The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1850-09-19


Wis and | hope he will inquire into the sub
ject before he asks such question again.
Resnectfullv, your obj servant.
CHARLES A. RANTLETT,
Ship-raas,er of Boston.
"EIon. II. G. WINTHROP, Washington.
think there is enough, sir, in this one letter
It il be accurate, to justify the word abuse whcl
used in regard to the execution ofthese arbitrary
laws IN the Southern ports. But | have some
where memorandum which sent me some
! years ago, when made report on this sublec
| in the other House, from which it would seen
that these abuses were more serious thar
! this letter would represent them To be. IL Is
memorandum for the correctness of which WI
| not vouch aud which hope is as extravagant as
II certainly seems 10 be on ts face But from thus
| il would seem that the number of coored seamer
| imprisoned in New Orleans during single yeai
was twelve hundred, in Charleston five hundred
in Savannah three hundred, and in Alabama Fl W
| hundred.
i This was an estimate made by person who
4 then kept the coored sailors home in the city oil
| New York, and who seemed to have more Infor-
! nation in regard 10 this question OF colored
seamen than any body else at the time. think
that il such an estimate has any approach TO ac-
curacy, the senator from South Carolina VIII not
call me to task for having used the word abuse IN
connection with these laws.
| MIR. BERRIEN. II the senator will allow me:
| am very glad to bear that the senator did not
vouch for the truth of the statement IN regard to
Savannah, and in my place here | affirm II to be
untrue.
Mr.. WINTHROP. am very glad to hear it.
The statement may be ever greatly exaggera-
ted but, if there is one person in the country
who believes il to be true, II furnishes an ample
reason for desiring that the facts of the case should
be properly investigated. But, as the senator
| from North Carolina, MIR. BADGER,l whose KIND
expression this morning cordially recproeate, 50
hAr
not a question of numbers, but Of principle OuI
| objections to these laws do not depend on The
I numbers imprisoned or enslaved under them, but
4 on the principle, or rather on the violation OF al
| principle, which they involve Sir, II there De
but one man seized board a ship where he j.
| rightfuIly employed, and cast into prison, and
rendered liable TO be sold as slave, the law
| is as Justly obnoxious to the feelings OF every
| freeman in the country as If there were five hun
| lred five thousand.
/ will notice single other point in the remarks
of the senator from South Carolina before leave
| the subject He seems to think that there IS no
| part of the country where free negroes have been
| recognized MS citizens. Now, sir, whether this
| be so or not is no part OF the question before us
! They are recognized as freemen; and the question
| is in what part of the Constitution OF the United
States do you find any discrimination between an,
ferent classes Of freemen, The question, as
i have said before is often asked here, where Is
, there any power in the Constitution to discern
/ mate between different classes or property
and ask the question IN return, where is TIT
/ power in the Constitution to discriminate be
tween different classes Of free persons Why
sir this very question has, once st least, been ar
gued before Southern tribunal. And will re-
Ter the senator from South Carolina TO at least one
decision which involves the very principle al
issue. tits the ofthe State Us. Manuel, IN Deve
reux and Battle Is North Carolina Reports. II was
decided by ore of the most eminent men of North
4 ia he ivna tn Dt
the senators present, and whose memory is still
esteemed and honored in all parts Of the country.
] mean the late Judge Gaston. Here is his opln-
ion OH this subject, and, it is Southern opin-
| ion, shall require no apology for citing IL al
| some length. He says:
/ Ii was insisted however, in argument by the
/ Attorney General that it was unnecessary to en-
ter into the examination of these constitutional pro-
i hbtioll, for that tire defendant can set up no
right and claim no benefit from them, because he
| IS not citizen of North Carolina. The positions
| Oft Attorney General are, first, that these pro-
| visions being contained in the fundamental law
! by which the people Of North Carolina, thereto
| fore a colony and dependency of Great Britain,
rising in re sot against the expressions of the
| mother country, constituted and declared them
| selves sovereign and independent State, all the
securities provided in that fundamental law, either
for persons or property, and all the inhibitfons
| against wrong, were designed exclusively for the
ben ht of those who were constituent members OF
4 thaf State, and Of such as by inheritance or subse-
quent incorporation into that political body should
/ thereafter become members thereof; ana, second
/ w. that persons of color, whether born free oi
eruancipated from slavery, were not originally
members OF that political body, and never since
+ have been incorporated into 1t. We do not yield
our assent to either of these positions 10 the ex-
, tent in which they have been asserted.
s.It is not necessary to examine very partcu-
larIy the argument upon the second position,
! which in its course assumed on both sides very
! much the character of political discussion. Ac-
cording to the laws of this State, all human beings
within IT, who are not slaves, fall within one OF
7 two classes Whatever distinctions may have
/ existed in the Roman law between citizens and
4 free inhabitants they are unknown to our insttu
!, tons Before our revolution all free persons borr
within The domnons Of the King of Great Bri
i tain, whatever their color complexion, wer,
native-born British subjects; those born out o
his allegiance were aliens. Slavery did not eXis
in England but it did exist in the British colonies
Slaves were not, in legal parlance, persons, bu
: property. The moment the incapactty or dis
qualification of slavery was removed, they be
, came persons, and were then either British sub
ects or not British subjects, accordingly as they
were or were not born within the allegiance of the
British King. Upon the revolution no other
change took place in the law of North Carolina
I than was consequent upon the transition from q
| colony dependent on European King to free
and sovereign State. Slaves renamed slaves. Bril-
fish subjects in North Carolina became North
Carolina freemen. Foreigners until made mem
bers of the Sia1neontnued aliens. Slaves manu-
mtted here became freemen, and therefore, if born
within North Carolina, citizens of North Car
olina, and all free persons both within the Stat
, are born citizens of the State.
"a few only of the principal objections which
have been urged against this view of what W
consider the legal doctrine will be noticed. 1t ha
!, been said that by the Constitution of the Unite
States the DO wer Of naturalization las been con
J ferred exclusively upon Congress, and therefor
it cannot be competent for any State by its mum
cipal regulations T. make citizen. But what j
| naturalization 1t is the removal of the disabiti
ties Of alieange. Emancipationis the removal of tn
= incapaciiy OF slavery. The latter depends who'll
upon the internal regulations of the State the for
/ mer belongs TO the Government Of the Unite
i States. II would be dangerous mistake to cor
. found them.
lie sit has been said that before ouI revolution
~ free persons of color did not exercise the right
al voting for members of the colonial Legislature
How this may have been itwould be difficult at tn
IN tune ascertain 1t is certain, however, that yer