the doctrine that white men—for they were
white men to whom that old Jewish law ap-
plied—that a white man may besold for debt
by his creditor; that the creditor may seize not
only his debtor, but his wife and his children
and expose them in mart overt to be sold to
the highest bidder to answer his claim. Let
them do that, and then go out to the people
and tell them that they did it on Bible sanc-
tion; or else let them abandon this Bible
defence of slavery. Let them do the one or
the other.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. The ref-
erence to the Bible, made by me this morning,
was in answer to the charge that slavery was
a sin; that it was sinful to hold slaves. I
wanted to show that it was justified by the
Bible, both in the Old and New Testaments.
Mr. SANDS. Do you not believe it would
be a sin, at this day, to incorporate into our
organic law a provision which would au-
thorize your creditor to sell you, and your
Wife and your children into slavery to satisfy
his claim? Would not that be a sin?
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. That is
not the question under consideration.
Mr. SANDS. Humph ! [Laughter ] Well,
if it would not be a sin, because it is in the
Bible, then do it. But if it is a sin, then do
not say it is not a sin because it is in the
Bible. Sir, this Bible defence of slavery de-
serves scarcely even a word of serious an-
swer. When the peculiar friend of the South,
from across the water, Mr. William Howard
Russell, who was so kind to Southern gen-
tlemen, so tolerant to all their faults and
foibles, and so much in love with their
" chivalry"—when be listened to those things,
be said he had but one answer to make to
them; and that was, that they bad never
been heard outside of America. That the
rest of the Christian world did not know
anything of them; and all he had to say
about such arguments, and such books as
were written by Bishop Hopkins, was that a
people who could read Bishop Hopkins's Bible
View of Slavery, and the New York Herald,
and believe either the one or the other, were
ripe for political destruction. I agree with
him about Bishop Hopkins's book; I do not
know so much about the Herald.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You accept him as au-
thority ?
Mr. SANDS. In that case I do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But in none other?
Mr. SANDS. Well, I do not think he is in-
fallible, He has said a great many foolish
things, especially about " the chivalry."
[Laughter,]
Having got thus far, I propose to pay my
respects to the argument based upon the Con-
stitution of the United States. And inci-
dentally I shall touch upon some expressions
I have listened to upon this floor. Now,
while I declare myself a law-abiding citizen ;
while, as long as the statute is upon the book, |
and as long as the decree is upon record,
I will obey it; still I say I have my right .as
a tree, thinking man to express my opinion
of the doctrines they teach, and I say here,
in my place to-night, that when the Supreme
Court of the United States, through the lips
of that aged main, Chief Justice Taney, de-
clared that this Government was founded
upon the doctrine that the black man had no
rights which the white man was bound to re-
spect, he put upon the record, to his own mi-
denying shame, an historical and legal false-
hood.
Mr. BRISCOE. Did Judge Taney ever lay
down any proposition to that effect in that
decision, or in any other dictum?
Mr. SANDS. Yes, sir; I have the book at
hand.
Mr. BRISCOE. Did he say that the white
man had control of the life of his black ser-
vant?
Mr. SANDS. He said that " the black man
bad no rights which the white man was bound
to respect." That is his language.
Mr. BRISCOE. That means that be could
put him to death?
Mr. SANDS. I give yon his language; he
can give you its meaning; you must go to
him for that. But I say it is a legal and his-
torical falsehood, that this Government was
founded upon any such principle. It was
founded upon no such principle, upon no
such doctrine, under no such condition of
fact, and Chief Justice Taney knows it—or
the more shame for him if he does not.
Now, what are the facts in this respect, the
facts of history, as well as of law? Who
were many of these negroes in regard to
whom Chief Justice Taney was speaking in
this decision? They were the descendants of
those who had helped to fight the battles of
independence. They were those men about
whom Southern States' courts had held
a, far different doctrine. I have a case in
point, the case of the State of North Carolina
vs. Manuel—2 Dev. and Bat. 20. And I will
read what Judge Gaston said on this point, a
great many years before Chief Justice Taney—
God forgive him for the evil he has done his
country. These words were spoken by Chief
Justice Gaston, of North Carolina, long be-
fore the Supreme Court of the United States
fulminated its brutal dictum upon the matter.
That eminent justice held this language :
"According to the laws of this State,
(North Carolina,) all human beings within
it, who are not slaves, fall within one of two
classes. Whatever distinctions may have ex-
isted in the Roman laws between citizens and
free inhabitants, they are unknown to our in-
stitutions."
And I beg the Convention to follow the
reasonings of Chief Justice Gaston on this
point.
" Before our revolution, all free persons
born within the dominions of the King of Great |
