Debate in the Con "Mr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause vention. concerning taxes on exports should also be committed. "Mr. SHERMAN observed, that that clause had been agreed to, and therefore could not be committed. "Mr. RANDOLPH was for committing, in order that some middle ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance of a commitment."- Madison Papers, Elliot, vol. v. pp. 457-461. Three days later (Saturday, Aug. 25th), the debate on this subject was resumed, and the Report of the Committee of Eleven was taken up. It was in the following words: "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, 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.' "Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words 'the year eighteen hundred' as the year limiting the importation of slaves, and to insert the words 'the year eighteen hundred and eight.' “Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion. "Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the Debate in Constitution. "On the motion, which passed in the affirmative, "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay,-7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no, — 4. "Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at once, "The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited,' &c. This, he said, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of language, however, should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it. "Col. MASON was not against using the term 'slaves,' but against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States. "Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress, and were not pleasing to some people. "Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman. "Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that, both in opinion and practice, he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union. "Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion. "Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importa the Convention. Debate in the Convention. tion of slaves; and, for that purpose, moved to amend the clause so as to read, "The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the United States until the year 1808; ' which was disagreed to, nem. con. "The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as follows: "The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808.' "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, -7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no, -4." - Madison Papers, Elliot, vol. v. pp. 477, 478. These specimens of the debates are sufficient to show the various shades of opinion as expressed by members of the Convention from different States. The Constitution, with the articles on slavery, as amended and finally adopted by the Federal Convention, was submitted to the people, to be ratified by them through State Conventions of delegates elected for that special purpose. In these State Conventions, the various articles were again thoroughly discussed. In Massachusetts, the delegates assembled in Boston, Jan. 9, 1788. It is hardly too much to say, that the fate of the Federal Constitution was to be decided by the action of this State Convention. By the final vote of three hundred and fifty-five members, a majority of only nineteen votes was obtained in its tion to Constitu tion. favor; one hundred and eighty-seven being in the Convenaffirmative, and one hundred and sixty-eight in the ne- ratify the gative. Had the vote been taken without discussion on the first meeting of the members, there can be no doubt that the Constitution would have been rejected by a considerable majority. Mr. Elbridge Gerry, one of our delegates to the Federal Convention, had declined to sign the Constitution, and addressed a letter to the State Legislature, giving his reasons for so doing. He was invited to take a seat with the delegates in the State Convention. John Hancock and Samuel Adams, the two most eminent members of the State Convention, were both opposed to the adoption of the Constitution. Hancock, on account of his position and from motives of policy, was elected President; but he excused himself from attending until towards the close of the session, on account of illness. The circumstances connected with the change of purpose on the part of the President are related by Professor Parsons in the admirable" Memoir" of his father, Chief-Justice Theophilus Parsons. Amongst the many reasons assigned by the opponents of the Federal Constitution for their desire to defeat its adoption, the articles on the subject of slavery were brought forward. The discussion on this subject deserves our notice. In the second week of the Convention, Jan. 17, the subject of taxation and representation being under debate," Mr. Wedgery asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered as a free person." Convention to ratify the Constitution. Rufus King. Francis Thomas The Hon. Rufus King, in answer, said, "All persons born free were to be considered as freemen; and, to make the idea of taxation by numbers more intelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina are to pay as much tax as the three governors of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut." On the same occasion, Judge Dana spoke: "In reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the Southern States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having five of their negroes set against three persons in the Eastern, the honorable Judge observed, that the negroes of the Southern States work no longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can,' asked he, 'that land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of freemen? And are not three of these independent freemen of more real advantage to a State than five of those poor slaves?' As a friend to equal taxation, he rejoiced that an opportunity was presented in this Constitution to change this unjust mode of apportionment. 'Indeed,' concluded he, 'from a survey of every part of the Constitution, I think it the best that the wisdom of man could suggest.'" The discussion was continued; and, on the next day, Thomas Dawes, Esq., expressed his views on the subject: "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 character of so many free men. If the former, why should they not be wholly represented ? Our own State laws and Constitution would lead us to consider those blacks as free |