Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-02-23
why the Word Slaves is not Used in the
IIrnafad Sfafnn flnrnafifrr fsn1a.

Why the Word Slaves is not Used I'm the
United States Constitution.
From speech of Mr.. MsOn Of Virginia. in Congress Janua
~ n, 1861.
] have heard it said by members Of the Republic
can party that the trainers Of the Constitution re-
fused to use any terms that would indicate recog-
milton of the right of property In man; that they
excluded the word slave, or slavery, from the Con-
stution because of their relutance TO disclose the
fact there was any such personal relation acknow-
edged 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 sentimentasm. 1t is reproach 10 them,
to say that they were 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 intensely hypocriucal
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 recog-
nizing property in human beings 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. Corwin,) has re-
Heved 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 slave
ry, 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 Abolitionists might have argued
that it did not apply to Africans held 10 servitude
under the laws of Virginia and Maryland; that 3
negro servant, escaping from his master, was not
such slave as the Constitution required to De deliv-
cred up, because the master had not the power of
life and death over him, under the Roman law,
which authorized the master 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 sense alone that is that two differ
ent interpretations could not be given to it.; and,
therefore if the laws of domestic seryitude in South
Carolina differed from those in Virginia, the word
slavery might be applied to 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 description for word
They said persons held to service or labor under
the laws of any Staten 1t embraced every kind of
servitude 1t compartments the servants of Virginia.
of North Carolina, of South Carolina, of Georgia,
and of all the States. 1t excluded all cavi and all
doubt. But they were guilty of no such miserable
hypocrisy as that sometimes attributed to them
that they were unwilling to introduce into the Con-
stitutIon any phrase which might imply that there
could be property in man.
To insist that they persons, as well proper
ty is to take the highest position which the South
can rest her claims To say that they are property,
and nothing but property is true in any of
the word 1t is not true in physics; it is not true
In morals; 1t Is not true IN religion; Is not true in
politics A slave is a man. He is a responsible
man; responsible to our laws, responsible to God.
He is person; person held to service; and it is
because he person that the position of the South
before this Congress and in the Constitution is i'm
pregnable. / say it is because he is person that
gentlemen of the Republican party are forbidden to
pass law prohibiting his emigration INTO the Ter
ritories. As mere property you might set up a
plausible claim to exclude him. Ay mere proper
ty there would be a color of argument in favor OF
his exclusion; but as person. person held TO SER
vice, man holding personal relation to another,
a member of the household, part of the family,
you have no more right to exclude him from the
privilege of going into the Territories with his
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 hus
band 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 laws which are local. and do not
extend beyond the limits of the States where 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 a
wife bound to her husband under the laws of any
State and that husband cannot carry wife occu-
plying that relation with him into the Territories
because the law uLder which that relation was es-
tablished recognized does not extend beyond the
territory of the State in which it was enacted.
And permit me. sir, to say that, if they were
property, and nothing but property they would not
be represented in Congress for there is no descrp
ton of property represented in Congress proper
ty-neither lands, nor money, nor stocks, nor any
other kind ofproperty. If they were property, and
nothing but property, then deprive ourselves of
the right Of representation of three-ffths of their
whole number, except upon the condition that an
equal representation be given to property of an
equal value in the other States of the Union.