Carroll free press. [volume] (Carrollton [Ohio]) 1834-1861, 1856-11-20

Iea'eu his possession OF the slave on the ground
that the Constitution left unmpaired the SOW
ereign authority Of the State 10 regulate for il.
self the institution OF domestic slavery to retain
or remove it at its own pleasure. State law,
or positive and local statute alone created such
property gave man an ownership in men. II
the system ever went beyond State limits, it
must be carried By such positive law, for fun
like ;he right to possess any other species Of
property, or that which the common law Of ma
tonS aud the universal consent Of mankind rec
ognize as property it did not flow out of itself
into the territories OF the republic. To nation
alize it thus, as the propagandists desired and
their theory was necessary. And, accordingly,
they now hold that the Constitution. wherever
its sway is unimPeded By State laws, recognizes
land thus creates, for it would not otherwise
exist) property in man, and imparts authority
to hold slaves as much as to hold a stock OF
horses or cattle. A right that was once looked
upon as limited to :he State, is thus made CO.
extensive with the national domain.
THIS new principle, if traced out to its ma
tural and logical consequences, or if practically
applied like any acknowledged principle Of the
Constitution, where will it lead? 1t . but tru.
ism to say, thatitis unconstitutional, even in
Congress, TO forbid, to any Of the citizens, a
constitutional right. On this alleged ground
the repeal OF the Missouri Compromise is vim
dicated? On the same ground, the laws pro.
hibiling slavery in aay Of the territories must be
repealed Where there are no such prohibitory
laws. (and they are applied but to a small por-
ton Of our territories )this principle at once le-
galizes the holding Of slaves, Thus, four 6fths
Of our national limits given to slavery, aud but
little spot on the map is left to freedom, But
we are a Safeguarding people, adding field
to field continually snnexing territories and
nationaities, and always hunSerug for more,
with an appetite as keen as that Of old Rome
Walker, unless he means tn make assurance
doubly sure need not decree the existence Ct
slavery in Central America for, according to
this principle, it constitutoually exists there
the moment'that republic is merged in ours
II all Mexico is added, then at once, into all
Mexico the right to hold this species Of proper
ty flaws out. So with Cuba, with the Sand
wicb Islands. with any portion OF the earth
the moment the new province comes under our
Constitution, that moment. Pso facto, it re-
ceives the law of slavery. But when the Con-
sttu!ion is made to go out of the slave States to
confer this right, it crosses the Rubicon aud
nalionalizes the holding Of slaves; for the Con-
slution makes the rights of property equal
among all citizens, and ii canuot create spec
les of property in Kansas thai it does not ere
ate 10 Pennsylvania. We need go no farther.
Admit that this is constitutional principle, and
slavery becomes at irst the chief and then the
only feature, OF what we now term our free re-
public, which may not establish an hereditary
mob lity, but may establish an hereditary ser
vitude, which creates property in man and con
fers the right 10 hold such property upon all il
citizens. When this is accomplished, the hands
on the dial plate of human progress are turned
back to where they stood in the darkest ages,
and the nation which seemed the sun Of free
dom amid the other nations of the earth, has
very soon lost its nornlng radiance. "and mid
right, universal midnight reigns" Once have
il settled that the Constitution is a mighty slave
making instrument, cOnferring the right,
throughout its broad Jurisdiction, to hold prop
erty in man, and no human imagination can con
ceive the still remoter consequences that mus
follow,
It is idle to argue the question, when those
who maintain this principle will not allow the
trainers Of the Constitution to interpret its mean
inc. Mr.. Madison would not tolerate the wore
"slave" in that instrument, for. he thought i
wrong TO admit in the Constitution the idea o
property in man " and the convention concur
red with him. 1t is we'll known that all thost
men regarded the States where slavery existed
as alone responsible for it, and never dreamed
that The Constitution, which they framed, haC
aucht to do in making or unmaking it. Al
our administrations, down to that of Pierce, hsv'
% interpreted that instrument. But what is TIL
probability that this doctrine will be practical
" carried out? Whet his people do or d'
not, it is natural that monarch should hold Il
the divine right Of Kings; though prudence
would enjOin on him TO be moderate in the u.s.
of his prerogative, and not act like the madmaI
who would shear the wolf, because man had al
abstract right over the beasts of the forest.
may be natural for the slave holding interest t
press what il prstends to regard as an abstrac
right. But discretion may teach it iorbearence
For there are abstract doctrines on the othe
side notions of natural law theories Q
human rights-imagiDed charters of freedom
4 wrttan IN The haart and daclarinO that tn