THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE NORTH
IN  ItFLATI3-N T(o
S L A V E R Y.
CAMBRIDGE:
PRINTED BY ALLEN AND FARPNIHAM.
1856. 
I 
THIE IRESPONSIBILITY OF THiE INORTH liN
REILATI()ON TO SLAVER'Y.
DURING a debate near the close of the last session of
Congress, it was  asserted that if the  New  England
States had voted in the convention for forming  the
constitution, against the extension of the slave-trade, it
Awoutld have been abolished eight years sooner than it
was, and cha4rg,ing it upon  Massachusetts that, on account of her interest in the slave-trade, her rmecmbers
voted in favor of continuing it until 1808.  On some
doubt b)eing expressed as to the correctness of this
charge,e a southern member challenged a contradiction,
an(d one of the Alassachusetts senators was ready to confess for his constituents, for the sake of saying that they
had since repented.  All this seemed to be a new discovery,, and I was at a loss to know on whlat authority it was
fo,undede.  Upon examination I find it depends upon an
article publlislhed in tlhe National Intelligencer, quoting
fiomt thle journal of the convention as follows-:    " The
first committee on thle subject consisted of  Rutledge of
Soutlh Cutrolina, Randolph of Virginia, Wilson of' Pennsylvania, Gorlhain of Mlassachlusetts, and Elllsworth of
Connecticut, and they reported as a section for the con 
4
stitution,' That no tax or other duty should be laid on
the migration or importation of such persons as the
several States should think proper to admit, nor shall
such migration or importation be prohibited.'
This was the first action of the convention on the
slavery question; and it will be seen that a committee,
the majority of which was from what are now strong
anti-slavery States, reported against any future prohlibition of the African slave-trade, but were willing to legalize it perpetually.
"This section was subsequently referred to a committee selected by ballot, consisting of Langdon of New
Hlaminpshire, King of Mlassachusetts, Johnson of Connecticut, Living,ston of New Jersey, Clymer of Pennsylvania, Dickinson of Delaware, Martin of Maryland,
Madison of Virginia, Williamson of North Carolina, C.
C. Pinckney of South Carolina, and Baldwin of Georgia. This committee, a nmajority of which was from
al(te States, reported the clause with authority to Congress to prohibit the slave-trade after the year 1800,
and in the mean time to levy a tax on such iminportations. This section was afterwards modified and adopted
as it now exists in the constitution, extending the time
before whichl  Congress could not prohibit the  trade
until 1808; Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, free Slates, and Maryland, North and South
Carolina, stace S(ctes voting for the extension, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, free Slates, and Delaware and
Virginia,,sl(ie ~S'ates, voting against it."  So far the
statement in the Intelligencer.
The inferences drawn are as follows:
C1. A committee, the matjority of which was from 
free ScTates, report in favor of denying to Congress the
power at any period to prohibit the African slavetrade."
' 2. That a subsequent  committee, a majority of
which was from the slave States, reported a new section,
authorizing Congress to abolish the trade after 1800."
"3. That this period was extended  until the year
1808, thus giving eight additional years to the traffic,
by the vote of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, while the vote of Virginia was against such
extension."
All this bears such an appearance of authenticity,
that we are not surprised that it has found its way into
Mr. Adams's'South side View of Slavery,"-  but he
goes somewhat further, and makes New  England  responsiblle for the slaves imported between 1800 and
1808, with all their posterity, estimated at 300,000, and
asks, "Can any one informn us where Northern moral
sense was, or whether it was in the convention, when
the North protracted the slave-trade eight years longer
than the South wished to endure it?"
Before this becomes settled as an uncontradicted
charge against New England, it may be well to examine the matter a little further, which we are fortunately
able to do by the " Debates in the Federal Convention,"
published in the "Madison Papers,"* and we shall find
that the whole proceedings give no warrant, either for
the charge that Massachusetts was influenced in her
* The report of Judge Yates contains nothing on the subject, he lhavilig left the convention on the 5th of July, before this matter came
undel'r consideration.
5 
6
votes by the interest of her citizens ill the slave-tra(le,
or that the Northl  protracted the sl;;ve-trade ecjittycac's
[oJ2c'Ii tJ i  Ite Sort(l i:(is'led to eicdIt)ee it.
