Part 47 (2/2)
In the debates in the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Iredell, afterward a Judge of the United States' Supreme Court, said, ”_When the entire abolition of slavery takes place_, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind and every friend of human nature.” Mr.
Galloway said, ”I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to. I apprehend the clause (touching the slave trade) means _to bring forward manumission_.” Luther Martin, of Maryland, a member of the convention that formed the United States Const.i.tution, said, ”We ought to authorize the General Government to make such regulations as shall be thought most advantageous for _the gradual abolition of slavery_, and the _emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves_ which are already in the States.” Judge Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the framers of the const.i.tution, said, in the Pennsylvania convention of '87, [Deb. Pa. Con. p. 303, 156:] ”I consider this (the clause relative to the slave trade) as laying the foundation for _banis.h.i.+ng slavery out of this country_. It will produce the same kind of gradual change which was produced in Pennsylvania; the new states which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and _slaves will never be introduced_ among them. It presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will be acknowledged and established _throughout the Union_. Yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress will have power to _exterminate slavery_ within our borders.” In the Virginia convention of '87, Mr. Mason, author of the Virginia const.i.tution, said, ”The augmentation of slaves weakens the States, and such a trade is _diabolical_ in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states, (i.e., South Carolina and Georgia,) into the union, _unless they agree to a discontinuance of this disgraceful trade_.” Mr. Tyler opposed with great power the clause prohibiting the abolition of the slave trade till 1808, and said, ”My earnest desire is, that it shall be handed down to posterity that I oppose this wicked clause.” Mr. Johnson said, ”The principle of emanc.i.p.ation _has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round_.”--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 463.] Patrick Henry, arguing the power of Congress under the United States' const.i.tution to abolish slavery in the States, said, in the same convention, ”Another thing will contribute to bring this event (the abolition of slavery) about. Slavery is _detested_. We feel its fatal effects; we deplore it with all the pity of humanity.”--[Deb. Va. Con. p. 431.] In the Ma.s.s. Con. of '88, Judge Dawes said, ”Although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet _it has received a mortal wound_, and will die of consumption.”--[Deb.
Ma.s.s. Con. p. 60.] General Heath said that, ”Slavery was confined to the States _now existing_, it _could not be extended_. By their ordinance, Congress had declared that the new States should be republican States, _and have no slavery_.”--p. 147.
In the debate, in the first Congress, February 11th and 12th, 1789, on the pet.i.tions of the Society of Friends, and the Pennsylvania Abolition Society, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, ”I cannot help expressing the pleasure I feel in finding _so considerable a part_ of the community attending to matters of such a momentous concern to the _future prosperity_ and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty, as a citizen of the Union, _to espouse their cause_.”
Mr. Page, of Virginia, (afterward Governor)--”Was _in favor_ of the commitment; he hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the memorial was _not_ taken into consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said, that on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the community, he should infer, that the general government, _from which was expected great good would result to_ EVERY CLa.s.s _of citizens_, had shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect; if any thing could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. But if he was told, that application was made in his behalf, and that Congress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and humanity, and _wait the decision patiently_.”
Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania: ”I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person _can be said to acquire a property in another_. Let us argue on principles countenanced by reason, and becoming humanity. _I do not know how far I might go, if I was one of the judges of the United States, and those people were to came before me and claim their emanc.i.p.ation, but I am sure I would go as far as I could_.”
Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said, ”He _saw the disposition of the House_, and he feared it would he referred to a committee, maugre all their opposition.”
Mr. Smith of South Carolina, said, ”That on entering into this government, they (South Carolina and Georgia) apprehended that the other states, * * _would, from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for a general emanc.i.p.ation_.”
In the debate, at the same session, May 13th, 1789, on the pet.i.tion of the Society of Friends respecting the slave trade, Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said, ”He hoped Congress would do all that lay in their power _to restore to human nature its inherent privileges_. The inconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged _should be done away_.”
Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, said, ”IT WAS THE FAs.h.i.+ON OF THE DAY TO FAVOR THE LIBERTY OF THE SLAVES. * * * * Will Virginia set her negroes free? _When this practice comes to be tried, then the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to the ravished ear_.”
