has reference to, or has a bearing on, the subject of slavery in the Constitution; and we have already commented on the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 11th articles of the amendments; and we know not it is necessary, in this place, to say any thing more in regard to them. Mr. Alvan Stewart has very fully commented on the 5th article of the amendments, which can be seen by reference to the report of his argument on this subject before the legislature at Albany, N. Y. We will observe, however, one of these articles of amendments was introduced into the Massachusetts convention for the very purpose of having a bearing on slavery, as we shall hereafter show.

Upon a review then of this instrument, with these amendments, we cannot but come to the conclusion that each and every man in this country is by the Constitution free, and that, save only those who reside in the Indian Territories, each and every man is bound, individually and collectively, by this instrument, to protect each and all in their inalienable rights, there being no exception to any one, be he of what clime or origin he may: it is enough to say he is an inhabitant of the United States or its Territories, and that is sufficient to constitute him a freeman.

8*

CHAPTER IV.

TO SUSTAIN THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS

1

CHAPTER, QUOTATIONS ARE MADE, SHOWING THE CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO SETTLE

THE COUNTRY.

HAVING now gone through with our criticisms. on the Constitution, and our remarks upon what we consider the principles upon which it was founded, we now, for a further illustration, and to show our ideas are not wholly unsupported, propose to quote from the language of some of the men who discussed this document before its ratification by the people, to ascertain if they did not and must not have known how fully the subject of slavery was under the power of congress, or that of the courts.

We will, however, in the first place, adduce some testimony from the early history of the country, to throw light upon, and to exemplify, if possible, in a clearer manner the position we have taken; and, although some of the quotations apparently may not have a bearing upon the subject, yet they will all, we trust, serve to keep distinctly in mind the great principles of liberty, its value, and the steps taken by our fathers to secure it to the inhabitants of this country; and as we shall find they never, from the first moment, lost sight

of it previous to the adoption of the Constitution, so they did not do it at that time.

Mr. Bancroft, in his late History of the United States, observes,—

"Zemenes, (1537,) the gifted coadjutor of Ferdinand and Isabella, the stern grand inquisitor, the austere but ambitious Franciscan, saw in advance the danger which required centuries to reveal, and refused to sanction the introduction of negroes into Hispaniola, believing that the favorable climate would increase their numbers, and infallibly lead them to a successful revolt. A severe retribution has manifested his sagacity. Hayti, the first spot in America that received African slaves, was the first to set the example of African liberty."1

But "the rich returns made by Sir John Hawkins, of sugar, ginger, and pearls, for a cargo of Africans imported into Hispaniola, attracted the notice of queen Elizabeth," and "she became, in conjunction with her subjects," "at once a smuggler and a slave merchant; " 3 so that, while Sir John "bears the odious distinction of having first. interested England in the slave-trade, and, by his success, induced his queen to continue the traffic, it may be some consolation to the people of England to reflect they are among the first to restore

1 Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. i. p. 172. 2 Bancroft's History, vol. i. p. 173.

3 Is not queen Victoria, in conjunction with her ministers, a smuggler, and, conducting like queen Elizabeth, if not a slave merchant, something equally as bad, yea, worse, - a public poisoner of her fellow-men, in the attempt which she, in conjunction with them, is now making to introduce opium into China, against the laws of that country? We cannot but think they are making themselves obnoxious to both charges.

those rights which have been so long taken from the negro."

While England has been just, and has found, in her justice, she has not mistaken her true policy, may not Americans be so also? and, as the same author observes, "A ship of one Thomas Keyson and one James Smith, the latter a member of a church in Boston, first brought upon the colonies (1645) the guilt of participating in the traffic in African slaves,” so may not the people of Boston take the lead in bringing about a reform, and help emancipate the descendants of those who were first brought into bondage by her citizens? and would it not seem right and proper that they should take a lively interest in the subject? One would think they should not be behind the people of that age, who denounced those who trafficked in slaves, and who called such "malefactors and murderers," and that they should act "as Richard Saltonstall, a worthy assistant, who felt himself moved, by his duty as a magistrate, to denounce the act of stealing negroes, as expressly contrary to the law of God and the law of the country." These guilty men were committed for the offence, and, after advice with the elders and representatives of the people, who, "bearing witness against the heinous. crime of man-stealing," ordered the negroes to be restored, at the public charge, to their native country, with a letter expressing the indignation of the general court of their wrongs. And in 1652, when it was perceived "that the people of Warwick and Providence were disposed to buy" negroes, "to

1

hold them as slaves forever," "it was enacted they should not be so held; but, at the end of ten years, they should be set free; and if any one sold them to be held as slaves a longer time, they should forfeit to the colony forty pounds, which was twice the value of the slave at that time."

After speaking of the law relating to marriages, he observes,

"The benevolence of the early Puritans appears from other examples. Their thoughts were always fixed on posterity. Domestic discipline was highly valued; but, if the law was severe against the undutiful child, it was also severe against the faithless parent. The slave-trade was forbidden, under the penalty of death."

"The early laws did not permit any man to be kept in prison for debt, except when there was some appearance of some estate which the debtor would not produce. Even the brute creation was not forgotten; and cruelty towards animals was a civil offence. The sympathies of the colonists were wide; a regard for Protestant Germany is as old as emigration; and, during the thirty years' war, the whole people of New England held fasts and offered prayers for the success of their Saxon brethren.”2

"When the executive council of state in England (1650) had granted to Mr. Coddington a commission for governing the island within the jurisdiction of Rhode Island, Mr. Williams, through the agency of Sir Henry Vane, got the commission vacated, and the town-meeting of Providence made him the following address: 'From the first beginning of Providence colony you have been a noble and true friend to an outcast and despised people.

1

1 Bancroft's History of the United States, vol. i. p. 173.

2 Bancroft's History, vol. i. p. 466.