would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia, Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel through the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave the Eastern States, and enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible. Passing through the Jerseys and entering Pennsylvania, every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed southwardly, and every step you take, through the great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens, and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this, that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections, and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. He would add, that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed compensation to the Northern States, for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the Southern States, for their defence against those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels and seamen, in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports; both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side, the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of defence; nay, they are to be encouraged to it, by an assurance of having their votes in the National Government increased in proportion; and are, at the same time, to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said, that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the General Government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people, scattered over so vast a country. They can only do it through the medium of exports, imports and excises. For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the United States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.
Mr. DAYTON seconded the motion. He did it, he said, that his sentiments on the subject might appear, whatever might be the fate of the amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in the estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the matter.
Mr. PINCKNEY considered the fisheries, and the western frontier, as more burdensome to the United States than the slaves. He thought this could be demonstrated, if the occasion were a proper one.
Mr. WILSON thought the motion premature. An agreement to the clause would be no bar to the object of it.
On the question, on the motion to insert “free” before “inhabitants,” New-Jersey, aye–1; New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no–10.–pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6.
THURSDAY, August 16, 1787.
Mr. MASON urged the necessity of connecting with the powers of levying taxes, duties, &c., the prohibition in Article 6, Sect. 4, “that no tax should be laid on exports.”
He hoped the Northern States did not mean to deny the Southern this security.
MR. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS considered such a proviso as inadmissible anywhere.
MR. MADISON. Fourthly, the Southern States, being most in danger and most needing naval protection, could the less complain, if the burthen should be somewhat heaviest on them. And finally, we are not providing for the present moment only; and time will equalize the situation of the States in this matter. He was, for these reasons, against the motion.
MR. MERCER. It had been said the Southern States had most need of naval protection. The reverse was the case. Were it not for promoting the carrying trade of the Northern States, the Southern States could let the trade go into foreign bottoms, where it would not need our protection.–pp. 1339-40-41-42.
TUESDAY, August 21, 1787.
Articles 7, Section 3, was then resumed.
MR. DICKINSON moved to postpone this, in order to reconsider Article 4, Section 4, and to _limit_ the number of Representatives to be allowed to the large States. Unless this were done, the small States would be reduced to entire insignificance, and encouragement given to the importation of slaves.
MR. SHERMAN would agree to such a reconsideration; but did not see the necessity of postponing the section before the House. MR. DICKINSON withdrew his motion.
Article 7, Section 3, was then agreed to,–ten ayes; Delaware alone, no.–p. 1379.
Article 7, Section 4, was then taken up.
MR. LANGDON. By this section the States are left at liberty to tax exports. This could not be admitted. It seems to be feared that the Northern States will oppress the trade of the Southern. This may be guarded against, by requiring the concurrence of two-thirds, or three-fourths of the Legislature, in such cases.–p. 1382-3.
MR. MADISON. As to the fear of disproportionate burthens on the more exporting States, it might be remarked that it was agreed, on all hands, that the revenue would principally be drawn from trade.–p. 1385.
COL. MASON–A majority, when interested, will oppress the minority.
If we compare the States in this point of view, the eight Northern States have an interest different from the five Southern States; and have, in one branch of the Legislature, thirty-six votes, against twenty-nine, and in the other in the proportion of eight against five. The Southern States had therefore ground for their suspicions. The case of exports was not the same with that of imports.–pp. 1386-7.
MR. L. MARTIN proposed to vary Article 7, Section 4, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen, in the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And in the third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature in the Constitution.
Mr. RUTLEDGE did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections, and would readily exempt the other States from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.
Mr. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interest. The Old Confederation had not meddled with this point; and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.
Mr. PINCKNEY. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done. Adjourned.–_pp_. 1388-9.
WEDNESDAY, August 22, 1787.
_In Convention_,–Article 7, Section 4, was resumed.
Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatching its business.
Col. MASON. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing States alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to the commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants and slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view, that the General Government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.
Mr. ELLSWORTH, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the effects of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those already in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no further than is urged, we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery, in time, will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.
Mr. PINCKNEY. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other ancient States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves stop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will produce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see adopted.
Gen. PINCKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has more than she wants. It would be unequal, to require South Carolina and Georgia, to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent, before the Revolution, had never been refused to South Carolina, as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ the carrying trade; the more consumption also; and the more of this, the more revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports; but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union.
Mr. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention; not such as, like the present, were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States, who wished to have a vortex for everything; that her distance would preclude her, from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood, in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of —-; which he said was a respectable class of people, who carried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of men_, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.
Mr. WILSON observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands, all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article.
Mr. GERRY thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.
Mr. DICKINSON considered it as inadmissible, on every principle of honor and safety, that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the States by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation; and this question ought to be left to the National Government, not to the States particularly interested. If England and France permit slavery, slaves are, at the same time, excluded from both those kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the General Government.
Mr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of L5 on each slave imported from Africa; L10 on each from elsewhere; and L50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the clause should be rejected; and that it was wrong to force any thing down not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.
Mr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution, as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief, on the other, that great and equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.
Mr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the General Government. He could not, with a good conscience, leave it with the States, who could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease to import slaves.
Gen. PINCKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves, in any short time; but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports; which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty that had been started.
Mr. RUTLEDGE. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools, as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section, and seconded the motion of Gen. PINCKNEY for a commitment.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports and to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern States.
MR. BUTLER declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing exports.
Mr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the Southern States import slaves, than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, because it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General Government, that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.
Mr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.
Mr. SHERMAN observed that that clause had been agreed to, and therefore could not be committed.
Mr. Randolph was for committing, in order that some middle ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment.
On the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5, of Article 7,–Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye–7; New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no–3; Massachusetts absent.
Mr. Pinckney and Mr. Langdon moved to commit Section 6, as to a navigation act by two-thirds of each House.
Mr. Gorham did not see the propriety of it. Is it meant to require a greater proportion of votes? He desired it to be remembered, that the Eastern States had no motive to union but a commercial one. They were able to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger, and did not need the aid of the Southern States.
Mr. Wilson wished for a commitment, in order to reduce the proportion of votes required.
Mr. Ellsworth was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of opinions had a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this middle and moderate ground, he was afraid we should lose two States, with such others as may be disposed to stand aloof; should fly into a variety of shapes and directions, and most probably into several confederations,–and not without bloodshed.
On the question for committing Section 6, as to a navigation act, to a member from each State,–New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye–9; Connecticut, New Jersey, no–2.
The Committee appointed were Messrs. Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin, Madison, Williamson, C.C. Pinckney, and Baldwin.
To this Committee were referred also the two clauses above mentioned of the fourth and fifth Sections of Article 7.–pp. 1390 to 1397.
Friday, August 24, 1787
_In Convention_,–Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section, and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in the following Report:
“Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to the Committee, and insert, ‘The migration or importation of such persons as the several States, now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports.
