The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus by American Anti-Slavery Society (page 27)

to the Union.

2. Resolved, That, representing, as we do, the people of Vermont, we do hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such annexation in any form.

3. Resolved, That, as the Representatives of the people of Vermont, we do solemnly protest against the admission, into this Union, of any state whose constitution tolerates domestic slavery.

4. Resolved, That Congress have full power, by the Constitution, to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia and in the territories of the United States.

[5. Resolved, That Congress has the constitutional power to prohibit the slave-trade between the several states of this Union, and to make such laws as shall effectually prohibit such trade.]

6. Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to present the foregoing Report and Resolutions to their respective Houses in Congress, and use their influence to carry the same speedily into effect.

7. Resolved, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing Report and Resolutions to the President of the United States, and to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress.

The influence of anti-slavery principles in Massachusetts has become decisive, if we are to judge from the change of sentiment in the legislative body. The governor of that commonwealth saw fit to introduce into his inaugural speech, delivered in January, 1836, a severe censure of the abolitionists, and to intimate that they were guilty of an offence punishable at common law. This part of the speech was referred to a joint committee of five, of which a member of the senate was chairman. To the same committee were also referred communications which had been received by the governor from several of the legislatures of the slaveholding states, requesting the Legislature of Massachusetts to enact laws, making it PENAL for citizens of that state to form societies for the abolition of slavery, or to speak or publish sentiments such as had been uttered in anti-slavery meetings and published in anti-slavery tracts and papers. The managers of the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society, in a note addressed to the chairman of the committee, requested permission, as a party whose rights were drawn in question, to appear before it. This was granted. The gentlemen selected by them to appear on their behalf were of unimpeachable character, and distinguished for professional merit and general literary and scientific intelligence. Such was _then_ the unpopularity of abolitionism, that notwithstanding the personal influence of these gentlemen, they were ill–not to say rudely–treated, especially by the chairman of the committee; so much so, that respect for themselves, and the cause they were deputed to defend, persuaded them to desist before they had completed their remarks. A Report, including Resolutions unfavorable to the abolitionists was made, of which the following is a copy:–

The Joint Special Committee, to whom was referred so much of the governor’s message as related to the abolition of slavery, together with certain documents upon the same subject, communicated to the Executive by the several Legislatures of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, transmitted by his Excellency to the Legislature, and hereunto annexed, have considered the same, and ask leave, respectfully, to submit the following:–

Resolved, That this Legislature distinctly disavow any right whatever in itself, or in the citizens of this commonwealth, to interfere in the institution of domestic slavery in the southern states: it having existed therein before the establishment of the Constitution; it having been recognised by that instrument; and it being strictly within their own keeping.

Resolved, That this Legislature, regarding the agitation of the question of domestic slavery as having already interrupted the friendly relations which ought to exist between the several states of this Union, and as tending permanently to injure, if not altogether to subvert, the principles of the Union itself; and believing that the good effected by those who excite its discussion in the non-slaveholding states is, under the circumstances of the case, altogether visionary, while the immediate and future evil is great and certain; does hereby express its entire disapprobation of the doctrine upon this subject avowed, and the general measures pursued by such as agitate the question; and does earnestly recommend to them carefully to abstain from all such discussion, and all such measures, as may tend to disturb and irritate the public mind.

The report was laid on the table, whence it was not taken up during the session–its friends being afraid of a lean majority on its passage; for the _alarm_ had already been taken by many of the members who otherwise would have favored it. From this time till the election in the succeeding autumn, the subject was much agitated in Massachusetts. The abolitionists again petitioned the Legislature at its session begun in January, 1837; especially, that it should remonstrate against the resolution of Mr. Hawes, adopted by the House of Representatives in Congress, by which all memorials, &c, in relation to slavery were laid, and to be laid, on the table, without further action on them. The abolitionists were again heard, in behalf of their petitions, before the proper committee.[A] The result was, the passage of the following resolutions with only 16 dissenting voices to 378, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate with not more than one or two dissentients on any one of them:–

[Footnote A: The gentleman who had been chairman of the committee the preceding year, was supposed, in consequence of the change in public opinion in relation to abolitionists, to have injured his political standing too much, even to be nominated as a candidate for re-election.]

“Whereas, The House of Representatives of the United States, in the month of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-seven, did adopt a resolution, whereby it was ordered that all petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery, or the abolition of slavery, without being either printed or referred, should be laid upon the table, and that no further action whatever should be had thereon; and whereas such a disposition of petitions, then or thereafter to be received, is a virtual denial of the right itself; and whereas, by the resolution aforesaid, which is adopted as a standing rule in the present House of Representatives, the petitions of a large number of the people of this commonwealth, praying for the removal of a great social, moral, and political evil, have been slighted and contemned: therefore,–

Resolved, That the resolution above named is an assumption of power and authority at variance with the spirit and intent of the Constitution of the United States, and injurious to the cause of freedom and free institutions; that it does violence to the inherent, absolute, and inalienable rights of man; and that it tends, essentially, to impair those fundamental principles of natural justice and natural law which are antecedent to any written constitutions of government, independent of them all, and essential to the security of freedom in a state.

Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress, in maintaining and advocating the right of petition, have entitled themselves to the cordial approbation of the people of this commonwealth.

Resolved, That Congress, having exclusive legislation in the District of Columbia, possess the right to abolish slavery in said district, and that its exercise should only be restrained by a regard to the public good.”

That you may yourself, judge what influence the abolition question exercised in the elections in Massachusetts _last_ autumn, I send you three numbers of the Liberator containing copies of letters addressed to many of the candidates, and their respective answers.

The Legislature have passed, _unanimously_, at its present session, resolutions (preceded by a report of great ability) protesting “_earnestly and solemnly against the annexation of Texas to this Union_;” and declaring that, “_no act done, or compact made, for such purpose, by the government of the United States, will be binding on the states or the people_.”

Two years ago, Governor Marcy, of this state, showed himself willing, at the dictation of the South, to aid in passing laws for restraining and punishing the abolitionists, whenever the extremity of the case might call for it. Two weeks ago, at the request of the Young Men’s Anti-Slavery Society of Albany, the Assembly-chamber, by a vote of the House (only two dissentient) was granted to Alvan Stewart, Esq., a distinguished lawyer, to lecture on the subject of abolition.

Kentucky is assuming an attitude of great interest to the friends of Liberty and the Constitution. The blessings of “them that are ready to perish” throughout the land, the applause of the good throughout the world will be hers, if she should show moral energy enough to break every yoke that she has hitherto imposed on the “poor,” and by which her own prosperity and true power have been hindered.

In view of the late action in the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress–adverse as they may seem, to those who think more highly of the branches of the Legislature than of the SOURCE of their power–the abolitionists see nothing that is cause for discouragement. They find the PEOPLE sound; they know that they still cherish, as their fathers did, the right of petition–the freedom of the press–the freedom of speech–the rights of conscience; that they love the liberty of the North more than they love the slavery of the South. What care they for _Resolutions_ in the House, or Resolutions in the Senate, when the House and the Senate are but their ministers, their servants, and they know that they can discharge them at their pleasure? It may be, that Congress has yet to learn, that the people have but slight regard for their restraining resolutions. They ought to have known this from the history of such resolutions for the last two years. THIRTY-SEVEN THOUSAND petitioners for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia had their petitions laid on the table by the resolution of the House of Representatives in May, 1836. At the succeeding session, they had increased to ONE HUNDRED AND TEN THOUSAND.–The resolution of Jan. 18, 1837, laid all _their_ petitions in the same way on the table. At the _called_, and at the present session, these 110,000 had multiplied to FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND[A]. Soon, Senators and Representatives will be sent from the free states who will need no petitions–they will know the prayer of their constituents _before they leave their homes_.

[Footnote A: See Appendix, G.]

In concluding this, my answer to your 13th interrogatory, I will say that I know of no event, that has transpired, either in or out of Congress, for the last two or three years, that has had any other influence on the efforts of abolitionists than to increase and stimulate them. Indeed, every thing that has taken place within that period, ought to excite to their utmost efforts all who are not despairing dastards. The Demon of oppression in this land is tenfold more fierce and rampant and relentless than he was supposed to be before roused from the quiet of his lair. To every thing that is precious the abolitionists have seen him lay claim. The religion of the Bible must be adulterated–the claims of Humanity must be smothered–the demands of justice must be nullified–a part of our Race must be shut out from the common sympathy of a common nature. Nor is this all: they see their _own_ rights and those of the people; the right to SPEAK–to WRITE–to PRINT–to PUBLISH–to ASSEMBLE TOGETHER–to PETITION THEIR OWN SERVANTS–all brought in peril. They feel that the final conflict between Popular liberty and Aristocratic slavery has come; that one or the other must fall; and they have made up their minds, with the blessing of God on their efforts, that their adversary shall die.

“14. _Have you any permanent fund, and how much?_”

ANSWER.–We have none. The contributions are anticipated. We are always in debt, and always getting out of debt.

I have now, Sir, completed my answers to the questions proposed in your letter of the 16th ult. It gives me pleasure to have had such an auspicious opportunity of doing so. I cannot but hope for good to both the parties concerned, where candor and civility have characterized their representatives.

Part of the answer to your 13th question may seem to wander from the strict terms of the question proposed. Let it be set down to a desire, on my part, to give you all the information I can, at all germain to the inquiry. The “proffer,” made in my note to Mr. Calhoun, was not “unguarded;”–nor was it _singular_. The information I have furnished has been always accessible to our adversaries–even though the application for it might not have been clothed in the polite and gentlemanly terms which have so strongly recommended yours to the most respectful consideration of

Your very obedient servant,

JAMES G. BIRNEY.

