NO SLAVERY LN NEBRASKA: NO SLAVERY IN THE NATION: SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. SPEECH OF GERRIT SMITH, ON THE NEBRASKA BILL. IN CONGRESS, So, Mr. Ciiairmax, the slavery question is up again ! — up again, even in Congress ! I It will not keep down. At no bidding, however au- thoritative, will it keep down. The President of the United States commands it to keep down. Indeed, he has, hitherto, seemed to make the keeping down of this question the great end of his great office. Members of Congress have so far humbled themselves, as to pledge themselves on tliis floor to keep it down. National political conventions- promise to discountenance, and even to resist, the agitation of slavery, both in and out of Congress. Commerce and politics are as afraid of this agitation, as Macbeth was of the ghost of Banquo ; and many titled divines, taking their cue from commerce and politics, and being no less servile than merchants and demagogues, do what they can to keep the slavery question out of Bight. But all is of no avail. The saucy shivery question will not mind them. To repress it in one quarter, is only to have it burst forth more prominently in another quarter. If you hold it back here, it will break loose there, and rush forward with an accumulated force, that shall amply revenge for all its detention. And this is not strange, when we consider how great is the power of truth. It were madness for man to bid the grass not to grow, the waters not to run, the winds not to blow. It were madness for him to assume the mastery of the elements of the physical world. But more emphatically were it madness for him to attempt to hold in his puny fist the forces of the moral world. Can- ute's folly, in setting bounds to the sea, was wisdom itself, compared with the so much great- er folly of attempting to subjugate the moral forces. Now, the power which is, ever and anon, throwing up the slavery question into our unwilling and affrighted faces, is truth. The pas- sion-blinded and the infatuated may not discern this mighty agent. Nevertheless, Truth lives and reigns forever ; and she will be, continually, toss- ing up unsettled questions. We must bear in mind, too, that every question, which has not been disposed of in conformity with her require- ments, and which has not been laid to repose on hei own blessed bosom, is an unsettled question. APRIL 6, 1854. Hence, slavery is an unsettled question ; and must continue such, until it shall have fled for- ever from the presence of liberty. It must be an entirely unsettled question, because, not only is it not in harmony with truth, but there is not one particle of truth in it. Slavery is the baldest and biggest lie on earth. In reducing man to a chat- tel, it denies that man is man ; and, in denying, that man is man, it denies, that God is God — for, in His own image, made He man — the black man and the red man, as well as the white man. Dis- torted as are our minds by prejudice, and shriv- elled as are our souls by the spirit of caste, this essential equality of the varieties of the human family may not be apparent to us all. Were we delivered from this prejudice, and this spirit, much of the darkness, which now obscures our vision, would be scattered. In proportion as we obey the truth, are we able to discern the truth. And if all, that is wrong within us, were made right, not only would our darkness give place to a cloudless light, but, like the angel of the Apoca- lypse, we should stand in the sun. But to my argument. I am opposed to the bill for organizing the Territories of Nebraska and Kansas, which has come to us from the Senate, because, in the first place, it insults colored men, and the Maker of all men, by limiting suffrage to white men. I am opposed to it, because, in the second place, it limits suffrage to persons, who have acquired citizenship. The man, who comes to us from a foreign land, and declares his inten- tion to make his home among us, and acts in har- mony with such declaration, is well entitled to vote with us. He has given one great evidence of possessing an American heart, which our na- tive could not give. For, whilst our native be- came an American by the accident of birth, the emigrant became one by choice. For, whilst our native may be an American, not from any pref- erence for America, the emigrant has proved, that he prefers our country to every other. I am opposed to the bill, in the third place, be- cause, it is so drawn, as to convey the deceptive idea, (I do not say intentionally deceptive,) that the bill recognizes the doctrine of non-interven- tion. I call it deceptive idea : for, in point of NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY } 2 fact, the bill does not recognize the doctrine of non-intervention. It dictates to the territories the form of their government, and denies to them the appointing of their principal officers. The bill is, itself, therefore, the most emphatic interven- tion. One-hundredth as much intervention on the part of the Federal Government with a Stato Government, would be condemned as outrageous and intolerable intervention. I But I must be frank, and admit, that, if the bill did really recognize the doctrine of intervention, I should still be opposed to it — ay, and for that very reason. This whole doctrine of Congressional non-intervention with our territories I regard as perfectly absurd. Congressional intervention with them is an imperative and unavoidable duty. The reasoning to this end is simple and irresisti- ble. The people of the United States acquire a territory. Being theirs, they are responsible for its conduct and character: — and, being thus re- sponsible, they not only have the right, but are absolutely bound, to govern the territory. So long as the territory is theirs, they can no more • abdicate sovereignty over it than a State can ab- dicate sovereignty over one of its counties. But the people of the United States govern through Congress ; and, hence, in respect to what is the people's, there must be Congressional interven- tion. In the nature of the case, this must be so. But the Constitution also shows, that it must be so. The Constitution declares the fact of the government of the Nation by ttself ; and it also recognizes the fact of the government of a State by itself. But, nowhere, does it so much, as hint at the government of a territory by itself. On the contrary, it expressly subjects the regula- tion or government of territories, to Congress, or, in other words, to the whole people of the United States. I add, incidentally, that, in the light of the fact of the American people's responsibility for the conduct and character of their territories, it is absurd to claim, that New Mexico and Utah are to be exempt from slavery, because the Mexican Government had abolished slavery. Whether there can be legal slavery in those territories turns solely on the character of the Constitution — turns solely on the question, whether that paper is anti-slavery or pro-slavery. Again, in the light of this sjame fact, we see how absurd it is to claim, that there could, under the continued force of the French or Spanish laws, be slavery in the territory of Louisiana, after we had acquired it. If, after such acquisition, there was, or could be, legal slavery in tire territory, it was solely be- cause the Constitution — the only law, which then attached to the territory — authorized it. What, if when we had acquired the territory, there had been in it, among the creatures of French, or Spanish, or other law, the suttee, or cannibalism — would it not have been held, that these abomina- tions were repugnant to the Constitution, and, therefore, Avithout legal existence ? Certainly. I spoke of the Constitution, as the only law, which attaches to our territories. I was justi- fied in this, because it is the only law of the people l of the United States, when they are taken as a ^whole, or a unit. When regarded in sections, they have other laws also. The people of a State have the laws of their State, as well as the laws of their Nation. But, I repeat it, the people of the United States, when viewed as one, have no other law than the Constitution. Their Congress and Judiciary can know no other law. The statutes of the one and the decisions of the other must be but applications and interpretations of this one organic law. Another incidental remark, is, that it is wrong to charge the opponents of this bill with denying and dishonoring the doctrine of " popular sover- eignty." Holding, as we do, that to the people — the whole people— of the United States belong both the lands and the sovereignty of their ter- ritories, we insist, that to shut them out from gov- erning their territories, would be to deny and dis- honor the doctrine of " popular sovereignty." It is the friends of the bill, who, provided it is, as they claim, a bill for non-intervention, that are to be charged with violating the doctrine of <; popular sovereignty," and the principles and genius of democracy. I close, under this head, with say- ing, that should real non-intervention obtain in regard to these territories, it would be a very great and very astonishing change from our pres- ent policy. The inhabitants of a territory have no vote in Congress. Nevertheless, real non-inter- vention would vest them with the exclusive dis- posal of important affairs, which are, now, at the exclusive disposal of Congress. It would com- pensate them for their present political disabili- ties with an amount of political power greatly exceeding that enjoyed by an equal handful of the people of a State. To prevent misapprehension of my views, I add, that I am not opposed to making inhabitant of the territory officers of the territory. As far as practicable, I would have none others for its officers. But, whilst the territory is the nation's, all its officers should be acknowledged to be offi- cers and servants of the nation. I proceed to say, that I am opposed to this bill, in the fourth place, because it looks to the exist- ence of slavery in these territories, and provides safeguards for it. In other words, Congress does, by the terms of the bill, open the door for slavery to enter these territories. The right of Congress to do so I deny. I deny it, however, not because the compromise of 1820 denies it. Believing that compromise to be invalid, I cannot honestly claim anything under it. I disclaim all rights under it, for the simple reason, that a compro- mise conceived in sin and brought forth in ini- quity, can impart no rights — for the simple rea- son, that a compromise, which annihilates rights, cannot create rights. I admit, that the compro- mise of 1820 concedes the indestructibleness of manhood north of the line of 36° 30', excepting in Missouri. But, on the other hand, it atones for this concession to truth and justice by impli- edly leaving men south of that line, and in Missouri, to be classed with brutes and things. I admit, too, that they, who are enjoying the share of slavery under this compromise, and who, now, that freedom was about to enter into the enjoy- ment of her share under it — I admit, I say, that they are estopped from joining me in pronouncing IN TIIE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 3 the Missouri compromise invalid. They must first surrender their share under the compro- mise — the}' must first make restitution to Free- dom — ere they can, with clean hands and un- blushing faces, ask her to forego the enjoyment of her share. " But this condition is impractica- ble ! " will some of my hearers say. Oh no ! nothing is impracticable, that is right. Exclude slavery from Missouri and Arkansas for thirty- four years ; and then freedom and slavery will be on an equal footing, and they can make a new bargain. [Laughter.] Nor do I deny the right of Congress to open the door for slavery into these territories, because the compromise of 1850 virtually denies it. I say that compromise virtually denies it, because it distinctly and approvingly recognizes the com- promise of 1820. The compromise of 1850 is as rotten as the compromise of 1820; and as inca- pable of imparting rights. And here let me say, that I rejoice to sec the pro-slavery party pour- ing express contempt on the compromise of 1820, and virtual contempt on the compromise of 1850. And why should not all men pour contempt upon these compromises, and upon all other compro- mises, which aim u to split the difference " be- tween God and the devil ? [Great laughter.] By the way, we have striking proof, in the in- stance of this bill, that, in the case of such com- promises, God's share and all are, in the end, very like to be claimed for the devil. [Renewed laughter.] I have said on what grounds it is not, that I deny the right of Congress to open the door for slavery into these territories. I will now say on what ground it is. I deny it on the ground, that the Constitution, the only law of the territories, is not in favor of slavery, and that slavery can- not be set up under it. If there can be lawful slavery in the States, nevertheless there cannot be in the territories. In the fifth and last place, I am opposed to the bill, because it allows, that there may be slavery in the States, which shall be formed from these territories. Hitherto, when the slavery question has been brought up in Congress, it has been alleged, (I ( say not how truly or untruly,) that the anti-sla- very party has brought it up, and for the purpose of checking slavery. But, now, it is, confessedly on all hands, brought up by the pro-slavery par- ty, and for the purpose of extending slavery. In tills instance, the pro-slavery party is, manifestly, the instrument, which truth has wielded to sub- serve her purpose of re-awakening the public mind to the demands and enormities of slavery. Most sincerely do I rejoice, that the pro-slavery party is responsible for the present agitation. A Member. I do not admit, that it is. Mr. SMITH. Strange 1 Here is a movement for the immense extension of slavery. Of course, it is not the work of the anti-slavery party. And if the honorable member, who has just interrupt- ed me, is authorized to speak for the pro-sla- very party, it is not the work of that party either. I took it for granted, that the pro-slavery party did it. But, it seems it did not. It puts on the innocent air of a Macbeth, and looks me in the face, and exclaims : u Thou canst not say I did it ! " [Laughter.] Well, if neither the anti- slavery party, nor the pro-slavery party, did it, who was it, then, that did it ? It follows, neces- sarily, that it must be the work of the Lord, or the devil. [Laughter.] But, it cannot be the work of the Lord — for the good book tells us : " Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liber- ty" — liberty, not slavery. So, this Nebraska business must be the work of the devil. [Great laughter.] But logical as is this conclusion, I am, nevertheless, too polite to press it. I prefer to repudiate the alternative, that puts the respon- sibility on the Lord or the devil ; and to return to my original assertion, that the pro-slavery party, and not the anti-slavery party, is respon- sible for the present agitation. Do not under- stand, that I would not have the anti-slavery party agitate. I would have it agitate, and agi- tate, and agitate forever. I believe, that the agi- tation of the elements of the moral world is as essential to moral health, as is the agitation of the elements of the physical world to physical health. I believe in the beautiful motto : " The agitation of thought is the beginning of truth." I was very happy to hear the honorable gentle- man of Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wright,] express his faith and pleasure in agitation. Not less happy was I to hear the honorable gentleman of North Carolina, [Mr. Clln'Gman,] approve of the discus- sion of Slavery. Such good abolition doctrine from such surprising sources was very grateful to me. Perhaps, these gentlemen will continue to move forward in that blessed upward way, on which they have happily entered ; and, perhaps, ere the session shall close, they will have reached that table-land of abolition, on which it is my privilege to stand. Let me assure them, for the purpose of cheering them omvard, that, when they shall arrive there, they shall not lack rwy warm greetings and the cordial grasp of my hand. [Great laughter.] Sir, you must permit me to indulge some hope of the conversion of these gentlemen. Indeed, when I heard the honorable gentleman of North Carolina speak of himself as 41 an independent " — as a party of one — as in that lone condition, in which he had so recently heard me say, that I find myself — was I not at liberty to imagine, that he was throwing out a sly, deli- cate hint to my ear, that he would like to "join teams " with me, and so make up a party of two ? [Repeated roars of laughter.] I do not forget, that, at the