nforce them by his
example, if he regarded the Constitution as establishing the light of
property in man, and the benefit of the indefinite expansion of slavery
over the country? No, indeed! If we may consider the Constitution in
relation to slaves an inconsistent instrument, we can not prove it an
hypocritical and dishonest one. The hard necessities of the times wrung
out of reluctant patriots the admission of the rendition of slaves, but
they would not by any reasonable construction of language, assert the
natural right of property in slaves, and the propriety or benefit of its
toleration in new States and Territories. It was bad enough to tolerate
this evil in the old slave States, but it would be infamous to hand down
to posterity a Constitution denying the self-evident truths of the
Declaration of Independence. Toleration is not synonymous with approval,
or existence with right. There is a most subtle error in the assumption
of the indifference of the Constitution to freedom and slavery--that it
advocated neither, but protected both. Certainly the framers of the
Constitution were not automatons, or this instrument the accident of the
throw of the dice-box. The great purpose of this instrument was to raise
the revenue, and defend the country. Its end was to protect the
liberties and command the respect of civilized nations. The old
Confederation was to give way to the Federal Constitution. The
independence of the United States had been achieved at a heavy cost. To
say nothing of frontiers exposed, country ravaged, towns burnt, commerce
nearly ruined, the derangement of finances--the pecuniary loss alone
amounted to one hundred and seventy million dollars, two thirds of which
had been expended by Congress, the balance by individual States. The
design of the Constitution was to preserve the fruits of the Revolution,
to respect State sovereignty, and yet secure a powerful and efficient
Union; to have a central government, and yet not infringe upon the local
rights of the States. It will, therefore, be seen that while the subject
of slavery was earnestly discussed, and presented at the outset a great
obstacle to the union of the States, yet it was thought, upon the whole,
best to leave to the slave States the business of doing away with this
great evil in such a manner as in their judgment might best conduce to
their own security and the preservation of the Union.

But no truth of history is more evident than that the au