The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-09-04
INEQUALITY OF SLAVE REPRESENTATION

On the 4th of August, Mr.. Cragin, of New
Hampshire, delivered speech in the House of
Representatives, on the great issues of the day,
repleie with historical and statistical informa-
ton, which should be in the hands of every
voter. While its mild and courteous tone will
render it acceptable to political opponents,
even to Southerners, its clear and forcble state
ment of principles, and its fair deductions from
incontrovertible facts, cannot fail to carry con-
victiOn to every honest mind. The following
illustrations of the inequalities resulting from
the representation in Congress of some three
thousand millions of slave property" are pc
culiarly striking:
Extract of the Speech of Mr.. Cragin.
The principle of allowing parts of a nation
political power in proportion to the number of
men they hold in bondage, is 90 undemocratic
and detrimental to liberty, that am surprised
that any man outside the privileged States
should be willing to extend it one inch beyond
the States TO which it now applies.
BY the Constitution of the United States, in
The apportionment of Representatives to Con-
gress, i've slaves count as much as three white
men. Under this provision of the Constitu-
hon, from 1889 to 1892, the South gained
Representatives from 1875 to 1913, she gain.
ed IA; from 1913 to 1928, she gained 10; from
1873 to 1893, the gain was rs from 1888 to
1913 the gain was %. At this moment, the
South has 30 additional members upon this
noor on account of this principle.
The present ratio of representation is 93,73l.
The free States have IA, and the slave States
90 Representatives. The free white popula-
ton of the free States in 1850 was IL, 43S, 667
the free white population in the slave States
was g. la, 404.
The free States have l44 Representatives on
Tins floor, or, on an average, one Represent
alive for 93,745 free white inhabitants the
slave States have 80 Representatives, or, on an
average, one for 68,7l5 free white inhabitants.
This is the way this principle works.
In the next Presidential election, the free
States will have l76 electoral votes, or, Oh an
average, one electoral vote for 1886 free
white inhabitants The slave States will have
lZO electoral votes, or, on an average, one elec-
toral vote for 81 $50 free white inhabitants.
The South will have 20 electoral votes as a
premium for Slavery.
II we examine particular States, we shall
IND the contrast even more unequal than in
The aggregate. For instance, South Carolina
has white population of 274, 567, and sir Rep
reSentatives, or one Representative to 45,76l
Tree white inhabitants. She has eight electo
raj votes, or one for 34,32l white inhabitants.
New Hampshire has a white population OF
Sl7,456, and three Representatives, or one for
ioSslS inhabitants. She has five electoral
votes, or one for 63,49l free white inhabitants.
IL Will be observed, from these figures, that
"fee white men in South Carolina have as
much influence in the votes upon this floor as
seren white men in New Hampshire. And
,ns, sir, is the Equality OF the States," so much
talked of on the other side of the House.
Perhaps, sir, the institution of Slavery is sc
eeVatlng in its effects upon human character
That three men in South Carolina are equal t
seven in New Hampshire. The country shoult
consider the subject in this light, before the,
pass any hasty judgment. 1t certainly hal
some very striking examples.
The following statistics of the third Congress
slonal district of New Hampshire, represented
gIy me, and the district represented by Hon
lawrence M. Keitt, of South Carolina, from
'Ae census of 1850, will illustrate the working