Mr. Madison, of Virginia,--”The dictates of humanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy, require it of us. * * * * I conceive the const.i.tution in this particular was formed in order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to _give some testimony of the sense of America_, with respect to the African trade. * * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR POSTERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES. If there is any one point in which it is clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we const.i.tutionally can, _to vary the practice_ obtaining under some of the state governments, it is this. But it is _certain_ a majority of the states are _opposed to this practice_.”--Cong. Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.
A writer in the ”Gazette of the United States,” Feb. 20th, 1790, (then the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows himself a _slaveholder_, says, ”I have seen in the papers accounts of _large a.s.sociations_, and applications to Government for _the abolition of slavery_. Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free people, are the _n.o.ble principles which dictate those measures_. SUCH MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW.”
In the convention that formed the const.i.tution of Kentucky in 1790, the effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful. A decided majority of that body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, but for the great efforts and influence of two large slaveholders--men of commanding talents and sway--Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas. The following extract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr.
Rice a native Virginian, is a specimen of the _free discussion_ that prevailed on that ”delicate subject.” Said Mr. Rice: ”I do a man greater injury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of his property. It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of law; for this makes the injury the greater--it arms the community against him, and makes his case desperate. The owners of such slaves then are _licensed robbers_, and not the just proprietors of what they claim. Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but _restoring it to the right owner_. In America, a slave is a standing monument of the tyranny and inconsistency of human governments. The master is the enemy of the slave; he _has made open war upon him_, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT ON in unremitted efforts. Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is indebted to his master, and _bound to serve him_? Whence can the obligation arise? What is it founded upon? What is my duty to an enemy that is carrying on war against me? I do not deny, but in some circ.u.mstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a duty he owes himself, and not his master.”
President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791: ”Thirty years ago, scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well as other instances? And if we judge of the future by the past, _within fifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a negro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft_.”
In 1794, the General a.s.sembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its ”Scripture proofs,” notes, comments, &c. Among these was the following:
”1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for manstealers. This crime among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment.
Exodus xxi. 16. And the apostle here cla.s.ses them with _sinners of the first rank_. The word he uses, in its original import comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or in _retaining_ them in it. _Stealers of men_ are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and _keep_, sell, or buy them.”
In 1794, Dr. Rush declared: ”Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”
In 1790, Mr. Fiske, then an officer of Dartmouth College, afterward a Judge in Tennessee, said, in an oration published that year, speaking of slaves: ”I steadfastly maintain, that we must bring them to _an equal standing, in point of privileges, with the whites_! They must enjoy all the rights belonging to human nature.”
When the pet.i.tion on the abolition of the slave trade was under discussion in the Congress of '89, Mr. Brown, of North Carolina, said, ”The emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves _will be effected_ in time; it ought to be a gradual business, but he hoped that Congress would not _precipitate_ it to the great injury of the southern States.” Mr.
Hartley, of Pennsylvania, said, in the same debate, ”_He was not a little surprised to hear the cause of slavery advocated in that house._”
WAs.h.i.+NGTON, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, says, ”There are, in Pennsylvania, laws for the gradual abolition of slavery which neither Maryland nor Virginia have at present, but which _nothing is more certain_ than that they _must have_, and at a period NOT REMOTE.” In 1782, Virginia pa.s.sed her celebrated manumission act. Within nine years from that time nearly eleven thousand slaves were voluntarily emanc.i.p.ated by their masters. Judge Tucker's ”Dissertation on Slavery,”
p. 72. In 1787, Maryland pa.s.sed an act legalizing manumission. Mr.
Dorsey, of Maryland, in a speech in Congress, December 27th, 1826, speaking of manumissions under that act, said, that ”_The progress of emanc.i.p.ation was astonis.h.i.+ng_, the State became crowded with a free black population.”
The celebrated William Pinkney, in a speech before the Maryland House of Delegates, in 1789, on the emanc.i.p.ation of slaves, said, ”Sir, by the eternal principles of natural justice, _no master in the state has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour_.... I would as soon believe the incoherent tale of a schoolboy, who should tell me he had been frightened by a ghost, as that the grant of this permission (to emanc.i.p.ate) ought in any degree to alarm us. Are we apprehensive that these men will become more dangerous by becoming freemen? Are we alarmed, lest by being admitted into the enjoyment of civil rights, they will be inspired with a deadly enmity against the rights of others?
<script>