“That, in acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Supreme Ruler of the universe, in affording the people of the United States, in the course of his providence, an opportunity deliberately and peaceably, without fraud or surprise, of entering into an explicit and solemn compact with each other, by assenting to and ratifying a new Constitution, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity, DO, in the name, and in behalf, of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, assent to and ratify the said Constitution for the United States of America." 1

After so much had been said in the convention of Massachusetts, it may be thought surprising the amendments were not more pointed and distinct on the subject of slavery; and, because they were not, it must be presumed General Thompson expressed himself as indignantly as he did. Yet, if the principles they embodied should be carried out and no doubt it was hoped and expected they would be—and as the amendments actually adopted were more distinct, there can be no reason to suppose but those amendments should be applied in the broadest sense, and be considered as having, if not exclusively, certainly a distinct reference tò the condition of the slave. In the great anxiety to have a Constitution by a good portion of the

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. i. p. 176.

people of Massachusetts, and particularly among the leading men of those times, and fearing the consequences if they did not succeed, we may suppose they might be as guarded as they dare be, lest they might destroy a fabric which, as they all declared, they meant should be a palladium for the general liberties of the country.

Mr. Dawes was the only one, so far as is reported, who made any allusion to the prejudice that was then existing against the colored race he seems to acknowledge that the South, as well as the North, possessed it; and that was the reason why the three fifths representation was adopted. All the others were either silent on the subject, or else spoke in decided terms of the iniquity of slavery, and the abhorrence with which they viewed the whole subject. But they all seemed to think that the stopping of the slave-trade would consummate the overthrow of slavery; and it was against that they mostly directed their remarks, thinking, if that traffic was made to cease, slavery would cease with it.

In reviewing these interesting proceedings, we cannot but remark the firmness and love of liberty which, with perhaps few exceptions, displayed itself in all of the observations of the men composing this convention, nor help remarking the determined opposition, to the very last, made to slavery and its continuance and the impossibility of having a constitution adopted at all, without the almost positive assurance that such provisions, in the form of amendments, should be made as

would prevent the personal tyranny practised in a State where slavery existed; and although scarce one in the whole convention, so far as the debates are reported, but appeared anxious for a constitution, and that there should be one similar to the one before them, yet we find, on account of the obnoxious paragraphs, which might be construed as having relation to the colored man, there was but nineteen majority in its favor, and many of these said they should vote in its favor simply on the ground that the amendments which the convention proposed would be adopted. And, as we find, these, with others securing the rights of the individual in a distinct manner, were adopted. Where, we ask, is the vaunted declaration, that the Constitution guarantees slavery? Where, even, is the compact? The facts are, though South Carolina and Georgia, together with a few slaveholders out of these States, and Virginia and North Carolina, afterwards attempted, in their several State conventions, to force the acknowledgement of slavery on the Union, the other States would not agree to it; but, on the contrary, caused such amendments to be made as to give equal rights to all, as one member of this convention said, to those on the banks of the Savannah as well as to those on the margin of the Kennebec; and now, whether Georgia or South Carolina agreed to these amendments or not, so long as they agreed two thirds of the States could make amendments, and have remained in the Union after they were adopted, it cannot be otherwise

supposed than that they have placed themselves under all the liabilities which that instrument, with its amendments, impose. It cannot be supposed these States were not aware of the nature of these amendments, nor how far they would extend. The debates of Massachusetts were known to them; they knew the ground she took, and we see no reason why they should not abide the consequences, when we know these consequences cannot but redound to the glory of all concerned.

Massachusetts, at that day, as well as at the present, was considered one of the first States of the Union. She had contributed more men and money to carry on the war than any other State, and her people thought, and thought justly, that her voice should be heard. Was it not so heard? and were not the principles of liberty more fully incorporated into the Constitution through her influence, and that of some of the other States, if possible, than was at first embodied in the instrument itself? Although we are aware there has been, and there probably was at the time, as without doubt there are some at this very time, who would be glad to take away the rights of any body, provided they themselves could or can ride into power or preferment by so doing, yet the yeomanry and the great body of the people held, and we trust do hold, a different language, and that liberty and the right will yet be maintained, whatever may be the exertions to prevent them from being upheld.

CHAPTER VIII.

EXTRACTS FROM THE DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

THE observations made by most of the members of the convention, for adopting the Constitution, held in the State of New York, were, for the most part, directed to the subjects how best to secure the liberties of the State, and individuals of the State, without having any regard to the different races in the country. The situation of the colored man appeared to be, for the most part, passed over in silence, not because they had any desire to sanction the proceedings of the national convention on the subject, but because it seemed to the different members, who alluded to it at all, as out of their power to remedy. Take, however, this convention as a body, if we may judge by the report given of their proceedings, and we think they did not take a very extended view of the principles embodied in the instrument upon which they were discussing.

Most of their time was taken up in details, and in determining whether the ratio of representation was correct, and whether the liberty of the individual in their own State would be properly secured. But they left the colored man where they found him; they left him, for the most part,