tution,—if unmolested by a mistaken and false zeal, under the guise of philanthropy and kindness for the happiest and best conditioned race on earth,-is the best safeguard for the permanency of a Republic like that of the United States.

A government that recognizes an entire political equality among its citizens, of every class and condition, will always be more stable where there is a class of people with every political and social right, as far as the government extends, entirely withheld. If that class which now composes the negro slave did not exist, it would be supplied, as far as the wants of man demanded, by a portion of the citizens of the country; this class, as ignorant as the slave, yet doomed to supply his place and bound to the soil, would be a most dangerous feature in our social organization. The laws under which they would live make them equal citizens with the wealthy, the enlightened, and the patriotic, none of whose interest or feeling they possess.

Envy, jealousy, hatred to their employers, soon inflame the worst passions of men. They feel not that domestic attachment and dependence which the negro feels towards his master, which is dearly mutual and mutually cherished; but under that true system of government which this Republic developed, the political equality of the citizen-the poor citizenwho feels himself, if not another race, an outcast and alien, as he would be, will form at once naturally and inevitably a band of revolutionists. Their ignorance makes them the dupes of every dangerous and malicious doctrine; they are Red Republicans in France, Chartists and Fourierites in England, Socialists everywhere, Mobocrats and anti-Renters in the United States, ready to break down every guaranty to individual rights, and subvert a government which holds out equality to the citizen, whilst the unchangeable law of nature demands a class to be doomed to the plough, the loom, and the anvil.

The United States Government was the first to take the bold and decided step which commenced the abolition of this trade, which had done so much for the world, which had improved and cultivated the African, and was the precursor to Christianizing their native country.

By the Constitution the trade could exist until the year 1808, but a tax could be laid on the importation of each slave not exceeding ten dollars.

It appears somewhat inexplicable, that whilst nearly every

body took a lively interest in slavery as it existed among us, that the prospect of the abolition of the trade should have been received with such approbation. The States in their individual capacity had made efforts to abolish the trade, and in some States emancipation was assuming a popularity not to be resisted. In 1790, slavery existed in every State in this Union except Massachusetts.

The early constitution of that State declared all men to be born free and equal. In 1783, it was judicially decided to have the effect of abolishing slavery.* In 1780, Pennsylvania passed an act tending to a gradual emancipation, which ultimately succeeded. Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New Hampshire imitated the example of Pennsylvania.

New York, Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland had passed laws prohibiting the further importation of slaves.

1790.

In Virginia, Jefferson and Wythe, acting as commissioners to revise the laws of Virginia, had drafted a bill for gradual emancipation. It came before the House in 1785, and was defeated. In New York even, an effort was made in the same year for gradual emancipation; the effort failed. It is true, nevertheless, that, from North Carolina northward, there were many warm and influential advocates for the emancipation of slavery. At this period the North was not entirely united in reference to emancipation; nor was the South fully determined how to proceed; the slave had not fallen a prey to fanaticism; the question had not reached that degree of importance which it was destined to receive; the institution had existed in every State and was partially scattered over the Union, Massachusetts alone excepted. Slavery, like everything in creation, has certain great natural laws to obey, a natural fitness to which it is to be subjected. It is a striking fact that the peculiar adaptation of slavery had not forcibly presented itself to the minds of the people. Had Jefferson remained at home, instead of going abroad in 1785, it is highly probable that Virginia would have emancipated; now (1858) nothing could induce it. In the same year, New York refused to emancipate; now, no inducement could restore slavery. It has been thus adjusted by its very nature. The negro slave belongs to, and requires a warm climate. The South suits him; agriculture better than any other pursuit; the

*Hild. Hist., second series, vol. i. p. 175.

South held out inducements in its sunny clime and broad and smiling fields; the North being from necessity less agricultural, slavery obeyed but an inevitable law in gradually receding; the North was to become the seat of manufactories and the emporium of commerce; these things were rapidly filling up the country with a dense population, which latter fact leads to the following conclusions in reference to slavery and population, the truth of which I will attest by history, that slavery recedes as population increases, and that it abates at about a certain density of population to the square mile. At no very distant day in the nation's history, the density of population in the Southern States will occupy and bring under cultivation all the land of the country; those now scarcely capable of production, will be enriched, until only the necessary forest will be left untouched by the hand of enterprise and labor. When this point is reached, the price of labor, compared with the cost of living, will begin to fall. The tendency of man to multiply, his dependence upon the soil for subsistence, and the limited extent of the land, whilst population is limited only by the supply yielded from the soil, renders this result inevitable. Labor, as it increases in a country, is cheapened; it is given in exchange for less food or for inferior kind. It is a long time, perhaps, to look into the workings of the future; but in the progressive increase of population and the progressive declension of the price of labor, until the slave finally attains that condition in which it becomes a tax to rear and support him, it is a dim eye that cannot read the euthanasy of slavery.

