Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the

people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to

promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to

themselves and their posterity: and therefore, it is to be so

construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that

its language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of

the contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every

design of their alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the

colored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more

certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the

minds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in

bondage_--for, in that case, a general emancipation of the slaves

would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The

words, "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity," assuredly meant only the white population. "To promote the

general welfare," referred to their own welfare exclusively. "To

establish justice," was understood to be for their sole benefit as

slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is

demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own

practice under it.

We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is

as reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_,

as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false,

it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the

Constitution was intended to embrace the entire population of the

country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were

actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty;

or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to

make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly

might it be argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration

of Independence, that all men are created equal, and endowed with an

inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were

slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from

the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing

liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the

means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated

by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though _in words_ they

recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in

practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave

a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in

the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the

mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man.

Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses.

_Why cling to the falsehood, that they were not respecters of

persons in the formation of the government_?

Alas! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, in

their hearts! "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the

North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood,

and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath

forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not."

We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution,

in its relations to slavery.

In ARTICLE 1, Section 9, it is declared--"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."

In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded

as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman

arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to

deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to

mean that there should be no interference with the African slave

trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808.

For twenty years after the adoption of the Constitution, the

citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in

the prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the

hamlets of Africa--in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive

natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater

proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave

ships, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and

subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated

bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though,

since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave

traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American

flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given

them the most ample protection.

The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national

convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly avowed by

the Hon. Luther Martin,[91] who was a prominent member of that body:

"The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!)

_were very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with

a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the

Southern States would, in the return, _gratify_ them by laying no

restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the

committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the

general government was to be prohibited from preventing the

importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive

clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted."

Behold the iniquity of this agreement! How sordid were the motives

which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity,

on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right

of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth!

It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was

not adopted "without considerable opposition." Alluding to it,

Mr. Martin observes--

[Footnote 91: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]

"It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent

nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great

Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the

preservation of those rights to which God and nature has entitled us,

not in _particular_, but in _common with all the rest of mankind_;

that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the

God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve

the rights which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now,

when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his

mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a

government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for

its preservation,--in that government to have a provision, not only

of putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade,

even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States

the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly

and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures,

ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and insult to, that

God whose protection we had thus implored, and could not fail to

hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true

friend of liberty in the world. It was said that national crimes can

only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by _national

punishments_, and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus

giving it a national character, sanction, and encouragement, ought

to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and

vengeance of him who is equally the Lord of all, and who views

with equal eye the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_![92]

[Footnote 92: How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been

scourged, since these words were spoken, on account of slavery and

the slave trade! Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]

"It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general

government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which

general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit,

the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and

disgraceful to the last degree that we should except from the

exercise of that power the only branch of commerce which is

unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind.

That, on the contrary, we ought to prohibit expressly, in our

Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize

the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations

as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of

slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States.

That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and

has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported,

as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and

habituates to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged that, by

this system of government, every State is to be protected both from

foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; and, from this

consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have the

power to restrain the importation of slaves, since in proportion as

the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same proportion

is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and domestic

insurrection: and by so much less will it be able to protect itself

against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a

burden to, the Union.

"It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the

general government power, under the idea of national character, or

national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and

have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing

insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary that we

prohibited the government from interfering with the slave trade,

than which nothing could more effect our national honor and interest.

"These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the

convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as

it now makes part of the system."[93]

[Footnote 93: Secret Proceedings, p. 64.]

Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations

been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But for the sake of

securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good may

come, and to make the end sanctify the means. They were willing to

enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. They did

this deed deliberately, with their eyes open, with all the facts and

consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of all

their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of

the overruling power of God. "The Eastern States were very willing

to _indulge_ the Southern States" in the unrestricted prosecution of

their piratical traffic, provided in return they could be _gratified_

by no restriction being laid on navigation acts!!--Had there been no

other provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this

one alone rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with

the duties which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was

the poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a

very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one

who partook of it.

If it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the

clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation--we

answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be

_constitutionally_ prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the

Constitution, at the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute

is liable to be reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern

opposition to emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the

bargain was, that the traffic _should cease_ in 1808; but the only

thing secured by it was, the _right_ of Congress (not any obligation)

to prohibit it at that period. If, therefore, Congress had not

chosen to exercise that right, _the traffic might have been

prolonged indefinitely, under the Constitution_. The right to

destroy any particular branch of commerce, implies the right to

re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave

trade will ever again be legalized by the national government; but

no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground; for,

while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the

national character and power for twenty years, _they set no bounds to

its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition_.

Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution of

it, prove what was meant by the words of the preamble--"to form a

more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity,

provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and

secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our

posterity"--namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded

only their own rights and interests, and never intended that its

language should be so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to

make it unlawful for one portion of the people to enslave another,

_without an express alteration in that instrument, in the manner

therein set forth_. While, therefore, the Constitution remains as it

was originally adopted, they who swear to support it are bound to

comply with all its provisions, as a matter of allegiance. For it

avails nothing to say, that some of those provisions are at war with

the law of God and the rights of man, and therefore are not

obligatory. Whatever may be their character, they are

_constitutionally_ obligatory; and whoever feels that he cannot

execute them, or swear to execute them, without committing sin, has no

other choice left than to withdraw from the government, or to violate

his conscience by taking on his lips an impious promise. The object of

the Constitution is not to define _what is the law of God_, but WHAT IS

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE--which will is not to be frustrated by an

ingenious moral interpretation, by those whom they have elected to

serve them.

ARTICLE 1, Sect. 2, provides--"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_."

Here, as in the clause we have already examined, veiled beneath a

form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic

government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and

augmentation of the slaveholding power--a provision scarcely less

atrocious than that which related to the African slave trade, and

almost as afflictive in its operation--a provision still in force,

with no possibility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the

slave States choose to maintain their slave system--a provision which,

at the present time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional

representatives in Congress on the score of _property_, while the

North is not allowed to have one--a provision which concedes to the

oppressed three-fifths of the political power which is granted to

all others, aid then puts this power into the hands of their

oppressors, to be wielded by them for the more perfect security of

their tyrannous authority, and the complete subjugation of the

non-slaveholding States.

Referring to this atrocious bargain, ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarked in

the New York Convention--

"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a

representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said

of the impropriety of representing men who have no will of their own:

whether this is _reasoning_ or _declamation_, (!!) I will not

presume to say. It is the _unfortunate_ situation of the Southern

States to have a great part of their population, as well as _property_,

in blacks. The regulation complained of was one result of _the

spirit of accommodation_ which governed the Convention; and

without this _indulgence_, NO UNION COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN FORMED.

But, sir, considering some _peculiar advantages_ which we derive

from them it is entirely JUST that they should be _gratified_--The

Southern States possess certain staples,--tobacco, rice, indigo,

&c.--which must be _capital_ objects in treaties of commerce with

foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in

these treaties will be felt throughout the United States."

If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the

morality of ALEXANDER HAMILTON, what can be said of the character of

those who were far less conspicuous than himself in securing

American independence, and in framing the American Constitution?

Listen, now, to the opinions of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, respecting the

constitutional clause now under consideration:--

"'In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in

fact, it is a representation of their masters,--the oppressor

representing the oppressed.'--'Is it in the compass of human

imagination to devise a more perfect exemplification of the art of

committing the lamb to the tender custody of the wolf?'--'The

representative is thus constituted, not the friend, agent and

trustee of the person whom he represents, but the most inveterate of

his foes.'--'It was _one_ of the curses from that Pandora's box,

adjusted at the time, as usual, by a _compromise_, the whole

advantage of which inured to the benefit of the South, and to

aggravate the burdens of the North.'--'If there be a parallel to it

in human history, it can only be that of the Roman Emperors, who,

from the days when Julius Caesar substituted a military despotism in

the place of a republic, among the offices which they always

concentrated upon themselves, was that of tribune of the people. A

Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an exact parallel to that

feature in the Constitution of the United States which makes the

master the representative of his slave.'--'The Constitution of the

United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall

be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not

a rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty _titles_,

but to titles of _nobility_; to the institution of privileged orders

of men. But what order of men under the most absolute of monarchies,

or the most aristocratic of republics, was ever invested with such

an odious and unjust privilege as that of the separate and exclusive

representation of less than half a million owners of slaves, in the

Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, and in the

Presidential mansion?'--'This investment of power in the owners of

one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities of

the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six

States of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the

community, more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to

the interests of the whole, than any order of nobility ever known.

