John F. Mercer, Aug. 6.
Luther Martin, June 9.
Virginia, 28 G. Washington, May 25.
_Patrick Henry_, (declined.) Edmund Randolph, " 25.
29 John Blair, " 25.
30 Jas. Madison, Jr. " 25.
George Mason, " 25.
George Wythe, " 25.
James McClurg, (in room P. Henry) " 25.
North Carolina, _Rich"d Caswell_ (resigned).
Alex"r Martin, May 25.
Wm. R. Davie, " 25.
31 Wm. Blount (in room of R. Caswell), June 20.
_Willie Jones_ (declined).
32 R. D. Spaight, May 25.
33 Hugh Williamson, (in room of W. Jones,) May 25.
South Carolina, 34 John Rutledge, " 25.
35 Chas. C. Pinckney, " 25.
36 Chas. Pinckney, " 25.
37 Peirce Butler, " 25.
Georgia, 38 William Few, " 25.
39 Abr"m Baldwin, June 11.
William Pierce, May 31.
_George Walton_.
Wm. Houston, June 1.
_Nath"l Pendleton_.
Those with numbers before their names signed the Const.i.tution. 39 Those in italics never attended. 10 Members who attended, but did not sign the Const.i.tution, 16 -- 65
Extract from a Speech of Luther Martin, (delivered before the Legislature of Maryland,) one of the delegates from Maryland to the Convention that formed the Const.i.tution of the United States.
With respect to that part of the _second_ section of the _first_ Article, which relates to the apportionment of representation and direct taxation, there were considerable objections made to it, besides the great objection of inequality--It was urged, that no principle could justify taking _slaves_ into computation in apportioning the number of _representatives_ a state should have in the government--That it involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a state in making laws for _free men_ in proportion as that State violated the rights of freedom--That it might be proper to take slaves into consideration, when _taxes_ were to be apportioned, because it had a tendency to _discourage slavery_; but to take them into account in giving representation tended to _encourage_ the _slave trade_, and to make it the _interest_ of the states to _continue_ that _infamous traffic_--That slaves could not be taken into account as _men_, or _citizens_, because they were not admitted to the _rights of citizens_, in the states which adopted or continued slavery--If they were to be taken into account as _property_, it was asked, what peculiar circ.u.mstance should render this property (of all others the most odious in its nature) ent.i.tled to the high privilege of conferring consequence and power in the government to its possessors, rather than _any other_ property: and why _slaves_ should, as property, be taken into account rather than horses, cattle, mules, or any other species; and it was observed by an honorable member from Ma.s.sachusetts, that he considered it as dishonorable and humiliating to enter into compact with the _slaves_ of the _southern states_, as it would with the _horses_ and _mules_ of the _eastern_.
By the ninth section of this Article, the importation of such persons as any of the States now existing, shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year 1808, but a duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The design of this clause is to prevent the general government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the same reasons which caused them to strike out the word "national," and not admit the word "stamps," influenced them here to guard against the word "_slaves_."
They anxiously sought to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in the ears of Americans, although they were willing to admit into their system those _things_ which the expression signified; and hence it is that the clause is so worded as really to authorize the general government to impose a duty of ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to become a citizen, whether he comes absolutely free, or qualifiedly so as a servant; although this is contrary to the design of the framers, and the duty was only meant to extend to the importation of slaves.
This clause was the subject of a great diversity of sentiment in the Convention. As the system was reported by the committee of detail, the provision was general, that such importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any particular period. This was rejected by eight States--Georgia, South Carolina, and, I think, North Carolina, voting for it.
We were then told by the delegates of the two first of those states, that their states would never agree to a system, which put it in the power of the general government to prevent the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those states, must withhold their a.s.sent from such a system.
A committee of one member from each State was chosen by ballot, to take this part of the system under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report, which should reconcile those States. To this committee also was referred the following proposition, which had been reported by the committee of detail, to wit: "No navigation act shall be pa.s.sed without the a.s.sent of two-thirds of the members present in each house;" a proposition which the staple and commercial States were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much under the power of the Eastern States; but which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the _eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing to indulge the southern States, at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave trade_, provided the southern states would in their turn gratify them, by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and after a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restricted clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.
