it, sir, to be printed. The

country and posterity will judge between the people whom I represent

and those who caused to be printed the petition from the city. It

cannot be possible that justice can have been done in both cases. The

exclusive legislation of Congress over the District is as much the act

of the constituent body, as the general legislation of Congress over

the States, and to the operation of this act have the people within

the District submitted themselves. I cannot, however, join the Senator

that the majority, in refusing to receive and refer petitions, did not

intend to destroy or impair the right in this particular. They

certainly have done so.

The Senator admits the abolitionists are now formidable; that

something must be done to produce harmony. Yes, sir, do justice, and

harmony will be restored. Act impartially, that justice may be done:

hear petitions on both sides, if they are offered, and give righteous

judgments, and your people will be satisfied. You cannot compromise

them out of their rights, nor lull them to sleep with fallacies in the

shape of reports. You cannot conquer them by rebuke, nor deceive them

by sophistry. Remember you cannot now turn public opinion, nor can you

overthrow it. You must, and you will, abandon the high ground you have

taken, and receive petitions. The reason of the case, the argument and

the judgment of the people, are all against you. One in this cause can

"chase a thousand," and the voice of justice will be heard whenever

you agitate the subject. In Indiana, the right to petition has been

most nobly advocated in a protest, by a member, against some puny

resolutions of the Legislature of that State to whitewash slavery.

Permit me to read a paragraph, worthy an American freeman:

"But who would have thought until lately, that any would have doubted

the right to petition in a respectful manner to Congress? Who would

have believed, that Congress had any authority to refuse to consider

the petitions of the people? Such a step would overthrow the autocrat

of Russia, or cost the Grand Seignior of Constantinople his head. Can

it be possible, therefore, that it has been reserved for a republican

Government, in a land boasting of its free institutions, to set the

first precedent of this kind? Our city councils, our courts of

justice, every department of Government are approached by petition,

however unanswerable, or absurd, so that its terms are respectful.

None go away unread, or unheard. The life of every individual is a

perfect illustration of the subject of petitioning. Petition is the

language of want, of pain, of sorrow, of man in all his sad variety of

woes, imploring relief, at the hand of some power superior to himself.

Petitioning is the foundation of all government, and of all

administrations of law. Yet it has been reserved for our Congress,

seconded indirectly by the vote of this Legislature, to question this

right, hitherto supposed to be so old, so heaven-deeded, so undoubted,

that our fathers did not think it necessary to place a guaranty of it

in the first draft of the Federal Constitution. Yet this sacred right

has been, at one blow, driven, destroyed, and trodden under the feet

of slavery. The old bulwarks of our Federal and State Constitutions

seem utterly to have been forgotten, which declare, 'that the freedom

of speech and the press shall not be abridged, nor the right of the

people peaceably to assemble and _petition_ for the redress of their

grievances.'"

These, sir, are the sentiments which make abolitionists formidable,

and set at nought all your councils for their overthrow. The honorable

Senator not only admits that abolitionists are formidable, but that

they consist of three classes. The friends of humanity and justice, or

those actuated by those principles, compose one class. These form a

very numerous class, and the acknowledgment of the Senator proves the

immutable principles upon which opposition to slavery rests. Men are

opposed to it from principles of humanity and justice--men are

abolitionists, he admits, on that account. We thank the Senator for

teaching us that word, we intend to improve it. The next class of

abolitionists, the Senator says, are so, apparently, for the purpose

of advocating the right of petition. What are we to understand from

this? That the right of petition needs advocacy. Who has denied this

right, or who has attempted to abridge it? The slaveholding power,

that power which avoids open discussion, and the free exercise of

opinion; it is that power alone which renders the advocacy of the

right of petition necessary, having seized upon all the powers of the

Government. It is fast uniting together those opposed to its iron

rule, no matter to what political party they have heretofore belonged;

they are uniting with the first class, and act from principles of

humanity and justice; and if the mists and shades of slavery were not

the atmosphere in which gentlemen were enveloped, they would see

constant and increasing numbers of our most worthy and intelligent

citizens attaching themselves to the two classes mentioned, and

rallying under the banners of abolitionism. They are compelled to go

there, if the gentleman will have it so, in order to defend and

perpetuate the liberties of the country. The hopes of the oppressed

spring up afresh from this discussion of the gentleman. The third

class, the Senator says, are those who, to accomplish their ends, act

without regard to consequences. To them, all the rights of property,

of the States, of the Union, the Senator says, are nothing. He says

they aim at other objects than those they profess--emancipation in the

District of Columbia. No, says the Senator, their object is _universal

emancipation_, not only in the District, but in the Territories and in

the States. Their object is to set free three millions of negro

slaves. Who made the Senator, in his place here, the censor of his

fellow citizens? Who authorized him to charge them with other objects

than those they profess? How long is it since the Senator himself, on

this floor, denounced slavery as an evil? What other inducements or

object had he then in view? Suppose universal emancipation to be the

object of these petitioners; is it not a noble and praiseworthy

object; worthy of the Christian, the philanthropist, the statesman,

and the citizen? But the Senator says, they (the petitioners) aim to

excite one portion of the country against another. I deny, sir, this

charge, and call for the proof; it is gratuitous, uncalled for, and

unjust towards my fellow citizens. This is the language of a stricken

conscience, seeking for the palliation of its own acts by charging

guilt upon others. It is the language of those who, failing in

argument, endeavor to cast suspicion upon the character of their

opponents, in order to draw public attention from themselves. It is

the language of disguise and concealment, and not that of fair and

honorable investigation, the object of which is truth. I again put in

a broad denial to this charge, that any portion of these petitioners,

whom I represent, seek to excite one portion of the country against

another; and without proof I cannot admit that the assertion of the

honorable Senator establishes the fact. It is but opinion, and naked

assertion only. The Senator complains that the means and views of the

abolitionists are not confined to securing the right of petition only;

no, they resort to other means, he affirms, to the BALLOT BOX; and if

that fail, says the Senator, their next appeal will be to the bayonet.

Sir, no man, who is an American in feeling and in heart, but ought to

repel this charge instantly, and without any reservation whatever,

that if they fail at the ballot box they will resort to the bayonet.

If such a fratricidal course should ever be thought of in our country,

it will not be by those who seek redress of wrongs, by exercising the

right of petition, but by those only who deny that right to others,

and seek to usurp the whole power of the Government. If the ballot box

fail them, the bayonet may be their resort, as mobs and violence now

are. Does the Senator believe that any portion of the honest yeomanry

of the country entertain such thoughts? I hope he does not. If

thoughts of this kind exist, they are to be found in the hearts of

aspirants to office, and their adherents, and none others. Who, sir,

is making this question a political affair? Not the petitioners. It

was the slaveholding power which first made this move. I have noticed

for some time past that many of the public prints in this city, as

well as elsewhere, have been filled with essays against abolitionists

for exercising the rights of freemen.

Both political parties, however, have courted them in private and

denounced them in public, and both have equally deceived them. And who

shall dare say that an abolitionist has no right to carry his

principles to the _ballot box? Who fears the ballot box?_ The honest

in heart, the lover of our country and its institutions? No, sir! It

is feared by the tyrant; he who usurps power, and seizes upon the

liberty of others; he, for one, fears the ballot box. Where is the

slave to party in this country who is so lost to his own dignity, or

so corrupted by interest or power, that he does not, or will not,

carry his principles and his judgment into the ballot box? Such an one

ought to have the mark of Cain in his forehead, and sent to labor

among the negro slaves of the South. The honorable Senator seems

anxious to take under his care the ballot box, as he has the slave

system of the country, and direct who shall or who shall not use it

for the redress of what they deem a political grievance. Suppose the

power of the Executive chair should take under its care the right of

voting, and who should proscribe any portion of our citizens who

should carry with them to the polls of election their own opinions,

creeds, and doctrines. This would at once be a deathblow to our

liberties, and the remedy could only be found in revolution. There can

be no excuse or pretext for revolution while the ballot box is free.

