The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1860-07-11

State Equality avoid it. And yet, this very ar
r,,ment betrays the inconsistency Of its authors.
II persons held TO service in the Slaves States
are property under the Constitution, then.
under the proyision-known as the three
ffths- rule-which POUNDS representation II
the other House on such persons, there Is
property representation from the slaves State,
with voice and vote, while there Is no such
,,on,,tr yepresentation from the Free States
With glaring inequality. the representation OF
Slave States is founded first on persons" and
secondly on a large part OF their pretended
property; while the representation oil the r rec
States is founded simply on persons leaving
all their boundless millions Of property unrep
resented. Thus. whichever way We approach
| it, the absurdity Of this pretension becomes
manifest Assuming the pretension oil properly
| in man under the Constitution. you slap IN the
face the whole theory of State Equality. for you
disclose a gigantic inequality between the slave
States and the Free States; and assuming the
Equality Of States, in the House OF Represen-
tives as elsewhere You slap in the face the whole
pretension of property in man under the Con
stitution.
| disdain to dwell also on that other argu-
ment. which. in the name of Popular Sovereign
tv. undertakes to secure 10 the people in the
| Territories the wicked power-sometlmes called
by confusion of terms, right-to enslave their
fellow-men: as il this pretenSion was not blast
ed at once by the Declaration OF independence,
when it announced that all governments de-
rive their lust powers from the consent OF the
governed" and as if anywhere within the Iuris-
dictjon of the Constitution, which contains no
sentence, phrase, or word. sanctionlng this out
rage. and which carefully excludes the idea OF
property in man. while it surrounds all persons
with the highest safeguards of citizen, such
pretensions could exist. Whatever it may De
elsewhere, Popular Sovereignty within the
sphere of the Constitution has its limitations
Claiming for all the largest liberty OF q true
Civilization il congresses all within the con-
straits of Justice; nor does it allow any man t.
assert a right to do what he pleases, except
when be pleases to do right. As well within
the Territories attempt to make a king rs at
tempt to make slave. But this pretension-
rejected alike by every Slaye-master and by
every lover of Freedom
i Where behold factious band agree
To call it freedom when themselves sreisee,
proceeding originally from avain effort to avoid
the impending question between Freedom and
Slavery-assuming a delusive phrase OF Free
> dom as cloak for Strengthening with the
voice of Jacob while its hands are the hands o
Esau-and by its plausible nickname, enabling
politicians sometimes TO deceive the public and
! sometimes even to deceive thelnselves-may b,
dismissed with the other kindred pretensons fol
slavery, while the Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Douglass who, if not its inventor, has been 1T
boldest defender, will learn that slave-master
for whom he has done so much cannot afford Il
be generous; that their gratitude is founded OF
what they expect. and not on what they have
. received; and that having its root in desire
rather than fruition. it necessarily withers an'
, dies with the power to serve them The Sena
tor, revolving these things in his mind, may con
fess the difficulty of his position, and, perhaps
remember Mio's end,
Y Weaged in that Timber which he strove To rend.
il And here | close this branch of the argu
a men&, which l have treated less fully than tn
: first, partly because time and strength fail me
4 but chiefly because the Barbari.m of Slavery
f when fully established, supersedes all other in
8 auiry. But enough has been done on this head
e At the risk of repetition, l now gather it to
!. gether. The assumption that Slave-masters
, under the Constitution, may take their slave
G into the Territories, and continue to hold then
as in the States, stands on two pretensions--firs
t that man may hold property in man, and sec
!, ondly that this property is recognized in tn
G Constitution. But we have seen that the pre-
l. tended property i'm man stands on no reason
a while the two special arguments by which
# has been asserted, first an alledged inieriorit.
a of race, and secondly the ancient curse OF Ham
: are grossly insufficient to uphold such preten
n sion. And We have next seen that this pre-
tension has as little support in the Constitution
e AZ in reason; that Slavery is OF such an Offen
sive character, that it can find support only II
r ''postive" sanction, and words of Irresistible
n clearness;" that this benign rule, questioned Il
e the Senate, is consistent with the principles
|. of an advanced civilization; that no such "pOs
O tive" sanction, in words of Irresistible clear
}. ness" can be found in the Constitution, while
It in harmony with the Declaration of Independ
s ence, and the Address of the Continental Con
Il gress, the contempOraneous declarations in thu
If Convention, and especially the act Of the Con
o ventiOn in substituting service" for "servi
!. tude," on the ground that the latter expressed
l. "the condition Of slaves" all attest that th'
i. pretensiOn that man can hold property in maj
If was carefully, scrupuously, and completely ex
n cluded from the Constitution, so that it has NJ
If semblance of support in that sacred text; no
!. ia this pretension, which is unsupported in tn
Constitution, helped by the two arguments, on
v in the Eame of State Equality, and the other il
e the name of Popular Sovereignty, both of whic'
|. are properly put aside.
4. Sir, the true principle, which, reversing tn
E. assumptions OF Slave-masters, makes Freedom
). national and Slavery sectional, while ever
10 lust claim of the Slave States is harmonize'
=, with the irresistible performance of Freedom
c. under the Constitution, has been declared a
s. Chicago Not questioning the right OF eacl
8. State, whether South Carolina or Turkey, Viz
>; ginia or Russia, to order and control its owl
D, domestic institution according to its own judg
o ment exclusively, the Convention there assem-
It bled has explicitly announced Freedom to b.
"the normal condition of all the Territory o
Of the United States" and has explicitly den;e
t. "tLe authority of Congress, of a Territoris
N Legislature or of any individuals, to give lega
Of existence to Slavery in any Territory of tn
d United States" Such is the triumphant re
D. Spouse, by the aroused millions of the North
" alike to the assumption of Slave-masters tina
Of the Constitution, of its force carries SLAYER
i. into the Territories, and also to the device Q
a. politicians, that the people of the Territories
r. in the exercise of a dishonest Popular Sover
3. eighty, may plant Slavery there. This re
;" Spouse is complete at all points, whether th
a. Constitution acts upon the Territories beior
ID their organization, or only afterH ards; for, il
n. the absence OF Territorial Government, Their
e. can be no positive" law in words OF IRE
sistible clearness" for Slavery, as there can b
As no such law, when a Territorial Government i
n. organized, under the Constitution. Thus tn
If normal condition of the Territories is confrme
ID by the Constitution, which, when sxtende,
10 over them, renders Slavery impossible, while
er writes upon the soil and engraves upon the roc
q. everywhere the law of impartial Freedom, with
h out distinction Of color or race.