Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-03-01

v
inc, whatever it may be 60 others, exceedingly dis.
heartening and affective.
viii you my dear friend persist in reading the
Constitution. rs YOU do? OH are lawyer, and
unsurpassed by any other in your State. Why,
then, will you not read it as a awyeT The an
swer is at band. The habit OF the whole country
is to justify tie pretcntious of slavery, and. there
fore, to adopt the Shareholders interpretations OF
the COnstitutiOn:---and even Salmon L. Chase Is so
enslaycd to this miserable and guilty habit as to
lack energy to break out Of it, You we'll know,
that in tho light Of law, and according to the
canon of legal interpretations there is net one pro.
slavery line in the whole COnstituion:-and, yet
rather than resist this mighty sGycry-manuiactured
public sentiment, you allow, that it is Constitution
al-or, at least not repugnant to the Constitution
for any and every state to set up slavery Per
haps too, you still 20 far. TO allow 1t to be
positively Constitutional for the Stakeholder tc
make the whole country his hunting ground ioI
human prey.
l freely admit, that the published proceedings
of the Convention which framed the Constitutions
show, that it was the purpose of few, though only
few, Of its members to provide q constitutional
shelter for slavery. But not only are you aware,
that these proceedings were unknown to the Anne
rican people, until long after the Constitution was
adopted; but you are, also, aware, that only Tour
days before the close of the Convention, they who
had cherished this wicked purpose, confessed their
repentance of it. They confessed it, by joining
the 'choje Convention in declaring, that They now
meant 10y the word Service" wherever it occurs
in the Constitution, not the condition of slaves,
but of irecmen:-that to use other words, they
had no reference whatever to slaves, either in
the apportiCnment or three ilths clause or in the
fugitive servant clause. Does any one say, that
they were hypocritical in this confession? Then
IS he est2Ppcd from quoting them on the side OF
slaycry-ior hypocrites are entitled to no credit
ard no authority
But it is entirely unnecessary to refer to these
Il n iptp
it is as immaterial to know what they were, as to
know tho motives of the scriyenur who wrote the
deed Of tho land It is the intcntiono Of the millions,
who adopted the Constitution, and not Of the hand
in who framed it, that we after; and what were
those intentions we to learn from the letter of
the Constitution.
What however, if were to admit, that ingcnu-
lty could argue n sanction for slavery in certain
passages Of the Constitution? Nevertheless, / am
not ut liberty to interpret these passages as con
terally, plainly, certainly. At the most, their ef
eronce to slavery is obscure. And I surely need
not say to you that there is no more reasonable
rule of the Courts than that which forbids so
interpreting law, &c &c SeerTe . r"rnnso OF nJus-
tice. unless such purpose is so clearly and unde-
niabIy expressed in the law, to compel such in
! terpretatOn. But slavery is iniustice-the deep
est and most Glarng injustice; and, hence, for the
reason just given, the Contitution is not to be in
! terpreted in behalf Of slavery. No one believes
that it would have been adopted, had it provided
IN plain literal terms for making or permitting
this nation to be slaveholding nation. / add, il
this connection t;lat the passages in question, 8,
far from compelling the odous Interpretation re
/ lerred to are capable naturally and easily capa
| Ole, Of an entirely agreeable and innocent inter
pretatiOn. Without the least violence to the Ian
.guagc, the appOTtiolment clause may be construed
to refer to aliens instead Of slaves, and the fugi-
tive servant clause to apprentices ana other tnan
slaves.
may have done you injustice in supposng, that
you do perhaps. hold the pro-slavery and popular
view Of the fugitive servant clause of the Cons
ton. The fact that your Address is not only ST.
lent in regard to this clause, but that it expressly
denies all national and constitutional sanction to
slavery, leads me to hope, that you have repudia-
ted this view. Whilst agree with you, that what
ever the class of persons referred to in it, the IN
junction of the clause is the State, and not on
the Federal Government, venture to hone for your
agreement with me, that if this class Of personsb
slaves, there is possible escape from the conclu
sion, that there is Il national and constitutional
: sanction ay and command Of slavery. BE tho in
junction on the State or Federal Governments, It'll,
in either national and constitutional iniunc
ton. If the clause in question refers to slaves
them beyond nil controversy we have base and
wicked Constitution, and. beyond all controversy
we are n base and wicked nation, and, beyond all
controversy, Mr.. Garrison and his friends are
right in calling for the breaking up either Of the
friend to hear that you have adopted the nboli-
ton interposition of tho clause? Should | hear
you have not, pray tell me what, in the namc
Of common sense, am to make Of your declara-
ton that; "All recognition Of the rghtlulness Of
saveholding was carefully excluded from the
Constitution 2"
! Another instance Of your Interpreting the Con.
stitution, as the Shareholders have taught and com
manded the country to interpret it, is in youl
making the prohibition to deprive "of life, liberty
or property, without due process of lava prohbi
| ton on the FedcralGovcrnment only. You believe
that the clause referred to forbids the Nation, Lu
not State, to sink its citizens in the pit of slavery
but do tell me- if you can, what there is either in
the letter or history of the prohibition to justify
this limitation There is nothing-absoutey '
nothing. From yOur acquiescence in this limita-
ton, | am warranted in believing you 20 hold that
notwithstanding the Constitution does, coniessc6ly
on all hands, deny many things to Il State, and in
many respects qualify and impair its sovereignty, it
nevertheless does not permit it to authorize the rob
berry and murder and, what is worse, the enslave,
ment Of its citizens. You believe that the Con
sttutiOn presumes to forbid State to coin money
or granta title of nobility but that it does not
presume to forbid it to rob, and murder and en-
slave. a specimen this of the absurd conseouen
ccs Of following proslavery interpretations of the
Constitution For my own part, | cannot believe
that our fathers were so stupid to imagine, that
this nation could be held together, in spite of the
mutual repulsion of States one of which should
protect property, and another plunder it one OF
which should recognize the sacredness of life, and
another sanction murder; one of which should
maintain the liberty and rights of man, and an
other throw him into the category of brutes and
things.
1t is often said, that when the Constitution was
adopted il not expected, that it would ever be
employed to put down slavery. ~ sufficient an
sWer to this is, that it was not then expected that
American slavery would survive that generation.
The spirit of the Revolution and the sentiment
then so fresh, so vigorous peryading, inAuen-
tial, that all men are brothers and have equal
| rights, made our fathers worshppers Of Liberty,
Equality, Fraternity-and left no room in their
hearts for any other feelings towards slavery than
shame and sorrow, and disgust and hatred. They
unanimously resolved to put end to the African
slave trade and it must never be forgotten, that al
that day, the end of the African slave trade was
regarded, no less in America than in England as
rC .larnr.-