perly, "with the appellation," Mr. Madison proceeds further to define a republican government as one whose officers are appointed by THE PEOPLE, &c. "It is essential to such a government," says he, "that it be derived from the great body of society, NOT from an inconsiderable portion, OR, a favored class of it." And this is the same Mr. Madison, who, in the Convention for drafting the Constitution which he was now recommending, had insisted that the instrument must not recognize the legality of slavery.

The adoption of the Federal Constitution was thus successfully urged upon the people, by representing it as laying the foundation of the Government upon "the principles of the Revolution "the principles of '76,-the principles promul gated so effectively by Mr. Jefferson, who had said—

"The true foundation of republican government is the EQUAL RIGHTS OF EVERY CITIZEN, in his PERSON and PROPERTY, and in their MANAGEMENT," and who had explicitly designated the slaves as citizens."*

In No. 84 of "The Federalist" several pages are devoted to a consideration of what was evidently understood to be a vital point, in the minds of the people, who were so soon to decide on the adoption or rejection of the proposed Constitution.

"The most considerable of the remaining objections," says the writer, "is, that the plan of the Convention contains no bill of rights."

The writer speaks of "the intemperate partizans of a bill of rights," and of their "zeal in this matter." This shows that many of the people were sensitive on this point, and that the friends of the proposed Constitution were afraid of its being rejected in consequence.

And how did "The Federalist" successfully allay this Jealousy, and persuade the people to adopt the proposed Con- stitution?

* With what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting one half of the citizens thus to trample upon the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the amor patrics of the other."-Notes on Virginia.

It was done, first, by citing a number of specific provisions in the Constitution, equivalent, (as was claimed) to so many corresponding items in a bill of rights; and, second, by citing the PREAMBLE to the Constitution, setting forth its objects "to secure the blessings of liberty," &c. to "the people of the United States." This Preamble, as being a part of the Constitution, and its very basis, to which all the rest was conformed, was represented as being not only a bill of rights in the general, but "a better recognition of popular rights" than could otherwise have been framed, and less liable to be set aside, under a "plausible pretence," by men "disposed to usurp power."*

The objectors had desired such a bill of rights as several of the States, particularly Massachusetts, had already adopted, and under which, before that time, the Courts of Massachusetts had decided slavery to be illegal. Yet "The Federalist" assured them that the Constitution was more than the equivalent of such bills of rights.

It was under the pressure of expositions and arguments like these, from leading members of the Convention, that the people were persuaded to ratify the Constitution that had been elaborated with closed doors. They ratified it with "the understanding," so frequently expressed by and among them, that the Constitution was in favor of freedom. We know of no record in which the ratification of that instrument was urged, either at the North or at the South, on the ground that it was the guaranty of any form of despotism-or on the ground that the conflicting interests of liberty and slavery had been compromised. The whole current of the political literature of that period forbids the idea that any such appeals could have been adventured.

But the people, though they ratified the Constitution, were

The reader is doubtless familiar with the modern pleas, that the Preamble has no controlling power over the Constitution; that it does not furnish a criterion for Constitutional exposition; and that, in fact, it is no part of the Constitution! We may judge what would have been the fate of the proposed Constitution, if its friends had outstript its enemies in representing it thus!

not satisfied to do so without insisting upon important amendments. The Conventions of Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island, proposed a provision as follows:

"NO FREEMAN ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, privileges, or franchises, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner despoiled or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, BUT BY THE LAW OF THE LAND."-Elliot's Debates, 658.

New York proposed a different provision:

"NO PERSON ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, or be exiled, or deprived of his privileges, franchises, life, liberty, or property, but by due process of law."-1 Ibid, 328.

These various propositions came before Congress, and that body, at its first session, agreed upon several amendments to the Constitution, which were subsequently ratified by the States. That which related to personal liberty was expressed in these comprehensive words :

"No person

shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."-Cons., Amend., Art. 5.

It is to be noted, as an important historical fact, that this remarkable provision is an amendment, coming in after the original instrument had been ratified, thus over-riding and controlling, like all other amendments, whatever in the original instrument may have been supposed to be of a contrary bearing.

The ratification of Rhode Island was longest withheld, and was most remarkable in its mode of expression. It was, in fact, conditional. It specified a long list of declarations of rights, and then said:

"Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments hereafter mentioned will receive an early and mature deliberation, and conformably to the 5th article of said Constitution, speedily become parts thereof: We the said delegates," &c., &c., " do assent to and ratify the said Constitution."

Among these declarations of rights were some equivalent to those of the Declaration of Independence.

Among the proposed amendments, above mentioned, was the following:

"As a traffic tending to establish or continue the slavery of any part of the human species, is disgraceful to the cause of religion and humanity, that

Congress as soon as may be, promote and establish such laws as may effectually prevent the importation of slaves, of any description, into the United States."

From this it is seen, that the State whose citizens were most deeply engaged in the lucrative importation of slaves, the only State, perhaps, that was growing rich by the continuance of the slave system, consented to ratify the Federal Constitution only on condition that the traffic should be speedily prohibited. No other ratification of the Constitution was ever made by Rhode Island. She never consented to the twenty years' delay of that prohibition.

CHAPTER X.

OF DIRECT ANTI-SLAVERY EFFORTS, INCLUDING ECCLESIASTICAL ACTION, FROM THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION TO THE CLOSE OF THE LAST CENTURY, AND THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE NORTHERN STATES.

Republication of Hopkins' Dialogue (1785)—Edwards' Sermon (1791)—Anti-Slavery Meeting at Woodbridge, N. J. (1788)-Abolition Societies in Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia, New Jersey, DelawareNames of distinguished abolitionists-Memorial to Leg. of New York, by Jay, Hamilton, &c.-Petitions to Congress, by B. Franklin and others--Discussions in Congress-William and Mary College (Va.)-Action of Methodist E. ConferencePresb. General Assembly-Baptists-Action of the States-Virginia, Delaware, Rhode Island, Vermont-Massachusetts-Pennsylvania-New Hampshire, Connecticut-New York-New Jersey-Census of remaining slaves.

SIGNIFICANT as are the facts recorded in the two preceding chapters, they would fail of producing their full and proper impression, unless connected with an account of other movements witnessed at the same time, and extending to a still later period of our history. It was not in the National Councils alone, the resolutions and acts of Congress, the corresponding proceedings of State and County Conventions, the action of State legislatures, and the declarations of prominent statesmen, that the rising of sentiment against slavery was apparent. Then, as at other times, under popular institutions, such manifestations were to be regarded as evidences of a still broader and deeper current of public opinion, that was producing them. Then, as now; here, as in Great Britain, the public bodies and functionaries nearest to the people, freshest from their bosom, most accessible to their inspection,