that men are, by nature, free; as accountable to Him that made them, they must be so; and so long as we have any idea of divine justice, we must associate that of human freedom. Whether men can part with their liberty, is among the questions which have exercised the ablest writers; but it is conceded, on all hands, that the right to be free CAN NEVER BE ALIENATED; still less is it practicable for one generation to mortgage the privileges of another."

A more forcible denial of the possibility of legalizing slavery could not easily have been penned.

About this time, or not long after, Mr. Jefferson wrote his. celebrated Notes on Virginia, in which his testimonies against slavery are so various and emphatic, that we hesitate what paragraph to select for quotation. The following serves to show what such men, at that time, expected and desired to see accomplished, and what was then, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, the state of sentiment in the Southern States.

"I think a change is already perceptible since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave is rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, THE WAY, I HOPE, PREPARING, under THE AUSPICES OF HEAVEN, FOR A TOTAL EMANCIPATION."

General Gates, the conqueror of Burgoyne, emancipated, in 1780, his numerous slaves.

From the beginning to the close of the war, one uniform language was held. Soon after the peace of 1783, Congress issued an address to the States, drawn up by Mr. Madison, a main object of which was to ask the provision of funds to discharge the public engagements. The plea is thus urged: "Let it be remembered, finally, that it has ever been the pride and boast of America that the rights for which she contended were the rights of human nature. By the blessing of the Author of these rights on the means exerted for their defence, they have prevailed against all opposition, and form the basis of THIRTEEN INDEPENDENT STATES."

The expression of similar sentiments did not then cease, nor were they confined to public acts.

"Jefferson, Pendleton, Mason, Wythe, and Lee, while acting as a committee of the House of Delegates of Virginia, to revise the State Laws, prepared a plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves, by law."

In addition to these, "Grayson, St. George Tucker, Madison, Blair, Page, Parker, Edmund Randolph, Iredell, Spaight, Ramsey, McHenry, Samuel

Chase, and nearly all the illustrious names south of the Potomac, proclaimed it before the sun, that the days of slavery were beginning to be numbered."-Power of Congress over the "District of Columbia," by T. D. WELD.

But it is needless to multiply these references. So universal were these sentiments, that Mr. Leigh, in the Convention of Virginia, in 1832, took occasion to say:

"I thought, till very lately, that it was known to every body that, during the Revolution, and for many years after, the abolition of slavery was a -favorite topic with many of our ablest statesmen, who entertained with respect all the schemes which wisdom or ingenuity could suggest for its accomplishment."

Mr. Faulkner, in the same Convention, alluded to the same fact, as did also Gov. Barbour, of Virginia, in the United States' Senate, in 1820.

These professions of the fathers of our republic were not totally unaccompanied with corresponding action.

The articles of Association, including the solemn pledge to discontinue the slave trade, appear to have been generally respected and observed. That there were unprincipled men who evaded or transgressed them, as there were other traitors to the cause of liberty, there can be no doubt. After the close of the war, this is known to have been the fact. But the States took early measures for its suppression.

"The first opportunity was taken, after the Declaration of Independence, to extinguish the detestable commerce so long forced upon the province (Virginia). In October, 1778, during the tumult and anxiety of the Revolution, the General Assembly passed a law, prohibiting, under heavy penalties, the further importation of slaves, and declaring that every slave imported thereafter, should be immediately set free." "The example of Virginia. was followed, at different times, before the date of the Federal Constitution, by most of the other States."-Walsh's " Appeal”—Vide " Friend of Man," June 21, 1837. Copied from "Human Rights."

"We are not aware that any State allowed the importation of slaves at the time," when the Constitution was adopted. "The first State that renewed the traffic, so far as we know, was S. Carolina." in 1803.—“ Human Rights"—" F. of Man," as above.

Under what influences, and with what activity, the slave trade was resumed, from 1803 to 1808, will be shown in the proper place.

CHAPTER IX.

