It contains the following clauses:
Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, _three fifths of all other persons_.
Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress insurrections.
Art. 4, Sec. 2. No person, held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on application of the legislature, or of the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) _against domestic violence_.
The first of these clauses, relating to representation, gives to 10,000 inhabitants of Carolina equal weight in the government with 40,000 inhabitants of Ma.s.sachusetts, provided they are rich enough to hold 50,000 slaves:--and accordingly confers on a slaveholding community additional political power for every slave held among them, thus tempting them to continue to uphold the system.
Its result has been, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "to make the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of slavery the vital and animating spirit of the National Government;" and again, to enable "a knot of slaveholders to give the law and prescribe the policy of the country." So that "since 1830 slavery, slaveholding, slavebreeding, and slavetrading have formed the whole foundation of the policy of the Federal Government." The second and the last articles relating to insurrection and domestic violence, perfectly innocent in themselves--yet being made with the fact directly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately pledge the whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate our fathers and resist oppression--thus making us partners in the guilt of sustaining slavery: the third is a promise, on the part of the whole North, to return fugitive slaves to their masters; a deed which G.o.d"s law expressly condemns, and which every n.o.ble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and contempt.
These are the clauses which the abolitionist, by voting or taking office, engages to uphold. While he considers slaveholding to be sin, he still rewards the master with additional political power for every additional slave that he can purchase. Thinking slaveholding to be sin, he pledges to the master the aid of the whole army and navy of the nation to reduce his slave again to chains, should he at any time succeed a moment in throwing them off. Thinking slaveholding to be sin, he goes on, year after year, appointing by his vote judges and marshals to aid in hunting up the fugitives, and seeing that they are delivered back to those who claim them! How beautifully consistent are his _principles_ and his _promises_!
OBJECTIONS.
OBJECTION I.
Allowing that the clause relating to representation and that relating to insurrections are immoral, it is contended that the article which orders the return of fugitive slaves was not meant to apply to slaves, but has been misconstrued and misapplied!
ANSWER. The meaning of the other two clauses, settled as it has been by the unbroken practice and cheerful acquiescence of the Government and people, no one has attempted to deny. This also has the same length of practice, and the same acquiescence, to show that it relates to slaves. No one denies that the Government and Courts have so construed it, and that the great body of the people have freely concurred in and supported this construction. And further, "The Madison Papers" (containing the debates of those who framed the Const.i.tution, at the time it was made) settle beyond all doubt what meaning the framers intended to convey.
Look at the following extracts from those Papers:
_Tuesday, August 28th_, 1787.
Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals."
Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at the public expense.
Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.
Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made, apart from this article.
Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con._--Madison papers, pp. 1447-8.
_Wednesday, August_ 29, 1787.
Mr. Butler moved to insert after Article 15, "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor,"--which was agreed to, _nem.
con._--p. 1456.
And again, after the wording of the above article had been slightly changed, and the clause newly numbered, as in the present Const.i.tution, we find another statement most clearly showing to what subject the whole was intended to refer:
_Sat.u.r.day, September_ 15, 1787.
Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term "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.--p. 1589.
Is it not hence evident that SLAVERY was the subject referred to by the whole article?
The debates of the Convention held in the several States to ratify the Const.i.tution, at the same time show clearly what meaning it was thought the framers had conveyed:--In Virginia Mr. Madison said,
Another clause secures to us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emanc.i.p.ated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Const.i.tution, "no person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security than any that now exists.
Patrick Henry, in reply observed,
The clause which had been adduced by the gentleman was no more than this--that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York.
Governor Randolph said,
But another clause of the Const.i.tution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of the clause are, "No person held to service or labor in one State," &c. Every one knows that slaves are held to service and labor. If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, &c.
General Pinckney in South Carolina Convention observed,
"We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right we had not before."
In North Carolina, Mr. Iredell
Begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In some of the Northern States, they have emanc.i.p.ated all their slaves. If any of our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain time, they would, by the present laws, be ent.i.tled to their freedom, so that their masters could not get them again. This would be extremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to prevent it, this clause is inserted in the Const.i.tution. Though the word _slave_ be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery, did not choose the word _slave_ to be mentioned.
