As a mere laborer, the slave feels that he toils for his master, and not for himself; that the laws do not recognise his capacity to acquire and hold property, which depends altogether upon the pleasure of his proprietor, and that all the fruits of his exertions are reaped by others. He knows that, whether sick or well, in times of scarcity or abundance, his master is bound to provide for him by the allpowerful influence of self-interest. He is generally, therefore, indifferent to the adverse or prosperous fortunes of his master, being contented if he can escape his displeasure or chastisement, by a careless and slovenly performance of his duties.

This is the state of the relation between master and slave, prescribed by the law of its nature, and founded in the reason of things. There are undoubtedly many exceptions, in which the slave dedicates himself to his master with a zealous and generous devotion, and the master to the slave with a parental and affectionate attachment. But it is my purpose to speak of the general state of this unfortunate

relation.

That labor is best, in which the laborer knows that he will derive the profits of his industry, that his employment depends upon his diligence, and his reward upon this assiduity. He then has every motive to excite him to exertion, and to animate him in perseverance. He knows that if he is treated badly, he can exchange his employer for one who will better estimate his service; and that whatever he earns is his, to be distributed by himself as he pleases, among his wife and children, and riends, or enjoyed by himself. In a word,

he feels that he is a fe agent, with rights, and privileges, and sensibilities.

Wherever the option exists to employ, at an equal hire, free or slave labor, the former will be decidedly preferred, for the reasons already assigned. It is more capable, more diligent, more faithful, and in every respect more worthy of confidence.

It is believed that nowhere in the farming portion of the United States would slave labor be generally employed, if the proprietor were not tempted to raise slaves by the high price of the southern market, which keeps it up in his own.

[Speaking of an attempt more than thirty-five years ago, to adopt gradual emancipation in Kentucky, Mr. Clay says:]

We were overpowered by numbers, and submitted to the decision of the majority, with the grace which the minority, in a republic, should ever yield to such a decision. I have nevertheless never ceased, and never shall cease, to regret a decision, the effects of which have been, to place us in the rear of our neighbors, who are exempt from slavery, in the state of agriculture, the progress of manufactures, the advance of improvement, and the general prosperity. of society.-Address before the Colonization Society.

JOHN Q. ADAMS.

Not three days since, Mr. Clayton, of Georgia, called that species of population (viz. slaves) the machinery of the South. Now that machinery had twenty odd representatives* in that hall,—not elected by the machinery, but by those who owned it. And if he should go back to the history of this government from its foundation, it would be easy to prove that its decisions had been affected, in general, by less majorities than that. Nay, he might go further, and insist that that very representation had ever been, in fact, the ruling power of this government.

The history of the Union has afforded a continual proof that this representation of property, which they enjoy, as well in the election of President and Vice President of the United States, as upon the floor of the House of Representatives, has secured to the slaveholding states the entire control of the national policy, and, almost without exception, the possession of the highest executive office of the Union. Always united in the purpose of regulating the affairs of the whole Union by the standard of the slaveholding interest, their disproportionate numbers in the electoral colleges have enabled them, in ten out of twelve quadrennial elections, to confer the Chief Magistracy upon one of their own citizens. Their suffrages at every election, without exception, have been almost exclusively confined to a candidate of their own caste. Availing themselves of the divisions which, from the nature of man, always prevail in communities entirely free, they have sought and found auxiliares in the other quarters of the Union, by associating the passions of parties, and the ambition of individuals, with their own purposes, to establish and maintain throughout the confederated nation the slaveholding policy. The office of Vice President, a station of high dignity, but of little other than contingent power, had been usually, by their indulgence, conceded to a citizen of the other section; but even this political courtesy was superseded at the election before the last, and both the offices of President and Vice President of the United States were, by the preponderancy of slaveholding votes, bestowed upon citizens of two adjoining and both slaveholding states. At this moment, the President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Chief Justice of the United States, are all citizens of that favored portion of the united republic. The last of these offices, being under the constitution held by the tenure of good behaviour, has been honored and dignified by the occupation of the present incumbent upwards of thirty years. An overruling sense of the high responsibilities under which it is held, has effectually guarded him from permitting the sectional slaveholding spirit to ascend the tribunal of justice; and it is not difficult to discern, in this inflexible impartiality, the source of the obloquy

[* There are now twenty-five odd representatives—that is, representatives of slaves.]

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW-DUFF GREEN.

51

which that same spirit 'has not been inactive in attempting to excite against the Supreme Court of the United States itself: and of the insuperable aversion of the votaries of nullification to encounter or abide by the decision of that tribunal, the true-and legitimate umpire of constitutional, controverted law.-Speech in Congress, Feb. 4, 1833.

NORTH AMERICAN REVIEW.

The great body of the Roman citizens were impoverished. Instead of little farms studding the country with their pleasant aspect, and nursing an independent race, there were seen nearly all the lands of Italy engrossed by large proprietors, and the plough was in the hands of slaves. In the early period of the state, agriculture and war had been the labor and the office of freemen; but the great mass of the Roman citizens had now, by the institution of bondmen, and its necessary tendency to accumulate all possessions in the hands of a few, been excluded from employment; the palaces of the wealthy towered in the landscape in solitary grandeur; the freemen hid themselves in miserable hovels. Deprived of the dignity of proprietors, they could not even hope for occupation; for the opulent landholder preferred rather to make use of his slaves, whom he could not but maintain, and who constituted his family. Excepting a small number, of the immeasurably rich, and a feeble and continually decreasing class of independent husbandmen, poverty was extreme.

He (Tiberius Gracchus) found the inhabitants of the Roman state divided into three distinct classes. The few wealthy nobles; the many indigent citizens; and the still more numerous class of slaves. Reasoning correctly on the subject, he perceived that it was slavery, which crowded the poor freemen out of employment, and barred the way to his advancement. It was the aim of Gracchus, not so much to mend the condition of the slaves, as to lift the brood of idle persons into dignity; to give them land, to put the plough into their hands, to make them industrious and useful, and to repose on them the liberties of the state. He resolved to create a Roman yeomanry; instead of planters and slaves, to substitute free laborers; to plant liberty firmly in the land; to perpetuate the Commonwealth, by identifying its principles with the culture of the soil.-Art. "Slavery in Rome."

GENERAL DUFF GREEN.

We are of those who believe the South has nothing to fear from a servile war. We do not believe that the abolitionists intend, nor could they, if they would, excite the slaves to insurrection. The

danger of this is remote. We believe that we have most to fear from the organized action upon the consciences and fears of slaveholders themselves; from the insinuations of their dangerous heresies into our schools, our pulpits, and our domestic circles. It is only by alarming the consciences of the weak and feeble, and diffusing among our own people a morbid sensibility on the question of slavery, that the abolitionists can accomplish their object. Preparatory to this, they are now laboring to saturate the non-slaveholding states with the belief that slavery is a sin against God; that the "national compact" involves the non-slaveholders in that sin; and that it is their duty to toil and suffer, that our country may be delivered from what they term its blackest stain, its foulest reproach, its deadliest curse. Southern Review.

GOVERNOR RITNER.

Last, but worst of all, came the base bowing of the knee to the dark spirit of slavery.

For the preservation of this last and most cherished article of our national political creed, the sacrifice of which has not yet been completed, it is our duty to make all possible effort.

To ascertain what have been, nay, what are the doctrines of the people of this state, on the subject of.domestic slavery, reference need only be made to the statute book and journals of the legislature. They will there be found imprinted in letters of light upon almost every page. In 1, Smith's Laws, 493, is found an "act for the gradual abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania," with a preamble which should be printed in letters of gold. This is the first act of the kind passed in any part of the Union, and was nobly put forth to the world, in the year 1780, in the midst of the struggle for national freedom. This just doctrine was, through a long course of years, adhered to and perfected, till slavery ceased in our state. finally, in 1827, the following open avowal of the state doctrine, was prefaced to the act "to prevent certain abuses of the laws relative to fugitives from labor." "The traffic in slaves, now abhorred by all the civilized world, ought not in the slightest degree to be tolerated in the state of Pennsylvania."-Pamphlet Laws, page 485.

And

Not only has Pennsylvania thus expelled the evil from her own borders, but she has on all proper occasions, endeavored to guard her younger sisters from the pollution. On the 19th of December, 1819, the following language was unanimously made use of by the legislature, and approved of by the governor, on the question of admitting new states into the Union, with the right of holding slaves. "That the senators and representatives of this state, in the congress of the United States, be, and they are hereby requested to vote against the admission of any territory as a state into the Union, unless the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly con

victed, shall be prohibited, and all children born within the said territory, after its admission into the Union as a state, shall be free, but may be held to service until the age of twenty-five years."

The preamble to this resolution, too long to be cited at large, is worthy of all consideration at the present juncture.

On the much discussed question of slavery in the District of Columbia, there never has been any thing like hesitation. On the 23d of January, 1819, the legislature passed a resolution instructing our representatives in congress to advocate the passage of a law for its abolition; and the voice of public opinion, as expressed through the press, at meetings, and in petitions, has been unchanging on the subject.

These tenets, then, viz: opposition to slavery at home, which, by the blessing of Providence, has been rendered effectual; opposition to the admission into the Union of new slaveholding states; and opposition to slavery in the District of Columbia, the very hearth and domestic abode of the national honor-have ever been, and are the cherished doctrines of our state. Let us, fellow-citizens, stand by and maintain them unshrinkingly and fearlessly. While we admit and scrupulously respect the constitutional rights of other states, on this momentous subject, let us not, either by fear or interest, be driven from aught of that spirit of independence and veneration for freedom, which has ever characterized our beloved commonwealth.

Above all, let us never yield up the right of free discussion of any evil which may arise in the land or any part of it; convinced that the moment we do so, the bond of union is broken. For, the union being a voluntary compact to continue together for certain specified purposes, the instant one portion of it succeeds in imposing terms and dictating conditions upon another, not found in the contract, the relation between them changes, and that which was union becomes subjection.—Message to Pennsylvania Legislature, 1836.

BENJAMIN LUNDY.

It is generally admitted, that the WAR IN TEXAS has assumed a character which must seriously affect both the interests and the honor of this nation. It implicates the conduct of a large number of our citizens, and even the policy and measures of the government are deeply involved in it. The subject, as now presented to our view, is indeed one of vital importance to the people of the United States; and it particularly invites the attention-the most solemn and deliberate consideration-of all who profess to be guided by the true principles of justice and philanthropy. It is not only to be viewed as a matter of interest, at the present day. The great fundamental principles of universal liberty-the perpetuity of our free republican institutions-the prosperity, the welfare, and the happiness of future generations-are measurably connected with the prospective issue of this fierce and bloody conflict.