Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1850-03-29


convicts"
Mr. Wilson-Ths would oblige the Executive
OF the State to do it at public expense.
Mr. Sherman saw no more propricty in the !
public Selling and surrendeting a slave or a
servant than horse.
Mr. Buler-withdrew his proposition, in or
der that some particular provision might be
made apart from this article.
August goth.
Mr. Butler moved to insert after article 10
II any person bound to service or labor in any OF
'he United States shall escape into another State
Ne she shall not be discharged from such service
labor in consequence of any regulations subssting
in the State to which they may escape but shall be
delivered up to the person justly claiming their SER
vice or labor"
After the engrossment, Sep. l5.
Article w. Sec In the third paraguay, the
term legally struck out, and the words under
the laws thereof inserted after the word state, i'll
compliance with the wishes OF some who thought the
term legal equvocal and iavoring the idea that sa
very was legal III mora view
deem it established then, that the Consti-
ton does not recognise property in men, but
leaves that question as between the States, TO
the law of nature and of nations. That law,
as expOunded by Natel, is founded in the rea-
son of things. When God had ed the earth
with its wonderful adaptations, he gave domin
ion over it to man-absolute human dominion.
The title thus bestowed would have been com
plete, il the Lord of all terrestrial things could
himself have been the property of his fellow
man. The right to have slave implies the
right in some one to make the slave. That
right must be equal and mutual, and that would
resolve society into state of perpetual war
But If we grant the original equality of the
States, and grant also the constitutional recog-
milton of slaves as property, still the argument
we are considering fails, because the States
were not parties TO the Constitution AS States.
1t is the Constitution of the people OF the Unit
ed States. But even if the States continued as
States, they surrendered their equality States,
and submitted themselves TO the sway of the
numerical majority with qualification or check;
first, of the representation of three-ffths of
slaves in the ratio ofrepresanation and taxation,
and secondly. of the equal representation OF
States in the Senate.
The proposition Of an established classical
ton of States as Slave States and Free States,
as asserted by some, and into Northern and
Southern as asserted by others, seems to me
purely imaginary, and of course the supposed
equilibrium OF those classes a mere conceit.-
This must be so, because when the Constitu.
ton was adopted, twelve of the thirteen States
were Slave States, and so there was no equili-
brum And so as to the Classification of States
as Northern States and Southern States. 1t is
the maintenance of Slavery by law in a State
not parallels of latitude that makes it South
ern State, and The absence of this that makes it
Northern State. And so all the States save
one, were Southern States, ana there was no
equilibrium. But the Constitution was made
not only for Southern and Northern States, but
for States neither one or the other-but Wes-
tern States. Their coming in was foreseen
and provided for.
1t needs little argument to show that the idea
oil Joint stock association, or a copartnerShip
as applicable-eveR by its analoges to the Unit
ed States is erroneous, with all the consequent
cies fancifully deduced from it. The United
States are political State, or organized soc-
ETY., whose end is government for the security,
welfare ard happiness OF all who live under its
protection. The theory am combating re-
duces the objects of government to the mere
spos of conquest. Ga the contrary of the
DRY so debasing, the Preamble Of the Conslitu-
ton not only asserts the sovereignty to be not
in the States but in the people, but also prOmu-
gates the objects of the Constitution.
eve, the People of the United States in order to
form more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common de-
fence, promote the general welfare and secure the
blessings OF liberty, do ordan and establish this
stitution."
Objects sublime and benevolent! They ex-
clude the very idea of conquests TO be either
divided among States or even enjoyed by them
for the purpose of securing, not the blessings
ofliberty but the evils ofslavery.
There is novelty in the spirit Of this COM
promise, which condemns it, simultaneously
with the establishment of the Constitution, Vir-
ginia ceded her domain, which then extended
TO the Mississippi, and was even claimed to ex-
tend to the Pacific. Congress accepted it and
unanimously devoted the domain to freedom,
in the language from which this ordinance,
now so severely condemned, was borrowed
Five States have already been organized on this
domain, from all of which, in pursuance of tina
ordinance, slavery is excluded. How did it
happen that this theory of the equality of the
States, of the classification of States, Of the
equilibrium of States OF the title Of States to the
common enjoyment of the domain, or to an &C.
quitable and Just partition between them, was
never promulgated, nor even dreamed of by the
slave States, who unanimously consented to
this ordinances
There is another aspect of the principle of
Compromise which deserves our consideration.
1t assumes that slavery, if not the only institu
ton In slave State, is at least ruling lnsti.
tuition, and that this characteristic was recog.
nized by the Constitution. But slavery is only
one of many institutions there. Freedom i
equally an institution there, Slavery is only a
temporary, accidental, partial and incongruous
one. Freedom, on the contrary, is perpetual,
organic, universal one, in harmony with the
Constitution of the United States. The slave
holder himself stands under the protection OF
the latter, in common with all the free citizens
of the State
But the principle Of this Compromise gives
complete ascendancy in the slave States and in
the constitution OF thelUnted States to the sub
ordinate, accidental and incongruous institu-
ton over its antagonist. To reduce this claim
for slavery to an absurdity, it is only necessary
to add, that there are only two States in which
slaves are majority, and not one in which
the Shareholders are not very disproportionate
minority.
But there is yet another aspect in which this
principle must be examined. 1t regards the
domain only as a possession to be enjoyed
either in common, or by partition, by the citi-
zens of the old States. 1t is true indeed, tina,
the national domain is ours true, that it was
acquired by the prowess and wealth of the whole
nation but we hold, nevertheless, no arbitrary
power over it. We hold no arbitrary authority