stances, it was difficult, extremely difficult, to agree to any general system." 1

1

The members of the Virginia convention were nearly equally divided upon the question of ratification, and the opposition embraced a very considerable proportion of the talent of the state. Amongst the opponents, there were none more decided or more zealous than George Mason and Patrick Henry.

When the section, declaring that the importation of such persons as any of the states might think proper to admit, should not be prohibited by congress prior to the year 1808, was under consideration, Mr. George Mason said, “As much as I value an union of all the states, I would not admit the southern states' into the union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade; because it would bring weakness and not strength to the union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no security for the property of that kind which we have already. There is no clause in this constitution to secure it; for they may lay such tax as will amount to manumission."

Mr. Madison answered these objections as follows: "I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. The southern states would not have entered into the union of America without the temporary permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws and we may continue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of the confederation it might be continued forever, but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is therefore an amelioration of our

1 Elliott's Debates, vol. ii, p. 450.

2 By southern states was meant South Carolina and Georgia.

circumstances. A tax may be laid in the meantime, but it is limited, otherwise congress might lay such a tax as would amount to a prohibition. From the mode of representation and taxation, congress cannot lay such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those states where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the states are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But by this constitution 'no person held to service or labor in one state under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states. The taxation of this state being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes.'

Patrick Henry endeavored to support the objection that if the constitution were adopted, congress might abolish slavery. "As much," said he, " as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free; because a decided majority of the states have not the ties of sympathy and fellow feeling for those whose interest would be affected by the emancipation. The majority of congress is to the north, and the slaves are to the south. In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul that every one

of my fellow beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire that decree of heaven which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow men in bondage. But is it practicable by any human means, to liberate them without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we have inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of our country. But we ought to soften as much as possible the rigor of their unhappy fate."1

Mr. Henry was answered by governor Randolph: "I ask," said he, "and I will ask again and again, until I be answered, (not by declamation) where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of slavery? Is it the clause which says that 'the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by congress prior to the year 1808.' This is an exception from the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were it right here to mention what passed in convention on the occasion, I might tell you that the southern states, even South Carolina herself, conceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe, whatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the Virginia delegation, who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery. Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where this formidable power of emancipation is inserted. But another clause of the constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of the clause are, No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in con

'Elliott's Debates, vol. ii. p. 432,

sequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.' Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor; and when authority is given to owners of slaves to vindicate their property, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this state, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought, that after taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free."1

The sentiment of North Carolina, like that of Virginia, was strongly opposed to any continuance of the importation of slaves; but in both states, it was equally necessary to satisfy the minds of the people, that the property then existing in slaves was secured and protected.

When, in the convention of North Carolina, the last clause of the second section of the fourth article was read, Mr. Iredell explained the reason of the clause. "In some of the northern states," he observed, "they have emancipated all their slaves. If any of our slaves go there, and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the southern states, and to prevent it this clause is inserted in the constitution. Though the word slave be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The northern delegates, owing to their peculiar scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word slave to be mentioned." 2

On the other hand, the countenance given by the constitution to slavery, was urged at the north as a reason against ratifying it. Upon this subject, the following sensible remarks were made in the convention of Massachusetts, by

1 Elliott's Debates, vol. ii, p. 437.

2 Id. vol. ii. 157.

general Heath. "I apprehend," said he, "that it is not in our power to do anything for or against those who are in slavery in the southern states. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery more than I do. It is generally detested by the people of this commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when our brethren in the southern states will view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions naturally arise. If we ratify the constitution, shall we do anything by our act to hold the blacks in slavery; or shall we become the partakers of other men's sins? I think, neither of them. Each state is sovereign and independent, to a certain degree, and they have a right, and will regulate their own internal affairs as to themselves appears proper; and shall we refuse to eat or to drink, or to be united with those who do not think or act just as we do? Surely not. We are not, in this case, partakers of other men's sins; for in nothing do we voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow men."1

Sentiments of this character finally prevailed; and such sentiments should now govern the conduct of the north.

The preceding extracts from the debates in the state conventions show, that, when in the commencement of the former number, we assumed that there were provisions in the federal constitution, on which the owners of slave property were induced to rely at the time of its adoption, we were fully warranted in that assumption.

They also show the entire correctness of the premises from which judge Nelson reasoned, in the opinion delivered by him, from which extracts were made in the latter part of the same number. The premises were, that the people of the slaveholding states were apprehensive that a non-slaveholding state might pass laws, whereby they would be pre

Elliott's Debates, vol. i, p. 124.