L
THE
CONSTITUTJION  EXPOUNDED,
RESPECTING ITS BEARING ON THE SUBJECT
oF
IN TWO PARTS.
PART  FIRST.
NEW YORK.
PRINTED AT 178 FULTON STREET, THIRD STORY.
1850.
!/! /
- -, - --- I
_0 
I
t 
GEINERAL LIBAR
7- ~:5 
INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
WASHINGTON CITY, MARCH 29th, 1850.
ON the 6th instant, the writer of the following pages forwarded to the
Editor of the New York Evening Post a communication headed " Slavery and Slaveocracy. " It was the first number of a series of articles which
it was contemplated to publish in said paper. These articles were intended to be digested leisurely, so as to afford proper time to investigate considerately " the absorbing question of the day," by expounding with care
and accuracy the provisions of the Constitution which have a bearing on
the subject of slavery.  Two articles had been written when it was ascertained, on the 16th instant, that the Editor of the above mentioned New
York paper declined to publish them, and the original plan was in consequence given up.  However, portions of the manuscript having been read
to a few friends, the writer has been induced to publish the result of his
investigation in a pamphlet form. It will be divided in two parts. The
first part, now published, contains a portion of the first article forwarded
on the 6th instant to the Evening Post, and the whole of the second article, dated three days later.
This FIRST PART comprehends an exposition of the whole question, and
of the various points intended to be treated; it points out a remarkable
and characteristic novelfeature of the Constitution of 1788, which contrasts materially with the nature of the compact agreed upon, under the
articles of confederation, by the " United States of America;" it demonstrates the complete fallacy of the new fangled theories concerning the
rights of the South, &c. &c.; it establishes irrefutably the right of Congress to legislate on territories-to form or create new states-and to require, as an indispensable condition to the admission of any new state into
the Union, that the Constitution of any such state shall prohibit slavery
within its borders and jurisdiction.
The SECOND PART will be published separately, and will contain
1st. An examination of " the novel feature in the form of governments,"
which is designated in the FIRST PART as being peculiar to the Constitution of 1788, wherein it will be shown and demonstrated, that this " novel
feature" has not been as yet properly defined and appreciated by publitc writers, and that it constitutes a connecting link between the People of
the various states, which renders all attempts at DISUN-ION by sectional factions, however formidably organized, utterly impossible.
2d. A brief analytical review of the most important speeches delivered
this session of Congress on the slavery question.
3d. An analysis of the causes which have brought about a most striking 
4
change in the views expressed on the subject of slavery by the slaveholders of the present generation as compared with those entertained on the
same point, by the slaveholders who framed the Constitution. This analysis to be followed by a careful research of the causes and circumstances
which originated slaveocracy  in the United States; this research will be
illustrated by a brief outline of the spirit, the tactics, and the general or
ganization of said "' slaveocracy."
4th. Remarks explanatory of that clause of the  Constitution which
provides, Art. XII, of the amendments, that "' the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States,
are reserved to to the States respectively, or to the  People,"-showing
that these " powers" imply., of course, such powers  only as may be
within the attributes of any State, in its individual capacity; and cannot apply to those " powers" which are inherent to a sovereign jurisdiction of a general character, such as has been conferred to Congress by
the Constitution, because Art. I. Section X, of said instrument, prohibits
-the States expressly from exercising " power" of a " general character.'
One word concerning the object in view of the writter may not be out
of place. He has no partizan predilections to advocate, no interested motives to subserve; the vindication of truth on questions of national importance is the only subject which has ever impelled him to surmount his national repugnance to elaborate his views so as to be able to carry into others
the conviction of his own mind. Being an attentive observer of passing
events, he has remarked, particularly for the last 15 years, that the slaveocrat accuses the abolitionist and the free soiler of violating the Constitution, which said slaveocrat pretends to respect, and vice versa; while on the
other hand the political writers and demagogues of both the Democratic
and Whig parties vie with each other to mistify the plain import of that instrument, by creating numberless false issues. Well, " the object in view"
of the writer, is to carry into others the conviction of his own mind, by expounding, faithfully, and conscientiously the Constitution which all pretend
to respect, and which all, more or less, seem to misunderstand.
The two articles originally written for the Evening lPost, bore the assumned signature of I' Jefferson," it has been accordingly preserved in
this FIRST PART; but the writer intends after the publication of the SE0OND PARTS to condense the two  parts into one, and publish it under his
own name. Although no attacks on the motives of individuals will be
found in these pages, still, opinions will be freely expressed on the acts
of public men, without regard to high  namnes, whenever  the "vindi,
cation of truth" will require it, and it becomes, in such a case, the duty
of a conscientious writer, not to shrink froni responsibility 
(Fof the Evening Post.)
SLAVERYSLAVP LAVEOCRACY-NO. 1.
WASTINGTON, MARCH 6th, 1850.
The purport of the first and second numbers of this series of articles
is to establish the following points:
First-That Congress has the right to require, as an indispensable condition to the admission of any new States into the Union, that the Constitution of stech new States shall prohibit slavery within its borders and jurisdiction.
Second-That the mystification now existing in the United States on
the question of slavery, and the consequent difficulty of its settlement, originates in the discrepancy and striking contrast existing between the views
entertained on that question by the slaveholders who framed the Constitution of 178S8, and the extraordinary doctrines now urged by the slaveocrats
of 1So0.
The investigation of the facts relative to these points will require an extended  developement, which will prove to be a searching analysis of the
whole question.
From  the time of the adoption of the Constitution  to this day,  the
right of Congress to legislate on the subject of slavery has been asserted
to be included within its delegated powers. On the other hand, that
" right" has occasionally been contested, and of late years it has been
strenuously denied to exist by the Attorneys of an organized sectional constituency.  The fact, however, that Congress  has actually legislated repeatedly on the above subject is undisputable, and even those who have denied the " right" have invariably  voted for its exercise whenever a compromise has been agreed upon as to its limits and partial restriction: this
has been the case at the time of the Missouri Compromise, of the annlexation of Texas, of the passage of the Oregon territorial bill, &c.  The controversy as to the " right" has, nevertheless, becomne a subject of strife between the contending parties, and the written matter which has been wasted and published on both sides of the question would fill up hundreds of
volumes; the subject is now, therefore, less understood and mlore mystified
than ever, and the popular mind is thereby nearly bewildered in doubt at
a peculiar juncture of our public affairs when a mystification of said subject is likely to be injurious.-It is intended to clear up said mystification in
the course of the following calmn and dispassionate investigation on SLAVERY AND SLAVEOCRACY, and in order that my remarks may be clearly
understood, it is proper to state, at the outset, the precise meaning intend-.
ed to be conveyed by using the words-Slavery and Slaveocracy-in contrast to each other.   SLAVERY is intended to apply to the state of hunmal
servitude as it existed in the United States from the time of the Declara.
tion of Independence to the adoption of the Constitution in 1788, when the
leading slaveholders of that period considered "slavery" as a violation
of natural and human  rights, and as an evil which they felt it their duty
to restrict, and at the proper time to abolish.   SLAVEOCRACRY is meant
to apply to the existing organization of the slaveholders of our time, who 
6
have an altogether different view of human bondage, as they affect to
look upon said bondage as a blessing, which it is their mission to propagate
and to extend.
The heterogeneous mass of conflicting opinions and of absurd views and
notions diffused by the Press on the subject of slavery, naturally demands
first the attention of the investigator.  The  Constitution of the United
States is invoked on both sides of the question as being the true guide and
the proper authority, but it is generally found out on carefully expounding
its provisions, that the partizan writer, or the sectional orator, has quoted
only such portions of said provisions as may be misconstrued in leading
public opinion astray by specious and unwarrantable inferences. As to the
principal original cause of the conflicting opinions, &c., above stated, it
may be traced up and is directly attributable to the fact, that a very striking and material difference exists in the views entertained on the subject
of slavery by the slaveholders who participated in framing the Constitution, and the slaveholders of the present generation.
The general sentiment of the slaveholders fromin the year 1776 to 1788
was, at that eventful period, openly and clearly manifested by their professions and by their acts; slarery was looked upon by them, not only as a
curse bequeathed to them by the British Government, but as a social and
political evil which, they keenly felt, it was their duty to mitigate and to
restrain as much as possible.  The actual views of the slaveholders of the
present generation took their rise about the year 1835, when the false and
degrading doctrines which an Apostle of a newfangled creed, Mr. J. C.
