The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1861-04-03
Why the Word Slave is not Used
In the United Stafes Con stitutiOn.


why the Word Slave Is not Used
in the United STATES Constitution.
From q speech Of Mr. Miilson. OF Firginia, in
Congress, JAnuary 2lst ls5l.l
have heard il said by members Of the Re-
publican party that the trainers Of the Consti-
tuition refused to use any terms that would in
dicate recognition Of the right Of property in
mani that they excluded the word slave, or
slavery from the Constitution, because Of their
reluctance to disclose the fact that there was
any such personal relation acknowledged or es-
tabllshed by the laws Of any Of our States.
Sir, such an argument does great injustice
TO the trainers ofthe Constitution. They were
moved by no such sentimentalism. 1t isare-l
pr l'ch to them,to say that they were so inien' .
iy bspocritical that they were not ashamed to
do what they ashamed to talk about. II is
an aspersion upon them to suppose that they
were so intensly hypceritical as to consent TO
the slave trade for twenty years, with all its
Attendant horrors and atrocities, and yet, like
timid maidens, to shrink from the words slave
and Slavery as recognizing property in hu
man beings No, sir, they had stronger and
better reasons for the adoption o. the language
they put in the Constitution. They knew
and the gentleman from Ohio, (Mr. C0rwIn,)
has relieved Ine from much OF the discussion by
the able and lucid manner in which he has IL
lustrated this subject to day-they knew the
word slave, or slavery, was word OF vague
and indefinite Specification, having variety Of
meanings.
Had they used the word slave, it would have
led to infinite cavl and dispute as TO the precise
meaning intended. Some abolitonists might
have argued that it did not apply 10 Africans
held fn tnda lao r.
Maryland; that negro servant, escaping from
his master, was not such slave as the Consti-
tuition required TO be delivered up, because the
master bad not the power OF life and death over
him, as under the Roman law, which au horized
the master to, take tie life Of his slave, They
nigh have argued moreover, that the word sla-
very in the Constitution, was one, and to te
taken in one sense alone, that is, that two differ
ent interpretations could not be gwen TO il; and
therefore, il the laws OF domestic servitude in
South Carolina differed from those in Virginia
tie word slavery might be applied to one ol
, the o her of them, but Vt could not be applied
to both, because you could not give different in
: terpretations to the same word. The trainers
OF the Constitution then, sir, wisely substituted
! a description for word. They said persons
D held to service or labor under the laws Of any
; State" 1t embraced every kind OF servitude.
1t comprehends the servants Of Virginia, o
: North Carolina OF Georgia and Of all the States
: 1t excluded all cav and all doubt. But they
were guilty Of no Such m serable hypocricy as
3 that sometimes attributed to them-that the,
g were unwilling to introduce into the Constitu
+ ton any phrase which might apply that Their
could be property in man.
10 insist that there are persons, as well a
= property, is to take the highest position OIL
: which the South can rest her claims. To sa,
that they are property, and nothing but prop
f. erty, is not true in any sense Of the word. |
9 is not true in physics; it is not true in morals
it is not true in religion 1t is not true in poll
S tics. A slave is man. He is responsible +
God. He is person; person held 70 service
: and it is because he is person, that the posi-
n ton Of the South before this Congress and il
the Constitution is impregnable Say it
e because he is person that gentlemen Of tn
: Republican party are forbidden to pass la,
II prohibiting his emigration into the Territories
y AS mere property, you might set up plausibl
n claim to exclude him. Ay, as mere property
n there would be color of argument IN favor
e his exclusion; but as person. a person held t
o seivice, a man holding apersonal r, lation t
another, a member of the household, a part
IS the family. you have no more right to exclud
o him from tha privilege Of going into the Terri
= tories with his master than you have to exclud
}. wife from going INTO the Territories with he
i, husband. ~,
O The wife, too, by law, owes service and labo
e to the husband. The relation existing betwee
= husband and wife. is the relation established b
e The laws of States; and the gentleman from Q
e hio can not say that these are laws which ar
'e local, and do not extend beyond the limits
d the States where they were enacted; becaus
o the same argument would force him to the cor
cluslon that II is with the power of Congres
to exclude rom Territory wife bound I
her husband under the laws oil any State, an
g that husband cannot carry wife occupyin
that relation with him into the Territories, b,
,r cause the law under which that relation wa
10 established or recognized does not extend b.
yond the territory OF the State in which it W;
S. enacted. -a
}. And permit me. sir, to say that If they wei
. property and nothing but property, they wou
I not be represented in Congress; for there is l
\ description of property represented in Congre
as property neither lands, nor money, n,
i stocks, nor any other kind of property. If the
were property and nothing but property the
r. we deprive ourselves OF the right Of representa-
n, tion OF three tifths OF their whole number, e.
cept upon the condition that an equal value
s. he other states OF the Unicn.
s, 4. .-