ingles- spooner the collected works of vol. 3 (1858-1862) [2010].pdf

7/27/2019 INGLES- SPOONER The Collected Works of vol. 3 (1858-1862) [2010].pdf

1/497

THE ONLINE LIBRARY OF LIBERT

A Project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

THE COLLECTED WORKS OF LYSPOONER (1834-1886), IN 5 VOVOL. 3 (1858-1862)


2/497

THE ONLINE LIBRARY OF LIBERTY COLLECTION

This facsimile PDF is published by Liberty Fund, Inc., a non-profit educatiestablished to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsi

It is part of the Online Library of Liberty website


3/497

Lysander Spooner (1808-1887)

Lysander Spooner (1808-1887) was a legal tabolitionist, and radical individualist who stown mail company in order to challenge theheld by the US government. He wrote on theconstitutionality of slavery, natural law, trialintellectual property, paper currency, and ban

To see other works by this author at the OnliLibrary of Liberty website:.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
http://oll.libertyfund.org/person/4664http://oll.libertyfund.org/person/4664


4/497

Volume III (1858-1862) [488 pp.]

13.To the Non-Slaveholders of the South (114.Address of the Free Constitutionalists toPeople of the United States (Boston: ThayeEldridge, 1860).

15.The Unconstitutionality of Slavery (BosMarsh, 1860).

16.The Unconstitutionality of Slavery: Part(Boston: Bela Marsh, 1860).

17.A New System of Paper Currency. (BostStacy and Richardson, 1861).

18.Our Mechanical Industry, as Affected byPresent Currency System: An Argument for

Authors New System of Paper Currency (Boston: Stacy & Richar

TABLE OF CONTENTS


5/497

The Collected Works of Lysander Spooner (1834-1886), facsimvolumes in chronological order of year of publication (IndianaFund, 2010).

Volume I (1834-1850) [473 pp.] Volume II (1852-1855) [463 pp.] Volume III (1858-1862) [ 488 pp.] Volume IV (1863-1873) [ 306 pp.] Volume V (1875-1886) [ 294 pp.]

Volume I (1834-1850) [473 pp.]1.The Deist's Immortality, and an Essay onMan's Accountability for his Belief (Boston, 1834).2."To the Members of the Legislature of Massachusetts." Worcester Republican. -Extra. August 26, 1835.3.The Deist's Reply to the AllegedSupernatural Evidences of Christianity(Boston, 1836).

4.Supreme Court of United States, JanuaryTerm, 1839. Spooner vs. M'Connell, et al.5.Constitutional Law, relative to Credit,

Currency, and Banking (Worcester, Mass.: Jos. B. Ripley, 1843).6. The Unconstitutionality of the Laws of Congress, Prohibiting Priva

(New York: Tribune Printing Establishment, 1844).


6/497

7. Poverty: its Illegal Causes and Legal Cure. Part First. (Boston: Bel1846).

8. Who caused the Reduction of Postage? Ought he to be Paid? (Bostand Hasty's Press, 1850).

9. Illegality of the Trial of John W. Webster. (Boston: Bela Marsh, 18

10. A Defence for Fugitive Slaves (Boston: Bela Marsh, 1850).

Volume II (1852-1855) [463 pp.]

11.An Essay on the Trial by Jury (BostonJohn P. Jewett and Co., 1852).

12.The Law of Intellectual Property; or AEssay on the Right of Authors andInventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas, Vol. 1 (Boston: Bela Marsh, 1855)


7/497

Volume III (1858-1862) [488 pp.]

13.To the Non-Slaveholders of the South(1858).

14.Address of the Free Constitutionalists the People of the United States (Boston:Thayer & Eldridge, 1860).

15.The Unconstitutionality of Slavery(Boston: Bela Marsh, 1860).

16.The Unconstitutionality of Slavery: PaSecond (Boston: Bela Marsh, 1860).17.A New System of Paper Currency.(Boston: Stacy and Richardson, 1861).

18.Our Mechanical Industry, as Affected our Present Currency System: An Argument for the Authors NewPaper Currency (Boston: Stacy & Richardson, 1862).


8/497

Volume IV (1863-1873) [306 pp.]

19.Articles of Association of the SpoonerCopyright Company for Massachusetts(1863).20.Considerations for Bankers, andHolders of United States Bonds (Boston: A. Williams & Co., 1864).

21.A Letter to Charles Sumner (1864).

22.No Treason, No. 1 (Boston: Published the Author, 1867).23.No Treason. No II.The Constitution(Boston: Published by the Author, 1867).

24.Senate-No. 824. Thomas Drew vs. JohM. Clark (1869).

25. No Treason. No VI. The Constitution of No Authority (Boston: Puthe Author, 1870).

26. A New Banking System: The Needful Capital for Rebuilding the (Boston: A. Williams % Co., 1873).


9/497

Volume V (1875-1886) [294 pp.]

27.Vices are Not Crimes: A Vindication oMoral Liberty (1875).

28.Our Financiers: Their Ignorance,Usurpations, and Frauds. Reprinted fromThe Radical Review (Boston: A. WilliaCo., 1877).

29.The Law of Prices: A Demonstration othe Necessity for an Indefinite Increase o

Money. Reprinted from The RadicalReview (Boston: A. Williams & Co., 18

30.Gold and Silver as Standards of ValueThe Flagrant Cheat in Regard to Them.Reprinted from The Radical

Review (Boston: A. Williams & Co., 1878).

31. Universal Wealth shown to be Easily Attainable (Boston: A. Wil1879).

32. No. 1. Revolution: The only Remedy for the Oppressed Classes oEngland, and Other Parts of the British Empire. A Reply toDunraven (Second Edition, 1880).

33. Natural Law; or the Science of Justice: A Treatise on Natural LawJustice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; showLegislation whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime(Boston: A. Williams & Co., 1882).

34. A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard: Challenging his Right - and that ofSo-called Senators and Representatives in Congress - to Exercise a


10/497

Legislative Power whatever over the People of the United States (BPublished by the Author, 1882).

35. A Letter to Scientist and Inventors, on the Science of Justice, andof Perpetual Property in their Discoveries and Inventions (Boston:Upham & Co., 1884).

36. A Letter to Grover Cleveland, on his False Inaugural Address, theand Crimes of Lawmakers and Judges, and the Consequent PovertyIgnorance, and Servitude of the People (Boston: Benj. R. Tucker, P1886).


11/497

TO THE NON-SLAVEHOLDERS OF THE SOUTH.

w. ~at 10 JO U b. .. ... l th .. A P... .. roa THII: AlIOu.. ,,0. 01' BUTUT,'" aD d 101icitlOur aid to ca .n : r It Into-execution.

YOQr DUmbers , comb'oed with those or the SlaTes, willat" ,ou.n power. You hayti but to UI. it, aad the work.Itdooo.

Tb. rol lowlDr "If_ldenl pr lnolpl .. of jUl tlc. and hu-manlty will ""' .. ! lid. to tho m. ... ure. proper to beadopted. The.. princlpl. . are-

1. Tbat the Slaveshave & nntural right to their hberty,2. Tb .. t t hey have II. natuml right to cempen-eucn (eo

flU.1 the property of the Slaveholders and their aboUorscan compeuule them} (or the wrongs they have suffered.

8. That 10 long u the governments, under which theybn, n fu!!O to grl' them hbe-rty or compensation, they hayethe light to tAk.e It by strll.tagem of force,

4. That it i. he duty DCall, "lao can, to Ruis. them ineueh an enterpn-e,

In rendering this aso;i !tance.) 00. Willnaturally adopt thesemeasUrM.

1. To Ign ore Ind lpum the authOrity of all the corruptand tyrannical pchncal instltahons, which the Shu 'eholden

have ~Itabhlhed (ot the s ec un ty or their crimes,2. Soon 88 may be, to take the polnlcal power (If your

States Into ynur own handll, and estllbll1,h governmentsthat .h,,11 punish Itav choldan.; as a cnme ... nil 31-.0 give tothe Shave. civil actio ns for damages for the wrongs that haToaJNAd, been committed against them.

3. Until such new governments ahall be Iuetrtuted, torecogDlze th e 5 1: 1\ e'l as f re e m en , and 81 bel ll~ tho rightfulownen or the property, whleh is new lu:loIlty their mastersbut . .. hleh would p1I~" to them, If ju,tice were done; tOjDJ.lIfy Md U6l~t them in ever}' eff"rt to acquire their liberty,and obta in VO'MI'llOn of such property, by stratagem orrorce: to hlre them AS laborers, pay tbem their wages, anddefend tbem meanwhile agamlt their tyrat::ts: to te n themfire.arm,. and teneh them the use vf them; to lrade IDdh~ hying th e proptrt!J tJuy tntIy Aau fa.bn fr o"l tAtir op.

prl"Of"l, "'"' pa,i"!J tAtrnfor it; to encourage end Buistthem to take possession o C t he la nds they cultlmte, nnd tbocrops they produce. end appropriate them to their own we;and in every way pos.alble to recognize them n, being nowtbe rightf",) owne,. ot the property, wbsch j ust ic e, if edmm-J ete red, wo uld g iv e the m. 10 ccm pensanon C or the injur iesthey have received.

