The voice of freedom. [volume], April 20, 1839, Image 1

About The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848

Image provided by: University of Vermont

                
THE TOICI Of FffiEIB'OM'.
ALLEN &. POLAND, Publishers. Published under the sanction of the Vermont dnti-Slavery Society. CIIAUNCEY L. KNAPP, Editor.
VOEUME I. MOilfTPEIilER, VERMONT, APRIL 20, 1839. NUMBER 16,
GOV. CAMP'S LETTER.
Middlebury, Feb. 28, 1839.
C. L. Knapp, '
Dear Sir, The following able letter from Gov. D. M. Camp, was not
received till since the late session of the Vermont Anti-Slavery Society.
By direction of the Executive Committee of the Society, I forward this val
uable document for publication with the fifth annual report.
J. A. ALLEN,
Secretary of Committee.
Derby, Feb. 13, 1839.
Poct. J. A. Allen ;
Dear Sir, In answer to your letter of the 28th ult., tender
ing the invitation of the Executive Committee of the Vermont
Anti-Slavery Society to meet with them at the ensuing anniver
sary, I am constrained tosay it is not consistent with other du
ties, that I should attend. In compliance with the closing sug
gestion in your letter, I send the following crude thoughts to be
used, or not usea oy me committee, according as tneir discretion
' shall decide.
Our fellow citizens of the slaveholding States claim that their
highly prized domestic institution, felavery, is sanctioned and
confirmed, and its continuance guaranteed by the constitution of
the United states. I hat the physical force of all the States
should occasion call, may be rightfully demanded and must be
put forth for its security, lhat an attempt by Congress to abol
ish it in the District of Columbia or Territory of Florida, would
be a violation of the constitution, and absolve them, the slave
holders, from all its obligations.
These doctrines are important, and require from every friend
of our justly prized union, an immediate, impartial and thorough
investigation. If we find them based upon the foundation of
truth and sustained by the immutable principles of right, which
God has given as the standard of our faith and practice; we
must at once cease all opposition and yield them our cordial and
efficient support. But, on the contrary, if we find the constitu
tion, so far from sanctioning slavery and guaranteeing its pres
ervation, never once admits the horrid name to pollute its fair
pages, and scrupulously withholds all expression of approval ; if
we find only the admission of the fact of its existence, and one
single regulation, the result of compromise, which originated m
that fact ; then, the conclusion will be, that we have heretofore
been ignorant or have entertained erroneous ideas on the sub
ject. Having made this discovery, we are bound to make a cor
responding change of action.
The courtesy and forbearance toward our fellow citizens of
the slave States, brought into existence and sustained by an ar
dent and unwavering attachment to the Union, will go far to ex
cuse us for our ready assent to southern principles and construc
tions of the constitution, too often the offspring of cupidity and
love of domination. In this course we have already gone too
far ; for, to fhe claims of the south we have opposed no effectu
al opposition, because their allowance cost us no sacrifice of in
terest. About the principles violated, or put in jeopardy, we
have made little enquiry, flattering ourselves doubtless that those
who profited by their infraction, must take all the responsibility.
A tenderness for their feelings, however, and much wisdom and
prudence in prosecuting the proposed investigation, are necessa
ry and must not for a moment fail to be exhibited.
The sticklers for the right of reducing their fellow-men to the
condition of mere working machines, or things, have not been
jn the habit of candidly telling us what part of the constitution
sustained their pretensions; but have dogmatically asserted that
jt was so, and thereupon thrown the gage of battle to be lifted
by any one who should dare to gainsay them. They have
sometimes in effect declared that though ' they have reasons plen
ty as blackberries,' they will not deign to produce them. This
course has been rather amusing to their thinking, questioning
and reasoning adversaries of the North, and productive of some
dry jokes upon southern chivalry. Still a readiness has been
manifested to do battle, provided the tongue, the pen and the
press should be the only weapons used. The challenger, how
ever, is in too much of a hurry, and is too 'chivalrous' to fight
' in this tedious way, and prefers to threaten and bluster and pat
ronize Judge Lynch with his Jack Ketch and posse comitatus.