Calhoun of South Carclina, had disseminated throughout the land, began
to bear fruit.  i'hose false and degrading doctrines are based on the preposterous assumption that slavery is a blessing, and on the blasphemous
assertion, that perpetual human bondage is an institution of divine origin.
Circumnstances took place favoring the adoption of these fallacious doctrines by the slaveholding sections of the Union, and they led, by degrees,
to the organization of an encroaching slaveocracey. —: brief analysis of
that slaveocracy, of its spirit, of its tactics and general organization, will
be appended in a subsequent number.
The contrast between the views entertained by the slavehlolders who
franied the Constitution of 1788, and those now urged by the slaveocrats
of 1850, can be thus further explained.
The Slaveholdersof 1776 down to 1788, were actuated by elevated and
ennobling sentiments, and in consequence they accomplished great and
glorious results; they felt " a decent respect for the opinions of nankird,"
they deprecated the cruelty and the evils of Slavery, they legislated to
restrict it, and they actually provided the mode and laid down the time (as
will be shown in the course of this investigation) when it umight be altogether abolished; but the Slaveocrats of 1850 agre  on the contrary,
under the influence of those base and ignoble feelings whichl lower and
debase human character, and never obtain any creditable result; cupidity
is their moving principle; they feel no shame, they proclaim loudly that
Slavery is the corner stone of liberty-they violate daily the most plain
provisions of the Constitution, as will be demonstrated in a subsequent
number, while they have the unblushing affrontery to invoke said instrument as their shield against alleged aggressions from  the north; and
finally they have been encouraged last year  by selfish, time-serving,
Northern Doughfaces, by the jars and bickerings of political opponents 
7
and the consequential supineness of Congress, to set forth a most unwarranted and audacious pretension, namely:-that of extending Slavery
beyond the limits prescribed by the Constitution, and of spreading its corrupting influence in all the new T'erritories of the United States, threatening openly disunion in case their demand be not complied with. Such is
the contrast between the encroaching stand assumed by the Slaveocrats
of 1850, and the position deliberately taken by the Slaveholders in 1788;
the obvious inferences to be drawn therefrom are plain enough to the
impartial investigator, but in order to clear up altogether the mistification which shrouds a subject so completely obscured by the sophistry of Attorneys and of Politicians on both sides of the question, I
intend to transcribe faithful extracts from official documents, and to quote
such provisions of the Constitution as will irrefutably prove, that the
above representation of facts is strictly true; and I will then draw out
therefrom, such obvious inferences as will lay bare the recklessness and
unconstitutionality of the course adopted by the Slaveocrats of 185%,
while, on the other hand, the general misconception of the true points at
issue manifested, not only by the zealots of the "peculiar institution',
but even by the opponents of Slavery, will be forcibly and clearly pointed
out.
JEFFERSON.
(Continued page 15.)
(For the Evening Post.)
SLAVERY AND SLAVEOCRACY-NO. 2.
WASHINGTON,  MARcH 9th, 1850.
While the first number of this series of articles was on its way to New
York, Mr. Daniel Webster was delivering a speech in the Senate, wherein
he expatiates at length on the same point which I have already treated,
namely: the striking contrast existing between the views entertained on
the subject of slavery by the slavelholders, at the time the Constitution was
adopted, and the slaveholders of the present generation.   But the obvious
inferences and deductions to be drawn from that fact, are carefully kept
out of view, or else are glossed over and distorted by Mr. Webster, who
joins stoutly in the cry of "Wolf!"' " Wolf!" against the North and the
Free Soilers, while he has nothing at all to say against the Slaveocratspoor fellows! whom he considers as very much abused; except, however,
in case they mean to dissolve the Union; but he takes good care not to
accuse them of that naughty intention, and he goes so far as to intimate
that the Nashville Convention is meant merely for conciliatory purposes.
It is intended, in a subsequent number, to append a brief review of the
most important speeches delivered this session on the subject of slavery;
this will be a proper place to enlarge my strictures on a speech so remarkable for plasticity of logic, as to furnish positive evidence that the great
i expounder 1 is actually defunct. The strictures above alluded to will, 
8
of course, include the various inferences and conclusions which may be
obviously drawn from the historical facts so clearly presented by Mr.
Webster; they will expose in a strong light, and will bring out in full re lief, the contemptible position voluntarily assumed by the Senator fromi
Massachusetts.
I will, now, proceed to establish the point laid down towards the con elusion of No. 1 of this series of articles.  (See page 18.)
In order that the general bearings of the Constitution, and the purposes
it was intended to carry out and subserve, may be properly understood
and appreciated, it is proper to quote in full the concise preamble wherein
they are specially enumerated.  It is as follows:
"  YWE, THE PEOPLE OF THE  UNITED STATES, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, DO ORDAIN and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
The language of the above preamble is perfectly clear, and cannot be
misunderstood; it states, positively and emphatically, that " the Constitution" is willed and ordained by the People of the United States, and not,
as it has been pretended, by the States acting, each, as a distinct power or
sovereignty; that it is not, in one word, a compact between the Statesbut that it is a compact entered into by the majority of the People of the
United States, through delegates appointed in each State. This novelfeature in the form of governments, characterizes the striking difference between the weakness and unsteadiness of the confederacy anterior to 1788,
and the elasticity and vigor of the actual Constitution.  Well, now, that the
fed attorneys of the Slaveocracy pretend that the inhabitants of the United
States are not one People, that they do not constitute one Nation, that
they belong respectively to a distinct State, forming part of a confederacy
of States, it becomes proper to expose this fallacy, and to vindicate the
truth, by quoting the clear import of the Constitution; any person of common capacity who will take the trouble to read it attentively, will be convinced, that the waggeries and the new-fangled theories set up by the
Apostle of Slavery and his disciples, concerning the compact between the
States-the equilibrium between the two sections, i.e. North and Souththe sectional and paramount allegiance which they proclaim is due to the
South by the Senators and Representatives which they send to Congress to'
perform the mockery of an oath-all, are alike fallacious and unconstitutional.  It is true that the Constitution provides, Art. XI[. (of the Amendments,) that "The  powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People," but
this provision has been ordained by " the People," and not by the States,
as distinct powers; and the peculiar feature which distinguishes the Constitution of the United States as ratified in 1788, fiom the Articles of
Confederation entered into in 1778 between the thirteen " United States
of America," is, as above stated, a " novel feature in the form of governments."  The subject well deserves the study of the investigator, and it
will be, accordingly, carefully examined in another number; but my actual
purpose in noticing it now, is to demonstrate thereby, that the people of
the United States, by ordaining the Constitution of 1788, have, in point
of fact, understood and agreed upon simultaneously- to form one People,
and to constitute onze Nation. The Father of his Country so understood 
9
it, as may be seen from the following extract from his Farewell Address to
the People of the United States:   "The  unity of government which
constitutes you one People, is also now dear to me,'  &c.; and further,
"the name of AMERIICAN which belongs to you, in your national capacity,
must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appellation
derived from local discriiiations."
The stand taken by the Slaveocrats of 1850, as to the Constitution being " a compact between the two sections, &e." supported as it is by the
doctrines emphatically proclaimed in the Senate by Mr. Butler of South
Carolina, namely: that the Senators and Representatives elected to Congress by the Slaveocracy, owe their allegiance to their States and to the
South first, and secondly, only, to the Union; is thus shown by the above
plain exposition of the clear irmport of the Constitution, to be altogether
fallacious; and, not only derogatory to the Constitution, but embodying a
positive infringement of its fundamental principle, constituting a manifest
violation of the oath of allegiance to the Union, which every Senator and
Representative is bound to record previous to taking his seat in Congress
and the men, who profess and proclaim the above fallacious doctrines, are
not better, therefore, than rank traitors to their country.
T'he wide range of topics required to be discussed in order to throw
sufficient light on the complicated mystification I have undertaken to clear
up, will make it necessary, for perspicuity sake, to class some of the
points treated, under special heads, so that reference may be made, distinctly, to each of themi whenever proper, without interrupting the progress of the investigation: my remarks and conclusions on the first point
laid down at the start of the article of the 6th instant, will be summed up
under the following head
ORIGIN, EXTENT, AND LIMI-TS OF THE RIGHT OF CONGRESS, UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION, TO LEGISLATE ON SLAVERY.
