The Anti-Slavery Examiner, Omnibus Part 228

A motion 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 pa.s.sed in the negative; New Hamps.h.i.+re, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, 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 by those who were for rating slaves high were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below 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, having no interest in their labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted 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 employed wholly in agriculture, not in manufactures; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the others.

On the main question, New Hamps.h.i.+re, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, 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_.

TUESDAY, April l, 1783.

Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. HAMILTON, who had been absent when the last question was taken for subst.i.tuting numbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote.

He was seconded by Mr. OSGOOD. Those who voted differently from their former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.--_p. 430_.

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1783.

The Resolutions on the Journal instructing the ministers in Europe to remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for furloughing the troops--pa.s.sed _unanimously.--p. 456._

_Letter from Mr. Madison to Edmund Randolph_.

PHILADELPHIA, April 8, 1783.

A change of the valuation of lands for the number of inhabitants, deducting two-fifths of the slaves, has received a tacit sanction, and, unless hereafter expunged, will go forth in the general recommendation, as material to future harmony and justice among the members of the Confederacy. The deduction of two-fifths was a compromise between the wide opinions and demands of the Southern and other States.--_p. 523_.

_Extract from "Debates in the Federal Convention" of 1787, for the formation of the Const.i.tution of the United States_.

TUESDAY, May 29, 1787.

Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY laid before the House the draft of a Federal Government. * * * "The proportion of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole number of inhabitants of every description"--_pp_. 735, 741.

WEDNESDAY, May 30, 1787.

The following Resolution, being the second of those proposed by Mr.

RANDOLPH, was taken up, viz.

"_That the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases_."

Colonel HAMILTON moved to alter the resolution so as to read, "that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants." Mr. SPAIGHT seconded the motion.--_p_. 750.

WEDNESDAY, June 6, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.--_p_. 806.

MONDAY, June 11, 1787.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants;

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the quotas of contribution.

Mr. KING and Mr. WILSON, in order to bring the question to a point, moved, "that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of representation."--_p_. 836.

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 contribution." On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this was postponed; in order to add, after the words, "equitable ratio of representation," the words following: "In proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, s.e.x and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State"--this being the rule 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 Ma.s.sachusetts) thought property not the rule of representation. 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,--Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9; New Jersey, Delaware, no--2.--_pp_. 842-3.

TUESDAY, June 19, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. Where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.--_p_. 899.

SAt.u.r.dAY, June 30, 1787.

Mr. Madison,--admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any cla.s.s of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to be given a const.i.tutional power of defence. But he contended that the States were divided into different interests, not by their difference of size, but by other circ.u.mstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but princ.i.p.ally from the effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive 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 the irrespective 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 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 unwillingness 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 2, 1787.

Mr. PINCKNEY. There is a real distinction between the Northern and Southern interests. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in their rice and indigo, had a peculiar interest which might be sacrificed.--_p_. 1016.

FRIDAY, July 6, 1787.

Mr. PINCKNEY--thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with the whites; but would agree to the ratio settled by Congress.--_p._ 1039.

MONDAY, July 9, 1787.

Mr. PATTERSON considered the proposed estimate for the future according 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 faculty of acquiring property, but on the contrary 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 principle of representation? It is an expedient by which an a.s.sembly of certain individuals, chosen by the people, is subst.i.tuted in place of the inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting 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; observing 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 subst.i.tuted a description.

Mr. MADISON reminded Mr. PATTERSON that his doctrine of representation, 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 guardians.h.i.+p of property, according to the whole number, including slaves.

Mr. BUTLER urged warmly the justice and 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 were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages which they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of thirteen of the States had 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.

_In Convention_,--Mr. KING reported, from the Committee yesterday appointed, "that the States at the first meeting of the General Legislature, should be represented by sixty-five members, in the following proportions, to wit:--New Hamps.h.i.+re, by 3; Ma.s.sachusetts, 8; Rhode Island, 1; Connecticut, 5; New York, 6; New Jersey, 4; Pennsylvania, 8; Delaware, 1; Maryland, 6; Virginia, 10; North Carolina, 5; South Carolina, 5; Georgia, 3."

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 circ.u.mstances, and be dissatisfied. He believed them to be 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. For this reason be had been ready to yield something, in the proportion of representatives, for the security of the Southern. No principle would justify the giving them a majority. They were brought as near an equality as was possible. He was not averse to giving them a still greater security, but did not see how it could be done.