FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487  
488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   >>   >|  
power, when unrestricted by constitutional provisions, and that the legislation of Congress over the District _is_ thus unrestricted, its power to abolish slavery there is established. Besides this general ground, the power of Congress to abolish slavery in the District may be based upon another equally tenable. We argue it from the fact, that slavery exists there _now_ by an act of Congress. In the act of 16th July, 1790, Congress accepted portions of territory offered by the states of Maryland and Virginia, and enacted that the laws, as they then were, should continue in force, "until Congress shall otherwise by law provide;" thus making the slave codes of Maryland and Virginia its own. Under these laws, adopted by Congress, and in effect re-enacted and made laws of the District, the slaves there are now held. Is Congress so impotent in its own "exclusive jurisdiction" that it _cannot_ "otherwise by law provide?" If it can say, what _shall_ be considered property, it can say what shall _not_ be considered property. Suppose a legislature enacts, that marriage contracts shall be mere bills of sale, making a husband the proprietor of his wife, as his _bona fide_ property; and suppose husbands should herd their wives in droves for the market as beasts of burden, or for the brothel as victims of lust, and then prate about their inviolable legal property, and deny the power of the legislature, which stamped them property, to undo its own wrong, and secure to wives by law the rights of human beings. Would such cant about "legal rights" be heeded where reason and justice held sway, and where law, based upon fundamental morality, received homage? If a frantic legislature pronounces woman a chattel, has it no power, with returning reason, to take back the blasphemy? Is the impious edict irrepealable? Be it, that with legal forms it has stamped wives "wares." Can no legislation blot out the brand? Must the handwriting of Deity on human nature be expunged for ever? Has law no power to stay the erasing pen, and tear off the scrawled label that covers up the IMAGE OF GOD? We now proceed to show that THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT HAS BEEN, TILL RECENTLY, UNIVERSALLY CONCEDED. 1. It has been assumed by Congress itself. The following record stands on the journals of the House of Representatives for 1804, p. 225: "On motion made and seconded that the House do come to the following resolution: 'Res
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   463   464   465   466   467   468   469   470   471   472   473   474   475   476   477   478   479   480   481   482   483   484   485   486   487  
488   489   490   491   492   493   494   495   496   497   498   499   500   501   502   503   504   505   506   507   508   509   510   511   512   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Congress

 

property

 

legislature

 

slavery

 

District

 

provide

 
making
 
reason
 

stamped

 

considered


rights

 
unrestricted
 

legislation

 

enacted

 
Maryland
 

abolish

 

Virginia

 
nature
 

handwriting

 

scrawled


erasing

 

expunged

 

chattel

 
returning
 

pronounces

 
received
 

homage

 

frantic

 

irrepealable

 

blasphemy


impious

 

provisions

 

record

 

stands

 

journals

 

assumed

 

Representatives

 

resolution

 

seconded

 

motion


CONCEDED
 

constitutional

 

CONGRESS

 

proceed

 

morality

 

ABOLISH

 

RECENTLY

 

UNIVERSALLY

 

SLAVERY

 

DISTRICT