The history of the proceedings of the convention is
as follows.   From  their organization onl the 20thl of
Ilay, 1787, to the 26thl of July, the convention was engaged iln discussin, and deciding on the principles which
should be embodlied ill the constitution, and onl thle various plans and motions which were submitted for their
consideration.  IHaving decided, in a preliminary nmailnner, upon most of these, in the form  of resolutions, on
Iond(}y, July 23d, it was voted, "That the?roceelid,s
of I/e o~'i'J for thle est(ablislrhment of a national government be referred to a committee to prepare and report a constitution coifo))(tlcle I/te)'eto."
This committee was appointed by ballot on the 24tllh,
consisting, of A Messrs. Rutledge, Ralndolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and WVilson, who are (ifterwatrds several timnes referred to as the  c;o)iJ))Jitlee of det(il."  And  on  " the
26th, the proceedings since Monday last were  unaniInously referred to the co))i)zitlee of detcl(, and the convention unanimously adjourned till Monday, August 6thl,
that the coiiQ)))lWe of cle/til might have time to prepare
and report the constitution."
It may be well to notice here, how carefully the aiithority of this committee is restricted.   Thlou,gh  the
vote was passed on the 23d of July referring, the 1))ocee&')?#s of /itc Cke:'O to the committee, to prepare and
report a constitution coi;]o'));((ble itke)to, tlhe convention
still proceed until the 226th to debate and(l settle further
principles, and then refer these further proceedings to
the same co-mmittee for the samne purpose, after having 
completed what may be considered their instructions to
the committee.  This co);;i,Illee of (cettil is the first con' mnittee alluded to in the article from the Intelligencer,
a majority of which was from the free States, and who
are charged with reporting the article against any
future prohibition of the African slave-trade.  Now it
will be seen that the duty of this commnittee was only
to digest and prepare a constitution ilz co;)fo))ii(y i/,iar tie
1))oceeei';is  e(lJec,# tk,'eiz by Mie co)jiowe)iio),. In reporting
the preliminary form of a constitution, containing the
article above mentioned, they could only be responsible
for the faithful digest and arrangement of the proceed ingc,s of the convention referred to themr for this purpose,
and in obeying the instructions of the convention they
should be fairly and fully exonerated on their part from
the guilt of any intention of  legalizing slavery per petually."
It should be further mentioned as an indication of the
prevailing feeling at the time, that on the passage of
the vote for this committee,; General Pinckney reminided 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." *
Hlaving now disposed of the first accusation against
the Nortlh, and seen how far the committee from the
free Stataes are clhargeable with a disposition to  lefalize
sla?'e;'t," it is time to proceed to an examination of the
further doings of the convention.
*:ladison Papers, p. 1187.
/ 
8
The co,)),'Itee of det(til reported the proposed form and
outline of a constitution on the Gth of August, containing the article as first drawn respecting slavery, with
the clause denying to Congress the power to prohibit
the importation of slaves, and the convention then proceeded to debate and decide upon the several articles,
with or without amendment.   On Tuesday, the 21st
dlay of August, as appears by the journal of the convention, when this part of the report was under consideration," on the question to agree to the first clause of
the fourth section of the seventh article as reported, it
passed in the affirmative.  It was then moved and seconded to insert the word f)ree' before'pe-sons' in the
fourth section of the seventh article. The clause would
then read,  N,o tax or duty shall be laid by the legislature on articles exported from any State, nor on the
migration or importation of such f)ee persoJs as the several States shall think proper to admit, nor shall such
migration be prohibited.'" A debate on this motion
was continued until the adjournment for the day, and
part of the next day, during which, the journal says,
the motion was withdrawn, and it appears from the language used by some of the speakers that a motion was
under consideration to strike out the clause.
A few extracts from the speeches of the members
will show the feelings of the North and of the South on
the subject of slavery, and enable the reader to decide
how far the North was guilty of protracting the slavetrade "eight years longer than the South wished to endure it."