The contest has, therefore, hitherto been very much like the fa
mous battle between the ram and the cock, the former spending
huge efforts in a vain attempt to nullify his nimble opponent by
dint of butting ; while the latter wasted his skill and strength
and entangled his weapons in a mass of wool in his abortive at
tempts to reach a valuable part.
The southern argument, however, if argument it may be cal
led, has been put forth by ' some northern men with southern
principles,' and appears to be based upon certain clauses in the
constitution, and certain broad assumptions therewith ingenious
ly blended, tricked out in the flowers of rhetoric and trappings
of sophistry, which render it, in their opinion at least, both sym
metrical and impregnable. He will examine these clauses of
the constitution in order, but leave the assumptions, unless they
shall directly beset our path, untouched. They are the follow
ing, to wit :
1. Art. 1. Sec. 2d. Clause 2d. " Representatives and direct
taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included withirrthis union, according to their respective numbers,
which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of
free persons, including those bound to service for a term of
years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
persons."
2. Art. 1. Sec 8. Clause 3d. " To regulate commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with
the Indian tribes."
3. Art. 1. Sec. 9. Clause 1. " The migration or importa
tion of such persons as any of the States now existing, bhall
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress
prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight."
4. Art. 1. Sec. 9. Clause 4. " No capitation or other
direct tax, shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or
enumeration herein before directed to be taken."
; 5. Art. 4. Sec. 2. Clause 3. "No person, held to ser
vice or labour in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping in
to another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation there
in, be discharged from such service or labour, but shall be de
livered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour
may be due."
The second and third of the above quotations seem to have
very little if any bearing upon the southern doctrine, They
simply authorize Congress, after the year 1808 to prohibit all
traffic in slaves, both foreign and domestic. That the favor was
intended to be granted by the former, is proved by the latter,
which, operating as nn exception to a general rule, thereby es
tablishes it. The fourth quotation plainly refers to the first,
and provides more specifically for its observance in the imposi
tion of direct taxes. By the first we are reminded of the exis
tence of some persons in the United State who were, 1. "Not
free ;" 2. " Not bound to service for a term of years ;" and 3.
Not Indians not taxed."
Two, and only two classes of persons are exactly embraced
in this curious description. J. Those who have been condem
ned to labor for life, in expiation of their crimes. 2. Other
criminals, ordered to pay a fine, and in consequence of inability,
assigned in service, not for a term of years, but until they shall
earn the amount which thev have been required to pay. In
stead of these two classes of persons, so exactly described, slaves
have hitherto generally, if not universally, been considered as
the persons intended. Admitting this construction to be correct,
we inquire, how does this provision sustain the claim of our
slaveholding fellow-citizens ?
To divest the sentence of its circumlocution, evidently adopt
ed under a sense of shame likely to follow from the act of as
senting to so preposterous a provision, it will read thus : 'three
fifths of the slaves,' Now we ask, does the constitution, by re
ferring to slaves in this manner and for this purpose, furnish a
sanction for slavery an approval of the conduct of slave-makers
and slaveholders, and a guaranty of the 'institution?' To test
this question, substitute for 'slaves' some other word, for in
stance, ' blind men,' or bastards.' Would this furnish a sanc
tion for the amiable art of gouging, or the practice of licentious
ness? A negative is the only rational answer. The conclu
sion, therefore, must be, that the existence of slavery is recogni
zed, and in as much as it could not at once be removed, a pro
vision, (temporary, most of the convention probably hoped and
expected it would be,) such as could be agreed upon, was adop
ted ; but of slavery itself, no expression of opinion was made, or
intended to be made.
But the last of our quotations is the one supposed to be most
relied upon, as furnishing all needed support to the southern
doctrine. It will readily be admitted, that on the first view,
this seems to contain the elements of an argument not to be re
sisted. Here the property in slaves seems to be not only recog
nized, but a method is provided by which the slaveholder, when
divested of this property, may regain it, although the law of a
sister sovereign state may have been interposed to defeat his
purpose. Here is, say the slaveholders, a constitutional guar
anty of the institution of shivery, and a guaranty necessarily
implies a sanction, or approval.
