Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-10-30
From lie Corcnaaier.
The Liberty Party and the Constitution.

bers OF the +" American Citizen" the orrdu,
here, of the Liberty party, is occupied by the
editor with a IabOred attempt to prove that
the Constitution Of the United States is anti.
slavery. There is an appearance Of sincerity
running through the whole article, which
might possibly induce some weak.minlcd
persons to suppose that the writer had some
solid grounds for his opinion. 1t is very diff
iieult, however. to give ii man OF Dr.. Bris.
bane's intelligence, credit tor sincerity in the
belief of the. dogma he attempts to establish.
And it is still more difficult TO admit that he
has any faith in the soundncss Of the argu-
ments by which he endeavors to provo his
position. With his sincerity, however, we
have nothing to do. ITO his " Master he
standeth or l1lloth." We propose briefly to
examine his principal arguments, and show
ti0ir fdllacy. r
AS a preliminary step to his attempt to
prove the Constitution anti-slavery, he repu-
dates the design Of the frdmers-the journals
of the Convention, the Madison papers, and
all historical evidence in relation to the mat
ter, and rests solely on the grammatical and
verbal construction" of the document itself.
This is the plan usually adopted by those
who are determined to force an anti-sIlvery
construction on this Instrument. And herein
they dis over their wisdom, for all the evil
dence is against them. Ii would be strange,
indeed, it this Constitution was intended to
abolish slavery, that it should not have pro-
duced the desired effect in a single state for
it is a notorious fact, that the adoption Of the
Constitution did not in any instance abolish
the existing institution of slavery. Certain
w no candid man, with a mind open to con-
viction. can read the evidence referred to on
this subject, and remain unconvinced that the
design of the trainers, at least a large major
ity of them who voted for the provisions in
relation to slavery contained in that instru-
ment was, to make the Constitution as much
pro-slavery as was necessary TO protect the
stakeholder.
But while we maintain the necessity Of eX-
aiming all the evidence that can be obtain
ed respecting the design of the trainers, in or
der to a correct understanding of the Consti-
tuition, and especially on doubtful and dispu-
ted points, still we are willing to meet our
friend on his own ground. We deny that
the language of the document is itself anti
slavery. We maintain, on the contrary, that
its prg-5llUcry character is 50 plain, that I" he
who runs may read" Here, then, we join
issue with the doctor.
After repudiating, in n very summary man.
ncr, the " purpose and design" Of the fra
mers, our friend proceeds at once to argue
from this very purpose and design as eX-
pressed in the preamble to the Constitution.
He seems to have no objection to this mode
of ascertaining the meaning of the document
when he finds something which his ingenni-
ty can turn TO his own account. When his
iorical documents are presented which prove
beyond all controversy that the design Of the
frlmers was TO protect the STAKEHOLDER, Their
their design is to Re disrogarded. But wher
in the preamble their design is stated in slcl
general terms as to admit of any construction
we choose, then their design is all important
We nut it to DR.. Brisbine's candor, wheth
er this is a fair method Of arriving at a cor
rect interpretation ; But here again we are
willing to grant him all the aid he can Obtain
from the design of the trainers, as eXpresse,
in the preamble, and leave out of view al
the evidence contained in the Madison pa
pers, the journals of tine Convention, and else
where, and vet show that he utterly fails i
proving his position.
lie first tells us that the design of the fra
mers, as expressed in general terms in tn
preamble, are to be taken "as the true into
prefer of the Constitution itself" Now thi
principle we hold to be contrary to commo
sense. 1t seems to us that the true way @
Interpreting any document is to make tn
specific provisions the interpreters OF the ger
cral declarations. That which is specific ar
stated in detail, is less lilble to be misu nde
stood, than general and loose EXPRESSIONS
For this plain reason we must explain Il
general expressions by those which are Gle,
and tngible-that which is loose aud ambi
uous by that which is undoubted and pos
tive. When we read in the preamble tn
the Constitution - was ordained in order
form a more perfect union" we can form
very definite idea of what the details of tn
Constitution are to be. There may be a v
nv great variety of opinions as TO what
..more perfect union" is. And it is certti
IL a wild sort of reasoning to say that b
cause they intended ito form a more perIo
union," therefore they intended to aboII
slavery. Could no union be formed in t
slightest degree more perfect than the G.
confederation, without the abolition Of sla'
,ryt, Such a supposirion is ridiculous.
Again, when they propose to "establi
Justice" how are we to understandSwhat tn
mean by Justice, hut by an examination
the provisions OF the Const tntion which f
low. There is no reference in the whole dc
ument ia. any rule Of justice. The law
God is not named nor limited at. JustI
then, being an undefned term, we can lea
nothing of the meaning of the following p
visions from it. Nay, we must interpret
by. them, if we attach any meaning to II
this connection at all. Southern men, a
all opponents of abolition in the north, regi
it as great injustice to interfere in any "
with the legal relation of master and sla'
They regard abolition as the most uni
tling in the world, and abolitionists as
mosi, unjust and wicked of men. And hi
not they a right to their opinions of Justice
well as youf All these professions of
establishment Of Justice are of no avail,
less. they declare slavery to be injustice,
= distinctly declare the law Of, God TO be
rule of Justice.
designed to "cnsuTc domestic tranquility