“The fifth Section to remain as in the Report. The sixth Section to be stricken out.”–p. 1415.
SATURDAY, August 25, 1787.
The Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth), being taken up,–
Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words, “the year eighteen hundred,” as the year limiting the importation of slaves; and to insert the words, “the year eighteen hundred and eight.”
Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion.
Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.
On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,–New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye–7; New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no–4.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, “the importation of slaves in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited, &c.” This he said, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however, should be objected to, by the members from those States, he should not urge it.
Col. MASON was not against using the term “slaves,” but against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.
Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some people.
Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. SHERMAN.
Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that both in opinion and practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.
Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and for that purpose moved to amend the clause, so as to read: “The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the United States, until the year 1808;” which was disagreed to, _nem. con_.[4]
[Footnote 4: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and Georgia, voted in the affirmative.]
The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows: “The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808,”–
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye–7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no–4.
Mr. BALDWIN, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, “the average duty,” moved to strike out of the second part the words, “average of the duties laid on imports,” and insert “common impost on articles not enumerated;” which was agreed to, _nem. con_.
Mr. SHERMAN was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.
Mr. KING and Mr. LANGDON considered this as the price of the first part. Gen. PINCKNEY admitted that it was so. Col. MASON. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on, the importation of slaves.
Mr. GORHAM thought that Mr. SHERMAN should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.
Mr. SHERMAN, in answer to Mr. GORHAM, observed, that the smallness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.
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 merchandize consumed, &c.
Col. MASON, in answer to Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The provision, as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts, in order to prevent the introduction of them.
It was finally agreed, _nem. con_., 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.–_pp_. 1427 to 30.
TUESDAY, August 28, 1787.
Article 14, was then taken up.[5]
[Footnote 5: Article 14 was,–The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.–EDITOR.]
General PINCKNEY was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.
On the question on Article 14,–New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye–9; South Carolina, no–1; Georgia, divided.
Article 15,[6] being then taken up, the words, “high misdemeanor,” were struck out, and the words, “other crime,” inserted, in order to comprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether “high misdemeanor” had not a technical meaning too limited.
[Footnote 6: Article 15 was,–Any person charged with treason, felony or high misdemeanor in any State, who shall flee from justice, and shall be found in any other State, shall, on demand of the Executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of the offence.–EDITOR.]
Mr. BUTLER and Mr. PINCKNEY moved to require “fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals.”
Mr. WILSON. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at the public expense.
Mr. SHERMAN saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.
Mr. BUTLER withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made, apart from this article.
Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con_.–_pp_. 1447-8.
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 29, 1787.
Article 7, Section 6, by the Committee of Eleven reported to be struck out (see the twenty-fourth inst.) being now taken up,–
Mr. PINCKNEY moved to postpone the Report, in favor of the following proposition: “That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the Commerce of the United States with foreign powers, among the several States, shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House.” He remarked that there were five distinct commercial interests.
The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the Northern States at present.–_p_. 1450.
General PINCKNEY said it was the true interest of the Southern States to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views[7] of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents, though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to this liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.–_p_. 1451.
[Footnote 7: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two subjects of _navigation_ and _slavery_, had taken place between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote of the motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and others.]
Mr. PINCKNEY replied, that his enumeration meant the five minute interests. It still left the two great divisions of Northern and Southern interests.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed the object of the motion as highly injurious.–A navy was essential to security, particularly of the Southern States;–
Mr. WILLIAMSON. As to the weakness of the Southern States, he was not alarmed on that account. The sickliness of their climate for invaders would prevent their being made an object. He acknowledged that he did not think the motion requiring two-thirds necessary in itself; because if a majority of the Northern States should push their regulations too far, the Southern States would build ships for themselves; but he knew the Southern people were apprehensive on this subject, and would be pleased with the precaution.
Mr. SPAIGHT was against the motion. The Southern States could at any time save themselves from oppression, by building ships for their own use.–_p_. 1452.
Mr. BUTLER differed from those who considered the rejection of the motion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. He considered the interests of these and of the Eastern States to be as different as the interests of Russia and Turkey. Being, notwithstanding, desirous of conciliating the affections of the Eastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of a majority.–_p_. 1453.
Mr. MADISON. He added, that the Southern States would derive an essential advantage, in the general security afforded by the increase of our maritime strength. He stated the vulnerable situation of them all, and of Virginia in particular.
Mr. RUTLEDGE was against the motion of his colleague. At the worst, a navigation act could bear hard a little while only on the Southern States. As we are laying the foundation for a great empire, we ought to take a permanent view of the subject, and not look at the present moment only.
Mr. GORMAN. The Eastern States were not led to strengthen the Union by fear for their own safety.
He deprecated the consequences of disunion; but if it should take place, it was the Southern part of the Continent that had most reason to dread them.
On the question to postpone, in order to take up Mr. PINCKNEY’s motion,–
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye–4; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Carolina, no–7. The Report of the Committee for striking out Section 6, requiring two-thirds of each House to pass a navigation act, was then agreed to, _nem. con_.
Mr. BUTLER moved to insert after Article 15, “If any person bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, in consequence of any regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service or labor,”–which was agreed to, _nem. con_.–_p_. 1454-5-6.
THURSDAY, August 30, 1787.
Article 18, being taken up,
On a question for striking out “domestic violence,” and inserting “insurrections,” it passed in the negative,–New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye–5; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, no–6.–_pp_. 1466-7.
MONDAY, September 10, 1787.
Mr. RUTLEDGE said he never could agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves might be altered by the States not interested in that property, and prejudiced against it. In order to obviate this objection, these words were added to the proposition: “provided that no amendments, which may be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the seventh Article:”–_p_. 1536.
TUESDAY, September 13, 1787.
Article 1, Section 2. On motion of Mr. RANDOLPH, the word “servitude” was struck out, and “service” unanimously[8] inserted, the former being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the latter the obligations of free persons.
[Footnote 8: See page 372 of the printed journal.]
Mr. DICKENSON and Mr. WILSON moved to strike out, “and direct taxes,” from Article 1, Section 2, as improperly placed in a clause relating merely to the Constitution of the House of Representatives.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. The insertion here was in consequence of what had passed on this point; in order to exclude the appearance of counting the negroes in the _representation_. The including of them may now be referred to the object of direct taxes, and incidentally only to that of representation.
On the motion to strike out, “and direct taxes,” from this place,–
New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye–3; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no–8.–_pp_. 1569-70.
SATURDAY, September 15, 1787.
Article 4, Section 2, (the third paragraph,) the term “legally” was struck out; and the words, “under the laws thereof,” inserted after the word “State,” in compliance with the wish of some who thought the term _legal_ equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a moral view.–p. 1589.
Mr. GERRY stated the objections which determined him to withhold his name from the Constitution: 1-2-3-4-5-6, that three-fifths of the blacks are to be represented, as if they were freemen.–p. 1595.