4. To form Vigilance Committees. or League, of Free.dom, in every neigbborbood or township, whose duty it shallbe to ,laud io tbe Itead of the government, end do that jus.uee for the ,laftl, which government refuses to do: andespecially to arrest, try, and chutiae (With their own whips)aU Slaveholden who Iban beat their Ilaves, or restrain themof theIr IIbert,.; and compel them to give deeds of emanel-pal aon, a nd con ve) l. Dces o ( t he ir p rope rty, t o thei r sl aves .

6. To treat. and teach the negroes to treat, aU aellabettors o C the Slavebolden, as you and they treat theSl aveholder s t he uu elve s, both in p er son and p roper ty.

Perhaps lOme may say that thil inking of property, bythe S lave ., weald be 't eal ing, and should not be encou raged .The answer It, that it would not be stealing; it would be.imply tak.ing justice Into thetr own hands, and r edre-ssingtheir own wronp. The Itate of Slaney is 11 .tate or war.In fbi. cue it Is a jtul war, on tl" part of the negroes-awar for liberty, and the recompense of injuries i aud ueeee -Illy j",tid.' Ib.m In carr;rIDgII onby lb. only meaDI Ibearopp res son hav e leR to them. In war, the plunder of ene-",I. . It as I.gltlmate & lb. kllliDg of Ibem; and Itratagem11 u egltlll1&te .. open fcree, The rigbt or the SIan therefore , 10 tbt. war, to take property, 11 as clear as theirr ight to take l ir.; and Ib. lr righl lo do i t oecret ly, i l" . I. ,ras Ib.ir rigbt 10doit opeDly. ADd as Ibi. will probably b.their mOlt efl'"ctive mode o( operation ror the presen t, theyougbllo be taugbt, .ncouraged, aDdwilted 10 do It 10 lb.utmost, 10 long as they are unabJe to meet their enermes inlb. open a.ld. And 10c,li thi' laking of properly IteallDg,f. u alae aod unjust as it wouJd be to cal l t he takIng otUte,lnjult war, murder,

It II ooly those who ha't'8 a f.IN and .apentitioUi reree-eoce for the authonty of governmeots, and han contractedlb. bUilt of lbiDkingIbollb. mootlynulDical and ID;quilo..laWIb.. . lb. power 10make that r ight which i , .. tural iywroag , or that wrong wbich i. natur all y r ight , who will haveauy doubt as to the right ot the SlaYe. (and thMe whowould aul.t them) to make "'r, to all poeslble extent, upontho properly of til. Sinebold." aDdthear.betto".

w. are unwiIIiDg to tato tho ....pouoibUityof adylliDgany general iosurrecboD, or aOl taking o( life, uotil we orthe North go down to take part In it, 10 Reh numben ill toInluce a certain ILDdeaty victory. W . therefore adviseth at , f or t he p . .. . ent, o pe rat lo t. 1 be co nf iDe d to the "bure ofp roper ty, and the cbu tl $Cme ll: o ( lodlyi dual Sl aTe ho ld en ,and their accomplices; and that lheae things be done only10 far & they cao be done, WlthOQt too great danger to theacton.

We spectally adviso the Bogging or Indwrdual Slave-holden. This il a CASe "here the medical prin erple, thatLko cu re s hke, Will cert&lflly sueeeed , Give theSlave.holden, then, a taste of their own whlpe, Spare their hve!-,but not their bad.lI. The ntfug'lQce they have acq uired bytbe use of the huh upon others, "III be seen taken out ofthem, when th e lame I CO U rg o I h. 11 b eapphed to themselvesA band of teo or twenty dete-neaned uegroell, well armed,having their reDdezvous ID t he foresta, coming out upon theplantations by day or night , s{' ll lng indlf ldual SllLyeholdet" l,. tr IPping t l .e ""and d oltgmg them loon\lly, in the presence ofthei r own Slaves , wou ld 80011 I I.t .o li sb S lavt !'r 1 ever a I I'rgodistrict.

These bands could also de a good work [,y JuJnnpl'ln,;individual Slaveholders, taklllg them Into the forest, Slidbohling them as hostages for the good behavior or the whites

rem:ulling on the plentatlons , compelling them also to exe-cute deeds o C e m an cl pa n on , a n dcouYeyance'l or their property, to tbeir elaves, These contract. could prob,,1JI~' n everanerwl lrd be successfull y d lll l.o wf Jd on the ground ur durh~(especiaUy al'ter new gov eroraente, raTorable to liberty,should be established) masmuch as eueh contracts "Quit! benothing more than justice; and men molY nghtfully hecoerced to do justice. Such contracts would be lntnn-dcnltyus valid as the trenttea b)" "hlLh conquered 1I::1.110llit mike&a th lr ac tio ll f or the injust ice " 'h u.h ca use d the war,

Tile more bold nnd resolute Maves .bouhl [,U t'lIcuur"'gt'Jto (om) themselves IOta baade, built! fork in the forests, endthere co llect arma, stores, horsts, every thing th:lt ,YIII en-able them to sustain themselses, .. nd carryo n thcir warrlrUupon the Siavebolders

Another impor tant m easu re ,o n t he pact oUb e S Ia ve 5, W illlie to disarm their masters. au rlr III that il pracucablc, hyselz. lI lg and ecncealmg their w p a pa n s w h en e v er c p po r tu n lt yoff'en. They should Also lullnl1 .IAvehuntmg \lo~. and theowner s too , i f that s hould p rove nece ssa ry,

Whenever the Slaves on a plantation are net powerful or Icourageous enough to resut, tbey abculd be encouraged 10desert, in a body, temporarily, especially at ha"cst tune oas to cause the crops to perlitb for want of hand" to gathcrthem,

)Iany ether "'a)s will SUgglht themselves to you, and tothe Slaves, by whrch the SJaveholden can be annnytd andinjured, Withou t causmg any geaeral outbreak, or sheddmgof blood.

.0 "r4Ict., I. IDpportof &D1 8laYlboidloco I a 1 l 111 .J*fona

.0 m ilita ry , P atro l.or p ol"" M rY \co . mob 8laniloldlDcecurts, pou, and Ih en tL ; do D Ot.b 1a C, 1 0abort, to r .ut&la.Ing 61,,,r1, bDt "'''7 Iblns 10U 001.11 ud ripUlaDy _pubhcJ,l.Dd pnnte1,. rorIta OT~",

Oua PL.l.N TH.EN11-

J. To make war (openly or aecretly .. Circumstancesmay dictate) UpOIl the property of the Slneehclders nndtheir nbetton-uot for Its destruction. If that can ellS.!, t- eavoided, but to convert It to the us e or the Sluts. lC Itcannot be thus converted, then 1\0 nJvlse III destrucuon,Teach the Slaves to bum the r m:t..t er a' bUl iJmg! , t o L.11 Itheir cattle nnd horses, to cancelli or destroy farmmg uten-"lit, to abandon labor In seed time aut! h.rvel~ and let crop.

perish. Male bl4ury ""proji tah[(, In thiSW_}', If It Uti bedone in no other.2. To make 5Jneholden objects of dcrlstcu and con-

tempt, by fio,ulng them ... henner they lhall be ,uilty ufdoggmg their . Ia Yes .

3e To risk no geueral lusurrecnou, until we nf the ~ortltgo to your assistance, or ycu are sure of BUCl.!;:"'S Wltbf)Utour a id .

4. To cu lt ivat e the f ci en dah lp an d confidence of theSinel; to conlult with them a, to their right. and interes~,and the mean, of promotlDg thorn; to shew yGur mterest JI Itheir welf. ll .re, and ) ,our rea.chneas to 1\.$41St them. Let themknow that they have 1'0ur .ympathy, and It w m g ive themcourage, lelf.respec~ and ambI tion, Andmake men of them;tnftuIteJy better men to Jive by, 8S neilt:bbon and ftlen\ll,t han the IDdolen~ a rr og an t, . ell isb , h ear tJeSl . dcmlaeenn grobben and tyrants, who now keep both 10unetTes and theSlnns In lubjectioD, and look with contempt upon aU wholin by hone. t labor.

6. To cbange your political Institutions .oon as pouible.And in t be mean time g iYe nenT a vote to a Slaveholder;pa y no tana to their gonrameDt, If ,ad can either milt oreyade them; .. wible ... audjarol"l, give DOultimonl, and

Ill", r o . c . z .of 11 . &.41 IItlloag 100IIof '" s...\oW.trat You,no dn", Slaw. 10 tkir t.6or,'" &1.-" ' . , . ,tmdftogl . l . ..furpa,.""""*'."..,..,,........1 W.ho ..a word lpecu~l1, for),oo. YOIl are one of lbe aWo plnanof tho Sla", 'yltem. Y Otl l land reid, to do all thlt rileand Inh uman work, 'trhlcb mUlt be doue b,. tom1bodr hiltwlneh the more decent Slanhold'rI themMI,. wUI ~ do.

