Slavery and the Constitution Part 18

Page 612: "If the Const.i.tution had not contained this clause, every non-slaveholding State in the Union would have been at liberty to have declared free all runaway slaves coming within its limits, and to have given them entire immunity and protection against the claims of their masters;--a course which would have created the most bitter animosities, and engendered perpetual strife, between the different States. The clause was, therefore, of the last importance to the safety and security of the Southern States, and could not have been surrendered by them without endangering their whole property in slaves. The clause was accordingly adopted into the Const.i.tution by the unanimous consent of the framers of it;--a proof at once of its intrinsic and practical necessity."

Page 613: "Upon this ground, we have not the slightest hesitation in holding, that, under and in virtue of the Const.i.tution, the owner of a slave is clothed with entire authority, in every State in the Union, to seize and recapture his slave, whenever he can do it without any breach of the peace or any illegal violence. In this sense, and to this extent, this clause of the Const.i.tution may properly be said to execute itself, and to require no aid from legislation, state or national."

Page 625: "Upon these grounds, we are of opinion, that the Act of Pennsylvania upon which this indictment is founded is unconst.i.tutional and void. It purports to punish, as a public offence against that State, the very act of seizing and removing a slave by his master, which the Const.i.tution of the United States was designed to justify and uphold."

SUPPRESSION OF SLAVE INSURRECTIONS. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 8; Art. 4, sec.

4.)

We are not aware of any decision of the supreme court upon the meaning of these clauses; but it seems difficult to conceive, that they would hold that the word "insurrections" did not include all insurrections.

Such is the Const.i.tution according to the plain, obvious, and common meaning of its terms; such it was intended to be made by its framers; such has been the interpretation constantly followed in the practice of the government, from the time of its adoption until now; and such it is according to the decision of the final interpreter of its meaning. As reasonable men, seeking the truth, we cannot say that there is the slightest doubt whatever on the subject. THE CONSt.i.tUTION VERY MATERIALLY SUPPORTS SLAVERY!

CHAPTER XVI.

NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.

"We will extend to the slaveholder all the courtesy he will allow.

If he is hungry, we will feed him; if he is in want, both hands shall be stretched out for his aid. We will give him full credit for all the good that he does, and our deep sympathy in all the temptations under whose strength he falls. But to help him in his sin, to remain partners with him in the slave-trade, is more than he has a right to ask."--_Wendell Phillips._

No wrong action can be rightfully done. No wrong can be rightfully supported. We can neither rightfully hold slaves nor support others in slaveholding, because, as we have seen, slaveholding is under all circ.u.mstances wrong. Some of the provisions of the Const.i.tution, as we have seen, were expressly designed for the purpose of supporting slavery, and for over half a century have very materially supported it.

Consequently, these provisions cannot be rightfully obeyed or supported.

It is wrong to offer a bounty on slaveholding,--to give the oppressor power and influence, in proportion as he tramples on the rights of his fellow-man; it is wrong to return, or aid in returning, a fugitive slave; it is wrong to aid in keeping the slave in his fetters. These things are wrong, and not all the Const.i.tutions and laws of the universe can make them right. We cannot, therefore, rightfully obey the pro-slavery clauses of the Const.i.tution.

If we cannot rightfully obey them ourselves, we cannot rightfully, voluntarily support others in obeying them. If it is wrong for me to return a fugitive slave, it is wrong for me voluntarily to aid or support another man in doing the act. If it is wrong for me to commit murder, it is no less wrong for me to hand the pistol to the a.s.sa.s.sin.

Whatever it is wrong for us to do ourselves, it is wrong for us voluntarily to aid or support others in doing. Consequently, it is wrong for us voluntarily to aid or support others in obeying the pro-slavery requirements of the Const.i.tution.

If we cannot rightfully obey them, it is wrong for us to promise such obedience. If it is wrong for us voluntarily to support others in their obedience, it is wrong for us to promise any such support. If it is wrong for us to return a fugitive slave, it is wrong for us to promise to return one. If it is wrong for us voluntarily to aid the slave-hunter, it is wrong for us to promise such aid. Whatever it is wrong for us to do or aid others in doing, it is wrong for us to promise to do or aid others in doing. Consequently, it is wrong for us to promise to support these const.i.tutional provisions. We cannot, therefore, accept any office, either state or national, which renders it necessary for us to support these clauses, or to promise to support them. We cannot, therefore, rightfully hold any executive or judicial office, either state or national, or become a member of any State legislature or of Congress; for all these officers are obliged solemnly to swear or affirm that they will "support the Const.i.tution;" and to support the Const.i.tution is to support all of its clauses, as well those which favor slavery as those which do not. If we take this oath, meaning to keep it, we do wrong. If we take it, meaning not to keep it, we add to our wrong, perjury; for we mentally break our oath at the very instant it pa.s.ses our lips.

Some good men seek to avoid the difficulty by saying, "When I swear to support the Const.i.tution, I mean I will support the good clauses in it, and disobey the bad, and submit to the penalty for such disobedience."

But such a course is not a compliance with the terms of the oath. You have sworn "to support the Const.i.tution;" that is, the whole Const.i.tution,--all its clauses,--the bad as sacredly as the good. Your oath is not in the alternative, "I will support the clause requiring the return of fugitive slaves, or pay five hundred dollars for every slave I aid in escaping;" but simply, without any qualification, "I will support the side of the oppressor." If you aid the fugitive slave to escape from his master, you do not support the latter in retaking his property, merely by paying the legal penalty for not giving such support. You would not support a bad law, and yet you say your oath to support it is not broken, because you submit to the penalty for not supporting it. The thief does not support the law of private property, merely by submitting to the legal punishment of his crime. To support is to be active: to submit is to be pa.s.sive. You swear to be active, and you do not comply with your oath by being merely pa.s.sive. You have sworn actively to support the recapture of slaves. You break your oath, if you refuse to do this, or do any thing less or different from this.

Others think to find a good excuse for taking the oath, by adopting another alternative, equally unauthorized. "We will support the Const.i.tution," say they, "until we are called on to act under any of its bad clauses; and then we will resign our office, and refuse obedience."

Doubtless, honor requires you to resign, if you cannot comply with the terms of your oath; but what right have you to adopt or imagine an alternative in your oath where the law has made none,--where the officer administering it will admit of none? Who does not see the wide difference between an honest oath to support the return of fugitive slaves, and an oath to support such return, but with a firm resolve on your part to refuse such support when called on for it, and to resign?

What right have you to take an oath which you have previously resolved not to keep, when called on to comply with? You admit that a bad clause cannot be rightfully supported, else why do you not support it? You admit that the oath obliges you to support the bad clauses of the Const.i.tution as well as the good; else why do you resign, if refusal to support the bad clauses is consistent with your oath? You openly avow, therefore, that, at the very moment you swear to support a clause, you determine never to support it. You swear, and determine not to keep your oath! Such a course seems to us inconsistent with the plainest rules of honesty. We have no right to promise to do wrong, even though we have resolved to do right when the time for action shall arrive.

Others say, "We swear to support the Const.i.tution as we understand it, and we consider it an anti-slavery instrument." In other words, you swear to support an interpretation which is contrary to the plain, obvious, and common meaning of the instrument; contrary to the interpretation put upon it by its framers; contrary to that followed by all the executive and legislative departments of the government, from its first establishment until now; and contrary to that which has been adjudged to be its true interpretation by the final arbiter of its meaning. Of course, you intend to support the true meaning of the Const.i.tution. Do you really believe that the people of the United States did not mean by their words what those words then commonly meant? Do you really doubt the historical fact of the humiliating compromise between the delegates from the Southern and Eastern States in the Philadelphia Convention, by which the latter undertook to barter the moral sense of their const.i.tuents for what was supposed to be their interest? Do you really believe that the people have suffered their servants to go on in ignorance of the true meaning for sixty years? In fact, do you venture to affirm, or do you in perfect sincerity and truthfulness believe, that your interpretation has ever at any time been considered right by the people of the United States, or by any considerable number of them? You deceive yourself with words! What is the Const.i.tution? Not the meaning which you or I, or any third person, may please to put upon it; but that meaning, and that meaning only, which consists with its being, what it declares itself to be, the supreme law of the land. Until, therefore, you can show that the Const.i.tution may properly receive as many different interpretations as there are oaths to support it, and still be in fact the supreme law, the one, single, definite rule for all, States as well as people, you have no right to say, "I will support the pro-slavery clauses as I understand them." To support them in any other sense than that which is affixed to them, as the supreme law of the land, is merely to evade the true meaning of your oath.

Others say, "We took the oath before we had any of our present scruples.

We would not take the oath now; but, nevertheless, we shall continue in office, and disregard our oath." This excuse seems to us very objectionable. How can you reap the honorary or pecuniary advantages of your office, and honestly refuse compliance with your part of the bargain? When you took office, you were really told, that, if you would swear to support the return of fugitive slaves, &c. you should enjoy these honors and these profits. The conscientious man, who, in striving to better himself, not his condition, discovers afterwards that he cannot rightfully aid, or promise to aid, the slaveholder in retaking his slaves, will not think of claiming the reward which was offered to him solely because he swore to give such aid. He will make haste to resign honors and rewards which he feels can be retained only at the price of his own degradation.

If we cannot rightfully hold any office, state or national, which requires of us a promise to support the Const.i.tution, it is wrong to place, or voluntarily aid in placing, any other person in such office; for, by so doing, we ask him to do wrong. If we vote for Horace Mann, by this act alone we say to him, as distinctly as if the words pa.s.sed our lips,--"We wish to elect you as representative to Congress. If chosen, we expect and ask you to qualify yourself to act as representative, by swearing to give slavery all const.i.tutional support." Merely by voting for him, we ask him to do wrong, hoping that good may come, almost knowing that good will come! So little faith have we in the final triumph of right and justice, by pursuing only right and just ways! Of so little consequence do we consider it, that the earnest advocate of freedom should commence his holy work by promising very materially to strengthen slavery! But a short time has elapsed since we read one of his most eloquent rebukes of slavery. Our heart beat quickly as we read his earnest words. But if, in the midst of his address, some slaveholder had turned and asked him, "How happens it, sir, that you, who are so very earnest and disinterested in behalf of the rights of the slave, have been willing to swear to support this terrible wrong, to any extent or for any time?" And what answer could be returned? The eloquent tongue would be palsied! Surely that man who has solemnly called G.o.d to witness that he will support the oppressor, cannot fail, at some time or another, to feel himself to be unworthy to plead the cause of freedom.

Finally, some say, "This reasoning leads to non-resistance. You disregard the fact that all human governments must contain a greater or less amount of evil; and consequently, if you are ever to support any government in all its requirements, you must support evil." Very true is it that human governments and laws fall short of our relative standard of right, and always of absolute right. What is our duty? Clearly, as moral beings, to support the right, and refuse to support the wrong; as peaceful citizens, to support the right, and submit to the penalty of disobeying the wrong. Nothing more than this is required of us. Nothing less than this is our duty. We are not put into the world, blindly to support all existing governmental wrongs, until they can be const.i.tutionally abolished. We are to be true to ourselves as moral beings. If we can be true to our own souls and support the government, we may give such support,--not otherwise! Right and wrong are not creatures of agreement and law. Neither the Philadelphia Convention that framed the Const.i.tution, nor the State Conventions that adopted it, had power to make wrong in the slightest degree right, or alter at all the moral character of slaveholding. Right is right, the Revised Statutes to the contrary notwithstanding. Wrong is wrong, the Const.i.tution to the contrary notwithstanding. We say, therefore, we will obey the good requirements of the Const.i.tution, and peacefully submit to the penalty of disobeying the bad. This is all that government has a right to ask of us. Inst.i.tutions were made for man, not man for them. Const.i.tutions are the work of man, and man is to be reverenced before his works. We see no inconsistency or impropriety in supporting the system of free-trade between the States, and refusing to support the domestic slave-trade; in supporting the patent laws, and refusing to aid in returning a runaway slave. We are good-government men, not no-government men. All governments are partly good. All we are willing to support in part: we will actively support the Const.i.tution and laws, so far as conscience permits; we will peacefully submit to legal exaction for disobeying the rest.

Our purpose is accomplished. We have shown that we are politically united with the South in the support of slavery. We have shown that we should constantly bear upon our lips, and in our lives, the motto, "_No union with slaveholders, whereby we are obliged to countenance or support slavery_." We desire to see a union among the States, but not a slaveholding union! A union of freemen, and Free States for the sake of freedom, no one would more readily support than we. But a union like ours, of freemen and slaveholders, of Free States and Slave States, for the sake in part of securing property in slaves, is demoralizing (how demoralizing has it been!) to both parties, and should receive, as it doubtless at no distant day will receive, the condemnation of the wise and good. In the meantime, it ought not, and it will not, receive either our respect or our voluntary support.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Mr. Clapp is said to have changed his opinions since 1838. We hope he has. But he has not favored the world with any statement of what his change consists in. The statement which recently appeared in the "Picayune," even if reliable, shows that Mr. Clapp had changed his opinion somewhat, but not essentially, as it seems to us.

[B] We quote from Mr. Jones's work just referred to. His work contains a summary of all that has been done for the religious instruction of the negroes from their first introduction here; an account of their actual moral condition, and what he thinks should be done for their elevation.

His testimony is unimpeachable, and is of the very highest authority.

Our faith in his sincerity is sometimes tried, when we read language like this applied to the adult slave, p. 117: "He marries and _settles in life_; his children grow up around him, and tread in his footsteps, as he did in the footsteps of his father before him."

For a loan of this book we are indebted to the kindness of our friend, William Lloyd Garrison.

[C] Sandy Jenkins tried to impress Dougla.s.s with the belief, that if he would always carry a root which he gave him, _on his right side_, it would render it impossible for any white man to whip him ("Narrative,"

p. 70). And before Wm. W. Brown made his last successful effort to escape, he paid the old slave fortune-teller, Frank, twenty-five cents for his advice.

