c 
 
 CONSTI- 
 TUTION 
 I A PRO- 
 
 ! SLAVERY ; , • ' 
 
 COMPACT .. . - • 
 Madison g . :• 
 
 Papers 
 
DUKE 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 Duke University Libraries 
 
 https://archive.org/details/constitutionpros01 madi 
 
A PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT. 
 
 SELECTIONS 
 
 FROM 
 
 THE MADISON PAPERS, &e. 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 
 AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. 
 142 NASSAU STREET. 
 
 
 1844 . 
 

/vi 
 
 ftW; 3 C» i Lj~ 
 
 j />r& , 
 
 I'NT RODUCTION. 
 
 Evert one knows that the “ Madison Papers ” contain a Report, from 
 the pen of James Madison, of the Debates in the Old Congress of the 
 Confederation and in the Convention which formed the Constitution of 
 the United States. We have extracted from them, in these pages, all 
 the Debates on those clauses of the Constitution which relate to 
 slavery. To these we have added all that is found, on the same 
 topic, in the Debates of the several State Conventions which ratified 
 the Constitution : together with so much of the Speech of Luther 
 Martin before the Legislature of Maryland, and of the Federalist, 
 as relate to our subject ; with some extracts, also, from the Debates of 
 ! the first Federal Congress on Slavery. These are all printed without 
 alteration, except that, in some instances, we have inserted in brackets, 
 
 : after the name of a speaker, the name of the State from which he 
 came. The notes and italics are those of the original, but the editor 
 has added one note on page 30th, which is marked as his, and we 
 have taken the liberty of printing in capitals one sentiment of Rufus 
 King’s, and two of James Madison’s — a distinction which the impor- 
 tance of the statements seemed to demand — otherwise we have 
 reprinted exactly from the originals. 
 
 These extracts develope most clearly all the details of that com- 
 promise,” which was made between freedom and slavery, in 1787; 
 granting to the slaveholder distinct privileges and protection for his 
 slave property, in return for certain commercial concessions on his 
 part toward the North. They prove also that the Nation at large 
 were fully aware of this bargain at the time, and entered into it wil- 
 lingly and with open eyes. 
 
 We have added the late “ Address of the American Anti-Slavery 
 i Society,” and the letter of Francis Jackson to Governor Briggs, resign- 
 ing his commission of Justice of the Peace — as bold and honorable 
 
4 
 
 protests against the guilt and infamy of this National bargain, and a 3 
 proving most clearly the duty of each individual to trample it under 
 his feet. 
 
 The clauses of the Constitution to which we refer as of a pro- 
 slavery character are the following: — 
 
 Art. 1, Sect. 2. Representatives and direct taxes shall be appor- 
 tioned among the several States, which may be included within this 
 Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be deter- 
 mined 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. 
 
 Art. 1, Sect. 8. Congress shall have power ... to suppress 
 insurrections. 
 
 Art. 1, Sect. 9. The migration or importation of such persons as 
 any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not 
 be prohibited by the Congress, prior to the year one thousand eight 
 hundred and eight: but a tax or duty may be imposed on such impor- 
 tation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. 
 
 Art. 4. Sec. 2. 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. 
 
 Art. 4, Sect. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State 
 in this Union a republican form of government ; and shall protect each 
 of them against invasion ; and, on application of the legislature, or of 
 the executive, (when the legislature cannot be convened) against 
 domestic violence. 
 
 The first of these clauses, relating to representation, confers on a 
 slaveholding community additional political power for every slave 
 held among them, and thus tempts them to continue to uphold the sys- 
 tem : the second and the last, relating to insurrection and domestic 
 violence, perfectly innocent in themselves — yet being made with the 
 fact directly in view that slavery exists among us, do deliberately 
 pledge the whole national force against the unhappy slave if he imitate 
 our fathers and resist oppression — thus making us partners in the 
 guilt of sustaining slavery : the third, relating to the slave trade, 
 
5 
 
 disgraces the nation by a pledge not to abolish that traffic till after 
 twenty years, ivithout obliging Congress to do so even then, and thus the 
 slave trade may be legalized to-morrow if Congress choose : the fourth 
 is a promise on the part of the whole Nation to return fugitive slaves 
 to their masters, a deed which God’s law expressly condemns and 
 which every noble feeling of our nature repudiates with loathing and 
 contempt. 
 
 These are the articles of the “ Compromise,” so much talked of, 
 between the North and South. 
 
 We do not produce the extracts which make up these pages to 
 show what is the meaning of the clauses above cited. For no man 
 or party, of any authority iu such matters, has ever pretended to doubt 
 to what subject they all relate. If indeed they were ambiguous in 
 their terms, a resort to the history of those times would set the matter 
 at rest for ever. A few persons, to be sure, of late years, to serve the 
 purposes of a party, have tried to prove that the Constitution makes 
 no compromise with slavery. Notwithstanding the clear light of 
 history ; — the unanimous decision of all the courts in the land, both 
 State and Federal ; — the action of Congress and the State Legisla- 
 ture ; — the constant practice of the Executive in all its branches ; — and 
 the deliberate acquiescence of the whole people for half a century, 
 still they contend that the Nation does not know its own meaning, 
 and that the Constitution does not tolerate slavery ! Every candid 
 mind however must acknowledge that the language of the Constitution 
 is clear and explicit. 
 
 Its terms are so broad, it is said, that they include many others 
 beside slaves, and hence it is wisely (!) inferred that they cannot 
 include the slaves themselves ! Many persons beside slaves in this 
 country doubtless are “ held to service and labor under the laws of the 
 States,” but that does not at all show that slaves are not “ held to 
 service ;” many persons beside the slaves may take part “ in insur- 
 rections,” but that does not prove that when the slaves rise, the 
 National government is not bound to put them down by force. Such 
 a thing has been heard of before as one description including a great 
 variety of persons, — and this is the case in the present instance. 
 
 But granting that the terms of the Constitution are ambiguous — 
 that they are susceptible of two meanings, if the unanimous, con- 
 1 * 
 
 t 
 
6 
 
 current, unbroken practice of every department of the Government, 
 judicial, legislative, and executive, and the acquiescence of the 
 whole people for fifty years do not prove which is the true construc- 
 tion, then how and where can such a question ever be settled ? If 
 the people and the Courts of the land do not know what they them- 
 selves mean, who has authority to settle their meaning for them ? 
 
 If then the people and the Courts of a country are to be allowed to 
 determine what their own laws mean, it follows that at this time and 
 for the last, half century, the Constitution of the United States, has been, 
 and still is, a pro-slavery instrument, and that any one who swears 
 to support it, swears to do pro-slavery acts, and violates his duty both 
 as a man and an abolitionist. What the Constitution may become a 
 century hence, we know not ; we speak of it as it is, and repudiate it 
 as it is. 
 
 But the purpose, for which we have thrown these pages before the 
 community, is this. Some men, finding the nation unanimously 
 deciding that the Constitution tolerates slavery, have tried to prove 
 that this false construction, as they think it, has been foisted in upon 
 the instrument by the corrupting influence of slavery itself, tainting 
 all it touches. They assert that the known anti-slavery spirit of revo- 
 lutionary times never could have consented to so infamous a bargain 
 as the Constitution is represented to be, and has in its present hands 
 become. Now these pages prove the melancholy fact that willingly, 
 with deliberate purpose, our fathers bartered honesty for gain and 
 became partners with tyrants that they might share in the profits of 
 their tyranny. 
 
 And in view of this fact, will it not require a very strong argument 
 to make any candid man believe, that the bargain which the fathers 
 tell us they meant to incorporate into the Constitution, and which the 
 sous have always thought they found there incorporated, does not 
 exist there after all ? Forty of the shrewdest men and lawyers in the 
 land assemble to make a bargain, among other things, about slaves, — 
 after months of anxious deliberation they put it into writing and sign 
 their names to the instrument, — fifty years roll away, twenty millions 
 at least of their children pass over the stage of life, — courts sit and 
 pass judgment, — parties arise and struggle fiercely ; still all concur 
 in finding in the Instrument just that meaning which the fathers tell 
 
7 
 
 us they intended to express : — must not he be a desperate man, who, 
 after all this, sets out to prove that the fathers were bunglers aud the 
 sons fools, and that slavery is not referred to at all ? 
 
 Besides, the advocates of this new theory of the Anti-slavery 
 character of the Constitution, quote some portions of the Madison 
 Papers in support of their views, — and this makes it proper that the 
 community should hear all that these Debates have to say on the 
 subject. The further we explore them, the clearer becomes the fact 
 that the Constitution was meant to be, what it has always been 
 esteemed, a compromise between slavery and freedom. 
 
 If then the Constitution be, what these Debates show that our 
 fathers intended to make it, and what, too, their descendants, this 
 nation, say they did make it and agree to uphold, — then we affirm that 
 it is a “ covenant with death and an agreement with hell,” and ought 
 to be immediately annulled. 
 
 But if, on the contrary, our fathers failed in their purpose, and the 
 Constitution is all pure and untouched by slavery, — then, Union 
 itself is impossible, without guilt. For it is undeniable that the fifty 
 years passed under this (anti-slavery) Constitution, shew us the slaves 
 trebling in numbers ; — slaveholders monopolizing the offices and 
 dictating the policy of the Government; — prostituting the strength 
 and influence of the Nation to the support of slavery here and else- 
 where ; — trampling on the rights of the free States and making the 
 courts of the country their tools. To continue this disastrous alliance 
 longer is madness. The trial of fifty years with the best of men and 
 the best of Constitutions, on this supposition, only proves that it is 
 impossible for free and slave States to unite on any terms, without all 
 becoming partners in the guilt and responsible for the sin of slavery. 
 We dare not prolong the experiment, and with double earnestness 
 we repeat our demand upon every honest man to join in the outcry 
 of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 
 
 No Union with Slaveholders. 
 

 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 * 
 
 
 
THE CONSTITUTION 
 
 A 
 
 PRO-SLAVERY COMPACT. 
 
 Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by 
 Thomas Jefferson, 1776. 
 
 On Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to 
 draw the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty- 
 second, the House resolved themselves into a committee to take 
 them into consideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that 
 month, and the first of the ensuing, those articles were debated 
 which determined the proportion or quota of money which each 
 State should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of 
 voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the 
 original draught in these words : — 
 
 “Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall 
 be incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed 
 by the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common 
 treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in pro- 
 portion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and quality, 
 except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of 
 which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially taken 
 and transmitted to the assembly of the United States.” 
 
 Mr. Chase (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not 
 by the number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the 
 “white inhabitants.” He admitted that taxation should be always in 
 proportion to property ; that this was in theory the true rule, but 
 that from a variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be 
 adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State could 
 never be estimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the 
 wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard referred 
 to which would be more simple. He considered the number of in- 
 habitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this might 
 always be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode we could 
 adopt, with one exception only. He observed that negroes are 
 property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the lands or 
 personalities held in those States where there are few slaves. That 
 
10 
 
 the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to lay by, lie 
 invests in cattle, horses, &c. ; whereas, a Southern farmer lays out 
 that same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason therefore for 
 taxing the Southern States on the farmer’s head and on his slave’s 
 head, than the Northern ones on their farmers’ heads and the heads 
 of their cattle. That the method proposed would therefore tax the 
 Southern States according to their numbers and their wealth con- 
 junctly, while the Northern would he taxed on numbers only: that 
 negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the State, 
 more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it. 
 
 Mr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) observed, that the numbers of 
 people were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the 
 State, and not as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter, it was 
 of no consequence by what name you called your people, whether by 
 that of freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring 
 poor were called freemen, in others they were called slaves : but 
 that the difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters 
 it whether a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them 
 annually as much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or 
 gives them those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add 
 as much wealth annually to the State, increase its exports as much, 
 in the one case as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce 
 no more profits, no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five 
 hundred slaves. Therefore the State in which are the laborers 
 called freemen, should he taxed no more than that in which are those 
 called slaves. Suppose, by any extraordinary operation of nature or 
 of law, one half the laborers of a State could in the course of one night 
 be transformed into slaves, — woidd the State be made the poorer, or 
 the less able to pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor 
 in most countries, — that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern 
 States, — is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers 
 which produces the surplus for taxation ; and numbers, therefore, 
 indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of 
 the word “ property” here, and its application to some of the people of 
 the State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern 
 farmer procure slaves ? Either by importation or by purchase from 
 his neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of 
 laborers in his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities 
 to pay taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a 
 laborer from one farm to another, which does not change the annual 
 produce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax ; that if 
 a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true, 
 invest the surplus of ten men’s labor in cattle ; but so may the Southern 
 farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred thousand 
 freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred thous- 
 and slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property. 
 That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more 
 properly called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might 
 
11 
 
 be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were 
 equally its wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of 
 its tax. 
 
 Mr. Harrison (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two 
 slaves should he counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves 
 did not do as much work as freemen, and doubted if two affected more 
 than one. That this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a 
 laborer in the Southern colonies being from £8 to £12, while in the 
 Northern it was generally £24. 
 
 Mr Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should 
 take place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves, 
 whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase 
 the profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to 
 themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which 
 would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern ; that slaves 
 occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your 
 slaves, and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay 
 every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amend- 
 ment would give the jus trium libtrorum to him who would import 
 slaves. That other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed 
 through all the colouies: there were as many cattle, horses, and 
 sheep, in the North as the South, and South as the North ; but not 
 so as to slaves : that experience has shown that those colonies have 
 been always able to pay most, which have the most inhabitants, 
 whether they be black or white; and the practice of the Southern 
 colouies has always been to make every farmer pay poll taxes upon 
 all his laborers, whether they be black or white. He acknowledged 
 indeed that freemen worked the most ; but they consume the most 
 also. They do not produce a greater surplus for taxation. The 
 slave is neither fed nor clothed so expensively as a freeman. Again, 
 white women are exempted from labor generally, which negro women 
 are not. In this then the Southern States have an advantage as the 
 article now stands. It has sometimes been said that slavery was 
 necessary, because the commodities they raise would be too dear for 
 market if cultivated by freemen ; but now it is said that the labor of 
 the slave is the dearest. 
 
 Mr Payne (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of Con- 
 gress, to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls. 
 
 Dr. Witherspoon (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of 
 lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and 
 that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true 
 barometer of wealth. The oue now proposed is imperfect in itself, and 
 unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the 
 food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the 
 food of freemen ; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been 
 said too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes 
 the State is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, 
 who always take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual 
 
12 
 
 is to pay. But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, 
 slaves pervade the whole colony ; but they do not pervade the whole 
 continent. That as to the original resolution of Congress, it was 
 temporary only, and related to the moneys heretofore emitted: 
 whereas we are now entering into a new compact, and therefore 
 stand on original ground. 
 
 August 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed 
 was rejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ithode- 
 Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against 
 those of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North, and South Carolina. 
 Georgia was divided. Vol. I. pp. 27-8-9, 30-1-2. 
 
 Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the 
 Confederation. 
 
 Tuesday, Feb. 11, 1783. 
 
 Mr. Wolcott declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to 
 be amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule ; admits 
 the difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a com- 
 promise, by including in the numeration such blacks only as were 
 within sixteen and sixty years of age. p. 331. 
 
 Tuesday, March 27, 1783. 
 
 The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs : 
 
 Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said 
 he was in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a 
 valuation of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the im- 
 possibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and 
 Southern States, as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, 
 the alternative in question. 
 
 Mr. Clark (of New Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that 
 he was also in Congress when this article was decided ; that the 
 Southern States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the 
 value of land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that 
 the Eastern States would not concur in that proposition. 
 
 It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion 
 by ages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the propor- 
 tion in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might 
 be filled up, the clause was recommitted, p. 421-2. 
 
 Friday, March 28, 1783. 
 
 The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated 
 as one freeman. 
 
 Mi. Wolcott (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. 
 Mr. Carroll as four to one. Mr. Williamson (of North Carolina) 
 said he was principled against slavery ; and that he thought slaves 
 an incumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay 
 taxes. Mr. Higginson (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. Rut- 
 ledge (of South Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would 
 agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to 
 oue would be a juster proportion. Mr. Holton as four to three. — 
 
13 
 
 Mr. Osgood said he did not go beyond four to three. On a question 
 for rating them as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, aye ; 
 Massachusetts, no ; Rhode Island, divided ; Connecticut, aye; New 
 Jersey, aye ; Pennsylvania, aye ; Delaware, aye ; Maryland, no ; Vir- 
 ginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph 
 was then postponed, by general consent, some wishing for further 
 time to deliberate on it; but. it appearing to be the general opinion 
 that no compromise would be agreed to. 
 
 After some further discussions on the Report, in which the ne- 
 cessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came 
 fully into view, Mr. Madison (of Virginia) said that, in order to give 
 a proof of the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would 
 propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge 
 (of South Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsyl- 
 vania) said he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise. 
 
 Mr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion 
 that two slaves were not equal to one freeman. 
 
 On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New 
 Hampshire, ave; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Con- 
 necticut, no ; New Jersey, aye ; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; 
 Virginia, aye; North Carolina, ave; South Carolina, aye. 
 
 A morion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to 
 strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question “Shall it 
 stand,” it passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachu- 
 setts, no ; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; 
 Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; 
 North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no; so the clause was struck 
 out. 
 
 The arguments used bv those who were for rating slaves high 
 were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far be- 
 low that incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were 
 below those of freemen ; and that the warm climate within which 
 the States having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and 
 inferior fertility of the others, ought to have great weight in the 
 case; and that the exports of the former States were greater than 
 of the latter. On the other side, it was said, that slaves were not 
 put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, hav- 
 ing no interest in their labor, they did ns little as possible, and omit- 
 ted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; 
 that if the exports of the States having slaves exceeded those of the 
 others, their imports were in proportion, slaves being employed 
 wholly in agriculture, not in manufactures; and that, in fact, the bal- 
 ance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States 
 than the others. 
 
 On the main question, New Hampshire, aye ; Massachusetts, no ; 
 Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Floyd, aye); 
 New Jersey, aye ; Delaware, no ; Maryland, aye ; Virginia, aye ; North 
 Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no. pp. 423-4-5. 
 
 2 
 
Tuesday, April 1, 1783. 
 
 Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton, 
 who had been absent when the last question was taken for substitut- 
 ing numbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that 
 vote. He was seconded by Mr. Osgood. Those who voted differ- 
 ently from their former votes were influenced by the conviction of 
 the necessity of the change, and despair on both sides of a more fa- 
 vorable rate of the slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to 
 without opposition, p. 430. 
 
 Monday, May 26. 
 
 The Resolutions on the Journal, instructing the ministers in Eu- 
 rope to remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes — also those 
 for furloughing the troops — passed unanimously, p. 456. 
 
 Extract from “ Debates in the Federal Convention ” of 1787, for tlie 
 formation of the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Monday, June 11, 1787. 
 
 It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Butler, to add 
 to the words, “equitable ratio of representation,” at the end of the 
 motion just agreed to, the words, “according to the quotas of con- 
 tribution.” On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, 
 this was postponed, in order to add, after the words, “equitable rates 
 of representation,” the words following: “In proportion to the 
 whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of 
 every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for 
 a term of years, and three fifths of all other persons not compre- 
 hended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, 
 in each State” — this being the ride in the act of Congress, agreed to 
 by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, 
 and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years. 
 
 Mr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) thought property not the rule of rep- 
 resentation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in 
 the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle 
 and horses of the North ? 
 
 On the question, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Penn- 
 sylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Geor- 
 gia, aye — 9; New Jersey, Delaware, no — 2. Vol. II. pp. 842-3. 
 
 Saturday, June 30, 1787. 
 
 He (Mr. Madison) admitted that every peculiar interest, whether 
 in any class of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be se- 
 cured as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there 
 ought to be given a constitutional power of defence. But he con- 
 tended that the States were divided into different interests, not by 
 their difference of size, but by other circumstances; the most mate- 
 rial of which resulted partly from climate, but principally from the 
 effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes con- 
 curred in forming the great division of interests in the United States. 
 
15 
 
 It did not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BE- 
 TWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any de- 
 fensive power were necessary, it ought to be mutually given to these 
 two interests. He was so strongly impressed with this important 
 truth, that he had been casting about in his mind for some expedient 
 that would answer the purpose. The one which had occurred was, 
 that instead of proportioning the votes of the States in both branches 
 to their respective numbers of inhabitants, computing the slaves in 
 the ratio of five to three, they should be represented in one branch 
 according to the number of free inhabitants only; and in the other, 
 according to the whole number, counting the slaves as free. By this 
 arrangement the Southern scale would have the advantage in one 
 House, and the Northern in the other. He had been restrained from 
 proposing this expedient by two considerations; one was his unwil- 
 lingness to urge any diversity of interests on an occasion where it 
 is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was, the inequality of 
 powers that must be vested in the two branches, and which would 
 destroy the equilibrium of interests, pp. 1006-7. 
 
 Monday. July 9, 1787. 
 
 Mr. Patterson considered the proposed estimate for the future ac- 
 cording to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague. 
 For this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro 
 slaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no 
 personal liberty, no facidty of acquiring property, but on the con- 
 ti . \ are themselves property, and like other property, entirely at 
 the will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes 
 in proportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not 
 represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be 
 represented in the General Government. What is the true princi- 
 ple of representation ? It is an expedient by which an assembly of 
 certain individuals, chosen by the people, is substituted in place of 
 the inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meet- 
 ing of the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? 
 They would not. Why then should they be represented ? He was 
 also against such an indirect encouragement of the slave trade ; ob- 
 serving that Congress, in their act relating to the change of the 
 eighth article of Confederation, had been ashamed to use the term 
 “slaves,” and had substituted a description. 
 
 Mr. Madison reminded Mr. Patterson that his doctrine of repre- 
 sentation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for ever 
 silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of votes 
 with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion in 
 which their citizens would do if the people of all the States were 
 collectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, 
 that in the first branch the States should be represented according 
 to their number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which had 
 for one of its primary objects the guardianship of property, accord- 
 ing to the whole number, including slaves. 
 
16 
 
 Mr. Butler urged warmly the justice anil necessity of regarding 
 wealth in the apportionment of representation. 
 
 Mr. King had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the 
 richest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless 
 some respect was paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect 
 those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages 
 which they will derive front the connexion, they must not expect to 
 receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven 
 out of thirteen of the States laid agreed to consider slaves in the 
 apportionment of taxation ; and taxation and representation ought to 
 go together, pp. 1054-5-6. 
 
 Tuesday, July 10, 1787- 
 
 Mr. King remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 
 souls, have one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern 
 States, having not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five 
 for three. The Eastern people will advert to these circumstances, 
 and he dissatisfied. He believed them to he very desirous of uniting 
 with their Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so 
 far on that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. 
 He was fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A 
 DIFFERENCE OF INTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT 
 HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN THE 
 GREAT AND SMALL STATES; BUT BETWEEN THE 
 SOUTHERN AND EASTERN, p. 1057. 
 
 Wednesday, July 11, 1787. 
 
 Mr. Butler and General Pinckney insisted that blacks be included 
 in the rule of representation equally with the whites; and for that 
 purpose moved that the words “three fifths” be struck out. 
 
 Mr. Gerry thought that three fifths of them was, to say the least, 
 the full proportion that could be admitted. 
 
 Mr. Gorham. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of tax- 
 ation. Then, it was urged, by the delegates representing the States 
 having slaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. 
 At present, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we 
 are assured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the 
 former occasion had convinced him that three fifths was pretty near 
 the just proportion, and he should vote according to the same opin- 
 ion now. 
 
 Mr. Butler insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina 
 was as productive and valuable as that of a freeman in Massachu- 
 setts; that as wealth was the great means of defence and utility to 
 the nation, they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that 
 consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them 
 in a government which was instituted principally, for the protection 
 of property, and was itself to be supported by property. 
 
 Mr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was 
 favorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain 
 that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of laud, in- 
 
17 
 
 creased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would 
 supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might 
 in cases of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these 
 important respects they were useful to the community at large, they 
 ought not to be excluded from the estimate of representation. He 
 could not, however, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not 
 vote for them as such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the 
 Southern States have this peculiar species of property, over and 
 above the other species of property common to all the States. 
 
 Mr. Will iatnson reminded Mr. Gorham, that if the Southern States 
 contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites, when taxation was 
 in view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for 
 their equality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in 
 either extreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths. 
 
 On Mr. Butler’s motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites 
 in the apportionment of representation, — Delaware, South Carolina, 
 Georgia, aye — 3 ; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsyl- 
 vania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no — 7. New York not 
 on the floor. 
 
 .Mr. Gonverueur Morris said he had several objections to the pro- 
 position of Mr. Williamson. In the first place it fettered the Legis- 
 lature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some States 
 altogether who would not have a sufficient number to entitle them 
 to a single representation, in the third place, it will not consist with 
 the resolution passed on Saturday last, authorizing the Legislature 
 to adjust the representation, from time to time on the principles 
 of population and wealth; nor with the principles of equity. If 
 slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth, then the 
 said resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why is no 
 other wealth but slaves included ? These objections may perhaps 
 be removed by amendments. . . Another objection with him, against 
 admitting the blacks into the census, was, that the people of Penn- 
 sylvania would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with 
 slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect. 
 pp. 1067-S-9& 1072. 
 
 Wednesday, July 11, 1787. 
 
 The next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered : 
 
 Mr. King, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of 
 representation, u’as particularly so on account of the blacks. He 
 thought the admission of them along with whites at all, would 
 excite great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had 
 never said, as to any particular point, that he would in no event ac- 
 quiesce in and support it ; but he would say that if in any case 
 such a declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this. 
 
 He remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made 
 by the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the 
 number of their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants entitled 
 them to. 
 
18 
 
 Mr. Sherman. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion 
 than New York and New Hampshire ; nor eitlier of them more than 
 was necessary in order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below 
 their proportion. Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that 
 State seemed to justify it. In general the allotment might not be 
 just, but considering all circumstances he was satisfied with it. 
 
 Mr. Gorham was aware that there might be some weight in what 
 had fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be 
 taken by the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that 
 when the proposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the 
 Confederation was before the Legislature of Massachusetts, the only 
 difficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to have 
 been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in 
 the ratio of three-fifths only.* 
 
 Mr. Wilson did not well see, on what principle the admission of 
 blacks in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are 
 they admitted as citizens — then why are they not admitted on an 
 equality with white citizens? Are they admitted as property — then 
 why is not other property admitted into the computation .? These 
 were difficulties, however, which he thought must be overruled by the 
 necessity of compromise. He had some apprehensions also, from 
 the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the w'hites, to give 
 disgust to the people of Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by 
 his colleague (Mr. Gouverneur Morris.) 
 
 Mr. Gouverneur Morris was compelled to declare himself reduced 
 to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human 
 nature; and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could 
 never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would 
 be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes ; and he 
 did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that 
 would deprive them of that trade. 
 
 On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the blacks, — 
 Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — 4 ; Massachu- 
 setts, New- Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, f South Caro- 
 lina, no — 6. pp. 1076-7-8. 
 
 Thursday, July 12, 17S7. 
 
 Mr. Butler contended that representation should he according to the 
 full number of inhabitants, including all the blacks. 
 
 General Pinckney was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [by 
 Gouverneur Morris,] concerning the negroes. He was now again 
 alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of 
 exports. South Carolina has in one year exported to the amount 
 of 600,000/. sterling, all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. 
 Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will 
 
 * They were then to have been a rule of taxation only. 
 
 f Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland, that he wished the 
 phraseology to be so altered as to obviate, if possible, the danger which had been 
 expressed of giving umbrage to the Eastern and Middle States 
 
19 
 
 not. Neither ought she then to he subject to a tax on it. He hoped 
 a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature 
 from taxing exports. 
 
 Mr. Gouverneur Morris having so varied his motion by inserting 
 the word “ direct,” it passed, nem. con., as follows: “provided always 
 that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation.” 
 
 Mr. Davie said it was high time now to speak out. He saw that 
 it was meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of 
 any share of representation for their blacks. He was sure that North 
 Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them 
 at least as three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to 
 exclude them altogether, the business was at an end. 
 
 Dr. Johnson thought that wealth and population were the true, 
 equitable rules of representation ; but he conceived that these two 
 principles resolved themselves into one, population being the best 
 measure of wealth. He concluded, therefore, that the number of 
 people ought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions, 
 including blacks equally with the whites, ought to fall within the 
 computation. As various opinions had been expressed on the subject, 
 he would move that a committee might be appointed to take them 
 into consideration, and report them. 
 
