Pinckney.

Gen. C. C. portation of negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that the importation shall be then stopped: it may be continued. We have a security that the General Government can never emancipate them; for no such authority is granted and it is admitted, on all hands, that the General Government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the several States. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take refuge; which is a right we had not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would have made better, if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad." Elliot's Debates, vol. iv. pp. 285, 286. —

Doctor
Ramsay.

Outside, also, of the State Conventions, opinions in regard to the effect of the Federal Constitution on slavery were divided. Two letters, written on the same day, in different parts of the country, by persons of high character and great influence in their respective States, will exhibit these differing views.

Dr. Ramsay, the historian of South Carolina, in a letter to General Lincoln, dated Charleston, Jan. 29, 1788, says,

"Our Assembly is now sitting, and have unanimously agreed to hold a convention. By common consent, the merits of the Federal Constitution were freely discussed on that occasion, for the sake of enlightening our citizens. Mr. [Rawlins] Lowndes was the only man who made direct, formal opposition to it. His objections were local, and proceeded from an illiberal jealousy of New-England men. He urged that you would raise freights on us, and, in short, that you were too cunning for our honest people;

that your end of the Continent would rule the other; and Doctor Ramsay. that the sun of our glory would set when the new Constitution operated. He has not one Federal idea in his head. He is said to be honest, and free from debt but he was an enemy to independence; and, though our President in 1778, he was a British subject in 1780. His taking protection was rather the passive act of an old man than otherwise. He never aided or abetted the British Government directly; but his example was mischievous. His opposition has poisoned the minds of some.

"I fear the numerous class of debtors more than any other. On the whole, I have no doubt the Constitution will be accepted by a very great majority in this State. The sentiments of our leading men are, of late, much more Federal than formerly. This honest sentiment was avowed by the first characters: New England has lost, and we have gained, by the war; and her suffering citizens ought to be our carriers, though a dearer freight should be the consequence.' Your delegates never did a more politic thing than in standing by those of South Carolina about negroes. Virginia deserted them, and was for an immediate stoppage of further importation. The [Old] Dominion has lost much popularity by the conduct of her delegates on this head. The language now is, 'The Eastern States can soonest help us in case of invasion;* and it is more our interest to encourage them and their shipping than to join with or look up to Virginia.'

"In short, Sir, a revolution highly favorable to union has taken place: Federalism, and liberality of sentiment, have gained great ground. Mr. Lowndes still thinks you are a set of sharpers, and does not wonder that you are for the new Constitution; as, in his opinion, you will have all the advantage. He thinks you begrudge us our negroes. But he is almost alone." - Bowen's Life of Gen. Lincoln, (Sparks's Amer. Biogr., 2d Series, vol. xiii.,) pp. 410-412.

Rev. Dr.
Hopkins.

In a letter to Dr. Hart of Preston, dated 29th January, 1788, the Rev. Dr. Hopkins of Newport, R. I., writes thus:

"The new Constitution, you observe, guarantees this trade for twenty years. I fear, if it be adopted, this will prove an Achan in our camp. How does it appear in the sight of Heaven and of all good men, well informed, that these States, who have been fighting for liberty, and consider themselves as the highest and most noble example of zeal for it, cannot agree in any political Constitution, unless it indulge and authorize them to enslave their fellow-men! I think if this Constitution be not adopted as it is, without any alteration, we shall have none, and shall be in a state of anarchy, and probably of civil war. Therefore I wish to have it adopted; but still, as I said, I fear. And perhaps civil war will not be avoided, if it be adopted. Ah! these unclean spirits, like frogs, they, like the Furies of the poets, are spreading discord, and exciting men to contention and war, wherever they go; and they can spoil the best Constitution that can be formed. When Congress shall be formed on the new plan, these frogs will be there; for they go forth to the kings of the earth, in the first place. They will turn the members of that august body into devils, so far as they are permitted to influence them. Have they not already got possession of most of the men who will or can be chosen and appointed to a place in that assembly? suppose that even good Christians are not out of the reach of influence from these frogs. 'Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments.'"- Park's Memoir of Hopkins, pp. 158, 159.

I

I have thus attempted to give a fair representation of the different shades of opinion on the Constitution in its relations to slavery, as expressed by the leading statesmen at the North and at the South. In the ample

extracts from the Debates which have been presented, an apparent lack of harmony may be discovered among the arguments used in various parts of the country, whether in urging its adoption or its rejection. With an earnest zeal to secure for their country so great a boon as a firmly established Constitutional Government, its advocates may have pressed a little too strongly the arguments in favor of the views most acceptable to the particular State which at the time had the matter under consideration. On the other hand, the opponents of the Constitution undoubtedly exaggerated the evils which, it was supposed, it would entail upon the States, and perhaps unconsciously misrepresented the effects of the different clauses referring to slavery.

One thing is certain, that whilst the delegates from Georgia and South Carolina asked only a temporary toleration of the slave-trade, and non-interference with their local arrangements respecting domestic slavery, (declaring that, if let alone, they might themselves, as soon as it was practicable, stop the importation of slaves,) the common sentiment, in the Convention and throughout the country, was, that the letter and the spirit of the Constitution, fairly interpreted and faithfully applied, afforded a full guaranty of universal freedom throughout the Union at no distant day. The purpose of the Constitution was put into the preamble in no equivocal language, and for no doubtful purpose. It was "TO SECURE LIBERTY," and not to protect slavery: for liberty had been declared

to be a natural, national, and unalienable right; while slavery was known to be an unnatural, sectional, temporary evil. It was intended, that, under the Constitution, slavery should, and it was expected that it would, at no distant day, be abolished.

The distinguished English moralist, Dr. Paley, published his "Moral and Political Philosophy" two years after our National Independence had been acknowledged. In his chapter on Slavery, he placed permanently on record his view of the effect of the principles promulgated by the American patriots, in these words: "The great Revolution which has taken place in the Western World may probably conduce (and who knows but that it was designed?) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny."

Half a century later, in the Senate of the United States, Daniel Webster, the great defender of the Constitution, re-affirmed the principles of the Founders of the Republic in an immortal sentence, which it would be well for his countrymen now to heed. It is applicable in a broader sense than its author on that occasion intended: "LIBERTY AND UNION, NOW AND FOR EVER, ONE AND INSEPARABLE."