To call government thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the

understanding of mankind. To call it an aristocracy, is to do

injustice to that form of government. Aristocracy is the government

of _the best_. Its standard qualification for accession to power

_is merit_, ascertained by popular election recurring at short

intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate

into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in

which the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in

the possession of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of

riches and of slavery. _There is no name in the language of national

jurisprudence that can define it_--no model in the records of

ancient history, or in the political theories of Aristotle, with

which it can be likened. It was introduced into the Constitution of

the United States by an equivocation--a representation of property

under the name of persons. Little did the members of the Convention

from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden

under the mask of this concession.'--'The House of Representatives

of the United States consists of 223 members--all, by the _letter_ of

the Constitution, representatives only of _persons_, as 135 of them

really are; but the other 88, equally representing the _persons_ of

their constituents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under

the name of _other persons_, upwards of two and a half millions of

_slaves_, held as the _property_ of less than half a million of

the white constituents, and valued at twelve hundred millions of

dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact the whole of

that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive

interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of

a moneyed corporation, with a capital not of thirty-five or forty or

fifty, but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the

most extraordinary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies

of associated wealth that the world ever saw,'--'Here is one class

of men, consisting of not more than one fortieth part of the whole

people, not more than one-thirtieth part of the free population,

exclusively devoted to their personal interests identified with

their own as slaveholders of the same associated wealth, and

wielding by their votes, upon every question of government or of

public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the

Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet

greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the

institution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a

slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the

Senate; and thus, of the 52 members of the federal Senate, 26 are

owners of slaves, and as effectively representatives of that

interest as the 88 members elected by them to the House.'--'By this

process it is that all political power in the States is absorbed and

engrossed by the owners of _slaves_, and the overruling policy of

the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination.

The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in

their hands--the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the

black code of slavery--every law of the legislature becomes a link

in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his

hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human

intellect to the justification of _wrong_.--Its reciprocal

operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an

artificial majority in the slave representation over that of the

free people, in the American Congress, and thereby to make the

PRESERVATION, PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE VITAL AND

ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.--The result is seen

in the fact that, at this day, the President of the United States,

the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of

Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges of the Supreme

Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens of

slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are,

and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the

members of both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States; and

so are, in immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding

officers of the army and navy; the officers of the customs; the

registers and receivers of the land offices, and the post-masters

throughout the slaveholding States.--The Biennial Register indicates

the birth-place of all the officers employed in the government of

the Union. If it were required to designate the owners of this

species of property among them, it would be little more than a

catalogue of slaveholders.'"

It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention

that framed the Constitution, that "the delegation from the free

States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the

Southern slaveholder, did listen to a _compromise between right and

wrong_--_between freedom and slavery_; of the ultimate fruits of which

they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the

Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile,

foreign, and Indian war, all combined in one; a war, the essential

issue of which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the

unhallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the

North American Union--that banner, first unfurled to the breeze,

inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of

Independence."

Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, _as

it is_, is to make "a compromise between right and wrong," and to

wage war against human liberty. It is to recognize and honor as

republican legislators, _incorrigible men-stealers_, MERCILESS

TYRANTS, BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weapons

about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives,

with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or

representative who shall dare to stain their _honor_, or interfere

with their _rights_! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel

than any whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or

romance. To mix with them on terms of social or religious fellowship,

is to indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering

a free government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity.

Article IV., Section 2, declares,--"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."

Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no mention

of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was

intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the

ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to

restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institution,

a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the

body-guard over those whose liberties have been cloven down. This

agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North.

Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded,--"Thou

shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped

from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among you,

in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where it

liketh him best: thou shalt not oppress him." The warning which the

prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind:

"Take counsel, execute judgment; make thy shadow as the night in the

midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that

wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab; be thou a covert

to them from the face of the spoiler." The prophet Obadiah brings

the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is precisely

applicable to this guilty nation:--"For thy violence against thy

brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut off

for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the

day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and

foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem,

_even thou wast as one of them_. But thou shouldst not have looked

on the day of thy brother, in the day that he became a stranger;

neither shouldst thou have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in

the day of their destruction; neither shouldst thou have spoken

proudly in the day of distress; neither shouldst thou have _stood in

the cross-way, to cut off those of his that did escape_; neither

shouldst thou have _delivered up those of his that did remain_, in

the day of distress."

How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeachment

of Edom by the same prophet! "The pride of thy heart hath deceived

thee, thou whose habitation is high; that sayeth in thy heart, Who

shall bring me down to the ground? Though thou exalt thyself as the

eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence will I

bring thee down, saith the Lord." The emblem of American pride and

power is the _eagle_, and on her banner she has mingled _stars_ with

its _stripes_. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her

self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the

madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? Truly,

it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not under the

Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is the

more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language of

another prophet--"They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt every

man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both hands

earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a reward; and

the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: _so they wrap it

up_." Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may be said,

--"This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared

in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses; they are for a prey,

and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore."

By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting ground

of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood-hounds,

and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their robber

hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runaway slaves

are now in Canada, exiled from their native land, because they could

not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which they

could dwell in safety, _in consequence of this provision of the

Constitution_? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of

liberty to support a government which gives over to destruction

one-sixth part of the whole population?

It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has

been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates

either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one

of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this

point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he

said:--

"Another clause _secures us that property which we now possess_. At

present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free,

_he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States

are _uncharitable_(!) to one another in this respect; but in this

constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State,

under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or

regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but

shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or

labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE

OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than

any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government to

interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the

States."

In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH

said:--

"Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when

authority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their

property_, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a

citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his

runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after

taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?"

It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as

the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is

criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property,

but also as persons--as having a mixed character--as combining the

human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is

a paradox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American

Union is a paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any

one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That

it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding

authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly

affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved,

the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, "Execute true judgment,

and show mercy and compassion every man to his brother: and oppress

not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and

let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart. But

they refused to hearken, and pulled away the shoulder, and stopped

their ears, that they should not hear; yea, they made their hearts

as an adamant stone." "Shall I not visit for these things? saith the

Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?"

Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting the

meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or labor,

must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the Supreme

Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus The State of

Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave-catcher is

empowered to seize and convey to the South, without hindrance or

molestation on the part of the State, and without any legal process

duly obtained and served, any person or persons, irrespective of

caste or complexion, whom he may choose to claim as runaway slaves;

and if, when thus surprised and attacked, or on their arrival South,

they cannot prove by legal witnesses, that they are freemen, their

doom is sealed! Hence the free colored population of the North are

specially liable to become the victims of this terrible power, and

all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of prowling kidnappers,

because there are multitudes of white as well as black slaves on

Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer fastidious with

regard to the color of its prey.

As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was

enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North

should have risen _en masse_, if for no other cause, and declared the

Union at an end; and they would have done so, if they had not lost

their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty.

In the 4th Sect. of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect

every State in the Union "_against domestic violence_." By the 8th

Section of Article 1., congress is empowered "to provide for calling

forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, _suppress

insurrections_, and repel invasions." These provisions, however

strictly they may apply to cases of disturbance among the white

population, were adopted with special reference to the slave

population, for the purpose of keeping them in their chains by the

combined military force of the country; and were these repealed, and

the South left to manage her slaves as best she could, a servile

insurrection would ere long be the consequence, as general as it

would unquestionably be successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting

these clauses:--

"On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be,

the militia of the other States are to be called to suppress

domestic insurrections. Does this bar the States from calling forth

their own militia? No; but it gives them a _supplementary_ security

to suppress insurrections and domestic violence."

The answer to Patrick Henry's objection, as urged against the

constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left

to the States to quell an insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly

vested in congress, George Nicholas asked:--

"Have they it now? If they have, does the constitution take it away?

If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been

mentioned by the worthy member. The first part gives the general

government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it

away from the States? No! but _it gives an additional security_;

for, beside the power in the State government to use their own

militia, it will be _the duty of the general government_ to aid

them WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION, when called for."

This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the

climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the

garments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has

multiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three

millions--a vast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to

give it extension and perpetuity--several new slave States have been

admitted into the Union--the slave trade has been made one of the

great branches of American commerce--the slave population, though

over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to

every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been

over awed and crushed,--or, whenever they have attempted to gain

their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the

strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case

of Nat Turner's insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military

forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban

bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, and

imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades of

Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermination or

expulsion of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to those

poor hunted fugitives--a warfare which has cost the nation several

thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars. But the catalogue

of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the present address.

We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North and the

South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage,--is at war with

God and man, cannot be innocently supported, and deserves to be

immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we represent,

we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to

obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful

revolutionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of

Liberty, having for its motto--"EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL--NO UNION WITH

SLAVEHOLDERS!"

It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amendment;

and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this object.

True, there is such a proviso; but, until the amendment be made,

that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate every

moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to argue

that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, because

it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and because

there is some remote probability that the instrument which requires

that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may at some

future day be amended in these particulars? Let us not palter with

our consciences in this manner--let us not deny that the compact was

conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity--let us not be so

dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to interpret the

Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the intentions and

arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing the guilt

of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in the bond,

washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all further

participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we will

sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us

glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion,

and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is

tyrannical in the land,--to the establishment of all that is free,

just, true and holy,--to the triumph of universal love and peace.

