Speech <5^- 
 
 t. 
 
 "il 
 
 $\a^< 
 
 e«' 20, 
 
Glass L ~V-^k 5"- 
 
 Book. -JlJiJyiJ 
 

 SPEECH 
 
 fiZUU 
 
 ONT TMB ABOLITION OF SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA. 
 
 DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE U. S. 
 
 DECEMBER 20, 1837. 
 
 TO WHICH IS ADDED THE INTENDED CONCLUSION OF THE SPEECH, 
 
 SUPPRESSED BY RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSE. 
 
 The question being on the motion made by Mr. Slade, 
 on the 18th of December, to refer to a select com- 
 mittee the memorial of Isaiah Stokes, and two hun- 
 dred and ninety-two other men, and Rachel Frank, 
 and three hundred and four other women, of Starks- 
 boro and its vicinity, in the State of Vermont, pray- 
 ing for ths abolition of slavery and the slave trade in 
 the District of Columbia : 
 
 Mr. Slade said, that, as the memorial which he had 
 had the honor to present, contained merely a prayer for 
 the abolition of slavery and the slave tmde in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia, unaccompanied by arguments in 
 its support, he felt called on, as the representative of the 
 memorialists, to state, in their behalf, the grounds on 
 Which he understood the prayer of the memorial to be 
 founded. 
 
 Mr. S. said he approached this subject with great he- 
 sitation and embarrassment. He felt admonished by 
 every thing he saw around him, that it was exceeding- 
 ly unpleasant to a large portion of the house. He had 
 seen at the present session, as on former occasions, a 
 manifest determination to suppress all debate upon it. 
 It had been treated as a prohibited subject — as one on 
 which it was unlawful to speak. Nothing would satis- 
 fy a portion of the house, but silence — absolute silence 
 —both on the part of the people and their representa- 
 tives. 
 
 It was not so, Mr. S. said, on other subjects. Our 
 sessions are opened by the appointment of numerous 
 committees, to whom are assigned various duties, cor- 
 responding with the vast range of subjects within the 
 competency of our legislation. The people send their 
 petitions; their representatives rise in their places, from 
 day to day, and present them. They are listened to 
 and referred ; and, thereupon, quietly pass to the ap- 
 propriate committees for examination. 
 
 But, among all the matters that concern the people 
 whom we represent, there is one thing they must not 
 even pray for. They must not pray that 7,000 human 
 beings, who are, by the laws of the United States, held 
 asproperty rin this district, over which congress has an 
 exclusive right to legislate, shall cease to be thus holden, 
 and be taken and deemed as men and women, to all in- 
 tents and purposes. For this, they must not pray. It 
 is true, we receive their petitions ; but the moment it 
 is discovered that they touch this subject they are laid 
 on the table, and nailed there, quicker than I can de- 
 scribe the operation. It is wonderful to observe its ra- 
 pidity. As soon as it is announced that there is any 
 thing about slavery and the slave trade in a petition, up 
 starts a gentleman over the way, and before he gets 
 on his feet, the speaker anticipates his motion and 
 announces it ; and, forthwith, the petition is on the ta- 
 ble, and the nail driven ! This process has been re- 
 peated so often, that it has come to work with the pre- 
 cision of machinery. 
 
 Sir, I am astonished at this. I am amazed that a 
 question so deeply affecting the honor of this nation, and 
 so strongly identified with the great principles of human 
 freedom, should be thus smothered by us ; and espe- 
 cially, when it is pressed upon our consideration in res- 
 pectful memorials from the people who sent us hero. 
 We sometimes talk about the sacred right of petition. 
 But what is it worth, if petitions and petitioners may be 
 thus disposed of? We may keep up the form of re- 
 ceiving petitions ; but it will be, to all practical purposes, 
 a mere mockery — a studied and cruel contempt of 
 the interests and feelings of the people. 
 
 Whose government is this ? And who are we ? 
 Are we servants ? or are we masters ? Si", the people, 
 of whom these petitioners form a part, made this gov- 
 ernment. It is theirs'— not ours. They have constitu- 
 ted us their servants ; and the powers with which we 
 are invested are given us for the due administration of 
 their government — in adjusting the powers of which , 
 they have expressly reserved to themselves the right to 
 lay before us their petitions — that is, the right of telling 
 us what they want. 
 
 And now, shall we, the representatives and servants 
 of the people, tell them that their petitions shall not be 
 so much as considered, or even read ? Can there be, 
 in principle, a greater outrage on their rights than this ? 
 Not listen to and consider the requests of the people ?■ 
 and that, too, with the constitution in our hands, and 
 professions of regard for the people's rights continually 
 on our lips ? 
 
 Sir, we ought to stand confounded when we look at 
 this. I speak plainlv, but I speak truly. The whole 
 course of our proceedings, touching the subject of slave- 
 ry, during the present congress, thus far, and during the 
 whole of the last, bears me out in what I say. 1 
 fearlessly appeal to this house, and to this nation, for its 
 justice and its truth. 
 
 And what a contrast is exhibited between our course 
 on this great question of slavery, and that of the gov- 
 ernment of Great Britain on the same subject. Long, 
 long did the philanthropists of that country urge upon 
 parliament their earnest remonstrances against, the con- 
 tinuance of the slave trade, and, afterwards, their peti- 
 tions for the abolition of slavery : and they urged them 
 until they were successful. But when was it heard, 
 during the whole of this time, that the humble petitions 
 of his majesty's subjects were laid upon the table, in 
 contempt of their prayer, and with a determination not 
 to consider them ? Never — no, never. Sir, the blush 
 of honest and manly indignation would have mantled 
 the cheeks of every member of the British parliament 
 upon c suggestion of doing what has been repeatedly 
 done here. 
 
 Mr. Wise here interposes, and said, if he had under- 
 stood the gentleman from Vermont, he had intimated 
 that there had been some, preconcert or understanding 
 
. 
 
 
 between the speaker, a slave-holder, and him, (Mr. 
 Wise,) and other slave-holding members, with regard to 
 the mode in which these petitions should be disposed 
 of. He said that, once for all, he would say, that there 
 was no such concert. On the contrary there was a to- 
 tal want of concert among slave-holding members on 
 the subject. And as to the promptitude of the chair 
 in anticipating such motions, before they were complete- 
 ly uttered, he would do the speaker the justice to say, 
 that never had a word, or an intimation, passed between 
 the chair and any southern gentleman in relation to 
 these matters. 
 
 Mr. Slade resumed. He disclaimed any personal 
 imputation, either on the gentleman from Virginia, or 
 the speaker. The gentleman from Virginia had gen- 
 eral'y moved the laying on the table ; and it had come 
 to be so well understood by the speaker, that he would 
 do it whenever one of these petitions was announced, 
 that he was in the habit of anticipating the motion, be- 
 fore the gentleman had uttered it. This promptitude 
 of the speaker was proper enough, and arose, doubtless, 
 from a desire to save time. He had not alluded to this 
 matter for the purpose of making it a subject of person- 
 al charge against any body ; but to show the actual 
 working of the system, by which the quietus was regu- 
 larly given to these memorials. 
 
 Mr. Dawson, of Georgia, here interposed, and called 
 on Mr. Slade for an explanation of the remark he had 
 made, that the course pursued in relation to these me- 
 memorials would have mantled the cheeks of the mem- 
 bers of the British parliament with honest indignation. 
 Did the gentleman from Vermont mean to charge, that 
 he, Mr. D. had ever so acted in this matter, as would 
 mantle the cheek of an honest man with indignation, 
 gither in parliament, or any where else ? 
 
 Mr. Slade said he meant to give application to the 
 remark, no farther than the language itself implied. 
 The gentleman had been one of those who had fre- 
 quently moved to lay the memorials on the table. But 
 he imputedjjneither to him nor others any improper mo- 
 tives in doing so. They doubtless acted from upright 
 motives. But if this course had been taken in the Bri- 
 tish parliament for the purpose of fastening the petitions 
 to the table, and refusing the petitioners a hearing, he 
 meant to say, what he must still say, that it would have 
 produced the effect he had described. 
 
 Mr. S. proceeded to say, that, notwithstanding the 
 course of measures here, the effect of which was to 
 smother these petitions, he must say, once for all, 
 that the voice of the people was not thus to be sup- 
 pressed. The petitioners, (said Mr. S.)_ whose memorial 
 1 have presented, and whose memorials I have yet to 
 present, have not moved in this matter from sudden im- 
 pulses of feeling. It is not the blaze which flashes one 
 moment, and goes out the next. No sir. The claims 
 of humanity have a deeper and more enduring hold on 
 their feelings. They have read much on the subject of 
 slavery, and reflected more. They know something of 
 the history and fate of the institution in other countries. 
 They have explored the foundations on which it rests, 
 and "fixed a strong and steady grasp on its fundamental 
 principles. They act, therefore, in this matter from de- 
 liberate and settled convictions which cannot be lightly 
 abandoned. 
 
 Sir: I want you should understand these constitu- 
 ents of mine, whose memorials I have presented, and 
 in whose name I speak. They entertain no feelings of 
 hostility towards slave-holders. They threaten them 
 with no force. It does not even enter their imaginations. 
 Their only weapons are truth and reason. They aim to 
 convince — not to intimidate. The bounds which limit 
 their constitutional rights they perfectly understand. 
 They have not passed them — they will not. 
 
 It is because they stand on such ground, that they 
 stand firmly. It is because they are impelled by such 
 motives, and look to results the noblest, and the subli- 
 mest that can affect the condition and destiny of man, 
 that they will steadily and patiently endure to the end. 
 
 Now, sir, if it is calculated that this spirit is to be sup- 
 pressed by gag law he e, or mob law elsewhere, it is 
 done under a delusion which should be dispelled imme- 
 diately. You may, indeed, silence for a moment the 
 voice of truth in this hall ; but it will be only to give it 
 deeper and louder tones elsewhere. You may destroy 
 the freedom of debate here, but you cannot destroy the 
 freedom of thought, and of speech, and of the press, 
 elsewhere- The spirit of free inquiry is not to be thus 
 subdued. It is rising, and it will continue to rise, under 
 the pressure with which you vainly think to crush it. 
 Y^u may reason with these people, and if your argu- 
 ments are sound, you may convince them ; but they are 
 the last people on earth whom you can convince by 
 turning your backs, and shutting your doors in their 
 faces. 
 
 Sir, this great question must be met; not by threats, but 
 by discussion — not by force, but by argument. The 
 eyes of the world are upon us ; and we must meet 
 our responsibility to its enlightened and impartial judg- 
 meut. 
 
 Mr. Speaker : one great purpose I have in address- 
 ing the house, is to intreat it to change its policy in re- 
 gard to this subject. Let the questions involved in these 
 memorials be met, directly and fairly. Let the memo- 
 rials be referred to a committee ; and as there are im- 
 portant facts, not fully before the public, connected with 
 the slave trade here, let the committee have power to 
 send for persons and papers. Let facts be dnwn forth 
 and embodied. Let there be a report — or reports, if the 
 committee disagree. Let the subject be referred to a 
 committee of the whole on the state of the union ; and 
 then here, on this floor, in the face of this nation and the 
 world, let us reason together concerning this matter. Are 
 gentlemen afraid to do this ? Will not slavery and the 
 slave trade, in this district, bear examination ? Must 
 truth and reason and justice invoke the aid of gag laws 
 for their protection ? 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I wish I could indulge a hope that the 
 course I have thus suggested, would be adopted. Could 
 I feel any such assurance, I would gladly take my seat, 
 and not utter another word. I do not covet the privilege 
 of addressing the house on this subject. I know I can- 
 not do it without incurring censure, even from men 
 whom I have been permitted to call my friends — which 
 I would gladly avoid. But, sir, I am admonished by 
 what I have seen here, during the present session, as on 
 former occasions, that taking my seat will be the signal 
 for another motion to lay on the table ; and thus the 
 people, whose memorial I have presented, will be de- 
 prived of the hearing to which I consider them jusdy 
 entitled. I have, therefore, no alternative but to speak. 
 I cannot desist — I must not — I will not. 
 
 what is slavery? 
 
 This memorial, Mr. Speaker, asks for the abolition 
 of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Colum- 
 lumbia. In considering this subject, the first question 
 which naturally presents itself is — what is slavery ? 
 This question I propose now to answer. 
 
 [The Chair here interposed, and observed that Mr. S. 
 could not discuss the merits of the memorial on a mere 
 motion for its commitment. The question before the 
 house was the question of commitment alone ; and to 
 that Mr. S. must confine his remarks. The motion for 
 commitment had been accompanied with no instruc- 
 tions : had it been, the whole field would have been 
 opened.] 
 
 Mr. Slade submitted to the decision of the chair, and 
 forthwith modified his motion for the commitment of 
 the memorial to a select committee, by adding "with 
 instructions to report a bill abolishing slavery and the 
 slave trade within the District of Columbia." 
 
 Mr. Wise inquired whether 'the motion, thus modified, 
 must not lie over one day ? 
 
 The Chair replied that the memorial having been re- 
 ceived, and the motion entertained for its reference to 
 a committee, such would not be the case. 
 
 Mr> Slade was about to resume ; when 
 
•3 
 
 Mr. Legare, of South Carolina, asked leave to say a 
 word. 
 
 Mr. Slade pausing — 
 
 Mr. Legare, of South Carolina, said he wished to 
 implore the gentleman from Vermont, solemnly to con- 
 sider what he was doing. He implored him, for the 
 sake of his own constituents, for the sake of those of 
 Mr. L., and for the sake of the country, to pause and 
 reflect before he took another step, on the ground be- 
 fore him. He did this, not because his constituents 
 authorized him to hold any such language ; but he 
 spoke as an American citizen. If it were true, as the 
 gentleman had said, that a spirit had been awakened 
 on this subject which could not be suppressed, he would 
 assure him that it would encounter another, elsewhere, 
 to the full, as stubborn and invincible. Mr. L. said 
 that this discussion was fraught with the most, tremen- 
 duous consequences to the whole country — that it in- 
 volved the hopes and destinies of a continent — a world. 
 He would tell the gentleman from Vermont, that he 
 had had occasion to look at the question of slavery, in as 
 deliberate and philosophical a manner as the gentleman 
 had proposed it should be examined in a committee ; 
 and he had come to the conclusion, that neither in the 
 New Testament, nor in the history of the church and 
 of the christian world, for at least 1,200 years after 
 Christ, was one word to be found whicn could be fairly 
 construed into a prohibition, nay, nor even a disappro- 
 bation of the relation between master and slave; (though 
 all) or very nearly all, the servants then in the world 
 were slaves ;) still less, which justified a christian man in 
 disturbing the peace, and endangering the order of so- 
 ciety, with a view to abolish it : that the allegation of 
 any such authority revealed an ignorance of the teach- 
 ings of the gospel, equalled only by the absence of its 
 spirit which accompanied it ; and that he would under- 
 take, if he had leisure for such discussion, to show, in a 
 proper place, that both in the writings of heathen anti- 
 quity, and in the monuments of the christian religion, 
 beginning with the gospels, while nothing can be found 
 against slavery, much may be found to justify or require 
 a community of goods ,• much against properly : still 
 more against war ; which, nevertheless, no christian 
 man regards as a crime. But, Mr. L. said, he was not 
 sent here to discuss such things, and he would not dis- 
 cuss them. Nor had his constituents sent him here to 
 listen, from day to day, to the most worn out common 
 places, brought up and reiterated in his ears — to hear all 
 that was vital to the safety of their fire-skies, and the 
 very structure of southern society vilified as an offence 
 against God and man. Not only was it wearisome and 
 disgusting, beyond endurance, but he trembled at its 
 obvious political results. 
 
 Mr. Slade resumed, when 
 
 Mr. Dawson asked for the floor: 
 
 Mr. Slade asked for what purpose ? 
 , Mr. Dawson: to move an adjournment. 
 
 Mr. Slade : I cannot yield it for that._ 
 
 Mr. Legare rose, and apologised for having said 
 more than he had at first intended, when he asked Mr. 
 Slade's indulgence to yield the floor for a moment. His 
 ardor had lednim beyond what he had intended. 
 
 Mi. Slade said he could appreciate the gentleman's 
 feelings on this subject, and he respected, though he 
 could not sympathise with them. He would, with great 
 pleasure, yield to his request in any matter merely per- 
 sonal ; but, in this case, he felt bound by his duty to 
 his constituents, to present their views on this subject; 
 and he must discharge that duty. He then proceeded: 
 
 I vvas, Mr. Speaker, when interrupted, proceeding to 
 answer the question — what is slavery ? 
 
 And let me say, in the first place, that it is not merely 
 the condition of being held to service. I have heard it 
 spoken of here, as "domestic servitude." But is not the 
 child held in " domestic servitude " to his parents, dur- 
 ing his minority ? And is he a slave ? 
 
 [Here Mr. Dawson again interposed, and asked Mr. 
 Slade to yield him the floor for the purpose of moving 
 
 an adjournment. Mr. Slade declined, and again pro- 
 ceeded.] 
 
 Do you, Mr. Speaker, see a slave in the person of an 
 apprentice, who drudges in the service, it may be, of a 
 very severe and unreasonable master ? Is the soldier a 
 slave, though he is subjected to a control of a most sum- 
 mary and despotic character ? 
 
 In all these relations, there is the right of a very ab- 
 solute command, and the duty of very implicit obedi- 
 enc ; but there is no slavery. 
 
 Nor is it to be found within the walls and grates of a 
 penitentiary. Its inmates may be laboring with mana- 
 cles on their feet, and the ministers of the law at then- 
 backs, — while the slave is shut up, unsubjected to labor, 
 within the enclosure of a slave factory ; and yet there 
 is a difference in favor of the convict, as wide as the 
 antipodes. 
 
 Nor is the entire deprivation of political righU, 
 slavery. Even the exactions and oppressions of a very- 
 arbitrary and tyrranical government may fall far short 
 of it. 
 
 What, then, is slavery ? 
 
 The most perfect definition of it may, doubtless, be 
 found in the slave-laws of those communities where it 
 exists in its greatest perfection ; and where its princi- 
 ples may be supposed to have been the most deeply 
 studied, and thoroughly understood. The gentleman 
 from South Carolina (Mr. Legare) will, therefore, par- 
 don me, if I go to the laws of his own state for authori- 
 ty in this matter. The law of South Carolina thus 
 lays down the principle : " Slaves shall be deemed, held, 
 taken, reputed and adjudged in law, to be chattels 
 personal in the hands — 
 
 M. Wise here interposed, and appealed to the chair. 
 The gentleman from Vermont, he said, was discussing 
 the question of slavery within the states, when his mo- 
 tion was to refer, a memorial for the abolition of slavery 
 within the District of Columbia. He was plainly 
 treading on ground held by all to be inviolable. 
 
 The Chair said that it was not in order to discuss the 
 subject of slavery within any of the states. 
 
 Mr. Slade denied that he was doing so. He was 
 seeking for a definition of slavery — not discussing the 
 question of its abolition in the states. That was a ques- 
 tion he did not mean to touch. He did not claim, nor 
 did the petitioners claim, any right in congress to inter- 
 fere with slavery in the states. But may Inot, said Mr. 
 S., go to the state laws to find what slavery is ? It is not, 
 I believe, pretended that it is different here, where we 
 have a right to abolish it, than in Carolina. I might, 
 certainly, refer to the laws of Virginia and Maryland to 
 determine what slavery is in this district, since the laws 
 now in force here, on this subject, are the laws which 
 existed in those states at the times of their cessions ot 
 the district to the United States — having been adopted 
 by act of congress, in the year 1801. 
 
 I go, Mr. Speaker, to the statutes of South Carolina, 
 and other slave-holding states, with no other view than 
 I would quote from Webster's dictionary, or refer to a 
 British authority, on the subject. I want to find out 
 what slavery is, according to the best authority. It is 
 very important that we should have clear and well de- 
 fined ideas on this subject. 
 
 Mr. Roeertson, of Virginia, here moved that the 
 house adjourn. 
 
 The Chair pronounced the motion out of order while 
 a member was in possession of the floor, and address- 
 ing the house. He would, however, suggest to the gen- 
 tleman from Vermont, who could not but observe the 
 state of the house, to confine himself to the subject of 
 his motion. 
 
 Mr. Slade said he would endeavor to keep within 
 the rules of order. 
 
 Let me, then, said Mr. S., begin this definition of sla- 
 very again : 
 
 " Slaves shall be deemed, held, taken, reputed and 
 adjudged, in law, to be chattels personal, in the hands 
 of their owners and possessors, and their executors, ad- 
 
■i 
 
 ministrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions 
 and purposes : whatsoever ." 
 
 This is slavery in South Carolina. Let me now turn 
 to Louisiana. 
 
 " A slave, (savs the civil code of that state, art. xxxv,) 
 is one who is in the power of a master, to whom he be- 
 longs. The master may sell him— dispose of his person, 
 his industry, and his labor. He can do nothing, pos- 
 sess nothing, nor acquire any thing, but what must be- 
 long to his master." 
 
 Judge Stroud, in his sketch of the laws relating to 
 slavery in the several states, says — " the cardinal prin- 
 ciple of slavery— that the slave is not to be ranked 
 arhong sentient beings, but among things— is an article 
 of property, a chattel personal, obtains as undoubted 
 law, in all these states." _ ; . 
 
 What judge Stroud says is "undoubted law in all 
 these states," is undoubted law in this district— This, I 
 presume, no one will undertake to deny. 
 
 Here, then, is slavery. It is the holding of man— the 
 whole of man— as property. Think of that, Mr. 
 speaker ! Let the dreadful idea, for one moment, take 
 full possession of your mind— Property in man ! Why, 
 sir, what possible wrong can be inflicted by man upon 
 his fellow man, which may not legitimately result from 
 this relation ? Nay, sir, is not the very act of holding 
 man as property, itself among the highest wrongs that 
 can be inflicted on him ? : _ 
 
 And reflect, sir, upon the nature of the being that 
 you thus reduce to the condition of property ? It is 
 MAN— your BROTHER !— Man, with an intelligent, 
 immortal spirit— Man, allied to angels— Man, made in 
 the image of the Almighty— Man, in a peculiar and ex- 
 clusive sense, the property of the great Jehovah. 
 
