Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1862-02-05
The Constitution Does Not Guarantee Slavery.

that the constitution guarantees slavery,
and that to abolish it would be unconstitu-
tional, either in peace or war, has lea me
to examine that instrument especially in
reference to this point, and my conclusion
is that it does no such thing.
How such an idea could gain such gen
eral credence is unaccountable, unless upon
the principle involved in the following an
ecote: A revolutionary soldier. who
fought at White Plains, N. Y, was in the
habit in after years, of telling Of his great
feats in that battle. On one occasion his
sister, hearing him repeat it, said, "Why,
Elisha, I'm ashamed of you: | heard you
tell that lie twenty-five years ago, and |
was in hopes you had quit il in your old
age" His reply was, "Well, well, Sarah,
know it was lie when first told it, but
/ have repeated it so often that | don't
know now whether it true or not" So it
seams TO be with the slaveocrats and their
abettors. The claim in question was first
raised from motives of interest which often
blinds men as to the truth, knowing it was
false, but for their interest, and they have
repeated it till they seem to believe it,
though it IS as false now as when first ut
tered
The word slave, or slavery, is not once
used in the constitution, and there are but
three places in it where words are used
which are construed to mean slaves. The
first Of these is in article /, section 2,
So, which says, " Representatives and
direct taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States i which shall be
determined by adding to the whole number
of free persons, including those bound to
service for term of years, and excluding
Indians not taxed, three-ffths of all other
persons" Those "other persons are nei-
Their free persons-whether white, black or
mixed, nor apprentices "bound to service
for term of years. nor civilized Indians
who are taxed like white men: they must
therefore be slaves. Bat they are persons
and not property, for these appointments
are not to be made. according to property,
but persons or population. There is in
this no guaranty of slavery. 1t only
guarantees to the States representation
in Congress, and binds tho States to pay
direct taxes according TO their population.
Al the States, then, had more or less
slaves in them, and in taking the census of
each, five slaves counted three persons in
The enumeration. But seven of the origi-
nal States have abolished the system with
in their limits, and Of course no such "per-
sons are found in them. But this does
not effect ia the least their State rights,
which if guaranteed it would.
The second place is in article /, section
9, 81, which says, "The migration or i'm
portation of such persons as any Of the
States now existing snail think proper to
admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress
prior to the year 1908" the Importation
audes to the African slave trade, and the
migration refers to removing from one
State to another for a permanent residence.
No one questions the power of Cong ess
to prohibit the African slave trade after
1908; and why should they question the
power to prohibit the migration of slaves
from one State to another? The two
classes are blended in the same sentence
and have the same restriction, and there
fore must be alike subject to the same pow
er Of prohibition. The migration of slaves
from one State to another is an incident of
the system; but. if Congress could prohib
Il any one essential incident of the system,
it could prohibit the whole Of it; and that
Congress has this power under the consti-
tuition is indisputable in truth. 1t follows,
then. that the constitution does not guar
antee it, but on the contrary clearly and
unequivocaly invests Congress with the
power to abolish ii as well as to prohibit
the foreign slave trade.
1t would be perfect nonsense for the
constitution to restrict congress in this mat
ter, if it did not per Sc empower that body
to control it; and when, in 1908, the re-
stIiction ceased, that power was left in Con
gress in its full force. So far, then, from
guaranteeing slavery, the constitution most
unequivocally provides for the prohibition
of the foreign and domestic slave trade,
which being incidents essential to the ex-
istence of the system, is equivalent to pow
er to abolish it altogether
But this article OF Tue CONSTITUTION uoeS
another thing equally fatal to the system.
It confined thu system. while it did exist
and while it was dying, as it was evident
the trainers of it intended it should, to the
States then existing. The language IS
clear and unequiyocal: "As any of the
States now existing shall think proper to
admit" &c. This confines the liberation,
the guaranteeing of the evil to the states
then existing, and of course admitting
new State without this tolerated privilege
was without constitutional authority, and
was against the clear meaning and intent
Of that instrument, and the error should
be corrected.
There is another power vested IN Con-
gress to prohibit the domestic slave trade,
which is equivalent to abolishing it; it lies
ia the power to regulate commerce. II
slaves are property, as their laws make
them, and are brought into market as
such, Congress can, in regulating com
nerce, prohibit their sale or mgr 'tion
from one State to another for that pur-
pose, Just as well as any other property
That Is deemed improper unhealthy, or a