This construction has heretofore been admitted and adopted
in practice, lhat it is the correct one, from the light which
has recently been shed upon the subject, and from some reasons
which have not been publicly exhibited, not only the slaves, but
tneir mends, and the friends of truth and justice, feel authorized
to deny.
1. The constitution professes to have been ordained and es
tablished " by the people of the United States " for these several
specinc purposes, to wit :
1. To form a more perfect union.
2. To establish justice. "
3. To insure domestic tranquility.
4. To provide for the common defence.
5. To promote the general welfare.
6. To secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their
posterity.
In seeking' for the meaning of any particular clause, we should
have a constant reference to these objects, and these only, and
give that construction which will best secure their attainment.
We are not at liberty to suppose that Washington and his com
peers, in an enumeration of the specific objects thev were labor
ing to accomplish, could either be ignorant of some part of
tnem, or, through carelessness, omit them. Nor can we admit
that they would fail of using appropriate words to convey their
meaning, or suffer objects to be insidiously inserted and provi
ded for, other than those which are enumerated. We are not,
however, to conclude that their language would, in all cases, be
equally clear. There was a variety of interests represented in
the convention, and a variety of tastes, habits and opinions found
among the members ; hence, ambiguity in language might in
some instances be hazarded for the sake of unanimity.
f Which of the leading objects of the constitution is aided by
this construction of the clause in question ? It cannot be the
first, unless " the more perfect union" sought, was to be a union
in the practice of the very evils against which we are contend
ing. It all the states, under the operation of this clause of the
constitution, were to become slave states, a " more perfect union "
in the sin of slaveholding would doubtless have been at
tained. It cannot be the second, for with that it is utterly in
compatible ; unless to protect fhe robber in the enjoyment of his
" spoils," be " to establish justice." It must, then, be the third,
"to insure domestic tranquility;" for with the fourth it has
no connection, and it directly conflicts with the fifth and the
sixth. But how is this construction calculated " to insure do
mestic tranquility?" We answer, precisely in the same way,
and no other, that the application of the engines of oppression
to the bodies and limbs of men struggling for freedom has, in
all ages, repressed their struggles, subdued their spirits, and ta
ken away their most essential attributes. This certainly " in
sures domestic tranquility " among the slaveholders, so far as
their victims are concerned. But delivering up fugitive slaves
to those who condescend to act in the capacity of masters, and
thus re-consigning them to servitude, does not but indirectly in
sure even this kind of domestic tranquility. For if the fugitive
has once tasted the sweets of liberty, we may rely upon it, the
tranquility of his master will not be " insured " without some
further trouble. The lash, severely applied, the iron yoke, the
chain, and other ornaments for the person, the private prison,
the dreaded sale, the embarkation, the middle passage, the hor
rid coffle; these are the expedients which really " insure domes
tic tranquility, by preventing the occasion lor invoking the aid
of this clause of the constitution. Is this the " tranquility " for
the insurance of which the framers of the constitution so patri
otically labored ? If so, the iron rule of despotism which Wash
ington might at that time have swayed, would have much more
effectually accomplished the purpose.
cut it may be said, collision between the states, likely to fol-
ow from the fact that some tolerated slavery, while others did
not, was to be prevented by the operation of this clause. That
war, originating in this cause, has not been waged between any
of the states, is doubtless true ; that such would have been the
case if this clause had not been inserted, is altogether without
proof, if not without probability. Its conservative effect, there
fore, rests only on conjecture, or speculation. There is some
ground for supposing that, but for this construction of the clause
in question, slavery would long since have been universally abol-
ished, and thus the cause of collision have been removed. It is,
however, useless to speculate in answer to speculation, where
we have a right to require proof; and so long as the friends of
this construction fail to produce it, we may decline the contest,
eaving our opinions to balance theirs.
2. The fact must now be admitted, that the construction con
tended for, is based upon a principle directly adverse to those
which guided our fathers to the acquisition of independence.
conformity with this construction will certainly lead to a viola
tion of these self-evident truths, " that all men are created equal ;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness : that to secure these rights, governments are institu
ted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the govern
ed." Is any argument or illustration necessary to prove this?
Are not slaves a part of 'all men' as men have they not rights
by the endowment of their Creator? Are not life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness, dear to them ? and above all, are. they
not, emphatically, the governed and have they ever fairly and
freely consented to the rule which is exercised over them?