close of his speech, he said some very hard things against us naughty abolitionists. But how could I be sure, that he did not say these hard things for no other purpose than to blind all around him, save, of course, my own apprehensive, because kindred and sympathizing, spirit, to that fraternal union with me, which I have supposed his heart was then meditating ? ■ I said, a little while ago, that I rejoice, that the pro-slavery party is responsible for the present agitation. I add, that I am half reconciled to this attempt to extend the dominion of slavery, because it affords us so inviting an opportunity to inquire into the title of slavery. If my neighs bor tries to rob me of my farm, he, at lea^ J affords me an occasion for inquiring into th 4 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY tenure, by which he holds his own farm. Free- dom having been driven by slavery, until she has surrendered to her pursuer nine new States ; and until slavery claims, as wo see in the present Bill, equal right with herself to overspread all the unorganized territory of the nation; it is, in my judgment, high time for her to stop, and to turn about, and to look slavery in the face, and to push back the war — ay, and to drive the aggressor to the w*\]J, provided she shall find, that slavery, in all its progress, and history, is nothing but an aggression upon liberty and law, and upon human and divine rights ; and that, in truth, it has no title to any existence whatever, on any terms whatever, anywhere whatever. This is a proper stage of my argument for saying, that wo all know enough of freedom and slavery to know, that they cannot live together permanently. One must conquer the other. American slavery lacks but two things to make sure of her victory over American liberty : and, from present indi- cations, she is determined to lack them no longer. One of these two things is its conceded right to overspread all our unorganized territory; and the other is its conceded right to carry slaves through the free States. Let slavery succeed in these two respects: — let the bill, we are now considering, become a statute; and let the final decision in the Lemmon case* sustain the claim to carry slaves through the free States — ay, and even to drive coffles of slaves through them, whip- in-hand; thus breaking down the public senti- ment of those States against slavery; and de- bauching and wasting it by familiarizing it with the demands and exhibitions of slavery; — and then, I admit, the way will be clear for slavery to make a quick and easy conquest of liberty. I, again, acknowledge my partial reconcile- ment to this attempt of slavery to get more — to this bold push for all, that is left, so far as unorganized territory is concerned. Wo have now the best of opportunities for trying the title of slavery, not only to more — but, also, to what it already had. And, now, if slavery shall come off as badly as the dog, who, in opening his mouth to seize another piece of meat, lost, in the deceitful and shadow-casting stream, the piece he already had, it will have no one to blame for its folly, but its own voracious self. It should have been content with the big sharo — the lion's share — which it already had. But to return from this digression. I said, that I am opposed to the bill, because it allows, that there may be slavery in the States, which shall be formed from these territories. Why, how- ever, should I be, therefore, opposed to it? I will ; without delay, come to the reason for my opposition. My time, being so precious, because so^ limited, I will waste none of it in apologies, circumlocutions, or skirmishes. But I will, at * Mr. Lemmon was emigrating, some eighteen months ago, with his slaves, from Virginia to Texas. The vessel touched at New York; and a judicial de- cision in favor of the claim of the slaves to froedom was promptly obtained, on the ground, that the State of New York had abolished slavery. The State of Virginia is now intent on gottirg this decision re- versed. once, "take the bull by the horns," and declare, that I deny the right of Congress to look to the existence of slavery in the SHates, that shall be formed within these territories, because I deny, that there can be Constitutional slavery in any of the States of the American Union — future States, or present States — new or old. I hold, that the Constitution, not only authorizes no sla- very, but permits no slavery ; not only creates no slavery in any part of the land, but abolishes sla- very in every part of the land. In other words, I hold, that there is no law for American slavery. I had not intended a moment's further delay in entering upon my argument to prove, that the Constitution calls for the suppression of all American slavery. But I must, before entering upon it, beseech the Committee to hold no other member of Congress responsible for it. Let the reproach of this argument — of this foolish argu- ment, if you please — nay, of this insane argument, if you prefer that epithet — fall on myself only. Blame no other member of Congress for it. I stand alone. I am the first, and, perhaps, I shall be the last, to declare within these walls, that there i3 no law for slavery. I say, that I stand alone. And, yet, I am not alone. Truth is with me. I feel her inspirations. She glows in my soul: and I stand in her strength. TIIERE 13 XO LAW FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY. Mansfield's decision in the Somerset case established the fact, that there was no law fur slavery in England in 1772: — and if none in England, then none in America. For, by the terms of their charters, the Colonies could have no laws repugnant to the laws of England. Alas ! that this decision was not followed up by the assertion of the right of every American slave to liberty ! Had it been, then would our land, this da} r , be bright and blessed with liberty, instead of dark and cursed with slavery. Alas, that the earlier decision than Mansfield's was not thus followed up! This earlier decision was of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, and was of the same character with Mansfield's. — [James vs. Lachmere, Washburn, 202.] We are not at liberty to regard this decision of the Court of Massachusetts as wrong, because Massachusetts slavery was not abolished in consequence of it. It is no more wrong, because of that fact, than is Mansfield's, because of the like fact. Slavery in England survived Mansfield's decision. Even seven years after it, and advertisements, such as this, could be found in English newspapers : "To be sold by auction at George Dunbar's ' office, on Thursday next, the 20th instant, at 1 1 o'clock, a black boy, about fourteen years of ' age, &c. Liverpool, Oct. 15, 1779." There was no law for American slavery, after the Declaration of Independence was adopted. Had there been any before, this paper swept it all away. Chief Justice Shaw suggests, that it was this paper, which abolished slavery in Massa- chusetts. — [Commonwealth vs. Thhmas Aves.~\ No less fatal was it, however, to the legality of slavery in other parts of the nation. The Decla- ration of Independence is the highest human authority in American politics. It is customary IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 5 to trace back the origin of our national existence and our American Union to the Federal Consti- tution, or to the Articles of Confederation. But our national existence and our American Union had their birth in the Declaration of Independ- ence. The putting forth of this paper was the first sovereign act of the American people — their first national and authoritative utterance. The Declaration of Independence was the declaration of the fact of the American Union : and to that paper pre-eminently are we to look for the causes aud character and objects of the American Union. It was for a present, and not for a prospective, Union — for a Union already decided on, and not a contingent Union — that our Fathers went through a seven years war. It is noteworthy, that the object of the Constitution, as set forth by itself, is not to originate a Union, but "to form a more perfect Union" — that is, to improve on an already existing Union. The Articles of Confederation and the Federal Constitution were but expedients for promoting the perpetuity, and multiplying and securing the happy fruits, of this Union. Not only is it not true, that the Articles of Confederation and the Federal Constitution are paramount to the Declaration of Independ- ence, but it is true, that the Congress of the Con- federation and the Convention, which framed the Constitution, derived all their legitimacy and authority from the Declaration of Independence. You might as well talk of supplanting the Bible with the farthing Tract written to expound it, as talk of supplanting the Declaration of Independ- ence with any subsequent paper. Truly, did one of the eminent statesmen [Gen. Root] of my State say: " That the Declaration of Independence is the ' fundamental law of the land in all those States, ' Which claimed or admitted, that that instrument ' was framed by their agents;" and truly did an- other of them [John C. Spencer] say, that it is * the corner-stone of our Confederacy, and is above all Constitutions and all Laws/' Yes, the Declaration of Independence is the very soul of every legitimate American Constitution — the Constitution of Constitutions — the Law of Laws. ' I repeat it — if there was legal slavery in this land before the Declaration of Independence was adopted, there, nevertheless, could be none after. The great truth of this paper is, that all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights. Does this paper speak of Civil Government as ne- cessary? It does so, because this great truth makes it necessary. It does so, because it is ne- cessary to preserve these rights. Does this paper claim the right to alter or abolish the Govern- ment? It claims it, for the sake of this great truth. It claims it, in order to provide better security for these rights. I do not forget, that the Declaration of Inde- pendence has fallen into disrepute among the de- generate sons of the men, Avho adopted it. They ridicule it, and call it " a fanfaronade of nonsense." It will be ridiculed, in proportion as American slavery increases. It will be respected, in pro- portion as American slavery declines. Even ! Members of Congress charge it with saying, that j men are born with equal strength, equal beauty, lad equal brains. For my own part, I can im- j pute no such folly to Thomas Jefferson and his fellow-laborers. I understand the Declaration of Independence to say, that men are born with an equal right to use Avhat is respectively theirs. To illustrate its meaning, at this point : — if I am born with but one foot, and one eye, and an organization capable of receiving but one idea, I have a right to use my one foot, and one eye, and one idea, equal with the right of my neigh- bor to use his two feet, and two eyes, and two thousand ideas. The enunciation of this great centre truth of the Declaration of Independence, would have jus- tified every American slave, at the time of that enunciation, in claiming his liberty. Suppose that, after the adoption of the Declaration of In- dependence, an American patriot had been seized by a British force, and put on trial for rebellion against the King, would not that paper have jus- tified him in calling on his countrymen to deliver him? Certainly; for that paper asserts the right to break away from his allegiance to the King, and pledges the ' ! lives, fortunes, and sacred hon- or" of his countrymen to maintain that right, But suppose, that, after the adoption of the Dec- laration of Independence, an American slave had asserted his right to liberty, might he not, as well as the patriot referred to, have called on his coun- trymen to acknowledge and defend his right? Certainly; and a thousand fold more emphati- cally. For the right of the patriot to dissolve his allegiance to the Crown is but a deduction from the great centre truth of the paper, that all men are created equal, and have inalienable rights. But the title of the slave to his liberty — that is, to one of these inalienable rights — is this great centre truth itself. The title of the slave to his liberty is the great fountain-head right. But the title of the patriot to be rescued from his peril is only a derivation from that fountain-head right. We add, as a reason, why this great centre truth of human equality and inalienable right to liberty is entitled to supremacy in all the sha- ping and interpretation of American politics, that, but for it, and for the place it occupies in the Declaration of Independence, there would have been no American Constitution, and no American nation, and no American liberty. But for the commanding principle and mighty inspiration of this great centre truth, the colonists could not have been aroused to their glorious achievement. It was in hoc signo — it was by this sign — that our fathers conquered. Again : but for this com- manding principle, and this mighty inspiration, the aid — the indispensable aid — that came to us from foreign shores, would not have come. Said Lafayette to Thomas Clarkson : " I would never ' have drawn my sword in the cause of America, 1 if I could hare conceived, that thereby I was 1 founding a laud of slavery." And there was Kosciusko, at whose fall " Freedom shrieked," and who provided by the will, written by himself, that his property in America should be used by his anti-slavery friend, Thomas Jefferson, in lib- erating and educating African slaves. Surely, he would not, with his eyes open, hare fought to create a power, that should be wielded in behalf of African slavery ! Oh, how cruel and mean a 6 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY fraud on those, who fought for American liberty, to use that liberty for establishing and extending American slavery ! But we pass on from the Declaration of Inde- pendence to the Federal Constitution, and sup- pose, for the sake of the argument, that slavery survived the Declaration of Independence. Now, otlr first question is not what is the character of the Constitution, in respect to slavery, but what, from the circumstances of the case, might we rea- sonably expect to find its character, in this re- spect. Its reasonably expected character may be thought by many to shed light upon its actual character. Looking at the circumstances of the case, are we to expect to find the Constitution pro-slavery or anti-slavery? — made to uphold slavery, or to leave it an unprotected outlaw ? It is argued, that the Constitution must be on the side of slavery, for the reason, that it did not specifically demand the instant death of slavery. There is, however, no force in this argument, if we reflect, that American slavery was, at that time, a dying slavery ; and that, therefore, even those of pur statesmen, who were most opposed to it, were generally willing to leave it to die a natural death, rather than to force it out of existence. W ere a man condemned to be hung — nevertheless, if, when the day for hanging him had arived, he were on his death-bed, you would not hang him, but you would leave him to die on his bed — to die a natural, instead of a violent, death. That our fathers did not anticipate the long continu- ance of slavery, is manifest from their purpose disclosed in the Preamble of the Constitution and elsewhere, to set up a government, which should maintain justice and liberty. They knew, that no government could prove itself capable of this, if under the influence, especially the overshad- OAving influence, of slavery. It is further argued, that the Constitution must be on the side of slavery, because were it not on that side, the slaveholders would not have con- sented to its adoption. But they, who argue thus, confound the slaveholders of that day with the slaveholders of this. They forget, that the slave- holders of that day breathed the spirit of the Declaration of Independence, and were captivated by the doctrine of the human brotherhood. They forget, that the slaveholders of that day were im- patient to emancipate their slaves, and that in Virginia, where the number of slaves was so much less than now, they were emancipated, at that period, at the rate of a thousand a year. They forget, that there were Abolition Societies in slave States, both before and after the year 1800. They forget, that Washington and Jefferson were practical emancipationists. They forget, that, whilst the slaveholders of this generation are intent on perpetuating and extending slavery, the slaveholders of that generation, studied how to abolish it, and rejoiced in the prospect of its speedy abolition. They, forget, that, whilst the slave- holders of this day are eager to overspread our whole national territory with slavery, all the slaveholders of that day joined with all other