The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-03-02
N UFH HsER 9.

This is as if the Malay pirates should propose to
civilized nations, to pay them annual tribute,
equal to all the property which they expected to
capture, upon condition that they should give up
the practice of piracy,
He then declares that he is opposed to all aboli-
tion gradual or immediate. | ask, has he not in
private conversation, expires sed the contrary,
within the last two years?
He iisnuates that the grounds of opposition to
emancipation with himself and the people of Ken
lucky, is that abolitionists advise them to eman-
cipate and they will not do it, merely to show
their independence! This is the morality of a
man who murders his neghbor, because another
neighbour suspecting him of the intention to do it.
cautions HIM against it, so he commits the ac-
knowledged crime TO show that he will not be
dictated to! If there be any truth in this pre-
ence, it shows how completely slavery annhilaes
all moral and religious principle in the slavehod-
er.
He then asserts that if emancipation were to
take place the colored people would all go to the
North If he really believes this it shows tina.
his character for discernment has been greatly
overrated Have the colored people of ST. DOM
lingo, of Antigua, of Barbados, or jamaica emf
grated to the North! No why then should
those of Carolina?
He says: that emancipation will diminish the
wages for the white laborer and increase his hard
ships. This is mere appeal to prejudice. He
offers no argument that this would be the result
and for a good reason-he had none which he
could offer 1t does not seem to have once enter
ed his mind, that it was not sufficient ustifca-
ton for white man to Cypress and plumber a
black one, that the white man profits by the OPP
preston. This shows how completely sIavehold-
ing and ambition have destroyed the moral sense
of man, who, in his earlier and better days, was
the eloquent advocate Of emancipation in the
Kentucky Legislature.
He predicts desolated fields, ruined cities and
murdered citizens, as the consequences of aboli-
ton. Yet who will believe that he is ignorant of
the fact, that in those West India Islands where
complete emancipation took place near five years
since, there is not one murder for five that occur
among the equal population of shareholders and
slaves at the South: cities have thrven, the pro-
ducts of the land have increased, and the value of
real estate advanced.
He says that if the slaves emancipated by
Great Britain in the West Indies had existed in
Great Britain itself, it would have been unsafe to
emancipae them, because of the "em5ittered feel.
imgs" of the slaves. This is an admission that
the slaves are not contented with their situations
as shareholders and other apologists have asserted
The idea that these embitered feelings would
not be Modified, by emancipation on the part of
in Great Britain ITSELF where most of the people
were once slaves, and among them probably Mr.,
Clays ancestors. Their masters liberated them,
and no evil followed, The same thing took place
in France, Germany and Italy. Ancient as well
as modern history, shows, that pated slaves
are usually the truest friends that their former
masters can possess.
He asserts that Maryland and Virginia would
not have coded the District of Columbia to the
Union, if they had anticipated emancipation in
the District through the act of Congress. | think
otherwise because Maryland and Virginia under
the influence of such men Washington, Jefier-
son and VIM. llnckney, were at that time ia,
vorable to abolition, and had recently voted for it
in relation to the territory then belonging to the
United States, which now composes Ohio, Indi-
ana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin.
He speaks of the bleeding wounds" that were
happily bound up by the Missouri Compromise
These bleeding wounds were the wounded feel
lings of those shareholders, who wished nothing
done to prevent them from depressing their fellow
beings. Mr. Clay seems to think much more of a
wound on the unjust gains of the stakeholder,
than of one on the back of the slave.
He alleges that the people of the North have
no more right to interfere with slavery in tho
South, than those of Great Britain have to inter.
fere with the domestic institutions of France. In
this he is IN error Tor three reasonS,-l. The peo
pie of England are not active participants in up,
holding oppression in France, but the people ofthe
Northern states are active participants in embrac,
ing slavery in the South. 2. The clause of the
Constitution which makes them participants
assented to, by the North only in consequence Of
the general understanding of all parties, that sa.
very would be ere long abolished, and the South
have not adhered to their understanding 3. The
Constitution of the United States not only author,
lied Congress to prohibit the importation of slaves,
but it has reserved the right of three-fourths of
the states to abolish slavery in the other fourth;
by an amendment of the Constitution, as well as
the right to discharge each of the states from
continued participation in acts Of oppression carr
ried on in other states. While it has left this
power open to be exercised by three-fourths the
states, it has prohibited any privation of equal
representation in the Senate, except by unanimous
consent, thus showing that there points TO
which it was not intended the amendatory power
should extend, but that slavery was not one OF
those points.
If it were true, however, that the North and
tee South were as distinct as England and France
it would still be extremely inconsistent IN Mr.
CLAW to condemn the Nortd for trying, through
argument and persuasion, TO clvilize and christian