When that part of the report relating to representation in Congress was under consideration, Mr. King, of 
9
MAlassachusetts, had  remarked  that "1 the admission of
slaves was a most grating circumstance to h1is mind,
and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America.  Hle had not made a strenuous opposisition to it heretofore, because he had hoped that this
concession would have produced a readiness, which has
not been manifested to strengtllhen the general government, and to lnark a full confidence in it.  The report
under consideration had, by the tenor of it, put an end
to all these hopes.  In two great points the hands of
the legislature were absolutely tied.  The imnportation
of slaves could not be prohibited. Expoits could not be
taxed....... He had hoped that some accommodation
would have taken place on the subject, that at least a
time would have been limited for the importation of
slaves.  He never could agree to let themi  be imported
without limitation, and then to be represented in the
national legislature." On the same occasion Gouverneur
Morris of Pennsylvania said, c He never could concur in
upholding domestic slavery.  It was a mlost nefarious
institution, it was the curse of heaven on the States
where it prevailed." *
On the 21st of Autgust, in the debate upon the article
respecting the importation of slaves, Mr. Rutledge of
South Carolina said,     The true question at present is
whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties
to the Union."
Mr. C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina said, "South
Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the
slave-trade.  In every proposed extension of the power
* 3,Iadison P'apers, 1). 1261-126:3.
9 
10
of Congress that State has expressly and watchfully
excepted that of meddling with  the importation of
negfroes." 
General Pinckney of South Carolina C; declared it to
be his firm opinion that if himself and all his colleagues
were to sigrn the constitution and use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the
consent of their  constituents.   Southl Carolina and
Georgia cannot do without slaves.... should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South
Carolina from the Union."
IMr. Dickinson of Delaware "considered it as inadmissiblle on every principle of honor and safety that the
importation of slaves should be authorized to the States
by the constitution."
Mr. W\illiainson of North Carolina "thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union if the
clause should be rejected."
Mr. King  of Massachusetts  " 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 other States."
Mr. Lan(rdon of New Hampshire 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."-t
General Pinckney of South Carolina c thought himself
bound to declare candidly that he did not think South
* Madison Papers, p. 1389-1392.
t lb. ). 1 3 94, 139.
~ I,.. ~ 
11
Carolina would stop her importation of slaves in any
short time; but only stop them occasionally as she now
does."  Hle moved that the clause be committed, evi dently for the purpose of so modifying the article as to
pertnit the importation.
Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina said,  " If the conven tion thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and
Georg,ia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right
to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain.
The people of those States will never be such fools as
to give up so important an interest.  He was strenuous
against striking out the section, and seconded the mnotion of Gen. Pinckney for a comrnmitment."*:
Mr. Sherman of Connecticut said cc it was better to let
the Southern States import slaves than to part with
them, if they made that a sieve qtcc 11o0l."
LIMr. Randolph of Virginia 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."t
Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut said,  "If we do not
agree upon this middle and moderate course hie was
afraid we should lose two States, with such others as
mlay be disposed to stand aloof, should fly into a variety
of shapes and directions, and most probably into several confederations, and not without bloodshed'."'+
Thus after a protracted and warm discussion, it became evident that some compromise must be effected
to reconcile the conflicting views of the North and the
South; and on motion of General Pinekney of South
MAladisonl Papers, p1). 1395, 13J  6.
, 11). p. 1397.
t lb. l-). 1.396, 13 97. 
Carolina, seconded by Mr. Rutledge of tlhe same State,
the subject was referred to a coimmittee of one from
each State then represented  in the convention, evidently to find some " middle ground" as sucggested by
MIr. BRandolphl  of VAirginia, and assented to by Mr. Ellsworth  and Mr. Shermnan of Connecticut, rather than
lose somne of the Fouthern States, and at the hazard of
"flying off into several confederations."
This committee of eleven was appointed on the 22d
of August, consisting of Mr. Lang,don of New Hamnpshire, Mr. King, of Massachusetts, Mr. Johnson of Connecticlt, Mr. Livingston of New Jersey, Mr. Clyrner of
Pennsylv(ania, Mr. Dickinson of Delaware, Mr. Martin
of Maryland, Mr. Madison of Virginia, Mrt. Williamson
of North Carolina, Mr. C. C. Pinckney of South Carolina, and  Mr. Bal(ldwin of Georgia.  On  the 24th of
August this committee reported the clause in the following form.  "The migration or import(altion of suchl
persons as the several States now  existing, shall think
proper to aldmit, shall not be prohibited by the legislature, prior to the year 1800."
In the foregoing debates we see no wvant of zeal in
favor of the slave-trade, on tlhe part of the South, and
no indifference on the part of the North with regard to
the slave-trade, or  lavery in general.  But it became
very evident, thlat, in order to keep the States to(rethler,
there must be some comrnpromiise upon the subject, and
the committee of eleven was chosen for this purpose.
