Slavery and the Constitution Part 15

_All_ insurrections and _all_ cases of domestic violence are here provided for. To const.i.tute an insurrection within the meaning of the Const.i.tution, there must be a rising against those laws which are recognized as such by the Const.i.tution; and, to make out a case of domestic violence, the violence must be exerted against that right or power which is recognized by the Const.i.tution as lawful. But, by Art. 4, sec. 2, the Const.i.tution admits that some persons are legally slaves; else the clause itself must be entirely inoperative. Consequently, if these persons rise in rebellion, or commit acts of violence contrary to the laws which hold them in slavery, their rising const.i.tutes an insurrection; such acts are acts of violence within the meaning of the Const.i.tution, and consequently must be suppressed by the national power.

And what insurrections were more likely to happen and more to be dreaded than slave-insurrections, and therefore more likely to have been provided for?

Slave-owners are not the only slaveholders. All persons who voluntarily a.s.sist or pledge themselves to a.s.sist in holding persons in slavery are slaveholders. _In sober truth, then, we are a nation of slaveholders!_ for we have bound our whole national strength to the slave-owners, to aid them, if necessary, in holding their slaves in subjection!

CHAPTER XIII.

THE CONSt.i.tUTION AS ITS FRAMERS INTENDED TO MAKE IT.

"Yes!--it cannot be denied--the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their a.s.sent to the Const.i.tution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves."--_John Quincy Adams._

The question, What kind of a Const.i.tution did its framers intend to make? is purely an historical one; and it must be obvious to all, that any thing like a complete statement of the evidence on this point cannot be given within the limits of this pamphlet.

On the 17th of September, 1787, the Philadelphia Convention adopted the plan of the present Const.i.tution. The draft thus made was submitted to the people, a.s.sembled in State Conventions, "for their a.s.sent and ratification." President Madison has preserved a record of the debates in the Philadelphia Convention; and we have also published accounts of the debates in several of the State Conventions. We draw our evidence mainly from these sources.

APPORTIONMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 2.)

On the 18th of April, 1783, the Continental Congress pa.s.sed a resolve, recommending the States to amend the Articles of Confederation in such manner that the national expenses should be defrayed out of a common treasury, "which shall be supplied by the several States, in proportion to the whole number of white or other free inhabitants, of every age, s.e.x, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes, in each State."

This amendment was adopted by eleven out of the thirteen States.

A single glance is sufficient to satisfy any one, that, under the expression in this resolve, "all other persons," slaves were intended; and an equally cursory glance suffices to show, that Art. 1, sec. 2, of the Const.i.tution is derived, almost copied, from this resolve. Did not the framers of the Const.i.tution, in adopting the same expression (Art.

1, sec. 2), mean the same thing as the Continental Congress?

In the Ma.s.sachusetts Convention, Art. 1, sec. 2, of the Const.i.tution having been read, Rufus King, one of its framers, rose to explain it:--

"This paragraph states, that the number of free persons shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. _These persons are the slaves._ By this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned, and it was adopted because it was the language of all America....

Five negro-children of South Carolina are to pay as much tax as the three governors of New Hamps.h.i.+re, Ma.s.sachusetts, and Connecticut."

In the New York Convention, Alexander Hamilton, another of the framers, remarked:--

"The first thing objected to is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes....

"The regulation complained of was one result of the spirit of accommodation which governed the Convention; and, _without this indulgence, no union could possibly have been formed_."

In the Pennsylvania Convention, James Wilson, another of the framers, said, referring to the resolve of the Continental Congress pa.s.sed in 1783:--

"It was not carried into effect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven out of thirteen States; and it cannot but be matter of surprise to hear gentlemen, who agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward, and state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural, sir, for the late Convention to adopt the mode after it had been agreed to by eleven States, and to use the expression which they found had been received as unexceptionable before."

In a speech before the legislature of Maryland, Luther Martin, also a delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, offers the following clear and unmistakable testimony:--

"With respect to that part of the second section of the first article, it was urged that no principle could justify taking slaves into computation in apportioning the number of representatives a State should have in the government;--that _it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a State in making laws for freemen, in proportion as that State violated the rights of freedom_;--that it might be proper to take slaves into consideration, when taxes were to be apportioned, because it had a tendency to discourage slavery; but to take them into account in giving representation tended to encourage the slave-trade, and to make it the interest of the States to continue that infamous traffic."

In the North Carolina Convention, Wm. R. Davie, a member of the Convention who framed the Const.i.tution, said:--

"The Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses were equally ent.i.tled to representation; that the one was property as well as the other. It became our duty, on the other hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the legislation of the Union; and, as the Northern States were more populous in whites, this only could be done by insisting that a certain proportion of our _slaves_ should make a part of the computed population."

In the South Carolina Convention, General Chas. C. Pinckney, another of the framers of the Const.i.tution, said:--

"We were at a loss for some time for a rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States. At last we thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule for ascertaining their wealth. In conformity to this rule, joined to a spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should be apportioned among the several States, by adding to the whole number of free persons, three-fifths of the _slaves_."

PERMISSION OF THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE. (Const. Art. 1, sec. 9.)

In the Ma.s.sachusetts Convention, Mr. Dawes, speaking in relation to Art.

1, sec. 2, said that--

"Gentlemen would do well to connect the pa.s.sage in dispute with another article in the Const.i.tution, that permits Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of _slaves_, and in the meantime to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on such blacks as should be imported before that period."

Many persons spoke in the Convention on this section; and, among others, Judge Dana rejoiced that a door was opened by it for the annihilation of the slave-trade.

In the Pennsylvania Convention, Mr. Wilson said:--

"Under the present confederation, the States may admit the _importation of slaves as long as they please_; but by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any State to the contrary.... It is with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government, whereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is also obtained; for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition. It was all that could be obtained: I am sorry it was no more."

In Maryland, Luther Martin, in the speech before referred to, says, speaking of this section:--

"The design of this clause is to _prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves_; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word 'national,' and not admit the word 'stamps,' influenced them here to guard against the word 'slaves.' They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those things which the expressions signified."

Mr. Martin thus gives the well-known history of the compromise involved in this clause:--

"This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States; Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina, voting for it.

"We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that their States would never agree to a system which put it in the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves; and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their a.s.sent from such a system.

"A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report which should reconcile those States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: 'No Navigation Act shall be pa.s.sed without the a.s.sent of two-thirds of the members present in each house;'--a proposition which the staple and commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met, and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. _I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the Southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave-trade, provided the Southern States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on Navigation Acts_; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restricted clause relative to Navigation Acts was to be omitted.

"This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not without considerable opposition."

In the Virginia Convention, Mr. Madison said:--

"Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have entered into the Union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the Union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The Union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued for ever; but, by this clause, an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circ.u.mstances. A tax may be laid in the meantime."

In the North Carolina Convention, Mr. Spaight, one of the framers of the Const.i.tution, said--

"That there was a contest between the Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose princ.i.p.al support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States, to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then, and that in the meantime some tax or duty might be laid on."

In the South Carolina Convention, Hon. Rawlins Lowndes said:--

"In the first place, what cause was there for jealousy of our importing negroes? Why confine us to twenty years, or rather why limit us at all? For his part, he thought this trade could be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad country to a better was fulfilling every part of these principles. But they don't like our slaves, because they have none themselves."

Gen. Charles C. Pinckney said:--

"_By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of negroes for twenty years_; nor is it declared that the importation shall be then stopped: it may be continued; we have a security that the general government can never emanc.i.p.ate them."