Part 22

_Fourthly._ Beyond these is a principle of the Common Law, clear and indisputable, a supreme rule of interpretation, from which in this case there can be no appeal. In any question under the Constitution _every word must be construed in favor of Liberty_. This rule, which commends itself to the natural reason, is sustained by time-honored maxims of early jurisprudence. Blackstone aptly expresses it, when he says that "the law is always ready to catch at anything in favor of Liberty."[122] The rule is repeated in various forms. _Favores ampliandi sunt; odia restringenda_: "Favors are to be amplified; hateful things to be restrained." _Lex Angliæ est lex misericordiæ_: "The law of England is a law of mercy." _Angliæ jura in omni casu Libertati dant favorem_: "The laws of England in every case show favor to Liberty." And this sentiment breaks forth in natural, though intense force, in the maxim, _Impius et crudelis judicandus est qui Libertati non favet_: "He is to be adjudged impious and cruel who does not favor Liberty." Reading the Constitution in the admonition of these rules, Freedom, again I say, is national.[123]

[122] Commentaries, Vol. II. p. 94.

[123] These maxims are enforced with beautiful earnestness in a tract which appeared at Baltimore shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, with the following title-page: "Letter from Granville Sharp, Esq., of London, to the Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery and the Relief of Free Negroes and others unlawfully held in Bondage. Published by Order of the Society. Baltimore: Printed by D. Graham, L. Yundt, and W. Patton, in Calvert Street, near the Court-House. M.DCC.XCIII."

_Fifthly._ From a learned judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion of the Court, we derive the same lesson. In considering the question, whether a State can prohibit the importation of slaves as merchandise, and whether Congress, in the exercise of its power to regulate commerce among the States, can interfere with the slave-trade between the States, a principle was enunciated, which, while protecting the trade from any intervention of Congress, declares openly that the Constitution acts upon no man as property. Mr. Justice McLean says: "If slaves are considered in some of the States as merchandise, that cannot divest them of the leading and controlling quality of persons, by which they are designated in the Constitution. The character of property is given them by the local law. This law is respected, and all rights under it are protected, by the Federal authorities; _but the Constitution acts upon slaves as PERSONS, and not as property_.... The power over Slavery belongs to the States respectively. It is local in its character, and in its effects."[124] Here again Slavery is sectional, while Freedom is national.

Sir, such, briefly, are the rules of interpretation, which, as applied to the Constitution, fill it with the breath of Freedom,--

"Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt."[125]

To the _history and prevailing sentiments_ of the times we may turn for further assurance. In the spirit of Freedom the Constitution was formed. In this spirit our fathers always spoke and acted. In this spirit the National Government was first organized under Washington. And here I recall a scene, in itself a touchstone of the period, and an example for us, upon which we may look with pure national pride, while we learn anew the relations of the National Government to Slavery.

[124] Groves et al. _v._ Slaughter, 15 Peters, 507, 508.

[125] Milton, Comus, 456.

The Revolution was accomplished. The feeble Government of the Confederation passed away. The Constitution, slowly matured in a National Convention, discussed before the people, defended by masterly pens, was adopted. The Thirteen States stood forth a Nation, where was unity without consolidation, and diversity without discord. The hopes of all were anxiously hanging upon the new order of things and the mighty procession of events. With signal unanimity Washington was chosen President. Leaving his home at Mount Vernon, he repaired to New York,--where the first Congress had commenced its session,--to assume his place as elected Chief of the Republic. On the 30th of April, 1789, the organization of the Government was completed by his inauguration. Entering the Senate Chamber, where the two Houses were assembled, he was informed that they awaited his readiness to receive the oath of office. Without delay, attended by the Senators and Representatives, with friends and men of mark gathered about him, he moved to the balcony in front of the edifice. A countless multitude, thronging the open ways, and eagerly watching this great espousal,

"With reverence look on his majestic face, Proud to be less, but of his godlike race."[126]

The oath was administered by the Chancellor of New York. At such time, and in such presence, beneath the unveiled heavens, Washington first took this vow upon his lips: "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

[126] Dryden, Epistle XVI. [XIV.], To Sir Godfrey Kneller.

Over the President, on this new occasion, floated the national flag, with its stripes of red and white, its stars on a field of blue. As his patriot eye rested upon the glowing ensign, what currents must have rushed swiftly through his soul! In the early days of the Revolution, in those darkest hours about Boston, after the Battle of Bunker Hill, and before the Declaration of Independence, the thirteen stripes had been first unfurled by him, as the emblem of Union among the Colonies for the sake of Freedom. By him, at that time, they had been named the Union Flag. Trial, struggle, and war were now ended, and the Union, which they first heralded, was unalterably established. To every beholder these memories must have been full of pride and consolation. But, looking back upon the scene, there is one circumstance which, more than all its other associations, fills the soul,--more even than the suggestions of Union, which I prize so much. AT THIS MOMENT, WHEN WASHINGTON TOOK HIS FIRST OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, THE NATIONAL ENSIGN, NOWHERE WITHIN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, COVERED A SINGLE SLAVE. Then, indeed, was Slavery Sectional, and Freedom National.

On the sea an execrable piracy, the trade in slaves, to the national scandal, was still tolerated under the national flag. In the States, as a sectional institution, beneath the shelter of local laws, Slavery unhappily found a home. But in the only territories at this time belonging to the nation, the broad region of the Northwest, it was already made impossible, by the Ordinance of Freedom, even before the adoption of the Constitution. The District of Columbia, with its Fatal Dowry, was not yet acquired.

The government thus organized was Antislavery in character. Washington was a slaveholder, but it would be unjust to his memory not to say that he was an Abolitionist also. His opinions do not admit of question. Only a short time before the formation of the National Constitution, he declared, by letter, that it was "among his first wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery in this country might be abolished by law";[127] and again, in another letter, that, in support of any legislative measure for the abolition of Slavery, his suffrage should "never be wanting";[128] and still further, in conversation with a distinguished European Abolitionist, a travelling propagandist of Freedom, Brissot de Warville, recently welcomed to Mount Vernon, he openly announced, that, to promote this object in Virginia, "he desired the formation of a SOCIETY, and that he would second it."[129] By this authentic testimony he takes his place with the early patrons of Abolition Societies.

[127] Letter to John F. Mercer, September 9, 1786: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 159, note.

[128] Letter to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786: Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. IX. p. 159.

[129] Brissot de Warville, New Travels in the United States, 2d ed., Vol. I. pp. 246, 247.

By the side of Washington, as, standing beneath the national flag, he swore to support the Constitution, were illustrious men, whose lives and recorded words now rise in judgment. There was John Adams, the Vice-President, great vindicator and final negotiator of our national independence, whose soul, flaming with Freedom, broke forth in the early declaration, that "consenting to Slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust,"[130] and whose immitigable hostility to this wrong is immortal in his descendants. There also was a companion in arms and attached friend, of beautiful genius, the yet youthful and "incomparable" Hamilton,--fit companion in early glories and fame with that darling of English history, Sir Philip Sidney, to whom the latter epithet has been reserved,--who, as member of the Abolition Society of New York, had recently united in a solemn petition for those who, though "_free by the laws of God_, are held in Slavery _by the laws of this State_."[131] There, too, was a noble spirit, of spotless virtue, the ornament of human nature, who, like the sun, ever held an unerring course,--John Jay. Filling the important post of Secretary for Foreign Affairs under the Confederation, he found time to organize the "Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves" in New York, and to act as its President, until, by the nomination of Washington, he became Chief Justice of the United States. In his sight Slavery was an "iniquity," "a sin of crimson dye," against which ministers of the Gospel should testify, and which the Government should seek in every way to abolish. "Till America comes into this measure," he wrote, "her prayers to Heaven for liberty will be impious. This is a strong expression, but it is just. Were I in your Legislature, I would prepare a bill for the purpose with great care, and I would never cease moving it till it became a law or I ceased to be a member."[132] Such words as these, fitly coming from our leaders, belong to the true glories of the country:--

"While we such precedents can boast at home, Keep thy Fabricius and thy Cato, Rome!"

[130] Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law: Works, Vol. III. p. 463.

[131] Life and Writings of John Jay, Vol. I. p. 231. Slavery and AntiSlavery, by William Goodell, p. 97.

[132] Life and Writings, Vol. I. pp. 229, 230.

They stood not alone. The convictions and earnest aspirations of the country were with them. At the North these were broad and general. At the South they found fervid utterance from slaveholders. By early and precocious efforts for "total emancipation," the author of the Declaration of Independence placed himself foremost among the Abolitionists of the land. In language now familiar to all, and which can never die, he perpetually denounced Slavery. He exposed its pernicious influence upon master as well as slave, declared that the love of justice and the love of country pleaded equally for the slave, and that "the abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest object of desire." He believed that "the sacred side was gaining daily recruits," and confidently looked to the young for the accomplishment of this good work.[133] In fitful sympathy with Jefferson was another honored son of Virginia, the Orator of Liberty, Patrick Henry, who, while confessing that he was a master of slaves, said: "I will not, I cannot justify it. However culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to Virtue as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want of conformity to them."[134] At this very period, in the Legislature of Maryland, on a bill for the relief of oppressed slaves, a young man, afterwards by consummate learning and forensic powers acknowledged head of the American bar, William Pinkney, in a speech of earnest, truthful eloquence,--better for his memory than even his professional fame,--branded Slavery as "iniquitous and most dishonorable," "founded in a disgraceful traffic," "its continuance as shameful as its origin"; and he openly declared, that "by the eternal principles of natural justice, no master in the State has a right to hold his slave in bondage for a single hour."[135]

[133] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.: Writings, Vol. VIII. pp. 403, 404. Summary View of the Rights of British America: American Archives, 4th Ser. Vol. I. col 696; Writings, Vol. I. p. 135. Letter to Dr. Price, August 7, 1785: Writings, Vol. I. p. 377.

[134] Letter to Robert Pleasants, January 18, 1779: Goodloe's Southern Platform, p. 79.

[135] Speeches in the House of Delegates of Maryland in 1788 and 1789: Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, p. 11; American Museum for 1789, Vol. VI. p. 75.

Thus at that time spoke the NATION. The CHURCH also joined its voice. And here, amidst diversities of religious faith, it is instructive to observe the general accord. Quakers first bore their testimony. At the adoption of the Constitution, their whole body, under the early teaching of George Fox, and by the crowning exertions of Benezet and Woolman, had become an organized band of Abolitionists, penetrated by the conviction that it was unlawful to hold a fellow-man in bondage. Methodists, numerous, earnest, and faithful, never ceased by their preachers to proclaim the same truth. Their rules in 1788 denounced, in formal language, "the buying or selling the bodies and souls of men, women, or children, with an intention to enslave them."[136] The words of their great apostle, John Wesley, were constantly repeated. On the eve of the National Convention, that burning tract was circulated in which he exposes American Slavery as "vilest" of the world,--"such slavery as is not found among the Turks at Algiers"; and after declaring "Liberty the right of every human creature," of which "no human law can deprive him," he pleads, "If, therefore, you have any regard to justice (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed law of God), render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due,--that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature."[137] At the same time the Presbyterians, a powerful religious body, inspired by the principles of John Calvin, in more moderate language, but by a public act, recorded their judgment, recommending "to all their people to use the most prudent measures, consistent with the interest and the state of civil society in the counties where they live, _to procure eventually the final abolition of Slavery in America_."[138] The Congregationalists of New England, also nurtured in the faith of John Calvin, and with the hatred of Slavery belonging to the great Nonconformist, Richard Baxter, were sternly united against this wrong. As early as 1776, Samuel Hopkins, their eminent leader and divine, published his tract showing it to be the Duty and Interest of the American Colonies to emancipate all their African slaves, and declaring that Slavery is "in every instance wrong, unrighteousness, and oppression,--a very great and crying sin,--there being nothing of the kind equal to it on the face of the earth."[139] And in 1791, shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, the second Jonathan Edwards, a twice-honored name, in an elaborate discourse often published, called upon his country, in "the present blaze of light" on the injustice of Slavery, to "prepare the way for its total abolition." This he gladly thought at hand. "If we judge of the future by the past," said the celebrated preacher, "within fifty years from this time it will be as shameful for a man to hold a negro slave as to be guilty of common robbery or theft."[140]

[136] Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, Vol. I. pp. 213, 218.

[137] Thoughts upon Slavery, by John Wesley, (London, 1774,) pp. 24, 27.

[138] Minutes of the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, 1787: Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States, p. 540.

[139] A Dialogue concerning the Slavery of the Africans; Works, Vol. II. p. 552.

[140] The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave-Trade, and of the Slavery of the Africans, (Providence, 1792,) pp. 27-30.

Thus, at this time, the Church, in harmony with the Nation, by its leading denominations, Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists, thundered against Slavery. The COLLEGES were in unison with the Church. Harvard University spoke by the voice of Massachusetts, which already had abolished Slavery. Dartmouth College, by one of its learned Professors, claimed for the slaves "an equal standing, in point of privileges, with the whites."[141] Yale College, by its President, the eminent divine, Ezra Stiles, became the head of the Abolition Society of Connecticut.[142] And the University of William and Mary, in Virginia, at this very time testified its sympathy with the cause by conferring upon Granville Sharp, the acknowledged chief of British Abolitionists, the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.[143]

[141] Tyrannical Liberty-Men: A Discourse on Negro Slavery in the United States, February 19, 1795, by Moses Fiske, Tutor in Dartmouth College. American Quarterly Register, May, 1840. Weld, Power of Congress over the District of Columbia, p. 33.

[142] Kingsley's Life of Stiles: Sparks's American Biography, Second Series, Vol. VI. p. 69.

[143] Hoare's Memoirs of Sharp, p. 254. Weld's Power of Congress, p. 34.

