Chapter XXXI (1)

SLAVERY AS A POLITICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEM.

1775-1800.

BRITISH COLONIES IN NORTH AMERICA DECLARE THEIR
INDEPENDENCE.--A NEW GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED.--SLAVERY THE
BANE OF AMERICAS CIVILIZATION.--THE TORY PARTY ACCEPT THE
DOCTRINE OF PROPERTY IN MAN.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOCAL
CONSTITUTION IN THE SOUTH.--THE WAR PARTY THE DOMINANT
POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE NORTHERN STATES.--SLAVERY
RECOGNIZED UNDER THE NEW GOVERNMENT.--ANTI SLAVERY AGITATION
IN THE STATES.--ATTEMPTED LEGISLATION AGAINST
SLAVERY.--ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.--THEIR ADOPTION IN
1778.--DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF THE WESTERN
TERRITORY.--MR. JEFFERSON'S RECOMMENDATION--AMENDMENT OF MR.
SPAIGHT.--CONGRESS IN NEW YORK IN 1787.--DISCUSSION
RESPECTING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN
TERRITORY.--CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA TO FRAME THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION.--PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION.--THE SOUTHERN
STATES STILL ADVOCATE SLAVERY.--SPEECHES ON THE SLAVERY
QUESTION BY LEADING STATESMEN.--CONSTITUTION ADOPTED BY THE
CONVENTION IN 1787.--FIRST SESSION OF CONGRESS UNDER THE
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HELD IN NEW YORK IN 1789.--THE
INTRODUCTION OF A TARIFF BILL.--AN ATTEMPT TO AMEND IT BY
INSERTING A CLAUSE LEVYING A TAX ON SLAVES BROUGHT BY
WATER.--EXTINCTION OF SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.--A CHANGE IN
THE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE MIDDLE AND EASTERN STATES ON THE
SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.--DR. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S ADDRESS TO THE
PUBLIC FOR PROMOTING THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.--MEMORIAL TO
THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.--CONGRESS IN 1790.--BITTER
DISCUSSION ON THE RESTRICTION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.--SLAVE
POPULATION.--VERMONT AND KENTUCKY ADMITTED INTO THE
UNION.--A LAW PROVIDING FOR THE RETURN OF FUGITIVES FROM
'LABOR AND SERVICE.--CONVENTION OF FRIENDS HELD IN
PHILADELPHIA.--AN ACT AGAINST THE FOREIGN SLAVE
TRADE.--MISSOURI TERRITORY.--CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA
REVISED.--NEW YORK PASSES A BILL FOR THE GRADUAL EXTINCTION
OF SLAVERY.--CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY REVISED.--SLAVERY AS
AN INSTITUTION FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.

The charge that the mother-country forced slavery upon the British colonies in North America held good until the colonies threw off the yoke, declared their independence, and built a new government, on the 4th of July, 1776. After the promulgation of the gospel of human liberty, the United States of America could no longer point to England as the "first man Adam" of the accursed sin of slavery. Henceforth the American government, under the new dispensation of peace and the equality of all men, was responsible for the continuance of slavery, both as a political and legal problem

Slavery did not escheat to the English government upon the expiration of its authority in North America. It became the dreadful inheritance of the new government, and the eyesore of American civilization. Instead of expelling it from the political institutions of the country, it gradually became a factor of great power. Instead of ruling it out of the courts, it was clothed with the ample garments of judicial respectability.

The first article of the immortal Declaration of Independence was a mighty shield of beautifully wrought truths, that the authors intended should protect every human being on the American Continent.

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident:--that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever
any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it
is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute a new government, laying its foundation on such
principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to
them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and
happiness_."

It was to be expected, that, after such a declaration of principles, the United States would have abolished slavery and the slave-trade forever. While the magic words of the Declaration of Independence were not the empty "palaver" of a few ambitious leaders, yet the practices of the local and the national government belied the grand sentiments of that instrument. From the earliest moment of the birth of the United-States government, slavery began to receive political support and encouragement. Though it was the cruel and depraved offspring of the British government, it nevertheless was adopted by the _free government_ of America. Political policy seemed to dictate the methods of a political recognition of the institution. And the fact that the slave-trade was prohibited by Congress at an early day, and by many of the colonies also, did not affect the institution in a local sense.

