Part 2

From this decision there is no appeal, until a higher authority has decided differently. All that a slave-hunter has to do, is merely to bring an attested copy of the laws of the State, in which he lives, and prove that in such a State he held the person claimed as his Slave, and there is no redress for the panting fugitive. He _must be_ returned to his former bondage, without any power to protect him from the punishment his master may choose to inflict upon him in consequence of his escape. Thus is Slavery legalized by our laws; and if we cannot expect a higher standard of morality than what the church upholds, certainly we cannot expect practices to cease, which the government pronounces lawful. People are not generally so much in advance of their laws and religion, as to refuse to perpetrate what those laws and that religion justify, and pronounce honorable. Thus the whole influence of jurisprudence, and church action, is thrown around Slavery. Is it any wonder, that it exists in so much power, and now seeks to extend its sway over new territory? What then is necessary to be done to remove this prop from under the colossal statue of Slavery? Plainly, to repeal all laws recognising its existence. Do this, and refuse to obey any of the claims of the South in reference to this matter, and Slavery ceases as soon as the earth would cease to turn upon its axis, if the Almighty should remove his hand from the crank of the mighty wheel. Or to drop all figure, as soon as the Slaves should arise and assert their liberty; which would be almost instantly, if it were not for the North. We are so hemmed in now by compromises and promises, that even in the act of voting not to extend Slavery, we unconsciously pledge ourselves to sustain it where it now exists.

But let us examine another point a few moments. What gives 250,000 slave-holders power to hold 3,000,000 of Slaves in bondage? Not the power of non-slave-holders at the South, for they could not be relied on, in case of an insurrection. They suffer so much now in consequence of the degradation Slavery attaches to labor, and are so impoverished by its influence, that few and faint would be the blows they would strike in behalf of slave-holders; as a body they are envious of the slave-holders, and would like to see him deprived of all his Slaves. They gain nothing by the existence of Slavery, but on the contrary suffer much; for the labor of Slaves is so cheap, that their services are not demanded; and they are not respected as a general thing, except in those sections of country where but a few slave-holders reside. What motive have they to put down a Slave insurrection? There is not a man of them but would be more independent than the present slave-holders, if Slavery was abolished; for there is so much land lying idle at the South, that the Slaves after emancipation would be under no necessity of working for their former masters. It would not be with them as it is with the free laborer of the North; for their power would be so great, that they could take possession of the best plantations, and leave their masters to look out for themselves; and the latter being unused to labor would be miserably off, which would reduce them to a worse condition, than that of the poor whites, who would immediately become the aristocracy of the South. In fact, if an insurrection of the Slaves should take place, there is not much doubt but it would be encouraged by the non-slave-holders of the South. Who, then, give the 250,000 slave-holders of the South their power? Let the winds of heaven answer, as they blow across the fertile fields of the South, and waft the scent of the cotton, rice and sugar plantations, to the nostrils of the money-loving northerners. Let the cargoes of bleached cottons and handsome prints, slave-tools, hats, boots and shoes, whiskey, and all other northern goods, as they sail into southern ports, testify. Let the ships freighted with produce from one southern port to another, the great carrying trade, for which our fathers bartered their virtue, loudly respond. There goes not a vessel from the North to Savannah, Charleston or New Orleans, but it carries within its timbers and on its decks, proof to the slave-holder of northern readiness to sustain him in his foul business. In proof of this, let me ask who voted for Taylor at the recent election more than the great merchants of the North? Did not capitalists universally cry out, "Great is Zachary Taylor!" Was not Abbott Lawrence, the prince of northern manufacturers, loudest in his professions of zeal for "Old Zach?" Go throughout our country, up and down all its cities and villages, and enquire who in those places voted for Taylor, and you will be told that the great manufacturers, the rich merchants of those towns and cities did. That they poured out their ill-gotten gains in behalf of Gen. Taylor's election; that the South might be pleased, and northern industry protected! Perish the word industry from the vocabulary of man, if this is the basis upon which it rests. What! northern industry only protected by electing the greatest of idlers to the presidential chair? Who feels less sympathy for northern workingmen than the man who drives three hundred laborers to their daily toil, with the crack of the whip sounding in their ears, and who robs them of nearly all their earnings, and forces them to live in a state of prostitution? Is such a man a friend to the rights of northern laborers?