ERA OF FORMING THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

Prevailing Sentiment-Washington-Luther Martyn-William Pinckney-NorthWestern Territory-Ordinance of 1787-Madison-" Understandings"-WilsonHeath-Johnson-Randolph-Patrick Henry-Iredell-"The Federalist," by Jay, Madison, and Hamilton-Ratifications-Rhode Island-New York--VirginiaNorth Carolina-Amendment-" Due process of law."

FROM the close of the Revolutionary war in 1783, to the sitting of the Constitutional Convention, was a space of only four years. Thence, two more years bring us to the adoption of the Constitution, in 1789. What was the prevailing sentiment of that period?

In a letter to Robert Morris, dated Mount Vernon, April 12, 1786, George Washington said:

"I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (siavery ;) but there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that is by legislative authority; and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting."-9 Sparks's Washington, 158.

In a letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 1786, he reiterated this

sentiment:

"I never mean, unless some particular circumstances should compel me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law."-Ibid.

And in a letter to Sir John Sinclair, he further said:

"There are in Pennsylvania laws for the gradual abolition of slavery, which neither Virginia nor Maryland have at present, but which nothing is more certain than they must have, and at a period not remote."

By his last will and testament he made all his slaves free.

The testimonies of Franklin, Rush, and Jay, in strong op position to slavery, have been cited in another connection.*

We have now traced the history of the "peculiar institution" down to the time when the Federal Constitution was about to be formed. Exceedingly "peculiar" indeed, are the vouchers for its authenticity and legality down to that point in our national history. What occurred while the Federal Constitution was in process of forming, is the next historical fact to be inquired after. What was likely to have occurred, and even, indeed, what could have occurred, may well nigh be read in the mere light of the historical facts already noticed. Those facts, at least, should not be left out of the account, in any attempts at a historical exposition of the Constitution, if, indeed, the advocates of the "institution" adventure into the field of history at all, in defence of their claims. The simple history, and not the argument, must occupy, at present, our attention, and yet it is in the light of the pending controversy that we should ponder the facts. It is that contest that gives them their value, and they should be collected, arranged and studied with a view to the points to be illustrated and determined by them.

Luther Martin, of Maryland, advocated the abolition of slavery, in the Federal Convention of 1787, and in his Report of the proceedings of that Convention to the Legislature of his own State.

William Pinckney, of Maryland, in the House of Delegates in that State, in 1789, urged, strongly, the abolition of slavery. We will give but a specimen of his language on that occasion.

"Sir-Iniquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland, is that dreary system of partial bondage which her laws have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a better object, and her citizens by their practice, countenanced. Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to which the parent country lent its fostering aid, from motives of interest, but which even she would have disdained to encourage, had England been the destined mart of such inhuman merchandize, its continuance is as shameful as its origin."

* Chapter IV.

NORTH-WESTERN TERRITORY-ORDINANCE OF 1787.

While the Convention for drafting the Constitution of the United States was in session, in 1787, the Old Congress passed an ordinance abolishing slavery in the North-Western Territory, and precluding its future introduction there. The first Congress under the new Constitution ratified this ordinance, by a special act. It received the approval of Washington, who was then fresh from the discussions of the Convention for drafting the Federal Constitution. The measure originated with Jefferson, and its ratification in the new Congress received the vote of every member except Mr. Yates, of New York, the entire Southern delegation voting for its adoption. By this ordinance slavery was excluded from Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa.

The series of articles is preceded by this preamble:

"And for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in said Territory; to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the Federal Councils at as early a period as may be consistent with the general interest :-Be it ordained and established," &c. &c.

Then follow the articles. The sixth is as follows:

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided, always, that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service may be lawfully claimed, in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service, as aforesaid."

"The Constitution," it is claimed, "guaranties slavery.” And "the compromises of the Constitution" are very generally conceded, even among those who disrelish and controvert the claim. We enter not now into matters of mere opinion. But the continuity and fidelity of the history we have attempted, compel us to attend to the facts.