Americans in denying it new territory, and exclu- ding it from every foot of the national territory. They forget, that all the States, at that time, with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia, ad- vocated the anti-slavery policy; and that even these two States could hardly be said to have opposed it. And what, more than everything else, they should not forget, is that, over the whole length and breadth of the land, slavery was, at that day, a confessed sin — a sin it is, true, that all in- volved in it had not the integrity to put away im- mediately — but a sin, nevertheless, which all of them purposed to put away, in no very distant future. How striking the contrast, in this respect, between the circumstances of the slaveholder of that time and the slaveholder of this ! Now, the Bible, both at the North and at the South, is claimed to be for slavery ; and now the church and church-ministry, at the South, do nearly all go for slavery; and at the North, do nearly all apologize for it. Now, slavery is right, and the abolition of it wrong. Now, the slaveholder is the saint, and the abolitionist the sinner. To il- lustrate, in still another way, the absurdity of in- ferring what slaveholders desired and did, sixty or seventy years ago, from what they desire and do now : — the pecuniary motive of the slaveholder to uphold slavery is now very strong. Then, it was very weak. American cane-sugar, now wet with the tears and sweat and blood of tens of thousands of slaves, was then scarcely known. American cotton, which now fills the markets of the world, was then in none of the markets of the world. Then it was not among the interests of our coun- try. Now, it is its dominant interest. It sways church and state and commerce, and compels all of them to go for slavery. Then the price of the slave, that now sells for a thousand or fifteen hundred dollars, was but two hundred dollars. I need say no more to show how liable we are to misinterpret the desires and designs of our fathers, in regard to the Constitution, if we look through the medium of the pro-slaver/ spirit and interests of our own day, instead of the me- dium of the anti-slavery spirit and interests of their day. To judge what character they would be like to give to the Constitution, in respect to slavery, we must take our stand-point amidst the anti-slavery scenes and influences of that period, and not amidst the pro-slavery scenes and in- fluences, which illustrate and reign over the present. I readily admit, that the slaveholders of the present day would not consent to the making of any other than a pro-slavery Constitution. I even admit, that, had the making of the Consti- tution been delayed no more than a dozen years, it would, (could it then have been made at all,) have been pro-slavery. I make this admission, because I remember, that, during those dozen years, Whitney's cotton gin, (but for which inven- tion American slavery would, long ago, have dis- appeared,) came into operation, and fastened sla- very upon our country. In the light of what I have said, how improba- ble it is, that the slaveholders were intent on hav- ing the Constitution made to uphold slavery. But, in the light of what I shall now say, how improbable it is, that such a Constitution was made. Mr. Madison was among the most influen- tial members of the Convention, that framed the IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 7 Constitution ; and when he declared, in the Con- vention, that he "thought it wrong to admit in the 1 Constitution the idea, that there could be prop- ' erty in man," not one person objected to the dec- laration. Indeed, the framers of the Constitution, not only kept it clear of the words "slave" and K slavery" and of all words of similar import, but they obviously determined, that, if after ages should make the humiliating discovery, that there had been slavery in this land, there, nevertheless, should be nothing in the pages of the Constitution to help them to such discovery. For instance, the word "service" occurs repeatedly in the Constitu- tion. But only four days before the Convention closed its labors, the word "servitude" was struck out of the Constitution, and the word "service" unanimously adopted in its place, for the avowed reason, that the former expresses the condition of slaves, and the latter the obligations of free persons. I add the incidental remark, that if the Constitution is responsible for slavery, it is so, because of the knavery, or ignorance, of its fra- mers. If on the one hand, notwithstanding their avowed reason for the substitution of " service " for " servitude," they still intended to have the Constitution thus responsible, then they were knaves : — and if, on the other, they honestly in- tended to keep the Constitution clear of this guilty responsibility, and yet failed to do so, then does such failure betray their gross ignorance — their gross ignorance of the true meaning, and fit use, of words. Happily, for those, who give an anti- slavery construction to the Constitution, they are under no necessity and no temptation to inter- ( pret the motives and conduct of its framers in the light of so odious an alternative. The pro- slavery party alone are compelled so to interpret them. Now, even were it true, that the framers of the Constitution, and all of them, too, sought to smuggle slavery into it — to get it into it, with- out its being seen to be got into it — nevertheless, how could they accomplish this object, which, by the restrictions they had imposed on themselves, they had rendered impracticable? To work sla- very into the Constitution, and yet preserve for the Constitution, that anti-slavery appearance, which, from the first, they had determined it should wear, and which they knew it must wear, or be promptly rejected by the people, was a3 im- possible, as to build up a fire in the sea. But we will remaiu no longer outside of the Constitution. Indeed, there is nothing, aud there can be nothing, outside of it, which can deter- mine, or in any wise affect, its character on the subject of slavery. Nothing in the history of the framing, or adoption, or operation, of the Constitution, can be legitimately cited to prove, that it is pro-slavery or anti-slavery. The point is to be decided by the naked letter of the instru- ment, and by that only. If the letter is certainly for slavery, then the Constitution is for slavery — otherwise not. I say, if it is certainly for slavery : I say so, because slavery realizes the highest pos- sible conception of radical injustice; and because there is no more reasonable rule of interpretation than that, which deuies, that a law is to be con- strued in favor of such injustice, when the law i does not in clear and express lerniSj embody and J sanction it. The Supreme Court of the United States have adopted this rule in these words : " Where rights are infringed, where fundamental ' principles are overthrown, where the general 1 system of the laws is departed from, the legisla- ' tive intention must be expressed with irresistible : clearness to induce a court of justic e to suppose ' a design to effect such objects." — 2 Craneh, 390. The same enlightened and righteous policy, which led Mansfield to say, that " slavery is so odious, • that nothing can be suffered to support it but ' positive law," obviously demands, that no law shall be cited for slavery, which is not expressly and clearly for slavery. Much stress is laid on the intentions of the framers of the Constitution. But we are to make little more account of their intentions than of the intentions of the scrivener, who is employed to write the deed of the land. It is the intentions of the adopters of the Constitution, that we are to inquire after ; and these we are to gather from the words of the Constitution, and not from the words of its framers — for it is the text of the Constitution, and not the talk of the Convention, that the people adopted. It was the Constitution itself, and not any of the interpretations of it, nor any of the talks or writings about it, that the people adopted. Suppose, that the bill, now under^ discussion, should, unhappily, become a statute — would it be necessary, in order to understand it, to know what the honorable gentleman of Kentucky, [Mr. Preston,] who preceded me, said of it, or what I am saying of it ? Certainly not. If I mean what I say, nevertheless, my words could have no legitimate bearing on the interpretation of the statute. But my speech may be insincere. I may, as, doubtless, many a legislator has done, be practicing on Talleyrand's definition : " Lan- guage is the art of concealing the thoughts : " — ■ and pray, what help, in that case, to the just interpretation of the statute, could my speech afford ? I said, that the Constitution is what its adopt- ers understood it to be — not what the distin- guished few among them — but what the masses — understood it to be : and what that was, the abolition petition, headed with the name of Ben- jamin Franklin, and presented to the first Con- gress under the Constitution, strikingly indicated. That it was not successful is another evidence, that the views of the people often differ from the views of office-holders. Or, the failure was, per- haps, more properly to be regarded, as an evi- dence of the understanding, which, doubtless, did exist among, at least, some of the statesmen of that day, that slavery was not to be killed by the immediate application of the powers of the Constitution, but was to be allowed to linger through that age. Whilst, I deny, that there is a word in the Constitution to authorize the con- tinuance of slavery, I, nevertheless, admit that there was, outside of the Constitution, the under- standing to which I have referred — an under- standing confined, however, to a few, and for which the masses were not responsible. A sad mistake, as it turns out, was this suffering of slavery to drag out its death-struck and feeble. 8 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY existence through that generation, in which the Constitution was adopted ! — for, it was in that very generation, that, in consequence of the in- vention already spoken of, slavery became strong, and began to demand prolonged life and vast powers as a right — an absolute and permanent right. The slut, in La Fontaine's fable, <5n the eve of becoming a mother, implored the brief loan of a kennel. But having once got posses- sion of it, she found excuse for continuing the possession, until her young dogs were grown up. With this reinforcement, it is not strange, that she should be inspired by the maxim, " might makes right," and should claim, as absolutely her own, that which had only been lent to her — and lent to her, too, so generously and confidingly. This fable illustrates, but too well, the successive feebleness, and growth, and usurpation of slavery. "We begin with the Preamble of the Constitu- tion. This, at least, is anti-slavery : and this tells us, that the Constitution is anti-slavery — for it tells us, that one thing, for which the Con- stitution was made, was " to secure the blessings of liberty" — not to inflict, or sustain, the curse of slavery — but "to secure the blessings of liberty." I admit, that the Preamble is not the Constitu- tion. I admit, that it is but the porch of the temple. Nevertheless, if, instead of the Demon of Slavery coiled up in that porch, we see the Goddess of Liberty standing proudly there, then we may infer, that the temple itself, instead of being polluted with Slavery, is consecrated to Liberty. And we are not mistaken in this in- ference. As we walk through the temple, we find, that it corresponds with the entrance. The Constitution is in harmony with the Preamble. The first reference, in the Constitution, to sla- very, is in the apportionment clause. There is, however, no reference to it here, if the language is interpi-eted, according to its legal sense, or if the fraincrs of the Constitution were intelligent and honest. It must be remarked, that it was from this clause, that they struck out the word " servitude," for the avowed purpose of saving it from being a pro-slavery clause. But, in point of fact, if this clause does refer to slavery, it is, nevertheless, a clause not to encourage, but to discourage, slavery. The clause diminishes the power of a State in the national councils in pro- portion to the extent of its slavery. This clause is, in truth, a bounty on emancipation. Had it provided, that drunkards should each count but three-fifths of a man, it, surely, would not be called a clause to encourage drunkenness. Or, had it provided, that they, who can neither read nor write, should each count but three-fifths of a man, it, surely, would hot be called a clause to encourage illiterateness. In the one case, it would be a bounty on sobriety, and, in the other, on education. The next clause of the Constitution, which we will examine, is that, which, confessedly, empow- ers Congress to abolish the foreign slave-trade. I, of course, mean the clause, which empowers Congress to regulate commerce with foreign na- tions. Yes, the slave States confessedly conceded to Congress the power to abolish that trade ; and Congress did actually abolish it. But, it is | said, that the provision, respecting " migration or importation," suspended the exercise of this power for twenty years. Under no legal and proper sense of it, however, does this provision refer to slaves. But, for the sake of the argument, we will admit, that it does, and that it had the effect to suspend, for twenty years, the exercise of the power in question. What then? The suspension could not destroy, nor, to any degree, impair, the essential anti-slavery character of the clause under consideration. On the contrary, the suspension itself shows, that the clause was regarded, by the makers of the Constitution, as potentially anti-slavery — as one, that was capa- ble of being wielded, and that, probably, would be wielded, to suppress the slave-trade. I would add, that this brief suspension goes to justify the position, that American slavery was looked upon, in that day, as a rapidly expiring practice — as a vice, that would die out, in a few years. There is much historical evidence, that the abolition of the slave-trade was looked to by many, if not, indeed, by most, at that time, either as equiva- lent to, or as sure to result in, the abolition of slavery. The power given to Congress to abol- ish the slave-trade. Mr. Dawes, in the Massachu- setts Convention, that adopted the Constitution, declared to be " the mortal wound " of slavery. Manifestly, the clause of the Constitution, which imparts power to abolish the slave-trade, and not that, which briefly suspends the exer- ercise of this power, gives character to the Con- stitution. If my neighbor deeds me his farm, only reserving to himself the possession of it for a month, (and a week in the life of an individual is longer than twenty years in the life of a na- tion,) it would, certainly, be very absurd to call it a transaction for continuing him in the owner- ship and possession of the farm. Or, if the bar- gain, which I make with my neighbor, is, that, after a week's delay, he shall come into my ser- vice for life, it is certainly not this little delay, that is to stamp the essential and important character of the bargain. I have referred to only a part of the clause, which gives power to Congress to abolish the slave-trade ; to only that part, which respects the foreign slave-trade. I, now, add, that this clause gives equal power to abolish the inter- State slave-trade. And if it does, how idle must it be to say, that a Constitution, which empowers Congress to abolish, not only the foreign, but the domestic slave-trade, is a Constitution for sla- very I To abolish the domestic slave-trade is to cut the. very jugular of slavery. But it is said, that the power " to regulate com- merce among the several States " is not a power to abolish the slave-trade between them. But, if it is not, then the power " to regulate com- merce with foreign nations " is not a power to abolish the African slave-trade. Nevertheless, Congress held, that it was ; and, in that day, when slavery was not in the ascendant, every- body agreed with Congress. It is further said, that the Constitution knows human beings only as persons; and that, hence, the inter-State traffic in slaves, being, in its eye, but migration or travel. Congress has no power IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 9 to suppress it. Then, what right had Congress to abolish the African slave-trade ? The subjects of that traffic, no less than the subjects of the inter-State traffic, are persons. Another reply, which we make to the position, that all human beings are persons in the eve of the Constitution, is that it cannot lie in the mouth of those, who carry on the traffic in slaves, to ignore the true character of