discharged? I absolve our adversaries from the imputation of fanaticism. Let them defend themselves against that of insanity or cruelty, if they can. Am I a fanatic when I decidedly condemn kidnapping, man-stealing, trafficking in human flesh, disfiguring and destroying the mind of man, the miniature resemblance of the Deity? Is it fanaticism or prophecy, when in a warning, though humble voice, I predict the results to which such irreligion and inhumanity must inevitably tend? Is the voice that spoke from Mount Sinai, the voice of fanaticism? How preposterous! how presumptuous! Yet such is the language which our adversaries adopt.

Whether fanatical or not, we are sincere ;-that virtue, at least, cannot be questioned. Can as much be said for our antagonists? What have we to gain personally from this struggle? Contumely and odium. We act under the influence of sympathy towards the whole race of mankind. They act under the more questionable influence of selfishness and personal aggrandizement. We are untainted with any thing like a suspicion of guilt, while in their sack the silver cup is found ;-the thirty pieces, the price of innocent blood, are detected.

Among those who dare to think for themselves, which embraces far from the largest portion of mankind-among those who do not belong to the common flock, which is always sure to follow where the bell-wether leads,— there are few uninterested and untrammelled, who will venture to maintain the expediency or justice of slavery. I say there are few uninterested and untrammelled. Do you ask a modern politician for his opinion,-politicians now being followers, not leaders,-before he expresses it, he borrows a hint from the South; the vote of the South must be secured. Do you ask a partisan for his opinion? He regulates his answer by its influence upon the election. Do you ask a would-be patriot? He tells you Jefferson was a fool, and instead of slavery destroying the country, it will destroy the country to abolish slavery. Do you ask the adherents of those several classes for their opinion? Why, they think as their principals, or neighbors think. And do you inquire the views of the last and lowest class? They don't think at all. They are the actors-the rank and file, always brawling about liberty without ever understanding it, and elevating themselves into that lawless superiority which depends solely upon brute and physical force. I do not mean the mechanical or laboring classes,--who are, in truth, the pride-the stay--the bone and sinew of the country,--but the mob--made up by the refuse of all the other classes, and preying upon all.

"The still and mental parts

That do contrive how many hands shall strike
When fitness calls them on, and know by measure
Of their observant toil the enemies' weight;

Why this hath not a finger's dignity—

They call this bed work, mappery, closet war,

So that the ram that batters down the wall,

For the great swing and rudeness of his poise,
They placed before his hand that made the engine,
Or those that with the fineness of their souls
By reason guide his execution."

Who then are the fanatics? Those who assert the right to discuss subjects of national policy and philanthropy? or those who utterly forbid it? Who venture to demand our citizens for daring to discuss or express an opinion upon the subject, and who even attempt to bully the representatives of the free states, (I do not use the term invidiously,) into an abandonment of their sacred duty? Look to the case of Hopper in Georgia, of Howard Payne, of Lovejoy, of Crandall.

Is this fanaticism?-is it ruffianism?-or what is it? That it is a gross violation of the law and of the rights of an American citizen, no man in his senses can for a moment doubt. Yet, some of our good citizens, in the very sincerity of fear and cold blood, and in the abundance of their sympathies, join in this storm of censure against their own friends, and clamor against interference with Southern bondage. Why, this indeed is frugal honesty. It is expediency. The cry is up, and it is easier to promote than resist it. But if they decide this great question by the relative noise of the parties, they will find themselves in a woful error. The moral sense of the community is with us-the judgment of impartial men is with us—the smiles of the world are with us,-and, above all,-the principles of eternal and immutable justice are with us. What else do you require? We do not disturb them.

When the colored man is claimed, we defend him, and afford him an opportunity of establishing his liberty. Who shall condemn this ? When we interpose, it is to meliorate the condition of the slave and master, through legislative and congressional enactment. We ask no violence-we invite to none. We avoid all. "Glory to God in the highest; on earth, peace and good will to men," is the motto on our banner. If that banner be stained with blood, it is not the blood of our adversaries, but our own. It may be matter of reproach to them, but assuredly not to us. The views of this body have been grossly misunderstood, and, by the wicked and designing, grossly misrepresented. The time approaches when it shall appear in its true features; stripped of the disguise with which it has been bedizened by its

enemies.

Tell me what is to be the result of this course? I do not mean within a year, or a century:-what effects will the ripening hand of Time alone produce, supposing that that which is to come conform to past experience. Why in less than a century, the colored population which now amounts to one-fifth of the people of the United States, increasing as it does, much faster than the white population, will exceed the white population. They have the benefit in their increase of all shades and complexions, from the black to the quadroon, while we are comparatively restricted. When their numerical force shall exceed ours, what then? I do not dare to hint at the fearful story which is reserved for the historians of that age. The event may be long delayed, but it must be finally met. And what a wretched and delusive policy is that, which postpones the resistance of infant evil, in the vain hope of subduing it with greater ease in its maturity of strength. Yet our brethren will not be warned. They cannot deny the conclusions at which we have arrived, and yet they lull themselves into repose by the fancy that the increase of their fellow-creatures in bondage, like that of their horses and sheep, will prove a blessing. Who ever knew vice to be eventually followed by a blessing? It may appear to prosper for a time, it is true; but the sequel will assuredly shew that that very prosperity was but one of its penalties.

