and again, till I be answered (not by declamation)
where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition
of slavery? Is it the clause which says, that
“the migration or importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing, shall think proper
to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior
to the year 1808?” This is an exception from
the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction
is only to continue till 1808. Then Congress
can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future
importations; but does it affect the existing state
of slavery? Were it right here to mention what
passed in Convention on the occasion, I might tell
you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself;
conceived this property to be secure by these words.
I believe, whatever we may think here, that there
was not a member of the Virginia delegation who had
the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery.
Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where
this formidable power of emancipation is inserted.
But another clause of the Constitution proves the
absurdity of the supposition. The words of the
clause are, “No person held to service or labor
in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor;
but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to
whom such service or labor may be due.”
Every one knows that slaves are held to service and
labor. And when authority is given to owners of
slaves to vindicate their property, can it be supposed
they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this
State, in consequence of this clause, can take his
runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought,
that after taking him and bringing him home, he could
be made free?
I observed that the honorable gentleman’s proposition
comes in a truly questionable shape, and is still
more extraordinary and unaccountable for another consideration;
that although we went article by article through the
Constitution, and although we did not expect a general
review of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view
had been taken of it before it was regularly debated,)
yet we are carried back to the clause giving that
dreadful power, for the general welfare. Pardon
me if I remind you of the true state of that business.
I appeal to the candor of the honorable gentleman,
and if he thinks it an improper appeal, I ask the
gentlemen here, whether there be a general indefinite
power of providing for the general welfare? The
power is, “to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide
for the common defence and general welfare.”
So that they can only raise money by these means,
in order to provide for the general welfare.
No man who reads it can say it is general as the honorable
gentleman represents it. You must violate every
rule of construction and common sense, if you sever
it from the power of raising money and annex it to
any thing else, in order to make it that formidable
power which it is represented to be.