Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1852-09-25

! UOcIiNO tuUHUtkC gives w NOutiNco Wy
poicer TO make a Slave or to hunt Slavc.-
10 6nd even any seeming sanction for either,
we must travel, with doubtful footsteps, be-
yond lis express letter into the region of in
terprefation. But here are rules which can
not be dsobeyed. With electric might for
Freedom, they send pervnsive Influence
through every provision, cluuse, and word OF
the Constitution. Each and all make Sla-
very impossible as q national institution
They efliIce from the Constitution every foun-
tain ont of Which ii can be derived.
First aud foremost, is tho Preamble. THIS
discloses tho prevailing objects aud princi-
plies of the Constitution. This is the vesti-
buc through which all must pass, who
would enter the sacred temple. Here are
the inscriptions by which they arc earliest
impressed. Here they first catch the genius
of the place. Here the proclamation OF Lib
eriy is first heard. 1--WE the People of the
United Snies," says the Preamble, " in order
to form a more perfect Union, establish jus
lice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for
the com on defence, promote tlIu general
welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty
to ourselves and our Posterty, do ordain aud
establish Iiis Constitution for the United
States of America" Thus, according to I'M
deuiuble words, the Constitution was orIlain-
ed, not TO establish, secure, or sanction Sla-
yery--iiot 10 promote the special interests OF
shareholders mot TO make Slavery national,
IN any way, form, or manner; but to "estab-
lish JUSTICE" "promole the general welfare"
aud "secure the blessings OF Liberty" Here
surely Liberty is national
Secondly. Next in importance to the Pre-
amhle are the explicit eontemporaneous deciar-
otiQns in the Convention which framed the
Constitution, aud elsewhere, expressed in
different forms of lnngnage, but oil tending
TO The saine conclusion. by the Preamble,
the Constitution speaks for freedom. by
these declarations, the Fathers spenk MS tile
Constitution speaks. Early in the Conycn-
ton, Governeur Morris, of Penn. broke
forth in the language of an Abolltionist:
lie nerer poud concur in uphoiding domestic
Sidpery. IL wus nclarious institution. II
wns tie curse of Heaven Oh the State where
il PREVAILED Oliver Ellsworth, of Conuec-
tcut, said; "The morality or wisdom Of
Slavery are considerations belonging TO the
States themselves" According TO him, Sla-
very was sectional.
At later day, discussion ensued on the
clause touching Tie African slave, which re.
veals the definite purposes of the Conven-
ton. From tile report of Mr.. Madison we
learn what wis snid. Elbfidgc Gerry, Of
Massachusetts, ''tiought we had nothing 10
do with the conduct Of the States ns 10 Sla-
very, but ace ought 10 be careful not 10 giUe any
sanction 10 IT," According TO these words lac
regarded Slavery as sectional, and would not
make il national Roger NJ. Sherman, of
Connecticut, "was opposed to any tax on
slaves imported, MS making the matter worse,
because Il implied they icere property" lie
would not have Slavery national. After de-
bate, the subject was committed TO COM
mittee of eleven, who subsequently reported
Il substitute, authorizing "a tax on such mi
grafton or importation, at n rate mol erceedng
Hs acreage Of duties laid on imports" This
language, classifying persons with merchan-
disc, seemed TO imply recognition thnt they
were properiH Mr.. Sherman at once de-
cared himself "ngainst this part, as acknoici-
edging men 10 be property, by taxing them as
such under the character of slaves" Mr.
Graham "lliought Mr.. Sherman should cor-
slider the duty not as Implying That siauos Gre
property, but as u encouragement TO the inn
| porlatlun OF them" Mr.. Madison, in mild
jurdicnl phrase, "thought it wrong TO udmit
in the Constitution the idea that there could
be property in man," After discussion, it was
iinally agreed to make the clause read:
"But tax or duty may be imposed on such
importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each
person."
The difficulty seemed then to be removed,
and the whole clause was adopted. This
record demonstrates that the word "persons"
was employed in order TO show that slaves,
everywhere under the Constitution, were al
ways to he regarded as persons, and NOT as
property, aud Illus TO exclude from the Con-
slilullon all idea that there can be property
in man. Remember well, that Mr.. Sherman
was opposed to the clause in It's original
form, ''as acknowledging men TO be proper
W;" that Mr. Madison was also opposed to
il, because he "lhouglit il iOrOng to admit in
the Constitution the idea that there could he
property in mani" aud that, after these OBJ
jecIons, the clause was so amended ms to eX-
clude the idea. But Slavery cannot he ma
iional, unless this idea is distinctly aud une-
quivocally admitted into the Constitution.
Nor is this all. In the Massachusetts Con-
yeniion, to which the Constitution, when
completed, was submitted for ratification, a
veteran of the Revolution, General Heath,
openly declared tint, according to his view,
Slavery wns sectional, and not national Ills
language was pointed 81 apprehend," he
says, "lhat ii is not in our power 10 do any
thing for or against those i0hO are IN Slduery Ia
We 'oOWheH OtHeS' No SeUuelllhh Whnih
these walls detests every idea Of Slavery
more than do; ii is generally detested by
the people of this Commonwealth; aud
ardenlly hope tine time will soon come,when
our brethren in the Southern States will
view il as we do, aud put stop to it; but to
+ this we have no right 10 compel them. Two
questions naturally arise: Ii we ratly the
Constitution, shall we do anything by our
act to hold the blacks in Slavery-or shall
we become partakers of other mems sins
think neither ofthenl."
Afterwards, in the first Congress under
! the Constitution, on n motion, which was
much debated, 10 introduce into the llnposI
Bill duty OIL the importation of slaves, the
same Roger nj. Sherman, who in the Ma