The Ohio star. [volume], September 30, 1852, Extra, Image 1

About The Ohio star. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1830-1854

Image provided by: Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH

                
"."?-p.-.
i .
Q 0
1
RAVENNA, THURSDAY, SEPTE MBER 30J1852-
1 JfL i Cl
i
r
1
' DOOUlflENTS FOR THE TISES.
IBEEDCJI HATIOBAXf 8XAYEHY SECTI01TAL
SPEECH OF HOnTcHAS. SUMXER,
OF MASSACHUSETTS,
UOTIO!f TO '
REPEAL THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL,
J THI " ' '
- " SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
ThbssdiT, Aoocst 26, 1852.
-The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill be
in? under consideration, the following amendment
was mored by the Committee on Finance : .
That where the ministerial officers ef the United State
hare or abmU iooor extraordinary expenses in executing the
laws thereof, the payment ol which ie not specifically pro
vide for, tie President of the United State is aulhonied to
sllovr thi payment thereof, onder the special taxation of the
district or circuit eoan-oT the district io which the said ser
vices have beJB or shall be rendered, to be paid f-oattheap-aropriation
lor defraying the expenses of the judiciary."
. MR. SUMNER moved the following amendment
to the amendment :
" Proviki, That no such allowance shall be authorized
for any expsnsos incurred in executing the act of September
18, 1840, for the surrender of fntitires from service or labor;
which slid act U hareby repealed : ....
' On this he took the floor and spoke as follow :
xf- paDg,n,, Hero i a nrovision for extraor-
... - .-..... - i .
dinary expense incurred in executing the laws oi
ine unuej oiaies iiua.fini-i'.'j .--t
beneath these specious word lurks the very sub
ject on which, by a solemn vote of this body, I was
rofused a hearing. . Here it is ; no longer open to
the charge of being an "abstraction," but actu
ally presented for practical legislation ; not intro
duced by me, but by one of the important commit
tee of the Senate ; not brought forward weeks
a-r , wher there was ample tune f-r discussion,
bu. oniy tV:a mi mat, without any reference to
tria lain nrinri of the session. ' The amendment.
which I now offer, proposes to remove one chief
occasion of these extraordinary expenses. And
now, at last, a Long these final crowded days of
our duties here, but at this earliest opportunity, I
mm to be heard ; not a a favor, but asa right. 1 tie
graceful usigs of thi body may be abandoned,
but the established privilege of debate cannot be
abridged. Parliamentary courtesy may be forgot
ten, but Parliamentary law mrst prevail. The
abject i broadly before the Senate. By the
blessing of God it Suall be discussed.
Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly
sought to secure pjrmanence for his imperfect in
stitutions, by providing that the citizen who, at
any time attempted an alteration or repeal of any
self; and, if it think proper, it may revise or amend?" Gonverneur Morris, ef Pennsylvania, bioke forth in I that I will faithfully execute the office of President
or absolutely undo the work of its predecessors.
The laws of the Medes and Persians are proverbi
ally said to have been unalterable; but they stand
fbrin in history as a single example of such irra
tional defiance ot the true principles of all law.
To make a law final, so as not to be reached by
Congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a new
provision on the Constitution. Nay, more; it gives
to the law a character which the very Constitution
does not possess. The wise father did not treat
the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after
infancy; but, anticipating Progress, they declared
expressly that their Great Act is not final. Ac
cording to the Constitution itself, there is not one
of its existing provisions not even that with re
gard to fugitives from labor which may not at all
times be reached by amendment, and thus be drawn
into debate. This is rational and just. Sir, noth
ing from man's hands, nor law, nor constitution,
can be final. Truth alone is final.
Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical
also. The responsibility for the recent Slave Act
and for Slavery everywhere within the jurisdiction
of Congress necessarily involves the right to dis
cuss them. To separate these is impossible. Like
the twenty-fifth rule of the House of Representa
tives against petitions on Slavery now repealed
and dishonored the Compromise, as explained and
urged, is a curtailment of the actual powers of leg
islation, and a perpetual denial of the indisputable
principle that the right to deliberate is co-extensive
with the responsibility for an act. To sustain Sla
very, it is now proposed to trample on free speech.
In any country this would be grievous; but here,
where the Constitution expressly provides against
abridging freedom of speech, it is a special outrage.
In vain do we condemn the despotisms of Europe,
while we borrow the rigors with which they re
press Liberty, and guard their own uncertain pow
er. , For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly
and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a Senator of
Massachusetts, I protest against this wrong. On
SI tvery, as on every other subject, I claim the risht
to be heard. That right I cannot, I will not aban
don. "Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and
to argue freely, above all liberties." These are the
glowing words which flashed from the soul of John
Milton in his struggles with English tyranny. With
equal fervor they should be echoed now by every
American, not already a slave.
But, sir, this effort is impotent as tyrannical.
The convictions of the heart cannot be repressed.
The utterances of conscience must be heard. They
break forth with irrepressible might. As well ax
tempt to check the tides of Ocean, the currents
of the Mississippi, ' or the rushing - waters of
Niagara. 'The discussion of Slavery will proceed,
wherever two or three are gathered together by
garded Slavery as sectional, and would not make it I heralded, was unalterably established. To every
national, itsger in. Mierinan, oi Connecticut, beholder these memo-ies must nave Deeu mil oi
was opposed to any tax on slaves imported, as ma- nride and consolation. But looking back upon the
king the matter worse, because it implied they were scene, there is one circumstance which, more than
property." He would not have Slavery national. aii its other associations, fills the soul more even
Alter debate, trie subject was committed to a com- than the suggestions of Union which I prize so
mittee of eleven, who subsequently reported a sub- I roach. At this mom but, weed Washisston took
part thereof, should appear in the public assembly i the fireside, on the highway, at the public meetinj
with a halter about his neck, ready to be drawn u jn the church. The movement against Slavery is
his proposition failed to be adopted. A tyrannical from the Everlasting Arm. .Even now it is gather
spirit among us, in unconscious imitation of this mg jts forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. It
antique and discarded barbarism, seeks to surround mav not yet be felt in the high places of office and
an offensive institution with a similar safeguard, power; but all who can put their ears humbly to the
In the existing distemper of the public mind and ground, will hear and comprehend its incessant and
at this present juncture, no man can enter upon advancing tread.
the service which I now undertake, without a per- The relations of the Government of the United
onal responsibility, such as can be sustained only States I speak of the National Government to
by that sense pf duty which, under God, is always slavery, though plain and obvious, are constantly
our best supports That personal responsibility I misunderstood. A popular belief at this moment
accept. Before the Senate and the country let me make Slavery a national institution, and, of course,
be held accountable for this act, and for every word renders its support a national duty. The extrava-
which I utfer. r . . gahce of this error can hardly be surpassed. An
..With me, ir, there is no alternative. Painfully institution, which our fathers most carefully omit-
convinced of the unutterable wrongs and woes of ted to name in the Constitution, which, according
alavery ; profoundly believing that, according to t0 tne debates in the Convention, they refused to
the true spirit of the Constitution and the senti- COvcr with any "a tnction," and which, at the origi-
ments of th i fathers, it can find no place under our nai organization of the Government, was merely
National Government that it is in every respect sajfionoiexisting nowhere on the national territo-
sectumal, and in no respect national that it is al- Ty jg now aDOve all other things blazoned as na-
ways and everywhere the creature and dependent tional. Its supporters plume themselves as nation-
of the States, and never anywhere the creature or ai. xhe old political parties, while upholding it,
dependent of the Nation, and that the Nation can cia;m to be national. A National Whig is simply a
never, by legislative or other act, impart to it any slavery Whig, and a National Democrat is simply
support, under the Constitution of the United a Slavery Democrat, in contradistinction to all who
States; with these convictions, I could not allow regard Slavery as a sectional institution, within the
thi session to reach it close, without making or exclusive control of the States, and with which the
seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly nation has nothing to do. , "1
against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty, of As Slavery assume to be national, so, by an
the late enactment by Congress for the recovery of equally strange perversion, Freedom is degraded to
fugitive slaves. Full well I know, sir, the difEcul- be sectional, and all who uphold it, under the na-
ties of this discussion, arising from prejudices of tional Constitution, share this same epithet. The
opinion and from adverse conclusions, strong and honest efforts to secure its blessings, everywhere
ulcere a my own. r ull well 1 Know mat i am in i Within the jurisdiction of Congress, are scouted as
the language of an Abolitionist: "ife never would I of the United States, and will, to the best of my
concur in upholding domestic slavery. - It was a ne- I ability, preserve,"Totect, and defend the Consti-
fanons institution. It was tne curse ol Heaven on tution ot the United states.
the State wher.: it prevailed." Oliver Ellsworth, Over the President, on this high occasion, floated
ot Connecticut, said: "The morality or wisdom of the National Flag, with its -stripes of red and its
Slavery are considerations belonging to the states stars on a field of blue. As his patriot eyes resi-
themselves " According to him, Slavery was sec
tional.
