[151] Opinion against the Constitutionality of a National Bank, Feb. 15, 1791: Memoir, Correspondence, etc., Vol. IV. p. 523; Writings, Vol. VII. p. 556. See also Letter to Judge Johnson, June 12, 1823: Memoir, Correspondence, etc., Vol. IV. p. 374; Works, Vol. VII. p. 297.
[152] Debates, etc., of the Massachusetts Convention, February 1, 1788. See also Life of Samuel Adams, by William V. Wells, Vol. III. pp. 271, 272, 325, 331.
Beyond all question, the National Government, ordained by the Constitution, is not general or universal, but special and particular. It is a government of limited powers. It has no power which is not delegated. Especially is this clear with regard to an institution like Slavery. The Constitution contains no power to make a king, or to support kingly rule. With similar reason it may be said, that it contains no power to make a slave, or to support a system of Slavery. The absence of all such power is hardly more clear in the one case than in the other. But if there be no such power, all national legislation upholding Slavery must be unconstitutional and void. The stream cannot be higher than the fountain-head. Nay, more, _nothing can come out of nothing_; the stream cannot exist, if there be no spring from which it is fed.
At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review now this argument, and gather it together. Considering that Slavery is of such an offensive character that it can find sanction only in "positive law," and that it has no such "positive" sanction in the Constitution,--that the Constitution, according to its Preamble, was ordained to "establish justice" and "secure the blessings of liberty,"--that, in the Convention which framed it, and also elsewhere at the time, it was declared not to sanction Slavery,--that, according to the Declaration of Independence, and the Address of the Continental Congress, the Nation was dedicated to "Liberty," and the "rights of human nature,"--that, according to the principles of the Common Law, the Constitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually for Freedom,--that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it acts upon slaves, _not as property_, but as PERSONS,--that, at the first organization of the National Government under Washington, Slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere on the national territory, beneath the national flag, but was openly condemned by Nation, Church, Colleges, and Literature of the time,--and, finally, that, according to an Amendment of the Constitution, the National Government can exercise only powers delegated to it, among which is none to support Slavery,--considering these things, Sir, it is impossible to avoid the single conclusion, that Slavery is in no respect a national institution, and that the Constitution nowhere upholds property in man.