The Tory party accepted the doctrine of property in man, without hesitation or reservation. Their political fealty to the Crown, their party exclusiveness, and their earnest desire to co-operate with the Royal African Company in the establishment of the slave institution in America, made them, as per necessity, the political guardians of slavery. The institution once planted, property in man having been acquired, it was found to be a difficult task to uproot it. Moreover, the loss of the colonies to the British Crown did not imply death to the Tory party. It doubtless suffered organically; but its individual members did not forfeit their political convictions, nor suffer their interest in the slave-trade to abate. The new States were ambitious to acquire political power. The white population of the South was small when compared with that of the North; but the slave population, added to the former, swelled it to alarming proportions.

The local governments of the South had been organized upon the fundamental principles of the Locke Constitution. The government was lodged with the few, and their rights were built upon landed estates and political titles and favors. Slaves in the Carolinas and Virginias answered to the vassals and villeins of England. This aristocratic element in Tory politics was in harmony, even in a republic, with the later wish of the South to build a great political "government upon Slavery as its chief corner-stone." Added to this was the desire to abrogate the law of indenture of white servants, and thus to the odium of slavery to loan the powerful influence of caste,--ranging the Caucasian against the Ethiopian, the intelligent against the ignorant, the strong against the weak.

New England had better ideas of popular government for and of the people, but her practical position on slavery was no better than any State in the South. The Whig party was the dominant political organization throughout the Northern States; but the universality of slavery made dealers in human flesh members of all parties.

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence deprecated slavery, as they were pronounced Whigs; but nevertheless many of them owned slaves. They wished the evil exterminated, but confessed themselves ignorant of a plan by which to carry their desire into effect. The good desires of many of the people, born out of the early days of the struggle for independent existence, perished in their very infancy; and, as has been shown, all the States, and the Congress of the United States, recognized slavery as existing under the new political government.

But public sentiment changes in a country where the intellect is unfettered. First, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, Congress and nearly all the States pronounced against slavery; a few years later they all recognized the sacredness of slave property; and still later all sections of the United States seemed to have been agitated by anti-slavery sentiments. In 1780 the Legislature of Pennsylvania prohibited the further introduction of slaves, and gave freedom to the children of all slaves born in the State. Delaware resolved "that no person hereafter imported from Africa ought to be held in slavery under any pretense whatever." In 1784 Connecticut and Rhode Island modified their slave-code, and forbade further importations of slaves. In 1778 Virginia passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves, and in 1782 repealed the law that confined the power of emancipating to the Legislature, only on account of meritorious conduct. Private emancipations became very numerous, and the sentiment in its favor pronounced. But the restriction was re-enacted in about ten years. The eloquence of Patrick Henry and the logic of Thomas Jefferson went far to enlighten public sentiment; but the political influence of the institution grew so rapidly that in 1785, but two years after the war, Washington wrote LaFayette, "petitions for the abolition of slavery, presented to the Virginia Legislature, could scarcely obtain a hearing." Maryland, New York, and New Jersey prohibited the slave-trade; but the institution held its place among the people until 1830. North Carolina attempted to prohibit in 1777, but-failed; but in 1786 declared the slave-trade "_of evil consequences and highly impolitic_." South Carolina and Georgia refused to act, and the slave-trade continued along their shores.