If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited,

it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to

make it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free

people, and was never intended to give any strength or countenance

to the slave system--the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty

replies:--"What though the assertion be true? Of what avail is a mere

piece of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with

words of truth and freedom--though its provisions be as impartial and

just as words can express, or the imagination paint--though it be as

pure as the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven--it is

powerless; it has no executive vitality; it is a lifeless corpse, even

though beautiful in death. I am famishing for lack of bread! How is my

appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? I am

manacled, wounded, bleeding dying! What consolation is it to know,

that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words to be

my friends?" If the liberties of the people have been betrayed--if

judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off, and

truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter--if the

princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves,

the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with

pollution--if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs

at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the

nation to promote its own bloody purposes--tell us not that the

forms of freedom are still left to us! Would such tameness and

submission have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it

have resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering

wedges of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive

the liberties of America? The wheel of the Revolution would have

rusted on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to

give it motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties

were infringed--"_Why, what is done cannot be undone_. That is the

first thought." No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather,

it never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at

once--"_What is done_ SHALL _be undone_. That is our FIRST and ONLY

thought."

"Is water running in our veins? Do we remember still

Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill?

The debt we owe our fathers' graves? and to the yet unborn,

Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn?"

"Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb;

And voices from our fathers' graves and from the future come:

They call on us to stand our ground--they charge us still to be

Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free!"

It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind

it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the

theory of the government, if the practice of the government be unjust

and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism

incomparably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to

take up arms against the mother country; not on account of a

three-penny tax on tea, but because fetters of living iron are

fastened on the limbs of millions of our countrymen, and our most

sacred rights are trampled in the dust. As citizens of the State,

we appeal to the State in vain for protection and redress. As

citizens of the United States, we are treated as outlaws in one

half of the country, and the national government consents to our

destruction. We are denied the right of locomotion, freedom of speech,

the right of petition, the liberty of the press, the right peaceably

to assemble together to protest against oppression and plead for

liberty--at least in thirteen States of the Union. If we venture, as

avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to travel South of Mason and

Dixon's line, we do so at the peril of our lives. If we would escape

torture and death, on visiting any of the slave States, we must

stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no testimony against

cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emotions of humanity,

divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti-slavery

character, and do homage to the slaveholding power--or run the risk

of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and undeniable facts.

Three millions of the American people are crushed under the American

Union! They are held as slaves--trafficked as merchandise--registered

as goods and chattels! The government gives them no protection--the

government is their enemy--the government keeps them in chains!

There they lie bleeding--we are prostrate by their side--in

their sorrows and sufferings we participate--their stripes are

inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are fastened on our limbs,

their cause is ours! The Union which grinds them to the dust

rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to overthrow it!

The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless bondage, is one

that we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, "NO UNION WITH

SLAVEHOLDERS," either religious or political. They are the fiercest

enemies of mankind, and the bitterest foes of God! We separate from

them not in anger, not in malice, not for a selfish purpose, not to

do them an injury, not to cease warning, exhorting, reproving them

for their crimes, not to leave the perishing bondman to his fate--O

no! But to clear our skirts of innocent blood--to give the oppressor

no countenance--to signify our abhorrence of injustice and

cruelty--to testify against an ungodly compact--to cease striking

hands with thieves and consenting with adulterers--to make no

compromise with tyranny--to walk worthily of our high profession--to

increase our moral power over the nation--to obey God and vindicate

the gospel of his Son--hasten the downfall of slavery in America,

and throughout the world!

We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully counted

the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its consequences.

It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy--it will prove a

fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it--it may cost us our

lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, accused as visionaries,

branded as disorganizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and perhaps

punished as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether safety

or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be ours,

believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, that

our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is

rational and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious

promises on which to rely, THAT WE ARE IN THE RIGHT, we shall not

falter nor be dismayed, "though the earth be removed, and though the

mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,"--though our ranks

be thinned to the number of "three hundred men." Freemen! are you

ready for the conflict? Come what may, will you sever the chain that

binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your independence?

Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to shed blood--not to

injure the person or estate of any oppressor--not by force and arms

to resist any law--not to countenance a servile insurrection--not to

wield any carnal weapons! No--ours must be a bloodless strife,

excepting _our_ blood be shed--for we aim, as did Christ our leader,

not to destroy men's lives, but to save them--to overcome evil with

good--to conquer through suffering for righteousness' sake--to set

the captive free by the potency of truth!

Secede, then, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but pay

it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices

under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or

State legislature; for what you cannot conscientiously perform

yourself, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate

a declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout the country.

Hold mass meetings--assemble in conventions--nail your banners to

the mast!

Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? What did

the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? What did

the apostles do? What did the glorious army of martyrs and

confessors do? What did Luther and his intrepid associates do? What

can women and children do? What has Father Mathew done for teetotalism?

What has Daniel O'Connell done for Irish repeal? "Stand, having your

loins girt about with truth, and having on the breast-plate of

righteousness," and arrayed in the whole armor of God!

The form of government that shall succeed the present government of

the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste of time

to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and turned

from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but one of

order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we establish liberty.

What is now fragmentary, shall in due time be crystallized, and

shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all coming ages.

Finally--we believe that the effect of this movement will be,--First,

to create discussion and agitation throughout the North; and these

will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and importance.

Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, and

convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or be

abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety.

Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and

to carry the battle to the gate.

Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and

invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it.

We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American Union,

we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have our

enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free hearts

will be with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abettors will

be against us.

In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery

Society,

WM. LLOYD GARRISON, _President_.

WENDELL PHILLIPS, } _Secretaries_.

MARIA WESTON CHAPMAN, }

_Boston, May_ 20, 1844.

* * * * *

LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON.

BOSTON, 4TH July, 1844

_To His Excellency George N. Briggs_:

SIR--Many years since, I received from the Executive of the

Commonwealth a commission as Justice of the Peace. I have held the

office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have

found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue to

be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount

considerations forbid, and I herewith transmit to you my commission,

respectfully asking you to accept my resignation.

While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called on

to state the reasons that influence me.

In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied

with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath "_to support the

Constitution of the United States_." I regret that I ever took that

oath. Had I then as maturely considered its full import, and the

obligations under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who

take it, as I have done since, I certainly never would have taken it,

seeing, as I now do, that the Constitution of the United States

contains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish,

uphold and perpetuate _slavery_. It pledges the country to guard and

protect the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose

to retain it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States

which enact it. Still more, "it has done that, which, until its

adoption, was never before done for African slavery. It took it out

of its former category of municipal law and local life, adopted it

as a national institution, spread around it the broad and sufficient

shield of national law, and thus gave to slavery a national existence."

Consequently, the oath to support the Constitution of the United

States is a solemn promise to do that which is morally wrong; that

which is a violation of the natural rights of man, and a sin in the

sight of God.

I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I

do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by it.

I only say, that _I_ would not now deliberately take it; and that,

having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie

upon my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back

the commission, which was the occasion of my taking it.

I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded as

singular, if not censurable; and I must, therefore, be allowed to

make a more specific statement of those _provisions of the

Constitution_ which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of

slavery.

The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once

under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in

the popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves

under the description "of all other _persons_"--as of only

three-fifths of the value of free persons; thus to appearance

undervaluing them in comparison with freemen. But its dark and

involved phraseology seems intended to blind us to the consideration,

that those underrated slaves are merely a _basis_, not the _source_

of representation; that by the laws of all the States where they live,

they are regarded not as _persons_; but as _things_; that they are

not the _constituency_ of the representative, but his property; and

that the necessary effect of this provision of the Constitution is,

to take legislative power out of the hands of _men_, as such, and

give it to the mere possessors of goods and chattels. Fixing upon

thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number that shall send one

member into the House of Representatives, it protects slavery by

distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave State thus:

To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing fifty

thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, who

hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives one Representative

in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a population

of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. But

inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand

persons in a district in Carolina form no part of "the constituency;"

that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred

freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, while

it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massachusetts,

to do the same thing: that is, one slaveholder in Carolina is

clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and

influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty

Massachusetts men like you and me, who "eat their bread in the sweat

of their own brows."

According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation

based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the

House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an

approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves

in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and

fifty thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each

slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most,

by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths

of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two

hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_

which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at

present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent

candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a

sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced

value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting

interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars.

All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also

identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is

animated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one

aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism

distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to

itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all

its ingenuity and energy, to one end--self-protection and

self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations

of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury,

Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will

continue to move, in one mass, for its own protection.

While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of

Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams,

"the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the

influence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated,

over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the

distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the

fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of

slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as

the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House."

The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave interest,

as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation,

is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the

National government.