Our Government is not one of force, but of principle; its foundation

rests on public opinion, and its hope is in the morality of the

nation. The moral power of that of the ballot box is sufficient to

correct all abuses. Let me, then, proclaim here, from this high arena,

to the citizens not only of my own State, but to the country, to all

sects and parties who are entitled to the right of suffrage, To THE

BALLOT BOX! carry with you honestly your own sentiments respecting the

welfare of your country, and make them operate as effectually as you

can, through that medium, upon its policy and for its prosperity. Fear

not the frowns of power. It trembles while it denounces you. The

Senator complains that the abolitionists have associated with the

politics of the country. So far as I am capable of judging, this

charge is not well founded; many politicians of the country have used

abolitionists as stepping stones to mount into power; and, when there,

have turned about and traduced them. He admits that political parties

are willing to unite with them any class of men, in order to carry

their purposes. Are abolitionists, then, to blame if they pursue the

same course? It seems the Senator is willing that his party should

make use of even abolitionists; but he is not willing that

abolitionists should use the same party for their purpose. This seems

not to be in accordance with that equality of rights about which we

heard so much at the last session. Abolitionists have nothing to fear.

If public opinion should be for them, politicians will be around and

amongst them as the locusts of Egypt. The Senator seems to admit that,

if the abolitionists are joined to either party, there is

danger--danger of what? That humanity and justice will prevail? that

the right of petition will be secured to ALL EQUALLY? and that the

long lost and trodden African race will be restored to their natural

rights? Would the Senator regret to see this accomplished by argument,

persuasion, and the force of an enlightened public opinion? I hope

not; and these petitioners ask the use of no other weapons in this

warfare.

These ultra-abolitionists, says the Senator, invoke the power of this

government to their aid. And pray, sir, what power should they invoke?

Have they not the same right to approach this government as other men?

Is the Senator or this body authorized to deny them any privileges

secured to other citizens? If so, let him show me the charter of his

power and I will be silent. Until he can do this, I shall uphold,

justify, and sustain them, as I do other citizens. The exercise of

power by Congress in behalf of the slaves within this District, the

Senator seems to think, no one without the District has the least

claim to ask for. It is because I reside without the District, and am

called within it by the Constitution, that I object to the existence

of slavery here. I deny the gentleman's position, then, on this point.

On this then, we are equal. The Senator, however, is at war with

himself. He contends the object of the cession by the States of

Virginia and Maryland, was to establish a seat of Government _only_,

and to give Congress whatever power was necessary to render the

District a valuable and comfortable situation for that purpose, and

that Congress have full power to do whatever is necessary for this

District; and if to abolish slavery be necessary, to attain the

object, Congress have power to abolish slavery in the District. I am

sure I quote the gentleman substantially; and I thank him for this

precious confession in his argument; it is what I believe, and I know

it is all I feel disposed to ask. If we can, then, prove that this

District is not as comfortable and convenient a place for the

deliberations of Congress, and the comfort of our citizens who may

visit it, while slavery exists here, as it would be without slavery,

then slavery ought to be abolished; and I trust we shall have the

distinguished Senator from Kentucky to aid us in this great national

reformation. I take the Senator at his word. I agree with him that

this ought to be such a place as he has described; but I deny that it

is so. And upon what facts do I rest my denial? We are a Christian

nation, a moral and religious people. I speak for the free States, at

least for my own State; and what a contrast do the very streets of

your capital daily present to the Christianity and morality of the

nation? A race of slaves, or at least colored persons, of every hue

from the jet black African, in regular gradation, up to the almost

pure Anglo-Saxon color. During the short time official duty has called

me here, I have seen the really red haired, the freckled, and the

almost white negro; and I have been astonished at the numbers of the

mixed race, when compared with those of full color, and I have deeply

deplored this stain upon our national morals; and the words of Dr.

Channing have, thousands of times, been impressed on my mind, that "a

slave country reeks with licentiousness." How comes this amalgamation

of the races? It comes from slavery. It is a disagreeable annoyance to

persons who come from the free States, especially to their Christian

and moral feelings. It is a great hindrance to the proper discharge of

their duties while here. Remove slavery from this District, and this

evil will disappear. We argue this circumstance alone as sufficient

cause to produce that effect. But slavery presents within the District

other and still more appalling scenes--scenes well calculated to

awaken the deepest emotions of the human heart. The slave-trade exists

here in all its HORRORS, and unwhipt of all its crimes. In view of the

very chair which you now occupy, Mr. President, if the massy walls of

this building, did not prevent it, you could see the prison, the

_pen_, the HELL, where human beings, when purchased for sale, are kept

until a cargo can be procured for transportation to a Southern or

foreign market, for I have little doubt slaves are carried to Texas

for sale, though I do not know the fact.

Sir, since Congress have been in session, a mournful group of these

unhappy beings, some thirty or forty, were marched, as if in derision

of members of Congress, in view of your Capitol, chained and manacled

together, in open day-light, yes, in the very face of heaven itself,

to be shipped at Baltimore for a foreign market. I did not witness

this cruel transaction, but speak from what I have heard and believe.

Is this District, then, a fit place for our deliberations, whose

feelings are outraged with impunity with transactions like this?

Suppose, sir, that mournful and degrading spectacle was at this moment

exhibited under the windows of our chamber, do you think the Senate

could deliberate, could continue with that composure and attention

which I see around me? No, sir; all your powers could not preserve

order for a moment. The feelings of humanity would overcome those of

regard for the peculiar institutions of the States; and though we

would be politically and legally bound not to interfere, we are not

morally bound to withhold our sympathy and our execration in

witnessing such inhuman traffic. This traffic alone, in this District,

renders it an uncomfortable and unfit place for your seat of

Government. Sir, it is but one or two years since I saw standing at

the railroad depot, as I passed from my boarding house to this

chamber, some large wagons and teams, as if waiting for freight; the

cars had not then arrived. I was inquired of, when I returned to my

lodgings, by my landlady, if I knew the object of those wagons which I

saw in the morning. I replied, I did not; I suppose they came and were

waiting for loading. "Yes, for slaves," said she; "and one of those

wagons was filled with little boys and little girls, who had been

bought up through the country, and were to be taken to a southern

market. Ah, sir!" continued she, "it made my very heart ache to see

them." The very recital unnerved and unfitted me for thought or

reflection on any other subject for some time. It is scenes like this,

of which ladies of my country and my state complained in their

petitions, some time since, as rendering this District unpleasant,

should they visit the capital of the nation as wives, sisters,

daughters, or friends of members of Congress. Yet, sir, these

respectable females were treated here with contemptuous sneers; they

were compared, on this floor, to the fish-women of Paris, who dipped

their fingers in the blood of revolutionary France. Sir, if the

transaction in slaves here, which I have mentioned, could make such an

impression on the heart of a lady, a resident of the District, one who

had been used to slaves, and was probably an owner, what would be the

feelings of ladies from free states on beholding a like transaction? I

will leave every gentleman and every lady to answer for themselves. I

am unable to describe it. Shall the capital of your country longer

exhibit scenes so revolting to humanity, that the ladies of your

country cannot visit it without disgust? No; wipe off the foul stain,

and let it become a suitable and comfortable place for the seat of

Government. The Senator, as if conscious that his argument on this

point had proved too much, and of course had proven the converse of

what he wished to establish, concluded this part by saying, that if

slavery is abolished, the act ought to be confined to the city alone.

We thank him for this small sprinkling of correct opinion upon this

arid waste of public feeling. Liberty may yet vegetate and grow even

here.

