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.”

President Edwards, the younger, said, in a sermon preached before the Connecticut Abolition Society, Sept. 15, 1791:  “Thirty years ago, scarcely a man in this country thought either the slave trade or the slavery of negroes to be wrong; but now how many and able advocates in private life, in our legislatures, in Congress, have appeared, and have openly and irrefragably pleaded the rights of humanity in this as well as other instances?  And if we judge of the future by the past, within fifty years from this time, it will be as shameful for a man to hold a negro slave, as to be guilty of common robbery or theft.”

In 1794, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church adopted its “Scripture proofs,” notes, and comments.  Among these was the following: 

“1 Tim. i. 10.  The law is made for manstealers.  This crime among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment.  Exodus xxi. 16.  And the apostle here classes them with sinners of the first rank.  The word he uses, in its original import comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or in retaining them in it. Stealers of men are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them.”

In 1794, Dr. Rush declared:  “Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity.  It prostrates every benevolent and just principle of action in the human heart.  It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father.  It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Saviour.  It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men.”