Northern and Eastern States from meddling with "their whole property," and "that there was no provision made for securing to the Southern States those they" then "possessed." The subject was left open, and, no doubt, intentionally so by many. Mr. Lee even finds fault with Mr. Randolph for making these objections, and points out to him his inconsistency: he seemed to think it right and proper that this property should be interfered with. We hope and trust there are a good many Virginians who yet think the North has a right to meddle with slavery, and that they will not think it necessary much longer to hold their peace, but will join the North in their endeavors to scout the abomination from their State, and redeem it from the foul disgrace which the practices of the slaveholder and the slavebreeder are bringing upon it.

It will be perceived the inconsistency of Mr. Randolph is similar to that of Mr. Henry's, and is equally beyond our power to explain, unless it may be ascribed to what he calls the "infelicity " of doing without their slaves; in other words, though they liked liberty themselves, they were too great lovers of their own ease to labor.

Mr. Lee, of Westmoreland, speaking of Mr.. Randolph's speech, says,

"The honorable gentleman abominates it, [the Constitution,] because it does not prohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the continuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent to criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the consideration of the gentleman whether, if it be

reprehensible in the one case, it can be censurable in the other?" |

Mr. Grayson observed,

66

They have the candor to acknowledge that taxes on slaves would not affect the Eastern States, and that taxes on fish and potash would not affect the Southern States. They are then reduced to this dilemma. In order to support this part of the system they are obliged to counteract the first maxim of representation. The best writers on this subject lay it down as a fundamental principle, that he who lays a tax shall bear his proportion of paying it." 2

Will not the logic here hold good, that he who makes a law shall help bear its burden; and, consequently, any laws in which the slaves have no voice cannot be binding on the slave; and, as a further consequence, that all such laws must be a nullity, void from the moment (if it will not be considered an Irishism) of their enactment, and of no rightful force, no one who was not permitted to have a voice, either pro or con in their promulgation, being at all bound by them? We take it so; and consequently these writers, on whom Mr. Grayson relies for authority, would consider American slavery to be upheld alone by the right of the strongest, and not by any equitable laws; and no laws are binding on a person situated as the slave is, unless they relate to morals, and then not because they are the laws of man, but of God.

Mr. Pendleton, in answer to some of Mr. Henry's remarks, observed,

'Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 214.

2

* Idem, vol. ii. p. 222.

"On the subject of government, the worthy member and I differ at the threshold. I think government necessary to protect liberty; he supposes the American spirit all-sufficient for the purpose. What say the most respectable writers, - Montesquieu, Locke, Sidney, Harrington, &c.? They have presented us with no such idea. They properly discard from their system all the severity of cruel punishments, such as tortures, inquisitions, and the like, shocking to human nature, and only calculated to coerce the dominion of tyrants over slaves. But they recommend making the ligaments of government firm, and a rigid execution of the laws as more necessary than in monarchy, to preserve that virtue which they all declare to be the pillar on which the government and liberty, its object, must stand. They are not so visionary as to suppose there ever did, or ever will, exist a society, however large their aggregate fund of virtue may be, but hath among them persons of a turbulent nature, restless in themselves, and disturbing the peace of others, sons of rapine and violence, who, unwilling to labor themselves, are watching every opportunity to snatch from the industrious peasant the fruits of his honest labor. Was I not then correct in my inference that such a government and liberty were friends and allies, and that their common enemy was turbulence, faction, and violence? They are those, therefore, who will be affected by good government; and for those, I suppose, no gentleman will profess himself an advocate. The writers just mentioned point out licentiousness as the natural offspring of liberty, and that, therefore, all free governments should endeavor to suppress it, or else it will overthrow that liberty of which it is the result. Is this speculation only? Alas, reason and experience too fatally prove its truth in all instances! A republican government is the nursery of science. It turns the bent

of it to eloquence, as a qualification for the representative character, which is, as it ought to be, the road to our public offices. I have already the pleasure of beholding these characters already produced in our councils, and a rising fund equal to a constant demand. May Heaven prosper their endeavors, and direct their eloquence to the real good of their country! I am unfortunate enough to differ [rather say fortunate] from the worthy member in another circumstance. He professes himself an advocate for the middling and lower classes of men. I profess to be a friend to the equal liberty of all men, from the palace to the cottage, without any other distinction than between good and bad men.” 1

After speaking much in favor of the Constitution, though he did not think it perfect, and was glad that amendments had been proposed, he observed, as it had been proposed to make these the sine qua non of the acceptance of the Constitution, and the manner the other States had accepted the Constitution, those States would say,

"No, gentlemen, we cannot accept your conditions. You put yourself on the ground of opposition. Your amendments are dictated by local considerations. We, in our acceptance, have been influenced by general utility to the Union. We cannot abandon principles like these to gratify you. Thus, sir, by previous amendments, we present a hostile countenance. If, on the contrary, we imitate the. conduct of those States, our language will be conciliatory and friendly. Gentlemen, we put ourselves on the same ground you are on. We are not actuated by local considerations, but by such

1 Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 228.

as affect the people of America in general. This conduct will give our amendments full weight."'

He then alluded to a letter written by Mr. Jefferson to one of the delegates, in which he expressed a wish that nine of the States would accept of the Constitution, that the good that might be derived from it might be secured, and that the other four might not agree to it "until " "amendments" should be secured. But, by having this division, he hoped there would be no "schism" in the Union; and then concluded by saying,

"The Constitution points out a plain and obvious method of reform, without any disturbance or convulsions whatever. I therefore think we ought to ratify it, in order to secure the union, and trust to this method for removing those inconsistencies which experience shall point out."

These observations of Mr. Pendleton's before a body of slaveholders, before men whose whole course of action was one of systematic "snatching from the industrious peasant the fruit of his honest labor," must have been severe. If we can judge what would be the consequence if such observations were now made before a body of slaveholders, from the manner they have of late exhibited their character, any thing but pleasant results would follow. Plainness of speech in those days was not considered as unbecoming men in good society; it was not then considered the evidence of fanaticism, whatever may have been their other faults; and we think Mr. Henry and Mr. Randolph must have felt the rebuke here given. It appears,

' Elliot's Reports, vol. ii. p. 294.