 FOUNDATION 01' THE EIGHT OF PROPERTY. 
 
 What, sir, is the foundation of the right of property? 
 Is it not a grant, expressed, or implied, from the great 
 original Proprietor? Nothing can give a higher title 
 than creation; and, as man is the noblest work, so is 
 he. in the highest sense, the property of the Creator. 
 
 Now, sir, show me the grant of a right of property 
 in men. Every thing else is granted. There is nothing 
 upon earth, that can be rightfully held as property, the 
 dominion over which, is not the suDject of express grant 
 from the Creator. Read the sublime description of the 
 creation in the first chapter of Genesis. Having given 
 beino- to the vast universe of matter, swarming with ani- 
 mal Tife, and bearing on every part the impress of a 
 wisdom and a goodness infinite, the Almighty, with a 
 solemnity which announced the dignity and importance 
 of the work with which he was about to crown the 
 
 ^ "LrtSs make MAN, in OUR IMAGE, after OUR 
 LIKENESS." . • .><; • . 
 
 And what relation was this wonderful being — the 
 image and likeness of the Creator— to bear to his other 
 works? Hear what follows: ,- _ 
 
 "And let them7iaw dominion over the fish of the sea, 
 and over the fowl of the air, and over the catde, and 
 over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that 
 creepeth upon the earth-" . ._ 
 
 These solemn annunciations were forthwith followed 
 bv the final work. Man was made! And so deeply 
 did inspiration impress upon the mmd of the sacred 
 historian a sense of the dignity of his nature, that the 
 annunciation by the Creator of what he was to be, is 
 twice repeated, in the description of what he is, , 
 
 "So God created man in las own image; in the image 
 of God created he him." 
 
 And now comes the grant. It had been announced: 
 it is now made. , • • 
 
 "And God blessed them. And God said unto them, 
 be faithful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and 
 subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, 
 and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing 
 that moveth upon the earth." 
 
 I have thus shown, Mr. Speaker, the foundation of all 
 
 man's title to property. And now I repeat the ques- 
 tion — where istlie grant of a right to man, to hold pro- 
 perty in his fellow man? Sir, it does not exist — it never 
 did exist — it never can exist. The whole claim is found- 
 ed in usurpation. Yes sir; a double usurpation — of 
 man's right in himself, which results from the very con- 
 stitution of his nature, and of the high prerogative of 
 the Author of that nature himself. 
 
 SLAVERY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. 
 
 But, sir, the claim of property in man is not only 
 without grant, and in defiance of Heaven's prerogative 
 of ownership, but it strikes, directly, at man's accounta- 
 bility to the Creator. From the relation of ownership 
 by one man, and absolute property in another, there 
 naturally results a control, inconsistent with accounta- 
 bility to any other Being than the owner. Slavery thus 
 seeks to sunder the moral relation of the slave to his 
 Maker, and to invest frail man with the prerogative of 
 Supreme Lawgiver and Judge. 
 
 And then, too, contemplate the slave in connexion 
 with the various relative duties connected with man's 
 social existence — those, for example, which result from 
 the domestic constitution, which forms the basis of 
 the social edifice, and without which it would tumble 
 into ruins, and the world become a bedlam and a helL 
 What are the domestic relations to the slave? How can 
 the appropriate duties of any one of them be discharged 
 by him? How, for example, can children obey their 
 parents? How can parents discharge to their children 
 the duties which nature prompts, and God enjoins? 
 How can husbands protect, and enjoy, the dearest and 
 holiest relation upon earth, or (wives fulfil the sacred 
 duties resulting from their marriage vows? Let the 
 husbands and the fathers who hear me, answer these 
 questions. 
 
 "PART OF MANKIND MADE TO BE SLAVES." 
 
 Mr. Speaker: custom has thrown round this subject 
 of slavery a strange, unaccountable delusion. While 
 a reference to the acknowledged Source of all human 
 rights, most conclusively proves that man has no just 
 claim to property in man; we, nevertheless, shut our 
 eyes to the blazing light of this truth, and fly to maxims 
 drawn from the very oppressions which it condemns. 
 How deep, for example, is the impression which custom 
 has made upon the minds of many, that a part of man- 
 kind are made to be slaves to the rest. 
 
 Mr. Petrekin, of Pennsylvania, here called Mr, 
 Slade to order. 
 
 " The Chair said that the question before the house 
 opened a wide field of discussion, and that Mr. Slade 
 was in order. 
 
 Mr- Slade proceeded. I was saying, sir, that there 
 are certain maxims which have grown out of slavery, 
 which, instead of being brought to the test of truth, arc 
 used to obscure its light. You reason well enough, says 
 the objector; but why go back to creation, and soar 
 into the region of its abstractions? Come down among 
 men, and look at things as they exist. Are there not 
 among men evident inequalities, physical and intellec- 
 tual? Have not portions of them, of particular races, 
 been long held in bondage? In fact., is it not evident 
 that a part of the human race are made to be slaves? 
 
 Well, Mr. Speaker, I will leave the region of abstrac- 
 tions, and meet the objector on his own ground. I 
 will admit, for the sake of the argument, that a part of 
 mankind are made to be slaves. And now let me ask 
 one question — Who are to be the slaves, and who the 
 masters? What is the rule by which this question is to 
 be decided? Certainly suck a question should not be 
 left to mere arbitrary decision. Give us, then, the rule. 
 Is it color? What color? Black? — Brown? — Copper? 
 Perhaps you will say blach. Another will say white. 
 The Roman slaves were white; and why should not 
 American slaves be white also? Why should Africa, 
 alone, produce the race whose necks are to wear the 
 yoke? 
 
But perhaps the advocate of slavery may think that 
 there arc other distinctions more appropriate than that 
 of color. Differences of intellect, for example; or great- 
 er or less advances in civilization and refinement. — 
 Well, let us try these. 
 
 Differences of intellect. What differences? How are 
 tiiey to be defined? The science of phrenology may, 
 pei haps, by and by, furnish some aid; but, in its present 
 imperfect state, it can hardly be trusted with so grave a 
 mutter as this — though, in good truth, it might a3 well 
 be left to phrenology as to any thing else. 
 
 Advances in civilization and refinement. What ad- 
 vances? Whereabouts on the scale of improvement, 
 from the canibal to the most polished and intellectual, 
 will you make a broad and well defined mark, and un- 
 dertake to say — hitherto mav slavery come, and no far- 
 ther? 
 
 Now, Mr. Speaker, I demand a decision on these 
 questions — with reasons. Until such reasons are given, 
 I must continue to maintain that "oilmen" of all co- 
 lors, and all conditions, are, in respect to rights, ''equal;'' 
 and that the American has, therefore, just as good a 
 right to enslave the African, as the African has to en- 
 slave the Indian, or the Indian the European, or the 
 European the American; and, therefore, that, if the 
 right does exist, it exists in favor of all, and against all! 
 What now becomes of the doctrine, that a part of 
 mankind are made to be slaves to the rest? Who will 
 undertake to make the discrimination? much less to 
 give reasons for it? Sir, the discrimination is as imprac- 
 ticable, as the attempt to make it is impious. 
 
 And now, I ask, on what principle does the right of 
 man to property in man, rest? What is the law of 
 slavery? Is it the law of force? — the right of the strong- 
 est? Sir, we are bound to answer these questions. Our 
 relation to 7,000 slaves in this district, to a nation of 
 freemen, and to the eivilized world, demands of us an 
 answer. 
 
 _ Thus, Mr. Speaker, whether we refer to the constitu- 
 tion of man's nature, the absence of all grant to him of 
 dominion over his fellow — his admitted accountability 
 to God — his duties in the domestic relations — or the ob- 
 vious impracticability of the discrimination, necesarily 
 connected with the exercise of the right in question— 
 we are driven to the concision that he is not, and can- 
 not be, the properly of any other than the Being who 
 made him. To make him such, is to unmake the work 
 of the Creator. It takes man from his high position — 
 "a little lower than the angels" — and thrusting him 
 down among four-footed beasts and- creeping things, 
 degrades, and brutalizes, and crushes his noble nature. 
 But there are, after all, those among us, who main- 
 tain that slavery is right! Yes, sir, among ws— not in 
 Russia, or China, or Tartary; but among ms — in these 
 United States of America. Here, on this hallowed 
 soil of freedom, is slavery, not merely tolerated as an 
 evil, but cherished as a blessing — lauded, indeed, as fa- 
 vorable to the perpetuity of our free institutions.* 
 
 * Without adverting, for vindications of slavery, to 
 the well known declarations of certain distinguished 
 individuals at the south, I will only refer to an article in 
 the last November number of the "Southern Literary 
 Messenger,'' a monthly periodical, published at the capi- 
 tal of Virginia, and patronized, I believe, extensively, at 
 the south. The article is a review of "Society in Ame- 
 rica, by Harriett Martineau," communicated, under the 
 signature of a South Carolinian, and containing, among 
 other things, a labored vindication of the institution of 
 slavery. The substance of the argument is— that men 
 are naturally indolent— ;hat labor is necessary to give to 
 the race a perfect physical development — that sfaverv, 
 which drives to labor under the lash, is a blessing — that 
 it was through this process that the children of Israel 
 were trained by Divine Providence for their final great- 
 ness in the land of Canaan; and that barbarism has 
 been, and may still be, thus civilized and elevated — in 
 
 SLAVERY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CIVIL INSTITUTIONS. 
 
 And now, sir, let me show you how directly slavery 
 is at war with these institutions; how it rides over, and 
 prostrates the great principle which lies at the bottom 
 of them all. 
 
 "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men 
 are created equal— that they are endowed by theiS 
 Creator with certain unalienable rights; that, among 
 these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; thai 
 to secure these rights, governments are instituted aim; g 
 men, deriving their just powers from the consent oj? 
 
 THE GOVERNED." 
 
 Such was the declaration of our independence. The 
 
 ENDOWMENT OF THE CREATOR — the EQUALITY OF MAN — 
 
 and the consent of the governed! How is slavery 
 rebuked, and utterly disarmed, by the assertion of these 
 great truths. 
 
 But they are not found in the declaration of indepen- 
 dence alone. They did not merely kindle the fervor of 
 that deeply excited moment, and then cease to be ob- 
 jects of regard and veneration. They entered into, and 
 made part of the constitutions of most of the states, in 
 the form of a solemn declaration of rights. Thus, I 
 find them, in almost the precise language of the declara- 
 tion of independence, incorporated in the constitutions 
 of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, 
 Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois* 
 And shall I stop here? Must Mason and Dixon's Una 
 form the limit of all successful search for the constitu- 
 tional recognition of these principles? No, sir; I am 
 permitted to pass that line; and the first state on which I 
 enter, is the noble and patriotic state of Delaware; in. 
 which, thank Heaven, slavery is fast melting away. — 
 And what do I find here? Let me read the preamble 
 to her constitution. It is as follows: 
 
 '"Through Divine goodness — -[How naturally and ir- 
 resistibly is the mind drawn up to this great Source of 
 power, when contemplating human rights and the insti- 
 tution of human governments] — Through Divine good- 
 ness, all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping 
 and serving their Creator, according to the dictates of 
 their consciences; of enjoying and defending life and 
 liberty: of acquiring and protecting reputation and 
 property, and in general, of obtaining objects suitable 
 to their condition, withoutinjury by one to another." 
 
 Well may slavery leave a state whose constitution 
 thunders in its ears such truths as these. 
 
 And. now let me venture a little further south. I 
 come to Virginia — aye, to Virginia! And what do I 
 find? Here is her constitution before me; and, to my 
 astonishment, the first thing that meets my eye is the 
 following: 
 
 "A declaration of rights ,made by the representatives 
 of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and 
 free convention; which rights do pertain to them and 
 their posterity, as the basis and foundation of govern- 
 ment. Unanimously adopted, June 12, 1776. 
 
 "1. That all men are, by nature, equally free and 
 independent, andt — 
 
 short, that slavery is a school of physical and intellec* 
 tual improvement, and the proper transition from bar- 
 barism to civilization and refinement. 
 
 So then, we are to catch the Africans — reduce them 
 to slavery — put them under task-masters — refuse them a 
 knowledge of letters- — and wear out their lives in hope- 
 less bondage — and all for the purpose of advancing 
 them in the scale of civilization, and elevating them to 
 the true dignity of their nature! 
 
 tThe whole article, the reading of which was thus 
 interrupted, is as follows: 
 
 "That all men are, by nature, equally free and inde- 
 pendent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, 
 when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by 
 any compact, deprive or divest their posterity, namely, 
 the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of ac- 
 quiring and possessing property, and pursuing happi- 
 ness and safety." 
 
Mr. Wise here interposed, and called Mr. Slade to , The Chair said the papers could not be read by the 
 ^d er . ' gentleman from Vermont, without leave of the house. 
 
 The Chair decided, from the rule, that Mr. Slade 
 could not read any paper, if it was objected to by any 
 member, without the leave of the house. 
 
 Mr. Wise said the gentleman had wantonly discuss- 
 ed the abstract question of slavery, going back to the 
 very first day of the creation, instead ot slavery as it. 
 existed in the District, and the powers and duties of 
 congress in relation to it. He was now examining the 
 
 Mr. Slade. Then I will send them to the clerk. Let 
 him read them. 
 
 The Chair said, that was equally against the rule. 
 
 Mr. Griffin then withdrew his objection, and, upon 
 an audible assent to the reading from various parts of 
 the house, Mr. Slade proceeded. 
 
 On the 12th of February, 1790, a memorial, signed 
 by Benjamin Franklin, president of ''the Pennsylvania 
 
 state constitutions, to show that, as it existed in the society for promoting the abolition ol slavery, the relief 
 
 states, it was against them, and against the laws of 
 God' and man. This was out of order. 
 
 Mr. Slade explained. He said that, although the 
 question respected the abolition of slavery and the slave 
 trade in this district only, yet he had been permitted to 
 examine, and must, of necessity, to do the subject jus- 
 tice, examine into the principles of slavery generally — 
 It was a question which respected the right of man, 
 not merely to property— not to the things that perish 
 with the using — but to himself— to the faculties which 
 God had given him— to his own immortal nature. He 
 had, it was true, gone back to the "first day of the 
 creation;" but he did not perceive how that could form 
 any objection, unless we are to look to some other 
 source than the Creator, for the origin of human rights 
 and obligations. He had referred to the constitutions 
 of the states, with the same view that he had read the 
 preamble to the declaration of independence, (which 
 he was thankful it had not yet been declared out of or- 
 der to read in that hall,) as a general authority against 
 slavery, and not to maintain that we have a right to 
 abolish it any where but in the territories over which 
 the constitution has given us exclusive jurisdiction. He 
 wanted to read from the Virginia constitution, merely 
 to show what doctrines, in regard to human rights, Were 
 regarded as sound by the great men of 1776; and it had 
 been his intention to read also, that part of the amend- 
 ed constitution of Virginia, adopted in January, 1830, 
 by which the declaration of rights in 1776, which he 
 had begun to read, was expressly re-adopted as "re- 
 quiring no amendment^ This express re-adoption, so 
 late as 1S30, of the declaration of rights of 1776, he re- 
 garded of very great importance, as being a recent, and 
 
 of free negroes, unlawfully held in bondage, and the 
 improvement of the condition of the African race,'* 
 was presented to congress. The memorialists, after 
 setting forth the objects of the society, referring to the 
 "just and acute conception of the true principles of lib- 
 erty,'" which stimulated its efforts, and declaring that 
 "the christian religion teaches, and the political creed of 
 America fully coincides with the position, that mankind 
 are all formed by the same Almighty Being, alike the 
 objects of his care, and equally designed for the enjoy- 
 ment of happiness" — proceeds to say — 
 
 "From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally 
 the; portion, and is still the birth-right of all men; and 
 influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the prin- 
 ciples of their institutions, your memorialists conceive 
 themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to 
 loosen the bonds of slavery, and promote a general en- 
 joyment of the blessings of freedom. Under these im- 
 pressions, they earnestly entreat your serious attention 
 to the subject of slavery; that you will be pleased to 
 countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy 
 men, who, alone in this land of freedom, are degraded 
 into perpetual bondage; and who, amidst the general 
 joy of surrounding freemen, are groaning in _ servile 
 subjection; that you will devise means for removing this 
 inconsistency from the character of the American peo- 
 ple; that you will promote mercy and justice towards 
 this distressed race, and that you will step to the very 
 verge of the power vested in you, for discouraging every 
 species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men." 
 
 And now, sir, upon what principle was it that the 
 prayer of this petition was urged? for that is the point 
 
 h£h authority in VhgTnfa" again^st"slaverv." But," as the I at which I am "aiming. The memorial itself tells us, _ 
 reading had been pronounced out of order, he would Itwas "a just and acute conception of the frue princi- 
 ples of liberty, as it spread through the land, and a 
 persuasion that equal liberty was originally the portion, 
 and is still the birthright of all men." This it was that 
 impelled the memorialists to ask congress to exercise, 
 in regard to slavery, "the many important and salutary 
 powers vested in it, for promoting the welfare, and se- 
 curing the blessings of liberty to the people of the 
 United State 
 
 submit, and proceed to another view of the subject 
 
 The truths (said Mr. S.) which I have thus attempt- 
 ed to sustain by a reference to the declaration of inde- 
 pendence and the state constitutions, though not de- 
 nied, in their application to civil government, are treat- 
 ed as mere abstractions in reference to the question of 
 slavery. 
 
 1 cannot stop to expose the absurdity of this — to go 
 through a course of reasoning to show how preposter- 
 ous it is to claim for the white man an exemption from 
 arbitrary political power, upon the ground that "all 
 men are created equal," while that principle is render- 
 ed of no avail to protect the black man from being con- 
 verted into property in the hands of an irresponsible 
 master. Gentlemen have a great aversion to abstract 
 reasoning, and therefore I forbear. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE APPLIED 
 BY FRANKLIN AND JEFFERSON TO SLAVERY. 
 
 But I cannot resist the impulse to try another sort of 
 argument. I want to treat gentlemen, by way of va- 
 riety, to a little revolutionary authority, bearing directly 
 on the question of slavery. Franklin and Jefferson 
 - were very considerable men in their day; and may be 
 supposed to have entered somewhat into the spirit of 
 the declaration of independence, and to have under- 
 stood the force and bearing of the truths it contained. 
 Now let us see how they applied these truths, long after 
 the fervor of revolutionary feeling had subsided. 
 
 Mr. Slade being about to read certain papers signed 
 
 The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wise) complains 
 that 1 go back to "the first day of creation," to find ar- 
 guments against slavery. Why, sir, what did Doctor 
 Franklin urge as an argument in favor of the prayer of 
 this memorial? "That mankind are all formed by the 
 same Almighty Being, alike the objects of his care, and 
 equally designed for the enjoyment of happiness.'' He 
 did not deem it impertinent to go back to creation, and 
 seek, in the will of the Creator, an argument against 
 slavery, and urge congress, upon that ground, to go to 
 "the very verge of their powers'' to favor the great object 
 of his benevolence. 
 
 Need I ask, Mr. speaker, whether Doctor Franklin, 
 and the men who united with him in thismemorial, re- 
 garded the doctrines of the declaration of independence 
 as abstractions, in reference to the question of slavery? 
 
 And now, sir, how was this memorial treated by the 
 first congress which assembled under the constitution? 
 Was it "nailed to the table?" No sir. It was discussed, 
 and committed, bv a vote of 43 to 14. And let me 
 read what Mr. Madison said on that occasion. He did 
 not take fire, because the memorialists asked congress 
 to go to "the very verge of their constitutional powers,' 
 
 by Doctor Franklin and Mr. Jefferson, i ~ °~ ■- ^7 —fo^ s!avery . Hear what he says- 
 
 Mr. Griffin, of South Carolina, interposed, and °„ Th ° d h J as fak^ a S enous turn; and it will be 
 
 objected to tne reaamg. ' 
 
owing to this alone, if an alarm is created; for, had the 
 memorial been treated in the usual way, it would have 
 been considered as a matter of course, and a report 
 might have been made, so as to have given general sat- 
 isfaction. If there was the slightest tendency, by the 
 commitment, to break in upon the constitution, he would 
 object to it. But he did not see upon whatground such 
 an event was to be apprehended. The petition prayed, 
 in general terms, for the interference ot congress, so far 
 as" they were constitutionally authorized. But even if 
 its prayer was, in some degree, unconstitutional, it might 
 be committed, as was the case on Mr. Churchman's pe- 
 tition, one part of which was supposed to apply to an un- 
 constitutional interference by the general government. 
 He admitted that congress is restricted by the constitu- 
 tion from taking measures to abolish the slave trade;* yet 
 there are a variety of waj's by which it could countenance 
 the abolition; and regulations might be made in relation 
 to the introduction of them into the new states, to be 
 formed out of the western territory. He thought the 
 object well worthy of consideration." 
 
 Mr. Madison was for consideration — we will not con- 
 sider. He would commit — we nail to the table! 
 
 Thus much for Benjamin Franklin, his abolition me- 
 morial, the "abstractions" on which it was founded, and 
 its reception in the congress of '89. 
 
 And now, Mr. Speaker, I come to "the great apos- 
 tle of liberty.'' And here, I am sure, I shall have all 
 the attention of gentlemen from the south, from whom 
 I have so often on this floor, heard eulogies on the cha- 
 racter of this great man, and references to his authority 
 in matters of state. Virginia, certainly, will not be dis- 
 posed to deny that Mr. Jefferson understood the princi- 
 ples laid down in the -declaration of independence. And 
 now, let us see how he applied these principles to the 
 question before us. 
 
