Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1854-08-11
For the wa,ehman n iouraail
To the Author of the Vermont
Letter on the Nebraska Bill.

fof the WI tchuan q journal
To the Author of the Vermont
Letter on the Nebraska Bill.
Sin:-I have read your letter with gener-
al appreciation, but cannot assent to all you
say. The following language appears in
said letter:
ain Art. ~, sec. 2, there is clause reg
uating the rendition of fugitive slaves, on
which the fugitive slave law of 1850 was
based. This is the only clause in the con-
s,itutou which recognizes the existence of
slavery beyond the year 1908. A careful
examination of 1t shows that the amount Of
recognition on the part Of the government,
TO use the sentiment of Mr.. Gerry of Massa-
chusetts, is Just this: We will not NEEDLE
with your State matters. They will soon
be all right If any persons, whose servi-
ccs YOU claim, escape into the free States,
when they are found you may cause their
return This shall be made lawful. This
is the smallest possible recognition of an ex q.
isting fact. 1t does not encourage slavery,
It does not extend it. 1t is more of mega.
tire than a positive recognition of it. Not to
have said this, would obviously have made
the Constitutions, in its workings, an aboli-
ton compact. The convention could not do
this. and form constitution under which
all the States could unite"
Now, as the fugitive clause contains nei-
Their a mention nor description OF slaves,
on what ground do you make the admission
that it was originally intended to nave any
thing to do with slavery Could you bring
any historical proof that it was intended as
a compromise The Constitution regards
the labor or service of the fugitive as due
to the claimant, thus making rendition an
act. not of compromise. but of justice. II
the fugitive clause means slaves and its SEN
timeni is correct, then the stakeholder has a
Just and constitutional right 90 his peculiar
property, with the privilege of going where
he pleases with IT, The Missouri compro-
mise was a violation Of his right, and its re-
peal no more than what Justice, established
by the constitution, demanded. Your asser'
ton that the fugitive clause ia the smallest
possible recognition of an existing fact thai
It does not encourage slavery nor extend 1t
is, on your own admission OF its relation tC
slavery, exactly opposite to truth. Wha
could the Constitution do more to encourage
and extend slavery than TO admit the slave
holders right and establish its justice Z iii
authorizes him 10 90 into free state an'
retake his prop rty, does It not leave him a
liberty to enjoy 1t where he finds It :
To deliver up fugitive slaves Is something
more than not to meddle with the slavehOld
cr's matters 1t is to give hun essential aiC
by rendering his property secure. b you
own admission, the Constitution would worl
the abolition Of slavery, il there were no iu
81. Al IA tVnult h.
more correct, however, to say that the cont
guilty Of free States would enable the slaves
to emlncipate themselves, if a pr0-slaverl
provision in the Constitution did not cut of
their escape. In the compromise respecting
the importation Of slaves, If II may be Gale,
a compromise, the general government sim
ply submitted 20 lis want of power to contro
the question. 1t did not concede enything
for 1t had nothing to concede. But IN thl
fugitive clause, If it relates to slavery, The
States yielded an important State right, thu
right of protecting immigrants from every
state and Nation. And that Legislation
which wlhdraws protection from partcu
lar class of immigrants and makes them law
FIJI prey for certain men, ana the free State
lawful ground for hunting such prey, mus
be anything but negative. The fugitive
clause, with the Interpretation that slave
holders and the courts have given It, Is Sc
opposed 10 oar feelings of humanity, To on
sense Of justice and religion that 1t Is won
derfu that the free States, at the very time
when anti slavery feeling was the most in
tense, should have adopted it and 1t passe
all boliefthat they should have done It in
manner so quiet and unreslsting as to leavl
no record of violent repugnance to the act
such fact if it eyer was fact, demand
historical explanation. But while yo'
throw historical light on a compromise
which long ago cease to have any practlca
interes.. YOU leave this strange and more I'm
portant fact IN all It's mystery.
Did dnr fathers indeed agree that, whel
the poor slave flies to US for protection
agains system of outrage he should be be
trayci back to it? I Then let us wait 70
proof Of the agreement Meanwhile let u
s aSisi that the he CONSTITUTION means what
service and justly owing it, we need have n
difficulty about the meaning of the fugitivi
clause.
Natural right is more sacred than th
Constitution, and if we are really under a
agreement to violate natural right by de
livering up fugitive slaves, we are in awk
ward circumstances to complain of violation
of the Constitution. Our first concern SHOULD
be to get the beam out of our own eye
The proper coarse is TO protest against tn,
pro-slayery construction the fugitive claus
has received. |. ).
n - We take Measure in callinr the at