[D] "If they make you partakers of their temporal things (of their strength and spirits, and even of their offspring), you ought to make them partakers of your spiritual things."--_Bishop of London in 1727_ (_Jones_, p. 20).

[E] How carefully does Mr. Jones teach the slaves "to search the Scriptures"! ("Catechism," p. 103.)

"Q. Is not our duty, on the sabbath, to go to the house of G.o.d, to the meeting for prayer, to the sabbath-school, and wherever we may worship G.o.d and learn his will?--A. Yes.

"Q. What was done with the man that gathered sticks on the sabbath-day, not caring for G.o.d's commandment?--A. He was stoned.

"Q. Is sabbath-breaking a great sin in the sight of G.o.d?--A. Yes. (Ib.

p. 104) He who breaks the sabbath robs G.o.d of his own; for the day is the Lord's."

[F] "Were it now revealed to us," says Mr. Jones (ib. p. 180), "that the most extensive system of instruction which we could devise, requiring a vast amount of labor, and protracted through ages, would result in the tender mercy of our G.o.d in the salvation of the soul of _one poor African_, we should feel warranted in cheerfully entering upon our work, with all its costs and sacrifices; for our reward would exceed all our toil and care above the computation of any finite mind." Badly educated, misguided, we believe Mr. Jones to be; but these are the words of honest, sincere conviction.

[G] For a loan of this book we are indebted to our friend Parker Pillsbury.

[H] "A Catechism of Scripture Doctrine and Practice for Families and Sabbath Schools, designed also for the Oral Instruction of Colored Persons, by Charles C. Jones," 6th edit.; Charleston, 1845. In his preface, Mr. Jones says, "The Catechism has been prepared _expressly_ for the religious instruction of the negroes; and it has been extensively tried and approved by those engaged in that good work." It is unquestionably much more used than any other. It has already pa.s.sed through six editions. It really merits this position.--For a perusal of this book we are indebted to the kindness of our friend Samuel Brooke, of Ohio.

[I] "Let us ever remember the name that Hagar gave to G.o.d, 'Thou G.o.d seest me,' and act as in his presence. Let us be afraid to steal or lie or curse, or break the Sabbath, or do any wicked thing. _G.o.d will see and know._"--Jones's "Catechism," p. 28.

"Ought not you to try and keep the fear of G.o.d always before your eyes?

Do not be tempted to say, as too many wicked people do, 'Oh! n.o.body will know it; n.o.body will see it.' Remember that G.o.d is always looking at you. He sees all that you do: he hears every word that you say: he knows all that you think about: and he can in a moment strike you dead: he is able to destroy both soul and body in h.e.l.l. Knowing these things, fear him, so as not willingly to offend him."--_Rev. Alexander Glennie's Sermons_, p. 32. See also to the same point, Bishop Ives's "Catechism,"

p. 13, 14, 42.

[J] What a beautiful commentary on this teaching is afforded us by Dougla.s.s! ("Narrative," p. 47.) Speaking of his grandmother, he says,--"She had served my old master faithfully from youth to old age.

She had been the source of all his wealth; she had peopled his plantation with slaves; she had become a great-grandmother in his service. She had rocked him in infancy, attended him in childhood, served him through life, and at his death wiped from his icy brow the cold death-sweat, and closed his eyes for ever. She was, nevertheless, left a slave,--a slave for life,--a slave in the hands of strangers. And in their hands she saw her children, her grandchildren, and her great-grandchildren, divided, like so many sheep, without being gratified with the small privilege of a single word as to their or her own destiny. And, to cap the climax of their base ingrat.i.tude and fiendish barbarity, my grandmother, who was now very old, having outlived my old master and all his children, having seen the beginning and end of all of them, and her present owners finding she was of but little value, her frame already racked with the pains of old age, and complete helplessness fast stealing over her once-active limbs, they took her to the woods, built her a little hut, put up a little mud chimney, and then made her welcome to the privilege of supporting herself there in perfect loneliness; thus virtually turning her out to die"! Who that has read Dougla.s.s's account of his grandmother, of which this is a small extract, has not been moved both to pity for the slave, and loathing for slavery? Who has not asked with him, "Will not a righteous G.o.d visit for these things"?

[K] A slave may die in consequence of "_moderate correction_," as that term is understood in some of the Slave States.

The Const.i.tution of Georgia, Art. 4, sec. 12, reads thus (Hotchkiss's "Codification," p. 71, 1845):--"Any person who shall maliciously dismember or deprive a slave of life shall suffer such punishment as would be inflicted in case the like offence had been committed on a free white person, and on the like proof, except in case of insurrection of such slave, and unless such death should happen by accident in giving such slave moderate correction."