This report was adopted by a majority of the Convention, but not without considerable opposition.
It was said, we had just a.s.sumed a place among independent nations in consequence of our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to _enslave us_; that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of those, rights to which G.o.d and nature had ent.i.tled us, not in _particular_, but in _common_ with all the rest of mankind; that we had appealed to the Supreme Being for his a.s.sistance, as the G.o.d of freedom, who could not but approve our efforts to preserve the _rights_ which he had thus imparted to his creatures; that now, when we had scarcely risen from our knees, from supplicating his mercy and protection in forming our government over a free people, a government formed pretendedly on the principles of liberty, and for its preservation,--in that government to have a provision not only putting it out of its power to restrain and prevent the slave trade, even encouraging that most infamous traffic, by giving the States the power and influence in the Union in proportion as they cruelly and wantonly sported with the rights of their fellow-creatures, ought to be considered as a solemn mockery of, and an insult to, that G.o.d whose protection we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in detestation, and render us contemptible to every true friend of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be considered that national crimes can only be, and frequently are, punished in this world by national punishments; and that the continuance of the slave trade, and thus giving it a national sanction, and encouragement, ought to be considered as justly exposing us to the displeasure and vengeance of him who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye the poor African slave and his American master!
It was urged that by this system, we were giving the general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce, under which general power it would have a right to restrain, or totally prohibit, the slave trade: it must, therefore, appear to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we should except from the exercise of that power, the only branch of commerce which is unjustifiable in its nature, and contrary to the rights of mankind.
That, on the contrary, we ought rather to prohibit expressly in our Const.i.tution, the further importation of slaves, and to authorize the general government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves which are already in the States. That slavery is inconsistent with the genius of republicanism and has a tendency to destroy those principles on which it is supported, as it lessens the sense of the equal rights of mankind, and habituates us to tyranny and oppression. It was further urged, that, by this system of government, every State is to be protected both from foreign invasion and from domestic insurrections; from this consideration, it was of the utmost importance it should have a power to restrain the importation of slaves, since, in proportion as the number of slaves are increased in any State, in the same proportion the State is weakened and exposed to foreign invasion or domestic insurrection, and by so much less will it be able to protect itself against either, and therefore will by so the much want aid from, and be a burden to, the Union.
It was further said, that, as in this system we were giving the general government a power, under the idea of national character, or national interest, to regulate even our weights and measures, and have prohibited all possibility of emitting paper money, and pa.s.sing insolvent laws, &c., it must appear still more extraordinary, that we should prohibit the government from interfering with the slave trade, than which nothing could so materially affect both our national honor and interest.
These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause, as it now makes part of the system.
You will perceive, sir, not only that the general government is prohibited from interfering in the slave-trade before the year eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is no provision in the Const.i.tution that it shall afterwards be prohibited, nor any security that such prohibition will ever take place; and I think there is great reason to believe, that, if the importation of slaves is permitted until the year eighteen hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited afterwards. At this time, we do not generally hold this commerce in so great abhorrence as we have done. When our liberties were at stake, we warmly felt for the common rights of men. The danger being thought to be past, which threatened ourselves, we are daily growing more insensible to those rights. In those States which have restrained or prohibited the importation of slaves, it is only done by legislative acts, which may be repealed. When those States find that they must, in their national character and connexion, suffer in the disgrace, and share in the inconveniences attendant upon that detestable and iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the benefits arising from it; and the odium attending it will be greatly effaced by the sanction which is given to it in the general government.
By the next paragraph, the general government is to have a power of suspending the _habeas corpus act_, in cases of _rebellion_ or _invasion_.
As the State governments have a power of suspending the habeas corpus act in those cases, it was said, there could be no reason for giving such a power to the general government; since, whenever the State which is invaded, or in which an insurrection takes place, finds its safety requires it, it will make use of that power. And it was urged, that if we gave this power to the general government, it would be an engine of oppression in its hands; since whenever a State should oppose its views, however arbitrary and unconst.i.tutional, and refuse submission to them, the general government may declare it to be an act of rebellion, and, suspending the habeas corpus act, may seize upon the persons of those advocates of freedom, who have had virtue and resolution enough to excite the opposition, and may imprison them during its pleasure in the remotest part of the Union; so that a citizen of Georgia might be _bastiled_ in the furthest part of New Hampshire; or a citizen of New Hampshire in the furthest extreme of the South, cut off from their family, their friends, and their every connexion. These considerations induced me, sir, to give my negative also to this clause.
