FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   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   >>   >|  
the exception of the sixth article which prohibits slavery_; thus conceding, both the competency of law to abolish slavery, and the power of Congress to do it, within its jurisdiction. Besides, these acts show the prevalent belief at that time, in the slaveholding States, that the general government had adopted a line of policy aiming at the exclusion of slavery from the entire territory of the United States, not included within the original States, and that this policy would be pursued unless prevented by specific and formal stipulation. Slaveholding states have asserted this power _in their judicial decisions._ In numerous cases their highest courts have decided that if the legal owner of slaves takes them into those States where slavery has been abolished either by law or by the constitution, such removal emancipates them, such law or constitution abolishing their slavery. This principle is asserted in the decision of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the case of Lunsford _vs._ Coquillon, 14 Martin's La. Reps. 401. Also by the Supreme Court of Virginia, in the case of Hunter _vs._ Fulcher, 1 Leigh's Reps. 172. The same doctrine was laid down by Judge Washington, of the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Butler _vs._ Hopper, Washington's Circuit Court Reps. 508. This principle was also decided by the Court of Appeals in Kentucky; case of Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 Marshall's Reps. 407; see also, Wilson _vs._ Isbell, 5 Call's Reps. 425, Spotts _vs._ Gillespie, 6 Randolph's Reps. 566. The State _vs._ Lasselle, 1 Blackford's Reps. 60, Marie Louise _vs._ Mariot, 8 La. Reps. 475. In this case, which was tried in 1836, the slave had been taken by her master to France and brought back; Judge Mathews, of the Supreme Court of Louisiana, decided that "residence for one moment" under the laws of France emancipated her. 6. _Eminent statesmen, themselves slaveholders, have conceded this power_. Washington, in a letter to Robert Morris, dated April 12, 1786, says: "There is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to Lafayette, dated May 10, 1786, he says: "It (the abolition of slavery) certainly might, and assuredly ought to be effected, and that too by _legislative_ authority." In a letter to John Fenton Mercer, dated Sept. 9,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   456   457   458   459   460   461   462   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   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

slavery

 

States

 

Supreme

 
letter
 

Washington

 

decided

 

constitution

 

asserted

 
France
 
Louisiana

principle
 

legislative

 
United
 

adopted

 

authority

 
abolition
 
policy
 
Gillespie
 
Randolph
 
Mathews

Spotts

 

Isbell

 

Wilson

 

brought

 

Mariot

 

Louise

 

residence

 

Blackford

 
master
 

Lasselle


Lafayette

 

accomplished

 

proper

 

effectual

 

Fenton

 

Mercer

 

assuredly

 

effected

 
slaveholders
 

conceded


Robert

 

Morris

 

statesmen

 
emancipated
 

Eminent

 

sincerely

 

wishes

 

living

 

moment

 
territory