William Shattuck to Frederick Douglass, April 8, 1853
Letter from Wm. Shattuck.
Attainder considered—In what light it consists —Its exercise restricted by the Federal Constitution—The restrictions disregarded, &c.
Lexecographers, and all eminent writers on
jurisprudence, I believe, agree that attainder
is the legal attainting the blood of individ-
uals, thereby depriving them of some, or all
of the common rights and privileges of so-
ciety. But the following facts lead me to
query, whether the above definition is the one
recognized by our Government. In the 9th
section of the first article in the Federal
Constitution, Congress is prohibited from
passing any bill of attander; and in the 10th
section of the same article, the several states
are also prohibited in like manner. Yet we
find Congress passing bills authorizing sla-
very, both in the Federal Districts and the
Federal Territories—also authorizing new
States, hereafter formed from the Terri-
tories of Utah and New Mexico, to establish
slavery by their respective State Constitu-
tions! Bills passed by the Slave States, en-
slaving citizens from the Free States, for the
non-payment of jail fees for imprisonment,
are not only acquiesced in by the General
Government, but inforced by the Fugitive
Slave Bill, without process, Judge, jury or
evidence.
How do the people of the United States
reconcile those enactments with the Federal
Constitution? Those who sympathize with
slavery and slaveholders, would make us be-
lieve that attainder is confined to the an-
cient English practice, of taking, by statute,
from criminals and their children some or all
of their natural rights; but that the term
cannot apply to persons deprived of rights,
whose ancestors, or themselves, have not
been condemned for crime; therefore the
prohibition of attainders in the Constitution
aforesaid, does not prohibit the slavery en-
actments! They ask us to infer that altho'
our ancestors shielded by a constitutional
provision criminals and their children, they
intentionally left the innocent victims of
cruel piracy, and their children to be chattel-
ized and imbruted; and bound the nation to
assist in the hellish work! And this horri-
ble absurdity is attempted to be proven from
the fact, that those States where slavery ex-
isted when the Constitution was adopted, all
continued to exercise it as before, until some
of them abolished it by State laws.
Were we driven to judge of this subject
by extraneous or circumstantial evidence, I
acknowledge some difficulty might arise in
deciding it. There was a difference of opin-
ion in the convention which drafted the Con-
stitution; those from South Carolina and
Georgia were in favor of continuing slavery
for a time; those from the other States were
for its immediate suppression. All agreed
that it was contrary to justice and the foun-
dation principles of our Government, and
should be finally suppressed. They well
understood that it had been decided in the
King's Bench of England in 1772 that slavery
was contrary to the Constitution of that Gov-
ernment (of which we were then subjects)
and the common law. They also must have
known that slavery existed only by usurpa-
tion, not having been established by any
statute either of England or America.**This was virtually admitted by J. C. Calhoun on the floor of Congress. He contended that the Slave States held their slaves by the same tenure as they did their horses; that they derived their original title by purchase of legitimate importers. All,
therefore, which the friends of freedom
thought necessary to do on the subject of sla-
very, was to draft just such an instrument as
if there had been no slavery in the land;
and those who were in favor of temporary
slavery, were willing to trust the subject (as
they had before) to usurpation, with perhaps
an understanding that a spirit of forbearance
on the part of the General Government
would suffer the States to continue the usur-
pation which originated with the imposters
of England, until they could more conven-
iently release their slaves, as each State be-
came prepared for the charge. The Consti-
tution has not the word slavery in it. The
convention was as careful not to recognize
it as a legitimate institution, as they were
highway robbery or common piracy. It is
evident they intended to give no counten-
ance to slavery. But it is not what they said
or intended, but what they wrote and exhib-
ited to the people, which now concerns us.
They sat with closed doors, and their delib-
erations were not made public for many
years. The people examined and accepted
of what they wrote, and presented to them
and agreed to be bound by it. It not only
prohibits slavery, but all oppression. It pro-
hibits South Carolina from imprisoning
Northern seamen—Virginia from driving
free people of color from the State-Indiana
and Illinois from prohibiting colored persons
from other States settling there, or purchas-
ing or holding real estate.
I know that the above facts, and many of
the conclusions drawn therefrom, have been
better expressed by William Goodell, Lysan-
der Spooner, Gerrit Smith and others; but I
wish to stir up the pure mind by way of re-
membrance. My lease is almost out; I wish
to do my duty in the premises quickly.-
Shall we petition Congress at its next ses-
sion to take proper measures for carrying
into effect the prohibitions of the Constitu-
tion against attainder? or is "Ephraim joined
to his idols?" Is our worthy, quick-sighted
friend, John Thomas, Esq., indeed correct in
viewing the two great political parties, in ef-
fect, a conspiracy against freedom, and that
our Judiciary is pledged to carry it on? I
confess circumstances justify this awful con-
clusion. But I would fain hope (almost
against hope) that a petition put into the
hands of freedom's peerless son, Gerrit
Smith, would at least do some good. It will
show the people that the dominent political
parties deprive millions of the rights for
which our Father contended, and which were
guaranteed by the Constitution.
WM. SHATTUCK.