The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-04-26


To the Friends of american Liberty:
Having noticed the declarations and the de-
mands of the Preamble, and found that they
require Of the Federal Government the aboli-
ton of Slavery, we turn now to the particular
and specific provisions of the Constitution, to
see whether or no they correspond with the
Preamble. In the exposition of its specific
provisions, as already noticed, we are bound,
by the rule of the Supreme Court, to construe
them in accordance with "the general system
of laws" "the fundamental principles" and de-
clared objects of the Constitution, and so as not
to "infrnge rights" unless the contrary design
and intention abe expressed with irresistible
clearness" But it will be found, if l mistake
not, that the intention of the specific pro-
visions which / shall adduce here, so far from
appearing to tend towards any "infringements
of rights or overthrow of fundamental prin-
ciples," or departure from the general system
of" our free institutions, are evidently in sup
port of them; and that this intention mot
the contrary one-is expressed with irressti-
BILE clearness"
| take for granted that the general system I"
of the Government, as described by the leading
features of the Constitution, in its details and
provisions, is in accordance with the Preamble,
and that this fact will be conceded to me, in the
outset; otherwise, our fellow-citizens would not
so universally and so constantly boast them
selves of our " free Institutions" our "consti-
tutional rights" and our " Republican Govern
ment." If | should insnuate anything to the
contrary, the community would rise up, as one
man, against me. They would appeal, conf
IDENTIFY, to the entire structure of the Constitu-
ton, its abundant recognitions Of the common
law that great bulwark of Freedom, its specific
safeguards of personal liberty, its provision for
the choice of rulers by the people, its limita
tons of the powers of both the Federal and the
State Governments, its enumeration of certain
rights" and its careful provision that this "enu
meration "shall not be construed to deny or
to disparage other (rights) retained by the peo-
ple." And they would triumphantly cite arti-
Gle after article, section after section, and clause
after clause, in which these features are mani
fest, in proof that the professed objects of the
Constitution in its Preamble were no empty
professions, but were amply secured in the de-
tails and specifications Of the instruments
Now, felow-citizens, l agree with you in all
this and only ask you to abide by this esti-
mate of our Federal Constitution, as the discus
sion proceeds. Admit that the Constitution IS,
in detail what its Preamble DECLARES it to be.
and you admit all for which contend. Take
ND its main specifications, the same ones by
which You would defend the Constitution from
the charge of being an abortion, promising
that in its Preamble which it failed to provide
for and you will find that in proving their eff
cacy you have proved their power to overthrow
Slavery. The specifications, if good for any,
thing. are sufficient for this. If they cannot
overthrow Slavery, they cannot support Liberty.
Examine and see.
L"DUE PROCESS OF LAW"
No person shall be deprired of life, L1BER-
TY, or property, soifhout due process Of lac"
Amendments, V.
And what are we to understand by educ
| process of law?" 1t has been apprehended
| by some, that slaves are held by "due process
of law" because held, as has been supposed,
| by the statute laws of the slave States. But
have already shown, in my former letters, that
| there are no statutes in any of the States, es-
tablishing Slavery / have adduced to this
point the testimony of leading Southern jurists
and statesmen, the speeches of members OF
Congress, and the decisions of Southern courts.
Mr.. Mason and Mr.. Bayly of Virginia, Senator
Douglas, Mr.. Toombs of Georgia, Judge Mat
thews of Louisiana, the courts of Missis
sippi, Kentucky, and Georgia. l may now
| add the more recent statements of Gen. b. 4.
Stringfellow, of Missouri, and the gentlemen
to whom he addressed his letter, and who fully
endorsed it, and published it, viz the Hon. p.
s. Brooks and John Mcqueen, of South Caro-
lima; William Smith, of Virginia; and Thomas
l.. Clingman, of North Carolina In this letter
thus vouched for, we have the statement thai
follows
"The verisst schoolboy must know, as mat
ter of history, that although Slarery eristed in
all the old States, in not one acas a ld,c zoe,
enacted to establish it. Laws have been pass
ed, recognising its existence after it had an ex
istence; never to establish it before it existed.
i If due process of law" means a legisla
tive enactment, and if the clause of the Con
stitution before us forbids Slavery witsout
any such enactment, then it forbids all the Sla
very existing in the United States. So tina,
nothing is gained by expounding the phrase
"due process of law to mean statutory enact
ment.
II But this is not the true meaning. Tt mean.
| indictment by grand jury, trial by peti
jury of twelve men, and judgment pronounced
! on the finding OF that jury, by court" This
and nothing short of it, is the meaning of tn.
phrase due process Of Iap" This phrase
like many others, was adopted into the Fedora
Constitution, from the English common law
where this use of it is traced back to the dat.
8 of Magma Charta, in the days of King John, il
the vale OF Runnymede, in the thirteenth cen
fury. From that time, down to the forming O
{ the Federal Constitution, our forefathers alway
3 claimed, under that Charter, (which. by Ia
3 bye, was only re-afirmation of the still NOR
|, ancient liberties of the people, that no free
man should be deprived of his franchises. in
l. Even those who condemn the Constitution as bein
prosavery VIII not deny that its provisions are
favor of general hberythe liberty Of ,cs;,, mem Hat
the absence OF any declaration contrary these sam
provisions are equally available for the eo0rsd man.