Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1851-01-04


resolutely and firmly resist any interference
in those domestic nffairs which the Consu-
tuition has clearly and unequivocally leit TO
the exclusive authority of the States"
This, Mr. Chairman, Is the doctrine of
the Constitution, the doctrinc OF it, trainers.
It is the doctrine of the Free-Soilers. If
there he any one feature in the Constitution,
which the whole history of its adoption has
made plain, il is, that slavery is State insti-
tuition over which Congress has no control
with which this Federal Government has no
legitimate powers to interfere. We, sir, of
the North, will not he constrained, even by
your fugitive laws, to interfere with it. The
slavery of Virginia belongs to her. If she
possesses the power and the disposition TO
uphold it, we cannot put it down or abolish
il. II she sees fit to abolish it, we have no
power to interfere to sustain it.
have often defined the views of Anti
Slavery men, aud of Free-Soilers on this
subject. Others have done it; yet we are
misapprehentled and msrepresented. The
very clause of the message now under con-
sideraton, shows that the President intend
ed to mpute to some portion of our people
an intention to interfere with slavery. He
should have known that 10 respectable mum.
ber of our northern people have expressed
any such wish or intention. But tor the
hundredth time | will say thnt under the
Confederation, each State held us supreme
aud unlimited powers over the institution OF
slavery within its own borders, as the Gov
eminent of Russa holds over its seris; that
no other power upon earth possessed the
right TO interfere in any manner; that at the
adoption of the Constitution these powers
were retained, and now remain with each
State; that no portion of them was delegnt-
cd TO this Government; that we have as
much power to-day TO interfere with Russian
scriiIom as with Virginia slavery yet this
fugitive law was direct aud positive at
tempt to interfere TO involve this Govern
ment aud the people OF the free States in
supporting slavery.
Nothing could have been further from the
thoughts Of those who framed the ConstiIu-
ton. In the Convention, Mr.. Gouverneur
Morris said that "he neper tcould concur in
uphoiding domestic sldrery." So say l. aud
SO say our people Of the North. MIR. Morris
added " II is a nejcTiouS institution. Ii was
the curse OF Heaven upon the States in
which il existed"
So we say. 1t is curse upon those States,
but the curse is theirs, not ours, aud we will
not share in il. Your fugitive law shall not
compel us to share in il. Our fathers would
not consent to be involved in is criines-we
will not.
Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, said :" While
we had nothing TO do with slavery in the
States, we should be careful TO lend no sane
ton TO it," Sir, we will lend no sanction to
it, nor shall your fugitive law compel us TO
sanction il. Mr.. Dickinson "thought it
proper subject for the General Government
to interfere with, as Il affected our national
happiness" But Southern members resisted
this proposition, and would not consent TO
any interference.
But, sir, to come more directly to this
question of fugitive slaves. The report Of
the committee giving the form of the Con-
stitution, contained u clause for the return OF
fugitives from Justice. They were to be de-
lvered up by the Executive of the State to
which they fled. 1t is done ut the expense
of such State.
On considering this report, Messrs. Butler
and Pinckney, OF South Carolina, proposed
to amend the report, SO as to make it the
duty to surrender up fugitlycs from labor in
the same manner. But Mr.. Wilson of Penn.
objected that such an amendment would
"compe free States to do it at the public
expense"
Mr. Sherman of Connecticut, said ; "Hc
could see 10 more propriety in arrestng
fugitive servant or slave ut the public ex-
pense than there would be in arresting II
horse" And Mr. Butler, on these sugges-
tons being made, Withdrew his proposition.
Sir, not member of that body dared stand
up then, and advocate an amendment, which
should involve us in the expense or disgrace
of arresting fugitive slaves. Sir, no strong
er evidence OF the accuracy OF the views
which have expressed, could possibly have
been left on record.
1t was tue intention of those framers of
the Constitution TO secure to the master the
right to pursue and arrest his slave without
molestation or hindrance. They then de-
clared that no law or regulation should be
passed by any State, by which the fugitive
should be released from service or labor;
"non-inlerventon" was their doctrine. by
the Constitution, we ure bound TO deliver up
that fugitive slave TO his master, IN tie same
manner that we deliver up our friends TO
the civil officer. We were not permitted 10
interfere. We are to stand neutral, aud per-
init the master to take his slave ii he can.
Sir, did those frumers of the Constitution
intend that Northern freemen should leave
their shops, their plows, their merclnndlse,
to give chase to fugitive slaves? why, such
an assertion would be slander, libel up
on those patriots. The law of 1913 was
framed in accordance with the Constitution.
That gives TO the master no process Tor The
arrest of his slave. 1t lends no aid of the
Government, or of any of its officers, nor of
any citizen of any State to aid or assist the
master in arresting or carrying buck his slave.
That law secures him from arresilng and
returning his slave. Those who had assist
ell in framing the Constitution, assisted in
framing this law. They knew the intention
of those who framed the Constitution, aud
have no doubt carried that intention into the
law of '93.
From that day until the agitation of the
annexation of Texas, this doctrine of nom
interference was held by southern and by
northern men. In l543, this new theory of
prostituting the power Of this Government