103 Debates on Slavery (1787)
[August 8] Article 4, sect. 4, was then taken up.
Mr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant to have on the succeeding part of the report concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind and he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America. In two great points the hands of the legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited. Exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the general system? First, defense against foreign invasion; secondly, against internal sedition. Shall all the states then be bound to defend each and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defense more difficult? Shall one part of the United States be bound to defend another part and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the exports produced by their labor supply a revenue the better to enable the general government to defend their masters? There was so much inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the people of the Northern States could never be reconciled to it.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris moved to insert “free” before the word “inhabitants.” Much, he said, would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other property included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia) are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the representation, when fairly explained, comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina who goes to the coast of Africa and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow-creatures from their dearest connections and damns them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a government instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey who views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. He would add that domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of aristocracy.
[August 21.] Mr. L. Martin proposed to vary article 7, sect. 4, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the first place, as five slaves are to be counted as three freemen in the apportionment of representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic. In the second place, slaves weakened one part of the Union which the other parts were bound to protect. The privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. And in the third place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.
Mr. Rutledge did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other states from the obligation to protect the Southern against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.
Mr. Pinckney. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that state has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the states be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland already have done . . .
[August 22.] Article 7, sect. 4, was resumed.
Mr. Sherman was for leaving the clause as it stands. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States and that the good sense of the several states would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of dispatching its business.
Col. Mason. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of whites who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. Providence punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some of our eastern brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the states being in possession of the right to import, this was the case with many other rights now to be properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view, that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.
Mr. Ellsworth, as he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the effects of slavery on character. He said however that if it was to be considered in a moral light we ought to go further and free those already in the country. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts.
Gen. Pinckney declared South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value and she has more than she wants. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union.
Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the states as to slaves but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.
Mr. Dickinson considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor and safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the states by the Constitution. He could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended, especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the general government.
Gen. Pinckney thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now does.
Mr. Rutledge. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia will ever agree to the plan unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those states will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest.
Mr. Sherman said it was better to let the Southern States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the general government, it would be exercised.
Source: Debates on Slavery and the Slave Trade (1787), by James Madison in Jonathan Elliot, editor, Debates on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (1861), V, 391-461. https://archive.org/details/toldcontemporari03hartrich/page/214/mode/2up