The South insisted that Congress should ha,ve no power
to impose any restrictions on the importation of slaves,
aiid the Northl was determined that there iuust be a restriction or prohibition in fLIture, if not (at pre.cent.  The
12 
13
result was a report from the committee, in substance
allowing, Congress the power of prohibiting the slavetrade after the year 1800, and restricting them from
the exercise of that power before that time.  But the
termns of this compromise were not satisfactory to the
South, and on the 25th of August, wlhen the report
came under consideration, it was amended by inserting
1(808 instead of 1800.  From the fact that this amendment was made without debate, and upon the motion
of Gen. Pielnckney from the South, seconded  by Mr.
Gorlham from the North, and that the report was not
acted upon until the next day after it was  laid before
the convention, it may fairly be presumed that, in the
mean time, the conteilding parties had come to an undlerstandcling upon the subject, and agreed to settle it by
a silent vote.  But there is no indication of any change
of opinion or feeling, either by northern or southern
nemnbers, from what had been expressed in the preceding debate. Even after the qutestion was decidcled, "G-ouverneutr Morris was for making the elause read at once,
' The 4/o;/oit((/io()t of slc~e,s' into  YorIlt C(trolbia, Sot(//l Cairo('e(, (/il( Geo) iat sl((ll hot be / ohibited,' etc.  This, lhe said,
wotIld be most f(iir.....   HIe wished it to be known
that this part of the constitution was a complialnce with
those States.   If the change of language,e  however,
should be objected to by the members from those
St(ites, he should not urge it."'
That the same feeling continuled to prevail with the
southern members is evident from the course taken by
MIr. Rutledge of South Carolina within a week of the
* MaIldison Pipers, po 1427.
..'...;.: 
14
close of the convention. When the provisions respecting amendments to the constitution were under consideration, with true southern perseverance, to guard
against every possibility of defeat where the interest of
his State was concerned, he said, I lie never would
agree to give a power by which thle articles relating, to
slaves might be altered by thle States not interested in
that property, and prejudiced against it."  In order to
obviate this objection these words were added to the
proposition:- "Provided that no amendments which
may be made prior to the year  SO1808S, shaLll in any manner affect the fourth and fifth sections of the seventh
article.":
Now let us look back to the view of the case with
whichl we commenced, and whichl amounts to little less
than a charge upon the free States as the advocates of
slavery, and giving the slave States the credit of being
the champions of freedom.  One would tl-hink that the
absurdity of this would secure it from currency and belief, but nothing seems too absurd to gain credit with
those who are disposed to believe a thing( because it is
unreasonable.  Published in a widely circulating paper
at the seat of government, with some show of authority by quotation from  the journal of the convention,
adopted as correct in a work professing to take a candid
view of the matter, quoted and repeated by southern
mena in their speeches in thle senate, uncontradicted, -
ha5r, adnmitte(d by a senator fio-om- the Nortlh, what should
piev-ent it fi'om becomiing a settled axioIl of' history,
suclI a's l1lillt \vell give occasion for the reliialrk of W(tl             * J(ino  Ppis,p71~)
I i)
.)It(I'soii Pil)er,, I-). 15'6.
t-..I",, 
1I)
pole,'Give me any thing but history, for that )) i(s be
false."  To be sure the materials exist for correcting the
falsehood; but what influence have such materials, resting upon the shelves of our libraries, ag,ainst the collrlnfident assertions of political writers upon an exciting subject, constantly obtruded before the public by a party
press.
Fron the whole of the foregoing view of the matter
there seems to be no reason to charge any northern
State or individual with lukewarmness in regard to
slavery, or to compliment the South with any excess of
liberality on the subject.  Without indulginug in any
animosity or reproaches against the North or the South,
it is very clear that the articles of the constitution inll
relation to slavery, as well as many other subjects, were
the result of concession and compromise, without which
it would have been impossible to have a3greed upon the
constitution under which we have thus fatr prospered, or
to have devised any means of continuing that  t)ioz of
esthetes which has made us a )attio),i and without which
we should only have been a weak confederacy, or perhaps a league of contending communities. It is much
to be regretted that there is at present such a want of
that conciliatory feeling, the true "spirit of'se'etgy-Ix,"
as must make us doubt whether even in this age of irnprovemnient, we are in reality growing wiser than our
fathers.
CA3IBRIDGE, 3Iarch, 1856.