I Yet we ha, e heard 01U good repor t e tea o r lQQ. . It II, Uaatyou h ave no luch preJudiCes ag:almt ('Olor, nor ''lrut lab.erty, as that IOU would DOt . . WIIllllgl1 Mnl mODel blIlelpmg Q. b1au to Canad .., II by c.atcblDla ru'lthe &DdreturlHlIg him to 1111muter. If you are thu. Ind lt rt rlD t uto whom yon serye , we adYIN IOU hence fo rth to ten. tIMbhU(I!I, an.tud of th.ir muten. Turn Aboat , and h.lp therobbed to rob their robllen The former CAn alford tl P lI) 011Letter tb.n the latter. Help them to eet ~Ioa otthe property which II nghtfDI1'lbelr dD., aad ther c:ann fford to live you liberal commi"lonl. HeJp thftD GOCindffldunl ~Iu eholden, and they can afford to palloU ltD

Itunes as much al } cu ever recereed for flOCciog Sla,....He lp them to k idnap th e b luebol Je l" l, and they C&IlaJfordtn Ilo.y ) ou mere then IOU now get for catchlo& fucitlYi~Iave.. De true to tit, Manl , and. w .hope l bey w11 lpalyou well (or 10ur 'e"lcti. De f & l a e to tbem, and w ,bopether will klll 10u.

Lrqer. (If t& e &w.! You esn, Ir you will, tuft a pa -tent lu tl uence (ur good, IU th . . maUt r. 1f , in the true Iplritof hw M a ~1(!IICe,lnu shall see a.an" In the IDOItera.bedo( human ltelDS-- i ulld, recogni&iug hil rlgbt to obtaIn jutlc.h ,) "such mean l aa mny be 111h t. power, ) ,,011Iha ll t ake the"de o f the cppreeeed , i ll t lu l coa .t rovenl. and teacb lh. . &0trample on their tymnts, and vindicate their maobood-Wyou d o thIP, and then alt! in eitablllhing new Intthut'oal,blued upon hberty, fqu "hty. and rlghf, 100 wlll M" u.."'11~fACllull of dOIll&; ),our ran towanll bringiDI Inw.IJ,R. great, free. ami IlIlppy people, where now .U Is crimI,tJ ranny, deg rada ti on nd death. Jr , ou the coatrary, 708shall take the IIde of the Slanboldcn, and continae 10 be-ft!!>

proftulono. ll )' , under SlAve Insti tulioDl.)oQ mUlt (onnrbe- the deg raded , pet tl (ogl fng p imps, h ir el ings, and . tool . 0(D. few lOuUe.. robben or t be lr Ipec lf l- dtnl Jl Ir eon tiDu1Jrthe nuthonty of justice , end the ngbtl of hUmADit l- lr 1".ho.ll do tlUl, we nC('\I n ot aUtmpt to teU 10D what ,our true, .. a nk w i ll lie In th e I ca le (It 1."I,n, .tatHmln, paIrioU.ormen.

J/~rdaRt. of tA , &.d! We hope you wJ I dellberatel,eonstder lbll matter, aud make up 10...r mlodl wkelber lb..Slaves ban t he r ir ;: bt to t ake the propertl ot their mut.en.In compenlation (or the Injurltt they hue .aWered. Jr 1011

i dec ide th .t th t1 ban thAt fight, w .110pt 700 will aot eo-cordlngl,., and Will not he_ltate to buy ot them cton, orAny ether property "'hich the,. mal hue takln from UltJrm,stcn; And give them, In ~xchange, 'W"poUl, or a.,.o lher Rr tl cle l t hey may need. If )'~u will bot do thll. 1011"111 soon put an end to SI4TerYe

Nc m S/artJloiJer. gutrall, t1 ' tA t &wJa! It It Ia ri,b&(O.r the ~ ll lYcs 10 tnke the p ro~r ty u f I lu !lr mAi ten, to com.pensn te their wroll~C, It I!I right (or you to help tbem. Yournumbers, compared ",ub thoo-e ot Ule SI."holden, are ufive or lis. to one. It will be perftCtJy .IIY (or JOu, bTcombluln," With the bill-vet, to put them in roatHlioll o( lh.plantAtions 011 which the, labor, and of aU the rropert,.\ lpon the III. rhey eculd Idft,nJ tu r"" yoa wfll tor doio,Iheru ~udl "senlce ". he)' could alT",n. to Itt lOU Iha,.wnlt thelll In the dn'l"ioJl or the l.ru~rt.V takeu W. bope) ou "111udoJl t thl~ tIIf '1l4IU"ee It WIlt 'lot onll be ",bt Inu ..c:r. It \\ I II ~ the hnl11ht act (f yuu r J lf el , prwidtJ J O l tJu It,)l tnt, 100 Illr!}t I I . l fl" 10yrr tJrklr" I aM prwu.J 0 1" I A 4lY"~ i f/ trYIJrdt /a"l if rJ l, proltd ,A. :;t-'n, i. d(,r Wrrlr.-.

tAt l'",/JCrI, d ll ;g at J 1 0 au.

}~illally, we ..ay to .. II, conrtpond wllh UI or 1M Nortb.Let each p~t1II1n wlu, reeeree . . vr ~rI on. fI( th~e .hHtll,eend hll letten to th~ tlU" who t.Cllt I t-with .. ber1,. to pubeIlih tbem In tb" northern pllp_n. 111il I'Of,e.pot.denl't, w .are coofident, w 1 1 1 be a more i ll tl 'retUlI1( hle ., .t . . r . Ihen theSouth hu ner fumi.bed I aud Will enil it l I.e f echn, . ofnorthern people to lOch a de,,", that w .lball 14 induc~to go, in large Dumben, to 100r UlLatanct, wheDUN IOGIha ll Deed us.

[nejollo1Di"g "Ot8 j, to be addr,u,d to 101Mptf'IO" su 1M &Ull., anJ . ign td by 1M ptf'.OIt . t7Idi"g i i, g ivi"g/ail ""'" ruic lmc. . ]

SIS:

Please accept, and exhibit to 'your neighbors, this cop.y of a document, whi\:h we lire intending to distribute vcr'y extelllivel'y throughthe South, and which, we trust, will give birth to a movement, that shall result not only in the freedom of the blacke, but allO in the political,pecuniary, educational, moral, and social advanta~e of the present Don-llaveholding whites. Please let me hear. from 'you ol\en, informing me orthe progreas of the work. Direct to me at

The Online Library of Liberty Page 1


12/497

A P L A N F O R T H E A B O L IT IO N O F S L A V E R Y .

When a human being is set upon by a rob-ber, raviaher, murderer, or tyrant of any kind,it is the duty of the byatandere to go to his orher feeeue, b yfw, if tNed N.

In general, nothing will excuse men in thenon-performance of this duty, except the pres -sure of higher duties, (If' such there be,)inability to alford relief, or too great dangerto themselTes or others.

Tbis duty being natural\y inherent in humanrelations and necessities, governments and lawsare of no authority in opposition to it_ Ifthey interpose themselves , they must be tram-pled under foot without ceremony, as we wouldtnmple under foot laws that should forbid usto rellCllemen from wild beas ts, or f rom burn-ing buildings.

On this principle, it is the duty of the non-a1anholders of \his CQunt.ry, in ..iheir privatecapacity as indinduals - without asking thepermission, or waiting the movements, of thegovernment - to go to the rescue of theSlaves from the hands of their oppressors.

This duty is 80 self-evident and natural aone, that he who pretends to doubt it, shouldbe regarded either as seeking to evade it, oras himself a !lenile and ignorant slave ofcorrupt institutions or customs.

Holding these opinions, we propose to actupon them. And we innte al l other citizensof the United States to join us in the enter-

prise. To enable them to judge of its feasi-b m V ,we lay before them the following pro-gramme of meaaurea, which, we think, oughtto be adopted, and would be successful .

1. '!he formation of associations , through-out the country, of all persons who are willingto pledge themselves publicly to favor theenterprise, and render ass istance and support,of any kind, to it.

2. Establishing or sustaining papers to ad-vocate the enterprise.

8. RefUSing to vote Cor any person for anyoinl or military office whatever, who is notpublicly committed to the enterprise.

4. Raising money and military equipments.

5. Forming and disciplining such militarycompanies as may volunteer for actual ser-vice.

6. Detaching the non-slaveholders of theSouth from al\ alliance with the Slaveholders ,and inducing them to co-operate with us, byappeals to their safety, interest, honor, justice,and humanity.

7. Informing the Slaves (by emissaries tohe sent among them, or through the non-slave-holders of the South) of the plan of emanci-pation, that they may be prepared to co-operateat the proper time.

8. To encourage emigration to the South,of persons favoring the movement.

9. When the preceding preliminaries shallhave sufficiently prepared the way, then toland military forces (at numerous points atthe same time) in the South, who shall raisetho standard of freedom, and call to it theslaves, and such free persons as may he willingtojoin it.

justice emting between themsel'etI and theireppressora,

11. To remain in the South, after emanci-

pation, unti~ we shall have established, or haTeBeen estabhahed, such governments as wi11secure the Cuture freedom of the persons eman-cipated.

And we anticipate that the public avowalof these measures, and our open and zealouspreparation for them, will have the elfec&within some reasonable time-we trust \Yithi~a few years at farthest-to detach the govern-ment and the country at large from the inter-ests of the Slaveholders; to destroy thesec~r~ty and value of Slave property i toanDlhllate the commercial credit of the Slave-holders; and finally to accomplish the extinc-tion of Slavery. We hope it may be withoutblood.

