The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-08-02
lends Of american Liberty:

lENCE~-COnc!uded
TO the Friends Of american Liberty:
This plea, when made by the shareholders
and their apologists, should remind us of the
danger of concessions TO error, by the old prov
erb, ''if you give it an inch, it will claim an
ell" Bat let us look into the matter little,
and see how much, in this case, it can claim.
The plea derived from this clause rests
wholly on its supposed implications, its suggest
i've teachings, its leanings, its recognitions.
But to what do they amount? What, in fact,
are they? One thing is, at least, implied. And
that is, that in the absence Of any such explicit
constitutional inhibition, the Federal Govern
ment, under the Constitution, either by its ex-
press provisions or otherwise, would have had
the entire control of the slave trade, and, by
fair implication, of the entire matter of the
Slavery that came from the slave trade, as the
stream flows from It's fountain. 1t would have
been an absurd work of supererogation for the
Constitution TO have provided that Congress
should not suppress the slave trade until the
year 1908, If II had been true, as is commonly
held, that, aside from any such prohibition, the
ton at all--no such power having been dele
gated TO it, and no powers but delegated powers
being inherent in the General Government
Had the trainers of the Constitution been in
doctrinated into the modern and prevailing
theory of the limitations Of the powers of the
Federal Government, 1t is very certain that
they never would have stutifed themselves by
gravely providing that, until the year 1908, the
Congress should not exercise powers not inhe-
rent in il, and never delegated or committed to
it, The Hamiltons, Madisons, and Pinckneys
of the country knew better than to make them
selves ridiculous in this manner. They were
guilty of no such gratuitous elfcaricature.
No. This clause OF the Constitution Tor.
rather, the historical fact that there 1cas such a
cl:.use) is a substantial testimonial that the
common theory of the powers Of the Federal
Government is all wrong! 1t bears witness
that, in the absence of any such clause, or if it
had never been inserted, Congress would have
had full power the slave trade, from the
beginning. And if so, it would have had fun
power the whole subject of Surrey, from
the beginning: for all the considerations that
would give It power over the would give it
power over the other, whether those considera
lions were drawn from the Constitution itself,
(including. its preamble,) or from historical
facts, or from fundamental principles of law
situations or social compacts whatever. 1t is
undeniable, that when the Constitution was
formed, the nice distinctions now made between
Slavery and the slave trade were unknown and
the proposed abolition of the one was under
stood TO involve, virtually or prospectively,
the abolition of the other
Well, then-this clause Of the Constitution
having by its own Limitation expired, it follows
that the Federal Government stands now pre-
cisely where it would have stood, had the clause
never been inserted; that is, with full powers
over the entire slave question. This clause,
then, las commonly construed instead of EN-
barrassing our general argument, strongly con-
firms it, and its important testimony ought
never To be overlooked by the friends of Ameri-
can Freedom. If it has any reference to the
slave trade at all, the effect is as has been
described. My opponents may have it which
way they please. Whenever they would invoke
the spirit OF this expired clause, they must re-
oeive the testimony 1T brings to them If il
reveals any compromise" it reveals one by
which the Federal Government, having con
fessedy full powers over Slavery was restrain
ed from the exercise of those powers for twenty
years with the understanding" that the States
were TO get rid of it within that time, or sub
init to its suppression by the Federal Govern
ment.
have SAID. and think correctly, that the
three clauses / have now considered are the
only ones cited by the shareholders rs being
recognihons of Slavery, or compacts or com
promises in its favor. But there are two other
clauses in respect TO which there is, in the
Northern mind, a sort of vague, indistinct ap-
prehension that they have, somehow, a harsh
bearing on the subject. l shall consider them
together.
e The Congress shall have power y to pro-
vide for calling forth the militia to execute the
laws of the Union, suppress Instructions, and
repel invasions." -Irt. 4, Sec 8, Clause I5.
The United States shall guaranty to every
State in this Union a republican form of gov
ernment, and shall protect each of them against
invasion; and, on application of the Legisa-
ture, or of the Executive, (when the Legislature
cannot be convened, against domestic riOience."
dirt. ", Sec. 4.
But what have these illusions to "insurrec-
ton" and " domestic violence" TO do with
Slavery? If there were no slaves in the coun-
try, how could these clauses be spared or al
tered IL no one supposed there was any lie
galized Slavery in the country, who would APP
ply them to the slave? Or, what damage TO the
slave could come from them?
1t Is the murderous falsehood THAT SLAVERY
IS LEGAL, that is responsible for all the mis-
chief that can adhere TO these clauses. Explode
tnat falsehood, and they become perfectly
harnless-nay, highly protective. Mr.. Madison
and the Federal Convention refused to admit
IN the INSTRUMENT the idea that there can be
property in man. The exclusion of that idea
was the exclusion of the idea of legalized Sla-
very. And that excludes the idea of putting
down instructions of slaves. "The Almighty
said jefferson, has no attributes that could take
sid with IN oh
the common sentiment of America when the
Constitution was formed and ratified. Is it
credible that our fathers deliberately pledged
themselves to such an enterprise? Can the
Intention be collected from the words Is
1t expressed with irresistible clearness? v II
not, then the rules of the Supreme Court do
not permit such an application of the clause.
If the bondmen of the South are not legally
slaves, then a rising of them against their op-
pressors would be no instruction" If they
are legally slaves, then they are "goods and
chattels personal" and "goods and chattels
personal are legally incapable of instruction.
In neither case can the clause he legally ap-
piled TO them. An instruction" is a rising
Ia arms against tie Government. II is no " in
surrection" to rise in arms against the slace-
holders. The slaves are held BY their pretended
owners They have no protection from Gov
eminent, and can owe it no allegiance. They
can therefore be chargeable with no treason or
insurrection against it. An instruction pre-
supposes political relations and obligations,
which slaves, remaining such, and thus recog-
missed, cannot sustain.
As to domestic violence" the phrase is a
better description of Slavery itself, or the in
cidents Of slaveholding, than il is OF a rising of
slaves If slave Instructions were intended,
the % intention is not expressed with ire
,sistible clearness."