3. The constitution, if it refers to slaves at all, calls them
" persons," which, in common parlance, is supposed tp mean
human beings, men, women and children, constituent parts
of " We, the people of the United States," who ordained and
established the constitution. If they occupy this grade jn the
scale of being, so admitted by the organic law of the land, which
supersedes and controls the laws of every state, how does it
happen that they have lost this, their birthright, and become the
degraded and wretched "chattels personal" which this construc
tion supposes ? This construction would give the clause in
question all necessary power to insure the re-delivery of a stray
horse or ox. It would provide a proceeding, as the lawyers
say, in rem. A similar process we read of, as frequently occur
ring in the slave states, when an unfortunate colored person is
found astray, without a certificate showing that he is a man.
Now suppose a state law does declare that " slaves are deemed,
sold, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to 1? chattels personal
in the hands of their owners or possessors, and their executors, ad
ministrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purpo
ses whatsoever" can this reduce them so far below the consti
tutional grade as really to make them what it calls them ? Is
there not a palpable repugnance between the spirit of the consti
tution and that of the state law, which makes the latter void ?
The constitution is paramount and supreme; the state law is a
nullity, for it professes to legislate a portion of its population
out of the pale of humanity. It deprives them of all rights, and
yet exacts allegiance. It makes them " chattels personal," and
provides a punishment for an infraction by them of the rules of
written law. It violates the constitution and then invokes the
protection of that instrument !
4. The construction contended for would be subversive of
some of the important objects and interests the constitution was
designed to secure. For instance, instead of establishing justice,
it prevents it ; instead of promoting, it destroys the general wel
fare, by prostrating an important principle on which it is based,
and instead of securing the blessings of liberty, it sustains the
curse of slavery.
5. The constitution professes to furnish rules for the govern
ment of "persons," not "chattels." The clause in question is
about " persons " held to service or labor " by law," of their " es
caping " from one state " into another," and of other persons to
whom the services of the first " persons "" are due " coming
and claiming them ! It would be absurd to attempt an applica
tion of these provisions to mere " chattels." It follows then, that
if slaves are " persons " by the constitution, they cannot be made
" chattels " by a state law ; but if by a state law they do become
" chattels," then the constitution has no provisions which em
brace them. Thus a dilemma is furnished, with the usual num
ber of horns, and our opponents are at liberty to make their se
lection. 6. It cannot be said, if the clause in question does not em
brace slaves, it is useless and inoperative, meaning nothing,
for it does embrace not only the two classes of convicts before
described, but the whole mass of children and apprentices un
der age. How can any of these be reclaimed with success, af
ter having escaped from one state into another, should the ob
stacle of a state law have to be encountered, except by force of
tnis clause in the nationat constitution ? Is there not, then, suf
ficient cause for this provision, even if there never had been any
slaves m any of the states ?
7. Another difficulty attends the southern construction, aris
ing from the restriction on the operation of the clause not only to
" persons," but to persons " held to service or labor, in one state,
underthe laws thereof." Probably our slaveholding friends would
be somewhat startled at the assertion, that slaves are not held by
law ; it is, nevertheless, undoubtedly true. 1 hey will not deny
that force, or fear are the direct instruments, which cause them to
remain in their present condition, as a general rule, rorce and
fear are also employed to keep convicts from leaving the peniten
tiaries. If these are employed by the provisions of law, law
which does not rest upon mere form, but upon the basis of justice
and the law of God ; then, the persons, whether slaves or con
victs, may be said to be held by law. But, wanting this basis,
the law has no validity, and men are bound, by a higher obliga
tion, to disregard it. The laws, intended to justify slavery, have
a thousand times been proved to be immoral and void." Thev
can, therefore, afford the slaveholders and their accessaries no
justification, and slaves, not being held bylaiv, but by force with
out law, are not embraced in this clause. The distinction will
be more apparent, if we consider the fact, that the convict has
been deprived of liberty, but not " without some process of law,"
as required by the seventh article of the amendments. With the
slave it is otherwise. No inquiry by process of law, has been
made in relation to him. As soon as he was born, force was ap
plied to him and this force made him a slave. That he is a
slave, because born of a slave, is about as rational as to assert,
lhat all children are females, because their mothers are.