that traffic, and to shelter its chat- tel-subjects under the name of persons. And another reply, which we make to this position is, that it is true ; and that, hence, the traffic in slaves, every slave being a person, is unconstitu- j tional. If the Constitution grants power to Con- j gress over commerce, it necessarily defines the subjects of the commerce. Such definition is involved in such grant. But slaves cannot come within such definition — for slaves are persons, and persons cannot be the subjects of commerce. And still another reply, that we have to make to those, who would exempt the inter-State traffic in human beings from the control of Congress, on the ground, that Cougress can know no human being as a chattel, or as other than a person, is that they are driven by logical consistency and logical necessity to the conclusion, that the Con- stitution has power to sweep away the whole of American slavery. The Constitution extends its shield over every person in the United States ; and every person in the United States has rights specified in the Constitution, that are entirely incompatible with his subjection to slavery. Ere leaving this topic, I would notice an objec- tion, which is frequently heard from the lips of earnest anti-slavery men. It is, that the Consti- tution omits to command Congress, in terms, to abolish the African slave-trade, even at the end of the twenty years. But why do they fail to see, that this very omission marks the anti-slavery character of the Constitution and of the day. when it was written ? Doomed slavery then needed an express stipulation for its respite. But to enjoin anti-slavery action upon those, who could be held hack from it only by such express stipulation, was, of course, deemed superfluous. The sentence of the court is. that the mother shall not kiss her infant for twenty days. The court need not enjoin, that she shall kiss it, after the twenty days are expired. Her love for her infant makes such injunction quite superfluous. So was it unnecessary to enjoin upon the anti-sla- very zeal of otir fathers the abolition of the slave- trade, at the expiration of the twenty years. Scarcely had the twenty years expired, before that zeal forbade, under the heaviest penalties, the continuance of that accursed trade. An an- cient nation regarded parricide as too unnatural and monstrous a crime to need the interdiction of law. And our fathers regarded the African slave-trade as a crime so unnatural and mon- strous, as to make their injunctions on Congress to abolish it altogether superfluous. We have, now, disposed of two of the three clauses of the Constitution, which are assumed to be pro-slavery, viz : the apportionment clause, and the migration and importation clause. The x thh;d refers to fugitive servants, but certainly not or history of this clause, it can have no reference to slaves. No one pretends, that slaves are expressly and clearly defined in it ; and, hence, according to the rule of the Supreme Court, which I have quoted, slaves are not referred to in it. Again, none deny, that the terms of the clause make it applicable to apprentices, minor children, and others. All admit, that, in the most natural use of language, it is capable of innocent applications. The clause, under consideration, speaks of a "person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof/' Now, unless these laws are for slavery, the "service or labor" can- not be slavery: — and if they are for slavery, then they cannot hold any person to slavery, unless they are valid laws. But they are not valid laws, unless they are in harmony with the Constitu- tion. If the Constitution is against slavery, then pro-slavery laws are but nominal laws. It will be more timely, at the close of my argument than now, to say, whether the Constitution is against, or for, slavery. In the next place, the clause speaks of a person. But, as we shall more fully see, there are rights claimed for persons by the Con- stitution itself, which must ail be trodden under foot, before persons can be reduced to slavery. Another reason, why the fugitives referred to in this clause are not slaves, is. that "service or labor" is "due"' to their employer from these fugitives. But slaves, by every American defi- nition of slaves, are as incapable of owing, as are horses, or even horse-blocks. So too. by every English definition of slaves. Says Justice Best, in case of Forbes vs. Cochran: "A slave is incapable of compact." And another reason, why this clause cannot refer to slaves, is, that the fugitives in it are held by the laws to labor. But slaves, no more than oxen, are held by the laws to labor. The laws no more interpose to compel labor in the one case than in the other. And still another reason, why this clause is not to be taken as referring to slaves, is the absurd- ity of supposing, that our fathers consented to treat as slaves whatever persons, white or black, high or low, virtuous or vicious, any future laws of any State might declare to be slaves. Shall we of the North be bound to acquiesce in the slavery of our children, who may emigrate to the South, provided the laws of the South shall de- clare Northern emigrants to be slaves ? Nay, more, shall we be bound to replunge those chil- dren into slavery, if they escape from it ? But all this we shall be bound to do, if the pro-sla- very interpretation of the clause in question is the true interpretation. Ay, and in that case, we shall be bound to justify even our own slavery, should we be caught at the South, and legis- lated into slavery. This intimation, that slavery may yet take a much wider range in supply- ing itself with victims, is, by no means, extrava- gant and unauthorized. The Supreme Court of the United States opened a wide door to this end, in the case of Strader and others against Gorham, some three years ago. In that case, the court claimed, that a State "has an undoubted right to ; determine the status, or domestic and social con- dition, of the persons domiciled with jiLltiL. tarn- 10 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY 1 torjv' By the way, this doctrine of the Supreme Court, that there are no natural rights ; and that all rights stand but in the concessions and uncertainties of human legislation, is a legitimate outgrowth of slavery. For slavery ^is a war upon nature, and is the devourer of the rights of na- ture ; and claims, that all rights, and all inter- ests, natural and conventional, shall accommo- date themselves to its demands. We need spend no more time on the letter of this clause. We will, now, look at its history. It is a well-nigh universal impression, that this clause is one of the compromises of the Constitution. But there is not the slightest foundation in truth for this impression. In none of the numerous j plans of a Constitution, submitted to its framers, was the subject-matter of this clause mentioned. Indeed, it was not mentioned at all, until twenty days before the close of the Convention. This clause, when its insertion was first moved, con- tained the word ;> slave." But, with that word in it, it met with such strenuous opposition, as to compel the immediate withdrawal of the motion. The next day, however, it was offered again, but with the word " slave " struck out. In this amended and harmless form, it was adopted im- mediately, without debate, and unanimously. I add, by the way, that no one believes, that a clause providing, in express terms, for the sur- render of the whole American soil to the chasing down and enslaving of men, women, and children, could ever have gained the vote of the Conven- tion ; or that, if it had. the Constitution, with such a disgusting blot upon it, could ever have been adopted. Another reason for not claiming this clause to be pro-slavery is, that the American people did, in all probability, regard the word " service " as expressing the condition of freemen. So, as we have seen, the members of the Constitutional Convention, regarded it : and, inasmuch as they came together from all parts of the country, and represented all classes and sections of the Amer- ican people, is it not a fair inference, that they used language in the sense approved by the American people ? We have, now, examined those parts of the Constitution, which are relied on to give it a pro-slavery character ; and we find, that they are not entitled to give it this character. We proceed to glance at some, and at only some, of those parts of the Constitution, which clearly prove its anti-slavery character ; which are ut- terly incompatible with slavery ; and which, therefore, demand its abolition. 1st. " Congress has power to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States." But Congress has not this power, if the obsta- cles of slavery may be put in the way of its exer- cise. A man cannot be said to have law for driving his carriage through the streets, if an- other man has law for blocking its wheels. If the States may establish the most atrocious wrongs within their borders, and thus create an atmosphere, in which the Federal Government cannot " live and move and have its being ; " then, within those borders, the Federal Govern- meat may be reduced to a nullity. The power referred to in this clause Congress will never have faithfully exercised, so long as it leaves millions of foes in the bosom of our country. By enrolling the slaves in the militia, and yield- ing to their Constitutional right " to keep and bear arms" — which is, in effect, to abolish sla- very — Congress would convert those foes into friends. The power in question, Patrick Henry, who was then the orator of America, held to be sufficient for abolishing slavery. In the Virginia Convention, which passed upon the Federal Con- stitution, Mr. Henry said : " May Congress not f say, that every black man must fight ? Did we ' not see a little of this, the last war ? We were j ' not so hard pushed as to make emancipation ' general. But acts of Assembly passed, that ' every slave, who would go to the army, should ' be free. Another thing will contribute to bring ' this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel ' its fatal effects. We deplore it with all the pity ' of humanity. Let all these considerations, at ' some future period, press with full force on the ' minds of Congress. They will read that pa- ' per, (the Constitution,) and see if they have ' power of manumission. And have they not, ' sir ? Have they not power to provide for the 1 general defence and welfare? May they not ' think, that they call for the abolition of slavery ? ' May they not pronounce all slaves free ? — and 1 will they not be warranted by that power? ' There is no ambiguous implication or logical { deduction. Tlu paper speaks to the point. They ' have the power in clear and unequivocal terms; 1 and will clearly and certainly exercise it." 2d. '-Congress has power to impose a capitation tax." Manifestly, Congress can pay no respect in this case to the distinction of bond and free. It can look for the paymeut of the tax to none other than the subjects of the tax. But if any of them do not own themselves, they cannot owe the tax. This clause implies, therefore, the self-ownership of men, and not their ownership by others. 3d. "Congress shall have power to establish a uni- form rule of naturalization." But this power, if faithfully exercised, is fatal to slavery. For, if our three millions and a half of slaves are not already citizens, Congress can, under this power, make them such, at any time. It can confer on them, as easily as on foreigners, the rights of citizenship. I add, that, had the slaveholders wished, (as however they did not,) to perpetuate slavery, they would, if they could, have qualified this absolute and unlimited power of naturalization, which the Constitution confers on Congress. 4th. " The Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." This clause clearly authorizes Congress to en- courage and reward the genius, as well of him, who is called a slave, as of any other person. One person, as much as another, is entitled to a copy-right of his book and to a patent for his meritorious invention. Not so, however, if there may be slavery. For the victim of slayery^has no richts * u ~ " ~ 1 IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 11 less than the productions of his hands, belong to his master. 5th. " Congress shall have power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal- — to raise and support armies — to provide and maintain a navy." It necessarily follows, from the unconditional power of Congress to carry on war, that it can contract with whom it pleases — white or black, employer or employed — to tight its battles ; and can secure to each his wages, pension, or prize money. But utterly inconsistent with this abso- lute power of Congress is the claim of the slave- holder to the time, the earnings, the will, the all, of the sailor, or soldier, whom he calls his slave. 6th. "The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.' 1 It is a common opinion, that the General Gov- ernment should not concern itself with the inter- nal policy and arrangements of a State. But this opinion is not justified by the Constitution. The case may occur, where the neglect thus to concern itself would involve its oAvn ruin, as well as the greatest wrong and distress to the people of a State. How could the General Government be maintained, if in one State suffrage were uni- versal, and in another conditioned on the posses- sion of land, and in another on the possession of money, and in another on the possession of slaves, and in another on the possession of literary or scientific attainments, and in another on the pos- session of a prescribed religious creed, and if in others it were conditioned on still other posses- sions and attainments ? How little resemblance and sympathy there would be, in that case, between the Congressional representatives of the different States ! How great would be the dis- cord in our National Councils ! How speedy the ruin to our National and subordinate interests ! In such circumstances, the General Government would be clearly bound to insist on an essential uniformity in the State Governments. But what would be due from the General Government then, is emphatically due from it now. Our nation is already brought into great peril by the slavo- cratic element in its councils ; and in not a few of the States, the white, as well as the black, masses are crushed by that political element. Surely the nation is entitled to liberation from this peril ; and, surely, these masses have a per- fectly Constitutional, as well as most urgent, claim on the nation for deliverance from the worst of despotisms, and for the enjoyment of a "republican form of government." 7th. " No State shall pass any bill of attainder." But what is so emphatic, and causeless, and merciless a bill of attainder, as that, which attaints a woman with all her posterity for no other reason than that there is African blood in her veins ? 8th. " The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebel- lion or invasion, the public safety may require it." Blackstone pronounces this writ "the most celebrated writ of England and the chief bul- wark of the Constitution." One of his editors, Mr. Christian, says, that u it is this writ, which x W$*£& slavery impossible in England/' Equally •naakp slavery in America. And in both countries the impossibil- ity springs from the fact, that the writ is entirely incompatible with the claim of property in man. In the presence of such a claim, if valid, this writ is impotent, for if property can be plead in the prisoner, (and possession is proof of owner- ship.) the writ is defeated. Slavery cannot be legalized short of suspend- ing the writ of habeas corpus, in the case of the slaves. But, inasmuch as the Constitution pro- vides for no such suspension, there is no legal slavery in the nation. 1 add, that the Federal Government should see to it, that, in every part of the nation, where there are slaves, if need be, in every county, or even town, there are Judges who will faithfully use this writ for their deliverance. 