only solid, it was shining-just as sparks ascend from the anvil under the blows of the skillful smith." Whenever it was known that he would argue an important case in court the room was crowded to its utmost capacity with the people, while the lawyers filled the bar. Judge, jury and spectators dwelt with insatiate eagerness upon his words.

In 1860, after Mr. Yancey had practically surrendered himself to the public service, he retired from the co-partnership with Mr. Elmore and formed a like connection with the eminent jurist, lately Chief Justice of the State, William Parrish Chilton. The firm of Chilton and Yancey consisted of W. P. and Thomas Chilton, son of the senior, and W. L. and B. C. Yancey, father and sou. After a few months, W. P. Chilton, Jr., was admitted to its membership. The part Mr. Yancey took in the business of the new firm was necessarily limited by his political labors.

CHAPTER 20.

The Southern Argument.

1860.

Another quadrennial season of contest for the Presidency arrived. Rival parties were, with common consent, expected to state the plea of sections. The normal attitude of the slave States in this crisis of the national life, will be the theme of this Chapter. It is to be found in the moral responsibility of a happy and progressive social system to its sources. This patent fact of responsibility impelled the slave States to demand the assertion of certain propositions, as the basis of the teachings of the national Democratic party, preliminary to the pending election:

1. The adjudicated rights of the institution of African slavery in the origin and authorized interpretations of the principles of the federal government;

2. The self-sufficiency of the society of the slave States to fulfill their federal obligations;

3. The evolutionary character of the institutions of the slave States, presenting indubitable evidence of adaptation to the most enlightened theories of progressive social organism.

The earliest national adjudgment of the rights of masters of slaves, in free America, was incorporated in the first national act. The Declaration of Independence lodged complaint against the king of England, alleging his interference between master and slave. The treaty of peace with the mother country demanded the restitution of slaves the British army had carried

off. The Congress of the Confederation, on a report of Alexander Hamilton, passed a resolution, August 26, 1788, nearly a year after the Constitution had been framed, but before the government under it had gone into effect, requiring the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs to communicate with his Catholic Majesty, the king of Spain, representing to him "the inconveniences which the States bordering on his dominions experience from the asylum afforded to fugitive negroes belonging to the citizens of the said States; and that Congress have full confidence that orders shall be given to his Governors to permit and facilitate their being apprehended and delivered to persons authorized to receive them; assuring his Majesty that the said States will observe the like conduct respecting all such negroes belonging to his subjects, as may be found therein." Hamilton, Sedgewick, from Massachusetts, and Madison made the report to the Congress. The adoption of the report, after the fugitive slave proviso of the Ordinance of 1787 had taken effect, and after Paragraph 3, Section 2, Article IV, of the Constitution, had been adopted, may fairly stand as the fact inferentially constructive of the same provision in the two documents. It is well worthy of notice that this report, coming from the most eminent statesmen of both the Navigating and the Agricultural States, did not pledge the federal government, or the federal officers, to return to Spanish authorities in Florida fugitive negroes, but pledged "the said States" the separate States, that happened to be near the Spanish possessions to reciprocal acts of comity touching the return of that kind of property. At a future day, to be presently discussed, great confusion arose in Congress and in the Courts respecting the assumed right of the federal government, under the fugitive slave provision of the Ordinance and of the Constitution. The discussion, in its time, received impulse from the novelty of the attempt of the federal Constitution to dispose of the fact of African slavery. The history of all monarchies, republics and confederations had been searched, and the speculations of political literature had been exhausted to suggest theories for an American government. So it happened, that the provisions of the Constitution, relating to the African race, came to be the only essentially original features of the instrument. In the task of adaptation of the African to

civilization there was no precedent to draw upon. The debate, nevertheless, in the Convention on the subject was in good temper. Virginia, not yet a slave breeder for market, demanded the immediate suppression of importations; Massachusetts, not yet ready to surrender the profits, demanded unlimited pursuit of the trade. Mr. Roger Sherman, from Connecticut, said:

"As the States are now possessed of the right to import slaves and the public good did not require it to be taken from them, etc., he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it."

Mr. Oliver Ellsworth, from Connecticut, said:

"He was in favor of allowing every State to do as it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery were matters belonging to the States themselves. If the question was to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go farther and free those already in the country. As slaves multiply fast in Virginia and Maryland it is cheaper there to raise than to import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary. If we go farther than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle."*

Mr. Rufus King, from Massachusetts, thought the question should be considered in a political light only, but that the exemption of slaves from import duty seemed to be a discrimination in favor of Southern imports "that could not fail to strike the Northern and Middle States." Mr. Gouverneur Morris thought the question "might form a bargain among the Southern and Northern States." The whole question relating to the African slave trade was put in charge of a committee. Their report forbid Congress to interfere with the trade "prior to the year 1800." Mr. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, from South Carolina, moved to amend to make the date 1808. Mr. Madison said twenty years of the trade would do all the harm that could be done. The amendment was accepted, and the report, thus amended, was passed, all the New England States, except Rhode Island, which did not appear, voting yea, assisted by Maryland, the two Carolinas and Georgia, seven. New York did not vote. Against the amended report New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia, four, voted. After the adoption of the slave trade provision, Mr. Elbridge Gerry, from Massachusetts, moved to reconsider Article XIX, referring to

*Madison Papers, Vol. II., p. 1391 et al.

amendments to the Constitution. He proposed so to alter it as make safe the State Constitution as against any possible act of the federal government. While Mr. Gerry's motion was being considered Mr. John Rutledge, from South Carolina, said: "He never could agree to give a power by which the Articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property." It was thereupon agreed that the following words should be added to the provision relating to amendments: "Provided, That no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect " the provisions relating to the African slave trade. The vote on Mr. Rutledge's motion to prohibit any amendment, hostile to the trade, prior to 1808, stood: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, nine, aye; Delaware, nay; New Hampshire divided, and New York not voting. Mr. Luther Martin, writing to the Legislature of Maryland, explaining the work of the Convention, said: "I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, very willing to gratify the Southern States, provided these in turn would lay no restrictions on the Navigating Acts." In the debate, negroes held to service were spoken of as "slaves" and as "property." In the debate which resulted in the provision relating to enumeration of persons for apportionment and taxation, negroes of that class were spoken of as "slaves" and "property." In the 54th Number of the Federalist, written by Mr. Madison to explain the relation of slaves to the Constitution, before the States had consented to ratify it, and to prevail with the Southern States to ratify, he refers to the Africans held to service as "slaves " and as " property." "The federal Constitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and of property," he wrote. These citations are sufficient to show that the founders of the government of the United States considered slaves as property; and consented to the increase of their number, by importation; and provided for the protection of slave masters in their rights of possession. They are sufficient also to show, that the Constitutional rights of slavery were founded on compromise or