 I find in his posthumous works, vol. 1, page 2G8, the 
 following letter to Doctor Price, of London: 
 
 "Paris, August 7, 1785. 
 "To Doctor Price: 
 
 "Sir: Your favor of July 2d, came duly to hand. The 
 concern you therein express as to the effect of vour 
 pamphlet in America, induces me to trouble you with 
 some observations on that subject. [Doctor Price, it 
 seems, had written, and sent to the United States, an 
 "incendiary" pamphlet, on the "sublime merits" of 
 slavery!] From my acquaintance with that country, I 
 think I am able to judge with some degree of certainty, 
 of the manner in -which it will have been received. — 
 South ward of the Chesapeake, it will find but few read- 
 ers concurring with it in sentiment on the subject of 
 slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesa- 
 peake, the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, 
 and it will find a respectable minority ready to adopt it 
 in practice: a minority which, for weight and worm of 
 character, preponderates against the greater number, 
 who have not the courage to divest their families of a 
 property, which, however, keeps their consciences un- 
 easy. Northward of the Chesapeake, you may find, 
 here and there, an opponent to your doctrine, as you 
 may find, here and there, a robber and a murderer; but 
 in no greater number. In that part of America, there 
 being but few slaves, they can easily disencumber them- 
 selves of them; and emancipation is put into such a train, 
 that, in a few years, there will be no slaves northward of 
 Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a disposi- 
 tion to begin the redress of the enormity, as in Virginia. 
 This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes, for 
 the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with ava- 
 rice and oppression; a conflict wherein the sacred side 
 is gaining daily recruits from the influx into office of 
 young men, grown, and growing up. These have suck- 
 ed in the principles of liberty with their mothers milk; 
 and it is to them I look, with anxiety, to turn the fate of 
 this question. Be not therefore discouraged. What 
 you have written, will do a great deal of good; and could 
 
 *The foreign slave trade, which couM not be prohibit- 
 ed prior to 1808. 
 
 you still trouble yourself with our welfare, no man ijs 
 more able to give aid to the laboring side. The college 
 of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, since the re- 
 modelling of its plan, is the place where are collected 
 together all the young men of Virginia, under prepa- 
 ration for public life. They are there, under the direc- 
 tion, most of them, of a Mr. Wythe, one of the most 
 virtuous of characters, and whose sentiments on the 
 subject of slavery are unequivocal. I am satisfied, if 
 you could resolve to address an exhortation to those 
 young men, with ail that eloquence of which you are 
 piaster, that its influence on the future decision of this 
 important question would be great, perhaps decisive. 
 Thus, you see, that so far from thinking you have cause 
 to repent of what you have done, I wish you to do 
 more, and wish it, on an assurance of its effect. The 
 information I have received from America of the re- 
 ception of your pamphlet in the different states, agrees 
 with the expectation I had formed. 
 
 THOMAS JEFFERSON." 
 
 Mr. speaker, this is a remarkable letter. Doctor 
 Price, it seems, had written a pamphlet on the subject 
 of the abolition of slavery, which had been liberally 
 distributed in the United States. Mr. Jefferson, in 
 speaking of its probable effects here, refers to Virginia 
 as "the next state to which we may turn our eyes for 
 the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with 
 avarice and oppression." And on what did his hopes 
 rest, in regard to Virginia? Why, sir, on the young 
 men, who were daily coming into office and influence. 
 And why on them? Because they had "sucked in the 
 principles of liberty with their mothers' milk.'' Yes, 
 sir, the ye'ry. principle's of liberty, embodied in the de- 
 claration of independence, so far from being regarded 
 by its author, as mere abstractions in reference to the 
 question of slavery, were relied on by him, as the ani- 
 mating principle which was to give energy to the young 
 men of Virginia in the "conflict of justice with avarice 
 and oppression;" and thus "turn the fate" of this great 
 question. 
 
 Another remarkable feature in this letter is, the man- 
 ner in which it treats the, subject of "foreign interfer- 
 ence." Mr. Jefferson justly regarded the question cf 
 slavery as a great moral question which concerned the 
 world: and with an enlarged and liberal, though just 
 view of the principles, which respect the freedom of 
 thought, of speech, and of the press, he thanks the au- 
 thor of the letter for his benevolent efforts— exhorts him 
 not to be discouraged — wishes him to do more — and 
 assures him that, if he could trouble himself further, 
 with "our welfare," no man was more able to give aid 
 to the laboring side. Nay, he even suggests the idea 
 of addressing an exhortation to the young men of the 
 college of William and Mary, on this subject! 
 
 What a contrast to the spirit of this day ! Now, the 
 truths concerning slavery may not be even breathed to 
 the winds, lest they be wafted to that very state whose 
 young men were relied on by Mr. Jefferson to " turn 
 the fate'' of this question; and to whom, congregated in 
 her cherished seat of learning, he besought a foreigner 
 to address an earnest exhortation on this subject. Why, 
 sir, I am amazed and alarmed when I look at this con- 
 trast. 
 
 You thus see, how Mr. Jefferson, at a time when the 
 principles of the declaration of independence were as 
 well understood as at any period of our history, applied 
 them to the great question of slavery ; and vet they are 
 now called abstractions ! 
 
 But, I have not done with Mr. Jefferson's authority on 
 this subject. When he wrote to doctor Price, he was 
 at the age ot forty-one, and had just come out of the 
 conflict in which the principles of the declaration of in- 
 dependence had triumphed. Ashe advanced in years, 
 and the scenes of the revolution receded from him, he 
 may be supposed to have viewed this subject more 
 calmly and philosophically. Let us, then, hear him, at 
 the age of seventy, when he had ceased to mingle in 
 public affairs, and found himseif in a retirement which 
 
enabled him to review his early opinions, with the be- 
 nefit of increased experience, and a maturer judgment. 
 For this purpose, I beg leave to read the following letter 
 from him to governor Coles, of Illinois, dated 
 
 " Monticello, August 25, 1814. 
 
 " Dear Sir : Your favor of July 31, was duly re- 
 ceived, and was read with peculiar pleasure. The sen- 
 timents breathed through the whole, do honor to both 
 the head and heart of the writer. Mine, on the subject 
 of the slavery of negroes, have, long since, been in the 
 possession of the public; and time has only served to 
 give them stronger root. The love of justice, and the 
 love of country plead, equally, the cause of these peo- 
 ple ; and it is a moral reproach to us, that they should 
 nave pleaded it so long in vain, and should have produced 
 not a single effort — nay, I fear, not much serious will- 
 ingness to relieve them and ourselves from our present 
 condition of moral and political reprobation." 
 
 [See, sir, how the" love of justice,'" and the "love of 
 country" pleaded through the pen of this "apostle of 
 liberty," for the rights of his colored brethren ; and how 
 keenly he felt the "moral reproach'' of their having 
 failed to produce any effort, or even willingness, to af- 
 ford relief. Have we any less reason to ieel the re- 
 proach now, than he had, hear a quarter of a century 
 ago ? How long would slavery and the slave trade live 
 in this district, if Jefferson's were the master spirit in 
 these legislative halls ? But he proceeds :] 
 
 " From those of the former generation, who were in 
 the fullness of age when I came into public life, which 
 was while our controversy with England was on paper 
 only, I soon saw that nothing was to be hoped. Nurs- 
 ed and educated in the daily habit of seeing the degra- 
 ded condition, both bodily and. mental, of those unfor- 
 tunate beings, but not reflecting that that degradation 
 was very much the work of themselves and their fa- 
 thers, few minds have yet doubted but that they were 
 as legitimate subjects of property as their horses or cat- 
 tie." 
 
 [Mr. Jefferson here touches a very important point in 
 this question. The degradation of the poor slave i 
 often made a justification of his enslavement. Mr. 
 Jefferson saw and felt the cruel perverseness of this rea- 
 soning. The degradation, says he, was "very much 
 the work of themselves and their fathers." How this sug- 
 gestion Cemolishes, utterly, the defences which " avar- 
 ice and oppression " have planted upon the ground of 
 the slave's degradation. Shame on such reasoning ! 
 We convert the African from a man to a thing — put the 
 yoke of perpetual bondage on his neck — shut out the 
 light of truth from his mind — -take away all motive to 
 improve his condition ; — in short, we crush his whole 
 soul and spirit — and then taunt him with his degrada- 
 tion, and solemnly declare that he is fit only to be a 
 slave !* Mr. Jefferson proceeds :] 
 
 "The quiet and monotonous course of colonial life 
 had been disturbed by no alarm, and little reflection on 
 the value of liberty: and when an alarm was taken at an 
 enterprise of their own, it was not easy to carry them to 
 the whole length of the principles which they invoked 
 for themselves. In the first or second :ession of rhe 
 legislature after I became a member, I drew to this sub- 
 ject the attention of Colonel Bland, one of the oldest, 
 ablest, and most reputable members ; and he undertook 
 to move for certain moderate extensions of the protec- 
 
 * The degrading influence of slavery is illustrated in 
 a communication to the New York Evangelist, under 
 the head of "Reminiscences of slavery in Louisiana," 
 in which the writer says — " When attempting to impart 
 to slaves religious instruction, and to impress upon them 
 a sense of moral obligation and accountability to God, 
 I have frequently observed, at church, their umeaning 
 and vacant countenances, and, in personal conversa- 
 tion, have heard them say, their masters are accounta- 
 Me for them, and thus throw off all responsibility!" 
 
 tion of the laws to these people. I seconded his motion, 
 and as a younger member, was more- spared in the de- 
 bate ; but he w r as denounced as an enemy to his coun- 
 try, and was treated with the greatest indecorum.'' 
 
 [So you see, Mr. Speaker, that " one of the oldest, 
 ablest, and most reputable members'' of the Virginia 
 legislature was denounced as an enemy to his country, 
 and even treated -with the greatest indecorum, because 
 he moved for " certain moderate extensions of the pro- 
 tection of the laws" to the slaves ! Would that this 
 spirit had died with that generation ! But I will not de- 
 tain you from the_ remainder of thi3 interesting letter. 
 Mr. Jefferson continues:] 
 
 " From an early stage of our revolution, other and 
 more important duties were assigned to me ; so that, 
 from that time, till my return from Europe, in 1769, and 
 I may say, till I returned to reside at home, in 1809, 
 I had little opportunity of knowing the progress of pub- 
 lic sentiment here on this subject. I had always hoped 
 that the younger generation, receiving their early impres- 
 sions after the flame of liberty had been kindled in every 
 breast, and had become, as it were, the vital spirit of 
 every American, in the generous temperament of youth, 
 analagous to the motion of their blood, and above the 
 suggestions of avarice, would have sympathised with 
 oppression, wherever found, and proved their love of 
 liberty beyond their own share of it." 
 
 [Here, Mr. Speaker, is the true spirit. Here, the "gen- 
 erous temperament " that rises " above the suggestions- 
 of avarice " — that goes otjt of self, in its love of liberty, 
 and " remembers those in bonds as bound with them.''' 
 Mr. Jefferson had hoped much from this spirit, in the 
 young men of Virginia. But he had hoped in vain- 
 Hea.mis lamentation :] 
 
 " But (he continues) my intercourse with them, since 
 my return, has not been sufficientto ascertain that they 
 have made towards this point the progress I had hoped. 
 Your solitary and welcome voicet is the first which has 
 brought this sound to my ears ; and I have considered 
 the general silence which prevails on this subject, as in- 
 dicating an apathy unfavorable to my hope. Yet the 
 hour of emancipation is advancing h< the march cf time. 
 
 " I am sensible of the partialities with which you have 
 looked towards me, as the person who should under- 
 take this salutary but arduous work. But this, my dear 
 sir, is like bidding old Priam to buckle the armor of 
 Hector, "'rementibus aevo hurneris, et inutile ferrum 
 cingi." No : I have overlived- the generation with 
 which mutual labors and perils begat mutual confidence 
 and influence. This enterprise is for the young ; for 
 those who can follow it up, and bear it through to its 
 consummation. It shall have all my prayers ; and these 
 are the only weapons of an old man. 
 
 " It is an encouraging observation that no good mea- 
 sure, was ever proposed which, if duly pursued, failed 
 to prevail in the end. We have proof of this in the 
 history of the endeavors, in the British parliament, to 
 suppress that very trade which brought this evil on us. 
 And you will be supported by the religious precept, "be 
 not weary in well doing." That your success may be 
 as speedy and complete, as it will be honorable and im- 
 mortal consolation to yourself, I shall as fervently and 
 sincerely pray, as I assure you of my great friendship 
 and respect." 
 
 THOMAS JEFFERSON. 
 
 Edward Coles, Esq. 
 
 Here, then, Mr. Speaker, we have Mr. Jefferson's de- 
 liberate, matured opinions on the subject of slavery. He 
 applied to it, as he did thirty years before, m his letter to 
 Dr. Price, the great principles of liberty which stood 
 out, in bold relief, upon the declaration of independence, 
 and which had, subsequently, been incorporated into 
 most of the constitutions of the states which formed the 
 union. And how forcibly do the considerationsurged 
 in this letter — the "love of justice" — the "love of coun- 
 
 t Governor Coles had been among the young men of 
 Virginia to whom Mr. Jefferson refers. 
 
9 
 
 Ify "—and the generous " love of liberty beyond our own 
 share of it," appeal to us to "go to the very verge of our 
 constitutional power'' to wipe away the "moral re- 
 proach'' which slavery and the slave trade in this dis- 
 trict have fastened on our country. 
 
 Let me now, Mr. Speaker, go back a moment, and 
 present i single - example of the strong feeling on this 
 subject, in Virginia, previous to the revolution. 
 
 QUESTIONS OF OREER — REQUESTS TO WITHDRAW. AND AD- 
 JOURNMENT. 
 
 Mr. Rhett. of South Carolina, asked if the proceed- 
 ings in Virginia had any thing to do with the proceed- 
 ing? before the house. 
 
 The Chair was about to reply, when 
 
 Mr. Wise rose and said, he has discussed the whole 
 abstract question of slavery — of slavery in Virginia — of 
 slavery in my own district. I now ask all my colleagues 
 to retire with me from this hall. 
 
 Mr. Slade : Mr. speaker, I do not yield the floor. 
 
 Mr. Holsey : I ask the Georgia delegation to do the 
 same. 
 
 Mr. Rhett : The South Carolina delegation have al- 
 ready consulted together.and agreed to meet at 3 o'clock, 
 in the room of the~committee on the District of Colum- 
 bia. 
 
 The Speaker here said that the gentleman from Ver- 
 mont had been reminded by the chair that the discus- 
 sion of slavery, as existing widiin the states, was not 
 in order. When he was desirous to read a paper, and 
 it was objected to, the chair had stopped him ; but the 
 objection had been withdrawn, and Mr. Slade had been 
 suffered to proceed. He was now about to read another 
 paper, and objection was made. The chair would, 
 therefore, take the question on permitting it to be read. 
 
 [Mr. Robertson, Mr. Rhett, "and others here rose 
 and addressed the chair : a good deal of confusion pre- 
 vailed : portions of the southern members were leaving 
 the hall.] 
 
 Mr. Rhett made a question of order. He asked if 
 the gentleman from Vermont had a right to discuss the 
 question of slavery in Virginia. He thought nol;_ and 
 he invited the whole southern delegation from ail the 
 tla\e holding states, to meet, forthwith, in the commit- 
 tee room of the district. 
 
 The Speaker again recapitulated, and vindicated the 
 correctness of his own course, as being dictated by the 
 rules of the house. What his personal feelings had 
 been, might easily be conjectured. Had it been in his 
 power to restrain the discussion, he should promptly 
 have c?;ercised the power ; but it was not. 
 
 Mr. Slade said the matter was not understood. It 
 was through mere inadvertence, that he had announced 
 his intention to refer to an expression of fueling in Vir- 
 ginia previous to the revolution. The paper he was 
 about to read, was an act of the continental congress of 
 1774, in regard to the slave trade, expressive of the feel- 
 ings of the whole country, as well as of Virginia. 
 
 The Chair was about to put the question on leave- to 
 read the paper, when- 
 
 Mr. Wot. Cost Johnson, of Maryland, inquired of the 
 chair, whether it would be in order for the house to vote 
 that the gentleman from Vermont be not permitted to 
 proceed. 
 
 The Chair replied that it would not. 
 
 Mr. McKay, of North Carolina, said that the gentle- 
 man had been pronounced out of order, in discussing 
 slavery in the states ; and the rule declared that when 
 q member was so pronounced by the chair,' he should 
 take his scat, and if any one objected to his proceeding 
 again, he should not do so, unless by leave ot the house. 
 Mr. McKay did now object to the gentleman from Ver- 
 mont proceeding any farther. 
 
 The Chair read the rule referred to, and said that, as 
 an objection had now, for the first time, been made un- 
 der that rule, to the gentleman's resuming his speech, 
 the chair decided that he could not do bg without leave 
 oi the house. 
 
 Mr. Slade said he had been permitted to read the pa- 
 pers lie had read, and to proceed and comment on them. 
 He had been doing nothing lor these twenty minutes 
 past, but by leave of the house. Why, then, should he 
 be now put down, on the ground that he had been out 
 of order ? But, independent of the leave under which 
 he had proceeded, he had indulged in no range of de- 
 bale which was not perfectly in order — none that was 
 not pertinent to the question whether slavery was con- 
 sistent with the principles of liberty asserted in the de- 
 c'aration of independence, in the state constitutions, 
 and in the other papers which he had read. He had not. 
 discussed, and did not intend to discuss, the question of 
 slavery in the states. His object had been to ascertain 
 what slavery was, and to array against it not only rea- 
 son and revelation, but the authority of some^ of the 
 most distinguished men, and acts of our revolution. 
 
 The Chair directed Mr. Slade to take his seat, until 
 the question on leave to proceed should be put. 
 
 On this question, Mr. Allen, of Vermont, demanded 
 the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. Rencher, of North Carolina, moved an adjourn- 
 ment. , . 
 
 Mr. Adams, and many others, rose and demanded 
 the yeas and nays on the question of adjournment 
 They were ordered, and taken, and resulted, yeas 10o 
 — nays 63. 
 
 So the house adjourned. 
 
 Mr. Campbell, of South Carolina, at nV moment «t 
 adjournment, said he had been appointed as one of the 
 southern delegation to announce that all those gentle- 
 men who represented slave holding states, were invited 
 to attend the meeting now being held in the district com- 
 mittee room. 
 
 further debate prohibited by resolution. 
 
 The adjournment of the house was immediately fol- 
 lowed by a meeting of southern members, in pursu- 
 ance of the above notice, which it is understood was 
 continued until late at night. Of the proceedings 
 of that meeting, nothing has specifically transpired, ex- 
 cept the preparation, for the action of the house of re- 
 presentatives, of the following resolution : 
 
 " Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, and pa- 
 pers, touching the abolition of slavery, or the buying, 
 selling, or transferring of slaves, in any state, district* 
 or territory cf the United States, be laid upon the table 
 without being debated, printed, read, or referred, and 
 that no farther action whatever shall be had thereon." 
 
 This resolution was, on the following morning, pre- 
 sented to the house by Mr. Patton, of Virginia, the 
 chairman of the meeting. To prevent debate upon it, 
 and thus put it out of the power of the minority to show 
 cause why they should not be silenced during the re- 
 mainder of the session, the mover of the resolution, 
 without takinghis seat, so that, any other one might ob- 
 tain the floor to discuss the resolution, moved the pre- 
 vious question. The motion was sustained, debate thus 
 cut off, and the resolution forthwith carried by a vote o i 
 122 to 74. 
 
 The history of the proceedings of the previous day 
 shews how Mr. S. was put down, and opportunity thus 
 given to move an adjournment. The above resolution, 
 and the proceedings on it, show, in part,how the interme- 
 diate time between that and the following morning, was 
 employed in devising plans to nullify the right of peti- 
 tion, and gag the representatives of the petitioners, on the 
 subject oi slavery and the slave trade, during the re- 
 mainder of the session. 
 
 It is not the purpose of Mr. S. to comment on this ar- 
 bitrary and unconstitutional infringement of the liberty 
 of speech. Having been thereby prevented from con- 
 tinuing his remarks, he refers toritas an apology for 
 presenting, in the following pages, the substance of what 
 he had intended to say, had he been permitted to pro- 
 ceed. If any additional apology can be deemed ne- 
 cessary, it may be found in the fact, that it was made 
 matter of special objection to his proceeding, that he 
 
10 
 
 had "wantonly discussed the abstract right of slavery, 
 instead of slavery as it existed in the district, and the 
 powers and duties of congress in relation to it." But 
 it will be seen, by what follows, that he was proceed- 
 ing to a practical view of slavery, and to an examina- 
 tion of the slave trade in the district, and the powers 
 and duties of congress in regard, to both. He feels 
 compelled, therefore, in justice to himself, to present 
 what he had intended to say on these branches of the 
 subject. 
 
 Mr. S. was obliged to submit to the power which, in 
 effect, passed a law, in the midst of his speech, that it 
 should not be heard through ; and which decreed that a 
 certain subject which the majority wished not to hear 
 discussed, should not be discussed by any body in the 
 healing of that majority. He submits to that power, for 
 the same reason, and no other, that he would submit to 
 a physical power, which he could not resist. But as 
 long as there is any freedom left in the Press, that power 
 shall fail of its intended effect, so far as it regards him- 
 self- 
 
 When Mr. S. was interrupted it was. his intention to 
 have proceeded, in substance, as follows : 
 
 Mr. speaker : let me now call your attention to an 
 act of the continental congress, of the 20th of October, 
 1774. It was not an act passed with the ordinary so- 
 lemnities ; but it was in the form ot a solemn agreement 
 and declaration, signed by all the delegates of twelve co- 
 lonies, in behalf of themselves and their constituents ; 
 in which, in the name of "virtue, honor, and love of 
 country," they, among other things, declared: 
 
 " We will neither import, nor purchase any slave im- 
 ported after the first day of December next; after 
 which, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and 
 will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we 
 hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities of manufac- 
 tures to those who are concerned in it." 
 
 I have, Mr. Speaker, referred to this solemn act, for 
 the double purpose of showing the deep abhorrence in 
 
 the slave laws of tha United States* impose any restric- 
 tion in this respect. There are, in some of the slave 
 states, laws which forbid the master from compelling 
 the slave to labor on the sabbath, and which limit the 
 hours of daily labor An example of the latter may be 
 found in the laws of South Carolina, which fix such 
 limit at fifteen hours ! In most of the states, as in this 
 district, the laws are, on these points, entirely silent. 
 
