Gass ^^^^ 
 Book_^Il_ 
 
FREE REMARKS 
 
 T}ie Spirit of the Federal Constitution, the Practice of the 
 Federal Government, 
 
 OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNION, 
 
 HESPECTING 
 tnOM THE 
 
 *' If it was possible for men avIio exercise their reason to believe, that the Divine 
 Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an absolute 
 property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by his infinite 
 goodness and wisdom as the objects of a legal dominion, never rightfully resisti- 
 ble, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these Colonies might at 
 least require from the Parliament of Great Biitain some evidence that this dread- 
 ful authority over them has been granted to that body." Declaration of the 
 United Colonies (July 6, 1775}. 
 
 BY A PHILADELPHIAN 
 
 /Z^C^ ^^c^*/^M^ 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 PUBLISHED BY A. FINLEY, N. E. CORNER OF CHESXUT 
 AND FOURTH STREETS. 
 
 Wm. Fry, IVinter, 
 
 1819. - 
 
''-f. 
 
 EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, to w'lii 
 |WPWWj BE IT REMEMBERED, that on the eighteenth day of 
 
 t* Seal. I December, in the forty-fourth year of the Independence of the 
 «BM****| United States of America, A. D. 1819, Anthony Finley, of the 
 said district, hath deposited in this office, the title of a book, the right 
 whereof he claims as proprietor, in the words following, to wit: 
 
 ** Free Remarks on the Spirit of the Federal Constitution, the Practice of the 
 Federal Government, and the Obligations of the Union, respecting the Ex- 
 clusion of Slavery trom the Territories and New States. 
 
 * If it was possible for men who exercise their reason to believe, that the Di- 
 vine Author of our existence intended a part of the human race to hold an 
 absolute property in, and an unbounded power over others, marked out by 
 his infinite goodness and wisdom as the objects of a legal dominion, never 
 rightfully resistible, however severe and oppressive, the inhabitants of these 
 Colonies might at least require from the Parliament of Great Britain some 
 evidence that this dreadful authority over them has been granted to that 
 body.' Declaration of the United Colonies (July 6, 1775.) 
 
 «' By a Philadelphian." 
 
 In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, intituled, 
 *'An act for the enconragement of learning, by securing the copies of 
 maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies 
 during the times therein mentioned." — And also to the act, entitled, " an 
 act supplementary to an act, entitled * an act for the encouragement of 
 learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the au- 
 thors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned,* 
 and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of designing, engraving, 
 and etching historical and other prints." 
 
 D. CALDWELL, 
 Clerk of the District of Pennsylvania. 
 
FREE REMARKS, 
 
 SECTION I. 
 
 The original members of this republican confederacy, v^hen 
 colonies, found their political liberty menaced with an abridg- 
 ment which yet would have left them, perhaps a larger por- 
 tion of that blessing, and more scope for self respect and in- 
 dependent exertion, than were enjoyed by the nations of the 
 European continent styling themselves the most free. But, 
 exquisitely jealous and inflexibly tenacious of all the privi- 
 leges known to the most liberal scheme of government, they 
 resisted the first and slightest inroads upon those privileges, 
 and in maintaining them, encountered with unshaken reso- 
 lution, the severest trials and most formidable dangers. 
 Throughout their magnanimous struggle, they bottomed their 
 claim to them, not merely on the British constitution, their 
 charters, and prescription, but on the nature of man and the: 
 behest of Providence. They ascended to first principles in 
 their own favour; and in their Declaration of Independence,* 
 began by proclaiming that all men are equal, and endowed 
 by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, 
 liberty^ and the pursuit of happiness. They repeated this 
 doctrine in their subsequent manifestoes;! they obtested 
 Heaven and earth on the same ground; they constantly up- 
 braided Great Britain with her inconsistency in endeavouring 
 
 * Secj txio, the Declaration of Rights of the Congress assembled at Philadel- 
 phia, September 1774: And the Declaration of the United Colonies (July 6, 1775) 
 on taking up arms. 
 
 t See their Addresses to the People of the Colonies- 
 
to wrest from them what her subjects at home vaunted as 
 their birthright, and in refusing to extend to all within the 
 pale of her empire the full enjoyment of her constitution.* 
 They pointed to the works of Sidney and Locke as the ma- 
 nuals of their immediate forefathers, and their own text- 
 books; they even appealed to the Bible in confirmation of 
 the natural equality and independence of all the species.f 
 This maxim, such of them as at once remodelled their res- 
 pective governments, had placed the first in the list of fun- 
 damentals;:!: it was, in short, the device of the revolution; the 
 frontispiece of all the revolutionary institutions. 
 
 The confederated colonies did not confine themselves to 
 the assertion of the broadest theory of political rights; they 
 descanted upon the topics of philanthropy and universal jus- 
 tice, of Christian charity and humility; and in reproaching 
 the mother-country with the contrariety between her prac- 
 tice and professions, with her insensibility to human suffer- 
 ing and degradation, they took credit to themselves for the 
 reverse. It was in alleged pursuance of those high consi- 
 derations and pretensions to which I have adverted, that 
 their delegates in Congress, without being specially empow- 
 ered, passed and promulgated, several months before the 
 Declaration of Independence, (6th April, 1776), a resolu- 
 tion that no slaves should be imported into any part of the 
 confederation. $ 
 
 With all these circumstances, there was one feature in the 
 social condition of most of the states, standing out in offen- 
 sive contrast. The negro-slavery which existed among them, 
 formed a strange commentary upon the texts with which 
 they sermonized throughout their revolution, and seemed to 
 the distant world a gross anomaly and incongruity, giving 
 
 * See the Address (July 8, 1775) of the United Colonies to the Inhabitants of 
 Creat Britain: Also— the Address (May 26, 1775) to the Canadians; and the 
 Address (July 28, 1775) to the People of Ireland. 
 
 f See note A. 
 
 i Constitution of Massachusetts. *• All men are born free and equal, and have 
 certain natural, essential, and inalienable rights," &c. The language of the Con- 
 stitutions of New Hanipshire, New York, Pennsylvania, juelawarey &c, is th« 
 same. See note B. 
 
 § See the Journals of Congress for 1776. 
 
to their revolutionary creed, and regenerated polity, an air 
 of imposture or infatuated selfishness. They could not be 
 supposed to entertain the opinion, that the African race did 
 not belong to the family of man; or that, if gifted with less 
 vigorous and comprehensive faculties of mind, that race or 
 anv other so disadvantaged, became a lawful prey to the more 
 fortunate one, to be held in absolute property and unqualified 
 subjection: Such opinions were understood to be exploded 
 and scorned throughout Christendom.* They could not be 
 admitted to be blind to the inherent wickedness and defor- 
 mity of hereditary servitude; they had universally testified 
 their conviction on this head in their denunciations of Great 
 Britain; some of them had abolished the evil, avowedly from 
 a sense of its enormity, as soon as they acquired the power, 
 by their liberation from her yoke. Our negro-slavery pre- 
 sented itself, therefore, to the eyes of those who were unac- 
 quainted with its history and incidents, in a scandalous and 
 opprobrious abstraction;— as a fixed contradiction and sole- 
 cism disfiguring both our juridical and political codes. 
 
 Of these unfortunate appearances, all our federal assem- 
 blies, from the commencement of the revolution to the for- 
 mation of our present government, must have been fully 
 aware: but they were supported against the disgrace, by the 
 knowledge that this slavery was not introduced, and could 
 not be at once effaced, by the new sovereignties which they 
 represented. It was a pr e-exis ting, unav oidabl e evil, im- 
 putable to the mother country; and of which the extirpation 
 was not to be even attempted, until the federal empire, at 
 which they aimed, should be consolidated, and the Ameri- 
 can nation not only secure in independence, but matured in 
 strength and resources. They were conscious, that, sooner, 
 nothing could reasonably be expected from them; except, 
 perhaps, the declaration that a course of remedy would be 
 entered upon when that state of affairs was reached; and its 
 uncertainty at the outset of the revolution, is the best excuse 
 which can be offered why the first of them did not pledge 
 the nation to the effort. It was^ perhaps, due to consistency, 
 
 • See note C. 
 
to National honour, and to the cause of justice and morals 
 that the extirpation of slavery from the American soil, 
 when this might be practicable, should be proclaimed 
 a primary and settled purpose with the confederation which 
 asserted such a character, such dispositions, and such mo- 
 tives of action, as are detailed in the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence.* 
 
 The Congress of 1787 would seem to have been particu- 
 larly alive to the obligations in this matter, imposed by the 
 facts which I have indicated above. They recognized the 
 I principle of universal abolition^ in their proceeding with 
 \ respect to the North West Territory; of which proceed- 
 ing the history and import are especially worthy of atten- 
 tion. 
 
 The whole territory north of the river Ohio, and west of 
 the state of Pennsylvania, extending northwardly to the 
 northern boundary of the United States, and westwardly 
 to the Mississippi, was claimed by Virginia. The states of 
 Massachusetts and Connecticut claimed all that part which 
 was within the breadth of their respective charters, and the 
 state of New York had also an indeterminate claim to the 
 country. As early as the year 1780, Congress recommended 
 to all the states whose charters included ungranted ter- 
 ritory, to cede it to the Union for national purposes; and 
 the states without such territory, always contended that 
 the lands gained by the common exertions, were or ought 
 to be common property. j Some of the smaller withheld 
 their ratification of the articles of confederation, in order 
 to compel the cession for which they called as matter of 
 right; and finally they carried their point. The act of cession 
 of the state of New York is prefaced with the following 
 recital. 
 
 ^ Whereas nothing under Divine Providence, can more 
 effectually contribute to the tranquillity and safety of the 
 
 * The i-evolutionary governments of South America, in forming their consti- 
 tutions, either emancipated the slaves at once, or fixed a period for emancipation 
 See the work entitled " Outline of the Revolution in South America." 
 
 t See Ramsay's History of the United States, Chap. 23. 
 
United States of America, than a federal alliance, on such 
 liberal principles as will give satisfaction to its respective 
 members; and whereas the articles of confederation and per- 
 petual union, recommended by the honourable Congress of 
 the United States of America, have not proved acceptable 
 to all the states, it having been conceived that a portion of 
 the waste and uncultivated territory, within the limits or 
 claims of certain states, ought to be appropriated as a com- 
 mon fund for the expenses of the war: and the people of this 
 state of New York, being, on all occasions, disposed to ma- 
 nifest their regard for their sister states, and their earnest 
 desire to promote the general interest and security; and 
 more especially to accelerate the federal alliance, by remov- 
 ing, as far as it depends upon them, the before mentioned 
 impediment to its final accomplishment, &c." 
 
 The act of cession from the state of Massachusetts com- 
 mences in the following language: " Whereas several of the 
 states in the union have at present no interest in the great 
 and extensive tract of uncultivated country, lying in the 
 western part of the United States, and it may be reasonable 
 that the states abovementioned should be interested in the 
 aforesaid country, &c. &c." 
 
 Of the immense territory ceded from these motives, the 
 portion which Virginia conveyed was by far the largest. In 
 two of the states, parties to the grant, slavery was still per- 
 mitted; in the other two it had been abolished. None of 
 them imposed a condition upon the United States, in their 
 acts of cession, as to the toleration or prohibition of slavery 
 in the countries ceded. Nor was there any general stipula- 
 tion in favour of the settlers in them, on the score of the 
 slaves which they held. But the Congress had added, to 
 their recommendation abovementioned (of the 6th September 
 1780) a resolution dated October 10th, 1780 that " the unap- 
 propriated land which might be ceded or relinquished to the 
 United States, should be settled and formed into distinct 
 republican states, which should become members of the fe- 
 deral union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, free- 
 dom, and independence, as the other states." The state of 
 
Virginia, in the act (20th October 1783) empowering her 
 delegates to transfer to the United States, annexed to the 
 authority, the condition, that " the territory ceded should 
 be laid out and formed into states, and that the stales so 
 formed should be formed into republican states, and admit- 
 ted 7nembers of the federal union^ having the same rights of 
 sovereignty^ freedom^ and independence as the other states.^^. 
 
 The North- West Territory being thus put, with these 
 restrictions, at the disposal of the United States, Congress, 
 their only representation, proceeded, by the same right by 
 which they had negotiated and received the cession of the 
 territory, to make permanent regulations for it; and passed 
 accordingly an ordinance, dated July 13, 1787, for its go- 
 vernment. This ordinance, worthy of the highest admira- 
 tion for its perfect coincidence with all the principles and 
 actions of which I have spoken, — after making various dis- 
 positions, runs thus: — " And for extending the fundamental 
 principles of civil and religious liberty^ which form the ba- 
 sis whereon these republics, their laws, and constitutions 
 are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the 
 basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which for- 
 ever hereafter, shall be formed in the said territory; to pro- 
 vide for the establishment of states therein and for their 
 admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal 
 footing with the original states^ at as early periods as may 
 be consistent xvith the general i?iterest^ it is hereby ordained 
 and declared, that the following articles shall be considered 
 as articles of compact, between the original states and the 
 people and states of the said territory, and for ever remain 
 unalterable, unless by common consent, &c." 
 
 The second of these solemn articles provides that no man 
 shall be deprived of his liberty or property but by the judg- 
 ment of his peers, or the laws of the land, &c.: The third 
 provides that the property, rights, and liberty of the Indians 
 shall never be disturbed or invaded: The fifth provides 
 that there shall be formed in the said territory, not less 
 than three, nor more than five states, and that such states 
 shall be admitted into the confederacy, on an equal foot- 
 
.ing with the original states in all respects whatever. The 
 sixth article^ with which we have now p^.rticul tIv to do, is 
 as follows — " There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 
 servitude in the said territory^ otherwise than in the pun- 
 ishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly 
 convicted; provided always, that any person escaping into 
 the same, from whom labour or service is lawfully claimed 
 in any one of the original states, such fugitive may be law- 
 fully claimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or 
 her labour or service as aforesaid." 
 
 We thus see that the Congress, in the first instance in 
 which a portion of the American territory was subjected 
 to their jurisdiction, prohibited slavery for ever, in that por- 
 tion; declaredly in pursuance of the g eneral v je w of extc nd- 
 ing the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, 
 and of fixing and establishing ihose principles as the basis 
 of new republics which were to be introduced into the con- 
 federacy. In excluding slavery on these grounds, they stig- 
 matized it as repugnant to the noble ends just stated; and 
 have justified me in asserting that they recognized the prin- 
 ciple of universal abolition. At least, it cannot be denied 
 that they proclaimed the principle of its exclusion from all 
 the new states, which might be admitted into the confede- 
 racy. This inference is fortified by the tenor of the pro- 
 vision in the sixth article concerning fugitive_.siaiies, the 
 right to recover whom, is limited to the original_st^s. 
 That the Congress looked to the addition of newjinenabers, 
 besides the states to be formed out of the North Western Ter- 
 ritory, is evident from the following provision of the fourth ar- 
 ticle; " the navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and 
 the St. Lawrence and the carrying places between the same, 
 shall be common highways and for ever free as well to the 
 inhabitants of the said territory, as to the citizens of the 
 United States, and those of any other states that 7nay be 
 admitted into the confederacy,'''^ 
 
 The Congress proclaimed further, by the strain of this 
 ordinance, and of their preceding Resolutions on the same 
 subject, that the new states, though disabled from tolerating 
 slavery, were still to be considered as having the same rights 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 of sovereignty^ freedom^ and independence^ as the original 
 states^ and that, though so disabled, they entered, when ad- 
 mitted, into the confederacy, upon an equal footing with 
 the origtJial states in all respects whatever, Th e.pow eiLJof 
 esta blishing slave ry was thus denied to be amo ng t hose 
 rights: And the same degree of protection in the enjoy- 
 ment of them,— an equal share in all the real benefits of 
 the federal constitution, — was given to be understood as 
 the meaning of the phrase last quoted. 
 
 Another important maxim was, in the same manner, 
 avowed and determined on this occasion. The state of Vir- 
 ginia, in her act of cession, stipulated that " the French 
 and Canadian inhabitants and other settlers of Kaskaskies, 
 St. Vincents, and the neighbouring villages, who professed 
 themselves citizens of Virginia, should have their posses- 
 sions and titles confirmed to them, and be protected in 
 the enjoyment of their rights and liberties."* The Con- 
 gress, in establishing in their ordinance, rules of inherit- 
 ance and testamentary disposition for the Territory, more 
 conformable to the spirit of the American institutions than 
 those which prevailed there, made an exception in favour 
 of the above mentioned settlers, in the following terms: 
 " Saving to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other 
 settlers of the Kaskaskies, Saint Vincents, and the neigh- 
 bouring villages, who have heretofore professed themselves 
 citizens of Virginia, their laws and customs now in force 
 among them, relative to the descent and conveyance of pro- 
 perty." But the Congress, in decreeing that there should be 
 neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, made no excep- 
 tion in favour of those inhabitants and settlers, on the score 
 of their slaves who were not inconsiderable in number in 
 the proportion; and it is known that, to escape the opera- 
 tion of the ordinance in this respect, many families remov- 
 ed beyond the limits of the Territory. Congress thus 
 rejected the idea of the faculty of retaining the slaves as 
 such, or subjecting their offspring to perpetual bondage, 
 being among " the rights and liberties," or " titles," or law- 
 
 * See 1st vol. Laws of the United Stat§^, p. 472. 
 
11 
 
 ful " possessions," of the inhabitants and settlers. And 
 the maxim to which I have alluded, as avowed and deter- 
 , mined by the ordinance, is this — that the Uni ted Sta tes 
 acting in a federal or collectivje_£afiaci4;y, could not admit ^ 
 a right of property in humanjcsh, where they had juris- > l 
 diction, nor understand it to be referred to, in any gene- 
 ral stipulation concerning the unmolested enjoyment of 
 rights, titles, liberties, or possessions. 
 
 The ordinance so pregnant with principles and views pro- 
 scriptive of slavery, asserting so absolute a power over the 
 subject in the case of federal territory, had the unanimous 
 sanction, through the votes of delegates in the old Con- 
 gress, not only of Virginia, but of the two Carolinas, and 
 Georgia. Virginia did not think the conditions which she 
 had imposed in the act of cession, violated by the regula- 
 tions of the ordinance; her opinion was expressed not only 
 in the votes of her delegates, but soon after, more directly, 
 in an act of her own legislature. On receiving her grant, 
 with the modifications which she had prescribed. Congress 
 asked, by Resolution,^ an alteration of the act of cession, 
 as to her particular division of the territory ceded, into 
 different states; adding to the request the following phrase, 
 — " which states shall hereafter become members of the 
 federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, 
 freedom, and independence, as the original states, in con- 
 formity with the resolution of Congress of the 10th of Oc- 
 tober, 1780." After the formation of the ordinance, Virginia 
 passed an act (30th December, 1788) acceding to the re- 
 quest or recommendation of Congress contained in the Re- 
 solution; referring particularly to that Resolution; reciting 
 in extenso^ and especially ratifying the fifth article of the 
 compact of the ordinance, — in which article a change of 
 the division which she had prescribed, was made. She left 
 it to be necessarily implied by this act of confirmation, that 
 she did not consider Congress as having, by the prohibition 
 of slavery in the North West Territory, violated the pledge 
 given in their Resolution of request, that the states to be 
 
 * July 7th, 1786. 
 
12 
 
 formed out of the said territory should have the same rights 
 of sovereignty^ freedom^ and independence^ as iiie original 
 states. The request of Congress on the one hand that she 
 would " em^povver the United States^ ' to make a division 
 different from that which she had traced, and her formal 
 confirmation, on the other, of the arrangement in which that 
 Assembly had departed from her plan, prove a common 
 understanding as to the regularity of the interpretation of 
 all the other parts of their several acts and proceedings in 
 the case. The other southern states, as 1 shall have occasion 
 to show hereafter, also ratified the ordinance directly; and 
 it was re-enacted by the first Congress under the new con- 
 stitution. 
 
 When communities which had acted and spoken, as I 
 have noted; which had assumed, emphatically, the title of 
 republics; which, after extorting the recognition of their 
 independence, solemnly ascribed their signal triumph to 
 the favour of Heaven propitiated by the sincerity of their 
 declarations, the elevation of their motives, and the justice 
 of their cause, — when they combined to establish a govern- 
 ment national as well as federal, it could not be, that they 
 would devise a system restricted, in its beneficence, to men 
 of any particular complexion of body; equitable and advan- 
 tageous only for themselves; securing their freedom and 
 prosperity, but serving to rivet and perpetuate the thraldom 
 .of another description of the human race. When they en- 
 tered into a compact of perpetual union and co-operation, 
 th y could not intend a partnership merely in military de- 
 fence; in the culture of tobacco and wheat; in trade and 
 navigation, or in territori?.! aggrandizement; — a partner- 
 ship " subservient only to the gross animal existence of a 
 temporary and perishable nature;" but rather one having 
 also higher objects and interests, — universal justice and 
 universal liberty — moral and intellectual perfection^ in the 
 Utmost extent iq which this could be promoted by political 
 
 * See Vattel, b. 2. c 3. 
 
13 
 
 arrangements. And, with regard to the negro-slavery with 
 which they were afflicted and stained, if they could not at- 
 tempt its extinguishment, at least they would not fail to 
 provi de against its ex tgB&ion, and would so legislate as to 
 favour to the utmost the end ofjbolitioiu 
 
 It must have been with impressions of this nature, that 
 the Convention of 1787 appointed to create a federal consti- 
 tution, entered upon their task. We may collect the fact 
 from the tenor of the preamble to their system, in which 
 the American people collectively are made to appear as the 
 onlv agents on the occasion, and to propose as their chief 
 ends, the establishment of justice, the promotion of the ge- 
 neral welfare, and the perpetuation of the blessings of li- 
 berty. 
 
 On the subject of the negro-slavery the framers of the 
 constitution, had, no doubt, the same opinions with respect 
 to the quarter to which the guilt of it att^J^ hed, and the ne- 
 cessitN of postponing all attempts at abolition, which I have 
 described as common to the other federal assemblies. They 
 were therefore, equally consoled under the disrepute insepar- 
 able from its continuance, and cautious about tampering with 
 its cure. But, we must confess, that an ex pjicit avj owal of 
 the principle of abolition was still more required from the 
 Convention, than from the Congress that put forth the de- 
 claration of independence; because abolition was now more 
 within the limits of practicability and calculation, and the 
 debt of righteousness to Providence, greatly increased by 
 the issue of the revolutionary struggle, and the career of 
 prosperity opened to the nation.* If some such avowal 
 was not made, — if some concurrence of national circum- 
 stances was not designated in the constitution, as the junc- 
 ture when the attempt at abolition should be begun under 
 the auspices and with the resources of the confederacy — 
 we may presume, however, that the representatives of 
 most of the states desired and urged such a course of pro- 
 ceeding, and only consented to waive it from the infiexi- 
 
 * See on this point the inaugural address of General Washington, as Presi- 
 dent of the United States, to Congress (April 30th 1789) and the answers of 
 the Senate and House of Representatives. Note D. 
 
14 
 
 bllity of others of their body. There was more to hope on 
 the subject of abolition, with, than without the national sys- 
 tem of Union which they had in view; it could be attempt- 
 ed more safely, and effected more easily, under such a sys- 
 tem, although no active power, no control whatever, with 
 regard to the internal economy of the slave holding states 
 m this respect, should be lodged in the new government. 
 f None, therefore, was insisted upon; and the whole subject 
 of slavery within theJiinits-of a number of the states, was 
 left under their exxlusiYe__cognizance and control respec- 
 tively. 
 
 But, it became necessarily a topic of reference and ar- 
 rangement in the constitution; and here we shall see, that 
 the framers of this instrument, were not wanting in the sense 
 and views which were becoming in such men, and proper in 
 themselves, and suitable to the occasion. They pronounced 
 the condemnation of the institution of slavery, by abstain- 
 ing from the use of the word ^/ay^, when they were called to 
 refer to this class of beings; and substituting for it a term 
 of vague import: They acted as one afflicted with an heredi- 
 tary leprosy, or any other foul disease of similar origin, 
 would do, in veiling it as far as possible from the eye of 
 the world, though with the consciousness of being free 
 from personal guilt. =^ They acknowledged by this expedi- 
 ent, its general odium and inherent turpitude, and establish- 
 ed a pregnant admonition for the American people and 
 ^particularly the slave holding states. Their reserve has 
 been interpreted further into a belief diat t he consU tution 
 would survive the ca nker o f slavery, _and into the con- 
 / sequent design of excluding" troSTthe former, whatever 
 ' might immediately awaken the recollection of its existence 
 within the jurisdiction of the Republic. Be this as it may, 
 the proceeding argues dispositions on their part every way 
 adverse to the extension of the evil under the auspices of 
 the system which they were forming. 
 
 * Mr. Jay, in his letter to the Hon. Elias Boudinot, (17th Nov. 1819) makes 
 the following remarks. " The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of 
 the exist ng toleration of slaveiy, and its discordancy with the principles of the 
 revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to some of the posi- 
 tions in the Declaration of Independence." 
 
J5 
 
 These dispositions are more directly proved by the tenor 
 of that clause of the constitution which relates to the slave 
 trade, and of which it belongs to my purpose to investi- 
 gate the true meaning and scope. The clause is as follows 
 — '^ The migration or importation of such persons as any 
 of the states nozv existing shall think proper to admit, shall 
 not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one 
 thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may 
 be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars 
 for each person." " I understand the sense and meaning of 
 this clause," says Mr. Jay, " to be — that the power of Con- 
 gress, although competent to prohibit such migration and 
 importation, was not to be exercised with respect to the theii 
 existing states, until the year 1808; but that the Congress 
 were at liberty to make such prohibition as to any nexv 
 states, which might in the mean time be 'established; and, 
 further, that from and after that period, they were authoriz- 
 ed to make such prohibition as to all the states, whether new- 
 er old." 
 
 That the power of prohibition, with respect to the original 
 members of the Union, was denied to the federal government 
 until the expiration of twenty years, is a stain uy pn-xmr 
 nat ional charact^ r,^ which is rendered the deeper by the Re- 
 solution to which I have already adverted, of the Congress 
 of 1774, against the further importation of slaves into the 
 thirteen cglonies, and by the complaints which some of 
 those colonies had, still earlier, preferred against the British 
 crown on this score. The Congress of 1774 even exceeded 
 what was afterwards deemed the measure of its competency, 
 to arrest the slave trade; the Convention of 1787, with full 
 and undisputed powers to suppress it at once, postponed the 
 suppression for twenty years, showing the national virtue 
 to have been more active and rigid in the crisis of danger, 
 than in the season of security and ease.* 
 
 * There is, however, this excuse for the Convention; that most of the states 
 had, themselves, prohibited the slave trade and the importation of slaves. Geor- 
 gia and South Carolina persisted in receiving them from abroad. See BQte E, 
 
16 
 
 " It were doubtless to be wished," says Mr. Madison, in 
 the Federalist, " that the power of prohibiting the importa- 
 tion of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 1808, 
 or rather, that it had been suffered to have immediate ope- 
 ration. But it is not difficult to account, either for this re- 
 striction on the general government, or for the manner in 
 which the whole clause is expressed. It ought to be consi- 
 dered as a great point gained in favour of humanity, that a 
 ■period of twenty years may terminate for ever w^ithin 
 these states, a traffic which has so long and so loudly up- 
 braided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that 
 period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from 
 the federal government, and may be totally abolished, bj- 
 a concurrence of the few states which continue the unnatu- 
 ral traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given 
 by so great a majority of the Union. 
 
 The immediate cause to which Mr. Madison alludes, of 
 this impolitic and sinful restriction upon Congress, is ex- 
 plained by the same authority, in the Report of the debates 
 of the Virginia Convention respecting the Constitution. I 
 will extract the passage, in order that the discredit may fall 
 upon the true culprits. 
 
 " The southern states would not have entered into the 
 union of America, without the temporary permission of the 
 slave trade. And if they were excluded from the union, 
 the consequence might be dreadful to them and to us. We 
 are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is pro- 
 hibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. 
 The union in general is not in a worse situation." 
 
