Slavery abolished. Its relation to the government

ened
Vs ay
nt)

oa
Peele yes
abe teh ne hee
f arias
ty) bod
ie

yi
:

AMIS COUR LTT Peesere aaa inns cop ee

pie eT

By Rev. C. CONKLING.

ct at A NAN
NPT

ash) a
Soy ah

¥

ae

SLAVERY ABOLISHED,

It is unquestionable that one great difficulty ar our tines: is ie 0
Fathers did not teach us, their recreant children, better manners eta
thatof applying to them the term slaveholder, and of bringing against
them the various criminal charges of continuing the slave trade, giv-
ing us a hybrid Constitution, half slave and half free, and of mean-
ing slavery in general, undera pretence of Freedom, for although these
charges have ceased to be made prominent, they are not abandoned,
while a sense of their indecorum has entered into the popular heart to
foment a state of mind which death alone, or a marvelous enlighten-
ment of the intellect, can remove.

Our Fathers left an inheritance of Liberty to their posterity, and
scanned for them the whole field of political action ; but no where did
they leave on record the instruction of a code to guard their followers
against offering them the indignity of charges, implicating them in the
character of villains, rather than that of patriots, in regard to slavery.
A consequence of this is that North and South, the people are divided
in their opinions, with a purpose which is stronger than death, in re-
spect to the nature of the general government.

For example, in absence of any defence erected against the proceed-
ings, parties have arisen who have not shunned to bring ignominious
charges of slavery against the Fathers, and to hold that they criminal-
ly legalized the system of slavery in the fundamental law of the land,
committing, in this way, the federal legislation to a pro slavery policy
forevermore. Others astounded at the violation of order in criminally
implicating the Fathers, have taken occasion to arise and to spurn the
guilty intimation and to hold that the Fathers did indeed furnish the
country with a'pro slavery government, and placing slavery in consti-
tutional reserve against attack were right, while others still spurred to
it by this work of their opponents have procceded to defend the integ-.
rity of the Fathers, Agaiyss their aceusers, and, to exalt the Constitution
in the interests of Cnivezsal Freejlem, tlie; sting ngth of these various
opinions in any case Issuing primarjly, from the omission of the Fath-
ers to inculcate the nevessary respech for their standing 1 inthe bosom of

their sons. ,’ ° ; LOVE? ASF SY he SST
Oy NE is Aa

; a

Thus, had their followers received from them a chapter on controver-
sial etiquette, it had waived perhaps the necessity of a commotion ac-
companying a heavy charge on their position, and parties, harmonious
and inharmonious on the subject of slavery and the government had
scarce arisen in the country. And yet the Fathersin their personal
bearing were models for dignified and affable deportment whence we
might have drawn, had we chosen, a perpetual lesson against illness of
manner in our civil and political relations on the subjeet of sla-
very.

PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS.

In removal of the consequences of violations of order coupled with
indecorous charges of crime, men generally have never yet arisen to the
virtue of making an equable stand under their influence in order to ex-
hibit their error or pour on the charges the contempt they deserve.

They have fled the field before them or retired from it in disgrace
without compelling the insurgents to retract or make their charges
good. Theresult of this has been that in fine they have left questions
of vital importance unsolved to bring forward the bitter fruits of a
want of knowledge or skill in a bootless undertaking.

Such in part is the present dilemma of our national affairs, as in-
volving questions unsettled and leaving us toapply dilligently in search
of the truths on wl.ich our salvation depends.

New Ingland, e.g., several years since directly alledged that the Foun-
ders of the Government were implicated in crime in respect to slavery,
and that they became parties to an agreement wherein they involved
the nation at large as well as themselves in the repudiation of human
rights and fastened slavery upon the country.

And whatever of difficulty it may be supposed that such a charge
as going to the vitals of the country and stiring the foundation of so-
ciety, would be susceptible of working, has been wrought out in ab-
sence of any final or conclusive answer which it has evoked to general
acceptance from any quarter of the Republic. In response men have
held the usual dogma that slavery stands under cover of Constitutional
protection and they have Log tinge sp mgintaia tia, position by waging
a war of thought ant Word 4 deft is tured itemitye be" said that we
are divided on questions of manners > whergne. we have neither the
equanimity to withstand the athék? nor the® plirpose to assail it to a

conclusion. ae te

e°e wee
o/s © @ 6
ee e.«

a*e
«

oe?
eye

@eeese

e200

Ceoe®
a00e28

®
€
e ® ® t)

oo
INDIFFERENCE.

Now, while the error of making the allegation, unsupported by over-
whelming and demonstrative evidence, has not been wanting persons
who have directly and indirectly taught and proclaimed it constantly,
one would have thought that*ven the stones wotld have cried out un-,
der the results to repel the charge, instead of remaining witnesses to
an extensive and extended acquiesence therein.

Futhermore, it now is and has been, when one can scarcely read and
not be reminded of rights to slaves, under the government as alleged
by men in authority, who seem to have imbibed the sentiment that the
Vathers of the Country were the abject subjects of slaveholding in-
stincts,—that slavery was an endearment of theirs, known and read of
all men, and together with all the appurtenances and sympathies there-
unto, in anywise whatsoever appertaining or belonging, was sacredly
bequeathed by them to every age and all time. That in virtue of this
bequest, we are all under bond to sustain it, continue it, honor it,
adore it, protect it.