The Senator insists that the States of Virginia and Maryland would

never have ceded this District if they had have thought slavery would

ever have been abolished in it. This is an old story twice told. It

was never, however, thought of, until the slave power imagined it, for

its own security. Let the States ask a retrocession of the District,

and I am sure the free States will rejoice to make the grant.

The Senator condemns the abolitionists for desiring that slavery

should not exist in the Territories, even in Florida. He insists that,

by the treaty, the inhabitants of that country have the right to

remove their EFFECTS when they please; and that, by this condition,

they have the right to retain their slaves as effects, independently

of the power of Congress. I am no diplomatist, sir, but I venture to

deny the conclusion of the Senator's argument. In all our intercourse

with foreign nations, in all our treaties in which the words "goods,

effects," &c. are used, slaves have never been considered as included.

In all cases in which slaves are the subject matter of controversy,

they are specially named by the word "slaves; and, if I remember

rightly, it has been decided in Congress, that slaves are not property

for which a compensation shall be made when taken for public use, (or

rather, slaves cannot be considered as taken for public use,) or as

property by the enemy, when they are in the service of the United

States. If I am correct, as I believe I am, in the positions I have

assumed, the gentleman can say nothing, by this part of his argument,

against abolitionists, for asking that slavery shall not exist in

Florida."

The gentleman contends that the power to remove slaves from one State

to another, for sale, is found in that part of the Constitution which

gives Congress the power to regulate commerce within the States, &c.

This argument is _non sequiter_, unless the honorable Senator can

first prove that slaves are proper articles for commerce. We say that

Congress have power over slaves only as persons. The United States can

protect persons, _but cannot make them property_, and they have full

power in regulating commerce, and can, in such regulations, prohibit

from its operations every thing but property; property made so by the

laws of nature, and not by any municipal regulations. The dominion of

man over things, as property, was settled by his Creator when man was

first placed upon the earth. He was to subdue the earth, and have

dominion over the fish of the sea, the fowls of the air, and over

every living thing that moveth upon the earth; every herb bearing

seed, and the fruit of a tree yielding seed, was given for his use.

This is the foundation of all right in property of every description.

It is for the use of man the grant is made, and of course man cannot

be included in the grant. Every municipal regulation, then, of any

State, or any of its peculiar institutions, which makes man property,

is a violation of this great law of nature, and is founded in

usurpation and tyranny, and is accomplished by force, fraud, or an

abuse of power. It is a violation of the principles of truth and

justice, in subjecting the weaker to the stronger man. In a Christian

nation such property can form no just ground for commercial

regulations, but ought to be strictly prohibited. I therefore believe

it is the duty of Congress, by virtue of this power, to regulate

commerce, to prohibit, at once, slaves being used as articles of

trade.

The gentleman says, the Constitution left the subject of slavery

entirely to the States. To this position I assent; and, as the States

cannot regulate their own commerce, but the same being the right of

Congress, that body cannot make slaves an article of commerce, because

slavery is left entirely to the States in which it exists; and slaves

within those States, according to the gentleman, are excluded from the

power of Congress. Can Congress, in regulating commerce among the

several States, authorize the transportation of articles from one

State, and their sale in another, which they have not power so to

authorize in any State? I cannot believe in such doctrine; and I now

solemnly protest against the power of Congress to authorize the

transportation to, and the sale in, Ohio, of any negro slave whatever,

or for any possible purpose under the sun. Who is there in Ohio, or

elsewhere, that will dare deny this position? If Ohio contains such a

recreant to her constitution and policy, I hope he may have the

boldness to stand forth and avow it. If the States in which slavery

exists love it as a household god, let them keep it there, and not

call upon us in the free States to offer incense to their idol. We do

not seek to touch it with unhallowed hands, but with pure hands,

upraised in the cause of truth and suffering humanity.

The gentleman admits that, at the formation of our Government, it was

feared that slavery might eventually divide or distract our country;

and, as the BALLOT BOX seems continually to haunt his imagination, he

says there is real danger of dissolution of the Union if

abolitionists, as is evident they do, will carry their principles into

the BALLOT BOX. If not disunion in fact, at least in feeling, in the

country, which is always the precursor to the clash of arms. And the

gentleman further says we are taught by holy writ, "that the race is

not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong." The moral of the

gentleman's argument is, that truth and righteousness will prevail,

though opposed by power and influence; that abolitionists, though few

in number, are greatly to be feared; one, as I have said, may chase a

thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight; and, as their weapons of

warfare are not "carnal, but mighty to the pulling down of strong

holds," even slavery itself; and as the ballot box is the great moral

lever in political action, the gentleman would exclude abolitionists

entirely from its use, and for opinion's sake, deny them this high

privilege of every American citizen. Permit me, sir, to remind the

gentleman of another text of holy writ. "The wicked flee when no man

pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion." The Senator says that

those who have slaves, are sometimes supposed to be under too much

alarm. Does this prove the application of the text I have just quoted:

"Conscience sometimes makes cowards of us all." The Senator appeals to

abolitionists, and beseeches them to cease their efforts on the

subject of slavery, if they wish, says he, "to exercise their

benevolence." What! Abolitionists benevolent! He hopes they will

select some object not so terrible. Oh, sir, he is willing they should

pay tithes of "mint and rue," but the weighter matters of the law,

judgment and mercy, he would have them entirely overlook. I ought to

thank the Senator for introducing holy writ into this debate, and

inform him his arguments are not the sentiments of Him, who, when on

earth, went about doing good.

The Senator further entreats the clergy to desist from their efforts

in behalf of abolitionism. Who authorized the Senator, as a

politician, to use his influence to point out to the clergy what they

should preach, or for what they should pray? Would the Senator dare

exert his power here to bind the consciences of men? By what rule of

ethics, then, does he undertake to use his influence, from this high

place of power, in order to gain the same object, I am at a loss to

determine. Sir, this movement of the Senator is far more censurable

and dangerous, as an attempt to unite Church and State, than were the

petitions against Sunday mails, the report in opposition to which

gained for you, Mr. President, so much applause in the country. I,

sir, also appeal to the clergy to maintain their rights of conscience;

and if they believe slavery to be a sin, we ought to honor and respect

them for their open denunciation of it, rather than call on them to

desist, for between their conscience and their God, we have no power

to interfere; we do not wish to make them political agents for any

purpose.

But the Senator is not content to entreat the clergy alone to desist;

he calls on his countrywomen to warn them, also, to cease their

efforts, and reminds them that the ink shed from the pen held in their

fair fingers when writing their names to abolition petitions, may be

the cause of shedding much human blood! Sir, the language towards this

class of petitioners is very much changed of late; they formerly were

pronounced idlers, fanatics, old women and school misses, unworthy of

respect from intelligent and respectable men. I warned gentlemen then

that they would change their language; the blows they aimed fell

harmless at the feet of those against whom they were intended to

injure. In this movement of my countrywomen I thought was plainly to

be discovered the operations of Providence, and a sure sign of the

final triumph of _universal emancipation_. All history, both sacred

and profane, both ancient and modern, bears testimony to the efficacy

of female influence and power in the cause of human liberty. From the

time of the preservation, by the hands of women, of the great Jewish

law-giver, in his infantile hours, and who was preserved for the

purpose of freeing his countrymen from Egyptian bondage, has woman

been made a powerful agent in breaking to pieces the rod of the

oppressor. With a pure and uncontaminated mind, her actions spring

from the deepest recesses of the human heart. Denounce her as you

will, you cannot deter her from her duty. Pain, sickness, want,

poverty and even death itself form no obstacles in her onward march.

Even the tender Virgin would dress, as a martyr for the stake, as for

her bridal hour, rather than make sacrifice of her purity and duty.

The eloquence of the Senate, and clash of arms, are alike powerful

when brought in opposition to the influence of pure and virtuous

woman. The liberty of the slave seems now to be committed to her

charge, and who can doubt her final triumph? I do not.--You cannot

fight against her and hope for success; and well does the Senator know

this; hence this appeal to her feelings to terrify her from that which

she believes to be her duty. It is a vain attempt.