At a later day, a discussion ensued on the clause
touching the African slave trade, which reveal the
definitive purposes of the Convention. From the
report of Mr. Madison we learn what was said.
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, "thought we had
nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to
Slavery, but we ought to be careful not to give any
sanction to it." According to these words, he re-
! ed upon the glowing ensign, wjtat current must
have rushed swiftly througn nis soun in tne eariy
days of the Revolution, in those darkest hours
about Boston, after the battle of Bunker Hill, and
before the Declaration of Independcace, the, thir
teen stripes had been first unfurled by him, as the
emblem of Union among the Colonies for the sake
of Freedom. By him, at that tine, they had been
named the Union Flag. Trial, struggle, and war,
were now ended, and the Union, which they first
stitute, authorizing "a tax on such migration or im
portation, at a rate not exceeding the average of du
ties laid on imports." This language, classifying
persons with merchandise, seemed to imply a recog
nition that they were property. Mr. Sherman at
once declared himself "against this part, as ac
knowledging men to be property, by taxing them as
such under the character of slaves.' Mr. Gorham
"thought Mr. Sherman should consider the duty
not as implying that slaves are property, but as a dis
couragement to the importation o them. Mr.
Madison, in mild juridical phrase, "thought it wrong
his first oath to-sdppoet thb conctitotios op
the United States, the Natiokal Ensiom, ico-
WHKRE WITHIN THE NATIONAL TEEEITOBV, COVEEEB
a single slave. Then, indeed, was Slavery sec
tional and Freedom national.
On the sea, an execrable piracy, the trade in
slaves, was still, to the national scandal, tolerated
under the national flag. In the States, as a sec
tional institution, beneath the shelter of local laws,
Slavery unhappily fonnl a home. But in the only
territories at this time belonging to the Nation, the
broad region of the Northwest, it had already, by
to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could the Ordinance of Freedom, been made impossible,
be property in man." After discussion, it was fi- even before the adoption of the Constitution. The
nally agreed to make the clause read: District of Columbia, with its fatal incirmberance,
But a tax or duty may be imposed on such unpor- j had not yet been acquired. . '
tation. not exceeding ten dollars for each peron.n . j The Government thus organized was Anti-Slave-The
difficulty then seemed to be removed, and the m character. Washington was a slaveholder;
whole clause was adopted. This record demonstrates
taat the word "persons" was employed in order to
show that slaves, everywhere under the Uonstitu-
tion, were always to be regarded as persons, and
but it would be unjust to his memory not to say
that he was an Abolitionist also. His opinions do
not admit of question. Only a short time before
the formation of the National Constitution, he had
- - ii I "' luiuiohawu wa u
not as property, ana tnus to exclude irom tne oon- declared, b y letter, "that it was among his first
suiuuon ail iaea tuai inere can De property in man. h to gome ,an adored by which Slavery
Kemember well, that Mr. bherman was opposed to u. aboUaned bv iaw... and aai in another
luecun.aou.iw orig.noi lurui, - as ....ow.eugi.jg leM "that, in support of any legislative measures
men to hi property; ' that Mr. .Madison was also op- for the aboUtion Df slavery, his suffrage should not
posed to'it, because he "thought it wrong to admit K ;. ,i t;ii -,!, ;
in the Constitution the idea that there could be
property in man;" and that, after these objections,
the j. use was so amended as to exclude the idea.
But Slavery cannot be national, unless thi j idea is
distinctly and unequivocally admitted into the Con
stitution.
Nor is this all. In the Massachusetts Conven
tion, to which the Constitution when completed,
was submitted for ratification, a veteran of the Re
volution, General Heath, openly declared that, ac
cording to his view,, blavery was sectional, and not
national. His language was pointed. "1 appre
hend," he says, ",.hat it is not in our power to do
anything for or against those who are in filavery tn
the Southern States No gentleman within these
walls detests every idea of blavery more than 1 do;
it is generally detested by the people of this Com
monwealth; and I ardently hope the time will soon
come, when our brethren in the Southern States
will view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to
this we have no right to compel them, two ques
tions naturally arise. If we ratify the Constitution,
shall we do any thing by our act to hold the blacks in
waneing
with a distinguished European Abolitionist, a trav
elling propagandist of Freedom, Brissot de War-
ville, recently welcomed to Mount V emon. he had
openly announced that promote this object in Vir
ginia, "he desired the formation of a Society, and
that he would second it." By this authentic testi
mony, he takes his place with the early patrons of
Abolition societies.
By the side of Washington, as standing beneath
national flag he swore to support the Constitution,
were illustrious men, whose lives and recorded
words now rise in judgment. There was John Ad
ams, the Vice President great vindicator and final
negotiator of our national independence whose
soul, flaming with freedom, broke forth in the early
declaration that "consenting to Slavery is a sac
rilegious breach of trust," and whose immitigable
hostility to this wrong has been made immortal to
his descendants. There also was a companion in
arms and detached friend, of incomparable genius,
the yel youthful Hamilton, who, as a member of the
Abolition society ot iew i orK, nad only recently
united m a solemn petition tor those who, "though
Slavery or shall we, become partakers of other men's f the laws of God, are held in Slavery by the
a small minority, with few here to whom 1 may
look for svmDathv or support, r uu weu i Know
that I must utter things unwelcome to many in this
bodv. which I cannot do without pain.- Full well
I know that the institution of slavery in our coun-1
try, which I now proceed to consider, is as senst-
sinsl I think neither of them.
Afterwards, in the first Congress under the Con
stitution, on a motion, which was much debated, to
introduce into the Impost Bill a duty on the impor
tation of slaves, the same Koger M. aherman, who
in the National Convention had opposed the idea of
property in man, authoritatively exposed the true
relations of the Constitution to Slavery. His, lan
guage was that "the Constitution does not consid
er these persons as property; it speaks of them as
persons."
Thus distinctly and constantly, from the very lips
of the framers of the Constitution, we learn the
falsehood of the recent assumptions in favor of Sla-
; very and in derogation of r reedom.
Thirdly, According to a familiar rule of interpri
j tation, all laws concerning the same matter, in pari
1 materia, are to be construed together. By the
same reason, the grand political acts of the Nation
are io oe consmiea wgeiner, giving anu receiving
light from each other. Earlier than the Uonnitu
n rionwa the Declaration of Independence, embody- Lhe South th found fervid utte6rance from
sectional; and this cause, which the founders of
our National Government bad so much as heart, is
called sectionalism. : These terms, now belonging
to the commonplace of political speech, are adopt
od and misapplied by most persons without rcfloc-
tinn nnt nflTein is me nuwer oi riiavprv. jc- , . . .
nnn,.-f.,i nnuni, inirtG shake a: ; ..i;,; r .!, vi, i. : be self-evident," tays the Nation, "that all men
t"T ... r - .1. .k.:k. 1 -""""8 " ... .? are created enual. that thev are endowed bv their
ih, nthnia and witn a bbdsluvcuchs tun, duiium miniro i uitiiR a I v . me ffranu monarcn. rjv.an acci- - ' .. ....
, " "L, . u t hilo these thinirs r ,,; Creator with certain inalienable rights; that amon
QU k l Kill UICa L IUQ wwwfc . . -. 0 llui v ojibwu, auivug 1 v""""-".
laws of the State.', There, too, was a noble spirit,
the ornament ot his country, the exemplar ot cour
age, truth, and virtue, who, like the sun, ever held
an unerring course, John Jay. Filling the impor
tant post of Minister of Foreign Affairs under the
Confederation, he found time to organize the Aboli
tion of Society of New York, and to act as its Pres
ident until, by the nomination ot Washington, he
became Chief Justice of the United States. In his
sight Slavery was an "iniquity," "a sin of crimson
dye," against which ministers of the gospel testify,
and which the (government should sees: to abolish.
"Were I in the Legislature," he wrote, "Ijwould
present a bill for this purpose with great care, and
I would never cease moving it till it became a law
or I ceased to be a member. Till America comes
into this measure, her prayers to Heaven will be
impious."
But they were not alone. The convictions and
earnest aspirations of the country were with them.