 Mr. Gouverneur Morris. It had been said that it is high time to 
 speak out. As one member, he would candidly do so. He came 
 here to form a compact for the good of America. He was ready to 
 do so with all the States. He hoped, and believed, that all would 
 enter into such compact. If they would not, he was ready to join 
 with any States that would. But as the compact was to be voluntary, 
 it is in vain for the Eastern States to insist on what the Southern 
 States will never agree to. It is equally vain for the latter to require, 
 what the other States can never admit; and he verily believed the 
 people of Pennsylvania will never agree to a representation of 
 negroes. What can be desired by these States more than has been 
 already proposed — that the legislature shall from time to time regu- 
 late representation according to population and wealth P 
 
 General Pinckney desired that the rule of wealth should be ascer- 
 tained, and not left to the pleasure of the legislature ; and that prop- 
 erty in slaves should not be exposed to danger, under a government 
 instituted for the protection of property. 
 
 The first clause in the Report of the first Grand Committee was 
 postponed. 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth, in order to carry into effect the principle established, 
 moved to add to the last clause adopted by the House, the words 
 following, “and that the rule of contribution for direct taxation, for 
 the support of the government of the United States, shall be the 
 number of white inhabitants, and three-fifths of every other descrip- 
 tion in the several States, until some other rule that shall more accu- 
 rately ascertain the wealth of the several States, can be devised and 
 adopted by the Legislature.” 
 
20 
 
 Mr. Butler seconded the motion, in order that it might be com- 
 mitted. 
 
 Mr. Randolph was not satisfied vvitli the motion. The danger will 
 be revived, that the ingenuity of the Legislature may evade or per- 
 vert the rule, so as to perpetuate the power where it shall Lie lodged 
 in the first instance. Me proposed, in lieu of Mr. Ellsworth’s motion, 
 “that in order to ascertain the alterations in representation that may 
 be required, from time to time, by changes in the relative circum- 
 stances of the States, a census shall be taken within two years from 
 the first meeting of the General Legislature of the United States, and 
 once within the term of every — years afterwards, of all the inhabitants, 
 in the manner and according to the ratio recommended by Congress 
 in their Resolution of the eighteenth day of April, 1783, (rating the 
 blacks at three-fifths of their number;) and that the Legislature of the 
 United States shall arrange the representation accordingly.” He urged 
 strenuously that express security ought to he provided for including 
 slaves in the ratio of representation. He lamented that such a species 
 of property existed. But as it did exist, the holders of it would 
 require this security. It was perceived that the design was enter- 
 tained by some of excluding slaves altogether; the Legislature there- 
 fore ought not to he left at liberty. 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth withdraws his motion, and seconds that of Mr. 
 Randolph, 
 
 Mr. Wilson observed, that less umbrage would perhaps he taken 
 against an admission of the slaves into the rule of representation, if it 
 should be so expressed as to make them indirectly only an ingredient in 
 the rule, by saying that they should enter into the rule of taxation ; and 
 as representation was to be according to taxation, the end would be 
 equally attained. 
 
 Mr. Pinckney moved to amend Mr. Randolph’s motion, so as to 
 make “ blacks equal to the whites in the ratio of representation.” This, 
 be urged, was nothing more than justice. The blacks are the 
 laborers, the peasants, of the Southern States. They are as produc- 
 tive of pecuniary resources as those of the northern States. They 
 add equally to the wealth, and, considering money as the sinew of 
 war. to the strength, of the nation. It will also be politic with regard 
 to the Northern States, as taxation is to keep pace with representation. 
 
 On Mr. Pinckney’s (of S. Carolina) motion, for rating blacks os 
 equal to whites, instead of as three-fifths, — South Carolina, Georgia, 
 aye — 2; Massachusetts, Connecticut (Doctor Johnson, aye), New' 
 Jersey, Pennsylvania (three against two), Delaware, Maryland, Vir- 
 ginia, North Carolina, no — 8. 
 
 Mr. Randolph’s (of Virginia) proposition, as varied by Mr. Wilson 
 (of Pennsylvania) being read for taking the question on the whole, — 
 
 Mr. Gerry (of Massachusetts) urged that the principle of it could 
 not be carried into execution, as the States were not to be taxed as 
 States. With regard to taxes on imposts, he conceived they would 
 be more productive when there were no slaves, than where there 
 were ; the consumption being greater. 
 
21 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth (of Connecticut.) In the case of a poll-tax there 
 would be no difficulty. But there would probably be none. The 
 sum allotted to a State may be levied without difficulty, according to 
 the plan used by the State in raising its own supplies. 
 
 Ou the question on the whole proposition, as proportioning repre- 
 sentation to direct taxation, and both to the white and three-filths of 
 the black inhabitants, and requiring a census within six years, and 
 within every ten years afterwards, — Connecticut, Pennsylvania, 
 Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye — & ; New-Jersey,' 
 Delaware, no — 2; Massachusetts, South Carolina, divided, j op. 1079 
 to 10S7. 
 
 Friday, July 13, 1787. 
 
 On the motion of Mr. Randolph (of Virginia), the vote of Monday 
 last, authorizing the Legislature to adjust, from time to time, the repre- 
 sentation upon the principles of wealth and numbers of inhabitants, 
 was reconsidered by common consent, in order to strike out wealth 
 and adjust the resolution to that requiring periodical revisions accord- 
 ing to the number of whites aDd three-fifths of the blacks. 
 
 Mr. Gouverneur Morris (of Pennsylvania) opposed the alteration, as 
 leaving still an incoherence. If negroes were to be viewed as in- 
 habitants, and the revision was to proceed on the principle of numbers 
 of inhabitants, they ought to be added in their entire number, and not 
 in the proportion of three-fifths. If as property, the word wealth was 
 right ; and striking it out would produce the very inconsistency which 
 it w r as meant to get rid of. The train of business, and the late turn 
 which it had taken, had led him, he said, into deep meditation on it, 
 and he would candidly state the result. A distinction has been set 
 up, and urged, between the Northern and Southern States. He had 
 hitherto considered ^his doctrine as heretical. He still thought the 
 distinction groundless. He sees, however, that it is persisted in ; and 
 the Southern gentlemen will not be satisfied unless they see the way 
 open to their gaining a majority in the public councils. The conse- 
 quence of such a transfer of power from the maritime to the interior 
 and landed interest, will, he foresees, be such an oppression to com- 
 merce, that he shall be obliged to vote for the vicious principle of 
 equality in the second branch, in order to provide some defence for 
 the Northern States against it. But to come more to the point, 
 either this distinction is fictitious or real ; if fictitious, let it be dis- 
 missed, and let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, instead 
 of attempting to blend incompatible things, let us at once take a 
 friendly leave of each other. There can be no end of demands for 
 security, if every particular interest is to be entitled to it. The East- 
 ern States may claim it for their fishery, and for other objects, as the 
 Southern States claim it for their peculiar objects. In this struggle 
 between the two ends of the Union, what part ought the Middle 
 States, in point of policy, to take ? To join their Eastern brethren, 
 according to his ideas. If the Southern States get the power into 
 their hands, and be joined, as they will be, with the interior country, 
 

 22 
 
 they will inevitably bring on a war with Spain for the Mississippi. 
 This language is already held. The interior country, having no 
 property nor interest exposed on the sea, will be little affected by 
 such a war. He wished to know what security the Northern and 
 Middle States will have against this danger, it has been said that 
 North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia only, will in a little time 
 have a majority of the people of America. They must in that case 
 include the great interior country, and every thing was to be appre- 
 hended from their getting the power into their bands. 
 
 Mr. Butler (of South Carolina). The security the Southern States 
 want is, that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some 
 gentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. It 
 was not supposed that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, 
 would have more people than all the other States, but many more 
 relatively to the other States, than they now have. The people and 
 strength of America are evidently bearing southwardly, and south- 
 westward ly. 
 
 On the question to strike out wectlth, and to make the change as 
 moved by Mr Randolph (of Virginia), it passed in the affirmative, — 
 Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, 
 Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 9 ; Delaware, 
 divided, pp. 1090-1-2-3-4. 
 
 Saturday, July 14, 1787. 
 
 Mr. Madison (of Virginia). It seemed now pretty well understood, 
 that the real difference of interests lay, not between the large and 
 small, but between the Northern and Southern States. THE INSTI- 
 TUTION OF SLAVERY, AND ITS CONSEQUENCES, FORMED 
 THE LINE OF DISCRIMINATION, p. 1104. 
 
 Monday, July 23, 1787. 
 
 General Pinckney reminded the Convention, that if the Committee 
 should fail to insert some security to the Southern States against an 
 emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he should be bound by 
 duty to his State to vote against their report, p. 1187. 
 
 Tuesday, July 24, 1787. 
 
 Mr. Gouverneur Morris hoped the Committee would strike out the 
 whole of the clause proportioning direct taxation to representation. 
 He had only meant it as a bridge*' to assist us over a certain gulf; 
 having passed the gulf, the bridge may be removed. He thought the 
 principle laid down with so much strictness liable to strong objections. 
 p. 1197. 
 
 Wednesday, August 8, 1787. 
 
 Mr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was 
 meant to have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the 
 admission of slaves into the rule of representation. He could not 
 
 * The object was to lessen the eagerness, on one side, for, and the opposition, on 
 the other, to the share of representation claimed try the Southern States on account 
 of the negroes. 
 
23 
 
 reconcile his mind to the Article, if it was to prevent objections to 
 the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circum- 
 stance to his mind, and he believed would be so to a great part of 
 the people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to 
 it heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession would have 
 produced a readiness, which had not been manifested, to strengthen 
 the General Government, and to mark a full confidence in it. The 
 Report under consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all 
 those hopes. In two great points the hands of the Legislature were 
 absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited. 
 Exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the 
 great objects of the general system? First, defence against foreign 
 invasion ; secondly, against internal sedition. Shall all the States, 
 then, be bound to defend each, and shall each be at liberty to intro- 
 duce a weakness which will render defence more difficult ? Shall 
 one part of the United States be bound to defend another part, and 
 that other part be at liberty, not only to increase its own danger, but 
 to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be 
 imported, shall not the exports produced by their labor supply a 
 revenue the better to enable the General Government to defend their 
 masters? There was so much inequality and unreasonableness in all 
 this, that the people of the Northern States could never be reconciled 
 to it. No candid man couid undertake to justify it to them. He 
 had hoped that some accommodation would have taken place on. this 
 subject; that at least a time would have been limited for the impor- 
 tation of slaves. He never could agree to let them be imported with- 
 out limitation, and then be represented in the National Legislature. 
 Indeed, he could so little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a 
 practice, that he was not sure he could assent to it under any circum- 
 stances. At all events, either slaves should not be represented, or 
 exports should be taxable. 
 
 Mr. Sherman regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point 
 of representation having been settled after much difficulty and delib- 
 eration, he did not think himself bound to make opposition ; especially 
 as the present Article, as amended, did not preclude any arrangement 
 whatever on that point, in another place of the report. 
 
 Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved to insert “ free” before the word 
 “inhabitants.” Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never 
 would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious 
 institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the States w here it pre- 
 vailed. 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 
 
24 
 
 
 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 P 
 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 (rover 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. lie 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 [lower to tax 
 them by excises, and duties on imports; both of which will fall heavier 
 on them than on the Southern inhabitants; lor 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 Govern- 
 ment 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 pro- 
 portioned 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. 
 
25 
 
 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 rep- 
 resented 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 burtbensome to the United States than the slaves. He 
 thought this could be demonstrated, if the occasion w’ere 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-IIampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, 
 Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South 
 Carolina, Georgia, no — 10. pp. 1261-2-3-4-5-6. 
 
 Tuesday, August 21, 1787. 
 
 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 apportion- 
 ment 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 dishon- 
 orable 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 insurrec- 
 tions, 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 considt 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 
 3 
 
26 
 
 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. 
 
 Article 7, Section 4, was resumed. 
 
 Mr. Sherman was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disap- 
 proved of the slave trade ; yet as the States were now possessed ol 
 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 degress com- 
 plete 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 dan- 
 gerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the 
 slaves as it did by the tories. He mentioned the dangerous insur- 
 rections 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 submis- 
 sion should fail. Maryland and Virginia he said had already pro- 
 hibited 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 emigra- 
 tion 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 revvarded 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 the 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 w- 
 
27 
 
 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 Vir- 
 ginia 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 Caro- 
 lina 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 insurrec- 
 tions 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 as- 
 sent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do 
 without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the import- 
 ations. 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 admit- 
 ted 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 Slate has always hitherto 
 supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central 
 States, who wished to have a vortex for every thing ; 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 respecta- 
 
28 
 
 ble 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 he 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 author- 
 ized 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 Englaud 
 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 
 refnse 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 £5 on each slave imported from Africa; £10 on 
 each from elsewhere ; and £50 on each from a State licensing man- 
 umission. 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 oth- 
 er 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 re- 
 strained by the opinions here given, that they will themselves cease 
 to import slaves. 
 
 Gen. Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly, that be 
 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 
 
29 
 
 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 im- 
 portant an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the sec- 
 tion, 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 tax- 
 ing 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 Stateshaving 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, p. 1390—97. 
 
 Friday, August 24, 1787. 
 
 In Convention , — Governor Livingston, from the committee of elev- 
 en, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth 
 section, and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, deliv- 
 ered 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.’ 
 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 “ The fifth Section to remain as in the Report. 
 
 “The sixtli 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 in- 
 sert 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 ; NewJersey, 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 Con- 
 stitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of lan- 
 guage, 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. Shermau liked a description better than the terms proposed, 
 which had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing 
 to some people. 
 
 M. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman. 
 
 Mr. Williamson said, that both iu 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 importa- 
 tion 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, nc,m. con. f 
 
 * [This sixth Section was,“ No Navigation act shall be passed without the assent 
 of two-thirds of the members present in each House.” — Editor.] 
 
 f In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and Georgia, voted in the affirm- 
 ative. 
 
31 
 
 The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as fol- 
 lows : “The migration or importation of such persons as the several 
 States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be pro- 
 hibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808,” — 
 
 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North 
 Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 7 ; New Jersey, Pennsylva- 
 nia, Delaware, Virginia, no — 4. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin, in order to restrain and mgre 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, uem.,con. 
 
 Mr. Sherman was against this second part, as acknowledging men 
 to be property, by taxiug 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 small- 
 ness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discourage- 
 ment 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 dol- 
 lars for each person;” and then the second part, as amended, was 
 agreed to. pp. 1427 to 30. 
 
 Tuesday, August 28, 17S7. 
 
 Article 14, was then taken up. 
 
 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, Penn- 
 sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye — 9 ; 
 South Carolina, no — 1 ; Georgia, divided. 
 
 Article 15, being theu 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 mis- 
 demeanor” had not a technical meaning too limited. 
 
32 
 
 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 sur- 
 rendering 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. 
 
 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 * 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 constit- 
 uents, though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be recon- 
 ciled 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. 
 
 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 an- 
 other 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. 
 1456. 
 
 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 in- 
 terested in that property, and prejudiced against it. In order to ob- 
 viate this objection, these words were added to the proposition : “pro- 
 vided 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. 
 
 Thursday, September 13, 1787. 
 
 Article 1, Section 2. On motion of Mr. Randolph, the word “ ser- 
 vitude ” was struck out, and “service” unanimously f inserted, the 
 former being thought to express the condition of slaves, and the lat- 
 ter the obligations of free persons. 
 
 Mr. Dickinson and Mr. Wilson moved to strike out, “and direct 
 
 * He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two sub- 
 jects of navigation and slavery, had taken place between those parts of the Union, 
 which explains the vote on the motion depending, as well as the language of Gener- 
 al Pinckney and others. 
 
 t See page 372 of the printed journal. 
 
33 
 
 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, Mas- 
 sachusetts, 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 vvo'-ds, “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. 15S9. 
 
 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 
 
 From 
 
 THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 Attended. 
 
 New Hampshire, 
 
 1 John Langdon, 
 
 July 23, 
 
 John Pickering, 
 
 2 Nicholas Gilman, 
 
 “ 23. 
 
 Massachusetts, 
 
 Benjamin West. 
 Francis Dana, 
 
 
 
 El bridge Gerry, 
 
 May 29. 
 
 
 3 Nath’l Gorham, 
 
 “ 28. 
 
 
 4 Rufus King, 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 
 Caleb Strong, 
 
 “ 28. 
 
 Rhode Island, 
 
 (No appointment.) 
 
 
 Connecticut, 
 
 5 W. S. Johnson, 
 
 June 2. 
 
 6 Roger Sherman, 
 Oliver Ellsworth, 
 
 May 30. 
 
 
 “ 29. 
 
 New York, 
 
 Robert Yates, 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 7 Alex’r Hamilton, 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 
 John Lansing, 
 
 June 2. 
 
 New Jersey, 
 
 8 Win. Livingston, 
 
 “ 5. 
 
 9 David Brearly, 
 
 May 25. 
 
 
 Wm. C. Houston, 
 
 do. 
 
 
 10 Wm. Patterson, 
 
 do. 
 
 
 John JYielson, 
 Abraham Clark. 
 
 11 Jonathan Dayton, 
 
 June 21. 
 
 Pennsylvania, 
 
 12 Benj. Franklin, 
 
 May 28. 
 
 13 Thos. Miffin, 
 
 do. 
 
34 
 
 From 
 
 
 Attended. 
 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 ]4 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 Dickinson, 
 
 « 28. 
 
 
 23 Richard Bassett, 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 
 24 Jacob Broom, 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 Maryland, 
 
 25 James M’Henry, 
 
 26 Daniel of St. Tho. 
 
 “ 29. 
 
 
 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, 
 
 James McClurg, (in 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 
 room P. Henry) 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 North Carolina, 
 
 Rich’d Caswell (resigned). 
 
 
 Alex’r Martin, 
 
 May 25. 
 
 
 Win, R. Davie, 
 
 31 Wm. Blount (in room 
 
 « 25. 
 
 
 of R. Caswell), 
 
 Willie Jones (declined). 
 
 June 20. 
 
 
 32 R. D. Spaight, 
 
 33 Hugh Williamson, (in 
 
 May 25. 
 
 
 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, 
 
 “ 25. 
 
 39 Abr’m Baldwin, 
 
 June 11. 
 
 
 William Pierce, 
 
 George Walton. 
 
 May 31. 
 
 
 Wm. Houston, 
 
 JValh'l Pendleton. 
 
 June 1. 
 
 Those with numbers before their names signed the Consti- 
 tution. 
 
 Those in italics never attended. 
 
 Members who attended, but did not sign the Constitution, 
 
 ^ 050 ® 
 
35 
 
 Extract 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 taxa- 
 tion, 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 repre- 
 sentatives 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 per- 
 sons 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 expression 
 signified ; and hence it is that the elause 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. 
 
36 
 
 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 pro- 
 hibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was re- 
 jected 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, 
 aud 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 en- 
 deavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those 
 States. To this committee also was referred the following proposi- 
 tion, 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 com- 
 mittee, 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 witli a temporary lib- 
 erty 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 na- 
 tions in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Brit- 
 ain to enslave us; that this opposition was grounded upon the preser- 
 vation 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 free- 
 dom, who coidd 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 pro- 
 tection in forming our government over a free people, a government 
 formed pretendedly on t lie principles of liberty, and for its preserva- 
 tion, — in that, government to have a provision not only putting it out 
 of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even encour- 
 aging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power and 
 influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly 
 
37 
 
 sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to he consid- 
 ered as a solemn mockery of, and an insult to, that God whose pro- 
 tection 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 to lie considered that national 
 crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by 
 national punishments ; anil 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 gov- 
 ernment 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 dis- 
 graceful to the last degree, that we should except from the exercise 
 of that [tower, the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in 
 its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind. That, on the con- 
 trary, 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 eman- 
 cipation of the slaves which are already in the States. That s'lavery 
 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 govern- 
 ment, 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 he able to protect itself against either, and therefore will by 
 so the much want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union. 
 
 It was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the gene- 
 ral government a power, under the idea of national character, or na- 
 tional interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have 
 prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and passing insol- 
 vent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we should 
 prohibit the government from interfering with the 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 con- 
 vention, 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 pro- 
 hibited from interfering in the slave-trade before the year eighteen 
 4 
 
38 
 
 hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the Constitution 
 that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security that such pro- 
 hibition 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 abhor- 
 rence 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 restrain- 
 ed 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 iniqui- 
 tous 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 sanc- 
 tion 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 vtfhieh 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 
 bean 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 im- 
 prison 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. 
 
39 
 
 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 mis- 
 conception of this section. It is a principle of this Constitution, that 
 representation and taxation should to ha id in hand. This paragraph 
 states, that the numbers of free persons shall be determined, by add- 
 ing to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to 
 service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, tbree- 
 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 consid- 
 ered as a free person ? 
 
 Mr. King in answer said, all persons born free were to be consid- 
 ered 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, Massachu- 
 setts, and Connecticut. 
 
 Mr Gorham thought the proposed section much in favor of Massa- 
 chusetts ; 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 hav- 
 ing 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 Jive 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 gentlemen 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. 
 
40 
 
 Kin", wlio 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 thought 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 char- 
 acter 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 Con- 
 stitution, every particular State is left to its own option totally to pro- 
 hibit 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 south- 
 ern 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 arti- 
 
41 
 
 cle, 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 la- 
 mented, by Mr. Nason. Major Lusk, Mr. Neal, and others, that this 
 Constitution provided for the continuation ot‘ the slave trade for 20 
 years. On the other, the honorable Judge Dana, Mr. Adams and 
 others, rejoiced that a door w-as 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: 1 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 misfor- 
 tune, 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 ab- 
 sence, 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 
 w alls 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 inde- 
 pendent 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 en- 
 courage 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 mi- 
 
 4* 
 
42 
 
 gration 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 180S, 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, has 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, ingen- 
 uously 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 w’e 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, bath been an abuse of the covenant 
 of circumcision, which gave the seed of Abraham to destroy the in- 
 habitants of Canaan, and to take their houses, vineyards, and all their 
 
43 
 
 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 ineu. 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 direc- 
 tion 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 lauds 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 t lie 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 Abra- 
 ham 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 free- 
 dom. And that covenant was expressly repealed in various parts of 
 the New Testament ; and particularly in the first epistle to the Cor- 
 inthians, 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 par- 
 ticular order of men.” 
 
 NEW YORK CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. 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 
 
44 
 
 included in the ratio of representation ; — the principle of a represen- 
 tation 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, lie 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 south- 
 ern 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 inter- 
 ests into different classes. There are navigating and non-navigating 
 States — the Northern are properly the navigating States : the South- 
 ern appear to possess neither the means nor the spirit of navigation. 
 Tliis difference of situation naturally produces a dissimilarity of 
 interest atul views respecting foreign commerce. It was the interest 
 of the Northern States that there should be no restraints on their 
 navigation, and that they should have full power, by a majority in 
 Congress, to make commercial regulations in favor of their own, and 
 in restraint of the navigation of foreigners. The Southern States 
 wished to impose a restraint on the Northern, by requiring that two- 
 thirds iti Congress should he requisite to pass an act in regulation of 
 commerce: they were appprehensive that the restraints of a naviga- 
 tion 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 neces- 
 sary, 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 com- 
 mittee 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 gov- 
 ernment. Any other system would have been impracticable. Let a 
 
45 
 
 Convention be called to-morrow — let them meet twenty times; nay, 
 twenty thousand times; they will have the same difficulties to encoun- 
 ter ; the same clashing interests to reconcile. 
 
 But dismissing these reflections, let us consider how far the ar- 
 rangement 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 represen- 
 tation 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, 1 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 regula- 
 tions 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 adop- 
 ted. as far as it could be, in the Constitution of New-York. It will, 
 1m '.ever, by no means, be admitted, that the slaves are considered 
 altogether as property. They are men, though degraded to the con- 
 dition of slavery. They are persons known to the municipal 
 laws of the states which they inhabit as well as to the laws of na- 
 ture. But representation and taxation go together — and one uni- 
 form 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 hon. 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. 
 
46 
 
 Mr. Harrison. Among the objections, that, which has been made 
 to the mode of apportionment of representatives, has been relinquish- 
 ed. I think this concession does honor to the gentleman who had 
 stated the objection. He has candidly acknowledged, that this appor- 
 tionment was the result of accommodation ; without which no union 
 could have been formed. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION. 
 
 Mr. Wilson. Much fault has been found with tiie mode of expres- 
 sion, 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 till hands, to be a mode that 
 could not he carried into execution. Congress were satisfied of this, 
 and in the year 17S3 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 
 hound to servitude, and excluding Indians not taxed. These were 
 the expressions used in 1783, and the late 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 for- 
 ward 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 res- 
 pect 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, notwith- 
 standing the disposition of any state to the contrary. I consider this 
 as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country;; I 
 and though the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it will 
 produce the same kind, gradual change, which was pursued in Penn- 
 sylvania. It is with much satisfaction I view' this power in the gen- 
 
47 
 
 eral government, whereby they may lay an interdiction on this 
 reproachful trade; hut an immediate advantage is also obtained, for a 
 tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten 
 dollars tor each person ; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition ; 
 it was all that could he obtained, 1 ant 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 importa- 
 tion of such persons, &c., shall not be prohibited by congress prior 
 to the year ISOS, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such impor- 
 tation ; 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 gentleman from West- 
 moreland (Mr. Findley,) and the honorable gentleman from Cumber- 
 land (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. 
 
 1 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 powder 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 ex- 
 pression? 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, 
 ehiefly 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 oppo- 
 sition, accuse this system of a crime, because it has not prohibited 
 
48 
 
 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 said, we are told in strong language, of dangers to 
 which we will he 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 nefa- 
 rious 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 pre- 
 vent 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, hut there is no provision made for secur- 
 ing to the southern States those they now possess. It is far from be- 
 ing a desirable property. But it will involve us in great difficulties 
 and infelicity to he 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 incon- 
 sistent to criminate it for two contradictory reasons ? I submit it to 
 the consideration of the gentleman, whether, if it he reprehensible in 
 the one case, it can be censurable in the other? Mr. Lee then con- 
 cluded 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 con- 
 gress. 
 
 Mr. George Nicholas said, 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 
 
49 
 
 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 the 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 separa- 
 tion 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 Stales 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 proper- 
 ty 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 he amended, still this 
 detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till after the ex- 
 piratiou 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. 1 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 he excluded 
 without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not 
 have entered into the Union of America, without the temporary per- 
 mission 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 out- 
 laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The Union in general is 
 not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might 
 he continued forever : but by this clause an end may be put to it 
 after twenty years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circum- 
 stances. A tax may be laid in the mean time ; but it is limited, other- 
 wise 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 auv of those States where slaves are free, he becomes 
 5 
 
50 
 
 emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharita- 
 ble 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 deliv- 
 ered 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 exists. 
 No power is given to the general government to interpose with re- 
 spect 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 prop- 
 erty 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.” 1 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 cf this traffic, they might solicit and 
 obtain aid from foreign powers. 
 
 Mr. Tyler warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and disgrace- 
 fulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged by gen- 
 tlemen 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 tem- 
 porary 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 ne- 
 cessity of restraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our un- 
 alienable 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 ef these restrictions on Con- 
 gress, was a plain demonstration that Congiess could exercise powers 
 
51 
 
 by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could 
 have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction. If 
 so, the power uot having been expressly delegated, must he obtained 
 by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of re- 
 served 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 vve 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. lie apprehended it would be productive of much stock- 
 jobbing, 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 so now, will be manumitted. At the 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, 
 be asked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than 
 to suffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting 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 
 superinteudeney for twenty years. It could not therefore have been 
 a power by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a 
 
52 
 
 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 estab- 
 lished in the Constitution. The exception of taxes, from the uni- 
 formity 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 eman- 
 cipation ? 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 cun 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 [dace. 
 
 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 ir. 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 be 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, arid 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 
 
53 
 
 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 
 meaut, 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 com- 
 munity. 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 or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom 
 such service or labor may be due. 
 
 Mr. George Mason. — Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the 
 investigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some 
 
 5 * 
 
54 
 
 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 re- 
 peatedly 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 ft ee, 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, 1 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 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. 
 