After the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1778, the Continental Congress found itself charged with the responsibility of deciding the conflicting claims of the various States to the vast territory stretching westward from the Ohio River. The war over, the payment of the public debt thus incurred demanded the consideration of the people and of their representatives. Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia laid claim to boundless tracts of lands outside of their State boundaries. But New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and South Carolina, making no such claims, and lacking the resources to pay their share of the war debt, suggested that the other States should cede all the territory outside of their State lines, to the United States Government, to be used towards liquidating the entire debt. The proposition was accepted by the States named; but not, however, without some modification. Virginia reserved a large territory beyond the Ohio with which to pay the bounties of her soldiers, while Connecticut retained a portion of the Reserve since so famous in the history of Ohio. The duty of framing an ordinance for the government of the Western territory was referred to a select committee by Congress, consisting of Mr. Jefferson of Virginia (chairman), Mr. Chase of Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island. The plan reported by the committee contemplated the whole region included within our boundaries west of the old thirteen States, and as far south as our thirty-first degree north latitude. The plan proposed the ultimate division of this territory into seventeen States; eight of which were to be located below the parallel of the Falls of the Ohio (now Louisville), and nine above it. But the most interesting rule reported by Mr. Jefferson was the following, on the 19th of April, 1784:--

"That after the year 1800, of the Christian era, there shall
be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any part of
the said _states_, otherwise than in punishment of crimes,
whereof the part shall have been convicted to be personally
guilty."

Mr. Spaight of North Carolina moved to amend the report by striking out the above clause, which was seconded by Mr. Reed of South Carolina. The question, upon a demand for the yeas and nays, was put: "Shall the words moved to be stricken out stand?" The question was lost, and the words were stricken out. The ordinance was further amended, and finally adopted on the 23d of April

The last Continental Congress was held in the city of New York in 1787. The question of the government of the Western territory came up. A committee was appointed on this subject, with Nathan Dane of Massachusetts as chairman On the 11th of July the committee reported "An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States, _Northwest of the Ohio_." It embodied many of the features of Mr. Jefferson's bill, concluding with six unalterable articles of perpetual compact, the last being the following: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted." When upon its passage, a stipulation was added for the delivery of fugitives from "labor or service:"[627] and in this shape the entire ordinance passed on the 13th of July, 1787.

Thus it is clear that under the Confederation slavery existed, a part of the political government, as a legal fact. There was no effort made by Congress to abolish it. Mr. Jefferson simply sought to arrest its progress, and confine it to the original thirteen States.

On the 25th of May, 1787, the convention to frame the Federal Constitution met at Philadelphia, although the day appointed was the 14th. George Washington was chosen president, a committee chosen to report rules of proceeding, and a secretary appointed. The sessions were held with closed doors, and all the proceedings were secret. It contained the most eminent men in the United States,--generals of the army, statesmen, lawyers, and men of broad scholarship. The question of congressional apportionment was early before them, and there was great diversity of opinion. But, as there was no census, therefore there could be no just apportionment until an enumeration of the people was taken. Until that was accomplished, the number of delegates was fixed at sixty-five. Massachusetts was the only State in the Union where slavery did not exist. The Northern States desired representation according to the free inhabitants only; while all of the Southern States, where the great mass of slaves was, wanted representation according to the entire population, bond and free. Some of the Northern delegates urged their view with great force and eloquence. Mr. Patterson of New Jersey said he regarded slaves as mere property. They were not represented in the States: why should they be in the general government? They were not allowed to vote: why should they be represented? He regarded it as an encouragement to the slave-trade. Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania said, "Are they admitted as citizens? then, why not on an equality with citizens? Are they admitted as property? then, why is not other property admitted into the computation?" It was evident that neither extreme view could carry: so the proposition carried to reckon three-fifths of the slaves in estimating taxes, and to make taxation the basis of representation. New Jersey and Delaware voted Nay; Massachusetts and South Carolina were divided; and New York was not represented, her delegates having failed to arrive.

It was apparent during the early stages of the debates, that a constitution had to be made that would be acceptable to the Southern delegates. A clause was inserted relieving the Southern States from duties on exports, and upon the importation of slaves; and that no navigation act should be passed except by a two-thirds vote. By denying Congress the authority of giving preference to American over foreign shipping, it was designed to secure cheap transportation for Southern exports; but, as the shipping was largely owned in the Eastern States, their delegates were zealous in their efforts to prevent any restriction of the power of Congress to enact navigation laws. It has been already shown that all the States, with the exception of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, had prohibited the importation of slaves. The prohibition of duties on the importation of slaves was demanded by the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia. They assured the Convention that without such a provision they could never give their assent to the constitution. This declaration dragooned some Northern delegates into a support of the restriction, but provoked some very plain remarks concerning slavery. Mr. Pinckney said, that, "If the Southern States were let alone, they would probably of themselves stop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote for it."

