until the year 1808, from prohibiting the importation of any persons whom any of the existing States might until that time think proper to admit.

2d. That by a fair construction of the Constitution, Congress was equally restrained from interferring to emancipate slaves within the States, such slaves having been born there or having been imported within the period mentioned.

3d. That Congress had no power to interfere in the internal regulations of particular States relative to the instruction of slaves in the principles of morality and religion, to their comfortable clothing, accommodation, and subsistence, to the regulation of marriages or the violation of marital rights, to the separation of children and parents, to a comfortable provision in cases of age or infirmity, or to the seizure, transportation, and sale of free negroes; but entertained the fullest confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the State legislatures, that from time to time they would revise their laws and promote these and all other measures tending to the happiness of the slaves.

4th. That Congress had authority to levy a tax of ten dollars, should they see fit to exact it, upon every person imported under the special permission of any of the States.

5th. That Congress had authority to interdict or to regulate the African slave-trade, so far as it might be carried on by citizens of the United States for the supply of foreign countries; and also, to provide for the humane treatment of slaves while on their passage to any ports of the United States into which they might be admitted.

6th. That Congress had the right to prohibit foreigners from fitting out vessels in the United States to be employed in the supply of foreign countries with slaves from Africa.

7th. That Congress would exercise their authority to its full extent, to promote the humane objects aimed at in the Quakers' memorial.*

Here is a clear exposition of the views of the committee, and here they set the example of receiving abolition petitions, certainly in reference to Franklin's prayer, if not the Quaker memorial.

Tucker was warmly opposed to this report, offering as a substitute a refusal to take the memorial into consideration as unconstitutional and tending to injure some of the States

Hild. Hist., vol. i. second series, p. 184.

of the Union." This resolution, though it found some warm supporters, was declared out of order. Some of the most distinguished Southern members were decidedly opposed to this report; White and Moore, of Virginia, and Smith, of South Carolina, ably defended the South and the slave-trade. Slaves were required to cultivate our lands; a white laborer from the North required two dollars per day; this could not be given, and the plantations would be deserted. Baldwin thought the question ought not to be entertained, and all debate upon it was improper. Madison, cool, deliberate, and just as he always was, thought the report of the committee should be entered on the journals for the information of the public, and to quiet the fears of the South by showing that Congress claimed no power, and would exercise none, in reference to the prohibition of the importation of slaves before 1808, and never the power of manumission. The motion to enter the report upon the journal finally prevailed, by a vote of twenty-nine to twenty-five, and, as modified, it was thus entered:

"That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.

"That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the States; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy require.

"That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African slave-trade for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by proper regulations for their humane treatment, during their passage, of slaves imported by said citizens into said States admitting such importation.

"That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners from fitting out vessels in any port of the United States for transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port."

This was the first introduction into Congress of the slavery question, and it thus terminated for a time. It was not even at that period free from sectional feeling, but the debates were conducted with a decorum and dignity that should teach a high moral and practical lesson to the fanatics of the present day. It is a striking feature in this debate, and in the history of this report, that mild and constitutional and conser

vative as it is, clearly declaring that Congress had no power to interfere with slavery in the States, and none to prohibit the slave-trade by the States, that the most animated opposition should have sprung from the South. It was South Carolina and Georgia that constituted the Southern opposition, with the addition of North Carolina, which still admitted the importation of slaves. A majority of the representation of Virginia and Maryland, though firm in their devotion to the South, voted for the report. Virginia was an advocate of the abolition of the slave-trade; many of her citizens favored emancipation; and whilst Virginia is more unanimous for slavery now than at the time of the debate upon this report, yet it is not true that she ever "leaned to anti-slavery views" when brought in conflict with the rights of the State, or when she supposed that there was to be an unconstitutional exercise of the powers of Congress over this her cherished institution.*

From the date of this report, (in March, 1790,) a calm was given to the slavery question, which remained until 1804, at which time we find the existence of those abominable pests, "Societies for the promotion of the abolition of slavery, pressing their petitions before Congress.

Louisiana had but recently been added to the family of the States, when, in 1804, in the early part of the session of Congress, one of the Pennsylvania societies, with constant pretences for the welfare of the African, was found puling at the door of Congress Hall asking the prohibition of slavery' in the newly-acquired territory.