It is intended, under this head, to prove the correctness and the strict
truth of the following assertions, to wit:
That Congress, under the existing Constitution, has the right
To legislate on T'erritories,
To exclude Slavery from the Territories,
To provide for the formation and erection of new States,
And, lastly, that Congress has the right-to require, as an indispensable
condition to the admission of any new State into the Union, that the Constitution of such new State sh,tllprohibit Slavery within its borders and
jurisdiction.
It has been already ascertained in the course of this investigation, that
the majority of Slaveholders, at the time the Constitution was adopted,
looked upon Slavery as a degrading institution infringing on natural rights
and as a moral and political evil which thty felt it their duty to restrict,
and, in the course of timte, to abolish whenever practicable.
In the year 1787 a convention of delegates, wherein Slaveholders had a
preponderating influence, met in Philadelphia, duly authorised to frame
the existing Constitution.  t'he Congress of the Confederation, styled,
" United States of Anierica "- was, at that very same time, in session in
New York, and enacted, on the 13th of July of that year, an ordinance
prohibiting Slavery and human'servitude in the territory northwest of the
2 
10
river Ohio; this territory took up and comprehended the whole of the do:o
main then belonging to the United States.  The movements and the djings of both the Congress and Convention, were in a great measure coinbined together; and, as some of the leading men of the times were ineine
bers of both bodies, they actually labored understandingly, pri passe, for
the same purpose, nanlely: that of preparing organic laws for completing
the frame of the Constitution.
The ordinance of 1787, excluding slavery from the whole territory belonging to the United States, was passed by the unanimous vote of all
the slaveholders who  were members of the Congress; it contained provisions for dividing the territory into five states, and thus further it provides for the formation of these states, " and whenever any of the said
states shall have sixty thousand free inhabitants therein, such state shalt
be admitted, by its delegates, into the Congress of the United States, on
an equal footing with the original states in all respect whatever; and shall
be at liberty to form a permanent constitution and state government;
PROVIDED the constitution and the government so to be formed, shall be
republican, and in conformity to the principles contained in these articles.'"
These articles are six in number, and Article VI. provides, that " there
shall be neither Slavery mor involuntary Servitude in the said territory,
&e.' It follows, therefore, according to the principles and the provisions
thus laid down, that no newt State can be admitted into the Union, except
with a conslitution prohibiting Slavery.
While the Congress was thus legislating for the exclusion of Slavery,
the Convention sitrting in Philad(elphia was progressing in framingirjg the costitution.  It was finally accomplished on the 17th of Septernmber, after a
session of about four months, and the same views and feelings which
prevailed in the Congress were also manifested in the convention; the
provision concerning the delivering up of persons escaping from service,
which is included in- Article VI. of the ordinance, mlay be cited as one
instance, it reads as follows: " Provided always that anyperson escaping
into the same (the Territory,) from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully
reclaimed, &c.1
WVell, the substance and thie very phraseology of the above provision
is inserted in Article IV. Section II of the Constitution of the United
States.  The similarity of views entertained on the same subjects by both,
the Congress and the Convention, is altogether remarkable; this mutual
understanding between these two bodies was the cause, on the other haind,
that many enactments well understood no doubt, at that timre, to be auxiliary, or to refer to the acts from one of the bodies to those of the other,
were not as clear and pointed in their reference to each other as they
ought to have been; and this is the place to illustrate that point, by bringing out an important fact which is hardly knovwn on account of its having
been mistified and kept out of sight by an everlasting controversy between
interested partisans; that fact is-that tihe Constitution of the United
States contains no provision whatever concerning Territories in a general
sense.   Clause second of Section III, Article IV, has been cited often
as being applicable to that point, but this is evidently wrong, and anybody who will carefully scan its meaning will be convinced that it conveys no power to legislate on Territories.  Said clause reads as follows
" The Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules 
ad regulation2s respecting the Territory, or other property belonging to
the United States."   Territory is used in this clause in the singular number, and alludes obviously to the " territory" that had just been legislated
upon by the Congress of the Confederation. This second clause has in
fact no definite meaning, unless it be taken in connexion with the ordinance;
but in order that future legislators might not misunderstand its bearing,
a pointed reference to the ordinance ought to have been made.   As to the
needful " rules and regulations" alluded to in said clause, they apply merely
to such rules and regulations as might be necessary, from time to time, to
carry out the organic and fundamental law enacted by said Congress under
the form of an ordinance. The first Congress under the Constitution acted
accordingly, by enacting an Act, entitled an Act "To  provide for the
Territory Northwest of the River Ohio-approved August 7th, 1789.George Washington, President of the United  States."-Said Act was
enacted for the purpose expressed therein, of adapting "' the ordinance
of the United States in Congress assembled"-" to the present Constitution of the United States."
The fact that the first Congress under the Constitution passed an Act
having in view to give full effect to the ordinance of 1787, is important to
record, as it confirms a presumption already made obvious by corroborating circumstances, namely:-that the ordinance of 1787  was  held bv
the framers of the Constitution as organic and fundamental law, and as embodying their views, concerning the proper basis of the legislation required
to prepare states to be so constituted as to enable them to be admitted
into the Union; or else, had not this been the case, they would, no doubt,
have enacted provisions indicating and determining their own views. This
was not done;they did not even provide fear the eventual formation of
new states, implying evidently, thereby, that the new states that might
hereafter be formed or created, ought to be so formed and created according to the principles already laid down in the ordinance of 1787: the
conclusion becomes thereby irresistible, that the convention endorsed the
ordinance of the Congress, and that it was held  and understood  to be
inherently connected with the constitution, The fact that the constitution
of 1788 contains no provision to legislate on Territories, confers no
powers to form or elect new states, is in itself evidence that the ordinance
was held to be the organic law which controlled the subject, as it would
be absurd to suppose that the framers of the Constitution could have
omitted to provide for such obvious contingencies.   Moreover, the Constitution provides, Article IV, Section IlI —that " Nvew States may be
admitted into the Union, &c," but as no other provision, except those
enacted in the ordinance of 17S7, can be found therein to provide for
creating or erecting these new states, it follows consequently, that the
right exercised by Congress in various circumstances  to legislate on
Territories, to exclude Slavery, and to create or form new states, is derived from, and is based on, the provisions of said ordinance. The Congress
of the Confederation had, by the treaty of 1783, become fully invested
with the sovereign jurisdiction over Territories, exercised by Great
Britain previous to the Declaration of Independence.  It had, therefore,
the indisputable right to legislate on these territories and  to prohibit
Slavery; and the Congress did so, by its ordinance of the 13th of July,
1787. —This "a right" is, in fact, inherent to all sovereign powers. —It can,
however,of course, be waived as a matter ofipolicy. WVell, the Constitu 
12
tion of 17SS88 rostricted said right to a certain degrees and the provisions
containing those restrictions are necessarily binding on Congress, under
said Constitution; bitt all or any part, of the i right"s exercised by the
Congress of the Confederation which has not been expressly restricted, belongs rightfully to Congress under the existing Constitution.-It is an inherent right which requires no assertion.
Now, that the origin of the " right" of Congress to legislate on Territories, &c. and on slavery, has been satisfactorily traced up, now that the
" right" itself has been irrefutably established, I wvill proceed to investigate the extent and the limits of that right under this Constitution.
The debates which took place in the Convention while the framing of
the constitution was progressing, indicate clearly the prevailing sentiments
of its framers and of the slaveholders in general on the subject of Slavery.
The new fangled doctrine " that Slavery is the corner stone of Liberty,"
that it is a blessing of " divine origin," had neither perverted their judg,
ment, nor contaminated their mnorals; they held human  bondage to be a
cruel and disgraceful infringement of natural rights; they held that it was,
as is recorded in Mr. Webster's speech of the 7th instant,' a blight, a
blast, a scourge, and a curse -1 there were then, as he states, a no terms of
reprobation of.Slavery so vehement in the North of that (lay, as in the
South."  All the authentic records still existing of these timnes concur in
representing the convention which framed the constitution as reflecting
the  judgment and sentiments of  the slaveholders in the South.   A
leadingi majority of its members were froin slaveholding States, and the
Slaveholders were thereby enabled to embody in the constitution such
provisions as would, according to their judgment, guard their immediate in-,
terests from being jeopardized, so long as slavery could not be abolished
with safety to the community and advantage to the degraded slave.