 " The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argu- 
 ed in this manner: — ' We have now liberty to import this 
 species of property, and much of the property now possess-' 
 ed, has been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contem- 
 plation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves. 
 What would be the consequence of hindering us from it? 
 The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we would 
 be obliged to go to your markets.' I need not expatiate on 
 this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the 
 imion would be worse. If those states should disunite from 
 
17 
 
 the other states, for not indulging them in the temporary 
 cootmuance of this tr?ffii , they might solicit and obtain aid 
 from foreign powers."* 
 
 The first remark which I shall make in respect to the 
 construction of the clause in question is, that, though the 
 word persons is employed, it refers exclusively to negro 
 slaves. This is expressly affirmed by Mr. Ja\ .f The suppo- 
 sition that it was intended to invest Congress with the pow- 
 er of preventing at any time the emigration of white freemen 
 into any of the states, either the old or new, or that it was 
 thought necessary Congress should be empowered to inter- 
 fere to restrain them from admitting coloured freemen 
 or white malefactors, — involves an absurdity, and has been 
 universally rejected. Some idea of the kind was thrown 
 out by the cavillers at the constitution, at the time it was 
 proposed to the people for adoption, and Mr. Madison al- 
 ludes to the objection in the following remarks. " Attempts 
 have been made to pervert this clause into an objection 
 against the constitution, by representing it on one side, as 
 a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on another 
 as calculated to prevent voluntary and benejicial emigrations 
 from Europe to America, I mention these misconstructions 
 not with a view to give them an answer, for they deserve 
 noncy but as specimens of the manner and spirit in which 
 some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the 
 proposed government.":|: 
 
 In no other part of the constitution, except in this clause 
 respecting the importation of slaves, are the states mentioned 
 in the peculiar phraseology of — " t he states now exi sting.*^ 
 We are entitled to infer that there was an intention of ren- 
 dering the limitation to the original thirteen, as precise and 
 striking as possible; and of subjecting: the new st'^tes and 
 all territory which might belong to the union, most em- 
 phatically to the control of Congress on this head. The 
 whole text, indeed, bespeaks a compromise in which, on 
 the one hand, the privilege of multiplying the race of slaves 
 within their limits, either by importations from abroad 
 
 ^ P. 322. t See bis Letter quoted alwvey \ Federalist^ 
 
 C 
 
18 
 
 or domestic migration, is reluctantly yielded for a term 
 to those southern states who made this compliance a sine 
 qua 71071 of their accession to the union; while, on the 
 other hand, the power is conceded, by implication, to the 
 federal government, of preventing at once the extension 
 of slavery beyond the limits of the old states — of keeping 
 the territory of the unionj and the new states, free from 
 the pestilence; and ultimately^ of suppressing altogether the 
 diabolical trade in human flesh, whether in^er^o/ or external. 
 
 The various motives which led to the formal recognition 
 of a power in the federal government to prohibit the impor- 
 tation of slaves, are plainly distinguishable. The traffic was 
 acknowledged to be in itself heinous and disgraceful; the 
 subsequent bondage cruel, unjust, dangerous. A moral and 
 enlightened people, jealous of principle and character, as 
 well as watchful of the general peace and safety, would do 
 nothing not exacted by a supreme necessity, that might en- 
 large the crying evil and sin; would do all that was prac- 
 ticable to prevent its extension; all that might, without in- 
 jury or strife, conduce to its extinction. The importation of 
 slaves from abroad increased the number of dangerous in- 
 mates; it multiplied the objects of injustice and oppression; 
 and in so doing, might lead to the diffusion of the evil over 
 a larger surface where it would, in progress of time, reach 
 the same intensity: it increased the difficulty if it did not 
 wholly take away the possibility, of universal or partial 
 emancipation. These latter considerations had, we are bound 
 to suppose, the greatest weight with the Convention. 
 
 By the clause above quoted, the federal government is 
 recognized to have the power of prohibiting at once and 
 for ever, not only the i77iportatton of slaves from abroad, into 
 the territories and new states, but their migratiouy or re- 
 moval from the old states into the new or into the territo- 
 ries. The conjecture has been indulged that the Convention 
 jemployed the words migrati07i and iTnportation as synoni- 
 smous. But these words had never been so received either 
 among the proper authorities in language, or in common 
 parlance: neither custom nor etymology would warrant such 
 a use of them. We are not entitled to imagine, that the let- 
 
19 
 
 tered men and distinguished writers who framed the consti- 
 tution would, where precision was so important, have con- 
 founded terms correctly and commonly understood to be of 
 distinct import; or, in the hypothesis that this was not noto- 
 riously the case, have fallen into sheer tautology.* If they 
 had intended to vest in Congress no other or further power 
 than that of prohibiting importation^ they could not have 
 conveyed their meaning more clearly or fully, than by the 
 word importation alone. 
 
 Moreover, it is an established rule of interpretation, with 
 respect to every instrument of writing, that due force is to 
 be given to every term in it, which has a plain, acknow- 
 ledged sense, and can be applied with certainty and without 
 difficulty. The term migration is of this description. It af- 
 fords no scope for conjecture or arbitrary comment. It is, 
 indeed, capable of being extended, in its derivative signifi- 
 cation, to the act of emigrating, across an ocean for instance, 
 from one quarter of the world to the other; but its common 
 and equally proper acceptation is the act of changing place 
 or domicile in the same country or continent. Novv, it is 
 also an established rule of interpretation, that if the subject 
 or matter treated of, will not allow, that the terms of a dis- 
 position should be taken in the enlarged sense, we ought 
 to adhere to the most limited sense which the proper sig- 
 nification will admit. I'his rule is the more imperative 
 where the extensive interpretation would lead to an absur- 
 dity. But we have seen that the clause of the constitution 
 refers only to slaves ^ whose removal from abroad to this 
 country, by any other mode than importation^ could never 
 have been in the contemplation or fancy of the Convention, 
 and would not, of course, have been expressed by any other 
 term. We are then left to understand by the word migratioJi 
 in the clause, the transportation or removal of slaves from 
 one state to another, or from a state to a territory. It may 
 
 * Tlie constitution, after being fully digested as to the substance, was referred 
 to a committee for the purpose of being freed from all superfluous words. Each 
 phrase was weighed with a view to the utmost precision, by members who were 
 thought especially qualified to decide. I have this feet upon the authority of one 
 of them, and not tlie least distinguished. 
 
20 
 
 be objected that migration implies something of an inde- 
 pendent, voluntary act, which cannot properl; b». predicated 
 of slaves; but we may suppose that the Convention preferred 
 the word on this account: the use of it is in consonance with 
 that of the word persons^ and belongs to that policy of virtu- 
 ous shame which sought to shadow our internal condition, in 
 a constitution destined for the study and a^' miration o. the 
 world, and for indefinite duration. At all events, the word 
 migration cannot be treated as null and without meaning; 
 and when we give it interpretation and rff( ct, as we are 
 bound to do — it must be in the direction in which the con- 
 text, reason, and the general intention of the authors point. 
 After what has been said we can h .rdly doubt, that this 
 general intention w as to k'-ep the territori' s and new states 
 altogether free from the bane of negro slavery: or, if it 
 should be necessary to p-rrait its existmice in any, to pre- 
 vent all addition to it there, from without. To compass 
 this end, it was indispensable that the federal government 
 should be invested with the power to control the internal 
 transportation of slaves — to hinder the introduction of tnem 
 into the new states from the old. As it cannot be conceived 
 why the faculty should h:ive been reserved to Congress, of 
 prohibiting at once the importation or migration of slaves 
 into the territories and new states, unless it were with a 
 view to shut out slavery from them altogether, or pre- 
 vent its increase, — so it cannot be conceived that, for this 
 purpose, it could have been deemed sufficient, merely to 
 guard against the importation of slaves into them from 
 abroad. Most of the territories and new states which the 
 Convention had in view, were inland, and slaves could not 
 be imported into them, but through the old states; which 
 last circumstance— -owing to the facility of concealing be- 
 yond detection, the foreign origin of the slaves introduced, 
 —would render futile any prohibitory regulations as to mere 
 importation. In this way we are furnished with a natural 
 and satisfactory explanation of the intent and uses of the 
 term migration. 
 
 All must admit that the federal government possesses 
 
21 
 
 the power of suppressing the transportation of slaves, ybr 
 salcy from one state to another, as well as from a state to 
 a territory. The turn of the clause of the Constitution res- 
 pecting the prohibition of importation, implies the admis- 
 sion of a previous general power in the federal govern- 
 ment to that effect. But this general power was understood 
 to arise out of the other expressly given, of regulating com- 
 merce with foreign nations.* As the power of regulating 
 commerce " between the several states," is also expressly 
 given, it included in the same manner, that of prohibiting 
 the commerce in slaves between those states. 
 
 Other reasons besides that of securing the new states and 
 territories from one of the worst of ills, may be suggested 
 for the grant to Congress, of the power of suppressing 
 the internal transportation of slaves for whatever general 
 purpose. The Convention can be supposed to have felt a 
 wish to prevent any occasion being given, for the greater 
 activity of that internal trading' in human flesh, the negro- 
 drivings which is among the most odious and disgrace- 
 ful incidents of ihe institution of slavery. They could per- 
 ceive that, if the removal of slaves to the new states, were 
 not liable to entire suppression, these would form additional 
 lucrative marts serving to incite the traffic just mentioned, 
 and its twin practice — kidnapping. They could not fail, 
 moreover, to be sensible how much the opening and con- 
 tinuance of such vents would, by holding out temptations 
 to cupidity, obstruct that which must have been dear to 
 their hearts — emancipation of individuals in the old states; 
 — how many additional human beings destined, otherwise, 
 to be liberated from their shackles, would be offered as vic- 
 tims upon the new altars raised to remorseless and insatia- 
 ble avarice. 
 
 The Convention must have been desirous, also, that the 
 internal traffic, as it prevailed between the old states, should 
 be liable to suppression or regulation, even at the expiration 
 of twenty years; and it was through the Federal Govern- 
 ment alone that they could expect to see this accomplished. 
 
 * See Debates in the "Virginia Convention, p. 323. Note JF. 
 
22 
 
 The restriction upon Congress in this case, for the same term 
 as in that of the prohibition of importation, can be accounted 
 for without difficulty. South Carolina and Georgia who in- 
 sisted upon it in the one, had the same motive for requiring 
 it in the other. This motive was to retain the faculty of increas- 
 ing or replenishing their stock of negroes, from every source. 
 Those states were the receptacles of the slaves removed 
 from the others; they were the goals of the negro-driver 
 and kidnapper, and would not consent to the immediate 
 stoppage of any channel of supply. Another operative con- 
 sideration on this head has been suggested. The price of 
 slaves might be seriously affected by a sudden prohibition 
 of the internal transportation of them; and against such an 
 inconvenience, adequate precautions were to be taken. 
 
 Admitting this power to be given by the Constitution, if 
 it had never been exercised or asserted by Congress, it 
 would not on that account, as every constitutional lawyer 
 knows, be the less real, or proper to be exercised. But it 
 has, in fact, been asserted. Witness the following extract 
 from the act of Congress, creating the territory of Orleans. 
 " It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import 
 or bring into the said territory, from any port or place 
 within the /itnits of the United States^ or to cause or procure 
 to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist 
 in so importing or bringing, any slave or slaves which shall 
 have been imported since the first day of May, one thou- 
 sand seven hundred and ninety-eighty into any port or place 
 within the limits of the United States, or which may here- 
 after be so imported from any port or place without the li- 
 mits of the United States: And no slave or slaves shall, 
 directly or indirectly, be introduced into said territory, ex- 
 cept by a citizen of the United States, removing into said 
 territory for actual settlement, and being, at the time of 
 such removal, honajide owner of such slave or slaves,'''* 
 
 These provisions of the act above mentioned, deserve 
 particular attention. The importation of slaves into the ori- 
 ginal states was not, and, as we know, could not be, pro- 
 hibited by Congress until the year 1808. Yet that body 
 prohibited the introduction into the territory of Orleans, 
 
23. 
 
 from any port or place ■within the limits of the United States^ 
 of all slaves imported into any of the states since the year 
 one thousand seven hundred arid ninety-eight. It had, of 
 course, equal power to enact a similar prohibition as to 
 slaves imported since any antecedent date. We find, like- 
 wise, that it denied altogether to all but persons of a particular 
 description — citizens of the United States having particular 
 views-^thc faculty of introducing slaves, from any quarter, 
 into the territory of Orleans; thereby asserting in theory an 
 absolute control over the matter of internal transportation 
 to whatever domain of the Union. It expressly interdicted 
 the internal traffic, negro trading and driving, in relation to 
 a territory where it allowed slavery itself to continue. See- 
 ing that the Congress of 1804, sought to destroy the de- 
 testable traffic, as regarded Louisiana, we may the more 
 readily believe that the federal convention of 1787, wished 
 to have it destroyed as to Georgia and South Carolina; or 
 rather, abolished universally. 
 
 In proof of the intention of the Convention to invest Con- 
 gress with a power over internal transportation, and to ex- 
 clude slavery altogether from the new states, we have, not 
 only the considerations which I have urged, but direct tes- 
 timonv of the most decisive character. In the letter of Mr. 
 Jay above cited, this venerable person, one of the authors of 
 the Federalist, says — " To me the constitutional authority 
 of the Congress, to prohibit the migration and importation 
 of slaves into any of the states, does not appear question- 
 able." The celebrated James Wilson, who passed from the 
 Federal Convention, after having acted a conspicuous part 
 there, to the Convention of Pennsylvania, assembled to de- 
 cide on the adoption or rejection of the constitution, held 
 this language in the latter body. " It is with much satisfac- 
 tion I view this pov;er in the general government, whereby 
 they may lay an interdiction, after the year 1808, on this re- 
 proachful slave trade; but an immediate advantage is also 
 obtamed, for a tax or duty may be inforced on such impor- 
 tation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. It was all 
 that could be obtained; I am sorry it was no more; but from 
 this I think there is reason to hope, that yet a few years.. 
 
24 
 
 and it will be prohibited altogether; and, in the mean time, 
 the new states which are to be formed, will be under the 
 control of Congress in this particular; and slaves will never 
 he introduced amongst them.'''** 
 
 If it be beyond question, that the Convention sought to 
 prevent the Union from being made subservient to the dif- 
 fusion and confirmation of slavery, it is no less certain that 
 they regarded the constitution which they framed, as like- 
 ly to prove ministerial, or at least highly propitious to 
 universal abolition. To render it so, as far as possible, 
 consistently with the attainment of the indispensable object 
 of Union, was a manifold duty of which, as I have inti- 
 mated, they could not but be fully aware. For that which 
 is demonstrable a priori^ we have also, as in the case treat- 
 ed in the last paragraph, satisfactory external evidence. 
 Judge Wilson, on the same occasion on which he used 
 the language already quoted from him, expressed himself 
 thus: " I consider this power given to Congress to pro- 
 hibit the importation of slaves,- as laying the foundation /or 
 banishing slavery out of this country; and though the period 
 is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the 
 same kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsyl- 
 vania." In another of the debates of the Pennsylvania con- 
 vention, the same high authority spoke in a yet more san- 
 guine, and positive strain. " I confess that I little thought 
 that this part of the federal system (that which relates to the 
 prohibition of the migration and importation of slaves) 
 would be excepted to. I am sorry that it could be extended 
 no further; but so far as it operates, it presents us with the 
 pleasing prospect, that the rights of mankind will be ac- 
 knowledged and established throughout the Union. If there 
 was no other lovely feature in the constitution, but this one, 
 it would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet 
 the lapse of a few years! and Congress will have power to 
 exterminate slavery from within our borders. f How would 
 
 * ** Debates of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania on the Constitu- 
 tion. Taken accurately in short-hand by Thomas Lloyd." 
 
 ■}• He perhaps expected that, at the expiration of the twenty years, Congre€S 
 vrould be formally invested by an amendment pf the «OHSt^UiUon, T^ith a direct 
 p«wer to this effect. 
 
25 
 
 such a prospect expand the breast of a benevolent and phi- 
 lanthropic European ? Would he cavil at an expression? 
 catch at a phrase?" &c. 
 
 In Virginia, whose delegates to the federal convention 
 were among the ablest, most diligent, and useful labourers 
 in the formation and establishment of the constitution — it 
 was particularly urged against the new system by those who 
 wished for its rejection, that it had a latent competency, or 
 irresistible tendency, to the emancipation of their slaves. 
 And we find governor Randolph, in the debates of the Vir- 
 ginia convention, holding this remarkable language: " That 
 honourable gentleman (Patrick Henry) and some others, 
 have insisted that the abolition of slavery will result from 
 this constitution, and at the same time have complained 
 that, (by the postponement of the prohibition of the slave 
 trade) it encourages the continuation of slavery. The in- 
 consistency proves in some degree the futility of their ar- 
 guments. But, if it be not conclusive to satisfy the commit- 
 tee that there is no danger of enfranchisement taking place, 
 I beg leave to refer them to the paper itself. I hope that 
 there is no one here, who, considering the subject in the 
 calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection disho- 
 nourable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing 
 the rights of their citizens, an objection will not be started, 
 that there is a spark of hope, that those unfortunate men 
 now held in bondage, may^ by the operation of the general 
 government, be made free*'* 
 
 The generous sentiment here conveyed by Governor Ran- 
 dolph, was, we know, common to the Virginia delegation 
 in the federal convention, and to othtrs of the most dis- 
 tinguished men of that state: the abolition of slavery was, 
 with them, a favourite object;* and they relished the new- 
 scheme of union the more, from the facilities which it 
 might afford — from its studied conduciveness — to that end. 
 Such of them as thought this a matter to be left to the 
 option and exclusive legislation of the states, were easy, 
 hov/ever, because they saw that there was no power of at- 
 tempting or effecting it, lodged in the federal government, 
 
 * See Note G, 
 B 
 
26 
 
 by the Constitution; — that from the mode of representation 
 anc taxation, Congress could not, as had been objected, lay 
 such a tax as would amount to manumission; — that the se- 
 veral states were for ever secured, both by the tenor of the 
 instrument and general circumstances, from any interference 
 or dictation in their internal concerns in this matter, on the 
 part of the federal government, though it would possess an 
 unlimited power, over whatever was exterior^ as to slavery. 
 Those of the southern politicians who were averse from 
 abolition at any period, or by any mode, had indeed cause 
 to look upon the new system with a suspicious eye: for, it 
 no where sanctions the idea of a right of property in human 
 beings; it does not recognize slavery as an object of direct 
 protection. 
 
 With what reluctance the major part of its framers sub- 
 mitted to impose the twenty years restriction upon it as to the 
 slave trade, I have sufficiently indicated. They regarded as a 
 concession even the following clause of the Constitution. " No 
 person held to service or labour in one state, under the laws 
 thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any 
 law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service 
 or labour; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party 
 to whom such service or labour may be due."* Yet, the 
 continuance of slavery in those of the original states who 
 might choose to maintain it, being submitted to, — the mat- 
 ter of abolition being left entirely with them, — an arrange- 
 inent like the one here quoted, followed of course, and was 
 required by the interests of the whole confederacy. Ante- 
 cedently, that is, from the date of the Revolution, if a slave 
 eloped to any of the states where abolition had been de- 
 clared, he was emancipated by their laws, " the laws of the 
 states," said Mr. Madison,f "being uncharitable to one 
 another in this respect." Such a condition of things could 
 not have been allowed to continue, without affecting too 
 
 * It should be noterl that, by this clanse, it is only a state which is bound, under 
 the Constitution, to deliver up fugitives of the description mentioned. TTie au- 
 thoi ities Oi a territory would be at liberty to refuse, without a special law of the 
 Federal government prescribing the contrary, such as that of the I'ith February, 
 1793. 
 
 ^ Debates of the Virginia Convention. 
 
27 
 
 sensibly the internal economy of the slave-holding states, 
 and endangering the peace and cordiality of the Union. So, 
 with regard to that clause in the Constitution which pledges 
 the Union '' to protect each of the states, on application of 
 the legislature or of the executive, (when the legislature 
 cannot be convened) against domestic violencei*^ within 
 which phrase insurrections of the negroes are necessarilv, 
 and were, no doubt, specially intended to be, included.* 
 Here, nothing more is done, than was obviously exacted by 
 the common welfare. Such insurrections, in menacing the 
 existence of the slave-holdii;g states, menaced that of the 
 Union, and the prosperity of its other parts. Thus, what- 
 ever countenance can be said to be given to slavery by these 
 clauses, whatever recognition made of it, — is but collateral 
 and negative; indicative merely of the understanding that 
 the slave-holding states were to suffer no m.olestation or 
 detriment in their internal system; and of the inevitable 
 policy of guarding the Union itself from the mischiefs to 
 which it was exposed from that system. 
 
 There is yet another reference to the slave population in 
 the Constitution, which is far from invalidating my theory, 
 and in which the framers look at the monster, askance, and 
 do not seem to acknowledge its nature or existence. I will 
 be understood to mean that clause which apportions " re- 
 presentation and direct taxation among the several states,! 
 
 * Mr. Madison, in justifying this clause, in the Federalist, writes thus. "May 
 it not happen, in tine, that the minority of citizens may become a majority of 
 persons, by the accession of alien residents, of a casual concourse of adventurers, 
 or of those whom the constitution of the state has not admitted to the rights of 
 suffrage? I take no notice of an unhappy species of population abounding in some 
 of the states, -who, during the calm of regular government, are sunk beloiv the 
 level of men; but who, in the tempestuous scenes of civil violence, may emerge 
 into the human character, and give a superiority of strength to any party witfe 
 "which they may associate themselves." 
 
 f The text of the Constitution is — " Representatives and direct taxes shall 
 be apportioned among the several states which may be included -uiithin this 
 TJnion?^ This mode of expression -would seem to embrace all the states in which 
 slavery should be permitted, that might at any time be included in the Union; 
 but the Convention had in view, in fact, only the original slave-holding states, 
 whose concurrence in the Constitution was extremely doubtful. The new fe'ieral 
 system was to go into operation, when ratified by nine states. The ratification 
 of eleven was obtained in the first iast^nce, with the greatest difficulty. J^orth 
 
according to their respective numbers to be determined 
 by adding to the whole number of free persons, including 
 those bound to service for a term of years, and exclud- 
 ing Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other /?er- 
 sons,'*^ that is slaves. This arrangement was also a matter of 
 compromise; the allowing three-fifths of the slaves to be 
 virtually represented, was a concession made to the slave- 
 holding states, to win them to union; to reconcile them to 
 the apportionment of direct taxes according to numbers; and 
 to the power vested in Congress over navigation and com- 
 merce, from which power those states were averse, but of 
 which they have since made the most extensive use, and in 
 which they have had most reason to rejoice. The conces- 
 sion was at once felt and proclaimed to be great, by their 
 delegates; it was acknowledged to be nearly so much posi- 
 tive gain.^ The nature and estimation of it, I cannot de- 
 velcpe better, than by adopting a representation on the sub- 
 ject which has recently been given to us, with the sanction 
 of the highest authority, — of a distinguished member of 
 the Federal Convention, who not only explains, but bears 
 witness. " The present House of Representatives," says 
 Mr. King,! " consists of 181 members, which are appor- 
 tioned among the states in a ratio of one representative for 
 every thirty-five thousand federal numbers, which are ascer- 
 tained by adding to the whole number of free persons, three- 
 fifths of the slaves. According to the last census, the whole 
 number of slaves within the United States was 1,191,364, 
 
 Carolina, Rhode Island, and JVe-iV York refused. ** Neither the intrinsic merits 
 of the scheme of government which was thus offered to the American 
 people for the"r acceptance," says Judge Marshall in his life of Washington, 
 "nor the imposing weight of character by which itwassupportet*, gave assurance 
 to its advocates that it would be ultimately received. To decide the interesting 
 question which agitated a continent, the best talents of the several states were 
 assembled (1788) in their respective conventions. So balanced were parties in 
 some of them, that even after the subject had been discussed for a considerable 
 time, the fate of the Constitution could scarcely be conjectured; and so small, in 
 many instances, was the majority in its favour, as to afford strong ground for the 
 opinion, that had the influence of character been removed, the intrinsic merits of 
 the instrument would not have secured its adoption." 
 
 * See the Addresses of the Southern Members of the Convention to their 
 constituents. 
 
 t Substance of two speeches delivered in the Senate of the United States. 
 
29 
 
 which entitle the states possessing the same, to twenty re- 
 presentatives, and twenty presidential electors more than 
 they would be entitled to, were the slaves excluded. By the 
 last census, Virginia contained 582,104 free persons, and 
 392,518 slaves. In any of the states where slavery is ex- 
 cluded, 582,104 free persons would be entitled to elect only 
 sixteen representatives; while in Virginia, 582,104 free 
 persons, by the addition of three-fifths of her slaves, become 
 entitled to elect, and do in fact elect, twenty-three repre- 
 sentatives, being seven additional ones on account of her 
 slaves. Thus, while 35,000 free persons are requisite to 
 elect one representative in a state where slavery is prohibit- 
 ed; 25,559 free persons in Virginia, may and do elect a 
 representative — so that five free persons in Virginia, have 
 as much power in the choice of presidential electors, as 
 seven free persons in any of the states in which slavery 
 does not exist." 
 
 " This inequality in the apportionment of representatives 
 was not misunderstood at the adoption of the constitution— 
 but as no one anticipated the fact that the whole of the re- 
 venue of the United States would be derived from indirect 
 taxes, (which cannot be supposed to spread themselves over 
 the several states according to the rule for the apportion- 
 ment of direct taxes,) it was believed that a part of the 
 contribution to the common treasury would be apportioned 
 among the states by the rule for the apportionment of re- 
 presentatives. — The states in which slavery is prohibited, 
 ultimately, though with reluctance, acquiesced in the dis- 
 proportionate number of representatives and electors that 
 was secured to the slave-holding states. — The concession 
 was, at the time, believed to be a great one, and has proved 
 to have been the greatest which was made to secure the 
 adoption of the Constitution." 
 
 " Great, however, as this concession was, it was definite, 
 and its full extent was comprehended. It was a settlement 
 between the original thirteen states. The considerations 
 arising out of their actual con dition, their past connexion, 
 and the obligation which all felt to promote a reformation 
 in the Federal Government, were peculiar to the time and 
 
30 
 
 to the parties; and are not applicable to the new states, 
 which Congress may now be wiUing to admit into the 
 Union.'^ 
 
 The allegations of Mr. King are all-sufficient; but, inde- 
 pendently of them, the simple exposition of the case would 
 shew, that it could not have been the intention of those 
 who conceded, nor the expectation of those who acquired 
 so great an advantage, that it should be communicated 
 beyond the original parties. This certainly is a case in 
 which we must apply the rules of interpretation — that the 
 known reason of a disposition should regulate its applica- 
 tion; and that an intention is always to be presumed contra- 
 ry to the one which would lead to a subversion of justice 
 and equity. Were we to assume that, in the article in ques- 
 tion, of the. constitution, slaves were referred to in the light of 
 property alone, the dispositions of that article would uppear 
 still more unequal and onerous for the non slave-holding 
 states. This point is made abundantly clear in the following 
 observations of the eminent statesman just named. 
 
 " The rule for apportionment ol taxes is not, necessarily, 
 the most equitable rule for the apportionment of represen- 
 tatives among the states; property must not be disregarded 
 in the composition of the first rule, but frequently is over- 
 looked in the establishment of the second. A rule which 
 might be approved in respect to taxes, v/ould be disapprov- 
 ed in respect to representatives: one individual possessing 
 twice as much property as another might be required to 
 pay double the taxes of such other; but no man has two 
 votes to another's one; rich or poor each has but a single 
 vote in the choice of representatives." 
 
 " If three-fifth of the slaves are virtually represented, or 
 their owners obtain a disproportionate power in legislation, 
 and in the appointment of the President of the United 
 States, why should not other property be virtually repre- 
 sented, and its owners obtain a like power in legislation, 
 and in the choice of the President. Property is not confined 
 to slaves, but exists in houses, stores, ships, capital in trade 
 and manufactures. To secure to the owner of property in 
 slaves greater political power than is allowed to the owners 
 
31 
 
 of other and equivalent property, seems to be contrary to 
 our theory of the equality of personal rights, inasmuch as 
 the citizens of some states thereby become entitled to other 
 and greater political power, than the citizens of other 
 states." 
 
 " The equality of rights, which includes an equality of 
 burdens, is a vital principle in our theory of government, 
 and its jealous preservation is the bt^st security of public 
 and individual freedom; the departure from this principle in 
 the disproportionate power and influence, allowed to the slave- 
 holding states, was a necessary sacrifice to the establishment 
 of the Constitution. The effect of this concession has been 
 obvious in the preponderance which it has given to the 
 slave-holding states, over the other states. Nevertheless, it 
 is an ancient setdement, and faith and honour stand pledged 
 not to disturb it. But the extension of this proportionate 
 power to the new states would be unjust and odious. 
 
 Upon the face of the Constitution^ however, it would not 
 appear, that the slaves were referred to at all in the light of 
 property. The comprehension of them within the rule of 
 apportionment as to representatives and taxes, does emphati- 
 cally hold them forth as persons, in contradistinction to pro- 
 perty. Mr Madison, in treating of this arrangement, in the 
 Federalist (No. 54), confirms my general doctrine. " Let," 
 he says, ''the compromising expedient of the Constitution 
 be adopted, which regards the slaves as inhabitants, but as 
 debased by servitude below the equal level of free inhabi- 
 tants; wAfc/z regards the slave as divested of txvo-jifths of the 
 man,^^ 
 
 I would not be thought to deny that the slaves were, bi/ 
 postulation, received on all sides as property, in the discus- 
 sions and internal adjustments of the convention; but v.'hat 
 I would insist upon is, that the idea is not tangible in the 
 Constitution; and the moral oi the fact that theframers thus 
 studiously withheld it from that instrument, is strengthen- 
 ed by the admission that they acted upon it among them- 
 selves in their deliberations. They intended that it should 
 not operate further than it had done in the private compro- 
 mise. It was discarded, with a sort of shame and disgust; 
 
32 
 
 as the foul material would be from the pu re and wholesom e 
 liquor, to the manufacture of which it had been essentia l as 
 an instrument. 
 