LIST OF MEMBERS
OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION WHO FORMED THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
_From_ _Attended._
New Hampshire, 1 John Langdon, July 23, 1787. _John Pickering_,
2 Nicholas Gilman, ” 23. _Benjamin West_,
Massachusetts, _Francis Dana_,
Elbridge Gerry, May 29. 3 Nath’l Gorham, ” 28.
4 Rufus King, ” 25. Caleb Strong, May 28.
Rhode Island, (No appointment.)
Connecticut, 5 W.S. Johnson, June 2. 6 Roger Sherman, May 30.
Oliver Ellsworth, ” 29. New York, Robert Yates, ” 25. 7 Alex’r Hamilton, ” 25.
John Lansing, June 2. New Jersey, 8 Wm. Livingston, ” 5. 9 David Brearly, May 25.
Wm. C. Houston, May 25. 10 Wm. Patterson, do.
_John Nielson_,
_Abraham Clark_.
11 Jonathan Dayton, June 21. Pennsylvania, 12 Benj. Franklin, May 28. 13 Thos. Mifflin, do.
14 Robert Morris, May 25. 15 Geo. Clymer, ” 28.
16 Thos. Fitzsimons, ” 25. 17 Jared Ingersoll, ” 28.
18 James Wilson, ” 25. 19 Gouv’r Morris, ” 25.
Delaware, 20 Geo. Reed, ” 25. 21 G. Bedford, Jr. ” 28.
22 John Dickenson, ” 28. 23 Richard Bassett, ” 25.
24 Jacob Broom, ” 25. Maryland, 25 James M’Henry, ” 29. 26 Daniel of St. Tho.
Jenifer, June 2.
27 Daniel Carroll, July 9. John F. Mercer, Aug. 6.
Luther Martin, June 9. Virginia, 28 G. Washington, May 25. _Patrick Henry_, (declined.)
Edmund Randolph, ” 25. 29 John Blair, ” 25.
30 Jas. Madison, Jr. ” 25. George Mason, ” 25.
George Wythe, ” 25. James McClurg, (in
room of P. Henry) ” 25. 31 Wm. Blount (in room
of R. Caswell), June 20. _Willie Jones_, (declined.)
32 R.D. Spaight, May 25. 33 Hugh Williamson, (in
room of W. Jones,) May 25. South Carolina, 34 John Rutledge, ” 25. 35 Chas. C. Pinckney, ” 25.
36 Chas. Pinckney, ” 25. 37 Peirce Butler, ” 25.
Georgia, 38 William Few, May 25. 39 Abr’m Baldwin, June 11.
William Pierce, May 31. _George Walton._
Wm. Houston, June 1. _Nath’l Pendleton._
Those with numbers before their names signed the Constitution. 39 Those in italics never attended. 10 Members who attended, but did not sign the Constitution, 16 —
65
Extracts from a speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the Legislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the Convention that formed the Constitution of the United States.
With respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_ Article, which relates to the apportionment of representation and direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it, besides the great objection of inequality–It was urged, that no principle could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in apportioning the number of _representatives_ a State should have in the government–That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a State in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State violated the rights of freedom–That it might be proper to take slaves into consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned, because it had a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them into account in giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave trade_, and to make it the interest of the States to continue that _infamous traffic_–That slaves could not be taken into account as _men_, or _citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of citizens_, in the States which adopted or continued slavery–If they were to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what peculiar circumstance should render this property (of all others the most odious in its nature) entitled to the high privilege of conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors, rather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as property, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or any other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from Massachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating to enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _Southern States_, as it would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _Eastern_.
By the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word “national,” and not admit the word “stamps,” influenced them here to guard against the word “_slaves_.” They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those _things_ which the expressions signified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant to extend to the importation of slaves.
This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States–Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina, voting for it.
We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those States, that their States would never agree to a system, which put it in the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those States, must withhold their assent from such a system.
A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: “No navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each house;” a proposition which the staple and commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _Eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing to indulge the Southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave trade_, provided the Southern States would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restricted clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.
This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not without considerable opposition.
It was said, we had just assumed a place among independent nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those rights to which God and nature had entitled us, not in _particular_, but in _common_ with all the rest of mankind; that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his assistance, as the God of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the _rights_ which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its preservation,–in that government to have a provision not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and an insult to, that God whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought be considered that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction, and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master!
It was urged that by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we should except from the exercise of that power, the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the contrary, we ought rather to prohibit expressly in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves which are already in the States. That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged, that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the number of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and therefore will by so much the more want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union.
It was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the general government a power, under the idea of national character, or national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we should prohibit the government from interfering with both slave trade, than which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor and interest.
These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes part of the system.
You will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is prohibited from interfering in the slave trade before the year eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the Constitution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great reason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited afterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so great abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we warmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to be past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more insensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative acts, which may be repealed. When those States find that they must, in their national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and share in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by the sanction which is given to it in the general government.
By the next paragraph, the general government is to have a power of suspending the _habeas corpus act_, in cases of _rebellion_ or _invasion_.
As the State governments have a power of suspending the habeas corpus act in those cases, it was said, there could be no reason for giving such a power to the general government; since, whenever the State which is invaded, or in which an insurrection takes place, finds its safety requires it, it will make use of that power. And it was urged, that if we gave this power to the general government, it would be an engine of oppression in its hands; since whenever a State should oppose its views, however arbitrary and unconstitutional, and refuse submission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act of rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon the persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and resolution enough to excite the opposition, and may imprison them during its pleasure in the remotest part of the Union; so that a citizen of Georgia might be _bastiled_ in the furthest part of New Hampshire; or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme of the South, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every connexion. These considerations induced me, sir, to give my negative also to this clause.
EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE UNITED STATES’ CONSTITUTION.
* * * * *
MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION.
The third paragraph of the 2d section being read,
Mr. KING rose to explain it. There has, says he, been much misconception of this section. It is a principle of this Constitution, that representation and taxation should go hand in hand. This paragraph states, that the number of free persons shall be determined, by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. These persons are the slaves. By this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned. And it was adopted, because it was the language of all America.
Mr. WIDGERY asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered as a free person?
Mr. KING in answer said, all persons born free were to be considered as freemen; and to make the idea of _taxation by numbers_ more intelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina, are to pay as much tax as the three Governors of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.
Mr. GORHAM thought the proposed section much in favor of Massachusetts; and if it operated against any State, it was Pennsylvania, because they have more white persons _bound_ than any other.
Judge DANA, in reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the southern States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having five of their negroes set against three persons in the eastern, the honorable judge observed, that the negroes of the southern States work no longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can, asked he, that land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of freemen? Are not _three_ of these independent freemen of more real advantage to a State, than _five_ of those poor slaves?
