Discussion on American Slavery. Thompson George
in Congress were clear, was, that it would inevitably produce a dissolution of the Union. When he spoke of the free states bringing about the abolition of slavery in the South, he was to be understood as meaning that these states, in accordance with what had been so often hinted at, should march to the South with arms in their hands, and declare the slaves free. Now, even supposing that the people of the North had no regard for the peace of their country – that they were perfectly indifferent to the glory, the power, and the happiness resulting from the Federal Union – was it certain, that by adopting such a course, they would really advance the welfare of the slave? Every candid man would at once see that the condition of the slave population would be made more hopeless than ever by it. The fourth proof brought forward by Mr. Thompson, in support of his proposition that America was chargeable, in a national point of view, with the guilt of slavery, was the fact that the different states were bound to restore all run-away slaves. But this was a regulation which applied to the case of all servants who leave their masters in an improper manner. Apprentices, children, even wives, if it might be supposed that a wife would ever leave her husband, were to be restored as well as the slaves. Were this not provided, the different states would form to each other the most horrible neighborhood that could be imagined. No state is expected to say, that any man is of right or should be 'held to service' of any kind, in another state; for such are the words of the Constitution, But the purely internal arrangements of each state, must necessarily be respected by all the others; or eternal border wars must be the result. In the re-delivery of a run-away slave, or apprentice, therefore, the court of the one state is only required to say what are the law, and the fact of the other state from which the claimant comes, and to decide accordingly. And when Mr. T. says that this proceeding is not only contrary to the spirit of the gospel, but to the express command of God under the Jewish dispensation, I need only to defend the practice, by questioning his biblical capacities, and referring for explanation to his second printed speech before the Glasgow Emancipation Society. In that, he states a fictitious case as regards Ireland – resembling remarkably the case recorded in holy writ, of Egypt under the government of Joseph; and while all men have thought that Joseph came from God, and was peculiarly approved of him – Mr. T. has represented, that he who should do in Ireland, very much what Joseph did in Egypt, could be considered as coming only 'from America, or from the bottomless pit!!!' As long as the Holy Ghost gives men reason to consider certain principles right, they may be well content to abide under the wrath of Mr. Thompson. Mr. Thompson said, in the fifth place, that slavery was a national crime, because the states were all bound to assist each other, in suppressing internal insurrection. To this he would answer, that as it regarded the duty of the nation to the several states, there were two, and but two great guarantees – namely, the preservation of internal peace, and the upholding of republican institutions, tranquillity, and republicanism. Carolina was as much bound to assist Rhode Island as Rhode Island was to assist Carolina. All were mutually bound to each; and if things went on as of late, the South were as likely to be called on to suppress mobs at the North, as the North to suppress insurrection at the South. It was next advanced by Mr. T. that the people of the North were taxed for the support of slavery. Now, the fact was, that America presented the extraordinary spectacle of a nation free of taxes altogether; free of debt, with an overflowing Treasury, with so much money, indeed, that they did not well know what to do with it. It was almost needless to explain that the American revenue was at present and had been for many years past, derived solely from the sale of public lands, and from the customs or duties levied on imported articles of various kinds. The payment of these duties was entirely a voluntary tax, as in order to avoid it, it was only necessary to refrain from the use of articles on which they were imposed. As for Mr. T's argument about the standing army, employed in keeping down the slaves, its value might be judged from the fact, that, though even according to Mr. T's own showing, the slave population amounted to two and a half millions, the army was composed of only six thousand men, scattered along three frontiers, extending two thousand miles each. Throughout the whole slaveholding states there were not probably fifteen hundred soldiers. The charge was, in fact, complete humbug, founded upon just nothing at all. Mr. Thompson's seventh charge was, that Congress refused to suppress the internal slave-trade. This was easily answered. There was in America not one individual among five hundred who believed that Congress had the power to do so. And, although he (Mr. B.) believed that Congress had power to prevent the migration of slaves from state to state, as fully as they had to prevent the importation of them into the states from foreign countries; and that the exercise of this power, would prevent, in a great degree, the trade in slaves from state to state, yet very few concurred with him even in this modified view of the case. And it must be admitted that the exercise of such a power, if it really exists, would be attended with such results of unmixed evil at this time, that no one whatever would deem it proper to attempt, or possible to enforce its exercise. It was next said, that as Missouri, a slaveholding state, had been admitted into the Union after the full consideration of the subject by Congress, therefore the nation had become identified with slavery, and responsible for its existence, at least in Missouri. But on the supposition that, before receiving Missouri as a member of the confederacy, it had been demanded of her that she should abolish slavery; and supposing Missouri had acceded to the terms proposed, that she had really given her slaves freedom, and been added to the Federal Union in consequence: suppose Missouri had done all this; what was there to prevent her from re-establishing slavery so soon as the end she sought was gained. No power was possessed by the other states in the matter, and all that could have been said was, that Missouri had acted with bad faith – that she had broken a condition precedent – that she had given just cause of war. According to the most latitudinarian notions, this was the extent of the remedy in the hands of Congress. But Mr. Thompson, being a holder of peace principles – if we may judge by his published speeches – must admit it to be as really a sin to kill, as to enslave men; so that, in his own showing, this argument amounts to nothing. But when it is considered that every state in the American Union has the recognized right to alter its Constitution, when, and how it may think fit, saving only that it be republican; it is most manifest that Congress and the other states have, and could have in no case, any more power or right to prevent Missouri's continuing, or creating slavery, than they had to prevent Massachusetts from abolishing it. But, if we were to stand upon the mere rights of war, he (Mr. B.) did not know but that America had just cause of war against Britain, according to the received notions on that subject, in the speeches delivered by Mr. Thompson under the connivance of the authorities here. But the causes of war were very different in the opinions of men, and in the eye of God. If Mr. Thompson was right in condemning America for the guilt of Missouri, then they should go to war at once and settle the question. But, if they were not ready for this conclusion, they could do nothing. In the edition of Mr. Thompson's speech which had been delivered on the preceding evening, an argument had been adduced which was omitted in the present. The argument to which he referred, was concerning the right of the slaves to be represented. A slight consideration of the subject might have shown that the whole power over the subject of citizenship in each state, was exclusive in the state itself, and was differently regulated in different states. In some, the elective franchise was given to all who had attained the age of twenty-one. In some, it was made to depend on the possession of personal property; and in others, of real property. That in the Southern states, the power of voting should be given to the masters, and not to the slaves, was not calculated to excite surprise in Britain, where such a large proportion of the population, and that in a number of instances composed of men of high intelligence, were not entitled to the elective franchise. The origin of this arrangement, like many others involved in our social system, was a compromise of apparently conflicting interests in the states which were engaged in forming the Federal Constitution. The identity of taxation and representation, was the grand idea on which the nation went into the war of independence. When it was agreed that all white citizens, and three-fifths of all other persons, as the Constitution expresses it, should be represented, it followed of course, that they should be subject to taxation. Or, if it were first agreed that they should be taxed, it followed as certainly they should be represented. Who should actually cast the votes, was, of necessity, left to be determined by the states themselves, and as has been said, was variously determined; many permitting free negroes, Indians, and mulattos, who are all embraced, as well as slaves, to vote. That three-fifths, instead of any other part, or the whole should be agreed on, was, no doubt, the result of reasons which appeared conclusive to the wise and benevolent men who made the