Imágenes de páginas

the States might think fit to introduce; or, if you will, they would not put a stop to the slave-trade, though they would not pollute the parchment on which it was written by writing on it such a sentence : while all the other provisions of the Constitution might have gone into immediate action, such as liberty of speech, of the press; the peaceably assembling together of the people, to consult on any subject concerning their welfare, without excepting the colored man; the petitioning of congress; the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects; nor be held to answer for any capital or other infamous crime, without first presentment of a grand jury; nor be excessively fined, nor have any cruel or unusual punishment inflicted; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, &c. : so that, if the colored population, in their individual capacity, had sought redress for their individual grievances, they could have obtained them, if the courts had done their duty from that time to the present. But, if the combination against the rights of any individual or individuals should, at any time, become of such magnitude as to require the interposition of congress, then, – 3. Congress had power conferred on them by the people to restore those rights, not only in the preamble to the Constitution, but in the amendments, where many of our inalienable rights are specially enumerated ; the preamble being the only authentic account we have, stating for what purposes the Constitution was formed; and the different articles and sections show how these particular and special purposes are to be carried into effect; and if any individual or any of the States should make use of any thing in these articles or sections to allow práctices inconsistent with the object and intent for which the union was said to. be expressly designed ; or should, in violation of any of them, infringe on these rights, to prevent, if possible, a physical interference by the government, then, – 4. The United States Court was established for the purpose of deciding, in all cases that might be brought before it, when the rights and liberties of the State, or the inalienable rights of the individual of the States, might be called in question. That they were to be the tribunal in the last resort, and their decisions were to be backed by all the civil and military power of the country, if their decisions were not conformed to in a peaceable manner; and the result was, and is, that each and every individual in the country could, and can, look to the general government of the United States for the preservation of his inalienable rights, instead of, as he had done under the Confederation, to the State governments; and that this constitutes the distinctive character between the Union and the Confederacy, — the States, as was alledged, being incompetent, or unwilling, in their confederate capacity, to shield the individual in the different States either from external or internal foes. Shays's rebellion in Massachusetts, the whisky rebellion in Pennsylvania, the non-comr

pliance with the requisitions of congress by different States, the dangers that might arise from insurrections of the slaves, the rapacity of foreign governments, and the ambition that might actuate individuals, were brought forward as evidences. The government would not permit a general insurrection, either of slaves or any other people, when they had provided for securing the rights of every individual by civil processes. But if these civil processes should ever become so corrupt that the people could not obtain their rights, or if they should ever be so perverted as to give unjust judgments, their own practices and their Declaration of Independence acknowledged the right of revolution. Here, then, we think, is the true theory of our government. It was “established and ordained by the people’’ for good and beneficial purposes, not for evil or ambitious ones; to defend themselves from the evil designs of foreign governments, from the pretensions of any one or more of the States, or any individual of any of the States, and to quell any popular insurrection the State governments could not quell, or asked assistance to quell; but, in order to effect these purposes, they could not interfere at all with certain rights, and no natural right, but by due course of law; so that every individual of the land has the power to call on the civil government in the first place to protect him in his lawful undertakings, and he may exercise the liberty of speech and of the press to main

tain himself in these rights; and, if the courts of the civil government cannot protect him, then he may, through the courts, call upon all the physical power of the country so to do, whether that individual be white or black, bond or free. And we suspect much of the excitement we have of late heard about State rights arises from the idea whether each individual shall, in the last resort, or ultimately, look to the State in which he resides, or to the general government, for protection. The Southern States, or rather individuals of the Southern States, not wishing that the liberty of every individual should be secured, and wanting to found their governments on rapine, and not for the good or the whole, have been anxious for State rights, that a certain class might act as they pleased, independently of the rights of certain others. That is, they wish to hold slaves by law, and they now know no law can support them in it; for we find neither a Hayne, nor a McDuffie, nor a Preston, nor a Calhoun, nor a Clay, have ever dared to enter on a discussion of the right of the southern people, under the Constitution, to hold slaves, or the constitutionality of the thing. They never have presumed to state wherein any compact lies, or to enter into an argument on the subject; they have left this for clergymen to do; but, when they are pressed, they apply the gag ; “hanging without benefit of clergy " are the premises, and the conclusion of all their reasoning, if reasoning they have ever given. Is it not so? V If the purposes of the Constitution, as expressed in the preamble, can be faithfully carried out, we would go for it, as it is. So far as human governments are concerned, we know of none established on better principles. We are not anxious for a change, saving where any doubt exists, as to the intent and meaning of the phraseology of the Constitution : that phraseology might be altered, if it would have any tendeney better to secure the rights of the individual. But after all we have said, it may be argued that the Magna Charta of England, although it says “to no man will we [the government] sell, deny, or delay justice and right,” “yet it never freed a slave;” and they would argue from this our Constitution would or should not. But it may be asked, did ever a slave, as a slave, ask of the governments, through the courts, to relieve him from his bonds : we suspect not often. Those who have administered the law have been very careful never to let a slave's voice be heard in a court of justice; or, if it has been heard, as in Massachusetts, and in the case of Sommersett in England, freedom has been given. The magistrates, in some of our States, who have delivered up runaway slaves, have, we suspect, done it without due regard to the inherent right of him who has been claimed, and without inquiring, as in the words of the Constitution, whether the service or labor was due. But, if a slave should go into a lawyer's office in any of our Southern States, and make the inquiry whether his master, under our Constitution, held any constitutional right over him, would the

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »