Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1860-05-19


portation or bringing into the Territory
from any port or place within the limits o
the United States any slaves which shal
have been imported since the lst Of May
lI98, into any port or place within the q
States, or which may hereafter be so mpsrt.
ed. The third clause prohibits the intro
duction OF slaves into the Territory, except
by citizen removing into the Territory for
actual settlement, and being at the time oil
removal the bona Gtie owner Of the slaves.
This section was an unmistaksble restriction
to the introduction Of slavery into that
/ Territory. 1t had respect to existing re-
Iations, and did not interfere with citizens
in the Territory bona fdc owning slaves,
and citizens removing therein Jona fde own
ing slaves. The treaty stipulationS with
France compelled Congress to respect the
right of property of the citizens Of the
! Territory; and as slaves existed there by
the laws Of France, to that extent slavery
was permitted there by Congress, and in
other respects it was discouraged. Con.
gress could not, prior to the year 1903, pro
hibit the migration or importation of such
| persons as any of the States. existing at
the time Of the adoption of the Constitu
! ton, should think proper to admit; but by
a reference TO the acts above stated it will
be seen that it prohibited the traffic in
slaves, foreign and domestic, wherever it
consttutionnly could, thus stigmatizing
slavery as an evil to be discouraged and
prohibited. On the 2d day of March, 1907.
Congress passed the act to prohibit the
foreign slave trade as to all the States. af-
ter the year 1903, the first moment they
could so prohibit it. April 90 1918, Con.
gress amended this law, making its pro-
visions more eilectual; and in 1919 more
stringent law was passed. On the 18th of
March, 1920, the last act on the subjcct of
the slave trade was passed. making it pira-
cy, and punishing a conviction Of being en-
| gagged in it with death. These acts, sever
ally and jointly, show that the early faith
ers of the Republic regarded slavery as an
evil and crime, and acting upon that con-
viction, they were eager to punish it as o
crime, where they supposed they had
| right to do so.
The advocates OF slavery are not satisfied
with the opinions and practices of the faith
ers; and the gentleman from Alabama Mr..
Curry adopts the saying, that it is neces-
sary for each generation to discuss anew the
greatprobIcms of human speculation, which
continually come back after certain inter
walls for reeyaminaton." Suppose VIC ac-
cept this philosophy, and meet the question
on its merits, untrammeed by the opinions
and teachings of the fathers; if they were
wrong in opinion or action, we are not
bound to follow them. They were honest
men, but they may have made Mistakes
From our standpoint, it would seem to me
that it would have been better to have pro-
vided in the Constitution for the gradual
abolition Of slavery in all the States; and
| think, had the trainers Of the Constitution
| foreseen what we now see, they would have
done so. The words of Pitt, on the East
India bill, quoted approvingly by the gen
tleman from Alabama, were wise Good
principles might sleep, but bad ones never.
1t is the curse Of society, that when bad
principle is once established, bad men will
always be found to give it its full effect"
The spread and increase of slavery in this
country, against the wish and against the
expectation Of the early fathers Of the Re-
public, verfes the truth of the remark.
Now, Mr.. Chairman, to the question
were our fathers wrong, has the sentiment
Of Christendom been wrong, and is the Re-
publican party wrong, in regarding slavery
as an evil to be deplored and a crime to be
prohibited ? | cannot take time to define
slavery, except that it reduces persons to
chattels to all intents, purposes, and con
struCtions whatever ignores their rights
to family, wife, or children, except for the
interest of others, and does not recognize
the marriage relation among slaves. There
are no laws in slave States regulating or
legaHzing such relation among slaves.
understood the gentleman from Kentucky
Mr.. Simms to say, in the debate on the
polygamy bill, he did not admit the legality
of any such relation among colorcd people
This is, necessarily, the law Of chattel slay,
cry; for the legaIization Of that relation in
terferes with the property character oi
slaves, obstructs their unlimited transfer
and sale, and comedies to the slave rights
inconsistent with the rights Of the master
Now, to undertake to prove that such al
entire disregard, upon any pretext, Of the
rights of any class in society is right, is like
arguing that two and two are four or un'
dertaking to demonstrate selfcyident pro-
position. I understood the gentleman from
Mississippi Mr. Lamar to admit, in bis
learned argument in defense of slavery, that
the enslayement of the Anglo-SaXon race
would be wrong, for they were entitled to
freedom because they were capable Of gov
ening themselves; but, at the same time,
he asserted that the enslaVement Of the
African race was right, because they were
incapable of governing themselves in 9th
er words, being an inferior race, the super
ior race were justified in making slaves o
them. 1t is not within the range Of what
l propose to say to reply to this diabolism
My friend, Mr.. Lovejoy, made some re
marks upon that which are worthy Of con
sideration. But | would like to ask thl
learned gentleman question upon his gov
ernmeutal philosophy. 1t is an admitte,
fact that there is in the slave States "a Wis
lille admxture" of Anglo-Saxon with Al
rican blood, and quite likely there is a
much Anglo-Saxon as African blood en-
slaved there. What must be the proper
tion of admixture to make slavery right Z
The advocates of slavery discard theories
speculations, and distractions; they prefe
actual results. am glad of an opportunit
| 10 Il, 4 H.. al NH oh Z