They had seen the proceedings of a meeting of the people held at Vincennes, the object of which was to obtain a suspension of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery north of the Ohio.

The memorial was, in the first instance, referred to a committee, consisting of at the head of which was John Randolph. This committee considered it dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision, in their own words, "wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country;" expressing their belief "in the salutary operation of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, the inhabitants of Indiana would at no distant day find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and immigration."

* Hild. Hist., second series, vol. i. p. 204.

1804.

The memorial just alluded to in reference to the extension of slavery in the newly-acquired territory, which was applicable to Louisiana, was at the next session referred to the committee on the government of that territory, of which Rodney was chairman. When the act was passed organizing the Territory of Orleans, a provision was inserted prohibiting slaves to be carried into that Territory, except by citizens from the United States moving into the Territory as actual and permanent settlers; but this provision did not extend to negroes introduced into the United States since 1798, the object of which provision was to counteract the effect of an act passed by the South Carolina Legislature to revive the slave-trade.

The committee, of which Rodney was chairman, reported in favor of a suspension of the prohibition of the introduction of slavery into the newly-acquired territory for ten years; but Congress took no action upon it.

With the resolution of Bard, a delegate from Pennsylvania, and the debate on it, closed for a season the attention of Congress in reference to a question always producing excitement and touching deeply the interest as well as the most delicate sensibilities of a large portion of the Southern delegation.

In addition to the restriction upon slaves in reference to Louisiana, Bard moved a tax of ten dollars upon all slaves imported.

The resolution was brought before the Committee of the Whole. Lowndes, of South Carolina, opposed the motion, though he regretted the step his State had taken. Bard defended the resolution as constitutional, and thought it was designed to operate, and would operate, as special legislation; it was still contended that it was a legitimate source of revenue; since the slave-trade made men articles of traffic, they were subject to impost like any article of merchandise. Nathaniel Mason, a wise man and always exercising a large influence, opposed the motion; he thought it was an effort on the part of the Government to correct a State for the undoubted exercise of its rights. As this debate progressed it elicited the talent of Southard and Mitchell, of New Jersey, Smilie, Lucas, and others,-Pennsylvania always furnishing a large corps of anti-slavery speakers.

Griswold, the veteran leader of the Federal party, opposed it upon the old ground taken by Ames and Sherman, that it would legalize the African slave-trade. Randolph preserved

a studious silence, though the talented and distinguished sonin-law of the President, John W. Eppes, gave the resolution his warmest support.

The bill of Bard, with a majority in its favor, was twice read and referred to the Committee of the Whole; yet no further action was ever taken on it, and it was allowed to die away without notice or honor.*

I have taken a retrospective view of the slavery question in order to present its full history, as well as the development of the party that we will see has founded an existence upon it, and the manner and reasons of its being almost strictly geographical. It was a slight divergence, yet to maintain the continuity of the subject and its importance, will be my only excuse.

In recurring to the period at which I digressed, the most important, excitive, and interesting question was the trial of Aaron Burr for high treason. A personal sketch of this remarkable man, with the varied incidents of a long and eventful life, presents to the reader one of the most striking, and often the most offensive, characters ever exhibited by American history. Descended from enlightened, virtuous, and refined parents and grandparents, with every opportunity for moral and religious culture, the world was the more astonished at the fall and degradation that overwhelmed the son of science and genius. He studied well at school and exhibited great facility in mastering his lessons, yet an early waywardness seized upon his boyish imagination, and at ten years of age he was caught as a cabin-boy on an outward-bound vessel, whither he had escaped for the purpose of taking a sea voyage. He always exhibited talent, though the seeds of vice were soon germinating in his youthful bosom; even his latter collegiate years were given to vice and dissipation.

The breaking out of the Revolution and the flow of American blood on the field of Lexington, aroused the ardent temper of Burr; and, despite the urgent remonstrances of his guardian, he joined the army. He was with Arnold in his thirty-two days' march across the wilderness, when on his way to Chaudiere Pond, in Canada. He afterwards joined the detachment under Montgomery and became his aid; was with that gallant champion when he fell at the siege of Quebec, in the front ranks of the army, and near his general. The

* Hild. Hist., vol. ii. p. 504; Journ. Cong., 1804.