FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681  
682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706   >>   >|  
Virginia standard of vigor! Again, if the good faith of Congress to Virginia and Maryland requires that slavery should exist in the District, while it exists in those states, it requires that it should exist there as it exists in those states. If to abolish _every_ form of slavery in the District would violate good faith, to abolish _the_ form existing in those states, and to substitute a different one, would also violate it. The Congressional "good faith" is to be kept not only with _slavery_, but with the _Maryland and Virginia systems_ of slavery. The faith of those states being not that Congress would maintain a system, but _their_ system; otherwise instead of _sustaining_, Congress would counteract their policy--principles would be brought into action there conflicting with their system, and thus the true sprit of the "implied" pledge would be violated. On this principle, so long as slaves are "chattels personal" in Virginia and Maryland, Congress could not make them _real estate_ in the District, as they are in Louisiana; nor could it permit slaves to read, nor to worship God according to conscience; nor could it grant them trial by jury, nor legalize marriage; nor require the master to give sufficient food and clothing; nor prohibit the violent sundering of families--because such provisions would conflict with the existing slave laws of Virginia and Maryland, and thus violate the "good faith implied," &c. So the principle of the resolution binds Congress in all these particulars: 1st. Not to abolish slavery in the District _until_ Virginia and Maryland abolish. 2d. Not to abolish any _part_ of it that exists in those states. 3d. Not to abolish any _form_ or _appendage_ of it still existing in those states. 4th. To _abolish_ when they do. 5th. To increase or abate its rigors _when, how,_ and _as_ the same are modified by those states. In a word, Congressional action in the District is to float passively in the wake of legislative action on the subject in those states. But here comes a dilemma. Suppose the legislation of those states should steer different courses--then there would be _two_ wakes! Can Congress float in both? Yea, verily! Nothing is too hard for it! Its obsequiousness equals its "power of legislation in _all_ cases whatsoever." It can float _up_ on the Virginia tide, and ebb down on the Maryland. What Maryland does, Congress will do in the Maryland part. What Virginia does, Congress will do in
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   657   658   659   660   661   662   663   664   665   666   667   668   669   670   671   672   673   674   675   676   677   678   679   680   681  
682   683   684   685   686   687   688   689   690   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701   702   703   704   705   706   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
states
 

Virginia

 

Maryland

 

Congress

 

abolish

 

District

 
slavery
 

action

 

existing

 

violate


system
 

exists

 

principle

 
slaves
 
legislation
 
implied
 

Congressional

 
requires
 

passively

 

modified


rigors

 

appendage

 

increase

 

particulars

 

Nothing

 
obsequiousness
 

equals

 
whatsoever
 

verily

 

dilemma


Suppose

 

subject

 

courses

 

legislative

 
conscience
 

brought

 
conflicting
 

principles

 

policy

 

sustaining


counteract

 

chattels

 

pledge

 
violated
 

standard

 
substitute
 
maintain
 

systems

 
personal
 
violent