The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1861-03-08
Why the Word Slaves is not Used i'm
the United States Constitution.

why the Word slaves IL not Used i'm
the United states Constitution.
From Speech of Mr. Millscn of Virginia. in Congress-
| January n. 1861.
have heard it said by members of the
kepuollcan party that the trainers of the
Constitution refused to use any terms that
would Indicate recognition of the right of
porperty in man; that they excluded the
word slave, or slavery, from the Constitu-
ton. because of their reluctance to disclose
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 inius.
tlce to the trainers of the Constitution.
They were moved by no such sentimentalsm.
II Is reproach 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 hypocritical as to consent to the
continuance of 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 a human being.
No, sir; they had stronger and better
reasons for the adoption of the language
they put in the Constitution. They knew
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Cor
wlD) has relieved me from much of the
discussion by the able and lucid manner iu
which he has illustrated this subject today
they knew the word slave, slavery. was
a word of vague and indefinite Specification,
having variety of meanings.
| Had thew mood +bo ,vonl aI-
have led to infinite cavil and dispute as to
the precise meaning intended. Some aboli--
tlonlsts might have argued that it did not
apply to Africans held to servitude under
the laws of Virginia and Maryland that
negro servant, escaping from his master,
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 master to take the life of the
slave. They might have argued, moreover,
that the word slavery, was one, and to be
taken In one sense alone; that u.s. that two
different interpretations could not be given
to 1t ; and, therefore, If the laws of domestic
servltude in South Carolina differed from
those in Virginia, the word slavery might
be applied to one or the other of them, but
could not be applied to both; because YOU
could not give different interpretations to
the same word. The trainers of the Consti-
tuition, then, sir, wisely substituted de-
scription for word. They said "persons
held to service or labor under the laws of
any State" 1t embraced every kind of
servltude. 1t comprehended the servants
OF Virginia, of North Carolina, of South
Carolina, of Georgia, and of all the States.
1t excluded all cavil and all doubt. But
they were guilty of no such miserable by.
pocrlsy as that sometimes attributed to
them-that they were unwilling to intro
duce into the Constitution any phrase which
might imply that there could be no property
in man.
10 insist that they are persons, as we'll
as property, 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 man.
He is responsible man; responsible to our
laws, responsible to God. He is a person:
a person held to service; and it is because
he is person, that the position of the South
before this Congress and the Constitution
is impregnabe. l say it is because he is a
person that gentlemen of the Republican
party are forbidden to pass law prohibit.
ing his emigration into the territories. As
mere property, you might set up plausible
claim to exclude him. Ay, as mere property
there would be color OF argument in favor
OF his exclusion; but as person, person
held to service, man holding personal
relation to another, member of the house
hold, part OF the family, you have no more
right to exclude him from the privilege of
going into the territories with bis master
than you have to exclude wife from going
into the territories with her husband. The
wife, too, by law, owes service and labor to
the husband.
The relation existing between husband
and wife IS the relation established by the
laws of the States; and the gentleman from
Ohio cannot say that these are laws which
are local, and do not extend beyond the
limits OF the States were they were enacted;
because the same argument would force him
to the conclusion that it is within the power
OF Congress to exclude from Territory
wife bound to her husband under the laws
OF any State, and that the husband cannot
carry wife occupying that relation with
him into the Territories, because the law
under which that relation was established
or recognized does not extend beyond the
territory of the State in which it wa
| enacted.
| And permit NE, sir, to say that, if they
were property, they would not be repre-
sented to Congress; for there is no descrip-
tion of property represented in Congress as
property-neither lands or money, nor
stocks, nor any other kind of property. If
they were property, and nothing but pro-
perty, then we deprive ourselves of the right
OF representation of three-fifths of their
whole number, except upon the condition
that an equal representation be given to
property of equal value in the other States
of the Union. a. ..-........
.-c 3 .1T ! ~ ---- 100.