Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-03-26
From the National Era.
The Constitutional Question -Anti-Sla-
very Men.

ItsUlutlOnS OF tue Ctdle blDeItJ NOuNOh''N"
Of Massachusetts
Resoiued. That, to secure human rights,
governments are Instituted among men. de-
irving their just power from the consent OF
the governpd-but the power and scope OF
such governments cannot extend so far as to
conflict with the natural rights of man, or be
Inconsistent with the principles oil natural
justice.
R]espirsd, That the Constitution Of the u
nited States does not establish slavery, nor
give it any legal existence; nor does II, by
any fair Interpretation, sanction il, within the
States. Nor could it so sanction il, even had
its trainers so intended, iuasmuch as slavery
had at that time no legal existence in any OF
the States Of The Union Because, first, the
colonial charters did not authorize it. Sec
ondly, the trade between the Colonies and
Africa was never legalized by Great Britain.
Thirdly, the decision of the Court OF Kings
Bench, in the case of Somerset, in l772, SET
tied the law Of the land, as applicable TO the
Colonies as 10 any part OF Great BrItaln.-
Fnurihly, the Declaration of Independence,
in l776, became ii fundamental law OF the
land, with which slavery was necessarily in
consistent. Filthy, more of the Constiiu-
lions of the then States recognise it. And,
siXthly, because slavery is inconsistent with
natural right and justice, and its establish
ment lies beyond the limit of rightful consti-
%iutional and Legislative authority.
The first resolution atIirms, that 'the pow
er and scope of a government founded up
on the consent of the governed, "cannot en-
tend so far as to conflict with the natural
rights of man, or be inconsistent with the
principles of natural Justice" No comment
upon this would be needed, were it not for the
doctrine, recently preached by some, that law
is no law unles, il be a righteous onp--a
doctrine with no other force than that deri-
we'd from a mere play on words. Whether
the 'power and scope" of such a government
as that named above, can extend so far as TO
conflict with the natural rights of man, is a
mere question Of tact. The right to violate
''the natural rights of man, or act inconsist-
emily with the principles of natural JUSTICE"
certainly exists nowhere. But that "the
pOCer and scOpe'' (the last term meaning de-
sign or purPose) of such a government may
extend so " far as to conflict with natural
rights" is proved by the fact, that some 6f-
teen Governments in this country are contln'
ually sanctioning and enforcing the violation
of such rights.
"Ah! but they are not just Governments
it is slid. True. Is it then meant by the
proposition, that no Just government can. ii
It's provisions. ''cOntllct with natural rights
and the principles Of natural Justice :" This
is a truism-a Just government certainly can
not at the same Time be an unjust one.
But it is the second resolution which de-
serves special comment.
1t is often remarked, that it is unwise to
make any concession To Slavery. SO it is
And not only unwise, but indie frnsible. Blu
it is always proper to make concessions de-
manded by The Truth. An unsound argu.
mpnt or an erroneous statement. put turtI
ag inst slavery, tends to strengthen its claims
We agree with the declaration, that the
Constitution of the United States does no
establish slavery, or give it any legal exist
ence. We 90 further, and affirm, that it con,
fers no power upon the Government 10 estab
fish slavery, or give it legal existence. MOI
does it give any LEGAL sanction 10 the system
But by no means do we assent TO the posi-
ton that ait could not have given such a
sanction, even had its trainers so intended y
nor do we admit the truth generally of the al
legations made in support of this position.
/. As to the Colonial Charters, We shall
say nothing about them, for we have no op
portunity now to examine them. But, 81
far as we remember, they did not prohibit tn,
establishment of slavery, and were not re.
luS""ht
3. On what ground the second statement i,
made, we are At a loss TO understand. Tht
trade in slaves between the Colonies and AZ
, RIGA pGs recognised as a egGL commerce
was sanctioned by the CrOwn-was per petu
aled by the use OF the rOyai veto, in opposi
ton TO the express will of some of the colo
8 MES. These are CqcEs attested by history
r SO far back rs the year 1882, the Legislator,
of Virginia began to legislate against the for
eign slave trade. The duties upon slave i'm
d portarion were increased, from time TO time
q ill, in l712, they amounted 10 above fort.
$ per cent. In the same year, a petition o
o The subject was presented 10 the Throne, iron
n the House of Burgesses of Virginia. II say
q that the in slaves had "long beef
considered as a trade of great inhumanlty
q and under its present encouragement" ltlhrea
tened the existence of His Maiesty's colo
!: MES. After showing that though some q
his - Maiesty's subjects of Great Britain
IT might reap emolument from it, it greatly re
h tarded the settlement of the colonies" 1t col
e cluded as follows:
deeply impressed with these sentiment;
n we most humbIy bescech your Majesty to r
l. mare all these restraints on your liaJestg
Governors Of this coOny, which prOhidH hst
= asserting 10 such hUs as might check 50 rer
i perniciOus a commerce."
How does this plain statement Of FAC
consist with the declaration that the trade
= slaves was never legalized by Great Britain
= In the Constitution OF Virginia, "the inh
- man use of the royal negative" in refusir
permission to exclude slaves from the col
mics, was assigned as one of the reasons {
" separating from Great Britain. Beside
why was it found necessary to agitate
long and earnestly to procure a kaw GboHs
ing The SLAVE trade between Africa and {
British dominions, if that trade was pev
legsliZed by Great BritainI .-I .aIa.