In truth, time has already outgrown slavery; and this is in nothing more strongly manifested than in the threats and bravadoes of the South, who vent their spleen upon the few who act upon those principles that the many profess. "These signs," says a distinguished writer, "cannot be mistaken;" and she adds, "I never heard of any one but Gov. McDuffie, who supposed that slavery can last for ever. He in his message to the South Carolina Legislature, declares that he considers slavery the cornerstone of republican liberty. And that if he were dying, his latest prayer would be, that his children should live nowhere but amidst the institutions of slavery." Such sentiments deserve a halter or a mad shirt.

well Sala

Socberly of Freed

And yet, wonderful to relate, they were adopted in the Legislature by a solemn vote!-a solemn vote, indeed, it was—a most precious legacy from fathers to their offspring. This is the same ultra spirit that has produced. the recent disgraceful scenes in our national councils; scenes that an American should blush to remember, and which have doomed the actors therein to imperishable infamy. I speak freely, as belongs to the occasion, and as becomes this place, which is dedicated to Freedom. Liberty is lovely in all her attributes, but in none so much so as in that of speech, since upon that she must mainly depend for the preservation of all the rest.

It is further urged, however, that this property, these souls and sinews, are theirs. Grant it, for the argument,--though the warm blood freezes while we grant it; still if they profess to be willing to manumit their slaves in order to colonization, the mere pecuniary interest becomes no subject of objection, as the loss, in both cases, to the owner, would be the same. Or, if we are answered, that this manumission is to be partial, and not general, why then we reply as has long been contended, that while colonization lops off some of the branches of this Upas, it causes the tree to take a deeper root, and to flourish in wider and less irradicable ruin. By unanimity among the different states, by legislative enactments, and with the sanction of the national government, a thousand less objectionable modes of relief might be adopted. Settlements within the United States, upon the millions of acres unimproved, might be created or established. The whole earth opens her bosom, and stretches wide her arms to lure and lead us on to one great national effort in behalf of the oppressed-nay, not only in behalf of the oppressed, but in behalf of the oppressor, and for the honor of the free government under which they both live.

But, it is said, they must not be permitted to remain with us that this is the danger. There is no danger. How absurd it is to affect to believe that two millions of slaves, without civilization or moral instruction, and naturally entertaining great animosity towards those by whom they are held in bondage, should be perfectly harmless; whereas, these same men, when restored to freedom, and improved in their civil and moral relations, and bound in gratitude to their benefactors, should be so fraught with peril. That is not the experience which the history of the West India emancipation supplies. That is not consistent with human nature. It is not consistent even with brute instinct. To render a dog ferocious, you chain him. He becomes mild and tractable in his intercourse with men. The condition of the blacks, must even, if not slavish, for a long time necessarily remain servile. After their fetters are removed, the chains of prejudice still remain. But their services would be infinitely more valuable, and the expenses incident to them, by no means proportionably increased, were they restored to freedom. Diffused over this vast country, the poison would be so diluted, so neutralized, as to lose its destructive properties, and all society would soon resume its healthy tone, with the blessings of Heaven upon its head, and the peace of Heaven in its heart.

Still, it is asked, What! shall we admit them to the rights of citizens? That is a matter for future consideration. It does not essentially belong to the question, whether it is expedient to restore them to their natural rights. It does not belong to the question whether, being men, they shall be treated as beasts. Political or civil rights may be regulated according to circumstances, at least in relation to those whose freedom is conditional in its character; and we cannot perceive how this objection can be more available against abolition than colonization. The blacks are free, who are conveyed to the colony. They, as freemen, can return to the land of their choice, and therefore, the only difference is a voyage to the colony and back. How far

this shall qualify them for the purposes of government, and remove the objection to the enjoyment of equal rights, it remains for the friends of that circuitous and anomalous system to inform us. I am aware that much excitement has recently been produced by the question here in this statethe very first, I say it to her glory, to abolish slavery-as to the elective franchise of the blacks. Now, I confess, as to this question, if it could be considered in the abstract, I should feel no great anxiety. This is not the point of view in which it disturbs me. It is the manifestation of obsequiousness to the views of the South,—the want of that Roman firmness, in the prosecution of right, which becomes a great state, -the disposition to recede after forty years, even beyond the starting point of improvement,that is calculated to astound and appal every individual who contemplates it. The disposition, not simply to withhold a right never constitutionally granted, but to withdraw a right, previously conferred by the Constitution, in mean subserviency to popular clamor,-which, in this instance, at least, is assuredly not the voice of God. The names of Sergeant, of Chauncey, of Forward, of Cope, of Biddle, of Dunlop, of Chandler, of Earl, and other distinguished members of the Convention, as opposing this inexcusable invasion of the rights of the helpless and forlorn, will be handed down to an applauding posterity, while many of those by whom it was suggested and maintained, will be blessed by an oblivion, which they have so richly deserved; or if remembered at all, will be remembered only upon the principle, that a great name not more survives from good than evil deeds. I would rather, much rather, be recorded as one of the minority, on that great question of human rights, than emblazoned on history as one of the Spartan band that sacrificed their lives to the salvation of their country in the straits of Thermopylæ.

