Here are no less than five sections of the constitution, which recognize, and give protection to, slavery. Approved by ALL the states.
"Slavery is a matter over which the non-slaveholding States have no control, and with which they have, legally, nothing to do, except to obey the laws and respect the constitutional rights of the
States. Those rights exist, not merely under the constitution, but over it. They existed hefore the Union was formed; and, in the Articles of Confederation, no iota of those rights was relinquished. The constitution was sanctioned bythenz, rather than they by the constitution. Had not that instrument admitted the sovereignty of those rights, the Union would never have been formed.
The act of Union bowed in deference to rights, older in their date than any of which the constitution of the confederacy can boast.
These original and unrelinquished rights are out of the lawful reach of the Federal Government. Its office and sworn duty is to protect them—not to attempt to change them.
If the confederacy should crumble to pieces, if the constitution were to pass away, those rights would remain un- shaken—would exist while those States exist—whatever should become of the confederacy. Instead of losing any of their high sovereign power, on the subject referred to, that power was expressly reserved, both in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the
United States; and the non-slaveholding States not only admitted and sanctioned it, but bound themselves to return fugitive slaves to the South. On this question of slavery, those States are just what they were before they entered into the Union—sovereigh and independent....
...If the Northern States violate these rights, or permit their citizens to do so, they not only break the compact, but make it the duty of the injured States to defend themselves, as a free people should, from a violation of their sovereignty.
We of the North entered into the Union with our eyes open. We knew that the compact was subject to this reservation. We pledged ourselves to observe it.
Everything sacred to us as patriots, as Americans, and as men, stands pledged for our honorable adherence to the faith then plighted.
Not only by our solemn compact, but by the laws which govern the conduct of all civilized nations, are we bound, at once and forever, to cease all warfare upon the slave institutions of the Southern States."
Gov. Horatio Seymour, New York, July 1863
_______________________________
Debates in Congress over the Constitution
[Article I., section 2]
Friday, March 28 [1787].
The committee last mentioned reported that two blacks be rated as one freeman.
Mr. WOLCOTT was for rating them as four to three.
Mr. CARROLL as four to one.
Mr. WILLIAMSON said, he was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an encumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes.
Mr. HIGGINSON as four to three.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would be a juster proportion.
Mr. HOLTEN as four to three.
Mr. OSGOOD said, he did not go beyond four to three.
On a question for rating them as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, ay; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.
The paragraph was then postponed, by general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it, but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would he agreed to.
After some further discussions on the report, in which the necessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into view, Mr. MADISON said that, in order to give a proof of the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON said, he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.
Mr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that two slaves were not equal to one freeman.
On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay.
A motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question, "Shall it stand?" it passed in the negative; New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, no; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, no: so the clause was struck out.
The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the states having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility of the others, ought to have great weight in the case; and that the exports of the former states were greater than of the latter. On the other side, it was said that slaves were not put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports of the states having slaves exceeded those of the others, their imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in agriculture, not manufactures;
------------------------
[Article I., section 9]
committee of eleven, entered on the Journal of the 24th instant, as follows: to strike out the words "the year eighteen hundred," and to insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight;" which passed in the affirmative.
Yeas: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 7. Nays: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, 4.
It was moved and seconded to amend the 1st clause of the report, to read,--
"The importation of slaves into such of the states as shall permit the same shall not be prohibited by the legislature of the United States until the year 1808;"
which passed in the negative.
Yeas: Connecticut, Virginia, Georgia, 3. Nays: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, 6. Divided: Maryland, 1.
On the question to agree to the 1st part of the report as amended, namely,--
"The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the legislature prior to the year 1808,"--
it passed in the affirmative.
Yeas: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, 7. Nays: New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, 4.
It was moved and seconded to strike out the words "average of the duties laid on imports," and to insert the words "common impost on articles not enumerated;" which passed in the affirmative.
It was moved and seconded to amend the 2d clause of the report, to read, "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person;" which passed in the affirmative.
-----------------------
[Article IV., section 2]
Wednesday, August 29, 1787.
It was moved and seconded to agree to the following proposition, to be inserted after the 15th article:--
"If any person, bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another state, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the state to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor;"
which passed unanimously in the affirmative. Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, ALL Yays.
_________________________________
David Upton