If it be objected that this scheme proposeswar, we confess the fact. It does proposewar- :-pr ivate war indeed-but, nevertheless ,war, If that should plove necessary, And ouranswer to the objection is, that in revolutionsof this nature, it is necessary that privateindividuals should take the fil'st steps. Thetea must be thrown overboard, the Bastilemust be torn down, the first gun must bef ired, by private persons , before a new govern-ment can be organized, or the old one beforced (for nothing but danger to itaelf wi11

force it) to adopt the measures which the in-surgents have in view.

If the American governments, State ornational, would abolish Slavery, we wouldleave the work in their hands, But as theydo not, and apparently will not, we propose to

force them to do it, or to do it ourselves indefiance of them.

IC any considerable number of the Ameri-can people will join us, the work will bo aneasy and bloodless one; for Slavery can liveonly in quiet, and in the sympathy or subjec-tion of all around it.

10. If emancipation shall he accomplishedonly by actual hostilities, then, as all the lawsof war, of nature, and of justice, will requirethat the emancipated Slaves shall be compen-sated for their previous wrongs, we avow itour purpose to make such compensation, 50 faras the property of the Slaveholders and theirabettors can compensate them. And we avowour intention to make known this determinationto the Slaves beforehand, with a view to givethem courage and self-respect, to nerve themto look boldly into the eyes of their tyrants,and to give them true ideas of the relations of

WE, the subscribers, residents of the Town of in the County of

in the State of believing in the principles, and approving generally of the measures, set forth in the foregoing.. Planfor th e Aboliti


13/497

ADDRESS

OP THB

F . R E E C O N S T I T U T I O N A L IS T S

TO

TH E PEO PLE O F TH E U N ITED STA TES.

BOSTON:

PUBLISHED BY THAYER & ELDRIDGE,

116 WASHINGTON STRBBT.

1860


14/497

A FEW friends of freedom, who believe the Constitution of theUnited Slates to be a sufficient warrant for giving liberty to all thepeople of the United States, make the following appeal against anysupport being given to the Republican Party at the ensuing election.

BOlTON, September, 1860.

NOTE TO SECOND EDITION.

ALTHOU&H this address was pnblished previous to the late presidentialelection, and was designed to have an effect upon it, it neverthelesscontainsconstitutional opinlons, which are deemed of permanent importance, andworthy of preservation. The opinionsit expressesin regard to the Repub-lican party will also be pertinent so long as that party shall occupy thegrounds it has hitherto done.

BOSTON, November, 1860.



15/497

ADDRESS.

I .

TIlE real question, that is now convulsing the nation, is not-as the Republican party would have us believe - whether slavesshall be carried from the States into the Territories? but whetheranywhere, w!thin the limits of the Union, one man shall be theproperty of another?

Whether a man, who is confessedly to be held as property,

shall be so held in one place, rather than in another? in a State,rather than in a Territory? is a frivolous and impertinent question,in which the man himself can h~ve no interest, and which is un-worthy of a moment's consideration at this time, if not at alltimes. If he I S to be a slave at all, the locality in which he isto be held, is a matter of no importance to him, and of little orno importance to the nation at large, or any of its people.

If there are to be slaves in the country, a humaneman, insteadof feeling himself degraded by their presence, would desire tohave them in his neighborhood, that he might give them his sym-pathy, and if possible ameliorate their condition. And the man,who, like the Republican party, consents to the existence ofslavery, so long as the slaves are but kept out of his sight, is atheart a tyrant and a brute. And if, at the same time, like themore conspicuous members of that party, he makes loud profes-sions of devotion to liberty and humanity, he thereby just as

loudly proolaims himself a hypocrite. And those Republicanpoliticians, who, instead of insisting upon the liberation of theslaves, maintain, under the name of State RiUnu, the inviola-


16/497

4

bility of the slaveholder's right of property in his slaves, in the

States, and yet claim to be friends of liberty, because they cry," Keep the slaves where they are;" "No removal of them intothe Territories t" " Bring them not into our neigltborhood,"-areeither smitten with stupidity, as with a disease, or, what ls moreprobable, are nothing else than selfish, cowardly, hypocritical,and unprincipled men, who, for the sake of gaining or retainingpower, are simply making a useless noise about nothing, with thepurpose of diverting men's minds from the true issue, and of

thus postponing the inevitable contest, which every honest andbrave man ought to be ready and eager to meet at once. -

II.

We repeat, that the true issue before the country-the onewhich sooner or later must be met - is nothing less than this:Shall any portion of the people of the United States be held as

property at aU?S o far as the practical solution of this question depends upon

existing political institutions, it depends mainl.Vupon the consti-tution of the United States.

If the constitution of the United States -" the supreme lawof the land" - declares A to be a citizen of the United States(we use the term citizen in its technical sense) then, constitution-ally speaking, he is a citizen of the United States everywherethroughout the United States, -" any thing in the constitutionor laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;" and noState law or constitution can depose him from that 8tatu8, ordeprive him of the enjoyment of the least of those rights,which the national constitution guarantees to the citizens of theUnited States.

If, on the other hand, that same "supreme law" declares himto be property, then, constitutionally speaking, he is propertyeverywhere under that law; -and his owner may, by virtue ofthat law, carry him, as property, into any and every State inthe Union, and there hold him as a slave forever,-c. any thing inthe constitutions or laws of such States to the contrary notwith-standing."

Th O li Lib f Lib t < ll lib t f d g> P g 6


17/497

5

There can, therefore, be no such distinction made between theStates, as that of free and slave States. All are alike free, ornil are alike slave, States. They must all necessarily be eitherthe one or the other; since the constitution of the United States,being "the supreme law" over all alike, must necessarily de-termine, in all alike, the 8tatu8 of each individual therein, rela-tive to that "8upreme law." In other words, the constitutionof the United States, and not any constitutions or laws of the

States, must determine, in the case of each and every individual,whether he be a citizen of the United States, and entitled to thebenefits and protection of the national government, or not. Ifit determines that any particular person is a citizen of the UnitedStates, entitled to the benefits and protection of the nationalgovernmcnt, then certainly he cannot be deprived of such citizen-ship, or of the protection and benefits which that citizenship im-plies, by any subordinate or State government; for, in that case,

the constitution of the United States would not be "the supremelaw of the land." If, on the contrary, the constitution of theUnited States determines that any particular individual (nativeor naturalized) is not a citizen of the United States, nor entitledto the benefits and protection of the national government, it cando 80 only because it has itself declared ltim to be property;sinee that i8 the only caU8e that can prevent hi8 being a citizenqf the United States, and entitled, a8 8uch citizen, to the benefitsand protection of the government of the United State8. Thedeclaration of no subordinate law, that he is property, can breakthe force of that" supreme law," which declares everybody(native and naturalized) a citizen, whom it does not it8elf declareto be a slave.

The government of the United States cannot act directly uponthe State governments, as governments, requiring them to do this,and forbidding them to do that. It must, therefore, act directlyupon individuals; else it cannot act at all. It s practically a gov-ernment only so far as h does operate upon individuals. It mustnecessarily know, by virtue of the United States constitution, theindividuals upon whom it is to operate; otherwise it would bein the situation of a government not knowing its own citizens:and consequently not knowing to whom its own duties were due.


18/497

6

The rights, which the general government secures to the people,are as much personal rights, and come home to each separateindividual as directly and fully as do the rights secured to themby the State governments. And the rights secured to thepeople by the national government, as much imply personalliberty, on the part of the people, as do the rights secured to themby the State governments; for, without personal liberty, theformer rights can no more be enjoyed than the latter. Hence /the indispensable necessity that the general government shouldknow, for itself, independently of the State governments, whoare, and who are not (if any are not) citizens of the UnitedStates; for otherwise, we repeat, it cannot know to whomits ownduties are due.

To say that it rests with the State governments to decide uponwhom the United States government shall act, or upon whomit shall confer its protection or benefits, is equivalent to sayingthat" the supreme law" is ,dependent upon the arbitrary willofsubordinate laws, for permission to operate at all as a law. It isconsequently equivalent to saying that thb subordinate law maynullify the supreme law, and exclude it from a State altogether,by simply declaring that no persons whatever, within the State,shall be citizens of the United States; and consequently thatthere shall be no persons, within the State, upon whom thesupremo law can operate, or upon whom it shall confer its bene-fits.

We repeat the proposition, that, if the State constitutions orlaws can determine who may, and who may not, be citizensof the United States, and enjoy the benefits of the United Statesgovernment, each State may nullify the constitution, government,and laws of the United States, within such State, by declaringthat there shall be, within the State, no citizens of the UnitedStates, to enjoy those benefits, or upon whom the laws of theUnited States shall operate.

It is, therefore, indispensable to the existence and operationof the 'government of the United States, that tho constitution ofthe United States shall it8elf determine upon whom the UnitedStates government shall operate, and who are its citizens, "any



19/497

thing in the constitutions or laws of the States to the contrarynotwithstanding;" and that the State laws and constitutionsshall be allowed to have nothing to do with the matter.

