The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-03-08
To the Friends of American Liberty:

CONSTITUTION OFF STILL IN FORCE-Pkh-
AMPLE OF 1879 A DECLARATION OF THE SAME
OBJECTS-Concluded
10 the Friends Of American Liberty:
But this does not fully reach the precise
point that wish, just here, to make evident.
Whatever the Convention intended, whatever
the people intended, they did not flor they
could not) incorporate into the Constitution of
1889 any compromises" "recognitions," or
Egaaranties," in favor of Slavery, that could
possess any valid, binding, legal, or constitu-
compromises" recognitions," or "guaran-
ties" would have been in direct violation of
the previously existing and still unrepealed
Constitution of the country, which whether in
advertently or otherwise) they left untouched
and permitted to remain in full force. And re-
manning in full force, as containing the found
alton principles Of the Government, it would, of
necessity, over-rule, control, and annul, what
ever in the minor details of organization might
be, or appear to be, in conflict with it. The
greater must control the less. The foundation
principle must correct the awkward or defect
i've attempt at its practical realization. Or, if
need be, it must crush out " the knavish at
tempt at its subversion.
If the Convention and the people wished to
have a Constitution recognising" Slavery,
making compromises" with it, or giving
guarantees for its security, their first and in
dispensable work would have been to repeal the
then existing Constitution of l776. This they
neglected to do. And however lamentable the
omission may be supposed to be, there is nc
help for it now, short of doing that needfuE
work. Until this is done, Slavery will remain
unconstitutional, by the still existing Constitu
ton of l776. If this doctrine be deemed ex
travagant we will fortify it by the legal opinion
of a gentleman, second to no man living for
his reputation as constitutional lawyer:
1.-The first act of our nation (the Declaration
of Independence being solemn recognition
of the liberty and equality Of all men, and that
the rights of liberty and happiness are inalien-
able, acas the cornerstone Of oar COntederdcy
and is ABOVE ALL CONSTITUTIONS
AND ALL LAWS."-John C. Spencer.
Mr.. Spencer said this, in the Legislature of
New York, in the year 1920; and at that time
it does not appear to have been regarded as
"ultra," or fanatical," by the people of the
free States
The only way of attempting to escape from
the doctrine of Mr.. Spencer would seem to be
by saying that the Constitution of 1889 was an
amendment to that of l776, and that, Ike the
codicil to will, it annulled whatever in the
former instrument, conhicted with it. This view
of aa amendment is doubtless correct, and we
shall have occasion to make use OF it, when we
come to consider the amendments to the Con-
stitution of 1889. The pertinent questions here
are: /. Whether the Constitution of 1889 acas
an amendment to that of l776; and 2. Whether,
in the vital matter of human freedom, it did
conflict with the Constitution of 1916. If it be
So the sooner we understand it the better, that
we may not keep up the custom of burning tons
of gunpowder, every year, to celebrate a Dec
laration of sef-evident truths, as forming the
basis of our Government, long after eve the
people," by an amendment of our Constitution,
had declared it to be null and void But before
admitting this conclusion, it may be well to
challenge proof of the fact An amendment
that should meet the point in hand must dis
tinctly affirm that all men are not created equal,
nor endowed by their Creator with inalienable
rights to liberty. Until such an amendment can
be produced, the original Constitution of 1875
remains unimpaired. And thus remaining its
foundation principles, like those of every other
Constitution of Government, must control its
specific details. The truth is, there has been
no amendment contravening or displacing the
foundation principles of our original Constitu-
ton, and they remain as authoritative now, as
they were when they were at first promulged,
or as when the courts of Massachusetts, decided
that they we're inconsistent with the tolerance
of slaveholding. So lately as the year 1888, this
decision was re-affrmed in the case of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Us. Aves by
Chief Justice Shaw.
A nd this statement will be confirmed, by
glance at the avowed object of the Constitution
of 1889, as contained in the Preamble to that
instrument This Preamble, of itself, furnishes
suffi cient proof that, whatever the Constitution
contains, or is supposed to contain, it embraces
no "recognitions," compromises" or guar
antics" in favor of Slavery, or tolerating its ca
i,tence So far from intimating a design to
supersede or displace the Declaration of indie
pendeuce, by amendments or otherwise, it
distinctly announces the object of maintaining,
more completely and efficiently, its selfevident
axioms.
ave, the people of the United States, in or
der to form a more perfect Union, establish Jus
tice, insure domestic tranquility, proride for the
common defence, promote the general ,ce!f fare,
and secure the BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States
of America"
Not one of those avowed objects is at all
compatible with the existence and tolerance ssf
slaveholding. In no clearer or stronger Ian
guage could the Constitution have avowed the
determination of uprooting Slavery. We may
say of it as Judge Shaw said of the Dec
laration of Independence 1T would be diff
cult to select words more precisely adapted to
the abolition of Slavery"
&c oct. hl;eb ;nstioo ~ nd q oaoura fbo h1os.
ings of liberty" without suppressing Slavery,
would be doing that of which no man ever form
ed the conception. 1t would involve direct
contradiction in terms, to profess any such OBJ
iect. And eve, the people of the United
States all of US, without distinction of race,
color, or condition-are declared to be parties to
the instrument, though the "posterity" of many
of its trainers are now held as slaves. There can
be no value in Constitutions of Government, if,
with such declaration of their objects, they
can nevertheless contain "recognitions, COM
promises" and guarantees" in favor of Slave
nv, or even if they can tolerate its existence.
If, under Constitution with these professed
objects, one portion of the "people of the Uni
ted States may be held in Slavery, then, under
the same Constitution, any other portion of the
same "people of the United States may be
be held in Slavery-au of them may be held in
Slavery And if this be so, the Constitution, as
a security for liberty, or as a safeguard of any
of our rights, which all vanish the moment the
man becomes enslaved, is of no more value
than the blank paper or parchment upon which
the instrument was engrossed. Look over the
document, and you will find that it promises no
more to the rhite people of the United States"
than it does to the colored "people of the Uni
ted States $40 more to the planters than it
does to their unpaid laborers. 1t knows moth
ing of color, nothing Of master or slave. If it
n. n nyotact ons IL can protect all IF there he