By reference to the sixth census, it is ascertained that the population of the slave States and Territories had an average of not quite twelve to the square mile, more than one-third of which are slaves. It cannot be accurately defined at what density of population slave labor will be unprofitable; for whilst I shall judge it comparatively with other countries, the productiveness of the soil, the climate, as well as the standard of comfort of the slave, are controlling elements in approximating the truth.

In the European countries in which slavery was abolished, no motives are assigned, no religious scruples are proclaimed to the world; and where slavery is profitable they never exist. The conclusion must be, that it was abolished because no longer profitable.

A distinguished politico-economist of the present day, in

speaking of the abolition of villenage in England in 1690, at which time it had ceased to exist, estimates the population at ninety-two to the square mile. In Russia, where slavery exists, its population is twenty-five to the square mile; in those countries which have been free for years from slavery, the population is about one hundred and ten to the square mile; it is assumed that in England, a highly and perhaps the best cultivated country on the globe, villenage abated at about sixty-six to the square mile.

In the United States, the abolition of slavery has taken place at a less density. In New Jersey it was only forty to the square mile, at which time it was thought the labor of the slaves did not much exceed the cost of subsistence. The author to whom allusion has been made, supposes from the abolition of slavery in the States where it has occurred, to be apt to take place at about fifty to the square mile, whilst it would not average that in the New England States.*

As early as 1790, the power of Congress over slavery had been warmly debated in the House. In February of that year there came up from the annual meeting of the Pennsylvania Quakers a petition, asking Congress if there was not some power the exercise of which "must produce the abolition of the slave-trade.”

It was moved by Hartley to refer this petition to a special .committee; this motion was supported by Madison, Parker, Page, and White, of Virginia; Lawrence, Sedgwick, Boudinot, Sherman, and Gerry, likewise gave their warm support to the resolution. On the 12th of February, 1790, a petition, signed by Benjamin Franklin as president, came up from Pennsylvania, from what was called the Pennsylvania Society, praying for the abolition of slavery. The signing of this petition was the last public act of a wise, good, and great man, who thought not, and could not have foreseen the folly of such a step. Franklin was a philosopher, whose fame is as imperishable as the roll of the thunder or the lightning upon the clouds; not a statesman, yet a patriot; and if departed spirits can be conscious of the extent to which this early effort has gone, it would receive no stronger anathema than from the breast of this departed sage.

The petition of the Quakers was harmless, and a tax could be laid upon the slave imported, not exceeding ten dollars,

* Progress of the United States, by George Tucker.

though the importation could not be prohibited prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. The petition which was signed by Franklin bore upon its face an abuse of slavery, talked about the equality of man and liberty, "the birth-right of all men.

The Quaker petition was warmly debated; Tucker and Burke contended that it was unconstitutional to meddle with slavery before 1808; Scott thought it constitutional, and he was violent against slavery. "I look upon it," he said, "to be one of the most abominable things on earth, and if there were neither God nor devil, I should oppose it on principles of humanity and the law of nature. For my part, I cannot conceive how any person can be said to acquire a property in another."

Madison, Page, Gerry, and Boudinot advocated the commitment of the petition. Page and Madison, representing a large slave interest, were in favor of having a report from a committee, which might have the sanction of the House and the approval of the people. Page was a large slaveholder, yet he had sufficient confidence in Congress to sustain the Constitution, "and their disinclination to exercise any unconstitutional power."

Though Congress could not abolish the slave-trade, Madison thought they might countenance the abolition of the traffic. Gerry went to great extremes, contending even that Congress might purchase and liberate the entire slave population, and that with the means of the United States Treasury.

When the question was put to the vote of the House upon Hartley's motion, it was decided by the yeas and nays in favor of a reference to a committee, by forty-three to eleven. Of those who voted in the negative, six were from Georgia and South Carolina, being all the delegation present from those States; two were from Virginia, two from Maryland, and one from New York; North Carolina was still unrepresented. It was referred to a special committee, consisting of one from New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.* Much time was taken up by this committee, and after a month's deliberation and delay, they presented a report to the following effect:

:

1st. That the General Government was expressly restrained,

* Journal of Congress, 1790.