 A descendible property from father to son, of the human 
 being and all his offspring in perpetuity, was what, qs a 
 principle^ the majority of the framers of the constitution 
 were more ready to consign formally to execration, than 
 to sanction or shelter in any manner.* They believed it 
 to be utterly repugnant to the laws of God, to the rights and 
 destinies of human nature, and to the welfare of society; 
 and as a practice or institution they knew it to be capable 
 of no defence but that of necessity. They could hardly have 
 thought of giving it countenance or diffusion, while, in the 
 same act, they proscribed bills of attainder, laws working 
 corruption of blood., or forfeiture beyond the life of the 
 person attainted. All of them were aware of the oppres- 
 sive, guilty manner in which our negro slavery commenc- 
 ed; of the cruel means necessary to enforce its continu- 
 ance, and of the mischiefs and dangers incident to its 
 increase.! We should dishonour and slander them, in im- 
 puting to them any other intention than that of confining 
 it to the narrowest limits. The utmost that can be said of 
 the constitution on this point, is that it tole rates slavery in 
 th e old stat_e_s . To argue that it therefore permits its extension 
 elsewhere, is surely bad logic. The Convention can be sup- 
 posed to have tolerated in the old states what they deemed 
 a great political and moral evil, only because they had no al- 
 ternative, and because it was inevitable there. They cannot 
 in decency or reason, be supposed to have meant to autho- 
 rize it in cases in which this proceeding was not unavoida- 
 ble, and in parts of the American territory whence it could, 
 by any possibility, be excluded. 
 
 If the spirit and drift of the constitution, on this subject, 
 be such as I have represented them to be, the fe deral g o- 
 vernment has, properly, no power to permit slavfry in a 
 territory of the Union: if slavery be that iniquity and evil 
 which reason, experience, and authority concur in pronounc- 
 ing it, the federal government has no moral competen cy to 
 
 * Note H. t Note I. 
 
53 
 
 permit it there, unless the toleration of it be exacted by the 
 probability of its abolition producing a greater degree of 
 injustice and mischief. Slaves cannot be legally held in \ 
 any such territory, but by virtue of a positive law of the fe- • 
 dernl government. Slavery could Jind no shelter under the 
 constitution. The courts ot justice, in the absence of such a 
 law, would be obliged to declare and protect the freedom of 
 the negro who should choose to withdraw from bondage, 
 and refer to them the decision of his rights. The doctfine 
 laid down by Lo rd Mansfi eld in the case of the negro Somer- 
 set in England, would be as applicable and ought to be as 
 efficacious here, in the one under consideration. " The state 
 of slavery is of such a nature, that it is incapable of being 
 now introduced by courts of justice upon mere reasoning, 
 or inferences from any principles natural or political; it 
 must take its rise from positive law; the origin of it can in 
 no country or age be traced back to any other source. A 
 case so odious as the condition of slaves must be taken 
 strictly.'^ 
 
34 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 Havin6, as I think, fully ascertained, that the spirit and 
 tenor of the Federal Constitution authorize and require in 
 general, the exclusion of slavery from the Territories and 
 new States, 1 will proceed to examine the practice of the 
 Federal Government on the subject; bringing into view, 
 however, in the first place, two comprehensive powers with 
 which it is connected. These powers are conveyed in the fol- 
 lowing clauses of the Constitution:— "The Congress shall 
 have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regu- 
 lations respecting the Territory or other property belonging 
 to the United States." — " New States may be admitted by 
 Congress into the Union." 
 
 In all the political confederations which have existed, of 
 a character any way similar to our own, an absolute control 
 ov. r the ommon territory has be«rn vested in the common 
 government, it resulted with ut, as in every other instance, 
 from the vtry nature of the case. The su^bject of the exist- 
 ence or_5Stablishment of slavery in_the territories belonging 
 to the Union, necessarily fell within the di-rrrrJQn mmniit ~ 
 ted to C ongress^ as to the administration of their concerns; 
 the Convention not having excepted it out of the general 
 discretion, or reserved it for the states. If there had been 
 an intention of doing either, the assumption of jurisdiction 
 with respect to it, by the Congress of 1787, in their ordi- 
 nance concerning the North West Territory, would have 
 induced the Convt ntion to express that intention positively. 
 This ordinance was published two months before the con- 
 stitution was completed. But, on this point, nothing need 
 be added to the exposition in Mr. King's speeches. " The 
 power to make all netdful regulations includes the power 
 to determine what regulations are needful; and if a regu- 
 lation prohibiting slavery within any Territory of the Uni- 
 ted States, be, as it has been, deemed needful. Congress pos- 
 sess the power to make tb«r: same; and moreover to pass 
 all laws necessary to carry this power into execution*" 
 
SB 
 
 The article of the constitution which provides that "new 
 states may be admitted by Congress into the Union," gives 
 like the other concerning the administration of the territo- 
 ries, an unlimited discretion . It is left to the option of Con- 
 gress to admit or not to admit, and to decide as to the time, 
 terms, and circumstances of admi^^sion. There is no restric- 
 tion; and this arrangement is a kind of corollary to the inde- 
 finite power of legislation over the Territories. The autho- 
 rity to admit or reject at pleasure involves as concentric 
 that of prescribing terms of admission* — such, it being 
 understood, as do not place the new state at variance in its 
 institutions or condition, with the spirit and demands of 
 the federal constitution. To these and to the laws of morality, 
 there is an implied subjecti n in Congress, as to the exer- 
 cise of whatever power is given to it by the Constitution. 
 Thus, 'it could not make the establishment of slavery a 
 term of admission. The Constitution nowhere provides tli ;t 
 the rejection of slavery shall not be imposed as such; an i if 
 the framers had intended slavery to be an exception on this 
 score, they would have expressly reserved it, after siting 
 its perpetual abolition prescribed by the ordinance of 1787, 
 to all the states which might be formed out of the North 
 West Territory. 
 
 There could be no external reason for excepting the pro- 
 hibition of slavery fr >m the list of lawful conditions, other 
 than this — that the power of establishing it was an indefea- 
 sible right of sovereignty, more sacred and vital than the 
 power to coin money, to make war, to lay taxes, or any of 
 the other great attributes which we find surrendered to the 
 federal government in the constitution, or required to be re- 
 linquished in the acts of Congr. ss creating the new states! 
 To establish slavery, to tolerate \ even, without necessity, 
 amounts to the perpetration of a crin e, and a mischief; u hich 
 
 * Cujus est dare, ejiis est disponere is the well known raaxira of the common 
 law, as well as of general jurisprudence. All the political confederations uhether 
 of ancient or modern times, in admitting new members, exercised the n c ssary 
 right of prescribing terms. Mr Madison notices, in the Federalist (No 18) chat 
 "when Lacedemon was brought into the Achsean league, it was arten>le • ith 
 the abolition of the iiwUtutions aad laws of L-yeargus, aad an adoption of those of 
 the Achaans.'* 
 
36 
 
 has never been understood to be matter of right for any 
 moral agent; and such is a .tate.* Reasoi. would teach that 
 if there be any incapacity, under which Congress could re- 
 quire a state to place itself, as a condition of admission to 
 this political family, it would be that of organizing within 
 its bosom a permanent violation of human rights and divine 
 law; an institution of the most unsightly, odious, and per- 
 nicious character, in the disgrace and disadvantage of 
 which all the Confederacy must share. Could we doubt 
 the power of Congress, under this clause of the Constitution, 
 to require of a state disposed and prepared to cherish, and 
 to entail upon its population, some loathsome and virulent 
 epidemic, menacing to its neighbourhood and reproachful to 
 the whole American people— that it would for ever renounce 
 the nuisance on entering into the Union? If Canada, on the 
 supposition that she were free to regulate her own destinies, 
 should solic't admission; presenting herself, however, with 
 an established religion and a system of vilkinage-^would 
 Congress have no alternative but that of rejecting her alto- 
 gether, or admitting her ^v ith those institutions, which are 
 nowhere expressly interdicted by the Constitution to a mem- 
 ber of our confederacy? In fact, it is abundantly evident, both 
 from the text of the Constitution anJ the reason of the case, 
 that the Federal Government is not only competent but 
 bound, to obtain, previously to exercising the power of ad- 
 mitting a new State, every such modification of its being, as, 
 "without interfering with any provision of the Constitution, 
 shall render it a more safe, exemplary, and efficient mem- 
 ber of the Union. 
 
 The mode which has been adopted in some quarters, of 
 arguing against the existence of this power of imposing con- 
 ditions on new States, by supposing the gross abuse of it, 
 will not succeed with any sound intellect. Abuses are inci- 
 dent to every trust of which a beneficial use can be made. 
 " In every political institution," says the Federalist,! " a pow- 
 er to advance the public happiness, involves a discretion which 
 may be misapplied and abused. In all cases where power is 
 to be conferred, the point first to be decided is, whether 
 •See note J. fNo.-il. 
 
37 
 
 such a power be necessary to the public good; as the next 
 will be, in case of an affinnative decision, to guard as effec- 
 tually as possible, against a perversion of the power to the 
 public detriment." This is done, as to the power in ques- 
 tion, in tht very tenor and dispositions of the Constitution, 
 by which Congress must necessarily be limited in the exer- 
 cise of it. The proposition to a new state, of terms inconsist- 
 ent with the palpable aims or specific injunctions of the con- 
 stitution — the refusal to impart the real rights and benefits 
 for which it stipulates — will never be hazarded, as success in 
 the attempt would obviously be hopeless. To use the lan- 
 guage employed by General Hamilton with respect to an- 
 other supposed irregularity, — " an experiment of this nature 
 would always be dangerous in the face of a Constitution in 
 any way competent to its own defence, and of a people en- 
 lightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and 
 an illegal usurpation of authority." On this point of the ob- 
 jections raised in this instance, on the ground of possible 
 abuse, I need say nothing more than is contained in the fol- 
 lowing passage of the Federalist.* 
 
 "The moment we launch into conjectures about the 
 usurpation of the Federal Government, we get into an unfa- 
 thomable abyss, and fairly put ourselves out of the reach of 
 all reasoning. Imagination may range at pleasure, till it gets 
 bewildered amidst the labyrinths of an enchanted castle 
 and knows not on which side to turn to escape from the ap- 
 paritions which itself has raised. Whatever may be the li- 
 mits, or modifications of the powers of the Union it is 
 easy to imagine an endless train of possible dangers; and by 
 indulging an excess of jealousy and timidity, we may bring 
 ourselves to a state of absolute scepticism and irresolution. 
 I repeat here what I have observed in substance in another 
 place, that all observations, founded upon the danger of 
 usurpation, ought to be referred to the composition and 
 structure of the government, not to the nature and extent 
 of its powers. The state governments, by their original con- 
 stitutions, are invested with complete sovereignt)'. In what, 
 
 * No. 31. 
 
38 
 
 does onr security consist against usurpations from that 
 quarier.^ Doubtless in the manntr or tntir form i;i<>n, unci in 
 a due dependance of those who are to administer them upon 
 the people. If the proposed construction of th Federal Go- 
 vernment be found, upon an impartial examination of it, to 
 be such as to afford, to a proper extent, the same species of 
 security, all apprehensions on the score of usurpation ought 
 to be discarded." 
 
 The practice of the Federal Government has been in con- 
 formity with the doctrine maintained in my first Section, and 
 has established it, as far as invariable practice can be suppos- 
 ed to furnish the true interpretation and direct the application, 
 of any part of the Constifution. The ordinance of 1787, re- 
 specting the North Western Territory, exemplifies it through- 
 out. And this ordinance is to be quoted as the work of the pre- 
 sent Federal Government, It was in the eye and intendment 
 of the Convention, when they gave the general power to 
 admit new States; it was formally re-enacted by the first 
 Congress under the Constitution, composed in great part of 
 the framers of that Constitution. It is referred to as the ba- 
 sis of every act of the present government organizing a I er- 
 fitory or creating a State, The preamble of the act just 
 mentioned, of the first Congress (approved August 7, 1789) 
 deserves particularly to be noticed as to my subject. It is 
 of this tenor: — '' Whereas, in order that the ordinance of 
 the United States in Congress assembled, for the govern- 
 ment of the Territory North West of the River Ohio, may 
 continue to have full effect, it is requisite that certain provi- 
 sions should be made, so as to adapt the same to the present 
 Constitution of the United States,'- Now, the provisions 
 which follow, do not touch the articles of compact imposed 
 in the ordinance; that prescribing the abolition of slavery 
 included: and hence, we have the solemn opinion of Con- 
 gress, that an act (which it made its own) imposing this 
 and other material restrictions upon new States, was still 
 ■" adapted to the constitution.'*'* '' There is no recollection," 
 says Mr. King *' of an opposition from any of the Southern 
 States to the ^ct of coftfifmation passed by the first Con- 
 gress." 
 
39 
 
 In the act of Congress (approved April 30, 1 802) " to 
 enable the people of the Eastern Division ot the Territory- 
 North West ol the Ohio, to iorm a constitution and state 
 government, and for the avimission of such state into the 
 Union, on an equal footing with the original states," it is 
 prescribed as a condition that '•• the constitution and state 
 government shall be republican and not repugnant to the or- 
 dinance of 1787-" and the first section of the act declares 
 that the state when formed shall be admitted into the Union, 
 *' upon the same footing with the original states in all re- 
 spects whatever,''* The act (approved April 19, 1816) to 
 enable the people of the Indiana Territory to form a con- 
 stitution and state government, employs the same formula 
 as to the footing on which the new state would be admitted, 
 and imposes also a perfect conformity to the ordinance of 
 1787, " excepting only so much of the articles of the said 
 ordinance as relate to the boundaries of the states to be 
 formed North West of the Ohio." The making an excep- 
 tion more pointedly ratifies the conditions which remained. 
 — The act to enable the Territory of Illinois to form a con- 
 stitution, &c. and providing for its admission into the 
 Union, also requires that the constitution shall not be re- 
 pugnant to the ordinance; and the Resolution of Congress 
 for the admission of the state of Illinois declares it to be 
 admitted " on an equal footing with the original states in 
 all respects whatever." In all the acts concerning the states 
 formed out of the Territory North West of the Ohio, be- 
 sides the restrictions laid upon them by the reference to the 
 ordinance, there are others directly imposed, affecting ter- 
 ritorial rights, and having no relation to any requisition of 
 the constitution. 
 
 Thus, in the case of three states, restrictions of this na- 
 ture were imposed, especially the perpetual prohibition of 
 slavery^ while in the same breath it was declared, that the 
 states were to be admitted into the Union upon an equal 
 footing with the original states in all respects whatever. 
 And we do not find that any incongruity was ever suspected 
 or alleged to exist between this declaration, and the clauses 
 of the acts which prescribed the restrictions; or, that a com- 
 
40 
 
 plaint was ever preferred, in or out of Congress, of an in- 
 fringement of the rights, liberties, or independence of the 
 states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois. The people of them 
 never discovered that they had an indefeasible right to es- 
 tablish hereditary servitude. *" The act of Congress admit- 
 ting the last of them, was passed as late as April 18, 1818, 
 with the approbation and concurrence of a number of the 
 legislators who compose the present Congress. 
 
 Besides the new states of which I have spoken, six others 
 have been admitted into the Union — Vermont, Kentucky, 
 Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. As to 
 Vermont, since slavery had never existed there and her 
 laws proscribed it, no precaution was necessary. Kentucky 
 was explored and settled by Virginians; formed a dis- 
 trict of Virginia during the revolutionary war, and con- 
 tinued such at the adoption of the Federal Constitution. 
 With respect to the ntgro slavery which prevailed in Ken- 
 tucky, it was therefore to be considered as properly no 
 more within the reach of the Federal government at any time, 
 than that of Virginia. In December 1789, Virginia erected 
 the District of Kentucky into an independent state, and in 
 February 1791, Congress passed an act declaring that it 
 should be admitted into the Union on the first of June 
 1792. No terms whatever were made by Congress; but it 
 is to be noted that Virginia in erecting the district into *' an 
 independent state," did impose restrictions upon its sove- 
 reignty, which are called in the act "terms and conditions."! 
 Tennessee was formed out of territory ceded to the Fe-» 
 deral Governmenfin December 1789, by the state of North 
 Carolina, and was privileged for the same reason as Ken- 
 tucky, from molestation on the score of negro slavery* 
 North Carolina attached various conditions to her cession, 
 and among those which we read in the deed is the follow- 
 ing: " That the territory so ceded shall be laid out and 
 formed into a state or states, the inhabitants of which shall 
 enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and advantages, set forth 
 
 * These states all recogoize, in the preamble of their respective constitutionSy 
 the binding authority of the ordinance of 1787, in all its parts, 
 t See her " Revised Code." 
 
41 
 
 in the ordinance of the late Congress for the go'oernment of 
 the Western Territory of the United States^ &.." Tht- deed 
 of cession then proceeds thus— ^' the Congress of ihe United 
 States, on accepting the cession of territory made by virtue 
 of this act, under the express conditions hereby specified, 
 shall at the same time assume the government of the said 
 ceded territory which they shall execute in a manner similar 
 to that which they support in the territory west cjf the Ohio: 
 Provided ahvays^ That no regulation made or to he made 
 shall tend to emancipate slavesJ*"* With regard to Tennessee 
 therefore, Congress, besides labouring under a previous, 
 implied incapacity to suppress slavery there, was expressly 
 disabled from so doing. It is not to be overlooked, that 
 North Carolina, in the extracts which I have just made, 
 recognizes and adopts the ordinance of 1787.* 
 
 The states of Mississippi and Alabama were formed out 
 of territory ceded to the United States by Georgia and 
 South Carolina. The *' Articles of agreement and cession 
 between the United States and the state of Georgia"! con- 
 tain the following stipulation. " The territory thus ceded, 
 shall form a state, and be admitted as such into the Union, 
 as soon as it shall contain sixty thousand free inhabitants, 
 or at an earlier period if Congress shall think it expedient, 
 on the same conditions aJid restrictions^ with the same privi- 
 leges and in the same manner, as is provided in the ordinance 
 of Congress of the thirteenth day of July ^ one thousand se- 
 ven hundred and eighty-seven^ for the government of the 
 Western Territory of the United States, which ordinajice 
 shall in all its parts, extend to the territory contained in the 
 present act of cession, that article only excepted xi^hich forbids 
 slavery*'''^ 
 
 In April 1798, Congress passed an act authorizing the 
 establishment of a government in the territory in question, 
 to be styled the Mississippi Territory. The President of the 
 United States was authorized by this act " to establish 
 therein a government in all respects similar to that exer- 
 cised in the territory north-west of the Ohio, excepting and 
 
 * Tennessee does the same in the preamble to her Constitution, 
 t 24th April, 1802. 
 
42 
 
 excluding the last article (that respecting slavery) of the 
 ordinance made for the government thereof by the Congress 
 in 1787." In the same act, the ordinance is again referred to 
 as the charter of the rights, privileges, and advantages of 
 the new territory. It is also provided that '^ no slave or 
 slaves shall be brought into the said territory from any port 
 or place without the limits of the United States." In May 
 1812, the portion of West Florida lying east of Pearl River, 
 west of the Perdido, and south of the 31st degree of lati- 
 tude, was annexed by act of Congress, to the Mississippi 
 Territory. In the month of March 1817, this territory was, 
 (the consent of Georgia being first asked and obtained,) 
 divided into two parts. 
 
 In the month and year last mentioned, Congress passed an 
 act authorizing '* the inhabitants of the western part of the 
 Mississippi Territory to form for themselves a Constitution 
 and State Government," and declaring that the said state 
 when formed, should be admitted into the Union " upon the 
 same footing with the original states in all respects what- 
 e\er." The restrictions imposed upon the new state are 
 various, jind in the margin of the act are entitled *•' Reserva- 
 tions and Conditions of admission into the Union." I'he 
 .first of them is, that the constitution and state government 
 should not be repugnant to the principles of the ordinance 
 of 1787 for the North West Territory, (the sixth article 
 being waived) or to those of the Constitution of the United 
 States. As there are several principles established in the 
 ordinance, which are not prescribed in the Constitution, 
 Congress in this case as well as in the others, asserted a 
 full discretion in dictating any terms within the spirit of 
 that instrument. Mississippi was prohibited to violate reli- 
 gious liberty, or invade the rights and liberties of the In- 
 dian, which, not being expressly forbidden in the Constitu- 
 tion, must be considered quite as precious and integral a 
 right of state sovereignty as that of enslaving the offspring 
 of the negro, born as free under the law of nature and the 
 Constitution^ as the Indian. In the same month, (March 3d, 
 1817) Congress erected the eastern part of the Mississippi 
 Territory into a separate territory under the name of Ala- 
 
43 
 
 bama, and established for it a government the same as that 
 of* the former, and modeled upon the oidinancf of 1787. 
 The resolution of Congress (Dccembrr 10th, 1817) for ad- 
 mitting the state of Mississippi into the Uiiion, " upon an 
 equal footing with thr original states in all respects what- 
 ever," goes upon the ground, that the people of the said 
 state, had formed for themselves a constitution and state 
 government, republican and in conformity to the principles 
 of the articles of compact of the ordinance of 1787." 
 
 In the month of March 1819, an act was passed lo enable 
 the people of Alabama to form a constitution and state go- 
 vernment, and for its admission as a state into the Union. 
 The same language was employed in this instance as in the 
 preceding, and it was n quired, among various conditions, 
 that the constitution and state government should be " not 
 repugnant to the principles of the ordinance of 1787; as far 
 as the same had been extended to the territory by the arti- 
 cles of agreement between the United States, and the state 
 of Georgia." 
 
 We have thus passed in review four states, which were 
 left by Congress to exercise their own will as to the tolera- 
 tion of slavery. We have seen that in the case of all of them, 
 that body was specially restrained; and in fact, stood to- 
 wards them, as to this matter, in the same relation as to- 
 wards the original states out of which they were carved. 
 The territories which Georgia, South Carolina, and North 
 Carolina consented to subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, 
 would not have been ceded but upon the condition exacted 
 — that slavery should be permitted to continue in them; and 
 this institution would, undoubtedly, have continued in the 
 same manner, had the United States refused to accept the 
 cession on such terms. Nothing, therefore, wnuld have 
 been gained by this course, for justice and humanity. A 
 simple view of the map will show to any eye, how d< eply 
 concerned the ceding states were, in keeping things upon the 
 old footing as to slavery; and that Congress, in acquiescing, 
 pursued a policy almost indispensabl?; for their security. Tne 
 patriotic member of the House of Representatives,* who, last 
 
 ' Mr. Tallmadge. 
 
44 
 
 year, proposed the restriction tending to prevent the esta- 
 blishment of slavery beyond the Mississippi, mentioned that 
 he had abstained from urging its prohibition in the Alabama 
 territory, with a view to the safety of the white population 
 of the adjoining states; because, surrounded as that terri- 
 tory was by slave-holding states, and with only imaginary 
 lines of division, the intercourse between slaves and free 
 blacks could not be prevented, and a servile war might be 
 the result. 
 
 From the foregoing details, it is clear that, so far, nothing 
 can be said to have been done by the federal government, to 
 invalidate the force of the precedent established by the 
 exclusion of slavery from the states north-west of the Ohio, 
 or to countenance its extension. There was no option in any 
 one of the cases last enumerated. 
 
 But we have yet another new state, Louisiana, the cir- 
 cumstances of whose probation and admission require to be 
 particularly noticed. They will attest that Congress has fol- 
 lowed the rule o/ action which I have sugg-'sted as the con- 
 stitutional and obligatory one — that of effecting every modi- 
 fication in the institutions and being of a new state, adapted 
 to render it a more reputable, efficient, and homogeneous 
 member of the Union. The vast province of which the state 
 in question formed only a small part, was ceded to the 
 United States, " in full sovereignty" by France, on the thir- 
 tieth day of April, eighteen hundred and three. Its situation, 
 when the United States took possession of it in 1804, is 
 thus accurately represented by Mr. King. *' It was esti- 
 mated to contain 50,000 white inhabitants, 40,000 slaves, 
 and 2000 free persons of colour. More than four-fifths of 
 the whites, and all the slaves, except about 1300, inhabited 
 New Orleans and the adjacent territory: the residue, con- 
 sisting of less than 10,000 v/hites, and about 1300 slaves, 
 were dispersed throughout the country now included in the 
 Arkansas and Missouri territories. The greater part of the 
 1300 slaves were in the Missouri territory." 
 
 The treaty of cessioif contained a stipulation in favour of 
 the inhabitants, in the following terms. '' The inhabitants of 
 the ceded territories shall be incorporated in the union of 
 
45 
 
 the United States, and admitted as soon as possible, accord- 
 ing to the principles of the Federal Constitution^ to the en- 
 jo) ment oi all tht rights, -advantages, ana immunities of ci- 
 tizens ol the United States; and, in the mean time, they 
 shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of 
 thtir liberty, property, and the religion which they proiess." 
 Of this article Mr. King remarks, that, " though it wants 
 precision, its meaning cannot be misunderstood." " It con- 
 stitutes," he says, ''a stipulation, by which the United 
 States engage that the inhabitants of Louisiana should be 
 formed into a state or states, and as soon as the provisions 
 of the constitution permic, that they should be admitted as 
 new states into the Union on the footing of the other states; 
 and before such admission, and during their territorial go- 
 venimcnt, that they should be maintained and protected by 
 Congress, in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and 
 religion." 
 
 Another distinguished federal representative from New 
 York — whose zeal and exertions in the cause of the na- 
 tional honour and interests cannot be too much applauded 
 
 gave a different interpretation to the article, not unworthy 
 
 of attention: His language was as follows — '' The inhabi- 
 tants of the ceded territory,' when transferred from the 
 French republic, would have stood, in regard to the 
 United States as aliens. The objt ct of the article, doubt- 
 less, was to provide for their admission to the rights of ci- 
 tizens, and their incorporation into the American family. 
 The treaty makes no provision for the erection of new states 
 in the ceded territory. This was a question of national po- 
 licy properly reserved for the decision of those to whom the 
 constitution had committed the power. The framers of the 
 treaty well knew that the president and senate could not 
 bind Congress to admit new states into the Union." There 
 is much plausibility in the purport of this exposition. It is 
 certain that the extension to the inhabitants, of the protec- 
 tion and advantages of the Federal Constitution — of the 
 provisions of the ordinance of 1787 — would have satisfied 
 the mere terms of the article; and wt: know how strenu- 
 euslv it has been contended, by several of those legislators 
 
46 
 
 who are now eager for the unconditional admission of the 
 Missouri Territory into the Union, that the treaty-making 
 power is not of virtue to affect the exercise of a great power 
 of Congress.* At all events, the tenor of the article cannot 
 be thought to impose more positive obligations and restric- 
 tions upon the Federal Government, than the pact of the old 
 Congress with the state of Virginia, in respect to the coun- 
 tries north-west of the Ohio ceded by her to the Union— 
 that those countries should be settled and formed into dis- 
 tinct republican states, which should become members of 
 the Federal Union, and have the same rights of sovereignty y 
 freedom^ and independence as the other states J^^ It was not 
 thought incompatible with the last of these stipulations, to 
 prohibit slavery for ever in those countries; nor with the 
 first, to ordain, that *•• they should be admitted to a share in 
 the federal councils" only *' at as early periods as might be 
 consistent with the general interests of the confederacy J''^ 
 
 To proceed to the legislation of the Federal Government, 
 as to the ceded province. In the month of March 1804, 
 Congress passed an act "erecting Louisiana into two terri- 
 tories and providing for the temporary government thereof." 
 That portion of the province which is now the state of Lou- 
 isiana, was declared to constitute a territory of the United 
 States under the name of the Territory of Orleans; and the 
 residue, a district by the name of the District of Louisiana. 
 The "provision" made for the government of these divi- 
 sions, was not, as in the case of the territory ceded by the 
 southern states, the immediate extension to them of the 
 ordinance of 1787, but a system of peculiar regulation fitted 
 to mould the inhabitants by degrees to the system of that 
 ordinance.* Some particular acts of the Federal Government 
 were selected, and declared to have full force in the new 
 territories; among them, that of March 1794 prohibiting 
 the carrying on the slave trade from the United States; and 
 another (of February 28th, 1803) prohibiting the importa- 
 tion of slaves into states whose laws interdicted their ad- 
 mission. The importation of slaves from abroad was like- 
 
 * See the Debates in Congress on this snlgect (1814 ) Also, the ■■ pinions ol 
 Mr. Mauiaou and Mr. George Nicholas, in the Virginia Debates, p. 36U, 365. 
 
47 
 
 wise directly forbidden, and those remarkable dispositions 
 made to which I have already had occabion to advert, re- 
 specting the exclusion of a certain description of slaves 
 brought from any place within the limits of the Union. It 
 seems to have been an object with Congress, to prevent ihe 
 province from becoming a mart for the traffic either txcernal 
 or internal in human flesh. 
 
 In March 1805, Congress passed another act " providing 
 for the government of the territory of Orleans." On this 
 occasion, a government was given to it " in conformity with 
 the ordinance of 1787," and it was enacted that *' from and 
 after the establishment of the said government, the inha- 
 bitants of the territory should be entitled to and enjoy all 
 the rights, privileges, and advantages secured by the said 
 ordinance, and then enjoyed by the people of the Missis- 
 sippi Territory." Here is what might be interpreted into a 
 fulfilment of the stipulation of the treaty — that they should 
 be admitted as soon as possible to the enjoyment of all the 
 rights, advantages, and immunities of citizt-ns of the Uni- 
 ted States.* The sixth article of the ordmance (that which 
 abolishes slavery) was *^ excluded from all operation within 
 the territory of Orleans." The circumstances were also 
 specified, under which the territory should be admitted as 
 a state into the Union " upon the footing of the original 
 states in all respects whatever." Of these circumstances one 
 was, that the Constitution which it might form should be 
 consistent with the ordinance of 1787, so far as the same 
 was made applicable to the territorial government. 
 
