American Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1855-1860, 1860-01-12


The word slave or the term slavery are
neither Of them used in the Constitution
The trainers Of that instrument purposely /
and studiously avoided these terms. The
only reference made to that institution is !
found in the 81 clause Of section end and |
article 4th of the constitution authorizing
the return Of "(ugitiyes from service or
labor" 10 tho States from whence they
A'd, and even this WIS opposed by some
Of the great lights Of the constitutional
convention. and was only adopted after
much debate as compromise measure
Nor is it in our judgment deducible from
that instrument by way of implication. there
being no clause Of the Conatitution relating
TO the SUI jeet ofslavery in the territories -
mona establishing or protecting it, there is
nothing rom which such an implication
can be drawn. The only circumstance
upon which this hypotheris is based {And
is the one relied upon by the president)
is that slavery existed before the adoption
of the Constitution, and that because that
instrument did not abolish it, that 1t there.
fore recognizes the right Of property 10
slaves, and furnishes VI itself law for
their protection and enjoyment True the
constitution was adopted while slavery ex
listed in IL Of the l3 States Of the coufede-
racy, and that i did not sbolish it; but the
inference drawn that therefore the Copsti
tuition recognizes property in slaves and
furnishes law for its creation and prott @.
ton. is by no means justi6abls. Let us
test the argument.
The Constitution did not interfere with
any Of the local laws or domestic institu.
tons OF any Of the States; it is silent upon
, all these subjects; and will it be said that
therefore sl the laws and all the insti.
tutions of the l3 States formed at the
adoption of the Constitution are laws cI
th,t instrume, t, and is not this argument
Just as Legitimate as the other?
Will it be said that the Constitu
> tuition by its silence recognized and made
. part of itself the laws Of Virginia, crea
Ting and protecting slavery in that State
= and that by the same silence it did not re
cognizs and make a part Of itself the law
Of Massachusetts, hbolishng that nstitu
ton? And further,lf this argum ,nt be le
gitima'e-if this theory be correct, it i
impossible that slavery, by the same pro
cess Of reasoning. should be fixed upon III
= territories. AT the time of the adoption @
the Constitution every foot Of territory be
longing to the Government was free, mad
> soby law by The ordinance Of '87, deliber
10 ate legislative aot Of the Colonial Congress
~ This law existed prior to and at the tim
: OF the potadion Of the Constitu ion. Slave
~ ry coull not exist in the territories b
y virtue of this, AMI if the principle be col
rect that the Constitution "rscognizss an
p" makes part of itself the existing laws
- the land" then is the ordinance OF 81 n
- cognized and made part Of the Constisl
=, ~ ton, and upon this therory slavery is pr,
:, hlbi'ed from gping into the territories b
~ the Constitution. But these arguments
q say the least Of them, are foolishly absur
- The G onstitution furnishes no law eth
: for the establishment or aboishment
'' slavery in the States. or Territories, b
. " leaves the people, { Congress having deleg
" ted her power perfectly free to adopt
~ abolish ii at their pleasure.
:" But still further-The 2ud clause
- Article ~ Of the Constitution provides:
" "This Constitution and the laws Of Il
ID United States made in pursuance therec
Ia shall be the supreme law of the land, al
,us the Judges in every State shall BE bou
"a. thereby, anything in tile Consultation
~ la'Os of any State TO tie contrary nOtwit
stanaiag."
:! This is a plain provision OF the Cons
- tuition and its effect is not to be mistake
"o II the Constitution furnishes law
i" slavery--if it creates and protects ii, th
~ the Constitution being the supreme Law
no. the land, it must furnish law for slave
10 '' must create and protect that nstituti
=" everywhere within its reach, wherever
~ w extends, anil as it is the Supreme law
Ohio as well as Virginia, as it extends
Massachusetts, as we'll as South Caroli
y. if it by virtue Of its inherent provisiC
' furnishes a law for slavery in Virginia
'"' in any territory over which it exten
A then il must furnish that same law in
70 State OF Ohio or Massachusetts,, and it
80 lows inevitably, and asa necessary con
''' QueDce, that the laws Of those States at
=" ishiug slavery are in violation and derogG
othe Constitution and are therefore I
non and void, and that under the Constitutio
tue slave holder has an undoubted right to t
1t his slave property into the States
no hold ani enj'y them there as such