ground their assertion that the Constitution guaranteed slavery, it may be well to dwell upon it, and consider it in its various relations. We have examined the secret proceedings of the convention which prepared the Constitution, but we cannot find in them any thing said at the time on which to make up a judgment of the intent and meaning of this clause, and consequently our remarks here will be drawn from what appears on its face. To one unacquainted with all the circumstances of the case, the language would undoubtedly be unmeaning. They would not know what was meant by the "three fifths of all other persons." They here find that taxes and representation were to be apportioned by reckoning together all free persons, and those bound to service, and three fifths of all other persons, excluding Indians not taxed. Now the term free persons might have relation, and be used in opposition, to those bound to service, or to paupers, as well as other individuals; and, unless we knew there were slaves in this country, we could not suppose, from what had before been said, it could be possible there were any; and undoubtedly our fathers were ashamed to use the term slave, as applied to the condition of any people then under their jurisdiction. They therefore avoided it; and it would seem as if some one had worded this phrase in such a manner that it would not require an alteration of the Constitution for the purpose of having representatives chosen, or taxes collected, provided the system of slavery should be done away, and were careful to have it so

worded as to exclude the idea, as much as possible, that they had any thing to do with it; and although it has been asserted that, because the Constitution recognized the system so far as to base taxation and representation upon it, (for it is maintained, and without doubt it is the case, the three fifths of all other persons meant slaves,) consequently slavery is guaranteed, does this necessarily follow? We think not. It only says, while there are any other persons in the community besides free persons, and those bound to service for a term of years, five of all others should be considered but equal to three; but if there were no such other persons, there could be none to be so reckoned, and consequently every man would be considered as a man, enjoying all the privileges of a freeman; so that the construction of the sentence evidently looked to the time when there should be no such other persons. But, even taking it as looking to the perpetual continuance of slavery, and that taxes and representation were to be apportioned accordingly, and our fathers made the bargain with their eyes open, and that for these considerations, as has been alleged, they agreed to this section, because slaves should be taxed in proportion to their representation, and that, for this reason, we have guaranteed the preservation of this property, we maintain that, as the consideration has been taken away, the corresponding obligation is also taken away. It was then expected that this government in a great measure would be supported by direct taxes, and conse

quently the advantage given the South in the superior number of representatives in proportion to the free inhabitants would be balanced by the greater amount of taxes they would have to pay in proportion to their representation; and, if they did make such a bargain, though in morals it could not or should not stand, yet perhaps it may be said it should continue to be binding upon all future generations. But we ask what is now the case? and what brought about a different arrangement? and why are there at this present day no direct taxes for the support of government? We say, because the South, finding she had made a bad pecuniary bargain, took advantage of the reluctance which most men, and particularly the poor man, had of paying away money in a direct manner for the use of the powers that he, joined in with this reluctance, and used her persuasion to induce a majority of congress to raise their taxes by indirect means, upon the imports of the country; and, although it was done with much opposition of the North, yet the South, appealing to this popular prejudice, as well as advancing the idea, and agreeing with the northern mechanic, that such a course would help manufactures, succeeded in gaining her object thereby, as undoubtedly she well understood, threw most of the burden of the government on the North; for they could say to themselves, and without doubt did, "As our slaves do not use much, if any, foreign goods, we shall have but little or no duty to pay for what they consume, while we shall have sixty-one votes for every hun

dred of our slaves, to elect members to congress. Saving what foreign goods we and our immediate families may consume, we can arrange it so that the coarse clothing that will answer for our slaves can be manufactured in this country, or else have it free of duty, and, by this operation, save ourselves from the onerous necessity of paying taxes, and throw them all off on our northern friends." This, whether they reasoned so or not, they effectually have done. The North then, being driven into the measure against her wish, or at least against the wish of those who made the bargain, and it being said, and at last finding manufactures might be made profitable, if they could have the home trade, and that there was a prospect, if it could be secured to her, she would be able to maintain herself against foreign capital, consented, and a tariff was made, when it was thought by the South it might also be a benefit to her. But, after a series of years, when it was ascertained that the "peculiar institution" there was not congenial to such labor, then threats, bravadoes, and all the arts and contrivances of which their fertile geniuses were capable of devising, were put in requisition to reduce the duties on all goods to such an amount as would just enable the government to get along without affording any protection to manufactures, or having that at all in view. Now, although there may be no objection to having things as they now exist, yet we do say all the consideration for which the North guaranteed slavery to the South (though we do

not admit she ever did) has been forcibly taken from her, and she is no longer under any obligation to fulfil her part of the contract. The value received is gone, and taken, too, without her consent; and therefore she is under no further obligation for any guaranty that may be said to have been given for the continuance of so foul a system, admitting, also, (which is not admitted,) she had a right to make such a compact, or guaranty. But, so far as has been made public, there is no evidence any such was given, or ought, or could have been given. And, besides, we think it would be a very pertinent question to ask, did the colored man agree to be considered but three fifths of a man? did he acknowledge the right of the delegates, assembled to form the Constitution, to legislate for him? or, if he did, did he suppose that those delegates were to take away all his rights? and has he ever yet acknowledged the justice of those proceedings? It can safely be answered, no; not until he has a right to vote, and be heard on the floor of congress, can it be said he has agreed to his debasement.

Neither can the American congress ever usurp the right without involving itself in the most palpable guilt. They therefore did not, they could not admit, and they would have been ashamed to have expressed openly, if they could have admitted, there was a person in the land from whom they were taking away the right of being fully heard before those who were exercising the right of taxing him. Here, however, the influ