Mr. Iredell, speaking of the power to make amendments to the Constitution, alluded to the fact that congress could not break up the slavetrade till 1808, and said, "The subject of this article was regulated with great difficulty, and by a spirit of concession, which it would not be prudent to disturb for a good many years. In twenty years there will probably be a great alteration, and then the subject may be considered with less difficulty and greater coolness. In the mean time the compromise was upon the best footing that could be obtained. A compromise likewise took place in regard to the importation of slaves. It is probable all the members reprobated this inhuman traffic, but those of South Carolina and Georgia would not consent to an immediate prohibition of it; one reason of which was, that during the last war they lost a vast number of negroes, which loss they wish to supply. In the mean time it is left to the States to admit or prohibit the importation, and congress may impose a limited duty upon it."" Mr. Lenoir, speaking upon the general subject of adopting the Constitution, said, — "I think it not proper for our adoption, as I consider it endangers our liberties." 2 "If there were any security for the liberty of the people, I would, for my own part, agree to it. But, in this case, as millions yet unborn are concerned, and deeply interested in our decision, I would have the most positive and pointed security." 3 In answer to the objection urged by Mr. Lenoir, 'Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 158. 2 Idem, vol. iii. p. 177. Mr. Spraight, who was a member of the convention that proposed the Constitution, said, — "I am, for my part, conscious of having had nothing in view but the liberty and happiness of my country, and I believe every member of that convention was actuated by motives equally sincere and patriotic."1 Mr. Iredell said, in speaking of the object of government, "The great principle is, the safety of the people is the supreme law. Government was originally instituted for their welfare, and, whatever may be its forms, this ought to be its object. This is the fundamental principle on which our government was founded. In other countries they suppose an original compact, and infer that, if the sovereign violates his part of it, the people have a right to resist."2 On the conclusion of the discussion in the committee of the whole, they reported the following resolution, namely: "Resolved, That a declaration of rights, asserting and securing the great principles of civil and religious liberty, and the inalienable rights of the people, together with amendments to the most exceptionable and ambiguous parts of the said Constitution of government, ought to be laid before congress and the convention of the States that shall or may be called for the purpose of amending the said Constitution, for their consideration, previous to the ratification of the Constitution aforesaid, on the part of the State of North Carolina." 3 The amendments which this State proposed 1 Elliot's Reports, vol. iii. p. 182. 2 Idem, vol. iii. p. 200. 3 Idem, vol. iii. p. 210. were the same as those proposed by the State of Virginia, the 1st, 3d, and 16th, speaking of the natural rights of the people without any qualifications. The 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th, and 18th, introduces the term "freeman" in the same manner as those of Virginia. In fact, Mr. Willie Jones said he copied them from Virginia, as, on reference to Mr. Elliot's Reports, they will be found to be. They proposed twenty-six amendments to the Constitution; all for the purpose of laying restrictions on the general powers of congress. The proposed Constitution was rejected by a vote of 184 to 84. The result of this vote was owing, so far as we can judge in reading over the debates, and the apparent holding back of certain members of this convention, to the fear that slavery would be abolished by this Constitution. They did not want to trust it. Certain persons, though they do not appear to have said much, yet from the littlewe can glean from what there is reported, were decidedly opposed to its adoption, and, from the first, were ready to vote on the whole Constitution, and go home and tell their constituents they had put their veto on it. It was, however, discussed, and we have given the result of that discussion, so far as relates to the subject under consideration. The same observations will apply here that applied to the Virginia amendments, a part of which were adopted by congress and ratified by the States, a material word, however, being first struck out. We allude to the word "freeman; " being in, it would have confined the benefits to be conferred by the Constitution to the then freemen of the United States and their descendants; but, being stricken out, it left the benefits to be conferred upon all the people without distinction, whatever may have been their color or their race; and, consequently, if the South, including even Virginia and North Carolina, did mean to retain the slaves they had in their possession, the other portions of the country did not mean they should. We have seen what Massachusetts said, and these resolutions, without the word "freeman," being more explicit even than her own, she, with the other States, took these amendments, after striking out the word "freeman," and engrafted them on the Constitution, together with the substance of her own. Whatever, then, may have been the Constitution, or whatever may have been the ideas respecting slavery and its continuance, held by the delegates who proposed it, they amount to but little, when we find the people would not sanction it without its being so amended that every individual, "whether living on the banks of the Mississippi" or "on the margin of the Kennebec," whether he be white or black, bond or free, should not be subjected to punishment for any crime, or supposed one, without a trial by jury; or "be seized in his person, papers, or effects," without a legal sanction; or that it should be considered he consented, in the least degree, his inalienable rights should be given up: these were retained; they did them. If we are correct not mean to relinquish and we think we are a person who is guilty of violating the Constitution in these particulars makes himself liable, before our courts, for violations of the principles of the Constitution. A colored man, or a slave, cannot be restrained in servitude without his own consent, and the pretended authority of the master is utterly null and void: this instrument takes from him all authority. There were, however, in this convention, as our quotations show, many who feared the Constitution would have a bad effect on the general liberties of the country, and, on that account, gave their vote against it, men who either threw out of all consideration the colored man, and meant to have the most enlarged liberty for themselves, or else were willing he should be considered of their number, and therefore voted against it because their rights or his were not sufficiently guarded. The feeling in this convention was undoubtedly strong, both for and against slavery; quite a number, however, spoke as if the feeling against it was strong throughout the State, while those in its favor said. little, as is now their wont. 25** |