At the North these were broad and general. At
mg in immortal words, those primal truths to
which our country pledged itself with its baptis
: mal vows as a Nation. "We hold these truths to
slaveholders. By early and precocious efforts for
"total emancipation," the Author of the Declara
tion of Independence placed hiinself foremost
among the Abolitionists of the land. In language
now laminar to ail, ana wnicn can never--die, he
perpetually denounced S mjrciy . iie .exposed.
CIO. . ....... ... .. ft I . i.l.u..
miv orooerly prompt me to caution and reserve, changed the gender .if a noun; but Slavery has i tm are lite, uoerty, ana tne pursuit oi napmness, pernicious influences upon master a well as slave;
. ' J..V-. Jotn.Vr.ir.olmn I .1 .L! T. I I J J C J J WlSl IO BCCUR3 IUWJ riEUlB EUvClUulCHM ' I ,lartIoMrl Y
they ca mot change my duty, or my determination done more than this. It has changed word for word.
J .. T-i .i t :m I., r . I . . . . ....
tn nnrfnrm it. For this I willingly forget mysen,
nV all np.rsonal conseauences. The favor and
good-will of my fellov-citizens, of my brethren of
.1 O a;- rrrotAflll tn TY1A AH it lUStlv 18 1
am ready, if rea aired, to sacrifice. . AU that I am or
may be, I freely offer to this cause.
And here allow me, for one moment, to refer to
myself ami my position. Sir, I have never been a
politician. The slave of principles, I call no party
master. By sentiment, education, and conviction,
a friend of Human Rights, in their utmost expan
sion,' I have ever most sincerely embraced the
Democratic Idea ; not. indeed,: as represented or
nrofessed by any party, but according to us reai
It has taught many to say national, instead ef sec
tional, and sectional instead of national.
Slavery national! Sir, this is all a mistake and
absurdity, fit to take a place in some new collection
of Vulgar Errors, by some other Sir Thomas
Browne, with the ancient but exploded stones, that
the toad bias a stone in its head, and that ostriches
digest iron. According to the true spint of the
Constitution, and the sentiments of the Fathers,
Slavery and not Freedom is sectional, while Free
rfomand not Slavery is national On this unanswer
able proposition I take my stand. And here com
mences my argument.
The subject presents itselt under two principal
.lartlq-Ail tllt ,K InVA rtf 1 11 (j! Q 11 ll t l 1 11171. Ilf
uted among men, deriving their just rower from .,., nnMv for the km. ami that thn
the consent of the governed." But this does not ,.aboiition of domestic slavery was the greatest
stand alone. There is another national act of sim
ilar import. On the successful close of the Revo-
ution, the Continental Uongress, in an address to
the people, repeated the same lofty truth. "Let it
be remembered," said the Nation again, "that it
has ever been the pride and the boast of America,
that the rights for which she has contended were the
rights of human nature. By the blessing of the
Author ot these ngnts, they nave prevaueu over aa
opposition, and poem the basis of thirteen inde
pendent states " such were the acts oi me na
tion in its united capacity. .Whatever may be the
significance, as transfigured in the Declaration of I beads: First, the true relations of the National Gov-
Independence, and iri the injunctions oi Christian- I o-nmeni to Slavery, wherein it will appear that there
t ... T 1 T ... nA na r.ar i il il'i n t n TH, I - . 1 f . " . . f 1. .' U 1 ...... 1
lly . in inis tuea & ncn v uu.u... is no national iuuiiluu uu ui wuuimjuicij vwiuc
moral v for individuals or classes, but the sover- I Hnrived. and no national Dower, under the Const i-
ei?ntv of the people and the greatest happiness of I tution, by which it can be supported. Enlightened
II im-nml hv omial laws. Amidst the vicissitudes hv thi treneral survev. we shall be nrepared to con-
of public affairs, I trust always to hold last to this aider, Secondly, the true nature of the provision for
Idea, and to any political party which truly embra- tne rendUion of fugitives from labor, and herein espc
ces it. . '. cially the unconstitutional and offensive legislation
Party doe not constrain me ; nor is my inde- of Congress in pursuance tliercot.
pendence lessened by. any relations to the office I. And now f or the tbde relations op the Na
v.:k :. , a ,.iti to be heard on thi floor, tional Goverment to Slavert. These will be
And here sir I may speak proudly. By no effort, I readily apparent, if we do not neglect well-estab-
by no desire of my own, 1 find myself a Senator ot lished principles.
fL u;,A st;,t Never before have I held pub- If Slavery be national, if there be any power in
lie office of any kind. With the ample opportune- I the National Government to uphold this institution
ties of private tile I was content. . No tombstone I as in the recent slave Act it must be by virtue
fnr mo jwmM hoar a fairer inscriDtion than thi : I of the Constitution. Norcan it be by mere infer-
" Here lies on who, without the honors or emol- I ence, implication, or conjecture. According to the
- nmpni. nf nnhlu- station, did something for hi uniform admission of courts and jurists in Europe,
fellow man." Fiom such simple aspirations I was I again and again promulgated in our country, Sla
i.i.i, ,! h th froo. choice of mv native Com- I very can be derived only from clear and special re-
moa wealth, and placed in this responsible post of cognition. "The state of Slavery," said Lord
duty, without personal obligation of any kind, be- Mansfield, pronouncing judgment in the great case
yond what was implied in my life and published of Somersett'is of such a nature, that it is inca-
words. The earnest friends, by whose confidence pable of being introduced on any reasons moral or
I was first desionated. asked nothing from me, and, political, but only by positive law. It is so odious,
throughout the long conflict which ended in my that nothing van be suffered to support it but posi
nlootinn. roinirofl in tha nosition which I most I tive law." fHowell's State Trials, vol. 20, p. 82.)
carefully guarded. To all my language was uni-I And a slaveholding tribunal, the Supreme Court of
torm, that I did not desire to De Drougnt iorwaru ; i Mississippi, auopung me eauiu piiiivipic, u eam.
that. I would do nothing to promote the result;
that I ha) no pledge or promises to offer ) that
the office should seek me, and not I the office ; and
. that it sho'ild find me in all respects an independ
ent man. bound to no party and to no human bein
but only, according to my best judgment, to act for
the good of all. Again, sir, I speak with pride,
both for myself and others, when I add that these
- avowals found a sympathizing response. In this
spirit 1 have come here, and in this spirit I shall
apeak to-day.
-. Reioicin? in mv independence and claiming
nothing from party tie, I throw myself upon the
candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I now
ask your attention ; but I trust not to abuse it. I
mav sDeak strongly : for I shall speak openly and
from the strength of my conviction.; I may apeak
I warmlv : for I shall speak from the heart.- rtut in
'Slavery is condemned by reason and the laws of na
ture, it exists and can exist onv through municipal
regulations." Harry vs. Decker, Walker K., 42,)
And another slaveholding tribunal, the Supreme
Court of Kentucky, has said:
'We view this as aright existing by positive law of a
municipal character, without loundation in the law ot
nature or the unwritten and common law. (Kankm vs
Lydia, 2 Marshall, 470.)
Oi course every power to uphold Slavery must
have an origin a distinct a that of slavery itselt.
tvery presumption must be as strong against such
a power as against Slavery. A power so peculiar
and offensive, so hostile to reason, so repugnant to
the law ot nature and the inborn Rights ol Man;
which despoils its victims of the fruits of their la
bor; which substitute concubinage for marriage;
which abrogates the relation of parent and child;
no event can I forget the amenities which belong to w of educati the intel.
aenate, and wmcn especiai.y oecome im. uuuy . .prevents a true knowledge of God, and mur-
RlnttAPv T mnat Mnnilnmn With mv whrt A an 111 T hilt I - 1 r. . ... , . . ... .