* * * * *

[In the Explanatory Remarks placed at the beginning of this Correspondence, reasons were given, that were deemed sufficient, for not publishing more of the letters that passed between Mr. Elmore and myself than the two above. Since they were in type, I have received from Mr. Elmore a communication, in reply to one from me, informing him that I proposed limiting the publication to the two letters just mentioned. It is dated May 19. The following extract shows that he entertains a different opinion from mine, and thinks that justice to him requires that _another_ of his letters should be included in the Correspondence:–

“The order you propose in the publication is proper enough; the omission of business and immaterial letters being perfectly proper, as they can interest nobody. I had supposed my last letter would have formed an exception to the rule, which excluded immaterial papers. It explained, more fully than my first, my reasons for this correspondence, defined the limits to _which I had prescribed myself_, and was a proper accompaniment to _a publication_ of what _I_ had not written for publication. Allow me, Sir, to say, that it will be but bare justice to me that it should be printed with the other papers. I only suggest this for your own consideration, for–adhering to my former opinions and decision–I ask nothing and complain of nothing.”

It is still thought that the publication of the letter alluded to is unnecessary to the purpose of enlightening the public, as to the state, prospects, &c, of the anti-slavery cause. It contains no denial of the facts, nor impeachment of the statements, nor answer to the arguments, presented in my communication. But as Mr. Elmore is personally interested in this matter, and as it is intended to maintain the consistent liberality which has characterized the Executive Committee in all their intercourse with their opponents, the suggestion made by Mr. Elmore is cheerfully complied with. The following is a copy of the letter alluded to.–J.G.B.]

“WASHINGTON, May 5, 1838.

To JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., Cor. Sec. A.A.S.S.

SIR,–I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, in which you again refer to the publication of the Correspondence between us, in relation to the measures and designs of the abolitionists. I would have certainly answered yours of the 2d ult., on the same subject, more fully before this, had it not escaped my recollection, in consequence [of] having been more engaged than usual in the business before the House. I hope the delay has been productive of no inconvenience.

If I correctly understand your letters above referred to, the control of these papers, and the decision as to their publication, have passed into the ‘Executive Committee of the American Anti-Slavery Society;’ and, from their tenor, I infer that their determination is so far made, that nothing I could object would prevent it, if I desired to do so. I was certainly not apprised, when I entered into this Correspondence, that its disposition was to depend on any other will than yours and mine,–but that matters nothing now,–you had the power, and I am not disposed to question the right or propriety of its exercise. I heard of you as a man of intelligence, sincerity, and truth,–who, although laboring in a bad cause, did it with ability, and from a mistaken conviction of its justice. As one of the Representatives of a slave-holding constituency, and one of a committee raised by the Representatives of the slave-holding States, to ascertain the intentions and progress of your associations, I availed myself of the opportunity offered by your character and situation, to propose to you inquiries _as to facts_, which would make those _developments so important to be known by our people_. My inquiries were framed to draw out _full and authentic details_ of the organization, numbers, resources, and designs of the abolitionists, of the means they resorted to for the accomplishment of their ends, and the progress made, and making, in their dangerous work, that all such information might be laid before the _four millions and a half of white inhabitants in the slave States, whose lives and property are menaced and endangered_ by this ill-considered, misnamed, and disorganizing philanthropy. They should be informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this storm which is gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its desolating fury. Christians and civilized, they are _now_ industrious, prosperous, and happy; but should your schemes of abolition prevail, it will bring upon them overwhelming ruin, and misery unutterable. The two races cannot exist together upon terms of equality–the extirpation of one and the ruin of the other _would be inevitable_. This humanity, conceived in wrong and born in civil strife, would be baptized in a people’s blood. It was, that our people might know, in time to guard against the mad onset, the full extent of this gigantic conspiracy and crusade against their institutions; and of necessity upon their lives with which they must sustain them; and their fortunes and prosperity, which _exist only while these institutions exist_, that I was induced to enter into a correspondence with you, who by your official station and intelligence were known to be well informed on these points, and from your well established character for candor and fairness, would make no statements of facts which were not known or believed by you to be true. To a great extent, my end has been accomplished by your replies to my inquiries. How far, or whether at all, your answers have run, beyond _the facts inquired for_, into theories, arguments, and dissertations, as erroneous as mischievous, is not a matter of present consideration. We differed no wider than I expected, but that difference has been exhibited courteously, and has nothing to do with the question of publication. Your object, or rather the object of your Committee, is to publish; and I, having no reason to desire it, as you have put me in possession of the facts I wished, and no reason not to desire it, as there is nothing to conceal, will leave yourself and the Committee to take your own course, neither assenting nor dissenting, in what you may finally decide to do.

Very respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

F.H. Elmore.”

[This letter of Mr. Elmore contains but little more than a reiteration of alarming cries on the part of the slaveholder;–cries that are as old as the earliest attempts of philanthropy to break the fetters of the enslaved, and that have been repeated up to the present day, with a boldness that seems to increase, as instances of emancipation multiply to prove them groundless. Those who utter them seem, in their panic, not only to overlook the most obvious laws of the human mind, and the lights of experience, but to be almost unconscious of the great events connected with slavery, that are now passing around them in the world, and conspiring to bring about its early abrogation among all civilized and commercial nations.

However _Christian, and civilized, industrious, prosperous and happy_, the SLAVEHOLDERS of the South may be, this cannot be said of the SLAVES. A large religious denomination of the state in which Mr. Elmore resides, has deliberately pronounced them to be “HEATHEN.” _Their_ “industry” is seen at the end of the lash–of “prosperity” they have none, for they cannot possess any thing that is an element of prosperity–their “happiness” they prove, by running away from their masters, whenever they think they can effect their escape. This is the condition of a large _majority_ of the people in South Carolina, Mississippi and Louisiana.

The “two races” exist in peace in Mexico,–in all the former South American dependencies of Spain, in Antigua, in the Bermudas, in Canada, in Massachusetts, in Vermont, in fine, in every country where they enjoy _legal equality_. It is the _denial_ of this that produces discontent. MEN will never be satisfied without it. Let the slaveholders consult the irreversible laws of the human mind–make a full concession of right to those from whom they have withheld it, and they will be blessed with a peace, political, social, moral, beyond their present conceptions; without such concessions they never can possess it.

A system that cannot withstand the assaults of truth–that replies to arguments with threats–that cannot be “talked about”–that flourishes in secrecy and darkness, and dies when brought forth into the light and examined, must in this time of inexorable scrutiny and relentless agitation, be a dangerous one. If _justice_ be done, all necessity for the extirpation of any part of the people will at once be removed. Baptisms _of blood_ are seen only when humanity has failed in her offices, and the suffering discern hope only in the brute efforts of despair.

Mr. Elmore is doubtless well versed in general history. To his vigorous declamation, I reply by asking, if he can produce from the history of our race a single instance, where emancipation, full and immediate, has been followed, as a legitimate consequence, by insurrection or bloodshed. I may go further, and ask him for a well authenticated instance, where an emancipated slave, singly has imbrued his hands in his master’s blood. The first record of such an act in modern times, is yet to be made.

Mr. Elmore says “the white inhabitants in the slave states should be informed of the full length and breadth and depth of this storm which is gathering over their heads, before it breaks in its desolating fury.” In this sentiment there is not a reasonable man in the country, be he abolitionist or not, who will not coincide with him. We rejoice at the evidence we here have, in a gentleman of the influence and intelligence of Mr. Elmore, of the returning sanity of the South. How wildly and mischievously has she been heretofore misled! Whilst the Governors of Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas, have been repelling offers, made in respectful terms, of the fullest and most authentic accounts of our movements; and whilst Governor Butler of South Carolina, has not only followed the example of his gubernatorial brethren just named, but is found corresponding with an obscure culprit in Massachusetts–bribing him with a few dollars, the sum he demanded for his fraudulent promise to aid in thwarting the abolitionists[A]; whilst too, Mr. Calhoun has been willing to pass laws to shut out from his constituents and the South generally information that concerned them more nearly than all others–we now have it from the highest source, from one selected by a state delegation as its _representative_ in a general committee of the whole slaveholding delegations, that the South ought to be “_informed of the full length and breadth and depth_” of the measures, intentions, &c, of the abolitionists. At this there is not an abolitionist who will not rejoice. We ask for nothing but access to the popular mind of the South. We feel full confidence in the eternal rectitude of our principles, and of their reception at the South, when once they are understood. Let the conflict come, let the truth of liberty fairly enter the lists with the error of slavery, and we have not a doubt of a glorious triumph.

[Footnote A: Appendix H.]

May we not, after this, expect the aid of Mr. Elmore and others of equal distinction in the South, in giving to their fellow-citizens the information that we have always believed, and that they now acknowledge, to be so, important to them?

_May 24, 1838_.

JAMES G. BIRNEY.]

APPENDIX.

* * * * *

APPENDIX A.

Extract from an article addressed to the editor of the Christian Register and Observer, signed W.E.C.–attributed to the Rev. Dr. Channing.

“Speaking of slavery, I wish to recommend to your readers a book just from the press, entitled ‘Emancipation in the West Indies,’ and written by J. A. Thome and J.H. Kimball, who had visited those islands to inquire into the great experiment now going on there. I regard it as the most important work which has appeared among us for years. No man, without reading it, should undertake to pass judgment on Emancipation. It is something more than a report of the observation and opinions of the writers. It consists, chiefly, of the opinions, conversations, letters, and other documents of the very inhabitants of the islands whose judgments are most trust-worthy; of the governors, special magistrates, police officers, managers, attorneys, physicians, &c; and, in most cases, the names of these individuals are given, so that we have the strongest evidence of the correctness of the work.

