Chapter XXIV: Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of (1)

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.[565]

James McHenry said before the Maryland House of Delegates in November 29, 1787:

Conventions were anxious to procure a perpetual decree against
the importation of Slaves; but the Southern States could not be
brought to consent to it--All that could possible be obtained was
a temporary regulation which the Congress may vary
hereafter.[566]

In 1787 James Wilson said before the Convention called in
Pennsylvania to ratify the constitution:

With respect to the clause restricting Congress from prohibiting
the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States
now existing shall think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808,
the honorable gentleman says that this clause is not only dark,
but intended to grant to Congress, for that time, the power to
admit the importation of slaves. No such thing was intended; but
I will tell you what was done, and it gives me high pleasure that
so much was done. Under the present confederation, the States may
admit the importation of the slaves as long as they please; but
by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have
power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the
disposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as
laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country;
and though the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it
will produce the same kind, gradual change which was pursued in
Pennsylvania. It is with much satisfaction I view this power in
the general government, where by they may lay an interdiction on
this reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is also
obtained for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not
exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, Sir, operates as
a partial prohibition. It was all that could be obtained. I am
sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is reason to
hope that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited altogether.
And in the meantime, the new States which are to be formed will
be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slaves
will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says that it
is unfortunate in another point of view: it means to prohibit the
introduction of white people from Europe, as this may deter them
from coming amongst us. A little impartiality and attention will
discover the care that the convention took in selecting their
language. The words are, the _migration or_ IMPORTATION of such
persons, etc., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the
year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such IMPORTATION.
It is observable here that the term migration is dropped when a
tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose
the tax only on those imported.[567]

Referring to George Mason's objections to the Constitution, Oliver Ellsworth said:

_The general Legislature is restrained from prohibiting the
further importation of slaves for twenty odd years_.... His
objections are ... that such importations render the United
States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defence. To
this I readily agree, and all good men wish the entire abolition
of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the
public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of
slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by
the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be
imported.[568]

In his "Genuine Information" delivered before the Maryland Legislature November 29, 1787, Luther Martin said:

(56) 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 one thousand
eight hundred and eight; but a duty may be imposed on such
importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

(57) 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 of Americans, although they were willing to admit
into their system those _things_ which the _expressions_
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_.

(58) 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.

(59) 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 in it the power of the general government to prevent
the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those
States, must withhold their assent from such a system.

(60) 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
passed without the assent 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 restrictions 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
restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.

(61) This report was adopted by a majority of the convention but
not without considerable opposition. It was said, that we had
just assumed 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 God and nature had entitled _us_, not in
_particular_, but in _common_ with _all the rest of mankind_;
that we had _appealed_ to the _Supreme Being_ for his
_assistance_, as the _God 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 scarcely had
risen from our _knees_, from _supplicating_ his _aid_ 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_, but _even encouraging that most
infamous traffic_, by giving the _States power_ and _influence_
in the _Union, in proportion_ as _cruelly and wantonly sport with
the rights of their fellow creatures, ought_ to be considered as
a _solemn mockery_, of an _insult to that God_ 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_.

(62) 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 _constitution_, 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 _emancipation_ 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_.

(63) It was further urged that, by this system of government,
every State is to be protected both from _foreign invasion_ and
from _domestic insurrections_; that, 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 much
the more 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 _passing instalment 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 a part of the system.

(64). 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 constitution 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 _own_ 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.[569]

In Elliot's Debates we find the following accredited to General Pinckney.

... The general then said he would make a few observations on the
objections which the gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions
that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On
this point your delegates had to contend with the religious and
political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and with
the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, who was
warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same
opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions
the gentleman has quoted--that, while there remained one acre of
swampland uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice
against restricting the importation of negroes. I am so
thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our
climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges
us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them
South Carolina would soon be a desert waste.

You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I
need not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members
who opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the
weakness of any state who admitted them; that they were a
dangerous species of property, which an invading enemy could
easily turn against ourselves and the neighboring states; and
that, as we were allowed a representation for them in the House
of Representatives, our influence in government would be
increased in proportion as we were less able to defend ourselves.
"Show some period," said the members from the Eastern States,
"when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we please, to the
importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for your
convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices
of our people on this subject." The Middle States and Virginia
made us no such proposition; they were for an immediate and total
prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the objections that were
made in the best manner we could, and assigned reasons for our
insisting on the importation, which there is no occasion to
repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the house; a
committee of the states was appointed in order to accommodate
this matter, and, after a great deal of difficulty, it was
settled on the footing recited in the Constitution.

