Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1832-01-19
Substance of Remarks made bv Mr.
BRUCE, on Mr.. Goodies Resolution and Mr..
Randolpi,,s Suhs,;,,,o - -A''

Randoph's Substitute.
Mr. SPEAKER: know not whether it is prudent in
me- at so late an hour of the dav to throw myself on
the indulgence of the House; but representing as
ao' IN part, the largest slave holding interest in tho
State, should not, perhaps be in the line of INV
"uty, were to permit this debate to close without
an exposition OF my sentiments on the very inter
cs'ing subject now before tie House. was one of
those who originally voted against the reference of
this subject to the Select Committee; and every
step which has since been taken, strengthens nv
convictions of the propriety of that vote J. in
common with most Of the friends Of the Resolution
now before the House, deeply regretted the course
WHICH has been pursued by the gentleman from
Dinwiddic. With the best intentions on his part
was satisfied that in forcing the petitions on tho
oo oS ne was assisting in raising storm
which he would lac the first to deprecate + beo
gentlemen TO rccolcct that do not stand here az
an advocate for slavery. I see and feel too tho,
evils OF the system / justify it on the grounds of
necessity 1t is here that all the wise tire good Of
our land who have gone before u.s. have rested. il;
and here too it will continue to rest. The substi
tute which has been offered, is said TO be the Off
spring OF the mind of the immortal Jefferson ono
OF tho w sest patriots and most profound thin k.rs
which our country has ever produced. It's glaring
ana palPahle defects serve to show us the difficulty
or rather the impossbility, of devsing any scheme
OF emancipation which shall be practcablc and
not at the same time in direct violation of the RIGHTS
OF property. The scheme which is now before Ms
ana winch gentlemen insist on our aacer,t;no
strikes at the very root of our Corstitui,on l. /.
IN mat instrument most expressly provided that
private property shall not he taken for ~, Mic eaa
without Just compensation. The substitute a firms
mat the increase of all female slaves horn
after the year $780, shall become the propcr.v
OF the State, the females arriving at the arc of
lo and males at the age Of 81. But the ocnticmon
from Campbell, to obviatc this difficulty and to
make the substitute square with the Constitution
denies that we havo any property in the Increase
OF slaves This, sir is perhaps the most cxtraor-
binary doctrine that was ever preached in this
m in h.
crease OF our slaves, certainly have none to-
those now in being, for inc properly in both must
necessarily be derived in the same way: and I
imagine the gentleman Will scarcely go so far ne in.
justify the Legislature in taking away The slaves
now in being from the possession Of their own
ers. But, sir, this property is recognized by
thc civil law, and runs through all our statutes
from the earliest period pf our colonial existence
down to the present time The right is there al
ways ascertaned and daincd "children born of
slaves, shall be slaves" and the maxim of p0rfms
Seq"'f"r renfrem, is repeated and reiterated. In
ascertalning the rights aud privileges gua-autecd
ny The Constitution, il is necessary TO resort To
metaphysical subilcty. The common law which
we nave adopted, and aur statutes, define dearly
what is property, and Constitution protects us
in the enjoyment of il; and happily for us that
part of the Constitution, which wo have i,ls QUO
ted, seems to have been intended Gov the aure.
purpose OF placing this species Of property beNnd
the reach OF Legislative encroachlncnt. When his
barrier is passed, 1T may indeed be said, tha +,
parchment on which it is written. Supposo hove
yer, Mr.. Speaker, we waive for 4 moment this d.
hcuty and grant that tho increase of slaves is MT
property? The substitute of the gentleman froh,
Aibemarlc, among other things, provides that tim
increase OF female slaves, born afr 1910. shall.
become the property Of the State. 1t must bc nj
once acknowledged, that they are either persons or
property tor there is third class to which they
can be assigned; not being property, hon, they must
be persons. BY what constitutional power then,
can the State convert persons into property, is
proposed by the substitute! In whatever aspect =
then, may choose to view 1t, arc iTrcslstiJly
drawn TO the conclusion, that Il unconstitutional
and can be only adopted by the people in full and.
free Convention.
1t would not be diflisut TO shnw 20 this House
thattho provisions Of the substitute Of the pentlc
man from Albcmarlo, re as un ilst and oppressive
in their effects, as they unconstitutional in
their means. What sir, is proposed WHY that
an individual should iC charged with the cxpenso
of feeding and clotbitat slave, until he is of an
age TO be useful, and At that moment nc is to be ia
ken from his posscssfs ~ and become tho property
OF the State, unless he taken beyond IFS limits.
But hc will be deb, Trod from this alternative.
other states will in selEdefcnee prohibit the i'm
portauon OF slaves into their terrnories-many.
have already done IT, and the moment vo( pas. this
resolution, not Single ayOauo will he oFcn for