Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1848-07-14

IL IS principle OF law ana common sense,
that a contract is just what the parties TO 1t
understand it to be. The Constitution OF
the United States is a contract, the parties to
which understood it to be pro-slavery, as the
history Of its formation and adoption, as well
as the practice of the Government under it
demonstrate. Therefore, it is pro-slavery.
REPLY.
Admitting that the understanding Of the
contracting parties is the contract and add
hitting, too, that the parties who made and
adopted the Constitution, understood 1t to
give maintenance 10 slavery-Mr. Burleigh's
conclusion does not then follow it only fol-
lows that the Constitution was pro-slavery
sixty years ago. The parties to the Consti-
tuition to-day, and the parties to the Consti-
tuition more than half a century ago, are not
identical hence their understandings may
not be the same. %
Again Mr.. Burleigh's argument was built
on the admission that the language in which
the agreement was recorded would not con-
vey a true idea of the agreement 10 a disin-
terested mind. Admitting again that it is a
principle Of law and common sense, that a
contract is what the parties to it understand
1t to be, it is another principle of law and
common sense, that we are not at liberty to
hdNcl Oub VI Il hIllltH COIlNIdCh W USCtTtud1
the understanding of the parties. (2)
Again The meaning the fathers attached
TO the language OF the Constitution, concerns
not US their children, and their children's
children, adopt anetO the Constitution for
themselves, and are at liberty to attach such
meaning TO the instrument as they please;
and especially are they al such liberty, if the
meaning of the fathers was unnatural.
Mr.. Burleigh may make his argument
good, by saying that the mass Of the people
understand the Constitution to be pro-slave-
~ noW. True, but they need not so under
stand it; and therefore, Liberty men would
have people every where attach an a~nti-sla-
very and Christian meaning to the instru-
ment. Let them only do so, and the slave is
free. (3)
may be asked why I made not my OBJ
~jectiens to Mr.. BIS argument in his meeting,
and in his presence. answer, | could not
interrupt eloquence such as | never before
heard and at the close Of his lecture it was
too late. J..
Sunday, July end, 1649.
we append a few thoughts, suggested
by Us communication, in the form Of notes.
() 1t is true, " their understanding may
not be the same" but what is the factl-
DO not the people-we speak not of the ra-
pidly decreasing number in the Liberty par
~ ranks who think otherwise, and are but
exceptions-do not the people of to-day re-
gard it as pro-slavery, and Astounding in
compromises This cannot be denied, and
until it is, there is no use in alphabetically
assuming the contrary.
(2) This we believe our correspondent
will find is not strictly so. If there is a word
in a contract, the meaning of which puzzles
the unlearned Judge, common sense will
prompt, and the law Justify him in %resorting
to some mode of learning its meaning and il
either party can show that the dictionary mean
ing is obsolete, that the popular Specification oil
the word is the one in which it was used by
the contracting parties, would not both law
and common sense demand that he hear the
testimonyl So also if a contract is writer
in a foreign language, the Judge depends
less upon the original document, which may
be Greek or Hebrew, than upon the Englist
interpretation furnished him. But there is ne
need to go beyond the document TO ascertain
the meaning of the pro-slavery clauses of TIT
y. S. Constitution, though it is well to ad
duce the testimony both of the past and pre-
sent generation 10 show that the documen
was, and is understood TO be of the character
we ascribe to it.
(3) Belief is not a matter of choice, az
our correspondent seems to intimate. The
people must need understand the Constitu
ton to be pro-slavery, if sufficient evidence
is presented to convince them Of the fact
True, they may do as many a scoundrel ha:
done with his contracts, pretend tounderstanC
it differently from what it really is, and tax,
advantage of their own dishonesty but how
is such morality tolerated in the transactions
of private life! If the people of the North
or any portion of them, do not choose to abid'
by the contracts which their fathers made
and designed their p~os,erity should be bounC
by so long as it stood, let them m~anfully ant
fearlessly repudiate it, and not strive to fritle
way its meaning so far as their obligations
are concerned, refusing to fulfil their part 0
the bargain, while insisting that the Soutl
shall strictly comply with all that it bind
her TO do.
There is no doubt, if every body attached
an anti-slavery and Christian meaning to the
Constitution, and acted out antl-slavery ant
Christian principles-a very important omis
sion in Us declaration-lhe slaves would gc
free. The received character Of the Consti
ton, however, would not, of itself, effecI
their freedom, else Virginia, with her unde'
niabIy anti-slavery Constitution, would have
M slaues- Il Ia NOT the narrhmant that holds