imputation of establishing slavery anew in all the States, elsewhere than in Massachusetts, instead of merely recognizing it as an existing fact in the States where it was to be found.

The Governor, however, having thus stated his case, proceeded to reason upon it, as if it were certain that the court held such an opinion; and as if the opinion would be of any value, if so held; and to deduce from it conclusions scarcely to be accounted logical. He said:

"With this fact in relation to slaves and slavery, in her own history, can it be a matter of surprise to any one that the people at home, and their representatives in the Federal Government, should feel bound, by every consideration of justice and humanity, to oppose the least extension of an institution which they believe to be morally and politically wrong, and to exert every power consistent with their constitutional obligations to the Union to hasten the time when every human being in this Republic shall enjoy 'the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?'"

This was rank abolition. It does not seem to follow necessarily from the supposed fact, that the highest court of Massachusetts had held slavery abolished in that State by the Declaration of Independence, that it became, therefore, the bounden duty of its people to exert themselves for its abolition in other States; the highest courts of which had not so decided, and in which the Constitution of the United States had left the institution standing. The abolitionists proper had by this time seen that the Constitution presented an insuperable obstacle to emancipation; and they characterized that instrument, therefore, as "a covenant with deathan agreement with hell." The Governor held that every exertion should be made, consistent with constitutional obligations, to hasten the time of universal emancipation; when, in fact, no exertion whatever could be made to that end, in the United States, which would not necessarily be in direct derogation of constitutional obligations.

The effect of the Governor's recommendations appeared speedily in the passage of the resolutions referred to, which were approved January 16th, 1844, only six days after the

DISTURBING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

129

delivery of the inaugural address, and forming the earliest of the series of resolutions adopted at that session of the General Court. Equal alacrity was shown in the speed with which the resolves were forwarded to Washington. Mr. Bates, of Massachusetts, presented them in the Senate, January 23d, 1844, and it appeared that they instructed the Senators al requested the Representatives of the State to seek for such an amendment of the Constitution as would allow only free persons to be represented; or, in other words, to annul the constitutional provision for the representation of a quota of the slave population. The legislature had not yet reached the point of asking that negroes in slavery might vote; but they sought to weaken the political influence of the slave States by depriving them of a part of their representation based on two-fifths of their slave population, for which they were liable to taxation, as for property, by the provision of the Constitution.

Mr. King, of Alabama, who had previously acted as President of the Senate, during three several Congresses, but was now upon the floor, and who had shown more than ordinary moderation when questions of this sort had come up in that branch of Congress, expressed his regret that a proposition should thus come from Massachusetts to dissolve the Union. Remarks were also made by other members; and Mr. Bates replied, that he felt it his duty to present the resolutions, but he wished to avoid, instead of beginning discussion on this subject, and moved that they be laid on the table and be printed. The Senate agreed to the first part of his motion, but refused to print, by a vote of 14 yeas to 26 nays.

On the same day, Mr. J. Q. Adams proposed the same resolutions in the House of Representatives, and asked a suspension of the rules for leave to present them; but after a brief debate, leave was refused, by a vote of 50 yeas to 105 nays. On February 5th, several members from New York brought forward petitions, praying for the amendment of the Constitution, already suggested, and for the abolition of slavery in the Southern States, which were not received.

Other petitions were offered for the repeal of the 21st rule, and that the Ordinance of 1787 might be extended to all territory west of the Mississippi River, which were severally laid on the table, the vote ranging from yeas 118 to nays 56. On the same day, Mr. Adams once more brought up the Massachusetts resolutions; but the House again refused to receive them.

Three days afterwards, Mr. Bates took occasion to remark in the Senate, that "he had presented the resolves of the Massachusetts Legislature, because, as a Senator from that State, he thought it his duty to do so. He had moved to lay them on the table. There was not within his contemplation more than one event that could happen which could induce him to call them up. He was not for disturbing the foundations of the Government." He suggested, however, that the Senate had permitted certain counter-resolutions from the legislatures of Southern States to be printed, after the opportunity had passed for him to renew his motion to print those offered by himself. But the Senate may have thought, that it was not of such evil example to print resolves in favor of sustaining the Government, as those calculated to disturb its foundations.

