blessed than we are, but to instruct, to improve, and to enlighten them."

Such were the noble and well-expressed sentiments of the great statesman; such his unequivocal condemnation of American slavery. Hardly could an avowed Abolitionist have put it more cogently. But what remedy did he propose for this great and indefensible evil? Something singularly inadequate to the exigencies of the case,-a plan of gradual emancipation and colonization, even the beginning of which must be deferred thirty years. He proposed that all born after the year 1855 or 1860 should be emancipated at the age of twenty-five, on condition that they should be colonized in Africa; the work of emancipation to be deferred entirely for more than a generation, not one then a slave to be freed, and even those who were to receive the proffered boon to grind in the prisonhouse of slavery for twenty-five years. To say nothing of the wickedness and inhumanity of such a scheme, was ever anything more impracticable? Could Mr. Clay have been sincere? or did he present this strange and inconsequential scheme in deference to what he knew to be the popular sentiment of Kentucky?

At a public meeting at Lexington, addressed by Mr. Clay and Dr. Robert J. Breckinridge, a series of resolutions were unanimously adopted, declaring hereditary slavery to be contrary to the rights of man, opposed to the fundamental principles of free government, inconsistent with a state of sound morality, hostile to the prosperity of the commonwealth; that it should not be made perpetual; and that steps should be taken at the convention to ameliorate slavery by a system of practicable measures, just to the master and beneficial to the slave.

A convention was held, at which were represented twentysix counties by one hundred and sixty members, representing all sects, parties, and professions. A large proportion were slaveholders. It presented no plan of emancipation, but suggested that an effort should be made to secure an article in the constitution empowering the people to effect emancipation when a majority could be secured in its favor. In this con

vention Dr. Breckinridge, a leading clergyman of the Presbyterian Church, made a strong presentation of the claims of freedom and of his estimate of the evils of slavery. Being asked if he would "sacrifice his political principles to carry emancipation," he gave the prompt and unequivocal reply, "I can and I will"; and in his reply he gave the following résumé of some of the items of the fearful price those individuals and the nation were paying, who, for political considerations, were willing to vote for slavery or for those parties who took slavery under their protection and made its conservation a part of their platform. "What! am I expected," he said, "to sacrifice to my political feelings and party the personal freedom of two hundred thousand of my fellow-beings and their countless posterity forever, their right to the free use of their own bodies and their own souls, their right to the use of the proceeds of their labor and the sweat of their brows, and the right of teaching and being taught God's Holy Word? What kind of a state of society would that be, Mr. President, in which stealing was authorized by law, in which the marriage relation was abolished by law, in which no man had any wife in particular and no woman had any husband in particular, when universal concubinage prevailed, and no child knew his own father and no father knew his own child? It would be a hell upon earth. THAT, SIR, IS NEGRO SLAVERY." This language of a Southern man, son of the Attorney-General of Mr. Jefferson's administration, tells its own story. The most radical Abolitionist and the most extravagant antislavery utterance needed no stronger indorsement. As might have been expected, that man was loyal during the slaveholders' rebellion, became a prominent member of the Republican party, and presided over the convention that nominated Abraham Lincoln for the second term.

Large liberty of speech was allowed, and for the time even the most decided antislavery utterances were tolerated; so much so that John G. Fee, who has, before and since, felt the power of slaveholding hate, declared that "a pure and whole gospel can be preached here."

But the hopes excited by this freedom of debate were disap

pointed by the canvass made for delegates. In that were revealed not only the strength and violent purpose of the opposers of freedom, but the general proslavery sentiment of the State, even among the churches, from whom the friends of liberty had expected sympathy and support. It showed that this language of a president of a Southern college, in the General Conference of the Methodist Church South, was none too sweeping or too severe: "I do not hesitate to say that the controlling influence in that organization is decidedly, unblushingly, and I may add exultingly, proslavery in its character." As the result of that canvass, only one friend of emancipation was chosen to the constitutional convention, although more than thirty thousand votes were given. Instead of adopting any plan of emancipation, however gradual, the convention, under the lead of Garret Davis, and Archibald Dixon who afterward moved in Congress the repeal of the Missouri compromise, adopted in the new constitution a provision declaring that "the right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owners of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatever."

Why results so inadequate and unexpected rewarded labors so earnest and hopeful, and why what seemed but the dawning of a brighter day became in reality but the twilight of a darker night, may not be fully comprehended. These, however, seem to be the facts of the case: Slavery had done its work so thoroughly in the State, so completely had its influence corrupted the popular mind and heart in church and state, largely controlling both the pulpit and the press, that the per centum of its inhabitants who were prepared to appreciate and yield to the higher and more humane considerations of reason and. conscience, justice and humanity, social reform and political economy, had become really very small. Slavery was stronger than even its friends believed it to be. And thus it happened that even the efforts of the friends of freedom not only revealed that fact, but tended rather to increase and intensify it. They stimulated the proslavery leaders to redouble their efforts, as it afforded them arguments to induce all not commit

ted to the other side to range themselves under their banners. With untiring and unscrupulous persistence they approached all classes and urged all motives that promised aid. Especially earnest were their appeals to the prejudices and groundless apprehensions of the non-slaveholding whites, who were made to believe that "to emancipate the black man was to enslave the white man." In both the canvass and convention, the rivalry of parties was made to play an important part; the Democrats and Whigs leaving none to doubt their purpose to conciliate and gain the confidence of the Slave Power by concessions and proffered devotion to its interests. Such Whigs as Davis and Dixon made no concealment of their determination to convince the slave-masters that their interests were as safe in the hands of the Whig as of the Democratic party. The history of the other Border States was substantially the same, revealing the same general characteristics and like consequent results; though in no State were cause and effect more marked and intensified than in Kentucky. However explained, none of the border slaveholding States ever exhibited or continued to exhibit, even after emancipation, more of proslavery intolerance and perverseness; in none did the friends of freedom, and of the Union, also, find less sympathy, or meet with more determined and persistent opposition.

CHAPTER XVI.

BLACK LAWS.

Indifference to human rights. — Inhuman legislation. — In Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, and Missouri. Constitutional convention in Indiana. Prominent members. - Southern influence preponderates. Active canvass of the State. Mr. Colfax. Similar legislation in Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, California, Utah, Oregon. - Slave Power described.

THE slave system in nothing exhibited its callous and calculating insensibility, its utter obliviousness of justice and humanity, its reckless disregard of the commonest principles of social comity and fair dealing, more than in its treatment of free people of color. It exhibited greater cruelty to the slave, and the burden of absolute chattelhood was harder to bear; but it is difficult to imagine anything more heartless and unprincipled than the utter indifference that characterized its treatment of the men and women of African descent. Had the Decalogue never been written, the claim of the moral law could not have been more completely ignored. It doomed a race, and culture and character furnished no protection. Its degrading influences were everywhere felt, and the lines of latitude and longitude afforded no limits to its unjust and insulting discrimination. All this is but too painfully apparent from a reference to the inhuman and cold-blooded laws enacted in the Border States, both North and South.

There were in 1847 in the State of Virginia several thousand free negroes. Though they were denied many of the essential rights of citizenship, they were a quiet and law-abiding people. Still they were objects of slaveholding distrust, their presence was regarded as inimical to the interests of slavery, and during that year laws were enacted against their remaining in the State. In the revised constitution of 1851 it was provided that slaves thereafter emancipated, if they re