So, strong parties in the South. of whom these constitutional persons
in extraordinary of the North, are the unconscious aids and abettors,
have affirmed that slavery as entailed by the Fathers, was made a crea-
ture of the constitution—that the North have been entirely officious
and intermeddling in their exceptions to this—that their arguments in
opposition to slavery are irrelevant and inconclusive, and for themselves
that they will die before yielding to the overthrow of slavery, or forego
an effort to plant it and rear thereupon a New Republic having
slavery for its corner stone.

QUESTIONS UNSETTLED.

Now it is apparent that pending this state of affairs, wherein the
standing of the Fathers and of slavery is uniformly and alternately af-
firmed and denied that some vitally important question or questions in
respect to them, remain unsettled, entailing disaster and ruin upon the
country. Tor, if in assuming that the Fathers were hopelessly cor-
rupt in the matter of slavery, the N. E. charge had been made on un-
impeachable instead of fallacious grounds, the disturbing question of
their guilt as well as its collateral ones, had long since been laid at
rst, controversy in regard to the condition of the slave would have
been dropped,—our pathway would have been marked out in the duty
of allaying the excited passions of men and in drawing forth their
abilities in the strength and power of the country.

+

But rested upon fallacious grounds, as that charge was, while threat-
ening to rock the moral and political fabric of the country to its foun-
dations, and promising to effect a solution of the condition of the slave
and of the questions of the government and morals of the country,
it simply opened the door to the elements of strife in a body, and left
the questions of the Fathers and slavery to the country undecided.

Of course a question of governmental bearing, embroiling human
character to the extent of a Nation lost or won, on the decision of a
single moral question as assumed by the N. H. charge, could not but
be followed by results felt in every nerve of the national body, whether
considered in the light of its morals or its politics. The practical ap-
plication of the fundamental doctrines of the government and of mor-
als, having been obscured or lost to view through the existence of sla-
_ very, it might have been predicted that the country would be well-nigh
overwhelmed by the additional turmoil which N. E. brought in, if sal-
vation at all would ensue before the stultifying cause of these effects
could be opened to view.

To approach the questions alluded to therefore, and open them briefly
within the limits of the proper order, will not be amiss in what we
have to say.

We observe in the proper order, because aside from this there is no
advance except as already in the highway of ruin.

EQUANIMITY OF THE COUNTRY.

Tt will be remembered then, that down to the time of the N. EH.
charge referred to, the Fathers were regarded throughout the country
with remarkable unanimity as Patriots. If any class of men were
ever universally held in high and sacred esteem prior to that time, be-
cause of their supposed virtues, those passing under the designation of ~
the ‘‘ Fathers of the Country’ were so held by the American people.

Of course to challenge the standing of such men with a high hand,
or as supported by arguments only powerfully plausible, would tend
to rupture that equanimity and in failing to present sufficient ground —
for its re-establishment, would simply cause to appear that it was a great
raid upon the Fathers, effecting scisms and divisions difficult to heal.

Such results, as well calculated to follow such a charge, have oc-
curred, and with what purposes of opinion in respect to the nature of
the government, has already been alluded to.

Prior to the accusation, this equanimity in large part divided itself
into those in favor of and those opposed to slavery: and one design

of the challenge was to destroy it, in order to force the parties in op-
position, on the subject of slavery, into consistent open ranks in re-
lation to the Fathers, holding as it did, not that the Fathers categori-
eally belonged either in the one class or the other, but were categori-
cally pro-slavery, and that all anti-slavery men must therefore consis-
tently renounce them.

The accusation however being unsupported as already intimated by
unquestionable evidence, the parties implicated as sympathisers with
the Fathers in slavery and a slave government, peremptorily denied
either that the Fathers or themselves were pro-s'avery ; and thus while
a much larger portion of the country than before became divided into
slavery and anti-slavery, the questions of the rclation of the Fathers
to slavery, remained as they were.

Division and conflict in this manner proceeded of course direct from
the point-blank charge that the Mathers of the country were man-steal-
ers,—that they erected this principle into the Constitution of the Uni-
ted States, and that consequently all who are under the Government
they left are partakers in their crime. Since that period the various
opinions to which the accusation gave rise, have maintained their
ground, the irritating causes of division have remained, and the coun-
try has drified into an enormous war.

ROOM FOR ARGUMENT.

It will be seen therefore, there still remains room for argument.

If it were beyond dispute, e. g., that the responsibility of slavery in
no wise rests on the Founders of the Government, whatever support
any party in the country might be supposed to derive from them in its
interest would fall, and it would be no question whether the Fathers
are to be exempt from bearing its burdens. Slavery together with all
the hopes suspended upon it would perish, and Liberty detached from
all those hindrances which have blackened and defamed it in proximi-.
ty to slavery, would plume her wings for her most lofty hights.

On the contrary, if the Fathers are to be charged with slavery, the
reverse of this is true. Any party claiming support from them in its
interest must needs be supported. The entire burden of slavery must
be thrown upon the F'athers,—liberty with its high hopes and glorious
aspirations must perish, and slavery must descend into dceper depths
of oppression than eyer.

On a correct view of the truth or falsity of their responsibility there-
fore depends the rise or fall of the country. If they are responsible,

6

all the commingled interests and consequences of slavery must go with

them, and the whole country follow on to doom. But if they are not,

those consequences will pass to darkness, while the country shall arise
together with them to glory and virtue.

QUESTION STATED.

The proper responsibility of the Fathers therefore for slavery is the
question for debate. The N. EH. challenge taking exception to the exis-
tence of slavery implied that it was due to the Fathers who planted it
in violation of the divine law, and therefore it directly charged them
with its responsibility. It asserted that since their respon-
sibility was immediate and implicated all concerned, it was an
obvious duty to renounce the Fathers as well as the government of
which they were the Founders. While, however, that challenge con-
sidered their proper responsibility it did not consider whether in mod-
ification of their assumed position the Fathers did not sustain relations
to slavery for which they were not responsible that exempted them
from challenge entirely. In this it failed. Had it assumed that their
responsibility extended to slavery in part, it might have been feasible
to show some other recourse had thrown greater luster on their char-
acter, but not in any event that they were chargeable with its guilt as
will hereafter be seen. It only remained therefore to reinstate the
Fathers, in order to show that the charge and its implication were ille-
gitimate and to effect the reverse of allit contemplated in its influence
on the country.

REINSTATEMENT OF THE FATHERS.

In order to accomplish this it is assumed that since there is
nothing higher in man his own, than his intentions, and that more
calls forth his endeavors, than they, and nothing more endeay-
orless than he without his intentions, responsibility holds only between
intentions and their ends, that men intend only that for which they
are responsible and are responsible only for that which they intend,
intention and responsibility being co-ordinate and correlative. Had
the Fathers intended slavery, for example, they would have been respon-
sible only for slavery, and their arraignment by N. E., before the coun-
try on that ground would have procured their overthrow. The corre-
lation of their responsibility with their intention being independent
of themselves would have operated to this effect the instant the ar-
raignment elevated the evidence of their intent to view.

~

So if the Fathers intended Liberty, they were responsible only for
Liberty, and their promotion on the ground of their responsibility will
procure their exaltation, its correlation with their intention being just
as effectual to this, in this case, as in the other, the opposite, the mo-
ment the promoting effort presents to view the evidence of the proper
intent.

It follows that the failure of the N. E. charge, demonstrated in the
highest sense that the Fathers are innocent of slavery, for in assuming
the contrary, their responsibility would have independently detected
their intention under the charge, beyond the possibility of escape, had
the assumption been true; while in not being true, their responsibility
evinced their innocence by the same law of independent operation as
would have occured in evincing their guilt, had the assumption been
true.

On the ground of a false assumption, the law of their responsibility
evinced their innocence, leaving roomto assume it, and this we now do.
Tt will be seen since the N. E. charge assumed the guilt ot the Fath-
ers, that had it been true, it would have procured their downfall to the
overthrow of the country, as now if the assumption of their innocence
is true it will procure their exaltation to the salvation of the country.

This follows if there be nothing in man higher, or further than his
intentions for which he is responsible, since upon this hypothesis the
_ subversion of his intentions is the overthrow of all the work founded
thereupon and their confirmation its preservation.

The work of subversion, undertaken in reference to the intention
of the Fathers in order to the overthrow of the country as pro slavery,
was the aim of the N. HE. charge, and had been successful to the a-
chievement of the end, had the aim been true.

_ For convenience and as covering the whole ground of debate we more
conveniently putthe question for discussion in the following form : Did
our Fathers intend to transmit slavery to us and all generations to come ?

Since intention and responsibility are correlative, intention must be
regarded in the discussion as in reference to the existence of slavery
as well as to the act of its transmission, and to both, as implied in its
perpetuity, in order to render the question appropriate. In any other
signification of the word the N. EH. charge was not applicable, for since
the charge assumed that the Fathers were responsible for slavery, un-
less their intention be considered as having extended to its existence,
it would not embrace an end necessarily reprehensible to which their
responsibility as charged would apply, nor would it present any ground

wre Fea ful ‘as anal dan rr er Meee oe ao ee oe

to suppose that the Fathers recognized such a title to slavery as the
act of its transmission would involve. The word slavery therefore it-
self is also to be taken as implying the intention of its existeuce and
its transmission, either or both and with this latitude in the meaning
of the word the field of debate is open before us.

CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTION.

If then, the Fathers intended slavery not an act since theirs, in the
subjugation and contempt of the black man is disjoined from them‘ and
some right of property in slaves they gave, authorizes their retention ;
otherwise the contumcely and injuries of the African Race, lie without
the intent of the Fathers, and no right exists by grant from them for
the retention of a slave.

All the consequences of slavery therefore, as relates to the Fathers,
depends on the alternative of their intention, and on the decision of
that question, Freedom itself may be called on to survive through
revolution and blood.

TEMPER OF DEBATE,

But in what temper must this debate be pursued. It must not be
assumed that those on the one side aecuse those on the other with
crime. Nor must any be supposed to wage reckless war on the as-
sumptions of those who hold slaves. These precautions are necessary
because the hypothesis on which the discussion proceeds, is that of an
aim at the truth. Crimination is absurd. A cheerfal purpose of in-
vestigation is necessary in order to a patient enquiry into the position
of the Fathers, and to continue therein until it is closed. On these
conditions we can freely proceed in the exercise of those higher quali-
ties which in the end will secure national unity and harmony far be-
yond the degree in which it was actual or possible before, and the dif-
ficulty thrown in the way by charging the founders of the government
with infemous crime will finally be removed.