9th. " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of laiv." Let this provision have free course, and it puts an end to American slavery. It is claimed, how- ever, that, inasmuch as the slave is held by law, (which, in point of fact, he is not,) and, therefore, u by due process of law." nothing can be gained for him from this provision. But, inasmuch, as this provision is an organic and fundamental law, it is not subject to any other law. but is par- amount to every other law. Moreover, it is a great mistake to confound the laws, so called, by which persons are held in slavery, with " duo process of law." Justice Bronson says [Hill's Reports, IV, 146] of this part of the Constitution : " The meaning of the section then seems to be, that 1 no member of the State shall be disfranchised, or 1 deprived of any of his rights or privileges, unless 1 the matter shall be adjudged against him, upon trial ' had. according to the course of the common law." He adds: " The words ' due process of law,' in this place ' cannot mean less than a prosecution or suit, • instituted and conducted, according to the pre- ' scribed forms and solemnities for ascertaining ' guilt, or determining the title to property." Lord Coke explains " due process of law " to be, 11 by indictment or presentment of good and ' lawful men, where such deeds be done in due ' manner, or by suit original of the common ' law." The defenders of the Constitutionality of State slavery are driven to the position, that such spe- cific denials of the definition and violation of rights, as I have just quoted from one of the amendments of the Constitution, are limitations upon the power of the Federal Government only. They say. that it is to be inferred, that the limita- tions are on Federal power, when the Constitu- tion does not point out whether they are on Fed- eral or State power. Whence, however, is this inference justified ? From the fact, it is answered, that the Federal power is the subject-matter of the Constitution — is that, of which it treats — is that, which it constitutes. But the Constitu- tion is a paper, not merely for establishing the Federal Government, and prescribing its charac- ter and limits. It is, also, a paper for determin- ing the boundaries of State authority. And the latter purpose is no less important, Qrjje.cessajra 12 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA ! NO SLAVERY than the former. Happily, however, the original Constitution left nothing to inference in this mat- ter. It does not need a more frequent recurrence of the word " Congress " in them, to make it entirely plain, that the eighth and ninth sections of the first article of the Constitution are devoted to an enumeration of the powers and disabilities of Congress. Nor is it less plain, that the tenth section of this article is taken up with the enu- meration of the disabilities of the States. I have seen an old copy of the Constitution, printed in Virginia, in which " Powers of Congress" is at the head of the eighth section, and " Restric- tions upon Congress " is at the head of the ninth section, and <; Restrictions upon respective States" is at the head of the tenth section. The repeti- tion of the word " State," in the tenth section, would have been as unnecessary as the repetition of the word ''Congress" in the ninth section, had the denial of State powers been preceded by the enumeration of State powers, as is the denial of Federal powers by the enumeration of Federal powers. So far, then, as these sections are concerned, it is not left to the looseness of inference to determine whether the Constitution is applicable to a State, or to the Nation. One of the sections contains limitations on the Federal Government. The next contains limitations on another Govern- ment — another Government, since the latter limit- ations are, to some extent, identical with the former, and would, of course, not be repeated, were but one Government in view. What, how- ever, but a State Government, could this other Government be ? And yet, to avoid all necessity of inference, the word " State " is repeated sev- eral times in connection with these latter limita- tions. And, now, we ask where in the original Constitution, either before or after the three sec- tions, which we have referred to, is it left to be inferred, whether the powers granted are National or State powers ? Nowhere is there such uncer- tainty. We will now take up the amendments of the Constitution. It is in them, that we find those specific denials of the deprivation and violation of rights, which forbid slavery — such denials, for instance, as that " No person shall be deprived of ' life, or liberty, or property, without due process 1 of law." Twelve articles of amendment were proposed by the first Congress. The first three and the last two do, in terms, apply to the Federal Gov- ernment, and to that only. In the case of most of the remaining seven, their application is a matter of inference. Whilst, however, it would be a gross violation of the laws of inference to say, that they apply to the Federal Government only, it would be m perfect accordance with these laws to say, that, inasmuch as a part of the amendments refer expressly to that Government only, the remainder refer to both the Federal and State Governments, or to State Governments only. Because the first one of the adopted amend- ments refers expressly to the Federal Government, and to that only, there are, probably, many per- it fo-r crrAntprt that the other amendments follow this lead of the first, and have the same reference as the first. They would not take this for granted, however, did they know, that this first' of the adopted amendments was the third of the proposed amendments ; and that it came to be numbered the first, only because the preceding two were rejected. It is entitled, therefore, to give no lead and no complexion to the amendments, which follow it. And this con- clusion is not weakened, but strengthened, by the fact, that these two amendments both ex- pressly referred to the Federal Government. I would here add, what may not be known to all, that the eleventh and twelfth of the adopted amendments were proposed by Congress after the other ten were adopted. In addition to the reason we have given, why a part of the amendments of the Constitution refer either to the State Governments exclusively, or to both the Federal and State Governments, is that, which arises from the fact, that they are, in their nature and meaning, as applicable to a State Government, as to the Federal Government. To say, that such amendments, as the second, third, and fourth, were not intended to apply to the whole nation, and were intended to apply only to the little handful of persons under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government, is to say what cannot be defended. Again, if there be only a reasonable doubt, that the fifth amendment refers exclusively to the Federal Government, it should be construed, as referring to State Governments also ; for human liberty is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt ; and this is a case, in which human liberty is most emphatically concerned. We have no right to go out of the Constitu- tion for the purpose of learning whether the amendments in question are, or are not, limita- tions on State Governments. It is enough, that they are in their terms, nature, and meaning, as suitably, limitations on the Government of a State, as on the National Government. Being such limitations, we are bound to believe, that the people, when adopting these amendments by their Legislatures, interpreted them, as having the two-fold application, which we claim for them. Being such limitations, we must insist, whether our lathers did, or did not, on this two-fold ap- plication. Being prohibitions on the Government of a State, as well as on the National Govern- ment, we must, in the name of religion and rea- son, of God and man, protest against limiting the prohibition to the National Government for the exceedingly wicked purpose of continuing the bondage of millions of our fellow-men. Had we the right, by reason of any obscurity in the teachings of the Constitution on the point under consideration, or from any other cause, to go into collateral evidences of the character of these teachings, we should find our interpreta- tion not weakened, but confirmed. Nearly all the amendments of the Constitution, and, indeed, all of them, which concern our present argument, were taken from the Bill of j Rights, which the Virginia Convention proposed I to have incorporated with the_ Federal .fjopfitii " - tion, Kn* N' THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 13 either of Congress, nor the Federal Government, :s language is to be construed as no less appli- able to a State than to the Nation, as providing ecurity no less against the abuse of State power han Federal power. Again : in the Congress, which submitted the .mendments, Mr. Madison was the first person move in the matter. He proposed two scries tf amendments, one of them affecting Federal, ind the other State powers. His proposition >rovided to have them interwoven in the origi- lal Constitution. For instance, the negations >f Federal Power were to be included in the linth section of the first article ; and the nega- ions of State power in the tenth section of that irticle. And, what is more, several of the intendments, which he proposed to include in ,his tenth section, are. not only in substance, but ilmost precisely in letter, identical with amend- ments, which became a part of the Constitution. It was in the following words, that Mr. Madison ustified his proposition to restrain the States : ' I think there is more danger of these powers being abused by the State Governments than : by the Government of the United States." u It : must be admitted on all hands, that the State : Governments are as liable to attack these inval- ' unable privileges, as the General Government is. 1 and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded 1 against." ' ; I should, therefore, wish to extend ' this interdiction, and add, that no State shall 1 violate," &c. If there was any reason to re- strain the Government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the State Governments. He thought, that if they provided against the one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied, that it would be equally grateful to the people. The House of Representatives did not adopt Mr. Madison's plan of distributing the amend- ments through the original Constitution, and thus expressly applying one to the Federal and another to a State Government. On the con- trary, it made them a supplement to the original Constitution, and left a part of them couched in terms, that render them equally applicable either to one Government or the other. It must not be forgotten, that Mr. Madison's plan was embodied in the report of a committee, and was kept before the House, for a long time. Nor must it be for- gotten, that whatever may have been said by this or that speaker, in respect to the application of this or that amendment, no vote was taken de- claring, that all, or, indeed, any of the amend- ments apply to the General Government. What, however, is still more memorable is, that there was a vote taken, which shows, that the House did not mean to have all the amendments apply to the General Government only. The vote was on the following proposed amendment : "No per- 1 son shall be subject, in case of impeachment, to 1 more than one trial, or one punishment for the 1 same offence, nor shall be compelled to be a 1 witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, ' ilffiffrtYi fir property, without due process of ^^^^^ - . • w n f Massachusetts, moved to insert after " same offence" the words: " by any law of the United States." His motion failed : and its failure proved"; that the_ House would restrain a State, as well as the Nation, from such oppression. As the Senate sat with closed doors, we know nothing of its proceedings in respect to the amendments, except that it concurred with the House in recommending them. 1 will say no more in regard to the meaning of the amendments. Is it claimed, that if the origi- nal Constitution is pro-slavery and the amend- ments anti-slavery, the original Constitution shall prevail against the amendments ? As well might it be claimed to reverse the rule in the case of a will and to have its repugnant language prevail against the codicil. The amendments of the Con- stitution, are the codicils of the Constitution ; and if anywhere they conflict with it, the Consti- tution must yield. I have, now, done, not only with the amend- ments, but with the entire Constitution. With- in the compass of a single speech, I could, of course, comprise but an outline of my argument. I commend to my hearers the arguments of Wil- liam Goodell and Lysander Spooner on this sub- ject. It must be very difficult for an intelligent person to rise from the candid reading of Mr. Spooner's book, entitled " The Unconstitution- ality of Slavery," without being convinced, by its unsurpassed logic, that American slavery finds no protection in the Constitution. I said, that I have, now, done with the Consti- tution. I believe, I am warranted in adding, that I have reached the conclusion, that there is power in the Constitution to abolish every part of American slavery. Is it said, that this conclu- sion, notwithstanding the manifest logical neces- sity for arriving at it, is, nevertheless, not sound ? One of the objections to its soundness — viz : that the slaveholders could never have consented to adopt a Constitution of such anti-slavery pow- ers — I have already replied to, by saying, that the slaveholders of that day, being against the continuance of slavery, and the slaveholders of this day for it, the former cannot be judged of in the light of the character of the latter. To this I add, that whatever were the slaveholders of that day, and whatever were their motives in adopting an anti-slavery Constitution, they, nevertheless, did adopt it, just as it is — anti- slavery as it is. The other principal objection to the soundness of my conclusion is, that neither slaveholders nor non-slaveholders would have consented to adopt a Constitution, which annihi- lates State sovereignty. My answer to the latter objection is, that the States are not sovereign, and were not intended by the Constitution to be sovereign. The simple truth is, that our fathers refused to repeat the experiment of a Confede- racy of States ; and that, instead of it, they de- vised for themselves and their posterity a Gov- ernment, which is, altogether, too broad and binding to consist with State sovereignty. The Constitution prescribes limits to the State quite too narrow for the play of sovereignty. It de- nies the State many specific powers, each of which is vifel to sovereignty. For instance, it NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY restrains it from entering into a treaty ; and from coining money ; and, if the power to deprive " of life, liberty, or property," is vital to sove- reignty, then, as we have seen, the State is not sovereign, because it has not this power. Our fathers would not consent, that any section of their fellow-men, with whom they had come under a common Government, should outrage essential human rights. Our fathers would not fraternize with the people of Massachusetts, and yet allow them to plunder each other of property. They would not consent to be one peo- ple with murderers, and, therefore, they would not allow room tor the Pennsylvauians to turn Thugs. And slavery, being worse than murder, (for what intelligent parent would not rather have his children dispatched by the murderer, than chained by the slaveholder?) — slavery being, indeed, the greatest wrong to man, of which we can conceive — our fathers would not come under the same Government with Vir- ginians, if Virginians were to be allowed to en- slave and buy and sell men. Does the Constitu- tion require us to remain bound up with Penn- sylvania, even though her policy is to shoot all her adult subjects, whose stature falls below five feet ? Does it require us to continue in the same political brotherhood with Virginia, even though she shall enslave all her light-haired subjects, (or, what is the same in principle,) all her' dark- skinned subjects ? So far from it, there is power in that Constitution to hold back Pennsylvania and Virginia from the commission of these crimes. Every person remembers one part of the tenth amendment of the Constitution ; and every per- son seems to have forgotten the other. Every day do we hear, that powers are reserved by the Constitution to the States ; but, no day, do we hear, that powers are ''prohibited by it to the States." Now, among those prohibited powers, is that of classing men with horses and hogs. Let it not be implied from what I said, a minute ago, that I would admit the competence of a State Government to enslave its subjects, provided the Federal Constitution had not curtailed its sov- ereignty. No human Government, however un- limited its sovereignty, has authority to reduce man to a chattel — to transform immortality into merchandise. And cannot I add with truth, and without irreverence, that such authority comes not within the limits even of the Divine Govern- ment ? Nor let it be implied, that I am indifferent to State rights. I am strenuous for their mainte- nance : and I would go to the extreme verge of the Constitution to swell their number. But there 1 stop. The province of the State shall not, with my consent, encroach upon the province of the Nation; nor upon ground denied to both by the law of God and the limits of civil government. It is, sometimes, said, that the amendment, on which I have spoken so extensively, refers to criminal prosecutions only. But what if this were so ? It would, nevertheless, cover the case of the slave. You, surely, would not have a man stripped of his liberty, ay, and of his manhood too, who is not charged with crime. The Gov- ernment, which says, that it Avill make him, who I is not a criminal, a slave, confesses itself to be 1 unutterably unjust and base. The Constitution, as has been seen in the course : of my argument, forbids slavery. Its pro-slavery character has been assumed. What is there, in- deed, that will make for itself, that slavery does not assume ? No wonder ! It is itself but a mere assumption — and the most monstrous as- sumption. The only wonder is — and the sorrow- is as great as the wonder — that the American people should be in the miserable, servile habit of yielding to all these bare-faced assumptions of slavery. The speakers on both sides of this bill have taken it for granted, that the Constitution is pro-slavery: — and when the honorable gentle- man of North Carolina [Mr. Clingmax] coolly said : " Every single provision in that instrument, 1 (the Constitution,) is pro-slavery — that is, for ' the protection and defence and increase of sla- ' very," no one seemed to doubt the truth of what he was saying, any more than if he had been reading Christ's Sermon on the Mount. And, yet, the instrument, of which the honorable gentleman affirmed all this, refused to pollute its pages with the word ' ; slavery," or even with a word, (servitude,) which might, possibly, be construed into slavery ! Moreover, the instru- ment avows, that "to secure the blessings of lib- erty," is among its objects. Though adminis- tered to uphold the curse of slavery, the Consti- tution was, nevertheless, made " to secure the blessings of liberty." Hence, the declaration, in the former part of my Speech, that therk is no law for American slavery, is true. But I must not stop here. It would be disingenuous to do so. My stopping here would imply, that, if I found slavery in the Constitution, I would admit its legality. But I would not — just as I would not admit the legality of murder, even though it were embodied in all the organic laws of all the nations. I proceed, therefore, to declare, and to argue the justice of the declaration, that There not only is no law for American sla- very, BUT THAT THERE CAN BE NO LAW EITHER FOR American, or any other, slavery. 