The Senator says that it was the principles of the Constitution which

carried us through the Revolution. Surely it was; and to use the

language of another Senator from a slave State, on a former occasion,

these are the very principles on which the abolitionists plant

themselves. It was the principle that all men are born FREE AND EQUAL,

that nerved the arm of our fathers in their contest for independence.

It was for the natural and inherent rights of _man_ they contended. It

is a libel upon the Constitution to say that its object was not

liberty, but slavery, for millions of the human race.

The Senator, well fearing that all his eloquence and his arguments

thus far are but chaff, when weighed in the balance against truth and

justice, seems to find consolation in the idea, and says that which

opposes the ulterior object of abolitionists, is that the general

government has no power to act on the subject of slavery, and that the

Constitution or the Union would not last an hour if the power claimed

was exercised by Congress. It is slavery, then, and not liberty, that

makes us one people. To dissolve slavery, is to dissolve the Union.

Why require of us to support the Constitution by oath, if the

Constitution itself is subject to the power of slavery, and not the

moral power of the country? Change the form of the oath which you

administer to Senators on taking seats here, swear them to support

slavery, and according to the logic of the gentleman, the Constitution

and the Union will both be safe. We hear almost daily threats of

dissolving the Union, and from whence do they come? From citizens of

the free States? No! From the slave States only. Why wish to dissolve

it? The reason is plain, that a new government may be formed, by which

we, as a nation, may be made a slaveholding people. No impartial

observer of passing events, can, in my humble judgment, doubt the

truth of this. The Senator thinks the abolitionists in error, if they

wish the slaveholder to free his slave. He asks, why denounce him? I

cannot admit the truth of the question; but I might well ask the

gentleman, and the slaveholders generally, "why are you angry at me,

because I tell you the truth?" It is the light of truth which the

slaveholder cannot endure; a plain unvarnished tale of what slavery

is, he considers a libel upon himself. The fact is, the slaveholder

feels the leprosy of slavery upon him. He is anxious to hide the

odious disease from the public eye, and the ballot box and the right

of petition, when used against him, he feels as sharp reproof; and

being unwilling to renounce his errors, he tries to escape from their

consequences, by making the world believe that HE is the persecuted,

and not the persecutor. Slaveholders have said here, during this very

session, "the fact is, slavery will not bear examination." It is the

Senator who denounces abolitionists for the exercise of their most

unquestionable rights, while abolitionists condemn that only which the

Senator himself will acknowledge to be wrong at all times and under

all circumstances. Because he admits that if it was an original

question whether slaves should be introduced among us, but few

citizens would be found to agree to it, and none more opposed to it

than himself. The argument is, that the evil of slavery is incurable;

that the attempt to eradicate it would commence a struggle which would

exterminate one race or the other. What a lamentable picture of our

government, so often pronounced the best upon earth! The seeds of

disease, which were interwoven into its first existence, have now

become so incorporated into its frame, that they cannot be extracted

without dissolving the whole fabric; that we must endure the evil

without hope and without complaint. Our very natures must be changed

before we can be brought tamely to submit to this doctrine. The evil

will be remedied: and to use the language of Jefferson again, "this

people will yet be free." The Senator finds consolation, however in

the midst of this existing evil, in color and caste. The black race

(says he) is the strong ground of slavery in our country. Yes, it is

_color_, not right and justice, that is to continue forever slavery in

our country. It is prejudice against color, which is the strong ground

of the slaveholder's hope. Is that prejudice founded in nature, or is

it the effect of base and sordid interest? Let the mixed race which we

see here, from black to almost perfect white, springing from white

fathers, answer the question. Slavery has no just foundation in color:

it rests exclusively upon usurpation, tyranny, oppressive fraud, and

force. These were its parents in every age and country of the world.

The Senator says, the next or greatest difficulty to emancipation is,

the amount of property it would take from the owners. All ideas of

right and wrong are confounded in these words: emancipate property,

emancipate a horse, or an ox, would not only be unmeaning, but a

ludicrous expression. To emancipate is to set free from slavery. To

emancipate, is to set free a man, not property. The Senator estimates

the number of slaves--_men_ now held in bondage--at three millions in

the United States. Is this statement made here by the same voice which

was heard in this Capitol in favor of the liberties of Greece, and for

the emancipation of our South American brethren from political

thralldom? It is; and has all its fervor in favor of liberty been

exhausted upon foreign countries, so as not to leave a single whisper

in favor of three millions of men in our own country, now groaning

under the most galling oppression the world ever saw? No, sir. Sordid

interest rules the hour. Men are made property, and paper is made

money, and the Senator, no doubt, sees in these two peculiar

institutions a power which, if united, will be able to accomplish all

his wishes. He informs us that some have computed the slaves to be

worth the average amount of five hundred dollars each. He will

estimate within bounds at four hundred dollars each. Making the amount

twelve hundred millions of dollars' worth of slave property. I heard

this statement, Mr. President, with emotions of the deepest feeling.

By what rule of political or commercial arithmetic does the Senator

calculate the amount of property in human beings? Can it be fancy or

fact, that I hear such calculation, that the people of the United

States own twelve hundred millions' (double the amount of all the

specie in the world) worth of property in human flesh! And this

property is owned, the gentleman informs us, by all classes of

society, forming part of all our contracts within our own country and

in Europe. I should have been glad, sir, to have been spared the

hearing of a declaration of this kind, especially from the high source

and the place from which it emanated. But the assertion has gone forth

that we have twelve hundred millions of slave property at the South;

and can any man so close his understanding here as not plainly to

perceive that the power of this vast amount of property at the South

is now uniting itself to the banking power of the North, in order to

govern the destinies of this country. Six hundred millions of banking

capital is to be brought into this coalition, and the slave power and

the bank power are thus to unite in order to break down the present

administration. There can be no mistake, as I believe, in this matter.

The aristocracy of the North, who, by the power of a corrupt banking

system, and the aristocracy of the South, by the power of the slave

system, both fattening upon the labor of others, are now about to

unite in order to make the reign of each perpetual. Is there an

independent American to be found, who will become the recreant slave

to such an unholy combination? Is this another compromise to barter

the liberties of the country for personal aggrandisement? "Resistance

to tyrants is obedience to God."

The Senator further insists, "that what the law makes property is

property." This is the predicate of the gentleman; he has neither

facts nor reason to prove it; yet upon this alone does he rest the

whole case that negroes are property. I deny the predicate and the

argument. Suppose the Legislature of the Senator's own State should

pass a law declaring his wife, his children, his friends, indeed, any

white citizen of Kentucky, _property_, and should they be sold and

transferred as such, would the gentleman fold his arms and say, "Yes,

they are property, for the law has made them such?" No, sir; he would

denounce such law with more vehemence than he now denounces

abolitionists, and would deny the authority of human legislation to

accomplish an object so clearly beyond its power.

Human laws, I contend, cannot make human beings property, if human

force can do it. If it is competent for our legislatures to make a

black man _property_, it is competent for them to make a white man the

same; and the same objection exists to the power of the people in an

organic law for their own government; they cannot make property of

each other; and, in the language of the Constitution of Indiana, such

an act "can only originate in usurpation and tyranny." Dreadful,

indeed, would be the condition of this country, if these principles

should not only be carried into the ballot box, but into the

presidential chair. The idea that abolitionists ought to pay for the

slaves if they are set free, and that they ought to think of this, is

addressed to their fears, and not to their judgment. There is no

principle of morality or justice that should require them or our

citizens generally to do so. To free a slave is to take from

usurpation that which it has made property and given to another, and

bestow it upon the rightful owner. It is not taking property from its

true owner for public use. Men can do with their own as they please,

to vary their peace if they wish, but cannot be compelled to do so.