The results of this great experiment surpass what the most sanguine could have hoped. It is hardly possible that the trial could have been made under more unfavorable circumstances. The planters on all the islands were opposed to the Act of Emancipation, and, in most, exceedingly and fiercely hostile to it, and utterly indisposed to give it the best chance of success. The disproportion of the colored race to the whites was fearfully great, being that of seven or eight to one; whilst, in our slaveholding states, the whites outnumber the colored people. The slaves of the West Indies were less civilized than ours, and less fit to be trusted with their own support. Another great evil was, that the proprietors, to a considerable extent, were absentees; residing in England, and leaving the care of their estates and slaves to managers and owners; the last people for such a trust, and utterly unfit to carry the wretched victims of their tyranny through the solemn transition from slavery to freedom. To complete the unhappy circumstances under which the experiment began, the Act of Emancipation was passed by a distant government, having no intimate knowledge of the subject; and the consequence was, that a system of ‘Apprenticeship,’ as it was called, was adopted, so absurd, and betraying such ignorance of the principles of human nature, that, did we not know otherwise, we might suspect its author of intending to produce a failure. It was to witness the results of an experiment promising so little good, that our authors visited three islands, particularly worthy of examination–Antigua, Barbadoes, and Jamaica.

Our authors went first to Antigua, an island which had been wise enough to foresee the mischiefs of the proposed apprenticeship, and had substituted for it immediate and unqualified emancipation. The report given of this island is most cheering. It is, indeed, one of the brightest records in history. The account, beginning page 143, of the transition from slavery to freedom, can hardly be read by a man of ordinary sensibility without a thrill of tender and holy joy. Why is it not published in all our newspapers as among the most interesting events of our age? From the accounts of Antigua, it appears that immediate emancipation has produced only good. Its fruits are, greater security, the removal of the fears which accompany slavery, better and cheaper cultivation of the soil, increased value of real estate, improved morals, more frequent marriages, and fewer crimes. _The people proclaim, with one voice, that emancipation is a blessing, and that nothing would tempt than to revert to slavery._

Our authors proceeded next to Barbadoes, where the apprenticeship system is in operation; and if any proof were needed of the docility and good dispositions of the negroes, it would be found in their acquiescence to so wonderful a degree in this unhappy arrangement. The planters on this island have been more disposed, than could have been anticipated, to make the best of this system, and here, accordingly, the same fruits of the Act of Emancipation are found as in Antigua, though less abundant; and a very general and strong conviction prevails of the happiness of the change.

In Jamaica, apprenticeship manifests its worst tendencies. The planters of this island were, from first to last, furious in their hostility to the act of emancipation; and the effort seems to have been, to make the apprenticeship bear as heavily as possible on the colored people; so that, instead of preparing them for complete emancipation, it has rather unfitted them for this boon. Still, under all these disadvantages, there is strong reason for expecting, that emancipation, when it shall come, will prove a great good. At any rate, it is hardly possible for the slaves to fall into a more deplorable condition, than that in which this interposition of parliament found them.

The degree of success which has attended this experiment in the West Indies, under such unfavorable auspices, makes us sure, that emancipation in this country, accorded by the good will of the masters, would be attended with the happiest effects. One thing is plain, that it would be perfectly _safe_. Never were the West Indies so peaceful and secure as since emancipation. So far from general massacre and insurrection, not an instance is recorded or intimated of violence of any kind being offered to a white man. Our authors were continually met by assurances of security on the part of the planters, so that, in this respect at least, emancipation has been unspeakable gain. The only obstacle to emancipation is, therefore, removed; for nothing but well grounded fears of violence and crime can authorize a man to encroach one moment on another’s freedom.

The subject of this book is of great interest at the present moment. Slavery, in the abstract, has been thoroughly discussed among us. We all agree that it is a great wrong. Not a voice is here lifted up in defence of the system, when viewed in a general light. We only differ when we come to apply our principles to a particular case. The only question is, whether the Southern states can abolish slavery consistently with the public safety, order, and peace? Many, very many well disposed people, both at the North and South, are possessed with vague fears of massacre and universal misrule, as the consequences of emancipation. Such ought to inquire into the ground of their alarm. They are bound to listen to the voice of _facts_, and such are given in this book. None of us have a right to make up our minds without inquiry, or to rest in opinions adopted indolently and without thought. It is a great crime to doom millions of our race to brutal degradation, on the ground of unreasonable fears. The power of public opinion is here irresistible, and to this power every man contributes something; so that every man, by his spirit and language, helps to loosen or rivet the chains of the slave.”

* * * * *

The following sentiments are expressed by GOVERNOR EVERETT, of Massachusetts, in a letter to EDMUND QUINCY, Esq., dated

“Boston, April 29, 1838.

DEAR SIR,–I have your favor of the 21st, accompanied with the volume containing the account of the tour of Messrs. Thome and Kimball in the West Indies, for which you will be pleased to accept my thanks. I have perused this highly interesting narrative with the greatest satisfaction. From the moment of the passage of the law, making provision for the immediate or prospective abolition of slavery in the British colonial possessions, I have looked with the deepest solicitude for tidings of its operation. The success of the measure, as it seemed to me, would afford a better hope than had before existed, that a like blessing might be enjoyed by those portions of the United States where slavery prevails. The only ground on which I had been accustomed to hear the continuance of slavery defended at the South, was that of necessity, and the impossibility of abolishing it without producing consequences of the most disastrous character to both parties. The passage of a law providing for the emancipation of nearly a million of slaves in the British colonies, seemed to afford full opportunity of bringing this momentous question to the decisive test of experience. _If the result proved satisfactory, I have never doubted that it would seal the fate of slavery throughout the civilised world_. As far as the observations of Messrs. Thome and Kimball extended, the result is of the most gratifying character. It appears to place beyond a doubt, that the experiment of immediate emancipation, adopted by the colonial Legislature of Antigua, has fully succeeded in that island; and the plan of apprenticeship in other portions of the West Indies, as well as could have been expected from the obvious inherent vices of that measure. _It has given me new views of the practicability of emancipation_. It has been effected in Antigua, as appears from unquestionable authorities contained in the work of Messrs. Thome and Kimball, not merely _without danger_ to the master, but without any sacrifice of his _interest_. I cannot but think that the information collected in the volume will have a powerful effect on public opinion, not only in the northern states, but in the slaveholding states.”

GOVERNOR ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, writes thus to A.F. WILLIAMS, Esq., of this city:–

“NEW HAVEN, _May_ 19, 1838.

MY DEAR SIR,–Just before I left home, I received from you the Journal of Thome and Kimball, for which token of friendship I intended to have made you my acknowledgments before this; but I wished first to read the book. As far as time would permit, I have gone over most of its pages; and let me assure you, it is justly calculated to produce great effects, provided you can once get it into the hands of the planters. Convince _them_ that their interests, as well as their security, will be advanced by employing free blacks, and emancipation will be accomplished without difficulty or delay.

I have looked with great interest at the startling measure of emancipation in Antigua; but if this book is correct, the question is settled as to that island beyond a doubt, since there is such accumulated testimony from all classes, that the business and real estate of the island have advanced, by reason of the emancipation, one fourth, at least, in value; while personal security, without military force, is felt by the former masters, and contentment, industry, and gratitude, are seen in those who were slaves.

The great moral example of England, in abolishing slavery in the West Indies, will produce a revolution on this subject throughout the world, and put down slavery in every Christian country.

With sentiments of high esteem, &c,

W. W. ELLSWORTH.”

* * * * *

APPENDIX B.

A short time previous to the late election in Rhode Island for governor and lieutenant-governor, a letter was addressed to each of the candidates for those offices by Mr. Johnson, Corresponding Secretary of the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, embodying the views of the abolitionists on the several subjects it embraced, in a series of queries. Their purport will appear from the answer of Mr. Sprague, (who was elected governor,) given below. The answer of Mr. Childs (elected lieutenant-governor) is fully as direct as that of governor Sprague.

“WARWICK, _March 28, 1838_.

DEAR SIR,–Your favor of the 19th inst. requesting of me, in conformity to a resolution of the Executive Committee of the Rhode Island Anti-Slavery Society, an expression of my opinions on certain topics, was duly received. I have no motive whatever for withholding my opinions on any subject which is interesting to any portion of my fellow-citizens. I will, therefore, cheerfully proceed to reply to the interrogatories proposed, and in the order in which they are submitted.

1. Among the powers vested by the Constitution in Congress, is the power to exercise exclusive legislation, ‘in all cases whatsoever,’ over the District of Columbia? ‘All cases’ must, of course, include the _case_ of slavery and the slave-trade. I am, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the Constitution does confer upon Congress the power to abolish slavery and the slave-trade in that District; and, as they are great moral and political evils, the principles of justice and humanity demand the exercise of that power.

2. The traffic in slaves, whether foreign or domestic, is equally obnoxious to every principle of justice and humanity; and, as Congress has exercised its powers to suppress the slave-trade between this country and foreign nations, it ought, as a matter of consistency and justice, to exercise the same powers to suppress the slave-trade between the states of this Union. The slave-trade within the states is, undoubtedly, beyond the control of Congress; as the ‘sovereignty of each state, to legislate exclusively on the subject of slavery, which is tolerated within its limits,’ is, I believe, universally conceded. The Constitution unquestionably recognises the sovereign power of each state to legislate on the subject within its limits; but it imposes on us no obligation to add to the evils of the system by countenancing the traffic between the states. That which our laws have solemnly pronounced to be piracy in our foreign intercourse, no sophistry can make honorable or justifiable in a domestic form. For a proof of the feelings which this traffic naturally inspires, we need but refer to the universal execration in which the slave-dealer is held in those portions of the country where the institution of slavery is guarded with the most jealous vigilance.

3. Congress has no power to abridge the right of petition. The right of the people of the non-slaveholding states to petition Congress for the abolition of slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and the traffic of human beings among the states, is as undoubted as any right guarantied by the Constitution; and I regard the Resolution which was adopted by the House of Representatives on the 21st of December last as a virtual denial of that right, inasmuch as it disposed of all such petitions, as might be presented thereafter, in advance of presentation and reception. If it was right thus to dispose of petitions on _one_ subject, it would be equally right to dispose of them in the same manner on _all_ subjects, and thus cut of all communication, by petition between the people and their representatives. Nothing can be more clearly a violation of the spirit of the Constitution, as it rendered utterly nugatory a right which was considered of such vast importance as to be specially guarantied in that sacred instrument. A similar Resolution passed the House of Representatives at the first session of the last Congress, and as I then entertained the same views which I have now expressed, I recorded my vote against it.