1st. Law is, simply, the rule or demand of natural justice. Justice is its very soul : and it is, therefore, never to be identified with naked and confessed injustice. Law is for the protec- tion — not for the destruction — of rights. Well does the Declaration of Independence say, that " to secure these rights, Governments are insti- tuted among men." They are instituted, not to destroy, but to secure, these rights. It is perti- tent to the case in hand, to see what are " these rights," which the Declaration specifies : They are " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These it declares to be " inalienable." These are not conventional rights, which, in its wisdom, Government may give, or take away, at pleasure. But these are natural, inherent, essential rights, which Government has nothing to do with, but to protect. I am not saying, that men cannot forfeit these rights. But I do say, that they can lose them, only by forfeiting them. I admit, that a man may forfeit liberty by his crimes; and that it will be thp " C ' Z N THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 15 r ent his re-enjoyment of it. I remark, incident- ] illy, that, though a man may forfeit liberty, this ! s quite another thing from his deserving sla- very. Slavery unmans : and the worst man, no nore than the best man, deserves to be unman- I led. But to return from this digression to my : leclaration, that law is for the protection of •ights — I proceed to say, that slavery annihilates ill the rights of its victim. For, in striking down ;he right of self-ownership, it strikes down that *reat centre-right, to which all other rights are :ied ; by which all other rights are sustained ; ind, in the fall of which, all other rights fall. Murder itself cannot be a more sweeping de- stroyer of rights than is slavery — for murder .tself is but one of the elements in the infernal jompound of slavery. Slavery being such, as I have described it, :here, of necessity, can be no law for it. To give io it one of the mildest of its proper and charac- teristic names, it is a conspiracy — a conspiracy Df the strong against the Aveak. Now, all are jaware, that there is law to put down a conspir- acy — but who ever heard of law to uphold a con- spiracy ? Said William Pitt, when speaking in the British Parliament, of the African slave- trade : " Any contract for the promotion of this ' trade must, in his opinion, have been void from 4 the beginning, being an outrage upon justice, |f and only another name for fraud, roberry, and 1 murder." But the slave-trade is all one with slavery: — nothing more and nothing less than slavery. Said Granville Sharp, when speaking of slavery and the slave-trade : H No authority 4 on earth can ever render such enormous iniqui- 4 ties legal." Says Henry Brougham : (i Tell me 4 not of rights ; talk not of the property of the 4 planter in his slaves. I deny the right. I 4 acknowledge not the property. The principles, 4 the feelings, of our common nature, rise in re- 4 bellion against it. Be the appeal made to the 4 understanding, or the heart, the sentence is the 4 same, that rejects it. In vain, you tell me of 4 laws, that sanction such a crime ! There is a 4 law above all the enactments of human codes — 4 the same throughout the world — the same in 4 all times — such as it was before the daring 4 genius of Columbus pierced the night of ages, 4 and opened to one world the sources of power, 4 wealth, and knowledge ; to another, all unut- 4 terable woes, such as it is at this day. It is the 4 law written by the finger of God on the heart 4 of man, and by that law, unchangeable and 4 eternal, while men despise fraud, and loathe 4 rapine, and abhor blood, they will reject with 4 indignation the wild and guilty fantasy, that 4 man can hold property in man ! " To hold that slavery, which is the crime of crimes and abomination of abominations, is capa- ble of legalization, is, a pre-eminent confounding of injustice with justice, and anti-law with law. Knowingly to admit into the theory and definition of law even a single element of wrong, is virtually to say, that there is no law. It is virtually to say, that earth is without rule, and heaven is without rule ; and that the light, order, and harmony of the Universe may give place to darkness, disorder, __ "" ~ * ie °"oh is the effect of alloying law with only one wrong, how emphatically must it be the effect of regarding as law that, which is nothing but wrong ! 1 am advancing no new doctrine, when I say, that essential wrongs cannot be legalized. This was the doctrine, until supplanted by the absurd and atheistic maxim, that " Parliament is omnip- otent.'' Even Blackstone, with all his cowardice in the presence of that maxim, repeatedly con- fesses, that human legislation is void, if it con- flicts with Divine legislation. And if we go back to the times of Lord Coke, we find him quoting numy cases, in which it was held, that the com- mon law, or, in other words, common sense, or common justice, can nullify an act of Parliament. He says : 44 It appeareth in our books, that in 4 many cases the common law shall control acts 4 of Parliament, and sometimes shall adjudge 4 them to be utterly void : for when an Act of ' Parliament is against common right and reason, ' or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the 4 common law shall control this, and adjudge ' such act to be void." — [Dr. JJonham's Case in Life of Lord Bacon.'] I would add, in this connexion, that the prov- ince of a human legislature does not extend even to all lawful and innocent things. That it is com- mensurate with the whole field of human inter- ests and obligations, is a very great, though a very common mistake. It covers but a small portiou of that field. Not only are crimes inca- pable of being legalized, but there are number- less relations and duties, which are ever to be held sacred from the invasion and control of the human legislature. For instance, what we shall eat and wear is a subject foreign to human legis- lation. What shall be the character of the in- tercourse between parent and child is no less so. But if there is a natural, lawful, and innocent re- lation, for which the human legislature may not prescribe, how much less is it authorized to cre- ate the unnatural, monstrous, and supremely guilty relations of slavery ! , 2d. Law is not an absurdity, but is one with reason. Hence, in point of fact, a legislature cannot make law. It can declare what is law. It can legislate in behalf of that only, which is already law. Legislation for liberty may be law, because liberty itself is law. But legis- lation for slavery cannot possibly be law, be- cause slavery is not law. That cannot be law, the subject matter of which is not law. The great fundamental and controlling law in the case of a man is, that he is a man. The great fundamental and controlling law in the case of a horse is, that he is a horse. The great funda- mental and controlling law in the case of a stone is, that it is a stone. All legislation, therefore, which proceeds on the assumption, that a stone is wood, is absurd and void. So, too, all legis- lation, that proceeds on the assumption, that a horse is a hog, is absurd and void. And, so too, and far more emphatically, all legislation, which proceeds on the assumption, that a man is a thing — an immortal God-like being a commodi- ty — is absurd and void. But such is the legisla- tion in behalf of slavery. The statutes of our Slave States, which, with infinite blasphemy, as 16 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVER! well as with infinite cruelty, authorize the enslav- ing of men, say, that the slave shall be deemed, ' held, taken, to be a chattel to all intents, eon- ' structions, and purposes whatsoever :■' that c< the 1 slave is entirely subject to the will of his mas- ' terr" and that "he can possess nothing, but ' what must belong to his master. 1 ' We are amazed at the madness of the Roman ruler, who claimed for his favorite horse the re- spect, which is clue to the dignity of manhood. But the madness of the American ruler, who sinks the man into the horse, is certainly no less than that of the Roman ruler, who exalted the horse into the man. There can be no law against the law of nature. But a law to repeal the law of gravitation would be no greater absurdity than a law to repeal any part of the everlasting moral code. The distinc- tion of higher and lower law is utterly untenable, and of most pernicious influence. There is but I one law for time and eternity — but one law for earth and heaven. I must not, then, know, as law, or, in other words, as wisdom and reason — but I must reject, as anti-law, and nonsense, and madness — that, which calls on me to regard a stone as a stump, a horse as a hog, a man as a thing. I must not undertake to conform myself to such ideal and impossible transformations. But I must accord to every being, animate or inanimate, the nature given to it by its Great Maker. I must deny, that the being made in the image of God can, any more than God Himself, be turned into a slave I must deny, that it is possible for human enact- ments to transmute men into chattels, and to an- nihilate the essential and everlasting distinction between immortality and property. I must deny, that there is truth in Henry Clay s famous decla- ration, that "that is property, which the law (meaning human legislation) makes property." I must deny, that slavery can an)' more furnish the elements of law, than darkness can be changed unto light, or Hell into Heaven. I must deny, that the fact of a slave is philosophically and really, a possible fact. I must deny, that man can lose his nature, either in time or eterni- ty. Let slavery and slave-legislation do their worst upon him ; let them do their utmost to un- man him ; he is still a man. Nor, is it whilst he is in the flesh only, that his manhood is inde- structible. It is no less so, after he has " shuffled off this mortal coil.'' When " the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat; the earth also, and the works, that are therein," and all that is, or can be, property, " shall be burnt up," the death- less spirit of man, unchanged and unchangeable, may stand upon the ashes and exclaim : '* I am still a man — I have lost nothing of my manhood." I have in other parts, as well as in this part of my speech, carried the idea, that slavery, in its theory, is the conversion of men into things. It was right for me to do so. Such conversion is the sole essence of slavery. This, and this alone, distinguishes it from every other servitude. In point of fact, slavery is not necessarily, and, indeed, is not at all, by any just definition of the word, servitude. Let the life of the slave be all j idleness; and let him be "clothed in purple anc line linen, and fare sumptuously every day; " and he is still as absolutely a slave, as if he were in the hardest lot of a slave. Whatever his privi- leges, if he have no rights — however indulgent his treatment, if he is owned by another, instead of himself — he is still a slave, and but a slave. I wish it to be borne in mind, that I arraign sla- very, not because it withholds wages, and mar- riage, and parental control of children, and the Bible and Heaven, from its victims. I do not arraign it for denying these, or any other rights, to a mere chattel. Such denial is perfectly con- sistent. A chattel is entitled to no rights — can have no rights. What I arraign slavery for, is for its making a man a chattel. I do not arraign slavery for the terrible enactments, which, for its security, it puts into the statute- book; nor for the terrible advertisements which it puts into the newspapers. These enactments are the natural and necessary outgrowth of the blasphemous assumption, that, man, with all his great attributes and destiny, is capa- ble of being reduced to a thing. These adver- tisements, some of which are otters of large boun- ties for the recovery of fugitive slaves, or for the production of their dissevered heads ; some of which contain revolting descriptions of their sla- very-scarred and mangled persons ; and some of which contain oilers of trained bloodhounds to hunt them — these advertisements are, in no wise, to be wondered at. Slavery itself — not its fruits and incidents — is the wonder. That man should be found so perverted and depraved, as to sink his equal brother into slavery — it is this, and nothing incidental to it, or resulting from it, that should fill us with astonishment. In reducing a man to a thing, we have not only committed the highest crime against him. but we have commit- ted all crimes against him ; for we have thrown open the door — the door never again to be shut — to the commission of all crimes against him. Perhaps, such language, as J have just been using, will occasion the remark, that I am preju- diced against the South. But 1 know, that I am not. I love the South equally well with the North. My heart goes out as strongly to South- ern, as to Northern men, on this floor. Far am I from attributing to Southern men a peculiarly severe nature. I had rather attribute to them a peculiarly generous nature. I believe, that there is not another people on the earth, in whose hands the system of slavery would work more kindly — with less of cruelty and horror. No- where can it work well — for there is nothing in it to work well. Nowhere can it be unattended with the most frightful and deplorable abuses — for it is itself the most stupendous abuse. 