Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1861-02-08

{ a
tanned by State laws and usdges, that canno
exist beyond the limits of the State bv virtu
of whose laws it is established and sustained
The Democratic party holds that Africa
slavery is a national institution, recognize
and sustained by the Constitution of tn
/ United States throughout our entire territori
al limits, where not prohibited by State con
stitutions and State laws.
! Every man who holds that slavery is d loca
! Institution, dependent upon local State laws
/ is Republican and if he is not acting witt
the Republican party he-is away from hom
and ought to return as soon as possible.
And every man who holds that slavery
nationai aud is recognized and sustained b
the Coz .zutson OF the United States, wher
ever it Is not prohibited by local State laws
1 is pro-slavery Democrat and if he is no
now in that party, he is away from home, ant
ought TO get there as soon as possible.
All ether questions about which we diife
grow ont Of this, and are dependent upon it.
Thus it is claimed by one party that slave:
may be taken into the Territories, because
slavery is national, and may go evcrywher,
not prohibited 10y local law. But by the OH
er party it is claimed that slaves cannot be
taken into the Territories and held there, be
cause slavery is local, aud cannot exist beyont
the limits of the State by virtue of whost
laws it is established and maintained.
So it is claimed by one party that, slave;
being reoog nizeG by the Constitution as prop
erty, the owner has right to take them witt
him when be goes into free State for tempo
rary purposes, just as he may take his trunk
or his carpet-Aack
The other party, denying that slaves are re
cognized as property by the Constitution
claims that whenever a slaveSgoes into a free
State with the consent of his owner, he is
thereby emancipated.
Gentlemen will see, therefore, that this ques
tion Of the nationality of slavery underlies al
our controversies, and therefore must be me-
and disposed of. To this question, therefore
propose mainly to address myself during the
hour allotted to me under our rules.
There are three clauses of the Constitution
which as 1 understand it are relied upon tC
sustain the nationality of slavery:
l. The clause providing for the recapture
of flgitiyes from service.
2. The clause fixing the basis cl represen
tatiou.
3. The clause authorizing the prohibition
of the slave trade after the year 1908.
There is one general remark applicable tC
all these clauses as well as to all other parts O
the Constitution and that is, that the term
& slave " is carefully excluded, and they are
everywhere called " persons"
I}y the common law which prevailed in all
IL ,,-,I
understood legal term, used in contradstnc
ton to tie term property" or things. :
\ "persbn could not be property" by
the COMMON law. The framers Of the Consti-
tuition, therefore, supposed they had excu dee
the idea that persons or slaves could be recOg
nized as Property by the Constitution. This
is more clearly demonstrated by the proceed
inos of the convention which framed the Con
stitution, as reported by the Madison papers
The first proposition to provide for the recap
ture of fugitive slaves was proposed by MIR
Butler and Mr.. Piuckney, Of South Carolina
whereupon the following proceedings tool
place:
- Mr.. Butler and Mr., Pinckney moved to re
quirc fugitive slaves and servants to be deliver
cd up like criminals.
=. Mr. Wilson This would obIige the exec
utive of the State to do it at the public eX
pensc
- Mr.. Sherman saw no more propriety in th'
public scizing and surrendering Il slave than
horse.
-. Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition. in or
der that particular provision might b
made, apart from this article. . Elliot's De
bates, 487.
This was upon tie 28th Of August Or
the next day august 29) Mr.. Butler renew
ed the proposition in this form
. If any person bound to service or labor il
any of the United States shall escape into an
other State, he or she shall not be discharged
/ from such service or labor in consequence g
any regulation subsisting in the State to whicl
/ they escape, but shall be delivered up to TIN
/ person justly claiming their service or labor.
/ (Which was agreed to mem con. ''--5 Elliott
| De5qtes, 492.
! 1t seems however, that the convention, upOI
| further reflection, were not satisfied with Tn
phraseology of this provision lest it might b
! construed to give an implied sanction to slave
( ry. And thcreupOn, on the 18th Of Septem
/ Der, the following proceedings were had :
! {" Article four section two the third para
! graph.) being under consideration, the teru
! legally was struck out, and the words un
] der the laws thereof inserted after the wore
/ State, in compliance with the wish of SOM
! who thought the term legal equivOcal, anC
favoring the idea that slavery was legal in
moral view .''--5 Elliott Debaes. $50.
These xtracts contain all that was said o.
done in the convention in relation to the re
capture of fugitive slaves and it will be seer
how carefully the convention excluded ever!
word or phrase that could be construed into 1
/ recognition of the idea that they intended that
the Constitution should recognize propcrt,
/ in slaves.
! In the first place Mr.. Butler was compelled
to abandon the idea of using the term slaves
and fall back upon description of the per
/ sons to be recaptured. Next, when he pro
/ posed the reeapture of persons escaping from
any State, he was compelled to permit the i'll
/ terpoation of the words "under the laws
/ thereof" lest it might be claimed that it ap
piled to persons held uuder the Constitution
of the United States. Next, having used the
/ word legally or justly" as descriptive o
/ the character of the obligation which the fu
! gitve owed to the claimant, he was compelled
to have that stricken out, lest it might bt
claimed that the Constitution recognizeC
the legality or justice of slavery. The Ian
/ gnage of the clause will bear no other con
struction. persons slares-escaplne
from serUiee, not from their owners, not from
!heir masters. " Persons held to service un
der what? D.? under the Constitution? No
but "under the laws thereof; pointing on
aud specifying the particular local law unde
which they are held, " shall not by reason o
any law or regulation in the State to whicl
they may have fled be discharged from sucl
service or labor" Why was it apprehende'
that their escape into a free State would dis
charge them from such service or labor? -
Clearly because the laws of no State can hav
any validity beyond its territorial limits ant
therefore, when he escaped from State il