The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-03-01

American Slavery, being, and having always
been, illegal, could not have been made constt-
tutional, nor subject of constitutional "com-
promise" recognition" or " guaranty" There
could have been no valid compromise with,
nor recognition Of, a legal nonentty No pos
sible wording of the Constitution, however IN
tended, could have accomplished what was pre-
viously, and in the nature of the case, legal
impossibity.
| now add, that the pretenee of any such re-
cognition," compromise" or guaranty" is
rendered ridiculous by the palpable silence of
the Constitution itself on the subject. Neither
the words compromise" recognition" or
" guaranty" or any terms or phrases equivalent
to them, in relation to slaves or Slavery are found
in the instrument nor any such words az
slaves" or Slavery" in any connection that
implies recognition" compromise or guar
anty." The only phrases Gas will be shown
that describe Slavery, the process of its estsb
lishment maintenance by Government. are
"bills Of attainder." laws "impairing the obi
| cations of contracts" and the deprivation of
elderly, without due process of law" But there
| Is no constitutional recognition" Of these nor
compromise with them, nor guaranty OF
them, but the very reverse, namely, the prohi-
betion of them in the States. The only guar
anty in the Constitution is that of "a repub.
lican form of government which is incompat-
ible with Slavery.
A double absurdity, therefore, at the onset,
is Justly practicable of the pretence that Slavery
is constitutional, or that it contains recogntions,
compromises, or guarantees, in its favor. For,
i'll the first place, it supposes legal nulhty,
nonentity, Ito wit legalized Slavery,) to be the
subject of constitutional recognition, compro-
mise, and guaranty" And in the second place,
it supposes that compromise, recognition, OF
guaranty, to have been made IN the Constitution
without any words, phrases, or sentences, in
which it is made-for nothing directly to that
purpose has ever yet been adduced, whatever
may be claimed in respect to certain clauses
which will hereafter be examined. Whatever
they may mean, they say nothing Of any recog-
milton, compromise, or guaranty, on the subject
or the condition of Slavery, which they neither
mention, nor, las will be shown by any inge
NOUS circumlocution, describe or define. No
constitutional recognition, compromise, or guar
anty, can rest on g basis so intangible and
vague. On no other subject would the pretence
be for a moment allowed or entertained.
Suppose a man should claim that he has a
legal instrument signed by you, containing your
recognition Of his claim to a certain portion
or the whole of your farm compromise =
on the subject, or guaranty in respect to
it. He produces the document. You read it
carefully. 1t makes no mention of any sSyh
claim of his. Ii contains no description of
such a claim, or Of any portion of it. Neither
the words nor the ideas Of recognition,
compromise" or Guaranty" are anywhere
to be found in it, except in one place, and that
is where your uudsturbed possession of your
whole farm, and your protection in the sole Oc-
cupancy and use of it, are fully and unequivo-
cally guaranteed to you!
What would you think of such a pretence?
What decent lawyer would undertake, with such
a document to litigate his claim in any court
of justice? Yet this case presents a fair
parallel to the claim Of constitutional Slavery,
of its recognitions," compromises" and
guarantees, of Slavery. They are purely
imaginary. They are nowhere to be found.
They have never been quoted. They have new
er been produced. 1t does not appear, by any
historical record that have ever heard of. that
any such claim or pretence was advanced at
the time, nor by any person lat any period)
who had any hand in framing the Constitution
or procuring its adoption. Many persons of the
age of three score and upwards, will agree with
me in saying that we have no recollection of
ever having heard offs any such claim or pretence,
until since the admission of Missouri, by a
compromise" about thirty four years ago; \
whereas, the Constitution has been operation
claim is accounted for by its non-appearance in
the instrument 1t seems plausible and gains
credence only because it is forgotten that South.
ern statesmen, sixty-Gve years ago, unlike their
successors of the present day,) we're Anti-Slave-
~, instead Of Pro-Slavery, and, so far from
demanding any such recognitions compro-
misses, and guarantees" would not have accept
cd them, had they been offered. Mr.. Madson's
declaration that they would not admit the idea
that man could hold property in man., proves
this.
But l must not further anticipate what
belongs properly in a another part of the dis
cussion. / was reasoning, prori that the
Federal Constitution could not have recognised
or guaranteed Slavery, nor made any compro-
mise with it. The silence of the Constitution
and the modern date of the Pro-Slavery claim
were too closely connected with the argument,
however, to be overlooked. -
/ argue the unconstitutonafity of Slavery,
and the absence Of all constitutional "recogui-
tons, guarantees, and compromises" in its
favor, from the relation of the Federal Consti.
tuition of 1889 to the Declaration of Independ-
ence, which preceded it, and which still con-
tinues in full force. l have already shown lin
letters Is and l4) that the Declaration of indie
pendence would have abolished Slavery, had it
legally existed during our colonial state, that
ton of civil Government, that Slavery could nos
legally exist under it--and demanded when,
where, how, and by whom, was the Declara-
ton Of Independence repealed disanuulled, or
repudated, as a foundation Of our State and
National Governments?
Having since considered the Articles Of Con.
federation and the State Constitutions, and
traced the history of the legal tenure of Slavery
down to the present time, we are prepared, in re-
verting again to the Declaration Of 1876, to at
firm, distinctly, that it still constitutes an essen
ftdt element Of AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW,
lnsomuch that the Federal Constitution of 1889
could not have contravened its fundamental
and selfevident truths and, consequently, could
not have recognised" such an institution "
as Slavery-could not have formed any com
promise with it, or given any guaranty in
its favor. So far from this, it could do no less
than agree tcith the Declaration" in repndi-
ating and condemning it, and forbidding the
States to establish or maintain it. When we
come to look into the Constitution, we shall
find this to be the fact of the case. Our argu-
ment here is, that IL must hdce been so, and
could not without the grossest selfcontradic-
tionl have been otherwise, unless it could be
proved that there has been a solemn and pub
Tho Missouri Compromise and the compromise OF
the Constitution" associated minds Prom
nent statesmen have recently given expression the
time nj that the violation Of the n the Nebraska b
virtual violation Of the other. Yet no pretendS
TO find the Missouri Compromise in the Constitution, The
truth the Missouri Compromise the 6rst openly
arotred "Compronise with Slavery. though there
previous Pro-Slsvery of the Government. Having
assented the Missouri Compromise became neces
sary for Northern Justify the by