But even if TWO clauses are immoral that is enough for our purpose, and shews that no honest man should engage to uphold them. Who has the right to construe and expound the laws? Of course the Courts of the Nation. The Const.i.tution provides (Article 3, Section 2,) that the Supreme Court shall be the final and only interpreter of its meaning. What says the Supreme Court? That this clause does relate to slaves, and order their return. All the other courts concur in this opinion. But, say some, the courts are corrupt on this question.
Let us appeal to the people. Nine hundred and ninety-nine out of every thousand answer, that the courts have construed it rightly, and almost as many cheerfully support it. If the unanimous, concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the people for fifty years, do not prove which is the true construction, then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the courts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them?
If the Const.i.tution is not what history, unbroken practice, and the courts prove that our fathers intended to make it, and what too, their descendants, this nation say they did make it, and agree to uphold,--who shall decide what the Const.i.tution is?
This is the sense then in which the Nation understand that the promise is made to them. The Nation _understand_ that the judge pledges himself to return fugitive slaves. The judge knows this when he takes the oath. And Paley expresses the opinion of all writers on morals, as well as the conviction of all honest men, when he says, "that a promise is binding in that sense in which the promiser thought at the time that the other party understood it."
OBJECTION II.
A promise to do an immoral act is not binding: therefore an oath to support the Const.i.tution of the United States, does not bind one to support any provisions of that instrument which are repugnant to his ideas of right. And an abolitionist, thinking it wrong to return slaves, may as an office-holder, innocently and properly take an oath to support a Const.i.tution which commands such return.
ANSWER. Observe that this objection allows the Const.i.tution to be pro-slavery, and admits that there are clauses in it which no abolitionist ought to carry out or support.
And observe, further, that we all agree, that a bad promise is better broken than kept--that every abolitionist, who has before now taken the oath to the Const.i.tution, is bound to break it, and disobey the pro-slavery clauses of that instrument. So far there is no difference between us. But the point in dispute now is, whether a man, having found out that certain requirements of the Const.i.tution are wrong, can, after that, innocently swear to support and obey them, _all the while meaning not to do so_.
Now I contend that such loose construction of our promises is contrary alike to honor, to fair dealing, and to truthfulness--that it tends to destroy utterly that confidence between man and man which binds society together, and leads, in matters of government, to absolute tyranny.
The Const.i.tution is a series of contracts made by each individual with every other of the fourteen millions. A man"s oath is evidence of his a.s.sent to this contract. If I offer a man the copy of an agreement, and he, after reading, swears to perform it, have I not a right to infer from his oath that he a.s.sents to the _rightfulness_ of the articles of that paper? What more solemn form of expressing his a.s.sent could he select? A man"s oath expresses his conviction of the rightfulness of the actions he promises to do, as well as his determination to do them. If this be not so, I can have no trust in any man"s word. He may take my money, promise to do what I wish in return, and yet, keeping my money, tell me, on the morrow, that he shall not keep his promise, and never meant to, because the act, his conscience tells him, is wrong. Who would trust property to such men, or such maxims in the common affairs of life? Shall we not be as honest in the Senate House as on "Change? The North makes a contract with the South by which she receives certain benefits, and agrees to render certain services. The benefits she carefully keeps--but the services she refuses to render, because immoral contracts are not binding! Is this fair dealing? It is the rule alike of law and common sense, that if we are not able, from _any cause_, to furnish the article we have agreed to, we ought to return the pay we have received. If power is put into our hands on certain conditions, and we find ourselves unable to comply with those conditions, we ought to surrender the power back to those who gave it.
Immoral laws are doubtless void, and should not be obeyed. But the question is here, whether one knowing a law to be immoral, may innocently promise to obey it in order to get into office? The people have settled the conditions on which one may take office. The first is, that he a.s.sent to their Const.i.tution. Is it honest to accept power with the intention at the time of not keeping the conditions?--The rightfulness of those conditions is not here the question.
OBJECTION III.