By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of
negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that the importation
shall be then stopped; it may be continued. We have a security
that the general government can never emancipate them, for no
such authority is granted; and it is admitted, on all hands, that
the general government has no powers but what are expressly
granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed
were reserved by the several states. We have obtained a right to
recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take
refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering
all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security
of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would
have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think
them bad.[570]

Mr. Madison said in the Virginia ratifying Convention, June 17, 1787:

Mr. Chairman--I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if
it were one of those things which could be excluded without
encountering greater evils.--The southern states would not have
entered into the union of America, without the temporary
permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the
union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We
are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is
prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The
union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles
of confederation, it might be continued forever: But by this
clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is
therefore an amelioration of our circumstances. A tax may be laid
in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise congress might lay
such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another
clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present,
if any slave elopes to any of those states where slaves are free,
he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the states
are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this
constitution, "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."--This clause was
expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.
This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is
given to the general government to interpose with respect to the
property in slaves now held by the states. The taxation of this
state being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot
be laid as he supposes. They cannot prevent the importation of
slaves for twenty years; but after that period they can. The
gentlemen from South-Carolina and Georgia argued in this
manner:--"We have now liberty to import this species of property,
and much of the property now possessed has been purchased, or
otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the
assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of
hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in
value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets." I need
not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a
dismemberment of the union would be worse. If those states should
disunite from the other states, for not indulging them in the
temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and
obtain aid from foreign powers....

(_The 2d, 3d, and 4th clauses read._)

... Mr. _Madison_ replied, that even the southern states, who
were most affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision,
and dreaded no danger to the property they now hold. It appeared
to him, that the general government would not intermeddle with
that property for twenty years, but to lay a tax on every slave
imported, not exceeding ten dollars; and that after the
expiration of that period they may prohibit the traffic
altogether. The census in the constitution was intended to
introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the
community.--No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and
exercises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive
of the principles of equality: For that it was not possible to
select any article which would be easy for one state, but what
would be heavy for another.--...[571]

In 1789 Madison said:

I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in
order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a
total prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the
sense of America with respect to the African trade. We have
liberty to impose a tax or duty upon the importation of such
persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
admit; and this liberty was granted, I presume, upon two
considerations: The first was, that until the time arrived when
they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might have an
opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and
humanity of such a trade. The other was, that they might be taxed
in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the
possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of
value, and ought to be paid for.[572]

According to Elliot, Spaight said on July 26, 1787:

Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the
Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose
principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not
consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the
importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia
insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to
cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they
would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then,
and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on....

Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of
this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between
the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and
Georgia wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on
the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North
Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the
importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the
Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an
immediate prohibition of it....[573]

In the House of Representatives on February 12, 1790:

Mr. Baldwin was sorry the subject had ever been brought before
Congress, because it was of a delicate nature as it respected
some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the
formation of the Constitution could not avoid the recollection of
the pain and difficulty which the subject caused in that body.
The members from the Southern States were so tender upon this
point, that they had well nigh broken up without coming to any
determination; however, from the extreme desire of preserving the
Union, and obtaining an efficient Government, they were induced
mutually to concede, and the Constitution jealously guarded what
they agreed to. If gentlemen look over the footsteps of that
body, they will find the greatest degree of caution used to
imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but the moment
we go to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble
under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere with the
importation of slaves beyond what is given in the ninth section
of the 1st article of the Constitution; everything else is
interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the
constitution, we shall find the expressions relative to this
subject cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than
any other part, "The migration or importation of such persons
shall not be prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not
have secured the object sufficiently, it is declared, in the
same section, "That no capitation or direct tax shall be laid,
unless in proportion to the census;" this was intended to prevent
Congress from laying any special tax upon negro slaves, as they
might, in this way, so burthen the possessors of them as to
induce a general emancipation. If we go on to the fifth article,
we shall find the first and fifth clauses of the ninth section of
the first article restrained from being altered before the year
1808.[574]

