按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
in 1787； seventeen in 1789； three in 1798； two in 1804； and two in
1819…20there would be thirty of them。 But this would be counting；
John Langdon； Roger Sherman； William Few； Rufus King； and George
Read； each twice； and Abraham Baldwin three times。 The true number
of those of the 〃thirty…nine〃 whom I have shown to have acted upon
the question which； by the text； they understood better than we； is
twenty…three； leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any
way。
Here； then； we have twenty…three out of our thirty…nine fathers 〃who
framed the Government under which we live；〃 who have； upon their
official responsibility and their corporal oaths； acted upon the very
question which the text affirms they 〃understood just as well； and
even better than we do now〃； and twenty…one of thema clear majority
of the whole 〃thirty…nine〃so acting upon it as to make them guilty
of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury； if； in their
understanding； any proper division between local and Federal。
authority； or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves；
and sworn to support； forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in the Federal Territories。 Thus the twenty…one acted； and；
as actions speak louder than words； so actions under such
responsibilities speak still louder。
Two of the twenty…three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the Federal Territories； in the instances in which they
acted upon the question。 But for what reasons they so voted is not
known。 They may have done so because they thought a proper division
of local from Federal authority； or some provision or principle of
the Constitution； stood in the way； or they may； without any such
question； have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them
to be sufficient grounds of expediency。 No one who has sworn to
support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he
understands to be an unconstitutional measure； however expedient he
may think it； but one may and ought to vote against a measure which
he deems constitutional； if； at the same time； he deems it
inexpedient。 It therefore would be unsafe to set down even the two
who voted against the prohibition as having done so because； in their
understanding； any proper division of local from Federal authority；
or anything in the Constitution； forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in Federal territory。
The remaining sixteen of the 〃thirty…nine；〃 so far as I have
discovered； have left no record of their understanding upon the
direct question of Federal control on slavery in the Federal
Territories。 But there is much reason to believe that their
understanding upon that question would not have appeared different
from that of their twenty…three compeers； had it been manifested at
all。
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text； I have purposely
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any
person； however distinguished； other than the thirty…nine fathers who
framed the original Constitution； and； for the same reason； I have
also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any
of the 〃thirty tine〃 even on any other phase of the general question
of slavery。 If we should look into their acts and declarations on
those other phases； as the foreign slave trade； and the morality and
policy of slavery generally； it would appear to us that on the direct
question of Federal control of slavery in Federal Territories； the
sixteen； if they had acted at all； would probably have acted just as
the twenty…three did。 Among that sixteen were several of the most
noted anti…slavery men of those timesas Dr。 Franklin； Alexander
Hamilton； and Gouverneur Morris while there was not one now known to
have been otherwise； unless it may be John Rutledge； of South
Carolina。
The sum of the whole is； that of our thirty…nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution； twenty…onea clear majority of the
wholecertainly understood that no proper division of local from
Federal authority； nor any part of the Constitution； forbade the
Federal Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories；
whilst all the rest probably had the same understanding。 Such；
unquestionably； was the understanding of our fathers who framed the
original Constitution； and the text affirms that they understood the
question 〃better than we。〃
But； so far； I have been considering the understanding of the
question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution。 In
and by the original instrument； a mode was provided for amending it；
and； as I have already stated； the present frame of 〃the Government
under which we live〃 consists of that original； and twelve amendatory
articles framed and adopted since。 Those who now insist that Federal
control of slavery in Federal Territories violates the Constitution；
point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates； and；
as I understand； they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory
articles； and not in the original instrument。 The Supreme Court； in
the Dred Scott case； plant themselves upon the fifth amendment； which
provides that no person shall be deprived of 〃life； liberty； or
property without due process of law〃； while Senator Douglas and his
peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment；
providing that 〃the powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution〃 〃are reserved to the States respectively； or to the
people。〃
Now； it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitutionthe identical Congress
which passed the act already mentioned； enforcing the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory。 Not only was it the same
Congress； but they were the identical same individual men who； at the
same session； and at the same time within the session； had under
consideration； and in progress toward maturity； these Constitutional
amendments； and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the
nation then owned。 The Constitutional amendments were introduced
before and passed after the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87； so
that； during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance；
the Constitutional amendments were also pending。
The seventy…six members of that Congress； including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution； as before stated； were
pre…eminently our fathers who framed that part of 〃the Government
under which we live；〃 which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories。
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that
the two things which that Congress deliberately framed； and carried
to maturity at the same time； are absolutely inconsistent with each
other？ And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when
coupled with the other affirmation from the same mouth； that those
who did the two things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether
they really were inconsistent better than webetter than he who
affirms that they are inconsistent？
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty…nine framers of the
original Constitution； and the seventy…six members of the Congress
which framed the amendments thereto； taken together； do certainly
include those who may be fairly called 〃our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live。〃 And； so assuming； I defy any man to
show that any one of them ever； in his whole life； declared that； in
his understanding； any proper division of local from Federal
authority； or any part of the Constitution； forbade the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories。 I go
a step further。 I defy any one to show that any living man in the
world ever did； prior to the beginning of the present century （and I
might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the
present century）； declare that； in his understanding； any proper
division of local from Federal authority； or any part of the
Constitution； forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery
in the Federal Territories。 To those who now so declare； I give not
only 〃our fathers who framed the Government under which we live；〃 but
with them all other living men within the century in which it was
framed； among whom to search； and they shall not be able to find the
evidence of a single man agreeing with them。
Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood。 I do
not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our
fathers did。 To do so would be to discard all the lights of current
experience to reject all progress； all improvement。 What I do say is
that； if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in
any case； we should do so upon evidence so conclusive； and argument
so clear； that even their great authority； fair