Communications: Memorial: Of James G. Birney To The Legislat...

To (hi Scnufe and House of Rcprescntativcs of the State of Michigan : The Memorial of James G. Birney, of Saginaw County, respectfully representa to your honorable body, that repeated instances have occurred, and that similar ones are likely to occur ngain, unless your honorable body interpose, in which persons quietly abiding in this State, or travelling on its highways, have been seized and detuined by citizens of the "ntw" Slave States, on the allcgation that ihe peisonsso seized and detained were their slaves, and had escaped froni ihe said new Slave States; that the said per-ons have been brought before the Judicial autluirities. in this State, and on proof of the foregoing allegation alone, have been officially delivered up to their captors. tobe taken out of this Staie and consigned (o hopeless bondage. To this proceeding, it is said the State of Michigan is bound by the following clausc of the Constitution of the United States : ''No person held to labor or service in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping nto nnother, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discliarged froni such service or labor; bbt shall be delivered up, on the claim of the party to whom such service or labor may lic due."Your Mnmorialist is persunded that thisclause hn8 no opplication to any of the States that have been formed in the Nortli Western Territoiy: of course, none to Michigan. Whatever obligation Michigan has been brought under to assist in perpetuating Siavery, is to be found in the Proviso to the sixth nrticle of the Ordinance ov 1787. for thr. guvernment of the Nortk W estem Tcrritory. That article, alter declaring that Siavery shul! not ;-be" in tlie Territory, prociiies, Sithut, any person escaping into -liesame froni wliotn labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the Oiginul States, such fugitive mny be iavvfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service." The Okdi.vance enntains. firstly; a form or Govi.R.NMK.vr, - changes in which were looked to and provided for : . Secondly; - Articles of Compact. - declarcd to be "forever unalterable unless by commox conThe Parties to the Compact by whose joint consent alone itcould beahcreo, were, lal. - The Umtkd States, for, and on bchalf of each one of tho original btates ; (for the governmujit itsclfhaxlng no slavea could have no interest in their reclamation.) t 2. í!Thk i'eople akd StatLs [when States should be formed] ín said Tarritortj." There is no record showing, that, these parties hnve at any time given their "common consent" to any alteration oí the anieles of compact. - Why, tbon, your mcmorialist aske, do the "ncw"Slnve Stutes disregard nnd, at pleasurc, put asid the highest prerogative of our Sovercignty, whcn the con pact agreeing to its bning disregarded and put aside is stnctly limitcd to the original States ? The ümitation is said to be inconsistent witli the clause of the constitution of the United States above quottd. Wliat if it is- (bui i is not : the concession of a privilege to the original States then in existence, not boing inconsistent with withholdingit froni nll other States not jhen in being) but whnt if it is ? Is the compact thereby abrogated or altered? No : the compact was htfore the Con9titution ; it was binding on the ■power - the peoplc - who made the constitution brforc that instrument had an existence. No coh9titution covld have been made nuüifying or ahering it, any more than one could have been made ahering or nullif ying a treaty or engagement of the United States under the Confederation. No : if there be eny part of the Constitution inconsistent with the compact, it is in so far, to all intentsand purposes, nuil and void. But there is no inco;:sistency between the constitution and the compact, nor was it ntended there should be any. Indeed, a probability almost amounting to ceitainty exisis, that thcy were framed with a special reference 10 their mutual consistency. The Congress which passed the ordinance, and the Conventio which formed the Constitution. sat at the same time and in the same city. The most harmonious understanding existed between them. The Congress would hard-, ly have acted definitely on so important a measure as the regulation of the North Western Territory confessodly was, without making such of its provisions as were to be perpetual consistent with, what they musl have known would be, the fundamental principies of the new government then being moulded under their eyes, and to which they were so soon, in all likelihood, to transier the Territory. Nor would thetion, well knowing the engagements underwhich the United States had been brought by the tenns of the compact, have declared, as they did in the constitution, that "AU engagoments entered into before thc adoption of this Constitntion, shjll be as valid against the United States undcr the constitution as under the Confederaron," - if there had been any substantial inconsistency betwecn the Compact and the Constitution. The compact, then. carries with h the asme obligutory forcé as it would, were it, in so many words, made part of the Constitution. But furiher; - the first Congress