Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1854-03-02

~ even in any State, it is quite 'Obvioss' W"

Senate to the Constitutsen Itself. hnt chaiVo'
~ oer "rr Government was not formed upon pro
slavery principles, but upon anti-siavery Pf,hc'-
nIes ut nowhere recognizes any rishe OF prop
,arty IN man. 1t nowhere conters upon the Gov
eminent which 1t creates, any power 70 estanisn
or to continue slavery. Mr.. Madison hinlseh re-
cords. in bis Report Of the Debate OF the Con-
ventien, his own declaration, that 1t was wrong
10 admit in the Constitution the idea that there
could he property in men," Every clause in the
Constitution which refers in any way to slaves
snnaks of them as persons, and excludes the idea
of property. In some of the States, 1T Is true,
slaves were regarded as property.
The language of Mr.. Justice Mclean on this
point is very striking. He says:
That cannot divest them of the leading and
controlling quality Of persons by which they
are designated in the Constitution. The char
acter of property is given them BY the local law
This law is respected, and all rights under 1t
are protected by the Federal authorities, But
the Constitution acts upon slaves as persons,
and not as property"
Well, sir, not only was the idea Of property
in men excluded from the Constitution not on
ly was there no power granted to Congress to
authorize or enable any man to hold another as
property, but an amendment was afterwards In
grated upon the Constitution, which especial
y denied all such power.
The history of that amendment is worth at
tention. The State which the Senators from
Virginia SO ably represent on this floor was one
of those which Immediately after the adoption
Of the Constitution proposed amendments of it.
One of the amendments which she proposed was
this:
"No freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned,
or deprived of his freehold, liberties, or fran
ohises, or eutlawed, or exiled, or in any manner
deprived of has life, liberty or property, but by
the law of the land"
Did Congress adopt that amendment! No,
sir it adopted and proposed to the States very
different amendment. 1t was this:
"No person " shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of
law"
Now, sir, in my judgment, this prohibition
was intended as IA comprehensive guarantee of
personal freedom, and denies absolutely to Con-
gress the power OF legislating for the establish
nent or maintenance of slavery. This amend
ment of its3lf. rightly interpreted and applied,
would be sufficient to prevent the introduction
of slaves into any territory acquired by the Uni
ted States At all events, taken in connection
with the ordinance, and with the original pro-
vision of the Constitution, it shows conclusiyely
the abs ence Of all Intention upon the part OF the
founders of the Government to afford any coan-
terdnce or protection to slavery outside OF Stats
limits. Departure from the true Interpretation
of the CONSTITUTION has created the necessity for
positive prohibition.
My general view upon this subject is simply
this: Slavery is the sdbjection Of one man to tn
absolute disposal of another man by force. Mas
ter and slave, according to the principles Of tht
Declaration Of Independence, and by the law OF
nature, are alike men, endowed by their Creator
with equal rights Sir, Mr.. Pinckncy was right
when, in the Maryland House of Delsslt-s, he
exclaimed ''by the eternal principles o: justice
Dno MN in the State has right to hold his slave
for single hour Slavery then exists nowhere
by the law of nature Wherever it exists at
all, it must be through the sanction and sup
Tportof municipal Or State legislation.
Upon this state OF things the Consultation acts.
1t recognizes all men as persons. 1t conicrs nc
power but, on the contrary, expressly denies tc
the Government of its creation all power to e.
tablish or continue slavery. Congress has nc
more powor Under the Constitution to make a
slave than to make king no more power tC
establish slavery, than to establish the lnqulsi
tion.
at the same time the Constitution contcrs nj
power Oh Congress, but, on the contrary, dcnic:
I'LL power to Interfere with the internal policy o
any State, sanctioned and established by its owr
constitution and its own legislation, in respect tt
the personal relations of its inhabitants. Tn,
States under the Constitution, are absolutely
free from all interference ly Congress in tina
respect, except, perhaps, in the case of war OF
lnsufrection and may lcgislate as they pleas
tho
They may allow slavery if they please, just a
they may license other wrongs. But State laws
by which slavery is allowed and regulated, cal
operate only within the limits of the State, an,
can have no extra-territorial effect.
Sir, | could quote the opinions of southern
Judges ad infnltum, in support of the doatrin
that slavery is against natural right, absolutel,
dependent for existence or continuance upoi
State legislation. l might quote the scorntu
rejection by Randolph OF all aid from the Gene
raj Government to the institu ton of SLAYER,
within the States | might quote the decision
of the celebrated Chancellor Wythe, of Virgin
ia-overruled afterwards, | know, sir, in TIN
court of appcals-that slayey was so agains
justice, that the presumption of freedom mus
be allowed in favor Of every alleged slave suing
for liberty, and that the onus Of proving TIKI
contrary rested on the master.
think | have now shown that the Ordinance
OF 1887, and the Constitution of the Unite,
States, were absolutely in harmony one with thu
other; and that If the ordinance had never beer
adopted, the Constitution itself properly inter
preted, and administered, would have excluded
slavery from all newt y-acquired territory But
sir, whatever opinion may be entertained in re
spcct to the Interpretation of the Constitutio.
which defend, one thing is absolutely indisp,
table, and that is, that it was the original poll
cy of the country to exclude slavery from a
national territory.
That policy was never departed from unit
the year $780, when Congress accepted the ces
sion, of what is now Tennessee, from North ca
DINA. Bat did the acceptance of that cessio
indicate any parpose Of establishing geograpl
ical line between slavery and freedoml Why
sir on the contrary, the State of North Carol
No, aware that in the absence Of any stipulatio
30 the contrary, slavery would be prohibited i
the ceded territory, in pursuance Of the estat
lished policy of the Government, introduced ii
to her deed Of cassion an express provision, tina
the anti-slavery article of the ordinance of lis
should not be applied to it. Ttmay be said tina
Congress should have refused to accept the ce.
sion. agree in that opinion. Bat slavery a
ready existed in the district as part of the Stat
OF North Carolina, and it was proudly tholg:
unreasonable to deny the visa Of the State il
its continuance.
The same motives decided the action OF Geo.
ga In making her csssion of the territory b.
tween her western limits and the Mississipp
ana the action OF Congress accepting it. Il
acceptance of both these c.ssions. us well as I'll
adoption and re-enactment by Congress of I'll
slave laws Of Maryland for the District Of G.
i h,. were departures from original policy
geographical line, They were the res lie Of Il
gradually increasing Indifference to the claia
OF freedom, plainly perceiya5. ia the history
the country after the adoption of the >Constft,
ZION Luther Martin had complained in 1873