This is no time to discuss legal questions. The clauses in the different Constitutions speak for themselves. That of the year 1790 provides that, "In elections by the citizens, every freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in the state two years, next before the elections, and within that time paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least six months before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector.—Art. 3, Sec. 1.

That of 1838 runs thus:-"In elections by the citizens, every WHITE freeman of the age of twenty-one years, having resided in this state one year, and in the election district where he offers to vote, ten days immediately preceding such election, and within two years paid a state or county tax, which shall have been assessed at least ten days before the election, shall enjoy the rights of an elector. But a citizen of the United States, who had previously been a qualified voter of this state, and removed therefrom and returned, and who shall have resided in the election district, and paid taxes as aforesaid, shall be entitled to vote, after residing in the state six months."-Article 3, Section 1.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has recently decided, that the words every freeman," in the old Constitution, signified every white freeman. This decision is said to be founded upon a case in the High Court of Errors and Appeals, which case has no more to do with this subject, and I fear not so much, as the moon. The question determined in the Court of Errors was as to the slavery or freedom of an alleged bondsman. It was not whether a freeman whose face bore the shadowed livery of the burnished sun, was distinguished in his civil rights from one of lighter complexion: no such thing. The enjoyment of the right of franchise, almost wherever it was asserted throughout this state, apart from the plain

terms of the Constitution, was an apt interpretation of the rights possessed. As to decisions by inferior tribunals, they are of but little account. But it is a subject of deep regret, that so highly elevated, honorable, and dignified a tribunal, as that to which I have referred, should be betrayed into so gross and lamentable an error. It would be matter of great interest here to examine into the different views expressed by the judges, and the members of the Convention, upon this all important subject. Time will not allow the examination. But this, at least, may be said, that the judges determined, that a colored freeman never had the right to vote, under the old Constitution; and that some of the adversaries, the most distinguished adversaries of that right, in the Convention, gave as a reason, and almost the sole reason, for the introduction of the word white, that a colored freeman actually did enjoy the elective franchise under the old Constitution. So that it results in this: either the Supreme Court or the Convention must be wrong. I join with the opinion expressed by the Convention, and abundantly sustained by the Constitution itself. The very vote that created that Convention was, in part, a vote of the colored population; and to say, therefore, that their constituents had no right to vote, was virtually to determine that they had no right to their places. And admitting that right to vote, the introduction of the word white, by which that right was restricted, was taking from the colored citizens a privilege that was conferred upon them fifty years ago. If this is to be considered as an evidence of our improvement in intelligence, morality, or humanity, and of the extension of freedom in a state that was the first to abolish slavery, why then, I say, that we have fallen upon evil times; and the sooner we return to the character and practices of our forefathers, the better for us, and for all who depend upon us. This I hold to be a sacrifice to the prejudices and clamors of the South. It can be attributable to no other probable cause. They arrest our citizens-consign them to prison-deprive them of liberty-destroy their lives, and in requital for all this, to show how well we have learned our scriptural lessons, and in order to return good for evil, we retrace the steps which fifty years have sanctioned, and dilapidate the temple of liberty which our ancestors have anxiously and laboriously erected.

Some of the members engaged in the discussion of this important subject, seem to think that the negroes, as they termed them, never were designed to be placed upon a level with the whites, being of an inferior species of an inferior order of intellect. Upon what level, may I be permitted to ask, would those honorable gentlemen be placed, were their position regulated strictly by the intellectual scale. This is severe doctrine, even when applied to men who enjoy equal opportunities for improvement. But how cruel and unjust is it, when directed against those unhappy beings, who are by law excluded from the benefits of instruction, and then generously taunted with ignorance and inferiority. Intellectual inferiority, if it existed, which, so far as regards capacity, I deny, is no justification of slavery. When it shall become so, let him who advocates such principles look well to his freedom, for it will certainly be in jeopardy.

To say no more of intellect. I have known instances of moral firmness and decision of character among this proscribed race, that many of the honorable gentlemen who thus contemn them, would blench and blanch in the mere contemplation of.

Those of us who are closely approaching the meridian of life, must recollect perfectly a murder committed in this city about thirty years agothe murder of Sarah Cross, an old lady who lived in Letitia Court. The malefactors were two colored men, John Joyce and Peter Mathias, the latter