The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-09-18
LETTER FROM WILLIAM GooDELL.
the Editor ofthe National Era:

headed "ImprQcticables," under which term you
include those who decline voting with the Re
publican party, as you yourself for time, if L
mistake not, hesitated to do. A part of your
article is devoted to those AboEtionists who,
believing, with yourself that the National Gov
eminent has no constitutional power to estab-
lsh justice, provide for the common defence,
and secure the blessings of liberty" for this
nation, have concluded to become so "imprac-
ticable," as to decline wearying themselves with
such hopeful experiments. THIS class l shall
leave to speak for themselves.
But another part of your article is devoted
to Radical Abolitionists, who, believing that
the National Government is, by the Constitution,
invested with that power, which they believe to
be salutary and necessary one, decline coop
Grating with party, and voting for candidates,
who not only decline welding that power of the
nation for the national deliverance, but are
"infexibly opposed" to its being done by
others. On behalf of this class, l propose, with
your leave, to make some defence in your COL
umns. need not defend them from the charge
OF folly in not voting with the Republicans, so
long as their views of the constitutional duties
of the National Government shall continue to
be what they now are. You have preferred no
such charge against them. Nor could you con-
sistently do so with your 0acn views of the vital
and fundamentally important distinction and
opposition between the two theories. You have
accordingly labored to show that the principles
of the Radical Abolitionists are fatally subver-
sive of Freedom. |, on my part, and on their
behalf, propose to show that the reverse of this
is the truth, and that the principles of the Re-
publican party, as expounded by you, are fatal
to Freedom.
Your main argument goes far back of the
Constitution, and so shall mine. But, as you
have cited the Constitution in one of its provis-
ions, l shall first examine the argument you
have drawn from it.
You quote the Constitution as saying, "The
powers not delegated to the United States by
the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States, respectively,
or to the people,"
And this is your proof that the Government
OF the United States has no power to protect the
people of the United States from chattelhood,
and that the Estates or the people the one
or the other, or both of them-have reserved to
themselves the right of chattelizing one an
other-of reducing the citizens of the several
States and of the United States to chattels per-
sonal! Begging your pardon, my dear DR..
Bailey, the clause proves no such thing, and
that for two excellent reasons
First: The clause cited does not specify nor
enumerate "the powers delegated to the United
States by the Constitution" nor "the powers
prohibited by it to the States" Nor does it
say that the power to protect the personal lib
critics of the people of the United States is not
committed to the Government of the United
States, ordained and established by them for
that end. Nor does it say that the power OF
overthrowing the liberties of the people of the
States and of the nation Tor of any portion of
them is not prohibited by the Constitution to
the States"
So that the clause, of ITSELF proves nothing
at all to the point for which it is quoted. Be-
fore it can be used for any such purpose, resort
must DE had to the other provisions Of the in
strument. 1t must be ascertained that no suffi-
cient powers for protecting the personal liber-
ties of the citizens of the United States are
delegated to the United States by the Consti-
tuition" 1t must also be ascertained that the
powers essential to the existence of Slavery in
the States, and which must be exercised in or
der to its continuance, are not powers prohibit
ed by the Constitution to the States. But the
very reoerse of this is ascertained.
TO the Government of the United States is
delegated the power to " Establish Justice, pro-
vide for the common defence, promote the gen.
eral welfare. and secure the blessings of liberty
to "the people of the United States " and their
"posterity," without exception. The habeas
the people "to be secure in their persons" &C.,
are specified in the Constitution for this very
| end. And, lest the State Governments should
stand in the way of this, The United States
| shall guaranty to every State in this Union a
| republican form of government" as above de.
| fined. And "No State shall pass any bill OF
attainder, or er post .facto law, or laws impair.
| ing the obligation of contracts, or grant any
title of nobility -four specifications, ip one
| sentence, of "powers prohibited by the Consti
| tuition to the States" each of which powers is
| continually and necessarily exercised in the
maintaining of Slavery. But,
Second; The "powers" mentioned in the
clause as reserved to the Stateg, respectively
or to the people," must mean powers which 'the
States, respectively, the people" possessed be-
before the Constitution was formed. 1t cannot
mean "powers which they never did or could
possess. But the States, respectively" never
had any "power" of enslaving their citizens
Their own declaration of the "inalienable right VI
of all men" to liberty is an explicit denial
| and reputation of any such "power," either in
the States, respectively" or in the "people.'
Having no such powers to exercise or to dele
gate, they had such powers to "reseroe." And
they did not preserve any such powers, any
more than they reserved" the powers (now
exercised by South Carolina and Missouri) Of
invading peaceful Territory, supplanting the
inhabitants at the ballot-box, enacting despotit
statutes for them, and driving them out by the
sword. The doctrine that the Preserved powers
of the States include whatever "powers TIKI
States choose to claim and exercise, is develop
ing itself in Kansas by its fruits. Suppose il
should be claimed, under this clause, that the
States, respectively" or the "people," have
Preserved" the "power" of numbering Of
| maiminO One-SiXth mart or aa MANY fhax
please, of the citizens of the United States, o.
of burning its arsenals and navy yards, or tn,
power to Danish any or all of their citizens who
should vote the Republican ticket, (outraget
not as distinctly prohibited to the States by
the Constitution, as is the greater outrage o.
enslavemeAt,l would this clause of the Consti
tuition shelter them? And has the nation, and
its Government, and its citizens, no remedy OIL
redress? If not then put down the power O.
Gaming Northern Senators by the State sover
eighty" oligarchs, among the "powers reserved
to the States, respectively, or to the people
Very manifestly, it is not among "the powers
delegated to the United States by the Constitu
tion," and it might be more difficult than in the
case of enslaving Americans Thy bills of attain
der, &C., } to show that the power of Gaming Sen.
ators was prohibited by the Constitution to
to the States"
And this brings me to the main scope oil
your argument, which goes back of the written
Constitution entirely, and plants itself upon
the very nature of things-the nature of civil
government, and the necessary securities Of
Freedom. Hitherto, for the most part, the ar
gument against Radical Abolitionists has turn
ed upon the question of facts. What does the
Constitution say? What does it naeanS What
provisions for the security of personal liberty
| does II contain What mowers for tho ad min.