the other States,
was contained in the Articles of Confederation. But there is a
difference of language, which is worthy of note. The provision in the
Articles of Confederation was, "that the _free inhabitants_ of each of
the States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice, excepted,
should be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of free
citizens in the several States."
It will be observed, that under this Confederation, each State had the
right to decide for itself, and in its own tribunals, whom it would
acknowledge as a free inhabitant of another State. The term _free
inhabitant_, in the generality of its terms, would certainly include
one of the African race who had been manumitted. But no example, we
think, can be found of his admission to all the privileges of
citizenship in any State of the Union after these Articles were
formed, and while they continued in force. And, notwithstanding the
generality of the words "free inhabitants," it is very clear that,
according to their accepted meaning in that day, they did not include
the African race, whether free or not: for the fifth section of the
ninth article provides that Congress should have the power "to agree
upon the number of land forces to be raised, and to make requisitions
from each State for its quota in proportion to the number of _white_
inhabitants in such State, which requisition should be binding."
Words could hardly have been used which more strongly mark the line of
distinction between the citizen and the subject; the free and the
subjugated races. The latter were not even counted when the
inhabitants of a State were to be embodied in proportion to its
numbers for the general defence. And it cannot for a moment be
supposed, that a class of persons thus separated and rejected from
those who formed the sovereignty of the States, were yet intended to
be included under the words "free inhabitants," in the preceding
article, to whom privileges and immunities were so carefully secured
in every State.
But although this clause of the Articles of Confederation is the same
in principle with that inserted in the Constitution, yet the
comprehensive word _inhabitant_, which might be construed to include
an emancipated slave, is omitted; and the privilege is confined to
_citizens_ of the State. And this alteration in words would hardly
have been made, unless a different meaning was intended to be
conveyed, or a possible doubt removed. The just
|