The way in fine is then prepared to observe that if the Fathers in-
tended to transmit the system of slavery to us and to all coming gen-
erations, they are guilty of all the N. EH. charges heaped upon them,
and some right of property therein they gave, authorizes the retention
of slaves, or they are free. :

The issue thus made is fair as can be. The one side must maintain
it was the criminal intent and consequent guilt of the Fathers that
slavery should occupy the country forevermore, and that consequently
they irrevceably vested the rights of property therein or honorably

a3)
ive up the contest; the other that such not being the intention of the
Fathers, and no rights of property being vested therein by them, they
are not guilty, and that all the slaves in the country are free.

Considering now all the attendant circumstances of slavery, its sup-
pression of free speech, its prevention of the development of free institu-
tions, its veto upon the progress of civilization and the inherent sophis-
try of the proposition that man can have property in man, the sim-
ple statement of the question whether the Fathers intended slavery
should be transmissible in perpetuity would seem to carry with it its own
answer, and to waive the necessity of any further discussion. Hxpe-
rience however demonstrates that where human character is not formed
on a broad recognition of first truths, the most persistent effort is often
required to overcome the pertinacious obstinacy it always arrays against
them rendering such effort absolutely necessary to overcome it. A brief
consideration of the questions presented therefore, however it might
seem to be unnecessary in the broad light they emit of themselves,
will lead to a more satisfactory view of the truth, and cause the es-
pecial merits of the questions themselves to appear.

INTENTION OF SLAVERY IMPOSSIBLE.

In support of the negative of the question it is maintained that ¢t is
impossible the Muthers should have intended the perpetuity of slavery,
and that if they did, the evidence of their guilt is conclusive.

What the intention of the lathers was, will be inferred as we pro-
eeed. And the propriety of what has already been intimated, that if
they intended to transmit slavery to future generations, some right of
property therein they gave, authorizes the retention of slaves, makes
it evident that the vital question in respect to the relation of the Fath-
ers to slavery is one, in regard to the transmission of its title. If they
determined to perpetuate slavery, of course they determined its law of
descent; and the South in trusting its validity as their guarantee in
its transmission, are not so much to blame as some suppose.

The North moreover, in this case, instead of fighting for the Goy-
ernment as a kind of trustee in the interest of the institution, should
themselves assume the initiative of revolution, since it is a foregone
conclusion that any such system as slavery, however sanctioned and
upheld in suppression of the original guarantees of Freedom, is the
mortal enemy of Liberty, which, to the exclusion of slavery is the
birthright of all the American pcople.

Furthermore, in accordance with the supposition that the Fathers
intended the perpetuity of slavery, the South having come to maturi-
ty with it on their hands, and as if received from those who, having

a at Cr

£0
defered to it, had solemnly ratified the constitution in its favor, have
assumed that that instrument is a standing guarantee of property in
men. And they have always acted so inflexibly on this assumption
as to have disciplined per force, the largest part of the North, inclu-
ding the present U. 8. Government, into the undying belief that sla-
very is inviolable on constitutional grounds. Now it may be observed,
that if slavery is inviolable on constitutional grounds, on those grounds
the Fathers could not have contemplated that it would cease, nor did
they design it should ever be abolished. On the contrary, referring
back to them from the instrument their intent would be found to con-
template its perpetuity. Furthermore, if inviolable on constitutional
grounds, the assumption to perpetuate it on constitutional grounds
would be true, and a Southern party arising to take it could not be
overthrown. Wemight subjugate such party in arms, but they would
subdue us in argument, and all can say for themselves who would then
be the superior. Aye, who will say that if they were superior in ar-
gument, they would not presently be superior both in argument and
arms, for there is a logical connection between the two. mets

To say that slavery is inviolable on constitutional grounds, is to say
absolutely, the constitution develops no principles on which the doc-
trine of human rights can be maintained against the demands of a
principle fundamentally opposed to liberty. A word worse it is not
possible to say. It is ineffably absurd, or just as absurd to attempt to
a defense of liberty, and we have no Constitution, no Government.—
if true away with the Constitution and to arms!

Now, not to enter on the discussion of extranenous questions as
whether a constitutional guarantee of slavery in one state is not con-
sistently a Constitutional warantee for it in all the states, or whether
the unconstitutionality of slavery in one state is not also its unconsti-
tutionality in all, and so reaching back through the instrument to
their intent to surrender or beg the whole question of the Fathers, we
prefer to go to the foundations of the Government and raise the sub-
ject of their intention as an original question. And upon its decisions,
its evolutions and conclusions, we propose to rest our destiny and our
hope.

It will be seen since intention and action are mutually inclusive, that
if the Fathers originally intended to perpetuate African servitude, at
least, all arguments to the contrary, the moral force of their sancticn
would sustainit. ‘heir intention would suggest measures to adopt in
its interest and in carrying them out they would proceed to fortify
slavery by all the means in their power. The study of their example

ii

would then propagate it, their success would encourage it and at lust

if possible it would become general.

In these circumstances a higher question than that of the example
and usage of the I’athers, in justification of its perpetuity would in
time arise in relation to its title. Is the title to slavery valid? Can
man transmit the enslavement of man in perpetuity, under any validi-
ty of law? Since ifit were found to be incompatable with Liberty, the
denial of its claims would immediately lead to a trial of its title which
if found invalid, would perish ; the intent of the Fathers mattering lit-
tle before its fall, except to show it was erroneous or as of those called
the Fathers proved them falsely so called.

