meaning of the Constitution, there must be a rising against those laws which are recognized as such by the Constitution; and, to make out a case of domestic violence, the violence must be exerted against that right or power which is recognized by the Constitution as lawful. But, by Art. 4, sec. 2, the Constitution 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 constitutes an insurrection; such acts are acts of violence within the meaning of the Constitution, 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 assist or pledge themselves to assist 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 CONSTITUTION AS ITS FRAMERS INTENDED TO

MAKE IT.

"Yes! - it cannot be denied - the slaveholding lords of the South prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Constitution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their dominion over their slaves."— John Quincy Adams.

THE question, What kind of a Constitution 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 Constitution. The draft thus made was submitted to the people, assembled in State Conventions, "for their assent 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 passed 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, sex, 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 Constitution is derived, almost copied, from this resolve. Did not the framers of the Constitution, in adopting the same expression (Art. 1, sec. 2), mean the same thing as the Continental Congress?

In the Massachusetts Convention, Art. 1, sec. 2, of the Constitution 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 Hampshire, Massachusetts, 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 passed 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 Constitution, said:

"The Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses were equally entitled 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 Constitution, 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 Massachusetts Convention, Mr. Dawes, speaking in relation to Art. 1, sec. 2, said that

"Gentlemen would do well to connect the passage in dispute with another article in the Constitution, 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 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."