, and Virginia," he admits, "it was commended as securing
important rights, though on this point there was a difference of
opinion. In the Virginia Convention, an eminent character,--Mr. George
Mason,--with others, expressly declared that there was 'no security of
property coming within this section.'"

Now, we shall not stickle about the fact that Mr. Sumner has not given
the very words of Mr. Mason, since he has given them in substance. But
yet he has given them in such a way, and in such a connection, as to
make a false impression. The words of Mr. Mason, taken in their proper
connection, are as follows: "We have no security for the property of
that kind (slaves) which we already have. There is no clause in this
Constitution to secure it, _for they may lay such a tax as will amount
to manumission_." This shows his position, not as it is misrepresented
by Mr. Sumner, but as it stands in his own words. If slave property may
be rendered worthless by the taxation of Congress, how could it be
secured by a clause which enables the owner to reclaim it? It would not
be worth reclaiming. Such was the argument and true position of Mr.
George Mason.

"Massachusetts," continues Mr. Sumner, "while exhibiting peculiar
sensitiveness at any responsibility for slavery, seemed to view it with
unconcern." If Massachusetts had only believed that the clause was
intended to confer on Congress the power to pass a Fugitive Slave Law,
into what flames of indignation would her sensitiveness have burst! So
Mr. Sumner would have us to believe. But let us listen, for a moment, to
the sober voice of history.

It was only about four years after the government went into operation
that Congress actually exercised the power in question, and _passed a
Fugitive Slave Law_. Where was Massachusetts then! Did she burst into
flames of indignation? Her only voice, in reply, was as distinctly and
as emphatically pronounced in favor of that law as was the voice of
Virginia itself. With a single exception, her whole delegation in
Congress,[215] with Fisher Ames at their head, voted for the Fugitive
Slave Law of 1793! Not a whisper of disapprobation was heard from their
constituents. As Mr. Sumner himself says, the passage of that act "drew
little attention." Hence he would have us to believe that Massachusetts
would have been stirred from her depths if the convention had conferred
such a power upon Congress, and yet that she was not moved at all when
Congre