WHO ARE THE FATHERS,

A difference in view might then arise in regard to who are the Fath-
ers. But certainly they could not be those, who irrespective of wheth-
er they were a minority or a majority, in representation of the Ameri-
can people originally chose slavery right or wrong, and subjected it
without legal title to the issues of an unknown future.

The Fathers are a majority of those who in appointment for the pur-
pose and in represenration of the American People, originally separated
from Great Britain and founded the government, by giving law to the |
realm in a public declaration of fundamental principles which are ap-
plicable to all alike, and which they proclaimed as self evident before
all mankind, in evidence of an intention to abide by them as their fu-
ture rules of action.

The Fathers thus insulated and specified having the responsibility
of promulgating the principles of the Declaration of Independence,
equally applicable to all, were called upon to decide in some form
whether to command that slavery should cease and must therefore be
suppossed to have had some intention in relation to the subject. It
is plain that in their capacity as private individuals, or as persons ap-
pointed simply to found the yovernment they were powerless to put a
period to its existence or to issue an order for its abolishment since it
was before and above their individual will. They must therefore in
their proper character of Founders of the Government be supposed
to have disposed of it, so far as they were concerned, in the only prac-
ticable way : by arranging for its removal at the instance of the
people. How was it possible to do otherwise? They had the oppres.

sions of the Brittish Government before them for an indeffinite period,
and felt in their own persons as well as in thoseof the slaves the suffer-
ings of the never ending conflict waged between oppression and the
conditions of man’s well being. With this view they observed that it

by

was impossible tosecure human welfare until oppression is abolished.
They arose therefore and boldly affirmed in dissolution of their
shackles not only that they were free, but that all men are created
equal, having an equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi-
ness. Having next achieved their freedom by a resort to arms, are
they now to be regarded as having turned rownd and making a line of
distinction between themselves and Africans,—partakers by opression
in their own experiences, intended nothing at all of their freedom—in
blank contradiction to the doctrine of the natural equality of man,
which they had but just declared? Aye, having abolished opression
did they by that act establish it? Did they intend nothing, absolutely
nothing, in favor of the doctrine of liberty in distinction from that of
oppression, but all in favor of a covenant with death and an agreement
with Hell with which they have been charged ?

ON WHAT PRINCIPLE THE GOVERNMENT IS FOUNDED.

What then did they intend ? Considering that Government is but
an instrument of the people who may alter or abolish it whenever fo,
sufficient reason they deem it proper they beheld before them in the
popular will, a power before which thrones and principalities would
give way, and before which slavery also would give way. And ag it
became them to found a popular government, and leave its destinies to
the world, they did it on the principle that the popular will taking
cognizance of the shackles of Tyranny, and abolishing them would in
pursuance of this act, as thoroughly cause slavery to fall as the Tyran-
ny and eppressions of Britain. In founding the government, therefore,
they laid down those fundamental laws on which liberty does and
must rest expecting them of course to work out the emancipation of
themselves and their slaves. They thus intended not only to destroy
African servitude, but that its destruction should make manifest their
intent as well that it was impracticable for them to apply the principles
of liberty which they had declared to the removal of slavery in any
other way.

And having accordingly aecomplished their end it was their joy and
hope to believe as has often been averred that the current of Liberty
now set and welling up into a stream as froma rift they had opened
in a rock, would float it from the country before the dawn of the nine-
teenth century. ;

THE NEW ENGLAND CHARGE.

In addition to the reason already given that slavery was above their
individual will, it must be observed that the Fathers as persons had no

18
power over it to abolish it, since as long as there were those who inde-
pendently held slaves, they must abolish it, in a higher characater
than that of persons, through the establishment of a government,
in their temporary or comparative neglect. And this helpless relation
of the Fathers irresponsible in a private position for the existence of a
system long maintained, yet responsible in a public one for the abolish-
ment of its tenure, laid the foundation of the N. H. charge, absurdly
assuming that in their intention as the representatives of the country,
lay the ratification, instead of throttlement of a usage for the entire
removal of which there was not as yet, nor could there be any organ-

ized or statutory law.
And thus, while great and important truths of the government were

being wrought out and applied in order to its complete establishment
even the system of slavery itself would extend in the interim, and the
acts of the ['athers themselves, would be involved in eclipse
strongly inducing the belief that they had criminally participated
therein while awaiting the dawn of a brighter day to dispel the mists
and cause their glory to appear.

REASSERTION OF EQUALITY IN A TITLE TO RIGHTS.

It is affirmed then that so far from intending to transmit and per-
petuate slavery, the Fathers intended to abolish it.

If now this intention is susceptible of still higher proof, it will be
impossible to suppose they intended its perpetuity, and the way will
be open to show that no higher duty rests on the Government than
that of an independent reasscrtion of man’s natural equality in a right
to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness constitutionally, and that
upon this reassertion depends the salvation of the country, as well as
the excmption of the Fathers from the charge of having been a com-
pany of Man-Stealers. *

That the Fathers then so far from intending to transmit and perpet-
uate slavery, intended its abolishment, follows immediately from their
having founded the Government on the principle of the popular will,
—that will within the purview of the fundamental law of the govern-
ment the Fathers were appointed to found, in recognition and abolish-
ment of the shackles of tyranny, having included also the shackles of

the slaves. i
Did then the Fathers intend or not intend to found the Government

on this principle? If yea, since intention and responsibility are cor-
relative, they intended the abolishment of slavery. For the moment
they founded the Government, taking rise in the name of its funda-
mental principle, the shackles of the slaves including those of the

tyranny of Great Britain, fell together to the ground. And this is
the higher proof, to-wit:

The abolishment of slavery by the fundamental act of the Govern-
ment, of which the proposition is susceptible, that the Fathers, so far
from having intended to transmit and perpetuate slavery, intended to
abolish it. They not only put its abolishment in appointment in con-
templating a government of freedom, but in having founded the Goy-
ernment, they abolished it in a higher sense than it ever can be abol-
ished again.

