G:G 



SLAVERY. 



At the foundation of the government of the 

 United States the conflict was already formulated 

 in i!,s incipient stages. England had already, 

 through her judiciary, declared that slavery could 

 uot exist under the laws of that country, thus em- 

 phasizing that aspect of slavery that concerned its 

 relations to the principles on which the higher form 

 of organized government depended. The question 

 of its humanity became involved with that of its 

 effect upon the condition and objects of government, 

 as interpreted from the principles of lil>erty. 



The history of the development of American sla- 

 very is the history of its territorial extension, for as 

 .1 system it exhibits no progressive steps of 

 advance toward anything that may be esteemed as 

 i >al of the system. Had there been any possi- 

 bility of its taking on a character in harmony witli 

 a latticing conceptions of society, American faculty 

 u p'ii.1 doubtless have found the means of advancing 

 toward that result. The inability of American 

 ing -unity to raise the institution of slavery from a 

 1 '-.v.-r to a higher plane emphasizes the conclusion 

 that it is to be regarded as a survival of savagery 

 capable of no permanent place in the scheme of 

 civilization, but destined for elimination. The his- 

 tory of slavery in the United States exhibits a dual 

 can test, on the one hand for its territorial exten- 

 sion in order to entrench it in popular interest and 

 favor, and on the other to eliminate it from the sys- 

 tem of the country. 



The cession by Virginia to the United States of 

 the territory northwest of the Ohio River brought 

 the subject of the extension of slavery over the 

 territories into active discussion. This cession was 

 followed by the ordinance for thn government of 

 the Northwest Territory, that declared that sla- 

 very should be forever excluded from that terri- 

 tory. This ordinance, speaking as it does tho 

 K'u'imentof the people of the United States, con- 

 demns in effect the institution of slavery as uu- 

 suited to harmonize with the spirit of American 

 lili >r'y, and as justified whore it should continue to 

 exist by local causes alone. Unless the ordinance 

 can be interpreted in this sense it cannot be ration- 

 ally interpreted at all. 



The Constitution of the Unite.l Stages, framed in 

 th same year with the ordinance juit mentioned, 

 1 7 * 7, declares that Cjngress sho-il.l not interfere 

 with the migration or imo >rtatirvi of such persons 

 u< tin States should see fit to admit prior to the 

 year 180 i. 



It has never been qnestionad that this had refer- 

 ence to interference with tlie African slave-trade, 

 l.r w.is masked under this form out of decent re- 

 ginl for the opinions of mankind. This provi-si<m 

 was clear aiith >rity for C ingress, after tha you' <1 



I. to pivrent tho introduction of slaves into 

 tin U.iited Status and to prevent tlmir migration 

 f.-o-u State to Siate and into the territories. Tint 

 1 j ss had after that time such authority as to 



th" importation of slaves was never seriously ques- 

 tioned, but that Congress could prohibit the owners 

 of slaves within a State from migru'ing with his 

 Lives into the territories of the United States 

 was resisted so long as the slave-holding States 

 c )iil>l influence the course of public action. The 

 necessary implication from this clause is that the 

 slave-trade was regarded as a necessary evil that 

 must be endured for a time for economic reasons, 

 after which it would be regarded as a crime to do 

 that the doing of which was the occasion of the ex- 

 istence of slavery in this country. There was also 

 in the provisions relating to migration a clear impli- 

 ck'i'in of a policy of limiting tho area of slavery, 

 which could only be extended by such migration. 



The Constitution also contained a provision mak- 

 ing it the duty of some public authority to return 



slaves escaping from one Slate into another to the 

 State from which they came, but the authority by 

 which such return was to be accomplished was not 

 pointed out. Upon the principles of str ct con- 

 struction for which the slave States always contend- 

 ed, this duty devolved upon the States, as no express 

 authority was conferred upon Congress for that pur- 

 pose, and as Congress, according to that view, could 

 not take substantive powers by implication but only 

 such as are in aid of the enumerated powers, as nec- 

 essary t<> their exercise. The power of rendering 

 fugitive slaves was not in the class of the enumer- 

 ated powers, and was not in aid of any ('numerated 

 power. Although inconsistent with the principles 

 which they applied to the construction of the Con- 

 stitution, the party of strict construction in later 

 years claimed that thin power and duty devohid 

 upon Congress, and actively procured the adoption 

 of !i fugitive-slave law in conformity with that view. 



The first Congress assembled under the Constitu- 

 tion re-enacted the ordinance for the government of 

 the Northwest Territory with the same exclusion ns 

 to slavery that existed in the previous ordinance, 

 reiterating the implications already pointed out. 



North Carolina in 1787 ceded her Western lands to 

 the United States, with a provision that the slaves 

 within that territory should not be emancipated. 

 The cession by Georgia of her lands west of her 

 boundaries followed in 1802, without any clause ex- 

 cluding slavery. 



The condition attached to the cession of North 

 Carolina tied the hands of Congress as it regarded 

 slavery within the region ceded, but not more effect- 

 ually than they were tied by the state of parties in 

 the Union through the large influence of tho slave- 

 holding States, making the absence of such a condi- 

 tion in the Georgia cession a fact of no importance. 



The purchase of Louisiana, consummated by Pres- 

 ident Jefferson in 1803, opened wide the door of con- 

 troversy to tho parties that respectively supported 

 and antagonized slavery. The territory thus acquired 

 supported the institution of slavery, and was large- 

 ly subject to the same climatic conditions that hnd 

 caused slavery to become deeply rooted in some of 

 the Southern States. 



Slavery was taking a new phase, and assuming 

 definitely an aggressive role in the interest of its ter- 

 ritorial extension. The invention of the cotton-gin 

 had rendered the separation of the fibre of cotton 

 from the seed an inexpensive process, instead of a 

 laborious and expensive one, as it had theretofoie 

 been. The culture of cotton in the United S 

 from being an experiment, passed into a great indus- 

 try that revolutionized not only the industry of the 

 Southern section of the Union, but its political con- 

 dition as well. Slave labor was regarded by (lie cot- 

 ton States as indispensable to the success of that 

 industry, and the perpetuation of slavery was tho 

 leading tenet of the new doctrine. 'I lie advocates of 

 slavery found it necessary to strengthen the- position 

 of the slave interest on two sides, the moral and tho 

 political. It was habilitated as a patriarchal insti- 

 tution commended by the sacred writings, held in 

 the highest estimation by Christianity, just as at a 

 later time was con tended in behalf of polygamy. The 

 ideal of slavery was traced in tho relations betu.-, n 

 a beneficent and just master and a faithful and lov- 

 ing slave, just as monarchy has been idealized in tho 

 charming picture of a just and generous king hav- 

 ing no interest but the interests of his loving sub- 

 ]:-. who thrive under his genial sway as plants in 

 the sunlight. 



Whether this line of speculation was intended as 

 apologetic or to dominate the thought of the nine- 

 teenth century, it was insufficient to provide the se- 

 curity that slavery needed. The country was be- 

 coming populous and spreading over a vast aroa. 