The gentleman repeats the assertion that has been repeated a thousand

and one times: that abolitionists are retarding the emancipation of

the slave, and have thrown it back fifty or a hundred years; that they

have increased the rigors of slavery, and caused the master to treat

his slave with more severity. Slavery, then, is to cease at some

period; and because the abolitionists have said to the slaveholder,

"Now is the accepted time," and because he thinks this an improper

interference, and not having the abolitionists in his power, he

inflicts his vengeance on his unoffending slave! The moral of this

story is, the slaveholder will exercise more cruelty because he is

desired to show mercy. I do not envy the senator the full benefit of

his argument. It is no doubt a true picture of the feelings and

principles which slavery engenders in the breast of the master. It is

in perfect keeping with the threat we almost daily hear; that if

petitioners do not cease their efforts in the exercise of their

constitutional rights, others will dissolve the Union. These, however,

ought to be esteemed idle assertions and idle threats.

The Senator tells us that the consequences arising from the freedom of

slaves, would be to reduce the wages of the white laborer. He has

furnished us with neither data nor fact upon which this opinion can

rest. He, however, would draw a line, on one side of which he would

place the slave labor, and on the other side free white labor; and

looking over the whole, as a general system, both would appear on a

perfect equality. I have observed, for some years past, that the

southern slaveholder has insisted that his laborers are, in point of

integrity, morality, usefulness, and comfort, equal to the laboring

population of the North. Thus endeavoring to raise the slave in public

estimation, to an equality with the free white laborer of the North;

while, on the other hand, the northern aristocrat has, in the same

manner, viz.: by comparison, endeavored to reduce his laborers to the

moral and political condition of the slaves of the South. It is for

the free white American citizens to determine whether they will permit

such degrading comparisons longer to exist. Already has this spirit

broken forth in denunciation of the right of universal suffrage. Will

free white laboring citizens take warning before it is too late?

The last, the great, the crying sin of abolitionists, in the eyes of

the Senator, is that they are opposed to colonization, and in favor of

amalgamation. It is not necessary now to enter into any of the

benefits and advantages of colonization; the Senator has pronounced it

the noblest scheme ever devised by man; he says it is powerful but

harmless. I have no knowledge of any resulting benefits from the

scheme to either race. I have not a doubt as to the real object

intended by its founders; it did not arise from principles of humanity

and benevolence towards the colored race, but a desire to remove the

free of that race beyond the United States, in order to perpetuate and

make slavery more secure.

The Senator further makes the broad charge, that abolitionists wish to

_enforce_ the unnatural system of amalgamation. We deny the fact, and

call on the Senator for proof. The citizens of the free States, the

petitioners against slavery, the abolitionists of the free States in

favor of amalgamation! No, sir! If you want evidence of the fact, and

reasoning in support of amalgamation, you must look into the slave

States; it is there it spreads and flourishes from slave mothers, and

presents all possible colors and complexions, from the jet black

African to the scarcely to be distinguished white person. Does any one

need proof of this fact? let him take but a few turns through the

streets of your capital, and observe those whom he shall meet, and he

will be perfectly satisfied. Amalgamation, indeed! The charge is made

with a very bad grace on the present occasion. No, sir; it is not the

negro _woman_, it is the _slave_ and the contaminating influence of

slavery that is the mother of amalgamation. Does the gentleman want

facts on this subject? let him look at the colored race in the free

States; it is a rare occurrence there. A colony of blacks, some three

or four hundred, were settled, some fifteen or twenty years since, in

the county of Brown, a few miles distant from my former residence in

Ohio, and I was told by a person living near them, a country merchant

with whom they dealt, when conversing with him on this very subject,

he informed me he knew of but one instance of a mulatto child being

born amongst them for the last fifteen years; and I venture the

assertion, had this same colony been settled in a slave State, the

cases of a like kind would have been far more numerous. I repeat

again, in the words of Dr. Channing, it is a slave country that reeks

with licentiousness of this kind, and for proof I refer to the

opinions of Judge Harper, of North Carolina, in his defence of

southern slavery.

The Senator, as if fearing that he had made his charge too broad, and

might fail in proof to sustain it, seems to stop short, and make the

inquiry, where is the process of amalgamation to begin? He had heard

of no instance of the kind against abolitionists; they (the

abolitionists) would begin it with the laboring class; and if I

understand the Senator correctly, that abolitionism, by throwing

together the white and the black laborers, would naturally produce

this result. Sir, I regret, I deplore, that such a charge should be

made against the laboring class--that class which tills the ground;

and, in obedience to the decree of their Maker, eat their bread in

the sweat of their face--that class, as Mr. Jefferson says, if God has

a chosen people on earth, they are those who thus labor. This charge

is calculated for effect, to induce the laboring class to believe,

that if emancipation takes place, they will be, in the free States,

reduced to the same condition as the colored laborer. The reverse of

that is the truth of the case. It is the slaveholder NOW, he who looks

upon labor as only fit for a servile race, it is him and his kindred

spirits who live upon the labor of others, endeavoring to reduce the

white laborer to the condition of the slave. They do not yet claim him

as property, but they would exclude him from all participation in the

public affairs of the country. It is further said, that if the negroes

were free, the black would rival the white laborer in the free States.

I cannot believe it, while so many facts exist to prove the contrary.

Negroes, like the white race, but with stronger feelings, are attached

to the place of their birth, and the home of their youth; and the

climate of the South is congenial to their natures, more than that of

the North. If emancipation should take place at the South--and the

negro be freed from the fear of being made merchandize, they would

remove from the free States of the North and West, immediately return

to that country, because it is the home of their friends and fathers.

Already in Ohio, as far as my knowledge extends, has free white labor,

(emigrants,) from foreign countries, engrossed almost entirely all

situations in which male or female labor is found. But, sir, this plea

of necessity and convenience is the plea of tyrants. Has not the free

black person the same right to the use of his hands as the white

person: the same right to contract and labor for what price he

pleases? Would the gentleman extend the power of the government to the

regulation of the productive industry of the country? This was his

former theory, but put down effectually by the public voice. Taking

advantage of the prejudice against labor, the attempt is now being

made to begin this same system, by first operating on the poor black

laborer. For shame! let us cease from attempts of this kind.

The Senator informs us that the question was asked fifty years ago

that is now asked, Can the negro be continued forever in bondage? Yes;

and it will continue to be asked, in still louder and louder tones.

But, says the Senator, we are yet a prosperous and happy nation. Pray,

sir, in what part of your country do you find this prosperity and

happiness? In the slave States? No! no! There all is weakness gloom,

and despair; while, in the free States, all is light, business, and

activity. What has created the astonishing difference between the

gentleman's State and mine--between Kentucky and Ohio? Slavery, the

withering curse of slavery, is upon Kentucky, while Ohio is free.