How would it be possible to conceive otherwise, if hereafter it should
come to be found that the Fathers themselves, in dissolution of their
own bands, promulgated law as valid for the emancipation of the race
as for theirs, to say nothing of the slave, and between which and
themselves there was as much the relation ot an object and an end, as
though the law had been written for the purpose, and they had au-
thoritatively issued from it the emancipating decree.

Taking for granted, at present, that they proclaimed law universal
on that occasion, it follows that if they did not intend to found the
government on the principle of the popular will, they did not intend
found it in any guarantee of law, since, in the non-recognition of the
principle in their original act, there would be no operation of it in
guarantee, on which their intention could proceed to found it therein,
which would have been impossible therefore, as a matter of course.

The question then of whether the Fathers intended to found the
government on the principle, is whether they intended the existence
and defense of Liberty, for as the popular will was in the abolishment
of tyranny in order to Liberty, the question of the Fathers in relation
to the government was upon the extinction or non-extinction of Lib-
erty accordingly—in order to government for defense, so that if they
ratified the principle they presented the ground upon a recognition of
which the voice of Liberty may be heard, and upon which its defense
may be maintained.

HOW DETERMINE THE INTENTION OF THE FATHERS.

How then shall we determine the intention of the Fathers; for
since the founding of the government pre-supposes it was their in-
tention to found it, and that they did found it in such guarantees
of law as would make it a success, the present state of the country
proves, that in relation to the principle upon which the government
rests, it has been lost to view, or our national difficulties could not
last. for an hour.

It can only be determined by a brief reference to the laws and ope-
rations of intention itself, taken in connection with the action of the
Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, for as they founded the
government at that time, their intention of the principle upon which
they intended it should rest, then became manifest, which, as in ac-
cordance with the laws and operation of intention in general, is to be
determined by the law in particular which they then laid down.

Primarily, then, an intention is an operation of the mind to the ac-
complishment of an end, as in the founding of a government or other
undertaking, and its action only takes place on the alternatives of its
primatives, i. e. it occurs only when from a presentation of an alterna-
tive, its not occurring, puts its position in forfiture by a change of
intention. Thus, in order to intend, there must be before the mind
two ways of action, primarily opposite, presenting an alternative upon
which the intention of either is in the necessary operation of law,
not the intention of the other, which is then in accordance with its
law to its end. The question of its settlement, therefore, depends on
its primatives and its law, for as its primitives are contradictory, and
it is therefore not of both, so of which it is rests upon its law.

ACTION OF THE FATHERS.

The application now of these elementary truths to the disposal of
whether it was the intention of the Fathers to found the government
on the principle of the popular will, resolves itself into a statement of
their action on the alternative of the abolishment of tyranny and in-
tention of Liberty, which, if it correspond with the law they laid down,
the question of the principle at the foundation of the government
within their intention will need no further illustration.

The action of the Fathers therefore, was in ratification of the abol-
ishment or non-intention of tyranny the intention of Liberty.

Did this action correspond with the law they publicly declared ?—
For if it harmonized with it, since their intention was direct to its end
on its alternative, the fundamental principle of the government as in-
tended by the Fathers, is that of the popular will in the abolishment
of tyranny without qualification or reserve.

. According then to the laws and operations of intention in general,
so far as it concerns a correspondence of their intention with the law
they announced, as on its alternative it knew no limit, and from im-
possibility of law could not know any. ‘To suppose then that it did
not correspond with their declared law, is to suppose, instead of in-
tending Liberty the Fathers abandoned it. For, since intention from

the moment of its alternative to its end is by necessity indivisible, it
gives rise for expression thereafter to no other than its universal law,
with which it is not supposable it did not correspond, except as in re-
version of the law by which it necessarily takes place, it is supposed
the intention of the end fell away.

Assuming therefore, that the intention of the Fathers as any other
constituted force was according to law, no question remains of its cor-
respondence with the law they announced, for it is self-evident on this
ground, that their intention was in correspondence with their announce-
ment, and their announcement with their intention in conclusive proof
of a design to found the government on the basis of Liberty, and
in ratification of the abolishment of tyranny.

Accordingly, the Fathers declared eighty-six years ago, that they
‘held it to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are en-
dowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” from which
the law is to be deduced in proof of the principle upon which they in-
tended the government to rest. The process of the deduction however
is brief, for if self-evident that all are created equal and with certain
inalienable rights, the law, is that of the equality of man in a title to
these rights, which, as in proof of the fundamental principle of the
government is that of a ratification of the popular will, for since the
people in their sovereign will abolished the government of Great Britain,
demanding in the imposition of tyranny, the inequality of man in a
title to his natural rights, their equality as demanded by the govern-
ment of the Fathers, determined the ratification of the will of the peo-
ple in abolishment, as the principle upon which they intended to found
it beyond the possibility of a doubt.