Mr. Sherman remarked 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;" and Mr. Ellsworth thought that "slavery, in time, will not be a speck in our country." Mr. Madison said "he thought it _wrong_ to admit in the Constitution the idea of property in men."

Slavery, notwithstanding the high-sounding words just quoted, was recognized in and by three separate clauses of the Constitution The word "slave" was excluded, but the language does not admit of any doubt.

"Art. I. Sect. 2.... Representatives and direct taxes shall
be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective
numbers; which 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.[628] ..._

"Art I. Sect. 9. The migration or importation of such
_persons_ as any of the States now existing shall think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress
prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but
a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not
exceeding ten dollars for each person....

"Art. IV. Sect. 2.... 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."

The debate on the above was exciting and interesting, as the subject of slavery was examined in all its bearings. Finally the Constitution was submitted to Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, to receive the finishing touches of his facile pen. On the 8th of August, 1787, during the debate, he delivered the following speech:--

"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. Compare the free regions of the
Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the
prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and
poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia,
Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel through
the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually
varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery.
The moment you leave the Eastern States, and enter New York,
the effects of the institution become visible. Passing
through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every
criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change.
Proceed southwardly, and every step you take through the
great regions of slaves presents a desert, increasing with
the increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon
what principle it is 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. And what is the proposed
compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every
principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? They are
to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of
the Southern States, for their defence against those very
slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels and
seamen in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will have
indefinite power to tax them by excises and duties on
imports, both of which will fall heavier on them than on the
Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern
freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the
miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his
physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness.
On the other side, the Southern States are not to be
restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched
Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack and the
difficulty of defence: nay, they are to be encouraged to it
by an assurance of having their votes in the National
Government increased in proportion: and are, it the same
time, to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all
contributions for the public service. Let it not be said
that direct taxation is to be proportioned to
representation. It is idle to suppose that the General
Government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of
the people scattered over so vast a country. They can only
do it through the medium of exports, imports, and excises.
For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He would
sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the
negroes in the United States than saddle posterity with such
a Constitution."[629]

Mr. Rufus King of Massachusetts in the same debate said,--

"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. He had not made a strenuous opposition to
it heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession
would have produced a readiness, which had not been
manifested, to strengthen the General Government, and to
mark a full confidence in it. The report under consideration
had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. 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,
defence 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 defence 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. No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He
had hoped that some accommodation would have taken place on
this subject; that, at least, a time would have been limited
for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let
them be imported without limitation, and then be represented
in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little
persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that
he was not sure he could assent to it under any
circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be
represented, or exports should be taxable."

Mr. Roger Sherman of Connecticut,--

"Regarded the slave-trade as iniquitous: but the point of
representation having been settled after much difficulty and
deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make
opposition; especially as the present article, as amended,
did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point, in
another place of the report."[630]

Mr. Luther Martin of Maryland, in the debate, Tuesday, Aug. 21,--

"Proposed to vary Art. 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 free
men 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. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let
every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom
of slavery are considerations belonging to the States
themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the
States are the best judges of their particular interest. The
old Confederation had not meddled with this point; and he
did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the
policy of the new one.

"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 have
already done_.

"Adjourned.

"WEDNESDAY, Aug. 22.

"_In Convention_.--Art. 7, Sect. 4, was resumed.

"Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He
disapproved of the slave-trade; yet, as the States were now
possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good
did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was
expedient to have as few objections as possible to the
proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave
the matter as we find it. ... He urged on the Convention the
necessity of despatching 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. But their folly dealt
by the slaves as it did by the Tories. He mentioned the
dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily,
and the instructions given by Cromwell to the commissioners
sent to Virginia,--to arm the servants and slaves, in case
other means of obtaining its submission should fail.
Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the
importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the
same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South
Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western
people are already calling out for slaves for their new
lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can
be got through South Carolina and Georgia. 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. They bring the judgment of
heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or
punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an
inevitable chain of causes and effects, 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 slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia and
Maryland, that it is cheaper to raise than import them,
whilst in the sickly rice-swamps foreign supplies are
necessary, if we go no further than is urged, we shall be
unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not
intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be
so plenty as to render slaves useless. _Slavery, in time,
will not be a speck in our county_. Provision is already
made in Connecticut for abolishing it; and the abolition has
already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of
insurrections from foreign influence, that will become a
motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

"Gen. PINCKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion, that if
himself and all his colleagues were to sign the
Constitution, and use their personal influence, it would be
of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their
constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without
slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain more by stopping the
importations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has
more than she wants. It would be unequal to require South
Carolina and Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms.
He said, the royal assent, before the Revolution, had never
been refused to South Carolina as to Virginia. He contended,
that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of
the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ
the carrying-trade: the more consumption also; and, the more
of this, the more revenue for the common treasury. 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. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be
before the Convention: not such as, like the present, were
of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That
State has always hitherto supposed a General Government to
be the pursuit of the Central States, who wished to have a
vortex for every thing; that her distance would preclude
her from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently
purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might
be understood in what light she would view an attempt to
abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. _If left to
herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil_. As one
ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect
of ----, which, he said, was a respectable class of people,
who carried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of
men_,--extending their humanity to the claims of the whole
animal creation.

"Mr. WILSON observed, that, _if South Carolina and Georgia
were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of
slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would
never refuse to unite because the importation might be
prohibited_. As the section now stands, all articles
imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is,
in fact, a bounty on that article.

"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. The true question was, whether the national
happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation;
and this question ought to be left to the National
Government, not to the States particularly interested. If
England and France permit slavery, slaves are, at the same
time, excluded from both those kingdoms. Greece and Rome
were made unhappy by their slaves. 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.

"Mr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of North Carolina on the
subject; to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the
importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of £5 on each slave
imported from Africa, £10 on each from elsewhere, and £50 on
each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the
Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the
clause should be rejected: and it was wrong to force any
thing down not absolutely necessary, and which any State
must disagree to.

"Mr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a
political light only. If two States will not agree to the
Constitution, as stated on one side, he could affirm with
equal belief, on the other, that great and equal opposition
would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on
the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other import
was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to
strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle
States.

"Mr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the
General Government. He could not, with a good conscience,
leave it with the States, who could then go on with the
traffic, without being restrained by the opinions here
given, _that they will themselves cease to import slaves_.

"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. He moved to commit the
clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax
with other imports, which he thought right, and which would
remove one difficulty that had been started.

"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. He was
strenuous against striking out the section, and seconded the
motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.

"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished the whole subject to be
committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on export
and to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain
among the Northern and Southern States.

"Mr. BUTLER declared, that he never would agree to the power
of taxing exports.

"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. He thought it would be
its duty to exercise the power.

'Mr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause
concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.

"Mr. SHERMAN observed, that that clause had been agreed to,
and therefore could not be committed.

"Mr. RANDOLPH was for committing, in order that some middle
ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to
the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the
Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma to which the
Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would
revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the
States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might
be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance
of a commitment."[631]

Three days later (Saturday, Aug. 25) the debate on the subject was resumed, and the report of the committee of eleven was taken up. It was in the following words:--

"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to
the Committee, and insert 'The migration or importation of
such persons as the several States, now existing, think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature
prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the
average of the duties laid on imports.'

* * * * *

"Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words 'the year
eighteen hundred' as the year limiting the importation of
slaves, and to insert the words 'the year eighteen hundred
and eight.'

"Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion.

"Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief
that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves.
So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American
character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

"On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--

"New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay,--7, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no,--4.