But it is these pretended friends of home industry, which means any thing but their own industry, who stand pledged to support the South. It is they who are so anxious to see Slavery extended, because they can sell as, they think, a few more goods for the use of the newly imported Slaves! Yes, they are ready, as one friend of the Slave has remarked, "to annex themselves to perdition, if by so doing, they could sell cotton cloth to its inhabitants for six cents a yard." They are unwilling to have Slavery abolished, for that would open one of the finest countries in the world, to the ingress of free laborers, who could manufacture their own goods, and would not purchase so many of Abbott Lawrence & Co., as they at present send to the South. But they are short sighted even in this; for the abolition of Slavery would open a market for many more goods than could be manufactured South, which would enrich the North much more than her present losing trade with the South does. They do not comprehend this problem, for if they did, the Couriers, Daily Advertisers, and Atlases, would be filled to overflowing with denunciations of Slavery, just as they were of the Mexican War, when political capital could be made out of such denunciations. Then the tariff must be upheld, or the North will go to ruin, and they hope to obtain the aid of the South in this matter, by assisting them to sustain Slavery. The great body of northern manufacturers, care as little for the existence of Slavery, as they do for the sufferings of men perishing on the scaffold, for crimes against law and order.

They are almost wholly selfish, as is evinced by the character of the men they set up for office. They care not whether 3,000,000 of Slaves clank their chains in their hearing or not, so long as the busy hum of their cotton-mills at Lowell and Manchester, and the noise of their trip-hammers in Pennsylvania, are heard to resound above these cries. The music of silver dollars rattling in their vaults, as drawer after drawer is deposited by their cashiers, is sufficiently beautiful to them, to operate as an offset against the shrieks and wailings of the Slaves. What though the Lord of Sabbaoth lends a listening ear to the sobs of the bondmen, it matters not to them, as long as the gold clinks in their chests. All heaven may cease its songs of joy, to listen to the shrieks of the Slave; but worlds of Slaves might shriek and groan, until the noise shook old earth from its foundations, and sounded in the ears of saints like the sound of "many waters" to the apostle John; and these men would not turn from the dull music of their water-wheels, or the clatter of their spinning-jennies. Indeed, it is a question, whether they would turn from their tables of discount, and their columns of bank stock, if God himself should speak from heaven, and request sympathy from them. Sympathy! they have none! Their hearts are made of silver and gold, polished to an icy coldness. If the blood of the slave-driver's lash should increase until it flowed over the entire South, and turned to red the color of the element upon which their ships sailed; it would not mar the harmony between them and the South, until it rusted the bottom of their vessels, and rendered them unfit for the carrying trade.

To be sure all the people who vote aid these cotton lords in sustaining Slavery; but let them pursue a different course; let the leaders of the two great political parties of the North, adopt another principle than that of subserviency to the slave-power, and the people would not long object. The result of the last election has fully shown the willingness of the people to adopt the watch-word of their party, whatever it may be, and it would be arguing a great amount of villany on their part to suppose, that they would refuse to follow them in the paths of righteousness, when they clung so closely to them, as they took the most conspicuous part of the broad road. Certainly the great body of the Whigs and Democrats, would not refuse to travel towards heaven, if their leaders should say so, when they have sprung with such alacrity to join them in the road to hell. How it would be with the rank and file of the Free Soil party we know not. As they have shown a readiness to burst party bonds, these would not operate upon them so much; but charity prompts us to believe, that if the leaders of this party were to propose the measure of a secession from the Union, the Anti-Slavery feeling of their followers would willingly respond to the call. It is then to the leaders of both church and state, that the rebuke of Nathan to David applies, "thou art the man." It is the prominent men in all parties who are to blame for the existence of Slavery.

A word now respecting the abolition of the laws which uphold Slavery; or in other words in regard to the amendment of the Constitution. If this can be carried out without dissolving the Union, we should like to know it; but how can it? What is it to alter the Constitution, but in fact to dissolve the Union? The Constitution is the _bond_ of Union; the instrument which binds the North and South together. How, then, can you change it, in its important features, without, for the time being, dissolving the Union between the North and South? Let us see. A proposal is made to Congress for an alteration of the Constitution, in respect to Slavery. That is, the North is tired of the bargain she made through her fathers with the South, and wishes a new one. Of course, if this new bargain is made, the old one must be declared no longer binding; and we have virtually a dissolution of the Union, although a _re_-union may have followed. This shows that the dissolution of the Union will not necessarily create civil war, any more than the passage of any other law by Congress.

