The Anti-Slavery Examiner Volume III Part 97

TUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.

Mr. WOLCOTT declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be amended by subst.i.tuting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen and sixty years of age.--_p_. 331

THURSDAY, March 27, 1783.

(The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:)

Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States, as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in question.

Mr. CLARK (of New-Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of land if half their slaves only should be included; but that the Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.

It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by ages, as the report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p_. 421-2.

FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.

The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one freeman.

Mr. WOLCOTT (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.

CARROLL as four to one. Mr. WILLIAMSON (of North Carolina) said he was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an inc.u.mbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr. HIGGINSON (of Ma.s.sachusetts) as four to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE (of South Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would be a juster proportion. Mr. HOLTON as four to three.--Mr. OSGOOD said he did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, no; Rhode Island; divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then postponed, by general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it; but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be agreed to.

After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into view, Mr. MADISON (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE (of South Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON (of Pennsylvania) said he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it pa.s.sed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye.

A motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it pa.s.sed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.

The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility of the others, ought to have great weight in the case; and that the exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their imports were in proportion, slaves employed wholly in agriculture, not in manufactures; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the others.

On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Ma.s.sachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. FLOYD, aye;) New Jersey, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no.--_pp. 423-4-5_.

TUESDAY, April l, 1783.

Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. HAMILTON, who had been absent when the last question was taken for subst.i.tuting numbers in place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote.

He was seconded by Mr. OSGOOD. Those who voted differently from their former votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.--_p. 430_.

MONDAY, MAY 26, 1783.

The Resolutions on the Journal instructing the ministers in Europe to remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for furloughing the troops--pa.s.sed _unanimously.--p. 456._

_Letter from Mr. Madison to Edmund Randolph_.

PHILADELPHIA, April 8, 1783.

A change of the valuation of lands for the number of inhabitants, deducting two-fifths of the slaves, has received a tacit sanction, and, unless hereafter expunged, will go forth in the general recommendation, as material to future harmony and justice among the members of the Confederacy. The deduction of two-fifths was a compromise between the wide opinions and demands of the Southern and other States.--_p. 523_.

_Extract from "Debates in the Federal Convention" of 1787, for the formation of the Const.i.tution of the United States_.

TUESDAY, May 29, 1787.

Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY laid before the House the draft of a Federal Government. * * * "The proportion of direct taxation shall be regulated by the whole number of inhabitants of every description"--_pp_. 735, 741.

WEDNESDAY, May 30, 1787.

The following Resolution, being the second of those proposed by Mr.

RANDOLPH, was taken up, viz.

"_That the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases_."

Colonel HAMILTON moved to alter the resolution so as to read, "that the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants." Mr. SPAIGHT seconded the motion.--_p_. 750.

WEDNESDAY, June 6, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.--_p_. 806.

MONDAY, June 11, 1787.

Mr. SHERMAN proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants;

Mr. RUTLEDGE proposed, that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the quotas of contribution.

Mr. KING and Mr. WILSON, in order to bring the question to a point, moved, "that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the National Legislature ought not to be according to the rule established in the Articles of Confederation, but according to some equitable ratio of representation."--_p_. 836.

It was then moved by Mr. RUTLEDGE, seconded by Mr. BUTLER, to add to the words, "equitable ratio of representation," at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of contribution." On motion of Mr. WILSON, seconded by Mr. PINCKNEY, this was postponed; in order to add, after the words, "equitable ratio of representation," the words following: "In proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, s.e.x and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State"--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.

Mr. GERRY (of Ma.s.sachusetts) thought property not the rule of representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses of the North?

On the question,--Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9; New Jersey, Delaware, no--2.--_pp_. 842-3.

TUESDAY, June 19, 1787.

Mr. MADISON. Where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious.--_p_. 899.

SAt.u.r.dAY, June 30, 1787.

Mr. Madison,--admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any cla.s.s of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to be given a const.i.tutional power of defence. But he contended that the States were divided into different interests, not by their difference of size, but by other circ.u.mstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but princ.i.p.ally from the effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one which had occurred was, that, instead of proportioning the votes of the States in both branches, to the irrespective numbers of inhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they should be represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants only; and in the other according to the whole number, counting slaves as free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would have the advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations; one was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and which would destroy the equilibrium of interests.--_pp_. 1006-7