under the constitution composed in great part of the framersof the constitution, rc-enacredthe Ordinance; they say in the preamble to the act, that in order, that the ordinance of the United States in Congress assembled for the governmcnt of the Territory North West of the River üliio muy continue to kave f uil effect, it is requisite, that certain provisions should be made so as to adapi the savie to the present Constitution of the United States : The "provisions" which follow do not touch the anieles of compact imposed in the Ordinance - that in relation to Slavery included ; Congress in iheir acts of 1802,- 1816,- 1S18, and j835, enabling the people who now respectively compose ihe States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan to form Constitutions and State Govornments, prescribe, asa condition, that they be nnt repugnant to the Ordinance; The constitutions of these States all conform to the requisitions of the acts of Congress; they recognize the Ordinance as lying at the foundation of their j-igAi to be admitted into the Union. and as containing landmarks trom which, in their politica! structure and municipal regulations, they are bound not to depart.So much for the views of he lwo parties. whose joint consent was indispensable to any alteration of the compact, as to its present subsistence and obligatory forcé. But may it not be said, that "the ncw Slave Stales have been admituul into tlie Union on an cqual fooiing with the original States in all respects whntever, - and liow can this be, if the y have not the same right that the Intter have, of retaking their flying bondmen in the North Western States." Your memorialist grants, they are so admitted. - not by the Conf litution but by the acts of Congres?; he grants that they ought to bc, and are "on an equal footing," &,c. as to all legitímate powers of government: But to ex t end tlicir slave-hunts to other Sovereignties who have declared, in the most solemn fonn thai Siavcry shall never "e" among them; to mak Ohio and Indiana. Illinois and Michigan scènes lor seizing their trenibling victims: to show off in its most outrageousand disgustins features the despotism of Slavery before communties whost; bonst is Liberty ; to annihilnte Human imghts before the very eyes of those whose mission is their advancement and protection; - lo do t!ii.s i.-no more a legitímate power oi government. than lying is the legitímate uso of speech, or assassination with the Bowie knife, of the arm. Undcr the expression "admitted on an equal footing in all respec.fs whatcver," &c. thev niight with equal jusiicc lay claim to any other thing that is unreasonable and absurd - to levy a contribution on the city of Detroit - or to take oystera in New Haven bay, or lobsters in the niets of Long Island Sound.ïf it be said, that Congress in using the expression "cqual footing." &c. intended to confcr ihis nght on tho "new" Slave Siates, your meinorialist replies, that, to do so s beyond their power. Congress can grant no authority to any individml State to violato righta which al! the States in their united political characier cannot viólate, and which the people of the United State ha ve themselves guaranteed to maintain and uphold, - any more tlian thau they can strike out of the Constitution the clause in which tho guaranty is recorded. And have not the North Western States also been admitted into the Union on an equal footing in all respects wha'ever with the original States' Ycs- they have. lf, then, theso words of an act: of Congrcss possess such mighiy virtue, nwy we not say, they have abrogated ihnt arlicle of the compact which forbids Slavery in the Nortb Western States- that they may thus be placed on an equal footing wiih the original States in the item of Sluvdiulding' The argument is as sound, - or rathtr asunsound - in the one cascas in theother. If slavcholding were a legitímate power of government, then would Michigan and the oiher North Western Stntes have rcason to complain, that the "new" Slave States were adniiucil irith ihat power, whilst they wero ehorn of it. Bir ihoy have borne with this inequality - finding in il no stronger real cause of complaint ihan ono, of good moráis and sound healtli, has against liis neighbor for exceeding him by the lcprosy or nny otherloathsome distemper originating in bail habits or immoral practices. But when the inequaliiy advances a step further- claiming of Michigan, that she grant to any and every slavecatcher the privilege lo override the lnw of Liberty, wherever through tho length and breadth of the land his wiek cd chase mny lead him, and to substituto for it the law of Slavery ; that she iiumbly lay down at his fect her honor to bc trod upon; that sho tamely relinquish to liim the heaven-denved prerogntire of protecting all, but more especially the icr.ak, within her limits ; that she become the voluntary pander of those who traffic in men and women and littlo children: - thi?, il secms to your memorialist, is quite another matter - a thing not to be passed by wi'h indiilerence or neglect, but to be resistcd and pul an end to. Tkis would indeed involve substantial inequality. For governments do not extend to each other gratidtous benefi's. To oiTer