The great question is, how shall this alteration of the Constitution be brought about? Of course, as long as we assert that it is good enough already, we shall not wish to change it; therefore we must first be convinced of its wicked character, which we hope all our readers are convinced of by this time; but as some of them may not be, we will dwell awhile on this point. No intelligent man will deny that it was the intention of our fathers to sustain Slavery. Mr. Lysander Spooner himself admits it. Sufficient proof exists of this fact to satisfy every reasonable mind. Almost all politicians admit it, certainly all honest ones. No one doubts that our fathers meant to uphold Slavery, when they adopted the Constitution; and the question now with us is, not so much the technical meaning of the Constitution, as its real import. We know that honesty always leads us to decide upon the meaning of an author, by understanding the circumstances under which he wrote. For instance, if an editor speaks of "fighting earnestly" in the approaching campaign; he would be deemed a very dishonest man, who should assert from the authority of this language, that the editor recommended physical fighting, and was in favor of bloodshed; but he would be no more so, it seems to us, than one who knowing what our fathers were debating about, should contend that they did not mean Slaves, because they said "persons held to service." Of course, being partners in the guilt of the transaction, they did not wish to brand themselves with infamy, by inserting the word Slaves, any more than the duellist is willing to term himself a murderer, instead of "a gentleman of honor;" or a lewd woman a harlot, instead of "a lady of pleasure."

Intoxication is alluded to, by its victims, in various genteel terms, instead of the plain one--drunkenness; and robbing and stealing on the ocean in time of war is termed by the mild name of privateering. So with all villany. Robbers are only lightening the pockets of their victims; thieves only picking up the crumbs of the rich; and slave-holders are only masters; Slaves, "persons held to service," or "other persons," or something else, to hide the shame of the guilty ones. Go to the South, and you will never hear the word Slave spoken; but it is "my people," "my boy," "my girl," &c. If you go so strictly by names, you might never know by living at the South, that they consider their servants Slaves.

What, then, did our fathers mean, by "other persons?" The clause reads as follows:

"Representatives and direct taxes, shall be apportioned * * 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_."

Our enquiry is not what the Constitution can be made to mean, but what is the natural and fair import of its language? Of course, we can pervert the meaning of any instrument, and by false reasoning and wordy controversy, make black appear white, and _vice versa_. When I say "John, come to dinner," to a fair, impartial listener, my meaning would appear plain; but to a technical quibbler, I might be made to be a great tyrant. For instance, I assert authority. I utter a command. I do not ask John to come to dinner, but I require him to come, and a long argument might be entered into to prove my tyrannical nature, such as that I was forcing John to eat whether he wished to or not; that I required him to eat a good deal, a dinner, instead of a little, and above all, that I was disposed to force him to _obey me_. By such reasoning, the kindest of parents might be proved to be severe and hardhearted. On the contrary, if I say "dinner is ready, John," the same quibbler might accuse me of indifference to my child's welfare, that I did not care whether he came or not, and so on.

Now in all these cases, that sterling quality, common sense, is to be brought into requisition. When I promise to carry my friend to ride to-morrow, unforeseen accidents are of course considered as an excuse for the non-fulfilment of my promise; but Mr. Lysander Spooner, in behalf of my friend, might enter an action in law against me; for there are my words in writing, "I will take you to ride to-morrow;" but common sense would excuse me, if my horse should be sick, or my carriage be stolen. Mr. Spooner argues like an earnest man, to prove that these expressions do not mean Slaves, because they cannot be proved to have reference to such a class, by the exact meaning of the words. "The word free is not the correlative of Slavery; for a variety of reasons," he says. He thinks "all persons" mean aliens. Now, what an absurdity. Who ever heard of three-fifths of the aliens in each State being added to the naturalized citizens in making out the apportionment of representatives? How many representatives have seats in Congress, in consequence of aliens residing in their districts? Not one, and yet twenty-five men are seated there, in consequence of Slaves residing in their districts. It is a burning shame for a man to prostitute such noble powers of thought as Mr. Spooner possesses, to such a silly and contemptible mode of reasoning. Why, if his arguments are correct, all poetry and figures of speech are wrong; all metaphorical language, and personifications in writing are out of place; and nothing is left us but plain, straight forward words, which have a precise meaning, and can mean nothing else. If I say "the wind blows," I lie, for wind is an action of something else, and, of course, it is absurd to talk of its blowing. If I say "I am in pain," it is not true, for the pain is in me; and if I talk of God's moving the world by his arm, it is false, for he has no arm. If I say "the giant of Slavery stalks abroad, over our land," it is false, for there is no such moving thing as Slavery, for Slavery is merely the term applied to a particular act of a man; but who accuses me of falsehood in speaking of these things? To put the strictest literal construction upon every word of the Constitution, would involve us in some of J. C. Calhoun's criticisms, such as _men_ not being born, and not being born _equal_, &c.