S. The clause further provides that the "persons" are to be
delivered up, but only " on claim of the party, to whom such ser
vice or labor may he due." How can any " party" show that the
service of John or Thomas is " due" to him, when he has no
better evidence than, that he was once in his possession, that he
paid a sum of money for that possession, or that he was born of
a female to whom he has a similar claim ? Money or service is
due from one person to another, only .by virtue of a contract,
express, or implied.
9. But this construction of the clause in question requires a
violation of the law of God. The slave has been proved to be
unjustly held in bondage ; that, therefore, he hps a right to free
dom. In the case, under consideration, he has obtained it. By
the moral law we are forbid to aid in taking away this newly
acquired right, But, say the slaveholders and their defenders,
a law of the United States, based upon this clause in the consti
tution, requires this of us. We can only reply, a law of Con
gress, or the constitution of the United States, cannot abrogate
the law of God.
We take leave of our slave-holding fellow citizens by saying,
" Whether it be right in the sight of God, to hearken untp you,
more than unto God, judge ye,"
lhe brevity, which 1 have lound it necessary to study, 1 am
aware, may weaken the force of my reasoning, but it is now too
late to attempt any improvement.
With much respect, I am, bir,
Your friend and very humble servant,
D. M. CAMP.
Atlantic Storms.
To the editor of the Alias:
The phenomena of storms arc attracting from the scientific
world considerable attention. Very important developments of
tho laws which govern their progress and character have lately
been made especially by Mr. William C. Reclfield of New
York. The results of this gentleman's investigations, as pubr
lished in a late volume of Silliman's well known American
Journal of Science and Arts, have been noticed with the most
flattering commendations in the principal scientific journals m
England, and by various learned societies beyond the Atlantic.
This adds another item to the credit of philosophic mind in
America.
By comparing numerous data, Mr. Redfield has traced both
the form and the progress of several storms which have lately
agitated the bosom of the old Atlantic. Their form is that of a
great whirlwind of hundreds of miles in circuit. This whirl
move3 round its centre in a direction opposite to the sun's nppa
rent motion, and the centre, together with the whole body of
the whirl, has a progressive motion onward towards the West
and North in one vast curve. This curve Mr. R. has traced
from a region in the Eastern Atlantic, towards the coast of Af
rica and a few degrees North of the equator, thence at first near
ly West, but veering constantly more and more to the North as
it approaches the American coast, until opposite New England,
whence its cqurse is nearly North ; and its further progress is still
more liastward. It is by no means yet certain that these char
acters belong to all the Atlantic storms.. The results, however,
already obtained, may be of vast importance to the interest of
navigation, and thereby to the world generally.
Anti-Slavery Voting.
Our brethren have done better at the polls than,
we expected. Our Van Buren brethren especial
ly. Whig abolitionists are not so strongly tempt-,
edor so strongly solicited by party as their breth-.
ren of the other party. They had' less to sacrifice
in carrying the independent ticket. From the re-,
suits of last year they could not so naturally have
expected the success of their party. Their oppo
nent brethren did expect success from that result,
Every vote cast for the slave by them endangered
the triumph of their party. This the party knew,
and its leaders, and the party press, and they
were desperate upon them, to retain their allegU
ance and their suffrage. The Whig press scarce'?
ly interfered at all, naturally enough calculating
that the fesult of anti-slavery neutrality would be
less dangerous to themselves than their adversary.
This perhaps should make the anti-slavery brethn
ren, who stood true to their duty incline to liberal
allowance towards their Van Buren brethren, who
yielded. The Whig brethren who yielded havo
no excuse at all.
Still we can hardly see how abolitionists coul(j
vote for a party, whose leaders stand pledged to
hostility against their cause whose head man
has solemnly committed himself, before the nation
and the world, in his message, to forbid Congress,
abolishing slavery in the district of Columbia,
should that body ever incline to do it as represen
tatives of the free Slates. He has pledged him?
self to sustain slavery by his official power, so
long as the slaveholders wish to sustain it. A
bloody pledge. And it will rank him below Ner.p,
in after times. For it is a crueller and wickeder
thing than Nero was ever guilty of, heathen and
tyrant as he was.
