Sir, enough has been said to show the sentiment which, like a vital air, surrounded the National Government as it stepped into being. In the face of this history, and in the absence of any positive sanction, it is absurd to suppose that Slavery, which under the Confederation had been merely sectional, was now constituted national. Our fathers did not say, with the apostate angel, "Evil, be thou my good!" In different spirit they cried out to Slavery, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" There is yet another link. In the discussions which took place in the local conventions on the adoption of the Constitution, a sensitive desire was manifested to surround all persons under the Constitution with additional safeguards. Fears were expressed, from the supposed indefiniteness of some of the powers conceded to the National Government, and also from the absence of a Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, on ratifying the Constitution, proposed a series of amendments, at the head of which was this, characterized by Samuel Adams, in the Convention, as "A Summary of a Bill of Rights":-- "That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised."[150] New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with minorities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, united in this proposition. In pursuance of these recommendations, the First Congress presented for adoption the following article, which, being ratified by the proper number of States, became part of the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment:-- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." [150] Debates, etc., of the Massachusetts Convention, February 1 and 6, 1788. Elliot's Debates, Vol. IV. p. 211. Stronger words could not be employed to limit the power under the Constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the National Government, _particularly in derogation of Freedom_. Its guardian character commended it to the sagacious mind of Jefferson, who said: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground."[151] And Samuel Adams, ever watchful for Freedom, said: "It removes a doubt which many have entertained respecting this matter, and gives assurance, that, _if any law made by the federal Government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the proposed Constitution_, and inconsistent with the Constitution of this State, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void."[152] [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.