FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84  
85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   >>   >|  
o slavery at all, the constitution of the United States took effect upon, and made citizens of _all_ "the people of the United States," without discrimination. And if _all_ "the people of the United States" were made citizens of the United States, by the United States constitution, at its adoption, it was then forever too late for the _state_ governments to reduce any of them to slavery. They were thenceforth citizens of a higher government, under a constitution that was "the supreme law of the land," "any thing in the constitution or laws of the states to the contrary notwithstanding." If the state governments could enslave citizens of the United States, the state constitutions, and not the constitution of the United States, would be the "supreme law of the land"--for no higher act of supremacy could be exercised by one government over another, than that of taking the citizens of the latter out of the protection of their government, and reducing them to slavery. SECONDLY. Although we might stop--we yet do not choose to stop--at the point last suggested. We will now go further, and attempt to show, specifically from its provisions, that the constitution of the United States, not only does not recognize or sanction slavery, as a legal institution, but that, on the contrary, it presumes all men to be free; that it positively denies the right of property in man; and that it, _of itself_, makes it impossible for slavery to have a legal existence in any of the United States. In the first place--although the assertion is constantly made, and rarely denied, yet it is palpably a mere begging of the whole question in favor of slavery, to say that the constitution _intended_ to sanction it; for if it _intended_ to sanction it, it _did_ thereby necessarily sanction it, (that is, if slavery then had any constitutional existence to be sanctioned.) The _intentions_ of the constitution are the only means whereby it sanctions any thing. And its intentions necessarily sanction everything to which they apply, and which, in the nature of things, they are competent to sanction. To say, therefore, that the constitution _intended_ to sanction slavery, is the same as to say that it _did_ sanction it; which is begging the whole question, and substituting mere assertion for proof. Why, then, do not men say distinctly, that the constitution _did_ sanction slavery, instead of saying that it _intended_ to sanction it? We are not accusto
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84  
85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94   95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
sanction
 

constitution

 

States

 
United
 

slavery

 

citizens

 

intended

 

government

 

begging

 

question


necessarily

 
intentions
 

contrary

 
existence
 
assertion
 

supreme

 

higher

 

people

 

governments

 

denied


palpably

 

adoption

 

discrimination

 

forever

 

impossible

 
constantly
 

rarely

 

sanctioned

 

competent

 

things


substituting

 

accusto

 
distinctly
 

nature

 

effect

 

constitutional

 

sanctions

 

protection

 

taking

 

reducing


Although
 
SECONDLY
 

enslave

 

constitutions

 

notwithstanding

 
exercised
 

supremacy

 
choose
 
institution
 

reduce