First Great Onslaught on Slavery in Congress (1837)

BY REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAM SLADE

MR. SLADE said, that, as the memorial which he had had the honor to present, contained merely a prayer for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia, unaccompanied by arguments in its support, he felt called on, as the representative of the memorialists, to state, in their behalf, the grounds on which he understood the prayer of the memorial to be founded. . . .

Mr. S. proceeded to say . . . I do not covet the privilege of addressing the house on this subject. I know I cannot do it without incurring censure, even from men whom I have been permitted to call my friends — which I would gladly avoid. But, sir, I am admonished by what I have seen here, during the present session, as on former occasions, that taking my seat will be the signal for another motion to lay on the table; and thus the people, whose memorial I have presented, will be deprived of the hearing to which I consider them justly entitled. I have, therefore, no alternative but to speak. I cannot desist — I must not — I will not.

This memorial, Mr. Speaker, asks for the abolition of slavery and the slave trade in the District of Columbia. In considering this subject, the first question which naturally p resents itself is — what is slavery? . . .

Here, then, is slavery. It is the holding of MAN — the whole of man — as PROPERTY. Think of that, Mr. speaker! Let the dreadful idea, for one moment, take full possession of your mind — Property in man! Why, sir, what possible wrong can be inflicted by man upon his fellow man, which may not legitimately result from this relation? Nay, sir, is not the very act of holding man as property, itself among the highest wrongs that can be inflicted on him?

And reflect, sir, upon the nature of the being that you thus reduce to the condition of property? It is MAN — your BROTHER! — Man, with an intelligent, immortal spirit — Man, allied to angels — Man, made in the image of the Almighty — Man, in a peculiar and exclusive sense, the property of the great Jehovah.

What, sir, is the foundation of the right of property? Is it not a grant, expressed, or implied, from the great original Proprietor? Nothing can give a higher title than creation; and, as man is the noblest work, so is he, in the highest sense, the property of the Creator.

Now, sir, show me the grant of a right of property in men. Every thing else is granted. There is nothing upon earth, that can be right-fully held as property, the dominion over which, is not the subject of express grant from the Creator. Read the sublime description of the creation in the first chapter of Genesis. . . .

"So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him."

And now comes thegrant. It had been announced: it is now made.

"And God blessed them. And God said unto them, be faithful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

I have thus shown, Mr. Speaker, the foundation of all man’s title to property. And now I repeat the question — where is the grant of a right to man, to hold property in his fellow man? Sir, it does not exist — it never did exist — it never can exist. The whole claim is founded in usurpation. Yes sir; a double usurpation — of man’s right in himself, which results from the very constitution of his nature, and of the high prerogative of the Author of that nature himself.

But, sir, the claim of property in man is not only without grant, and in defiance of Heaven’s prerogative of ownership, but it strikes, directly, at man’s accountability to the Creator. From the relation of ownership by one man, and absolute property in another, there naturally results a control, inconsistent with accountability to any other Being than the owner. Slavery thus seeks to sunder the moral relation of the slave to his Maker, and to invest frail man with the prerogative of Supreme Law-giver and Judge.

And then, too, contemplate the slave in connexion with the various relative duties connected with man’s social existence — those, for example, which result from the DOMESTIC CONSTITUTION, which forms the basis of the social edifice, and without which it would tumble into ruins, and the world become a bedlam and a hell. What are the domestic relations to the slave? How can the appropriate duties of any one of them be discharged by him? How, for example, can children obey their parents? How can parents discharge to their children the duties which nature prompts, and God enjoins? How can husbands protect, and enjoy, the dearest and holiest relation upon earth, or wives fulfil the sacred duties resulting from their marriage vows? Let the husbands and the fathers who hear me, answer these questions. . . .

But there are, after all, those among us, who maintain that slavery is right! Yes, sir, among us — not in Russia, or China, or Tartary; but among us in these United States of America. Here, on this hallowed soil of freedom, is slavery, not merely tolerated as an evil, but cherished as a blessing — lauded, indeed, as favorable to the perpetuity of our free institutions.

And now, sir, let me show you how directly slavery is at war with these institutions; how it rides over, and prostrates THE GREAT PRINCIPLE which lies at the bottom of them all. . . .

. . . I come to Virginia — aye, to Virginia I And what do I find? Here is her constitution before me; and, to my astonishment, the first thing that meets my eye is the following:

"A declaration of rights made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention; which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government. Unanimously adopted, June 12, 1776.

"1. That ALL MEN are, by nature, EQUALLY FREE AND INDEPENDENT, and ["] —

Mr. WISE here interposed, and called Mr. Slade to order.

The CHAIR decided, from the rule, that Mr. Slade could not read may paper, if it was objected to by any member, without the leave of the house.

Mr. WISE said the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question of slavery, going back to the very first day of the creation, instead of slavery as it existed in the District, and the powers and duties of congress in relation to it. He was now examining the state constitutions, to show that, as it existed in the states, it was against them, and against the laws of God and man. This was out of order. . . .

[MR. SLADE.] Let me now, Mr. Speaker, go back a moment, and present a single example of the strong feeling on this subject, in Virginia, previous to the revolution.

Mr. RHETT, of South Carolina, asked if the proceedings in Virginia had any thing to do with the proceedings before the house. . . .

Mr. WISE rose and said, he has discussed the whole abstract question of slavery — of slavery in Virginia — of slavery in my own district. I now ask all my colleagues to retire with me from this hall. . . .

Mr. HOLSEY: I ask the Georgia delegation to do the same.

Mr. RHETT: The South Carolina delegation have already consulted together, and agreed to meet at 3 o’clock, in the room of the committee on the District of Columbia. . . .

Mr. McKAY, of North Carolina, said that the gentleman had been pronounced out of order, in discussing slavery in the states; and the rule declared that when a member was so pronounced by the chair, he should take his seat, and if any one objected to his proceeding again, he should not do so, unless by leave of the house. Mr. McKay did now object to the gentleman from Vermont proceeding any farther.

The CHAIR read the rule referred to, and said that, as an objection had now, for the first time, been made under that rule, to the gentleman’s resuming his speech, the chair decided that he could not do so without leave of the house.

[William] Slade, December 20, 1837 (no title-page), 1–9 passim.