 ■MB 
 
55 
 
 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 
 aucestors, 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 emanci- 
 pation. 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 jeop- 
 ardy, aud 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 sub- 
 jecting 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. Raudolph said, 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 argu- 
 ments. 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 im- 
 portation 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 importa- 
 tions ; 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, con- 
 ceived 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 Con- 
 stitution 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; 
 
56 
 
 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 unac- 
 countable 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 wel- 
 fare.” 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 ride 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 Muson. 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 naviga- 
 tion 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 requir- 
 ing 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 mis- 
 taken, let me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that 
 this was not a sine qua non of their concurrence. The Newfound- 
 land fisheries will require that kind of security which we are now in 
 
57 
 
 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 said — 
 
 J was struck with surprise when 1 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, dis- 
 courage 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 1 believe it ever 
 will, unless it will enter into the heads of those gentlemen who sub- 
 stitute 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. Not- 
 withstanding be admits their right to this power by implication, he 
 says that I am unfair aud uncandid in my deduction, that they can 
 emancipate our slaves, though the word emancipation be not men- 
 tioned 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 revo- 
 lution. 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 abol- 
 ished, 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 precipi- 
 tate and hasty on a subject of such awful importance. It ought to 
 
 
58 
 
 
 be considered, that some of us are slow of apprehension, not having 
 those quick conceptions, and luminous understandings, of which 
 other gentlemen may he possessed. The gentleman “ does not wish 
 to be represented with negroes.” This, sir, is an unhappy species of 
 population, but we cannot at present alter their situation. The East- 
 ern 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 consideration, it was found impracti- 
 cable to determine the comparative value of lands, and other proper- 
 ty, in so extensive a territory, with any degree of accuracy ; and pop- 
 ulation alone was adopted as the only practicable rule or criterion of 
 representation. It was urged by the deputies of the Eastern States, 
 that a representation of two-fifths would be of little utility, and that 
 their entire representation would be unequal and burthensome. That 
 in a time of war, slaves rendered a country more vulnerable, while its 
 defence devolved upon its free inhabitants. On the other hand, we in- 
 sisted, that in time of peace they contributed by their labor to the 
 general wealth as well as other members of the community. That as 
 rational beings they had a right of representation, and in some in- 
 stances might be highly useful in war. On these principles, the 
 Eastern States gave the matter up, and consented to the regulation as 
 it has been read. I hope these reasons will appear satisfactory. It 
 is the same rule or principle which was proposed some years ago by 
 Congress, and assented to by twelve of the States. It may wound 
 the delicacy of the gentleman from Guilford, [Mr. Goudy,] but I hope 
 he will endeavor to accommodate his feelings to the interests and 
 circumstances of his country. 
 
 Mr. James Galloway said, that he did not object to the representa- 
 tion of negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of 
 representatives. He was surprised bow we came to have but five, 
 including those intended to represent negroes. That in his humble 
 opinion North Carolina was entitled to that number independent of 
 the negroes. 
 
 First clause of the 9th section read. 
 
 Mr. J. M’Dowall wished to hear the reasons of this restriction. 
 
 Mr. Spaight answered that there was a contest between the North- 
 ern and Southern States — that the Southern States, whose principal 
 support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the 
 desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves abso- 
 lutely. That South Carolina and Georgia insisted on this clause, as 
 they were now in want of hands to cultivate their lands : That in 
 the course of twenty years they would be fully supplied : That the 
 
59 
 
 trade would be abolished then, aDd that in the mean time some tax 
 or duty might be laid on. 
 
 Mr. M’Dowail replied, that the explanation was just such as he ex- 
 pected, and by no means satisfactory to him, and that he looked upon 
 it as a very objectionable part of the system. 
 
 Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express sentiments similar to 
 those of the gentleman from Craven. For my part, were it practi- 
 cable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would 
 give me the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly incon- 
 sistent with the rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties 
 have been exercised. When the entire abolition of slavery takes 
 place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous 
 mind, and every friend of human nature ; but we often wish for things 
 which are not attainable. It was the w ish of a great majority of the 
 Convention to put an end to the trade immediately, but the States of 
 South Carolina and Georgia would not agree to it. Consider then 
 what would be the difference between our present situation in this 
 respect, if we do not agree to the Constitution, and what it will he if 
 we do agree to it. If we do not agree to it, do we remedy the evil ? 
 No, sir, we do not; for if the constitution be not adopted, it will be 
 in the power of every State to continue it forever. They may or may 
 not abolish it at their discretion. But if we adopt the constitution, the 
 trade must cease after twenty years, if congress declare so, whether 
 particular States please so or not: surely, then, we gain by it. This 
 was the utmost that could be obtained. I heartily wish more could 
 have been done. But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished 
 above others by that very provision. Where is there another coun- 
 try in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore, sir, set an 
 example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this inhu- 
 man traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that this 
 part of the constitution will not be condemned because it has not 
 stipulated for what it was impracticable to obtain. 
 
 Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of 
 this trade to the term of twenty years, was a compromise between 
 the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and 
 Georgia wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on 
 the entire aholition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina 
 had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the importation 
 of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the convention did not think 
 themselves authorized to contend for an immediate prohibition of it. 
 
 Mr. Iredell added to what he had said before, that the States of 
 Georgia and South Carolina had lost a great many slaves during tbe 
 war, and that they wished to supply the loss. 
 
 Mr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause 
 does not satify my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put 
 an end to. But in case it be thought proper to continue this abom- 
 inable traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the taxon the 
 importation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is dif- 
 
60 
 
 ferent from the people to the North. We want citizens ; they do not. 
 Instead of laying a tax, we ought to give a bounty, to encourage for- 
 eigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, 
 it requires the utmost consideration. The property of the Southern 
 States consists principally of slaves. If they mean to do away slavery 
 altogether, this property will be destroyed. I apprehend it means to 
 bring forward manumission. If we must manumit our slaves, what 
 country shall vve send them to ? It is impossible for us to be happy 
 if, after manumission, they are to stay among us. 
 
 Mr. Iredell. Mr. Chairman, the worthy gentleman, I believe, has 
 misunderstood this clause, which runs in the following words: “The 
 migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now 
 existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the 
 Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax or duty maybe imposed on 
 such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.” 
 
 Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abol- 
 ished slavery, did not approve of the expression slaves ; they therefore 
 used another that answered the same purpose. The committee will 
 observe the distinction between the two words migration and im- 
 portation. The first part of the clause will extend to persons who 
 come into the country as free people, or are brought as slaves, but 
 the last part extends to slaves only. The word migration refers to 
 free persons ; but the word importation refers to slaves, because free 
 people cannot be said to be imported. The tax, therefore, is only 
 to be laid on slaves who are imported, and not on free persons who 
 migrate. I further beg leave to say, that the gentleman is mistaken 
 in another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition 
 of slavery. Is there anything in this constitution which says that 
 Congress shall have it in their power to abolish the slavery of those 
 slaves who are now in the country ? Is it not the plain meaning of 
 it, that after twenty years they may prevent the future importation of 
 slaves? It does not extend to those now in the country. There is 
 another circumstance to be observed. There is no authority vested 
 in congress to restrain the States in the interval of twenty years, 
 from doing what they please. If they wish to inhibit such impor- 
 tation, they may do so. Our next assembly may put an entire end 
 to the importation of slaves. 
 
 Article fourth. The first section and two first clauses of the second 
 section read without observation. 
 
 The last clause read — 
 
 Mr. Iredell begged leave to explain the reason of this clause. In 
 some of the Northern States, they have emancipated all their slaves. 
 If any of our slaves, said he, go there and remain there a certain 
 time, they would, by the present laws, be entitled to their freedom, 
 so that their masters could not get them again. This would be ex- 
 tremely prejudicial to the inhabitants of the Southern States, and to 
 prevent it, this clause is inserted in the constitution. Though the 
 word slave be not mentioned, this is the meaning of it. The Northern 
 
61 
 
 delegates, owing to their particular scruples on the subject of slavery 
 did not choose the word slave to be mentioned. 
 
 The rest of the fourth article read without any observation. 
 
 ##*##*# 
 
 It is however to be observed, (said Mr. Iredell,) that the first and 
 fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, are protected 
 from any alteration till the year 1S08; and in order that no consoli- 
 dation should take place, it is provided, that no State shall, by any 
 amendment or alteration, be ever deprived of an equal suffrage in the 
 Senate without its own consent. The two first prohibitions are with 
 respect to the census, according to which direct taxes are imposed, 
 and with respect to the importation of slaves. As to the first, it must 
 be observed, that there is a material difference between the Northern 
 and Southern States. The Northern States have been much longer 
 settled, and are much fuller of people than the Southern, but have 
 not land in equal proportion, nor scarcely any slaves. The subject 
 of this article was regulated with great difficulty, and by a spirit of 
 concession which it would not be prudent to disturb for a good many 
 years. In twenty years there will probably be a great alteration, 
 and then the subject may be considered with less difficulty and greater 
 coolness. In the mean time, the compromise was upon the best 
 footing that could be obtained. A compromise likewise took place 
 with regard to the importation of slaves. It is probable that all the 
 members reprobated this inhuman traffic, but those of South Carolina 
 and Georgia would not consent to an immediate prohibition of it; 
 one reason of which was, that during the last war they lost a vast 
 number of negroes, which loss they wish to supply. In the mean 
 time, it is left to the States to admit or prohibit the importation, and 
 Congress may impose a limited duty upon it. 
 
 SOUTH CAROLINA CONVENTION. 
 
 Hon. Rawlins Lowndes. In the first place, what cause was there 
 for jealousy of our importing negroes? Why confine ns to twenty 
 years, or rather why limit us at all? For his part he thought this 
 trade could be justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and 
 justice; for certainly to translate a set of human beings from a bad 
 country to a better, was fulfilling every part of these principles. 
 But they don’t like our slaves, because they have none themselves ; 
 and therefore want to exclude us from this great advantage; why 
 should the Southern States allow of this, without the consent of 
 nine States? 
 
 Judge Pendleton observed, that only three States, Georgia, South 
 Carolina, and North Carolina, allowed the importation of negroes. 
 Virginia had a clause in her constitution for this purpose, and Mary- 
 land, he believed, even before the war, prohibited them. 
 
 Mr. Lowndes continued — that we had a law prohibiting the im- 
 portation of negroes for three years, a law he greatly approved of ; 
 but there was no reason offered, w'hy the Southern States might not 
 6 
 
62 
 
 find it necessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports. With- 
 out negroes this State would degenerate into one of the most con- 
 temptible in the Union: and cited an expression that fell from Gen. 
 Pinckney on a former debate, that whilst there remained one acre of 
 swamp land in South Carolina he should raise his voice against 
 restricting the importation of negroes. Even in granting the impor- 
 tation for twenty years, care had been takeu to make us pay for this 
 indulgence, each negro being liable, on importation, to pay a duty 
 not exceeding ten dollars, and, in addition this, were liable to a 
 capitation tax. Negroes were our wealth, our only natural resource; 
 yet behold how our kind friends in the North were determined soon 
 to tie up our hands, and drain us of what we had. The Eastern 
 States drew their means of subsistence, in a great measure, from 
 their shipping; and on that head, they had been particularly careful 
 not to allow of any burdens : they were not to pay tonnage, or duties ; 
 no, not even the form of clearing out: all ports were free and open 
 to them! Why, then, call this a reciprocal bargain, which took all 
 from one party, to bestow it on the other ? 
 
 Major Butler observed that they were to pay a five per cent impost. 
 This, Mr. Lowndes proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are 
 to be the carriers : and we, being the consumers, therefore all expenses 
 woidd fall upon us. 
 
 Hon. E. Rutledge. The gentleman had complained of the ine- 
 quality of the taxes between the Northern and Southern States — 
 that ten dollars a head was imposed on the importation of negroes, 
 and that those negroes were afterwards taxed. To this it was 
 answered, that the ten dollars per head was an equivalent to the five 
 per cent, on imported articles ; and as to their being afterwards taxed, 
 the advantage is on our side; or, at least, not against us. 
 
 In the Northern States, the labor is performed by white people ; 
 in the Southern by black. All the free people (and there are few 
 others) in the Northern States, are to be taxed by the new constitu- 
 tion, whereas, only the free people, and two-fifths of the slaves in 
 the Southern States are to be rated in the apportioning of taxes. 
 But the principal objection is, that no duties are laid on shipping — 
 that in fact the carrying trade was to be vested in a great measure 
 in the Americans ; that the ship-building business was principally 
 carried on in the Northern States. When this subject is duly con- 
 sidered, the Southern States, should be the last to object to it. Mr. 
 Rutledge then went into a consideration of the subject; after which 
 the Mouse adjourned. 
 
 Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. We were at a loss for some 
 time for a rule to ascertain the proportionate wealth of the States, 
 at last we thought that the productive labor of the inhabitants was 
 the best rule for ascertaining their wealth ; in conformity to this 
 rule, joined to a spirit of concession, w 7 e determined that representa- 
 tives should be apportioned among the several States, by adding to 
 the whole number of free persons three-fifths of the slaves. We 
 
63 
 
 thus obtained a representation for our property, and I confess I did 
 not expect that vve had conceded too much to the Eastern States, 
 wheu they allowed us a representation for a species of property 
 which they have not among them. 
 
 The honorable gentleman alleges, that the Southern States are 
 weak, 1 sincerely agree with him — we are so weak that by ourselves 
 we could not form an union strong enough for the purpose of effect- 
 ually protecting each other. Without uniou with the other States, 
 South Carolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much 
 a Quixotte as to suppose that this State could long maintain her in- 
 dependence if she stood alone, or was only connected with the 
 Southern States? I scarcely believe there is. Let an invading 
 power send a naval force into the Chesapeake to keep Virginia in 
 alarm, and attack South Carolina with such a naval and military force 
 as Sir Henry Clinton brought here in 1780, and though they might 
 not soon conquer us, they would certainly do us an infinite deal of 
 mischief ; and if they considerably increased their numbers, we 
 should probably fall. As, from the nature of our climate, and the 
 fewness of our inhabitants, we are undoubtedly weak, should vve not 
 endeavor to form a close union with the Eastern States, who are 
 strong ? 
 
 For who have been the greatest sufferers in the Union, by our ob- 
 taining our independence ? I answer, the Eastern States ; they have 
 lost every thing but their country, and their freedom. It is notorious 
 that some ports to the Eastward, which used to fit out one hundred 
 and fifty sail of vessels, do not now fit out thirty; that their trade of 
 ship-building, which used to be very considerable, is now annihilated ; 
 that their fisheries are trifling, and their mariners in want of bread ; 
 surely we are called upon by every tie of justice, friendship, and hu- 
 manity, to relieve their distresses ; and as by their exertions they have 
 assisted us in establishing our freedom, we should let them, in some 
 measure, partake of our prosperity. The General then said lie would 
 make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman had 
 thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African trade 
 after the year 1S08. On this point your delegates had to contend 
 with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle 
 States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, 
 who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of 
 the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the ex- 
 pressions that the gentleman has quoted, that while there remained 
 one acre of swamp laud uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise 
 my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am as 
 thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our 
 climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us 
 to cultivate our land with negroes, and that without them South 
 Carolina would soon be a desert waste. 
 
 You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that 1 
 need not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members 
 
64 
 
 who opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the 
 weakness of any State who admitted them ; that they were a dan- 
 gerous species of property, which an invading enemy could easily 
 turn against ourselves and the neighboring States, and that as we 
 were allowed a representation for them in the House of Representa- 
 tives, our influence in government would be increased in proportion 
 as we were less able to defend ourselves. “Show some period,” 
 said the members from the Eastern States, “when it may be in our 
 power to put a stop, if we please, to the importation of this weak- 
 ness, and we will endeavor, for your convenience, to restrain the 
 religious and political prejudices of our people on this subject.” 
 
 The Middle States and Virginia made us no such proposition ; 
 they were for an immediate and total prohibition. We endeavored to 
 obviate the objections that were made, in the best manner we could, 
 and assigned reasons for our insistingon the importation, which there 
 is no occasion to repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in 
 the House : a committee of the States was appointed in order to 
 accommodate this matter, and after a great deal of difficulty, it was 
 settled on the footing recited iri the Constitution. 
 
 By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of 
 negroes for twenty years; nor is it declared that the importation 
 shall be then stopped ; it may be continued — w’e have a security 
 that the general government can never emancipate them, for no such 
 authority is granted, and it is admitted on all hands, that the general 
 government has no powers but what are expressly granted by the 
 constitution; and that all rights not expressed were reserved by the 
 several States. We have obtained a right to recover our slaves, in 
 whatever part of America they may take refuge, which is a right 
 we had not before. In short, considering all circumstances, we have 
 made the best terms, for the security of this species of property, it 
 was in our power to make. We would have made better if we 
 could, but on the whole I do not think them bad. 
 
 Hon. Robert Barnwell. Mr. Barnwell continued to say, I now 
 come to the last point for consideration, 1 mean the clause relative to 
 the negroes ; and here I am particularly pleased with the Constitu- 
 tion ; it has not left this matter of so much importance to us open 
 to immediate investigation ; no, it has declared that the United States 
 shall not, at any rate, consider this matter for twenty-one years, and 
 yet gentlemen are displeased w'ith it. 
 
 Congress has guaranteed this right for that space of time, and at 
 its expiration may continue it as long as they please. This question 
 then arises, what will their interest lead them to do P The Eastern 
 States, as the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of 
 America, it will, therefore, certainly be their interest to encourage 
 exportation to as great an extent as possible; and if the quantum of 
 our products will be diminished by the prohibition of negroes, I 
 appeal to the belief of every man, whether he thinks those very 
 carriers will themselves dam up the resources from whence their 
 
65 
 
 profit is derived ? To think so is so contradictory to the general 
 conduct of mankind, that I am of opinion, that without we ourselves 
 put a stop to them, the traffic for negroes will continue forever. 
 
 FEDERALIST, No. 42. 
 
 BY JAMES MADISON. 
 
 It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of prohibiting 
 the importation of slaves, had not been postponed until the year 
 ISOS, or rather that it had been suffered to have immediate opera- 
 tion. But it is not difficult to account either for this restriction on 
 the general government, or for the manner in which the whole clause 
 is expressed. 
 
 It ought to be considered as a great point gained in favor of hu- 
 manity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within 
 these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly upbraided the 
 barbarism of modern policy ; that within that period, it will receive 
 a considerable discouragement from the Federal government, and 
 may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which 
 continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has 
 been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be 
 for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of 
 being redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethern ! 
 Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection 
 against the Constitution, by representing it on one side, as a criminal 
 toleration of an illicit practice ; and on another, as calculated to pre- 
 vent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. 
 I mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an 
 answer, for they deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and 
 spirit, in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to 
 the proposed government. 
 
 FEDERALIST, No. 54. 
 
 BY JAMES MADISON. 
 
 All this is admitted, it will perhaps be said : but does it follow 
 from an admission of numbers for the measure of representation, or 
 of slaves combined with free citizens as a ratio of taxation, that 
 slaves ought to be included in the numerical rule of representation ? 
 
 Slaves are considered as property, not as persons. They ought 
 therefore, to be comprehended in estimates of taxation, which are 
 founded on property, and to be excluded from representation, which 
 is regulated by a census of persons. This is the objection as I un- 
 derstand it, stated in its full force. I shall be equally candid in stating 
 the reasoning which may be offered on the opposite side. We sub- 
 scribe to the doctrine, might one of our Southern brethern observe, 
 that representation relates more immediately to persons, and taxation 
 more immediately to property; and we join in the application of 
 this distinction to the case of our slaves. 
 
 But we must deny the fact, that slaves are considered merely as 
 6 * 
 
66 
 
 property, anti in no respect whatever as persons. The true state of 
 the case is, that they partake of both these qualities, being considered 
 by our laws, iu some respects as persons, and in other respects as 
 property. 
 
 In being compelled to labor, not for himself, but for a master ; in 
 beincr vendible by one master to another master ; and in being subject 
 at all times to be restrained in his liberty and chastised in his body 
 by the capricious will of another; the slave may appear to be de- 
 graded from the human rank, and classed with those irrational ani- 
 mals which fall under the legal denomination of property. In being 
 protected, on the other hand, in his life, and in his limbs, against the 
 violence of all others, even the master of his labor and his liberty; 
 and in being punishable himself for all violence committed against 
 others; the slave is no less evidently regarded by the law as a mem- 
 ber of the society, not as a part of the irrational creation ; as a 
 moral person, not as a mere article of property. The Federal con- 
 stitution, therefore, decides with great propriety on the case of our 
 slaves, when it views them in the mixed character of persons and 
 property. This is in fact their true character. It is the character be- 
 stowed on them by the laws under which they live, and it will not 
 be denied, that these are the proper criterion ; because it is only 
 under the pretext, that the laws have transformed the negroes into 
 subjects of property, that a place is disputed them in the computa- 
 tion of numbers; and it is admitted, that if the laws were to restore 
 the rights which have been taken away, the negroes could no longer be 
 refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants. 
 
 This question may be placed in another light. It is agreed on 
 all sides, that numbers are the best scale of wealth and taxation, as 
 they are the only proper scale of representation. Would the con- 
 vention have been impartial or consistent, if they had rejected the 
 slaves from the list of inhabitants, when the shares of representation 
 were to he calculated ; and inserted them on the lists when the 
 tariff of contributions was to be adjusted ? 
 
 Could it be reasonably expected, that the Southern States would 
 concur in a system, which considered their slaves in some degree as 
 men, when burdens were to be imposed, hut refused to consider 
 them in the same light, when advantages were to be conferred? 
 
 Might not some surprise also be expressed, that those who re- 
 proach the Southern States with the barbarous policy of consider- 
 ing as property a part of their human brethern, should themselves 
 contend, that the government to which all the States are to he parties, 
 ought to consider this unfortunate race more completely in the un- 
 natural light of property, than the very laws of which they complain ? 
 
 It may he replied, perhaps, that slaves are not included iu the 
 estimate of representatives in any of the States possessing them. 
 They neither vote themselves, nor increase the votes of their masters. 
 f T pon what principle, then, ought they to he taken into the Federal 
 „.-;imate of representation ? In rejectins them altogether, the con- 
 
67 
 
 stitution would, in this respect, have followed the very laws which 
 have been appealed to as the proper guide. 
 
 This objection is repelled by a single observation. It is a funda- 
 mental principle of the proposed constitution, that as the aggregate 
 number of representatives allotted to the several States is to be de- 
 termined by a Federal rule, founded on the aggregate number of 
 inhabitants; so, the right of choosing this allotted number in each 
 State, is to be exercised by such part ol the inhabitants, as the State 
 itself may designate. The qualifications on which the right of suf- 
 frage depends, are not perhaps the same in any two States. In some 
 of tiie States the difference is very material. In every State, a cer- 
 tain proportion of inhabitants are deprived of this right by the con- 
 stitution of the State, who will be included in the census by which 
 the Federal constitution apportions the representatives. In this 
 point of view, the Southern States might retort the complaint, by 
 insisting, that the principle laid down by the convention required 
 that no regard should be had to the policy of particular States towards 
 their own inhabitants; and consequently, that the slaves, as inhabi- 
 tants, should have been admitted into the census according to their 
 full number, in like manner with other inhabitants, who, by the policy 
 of other States, are not admitted to all the rights of citizens. A 
 rigorous adherence, however, to this principle is waived by those 
 who would he gainers by it. All that they ask, is that equal modera- 
 tion be shown on the other side. Let the case of the slaves be consid- 
 ered, as it is in truth, a peculiar one. Let the compromising expedi- 
 ent of the constitution be mutually adopted, which regards them as 
 inhabitants, but as debased by servitude below the equal level of free 
 inhabitants, which regards the slave as divested of two-fifths of the 
 man. 
 
 DEBATES IN FIRST CONGRESS, 
 
 Mat 13 , 1789 . 
 
 Mr. Parker (of Va.) moved to insert a clause in the bill, imposing a 
 duty on the importation of slaves of ten dollars each person. He 
 was sorry that the constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting 
 the importation altogether; he thought it a defect in that instrument 
 that it allowed of such actions, it was contrary to the revolution 
 principles, and ought not to be permitted; but as he could not do all 
 the good he desired, he was willing to do what lay in his power. 
 He hoped such a duty as he moved for would prevent, in some 
 degree, this irrational and inhuman traffic; if so, he should feel 
 happy from the success of his motion. 
 
 Mr. Smith (of South Carolina.) hoped that such an important 
 and serious proposition as this would not be hastily adopted; it was 
 a very late moment for the introduction of new subjects. He ex- 
 pected the committee had got through the business, and would rise 
 without discussing any thing further; at least, if gentlemen were 
 determined on considering the present motion, he hoped they would 
 
68 
 
 delay for a few days, in order to give time for au examination of the 
 subject. It was certainly a matter big with the most serious conse- 
 quences to the State he represented; he did not think any one thing 
 that had been discussed was so important to them, and the welfare 
 of the Union, as the question now brought forward, but he was not 
 prepared to enter on any argument, and therefore requested the 
 motion might either be withdrawn or laid on the table. 
 
 Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) approved of the object of the motion, but he 
 did not think this bill was proper to embrace the subject. He could 
 not reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an article 
 of duty, among goods, wares and merchandise. He hoped it would 
 be withdrawn for the present, and taken up hereafter as an independ- 
 ent subject. 
 
 Mr. Jackson, (of Geo.) observing the quarter from which this motion 
 came, said it did not surprise him, though it might have that effect 
 on others. He recollected that Virginia was an old settled State, and 
 had her complement of slaves, so she was careless of recruiting her 
 numbers by this means ; the natural increase of her imported blacks 
 were sufficient for their purpose ; but he thought gentlemen ought 
 to let their neighbors get supplied before they imposed such a bur- 
 then upon the importation. He knew this business was viewed in 
 au odious light to the Eastward, because the people were capable of 
 doing their own work, and had no occasion for slaves ; but gentle- 
 men will have some feeling for others ; they will not try to throw all 
 the weight upon others, who have assisted in lightening their bur- 
 dens ; they do not wish to charge us for every comfort and enjoy- 
 ment of life, and at the same time take away the means of procuring 
 them ; they do not wish to break us down at once. 
 
 He was convinced, from the inaptitude of the motion, and the 
 want of time to consider it, that the candor of the gentleman would 
 induce him to withdraw it for the present; and if ever it came for- 
 ward again, he hoped it would comprehend the white slaves as well 
 as black, who were imported from all the goals of Europe ; wretches, 
 convicted of the most flagrant crimes, were brought in and sold 
 without any duty whatever. He thought that they ought to be taxed 
 equal to the Africans, and had no doubt but the constitutionality and 
 propriety of such a measure was equally apparent as the one pro- 
 posed. 
 
 Mr. Tucker (of S. C.) thought it unfair to bring in such an import- 
 ant subject at a time when debate was almost precluded. The 
 committee had gone through the impost bill, and the whole Union 
 were impatiently expecting the result of their deliberations, the 
 public must be disappointed and much revenue lost, or this question 
 cannot undergo that full discussion which it deserves. 
 
 We have no right, said he, to consider whether the importation 
 of slaves is proper or not; the Constitution gives us no power on that 
 point, it is left to the States to judge of that matter as they see fit. 
 But if it was a business the gentleman was determined to discourage, 
 
69 
 
 ne ought to have brought his motion forward sooner, and even then 
 not have introduced it without previous notice. He hoped the com- 
 mittee would reject the motion, if it was not withdrawn ; he was not 
 speaking so much for the State he represented, as for Georgia, be- 
 cause the State of South Carolina had a prohibitory law, which 
 could be renewed when its limitation expired. 
 
 Mr. Parker (of Va.,) had ventured to introduce the subject after 
 full deliberation, and did not like to withdraw it. Although the gen- 
 tleman from Connecticut (Mr. Sherman) had said, that they ought not 
 to be enumerated with goods, wares, and merchandise, he believed 
 thej' were looked upon by the African traders in this light; he knew 
 it was degrading the human species to annex that character to them ; 
 but he would rather do this than continue the actual evil of import- 
 ing slaves a moment longer. He hoped Congress would do all that 
 lay in their power to restore to human nature its inherent privileges, 
 and if possible wipe off the stigma which America labored under. 
 The inconsistency in our principles, with which we are justly charged, 
 should be done away ; that we may shew by our actions the pure 
 beneficence of the doctrine we held out to the world in our declara- 
 tion of independence. 
 