The Fathers therefore, regarding the ratification of the popular will
as the extinction of tyranny, designed the principle for the basis of a
government of universal Liberty, and in formal dissolution of their

bands promulgated it as compassing the whole ground of our govern-
mental establishment.

AUTHORITY TO ANNOUNCE SLAVERY ABOLISHED.

Assuming it then as fundamental to the government, the authority
for announcing that the Fathers abolished slavery, since the same, is
as high as the authority for affirming they abolished Tyranny: for
since founding the government, was simply putting the principle in
ratification by formally annoucing its law they appointed its authority
for the abolishment of Tyranny without limitation, and authorised its
announcement for any or all forms of Tyranny slice Since slavery
therefore, was the imposition of claims upon men contrary to their

17

natural rights and was consequcutly, as the claims of Great Britain at
war with the principle, in abolishing the one the Fathers abolished
them both. [In accordance with this view judicial decisions of the
time are upon record. |

NO SLAVERY BY LAW.

It is now affirmed in the way of proclaiming the relation of the
Fathers to slavery, that since the law they promulgated in evidence of
the principle upon which they founded the government, is universal, and
as valid therefore now as ever, a slave never was held under the goy-
ernment by their authority and that consequently, of course, in due
operation of law taking rise in this fundamental law all the slaves un-
der its dominions are free.

And from this it follows, on the principles of intention already pro-
pounded, that any construction of the conduct of those who founded
the goverment as implicated in slavery are puerile.

It is then briefly observed next that if there were authority for the
retention of slaves under the Fathers the evidence of their guilt would
be conclusive, for whatever may be said, theologically, of the origin of
guilt or innocence all theories would agree that a Nation’s lie heralded
in its Declaration of Independence, as the embodiment of the funda-
mental principles of the Government and under the solemn sanction of
an appeal to the Almighty would blast its promulgators on its discov-
ery with the hisses of the whole world.

What fact in this respect supports our history of Liberty? this—
that when the Fathers ratified the non-intention of Tyranny, in the in-
tention of Liberty and covered all possible ground of responsible ac-
tion by announcing its law, they made appeal to the “Supreme Judge
of the World” for the rectitude of their intentions, wherein had they
not been upright and had issued a charter in legalization of Tyranny
instead of Liberty they would have been Blasphemers, and Destroyers
instead of the Defenders of the liberties of Mankind.

HIGHEST DUTY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

Without therefore criminally assuming that their action as the rep-
resentatives of the American people was not a ratification of the abolish
ment of Tyranny in the intention of Liberty itisimpossible to suppose
the Fathers ever contemplated slavery for a moment.

I therefore assume that they did not, and proceed to show that no
higher duty rests on the government than that of an independent re-
assertion of its vital doctriné that all men are equal ina title to their
natural rights in liquidation of all assumed rights to slaves, and that on

18
this re-assertion depends the salvation of the country, as well as the
exemption of the Fathers from the charge of having been a company
of man stealers.

Assuming the assumption is true, in respect to the Fathers, no fur-
ther question remains of their relation to slavery, which since their
promulgation of the doctrine of Liberty has always lain dead upon
their hands; for in considering their end before promulgation, they
saw that making no distinctions in men it would be the end of Tyran-
ny, and the emancipation of Liberty. They, therefore, asserted it and
sealed their devotion with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor. And from this time, to recede a step in history, they assumed
that exalted position in the eyes of the people they occupied when as-
sailed by N. HE. with the charge of being highwaymen and robbers.

Assuming in fine that they imposed the same responsibilities and
duties upon their descendants as those they solemnly assumed for
themselves the duty of the government to reassert its vital doctrine in
liquidation of claims to slaves is no less than that of the reduction of

a Tyranny with which in the comparison that of Great Britain
needs no mention. Having its origin subsequent to the founding of the
founding of the government, with those who set its doctrinesat naught,
no better service have they done in working for its overthrow than the
extent to which they have succeeded to cast it into darkness. Com-
ing generations will stand aghast at a spectacle herein displayed with-
out a paralellin the annals of time. It will be seen as crime, equalled
only by the union and consumation of all crime, and will receive
naught from mankind but the direst execration. It will be viewed as
having merited and suffered the judgment ef the Divine Wrath in a
degree compared with which, no besom of destruction which ever yet
swept the Earth, would seem to have done the Divine Vengeance any
justice.

Shall I then under the government of the Fathers and in presence
of the consummation of tyranny, argue to show the grade and charac-
ter of the duty to re-assert their fundamental doctrine in liquidation
of claims to slaves? claims which they denied on principle with all
the sovereign powers they possessed? Not for a moment, except to
bring doctrines of the government to light, long hidden from view, in
revealment of the duties whose discharge those claims demand for the
welfare of a people who support a government under which they have
chosen to live; for it is considered that in a race whose parentage was
the embodiment of doctrinal purity, there yet remains the seeds of
their salvation to spring up and grow by properly touching their germs
with its influences, and adding to them the requisite conditions of cli-
mate and soil.

In order to arrive at these doctrines it is requisite to observe that it
is impossible to suppose the Fathers contemplated slavery since it as-
sumes that they did not promulgate that all men are equal in a title
to their natural rights, or which is its equivalent, that they did not

1g

contemplate universal Liberty, since in support of the contrary they
did announce the equality of man ina title to Freedom.