These provisions were not, as it has since been often wrongly represent-.
ed,-a  compromise  between  the?orth and  the South, or between the
Slave  States and the Free States-nor was it, as has been dreamt of
lately-to establish an equilibrium between two antagonist sections of the
country.  T'hese provisions embodied merely  the settlement of a difference of opinion between the Slaveholders themselves.  Somne of them
thought that Slavery could he abolished almost immediately, others thought
it would take at least twenty years; these last prevailed, and the following
provisions were accordingly drawn up and embodied in the Constitution:
"Article I, Section IX. —The migration or importation of such persons a  any of the
States now existing shall thinkl proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress
prior to 1808, &c.'
Article I, Section II, Clause 3.-Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among  hle several States which may be included within the Union, according'to
their respective numrbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole numnber of
free persons, including those bound to service for a number of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fzfthls of all other persons, Cc.'
"Article IV, Section  II, Clause 3. —No  person held to service or labor in one State
under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any  law or regulation therein, be discharged firom such service or labor, but shall be delivered up oni
claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
The first of the above provisions suspended for twenty years the right
of Congress to abolish slave-trade; but as soon as the time was expired,
that is, in 1808, Congress legislated to prohibit that inhuman traffic under 
very heavy penalties, and has continued ever since, from time to time, to
legislate on the subject.
The investigator will observe, that the use of the terms slave, and slavery,
seems to have been carefully avoided in the phraseology of the above provisions  this was done intentionally, and proceeded from  the following
motives:-FIRST, because  " a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," and a becoming sense of shanme, prevented the framers of the constitution from polluting that instrument with expressions which might imply to the world, that the model Republic upheld and fostered human
bondage.  Second, because, as stated by Mr. Madison, himself a slaveholder-they did not wish to see it recognized by the constitution of the
United States, that there could  be any property in men-and it will be
observed, that the constitution, in accordance with this intent, does not
requires that "fugitive slaves" shall be delivered up; it requires inl substance-that persons bouttd to service in one state and  escaping into
another shall be delivered up.  This clause 3rd, as above transcribed in
full, was worded after debate and deliberation, understandingly, and its
import ought to be taken according to the meaning attached to it when
it was adopted.
The third motive for purposely avoiding the eise of the terms slave and
slavery, controlled the whole question; it proceeded from the fact, that
the above transcribed three p ovisions were not intended to be permanent.
It was obvious to the slaveholders, as remarked by Mr. Webster in his late
specch, " that slavery could not be continued in this country, if the importation were made to cease; and therefore, they  (the framers of the
Constitution) provided, that after a certain period the importation might
be prevented by the act of the iNew Government;" and further, " we must
take along with us in the whole of this discussion-that the conviction of
all men was that if the importation of slaves ceased, the white race would
multiply faster than the black race, and that slavery would therefore grad-,
ually wear out and exp;re." Well, the statement just made, namely,
that the three provisions above transcribed were not intended, by the franiers of the Constitution, t: be permanent, is fully corroborated by the
fact that the Constitution itself contains a clause which indicates the
mode  and the time when slavery may be prohibited by Congress under
said Constitution.  This " faict" stands as an irrecusable proof that the
convention did contemplate to enable Congress within a short period, to
prohibit slavery in all the States wherein it had been restricted and tolerated in pursuance of the three temporary provisions above alluded to.
'The Constitution provides, Article V, that amendmnents-" shall be va-.
lid to all intents arid purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified
by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States-provided that
no amendment which may be made prior to 180SS shall in any manner affeet the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of Art. 1." (See
Art. V. entire, page 19.)
It is, thereby, evident, according to the clear import of the above clause,
that slavery rlight have been prohibited in all the States by Congress under this Constitution, as early as in the year 1808, if three-fourths of tlo
legislatures had ratified an amendment to the Constitution to that affect;
and it is, moreover, manifest that it would have been prohibited accordingly, long ago, if a disgraceful change had not taken place in the feelings,
opinions, and views of the slaveholders in the Southern States. This
13 
14
change, and the base sentiments which have brought it about, will be exposed and developed in a separate number.
'IThe facts which have been logically established in the course of the above
research and exposition, will now be brought up in connexion with ea(ch
other, and briefly summed up as follows:
It is afact, that the Congress of the Confederation did legislate on the
whole territory belonging, then, to the United States; that it excluded
slavery therefrom, and that it provided for the formation of five States
which could not be admitted into the Union, except with a constitution
prohibiting slavery.
It is afact, that the Sovereign Power of the Congress to issue the ordinanee of 1787 rightfully belonged to said Congress, which, by the treaty
of 1783, became fully invested with the sovereign jurisdiction exercised
by Great Britain before the Declaration of Independence.
It is a fact, that Congress under this Constitution, became duly invested with the same sovereign powers as those exercised by the Congress of
the Confederation; subject, of course,to such restrictions as might be laid
down in the Constitution.
It is a fact, that the new Constitution contained three provisions having
obviously in view to guard the interests of the slaveholders, so as to give to
the existing States the control over slavery within these existing States;
but it is also afact, that these three provisions were not intended to be
permanent, and that Art. V. of the Constitution actually provided for the
repeal of these three provisions, and for the consequential prohibition of
slavery in all the States, by act of Congress.
At is afact, finally, that the Constitution of 1788 contains no provision,
whether for preventing or restricting Congress from exercising such inherent sovereign powers, concerning territories, and the formation of new
States, &c. as-had been, rightfully, exercised by the Congress of the
Confederation, and that Congress has, therefore, the " right" to ordain and
enact-that no new state shall be admitted into the Union, except with a
Constitution prohibiting slavery.
The special and direct inferences and conclusions to be drawn from this
chain of facts, are now apparent, palpable, and irresistible-there is no
need of further explicitness —they irrefutably establish the correctness and
the strict truth of the assertions enumerated underneath the first paragraph at the head of this article, to wit:
That Congress, under the existing( Constitution, has the right
'1'o legislate on territories,
To exclude slavery from the territories,
To provide for the formation, and erection of New States.
And lastly, that Congress  has the right to require as an indispensable condition to the admission of any new State into the Union, that the
Constitution of such new State shall prohibit slcrvery within its borders
and jurisdiction.
Amnong the facts abc ve enunciated, it has been ascertained that the Constitution of 1788 contains  no provisions whatever restricting Congress
from exercising the samnie inherent sovereign right to abolish Slavery in
Territories, &c., as rightfully belonged to the Congress of the Confederation. I will now demonstrate, that the Constitution itself makes it the duty
of Congress to abolish Slavery whenever and wherever it may happen t o
have jurisdiction. 
The true intent of the Constitution is embodied in its preamble, whichi
sets forth in clear and precise terms the special purposes it is intended to
carry out.  It reads as follows:
" VWE, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for
the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
Slavery, in pursuance of three provisions inserted into the Constitution,
had been restricted, as I have already shown, within the then existing
States, the jurisdiction of Congress therein having been, thereby, temporarily suspended; but beyond the boundaries of the then existing
States, the intent of the Constitution is absolute, and it is obviously the
duty of Congress, "1 in order to secure liberty," to prohibit Slavery
wherever it has jurisdiction. Moreover, Article IV, Section III of the
Constitution, provides that "' New States may be admitted by the Congress
into this Union." The right of imposing conditions is thus reserved to
Congress, because the framers of the Constitution used, no doubt understandingly, the dubitative tense " may" in the above clause.  WVell, on the
one hand, the intent of the Constitution is clear, that it has been ordained
and intended "to secure liberty, &c."  On the other hand, Congress
has the right to impose, within the attribute of its jurisdiction, conditions
to the admission of new States into the Union.  It is, therefore, its bounden duty,under this Constitution, to require that no new States shall be
admitted except with a Constitution prohibiting Slavery.
Political scribblers and the attorneys of the slaveocracy, will pretend,
no doubt, that " we, the People of the United States," was intended for
"s we, the " white" people of the United States, &c.," but their assertions
will only deceive those who are not acquainted with the history of our
Revolution, or those persons who wish to be deceived. The slaveholders
who framed the Constitution, James Madison by instance, were neither
unprincipled sophists, nor hyppocrites: they meant what they clearly expressed, they were as sincere in the wording of the preamble as they and
other slaveholders were, when they appealed to God for the truth of the
following declaration " we hold these truths to be self evident, that, all
men are born equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among those are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.11                                                JEFFERsON.