Jli':j:. ;i:Z:,Z' ihlJ. ers very "; ."men, amidst a plausible pnys-
U&113 . ucni umjr vuiiun .111, i.iiaua. v. . .j....
object of desire." He believed that the " sacred
side was gaining daily recruits," and confidently
looked to The young for the accomplishment of this
good work. In fitful sympathy with Jenerson was
another honored son of Virginia, the Orator of Lib
erty, Patrick Henry, who, while confessing that he
was a master ot slaves, said : " 1 will not, 1 cannot
justify it. However culpable my conduct, I will
so tar pay my dovoir to virtue, as to own the excel
lence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my
want of conformity to them." At this very pe
riod, in the Legislature of Maryland, on a bill for
privileges of States m their individual capacities, h u f of oppres8ed slaves, a young man, after-
wivuui vucu """ , r war(js hy his consummate learnmg and forensic
can be attributed to the Nation, in the absence ot I x,m i,,i.i ,i uj r ,i,
iDsence oi er8 tbe acknowledged head of the American
with these r w;llim t;u : , u
fcSCbl ) 1IUIWU A I11BUVJ) au ta Ul,lU V A LUlllVObj
truthful eloquence better far for his memory than
his transcendent professional fame branded Sla
very as iniquitous and most dishonorable;" "found
ed in a disgraceful traffic ;" " as shameful in its
continuance a in its origin ;" and he openly de
clared, that, " by the eternal priuciples of natural
hold
nositive, unequivocal grant, inconsistent
two national declarations. Here, sir, is the nation
al heart, the national soul, the national will, the na
tional voice, which must inspire our interpretation
of the Constitution, and enter into and diffuse it
self through all the national legislation. : Xhus
again is Freedom national.
fourtnty ueyond incse is a principle oi me com- :ugtice, o master in the State has a right to
mon law, clear and indisputable, a supreme rule of . -.-j. . Bin-le hou, "
f.n.ii ... fi 1 1. K ,n ,,,. ..in tha,a oan ho 1
lUWipiCMIIVll 11 U 111 .. Ill 1. 1. Ill .111-1 uu.. .......
no apoeal. - In any question under the Constitu
tion every word is to be construed in favor of liberty.
This rule, which commends itself to the natural
reason, is sustained by time honored maxims of our
early jurisprudence. Blackstone aptly expresses
it, when he says that "the law is always ready to
catch at anything in favor of liberty."- 12 B ack.
com., yi.j . j ne ruie is repeateu in various tortus.
Favor ts ampliandi sunt; odia reslringenda. Favors
are to be amplified; hateful things to be restrained.
Lex Anglos est lex misericordia. The law of Eng
land is e law of mercy. Angla jura in omni casu
libertati dant favorem. The laws of Englandin eve
ry case show favor to liberty. And this sentiment
breaks forth in natural, though intense force, in the
maxim: lmpius et crudelis judicandus est qui libertati
non favet. He is to be adjudged impious and cruel
who doe not favor liberty. Reading the Constitu
tion in the admonition of these rules, again I say
Freedom is national.
Fifthly. From a learned judge of the Supreme
Pmrf nf the llnitfA Rtntpm in an nntninn nf tho
Court, we derive the same lesson. In considering right ot every human creature, of which no human
..,i,,: ni,.ih s,to - "nmhih; ho ;m. law can deprive him," he pleads : " If. therefore,
portation of slaves as merchandize, and whether 7" have a.ny regard to justice, (to say nothing of
r1 ,. : ih. .-; f nnsor tn i-ofrnlato morcv or the revealed law of (jrod,) render unto all
o ' .i ,i : i:i . , i . i : j.
Thus at this time spoke the Nation. The
Church also joined its voice. And here, amidst
the divers ties of religious faith, it is instructive to
observe the general accord. The Quakers first
bore their testimony. At the adoption ot the Con
stitution their whole body, under the early teaching
of George Fox, and by the crowning exertions of
Benezet and Woolman, had become an organized
hand of Abolitionists, penetrated by the conviction
that it was unlawful to hold a fellow-man in bond
age. The Methodists, numerous, earnest and
faithful, never ceased by their preachers to pro
claim the same truth. Their rules in 1788 de
nounced in formal language " the buying or selling
of bodies and soul of men, women, and children,
with an intention to enslave them." The wonts of
their great apostle, John Wesley, were constantly
repeated. On the eve of the National Convention,
the burning tract was cirpulated in which he expo
ses American slavery as the "vilest" of the world
' such Slavery as is not found among the Turks
at Algiers and, after declaring "liberty the birth-
era themselves ; nor would it accord with my hab
its or my sense of justice to exhibit them as the
impersonation of the institution Jefferson calls it
the "enormity" which they cherish. Of them 1
do not speak -, but without fear and without favor,
as without impeachment of any person, I assail
this wrong. Again, sir, I may err: bu' it will be
with the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient
ways of the Republic, with its grandest names, its
surest landmarks, arid all its original altar-fires
about me.
And now, on the very threshold, I encounter the
ical comfort, degrades man, created in the divine
image, to the level of a beast; such a power, so
eminent, so transcendent, so tyrannical, so unjust,
can find no place in any system of Government, un
less by virtue of positive sanction. It can spring
from no doubttul phrases. - it must De aeciarea oj
unambiguous words, incapable of a double sense.
Slavery, 1 now repeat, is not uiemiuntsu in mo
Constitution. The name Slave does not pollute
this Charter of our Liberties. No "positive ' lan
guage gives to Congress any powsr to make a Slave
or to hunt a Slave. To find even any seeming
Bl .. .. . . . . .
objection that there is a final settlement, in princi- "notion for either, we must travel, with doummi
pie and substance, of the question of Slavery, and fttep, beyond its-express letter, into the region
fi . ,. .- r : i.,l n..i. .u..i.i. I of interpretation. But here are rules which can-
not be disobeyed. With electric might for Free
dom, they send a pervasive influence through eve
ry provision, clause, and word of the Constitution.
Each and all make Slavery impossible as a national
institution. They efface from the Constitution ev
ery fountain out of which it can be derived.
First and foremost, is tho PimibAk ' This rlis-
-o.effir.aomenS &-r?fe& 1
all nragt pass, who would enter the sacred temple.
Here aie the inscriptions by which they are earliest
impressed. Here they firet catch the genius of the
place. Here the proclamation of Liberty is first
heard. 4tWe the People of the United States,"
says the Preamble, "in order to form a more perfect
Union, establish justice, insuredomes'.ic tranquillity.
provide lor tne common a tne nee, promote tne genet-
litical narties of the country, by iprmal ksoIu
tiona. have united in this declaration. On a sub-
' Wt whir-h for vears has affitated the public mind;
whir.h vet naloitates in every heart and burns on
everv tongue; which, in its immeasurable impor
tance, dwarfs all other subjects; which, by its con
stant and fritrantii: presence, throws a shadow
across those Halls; which at this very mon
for appropriations to meet extraordinary expenses
. it has caused, they have imposed the rule of silence.
According to them, sir, we may speak o I1 every
thing except that alone, which is most present in
all ous-minds.
To this combined effort I might fitly reply, that,
with flagrant inconsistency, it challenges the very
Idiscussion which it pretends to forbid. Such a de
claration, on the eve of an election, is, of course,
ie eve ox an eiecuuii, m, 01 course, i , ,r . .1. " r r :l
1 . . t . . t . . i f I U ujClICLTGs SkTWIi vCvlvf C t'tC ClWotHfo VI JWfUCrtl IU UUf
u r u . j I selves and our Posterity, d ordain and establish
necessary consequence. Silence becomes impossi
ble. Slavery, which you profess to baniah from the
ontinn nTip.TUv,jy.t yopr mvUntion enters
this Constitution for the United States of Ameri
ca." Thus, according to undeniable words, the
Constitution was ordained, not to establish, secure,
commerce among the' Stales, can interfere with
tbe slave-trade between the States, a principle has
been enunciated, which, while protecting the trade
from any intervention of Congress, declares openly
that the Constitution acts upon no man as proper
ty. Mr. Justice McLean says: "If slaves are con
sidered in some of the States as merchandise, that
cannot divest them of the leading and controlling
quality of persons by which they are designated in !
the Constitution. The character of property is
given them by the local law. This taw is respect
ed, and all rights under it are protected by the Fed-
I eral authorities; but the Constitution acts upon slaves
as persons, and not as property. " 1 he
power over Slavery belongs to the States respec
tively. In its local character, and in its effects."
(Groves vs. Slaughter, 15 Peters R., 507). Here
again Slavery is sectional, while Freedom is na
tional. - Sir, such briefly are the rules of interpretation
which, as applied to the Constitution, fill it with
the breath of Freedom,
Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt.
To the history and prevailing sentiments of the
times we may turn lor limner assurance, in tne
spirit of Freedom the Constitution was formed.
In this spirit our Fathers always spoke and acted.
In this spirit the .National Government wa ; nrst
organised under Washington. And here I recall a
scene in itself a touchstone of the period, and an
example for us, upon which we may look with pure,
national pride, w nil e we learn anew me relations oi
tbe IN at l onal uovernmcnt loaiavery.
The Revolution had been accomplished. The
feeble Government of th Confederation had pass
ed. The Constitution, slowly matured in a Na
tional Convention, discussed before the people, de
fended by masterly pens, haa been already adopted.
