The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1851-03-20
Forthe National Era.
THE EDITOR OF THE Union AND THE HIGHER
LAW.

THE EDITOR OF THE UNIOy AND THE HIGHER
Law.
To he Editor ofths National Era:
1t is seldom nowadays that see the Washing
ton Union But stray copy of it fell into my
| hands lately-that of December 2S, 1850. Its
defences of the Fugitive Slave Law y attracted
my attention, and led me TO write this article,
which you may publish or not, rs you think best
| begin with a remark two on the Syfe Of
the editor of the Union In an article, in which
he notices an editorial of the Weston Christian
Aduocnte he speaks of the editor Of that paper,
and those who think with him, as men of loose
and undefnabe notions of conscience and morals
and religion 0-as half-educsted pretenders,
with overheated fanoies and feeble or perverted
reason "-as "shallow pretenders"-as having
"neither depth Of learning nor strength of rea-
son "-as having "nether knowledge, wisdom,
nor enlarged common senseo &c Now the CON-
mon sense Of the people where live is just Z" en-
lsrged" enough 10 surmise that when a man thus
speaks Of his opponents, it is because he feels
able to parry the force Of their arguments unless
he can first bring the nsa into contempt We
have an idea that an honorable man, who is con-
scous Of good cause, is not apt to fail in courte-
sy 10 those with whom he contends in argument
We think that the editor of the Union, were he
meuts Of his opponents, would feel that his own
triumph would be all the greater, in proportion
to the credit he allowed th,m for the qualities of
which, in such a self-sufiicient manner he pro.
nounces them deficient On the whole, his style
betrays a consciousness Of u bad cause
As to his matter, how does he dispose of what
is said in the article which he reviews-thst laws
are void which are contrary to natural right,
natural justice, the law of God, &cl lie tells us
-. -
in this country. Wby7 Because in England
they have no other rule by which to measure the
validity of statute laws but the general laws Of
God &c.-whie in this country we have writ
ten Constitution. He admits it seems the SUI
premacy of the law OF God in England Does he
mean 10 say that it is not supreme here also Or
does God reign in England, but not here
suppose he will also admit that the law OF God
WdS supreme here before we had written Con.
sttution. Did the adoption of our Constitution
abrogate its supremacy Or did it still remain
supreme If the latter, then the Constitution
itself il subordinate to it. and must be judged by
it. The maxim remains sound, that the Divine
law is the standard of human law. The Copsti-
tuition being but human law-the supreme law of
the land, indeed-but still human law is like
everything human to be measured by the Su-
preme Rule.
But if the former, then the Constitution takes
the place Of the law Of God and becomes supreme
in its stead Indeed, he expressly claims this much,
for he says " The Constitution in this country
takes the place of this praended CHER law aud
knowledges no law higher than itself" Is this
higher law" then pretence? Is he an Athe-
ist2 But he has himself admitted it in England
Will he tell US at what degree of longitude its
jurisdiction stops? IL the Constitution take the
place of the law of God then 1t must claim its at
tributpq oil parfaction or m lihlitv
for these are attributes Of the Divine law. The
supreme law must be- like the Supreme Being,
perfect and infalible. Here, then, we have the
absurdity Of an instrument framed by men, each
of whom was imperfect and fallible, claiming TO
be perfect and infalibe. We have heard much
Of claim to infallibility in the Church Of Rome,
but this is the first time that remember to have
heard ofcivil society claiming ipfalibility.
But is il true that the Constitution "scknowl-
edges no law higher than tself7" Does 1t not pro-
vide for its own amendment? Does not this sup
pose imperfeotion, and acknowledge higher rule
according to which it may need to be amended ?
But what are we to think Of his declaration,
that if it could be shown that in any Of its pro-
visions it THE Constitution violated the law Of
God, it might become an interesting question how
far it WAS void for that reason | ask again, is
he an Atheist Who else could make it q ques-
ton, whether the enactmen,s Of men or the laws
| Of God must give way, when they contradict each
| other2
think have shown that the Constitution is
| itself subordinate to the law Of God. But have
not said that it needs alteration. The advocates
OF the Fugitive Slave Law, observe, assume its
constitutionality meaning by this that it has its
| origin In power conferred on Congress by the
Constitution to legislate for the recovery Of fugi
tive slaves, and then take for granted that it is
In al respects conformable to the Constitution.
This We deny. We may admit the power of
Congress under the Constitution to legislate for
this object and yet affirm that it is inconsistent
with the Constitution in other respects Con-
gress may have power to legslate for that object
| but in dong so may violate other provisions of
the Constitution. This, we believe they have
done The Constitution provides that no person
shall be deprived of liberty without due process
Of law" by what kind of process are persons by
this law deprived Of liberty BY a process suit
ed to Turkey or Russia, perhaps-a despotc pro-
cess. Anything else than "due process of law y
under free Government The Constitution
guarantees the rights Of conscience. This law
In making US the slave-catchers dogs, requires US
to do what our conscenccs abhor Ii therefore
violates the Constitution in these respects. Make
this law and the Constitution agree and there
will probably be little complaint Of its violating
the "higher law" or requiring MS to violate it.
Though there be law hgher--yes infinitely high
ethan the Constitution, there is also substan-
tial agreement between it and that higher law.
But the editor asks whether, admitting "that
an act Of Congress was void for violating the
higher law &c, that question is to be deter
mined by each man for HIMSELF" Certainly
Must not every man, ~ an individual moral
agent, decide for hiuself respecting his own duty
lfrequired to obey given law, who but himself
IL to decide whether he can conscientiously do Il
Must we cease TO believe that we are Individually
accountable 10 God for our moral conduct