Mr. NASSON remarked on the statement of the honorable Mr. KING, by saying that the honorable gentleman should have gone further, and shown us the other side of the question. It is a good rule that works both ways–and the gentleman should also have told us, that three of our infants in the cradle, are to be rated as high as five of the working negroes of Virginia. Mr. N. adverted to a statement of Mr. KING, who had said, that five negro children of South Carolina were equally rateable as three governors of New England, and wished, he said, the honorable gentleman had considered this question upon the other side–as it would then appear that this State will pay as great a tax for three children in the cradle, as any of the southern States will for five hearty working negro men. He hoped, he said, while we were making a new government, we should make it better than the old one: for if we had made a bad bargain before, as had been hinted, it was a reason why we should make a better one now.
Mr. DAWES said, he was sorry to hear so many objections raised against the paragraph under consideration. He though them wholly unfounded; that the black inhabitants of the southern States must be considered either as slaves, and as so much property, or in the character of so many freemen; if the former, why should they not be wholly represented? Our _own_ State laws and Constitution would lead us to consider those blacks as _freemen_, and so indeed would our own ideas of natural justice: if, then, they are freemen, they might form an equal basis for representation as though they were all white inhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the northern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He thought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the passage in dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of slaves, and in the mean time to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on such blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the new Constitution, every particular State is left to its own option totally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own territories. What could the convention do more? The members of the southern States, like ourselves, have _their_ prejudices. It would not do to abolish slavery, by an act of Congress, in a moment, and so destroy what our southern brethren consider as property. But we may say, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has received a mortal wound and will die of a consumption.
Mr. NEAL (from Kittery,) went over the ground of objection to this section on the idea that the slave trade was allowed to be continued for 20 years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness against any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the bodies of men, and unless his objection was removed, he could not put his hand to the Constitution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to this idea, that there was not even a proposition that the negroes ever shall be free, and Gen. THOMPSON exclaimed:
Mr. President, shall it be said, that after we have established our own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others? Oh! Washington, what a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself! but he holds those in slavery who have a good right to be free as he has–he is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk 50 per cent.
On the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this article towards the abolition of slavery, was one of the beauties of the Constitution. They observed, that in the confederation there was no provision whatever for its ever being abolished; but this Constitution provides, that Congress may, after 20 years, totally annihilate the slave trade; and that, as all the States, except two, have passed laws to this effect, it might reasonably be expected, that it would then be done. In the interim, all the States were at liberty to prohibit it.
SATURDAY, January 26.–[The debate on the 9th section still continued desultory–and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto, as had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the most pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr. NASON, Major LUSK, Mr. NEAL, and others, that this Constitution provided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years. On the other, the honorable Judge DANA, Mr. ADAMS and others, rejoiced that a door was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious, abhorrent practice, in a certain time.]
Gen. HEATH. Mr. President,–By my indisposition and absence, I have lost several important opportunities: I have lost the opportunity of expressing my sentiments with a candid freedom, on some of the paragraphs of the system, which have lain heavy on my mind. I have lost the opportunity of expressing my warm approbation on some of the paragraphs. I have lost the opportunity of hearing those judicious, enlightening and convincing arguments, which have been advanced during the investigation of the system. This is my misfortune, and I must bear it. The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, &c., is one of those considered during my absence, and I have heard nothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning; but I think the gentlemen who have spoken, have carried the matter rather too far on both sides. I apprehend that it is not in our power to do any thing for or against those who are in slavery in the southern States. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery more than I do: it is generally detested by the people of this Commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come, when our brethren in the southern States will view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions naturally arise: if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing by our act to hold the blacks in slavery–or shall we become the partakers of other men’s sins? I think neither of them. Each State is sovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right, and will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears proper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with those who do not think, or act, just as we do? surely not. We are not in this case partakers of other men’s sins, for in nothing do we voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men; a restriction is laid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided, and a union take place. The Federal Convention went as far as they could; the migration or importation, &c., is confined to the States, now _existing only_, new States cannot claim it. Congress, by their ordinance for erecting new States, some time since, declared that the new States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in them. But whether those in slavery in the southern States will be emancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine: I rather doubt it.
Mr. NEAL rose and said, that as the Constitution at large, was now under consideration, he would just remark, that the article which respected the Africans, was the one which laid on his mind–and, unless his objections to that were removed, it must, how much soever he liked the other parts of the Constitution, be a sufficient reason for him to give his negative to it.
Major LUSK concurred in the idea already thrown out in the debate, that although the insertion of the amendments in the Constitution was devoutly wished, yet he did not see any reason to suppose they ever would be adopted. Turning from the subject of amendments, the Major entered largely into the consideration of the 9th section, and in the most pathetic and feeling manner, described the miseries of the poor natives of Africa, who are kidnapped and sold for slaves. With the brightest colors he painted their happiness and ease on their native shores, and contrasted them with their wretched, miserable and unhappy condition, in a state of slavery.
Rev. Mr. BACKUS. Much, sir, hath been said about the importation of slaves into this country. I believe that, according to my capacity, no man abhors that wicked practice more than I do, and would gladly make use of all lawful means towards the abolishing of slavery in all parts of the land. But let us consider where we are, and what we are doing. In the articles of confederation, no provision was made to hinder the importation of slaves into any of these States: but a door is now opened hereafter to do it; and each State is at liberty now to abolish slavery as soon as they please. And let us remember our former connexion with Great Britain, from whom many in our land think we ought not to have revolted. How did they carry on the slave trade! I know that the Bishop of Gloucester, in an annual sermon in London, in February, 1766, endeavored to justify their tyrannical claims of power over us, by casting the reproach of the slave trade upon the Americans. But at the close of the war, the Bishop of Chester, in an annual sermon, in February, 1783, ingenuously owned, that their nation is the most deeply involved in the guilt of that trade, of any nation in the world; and also, that they have treated their slaves in the West Indies worse than the French or Spaniards have done theirs. Thus slavery grows more and more odious through the world; and, as an honorable gentleman said some days ago, “Though we cannot say that slavery is struck with an apoplexy, yet we may hope it will die with a consumption.” And a main source, sir, of that iniquity, hath been an abuse of the covenant of circumcision, which gave the seed of Abraham to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan, and to take their houses, vineyards, and all their estates, as their own; and also to buy and hold others as servants. And as Christian privileges are greater than those of the Hebrews were, many have imagined that they had a right to seize upon the lands of the heathen, and to destroy or enslave them as far as they could extend their power. And from thence the mystery of iniquity, carried many into the practice of making merchandise of slaves and souls of men. But all ought to remember, that when God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his seed, he let him know that they were not to take possession of that land, until the iniquity of the Amorites was full; and then they did it under the immediate direction of Heaven; and they were as real executors of the judgment of God upon those heathens, as any person ever was an executor of a criminal justly condemned. And in doing it they were not allowed to invade the lands of the Edomites, who sprang from Esau, who was not only of the seed of Abraham, but was born at the same birth with Israel; and yet they were not of that church. Neither were Israel allowed to invade the lands of the Moabites, or of the children of Ammon, who were of the seed of Lot. And no officer in Israel had any legislative power, but such as were immediately inspired. Even David, the man after God’s own heart, had no legislative power, but only as he was inspired from above: and he is expressly called a _prophet_ in the New Testament And we are to remember that Abraham and his seed, for four hundred years, had no warrant to admit any strangers into that church, but by buying of him as a servant, with money. And it was a great privilege to be bought, and adopted into a religious family for seven years, and then to have their freedom. And that covenant was expressly repealed in various parts of the New Testament; and particularly in the first epistle to the Corinthians, wherein it is said–Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. And again–Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping of the commandments of God. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. Thus the gospel sets all men upon a level, very contrary to the declaration of an honorable gentleman in this house, “that the Bible was contrived for the advantage of a particular order of men.”
