The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-05-25
From the Herald of Freedom,
Slavery and the Constitution.

we nan WIN pleasure announcer
a Lawyer-Lieut. Governor Camp of Vermont
contending that slave-holding is not allowed by
the u. S. Constitution. We have long held tc
this, and it is cheering to find legal fellow cit
izen coming forward to sustain us, and to relieve
us from the charge of faaaticism or rather to re-
eve our friends, both pro-savery and anti-slavery
from the burthen of esteeming it fanaticism
We feel it no burthen. We like to carry the right
and none the less when the world around has the
wrong. 1t is an easy" and eight burden"
1t is fanatisisml to believe that the Constitution
tolerates slavery. 1t is fanatsism to think that
free Constitution could tolerate it. The Bible
could as we'll tolerate sin. The Constitution was
made by the people for the very and only purpose
of maintaining equal and universal liberty. 1t
is then preposterous and ridiculous to suppose it
could tolerate slavery 1t is preposterous to say
it tolerates its own subversion. Some say it sane
tons slavery-others that it "guaranties" it.
This is saying that the Constitution does not sane
ton ITSELF and that it guarantees its own destruc-
ZION.
Governor Camp asserts that the clause in the
Constitution, under which fugitive slaves are re-
claimed, does not authorize their retainer on the
ground, that under the LAWS of the States they flee
from, they cannot Que SLAVE Service.
We think this position perfectly tenabe. They
cannot make a la,v in a slaveholding State, under
which man can ore slave serUice-or another
man have it due to him. What is more, they have
not attempted it. They have practced, as if un-
der such law, but they have none such to practice
under. They can't producei it. They have decisions
defining Szarery and the definition is just enough
But they can't, as we believe, produce decision
wherein it has been determined by any court of
law, that mans liberty belongs to another The
question we don't believe was ever raised in any
of their courts, whether the liberty of man held
as slave is taken by lG,O. That great point is
always assumed, and then the Court determines to
which of two claimants the man belongs. And
we declare here, that by Southern law, administer
ed on the common principles of the courts, NO
MAN is SLAVE OR CAN BE. Let any slave there
(slave de tacto) his liberty in Virginia, at
the hand of the courts of law,-and it must be
given him, or they demolish their own law struc-
ture-Slavery is practice-it is no law 1t is no
more law than duelling, or lnching-or piracy.
The Constitution provides for the remanding OF
service ocers or debtors; and their delivery to SER
vice creditors; debtors and creditors by law-- by
legal contract-by promise expressed or implicated
a contract that court of law enforce-or give
damages for breach Of Let them prove the prom
Use to preform SlGUe service,-the implied promise
under the provisions of any law. They can't pro-
duce it. They can produce nothing but their own
bad practices. They can show no legal authority
but their own MISREPRESENTATION own tort. They
can show no other law, than their own Oaotation
and breach of Ian. They ground their pursuit
and claim on an infracon in their Southern Con-
stitutions They can only say we claim this
man because under our laws at the South we have
no right to claim him. By our law man can
not owe slave ervce,--therefore we claim this
man as oweing it to US. By our law no man can
have slave service due him. We therefore set up
that it is due to us.