FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2090   2091   2092   2093   2094   2095   2096   2097   2098   2099   2100   2101   2102   2103   2104   2105   2106   2107   2108   2109   2110   2111   2112   2113   2114  
2115   2116   2117   2118   2119   2120   2121   2122   2123   2124   2125   2126   2127   2128   2129   2130   2131   2132   2133   2134   2135   2136   2137   2138   2139   >>   >|  
ern and Eastern States from meddling with our whole property of that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves after twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the Southern States those they now possess. It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in the Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired under our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a great many people. MR. LEE. The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not prohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the continuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent to criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the consideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the one case, it can be censurable in the other? MR. LEE then concluded by earnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly. MR. HENRY. It says that "no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded." If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a State may go to war; but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded.--They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition of Congress. MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS. Another worthy member says, there is no power in the States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it now? If they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it must be in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy member. The first clause gives the general government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States? No. But it gives an additional security: for, besides the power in the State governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the general government to aid them with the strength of the Union when called for. No part of this Constitution can show that this power is taken away. Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppressio
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   2090   2091   2092   2093   2094   2095   2096   2097   2098   2099   2100   2101   2102   2103   2104   2105   2106   2107   2108   2109   2110   2111   2112   2113   2114  
2115   2116   2117   2118   2119   2120   2121   2122   2123   2124   2125   2126   2127   2128   2129   2130   2131   2132   2133   2134   2135   2136   2137   2138   2139   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
clause
 

slaves

 

States

 

invaded

 
importation
 

property

 
Constitution
 

government

 
gentleman
 
insurrection

general
 

member

 

country

 

insurrections

 
suppress
 

worthy

 
GEORGE
 
prohibit
 

twenty

 

secure


clauses

 

looked

 

mentioned

 
oppressio
 

securing

 

interposition

 

Another

 

NICHOLAS

 

Congress

 

provision


meddling

 

called

 

Chairman

 

dangers

 
created
 

section

 

strength

 

happen

 
security
 

additional


Eastern

 

governments

 

militia

 
contradictory
 

reasons

 
criminate
 

inconsistent

 

submit

 

infelicity

 

difficulties