 Mr. Sherman (of Ct.,) thought the principles of the motion and 
 the principles of the bill were inconsistent; the principle of the bill 
 was to raise revenue, the principle of the motion to correct a moral 
 evil. Now, considering it as an object of revenue, it would be un- 
 just, because two or three States would bear the whole burthen, while 
 he believed they bore their full proportion of all the rest. He was 
 against receiving the motion into this bill, though he had no objection 
 to taking it up by itself, on the principles of humanity and policy; 
 and therefore would vote against it if it was not withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. Ames (of Mass.,) joined the gentleman last up. No one could 
 suppose him favorable to slavery, he detested it from his soul, but he 
 had some doubts whether imposing a duty on the importation, would 
 not have the appearance of countenancing the practice; it was cer- 
 tainly a subject of some delicacy, and no one appeared to be pre- 
 pared for the discussion, he therefore hoped the motion would be 
 withdrawn. 
 
 Mr. Livermore. Was not against the principle of the motion, but 
 in the present case he conceived it improper. If negroes were goods, 
 wares, or merchandise, they came within the title of the bill; if they 
 were not, the bill would be inconsistent; but if they are goods, wares 
 or merchandise, the 5 per cent ad valorum, will embrace the import- 
 ation ; and the duty of 5 per cent is nearly equal to 10 dollars per 
 head, so there is no occasion to add it even on the score of revenue. 
 
 Mr. Jackson (of Ga.,) said it was the fashion of the day, to favor 
 the liberty of slaves ; he would not go into a discussion of the sub- 
 ject, but he believed it was capable of demonstration that they were 
 better off in their present situation, than they would be if they were 
 manumitted; what are they to do if they are discharged P Work for 
 
70 
 
 a living? Experience has shewn us they will not. Examine what 
 is become of those in Maryland, many of them have been set free 
 in that State ; did they turn themselves to industry and useful pur- • 
 suits ? No, they turn out common pickpockets, petty larceny villians ; 
 and is this mercy, forsooth, to turn them into a way in which they 
 must lose their lives, — for where they are thrown upon the world, 
 void of property and connections, they cannot get their living but by 
 pilfering. What is to be done for compensation ? Will Virginia 
 set all her negroes free ? Will they give up the money they cost 
 them, and to whom? When this practice comes to be tried there, ' 
 the sound of liberty will lose those charms which make it grateful to 
 the ravished ear. 
 
 But our slaves are not in a worse situation than they were on the . 
 coast of Africa ; it is not uncommon there for the parents to sell 
 their children in peace; and in war the whole are taken and made 
 slaves together. In these cases it is only a change of one slavery 
 for another ; and are they not better here, where they have a master 
 bound by the ties of interest and law to provide for their support and 
 comfort in old age, or infirmity, in which, if they were free, they ‘ 
 would sink under the pressure of woe for want of assistance. 
 
 He would say nothing of the partiality of such a tax, it was admit- 
 ted by the avowed friends of the measure ; Georgia in particular 
 would be oppressed. On this account it would be the most odious 
 tax Congress could impose. 
 
 Mr. Schureman (ofN. J.) hoped the gentleman would withdraw 
 his motion, because the present was not the time or place for intro- 
 ducing the business ; he thought it had better be brought forward in 
 the House, as a distinct proposition. If the gentleman persisted in 
 having the question determined, he would move the previous question 
 if he was supported. 
 
 Mr. Madison, (of Va.) I cannot concur with gentlemen who think 
 the present an improper time or place to enter into a discussion of 
 the proposed motion; if it is taken up in a separate view, we shall do 
 the same thing at a greater expense of time. But the gentlemen say 
 that it is improper to connect the two objects, because they do not 
 come within the title of the bill. But this objection may be obviated by 
 accommodating the title to the contents; there may be some incon- 
 sistency iu combining the ideas which gentlemen have expressed, 
 that is, considering the human race as a species of property ; but the 
 evil does not arise from adopting the clanse now proposed, it is from 
 the importation to which it relates. Our object in enumerating 
 persons on paper with merchandise, is to prevent the practice of actu- 
 ally treating them as such, by having them, in future, forming part of 
 the cargoes of goods, wares, and merchandise to be imported into the 
 United States. The motion is calculated to avoid the very evil intimated 
 by the gentleman. It has been said that this tax will be partial and 
 oppressive: but suppose a fair view is taken of this subject, I think 
 we may form a different conclusion. But if it be partial or oppres- 
 
71 
 
 sive, are there not many instances in which we have laid taxes of this 
 nature ? Yet are they not thought to he justified by national policy? 
 If any article is warranted on this account, how much more are we 
 authorized to proceed on this occasion ? The dictates of humanity, 
 the principles of the people, the national safety and happiness, and 
 prudent policy requires it of us ; the constitution has particularly 
 called our attention to it — and of all the articles contained in the bill 
 before us, this is one of the last I should be willing to make a con- 
 cession upon so far as I was at liberty to go, according to the terms 
 of the constitution or principles of justice — I would not have it 
 understood that my zeal would carry me to disobey the inviolable 
 commands of either. 
 
 I understood it had been intimated, that the motion was inconsis- 
 tent or unconstitutional. I believe, sir, my worthy colleague has formed 
 the words with a particular reference to the constitution ; any how, so 
 far as the duty is expressed, it perfectly accords with that instrument ; 
 if there are any inconsistencies in it, they may be rectified; I believe 
 the intention is well understood, but I am far from supposing the 
 diction improper. If the description of the persons does not accord 
 with the ideas of the gentleman from Georgia, (Mr. Jackson,) and his 
 idea is a proper one for the committee to adopt, I see no difficulty in 
 changing the phraseology. 
 
 I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in order 
 that the government, whilst it was restrained from laying a total 
 prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the sense of 
 America, with respect to the African trade. We have liberty to im- 
 pose a tax or duty upon the importation of such persons as any of 
 the States now existing shall think proper to admit ; and this liberty 
 was granted, I presume, upon two considerations — the first was, that 
 until the time arrived when they might abolish the importation of 
 slaves, they might have an opportunity of evidencing their sentiments, 
 on the policy and humanity of such a trade ; the other was that they 
 might be taxed in due proportion with other articles imported ; for if 
 the possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of 
 value and ought to be paid for. If gentlemen are apprehensive of 
 oppression from the weight of the tax, let them make an estimate of 
 its proportion, and they will find that it very little exceeds five per 
 cent, ad valorem, so that they will gain very little by having them 
 thrown into that mass of articles, whilst by selecting them in the 
 manner proposed, we shall fulfil the prevailing expectation of our 
 fellow citizens, and perform our duty in executing the purposes of 
 the constitution. It is to be hoped that by expressing a national dis- 
 approbation of this trade, we may destroy it, and save ourselves from 
 reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility ever attendant on a country 
 filled with slaves. 
 
 I do not wish to say any thing harsh, to the hearing of gentlemen 
 who entertain different sentiments from me, or different sentiments 
 from those I represent; but if there is any one point in which it is 
 
72 
 
 
 clearly the policy of this nation, so far as vve constitutionally can, to 
 vary the practice obtaining under some of the State governments, it is 
 this; hut it is certain a majority of the States are opposed to this 
 practice, therefore, upon principle, we ought to discountenance it as 
 far as is in our power. 
 
 If I was not afraid of being told that the representatives of the sev- 
 eral States, are the best able to judge of what is proper and conducive 
 to their particular prosperity, 1 should venture to say that it is as 
 much the interest of Georgia and South Carolina, as of any in the 
 Union. Every addition they receive to theirnumber of slaves, tends to 
 weaken them and renders them less capable of self defence. Incase 
 of hostilities with foreign nations, they will be the means of inviting 
 attack instead of repelling invasion. It is a necessary duty of the 
 general government to protect every part of the empire against dan- 
 ger, as well internal as external ; every thing therefore which tends 
 to increase this danger, though it may he a local affair, yet if it involves 
 national expense or safety, becomes of concern to every part of the 
 Union, and is a proper subject for the consideration of those charged 
 with the general administration of the government. I hope, in making 
 these observations, I shall not be understood to mean that a proper 
 attention ought not to he paitl to the local opinions and circumstances 
 of any part of the United States, or that the particular representatives 
 are not best able to judge of the sense of their immediate constituents. 
 
 If we examine the proposed measure by the agreement there is 
 between it, and the existing State laws, it will show us that it is 
 patronized by a very respectable part of the Union. I am informed 
 that South Carolina has prohibited the importation of slaves for sev- 
 eral years yet to come ; we have the satisfaction then of reflecting 
 that we do nothing more than their own laws do at this moment. 
 This is not the case with one State. I am sorry that her situation is 
 such as to seem to require a population of this nature, hut it is im- 
 possible in the nature of things, to consult the national good without 
 doing what vve do not wish to do, to some particular part. Perhaps 
 gentlemen contend against the introduction of the clause, on too 
 slight grounds. If it does not conform with the title of the bill, 
 alter the latter; if it does not conform to the precise terms of the 
 constitution, amend it. But if it will tend to delay the whole bill, 
 that perhaps will be the best reason for making it the object of a 
 separate one. If this is the sense of the committee I shall submit. 
 
 Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought all duties ought to be laid as equal as 
 possible. He had endeavored to enforce this principle yesterday, but 
 without the success lie wished for, he was bound by the principles 
 of justice therefore to vote for the proposition ; but if the committee 
 were desirous of considering the subject fully by itself, he had no 
 objection, but he thought when gentlemen laid down a principle, they 
 ought to support it generally. 
 
 Mr. Burke (of S. C.) said, gentlemen were contending for nothing; 
 that the value of a slave averaged about £80, and the duty on that 
 
73 
 
 sum at five per cent, would be ten dollars, as congress could go ri« 
 farther than that sum, he conceived it made no difference whether 
 they were enumerated or left in the common mass. 
 
 Mr. Madison, (of Ya.) If we contend for nothing, the gentlemen 
 who are opposed to us do not contend for a great deal ; but the 
 questiou is, whether the five per cent ad valorem, on all articles im- 
 ported, will have any operation at all upou the introduction of slaves, 
 unless we make a particular enumeration on this account; the collec- 
 tor may mistake, for he would not presume to apply the term goods, 
 wares, and merchandise to any person whatsoever. But if that 
 general definition of goods, wares, and merchandise are supposed to 
 include African Slaves, why may we not particularly enumerate 
 them, and lay the duty pointed out by the Constitution, which, as 
 gentlemen tell us, is no more than five percent upon their value ; this 
 will not increase the burden upon any, but it will be that manifesta- 
 tion of our sense, expected by our constituents, and demanded by 
 justice and humanity. 
 
 Mr. Bland (of Va.) had no doubt of the propriety or good policy 
 of this measure. He had made up his mind upon it, be wished 
 slaves had never been introduced into America; but if it was impos- 
 sible at this time to cure the evil, he was very willing to join in any 
 measures that would prevent its extending farther. He had some 
 doubts whether the prohibitory laws of the Stales were not in part 
 repealed. Those who had endeavored to discountenance this trade, 
 by laying a duty on the importation, were prevented by the Constitu- 
 tion from continuing such regulation, which declares, that no State 
 shall lay any impost or duties on imports. If this was the case, and 
 he suspected pretty strongly that it was, the necessity of adopting 
 the proposition of his colleague was now apparent. 
 
 Mr. Sherman (of Ct.) said, the Constitution does not consider these 
 persons as a species of property ; it speaks of them as persons, and 
 says, that a tax or duty may be imposed on the importation of them 
 into any State which shall permit the same, but they have no power 
 to prohibit such importation for twenty years. But Congress have 
 power to declare upon what terms persons coming into the United 
 States shall be entitled to citizenship; the rule of naturalization must 
 however be uniform. He was convinced there were others ought to 
 he regulated in this particular, the importation of whom was of an 
 evil tendency, he meant convicts particularly. He thought that some 
 regulation respecting them was also proper; but it being a different 
 subject, it ought to be taken up in a different manner. 
 
 Mr. Madison (of Va.) was led to believe, from the observation that 
 had fell from the gentlemen, that it would be best to make this the 
 subject of a distinct bill: he therefore wished his colleague would 
 withdraw his motion, and move in the house for leave to bring iu a 
 bill on the same principles. 
 
 Mr. Parker (of Va.) consented to withdraw his motion, under a 
 conviction that the house was fully satisfied of its propriety. He 
 7 
 
74 
 
 knew very well that these persons were neither goods, nor wares, 
 but they were treated as articles of merchandise. Although he 
 wished to get rid of this part of his property, yet he should not consent 
 to deprive other people of theirs by any act of his without their consent. 
 
 The committee rose, reported progress, and the house adjourned. 
 
 February lltli, 1790. 
 
 Mr. Lawrance (of New York,) presented an address from the 
 society of Friends, in the City of New York ; in which they set forth 
 their desire of co-operating with their Southern brethren. 
 
 Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) then moved to refer the address of the annual 
 assembly of Friends, held at Philadelphia, to a committee; he thought 
 it a mark of respect due so numerous and respectable a part of the 
 community. 
 
 Mr. White (of Va.) seconded the motion. 
 
 Mr. Smith, (of S. C.) However respectable the petitioners may be, 
 I hope gentlemen will consider that others equally respectable are 
 opposed to the object which is aimed at, and are entitled to an oppor- 
 tunity of being heard before the question is determined. I flatter 
 myself gentlemen will not press the point of commitment to-day, it 
 being contrary to our usual mode of procedure. 
 
 Mr. Fitzsimons, (of Penn.) If we were now about to deter- 
 mine the final question, the observation of the gentleman from South 
 Carolina would apply; but, sir, the present question does not touch 
 upon the merits of the case ; it is merely to refer the memorial to a 
 committee, to consider what is proper to be done ; gentlemen, there- 
 fore, who do not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, may as 
 well agree to it to-day, because it will tend to save the time of the 
 house. 
 
 Mr. Jackson (of Geo.) wished to know why the second reading 
 was to be contended for to-day, when it was diverting the attention 
 of the members from the great object that was before the committee 
 of the whole ? Is it because the feelings of the Friends will be hurt, 
 to have their affair conducted in the usual course of business? Gen- 
 tlemen who advocate the second reading to-day, should respect the 
 feelings of the members who represent that part of the Union which 
 is principally to he affected by the measure. I believe, sir, that the 
 latter class consists of as useful and as good citizens as the petitioners, 
 men equally friends to the revolution, and equally susceptible of the 
 refined sensations of humanity and benevolence. Why then should 
 such particular attention be paid to them, for bringing forward a husi- 
 nes of questionable policy? If Congress are disposed to interfere in 
 the importation of slaves, they can take the subject up without advi- 
 sers, because the Constitution expressly mentions all the power they 
 can exercise on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) suggested the idea of referring it to a com- 
 mittee, to consist of a member from each State, because several States 
 had already made some regulations on this subject. The sooner the 
 subject was taken up he thought it would be the better. 
 
Mr. Parker, (of Va.) I hope, Mr. Speaker, the petition of ttiet^ 
 peetable people, will be attended to with all the readiness the impor- 
 tance of its object demands ; and I cannot help expressing the plea- 
 sure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community attend- 
 ing to matters of such momentous concern to the future prosperity 
 and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty, as a 
 citizen of the Union, to espouse their cause; and it is incumbent 
 upon every member of this house to sift the subject well, and ascer- 
 tain what can be done to restrain a practice so nefarious. The 
 Constitution has authorized us to levy a tax upon the importation of 
 such persons as the States shall authorize to be admitted. I would 
 willingly go to that extent; and if any thing further can he devised to 
 discountenance the trade, consistent with the terms of the Constitution, 
 
 I shall cheerfully give it my assent and support. 
 
 Mr. Madison, (of Va.) The gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. 
 Fitzsimons) has put this question on its proper ground. If gentlemen 
 do not mean to oppose the commitment to-morrow, they may as well 
 acquiesce in it to-day ; and I apprehend gentlemen need not be 
 alarmed at any measure it is likely Congress should take ; because 
 they will recollect, that the Constitution secures to the individual 
 States the right of admitting, if they thing proper, the importation of 
 slaves into their own territory, for eighteen years yet unexpired; 
 subject, however, to a tax, if Congress are disposed to impose it, of 
 not more than ten dollars on each person. 
 
 The petition, if I mistake not, speaks of artifices used by self-in- 
 terested persons to carry on this trade ; and the petition from New 
 York states a case, that may require the consideration of Congress. 
 If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such violation 
 of the rights of nations, and of mankind, as is supposed to he 
 practised in some parts of the United States, it will certainly tend to 
 the interest and honor of the community to attempt a remedy, and is 
 a proper subject for our discussion. It may be, that foreigners take 
 the advantage of the liberty afforded them by the American trade, to 
 employ our shipping in the slave trade between Africa and the West 
 Indies, when they are restrained from employing their own by res- 
 trictive laws of their nation. If this is the case, is there any person 
 of humanity that would not wish to prevent them? Another consid- 
 eration why we should commit the petition is, that we may give no 
 ground of alarm by a serious opposition, as if we were about to take 
 measures that were unconstitutional. 
 
 Mr. Stone (of Md.) feared that if Congress took any measures, 
 indicative of an intention to interfere with the kind of property 
 alluded to, it would sink it in value very considerably, and might be 
 injurious to a great number of the citizens, particularly in the South- 
 ern States. 
 
 He thought the subject was of general concern, and that the 
 petitioners had no more right to interfere with it than any other 
 members of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance, 
 
76 
 
 that it was the property of sects to imagine they understood the rights 
 of human nature better than all the world beside; and that they 
 would, in consequence, be meddling with concerns in which they had 
 nothing to do. 
 
 As the petition relates'to a subject of a general nature, it ought to 
 lie on the table, as information ; he would never consent to refer 
 petitions, unless the petitioners were exclusively interested. Sup- 
 pose there was a petition to come before us from a society, praying 
 us to be honest in our transactions, or that we should administer the 
 Constitution according to its intention — what would you do with a 
 petition of this kind ? Ceitainly it would remain on your table. He 
 would, nevertheless, not have it supposed, that the people had not a 
 right to advise and give their opinion upon public measures ; but he 
 would not he influenced by that advice or opinion, to take up a sub- 
 ject sooner than the convenience of other business wotdd admit. 
 Unless he changed his sentiments, he would oppose the commitment. 
 
 Mr. Burke (of S. C.) thought gentlemen were paying attention to 
 what did not deserve it. The men in the gallery had come here to 
 meddle in a business with which they have nothing to do ; they were 
 volunteering it in the cause of others, who neither expected nor 
 desired it. He had a respect for the body of Quakers, but, never- 
 theless, lie did not believe they had more virtue, or religion, than 
 other people, nor perhaps so much, if they were examined to the 
 bottom, notwithstanding their outward pretences. If their petition is 
 to be noticed, Congress ought to wait till counter applications were 
 made, and then they might have the subject more fairly before them. 
 The rights of the Southern States ought not to be threatened, and 
 their property endangered, to please, people who were to be unaffected 
 by the consequences. 
 
 Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) thought the memorialists did not deserve to 
 be aspersed for their conduct, if influenced by motives of benignity, 
 they solicited the Legislature of the Union to repel, as far as in their 
 power, the increase of a licentious traffic. Nor do they merit censure, 
 because their behavior lias the appearance of more morality than 
 other people’s. But it is not for Congress to refuse to hear the 
 applications of their fellow-citizens, while those applications contain 
 nothing unconstitutional or offensive. What is the object of the 
 address before us ? It is intended to bring before this House a sub- 
 ject of great importance to the cause of humanity ; there are certain 
 facts to be enquired into, and the memorialists are ready to give all 
 the information in their power; they are waiting, at a great distance 
 from their homes, and wish to return ; if, then, it will be proper to 
 commit the petition to-morrow, it will be equally proper to-day, for 
 it is conformable to our practice, beside, it will tend to their con- 
 veniency. 
 
 Mr. Lawrance, (of N. Y.) The gentleman from South Carolina 
 says, the petitioners are of a society not known in the laws or Con- 
 stitution. Sir, in all our acts, as well as in the Constitution, we have 
 
77 
 
 noticed this Society; or why is it that we admit them to affirm, in 
 cases where others are called upon to swear? If we pay this atten- 
 tion to them, in one instance, what good reason is there for con- 
 temning them in another? I think the gentleman from Maryland 
 (Mr. Stone,) carries his apprehensions too far, when he fears that 
 negro-property will fall in value, by the suppression of the slave-trade ; 
 not that I suppose it immediately in the power of Congress to abolish 
 a traffic which is a disgrace to human nature; but it appears to me, 
 that, if the importation was crushed, the value of a slave would be 
 increased instead of diminished; however, considerations of this kind 
 have nothing to do with the present question ; gentlemen may acqui- 
 esce in the commitment of the memorial, without pledging them- 
 selves to support its object. 
 
 Mr. Jackson, (of Ga.) I differ much in opinion with the gentleman 
 last up. I apprehend if, through the interference of the general 
 government, the slave-trade was abolished, it would evince to the 
 people a disposition toward a total emancipation, and they would 
 hold their property in jeopardy. Any extraordinary attention of 
 Congress to this petition may have, in some degree, . a similar 
 effect. I would beg to ask those, then, who are so desirous of free- 
 ing the negroes, if they have funds sufficient to pay for them ? If 
 they have, they may come forward on that business with some pro- 
 priety ; but, if they have not, they should keep themselves quiet, and 
 not interfere with a business in which they are not interested. They 
 may as well come forward, and solicit Congress to interdict the 
 West-India trade, because it is injurious to the morals of mankind ; 
 from thence we import rum, which has a debasing influence upon 
 the consumer. But, sir, is the whole morality of the United States 
 confined to the Quakers? Are they the only people whose feelings 
 are to be consulted on this occasion ? Is it to them we owe our 
 present happiness ? Was it they who formed the Constitution ? 
 Did they, by their arms, or contributions, establish our independence ? 
 I believe they were generally opposed to that measure. Why, then, 
 on their application, shall we injure men, who, at the risk of their 
 lives and fortunes, secured to the community their liberty and prop- 
 erty ? If Congress pay any uncommon degree of attention to their 
 petition, it will furnish just ground of alarm to the Southern States. 
 But, why do these men set themselves up, in such a particular man- 
 ner, against slavery ? Do they understand the rights of mankind, and 
 the disposition of Providence better than others ? If they were to 
 consult that Book which claims our regard, they will find that slavery 
 is not only allowed, but commended. Their Saviour, who possessed 
 more benevolence and commiseration than they pretend to, has 
 allowed of it. And if they fully examine the subject, they will find 
 that slavery has been no novel doctrine since the days of Cain. But 
 be these things as they may, I hope the House will order the petition 
 to lie on the table, in order to prevent alarming our Southern brethren. 
 
 Mr. Sedgwick, (of Mass.) If it was a serious question, whether the 
 
78 
 
 Memorial should be committed or not, I would not urge it at this 
 time ; but that cannot be a question for a moment, if we consider our 
 relative situation with the people. A number of men, — who are cer- 
 tainly very respectable, and of whom, as a society, it may be said 
 with truth, that they conform their moral conduct to their religious 
 tenets, as much as any people in the whole community, — come for- 
 ward and tell you, that you may effect two objects by the exercise of 
 a Constitutional authority which will give great satisfaction ; on the 
 one hand you may acquire revenue, and on the other, restrain a 
 practice productive of great evil. Now, setting aside the religious 
 motives which influenced their application, have they not a right, as 
 citizens, to give their opinion of public measures? For my part I 
 do not apprehend that any State, or any considerable number of indi- 
 viduals in any State, will be seriously alarmed at the commitment 
 of the petition, from a fear that Congress intend to exercise an uncon- 
 stitutional authority, in order to violate their rights; I believe there is 
 not a wish of tiie kind entertained by any member of this body. How 
 can gentlemen hesitate then to pay that respect to a memorial which it 
 is entitled to, according to the ordinary mode of procedure in business? 
 Why shall we defer doing that till to-morrow, which we can do 
 to-day ? for the result, 1 apprehend, will be the same in either case. 
 
 Mr. Smith, (of S. C.) The question, I apprehend, is, whether we 
 will take the petition up for a second reading, and not whether it 
 shall be committed ? Now, I oppose this, because it is contrary to 
 our usual practice, and does not allow gentlemen time to consider of 
 the merits of the prayer; perhaps some gentlemen may think it im- 
 proper to commit it to so large a committee as has been mentioned ; 
 a variety of causes may be supposed to show that such a hasty decis- 
 ion is improper; perhaps the prayer of it is improper. If 1 under- 
 stood it right, on its first reading, though, to be sure, I did not com- 
 prehend perfectly all that the petition contained, it prays that we 
 should take measures for the abolition of the slave trade ; this is 
 desiring an unconstitutional act, because the constitution Secures that 
 trade to the States, independent of congressional restrictions, for the 
 term of twenty-one years. If, therefore, it prays for a violation of 
 constitutional rights, it ought to be rejected, as an attempt upon the 
 virtue and patriotism of the house. 
 
 Mr. Boudinot, (of N. J.) It has been said that the Quakers have no 
 right to interfere in this business; I am surprised to hear this doc- 
 trine advanced, after it has been so lately contended, and settled, that 
 the people have a right to assemble and petition for redress of griev- 
 ances ; it is not because the petition comes from the society of Qua- 
 kers that I am in favor of the commitment, but because it comes 
 from citizens of the United States, who are as equally concerned in 
 the welfare and happiness of their country as others. There cer- 
 tainly is no foundation for the apprehensions which seem to prevail 
 in gentlemen’s minds. If the petitioners were so uninformed as to 
 suppose that congress could be guilty of a violation of the constitu- 
 
79 
 
 tion, yet, I trust we know our duty better than to be led astray by an 
 application from any man, or set of men whatever. 1 do not con- 
 sider the merits of the main question to be before us; it will be time 
 enough to give our opinions upon that, when the committee have 
 reported. If it is in our power, by recommendation, or any other 
 way, to put a stop to the slave-trade in America, 1 do not doubt of 
 its policy; but how far the constitution will authorize us to attempt 
 to depress it, will be a question well worthy of our consideration. 
 
 Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) observed, that the petitioners from New 
 York, stated that they had applied to the legislature of that State, to 
 prohibit certain practices which they conceived to be improper, and 
 which tended to injure the well-being of the community ; that the 
 legislature had considered the application, but had applied noremedjq 
 because they supposed that power was exclusively vested in the 
 general government, under the constitution of the United States ; it 
 would, therefore, be proper to commit that petition, in order to as- 
 certain what were the powers of the general government, in the case 
 doubted by the legislature of New York. 
 
 Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought gentlemen were out of order in entering 
 upon the merits of the main question at this time, when they were 
 considering the expediency of committing the petition ; he should, 
 therefore, not follow them further in that track than barely to observe, 
 that it was the right of the citizens to apply for redress, in every case 
 they conceived themselves aggrieved in ; and it was the duty of 
 congress to afford redress as far as in their power. That their 
 Southern brethren had been betrayed into the slave-trade by the 
 first settlers, was to be lamented ; they were not to be reflected on 
 for not viewing this subject in a different light, the prejudice of edu- 
 cation is eradicated with difficulty ; but he thought nothing would 
 excuse the general government for not exerting itself to prevent, as 
 far as they constitutionally could, the evils resulting from such enor- 
 mities as were alluded to by the petitioners ; and the same consid- 
 erations induced him highly to commend the part the society of 
 Friends had taken; it was the cause of humanity they had interested 
 themselves in, and he wished, with them, to see measures pursued 
 bv every nation, to wipe off the indelible stain which the slave-trade 
 had brought upon all who were concerned in it. 
 
 Mr. Madison (of Ya.) thought the question before the committee 
 was no otherwise important than as gentlemen made it so by their 
 serious opposition. Did they permit the commitment of the Memo- 
 rial, as a matter of course, no notice would be taken of it out of 
 doors ; it could never be blown up into a decision of the question 
 respecting the discouragement of the African slave-trade, nor alarm 
 the owners with an apprehension that the general government were 
 about to abolish slavery in all the States ; such things are not con- 
 templated by any gentleman ; but, to appearance, they decide the 
 question more against themselves than would be the case if it was 
 determined on its real merits, because gentlemen may be disposed 
 
80 
 
 to vote for the commitment of a petition, without any intention of 
 supporting the prayer of it. 
 
 Mr. White (of Va.) would not have seconded the motion, if he 
 had thought it would have brought on a lengthy debate. He con- 
 ceived that a business of this kind ought to be decided without much 
 discussion ; it had constantly been the practice of the house, and he 
 did not suppose there was any reason for a deviation. 
 
 Mr. Page (of Va.) said, if the memorial had been presented by 
 any individual, instead of the respectable body it was, he should have 
 voted in favor of a commitment, because it was the duty of the legis- 
 lature to attend to snbjects brought before them by their constituents; 
 if, upon inquiry, it was discovered to be improper to comply with 
 the prayer of the petitioners, he would say so. and they would be 
 satisfied. 
 