According to George Mason's Account:

The constn as agreed to till a fortnight before the convention
rose was such a one as he wd have set his hand & heart to....
with respect to the importn of slaves it was left to Congress,
this disturbed the 2 Souther-most states who knew that Congress
would immediately suppress the importn of slaves, those 2 states
therefore struck up a bargain with the 3. N. Engld, states, if
they would join to admit slaves for some years, the 2
Southernmost states wd join in changing the clause which required
2/3 of the legislature in any vote. It was done, these articles
were changed accordingly, & from that moment the two S. states
and the 3 Northern ones joined Pen. Jers. & Del. & made the
majority 8. to 3. against us instead of 8. to 3. for us as it had
been thro' the whole Convention. under this coalition the great
principles of the Constn were changed in the last days of the
Convention.[575]

The following debate on this subject took place in the House of Representatives, June 16-20, 1798:

Mr. B(aldwin). thought the 9th section, forbidding Congress to
prohibit the migration, &c., was directly opposed to the
principles of this bill. He recollected very well that when the
9th section of the Constitution was under consideration in the
Convention, the delegates from some of the Southern States
insisted that the prohibition of the introduction of slaves
should be left to the State Governments; it was found expedient
to make this provision in the Constitution; there was an
objection to the use of the word slaves, as Congress by none of
their acts had ever acknowledged the existence of such a
condition. It was at length settled on the words as they now
stand, "that the migration or importation of such persons as the
several States shall think proper to admit, should not be
prohibited till the year 1808." It was observed by some
gentlemen present that this expression would extend to other
persons besides slaves, which was not denied, but this did not
produce any alteration of it....

Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) commenced his observations with
declaring that he should not have risen on this occasion, if no
allusion had been made to the proceedings in the Federal
Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, or
if the representation which was given of what passed in that
body, had been a perfectly correct and candid one. He expressed
his surprise at what had fallen from the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Baldwin) relatively to that part of the Constitution, which
had been selected as the text of opposition to the bill under
consideration, viz: "The migration or importation of such persons
as any of the States now existing 'shall think proper to admit,
shall not be prohibited by Congress, 'prior to the year 1808." He
could only ascribe either to absolute forgetfulness, or to
willful misrepresentation, the assertion of the member from
Georgia, that it was understood and intended by the General
Convention that the article in question should extend to the
importation or introduction of citizens from foreign countries.
As that gentleman and himself were the only two members of the
House of Representatives who had the honor of a seat in that
body, he deemed it his indispensable duty to correct the
misstatement that had thus been made. He did not therefore,
hesitate to say, in direct contradiction to this novel
construction of the article (made as it would seem to suit the
particular purposes of the opponents of the Alien bill) that the
proposition itself was originally drawn up and moved in the
Convention, by the deputies from South Carolina, for the express
purpose of preventing Congress from interfering with the
introduction of slaves into the United States, within the time
specified. He recollected also, that in the discussion of its
merits no question arose, or was agitated respecting the
admission of foreigners but, on the contrary, that it was
confined simply to slaves, and was first voted upon and carried
with that word expressed in it, which was afterwards upon
reconsideration changed for '_such persons_,' as it now stands,
upon the suggestion of one of the Deputies from Connecticut. The
sole reason assigned for changing it was, that it would be better
not to stain the Constitutional code with such a term, since it
could be avoided by the introduction of other equally
intelligible words, as had been done in the former part of the
same instrument, where the same sense was conveyed by the
circuitous expression of 'three fifths of all other persons.'
Mr. Dayton said that at that time he was far from believing, and
that indeed until the present debate arose, he had never heard,
that any one member supposed that the simple change of the term
would enlarge the construction of this prohibitory provision, as
it was now contended for. If it could have been conceived to be
really liable to such interpretation, he was convinced that it
would not have been adopted, for it would then carry with it a
strong injunction upon Congress to prohibit the introduction of
foreigners into newly erected States immediately, and into the
then existing States after the year 1808, as it undoubtedly does,
that of slaves after that period....

