Part 219 (1/2)
Mr. George Mason. Mr. Chairman, with respect to commerce and navigation, he has given it as his opinion, that their regulation, as it now stands, was a _sine qua non_ of the Union, and that without it, the States in convention would never concur. I differ from him. It never was, nor in my opinion ever will be, a _sine qua non_ of the Union. I will give you, to the best of my recollection, the history of that affair. This business was discussed at Philadelphia for four months, during which time the subject of commerce and navigation was often under consideration; and I a.s.sert, that eight States out of twelve, for more than three months, voted for requiring two-thirds of the members present in each house to pa.s.s commercial and navigation laws. True it is, that afterwards it was carried by a majority, as it stands. If I am right, there was a great majority for requiring two-thirds of the States in this business, till a compromise took place between the Northern and Southern States; the Northern States agreeing to the temporary importation of slaves, and the Southern States conceding, in return, that navigation and commercial laws should be on the footing on which they now stand. If I am mistaken, let me be put right. These are my reasons for saying that this was not a _sine qua non_ of their concurrence. The Newfoundland fisheries will require that kind of security which we are now in want of. The Eastern States therefore agreed at length, that treaties should require the consent of two-thirds of the members present in the senate.
Mr. Madison said--
I was struck with surprise when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emanc.i.p.ation of slaves. Let me ask, if they should even attempt it, if it will not be an usurpation of power? There is no power to warrant it, in that paper. If there be, I know it not. But why should it be done? Says the honorable gentleman, for the general welfare--it will infuse strength into our system. Can any member of this committee suppose, that it will increase our strength? Can any one believe, that the American councils will come into a measure which will strip them of their property, discourage and alienate the affections of five-thirteenths of the Union? Why was nothing of this sort aimed at before? I believe such an idea never entered into an American breast, nor do I believe it ever will, unless it will enter into the heads of those gentlemen who subst.i.tute unsupported suspicious for reasons.
Mr. Henry. He asked me where was the power of emanc.i.p.ating slaves? I say it will be implied, unless implication be prohibited. He admits that the power of granting pa.s.sports will be in the new congress without the insertion of this restriction--yet he can show me nothing like such a power granted in that const.i.tution. Notwithstanding he admits their right to this power by implication, he says that I am unfair and uncandid in my deduction, that they can emanc.i.p.ate our slaves, though the word emanc.i.p.ation is not mentioned in it. They can exercise power by implication in one instance, as well as in another.
Thus, by the gentleman's own argument, they can exercise the power though it not be delegated.
Mr. Z. Johnson. They tell us that they see a progressive danger of bringing about emanc.i.p.ation. The principle has begun since the revolution. Let us do what we will, it will come round. Slavery has been the foundation of that impiety and dissipation, which have been so much disseminated among our countrymen. If it were totally abolished, it would do much good.
NORTH CAROLINA CONVENTION.
The first three clauses of the second section read.
Mr. Goudy. Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an advantage to some States over others. It will be oppressive to the Southern States. Taxes are equal to our representation. To augment our taxes and increase our burthens, our negroes are to be represented. If a State has fifty thousand negroes, she is to send one representative for them. I wish not to be represented with negroes, especially if it increases my burthens.
Mr. Davie. Mr. Chairman, I will endeavor to obviate what the gentleman last up has said. I wonder to see gentlemen so precipitate and hasty on the subject of such awful importance. It ought to be considered, that _some_ of _us_ are slow of apprehension, not having those quick conceptions, and luminous understandings, of which other gentlemen may be possessed. The gentleman ”does not wish to be represented with negroes.” This, sir, is an unhappy species of population, but we cannot at present alter their situation. The Eastern States had great jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and horses were equally ent.i.tled 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 impracticable to determine the comparative value of lands, and other property, in so extensive a territory, with any degree of accuracy; and population 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 insisted, 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 instances 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 a.s.sented 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 circ.u.mstances of his country.
Mr. James Galloway said, that he did not object to the representation of negroes, so much as he did to the fewness of the number of representatives. He was surprised how we came to have but five, including those intended to represent negroes. That in his humble opinion North Carolina was ent.i.tled 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 Northern and Southern States--that the Southern States, whose princ.i.p.al support depended on the labor of slaves, would not consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the importation of slaves absolutely.
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 trade would be abolished then, and that in the mean time some tax or duty might be laid on.
Mr. M'Dowall replied, that the explanation was just such as he expected, 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 practicable to put an end to the importation of slaves immediately, it would give me the greatest pleasure, for it certainly is a trade utterly inconsistent 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 wish 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 Const.i.tution, and what it will be 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 const.i.tution 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 const.i.tution, 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 n.o.bly distinguished above others by that very provision. Where is there another country in which such a restriction prevails? We, therefore, sir, set an example of humanity by providing for the abolition of this inhuman traffic, though at a distant period. I hope, therefore, that this part of the const.i.tution 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 abolition of the trade. That the State of North Carolina had not thought proper to pa.s.s 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 the war, and that they wished to supply the loss.
Mr. Galloway. Mr. Chairman, the explanation given to this clause does not satisfy my mind. I wish to see this abominable trade put an end to.
But in case it be thought proper to continue this abominable traffic for twenty years, yet I do not wish to see the tax on the importation extended to all persons whatsoever. Our situation is different 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 foreigners to come among us. With respect to the abolition of slavery, it requires the utmost consideration. The property of the Southern States consists princ.i.p.ally 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 we 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 may be imposed on _such importation_, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.”
Now, sir, observe that the Eastern States, who long ago have abolished 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 importation. 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 this gentleman is mistaken in another thing. He seems to say that this extends to the abolition of slavery. Is there anything in this const.i.tution 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 circ.u.mstance 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 importation, they may do so. Our next a.s.sembly 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--