In the _Electoral colleges_, the same cause produces the same

effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the

Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before

they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the

people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will

show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great

political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating

each a slaveholder for the chair of the State. The candidate of one

party declares. "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose,

any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or immediate;"

and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that

either of the two great parties of this country has any design or

aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[94]

[Footnote 94: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839,

and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.]

The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in

declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas

to the territory and government of the United States."

Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie

with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a

condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the

executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the

existence of our constitutional government, has been occupied by a

slaveholder.

The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of

_justice_. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United

States, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to

their own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them

place, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and

constitution such a construction as shall justify the language of

John Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and

judicial authorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation,

propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every

law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave;

every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial

decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of

wrong."

Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical

effect of this clause of the Constitution, that I have sworn to

support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation

into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it

may be regarded by the Constitution as "persons," is in fact and

practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an

indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger;

counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the

whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation.

If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair

of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both.

Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The

paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice,

issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery,

and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or

march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her

interests in Texas.

The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to

suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery.

Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice

against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the

peril of their lives.

The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of

Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to

pray that she would let her poor victims go.

I renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a

power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of

robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own

protection, support and perpetuation.

Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Congress

for twenty years, from passing any law against the African slave

trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen

sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which

guarantees protection against "_domestic violence_," and which

pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect

the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our

children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in

emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable

"right to life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,"--this

clause of the Constitution, I say distinctly, I never will

support.

That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of

fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join

in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for

the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it

against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! Under

this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into effect,

slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such a

character, as have left the free citizen of the North without

protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized

in a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress

does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of

a Judge of a United States' Court, or even of the humblest State

magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party

most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law,

freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and

should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country

where I am not personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws

of the United States would shield me from the same destiny.

These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United

States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once

to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the

principal reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my

allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to

support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law

of God, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break

it.

It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, and

that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged.

But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done.

It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made.

It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously

keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our

constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very

shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Constitution, they

did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to

the _thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance

of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though

they sacrificed justice in doing so.

There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held

to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the

judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but

that it was intended so to operate by the framers of the

Constitution. The highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw,

of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and

Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the

case of _Prigg_ vs. _The State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know

not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security

for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed."

And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the

Constitution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they

did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[95] informs us

that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr.

Johnson, the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No

person legally held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into

another, shall," &c., and that the word "legally" was struck out, and

the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in

compliance with the wish of some, who thought the term _legal_

equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal "_in a moral

view_." A conclusive proof that, although future generations might

apply that clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery

should have died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of

liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work in the land; still,

slavery was what they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words; and

wrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof

that the framers of the Constitution were more careful to protect

themselves in the judgment of coming generations, from the charge

of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive proof that they knew that

slavery was _not_ "legal in a moral view," that it was a violation

of the moral law of God; and yet knowing and confessing its

immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its support and

defence.

[Footnote 95: Madison Papers, p. 1589]

This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a

part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the

patriots of the Revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are

bound to _do_ all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we

_should_ do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to

all other claims.

With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must

admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that

in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield of

their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They

made a "compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise of

moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as

"political expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could

know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the

wrong, that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy

Adams,[96] in relation to the article fixing the basis of

representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the

free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden

under the mask of this concession."

[Footnote 96: See his Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions.]

I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits

conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity,

its swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external

prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that

has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over

that tremendous sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus

breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right

and wrong; by so tenderly cherishing slavery as, in less than the

life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly

three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent

stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of

man and the law of God; by substituting itself as a rule of right,

in place of the moral laws of the universe;--thus in effect,

dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up

another sovereign in his stead--more than outweighs it all. A

melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all timeserving and

temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the _impolicy_ of

sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what

better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of

the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of

right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in

them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into

the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling

into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable

in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public

morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much

virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which they

themselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for

the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the

shield of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral

view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon

your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it

may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask

in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we

now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the

politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation,

are brought completely under her control.

To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the

Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now

so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government,

that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can

see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the

patient_.

The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and practice,

is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery,

so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for

evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any

longer.

Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession

of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The

burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall

endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law,

and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will

be a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.

Very respectfully, your friend,

FRANCIS JACKSON.

* * * * *

FROM MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH AT NIBLO'S GARDENS.

"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found it

among us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the

full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in

justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in

the Constitution, _in favor of the slaveholding States_ which are

already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends

on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fullness of their spirit, and to

the exactness of their letter."!!!

* * * * *

EXTRACTS FROM JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS

AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844.

The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the

restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of

commerce, navigation, and ship-building--the acquisition of the

means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection

and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the

country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was

insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to

the adoption of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was

_protection_.--Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of

Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most

terrible of wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection

from their insurrections--protection from their escape--protection

even to the trade by which they were brought into the

country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very

bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the

slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their

assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the

perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the

immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the

second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves--an

engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from

Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular

representation, of a representation for slaves--for articles of

merchandise, under the name of persons.

The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the

dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and

ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is

most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument.

A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the

Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or

a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a

word in the Constitution _apparently_ bearing upon the condition of

slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of

practical execution, if there were not a slave in the land.

The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that,

without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves,

they would not yield their assent to the Constitution; and the

freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from

the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union

itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the

bond.

Twenty years passed away--the slave markets of the South were

saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the

31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever

more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was

still lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to

a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade,

and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death

the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and

enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively

to themselves.

Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether

escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense

anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit

already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing

tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of

the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the

internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa

had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the

slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the

Constitution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been,

never--no, never would they have consented to it.

The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of persons,

was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of

proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of

all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious

in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and

inalienable rights of man, and of the vital principles of

Christianity; it was all accumulated in one geographical section of

the country, and was all held by wealthy men, comparatively small in

numbers, not amounting to a tenth part of the free white population

of the States in which it was concentrated.

In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordinary

political power and privileges have been invested in the owners of

horses; but then these privileges and these powers have been granted

for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the

community, required of the favoured class. The Roman knights

constituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings

gathered by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of

Cannae, amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were

no gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States,

the political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely

gratuitous. No extraordinary service is required of them; they are,

on the contrary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community,

always threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered

in the blood of both parties, master and slave, and always

depressing the condition of the poor free laborer, by competition

with the labor of the slave. The property in horses was the gift of

God to man, at the creation of the world; the property in slaves is

property acquired and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect

from the pillage of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can

give a prescriptive right. You are told that this is no concern of

yours, and that the question of freedom and slavery is exclusively

reserved to the consideration of the separate States. But if it be so,

as to the mere question of right between master and slave, it is of

tremendous concern to you that this little cluster of slave-owners

should possess, besides their own share in the representative hall

of the nation, the exclusive privilege of appointing two-fifths of

the whole number of the representatives of the people. This is now

your condition, under that delusive ambiguity of language and of

principle, which begins by declaring the representation in the

popular branch of the legislature a representation of persons, and

then provides that one class of persons shall have neither part not

lot in the choice of their representatives; but their elective

franchise shall be transferred to their masters, and the oppressors

shall represent the oppressed. The same perversion of the

representative principle pollutes the composition of the colleges of

electors of President and Vice President of the United States, and

every department of the government of the Union is thus tainted at

its source by the gangrene of slavery.

Fellow-citizens,--with a body of men thus composed, for legislators

and executors of the laws, what will, what must be, what has been

your legislation? The numbers of freemen constituting your nation

are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond and free.

You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of the Union.

Your influence on the legislation and the administration of the

government ought to be in the proportion of three to two.--But how

stands the fact? Besides the legitimate portion of influence

exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their numbers,

here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a

representation nominally of persons, but really of property,

ostensibly of slaves, but effectively of their masters,

overbalancing your superiority of numbers, adding two-fifths of

supplementary power to the two-fifths fairly secured to them by the

compact, CONTROLLING AND OVERRULING THE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR

GOVERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the sordid private

interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners of slaves.

From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United

States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more

and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion as

it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been

sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of

slaves themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown

in the Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added

largely to the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of

the African slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing

the benefit of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the

ancient dominion, has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a

community of slave-breeders for sale, and converted the land of

George Washington, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas

Jefferson, into a great barracoon--a cattle-show of human beings, an

emporium, of which the staple articles of merchandise are the flesh

and blood, the bones and sinews of immortal man.

Of the increasing abomination of slavery in the unbought hearts of

men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was formed,

what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same year in

which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of the

Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people to

the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for ever

throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remonstrance

or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was no

guaranty for the property of the slaveholder--no double representation

of him in the Federal councils--no power of taxation--no stipulation

for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the powers of

_government_ came to be delegated to the Union, the South--that

is, South Carolina and Georgia--refused their subscription to

the parchment, till it should be saturated with the infection

of slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could

extinguish. The freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly

venom of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its

first consequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy,

that the will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By

means of the double representation, the minority command the whole,

and a KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRESCRIBE THE POLICY OF

THE COUNTRY. To acquire this superiority of a large majority of

freemen, a persevering system of engrossing nearly all the seats

of power and place, is constantly for a long series of years

pursued, and you have seen, in a period of fifty-six years, the

Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty-four of them, by

the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, the Army and Navy,

the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic missions abroad, all

present the same spectacle:--an immense majority of power in the

hands of a very small minority of the people--millions made for a

fraction of a few thousands.