 Mr. Stone (of Md.) thought the business ought to be left to take 
 its usual course ; by the rules of the house, it was expressly declared, 
 that petitions, memorials, and other papers, addressed to the house, 
 should not be debated or decided on the day they were first read. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) felt at a loss to account why precipitation 
 was used on this occasion, contrary to the customary usage of the 
 house; he had not heard a single reason advanced in favor of it. 
 To be sure it was said the petitioners are a respectable body of men 
 — he did uot deny it — but, certainly, gentlemen did not suppose 
 they were paying respect to them, or to the house, when they urged 
 such a hasty procedure; anyhow it was contrary to his idea of respect, 
 and the idea the house had always expressed, when they had im- 
 portant subjects under consideration ; and, therefore, he should be 
 agaiust the motion. He was afraid that there was really a little vol- 
 unteering in this business, as it had been termed by the gentleman 
 from Georgia. 
 
 Mr. Huntington (of Conn.) considered the petitioners as much 
 disinterested as any person in the United States; he was persuaded 
 they had an aversion to slavery ; yet they were not singular in this, 
 others had the same; and lie hoped when congress took up the sub- 
 ject, they would go as far as possible to prohibit the evil complained 
 of. But he thought that would better be done by considering it in 
 the light of revenue. When the committee of the whole, on the 
 finance business, came to the ways and means, it might properly be 
 taken into consideration, without giving any ground for alarm. 
 
 Mr. Tucker, (of S. C.) I have no doubt on my mind respecting 
 what ought to be done on this occasion ; so far from committing the 
 memorial, we ought to dismiss it without further notice. What is 
 the purport of the memorial ? It is plainly this ; to reprobate a par- 
 ticular kind of commerce, in a moral view, and to request the inter- 
 position of congress to effect its abrogation. But congress have no 
 authority, under the constitution, to do more than lay a duty of ten 
 dollars upon each person imported ; and this is a political considera- 
 tion, not arising from either religion or morality, and is the only 
 
81 
 
 principle upon which we can proceed to take it up. But what 
 effect do these men suppose will arise from their exertions ? Will 
 a duty often dollars diminish the importation ? Will the treatment 
 be better than usual ? I apprehend it will not, nay, it may be worse. 
 Because an interference with the subject may excite a great degree 
 of restlessness in the minds of those it is intended to serve, and that 
 may be a cause for the masters to use more rigor towards them, than 
 they would otherwise exert; so that these men seem to overshoot 
 their object. But if they will endeavor to procure the abolition of the 
 slave-trade, let them prefer their petitions to the State legislatures, 
 who alone have the power of forbidding the importation ; I believe 
 their applications there would be improper; but if they are anywhere 
 proper, it is there. I look upon the address then to be ill-judged, 
 however good the intention of the framers. 
 
 Mr. Smith (of S. C.) claimed it as a right, that the petition should 
 lay over till to-morrow. 
 
 Mr. Boudinot (of N. J.) said it was not unusual to commit peti- 
 tions on the day they were presented ; and the rules of the house 
 admitted the practice, by the qualification which followed the posi- 
 tive order, that petitions should not be decided on the day they were 
 first read, “unless where the house shall direct otherwise.” 
 
 Mr. Smith (of S. C.) declared his intention of calling the yeas and 
 nays, if gentlemen persisted in pressing the question. 
 
 Mr. Clymer (of Penn.) hoped the motion would be withdrawn 
 for the present, and the business taken up in course to-morrow; be- 
 cause, though he respected the memorialists, he also respected order 
 and the situation of the members. 
 
 Mr. Fitzsitnons (of Penn.) did not recollect whether he moved 
 or seconded the motion, but if he had, he should not withdraw it on 
 account of the threat of calling the yeas and nays. 
 
 Mr. Baldwin (of Ga.) hoped the business would be conducted 
 with temper and moderation, and that gentlemen would concede and 
 pass the subject over for a day at least. 
 
 Mr. Smith (of S. C.) had no idea of holding out a threat to any 
 geutleman. If the declaration of an intention to call the yeas and 
 nays was viewed by gentlemen in that light, he would withdraw that 
 call. 
 
 Mr. White (of Va.) hereupon withdrew his motion. And the ad- 
 dress was ordered to lie on the table. 
 
 February 12th, 1790. 
 
 The following memorial was presented and read : 
 
 “ To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
 States: The Memorial of the Pennsylvania Society for promoting 
 the abolition of slavery, the relief of free negroes unlawfully held in 
 bondage, and the improvement of the condition of the African race, 
 respectfully showeth : That from a regard for the happiness of 
 mankind, an association was formed several years since in this State, 
 by a number of her citizens, of various religious denominations, for 
 
 e 
 
82 
 
 promoting the abolition of slavery, and for the relief of those unlaw- 
 fully held in bondage. A just and acute conception of the true prin- 
 ciples of liberty, as it spread through the land, produced accessions 
 to their numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative co- 
 operation with their views, which, by the blessing of Divine Provi- 
 dence, have been successfully directed to the relieving from bondage 
 a large number of their fellow creatures of the African race. They 
 have also the satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that 
 spirit of philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally diffus- 
 ing its beneficial influence, similar institutions are forming at home 
 and abroad. That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty 
 Being, alike objects of bis care, and equally designed for the enjoy- 
 ment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to believe, and 
 the political creed of Americans fully coincides with the position. 
 Your memorialists, particularly engaged in attending to the dis- 
 tresses arising from slavery, believe it their indispensable duty to 
 present this subject to your notice. They have observed with real 
 satisfaction, that many important and salutary powers are vested in 
 you for ‘ promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty 
 to the people of the United States;’ and as they conceive, that these 
 blessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of 
 color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the 
 pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the relief 
 of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or de- 
 layed. From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the por- 
 tion, and is still the birth-right of all men, and influenced by the 
 strong ties of humanity and the principles or their institution, your 
 memorialists conceived themselves bound to use all justifiable endea- 
 vors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general enjoy- 
 ment of the blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they 
 earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of slavery; 
 that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to 
 those unhappy men, who alone, in this land of freedom, are degraded 
 into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of sur- 
 rounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection ; that you will 
 devise means for removing this inconsistency from the character of 
 the American people ; that you will promote mercy and justice 
 towards this distressed race, and that you will step to the very verge 
 of the power vested in you, for discouraging every species of traffic 
 in the persons of our fellow-men. 
 
 “ BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, President 
 
 “ Philadelphia, February 3, 1790.” 
 
 Mr. Hartley (of Penn.) then called up the memorial presented 
 yesterday, from the annual meeting of Friends at Philadelphia, for 
 a second reading ; whereupon the same was read a second time, and 
 moved to be committed. 
 
 Mr. Tucker (ofS. C.) was sorry the petition had a second reading, 
 as he conceived it contained an unconstitutional request, and from 
 
 • 
 
83 
 
 that consideration he wished it thrown aside. He feared the com- 
 mitment of it would be a very alarming circumstance to the South- 
 ern States ; for if the object was to engage Congress in an uncon- 
 stitutional measure, it would be considered as an interference with 
 their rights, the people would become very uneasy under the gov- 
 ernment, and lament that they ever put additional powers into their 
 hands. He was surprised to see another memorial on the same sub- 
 ject, and that signed by a man who ought to have known the con- 
 stitution better. He thought it a mischievous attempt, as it respected 
 the persons in whose favor it was intended. It would buoy them up 
 with hopes, without a foundation, and as they could not reason on 
 the subject, as more enlightened men would, they might be led to 
 do what they would be punished for, and the owners of them, in their 
 own defence, would be compelled to exercise over them a severity 
 they were not accustomed to. Do these men expect a general eman- 
 cipation of slaves by law ? This would never he submitted to by the 
 Southern States without a civil war. Do they mean to purchase their 
 freedom ? He believed their money would fall short of the price. 
 But how is it they are more concerned in this business than others ? 
 Are they the only persons who possess religion and morality ? If 
 the people are not so exemplary, certainly they will admit the clergy 
 are ; why then do we not find them uniting in a body, praying us 
 to adopt measures for the promotion of religion and piety, or any 
 moral object P They know it would be an improper interference ; 
 and to say the best of this memorial, it is an act of imprudence, 
 which he hoped would receive no countenance from the house. 
 
 Mr. Seney (of Md.) denied that there was anything unconstitu- 
 tional in the memorial, at least, if there was, it had escaped his atten- 
 tion, and he should be obliged to the gentleman to point it out. Its 
 only object was, that congress should exercise their constitutional 
 authority, to abate the horrors of slavery, as far as they could : In- 
 deed, he considered that all altercation on the subject of commit- 
 ment was at an end, as the house had impliedly determined yesterday 
 that it should be committed. 
 
 Mr. Burke (of S. C.) saw the disposition of the house, and he 
 feared it would be refered to a committee, maugre all their opposi- 
 tion ; but he must insist that it prayed for an unconstitutional mea- 
 sure. Did it not desire congress to interfere and abolish the slave- 
 trade, while the constitution expressly stipulated that congress should 
 exercise no such power? He was certain the commitment would 
 sound an alarm, and blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern 
 States. He was sorry to see the petitioners paid more attention to 
 thau the constitution ; however, he would do his duty, and oppose 
 the business totally ; and if it was referred to a committee, as men- 
 tioned yesterday, consisting of a member from each State, and he 
 was appointed, he would decline servin'?. 
 
 Mr. Scott, (of Penn.) I can’t entertain a doubt but the memorial 
 is strictly agreeable to the constitution : it respects a part of the 
 
84 
 
 duty particularly assigned to us by that instrument, and 1 hope we 
 may he inclined to take it into consideration. We can, at present, 
 lay our hands upon a small duty of ten dollars. 1 would take this, 
 and if it is all we can do, we must be content. But I am sorry that 
 the framers of the constitution did not go farther and enable us to 
 interdict it for good and all ; for I look upon the slave-trade to be 
 one of the most abominable things on earth; and if there was neither 
 God nor devil, I should oppose it upon the principles of humanity and 
 the law of nature. I cannot, for my part, conceive how any person 
 can he said to acquire a property in another; is it by virtue of con- 
 quest? What are the rights of conquest? Some have dared to 
 advance this monstrous principle, that the conqueror is absolute mas- 
 ter of his conquest; that he may dispose of it as his property, and 
 treat it as lie pleases; but enough of those who reduce men to the 
 state of transferable goods, or use them like beasts of burden ; who 
 deliver them up as the property or patrimony of another man. Let 
 us argue on principles countenanced by reason and becoming human- 
 ity ; the petitioners view the subject in a religious light, but I do not 
 stand in need of religious motives to induce me to reprobate the 
 traffic in human flesh ; other considerations weigh with me to sup- 
 port the commitment of the memorial, and to support every consti- 
 tutional measure likely to bring about its total abolition. Perhaps, 
 in our legislative capacity, we can go no further than to impose a 
 duty of ten dollars, but I do not know how far I might go, if 1 was 
 one of the judges of the United States, and those people were to 
 come before me and claim their emancipation ; but I am sure 1 would 
 go as far as I could. 
 
 Mr Jackson (of Ga.) differed with the gentleman last up, and sup- 
 posed the master had a qualified property in his slave; he said the 
 contrary doctrine would go to the destruction of every species of 
 personal service. The gentleman said he did not stand in need of 
 religion to induce him to reprobate slavery, but if he is guided by 
 that evidence, which the Christian system is founded upon, he will 
 find that religion is not against it ; he will see, from Genesis to Reve- 
 lation, the current setting strong that way. There uever was a 
 government on the face of the earth, but what permitted slavery. 
 The purest sons of freedom in the Grecian republics, the citizens of 
 Athens and Lacedaemon all held slaves. On this principle the nations 
 of Europe are associated ; it is the basis of the feudal system. But 
 suppose all this to have been wrong, let me ask the gentleman, if it 
 is policy to bring forward a business at this moment, likely to light 
 up a flame of civil discord, for the people of the Southern States 
 will resist one tyranny as soon as another; the other parts of the con- 
 tinent may bear them down by force of arms, but they will never 
 suffer themselves to be divested of their property without a struggle. 
 The gentleman says, if he was a federal judge, he does not know 
 to what length he would go in emancipating these people ; but, I 
 believe his judgment would be of short duration in Georgia; perhaps 
 even the existence of such a judge might be in danger. 
 
85 
 
 Mr. Sherman (of Conn.) could see no difficulty in committing the 
 memorial ; because it was probable the committee would understand 
 their business, and perhaps they might bring in such a report as would 
 be satisfactory to gentlemen on both sides of the House. 
 
 Mr. Baldwiu (of Ga.) was sorry the subject had ever been brought 
 before Congress, because it was of a delicate nature, as it respected 
 some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the forma- 
 tion of this Constitution, could not avoid the recollection of the pain 
 and difficulty which the subject caused in that body ; the members 
 from the Southern States were so tender upon this point, that they 
 had well nigh broken up without coming to any determination ; 
 however, from the extreme desire of preserving the Union, and obtain- 
 ing an efficient government, they were induced mutually, to concede, 
 and the Constitution jealously guarded what they agreed to. If gen- 
 tlemen look over the footsteps of that body, they will find the greatest 
 degree of caution used to imprint them, so as not to be easily eradi- 
 cated ; but the moment we go to jostle on that ground, said be, I fear 
 we shall feel it tremble under our feet. Congress have no power 
 to interfere with the importation of slaves, beyond what is given in 
 the 9th section of the first article of the Constitution ; every thing 
 else is interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine 
 the Constitution, we shall find the expressions, relative to this subject, 
 cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than any other 
 part. “ The migration or importation of such persons, shall not be pro- 
 hibited by Congress.” But lest this should not have secured the object 
 sufficiently, it is declared in the same section, “That no capitation or 
 direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census;” this was 
 intended to prevent Congress from laying any special tax upon negro 
 slaves, as they might, in this way, so burthen the possessors of them, 
 as to induce a general emancipation. If vve go on to the 5th article, 
 we shall find the 1st and 5th clauses of the 9th section of the 1st 
 article restrained from being altered before the year 1808. 
 
 Gentlemen have said, that this petition does not pray for an aboli- 
 tion of the slave-trade; I think, sir, it prays for nothing else, and 
 therefore we have no more to do with it, than if it prayed us to estab- 
 lish an order of nobility, or a national religion. 
 
 Mr. Sylvester (of N. Y.) said that he had always been in the habit of 
 respecting the society called Quakers ; he respected them for their 
 exertions in the cause of humanity, but he thought the present was 
 not a time to enter into a consideration of the subject, especially as 
 he conceived it to be a business in the province ot' the State legis- 
 latures. 
 
 Mr. Lavvrance (of N. Y.) observed that the subject would undoubt- 
 edly come under the consideration of the Mouse; and he thought, 
 that as it was now before them, that the present time was as proper 
 as any ; he was therefore for committing the memorial ; and when 
 the prayer of it had been properly examined, they could see how 
 far Congress may constitutionally interfere ; as they knew the limits 
 8 
 
86 
 
 of tlieii* power on this, as well as on every other occasion, there was 
 no just apprehension to be entertained that they would go beyond 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Smith (of S. C.) insisted that it was not in the power of the 
 House to grant the prayer of the petition, which went to the total 
 abolishment of the slave trade, and it was therefore unnecessary to 
 commit it. He observed, that in the Southern States, difficulties had 
 arisen on adopting the Constitution, inasmuch as it was apprehended, 
 that Congress might take measures under it for abolishing the slave- 
 trade. 
 
 Perhaps the petitioners, when they applied to this House, did not 
 think their object unconstitutional, but now they are told that it is, 
 they will be satisfied with the answer, and press it no further. If 
 their object had been for Congress to lay a duty of ten dollars per 
 head on the importation of slaves, they would have said so, but that 
 does not appear to have been the case ; the commitment of the peti- 
 tion, on that ground, cannot be contended ; if they will not be con- 
 tent with that, shall it be committed to investigate facts P The petition 
 speaks of none; for what purpose then shall it be committed? If 
 gentlemen can assign no good reason for the measure, they will not 
 support it, when they are told that it will create great jealousies and 
 alarm in the Southern States ; for I can assure them, that there is 
 no point on which they are more jealous and suspicious, than on a 
 business with which they think the government has nothing to do. 
 
 When we entered into this Confederacy, we did it from political, 
 not from moral motives, and I do not think my constituents want to 
 learn morals from the petitioners ; I do not believe they want im- 
 provement in their moral system ; if they do, they can get it at home, 
 
 The gentleman from Georgia, has justly stated the jealousy of the 
 Southern States. On entering into this government, they apprehend- 
 ed that the other States, not knowing the necessity the citizens of 
 the Southern States were under to hold this species of property, 
 would, from motives of humanity and benevolence, be led to vote for 
 a general emancipation ; and had they not seen that the Constitution 
 provided against the effect of such a disposition, I may be bold to 
 say, they never would have adopted it. And notwithstanding all the 
 calmness with which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they 
 will find, that the discussion alone will create great alarm. We 
 have been told, that if the discussion will create alarm, we ought to 
 have avoided it, by saying nothing ; but it was not for that purpose 
 that we were sent here , we look upon this measure as an attack 
 upon the palladium of the property of our country ; it is therefore our 
 duty to oppose it by every means in our power. Gentlemen should 
 consider that when we entered into a political connexion with the 
 other States, that this property was there ; it was acquired under a 
 former government, conformably to the laws and Constitution ; there- 
 fore anything that will tend to deprive them of that property, must 
 be an ex post facto law, and as such is forbid by our political compact. 
 
87 
 
 I said tire States would never have entered into the confederation, 
 tinless their property had been guaranteed to them, for such is the 
 state of agriculture in that country, that without slaves it must be 
 depopulated. Why will these people then make use of arguments 
 to induce the slave to turn his hand against his master P We labor 
 under difficulties enough from the ravages of the late war. A geutle- 
 mau can hardly come from that country, with a servant or two, either 
 to this place or Philadelphia, but what there are persons trying to 
 seduce his servants to leave him; and, when they have done this, the 
 poor wretches are obliged to rob their master in order to obtain a 
 subsistence ; all those, therefore, who are concerned in this seduction, 
 are accessaries to the robbery. 
 
 The reproaches which they cast upon the owners of negro prop- 
 erty, is charging them with the want of humanity ; I believe the pro- 
 prietors are persons of as much humanity as any part of the continent 
 and are as conspicuous for their good morals as their neighbors. It 
 was said yesterday, that the Quakers were a society known to the 
 laws, and the Constitution, but they are no more so than other reli- 
 gious societies ; they stand exactly in the same situation ; their 
 memorial, therefore, relates to a matter in which they are no more 
 interested than any other sect, and can only be considered as a piece 
 of advice ; it is customary to refer a piece of advice to a committee, 
 but if it is supposed to pray for what they think a moral purpose, is 
 th.ii sufficient to induce us to commit it? What may appear amoral 
 virtue in their eyes, may not be so in reality, i have heard of a sect 
 of Shaking Quakers, who, I presume, suppose their tenets of a moral 
 tendency; I am informed one of them forbids to intermarry, yet in 
 consequence of their shakings and concussions, you may see them 
 with a numerous offspring about them. Now, if these people were 
 to petition Congress to pass a law prohibiting matrimony, I ask, 
 would gentlemen agree to refer such a petition ? 1 think if they 
 
 would reject one of that nature, as improper, they ought also to reject 
 this. 
 
 Mr. Page (ofVa.) was in favor of the commitment; he hoped that 
 the designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at 
 the threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of 
 the memorial. He observed that gentlemen had founded their argu- 
 ments upon a misrepresentation ; for the object of the memorial was 
 not declared to be the total abolition of the slave trade ; but that Con- 
 gress would consider, whether it be not in reality within their power 
 to exercise justice and mercy, which, if adhered to, they cannot doubt 
 must produce the abolition of the slave trade. If then the prayer 
 contained nothing unconstitutional, he trusted the meritorious effort 
 would not be frustrated. With respect to the alarm that was appre- 
 hended, he conjectured there u’as none; but there might be just 
 cause, if the memorial was not taken into consideration. He placed 
 himself in the case of a slave, and said, that, on hearing that Congress 
 had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part 
 
88 
 
 of the community, he should infer, that the general government (from 
 which was expected great good would result to every class of citi- 
 zens) had shut their ears against the voice of humanity, and he should 
 despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had 
 in prospect; if anything could induce him to rebel, it must be a 
 stroke like this, impressing on his mind all the horrors of despair. 
 But if he was told, that application was made in his behalf, and that 
 Congress were willing to hear what could be urged in favor of dis- 
 couraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would 
 trust in their justice and humanity, and wait the decision patiently. 
 He presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same 
 way ; and he, therefore, conceived the most likely way to prevent 
 danger, was to commit the petition. He lived in a State which had 
 the misfortune of having in her bosom a great number of slaves, he 
 held many of them himself, and was as much interested in the busi- 
 ness, he believed, as any gentleman in South Carolina or Georgia, 
 yet, if he was determined to hold them in eternal bondage, he should 
 feel no uneasiness or alarm on account of the present measure, 
 because he should rely upon the virtue of Congress, that they would 
 not exercise any unconstitutional authority. 
 
 Mr. Madison (of Va.) The debate has taken a serious turn, and 
 it will be owing to this alone if an alarm is created ; for had the me- 
 morial been treated in the usual way, it would have been considered 
 as a matter of course, and a report might have been made, so as to 
 have given general satisfaction. 
 
 If there was the slightest tendency by the commitment to break 
 in upon the constitution, he would object to it; but he did not see 
 upon what ground such an event was to be apprehended. The 
 petition prayed, in general terms, for the interference of congress, so 
 far as they were constitutionally authorized; but even if its prayer 
 was, in some degree, unconstitutional, it might be committed, as was 
 the case on Mr. Churchman’s petition, one part of which was sup- 
 posed to apply for an unconstitutional interference by the general 
 government. 
 
 He admitted that congress was restricted by the constitution from 
 taking measures to abolish the slave-trade ; yet there were a variety 
 of ways by which they could countenance the abolition, and they 
 might make some regulations respecting the introduction of them 
 into the new States, to be formed out of the Western Territory, dif- 
 ferent from what they could in the old settled States. He thought 
 the object well worthy of consideration. 
 
 Mr. Gerry (of Mass.) thought the interference of congress fully 
 compatible with the constitution, and could not help lamenting the 
 miseries to which the natives of Africa were exposed by this inhuman 
 commerce; and said that he never contemplated the subject, without 
 reflecting what his own feelings would be, in case himself, his child- 
 ren, or friends, were placed in the same deplorable circumstances. 
 He then adverted to the flagrant acts of cruelty which are committed 
 
89 
 
 in carrying on that traffic; and asked whether it can be supposed, 
 that congress has no power to prevent such transactions ? He then 
 referred to the constitution, and pointed out the restrictions laid on 
 the general government respecting the importation of slaves. It was 
 not, he presumed, in the contemplation of any gentleman in this 
 house to violate that part of the constitution; but that we have a right 
 to regulate this business, is as clear as that we have any rights 
 whatever; nor has the contrary been shown by any person who has 
 spoken on the occasion. Congress can, agreeable to the constitu- 
 tion, lay a duty of ten dollars on imported slaves; they may do this 
 immediately. He made a calculation of the value of the slaves in the 
 Southern States, and supposed they might be worth ten millions of 
 dollars ; congress have a right, if they see proper, to make a proposal 
 to the Southern States to purchase the whole of them, and their re- 
 sources in the Western Territory may furnish them with means. 
 He did not intend to suggest a measure of this kind, he only in- 
 stanced these particulars, to show that congress certainly have a 
 right to intermeddle in the business. He thought that no objection 
 had been offered, of any force, to prevent the commitment of the 
 memorial. 
 
 Mr. Boudinot (of N. J.) bad carefully examined the petition, and 
 found nothing like what was complained of by gentlemen, contained 
 in it ; he, therefore, hoped they would withdraw their opposition, and 
 suffer it to be committed. 
 
 Mr. Smith (of S. C.) said, that as the petitioners had particularly 
 prayed congress to take measures for the annihilation of the slave- 
 trade, and that was admitted on all hands to be beyond their power, 
 and as the petitioners would not be gratified by a tax of ten dollars 
 per head, which was all that was within their power, there was, of 
 consequence, no occasion for committing it. 
 
 Mr. Stone (of Md.) thought this memorial a thing of course; for 
 there never was a society, of any considerable extent, which did not 
 interfere with the concerns of other people, and this kind of inter- 
 ference, whenever it has happened, has never failed to deluge the 
 country in blood: on this principle he was opposed to the commit- 
 ment. 
 
 The question on the commitment being about to be put, the yeas 
 and nays were called for, and are as follows: — 
 
 Yeas. — Messrs. Ames, Benson, Boudinot, Brown, Cadwallader, 
 Clymer, Fitzsimons, Floyd, Foster, Gale, Gerry, Gilman, Goodhue, 
 Griffin, Grout, Hartley, Hathorne, Heister, Huntington, Lawrance, 
 Lee, Leonard, Livermore, Madison, Moore, Muhlenberg, Page, Parker, 
 Partridge, Renssellaer, Schureman, Scott, Sedgwick, Seney, Sher- 
 man, Sinniekson, Smith of Maryland, Sturges, Thatcher, Trumbull, 
 Wadsworth, White, and Wynkoop — 43. 
 
 Noes — Messrs. Baldwin, Bland, Bourke, Coles, Huger, Jackson, 
 Mathews, Sylvester, Smith of S. C., Stone, and Tucker — 11. 
 
 Whereupon it was determined in the affirmative; and on motion, 
 8 * 
 
90 
 
 the petition of the Society of Friends, at New York, and the memo- 
 rial from the Pennsylvania Society, for the abolition of slavery, were 
 also referred to a committee. — Lloyd’s Debates. 
 
 Debate on Committee's Report, March, 1790. 
 
 eliot’s debates. 
 
 Mr. .Tucker moved to modify the first paragraph by striking out all 
 the words after the word opinion, and to insert the following : that 
 the several memorials proposed to the consideration of this house, a 
 subject on which its interference would be unconstitutional, and even 
 its deliberations highly injurious to some of the States in the 
 Union. 
 
 Mr. Jackson rose and observed, that he had been silent on the 
 subject of the reports coming before the committee, because he wished 
 the principles of the resolutions to be examined fairly, and to be de- 
 cided on their true grounds, lie was against the propositions gene- 
 rally, and would examine the policy, the justice and the use of them, 
 and he hoped, if he could make them appear in the same light to 
 others as they did to him by fair argument, that the gentlemen in op- 
 position were not so determined in their opinions as not to give up 
 their present sentiments. 
 
 With respect to the policy of the measure, the situation of the 
 slaves here, their situation in their native States, and the disposal 
 of them in case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery 
 was an evil habit, he did not mean to controvert ; but that habit was 
 already established, and there were peculiar situations in countries 
 which rendered that habit necessary. Such situations the States of 
 South Carolina and Georgia were in — large tracts of the most fer- 
 tile lands on the continent remained uncultivated for the want of 
 population. It was frequently advanced on the floor of Congress, 
 how unhealthy those climates were, and how impossible it was for 
 northern constitutions to exist there. What, he asked, is to be done 
 with this uncultivated territory ? Is it to remain a waste ? Is the 
 rice trade to be banished from our coasts ? Are congress willing to 
 deprive themselves of the revenue arising from that trade, and which 
 is daily increasing, and to throw this great advantage into the hands 
 of other countries ? 
 
 Let us examine the use or the benefit of the resolutions contained 
 in the report. I call upon gentlemen to give me one single instance 
 in which they can be of service. They are of no use to congress. 
 The powers of that body are already defined, and those powers can- 
 not be amended, confirmed or diminished by ten thousand resolu- 
 tions. Is not the first proposition of the report fully contained in 
 the constitution P Is not that the guide and rule of this legislature. 
 A multiplicity of laws is reprobated in any society, and tend but to 
 confound and perplex. How strange would a law appear which was 
 to confirm a lavv ; and how much more strange must it appear for 
 this body to pass resolutions to confirm the constitution under which 
 they sit! This is the case with others of the resolutions. 
 
91 
 
 A gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Stone,) very properly observed, 
 that the Union had received the different States with all their ill hab- 
 its about them. This was one of these habits established long before 
 the constitution, and could not now be remedied. He begged con- 
 gress to reflect on the number on the continent who were opposed 
 to this constitution, and on the number which yet remained in the 
 Southern States. The violation of this compact they would seize 
 on with avidity ; they would make a handle of it to cover their de- 
 signs against the government, and many good federalists, who would 
 be injured by the measure, would be induced to join them : his heart 
 was truly federal, and it had always been so, and he wished those 
 designs frustrated. He begged congress to beware before they went 
 too far : he called on them to attend to the interest of two whole 
 States, as well as to the memorials of a society of quakers, who came 
 forward to blow the trumpet of sedition, and to destroy that constitu- 
 tion which they had not in the least contributed by personal service 
 or supply to establish. 
 
 He seconded Mr. Tucker’s motion. 
 
 Mr. Smith (of S. C.) said, the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. 
 Gerry,) had declared that it was the opinion of the select committee, 
 of which he was a member, that the memorial of the Pennsylvania 
 society, required congress to violate the constitution. It was not less 
 astonishing to see Dr. Franklin taking the lead in a business which 
 looks so much like a persecution of the Southern inhabitants, when 
 he recollected the parable he had written some time ago, with a view 
 of showing the impropriety of one set of men persecuting others for 
 a difference of opinion. The parable was to this effect : an old tra- 
 veller, hungry and weary, applied to the patriarch Abraham for a 
 night’s lodging. In conversation, Abraham discovered that the stran- 
 ger differed with him on religious points, and turned him out of doors. 
 In the night God appeared unto Abraham, and said, where is the 
 stranger? Abraham answered, I found that he did not worship the 
 true God, and so I turned him out of doors. The Almighty thus re- 
 buked the patriarch : Have I borne with him three-score and ten 
 years, and couldst thou not bear with him one night? Has the 
 Almighty, said Mr. Smith, borne with us for more than three-score 
 years and ten : he has even made our country opulent, and shed the 
 blessings of affluence and prosperity on our land, notwithstanding all 
 its slaves, and must we now be ruined on account of the tender con- 
 sciences of a few scrupulous individuals who differ from us on this 
 point ? 
 
 Mr. Boudinot agreed with the general doctrines of Mr. S., but could 
 not agree that the clause in the constitution relating to the want of 
 power in congress to prohibit the importation of such persons as any 
 of the States, now existing , shall think proper to admit, prior to the 
 year 1808 , and authorizing a tax or duty on such importation not 
 exceeding teu dollars for each person, did not extend to negro slaves. 
 Candor required that he should acknowledge that this was the ex- 
 
92 
 
 press design of the constitution, and therefore congress could no 
 interfere in prohibiting the importation or promoting the emancipa- 
 tion of them, prior to that period. Mr. Boudinot observed, that he 
 was well informed that the tax or duty of ten dollars was provided, 
 instead of the five per cent, ad valorem, and was so expressly under- 
 stood by all parties in the convention ; that therefore it was the inter- 
 est and duty of congress to impose this tax, or it would not be doing 
 justice to the States, or equalizing the duties throughout the Union. 
 If this was not done, merchants might bring their whole capitals into 
 this branch of trade, and save paying any duties whatever. Mr. 
 Boudinot observed, that the gentleman had overlooked the prophecy 
 of St. Peter, where he foretells that among other damnable heresies, 
 “Through covetousness shall they with feigued words make mer- 
 chandize of you.” 
 
 [Note. — This petition, with others of a similar object, was com- 
 mitted to a select committee; that committee made a report ; the 
 report was referred to a committee of the whole house, and discussed 
 on four successive days ; it was then reported to the House with 
 amendments, and by the House ordered to be inscribed in its Jour- 
 nals, and then laid on the table. 
 
 That report, as amended in committee, is in the following words: 
 
 The committee to whom were referred sundry memorials from the 
 people called Quakers, and also a memorial from the Pennsylvania 
 Society for promoting the abolition of slavery, submit the following 
 report, (as amended in committee of the whole.) 
 
 “First: That the migration or importation of such persons as any 
 of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, cannot be 
 prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.” 
 
 “Secondly: That Congress have no power to interfere in the 
 emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within any of 
 the States ; it remaining with the several States alone to provide any 
 regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.” 
 
 “ Thirdly : That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of 
 the United States from carrying on the African Slave trade, for the 
 purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing by 
 proper regulations for the humane treatment, during their passage, of 
 slaves imported by the said citizens into the states admitting such 
 importations.” 
 
 “Fourthly: That Congress have also authority to prohibit foreign- 
 ers from fitting out vessels in any part of the United States for 
 transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port.”] 
 
93 
 
 
 ADDRESS 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 
 
 O F 
 
 THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY 
 
 TO THE 
 
 Friends of Freedom and Emancipation in tlie II. States. 
 
 At the Tenth Anniversary of the American Anti-Slavery Society, 
 held in the city of New-York, May 7th, 1844, — after grave delibera- 
 tion, and a long and earnest discussion, — it was decided, by a vote of 
 nearly three to one of the members present, that fidelity to the cause 
 of human freedom, hatred of oppression, sympathy for those who are 
 held in chains and slavery in this republic, and allegiance to God, 
 require that the existing national compact should be instantly dis- 
 solved ; that secession from the government is a religious and political 
 duty; that the motto inscribed on the banner of Freedom should be, 
 NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS ; that it is impracticable for 
 tyrants and the enemies of tyranny to coalesce and legislate together 
 for the preservation of human rights, or the promotion of the interests 
 of Liberty ; and that revolutionary ground should be occupied by all 
 those who abhor the thought of doing evil that good may come, and 
 who do not mean to compromise the principles of Justice and 
 Humanity. 
 
 A decision involving such momentous consequences, so well calcu- 
 lated to startle the public mind, so hostile to the established order of 
 things, demands of us, as the official representatives of the American 
 Society, a statement of the reasons which led to it. This is due not 
 only to the Society, but also to the country and the world. 
 
 It is declared by the American people to be a self-evident truth, 
 “ that all men are created equal ; that they are endowed BY THEIR 
 CREATOR with certain inalienable rights ; that among these are life, 
 LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness.” It is further maintained 
 by them, that “ all governments derive their just powers from the 
 consent of the governed that “ whenever any form of government 
 becomes destructive of human rights, it is the right of the people to 
 alter or to abolish it, and institute a new government, laying its foun- 
 dation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as 
 to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” 
 These doctrines the patriots of 1776 sealed with their blood. They 
 would not brook even the menace of oppression. They held that 
 there should he no delnv in resisting, at whatever cost or peril, the 
 
 
94 
 
 first encroachments of power on their liberties. Appealing to the 
 great Ruler of the universe for the rectitude of their course, they 
 pledged to each other “their lives, their fortunes and their sacred 
 honor,” to conquer or perish in their struggle to bo free. 
 
 For the example which they set to all people subjected to a despotic 
 sway, and the sacrifices which they made, their descendants cherish 
 their memories with gratitude, reverence their virtues, honor their 
 deeds, and glory in their triumphs. 
 
 It is not necessary, therefore, for 11s to prove that a state of slavery 
 is incompatible with the dictates of reason and humanity; or that it 
 is lawful to throw off a government which is at war with the sacred 
 rights of mankind. 
 
 We regard this as indeed a solemn crisis, which requires of every 
 man sobriety of thought, prophetic forecast, independent judgment, 
 invincible determination, and a sound heart. A revolutionary step 
 is one that should not be taken hastily, nor followed under the 
 influence of impulsive imitation. To know what spirit they are of — 
 whether they have counted the cost of the warfare — what are the 
 principles they advocate — and how they are to achieve their object — 
 is the first duty of revolutionists. 
 
 But, while circumspection and prudence are excellent qualities in 
 every great emergency, they become the allies of tyranny whenever 
 they restrain prompt, bold and decisive action against it. 
 
 We charge upon the present national compact, that it was formed 
 at the expense of human liberty, by a profligate surrender of principle, 
 and to this hour is cemented with human blood. 
 
 We charge upon the American Constitution, that it contains pro- 
 visions, and enjoins duties, which make it unlawful for freemen to 
 take the oath of allegiance to it, because they are expressly designed 
 to favor a slaveholding oligarchy, and, consequently, to make one 
 portion of the people a prey to another. 
 
 We charge upon the existing national government, that it is an 
 insupportable despotism, wielded by a power which is superior to all 
 legal and constitutional restraints — equally indisposed and unable to 
 protect the lives or liberties of the people — the prop and safeguard 
 of American slavery. 
 
 These charges we proceed briefly to establish : 
 
 I. It is admitted by all men of intelligence, — or if it be denied in 
 any quarter, the records of our national history settle the question 
 beyond doubt, — that the American Union was effected by a guilty 
 compromise between the free and slavehoiding States ; in other 
 words, by immolating the colored population on the altar of slavery, 
 by depriving the North of equal rights and privileges, and by incor- 
 porating the slave system into the government. In the expressive 
 and pertinent language of scripture, it was “ a covenant with death, and 
 an agreement with hell ” — null and void before God, from the first 
 hour of its inception — the framers of which were recreant to duty, 
 and the supporters of which are equally guilty. 
 
95 
 
 Tt was pleaded at the time of the adoption, it is pleaded-now, that, 
 without sucli a compromise there could have been no union ; 
 that, without union, the colonies would have become an easy prey to 
 the mother country; and, hence, that it was an act of necessity, 
 deplorable indeed when viewed alone, but absolutely indispensable to 
 the safety of the republic. 
 
 To this we reply : The plea is as profligate as the act was tyran- 
 nical. It is the Jesuitical doctrine, that the end sanctifies the means. 
 It is a confession of sin, but the denial of any guilt in its perpetration. 
 It is at war with the government of God, and subversive of the foun- 
 dations of morality. It is to make lies our refuge, and under false- 
 hood to hide ourselves, so that we may escape the overflowing 
 scourge. “Therefore, thus saith the Lord God, Judgment will I lay 
 to the line, and righteousness to the plummet; and the hail shall 
 sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the 
 hiding place.” Moreover, “because ye trust in oppression and per- 
 verseness, and stay thereon; therefore this iniquity shall be to you as 
 a breach ready to fall, swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking 
 cometh suddenly at an instant. And he shall break it as the breaking 
 of the potter’s vessel that is broken in pieces ; he shall not spare.” 
 
 This plea is sufficiently broad to cover all the oppression and vil- 
 lany that the sun has witnessed in his circuit, siuce God said, “Let 
 there be light.” It assumes that to be practicable, which is impossi- 
 ble, namely, that there can be freedom with slavery, union with 
 injustice, and safety with bloodguiltiness. A union of virtue with 
 pollution is the triumph of licentiousness. A partnership between 
 right and wrong, is wholly wrong. A compromise of the principles 
 of Justice, is the deification of crime. 
 
 Better that the American Union had never been formed, than that 
 it should have been obtained at such a frightful cost ! If they were 
 guilty who fashioned it, but who could not foresee all its frightful 
 consequences, how much more guilty are they, who, in full view of 
 all that has resulted from it, clamor for its perpetuity! If it was 
 sinful at the commencement, to adopt it on the ground of escaping a 
 greater evil, is it not equally sinful to swear to support it for the 
 same reason, or until, in process of time, it be purged from its cor- 
 ruption P 
 
 The fact is, the compromise alluded to, instead of effecting a union, 
 rendered it impracticable; unless by the term union we are to under- 
 stand the absolute reign of the slaveholding power over the whole 
 country, to the prostration of Northern rights. In the just use of 
 words, the American Union is and always has been a sham — an 
 imposture. It is an instrument of oppression unsurpassed in the 
 criminal history of the world. How then can it be innocently sus- 
 tained ? It is not certain, it is not even probable, that if it had not 
 been adopted, the mother country would have reconquered the colo- 
 nies. The spirit that would have chosen danger in preference to 
 crime, — to perish with justice rather than live with dishonor, — to 
 
96 
 
 dare and suffer whatever might betide, rather than sacrifice the rights 
 of one human being, — could never have been subjugated by any 
 mortal power. Surely it is paying a poor tribute to the valor and 
 devotion of our revolutionary fathers in the cause of liberty, to.say 
 that, if they had sternly refused to sacrifice their principles, they 
 would have fallen an easy prey to the despotic power of England. 
 
 II. The American Constitution is the exponent of the national 
 compact. We affirm that it is an instrument which no man can 
 innocently bind himself to support, because its anti-republican and 
 anti-christian requirements are explicit and peremptory ; at least, so 
 explicit that, in regard to all the clauses pertaining to slavery, they 
 have been uniformly understood and enforced in the same way, by 
 all the courts and by all the people ; and so peremptory, that no indi- 
 vidual interpretation or authority can set them aside with impunity. 
 It is not a ball of clay, to be moulded into any shape that party con- 
 trivance or caprice may choose it to assume. It is not a form of 
 words, to be interpreted in any manner, or to any extent, or for the 
 accomplishment of any purpose, that individuals in office under it 
 may determine. It means precisely what those who framed and adopted 
 it meant — nothing more, nothing less, as a matter of bargain and 
 compromise. Even if it can be construed to mean something else, 
 without violence to its language, such construction is not to be toler- 
 ated against the wishes of either party. No just or honest use of it can 
 be made, in opposition to the plain intention of its framers, except to 
 declare the contract at an end, and to refuse to serve under it. 
 
 To the argument, that the words “ slaves ” and “ slavery ” are not 
 to be found in the Constitution, and therefore that it was never 
 intended to give any protection or countenance to the slave system, 
 it is sufficient to reply, that though no such words are contained in 
 that instrument, other words were used, intelligently and specifically, 
 to meet the necessities of slavert; and that these were adopted 
 in good faith, to be observed until a constitutional change could be effected. 
 On this point, as to the design of certain provisions, no intelligent 
 man can honestly entertain a doubt. If it be objected, that though 
 these provisions were meant to cover slavery, yet, as they can fairly 
 be interpreted to mean something exactly the reverse, it is allowable 
 to give to them such an interpretation, especially as the cause of freedom 
 will thereby be promoted — we reply, that this is to advocate fraud and 
 violence toward one of the contracting parties, whose co-operation was 
 secured only by an express agreement and understanding betiveen them 
 both, in regard to the clauses alluded to ; and that such a construction, 
 if enforced by pains and penalties, would unquestionably lead to a 
 civil war, in which the aggrieved party would justly claim to have 
 been betrayed, and robbed of their constitutional rights. 
 
 Again, if it be said, that those clauses, being immoral, are null and 
 void — we reply, it is true they are not to be observed ; but it is also 
 true that they are portions of an instrument, the support of which, 
 as a whole, is required by oath or affirmation ; and, therefore, because 
 
97 
 
 they are immoral, and because of this obligation to enforce 
 immorality, no one can innocently swear to support tlie Constitution. 
 
 Again, if it be objected, that the Constitution was formed by the 
 people of the United Slates, in order to establish justice, to promote 
 the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves 
 and their posterity ; and therefore, it is to be so construed as to har- 
 monize with tiiese objects ; we reply, again, that its language is not to 
 be interpreted in a sense which neither of the contracting parties understood, 
 and which would frustrate every design of their alliance — to wit, 
 union at the expense of the co'ored population of the country. Moreover, 
 nothing is more certain than that the preamble alluded to never 
 included, in the minds of those who framed it, those ivho were then 
 pitting in bondage — for, in that case, a general emancipation of the 
 slaves would have instantly been proclaimed throughout the United 
 States. The words, “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and 
 our posterity,” assuredly meant only the white population. “To 
 promote the general welfare,” referred to their own welfare exclu- 
 sively. “ To establish! justice,” was understood to be for their sole 
 benefit as slaveholders, and the guilty abettors of slavery. This is 
 demonstrated by other parts of the same instrument, and by their 
 own practice under it. 
 
 We would not detract aught from what is justly their due ; but it 
 is as reprehensible to give them credit for what they did not possess, 
 as it is to rob them of what is theirs. Jt is absurd, it is false, it is an 
 insult to the common sense of mankind, to pretend that the Consti- 
 tution was intended to embrace the entire population of the country 
 under its sheltering wings; or that the parties to it were actuated by 
 a sense of justice and the spirit of impartial liberty ; or that it needs 
 no alteration, hut only a new interpretation, to make it harmonize 
 with the object aimed at by its adoption. As truly might it be 
 argued, that because it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence, 
 that all men are created equal, and endowed with an inalienable 
 right to liberty, therefore none of its signers were slaveholders, and 
 since its adoption, slavery has been banished from the American soil ! 
 The truth is, our fathers were intent on securing liberty to themselves, 
 without being very scrupulous as to the means they used to accom- 
 plish their purpose. They were not actuated by the spirit of univer- 
 sal philanthropy ; and though in words they recognized occasionally 
 the brotherhood of the human race, in practice they continually denied 
 it. They did not blush to enslave a portion of their fellow-men, 
 and to buy and sell them as cattle in the market, while they were 
 fighting against the oppression of the mother country, and boasting of 
 their regard for the rights of man. Why, then, concede to them 
 virtues which they did not possess ? TVhy cling to the falsehood, that 
 they were no respecters of persons in the formation of the government ? 
 
 Alas ! that they had no more fear of God, no more regard for man, 
 in their hearts! “The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah [the 
 North and South] is exceeding great, and the land is full of blood, 
 9 
 
98 
 
 and the city full of perverseness; for they say, the Lord hath forsaken 
 the earth, and the Lord seeth not.” 
 
 We proceed to a critical examination of the American Constitution, 
 in its relations to slavery. 
 
 In Article 1, Section 9, it is declared — “The migration or im- 
 portation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall 
 think proper to admit, shall not he prohibited by the Congress, prior 
 to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but a tax or duty 
 may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for 
 each person.” 
 
 In this Section, it will be perceived, the phraseology is so guarded 
 as not to imply, ex necessitate, any criminal intent or inhuman arrange- 
 ment ; and yet no one has ever had the hardihood or folly to deny, 
 that it was clearly understood by the contracting parties, to mean 
 that there should be no interference with the African slave trade, on 
 the part of the general government, until the year 1808. For twenty 
 years after the adoption of the Constitution, the citizens of the United 
 States were to be encouraged and protected in the prosecution of 
 that infernal traffic — in sacking and burning the hamlets of Africa 
 — in slaughtering multitudes of the inoffensive natives on the soil, 
 kidnapping and enslaving a still greater proportion, crowding them 
 to suffocation in the holds of the slave ships, populating the Atlantic 
 with their dead bodies, and subjecting the wretched survivors to all 
 the horrors of unmitigated bondage ! This awful covenant was 
 strictly fulfilled ; and though, since its termination, Congress has 
 declared the foreign slave traffic to be piracy, yet all Christendom 
 knows that the American flag, instead of being the terror of the Afri- 
 can slavers, has given them the most ample protection. 
 
 The manner in which the 9th Section was agreed to, by the 
 national convention that formed the constitution, is thus frankly 
 avowed by the Lion. Luther Martin,* wdio was a prominent member 
 of that body : 
 
 “The Eastern States, nofwithstand ; ng their aversion of 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 
 restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.” 
 
 Behold the iniquity of this agreement ! how sordid were the mo- 
 tives which led to it! what a profligate disregard of justice and 
 humanity, on the part of those who had solemnly declared the inalien- 
 able right of all men to be free and equal, to be a self-evident truth! 
 
 It is due to the national convention to say, that this section was not 
 adopted “ without considerable opposition.” Alluding to it, Mr. 
 Martin observes — 
 
 “ It was said we had just assumed a place among the independent nations 
 in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to enslave 
 
 * Speech before the Legislature of Maryland in 1787. 
 
99 
 
 «s ; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those 
 rights to which God and nature has entitled us, not in / /articular , 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 crea- 
 tures ; that now, when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from suppli- 
 cating 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 of 
 putting out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even en- 
 couraging that most infamous traffic, bv 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 insult to, that God whose protection we had thus 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 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 character, sanction, and encouragement, ought to be considered 
 as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of him who is 
 equally the Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African 
 stare and his American master ! (I) 
 
 “It was urged that, by this system, we were giving the general govern- 
 ment 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 to prohibit ex- 
 pressly, in our Constitution, the further importation of slaves, and to 
 authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regu- 
 lations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition 
 of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves already in the States. That 
 slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism, and has a ten- 
 dency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the 
 sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates to tyranny and oppres- 
 sion. It was further urged that, by this system of government, every 
 State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic 
 insurrections; and, from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance 
 it should have the pow r er to restrain the importation of slaves, since in 
 proportion as the number of slaves increased in any State, in the same 
 proportion is the State weakened and exposed to foreign invasion and 
 domestic insurrection ; and by so much less will it be able to protect itself 
 against either, and therefore by so much, want aid from, and be a burden 
 to, the Union. 
 
 “ It was further said, that, in this system, as we were giving the general 
 government power, under the idea of national character, or national inter- 
 est, 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 prohibited the government 
 from interfering with the slave trade, than which nothing could more effect 
 our national honor and interest. 
 
 “ These reasons influenced me, both in the committee and in the conven- 
 tion, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now 
 makes part of the system.” * 
 
 (1) How terribly and justly has this guilty nation been scourged, since these 
 words were spoken, on account of slavery and the slave trade ! 
 
 * Secret Proceedings, p. 64. 
 
100 
 
 Happy had it been for this nation, had these solemn considerations 
 been heeded by the framers of the Constitution! But lor the sake 
 of securing some local advantages, they choose to do evil that good 
 may come, and to make the end sanctily the means. They were 
 willing to enslave others, that they might secure their own freedom. 
 They did this deed deliberately, with their e)es open, with all the 
 facts and consequences arising therefrom before them, in violation of 
 all their heaven-attested declarations, and in atheistical distrust of the 
 overruling. power of (Jod. “The Eastern States were very willing 
 to indulge the Southern States” in the unrestricted prosecution of 
 their piratical traffic, piovided in return they could he gratified by no 
 restriction being laid on navigation acts!! — Had there been no other 
 provision of the Constitution justly liable to objection, this one alone 
 rendered the support of that instrument incompatible with the duties 
 which men owe to their Creator, and to each other. It was the 
 poisonous infusion in the cup, which, though constituting but a 
 very slight portion of its contents, perilled the life of every one 
 who partook of it. 
 
 li it be asked to what purpose are these animadversions, since the 
 clause alluded to has long since expired by its own limitation — we 
 answer, that, if at any time the foreign slave trade could be constitu- 
 tionally prosecuted, it may yet be renewed, under the Constitution, at 
 the pleasure of Congress, whose prohibitory statute is liable to be 
 reversed at any moment, in the frenzy of Southern opposition to 
 emancipation. It is ignorantly supposed that the bargain was, that 
 the traffic should cease in 1808 ; but the only thing secured by it was, 
 the right of Congress (not any obligation) to prohibit it at that period. 
 If, therefore, Congress had not chosen to exercise that right, the traffic 
 might have been prolonged indefinitely , under the Constitution. The right 
 to destroy any particular branch ol commerce, implies the right to 
 re-establish it. True, there is no probability that the African slave 
 trade will ever again he legalized by the national government; hut 
 no credit is due the framers of the Constitution on this ground ; for, 
 while they threw around it all the sanction and protection of the 
 national character and power for twenty years, iluy set no bounds to 
 its continuance by any positive constitutional prohibition. 
 
 Again, the adoption of such a clause, and the faithful execution 
 of it, prove what was meant by the w ords ol the preamble to 
 form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tran- 
 quillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, 
 and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ” — • 
 namely, that the parties to the Constitution regarded only their own 
 rights and interests, and never intended that its language should be 
 so interpreted as to interfere with slavery, or to make it unlawful for 
 one portion of the people to enslave another, without an express alter- 
 ation in that instrument, in the manner therein set forth. W bile, there- 
 fore, the Constitution remains as it was originally adopted, they who 
 swear to support it are bound to comply with all its provisions, as a 
 
101 
 
 matter of allegiance. For it avails nothing to say, that some of 
 those provisions are at war with the law of God and the rights of 
 man, aud therefore are not obligatory. Whatever may be their 
 character, they are constitutionally obligatory ; and whoever feels that 
 he cannot execute them, or swear to execute them, without commit- 
 ting sin, has no other choice left than to withdraw from the govern- 
 ment, or to violate his conscience by taking on his lips an impious 
 promise. The object of the Constitution is riot to detine what is the 
 law of God, but WHAT IS Til 1C WILL OF THE PEOPLE — 
 which will is not to be frustrated by an ingenious moral interpreta- 
 tion, by those whom they have elected to serve them. 
 
 Article'!, Sect. 2, provides — “Representatives and direct taxes 
 shall lie apportioned among the several States, which may be includ- 
 ed within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which 
 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." 
 
 Here, as in the clause we have already -examined, veiled beneath a 
 form of words as deceitful as it is unmeaning in a truly democratic 
 government, is a provision for the safety, perpetuity and augmenta- 
 tion of the slaveholding power — a provision scarcely less atrocious 
 than that which related to the African slave trade, and almost as 
 afflictive in its operation — a provision ■ still in force, with no possi- 
 bility of its alteration, so long as a majority of the slave States choose 
 to maintain their slave system — a provision which, at the present 
 time, enables the South to have twenty-five additional representatives 
 in Congress on the score of property , while the North is not allowed 
 to have one — a provision which concedes to the oppressed three- 
 fifths of the political power which is granted to all others, and then 
 puts this power into the hands of their oppressors, to be wielded by 
 them for the more perfect security of their tyrannous authority, and 
 the complete subjugation of the non-slaveholding States. 
 
 Referring to this atrocious bargain, Alexander Hamilton re- 
 marked in the New York Convention — 
 
 “ 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 is reason- 
 ing, or declamation, (! !) 1 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 regulation 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 derive 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 the United States.” 
 
 If such was the patriotism, such the love of liberty, such the 
 morality of Alexander Hamilton, what can be said of the character 
 9* 
 
102 
 
 of those who were far less conspicuous! than himself in securing 
 American independence, and in framing the American Constitution ? 
 