 In the month of February 1811, an act was passed to en- 
 able the people of the territory of Orleans to form a consti- 
 tution and state government, &c. The language of the first 
 section of the act is "and they are hereby authorized to 
 form for themselves a constitution and state government, 
 and to assume such name as they may deem proper, under 
 the provisions and upon the conditions hereinafter men- 
 tioned." Among these conditions are the following — the 
 constitution shall contain the fundamental principles of civil 
 and religious liberty; " after the admission of the said terri- 
 tory of Orleans as a state into the Union, the laws which 
 
 * See note K, 
 
48 
 
 such state may pass shall be promulgated and its records of 
 every description shall be preserved, and its judicial and 
 legislative written proceedings conducted, in the language 
 in which the laws and the judicial and legislative written 
 proceedings of the United States are now published and 
 conducted." To these restrictions are added the usual ones 
 respecting the waste and unappropriated lands, the taxation 
 of certain property, the freedom of the rivers, &c." — none 
 of which are specified in any regulation of the Federal Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 Louisiana having accepted the conditions proposed, and 
 formed a constitution, an act was passed by Congress in the 
 month of April 1812, for the admission of the State into 
 the Union. 
 
 By the first section of the act, Louisiana was declared to 
 be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the 
 original States in all respects whatever, provided " it should 
 be taken a condition upon which the said State was incor- 
 porated in the Union, that the river Mississippi and the 
 navigable waters leading into the same and into the Missis- 
 sippi should be forever free without duty, toll, &c. and that 
 the above condition and also all other the conditions and 
 terms contained in the act of February 1811, should be 
 considered, deemed, and taken, fundamental conditions and 
 terms, upon which the said State was incorporated in the 
 Union.'' 
 
 It must be evident from the preceding extracts, that if 
 Congress did not impose upon the State of Louisiana the 
 condition of excluding slavery, it was not from a doubt of 
 their constitutional competency, or a belief that they were 
 disabled by the article of the treaty with France. This ar- 
 ticle, though it might be understood to deprive them of 
 the power of refusing to receive the inhabitants of the 
 province into the Union, upon any ter?7iSy yet consigned 
 the mode and terms to the same discretion by which they 
 had been determined in other cases. As to these points, it 
 clearly leaves the question on the original footing. No politi- 
 cian could suppose that the clause in the article — " according 
 to the principles of the Constitution"— had a signification im- 
 
49 
 
 plying that the Federal Government would, in any instance, 
 depart from those principles. This would follow, however, 
 if it were meant as a limitation upon that government, and 
 not merely as one upon the right stipulated for the inhabi- 
 tants of the province, of being " admitted to the enjoyment 
 of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citiz'.ns of 
 the United States." It was intended to acknowledge the 
 subordination of that right, to the powers on the subject 
 vested generally in Congress by the Constitution, and re- 
 cognized in uniform practice; of which powers that body 
 was to judge, and in which the imposition of conditions 
 was included. 
 
 Certainly, the idea was not entertained, that the in- 
 habitants of the States north-west of the Ohio had not 
 been admitted into the Union, " according to the prin- 
 ciples of the Constitution;" or had been denied any of the 
 *' rights, advantages, or immunities of citizens of the United 
 States," because the prohibition of slavery had been pre- 
 scribed to them as a condition of their admission. It never 
 was understood — it never had been pretended — that any 
 principle of the constitution required the reservation of the 
 power of maintaining slavery, to the new States; or that ci- 
 tizens of the United States, as siich^ did or could hold slaves. 
 These were known to be legally held only under the autho- 
 rity of state governments. If it were the right of a citizen 
 of the United States, as such, to hold them, then they might 
 be legally held as well in New York or Pennsylvania, as 
 Georgia; since ^federal right could not be impaired by the 
 laws of any member of the confederacy. The abolition acts 
 of the eastern States would be rendered altogether nugatory'. 
 
 If Congress could not suppose that the obligation of ad- 
 mitting the inhabitants of the province of Louisiana, to the 
 rights of citizens of the United States, in the manner con- 
 formable to the principles of the constitution, carried with it 
 the obligation of allowing hereditary bondage to be perpe- 
 tuated among them, — that assembly could as little ascribe 
 this virtue to the last clause of the article above mentioned, 
 which stipulates for them, "the free enjoyment of their li- 
 berty, property, and the religion which they profess. I have 
 said enough to show that it is not by a reference to the Con- 
 
 c 
 
50 
 
 stitution, to reason, or to the law of nature, the word prO' 
 perty could be understood to embrace slaves. Nor would 
 it be, by a resort to treaties, of which the clause in ques- 
 tion is but a common, vague formula, when inhabited ter- 
 ritories are transferred from one sovereign to another. " As 
 all nations," says Mr. King, very justly ,=5^ "do not permit 
 slavery, the term property, in its common and universal 
 meaning, does not include or describe slaves. In treaties, 
 therefore, between nations, and especially in those of the 
 United States, whtnever stipulations respecting slaves were 
 to be made, the word " negroes" or "slaves" has been em- 
 ployed, and the omission of these words in this clause, in- 
 creases the uncertainty whether slaves were intended to be 
 included," 
 
 Taking then the word property as one of uncertain im- 
 port in this case, and premising the incontestible maxim that 
 the toleration of slavery is, in general, unlawful and inhu- 
 man, let us see what received rules of interpretation we 
 have, by which we should be guided in construing the 
 clause. The first which I shall quote is, — that you must 
 always presume the contracting powers, in a treaty, to ac- 
 knowledge allegiance to the laws of the moral world; to aim 
 at promoting the ends of justice and philanthropy; and to 
 mean, therefore, that whatever would counteract those ends, 
 should be excepted from the possible scope of their stipula- 
 tions. They are not to be supposed to have the intention, as 
 in fact, they can never have the power',f of binding each 
 other to commit evil. There are exceptions so clear that it 
 is understood to be superfluous to express them; and these 
 are, of proceedings criminal and pernicious in themselves. 
 
 " If the expressions of a treaty," says Vattel,:}: " are in- 
 determinate, vague, or susceptible of a more or less exten- 
 sive sense— if the precise point of the intention of the con- 
 tracting powers, in the particular case in question, does not 
 appear, it should be presumed according to the laws of rea- 
 son and equity; and for this purpose it is necessary to pay 
 attention to the nature of the things to which it relates. 
 There are things as to which equity allows of greater ex- 
 
 * Ubi supra. f See Tattel, B. 2d, C. xii. t B. 2cl. C. xvii. 
 
51 
 
 tension than restriction; such are the things cdXled favoiirtt- 
 ble. The odious^ on the contrary, are those as to which re- 
 striction tends more certainly to equity, than extension. 
 Among the favourable are to be reckoned the things which 
 are useful and salutary to human society; among the odious 
 every thing that, in its own nature, is rather hurtful than of 
 use to the human race. We should, in relation to things 
 odious, when the will of the contracting powers in a treaty, 
 is not exactly determined and precisely know^n, take the 
 terms used in the most confined sense^ and we may even, to 
 a certain degree, admit the figurative, to remove the bur- 
 thensome consequences of the proper and literal sense, or 
 what it contains that is odious: for we fly from what is 
 odious, so far as this may be done, without doing violence 
 to the terms. Now, neither the confined, nor even the figu- 
 rative sense, does any violence to the terms." That this 
 author himself considered as eminently odious in his sense> 
 all that might conduce to enlarge or perpetuate slavery, 
 could be shown from various passages of his excellent 
 %vork.* 
 
 We know from the books of history and travels, that the 
 positive laws of some nations, and the customs of others, 
 acknowledged in parents an absolute property in their chil- 
 dren.! These might be sold, put to death, or disposed of 
 in any way, at pleasure. If this order of things had ex- 
 isted in Louisiana, at the period of the cession, by virtue 
 either of statute or prescription, — if this spurious species of 
 property had been asserted by the inhabitants,— could it be 
 supposed to have been mutually understood to be included 
 in the clause in question? Because, by a perversion of lan- 
 guage, it bore, there or elsewhere, the name of property, 
 must we have taken it as belonging to a description of pro- 
 perty in the perpetual enjoyment of which the United States 
 stipulated to maintain and protect the inhabitants? Above all, 
 would anyone have ventured to represent the Federal Go- 
 
 * See B. 3d. C. xiii. 
 
 t Such was the Roman Law before the imperial constitutions. "In liberos su- 
 prema patrum auctoritas esto; venumdare, occidere liceto." Paley, in denying 
 the right of parents to sell their children, (M. and 1*. Philosophy, B. 3(1 C. 10.)— 
 adds—" Upon which by the way we may observe, that the children of slaves are 
 not, by the law of nature, born slaves; for as the master's right is derived to him 
 throagh the parent, it can never be greater than the parent's own." 
 
52 
 
 vernment, in discharging the obligation which I will grant 
 to have been created by the treaty, of admitting them into 
 the Union according to the principles of the Constitution — as 
 compelled by those principles to abstain from imposing any 
 restriction upon them, in respect to the indefinite continuance 
 and extension of this hateful and mischievous institution; 
 knowing, too, that such was their insane purpose; that they 
 cherished it with a blind and shameless ardour of cupidity? 
 There is nothing unfair or illogical in mooting such cases, 
 and reasoning from them. It is the reductio ad absurdum — 
 it shows the unsoundness of the general doctrine, that Con- 
 gress in associating a new State to this Union, can require 
 of it nothing but what is exacted of every member by the 
 letter of the Constitution; that, having, perchance, in- 
 curred the obligation of admitting the inhabitants of a cer- 
 tain foreign territory — not peremptorily and without quali- 
 fication, but according to the principles of the Constitution 
 — it is obliged, at the same time, to admit them with what- 
 ever social distemper and deformity they may please to 
 maintain, which is not specifically proscribed in that instru- 
 ment, or incompatible with a repuhlican form of govern- 
 ment. How many practices and institutions of a deleterious 
 and ignominious nature, which fall within the class just 
 mentioned, can be supposed, without contradicting experi- 
 ence or probability, is well known to those who are ac- 
 quainted generally with the past history and actual condi- 
 tion of the various communities of the earth, or of this con- 
 tinent in particular. In fact, I cannot but view as absolutely 
 monstrous, that doctrine which would go to establish the 
 necessity, of extending the powerful protection and nutritive 
 care of the Federal Government, — of imparting a full share 
 in the national authority and councils — to a new community, 
 whatever outrage upon human rights and Divine law, of the 
 number left untouched by the letter of the Constitution and 
 reconcileable to the form of a republican govifrnment, it 
 might betray the resolution to organize and perpetuate. 
 
 In holding this language, I am not dealing in the meta- 
 physics of the question, or following out its mere shadows. 
 The Constitution assigns no limits as to the theatre from 
 which Congress may select new members for this Union. 
 
53 
 
 The North and South of this Continent, as well as the West 
 and South Wtst, the West Indies,— are competent candid.ites 
 for admission. # * * * But, abandoning the field of leartal 
 speculation which this consideration opens, we may fix our 
 thoughts merely upon the West, and reason in relation to 
 the communities still to be formed beyond the Mississippi, 
 in the vast region remaining as territory to the Federal 
 Government. We can imagine those communities, at the 
 distance and in the peculiar scenes in which they will be 
 placed, to contract dispositions and habits, to receive distor- 
 tions and taints, in the coarse of their advjincement to the 
 size usually exacted as preliminary to admission into the 
 Union, which would render them not only unjit to be in- 
 troduced, but dangerous as associates in the national sove- 
 reignty; which might cause the miscarriage of all the 
 original objects of this Confederacy; pervert it from it^ true 
 and noblest ends: give it an entirely morbid complexion — 
 unless Congress should possess and exercise the power of 
 prescribing to them, new arrangements in their internal eco- 
 nomy, of an assimilating and corrective tendency. 
 
 We need not, unfortunately^ employ ourselves in conjee- 
 tiiring causes of incongruity and depravation; we have one 
 at hand and assured, in negro-slaver ij^ which, if allowed to 
 that portion of the countries under consideration, which is 
 now claiming admission as a state, would unerringly take 
 root throughout the whole ot them, and overspread their 
 immense surface. This corruption is, beyond any one pos- 
 sible under the letter of our Constitution and the forms of 
 republican government, ominous of the fatal effects which I 
 have mentioned above; subversive of the designs of Provi- 
 dence for man, and insulting to his goodness and power. 
 When the natural consequences of its boundless prevalence 
 in this way, and of an entire predominance of the slave-hold- 
 ing interest and feeling in the Federal Legislature, are barely 
 descried — when we image to ourselves the new generations 
 of human beings, the new myriads of blacks, crouching un- 
 der the galling yoke of bondage, and perpetually irritating 
 by the spectacle of their misery and degradation, the jus- 
 tice of Heaven — when, in short, we bring to view the moral 
 
54 
 
 desolation, the physical ills, and the political dangers, of 
 which the idea cannot he separated from that of the diffu- 
 sion of slavery from the Mississippi to the Pacific — con- 
 trasting them, too, with the pictures of moral beauty, of 
 universal freedom and civilization, and permanent, honour- 
 able welfare, which the certainty of its absence would allow 
 us to draw* — we are then at once struck with the exorbitance 
 
 * We find in the works of Savage, a full perspective of this kind, sketched 
 near a century ago and intended for North America. Both the light and shade 
 nia} suit the present case. The poet personifies Public Spirit, and introduces his 
 goddess speaking thus — 
 
 llapt, 1 a future colony survey? 
 
 Come then, ye sons of Misery! come away! 
 
 Let those, whose sorrows from neglect are known 
 
 (Here taught, compell'd, empower'd) neglect atone! 
 
 Let those enjoy, who never merit woes, 
 
 In youth th' industi'ious wish, in age repose! 
 
 Allotted acres (no reluctant soil) 
 
 Shall prompt their industry, and pay their toil. 
 
 Let families, long strangers to delight. 
 
 Whom wayward Fate dispers'd, by me unite; 
 
 Here live enjoying life; see plenty, peace; 
 
 Their lands increasing as their sons increase. 
 
 As Nature yet is found, in leafy glades, 
 
 To intermix the walks with lights anfi shades; 
 
 Or as with good and ill, in chequer'd strife. 
 
 Various the goddess colours human life: 
 
 So, in this fertile clime, if yet are seen 
 
 Moors, marshes, cliffs, by turns to intervene; 
 
 Where cliffs, moors, marshes, desolate the view. 
 
 Where haunts the bittern, and where screams the mcM;; 
 
 Where prowls the wolf, where roll'd the serpent lies» 
 
 Shall solemn fanes and halls of justice rise. 
 
 And towns shall open (all of structure fair!) 
 
 To l.rightening prospects, and to purest air; 
 
 Frequented ports, and vineyards green succeed. 
 
 And flocks increasing whiten all the mead. 
 
 On science science, arts on arts refi'ne; 
 
 On these from high all Heaven shall smihng shine. 
 
 And Public Spirit here a people show. 
 
 Free, numerous, pleas'd and busy all below. 
 
 Learn, future natives of this promised land, 
 
 What your forefathers ow'd my saving hand! 
 
 Do you the neighbouring blameless Indian aid. 
 
 Culture what he neglects, not his invade. 
 
 Dare not, oh dare not, with ambitious view. 
 
 Force or demand subjection never due. 
 I Let, by my specious name, no tyrants rise. 
 
 And cry, while they enslave, they civilize! 
 
 Know, Liberty and I are still the same. 
 
 Congenial! — ever mingling flame with flamd! 
 
55 
 
 of the proposition that the Federal Government is con- 
 denlned by the Constitution not merely to permit, when it 
 otherwise might avert, but to sanction and subserve such an 
 aggregation of calamity and crime! 
 
 In contemplating a futurity such as I have just presented, 
 we are led to seek for another theorv of construction more 
 suitable to the occasion; and this we may find, consecrated 
 by the autl>ority of the highest judicial tribunal of this coun- 
 try. It is from the Reporis of the Cases argued and deter- 
 mined in the Supreme Court of the United States, (4 Whea- 
 ton, case of M^CuUoch vs. State of Maryland,) that I make 
 the following extracts, of which the application need not 
 be indicated. 
 
 Mr. Pinkney. 
 
 " Congress is prhna facie a competent judge of its own 
 constitutional powers. It is a duty to construe the constitu- 
 tional po- ers of the national government liberally, and to 
 mould them so as to effectuate its great objects." 
 • " The constitutional government of this republican empire 
 cannot be practically enforced, so as to secure the perma- 
 nent glory, safety, and felicity of this great country, but 
 by a fair and liberal interpretation of its powers; those 
 powers could not all be expressed in the Constitution, but 
 many of them must be taken by implication." 
 
 Chief Justice Marshall. 
 
 " The Federal Government proceeds directly froni the 
 
 people; is ' ordained and established' in the name of the 
 
 people * in order to form a more perfect union, establish 
 
 justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, and secure the bless- 
 
 JVhu must 1 JtfHc's sable children see 
 Vended for slaves, thoicghformed by J\''ahire free. 
 The nameless torttires cruel minds invent, 
 Those to subject y -whom, j\'ature egjial meant? 
 Jf these yon dare (albeit unjust success 
 Empowers you now unpunished to oppress) 
 JRevolvmsr empire you and your' s may doom 
 {Rome all subdued, yet Vandals -uanqiush^d Rome") 
 Yes, empire may revolve, give them the day, 
 ^indyokc may yoke ^ and blood may blood repay. 
 
56 
 
 ing of liberty to themselves and their posterity.' It is truly 
 and emphatically a government of the people. In form 
 and in substance it emanates from them. Its powers 
 are granted by them, and are to be exercised directly on 
 them, and for their benefit,'* 
 
 " Even the tenth amendment, which was framed for the 
 purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been 
 excited, omits the word ' expressly,' and declares only that 
 the powers ' not delegated to the United States, nor prohi- 
 bited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the peo- 
 ple;' thus leaving th: question, whether the particular power 
 which may become the subject of contest has been delegated 
 to the one government, or prohibited to the other, to de- 
 pend on a fair construction of the whole instrumeJit,''^ 
 
 " Its nature requires, that only its great outlines should 
 be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor 
 ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from 
 the nature of the objects themselves." 
 
 " In considering this question, we must never forget, that 
 it is a constitution we are expounding." 
 
 " The subject is the execution of those great powers, on 
 which the welfare of a nation essentially depends. It must 
 have been the intention of those who gave those powers, to 
 insure, as far as human prudence could insure, their benefi- 
 cial execution. This could not be done by confiding the 
 choice of means to such narrow limits as not to leave it in 
 the power of Congress to adopt any which might be appro- 
 priate, and which were conducive to the end. This provi- 
 sion is made in a Constitution intended to endure for ages to 
 come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises 
 of human affairs." 
 
 " Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of 
 the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, 
 which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohi- 
 bited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Consti- 
 tution, are constitutional." 
 
 If the text of the Constitution were, unaccountably, such 
 as to warrant the interpretation, that the Federal Government 
 was denied the power of imposing any restriction as to 
 
57 
 
 slavery, upon the new states xvfuch the Convention had in 
 viezv^ still I would contend that, in an extreme case like the 
 present, never contemplated nor imagined,* that government 
 would be at liberty to consult the national interests, and 
 minister to the ends of Eternal Justice and Benevolence. 
 The principle of this dispensation from the letter of the 
 Constitution, may be illustrated in an example offered by 
 Vattel. '' Let us suppose," he says, *' a captain has receiv- 
 ed orders to advance in a right line with his troops to a 
 certain post: he finds a precipice in his way; he is certainly 
 not ordered to throw himself down it; he ought therefore, 
 to turn from the right line, so far as is necessary to avoid 
 the precipice." One of the general rules which this author 
 establishes, deserves also to be quoted as decisive of the 
 course Congress should pursue, in the interpretation of the 
 Constitution, on an occasion of the nature ht-re described. 
 ** In unforeseen cases, that is, when the state of things is 
 found such as the author of a disposition has not foreseen, 
 and could not have thought of, we should rather follow his 
 intention than his words, and interpret the instrument as he 
 himself would have interpreted it, had he been present, or 
 conformably to what he would have done, if he had fore- 
 seen the things that have happened." 
 
 I may array in this place some points, respecting which no 
 candid and unbiassed reader of what precedes, will, I think, 
 hesitate for a moment: — 1st. That, if the introduction of negro- 
 slavery had been an original question for the Federal Conven- 
 tion, and there had been cause to apprehend it, they would 
 most earnestly have provided against it in the Constitution: — 
 That if the pestilence had been confined to one or two 
 States only, they would have insisted upon direct provisions 
 either for its gradual extirpation, or its strict compression 
 within its cotemporary limits:r — That, as the case was, if 
 the consent of the slave holding States could have been ob- 
 tained, a period would have been fixed for the enterprise 
 
 % 
 
 * See the No. 14 of the Fedei-ahst; fi-ora the tenor of which it is evident, that 
 no idea was entertained of the extension of the Union be\ ond the limits of the 
 territory, which the United States held when the Constitution was formed. 
 
 H 
 
58 
 
 df total abolition, by measured degrees:— That, if the 
 majority of the Convention who, at the risk of foregoing 
 the Union, refused to allow the slave trade, mternal or ex- 
 ternal, to the old States, for a longer term than twenty 
 years, or to secure it^ toleration for a moment as to the 
 new, had had even a presentiment of such a question arising 
 for the decision of Congress, as the establishment of slavery 
 in another great division of this continent, they would have 
 left no room for suspense; — or, if they were now at hand to 
 interpret their work, in reference to it, thty would quickly 
 determine in the negative. We are not permitted to think 
 otherwise of the men who would not suffer the Constitution 
 to be profaned with the word slave^ and who had fresh in 
 their memory and hearts, when they contrived this charter 
 of freedom, the following peroration of an address of Con- 
 o-ress^ (which too, no inconsiderable part of them had sign- 
 ed), to the confederate states. 
 
 '^ Let it be remembered, that it has ever been the pride 
 and boast of America^ that the rights for which she contend- 
 ed, were the rights of hufnan nature* By the blessing of 
 the Author of these rights, on the means exerted for their 
 defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and 
 form the basis of thirteen independent states. No instance 
 has heretofore occured, nor can any instance be expected 
 hereafter to occur, in which the unadulterated forms of 
 republican government can pretend to so fair an oppor- 
 tunity of justifying themselves by their fruits. In this 
 view, the citizens of the United States are responsible for 
 the greatest trust ever confided to a political society. If 
 justice, good faith, honour, and all the other qualities 
 which ennoble the character of a nation, and fulfil the ends 
 of government, be the fruits of our establishments, the 
 cause of liberty will acquire a dignity and lustre which it has 
 never yet enjoyed; and an example will be set which cannot 
 but have the most favourable influence on the rights of 
 iiriankind. It on the other side, our governments, should 
 
 * April 1785. 
 
59 
 
 be unfortunately blotted with the reverse of these cardinal 
 and essential virtues, the great cause whic i we hiive en** 
 gaged to vindicate will be dishonoured and betrayed, the 
 last and fairest experiment in favour of the rights of human 
 nature will be turned against them, and iheir patrons and 
 friv ncJs exposed to be insulted and silenced by the votaries 
 of tyranny and usurpation." 
 
 With regard to the interpretation of the word property 
 in the article of the Treaty, the utmost scope which Con- 
 gress could have thought themselves bound to give it, — if 
 they allowed it to reach the case of human beings at all, 
 — was the maintenance of the existing relations between 
 the white population and the individuals held in bondage; 
 and the enjoyment of the services of the offspring of the 
 latter, until they reached that age at which they could be 
 supposed to have indemnified the master, by their labour^ 
 for the expenses incurred on their account from their birth 
 to their adult state. If we were to acknowledge Congress to 
 have been bound, upon general principles^ to give greater 
 comprehension to the term in this case, we should accuse the 
 states that have abolished slavery within their limits, of 
 having committed a flagrant wrong, and a direct br-^ach 
 of their Constitutions.* I have never heard that such an 
 accusation has been preferred against them, or deemed te- 
 nable. 
 
 If there could be upon general principles, a descendi- 
 ble right of property in the negro and his offspring in 
 perpetuity, that right was as complete and as fully vested 
 in the slave holder, of Pennsylvania for instance, as it ever 
 was or will be, in any part of the world; and the state could 
 not lawfully despoil him of it, or curtail it without making 
 him compe nsation. I'his commonwealth and the others who 
 took a similar course as to slavery, had admitted and legal- 
 
 * *' Whenever tlie public exigencies require that the properttj of any indivi- 
 dual should be appropriated to public uses, he shall receive a reasonable com" 
 pensation therefor " — Constitution of Massachusetts. 
 
 " Nor shall any man's property be taken or applied to public use, without the 
 consent of his representatiyes and t^ ilhout iust compcBsatioQ being made.'*-- 
 Constitution of Pennsylvania. 
 
60 
 
 ized, the application of" the term property to the slave; m 
 practice they had allowed it to be asserted in the utmost 
 latitude: they had therefore, apparently, no room left,— as 
 Congress had in the case of its occurrence in the treaty,— 
 to deny it all reference to the human being: they seemed, 
 on the contrary, precluded from limiting its comprehension 
 in any manner, seeing that the indefinite was the prescrip- 
 tive one among themselves. But they did contract it, with- 
 out making indemnity to their citizens whom this legisla- 
 tion directly abridged of so much wealth; and in so doing, 
 they virtually denied the existence of such a right of pro- 
 perty as the one mentioned above; or that it could be created 
 by prescription, custom, or even legislative acts regulating 
 possession and use. We have, here, on this point, the 
 deliberate judgment, hitherto unimpeached even as to its 
 sweeping application, of six state governments; forming a 
 cumulative precedent for Congress, as to the utmost extent 
 of its obligation in the interpretation of the term property 
 in the treaty; — a precedent, which if not binding upon that 
 body, has at least a claim to much deference. 
 
 Massachusetts, as we know, dealt with the subject in a 
 more summary way than the other abolishing states, who 
 all went to the limits which I have marked out, as the ulti- 
 mate to which Congress could have supposed its duty in the 
 matter to extend. So early as 1770, her courts of justice 
 supported the negro slave in pleading against his master, the 
 principles of the common law, and rejected the pretension 
 of property even in the services of the former, unless found- 
 ed upon express contract. '* The present Constitution of 
 Massachusetts," says Dr. Belknap, " was established in 
 1780. The first article of the Declaration of Rights asserts 
 that ' all men are born free and equal.' This was inserted, 
 not merely as a moral and political truth, but with a view 
 to establish the liberation of the negroes on a general prin- 
 ciple, and so it was understood by the people at large. The 
 decisions of the judicial tribunals were in conformity with 
 this understanding.''^ 
 
 * See 4th Vol. Massachusetts Hist. Coll. "The state of New Hampshire es- 
 tablished their Constitution in 1783; and in the first article of the declaration ol 
 
61 
 
 The conduct of the abolishing States forbids to those ot 
 their representatives in the Federal Government, who would 
 not arraign them of usurpation, the acknowledgment ol a 
 right of property such as that under consideration, or of an 
 obligation in the Federal Government to act in any case 
 upon this notion; and it furnishes their high authority for 
 the following propositions which it implies as a part of their 
 creed and motive. 1st. Hereditary servitude is in itself a 
 violation of rights and duties essential to human nature, and 
 therefore can find a warrant neither in prescription, conve- 
 nience, general practice, nor statute of any kind— in nothing 
 but absolute necessity. 2. No plea is sufficient to excuse 
 any community for maintaining it, but that of self-preserva- 
 tion, 3d. A presiding government, having jurisdiction in 
 the case, is justified in permitting it, only where its aboli- 
 tion would endanger in a high degree the general -safety. 
 
 Take it apart from these salvos, and, indeed, then to as- 
 sert its propriety or deny its unlawfulness, would be to dis- 
 own all moral relations between man and man, and even 
 all subordination and responsibility to the Creator, if not 
 his very existence. Whatever right it could imply, would 
 be only the right of the strongest;* and its advocates must at 
 the same time become those of political slavery, and of every 
 species of dominion founded in force or fraud. There would 
 be an entire apostacy from the whole established code of 
 political and religious ethics— the more sacred and obliga- 
 tory, however, for us, because it is, in some sort, wrought 
 into all our Constitutions. If any description of men could, 
 without having their own personal safety and liberty, or 
 their political existence or independence, at stake, but 
 merely for their greater convenience, or wealth, or dignity, 
 or scope of command, or from luxurious habit, lawfully re- 
 tain another description of men in personal bondage of such 
 a character as that in which our negroes are now held, then, 
 
 rights, it is asserted, that " all men are born equally free and independent." The 
 construction there put on this clause is, that all who have been boim since the 
 constitution, are free; but that those who were in slavery before, are not liberated 
 by it ■ ' Ibid 
 * Herailes is the tutelary god of slaves in the ancient Mythologt. 
 
