Page:Freedom v. slavery.djvu/6

6

less. The table which I have prepared will show the result in each State, and a comparison can be instituted, severally or in the aggregate, and the result will be about the same. If the system of slavery, as it exists in the fourteen slave States I have named, is right— best for the master and slave, and one to be fostered and encouraged upon the principles of humanity and true political economy—why is it that these slave States compare so unfavorably, severally and in the aggregate, with the free States I have named? I think it would be well for some of the mercurial-tempered advocates of slavery upon this floor to answer this question, and others of a similar import which might be put to them, relative to the effect of slavery upon the prosperity of the slave States, instead of applying to us, who oppose the system, all the unparliamentary billingsgate which a bad taste and a worse temper can suggest. The disparity between freedom and slavery is too uniform to be accidental. I have only given a few of "the actual results" of slavery, which might be "industriously paraded as clouds of witnesses against the institution." The census statistics now being collected will show more unfavorably against slavery than those of 1850, and every returning decade will widen the gap between freedom and slavery. The reason is too obvious to need argument to show it. Slave labor is forced and mere hand labor, and has none of the motives of reward which stimulate free labor; and the consequence is, that slave labor does not originate, and cannot bring to its aid, the numberless labor-saving inventions which have contributed so much to the industrial enterprise and prosperity of the free States. I refer the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Curry] to the Patent Office for "clouds of witnesses against the institution." Slavery is a war of one class of the community against the other, and slaveholding States are constantly in a state of war, and are, in fact, under the terrors of martial law. Their means are wasted in patrol surveillance and overseeism. The history of the free and slave States in this country shows to my mind, conclusively, what ethical writers have contended to be true, that just dealing, for States as well as for individuals, is the best policy in the end. It is time the American people and politicians were beginning to understand, what Dr. Davy long since asserted to be true, "that injuring one class for the immediate benefit of another, is ultimately injurious to that other; and that, to secure prosperity to a community, all interests must be consulted." Upon this point I therefore conclude, upon a re-examination of the opinions and speculations of the early fathers of the Republic, and "from actual results," they were right in pronouncing slavery an evil to be deplored and to be got rid of as soon as practicable. The advocates of slavery, with a view to shield their system from attack, and to add sanction to it in the popular mind, assume for it d constitutional recognition; that, as a

system, the Constitution gives it a legal guaranty. This is mere assumption, and has no foundation in fact. I deny that the Constitution, upon any fair construction, regards slaves as property; but, on the contrary, it treats them as persons; allows them to be counted as a basis of representation. The article relating to fugitives from labor is sometimes referred to as recognising the property character of slaves; but here again they are regarded as persons, and not property. It is admitted that this clause relates to minors and apprentices, as well as slaves; and will any one claim that children and apprentices are treated as property, and are declared to be property? They are, as much as slaves are by this clause. The Constitution found slavery existing in the States by force of the laws thereof, and there it left it; giving to no department of the General Government direct control over it; and there the Republican party, as a political question, are willing to leave it. It is admitted by all— at least I have not heard it denied—that a State can abolish slavery whenever it may desire to do so; but if the Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property, how could a State legally abolish slavery? The Constitution would be superior to the State law; and as there seems to be no end to the assumptions of slavery, this may be the next plank to be spiked on to a Democratic platform. According to the gentleman from Alabama, slavery is superior to the Constitution or law, and not dependent upon either. His position is, "Slavery exists in the State where the owner dwells; exists out of the State; exists in the Territories; exists everywhere, until it comes within the limits of sovereignty, which prohibits it." Slavery, then, according to this new dogma, like our atmosphere, occupies all the unoccupied space on the globe, and fully possesses the attribute of ubiquity. The gentleman gives us no authority but his assertion, which I suppose is the result of his re-examination of the question. I quote against it the records of the decisions of every court of respectability in Christendom since courts of law have been represented as holding the scales of justice. I quote against it the opinions of every elementary law writer and every ethical writer of note, from the dawn of civilization to the present time. And there I am willing to leave this modern postulate of human bondage, except so far as it forms the predicate of the Territorial policy of the Democratic party. The Republican party propose, to the extent of its constitutional power, to limit and restrict slavery, and thereby return to the policy of the fathers, which made freedom the rule and slavery the exception. The dictates of humanity and the policy of enlightened statesmanship alike urge the party forward. We have seen that the controlling element of the unexampled prosperity of our country has been free labor, and we have prospered in spite of slavery, and