eparing
the Constitution, they intended to engraft upon it the idea of the
natural right of slavery, and recognize it as a blessing, to be
perpetuated and enlarged. The question is simply, whether the
Constitution was designed to be pro-slavery, or whether, like the
instrument of the Declaration of Independence, it was intended to be the
great charter of civil and religious freedom, although compelled, for
the sake of union, not to interfere with slavery where it already
existed? Great stress is put upon that clause enjoining the rendition of
slaves escaping from their masters; but union was impossible without
this provision. The necessity of union was thought indispensable for
protection, revenue, and securing the dearly-bought blessings of
independence. The question with them was not, ought slavery to be
recognized as a natural right, and slaves a species of property like
other merchandise? but simply, shall we tolerate this evil, for the sake
of Union? Thus, as the indispensable condition of union, the provision
was made for the rendition of persons held to labor in the slave States.
Why is the language of the Constitution so guarded as not to have even
the word 'slave' in it, and yet of such a character as not to interfere
with local State legislation upon slavery? Simply to steer between the
Charybdis of no union and the Scylla of the repudiation of the
Declaration of Independence, teaching that all men are born free and
equal, and that all have natural rights, such as life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. And yet, in the slave States, the interpretation
of the Constitution is such, that the free States are accused of
violating it, unless they acknowledge that it recognizes slavery as a
natural right, and an institution to be perpetuated and enlarged, and
put upon the same level with the blessing of freedom, in the
territories. Slavery virtually must be nationalized, and the
Constitution be interpreted so as to carry it all over the territories
now existing, or to be acquired, or the free States have broken the
Constitution, and the slave States may leave the Union whenever it suits
their pleasure. It is easy to see how time has brought about such a
revolution of feeling and idea respecting slavery. It can be shown that
circumstances have changed altogether the relations of slavery, and
while names have remained the same, the things which they represent have
assumed a radical difference. It can be shown that