The Liberty party man takes office on conditions, which, he says, are not binding upon him.  He gives us notice that he shall use the power as he thinks right, without any regard to these conditions of his oath.  Well, if this is law, it is good for all.  John C. Calhoun can of course take office with the same broad liberty, and swear to support the Constitution “as he understands it.”  He has told us often what that “understanding” is—­“to sustain Slavery.”  Of course having made this public, if, after that, Carolina sends him, according to Liberty party logic, it is evidence that Massachusetts assents to his “understanding,” and accepts his oath with that meaning!  Why I thought I had fathomed the pro-slavery depths of the Constitution when I read over all its wicked clauses—­but that is skimming only the surface, if the Constitution allows every man, to whom it commits power to use it, as he chooses to “understand” the conditions, and not as the nation understands them.  If with this right, Abolitionists may take office and help Liberty, we must remember that by the same rule, slaveholders may take office and lawfully use all their power to help Slavery.  If this be so, how absurd to keep crying out of this and the other thing it is “unconstitutional.”

Away with such logic!  If we have a Constitution, let us remember Jefferson’s advice, and not make it “waste paper by construction.”  The man who tampers thus with the sacred obligation of an oath,—­swears, and Jesuit like, keeps “reserved meanings” in his own breast,—­does more harm to society by loosening the foundations of morals, than he would do good, did his one falsehood free every slave from the Potomac to the Del Norte.

OBJECTION IV.

“The oath does not mean that I will positively do what I swear to do, but only that I will do it, or submit to the penalty the law awards.  If my actions in office don’t suit the nation, let them impeach me.”

ANSWER.  That is, John Tyler may, without consulting Congress, plunge us into war with Mexico—­incur fifty millions of public debt—­lose a hundred thousand lives—­and the sufficient recompense to this nation will be to impeach John Tyler, Esq., and send him home to his slaves!  These are the wise safeguards of Constitutional liberty!  He has faithfully kept it “as he understands it.”  What is a Russian slave?  One who holds life, property, and all, at the mercy of the Czar’s idea of right.  Does not this description of the power every officer has here, under our Constitution, reduce Americans to the same condition?

But, is it true that the bearing of the penalty is an excuse for breach of our official oaths?