 In the next place, the quantity and quality of food 
 and clothing, are entirely at the discretion of the mas- 
 ter. There are some few of the states where there are 
 regulations on this subject, which, if they were enforced, 
 would be but a sorry provision for the comfort of the 
 slave; but which, from their nature, and the general 
 obstacles in the way of enforcing any laws in his favor 
 — which I shall presently notice — can seldom be carried 
 into execution. " The slave is left, as in the case of the 
 duration of daily labor, and a few other cases in which 
 the laws sometimes hold out the semblance of protec- 
 tion, to the absolute and really irresponsible discretion 
 of his owner. 
 
 The power of the master, in the next place, to inflict 
 punishment or perpetrate violence on the slave, is unli- 
 mited, with three exceptions: These are — murder, 
 maiming, and such cruelty us would, if inflicted on a 
 beast, subject the perpetrator to an indictment at corn- 
 law, for a misdemeanor. For the first, the master may 
 be punished capitally, and for the two last, by fine. 
 
 The slave is liable to be beaten by any body and every 
 body, without any responsibility through a civil prose- 
 cution, but to the owner. The slave has no remedy. 
 
 In the next place, the slave is, in virtue of his quality 
 as a chattel personal, liable to be sold, mortgaged, or 
 leased, as the caprice or necessities of the master may 
 dictate. He may, moreover, be taken and sold by 
 process of law at the suit of his masters creditor, or by 
 an executor or administrator, in satisfaction of the debts 
 or bequests of a deceased master. 
 
 Slaves, however cruelly treated, may not redeem 
 themselves, or obtain a change of masters, however ne- 
 cessary to their personal safety. 
 Slaves can make no contract. As they can hold no 
 which slavery was holden at a time when the principles I property in things, and have none in themselves, or in 
 of the revolution were most thoroughly understood and any of their faculties, or the products of them, there 
 felt, and of exhibiting the strong contrast which it pre- is, "of course, nothing in the wide creation which can, 
 sents to the apathy with which this nation now, in the | to them, be the subject of a contract 
 
 pride of its independence and power, regards slavery 
 and the slave trade in th^ capital of the republic. The 
 year 1774 was a gloomy period in our history. We 
 felt the weight of British oppression ; and we felt, too, 
 the inconsistency of appealing to the world, and above 
 all, to Heaven, for countenance and aid, while our hands 
 were defiled with the abominations of the slave trade. 
 That was a right feeling. Where has it fled ? What 
 have become of the vows we made in the day of trouble? 
 Let the unrestrained prosecution of a slave trade in this 
 district, scarcely less atrocious than the African slave 
 trade itself, answer. 
 
 SLAVERY DISSECTED. 
 
 I have thus far, Mr. Speaker, answered the question — 
 what is slavery? mainly with a reference to its legal de- 
 finition, and the total subversion of human rights which 
 it involves. But I am told that it is unfair to judge sla- 
 very by such a standard; for, though the general de- 
 finition given of it, throws the slave into the hands of 
 an absolute owner, and seems to leave him there, help- 
 less and unprotected, yet that this is not a fall and fair 
 view of the case ; for, though the slave laws speak of 
 the slave as property, yet they really treat him as a hu- 
 man being, and yield him a reasonable protection ; and 
 if, in any respect, they seem to come short of it, the de- 
 ficiency is made up by the interest or the humanity of 
 the slave holder. Well ; let us, then, look at the matter 
 in this light ; for if there is any protection to the slave, 
 I am anxious to find it. 
 
 The slave laws, in the first place, leave the slave ex- 
 posed to. the unlimited exactions of the master as to the 
 degree and duration of his labor. I cannot learn that 
 
 But some one asks, in amazement — can they not 
 contract matrimony?, They may make to one another 
 what promises they please, with the consent of their 
 owners. But these promises, though morally binding, 
 are not legal contracts of matrimony. With slaves, the 
 marriage relation has no legal existence. There are no 
 parties capable of contracting. _ The law recognizes no 
 such relation — gives it no sanctions, connects with it no 
 rights, and throws around it no protection. Rape and 
 adultry, when applied to this subject, are words with- 
 out meaning; and there is no sense in which the hus- 
 band has a right to his wife — the wife to her husband, 
 or either of them to their children. In short, the whole 
 domestic, relation is cut up root and branch — destroyed, 
 annihilated! 
 
 In reference to the wrongs to which the slave-laws of 
 the United States generally leave the slave exposed, 
 there are two or three points which require a moments 
 distinct attention. 
 
 The slave has no remedy in his own right for any 
 injury. He can be a party to no suit. He can have no 
 action against any body, for injuries either to himself, 
 his wife or his children. He is, in this respect, a com- 
 plete outlaw, without remedy in his own right, for 
 wrong of any kind or degree whatever. 
 
 The crying injustice of leaving the slave thus un- 
 
 * When I speak of the slave laws of the United 
 States, I mean, of course, the slave-laws of Virginia 
 and Maryland, as adopted by the act of congress of the 
 27th of February, 1801 They are all now in force as 
 laws of the United States for this district. 
 
11 
 
 protected, made so deep an impression on the mind of 
 Mr. Jefferson, that, soon after he entered the Virginia 
 legislature, (as he says in his letter to governor Coles, 
 which I have read) he drew to it the attention of 
 colonel Bland, an old and reputable member of that 
 body, who "undertook to move certain moderate exten- 
 sions of the protection of the laws to these people." But, 
 instead of succeeding in this noble purpose of mercy and 
 justice, colonel Bland, as Mr. Jeflerson says, was ac- 
 tually " denounced as an enemy to his country, and 
 treated with the greatest indecorum." And so the 
 slave is an outlaw still! 
 
 The next general consideration connected with this 
 subject which deserves special notice, is, that no black 
 man, whether bond or free, can testify in any case in which 
 a white man is a party. This is a rule of law of univer- 
 sal application wherever slavery exists._ Now who 
 cannot see how completely this rule deprives the slave 
 of the little protection which the laws profess to give 
 him. Take the cases in which they make such profes- 
 sion — namely, the subjection of the master to a public 
 prosecution for murder, maiming and cruelty to ani- 
 mals at common law.* Who, in the first place, is to 
 become the informer? The injured slave dare not; so 
 completely is he within the power of the master. And 
 if he dare disclose the truth, and set on foot a prosecu- 
 tion, he cannot be a witness. To as little purpose 
 would any other black man move in such a matter, 
 since no prosecution against a white man can be sus- 
 tained by his testimony. 
 
 It is in vain that the laws forbid the murder or maim- 
 ing of a slave, or that the master is subjected to a pro- 
 secution at common Jaw as for cruelty to an animal, if 
 the laws cannot be executed ; and how can they be, 
 without witnesses ? They are but a mere mockery, ac- 
 companied as they are, by a sweeping disqualification 
 of nearly all the witnesses who, in a slave community, 
 would be likely to know the facts necessary to a con- 
 viction. Add to all this, the consideration that from the 
 7>ery nature of his relation to the slave, the master has the 
 power of so disposing of him preparatory to the perpetra- 
 tion of violence, as to render it impossible to de- 
 tect and bring him to justice, by any testimony what- 
 
 * I confess it would not have occurred to me to reckon 
 the common law prosecution for cruelty to animals, as 
 among the legal protections to the slave, but for a re- 
 tmark which I rind in " a practical treatise on the laws 
 of slavery" by Jacob D. Wheeler, Esq. recently pub- 
 dished. In reference to a remark of Judge Stroud, in 
 ihis sketch of the slave-laws, that, "the master may, at 
 ihis pleasure, inflict any species of punishment on the 
 'person of his slave,'' Mr. Wheeler says in a note, p. 
 200 : "In those states where there are no enactments 
 lupon the subject, the common law would be sufficient 
 Jto protect slaves. Our books are full of criminal prose- 
 cutions for cruelty to horses and other animals. And 
 the common law remedy is considered effective without 
 any statutory enactment.'' 
 
 Mr. Wheeler's work, which embraces a compila- 
 tion of judicial decisions under the slave-laws, is, I 
 observe, recommended by judge Hitchcock, of Alaba- 
 ma, as "a valuable work.'' I concur in the opinion that 
 'it is valuable, if for no other reason, for the evidence it 
 Rhus furnishes of the legalized cruelties of slavery. 
 f'The common law prosecution for cruelty to horses and 
 [other animals ( says Mr. W. ) is considered effective, 
 without any statutory enactment." What a confession! 
 -The protection enjoyed bv " horses and other animals'''' 
 is regarded as sufficient for men! To the white man is 
 |accorded the protection of a private action of assault 
 Land battery ; while the poor slave is left to the protec- 
 tion of an indictment at common law for cruelty to a 
 •east ; and even that he cannot originate or sustain by 
 ibis own evidence, or the evidence of any man who 
 mas African blood running in his veins. This is the 
 !"effective'' remedy — so effective as to supersede the ne- 
 cessity of legislation! 
 
 In what a helpless, unprotected, deplorable condition 
 is the slave thus left. What an inconceivable amount 
 of suffering may, either through defect of the laws, or 
 failure of their execution, be inflicted on him by exces- 
 sive labor, want of food and clothing, and cruel punish- 
 ments by whipping, chaining, and imprisoning at plea- 
 sure — to say nothing of the sufferings incident to his 
 sale, transfer, and severence from his friends. How 
 completely is he left at the mercy of irresponsible pow- 
 er — exposed to the grinding exactions of avarice, the 
 relentless scourgings, it may be, of a passionate, unfeel- 
 ing master, and the kicks and cutis of every body. To 
 add to all this, he may be, and often is, placed under 
 the superintendence, and subjected to the proverbial 
 cruelties, of one of those "subordinate despots called 
 overseers, of whom Mr. Wirt, in his life of Patrick 
 Henry, says — "They are the most abject, degraded, 
 unprincipled race — always cap in hand to the dons 
 who employ them, and furnishing materials for the ex- 
 ercise of their pride, insolence, and spirit of domina- 
 tion." 
 
 But it is said that, though the laws furnish, in their 
 enactments, little protection, and in their execution less, 
 yet the slave has a sufficient protection in the interest 
 and humanity of his master. 
 
 Interest and humanity ! What a protection to be 
 talked of for human rights, in a land whose glory it is that 
 the laws are supreme ; and that to them — not to interest 
 or humanity — all— the humblest and the highest — the 
 richest and the poorest, may look for protection. In- 
 terest and humanity ! Who of us are willing to place 
 our rights under such a guardianship? We want, for 
 ourselves, our wives and our children, the protection of 
 law; and of law that can be made to reach and pun- 
 ish the violators of our rights. And shall we, can we, 
 withhold this protection from the slave, and yet talk of 
 respect for the constitution which bears upon its front 
 the noble inscription "to establish justice?'' Can 
 we do it, and make pretensions of regard for that 
 great law of christian love, which enjoins the do:ng to 
 
 OTHERS AS WE WOULD THAT THEY SHOULD DO UNTO US? 
 
 But, Mr. speaker, I place this question on higher 
 ground than the want of legal protection from outrage. 
 Let the slave be ever so well treated ; let his rights to 
 immunity from violence and cruelty be ever so much 
 respected, yet the great right — his right to himself, 
 is trampled" in the dust. The wrong thus inflicted, no 
 kindness of treatment can make right. Wrong — fla- 
 grant wrong — deeplv and indelibly stains the whole. 
 I The "SPOT" is there, and ocean's waters cannot wash 
 I it out. 
 
 Another strong feature in the slave system which I 
 have thus glanced at, is the liability of the slave to be 
 disposed of under legal-process. It is one of the most 
 odious features in the whole system, because there are, 
 in such cases, none of the restraints upon the cruel se- 
 paration of husbands and wives, and parents and chil- 
 dren, which masters may sometimes feel in disposing of 
 their slaves. This feature of the system is justly stig- 
 matised by Edwards, in his history of the West Indies, 
 as "a grievance remorseless and tyranical in its princi- 
 ples and dreadful in its effects." 
 
 If, in any respect, the slave laws of the United 
 States are less odious than those of some of the states, 
 they are, in this respect, decidedly more so than those 
 of Louisiana. There, slaves are made part of the real 
 estate of their masters ; and their sale is, of course, 
 subjected to all the restraints upon alienation to which 
 that kind of estate is subjected. Here , there is no such 
 restraint ; and under the laws of the United States, the 
 digraeeful spectacle is frequently exhibited of the expo- 
 sure of slaves upon the auction stand in this city, for 
 sale to the highest bidder, either at the instance of the 
 owner, or upon process of execuiion, or under an 
 order of the court having charge of the settlement of 
 estates. 
 
 While the laws of the United States are thus more 
 odious than those of one of the slave states, and, I may 
 add, more so than another, (Maryland) which has re- 
 
12 
 
 pealed her law subjecting a free black to be appre- 
 hended and imprisoned as a runaway slave, and sold 
 into slavery to pay his jail fees, while here it remains 
 in full force ; — while our laws are thus distinguished for 
 cruelty and oppression, it is but justice to say that there 
 is one respect, in which they are distinguished for 
 at least a negative^ humanity. They do not actually 
 prohibit the instruction of the slaves hi reading, if they 
 can find any one who will be willing to instruct them, 
 and if their owners will allow them to be instructed,there 
 is no law which will either fine or imprison the instruc- 
 tor! And if they cm build school houses, and hire in- 
 structors, and contrive to collect themselves together for 
 instruction, at the same time that they are toiling in the 
 service of their owners, there is no law in force here, 
 which will authorize an officer to enter the school house, 
 and disperse them as an "unlawful assembly." In 
 these respects, the government of the United States- 
 may boast that its slave-laws are superior to those of 
 most of the slave states ! 
 
 The reference I have made to the matter of instruc- 
 tion, suggests another feature in the slave-laws which 
 deserves special notice. While the instruction of slaves 
 is prohibited by law, as in most of the slave states, or 
 prevented or neglected by most of the slave owners, as 
 in this district, they are, nevertheless,- subjected to 
 punishment for crimes, far severer than those inflicted 
 on the well instructed and the free. Judge. Stroud, in 
 his "'sketches of the laws relating to slavery," enume- 
 rates nineteen classes of offences (some of them em- 
 bracing several distinct offences) in Virginia, for which 
 the white man is only punishable by imprisonment; 
 while, for the same offences, the slave is punishable 
 with death. He makes similar specifications with re- 
 gard to several other states. I refer particularly to Vir- 
 ginia, because her laws have been adopted by congress 
 for a part of this district. There are also numerous 
 acts which are not prohibited to freemen by the laws 
 governing the district, but which are made crimes when 
 commit'e.d by slaves, and for which thev are subjected 
 to severe punishments. A more cruel absurdity in cri- 
 minal legislation can hardly be- conceived, than is ex- 
 hibited in these distinctions'betweeh the slave and the 
 freeman — distinctions which, if crimes and punish- 
 ments are to hold any relation to each other, enhance 
 guilt just in proportion as the means of formine just 
 conceptions of moral and legal obligation are withheld 
 from the offender. 
 
 Such are the slave laws of this nation, whose decla- 
 ration of independence asserts that "all men are creat- 
 ed equal," and whose constitution was ordained to 
 establish justice, and secure the blessings of liberty to 
 ourselves and our posterity.'' 
 
 UNCONSCIOUSNESS OF THE WRONG OF SLAVERY NO 
 MITIGATION OF IT. 
 
 But the kind and benevolent slave-holder, (and there 
 are many— many such,) says to me— I am not, after all, 
 conscious of the wrongs of whch you speak, and must 
 think it a great breach of christian charity for you to 
 indulge in such denunciations of slavery, when' there 
 are so many kind and charitable, benevolent and hu- 
 mane, just and pious slave-holders. Are they all to be 
 accused of "violating the laws of God and man?" And 
 can slavery be as bad as you represent, while it is sus- 
 tained by such men? 
 
 _ Mr. Speaker, I stand here, not as the accuser of indi- 
 viduals, but to speak of the radical and incurable wrong 
 of slavery. I do not assume the office of a reprover; 
 but I speak, as I have a. right to do, the words of truth 
 and soberness in regard to slavery, cherished and sus- 
 tained as it is, hy the 'authority of the United States, in 
 this territory, over which that authority is exclusive and 
 supreme. In regard to individual slave-holders, I de- 
 ■ sire to avoid, most scrupulously, the language of vitu- 
 peration and reproach. I know many of them, for 
 whom I entertain a high personal regard, and upon 
 whose reelings it would give me very great pain to in- 
 
 flict the slightest wound. But mum I, therefore, refrain 
 from all animadversions upon slavery? They indeed 
 profess to be unconscious of any wrong in the institu- 
 tion which I denounce; and I give them credit for sin- 
 cerity. But does that settle this question? Can any 
 unconsciousness of the wrong inflicted en the slave, af- 
 fect the real extent of that wrong? It may lessen the 
 sin of holding him in bondage. That is a question I 
 am not now discussing. I do not treat this as a ques- 
 tion of morals but of human rights. The degree of 
 moral turpitude is one thing — the wrong done the slave 
 another. His rights are not to be measured by that 
 standard. It is no mitigation of the wrongs which he 
 suffers, that they are inflicted by one who is uncon- 
 scious of their extent; or even by one who, in every 
 thing else, is distinguished for uprightness and humani- 
 ty. _ They; are just as really wrongs to him, as though 
 inflicted by the greatest monster upon earth. 
 
 I need hardly remind you how strikingly this distinc- 
 tion is illustrated in the history of the African slave 
 trade. It is less than fifty years since that trade — now 
 made piracy — ■ was openly, carried on by British sub- 
 jects, under the sanction of British laws ; and by 
 men, too, of respectable standing in that kingdom. In- 
 deed, when Clarkson, Wilberforce, Fox, andPitt, assail- 
 ed this trade, and pressed upon parliament its aboli- 
 tion, the history of that struggle tells us that its consist- 
 ency even with revealed religion was stoutly maintain- 
 ed! "We had to contend, (says the indefatigable 
 Clarkson,) and almost to degrade ourselves by doing 
 so, against the double argument of the humanity and 
 the holiness of ttie trade." 
 
 If the "humanity and holiness" of the slave trade was 
 ci intended for then, how much force is therein the ar- 
 gument in favor of slavery, which is based upon the 
 insensibility of its supporters to the wrongs of the in- 
 stitution? 
 
 But, sir, the light of truth dispelled the delusion in 
 Great Britain; and the same light is destined, I trust, 
 at no distant day, to dispel a similar delusion here. 
 
 THE SLAVE TRACE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 Having answered the question — what is slavery? I 
 proceed to the consideration of another question. The 
 memorial asks for the abolition of the slave trade in 
 this district. 
 
 And what is the slave trade? It is the making "mer- 
 chandize of men. It is not merely the sale and trans- 
 fer oi slaves in the ordinary exchanges of society; but 
 it is the buying and selling of men and women to get 
 gain. The slave-holder holds them for this purpose. — 
 The slave-merchant buys and sells them for the same 
 purpose- Both are founded in the same great wrong — 
 that of depriving a man of property in himself. It is 
 not, therefore, merely that deprivation that stamps the 
 trade with its peculiar atrocity; but the incidents neces- 
 sarily connected with\he purchase, sale, and future des- 
 tiny of the subjects of it. These incidents embrace the 
 sundering of the domestic relations : the coercions and 
 restrains of chains, manacles, prisons, and slave-ships — 
 the dreaded and dreadful uncertainties of destiny con- 
 nected with the disposal of the slave in a foreign mar- 
 ket, and the frequent realizing of his gloomiest a'ntici- 
 pations in regard to his condition in the hands of a new- 
 proprietor. 
 
 -Trace the poor slave through the whole of this pro- 
 cess, and you see the broad and deep impress of proper- 
 ty, and nothing but property;, stamped on every 
 part of it. While mingling in the settled-and perma- 
 nent relations of "domestic servitude,'' he, perhaps, 
 formed those associations, and experienced those sym- 
 pathies which made him almost forget that he was not 
 his own, but the property of another. But the moment 
 he is transferred to the hands of a slave merchant, the 
 truth of his condition flashes upon his mind, and sinks 
 him in despair. lie sees nothing around him, but the 
 evidences of his deep degradation, and nothing before 
 him but a gloomy and galling servitude. Cut off from 
 
13 
 
 llje solaces, poor though they might have been, of his 
 former home, he feels himself in the chilling presence, 
 and within the iron grasp of a dealer in human flesh, 
 whose adamantine heart feels" no pity, and respects no 
 right. He looks forward, indeed, to a change of his 
 relations; but it brings no solace to his aching heart, 
 and throws no light upon the future midnight gloom. 
 He looks back, but it is only to revive the agonies of 
 the separation, and, by the contrast, to paint the future 
 in colors of darker and deeper honor. . 
 
 And what has he left behind him? Go to the home 
 from which a merciless cupidity has forced him, and 
 M-hat do you see? The wretched wife and mother, 
 stretched upon her lowly couch, pressing to her agoniz- 
 ed bosom the child of her love, as if to stanch the 
 wounds which a heartless and revolting avarice has 
 inflicted on it. She follows, in her imagination, the 
 object of her affection, and hears the clanking of his 
 chains, and the sighs and groans of his wretched prison- 
 house. She traces him through the slave mart, and 
 from the auction stand, to the possession of a new 
 owner, and there sees him toiling, and sweating, and 
 bleeding beneath the lash of an iron-hearted task- 
 master. 
 
 Wonder you, sir, that death is often sought as a re- 
 lief from such agonies? 
 
 But what have 1 described? The fruits of the slave 
 trade. And where? In Africa?— far away from the 
 restraining influences of civilization and Christianity, 
 where the trade in human flesh finds the congenial as- 
 sociates of war and rapine? No sir — not there, but 
 /iere— here, in this very district, and within sight of the 
 very place where we are assembled — here, in the midst 
 of a country, which boasts its humanity and refine- 
 ment, its liberties and laws— here, where altars are 
 erected not for the immolation of human victims to 
 appease the wrath of an unknown Deity, but to Him' 
 who "hath made. of one bfood, all nations of men, to 
 dwell on all the face of the earth,'' and whose whole 
 law of duty from man to his fellow, is summed up in the 
 precept, "thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'' 
 
 And are these things so? Can I make you, Mr. 
 speaker, and the country, believe it? Yes sir; I can 
 and will, if the house will give me a committee, whose 
 souls shall enter into this subject, and who shall resolve 
 to tear aside the veil that hides the deformities and the 
 horrors of this detestable traffic. 
 