4. I fully concur in the sentiment, that ‘every principle of justice and humanity requires, that every human being, when personal freedom is at stake, should have the benefit of a jury trial;’ and I have no hesitation in saying, that the laws of this state ought to secure that benefit, so far as they can, to persons claimed as fugitives from ‘service or labor,’ without interfering with the laws of the United States. The course pursued in relation to this subject by the Legislature of Massachusetts meets my approbation.

5. I am opposed to all attempts to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech and the press, or to forbid any portion of the people peaceably to assemble to discuss any subject–moral, political, or religious.

6. I am opposed to the annexation of Texas to the United States.

7. It is undoubtedly inconsistent with the principles of a free state, professing to be governed in its legislation by the principles of freedom, to sanction slavery, in any form, within its jurisdiction. If we have laws in this state which bear this construction, they ought to be repealed. We should extend to our southern brethren, whenever they may have occasion to come among us, all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by our own citizens, and all the rights and privileges guarantied to them by the Constitution of the United States; but they cannot expect of us to depart from the fundamental principles of civil liberty for the purpose of obviating any temporal inconvenience which they may experience.

These are my views upon the topics proposed for my consideration. They are the views which I have always entertained, (at least ever since I have been awakened to their vast importance,) and which I have always supported, so far as I could, by my vote in Congress; and if, in any respect, my answers have not been sufficiently explicit, it will afford me pleasure to reply to any other questions which you may think proper to propose.

I am, Sir, very respectfully,

Your friend and fellow citizen,

WILLIAM SPRAGUE.”

Oliver Johnson, Esq., Cor. Sec. R.I.A.S. Society.

APPENDIX C.

The abolitionists in Connecticut petitioned the Legislature of that state at its late session on several subjects deemed by them proper for legislative action. In answer to these petitions–

1. The law known as the “Black Act” or the “Canterbury law”–under which Miss Crandall was indicted and tried–was repealed, except a single provision, which is not considered objectionable.

2. The right to _trial by jury_ was secured to persons who are claimed as slaves.

3. Resolutions were passed asserting the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and recommending that it be done as soon as it can be, “consistently with the _best good_ of the _whole country_.”(!)

4. Resolutions were passed protesting against the annexation of Texas to the Union.

5. Resolutions were passed asserting the right of petition as inalienable–condemning Mr. Patton’s resolution of Dec. 21, 1837 as an invasion of the rights of the people, and calling on the Connecticut delegation in Congress to use their efforts to have the same rescinded.

* * * * *

APPENDIX D.

In the year 1793 there were but 5,000,000 pounds of cotton produced in the United States, and but 500,000 exported. Cotton never could have become an article of much commercial importance under the old method of preparing it for market. By hand-picking, or by a process strictly _manual_, a cultivator could not prepare for market, during the year, more than from 200 to 300 pounds; being only about one-tenth of what he could cultivate to maturity in the field. In ’93 Mr. Whitney invented the Cotton-gin now in use, by which the labor of at least _one thousand_ hands under the old system, is performed by _one_, in preparing the crop for market. Seven years after the invention (1800) 35,000,000 pounds were raised, and 17,800,000 exported. In 1834, 460,000,000 were raised–384,750,000 exported. Such was the effect of Mr. Whitney’s invention. It gave, at once, extraordinary value to the _land_ in that part of the country where alone cotton could be raised; and to _slaves_, because it was the general, the almost universal, impression that the cultivation of the South could be carried on only by slaves. There being no _free_ state in the South, competition between free and slave labor never could exist on a scale sufficiently extensive to prove the superiority of the former in the production of cotton, and in the preparation of it for market.

Thus, it has happened that Mr. Whitney has been the innocent occasion of giving to slavery in this country its present importance–of magnifying it into the great interest to which all others must yield. How he was rewarded by the South–especially by the planters of Georgia–the reader may see by consulting Silliman’s Journal for January, 1832, and the Encyclopedia Americana, article, WHITNEY.

* * * * *

APPENDIX E.

It is impossible, of course, to pronounce with precision, how great would have been the effect in favor of emancipation, if the effort to resist the admission of Missouri as a slaveholding state had been successful. We can only conjecture what it would have been, by the effect its admission has had in fostering slavery up to its present huge growth and pretensions. If the American people had shown, through their National legislature, a _sincere_ opposition to slavery by the rejection of Missouri, it is probable at least–late as it was–that the early expiration of the ‘system’ would, by this time, have been discerned by all men.

When the Constitution was formed, the state of public sentiment even in the South–with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, was favorable to emancipation. Under the influence of this public sentiment was the Constitution formed. No person at all versed in constitutional or legal interpretation–with his judgment unaffected by interest or any of the prejudices to which the existing controversy has given birth–could, it is thought, construe the Constitution, _in its letter_, as intending to perpetuate slavery. To come to such a conclusion with a full knowledge of what was the mind of this nation in regard to slavery, when that instrument was made, demonstrates a moral or intellectual flaw that makes all reasoning useless.

Although it is a fact beyond controversy in our history, that the power conferred by the Constitution on Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” was known to include the power of abolishing the African slave-trade–and that it was expected that Congress, at the end of the period for which the exercise of that power on this particular subject was restrained, would use it (as it did) _with a view to the influence that the cutting off of that traffic would have on the “system” in this country_–yet, such has been the influence of the action of Congress on all matters with which slavery has been mingled–more especially on the Missouri question, in which slavery was the sole interest–that an impression has been produced on the popular mind, that the Constitution of the United States _guaranties_, and consequently _perpetuates_, slavery to the South. Most artfully, incessantly, and powerfully, has this lamentable error been harped on by the slaveholders, and by their advocates in the free states. The impression of _constitutional favor_ to the slaveholders would, of itself, naturally create for them an undue and disproportionate influence in the control of the government; but when to this is added the arrogance that the possession of irresponsible power almost invariably engenders in its possessors–their overreaching assumptions–the contempt that the slaveholders entertain for the great body of the _people_ of the North, it has almost delivered over the government, bound neck and heels, into the hands of slaveholding politicians–to be bound still more rigorously, or unloosed, as may seem well in their discretion.

Who can doubt that, as a nation, we should have been more honorable and influential abroad–more prosperous and united at home–if Kentucky, at the very outset of this matter, had been refused admission to the Union until she had expunged from her Constitution the covenant with oppression? She would not have remained out of the Union a single year on that account. If the worship of Liberty had not been exchanged for that of Power–if her principles had been successfully maintained in this first assault, their triumph in every other would have been easy. We should not have had a state less in the confederacy, and slavery would have been seen, at this time, shrunk up to the most contemptible dimensions, if it had not vanished entirely away. But we have furnished another instance to be added to the long and melancholy list already existing, to prove that,–

“facilis descensus Averni, Sed revocare gradum
Hoc opus hic labor est,”

if _poetry_ is not _fiction_.

Success in the Missouri struggle–late as it was–would have placed the cause of freedom in our country out of the reach of danger from its inexorable foe. The principles of liberty would have struck deeper root in the free states, and have derived fresh vigor from such a triumph. If these principles had been honored by the government from that period to the present, (as they would have been, had the free states, even then, assumed their just preponderance in its administration,) we should now have, in Missouri herself, a healthful and vigorous ally in the cause of freedom; and, in Arkansas, a free people–_twice_ her present numbers–pressing on the confines of slavery, and summoning the keepers of the southern charnel-house to open its doors, that its inmates might walk forth, in a glorious resurrection to liberty and life. Although young, as a people, we should be, among the nations, venerable for our virtue; and we should exercise an influence on the civilized and commercial world that we most despair of possessing, as long as we remain vulnerable to every shaft that malice, or satire, or philanthropy may find it convenient to hurl against us.[A]

[Footnote A: A comic piece–the production of one of the most popular of the French writers in his way–had possession of the Paris stage last winter. When one of the personages SEPARATES HUSBAND AND WIFE, he cries out, “BRAVO! THIS IS THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE UNITED STATES!” [Bravo! C’est la Declaration d’Independence des Etats Unis.]

One of our distinguished College-professors, lately on a tour in Europe, had his attention called, while passing along the street of a German city, to the pictorial representation of a WHITE MAN SCOURGING A SUPPLICATING COLORED FEMALE, with this allusion underwritten:–“A SPECIMEN OF EQUALITY–FROM REPUBLICAN AMERICA.”

Truly might our countryman have exclaimed in the language, if not with the generous emotions of the Trojan hero, when he beheld the noble deeds of his countrymen pencilled in a strange land–

–“Quis jam locus–
Quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?” ]

Instead of being thus seated on a “heaven-kissing hill,” and seen of all in its pure radiance; instead of enjoying its delightful airs, and imparting to them the healthful savor of justice, truth, mercy, magnanimity, see what a picture we present;–our cannibal burnings of human beings–our Lynch courts–our lawless scourgings and capital executions, not only of slaves, but of freemen–our demoniac mobs raging through the streets of our cities and large towns at midday as well as at midnight, shedding innocent blood, devastating property, and applying the incendiaries’ torch to edifices erected and dedicated to FREE DISCUSSION–the known friends of order, of law, of liberty, of the Constitution–citizens, distinguished for their worth at home, and reflecting honor on their country abroad, shut out from more than half our territory, or visiting it at the hazard of their lives, or of the most degrading and painful personal inflictions–freedom of speech and of the press overthrown and hooted at–the right of petition struck down in Congress, where, above all places, it ought to have been maintained to the last–the people mocked at, and attempted to be gagged by their own servants–the time the office-honored veteran, who fearlessly contended for the _right_, publicly menaced for words spoken in his place as a representative of the people, with an indictment by a slaveholding grand jury–in fine, the great principles of government asserted by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in our Constitution, with which they won for us the sympathy, the admiration of the world–all forgotten, dishonoured, despised, trodden under foot! And this for slavery!!

Horrible catalogue!–yet by no means a complete one–for so young a nation, boasting itself, too, to be the freest on earth! It is the ripe fruit of that _chef d’oeuvre_ of political skill and patriotic achievement–the MISSOURI COMPROMISE.

