The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1860-06-13

to vote against measure which be deems
unconstitutional, if, at the same time, he
deems it expedient. 1t, therefore, would
be unsafe to set down even the two who
voted against the prohibition, as having
done so because, in their understanding, any
proper division of local from federal auth.
ority, or anything in the Constitution, for
bade the Federal Government to control as
to slavery in the federal territory.
The remaining sixteen Of the thirty
nine," SO far as | have discovered, have
left no record Of their understanding upon
the direct question of Federal control Of
slavery in the Federal territories. But
there is much reason to believe that their
understanding upon that question would
not have appeared different from that Of
their twenty-three compeers, had it been
manifested at ALL
For the purpose Of adhering rigidly to
the text. | have purposely omitted what
ever understanding may have been mani
tested, by any person, however distinguished,
other than the thirty-nine fathers who
framed the original Constitution and. for
the same reason, have also omitted what
ever understanding may have been mani
tested by any of the " thirty-nine even,
on any other phase Of the general question
of Slavery. If We should look into their
acts and declarations on those other phases,
as the foreign slave trade, and the morali.
ty and policy of Slavery in Federal terrific
ries, the sixteen if they had acted at all,
would probably have acted as the twenty.
three did. Among the sixteen were seve.
raj of the most noted anti-slavery men Of
those times, as Dr. Franklin, Alexander
Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris, while
there was not one now known to have been
otherwise. unless it may be John Rutledge
Of South Carolina.
The sum Of the whole is that Of oul
thirty nine " fathers who framed the orig
inal Constitution-a clear majority of the
whole-certainly understood that no prop
er division of local from Federal authority
nor any part of the Constitution, forbade
Federal Government to control Slavery iI
the Federal territories while all the resi-
probably had the same understanding
Such, unquestionably, was the understand
ing of our fathers who framed the originaI
Constitution and the text affirms that they
understood the question better than we.
But, 80 far, l have been considering the
understanding of the question manifested
by the trainers of the original Constitution
In and by the original instrument. mode
was provided for amending it; and, as
have already stated, the present frame o
Government under which We live consist.
of that original, and twelve amendatory ar
ticles framed and adopted since. Thos'
who now insist that Federal control of Slave
ry in Federal territories violates the Con
stitution, point us to the provisions which
they suppose it thus violates and as un
derstand, they all fix upon provisions il
these amendatory articles. and not in tn
original instrument The Supreme Court
in the Dred Scott case. plant themselve
upon the fifth amendment, which provide
that no person shall be deprived of prop
erty without due process of law; Will
Senator Douglas and bis peculiar adher
en:s plant themselves upon the tenth amend
ment, providing that " the powers not gran
ted by the Constitution, are reserved to tn
States respectively, and to the people"
Now, it so happens that these amend
ments were framed by the first Congress
which sat under the Constitution-the iden
tical Congress which passed the act alread
mentioned, enforcing the prohibition c
slavery in the Northwestern territory
Not only was it the same Congress. bu
they were the identical, same individua
men who, at the same session. and at tn
same time within the session, had unde
consideration, and in progress towards ms
turity, these Constitutional amendment
and this act prohibiting slavery in all th
territory the nation then owned. The Cor
stitutional amendments were introduced b.
fore, and passed after the act enforcing th
Ordinance of 81 so that during the whol
tendency of the act to enforce the Ord
nance the Constitutional amendments wei
also pending.
The Congress, consisting in all Of sever
ty.six members, including sixteen of tt
, trainers of the original Constitution, as b
fore stated. were pre-eminently our fathe
who framed the Government under whic
We live, which is now claimed as forbi
ding the Federal Government to contr
slavery in the federal territories.
Is it not little presumptuous in ar
one at this day to affirm that the two thin,
, which that Congress deliberately frame
and carried to maturity at the same tim
, are absolutely inconsistent with each Other
And does not such affirmation, from Il
same mouth, that they who did the tv
t things alleged to be inconsistent understo'
e whether they really were inconsistent b
0 ter than we-better than be who affirr
1 that they are inconsistent
1t is surely safe to assume that the g th
}. ty-nine trainers of the original Constit
r ton, and the seventy-six members of t
q Congress which framed the amendmer
;. thereto, taken together, do certainly inclu
n those who may be fairly called "our fathe
d who framed the Government under viii
= We live" And so assuming. defy a
|. man to show that any one of them ever,
J. his whole life. declared that, in bis und
n standing, any proper division Of local frc
1t Federal authority, or any part of the C(
r. stitution, forbade the Federal Governmt
!, to control as to Slavery in the Fede
:: territories l go step further. l d.