The peculiar private condition and relations of the people of a State to one another could not properly be enquired into by any other State.That is a subject which each State regulates for itself;and it cannot enter into the question of the influence which such State ought to possess,in the common government of all the States.It is enough that the State brings into the common stock a certain amount of wealth,resulting from the industry of her people.Whether those people be men or women,bond or free,or bound to service for a limited time only,is the exclusive concern of the State itself,and is a matter with which the other States cannot intermeddle,without impertinence,injustice and oppression.So far,then,from limiting representation to three-fifths of the slaves,they ought all to be represented,for all contribute to the aggregate of the productive industry of the country.
And,even then,the rule would operate injuriously upon the slave-holding States;for,if the labor of a slave be as productive as that of a free man,(and in agriculture it is so),the cost of supporting him is much less.Therefore,of the same amount of food and clothing,raised by the two classes,a greater surplus will remain of that of the slave,and of course a greater amount subject to the demands of the public necessities.
The remarks of John Adams,delivered in convention,27are very forcible upon this point.According to Mr.Jefferson's report of them,he observed,"that the numbers of people are taken as an index of the wealth of the State,and not as subjects of taxation;that,as to this matter it was of no consequence by what name you called your people,whether by that of freemen or of slaves;that in some countries the laboring poor are called freemen,in others they are called slaves;but that the difference,as to the state,was imaginary only.What matters it whether a landlord,employing ten laborers on his farm,gives them annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life,or gives them those necessaries at short hand?The ten laborers add as much wealth to the State,increase its exports as much,in the one case as in the other.Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits,no greater surplus for the payment of taxes,than five hundred slaves.Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen should be taxed no more than that in which are the laborers called slaves.Suppose by an extraordinary operation of nature or of law,one-half the laborers of a State could,in the course of one night,be transformed into slaves,would the State be made poorer,or less able to pay taxes?That the condition of the laboring poor in most countries,that of the fishermen particularly of the northern States,is as abject as that of slaves.It is the number of laborers which produces the surplus for taxation,and numbers therefore,indiscriminately,are the fair index to wealth."
It is obvious that these remarks were made for very different purpose from that which I have in view.The subject then before the convention was the proper rule of taxation,and it was Mr.Adams's purpose to show that,as to that matter,slaves should be considered only as people,and,consequently,as an index of the amount of taxable wealth.The convention had not then determined that representatives and direct taxes should be regulated by the same ratio.When they did determine this,the remarks of Mr.Adams seem to me conclusive,to show that representation of all the slaves ought to have been allowed;nor do I see how those who held his opinions could possibly have voted otherwise.If slaves are people,as forming the measure of national wealth,and consequently of taxation,and if taxation and representation be placed upon the same principle,and regulated by the same ratio,then that slaves are people,in fixing the ratio of representation,is a logical sequitur which no one can possibly deny.
But it is objected that slaves are property,and for that reason,are not more entitled to representation than any other species of property.
But they are also people,and,upon analogous principles,are entitled to representation as people.It is in this character alone that the non-slaveholding States have a right to consider them,as has already been shown,and in this character alone is it just to consider them.We ought to presume that every slave occupies a place which,but for his presence,would be occupied by a free white man;and,if this were so,every one,and not three-fifths only,would be represented.But the States who hold no slaves have no right to complain that this is not the case in other States,so long as the labor of the slave contributes as much to the common stock of productive industry,as the labor of the white man.It is enough that a State possesses a certain number of people,of living,rational beings.We are not to enquire whether they be black or white,nor tawny,nor what are their peculiar relations among one another.If the slave of the South be property,of what nature is that property,and what kind of interest has the owner in it?He has a right to the profits of the slave's labor.And so,the master of an indented apprentice has a right to the profits of his labor.It is true,one holds the right for the life of the slave,and the other only for a time limited in the apprentice's indentures;but this is a difference only in the extent,and not in the nature of the interest.It is also true,that the owner of a slave has,in most States,a right to sell him;but this is only because the laws of the State authorize him to do so.And,in like manner,the indentures of an apprentice may be transferred if the laws of the State will allow it.In all these respects,therefore,the slave and the indentured apprentice stand upon precisely the same principle.To a certain extent,they are both property,and neither of them can be regarded as a free man;