To say that a State can make a man a slave, is only anothermode of saying that a State can deprive the United States of acitizen, and abolish the government of the United States, so faras that citizen is concerned. And to say that a State candeprive the United States of one citizen, is equivalent to sayingthat a State can deprive the government of the United States ofall its citizens, within the State. And to say that a State candeprive the government of the United States of all its citizens,within the State, is equivalent to saying that the State canentirely abolish the United States government, within such State.This is the necessary conclusion of the doctrine, that the Statescan make a slave of any individual, who would otherwise be acitizen of the United States.

If all the people of the States were made slaves, plainly theUnited States government would have no citizens, upon whom itcould operate; and it would, therefore, be virtually abolished.And, in just so far as the people of the United States are madeslaves, in just so far is the United States government abolished.

This whole theory, therefore, that the States have a right tomake slaves of the people of the United States, is nothing lessthan a theory that the States have the right to abolish the govern-ment of the United States, by withdrawing individuals from theoperation of its laws.

To say, as is constantly done, that the United States consti-tution "recognizes," as slaves, those whom the States may de-clare to be slaves, is equivalent to charging the constitutionwith the absurdity of reco.qnizing the right of the States to makeslaves of the citizens of the United States. And to say that theconstitution of the United States recognizes the right of theStates to make slaves of the citizens of the United States, isequivalent to charging it with the absurdity of actually recogniz-ing tho right of each separate State to abolish the governmentof the United States, within such State.

It therefore results that the constitution of the United States,


20/497

8

" the supreme law of the land," must necessarily fix the statu.

of every individual relatively to that law; and that, in fixing thestatu8 of each and, every individual, relatively to that law - thatis, in determining whether an individual shall be a citizen of theUnited States or not, - it necessarily fixes his 8tatu8 as a freeman,or a slave.

And it necessarily does this independently of, and in defianceof, any subordinate or State law; for otherwise it could not be

" supreme."

To say that the national constitution is "the supreme law ofthe land," and yet that it depends upon each of thirty-threeState governments to say upon whom that supreme law shaHoperate, or whom it shall protect, is as absurd as it would be tosay that one man is an absolute monarch over thirty-three States,and yet that he is wholly dependent upon the consent of thirty-three subordinate princes, for permission to rule over his ownsubjects.

If the constitution, laws, and government of the United Statesare to be limited, in their operation within each State, to suchindividuals as the States respectively may designate, then eachState may, so far as its own territory is concerned, determine whomay, and who may not, send and receive letters by the UnitedStates mail; who may, and who may not, go into a UnitedStates custom-house for purposes of commerre ; who may, andwho may not, go into a United States court-house ; and so on.If this were the true relation between our general and Stategovernments, then the United States constitution, instead ofdeclaring that" this constitution, and the laws of the UnitedStates, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treatiesmade, 01' which shall be made, under the authority of the UnitedStates, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges inevery State shall be b iund thereby, any thing in the constitu-tion or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding," oughtto have declared that this constitution, and the laws and treatiesmade by the United States in pursuance thereof, shall have effect,within each State, only 80 far as such State shall consent, or onlyupon such individuals as such State shall designate.


21/497

9

III.

Another proof"that the general government must determinefor itself, independently of the State governments, who are, andwho are not, citizens ~f the United States, is foun'din that provi-sion of the constitution, which declares that" the United Statesshall guarantee to every State of this Union'a republican form ofgovernment."

Although the constitution presumes that the State governmentswill be representative governments, yet this provision for "a re -publican form of government" certainly requires that the UnitedStates shall guarantee to the States something more than a . mererepreeetuatiue government; for a government may be a repre-sentative government, and yet the constituent body - or the bodyenjoying the right of suffrage- be so small, and the principles ofthe government so exclusive and arbitrary, as to make the go-

vernment a perfect tyranny, as to the great body of the people.A guaranty, therefore, of a representatilJe government simply,would have been of no practical value to the people.

It is plain, too, from another part of the constitution, that theconstitution does not mean to imply that a represeniatiue form ofgovernment is necessarily a republican form of government; be-cause if it did, it would have made some specific provision as tothe extent of the suffrage to be enjoyel by the constituent body'.

Whereas it leaves that matter to be regulated at the discretion ofthe States respectively,"It is certain, therefore, that the "republican form of govern-

ment," which the United States are bound to guarantee to theStates, is something essentially different from, and more than, arepresentative government, representing such portionsonly of thewhole people as may chance to get the power of a State into theirhands, wielding it arbitrarily for their own purposes.

What, then, is implied in this "republican form of govern-

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members, chosen nerysecond year by the people o C the several States j and the electors In each Stateshall han the requisite qualifications (or electors o C the mOlt nurcerous branch ofthe State legislature,"-Art. I" ,~ , 2.


22/497

10

ment ? " This cer ta in ly, if no m ore, i, im plied - for this mustnecessarily be implied in the very terms, "a republican form ofgovernment,"..-- viz., that,at:least all the m em bers of the rep ublicshall enjoy the protection of the laws.

Whatever other disagreements there may be in men's minds,as to the essential requisites of "a republican form of govern-ment," certainly no man in his senses can deny so self-evident aproposition as this, - that such a government necessarily Impliesthat all the acknow ledged m em bers of the rep ublicmust be underthe protection of the laws.

This being admitted, it follows that the United States mustguarantee to each State a government, that shall give the protec-non of the laws to all the acknow ledged m em bers or citizens of theState.

But who are the acknowledged members or citizens of a State?We answer, that, whomsoever else they may, or may not, include,they must certainly include all the citlzeno f the U nited States,w ithin the State. This must necessarily be so; because it wouldbe absurd to suppose that those people, in the various States, whounited to form the national government, and thereby m ade them -selves citizens of the U nited States,would also unite to guaranteea republican form of government for each of the separate States,unless they them selves were per80nally to have the benefit of thisguarant.l/. It certainly cannot be supposed that they would beso foolish and suicidal as to unite to guarantee to others a govern-ment within the States, the benefits of which could be denied tothemselves, or the power of which could be turned against them-selves for purposes of oppression.

This guaranty, then, on the part of the United States, of a" republican form of government" fer each State, is a guarantyof a government, under which at least all the citizens of theU nited States, w ith in the State, 8 hall h ave th e p ro tectio n o f the law s.

From this proposition it follows inevitably that the UnitedStates government must determine, independently of the Stategovernment, w ho are the citizens.o f the United States, within aState j for, otherwise, it could not know when it had fulfilled thisguaranty to them of the protection of a republican form of go



23/497

11

Vernm ent. T he guaranty itself might be w holly or partially de-

feated, at the pleasure of the S tate government, if it w ere lefttothe S tate governm ent itself to determ ine w ho w ere, and w ho w erenot, am on g thosecitizen. of the United State, within .the State,for w hose benefit this guaranty had been m ade! A nd the S tategovernment m ight very likely have great m otive to defeattheguaranty, either in w hole or in part.

It m ust be borne in mind that this guaranty of a republicanform of governm entto the e itizen o f the United State., within a

State, is a guaranty against the oppressions of any anti-republi-can form of governm ent, that m ay succeed in obtain ing pow er in aS tate. Yet clearly the U nited S tates could not protect its ow ncitizens against such anti-republican government w ithin theS tates, unless it could determine, independently of the S tate go-vernm ents, w ho its ow n citizens, w ithin the S tates, w ere.

W e insist that this argum ent is en tirely conclusive to provethat the U nited S tates Governm ent must determine, for itself,

w ho are its ow n citizens w ithin the respective S tates; and that thecenatitutiona and law s of the S tates themselves can have nothingw hatever to do w ith the matter.

IV.

S till further proof that the constitution of the U nited S tates,and not the constitution or law s of the S tates, controls the citizen-ship of every person born in the country, is found in the fact that

a sim ple act of congress is acknow ledged by all to be sufficient,in defiance of all S tate law s and constitutions, to confer the privi-lege of U nited S tates citizenship upon persons of foreign birth.It w ould certainly be very absurd to give to congress such apow er in regard to foreigners, if neither the U nited S tates con-stitution, nor the U nited S tates governm ent had any sim ilarpow er in regard to the natives of the country; for, in that case,the constitution w ould do m ore for 'foreigners than for natives.

V .

W e therefore holdit demonatrablev at least, if not self-ev i-dent, that the constitution of the Ilnited S tate~, "the supreme


24/497

1 2

law of the land," must, Bimplyby virtue of its supremacy,fix the,tatus of every individual in the United States, independently ofthe State governments; that it must operate directly upon eachand every individual, native or naturalized, declaring him enti-tled, as a citizen of the United States, to the protection and bene-fits of the national government, or declaring him to be property,subject only to the will of his owner, and therefore entitled tono personal protection at all, either from the general or State

goremmenta,

VI.

If it rests with the State governments to say whether the na-tives of the country shall be citizens of the United States, andhave the protection of the national government, or be property,subject only to the will of their owners, then certainly it rests

equally with the State governments to say whether naturalizedpersons shall be citizens or slaves; for naturalization by theUnited States government can at most but put the persons na-turalized on a level with the natives. And that is all that theprinciple of naturalization implies.

This question therefore, as to the power of the States to con-vert men into property, is not one that concerns the natives ofthe country alone. It concerns all immigrants as well; since thegeneral government can certainly have no more power to protectimmigrants against being reduced to property ,than it has to pro-tect those born on the soil.

VII.