The thirteen States stood forth a nation, wherein
was unity without consolidation, and diversity
without discord, rue Hopes oi an were anxiously
hanrnni? uoonthe new order of things and the
mitrhtv procession of events. With signal unan
imity Washington was chosen President. Leaving
his home at Mount Vernon,, he repaired to JNew
York, where.the first Congress had U.eady com
menced its session, to assume his place as elected
Chief of the Republic. On the thirtieth of April,
1789, the organization of the , Government was
completed by his inauguration. Entering the Sen
ate Chamber, where tho two Houses were assem-
their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due,
that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of
human nature." At the same time, the Presbyte
rians, a powerful religious body, inspired by the
principles of John Calvin, in more moderate lan
guage, but by a public act, recorded their judgment,
recommending " to all the people under their care
to use the most prudent measures consistent with
the interest and the state of civil society, to procure
eventually the final abolition of Slavery in America."
The Congregationalists of New England, also of
the faith of John Calvin, and with the hatred of
Slavery belonging to the great non-contormist,
Richard Baxter, were sternly united against this
wrong. As early as 1776, Samuel Hopkins, their
eminent leader and divine, published his tract
showing it to be the Duty and interest oi ine
American States to Emancipate all their African
slaves, and declaring that " Slavery is in every
instance wrong, unrighteous, and oppressive a
very great and crying sin there being nothing of
the kind equal to it on the face of the earth."
And, in 1791, shortly after the adoption ot the
Constitution, the second Jonathan Edwards, a
twice-honored name, in an elaborate discourse
often published, called upon his country, " in the
present blaze of light" on the injustice of Slavery,
to prepare the way for " its total abolition." This
he gladly thought at hand. If we judge of the
future by the past," said the celebrated preacher,
" within fifty years from this tiir.o it will be as
shameful for a man to hold a negro slave as to be
guilty of common robbery or theft."
Thus, at this time, the Church, in harmony with
the Nation, by its leading denominations, Quakers,
Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists,
thundered agair st Slavery. The Colleges-were
in unison with the Church. Harvard University
spoke by the voice of Massachusetts, which had
already abolished Slavery. Dartmouth College, by
one of its learned professors, claimed for the slaves
' equal privileges with the whites." Yale College,
by its President, the eminent divine, Ezra Stiles,
became the head of the Abolition Society of Con
necticut. And the University of William and
Mary, in Virginia, testified its sympathy with this
cause at this very time, by conterring upon Uran
ville Sharp, the acknowledged chief of British Ab
olitionists, the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.
The Literature of the land, such as then exist
ed, agreed with the Nation, the Church and the
their constitution of Government, have declared to
be the inalienable birthright of man."
Sacti, sir, at the adoption of the Constitution and at th
first organisation of tbe National Government, was the oat
spoken, unequivocal heart of the country. Slavery was ab
hOTed. Like the slave trade, it was regarded as temporary;
and, hy many, it was supposed that they would both disap
pear together. Voices of Freedom filled the air. The patriot,
tits Christian, the scholar, the writer, vied in loyalty to this
causa. AU were Abolitionists.
Glance uow at tbe earliest Conzress under toe Constitu
tion. From various quarters memorials were presented to
this body against Slavery. Among these was one from the
Abel tioa society ot v irgmia, wherein Slavery is pronounced
'-not only aa odious degradation, but an outrageous violation
of one of the mon essential rights of human nature, and
utterly repugnant to the precepts of the Gospel." Still an
other, of a mare important character, came from the Aboli
tion Society of Pennsylvania, and was signed by Benjamin
ranklin, as rTdsident. This veneraote man, wnose active
life had been ?oted to the welfare of mankind at home and
abroad wfeo, both as philosopher and statesman, had ar
rested the admiration of tae world who had ravished tha
lightning from ths skies and the sceptre from a tyrant who,
asamemnerot tne continental congress, qso sei ais nmiw
to the Declaration of ladependence and as a member of the
National convention, had again set h'4 name to the Consti
tution in whome more, perhaps, than in any other person,
was embodied the true spirit of American institutions, at
o ce practical and huunna thia wham bo one couli be
more familiar with th? purposes and aspirations of the found
ers this veteran, ei fhty-four years of aee, within a few
montas oi ma acain, now appeared Dy petition at tne oar oi
that Congress, who'ie powers he had helped to define and
establish. This vasthe last political act ofhisloag life.
Listen to the prayer of Franklin :
- "Xour memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to
the distresses arrlsingfom Slavery, believe it to be their
indispensable dc-:y to present this subject to your notic. -They
have observed with real satisfaction that many impor
tant and salutary powers are vested in you for promoting
the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people
of the United States; and as they conceive that these bless
ings ought rig-u fully to bs a 1 ministered, without distinction
of colort to all discripttons of psople, ? they indulge them'
selves in the pleasing expectation that nothing which can be
done for the relief of the unhappy object of their care, will be
either omitted or delated." tinder these imoressions they
earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of
Slavery; that vou will be pleased to countenance the restora
tion of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in this land of
freedom., are aegraded tnto perpecaai tonnage, ana wno,
amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are groan
ing in servile subjection; that yon will promote mercy and
justice towards this distressed race and that you will step
to the very verge of th: ptwsrs vested in ym for DISCOUR
AGING every species of trajfi; in the persons of our fellow
men."
Important words ! In themselves a key-note of the times.
From his grave Franklin seems still to call upon Congress to
step to the very verge of the powers vested in it to discourage
Slave a t ; and, in maitingthis prayer, he proclaims the true
national policy of the Fathers. Not encouragement, but
discouragement of Slavery was thsir rule.
Sir, enough has baea said to show the sentiment which,
like a vital air, surrounded the National Government as it
stepped into beiu. In the face of this history, and in the
absence of any positive sane tioa, it is absurd to suppose that
Slavery, which under the Confederation was merely sec
tional, was now constituted a national institution. But
there is yet another link in the argument.
In the discussions which took place in the local conven
tions on the adoption of the Constitution, a sensitive desire
was manifested to surround all pe sons under the Constitu
tion with additional safeguards. Fears were expressed from
the supposed indefiniteness of some of the powers conceded
to th? National Government, and also from the absence of a
Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, oa ratifying tha Constitution,
proposed a series of amendments, at the head of which was
this, characterized by Samuel Adims, in the Convention as
" a summary of a Bill of Kights .
"That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not ex
pressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved
to the several States, to be by them exercised."
Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with minor
ities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, united in this proposi
tion. In pursumcs of these recommendations, the first
Congress presented for adoption the following article, which,
being ratified by a proper number of States, became a part of
the constitution, as the lutu amendment:
The powers not delegated to tho United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the states respectively, or to tne pe3pte,
Stronger words could not be employed to limit the power
under the Constitution, and to protect the people from all as
sumptions of the National Governxent, particularly in dero
gation of Freedom. Irs guardian character commended it to
the sagacious mind of Jenerson, who said. "I consider the
foundation corner-stone of the Constitution of tha United
States to 03 laid upon tbe tenth article of the amendments."
And Samuel Adams, ever watchful for Freedom, said: "It re
moves a doubt which many have entertained respecting the
matter, and gives assurance that, it eny law made by the
Federal Government shall be extended beyond the power
grunted by tbe Constituti on, and inconsistent with the Con
stitution oi tnis Mate, it wiu oe au error, ana aajuagea oy
the courts of law to be void."
Beyond all question the National Government, ordained
by the Constitution, is not general or universal; but special
and particular. It is a Government of limited powers. It
has no power which is not delegated. Especially is this clear
with regaruto an institution like Slavery. The Constitution
contains no power to make a King or to support kingly rule.
With similar reason it may said, that it contains no power
to make a slave or to support a system ot blavery. rue ab
sence of all each power is hardly more clear in one case than
in the other.
At the riskofrepetion, bat for the sake of clearness, re
view now this argument, and gather it together. Consider
ing I hat Slavery is of such an otfansive character that it can
find sanction only in ' positive law," and that it has no such
"positive" sanction in the Constitntion ; taat the Constitu
tion, according to its Preamble, was ordained " to establish
justice" and ' secure the blessings of liberty;" that, in the
Convention which framed it, and also elii where at the time,
it was declared not to sanction Slavery; that, according to
the Declaration of Independence and the Address of the Con
tinental Congress, the Nation was dedicated to "liberty,"
and the " rights of human nature;' that, according to the
principles of the ommon law, the Constitution must be in
terpreted openly, actively, and perpetually, for Freedom;
that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it acts
upon staves, nor as propertyy ut as persons; tnat, at tne
hrst organization oftfie National Government under Wash
ington, Slavery Uad no catiouul favor, and existed nowTIee
beneath the nuonal flag or on the national territory, but was
openly condemned by the Nation, the Church, the Colleges,
and Literature of the time, and finally, that, according to au
Amendment of the Constitution, ttie National Government
can only excrjise powers delegated to it, among which there
is none to support slavery; considering these things, sir, it
is impossible to avoid the single conclusion that Slavery is in
no respect a national institution, and that the Constitution
nowhere upholds property iu man.