* * * * *

From that day (1830), SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE-BREEDING AND

SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and of the slaveholding States, at home and

abroad; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a large

increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has

presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and

ascendancy of the slaveholding power.

Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and

conclusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years of

the right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee

against slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution.

No. 13.

THE

ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

* * * * *

ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR

IN THE UNITED STATES.

* * * * *

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,

NO. 143 NASSAU STREET.

1839.

* * * * *

This No. contains 1-1/2 sheet.--Postage, under 100 miles,

2-1/2 cts. over 100, 3 cts.

Please Read and circulate.

ON THE CONDITION OF THE FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR.

* * * * *

It appears from the census of 1830, that there were then 319,467

free colored persons in the United States. At the present time the

number cannot be less than 360,000. Fifteen States of the Federal

Union have each a smaller population than this aggregate. Hence if

the whole mass of human beings inhabiting Connecticut, or New Jersey,

or any other of these fifteen States, were subjected to the ignorance,

and degradation, and persecution and terror we are about to describe,

as the lot of this much injured people, the amount of suffering would

still be numerically less than that inflicted by a professedly

Christian and republican community upon the free negroes. Candor,

however, compels us to admit that, deplorable as is their condition,

it is still not so wretched as Colonizationists and slaveholders,

for obvious reasons, are fond of representing it. It is not true

that free negroes are "more vicious and miserable than slaves _can_

be,"[97] nor that "it would be as humane to throw slaves from the

decks of the middle passage, as to set them free in this country,"[98]

nor that "a sudden and universal emancipation without

colonization, would be a greater CURSE to the slaves themselves,

than the bondage in which they are held."

[Footnote 97: Rev. Mr. Bacon, of New Haven, 7 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.

p. 99.]

[Footnote 98: African Repository, Vol. IV. p. 226.]

It is a little singular, that in utter despite of these rash

assertions slaveholders and colonizationists unite in assuring us,

that the slaves are rendered _discontented_ by _witnessing_ the

freedom of their colored brethren; and hence we are urged to assist

in banishing to Africa these sable and dangerous mementoes of liberty.

We all know that the wife and children of the free negro are not

ordinarily sold in the market--that he himself does not toil under

the lash, and that in certain parts of our country he is permitted

to acquire some intelligence, and to enjoy some comforts, utterly

and universally denied to the slave. Still it is most unquestionable,

that these people grievously suffer from a cruel and wicked

prejudice--cruel in its consequences; wicked in its voluntary

adoption, and its malignant character.

Colonizationists have taken great pains to inculcate the opinion that

prejudice against color is implanted in our nature by the Author of

our being; and whence they infer the futility of every effort to

elevate the colored man in this country, and consequently the duty

and benevolence of sending him to Africa, beyond the reach of our

cruelty.[99] The theory is as false in fact as it is derogatory to

the character of that God whom we are told is LOVE. With what

astonishment and disgust should we behold an earthly parent exciting

feuds and animosities among his own children; yet we are assured,

and that too by professing Christians, that our heavenly Father has

implanted a principle of hatred, repulsion and alienation between

certain portions of his family on earth, and then commanded them, as

if in mockery, to "love one another."

[Footnote 99: "Prejudices, which neither refinement, nor argument,

nor education, NOR RELIGION ITSELF can subdue, mark the people of

color, whether bond or free, as the subjects of a degradation

_inevitable and incurable_."--_Address of the Connecticut Col.

Society_. "The managers consider it clear that causes exist, and are

now operating, to prevent their improvement and elevation to any

considerable extent as a class in this country, which are fixed, not

only beyond the control of the friends of humanity, but of _any

human power_: CHRISTIANITY cannot do for them here, what it will do

for them in Africa. This is not the _fault_ of the colored man,

_nor of the white man_, but an ORDINATION OF PROVIDENCE, _and no

more to be changed than the laws of nature_."--15 Rep. Am. Col. Soc.

p. 47.

"The people of color must, in this country, remain for ages,

probably for ever, a separate and distinct caste, weighed down by

causes powerful, universal, invincible, which neither legislation

nor CHRISTIANITY can remove."--African Repository Vol. VIII. p. 196.

"Do they (the abolitionists) not perceive that in thus confounding

all the distinctions which GOD himself has made, they arraign the

wisdom and goodness of Providence itself? It has been His divine

pleasure, to make the black man black, and the white man white, and

to distinguish them by other _repulsive_ constitutional

differences."--Speech in Senate of the United States, February 7,

1839, by HENRY CLAY, PRESIDENT OF THE AM. COL. SOC.]

In vain do we seek in nature, for the origin of this prejudice. Young

children never betray it, and on the continent of Europe it is

unknown. We are not speaking of matters of taste, or of opinions of

personal beauty, but of a prejudice against complexion, leading to

insult, degradation and oppression. In no country in Europe is any

man excluded from refined society, or deprived of literary, religious,

or political privileges on account of the tincture of his skin. If

this prejudice is the fiat of the Almighty, most wonderful is it,

that of all the kindreds of the earth, none have been found

submissive to the heavenly impulse, excepting the white inhabitants

of North America; and of these, it is no less strange than true,

that this divine principle of repulsion is most energetic in such

persons as, in other respects, are the least observant of their

Maker's will. This prejudice is sometimes erroneously regarded as

the _cause_ of slavery; and some zealous advocates of emancipation

have flattered themselves that, could the prejudice be destroyed,

negro slavery would fall with it. Such persons have very inadequate

ideas of the malignity of slavery. They forget that the slaves in

Greece and Rome were of the same hue as their masters; and that at

the South, the value of a slave, especially of a female, rises, as

the complexion recedes from the African standard.

Were we to inquire into the geography of this prejudice, we should

find that the localities in which it attains its rankest luxuriance,

are not the rice swamps of Georgia, nor the sugar fields of Louisiana,

but the hills and valleys of New England, and the prairies of Ohio!

It is a fact of acknowledged notoriety, that however severe may be

the laws against colored people at the South, the prejudice against

their _persons_ is far weaker than among ourselves.

It is not necessary for our present purpose, to enter into a

particular investigation of the condition of the free negroes in the

slave States. We all know that they suffer every form of oppression

which the laws can inflict upon persons not actually slaves. That

unjust and cruel enactments should proceed from a people who keep

two millions of their fellow men in abject bondage, and who believe

such enactments essential to the maintenance of their despotism,

certainly affords no cause for surprise.

We turn to the free States, where slavery has not directly steeled

our hearts against human suffering, and where no supposed danger of

insurrection affords a pretext for keeping the free blacks in

ignorance and degradation; and we ask, what is the character of the

prejudice against color _here_? Let the Rev. Mr. Bacon, of

Connecticut, answer the question. This gentleman, in a vindication

of the Colonization Society, assures us, "The _Soodra_ is not

farther separated from the _Brahim_ in regard to all his privileges,

civil, intellectual, and moral, than the negro from the white man by

the prejudices which result from the difference made between them by

THE GOD OF NATURE."--(_Rep. Am. Col. Soc._ p. 87.)

We may here notice the very opposite effect produced on Abolitionists

and Colonizationists, by the consideration that this difference

_is_ made by the GOD OF NATURE; leading the one to discard the

prejudice, and the other to banish its victims.

With these preliminary remarks we will now proceed to take a view of

the condition of the free people of color in the non-slaveholding

States; and will consider in order, the various disabilities and

oppressions to which they are subjected, either by law or the

customs of society.

1. GENERAL EXCLUSION FROM THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.

Were this exclusion founded on the want of property, or any other

qualification deemed essential to the judicious exercise of the

franchise, it would afford no just cause of complaint; but it is

founded solely on the color of the skin, and is therefore irrational

and unjust. That taxation and representation should be inseparable,

was one of the axioms of the fathers of our revolution; and one of

the reasons they assigned for their revolt from the crown of Britain.

But _now_, it is deemed a mark of fanaticism to complain of the

disfranchisement of a whole race, while they remain subject to the

burden of taxation. It is worthy of remark, that of the thirteen

original States, only _two_ were so recreant to the principles of

the Revolution, as to make a _white skin_ a qualification for

suffrage. But the prejudice has grown with our growth, and

strengthened with our strength; and it is believed that in _every_

State constitution subsequently formed or revised,[excepting

Vermont and Maine, and the Revised constitution of Massachusetts,]

the crime of a dark complexion has been punished, by debarring its

possessor from all approach to the ballot-box.[100] The necessary

effect of this proscription in aggravating the oppression and

degradation of the colored inhabitants must be obvious to all who

call to mind the solicitude manifested by demagogues, and

office-seekers, and law makers, to propitiate the good will of all

who have votes to bestow.