SLAVERY AND SLAVEOCRACY-NO. 1.
(Continued Fiom page 7.)
WASTIINGTON, MIARCH  6th, 185(0
I intend, moreover, to set forth at length the details and the result of a
careful investigation of the origin, the extent, and the precise limits of the
"right" of Congress, under the Constitution, to legislate on Slavery; it
establishes the fact, that the " right" of Congress to legislate on that
subject, is actually, more radical and  comprehensive than the one  com
i5 
i6
prehended in the restriction generally called the " Wilmot Proviso,"   and
the reasoning to sustain the constitutionality of said (' right," will be
found indisputable, which is more than can be said in regard to some of
the arguments urged in support of said Proviso.
'IThe developement and the result of the investigation above alluded to
Wvill be preceded by  an argumentative review, which will facilitate and
contribute materially, to explain and clear up the mystification existinog on
the " absorbing question of the day."
The Declaration of Independence issued, ",in the name and by
authority of the good People of these (British) Colonies" by the Representatives of the thirteen United States of America, on the 4th of July,
1776, was an event that created immense sensation in Europe; this
was owing, particularly, to the tone of the public mind prevalent at the
time that it was proclaimed; and therefore also, to the nature of the stand
taken, and to the principles defined in that eloquent Declaration. The
great and celebrated writers of the age of Louis the XIV, had already
sown the seeds of Liberty; the minds of the people were prepared to
vindicate the unalienable rights of man. Voltaire, Rousseau, the
philosophers  Diderot, D'Alembert, and a host of others, had by their iminortal writings worked up a general ferments and the solemn " appeal to
the opinions of mankind"  contained in the Declaration of Independence,
sustained as it was by the bold truths which it promulgated, found an
enthusiastic response in thousands of hearts who vibrated in harmonious congeniality to the noble sentiments therein expressed.   It was the
intensity of the feelings thus excited, which tore the noble born La
Fayette from the arms of his young, bride, and impelled him with so many
Other high minded Volunteers, to take up armns and'cross the Atlantic at
considerable risk, and at their own expense, to fight the BATTLE  OF
FREEDOM.   The patriotic self-Sacrifice manifested by thlis bold and hazardous resolve had an electrical effect, not only in Europe, but in America; it
was followed by shipment of arms, of ammunitions, of remnittances of
money generously forwarded, and the enthusiastic feelings of the French
people, actually drove Louis the XVlth, against his own judgment and
forebodings as a Moharch, to take up the cause of Liberty, by declaring
war to England:
The calm investigator who scrutinizes carefully causes and effects, who
takes into due consideration the peculiar circumstances of the times,
cannot fail to perceive, that the principal elements which secured, ultimately, the Independence of the United Stavtes, were created and set in
motion by a primitive impulse; the nature and character of this primary
impulse, and the enthusiastic feelings which it originated, are both
resumed in the mighty effect produced on the fermentative state of the
public inind, then existing in Europe, by the eloquent appeal to the
opinions of mankind, and by the bold assertion of th,, unalienable rights of
man, both solemnly proclaimed jn the memorable Declaration of the 4th
of July, under a reverential invocation for support 6 to the Supreme
Judge of the world."
The views above developed, indicate clearly, that the successful
issue of our seven years struggle for Independence was brought about,
mainly if not wholly, by the electrical effect produced by the immortal
instrument which embodied the solemn appeal addressed to mankind by
the Representatives of America; and, it may be safely asserted, that the 
17
bold vindication before the world, of principles on the unalienable rights
of man which were so truthfully defined, and so nobly proclaimed by the
fifty-six Patriots who mutually, under Divine Providence, pledged to
each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor for the truth
of their Declaration, was, actually, the primary cause which led to the
achievement of our Independence.  If France had  not declared war
against England, Spain and Holland would have taken no part in the
contest, and the immense force which Great Britain was obliged to scat  ter far and near to defend her extensive possessions and protect her own
shores from these three powerful opponents, would have been concentra  ted to crush the spirit of Independence; under those circumstances, the
situation of the Colouists would have become truly desperate; the Loyalists
would have mustered more numerous, and paralyzed considerably the
efforts of the Patriots; and the Revolutionary movement must have
proved in the end, as miserable a failure as any we have had in modern
times, when sympathy for the oppressed in Poland, in Hungary, &c., has
gone not much farther than to vapor out in speeches and declamations.
The fact, that the achievement of our independence was owing to the
"primary course' above developed will be made still more palpable by
the following illustration-It has been truly observed that there is but
one step from the sublime to the ridiculous-If our Declaration of Indepen dence, instead of having been dictated by the patriotic spirit predominant
among the slaveholders of 1776, had been made by men holding the doc trines on slavery professed by the slaveocrats of 1850, they would have,
in order to be consistent with those doctrines, somewhere qualified the
language of the self-evident truths proclaimed in the declaration. The
substitution of a single word by another would have been sufficient for that
purpose-The declaration contains the following sublime passages-" We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are born equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Now, it is well known that the pro-slavery men of our days pretend
that the unalienable rights above enumerated belongs only to white men;
they would therefore, have made the above passage to read as follows:
"We  hold these truths to be self-evident, that WHITE  men are born
equal, that they are endowed by &c., &c."
It is easy to perceive that the substitution of the single word-;wHITE,
instead of, ALL-would have, at once, destroyed the effect of the whole
declaration by obviously changing its character; it would have made it as
ridiculous as it is sublime in its original conception;, the doctrine that"'slavery is the corner stone of liberty"-would have-found, at that time, no
abettors in Europe; and the enthusiastic vindicators and well wishers of
freedom, would have tendered no help whatever to enable slaveocrats to
extend and perpetuate human bondage. It may be enmphatically asserted,
therefore, that the British Colonies could not have affected their independence if the slaveholders of 1776 had professed the same doctrines as
those adopted by the slaveocrats of 1850.
The great majority of the 56 immortal signers of the Declaration of Independence, were slaveholders, or representatives from slaveholding
States; their solemn declaration remains an authentic record vindicating,
not only, the "unalienable rights of man," but condemnatory of human
bondage; the ordinance of 1787, prohibiting slavery, was adopted by th~
3
L 
Congress of the Confederation composed principally of slavehlolders who
unanimously voted for it; and, finally, the Constitution of the United
States which was framed in the same year, was also adopted by a majority of slaveholders. These three governmental organic instruments prove
conclusively, on the whole, that the great body of slaveholders, from
the years 1776 to 1788, considered slavery as "an infringement of natural rights," and as a social evil which to say the least, they felt bound to
restrict.
The following quotations from the Constitution, (see page 8,) will
enable the investigator, by expounding faithfully their obvious import, to
establish clearly and forcibly, the following point, to wit:
That the slaveocrats of 1850 have not only set forth new fangled, absurd, and degrading doctrines, contrasting disgracefully with the noble
sentiments which animated such slaveholders as Washington, Jefferson
Madison, and others, who would have spurned and rejected said doctrines
with contempt; but that the slaveocracy has, since last year particularly,
assumed and taken an encroaching stand, not only derogatory, but in
direct violation of the Constitution.
(to be Contined and concluded in the SECOND PART.)
JEFFERSON.
NEW  YORK, APRIL  15th, 1850.
Travelling, and a change of residence, have delayed over two weeks the publication
of the preceding pages. The whole of No. 1 was intended originally to precede No. 2,
but the point developed in the first tiumber having been materially strengthened by the
historical facts recorded in the speech delivered on the 7th of March, by Mr. Webster,
it has been thought proper, in this new arrangement, to divide in three distinct parts, the
matter contained in the first number.
It has been stated in the " Introductory Remarks," at the head of this pamphlet, that
the " object in view" of the writer was to carry into others the conviction of his own
mind, by " expounding, faithfully and conscientiously, the Constitution, &c.;" he feels
confident, that any reader of common  intelligence who has  fbollowed attentively the
course and the tracks indicated in this investigation, will be satisfied, that the
intricacies of " the absorbing question of the day"-may be easily explained and
understood, if the proper sources of information are applied to. Unfortunately It is
a peculiar trait of the American character, notwithstanding the general well spread
intelligence of the People, that those questions that do not call into action direct self in.
terest, do not excite individual investigation. The Press, and the political partisans of
the day, are relied on for such purposes; but the Press, the political partizans, and even
the debates in Congress; have mystified the question,  as will be shown in the SECOND
PART, ever since the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, forty-seven years ago, to.this day.
