Brutus Attacks!

No, it’s not the Ideas of March to which I refer, but rather, an individual writing under the nom de plume, Brutus, in opposition to the three-fifths clause in the Constitution. Clearly people were not in agreement on having this clause inserted in the document.

When I have my kids read this, the idea is to foster a discussion about the contentions over the Constitution as it related to slavery - in essence, to determine wether or not the document recognizes property in man. I started this conversation off as a way to tap into alternatives to teaching APUSH, a course that I find antiquated.

Anyway…check out this letter - date d November 15, 1787.

"In a free state," says the celebrated Montesquieu, "every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government. therefore the legislature should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives." But it has never been alleged that those who are not free agents, can, upon any rational principle, have anything to do in government, either by themselves or others. If they have no share in government, why is the number of members in the assembly, to be increased on their account? Is it because in some of the states, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice, and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty, which have been publickly avowed in the late glorious revolution? If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the states, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented--for a great share of property in some of them, consists in these animals; and they have as much control over their own actions, as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, "all other persons." By this mode of apportionment, the representatives of the different parts of the union, will be extremely unequal; in some of the southern states, the slaves are nearly equal in number to the free men; and for all these slaves, they will be entitles to a proportionate share in the legislature – this will give them an unreasonable with in the government, which can derive no addition strength, protection, nor defense from the slaves, but to the contrary. Why then should they be represented?

Note that Brutus clearly references the obvious: the so called “other persons” are slaves - it makes no difference to this individual that the clause does not specifically mention slavery. And, he goes on to say that since they are property, like a horse or an ox, then to count them at all would give an unfair advantage to slaveholding states in the legislative branch of government.

Note: he also underscores the idea that holding men in bondage stands in stark defiance of the principles of liberty. Hmmmm.

So there were people who sought to keep this sort of thing out of the Constitution…ultimately they had to settle off the compromise that only implied who these “other persons” were. But there’s still a lot here to discuss. I like to have my students debate these points - so stay tuned for some further documentation that any teacher could spend a day or more to sort out in class.

With compliments,

Keith