[Footnote 100: From this remark the revised constitution of New York

is _nominally_ an exception; colored citizens, possessing a _freehold_

worth two hundred and fifty dollars, being allowed to vote; while

suffrage is extended to _white_ citizens without any property

qualification.]

2. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF LOCOMOTION.

It is in vain that the Constitution of the United States expressly

guarantees to "the citizens of each State, all the privileges and

immunities of citizens in the several States:"--It is in vain that

the Supreme Court of the United States has solemnly decided that this

clause confers on every citizen of one State the right to "pass

through, or reside in any other State for the purposes of trade,

agriculture, professional pursuits, or _otherwise_." It is in vain

that "the members of the several State legislatures" are required to

"be bound by oath or affirmation to support" the constitution

conferring this very guarantee. Constitutions, and judicial decisions,

and religious obligations are alike outraged by our State enactments

against people of color. There is scarcely a slave State in which a

citizen of New York, with a dark skin, may visit a dying child

without subjecting himself to legal penalties. But in the slave

States we look for cruelty; we expect the rights of humanity and the

laws of the land to be sacrificed on the altar of slavery. In the

free States we had reason to hope for a greater deference to decency

and morality. Yet even in these States we behold the effects of a

miasma wafted from the South. The Connecticut Black Act, prohibiting,

under heavy penalties, the instruction of any colored person from

another State, is well known. It is one of the encouraging signs of

the times, that public opinion has recently compelled the repeal of

this detestable law. But among all the free States, OHIO stands

pre-eminent for the wickedness of her statutes against this class of

our population. These statutes are not merely infamous outrages on

every principle of justice and humanity, but are gross and palpable

violations of the State constitution, and manifest an absence of

moral sentiment in the Ohio legislature as deplorable as it is

alarming. We speak the language, not of passion, but of sober

conviction; and for the truth of this language we appeal, first, to

the Statutes themselves, and then to the consciences of our readers.

We shall have occasion to notice these laws under the several

divisions of our subject to which they belong; at present we ask

attention to the one intended to prevent the colored citizens of

other States from removing into Ohio. By the constitution of New York,

the colored inhabitants are expressly recognized as "citizens." Let

us suppose then a New York freeholder and voter of this class,

confiding in the guarantee given by the Federal constitution removes

into Ohio. No matter how much property he takes with him; no matter

what attestations he produces to the purity of his character, he is

required by the Act of 1807, to find, within twenty days, two

freehold sureties in the sum of five hundred dollars for his _good

behavior_; and likewise for his _maintenance_, should he at any

future period from any cause whatever be unable to maintain himself,

and in default of procuring such sureties he is to be removed by the

overseers of the poor. The legislature well knew that it would

generally be utterly impossible for a stranger, and especially a

_black_ stranger, to find such sureties. It was the _design_ of

the Act, by imposing impracticable conditions, to prevent colored

emigrants from remaining within the State; and in order more

certainly to effect this object, it imposes a pecuniary penalty on

every inhabitant who shall venture to "harbor," that is, receive

under his roof, or who shall even "employ" an emigrant who has not

given the required sureties; and it moreover renders such inhabitant

so harboring or employing him, legally liable for his future

maintenance!!

We are frequently told that the efforts of the abolitionists have in

fact aggravated the condition of the colored people, bond and free.

The _date_ of this law, as well as the date of most of the laws

composing the several slave codes, show what credit is to be given

to the assertion. If a barbarous enactment is _recent_, its odium is

thrown upon the friends of the blacks--if _ancient_, we are assured

it is _obsolete_. The Ohio law was enacted only four years after the

State was admitted into the Union. In 1800 there were only three

hundred and thirty-seven free blacks in the territory, and in 1830

the number in the State was nine thousand five hundred. Of course a

very large proportion of the present colored population of the State

must have entered it in ignorance of this iniquitous law, or in

defiance of it. That the law has not been universally enforced,

proves only that the people of Ohio are less profligate than their

legislators--that it has remained in the statute book for thirty-two

years, proves the depraved state of public opinion and the horrible

persecution to which the colored people are legally exposed. But let

it not be supposed that this vile law is in fact obsolete, and its

very existence forgotten.

In 1829, a very general effort was made to enforce this law, and

about _one thousand free blacks_ were in consequence of it driven

out of the State; and sought a refuge in the more free and Christian

country of Canada. Previous to their departure, they sent a

deputation to the Governor of the Upper Province, to know if they

would be admitted, and received from Sir James Colebrook this

reply,--"Tell the _republicans_ on your side of the line, that we

royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us, you

will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of his majesty's

subjects." This was the origin of the Wilberforce colony in Upper

Canada.

We have now before us an Ohio paper, containing a proclamation by

John S. Wiles, overseer of the poor in the town of Fairfield, dated

12th March, 1838. In this instrument notice is given to all

"black or mulatto persons" residing in Fairfield, to comply with the

requisitions of the Act of 1807 within twenty days, or the law would

be enforced against them. The proclamation also addresses the white

inhabitants of Fairfield in the following terms,--"Whites, look out!

If any person or persons _employing_ any black or mulatto person,

contrary to the 3d section of the above law, you may look out for

the breakers." The extreme vulgarity and malignity of this notice

indicates the spirit which gave birth to this detestable law, and

continues it in being.

Now what says the constitution of Ohio? "ALL are born free and

independent, and have certain natural, inherent, inalienable rights;

among which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty,

_acquiring, possessing, and protecting property_, and pursuing and

attaining happiness and safety." Yet men who had called their Maker

to witness, that they would obey this very constitution, require

impracticable conditions, and then impose a pecuniary penalty and

grievous liabilities on every man who shall give to an innocent

fellow countryman a night's lodging, or even a meal of victuals in

exchange for his honest labor!

3. DENIAL OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION.

We explicitly disclaim all intention to imply that the several

disabilities and cruelties we are specifying are of universal

application. The laws of some States in relation to people of color

are more wicked than others; and the spirit of persecution is not in

every place equally active and malignant. In none of the free States

have these people so many grievances to complain of as in Ohio, and

for the honor of our country we rejoice to add, that in no other

State in the Union, has their right to petition for a redress of

their grievances been denied.

On the 14th January, 1839, a petition for relief from certain legal

disabilities, from colored inhabitants of Ohio, was presented to the

_popular_ branch of the legislature, and its rejection was moved

by George H. Flood.[101] This rejection was not a denial of the prayer,

but an _expulsion of the petition itself_, as an intruder into the

house. "The question presented for our decision," said one of the

members, "is simply this--Shall human beings, who are bound by every

enactment upon our statute book, be _permitted_ to _request_ the

legislature to modify or soften the laws under which they live?" To

the Grand Sultan, crowded with petitions as he traverses the streets

of Constantinople, such a question would seem most strange; but

American democrats can exert a tyranny over _men who have no votes_,

utterly unknown to Turkish despotism. Mr. Flood's motion was lost by

a majority of only _four_ votes; but this triumph of humanity and

republicanism was as transient as it was meagre. The _next_ day, the

House, by a large majority, resolved: "That the blacks and mulattoes

who may be residents within this State, have no constitutional right

to present their petitions to the General Assembly for any purpose

whatsoever, and that any reception of such petitions on the part of

the General Assembly is a mere act of privilege or policy, and not

imposed by any expressed or implied power of the Constitution."

[Footnote 101: It is sometimes interesting to preserve the names of

individuals who have perpetrated bold and unusual enormities.]

The phraseology of this resolution is as clumsy as its assertions are

base and sophistical. The meaning intended to be expressed is simply,

that the Constitution of Ohio, neither in terms nor by implication,

confers on such residents as are negroes or mulattoes, any right

to offer a petition to the legislature for any object whatever; nor

imposes on that body any obligation to notice such a petition; and

whatever attention it may please to bestow upon it, ought to be

regarded as an act not of duty, but merely of favor or expediency.

Hence it is obvious, that the _principle_ on which the resolution is

founded is, that the reciprocal right and duty of offering and

hearing petitions _rest solely on constitutional enactment_, and not

on moral obligation. The reception of negro petitions is declared

to be a mere act of _privilege or policy_. Now it is difficult to

imagine a principle more utterly subversive of all the duties of

rulers, the rights of citizens, and the charities of private life.

The victim of oppression or fraud has no _right_ to appeal to the

constituted authorities for redress; nor are those authorities under

any obligation to consider the appeal--the needy and unfortunate

have no right to implore the assistance of their more fortunate

neighbors: and all are at liberty to turn a deaf ear to the cry of

distress. The eternal and immutable principles of justice and

humanity, proclaimed by Jehovah, and impressed by him on the

conscience of man, have no binding force on the legislature of Ohio,

unless expressly adopted and enforced by the State Constitution!

