Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1854-02-18

that moment, the whole territory belonging to the
United States. | will not trouble the Senate by
reading the provso Of the ordinance. 1t is enough
to say that the jefferson proviso of 1884, coupled
with provision saving to the original States Of the
Union right to reclaim fugityes from service, was
incorporated into the ordinance and became fun
domental law every foot Of national territory.
What was the policy indicated by this action 10y the
fathers Of the Republic? Was it that of ndlher-
entism between slavery aud freedom? that Of es-
tablishing geographical line, one side Of which
there should be liberty, and on the other side
slavery, both equally under the protection and
countenance of the Government? No. sir; the
furthcst thing possible from that. 1t was the pol
icy Of excluding slavery from all national territory.
1t was adopted, too, under remarkable circumstan-
ces. The territory over which it was established
was claimed by Virginia, in right Of her charter,
and in right of conquest. The gallant George
Rogers Clarke, one of the bravest and noblest sons
of that State, had, with a small body Of troops,
raised under her authority, invaded and conquered
the territory. Slavery was already there, under
the French colonial law, and also, if the claim OF
Virginia was well founded, under the laws Of that
State. These facts prove that the first application
of the original policy Of the Government converted
slave territory into free territory.
Now, sir, what guarantees were given for the
maintenance of this policy in time to come once,
upon this floor, adyerted to fact, which has not
attracted 50 much attention, in my Judgment as its
importance deserves Ii is this; While the Con-
grcss was framing this ordnancc-almost the last
act Of its iustrious labors-tho convention which
framed the Constitution was sitting in Philadelphia
Several gentleman were members Of both bodies,
and at the time that This ordinance was adopted, no
proposition in respect to slavery had bcen discussed
in the convention except that which resulted in the
establishment Of the three hfths clause. 1t is i'm
possible TO say, with absolute certainty that the
incorporation Of that clause into the Constitution
which gave the slave states n representation iOi
three iihs Of their slaves had anything to do with
the unanimous vote 10y which the proyiso was in
grated upon the ordinance; but the coincidence
is remarkable and iustifes the inference that the
facts were connected At all events, the proyisC
can hardly fail to have been regarded as aiiordng
guarantee for the perpctuation Of the policy
which it established.
Already seven of the original thirteen States had
taken measures for the abolition Of slavery within
their limits, and were regarded as free States. Six
only Of the original States were regarded as slave
States. The ordinance provided for the creation
of five new free States, and thus secured the de
cided aSccndency Of the free States in the conlcdc
ration. The pcrpctuation Of slavery even in any
State il is quite Obvious was not then even thought
of. Sir let mo ask tie attention of the Senate TO
the Constitution itself. That charter Of our Gov
ernmcnt was not formed upon pro-savcry prnci-
pies but upon anti-slayery principles 1t nowhere
recognizes the right Of property in man. 1t now
whore conicrs upon the Government which 1t crca-
ties, any power TO establish or to continue slavery.
Mr.. Madison himself records, in his report Of the
debate Of the Convention his own declaration, that
it was wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea
that there could be property in men," Every
clause in the Constitution which refers in any way
to slaves speaks Of them MS persons, and excludes
the idea Of property. In some of the States, it is
true, slaves were regarded as property.
The language Of Mr. Justice Mclean on this
point is very striking. lie says:
That cannot diyest them Of the leading and
controlling quality Of persons by which they arc
designated in the Constitution. The character OF
property is given them by the local law This law
is respected, and all rights under it protected
by the Federal authorities. But the Constitution
acts upon slaves persons and not as property
Well, sir, not only was the idea of property in
men excluded from the Constitution not only wa,
there no power granted to Congress to authorize OF
enable any mau to hold another as property bu
an amendment was aftcrward ingraited upon tn
Constitution, which especially denied all such pow
or
! The history of that amendment is worth atlcn
ton. The State which the Senators from Virgins
| so ably represent on this floor was one of thos
which Immediately after the adoption of the Cor
stituton proposed amendments Of it. One of tn
amendments which she proposed was this:
/ "No freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned o
deprived Of his freehold liberties, franchise, o
outlawed, or exiled or in any manner deprived o
his life liberty, or property, but by the law Of tn
land.
Did Congress adopt that amendment? No, sir
it adopted and proposed 10 the States a very differ
cat amendment. 1t was this
| "No person shall be deprived Of life
liberty, property, without due process of law -
Now sir, in my judgment, this prohibition wa
intended as Il comprehensive guarantee of persona
freedom, and denies absolutely to Congress the pow
4 er oil lcgslating for the establishment or maintC
nance OF slavery. This amendment of itself rght
ly interpreted and applied would be sufficient I
prevent the introduction Of slaves into any tcrrtor
acquired by the United States. AT all cycnt
taken in connection with the ordinance, and wit
the original provision of the Constitution il show
conclusiycly the absence Of all intention upon III
part Of the founders Of the Government to aiior
any countenance or protection to slavery outside
State limits Departure from the true interpretf
tion Of tho Constitution has created the necessit
for positive prohibition.
\ My general view upon this subject is simply thi
Slavery is tho suIcction of one man to the absolut
disposal Of another man by force. Master an
slave, according to the principles Of the Decluri
ton Of independence, and by the law of nature
are alike men, endowed by their Creator with equa
rights. Sir. Mr.. Pickney was right, when, in tn
Maryland House Of Delegates, he exclaimed, "b
the eternal principles Of Justice, no man in I'll
State has right to hold his slave for single hour
Wherever it exists at all, it must be through tb
sanction and support Of municipal or State legisli
: tion.
Upon this state Of things the Constitution acts =
1t recognizes MI men as persons. 1t confers n
power, but, on The contrary, expressly denies
the Government Of it's creation all power to estal
lish or continue slavery. Congress has no MOI
power under tic Constitution to make slave tha
to make king; no more power to establish SLAYER,
thun 10 establish the IuquisitiOn.
At the same time the Constitution confers n
power on Congress, but on the contrary, denies a
power 10 interfere with the internal policy of an
State fancdonod and established by its own Coz
sttution and its own legislation, in respect to III
\ personal relations of its Inhabitants The State
under the Constitution, are absolutely free froi
all interference by Congress in that respect cxcep
i perhaps, in tic case Of war or insurrection; an
may legisate as they please within the limitation
Of their own constitution. They may allow SLAYER
if they please, just as they may license othe
wrongs. But State laws, by which slavery is a
/ lowed and regulated can ouarnte onlv within IN