Another such compromise–or any compromise now with slavery–and the nation is undone.

APPENDIX F.

The following is believed to be a correct exhibit of the legislative resolutions against the annexation of Texas–of the times at which they were passed, and of the _votes_ by which they were passed:–

1. VERMONT.

“1. _Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives_, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use their influence in that body to prevent the annexation of Texas to the Union.

2. _Resolved_, That representing, as we do, the people of Vermont, we do hereby, in their name, SOLEMNLY PROTEST against such annexation in any form.”

[Passed unanimously, Nov. 1, 1837.]

2. RHODE ISLAND.

(_In General Assembly, October Session, A. D. 1837_.)

“Whereas the compact of the Union between these states was entered into by the people thereof in their respective states, ‘in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity;’ and, therefore, a Representative Government was instituted by them, with certain limited powers, clearly specified and defined in the Constitution–all other powers, not therein expressly relinquished, being ‘reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.’

And whereas this limited government possesses no power to extend its jurisdiction over any foreign nation, and no foreign nation, country, or people, can be admitted into this Union but by the sovereign will and act of the free people of all and each of these United States, nor without the formation of a new compact of Union–and another frame of government radically different, in objects, principles, and powers, from that which was framed for our own self-government, and deemed to be adequate to all the exigencies of our own free republic:–

Therefore, Resolved, That we have witnessed, with deep concern, the indications of a disposition to bring into this Union, as a constituent member thereof, the foreign province or territory of Texas.

Resolved, That, although we are fully aware of the consequences which must follow the accomplishment of such a project, could it be accomplished–aware that it would lead speedily to the conquest and annexation of Mexico itself, and its fourteen remaining provinces or intendencies–which, together with the revolted province of Texas, would furnish foreign territories and foreign people for at least twenty members of the new Union; that the government of a nation so extended and so constructed would soon become radically [changed] in character, if not in form–would unavoidably become a military government; and, under the plea of necessity, would free itself from the restraints of the Constitution and from its accountability to the people. That the ties of kindred, common origin and common interests, which have so long bound this people together, and would still continue to bind them: these ties, which ought to be held sacred by all true Americans, would be angrily dissolved, and sectional political combinations would be formed with the newly admitted foreign states, unnatural and adverse to the peace and prosperity of the country. The civil government, with all the arbitrary powers it might assume, would be unable to control the storm. The usurper would find himself in his proper element; and, after acting the patriot and the hero for a due season, as the only means of rescuing the country from the ruin which he had chiefly contributed to bring upon it, would reluctantly and modestly allow himself to be declared ‘Protector of the Commonwealth.’

We are now fully aware of the deep degradation into which the republic would sink itself in the eyes of the whole world, should it annex to its own vast territories other and foreign territories of immense though unknown extent, for the purpose of encouraging the propagation of slavery, and giving aid to the raising of slaves within its own bosom, the very bosom of freedom, to be esported and sold in those unhallowed regions. Although we are fully aware of these fearful evils, and numberless others which would come in their train, yet we do not here dwell upon them; because we are here firmly convinced that the free people of most, and we trust of all these states, will never suffer the admission of the foreign territory of Texas into this Union as a constituent member thereof–will never suffer the integrity of this Republic to be violated, either by the introduction and addition to it of foreign nations or territories, one or many, or by dismemberment of it by the transfer of any one or more of its members to a foreign nation. The people will be aware, that should one foreign state or country be introduced, another and another may be, without end, whether situated in South America, in the West India islands, or in any other part of the world; and that a single foreign state, thus admitted, might have in its power, by holding the balance between contending parties, to wrest their own government from the hands and control of the people, by whom it was established for their own benefit and self-government. We are firmly convinced, that the free people of these states will look upon any attempt to introduce the foreign territory of Texas, or any other foreign territory or nation into this Union, as a constituent member or members thereof, as manifesting a willingness to prostrate the Constitution and dissolve the Union.

Resolved, That His Excellency, the Governor, be requested to forward a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to each of the Executives of the several states, with a request that the same may be laid before the respective Legislatures of said states.”

[The Preamble and Resolutions were unanimously adopted, Nov. 3, 1837.]

3. OHIO.

“_Resolved, by the General Assembly of the State of Ohio_, That in the name, and on behalf of the people of the State of Ohio, we do hereby SOLEMNLY PROTEST against the annexation of Texas to the Union of these United States.

_And be it further resolved_, That the Governor be requested to transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and to the Governors of each of the States, a copy of the foregoing resolution, with a statement of the votes by which it was passed in each branch of the Legislature.”

[Passed by 64 out of 72, the whole number in the House of Representatives–unanomously in the Senate. Feb. 24, 1838.]

4. MASSACHUSETTS.

“Resolves against the annexation of Texas to the United States.

Whereas a proposition to admit into the United States as a constituent member thereof, the foreign nation of Texas, has been recommended by the legislative resolutions of several States, and brought before Congress for its approval and sanction; and whereas such a measure would involve great wrong to Mexico, and otherwise be of evil precedent, injurious to the interests and dishonorable to the character of this country; and whereas its avowed objects are doubly fraught with peril to the prosperity and permanence of this Union, as tending to disturb and destroy the conditions of those compromises and concessions, entered into at the formation of the Constitution, by which the relative weights of different sections and interests were adjusted, and to strengthen and extend the evils of a system which is unjust in itself, in striking contrast with the theory of our institutions, and condemned by the moral sentiment of mankind; and whereas the people of these United States have not granted to any or all of the departments of their Government, but have retained in themselves, the only power adequate to the admission of a foreign nation into this confederacy; therefore,

_Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, do in the name of the people of Massachusetts, earnestly and solemnly protest against the incorporation of Texas into this Union, and declare, that no act done or compact made, for such purpose by the government of the United States, will be binding on the States or the People.

_Resolved_, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to forward a copy of these resolutions and the accompanying report to the Executive of the United States, and the Executive of each State and also to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, with a request that they present the resolves to both Houses of Congress.”

[Passed MARCH 16, 1838, UNANIMOUSLY, in both Houses.]

* * * * *

5. MICHIGAN.

Whereas, propositions have been made for the annexation of Texas to the United States, with a view to its ultimate incorporation into the Union:

“And whereas, the extension of this General Government over so large a country on the south-west, between which and that of the original states, there is little affinity, and less identity of interest, would tend, in the opinion of this Legislature, greatly to disturb the safe and harmonious operations of the Government of the United States, and put in imminent danger the continuance of this happy Union: Therefore,

_Be it resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of Michigan_, That in behalf, and in the name of the State of Michigan, this Legislature doth hereby dissent from, and solemnly protest against the annexation, for any purpose, to this Union, of Texas, or of any other territory or district of country, heretofore constituting a part of the dominions of Spain in America, lying west or south-west of Louisiana.

And be it further Resolved, by the Authority aforesaid, That the Governor of this State be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolve, under the great seal of this state, to the President of the United States; also, that he transmit one copy thereof, authenticated in manner aforesaid, to the President of the Senate of the United States, with the respectful request of this Legislature, that the same may be laid before the Senate; also, that he transmit one copy thereof to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, authenticated in like manner, with the respectful request of this Legislature, that the same may be laid before the House of Representatives; and also, that he transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, one copy thereof, together with the Report adopted by this Legislature, and which accompanies said preamble and resolves.”

[Passed nearly if not quite unanimously, April 2, 1838].

* * * * *

6. CONNECTICUT.

“_Resolved_, That we, the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened, do, in the name of the people of this State, solemnly _protest_ against the annexation of Texas to this Union.”

[Passed, it is believed, unanimously in both houses.]

* * * * *

(Those which follow were passed by but one branch of the respective Legislatures in which they were introduced.)

7. PENNSYLVANIA.

_Resolutions relative to the admission of Texas into the Union._

“_Whereas_ the annexation of Texas to the United States has been advocated and strongly urged by many of our fellow-citizens, particularly in the southern part of our country, and the president of Texas has received authority to open a correspondence with, and appoint, a commissioner to our government to accomplish the object;–_And whereas_ such a measure would bring to us a dangerous extension of territory, with a population generally not desirable, and would probably involve us in war;–_And whereas_ the subject is now pressed upon and agitated in Congress; therefore,

_Resolved_, &c, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, and our Representatives requested, to use their influence and vote against the annexation of Texas to the territory of the united States.

_Resolved_, That the Governor transmit to each of our Senators and Representatives a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions.”

[Passed the Senate March 9, 1835, by 22 to 6. Postponed indefinitely in the House of Representatives, April 13, by 41 to 39.]

* * * * *

8. MAINE.

“_Resolved_, That the Legislature of the State of Maine, on behalf of the people of said state, do earnestly and solemnly protest against the annexation of the Republic of Texas to these United States; and that our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they hereby are, requested to exert their utmost influence to prevent the adoption of a measure at once so clearly unconstitutional, and so directly calculated to disturb our foreign relations, to destroy our domestic peace, and to dismember our blessed Union.”

[Passed in the House of Representatives, March 22, 1838, by 85 to 30. Senate (same day) refused to concur by 11 to 10.]

* * * * *

9. NEW-YORK.

“_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That the admission of the Republic of Texas into this Union would be entirely repugnant to the will of the people of this state, and would endanger the union of these United States.

_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur,) That this Legislature do, in the name of the people of the State of New York, solemnly protest against the admission of the Republic of Texas into this Union.

_Resolved_, (if the Senate concur.) That his Excellency the Governor be requested to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to each of our Senators and Representatives in Congress, and also to the governors of each of the United States, with a request that the same be laid before their respective Legislatures.”

[These resolutions passed the House of Representatives in April, by a large majority–the newspapers say, 83 to 13. They were indefinitely postponed in the Senate, by a vote of 21 to 9.]

* * * * *

APPENDIX G.

