The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-04-11

II and certainly nobody viii be more willing to encount
. sacrifice Tor that object"
c These sentiments were shared by nearly eve
$ dstingi ished character Of that time
!. Ia a letter TO Robert Morris, dated Mount Verno
{ April IL 1856, George Washington said
s can only say thar there Is not a man living wi
wishes more sincerely than 10 TO plan adopted
the abolition Of it, slavery but there Is only one prop
and effeciual mode in which can be accomplished an
that is by legislative authority aud this so far as
suffrage will 60 shall never be waning"-s Sparks
: In a letter TO John F. Mercer September 9, IT'S
he reiterated this sentiment:
~ never mean, unless some particular eircumsanc,
should compel me TO IT, to possess another slave by pu
by Jaw. Ibid
And, in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he furthe
said
are in Pennsylvania laws for the gradual abo
at present but which nothing is more certain than the
must have and al period not remote"
IL Is unnecessary TO multiply these extracts. s,
universal were these sentiments that Mr.. Leigh, II
! me ConVenlon OF Nuglma III loSk, Gu not nesnal,
10 say
-" thoaRhl, tu lately h.ai u sAs known Ia every
body that during the Rev ouion and Tor years
the abolition OF slavery a tay0re topic with many
our abest statesmen, who entertained with respect all th
Shemes winch wisdom or ingenuity could suggest Tor III
accomplishment"
think, Mr.. President, that two facts may nov
I ~
national policy in respect u slavery was one of
strclion, Imitation and discouragement Secondly
that IL was generally expected that under the action
OF tue Safe Governments slavery would gradually
disappear from the States.
Such was the state OF the country when the Con
yentlon met TO frame the Constitution of the United
states. That Convention was sitting In Phiiadel-
pnia while Congress was framing the Ordinance In
| New York
1t has been said in the course of this debate that
there was some understanding between Congress
and. the Convention in regard to the question of
slavery. That may be 40. There is, however,
nothing in history which proves il, though crcum-
stances do certainly seem 10 warrant such a conjec-
ture. But, IL there was an UNDERSTANDING 10 what
| did II relate Not certainly 20 the whole subject
| oi slavery for up to the time of the PRONUNCIATION
OF the ordinance, no discussion had taken place in
the Convention ihsj subject except in respect to
the question of REPRESENTATION and taxation. That
question had been discussed with considerable heat
50 much, indeed, that some members declared them
selves ready TO break up the Convention rather than
consent TO the representation of slaves. The exclu-
sion of slavery from the Territories by the Ordinance
may have had and may have been intended to have,
some influence upon this discussion. Ii may be
| that members from the free States eng slavery
excluded from national territory, and supposing its
extension 10 be thereby forever inierdced were the
more willing TO consent 10 representation Of slaves
| as temporary arrangement, which would cease Of
| itself when slavery itself should cease or run out
at some period not remote" But there is not a
particle OF foundation for any supposiion that there
was any understanding between Congress and the
Convention, based upon the idea that slavery and
freedom were entitled 10 equal regard in the action
Of the Government. Far from IT, Whatever un-
derstanding there was, If there any, must have
been based upon the dea of slavery restriction upon
the fact that It's extension was prohibited and that
its final disappearance was expected
The trainers OF the Constitution acted under the
influence Of the general sentiment of the country
Some of them had contributed in no small measure
TO form that sentiment Let US examine the insfti-
ment in its light, and ascertain the original import
of its language.
What, then, shall we find in it The guarantees
so much talked Oft Recognition of property in
men Stipulated protection for that property in
national territories and by national iaw7 No, sir;
nothing like it.
We find, on the contrary extreme care to exclude
these ideas from the Constitution. Neither the
word slave" nor "slavery" Is to be found in any
provision. There is not a single expression which
charges the National Government with any respon-
sel,,y in regard TO slavery; No power is conferred
the Constitution, whether In the clause providing
for the npportionment of representation and direct
taxation or in that STIMULATING for the exraditioI OF
fugtives from service, or In that restricting Congress
| as TO the prohibition OF importation or migration,
they are spoken Of not as persons held as property,
but rs persons held to service, having their
dition determined under State laws We learn, in
deed from the debates in the Constitution Conven-
lion that the idea OF property In men was excluded
| with special solicitude
MIR. Madison declared, he "thought IL wrong to
admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be
| property in men "-3 Mad. Pap 1929.
| Mr. Gerry thought the Convention "had nothing
| 10 DO with the conduct OF the States as 10 slaves,
but ought be careful not TO give any sanction To
| it"-3 Mad Pap, 1894.
| Similar expressions were used by other members.
But / need 20 no further. Multiplied words will
| not convince those who will not regard the language
of he Constitution ITSELF or the plain declarations
| OF its trainers.
IL may. however, be worth while TO refer briefly to
| the views expressed In the State Conventions which
convened for the purpose OF considering the Consti-
tuition with a view to Its ratification. Did they ex-
pec the extension continuance OF snyery through
| The action or under the protection OF the Govern
! ment which they were called on 10 establish Not
| at all.
james Wilson, of Pennsylvania, had been n leading
member of the Convention, and In the Ratification
| Convention of his State, when speaking Of the
clause relating 10 the power OF Congress over the
slave-trade af.er twenty years, he said:
consider this clause laying the foundation for ban
shng slavery out Of this country and though the period
s more distant than could wish II, u will produce ths
same kind gradual change produced in pennsylva
MA The nerS States which are TO be formed
will be under Che control oil Congress IN is PARTICULAR
| and slavery will never be introduced among them"
A"' ' q EuioPs Debates, 162
In another place. speaking Of this clause, he said
1T presents us with the pleasing prospect thai the
throughout the Union II there was no ether feature In
the Constitution but this one would dfusc beauty
Ire whole counenance Yet the labor Of few years and
Congress will have power 10 exteminaie slavery from
| within our rag EuioPs Debates, 4A.
| In the Ratification Convention Of Massachusetts,
Gen. Heath said
"The migration or importation, &c, Ia confined the
States now existing only new States cannot claim H.
by their ordinance for creating States
time since declared that the States shall be republican,
aud that there shall be no slavery IN them ~ EUofs
| Debaies, li5.
| Nor were these views and ancipations confined
| 10 the free States. In the Ratification Convention
of Virginia, Mr. Johnson said
"They tell that they danger Of bring
ing about emancipation The principle has begun
| The Revolution Let do what we will, IL will come
round Slavery has been the foundation Of much oi that
Impcty aud dissipation which have been much dsseu.
shed, II would do much good "3 EHiofs Debaes, G45
And Governor Randolph, while denying, and
Justly denying the power Of the General Govern
ment, under the Constitution, TO Interfere with sin
very In the States rebuked those who expressed up
prehensions that Its influence might be cxerted on
the tide offrcedom by saying
81 hope that there here who, considering the
subject 10 the calm light Of philosophy will advance NJ
they are securing the rights Of their Citizens there 10
spark Of hope that those unfortunate men now held .
bondage may by fne opeon OF the General Government
be made Jree.'-3 EaioPs Debates, G9s. -
, But the people were not satisfied with The fac
that no power TO evade personal freedom was con
ierred on Congress by the Constitution. They do
manded direct and positive guarantees OF persona
, rights. In compliance with these demands, severa
OF the Ratification Conventions proposed TO Con
( gress such amendments as were desired by thei
respective States
Virginia proposed bill Of rights, emitting, sngu
Iarly enough the first and fundamental provision q
, her own bill of rights, namely that "nlI men ar
born equally free and Independent" but containin
y this provision:
n "No fireman ought to be taken, Imprisoned, or d
selsed Of hi. freehold Liberties privileges or franchises
OF his hk liberty, or property, b@ by The lao " The land
y 3 E.niOPs Debates, tJS
. North Carolina and Rhode Island each propose
!. the same clause. "a EHofs Deb, 2i3 H., 3Ja
n New York proposed a different provision
No psyssa ought TO be iakeo imprisoned or dssess
of his freehold, OF be sred or deprived Of his privileges