Part 223 (1/2)
But, while circ.u.mspection and prudence are excellent qualities in every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it.
We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed at the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, and to this hour is cemented with human blood.
We charge upon the American Const.i.tution, that it contains provisions, and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to take the oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed to favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and consequently, to make one portion of the people a prey to another.
We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all legal and const.i.tutional restraints--equally indisposed and unable to protect the lives or liberties of the people--the prop and safeguard of American slavery.
These charges we proceed briefly to establish:
I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence,--or if it be denied in any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question beyond doubt,--that the American Union was effected by a guilty compromise between the free and slaveholding States; in other words, by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, by depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by incorporating the slave system into the government. In the expressive and pertinent language of scripture, it was ”a covenant with death, and an agreement with h.e.l.l”--null and void before G.o.d, from the first hour of its inception--the framers of which were recreant to duty, and the supporters of which are equally guilty.
It was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded now, that, without such a compromise there could have been no union; that, without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to the mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to the safety of the republic.
To this see reply: The plea is as profligate as the act was tyrannical. It is the jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. It is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its perpetration. It is at war with the government of G.o.d, and subversive of the foundations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and under falsehood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the overflowing scourge. ”Therefore, thus saith the Lord G.o.d, Judgment will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.” Moreover, ”because ye trust in oppression and perverseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to you as a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking of the potter's vessel that is broken in pieces; he shall not spare.”
This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and villany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, since G.o.d said, ”Let there be light.” It a.s.sumes that to be practicable, which is impossible, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with injustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. A union of virtue with pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partners.h.i.+p between right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles of Justice, is the deification of crime.
Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that it should have been obtained at such a frightful cost! If they were guilty who fas.h.i.+oned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its corruption?
The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union are to understand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the whole country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of words, the American Union is and always has been a sham--an imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpa.s.sed in the criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently sustained? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had not been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the colonies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to crime,--to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor,--to dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the rights of one human being,--could never have been subjugated by any mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to say that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England.
II. The American Const.i.tution is the exponent of the national compact.
We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can innocently bind himself to support, because its anti-republican and anti-christian requirements are explicit and peremptory; at least, so explicit that, in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they have been uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by all the courts and by all the people; and so peremptory, that no individual interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. It is not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party contrivance or caprice may choose it to a.s.sume. It is not a form of words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it may determine. _It means precisely what those who framed and adopted it meant_--NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS, _as a matter of bargain and compromise_. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, without violence to its language, such construction is not to be tolerated _against the wishes of either party_. No just or honest use of it can be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its framers, _except to declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to serve under it_.
To the argument, that the words ”slaves” and ”slavery” are not to be found in the Const.i.tution, and therefore that it was never intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, it is sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in that instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF SLAVERY; and that these were adopted _in good faith, to be observed until a const.i.tutional change could be effected_. On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no intelligent man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, that though these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as they can fairly be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is allowable to give to them such an interpretation, _especially as the cause of freedom will thereby be promoted_--we reply, that this is to advocate fraud and violence toward one of the contracting parties, _whose co-operation was secured only by an express agreement and understanding between them both, in regard to the clauses alluded to_; and that such a construction, if enforced by pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a civil war, in which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have been betrayed, and robbed of their const.i.tutional rights.
Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and void--we reply, it is true they are not to be observed; but it is also true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, AS A WHOLE, is required by oath or affirmation; and, therefore, _because they are immoral_, and BECAUSE OF THIS OBLIGATION TO ENFORCE IMMORALITY, no one can innocently swear to support the Const.i.tution.
Again, if it be objected, that the Const.i.tution was formed by the people of the United States, in order to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity; and therefore, it is to be so construed as to harmonize with these objects; we reply, again, that its language is _not to be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting parties understood_, and which would frustrate every design of their alliance--to wit, _union at the expense of the colored population of the country_. Moreover, nothing is more certain than that the preamble alluded to never included, in the minds of those who framed it, _those who were then pining in bondage_--for, in that case, a general emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United States. The words, ”secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,” a.s.suredly meant only the white population. ”To promote the general welfare,” referred to their own welfare exclusively. ”To establish justice,” was understood to be for their sole benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their own practice under it.
We would not detract aught from what is justly their due; but it is as reprehensible to give them credit for _what they did not possess_, as it is to rob them of what is theirs. It is absurd, it is false, it is an insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the Const.i.tution was intended to embrace the entire population of the country under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were actuated by a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty; or that it needs no alteration, but only a new interpretation, to make it harmonize with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it be argued, that because it is a.s.serted in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed with an inalienable right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were slaveholders, and since its adoption, slavery has been banished from the American soil! The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing liberty _to themselves_, without being very scrupulous as to the means they used to accomplish their purpose. They were not actuated by the spirit of universal philanthropy; and though in _words_ they recognized occasionally the brotherhood of the human race, _in practice_ they continually denied it. They did not blush to enslave a portion of their fellow-men, and to buy and sell them as cattle in the market, while they were fighting against the oppression of the mother country, and boasting of their regard for the rights of man. Why, then, concede to them virtues which they did not posses? _Why cling to the falsehood, that they were no respecters of person in the formation of the government_?
Alas! that they had no more fear of G.o.d, no more regard for man, in their hearts! ”The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [The North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath forsaken the earth, and the Lord seeth not.”
We proceed to a critical examination of the American Const.i.tution, in its relations to slavery.
In ARTICLE I, Section 9, it is declared--”The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded as not to imply, _ex necessitate_, any criminal intent or inhuman arrangement; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to deny, that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to mean that there should be no interference with the African slave trade, on the part of the general government, until the year 1808. For twenty years after the adoption of the Const.i.tution, the citizens of the United States were to be encouraged and protected in the prosecution of that infernal traffic--in sacking and burning the hamlets of Africa--in slaughtering mult.i.tudes of the inoffensive natives on the soil, kidnapping and enslaving a still greater proportion, crowding them to suffocation in the holds of the slave s.h.i.+ps, populating the Atlantic with their dead bodies, and subjecting the wretched survivors to all the horrors of unmitigated bondage! This awful covenant was strictly fulfilled; and though, since its termination, Congress has declared the foreign slave traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom knows that the American flag, instead of being the terror of the African slavers, has given them the most ample protection.
The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the national convention that formed the const.i.tution, is thus frankly avowed by the Hon. Luther Martin,[8] who was a prominent member of that body:
[Footnote 8: Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787.]
”The Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion of slavery, (!) were _very willing to indulge the Southern States_ at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in their turn, _gratify_ them by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, _by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves_ for a limited time; and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.”
Behold the iniquity of this agreement! how sordid were the motives which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and humanity, on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalienable right of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth!
It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was not adopted ”without considerable opposition.” Alluding to it, Mr. Martin observes--