The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus Part 225

According to the census of 1830, and the _ratio_ of representation based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as an approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves in the United States are held as property by about two hundred and fifty thousand persons--giving an average of ten slaves to each slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three-fourths of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of _property_ which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars--a sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the enhanced value resulting from a more prosperous state of the planting interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dollars. All this vast amount of property, as it is "peculiar," is also identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is animated by one spirit, moves in one ma.s.s, and is wielded with one aim; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and despotism distrustful, we see that this vast money power would be false to itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all its ingenuity and energy, to one end--self-protection and self-perpetuation. And this it has ever done.

In all the vibrations of the political scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury, Free Trade or a Tariff, this immense power has moved, and will continue to move, in one ma.s.s, for its own protection.

While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House of Representatives, "in the Senate of the Union," says John Quincy Adams, "the proportion of slaveholding power is still greater. By the influence of slavery in the States where the inst.i.tution is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the fifty-two members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of slaves, and are as effectually representatives of that interest, as the eighty-eight members elected by them to the House."

The dominant power which the Const.i.tution gives to the slave interest, as thus seen and exercised in the _Legislative Halls_ of our nation, is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department of the National government.

In the _Electoral college_, the same cause produces the same effect--the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the Halls of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before they dare name a candidate for the highest office in the gift of the people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will show herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great political parties doing homage to the slave power, by nominating each a slaveholder for the chair of State. The candidate of one party declares, "I should have opposed, and would continue to oppose, any scheme whatever of emanc.i.p.ation, either gradual or immediate;" and adds, "It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, that either of the two great parties of this country has any design or aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true."[11]

[Footnote 11: Henry Clay's speech in the United States Senate in 1839, and confirmed at Raleigh, N.C. 1844.]

The other party nominates a man who says, "I have no hesitation in declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of Texas to the territory and government of the United States."

Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a condition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the executive chair; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the existence of our const.i.tutional government, has been occupied by a slaveholder.

The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of justice.

Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, five are slaveholders and of course, must be faithless to their own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them place, or must, so far as _they_ are concerned, give both to law and const.i.tution such a construction as shall justify the language of John Quincy Adams, when he says--"The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities, are all in their hands--for the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate; every judicial decision a perversion of the human intellect to the justification of wrong."

Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the practical effect of this clause of the Const.i.tution, that I have sworn to support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation into the hands of the slaveholders; a body of men, which, however it may be regarded by the Const.i.tution as "persons," is in fact and practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common danger; counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding the whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation.

If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair of the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both.

Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her interests in Texas.

The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery.

Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the peril of their lives.

The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor on Congress, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to pray that she would let her poor victims go.

I renounce my allegiance to a Const.i.tution that enthrones such a power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of robbing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own protection, support and perpetuation.

Pa.s.sing by that clause of the Const.i.tution, which restricted Congress for twenty years, from pa.s.sing any law against the African slave trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which guarantees protection against "_domestic violence_," and which pledges to the South the military force of the country, to protect the masters against their insurgent slaves: binds us, and our children, to shoot down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in emulation of our revolutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable "right to life, _liberty_ and the pursuit of happiness,"--this clause of the Const.i.tution, I say distinctly, I never will support.

That part of the Const.i.tution which provides for the surrender of fugitive slaves, I never have supported and never will. I will join in no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut it against him, may G.o.d shut the door of her mercy against me! Under this clause of the Const.i.tution, and designed to carry it into effect, slavery has demanded that laws should be pa.s.sed, and of such a character, as have left the free citizen of the North without protection for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized in a free State as a slave, _is_ a slave or not, the law of Congress does not allow a jury to determine: but refers it to the decision of a Judge of a United State' Court, or even of the humblest State magistrate, it may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party most deeply interested to support the claim. By virtue of this law, freemen have been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery--and should I be seized by a slave-hunter in any part of the country where I am not personally known, neither the Const.i.tution nor laws of the United States would s.h.i.+eld me from the same destiny.

These, sir, are the specific parts of the Const.i.tution of the united States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once to the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the princ.i.p.al reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my allegiance to it, and of my determination to revoke my oath to support it. I cannot, in order to keep the law of man, break the law of G.o.d, or solemnly call him to witness my promise that I will break it.

It is true that the Const.i.tution provides for its own amendment, and that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be expunged.

But it will be time enough to swear to support it when this is done.

It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments are made.

It is also true that the framers of the Const.i.tution did studiously keep the words "Slave" and "Slavery" from its face. But to do our const.i.tutional fathers justice, while they forebore--from very shame--to give the word "Slavery" a place in the Const.i.tution, they did not forbear--again to do them justice--to give place in it to the _thing_. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the substance of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, though they sacrificed justice in doing so.