The LITERATURE of the land, such as then existed, agreed with the Nation, the Church, and the College. Franklin, in the last literary labor of his life,[144]--Jefferson, in his "Notes on Virginia,"--Barlow, in his heroic verse,--Rush, in a work which inspired the praise of Clarkson,[145]--the ingenious author of the "Algerine Captive," the earliest American novel, and, though now but little known, one of the earliest American books republished in London,--were all moved by the contemplation of Slavery. "If our fellow-citizens in the Southern States are deaf to the pleadings of Nature," exclaims the last earnestly, "I will conjure them, for the sake of consistency, to cease to deprive their fellow-creatures of freedom, which their writers, their orators, representatives, senators, and even their Constitutions of Government, have declared to be the unalienable birthright of man."[146] A female writer and poet, earliest in our country among the graceful throng, Sarah Wentworth Morton, at the very period of the National Convention, admired by the polite society in which she lived, poured forth her sympathies also. The generous labors of John Jay in behalf of the crushed African inspired her muse; and in another poem, commemorating a slave who fell while vindicating his freedom, she rendered a truthful homage to his inalienable rights, in words which I now quote as testimony of the times:--

"Does not the voice of Reason cry, 'Claim the first right that Nature gave, From the red scourge of bondage fly, Nor deign to live a burdened slave'?"[147]

[144] Speech of Sidi Mehemet Ibrahim in the Divan of Algiers against granting the Petition of the Sect called Erika, or Purists, for the Abolition of Piracy and Slavery: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. II. pp. 517-521.

[145] An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements on the Slavery of the Negroes. Clarkson's History of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, Vol. I. p. 152.

[146] Algerine Captive, Vol. I. p. 213.

[147] The African Chief: My Mind and its Thoughts, p. 201.

Such, Sir, at the adoption of the Constitution and the first organization of the National Government, was the outspoken, unequivocal heart of the country. Slavery was abhorred. Like the slave-trade, it was regarded as transitory; and by many it was supposed that they would disappear together. As the oracles grew mute at the coming of Christ, and a voice was heard, crying to mariners at sea, "Great Pan is dead!" so at this time Slavery became dumb, and its death seemed to be near. Voices of Freedom filled the air. The patriot, the Christian, the scholar, the writer, the poet, vied in loyalty to this cause. All were Abolitionists.

The earliest Congress under the Constitution attests this mood. One of its first acts was to accept the Ordinance of Freedom for the Northwestern Territory, thus ratifying the prohibition of Slavery in all _existing_ territory. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this act as a national landmark, especially when we consider that on the list of those who sanctioned it were men fresh from the National Convention, and therefore familiar with the Constitution which it framed. The same Congress entertained the question of Slavery in other forms,--sometimes on memorials duly presented, and then again in debate. Virginia was heard by her Abolition Society denouncing Slavery as "not only an odious degradation, but an outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human nature, and utterly repugnant to the precepts of the Gospel."[148] There was another petitioner, whose illustrious services at home and abroad entitled him to speak with authority rather than with prayer. It was none other than Benjamin Franklin. After a long life of various effort,--representing his country in England during the controversies that preceded the Revolution,--returning to take his great part in the Declaration of Independence,--then representing his country in its European negotiations,--then again returning to take his great part in the formation of the National Constitution, while all the time his life was elevated by philosophy and the peculiar renown he had won,--this Apostle of Liberty, recognized as such in the two hemispheres, whose name was signed to the Declaration of Independence, was signed to the Treaty of Alliance with France, was signed to the Treaty of Independence with Great Britain, was signed to the National Constitution, now set this same name to another instrument, a simple petition to Congress. At the age of eighty-four, venerable with years, and with all the honors of philosophy, diplomacy, and statesmanship,--a triple crown never before enjoyed,--the patriot sage comes forward, as President of the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania, and entreats Congress "that it would be pleased to countenance the restoration of Liberty to those unhappy men who alone in this land of Freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage,"--and then again, in concluding words, "that it would _step to the very verge of the power vested in it for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men_."[149] Shortly after this prayer the petitioner descended to his tomb, from which he still prays that Congress _will step to the very verge of the power vested in it to DISCOURAGE Slavery_; and this prayer, in simple words, proclaims the National policy of the Fathers. Not encouragement, but discouragement of Slavery,--not its _nationalization_, but its _denationalization_, was their rule.

[148] Weld, Power of Congress over the District of Columbia, p. 29.

[149] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., col. 1198.

Sir, enough has been said to show the sentiment which, like a vital air, surrounded the National Government as it stepped into being. In the face of this history, and in the absence of any positive sanction, it is absurd to suppose that Slavery, which under the Confederation had been merely sectional, was now constituted national. Our fathers did not say, with the apostate angel, "Evil, be thou my good!" In different spirit they cried out to Slavery, "Get thee behind me, Satan!"