 Listen, now, to the opinions of John Quincy Adams, respecting 
 the constitutional clause now under consideration: — 
 
 “ ‘ In outward show, it is a representation of persons in bondage; in 
 fact, it is a representation of their masters, — the oppressor representing 
 the oppressed.’ — ‘ Is it in the compass of human imagination to devise a 
 more perfect exemplification of the art of committing the lamb to the 
 tender custody of the wolf? ’—‘The representative is thus constituted, not 
 the friend, agent and trustee of the person whom he represents, but the 
 most inveterate of his foes.’ — ‘It was one of the curses from that Pandora’s 
 box, adjusted at the time, as usual, by a roinprt-mi.se, the whole advantage 
 of which inured to the benefit of the S< uth, and to aggravate the burdens 
 of the North.’ — ‘If there be a parallel to it in human history, it can only 
 be that of the Roman Emperors, who, from the days when Julius Caesar 
 substituted a military despotism in the place of a republic, among the 
 offices which they always concentrated upon themselves, was that of 
 tribune of the people. A Roman Emperor tribune of the people, is an 
 exact parallel to that feature in the Constitution of the United States 
 which makes the master the representative of his slave.' — ‘ The Constitu- 
 tion of the United States expressly prescribes that no title of nobility shall 
 be granted by the United States. The spirit of this interdict is not a 
 rooted antipathy to the grant of mere powerless empty titles, but to titles 
 of nobility ; to the institution of privileged orders ot men. But what order 
 of men under the most absolute of monarchies, or the most aristocratic of 
 republics, was ever invested with sucli an odious and unjust privilege as 
 that of the separate and exclusive representation of less than half a million 
 owners of slaves, in the Hall of this House, in the Chair of the Senate, 
 and in the Presidential mansion?’ — ‘This investment of power in the 
 owners of one species of property concentrated in the highest authorities 
 of the nation, and disseminated through thirteen of the twenty-six States 
 of the Union, constitutes a privileged order of men in the community, 
 more adverse to the rights of all, and more pernicious to the interests of 
 the whole, than any order of nobility ever known. To call government 
 thus constituted a democracy, is to insult the understanding of mankind. 
 To call it an aristocracy, is to do injustice to that form of government. 
 Aristocracy is the government of tin but. Its standard qualification for 
 accession to power is merit , ascertained by popular election recurring at 
 short intervals of time. If even that government is prone to degenerate 
 into tyranny, what must be the character of that form of polity in which 
 the standard qualification for access to power is wealth in the possession 
 of slaves? It is doubly tainted with the infection of riches and of slavery. 
 There is no name in the language of national jvrispruilence that can define 
 it — no model in the records of ancient history, or in the political theories 
 of Aristotle, with which it can be likened. It was introduced into the 
 Constitution of the United States by an equivocation — a representation 
 of property under the name of persons. Little did the members of the 
 Convention from the free States foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was 
 hidden under the mask of this concession.’ — ‘ The Plouse of Representa- 
 tives of the United States consists of 223 members — all, by the letter of 
 the Constitution, representatives only of persons, as 135 of them really 
 are ; but the other 88, equally representing the persons of their constitu- 
 ents, by whom they are elected, also represent, under the name of other 
 persons, upwards of two and a half millions of shires, held as the property 
 of less than half a million of the white constituents, and valued at twelve 
 hundred millions of dollars. Each of these 88 members represents in fact 
 the w 7 hole of that mass of associated wealth, and the persons and exclusive 
 interests of its owners; all thus knit together, like the members of a 
 
103 
 
 moneyed corporation, w ith a capital not of thirty-five or forty or fifty, 
 but of twelve hundred millions of dollars, exhibiting the most extraordi- 
 nary exemplification of the anti-republican tendencies of associated wealth 
 that the world ever saw.’ — ‘ Here is one class of men, consisting of not 
 more than one fortieth part of the whole people, not more than one-thir- 
 tieth part of the free population, exclusively devoted to their personal 
 interests identifi d with their own as slaveholders of the same associated 
 wealth, and wielding by their votes, upon every question of government 
 or of public policy, two-fifths of the whole power of the House. In the 
 Senate of the Union, the proportion of the slaveholding power is yet 
 greater. By the influence of slavery, in the States where the institution 
 is tolerated, over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to 
 the distinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the 52 
 members of the federal Senate, 26 are owners of slaves, and as effectively 
 representatives of that interest as the 88 members elected by them to the 
 House.’- — ‘ By this process it is that all political power in the States is 
 absorbed and engrossed bv the owners of slaves, and the overruling policy 
 of the States is shaped to strengthen and consolidate their domination. 
 The legislative, executive, and judicial authorities are all in their hands — 
 the preservation, propagation, and perpetuation of the black code of slavery 
 — every law of the legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave ; 
 every executive act a rivet to his hapless fate ; every judicial decision a 
 perversion of the human intellect to the justification of wrong.’ — ‘ Its recip- 
 rocal operation upon the government of the nation is, to establish an arti- 
 ficial majority in the slave representation over that of the free people, in 
 the American Congress, and thereby to make the PRESERVATION, 
 PROPAGATION, AND PERPETUATION OF SLAVERY THE 
 VITAL AND ANIMATING SPIRIT OF THE NATIONAL GOV- 
 ERNMENT.’ — ‘The result is seen in the fact that, at this day, the 
 President of the United States, the President of the Senate, the Speaker 
 of the House of Representatives, and five out of nine of the Judges 
 of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the United States, are not only citizens 
 of slaveholding States, but individual slaveholders themselves. So are, 
 and constantly have been, with scarcely an exception, all the members of 
 both Houses of Congress from the slaveholding States ; and so are, in 
 immensely disproportionate numbers, the commanding officers of the army 
 and navy ; the officers of the customs ; the registers and receivers of the 
 land offices, and the post-masters throughout the slaveholding States. — 
 The Biennial Register indicates the birth-place of all the officers employed 
 in the government of the Union. If it were required to designate the 
 owners of this species of property among them, it would be little more 
 than a catalogue of slaveholders.’ ” 
 
 It is confessed by Mr. Adams, alluding to the national convention 
 that framed the Constitution, that “the delegation from the free 
 States, in their extreme anxiety to conciliate the ascendency of the 
 Southern slaveholder, did listen to a compromise between right and 
 wrong — between freedom and slavery ; of the ultimate fruits of which 
 they had no conception, but which already even now is urging the 
 Union to its inevitable ruin and dissolution, by a civil, servile, foreign, 
 and Indian war, all combined in one ; a war, the essential issue of 
 which will be between freedom and slavery, and in which the un- 
 hallowed standard of slavery will be the desecrated banner of the 
 North American Union — that banner, first unfurled to the breeze, 
 inscribed with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Inde 
 pendence.” 
 
 Hence, to swear to support the Constitution of the United States, 
 
104 
 
 as it is, is to make “a compromise between right and wrong,” and to 
 wage war against human liberty, it is to recognize and honor as 
 republican legislators, incorrigible men-stealers, merciless tyrants, 
 BLOOD THIRSTY ASSASSINS, who legislate with deadly weap- 
 ons about their persons, such as pistols, daggers, and bowie-knives, 
 with which they threaten to murder any Northern senator or repre- 
 sentative who shall dare to stain their honor, or interfere with their 
 rights ! They constitute a banditti more fierce and cruel than any 
 whose atrocities are recorded on the pages of history or romance. 
 To mix with them on terms of social or religions fellowship, is to 
 indicate a low state of virtue; but to think of administering a free 
 government by their co-operation, is nothing short of insanity. 
 
 Article IV., Section 2, declares, — ‘-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.” 
 
 Here is a third clause, which, like the other two, makes no men- 
 tion of slavery or slaves, in express terms; and yet, like them, was 
 intelligently framed and mutually understood by the parties to the 
 ratification, and intended both to protect the slave system and to 
 restore runaway slaves. It alone makes slavery a national institu- 
 tion, a national crime, and all the people who are not enslaved, the 
 body-guard over those whose liberties have heel) cloven down. This 
 agreement, too, has been fulfilled to the letter by the North. 
 
 Under the Mosaic dispensation it was imperatively commanded, — 
 Thou shall not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped 
 from his master unto thee: he shall dwell with thee, even among 
 you, in that place which he shall choose in one of thy gates, where 
 it liketli him best: thou shalt not oppress him.” The warning which 
 the prophet Isaiah gave to oppressing Moab was of a similar kind : 
 “Take counsel, execute judgment ; make thy shadow as the night in 
 the. midst of the noon-day; hide the outcasts; bewray not him that 
 wandereth. Let mine outcasts dwell with thee, Moab ; be thou a 
 covert to them from the face of the spoiler.” The prophet Ohadiah 
 brings the following charge against treacherous Edom, which is pre- 
 cisely applicable to this guilty nation : — “For thy violence against 
 thy brother Jacob, shame shall come over thee, and thou shalt be cut 
 oft' for ever. In the day that thou stoodest on the other sirle, in the 
 day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners 
 entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast 
 as one of them. But thou shouhlst not have looked on the day of thy 
 brother, in the day that he became a stranger; neither shouldst thou 
 have rejoiced over the children of Judah, in ihe day of their destruc- 
 tion ; neither shouldst thou have spoken proudly in the day of dis- 
 tress ; neither shouldst thou have stood in Ihe cross-icay, to cut off those 
 of his that did escape ; neither shouldst thou have delivered vp those oj 
 his that did remain, in the day of distress.” 
 
105 
 
 How exactly descriptive of this boasted republic is the impeach- 
 ment of Edom by the same prophet! “The pride of thy heart hath 
 deceived thee, thou whose habitation is high; that saith in thy heart, 
 Who shall bring me down to the ground ? Though thou exalt thyself 
 as the eagle, and though thou set thy nest among the stars, thence 
 will 1 bring thee down, saith the Lord.” The emblem of American 
 pride and power is the eagle, and on her banner she has mingled 
 stars w ith its stripes. Her vanity, her treachery, her oppression, her 
 self-exaltation, and her defiance of the Almighty, far surpass the 
 madness and wickedness of Edom. What shall be her punishment? 
 Truly, it may be affirmed of the American people, (who live not un- 
 ^ der the Levitical but Christian code, and whose guilt, therefore, is 
 the more awful, and their condemnation the greater,) in the language 
 of another prophet — “They all lie in wait for blood; they hunt 
 every man his brother with a net. That they may do evil with both 
 hands earnestly, the prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a re- 
 ward ; and the great man, he uttereth his mischievous desire: so they 
 wrap it up.” Likewise of the colored inhabitants of this land it may 
 be said, — “This is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of 
 them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison-houses ; they are for 
 a prey, and none deliveretli ; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore.” 
 
 By this stipulation, the Northern States are made the hunting 
 ground of slave-catchers, who may pursue their victims with blood- 
 hounds, and capture them with impunity wherever they can lay their 
 robber hands upon them. At least twelve or fifteen thousand runa- 
 way slaves are uow in Canada, exiled from their native land, because 
 they cotdd not find, throughout its vast extent, a single road on which 
 they could dwell in safety, in consequence of this provision of the Con- 
 stitution ? How is it possible, then, for the advocates of liberty to 
 support a government which gives over to destruction one-sixth part 
 of the whole population ? 
 
 It is denied by some at the present day, that the clause which 
 has been cited, was intended to apply to runaway slaves. This indi- 
 cates either ignorance, or folly, or something worse. James Wadi- 
 son, as one of the framers of the Constitution, is of some authority 
 on this point. Alluding to that instrument, in the Virginia conven- 
 tion, he said : — 
 
 “ Another clause secures us that property which we note possess. At pre- 
 sent, if any slave elopes to those States where slaves are free, he becomes 
 emancipated by their lavs ; 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, 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 mav be due. THIS CLAUSE WAS EXPRESSLY INSERTED 
 TO ENABLE THE OWNERS OF SLAVES TO RECLAIM THEM. 
 This is a better security than a y that note exists. No power is given to the 
 general government to interfere with respect to the property in slaves now 
 held by the States.” 
 
106 
 
 In the same convention, alluding to the same clause, Gov. Ran- 
 dolph said : — 
 
 “ Every one knows that slaves are held to service or labor. And, when 
 authority is given to owners of slaves to vindicate their property, can it be 
 supposed they can be deprived of t ? If a citizen of this State, in conse- 
 quence 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 ? ” 
 
 It is objected, that slaves are held as property, and therefore, as 
 the clause refers to persons, it cannot mean slaves. But this is crit- 
 icism against fact. Slaves are recognized not merely as pi operty, 
 but also as persons — as having a mixed character — as combining 
 the human with the brutal. This is paradoxical, we admit ; but 
 slavery is a paradox — the American Constitution is a paradox — the 
 American Union is a paradox — the American Government is a pa- 
 radox ; and if any one of these is to be repudiated on that ground, 
 they all are. That it is the duty of the friends of freedom to deny 
 the binding authority of them all, and to secede from them all, we 
 distinctly affirm. After the independence of this country had been 
 achieved, the voice of God exhorted the people, saying, “ Execute 
 true judgment, and show mercy and compassion, every man to his 
 brother: and oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, 
 nor the poor ; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother 
 in your heart. But they refused to hearken, and pulled away the 
 shoulder, and stopped their ears, that they should not hear; yea, 
 they made their hearts as an adamant stone.” “ Shall I not visit 
 for these things? saith the Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on 
 such a nation as this?” 
 
 Whatever doubt may have rested on any honest mind, respecting 
 the meaning of the clause in relation to persons held to service or 
 labor, must have been removed by the unanimous decision of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg versus 
 The State of Pennsylvania. By that decision, any Southern slave- 
 catcher is empowered to seize and convey to the South, without 
 hindrance or molestation on the part of the State, and without 
 any legal process duly obtained and served, any person or persons, 
 irrespective of caste or complexion, whom he may choose to 
 claim as runaway slaves ; and if, when thus surprised and attacked, 
 or on their arrival South, they cannot (trove by legal witnesses, that 
 they are freemen, their doom is sealed ! Hence the free colored 
 population of the North are specially liable to become the victims of 
 this terrible power, and all the other inhabitants are at the mercy of 
 prowling kidnappers, because there are multitudes of white as well 
 as black slaves on Southern plantations, and slavery is no longer 
 fastidious with regard to the color of its prey. 
 
 As soon as that appalling decision of the Supreme Court was 
 enunciated, in the name of the Constitution, the people of the North 
 should have risen tn masse, if for no other cause, and declared the 
 
107 
 
 Union at an end ; and they would have done so, if they had not lost 
 their manhood, and their reverence for justice and liberty. 
 
 In the 4th Sect, of Art. IV., the United States guarantee to protect 
 every State in the Union “against domestic violence .” By the 8th 
 Section of Article I., congress is empowered “to provide for calling 
 forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrec- 
 tions, and repel invasions.” These provisions, however strictly they 
 may apply to cases of disturbance among the white population, were 
 adopted with special reference to the slave population, for the pur- 
 pose of keeping them in their, chains by the combined military force 
 of the country ; and were these repealed, and the South left to man- 
 age her slaves as best she could, a servile insurrection .would ere 
 long be the consequence, as general as it would unquestionably be 
 successful. Says Mr. Madison, respecting these clauses: — 
 
 “ On application of the legislature or executive, as the case may be, the 
 militia of the other States are to be called to suppress domestic insurrec- 
 tions. Does this bar the States from calling forth their own militia? 
 No ; but it gives them a supplementary security to suppress insurrections 
 and domestic violence.” 
 
 The answer to Patrick Henry’s objection, as urged against the 
 constitution in the Virginia convention, that there was no power left 
 to the States to quell ati insurrection of slaves, as it was wholly vested 
 in congress, George Nicholas asked : — 
 
 “ Have they it now ? If they have, does the constitution take it away ? 
 If it does, it must be in one of those clauses which have been mentioned 
 by the worthy member. The first part 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, beside the power in the State 
 government to use their own militia, it will be the duty of the oeneral aon- 
 ern eut to aid them WITH THE STRENGTH OF THE UNION, When 
 called for.” 
 
 This solemn guaranty of security to the slave system, caps the 
 climax of national barbarity, and stains with human blood the gar- 
 ments of all the people. In consequence of it, that system has mul- 
 tiplied its victims from five hundred thousand to nearly three mil- 
 lions — avast amount of territory has been purchased, in order to 
 give it extension and perpetuity — several new slave States have been 
 admitted into the Union — the slave trade has been made one of the 
 great branches of American commerce — the slave population, though 
 over-worked, starved, lacerated, branded, maimed, and subjected to 
 every form of deprivation and every species of torture, have been 
 overawed and crushed, — or, whenever they have attempted to gain 
 their liberty by revolt, they have been shot down and quelled by the 
 strong arm of the national government; as, for example, in the case 
 of Nat Turner’s insurrection in Virginia, when the naval and military 
 forces of the government were called into active service. Cuban 
 bloodhounds have been purchased with the money of the people, 
 and imported and used to hunt slave fugitives among the everglades 
 
108 
 
 of Florida. A merciless warfare has been waged for the extermina- 
 tion or expulsion of the Florida Indians, because they gave succor to 
 those poor hunted fugitives — a warfare which has cost the nation 
 several thousand lives, and forty millions of dollars. But the cata- 
 logue of enormities is too long to be recapitulated in the present 
 address. 
 
 We have thus demonstrated that the compact between the North 
 and the South embraces every variety of wrong and outrage, — is at 
 war with God and man, caunot be innocently supported, and deserves 
 to be immediately annulled. In behalf of the Society which we rep- 
 resent, we call upon all our fellow-citizens, who believe it is right to 
 obey God rather than man, to declare themselves peaceful revolu- 
 tionists, and to unite with us under the stainless banner of Liberty, | 
 
 having for its motto — “equal rights for all — NO UNION 
 Wire SLAVEHOLDERS!” 
 
 It is pleaded that the Constitution provides for its own amend- 
 ment ; and we ought to use the elective franchise to effect this ob- 
 ject. True, there is such a proviso ; but, until the amendment be 
 made, that instrument is binding as it stands. Is it not to violate 
 every moral instinct, and to sacrifice principle to expediency, to 
 argue that we may swear to steal, oppress and murder by wholesale, 
 because it may be necessary to do so only for the time being, and 
 because there is some remote probability that the instrument which 
 requires that we should be robbers, oppressors and murderers, may 
 at some future day be amended in these particulars ? Let us not 
 palter with our consciences in this manner — let us not deny that 
 the compact was conceived in sin and brought forth in iniquity — 
 let us not be so dishonest, even to promote a good object, as to inter- 
 pret the Constitution in a manner utterly at variance with the inten- 
 tions and arrangements of the contracting parties; but, confessing 
 the guilt of the nation, acknowledging the dreadful specifications in 
 the bond, washing our hands in the waters of repentance from all 
 further participation in this criminal alliance, and resolving that we 
 will sustain none other than a free and righteous government, let us 
 glory in the name of revolutionists, unfurl the banner of disunion, 
 and consecrate our talents and means to the overthrow of all that is 
 tyrannical in the land, — to the establishment of all that is free, just, 
 true and holy, — to the triumph of universal love and peace. 
 
 If, in utter disregard of the historical facts which have been cited, 
 it is still asserted, that the Constitution needs no amendment to make 
 it a free instrument, adapted to all the exigencies of a free people, 
 and was never intended to give any strength or countenance to the 
 slave system — the indignant spirit of insulted Liberty replies : — 
 “What though the assertion be true ? Of what avail is a mere piece 
 of parchment? In itself, though it be written all over with words 
 of truth and freedom — though its provisions be as impartial and just 
 as words can express, or the imagination paint — though it he as pure 
 as the gospel, and breathe only the spirit of Heaven — it is power* 
 
109 
 
 less ; it has no executive vitality ; it is a lifeless corpse, even though 
 beautiful in death. 1 am famishing for lack of bread ! How is my 
 appetite relieved by holding up to my gaze a painted loaf? 1 am 
 manacled, wounded, bleeding, dying ! What consolation is it to 
 know, that they who are seeking to destroy my life, profess in words 
 to be ray friends?” If the liberties of the people have been betray- 
 ed — if judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar 
 off, and truth has fallen in the streets, and equality cannot enter — 
 if the princes of the land are roaring lions, the judges evening wolves, 
 the people light and treacherous persons, the priests covered with 
 pollution — if we are living under a frightful despotism, which scoffs 
 at all constitutional restraints, and wields the resources of the nation 
 to promote its own bloody purposes — tell us not that the forms of 
 freedom are still left to us ! “ Woidd such tameness and submission 
 
 have freighted the May-Flower for Plymouth Rock? Would it have 
 resisted the Stamp Act, the Tea Tax, or any of those entering wedges 
 of tyranny with which the British government sought to rive the 
 liberties of America ? The wheel of the Revolution would have rusted 
 on its axle, if a spirit so weak had been the only power to give it 
 motion. Did our fathers say, when their rights and liberties were 
 infringed — “ Ifhy, what is done cannot he undone. That is the first 
 thought.” No, it was the last thing they thought of: or, rather, it 
 never entered their minds at all. They sprang to the conclusion at 
 once — “ JVhat is done shall be undone. That is our first and only 
 thought.” 
 
 “ Is water running in our veins ? Do we remember still 
 Old Plymouth Rock, and Lexington, and famous Bunker Hill ? 
 
 The debt we owe our fathers’ graves ? and to the yet unborn, 
 
 Whose heritage ourselves must make a thing of pride or scorn ? 
 
 Gray Plymouth Rock hath yet a tongue, and Concord is not dumb ; 
 
 And voices from our fathers’ graves and from the future come : 
 
 They call on us to stand our ground — they charge us still to be 
 Not only free from chains ourselves, but foremost to make free ! ” 
 
 It is of little consequence who is on the throne, if there be behind 
 it a power mightier than the throne. It matters not what is the 
 theory of the government, if the practice of the government he unjust 
 and tyrannical. We rise in rebellion against a despotism incompa- 
 rably more dreadful than that which induced the colonists to take up 
 arms against the mother country ; not on account of a three-penny 
 tax on tea, hut because fetters of living iron are fastened on the limbs 
 of millions of our countrymen, and our most sacred rights are tram- 
 pled in the dust. As citizens of the State, wo appeal to the State in 
 vain for protection and redress. As citizens of the United States, we 
 are treated as outlaws in one half of the country, and the national 
 government consents to our destruction. We are denied the right 
 of locomotion, freedom of speech, the right of petition, the liberty of 
 10 
 
110 
 
 the press, the right peaceably to assemble together to protest against 
 oppression and plead for liberty — at least in thirteen States of the 
 Union. If we venture, as avowed and unflinching abolitionists, to 
 travel South of Mason and Dixon’s line, we do so at the peril of our 
 lives. If we would escape torture and death, on visiting any of the 
 slave States, we must stifle our conscientious convictions, bear no 
 testimony against cruelty and tyranny, suppress the struggling emo- 
 tions of humanity, divest ourselves of all letters and papers of an anti- 
 slavery character, and do homage to the slaveholding power — or 
 run the risk of a cruel martyrdom! These are appalling and unde- 
 niable facts. 
 
 Three millions of the American people are crushed under the 
 American Union ! They are held as slaves — trafficked as merchan- 
 dise — registered as goods arid chattels ! The government gives 
 them no protection — the government is their enemy — the govern- 
 ment keeps them in chains! There they lie bleeding — we are 
 prostrate by their side — in their sorrows and sufferings we partici- 
 pate — their stripes are inflicted on our bodies, their shackles are 
 fastened on our limbs, their cause is ours ! The Union which grinds 
 them to the dust rests upon us, and with them we will struggle to 
 overthrow it! The Constitution, which subjects them to hopeless 
 bondage, is one that we cannot swear to support! Our motto is, 
 “NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS,” either religious or po- 
 litical. They are the fiercest enemies of mankind, and the bitterest 
 foes of God ! We separate from them not in anger, not in malice, 
 not for a selfish purpose, not to do them an injury, not to cease 
 warning, exhorting, reproving them for their crimes, not to leave the 
 perishing bondman to his fate — O no! But to clear our skirts of 
 innocent blood — to give the oppressor no countenance — to signify 
 our abhorrence of injustice and cruelty — to testify against an un- 
 godly compact — to cease striking hands with thieves and consenting 
 with adulterers — to make no compromise with tyranny — to walk 
 worthily of our high profession — to increase our moral power over 
 the nation — to obey God and vindicate the gospel of his Son — to 
 hasten the downfall of slavery in America, and throughout the 
 world ! 
 
 We are not acting under a blind impulse. We have carefully 
 counted the cost of this warfare, and are prepared to meet its conse- 
 quences. It will subject us to reproach, persecution, infamy — it 
 will prove a fiery ordeal to all who shall pass through it — it may 
 cost us our lives. We shall be ridiculed as fools, scorned as vision- 
 aries, branded as disorgauizers, reviled as madmen, threatened and 
 perhaps punished as traitors. But we shall bide our time. Whether 
 safety or peril, whether victory or defeat, whether life or death be 
 ours, believing that our feet are planted on an eternal foundation, 
 that our position is sublime and glorious, that our faith in God is ra- 
 tional and steadfast, that we have exceeding great and precious pro- 
 mises on which to rely, that we are in the right, we shall not 
 
Ill 
 
 falter nor be dismayed, “though the earth be removed, and though 
 the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea,” — though our 
 ranks be thinned to the number of “ three hundred men.” Freemen ! 
 are you ready for the conflict ? Come what may, will you sever the 
 chain that binds you to a slaveholding government, and declare your 
 independence? Up, then, with the banner of revolution! Not to 
 shed blood — not to injure the person or estate of any oppressor — 
 not by force and arms to resist any law — not to countenance a ser- 
 vile insurrection — not to wield any carnal weapons! No — ours 
 must be a bloodless strife, excepting ovr blood be shed — for we 
 aim, as did Christ our leader, not to destroy men’s lives, but to save 
 them — to overcome evil with good — to conquer through suffering 
 for righteousness’ saae — to set the captive free by the potency of 
 truth ! 
 
 Seeede, theD, from the government. Submit to its exactions, but 
 pay it no allegiance, and give it no voluntary aid. Fill no offices 
 under it. Send no senators or representatives to the national or 
 State legislature; for vvliat you cannot conscientiously perform your- 
 self, you cannot ask another to perform as your agent. Circulate a 
 declaration of DISUNION FROM SLAVEHOLDERS, throughout 
 the country. Hold mass meetings — assemble in conventions — nail 
 your banners to the mast! 
 
 Do you ask what can be done, if you abandon the ballot-box? 
 V hut did the crucified Nazarene do without the elective franchise? 
 W hat did the apostles do ? What did the glorious army of martyrs 
 and confessors do ? What did Luther and his intrepid associates 
 do ? Wbat can women and children do ? What has Father Mathew 
 done for teetotalism ? What has Daniel O’Connell done for Irish 
 repeal ? “Stand, having your loins girt about with truth, and having 
 on the breast-plate of righteousness,” and arrayed in the whole armor 
 of God ! 
 
 The form of government that shall succeed the present govern- 
 ment of the United States, let time determine. It would be a waste 
 of time to argue that question, until the people are regenerated and 
 turned from their iniquity. Ours is no anarchical movement, but 
 one of order and obedience. In ceasing from oppression, we estab- 
 lish liberty. What is now fragmentary, shall in tine time be crystal- 
 lized, and shine like a gem set in the heavens, for a light to all com- 
 ing ages. 
 
 Finally — we believe that the effect of this movement will be, — 
 First, to create discussion and agitation throughout the North ; and 
 these will lead to a general perception of its grandeur and import- 
 ance. 
 
 Secondly, to convulse the slumbering South like an earthquake, 
 and convince her that her only alternative is, to abolish slavery, or 
 be abandoned by that power on which she now relies for safety. 
 
 Thirdly, to attack the slave power in its most vulnerable point, and 
 to carry the battle to the gate. 
 
112 
 
 Fourthly, to exalt the moral sense, increase the moral power, and 
 invigorate the moral constitution of all who heartily espouse it. 
 
 We reverently believe that, in withdrawing from the American 
 Union, we have the God of justice with us. We know that we have 
 our enslaved countrymen with us. We are confident that all free 
 hearts will he with us. We are certain that tyrants and their abet- 
 tors will be against us. 
 
 In behalf of the Executive Committee of the American Anti-Sla- 
 very Society, 
 
 WM. LLOYD GARRISON, President. 
 
 Wendell Phillips, 
 
 M aria Weston Chapman, 
 
 | Secretaries. 
 
 Bos 1 07i, May 20, IS 44. 
 
 LETTER FROM FRANCIS JACKSON. 
 
 Boston, 4th July, 1844. 
 
 To His Excellency George JV. Briggs : 
 
 Sir — Many years since, 1 received from the Executive of the 
 Commonwealth a corrfmission as Justice of the Peace. I have held 
 the office that it conferred upon me till the present time, and have 
 found it a convenience to myself, and others. It might continue lo 
 be so, could I consent longer to hold it. But paramount considerations 
 forbid, and 1 herewith transmit to you my commission, respectfully 
 asking you to accept my resignation. 
 
 While I deem it a duty to myself to take this step, I feel called 
 on to state the reasons that influence me. 
 
 In entering upon the duties of the office in question, I complied 
 with the requirements of the law, by taking an oath “ to support the 
 Constitution of the United States .” 1 regret that T ever took that oath. 
 
 Had 1 then as maturely considered its full import, and the obligations 
 under which it is understood, and meant to lay those who take 
 it, as 1 have done since, I certainly never would have taken it, 
 seeing, as ! now do, that the Constitution of the United States con- 
 tains provisions calculated and intended to foster, cherish, uphold 
 and perpetuate slavery. It pledges the country to guard and protect 
 the slave system so long as the slaveholding States choose to retain 
 it. It regards the slave code as lawful in the States which enact it. 
 Still more, “it has done that, which, until its adoption, was never 
 before done for African slavery. It took it out of its former category 
 of municipal law and local life, adopted it as a national institution, 
 spread around it the broad and sufficient shield of national law, and 
 
113 
 
 thus gave to slavery a national existence.” Consequently, the oath to 
 support the Constitution of the United States is a solemn promise to 
 do that which is morally wrong; that which is a violation of the 
 natural rights of man, and a sin in the sight of God. 
 
 I am not, in this matter, constituting myself a judge of others. I 
 do not say that no honest man can take such an oath, and abide by 
 it. 1 only say, that / would not now deliberately take it; and that, 
 having inconsiderately taken it, I can no longer suffer it to lie upon 
 my soul. I take back the oath, and ask you, sir, to take back the 
 commission, which was the occasion of my taking it. 
 
 I am aware that my course in this matter is liable to be regarded 
 as singular, if not censurable ; and 1 must, therefore, be allowed to 
 make a more specific statement of those provisions of the Constitution 
 which support the enormous wrong, the heinous sin of slavery. 
 
