Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

admitting new States into the Union. Kentucky made application, in 1792, with a slaveholding Constitution in her hand. With what a mere technicality congress suffered itself to be dragged into torpor! She was part of one of the original States, and therefore entitled to all their privileges."

It should have been entitled to all the curses that the system of slavery necessarily imposes upon a community that upholds it.

"One precedent established, it was easy to make another. Tennessee was admitted in 1796, without scruple, on the same ground.

"The next triumph of slavery was in 1803, in the purchase of Louisiana, acknowledged afterwards, even by Jefferson who made it, to be unauthorized by the Constitution, and in the establishment of slavery throughout its vast limits, actually and substantially under the auspices of that instrument which declares its only object to be '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 ourselves and our pósterity.'

in

"In this case the violation of the Constitution was suffered to pass with but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were content to re Fre exchange multiplied commercial benefits and enlarged territorial limits.

“The next stride that slavery made over the Constitution was the admission of the State of Louisiana into the Union. She could claim no favor as part of an 'original State.' At this point, it might have been supposed the friends of freedom, and of the Constitution according to its original intent, would have made a stand.

But no; with the exception of Massachusetts, they hesi tated, and were persuaded to acquiesce, because the country was just about entering into a war with England, and the crisis was unpropitious for discussing questions that would create divisions between different sections of the Union. 'We must wait till the country is at peace.' Thus it was that Louisiana was admitted without a controversy.

"Next followed, in 1817 and 1820, Mississippi and Alabama, admitted, after the example of Kentucky and Tennessee, without any contest.

"Meantime, Florida had given some uneasiness to the slaveholders of the neighboring States; and, for their accommodation chiefly, a negotiation was set on foot by the government to purchase it.

"Missouri was next in order, in 1821. She could plead no privilege, on the score of being part of one of the original States; the country, too, was relieved from the pressure of her late conflict with England; it was prosperous and quiet; every thing seemed propitious to a calm and dispassionate consideration to the claim of slaveholders to add props to their system by admitting indefinitely new States to the Union. Up to this time the EVIL of slavery had been almost universally acknowledged and deplored by the South, and its termination (apparently) sincerely hoped for. By this management, its friends succeeded in blinding the confiding people of the North. They thought, for the most part, the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It is not intended by this expression that the South had all along pressed the admission of new States simply with the view to increase its own relative power. By no means: slavery had insinuated itself into favor because of its being mixed up with (other) supposed benefits, and because its ultimate influence on the government was neither suspected nor

dreaded. But on the Missouri question there was a fair trial of strength between the friends of slavery and the friends of the Constitution. The former triumphed, and by the prime agency of one whose raiment, the remainder of his days, ought to be sackcloth and ashes, because of the disgrace he has continued on the name of his country, and the consequent injury he has inflicted on the cause of freedom throughout the world. Although all the different administrations had, in the indirect manner already stated, favored slavery, there had not been, on any previous occasion, a direct struggle between its pretensions and the principles of liberty engrafted on the Constitution. The friends of the latter were induced to believe, whenever they should be arrayed against each other, that theirs would be the triumph. Tremendous error! Mistake almost fatal! The battle was fought. Slavery emerged from it unhurt, her hands made gory, her bloody plume still floating in the air, exultingly brandishing her sword over her prostrate and vanquished enemy. She had now all for which she had fought. Her victory was complete,

NATION WAS GIVEN TO SLAVERY!

THE

SANCTION OF THE

Immediately after this achievement the slaveholding interest was still more strongly fortified by the acquisi tion and the establishment of slavery there, as it had already been in the Territory of Louisiana.

"The Missouri triumph, however, seems to have extinguished every thing like systematic or spirited opposition, on the part of the free States, to the pretensions of the slaveholding South.

"Arkansas was admitted but the other day, with nothing that deserves to be called an effort to prevent it, although her Constitution attempts to perpetuate slavery

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

by forbidding the master to emancipate his bondman without the consent of the legislature, and the legislature without the consent of the master. Emboldened, but not satisfied, with their success in every political contest with the people of the free States, the slaveholders are beginning to throw off their disguise; to brand their former notions about the evil, political and moral,' of slavery as folly and delusion;'1 and, as if to make assurance doubly sure,' and to defend themselves forever, by territorial power, against the progress of free principles and the renovation of the Constitution, they now demand openly-scorning to conceal that their object is to advance and establish their political power in the country· - that Texas, a foreign state, five or six times as large as all New England, with a Constitution dyed as deep in slavery as that of Arkansas, shall be added to the Union."

Thus we have given Mr. Birney's views of the manner slavery has advanced in the country, because we think they are plain, explicit, and to the point, and show how slavery has advanced by successive steps from being considered the worst of evils to that of the greatest good; and, by showing this, we shall be able more clearly to perceive why our fathers did not in any manner guarantee, or even countenance, slavery, by any of their public acts; but, on the contrary, as we shall attempt to prove, so far as they did' go, their acts went to break up the whole system, or provide for its being so broken up; and, in fact, if advantage had been taken of their words by our colored popula

John C. Calhoun, in the senate of the United States, made use of this expression,

tion, slavery would have ceased to have existed at the time of the declaration of our independence; and we think it can now be sufficiently shown the system has never been by law established, but that ways have been provided for its final extirpation. Such being the case, nothing but the supineness of those, both white and colored, who were and are interested, has perpetuated it in our land.

In order to substantiate these assertions, it may be thought proper and necessary, since so much has been said and admitted to the contrary, to show on what they are founded, and how such a position can be maintained; and, in order so to do, it may be necessary to go back in our history, to ascertain what were the principles not only of the men who framed the instruments to which reference has been made, but also of their predecessors. Having the biography of so many of the men who first came to this country, belonging to our own race, as well as the history of the time of their first landing to the time spoken of, we can perhaps come to a just conclusion.

It would hardly be necessary to assert all of our fathers had a clear conception of the value of, or even desired, universal liberty,—that they were all pure, honest, and true men; consequently we will not, however much we might wish, and we shall not, attempt to maintain such a proposition; or that men did not come to this country with the avowed purpose and express desire, not only of making money in the ordinary modes of traffic, but that many came for the very purpose of trafficking in

« AnteriorContinuar »