62 
 
 the similar subjection of the whites of Maryland to those 
 of Virginia, as it would answer the same ends, would be of 
 equal validity, if it could be brought about; and we could 
 find nothing wrong in the slavery of the multitude in aristo- 
 cracies or absolute governmenis; in the condition of the 
 people in Poland or Algiers. 
 
 The Congress of the United States could never allow 
 itself to be betrayed into a doctrine or course of proceeding, 
 which would involve it in such a labyrinth of inconsistency 
 and heresy both moral and political. 
 
63 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 With the principles and the facts which I have submitted 
 m tht: preceding sections, fully impressed on our minds, we 
 shall have little difficulty in deciding upon the claim of the 
 inhabitants of the Missouri Territory to be admitted into 
 the Union, free from all restraint in relation to negro-slave- , 
 ry. In this case, I am naturally led to advert in the first 
 instance, to some parts of the act of Congress (of June 4th, 
 1812) providing for the government of that territory; which 
 is not an extension of the ordinance of 1787, to the inha- 
 bitants, but a distinct body of regulations. The 14th section 
 treats of " the rights secured to the people of the territory;" 
 and among the number of those rights is the following: 
 " No man shall be deprived of his life^ liberti/y or property, 
 but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land." 
 The 15th section provides that " no tax shall ever be im- 
 posed on the lands the property of the United States; that 
 the lands of non-resident proprietors shall never be taxed 
 higher than those of residents, that the Mississippi and Mis- 
 souri Rivers shall be for ever free, &c." These and other 
 restrictions indefinitely prospective, extending to the period 
 when the territory should have become a sovereign state, 
 and affecting rights of sovereignty not surrendered by the 
 original states, were submitted to without a murmur, both 
 in the Territory, and in Congress. No protest was entered 
 from any quarter, in favour of the sovereignty then germi- 
 nating, and thus shorn in advance. 
 
 But, when, during the last session of Congress, — the peo- 
 ple of the territory having become sufficiently numerous for 
 udmission into the Union, and a bill having been framed in 
 the usual form to enable them to be admitted,— an amend- 
 ment was proposed which required the prohibition of the 
 introduction of slaves into the new state, and the emanci- 
 pation of the offspring of those already there, at the age of 
 
64 
 
 twenty-five,* the most vehement opposition was made to 
 the nr.pusiiion of these conditions, by tht^ delegate of the 
 Territory, and supported by the representatives of the slave- 
 holding states. The delegate averred that " the spirit of 
 freedom burned in the breasts of the people of Missouri, 
 and that they would not come into the national family 
 with this suspicious, shameful inhibition in their charter,"! 
 —against the perpetuation of slavery! It was not denied in 
 any quarter, that the freemen of Missouri would themselves, 
 if left at liberty, take no measures to prevent that catas- 
 trophe, or the multiplication of the race of slaves by every 
 mode. 
 
 ■ The advocates of the Missouri claim to exemption from 
 the provisions of the amendment, found themselves com- 
 pelled to contend, in limine^ that Congress possessed no 
 constitutional power to prescribe to a new state, any restric- 
 tion of whatever kind, under which the original states did 
 not labour. This was to accuse the Federal Government of 
 usurpation in every instance of the admission of a new state, 
 except those of Vermont and Kentucky. The doctrine of 
 Missouri is amply refuted in the preceding pages. I need 
 but appeal to the practice in the case, as I have detailed it, to 
 preclude all controversy. It must be sufficient to fix the 
 opinion of the public at large, as it would be, under all the 
 circumstances, to govern that of the high judicial tribunal, 
 which has cognizance of the point of the conformity of the 
 Acts of Congress with the Constitution. That I may not 
 appear to overrate the authority of such a precedent as that 
 of the ordinance of 1787, looking particularly to its applica- 
 tion to the States foraied out of the North Western Terri- 
 tory, I will quote from the repoi ts of two analogous cases 
 determined in the supreme court of the United States. 
 
 * The text of the amendment is as follows, — " And provided also that the 
 " further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude into the said state, be 
 " prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have 
 "bet n duly convicted— and that all children of slaves born within the said state, 
 "after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but may be held to 
 " service until the aict- ot twenty -five years." 
 
 ^ See his Speech published in the National Intelligenceref March 22d, 1819. 
 
65 
 
 The first is one* in wkich the principal question was— 
 whether Congress could impose upon the judges of the su- 
 preme court the duty of acting as judges of the circuit 
 court; and the point determined — that *' a cotemporary ex- 
 position of the constitution practised and acquiesced in for 
 a period of years fixes the construction; and the court will 
 not shake it." The judiciary system which imposed the du- 
 ty abovementioned upon the judges of the supreme court, 
 was enacted (as the ordinance of 1787, with the prohibition 
 of slavery, was re-enacted) by the first Congress in 1787. 
 The counsel before the court answered the exception taken 
 to the constitutionality of the system on this score, in these 
 terms: 
 
 " As to the objection that the law of 1789 is unconstitu- 
 tional, inasmuch as it gives circuit powers, or original ju- 
 risdiction, to judges of the supreme court; it is most proba- 
 ble that the members of the first Congress, many of them 
 having been members of the Convention which iormed the 
 Constitution, best knew its meaning and true construction. 
 But if they were mistaken, yet the acquiescence of the 
 judges and of the people under that construction, has given 
 it a sanction which ought not now to be questioned." 
 
 The following is a part of the opinion of the court, deli- 
 vered by Judge Patterson. 
 
 " Another reason offered for reversal is, that the judges 
 of the supreme court have no right to sit as circuit judges, 
 not being appointed as such, or in other words, that they 
 ought to have distinct commissions for that purpose. To 
 this objection, which is of recent date, it is sufficient to o1)- 
 serve, that practice and acquiescence under it for a period 
 of several years, commencing with the organization of the 
 judicial system, affords an irresistible answer, and has in- 
 deed fixed the construction. It is a contemporary interpre- 
 tation of the most forcible nature. This practical exposi- 
 tion is too strong and obstinate to be shaken or controlled. 
 Of course, th« question is at rest, and ought not now to 
 be disturbed." 
 
 * Stuart vs. Lard. 1 Cranch. 
 I 
 
66 
 
 The other case to which I allude, and from which I have 
 already made some extracts, is that of M'CuUoch v. the 
 State of Maryland, turning upon the point of the constitu- 
 tionality of the Bank of the United States. Since the con- 
 stitutionality of the ordinance of 1787, and ol all the acts 
 founded upon it, is assailed by the pretension of Missouri, 
 and as the material circumstances arc the same as in the 
 case of the bank-law, the following passages from the speech 
 of the counsel, and the opinion of the court, cannot fail to 
 be of much efficacy on this occasion. 
 
 3Ir. Pinkney,* — " The constitutionality of the establish- 
 ment of the bank, as one of the means necessary to carry 
 into effect the authorities vested in the national government, 
 is no longer an open question. It has been long since set- 
 tled by decisions of the most revered authority, legislative, 
 executive, and judicial. A legislative construction^ in a 
 doubtful case^ persevered in for a course of years ^ ought to 
 he binding upon the court* This, however, is not a question 
 of construction merely, but of political necessity, on which 
 Congress must decide. It is conceded, that a manifest 
 usurpation cannot be maintained in this mode; but, we 
 contend, that this is such a doubtful case, that Congress 
 may expound the nature and extent of the authority under 
 which it acts, and that this practical interpretation has be- 
 come incorporated into the constitution. There are two dis- 
 tinguishing points which entitle it to great respect. The 
 first isy that it was a cotemporaneous construction; the se- 
 cond is^ that it xuas made by the authors of the constitution 
 themselves* The members of the. Convention who framed 
 the constitution, passed into the first Congress, by which 
 the new government was organized. They must have un- 
 derstood their own work. They determined that the consti- 
 tution gave to Congress the power of incorporating a bank- 
 ing company." 
 
 " Congress is, prima facie^ a competent judge of its own 
 constitutional powers. It is not, as in questions of privilege 
 
 • I quote from this eminent lawyer, not only on account of the great intrinsie 
 authority of his opinions, but because they were all, in this instance, adopted and 
 I'epeated by the court. 
 
67 
 
 t\ie exclusive judge; but it must first decide, and that in a 
 proper judicial character, whether a law .is constitutional, 
 before it has passed. It had an opportunity of exercising its 
 judgment in this respect, upon the present subject, not only 
 in the principal acts incorporating the former, and the pre- 
 sent bank, but in the various incidental statutes subsequent- 
 ly enacted on the same subject; in all of which, the question 
 of constitutionality was equally open to debate, but in none 
 of which was it agitated. 
 
 " There are, then, in the present case, the repeated deter- 
 minations of the three branches of the national legislature, 
 confirmed by the constant acquiescence of the state sove- 
 reignties, and of the people, for a considerable length of 
 time: Their strength is fortified by judicial authority. 
 
 " The reservation on the tenth amendment to the Consti- 
 tution, of ''powers not delegated to the United States," is 
 not confined to powers not expressly delegated. Such an 
 amendment was indeed proposed; but it was perceived, that 
 it would strip the government of some of its most essential 
 powers, and it was rejected." 
 
 Mr. Chief Justice Marshall: 
 
 " It has been truly said, that this can scarcely be consider- 
 ed as an open question, entirely unprejudiced by the former 
 proceedings of the nation respecting it. The principle now 
 contested was introduced at a very early period of our his- 
 tory, and has been recognized by many successive legisla- 
 tures." 
 
 " It will not be denied, that a bold and daring usurpation 
 might be resisted, after an acquiescence still longer and 
 more complete than this. But it is conceived that a doubtful 
 question, one on which human reason may pause, and the 
 human judgment be suspended, in the decision of which 
 the great principles of liberty are not concerned, but the 
 respective powers of those who are equally the representa- 
 tives of the people, are to be adjusted; if not put at rest by 
 the practice of the government, ought to receive a consider- 
 able impression from that practice." 
 
 " It would require no ordinary share of intrepidity to as- 
 sert, that a measure adopted under these circumstances was 
 
68 
 
 a bold and plain usurpation to which the constitution gave 
 
 The inhabitants of Missouri, and their auxiliaries in this 
 question, seem to overlook the circumstance, that all the 
 state sovereignties are qualified sovtrc\gnt\es. At the forma- 
 tion of the Constitution, the great attributes were surren- 
 dered by the people of the States, to effect a greatt r common 
 welfare, and secure the enjoyment of particular advantages. 
 The same principle, the common vvtlfare — which produced 
 and exacted this sacrifice, then; may, from a change of cir- 
 cumstances, render necessary and proper, now, the surrender 
 of more, from the new members of the Confederation; the 
 solid advantages of the Constitution being extended to them. 
 This would be in a course of analogy with the system of sin- 
 gle political communities, which, for the common good, 
 often place the strangers, who would be incorporated with 
 them, under permanent disabilities, besides those to which 
 their original or native members are subjected.* It is the 
 exact conduct of the American people when, acting as a 
 single nation, they established the rule of the Constitu- 
 tion, that " no person, except a natural born citizen; or a 
 citizen of the United States, ot the time of the adoption of 
 the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president." 
 
 There would be a serious defect, indeed, in our scheme of 
 government, if the consideration upon which so much of prero- 
 gative was, on establishing that government, resigned by the 
 original parties, could not be made operative, when it might 
 be found, in the case of the introduction of new associates, 
 to present itself calling for the surrender of more from 
 them, without however causing that favour to cease to be 
 highly desirable, or even intrinsically less valuable. " There 
 
 • In England, nattiralization does not give the faculty of becoming a member of 
 the privy council or Parliament. " No bill for naturalization," says Blackstone, 
 (B. 1. c. 10) " can be received in either house of parliament without a disabling 
 clause in it to that effect." Congress might, I presume, under the general power 
 given to them by the Constitution ** to establish an uniform rule of naturaliza- 
 tion," limit the comprehension of the word in a similar manner. 
 
69 
 
 ought to be," says the Federalist,* " in the national go- 
 vernment, a capacity to provide for future contingencies, as 
 they may happen; and as these are illimitable in their na- 
 ture, so it is impossible safely to limit that capacity." 
 
 Upon these indispensable principles, has the Federal Go- 
 vernment acted in the interpretation of its powers; and 
 upon them did the Convention of 1787 proceed, as to the 
 case of the admission of New States. They knew that it 
 might be attended with exigencies not to be foreseen, and 
 important to be at once met; they therefore deposited in 
 the Federal Government, a general discretionary power on 
 the subject, specifying two limitations only, so as to con- 
 firm the indefinite character of the discretion in all other 
 respects. Among the possible* exigencies above mentioned, 
 there is none for which it was of more consequence to pro- 
 vide, and which appears more likely to have been of the 
 number of those which they anticipated, than the alternative 
 of either rejecting totally a new state, or admitting it with 
 faculties, the exercise of which would counteract the ori- 
 ginal ends of the Union. 
 
 In making these remarks, I have gone upon the supposi- 
 tion, that the establishment or maintenance of slavery, 
 might be classed among the rights of sovereignty. This is 
 assumed by the inhabitants of Missouri. I have, perhaps, 
 already said enough in refutation of the error; but a few 
 observations more of the same drift may not be amiss. 
 
 We live, I presume, in a country, where I shall not be 
 liable to contradiction in asserting — That right and physi- 
 cal power are not the same thing, and that there is some 
 other law in the state of nature, besides the will of a pre- 
 vailing force: — That it is not among the natural rights of 
 man to enslave his fellow man; but that, on the contrary, 
 personal liberty is one of those rights:— That states are moral, 
 responsible persons, and subject like individuals, to the law 
 of nature; deriving from it their rights as well as duties. 
 
 The simple enunciation of these irrefragable propositions 
 is sufficient to make it clear to all, that it is a perversion of 
 
 * No. 34. 
 
70 
 
 language to speak of the establishment or maintenance of a 
 domestic slavery which originated in fraud or force; that 
 is, of an organized violation of the natural rights of man, — 
 as among the rights of sovereignty. This a false claim des- 
 tructive of the real one on the other side. There is a sole- 
 cism in the idea of the commission of what is a wrong un- 
 der the law of nature, being matter of right under that law. 
 
 The duty of self-preservation, founded on the same law, 
 gives rights to states as well as individuals. If the safety 
 of the inhabitants of Missouri even appeared xo depend on 
 the introduction of new slaves and the perpetuation of the 
 system of slavery, among them, they might, perhaps, plead 
 those mere faculties of evil, as rights of sovereignty. But 
 it is not denied that they wotild continue a flourishing com- 
 munity, though the whole amendment stated above, should 
 be adopted by Congress. They do not pretend to advance 
 the plea of the Southern planters, that a population of negro 
 labourers is rendered indispensable for them, by the nature 
 of thtir climate and staple products. The emancipation of 
 the offspring of the comparatively small number of negroes 
 whom they now hold, could neither induce any personal 
 danger, nor impair their wealth in any sensible degree. On 
 the contrary, it is certain, that by abandoning in the mode 
 proposed, the slave-holding system, they must ultimately 
 gain in every respect, without suffering a present inconve- 
 nience worthy of calculation. 
 
 We are, then, irresistibly conducted to the conclusion, 
 that the Federal Government in proposing to them the re- 
 pudiation of domestic slavery, do not ask a sacrifice of 
 right, or even of an additional portion of that natural liberty 
 (always understood to mean moral compttency) which in- 
 dependent states necessarily surrender in part, when they 
 become members of a political confederation. The State of 
 Missouri would not be the less sovereign for all purposes 
 of just authority and real advantage; she would not be the 
 less entitled to be considered as on an equal footing with 
 the original states, according to the adequate sense in which 
 the framers of the ordinance of 1787 understood the phrase. 
 Her liberties could no more, with propriety, be said to be 
 
71 
 
 abridged or outraged, than those of the individual, who, hi 
 a well regulated society, is restrained from usurping an ab- 
 solute dominion over the person of his fellow citizen. In 
 submitting to the restriction proposed by Congress, she 
 would only place herself under a new incapacity of persist- 
 ing in the perpetration of a crime, and of marring her h:ip- 
 pier fortunes. This can hardlv be deemed a g-rievcmce; or 
 at least, it would not seem to be one of such magnitude as 
 to justify the ferment which we witness. 
 
 It has been urged as an argument to prove the inequality 
 said to be produced between the new and the old states by 
 the restriction concerning negro-slavery, that such of the 
 latter as have abolished this nuisance, are under no dis- 
 ability with respect to its revival within their bosom. But, 
 the other restrictions would furnish much stronger argu- 
 ment of the same purport; since the old states can and do 
 tax non-residents' lands higher than the lands of their citi- 
 zens; can and do tax the property of the United States, 
 levy tolls upon the navigation of their rivers, and have 
 a complete control over religious liberty; all of which 
 rights of sovereignty have been prohibited to most of the 
 new States. In truth, however, if what I have advanced in 
 the preceding paragraphs be just, to re-establish negro- 
 slavery; to create it anew — is not within the moral compe- 
 tency, and of course not among the rights of any of the 
 old States; And when the phrase '' equal footing" is used 
 in the question of the admission of new ones, we must pre- 
 sume that the inhabitants of Missouri would not themselves 
 profess to understand it, in reference to the unquestionable 
 abuse of power; or to any thing else than the genuine attri- 
 butes of sovereignty. Pennsylvania or Massachusetts, for 
 example, are no more competent to replace the negroes un- 
 der the yoke of hereditary slavery, than to impose it on any 
 portion of their white citizens. Whether the Constitution 
 leaves them at liberty to do this; that is, would not be 
 thought to reach the case of the usurpation by a portion of 
 the inhabitants of a non slave-holding state, who might 
 happen to be the strongest, of an absolute personal dominion 
 over the remainder,— whether the Federal Government 
 
72 
 
 would not be held entitled to interfere in such a case — is, to 
 say the least, doubtful; and could hardly, 1 suspect, on the 
 emergency, be deemed an invincible point ot conscience 
 even by the most scrupulous of our statesmen. Should a 
 state undertake to revive and cherish the small- pox, or to 
 footer and perpetuate the yellow fever, a supposition not 
 more dreadful, nor, in relation to all ihe states east of 
 Delaware, more improbable and insulting, than that of the 
 re-establishment of negro slavery — it v/ould, methinks, if 
 her neighbours were not authorised by the law of vicinage ^ 
 or had not the physical force, to restrain the attempt, form 
 that kind of extreme case vf\iich. \fo\x\(\ place itself v^\xh\vi 
 the cognizance and management of the Federal Govern-" 
 ment. 
 
 The manner of urging the pretension of Missouri betrays 
 a forgetfulness of some points which are not undeserving of 
 notice. Our new states are not to be viewed in the same 
 light as communities originally and vigorously independent; 
 who could treat on a footing of immediate mutual advantage, 
 and in whom a lofty tone of conscious sufficiency, and sturdy 
 tenaciousness of power, might be somewhat btcoming. The 
 former are mere creatures and nurslings of the Union; in- 
 debted for their release from leading-strings, and their admis- 
 sion into the high and profitable partnership, to a sort of pa- 
 rental indulgence exercised upon no calculation or expectation 
 of greater advantage, than would be reaped in prolonging their 
 pupilage. Self-government and the prerogatives of empire 
 are gratuitously extended to them, with a truly prodigal 
 alacrity of kindness and munificence. Hence, the Federal 
 Government might be held to be entitled to a wider discre« 
 tion in dictating terms; its own interpretation of its consti- 
 tutional powers in this respect to greater deference; and its 
 decisions to more ready and respectful submission. Though 
 the soil of Missouri be not a part, or an original domain of 
 the good old states, nor peopled altogether by native children 
 of this republic; yet the great majority of the present inha- 
 bitants are of this description; and the remainder owe an 
 inextinguishable debt of gratitude for their rescue from the 
 
73 
 
 hands of Spain or France. Even when divested of the fa- 
 cult\ of outraging heaven by oppressing humanity in the 
 persons of the blacks, they may still, in contrasting their 
 condition and that of their country, with what it would have 
 continued to be, under the dominion of either of those 
 powers, glow with sentiments of acknowledgment and filial 
 piety to the Union. 
 
 Another ground upon which a greater latitude of power 
 as to restriction, would be necessarily inferred for the su- 
 preme government, is this — that it is not merely a federal 
 but a national one in no inconsiderable detail. Being direct- 
 ly a trustee of the whole American people, it has a more 
 immediate care of their welfare, a heavier responsibility, and 
 of course, we must presume, ampler powers, in relation to 
 the defence and advancement of that vvelfar. in every in- 
 stance of particular concern. That of the admission of a new 
 state would surely be of this character, though our union 
 were merely federal; but it is evidently rendered more so 
 by the greater intimacy of association and inter(;sts pro- 
 duced by our national compact. 
 
 Not only the domestic institutions as well in their remote 
 tendency, as in their immediate influence, but the general 
 dispositions, of the candidates for admission into the national 
 family, and for a share in the management of its destinies, 
 become of considerable consequence to the people of the 
 original Union, and would, therefore, seem to fall, properly 
 and constitutionally, vvithin the cognizance of the guardians 
 and agents of the national welfare, as matter by which their 
 decision should be affected. If we suppose the case of a 
 community appearing in the character of a candidate, but 
 clamorous at the same time for ai; exemption from all re- 
 straint upon an avowed intention of maintaining hereditary 
 servitude among them, without having any other plea to of- 
 fer for it than their mere convenience — making, in this way, 
 a fond election of evil and crime — attempting to browbeat 
 the national councils into a compliance with their fl gitious 
 aims— fiercely chiding all delay, and threatening in the 
 event of a refusal, a violent revolt from the federal autho- 
 
74 
 
 1 ity, their lawful and absolute sovereign*— if we supposed a 
 case of this complexion, we could hardly doubt either the 
 competency or the obligation of the national legislature, in 
 pursuance of their general trust with regard to the stability 
 and honour of the Union, to detain without its pale, those 
 who gave such evidence of principles and affections, so little 
 befitting the character of its citizens. Such conduct could 
 not be denied to warrant the apprehension that, if suffc red 
 to enter, they would afterwards submit to its sway, however 
 regularly expounded and exercised, only when obedience 
 was not at variance with their inclination or fancied interest, 
 of the moment. 
 
 In the actual instance of the inhabitants of Missouri, were 
 the Federal Government entitled to view as a criterion of 
 their universal mood and doctrine, the address to Congress 
 on the subject, from one of their religious societies, it might 
 conceive a degree of alarm and disgust which would prompt 
 to their exclusion for a longer term, even should the\ ton- 
 sent, at once, to receive and execute the Amendment. We can 
 scarcely, indeed, imagine it possible that any body of Aai ri- 
 can freemen, would, without a son of compulsion from .^ ge- 
 neral distemperature about them, assemble specifically as 
 Christians, taking " the religioil of Jesus" as their canopy, 
 and invoking the name of God,— to assert before this n ttion 
 and the world slave- holding' as their right, and the perpetu- 
 ation of slavery as the right of their community; to vindi- 
 cate the claim of absolute property in human flesh; to teach 
 the injustice of emancipation, and to represent those who 
 aim at effecting it in Missouri at a considerable distance of 
 time, as it was effected in the Middle and Eastern States, 
 
 * See the speech of Mr. Scott, delegate from Missouri, delivered during the 
 present session of Congress, as reported in the National Intelligencer, December 
 iSth. ** He, Mr. Scott, hoped that the proposition to postpone the question (of 
 providing for the admission of Missouri into the Union) till the first Monday of 
 February would not succeed. If the bill ultimately was lost, it was necessary that 
 the people of Missouri should be soon apprized of its failure, that they might 
 have time to act for themselves^ and frame a form of government, -ivhich he ivas 
 convinced they would do, without waiting again to apply to Congress for the mere 
 means of organization"!! This is the language of anarc%, and ii is surprising 
 that the esprit de corps alone, as to the supremacy of the Federal Government, 
 did not impel the representatives of the old southern States, to reprove and resist 
 so bold a defiance of its authority, and so dangerous a precedent of misrule. 
 
75 
 
 in the light of blind zealots and mistaken philanthropists!* 
 If so desperate u sally of avarice, in the disguise of Chris- 
 tianity— so abominable a profanation of the Divine Name 
 and institute— were necessary, to gratify the public senti- 
 ment, we can have no hesitation in saying, nor the Congress 
 in deciding, that Missouri is not yet worthy to be inaugu- 
 rated as a member of this Union. 
 
 The chief reliance of the inhabitants of Missouri, in the 
 argument, would seem to be the article of the treaty of ces- 
 sion, and the exemption of the State of Louisiana from re- 
 striction as to slavery. With regard to the article, the 
 suggestions of my second section explain sufficiently, of how 
 little avail it is to them, and that the question is left on 
 its original footing. It refers them to the principles of the 
 Constitution— that is, places them within the control of the 
 constitutional powers of Congress. If it be conceded that the 
 Federal Government contracted an obligation to admit 
 them, this does not affect the point at issue. The obligation 
 is qualified by the liberty expressly left, of determining the 
 circumstances under which the admission should take place. 
 The United States covenanted, as pointedly and solemnly, 
 livith the State of Virginia, to receive the North West Ter- 
 ritory into the Union; yet they did not hesitate to impose 
 upon the states formed out of it, among many conditions 
 of admission, that of the immediate, perpetual prohibi- 
 tion of slavery. This is not to be found, either required 
 or hinted, in any of the legislative acts of Virginia relative 
 to the cession. 
 
 Louisiana was, it is true, incorporated free from restric- 
 tion as tO' slavery. But the constitutional power of Congress 
 is not annulled, because it was not exercised in this instance, 
 on that particular point. It was fully exerted, in the same 
 case, on others no less striking and conclusive as to the prin- 
 ciple in question. In this view the precedent militates 
 
 * See the Address to Congress of "The Delegates from several Baptist 
 Churchfsof Christy composing the Mount Pleasant Association holden at jyiount 
 Zion meeting house, Howard County, and Territory of Missouri, on the llth, 
 12tli, and 13th days of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight 
 hundred dxid nineteen. ^^ 
 
76 
 
 strongly against Missouri. Congress, in leaving untouched 
 the system of slavery in Louisiuna, acted upon a cogent ex- 
 pediency, embracing the peace of that state, and the South- 
 ern region generally. I'he slavery in Louisiana appeared, 
 from the number of the negroes, and the inveterate habits 
 and dispositions of the considerable white population, to be 
 a necessary evil; that is, one hich supposes that some other 
 and greater evil would be incurred were it removed. Is 
 this the case as to the slavery existing in Missouri^ It 
 cannot be pretended. Missouri, then, stands towards Con- 
 gress, on this ' ubject, in a very different relation from that 
 in which Louisiana stood. Her situation would furnish no 
 excuse for stopping short, in her case, of the measures of re- 
 striction proposed by the ainendmcnt. If the propositions 
 which I have adduced near the close of the pr«iceding sec- 
 tion, as the grounds of the abolition in Pennsylvania and 
 the Eastern States, be sound, Congress cannot refrain from 
 what is now attempted, without violating their duty, and 
 sacrificing the national character. " All persons," says Mr. 
 Burke, "possessing any portion of power ought to be 
 strongly and awfully impressed with the idea that they act in 
 trust, and that they are to account for their conduct in that 
 trust, to the one Great Master, Author and Founder of so- 
 ciety." 
 
 Were we to allow that the restriction in question might 
 have been fastened upon Louisiana without ruinous conse- 
 quences, we would be involved in no other conclusion than 
 this, that Congress had transgressed in one instance, and 
 should, therefore, be more anxious and determined, about 
 doing right in another. The appeal which has been made, 
 in favour of the Missouri claim, to the toleration of slavery 
 in the old States, as a precedent, is still weaker in the point 
 of analogy, as well as reason. It has been repelled, in an 
 excellent newspaper essay,* in a strain of argument and 
 ex| ression which I cannot improve, and a part of which I 
 shall therefore transcribe. " The people of the Western 
 Country have first to show^, that their situation is similar 
 
 * First piiQted in the Rhode Island American, and signed William Pean. 
 
77 
 
 to that of the Southern States, when slavery was admitted 
 by the con'^titution; and they must also show, that the same 
 necessity exists, which induced this country to countenance 
 slavery, before they can claim a privilege of keeping slaves, 
 upon the principle of the confederation. They ought to do 
 more; they ought to show, that such additional necessity is 
 attached to their claim, as will have sufficient weight to 
 counterbalance the still deeper conviction of the injustice 
 and impiety of slavery, which have been produced by in- 
 creased light and information." 
 
 The inhabitants of Missouri take refuge in the word pro- 
 perty employed in the treaty of cession. Its insufficiency for 
 their purpose has been made apparent. But this can be done 
 by other views than those under which I have displayed it. 
 They are furnished by Mr. King in the following passages 
 of his speech: 
 
 " The clause concerning property in the article is ex- 
 pressly confined to the period of the territorial government 
 of Missouri; to the time between the first occupation of ihe 
 country, by the United States, and its admission as a new 
 State into the Union. Whatever may be its import, it has 
 no reference nor application to the terms of the admission, 
 or to the condition of Missouri after it shall have been ad- 
 mitted into the Union." 
 