These suppositions therefore present the alternative of admitting the
promulgation in fulfillment of the highest obligation the government
can impose; for since man’s equality in a title to his natural rights en-
titles him to all the immunities his nature seeks, the obligation of the
announcement in recognition of the title, is, on admission, precisely
that of the fundamental principle of the government, or of the inten-
tion of Liberty in ratification of the abolishment of tyranny.

It follows then with irresistable force, that any claim to interfere
with the equality of man in his title to these rights, demands of the
government an instant and independent negative, as a discharge of
duty under the eye of its very first law. For, as the Fathers in the
intention of Liberty were under a necessity absolute of affirming the
equality of man in respect to his title accordingly, in justification of
their assumption of Independence, that equality was the law under
whose inspection they put Independence itself on guard to repel any
infringement upon the rights of man as necessary to protect its su-
preme rights and interests. Whoever, therefore, proposes tu trample
that title down, not only calls the government to a high performance of
duty under its first law, but proposes to itself in turn, on its failure
therein, to take the eyes themselves of the government from their
sockets, and ride it on an Ass in derision of its professions of Liberty.

The doctrine then I lay down in assertion of the demand, proceed-
ing from the violution of the rights of man, and in the light of which
the duties of the government are made known, is, that loyalty toa prin-
ciple is an intention to abide by its duties, and is as necessary in their
presence as the lightning that rifts the Oak. And that it follows if
government is loyal to Liberty, its loyalty, in presence of an infraction
of its vital law, then demonstrates itself, or it demonstrates on the con-
trary that the government is lost.

One deduction from this and one only I make, and leave with
the thoughtful mind, which is, that to say no higher duty rests upon
the government than that of an independent reassertion of its vital
doctrine, in liquidation of claims to slaves, is to say that the infraction
of the law of liberty by these claims calls for the re-assertion not only
in fulfillment of the obligation of Liberty, but in preservation of the
guarantees of the Constitution; since the keeping of that law intact
is the original guarantee of that instrument whence all others are
derived, and without which it is of no authority and is overthrown.

SALVATION ON RE-AFFIRMATION OF DOCTRINE.

I proceed next to state that the salvation of the country depends up-
on the re-assertion, and I affirm the conclusion from the loss of the
Declaration of Independence from the eyes of the people, as contain-
ing a doctrine to be affirmed again and again in support of all we have
nationally, antagonistic to the claims of tyranny.

As accepted by the American people, that instrument is an oath
wherein they call the “‘Supreme Judge of the World” to witness that
they intend in recognition of the equality of mankind in ‘a title to

_ their rights to maintain the law it develops intact, and to aet ace
“ingly. Gy

In this view it was designed by them to be a beacon—a very blaze Butt
of Glory to shine down as from the Throne of the Almighty on the
doctrine, to point it out as marking the highway of the Nation. Taree

Our national existence therefore, from the very structure of the
Government which derives its powers from the people, and as founded _
on a principle of' theirs, knowing no recognition of tyranny, is poised
on giving the doctrine place and voice, whenever as now, the notes of _
tyranny sound an alarm in blotting out the law on which Liberty goy-
ernmentally depends.

I need not say then that the salvation of the country depends on
the re-assertion of its vital doctrine in liquidation of elaims to slaves,
for those claims as a violation of law which the announcement of the
Fathers stands under a perpetual oath to correct, must be dissolved, or
the Government in forfeiture of the Divine sanction must in aban-
donment of Liberty go to wreck, and the country left us as a fair heri-
tage from the I’athers, must be lost.

HONOR UPON THE FATHERS.

So in fine, the exemption of the Fathers from the imputation of
scheming in human rights, depends on the re-assertion. The charge
against them as already stated, was thrust to the vitals of the Country,
and no act since the founding of the government has accomplished _
more by its direct and indirect influence to paralyze the national life,
as none will more accomplish its restoration than the one that shall — Mi
dispose of its influence and stand in its exemplary defeat. | aie

This assertion rests on the axiom that since intention and responsi-
bility are correlative, a person on any of its original alternatives is all _
the one or all the other in relation to its end, rendering him suscepti-_
ble of the highest possible injury, even though he be the highest pos-
sible saint, by charging directly to him the responsibility of a long line ©

_ of connected abuses, standing in juxtoposition with his name, but with
which they have no responsible connection.

Thus, while the Fathers, appealing to the Supreme Being put forth
the fundamental doctrine that all men are equal in a title to their nat-

ural rights, N. EH. stepped as within the sacred enclosure of their
thoughts, and denying the correspondence of their intention with the —
words, made them criminals instead of Patriots, pointing to compro-
mise with slavery and what not, in our early history, in evidence of
her stand. Ever since, the country has heard of their implication and

ult.

4 i On the re-assertion of their words I assert, in accomplishment of |
the very end which they achieved, to-wit: that of Liberty, depends Re
their release from the imputation. And as soon as authority pronoun-
ces the consecrated words, the country as not before, will pour forth

its honor upon them, as those to whom honor is due. ee Ae

_ Shail the Nation wait to hear a voice pealing out from the C:

as with seven thunders, ‘‘It is written in the archives of the G

_ ment thatall men are created equal,’ and hereunto is th

_ affixed in dissolution of Tyranny in its bands upon

ny Bie Aen
;

x
'