« PreviousContinue »
from sharing it. "Ourselves" were the enslaving preamblers.' But "posterity" is a little too general. They should have added legitimate by way of limitation, if legitimacy can be predicated of that brothel, a slaveholding community. White posterity-not comprehensive enough, for many a whiter than some of the preamblers, pines in bondage. Who are "posterity?" Go to the gloomy gang that drag the heavy foot to the toils of the plantation. "Posterity" linger there rank and file. Go to your federal city and there see the posterity of these constitution-mongers gracing the cofle, (that word of sweet import to republican ears,) as it parades the avenues of the capital, to the tune of Hail Columbia, marching to a more summary servitude at the prosperous and fertile south-west. Let that word "coffle" sound in the ear of the northern freeman. Let it ring upon the soul of the Church of this republic. Those for whom the Lord died are chained in that hideous phalanx. His professed, perhaps his own real disciples are fettered there. There are the posterity of the framers of the Constitution-of this same "ourselves," and these are the blessings of liberty secured to them by the Constitution if it sanctions slavery.
But to the compact proper, section and article. The second section speaks of the whole number of free persons, and of "three fifths of all other persons,"-other than free must be slaves, and thus the Constitution recognizes slavery. There was slavery at the time, and the valiant formers of the compact do allude to it in regulating taxation and representation. They speak of it as an existence, but do not provide it or enact it. So they speak, in section 8th, of "piracies and felonies on the high seas," but not by way of institution or guaranty-though they might have done both with comparative consistency and innocency. Section 8th provides that Congress may call out the militia "to suppress insurrection." Insurrection is a forcible resistance to the laws of the land. Against what law does any man rise in vin. dication of his just rights? A rising against oppression is justifiable self-defence, and is no "insurrection." An universal bursting of the fetters of slavery from Washington to the hopeful regions of Texas, were no insurrection. If there be any insurrection connected with slavery, it is the rising
* Our correspondent here speaks as a sound lawyer, not as an abolitionist.-ED,
of the slaveholders against humanity, the law of the land and Almighty God. But this is fanaticism. Section 9th is pro-slavery. It protects from Congress a commerce known, and hunted on the highway of nations, by name of the slave trade. It is styled "migration or importation of such persons," &c.-good republican words and fitly spoken. Reader, art thou acquainted with that sort of migration? It is peculiar, like the "institutions" in this country which sustain it. There is an account of it by one Thomas Clarkson, detailing it from the seizure of the "emigrant" through that branch of it styled "middle passage," and on to his delivery over to final Christian bondage. Our puritan pilgrim fathers called it "migration." The shark attends it over the deep-fit attendant he-cruelest of sea monsters, and of mariners most abhorred. He instinctively scents out and waits on the emigrant ship. The peculiarities of the emigration strongly induce him to become party to the voyage. Shadow does not follow substance more industriously and faithfully than this sea-cannibal the importer ship. Happy the emigrant-thrice happy and favored of Providence who falls to the lot of this submarine partner in trade. But this protecting clause was limited to 1808, and has expired. Indeed Congress has since that styled the emigration by a different title, and has given it a different legal effect-prohibiting it, in favor, doubtless, (for it is a protective Congress) of the home market-a kind of "American System" to promote the domestic manufacture of slaves.
Sec. 2d, Art. IV. arrests the fugitive slave and remands him to his prison-house. What says it? "No person held to service or labor in any state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another," &c. Any person lawfully held to service, ought to be arrested, if he escape. There is no pro-slavery in this, we deny that slave service or labor is lawful, even in Carolina. First, we dare question, if the nullifying little state can show a statute on her books, that provides for the enslavement of any human beings. She may have statutes regulating the condition of the enslaved in fact, and against law. But their enslavement is not by law, even in Carolina-or if she has enacted such a statute, it is contrary to her own Constitution, which is republican and so void and no law. Or if not against hers, against
our Constitution, and is no law. Our Constitution, Art. V. of the amendments, expressly declares against the taking of any man's life, liberty or property, but by legal process. But of that anon. Slave service is unlawful any where this side the infernal regions. There it is lawful. There it is constitutional and according to first principles,-but no where short of there. By Sec. 2d, Art. IV. a man flying from slavery, can no more be arrested than if he were escaping a pirate or a boa constrictor. Let "persons" that are fugitive from labor that they owe, be stopped and remanded, and it is liberty and not slavery. "The United States shall guaranty to every state a republican form of government." What is this but a government by a majority of the people? The majority in South Carolina are violently and forcibly enslaved by the minority. Is this republican government according to the Constitution? "The citizens of each state;" but stay-we forgot the Black Act of Connecticut, which decrees that a citizen must be white, or he is no citizen. So at least Justice Daggett decides, a second Daniel come to judgment.
Article V. of the amendments. As we cannot amend this, we here after a remark or two close our excursion, bidding, as we do so, slavery and its apologists, welcome to all the consolations of the Constitution. The people finding in their state and sectional controversies they had overlooked individual and personal rights, adopt amendments to the Constitution. First, they guard against abridgment of the freedom of speech and of the press, and the right peaceably to assemble, and the right of petition. Now whether this be directly anti-slavery or not, we aver that the exercise of these rights, will abolish slavery and that the toleration of slavery, will, and has well nigh abolished these. Mobs in the service of slavery, have violated the rights that the Constitution protected from the interference of Congress, and Congress has presumptuously trampled under foot the sacred right of petition, for love of slavery and fear of slaveholders. "The rights of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures," would seem to be anti-kidnappingbut pro-slavery explains, by saying that pouncing upon the black man is one of the most reasonable "seizures" in the world, and therefore constitutional to an eminent degree. We give it up. But upon article V. we fasten and shall
hang on upon
the black man which are no offence in the white, of "moderate" slave correction which takes life, of exclusion of the black man from the stand of the witness against the white man-what takes life if slave service does not? What consumes life with a prodigality enough to sicken the strong nerves of a Wade Hampton? Slavery. But it undoubtedly takes "liberty," and is it by "due process of law?" No, no. Every body living in a county where there is a court house knows what is due process of law, and that it is the court's forms of administering remedies, your writs and what not. Enslaving and slaveholding have a very different process from all this, and allow us now with all deference to Messrs. Franklin and Armfield, Governor George McDuffie, the whilom "star of Carolina," Austin Woolfolk, and the whole pro-slavery fraternity in its infinite departments, to venture the doctrine, here within a summer day's ride of Canada,—that our republican slaveholding is contrary to the Constitution of these United States.
ON THE USE OF SLAVE PRODUCE.*
BY CHARLES STUART.
THIS question is here presented, not as theoretical or scientific, but as a practical one-not as relating to other nations, but to ourselves!
The articles embraced in this view, are, Sugar, Molasses and Rum-Cotton, Rice, Tobacco,-the Indigo which is raised in the slave states, the flour which we receive from slaves states, &c.
Why do we call these things, slave produce?
* Though not exactly agreeing with our valued correspondent in some of his conclusions, much less in the logic by which he arrives at them, we cheerfully acknowledge that he sheds light as well as heat on his subject; albeit, the former seems to us more refracted than the latter. We shall find room for a few paragraphs of comment at the close of the article, to which, and to the article at page 393 of the first volume, we would refer the reader as containing about all we have to say. There seems more need just now of exposing the sinfulness of slaveholding, than the innocence of buying some sorts of slave produce.-ED.