NEW YORK CONVENTION.
Mr. M. SMITH. He would now proceed to state his objections to the clause just read, (section 2, of article 1, clause 3). His objections were comprised under three heads: 1st, the rule of apportionment is unjust; 2d, there is no precise number fixed on, below which the house shall not be reduced; 3d, it is inadequate. In the first place, the rule of apportionment of the representatives is to be according to the whole number of the white inhabitants, with three-fifths of all others; that is, in plain English, each State is to send representatives in proportion to the number of freemen, and three-fifths of the slaves it contains. He could not see any rule by which slaves were to be included in the ratio of representation;–the principle of a representation being that every free agent should be concerned in governing himself, it was absurd to give that power to a man who could not exercise it–slaves have no will of their own: the very operation of it was to give certain privileges to those people who were so wicked as to keep slaves. He knew it would be admitted, that this rule of apportionment was founded on unjust principles, but that it was the result of accommodation; which, he supposed, we should be under the necessity of admitting, if we meant to be in union with the southern States, though utterly repugnant to his feelings.
Mr. HAMILTON. In order that the committee may understand clearly the principles on which the General Convention acted, I think it necessary to explain some preliminary circumstances.
Sir, the natural situation of this country seems to divide its interests into different classes. There are navigating and non-navigating States–the Northern are properly the navigating States: the Southern appear to possess neither the means nor the spirit of navigation. This difference of situation naturally produces a dissimilarity of interest and views respecting foreign commerce. It was the interest of the Northern States that there should be no restraints on the navigation, and that they should have full power, by a majority on Congress, to make commercial regulations. The Southern States wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by requiring that two-thirds in Congress should be requisite to pass an act in regulation of commerce: they were apprehensive that the restraints of a navigation law would discourage foreigners, and by obliging them to employ the shipping of the Northern States would probably enhance their freight. This being the case, they insisted strenuously on having this provision engrafted in the Constitution; and the Northern States were as anxious in opposing it. On the other hand, the small States seeing themselves embraced by the confederation upon equal terms, wished to retain the advantages which they already possessed: the large States, on the contrary, thought it improper that Rhode Island and Delaware should enjoy an equal suffrage with themselves: from these sources a delicate and difficult contest arose. It became necessary, therefore, to compromise; or the Convention must have dissolved without effecting any thing. Would it have been wise and prudent in that body, in this critical situation, to have deserted their country? No. Every man who hears me–every wise man in the United States, would have condemned them. The Convention were obliged to appoint a committee for accommodation. In this committee the arrangement was formed as it now stands; and their report was accepted. It was a delicate point; and it was necessary that all parties should be indulged. Gentlemen will see, that if there had not been a unanimity, nothing could have been done: for the Convention had no power to establish, but only to recommend a government. Any other system would have been impracticable. Let a Convention be called to-morrow–let them meet twenty times; nay, twenty thousand times; they will have the same difficulties to encounter; the same clashing interests to reconcile.
But dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the arrangement is in itself entitled to the approbation of this body. We will examine it upon its own merits.
The first thing objected to, is that clause which allows a representation for three-fifths of the negroes. Much has been said of the impropriety of representing men, who have no will of their own. Whether this be reasoning or declamation, I will not presume to say. It is the unfortunate situation of the southern States, to have a great part of their population, as well as property, in blacks. The regulations complained of was one result of the spirit of accommodation, which governed the Convention; and without this indulgence, no union could possibly have been formed. But, sir, considering some peculiar advantages which we derived from them, it is entirely just that they should be gratified. The southern States possess certain staples, tobacco, rice, indigo, &c., which must be capital objects in treaties of commerce with foreign nations; and the advantage which they necessarily procure in these treaties will be felt throughout all the States. But the justice of this plan will appear in another view. The best writers on government have held that representation should be compounded of persons and property. This rule has been adopted, as far as it could be, in the Constitution of New York. It will, however, by no means, be admitted, that the slaves are considered altogether as property. They are men, though degraded to the condition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal laws of the States which they inhabit as well as to the laws of nature. But representation and taxation go together–and one uniform rule ought to apply to both. Would it be just to compute these slaves in the assessment of taxes, and discard them from the estimate in the apportionment of representatives? Would it be just to impose a singular burthen, without conferring some adequate advantage?
Another circumstance ought to be considered. The rule we have been speaking of is a general rule, and applies to all the States. Now, you have a great number of people in your State, which are not represented at all; and have no voice in your government: these will be included in the enumeration–not two-fifths–nor three-fifths, but the whole. This proves that the advantages of the plan are not confined to the southern States, but extend to other parts of the Union.
Mr. M. SMITH. I shall make no reply to the arguments offered by the honorable gentleman to justify the rule of apportionment fixed by this clause: for though I am confident they might be easily refuted, yet I am persuaded we must yield this point, in accommodation to the southern States. The amendment therefore proposes no alteration to the clause in this respect.
Mr. HARRISON. Among the objections, that, which has been made to the mode of apportionment of representatives, has been relinquished. I think this concession does honor to the gentleman who had stated the objection. He has candidly acknowledged, that this apportionment was the result of accommodation; without which no union could have been formed.
* * * * *
PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION.
