me identical Elbridge Gerry was in the Congress of 1793, and
VOTED FOR the Fugitive Slave Law then passed!

It fares no better with the historical argument to prove the opinion or
intention of Roger Sherman. He had declared, it is true, that he was
opposed to any clause in the Constitution "acknowledging men to be
property." But we should not, with Mr. Sumner, infer from this that he
never intended that Congress should possess a power to legislate in
reference to slavery. For, unfortunately for such a conclusion, however
confidently it may be drawn, or however dogmatically asserted, Roger
Sherman himself was in the Senate of 1793, and was actually on the
committee which reported the Fugitive Slave Law of that session! Thus,
although the premiss of Mr. Sumner's argument is a historical fact, yet
its conclusion comes directly into conflict with another historical
fact!

We cannot, in the same way, refute the argument from the language of
Gouverneur Morris, who said "that he never would concur in upholding
domestic slavery," because he was not in the Congress of 1793. But
Robert Morris was there, and, although he helped to frame the
Constitution in 1787, he uttered not a syllable against the
constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law. Indeed, this law passed the
Senate by resolution simply, _the yeas and nays not having been called
for_!

The words of Mr. Madison, who "thought it wrong to admit in the
Constitution the idea that there could be property in man," are four or
five times quoted in Mr. Sumner's speech. As we have already seen,[213]
there cannot be, in the strict sense of the terms, "property in man;"
for the soul is the man, and no one, except God, can own the soul. Hence
Mr. Madison acted wisely, we think, in wishing to exclude such an
expression from the Constitution, inasmuch as it would have been
misunderstood by Northern men, and only shocked their feelings without
answering any good purpose.

When we say that slaves are property, we merely mean that their masters
have a right to their service or labor. This idea is recognized in the
Constitution, and _this right is secured_. We ask no more. As Mr.
Madison, and the whole South, had the _thing_, he did not care to
wrangle about the _name_. We are told, again and again, that the word
_slave_ does not appear in the Constitution. Be it so. We care not,
since our slaves are there recognized as "persons held to service" by
those to whom "such service is due