Mr. Baldwin ... observed that he was yesterday obliged to leave
the House a little before adjournment, and he had understood
that, in his absence, the remarks which he had made on that point
a few days ago, in Committee of the Whole, had been controverted,
and that it had been done with some degree of harshness and
personal disrespect. What he had before asserted was, that the
clause respecting migration and importation was not considered at
the time when it passed in the Convention as confined entirely to
the subject of slaves. He spoke with the more confidence on this
point, as there was scarcely one to which his attention had been
so particularly called at the time. In making the Federal
Constitution, when it was determined that it should be a
Government possessing Legislative powers, the delegates from the
two Southern States, of which he was one, were so fully persuaded
that those powers would be used to the destruction of their
property in slaves, that for some time they thought it would not
be possible for them to be members of it: to that interesting
state of the subject he had before alluded. In the progress of
the business, other obstacles occurring, which he need not
repeat, it was concluded to give to the delegates of those States
the offer of preparing a clause to their own minds, to secure
that species of property. He well remembered that when the clause
was first prepared, it differed in two respects from the form in
which it now stands. It used the word "slaves" instead of
"migration", or "importation," or persons, and instead of "ten
dollars," it was expressed "five percent ad valorem on their
importation," which it was supposed would be about the average
rate of duties under this Government. Several persons had
objections to the use of the word "slaves, as Congress had
hitherto avoided the use of it in their acts, and not
acknowledged the existence of such a condition. It was expressly
observed at the time, that making use of the form of expression
as it now stands, instead of the word slaves, would make the
meaning more general, and include what we now consider as
included; this did not appear to be denied, but still it was
preferred in its present form. He had more confidence than common
in his recollection on this point, for the reasons which he had
before stated. He gave it as the result of his very clear
recollection. Any other member of that body was doubtless at
liberty to say he did not recollect it. Still that would not
diminish the confidence he felt on this occasion....[576]

In a letter to Robert Walsh November 27, 1817, Madison said:

Your letter of the 11th was duly recd, and I should have given it
a less tardy answer, but for a succession of particular demands
on my attention, and a wish to assist my recollections, by
consulting both manuscript & printed sources of information on
the subjects of your enquiry. Of these, however, I have not been
able to avail myself, but very partially.

As to the intention of the framers of the Constitution in the
clause relating to "the migration and importation of persons &c"
the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it.
The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the
States, and the importation of slaves into them had been
prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation,
and were extremely adverse to any restriction on their power to
do so. In the Convention the former States were anxious, in
framing a new constitution, to insert a provision for an
immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not
only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly
declared that their constituents would never accede to a
constitution containing such an article. Out of this conflict
grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not
interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after
that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the
States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not
then existing. Such was the tone of opposition in the States of
S. Carolina & Georgia, & such the desire to gain their
acquiescence in a prohibitory power, that on a question between
the epochs of 1800 & 1808, the States of N. Hampshire, Massatts,
& Connecticut, (all the eastern States in the convention); joined
in the vote for the latter, influenced by the collateral motive
of reconciling those particular States to the power over commerce
& navigation; against which they felt, as did some other States,
a very strong repugnance. The earnestness of S. Carolina &
Georgia was further manifested by their insisting on the security
in the V. article against any amendment to the Constitution
affecting the right reserved to them, & their uniting with the
small states who insisted on a like security for their equality
in the Senate.

But some of the States were not only anxious for a constitutional
provision against the introduction of Slaves. They had scruples
against admitting the term "Slaves" into the Instrument. Hence
the descriptive phrase "migration or importation of persons"; the
term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of
acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view
_imported_ persons as a species of emigrants, whilst others might
apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the
country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might
have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as
malefactors.

But whatever may have been intended by the term "migration" or
the term "persons", it is most certain, that they referred,
exclusively, to a migration or importation from other countries
into the U. States; and not to a removal, voluntary or
involuntary, of Slaves or freemen, from one to another part of
the U. States. Nothing appears or is recollected that warrants
this latter intention. Nothing in the proceedings of the State
conventions indicate such a construction there. Had such been in
the construction it is easy to imagine the figure it would have
made in many of the states, among the objections to the
constitution, and among the numerous amendments to it proposed by
the state conventions, not one of which amendments refers to the
clause in question.... It falls within the scope of your enquiry,
to state the fact, that there was a proposition in the
convention, to discriminate between the old and new States, by an
article in the Constitution declaring that the aggregate number
of representatives from the states thereafter to be admitted,
should never exceed that of the states originally adopting the
Constitution. The proposition happily was rejected. The effect of
such a descrimination, is sufficiently evident.[577]

