The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-12-25
PROPERTY IN MAN"

Nothing is more remarksble than the hard,.
hood with which the supporters of Slavery re-
peat assertions utterly groundless, and their
cool pertinacity in refusing to notice the con-
Predictions which always follow their repetition.
The Constitution, we declare, does not contem.
plate or treat any class of human beings as
property. In not one of its provisions are they
referred TO as property. Slaves, in its language,
are "persons held to service or labor" never
property, never marketable commodities. IL
provides for the representation of such "per-
sons Yin relation to the Importation of such
"persons after certain date-for the reca-
nation of such "persons," under certain circum-
stances-but, in not one of these cases, is il
necessary or logical to infer the idea Of " prop
erty." Indeed, if the Constitution could be sub.
mitted to clear, intelligent, logical mind, en-
tirely unacqtainted with the existence and ma
ture of Slavery in this country, it would be i'm
possible for l. to infer, from any of these pro-
visions, the idea of property in man. How the
Legislation Of the Southern States regards
slares, is immaterial-that legislation is no rule
to determine the construction of the Federal
Constitution. 1t is enough for us to know that,
In the only three cases in which the Constitution
refers to slaves-a fact which can be learned only
by contempor,neous history-it treats them
as persons. And yet, Mr.. Rsverdy johnson,
hitherto considered one of the most enlightened
and liberal lawyers of the South, in arguing,
few days since, the Slave Question now before
the Supreme Court is reported to have de-
cared--
at" 1.-THE COnstitution) "l,ainfains Mrouqh-
out that man can hold property an man."
OF course, this is the mere dictum of the
Slaveholding Class-Mr. johnson repeats it,
but the Constitution itself refutes him. And
as to authority, he can adduce none except
that Of the Class of Propagsndists who, of late
years, have found it necessary to pervert all
the language and spirit of the Constitution to
make it subserve their purposes. Let us hear,
for the hundredth time, what a greater than Mr..
johnson has said upon the subject. Always in
the Federal Convention of 1887, when it be-
came necessary to refer to the slave population,
its language was deliberately and after discue-
sion, so framed as to exclude the idea of property
in man. Mr.. MADISON, in his " Papers," ex
pressly bears witness on this point. He objecte,
to the phraseology in which the clause relatn,
to fugitives from service was originally reported,
because it implied the idea of man being prcn-
erty-" he could not bear that the Constitut .
they were about forming should tolerate
idea there could be property in man" And
phraseology was 80 amended as to exclude
idea. Mr.. Madison is the witness-hs evider
is conclusive. Mr.. johnson must have
the passage in his Papers yet he stands
up In the face of the Supreme Court, every
member of which has read the same passage,
and asserts that "the Constitution maintains
throughout that man can hold property ia
mani"
After evidence and argument have failed
them, do the supporters of Slavery suppose they
can decide the great Controversy by mere as
sertion-by pertinacious dogmatism?