Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-02-20
From Speech of Mr. Nson Of Virginia, in Congress,
January 81. 1851.
why the Word slaves is not used i'm
United States Constitution.

/ have head it said by members of the Repub-
lican party that the trainers of the Constitution
refused to any terms that would indicate re-
cognition of the right of property in man, that they
excluded the word slave. or slavery, from the
Constitution, because of Their reluctance to dis
close the fact that there was any such personal
relation acknowledged or established by the laws
of any of our States.
Sir, such an argument does great injustice to
the trainers of the Constitution. They were
moved by no such sentimentalism. 1t is re
proach to them to say that they were so intensely
hypocritical that they were not ashamed to do
what they were ashamed to talk about. 1t is an
aspersion upon them to suppose that they were so
intensely hypoeritical as to consent to the con-
tnuance of the slave trade for twenty yeIrs,
with all its attendant horrors and atrocities,
and vet. like timid maidens, to shrink from the
words slave" and slavery" as recognizing
property in human being. No, sir; they
had stronger and better reasons for the adop-
ton OF the language they put in the Consti
tuition. They knew-and the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr CorwIn) has relieved me from much
of the discussion by the able and lucid manner in
which he has illustrated 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 eavl and dispute to the precise
have argued that it did not apply to Africans held
to servitude under the laws Of Virginia and Mary
land; that negro servant, escaping from his
mn ster, was not such slave as the Constitution
required to be delivered up, because the master
had not the power of life and death over him, as
under the Roman law, which authorized the mas
ter to take the life of his slave They might have
argued, moreover, that the word slavery, in the
Constitution, was one and to be taken in one
tons could not be given to il; and therefore ii
the laws of domestic servitude in South Clrolina
differed from these in Virginia. the word slavery
might be applied to one or the other of them, but
it could not be applied to both; because you could
not give different interpretations to the word
The trainers OF the Constitution, then, sir, wisely
substituted a description for a word. They slid
persons held to service or labor under the laws
of any State" 1t embraced every kind OF servi-
tude 1t comprehended the servants of Virginia,
OF North Cirolina. OF South Cirolina, OF Georgia
and of all the States. 1t excluded all cavll and
all doubt. But they were guilty of no such mis-
cradle hypocrisy as that sometimes attributed to
them-that they were unwilling to introduce into
the Constitution any phrase which might imply
that there could be property in man.
To insist that they are persons as well rs prop
erty, is to take the highest position on which the
South can rest her claim. To say that they are
property and nothing but property, is not true in
any sense of the word 1t is not true in physics;
it is not true in morals; it is not true in religion
it is not true in politics. A slave is a man. He
is responsible man; responsible to our laws re-
sponsible to God. He is person; person held
to service; and it is because he is a person, that
the position of the South before this Congress and
in the Constitution is impregnabe. | say il i:
because he is person that gentlemen of the Re
publican party are forbidden to pass law prOhib
ting his emigration into the Territories As mere
; property, you might set up a plausible claim t.
, exclude him. Az, as mere property there would
be color OF argument in favor of his exclusion
but as person, person held to service, MAJ
holding personal relation TO another, member
2 OF the household, part of the family, you hav,
, no more right to exclude him from the priveg,
of going into the Territories with his master thar
you have to exclude wife from going into tn,
Territories with her husband. The wife, too, b.
E law, owes service and labor to the husband.
! The relation existing between husband an,
wife is the relation established by the laws of tn
States; and the gentleman from Ohio cannot sa'
that these are laws which are local. and do no
extend beyond the limits of the States where the
were enacted; because the same argument wOul,
force him to the conclusion that il is within tn
|, power of Congress to exclude from a Territor
! a wife bound to her husband under the laws o
any State and that the husband cannot carry
: wife occupying that relation with him into tn
Territories because the law under which that re
3 lation was established or recognized does not ex
+ tend beyond the territory of the State in which
& was enacted.
And permit me, sir, to say that, if they wer
property, and nothing but property, they woul
n not be represented in Congress; for there is n
' description OF property represented in Congress
as property-neither lands nor money, nor stocks
nor any other kind of property. If they wer
! property, and nothing but property, then we de
y prive ourselves OF the right OF representation @
q three ffths OF their whole number, except upo
the condition that equal representation
given to property of equal value in the othe
9 States of the Union.