Daily national era. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1854, 1854-06-28

To the Friends of american Liberty.
have shown that Slavery cannot be legal
lied in any Of the States that are founded upon
the Declaration of Independence unless or I'M
til they have formally repealed and repudiated
that Declaration, which none Of them have
yet done
shall now show that, in addition to all this,
the State Constitutions of the several States,
including the present slave States, or many of
them, are incompatible with Slavery insomuch
that they would have abolished any previously
established legal Slavery if it had existed
among them.
] will begin with Massachusetts,, where q
judicial decision has determined that the State
Constitution prohibits Slavery, and then COM
pare with the Constitution Of Massachusetts,,
those Of some of the slave States.
ain Massachusetts, it was judioially decided,
soon after the Revolution, that Slavery was
virtually abolished BY the Constitution, and
that the issue Of female slave, though born
prior to the Constitution, was born free" -
Kenfs Commentary, p. 252.
In giving the opinion Of the Court in the
case Of the Commonwealth Us Thomas Aves,
in 1888, Chief Justice Shaw said
allow, or by what act particularly Slavery
was abolished in Massachusetts whether by
the adoption Of the opinion in Somersett's case,
as declaration or modification of the Com
mou Law or by the Declaration Of Independ.
ence, or by the Constitution Of 1880, is not
now very easy to determine and it il rather a
matter of curiosity than utility, it being agreed
on all hands that, If not abolished before, it was
by the Declaration Of Rights0 n
Without pursuing this inquiry further, it is
sufficient for the purposes Of the case before up,
that by the Constitution adopted in 1880, Sla-
very was abolished in Massachusetts on the
ground that il IL contrary 10 natural right and
the plain principles Of Justice. The terms Of
the first article Of the Declaration of Rights
are plain and exploit All men are born free
and equal, and have certain natural, essential,
and unalicnable rights, which are the right of
enjoying and defending their lives and liberties,
that of acquiring and possessing and protect
ing property Il would DO difficult to select
words more precisely adapted to the abolition
Of Slavery Pickering's Reports, pp 209-IQ.
It will be observed here that while Judge
Shaw agrees with Chancellor Kent, that the
Constitution OF Massachusetts, abolished Slavery
in that State, "if not abolished before" (de.
claring that this is agreed on all hands, he
adds, that either one Of three other things
which he mentions, viz: lst the decision of
Lord Mansfield in Somersett's case I'd, the
authority Of common laws or, Sd, tho Decla.
ration OF Independence, would have been sufl
cient for the same purpose. This sustains FIJI
~ the course of argument l haze already pur-
sued. And it will be noticed, further that
each of these three grounds Of deciding tho
illcgality of Slavery (ether Of which, by itself,
would be amply sufficiently are AZ valid in oil
Of the States as thoy are in Massachusetts,
All the States were equally affected by tho
decision Of Somersett's case, equally under the
authority of common law, and equally under
the operation Of the Declaration Of Independ.
ence. IL either one or all of these rendered
Slavery illegal in Massachusetts, they rendered
It illegal in Virginia, in the Carolinas and in
Georgia
Let ms next see whether the Same observa-
ton may not be extended to the fourth ground
OF abolition, mentioned by Judge Shaw, and
agreed on all hands, viz: tho State Consti
tut,ons. How did those OF the slave States COM
pare with that Of Massachusetts
DELAWARE" Al men have by nature, the