Edward bear adding an extract from the "Address of the Hon. Edward Everett, delivered in New York, on the 4th of July, 1861." In his own matchless manner, Mr. Everett thus disposes of the whole matter: "The Southern theory assumes, that, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the same antagonism prevailed as now between the North and South, on the general subject of slavery; that although it existed, to some extent, in all the States but one of the Union, it was a feeble and declining interest at the North, and mainly seated at the South; that the soil and climate of the North were soon found to be unpropitious to slave labor, while the reverse was the case at the South; that the Northern States, in consequence, having from interested motives abolished slavery, sold their slaves to the South; and that then, although the existence of slavery was recognized, and its protection guarantied, by the Constitution, as soon as the Northern States had acquired a controlling voice in Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated, and gradually extended, in violation of the compromises of the Constitution, as well as of the honor and good faith tacitly pledged to the South by the manner in which the North disposed of her slaves. "Such, in substance, is the statement of Mr. Davis, in his late message; and he then proceeds, seemingly as if rehearsing the acts of this Northern majority in Congress, to refer to the anti-slavery measures of the State Legislatures, to the resolutions of abolition societies, to the passionate appeals of the party press, and to the acts of lawless individuals, during the progress of this unhappy agitation. 66 Now, this entire view of the subject, with whatever boldness it is affirmed, and with whatever persistency it is repeated, is destitute of foundation. It is demonstrably at war with the truth of history, and is contradicted by facts known to those now on the stage, or which are matters of recent record. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and long afterwards, there was, generally speaking, no sectional difference of opinion between North and South on the subject of slavery. It was in both parts of the country regarded, in the established formula of the day, as 'a social, political, and moral evil.› The general feeling in favor of universal liberty and the rights of man, wrought into fervor in the progress of the Revolution, naturally strengthened the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the Union. It is Everett. the South which has since changed, not the North. The theory of a Edward change in the Northern mind, growing out of a discovery made soon after 1789, that our soil and climate were unpropitious to slavery (as if the soil and climate then were different from what they had always been), and a consequent sale to the South of the slaves of the North, is purely mythical, -as groundless in fact as it is absurd in statement. I have often asked for the evidence of this last allegation, and I have never found an individual who attempted even to prove it. But however this may be, the South at that time regarded slavery as an evil, though a necessary one, and habitually spoke of it in that light. Its continued existence was supposed to depend on keeping up the African slave-trade; and South as well as North, Virginia as well as Massachusetts, passed laws to prohibit that traffic: they were, however, before the Revolution, vetoed by the Royal Governors. One of the first acts of the Continental Congress, unanimously subscribed by its members, was an agreement neither to import, nor purchase any slave imported, after the first of December, 1774. In the Declaration of Independence, as originally draughted by Mr. Jefferson, both slavery and the slave-trade were denounced in the most uncompromising language. In 1777, the traffic was forbidden in Virginia, by State law, no longer subject to the veto of Royal Governors. In 1784, an ordinance was reported by Mr. Jefferson to the old Congress, providing that after 1800 there should be no slavery in any Territory ceded or to be ceded to the United States. The ordinance failed at that time to be enacted; but the same prohibition formed a part, by general consent, of the ordinance of 1787 for the organization of the North-western Territory. In his 'Notes on Virginia,' published in that year, Mr. Jefferson depicted the evils of slavery in terms of fearful import. In the same year, the Constitution was framed. It recognized the existence of slavery; but the word was carefully excluded from the instrument, and Congress was authorized to abolish the traffic in twenty years. In 1796, Mr. St. George Tucker, law-professor in William and Mary College, in Virginia, published a treatise entitled 'A Dissertation on Slavery, with a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of it in the State of Virginia.' In the preface to the essay, he speaks of the abolition of slavery in this State as an object of the first importance, not only to our moral character and domestic peace, but even to our political salvation.' In 1797, Mr. Pinkney, in the Legislature of Maryland, maintained, that, 'by the eternal principles of justice, no man in the State has a right Edward to hold his slave a single hour.' In 1803, Mr. John Randolph, from These extracts from the recorded opinions of the learned associates of the Chief-Justice, the eminent Historian, and the illustrious Statesman and Orator, would seem to furnish a complete refutation of the charges brought against the North of having changed its policy or action, and violated some expressed or implied agreement respecting the supposed sacred and paramount rights of slavery. But, as historical inquirers, we should not implicitly receive the opinions or assertions of any author, however eminent in position or however impartial in judgment and truthful in statement he may be regarded, without referring to the original records, and comparing the contemporary authorities. It is my purpose to do this, to some extent, at the present time. The primal American Magna Charta, by which the Found tion of ence. ers of the Republic asserted the right of the people to Declaraform a constitution and government of their own, was pro- Independclaimed on the 4th of July, 1776. Its language is clear and explicit. The authors were men of sense and of learning. They knew the meaning of the words they used. Was it for "glittering generalities" that they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, or did they regard the sentiments of that immortal document as solemn verities? In those times which tried men's souls, were they guilty of attempting to amuse the fancy by a rhetorical flourish, or, what is worse, to delude their fellow-citizens by the merest cant, or did they intend deliberately and reverently to publish to the world their Political Confession of Faith, and to endeavor to show that faith by their works? Happily for us and for the fair fame of those patriots, they have left, in the record of their actions and in their published correspondence, the clearest and most comprehensive commentary on the instrument they signed. The first article in the National Creed is so broad and universal in its sentiments, that attempts have often been made to narrow its meaning, and limit its application : — "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." It has been truly said by Mr. Bancroft, "The heart of Jefferson in writing the Declaration, and of Congress in adopting it, beat for all humanity: the assertion of right was made for all mankind and all coming generations, without any exception whatever; for the proposition which admits of exceptions can never be self-evident." The author, it is said, could never have intended to have this language received in its literal significance, for then it Declara- would have included in the Declaration persons of African Independ- descent; while, at the time of the writing of this document, tion of ence. Thomas negro slavery existed in the Colonies, and the author of the paper was himself a slave-holder. Did Mr. Jefferson intend to condemn his own conduct, and that of his associates, by announcing doctrines at variance with their lives? In Christian morals, the first step towards reformation is a conviction of sin; and the second is confession, and promise of amendment. The patriots and sages who framed our form of government, in declaring their principles as political philosophers, acted in like manner. They did not ignore the fact, that colored men were held in bondage. They did not attempt to conceal, much less to justify, the offence. As, in the popular religious creed of their day, all men, through Adam, had fallen from innocence, and were guilty; so they felt, that, by the act of their ancestors, they were themselves then acting in violation of the natural and immutable laws of political justice. It should be borne in mind, that the Declaration of Independence is not an ethnological essay, or a disquisition on the physical or intellectual capacity of the various races of men, but a grave announcement of Human Rights. Mr. Jefferson, in his "Notes on Virginia," has given very fully his views of the physical, moral, and mental capacities of negroes. "The opinion that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and imagination must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife, to optical glasses, to analysis by fire or by solvents. How much more, then, where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where it eludes the research of all the senses; where the conditions of its existence are various, and variously combined; where the effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to calculation; let me add, too, as a circumstance of great tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator |