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 guardianship 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 Hampshire, 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.
General PINCKNEY. The Report before it was committed was more favorable to the Southern States than as it now stands. If they are to form so considerable a minority, and the regulation of trade is to be given to the General Government, they will be nothing more than overseers for the Northern States. He did not expect the Southern States to be raised to a majority of representatives; but wished them to have something like an equality.
Mr. WILLIAMSON. The Southern interest must be extremely endangered by the present arrangement. The Northern States are to have a majority in the first instance, and the means of perpetuating it.
General PINCKNEY urged the reduction; dwelt on the superior wealth of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight in the Government.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS regretted the turn of the debate. The States, he found, had many representatives on the floor. Few, he feared, were to be deemed the representatives of America. He thought the Southern States have, by the Report, more than their share of Representation.
Property ought to have its weight, but not all the weight. If the Southern States are to supply money, the Northern States are to spill their blood. Besides, the probable revenue to be expected from the Southern States has been greatly overrated.--_pp_. 1056-7-8-9.
WEDNESDAY, July 11, 1787.
Mr. WILLIAMSON moved that Mr. RANDOLPH"s propositions be postponed, in order to consider the following, "that in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in the population and wealth of the several States, a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants, and three-fifths of those of other descriptions on the first year after this government shall have been adopted, and every ---- year thereafter; and that the representation be regulated accordingly."
Mr. BUTLER and General PINCKNEY insisted that blacks be included in the rule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose moved that the words "three-fifths" be struck out.
Mr. GERRY thought that three-fifths of them was, to say the least, the full proportion that could be admitted.
Mr. GORHAM. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.
Then, it was urged, by the Delegates representing the States having slaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At present, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are a.s.sured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former occasion had convinced him, that three-fifths was pretty near the just proportion, and he should vote according to the same opinion now.
Mr. BUTLER insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as productive and valuable, as that of a freeman in Ma.s.sachusetts; that as wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the nation, they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government which was inst.i.tuted princ.i.p.ally, for the protection of property, and was itself to be supported by property.
Mr. MASON could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was favorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land, increased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to be excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not, however, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them as such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have this peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of property common to all the States.
Mr. WILLIAMSON reminded Mr. GORHAM that if the Southern States contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation was in view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their equality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either extreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.
On Mr. BUTLER"S motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in the apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--3; Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7; New York, not on the floor.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS said he had several objections to the proposition of Mr. WILLIAMSON. In the first place, it fettered the Legislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some States altogether who would not have a sufficient number to ent.i.tle them to a single representation. In the third place, it will not consist with the resolution pa.s.sed on Sat.u.r.day last, authorizing the Legislature to adjust the representation from time to time on the principles of population and wealth; nor with the principles of equity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth, then the said Resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why is no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps be removed by amendments.
Mr. KING thought there was great force in the objections of Mr.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. He would, however, accede to the proposition for the sake of doing something.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. Another objection with him, against admitting the blacks into the census, was, that the people of Pennsylvania would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect.
Mr. MADISON. Future contributions, it seemed to be understood on all hands, would be princ.i.p.ally levied on imports and exports.--pp.
1066-7-8-9; 1070-2-3.
On the question on the first clause of Mr. WILLIAMSON"s motion, as to taking a census of the _free_ inhabitants, it pa.s.sed in the affirmative,--Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, aye--6; Delaware, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, no--4.
The next clause as to three-fifths of the negroes being considered,
Mr. KING, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He thought the admission of them along with whites at all, would excite great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never said, as to any particular point, that he would in no event acquiesce in and support it; but he would say that if in any case such a declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this.
He remarked that in the temporary allotment of representatives made by the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number of their white and three-fifths of their black inhabitants ent.i.tled them to.
Mr. SHERMAN. South Carolina had not more beyond her proportion than New York and New Hampshire; nor either of them more than was necessary in order to avoid fractions, or reducing them below their proportion.
Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify it. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all circ.u.mstances he was satisfied with it.
Mr. GORHAM was aware that there might be some weight in what had fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the proposition of Congress for changing the eighth Article of the Confederation was before the Legislature of Ma.s.sachusetts, the only difficulty then was, to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to have been counted equally with the whites, instead of being counted in the ratio of three-fifths only.[1]
[Footnote 1: They were then to have been a rule of taxation only.]
Mr. WILSON did not well see, on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three-fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as citizens--then why are they not admitted on an equality with white citizens? Are they admitted as property--then why is not other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties, however, which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of compromise. He had some apprehensions also, from the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people of Pennsylvania, as had been intimated by his colleague (Mr.
GOUVERNEUR MORRIS.)
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was compelled to declare himself reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States, or to human nature; and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes; and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.
On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the blacks,--Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, aye--4; Ma.s.sachusetts, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,[2] South Carolina, no--6.--_pp_.1076-7-8.
[Footnote 2: Mr. Carroll said, in explanation of the vote of Maryland, that he wished the _phraseology_ to be so altered as to obviate, if possible, the danger which had been expressed of giving umbrage to the Eastern and Middle States.]
THURSDAY, July 12, 1787.
_In Convention_,--Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS moved a proviso, "that taxation shall be in proportion to representation."
Mr. BUTLER contended again, that representation should be according to the full number of inhabitants, including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS"S motion.