00000330 |
Previous | 330 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
THE THREE-FIFTHS BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 299
The second constitutional clause, referring to runaway slaves, is as follows :
" No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping- into another, shall, in consequence of any law, or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It has been asserted
by many statesmen of the North that this clause was also dictated by "the
slave-holding lords of the South," and, like the extension of the African slave
trade, was reluctantly submitted to by the freemen of the North. But there
is not one particle of evidence in the record of the transaction, to justify such
a charge.
When Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, proposed the clause in question, it
"was agreed to, mm con,"1 and not one syllable was uttered against it by any
member of the convention. It was in accordance with the sentiment of those
who framed the Constitution, and if any one of them disliked it, his dislike
found no utterance whatever in the convention. The reason there was no
opposition to this clause is truly stated in the language of the Chancellor of
New York, in delivering -the solemn judicial decision of the State. " The
provision," says he, " as to persons escaping from servitude in one State into
another, appears, from their journal [as it now more fully does from The
Madison Papers], to have been adopted by a unanimous vote of the convention. At that time the existence of involuntary servitude, or the relation of
master and servant, was known to and recognized by the laws of every State
in the Union, except Massachusetts,2 and the legal right of recapture by the
master, existed in all, as a part of the customary or common law of the whole
confederacy." Thus it will be seen that this clause of the Constitution, was
not dictated by the South.
But the third and last clause of the Constitution, relative to slavery, has,
if possible, been more grossly misunderstood or misrepresented than any other
provision of that instrument. It is, in the language of John Quincy Adams,
"the exaction fatal to the principle of representation—a representation for
slaves—for articles of merchandise—under the name of persons."
The fact is, the constitutional provision which admitted three-fifths of the
slave population into the basis of representation, was a compromise, resulting
from a struggle for power between the North and South, and was avowedly
designed to make tli3 two ssctions as nearly equal as possible in the new
Union.
In regard to the contest upon this subject in the convention, a recent
writer observes: " Should the South have as many representatives, in proportion, to its population, as the North ? It was just and right that she
should. The slaves were a better population than the free negroes, and if the
1 Madison Papers, p. 1453. frame!; and besides, we have shown that she
2 On this point, the learned chancellor is in was among- the foremost, at this time, in plead-
error; for we have shown that Massachusetts ing- for the indefinite continuance of the slave
did not abolish the African slave trade by statute trad 3.
until the year 1788, after this constitution was
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000330 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | THE THREE-FIFTHS BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. 299 The second constitutional clause, referring to runaway slaves, is as follows : " No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping- into another, shall, in consequence of any law, or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." It has been asserted by many statesmen of the North that this clause was also dictated by "the slave-holding lords of the South," and, like the extension of the African slave trade, was reluctantly submitted to by the freemen of the North. But there is not one particle of evidence in the record of the transaction, to justify such a charge. When Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, proposed the clause in question, it "was agreed to, mm con,"1 and not one syllable was uttered against it by any member of the convention. It was in accordance with the sentiment of those who framed the Constitution, and if any one of them disliked it, his dislike found no utterance whatever in the convention. The reason there was no opposition to this clause is truly stated in the language of the Chancellor of New York, in delivering -the solemn judicial decision of the State. " The provision," says he, " as to persons escaping from servitude in one State into another, appears, from their journal [as it now more fully does from The Madison Papers], to have been adopted by a unanimous vote of the convention. At that time the existence of involuntary servitude, or the relation of master and servant, was known to and recognized by the laws of every State in the Union, except Massachusetts,2 and the legal right of recapture by the master, existed in all, as a part of the customary or common law of the whole confederacy." Thus it will be seen that this clause of the Constitution, was not dictated by the South. But the third and last clause of the Constitution, relative to slavery, has, if possible, been more grossly misunderstood or misrepresented than any other provision of that instrument. It is, in the language of John Quincy Adams, "the exaction fatal to the principle of representation—a representation for slaves—for articles of merchandise—under the name of persons." The fact is, the constitutional provision which admitted three-fifths of the slave population into the basis of representation, was a compromise, resulting from a struggle for power between the North and South, and was avowedly designed to make tli3 two ssctions as nearly equal as possible in the new Union. In regard to the contest upon this subject in the convention, a recent writer observes: " Should the South have as many representatives, in proportion, to its population, as the North ? It was just and right that she should. The slaves were a better population than the free negroes, and if the 1 Madison Papers, p. 1453. frame!; and besides, we have shown that she 2 On this point, the learned chancellor is in was among- the foremost, at this time, in plead- error; for we have shown that Massachusetts ing- for the indefinite continuance of the slave did not abolish the African slave trade by statute trad 3. until the year 1788, after this constitution was |
