Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-02-07
SPEECH OF MR. BINGHAM.

Mr. Bingham's speech, the concl usion of which
is given in this weeks Bugle. will repay q careful
perusal. 1t is highly commended by tho N, Y.
and the Republican Press,fgeneraliy.-
Mr.. 3. subjects those portions of the Presidents
in which a justification of the Kansas
outrages is attempted, to a searching scrutiny, and
makes the hypocricy and vilainy Of the message
in this respect sufficiently apparent.
Doubtless the legislation and Judicial decisions
OF the nation have generally recognized the princi.
pie that Congress Is authorized to exercise domin.
ION and sovereignty over the Territories of the
United States, controlled and limited only BY tho
But Mr.. Bingham's other position.
which he asserts and re.iterates in various forms.
is by no mears SO apparent. We refer to his dec.
that 1.-THE Constitution is based on the
equality of the Human race" and, in the language
OF Washington, Entirely free in its prinoiples."-
that 1.-THE spirit of the constitution is the spirit Of
Liberty OF the Republic"-that it sustains and
fosters the equality of all" &c., DC. True Mr..
d. can quote George Washington, the frst, and
Franklin Pierce the last and least Of oil the Presi.
dents IN favor if these assertions, but these author.
tiles both speak upon The principle that the slaves
are not a part vf the human race" nor members
of the Republic referred to. any more than horses,
hogs or other property.
1t the grounds assumed in the speech as to the
character of the Constitution are tenable: then
this instrument being the supreme law Of the land,
'he legal existence OF slavery, either by virtue OF
state rights, Squatter Sovereignty or Congressional
enactment, whether in territory north of 800 3O/, or
In any territory or State in the Union is impossible.
birmingham however, seems by no means willing to
take this ground. If we understand him he doe.
not mean even to deny that Congress has power 10
legalize slavery in the territories; and indeed such
a denial would come with an i'll grace from him. "a
soon after joining his party in Congress in the vote
in favor of Dunn's bill, which sanctioned the con.
tnuance OF slavery in Kansas, till the year 1858.
lie merely says that neither slave statutes nor
Save constitutions can be made operative within
the territories without the sanction or approval,
expressed or implied, of Congress- This shows
that he is either not quite sure that the ~cons,itu.
ton Is what he ass erts it to be, or not quite ready
to abide the application of his own doctrines. for
under such q constitution, MS the supreme Inv.
the Kentucky or Missouri slave could as sureIv
demand his freedom as the Kansas bondman. po.
l.ieal abolitionists used to claim that slavery. nv
virtue of the Constitution, is illegal eve,y where
except in the original States; and Mr.. B. seems to
favor this doctrine, by intimating that these States
alone are clothed with "tho right to do wrong, the
privilege OF trampling upon the Unborn rights Of
humanity" The Republican party, however. re-
CARDS the system as legitimate in the States rhere
"'s, opposing only its extension into new territory.
But if the constitution rests on the great principle
of equality, as the Republican press Of the land
declares by its sanction of the speech before 10,
then the marty is repraop 10 froodo.. +: c.
to oppose slavery wherever found.
But the United States Constitution Ia not .oom.
pletely Tree IN its principles" its object is not to
establish justice. except for q class. 1t secures
freedom to the free, while it sanctions the system
that dooms the slave to his chains. 1t is but \
record OF the will and principles of those who form.
ed 1t. 1t was n compact entered into by and be-
tween States which held their own people in ,l,.
very-recognizing and enforcing the vilest despo-
hsm. The men who met to frame tho constitution
were, more than others. those who controlled and
gave character to those States. Why should ne
they make a constitution with slavery as one of its
prominent features? If these men had within
them sentiments averse to slavery, one would think
that indications Of this would appear, if ever, at
the close of the war of Independence. Yet in the
treaty with Great Britain in 1888 was a stipula-
ton inserted by DR.. Franklin, that in removing
her garrisons and fleets she should not carry OF
any negroes or other property of the American in.
habitants! Such a clause in such a treaty and M
such a time is evidence of the disregard of the
principles of freedom and justice that prevailed
IN the land. And the very best of the fathers
such men as Jay, and Jefferson and Adams and
Franklin and Rush united in this demand upon
the British Government to pay for negroes. always
describing them as property,-"Negro American
property;'-"Negroes and other property" &c..
&c. Nor did these men or their more despo.ie
allies change their principles on the adoption OF
the Constitution; for in the Senate Immediately AZ
ter the formation of the Government, we find them
complaining that Great Britain had carried Of.
this negro property" contrary to the treaty Of
1888, and voting that "the negroes and other prop
erty" carried away should be paid for BY the Brit.
ish Government. And in the Senate in 1893 with
Roger Sherman, and Robert Morris and George
Cabot and others, as MEMBER. the Fugitive Slave
Law passed unanimously and in the House whore
I was reported by Sedgewick and Bourne. tbs
infamous bill carried by a vote of 4S to 7. Ma,
Sachusetts herself giving 6 yeas and but one nav
This iaw-the same in its spirit as that Of 1850
authorized the master to seize his escaping slave
in any State of the Union, and drag him back 10
bondage, thus recognizing to the fullest extent
human chattelism, not only in the slave States,
but wherever the victim of oppression. exercising
the rights ola man might 60, contrary to his claim
ants will! Yet the leading spirits in that Senate
and Honse of Representatives were the persons
whose memory the freemen Of to-day honor mosk