But there is one other special provision of the Constitution,
woica i aave reserveu to mis stage, not so much irom its su
perior importance, but because it may fitly stand by itself.
This aioce, u practical! y appnea, wouiacarrv f reedom to all
within its influence. It is an amendment proposed bv the
nrst uongress, as ioiiows:
No prvn siall be deprived of life, Itbertu.. or oroDertv.
wunout aue process oj taw.
Under this segis the liberty of every person within the na
tional jurisdiction is unequivocally placed. 1 say of every
person, ui this mere can oe no question, i ne word "per
son" in the Constitution embraces every human being
witnin us spnere, wneiner uaucassian, maian, or Airican,
from tbe President-to the slave. Show me a person, no mat
ter what his condition, or race, or color, within the national
jurisdiction, and I confidently claim for him this protection.
The natural meaning oi tne clause is clear, out a single tact
of its history places it in the broad light of noon. As origi
nally recommended by North Carolina and Virginia, it was
restrained to the freeman. Its language was, "No freeman
ought to be deprived of bis life, liberty, or property, but by the
law of tbe laud." In rejecting this limitation, the authors
of the amendment revealed their purpose, that no ner&on.un
der the National Government, of whatever character, shall
ot deprived ol liberty wuuout aue process or law; that is,
without due presentment, indictment, or other judicial pro
ceedings. Here by this Amendment is an express guaranty
of Personal Liberty, and an express prohibition against its
invasion anywnere, at least witnin me national jurisdiction.
sir, appiv these principles, ana slavery will again be as
when Washington took his first oath as President. The
Union Flag of the Republic will become once more the flag
of Freedom, and at all points within the national jurisdiction
will refuse to cover a slave. Beneath its beneficent folds,
wherever it is carried, on land or sea, Slavery will disappear,
e darkness under tbe arrows of the ascending sun like
the Spirit of Eva before the Angel of the Lord. t
In au national territories ssiavery win oe impossible.
On the high seas, under the national flag, Slavery will be
inipKsibie.
Iii i lie District of Columbia Slavery will instantly cease.
Ins pi red by these principles, Congress can give no sanction
to Slavery by ihe a: i mission of new S'ave States.
Nowhere under the Constitution, can the Nation, bv legis
lation or otherwise, support Slavery, hunt slaves, or hold
property in man.
Such, sir, are my sincere convictions. According to the
Constitution, as I understand it, the light of the Past and of
its true principles, there is no otner conclusion which is ra
tional or tenable: which does not defy the authoritative rules
of interpretation; which does not falsify indisputable facts of
history; which does not affront the public opinion in which
it had its birth; and which does not dishonor the memory of
ttie t amers. Ana yet ine convictions are now placed under
formal ban by politicians of the hour. The generous senti
ments which filled the early patriots, and which impressed
upon the Government they founded, as upon the coin they cir
culated, the image and supe inscription of Liberty, have
lost their power. The slave-masters, few in number, amount
ing to about 300.000, according to the recent census, have suc
ceeded in dictating tne poiiDy ot tne National Government,
and hive ritten Slavery on its front. And now an arro
gant and unrelenting ostracism is applied; not only to all
who express themselves against Slavery, but to every man
who is unwilling to be the menial of Slavery. A novel test
for office is introduced, which would have excluded all the
Fathers of the Republic even Washington, Jefferson, and
Franklin! Yes, sir. Startling as it may be; but indisputa
ble. Could these revered demigods of history once again
descend upon the earth, and mingle in our affairs, not one of
them could receive a nomination Irom the National Conven
tion of either the two old political parties! Out of the con
victions of their hearts and tbe utterances of their lips against
Slavery they would be condemned.
This single fact reveals the extent to which the National
Government has departed from its true course and its great
examples. For myself, 1 know no better aim under the Con
stitution, than to bring the Government back to the precise
position on this question wnicu it occupied on tue auspicious
morning of its first organization under Washington:
ours us iierare
Relictos;
that the sentiments of the Fathers may again prevail with
our rulers, and that the National Flag may nowhere shelter
Slavery.
To such as count this aspiration unreasonable let me
commend a renowned aud life-giving precedent of Eng
lish history. As early as the days of Queen Elizabeth,
a courtier had boasted that the air of England was too
pure for a slave to breathe, and the common law was
said to forbid Slavery. And yet in the face of this
vaunt, kindred to that ot our r at hers, and so truly hon
orable, slaves were introduced from the West Indies.
The custom of slavery gradually prevailed. Its posi
tive legality was affirmed, in profcssunal opinions, by
two eminent lawyers, lalbot and lorke, each after
wards Lord Chancellor. It was also affirmed on the
bench by the latter as Lord Hardwicke. England was
already a Slave State. The following advertisement,
copied from a London newspaper, the Public Advertiser,
of Nov. 22d, I7G9, shews that tho journpls there were
disfigured as some of ours, even in the District of Co
lumbia: "To be sold, a black girl, the property of J. B., eleven
years of age, who is extremely handy, works at her
needle tolerably, and speaks English perfectly well; is
of an excellent temper and willing disposition. En
quire of her Owner at the Angel Inn, behind St. Clem
ent's Church, in the Strand."
At last, only three years after this advertisement, in
1772, the single question of the legality of Slavery was
presented to Lord Mansfield, on a writ ot Habeas Cor
vus. A poor negro, named Someraott, brought to- Eng
land as a stavo, became ill, and with an -inhumanity
disgraceful even to slavery, was turned adrift upon the
world. Through the charity of an estimable man, the
eminent Abolitionist, Granville Sharpc, he was restored
to health, when his unfeeling and avaricious master
again claimed htm as a bondman. 1 he claim was re
nelrd. After an elaborate and n retracted discussion
in Westminster Hall, marked by rare learning and abil-
banished from the national jurisdiction, it will cease to
vex our national politics. It may linger in the States
as a local institution; but it will no longer engender na
tional animosities, when it no linger demands national
support.
11. From this general review ot tne relations ot tne
National Government to Slavery, I pass to the consid
eration of the TRUE HATURB OP THB PROVISION 10 R
the surrender of FCGiTivss p Kox labor, embra
cing an examination of this provision in the Constitu
tion, and especially of the recent act of Congress in
pursuance thereof. And here, as i begin this discus
sion, let me bespeak anew yourcandor. Not in preju
dice, but in the light of history and of reason, let us con
sider this subject. The way will then be easy and the
conclusion certain.
Much error arises from the exae?erat imnn.nM
now attached to this provision, and from the assump
tions with regard to its origin and primitive character.
It is often asserted that it was suggested by some spe
cie difficulty, which had become practically and exten
sively felt, anterior to the Constitution. . But this is
one of the myths or fables with which the supporters of
Slavery have surrounded their false god. In the Arti-
cles of Confederation, while provision is made for the
surrender of fugitive criminals, nothing is said of fugi
tive slaves or servants; and there is no evidence in any
quarter, until after the National Convention, of any
hardship or solicitude on this account. No previous
voice was heard to express desire tor any provision on ;
the subject. The story to the contrary is a modern lie
tion.
I out aside as equally fabulous the common saying
that this provision was one of the original compromises
of the Constitution and an essential condition of Un
ion. Though sanctioned by eminent judicial opinions,
it will be found that this statement has been hastily
made, without any support in the records of the Con
vention, ihe only authentic evidence of the compromis -es;
nor will it be easy to find any authority for it in any
contemporary document, speech, published letter or
pamphlet ot any kind. It is true that there were com
promises at the formation of the Constitution, which
were the subject of anxious debate; but this was not of
them. - . ' ,
There was a compromise between the small and large
States, by which equality was jecured to all the States
in the Senate. There was another compromise finally
carried, under threats from the South, on the motion oj
a iVeie rngiana member. Dy which tne "Slave States
were allowed Representatives according to the whole
number of free persons, and ' three-fifths of all other
persons;" thus securing political power on account of
their slaves, in consideration that direct taxes should
be apportioned in the same way. Direct taxes have
been imposed at only four brief intervals. The political
power has been constant, and, at this moment, sends
twenty one members to the other House.
There was a third compromise, which cannot be men
tioned without shame, it was that hateful bargain by
which Congress were restrained until 1809 from the
prohibition of the foreign slave trade, thus securing,
down to that period, toleration for crime. This was
pertinaciously pressed by the South, even to the extent
of an absolute restraint on Congress. John Rutledgo
said: "If the Convention thinks North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to this plan the
Federal Constitution! unless their right to import slaves
be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of
those States will never be such fools as to give up so
important an interest." Charles incfcney said:
South Carolina can never receive the plan lot the
Constitutionlif it prohibits the slave trade." Charles
Cotesworth Pinckney "thought himself bound to de
clare candidly that he did not think South Carolina
would stop her importation of slaves in any short time.'
