Its terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others beside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot include the slaves themselves! Many persons beside slaves in this country doubtless are "held to service and labor under the laws of the States," but that does not at all show that slaves are not "held to service;" many persons beside the slaves may take part "in insurrections," but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the National government is not bound to put them down by force. Such a thing has been heard of before as one description including a great variety of persons,--and this is the case in the present instance.
But granting that the terms of the Const.i.tution are ambiguous--that they are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, concurrent, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the whole people for fifty years do not prove which is the true construction, then how and where can such a question ever be settled? If the people and the Courts of the land do not know what they themselves mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them?
If then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to determine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and for the last half century, the Const.i.tution of the United States, has been, and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who swears to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his duty both as a man and an abolitionist. What the Const.i.tution may become a century hence, we know not; we speak of it _as it is_, and repudiate it _as it is_.
But the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the community, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously deciding that the Const.i.tution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove that this false construction, as they think it, has been foisted in upon the instrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting all it touches. They a.s.sert that the known anti-slavery spirit of revolutionary times never _could_ have consented to so infamous a bargain as the Const.i.tution is represented to be, and has in its present hands become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact that willingly, with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for gain and became partners with tyrants that they might share in the profits of their tyranny.
And in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument to make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers tell us they meant to incorporate into the Const.i.tution, and which the sons have always thought they found there incorporated, does not exist there after all? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the land a.s.semble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves,--after months of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign their names to the instrument,--fifty years roll away, twenty millions at least of their children pa.s.s over the stage of life,--courts sit and pa.s.s judgment,--parties arise and struggle fiercely; still all concur in finding in the Instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell us they intended to express:--must not he be a desperate man, who, after all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers and the sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all?
Besides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery character of the Const.i.tution, quote some portions of the Madison Papers in support of their views,--and this makes it proper that the community should hear all that these Debates have to say on the subject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact that the Const.i.tution was meant to be, what it has always been esteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom.
If then the Const.i.tution be, what these Debates show that our fathers intended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this nation, say they did make it and agree to uphold,--then we affirm that it is a "covenant with death and an agreement with h.e.l.l," and ought to be immediately annulled.
But if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the Const.i.tution is all pure and untouched by slavery,--then, Union itself is impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty years pa.s.sed under this (anti-slavery) Const.i.tution, shew us the slaves trebling in numbers;--slaveholders monopolizing the offices and dictating the policy of the Government;--prost.i.tuting the strength and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and elsewhere;--trampling on the rights of the free States and making the courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous alliance longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of men and the best of Const.i.tutions, on this supposition, only proves that it is impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery. We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double earnestness we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the outcry of the American Anti-Slavery Society,
NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS.
THE CONSt.i.tUTION
A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT.
_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by Thomas Jefferson, 1776_.
On Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second, the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and the first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined the proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these words:--
"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by the United States a.s.sembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, s.e.x and quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the a.s.sembly of the United States."
Mr. Chase (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by the number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the "white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion to property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State could never be estimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States where there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.; whereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the farmer"s head and on his slave"s head, than the Northern ones on their farmer"s heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the State, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.
Mr. John Adams (of Ma.s.sachusetts) observed, that the numbers of people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State, and not as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter, it was of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves: but that the difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth, annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.
Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose, by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the laborers of a State could in the course of one night be transformed into slaves,--would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries,--that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern States,--is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of the word "property" here, and its application to some of the people of the State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers in his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a laborer from one firm to another, which does not change the annual produce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax; that if a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men"s labor in cattle; but so may the Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thousand slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property.
That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were equally its wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.
Mr. Harrison (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as much work as freemen, and doubted if two affected more than one.
That this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in the Southern colonies being from 9 to 12, while in the Northern it was generally 24.
Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase the profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves, and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would give thee _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the North as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves: that experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to pay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor generally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been said that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.
Mr. Payne (of Ma.s.sachusetts) urged the original resolution of Congress, to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls.
Mr. Witherspoon (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.
But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.
That as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only, and related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.
AUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was rejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Ma.s.sachusetts, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North, and South Carolina. Georgia was divided. _Vol. I. pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.
_Extracts from Madison"s Report of Debates in the Congress of the Confederation._
TUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.
Mr. Wolcott declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be amended by subst.i.tuting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen and sixty years of age. _p_. 331.
TUESDAY, March 27, 1783.
The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:
Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States, as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in question.
Mr. Clark (of New Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.
It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by ages, as the, report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p._ 421-2.
FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.
The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one freeman.
Mr. Wolcott (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.
Carroll as four to one. Mr. Williamson (of North Carolina) said he was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an inc.u.mbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr.
Higginson (of Ma.s.sachusetts) as four to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would he a juster proportion. Mr. Holton as four to three.--Mr. Osgood said he did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as three to two, the votes were. New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, no; Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then proposed, by general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it; but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be agreed to.
After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into view, Mr. Madison (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.
Mr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that two slaves were not equal to one freeman.
On the question for five to three, it pa.s.sed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye: South Carolina, aye.
A motion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it pa.s.sed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.
The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility of the others, ought to have greater weight in the case; and that the exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their labor, they did as little as possible and omitted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it: that if the exports of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in agriculture, not in manufacturers; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the others.
On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Lloyd, aye); New Jersey, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no. _pp._ 423-4-5.
Tuesday, April 1, 1783.
Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton, who had been absent when the last question was taken for subst.i.tuting numbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote. He was seconded by Mr. Osgood. Those who voted differently from their former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.
_p_. 430.
Monday, May 26.
The Resolutions on the Journal, instructing the ministers in Europe to remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for furloughing the troops--pa.s.sed _unanimously_. _p_. 456.