The Constitution Anti-slavery: For The Signal Of Liberty

-Messus. Editors: - I now proceed to remark upon the Three-Fifths clause ol the Constitution - ar. 1, sec. 2, c. 3. The term "persons" is twice used in this clause, nnd so used as to áuppose a class of persons not free, íind ío impose theobljgation toinclude three-íifths there of in the enmneration tlierein directed. 1 trust that in my l'ormer coramunications I have proved that no unrecórded compromise or understanding which may have been entertained hy the Convention who framed the Consliiution can be any part of that Instrument, because, lst, such compromise being unwritten, and consequently undefined, would supercede the Instrument, destroy ing, at. the pleasureof parties, its esseutial featiires, set aside its fundamental principies íbr party objects.,& so by removing the limits to legisiative power, render Congress independent of the people - in other words. convert that body into an irresponsible oligarchy.2. Becnuse, however great the sacrifices of opinions, principies or interests. they, to be part and parcel of the constitution, must have been included in the written Instrument, that being the ultímate conclusión of the whole matter. 3. Because. if the entire ultímate conclusión was not embraced in the written Constitution there ttitfet have been fraud or omission. But fraud will not be prèdicated of thetransAction: then ifomisston, the object of the compromise was lost: if lost the remedy is by amendment; but the amendment not having been made, the alledged object cannot be recognized or secured by theconstitmion; Henee that theconstitutiori as it is, with its written objects, proliibitions and guarantees, isour only guide, Now the question is - Does the. elassnlluded 1o Consist of slaves!-ln solving this question, we must alwavs keep in view the indispensable rule of construct ion that when human liberty is the law should be constr'ued .sfrictly. Tliat ihe clause does not mean sin ves is inferred. because, 1. The law of establishing the right to personal liberty, is cöeval with mankind, and dicfated by God hiniself; and cannot be abridged or destroyed by human legisía'tion: nor can the right be forfeited exc'ept for crime. - BlcCckstone. '2. All men are created equal and are cntitled to equal liberty. - Dcclaralion of Independence. 3. No per.son shall be dej)rived of Hbeity without due process of law, and that for the commissicn of an oifence - thus making all equal. - Conslilution.4. The constitution speaks in cornmon law terms which know nothing of slavery, and therefore can have no allusion to sla ves. 5. The constituticn perrrrifs the permanent loss of liberty, for crime, in a public prison, and1 therefore desiguales persons as not beingfree. lt will be perceived that the ftrst reason is based on fhe parnmount law of nature: the 2 & 3 on conventional ar range me rits of '76 & '87 entered into with all the solemnity which c'ould characterize a nation's plighled faith, by which the states most emphatically stipulated for the abolishment of slavery by pruhibiting themselves from depriving any person of liberty except on accusaticn before and con-viction of crime by a jury of the country .- The 5th on the Constitution, which permits punishment by imprisonmenl, and so lurnislies a case to which the clause isapplicabie. Now as neither the word slave. nor arcy condition or attribute of slavery is men-' tioued ordescnbed in the Constitution, its provisions being applicableto persons in tí state of freedom from slavery, it foilows that the constitution vietvs all innocent persons as free. If alf are thus viewed as free, there can be no constitutional sla ves, fhe words "three-fifths of aW other persons" cannot apply to it follóvvs, that if those words have aiiy ápplicalion, it must be to persons depri véd of Hberty for cause, and not for color" encaste. The clause tafeen according to the legal meaning of its terms; the laV ofnaturej the Declaration of independ-' .i i t i' .."..■ ..."eucej me aeciarea oüjects, pronibitions and guarantees of thé Constitution. does not means slaves. It is not denied that án understandkig,dignified with the epithef of comprbniise did exist in1 the cbnveht'ion relativetoth continuance ofsíávery íor a time: It i contended only that such onderslanding can not be authoritative to supefcede or control tlie legitímate action of the Constitution as it is. The 13 orígnal States, at the adoption of the Constitution, with the exception of jYIassachusetts, were s!avehoírKng statés. Gradual emancipation was then the most 'i'he Constitution was everv Vivay adapted to'astate ofireedorti. Not one word needs to be altered or expungéd tosuit it to'such a coudition; - whuch by the way demonstates its anti-slavery diameter. What tlien was the uftdeïstattding? Why, that as slavery was to be gradualJy extinguished. it should be suiFered to continue or rather languish for a season, and at its end, the Constitution, being adanted to astafe ofentire freedom" would a'cf Ie- gitimately throughout the Republic. That ;that instrument i ti ierposes its broad'shield for the protection of personal libertv to a!l persons under its control, taken in connection with tfve debates of the Convention, fimrishes abu'ndrtnt cvidence of the Tact. Isthisthen "the implied faith of the nation?" Haa slavery been diminished? Have slaves not increased f rom soroe six hundred thousands to some thièe ' ions? Have not new slave sfates Been íormed ouí of the old; and also out of acquired foreign territory, to ext'end the limits of t'lift accursed sjstem, increasé the , amount of human sufFering and to perpet-uate the ascendency of the slavé power j in these States? Is not Florida j r yat the door of the Union íbr admissíon as n slave state? and Texas, slavery-cursed iexas, js s'he noi proflering her lone star to be added to the constellation whicb embellishes the nstioriaf banñe'f? Has the south retdeemed her pledge? Shall a wanton perversión ofsuch au understandïng which cannot be authoritaíivé ta control theconstitution, be persevered in to nulliiy the first principies of goocf governmenf, and slavery perpetual,contrary to the vei'y character and design of the understanding itself? [f it were authoriíative it could be so m)y to compel a period to slavery. Let the paralyzed energiesof the Federal Compact be resuscitaíedí and they will be amply efficiënt, it is believed, to accamplisli ihát object. As to "calling forth the militia to suppressinsurrectionj"&c. a. 1, s. ■:&,■ c. 14, I remark, Ist, The laV of slavery is that slaves are chattels. Chattels, in legitímate legal language- and such is the language of the Constifution- are nol sentient beings. If the c'onstitution' authonzesCongressto suppréss a rising of southern slöfes, it recognizes them as sentiefíí beings, and theréíbre niillifteáfhe chattel principie, lf it does this it frees he slave and destrovs the whole system of slavery. 2d, Insurreetiotï is éc rébelïous rtsing of numbers of sentient eings against rightful authority. To rebel against óruel tyranny which is the intipode of rightful isbut a dic-" tate of natural law, A rising of síavea tö resume their lost rights of whjch they have been robbed by cruel íyraTíny,is not, ïnsorrection. It fdlows that the "insurrection'' of the Gonstitution ia ihaf ot fi'eemen. If, then, the slaves shoüld assert their düring theconlest, should fall into the hands of the general government, it would, were the CoTistitution rightly administefed, be theif redemption from slavery.