continuance of such a system. They can only palliate it, by supposing that they thought slavery was already a waning institution, destined soon to pass away. In their time, (1787,) slaves were comparatively of little value, there being then no great slave staple (as cotton is now) to make them profitable to the slaveholder.1

"Had the circumstances of the country remained as they then were, slave labor, always and every where the most expensive, would have disappeared before the competition of free labor. They had seen, too, the principles of liberty embodied in most of the State Constitutions; they had seen slavery utterly forbidden in that of Vermont, instantaneously abolished in that of Massachusetts, and laws enacted in the other New England States, and in Pennsylvania, for its gradual abolition. Well might they have anticipated that justice and humanity, now starting forth with fresh vigor, would, in their march, sweep away the whole system; more especially as freedom of speech and the press, the legitimate abolisher, not only of the vice of slavery, but of every other that time should reveal in our institutions or practice, had been fully secured to the people. Again, power was conferred on congress to put a stop to the African slavetrade, without which it was thought at that time to be impossible to maintain slavery as a system on this continent, so great was the havoc on human life. Authoris ty was also granted to congress to prevent the transfer of slaves, as articles of commerce, from one State to another, and the introduction of slavery into the Territories.? All this was crowned by the power to prevent the admis

The cultivation of cotton was almost unknown in the United States before 1787. It was not till two years afterwards that it began to be raised and exported. (See report of the secretary of the treasury, July 29, 1836.)

2 The following is the opinion of the late Chief Justice Jay as to this part of the constitutional question. It is contained in a letter

sion into the Union of any new State, whose form of government was repugnant to the principles of liberty set forth in the Constitution of the United States. The faithful execution by congress of these powers, it was reasonably enough supposed, would, at least, prevent the growth of slavery, if it did not entirely remove it. Congress did, at the same time, execute one of them, - deemed then the most effectual of the whole, but, as it turned out, the least so."

from him to the venerable Elias Little, and can be added to what has been said and written on the subject of slavery:

"Nov. 17, 1819. I concur in the opinion it ought not to be introduced, nor permitted in any of the new States; and that it ought to be gradually diminished and abolished in them all.

"To use the constitutional authority of congress to prohibit the migration and importation of slaves into any of the States does not appear questionable.

"The first article of the Constitution specifies the legislative powers committed to congress. The ninth section of this article has these words: 'The migration or importation of such persons as any of the now existing States shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax, or duty, may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person.'

"I understand the sense and meaning of this clause to be, that the power of the congress, although competent to prohibit such migration and importation, was not to be exercised with respect to the THEN existing States, and them only till the year 1808, but that congress were at liberty to make such prohibitions as to any new State which might in the mean time be established. And, further, that, from and after that period, they were authorized to make such prohibition as to all the States, whether new or old.

"Slaves were the persons intended. The name slaves was avoided, on account of the existing toleration of slavery, and its existing discordancy with the principles of the Revolution, and from the consciousness of its being repugnant to those propositions in the Declaration of Independence: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; and that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

He then goes on to state that the interdiction of the African slave trade did not diminish the trade itself, or mitigate its horrors. It simply transferred from Africa to America "its profits from African princes to American farmers." He doubted if slavery would have extended over so large a space as it now does, if the trade had not been interdicted; for the cheap-rate at which slaves could have been imported would have prevented the rearing them on American soil; and, if the internal commerce could be restricted, slavery would soon die of itself. They could not maintain it on account of the competition of free labor. And the not using by congress of the power it possessed, or rather to the unfaithful application of their power to other points, on which it was expected to act for the limitation and extirpation of slavery, that the hopes of our fathers have not been realized. Slavery has advanced to its present audacious position by steps at first gradual, and for a long time almost unnoticed; afterwards by intimidation and corruption, up to the time of the "Missouri compromise," by which the nation was defrauded of its honor; and that, up to this time, slavery was looked upon as an evil that was to yield to the expanding and enlightened influences of our Constitution, principles, and regulations.

He then proceeds:

"It has already been said we have been brought into our present condition by the unfaithfulness of congress, in not exerting the power vested in it, to stop the domestic slave-trade, and in the abuse of the power of

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 posterity.'

66 "In this case the violation of the Constitution was suf fered to pass with but little opposition, except from Massachusetts, because we were content to receive in 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 con

troversy.

"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 confidi. g people of the North. They thought, for the most par the slaveholders were acting in good faith. It is not inte..ded 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