Mr. WILSON. Much fault has been found with the mode of expression, used in the first clause of the ninth section of the first article. I believe I can assign a reason, why that mode of expression was used, and why the term slave was not admitted in this Constitution–and as to the manner of laying taxes, this is not the first time that the subject has come into the view of the United States, and of the Legislatures of the several States. The gentleman, (Mr. FINDLEY) will recollect, that in the present Congress, the quota of the federal debt, and general expenses, was to be in proportion to the value of land, and other enumerated property, within the States. After trying this for a number of years, it was found on all hands, to be a mode that could not be carried into execution. Congress were satisfied of this, and in the year 1783 recommended, in conformity with the powers they possessed under the articles of confederation, that the quota should be according to the number of free people, including those bound to servitude, and excluding Indians not taxed. These were the expressions used in 1783, and the fate of this recommendation was similar to all their other resolutions. It was not carried into effect, but it was adopted by no fewer than eleven, out of thirteen States; and it cannot but be matter of surprise, to hear gentlemen, who agreed to this very mode of expression at that time, come forward and state it as an objection on the present occasion. It was natural, sir, for the late convention, to adopt the mode after it had been agreed to by eleven States, and to use the expression, which they found had been received as unexceptionable before. With respect to the clause, restricting Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808. The honorable gentleman says, that this clause is not only dark, but intended to grant to Congress, for that time, the power to admit the importation of slaves. No such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it gives me high pleasure, that so much was done. Under the present Confederation, the States may admit the importation of slaves as long as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808 the Congress will have power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the same kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is with much satisfaction I view this power in the general government, whereby they may lay an interdiction on this reproachful trade; but an immediate advantage is also obtained, for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that could be obtained, I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is reason to hope, that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited altogether; and in the mean time, the new States which are to be formed, will be under the control of Congress in this particular; and slaves will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says, that it is unfortunate in another point of view; it means to prohibit the introduction of white people from Europe, as this tax may deter them from coming amongst us; a little impartiality and attention will discover the care that the Convention took in selecting their language. The words are the _migration_ or IMPORTATION of such persons, &c., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation; it is observable here, that the term migration is dropped, when a tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose the tax only on those imported.
I recollect, on a former day, the honorable gentlemen from Westmoreland (Mr. FINDLEY,) and the honorable gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. WHITEHILL,) took exception against the first clause of the 9th section, art. 1, arguing very unfairly, that because Congress might impose a tax or duty of ten dollars on the importation of slaves, within any of the United States, Congress might therefore permit slaves to be imported within this State, contrary to its laws. I confess I little thought that this part of the system would be excepted to.
I am sorry that it could be extended no further; but so far as it operates, it presents us with the pleasing prospect, that the rights of mankind will be acknowledged and established throughout the union.
If there was no other lovely feature in the Constitution but this one, it would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years! and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders.
How would such a delightful prospect expand the breast of a benevolent and philanthropic European? Would he cavil at an expression? catch at a phrase? No, sir, that is only reserved for the gentleman on the other side of your chair to do.
Mr. McKEAN. The arguments against the Constitution are, I think, chiefly these:….
That migration or importation of such persons, as any of the States shall admit, shall not be prohibited prior to 1808, nor a tax or duty imposed on such importation exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Provision is made that Congress shall have power to prohibit the importation of slaves after the year 1808, but the gentlemen in opposition, accuse this system of a crime, because it has not prohibited them at once. I suspect those gentlemen are not well acquainted with the business of the diplomatic body, or they would know that an agreement might be made, that did not perfectly accord with the will and pleasure of any one person. Instead of finding fault with what has been gained, I am happy to see a disposition in the United States to do so much.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION.
GOV. RANDOLPH. This is one point of weakness I wish for the honor of my countrymen that it was the only one. There is another circumstance which renders us more vulnerable. Are we not weakened by the population of those whom we hold in slavery? The day may come when they may make impression upon us. Gentlemen who have been long accustomed to the contemplation of the subject, think there is a cause of alarm in this case: the number of those people, compared to that of the whites, is in an immense proportion: their number amounts to 236,000–that of the whites, only to 352,000. * * * * I beseech them to consider, whether Virginia and North Carolina, both oppressed with debts and slaves, can defend themselves externally, or make their people happy internally.
GEORGE MASON. We are told in strong language, of dangers to which we will be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution. Among the rest, domestic safety is said to be in danger. This government does not attend to our domestic safety. It authorizes the importation of slaves for twenty-odd years, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade. Instead of securing and protecting us, the continuation of this detestable trade adds daily to our weakness. Though this evil is increasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent the Northern and Eastern States from meddling with our whole property of that kind. There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves after twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the Southern States those they now possess. It is far from being a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them. There ought to be a clause in the Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired under our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a great many people.
MR. LEE. The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not prohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the continuance of the existing slavery! Is it not obviously inconsistent to criminate it for two contradictory reasons? I submit it to the consideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the one case, it can be censurable in the other? MR. LEE then concluded by earnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly.
MR. HENRY. It says that “no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded.” If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it? What does this relate to? Not domestic insurrections, but war. If the country be invaded, a State may go to war; but cannot suppress insurrections. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded.–They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition of Congress.
MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS. Another worthy member says, there is no power in the States to quell an insurrection of slaves. Have they it now? If they have, does the Constitution take it away? If it does, it must be in one of the three clauses which have been mentioned by the worthy member. The first clause gives the general government power to call them out when necessary. Does this take it away from the States? No. But it gives an additional security: for, besides the power in the State governments to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the general government to aid them with the strength of the Union when called for. No part of this Constitution can show that this power is taken away.
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, this is a fatal section, which has created more dangers than any other. The first clause allows the importation of slaves for twenty years. Under the royal government, this evil was looked upon as a great oppression, and many attempts were made to prevent it; but the interest of the African merchants prevented its prohibition. No sooner did the revolution take place, than it was thought of. It was one of the great causes of our separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a principal object of this State, and most of the States in the Union. The augmentation of slaves weakens the States; and such a trade is diabolical in itself, and disgraceful to mankind. Yet, by this Constitution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union, unless they agreed to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade, because it would bring weakness and not strength to the Union. And though this infamous traffic be continued, we have no security for the property of that kind which we have already. There is no clause in this Constitution to secure it; for they may lay such tax as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended, still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till after the expiration of twenty years. For the fifth article, which provides for amendments, expressly excepts this clause. I have ever looked upon this as a most disgraceful thing to America. I cannot express my detestation of it. Yet they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already. So that, “they have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to have done”
Mr. MADISON. Mr. Chairman, I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if it were one of those things which could be excluded without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued forever: but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circumstances. A tax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise Congress might lay such a tax as would amount to a prohibition. From the mode of representation and taxation, Congress cannot lay such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present, if any slave elopes to any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Constitution, “no person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security than any that now exist. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the States. The taxation of this State being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot be laid as he supposes. They cannot prevent the importation of slaves for twenty years: but after that period, they can. The gentlemen from South Carolina and Georgia argued in this manner: “We have now liberty to import this species of property, and much of the property now possessed, has been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets.” I need not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a dismemberment of the union would be worse. If those States should disunite from the other States, for not including them in the temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.
Mr. TYLER warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and disgracefulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged by gentlemen in defence of it were inconclusive, and ill founded. It was one cause of the complaints against British tyranny, that this trade was permitted. The Revolution had put a period to it; but now it was to be revived. He thought nothing could justify it. This temporary restriction on Congress militated, in his opinion, against the arguments of gentlemen on the other side, that what was not given up, was retained by the States; for that if this restriction had not been inserted, Congress could have prohibited the African trade. The power of prohibiting it was not expressly delegated to them; yet they would have had it by implication, if this restraint had not been provided. This seemed to him to demonstrate most clearly the necessity of restraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Constitution. But he contended for it one way or the other. It would be justified by our own example, and that of England. His earnest desire was, that it should be handed down to posterity, that he had opposed this wicked clause.
Mr. MADISON. As to the restriction in the clause under consideration, it was a restraint on the exercise of a power expressly delegated to Congress, namely, that of regulating commerce with foreign nations.
Mr. HENRY insisted, that the insertion of these restrictions on Congress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise powers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction. If so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights? He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from assuming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was moited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now? He feared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy taxes on slaves, as would amount to emancipation; and then the Southern States would be the only sufferers. His opinion was confirmed by the mode of levying money. Congress, he observed, had power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises. Imposts (or duties) and excises, were to be uniform. But this uniformity did not extend to taxes. This might compel the Southern States to liberate their negroes. He wished this property therefore to be guarded. He considered the clause which had been adduced by the gentleman as a security for this property, as no security at all. It was no more than this–that a runaway negro could be taken up in Maryland or New York. This could not prevent Congress from interfering with that property by laying a grievous and enormous tax on it, so as to compel owners to emancipate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it would be productive of much stockjobbing, and that they would play into one another’s hands in such a manner as that this property would be lost to the country.
Mr. GEORGE NICHOLAS wondered that gentlemen who were against slavery would be opposed to this clause; as after that period the slave trade would be done away. He asked if gentlemen did not see the inconsistency of their arguments? They object, says he, to the Constitution, because the slave trade is laid open for twenty-odd years; and yet tell you, that by some latent operation of it, the slaves who are now, will be manumitted. At that same moment, it is opposed for being promotive and destructive of slavery. He contended that it was advantageous to Virginia, that it should be in the power of Congress to prevent the importation of slaves after twenty years, as it would then put a period to the evil complained of.
As the Southern States would not confederate without this clause, he asked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than to suffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting to it to be such? Virginia might continue the prohibition of such importation during the intermediate period, and would be benefitted by it, as a tax of ten dollars on each slave might be laid, of which she would receive a share. He endeavored to obviate the objection of gentlemen, that the restriction on Congress was a proof that they would have power not given them, by remarking, that they would only have had a general superintendency of trade, if the restriction had not been inserted. But the Southern States insisted on this exception to that general superintendency for twenty years. It could not therefore have been a power by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a delegated power. The taxes could not, as had been suggested, be laid so high on negroes as to amount to emancipation; because taxation and representation were fixed according to the census established in the Constitution. The exception of taxes, from the uniformity annexed to duties and excises, could not have the operation contended for by the gentleman; because other clauses had clearly and positively fixed the census. Had taxes been uniform, it would have been universally objected to, for no one object could be selected without involving great inconveniences and oppressions. But, says Mr. Nicholas, is it from the general government we are to fear emancipation? Gentlemen will recollect what I said in another house, and what other gentlemen have said that advocated emancipation. Give me leave to say, that that clause is a great security for our slave tax. I can tell the committee, that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by the taxes on negroes. Had this Constitution been adopted, it would not have been the case. The taxes were laid on all our negroes. By this system two-fifths are exempted. He then added, that he had imagined gentlemen would not support here what they had opposed in another place.
Mr. HENRY replied, that though the proportion of each was to be fixed by the census, and three-fifths of the slaves only were included in the enumeration, yet the proportion of Virginia being once fixed, might be laid on blacks and blacks only. For the mode of raising the proportion of each State being to be directed by Congress, they might make slaves the sole object to raise it. Personalities he wished to take leave of; they had nothing to do with the question, which was solely whether that paper was wrong or not.
Mr. NICHOLAS replied, that negroes must be considered as persons, or property. If as property, the proportion of taxes to be laid on them was fixed in the Constitution. If he apprehended a poll tax on negroes, the Constitution had prevented it. For, by the census, where a white man paid ten shillings, a negro paid but six shillings. For the exemption of two-fifths of them reduced it to that proportion.
The second, third, and fourth clauses, were then read as follows:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.
No capitation or other direct tax shall be paid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
Mr. GEORGE MASON said, that gentlemen might think themselves secured by the restriction in the fourth clause, that no capitation or other direct tax should be laid but in proportion to the census before directed to be taken. But that when maturely considered it would be found to be no security whatsoever. It was nothing but a direct assertion, or mere confirmation of the clause which fixed the ratio of taxes and representation. It only meant that the quantum to be raised of each State should be in proportion to their numbers in the manner therein directed. But the general government was not precluded from laying the proportion of any particular State on any one species of property they might think proper. For instance, if five hundred thousand dollars were to be raised, they might lay the whole of the proportion of the Southern States on the blacks, or any one species of property: so that by laying taxes too heavily on slaves, they might totally annihilate that kind of property. No real security could arise from the clause which provides, that persons held to labor in one State, escaping into another, shall be delivered up. This only meant, that runaway slaves should not be protected in other States. As to the exclusion of _ex post facto_ laws, it could not be said to create any security in this case. For laying a tax on slaves would not be _ex post facto_.
Mr. MADISON replied, that even the Southern States, who were most affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision, and dreaded no danger to the property they now hold. It appeared to him, that the general government would not intermeddle with that property for twenty years, but to lay a tax on every slave imported, not exceeding ten dollars; and that after the expiration of that period they might prohibit the traffic altogether. The census in the Constitution was intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the community. No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and excises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive to the principles of equality: for that it was not possible to select any article which would be easy for one State, but what would be heavy for another. That the proportion of each State being ascertained, it would be raised by the general government in the most convenient manner for the people, and not by the selection of any one particular object. That there must be some degree of confidence put in agents, or else we must reject a state of civil society altogether. Another great security to this property, which he mentioned, was, that five States were greatly interested in that species of property, and there were other States which had some slaves, and had made no attempt, or taken any step to take them from the people. There were a few slaves in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut: these States would, probably, oppose any attempts to annihilate this species of property. He concluded, by observing, that he would be glad to leave the decision of this to the committee.
The second section was then read as follows: * * *
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service.
Mr. GEORGE MASON.–Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the investigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some observations on the security of property coming within this section. It was then said, and I now say, that there is no security, nor have gentlemen convinced me of this.