There is abundant evidence that this clause touching "persons held to service or labor," not only operates practically, under the judicial construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but that it was _intended_ so to operate by the framers of the Const.i.tution. The highest judicial authorities--Chief Justice Shaw, of the Supreme Court of Ma.s.sachusetts, in the Latimer case, and Mr. Justice Story, in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of _Prigg vs. The State of Pennsylvania_,--tell us, I know not on what evidence, that without this "compromise," this security for Southern slaveholders, "the Union could not have been formed." And there is still higher evidence, not only that the framers of the Const.i.tution meant by this clause to protect slavery, but that they did this, knowing that slavery was wrong. Mr. Madison[12] informs us that the clause in question, as it came out of the hands of Dr. Johnson, the chairman of the "committee on style," read thus: "No person legally held to service, or labor, in one State, escaping into another, shall," &c., and the word "legally" was struck out, and the words "under the laws thereof" inserted after the word "State," in compliance with the wish of some, who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal "_in a moral view_." A conclusive proof that, although future generations might apply that clause to other kinds of "service or labor," when slavery should have died out, or been killed off by the young spirit of liberty, which was _then_ awake and at work in the land; still, slavery was what they were wrapping up in "equivocal" words: and wrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof that the framers of the Const.i.tution were more careful to protect themselves in the judgement of coming generations, from the charge of ignorance, than of sin; a conclusive proof that they knew that slavery was not "legal in a moral view,"

that it was a violation of the moral law of G.o.d; and yet knowing and confessing its immorality, they dared to make this stipulation for its support and defence.

[Footnote 12: Madison Papers, p. 1589.]

This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it a part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the patriots of the revolution did, was right; and who hold that we are bound to _do_ all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we _should_ do. But the claims of truth and right are paramount to all other claims.

With all our veneration for our const.i.tutional fathers, we must admit,--for they have left on record their own confession of it,--that in this part of their work they _intended_ to hold the s.h.i.+eld of their protection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong.

They made a "compromise" which they had no right to make--a compromise of moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as "political expediency." I am sure they did not know--no man could know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of the wrong that they were doing. In the strong language of John Quincy Adams,[13]

in relation to the article fixing the basis of representation, "Little did the members of the Convention, from the free States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden under the mask of this concession."

[Footnote 13: See his Report on the Ma.s.sachusetts Resolutions.]

I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits conferred upon this nation by the Const.i.tution, its national unity, its swelling ma.s.ses of wealth, its power, and the external prosperity of its multiplying millions; yet the _moral_ injury that has been done, by the countenance shown to slavery by holding over that tremendous sin the s.h.i.+eld of the Const.i.tution, and thus breaking down in the eyes of the nation the barrier between right and wrong; by so tenderly cheris.h.i.+ng slavery as, in less than the life of man, to multiply her children from half a million to nearly three millions; by exacting oaths from those who occupy prominent stations in society, that they will violate at once the rights of man and the law of G.o.d; by subst.i.tuting itself as a rule of right, in place of the moral laws of the universe;--thus in effect, dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this people and setting up another sovereign in his stead--more than outweighs it all. A melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all time-serving and temporising statesmen! A striking ill.u.s.tration of the _impolicy_ of sacrificing _right_ to any considerations of expediency! Yet, what better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors of the Const.i.tution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of right, in the concessions they made to slavery? Was it reasonable in them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element into the very Const.i.tution of the body politic which they were calling into life, it would not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much virtue to _use_ for the defence of slavery, a power which they themselves had not too much virtue to _give_? It is dangerous for the sovereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the s.h.i.+eld of its protection over any thing that is not "legal in a moral view." Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down upon your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room it may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and bask in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, are brought completely under her control.

To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the Const.i.tution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now so pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government, that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can see for the disease, is to be found in the _dissolution of the patient_.

The Const.i.tution of the United States, both in theory and practice, is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for evil, that I can give no voluntary a.s.sistance in holding it up any longer.

Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession of allegiance to it, and all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law, and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, I will be a part to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his.

Very respectfully, your friend,

FRANCIS JACKSON.

FROM

MR. WEBSTER'S SPEECH

AT NIBLO'S GARDENS.

"We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Const.i.tution found it among us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. To the full extent of these guaranties we are all bound, in honor, in justice, and by the Const.i.tution. All the stipulations, contained in the Const.i.tution, _in favor of the slaveholding States_ which are already in the Union, ought to be fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of their letter."!!!

EXTRACTS FROM

JOHN Q. ADAMS'S ADDRESS

AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844.

The benefits of the Const.i.tution of the United States, were the restoration of credit and reputation, to the country--the revival of commerce, navigation, and s.h.i.+p-building--the acquisition of the means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the country.

All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption of the Const.i.tution. What they specially wanted was _protection_.--Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within their borders, and who were harra.s.sing them with the most terrible of wars--and protection from their own negroes--protection from their insurrections--protection from their escape--protection even to the trade by which they were brought into the country--protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied--the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their a.s.sent to the Const.i.tution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves--an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of G.o.d, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction fatal to the principles of popular representation, of a representation for slaves--for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons.

The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to the dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave is most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instrument. A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read the Const.i.tution of the United States, would not believe that slavery or a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not word in the Const.i.tution _apparently_ bearing up on the condition of slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of practical execution if there were not a slave in the land.

The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avowed that, without this guarantee of protection to their property in slaves, they would not yield their a.s.sent to the Const.i.tution; and the freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union itself, averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the bond.

Twenty years pa.s.sed away--the slave markets of the South were saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of the 31st December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered ever more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic was still lawful, and the _breeding_ States soon reconciled themselves to a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and s.h.i.+elded and enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively to themselves.

Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North; but their intense anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit already formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the internal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that with Africa had been allowed. But of one consequence which has followed from the slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure of the Const.i.tution, they certainly were not prescient; for if they had been, never--no, never would they have consented to it.