On the record
Was it a mere speculation, a wild fancy, that the framers of the Constitution would not admit that there could be such a thing as property in man?
Source
gutenberg.orgEditor's note · Context
Tompkins questions the framers of the Constitution regarding the moral implications of considering people as property.
Share
More from Cydnor Tompkins
Labor of every species is disreputable, because performed mostly by slaves; the general aspect of the country marks the curse of a wasteful, idle, reckless population, who have no interest in the soil, and care not how much it is…
Resolved, that the abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object of desire in these colonies, where it was improperly introduced in their infant state.
It is ruinous to the whites; retards improvement; roots out an industrious population; banishes the yeomanry of the country; deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, the carpenter, of employment and support.
It is our privilege, it is our duty, to repel those assaults, that the world may know that when the advanced guard of freedom is attacked, "our feet shall be always in the arena, and our shields shall hang always in the lists.
Other voices in this conversation