There are, then, three decisive proofs that the United Statesgovernment must determine for itself, independently of the State

governments, who are, and who are not (if any are not) citizensof the United States.The first of these proofs is, that otherwise the United States

government could not know its own citizens, or consequentlyknow to whom its own proper and ordinary duties were due.



25/497

13

The second proof is, that otherwise the United States govern-ment could not know when it had fulfilled its guaranty of "a re-publican form of government" to the citizens of the United States,within the States respectively.

The third proof is, that otherwise the United States con-stitution, and laws could either do more for foreigners (by natu-ralization) than they can do for those born on the soil; or elsenaturaliza.tion itself, by the United States government, would

be an utterly useless process for protecting the persons naturalizedagainst being reduced to property by the State government.

VIII.

Assuming it now to be settled, that the constitution of theUnited States fixes the 8tatus of every person, as a citizen or aslave; and that it does so, " any thing in the constitution or laws

of any State to the contrary notwithstanding;" let us ascertainwhat its decision on this point is. To do so, we have only toascertain by and for whom the constitution of the United Stateswas established. This the instrument itself has explicitly in-formed us. It declares itself to have been established by "thepeople of the United States," for the benefit of " themselvesand their posterity." From this declaration of the constitutionitself there can be no appeal. And the instrument is to be in-

terpreted throughout consistently with this declaration. Thusinterpreted, it implies that all the then" people of the UnitedStates," with their "posterity," were to be citizens of theUnited States, and, as such, to have the benefit and protectionof the general government; and consequently that none ofthem could be lawfully reduced to the condition of property.It also authorizes congress to naturalize all persons of foreignbirth, coming into the country, without discriminating betweenthose that may come in voluntarily, and those that may bebrought in against their will. It also authorizes Congress "topunish offencesagainst the law of nations;" and thus authorizesthe punishment of all attempts to enslave the people of othernations, whether they come here voluntarily, or are brought here


26/497

1~

by force. It also, without making.any dlscrhnination as to per-sons, authorizes the writ of habeas corpus, whioh denies theright of property in man. It also requires the United States to" guarantee to every State in 'the Union a republican form ofgovernment;" under which at least all the citizens of the UnitedStates, within the State, shall have the protection of the laws.In these various ways; the constitution of the United States,"the supreme law of the land," has made the principle ofproperty in man impossibleanywhere within the United States;and has empowered the general government to maintain thatprinciple, in oppositionto any subordinate or State government.

We are aware that the supreme court of the United States,in the Dred Scott case, have asserted that the phrase," thepeople of the United States," did not mean all the people, butonly all the whitepeople, of the United States. And they at-tempt to fortify this opinion by saying that the Declaration ofIndependence itself did not mean to assert that "all men werecreated equal," but only that all white men were created equal.To this view of the case we will, at this time, offer no other an-swer than this: that, if this famous clause of the Declaration ofIndependence is to be interpreted according to this opinion ofthe supreme court, the whole instrument must also be inter-preted in accordance with it; and the necessary consequencewould then be, that the Declaration of Independence absolvedonly the white people of'the country from their allegiance to theEnglish crown, leaving the black people still subject to that alle-giance, and entitled to corresponding protection, Thus QueenVictoria would have now, in our midst, four millions of subjects,whose rights she ought at once to take care of, as she would un-doubtedly be very willing to do.

We are also aware, that, although" the idea that there couldbe property in man" was studiously excluded from the eonstitu-tion itself, it is nevertheless historically known that an under-standing existed, outside o f the constitution,among some of theframers, and other politicians of that day, that, if the honest cha-racter of the instrument itself should be successful in securing itsadoption by the people, these framers and others would then use



27/497

1 '5

their influence to give to the instrument an interpretation favora-ble to the maintenance of slavery. And we are aware that it isnow claimed that this outside understanding ought to be substi-tuted, as it hitherto has been, for the instrument itself, andacknowledged as the real constitution, so far as slavery is con-cerned.

Our answer on this point is, - that this outside understandingcould ha.ve existed among but a small portion of the whole

people; that they dared not incorporate it in the constitutionitself; that, instead of being any part of the constitution itself,it was but a traitorous conspiracy against the very constitution,which they, with others, induced the people of the United Statesto adopt j that it could have had no legal effect or validity, evenamong those who were actually parties to it; and that we, ofthis day, would not only be slaves, but idiots, if we were to allowthe criminal purposes of these men to be substituted for the

constitution; and thus suffer ourselves, in effect, to be governedby ~ set of dead traitors and tyrants, who no longer have anyrights in this world; who, when living, dared put only honestpurposes into the constitution; and who, if now living, would de-serve to be punished (or their treason imd their crimes, ratherthan reverenced as patriots and statesmen, and taken as authori-ty as to the true meaning of the constitution.

The fraudulent interpretation given to the constitutionat large,

in respect to slavery, has been accomplished mainly by means ofthe fraudulent interpretation given to the one word "free," inthe clause relative to representation and direct taxation. Thoconspirators against freedom, with their dupes, have, from thefoundation of the government, claimed that this word was usedto describe a free person, as dutinguisnedjrom a slave. Where-as it had been used in England for centuries, and in thiscountry from its first settlement, to describe a native or natural-

ized person, as distinguisnedjrom an alien. Thus our colonialcharters guaranteed that persons born in the coloniesshould" be

free and natural subjects, as if born in the realm of England."When the troubles arose between this and the mother country,in regard to taxation, our fathers insisted tha.t they were v free


28/497


29/497

11

fraudulent meaning to the word" free," that men have been madeto believe that the constitution recognized the legality of slavery.Without the aid of this fraud, the other clauses, now held torefer to slaves, could probably Ilever have had such a meaningfastened upon them; since there is nothing in their languagethat justifies such a meaning.

If we wish to enjoy any liberty ourselves, or do any thing forthe liberation of others, it is time for us to emancipate ourselves

from our intellectual and moral bondage to the frauds and crimesof dead slaveholders and their accomplices, and either read andexecute our constitution as it is, or tear it in pieces. If thelanguage of our constitution is not to be considered as conveyingits true meaning, nor interpreted by the same rules by which allour' other legal instruments are interpreted; if it is to be pre-sumed, as it ever heretofore has been, that neither honest men,nor honest motives could have had any part in the formation or

adoption of the constitution; but we arc to search, outside of theinstrument, for the private motives of every robber, kidnapper,hypocrite, scoundrel, and tyrant, who lived at the time it wasadopted, and accept those motives, in place of those written inthe instrument itself, as the only lawful principles of the govern-ment, - if such is the true mode of ascertaining the legal importof written constitutions, the sooner they are all given to theflames, the better it will be for the liberties of mankind, and thebetter we shall vindicate our own claims to the possession ofcommon honesty and common sense. If we dare not correct thefrauds of the past, and interpret our constitution by the samerules by which it ought to have been interpreted from the first,-if, in other words, we dare not decide for ourselves what the trueprinciples of our constitution are, and whether those principleshave been obeyed or violated by those appointed to administer it- we are ourselves wretched cowards and slaves, fit to be used asinstruments for enslaving each other.

But, independently of the constitution of the United States,we know that slavery has never had any constitutional existencein this country, for these reasons:-

1. The colonial charters, the con8titutional law of the colonies,2


30/497

18

required the legislation of the colonies to "be consonant toreason, and conformable, as nearly as circumstances would allow,to the laws, customs, and rights of the realm of England."This made slavery illegal up to the time of the Revolution.

2. Of all the State constitutions established and existing in1787 or 1789, when the constitution of the United States wasframed and adopted, not one established or authorized slavery.It was, therefore, impossible that the slavery then existing couldhave been legal.

3. Even of the statute law of the States, on the subject ofslavery, in 1787 and 1789 (admitting such statute law to be,as it really was not, constitutional), none described the personsto be enslaved with such accuracy as that many, if indeed any,individuals could ever have been identified by it as slaves.

On the 19th of August, 1850, Senator Mason, of Virginia,confessed, in the Senate of the United States, that, so far as he

knew, slavery had never been established by positive law in asingle State in the Union. And in the United States House ofRepresentatives, on the 14th day of March last, Mr. Curry, ofAlabama, said,-

"No law, I believe, is found on our statute books authorizing the intro-duction of slavery; and, if positive precept is essential to the valid exis-tence of slavery, the tenure by which our slaves are held is illegal anduncertain:'

He also, in the same speech, said,-"It bas been frequently stated in congress,that slavery was not intro-

duced into a single British colonyby authority of law; and that there isnot a statute in any slaveholding Stare legalizing African slavery,or 'con-stituting the original basisand foundationof title to slave property.'''

And he made no denial of the truth of this statement.Thus we have abundant evidence that slavery had never had

any legal existence in the country, up to the adoption of the con-

stitution of the United States. And, if it had no legal existenceat the time of the adoption of the United States constitution,that constitution necessarily made citizensof all the then peopleofthe United States; for there can be no question that it made citi-zens of all, unless of such as were then leoally held in bondage.


31/497

19

But, even if the constitutions and statute-books of every Statehad legalized slavery in the most unequivocal manner, the con-stitution of the United Scates would nevertheless have givenfreedom to all; because it made "the people of the UnitedStates," without discrimination, citizens of the United States;and was thenceforth to be "the suprern.3 law of the land,""any thing" then existing in, as well as ever afterwards to beincorporated into, "the constitution or laws of any State to thecontrary notwithstanding."