 The very first Article of the Constitution takes slavery at once 
 under its legislative protection, as a basis of representation in the 
 popular branch of the National Legislature. It regards slaves under 
 the description “of all other persons ” — as of only three-fifths of the 
 value of free persons ; thus to appearance undervaluing them in com- 
 parison with freemen. But its dark and involved phraseology seems 
 intended to blind us to the consideration, that those underrated slaves 
 are merely a basis, not the source of representation ; that by the laws, 
 of all the States where they live, they are regarded not as persons. 
 but as things ; that they are not the constituency of the representative, 
 but his property ; and that the necessary effect of this provision of 
 the Constitution is, to take legislative power out of the hands of 
 men, as such, and give it to the mere possessors of goods and chat- 
 tels. Fixing upon thirty thousand persons, as the smallest number 
 that shall send one member into the House of Representatives, it pro- 
 tects slavery by distributing legislative power in a free and in a slave 
 State thus: To a congressional district in South Carolina, containing 
 fifty thousand slaves, claimed as the property of five hundred whites, 
 who hold, on an average, one hundred apiece, it gives. one Represen- 
 tative in Congress; to a district in Massachusetts containing a popu- 
 lation of thirty thousand five hundred, one Representative is assigned. 
 But inasmuch as a slave is never permitted to vote, the fifty thousand 
 persons in a district in Carolina form no part of “the constituency ;” 
 that is found only in the five hundred free persons. Five hundred 
 freemen of Carolina could send one Representative to Congress, 
 while it would take thirty thousand five hundred freemen of Massa- 
 chusetts, to do the same thing : that is, one slaveholder in Carolina 
 is clothed by the Constitution with the same political power and 
 influence in the Representatives Hall at Washington, as sixty Massa- 
 chusetts men like you and me, who “ eat their bread in the sweat of 
 their own brows.” 
 
 According to the census of 1830, and the ratio of representation 
 based upon that, slave property added twenty-five members to the 
 House of Representatives. And as it has been estimated, (as at» 
 10 * 
 
114 
 
 approximation to the truth,) that the two and a half million slaves in 
 the United States are held as property by about two hundred and 
 fifty thousand persons — giving an average of ten slaves to each 
 slaveholder, those twenty-five Representatives, each chosen, at most, 
 by only ten thousand voters, and probably by less than three- 
 fourths of that number, were the representatives, not only of the two 
 hundred and fifty thousand persons who chose them; but of property 
 which, five years ago, when slaves were lower in market, than at 
 present, were estimated, by the man who is now the most prominent 
 candidate for the Presidency, at twelve hundred millions of dollars 
 
 — a sum, which, by the natural increase of five years, and the 
 enhanced value resulting from a more prosperous state of the plant- 
 ing interest, cannot now be less than fifteen hundred millions of dol- 
 lars. All this vast amount of property, as it is li peculiar,” is also 
 identical in its character. In Congress, as we have seen, it is ani- 
 mated by one spirit, moves in one mass, and is wielded with one 
 aim ; and when we consider that tyranny is always timid, and des- 
 potism distrustful, we see -that this vast money power w ould be false 
 to itself, did it not direct all its eyes and hands, and put forth all its 
 ingenuity arid energy, to one end — self-protection and self- perpetu- 
 ation. And this it has ever done. In all the vibrations of the politi- 
 cal scale, whether in relation to a Bank or Sub-Treasury, Free Trade 
 or a Tariff', this immense pow er has moved, and w ill continue to 
 move, in one mass, for its own protection. 
 
 While the weight of the slave influence is thus felt in the House 
 of Representatives, “in the Senate of the Union,” says John Quincy 
 Adams, “ the proportion of slaveholding' power is still greater. By 
 the influence of slavery in the States where the institution is tolerated, 
 over their elections, no other than a slaveholder can rise to the dis- 
 tinction of obtaining a seat in the Senate; and thus, of the fifty-two 
 members of the federal Senate, twenty-six are owners of slaves, and 
 are as effectually representatives of that interest, as the eighty-eight 
 members elected by them to the House.” 
 
 The dominant power which the Constitution gives to the slave 
 interest, as thus seen and exercised in the Legislative Halls of our 
 nation, is equally obvious and obtrusive in every other department 
 of the National government. 
 
 In the Electoral colleges, the same cause produces the same effect 
 
 — the same power is wielded for the same purpose, as in the Halls 
 of Congress. Even the preliminary nominating conventions, before 
 they dare name a candidate for the highest office iti the gift of the 
 people, must ask of the Genius of slavery, to what votary she will 
 show' herself propitious. This very year, we see both the great 
 political parties doing homage to the slatfe power, by nominating 
 each a slaveholder for the chair of State. The candidate of one 
 party declares, “ I should have opposed, and woidd continue to 
 oppose, any scheme whatever of emancipation, either gradual or im- 
 mediate;” and adds, “It is not true, and I rejoice that it is not true, 
 
that either of the two great parties of this country has any design or 
 aim at abolition. I should deeply lament it, if it were true.” * 
 
 The other party nominates a man who says, “ I have no hesitation 
 in declaring that I am in favor of the immediate re-annexation of 
 Texas to the territory and government of the United States.” 
 
 Thus both the political parties, and the candidates of both, vie 
 with each other, in offering allegiance to the slave power, as a con- 
 dition precedent to any hope of success in the struggle for the execu- 
 tive chair ; a seat that, for more than three-fourths of the existence of 
 our constitutional government, has been occupied by a slaveholder. 
 
 The same stern despotism overshadows even the sanctuaries of 
 justice. Of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, five are slaveholders, and of course, must be faithless to their 
 own interest, as well as recreant to the power that gives them place, 
 or must, so far as they are concerned, give both to law and constitu- 
 tion such a construction as shall justify the language of John Quincy 
 Adams, when lie says The legislative, executive, and judicial 
 authorities, are ail in their hands — for the preservation, propagation, 
 arid perpetuation of the black code of slavery. Every law of the 
 legislature becomes a link in the chain of the slave; every executive 
 act ti rivet to his hapless fate ; every judicial decision a perversion of 
 the human intellect to the justification of wrong.” 
 
 Thus by merely adverting but briefly to the theory and the prac- 
 tical effect of this clause of the Constitution, that 1 have sworn to 
 support, it is seen that it throws the political power of the nation 
 into the hands of the slaveholders ; a body of men, which, however 
 it may be regarded by the Constitution as “ persons,” is in fact and 
 practical effect, a vast moneyed corporation, bound together by an 
 indissoluble unity of interest, by a common sense of a common dan- 
 ger ; counselling at all times for its common protection; wielding 
 the whole power, and controlling the destiny of the nation. 
 
 If we look into the legislative halls, slavery is seen in the chair of 
 the presiding officer of each, and controlling the action of both. 
 Slavery occupies, by prescriptive right, the Presidential chair. The 
 paramount voice that comes from the temple of national justice, 
 issues from the lips of slavery. The army is in the hands of slavery, 
 and at her bidding, must encamp in the everglades of Florida, or 
 march from the Missouri to the borders of Mexico, to look after her 
 interests in Texas. 
 
 The navy, even that part that is cruising off the coast of Africa, to 
 suppress the foreign slave trade, is in the hands of slavery. 
 
 Freemen of the North, who have even dared to lift up their voice 
 against slavery, cannot travel through the slave States, but at the 
 peril of their lives. 
 
 The representatives of freemen are forbidden, on the floor of Con- 
 
 * Henry Clay’s speech in the United States Senate in 1839, and confirmed at 
 Raleigh, N. C. 18J4. 
 
116 
 
 gross, to remonstrate against the encroachments of slavery, or to pray 
 that she would let her poor victims go. 
 
 1 renounce my allegiance to a Constitution that enthrones such a 
 power, wielded for the purpose of depriving me of my rights, of rob- 
 bing my countrymen of their liberties, and of securing its own pro- 
 tection, support and perpetuation. 
 
 Passing by that clause of the Constitution, which restricted Con- 
 gress for twenty years, from passing any law against the African 
 slave trade, and which gave authority to raise a revenue on the stolen 
 sons of Africa, I come to that part of the fourth article, which guar- 
 antees protection against “ domestic violence ,” and whieh pledges to 
 the South the military force of the country, to protect the masters 
 against their insurgent slaves : binds us, and our children, to shoot 
 down our fellow-countrymen, who may rise, in emulation of our rev- 
 olutionary fathers, to vindicate their inalienable “right to life, liberty 
 ami the pursuit of happiness,” — this clause of the Constitution, 1 say 
 distinctly, 1 never will support. 
 
 That part of the Constitution which provides for the surrender of 
 fugitive slaves, 1 never have supported and never will. I will join in 
 no slave-hunt. My door shall stand open, as it has long stood, for 
 the panting and trembling victim of the slave-hunter. When I shut 
 it against him, may God shut the door of his mercy against me! 
 Under this clause of the Constitution, and designed to carry it into 
 effect, slavery has demanded that laws should be passed, and of such 
 a character, as have left the free citizen of the North without protec- 
 tion for his own liberty. The question, whether a man seized in a 
 free State as a slave, is a slave or not, the law of Congress does not 
 allow a jury to determine : hut refers it to the decision of a Judge of 
 a United .States’ Court, or even of the humblest State magistrate, it 
 may be, upon the testimony or affidavit of the party most deeply in- 
 terested to support the claim. By virtue of this law, freemen have 
 been seized and dragged into perpetual slavery — and should I be 
 seized by a slave-lumter in any part of the country where 1 am not 
 personally known, neither the Constitution nor laws of the United 
 States would shield me from the same destiny. 
 
 These, sir, are the specific parts of the Constitution of the United 
 States, which in my opinion are essentially vicious, hostile at once to 
 the liberty and to the morals of the nation. And these are the principal 
 reasons of my refusal any longer to acknowledge my allegiance to it, 
 and of my determination to revoke my oath to support it. 1 cannot, 
 in order to keep the law of man, break the law of God, or solemnly 
 call him to witness my promise that 1 will break it. 
 
 It is true that the Constitution provides for its own amendment, 
 and that by this process, all the guarantees of Slavery may be ex- 
 punged. But it will be time enough to swear to support it when 
 this is done. It cannot be right to do so, until these amendments 
 are made. 
 
 It is also true that the framers of the Constitution did studiously 
 
117 
 
 keep the words “ Slave ” and “ Slavery ” from its face. But to do 
 our constitutional fathers justice, while they forebore — from very 
 shame — to give the word “Slavery” a place in the Constitution, 
 they did not forbear — again to do them justice — to give place in it 
 to the thing. They were careful to wrap up the idea, and the sub- 
 stance of Slavery, in the clause for the surrender of the fugitive, 
 though they sacrificed justice in doing so. 
 
 There is abundant evidence that this clause touching “ persons held 
 to service or labor,” not only operates practically, under the judicial 
 construction, for the protection of the slave interest; but that it was 
 intended so to operate by the framers of the Constitution. The high- 
 est judicial authorities — Chief Justice Shaw, of the Supreme Court 
 of Massachusetts, in the Latimer case, and Mr. Justice Story, in the 
 Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Prigg vs. The 
 State of Pennsylvania, — tell us, 1 know not on what evidence, that 
 without this “compromise,” this security for Southern slaveholders, 
 “the Union could not have been formed.” And there is still higher 
 evidence, not only that the framers of the Constitution meant by this 
 clause to protect slavery, but that they did this, knowing that slavery 
 was wrong. Mr. Madison* informs us that the clause in question, as it 
 came out of the hands of Dr. Johnson, the chairman of the “commit- 
 tee on style,” read thus: “No person legally held to service, or labor, 
 in one State, escaping into another, shall,” &c., and that the word “ le- 
 gally ” was struck out, and the words “ under the laws thereof” insert- 
 ed 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.'’’ A conclusive proof that, although future gen- 
 erations might apply that clause to other kinds of “service or labor,” 
 when slavery should have died out, or been killed off by the young 
 spirit of liberty, which was then awake and at work in the land ; still, 
 slavery was what they were wrapping up in “equivocal ” words; and 
 wrapping it up for its protection and safe keeping: a conclusive proof 
 that the framers of the Constitution were more careful to protect 
 themselves in the judgment of coming generations, from the charge of 
 ignorance, than of sin ; a conclusive proof that they knew that slavery 
 was not legal in a moral view,” that it was a violation of the moral 
 law of God ; and yet knowing and confessing its immorality, they 
 dared to make this stipulation for its support and defence. 
 
 This language may sound harsh to the ears of those who think it 
 a part of their duty, as citizens, to maintain that whatever the patriots 
 of the Revolution did, was right ; and who hold that we are bound 
 to do all the iniquity that they covenanted for us that we should do. 
 But the claims of truth and right are paramount to all other claims. 
 
 With all our veneration for our constitutional fathers, we must ad- 
 mit, — for they have left on record their own confession of it, — that 
 in this part of their work they intended to hold the shield of their pro- 
 
 Madison Papers, p. 1589. 
 
118 
 
 tection over a wrong, knowing that it was a wrong. They made a 
 “ compromise ” which they hud no right to make — a compromise 
 of moral principle for the sake of what they probably regarded as 
 “political expediency.” 1 am sure they did not know — no man 
 could know, or can now measure, the extent, or the consequences of 
 the wrong that they were doing. In the strong language of John 
 Quincy Adams,* in relation to the article fixing the basis of represen- 
 tation, “Little did the members of the Convention, from the free 
 States, imagine or foresee what a sacrifice to Moloch was hidden 
 under the mask of this concession.” 
 
 I verily believe that, giving all due consideration to the benefits 
 conferred upon this nation by the Constitution, its national unity, its 
 swelling masses of wealth, its power, and the external prosperity of 
 its multiplying millions; yet the moral injury that has been done, by 
 the countenance shown to slavery by holding over that tremendous 
 sin the shield of the Constitution, and thus breaking down in the eyes 
 of the nation the barrier between right and wrong ; by so tenderly 
 cherishing slavery as, in less than the life of man, to multiply her 
 children from half a million to nearly three millions ; by exacting 
 oaths from those who occupy prominent stations in society, that they 
 will violate at once the rights of tnan and the law of God ; by substi- 
 tuting itself as a rule of right, in place of the moral laws of the uni- 
 verse ; — thus in effect, dethroning the Almighty in the hearts of this 
 people and setting up another sovereign in his stead — more than 
 outweighs it all. A melancholy and monitory lesson this, to all time- 
 serving and temporising statesmen! A striking illustration of the 
 impolicy of sacrificing right to any considerations of expediency ! Yet, 
 what better than the evil effects that we have seen, could the authors 
 of the Constitution have reasonably expected, from the sacrifice of 
 right, in the concessions they made to slavery ? Was it reasonable 
 in them to expect that after they had introduced a vicious element 
 into the very Constitution of the body politic which they were calling 
 into life, it wotdd not exert its vicious energies? Was it reasonable 
 in them to expect that, after slavery had been corrupting the public 
 morals for a whole generation, their children would have too much 
 vir. i • to use for the defence of slavery, a power which they them- 
 selves had not too much virtue to give ? It is dangerous for the sov- 
 ereign power of a State to license immorality; to hold the shield 
 of its protection over any thing that is not “legal in a moral 
 view.” Bring into your house a benumbed viper, and lay it down 
 upon your warm hearth, and soon it will not ask you into which room 
 it may crawl. Let Slavery once lean upon the supporting arm, and 
 bask in the fostering smile of the State, and you will soon see, as we 
 now see, both her minions and her victims multiply apace till the 
 politics, the morals, the liberties, even the religion of the nation, are 
 brought completely under her control. 
 
 * See bis Report on the Massachusetts Resolutions. 
 
119 
 
 To me, it appears that the virus of slavery, introduced into the 
 Constitution of our body politic, by a few slight punctures, has now so 
 pervaded and poisoned the whole system of our National Government, 
 that literally there is no health in it. The only remedy that I can 
 see for the disease, is to he found in the dissolution of the patient. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States, both in theory and prac- 
 tice, is so utterly broken down by the influence and effects of slavery, 
 so imbecile for the highest good of the nation, and so powerful for 
 evil, that I can give no voluntary assistance in holding it up any 
 longer. 
 
 Henceforth it is dead to me, and I to it. I withdraw all profession 
 of allegiance to it, arid all my voluntary efforts to sustain it. The 
 burdens that it lays upon me, while it is held up by others, I shall 
 endeavor to bear patiently, yet acting with reference to a higher law, 
 and distinctly declaring, that while I retain my own liberty, 1 will he 
 a party to no compact, which helps to rob any other man of his. 
 
 Very respectfully, your friend, 
 
 FRANCIS JACKSON. 
 
 FROM 
 
 MR. WEBSTER’S SPEECH 
 
 AT NIBLO’S GARDENS. 
 
 “We have slavery, already, amongst us. The Constitution found 
 it among us; it recognized it and gave it SOLEMN GUARANTIES. 
 To the full extent of these guaranties we are all hound, in honor, in 
 justice, and by the Constitution. All the stipulations, contained in 
 the Constitution, in favor of the slaveholding States which are already 
 in the Union, ought to he fulfilled, and so far as depends on me, shall 
 be fulfilled, in the fulness of their spirit, and to the exactness of their 
 letter.” ! ! ! 
 
 EXTRACTS FROM 
 
 JOHN Q. ADAMS’S ADDRESS 
 
 AT NORTH BRIDGEWATER, NOV. 6, 1844. 
 
 The benefits of the Constitution of the United States, were the 
 restoration of credit and reputation, to the country — the revival of 
 commerce, navigation, and ship-building — the acquisition of the 
 means of discharging the debts of the Revolution, and the protection 
 and encouragement of the infant and drooping manufactures of the 
 country. All this, however, as is now well ascertained, was msuffi- 
 
120 
 
 cient to propitiate the rulers of the Southern States to the adoption 
 of the Constitution. What they specially wanted was protection . — 
 Protection from the powerful and savage tribes of Indians within 
 their borders, and who were harrassing them with the most terrible 
 of wars — and protection from their own negroes — protection from 
 their insurrections — protection from their escape — protection even 
 to the trade by which they were brought into the country — protec- 
 tion, shall 1 not blush to say, protection to the very bondage by which 
 they were held. Yes! it cannot be denied — the slaveholding lords 
 of the South prescribed, as a condition of their assent to the Consti- 
 tution, three special provisions to secure the perpetuity of their do- 
 minion over their slaves. The first was the immunity for twenty 
 years of preserving the African slave-trade ; the second was the stip- 
 ulation to surrender fugitive slaves — an engagement positively pro- 
 hibited by the laws of God, delivered from Sinai ; and thirdly, the 
 exaction fatal- to the principles of popular representation, of a repre- 
 sentation for slaves — for articles of merchandise, under the name of 
 persons. 
 
 The reluctance with which the freemen of the North submitted to 
 the dictation of these conditions, is attested by the awkward and 
 ambiguous language in which they are expressed. The word slave 
 is most cautiously and fastidiously excluded from the whole instru- 
 ment. A stranger, who should come from a foreign land, and read 
 the Constitution of the United States, would not believe that slavery 
 or a slave existed within the borders of our country. There is not a 
 word in the Constitution apparently bearing upon the condition of 
 slavery, nor is there a provision but would be susceptible of practical 
 execution, if there were not a slave in the land. 
 
 The delegates from South Carolina and Georgia distinctly avow- 
 ed that, without this guarantee of protection to their property in 
 slaves, they would not yield their assent to the Constitution : and the 
 freemen of the North, reduced to the alternative of departing from 
 the vital principle of their liberty, or of forfeiting the Union itself, 
 averted their faces, and with trembling hand subscribed the bond. 
 
 Twenty years passed away — the slave markets of the South were 
 saturated with the blood of African bondage, and from midnight of 
 the 31st of December, 1807, not a slave from Africa was suffered 
 ever more to be introduced upon our soil. But the internal traffic 
 was still lawful, and the breeding States soon reconciled themselves to 
 a prohibition which gave them the monopoly of the interdicted trade, 
 and they joined the full chorus of reprobation, to punish with death 
 the slave-trader from Africa, while they cherished and shielded and 
 enjoyed the precious profits of the American slave-trade exclusively 
 to themselves. 
 
 Perhaps this unhappy result of their concession had not altogether 
 escaped the foresight of the freemen of the North ; but their intense 
 anxiety for the preservation of the whole Union, and the habit alrea- 
 dy formed of yielding to the somewhat peremptory and overbearing 
 
121 
 
 tone which the relation of master and slave welds into the nature of 
 the lord, prevailed with them to overlook this consideration, the in- 
 ternal slave-trade having scarcely existed while that 
 
 been allowed. But of one consequence which lias i'oi ... 
 
 the slave representation, pervading the whole organic structure fine 
 Constitution, they certainly were not prescient ; for it they hud been, 
 never — no, never would they have consented to it. 
 
 The representation, ostensibly of slaves, under the name of per- 
 sons, was in its operation an exclusive grant of power to one class of 
 proprietors, owners of one species of property, to the detriment of 
 all the rest of the community. This species of property was odious 
 in its nature, held in direct violation of the natural and inalienable 
 rig'll ts of man, and of the vital principles of Christianity; it was all 
 accumulated in one geographical section of the country, upd was all 
 held by wealthy men, comparatively small in numbers, not amount- 
 ing to a tenth part of the free white population of the States in which 
 it was concentrated. 
 
 In some of the ancient, and in some modern republics, extraordi- 
 nary political power and privileges have been invested in the owners 
 of horses ; but then these privileges and these powers have been 
 granted for the equivalent of extraordinary duties and services to the 
 community, required of the favored class. The Roman knights con- 
 stituted the cavalry of their armies, and the bushels of rings gather- 
 ed by Hannibal from their dead bodies, after the battle of Canute, 
 amply prove that the special powers conferred upon them were no 
 gratuitous grants. But in the Constitution of the United States, the 
 political power invested in the owners of slaves is entirely gratuitous. 
 No extraordinary service ie rcrjnirsd of" them , tVipv CCTI- 
 
 trary, themselves grievous burdens upon the community, always 
 threatened with the danger of insurrections, to be smothered in the 
 blood of both parties, master and slave, and always depressing the 
 condition of the poor free laborer, by competition with the labor of 
 the slave. The property in horses was the gift of God to man, at 
 the creation of the world ; the property in slaves is property acquir- 
 , ed and held by crimes, differing in no moral aspect from the pillage 
 of a freebooter, and to which no lapse of time can give a prescriptive 
 right. You are told that this is no concern of yours, and that the 
 question of freedom and slavery is exclusively reserved to the consi- 
 deration of the separate States. But if it be so, as to the mere ques- 
 tion of right between master and slave, it is of tremendous concern 
 to you that this little cluster of slave-owners should possess, besides 
 their own share in the representative hull of the nation, the exclusive 
 privilege of appointing two-fifths of the whole number of the repre- 
 sentatives of the people. This is now your condition, under that 
 delusive ambiguity of language and of principle, which begins by 
 declaring the representation in the popular branch of the legislature 
 a representation of persons, and then provides that one class of per- 
 sons shall have neither part nor lot in the choice of their representa- 
 
122 
 
 lives; but their elective franchise shall be transferred to their mas- 
 ters, and the oppressors shall represent the oppressed. The same 
 perversion of the representative principle pollutes the composition of 
 the colleges of electors of President and Vice President of the United 
 States, and every department of the government of the Union is thus 
 tainted at its source by the gangrene of slavery. 
 
 Fellow-citizens, — with a body of men thus composed, for legisla- 
 tors and executors of the laws, what will, what must he, what has 
 been your legislation ? The numbers of freemen constituting your 
 nation are much greater than those of the slaveholding States, bond 
 and free. You have at least three-fifths of the whole population of 
 the Union. Your influence on the legislation and the administration 
 of the government ought to be in the proportion of three to two. — 
 But how stands the fact ? Besides the legitimate portion of influ- 
 ence exercised by the slaveholding States by the measure of their 
 numbers, here is an intrusive influence in every department, by a re 
 presentation nominally of persons, but really of property, ostensibly 
 of slaves, but effectively of their masters, overbalancing your superi- 
 ority of numbers, adding two-fifths of supplementary power to the 
 two-fifths fairly secured to them bv the compact, CONTROLLING 
 AND OVERRULING T1IE WHOLE ACTION OF YOUR GOV- 
 ERNMENT AT HOME AND ABROAD, and warping it to the 
 sordid private interest and oppressive policy of 300,000 owners 
 of slaves. 
 
 From the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
 States, the institution of domestic slavery has been becoming more 
 and more the abhorrence of the civilized world. But in proportion 
 as it has been growing odious to all the rest of mankind, it has been 
 sinking deeper and deeper into the affections of the holders of slaves 
 themselves. The cultivation of cotton and of sugar, unknown in the 
 Union at the establishment of the Constitution, has added largely to 
 the pecuniary value of the slave. And the suppression of the Afri- 
 can slave-trade as piracy upon pain of death, by securing the benefit 
 of a monopoly to the virtuous slaveholders of the ancient dominion, 
 has turned her heroic tyrannicides into a community of slave-breed- 
 ers for sale, and converted the land of George Washington, Patrick 
 Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, into a great bar- 
 racoon — a cattle-show of human beings, an emporium, of which the 
 staple articles of merchandise are the flesh and blood, the bones and 
 sinews of immortal man. 
 
 Of the inereasing<ah<ypination of slavery in the unbought hearts of 
 men at the time when the Constitution of the United States was 
 formed, what clearer proof could be desired, than that the very same 
 year in which that charter of the land was issued, the Congress of 
 the Confederation, with not a tithe of the powers given by the people 
 to the Congress of the new compact, actually abolished slavery for- 
 ever throughout the whole Northwestern territory, without a remon- 
 strance or a murmur. But in the articles of confederation, there was 
 
 J - 
 
' 
 
 123 
 
 no -uaranty for the property of the slaveholder — no double repre- 
 1 sent&ion of him in the Federal councils — no power of taxation — 
 no stimulation for the recovery of fugitive slaves. But when the 
 powers of government came to be delegated to the Union, the South 
 — that i ?) South Carolina and Georgia — refused their subscription 
 to the pa-chment, till it should be saturated with the infection of 
 slavery, which no fumigation could purify, no quarantine could ex- 
 tinguish. 'Ihe freemen of the North gave way, and the deadly venom 
 of slavery was infused into the Constitution of freedom. Its first con- 
 sequence has been to invert the first principle of Democracy, that the 
 will of the majority of numbers shall rule the land. By means of 
 the double representation, the minority command the whole, and a 
 KNOT OF SLAVEHOLDERS GIVE THE LAW AND PRE- 
 SCRIBE THE POLICY OF THE COUNTRY. To acquire this 
 superiority of a large majority of freemen, a persevering system of 
 engrossing nearly all the seats of power and place, is constantly for 
 ■ a long series of years pursued, and you have seen, in a period of 
 fifty-six years, the Chief-magistracy of the Union held, during forty- 
 four of them, by the owners of slaves. The Executive departments, 
 the Army and Navy, the Supreme Judicial Court and diplomatic 
 missions abroad, all present the same spectacle ; — an immense ma- 
 jority of power in the hands of a very small minority of the people 
 — millions made for a fraction of a few thousands. 
 
 # % & % # # 
 
 From that day (1830,) SLAVERY, SLAVEHOLDING, SLAVE- 
 BREEDING AND SLAVE-TRADING, HAVE FORMED THE 
 WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE POLICY OF THE FEDERAL 
 GOVERNMENT, and of the siaveiidiciing States, at home and 
 abroad ; and at the very time when a new census has exhibited a 
 i larse increase upon the superior numbers of the free States, it has 
 I presented the portentous evidence of increased influence and ascend- 
 ancy of the slaveholding power. 
 
 Of the prevalence of that power, you have had continual and con- 
 clusive evidence in the suppression for the space of ten years ol the 
 right of petition, guarantied, if there could be a guarantee against 
 slavery, by the first article amendatory of the Constitution. 
 
Date Due 
 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Introduction . 
 
 Debates in the Congress of the Confederation 
 Debates in the Federal Convention . • • 
 
 List of Members of the Federal Convention 
 
 Speech of Luther Martin 
 
 Debates in State Conventions. 
 
 Massachusetts • 
 
 New York . 
 
 Pennsylvania • 
 
 Virginia . 
 
 North Carolina . : 
 
 South Carolina ...... 
 
 Extracts from the Federalist . . . . . 
 
 Debates in First Congress .... 
 
 Address of the Executive Committee of the American Anti- 
 Slavery Society . 
 
 Letter from Francis Jackson to Gov. Briggs 
 Extract from Mr. Webster’s Speech . 
 
 Extracts from J. Q. Adams’s Address, November, 1844 
 
 Page 
 
 3 
 
 9 
 
 14 
 
 33 
 
 35 
 
 39 
 
 43 
 
 46 
 
 48 
 
 61 
 
 65 
 
 67 
 
 93 
 
 112 
 
 llt- 
 
 119i 
 
 boston: 
 
 MUHTED B S' TAVID n. £Li 
 so. 37, COKNHILE. 
 

 
 
 
 
- 
 
 iiifNAi 
 
 D00500886R 
 
 - ■