The " peculiar trait" above alluded to, will account for the strange confusion pervading public sentiment on the slavery question; but it does not justify  the course of the
Press, nor that of political aspirants, as it is their bounden duty to investigate impartially the question, and to expound faithfully the Constitution; but the couirse of the leading
men of both political parties betrays unmistakeable tergiversations, and in some cases,
deep rooted corruption.  It will be shown in the SECOND PART that the organization, in
1835, of the slaveocracy which now, to a great extent, rules the country; is attributable to
the secret intrigues of Martin Van Buren; this Northern Statesman has altogether disgraced the democratic party by involving it in the discreditable stand that party  then
took, and generally has maintained since, on the slavery question.  Now,  in 1850,
is
.4 
19
another Northern Statesman, D. Webster, has disgraced likewise the whig party, so that
the th,irty-first Congress bids fair to outstrip any other, in degrading concessions to the
most unwarranted and audacious pretensions ever yet set up by the slaveocracy.
Two Southern Senators, H. Clay and Tho. Benton, and some Southern representatives, have nobly stood up lately against the encroachments of the South, showing that
there are yet a few Statesmen from the slaveholding States, who have not quite degenerated from the elevated sentiments which distinguished the slaveholders who framed
the Constitution; but it is lamentable to see, that Mr. Clay has lately swerved from the
stand he had recently taken on the subject of the California Bill.
ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE V. OF THE CONSTITUTION.
A quotation of a portion only of Art. V. of the Constitutioni, has been made in No.
2, page 13; the portion quoted, contains its leading and prominent feature; this has
been done, in order that its bearing, as applicable to the position intended to be demonstrated thereby, should strike at once, as being obvious and to the point.
The entire article is transcribed verbatim underneath, so that the reader may see by
comparison, that the portion thereof quoted, page 13, is altogether faithful and correct.The portion which has been quoted is marked underneath with inverted commas.
"ARTICLE  V.-The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Itouses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the
"Legislatures  of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing
amendments, which, in either case,' shall be valid to all intents and purposes, AS A
" PART OF THIS CONSTITUTION, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of
the several -States,'-or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or other
"mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;-'provided that no amend"ment which may be made prior to 1808, shall in any manner  affect thefis8t and
fourth clause in the ninth section of the first article;'-and  that no State, without
"its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
It is therefore, evident, according to the clear import of the above Article V, that it
was intentionally provided  for in the Constitution, that Congress might exercise the
"righ." from the year 1808, to abolish slavery in all the States, whenever two-thirds
of the Senate, and three-fourths of the Legislatures of the several States, would vote an
amendment to that effect.  Moreover,  the  1st clause  in the IX section of Art. 1, is
one of the thr,ee provisions devised by the framers of the Constitution, to guard the interest of saveholders  firom being jeopardised, while  Slavery would  continue to exist.
The 4th clause in the same  section, same article, relates to another of these " Three
provisions," which provides,-how Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned
among the States-viz: clause 3d, in section IT, Art. 1.  The fact, that these two provisions were allowed to be repealed after 1808, is conclusive, as to the time when the
framers of the Constitution contemplated that slavery might have been prohibited in all
the States, by act of Congress; this is positive proof, that they did not expect that protection to slave interest would be much longer necessary after 1808. It is certainly very
clear, that the "Three provisions" originally devised to protect the slaveholding interest,
were not intended to be excepted from being repealed; an exception is actually made
in Art. V, to the following effect: " That no State without its consent shall be deprived
of its equal suffrage in the Senate."  If it had bleen intended to exempt the aforesaid
" Three provisions" from being repealed, they would, of course, have been enumerated
and specified in addition to the above exception.
The bearing of Art. V, taken in connexion with the clearly expres,ed provision embodied in the first clause of section IX, Art. 1, corroborates the fact, that the framers of
the Constitution did not intend that the right to legislate on slavery should be withheld
from Congress; the Constitution has pirovided merely, to restrict and  suspend the inherent "right" of Congress over that question for a limited time.  It is true that the
Slaveocracy, and their Northern allies, assert peremptorily-that Congress has no delegated right to legislate on slavery-but the very suspension for a limited time of this power, as provided in the first clause of section IX, Art. 1, is a clear acknowledgement of its
existence, as it woutld be absurd to enact the " suspension," or the prohibitions of what
does not exist. 
20
Finally, Art. V. of the Constitution, embodies the two following fundamental principles, to wit: First, that a majority of the People in eighteen States, by instance, can
prohibit slavery in a minority of six or even of eight States; Second, that the will of a
majority of the People in three-fourths of the States, is, paramount and binding to the
whole Union, except, "that no State without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal
suffrage in the Senate."
It has been stated in the preceding paragraph, that Slavery might be prohibited by
Congress in six or even eight States, if the Union consisted of twenty-four States.  It
may be effected in eight States as follows:-If two-thirds of the Senate, i.e. 32 Senators, vote for the prohibition of slavery, and the vote be ratified by a majority of the
people in the conventions of the three-fourths of the States; slavery might be thus
prohibited in eight States if a majority of the people in the conventions of two out of
these eight States, would vote for its prohibition,notwithstanding that 16 Senators  representing "States' rights" in eight States, might hold out and stand for Slavery.
REMARIKS-Respecting the Additional Matter contained in this
SECOND EDITION.
NEw YoRk, MAY 31st, 1850.
Being anxious to present to the public the important and extraordinary fact established in No. 2, pages 7 to 15, the first edition of the FIRST PART of this investigation was,
in consequence, published hastily without the concluding part of No. 1, on SLAVERY
AND  SLAVEOCRACY; it is now included in this second edition.
Advantage has been taken of this new edition, for investigating further the bearings of Art. V. of the Constitution; this has been done on account of the connexion
existing, between the two " fundamental principles" embodied in said Art. V. and  the
developement of "the novel feature in the form of governments;' which is to be given
in the forthcoming SECO1ND PART.
SLAVERY AND SLAVEOCRACY-NO. 1.
[ Concluded.]
WASHINGTON, MARCH 12th, 1950.
Two very important facts, appearingly forgotten, have been discovered and brought out in the course of this investigation; the first fact
made out, is, that clause second of section III, Art. IV. of the Constitution, does not cover the Wilmot proviso; it follows therefrom, that the
arguments of those Free Soilers who support that measure, on the
strengtth of that clause, are without force.  Said clause refers obviously
to a special subject, and, it has no definite meaning unless it be taken in
connexion with the ordinance of 1787, (see pages 10 and 11.)
The secondfact stands parallel, on account of the delusion and ignorance which has universally prevailed on the subject, with the extraordinary historical fact recorded in Clarkson's history of the slave trade (1.)
(1.) NOTE -The leprosy of Slavery which had disgraced the British Colonies for two
centuries, had also extended into England.  The laical rulers and the Church had given
it their sanction, the most distinguished lawyers crouched beneath it, and the Lord Chief
Justice ot the day affirmed its validity.-York and Talbot, the Attorney and the Solicitor General, recorded, in 1729, the following opinion:
"We are of opinion, that a slave coming from the West Indies into Great Britain
or Ireland, either with or without his master, does not become free-and that his master's right and property in him, is not determined or varied by, &c."
The laws of the land were at that time perverted by the highest officers of the Crown,
from nearly the same corrupt motives that our Constitution in the U. States, has been
mystified by our Statesmen, Congressmen, sectional biassed Judges, and political Demagogues. The Slaveholders in England had, at that time, every thing in their own
way, when in 1765, a subordinate Clerk in the Ordinance Department, named Granville 
21
showing, that the true import of fundamental British law had been for a
long series of years misrepresented and perverted by the highest legal -
authorities of the country; when said " tiue import" was, at last, successfully vindicated by the persevering efforts of an humble individual
-Granville Sharp-who had no other support in the struggle he  maintained for seven years against the officers of the Crown, but the unbending fortitude of his mind, and the unyielding determination of purpose he
felt nerved with, by the conscientiousness that he was vindicating the
cause of TRUTH.
