FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551  
552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   >>   >|  
e master to give his slaves a certain amount of food and clothing. If it can oblige the master to give the slave _one_ thing, it can oblige him to give him another: if food and clothing, then wages, liberty, his own body. By the laws of Connecticut, slaves may receive and hold property, and prosecute suits in their own name as plaintiffs: [This last was also the law of Virginia in 1795. See Tucker's "Dissertation on Slavery," p. 73.] There were also laws making marriage contracts legal, in certain contingencies, and punishing infringements of them, ["_Reeve's Law of Baron and Femme_," p. 340-1.] Each of the laws enumerated above, does, _in principle_, abolish slavery; and all of them together abolish it in fact. True, not as a _whole_, and at a _stroke_, nor all in one place; but in its _parts_, by piecemeal, at divers times and places; thus showing that the abolition of slavery is within the boundary of legislation. 5. THE COMPETENCY OF THE LAW-MAKING POWER TO ABOLISH SLAVERY, HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY ALL THE SLAVEHOLDING STATES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR BY IMPLICATION. Some States recognize it in their _Constitutions_, by giving the legislature power to emancipate such slaves as may "have rendered the state some distinguished service, "and others by express prohibitory restrictions. The Constitution of Mississippi, Arkansas, and other States, restrict the power of the legislature in this respect. Why this express prohibition, if the law-making power _cannot_ abolish slavery? A stately farce, indeed, to construct a special clause, and with appropriate rites induct it into the Constitution, for the express purpose of restricting a nonentity!--to take from the law-making power what it _never had_, and what _cannot_ pertain to it! The legislatures of those States have no power to abolish slavery, simply because their Constitutions have expressly _taken away_ that power. The people of Arkansas, Mississippi, &c., well knew the competency of the law-making power to abolish slavery, and hence their zeal to _restrict_ it. The slaveholding States have recognised this power in their _laws_. The Virginia Legislature passed a law in 1786 to prevent the further importation of Slaves, of which the following is an extract: "And be it further enacted that every slave imported into this commonwealth contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act, shall upon such importation become _free_." By a law of Virginia, passed Dec. 17, 1792,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   527   528   529   530   531   532   533   534   535   536   537   538   539   540   541   542   543   544   545   546   547   548   549   550   551  
552   553   554   555   556   557   558   559   560   561   562   563   564   565   566   567   568   569   570   571   572   573   574   575   576   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
abolish
 

slavery

 

making

 

States

 

express

 

slaves

 
Virginia
 

restrict

 

Arkansas

 

Mississippi


passed

 

importation

 

Constitution

 

clothing

 

oblige

 

legislature

 

Constitutions

 

master

 

nonentity

 
clause

special
 
induct
 
purpose
 

restricting

 

service

 
respect
 

distinguished

 
prohibitory
 

restrictions

 
stately

rendered

 
prohibition
 
construct
 

enacted

 
imported
 
commonwealth
 

extract

 
contrary
 

intent

 

meaning


Slaves

 
prevent
 

simply

 

expressly

 

pertain

 

legislatures

 
people
 
slaveholding
 

recognised

 
Legislature