12 had, I own I could now wish that the Constitution had uttered more positive and explicit prohibitions, though I have little belief that even they would have at all availed against such unscrupulous influences as have been in action to nullify it in all cases in which slavery was concerned. But that no further precautions were taken, is no matter of surprise. The gentleman must read the debates of the convention which framed that instrument, and of the State Conventions that ratified it, with very different eyes from mine, if he does not see that the statesmen of that day expected that the discontinuance of the slave trade, after twenty years, for which they made provision, and the discontinuance .of slavery itself, would be pretty nearly simultaneous events. Such, I think, ■was the general expectation that prevailed every where, except in South Carolina and Georgia, which, it must be owned, clung to the evil with a tenacious fondness. No, sir; the tree of the Constitution which our fathers planted bore a natural fruit, salutary and palatable. A noxious branch was grafted upon it, which grew rankly, and overshadowed and poisoned the rest—“a mildewed ear, blasting its wholesome brother.” Prune that off, and again in beneficent abundance it will yield fruit “for the healing of the nations.” The gentleman said, further, “one half of the States have slaves, the other half have none,” (page 5;) and from that statement he argued that, in settling ■the institutions of new territory, an equitable arrangement would be to give half of it up to slavery, and let liberty live in the rest. Sir, I do not agree to that fractional statement. If facts which I have presented to the attention of the committee are sustained, then it follows that not one-half, but one fiftieth part of the people of this confederacy are interested, as proprietors, in an institution which is essentially and irreconcilably hostile to the highest interests of the other forty-nine fiftieths, and which demands to wield all the power of the Government, and extend the borders of its own domain, for the -purpose, of sustaining and perpetuating that instrument for oppressing the great majority. The gentleman said again, in connection with this topic, “it is obvious that, by transferring part of the slaves from the old States to the new, you would not increase their numbers,” (page 8.) Sir, if my little reading in political economy hasnotmisled me, this is byno means “obvious;” but, on the contrary, -it is obvious that by removing a population from comparatively narrow bounds, you provide for an increase of its numbers; and particular considerations might be added in the present instance, to show further that that result .would follow. I anticipate the reply that may be made to this. It may be said, Very "well; increase the amount of human life, and you add to the'sum of human happiness. But, in the first place, this is a direct abandonment of the other position. And, in the second, I will not allow that the sum of happiness, under all circumstances of social condition, is enlarged with that of life. Virginians, at least, are not apt to forget the saying of their great compatriot, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” If that sentiment be just, then it should •equally be said, Give me liberty, or curse me not with existence. Much of the interest lately manifested for the emancipation of the colored race, the gentleman referred to “the action of anti-slavery or abolition societies,” (page 9.) He is aware that they are no institutions of recent origin, but coeval with the existence of our Government.- I hold in my hand a copy of a memorial addressed to the Congress of the United States, in February, 1790, by the “Pennsylvania Society for promoting the Abolition of Slavery.” The name of no less considerable a person than the sage Benjamin Franklin is subscribed to that memorial as President. I think Dr. Franklin knew some things as well as the men of this more confident generation. I think particularly that he had some comprehension of that Constitution which he helped to frame, and I set his authority against that of a Boston writer, who considered it “questionable, whether the abolition movement is reconcilable with duty under the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=