OCR Text |
Show 328 LIBERTY AND SLAVERY. Arguing from tho sentiments of that convention with respect to slavery, he concludes that nothing could have been further from their intention than to confer upon Congress the power to pass a uniform Fugitive Slave Law. lie bo:ftlly assorts, that if a proposition to confer such a power upon Congress had "been distinctly made it would have been distinctly denied." "But no person in the convention," he says, " 1wt one of the reckless partisans of sla.very, was so audacious a.s to rnake the proposition." Now we shall show that tho above statement of his is diametrically opposed to the truth. We shall show that the members of tho convention in question were perfectly willing to confer such a power upon Congress. Tho reason why they were so is obvious to any one who has a real knowledge of the times about whose history Mr. Sumner so confidently declaims. This rcas011 is well stated in the language of the Chancellor of New York whom we have already quoted. "The provision," says he, "as to persons escaping from scrYitucle in ~ne State into another, appears by their journal to have been adopted by a unanimous vote of the convention. At that time the existence of involuntary servitude, or the relation of master THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW. 329 and servant, was known to and recognised by tho Jaws of every State in tho Union except Massachusetts, and 1/w legal right of recaption by the master existed in all, AS A PART OF TIIE cusTOMARY OR COMMON LAW OF THE WHOLE CONFEDERACY." lienee, instead of shocking the convention, a clause recognising such right would have been merely declaratory of tho "customary or common 1aw" which then universally prevailed. The "history of the times" confu·ms this view, and furnishes no evidence against it. Mr. Sumner tries to make a different impression. lie lays great stress on tho fact that it was not until late in the convention that tho first clause relative to the surrender of fugitive slaves was introduced. But this fact agrees more perfectly with our view than with his. There was uo haste about tho introduction of such a provision, because it was well known that, whenever it should be introdttced, it would pass in the affirmative without difficulty. And, in fact, when it was introduced, it" WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED." This single fact speaks volumes. Let us now attend, for a moment, to Mr. Sumner's historical proofs. He quotes the fo]. ,.. |