mittee of revision made the alteration in the original article for the purpose of making the slaveholder more secure, and that their striking out the words "justly claiming" renders it more certain. But, when we consider the words "to whom such service or labor may be due" were added, they place the subject on its true basis, that is, of debt; and a debt cannot be contracted without the consent of both parties. Consequently they did not succeed in their wishes, though the slaveholder afterwards proceeded, and the magistrates in the free States very unjustly, as we think, have allowed them to pursue their unlawful and vile purposes, without ever bringing up this question of debt, the very question on which their whole claim can constitutionally rest.

According to the Madison papers, Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney, from South Carolina, moved "that fugitive slaves and servants be delivered up like criminals: " this being objected to, Mr. Butler moved to insert the following: "If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such labor or service in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor; which was agreed to nem. con."

But when the Constitution came to be revised, this resolution, besides the other amendments made to it, had the words "rightfully claiming " stricken out, and the words "on claim of the party

to whom such labor or service may be due " added; thereby, instead, as we have seen it asserted, of retaining the point of the original resolution, nullifying its effect when applied to one held in bondage against his own consent, and placing it, as it should have been placed, on account of debt consequently, no man should be given up, unless the debt of service or labor is proved.

Section 4th of the same article has this expression:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, and, on application of the legislature or executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened,) against domestic violence."

A question here arises: what is a republican form of government? Its usual acceptation is, when the people make their own laws, through or by their representatives. The question recurs, then, is the colored man of this country represented, or can he be, in a slaveholding State, by conforming to any laws or rules the legislature of any of these States prescribes? We believe not; he, as we have said before, is considered a thing, and therefore is thrown without the pale of citizenship, and is under a most tyrannical government. He is denied this republican form of government, which the Constitution guarantees to him; and consequently the laws of these States, which impose these disabilities, are null, and should be of no effect. Let it not be said Greece and Rome held slaves, though they had a

republican form of government, and therefore it is competent for the American citizen to hold them, and yet continue their republicanism. To this we object, as those only, and their descendants, were slaves who were taken in war; they were made slaves rather than to destroy or imprison them; they were considered enemies to the state: the negro has never been a prisoner of war to this country, neither is he considered its enemy. But, after all, has the Christian American citizen no better model for his conduct and his mode of government than pagan Greece and Rome? We think he has, or ought to have.

Article 7 of the amendments: "In suits of common law, when the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the common law."

Now, admitting a person can be held in slavery, if his value is considered above twenty dollars, he certainly, according to this article, should have his case tried by a jury, instead of being delivered up simply by a hearing before a magistrate, as has been universally the case when he has been claimed; which would be, if it was merely a question of dollars and cents, most clearly a violation of the Constitution, and which ought not to be suffered. How much more, then, ought it not to be suffered, when a man's liberty is involved!

This closes all, so far as we can conceive, that

has reference to, or has a bearing on, the subject of slavery in the Constitution; and we have already commented on the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 11th articles of the amendments; and we know not it is necessary, in this place, to say any thing more in regard to them. Mr. Alvan Stewart has very fully commented on the 5th article of the amendments, which can be seen by reference to the report of his argument on this subject before the legislature at Albany, N. Y. We will observe, however, one of these articles of amendments was introduced into the Massachusetts convention for the very purpose of having a bearing on slavery, as we shall hereafter show.

Upon a review then of this instrument, with these amendments, we cannot but come to the conclusion that each and every man in this country is by the Constitution free, and that, save only those who reside in the Indian Territories, each and every man is bound, individually and collectively, by this instrument, to protect each and all in their inalienable rights, there being no exception to any one, be he of what clime or origin he may: it is enough to say he is an inhabitant of the United States or its Territories, and that is sufficient to constitute him a freeman.

8*

CHAPTER IV.

TO SUSTAIN THE ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS

CHAPTER, QUOTATIONS ARE MADE, SHOWING THE CHARACTER OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO SETTLE

THE COUNTRY.

HAVING now gone through with our criticisms on the Constitution, and our remarks upon what we consider the principles upon which it was. founded, we now, for a further illustration, and to show our ideas are not wholly unsupported, propose to quote from the language of some of the men who discussed this document before its ratification by the people, to ascertain if they did not and must not have known how fully the subject of slavery was under the power of congress, or that of the courts.

We will, however, in the first place, adduce some testimony from the early history of the country, to throw light upon, and to exemplify, if possible, in a clearer manner the position we have taken; and, although some of the quotations apparently may not have a bearing upon the subject, yet they will all, we trust, serve to keep distinctly in mind the great principles of liberty, its value, and the steps taken by our fathers to secure it to the inhabitants of this country; and as we shall find they never, from the first moment, lost sight