Washington sentinel., 1856-08-05
A FALLACY,

The assertion, that the trainers Of the Con-
stitution contemplated slavery only as fem.
porary condition, and so treated it, has been so
often made, and is still daily repeated and
urged, even by men whose character give them
claim to the merit Of sincerity that we propose
briefly to notice this singular fallacy.
The question which presents itself at the
very threshold of this matter, is, how long was
that temporary condition" to last--at what
moment to cease?
That its incipiency was not to commence
from the formation Of the Constitution, and to
be shortly consummated, is perfectly clear
from that provision in the Constitution which
peremptorily inhibits any attempt to stop its
illimitable increase for twenty years. And
as also appears by that other clause, which
enjoins on Congress in perpcto to make
provision for the restoration of fugitive slaves.
BY the phraseology Of the Constitution, even
after the expiration of twenty years. authority
to stop the continued influx of slaves is only
permissible; and unless their successors had
availed themselves Of the permission thus
given, the influx of slaves would have con-
tinued to this day.
Had the desire to have slavery temporary
institution prevailed in the convention, and it
had been the purpose Of the convention to
render it temporary, the constitutional clause re
lating to this subject would have given to Con-
gress permission to legalize the slave trade for
twenty years, and no longer, that at the expi
ration Of that time it should not be lawful for
Congress to legalize the trade, but that hence
forth it should be piracy.
The very reverse of this is the fact, the Con.
vention made most stringent provisions for
securing the continuance of the slave.trade for
at least twenty years, and .forcrer after that
unless Congress specially interfered to end it,
and nowhere in the Constitution is there any
ihtimation that Congress was expected to
do so.
Certainly the making provision for the dou-
bling and quadrupling the number of slaves
bears on its face no evidence of purpose to
make slavery temporary condition; or, if
temporary, still the ending of IL must have
been long time of, or else the introduction
Of million of negroes, would only serve to
speckle the country with free negroes, a popu-
lation not coveted by any.
But, above all, do the provisions in the Con-
sttution, in regard to slavery, wear in any
degree the aspect Of compulsion in bringing
about an abolition Of slavery in this country.
If the Constitution be national, or any clause
in it be so, then slavery is national. If the
national flag protected it on the high seas.
whero we have no exclusive jurisdiction, why
will not the same flag protect it in the Terri.
tories where we have exclusive jurisdiction.
Suppose California had at that time been
part of our territory, and slaves from Africa
had been imported into San Francisco, and
transported east overland, would the protection
Of the American flag which had covered the
property in strange lands, on the common
ocean, fail at the very moment Of reaching
American soil; il not, would il endure during
the passage (from San Francisco to the States)
over the territory? Would confscation or
abolition have followed if the owners chose to
remain in California with their slaves2
If fslavery was not legal in the Territories,
the Missouri Compromise would have given
permission to slavery south Of 38o 30,< instead
of prohibiting it north Of that, for il illegal,
prohibition was unnecessary.
All the facts cf fhistory conflict with the idea