FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128  
129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   >>  
that office, the constitution certainly does not recognize him as a slave. Persons, who are "citizens" of the United States, according to the foregoing definitions, are also eligible to the offices of representative and senator of the United States; and therefore cannot be slaves. _Ninth._ The constitution declares that "the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be _by jury_."--Also that "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." It is obvious that slaves, if we had any, might "levy war against the United States," and might also "adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." It may, however, be doubted whether they could commit the crime of treason--for treason implies a breach of fidelity, trust or allegiance, where fidelity, trust or allegiance is due. And it is very clear that slaves could owe allegiance, trust or fidelity, neither to the United States, nor to the state governments; for allegiance is due to a government only from those who are protected by it. Slaves could owe to our governments nothing but resistance and destruction. If therefore they were to levy war against the United States, they might not perhaps be liable to the technical charge of treason; although there would, in reality, be as much treason in their act, as there would of any other crime--for there would, in truth, be neither legal nor moral crime of any kind in it. Still, the government would be compelled, in order to protect itself against them, to charge them with some crime or other--treason, murder, or something else. And this charge, whatever it might be, would have to be tried by a jury. And what (in criminal cases,) is the "trial by jury?" It is a trial, both of the law and the fact, by the "peers," or equals, of the person tried. Who are the "peers" of a slave? None, evidently, but slaves. If, then, the constitution recognizes any such class of persons, in this country, as slaves, it would follow that for any crime committed by them against the United States, they must be tried, both on the law and the facts, by a jury of slaves. The result of such trials we can readily imagine. Does this look as if the constitution guarantied, or even recognized the legality of slavery? _Tenth._ The constitution declares that "The privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_ shall not be sus
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   120   121   122   123   124   125   126   127   128  
129   130   131   132   133   134   135   136   137   138   139   140   141   142   143   >>  



Top keywords:

States

 

United

 

slaves

 

treason

 

constitution

 

allegiance

 

fidelity

 

charge

 

governments

 

government


comfort

 

declares

 

giving

 
enemies
 

evidently

 

recognize

 
criminal
 
person
 

equals

 

protect


compelled

 

murder

 
persons
 

recognized

 

legality

 

guarantied

 

slavery

 

corpus

 

habeas

 

privilege


imagine

 

readily

 

country

 

follow

 

office

 

committed

 

trials

 

result

 

recognizes

 

breach


implies

 

crimes

 

senator

 
commit
 

impeachment

 

consist

 

levying

 

adhering

 
obvious
 
Treason