But as the legislature has thought proper thus to set at defiance the

moral sense of mankind, and to take refuge behind the enactments of

the Constitution, let us try the strength of their entrenchments. The

words of the Constitution, which it is pretended sanction the

resolution we are considering are the following, viz.--"The _people_

have a right to assemble together in a peaceable manner to consult

for their common good, to _instruct their representatives_, and to

apply to the legislature for a redress of grievances." It is obvious

that this clause confers no rights, but is merely declaratory of

existing rights. Still, as the right of the people to apply for a

redress of grievances is coupled with the right of _instructing

their representatives_, and as negroes are not electors and

consequently are without representatives, it is inferred that they

are not part of _the people_. That Ohio legislators are not

Christians would be a more rational conclusion. One of the members

avowed his opinion that "none but voters had a right to petition." If

then, according to the principle of the resolution, the Constitution

of Ohio denies the right of petition to all but electors, let us

consider the practical results of such a denial. In the first place,

every female in the State is placed under the same disability with

"blacks and mulattoes." No wife has a right to ask for a divorce--no

daughter may plead for a father's life. Next, no man under

twenty-one years--no citizen of any age, who from want of sufficient

residence, or other qualification, is not entitled to vote--no

individual among the tens of thousands of aliens in the

State--however oppressed and wronged by official tyranny or

corruption, has a right to seek redress from the representatives of

the people, and should he presume to do so, may be told, that, like

"blacks and mulattoes," he "has no constitutional right to present

his petition to the General Assembly for any purpose whatever."

Again--the State of Ohio is deeply indebted to the citizens of other

States, and also to the subjects of Great Britain for money borrowed

to construct her canals. Should any of these creditors lose their

certificates of debt, and ask for their renewal; or should their

interest be withheld, or paid in depreciated currency, and were they

to ask for justice at the hands of the legislature, they might be

told, that any attention paid to their request must be regarded as a

"mere act of privilege or policy, and not imposed by any expressed

or implied power of the Constitution," for, not being voters, they

stood on the same ground as "blacks and mulattoes." Such is the

folly and wickedness in which prejudice against color has involved

the legislators of a republican and professedly Christian State in

the nineteenth century.

4. EXCLUSION FROM THE ARMY AND MILITIA.

The Federal Government is probably the only one in the world that

forbids a portion of its subjects to participate in the national

defence, not from any doubts of their courage, loyalty, or physical

strength, but merely on account of the tincture of their skin! To

such an absurd extent is this prejudice against color carried, that

some of our militia companies have occasionally refused to march to

the sound of a drum when beaten by a black man. To declare a certain

class of the community unworthy to bear arms in defence of their

native country, is necessarily to consign that class to general

contempt.

5. EXCLUSION FROM ALL PARTICIPATION IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.

No colored man can be a judge, juror, or constable. Were the talents

and acquirements of a Mansfield or a Marshall veiled in a sable skin,

they would be excluded from the bench of the humblest court in the

American republic. In the slave States generally, no black man can

enter a court of justice as a witness against a white one. Of course

a white man may, with perfect impunity, defraud or abuse a negro to

any extent, provided he is careful to avoid the presence of any of

his own caste, at the execution of his contract, or the indulgence of

his malice. We are not aware that an outrage so flagrant is

sanctioned by the laws of any _free_ State, with one exception. That

exception the reader will readily believe can be none other than OHIO.

A statute of this State enacts, "that no black or mulatto _person_ or

_persons_ shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn, or give evidence

in any court of Record or elsewhere, in this State, in any cause

depending, or matter of controversy, when either party to the same

is a WHITE person; or in any prosecution of the State against any

WHITE person."

We have seen that on the subject of petition the legislature regards

itself as independent of all obligation except such as is imposed by

the Constitution. How mindful they are of the requirements even of

that instrument, when obedience to them would check the indulgence of

their malignity to the blacks, appears from the 7th Section of the

8th Article, viz.--"All courts shall be open, and every _person_, for

any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall

have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered

without denial or delay."

Ohio legislators may deny that negroes and mulattoes are citizens, or

people; but they are estopped by the very words of the statute just

quoted, from denying that they are "_persons_." Now, by the

Constitution every _person_, black as well as white, is to have

justice administered to him without denial or delay. But by the law,

while any unknown _white_ vagrant may be a witness in any case

whatever, no black suitor is permitted to offer a witness of his own

color, however well established may be his character for

intelligence and veracity, to prove his rights or his wrongs; and

hence in a multitude of cases, justice is denied in despite of the

Constitution; and why denied? Solely from a foolish and wicked

prejudice against color.

6. IMPEDIMENTS TO EDUCATION.

No people have ever professed so deep a conviction of the importance

of popular education as ourselves, and no people have ever resorted

to such cruel expedients to perpetuate abject ignorance. More than

one third of the whole population of the slave States are prohibited

from learning even to read, and in some of them free men, if with

dark complexions, are subject to stripes for teaching their own

children. If we turn to the free States, we find that in all of them,

without exception, the prejudices and customs of society oppose

almost insuperable obstacles to the acquisition of a liberal

education by colored youth. Our academies and colleges are barred

against them. We know there are instances of young men with dark

skins having been received, under peculiar circumstances, into

northern colleges; but we neither know nor believe, that there have

been a dozen such instances within the last thirty years.

Colored children are very generally excluded from our common schools,

in consequence of the prejudices of teachers and parents. In some of

our cities there are schools _exclusively_ for their use, but in the

country the colored population is usually too sparse to justify such

schools; and white and black children are rarely seen studying under

the same roof; although such cases do sometimes occur, and then they

are confined to elementary schools. Some colored young men, who

could bear the expense, have obtained in European seminaries the

education denied them in their native land.

It may not be useless to cite an instance of the malignity with

which the education of the blacks is opposed. The efforts made in

Connecticut to prevent the establishment of schools of a higher order

than usual for colored pupils, are too well known to need a recital

here; and her BLACK ACT, prohibiting the instruction of colored

children from other States, although now expunged from her statute

book through the influence of abolitionists, will long be remembered

to the opprobrium of her citizens. We ask attention to the following

illustration of public opinion in another New England State.

In 1834 an academy was built by subscription in CANAAN, New Hampshire,

and a charter granted by the legislature; and at a meeting of the

proprietors it was determined to receive all applicants having

"suitable moral and intellectual recommendations, without other

distinctions;" in other words, without reference to _complexion_.

When this determination was made known, a TOWN MEETING was forthwith

convened, and the following resolutions adopted, viz.

"RESOLVED, That we view with _abhorrence_ the attempt of the

Abolitionists to establish in this town a school for the instruction

of the sable sons and daughters of Africa, in common with our sons

and daughters.

"RESOLVED, That we will not associate with, nor in any way

countenance, any man or woman who shall hereafter persist in

attempting to establish a school in this town for the _exclusive_

education of blacks, _or_ for their education in conjunction with

the whites."

The frankness of this last resolve is commendable. The inhabitants

of Canaan, assembled in legal town meeting, determined, it seems,

that the blacks among them should in future have no education

whatever--they should not be instructed in company with the whites,

neither should they have schools exclusively for themselves.

The proprietors of the academy supposing, in the simplicity of their

hearts, that in a free country they might use their property in any

manner not forbidden by law, proceeded to open their school, and in

the ensuing spring had twenty-eight white, and fourteen colored

scholars. The crisis had now arrived when the cause of prejudice

demanded the sacrifice of constitutional liberty and of private

property. Another town meeting was convoked, at which, without a

shadow of authority, and in utter contempt of law and decency, it

was ordered, that the academy should be forcibly removed, and a

committee was appointed to execute the abominable mandate. Due

preparations were made for the occasion, and on the 10th of August,

three hundred men, with about 200 oxen, assembled at the place, and

taking the edifice from off its foundation, dragged it to a distance,

and left it a ruin. No one of the actors in this high-handed outrage

was ever brought before a court of justice to answer for this

criminal and riotous destruction of the property of others.

The transaction we have narrated, expresses in emphatic terms the

deep and settled hostility felt in the free States to the education

of the blacks. The prejudices of the community render that hostility

generally effective without the aid of legal enactments. Indeed,

some remaining regard to decency and the opinion of the world, has

restrained the Legislatures of the free States, with _one exception_,

from consigning these unhappy people to ignorance by "decreeing

unrighteous decrees," and "framing mischief by a law." Our readers,

no doubt, feel that the exception must of course be OHIO.

We have seen with what deference Ohio legislators profess to regard

their _constitutional_ obligations; and we are now to contemplate

another instance of their shameless violation of them. The

Constitution which these men have sworn to obey declares, "NO LAW

SHALL BE PASSED to prevent the poor of the several townships and

counties in this State from an _equal_ participation in the schools,

academies, colleges, and universities in this State, which are

endowed in whole, or _in part_, from the revenue arising from

_donations_ made by the United States, for the support of _colleges

and schools_--and the door of said schools, academies, and

universities shall be open for the reception of scholars, students,

and teachers of every _grade_, without ANY DISTINCTION OR PREFERENCE

WHATEVER."