The name of Van Buren will be infamous ini
deed, if slavery ever comes to be rightly estimated
by mankind. He sold himself to it for the political
favor of the South. This is no angry assertion.
It is calm fact, and will be found in impartial hist
tory. It will be recorded, and as truly as the be
trayal of his master, by the covetous disciple. :
How could abolitionists vote to favor a party under
such a leader as this ?
It may be said that the leaders of the Whig
party are as devoted to slavery as he. In truth
it may, of one of them. Henry- Clay is slave
holding personified, and between Clay and Van
Buren there is perhaps nothing to choose by abo-,
litionists, except that it is more honorable in a
southerner a slaveholder born and bred, to advo-s
cate it, than in a native and resident of a free
State in a southern man with southern princir
pies than in a " northern."
But with regard to members of Congress, we
can hardly offer an excuse for our brethren. We
hope they have one but we cannot conjecture it.
Those who voted the Atherton ticket for Congress
signers of petitions and voted for candidates
who they knew would tread under foot their pe-,
titions and their sacred rights especially when a
ticket of abolitionists was provided at their hand,
and presented them in entire good faith and as
called for by their fidelity to the slave. How ab
olitionists could vote fcr their own base oppressors
and the mockers at the anguish of the slave, we
can scarcely conjecture.
But party " is mighty" and sometimes " wilj
prevail."
It will not always. It forebodes its own doom.
It stands aghaft at our handful of votes. With
all its majorities the party dominant is ill at ease.
Its glorious summer is made winter of discontent
by this anti-slavery Mordecai sitting at the palace
gateway. And well it may bode, if there is force
in truth, or a Providence over human affairs. The.
little anti-slavery cloud which, now, at the polls,
looks no bigger than a man's hand, shall ere long
blacken these political heavens and pour upon thq
land a thunder shower of the blessings of equal
liberty. And the earth here now all arid and
slavery-scorched, shall look greener at the clear
ing off of that shower, than the vallies of Israel
did, at the rains that made Ahab hurry down thq
sides of Oarmel. Herald of Freedom.
" It is rep as scarlet." Some time since, a
member of the Presbyterian church of Ebcnezer,
Brown co., Ohio, landed his boat at a point pn.
the Mississippi. He saw some disturbance among
the colored people on the bank. He. stepped up
to see what was the matter. A black man was
stretched naked on the ground : his hands were,
tied to a stake, and one held each foot. He was
doomed to receive fifty lashes, but by the time the
overseer had given him twenty-five with his great
whip, the blood was standing round the wretched
victim in little puddles. It appeared just if it
fiad rained blood. Another observer stepped up,
and advised to defer the other twenty-five to an
other time, lest the slave might die ; and he was.
released to receive the balance when he should
have so recruited as to be able to bear it and live.
The offence was, coining one hour too late to,
work. Mr. v. inquired it mere was no way in
which they could get along without such severity.
No, was the reply. It was indispensably neces-
sary. It Likes hard whipping to rnauc ine ui-
vine institution ' profitable, me minister wno
spends his Sabbath in pleading for the lawfulness
of such a bloody institution, had need to be wel
rewarded fqr his labors in this
have little tp expect in the next.
Ripley, Feb. L'O, 1839.
life for he vyil
Jonx Rankin.
Origin of the Washington Name, We learn
from Mr. Sparks' new lifa of Washington, that
Hertb'urq was the original name of the Washing:
ton family ; that the latter was probably assum
ed by William de Ilertburn, between the year
1261 and 1274 and that the manor was held in the
male line until about 14UU, or one hundred and
thirty years. During his period the name seems,
to have been written Wesswungton though it is
sometimes found Wessington. in its subsequent
changes it was probably written variously ntdiflert
ent times, and by d liferent branches ol the family.
At tho Heralds "College in the " Visitation Books,'!
(so Mr. Spirks called it,) of Northamptonshire, for
the year 1618, I found the autographs pf Allan
WasMngton and Robert Wmington. These per?
sons were uncles to John and Lawrence Wash
ington, who emigrated to Virginia.
Truth never fears rigid examinfltion