them would be insulting; - to accept of them would import an acknowledgementof inferioriiy. "Where, then, is our equivalent for the power exercised by the new Slave States to put aside our Sovereignty at pleasurc? Is it ';in kind?" No, we have no Slaves - we never can have; of course, wccan iinve no runaways to oe restorea. JHave we, in any other way, been pnid an equivalent7 No. Here then is a sad sight, as your memorialist ihinks; a power granted to another government - a power that strikes at the very root of our Sovereignty - erecting a governmen: within a government; and all this without even the sham ofun equivalent to showforit! But might it not be, that Michigan, by voluntarily becoming a member of the Union, virtually gave her consent ïo tho abrogation of the Proriso in the Ordinance, and took on herself the Constituliontil obligation to deliver up fugitives from lab or? Yes, it might - if this wcre not a mode too roughhewn and incidental of stripping our selvea of the most important attribute of Sover eignty, - and if the transición from a territorial t a State form of government were substantialiy inconsistent with the protiso. But this very transition was foreseen, - encournged - providec for, and made part of the compact. Article 1 says - ';The said Territory nnd the Strtes which may be formed therein shall forever remain a part of tliis Confederacy," S:c. Article 5th, provides that - '-'there shall be formed in said Territory not less than three nor more than five States," &c. "And whênevêr any of the said Staus shall havfusixty thousand freo inhabitants therein. such State shall be admitied by its delegates into the Congress of the United States on an equal fooiing with the orini nal Siates in all respecis wh.itever, and slüill "be at librriy to form a permanent constittition and State government. Provided the consiitution and sovernment so to be formed shall be republican and in conformilij 10 Üic piinciples contained in these arliclcs" [ofcompact.] Thus the North tVcstern States on attaining respectivcly a population of sixty thousand, and coinplying with the other condiiions meniioned, were placed on a different and superior footing tothe othcr "new" States, Kentucky, Tennessee, &c.' tbnt werein contemplation to be formed out ofterritory then belonging to the original States: The first had a right to admission - "they shall be admitted," &c. - the latter "may be admitted," in the discretion of Congress. And this is a case in which shall and may import very different things. The foregoing proofs nnd considerations to which, if they were ïnsufïïcient of themselves, mnny others in the political history of our country might bc added, satisfy your memoridist thal the State of Michigan, as a member of the Union, is under no obligniion to suffer any one who has been bold or fortúnate enough to escape from Shvery in the "new" States, to be seized within her litnits, and carried out of tliem, again to wcar tlie bonds of Slavcry. In contending for the sovereignty - and wiih it for the honor and dignity of the State. - your mcmorinlist's course has beert wholly argumentive. He has not. up to this point, deemed it nccessary - 30 demonstrable seemed to him Ii is position - to go bchind the form of tlic pretended stipulation andapply to the whol e subject the test of jnortils. by which Sutes as well as individuáis are bound, nnd by which the obligatory force of their cngageinrnts wiih one nnother is to be determined. By applying this test ns it is applied in our tribunals in n!l natters of contract between individunis, yourlïioriaüet has sntisfied himself - s he truèift he will be ahle fo sntisfy your honornble body, - ihnt even the Proriso n ihe Ordinance nbove quoted for the deliverinp up of those wlio cscnpe from Slavery in the Original Stntes imposes no oblicatión on the State of Michigan, but, on the contrary. ís wholly void and of no effect. When a pcople nssume Supremo Power, the State they form beconesnsa genera! rule, entied tn the submission of all within its bounda to s authority as embodied in the Iaws; or, whnt s the same thing, to their alí-egia-vce. The orrelativeof allcgiance is protection. It is as ïuch the dutyof the State to protect the individal, as it is the duty of the individual to obey the tato. This. if your rncmorinlist mistake not, is point that has passed beyónd dispute. Morcover, as States or governments are instituted to endure ibrever, thcre ia on their, part a perpetuallu.y to obey. If the individual, then-yot being m the Statc-cannot absolve himsolf from hú allcgionce, on what ground can the State abaolvo itsell from its duty of protection? If the individal cannot enter into a lawful covenant with the individual of another State, to withhold his alIcgiancc in the specified case. or classof ca3e8 from hia own State.