|
And they went, under the strong hand of
the Lord, who is the God of the slave as
well as the master. Now, yon would have
thought that these slaveowners, these Egyptian
roasters, had had enough of slavery. But
no; the caravans of the Hebrews had hardly
Started on their way to liberty before Pha-
roah ordered out his hosts and followed
them. I do not know whether they had a
fugitive slave law there or not, but they started
out on the hunt and just there at the Red
Sea they overtook the fugitives. There were
the mountains on either hand, the slave
hunters behind them, and the Red Sea before
them, and the people became disheartened.
What said the great abolitionist, Moses?
"Stand still and see the glory of God. "
And he smote the waters, and they parted
and rolled up into a wall on either side, and
the fugitive slaves passed over on dry land,
but Pharoah's host following hard after,
were buried in the refluent waves, nevermore
to rife. And but a little while afterwards
you heard Miriam, the sister of Moses, lead-
ing her sisters in the grand chorus —
" Sing ! for the pride of the tyrant is broken;
His horsemen, his chariots, all splendid and
brave;
How vain was their boasting, the Lord hath
but spoken,
And chariots and horsemen are sunk in the
wave !
Shout the glad tidings o'er Egypt's dark
sea,
Jehovah has triumphed! His people are free!"
I wonder whether Pharoah, when apprised
of his losses, did not start the inquiry
whether he was not going to be " compen-
sated" for his lost slaves, and his chariots and
horses. I do not know whether he ever set
up such a claim, but if he did, I do not be-
lieve he ever got it.
And now I come to the legal aspect of
the question, the Constitution and the laws
of the State. And now I am going to sur-
prise some of my friends and get up what
the gentleman from Kent sometimes calls "a
very disagreeable atmosphere" here, as I have
done on one or two occasions before.
The PRESIDENT. The gentleman's time has
expired.
On motion of Mr. PURNELL, the time was
extended.
Mr. SANDS. Now for the constitutional
and legal aspect of the question. All I have
to say about that is this: that the Constitu-
tion nowhere contains the word "slave, "
or " slavery, " or admits that slavery exists
by virtue of its provisions. But it in ex-
press terms declares that it does not exist by
it, but by the laws of the State. Mr. Madison
said that the words " slave " and " slavery "
were expressly excluded from the Constitu-
tion of the United States, because the con-
vention that framed that Constitution, re-
|
fused to acknowledge or sanction the doc-
trine of property in human beings; and
Mi. Madison is good authority for gentlemen
of the South-side view of this question. He
says that nowhere in the Constitution does
the word "slave" or "slavery " occur, and
it was expressly 'excluded, in secret session of
the secret debate, because the Convention re-
fused to acknowledge the right of property
in man. Mark the words of the Constitution.
"Persons held to service or labor in any
State. " How? This is the express language:
"Under the laws thereof. " Not " under this
Constitution, " not " under this provision, "
not "by virtue of this Constitution, " be-
cause, Mr. President, once admit the doctrine
that slavery exists by virtue of the Constitu-
tion of the United States, and then you must
go further, and admit that wherever the Uni-
ted States Government acquires one foot of
territory there slavery is at once and forever
planted, because slavery is the creature of
the Constitution, and, of course, it must live
wherever that Constitution is. Now that is
not true. Slavery does not exist by virtue of
the Constitution of the United States. It ex-
ists under the laws of the State, and is
acknowledged in the Constitution as having
its existence under those laws.
Now, what is the law of this State on that
subject ? I am going to give it a little con-
sideration. I do assert, in my place here, as
my candid conviction, that there is not a
valid title — now, mind you, I mean a legal
title under the law, as construed by southern
courts — there is not a valid legal title to a
single slave in Maryland this day. That is
novel doctrine, is it not? Now, if you were
to get up here and gnash your teeth on me,
or hang me for sedition, J would not be the
first man served that way for teaching novel
doctrines, though they were ever so true.
Then what is the foundation for slavery in
Maryland, so far as the law is concerned?
W hat is this relationship of master and slave ?
Does it rest upon any sound principle? Is
there any element of contract in it? I chal-
lenge you to show it to me.
Mr. BERRY, of Prince George's. I would
ask the gentleman whether the court of Penn-
sylvania did not determine, a year or two
ago, that all negroes are presumed to be
slaves, and the onus of proof is on those who
maintain his freedom?
Mr. SANDS. I will satisfy the gentleman
on that point. I want to know now of any
man here, whether in this relation of master
and slave, there subsists a single element of
contract? What is necessary to every legal
contract? First and foremost, the plain,
common text books tell you that there must
be two or more parties to a contract. Now
you may have that as between master and
slave; there are two parties. But the law
goes on to say— -they must be free to contract,
willing to contract; and that if they do thus
|
