Wabash express. [volume] (Terre-Haute, Vigo Co[unty], Ind.) 1841-186?, 1860-04-04
TERRE-HAUTE. INDIANA. APRIL A. 1860,

the Federal Government TO control as tS
slavery in the Federal Territory.
The remaining sixteen Of the thirty
nine, 80 far as j have discovered, have Ief
no record Of their understanding upon the
direct question Of Federal control ofslayery
in the Federal territories But there Is
much reason 10 believe that their under
standing upon that question would moi
have appeared different from that OF theil
twenty-threc compeers, had it been mani
tested at all For tie purpose OF adherng
rieidly to the text. have purposely omit
ted whatever understanding may have been
manifested, by any person, however dis.
tinguished. other than the thirty nine IA
theirs who framed the original Con stitution
and, FOR the same reason, have also omit
ted whatever Misunderstanding may have
been manifested by any Of the "thirty nine
even. on any other phase Of the eenersl
question Of slavery. Ii we should look into
their acts and declarations on those other
phases. as the foreign slave trade, aud the
morality snd policy Of slavery generally.
IL would appear To us that on the direct
question OF Federal control Of slavery 10
Federal Territories. the sixteen, IL they
bad acted at ALL would probably have
acted Just as the twenty three did Among
that sixteen were several of the most noted
anti slavery men of those times-as DR.
Frank lin, Alexander Hamilton, aud Gov
ernOr Morris-while there was not one not
known Ia be otherwise; unless IL may be
John Rutledge OF South Carolina. The
sum OF the whole is, that of our Thirty.
nine fathers who framed the original Con
stituii0u, twenty .0ue-a clear majority of
the whOle--certaiuly understood that no
proper division of LEGAL from Federal au-
thorIty. nor any part OF the Constitution,
forbade ths Federal Government 10 con
troll slavery in the Federal Territories
while all the rest probably had the same
understanding. Such, unquesllonably,
was the understanding of our fathers who
framed the original Constitution; and the
text affirms that they understood the
question better than we
ADDITIONAL Poor.
But, so far. | have been considering the
understanding of the question manifested
by the trainers Of the original Constitution
In, and by the original instrument. o mode
was provided for amending il; and. as
have already stated, the present frame Of
Government under which Wa live consists
of that original. aud twelve amendaiory ar
ticles formed aud adopted since. Those
who now insist that Federal control OF sla-
very in Federal Territories violates the
Constitution, point US TO the provisions
which they suppose 1t thus violates; and
as understand, they all fix upon proyi-
sions in these amendatory articles, aud not
in the original instrument. The Supreme
Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant them
selves upon the fifth amendment, which
provides that "no person shall be depri
we'd Of property without due process of
law;" while Senator Douglas and his pc
culiar adherents plant themselves upon the
tenth amendment, providing that "the
powers not granted by the Constitution.
are reserved to the States respectively, and
to the people," Now, it so happens that
these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution
1.-The identical Congress which passed the
act already mentioned, enforcing the pro
hibition of Slavery in the North Western
Territory. Not only was IL the same Con.
gress, but they were the identical, same in.
dividual men who, at the same session,
and at the same time within the session,
had under consideration, and in progress
toward maturity, these Constitutional
amendments aud this act prohibiting Sla-
very in all the Territory the nation then
owned. The Constitutional amendments
were introduced before and passed after
the act enforcing the Ordinance of 81; so
that during the whole pendency of the act
TO enforce the Ordinance, the Constitution
al amendments were also pending. That
Congress, consisting in all of seventy six
members, including sixteen OF the trainers
e Al. Il I.f
ted, were pre- emInently our fathers who
framed that part of the Government under
which we live, which is now claimed as
forbidding the Federal Government to con-
troll Slavery in the Federal Territories. Is
it not little presumptuous in any one at
this day TO affirm that the two things which
that Congress deliberately framed, and car
rled to maturity at the same time, are ab
solutely inconsistent with each other p
Aud does not such affirmation become i'm
pudently absurd when coupled with the
other affirmation, from the same mouth
that those who did the two things alleged
to be inconsistent understood whether they
really were inconsistent, better than we
better than he who affirms that they are in.
c0Dsistent1
MORE PROOF STILL
Itis surely safe TO assume that the " thir-
ty.nine9 trainers oftho original COnstitu-
tiou and the seventy six members of the
Congress which framed the amendments
thereto, taken together, Go certainly in
clude those who may be fairly called "our
fathers who framed the Government under
which we live" And so assuming, I de-
~ any man to show that any one Of them
ever in his whole life declared that, in his
understanding, any proper division of 10
( cal from Federal authority, or any part OI
the Constitution, forbade the Federal Gov.
ernment TO control as TO Slavery in the Fed
eral Territories. go step further.
(. defy any one to show that any living mar
! in the world ever did, prior 10 the beginning
Of the present century. (and | might al
most say prior to the beginning of the las
half of the present century,) declare that
in his understanding, any proper division
of local from Federal authority, or any par
of the Constitution, forbade the Fedora
Government to controal as to Slavery il
the Federal Territories. To those who nov
so declare, ] give, not only "our father
who framed the Government under which
we live" but with them all other livinl
men within the century in which it wa
framed, among whom TO search, and the,
shall not be able TO hnd the evidence OF
single man agreeing with them.
how PAR rHE WlsDoN Of rHE FATHERS sHouL
CONTROL Us.
Now, aud here, let me guard littl
against being misunderstood | do DO
mean to say we are bound TO follow implic
itly in whatever our fathers did To do s.
would be to discard all the lights Of cur
rent experience-to reject all progress-sl
improvement. What do say is, that If W
} would supplaDt tbs opinions and polio,
Of our fathers in any case, we should do 81
upon evidence so conclusive, aud afgumen
so clear, that even their great authority
fairly considered and weighed, cSnnC
stand; and most surely not in a case where
of We ourselves declare they understoo
J the question better than we. If any mar
at this day, sincerely belives that prope
, division of local from Federal authority
or any part Of the Constitution, forbids tn
2 Federal Governmedt to control as to SlS
f, very in the Federal Government, he is rigl
! to say so, aud enforce his position by a
; truthful evidence and fair argument whic
e he can. But he has no right to mislea
0 others, who have less access to history an
less leisure to study it, into the false bt
: lief that ''our fathers, who framed the Coz
. a,uroarf uDdar which We live - were of III