The second fact above alluded to is the one substantiated, page 13,
namely: that the Constitution itself contains a  clause which, taken
in connexion with other provisions, indicates evidently the mode and the
time when the framers of that instrument contemplated that Slavery
Sharp, impelled by humanity and by the love of truth, undertook to vindicate the real
import of the fundamental laws of Great Britain, from the perversion of their learned
expounders: he had no instructor but himself, no enlcourager but his own consciencehe gave up two or three years to study English law-the result of his research was published; the arguments contained in his book-against holding private property in the
persons of men-were found to be irresistible, and a prosecution entered into, against
the devoted assertor of the unalienable rights of man, by a slaveholder, which had been
pending for two years, was in consequence abandoned; but it was only in 1772, that
the perversions of legis!ation originating in the highest authorities, supported by the
greatest names, defended by a powerful faction, and assented to by almost anybody,
were one after another detected, successfully exposed, and finally swept away, by the
resolute and persevering efforts of the conscientious vindicator of truth.  On the  22d
of June, 1772, Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was actually constrained, after protracted
delays and much tergiversation, to give judgment against previous legal decisions, by virtually acknowledging"  that, he could not say, that the laws of the Kingdom allowed
property in the persons of men, and that the prisoner must of course be discharged."
The result of that judgment is well known; from that day, the principle was acknowledged by all British Courts, that-as soon as any slave sets his foot in England he becomes free.
The above narrative becomes an interesting part of this investigation, because it illustrates an authentic and remarkable case in British history of a prolonged popular
mystification, which in its most striking and disgraceful features, resembles the delusion
now existing in the United States, as to the " true import"  of the Constitution respecting its bearing on the subject of slavery —Judge Blackstone the great expounder, Lord
Chief Justices, Solicitors and Attorneys of the Crown, high dignitaries of the Church,
&c., were perverting British law and advocated the cause of error in order to propitiate
the slaveholder. Well, we have had, and we have now on our side, Martill Van Buren,
Lewis Cass, Buichanan, Daniel Webster, and a host of aspiring or corrupt Statesmen,
hypocritical Bishops and Clergymen, intriguing Lawyers, and political Jugglers, who have
used, or now use, their influence to deceive and hoodwink the People of the United
States, by mystifying and perverting the "clear import" of the Constitution; but the
similitude of the two cases ceases here; the Northern allies of slavery in the United
States go to greater lengths in disgracing themselves than their prototypes in Great Britain; they encourage all the unconstitutional demands of the Slaveocracy by tamely
giving way to their insulting and bullying threats; the treasonable movements of the
Slaveocrats, their daily audacious violation of the Constitution, are cringingly represented by the Doughfaces, i. e. the Doe-Souls, of the Free States, as justifiable, nay, even,
as necessary to protect themselves from the aggressions of the Free Soilers! Cass,
Dickinson, Webster, have asserted in the Senate, that the South have just cause of
complaint against the North; and this same class of men are now giving their aid, and
exercising their influence, to secure part of the insolent requisitions of the Slaveocracy
by advocating them under the thin disguise of what they call a compromise-which is,
in fact, nothing else but a degrading concession.
Full details of the memorable seven years struggle briefly related above, are given in
Clarkson's history of the rise and abolition of the slave trade. This valuable and instructive work, a large in 8 vol. 600 pages, was published in London-year, 1839. 
22
might be prohibited in all the States by act of Colngress; the moment
that the obvious and important bearing of this fact, on the mystified question of slavery, flashed into my mind, it absorbed my attention exclusively, until I felt satisfied that I could explain it satisfactorily, and
make it easily conceived and clearly understood. It has been done I trust
successfully, in No. 2, of this series of articles, pages 6 to 13, (see also
page 19.)  In the mean time, the developement entered into in No. 1,
see pages 5 to 7, and 15 to 18, was thereby interrupted; I proceed now
to conclude it, but the break occasioned by this interruption makes it
proper to remind the reader, that the purport of the two first numbers of
this series of articles was, as stated at the outset, see page 3, to establish the two following points.
" First-That Congress has the right to require, as an indispensable
condition to the admission of any new States into the Union, that the
Constitution of such new States shall prohibit  slavery within its borders
andjurisdiction. "
" Second-That the mystification now existing in the United States
on the question of slavery, and the consequent difficulty of its being understood, originates in the discrepancy and striking contrast existing between the honest views entertained on that question by the slaveholders
who framed the Constitution in 17SS88, and the extraordinary and degrading doctrines now urged by the slaveocrats of 1850."
The assertions contained in the above two paragraphs were set forth for
the purpose of investigating their bearing on single  and distinct parts of
the slavery question, they were laid down therefore as " points" which
it was intended to establish: these " assertions" are, now, brought forward in reference to the whole question on the subject of slavery, as po sitions of a general bearing.
The correctness and the strict truth of the assertion which forms the
subject of the above transcribed first position have been irrefragably estab lished in the article headed " origin, extent, and limits of the right of
Congress under the Constitution to legislate on slavery,"7 pages 9 to 15;
and the special inferences and deductions to be drawn therefrom, have
been enumerated, pages 14 and 15. Well, the correctness of the asser tion forming the subject of the second position above transcribed, has been
also fully demonstrated; and in conclusion, I will sum up underneath in
connexion with each other, a variety of facts which have been brought
out in the course of this investigation, laying down, first, those which have
contributed to establish, by special and direct inference, the strict truth
of said second position.
It is afact, tlhat the slaveholders who framed the Constitution, depre cated the cruelty and the evils of slavery; that they legislated to restrict
it, and that they laid down the time, and provided for the mode, when sla very might be abolished in all the States, by act of Congress.
It is afact, that the existing slaveocraey have effected their organiza tion, by promulgating for a number of years past, new fangled and absurd
doctrines on the subject of slavery, conflicting disgracefully with the hon est views entertained on the same subject by the framers of the Constitu tion, and that the natural consequence of the degrading conflict waged by
said slaveocracy, has been a systematic perversion of the fundamental
principles clearly laid down in the Constitution.
It is afact, that the People of the Free States have been kept  ignor 
23
ant of the true and clear import of the Constitution, by the confused variety of false issues tacked thereon by their political leaders, and by tinprincipled demagogues, and that, they (the People,) have been on the
whole hoodwinked, grossly deceived, and duped, by sophismns and misrepresentations artfully instilled into their minds by the Attorneys of the
Slaveocracy, who have been powerfully aided in the work of deception,
by the Doe-Souls of the North, and the partisan Public Press of the
United States.
The above facts are clearly deducible from the reasoning which has
established the strict truth of the " second position" above laid down.
Underneath, is an enumeration of various facts which have been brought
out in the course of this investigation.
It is afact, that the mystification which shrouds the subject of slavery
may be easily cleared up, by applying to the proper sources of information.
It is a fact, that " the proper sources" of information are, the Constitution of 1788, as the text book; the articles of the confederation entered into by " The United States of America;"' the ordinance of 1787;
the Act of the first Congress under this Constitution for " adopting the
ordinance of 1787, to the present Constitution of the United States;"
and the debates of the convention which framed the Constitution.
It is a fact, that all candid persons of ordinary intelligence and capacity applying earnestly to the above mentioned sources of informnation, will,
in a short time, see through the mist raised by political niountebanks, and
form a correct judgment as to the extent and limits of the rights of Congress on the subject of slavery; but few persons indeed apply to these
sources; while it is the fact, that the great bulk of readers waste, in the
aggregate, a considerable time in reading editorial articles, Congressional
speeches, political addresses, with no better result than to be bewildered
in forming a definite opinion.
It is a fact, that the Constitution of 1788 has been ordained by the
People of the United States "in order to formn  a more perfect Union"
than existed when the States were connected under the Articles of Confederation; that, it does not constitute, as is commonly and wrongly represented-A confederacy (2.) of States, acting, each, as a distinct power
(3.)-but that it is-A Union of States, ordained by a majority of the
People in each State respectively; and, " the People" who ordained this
more perfect Union," are collectively held to be, by the Constitution, the
true and the acknowledged source of Sovereign Power and legitimate author
(2.) NOTE.-No allusion whatever to —a confederacy of States —is to be found in the
Constitution of 1788, except in Art. 1, section X, wherein a confederacy of States is
prohibited in the following words:  "no State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or
confederation;" and further, " no State shall without the consent of Cougress-enter
into any agreement or compact with another State."