1 he eii --ontery ot the slaveholders was matched bv the
ordidness of the Eastern members, who yielded again. .
Luther Martin, the eminent member of the Convention, I
in his contemporary address to ths Legislature of Mary- '
land, has described the compromise. I found," he says,
"that the Eastern members, notwithstanding their aver- ;
sion to Slavery, were very willing to indu lge the South
ern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prose
cute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would
in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navi
gation acts. l he bargain was struck., and at this price
the Southern States gained the detestable indulgence.
At a subsequent day, Congress branded the sla-e trade
as piracy, and thus, by solemn legislative act, adjudged
this compromise to be felonious and wicked.
Such a-e the three chiet original compromises ol the
Constitution and essential conditions of Union. The
case of fugitives from labor is not of these. During the
Convention, it was not in any way associated with
these. Nor is there any evidence, from the records of
this body, that the provision on this subject was regard
ed with any peculiar interest. As its absence from the
Articles ot Confederation Q3d not been the occasion of
solicitude or desire, anterior to the National Conven
tion, so it did not enter into any of the original plans of
ihe Constitution. It was introduced at a late period of
the Convention, and with very little and most casual
discussion, adopted. A few facts will show unfounded
are the recent assumptions.
i he .National convention was convoked to meet at
Philadelphia on the second Monday in May, 1787.
Several membra appeared atthi3time: but a maiority
of the States not being represented, those present ad
journed from day to day until the 25th, when the Con
vention was organized by the choice ot deorge Wash
ington, as President. On the 28th, a few brief rules
and orders were adopted. On the next day they com
menced their great work. -
On this day Edmund Randolph, of slaveholding Vir
ginia. laid before the Convention a series of sixteen
resolutions, containing his plan for the establishment
of a new National Government. Here was no allusion
to fugitive slaves.
On tote same dav. Charles Pincknev. of slave-hold
ing South Carolina, laid before the Convention what
is called "a draft of a Federal Government, to be agreed
upon between the free and independent States of A-
menca, an elaborate paper, marked by considerable
minuteness of detail. Heie are provisions, borrowed
from the Articles of Confederation, securing to citi
zens ot eacn otate equal privileges in the several
Stales; giving faith to the public records of the States;
and ordaining the surrender of fugitives from justice.
mit tnis a rait, tnougn irom the naming guardian of the
slave interest contained no allusion to fugitive slaves.
In the course of the Convention other olans were
brought forward; on the 15th of June a series of eleven
propositions by M.r. Patterson, of New Jersey, 'so as
to render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exi
gencies of Government, and the preservation of the
union; on ine imn oi June, eleven propositions hy
Mr. Hamilton, of New York, "containing his ideas of
a suitable plan of Government for the United States;"
and on the 19th June, Mr. Randolph's resolutions, orig
iually offered on the 29th May, "as altered, amended,
and agreed to in Committee of the Whole House." On
the 26th, twenty-three resolutions, already adopted on
different days in the Convention, were referred to a
'Committee of Detail," to be reduced to the form of a
Constitution. On the 6th August this committee re
ported the finished draft of a Constitution. And yet in
all these resolutions, plans, and drafts, seven in number,
proceeding from eminent members and from able com
mittees, no allusion was made to fugitive slaves. For
three months the Convention was in session, and not a
word uttered on this subject.
At last, on the 2oth August, as the Convention was
drawing to a close, on the consideration of the article
providing lor the privileges ot citizens indifferent
States, we meet the first reference to this matter, in
words worthy of note: "Gen. Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He SEEMED to
wish some provision should be included in favor of proD-
erty in slaves." But he made no proposition. Unwill
ing to shoes, tne convention ana uncertain in his own
mind, he only seemed to wish sucft a provision. In this
vague expression of a vague desire this idea first ap
peared, in this modest, hesitating phrase is the germ
of the audacious unhesitating Slave Act. Here is the
little vapor, which has since swollen, as in the Arabian
tale, to the power and dimensions of a giant. The next
article under discussion provided for the surrender of
fugitives from justice. Mr. Butler and Mr. Charles
Pinckney, both from South Carolina, now moved open
ly to require "fugitive slaves and servants to be deliv
ered up like criminals." Here was no disguise. , With
Hamlet it was now said in spirit
Seems, madam, nay, it is; I know not seems.
But the very boldness of the effort drew attention and
opposition. Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, at once ob
jected: "This would oblige the Executive of the State
to do it at the public expense." Mr. Sherman, of Con
necticut, "saw no more propriety in the public seizing
and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse." Un
der the pressure of these objections the offensive pro
position was quietly withdrawn. The article for the
surrender of criminals was then adopted. On the next
day, August 29th, profiting by the suggestions already
made, Mr. Butler moved a proposition substantially
like that now found in the Constitution not directly for
the surrender of fugit ives slaves,' as originally proposed
out of "fugitives from service or labor," which, with
out debate, or opposition of any kind, was unanimously
adopted.
. The provision, which showed itself thus tardily and
was so slightly noticed in the National Convention, was
neglected in much'ofthe contemporaneousdiscussion be
fore the people. In the Conventions of S. Carolina, N
Carolina and Virginia, 11 was commended as securing im
portant rights, though on this point there was a differ
ence of opinion. In the Virginia Convention, an em
inent character, Mr. Ueorge Mason, with others ex
pressly declared that there was "no security of proper
ty coming within this section." In ihe other Conven
tions it was disregarded. Massachusetts, while exhib
iting peculiar sensitiveness at any responsibility for
Slavery, seemed to view it with unconcern. 1 he r ed-
eralist, (No. 42,) in its classification of the powers of
Congress, describes and groups a large numbers as those
"which provide tor the harmony and proper intercourse
among the States," and therein speaks of the power
over public records standing next in the Constitution
to the provision on fugitives from labor; but it fails to
recognise the latter among the means ol promoting that
"harmony and proper intercourse;" nor does it anywhere
allude to tho provision.
The indifference which had thus far attended this
subject still continued. The earliest act of Congress,
passed in 1793, drew little attention. It was not orig
inally suggested by any difficulty or anxiety touching
fugitives from labor; nor is there any record of the times,
in debate or otherwise, showing that any special im
portance was attached to its provisions in this regard,"
The attention of Congress had been directed to fugi
tives from justice, at.d. with little deliberation, it un
dertook, in the same bill to provide for both classes of
cases. In this accidental manner was legislation on
this subject first attempted.
There is no evidence that fugitives were often seized
under this act. From a competent inquiier we learr
that twenty-six years elapsed before a single Slavs was
surrendered under it in any Free State. It is certain
that, in a case at Boston, towards the close of the last
century, illustrated by Josiah Ciiincy as counsel, tho
crowd about the magistrate at llje examination quietly
and spontaneously opened a way for the fuailivo, snd
thus the Act failed to be executed. It is also certain
that, in Vermont, at the beginning of the century, a
Judge of the Supreme Court of this State on applica
tion for the surrender of an alleged slave, accompanied
by documentary evidence, refused to comply unlets th
cassions of this subject, has thus far been unnoticed, is
i-nieny remarnalile as tne earliest recorded evidence of
the unwarrantable assertion, now so common, that this
provision was originally of vital importance to the peace
and harmony of the country.
At last, in 1850, we have another Act, passed by both
Houses of Congress and approved by the President,
familiarly known as the Fugitive Slave Bill. As I
read this statute I am filled with painful emotions.
The masterly subtlety with which it is drawn, misht
challenge admiration, if exerted for a benevolent pur-
pose; but in a n age of sensibility and refinement, a ma
chine of torture, however skilful and apt, cannot be re
garded without horror. Sir, in the name of the Con
stitntion which it violates; of my country which it dis
honors; of Humanity which it degrades; of Christiani
ty which it offends, I arraign this enactment, and now
hold it up to the judgment of the Senate and the world.
Again 1 shrink from no responsibility. 1 may seem to
stand alone; but all the patriots and martyrs of history,
all the Fathers of the Republic, are with me. Sir,
there is no attribute of God which does not unite against
this Act.
r 1 Jam 10 refard it now chiefly as an infringement .