"Mr. GOUVERNOUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at
once,--

"'The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited,' &c. This,
he said, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity
by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the
liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished
it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was
a compliance with those States. If the change of language,
however, should be objected to by the members from those
States, he should not urge it.

"Col. MASON was not against using the term 'slaves,' but
against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,
lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

"Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms
proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress, and
were not pleasing to some people.

"Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman.

"Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that, both in opinion and practice, he
was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of
humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South
Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them
from the Union.

"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.

"Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the
States which had not themselves prohibited the importation
of slaves; and, for that purpose, moved to amend the clause
so as to read.--

"'The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall
permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature
of the United States until the year 1808;'--

"which was disagreed to, _nem. con._

"The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as
follows:--

"'The migration or importation of such persons as the
several States now existing shall think proper to admit
shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year
1808.'

"New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay,--7; New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no,--4."[632]

* * * * *

The above specimens of the speeches on the slavery question, during the debate, are sufficient to furnish a fair idea of the personal opinion of the great thinkers of that time on slavery. It is clear that it was the wish of the great majority of the Northern delegates to abolish the institution, in a domestic as well as in a foreign sense; but they were not strong enough to resist the temptation to compromise their profoundest convictions on a question as broad and far-reaching as the Union that they were met to launch anew. Thus by an understanding, or, as Gouverneur Morris called it, "a bargain," between the commercial representatives of the Northern States and the delegates of South Carolina and Georgia, and in spite of the opposition of Maryland and Virginia, the unrestricted power of Congress to enact navigation-laws was conceded to the Northern merchants; and to the Carolina rice-planters, as an equivalent, twenty years' continuance of the African slave-trade. This was the third great "compromise" of the Constitution. The other two were the concession to the smaller States of an equal representation in the Senate; and, to the slaveholders, the counting three-fifths of the slaves in determining the ratio of representation. If this third compromise differed from the other two by involving not merely a political but a moral sacrifice, there was this partial compensation about it, that it was not permanent like the others, but expired, by limitation, at the end of twenty years.[633]

The Constitution was adopted by the Convention, and signed, on the 17th of September, 1787. It was then forwarded to Congress, then in session in New-York City, with the recommendation that that body submit it to the State conventions for ratification; which was accordingly done. Delaware adopted it on the 7th of December, 1787; Pennsylvania, Dec. 12; New Jersey, Dec. 18; Georgia, Jan. 2, 1788; Connecticut, Jan. 9; Massachusetts, Feb. 7; Maryland, April 28; South Carolina, May 23; New Hampshire, June 21 (and, being the ninth ratifying, gave effect to the Constitution); Virginia ratified June 27; New York, July 26. North Carolina gave a conditional ratification on the 7th of August, but Congress did not receive it until January, 1790; nor that of Rhode Island, until June of the same year.

At the conclusion of the deliberations of the convention that framed the Constitution, it was voted that its journal be intrusted to the custody of George Washington. He finally deposited it in the State Department, and it was printed in 1818 by order of Congress.

The first session of Congress, under the new Constitution, was held in the city of New York, in 1789. A quorum was obtained on the 6th of April; and the first measure brought up for consideration was a tariff-bill which Mr. Parker of Virginia sought to amend by inserting a clause levying an impost-tax of ten dollars upon every slave brought by water. "He was sorry the Constitution prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation altogether. It was contrary to revolution principles, and ought not to be permitted." Thus the question of slavery made its appearance early at the first session of the first Congress under the present Constitution. At that time Georgia was the only State in the Union that seemed to retain a pecuniary interest in the importation of slaves. Even South Carolina had passed an Act prohibiting for one year the importation of slaves. In this, as on several occasions before, she was actuated on account of the low prices of produce,--too low to be remunerative. But, notwithstanding this, Mr. Smith, the member from the Charleston district, grew quite captious over the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. He

'Hoped that such an important and serious proposition would
not be hastily adopted. It was rather a late moment for the
first introduction of a subject so big with serious
consequences. No one topic had been yet introduced so
important to South Carolina and the welfare of the Union."