The adoption of a new constitution is a revolution; and theobject of revolutions is to get rid of, and not to perpetuate, oldabuses and wrongs. All new constitutions, therefore, should beconstrued as favorably as possible for the accomplishment of thatend. For this reason, in construing the constitution of theUnited States, no notice can be taken of (with the view of PCI'-pctuating) any abuses or crimes tolerated, or even authorized,by the then existing State governments.

What excuse, then, has anyone for saying, that, conatituticn-ally speaking, our country is not, a free one? flee for the wholehuman race? and especially for all born on the soil?

IX.

The palpable truth is, that the four millions of human beings

now held in bondage in this country are, in the view of the con-stitution of the United States, full citizens of the United States,entitled, without any qualification, abatement, or discriminationwhatever, to all the"rights, privileges, and protection which thatconstitution guarantees to the white citizens of the UnitedStates, and that their citizenship has been withheld from themonly by ignorance, and fraud, and force.

Such being the truth in regard to this portion of the citizens

of the United States, it is the constitutional duty of both thegeneral and State governments to protect them in their personalliberty, and in all the other rights which those governmentssecure to the other citizens of the United States.

It is as much the constitutional duty of the general govern-


32/497

20

ment, as of the State governments, to protect the citizens of the

United States in their personal liberty; for if it cannot secureto them their personal liberty, it can secure to them no otherof the rights or privileges which it is bound to secure tothem.

To enable the general government to secure to the peopletheir personal liberty, it is supplied with all necessary powers.It is authorized to use the writ of hab eas corpus, which of itselfis sufficient to set at liberty all persons illega\ly restrained. It

is authorized to arm and discipline the people as militia, and thusenable them to do something towards defending their ownliberty.It is authorized" to make all laws which shall be necessary andproper for carrying into execution" the powers specifically enu-merated. That is to say, it is authorized "to make all lawswhich shall be necessary and proper for carrying" home to eachindividual every right and every privilege which the constitutiondesigns to secure to him; and the United States courts arerequired to take cognizance "of all cases in law and equityarising under this constitution, the laws of the United States, andtreaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."In other words, they are authorized to take cognizance of allcases in which the question to be tried is the right which anyindividual has under the constitution, laws, or treaties of theUnited States. The United States are also bound to guaranteeto all tho citizens of the United States, within the States, thebenefits of a republican form of government. There is, then,obviously no lack of powersdelegated to the general government,to secure the personal liberty of all its citizens.

That it is as much the duty of the general, as of tho State,governments to secure the personal liberty of the people of theUnited States, will be obvious from the following considera-tions: -

The people of the United Stat~s live under, and are citizens of,two governments, the general and the State governments. Thesetwo governments are mainly independent of each other; having,for the most part, distinct powers, distinct spheres of action, andowing distinct duties to the citizen. The purpose of the general


33/497

21

government is to secure to the individual the enjoyment of acertain enumerated class of rights and privileges; and the objectof the State governments is to secure him in the enjoyment ofcertain other rights and privileges. But both governments haveat least one duty in common, viz., that of securing personalliberty to the citizen. This must necessarily be a duty commonto both governments, because the enjoyment of each of theclasses of rights and privileges before mentioned, to wit, thosethat are to be secured by the general government, and thosethat are to be secured by the State governments, necessarily im-ply the possession of personal liberty on his part; since withoutthis liberty, none of the other rights or privileges to be securedto him by either government, can be enjoyed. It is necessary,therefore, that each government should have the right to securehis liberty to him, else it cannot secure to him the other rightsand privileges which it is bound to secure to him. It is as

nece~sary that the general government should have power tosecurc to him personal liberty, in order that he may elljoy allthe other rights and privileges which the general government isbound to secure to him, as it is that the State governmentsshould have power to secure his personal liberty, in order that hemay eruoy all the other rights and privileges which it is theduty of the State governments to secure to him. It would beabsurd to say that the general government is bound to secure to

him certain rights and privileges, which implied the possession ofpersonal liberty on his part, as an indispensable pre requisite tohis enjoyment of them, and yet that it had no power of its ownto secure his liberty; for that would be equivalent to saying thatthe general government could not perform its own duties to thecitizen, unless the State governments should have first placedhim in a condition to have those duties performed, - a thingwhich the State governments might neglect or refuse to do.

The State governments have evidently no more right tointerfere to prevent the citizen's enjoyment of the rights andprivileges intended to be secured to him by the general govern-ment, than the general government has to interfere to preventhis enjoyment of the rights and privileges intended to be secured


34/497

22

to him by the State governments. For example, the State gov-

ernments have no more right to prevent his going into thepost-offices, custom-houses, and court-houses, which the generalgovernment has provided for his benefit, than the general gov-ernment has to prevent his travelling on the highways, or goinginto the schools, or court-houses, which the State governmentshave provided for his benefit.

This proposition seems to us so manifestly true as to need noelaboration. And yet, if either of these governments can reducehim to slavery, it can deprive him of all the rights and privilegeswhich the other government is designed to secure to him. Inother words, it can deprive that other government of a citizen,and thus abolish that other government itself, so far as that citi-zen is concerned. Certainly a State government has no morepower to do this wrong towards the national government, thanthe natior.al government has to do a similar wrong towards aState government. In short, neither government has any con-stitutional power to deprive the other of a citizen, by making hima slave.

Furthermore, each of these two governments has an equal rightto defend their common citizens against being enslaved by theother. If, for example, the general government were toattempt to enslave its citizens within a State, the State govern-ment would clearly have the right to defend them against suchenslavement; because they are its citizens as well as citizens ofthe United States. And, for the same reason, if a State government attempt to enslave its citizens within the United States,the general government clearly has the same right to resist suchenslavement, that the State government would have in the othercase; because they are citizens of the United States, as well as ofthe State.

This power of each government to resist the enslavement oftheir common citizens by the other, is clearly a power necessaryfor its self- preservation ; a power that must, of necessity, belongto every government that has the power of maintaining its ownexistence, It must, therefore, as much belong to the general asto the State governments.


35/497

23

Still further: The principal, if not the sole object of our havingtwo governments for the same citizen, would be entirely defeated,if each government had not an equal right to defend him againstenslavement by the other. What ii he grand object of havingtwo governments over the same citizen? It is, that, if eithergovernment prove oppressive, he may fly for protection to theother. This right of flying from the oppression of one govern-ment to the protection of the other, makes it more difficult for

him to be oppressed, than if he had no alternative but sub-mission to it single government. This certainly is the only im-portant, if not the only possible, advantage of our double systemof government. Yet if either of these two governments canenslave their common citizen, and the other has no right to inter-fere for his protection, the principal, if not the only, benefit of ourhaving two governments, is lost.

But our governments, instead of regarding this great and pri-

mary motive for their separate existence, have hitherto ignoredit, and acted upon the theory, that it is the duty of each to go tothe assistance of the other, when the latter finds its own strengthinadequate to the accomplishment of its tyrannical purposes.This we see ill the case of fugitive slaves. When a . citizen of theUnitcd States, reduced to slavery by a State government, or bya private individual with the consent and co-operation of theState government, makes his escape beyond the jurisdiction and

power of the State government, the United States governmentpursues him, recaptures him, and restores him to his tyrants.Thus the citizen, instead of finding his security in the doublesystem of government under which he lives, finds in it only adouble power of oppression united against him. What grosserviolation of all the rational and legitimate purposes of our doublesystem of government can be conceived of than this?

If these views are correct, it is just as much the constitu-tional duty, and just as clearly the constitutional right, of thegeneral government to protect the people of the United Statesagainst enslavement by the State governments, as it is the consti-tutional duty and right of the State governments, to protect thesame people against enslavement by the general government.


36/497

24

The general government is as much set as a guard and a shieldagainst enslavement by the State governments, r1S the latter areas guards and shields against enslavement by the former.

This view, too, of the object to be accomplished by our doublesystem of government, - viz., the greater security of the citizenagainst the oppression of his government,- presents, more clearlyperhaps than has before been done, the necessity that the gene-ral government should determine for itself, independently of the

State governments, who are its own citizens, and who are entitled toits protection; for otherwise the general government could havepower to protect against a State government only those whom theState government should consent to have thus protected against it-self. It would be an absurdity to say that the general governmentwas established to protect the people against the State govern-ments, and yet that it is left to the State governments them-selves to say whom the general government may thus protect.

To allow the State governmcnts the power to say whom the gene-ral government may, and whom it may not, protect againstthemselves (the State governments), would be depriving the gene-ral government of all power to protect any. It would be likeallowing n man to protect, against a wolf, all lambs except thosewhom the wolf should choose to devour.

The conclusion necessarily is, that the general governmentmust determine for itself, independently of the State govern-

ments, who are its citizens, and whom it will protect; and, if thegeneral government makes this determination, it can, under theconstitution of the United States, make no other determinationthan that all the native and naturalized inhabitants of the UnitedStates are its citizens, and entitled to its protection.

x.

