The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Part 2 of 4 by American Anti-Slavery Society
page 29 of 1064 (02%)
page 29 of 1064 (02%)
|
resolution but the conviction that the power to abolish slavery is an
irresistible inference from the constitution _as it is?_ The fact that the same legislature, passed afterward a resolution, though by no means unanimously, that Congress does not possess the power, abates not a title of the testimony in the first resolution. March 23d, 1824, "Mr. Brown presented the resolutions of the General Assembly of Ohio, recommending to Congress the consideration of a system for the gradual emancipation of persons of color held in servitude in the United States." On the same day, "Mr. Noble, of Indiana, communicated a resolution from the legislature of that state, respecting the gradual emancipation of slaves within the United States." Journal of the United States' Senate, for 1824-5, p.231. The Ohio and Indiana resolutions, by taking for granted the _general_ power of Congress over the subject of slavery, do virtually assert its _special_ power within its _exclusive_ jurisdiction. 5. THIS POWER HAS BEEN CONCEDED BY BODIES OF CITIZENS IN THE SLAVE STATES. The petition of eleven hundred citizens of the District, has been already mentioned. "March 5,1830, Mr. Washington presented a memorial of inhabitants of the county of Frederick, in the state of Maryland, praying that provision be made for the gradual abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 358. March 30, 1828. Mr. A.H. Shepperd, of North Carolina, presented a memorial of citizens of that state, "praying Congress to take measures for the entire abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia." Journal H.R. 1829-30, p. 379. January 14, 1822. Mr. Rhea, of Tennessee, presented a memorial of |
|