Speaking about the meaning of migration, Walter Lowrie of Pennsylvania said in the United States Senate:

In the Constitution it is provided that "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 1808, but a tax," etc. In this debate
it seems generally to be admitted, by gentlemen on the opposite
side, that these two words are not synonomous; but what their
meaning is, they are not so well agreed. One gentlemen tells us,
it was intended to prevent slaves from being brought in by land;
another gentleman says, it was intended to restrain Congress from
interfering with emigration from Europe.

These constructions cannot both be right. The gentlemen who have
preceded me on the same side, have advanced a number of pertinent
arguments to settle the proper meaning of these words. I, sir,
shall not repeat them. Indeed, to me, there is nothing more dry
and uninteresting, than discussions to explain the meaning of
single words. In the present case, I will only refer to the
authority of Mr. Madison and Judge Wilson, who were both members
of the Convention, and who gave their construction to these
words, long before this question was agitated. Mr. Madison
observes, that, to say this clause was intended to prevent
emigration does not deserve an answer. And Judge Wilson says,
expressly, it was intended to place the new States under the
control of Congress, as to the introduction of slaves. The
opinion of this latter gentleman is entitled to peculiar weight.
After the Convention had labored for weeks on the subject of
representation and direct taxes--when those great men were like
to separate without obtaining their object, Judge Wilson
submitted the provision on this subject, which now stands as a
part of your Constitution. Sir, there is no man, from any part of
the nation, who understood the system of our Government better
than him; not even excepting Virginia, from whence the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. Walker) tells us, we have all our great
men.[578]

Madison wrote on the same question that year in a letter to Monroe:

I have been truly astonished at some of the doctrines and
declarations to which the Missouri question has led; and
particularly so at the interpretation put on the terms "migration
or importation &c." Judging from my own impressions I shd. deem
it impossible that the memory of any one who was a member of the
Genl. Convention, could favor an opinion that the terms did not
_exclusively_ refer to migration & importation, _into the_ U. S.
Had they been understood in that Body in the sense now put on
them, it is easy to conceive the alienation they would have there
created in certain States: and no one can decide better than
yourself the effect they would had in the State conventions, if
such a meaning had been avowed by the advocates of the
Constitution. If a suspicion had existed of such a construction,
it wd. at least have made a conspicuous figure among the
amendments proposed to the Instrument.[579]

There was very little objection to the provision for the return of fugitive slaves. On the twenty-ninth of August, it was agreed that:

"If any Person bound to service or labor in any of the United
States shall escape into another State, He or She shall not be
discharged from such services or labor in consequence of any
regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape; but
shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service
or labor."

which passed in the affirmative (Ayes--11; noes--0.)

It was moved and seconded to strike out the two last clauses of
the 17 article[580]

On the same day when the question came up again:

Mr. Butler moved to insert after art: XV. "If any person bound to
service or labor in any of the U--States shall escape into
another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such
service or labor, in consequence of any regulation subsisting in
the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the
person justly claiming their service or labor," which was agreed
to nem: con:[581]

The Committee of Style reported:

No person legally held to service or labour in one state,
escaping into another, shall in consequence of regulations
subsisting therein be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service
or labour may be due.[582]

On the thirteenth of September,

On motion of Mr. Randolph the word "servitude" was struck out,
and "service" (unanimously) inserted, the former being thought to
express the condition of slaves, & the latter the obligations of
free persons.[583]

Two days later:

Art. IV. sect 2. parag: 3. the term "legally" was struck out, and
"under the laws thereof" inserted (after the word "State,") in
compliance with the wish of some who thought the term (legal)
equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a
moral view----[584]

The Constitution provided then:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law
of Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,
but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or Labour may be due.[585]

FOOTNOTES:

[530] In the preparation of these documents we used the notes and journals of Yates, McHenry and Madison and the subsequent writings of the framers of the Federal Constitution, but these extracts of the actual proceedings are copied from Farrand's _Records of the Federal Convention_.

[531] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 31-32.

[532] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 35-38.

[533] _Ibid._, I, pp. 39-40.

[534] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, p. 40.