 " But admitting that slaves were intended to be included, 
 the stipulation is not only temporary, but extends no further 
 than to the property actually possessed by the inhabitants of 
 Missouri, when it was first occupied by the United States. 
 Property since acquired by them, and property acquired or 
 possessed by the new inhabitants of Missouri, has in each 
 case been acquired under the laws of the United States, and 
 not during and under the laws of the province of Louisi- 
 ana." 
 
 By far the great plurality of the present inhabitants 
 of Missouri emigrated thither from the United States 
 after the cession; and at least two-thirds of the present slave 
 population have been introduced since that era. One may 
 smile at the claim of perpetual property in this portion and 
 their offspring, set up under the treaty of cession, chiefly by 
 
78 
 
 citizens of these states, strangers in every respect to that 
 trt;^.ts . I'heir pretention implies the assumption as novel as 
 it is preposterous, that the formula of modern treaties con- 
 cerning the security of the inhabitants of a ceded territory, 
 as to their property, extends to all those who may at any 
 time become inhabitants of ihe territory; and to the property 
 of every kind which may be ever acquired or held there. 
 Those Americans or strangers who carried slaves to Mis- 
 souri after the cession, did so at their risk; and surely they 
 cannot be said to have a property in the offspring of those 
 slaves, less equivocal or vulnerable, than that which the 
 Pennsylvania slave-holders whose fictitious entail v/as 
 docked by her legislature, possessed under the language of ^ 
 the state constitution and the authority of custom. 
 
 Among the suggestions made to deter Congress from at- 
 tempting the restriction, there is one of a singular stamp, 
 particularly indicative of the predominance, in this question, 
 of passion over reason and genuine sentiment. It is urged 
 thai Missouri, when become a sovereign state, after accept- 
 ing the terms prescribed, would be entitled, in virtue of her 
 sovereignty, to disregard them; and we are told that she 
 threatens to pursue this course, should the amendment be 
 adopted. The doctrine of her i'ight to violate a solemn pact 
 with the Federal Government is, doubtless, in strict con- 
 sonance with that of her right to perpetuate hereditary ser- 
 vitude; it resolves political sovereignty into an unlimit- 
 ed, illimitable, and licentious will; it discharges it from all 
 duties, and allows it a range of malefaction, bounded only 
 by physical means. Of this kind of sovereignty it would be 
 no unsuitable prelude, to entrap Congress by the acceptance 
 of their terms, with a mental reservation; to secure a place 
 in the Union, only to frustrate their views and deride their 
 authority! 
 
 But, would the place be secure? Would not good faith be 
 considered as its tenure? Would it not be forfeited by a 
 violation of the conditions upon which it was bestowed? 
 The compact would be dissolved, and the Federal Govern- 
 mtnt released from the obligation of protecting, if they 
 could .not coerce, the recreant state. Assuming that they 
 
79 
 
 have a constitutional power to impose the restriction as to 
 slavery, the right of perpetuating this institution, were it 
 even of an indifferent or innocent nature, would not exist in 
 the new member, upon the established rules of the interpre- 
 tation of our system. It is settled that where an authority is 
 acknowledged to be granted, either expressly or by implica- 
 tion, to the Federal Government, the states are divested of 
 whatever authority would be contradictory and destructive 
 to the other.* Disobedience on the part of a state to an in- 
 junction of Congress exercising a constitutional power, 
 would be the same as disobedience to any particular provi- 
 sion of the constitution itself. Missouri, then, on the sup- 
 position that Congress is competent to pass the amendment, 
 would, in disregarding it, act, virtually in the same way, 
 and be subject to the same consequences as if she refused 
 to retain a republican form of government, undertook to 
 make foreign alliances, to coin money, &c. 
 
 The Federal Government might exert against her the 
 same means as they would have, to counteract or coerce an 
 original member of the Union obstinate in defeating its con- 
 stitution and laws. To argue in this manner — Congress have 
 not the power to impose the restriction, because it will be the 
 right of Missouri as a state to maintain slavery, is a mere 
 begging of the question. The proper course is to enquire 
 first whether the power is fairly deducible from the Con- 
 stitution and the nature of the case; and if this be so, and 
 the power be exercised, all idea of such a right as that 
 just mentioned, remaining to Missouri, is precluded, pursu- 
 ant to the settled theory of our system, as to points of this 
 nature. The acknowledgment of a right of the kind, would 
 render necessary that of a similar right in Missouri, and 
 the new states already admitted into the Union, with respect 
 to the other articles of compact of the ordinance of 17 87, 
 and all other restrictions of whatever tenor, not expressly 
 
 * The Supreme Court have exemplified this doctrine in the strongest manner 
 in their decision of the controversy between the State of Mar}'land and the Bank 
 of the United States. They there limited the application of an admitted authority 
 of the states, in order to give full scope and effect, to an implied power of the 
 Union. 
 
80 
 
 designated in the Constitution. The condition in which 
 this consequence would place some of the most important 
 interests of the Union, — for which those articles and restric- 
 tions were meant as safeguards— evinces the unsound- 
 ness of the tenet to which it belongs. It proves, also, that 
 without the right of prescribing conditions, and a full dis- 
 cretion in the choice of them, the exercise ot the general 
 power of admitting new states, would have been so unsafe, 
 in regard to those which Congress had particularly in view, 
 as to reduce that power to a dead letter.* 
 
 Sould it be taken as certain, that Missouri would repeal 
 the article, which she might introduce into her Constitution, 
 as a compliance pro forma with the amendment; and that 
 the Federal Government would not be able to vindicate 
 their authority so audaciously trampled upon, with the aid 
 of the judiciary, or by any other means, still it would be 
 incumbent upon them to enact the amendment, as the inde- 
 pendent discharge of a duty, and a solemn declaration of 
 principle. It is doing much, formally to recognize and 
 establish a great and just maxim of human conduct, in an 
 affair of the utmost moment to the general felicity and 
 honour of mankind. I have hinted in my first pages, the 
 degree of delinquency in this rtspect, with which the old 
 Congress and the Convention might, perhaps, be reproach- 
 ed. The present question, let the course of Missouri be 
 what it may, enables us to make amends for our remissness, 
 to use the softest term. We should eagerly seize the oppor- 
 tunity as one graciously afforded by Providence, for this 
 valuable purpose, and for that of proving to the world the 
 sincerity of our past professions, and the validity of our 
 pleas, on the subject of negro-slavery. Foremost in the 
 performance of this duty of reparation, should be those 
 
 * The true principle of construction, adopted in the case of the Bank, and in 
 other instances is this — " Every power vested in a government is in its nature 
 sovereign, and includes hy force of the tenn, a right to employ all means requisite 
 and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power; and which are 
 not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution; are not 
 immoral, are not contrary to the essential ends of political society." See the able 
 summary of the arguments in the case of the l?nn < by Chief Justice Marshall., 
 in the appendix to the 5th Volume of the Life of Wasliingtou. 
 
81 
 
 two Southern States, to whom the Federal Government and 
 the American people owe the disgrace, of the legal prosecu- 
 tion of the slave trade under the Amc^rican flag, for twenty 
 years after the establishment of the Constitution. 
 
 The earnestness, I might say vehemence, with which the 
 pretensions of Missouri are seconded hy the rrpr.sentatives 
 of the old slnvt-holding states, is difBcLdt to be cX|.-ained 
 in any way whicli would prevent it from being considci J, 
 as striking evidence of the inconsistency of human nature. 
 We could with difficulty imagine that they would now 
 deny, the gener.-d power of Congress to impose restrictions 
 not specified in the Constitution. I need not press this point 
 further than to n.^fer again to the facts — of the re-enactment 
 of the ordinance of 1787, under the present government; — 
 of the formal ratification of it by the southern legislatures; 
 of its being the basis of almost every act creating a Territo- 
 ry or new State — of the total silence hitherto observed as 
 to that incompatibility with the Constitution, which is sud- 
 denly charged upon some of its provisions. We have heard, 
 too, the boast that it was framed by an eminent delegate 
 of Virginia in the old Congress; and it is not many days 
 since we read in the National Intelligencer, a Resolu- 
 tion of Congress admitting the State of Alabama into the 
 Union *' upon an equcd footing with the original States in 
 all respects whatever;" and referring to an act accepted by 
 that stUe, which deprives it of territorial rights not relin- 
 quished by the old members of the Union.* 
 
 But expediency is another and the main ground, of the 
 auxiliaries of Missouri in Congress. It was, when he came 
 to treat of this topic of defence, in regard to the slave-trade, 
 that Mr. Fox exclaimed in Parliament, that it was impos- 
 sible to have patience on the subject; or to preserve the 
 lenity of language and temperance of argument which phi- 
 losophy recommended and the cause required. I will not, 
 
 * See the Resoluton in the National Intelligencer of Dec. 16, 1819- It recites 
 that the people of Alabama " have form.-d for themselves, a constitution and 
 state government, in conformity to the principles of the articles of compact of the 
 ordinance o/1787," ^c. 
 
 L 
 
82 
 
 however, allow myself to write from the emotions which 
 might be kindled by the bare fancy of the recognition of a 
 doctrine, under which Lord North and his colleagues would 
 have had no cause for self-reproach, had they succeeded in 
 their worst designs against these states. I cannot suppose 
 that, when expediency is talked of in Congress, it is meant 
 that negro-slavery should be maintained and diffused in 
 Missouri, because the institution would promote the con- 
 venience, or augment the wealth, or flatter the pride of the 
 whites; because there would be more of certain products of 
 the soil for exportation, or a higher price given for the na- 
 tional lands! Something of the kind has, indeed, been hint- 
 ed, but the position must be abandoned in a country which 
 abolished the slave-trade professedly upon prmciple. 
 
 We cannot maintain it, who have stig" itized the British 
 parliament, for the reasons by which th y suffered them- 
 selves to be so long deterred from the abolition of that hor- 
 rible traffic. These reasons, as we well remember, were, — 
 that the national revenues would be impaired; the trade 
 and shipping diminished; the merchants of London and 
 Liverpool deprived of employment for their vessels; the 
 West India lands sunk in price, and the West India 
 planters reduced to a mere competency; the quantity of 
 sugar end coffee considerably lessened, and the sugar cane, 
 perhaps, abandoned, &c. Can we be so blind as not to per- 
 ceive, that these reasons were as sound and magnanimous 
 in relation to the continuance of the slave-trade, as the sug- 
 gestions which I have mentioned, can be in reference to 
 the Missouri question, if we admit slavery to be an in* 
 justice? 
 
 Was there not, as to the first, as much plausibility, ele- 
 vation, and conclusiveness in the plea, that if it were abo- 
 lished, the merchants of Liverpool, could not goto the coast 
 of Africa with their ships, as there is in our indignant com- 
 plaint that if the amendment be adopted, the citizens of the 
 slave-holding states will not be able to emigrate with their 
 
 * It M as also contended that Parliament had not potuer to abolish the slave- 
 Irade; it being properly within the jurisdiction of the West India Legislatures. 
 
83 
 
 slaves to Missouri; that is, to a country where, it is ac- 
 knowledged, the white man can, by his own labour, pro* 
 vide amply for himself, and his family however nume- 
 rous; and where he could at once offer a noble, most accep- 
 table, ?iVid profitable sacrifice to the Deity, by liberating the 
 fellow creatures whom a sad fatality sprung from violence 
 and fraud, had placed in his power? 
 
 The remarks of Mr. Wilberforce in the British Parlia- 
 ment, upon the English expediency^ are susceptible of di- 
 rect application to the Amctrican; and I do not hesitate to re- 
 peat some of them here. — *'• There are persons who adopt 
 a bold language," said this philanthropist, " and who de- 
 clare without reserve, that religion, and justice, and hu- 
 manity command the abolition of the slave-trade, but that 
 they must oppose the measure because it is inconsistent 
 with the nattona .uterest. I trust and believe no such ar- 
 gument will be used again; for, what is it but to establish a 
 competition between God and Mammon, and to adjudge the 
 preference to the latter? What but to dethrone the moral 
 Governor of the world, and to fall down and worship the 
 idol of Interest? What a manifesto was this to the sur- 
 rounding nations? What a lesson to our own people! Come 
 then ye nations of the earth, and learn a new code of mo- 
 rality from the Parliament of Great Britain. We have dis- 
 carded our old prejudices; we have discovered that religion, 
 and justice, and humanity are mere rant and rhapsody! 
 Why, sir, these are principles which Epicurus would have 
 rejected for their impiety, and Machiavel and Borgia would 
 have disclaimed as too infamous for avowal, and too injuri- 
 ous to the general happiness of mankind. If God in his 
 anger would punish us for this formal renunciation of his 
 authority, what severer vengeance could he inflict than our 
 successful propagation of these accursed maxims? Consi- 
 der what effect would follow from their universal preva- 
 lence; what scenes should we soon behold around: in public 
 affairs, breach of faith, and anarchy, and bloodshed; in pri- 
 vate life, fraud, and distrust, and perfidy, and whatever can 
 degrade the human character, and poison the comforts of 
 social and domestic intercourse. Men must retire to caves 
 
' 84 
 
 and deserts, and withdraw from a world become too bad to 
 be endured." 
 
 The point of expediency in this question — on the suppo- 
 sition that it is fit for consideration at all — may be under- 
 stood to rettr only to the accommodiJtion and partial relief 
 of the old slave-holding Stat, bj or to the common gratifica- 
 tion and profit. Vitvving it in the first aspc;ct alone, and ac- 
 knowledging the institution of hereditary servitude to be a 
 gr^.at moral and political evil, would Congress be justifiable 
 in allowing it to be diffused and perpetuated? If the terri- 
 tories owe to the Union a grateful deference, and the dis- 
 position to consult even by self denial, the separate inte- 
 rests and virtuous prepossessions of so beneficent and liberal 
 a parent, it is, on the other hand, incumbent upon the Union 
 to study their permanent welfare; and it would be base to 
 immolate them to the particular advantage of some of the 
 members. 
 
 Although the new State, from sordid and short-sighted 
 calculations of interest, should be eager to give into a noxious 
 arrangement, yet it ought not to be indulged; it should not 
 be suffered to become the victim either of its own infatua- 
 tion, or of the selfishness of others. How bitterly and justly 
 have we not reproached England for allowing the destinies 
 of the southern Colonies to be so awfully clouded by the 
 avarice of her African companies? Confessing that our 
 colonial ancestors might have yielded to the peculiar tempta- 
 tions to which they were exposed in this respect, and avail- 
 ed themselves readily of the privilege of maintaining negro- 
 slavery, we have not hesitated to arraign the mother coun- 
 try for granting that privilege, instead of crushing at once 
 an institution likely to prove so tragical in the end. 
 
 In the comparison, there would be this, in favour of Eng- 
 land — that the evil and guilt of it were not thoroughly known 
 to her; or at least that she had never trumpeted them to 
 the world. Our southern States have done so at times al- 
 most emulously, imputing the guilt to the mother country, 
 and disclaiming any other apology for the continuance of 
 the evil, than the necessities of their situation. I will select 
 Virginia as an example on this head, and quote a part of the 
 testimony she has boroe by the channel of her most eminent 
 
85 
 
 men, to the character of the institution. The following is a 
 passage ot the petition which her assembly presented to the 
 British throne in 1772, against the further importation of 
 negroes. 
 
 '■^ We are sensible that some of your majesty's subjects of 
 Great Britain may reap emolument from this sort of traffic, 
 but when we consider that it greatly retards the settlement 
 of the colonies, with more useful inhabitants^ and may in 
 time have the most destructive influence, we presume to 
 hope, that the interest of a few will be disregarded v/hen 
 placed in competition v(rith the security and happiness of 
 such numbers of your majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects." 
 I know that attempts are made to invalidate the authority 
 of the celebrated passages respecting slavery, of Mr. Jeffer- 
 son's able and valuable work, the Notes on Virginia. But 
 they stand as the evidence of an eye witness of great saga- 
 city, and the closest observation, writing in the mature vigour 
 of his uncommon faculties, and having every motive to 
 soften the truth. The improvement which has since taken 
 place in the condition of the slaves, cannot affect the essen- 
 tial properties of the institution, to which he refers; and 
 their considerable increase in number gives additional force 
 to some of his remarks. I will extract but a portion of what 
 is so familiar to the public. 
 
 " In the very first session held under the republican go- 
 vernment the assembly passed a law for the perpetual pro- 
 hibition of the importation of slaves. This will in some 
 measure, stop the increase of this great political and moral 
 cvil^ while the minds of our citizens may be ripening for a 
 complete emancipation of human nature." 
 
 " With what execration should the statesman be loaded, 
 who permitting one half of the citizens thus to trample on 
 the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and 
 these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and 
 the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a 
 country in this world, it must be any other in preference to 
 that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in 
 which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute 
 as far as depends on his individual endeavours to the eva- 
 
86 
 
 nishment of the human race, or entail his own miserable 
 condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. 
 With the morals of the people, their industry also is de- 
 stroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labour for 
 himself who can make another labour for him. This is so 
 true, that of the proprietors of slaves a very small propor- 
 tion indeed are ever seen to labour. And can the liberties 
 of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their 
 only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that 
 these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to 
 be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my 
 country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice 
 cannot sleep for ever: that considering numbers, nature and 
 natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an 
 exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may 
 become probable by supernatural interference! The Al- 
 mighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such 
 a contest." 
 
 The volume called "the Debates of the Convention of 
 Virginia," is a lasting record of opinions similar to those of 
 Mr. Jefferson, from the mouths of politicians of whose wis- 
 dom and patriotism that state boasts not a little, nor with- 
 out reason. I will select, at random, some sentences from 
 the volume, prefixing the names of the speakers. 
 
 Governor Randolph. — -'• The scattered state of our popu- 
 lation, over so extensive a country, is one point of weakness: 
 I wish, for the honour of my countrymen, that this were 
 the only one. 
 
 '* There is a circumstance which renders us more vulne- 
 rable. Are rve not weakened by the population of those -whom 
 -we hold in slavery? The day may come when they may 
 make impression upon us. Gentlemen who have been long ac- 
 customed to the contemplation of the subject, think there is 
 a cause of alarm in this case: the number of those people, 
 compared to that of the whites, is in an immense propor- 
 tion." 
 
 The same. — " I beseech you to consider, whether Virgi- 
 nia and North Carolina, both oppressed with debts and 
 slaves^ can defend themselves externally, or make their peo- 
 
87 
 
 pie happy internally. North Carolina having no strength but 
 militia, and Virginia in the same situation, will make, I 
 fear, but a despicable figure in history." 
 
 The same .•—^*' Is it unnecessary to provide against future 
 events? The advice that would attempt to convince me of 
 so pernicious an error as that Virginia can stand by herself, 
 I treat with disdain. Our negroes are numerous and daily 
 becoming more so. When I reflfct on their comparative 
 number, and comparative condition, I am the more per- 
 suaded of the great fitness of our becoming more formi- 
 dable." 
 
 Mr. Mason, — " The government does not attend to our 
 domestic safety. It authorises the importation of slaves 
 for twenty odd years; instead of securing and protecting us, 
 the continuation of this detestable trade adds to our xveak- 
 7iess, Though this evil (of slaves) is increasing, &c. The 
 augmentation of slaves weakens the States. *Much as I va- 
 lue an union of all the States, I would not admit the South- 
 ern States into the Union, unless they agreed to the discon- 
 tinuance of this disgraceful trade; because it would bring- 
 weakness and not strength into the Union."*^ 
 
 Patrick Henry, — **• Another thing will contribute to bring 
 general emancipation about. Slavery is detested — We feel 
 its fatal eifects — We deplore it with all the pity of huma- 
 nity. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul 
 that every one of my fellow beings was emancipated. As 
 we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of Heaven, 
 which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament 
 and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men in bon- 
 dage." 
 
 Mr, Dawson. — " I have such an aversion to the bitter 
 cup of slavery that in my estimation a draught is not sweet- 
 ened, whether administered by the hand of a Turk, a Bri- 
 ton, or an American." 
 
 Mr, Lines, — " But we are told that the New-Englanders 
 mean to take our trade from us, and make us hewers of 
 wood and drawers of water; and the next moment that they 
 will emancipate our slaves! But how inconsistent is this? 
 Our antagonists tell you that the admission of the importa- 
 
tionof slaves for twenty years, shews that their policy is to 
 keep us weak; and yet the next moment they tell you thai they 
 intend to set ihem fret! If it be their object to corrupt and 
 enervate us^ will they emancipate our slaves? Thus they 
 complain and argue against it on contradictory principles." 
 Mr. Zachariah Johnson, — *' Our opponents t<\\ us that 
 they see a progressive danger of bringing about emancipa- 
 tion. The principle has begun since the revolution. Let us 
 do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has been the 
 foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which has been 
 so much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were 
 totally abolished, it would do much good." 
 
 Another voice from Virginia has been raised on this sub- 
 ject, in a strain more copious and not less emphatic; carry- 
 ing with it the utmost degree of authority. I refer to what 
 Judge Tucker lias published in his edition of Blackstone's 
 Commentaries. He has been accused of weakness in be- 
 lieving in the practicability of the abolition of slavery in 
 Virginia; but his error on this point, if it be one, does not 
 detract from the weight of his evidently deep, mournful con- 
 viction of the necessity of the measure. A personage so 
 conspicuous for the extent of his enquiries in the moral sci- 
 ences; filling a high judicial station; born amid the slavery 
 of which he discourses; incessantly conversant with all its 
 properties and eifects; will be heard as oracular on the sub- 
 ject, however warmly his judgment as to the cure may be 
 assailed. We find him, in the year 1795, using this lan- 
 guage. " The introduction of slavery into this country is, at 
 this day, considered among its greatest misfortunes."* And, 
 in 1803, he went fully into the question, in his Appendix to 
 the first volume of his author. As I wish to use him only 
 as a witness to the practical character of the institution, I 
 will merely take some few of his statements in relation to it. 
 
 " Early had our forefathers sown the seeds of an evil, 
 which, like a leprosy, hath descended upon their posterity 
 
 * Letter to Dr. Belknap, 4th vol. Mass. TJi,st. Collec. 
 
89 
 
 with accumulated rancour, visiting the sins of the fathers 
 upon succeeding generations. 
 
 " From a view of our jurisprudence respecting slaves, 
 we are unavoidably led to remark, how frequently the laws 
 of nature have been set aside in favour of institutions, the 
 pure result of prejudice, usurpation, and tyranny. We have 
 found actions, innocent, or indiiferent, punishable with a ri- 
 gour scarcely due to any, but the most atrocious offences 
 against civil society ; justice distributed by an unequal mea- 
 sure to the master and the slave; and even the hand of mer- 
 cy arrested, where mercy might have been extended to the 
 wretched culprit, had his complexion been the same with 
 that of his judges. 
 
 "Will not our posterity curse the days of their nativity 
 with all the anguish of Job? JVzll they not execrate the 
 memory of those ancestors^ xuho^ having it in their power to 
 avert evil^ have^ like thfir Jirst parents^ entailed a curse 
 upon all future generations? We know that the rigour of 
 the laws respecting slaves unavoidably must increase with 
 their numbers: What a blo'd-stained code must that be 
 which is calculated for the rtst.x2imt oi millions held in bon- 
 dage! Such must our unhappy country exhibit within a cen- 
 tury, unless we are both wise and just enough to avert from 
 posterity the calamity and reproach, which are otherwise 
 unavoidable." 
 
 Stronger testimony than this could not be adduced; but 
 we have much that is more particular, and of more recent 
 date, from similar sources. I will make use of some of the 
 representations which were published in 1817* by General 
 Robert G. Harper; a gentleman born and brought up in one 
 of the southern states; now resident in a slave-holding state; 
 who has personally surveyed almost every part of our coun- 
 try, with a most attentive eye; and whose powers of discri- 
 mination and judgment it would be superfluous to celebrate. 
 " No person, says he, who has seen the slave-holding states, 
 
 * Letter to the Secretary of the Colonization Society. See also, in the first an- 
 nual Report of this Society, the description given by the Hon. Mr. Mercer of 
 Virginia, of the condition of thr lowlands of that state, produced hy the iastitu- 
 tJon of slaverv. 
 
 M 
 
90 
 
 and those where slavery does not exist, and has compared 
 ever so slightly their condition and situation, can iiave failed 
 to be struck with the vast difference, in favour of the latter. 
 This difference extends to every thing, except only the cha- 
 racter and manners of the most opulent and best educated 
 people. These are very much the same every where. But 
 in population, in the general diffusion of wealth and comfort, 
 in public and private improvements, in the education, man- 
 ners and mode of life of the middle and labouring classes, 
 in the face of the country, in roads, bridges, and inns, in 
 schools and churches, in the general advancement of im- 
 provement and prosperity, there is no comparison. The 
 change is seen the instant you cross the line, which separates 
 the country where there are sfaves, from that where there 
 are none. Even in the same state, the parts where slaves 
 most abound, are uniformly the worst cultivated, the poor- 
 est, and the least populous; while wealth and improvement 
 uniformly increase, as the number of slaves in the country 
 diminishes. I might prove and illustrate this position by 
 many examples, drawn from a comparison of different 
 states, as Maryland and Pennsylvania, and between different 
 counties in the same state, as Charles County and Frederick 
 in Maryland; but it is unnecessary; because every body who 
 has seen the different parts of the country, has been struck 
 by this difference. 
 
 " Whence does it arise? I answer from this; that in one 
 division of the country the land is cultivated by freemen, for 
 their own benefit; and in the other almost entirely by slaves, 
 for the benefit of their masters. It is the obvious interest of 
 the first class of labourers, to produce as much and consume 
 as little as possible; and of the second class to consume as 
 much and produce as little as possible. What the slave con- 
 sumes is for himself; what he produces is for his master. 
 All the time that he can withdraw from labour is gained to 
 himself: all that he spends in labour is devoted to his mas- 
 ter. All that the free labourer, on the contrary, can produce 
 is for himself: all that he can save is so much added to his 
 own stock. All the time that he loses from labour is his own 
 loss. 
 
91 
 
 " This, if it wer6 all, would probably be quite sufficient, to 
 account for the whole difference in question. But unfor- 
 tunately it is far from being all. Another and still more in- 
 jurious effect of slavery remains to be considered. 
 
 " Where the labouring class is composed wholly, or in a 
 very considerable degree of slaves, and of slaves distin- 
 guished from the free class by Colour, features and origin, 
 the ideas of labour and of slavery soon become connected, 
 in the minds of the free class. This arises from that associ- 
 ation of ideas, which forms one of the characteristic features 
 of the human mind, and with which every reflecting person 
 is well acquainted. They who continualh from their infancy 
 see black slaves employed in labour, and forming by much 
 the most numerous class of labourers, insensibly associate 
 the ideas of labour and of slavery, and are almost irresisti- 
 bly led to consider labour as a badge of slavery, and conse- 
 quently as a degradation. To be idle, on the contrary, is in 
 their view the mark and the privilege of freemen. The effect 
 of this habitual feeling, upon that class of free whites which 
 ought to labour, and consequently upon their condition and 
 the general condition of the country, will be readily per- 
 ceived by those who reflect on such subjects. It is seen in 
 the vast difference between the labouring class of whites in 
 the southern and middle, and those of the northern and 
 eastern states. Why are the latter incomparably more indus- 
 trious, more thriving, more orderly, more comfortably situ- 
 ated, than the former? The effect is obvious, to all those who 
 have travelled through the different parts of our country. 
 What is the cause? It is found in the association between 
 the idea of slavery, and the idea of labour; and in the feel- 
 mg produced by this association, that labour the proper oc- 
 cupation of negro slaves, and especially agricultural labour, 
 is degrading in a free white man. 
 
 " It is therefore obvious that a vast benefit would be con- 
 ferred on the country, and especially on the slave-holding 
 districts, if all the slave labourers could be gradually and 
 imperceptibly withdrawn from cultivation, and their place 
 supplied by free white labourers." 
 
 Such are the warning accents of the South itself. — 
 
92 
 
 Nearlv the same have been uttered in Congress within the 
 few years past, by representatives from the same quarter. 
 There are other traits of evil and opprobrium so notorious 
 in the case, that if we had not direct testimony with respect 
 to them, it might be considered as given. Of these, I will 
 notice merely the general character and condition of the 
 negro slave as such. Mr. Clay, the distinguished speaker of 
 the Federal House of Representatives, has described the 
 whole class as " degraded and debased, aliens to the society 
 of which they are members, and cut off from all its higher 
 blessings."* This outline might be sufficient, but it is in- 
 complete; aad I do not wish to proceed with it, or fill up 
 the canvas. Of the negro-slave, however, I would add, that 
 from the brutal ignorance in which he is and must be kept, 
 he almost ceases to be a moral agent; he scarcely prefers a 
 claim to the quality of man. 
 
 Man is a being, holding large discourse 
 Looking before and after. 
 
 A slave is incapable of looking either before or after; he can 
 feel comfort, only in proportion as he is destitute of all manly 
 pride; as his mind is darkened, and rendered callous to its 
 abjection. Every thing, indeed, is told of his place in the 
 scale of animated creation, and of his general lot, in men- 
 tioning one of the numerous varieties of wretchedness and 
 degradation to which he is liable, and through which he is 
 . almost daily seen passing — the Sale at Auction; not singly 
 alone, but in family groupes, to be dragged apart as it may- 
 happen, in the gripe of the highest bidders, and driven un- 
 der the lash to a new scene of bondage, with the chance of 
 forming new associations and sympathies not secure in their 
 progress or at the moment of their maturity, from being se- 
 vered and for ever dissolved in the same ruthless manner. 
 