The number of petitioners for abolition in the District of Columbia, and on other subjects allied to it, have been ascertained (in the House of Representatives) to be as follows:–

Men. Women. Total. For abolition in the District, 51,366 78,882 130,248 Against the annexation of Texas, 104,973 77,419 182,392 Rescinding the gag resolution, 21,015 10,821 31,836 Against admitting any new slave state, 11,770 10,391 22,161 For abolition of the slave-trade
between the states, 11,864 11,541 23,405 For abolition of slavery in the
territories, 9,129 12,083 21,212 At the extra session for rescinding
the gag resolution of Jan. 21, 1837, 3,377 3,377 —————————- Total, 213,494 201,137 414,631

The number in the Senate, where some difficulty was interposed that prevented its being taken, is estimated to have been about two-thirds as great as that in the House.

* * * * *

APPENDIX H.

[On the 1st of December, one of the secretaries of the American Anti-Slavery Society addressed a note to each of the Governors of the slave states, in which he informed them, in courteous and respectful terms, that he had directed the Publishing Agent of this society, thereafter regularly to transmit to them, free of charge, the periodical publications issued from the office of the society. To this offer the following replies were received:–]

GOVERNOR CAMPBELL’S LETTER.

JAMES G. BIRNEY, Esq., _New York_

“RICHMOND, _Dec. 4, 1837_.

SIR,–I received, by yesterday’s mail, your letter of the 1st instant, in which you state that you had directed the publishing agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society, hereafter, regularly to transmit, free of charge, by mail, to all the governors of the slave states, the periodical publications issued from that office.

Regarding your society as highly mischievous, I decline receiving any communications from it, and must request that no publications from your office be transmitted to me.

I am, &c,

DAVID CAMPBELL.”

* * * * *

GOVERNOR BAGBY’S LETTER.

“TUSCALOOSA, _Jan. 6, 1838_

SIR,–I received, by due course of mail, your favor of the 1st of December, informing me that you had directed the publishing agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society to forward to the governors of the slaveholding states the periodicals issued from that office. Taking it for granted, that the only object which the society or yourself could have in view, in adopting this course, is, the dissemination of the opinions and principles of the society–having made up my own opinion, unalterably, in relation to the whole question of slavery, as it exists in a portion of the United States, and feeling confident that, in the correctness of this opinion, I am sustained by the entire free white population of Alabama, as well as the great body of the people of this Union, I must, with the greatest respect for yourself, personally but not for the opinions or principles advocated by the society–positively decline receiving said publications, or any others of a similar character, either personally or officially. Indeed, it is presuming a little too much, to expect that the chief magistrate of a free people, elected by themselves, would hold correspondence or give currency to the publications of an organized society, openly engaged in a scheme fraught with more mischievous consequences to their interest and repose, than any that the wit or folly of mankind has heretofore devised.

I am, very respectfully,

Your ob’t servant,

A.P. BAGBY”

JAMES G. BIRNEY, _Esq., New York_.

* * * * *

GOVERNOR CANNON’S LETTER.

[This letter required so many alterations to bring it up to the ordinary standard of epistolary, grammatical, and orthographical accuracy, that it is thought best to give it in _word_ and _letter_, precisely as it was received at the office.]

“EXECUTIVE DEPT.–

NASHVILLE. _Dec. 12th, 1837_.

Sir

I have rec’d yours of the 1st Inst notifying me, that you had directed, your periodical publications, on the subject of Slavery to be sent to me free of charge &c–and you are correct, if sincere, in your views, in supposing that we widely differ, on this subject, we do indeed widely differ, on it, if the publications said to have emanated from you, are honest and sincere, which, I admit, is possible.

My opinions are fix’d and settled, and I seldom Look into or examine, the, different vague notions of others who write and theorise on that subject. Hence I trust you will not expect me to examine, what you have printed on this subject, or cause to have printed. If you or any other man are influenced by feelings of humanity, and are laboring to relieve the sufferings, of the human race, you may find objects enough immediately around you, where you are, in any nonslaveholding State, to engage your, attention, and all your exertions, in that good cause.

But if your aim is to make a flourish on the subject, before the world, and to gain yourself some notoriety, or distinction, without, doing good to any, and evil to many, of the human race, you are, pursuing the course calculated to effect. Such an object, in which no honest man need envy. Your honours, thus gaind, I know there are many such in our country, but would fain hope, you are not one of them. If you have Lived, as you state forty years in a Slave holding State, you know that, that class of its population, are not the most, miserable, degraded, or unhappy, either in their feelings or habits, You know they are generally governd, and provided for by men of information and understanding sufficient to guard them against the most, odious vices, and hibets of the country, from which, you know the slaves are in a far greater degree, exempt than, are other portions of the population. That the slaves are the most happy, moral and contented generally, and free from suffering of any kind, having, each full confidence, in his masters, skill means and disposition to provide well for him, knowing also at the same time that _it is his interest to do it_. Hence in this State of Society more than any other, Superior intelligence has the ascendency, in governing and provideing, for the wants of those inferior, also in giveing direction to their Labour, and industry, as should be the case, superior intelligence Should govern, when united with Virtue, and interest, that great predominating principle in all human affairs. It is my rule of Life, when I see any man labouring to produce effects, at a distance from him, while neglecting the objects immediately around him, (in doing good) to suspect his sincerity, to suspect him for some selfish, or sinister motive, all is not gold that glitters, and every man is not what he, endeavours to appear to be, is too well known. It is the duty of masters to take care of there slaves and provide for them, and this duty I believe is as generally and as fully complyd with as any other duty enjoind on the human family, for next to their children their own offspring, their slaves stand next foremost in their care and attention, there are indeed very few instances of a contrary character.

You can find around you, I doubt not a large number of persons intemix’d, in your society, who are entirely destitute of that care, and attention, towards them that is enjoyed by our slaves, and who are destitute of that deep feeling of interest, in guarding their morals and habits, and directing them through Life in all things, which is here enjoyd by our slaves, to those let your efforts be directed immediately around you and do not trouble with your vague speculations those who are contented and happy, at a distance from you.

Very respectfully yours,

N. CANNON.”

Mr. JAS. G. BIRNEY, _Cor. Sec._ &c.

* * * * *

[The letter of the Secretary to the governor of South Carolina was not _answered_, but was so inverted and folded as to present the _subscribed_ name of the secretary, as the _superscription_ of the same letter to be returned. The addition of _New York_ to the address brought it back to this office.

Whilst governor Butler was thus refusing the information that was proffered to him in the most respectful terms from this office, he was engaged in another affair, having connection with the anti-slavery movement, as indiscreet, as it was unbecoming the dignity of the office he holds. The following account of it is from one of the Boston papers:–]

“_Hoaxing a Governor_.–The National Aegis says, that Hollis Parker, who was sentenced to the state prison at the late term of the criminal court for Worcester county, for endeavoring to extort money from governor Everett, had opened an extensive correspondence, previous to his arrest, with similar intent, with other distinguished men of the country. Besides several individuals in New York, governor Butler, of South Carolina, was honored with his notice. A letter from that gentleman, directed to Parker, was lately received at the post office in a town near Worcester, enclosing a check for fifty dollars. So far as the character of Parker’s letter can be inferred from the reply of governor Butler, it would appear, that Parker informed the governor, that the design was entertained by some of our citizens, of transmitting to South Carolina a quantity of ‘incendiary publications,’ and that with the aid of a little money, he (Parker) would be able to unravel the plot, and furnish full information concerning it to his excellency. The bait took, and the money was forwarded, with earnest appeals to Parker to be vigilant and active in thoroughly investigating the supposed conspiracy against the peace and happiness of the South.

The Aegis has the following very just remarks touching this case:–‘Governor Butler belongs to a state loud in its professions of regard for state rights and state sovereignty. We, also, are sincere advocates of that good old republican doctrine. It strikes us, that it would have comported better with the spirit of that doctrine, the dignity, of his own station and character, the respect and courtesy due to a sovereign and independent state, if governor Butler had made the proper representation, if the subject was deserving of such notice, to the acknowledged head and constituted authorities of that state, instead of holding official correspondence with a citizen of a foreign jurisdiction, and employing a secret agent and informer, whose very offer of such service was proof of the base and irresponsible character of him who made it.'”

* * * * *

GOVERNOR CONWAY’S LETTER.

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, _March_ 1, 1838.

Sir–A newspaper, headed ‘_The Emancipator_,’ in which you are announced the ‘publishing agent,’ has, for some weeks past, arrived at the post office in this city, to my address. Not having subscribed, or authorized any individual to give my name as a subscriber, for that or any such paper, it is entirely _gratuitous_ on the part of its publishers to send me a copy; and not having a favorable opinion of the _intentions_ of the _authors and founders_ of the ‘_American Anti-Slavery Society_;’ I have to request a discontinuance of ‘_The Emancipator_.’

Your ob’t servant, “J.S. CONWAY.”

R. G. WILLIAMS, Esq., New York.

* * * * *

[NOTE.–The following extract of a letter, from the late Chief Justice Jay to the late venerable Elias Boudinot, dated Nov. 17, 1819, might well have formed part of Appendix E. Its existence, however, was not known till it was too late to insert it in its most appropriate place. It shows the view taken of some of the _constitutional_ questions by a distinguished jurist,–one of the purest patriots too, by whom our early history was illustrated.]

“Little can be added to what has been said and written on the subject of slavery. I concur in the opinion, that it ought not to be _introduced, nor permitted_ in any of the _new_ states; and that it ought to be gradually diminished, and finally, abolished, in all of them.

To me, the _constitutional authority_ of the Congress to prohibit the _migration_ and _importation_ of slaves into any of the states, does not appear questionable.

The first article of the Constitution specifics the legislative powers committed to Congress. The ninth section of that article has these words:–‘The _migration_ or _importation_ of such persons as any of the _now existing_ states shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808–but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding _ten dollars_ for each person.’

I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, That the power of the Congress, although _competent to prohibit such migration and importation_, was not to be exercised with respect to the THEN existing states, and _them only_, until the year 1808; but that Congress were at liberty to make such prohibition as to any _new state_ which might in the _meantime_ be established. And further, that from and after _that_ period, they were authorized to make such prohibition as to _all the states, whether new or old_.

Slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, on account of the existing toleration of slavery, and its discordancy with the principles of the Revolution; and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to those propositions to the Declaration of Independence:–‘We hold these truths to be self-evident–that all men are created equal–that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights–and that, among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'”

* * * * *

NO. 9.

THE ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER.

* * * * *

LETTER

OF

GERRIT SMITH,

TO

HON. HENRY CLAY.

* * * * *

NEW YORK:

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, NO. 143 NASSAU STREET. —– 1839.

* * * * *
This No. contains 3-1/2 sheets.–Postage, under 100 miles, 6 cts. over 100, 10 cts.

_Please Read and circulate_.

LETTER.

* * * * *

PETERBORO, MARCH 21, 1839.

HON. HENRY CLAY:

DEAR SIR,

In the Annual Meeting of the American Colonization Society, held in the Capitol in the city of Washington, December, 1835, you commented on a speech made by myself, the previous autumn. Your objections to that speech formed the principal subject matter of your remarks. Does not this fact somewhat mitigate the great presumption of which I feel myself guilty, in undertaking, all unhonored and humble as I am, to review the production of one of the most distinguished statesmen of the age?

Until the appearance of your celebrated speech on the subject of slavery, I had supposed that you cherished a sacred regard for the right of petition. I now find, that you value it no more highly than they do, who make open war upon it. Indeed, you admit, that, in relation to this right, “there is no substantial difference between” them and yourself. Instead of rebuking, you compliment them; and, in saying that “the majority of the Senate” would not “violate the right of petition in any case, in which, according to its judgment, the object of the petition could be safely or properly granted,” you show to what destructive conditions you subject this absolute right. Your doctrine is, that in those cases, where the object of the petition is such, as the supplicated party can approve, previously to any discussion of its merits–there, and there only, exists the right of petition. For aught I see, you are no more to be regarded as the friend of this right, than is the conspicuous gentleman[A] who framed the Report on that subject, which was presented to the Senate of my state the last month. That gentleman admits the sacredness of “the right to petition on any subject;” and yet, in the same breath, he insists on the equal sacredness of the right to refuse to attend to a petition. He manifestly failed to bear in mind, that a right to petition implies the correlative right to be heard. How different are the statesmen, who insist “on the right to refuse to attend to a petition,” from Him, who says, “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard.” And who are poor, if it be not those for whom the abolitionists cry? They must even cry by proxy. For, in the language of John Quincy Adams, the champion of the right of petition, “The slave is not permitted to cry for mercy–to plead for pardon–to utter the shriek of perishing nature for relief.” It may be well to remark, that the error, which I have pointed out in the Report in question, lies in the premises of the principal argument of that paper; and that the correction of this error is necessarily attended with the destruction of the premises, and with the overthrow of the argument, which is built upon them.

[Footnote A: Colonel Young.]

I surely need not stop to vindicate the right of petition. It is a natural right–one that human laws can guarantee, but can neither create nor destroy. It is an interesting fact, that the Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which guarantees the right of petition, was opposed in the Congress of 1789 as superfluous. It was argued, that this is “a self-evident, inalienable right, which the people possess,” and that “it would never be called in question.” What a change in fifty years!

You deny the power of Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in human beings; and, inasmuch as you say, that the right “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,” does not include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce; and, inasmuch as it is understood, that it was in virtue of the right to regulate commerce, that Congress enacted laws to restrain our participation in the “African slave trade,” you perhaps also deny, that Congress had the power to enact such laws. The history of the times in which the Federal Constitution was framed and adopted, justifies the belief, that the clause of that instrument under consideration conveys the power, which Congress exercised. For instance, Governor Randolph, when speaking in the Virginia Convention of 1788, of the clause which declares, that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808,” said, “This is an exception from the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is to continue only till 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future importations.”

Were I, however, to admit that the right “to regulate commerce,” does not include the right to prohibit and destroy commerce, it nevertheless would not follow, that Congress might not prohibit or destroy certain branches of commerce. It might need to do so, in order to preserve our general commerce with a state or nation. So large a proportion of the cloths of Turkey might be fraught with the contagion of the plague, as to make it necessary for our Government to forbid the importation of all cloths from that country, and thus totally destroy one branch of our commerce with it, to the end that the other branches might be preserved. No inconsiderable evidence that Congress has the right to prohibit or destroy a branch of commerce, is to be found in the fact, that it has done so. From March, 1794, to May, 1820, it enacted several laws, which went to prohibit or destroy, and, in the end, did prohibit or destroy the trade of this country with Africa in human beings. And, if Congress has the power to pass embargo laws, has it not the power to prohibit or destroy commerce altogether?

It is, however, wholly immaterial, whether Congress could prohibit our participation in the “African slave trade,” in virtue of the clause which empowers it “to regulate commerce.” That the Constitution does, in some one or more of its passages, convey the power, is manifest from the testimony of the Constitution itself. The first clause of the ninth section says: “The migration or importation of such persons, as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to they year 1808.” Now the implication in this clause of the existence of the power in question, is as conclusive, as would be the express and positive grant of it. You will observe, too, that the power of Congress over “migration or importation,” which this clause implies, is a power not merely to “regulate,” as you define the word, but to “prohibit.”

It is clear, then, that Congress had the power to interdict our trade in human beings with Africa. But, in view of what has been said on that point–in view of the language of the Federal Constitution–of the proceedings of the Convention, which framed it–and of the cotemporary public sentiment–is it any less clear, that Congress has the power to interdict the inter-state traffic in human beings?

There are some, who assert that the words “migration” and “importation,” instead of referring, as I maintain they do–the former to the removal of slaves from state to state, and the latter to their introduction from Africa–are used in the Constitution as synonyms, and refer exclusively to the “African slave trade.” But there is surely no ground for the imputation of such utter tautology, if we recollect that the Constitution was written by scholars, and that remarkable pains were taken to clear it of all superfluous words–a Committee having been appointed for that special purpose. But, it may be asked, Why, in reference to the taking of slaves from one state to another, use the word “migration,” which denotes voluntary removal? One answer is–that it can be used with as much propriety in that case, as in the removal of slaves from Africa–the removal in the one case being no less involuntary than in the other. Another answer is–that the framers of the Constitution selected the word “migration,” because of its congruity with that of “persons,” under which their virtuous shame sought to conceal from posterity the existence of seven hundred thousand slaves amongst a people, who had but recently entered upon their national career, with the solemn declaration, that “all men are created equal.”

John Jay, whose great celebrity is partly owing to his very able expositions of the Constitution, says: “To me, the constitutional authority of the Congress to prohibit the migration _and_ importation of slaves into any of the states, does not appear questionable.” If the disjunctive between “migration” and “importation” in the Constitution, argues their reference to the same thing, Mr. Jay’s copulative argues more strongly, that, in his judgment, they refer to different things.

The law of Congress constituting the “Territory of Orleans,” was enacted in 1804. It fully recognizes the power of that body to prohibit the trade in slaves between a territory and the states. But, if Congress had this power, why had it not as clear a power to prohibit, at that time, the trade in slaves between any two of the states? It might have prohibited it, but for the constitutional suspension of the exercise of the power. The term of that suspension closed, however, in 1808; and, since that year, Congress has had as full power to abolish the whole slave trade between the states, as it had in 1804 to abolish the like trade between the Territory of Orleans and the states.

But, notwithstanding the conclusive evidence, that the Constitution empowers Congress to abolish the inter-state slave trade, it is incomprehensible to many, that such states as Virginia and Maryland should have consented to deprive themselves of the benefit of selling their slaves into other states. It is incomprehensible, only because they look upon such states in the light of their present character and present interests. It will no longer be so, if they will bear in mind, that slave labor was then, as it is now, unprofitable for ordinary agriculture, and that Whitney’s cotton-gin, which gave great value to such labor, was not yet invented, and that the purchase of Louisiana, which has had so great an effect to extend and perpetuate the dominion of slavery, was not yet made. It will no longer be incomprehensible to them, if they will recollect, that, at the period in question, American slavery was regarded as a rapidly decaying, if not already expiring institution. It will no longer be so, if they will recollect, how small was the price of slaves then, compared with their present value; and that, during the ten years, which followed the passage of the Act of Virginia in 1782, legalizing manumissions, her citizens emancipated slaves to the number of nearly one-twentieth of the whole amount of her slaves in that year. To learn whether your native Virginia clung in the year 1787 to the inter-state traffic in human flesh, we must take our post of observation, not amongst her degenerate sons, who, in 1836, sold men, women, and children, to the amount of twenty-four millions of dollars–not amongst her President Dews, who write books in favor of breeding human stock for exportation–but amongst her Washingtons, and Jeffersons, and Henrys, and Masons, who, at the period when the Constitution was framed, freely expressed their abhorrence of slavery.

But, however confident you may be, that Congress has not the lawful power to abolish the branch of commerce in question; nevertheless, would the abolition of it be so clearly and grossly unconstitutional, as to justify the contempt with which the numerous petitions for the measure are treated, and the impeachment of their fidelity to the Constitution, and of their patriotism and purity, which the petitioners are made to endure?