 While, however, I thus speak, it is, I confess, enough 
 to destroy all courage in attempting any thing for the 
 suppression of this abominable and disgraceful traffic, 
 to recollect how abortive have proved all efforts hither- 
 to, to effect that object. I open the journals cf this 
 house, and find that, in 1816, Mr. Randolph, of Vir- 
 ginia, moved a resolution providing for the appointment 
 of a special committee "to inquire into the existence of 
 an inhuman and illegal traffic in slaves, carried on in, 
 and through, the District of Columbia, and to report 
 whether any, and what, measures are necessary for 
 putting a stop to the same." . . 
 
 On the occasion of offering this resolution, it is said 
 in the journal of the debates of that period, that-- 
 
 "Mr. Randolph moved the [foregoing] resolution, the 
 necessity of which, and of providing a remedy for a 
 practice so heinous and abominable, (making this dis- 
 trict a depot for the slave trnde of the neighboring 
 states, and a medium for evading the laws in force by 
 collusive sales.) he impressed by a variety of remarks, 
 and concluded by declaring that, if the business was 
 declined by the house, he would undertake it himself, 
 and ferret out of their holes and corners the villains who 
 carried it on." . , ,_ . ■ „. . . . ., 
 
 This was on the 1st of March. On the 30th of April, 
 Mr Randolph, it appears, reported sundry depositions 
 on the subject, taken by the committee; winch were 
 ordered to lie on the table— and there, Mr. speaker, they 
 lie to this day!* Not another step, that I can find, was 
 
 *These depositions are not to be found in the clerk's 
 office. ' 
 
 taken under the resolution. Neither congress nor the 
 mover of the resolution appear to have done any thing 
 further to "ferret out of their holes and corners, ihe vil- 
 lains who carried on" the "heinous and abominable" 
 traffic. 
 
 Another movement was made in 1829, by an able- 
 and estimable son of Pennsylvania, (Mr. Charles Mi- 
 ner,) looking to a remedy for this evil, in regard i o which 
 he made some most astounding disclosures, and sup- 
 ported a proposition for the gradual abolition of slavery, 
 and the immedate prohibition of the slave trade in this 
 district, in an able and eloquent speech. If fact, and 
 argument, and eloquence, could have effected any 
 thing, surely it would have been effected by this effort. 
 But it availed nothing. The proposition went to a 
 committee, and slept the sleep of death! Enormities 
 startling enough to wake the dead, were like galvanism 
 upon a lifeless carcass. There was a slight convulsion, 
 and all was over!* 
 
 I have, Mr. Speaker, spoken of the open and un- 
 blushing prosecution of this trade. Why, sir, look into 
 the newspapers of this city. Yes, into the newspapers. 
 The evidence is found even in the very papers which 
 are laid every morning on our tables. Take up, for 
 example, one of these papers of yesterday, and you 
 will find no less than five advertisements by slave-mer- 
 chants in this district, (four of them in this very city,) 
 offering "cash for negroes." Take the following as a 
 specimen of the whole: 
 
 "CASH FOR NEGROES.— I will give cash, and 
 liberal prices, for any number of young and likely ne- 
 groes, from 8 to 40 years of age. Persons having ne- 
 groes to dispose of, will find it to their advantage to 
 give me a call, at my residence, on the corner of Trh 
 street and Maryland avenue, and opposite Mr. Wil- 
 liam H. Williams's private jail. All letters addressed 
 to me, Washington city, shall have immediate attention. 
 '; WILLIAM H. RICHARDS." 
 
 "Any number of young and likely negroes, from 
 eight (!) to forty years of age!" "Cash, and liberal 
 prices!'' And all to supply slave factories— not on the 
 coast of Africa, but in the city of Washington — the 
 capital of the United Slates of America! 
 
 And how are these slave factories supplied? How 
 are these "private jails!" filled? By agents, moving 
 about in the surrounding country, like New England 
 or Pennsylvania drovers, in search of cattle. When 
 the price of slaves is high in the southern market, the 
 trade is active, and large numbers are purchased. They 
 are brought into this city, sometimes marching in double 
 files, connected by chains passing through hand-cuffs, 
 or collars, and sometimes crowded into large wagons, 
 like sheep for the slaughter. I have witnessed "both 
 modes of transportation. In this manner, they are 
 driven through the streets of this city, and by the very 
 doors of this capitol, to be deposited in the "private 
 jails" prepared for their reception. It was but last win- 
 ter, that one of these very exhibitions was presented to 
 the wondering gaze of the members of the 24th con- 
 gress, as they were leaving this capitol, upon an ad- 
 journment of the house. 
 
 The slaves collected in the manner thus described, 
 are sent to the southern market, either over land, or by 
 transportation coastwise. The number thus purchased 
 and disposed of annually, I have no means of stating. 
 The custom-house returns would show the number 
 
 *Since writing the above, I have found that a bill for 
 suppressing the trade in this district was reported by 
 Mr. Washington, of Maryland, chairman of the com- 
 mittee on the district, in April, 1830. It was read a 
 first and second time, and referred to the committee of 
 the whole on the state of the union; and that is the 
 last that has been heard of it! If the committee should 
 take it into their heads to report such a biii now, it would 
 not be as fortunate as the bill of 1830, but would be 
 nailed to the table, "without bei.ng debated, printed, read 
 or referred!'''' 
 
11 
 
 shipped; but there are no means of ascertaining the 
 probably larger number otherwise sent from the district- 
 Do you, Mr. Speaker, want further evidence of the 
 extent and character of this trade? I have it at hand, 
 in a memorial of more than eleven hundred citizens of 
 this district, presented to congress in 1828, praying for 
 the abolition of slavery and tire slave trade here. In 
 that memorial, the trade is thus described: 
 
 "While the laws of the United States denounce the 
 foreign slave trade as piracy, and punish with death 
 those who are found engaged in its perpetration, there 
 exists in this district, the seat of the national govern- 
 ment, a domestic slave trade scarcely less disgraceful 
 in its character, and even more demoralizing in its in- 
 fluence. For this is not, like the former, carried on 
 against a barbarous nation; its victims are reared up 
 among the people of this country, educated in the pre- 
 cepts of the same religion, and imbued with similar do- 
 mestic attachments. 
 
 "These people are, without their consent, torn from 
 their homes; husband and wife are frequently separated 
 and sold into distant parts; children are taken from 
 their parents, without regard to the ties of nature; and 
 the most endearing bonds of affection are broken forever. 
 "Nor is this traffic confined to those who are legally 
 slaves for life. Some who are entitled to freedom, and 
 many who have a limited time to serve, are sold into 
 unconditional slavery; and, owing to the defectiveness of 
 our laws, they are generally carried out of the dis- 
 trict before the necessary steps can be taken for their 
 
 I*£u6cLS6» 
 
 "We behold these scenes continually taking place 
 among us, and lament our inability to prevent them. — 
 The people of this district have, within themselves, no 
 means of legislative redress; and we therefore appeal 
 to your honorable body, as the only one invested by 
 the American constitution with the power to relieve us.'' 
 
 Here, Mr. Speaker, is a description of this trade, 
 which fully sustains all I have said in regard to it; for 
 it is notorious that its extent and enormities are not 
 less now, than when they drew from those who were 
 familiar with them, the description I have read, with 
 their earnest prayer, that congress would interpose and 
 relieve them from the "disgraceful" and "demoralizing" 
 
 Two years after the presentation of this memorial, 
 namely, on the 15th of January, 1830, the grand jury 
 of the county of Washington, by their foreman, Thomas 
 Carberry, esq. addressed a letter to the chairman of 
 the committee for the District of Columbia, m which 
 he said— "the district is made a market for the pur- 
 chase and sale of great numbers of slaves, annually 
 brought here for that purpose. These wretched be- 
 ings are frequently seen passing through our streets, 
 like droves of catde, to houses of deposite, set up and 
 maintained for that purpose. The inhuman practice 
 is so shocking to the moral sense of the community, as 
 to call loudly for the interposition of congress." 
 
 Mr. Speaker: I have asked for a;committee to inves- 
 tigate this subject. But I submit whether there is not 
 before its, sufficient evidence to warrant and demand 
 our immediate action. Sir, we ought to pass a bill 
 forthwith, by acclamation, banishing this traffic for- 
 ever from our jurisdiction. Humanity, justice, national 
 character, consistency, all unite in demanding it. 
 
 I say consistency demands it. Why, sir, what have 
 we done? Let me examine a moment. _ _ 
 
 We, in the first place, authorized by our constitution 
 the abolition of the foreign slave trade after the year 
 180S. , „ . . 
 
 In 1794, we prohibited the fitting out from the ports 
 of the United States, of vessels for the slave trade be- 
 tween foreign countries. . 
 
 In 1800, we prohibited the holding ot any right in 
 vessels so fitted out, or serving on board the same; and 
 authorized their seizure by the ships of war of the 
 United States. 
 
 In 1807, we prohibited, after the 1st of January, 
 
 1808, the building or fitting out of any vessel for the 
 importation of slaves — enacted her entire forfeiture, 
 and imposed a penalty on each person concerned in 
 such fitting out, of $20,000. 
 
 In 1818, we enacted numerous additional provi- 
 sions against the slave trade, and against all engaged 
 therein. 
 
 In 1819, we authorized the cruising of our armed 
 vessels for. the suppression of the trade; and 
 
 In 1820, we declared it to be piracy, punishable with 
 
 DEATH. 
 
 We also prohibited the importation of slaves into the 
 territories, namely — of Mississippi, in 1798; of Orleans, 
 in 1804; and of Florida, in 1822 — enacting, in each 
 case, that the slaves imported should be thenceforth free. 
 
 Nor is this all. In the year 1815, we concluded a 
 treaty of peace with Great Britain, in which it was 
 solemnly stipulated that — 
 
 "Whereas, the traffic in slaves is irreconcileable with 
 the principles of humanity and justice, and whereas, 
 both his majesty and the United States are desirous of 
 continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, 
 it is hereby agreed, that both the contracting parties 
 shall use their best endeavo-is to accomplish so desira- 
 ble an object." 
 
 It thus appears that we have not only "gone to the 
 very verge ot our constitutional power," for the pur- 
 pose of utterly destroying the foreign slave trade, grad- 
 ually rising in our enactments, to the punishment of 
 death; but that we have, on an occasion of great in- 
 terest to our country, and under circumstances suited 
 to make a deep impression on the world, solemnly en- 
 tered into covenant with a great nation, that we would 
 use our "best endeavors'' to promote the "entire aboli- 
 tion'' of the traffic in slaves — a covenant whose terms 
 and spirit, obviously, can be satisfied with nothing 
 short of the abolition of the "traffic" in this capital of 
 our republic. 
 
 And now, sir, behold our inconsistency. After hav- 
 ing done all this; after having actually risen to the 
 point of making the foreign slave trade piracy, and 
 solemnly covenanted to use our best endeavors to pro- 
 mote the entire abolition of the traffic in slaves, we still 
 permit it to be carried on under the sanction of our 
 own laws, and in the very heart of our own country! 
 
 Sir, it is amazing to look at this inconsistency. Let 
 me illustrate it by an example. Here are two citizens 
 of Alexandria, in this dictrict. Each fits out a vessel 
 for the slave trade. One sails to Africa, purchases a 
 cargo of slaves, and ships them for a West India mar- 
 ket. And what do we do? Why, sir, we seize the 
 ship ; condemn it as lawful prize ; send the slaves 
 back to Africa, and hang the Alexandrian as a pirate. 
 
 The other sends his agents through this district and 
 the surrounding country — purchases "young and likely 
 negroes from 8 to 40 years of age"— ships his cargo of 
 human flesh to Florida or Mississippi, and sells the 
 wretched beings into a servitude perhaps tenfold more 
 cruel and hopeless than that which they left behind 
 them — and what do we do with Imn? Nothing! No 
 law denounces him as a pirate, and no public armed 
 vessel arrests him on his way to the port of his destina- 
 tion. Indeed, through every part of this process, he 
 proceeds under the protection of our laics;* and when 
 
 *The same law that abolished the slave trade with 
 foreign countries, (passed March 2, 1807,) expressly 
 permits the trade, coastwise, in vessels of forty tons 
 burthen and upwards. The 8th section makes pro- 
 vision for the delivery by the master of the slave-ship, 
 to the collector of the port from whence it is to sail, "of 
 a manifest of the cargo, whereupon the collector is to 
 deliver to the master a permit, specifying thereon the 
 number, names, and general description of such persons, 
 [the slaves shipped,] and authorizing him to proceed to 
 the port of his destination.'' The act then provides that 
 the collector of the port of destination of such ship, shall, 
 on the production of such "permit," also permit the "un- 
 lading" of the cargo which is described therein. 
 
15 
 
 the whole is consummated, he rests secure in the en- 
 joyment of his ill-gotten gains, and walks abroad in 
 safety, "unwhipped of justice," and unscathed by the 
 ihdignatidn of an abused and outraged community. — 
 Sir.liow much longer can we permit these things, and 
 expect to escape the indignant and burning seem of the 
 civilized world. 
 
 And yet, what is all this, but a part of the "divine 
 institution'' of slavery? How naturally does it result 
 from a system, by virtue of which men and women are 
 "deemed and adjudged to be chattels personal, in the 
 hands of their owners and possessors, their executors, 
 administrators, and assigns, to all intents, constructions, 
 and purposes whatsoever?" 
 
 But here again, I may be told that I do slave-holders 
 great injustice — that there are thousands' of them who 
 hold the slave trade, and all the cruelties and abomina- 
 tions of slavery in utter abhorrence, and who ought to 
 be exempted even from implied censure, on account of 
 them. 
 
 Sir, there are thousands of slave-holders who do ab- 
 hor the slave trade, and the cruelties and other practi- 
 cal abominations of slavery. I admit it, and rejoice to 
 admit it. But yet, what are they doing? Why, sir, 
 they are, as slave-holders, actually sustaining and up- 
 holding a system, from which all these cruelties and 
 abominations, (and who can compute their aggregate 
 amount?) including the slave trade itself, do naturally 
 and necessarily flow. If there were nothing connect- 
 ed with the system of slavery, but whips and tortures, 
 and forced labor to the last point of endurance, and 
 the slave trade, with its horrors, slavery would sink, by 
 its own weight. But the institution, with all its accom- 
 paniments, points to numerous of its friends, and says — 
 fcehold the humanity, and kindness, and charity, and 
 generosity, and justice, of these my supporters. Can / 
 be what it is pretended I am, while thus sustained? 
 
 Sir, it is the kind, the humane, the benevolent and 
 the just, (just in every thing but slavery,) who are 
 really responsible for the cruelties and abominations of 
 slavery and the slave trade. If they would abandon 
 slavery, it would fall. On them, therefore, rests main- 
 ly the responsibility of sustaining a system which is not 
 only wrong in principle, but which, in spite of their 
 wishes to the contrary, bears, and must continue to' 
 bear, the grapes of Sodom, and the clusters of Go- 
 morrah. 
 
 POWER OF CONGRESS OVER THIS SUBJECT IN THE 
 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 Havingthus answered the questions — what is slavery? 
 and what is the slave trade? I proceed to consider the 
 power of congress to abolish both, within the limits of 
 this district. 
 
 It seems to me, that no man can look at these evils, 
 in their real magnitude, without involuntarily, and 
 earnestly asking — Is there no remedy? Is there no 
 legislative authority competent to reach the case? — 
 Mustsjic7* evils continue to exist here forever? 
 
 Now, sir, 'I am among those who believe that these 
 evils are not to exist here forever: and I maintain that 
 there is a legislative authority competent to apply a re- 
 medy. Where is that authority? 
 
 In the first place, it is manifest that it does not exist in 
 any of the states- It did exist in Maryland and Vir- 
 ginia, before their cession of this district; but it exists 
 there no longer — those states having ceded the territory 
 to the United States, and with it, "exclusive jurisdiction 
 of soil, and persons residing, and to reside, thereon." — 
 And to render doubly certain the true intent and mean- 
 ing of this transfer of jurisdiction, it is added, that it is 
 "pursuant to the tenor and effect of the 8th section of 
 the 1st article of the constitution of the United States.'' 
 Turning to that part of the constitution, we find that it 
 gives congress power "to exercise exclusive legislation 
 in all cases tvhatsoever, over such district as may, by ces- 
 sion of particular states, and the acceptance of con- 
 gress, become the seat of the government of the United 
 States!'' 
 
 It is manifest, then, that Maryland and Virginia can 
 exercise no more power in the "cases'' of slavery and 
 the slave trade in this district, than Massachusetts and 
 Vermont. Nor have they any more right to ask to be 
 consulted on these subjects than Massachusetts and Ver- 
 mont; for it would be a glaring absurdity to require 
 congress to consult those states, and ask them to 
 give their "consent,'" when, in making their grant of ex- 
 clusive jurisdiction, they have reserved no right to with- 
 hold it. 
 
 I have anticipated the answer to the question — where 
 is the power to provide a remedy? It is in congress, 
 fully and amply— without restriction or limitation. = "AZZ 
 cases whatsoever:' Nothing can be broader. There 
 is no u case''' — that is, no subject matter upon which 
 any human authority may rightfully legislate, which is 
 not embraced within this grant. 
 
 It is sometimes intimated that congress have a right, 
 to legislate to the extent only of regulating the police of 
 the district, with a view to their own security, and that 
 of the executive government. But where is to be found 
 such a limitation of the broad and sweeping terms — 
 "all cases whatsoever?" If such a qualification had 
 been intended, it would, certainly, have been some- 
 where at least intimated. But this is done, neither in 
 the constitution, nor in the grants by the states of Vir- 
 ginia and Maryland, nor any where else. 
 
 But it is said that such a construction only, is consis- 
 tent with the object of the grant to congress of power to 
 legislate for this district. If the terms used in the grant 
 were of doubtful import, this latitude of construction 
 might be permitted ; but they are not. The terms — 
 "all cases whatsoever,'' have no ambiguity, and admit, 
 therefore, of no such explanation. 
 
 But what is the supposed exclusive object of the 
 grant? The security of congress. And may not that 
 security be affected by legislation having nothing of the 
 character of mere police regulations? Take, for ex- 
 ample, the very case now under consideration. May 
 not that general legislation which shall affect the exis- 
 tence of slavery here, have much, very much to do with 
 the security of congress ? 
 
 As it is insisted that the clause of the constitution 
 giving the power of " exclusive legislation in all cases 
 whatsoever" shall be interpreted by a reference to some- 
 thing besides the terms of the grant, let us look a little 
 at the construction given to it at the time the constitu- 
 tion was formed. I turn, for example, to the debates 
 on the adoption of the constitution by the states, and 
 take up the volume containing those of the Virginia 
 convention. Gentlemen will not, certainly, object to 
 my going to Virginia for authority on this subject. 
 
 On looking into these debates, I find that the clause 
 now in question was objected to by several of the lead- 
 ing men in the convention, expressly on the ground 
 that the power it conferred was unlimited. Mr. Mason 
 said — "this clause gives an unlimited authority in evenj 
 possible case within the district.'' Patrick Henry called 
 it "unlimited, unbounded authority." Mr. Grayson said 
 that, "after mature deliberation, he could not find that 
 the ten miles square was to be looked upon even as 
 part of a state, but to be totally independent of all, and 
 subject to the exclusive legislation ot congress." There 
 appears to have been but one member of the conven- 
 tion (Mr. Pendleton) who maintained that the power 
 did not extend to "every possible case within the dis- 
 trict." 
 And what said Mr. Madison to all this? He had before 
 declared, in the "Federalist" (No. 43,) that the autho- 
 rity of congress at the seat of government was "com- 
 plete." And did he now deny the construction put up- 
 on the clause in question by Mr. Mason, Henry, and 
 others? No, sir. Though he spoke several times on 
 the question, he intimated no dissent from that con- 
 struction. On the contrary, he manifestly admitted its 
 correctness, by replying to the argument drawn from 
 the danger of the "unlimited, unbounded authority," 
 that "there must be a particular cession, by particular 
 
16 
 
 states, of the district to congress ; find that the states 
 may seltie the terms of the cession," and "may make 
 what stipulation they please in it.'' Mr. Nicholas took 
 the same, ground. , 
 
 We have thus, sir, the authority of the leading men 
 in the Virginia convention, including Mr. Madison 
 himself, in favor of the construction for which I con- 
 
 If further Virginia authority is desired, I have one 
 before me, of a much later date, in a report to tins 
 house of the committee on the District ot Columbia, 
 made by its chairman, Mr Powel, a distinguished 
 member from Virginia, in Ja .uary, 1827; in which he 
 
 gaicl '-the congress of the United States has, by the 
 
 constitution, exclusive jurisdiction over this disctrict, 
 and has the power upon this subject, (the imprisonment 
 of free negroes as runaways) as upon all other subjects 
 of legislation, to exercise unlimited discretion.'' Unli- 
 mited was the very term applied to the power o L . con- 
 gress here, by Patrick Henry in the Virginia conven- 
 tion, forty years before. .',..; , • 
 
 It would be a waste of time, to cite further authori- 
 ties— which I might easily do— in support of the posi- 
 tion that congress have power to legislate on the sub- 
 ject before us. 
 
 IS THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY WITHIN TEE COMPETENCY 
 OF ANY LEGISLATION? 
 
 But it is sometimes said, that, though congress have 
 the power of exclusive legislation, "in all cases," yet 
 this must be understood to mean all cases proper for 
 legislation ; but that the abolition of slavery is not with- 
 in the competency of any legislation. 
 
