Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-07-02

y IIs
True but the special reason for commencing
this practice is us much matter of history
as any thing else. The same historical facts
which give relevancy to the argument from
cotemporaneous construction, show the orr
gin, and must limit the extent Of the practice
under that construction. In twelve of the
thirteen States, slavery existed as fact, when
the Constitution was framed. An attempt
was made TO give IL an express constitutional
guaranty. IL was believed, on all hands, that
slavery was on institution about TO pass AWAY.
II wns deemed impossible for slavery and
| republieanistn to co-exist. Universal freedom
was every where seen 10 be logical neces-
sity from the counirys antecedents, and a
little time only was wanted to work out the
problem. This, then, was the dilemma to
be met. The fact Of partial slavery was to
I've recorciled with the universal right to
freedom To accomplish this, the expedient
was hitupon Of adopting phraseology for
the Constitution, under which the savehol-
der might claim to continue in the possession
of his slaves, for time, and until The period
should arrive at iohich, as ,Cns then erpected,
slavery iCohd cease out Of The land. When
that expected epoch should come, the Con-
stItuiion would apply to freemen alone, in
fact rs well as in terms, and il could not I've
huo"u HoUl Vtiusiiis ulc ilslTUtltHN uily Dut
freemen had ever existed under il. Il was
with this understanding that the Constitution
wns framed. Ii was with this understanding
that II was adopted. II could not have been
framed or adopted on any other.
This view of the subject solves every DIFF
ficulty, and accounts for every fact belonging
the case. II shows why the two or three
States which favored slavery at the Conven-
ton, when bafiled in their attempt to obtain
express guarantees for il, were content to
accept an ambiguous phraseology, ana to
run their chance under il. II shows why
the States adverse to slavery nssented TO pro-
visions whose immediate practical constrIc-
tionl would recognize the fact Of slavery,
without acknowledging its right, hut whose
intrinsic meaning Pnd force no more EN-
braced slavery than they did the British
Press-gnng or the French LeiiIts de Cdehei,
aud which, whatever they meant. were I'M
derstood, OF all sides, to I've applicable to nn
institution soon to be abandoned aud cast out
10y all men. Aud it accounts, as no other
hypothesis ever did or can, for TINT exraor-
dinnry series Of measures which signalZed
the aciion OF the government on this subject,
during the earlier periods Of its history.
mean the two or three instances in which sa
very was recognized by legslaton,-eac
perfectly compatible with the idea that iI'
days were numbered,-as contracted witt
those repe ated acts Of sweeping, wholesale
Legislation, which aimed mortal blows ut the
very existence Of the institution itself. What
was the Fugitive Slave Act ofl703, compared
with one Of the first acts Of the First Con-
gress, reaffirming the Ordinance of1787, and
the affirmation of that affirnnnee, when the
States formed from that territory were nd
mitted into theUnion ?-conipared again with
the repeated acts prohibiting the introduce
ton Of slaves into the territories with pro-
visions for transhipping captured slaves to
Africa with the abolition Of the slave trnde
nj the enrlest possible nour allowed 10y the
Constitution with what, for the times, was
one OF the boldest of measures, the making
of the slave trade felony, punishable with
death &c. &c. Tho untislnvery legislation
of Congress looked TO the circumscripiion
aud extinction of slavery; its pro-slnvery
Legislation looked only to incidental matters,
nnd, though immensely important in its ef-
fects, yet, at that time, il seemed cOmpara-
lively unmportnut. This wus precisely tie
way in which men would uci, who were at
tempting 10 reconcile the temporary fact of
slavery with the permanent and universal
rights of freedom.
Now, let us take the worst view which the
subject will allow. Let us suppose that history
und contenpornneous events constrain us To
admit, (though, in fact, the evidence is not
overwhelmingly strong nor altogether con-
sistent) that the trainers of the Constitution
aud its early administrators did acqlIiesce,
and did mean 10 dcquiesce,-i put il in iis
worst iorm,-in the pro-slnvery construction
different bodies, to remove local objections, OF
| to win local favor. And there can he no GER
tainiy, either, that the different State Conven-
| tions, IN ratifying the Constitution, gave the
same uniform Interpretation to its language, OF
| that, aven in a single State Convention, the
same reasoning prevailed with majority, much
less with the whole Of the supporters of il.
1t is not to be presumed that even in the Con-
vention which framed the Constitution, FROM
the causes above mentioned, and other causes,
the clauses were always understood in the same
sense, or had precisely the same extent of ope-
ration. ;. Nothing but the text itself was
adopted by the people. ... Is the sense of the
| Constitution to be ascertained, not by its own
text, but by the "probable meaning" to be
gathered by conjectures from scattered docu-
ments, from private papers. from the table-talk
OF some statesmen, or the jealous exaggerations
of otherss Is the Constitution Of the United
| States to be the only instrument which is not
TO be interpreted by what is written, but by
probable guesses, aside from the texti -. II
is obvious that there can be no security to the
people in any Constitution of government, if
they are not to judge Of it by the fair meaning
Of the words Of the text, but the words are to
be bent and broken by the 'probable meaning
of persons whom they never know, and whose
opinions and means OF judging may DO no bet
ter than their own. The people adopted The Con-
stitution according 10 tho toords of the teri, ia
their reasonable Interpretation, aud not according
10 the prioate Interpretation Of any particular
man Story's Comm, 3ss-392.
There are other parts of the Constitution,
about the meaning of which there are proofs Of
a much greater diversity of opinion than about
the clause in question. What would be thought
II an attempt werc now made TO override the
obvious import Of the Constitution, by such