3d. My argument, in the third and last place, to prove, that there can be no law, either for American, or any other slavery, is that, that is not law, and is never, never, to be acknowledged as law, which men cannot regard as law, and use as law, without being dishonest. Both heaven and earth forbid that, which cannot be, but at the expense of integrity. Now, in the conscience of universal man, slavery cannot be law — cannot be invested with the (dV IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 17 law. Hence, to regard it a3 law, and use it as law, is to be dishonest. There may be little, or no, consciousness of the dishonesty. Never- theless, the dishonesty is there. I said, that the consciousness, that slavery cannot be legalized, is universal. Let me not be misunderstood in what I said. I did not mean, that there are none, who believe, that the slavery of others can be legalized. I admit, that thousands believe it. At the same time, however, I affirm, that not one of them all would believe slavery to be a thing of law, and entitled to the respect of law, were it brought to war against himself. The presence of an enactment for slavery would iuspire with no sense of the sacred obligations of law — with no sense of the honor and obedience due to law — him, who should be claimed under it. Now, how such a person is to be regarded — whether as believing the laws for slavery to be valid or void, real and true laws, or nominal and no laws — is to be decided, not according to his view of them, when applied to others, but according to his sense of them, when brought home to himself. Self-application is the testing crucible in all such case?. If an American gentleman is so unfortunate, as to be brought under the yoke of slavery in one of the Barbary States ; and if, notwithstanding, the slavery is decreed by the supreme power of tho State, he breaks away from it, and thus pours contempt upon the decree and the source of it ; then, obviously, on his return to America, he can- not acknowledge slavery to be law, and yet be honest. If it is true, that what is law we are no more at liberty to break in a foreign country than In our own country, so also is it true, that what is too abominable and wicked to be law in one part of the world is too abominable and wicked to be law in any other part of the world. Should this gentleman be elected to Congress, he will be dishonest, if he legislates for slavery. Should he take his seat upon the bench, he will be dishon- est, if he administers a statute for slavery. And no less dishonest will he be, if, as a juror, or mar- shal, or as President of the United States, he 6ha!l contribute to the enforcement of such stat- ute. But every American gentleman would, like this one, break away from slavery if he could: and, hence, every American gentleman, who recognises slavery as law, does therein stigmatize and condemn himself. Possibly, however, there may be some American gentleman, who is in- spired with such a sense of the fitness and beauty of slavery, as to welcome its chains about his own person. If there is such a one, " let him speak — for him have I offended." That no one can honestly recognize a law for slavery, is on the same principle, that no one can honestly recognize a law for murder. But there are innumerable things, which all men hold cannot be legalized. I venture the remark, that, Among all the Judges of this land, who, ever and anon, are dooming their fellow-men to the pit of slavery, there is not one, who could be honest in administering even a sumptuary law — for there is not one of them, who, in his own person, would obey such a law. How gross is their hypocrisy ! They affect to believe, that Government has power to legalize slavery — to turn men into things : — and yet deny, that Government may go so far, as to prescribe what men shall wear ! Government may do what it will with the bodies and souls of men : — but to meddle with their clothes — oh, that is unendurable usurpation ! ! ! If, then, I am right in saying, that men cannot honestly recognize legislation for slavery, as law : cannot do so. without palpably violating that great law of honesty, which requires us to do unto others, as we would have others do unto us: if, then, I am right in declaring, that, in strict truth, there is not, in all the broad earth, one pro-sla- very man: but that every man, when called to make his bed in the hell of slavery, betrays, in the agonies of his soul and the quoking of his limbs, the fact, that he is a thorough abolitionist : — if, I say. I am right in all this, then does it irresistibly follow, that I am also right, in my position, that THERE CAN BE NO LAW, EITHER FOR AMERICAN, 0E any other slavkry. I am right in this position, because, that, by no reasonable theory, or defini- tion, of law, can that be called law, which i3 incapable of being administered honestly. The fact, that men must necessarily be dishonest in- carrying it out, is, of itself, the most conclusive and triumphant argument, that it is not law. To take the opposite ground, and to claim, that to be law, which every man, when properly tested, de- nies is law, is to insult all true law, and Him, who is the source of all true law. I conclude, under this head, with the remark, that, the question, whether slavery is, or is not to be known as law, resolves itself into a question of simple honesty. I must say a few words to protect what I have said from the misapprehension, that I couusel trampling on all wrong legislation. I am very far from giving such counsel. No wrong legisla- tion, that is at all endurable, would I resist. And, I add, that I would be patient with almost every degree of wrong legislation, provided it is legisla- tion in behalf of what is lawful, and of what it is competent to legislate upon. Imprisonment for debt is wrong legislation — very wrong and very cruel legislation. But, inasmuch as the relation of debtor and creditor comes within the cogni- zance of the legislature, I will not treat such legis- lation as void. The legislature has a right end in view. It is to help the creditor get justice. Its error consists in selecting wrong means to this end; and in putting a wrong remedy into the hands of the creditor. I am to treat this action of the legislature as a mistake — and a mistake, which I am not to go beyond the limits of per- suasion to seek to correct. The paying c f one's debts is justice — is law. Enactments to enforce this justice and this law may, some of them, be improper — such as compelling payment by the terrors of imprisonment. But, as they are enact- ments to enforce justice and what is itself law, I must be very slow to denounce them, as no law. So, too, if my Government declare war against a nation — I am not to treat the Govern- ment, nor the declaration, however unjust it may be, with contempt. I must remember, that Gov- ernment has jurisdiction of national controver- sies, and that the redress of national wrongs is justice — is law. Government may err in its modes 18 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA ; NO SLAVERY of redress. It may resort to the sword, when it should confine itself to the exertion of moral influence. The cause, nevertheless, which it is prosecuting, may he one of unmingled justice. Like every good cause, it may itself be law; and, therefore. Government would not be chargeable with impertinence and usurpation for taking it in hand. But, how different from all this is it, when Government sets up slavery! In that case, the subject matter of its action is, most emphatically, not law. In that case^ most '-mphatically, it has gone beyond its province. To Government be- longs the adjustment of the relations between creditor and debtor; and it is for Government to dispose of national controversies. But, when Government undertakes the crime and absurdity of turning men into things — of chattellizing, in- stead of protecting, a portion of its subjects — it is, then, as far out of its place, as it can be. To such an outrage, no submission i3 due. It is to be resisted, at every hazard. To trample upon such lawlessness is to be law-abiding, instead of law-breaking. To rebel against such a Govern- ment is not to be revolutionary and mobocratic. The Government itself is the revolutionary and mobocratic party If the decree should go forth from our Government, that our Irish population be murdered, the decree would, of course, be trodden under foot. But who denies, that it should he as promptly and indignantly trodden under foot, were it a decree for their enslavement? My argument to show, that there not only is ko law for American slavery, but that there CAN RE NO LAW, EITHER FOR AMERICAN, OR ANY OTHER SLAVERY, IS ENDED. It is ill place, llOW- ever, to say, that the recognition by the Ameri- can people of slavery as law, is, of itself, sufficient to account for their loss of reverence for law. This reverence is, necessarily, destroyed by the habit of confounding sham law with true law — by the habit, of accepting, as law, the mere forms of law, where justice, truth, reason, and every element, which goes to make up the soul of law. is lacking. This reverence must soon die out of the heart of the people, who treat, a* law, that, which they know, is not law ; who, in the holy and commanding name of law, buy and sell, or sanction the buying and selling, of their fellow- men ; and who, in all their life, live out the debasing lie, that^ so monstrous and diabolical a tiling, as slavery,, is entitled to the shelter and honor of law. This reverenco is little felt by those, who yield to the absurdity, that law and nature are opposite to each other; and that, whilst, hy nature, a man is an immortal, by law he may be but a thing. It is little felt by those, who regard law as a mere conventionalism, which may be one thing in one place, and another in another ; one thing at one period, and another at another. They, and they only, have adequate and adoring conceptions of law, who believe, that it is one with nature, and that it is the same in every part of the earth, in every period of time, and u eternal in the heavens." They, and they only, have such conceptions, who, instead of re- garding law as synonymous with all the enact- ments of foolish and wicked men, identify it with unchangeable and everlasting right. How, for instance, can the American people perceive the beauty and preciousness of law, whilst recognizing, as law, the fugitive slave act ? — and whilst stigmatizing, and persecuting the handful of men, who have the integrity and the bravery to resist it? Why should not that handful fly as swift to the rescue of their brother, who is in peril of being reduced to slavery, as to the rescue of their brother, who cries: - .Murder? 8 Ten thousand enactments for murder would not hinder them in the latter case. Ten thousand enactments for slavery should not hinder them, in the former. In each case, the rescue would be not by a mob ; but from a mob. It has, now, been shown, that the American Government has authority, both inside and out- side of the Constitution — as well in natural and universal law, as in conventional and national law — to sweep away the whole of American sla- very. Will it avail itself of this authority to do this work ? I ask not whether Government will show pity to the slave — for I look not to Gov- ernment to be pitiful to the slave, or to any other man. I look to Government for sterner qualities than pity. My idea of a true Govern- ment is realized, only in proportion, as the Gov- ernment is characterized by wisdom, integrity, strength. To hold even the scales of justice among all its subjects, and between them and all' other men ; and to strike down the hand, that would make them uneven — this, and this only, is the appropriate work of Government. I asked, whether the American Government will abolish slavery. I confess, that my hope, that it will, is not strong. The slave-owners have the control of this nation, and I fear, that they will keep it. It is true, that they are a comparative handful iu the vast American popu- lation ; and that, numbering only three hundred thousand, their calling themselves " the South " Is an affectation as absurd and ridiculous, as it would be for the manufacturers of the North to call themselves "the North," or the rumsellers of the North to call themselves " the North.*' It ia true, that their interests are alien, as well from the interests of the South, a3 from the interests of the North ; and that slavery is the deadly foe, as well of the white population of the South, as of its black population. Nevertheless, in the present corrupt state of the public sentiment, the slave- owners are able to control the nation. They are mighty by their oneness. Divided they may be in everything else — but they are undivided in their support of slavery. The State and the Church are both in their hands. A bastard democracy, accommodated to the demands of slavery, and tolerating the traffic in human flesh, is our uational democracy : and a bastard Chris- tianity, which endorses this bastard democracy, is the current Christianity of our nation. The fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man — ideas, so prominent in a true democracy and a true Christianity — are quite foreign to our sham democracy and our sham Christianity. American religion is a huge hypocrisy. Whilst to the im- measurable sinfulness of that system, which for- bids marriage, and the reading of the Bible, and which markets men as beasts, it is blind as a bat, IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 19 ft, nevertheless, draws down it3 stupid face, and pronounces the shuffling of the feet to music to be a great sin. The different States of Christen- dom, as they advance in civilization and the knowledge of human rights, are, one after anoth- er, putting away slavery. Even the Bey of Tunis puts away this most foul and guilty thing : and says, that he does so " for the glory of mankind, and to distinguish them from the brute creation." But America, poor slavery-ridden and slavery- cursed America, retrogrades. Whilst other na- tions grow in regard for human rights, she grows in contempt for them. Whilst other nations rise in the sunlight of civilization, she sinks in the night of barbarism. Her Congress sets up slavery in her very Capital. Her Congress regulates and protects the coastwise trade in slaves. Her Congress wages unprovoked and plundering wars for the extension of slavery. Her Congress de- crees, that slaveholders shall have the range of all America, in which to reduce men, women, and children, to slavery. And her President, who calls slavery an "admitted right," was shameless enough to say, in his Inaugural, that the Fugitive Slave Act, which his predecessor was shameless enough to sign, should be "cheerfully" enforced. In short, the Federal Government i3 now, and long has been, at work, more to uphold slavery than to do anything else, or even all things else. The great slave-catcher 1 the great watch-dog of slavery ! — these are its most fitting names, in its present employment and degradation. And, yet, notwithstanding all this devotion of the Federal Government to slavery, and the iron determina- tion of the slave-owners, that the power of the whole nation shall be exerted to uphold it ; there, nevertheless, can be no remonstrance from the North against slavery, which is not immediately followed by the truthless and impudent reply, that the North has nothing to do with slavery I That the American people and American Govern- ment have fallen to what they are, is not to be wondered at. It is but the natural and necessary result of their having fostered and fed, for more than half a century, the monster slavery. Time was, when Ave might have crushed this monster. But, now, it has crushed us. It has corrupted us to such an extent, that there is scarcely a sound spot left in U3, at which to begin to rally opposition to it. On no cheaper condition than this can slavery be clung to. If we will be slave- holders — and such are the Northern as well as the Southern people — for if the slave-owners are at the South, the people of the North are, nevertheless, more emphatically, because more efficiently, the slaveholder.?, than are the people of the South — if, I say, we will be slaveholders, we must take the evil consequences upon our own understandings and hearts, and not be surprised at them. Men cannot bind the degrading chain of slavery around their brothers without at the same time binding and degrading themselves with it. How melancholy upon our country, and, through hereupon the world, has been the influ- ence of American slavery 1 In the beginniug of our national existence, we were the moral and political light-house of the world. The nations, ; » which sat in darkness, saw the great light," ; and rejoiced. Sad to say, we were ourselves the first to dim that light ! The principles, which we then enunciated, electrified the nations. Sad to say. we were ourselves the first to dishonor those principles 1 Nothing, so much as American sla- very, has gathered darkness upon that light- Nothing, so much as American slavery, has brought disgrace upon those principles. All other causes combined have not stood so effectually in the way of the progress of republicanism, as the glaring inconsistency of our deeds with our pro- fessions. In the house of her friends, Liberty has received her deepest stabs. All our boasts and falsehoods to the contrary notwithstanding, there is no Government on the face of the earth so quick as our own, to dread, and to oppose, popu- lar movements in behalf of liberty and republican- ism. On our Government, more than on all other causes put together, rests the responsibility of the stopping of the Revolution in the Spanish American States. We are wont to