Mr. HENRY. Among ten thousand implied powers which they may assume, they may, if we be engaged in war, liberate every one of your slaves if they please. And this must and will be done by men, a majority of whom have not a common interest with you. They will, therefore, have no feeling for your interests. It has been repeatedly said here, that the great object of a national government, was national defence. That power which is said to be intended for security and safety, may be rendered detestable and oppressive. If you give power to the general government to provide for the general defence, the means must be commensurate to the end. All the means in the possession of the people must be given to the government which is entrusted with the public defence. In this State there are 236,000 blacks, and there are many in several other States. But there are few or none in the Northern States, and yet if the Northern States shall be of opinion, that our numbers are numberless, they may call forth every national resource. May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed, as to make emancipation general. But acts of assembly passed, that every slave who would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about–slavery is detested–we feel its fatal effects–we deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations, at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity, which I trust will distinguish America, and the necessity of national defence, let all these things operate on their minds, they will search that paper, and see if they have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May not they pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? There is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point. They have the power in clear, unequivocal terms; and will clearly and certainly exercise it. As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition. I deny that the general government ought to set them free, because a decided majority of the States have not the ties of sympathy and fellow-feeling for those whose interest would be affected by their emancipation. The majority of Congress is to the North, and the slaves are to the South. In this situation, I see a great deal of the property of the people of Virginia in jeopardy, and their peace and tranquillity gone away. I repeat it again, that it would rejoice my very soul, that every one of my fellow-beings was emancipated. As we ought with gratitude to admire to admire that decree of Heaven, which has numbered us among the free, we ought to lament and deplore the necessity of holding our fellow-men in bondage. But is it practicable by any human means, to liberate them, without producing the most dreadful and ruinous consequences? We ought to possess them in the manner we have inherited them from our ancestors, as their manumission is incompatible with the felicity of the country. But we ought to soften, as much as possible, the rigor of their unhappy fate. I know that in a variety of particular instances, the legislature, listening to complaints, have admitted their emancipation. Let me not dwell on this subject. I will only add, that this, as well as every other property of the people of Virginia, is in jeopardy, and put in the hands of those who have no similarity of situation with us. This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.
Have we not a right to say, _hear our propositions_? Why, sir, your slaves have a right to make their humble requests.–Those who are in the meanest occupations of human life, have a right to complain.
Gov. RANDOLPH. That honorable gentleman, and some others, have insisted that the abolition of slavery will result from it, and at the same time have complained, that it encourages its continuation. The inconsistency proves in some degree, the futility of their arguments. But if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no danger of enfranchisement taking place, I beg leave to refer them to the paper itself. I hope that there is none here, who, considering the subject in the calm light of philosophy, will advance an objection dishonorable to Virginia; that at the moment they are securing the rights of their citizens, an objection is started that there is a spark of hope, that those unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by the operation of the general government be made _free_. But if any gentleman be terrified by this apprehension, let him read the system. I ask, and I will ask again and again, till I be answered (not by declamation) where is the part that has a tendency to the abolition of slavery? Is it the clause which says, that “the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808?” This is an exception from the power of regulating commerce, and the restriction is only to continue till 1808. Then Congress can, by the exercise of that power, prevent future importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were it right here to mention what passed in Convention on the occasion, I might tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself; conceived this property to be secure by these words. I believe, whatever we may think here, that there was not a member of the Virginia delegation who had the smallest suspicion of the abolition of slavery. Go to their meaning. Point out the clause where this formidable power of emancipation is inserted. But another clause of the Constitution proves the absurdity of the supposition. The words of the clause are, “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” Every one knows that slaves are held to service and labor. And when authority is given to owners of slaves to vindicate their property, can it be supposed they can be deprived of it? If a citizen of this State, in consequence of this clause, can take his runaway slave in Maryland, can it be seriously thought, that after taking him and bringing him home, he could be made free?
I observed that the honorable gentleman’s proposition comes in a truly questionable shape, and is still more extraordinary and unaccountable for another consideration; that although we went article by article through the Constitution, and although we did not expect a general review of the subject, (as a most comprehensive view had been taken of it before it was regularly debated,) yet we are carried back to the clause giving that dreadful power, for the general welfare. Pardon me if I remind you of the true state of that business. I appeal to the candor of the honorable gentleman, and if he thinks it an improper appeal, I ask the gentlemen here, whether there be a general indefinite power of providing for the general welfare? The power is, “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare.” So that they can only raise money by these means, in order to provide for the general welfare. No man who reads it can say it is general as the honorable gentleman represents it. You must violate every rule of construction and common sense, if you sever it from the power of raising money and annex it to any thing else, in order to make it that formidable power which it is represented to be.
Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and navigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as it now stands, was a _sine qua non_ of the Union, and that without it, the States in Convention would never concur. I differ from him. It never was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a _sine qua non_ of the Union. I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of that affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four months, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was often under consideration; and I assert, that eight States out of twelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of the members present in each house to pass commercial and navigation laws. True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it stands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring two-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took place between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States agreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern States conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws should be on the footing on which they now stand. If I am mistaken, let me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that this was not a _sine qua non_ of their concurrence. The Newfoundland fisheries will require that kind of security which we are now in want of. The Eastern States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should require the consent of two-thirds of the members present in the senate.
Mr. Madison. I was struck with surprise when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. Let me ask, if they should even attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation of power? There is no power to warrant it, in that paper. If there be, I know it not. But why should it be done? Says the honorable gentleman, for the general welfare–it will infuse strength into our system. Can any member of this committee suppose, that it will increase our strength? Can any one believe, that the American councils will come into a measure which will strip them of their property, discourage and alienate the affections of five-thirteenths of the Union? Why was nothing of this sort aimed at before? I believe such an idea never entered into an American breast, nor do I believe it ever will, unless it will enter into the heads of those gentlemen who substitute unsupported suspicions for reasons.
Mr. Henry. He asked me where was the power of emancipating slaves? I say it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited. He admits that the power of granting passports will be in the new Congress without the insertion of this restriction–yet he can shew me nothing like such a power granted in that Constitution. Notwithstanding he admits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am unfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emancipate our slaves, though the word emancipation be not mentioned in it. They can exercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another. Thus, by the gentleman’s own argument, they can exercise the power though it be not delegated.
Mr. Z. Johnson. They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bringing about emancipation. The principle has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has been the foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which have been so much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it would do much good.
NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.
The first three clauses of the second section read.
Mr. GOUDY. Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an advantage to some States, over the others. It will be oppressive to the Southern States. Taxes are equal to our representation. To augment our taxes and increase our burthens, our negroes are to be represented. If a State has fifty thousand negroes, she is to send one representative for them. I wish not to be represented with negroes, especially if it increases my burthens.
Mr. Davie. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to obviate what the gentleman last up has said. I wonder to see gentlemen so precipitate and hasty on a subject of such awful importance. It ought to be considered, that _some_ of _us_ are slow of apprehension, not having those quick conceptions, and luminous understandings, of which other gentlemen may be possessed. The gentleman “does not wish to be represented with negroes.” This, sir, is an unhappy species of population, but cannot at present alter their situation. The Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses were equally entitled to representation; that the one was property as well as the other. It became our duty on the other hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the legislation of the Union; and as the Northern States were more populous in whites, this only could be done by insisting that a certain proportion of our slaves should make a part of the computed population. It was attempted to form a rule of representation from a compound ratio of wealth and population; but, on