by
their journal to have been adopted by a unanimous vote of the
convention. At that time the existence of involuntary servitude, or the
relation of master and servant, was known to and recognized by the laws
of every State in the Union except Massachusetts, and _the legal right
of recaption by the master existed in all_, AS A PART OF THE CUSTOMARY
OR COMMON LAW OF THE WHOLE CONFEDERACY." Hence, instead of shocking the
convention, a clause recognizing such right would have been merely
declaratory of the "customary or common law," which then universally
prevailed. The "history of the times" confirms this view, and furnishes
no evidence against it.

Mr. Sumner tries to make a different impression. He lays great stress on
the fact that it was not until late in the convention that the first
clause relative to the surrender of fugitive slaves was introduced. But
this fact agrees more perfectly with our view than with his. There was
no haste about the introduction of such a provision, because it was well
known that, whenever it should be introduced, it would pass in the
affirmative without difficulty. And, in fact, when it was introduced, it
"WAS UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED." This single fact speaks volumes.

Let us now attend, for a moment, to Mr. Sumner's historical proofs. He
quotes the following passage from the Madison Papers:--"Gen. (Charles
Cotesworth) Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some
provision should be included in favor of property in slaves." "But," by
way of comment, Mr. Sumner adds, "he made no proposition. Unwilling to
shock the convention, and uncertain in his own mind, he only _seemed_
to wish such a provision." Now, a bare abstract proposition to recognize
property in men is one thing, and a clause to secure the return of
fugitive slaves is quite another. The first, it is probable, would have
been rejected by the convention; the last was actually and unanimously
adopted by it.

Mr. Sumner's next proof is decidedly against him. Here it is "Mr. Butler
and Mr. Charles Pinckney, both from South Carolina, now moved openly to
require 'fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like
criminals.' . . . . . . Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, at once objected:
'This would oblige the executive of the State to do it at the public
expense.' Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, saw no more propriety in the
public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant than a horse! Under
the pressure of these objections t