Mr. Sherman got the floor, and said he

"Approved the object of the motion, but did not think it a
fit subject to be embraced in this bill. He could not
reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings, as a
subject of impost, among goods, wares, and merchandise. He
hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the present, and
taken up afterwards as an independent subject."

Mr. Jackson of Georgia

"Was not surprised, however others might be so, at the
quarter whence this motion came. Virginia, as an old settled
State, had her complement of slaves, and the natural
increase being sufficient for her purpose, she was careless
of recruiting her numbers by importation. But gentlemen
ought to let their neighbors get supplied before they
imposed such a burden. He knew this business was viewed in
an odious light at the Eastward, because the people there
were capable of doing their own work, and had no occasion
for slaves. But gentlemen ought to have some feeling for
others. Surely they do not mean to tax us for every comfort
and enjoyment of life, and, at the same time, to take from
us the means of procuring them! He was sure, from the
unsuitableness of the motion to the business now before the
house, and the want of time to consider it, the gentleman's
candor would induce him to withdraw it. Should it ever be
brought forward again, he hoped it would comprehend the
white slaves as well as the black, imported from all the
jails of Europe; wretches convicted of the most flagrant
crimes, who were brought in and sold without any duty
whatever. They ought to be taxed equally with Africans, and
he had no doubt of the equal constitutionality and propriety
of such a course."

Mr. Parker of Virginia obtained the floor again, and proceeded to reply to the remarks offered upon his amendment by Sherman, Jackson, and Smith. He declared,--

"That, having introduced the motion on mature reflection, he
did not like to withdraw it. The gentleman from Connecticut
had said that human beings ought not to be enumerated with
goods, wares, and merchandise. Yet he believed they were
looked upon by African traders in that light. He hoped
Congress would do all in their power to restore to human
nature its inherent privileges; to wipe off, if possible,
the stigma under which America labored; to do away with the
inconsistence in our principles justly charged upon us; and
to show, by our actions, the pure beneficence of the
doctrine held out to the world in our Declaration of
Independence."

Mr. Ames of Massachusetts

"Detested slavery from his soul; but he had some doubts
whether imposing a duty on their importation would not have
an appearance of countenancing the practice."

Mr. Madison made an eloquent speech in support of Mr. Parker's amendment. He said,--

"The confounding men with merchandise might be easily
avoided by altering the title of the bill; it was, in fact,
the very object of the motion to prevent men, so far as the
power of Congress extended, from being confounded with
merchandise. The clause in the Constitution allowing a tax
to be imposed, though the traffic could not be prohibited
for twenty years, was inserted, he believed, for the very
purpose of enabling Congress to give some testimony of the
sense of America with respect to the African trade. By
expressing a national disapprobation of that trade, it is to
be hoped we may destroy it, and so save ourselves from
reproaches, and our posterity from the imbecility ever
attendant on a country filled with slaves. This was as much
the interest of South Carolina and Georgia as of any other
States. Every addition they received to their number of
slaves tended to weakness, and rendered them less capable of
self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nations,
their slave population would be a means, not of repelling
invasions, but of inviting attack. It was the duty of the
general government to protect every part of the Union
against danger, as well internal as external. Every thing,
therefore, which tended to increase this danger, though it
might be a local affair, yet, if it involved national
expense or safety, became of concern to every part of the
Union, and a proper subject for the consideration of those
charged with the general administration of the government."

Mr. Bland approved the position taken by Mr. Madison, while Mr. Burke of South Carolina charged the gentlemen with having wasted the time of Congress upon a useless proposition. He contended, that, while slaves were not mentioned in the Constitution, they would come under the general five per cent _ad valorem_ duty on all unenumerated articles, which would be equivalent to the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. Mr. Madison replied by saying, that no collector of customs would presume to apply the terms "goods," "wares," and "merchandise" to persons. Mr. Sherman followed him in the same strain, and denied that persons were anywhere recognised as property in the Constitution. Finally, at the suggestion of Mr. Madison, Mr. Parker consented to withdraw his motion with the understanding that a separate bill should be brought in. A committee was appointed to discharge that duty, but the noble resolve found a quiet grave in the committee-room.

