increasing in numbers. In that day, it looked as if this
speculative importation of laborers from Europe was to form a
material part of the domestic policy of the Northern States. Now
the negro is a human being, as well as an apprentice or a
redemptioner, though the Constitution does not consider him as
the equal of either. It is a great mistake to suppose that the
Constitution of the United States, as it now exists, recognizes
slavery in any manner whatever, unless it be to mark it as an
interest that has less than the common claim to the ordinary
rights of humanity. In the apportionment, or representation
clause, the redemptioner and the apprentice counts each as a man,
whereas five slaves are enumerated as only three free men. The
free black is counted as a man, in all particulars, and is
represented as such, but his fellow in slavery has only three
fifths of his political value.

This is the celebrated clause in which the Constitution is said
to recognize slavery. To our view the clause is perfectly
immaterial in this sense, making the simple provision that so
long as a State shall choose to keep a portion of her people in
this subordinate condition, she shall enjoy only this limited
degree of representation. To us, it appears to be a concession
made to freedom, and not to slavery. There is no obligation,
unless self-imposed, to admit any but a minority of her whites to
the enjoyment of political power, aristocracy being, in truth,
more closely assimilated to republicanism than democracy.
Republicanism means the sovereignty of public THINGS instead of
that of PERSONS; or the representation of the COMMON interests,
in lieu of those of a monarch. There is no common principle of
popular sway recognized in the Constitution. In the government of