Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1860-07-06


But, N strict harmony. with thesg are Che many
stitutlon; OF Gouyernuur Morris OF Pennsylvania
who announced that ~ ir0ud acrg qpilcir ~ Up
9t,r ~ ~ l,tiid 49, . - y 49, .i,,,stf. WHO I'M
that we had nothing 70 do with the conduct ot tne
States a. 20 slavery btgs ought b e gys
any SqaciioH 10 u p ot Roger Sherman ana OuVef
Ellsworth Of Connecticut, and Mr. Gorham Of
massachusetts, who all eoncurrea with Mr. eeI-
~; and especially Of Mr.. Madison Of virginia
who in mild, iuridlcal phrase, "THOudHr u WE0Ag
TO ADMIT ~ The CONSTITUTION THE IDEA THAT ThkAE
COULD Br PROPERTY IN NAN" Aud lastly, a. II 70 70
expression TO all those uttgrRpees, the word " ser
vitudsF which had beon allowed In the clause
on the Rpportionment Of Representative, was
struck out aud the word "serVice substituted IN
stead. This final exclusion from the Constitution
of the idea Of property IN man was on tho motion q
Mr.. Randolph Of Virginia and the reason assignee
for the sub6titutioR, according 20 Mr. MHdll0n, ln
bic Authentic report Of the debate was, tnat the
former was thought to express the condition N
slaves, and the latter lhs obgafohs o res PeTs9ns
by frabk ,itt.TRSpcss Rg ip ne Convention and By
positive act IN adjusting the text OF the SgnsIH-
non was the idea Of property IN man uneQuiNoeaiH
ans pretension, which may be dismissed
as utterly baseless, becomes absurd when It
is considered 70 what result it necessarily
conducts If the Barbarlsm OF slavery, IN
its five-fold wrong, is really embodied in the
Constitution, so as to be beyond the reach OF
prohibition, either Congressional or local, in
the Territories, then, for the same reason II
must be beyond the reach Of prohibition or
abolition, even by local authority in the
states themselves, and just so long as the
Constitution continues unchanged, Territories
and States alike must be open 10 all its
blasting influences. And yet this pretension,
which in its natural consequences, Overturns
State Rights, is put forward by Senators, who
profess to be the special guardians OF State
Rights.
Idisdain to dwell on that other argument
brought forward by Senators, who, denying
the equality of man, speciously assert the
equality of the states and from this princi-
pie, true in many respects, jump to the con-
clusiOn, that slaYe-masters are entitled, in the
name of equality, 10 take their slaves into
the National Territories, under the solemn
safeguards OF the Constitution. But this ar
gument comes back to the first pretensiOn,
that slaves are recognized as property in
the Constitution. 70 that pretensiOn, al
ready amply exposed, we are always brought
nor can any sounding allegations of state
equality avoid it. And yet, this very argu-
ment betrays the Inconsistency Of its authors.
If persons held to service in the slave states
are oproperty' under the Constitution, then,
under the provision-known as the 'three-
fifths1 rule-which POUNDS representation
in the other House on such persons, there is q
property representation from the slave states,
with voice and vote, while there is no such
property TspreseHtatiOn from the free states
With glaring inequality, the representation of
slave states is founded, first on "persons,"
and secondly on large part OF their pretend
ed property; while the representation of the
free states is founded simply on lpersons,"
leaving all their boundless millions of prop
perty unrepresented. Thus, whichever way
we approach it, the absurdIty Of this preten-
sion becomes manifest Assuming the pre-
tension Of property in man under the Con-
stitution, you slap in the face the whole the
ory of state equality for you disclose a gigan-
tic inequality between the slave states and
the free states; and assuming the equality
Of states, in the House of Representatives as
elsewhere, you slap in the face the whole pre-
tension of property in man under the Con-
stitution.
disdain 10 dwell also on that other argu-
ment, which, in the name Of Popular Soyer-
eighty, under takes TO secure to the people in
the Territories the wicked power sometimes
called, by confusion Of terms, right-to en-
slave their fellow-meu; as if this pretension
was not blasted at once by the Declaration OF
independence, when it announced that ''all
governments derive their just powers from
the consent of the governed" and at if any
where within the jurisdiction of the COnsti-
tuition, which contains no sentence, phrase,
or word, sanctioning this outrage, and which
carefully excludes the idea of property in man
while it surrounds all persons with the high
est safeguards Of q citizen, such pretensions
could exist
Whatever it may be elsewhere, Popular
Sovereignty within the sphere Of the Consti-
tuition has its limitations. Claiming for all
the largest liberty of true civilization, il
compresses all within the constrsints Of Jus
ticei nor does it allow any man to assert g
right to do what he pleases, except when he
pleases to do right As well within the Ter
ritories attempt to make King as attempt to
make a slave But this pretension,
Where behold factlous band agree
10 call it freedom wheE themselys are ice
proceeding originally from vain effort tc
avoid the impending question between free
dom and dslavery-assuming delusive phrase
of freedom as a cloak Of slavery-sPeaking
with the voice Of Jacob while its hands are
the hands of Esau-may be dismissed with
the other kindred pretensions for slavery
while the Senator from Illinois, Mr.. Doug
las who has wandered so far in its support
may
81 R7sT,1s a,,d