New York | Page 8

do not
believe that the merchant is one tittle more mercenary than the
husbandman in his motives, while he is certainly much more liberal of
his gains. One deals in thousands, the other in tens and twenties. It is
seldom, however, that a failing market, or a sterile season, drives the
owner of the plough to desperation, and his principles, if he have any,
may be preserved; while the losses or risks of an investment involving
more than the merchant really owns, suspend him for a time on the

tenter-hooks of commercial doubt. The man thus placed must have
more than a common share of integrity, to reason right when interest
tempts him to do wrong.
Notwithstanding the generally fallacious character of the governing
motive of all commercial communities, there is much to mitigate its
selfishness. The habit of regarding the entire country and its interests
with a friendly eye, and of associating themselves with its fortunes,
liberalizes its mind and wishes, and confers a catholic spirit that the
capital of a mere province does not possess. Boston, for instance, is
leagued with Lowell, and Lawrence, and Cambridge, and seldom acts
collectively without betraying its provincial mood; while New York
receives her goods and her boasted learning by large tran{s}shipments,
without any special consciousness of the transactions. This habit of
generalizing in interests encourages the catholic spirit mentioned, and
will account for the nationality of the great mart of a great and much
extended country. The feeling would be apt to endure through many
changes, and keep alive the connection of commerce even after that of
the political relations may have ceased. New York, at this moment,
contributes her full share to the prosperity of London, though she owes
no allegiance to St. James.
The American Union, however, has much more adhesiveness than is
commonly imagined. The diversity and complexity of its interests form
a network that will be found, like the web of the spider, to possess a
power of resistance far exceeding its gossamer appearance--one strong
enough to hold all that it was ever intended to inclose. The slave
interest is now making its final effort for supremacy, and men are
deceived by the throes of a departing power. The institution of
domestic slavery cannot last. It is opposed to the spirit of the age; and
the figments of Mr. Calhoun, in affirming that the Territories belong to
the States, instead of the Government of the United States; and the
celebrated doctrine of the equilibrium, for which we look in vain into
the Constitution for a single sound argument to sustain it, are merely
the expiring efforts of a reasoning that cannot resist the common sense
of the nation. As it is healthful to exhaust all such questions, let us turn
aside a moment, to give a passing glance at this very material subject.

{Calhoun = Senator John C. Calhoun (1782-1850} of South Carolina}
At the time when the Constitution was adopted, three classes of persons
were "held to service" in the country--apprentices, redemptioners, and
slaves. The two first classes were by no means insignificant in 1789,
and the redemptioners were rapidly 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