Mr. Madison of Virginia,—­“The dictates of humanity, the principles of the people, the national safety and happiness, and prudent policy, require it of us. * * * * * * * I conceive the constitution in this particular was formed in order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of America, with respect to the African trade. * * * * * * It is to be hoped, that by expressing a national disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from reproaches, AND OUR PROSPERITY THE IMBECILITY EVER ATTENDANT ON A COUNTRY FILLED WITH SLAVES.”

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, said, “he highly commended the part the Society of Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested themselves in.”—­Cong.  Reg. v. 1, p. 308-12.

A writer in the “Gazette of the Unites States,” Feb. 20th, 1790, (then the government paper,) who opposes the abolition of slavery, and avows himself a slaveholder, says, “I have seen in the papers accounts of large associations, and applications to Government for the abolition of slavery.  Religion, humanity, and the generosity natural to a free people, are the noble principles which dictate those measures.  SUCH MOTIVES COMMAND RESPECT, AND ARE ABOVE ANY EULOGIUM WORDS CAN BESTOW.”

In the convention that formed the constitution of Kentucky in 1790, the effort to prohibit slavery was nearly successful.  A decided majority of that body would undoubtedly have voted for its exclusion, but for the great efforts and influence of two large slaveholders—­men of commanding talents and sway—­Messrs. Breckenridge and Nicholas.  The following extract from a speech made in that convention by a member of it, Mr. Rice a native Virginian, is a specimen of the free discussion that prevailed on that “delicate subject.”  Said Mr. Rice:  “I do a man greater injury, when I deprive him of his liberty, than when I deprive him of his property.  It is vain for me to plead that I have the sanction of law; for this makes the injury the greater—­it arms the community against him, and makes his case desperate.  The owners of such slaves then are licensed robbers, and not the just proprietors of what they claim.  Freeing them is not depriving them of property, but restoring it to the right owner.  The master is the enemy of the slave; he has made open war upon him, AND IS DAILY CARRYING IT ON in unremitted efforts.  Can any one imagine, then, that the slave is indebted to his master, and bound to serve him? Whence can the obligation arise?  What is it founded upon?  What is my duty to an enemy that is carrying on war against me?  I do not deny, but in some circumstances, it is the duty of the slave to serve; but it is a duty he owes himself, and not his master.”