- can the State rightfully enter into a covenant with another State to withhold protection from the individual, orfroma certain class of individuáis? The bond of John lo James, in consideraron tl.at James stand by ,vith folded nrms whenever the State should be invaded by a powcrfnl enemy -giving no aid wherc hc hnd courage and ability to repcl, & cmertaining no conscientious scruples aga.nst resorting to arma in euch a case,- would be considered in any forum aacreatingno obligation,- although James had carefully fulfilled the conditlon; and, simply bccausc the condition involved a withholding- only a negativo w:thholding- of his duty of olletfance to the State. Shall the State thenwhen the iiulicidual is attacked by an overpowering adversary, and na protection iscalled for, and it has ampio ability to protect; -shall the State be permitted to plead that u hos entered into a covenant with anothei S'ate; the same ic mny be oí vhich the advereary is a member, for howevcr valuable consideration to w.thhold its protection in that particular case' andinallother cases of similar character? To npply the foregoingpropoaiiions, thcn.to the case ia hand; does the,,, undcr consideration creatca lawful obügmion on the State of Michigan to w.thhold her protection from persons escaping irom bondage in otherlands? Ty ask the question 's to furnish the answer; to furnish the answer is to decide the whole matter before us-íA unbiamid m huls.But to make the case, ïf possible, 11 plainer, and recommend it to all minds acknowledging the claims of Justiceand Humanity, yoarmemorlalists would Dsk, who are the persons described in the Prooiso as escaping frorn the original states and seeking a rcfuge in oürs-and concerning whom we have cntcrcd into o covenantsilontly to look on, should we chooee not tojoin in me chase, whilst they arebcing huntcd like the partndgeiniho mountain? They are captiva- against whom and their anecstors, he "original" States aud the new" Slave States principáis, with the free States as auxiliarte,, have wagcd, for than two lmndred years.and continue to wage, the most unprovoked, implacable and cruel warfare that it is possible for one peoplo to wae against another; who have had imposed on them, in their captivity, burdens.afflictione, ignominics so grievoos.. that, were similar ones imposcd on any of ourownpeople made prisoners by a naíion with whom we might be at open war, we would cry out against them as barbarous- inhuman- utterly unvvorthy ofa community claiming to rank among the civilized; They are persons who owe no allegiance to the States in which they are held in captivity; for they not only receive no protection from the government, but the government itself roJs them of every human and conventional right; These persons are the working men of tho slave States, they are forced, ot the end of tho ash,to work all their lives.thus farfor otheri without wages, and conoerning whom it is in'endeJ, hey shnll work on the same terms as Jong as life asís. They are such as may be beaten at pleaeire. and 4o any extent, by the coarsest and most jrutal of tyranta; whose wives may be ocourged jefore their eyes; whosc own children may e compelled to perform the office of flagellatingncir parents; wño may be hanged on the next ree, as scores of them have been, within the last ew years, without the form of trial, or, be burnt ver a show fire, 6hould the oppressor's Bpint bo xasperated beyond what is wont: Tliey are persons who may be sold as merliandize by a fellow-creature; who, returning to leirhumbledwellingsatnight, may find them esolate - their wives aan daughters having bcon sold n their absence, to meet the calis of a spendthrift master, or to minister to the licentious cravings of a brutal trafiiicker in human flesh;- They are persons debarred of all opportunity oi cultivating their intcllectual powers by literary acquisition; whom it is made penal to instruct in the 'mcrest elemenls of literature; among whom a father or mother dnre not teach a son or n daughter even the Holy Scriptures without exposing himself to the penalties of fine, whipping, imprisonment; and, in case the offencc be repeated to ihe punishment of death: They are persons, too, whose stilt higher nature - their spiritual - is neglected; they pnss through Time without object, and enfer on Eternity. without hope. For the labor of more than two liurulred years performed by them and their ancestors for us and our ancestors - for the clearing away of the foresi; the cultivation of the soil; the discharge of the most laborious offices tbeyhave, in ihe main, receiveuns ineir reward, 6cant cloihing, scant food, sordid Jodging, boaily scourgings, the breaking up of domestic relations, polluuons of w ves and daughtera thai cannot even be named; intellectual poverty; spiritual desolation! Their weakness, itself o natural appeal to ilie stront for protection, is noticed only to be insultcd; their mcek and innocent forbearance un rier unmcrited 8uficring ia denied by their tormentors whilst holding tho insirument of torturo in their hands; or lnughed at; the opprcssion ur der which they languish whicb, it was once said, "makcth a wise man mad," is bcgitining to bc lookcd on as their destiny. Your memorialist would respectfully enquira whether all the wrongs perpetrated against theae persons are nol in violation of justice? Your memorialist supposes that only one answer can bo given to ibis question. How ihen can Michigan bind berself to assist in doing what is viola tive of justice? How can she bind herself to ptrmit injustice to be done, within her liinits, wherc shc is bound by antecedent obligaticns