I was about to take it for granted, that, although you deny the power of Congress to abolish the inter-state traffic in human beings, you do not justify the traffic–when I recollected the intimation in your speech, that there is no such traffic. For, when you speak of “the slave trade between the states,” and add–“or, as it is described in abolition petitions, the traffic in human beings between the states”–do you not intimate there is no such traffic? Whence this language? Do you not believe slaves are human beings? And do you not believe that they suffer under the disruption of the dearest earthly ties, as human beings suffer? I will not detain you to hear what we of the North think of this internal slave trade. But I will call your attention to what is thought of it in your own Kentucky and in your native Virginia. Says the “Address of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky to the Churches in 1835:”–“Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives, are torn asunder, and permitted to see each other no more. Those acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and the agony often witnessed on such occasions, proclaim with a trumpet tongue the iniquity and cruelty of the system. There is not a neighborhood where these heart-rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a village or road that does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose chains and mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from all that their hearts hold dear.” Says Thomas Jefferson Randolph, in the Virginia Legislature in 1832, when speaking of this trade: “It is a practice, and an increasing practice, in parts of Virginia, to rear slaves for market. How can an honourable mind, a patriot, and a lover of his country, bear to see this ancient dominion, rendered illustrious by the noble devotion and patriotism of her sons in the cause of liberty, converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared for the market like oxen for the shambles. Is it better–is it not worse than the (foreign) slave trade–that trade which enlisted the labor of the good and wise of every creed and every clime to abolish? The (foreign) trader receives the slave, a stranger in language, aspect, and manner, from the merchant who has brought him from the interior. The ties of father, mother, husband, and child, have already been rent in twain; before he receives him, his soul has become callous. But here, sir, individuals whom the master has known from infancy, whom he has seen sporting in the innocent gambols of childhood–who have been accustomed to look to him for protection, he tears from the mother’s arms, and sells into a strange country–among strange people, subject to cruel taskmasters.”

You are in favor of increasing the number of slave states. The terms of the celebrated “Missouri compromise” warrant, in your judgment, the increase. But, notwithstanding you admit, that this unholy compromise, in which tranquillity was purchased at the expense of humanity and righteousness, does not “in terms embrace the case,” and “is not absolutely binding and obligatory;” you, nevertheless, make no attempt whatever to do away any one of the conclusive objections, which are urged against such increase. You do not attempt to show how the multiplication of slave states can consist with the constitutional duty of the “United States to guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government,” any more than if it were perfectly clear, that a government is republican under which one half of the people are lawfully engaged in buying and selling the other half; or than if the doctrine that “all men are created equal” were not the fundamental and distinctive doctrine of a republican government. You no more vindicate the proposition to enlarge the realm of slavery, than if the proposition were as obviously in harmony with, as it is opposed to the anti-slavery tenor and policy of the Constitution–the rights of man–and the laws of God.

You are perhaps of the number of those, who, believing, that a state can change its Constitution as it pleases, deem it futile in Congress to require, that States, on entering the Union, shall have anti-slavery Constitutions. The Framers of the Federal Constitution doubtless foresaw the possibility of treachery, on the part of the new States, in the matter of slavery: and the restriction in that instrument to the old States–“the States now existing”–of the right to participate in the internal and “African slave trade” may be ascribed to the motive of diminishing, if not indeed of entirely preventing, temptation to such treachery. The Ordinance concerning the North-west Territory, passed by the Congress of 1787, and ratified by the Congress of 1790, shows, so far as those bodies can be regarded as correct interpreters of the Constitution which was framed in 1787, and adopted in 1789, that slavery was not to have a constitutional existence in the new States. The Ordinance continues the privilege of recapturing fugitive slaves in the North-west Territory to the “existing States.” Slaves in that territory, to be the subjects of lawful recapture, must in the language of the Ordinance, owe “labour or service in one of the _original_ States.”

I close what I have to say on this topic, with the remark, that were it admitted, that the reasons for the increase of the number of slave States are sound and satisfactory, it nevertheless would not follow, that the moral and constitutional wrong of preventing that increase is so palpable, as to justify the scorn and insult, which are heaped by Congress upon this hundred thousand petitioners for this measure.

It has hitherto been supposed, that you distinctly and fully admitted the Constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. But, on this point, as on that of the right of petition, you have for reasons known to yourself, suddenly and greatly changed your tone. Whilst your speech argues, at no small length, that Congress has not the right to abolish slavery in the District, all that it says in favor of the Constitutional power to abolish it, is that “the language (of the Constitution) may _possibly_ be sufficiently comprehensive to include a power of abolition.” “Faint praise dams;” and your very reluctant and qualified concession of the Constitutional power under consideration, is to be construed, rather as a denial than a concession.

Until I acquire the skill of making white whiter, and black blacker, I shall have nothing to say in proof of the Constitutional power of Congress over slavery in the District of Columbia, beyond referring to the terms, in which the Constitution so plainly conveys this power. That instrument authorises Congress “to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District.” If these words do not confer the power, it is manifest that no words could confer it. I will add that, never, until the last few years, had doubts been expressed, that these words do fully confer that power.

You will, perhaps, say, that Virginia and Maryland made their cessions of the territory, which constitutes the District of Columbia, with reservations on the subject of slavery. We answer, that none were expressed;[A] and that if there had been, Congress would not, and in view of the language of the Constitution, could not, have accepted the cessions. You may then say, that they would not have ceded the territory, had it occurred to them, that Congress would have cleared it of slavery; and that, this being the fact, Congress could not thus clear it, without being guilty of bad faith, and of an ungenerous and unjustifiable surprise on those States. There are several reasons for believing, that those States, not only did not, at the period in question, cherish a dread of the abolition of slavery; but that the public sentiment within them was decidedly in favor of its speedy abolition. At that period, their most distinguished statesmen were trumpet-tongued against slavery. At that period, there was both a Virginia and a Maryland society “for promoting the abolition of slavery;” and, it was then, that, with the entire consent of Virginia and Maryland, effectual measures were adopted to preclude slavery from that large territory, which has since given Ohio and several other States to the Union. On this subject, as on that of the inter-state slave trade, we misinterpret Virginia and Maryland, by not considering, how unlike was their temper in relation to slavery, amidst the decays and dying throes of that institution half a century ago, to what it is now, when slavery is not only revivified, but has become the predominant interest and giant power of the nation. We forget, that our whole country was, at that time, smitten with love for the holy cause of impartial and universal liberty. To judge correctly of the view, which our Revolutionary fathers took of oppression, we must go back and stand by their side, in their struggles against it,–we must survey them through the medium of the anti-slavery sentiment of their own times, and not impute to them the pro-slavery spirit so rampant in ours.

[Footnote A: There is a proviso in the Act of Virginia. It was on this, that three years ago, in the Senate of the United States, Benjamin Watkins Leigh built his argument against the constitutional power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. I well remember that you then denied the soundness of his argument. This superfluous proviso virtually forbids Congress to pass laws, which shall “affect the rights of individuals” in the ceded territory. Amongst the inviolable “rights” was that of holding slaves, as Mr. Leigh contended. I regret, that, in replying to him, you did not make use of the fact, that all the members of Congress from Virginia voted in favor of the Ordinance, which abolished slavery in the North-West Territory; and this too, notwithstanding, that, in the Act of 1784, by which she ceded the North-West Territory to the Confederacy, she provided, that the “citizens of Virginia” in the said Territory, many of whom held slaves, should “be protected in the enjoyment of their rights.” This fact furnishes striking evidence that at, or about, the time of the cession by Virginia of her portion of the District of Columbia, her statesmen believed, that the right to hold slaves in those portions of our country under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, was not beyond the reach of the controlling power of Congress.]

I will, however, suppose it true, that Virginia and Maryland would not have made the cessions in question, had they foreseen, that Congress would abolish slavery in the District of Columbia:–and yet, I affirm, that it would be the duty of Congress to abolish it. Had there been State Prisons in the territory, at the time Congress acquired jurisdiction over it, and had Congress immediately opened their doors, and turned loose hundreds of depraved and bloody criminals, there would indeed have been abundant occasion for complaint. But, had the exercise of its power in the premises extended no farther than to the liberation of such convicts, as, on a re-examination of their cases, were found to be clearly guiltless of the crimes charged upon them; the sternest justice could not have objected to such an occasion for the rejoicing of mercy. And are not the thousands in the District, for whose liberation Congress is besought, unjustly deprived of their liberty? Not only are they guiltless, but they are even unaccused of such crimes, as in the judgment of any, justly work a forfeiture of liberty. And what do Virginia and Maryland ask? Is it, that Congress shall resubject to their control those thousands of deeply wronged men? No–for this Congress cannot do. They ask, that Congress shall fulfil the tyrant wishes of these States. They ask, that the whole people of the United States–those who hate, as well as those who love slavery, shall, by their representatives, assume the guilty and awful responsibility of perpetuating the enslavement of their innocent fellow men:–of chaining the bodies and crushing the wills, and blotting out the minds of such, as have neither transgressed, nor even been accused of having transgressed, a single human law. And the crime, which Virginia and Maryland, and they, who sympathise with them, would have the nation perpetrate, is, not simply that of prolonging the captivity of those, who were slaves before the cession–for but a handful of them are now remaining in the District. Most of the present number became slaves under the authority of this guilty nation. Their wrongs originated with Congress: and Congress is asked, not only to perpetuate their oppression, but to fasten the yoke of slavery on generations yet unborn.

There are those, who advocate the recession of the District of Columbia. If the nation were to consent to this, without having previously exercised her power to “break every yoke” of slavery in the District, the blood of those so cruelly left there in “the house of bondage,” would remain indelible and damning upon her skirts:–and this too, whether Virginia and Maryland did or did not intend to vest Congress with any power over slavery. It is enough, that the nation has the power “to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain,” to make her fearfully guilty before God, if she “forbear” to exercise it.

Suppose, I were to obtain a lease of my neighbor’s barn for the single and express purpose of securing my crops; and that I should find, chained up in one of its dark corners, an innocent fellow man, whom that neighbor was subjecting to the process of a lingering death; ought I to pause and recall President Wayland’s, “Limitations of Human Responsibility,” and finally let the poor sufferer remain in his chains; or ought I not rather, promptly to respond to the laws of my nature and my nature’s God, and let him go free? But, to make this case analogous to that we have been considering–to that, which imposes its claims on Congress–we must strike out entirely the condition of the lease, and with it all possible doubts of my right to release the victim of my neighbor’s murderous hate.

I am entirely willing to yield, for the sake of argument, that Virginia and Maryland, when ceding the territory which constitutes the District of Columbia, did not anticipate, and did not choose the abolition of slavery in it. To make the admission stronger, I will allow, that these