to serve the
purposes of a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes
no compromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of
history;--the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land, both
State and Federal;--the action of Congress and the State
Legislature;--the constant practice of the Executive in all its
branches;--and the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for
half a century, still they contend that the Nation does not know its
own meaning, and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery!
Every candid mind, however, must acknowledge that the language of the
Constitution is clear and explicit.

Its terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others
beside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot
include the slaves themselves! Many persons besides slaves in this
country doubtless are "held to service and labor under the laws of the
States," but that does not at all show that slaves are not "held to
service;" many persons beside the slaves may take part "in
insurrections," but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the
National Government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a
thing has been heard of before as one description including a great
variety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.

But granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous--that
they are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent,
unbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial,
legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people
for fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how
and where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the
Courts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has
authority to settle their meaning for them?

If then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to
determine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and
for the last half century, the Constitution of the United States has
been, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who
swears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his
duty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may
become a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and
repudiate it _as it is_.

But the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the
community, is this. Some men, finding the nation u