EXTRACTS FROM DEBATES IN THE SEVERAL STATE CONVENTIONS ON THE ADOPTION OF THE UNITED STATES" CONSt.i.tUTION.
Ma.s.sACHUSETTS CONVENTION.
The third paragraph of the 2d section being read,
Mr. King rose to explain it. There has, says he, been much misconception of this section. It is a principle of this Const.i.tution, that representation and taxation should go hand in hand. This paragraph states, that the numbers of free persons shall be determined, by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons. These persons are the slaves. By this rule is representation and taxation to be apportioned.
And it was adopted, because it was the language of all America.
Mr. Widgery asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered as a free person?
Mr. 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, Ma.s.sachusetts, and Connecticut.
Mr. Gorham thought the proposed section much in favor of Ma.s.sachusetts; and if it operated against any state, it was Pennsylvania, because they have more white persons _bound_ than any other.
Judge Dana, 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? Are not _three_ of these independent freemen of more real advantage to a State, than _five_ of those poor slaves?
Mr. Na.s.son remarked on the statement of the honorable Mr. King, by saying that the honorable gentleman should have gone further, and shown us the other side of the question. It is a good rule that works both ways--and the gentlemen should also have told us, that three of our infants in the cradle, are to be rated as high as five of the working negroes of Virginia. Mr. N. adverted to a statement of Mr.
King, who had said, that five negro children of South Carolina were equally rateable as three governors of New England, and wished, he said, the honorable gentleman had considered this question upon the other side--as it would then appear that this State will pay as great a tax for three children in the cradle, as any of the southern States will for five hearty working negro men. He hoped, he said, while we were making a new government, we should make it better than the old one: for if we had made a bad bargain before, as had been hinted, it was a reason why we should make a better one now.
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 freemen; if the former, why should they not be wholly represented? Our _own_ State laws and Const.i.tution would lead us to consider those blacks as _freemen_, and so indeed would our own ideas of natural justice: if, then, they are freemen, they might form an equal basis for representation as though they were all white inhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the northern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He thought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the pa.s.sage in dispute with another article in the Const.i.tution, that permits Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of slaves, and in the mean time to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on such blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the new Const.i.tution, every particular State is left to its own option totally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own territories. What could the convention do more? The members of the southern States, like ourselves, have _their_ prejudices. It would not do to abolish slavery, by an act of Congress, in a moment, and so destroy what our southern brethren consider as property. But we may say, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has received a mortal wound and will die of a consumption.
Mr. Neal (from Kittery,) went over the ground of objection to this section on the idea that the slave trade was allowed to be continued for 20 years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness against any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the bodies of men, and unless his objection was removed, he could not put his hand to the Const.i.tution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to this idea, that there was not even a proposition that the negroes ever shall be free, and Gen. Thompson exclaimed:
Mr. President, shall it be said, that after we have established our own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others? Oh!
Washington, what a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself!
but he holds those in slavery who have a good right to be free as he has--he is still for self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk 50 per cent.
On the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this article, towards the abolition of slavery, was one of the beauties of the Const.i.tution. They observed, that in the confederation there was no provision whatever for its ever being abolished; but this Const.i.tution provides, that Congress may, after 20 years, totally annihilate the slave trade; and that, as all the States, except two, have pa.s.sed laws to this effect, it might reasonably be expected, that it would then be done. In the interim, all the States were at liberty to prohibit it.
Sat.u.r.day, January 26.--[The debate on the 9th section still continued desultory--and consisted of similar objections, and answers thereto, as had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave trade in the most pointed terms; on one side it was pathetically lamented, by Mr.
Nason, Major Lusk, Mr. Neal, and others, that this Const.i.tution provided for the continuation of the slave trade for 20 years. On the other, the honorable Judge Dana, Mr. Adams and others, rejoiced that a door was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious, abhorrent practice, in a certain time.]