 Not within the competency of any legislation? What 
 has the civilized world been doing for the last half cen- 
 tury? Not to speak of those governments in Europe in 
 which the institution of slavery has been indirectly as- 
 sailed by the supreme power, let me point the objector 
 to the history of Great Britain during that period. Fifty 
 years ago slavery, as it now exists in our own country, 
 existed in the colonies of that empire ; while an un- 
 restained trade in slaves was carried on between the 
 coast of Africa and those colonies. Now, that trade 
 ismade piraevj and slavery is abolished throughout the 
 British dominions. And all this has been effected by 
 legislative power. — a power which the objection assumes, 
 is~not competent to abolish slavery. The same power has 
 been exercised by the governments of all the South 
 American states, Brazil excepted, and by Mexico. 
 
 So, too, in our own country, slavery has been abol- 
 ished by the governments of New Hampshire, Massa- 
 chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New 
 Jersey and Pennsylvania. It has not been abolished 
 in Vermont, for Vermont never had any to abolish. No, 
 sir ; thank heaven, the foot of a slave, held by authority 
 of that state, never trod her soil; nor, let me add, did 
 the heart of a slave ever beat in the bosom of one of 
 her sons. . . 
 
 To these examples I add that of this nation itself. In 
 Jhe first place, we have abolished slavery on the ocean. 
 Our acts abolishing the foreign slave trade are, clearly, 
 acts of emancipation. We enter a vessel of one of our 
 citizens, on the high seas, take the slave which he has 
 ourchased in Africa, and set him at liberty. What is 
 this but emancipation^ What but the abolition of slave- 
 ry in one of its multiplied forms of outrage on human 
 rights? 
 
 We also abolished slavery by the ordinance of 1787, 
 in the territory northwest of the river Ohio. The 6th 
 of the "articles of compact" of that ordinance, declar- 
 ed "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary ser- 
 vitude in the said territory, otherwise than in the pun- 
 ishment of crimes." It is well known that there were 
 slaves in that territory at the date of the ordinance, 
 who were eman cipat'ed by it ; and that, too, without 
 compensation. 
 
 It is worthy o f reiiif rk that the preamble to those six 
 "articles of compact," declares that they are established 
 
 "for the purpose of extending the fundamental princi- 
 ples of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis 
 whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions 
 are erected," and "to fix and establish those principles 
 as the basis of all laws, constitutions and governments, 
 which, forever hereafter, shail be formed in the said ter- 
 ritory.'' It was for such a "purpose" that slavery was 
 forever banished from the territory ; and this, be it re- 
 membered, was the solemnly declared purpose of every 
 state in the union — the vote for the ordinance having 
 been unanimous — with the exception of one voice — in 
 the congress of 1787.* 
 
 And is it for us to saj r , after all this, that it is not 
 within the competency of legislation to abolish slavery? 
 
 I might add numerous individual authorities, but my 
 limits must restrain me. I cannot, however, omit the 
 authority of Washington, which is most clear and expli- 
 cit. In writing to Robert Morris, on the 12th of April, 
 1786, he said — "There is not a man living, who wishes 
 more sincerely than I do, to seea plan adopted for the 
 abolition of slavery ; but there is only one proper and 
 effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and 
 that is, by legislative authority; and this, as far as my 
 suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.'" On the 10th or 
 May, 1786, he thus writes to La Fayette — "It (abolition) 
 certainly might, and ought to be effected, and that, too, 
 by legislative authority." In a letter to John Fenton Mer- 
 cer, of September 9, 1786, he said — "It is among my 
 first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery 
 in this country may be abolished by law." In a letter 
 to John Sinclair, he says — "There are, in Pennsylva- 
 nia, laws, for the gradual abolition of slavery, which 
 neither Maryland nor Virginia have, at present ; but 
 which nothing is more certain than that they must have, 
 and at a period not remote." 
 
 Let me specially commend the authority of Wash- 
 ington to the attention of those who say that, if slavery 
 is let alone, it will, in due time, be abolished by volun- 
 tary emancipations. "There is (says that great man) 
 only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be 
 accomplished, and that is by legislative authority." 
 Washington reasoned right. Slavery will never be 
 abolished — it never has been, in any country — until the 
 strong hand of legislation is fastened on it. 
 
 Such, sir, are some of the examples and authorities 
 which sustain my position that the abolition of slavery 
 is within the competency of the law making power. 
 
 Put are examples and authorities necessary to sustain 
 this position? Is there not something within every man, 
 which tells him that the inviolability of property in hu- 
 man beings cannot stand upon the same ground as that 
 of property in the things that God has given to man for 
 his ownership and dominion? Yes, thank heaven, 
 there is that in man. It is the natural sense of justice 
 which God has implanted in the human bosom. It is 
 conscience, with its silent, steady, searching influence. 
 What else is it that so often visits the couch of the dy- 
 ing slave holder, and dictates the emancipation of his 
 slaves? What, but a conviction that all is not right in 
 the relation which death is about to sunder. If, then, 
 the legislature of a state dissolves that relation, it does 
 but respond to a feeling which plants thorns upon raany 
 a slave holder's pillow, and, following him to the verge 
 of life, compels him to release his grasp before he goes 
 to his final and fearful account. 
 
 The sense of justice of which I have spoken, has its 
 foundation in the great law of right which was impress- 
 ed upon the heart of man at his creation; which was 
 re-enacted in the decalogue; and finally summed up in 
 
 *This idea of excluding slavery from the northwest- 
 ern territory, seems to have been first brought out by 
 Mr. Jefferson, in 1734, in his report as chairman of a 
 committee of congress, of a plan for the government 
 of the western territory. It was not then adopted, but, 
 three years afterwards, it found a place in an ordinance 
 which may be ranked among the very first, in point of 
 importance, that was ever adopted by an American 
 congress 
 
17 
 
 x gingle compreh.ensiv.e precept, by tlv- Saviour of men. 
 It is to this that the world is indebted for all the ame- 
 liorations of the social stare, with which the progress of 
 Christianity has been signalized — and in nothing more 
 signalized, than in emancipation — emancipation of 
 mini?; emancipation of speech; emancipation of the 
 press; and, as an inevitable consequence: emancipa- 
 tion from slavery. I say inevitable, because slavery 
 can no more stand before a Free Press, than could the 
 Dagon of the'Philistines in the presence of the Ark of 
 the Almighty. 
 
 Wherever Christianity has carried its triumphs, have 
 the social and civil institutions of men felt the influence 
 of this great Jaw of eternal justice. It is this which 
 forms the basis of the English common law, and which 
 was so fearlessly applied by Lord Mansfield sixty-five 
 years ago, in the case of Somerset, in which he said— 
 
 "The~state of slavery is of such a nature, that it is 
 incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral 
 or political, but. only positive law, which preserves its 
 force, long after the reasons, occasion, and time itself, 
 from whence it was created, are erased from memory. 
 It is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, 
 but positive law." 
 
 It was the same great law of right, which formed the 
 basis of the declaration of our independence; which 
 was incorporated in most of the state constitutions; 
 which was recognised in the ordinance of 1787; which 
 was re-enacted in the emancipation laws of numerous 
 states of this union; and which was expounded by 
 Franklin and Jefferson, in the papers I ha-vjn.een per- 
 mitted to read. It was the same, too, which cave 
 warmth and energy to the fearless eloquence of Pink- 
 ney, in a speech in the Maryland house of delegates, 
 in 1733, in which he said — ''By the eternal principles of 
 natural justice, no master in the state has a right to hold 
 his slave in bondage for a single hour " 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, while emancipation has been thus 
 advancing, there are a class of objects which it has not 
 reached, and I trust, never will reach. It has not dis- 
 solved the natural relations. None who deserve to be 
 named, think of emancipating children from the con- 
 trol of parents, or of abolishing the marriage institution, 
 or of annulling the laws which protect the acquisition, 
 enjoyment, and inheritance of property. On the 
 contrary, as emancipation has progressed, have the 
 domestic relations, and the rights of property come to be 
 held more sacred, and to be protected by new and 
 more substantial safeguards. 
 
 The errors prevalent in regard to the right of the 
 law-making power to abolish slavery, arise from not 
 considering the real foundation on which slavery rests. 
 
 Slavery is the mere creature of positive law. The 
 law of ''natural justice" — older than human laws, and 
 paramount to them all — condemns it. Without the 
 support of positive law, it stands as a mere usurpation. 
 It may indeed shelter itself under the power of law; 
 but that power is as clear a usurpation, as the slavery it 
 protects. It is a mere attempt to sustain one wrong, 
 by the perpetration of another. It is precisely the same, 
 in principle, although the law-making power should 
 undertake, by statute, to sanction the violation of female 
 chastity, or the taking of human life without the com- 
 mission of crime; for a man's right to be protected in 
 his liberty, rests on precisely the same foundation, as 
 his right to the security of life; and the right of a wo- 
 man to exemption from slavery, is as complete as her 
 right to immunity from any other personal violation. 
 
 Now, what is it to abolish slavery? It is, to repeal 
 the positive laws which sanction it — in other words, to 
 repeal the laws which have repealed the eternal law of 
 justice, and to restore that law to its full force. This is 
 aeolition. Slavery would be thus' left, where positive 
 law found it — vilhout support. The law of nature will 
 not. sustain it: for every line of that law pronounces its 
 condemnation. The common law will not: for that is 
 based on the great law of natural justice, which per- 
 mits no man to be holden as property. "By the com- 
 mon law, (says lord chief iustice Holt,) no man can 
 have property in another." 'And lord Mansfield, in the 
 
 case to which I have referred, rested the liberation of 
 the slave on the same foundation. 
 
 I maintain, then, that it is within the competency of 
 legislative power to abolish slavery. There must, in- 
 deed, be such a power in civil government, or the insti- 
 tutions of the social state will have signally failed of ac- 
 complishing the great ends of their existence. 
 _ If I have succeeded in proving that congress has a 
 right to abolish slavery in this district, I have, of course, 
 proved its right to abolish the slave trade. Both rights 
 rest essentially on the same foundation — the absence of 
 all just title to property in man. The slave trade makes 
 a stronger appeal to oar sensibilities, but not to our 
 sense of justice. The right to abolish it, involves the 
 right to abolish slavery. One is. the parent — the other 
 the offspring. Wrong — clear, undeniable wrong, stamps 
 the character of both. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE EXERCISE OF THE POWERS OF CON- 
 GRESS OVER THIS SUBJECT, CONSIDERED. 
 
 Having shown the power of congress over this sub- 
 ject, I proceed to consider some objections to the exer- 
 cise of the power. 
 
 NO PETITIONS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 It is said that we ought not to abolish slavery and 
 the slave trade here, because the people of this district 
 have not petitioned for it. The argument is, that, as 
 their interests are involved in this matter, their consent, 
 by way of petition, is to be regarded as a condition pre- 
 cedent to our legislation. 
 
 Now, sir, carry out this objection to its legitimate re- 
 sults, and what becomes of our exclusive jurisdiction 
 here? We thought that the power to legislate for this 
 district, had been given us by the people of the United 
 States, in the constitution. But we now find that the 
 exercise of that, power is to depend upon the people 
 here; and that it is their petitions that are to give us ju- 
 risdiction, and not the constitution. We thought that 
 the power was given us, for the purpose of rendering 
 Congress independent upon a. local power surrounding 
 its capitol; and yet we now find that we cannot move 
 a step without the consent of that power. 
 
 Do you say that the principle contended for, applies 
 only to the present case? Why to this case only? Is 
 it because emancipation affects the interests of the 
 people here? What legislation touching this district, 
 does not affect their interests? And if their consent is 
 to be obtained in this case, in what case must it not be 
 obtained? 
 
 The truth is, the framers of the constitution intended 
 to make congress entirely independent of the people of 
 this district. You may, if you please, call this an ab- 
 solute government. But call it what you will, it is just 
 such a government as the constitution provides; and it 
 cannot be any other than it is, without subverting the 
 great design of the constitution in providing for a sepa- 
 rate territory as the capital of the United States. 
 
 And congress has uniformly proceeded on this 
 ground, in exercising its powers of legislation here. 
 The history of that legislation for five and thirty years, 
 does not present a single case in which the ground now 
 taken has been assumed. Why, sir, look at the legisla- 
 tion now in progress in another branch of congress, 
 touching the suppression of the circulation of small 
 notes in this district. Though it is a measure deeply 
 affecting the business and the interests of the people 
 here, no one has thought of inquiring whether they have 
 asked us to adopt the measure. 
 
 But, petitions have come up to us from this district, 
 on this very subject. I have already referred to a me- 
 morial presented [but a few years ago, signed by more 
 than eleven hundred citizens of the district — many of 
 them men of great respectability, and many of them 
 slave-holders — most earnestly and eloquently imploring 
 congress to abolish both slavery and the slave trade 
 here. That memorial is among the printed documents 
 of this house; and it speaks out on the subjects of 
 .slavery and the slave trade, with a boldness andearnest- 
 ness becoming their transcendant importance. 
 
IS 
 
 IMPLIED FAITH PLEDGED TO VIRGINIA AND MARTI, AND, ON 
 
 TEE ACCEPTANCE OF THE CESSIONS OF THE DISTRICT OF 
 
 COLUMBIA. 
 
 It is said, in the next place, that congress ought not to 
 abolish slavery and the slave trade here, because it 
 would be a violation of faith pledged to Virginia and 
 Maryland on the acceptance of the cessions of the ter- 
 ritory composing this district. The objection seems to 
 rest, in the first place, on the assumption that the ac- 
 tion of congress would excite hopes of emancipation 
 among the slaves in Virginia and Maryland, and there- 
 fore, produce discontent, and encourage insurrection. 
 Now, I admit the premises but deny the conclusion. 1 
 admit that the abolition of slavery here, would excite 
 hopes of emancipation in the neighboring states, be- 
 cause its tendency would be to increase the disposition 
 already felt in them, to abolish slavery. But would 
 this tend to insurrection? Not at all; unless it be an 
 insurrection of the generous feelings of our nature, 
 among the holders of slaves. Is this the insurrection 
 that gentlemen fear? Are they afraid of being con- 
 vinced that it is wrong to hold human beings as proper- 
 ty, and right and safe to emancipate them to the privi- 
 leges of men? To any other kind of insurrection than 
 this, I deny that it has any tendency. Insurrection! 
 massacre! murder! Are these the offspring of hope? Nay, 
 but of despuir. What will give such strength to the 
 human arm, or obduracy to the human heart, as des- 
 pair. But mercy — kindness — compassion— justice! Did 
 these, or the hope of them, ever turn a human heart 
 to adamant, or nerve a human arm for vengeance? 
 
 You may remind me of St. Domingo ; for that is the 
 standing bug-bear to frighten from every attempt at 
 emancipation. But what of St. Domingo? What but 
 an illustration of the correctness of what I have just 
 asserted? It was not emancipation, or the hope of it, 
 but an attempt to reduce the emancipated back to 
 bondage, that led to scenes which have given to the 
 name of insurrection so deep and enduring a horror. 
 
 A refutation of the argument drawn from appre- 
 hended insurrection, is furnished in the entire absence 
 of any manifestation of such a spirit, in the states bor- 
 dering on the free states, since the agitation of the sla- 
 very question commenced. Never have the slaves in 
 those states manifested less disposition to insurrection 
 than during this period. In indulging apprehensions of 
 insurrection— if indeed they are reallv indulged— it 
 seems not to be considered that the example of eman- 
 cipation acts, not merely on the mind of the slave, but, 
 with great force, on the mind of the slaveholder; tend- 
 ing to produce in him a conviction that emancipation is 
 sate, and that slavery is wrong. The consequence will 
 be (1 will not insult the slave holder by supposing the 
 contrary) more kindness on the part of the master, and 
 as a consequence of this, and the hope of ultimate de- 
 liverance, more contentment on the part of the slave. 
 
 But there is another consideration which seems not 
 to enter into the conceptions of the alarmists. It is the 
 security from insurrection furnished by abolitionists 
 themselves. Regarding them as friends, the slaves 
 have confidence in them, and will listen to their ad- 
 vice. And who does not know that wherever their 
 voice can reach the slaves, it is heard in earnest ad- 
 monitions to suppress all disposition to insurrection, 
 and wait for deliverance from the volutary action of 
 their masters, or the exertion of legislative power? An 
 illustration of this is presented in the proceedings of 
 the anti-slavery society of the state of Pennsylvania in 
 February, 1837, when it was "Resolved, that we earn- 
 estly recommend the colored people, both bond and free, 
 to fulfill all their moral, social and religious duties, and 
 thus show to the world that they deserve to be free.'' 
 
 As it is tnus apparent that insurrection is not to be 
 apprehended, (unless an increase ©flight, and stronger 
 appeals to the sense of justice of slave holders should 
 enhance the oppressions of slaverv, which lam unwill- 
 ing to admit) I am justified in assuming that the whole 
 of this extraordinary claim in behalf of Virginia and 
 Maryland is prompted by the consideration that aboli- 
 
 tion here may exert an influence on the public mind 
 in those states favorable to abolition there. 
 ^ The whole of the implied pledge amounts, then, to 
 this, — that congress will refrain from doing justice to 
 those under its exclusive, jurisdiction, because by the 
 mere force of its example, Maryland and Virginia may 
 be induced to go and do likewise. A more unreason- 
 able and absurd proposition in regard to the action of 
 this government, it seems to me, cannot be affirmed. 
 In considering the subject of this implied pledge, it 
 will occur to every one, on a first view of the subject, 
 to ask— why should a claim, involving such a reserva- 
 tion in favor of Virginia and Maryland, and imposing 
 such a restriction on the action of congress, have been 
 left to such a general implication? Why was there no 
 reservation to that effect, expressed in the acts of ces- 
 sion? or why, at least, was there not something express- 
 ed in them, from which such a reservation might be 
 reasonably and fairly inferred ? The subject ofresei-v- 
 ing rights was not unconsidered in making these ces- 
 sions. Both of them contain a special proviso — "that 
 nothing herein contained shall be construed to vest in 
 the United States any right of property in the soil, or to 
 affect the rights of individuals therein, otherwise than 
 the same shall, or may be transferred by such indivi- 
 duals to the United States." Why was it not added — 
 nor to vest in the United States any right to abolish slavery 
 and the slave trade within the limits of the ceded territory? 
 
 Theresas, certainly, more need of making this re- 
 servatioEpuxpressly, if such a reservation was intended 
 or desirechby the cedingstates, than to make the reser- 
 vation that was made; because the general grant of 
 "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever," plainly 
 included the power to abolish slavery; while there 
 was nothing in the terms or nature of the cessions, 
 which could, without a reservation, "affect the rights of 
 individuals, - ' to the soil. The proviso to which I have 
 referred was introduced out of abundant caution. How 
 came that abundant caution to overlook the case now 
 in question? The abolition of slavery was then well 
 understood to be within the competency of legislative 
 power; and "exclusive jurisdiction in all cases what- 
 soever," manifestly included the "case" of the abolition 
 of slavery; and yet, while a proviso was introduced in- 
 to the cessions, reserving rights which really needed no 
 reservation, there was an absence of any attempt to 
 introduce a reservation in favor of slavery, which really 
 was needed, to save it — if it was to be saved — from be- 
 ing drawn within the grant of "exclusive jurisdiction 
 in all cases whatsoever." 
 
 The absence of all attempt to make a reservation 
 upon the point in question is rendered the more signifi- 
 cant and conclusive, by the fact, that, in the debates in 
 the Virginia convention, on the adoption of the consti- 
 tution, Mr. Madison, in reply to objections drawn from 
 the supposed grant by the constitution of unlimited 
 authority over the "ten miles square'' said — "there must 
 be a particular cession by particular states, of the dis- 
 trict to congress, and the states may spttle the terms of 
 the cession, and may make what stipulation they please 
 in it."* This suggestion seems to have satisfied Vir- 
 ginia jealousy, in regard to the powers granted by the 
 constitution to congress, over the district. This debate 
 was in 1788. In the very next year, the cession was 
 made by the legislature of that state — a body which 
 
 * I confess my inability to perceive the force of this 
 remark of Mr. Madison ; for, although the "particular 
 states" might make what stipulations they pleased in 
 their cessions of the "ten miles square," yet the conse- 
 quence of such stipulations as should impose a restraint 
 on the constitutional power of congress to "exercise 
 exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever,'' could 
 only be to render such cessions ineffectual and void — 
 congress having no power to accept a cession which 
 should not be inpursuance of the 8ih section of the 1st 
 article of the constitution, which provides for such 
 "exclusive legislation." But Mr. Madison's declara- 
 tion is good for the purpose of my argument; for, if it 
 
19 
 
 contained, of course, a large number of the men who 
 had composed the convention of the previous year. 
 And vet, though we rind the legislature acting on Mr. 
 Madison's suggestion, so far as to make a reservation 
 in regard to ''any right of property in the soil," not a 
 word was introduced into the act of cession restricting, 
 or having the least tendency to restrict, the right of le- 
 gislating on the subject of slavery. 
 
 Thus, then, we find that all restriction on the power 
 of congress in favor of slavery was omitted from the 
 acts of cession, under circumstances plainly showing 
 that the omission was not inadvertent or accidental ; 
 while the relinquishment of jurisdiction by Virginia and 
 Maryland, and the grant of power to congress in the 
 constitution, are couched in terms so clear and unequi- 
 vocal, as to admit of no possible construction, excluding 
 the power in question. And yet, in face of all this, it 
 is now gravely contended that there was an implied 
 pledge on the part of the United States, by the mere 
 act of accepting these cessions, not to exercise a power 
 clearly granted in the constitution, and which, in ma- 
 king the cessions, Virginia and Maryland most signi- 
 ficantly omitted any attempt to control^ 
 
 Equally preposterous does the pretension of "implied 
 faith" appear, when we consider the reasons which in- 
 duced the grant in the constitution of "exclusive ju- 
 risdiction," and the extent to which the principle in- 
 volved in the pretension may be carried. To the first, 
 I have already a "verted; and it must be apparent to 
 all, that such an "implied faith" would, in its whole 
 Tendency, be subversive of the purpose for which the 
 constitution provided a " ten miles square, '' for the seat 
 of government. It would place congress in the most 
 humiliating position imaginable; for, when the claim 
 now set up is stripped of its vague generalities, and pre- 
 sented in a definite form, it sends this government, up- 
 on every proposition to abolish slavery in this district, to 
 the supreme governments of Virginia and Maryland for 
 leave to act in the premises. Nor is the principle which 
 works this strange result, necessarily confined to the 
 case of slavery ; but it applies to every proposition to 
 do any thing affecting by possibility, the interests of 
 those states. Now, there are a great variety of cases in 
 which those interests may be affected by the general 
 influence of our legislation for the district: — such, for 
 example, as the regulation of the currency of the dis- 
 trict; and a prohibition of various immoral practices — 
 as the sale of lottery tickets, gambling, horse racing, 
 and the like; and also a prohibition ot duelling. So, 
 too, in the punishment of crimes, — as if we should 
 abolish the punishment of death, and greatly mitigate 
 other punishments. Any one can see, at a glance, how 
 very much the pecuniary interests of Virginia and Ma- 
 ryland, as in the case of the currency, and their legis- 
 lation, as in the other cases, might be affected by the con- 
 stitutional action of congress in regard to the district. 
 
 Take another case — that of imprisonment for debt; 
 (ajemnant of barbarism, and fit to hold companion- 
 ship with slavery;) and suppose we were to abolish 
 that. _ Why, forthwith, up rises the objection I am con- 
 sidering, in another form, arid demands, in behalf of 
 Virginia and Maryland, that we shall desist. "Hands 
 off," says the objector. _ Remember your "imjdied 
 faith.'' You are interfering with Virginia and Mary- 
 land 'Hjtstitutions:" for we have been accustomed, 
 "time whereof the memory of man runneth not to the 
 contrary," to cast, our debtors into prison, and not let 
 rhem come out thence, till they have paid the uttermost 
 farthing. How . can we live without the enjoyment 
 of this right? We shall be ruined; and the debtor part 
 of our communities will rise in rebellion, and tear down 
 our jails, which we have been at so much expense in 
 erecting. 
 
 ■ — . — —t- — 
 
 was understood that a limitation might be imposed in 
 the cessions, so as effectually to restrain the power of 
 congress, the omission to introduce such limitation be- 
 came most conclusive evidence of a willingness that 
 congress should exercise the power without limitation. 
 
 Whether, then, we consider the terms of the cessions 
 by Virginia and Maryland; the omission by those states 
 of any attempt to impose restraint on the power of 
 exclusive legislation by congress; the obvious purposes 
 for which that power was granted; or the extent to 
 which the principle of the objection might, if carried 
 out, be applied — we come to the conclusion that there 
 is no foundation for the claim, that we are prohibited, by 
 an implied pledge, from acting on the subject before us. 
 
 A further and conclusive argument may be drawn 
 from a consideration of the peculiar circumstances un- 
 der winch the cessions were made, and the state of 
 feeling in Virginia and Maryland on the subject of 
 slavery, at the time they were made. 
 
 It is well known that the question with regard to the 
 location of the seat of government was, for a longtime, 
 sharply contested in congress — Pennsylvania, Dela- 
 ware, Maryland, and Virginia, each claiming the privi- 
 lege of having it within their respective limits — the two 
 latter urgently pressing for a decision in favor of the 
 location at this place- Of the fifty-nine members of the 
 first congress, thirty-four were from the states north of 
 Virginia and Maryland; in all of which, as well as in 
 Virginia and Maryland themselves, there existed a 
 strong anti-slavery feeling. What, in such a state of 
 thing's, would have been the result of a proposition on 
 the part of Virginia and Maryland, to incorporate a 
 "stipulation" in favor of slavery,, in the acts of cession? 
 Most uudoubtedly a rejection of the proposition to locate 
 the seat of government here. Nobody can doubt this; 
 and none can doubt that Virginia and Maryland per- 
 fectly understood it. They had no disposition, then, to 
 claim that the power of abolishing slavery should be ex- 
 cepted from the grant of exclusive power to legislate in 
 all cases; and they had as little disposition to talk of an 
 implied understanding to that effect. Sir, if they had 
 done cither, we should now have been conducting our 
 deliberations v-ithin the limits of the Key-Stone State. 
 
 But independently of a desire to obtain the location 
 of the seat, of government here, there existed too strong 
 an anti-slavery feeling in Virginia and Maryland, to ad- 
 mit of any attempt to make a "stipulation" in the ces- 
 sions, in favor of slavery. This fact deserves the most 
 serious consideration: for the question is, not what Vir- 
 ginia and Maryland would now have to be expressed or 
 understood, if the cessions were now to be made, but 
 what was the understanding then, when the cessions 
 were made? — or, what circumstances existed, from 
 which a pledge of any kind, in favor of slaveiy, can be 
 inferred? 
 
 To show the extent and strength of the opposition to 
 slavery in Virginia and Maryland, at that time, let me 
 refer to the well known opinions of some of their lead- 
 ing public men. Washington, as I have already shown, 
 not only expressed his decided hostility to slavery, but 
 took the high ground of declaring that it ought "to be 
 abolished by law, and that, at a period li not, remote." — 
 Jefferson, in his letter to Doctor Price, to which I have 
 already referred, said— "this (Virginia) is the next state 
 to which we may turn our eves for the interesting spec- 
 tacle of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression; 
 a conflict in which the sacred side is gaining daily re- 
 cruits from the young men, who have sucked in the 
 principles of liberty with their mothers milk." In his 
 notes on Virginia, written in 1781, he says — "I think a 
 change already perceptible, since the origin of the pre- 
 sent revolution. _ The spirit of the master is abating; 
 that of the slave is rising from the dust; his condition 
 mollifying, and the way, I hope, preparing, under the 
 auspices of _ Heaven, for a total e?nancipation.'' Mr. 
 Madison said, in the first congress, on the presentation 
 of memorials from abolition societies touching the slave 
 trade— -"It is to be hoped that, by expressing a national 
 disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save 
 ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility 
 ever attendant on a country filled with slaves." Mr. 
 Parker, of Virginia, said, in the same debate— "He 
 hoped congress would do all that lay in their power to 
 restore to human nature its inherent privileges, and, ir 
 
20 
 
 possible, to wipe off the sligma which America labored 
 under. The inconsistency in our principles, with which 
 we are justly charged, should be done away, that we 
 may show by our actions, the pure beneficence of the 
 doctrine we held out to the world in our declaration of 
 independence." Patrick Henry said in the debates 
 in the Virginia convention, on the adoption of the fed- 
 eral constitution — "Another thing will contribute to 
 bring this event (the abolition ,of slavery) about. — 
 Slavery is detested. We feel us effects: we deplore 
 it with all the pity of humanity." In 1777, Jefferson, 
 Pendleton, Wythe, Mason, and Lee, were appointed 
 by the legislature of Virginia, a committee to revise the 
 laws of the state; and, in the discharge of their duty, 
 they agreed to propose, as an amendment to a bill they 
 had reported concerning slaves, a plan for the gradual 
 abolition of slavery. It was finally concluded, not 
 then to bring forward the proposition; it having been 
 found, as Mr. Jefferson declared, that the public mind 
 would not yet bear it. "Yet, (said Mr. Jefferson,) the 
 day is not distant, when it must bear, and adopt it, or 
 do worse. Nothing is more certainly written in the book 
 of fate, than that these people are to be free." 
 
 The same disposition in regard to slavery was mani- 
 fested by Pinkney, MARTiiN T ,_and other leading men of 
 Maryland. The following, from a speech of Pinkney, 
 in the Maryland house of delegates, in 1789, is a speci- 
 men of the freedom and boldness with which slavery 
 was assailed at that period. It shows how strong were 
 the workings of his great mind, and how vigorous the 
 pulsations of his noble heart, while contemplating the 
 wrongs inflicted on the African race, and their shame- 
 less inconsistency with our professed devotion to the 
 cause of freedom. 
 
 "Sir, (said Mr. P.) let gentlemen put it home to them- 
 selves, that after Providence has crowned our exertions 
 in the cause of freedom with success, and led us on to 
 independence through a myriad of dangers, and in de- 
 fiance of obstacles crowding thick upon each other, we 
 should not so soon forget the principles upon which we 
 fled to arms, and lose all sense of that interposition of 
 Heaven, by which alone we could have been saved 
 from the grasp of arbitrary power. We may talk of 
 liberty in our public councils, and fancy that we _ feel a 
 reverence for her dictates — we may declaim, with all 
 the vehemence of animated rhetoric, against oppres- 
 sion, and flatter ourselves that we detest the ugly mon- 
 ster — but so long as we continue to cherish the poison- 
 ous weed of partial slavery among us, the world will 
 doubt our sincerity. In the name of Heaven, with 
 what face can we coll ourselves the friends of equal free- 
 dom, and the inherent rights of our species, when we 
 wantonly pass laws inimical to each — when we reject 
 every opportunity of destroying, by silent, impercepti- 
 ble degrees, the horrid fabric of individual bondage, 
 reared by the mercenary hands of those from whom 
 the sacred flame of liberty received no devotion? * * * 
 
 "Is it, Mr. Speaker, because, the complexion of these 
 devoted victims is not quite so delicate as ours — is it be- 
 . cause their untutored minds {humbled and debated by the 
 hereditary yoke) appear less active and capacious than 
 our own — or is it because we have been so habituated 
 to their situation as to become callous to the horrors of 
 it — that we are determined, whether politic or not, to 
 keep them, till time shall be no more, on a level with the 
 brutes? For 'nothing,' says Montesquieu, 'so much as- 
 similates a man to a brute, as being among freemen, 
 himself a slave.' 
 
 "Call not Maryland a land of liberty — do not pretend- 
 that she has chosen this country for an asylum — that 
 here she has erected her temple, and consecrated her 
 shrine — when here, alas, her unhallowed enemy holds 
 his hellish Pandemonium, and our rulers offer sacrifice 
 at his polluted altars. The lily and the bramble may 
 grow in social proximity — but liberty and slavery delight 
 in separation." 
 
 Referring, in the same speech, to the condition of 
 slaves, as "the mere goods and chattels of their masters," 
 Mr. Pinkney said (what I have before quoted) — "Sir, 
 by the eternal principles of natural justice, no master in 
 
 the state has a right to hold his slave in bondage a single 
 hour.'' 
 
 Such was the language of leading men of Virginia 
 and Maryland, at, and immediately preceding, the pe- 
 riod when an implied pledge to perpetuate slavery is 
 sought to be attached to an acceptance from those states 
 of the cession of this district. But I have yet further 
 evidence of the tendency of public opinion in those 
 states, at that period. I have had occasion to refer to 
 the memorial to congress in 1790, of an abolition society 
 in Pennsylvania, of which doctor Franklin was presi- 
 dent. But was Pennsylvania the only state which con- 
 tained an abolition society? And was doctor Franklin 
 the only distinguished man connected with such a so- 
 ciety? No sir; far from it. Besides the abolition society 
 of Pennsylvania, there were societies of this description, 
 not only in Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey, 
 but in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia! They were 
 state societies, with numerous auxiliaries; and had con- 
 nected with them, such men as Swift and Tracy, of 
 Connecticut — Jay and Hamilton, of New York — gov- 
 ernor Bloomfield, of New Jersey— Franklin and 
 Rush, of Pennsylvania — Bayard and Rodney, of Dela- 
 ware — Chase and Martin, of Maryland, and McLean, 
 Anthony, and Pleasants, of Virginia.* It is remarka- 
 ble that the Maryland and Virginia abolition societies 
 were formed in 1789, and 1791, almost exactly cotem- 
 porary with the cessions, and acceptance, of the terri- 
 tory forming this district. 
 
 And now, sir, to show you something of the princi- 
 ples and purposes of these societies, let me call your at- 
 tention to the following extract from one of their memo- 
 rials to congress. I quote from a memorial of the aboli- 
 tion society of the state of Virginia. 
 
 "Your memorialists, fully believing that righteousness 
 exalteth a nation, and that slavery is not only an odious 
 degradation, but an outrageous violation of one of the 
 most essential rights of human nature, and utterly re- 
 pugnant to the precepts of the gospel, which breathes 
 peace on earth, and good will to men, lament- that a 
 practice so inconsistent with true policy, and the ina- 
 lienable rights of man, should subsist in so enlightened 
 an age, and among a people professing that all mankind 
 are, by nature, equally entitled to freedom." 
 
 Such, Mr. Speaker, are some of the evidences which 
 exist, of the state of public feeling, on the subject of 
 slavery, about the period of the cessions and acceptance 
 of this district — especially in Virginia and Marylaud. 
 And is there any thing in all this to justify the prelension 
 now set up, of an implied pledge to those states in favor 
 of slavery in the ceded territory? No sir. Nothing can 
 be more absurd. Every thing connected with the his- 
 tory of those times utterly forbids such an implication. 
 Indeed, if we were to go aside from the language of the 
 acts of cession, and seek elsewhere, for grounds on 
 which to rest an implied pledge, should we not be driven 
 to an opposite conclusion? Would not the implied 
 pledge be found to be, rather that we woidd, than that 
 we would not abolish slavery in this district? It seems 
 to me it would. How did the matter stand? Virginia 
 and Maryland w : ere about to part with their power to 
 abolish slavery in this district; and if the question had 
 been put to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Henry, 
 Pendleton, Wythe, Mason, Lee, Pleasants, Pinkney, 
 Martin, and the numerous other men who were giving 
 tone to public sentiment in favor of abolition, whether 
 they would have a stipulation to restrain congress from 
 acting on the subject here, who can doubt that they 
 would have instantly said, no; we will neither propose 
 nor agree to any such stipulation. If congress shall be 
 disposed to abolish slavery in the district, let them do it. 
 There will then be anotber example added to that of 
 Pennsylvania, to induce Virginia and Maryland to do 
 right. That such would have been, their language, it is 
 impossible to doubt. And yet, gentlemen now talk of 
 an implied pledge, that congress would not even begin to 
 
 *William Henry Harrison, now general Harrison, 
 of Ohio, was a member of the Virginia abolition socie- 
 ty, being then axifizen of that stats. 
 
e>] 
 
 abolish slavery in this district, fifty years after general 
 Washington said that the example of the abolition by 
 Pennsylvania must be followed by Virginia and Mary- 
 land "at a period not remote!'' 
 
 SUPPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTY IN FAVOR OF 
 SLAVERY. 
 
 There is another objection, somewhat allied that just 
 considered, which I must notice. The constitution, it is 
 said, contains a guaranty in favor of shivery. Under 
 this supposed guaranty, it is contended that this gov- 
 ernment is bound to refrain from all legislation tending 
 to impair the security and stability of that institution; 
 and not only so,_but that it is bound to interpose its 
 shield against all influences from the non-slave-holding 
 states, having that tendency. 
 
 The first thing that strikes the mind, on looking at 
 this objection, is the magnitude of the claim involved 
 
 in it — A GUARANTY OF THE SECURITY AND STABILITY OF 
 
 slavery! And this guaranty is claimed to be part of 
 a constitution, formed at the close of a seven years war, 
 waged in defence ot the principle that all men are 
 created equal! — a guaranty, involving disabilities, and 
 obligations, on the part of this government, then un- 
 known to the constitution of any state in the civilized 
 world!* — a guaranty, which, to become effectual, must 
 shut up the fountains of thought — command men not 
 to reason — disperse their peaceable assemblies — seal 
 their.lips — seize their pens — manacle their presses, and 
 shut out their prayers from the ears of their representa- 
 tives in the halls of legislation! 
 
 What a guaranty! Where is it to be found? We- 
 are told it is a constitutional guaranty. It should, then, 
 be found in the constitution; not in obscure intima- 
 tions — not in far-fetched, labored constructions; but in 
 clear, distinct, and well defined stipulations. Where 
 are they? 
 
 Other limitations on the power of congress, and 
 guaranties in favor of particular rights, are clearly 
 stated. The first article of amendment prohibits con- 
 gress from making any religious establishment — from 
 restraining the people in the free exercise of their reli- 
 gion, and from abridging the freedom of speech and 
 the press, and the right to assemble and petition for a 
 redress of grievances. There are, also, in the subse- 
 quent amendments, numerous other restrictions in fa- 
 vor of the rights of the people. Why was the guaranty 
 in favor of slavery, now relied on, omitted? Let it not 
 be said that it is contained in that amendment which 
 prohibits the taking of "private property for public use 
 without compensation." Nobody thought of that as 
 applicable to the case of slavery: for, in the first place, 
 the constitution no where speaks of slaves under the 
 denomination of u private property,'" but as "jxrsons 
 held to service;" and in the next place, abolition does 
 not take them as "private property for public use," as it 
 would, if it drove them from private plantations to pub- 
 lic works; but it takes from the usurpations of slavery 
 the protection of law, and restores to men their "private 
 property" in themselves. 
 
 ,The power to abolish slavery was never more fully 
 understood to be within the competency of legislation, 
 than at the time the constitution was formed ; and no 
 body had ever heard abolition spoken of as the ""taking 
 of private property for public use." Why, then, if it was 
 intended to restrain congress from abolishing slavery, 
 in the exercise of its otherwise unlimited power of le- 
 gislation for this district, was not the restriction made 
 in terms natural and appropriate to such a purpose? 
 So, too, the freedom of speech and of the press was 
 never more fully exercised against slavery than at that 
 
 *At the time of the adoption of the federal con- 
 stitution, there was not a state in the union whose 
 constitution prohibited the abolition of slavery by the 
 legislature. Since that time, in the progress of improve- 
 ment, such a prohibition has been introduced into the 
 constitutions of the following states, namely: of Geor- 
 gia, in 1798; Kentucky, in 1799; Mississippi, in 1817; 
 Alabama, in 1819; and Arkansas, in 1836. 
 
 time; and why was notthe"anti-slavery exercise of that 
 freedom excepted from the solemn guarantee of it in 
 the article of amendment to which I have alluded? 
 
 Mr. Speaker: there is no wonder that the constitu- 
 tion contains no trace of the pretended guaranty in 
 favor of slavery. It would present one of the greatest 
 absurdities upon the face of the earth. What greater 
 absurdity could there be _ than a Union composed of 
 states having free constitutions, every o?ie of which guar- 
 antees freedom of speech and of the press — with a pro- 
 hibition of the free interchange of thought and feeling 
 between its members, incorporated, in the very law of 
 its creation! — a prohibition rendering the members of 
 the confederacy, in fact, more foreign to each other, 
 than either of them are to the nations of another he- 
 misphere! What a Union! Sir, the statesmen of '87 
 never dreamed of such a union. The conception did 
 not enter the mind of one of them. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, we are told that the constitution 
 was founded in a spirit of concession and compromise 
 in regard to slavery, and that there was in this a sort of 
 guaranty to the South against any legislation on the sub- 
 ject for this district, and any discussion of it by the peo- 
 ple of the non-slave holding states. I know, sir, there 
 was concession and compromise in the formation of 
 the constitution; and I know who have the benefits of 
 therm They are the slave holding states. Under the 
 constitution, they enjoy — what they had not without it, 
 and what they will loose if they give it up — the right to 
 reclaim, within the free states, their fugitive slaves; and 
 also the right to claim the power of the union to protect 
 them from "domestic violence.'' They obtained also 
 in the '"compromise," a right to have three-fifths of their 
 slave property included in the basis of representation. 
 
 Now, sir, are not these concessions — with the exclu- 
 sive power retained by the slave states over the subject 
 of slavery within their limits — enough, in all good con- 
 science, to be made in favor of slavery? Must the spi- 
 rit in which they were made be urged as the founda- 
 tion of a claim for still further concessions? — conces- 
 sions, in fact, that were not even suggested when the 
 constitution was formed? Who then asked that the 
 freedom of Speech, and of the Press, and of the Post 
 Office should be abridged in favor of slavery! No body. 
 Such a proposition would have been responded to by a 
 NO that would have reverberated from one end of the 
 continent to the other. And yet we are now called on 
 to yield all this — to sacrifice, moreover, the right of the 
 people to petition, and surrender our own right to ban- 
 ish slavery and the slave trade from this Capital of the 
 republic — all in the spirit of concession and compro- 
 mise which formed the constitution! 
 
 Mr. Speaker: this claim of "concession and com- 
 promise" will never stop, till it has made slaves of us 
 all. It demands every thing, and gives nothing. It 
 cannot defend slavery, and therefore demands that 
 nobody shall assail it! Concession truly! Sir, I yield to 
 none in my desire for peace and harmony : but they 
 may be purchased at too dear a rate. In this case, the 
 demand is too exorbitant — theprice too great. I cannot 
 pay it. My constituents cannot. The north cannot — 
 it ought not — it will not. 
 
 While considering the extraordinary claim that con- 
 gress shall not exercise one of its most obvious powers 
 — that of abolishing slavery in this district — because it 
 may weaken the institution of slavery, and countenance 
 its abolition elsewhere, I have been struck with the 
 ground taken by Mr. Madison, in the debate in the 
 congress of 1789, to which I have referred. That de- 
 bate, it will be remembered, was upon a memorial of 
 Dr. Franklin, president of the abolition society of Penn- 
 sylvania, praying, among other things, that congress 
 would "step to the verge of the power vested" in it, 
 for discouraging the traffic in slaves. Mr. Madison "ad- 
 mitted (says the report of that debate) that congress 
 is restricted by the constitution from taking measures 
 to abolish the slave trade. Yet there are, (said he,) a 
 variety of ways by which it could countenance the 
 abolition; and regulations might be made, in relation to 
 the introduction of them into the new states to be form- 
 
e,d out of the western territory. He thought the object 
 well worthy of consideration." 
 
 Thus congress, though restrained from abolishing the 
 foreign slave trade with the states, as it now is, from 
 abolishing slavery in them, might, nevertheless, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Madison, "in a variety of ways, countenance 
 the abolition of the trade." 
 
 Apply this to the present case. How would Mr. Ma- 
 dison reason, if he were here. He would admit, as 
 we all do, that congress has no power to abolish slave 
 
 claims on this government for protection beyond the 
 strict letter of the constitution: that the spirit of . the 
 constitution, and of all our constitutions, was against 
 it; and that, if it took the "pound of flesh,'' it must 
 take it by the letter of the bond. Regarding it as a 
 question in which the dearest rights of human nature 
 were involved, he was willing, with Franklin, to "step 
 to the very verge of the power'' vested by the constitu- 
 tion, to "discountenance" immediately, a trade which 
 that instrument expressly prohibited congress from 
 
 ry in the states, any more than it had to abolish the j abolishing prior to the year 1803. How completely 
 
 foreign slave trade in 1739; but he might say, as he then 
 said— "there are a variety of ways by which it can 
 countenance the abolition" — such, for example, as the 
 abolishing of slavery in the District of Columbia, and 
 the other territories, and prohibiting the slave trade here, 
 and the commerce in slaves, between the states. 
 
 The same ground, substantially, was taken by Mr. 
 Madison at the previous session of congress, in the dis- 
 cussion of the bill laying duties on imports. Upon a 
 proposition made by Mr. Parker, of Virginia to amend 
 the bill, by inserting a clause, imposing a duty oi ten 
 dollars on each slave imported, it was urged by Mr. 
 Jackson, of Georgia, that the operation of such a tax 
 would be particularly injurious to that state, which very 
 much needed the importation of slaves. Mr. Madison, 
 in reply, said: 
 
 "The dictates of humanity, the principles of the peo- 
 ple, the national safety and happiness, and prudent po- 
 licy require it of us. The constitution has particularly 
 called our attention to it ; and of all the articles con- 
 tained in the bill before us, this is one of the last I should 
 be willing to make a concession upon, so far as I am 
 at liberty to go, according to the terms of the constitu- 
 tion, or principles of justice. *',_* * * * It is to be^ 
 hoped that, by expressing a national disapprobation of 
 this trade, we may destroy it and save ourselves from 
 reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attend- 
 ant on a country filled with slaves. I do not wish to 
 say any thing harsh to the hearing of gentlemen who 
 entertain different sentiments from me, or different from 
 those I represent; but if there is any one point in which 
 it is clearly the policy of this nation, so far as we con- 
 stitutionally can, to vary the practice obtaining under 
 so me of trie state governments, it is this. But it is cer- 
 tain a majority of the states are opposed to this practice; 
 therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance 
 it, as far as is in our power.'' 
 
 Here, then, we see the same enlarged and liberal 
 view taken by Mr. Madison, as in the debate on the 
 abolition memorials. To refrain from exercising a con- 
 stitutional right, though it might operate somewhat par- 
 tially, was the last concession he would make in such a 
 case; but he would rather go as far "as we constitu- 
 tionally can," to vary the -practice obtaining under some 
 of the state governments — that is, he would legislate for 
 the purpose of influencing the state governments to 
 abandon the practice of importing slaves; and this, too, 
 upon the "principle" that a majority of the states were 
 opposed to the practice. 
 
 What gives still greater force to Mr. Madison's re- 
 marks in these cases, as applicable to the subject before 
 us, is, that the same objection, now urged, of the dan- 
 gerous tendency of congressional action, was urged 
 then. Said Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, in the debate on 
 the abolition memorials — "I apprehend if, through the 
 interference of the general government, the slave trade 
 was abolished, it would evince to the people a disposi- 
 tion towards a total emancipation, and they would hold 
 their property in jeopardy. I hope the house will order 
 the petition to be laid on the table, in order to prevent 
 alarming our southern brethren.'"' 
 
 Mr. Madison understood the argument so earnest- 
 ly urged by the member from Georgia, and stood 
 his ground unmoved by it. He evidendy felt the 
 
 do Mr. Madison's arguments, 'on these occasions, 
 drive the advocates of slavery from their position, that 
 in the mere act of entering the union, there was an 
 "implied faith," that the liberty of speech and of the 
 press should be abridged, and the constitutional juris- 
 diction of congress over this district essentially restrain- 
 ed, lest their exercise should exert an influence unfa- 
 vorable to the existence of slavery in this district.* 
 
 Mr. Speaker : has it never occurred to you, while 
 considering the claim of an "implied faith," in favor 
 of slavery, to look a little into the matter of implied 
 faith on the other side? It is among the leading grounds 
 of complaint on the part of the South, that the consti- 
 tutional balance of power, between the slave holding 
 and non- slave holding states is liable to be disturbed by 
 efforts tending to the abolition of slavery. Now, let 
 gentlemen turn this matter round, and look at it from the 
 other side. Did any body dream, at the formation of 
 the constitution, that, within fifty years, there would 
 be fourt new slave states admitted into the union, from 
 irithout its original limits? and that there would be, 
 at the expiration of that period, a serious effort made 
 to introduce into it some half a dozen more? — 
 What greater violation of "implied faith'' can there 
 be than this? especially when taken in connexion with 
 the state of public sentiment on the subject of slavery 
 at the adoption of the constitution. And yet the south 
 is to be convulsed with a very earthquake, and the un- 
 ion is to be rent asunder, because an attempt is made 
 to banish slavery from the District of Columbia — where- 
 , by an influence may possibly be exerted upon the slave 
 ' states, so as, possibly to make them more willing to 
 abolish slavery, and thus possibly diminish the slave 
 representation in congress! 
 
 But there is another view of this matter. When a re- 
 presentation of slave property was provided for, it was 
 done with the express understanding,that this advantage 
 to the South was to be counterbalanced by the indirect 
 advantage to the North, of that provision of the constitu- 
 tion, by which direct, taxes were to be apportioned among 
 the several states, upon a ratio of population which, as in 
 the representation in congress, included three-fifths of 
 the slaves; so that while the South should have the ad- 
 vantage of a slave representation, it should be sub- 
 jected to the corresponding disadvantage of a propor- 
 tional increase of taxes for the support of government. 
 Now, sir, what has been the practical operation of this 
 arrangement? It has been that, while the South has 
 enjoyed the full and increasing benefit of it, — insomuch 
 that it has now twenty-five representatives of slave 
 property in congress — the consideration upon which the 
 benefit was conceded, has almost entirely failed. The 
 supposed equivalent has turned out to be no equiva- 
 lent. But two direct taxes have been assessed since 
 the commencement of the government; and a response 
 to a private call on the treasury department enables me 
 to state, that, of the seven hundred and nineteen millions 
 of receipts into the treasury, from all sources, from the 
 
 * It might as well be claimed that the liberty of speech 
 and the press should be abridged on the subject oi du- 
 elling, as on that of slavery. So far as relates to that 
 liberty, the constitution no more guarantees protection 
 to the one, than it does to the other. Congress may 
 not prohibit duelling in the states, but it may "discoun- 
 
 forceoi the consideration (deeply felt at that day on | tenance" it there, by prohib king it here. 
 
 both sides of the Potomac) that slavery had no I + Florida will ask admission soon. 
 
•>:: 
 
 ' 
 
 4th <>' March, 1739; to the 31st of December, 183G, but i our discussions, and generous sacrifice 1 ; of that contest 
 /,/"/(■;■ mill.io7is and three quarters have been the fruit of — Now, we have become rich and mighty; and forget.- 
 I ,,.,, ; , i _ ■ _ -King the days of our adversity and rial ■ id the alii- 
 
 exuec ed i luivaienu oi a slave representation iu con' 
 gress, might have had the effect of moderating south- 
 em pretensions, and begetting a little modesty in the 
 tone of urging them. But, Mr. Speaker,, although I 
 have long looked for these appropriate ana becoming 
 results, 1 htrve not been permitted to witness them. In 
 truth, sir, the enjoyment of uncompensated advanta- 
 ges has served only to give an appetite for more; so that 
 we have, at last, come to the point of witnessing, not 
 only a claim that the national "faith" is pledged to pro- 
 tect slavery fh m the dreaded power of investigation, but 
 a clamorous demand that a foreign Slave State, large 
 enough for a future subdivision into half a doze.n states, 
 shall be admitted into the Union. 
 
 Sir, when such demands are made, itis time we should 
 take a stand upon the constitution as it was understood 
 by its framers, and as it appears when thrown into the 
 strong light of the period which gave it existence, It is 
 time to maintain here, and everywhere, that it was not 
 made to protect slavery; and that nothing is to be im- 
 plied in favor of it, but that all implications are to be 
 against an institution which declares war against the 
 natural rights of man. It is time to maintain that, ex- 
 cepting the stipulation to deliver up fugitive slaves, and 
 protect the states from domestic violence, the constitu- 
 tion made, neither expressly, nor by implication, any 
 guaranty in favor of slavery; but left it to stand, if it 
 could, ox fall if it must, under the power of a tress, 
 whose freedom that constitution expressly secured. 
 Such, sir, is the true position of slavery under the con- 
 stitution. 
 
 In looking back to the times to which I have been 
 necessarily drawn in an examination of this subject, it 
 is impossible not to feel deeply impressed with the con- 
 trast between the Men and Principles of that, and the 
 present period. It is indeed amazing, after having ex- 
 plored the history of the ten or fifteen years preceding 
 thecommencement of this government, and consider- 
 ed the principles and acts ot that period, to come down 
 to the present time, and look at the pretensions now 
 set up in favor of the institution of slavery. With 
 what astonishment would a man from another hemis- 
 phere, unacquainted with our present condition, but 
 familiar with the period of which I have spoken, be 
 struck, on coming among us, and hearing, not only 
 that slavery continued to exist in the land of Washing- 
 ton, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison, but that the 
 Union, formed in the welding heat of the revolution, 
 was actually set up as a shield to protect it from that 
 "scourge of tyrants" a Free Press. Why, sir, look, your- 
 self, at the contrast. Let any man look at it, even 
 from the very midst of slavery, and tell me if he is not 
 amazed and confounded. Fifty years ago, slavery was 
 regarded as an unwelcome and troublesome intruder; 
 to be got rid of as soon as possible. Now, it is treated. 
 by many, as an honored and cherished guest. Then, 
 it was a mere tenant at sufferance — Now it claims a fee 
 simple in the soil of freedom. Then, the press, was its 
 open andfearless assailant — Now,it demolishes presses, 
 and destroys, or puts in peril, the lives of their conduc- 
 tors. Then, legislative halls rang with bold and fear- 
 less denunciations against it. Now, discussions of its 
 "sublime merits" are suppressed by "previous questions'' 
 and prohibitory resolutions. Then, it was lashed, as 
 with a whip of scorpions, from one end of the land to 
 the other — Now, it claims to be protected by the arm of 
 this government from all assailants. Then, it was an 
 enemy to liberty — Now, it is essential to the perfection of 
 free institutions.' 
 
 Sir, if the ground now taken in favor of slavery had 
 beevi taken fifty years age, it would have sent a thrill of 
 horror through the whole length and breadth of this 
 land. Then, we were fresh from the revolution; with 
 
 shurun has waxed fat ; and the Indians and JN'egives 
 are to be "kicked" and trampled, in the loftiness of his 
 spirit, and the pride of his power. 
 
 THE THREATENED VETO OF THE PRESIDENT. 
 
 I cannot, Mr. Speaker, leave the consideration of 
 objections, without adverting to one other. I speak of 
 it as an objection, though, in truth, it may be more pro- 
 properly termed an obstacle in the way of the exercise of 
 the power of congress over this subject. I refer to the 
 well known threatened veto of President Van Buren, 
 at the opening of his administration. It was announced 
 in his first official act, that he was "the inflexible and 
 uncompromising opponent of every attempt on the part 
 of congress to abolish slavery in the District of Colum- 
 bia, against the wishes of the slave holding states.'' 
 And he added — "no bill conflicting with these views 
 can. ever receive my constitutional sanction." 
 
 Without dwelling on the unprecedented and alarming 
 fact of a declaration,in advance, by a chief magistrate, 
 that no bill conflicting with certain views which he en- 
 tertains, can ever receive Ids sanction, though the con- 
 stitutional power of passing it, is admitted by him, I 
 will look, a moment, at this threatened veto, in another, 
 and most extraordinary aspect. It seems to me, Mr. 
 Speaker, to introduce into this government a new ele- 
 ment, of a very important character — namely "the 
 wishes of the slave holding stales." So important is it, 
 that it actually operates, of itself, as an absofute veto on 
 the legislation of both houses of congress. 
 
 "The wishes of the slave hold ng states!" And how 
 are these." wishes'' to be expressed, so as to take effect? 
 Must the legislatures indicate them by resolution? Or 
 may they be expressed by the members of congress, 
 from the favored states? As it may not always be con- 
 venient to have the state legislatures convened to de- 
 cide whether bills which have passed both houses of 
 congress shall become laws, it is presumed that the 
 opinions of the members of congress from "the slave 
 holding states" are to be taken as satisfactory evidence 
 ot the "wishes'' of those states. So then, after a bill 
 abolishing slavery and the slave trade in the District of 
 Columbia, shall have been solemnly discussed, and 
 passed both houses of congress, and sent to tfie presi- 
 dent for his signature, what are we to see?. Why, a 
 deputation from a secret meeting of the members from 
 "the slave holding states" presenting themselves to His 
 Excellency with a resolution, declaring the bill to be 
 "against the wishes" of those states, and protesting, in 
 their name, against its sanction by him. And what 
 next? Do we see the president considering the bill, with 
 a view to a decision whether, upon its meats, it ought to 
 receive his sanction? Not at all. The trouble of thus 
 considering has been saved, by an expression of the 
 "wishes of the slave holding states;'' and the president 
 has nothing to do but to "pocket" the bill, or return it 
 with a veto. 
 
 Now, sir, what does all this mean? Is this the gov- 
 ernment of the constitution? Whoever heard, before, 
 of such a power as this, controlliHg the legislation of 
 the country? A minority, by the mere expression of 
 its "wishes," effectually controlling and putting down a 
 majority! To what other than the slave'holding inter- 
 est has any human being ever thought of conceding 
 such a power? Are there no other interests in the 
 country which are worthy of being thus consulted? 
 Why, sir, suppose the South should petition for a repeal 
 of the tariff; and the president should say, that he was 
 so inflexible and uncompromising in his support of the 
 manufacturing interest, that he would veto any bill 
 which should be passed "against the wishes'' of the 
 manfacturing states. What would the South think of 
 him? Would not every man from that section of the 
 country, forthwith put on his spectacles, and look, with 
 
 a public sentiment elevated and purified by the" vigor- profoundest sagacity, into every part of the constitution 
 
-Zi 
 
 to see if lie could find the power to reject a bill on such 
 grounds? 
 
 ill the form in winch it is staled by trie president, raises 
 no question x>f expediency — involves no inquiry into 
 facts — listens to no reasons — weighs no arguments — in 
 fact, hears no body but the" ''slave holding states;'' and 
 them, only so far as to ascertain their ''wishes." That 
 being done, the president writes upon the bill — "inflex- 
 ible and uncompromising opposition" — and the whole 
 matter is enueel: _ Why, sir, what is this, but a down- 
 rignt alteration of the constitution. That instrument 
 says that congress may iegislate, touching the District 
 ot Columbia, "in all cases whatsoever." The presi- 
 dent taiies up the constitution, and adds — excepting 
 where it shall be "against the wishes of the slave hold- 
 ing states." Here, sir, is "state interposition'''' with a 
 vengeance. IN ULLlfT CATION never stood forth in a 
 moi s naked and odious form than this. 
 
 THREATENED DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION. 
 
 There is one other obstacle in the way of exercising 
 the power of congress in the case before us, which 1 
 muse briefly notice. _ It is not founded on objections 
 drawn from the constitution; for it is, itself, a flagrant vio- 
 lation of it. It rests not upon supposed danger; for it 
 rushes directly into it. ■ It is not based on a love of the 
 union, for it dissolves it, andscatters the fragments to 
 the winds of Heaven. I call it not an objection, because 
 that seems to imply some relation to reason and argu- 
 ment, while this, like the threatened veto upon the 
 ground of state "wishes," has nothing to do with 
 either. And what is tins obstacle? Why, sir, it is 
 neither more nor less than this:— If you, the Congress 
 of the United States, dare to abolish slavery and the 
 slave trade in the District of Columbia, — nay, if you do 
 but entertain the discussion of it, we will, forthwith, go 
 home and dissolve the Union. 
 
 Mr. Speaker : I will not treat this subject as the per- 
 petual recurrence of the threat of dissolution would jus- 
 tify. I will resort, neither to ridicule nor defiance, in 
 this matter. But lnieet it simply by declaring my utter 
 disbelief that any man, or combination of men, possess 
 the. power to bring about a dissolution of this Union. I 
 do not know but a single state might be made mad 
 enough to leave it; though I think she would soon be- 
 come sane enough to return. But, the dissolution of 
 the Union! That is a very different thing; and the 
 man or men who might move a single state, can no 
 more dissolve this glorious Union, than could the Con- 
 tinent which rests beneath us, be shaken and over- 
 turned by the efforts of a pigmy. 
 
 Dissolve the Union! Why, sir, the people must dis- 
 solve this Union, if it is ever to be dissolved. Men 
 may talk about it here, as though it were a matter of 
 trifling moment, and of easy accomplishment. But, 
 sir, they have notsoberlyreflected on the subject. They 
 have not considered, that there are spread out. over the 
 length and breadth of this land a people who do not 
 sympathise, and cannot be made to sympathise, in the 
 ahgry feelings which prompt the threats of dissolution, 
 almost daily uttered or insinuated here: — a people, the 
 great mass of whom can no more be brought to the 
 point of giving up the Union, than they can be persua- 
 ded to abandon the graves of their fathers, leave the 
 good land which they have inherited from revolutiona- 
 ry valor and virtue; and move, en masse, beyond the 
 farthest mountains of the west. Sir, let a scheme 
 for dissolution be once definitely projected; and let 
 its projectors come out with an undisguised exhibition of 
 their design, and they would find every where a strength 
 of attachment to this Union which they do not dream 
 of, and which, until such attempt .shall be seriously 
 made, can never be fully known. 
 
 Dissolve the Union! And for what? Because men 
 and women ask congress to repeal the laws which au- 
 thorise a part of the people of this district, to hold and 
 sell another part as property? Dissolve the Union, 
 because congress listens to such petitions, and delibe- 
 rates whether it will grant them? Dissolve the Union, 
 because, in the exercise of its clearly grantpd powers, 
 
 congress proceeds to do, what a large portion of Chris- 
 tendom has done within the last fifty years — take away 
 ike protection of law from the usurpations of sia\ery; 
 and that, within a territory but ten miles square? Are 
 the people going to dissolve this union for such causes as 
 these? No — never — never. Why, sir, if congress 
 should even pass a law abolishing slavery in the states, 
 the people would not, therefore, be so insane as to dis- 
 solve the Union. No. They would coolly tell us we 
 had exceeded our powers — appeal" to the courts for 
 protection— ^.nd quietly wait the result. t 
 
 I know', sir, the people are liable to be excited; but 
 let the man who shall project a dissolution of the Union, 
 beware of the direction which excitement, may take on 
 this subject. Let him see to it, that he finds a shelter 
 from the storm; and let him remember, that, from the 
 moment he comes forth the avowed advocate of disso- 
 lution, and moves towards its accomplishment, he stands 
 out, thenceforth, before Heaven and Earth, the scathed 
 monument of a Nation's indignation, and a Nation's 
 curse. 
 
 And now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask, in view of the 
 considerations I have urged, what is the duty of the na- 
 tion in regard to this great subject? Slavery and the 
 slave trade exist in this district. The protection they 
 once enjoyed under the laws of Virginia and Mary- 
 land, has, with the exclusive jurisdiction over this terri- 
 tory, been transferred to the Nation. It is by the Na- 
 tion's laws, and by them alone, that these violations of 
 the great law of "natural justice," are sanctioned and 
 sustained here. It is by the Nation's laws that men and 
 women are here held as property — that they are sold at 
 auction — that they are collected in droves — confined in 
 "private jails," and forced away from friends and home, 
 into a distant and hopeless bondage. Yes, sir, THE 
 LAWS OF THIS NATION throw around all these 
 enormities the shield of their protection. 
 
 Let me not be told, that there are but few slaves here, 
 and that the nation should not be agitated with so small 
 a matter. It is true there are but about 7,000; and they 
 bear but a small proportion to the 3,000,000 in the whole 
 country. But, sir, if there were but one, that one would 
 be entitled to our protection. Suppose that one were 
 the wife or child of one us! How long should we be in 
 finding something in the "golden, rule," to apply to the 
 case? What a flood of light would be instantly thrown 
 upon it! Every word would be full of meaning. Oh, 
 sir, say no* that this is a small matter, when it concerns 
 the "inalienable rights" of man. It was a noble senti- 
 ment of a heathen poet, who had been himself a slave — 
 
 Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto. 
 lam a man, and nothing which relatesHo man can 
 be foreign to me. Yes, sir; if but one man is enslaved, 
 that man is a representative of the human race, and the 
 whole are wronged in the person of the sufferer. 
 
 And now, sir, let us look this subject full in the face. 
 It is not to be put aside, as of inconsiderable import- 
 ance. It is, in truth, one of the greatest that can be 
 presented to our consideration. Our relation to it throws 
 upon us responsibilities of immense moment. We can- 
 not shake them off. Let us, then, meet them promptly. 
 If we ought not. to act, let it be shown. If these evils 
 are to be perpetual here, let it be avowed. If the city 
 that bears the name of Washington is to continue to 
 be the greatest market for human flesh on the continent, 
 let it be proclaimed to the world in our solemn deter- 
 mination, that the detestable traffic shall continue to be, 
 and shall forever be, protected by the laws of this Great 
 Nation. But if we thus determine, let us not stop here. 
 Let us make a decree, which shall paralyze the Nation- 
 al Intellect; which shall harden the National Heart; 
 which shall sear the National Conscience — blot out the 
 Declaration of Independence — repeal the Golden Rule 
 — roll back the wheels of time, and shroud our beauti- 
 ful and beloved country in the night of hopeless ig- ' 
 norance and barbarism. Let us do this, and be con- 
 sistent — consistent, at least m wrong, if we will not 
 be, in maintaing, and carrying out, the noble Principles 
 which have given us a name, and made its a praise, 
 throughout the whole earth. ^ 
 

 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 003 260 813 9 
 
 : .^v-2^rf v . ■ ; ^MSz