The failure of this first attempt, under the new Constitution, to restrict slavery, did not lame the cause to any great extent. It was rather accelerated. The manner and spirit of the debate on the subject quickened public thought, animated the friends of the Negro, and provoked many people to good works. Slavery had ceased to exist in Massachusetts. Several suits, entered by slaves against their masters for restraining their liberty, had been won. The case of Elizabeth Freeman, better known as "Mum Bet," was regarded as the first-fruits of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights in the new Constitution of 1780. The Duke de la Rochefoucault Laincort gives the following interesting account of the extinction of slavery in Massachusetts:--

"In 1781, some negroes, prompted by private suggestion,
maintained that they were not slaves: they found advocates,
among whom was Mr. Sedgwick, now a member of the Senate of
the United States; and the cause was carried before the
Supreme Court. Their counsel pleaded, 1°. That no antecedent
law had established slavery, and that the laws which seemed
to suppose it were the offspring of error in the
legislators, who had no authority to enact them;--2°, That
such laws, even if they had existed, were annulled by the
new Constitution. They gained the cause under both aspects:
and the solution of this first question that was brought
forward set the negroes entirely at liberty, and at the same
time precluded their pretended owners from all claim to
indemnification, since they were proved to have possessed
and held them in slavery without any right. As there were
only a few slaves in Massachusetts, the decision passed
without opposition, and banished all further idea of
slavery."[634]

Mr. Nell gives an account of the legal death of slavery in Massachusetts, but unfortunately does not cite any authority. John Quincey Adams, in reply to a question put by John C. Spencer, stated that, "a note had been given for the price of a slave in 1787. This note was sued, and the Court ruled that the maker had received no consideration, as a man could not be sold. From that time forward, slavery died in the Old Bay State." There were several suits instituted by slaves against their reputed masters in 1781-82; but there are strong evidences that slavery died a much slower death in Massachusetts than many are willing to admit. James Sullivan wrote to Dr. Belknap in 1795:--

"In 1781, at the Court in Worcester County, an indictment
was found against a white man named Jennison for assaulting,
beating, and imprisoning Quock Walker, a black. He was tried
at the Supreme Judicial Court in 1783. His defence was, that
the black was his slave, and that the beating, etc., was the
necessary restraint and correction of the master. This was
answered by citing the aforesaid clause in the declaration
of rights. The judges and jury were of opinion that he had
no right to imprison or beat the negro. He was found guilty
and fined 40 shillings. This decision put an end to the idea
of slavery in Massachusetts."[635]

There are two things in the above that throw considerable uncertainty about the subject as to the precise date of the end of slavery in the Commonwealth. First, the suit referred to was tried in 1783, three years after the adoption of the new Constitution. Second, the good doctor does not say that the decision sealed the fate of slavery, but only that it "was a mortal wound to slavery in Massachusetts."

From 1785-1790, there was a wonderful change in the public opinion of the Middle and Eastern States on the subject of slavery. Most of them had passed laws providing for gradual emancipation. The Friends of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania began to organize a crusade against domestic slavery. In the fall of 1789, while the Congressional debates were still fresh in the minds of the people, the venerable Dr. Benjamin Franklin, as president of the "Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery," etc., issued the following letter:--

"AN ADDRESS TO THE PUBLIC.

_From the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition
of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes unlawfully held
in Bondage_.

It is with peculiar satisfaction we assure, the friends of
humanity, that, in prosecuting the design of our
association, our endeavors have proved successful, far
beyond our most sanguine expectations.

"Encouraged by this success, and by the daily progress of
that luminous and benign spirit of liberty which is
diffusing itself throughout the world, and humbly hoping for
the continuance of the divine blessing on our labors, we
have ventured to make an important addition to our original
plan; and do therefore earnestly solicit the support and
assistance of all who can feel the tender emotions of
sympathy and compassion, or relish the exalted pleasure of
beneficence.

"Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature,
that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous
care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils.