Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1853-08-25


nent ordinance OF Nathan Dane This was
passed byCougress with the unanimous con-
sent OF the States. aud only one dissenting
individual vote, that of MIR. Yates, of New
York. 1t contained the following article:
Art 9th. There shall be neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude in the said territory, other
wise than IN the punishment of crimes, whereof
the party shall have been duly convicted: Pro.
vlded, always, that any person escaping into the
same, from whom labor or service is lawfully
claimed in any one of The original States, such
fugitive may be lawfully claimed and conveyed
to the person claiming bis or her labor or service
us aforesaid"
How can we account for the unanimity
with which this passed.? Slavery had not
ceased. There was no less jealousy in re-
gard to its interests. Why was it not OPP
posed as before? Do you say, Because it
had precious proviso for the rendition of
fugitive slaves! There is no historical ev.
idence that il was SO considered Slavery
is not mentioned in it, ncr slaves; and this
silence was not from delicacy about the
shameful word, for it had Just been used
As the article had been speaking Of slavery,
as we'll as involuntary servtude, if the pro-
vso had been intended to apply TO both,
rather than as it now does literally only to
one, it would have been so Norded az to
render this meaning unavoidable. The
meaning is not in the language, and there
is not vestige on record to show that any
body asked to have the language mean more
than it said History is PLAIN to this point,
that the opposition to the prohibition, which
had been SO determined ten years before,
was now Withdrawn, without imposing or
asking conditions, and Mr.. Danes draft, so
far a, this subject was concerned, was &C
cepted just as it came from him, without
dissent, unless it was to it that Mr.. Yates
objected Let this be remembered.
Well, the next point is, that in the old
articles # the Confederation, there was II"
tugllves, except tugltives from justice Nor
was this law complained of as a defect Mel
Their in any one of the drafts for a Cons:ltu-
ton Of the United States, submitted to the
Convention at Philadelphia, of the sort liz
troduced. though the very draft which The
Convention licked into shape, was submit
ted by one of the Pnckneys OF South Caro-
lima. The Convention came very near adj.
j'urnng without having thought of any
clause on the subject of that which is now
surprised essential to the salvation OF the
Union. But. as ii hupprmed, after the clause
for the suppression of the slave trade had
been warmly discussed on the 81, %, "a
aud 26 Of August. aud finally so settled
tina, Congress could abolish The foreign
trade IN 1913, one nf the Plnckneys of s.
G. walked up on the 2S,h to the lmportance
OF having in the Constitution something or
other, he could not himself tell exactly what,
which should prevent Congress from abol.
ishing slavery itself The Convention had
now arrived at The discussion Of the article
which relates to fugltIves from justice, aud
M. Madison. vol B, page ,447 of his pa.
pers, thus tersely reports how tn Pinck.
ney was delivered Of the idea which was to
be patched into the kidnapping clause:
"Ar,icle IA was now taken mp.
"Gen Plnckney was not satisfied with it. He
seemed to wish some provision should be includ.
ed in favor OF property in slaves"
His suggestion did not amount 10 a mo.
tion, aud io notice was taken of it. But
when the next article was under considera-
ton, Mr. Madison saws;
"Mr. Butler and Mr.. Pnckney moved to re-
quire fugitive slaves and servants to be deliver
ed up like crlminals,'"
Observe here the language fngitives
slaves and servants too distinct classes of
fugitives. Mr. Madison quotes the very
words of the motion. Upon this motion
there was pretty decided and decisive ex.
preston, which Madison records thus:
"Mr. Wilson This would oblige the Execu-
tive OF The State 10 do it al the public expense.
MIR. Sherman saw no more propriety in the
public sezlng and surrendering slave or ser
want than horse.
"Mr. Butter withdrew his proposition, in or.
der that some particular provision might be
made, apart from this artcle.''
And what provision ,cas made MIR.
Butler and the Pinckneys had been made
aware that the Convention had no dspnsi-
;ion to sanction Slavery, or guarantee the
right Of property in slaves. the pet wolf
was to he got into the Constitution at all. it
mus, be dressed as lamb. 81 the next
day he offered the following beautifully
grammatical production
"If any person bound to service or labor in
an, of the United States shall escape into an
other State, he or she shall not be discharged
from such service or labor, in consequence of
any regulations subsistIng In the State TO which
they escape, but shall be delivered up to the
person justly claiming their service or labor
Now, there is no manner of doubt that
the man meant slaves, though he was nc
more able To say SO than to put his sentence
| in decent English. Possibly he had gol
sight of the Dane Ordinance, passed The
month before by the Congress in New York
' and borrowed his mode of handling the
subject from that. |, is perfectly plain
t however, that the keen opposition of the
, day before considered him as having givet
up They SAID nothing The proposItlo,
was adopted mem. con. But they doubtless
8 though, just this " If tina, is all, and vii
+. satisfy you, Mr. Butler, very well. Yes,er
S day you wanted us to rekIdnap slaves, a:
I well as to restore fugitive bond servants
: We wouldn't do it, Now You modest,
+ confne yourself to asking that person.
$ bound to service shall not he released b,
the legislation Of other States to which they
may escape There is no, the slightest Oh.
D jec'ion TO that, if any body asks it,"
: In finally getting this unc"ull clause i'll
] to shape, The word illegally" crept into il
: persons illegally held To SERVICE" &c,
? and it was struck out, as Mr. Madison says
2 Sin compliance with the wish IT those who
: thought The word legal equvocaI. aud favor.