? c,onstitution. And here its outrages, flagrant aa
manifold, assume the deepest dye and broadest charac
ter only when we consider that by its language it is not
restrained to, any speeial race or class, to the African
or to the person with African blood; but that any inhab
itant of the United States, of whatever complexion or
condition, may be its victim. Without discrimination
of color even, and m violation of every presumption of
freedom, the Act surrenders all. who
as "owing service or labor" to the same tyrannical pro
ceedings. If there be any, whose sympathies are not
moved for the slave, who do not cherish the rights of the
humble African, struggling for divine Freedom, sa
warmly as the rights of the white man, let him consider
well that the rights of all are equally assailed. "Ne
phew," said Algernon Sidney in prison, on the night be
fore his execution, "1 value not my own life a chip, but
what concerns me is that the lain which takes away
my life may hang every one of you, whenever it is
thought convenient." -
Though thus comprehensive in its provisions and ap
plicable to all, there is no safeguard of Human Free
dom which it does not set at naught
It commits this great question than which none is
more sacred in the law not to a solemn trial; but to
summary proceedings.
It commits this question not to one of the high tri
bunals of the land bnt to the unaided judgment of a
single petty magistrate.
It commits this question to a magistrate, appointed,
not by the President with the consent of the Senate,
but by the Court; holding his office, not during good be
haviour, but merely during the will of the Court; and
receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to -each
individual case. ;
- it authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, by affi
davits, without the sanction of cross-examination.
It denies the writ of Habeas Copras, ever known as
the Palladium of the citizen.
Contrary to the declared purposes of tne framers of
the Constitution, it sends the fugitive back "at the pub-:
lie expense." -s.
Adding meanness to the violation of the Constitu
tion, it bribes the Commissioner by a double fee to pro
nounce against Freedom. If he dooms a man to Slave
ry, the reward is ten dollars; but, saving him to Free
dom, his dole is five dollars. N
The Constitution expressly secures the "free exercise
of religion;" but this Act visits with unrelenting pen
alties the faithful men and women, who may render tq,
the fugitive that countenance, succor, and shelter, V
which in their conscience "religion" seems to require.
As it is for the public weal that there should be an end
of suits, so by the consent of civilized nations, these
must be instituted within fixed limitations of time; but
this Act, exalting Slaverv above even the practical
principle of universal justice, ordains proceedings
against Freedom without any reference to lapse of time.
Glancinz onlv.at these noints. and notstooDin? fnrr
gument, vindication, or iliustrationI come at once up
on the two chief radical objections to this Act, identi
cal in principle with those brought by our fathers '
against the British Stamp Act; first, that it is ausurpa- '
tion by Congress of powers not granted by the Consti
tution, and an infraction of rights secured to the Slates;
and, secondly, that it takes away Trial by Jury in a
question of Personal Liberty and a suit at common
law. Eitherof these objections, if sustained, strikes
at the very root of the Act That it is obnoxious to
both seems beyond doubt.
But here, at this staee, 1 encounter the dimouli v. that
these objections have been already foreclosed by the
legislation of Congress and.by the decisions ot the Sur
premc Court; that as early as 1793 Congress assumed
power over this subject by an Act, which failed to se
cure Trial by Jury, and that the validity of this Act un
der the Constitution has been affirmed by the Supreme
uoun. un examination tnis aimcuuy win aisappear.
The Act ot 1793 proceeded from a Concress that had
already recognised the United States Bank, chartered
by a previous Congress, which, though Sanctioned by-
tne oupreroe uran, nas Deen since in nigh quarters pro
nounced unconstitutional. If it erred as to the Bank,
it may have erred also as to fugitives from labor. But
the very Act contains a capital error on this very sub
ject, so declared by the Supreme Court, in pretending
to vest a portion of the judicial power of the Nation in
State officers. This error takes from the Act all au
thority as an interpretation of the Constitution. 1 dis
miss it.
The decisions of the Supreme Court are entitled to
great consideration, and will not be mentioned by me
except with respect Among the memories of my youth
are happy days in which I sat at the feet of this tri-
bunal, while Marshall presided, with Story by his side.
The pressure now proceeds from the case of Prigg vs.
Pennsylvania, (16 Peters. 539,) wherein the power of
Congress over this matter is asserted. Without going
into any minute criticism of this judgment, or consider
ing the extent to which it is extra-judicial, and there
fore of no binding force, all which has been already .
done at the bar in one State, and by an able court in
another; but conceding to it a certain degree of weight
as a rule to the judiciary on this particular point, still
it does not touch the grave question arising from the de
nial of Trial by Jury. This judgment was pronounced
by Mr. Justice Story. From the interesting biography
of this great jurist, recently published by his son, we
derive the distinct statement that the necessity of Trial
by Jury was not before the Court; so that, in the esti
mation of the Ju-lge himself, it was still an open ques
tion. Here aie the words:
'One prevailing opinion, which has created great
prejudice against this judgment, is, that it denies tbe
right of a person claimed as a fugitive from service or
labor to a trial by jury. This mistake arises from sup
posing the case to involve the general question as to the
constitutionality of the Act of 1793. But in fact no
such question was in the case; and the argument that
the Act of 1793 was unconstitutional, because it did not
provide for atrial by jury according to the requisitions
of the sixth article in the amendments to the Constitn
tion, having been suggested to my father on his return
from Washington, he replied that this question was not
argued by counsel nor considered by the Court, and
that he should still consider it an open one."
But whatever may be the influence of this judgment
as a rule to the judiciary, it cannot airest our duty as
legislators. And here I adopt with entire assent the .
language of President Jackson, in his memorable Veto,
in 1832, of the Bank of the United States. To his
course was opposed the authority of the Supreme Court,
and this is his reply:
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covers the
whole ground of this Act, it ought not to control the co
ordinate authorities of this Government The Con
gress, the Executive, and the Court, must each for it
self be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.
Each public officer, who takes an oath ta support the Con-
stitution, swears that he will support it as he understands
it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much
the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Sen
ate, and the President, to decide upon the constitution
ality of any bill or resolution, which may be presented
to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme
Judges when it may be brought before them for judicial
deeision. The authority of the Supreme Court must
not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or
the Executive, when acting in their legislativeeapaci
ties, but to have only suchinfiuence as the force of their
reasoning may deserve.""
With these authoritative words of Andrew Jackson I
dismiss this topic The early legislation of Congress
and the decisions of the Supreme Court cannot stand in
our way. I advance to the argument
(1.) iVoir.jSrsr, of the power of Congress over this sub
ject. The Constitution contains powers granted to Con
gress, compacts between the States, anil prohibitions ad
dressed to the Nation and to the States. A compact or
prohibition may be accompanied by a power, but not
nessarily, for it is essentially distinct in its nature.
And here the single question arises, whether the Con
stitution, by grant, general or special, confers upon Con-
.v..w u KimMauu mo suoieci ox ingiuves
rom labor. .
The whole legislative novpr nf ;. : j
from two sou rces; first from the general grant of power,
attached to the long catalogue of powers, Uo make all
RW9 Which ahflll hn naA(M.- 1 e .1
...... .. . . ouu proper lor me carry
ing into execution the feregoing powers and al! other
powers vested bv this Con.titui,'.in ;. .k. n
of the United States, or in any department or o ncer
auusrouuaiy, irom special grants in ither
parts ot the Constitution. As the provision in question
does not appear in the catalogue of powers and does
not purport to vest any.powerin the Government of the
United states, or in any department or officer thereof,
no power to legislate on this subject can be derived
ruin any special grant norcan any such power be de
rived from any other part of the Constitution; for nons
BUch exists. The conclusion must be, that no power is
delegated to Congress over the surrender of fugitives
from labor.
In oil contemporary discussions and comments, the
Constitution was constantly justified and recommend
ed, on the ground that the powers not given to the Gov
eminent are withheld from it If under its original
provisions any doubt could have existed oh this Sead,
TWiT 1 3 r." !'H,gua89 wmove, it, by
the Tenth Amendment, which, as we have already seen,
-United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively as
to the people. Here on the simple text of tha Consti
tution 1 might leave this question. But its importance
justifies a more extended examination in a two-fold
light; first, m the history of the Convention, revealing
the jinmistakcahle intention of its msmbers; and sec
ondly, in the true principles of our Political System, by
sTatesU
1 Ltlrk . u' , j Ahe i'i'Tort Convention.' The arti
cles ot the old Confederation, adopted bv the Continen
tal lonmss 15th November, 1777, though containing
no reference to fugitives from labor, had provisions sub
atantially like those in our present Constitution, touch ,'
ing the privileges of eitiaens in the several States, the
surrender of fugitives from justice and the credit due
to the public records of States. But, since the Confed
eration had no powers not "expressly delegated," snd as
no power was delegated to legislate on theso matters,
they were, nnrhirnrnorr ihsn Tlir)"f ' ni " -
-1 1
i
u