say, that the people of those States were incompetent to perfect that Revolution. This is a piece of our hypocrisy. The instructions of our Government and the discussions in our National Legislature^ in regard to the Congress of Panama ; our threat of war against Colombia and Mexico, if those States persevered in carrying forward the Revolu- tion ; and, above all, our base supplication to Russia and Spain to join us in stopping the wheels of that Revolution ; prove conclusively, that though our lying lips were for liberty, our hearts, all the time, were concernedjout for the protection of slavery. And, in the case of Hayti — how deadly, from first to last, has been the enmity of our Government to the cause of liberty and repub- canism ! To learn the extent of that enmity, we must not confine our eye to the haughty and per- severing refusal of our Government to recognize the independence of Hayti. We must look at other things also — and especially at the servile compliance of our Government with the impudent and arrogant demand of Napoleon to carry out his plan of starving the Haytiens into submission. Our Government made a display of sympathy with the European Revolutions of 1848. But who is so stupid, as to accord sincerity to that display, when he recollects, that the very first fruit of the very first of these Revolutions was the unqualified abolition of all French slavery — and a part of that slavery in the neighborhood of our own ? So eager was our Government to appear to be on the side of Hungary, that it sent out a ship for Kossuth. But, long ere he had reached our shores ; and, especially, whilst he was making his speeches in England in behalf of the equal rights of all men ; our Government found out, that it had got more than it contracted for. Kossuth's prin- ciples were too radical. Their scope was quite too sweeping. They no more spared slavery than any other form of oppression. Yet, Government could not stop Kossuth on his way. Having started for America, he must be suffered to come to America. But how great his disappointment, on his arrival ! M He came unto his own. and his ! own received him not." The poor man was will- j ing to compromise matters. A thousand pities, I that he was. He was willing to ignore slavery, 20 NO SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA : NO SLAVERY and to go through the whole length and breadth of the land, seeing, in every man he met, nothing else than a glorious freeman. Alas, wh&t a mis- take ! The policy of the Government " to give him the cold shoulder " vras fixed ; and no con- cessions or humiliations on his part could suffice to repeal it. Kossuth left America — and he left it, no less abundantly than painfully convinced, that America is one thing in the Declaration of Lidependence, and another in what has succeed- ed it J one thing in her professions, and another in her practice. Will Mazzini need to come to America to learn this lesson ? And, if he comes, will he stoop to repeat Kossuth's mistakes? Thank God ! Mazzini has already identified him- self with the American abolitionists. May he find himself rewarded by their cordial identifica- tion of themselves with the oppressed of Europe ! I confessed, that my hope is not strong, that the American Government will abolish American slavery. Far otherwise would it be, however, did none, but slave-owners, justify slavery. They would soon be converted, were it not, that the mass of the American people fall in with them, and flatter them, and cry peace, when there is no peace. This is our great discouragement in the case. The advocates of total abstinence are not discouraged. They would be, however, if they found the mass of the sober justifying drunkards, and telling them, that drunkenness is right. I said, at an early stage of my remarks, that the present attempt, of slavery to clutch all the unor- ganized territory of the nation affords a favorable opportunity to freedom to push back the war into the realm of slavery. I, however, did not add, that the opportunity would b& improved. Nor do I add it now : — for I am far from certain, that it will be. For many years, I have had scarcely any better hope for American slavery, than that it would come to a violent and miserable end. Their habit of courting and worshipping the Slave-power, and of acquiescing in its demands, has corrupted and paralyzed the American peo- ple to such a decree, as to leave little room to nope, that they will bring slavery to a peaceful and happy termination. I confess, some little hope of such termination has been kindled in me by- this new, surprising, and enormous de- mand of the sla ve-power. 1 confess, that I have thought it possible, that this demand might ; arouse a spirit, which could be appeased by noth- j ing short of the overthrow of the whole system of, Slavery. Should, however, such a spirit be aroused, I fear it will not pervade the masses, but will be confined to a few. It is true, that meet- ings are held, all over the free States, to protest against the passage of this Bill ; and that the press of those States is almost universally against it. But neither in the meetings, nor in the press, do I see repentance. They abound in indignation toward perfidy: — but they reveal no sorrow of the North for the crimes of the North against liberty; On the contrary, the meetings and the press do well nigh universally justify the Compromise of 1820, and, in the great majority of instances, the j Compromise of 1850, " Fugitive Slave Act," and I all. Even in sermons, preached against the Ne- j braska Bill, I have seen the Fugitive Slave Act | justified. -Now, the idea, that they, who can ap- prove of either of these Compromises, and espe- cially that they, who can, possibly, acquiesce in the chasing down of men, women, and children, for the purpose of casting them into the pit of slavery — the idea, I say, that such persons will perseveringly and effectively resist slavery, and do faithful battle for its overthrow, is to my mind simply absurd. They, and they only, are to be relied on for such service, who so loathe slavery, that they would rather perish than do any of its biddings, come those biddings from Congress, or from Courts, or from any other sources. Am I bid to strengthen my hope by looking at the rapidly multiplying abolitionists ? I do look at them : and this cheering sight is all, that, under God, keeps my hope alive. But I fear, that they are too late. I fear, that the disease is past cure. And I fear, too, that, even if we are yet in time to kill the Demon of Slavery, our false and pro-slavery education makes us so hesitating and timid in his terrific presence, that we shall not wage direct, deep, and fatal war upon him, but shall waste our energies and our only and swiftly passing away opportunity in ineffectual skirmish- es and disgraceful dodgings. A few abolitionists are consistent : and, were they not so few, they would be formidable. They know no law for any fraud; and, therefore, they will not know it for the most stupendous fraud. They know no law for any oppression ; and, therefore, they will know none for the most sweeping oppression. Such abolitionists are Garrison and Phillips, Goodell and Douglass. But most abolitionists, impliedly if not directly, tacitly if not openly, acknowledge, that slavery can have, and actually has, rights : and they are as respectful to these supposed rights, as if the subject of them were one of the greatest earthly blessings, instead of one of the greatsst earthly curses. It is true, that there is a political party in our country, organized against slavery ; and that it numbers some two hundred thousand voters, among whom are some of the noblest men in the land. And, yet, I look with well nigh as much sorrow, as hope, to this party. For so long as it recognizes slavery as law, I fear, that .notwith- standing its high and holy purposes, it will do scarcely less to sanction and uphold slavery than to reproach and cast it down. Again, so long as this party is swayed by such words of folly ami delusion, as " Slavery sectional : Freedom na- tional," its admissions in favor of slavery cannot fail to go far to outweigh all its endeavors against slavery. A law for slavery ! "What confessed madness would it be to claim a law for technical piracy, or a law for murder! But what piracy is there so sweeping and desolating as slavery ? And, as to murder — who would not rather have his dear- est friend in the grave — ay, in the grave of the murdered — than under the yoke of slavey? " Slavery sectional : Freedom national ! " And, therefore, according to the friends of this motto, the nation, as such, must not concern itself with the great mass of slavery, because that great mass, instead of being spread over the whole na- tion, exists but in sections of it. Not less foolish IN THE NATION : SLAVERY AN OUTLAW. 21 would it be to neglect the smallpox, because it I To hope, that, because the English Government is only in sections of the city that it prevails, abolished slavery, our Governments will also, is Indeed, it would not be les3 mad to leave the fire ; unwise, in another point of view. Comparatively unextinguished, because, as yet, it rages but in disentangled with slavery as was England, sla- sec lions of the city. Slavery, if not extinguished, ! very, nevertheless, exerted well nigh enough is as certain to spread, as is the fire, if not extin- j power over her Government to prevent its suc- pusbed. The past attests this ; and the present : cessful action against slavery. The party in the exhibits very glaring proof of it. If we wouhi j interest of slavery was barely defeated, save the city, we must put out the fife. If we Let me not be misunderstood. Let me not bo would save the nation, we must put out slavery — supposed to fear, that American slavery will not ay, put it out in all the nation. I said, that sla- come to an end. My fear is, that it will not very is, now, spreading. It may not go literally j be brought to an end by Government. I have no into Nebraska and Kansas, either now or ever, i fear, that it will not be abolished. It will be Nevertheless, slavery will be spreading itself over abolished — and at no distant day. If the Gov-' our country, at least in its influence and power, ernments fail to abolish it, it will abolish itself, so long as the nation forbears \o uproot it. The colored people of this nation, bond and free, " Slavery sectional : Freedom national \ " number four millions, and are multiplying rap- A poor flag would <: Murder sectional : Anti-Mur- idly. They are all victims of slavery — for if the der national ! " be to go forth with against mur- I free are not in the umbra, they are, nererthe- der. But not less poor is the other to go forth | less, in the penumbra, of slavery. Hence, then, a3 with against slavery. Very little inspiration j well as by identity of race, they are bound to- couid be caught from either. Nay, would not i gether by the strongest sympathy. Moreover, if their limited toleration of the crimes neutralize ' not carried along, as rapidly as others, neverthe- their influence against the extension of the crimes? less they are carried along, in the general pro- How unlike to these poor words would be " No ! gressive knowledge of human rights. Such being murder anywhere !" " No slavery anywhere ! " { the case, it is not to be supposed, that they can Under such earnest and honest words, men could <' be held in their present condition, for ages longer, do battle with all their hearts. But, under the ! They will deliver themselves, if they are not de- other, they are laughed at by the enemy ; and j livered. He must be blind to history, to philoso- should be laughed at by themselves. i phy, to the nature of man, who can suppose, that . There is a political party at the North, called j such a system, as American slavery, can have a the Liberty Party. It aims to go for every polit- , long life, even in circumstances most favorable to ical truth ; and to realize the idea of an every j its continuance. In the most benighted portions way righteous civil Government. It is a little i of the earth, the victims of such a system would, party. I?s handful of members are scarcely more ! in process of time, come to such a sense of their numerous than were the primitive disciples, who : wrongs, and their power also, as to rise up and were gathered in the upper room, at Jerusalem. ' throw off the system. But that, here, such a That little party will not disown what I have I system must be hurried to its end, is certain, said on this occasion. Every other party will. ; For, here, it is entirely out of harmony with all That little party has, already, lived some fifteen ! the institutions around it, and with all the profes- years. It will continue to live. Perhaps, it will ! sions of those, who uphold it. Here it is continually not grow. Perhaps it will. The " little cloud, ' pressed upon by ten thousand influences adverse like a man's hand," may yet spread itself over the ' to its existence. Nothing, so much as American whole heavens. Of thi3 much, at least, do I feel J slavery, stands in the way of the progress of the certain, that no party of essentially lower or other j age. A littletime longer, and it must yield to principles than those of the Liberty Party will j this progress, and be numbered with the things, suffice to bring down American slavery. Happy j that were. The only question is, whether it shall country this — happy North — happy South — if the ' die a peaceful, or a violent, death — whether it present aggressive movement of the slave-power j shall quietly recede before advancing truth, or shall result in bringing triumphant accessions to resist unto blood. the Liberty Party ! My fear, that the American Governments, State or National, will not abolish slavery, is, in no decree, abated by the fact, that several Euro- pean Governments have, in the present genera- tion, abolished it. It must be remembered, that those Governments were exterior to, and independ- ent of, the slave-power ; and that they were not God forbid, that American slavery should come to a violent end. I hold, with CTConnell, that no revolution is worth the shedding of blood. A violent end to American slavery would constitute one of the bloodiest chapters in all the book of time. It would be such a reckoning for deep and damning wrongs — such an outbursting of smothered and pent-up revenge, as living man trammelled by slaveholding constituencies. It is j ha3 never seen. Cau this catastrophe be avert- true, that slavery in Mexico was abolished by the j ed? Perhaps, it cannot. Perhaps, God will not Government in Mexico ; and that slavery in South j let off this superlatively wicked nation on any American States was abolished by the Govern- i easier terms than a servile war — a war, we mu. will, sooner or later, come. And when that day shall come, the moral soil of America, watered with the tear3 of penitence, shall bring forth fruits to the glory of God and the welfare of man, rivalling in abundance, and infinitely sur- passing in preciousness, the rich harvests of he? literal soil. In that day, our nation shall be I worthy of all, that God and good men have done ! for her. Her material wealth, surpassing that of \ any other nation, shall be no greater than her j moral wealth : and her gigantic and unmatched i power shall be only a power to bless. I What I have just said is. indeed, but proph- I ecy — and the prophecy, too, of an ignorant and : short-sighted man : — and it may, therefore, never ; be fulfilled. My anticipations of a beautiful and I blessed renovation for my beloved country may [ never be realized. She may be left to perish, and to perish forever. What then? Must I I cease my efforts for her salvation ? Happily, I i am not dependent on prophecy for the interpret^ j tion of my duty, nor to sustain my fidelity, nor to i encourage the opening of my lips. I am cast | upon no such uncertainty. I am to continue to j plead for my country ; and to feel assured, thai [ I do not plead in vain. If prophecy is all unccr- i tain — nevertheless, there are certainties, gracious j certainties, on which it i3 my privilege to rely, i I know, that in the Divine Economy, no honesj j discharge of the conscience, and no faithfc 1 testimony of the heart, shall be suffered to t unrewarded. I know, that, in this perfect and blessed Economy, no sincere words in behalf of the right are lost. Time and truth will save/ them from falling ineffectual. To time and truth,' | therefore, do I cordially commit all, that I ha\ \ said on this occasion; and patiently will I w | to see what use3 time and truth shall make o f I Note. — As this speech was delivered under *.\ \ one-hour rule, its argument, at several points, I was necessarily brief. In writing it out for the i press, the liberty has been taken to expand the j argument, at some of these points. 'UIXTKUS, WASHINGTON" , D. U. I WRY I OV^-