Difficulties of Representative Apportionment

from it a portion of its political power and transfer it to the north and to the west. What was the policy of depriving New Orleans of her just share in representation and giving to the northwestern part of the State a representation to which it was not entitled?

The city of New Orleans and the northwestern part of the State were two regions in which population was most rapidly increasing, and the increase was not of the same kind. This must produce confusion in the administration of government. There was yet another difficulty: if the white basis alone was adopted, some of the parishes would be disfranchised because they did not possess a white population equal to the ratio required. These very parishes had always enjoyed representation, and it was unjust, as well as inexpedient, to take that away from them. To apportion a Representative to a parish not by population entitled to one was practically to introduce the rotten-borough system of England.

In apportioning representation in Louisiana there arose the same difficulty which characterizes every new country while yet its population is migratory and some portions of its inhabitants are increasing much more rapidly than others. These uncontrollable elements provoke antagonisms between city interests and country interests, and have compelled many artificial arrangements by which it has been sought to equalize representation. So, in 1845, Louisiana attempted to equalize it, and the difficulty was aggravated not only by the so

cial changes rapidly going on in various parts of the State, by the coming and going of many people, but partly by the essential antagonism between free labor in cities and slave labor in the country. No city population in America has ever been essentially a population of slave-holders. In a city, slaves could perform only domestic service. They were incapable of working in shops or factories. As soon as a slave became an expert workman he was well on his road towards freedom. It has often been said that slavery was abolished by the emancipation proclamation and the thirteenth amendment; but it must be remembered that these were written by the industrial interests of the American people. Free labor abolished slavery in the United States. When Louisiana, in 1845, was attempting to apportion its representation, it was attempting the solution of an insoluble problem, for representation cannot be apportioned between slave-holding and non-slave-holding communities. They have no common unit of measure. It was claimed at this time in Louisiana that the productive labor of the South was its slave labor; that it afforded a permanent and certain basis of representation, and that in view of the political position of the State such a basis was recommended by good policy. In other words, to refuse to apportion representation according to the white population and three-fifths of the slaves was to repudiate African slavery. Was it better for Louisiana to concentrate political power in its cities or to adopt a basis of representation in har

The Basis of Representation in Louisiana

mony with the political doctrines generated necessarily in a slave-holding community?

Thus, it was said at this time that there were but three modes of apportioning representation applicable to the State-according to population, according to taxation, and according to the number of qualified electors. From its peculiar position the State was precluded from adopting the basis of population, because in that population was a class of beings who were held as property, and another class, free persons of color, who, though possessing personal freedom, did not exercise any political rights. The basis of taxation was liable to many objections. Slavery obliged the State to adopt various measures for the purpose of making secure that species of property and of keeping it in a proper state of subordination. The militia system and the police patrols of the State were very burdensome on this white population; and, therefore, the principal weight of taxation had been thrown on slave property. The Constitution of the United States provided that to the whole number of free persons there should be added three-fifths of all others. By adopting such a basis the principle of taxation would enter into the apportionment, for the only manner in which slaves could have any possible connection with the political system of the State was in their character as property, which made them subjects of taxation. Free persons of color could not be made a part of the representative number, nor could unnaturalized foreigners, nor citizens of other States who happened

to be in the commonwealth. Nearly all the free persons of color, the foreigners, and the citizens of other States were congregated in New Orleans. Of the twenty-three thousand free colored persons in the State, nearly twenty thousand were inhabitants of New Orleans.

If taxation on slaves alone was made the basis, it would operate unequally, not only on city and country, but on different portions of the country. The number of slaves was not equal in the different parishes. Where slaves predominated, representation would be greater in proportion than where whites predominated. The result in either case would be unjust. Sooner or later there would be a conflict between city and country. If it were true that slaves were diminishing in the city, the same causes that contributed to that result would continue to operate, and the inhabitants of the cities, not slow to perceive that they were losing political power in the ratio of the decrease of slaves among them, and in consequence of their increase in other portions of the State, would soon be maintaining that the basis of representation in the State was not white men, but slaves. This would not only cause antagonism between city and country, but would create antagonism towards slave property, as being used to deprive the cities of their just political power.

From this antagonism would arise hatred to slavery itself, and the citizens of New Orleans would ultimately be united as one man against the institution. Such a condition of affairs in

Claiming the Suffrage for the Toiling Masses

Louisiana would practically be the transfer of the cry of Abolition from the North to Louisiana itself. It was necessary, therefore, for the general welfare of the State, that such an antagonism should not be permitted to arise. This interpretation of the discriminating effect on New Orleans of the adoption of the federal basis was, however, denied.

Would it deprive New Orleans of a portion of her political power? By its adoption there would be included in the basis a numerous class found in the city, and found in the country in smaller numbers-the laboring class of the white population. These white laborers were the counterparts of the country slaves, and the parallel was drawn "without intending to disparage the poorer classes that work in the city from day to day as laborers," and for whom some members of the convention boasted to have been steadfast in claiming the political and important right of suffrage. Admitting that greater relative political power was to be conceded to the proprietors of slaves than to those who did not possess that kind of property, some members of the convention were at a loss to know how this would tend to introduce Abolition into New Orleans, "and make the city a hot-bed of that abominable doctrine." If there was any danger of its prevalence, the country should look to itself for its own protection. The country should never be made dependent for safety on the city. In spite of the theories and declamations of many, the federal basis was the bulwark against Abolition