(3.) NOTE -The distinctiveness of Power  did belong originally to the majority of
the People of any one State, who might have, in conse(luence, refused to come into the
Union; but it is very clear that this " distinctiveness" has been relinquished  " in order
to form a more perfect Union," and exists no longer under the Constitution, as it provides
expressly, Art. V, that all amendments  "shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a
part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures-or the conventions-of
three-fourths of the several States," which shows, conclusively, as has been stated last
paragraph of page 19th, "that the will of a majority of the People in three-fourths of
the States, is, paramount and binding to the whole  Union-except-that no State
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
I 
24
ity, paramount under this Constitution to States rights, except on one
point provided for in Art. V, see page 19; and it forcibly follows, from
the peculiar nature of such a compact-that the Union cannot be dissolved except by the Power that ordained it-and —that a minority, however formidable may be its organization, can never succeed to dissever
the Union. The slaveocracy may continue to rule the country through
the subserviency of their Northern allies, but the moment it will attempt
disunion, it will split on the connecting link which  binds THE PEOPLE of
the varions States together; this " connecting link" constitutes " The
novel feature in the form of Government," I have already alluded to,
page 3.
WVell, the above series of facts being taken into connexion with those
previously established, will suggest such obvious inferences to all candid
persons of common intelligence as to enable them to make up their own
opinion understandingly; and those who have read attentively this extended developement are thereby, by applying occasionally to the "sources
of information" above indicated, peculiarly enabled, as it has been already remarked, to form a correct appreciation and judgment as to the
extent and limits of the rights of Congress on the subject of Slavery.
The general conclusions to be drawn from the whole mass of evidence
which has been established throughout this extended developement are
now obvious enough; intelligent readers, who will ponder a while on
the subject, will have no difficulty to make them out; I intend, however,
to save them the trouble, and for their convenience to indicate and define
the most important of these conclusions; they will appropriately come
in, with most effect, as a concluding sum-iary to the four corollary topics
which are to be treated in the forthcoming SECOND PART.   In the meantime, it may be stated as a matter of fact, and as a fit conclusion to the
two first numbers of this series of articles, first, that the investigation
relative to establishing the truth of the two points laid down at the outset, page 5, has actually, according to the remark therein made, proved
to be " A searching analysis of the whole question;" second, that the
constitution in its bearing on the subject of Slavery, has been throughout
faithfully expounded; and, finally, that the insidious false issues, and
the intricate mystification contrived by political intriguers and designing
men to obscure and shroud the dark question which agitates the country,
is in a fair way of being satisfactorily exposed, and completely cleared
up, by a conscientious investigation of the clear and true import of the
constitution.
RETROSPECTIVE AND PROSPECTIVE GLANCE.
TIlE COMPROMISE.
NEW  YORK, JUNE  5, 1850.
T'he foregoing article was originally prepared and written while I resided in Washington; an alteration has been made to it since, for the
purpose of referring to the extraordinary historieal fact recorded in
Clarkson's history of the rise and abolition of the Slave trade; this historical fact became known to me only lately; it has been alluded to and
I 
25
explained in said article, because it corroborates in a most forcible manner some of the very inferences drawn therein fromn the investigation of
the subject under consideration.  With the exception of the alteration
just mentioned, the foregoing article has been transcribed as first endited,
and the original date has therefore been maintained.
At a time when a dangerous popular delusion exists in this country
concerning the true import of the constitution, it becomes interesting to
present to the American Public the particulars of a delusion of a similar
character which prevailed for a long series of years in England, as to the
"true import" of British fitndalamental law.   No Englishman now living,
is ignorant of the fact that-A Slave becomes free the moment that he sets
his foot on the soil of Old England-but although this fact is notorious,
the time when the principle embodied in this maxim, was first acknowledged and acted upon by British Courts, is unknown to the great
bulk of the Public, and there are few British Subjects who are aware
that Slavery did actually exist in England 85 years ago, and that Slaves
were then publicly advertised for sale in the newspapers, (4.)  Englishmen, hold, generally, that the right of man to his freedom is consecrated
by fundamental British law; they believe that Slavery has never polluted,
as they poetically express it, " The home of the free;" but the historical
fact recorded by Clarkson, proves that this popular sentiment is erroneous.
British " fundamental law" was the same 85 years ago as it is now, and
yet Slavery did exist at that time in England; it was so decided by the
courts of justice, by the crown officers, expouniders of the law, and by the
written opinions of the legal luminaries of those times.
The history of the perversions and subterfuges resorted to bythe crown
lawyers and other high dignitaries in England, in order to prolong the
prevalence of ERROR concerning the true import of British " fundamental
law," ought to admonish American citizens to mistrust the opinions expressed by our Statesmen, by our Lawyers, by our Politicians, as to the
" true import" of our own constitution; their incentives to pervert it
are stronger then they were in England, while on the other hand, the
task of vindicating TRIJTH is comparatively easier with us; it took Granville Sharp over two years to study musty volumes of English law before
he became capable of refuting his learned and tortuous antagonists, as
they had the advantage of opposing to him precedents and legal decisions
of remote and obscure origin; whereas our constitution is a modern instrument which can be read through in some twenty minutes; and any man
of common good sense and ordinary intelligence may, in a short time, by
applying to the "Proper Sources" of information indicated page 23, understand its "true import" and explain it not only satisfactorily to himseif, but also to others.
The final and rational application of the conclusions arrived at in this'investigation, such as is intended to explain and clear up all the various
false issues which have been contrived on the Slavery question, is reserved until the reader will have had laid before him all the evidence
which is necessary to appreciate its absolute correctness; it will wind
(4.)  NOTE.-Notwithstanding the final decision of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, see
page 21, the practice of selling Slaves continued some years longer. The following advertisement appeared in Liverpool on the 15th of October, 1779: —" To be sold by auc.
tion at George Dunbar's office on Thursday next, 21st inst., at I o'clock, a black boy,
14 years of age, &c." 
up the corollary topics which are to be treated in the SECOND PART.
Considering, however, that personal business may prevent its publication
for some time, I take advantage of this Second Edition to append, in anticipation, a few remarks on the false issue agitated at the present time
in Congress, where it has been introduced under the deceptive designation of-THE  COMPROMISE.
"A compromise" is understood to mean an arrangement between parties having conflicting claims or rights, whereby each party gives up
some portion of his own, and is compensated by getting some equivalent
from the other.  The Bill now before Congress, which is represented by
IH. Clay and other Senators as "a Compromise," does not even attempt
to define the nature nor the extent of the claims or rights both relinquished
and obtained hy the parties respectively, it cannot, therefore, be called
" a Compromise;" those who represent it as such do it with the intent
of mystifying the subject so as to be able, under cover of their misrepresentations, to accomplish ulterior designs. This pretended Compromise
cannot stand the test of the most superficial analysis; it is based, altogether, on fallacious, flimsy, vague, and indefinite assumptions; the debates in the Senate have divulged the general truth of this assertion;
several of the supporters of the proposed adjustment, and among them its
principal expounder, have been called to explain the meaning of some of
its provisions, but the "meaning" given was at once contested by other
warm abettors of said "adjustment," who stoutly maintain a contrary interpretation. The fact, that the originators of the proposed measure disagree radically on the bearing of its provisions, is a plain proof that the
meaning of these provisions has been made equivocal, designedly.
There is no need of further remarks to make it obvious that the proposed adjustment, when presented in the light of " a Compromise,'" is,
actually, afalse issue created by its concocters for the purpose of deception.  On the other hand, if the terms and provisions of said "adjustment'" are investigated per se, by taking into consideration the circumstance which have brought about its elaboration, and the real question at
issue, it will be perceived, that this "adjustment" is altogether deceptive,
and that it is intended as a screen to shroud a flagrant violation of the
legitimate rights of Congress, which "legitimate rights" it is its bounden
duty, under tbe Constitution, to exercise and to enforce.   This pretended
"'adjustment" embodies concessions of a most degrading character that will
eventually, consign the prominent NORTHERN  ABET'IORS of the' pecculiar institution" to deserved infamy. An important point connect'd with
this subject will be developed in an outline to be given (see page 4) "of
the spirit, the tactics, and the general organization of the Slaveocracy,"
wherein it will be shown, that the proposed "adjustment" will not conciliate those that it is attempted to propitiate; and that the agitation will,
continue, so as to furnish a chapter to the historian, who will have to record
the names of disunionists and conspirators, on the one side, and of the base
betrayers of our Constitutional rights, on the other.
The strict truth of the above assertions will be made palpable to the
reader, in the argumentative recapitulation which is to close the SECOND
PART.
(End of the FIRST PART.)
26
i