Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1860-08-16
The Great Question.


that slaves are property, and then that
property is property. and then that the
Constitution of the United States protects
all property, and hence slave property can
go into the territories. Why not say.
also. into the free States? Now the sim
pie undeniable truth about the matter is
Just this. The Constitution Of the Unit ed
States does not itself. nor for itself, rccog
nice property in slaves, but it does recog-
nice the fact that some States recognize
this species of property, and it protects
those States in the enjoyment of that prop
erty. and limits such enjoyment to such
States. At the same time it recognizes
the fact that other States deny the exis-
tence of such properly, and it equally pro-
tects them in the use Of that prohibition
and limits it also to the boundaries Of such
States.
The term slavery is not in the Consti-
tuition. But there are lst three places
where slaves are meant. First, in Art ],
Sec. ., Adding to the whole number of
free persons three tifths of all others, &C.,
this means three ffths of all the slaves
Secondly. in Sec. 3 Of the same article we
read, 1.-The migration or importation Of
such persons as any of the States now ex-
listing shall think proper to admit, shall
not he prohibited prior to 1905" These
persons of course mean slaves. and the ref
erencc is to the slave trade. Thirdly, Art
4. Sec. 2, mo person held to service or
labor in one State. under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in conse-
quencc Of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor.
but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may
be due" This refers to the giving up Of
fugitive slaves, and the illusion is made to
laws and regulations of free States against
slavery.
1t is perfectly obvious upon the very
face of this language that the Constitution
itself does not recognize property in slaves
What the institution calls "slave" it
calls person" Now the term "person"
is the proper. common and respectable IT,
tic of frcemen. 1t is no disrespect to call
a company of intelligent gentlemen "per-
sons" The Constitution speaks of "'free
persons" and of "au other persons" and
Of slaves only as persons held to service"
in particular States. Now the presump-
tion Of common law, and the presumption
of the Constitution. is that persons are
free, and in the United States all persons
are free except those who "owe service in
one State under the laws thereof"
So far is the Constitution itself from
holding to property in man. that it pro-
tects more than half the States of the Union
in claws and regulations-against slave
ry, limiting these laws to the citizens of
these States. while at the same time il pro-
tects other States in maintaining laws to
sustain slavery. Of course then the Con-
stitution is not the direct law for slavery
AS we'll say. because it protects some
States in maintaining laws prohibiting
slavery, that therefore it is designed to
prohibit slavery. The office of the Con /.
stitution is to sacre,lly guard the several
States, each in the enjoyment of the insti-
tntions of its choice. And as sacredly
does it limit the regulations of each State.
be they against slavery or for it, to that
State. And each State under the Consti-
tuition is bound to respect its sister State
II slave escape to free State and his
master come and claim him. he shall not
have the benefit of free State laws. But
the master must respect the laws of the
free State and take his slave to his own
State. This is precisely the relation which
the Constitution Of the United States sus-
tains to slavery. Its great office in that
respect is to protect the States in keeping
it or in. n.prohibiting it.
Now can this institution be carried into
territory under the Constitution? One
thing is certain. There is not in the Con.
stitution the slightest allusion to any ouch
thing as slavery in territory. When the
slave trade existed it was to be carried on
by States not by territory. but only to
States. to import slaves.
In Art. 4, Sec. 2, on returning fugi-
tives. it is only those that "owe service
under the laws OF a State" not Territory,
that shall be delivered up. The "three
fifths of all other persons" to be enumera-
ted for basis of direct taxation and rep
resentation is only in 1.-THE several States"
not in the Territories. There is no fugi-
tive slave clause in the Constitution for
Territories. But the Territories are under
the sole government OF the United States.
All legislation Of the General Government
must be according to the Constitution of
the United States, not of slave States or of
free States. Now the service Of the Con-
stitution in behalf of slavery begin and
end in protecting States in having slavery.
If it would be unjust to the slave States to
refuse to protect it there, SO it would be
unjust in the free States to grant that pro-
lection. In Territories it can do neither,
because there is no State government there
1t is clear. then, il the Office of the Consti-
tutian be to protect States, some in shut
ting slavery out and others in maintining
it, that it cannot legislate it, or permit
Congress to legislate il. into Territory.
1t is controverted kind of property
More than half the States Of the Union de-
ny the justness or the propriety of it: the
other portion uphold it. Congress sacred
ly protects the two classes of States in the
enjoyment within their own borders of their
respective views.
Other property is not subject to this
denial; horses. cattle, &C., are property
everywhere. The presumption is that hu-
man beings are not property. The great
mass of the people In this country are not