The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-09-01

tionary war; and the French and Indian war
which preceded it. gave Washington world
of trouble, as appears abundantly by his let
ters. Notwithstanding the first part of that
experience however, just before the Revolution
Washington prepared to import two hundred
of them to cultivate his Western lands which
shows that the class was not then extinct. The
enslaved negro class, on the contrary, gave so
little trouble by disposition to run away be-
fore, during the Revolution, and afterward,
that we find no trace of il in the history of the
times If this historical point cannot be dis
puted, then remember it.
Again, the class of involuntary servants"
rs distinguished from slaves, had been men
toned and provided for, or rather provided
against in very important document which
was completed before the Fugitive clause" in
question had its birth in the Convention which
framed this Constitution. In 1884, Mr. Jetfer-
son drew up plan of temporary government
| for the great Western Territory-then just
ceded to the United States by Yirginia-con-
tanning no provision for the restoration of fugi-
tiyes of either class above referred to, but this
memorable clause
| That after the year 100 of the Christian
era, there shall be nethers Slavery nor involun-
| tary seryitude in any of the said States other
wise than in punishment of crimes whereof the
party shall have been convicted to have been
guilty"
A majority of the States thus represented in
| Congress, and majority of the delegates, were
| in favor of the plan, this clause included. On
| a motion to strike it out, six States voted to
have it stand and it was only lost because
| New Jersey lost her vote by having but one
| delegate present The language of this clause
is quite remarkable 1t prohibits two distinct
| species Of servtude 1t says, "neither slavery
| nor involuntary seryitude" If involuntary
seryitude" had been used for mere synonym
of slavery, or explanatory phrase, the connec-
| ton would have been-No slavery or involun-
tary servitude. The emphatic distnctives
which are used, make it absolutely necessary
that we should understand by involuntary
servitude" something other than slavery; and
that must have been either the bond service of
"redemptioners," "paatines," &C., or the abuse
of that system At that day, there was no more
zcal-so far as appears from hstory-to propa-
gate or preserve the one kind of servitude than
the other, unless it be that slavery had been
doomed by the fathers of the Revolution, while
the redemption or palatine servitude was viewed
with more federation. For aught that appears
or can be safely asserted, the opposition to MIR.
Jeffersons famous clause arose quite as much
from its prohibition of the latter kind Of servi-
tudc as the former. Indeed, the fair presump-
ton is, that it arose more from dissemination
to prohibit the palatine servitude; for we find
that it soon ceased altogether, as it naturally
would when such servitude was no longer
looked upon as practicable. On the 18th of
July, 1897, the temporary plan of Mr.. Jefferson
was superseded by the enactment OF the per-
manent ordinance of Nathan Dane. This was
passed by Congress, with the unanimous con-
sent of the States, and only one dissenting indi-
vidual vote-that Of Mr.. Yates, of New York
1t contained the following article:
"ArticIe g. There shall be neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory,
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes
whereof the party shall have been duly convict
ed Pr0Uided, always, That any person esca-
ping into the same from whom service or labor
is lawfully claimed in any one of the original
States, such fugitive may be lawfully claimed
and conveyed to the person claiming his or her
labor or service as aforesaid"
| How can we account for the unanimity with
which this passed? Slavery had not ceased.
There was no less jealousy in regard to its in
terests. Why was it not opposed as before
Do you say, Because it lad a precious proviso
for the rendition Of fugitive slaves? There is
no historical evidence that it was so consider
ed. Slavery is not mentioned in it, nor slaves;
and this silence was not from decacy about
the shameful word for it had just been used
As the article had Just been speaking of slave
ry, as well rs involuntary servitude, if the pro-
viso had been intended to apply to BOTH rather
than as it now does, literally, only to one, it
would have been so worded as to render this
meaning unavoidable. The meaning is not in
the language and there liz not q vestige on the
| 70 Oh lnI, 81 cd 10 1a
y language mean moro than it said. History If
e plain to this point that the opposition to the
d prohibition, which had been so determined only
= three years before, was now withdrawn, with
+ out imposing or asking conditions; and Mr.
Danes draft, so far as this subject was con
, | cerned, was accepted Just as it came from him
L without dissent, unless it was to it that Mr.
c Yates objected Let this be remembered.
Well, the next point is, that in the old arti
Giles of Confederation there was no stipulation
: or clause for the surrender of fugitves, excep
b tugtlves from Justice. Nor was this law com
: planned of as defect. Neither in any one o
the drafts for II Constitution of the United
r States, submitted to the Convention at Phla
G delphia, was any provision of the sort intro.
l. duced though the very draft which the Con
> vcntlon licked into shape was submitted by one
of the Pnckneys of South Carolina. The Con-
1t vcnton came very near adjourning without
j having thought of any clause on the subject of
that which is now supposed essential to the
y salvation of the Union. But as it happened
VI after the clause for the suppression of the slave
trade had been warmly discussed, on the 2lst,
&c 22d, oath, and 26th of August, and finally so
J. settled that Congress could abolish the foreign
+ trade in 1908, one of the Pinckneys of South
y Carolina walked up on the 2Sth to the import
> ance OF having in the Constitution something
|, or Other-he could not himself tell exactly
u what which should prevent Congress from
abolShlng slavery itself The Convention had
now arrived at the discussion of the article
which relates to fugitives from Justice and
Mr. Madison volume g. page l447 of his Pa
) perS thus terSely reports how the Pinckney
was delivered of the idea which was to be
hatchcd into the kidnapping clause:
ARTICLE II was taken up.
zen. Plnckney was not satisfied with it.
TIC seemed to wish some provision should be
included IN favor of property in slaves"
HIS suggestion did not amount to motion,
and no notice was taken of it. But when the
next article was under consideration MIR.
| Madison says:
"Ar. Butler and Mr.. Pinckney moved to re-
quire fugitive slaves and servants to DO deliv-
| cred up like criminals
Observe here the language" fugitive slaves
and servants p;tro distinct classes of fugitives.
Mr.. Madison quotes the very words of the mo-
ton Upon this motion there was a pretty de-
cided and decisive expression, which Madison
records thus
"Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Execu-
tive of the State to do it ut the public expense.
| "Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in
the public seizing and surrendering slave or
servant than horse.
Mr.. Butler withdrew his proposition in
order that some particular provision might be
made, apart from this article"
And what provision tcas made? Mr.. Butler
and the Pinckncys had been made aware that
the Convention had no disposition to sanction