FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2273   2274   2275   2276   2277   2278   2279   2280   2281   2282   2283   2284   2285   2286   2287   2288   2289   2290   2291   2292   2293   2294   2295   2296   2297  
2298   2299   2300   2301   2302   2303   2304   2305   2306   2307   2308   2309   2310   2311   2312   2313   2314   2315   2316   2317   2318   2319   2320   2321   2322   >>   >|  
destruction one-sixth part of the whole population? It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which has been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indicates either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. JAMES MADISON as one of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority on this point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia convention, he said:-- "Another clause _secures us that property which we now possess_. At present, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, _he becomes emancipated by their laws_; for the laws of the States are _uncharitable_(!) to one another in this respect; but in this constitution, 'No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or labor away be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED TO ENABLE THE OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. _This is a better security than any that now exists_. No power is given to the general government to interfere with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States." In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, GOV. RANDOLPH said:-- "Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when authority is given to owners of slaves to _vindicate their property_, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought that, after taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?" It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is criticism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as property, but also as persons--as having a mixed character--as combining the human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit; but slavery is a paradox--the American Constitution is a paradox--the American Union is a paradox--the American Government is a paradox; and if any one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, they all are. That it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny the binding authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we distinctly affirm. After the independence of this country had been achieved, the voice of God exho
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2273   2274   2275   2276   2277   2278   2279   2280   2281   2282   2283   2284   2285   2286   2287   2288   2289   2290   2291   2292   2293   2294   2295   2296   2297  
2298   2299   2300   2301   2302   2303   2304   2305   2306   2307   2308   2309   2310   2311   2312   2313   2314   2315   2316   2317   2318   2319   2320   2321   2322   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

slaves

 

clause

 
property
 

service

 

paradox

 

American

 

States

 

authority

 

persons

 

consequence


respect

 

convention

 

runaway

 

present

 

Constitution

 

vindicate

 
taking
 

supposed

 

owners

 

thought


Maryland

 

refers

 

bringing

 

citizen

 
deprived
 

objected

 

combining

 
freedom
 

binding

 
secede

friends
 
repudiated
 

ground

 

distinctly

 

affirm

 

achieved

 

independence

 
country
 
Government
 

recognized


Slaves

 
criticism
 
slavery
 

paradoxical

 

brutal

 

character

 
RANDOLPH
 

instrument

 

Virginia

 

Another