Kentucky, the garden of the West, almost the land of promise,

possessing all the natural advantages, and more than is possessed by

Ohio, is vastly behind in population and wealth. Sir, I can see from

the windows of my upper chamber, in the city of Cincinnati, lands in

Kentucky, which, I am told, can be purchased from ten to fifty dollars

per acre; while lands of the same quality, under the same

improvements, and the same distance from me in Ohio, would probably

sell from one to five hundred dollars per acre. I was told by a

friend, a few days before I left home, who had formerly resided in the

county of Bourbon, Kentucky--a most excellent county of lands

adjoining, I believe, the county in which the Senator resides--that

the white population of that county was more than four hundred less

than it was five years since. Will the Senator contend, after a

knowledge of these facts, that slavery in this country has been the

cause of our prosperity and happiness? No, he cannot. It is because

slavery has been excluded and driven from a large proportion of our

country, that we are a prosperous and happy people. But its late

attempts to force its influence and power into the free States, and

deprive our citizens of their unquestionable rights, has been the

moving cause of all the riots, burnings, and murders that have taken

place on account of abolitionism; and it has, in some degree, even in

the free States, caused mourning, lamentation, and woe. Remove

slavery, and the country, the whole country, will recover its natural

vigor, and our peace and future prosperity will be placed on a more

extensive, safe, and sure foundation. It is a waste of time to answer

the allegations that the emancipation of the negro race would induce

them to make war on the white race. Every fact in the history of

emancipation proves the reverse; and he that will not believe those

facts, has darkened his own understanding, that the light of reason

can make no impression: he appeals to interest, not to truth, for

information on this subject. We do not fear his errors, while we are

left free to combat them. The Senator implores us to cease all

commotion on this subject. Are we to surrender all our rights and

privileges, all the official stations of the country, into the hands

of the slaveholding power, without a single struggle? Are we to cease

all exertions for our own safety, and submit in quiet to the rule of

this power? Is the calm of despotism to reign over this land, and the

voice of freemen to be no more heard! This sacrifice is required of

us, in order to sustain slavery. _Freemen_, will you make it? Will you

shut your ears and your sympathies, and withhold from the poor,

famished slave, a morsel of bread? Can you thus act, and expect the

blessings of heaven upon your country? I beseech you to consider for

yourselves.

Mr. President, I have been compelled to enter into this discussion

from the course pursued by the Senate on the resolutions I submitted a

few days since. The cry of abolitionist has been raised against me. If

those resolutions are abolitionism, then I am an abolitionist from the

sole of my feet to the crown of my head. If to maintain the rights of

the States, the security of the citizen from violence and outrage; if

to preserve the supremacy of the laws; if insisting on the right of

petition, a medium through which _every person_ subject to the laws

has an undoubted right to approach the constitutional authorities of

the country, be the doctrines of abolitionists, it finds a response in

every beating pulse in my veins. Neither power, nor favor, nor want,

nor misery, shall deter me from its support while the vital current

continues to flow.

Condemned at home for my opposition to slavery, alone and singlehanded

here, well may I feel tremor and emotion in bearding this lion of

slavery in his very _den_ and upon his own ground. I should shrink,

sir, at once, from this fearful and unequal contest, was I not

thoroughly convinced that I am sustained by the power of truth and the

best interests of the country.

I listened to the Senator of Kentucky with undivided attention. I was

disappointed, sadly disappointed. I had heard of the Senator's tact in

making compromises and agreements on this floor, and though opposed in

principle to all such proceedings, yet I hoped to hear something upon

which we could hang a hope that peace would be restored to the borders

of our own States, and all future aggression upon our citizens from

the free States be prevented. Now, sir, he offers us nothing but

unconditional submission to political death; and not political alone,

but absolute _death_. We have counted the cost in this matter, and are

determined to live or die free. Let the slaveholder hug his system to

his bosom in his own State, we will not go there to disturb him; but,

sir, within our own borders we claim to enjoy the same privileges.

Even, sir, here in this District, this ten miles square of common

property and common right, the slave power has the assurance to come

into this very Hall, and request that we--yes, Mr. President, that my

constituents--be denied the right of petition on the subject of

slavery in this District. This most extraordinary petition against the

right of others to petition on the same subject of theirs, is

graciously received and ordered to be printed; paeans sung to it by the

slave power, while the petitions I offer, from as honorable, free,

high-minded and patriotic American citizens as any in this District,

are spit upon, and turned out of doors as an _unclean thing_! Genius

of liberty! how long will you sleep under this iron power of

oppression? Not content with ruling over their own slaves, they claim

the power to instruct Congress on the question of receiving petitions;

and yet we are tauntingly and sneeringly told that we have nothing to

do with the existence of slavery in the country, a suggestion as

absurd as it is ridiculous. We are called upon to make laws in favor

of slavery in the District, but it is denied that we can make laws

against it; and at last the right of petition on the subject, by the

people of the free States, is complained of as an improper

interference. I leave it to the Senator to reconcile all these

difficulties, absurdities, claims and requests of the people of this

District, to the country at large; and I venture the opinion that he

will find as much difficulty in producing the belief that he is

correct now, that he has found in obtaining the same belief that he

was before correct in his views and political course on the subject of

banks, internal improvements, protective tariffs, &c., and the

regulation, by acts of Congress, of the productive industry of the

country, together with all the compromises and coalitions he has

entered into for the attainment of those objects. I rejoice, however,

that the Senator has made the display he has on this occasion. It is a

powerful shake to awaken the sleeping energies of liberty, and his

voice, like a trumpet, will call from their slumbers millions of

freemen to defend their rights; and the overthrow of his theory now,

is as sure and certain, by the force of public opinion, as was the

overthrow of all his former schemes, by the same mighty power.

I feel, Mr. President, as if I had wearied your patience, while I am

sure my own bodily powers admonish me to close; but I cannot do so

without again reminding my constituents of the greetings that have

taken place on the consummation and ratification of the treaty,

offensive and defensive, between the slaveholding and bank powers, in

order to carry on a war against the liberties of our country, and to

put down the present administration. Yes, there is no voice heard from

New England now. Boston and Faneuil Hall are silent as death. The free

day-laborer is, in prospect, reduced to the political, if not moral

condition of the slave; an ideal line is to divide them in their

labor; yes, the same principle is to govern on both sides. Even the

farmer, too, will soon be brought into the same fold. It will be again

said, with regard to the government of the country, "The farmer with

his huge paws upon the statute book, what can he do?" I have

endeavored to warn my fellow-citizens of the present and approaching

danger, but the dark cloud of slavery is before their eyes, and

prevents many of them from seeing the condition of things as they are.

That cloud, like the cloud of summer, will soon pass away, and its

thunders cease to be heard. Slavery will come to an end, and the

sunshine of prosperity warm, invigorate and bless our whole country.

I do not know, Mr. President, that my voice will ever again be heard

on this floor. I now willingly, yes, gladly, return to my

constituents, to the people of my own State. I have spent my life

amongst them, and the greater portion of it in their service, and they

have bestowed upon me their confidence in numerous instances. I feel

perfectly conscious that, in the discharge of every trust which they

have committed to me, I have, to the best of my abilities, acted

solely with a view to the general good, not suffering myself to be

influenced by any particular or private interest whatever; and I now

challenge those who think I have done otherwise, to lay their finger

upon any public act of mine, and prove to the country its injustice or

anti-republican tendency. That I have often erred in the selection of

means to accomplish important ends I have no doubt, but my belief in

the truth of the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence, the

political creed of President Jefferson, remains unshaken and

unsubdued. My greatest regret is that I have not been more zealous,

and done more for the cause of individual and political liberty than I

have done. I hope, on returning to my home and my friends, to join

them again in rekindling the beacon-fires of liberty upon every hill

in our State, until their broad glare shall enlighten every valley,

and the song of triumph will soon be heard, for the hearts of our

people are in the hands of a just and holy being, (who can not look

upon oppression but with abhorrence.) and he can turn them

whithersoever he will, as the rivers of water are turned. Though our

national sins are many and grievous, yet repentance, like that of

ancient Nineveh, may divert from us that impending danger which seems

to hang over our heads as by a single hair. That all may be safe, I

conclude that THE NEGRO WILL YET BE SET FREE.

THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

No. 11.

* * * * *

THE

CONSTITUTION

A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.

OR

SELECTIONS

FROM

THE MADISON PAPERS, &c.

* * * * *

NEW YORK:

AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY.

142 NASSAU STREET.

1844.

CONTENTS.

Introduction.

Debates in the Congress of the Confederation

Debates in the Federal Convention

List of Members of the Federal Convention

Speech of Luther Martin

DEBATES IN STATE CONVENTIONS

Massachusetts

New York

Pennsylvania

Virginia

North Carolina

South Carolina

Extracts from the Federalist

Debates in First Congress

Address of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society

Letter from Francis Jackson to Gov. Briggs

Extract from Mr. Webster's Speech

Extracts from J.Q. Adams's Address, November, 1844

INTRODUCTION.