Let us follow Mr. Spooner's idea a little, in relation to free persons, meaning naturalized citizens. Mr. Spooner says that all the State Constitutions, at the time of the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, used this word in no other sense than the one signified in the English law, and of course that the U. S. Constitution used the word in that sense only. This argument, if it proves anything, proves too much; and we apprehend will operate fully as much against Mr. S.'s idea, as in favor of it. According to this law, the word _free_, Mr. S. assures us, means "persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or peculiar privilege, as distinguished from aliens, and persons not possessed of such franchise or privilege." Then the word free in this instance, must mean only the opposite of aliens. Aliens are those not entitled to vote, or to hold office. These are, I believe, the only privileges which they are debarred from. Then as the word free, means those possessing the privileges which aliens do not possess, it cannot mean either women or children, for they do not possess either of these privileges.

Thus, according to this definition, free persons are only voters and apprentices, and "all other persons," are foreigners not naturalized, and women and children. But Slaves do not possess, and never have possessed these "peculiar privileges," always having been debarred from the right of voting and holding office, and surely cannot rank as the opposites of aliens, any more than women and children, and therefore come under the head of "all other persons." If free persons are the opposite of aliens, and aliens are those deprived of peculiar privileges, then none can be free persons who do not possess these privileges. But Slaves never have been known to possess them, therefore they cannot be free persons. Free persons, Mr. Spooner says, are those possessing some franchise or privilege which aliens do not. Now, in the name of common sense, we ask what privileges have Slaves ever possessed, which aliens do not? Let their scarred backs, gaping wounds, and broken limbs answer. Slaves possessing privileges! and yet this is the definition Mr. Spooner chooses to give to the word _free_: "Persons possessing citizenship, or some other franchise or privilege, _not possessed by aliens_."

But a few words from the original adopters of the Constitution will settle this whole difficulty. Says Alexander Hamilton in the New York convention:

"The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes. * * Without this indulgence no union could possibly have been formed."

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 emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, '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."

Gen. Pinkney in the 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."

But the great question after all, is not what the Constitution says in words, but what use is made of it? If it is a suitable one for a free nation, it could not be capable of such an awful perversion as has been made of it by the legislation of the country ever since its adoption, Mr. Spooner's idea being correct. If it is Anti-Slavery, it is the first Anti-Slavery document, and the only one, Calhoun &. Co. were ever known to cherish and swear by. How remarkably keen-sighted must these wily southerners be, not to detect the Anti-Slavery spirit of the Constitution; and be hugging an abolition monster, when they fancy they are pressing to their bosoms their own bill of rights to hold Slaves. The southerners are not generally duped this way, and it is strange they should be so much so, in this case. For our own part, the very fact that the Constitution is valued so highly by the South, casts a shadow of suspicion over it, and induces us to reject it as an Anti-Slavery instrument. The South excludes even Sunday school books, tainted with Anti-Slavery, and poems alluding to freedom, are hardly allowed a circulation there; how strange then, that this great _magna charta_ of human liberty should be so eulogised by them. The fact is, it suits them well. They never have complained of its not being pro-slavery enough, but have always rested satisfied with it, as their supporter and guide; and yet northern Anti-Slavery men will talk of its being an Anti-Slavery instrument. As well might the robber press to his bosom the precepts of Jesus Christ, or the gambler and drunkard, works on morality, as the slave-holder the Constitution, if he believed it Anti-Slavery.