 Think of hundreds of thousands — nay millions, for it is 
 thus we must now count — of human beings, in whom the 
 ends of Prov idence for the species, are thus horribly de- 
 feated; the divine image so revoltingly defaced, and the 
 majesty of the Creator so perilously outraged: — Add to 
 
 * Speech to the Colonization Society. 
 
93 
 
 this all the other traits and effects of the institution, con- 
 fessed by ihe Southern States; and say, whether it is one 
 which those States can, in consistency, or without crime, 
 seek to spread over a new and vast theatre, for the mitiga- 
 tion of their own suff^ rings or fears under it — Whether Con- 
 gress can lend themselves to such an enterprise, for such a 
 purpose. 
 
 If it could be considered as a certain means of the ulti- 
 mate preservation of some of the states from servile wars 
 of a sanguinary and destructive character, we might doubt 
 that the Federal Government would have a sufficient apo- 
 logy even in this object, for allowing the mildew to be shed 
 on so extensive and fair a creation. But, it would, in that 
 point of view, afford at most only a palliative and respite. 
 The North West Territory constituted a similar case; and 
 the enlightened men, who, at the time of the cession, con- 
 ducted the affairs of Virginia, were far from thinking.that 
 the safety of the South required that it should be used as 
 an outlet, and made a new plantation and nursery of the evil. 
 They cannot be alleged to have foreseen or expected the 
 acquisition of the countries beyond the Mississippi; and the 
 extracts which I have made from the Virginia debates, 
 show, that they were even more alive to the danger=^ growing 
 out of the increase of their slaves, than their successors 
 would seem to be. They submitted cheerfully, in the name 
 of their constituents, to the privation of the faculty of emi- 
 grating with their slaves to the fine regions of the Ohio and 
 Illinois; fully compensated, as they doubtless thought, by 
 the rectitude of the proceeding of preserving those regions 
 from negro- slavery; and the greater security from its perils, 
 with which they provided their posterity and the Union, in 
 the multiplication of kindred and associated communities 
 free from this cause of weakness. 
 
 They were too well versed in the elements of political 
 economy to hazard the idea now urged, that the number of 
 the slaves would be the same, whether these remained con- 
 
 • They were well aware that it depended upon the consideration of the po- 
 sitive number of the blacks beyoiui a certain point, rather than upon the compa- 
 rative, in reference to that of the whites. 
 
94 
 
 fined to the original domain ot slavery, or were dispersed 
 over ihf nc V states wnich might be admit ed into the Uni- 
 on. If this idea were seriously entertained, it would argue 
 an astonishing ignorance of the most prominent Jaws of the 
 animal kingdom, and of the diffusion of mankind over the 
 earth. So early as the year 1751, Dr. Franklin taught us 
 vi^hat would lead to a very doctrine; as the following extracts 
 from one of his essays of that date* will shew. 
 
 " Any occasional vacancy in a country (if the laws are 
 good) will soon be filled by natural generation. Who can 
 now find the vacancy made in Sweden, France, or other 
 warlike nations, by the plague of heroism forty vears ago; in 
 France, by the expulsion of the Protestants; in England, by 
 the setilement of her colonies; or in Guinea^ by a hundred 
 years exportation of slaves^ that has blackened half Amertcaf^^ 
 
 " There is no bound to the prolific nature of plants, or 
 animals, but what is made by their crowding and interfer- 
 ing with each other's means of subsistence. Was the face 
 of the earth vacant of other plants, it might gradually be 
 sowed and overspread with one kind onlv, as, for instance, 
 with fennel; and were it empty of other inhabitants, it 
 might, in a few years, be replenished from one nation only, 
 as, for instance, with Englishmen. Thus there are supposed 
 to be now upwards of one million of English souls in North 
 America (though it is thought scarce 80,000 have been 
 brought over sea) and yet, perhaps, there is not one the 
 fewer in Britain, but rather many more, on account of the 
 employment the colonies afford to manufactures at home." 
 
 " In fine, a nation well regulated is like a polypus: take 
 away a limb, its place is soon supplied; cut it in two, and 
 each deficient part shall speedily grow out of the part re- 
 maining. Thus, if you have room and subsistence enough, 
 as you may say, by dividing, make ten polypuses out of one, 
 you may, of one, make ten nations, equally populous and 
 powerful; or, rather, increase a nation ten fold in numbers 
 and strength." 
 
 I feel in some sort ashamed to appeal further to autho- 
 
 ^ On Population, 4th vol. Am. ed. of \m works. 
 
95 
 
 r'lty on this point; but as the axioms, hitherto so called, both 
 of the moral and physical economy of nature, seem des- 
 tined to be controverted in this Missouri question, I will 
 remark, that Malthus confirms the opinions of Franklin; 
 and will quote from the former a single passage as an illus- 
 tration. " Population has a constant tendency to increase 
 beyond the means of subsistence, whatever these may be. 
 Africa has been at all times the principal mart of slaves. 
 The drains of its population in this way have been great 
 and constant, particularly since their introduction into the 
 European colonies; but, perhaps, as Dr. Franklin observes, 
 it would be difficult to find the gap, that has been made by 
 a hundred years exportation of negroes, which has black- 
 ened half America. For, notwithstanding this constant 
 emigration, the loss of numbers from incessant war, and the 
 checks to increase, from vice and other causes, it appears 
 that the population is continually passing beyond the means 
 of subsistence."* 
 
 Before the settlement of the country North West of the 
 Ohio, the proposition that the numbers of the New Eng- 
 land race would be the same, whether they remained at 
 home altogether, or emigrated thither, as they did, in a 
 perennial stream, would have been quite as true and plausi- 
 ble as is that which I have cited respecting the negro slaves.f 
 As to the last, wherever they are well treated, the power of 
 population is left to exert itself almost with perfect liberty. 
 With them, it meets few or none of the moral checks, which 
 limit it among freemen.:): Thus, as the negroes are to have 
 in Missouri, according to the anti-restrictionists, a more 
 abundant supply of wholesome food, they must multiply 
 there at least as fast as the whites; and their treatment in 
 our Southern States being asserted to be good, and likely 
 to become better, were a part of them removed — they must, 
 
 * 1st vol. Essay on Population, B. I. 
 
 f Dr. Sejbert remarks, in his Statistics, that " in Massachusetts, Rhode Is- 
 land, New Jersey, and Delaware, all of them states whose population is migra- 
 tory, there was an mcrease of the rate of the increase of the pofmlatioUj as well 
 as an actual increase of their numbers." And he asks, " Did the migrations from 
 these states tend to advance the rate of their increase"* The answer must un- 
 doubtedly be in the affirmative. 
 
 -f See Malthus, 
 
96 
 
 in those states, soon again reach the maximum of numbers 
 for which means of subsistence could be hacl.§ You would 
 then have at no very distant period of time, nearly an equal 
 intensity of the evil in its original seat; and, in the new and 
 more extensive field, a multifarious growth rapidly advan- 
 cing to the same point. 
 
 Our experience in this respect is complete and indisput- 
 able. From 1790 to 1810, Maryland, Virginia, and the two 
 Carolinas, supplied Georgia, Kentucky, and Tennessee with 
 a multitude of slaves. Yet their number received an asto- 
 nishing increase in the former; the parent stock proved the 
 more prolific, and quickly repaired the drain. Dr. S':ybert, 
 taking three periods — from 1790 to 1800, from 1800 to 
 1810, and 1790 to 1810 states, that in North Carolina, for 
 every period, the slaves increased in a ratio greater than the 
 free inhabitants: and that in Virginia, and South Carolina, 
 there were irregularities. " In Virginia, during the two first 
 periods, the slaves increased in a ratio greater, and during 
 the third period in a ratio less, than the free population. In 
 South Carolina, during the first and third periods, the slaves 
 increased in a ratio less, and during the second period in a 
 ratio greater than the free population." In all these states, 
 he adds, the number of slaves was actually augmented. The 
 following table of the proportion of the free persons in them 
 to the slaves, at different periods, will set the matter under 
 consideration in a still stronger light. 
 
 In 1790 In 1800 ! In 1810 
 Maryland, for every 100 free persons, there Avere 4754 44 50 4516 
 Virginia, do. do. 82-40 64-35 6743 
 North Carolina, do. do. 34-30 3861 43.66 
 South Carolina, do. do. 80 60 7328 8976 
 
 During the periods above mentioned, importations from 
 abroad were forbidden in Maryland, Virginia and North 
 
 § With respect to a state like Virginia, for instance, possessing a fruitful soil, 
 and having but 13-92 persons to the square mile, it could hardly be supposed, 
 that she would labour under the apprehension of wanting, within half a century, 
 the means of subsistence for a part of her population, or being obliged to stint it, 
 though it should continue to double every twenty -two or twenty-five years. Con- 
 necticut has 5604 persons to the square mile, and jields them a good supply of 
 food. The United Provinces of Holland have 275, and depend upon the products 
 of their own agriculture. — Ail this illustrates in the comparison the blighting in- 
 fluence of the institution of slaverv 
 
97 
 
 Carolina; but allowed in South Carolina. Tlie addition 
 from this source was not so great as to deserve to be taken 
 into the account. On the other hand, the natural increase in 
 the states supplied with slaves, kept pace or rather in advance. 
 Ktrntucky is a remarkable instance. In 1800, her slave po- 
 pulation exceeded somewhat forty thousand; by 1810, it 
 was double. She received, no doubt, in thai; interval, large 
 accessions from without; but still the increase by procrea- 
 tion would have given a duplication in twenty years. Ken- 
 tucky may be taken as an example of what would occur 
 beyond the Mississippi, adopting the data as to more abun- 
 dant and better food, &c. from which the anti-restrictionists 
 reason. If we furnish this new field for the black popula- 
 tion—that is; a scope co-extensive with that open to the 
 white, we shall establish a kind of race between the two as to 
 numbers; to be won infallibly by the former, unless it be 
 stayed in its progress by the sword. What a drfeadful fu- 
 turity for this empire, and for the cause of liberty, does not 
 this fact present, in either alternative! 
 
 Much stress is laid upon the humanity of providing an 
 outlet for the supernumerary *slaves of the old states, and 
 an opportunity to any portion of them, of being removed to 
 a scene of greater abundance and ease. Were we to admit 
 that the physical condition of the few thousands who might 
 be annually transported thither, would be improved, could 
 we, however, regard this as a consideration sufficient to jus- 
 tify Congress in allowing so vast and favoured a tract of 
 the earth, to be subjected to the institution of slavery, with 
 its pestilent genius and its hideous shapes? Would there 
 not be an infinitely more elevated and comprehensive hu- 
 manity in averting it from the white population who, we 
 may trust, will cover that region; or even, abstractly, in pre- 
 cluding the existence of that host of black slaves with which 
 we may be sure it will be cursed, should the pr tensions of 
 Missouri be ratified. A certain quantity of animal food 
 more or less, a less oppressive and protracted toil, will not 
 alter the generical character of the bondsman. The class 
 will remain what Mr. Clay has described them to be, and 
 with the traits which I have added to his profile sketch. 
 
 N 
 
Heal humanity shudders at the idea of the indefinite multi- 
 plication of such a class; as philanthropy will shudder at 
 every stride of American power, if we are always to carry 
 this ghastly vision in our train. Herds of slaves must be as 
 offensive in their existence as men, to the Deity, who sees 
 in it the profanation of his glorious work, and the denial or 
 oblivion of his omnipotence, as it is to the pride of our 
 cultivated reason, and the sensibility of our purified hearts— 
 
 And what man, seeing this. 
 And having human feelings, wt)uld not blush. 
 And hang his head, to think himself a man? 
 
 It is hard to believe, that the number carried from the 
 old States, would gain in any very material degree by the 
 translation. Mnny of them must fall into the hands of 
 traders; there must be a severance of natural and tender 
 ties; the exchange of masters — of the hereditary and pater- 
 nal owner, for the adventurer— may prove, by the difference 
 of ( haracter, an aggravation of their general lot, not to be 
 compensated bv a more liberal supply of food and clothing; 
 for this is all that is promised for them: it is their animal 
 existence alone we are taugnt to hope may be improved. 
 Yet how much additional misery even to the slave, can we 
 not conceive as consistent with the kind of advantage which 
 I have mentioned! In new and distant settlements, where 
 the speedy acquisition of wealth is the ruling passion, and 
 the censorship over private conduct is exceedingly slight, 
 if any prevail, — what security is there that tender youth, 
 or infirm age, or disease will be a title to exemption from 
 the severest labours of the field? — that the privilege of the 
 Sabbath may not be denied, and the repose of the night 
 invaded? — that all the excesses of violence natural to the 
 possession of an absolute personal dominion, may not be 
 habitually indulged? Under such circumstances, the hope 
 of any literary or religious instruction such as is sometimes 
 permitted in the South, would be entirely chimerical. 
 This consolation for the bruised spirit must be altogether 
 withheld. 
 
 The amelioration of the condition of the slave in our pre- 
 sent slave holding states is ascribed, in great part, to the 
 
99 
 
 influence of a sound and active public opinion, created al- 
 mosi, sinct the tsutilishment of the present FcJc-al Go- 
 vernmtnt. Will hr ^nd the same public opinion, — his bt st 
 protection —in '^1 ^he districts beyond the Mississippi to 
 which h** "''^ ^^ liable to be dragged? This may be doubt- 
 gH ihe influence of positive law in his favour,— fetble 
 every where, because it cannot reach domestic life in some 
 of its most oppressive details — must, too, bt considerably 
 less in remote situations and widely scattered settlements. 
 
 Something is said of the great' r probability >nd better 
 opportunity of universal emancipation: But who can be the 
 dupe of such an illusion? The extensiqn of slavery to four 
 new States has not brought us nearer to the object; it is 
 notoriously the farther removed on this account. The en- 
 hancement of the value of a possession never yet engender- 
 ed a greater readiness to relinquish it gratis. When the 
 slaves shall abundantly multiply, as they must do, we will 
 hear of laws against the manumission of individuals, enac- 
 ted upon the same grounds as those which are alleged for 
 the similar legislation in the old States. We shall hear of 
 the institution being permitted or exacted, as it has been 
 with us, in one district of country, because it had grown to 
 a dangerous size and taken indestructible root in the neigh- 
 bouring one; and propagating itself thus, it will be always 
 declared and thought, at every enlargement, more difficult 
 to be subdued, or even assailed. 
 
 The general habit of slave-holding has never produced 
 and never will produce, in individuals, the disposition to 
 forsake the practice. The very multitude of the victims 
 blunts our natural sense of the enormity of the institution; 
 familiarity with it not only softens its horrors, but hides its 
 dangers, to the eye of the mind; a personal interest in its 
 continuance doubly locks the heart and hoodwinks the un- 
 derstanding. The fact is sufficientl\ notorious, that contests 
 have taken place in the States northwest of the Ohio, hap- 
 pily rescued by Congress from this bane, ot which the sub- 
 ject was its revival there; and that, of the parties, those ac- 
 customed to it in their original residence, have been uni- 
 formly arrayed on the affirmative side. 
 
100 
 
 Humanity in this question of negro-slavery, is in general 
 only a phasis of expeduncy. It is a suspicious plea: the 
 abettors of the slave trade in England, vociferated it inces- 
 santly, and affirmed that the lot of the i^^ro was vastly 
 improved by his removal from his native soil to -A>f. planta- 
 tions of the West Indies. Mr. Wilberforce animadvei^^ 
 upon the case, in language which I cannot refrain Irom re- 
 peating. 
 
 "• I'hcse pretended principles of humanity are the very prin- 
 ciples on which have been rested the grossest systems of 
 bigotry, and superstition that ever disgraced the annals of 
 mankind. On what other principles was it that Mahomet 
 sent forth his Mussulmen to ravage the world? Was it not 
 these that lighted the fires of the inquisition? Have not both 
 these systems been founded on the notion of your having a 
 right to violate the laws ot justice, for the purposes of hu- 
 manity? Did they not both plead that they were promoting 
 the eternal happiness of mankind; and that their proceedings 
 were therefore to be justified on the dictates of true and 
 enlarged benevolence? But the religion I profess is of ano- 
 ther nature; it teaches me first to do justice, and next to 
 love mere} ; not that the claims of these two will ever be 
 really found to be jarring and inconsistent. When you 
 obey the laws of God, when you attend to the claims of jus- 
 tice, you will then also best consult and most advance the 
 happiness of mankind. This is true, this is enlarged bene- 
 volence; and of this it may be affirmed in the language of a 
 great writer, ' that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice 
 the harmony of the world.' " 
 
 I have already, by the foregoing considerations, deter- 
 mined how far it is expedient for the countries beyond the 
 Mississippi to receive domestic slavery— -of which a great 
 lawyer has justly said that " in whatever light we view it, 
 it may be deemed a most pernicious institution; — imme- 
 diately so to the unhappy person who suffers under it; 
 finally so to the master who triumphs in it, and to the state 
 which allows it."* Some few more points illustrative of its 
 * Hargrave.— Argument in the case of the ttegro Somerset. 
 
101 
 
 nature with us, deserve to be glanced at in reference to the 
 interests of the territories of which Congress is the tutelary 
 director. 
 
 Dr. Franklin, in the essay on population* which I have 
 quoted above, enumerating the causes that impede the pro- 
 gress of white population and even tend to its reduction, 
 gives a conspicuous place to the introduction of slaves. His 
 language is as follows. 
 
 " The negroes brought into the English sugar islands 
 have greatly diminished the whites there; the poor are by 
 this means deprived of employment, while a few families 
 acquire vast estates, which they spend in foreign luxuries; 
 and educating their children in the habit of those luxuries, 
 the same income is needed for the support of one, that 
 might have maintained one hundred. The northern colonies 
 having few slaves, increase in whites. Slaves also pejorate 
 the families that use them; the white children become 
 proud, disgusted with labour, and, being educated in idle- 
 ness, are rendered unfit to get a living by industry." 
 
 A gentleman of Baltimore, in a pamphletf which will be 
 read by all who wish to understand the subject of our ne- 
 gro-slavery, has examined it particularly under this aspect 
 of its effect upon the numbers of the white population, and 
 marshalled the following propositions:—!. In a slave-state, 
 a slave population increases by procreation faster than the 
 white population. 2. The white population in a slave- 
 state does not increase so fast by at least thirty or forty per 
 cent, in a term of twenty years, as the same population does 
 in a state where there are none or but few slaves. 3. Every 
 slave, in whatever country, may be said to occupy a place 
 which would be filled by a freeman. 4. The supply of the 
 means of subsistence is not so great in a state where slave- 
 ry exists, as it would be were there no slavery; and conse- 
 quently, the whole population is the less numerous. 
 
 These propositions are fully sustained and developed in the 
 pamphlet cited above; and I need not, therefore, dwell upon 
 them for the purpose of demonstration. Indeed, they must 
 be self-evident to all who have attended to the census of 
 
 * 1751. t The Missouri Question: by Daniel Raymond, Esq. 
 
102 
 
 the United States, and possess any knowledge of political 
 arithmetic and the principles of population. 
 
 Applying them to the question before us, we are led to the 
 following as certain consequences of the establishment of 
 negro slavery beyond the Mississippi. — The soil will not be 
 made to yield an equal fund for the subsistence of man.—- 
 The whole population will be less in numbers.— -The free 
 white population will increase less rapidly there, by nearly 
 one half, than it otherwise would. — It will be less in posiiive 
 amount, in more than this proportion:— It will be finally 
 outnumbered by the slave-population. 
 
 The last of these consequences is especially appalling, 
 when we consider that no country m which personal slavery 
 has prevailed to any considerable extent, has escaped servile 
 wars; and that the fruits of a century of civilized industry, 
 the proudest monuments of the most refined art, and the 
 most admirable creations of state wisdom may be laid waste 
 in the struggles, and for ever lost in the triumpti, of the des- 
 perate multitude, whom a jealous policv had debarred from 
 knowing their value, and a cruel yoke prepared for every 
 excess of havoc. History both ancient and modern is full of 
 example of furious and destructive revolt. The Helots had 
 nearly destroyed the Spartan government which so long de- 
 rided the assaults of other foT-s. Rome, even in the meri- 
 dian of her power and glor\ > was brought to the brink 
 of ruin by the slaves whom she despised. Numerous 
 examples of a much more recent date and startling admoni- 
 tion, might be cited. Why should the countries beyond the 
 Mississippi, of all that have cherished the same institution, 
 alone escape this great calamity of rebellion, one of its na- 
 tural appendages? Do we count upon a special dispensation 
 in their favour, from that Almighty and Impartial Judge, 
 who, Mr. Jefferson tells us, " has no attribute which can 
 side with the American master in such a contest?" 
 
 The public welfare, which the Federal Government is 
 charged to promote, in administering the Constitution, is 
 not that of the moment; the posterity to which it is " to se- 
 cure the blessings of liberty," is not merely the next gene- 
 ration; '* the people of the United States" committed to its 
 
103 
 
 care, are not solelv those who inhabit the present United 
 States, but all who shall be at any time embraced within the 
 future compass of the Union. It must look forward, then; 
 combine all probabilities and chances in its deliberations; 
 and consult the interests of the whole empire in their most 
 enlarged sense, and equitable connexion. With respect to 
 the establishment of slavery in the Missouri, there is no 
 view which it could take of them, or of its own duty, that 
 would not dictate every effort for the prevention of that ca- 
 tastrophe, unless " experience be a cheat, and fact a liar.''— 
 As to the Constitution, it points decisively and steadily in 
 the same direction. To the legislator who still doubts, I 
 would again say, using the impressive language of the poet— ■ 
 
 " But read the instrument, and mark it well. 
 Th' oppression of a tyrannous contrn! 
 Can find no warrant there.'* 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note A. — Page 4. 
 
 THE leaders of the Revolution frequently referred in tlieir public papers, to 
 the maxims of the New Testament respecting the equality of mankind in the 
 sight of Heaven, and the bonds of brotherhood declared i j involve the whole 
 human race. We have been scandalized of late, in thiscountr), by attempts to 
 justify slavery upon the autliority of scripture. No sophism can nou be put forth 
 on this subject, which is not to be found abundantly refuted in the printed dis- 
 cussions of KnglancJ concerning the slave trade. A great man of Virginia, Patrick 
 Henry, taught us a lesson which it is almost too soon to forget " It is a debt we 
 eive to the purity of otir religion, to shotv that it is at variance tvith that lain 
 ■ivhich -warrants slavery."* In truth, there is scarcely a parable or sermon in the 
 whole history of the Saviour's life, but what presents the strongest arguments 
 against slavery. The abridgment of this evil is among the most reniarkable tri- 
 umphs of Christianity; and nothing illustrates the influence in this respect, of its 
 spirit, more, than the general opinion which at first prevailed wherever segro- 
 slavery existed, that the black would be necessarily free when baptised. 1 sub- 
 join some extracts from good authorities to show the operation of Christianity oi^ 
 this score. 
 
 Fro7n Ward's Latv of JVations. 
 
 *' The existence of slavery, was long protected in Europe. We saw it univer- 
 sal before the Christian sera; nor could it be expected that a new religion whose 
 establishment war. accomplished under a cruel length of persecution, and which 
 looked for success to insinuation and conviction alone, should immediately effec- 
 tuate the reforms which it came only to recommend. Ciirlstianity hosvever, \n 
 conformity with its principles, claims the merit of having gone farthest towards 
 the abolition of this debasing institution. It is indeed the great, and almost the 
 only cause of its abolition, in the opinion of GuoTirs. 
 
 "When however the milder doctrines preached by Christ, came really to be 
 well understood and disseminated in their genuine purity; the effect upon this 
 part of the then received law, was visible and permanent. Tiie professed and 
 assigned reasons for most of the charters of manumission, from the time of Gnr.- 
 GORT the Great, to the thirteenth century, were the i-eligious and i)ious conside- 
 rations of tlie fraternity of men, thevmitation of the example of Christ, the 
 love of our Maker, and the hope of redemption. Enfranchisement was fre(iuently 
 given upon a death-bcd_, as the most acceptable service that could be oflered, and 
 when the sacred character of tlie priesthood came to obtain more universal vene- 
 ration; to assume its functions was the immediate passport to freedom.f 
 
 *' We have seen in a former chapter the universal existence of slavery during | 
 the earlier ages, and it was shown to be chiefly owing to the efforts of Christianity [ 
 
 * Letter to Anthony Benezet, published in th.e Life of that Philanthropist. 
 
 t The enfranchisement of slaves in England arose most particularly fror.i these 
 principles of piety. The manner of it has been well described by Sir Thomas 
 Sraiih rCommon wealth, 3. 10.) and Dr. Brady (Gen. Pref. to Lis Hist.) 
 
 O 
 
106 
 
 J that the institution was abolished. In the attempt to effectuate the abolitiGn, and 
 i the success which in the end attended it, we have a full proof of the general in- 
 fluence of this religion upon the mind, since no passage of the New Testament 
 has Sihsolate\y forbidden the custom; and it is merely therefore from the spirit 
 of the system of morality there displaced, that men collected what ought to be 
 / their conduct in this respect. Commanded to look upon all mankind as their 
 ' brethren, it wanted httle combination of the reasoning faculties to discover that 
 it was incompatible with such an injunction to hold them in chains, exclusive of 
 the benevolent effects upon the heart, which the religion was calculated gene- 
 rally to produce, and which, whtn produced, did that from analogy which was 
 not expressly commanded. After this, and what was said in the beginning of 
 this section, it is of little consequence to object that the custom of slavery re- 
 mained for a great length of time, or that the church itself was possessed of 
 numbers of slaves. We have shown that the custom of enfranchisement was the 
 effect chiefly of pious and christian motives, and that the example was generally 
 set by the ministers of religion. No law, it must be owned, is to be met with, by 
 ■which the custom was abolished all at once, nor could such a law have ever beea 
 justified: I do not mean on account of the claims of the rights of property, 
 (which, if they are incompatible with divine institutions, should never be so much 
 considered as to retard their effect,) but on the principles of the very benevo- 
 lence which it was meant to consult; for the men who would have been the object 
 of it, being thus thrown suddenly on the world, without protection, or the means 
 of support, uould have been put in a worse condition than they were in before. 
 It must be owned also, that avarice, and the love of absolute dominion, might 
 have thrown considerable obstacles in the way of the abolition. 
 
 "When Suarez marks the difference which he very justly holds between 
 the law of nations and the law of nature, he adduces among other proofs, the 
 abolition of slavery as arising from the positive institutions of the Christian 
 church. 
 
 " But nothing on this subject can be more forcible than the language of the 
 
 learned Sir Thomas Smith, speaking of bondage and bondmen. " Howbeit,'* 
 
 says he, ** since our realme hath received the Christian religion, which maketh 
 
 us all in Christ, brethren, and in respect Oi God and Christ consevvos; men be- 
 
 \ ganne to have conscience to hold in captivitie and such extreme bondage, him 
 
 whom they must acknowledge to be their brother, an<! as wee use to terme him. 
 
 Christian; that is, who looketh in Christ, and by Christ, to have equal portion 
 
 with them in the gospel and salvation. Upon this scruple, the holy fathers and 
 
 friars, in their confessions, and specially in their extreme and deadly sicknesses, 
 
 I burthentd the conscirinces of them whom they had in their hands; so that tem- 
 
 \ poral men, by little and little, by reason of that teiTor in their conscience, were 
 
 \ glad to manumitte all their villaines."* y 
 
 ^' *• Dr. Robertson, in a very learned and copious note upon the state of slaves 
 during the earlier ages in Europe, has forestalled much that might be adduced 
 farther on the score of authority, with respect to enfranchisenicnt on christian 
 motives. To that note I shall therefore refer the reat^er, and content myself 
 with pointing out a few other instances, which powerfully confirm the opinion; 
 such as the decree of the third Lateran council, under Pope Alexander 111. by 
 •which it is expressly declared, that all Christians ought to be exempt from slave- 
 ry; and a law pf Sweden, i bout the year 1299, known by the name of king Bir- 
 ger's law, by which the sale of slaves is prohibited, expressly on account of the 
 injustice of such a practice among men, ivhom Christ made free at the price of 
 his blood. 
 
 ' ' ' I . ■ ■ ■■ > ' 
 
 * Commonwealth of England, lo7. 
 
 i ^' 
 
107 
 
 From Robertson's Charles V. vol. \at. note 20. 
 
