States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free citizens of the several States; and the people of each State shall have free ingress and egress to and from every other State," &c. This sentence is the only one to which allusion is in any way made to slaves in this country. A stranger could not determine that there were any, but by the word free as applied to persons; and this word is not uniformly used before the term people, even in this very sentence. It was a word, undoubtedly even in its connection, forced in, much to the discomfiture of many; for it will be perceived that the expression, "the people of each State shall have ingress and egress to and from every other State," does not have the word free before it; so that, under the Confederation, if this sentence should be construed in its enlarged sense, every slave, if he belonged to the family of man, would have the power of going from one State to another as he listed. He might be deprived of the privileges of a free citizen in every thing but locomotion. This, according to the strict construction of the language, was not denied him. In article 15th we have this expression: "Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in congress assembled, in all questions which by this Confederation are submitted to them." Now we should construe this, that any question arising, in which the "common defence," the "security of liberty," the "mutual and general welfare, and the perpetuation of mutual friendship and intercourse," was involved, was a fit subject for the action of this Confederation; and, if they at the time thought slavery was to interrupt these relations, they would probably have acted definitely on the subject; but, as it was, they took an indirect course, and left it for the colored man to ascertain what his rights were from the principles they had established. But the Confederation, as it is well known, for its want of vitality in other respects, did not, as was urged by some, though denied by others, fulfil the intentions of the people of the country, and the Constitution was adopted. The question now arises, what were the intentions of the men who went to Philadelphia to form this Constitution, and the intentions of the men who sent them there? Where shall we look to ascertain this? Here was a large and extensive country. They had, by the course of Providence, been put in possession of it, and it belonged to them to make rules and regulations, or, in other words, laws, by which the inhabitants should be governed they had separated from the mother country for the ostensible purpose of freeing it from the tyranny she was endeavoring to practise towards it, and this great continent, from Maine to Georgia, and from the Atlantic ocean to the Mississippi, was to be under the guidance and direction of the men who should compose the convention then about to sit. Had the principles that had actuated our revolutionary fathers changed? had their love of the right, their love of liberty, at all declined? had they forgotten the principles they had promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and their other documents? No! for the first words they promulgate to the world, after their arduous deliberation, were, "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,"-language simple, expressive, and easily understood. The object, as they say, was to establish justice, as if injustice had in some measure prevailed in the land, and also to see that right should predominate; and, if there were any practices in the United States that militated against the right, then it was their intention they should be done away; consequently, such evil practices would be in opposition to the object for which the Constitution was formed. Now if slavery is wrong-and it was so considered by our fathers the system must come under the class of those practices which they considered unjust ; and that they did consider slavery unjust may be proved from the fact that the war of the Revolution was wholly carried on, on the principle of resisting the attempts of Great Britain to enslave them by improper taxation: they could not bear to be unjustly taxed in their purse; how much less, then, could they have borne to have their whole body and soul under the command of any one who - seemed disposed to take them. They evidently must have considered such a system as one of the greatest wrongs, and directly opposed to the first principles of justice. The next object was to insure the "domestic tranquillity." The question here arises, how can this be secure? evidently by "establishing justice;" and any thing that is at war with justice is at war with peace; and, consequently, no lasting tranquillity can be maintained so long as injustice prevails. Man seems as if he could not be at ease under oppression, as if his whole nature revolted at it, and wars have ever been the consequence of it. History of wars, both public and private, portrays a series of attempts to throw off the yoke of the oppressor; and can the United States hope to secure peace in any other way than by acting uprightly? If so, her hope must be vain. The only sure course is, not only in her foreign, but in her private, relations, to act towards all with that impartiality and good faith that will secure respect, and give no occasion of offence. No other course can possibly secure tranquillity but such a course of action. Is slavery, then, treating the colored man in good faith? does this give no occasion for offence in treating him as she does? has he, under this system, all the rights of the white man? can he come and go like him? does he not perceive how widely different he is treated, and does he not take note of it? Let the South Hampton insurrection answer; let the Florida war answer; let all the various insurrections and attempts at such be written in a book, and sum up their number, and see if he has been satisfied with his treatment, and if we can hope, by the continuance of such treatment, he will be likely to learn to acquiesce in it. No! the facts are, no domestic tranquillity can be maintained under a system of slavery; and even if our fathers thought it could, though we do not believe they did, yet, as it has since been ascertained there can be none, it would be our bounden duty, both as their decendants, and as Americans, in order to fulfil their object, to do away not only with slavery, but every other practice, so far as in our power, that should interrupt this tranquillity. And we must be false to our trust if we do not. We should be jealous of every practice, whatever it might be, that would have a tendency to bring into collision the different sections of this great family, and no one part of it can have the right to introduce such practices as would have such a tendency, without making itself liable to have its conduct scanned and questioned by the other part; and if it can be proved that such would be the case, then the whole would have a right to interfere, and cause such proceedings to cease, and bring about a different order of things. Let it not be here said each part has a right to regulate their own affairs. None have a right to do wrong; and, if slavery is a wrong, then have not the South the right to continue it; and, viewing it in this light, has not the South been changing her mind on the subject of its guilt, in part, because the Constitution will not uphold her in her course? There are |