Can language be more explicit or unequivocal? But have any donations

been made by the United States for the support of colleges and

schools in Ohio? Yes--by an act of Congress, the sixteenth section of

land in _each_ originally surveyed township in the State, was set

apart as a donation for the express purpose of endowing and

supporting common schools. And now, how have the scrupulous

legislators of Ohio, who refuse to acknowledge any other than

constitutional obligations to give ear to the cry of distress--how

have they obeyed this injunction of the Constitution respecting the

freedom of their schools? They enacted a law in 1831, declaring that,

"when any appropriation shall be made by the directors of any school

district, from the treasury thereof, for the payment of a teacher,

the school in such district shall be open"--to whom? "_to scholars,

students, and teachers of every grade, without distinction or

preference whatever_," as commanded by the Constitution? Oh no!

"Shall be open to all the WHITE children residing therein!!" Such is

the impotency of written constitutions, where a sense of moral

obligation is wanting to enforce them.

We have now taken a review of the Ohio laws against free people of

color. Some of them are of old, and others of recent date. The

opinion entertained of all these laws, new and old, by the _present_

legislators of Ohio, may be learned by a resolution adopted in

January last, (1839) by both houses of the legislature. "RESOLVED,

That in the opinion of this general assembly it is unwise, impolitic,

and inexpedient to repeal _any_ law now in force imposing

disabilities upon black or mulatto persons, thus placing them upon

an equality with the whites, so far as this legislature can do, and

indirectly inviting the black population of other States to emigrate

to this, to the manifest injury of the public interest." The best

comment on the _spirit_ which dictated this resolve is an enactment

by the _same_ legislature, abrogating the supreme law which requires

us to "Do unto others as we would they should do unto us," and

prohibiting every citizen of Ohio from _harboring or concealing_ a

fugitive slave, under the penalty of fine or imprisonment. General

obedience to this vile statute is alone wanting to fill to the brim

the cup of Ohio's iniquity and degradation. She hath done what she

could to oppress and crush the free negroes within her borders. She

is now seeking to rechain the slave who has escaped from his fetters.

7. IMPEDIMENTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.

It is unnecessary to dwell here on the laws of the slave States

prohibiting the free people of color from learning to read the Bible,

and in many instances, from assembling at discretion to worship their

Creator. These laws, we are assured, are indispensable to the

perpetuity of that "peculiar institution," which many masters in

Israel are now teaching, enjoys the sanction of HIM who "will have

all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth," and

who has left to his disciples the injunction, "search the Scriptures."

We turn to the free States, in which no institution requires, that

the light of the glorious gospel of Christ should be prevented from

shining on any portion of the population, and inquire how far

prejudice here supplies the place of southern statutes.

The impediments to education already mentioned, necessarily render

the acquisition of religious knowledge difficult, and in many

instances impracticable. In the northern cities, the blacks have

frequently churches of their own, but in the country they are too few,

and too poor to build churches and maintain ministers. Of course they

must remain destitute of public worship and religious instruction,

unless they can enjoy these blessings in company with the whites.

Now there is hardly a church in the United States, not exclusively

appropriated to the blacks, in which one of their number owns a pew,

or has a voice in the choice of a minister. There are usually, indeed,

a few seats in a remote part of the church, set apart for their use,

and in which no white person is ever seen. It is surely not

surprising, under all the circumstances of the case, that these

seats are rarely crowded.

Colored ministers are occasionally ordained in the different

denominations, but they are kept at a distance by their white

brethren in the ministry, and are very rarely permitted to enter

their pulpits; and still more rarely, to sit at their tables,

although acknowledged to be ambassadors of Christ. The distinction

of _caste_ is not forgotten, even in the celebration of the Lord's

Supper, and seldom are colored disciples permitted to eat and drink

of the memorials of the Redeemer's passion till after every white

communicant has been served.

8. IMPEDIMENTS TO HONEST INDUSTRY.

In this country ignorance and poverty are almost inseparable

companions; and it is surely not strange that those should be poor

whom we compel to be ignorant. The liberal professions are virtually

sealed against the blacks, if we except the church, and even in that

admission is rendered difficult by the obstacles placed in their way

in acquiring the requisite literary qualifications;[102] and when once

admitted, their administrations are confined to their own color.

Many of our most wealthy and influential citizens have commenced

life as ignorant and as pennyless as any negro who loiters in our

streets. Had their complexion been dark, notwithstanding their

talents, industry, enterprize and probity, they would have continued

ignorant and pennyless, because the paths to learning and to wealth,

would then have been closed against them. There is a conspiracy,

embracing all the departments of society, to keep the black man

ignorant and poor. As a general rule, admitting few if any exceptions,

the schools of literature and of science reject him--the counting

house refuses to receive him as a bookkeeper, much more as a

partner--no store admits him as a clerk--no shop as an apprentice.

Here and there a black man may be found keeping a few trifles on a

shelf for sale; and a few acquire, as if by stealth, the knowledge

of some handicraft; but almost universally these people, both in

town and country, are prevented by the customs of society from

maintaining themselves and their families by any other than menial

occupations.

[Footnote 102: Of the truth of this remark, the trustees of the

Episcopal Theological Seminary at New-York, lately (June, 1839)

afforded a striking illustration. A young man, regularly

acknowledged by the Bishop as a candidate for orders, and in

consequence of such acknowledgment entitled, by an _express statute_

of the seminary, to admission to its privileges, presented himself

as a pupil. But God had given him a dark complexion, and _therefore_

the trustees, regardless of the statute, barred the doors against him,

by a formal and deliberate vote. As a compromise between conscience

and prejudice, the professors offered to give him _private_

instruction--to do in secret what they were ashamed to do openly--to

confer as a favor, what he was entitled to demand as a right. The

offer was rejected.

It is worthy of remark, that of the trustees who took an _active_

part against the _colored_ candidate, one is the PRESIDENT _of the

New York Colonization Society_; another a MANAGER, and a third, one

of its public champions; and that the Bishop of the diocese, who

wished to exclude his candidate from the theological school of which

he is both a trustee and a professor, lately headed a recommendation

in the newspapers for the purchase of a packet ship for Liberia, as

likely to "render far more efficient than heretofore, the enterprize

of colonization."]

In 1836, a black man of irreproachable character, and who by his

industry and frugality had accumulated several thousand dollars, made

application in the City of New York for a carman's license, and was

refused solely and avowedly on account of his complexion! We have

already seen the effort of the Ohio legislature, to consign the

negroes to starvation, by deterring others from employing them.

Ignorance, idleness, and vice, are at once the punishments we

inflict upon these unfortunate people for their complexion; and the

crimes with which we are constantly reproaching them.

9. LIABILITY TO BE SEIZED, AND TREATED AS SLAVES.

An able-bodied colored man sells in the southern market for from

eight hundred to a thousand dollars; of course he is worth stealing.

Colonizationists and slaveholders, and many northern divines,

solemnly affirm, that the situation of a slave is far preferable to

that of a free negro; hence it would seem an act of humanity to

convert the latter into the former. Kidnapping being both a

lucrative and a benevolent business, it is not strange it should be

extensively practised. In many of the States this business is

regulated by law, and there are various ways in which the

transmutation is legally effected. Thus, in South Carolina, if a

free negro "entertains" a runaway slave, it may be his own wife or

child, he himself is turned into a slave. In 1827, a _free woman

and her three children_ underwent this benevolent process, for

_entertaining_ two fugitive children of six and nine years old. In

Virginia all emancipated slaves remaining twelve months in the State,

are kindly restored to their former condition. In Maryland a free

negro who marries a white woman, thereby acquires all the privileges

of a slave--and generally, throughout the slave region, including

the District of Columbia, every negro not known to be free, is

mercifully considered as a slave, and if his master cannot be

ascertained, he is thrown into a dungeon, and there kept, till by a

public sale a master can be provided for him. But often the law

grants to colored men, _known to be free_, all the advantages of

slavery. Thus, in Georgia, every _free_ colored man coming into the

State, and unable to pay a fine of one hundred dollars, becomes a

slave for life; in Florida, insolvent debtors, if _black_, are SOLD

for the benefit of their creditors; and in the District of Columbia

a free colored man, thrown into jail on suspicion of being a slave

and proving his freedom, is required by law to be sold as a slave,

if too poor to pay his jail fees. Let it not be supposed that these

laws are all obsolete and inoperative. They catch many a northern

negro, who, in pursuit of his own business, or on being decoyed

by others ventures to enter the slave region; and who, of course,

helps to augment the wealth of our southern brethren. On the 6th

of March, 1839, a report by a Committee was made to the House of

Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, in which are given

the _names_ of seventeen free colored men who had been enslaved at

the south. It also states an instance in which twenty-five colored

citizens, belonging to Massachusetts, were confined at one time in a

southern jail, and another instance in which 75 free colored persons

from different free States were confined, all preparatory to their

sale as slaves according to law.