We come then, it seems to me, back to our original conclusion:  that the man who swears to support the Constitution, swears to support the whole of it, pro-slavery clauses and all,—­that he swears to support it as it is, not as it hereafter may become,—­that he swears to support it in the sense given to it by the Courts and the Nation, not as he chooses to understand it,—­and that the Courts and the Nation expect such an one in office to do his share toward the suppression of slave, as well as other, insurrections, and to aid the return of fugitive slaves.  After an abolitionist has taken such an oath, or by his vote sent another to take it for him, I do not see how he can look his own principles in the face.

Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou lie?

We who call upon the slaveholder to do right, no matter what the consequences or the cost, are certainly bound to look well to our own example.  At least we can hardly expect to win the master to do justice by setting him an example of perjury.  It is almost an insult in an abolitionist, while not willing to sacrifice even a petty ballot for his principles, to demand of the slaveholder that he give up wealth, home, old prejudices and social position at their call.

EXTRACTS FROM J.Q.  ADAMS.

The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the restoration of credit and reputation, to the country—­the revival of commerce, navigation, and ship building—­the acquisition of the means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the country.  All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was insufficient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption of the Constitution.  What they specially wanted was protection.  Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within their borders, and who were harassing them with the most terrible of wars—­and protection from their own negroes—­protection from their insurrections—­protection from their escape—­protection even to the trade by which they were brought into this country—­protection, shall I not blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which they were held.  Yes! it cannot be denied—­the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves.  The first was the immunity for twenty years of preserving the African slave-trade; the second was the stipulation to surrender fugitive slaves—­an engagement positively prohibited by the laws of God, delivered from Sinai; and thirdly, the exaction, fatal to the principles of popular representation, of a representation for slaves—­for articles of merchandise, under the name of persons.