Every one knows that the "Madison papers" contain a Report, from the

pen of James Madison, of the Debates in the Old Congress of the

Confederation and in the Convention which formed the Constitution of

the United States. We have extracted from them, in these pages, all

the Debates on those clauses of the Constitution which relate to

slavery. To these we have added all that is found, on the same topic,

in the Debates of the several State Conventions which ratified the

Constitution: together with so much of the Speech of Luther Martin

before the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Federalist, as relate

to our subject; with some extracts, also, from the Debates of the

first Federal Congress on Slavery. These are all printed without

alteration, except that, in some instances, we have inserted in

brackets, after the name of a speaker, the name of the State from

which he came. The notes and italics are those of the original, but

the editor has added one note on page 30th, which is marked as his,

and we have taken the liberty of printing in capitals one sentiment of

Rufus King's, and two of James Madison's--a distinction which the

importance of the statements seemed to demand--otherwise we have

reprinted exactly from the originals.

These extracts develope most clearly all the details of that

"compromise," which was made between freedom and slavery, in 1787;

granting to the slaveholder distinct privileges and protection for his

slave property, in return for certain commercial concessions on his

part toward the North. They prove also that the Nation at large were

fully aware of this bargain at the time, and entered into it willingly

and with open eyes.

We have added the late "Address of the American Anti-Slavery Society,"

and the letter of Francis Jackson to Governor Briggs, resigning his

commission of Justice of the Peace--as bold and honorable protests

against the guilt and infamy of this National bargain, and as proving

most clearly the duty of each individual to trample it under his feet.

The clauses of the Constitution to which we refer as of a pro-slavery

character are the following:--

Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned

among the several States, which may be included within this Union,

according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by

adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to

service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, _three

fifths of all other persons_.

Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power . . . to suppress

insurrections.

Art. 1, Sect. 9. 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 one thousand eight

hundred and eight: but a tax or duty may be imposed on such

importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

Art. 4. Sec. 2. 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.

Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in

this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each of

them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of

the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against

domestic violence_.

The first of these clauses, relating to representation, confers on a

slaveholding community additional political power for every slave held

among them, and thus tempts them to continue to uphold the system: the

second and the last, relating to insurrection and domestic violence,

perfectly innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact

directly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge

the whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our

fathers and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of

sustaining slavery: the third, relating to the slave trade, disgraces

the nation by a pledge not to abolish that traffic till after twenty

years, _without obliging Congress to do so even then_, and thus the

slave trade may be legalized to-morrow if Congress choose: the fourth

is a promise on the part of the whole Nation to return fugitive slaves

to their masters, a deed which God's law expressly condemns and which

every noble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and

contempt.

These are the articles of the "Compromise," so much talked of, between

the North and South.

We do not produce the extracts which make up these pages to show what

is the meaning of the clauses above cited. For no man or party, of any

authority in such matters, has ever pretended to doubt to what subject

they all relate. If indeed they were ambiguous in their terms, a

resort to the history of those times would set the matter at rest for

ever. A few persons, to be sure, of late years, to serve the purposes

of a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes no

compromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of

history;--the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land,

both State and Federal;--the action of Congress and the State

Legislature;--the constant practice of the Executive in all its

branches;--and the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for

half a century, still they contend that the Nation does not know its

own meaning, and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery!

Every candid mind however must acknowledge that the language of the

Constitution is clear and explicit.

Its terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others

beside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot

include the slaves themselves! Many persons beside slaves in this

country doubtless are "held to service and labor under the laws of the

States," but that does not at all show that slaves are not "held to

service;" many persons beside the slaves may take part "in

insurrections," but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the

National government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a

thing has been heard of before as one description including a great

variety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.

But granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous--that

they are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent,

unbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial,

legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people

for fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how

and where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the

Courts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has

authority to settle their meaning for them?

If then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to

determine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and

for the last half century, the Constitution of the United States, has

been, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who

swears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his

duty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may

become a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and

repudiate it _as it is_.

But the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the

community, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously deciding

that the Constitution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove that this

false construction, as they think it, has been foisted in upon the

instrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting all

it touches. They assert that the known anti-slavery spirit of

revolutionary times never _could_ have consented to so infamous a

bargain as the Constitution is represented to be, and has in its

present hands become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact that

willingly, with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for

gain and became partners with tyrants that they might share in the

profits of their tyranny.

And in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument

to make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers

tell us they meant to incorporate into the Constitution, and which the

sons have always thought they found there incorporated, does not exist

there after all? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the land

assemble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves,--after

months of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign their

names to the instrument,--fifty years roll away, twenty millions at

least of their children pass over the stage of life,--courts sit and

pass judgment,--parties arise and struggle fiercely; still all concur

in finding in the Instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell

us they intended to express:--must not he be a desperate man, who,

after all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers and

the sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all?

Besides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery

character of the Constitution, quote some portions of the Madison

Papers in support of their views,--and this makes it proper that the

community should hear all that these Debates have to say on the

subject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact

that the Constitution was meant to be, what it has always been

esteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom.

If then the Constitution be, what these Debates show that our fathers

intended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this nation,

say they did make it and agree to uphold,--then we affirm that it is a

"covenant with death and an agreement with hell," and ought to be

immediately annulled.

But if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the

Constitution is all pure and untouched by slavery,--then, Union itself

is impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty

years passed under this (anti-slavery) Constitution, shew us the

slaves trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and

dictating the policy of the Government;--prostituting the strength and

influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and

elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States and making the

courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous

alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of

men and the best of Constitutions, on this supposition, only proves

that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms,

without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the

sin of slavery. We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double

earnestness we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the

outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,

NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.

THE CONSTITUTION

A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.

* * * * *

_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by

Thomas Jefferson, 1776_.

On Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw

the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second,

the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into

consideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and

the first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined

the proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to

the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first

of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these

words:--

"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be

incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by

the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common

treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in

proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and quality,

except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of

which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially

taken and transmitted to the assembly of the United States."

Mr. Chase (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by

the number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the "white

inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion

to property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a

variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in

practice. The value of the property in every State could never be

estimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the

State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would

be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably

good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He

therefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with one exception

only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be

distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States

where there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a

Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.;

whereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There

is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the

farmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their

farmer's heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed

would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and

their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers

only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the

State, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.

Mr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) 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 gives 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 fishermen, 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 firm to another, which does not change the annual

produce of the 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 (of Virginia) 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 affected more than one.

That this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in

the Southern colonies being from £9 to £12, while in the Northern it

was generally £24.

Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take

place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,

whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase

the profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to

themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which

would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves

occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves,

and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every

discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would

give thee _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That

other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all

the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the

North as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves:

that experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to

pay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or

white; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to

make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they

be black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the

most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater

surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so

expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor

generally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States

have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been

said that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise

would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is

said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.

Mr. Payne (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of Congress,

to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls.

Mr. Witherspoon (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of

lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and

that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true

barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and

unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the

food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the

food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said

too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State

is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always

take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.

But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves

pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.

That as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only,

and related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now

entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.

AUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was

rejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,

Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North, and South Carolina. Georgia was

divided. _Vol. I. pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.

_Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the

Confederation._

TUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.

Mr. Wolcott declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be

amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the

difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by

including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen

and sixty years of age. _p_. 331.

TUESDAY, March 27, 1783.

The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:

Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was

in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation

of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of

compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States,

as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in

question.

Mr. Clark (of New Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was

also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern

States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of

land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the

Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by

ages, as the, report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion

in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be

filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p._ 421-2.

FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.

The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one

freeman.

Mr. Wolcott (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.

Carroll as four to one. Mr. Williamson (of North Carolina) said he was

principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an incumbrance

to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr.

Higginson (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South

Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate

slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would he a

juster proportion. Mr. Holton as four to three.--Mr. Osgood said he

did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as

three to two, the votes were. New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no;

Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;

Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North

Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then proposed, by

general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;

but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be

agreed to.

After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity

of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into

view, Mr. Madison (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of

the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that

slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South

Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said he

would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that

two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New

Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no;

Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye;

Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye: South Carolina, aye.

A motion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to strike

out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it

passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode

Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye;

Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South

Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.

The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that

the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that

incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those

of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having

slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility

of the others, ought to have greater weight in the case; and that the

exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the

other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as

the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their

labor, they did as little as possible and omitted every exertion of

thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it: that if the exports

of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their

imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in

agriculture, not in manufacturers; and that, in fact, the balance of

trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the

others.

On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode

Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Lloyd, aye); New Jersey,

aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye;

South Carolina, no. _pp._ 423-4-5.

Tuesday, April 1, 1783.

Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton, who had been

absent when the last question was taken for substituting numbers in

place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote. He was

seconded by Mr. Osgood. Those who voted differently from their former

votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the

change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the

slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.

_p_. 430.

Monday, May 26.

The Resolutions on the Journal, instructing the ministers in Europe to

remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for

furloughing the troops--passed _unanimously_. _p_. 456.

* * * * *

_Extract from "Debates in the Federal Convention" of 1787, for the

formation of the Constitution of the United States_.

Monday, June 11, 1787.

It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to

the words, "equitable ratio of representation," at the end of the

motion just agreed to, the words, "according to the quotas of

contribution." On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, this

was postponed, in order to add, after the words, "equitable rates of

representation," the words following: "In proportion to the whole

number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age,

sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of

years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the

foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each

State"--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by

eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and

requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of

representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the

South, be in the rule of representation more than, the cattle and

horses of the North?

On the question,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;

New jersey, Delaware, no--2. _Vol. II. pp._ 842-3.

Saturday, June 30, 1787.

He (Mr. Madison) admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any

class of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured

as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to

be given a constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the

States were divided into different interests, not by their difference

of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which

resulted partly from climate, but principally from the effects of

their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in

forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did

not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it

ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly

impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in

his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one

which had occurred was, that instead of proportioning the votes of the

States in both branches to their respective numbers of inhabitants,

computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they should he

represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants

only; and in the other, according to the whole number, counting the

slaves us free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would have the

advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been

restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations; one

was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an

occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was,

the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and

which would destroy the equilibrium of interests. _pp._ 1006-7.

Monday, July 9, 1787.

Mr. Patterson considered the proposed estimate for the future

according to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague.

For this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro

slaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no

personal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the

contrary are themselves property, and like other property, entirely at

the will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in

proportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not

represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be

represented in the General Government. What is the true principle of

representation? It is an experiment by which an assembly of certain

individuals, chosen, by the people, is substituted in place of the

inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of

the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They

would not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against

such an indirect encouragement of the slave trade; observing that

Congress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of

Confederation, had been assigned to use the term "slaves," and had

substituted a description.

Mr. Madison reminded Mr. Patterson that his doctrine of

representation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for

ever silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of

votes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion

in which their citizens would do if the people of all the States were

collectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that

in the first branch the States should be represented according to

their number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which has for one

of its primary objects, the guardianship of property, according to the

whole number, including slaves.

Mr. Butler urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth

in the apportionment of representation.

Mr. King had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the

richest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless

some respect was paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect

those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages

which they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to

receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of

thirteen of the States had agreed to consider slaves in the

apportionment of taxation; and taxation and representation ought to go

together. _pp_. 1054-5-6.

Tuesday, July 10; 1787.

Mr. King remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 souls,

have one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern States,

having not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five for

three. The Eastern people will advert to these circumstances, and be

dissatisfied. He believed them to be very desirous of uniting with

their Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so far

on that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. He

was fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A DIFFERENCE OF

INTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN

THE GREAT AND SMALL STATES: BUT BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN. _p_.

1057.

Wednesday, July 11, 1787.

Mr. Butler and General Pinckney insisted that blacks be included in

rule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose

moved that the words "three-fifths" be struck out.

Mr. Gerry thought that three fifths of them was, to say the least, the

full proportion that could be admitted.

Mr. Gorham. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.

Then, it was urged, by the delegates representing the States having

slaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At

present, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are

assured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former

occasion had convinced them that three fifths was pretty near the just

proportion, he should vote according to the same opinion now.

Mr. Butler insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as

productive and valuable as that of a freeman in Massachusetts; that as

wealth was the greatest means of defence and utility to the nation,

they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently

an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government

which was instituted principally, for the protection of property, and

was itself to be supported by property.

Mr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was

favorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain

that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land,

increased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would

supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases

of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important

respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to

be excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not,

however, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them

as such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have

this peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of

property common to all the States.

Mr. Williamson reminded Mr. Gorham, that if the Southern States

contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites, when taxation was

in view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their

equality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either

extreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.

On Mr. Butler's motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in

the apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina,

Georgia, aye--3; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7. New York not on the floor.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris said he had several objections to the

proposition of Mr. Williamson. In the first place it fettered the

Legislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some

States altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle

them to a single representation. In the third place, it will not

consist with the resolution passed on Saturday last, authorizing the

Legislature to adjust the representation, from time to time on the

principles of population and wealth; nor with the principles of

equity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth,

then the said resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why

is no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps

be removed by amendments.... Another objection with him, against

admitting the blacks into the census, was, that the people of

Pennsylvania would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with

slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect.

pp. 1067-8-9 & 1072.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 1787.

The next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered:

Mr. King, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of

representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He

thought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite

great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never

said, as to any particular point, that he would in no event acquiesce

in and support it; but he would say that if in any case such a

declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this.

He remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made by

the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number

of their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled

them to.

Mr. Sherman. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion than

New York and New Hampshire; nor either of them more than was necessary

in order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below their proportion.

Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify

it. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all

circumstances he was satisfied with it.

Mr. Gorham was aware that there might be some weight in what had

fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by

the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the

proposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the

Confederation was before the Legislature of Massachusetts, the only

difficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to

have been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in

the ratio of three-fifths only.[1]

[Footnote 1: They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.]

Mr. Wilson did not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks

in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are they

admitted as citizens--then why are they not admitted on an equality

with white citizens? Are they admitted as property--then why is not

other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties,

however, which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of

compromise. He had some apprehensions also, from the tendency of the

blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people

of Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by his colleague (Mr.

Gouverneur Morris.)

Mr. Gouvemeur Morris was compelled to declare himself reduced to the

dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human nature;

and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to

give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by

allowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not

believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would

deprive them of that trade.

On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the

blacks,--Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina. Georgia, aye--4;

Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,[2] South

Carolina, no--6. pp. 1076-7-8.

[Footnote 2: Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland,

that he wished the _phraseology_ to be altered as to obviate, if

possible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the

Eastern and Middle States.]

THURSDAY, July 12, 1787.

Mr. Butler contended that representation should be according to the

full number of inhabitants, including all the blacks.

General Pinckney was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [by

Gouverneur Morris,] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed

at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. South

Carolina has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000£. sterling,

all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be

represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought

she then be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be

inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from taxing

exports.

Mr. Gouverneur Morris having so varied his motion by inserting the

word "direct," it passed, _nem. con._, as follows: "provided always

that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

Mr. Davie said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that it was

meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of

representation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would

never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as

three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them

altogether, the business was at an end.