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 Congress.
MR. GEORGE NICHOLAS. 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 Const.i.tution 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 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 this Const.i.tution 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 separation from Great Britain. Its exclusion has been a princ.i.p.al 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 Const.i.tution, it is continued for twenty years. As much as I value an union of all the States, I would not admit the Southern States 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 property of that kind which we have already. There is no clause in this Const.i.tution to secure it; for they may lay such tax as will amount to manumission. And should the government be amended, still this detestable kind of commerce cannot be discontinued till after the expiration 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. I 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 be excluded without encountering greater evils. The Southern States would not have entered into the union of America, without the temporary permission 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 our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles of confederation, it might be continued forever: but by this clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is, therefore, an amelioration of our circ.u.mstances. A tax may be laid in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise 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 any of those States where slaves are free, he becomes emanc.i.p.ated by their laws. For the laws of the States are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this Const.i.tution, "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." This clause was expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them. This is a better security than any that now exist. No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect 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 property now possessed, has been purchased, or otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the a.s.sistance 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." I 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 of this traffic, they might solicit and obtain aid from foreign powers.
Mr. TYLER warmly enlarged on the impolicy, iniquity, and disgracefulness of this wicked traffic. He thought the reasons urged by gentlemen 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 temporary 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 necessity of restraining them by a bill of rights, from infringing our unalienable rights. It was immaterial whether the bill of rights was by itself, or included in the Const.i.tution. 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 of these restrictions on Congress, was a plain demonstration that Congress could exercise powers by implication. The gentleman had admitted that Congress could have interdicted the African trade, were it not for this restriction.
If so, the power not having been expressly delegated, must be obtained by implication. He demanded where, then, was their doctrine of reserved rights? He wished for negative clauses to prevent them from a.s.suming any powers but those expressly given. He asked why it was moited to secure us that property in slaves, which we held now? He feared its omission was done with design. They might lay such heavy taxes on slaves, as would amount to emanc.i.p.ation; 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 emanc.i.p.ate their slaves rather than pay the tax. He apprehended it would be productive of much stockjobbing, 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 Const.i.tution, 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 now, will be manumitted. At that 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, he asked, if gentlemen would rather dissolve the confederacy than to suffer this temporary inconvenience, admitting to 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 superintendency for twenty years. It could not therefore have been a power by implication, as the restriction was an exception from a delegated power. The taxes could not, as had been suggested, be laid so high on negroes as to amount to emanc.i.p.ation; because taxation and representation were fixed according to the census established in the Const.i.tution. The exception of taxes, from the uniformity 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 emanc.i.p.ation? Gentlemen will recollect what I said in another house, and what other gentlemen have said that advocated emanc.i.p.ation. Give me leave to say, that that clause is a great security for our slave tax. I can tell the committee, that the people of our country are reduced to beggary by the taxes on negroes. Had this Const.i.tution 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 place.
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 it. 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 Const.i.tution. If he apprehended a poll tax on negroes, the Const.i.tution 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, and 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 pa.s.sed.
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 a.s.sertion, or mere confirmation of the clause which fixed the ratio of taxes and representation. It only meant that the quantum to be 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 meant, 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 Const.i.tution was intended to introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the community. 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.
Mr. GEORGE MASON.--Mr. Chairman, on some former part of the investigation of this subject, gentlemen were pleased to make some 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 a.s.sume, 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 repeatedly 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 emanc.i.p.ation general. But acts of a.s.sembly pa.s.sed, 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 p.r.o.nounce all slaves free, 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, I 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 emanc.i.p.ation. 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 emanc.i.p.ated. As we ought with grat.i.tude to admire 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. 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 ancestors, 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 emanc.i.p.ation. 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 jeopardy, and 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 subjecting 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. RANDOLPH. 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 arguments.
But if it be not conclusive, to satisfy the committee that there is no danger of enfranchis.e.m.e.nt 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 importation 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 importations; but does it affect the existing state of slavery? Were it right here to mention what pa.s.sed in Convention on the occasion, I might tell you that the Southern States, even South Carolina herself; conceived 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 emanc.i.p.ation is inserted. But another clause of the Const.i.tution 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; 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 unaccountable for another consideration; that although we went article by article through the Const.i.tution, 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 welfare." 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 rule 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 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. 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 suspicions 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 shew 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 be 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 be not 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 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 precipitate and hasty on a 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 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 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.