The Tipton advertiser. [volume] (Tipton, Cedar Co., Iowa) 1856-1962, 1858-01-16
NO 3.

VI poWcTS WHICH iutSat Uc WtciuCu - s"J
time for the overthrow of slavey.-
Scarcely however was the Government
organized before Whi,ney's cotton gin
was invented. This was to nptation to
continue slavery, and extend its sphere.
quite too strong for shareholders and
even for some other classes of men to re-
sist.
Then, under, the promptings Of pro-
slavery interests, very som began the
manufacture of those lies abou, II. Con-
ssitution which has continued evsr since.
aud which in our day has quite blriod it
up. The first lies about it may be sum.
med up in the lie tha. the principles Of
the Constitution do not unqna.iiedIy
forbid slavery. The next lies about it
may be summed up in the lie that its
principles do not at all forbid slavery.
And the next lies about it may be sum-
med up in the lie that the principles Of
the Constitution are to considerable ex-
tent positively in favor Of it. Now it is
no wonder, that under the influences Of
these received lies, slavery was allowed
20 establish itself in the District of Col
umbia; and that the coast-wise slave trade
was regulated by Congress; and that ter
ritories became slave States, and that the
Missouri Compromise was enacted. Alas,
that fatal compromise in which slavery
was recognized as lawful power, and a
conpctant party to contract--to con-
tarct even with liberty? And then came
the greater lie that, under the Constitu-
tion, slavery has equal ri ghts with liber-
ty. Out of this greater lie grew the re.
peal Of the Missouri Compromise, and
the throwing open of the territories as
fully to slavery as to liberty; as fully in
theory--of course, far more so in prac-
tice, For where slavery makes au a
greement to divide equally with liberty,
slavery is but too like, as in the ease Of
Kansas, to get all
have referred to numerous lies about
the Constitution The greatest of them
have not yet referred to- 1t is that
which has recently come out Of the
mouth of the Supreme Court Of TIE Uni
ted States the lie that, under the Coz.
sttution black man, simply because he
is black maa, is not, and canuot be
citizen of the United States and that
simply because he is black man, he is
6t, and only ft, to be an article of
merchandise among his white bretheren.
Thus has step, succeeded step, until at
last we find ourselves where we are How
natural, in the light Of the first step, was
this succession of steps For in that
irst oac Was the admission Of property
in man vet, in that first one were in.
volved all the subsequent wrong and ca
lamity. The principle once admitted,
that man is property, and no effectual
limits could b. st to the practice under
1.-THE admission OF the principle of
slavery by the American people leaves it
no wonder that they should at last b. uu-
der the sway of slavery.
Aud what now remains for Us to do?
Just one thng,-thc one thing, that all,
who have sinnei, have TO do,--and that
is to rcp.nt, and do the works and bring
orth the fruits meet for repentance
Our sin consists in having admitted tina.
| slavery Is law. Owing to this admission
of ourselves and our countrynen that
man can be property, millions OF our fel.
| Low men have been born into slavery in
this land, ana millions OF them have died
in slavery. Bitter and numberiess woes
make up the history OF their earthly pill
svimage. And now all the attonement
we can make i5 t) retract the admission,
mi deny henceforth and forever that man
can be prop2rty--that slavery can be
| law.
But some one tells me that the Consti-
tuition is for slavery. Well, ny friend If
yJu are honest, will 90 to the Constitu-
| tloa with You, II you are willing to have
the question taken to that book wh ,thar
you are your self property, then | au will.
/ ling 10 look into it with you. For my
own part, AN not willing to have the
question whether am property passed
upon by any book or anycourt. go far
back Of all courts and constitution for
proofs of my manhood. | hold that
we're the Constitution full Of the dcclar.
atiDn that man is property aud slavery
| Jaw, such declaration would be simply
void hold that forgery, perjury, muir.
| der, would be none the more law for tbs
| Constitution having called them SUCH
! Had the Constitution declared that wood
is stone or stone wood, the nature of i.
tae.' clcmunt would nave been at all chang.
ed BY the declaration. Less absurd,
! however, would 1t have been in dcclar.
! lng that man is chattel--that immortali-
ty is commodity. | hold that constl,u-
tons cannot, be moae, nor have any force
significance after they are made, but upon
the assumption that man is man, and not
property--that he is the owner, and there
fore cannot be the subject, ofproperty.
But will suppose, M frieud, that you
are honest, and that you are really willing
to have tn Consultation decide the ques-
ton whether you are man or a chattel
yoar own OF slave; and hence | am will
| lug to inquire whether the Constitution
| speaks Tor slavery.
Is the Constitution in clear and express
terms for slavery? You admi. it is not.
Then it cannot be for slavery. For sla.,
very is the highest degree Of injustice;
and at he courts and common sense agree
| taatno law is to be made to mean injustice
uuless the iulusticeis expressed, and tha.
too, with irresistible clearness. Hence
slavery could not have been smuggled
~