Thread by @PubliusBooks

In 1860 an anti-Constitution abolitionist argued—
“On the 27th of September, Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney, two delegates from the State of South Carolina, moved that the Constitution should require that fugitive slaves and servants...”
1

“...should be delivered up like criminals, and after a discussion on the subject, the clause, as it stands in the Constitution, was adopted.”
2

But #FrederickDouglass said that the lecturer misrepresented the facts behind that clause in the Constitution. FD said—
“These illustrious kidnappers were told promptly in that discussion that no such idea as property in man should be admitted into the Constitution....”
3

“...[The lecturer] might have told you that the same Mr. Madison declared that the word was struck out because the convention would not consent that the idea of property in men should be admitted into the Constitution.”
4

Indeed, it is recorded that in the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (Aug. 25) when discussing import duties, #JamesMadison carefully ensured that slaves were not to be considered “property” but rather “persons.”
5

It says, “Mr. MADISON thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed, &c.”
6
#JamesMadison

“It was finally agreed...to make the clause read: ‘but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person’; and then the second part, as amended, was agreed to.”
7

With confidence #FrederickDouglass could say, “I only ask you to look at the American Constitution in the light of them, and you will see with me that no man is guaranteed a right of property in man, under the provisions of that instrument.”
8