There is still another point of great practical importance tobe considered. It is this: If those now held in bondage in thiscountry are, in the view of "the supreme law of the land," citi-zens of the United States, entitled to the full privileges of citizenship equally with all tho other citizens of the United States,


37/497

25

then it is ~ot only the constitutional right and duty of both thegeneral and State governments to protect them in the enjoymentof alI their rights as citizens, but it is also not merely a moralduty, but a strictly legal andconuituiional right, of alI the othercitizens of the country to go, in their private capacity as indivi-duals, to the rescue of those enslaved.

It is as much a legal right of one citizen to rescue another fromthe hands of a kidnapper, as to rescue him or her from a rob-

ber, ravisher, or assassin. And all the force necessary for theaccomplishment of the object may be lawfully used.

When the government fails to protect the people against rob-bers, kidnappers, ravishers, and murderers, it is not only a legalright, but an imperative moral duty, of the people to take theirmutual defence into their O W I I hands. And the constitution re-cognizes this right, when it declares that" the right of the peo-ple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;" for " the

r'ght of the people to keep and bear arms" implies their rightto use them when necessary for their protection,"

We claim it as a legal and constitutional right to travel in alIparts of our common country, and to perform the common officesof humanity towards all whom we may find needing them. Andif, in our travels, we chance to seo a fellow-man in the hands ofa kidnapper or slaveholder, we claim the right to rescue him, atany necessary cost to the kidnapper. And, if any part of ourcountry be unsafe for single travellers, or small companies oftravellers, we claim the right to go in companies numerousenough to make ourselves safe, and to enable us to rescue all"hom we may find needing our assistance.

And it is the legal duty of both the United States and all

If. instead of going to the rescue of a fellow-eitlaen, whom we see 8et upon bya robber, ravisher, kidnapper, or murderer. we connive at the crime, either b)Odeclaring the act legal, or encouraging the idea that it can be committed with impu-nity, we thereby make ourselves accomplices in the crime. By this rule, if the per-Ions enslaved in this country are, in the view of the United States Oonstlrutlon,citizens of the United States, equally with the other citizens of the United States,and we nevertheless connive at and encourage their enslavement, either by declsr-ing it legal, or by holding out the hope that it can be done with impunity, we are,not merely in the view of the moral law, but in the view of the constitution of theUnited States, criminal accomplices In their enslavement.


38/497

26

State courts - judges and juries - to protect us in the exerciseof these rights.

XI.

We call particular attention to the duties of JUrIes in thismatter. We believe in that noblest, and incomparably mostvaluable, of all the judicial opinions ever rendered by the

Supreme Court of the United States, in which they declared, bythe mouth of John Jay, the first, and great, and honest Chief-Justice, that even in civil suits (as w'ellas criminal) juries havea right to judge of the law as well as the fact.

We also believe with the United States House of Representa-tives, who, in 1804, by a vote of 73 yeas to 32 nays, resolvedto impeach Samuel Chase, one of the Justices of the SupremeCourt of the United States, for, as they said, " endeavoring

[in the trial of John Fries for treason] to wrest from the jurytheir indisputable right to hear argument, and determine uponthe question of law ,as well as the question of fact, involved inthe verdict, which they were required to give," and declaredsuch conduct" irregular," and" as dangerous to our liberties as

This being a case, in which a State was' a party, it was tried by a jury in theSupreme Court of the United States. From the preliminary remarks of the Chief-Justice, it will be seen that the judges were unanimous in the opinion given. He

said:II It is fortunate on the present, as it must be on every occasion, to find the

opinion o t the court unanimous. We entertain no diversity o t sentiment ; and wehave experienced no difficulty in uniting in the charge, which it is my province todeliver.

II It may not be amiss here, gentlemen, to remind you o t the good old rule, thaton questions o t tact, it is province o C the jury, on questions o C law, it is the provinceo C the court, to decide. But it must be observed that by the same law, whichrecognizes this reasonable distribution of jurisdiction, you have nevertheless a rigqtto take upon yourselves to judge o C both, and to determine the law, as well as thetact, in controversy. On this, and on every other occasion, however, we have no

doubt you will pay that respect which is due to the opinion o C the court; tor, as onthe one hand, it is presumed that juries are the best judges o C tacts, it is, on theother hand, presumable that the court are the best judges o t law. But still bothobjects are lawCully within your power o t decision." (State o C Georgia, VI. Brails-ford; Ill. Dallas, Rep. 1.)

This was in the year 1794.



39/497

27

it is novel to our laws and usages; " and that on " the rights ofjuries [to determine the law, as well as the fact] ultimately restthe liberty and safety of the American people."

We believe more than this. We believe that jurors, underour constitution, not only have the right to judge what the lawsare, and whether they are consistent with the constitution, butthat they have all the ancient and common-law right of jurors tojudge of the justice of aU laws whatsoever, which they are

called upon to assist in enforcing, and to hold all of them invalidwhich conflict with their own ideas of justice. And that they areunder no legal or moral obligation to hold valid every iniquitousstatute, which they may suppose the letter of the constitution canpossibly be interpreted to cover. It is their duty, as it is theduty of congresses and judges, to strive to see how much justice,and not how much injustice, the constitution can be made toauthorize.

We believe that juries, and not congresses and judges, arethe palladium of our liberties. We do not at all admit, as isnow almost universally assumed to be the fact, that the people ofthis nation have ever given their rights and liberties into thesole keeping of legislators and judges. We hold that theassumption of the supreme court of the United States to decide,authoritatively for the people of this country, what their rightsand liberties are, and what is the true meaning of the constitu-

tion, is an assumption of absolute power - an entire and flagrantusurpation - autho~ized by no word or syllable of the eonstitu-tion; and that it should not be submitted to for a moment, unlesswe all of us design to be slaves.

We believe, teo, that the practice of selecting jurors byjudges and marshals, the servile and corrupt instruments of thegovernment, who will of course select only those known to befavorable to the tyrannical measures of the government, is as

utterly unconstitutional, as it necessarily must be destructive ofliberty. We believe that juries should be, in fact, what theyare in theory, viz., a fair epitome or representation of " thecountry," or people at large; and that to make them 80, theymust be selected by lot, or otherwise, from the whole body of


40/497

2 8

male adults, without any choice or interference by the govern-ment, or any of its officers; and that when selected, no judge or

other officer of the government can have nny authority to ques-tion them as to whether they are in favor of, or opposed to, thelaws that are to be put in issue.

In short, we believe it to be the purpose of our systems ofgovernment to maintain in force only those principles of justicewhich the people generally can understand, and in which they areaqreed ; and not to invest one portion of the people, eitherminority or majority, with unlimited power over the others.

Evidently the only tribunal known to our constitution, and tobe relied on for the maintenance of such principles, is the jury.

We, therefore, hold that all legislative enactments and judicialopinions should be held subordinate to that general public con-science, which is presumed to be represented in the jury-box, bytwelve men, taken indiscriminately from the whole people, andcapable of giving judgments against persons or property onlywhen they act with entire unanimity. And we believe it to be

the primary and capital object of our constitutions thus "to gettwelve honest men into a jury-box," to do justice, according totheir own notions of it, between man and man, and to Bee thatonly such measures of government shall be enforced as they shallall deem just and proper.

We believe that, under this system of trial by jury, it will besafe for one human being to go to the rescue of another from thehands of kidnappers, ravishers, and slaveholders. We believe,

also, that II. government, so powerful and so tyrannical as torestrain men from the performance of these primary duties ofhumanity and justice, ought not to be suffered to exist.

XII.

Turning now from our constitution, as it is in theory, andlooking at our government, as it is in practice, what do we

find 1 Do we find our national government securing to all itscitizens the rights which it is constitutionally bound to secure tothem? No. It does not know, nor even profess to know,/or


41/497

29

itself, who its own citizens are. It does not even profess to haveany citizens, except such as the separate States may sec fit to allowit to have. It dares not perform the first political duty towardsthe people of the United States individually, without first humblyasking the permission of the State governments. It venturestimidly, and hat in hand, within each State, as if fearful of beingtreated as an intruder, and obsequiously inquires if the Stategovernment will be pleased to allow" the supreme law of theland" the privilege of having a few citizens within the State, to

save it from falling into contempt, and becoming a dead letter?Shamefacedly confessing its own barrenness, it simply offers itselfas a dry nurse to any 'political children whom the States may seefit to commit partially to its care. Some of the States, confidingin its subserviency and desire to please, graciously suffer theforlorn and harmless creature to busy itself in various subordinateservices, such as carrying letters, &c, for all their citizens.Others, less gracious towards it, or less disposed to allow their

citizens the luxury of such a servant, give it strict orders to donothing for these, those, and the others of their people - theexceptions amounting, in some States, to one half of tho wholepopulation. And the submissive creature follows these instruc-tions to the letter, living, as it does, in perpetual fear lest theslightest transgression, on its part, should be followed by itssummary dismissal from the political household. The only dig-nity left it is its name. It still calls itself the United States

Government; fancies it has citizens of its own, whom it protects;plumes itself, iJl the eyes of the world, on its greatness andstrength; talks contemptuously, and even indignantly, of thosegovernments that suffer their subjects to bo oppressed; andostentatiously proffers its protection to those of all lauds whowill accept it. . Yet all the while the affrighted and imbecilet

ingles- spooner the collected works of vol. 3 (1858-1862) [2010].pdf

Documents