In fact, it seems that the House, acting in concert with the views of the Senate, had referred to a select committee certain resolutions of the legislative assemblies of Virginia and Alabama, protesting against the proposed amendment of the Constitution. This matter was finally set at rest by the action of the House upon the report of this committee, which was made March 22d. The chairman, Mr. Dromgoole, of Virginia, in presenting the report, said that the committee was desirous "to let the country know whether the vote of this House would sanction the change proposed, or would preserve the Constitution. There was nothing in the report harsh or unkind to the Legislature or people of Massachusetts." The report, which is brief, sets forth the views of the committee, as follows, the facts here omitted being of less general importance:

BOTH PARTIES IN MASSACHUSETTS PLAY WITH ABOLITION. 131

"The select Committee report that they have maturely considered the proposition of the General Assembly of Massachusetts, to amend the Constitution of the United States, by apportioning representatives and direct taxes according to the whole number of free persons now embraced in the determination of the federal numbers. This proposition is strongly and unanimously condemned by the General Assembly of Virginia, and is regarded, in truth, as a proposition virtually to dissolve the Union. The committee are of opinion that the proposed alteration of the compromise would produce a peaceable or violent dissolution of the Union. The committee, anxiously desirous of preserving the Constitution in its true meaning, as formed by the convention and ratified by the States, and confidently believing that such is the deliberate sense of the States, and of the people thereof, with very rare exceptions, are of opinion that no such proposition as that of the General Assembly of Massachusetts ought to be recommended by Congress, or favored in the least degree."

Accordingly, they proposed the following resolutions:

Resolved, That the rule established in the Constitution as the basis of representation and direct taxation, resulting from a spirit of concession and compromise, essential to the formation and preservation of the union of the States, ought to be held sacred by the friends of the Union.

Resolved, That no proposition to alter or amend the Constitution, in rela tion to representation and direct taxation among the States, ought to be recommended by Congress; but that any such proposition ought to be promptly and decisively condemned.

The vote was taken forthwith upon this report, and the first resolution was passed by yeas 158 to nays 18, and the second by yeas 127 to nays 41. The reason for this difference of votes upon the two propositions is not very apparent. If the rule in question "ought to be held sacred," it is obvious that Congress ought not to recommend, and ought to condemn any proposition to change it.

It appears, therefore, from this recapitulation, that if the Democratic Governor of Massachusetts coquetted with abolition, in 1843, the Whig Governor was no less forward to pay it court in 1844; and, that, while the legislature of the firstmentioned year showed its readiness to place the negro, the mulatto, and the Indian on an equality with the white race of the country, in regard to the most delicate and sacred of all relations, the legislature of the succeeding year adopted

Other petitions were offered for the repeal of the 21st rule, and that the Ordinance of 1787 might be extended to all territory west of the Mississippi River, which were severally laid on the table, the vote ranging from yeas 118 to nays 56. On the same day, Mr. Adams once more brought up the Massachusetts resolutions; but the House again refused to receive them.

Three days afterwards, Mr. Bates took occasion to remark in the Senate, that "he had presented the resolves of the Massachusetts Legislature, because, as a Senator from that State, he thought it his duty to do so. He had moved to lay them on the table. There was not within his contemplation more than one event that could happen which could induce him to call them up. He was not for disturbing the foundations of the Government." He suggested, however, that the Senate had permitted certain counter-resolutions from the legislatures of Southern States to be printed, after the opportunity had passed for him to renew his motion to print those offered by himself. But the Senate may have thought, that it was not of such evil example to print resolves in favor of sustaining the Government, as those calculated to disturb its foundations.

In fact, it seems that the House, acting in concert with· the views of the Senate, had referred to a select committee certain resolutions of the legislative assemblies of Virginia and Alabama, protesting against the proposed amendment of the Constitution. This matter was finally set at rest by the action of the House upon the report of this committee, which was made March 22d. The chairman, Mr. Dromgoole, of Virginia, in presenting the report, said that the committee was desirous "to let the country know whether the vote of this House would sanction the change proposed, or would preserve the Constitution. There was nothing in the report harsh or unkind to the Legislature or people of Massachusetts." The report, which is brief, sets forth the views of the committee, as follows, the facts here omitted being of less general importance: