An amendment implying that without it, the constitution
would authorize or even tolerate slavery, would do great injustice to those who
adopted the constitution. It would be wickedly blotting their memory. So much
stress has been laid on the history of the constitution, it may well be said
that there are two constitutions, the one the historical, and the other the
literal. The former is that which has ruled the country. Terrible, all the way,
has been its rule. The cry of many millions to an avenging God has come of it.
The soaking of our land with blood has also come of it. That the history of the
constitution has so cursed us is because it is so almost universally held to be
a pro-slavery history. In other words, that this historical constitution has so
cursed us is because of the ever urged and almost universally accepted claim
that the literal constitution was made in the interest of slavery. Alas for the
people to whom the angel of the Apocalypse cried “woe, woe, woe,” if they
suffered more than America has suffered from this historical constitution! That
there is much for slavery in the history of the constitution I admit. But that
there is also much in it against slavery I affirm. Pro-slavery interests
however have succeeded in keeping the latter out of sight. The rejection in the
convention, which framed the constitution, of the motion to require “fugitive
slaves” to be delivered up, and the unanimous adoption the next day of the
motion to deliver up, no “fugitive slaves,” but persons from whom labor or
service is due, is a historical fact against slavery. So too is Mr.
Madison's unopposed declaration in the convention, that it would be “wrong to
admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in man.” And so
also is that convention's unanimous substitution of the word “service” for “servitude”
for the avowed reason that servitude expresses the condition of slaves and
service that of freemen. Nothing however of all this did I need to say. What
this thing is, which is called the history of the constitution — what is this
historical constitution as I have termed that history — is really of no moment.
What it is in the light of the records of the convention referred to, or of the
records of the “Virginia Convention” or any other convention, or what it is on
the pages of the “Federalist,” or of any other book, or of any newspaper,
should not be made the least account of. The aggregate of all those whose words
contributed to make up this historical constitution, is but a comparative
handful. The one question is — What is the literal constitution? For it is that
and that only, which the people adopted, and which is therefore the
constitution. They did not adopt the discussions of the convention which framed
it. These were secret. They did not adopt what the newspapers said of the
constitution. Newspapers in that day were emphatically “few and far between.”
But even had they been familiar with the newspapers and with the discussions,
their one duty would nevertheless have been to pass upon the simple letter of
the constitution. As Judge Story so well says: “Nothing but the text itself was
adopted by the people.” And I add that what the people intended by the
constitution is to be gathered solely from its text; and that what the people
intended by it and not what its framers or the commentators upon it intended,
is the constitution. So we will take up the text of the constitution to learn
what and what alone is the constitution. Its very preamble tells us that it is
made to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Thus, even in the porch of her
temple doth Liberty deign to meet us. Strange indeed would it be were she to
desert us in its apartments! She does not. In our progress through the constitution
we find it pleading the power of the whole nation to maintain in every State “a
republican form of government.” Pro-slavery men tell us that this was no more
than a republican government of the aristocratic Greek and Roman type; and that
therefore men can consistently be bought and sold under it. But when the
fathers gave us the constitution the political heavens were all ablaze with a
new light — the light of the truth “that all men are created equal,” and that
the great end of government is to maintain that equality. Ere we get through
the constitution — ere Liberty has led us all the way through her temple — we
meet with the slavery-forbidding declaration that: “No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law!”
* *
* * * * * *
What an argument it is in favor of the anti-slavery
character of the constitution, that not so much as one line, no, nor one word
of it, need be changed in order to bring it into perfect harmony with the most
radical and sweeping anti-slavery amendment. And how strongly is this character
argued from the fact, that were constitutional phrases, as innocent and
inapplicable as these which are relied on to rob the noblest black man of his
liberty, to be made the ground for robbing the meanest white man of his, or
even the meanest white man of his meanest dog, such use of them would be
instantly and indignantly scouted by all! And how strongly is it also argued
from the fact, that a stranger to America and to her practice of making church
and State and all things minister to slavery, could see absolutely nothing,
could suspect absolutely nothing in the constitution, which might be seized on
to turn that also to the foul and diabolical service?
But why should we stop with an anti-slavery amendment?
Immeasurably more needed is an amendment to the effect that race or origin
shall not work a forfeiture of any civil or political rights. Even an
anti-slavery amendment may not be permanent. A race, whilst deprived of rights
which other races enjoy, can have no reasonable assurance that it will be
protected against even slavery. But make it equal with them, in rights, and it
will be able to protect itself.
SOURCE: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A
Biography, p. 177-9
No comments:
Post a Comment