Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

British king on account of his vetoing a bill for the suppression of the slave trade, drawn up by the youthful Jefferson, and introduced by him into the State Legislature, and then passed. The indignation caused by that regal act continued to burn in the heart of the mover, and in many a generous bosom throughout Virginia for a long time afterwards, and may have contributed to prevent her from voting to permit the continuance of the slave trade until 180S.

The course of Virginia in the Convention was somewhat equivocal, acting sometimes with the slave States, and sometimes with the non-slaveholding States. As she had taken the lead in forming a Constitution, she must have been anxious to carry it out to a successful issue. She felt the dignity of her position as the Ancient Dominion, as the mother of statesmen, and as having her favorite son acting as President of the Convention. Mr. Madison, especially, was anxious to prevent a failure, and was disposed to conciliate both sections. He and others, probably, desired to believe that the abolition of slavery would take place in all the States, and he was willing to encourage the hope of it in others. But after the completion of the "bargain” by which the slave trade was to be continued twenty years, he must have given up that belief. Indeed, he declared that, by that continuance, all the evils of allowing the permanent continuance of the slave trade would be accomplished. The Pinckneys and others, who were better circumstanced to judge correctly, never encouraged that belief, but the contrary. They made arrangements in the Constitution for the permanence of slavery in the United States, and for its increase: just what has happened.

SLAVES RECOGNIZED AS PROPERTY BY THE CONSTITUTION.

But while the "bargain" was in the course of negotiation, it was particularly objected to by ROGER SHERMAN, on the ground that, by laying a duty on slaves as on other imports, it recognizes them as "property."

There were men in the Convention who had no objections to slaves being property, and to owning them as property, who thought that it was not judicious to name them as such, or to recognize them as such in the Constitution. That instrument

must go before the people of the several States, and was likely to encounter great opposition. They thought, therefore, that it was desirable that as few features as possible should belong to it, with which even the most scrupulous and fastidious could find fault.

But it became necessary to recognize them as property in the Constitution; just as they were often spoken of as property in the debates, and classed as property by Northern and Southern delegates. Thus, Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, in the debate on this very subject, remarked: "As the section now. stands, all articles (imported) are to be taxed, slaves only exempt;" he thought it "unreasonable that slaves alone should be exempt, when all other articles are taxed or dutied. They were, therefore, classed in the same category with other articles of property.

THE WORD SLAVE NOT USED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

In regard to using the word "persons" in this section, and elsewhere, when slaves were meant and spoken of, LUTHER MARTON has the following remark in his letter to the Legislature of Maryland: "The design of this clause is to prevent the general Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same general reason which caused them to strike out the word "national," and not admit the word "stamp," influenced them to guard against the introduction of the word slaves. They anxiously sought to avoid any expression which might be odious in the ears of Americans; although they were willing to admit into their system the things which the expression signified." It fully recognized slaves to be property, though it does not contain the word. Mr. Sherman liked "a description" better than the term, which was not pleasing to some people. Mr. Madison was unwilling to use the term slaves in the Constitution, or even to suggest the idea that they were property; though he spoke of them as property in debate and elsewhere, and owned them as property. He would have the idea, but would not suggest the idea. The word slaves, would be disagreeable to men like the Quakers; the word "national," would be offensive to the staunch supporters of State rights; and the word "stamp," would

be disagreeable, because it called up the remembrance of the "stamp act." The phraseology used in describing the slave trade was employed for the same purpose. Mr. Madison, in his letter to Robert Walsh, Nov. 1819, declares, in respect to the phrase the "migration and importation of such persons," that it means the importation of slaves. The word "migration" was added as an expletive, that would weaken the impression produced by the word importation when used alone. The one word would modify or explain the other.

GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, of Pennsylvania, one of the leading Northern men in the Convention, was anxious that the protection of slavery should not be made prominent in the Constitution. His constituents were some of them Quakers, some of them members of abolition societies, who might oppose the adoption of the Constitution, if they saw, distinctly, the whole amount of protection afforded to slave property, as they would, if slaves were distinctly named. And yet he declared that, as a matter of fact, domestic slavery was the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution.” His perceptive mind saw clearly the exact meaning of the descriptive terms employed instead of the terms themselves. "A person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof," was a description conveying as clear a meaning to his mind, as if the word slave had been used instead of the "description.' A description of the meaning of a word in a dictionary is a definition of the word, and shows its meaning. These statesmen did the same that theologians sometimes do. Instead of using odious words, they used equivalent terms.

"

FUGITIVE SLAVES.

General C. C. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, at an early stage of the proceedings, declared that, unless provision should be made to secure the Southern States in the possession of their property in slaves, by preventing their emancipation by escaping into other States, the Constitution would not be accepted by the State which he represented. After the committee of detail had made their report, without making this provision, he renewed his demand for a provision "in favor of property in

slaves;" and in the course of the debate he and Mr. C. PINCKNEY moved to require fugitive slaves to be delivered up like criminals.'

وو

Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, said: "This would require the executive of a State to do it at public expense."

وو

Mr. SHERMAN, of Connecticut: "I see no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave, or servant, than a horse." It appears that both of these gentlemen voted for this provision, notwithstanding these objections.

Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, moved to insert, after article 15, "if any person, bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they may escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor." This was agreed to in Convention nem. con.

In the first revision of this clause, there were some changes in style not affecting the meaning of the terms. Thus, instead of "justly" the word "due" was substituted; and instead of any of the United States," "any State" was substituted.

66

Thus the Convention, without a dissenting voice, secured to slaveholders their right of property in slaves, according to the demand of Gen. Pinckney, in every part of the country, and every State where the slave could be found. The States were expected to aid in the rendition of slaves.

in

REPRESENTATION AND TAXATION

In respect to the subject of taxation, it seemed to be the wish of delegates from the Southern States that slaves should be reckoned as property, and not as persons; while, with respect to representation, it was their wish, at least a portion of them, that the slaves should be reckoned as persons, and the full number of slaves should be counted as so many white men.

On the other hand, the delegates from the Northern States seemed disposed to consider the slaves as persons with respect to the subject of taxation, but to consider them as property in respect to the subject of representation.

It having just been established in the Convention, by the

votes of the States, that there should be a common measure for representation and taxation, it was afterwards decided, that, as slaves were viewed both as property and as persons, they should be taken into both representation and taxation in the proportion of three to five, that is, that five slaves should count as much as three whites. Thus slaves are recognized as "persons" in the words of the Constitution, but as persons under the disability of being regarded as property by the laws of the State in which they reside. Had they been reckoned in their whole number, it would have been because they were regarded, in this matter, only as persons; had they been excluded from the reckoning, it would be because they were, in this matter, reckoned only as property, just as they were originally by the Continental Congress. The constitutional Convention was dissolved September 14, 1787.

REMARKS.

1. When the Constitution came from the Convention before the several States for adoption, so strong was the opposition to it in some of them, that it became evident that it could not be ratified by all of them, unless it should be amended either before or after its adoption. It was finally concluded to adopt it on assurances that it would be amended afterwards. One of the proposed amendments respected State rights, which have since been the subject of sectional discussion.

One of the articles of the old Confederation was this: "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." This was omitted in the new Constitution, not from any objection to it, so far as is known to the present writer. Delegated powers are, of course, limited to the subjects delegated.

Accordingly, after its adoption, the following article, among others, was added to it, as an equivalent to the above article of the old Confederation: "The powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to all the States respectively, or the people," (that is, to the people of the States respectively.)

At the time the Constitution was adopted, the citizens of

« ZurückWeiter »