 "The gentle spirit of the Christian religion, together with the doctrines which 
 H teaches, concerning the original equality of mankiiul, us M'eil as the impartial 
 eye with which the Almighty regards men of every condiiion, and admits themi 
 to a participation of his benefits, are inconsistent with servitude. But in this, as ia 
 many other instances, considerations of interest, and the maxims of false policy 
 led men to a conduct inconsistent with their principles. They were so sensible, 
 however, of the inconsistency, that to set their fellow Christians at liberty from 
 servitude was deemed an act of piety highly meritorious and "acceptable to Hea- 
 ven. The humane s[)irit of the Christian religion struggled with the maxims and 
 manners of the world, and contributed more than any other ciicumstance to in- 
 troduce the practice of manumission. When Pope Gregory the Great, who flou- 
 rished towards the end of the sixth century, granted liberty to some of his slaves, 
 he gives this reason for it. *Cum redemptor noster, totius conditor naturae, ad 
 hoc propitiatus humanam carnem voluit assumere, ut divinitate suae gratia, di- 
 rempto (quo tenebamur captivi) vinculo, pristinae nos rcstituei-at libertati; salu- 
 briter agitur, si homines, quos ab initio liberos natura protulit, & jus gentium ju- 
 go substituit servitatis, in ea, qua nati fuerant, manumittentis beneficio liber tate 
 reddentur. — Gregor Major, ap. Potgiess. lib. 4. c 1. § 3. ^everal laws or char- 
 ters founded on reasons similar to this, are produced by the same author Ac- 
 cordingly a great part of the charters of manumission previous to the reign of 
 Louis X. are granted pro araore Dei, pro remedio animue, 8c pro mercedae ani- 
 mae. — JMurat. Antiq. Ital. vol. I. p. 849, 850. Du Cange, voc. manumiasio. The 
 formality of manumission was executed in a churcli, as a religious solemnity. 
 
 '* ManumissioQ was frequently granted on death bed or by latter will. As the 
 minds of men are at that time awakened to sentiments of humanity and piety, 
 these deeds proceeded from religious motives, and are granted pro redernptionc 
 animae, in order to obtain acceptance with God, 
 
 " Conformably to the same principles, princes on the birth of a son, or upon 
 any other agreeable event, appointed a certain number of slaves to be enfranchi- 
 sed, as a testimony of their gratitude to God from their benefit. — Marcuhi 
 Form. lib. 1. cap. 39. There are several forms of manumission published by 
 Marculfus, and all of them are founded on religious considerations, in order to 
 procure the favour of God, or to obtain the forgiveness of their sins. — Lib. 11. c, 
 23, 33, 34. edit. Baluz." 
 
 *' The influence of Christianity in putting a stop to slavery, appears in the first 
 Christian emperor Constantine, who commanded, under the severest penalties, 
 all such as had slaves, to set them at liberty. He afterwards contrived to render 
 the manumission of them much easier than formeily, for instead of recurring to 
 the forms prescribed by the Roman laws, which were attended with great diffi- 
 eulties, and a considerable expense, he gave leave to masters to enfranchise 
 their slaves in the presence of a bishop, or a minister and a Christian assembly." 
 — Universal History y vol. xv. p. 574, 577. 
 
 Note B. — Page 4. 
 
 The following quotations from some of our State Constitutions, will show how 
 far we are committed by our general principles. 
 
 ** All men are born equally free and independent. 
 
 ** All men have certain natural, esseniial, .nd inherent rights — among which 
 are, the enjoying and defeniiing life and liberty, acq ding, possessi g, and pro- 
 tecting property; and, in a word, of seeking and obcaining happiucss. 
 
108 
 
 " Every member of the community lias a right to be protected by it, iu the 
 enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property." 
 
 "A fitquent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, 
 and a constant adherence to justice, mod- ration, temperance, industry, fruga- 
 lity, and alt the social virtues, are indispensably necessary to preserve the bless- 
 ings of liberty and good government." Constitution of jVeiv Hampshi.'e. 
 
 ** All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and un- 
 alienable rights: among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and de- 
 fending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and pi-otecting pro- 
 perty; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining tUeir safety and happiness " 
 
 ** Government is instituted foi- the common good; for the protection, safety, 
 prosperity and happiness of the people: and not for the profit, honour, and pri- 
 vate interest of any one man, family, or any one class of men/' 
 
 *''Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it, in the enjoy- 
 ment of his life, liberty, and property, according to the standing laws. 
 
 ** A frequent recurrence to the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and 
 a constant adherence to those of piety, justice, moderation, temperance, indus- 
 try, and frugality, are absolutely necessary to preserve the advantages of liberty, 
 and to maintain a free government." Constitution of Massachusetts. 
 
 " All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, 
 inherent, and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and ((efeuding 
 life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and 
 obtaining happiness and safety: therefore, no male person, born in this country-, 
 or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a 
 servant, slave, or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty -two years, nor 
 female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they 
 are bound by their own consent after they arrive to such age, or bound by law 
 for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like." 
 
 Constitution of Vermont. 
 
 " All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent 
 and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life 
 and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property and reputation, and 
 of pursuing their own happiness." Constitution of Pennsylvania. 
 
 ** Through Divine goodness, all men have, by nature, the rights of woi'shipping 
 atid serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences, of en- 
 joying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting reputation and 
 property, and in general of attaining objects suitable to their condition, without 
 injury by one to another; and as these rights are essential to their welfare, &c. &o. 
 
 " All courts shall be open; and every man, for an injuiy done him in his repu- 
 tation, person, moveable or immoveable possessions, shall have remedy by due 
 coarse of law,and justice^administered according to the very right of t!ie cause?* 
 
 Constitution of Dela-^are. 
 
 " The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is ab- 
 surd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. 
 
 « Every man hath a right to petition the legislature, for a redress of griev- 
 -ances, in a peaceable and orderly manner." Constitution of Maryland. 
 
 " jYo man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or 
 privileges from the community, but in consideration ot public services. 
 
 <* A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is absolutely necessary to 
 preserve the blessings of liberty. 
 
 " Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free state, and 
 ought not to be allow ed." Constitution of JVorth Carolina. 
 
 •'♦ All freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal; and no man, 
 
109 
 
 or set of men, are entitled to exclusive, separate, public emoluments or privi- 
 leges, from liie community, but in consideration of public services. 
 
 ♦' All courts shall be open, and every person, for any injury done him in his 
 lands, goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by the due course of law; 
 and ri"ht and justice administered without sale, denial, or dela}." 
 
 . Consiitvtion of Kentucky. 
 
 "There shall be neither slavery nor in\oluntary servitude in this state, other- 
 wise than for the puuislimenl of crimes, whiteof the parly shad have been duly 
 convicted; nor shall any male pei'son, arrived at the age of twenty -two years, nor 
 female person, arrived at the age of eighteen years, be held to serve any person 
 as a servant, under pretence of indenture, or otherwise, unless such person shall 
 enter into such indenture while at a state of perfect freedom, and on conilition of 
 a bona fide consideration, received, or to be received, ibr their service, except as 
 before excepted. Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto hereafter 
 made and executed out of this state, or, if made in the state, where the term of 
 service exceeds one year, be of the least validity, except those given in the case 
 of appi etiticeships." Constitution of Ohio. 
 
 " (Government being; instituted for the common benefit, the doctrine of non- 
 resistance agaii\st arbitrary power and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destruc- 
 tive to the good and happiness of mankind. 
 
 " All courts shall be open; and every man, for an injury done him in his lands, 
 goods, person, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of lav», and right 
 and justice administered without sale, denial, or delay.'* 
 
 Constitution of Tennessee. 
 
 *' There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in this state^ other- 
 wise than for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly 
 convicted. Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto, hereafter made and 
 executed out of the bounds of this state, be of any validity within the state." 
 
 Constitution of Indiana. 
 
 *' Neither slaveiy nor involuntary servitude shall hereafter be introduced into 
 this state, otherwise than tor the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall 
 have been duly convicted; nor shall any male person, arrived at the age of twen- 
 ty-two years, nor female person, arrived at the age of eighteen years, be held to 
 serve any person as a servant, under any indenture hereafter made, unless such 
 peison shall enter into such indenture while in a state of perfect freedom, and oa 
 condition of a bona fide consideration, received, or to be received, for their ser- 
 vice. Nor shall any indenture of any negro or mulatto, hereafter made and ex- 
 ecuted out of this state, or, if made in this state, where the term of service ex- 
 ceeds one year, be of the least validity, except those given in eases of apprentice- 
 ship." • Consiitutio7i of Illinois. 
 
 Note C. — Page 5. 
 
 The doctrine of the natural subjection of some one part of the human race to 
 tlie other, originated with Aristotle. In his fiist book of Politics, his position is 
 that " the Greeks and some of the adjoining nations, being supei'ior in genius, 
 have a natural right to empire, and that the rest of r.* inkind appear to be, from, 
 their innate stupidity, intended by nature for slavery and toil." All the mo- 
 dern writers on the law of nature have been at pains to refute this fine theory, 
 especially Puflendorf Hobbes approached to it in his doctiine that every man 
 being by nature at war with every man, the one has a perpetual right to reduce 
 the other to servitude, when he can accomplish the end. Ue also, has been assailed 
 
110 
 
 by the jurists, and signally defeated in the argument. There is not, with these 
 exceptions, one writer of note on the Law of Nature and Nations, whose authority 
 can be fairly pleaded in an attempt lo justify slavery of such an origin and chC' 
 racter as our JVegro-Slavery; and it is, therefore, surprising that an Americaa 
 ■writer in replying to the charges of the Edinburgh Reviewers on this head, should 
 have referred them to the Grotiuses, Puffendorfs, and Paleys whose principles 
 TH-onounce in fact our condemnation. They admit slavery to be lawful only 
 when fovmded on cajitivity in war, crime, or self-sale; in respect to the first and 
 last source, their doctrine is exploded in the works of Montesquieu, Vattel, 
 Beattie, Blackstone, &c. 
 
 Mr. Fox in one of his masterly speeches respecting the slave trade thus animad- 
 verts on the doctrine of Aristotle and his disciples. 
 
 *'l recoil' ct that one of the ancient philosophers, no less a character thap 
 Aristotle, wishing to estabUsh some defence of slavery, says, ' The barbaria?is 
 are of a different race from us, and were born to be slaves to the Ch^eeks.' Now, 
 sir, if any better reason could be found in justification of slavery, I should think 
 that most fertile genius would have been the first to discover it. He saw domestic 
 tyranny exercised in an extreme degree, and this in'states where pohtical tyranny 
 was not suffered. He asked himself the reason, and after he had searched his 
 wonderful invention (finding slavery to be the practice of his country, and not 
 wishing to condemn it) he could resort to no other argument than that ' the 
 Barbarians were inferior to the Greeks by nature; and the Greeks have strength 
 to conquer them' It is true many of these Barbarians were of the same colour 
 with the Greeks; still, however, it was necessary to establish a distinction in the 
 mature of the different men, in order to assign any real reason for permitting the 
 difference in their treatment. 
 
 «' As to setting up a distinction of nature between people of our own colour; it is 
 what no one will bear to hear. To say there are any whites of an inferior species, 
 marked out by nature to be slaves to other whites, is not to be borne. It would 
 fill us all with horror to authorize slavery any where, on this principle, with 
 respect to white men: Is it not quite as unjust, because some men are black, to 
 sav there is a natural distinction as to them; and that black men, because they 
 are black ought to be slaves? Set aside the diff^erence of colour, and is it not the 
 height of arrogance to allege, that because we have strong feelings and cultivated 
 minds it would be a gi'eat crudty to make slaves of us; but that because they are 
 yeti-norant and uncivilized, it is no injury at all to them? Such a principle onee 
 admitted, lays the foundation of a tyranny and injustice that have no end. 
 
 Note D.— Page 13. 
 
 Extracts from the Inaugural Address of General Washington. 
 - It would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act, my fervent 
 supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over f ^'-i^^^^^'-^J'^P;,:; 
 sides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply eveij 
 human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness 
 ofTe people of the United States, a government instituted by themselves for 
 these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument, employed in its ad- 
 mil "at , to'execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In ten- 
 Ling this homage to the great Author of every public and private good, as 
 ,url myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those 
 7SIa\o. citizens at large, less than either. No people can be bound to ac- 
 kn^vledge and adoie the invisible hand, wliich conducts the affairs of men, more 
 
Ill 
 
 than the people of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanccil 
 to the charflcter of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by 
 some token of providential agency. And in the important revolution just accom- 
 plishtd in the system of their united government, the traiuiuil deliberations and 
 voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has 
 resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have 
 been established, without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble 
 anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage." 
 
 "The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable 
 principles of private morality; and the pre-eminenee of free government, be ex- 
 emplified by all the attributes which can win the afTTections of its citizens, and 
 command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfac- 
 tion which an ardent love for my country can inspire; since there is no truth 
 more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course 
 of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between ddty and 
 advantage, between the genuine maxims of an hon. st and magnanimous policy, 
 and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: since we ought to be no 
 less persuaded, that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on 
 a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven 
 itself has ordained." 
 
 Extracts from the answer of tfi£ Senate and House of Hepresentatives to that 
 
 Address- 
 
 "We feel, sir, the force, and acknowledge the jastness of the observation, that 
 the foundation of our national policy should be laid in jjiivate morality. If indi. 
 viduals be not influenced by moral \)rinciples, it is in vain to look for public virtue; 
 it is, therefore, the duty of legislators to enforce, both by precept and example, 
 the utility as well as the necessity of a strict adherence to the rules of distributive 
 justice." 
 
 " We feel with you the strongest obligations to adore the invisible hand which 
 has led the Ameri' an people through so many difficulties, to cherish a conscious 
 responsibility for the destiny of republican liberty, and to seek the only sure 
 means of preserving and recommending the precious «leposit in a system of 
 legislation, founded on the principles of an honeat policy, and directed by the 
 spirit of a diffusive patriotism." 
 
 Note E. — Pa^e 15. 
 
 The two states mentioned in the text, Georgia and South Carolina, were par- 
 ticularly averse to any interference with the slave-trade, on the part of the 
 Federal Government. In the convention most of the states were anxious to in- 
 sert a provision authorizing the immediate, total abolition of the diabolical traffic. 
 This was resisted peremptorily by the two just mentioned; and the compromise 
 •was at length effected which is found in the ninth section of the first article of the 
 constitution. The earnestness of Georgia and South Carolina was further shown 
 by their insisting on the security in the fifth article, against any amendment to the 
 constitution affecting the faculty reserved to them, of continuing to prosecute the 
 trade for twenty years. In order to carry the point they couscnted, though with 
 the greatest reluctance, to the power over navigation and commeice. There is 
 an explanation of this adjustment in the Virginia debates, from Mr. George Ma- 
 son, which is worth transcribing. 
 
 " This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four months, during which 
 time the subject of commerce and navigation was often under consideration; and 
 T assert that eight states out of twelve, for more than three months, voted for re- 
 
112 
 
 quiring two-thirds of the members present in each house to pass commercial and 
 navigation iaxvs True it is, that afterwards it was carried bv a majority, as it 
 stands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring two-thirds' of the 
 states in this business, till a compromise took place between the Northern and 
 Southern States; the Northern States agreeing to the temporary importation of 
 slaves, and the Southern States (Georgia and South Carolina) conceding, m re- 
 turn, that naugv.tion and commercial laws should be on the footing on which ther 
 now stand. If I am mistaken, let m- be put right These are my reasons for say- 
 ing that this was not a sine qua non of their concurrence The Newfoundland 
 fisheries will require that kind of security which we are now in want of. The 
 Eastern States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should require the con- 
 sent of two-thirds of the members present in the Senate." 
 
 Note F.— Page 21. 
 
 Mr. Madison stated, in the Virginia Convention, that the restriction upon 
 Congress in regard to the suppressi'-n of the slave-trade, was '* a restraint on 
 the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress, namely, that of regu- 
 lating commerce with foreign nations.*' Governor Randolph made the same alle- 
 gation (]). 428, \irginia Debates.) The general act of Congress of 1807, sup- 
 pressing the slave-ti'ade, shews a sense of an entire control over the domestic 
 commerce in slaves, by the regulations which it makes respecting their trans- 
 portation coastwise. The exception made in favor of internal transportation 
 void J have been wholly superfluous, had not a constitutional pov.er been felt to 
 exist. 
 
 Note G. — Page 25. 
 
 We are told by Mr. Jefferson in his Notes on Virginia, that emancipation was 
 formally ydanned there in the legislature. His language is as follows: The first 
 assembly which met after the establishment of the commonwealth appointed a 
 committee to revise the whole code of laws. Among the most remarkable altera- 
 tions proposed in the plan of revisal was the following. 
 
 "To emancipate all slaves born after the passing the act. The bill reported 
 by the revisors does not itself contain this proposition; but an amendment con- 
 taining it was prepared, to be offered to the legislature whenever the bill shoidd 
 be taken up, and further directing, that they should continue with their parents 
 to a certain age, then be brougiit up, at the public expense, to tillage, arts or 
 sciences, according to their geniuses, till the females should be eighteen, and 
 the males twenty -one years of age, when they should be colonized to such j)laces 
 as the circumstances of the time should render most proper, sending them out 
 ■with arms, implements of household and of the handicraft arts, seeds, pairs ol 
 the useful domestic animals, &c. to declare them a free and independent people, 
 and to extend to them our alliance and proteclion, till they have acquired 
 strength; and to send vessels at the same time to other parts of the world for an 
 equal number of white inhabitants; to induce whom to migrate hither proper en- 
 couragements were to be proposed." 
 
 Patrick Henry, in the letter to Anthony Benezet already quoted, expresses 
 liimscdf thus a3 to abolition. " / believe a time iviil co^ne when an opportiautu 
 •will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil." This opportunity of beginning the 
 ■work, is now offered in the possession of the vast province of Louisiana, to which 
 Judge Tucker in his Notes referred, as a proper theatre for colonization, even 
 ■while it was held by Spain. There is room enough therefor the establishment of 
 a colony of blacks which might, witli proper aid and eare in the outset, become a 
 
113 
 
 flouiisliins community; and graciually absorb a large proportion of the slaves in 
 the sonlhern states. If we sni>p08C' that tliey would act finally, in their indepen- 
 dent state, as our enemies, they would still be less formidable iinthouty than they 
 aie likely to prove ivithin. 
 
 Note II.— Page 32. 
 
 The framers of the constitution were almost universally familiar with the 
 Commentaries of Hlackstone, in the first volume of which the>e is a complete re- 
 futation of the notion of a right of property in tke ofisprin;^ of the slave. Judge 
 Tucker, in his notes, having quoted lilackstone on this head, makes the follow- 
 ing observation. 
 
 " Thus by the most clear, manly, and convincing reasoning does this excellent 
 author refute every claim, upon which the practice of slavery is founded, or by 
 \vhi<-h it has been supposed to be justified, at least in modern times." 
 
 Judge Tucker then speaks from himself, in a manly and convincing strain, 
 -which deserves repetition. 
 
 " Men who will shut their ears against this moral truth, that all men are by 
 nature //-ee, and equal, will not even be convinced that they do not possess a/»ro- 
 p'Ttym^n 7/7160/ ?i child; they will not distinguish between allowing Xq unborn 
 generations the absolute and unalienable rights of human nature, an>l takmg 
 away that which they noxv possess,- they will shut their ears against truth, should 
 you tell them the loss of the mother's labour for nine months, and the mainte- 
 nance of a child for a dozen or fourteen years, is amply compensated by the ser- 
 vice of that child for as many years more, a9 he has been an expense to them. 
 But if the voice of reason, justice, and humanity, be not stifled by sordid avarice 
 or unfeeling tyranny, it would be easy to convince even those who have enter- 
 tained such erroneous notions, that the right of one man over another is neither 
 founded in nature nor in sound policy. That it cannot extend to those not in be* 
 inq-; that no man can in reaUty be deprived of what he dolh not possess: that 
 fourteen years of labour by a young person in the prime of life, is an ample com- 
 pensation for a few months of labour lost by the mother, and for tli£ maintenance 
 of a child, in that coarse homely manner that negroes are brought up: and lastly, 
 that a state of slavery is not ouly perfectly incompatible with the principles of 
 government, but with the safety and security of their masters. HisLoiy evinces 
 this. At this moment we have the most awful demonstration of it. Shall we then 
 neglect a duty, w hich every consideration, moral, religious, political, or seljish re- 
 commends? Those w ho w ish to postpone the measure, do not reflect that every 
 day renders the task more arduous to be performed. We have now 300,000 
 slaves among us. Thirty years hence we shall have double the number. In sixty 
 years we shall have 1,200,000: and in less than another century from this day, 
 even that enormous number will be doubled. Milo acipiired strengtii enough to 
 carry an ox, by begiiming with the ox while he was yet a calf. If we complain 
 that the calf is too heavy for our shoulders, what will the ox be?" 
 
 Note I. — Page 32. 
 
 Extracts from Beattie's Elements of Moral Science. Fart III. 
 "It is sa",d, 'That the Africans, whom our planters, and their emissaries, buy 
 for slaves, ?se publicly exposed to sale by their countrymen; and that, if we did 
 not buy them, others would' In answer to this, I observe, in the first ()lace, that 
 it cannot be pretended, that all the negroes imported into our colonies ftom Af- 
 rica are procured by sale in a public market; for it is notorious, that many of 
 them are stolen, or obtained by other indirect methods. Nor, secondly, can it be 
 
 P 
 
114 
 
 pretended, thai the planter, \vho buA's them when imported, makes any inquiry, 
 either into their former condition, jr into the legality of that power which tiie 
 merchant assumes over them; it being equally notorious, that, in every colony, 
 the circumstances of their being black, and imported from Africa, are alone suf- 
 ficient, in the eye of the law, to fix them in slaveiy for life, and to entail the 
 same ruin upon their offspring. 
 
 *' Thirdly, Though ignorant and barbarous nations, like those of Guinea, should 
 sell their prisoners, it will not follow, that we have any right to buy them; unless 
 we did it with a view to deliver them from misery, to improve their manners, atjd 
 to instruct them in the Christian religion; purposes, which, it is well knov, n, never 
 enter into the head of the slave merchant. Fourthly, It is strange, tliat merchants 
 •who claim the privilege of purchasing whatever is offered at a price, should be so 
 ignorant in their own trade, as not to know, that those goods only are market- 
 able, for which there is a demand; and that buyei*s, as well as sellers, are neces- 
 sarj- in commercial intercourse. Will it be preter.ded, that the petty kings of 
 Africa would continue to enslave their su!)jects and neighbours with the same 
 alacrity as at present, if our West Indians and tlie Noith Americans were to 
 purchase no more slaves? As well may it be preten<led, that the demand for to- 
 bacco would not be lessened, though all Europe, Asia, and Africa, were to dis- 
 continue the use ot it. 
 
 *' But, passing this, let me ask, in the fifth place, w ho it was that first taught 
 the negroes of Africa to sell one another? Who are they, who tempt those un- 
 happy people, by every sort of bribery that can be supposed to have influence on 
 them, to plunder and betray, every man bis neighbour, in order to get together 
 ft multitude of human victims to answer tiie yearly demand? Are not Europeans, 
 and European X)lanters, the first movers in this dreadful business? Does it then 
 become them to charge Africa with the whole guilt of a commerce, which, but 
 for their cunning cruelty, and avarice, would not now exist, and would never 
 have existed? Tins sort of casuistry may justly be termed diabolical: for it is thus, 
 that th'^ most malevolent of all beings is said, first to tempt and corrupt, and 
 then to accuse. 
 
 " 1 shall only add, w ith respect to the argument now before us, that goofls are 
 sometimes exposed to sale, which every trader knows it is not lawful to buy. He 
 ■who purchases what he knows to have been stolen, is a partner in the guilt of the 
 thief He, who bu\ s a human being, with a view to reduce him to the condition 
 of a wretched negro slave, does every thing in his power to destroy the soul and 
 the body of that human being, in order to get money for himself. And he, who 
 tempts a poor barbarian king to punish with slavery the most inconsiderable tres- 
 pass, and to involve the innocent \\\ the same ruin with the guilty, that he may 
 have men to give in exchange for the trinkets and luxuries of Europe, does every 
 thing that with impunit} he can do, to confoimd truth and justice; to introduce 
 -wickedness and misery into the dominions of that barbarian; and to promote the 
 views, and extend the influence, of the great adversary of God and man. 
 
 **lt is said, * that the negroes are happier in our colonies than they were in 
 their own country.' Supposing this true, it will not follow, that we are excusable 
 in making them slaves, unless we did it with a sincere intention to make them 
 happy; and with their free consent, founded on a belief that we mean to do so. 
 If I, by oppression, reduce an innocent man to poverty, and if Providence endow 
 him with strength of n)ind to bear his misfortunes as becomes a Christian, it is 
 possible he may be happier in adversity than ever he was in prosperity: but will 
 this excuse me for what 1 have done? If it is unlawful to enslave an inoffensive 
 fellow creature, no unforbcen and unintentional good consequences, that may 
 follow upon it, w ill ever.rendcr it lawful. The knife of the ruftian may dismiss a 
 
115 
 
 good mnn from the troubles of this life, and send Ijim to heaven: ])nl is it therefore 
 hiwful to murder a good man! If we estimate the morality of actions, not hy the 
 intention of the agent, but by the conseqiiences, whereof, by tlie over-ruling care 
 of a good Providence, they may be productive, we shall at once confound all moral 
 {)rinciples. 
 
 " In this plea of the slavemongers there is something particularly shocking 
 By their cunning, and cruelty, and love of nioney, they have introduced many 
 evils into the native countries of the negroes; which, according to the best histo- 
 rical information, were formerly regions of plenty and peace. And now, when 
 they have stolen, or forced away, the unhappy victim into a distant lan<l, and 
 torn him for ever from the arms of consanguinity and friendship, and from every 
 other comfort which remained for him in tliis world, and afterwards loatied him 
 and his offspring with tlie chains of intolerable servitude, they are pleased to 
 affirm, that he is obliged to them for delivering him from calamities, which by 
 their means he might have been exposed to in his own country. As if an enemy 
 •were first to fill every corner of my house with poisonous or inflammable mate- 
 rials, and then violently to seize and cast me into a dungeon for life; telling me, 
 that in this he did me a great favour, for that, if he had not forced me from 
 home, 1 niight have been burned, or poisoned, in consequence of the snares he 
 had laid for me. What answer is due to such reasoning? 
 
 Note J. — Page 36, 
 
 The lexicographical definition oU^ight is a jmt claim; nnd Johnson contradis- 
 tinguishes it from w/^-7i^ in one of his illusti-ations of the word. Paiey explains 
 yight to be a claim consistent ivith the ivill of Go6. See the 9lh and 10th Chapter 
 of his M. and P. Philosoj)hy, for doctrines on tliis head which tally ill with the 
 Missouri pretension. " liighf says Grotius (R. 1. C. 1. L. of W. k P) " is a 
 moral quality annexed to the person, enabling him to have and do something 
 justly" See his Pieliminary Discourse paiticularly, on this point. PufFendorf 
 writes thus; 
 
 *' Moral power is that by -which a maji is enabled to do a thing hm'fuUy aiid 
 with a moral eject: which eject is. That the person exercising this [)Owci-, shall 
 lay an obligation on others to perform some certain business, which he requires, 
 or to admit some action of his as valid, or not to stop and hinder it; or that he 
 shall confer on others a license of doing or possessing something, which license 
 they did not before enjoy." 
 
 " jRighth that moral quality by which we justly obtain either tjje government 
 of persons, or the possession of things, or by force of which we may claim some- 
 thing as due to us. There seems to be this diffei-euce between the terms of 
 power and right that the first does more expressly import the presence of the 
 said quality, and does but obscurely denote the manner iiow one acquired it, 
 whereas the word right does properly and ck-aily show that the quality was 
 fairly got and is now fairly possessed." (B i. C. 1. L. of N. and N.ntions) See also 
 his 3d B. Ch 2d and C. 5lh. See, too, Vattel's Preliminaries, for principles 
 which show the absurdity of classing among the rights of sovereignty, the estab- 
 lishment of hereditary ser\itude. 
 
 Note K. — Page 47. 
 
 On the subject of the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the Uni- 
 ted States, as such, there is a case in 1 Cranch, Hep. (Hepburn vs. Dundas and 
 
116 
 
 Elijey) ot'wliich the doctrine is not a little remarkable. Tlie following passages, 
 Avhich I extract from »1ie arguments of the Counsel and the opinion of the Court, 
 shew that the character of a citizen of the United States, is not held to imply ne- 
 cessarily a member of the Union. 
 
 Charles Lee — "But there may be a citizen of the United States who is not a 
 citizen of any one of the States. The expression a citizen of a State, has a con- 
 stitutional meaning. The States are not absolutely sovereigns, but (if 1 may use 
 the expression) they are fleini-sovereigns.^* 
 
 E. J. Lee, in reply. " It is true that the citizens of Columbia are not enti- 
 tled to the elective franchise in as full a manner as the citizens of states. They 
 have no vote in the choice of president, vice-president, senators and representa- 
 tives in Congress. But in this they are not singular. More than seven-eighths of 
 the free white inhabitants of Virginia are in the same situation. (Jf the white po- 
 pulation of Virginia one half are female — half of the males probably are under 
 age — and not more than one half of the residue are freeholders and entitled to 
 vote at elections. The same case happens in some degree in all the states. A 
 great majority are not entitled to vote But in every other respect, the citizens 
 of Columbia are entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the 
 United States." 
 
 Chief Justice Marshall — "It is true that as citizens of the United States, 
 and of that ])articular district which is subject to the jurisdiction of Congress, it 
 is extraordinary thtit the courts of the United States which are open to aliens, 
 and to the citizens of every state in the Union, should be closed upon them> 
 But this is a subject for legislative not for judicial consideration." 
 
LEua'12