[535] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 152-153.

[536] _Ibid._, I, pp. 200-202.

[537] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 205-206.

[538] _Ibid._, p. 208.

[539] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, p. 227.

[540] _Ibid._, I, p. 243.

[541] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 523, 524.

[542] _Ibid._, I. p. 542.

[543] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 559-560.

[544] _Ibid._, I, p. 567.

[545] _Records of the Federal Convention_, pp. 575-576.

[546] _Ibid._, I, p. 579.

[547] _Ibid._, pp. 580-583.

[548] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 580-583.

[549] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 586-588.

[550] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 589-590.

[551] _Records of the Federal Convention_, pp. 603--605.

[552] _Ibid._, II, p. 168.

[553] _Records of the Federal Convention_, pp. 182-183.

[554] Dickenson thought that unless the number of representatives given the large States was reduced the smaller ones would be encouraged to import slaves.

Art: VII. sect. 3. resumed.--Mr. Dickenson moved to postpone this in order to reconsider Art: Iv. sect. 4. and to _limit_ the number of representatives to be allowed to the large States. Unless this were done the small States would be reduced to entire insignificancy, and encouragement given to the importation of slaves. _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, 356, 570, 590.

[555] _Ibid._, III, p. 253.

[556] _Ibid._, III., pp. 155-156.

[557] _Records of the Federal Convention_, III, p. 333.

[558] _Ibid._, III, pp. 342-343.

[559] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, p. 95.

[560] _Records of the Federal Convention_, p. 183.

[561] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 220-221.

[562] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 364-365.

[563] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 369-375.

[564] _Ibid._, II, p. 378.

[565] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 415-417.

[566] _Maryland Historical Magazine_, December, 1909.

[567] McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_, pp. 311-313.

[568] P. L. Ford, _Essay on the Convention_, pp. 161-166.

[569] _Records of the Federal Convention_, III, pp. 210-213.

[570] Elliot, _Debates_, IV, pp. 277-286.

[571] Robertson, _Debates of the Convention of Virginia_, pp. 321-345.

[572] _Annals of Congress_, 1st session, I, pp. 339-340.

[573] Elliot, _Debates_, IX, pp. 72-104.

[574] _Annals of Congress_, 1st session, II, pp. 1200-1201.

[575] _Records of the Federal Convention_, III, p. 367.

[576] _Annals of Congress_, Fifth Cong., 2d Session, II, pp. 1660, 1968-2005.

[577] _Documentary History of the Constitution_, V, pp. 303-306.

[578] _Annals of Congress_, Sixteenth Cong., 1st Session, I, pp, 202-203.

[579] _Documentary History of the Constitution_, V, p. 307.

[580] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, p. 446.

[581] _Ibid._, pp. 453-454.

[582] _Ibid._, pp. 601-602.

[583] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, p. 607.

[584] _Ibid._, p. 628.

[585] _Ibid._, p. 662.

SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES

PATRICK SNEAD.--Among the most interesting of all fugitive slaves who escaped into Canada was Patrick Snead of Savannah, Georgia. He was as white as his master, but was born a slave. Upon the death of his first master he fell into the hands of one of the sons who died when Snead was about fifteen. His next master was a rather reckless man. Snead's master always promised the slave's mother to give him his freedom as soon as the boy could take care of himself, but this was never done. Snead was sent to school a little by his mother so that he could spell quite well. He had no religious training but was allowed to attend a Sunday school for colored children. Upon approaching manhood Snead was put to the cooper's trade, which he learned in five years.

Up to this time Snead had fared well, but at length his master fell sick and died without freeing the slave according to his promise. Snead was then sold to pay the fees of his master's physician, who later sold him to a wholesale merchant for $500. In the service of this merchant Snead proved to be a much smarter man than many of those who worked with him. In later years, however, he had to work so hard as to injure his health to the extent that he suffered considerably. Moreover, Snead was never allowed any money and was restricted in his social contact with the people of his group in other parts of the community.

He was later sold to another master, being given in exchange for a woman, two children and $100. He was still employed in the cooper's trade. Required to make only 18 barrels a week and capable of making more than twice as many, he began to receive an income of his own under the good treatment of his last master. During this period, however, his desire for liberty grew stronger and stronger because of the hardships of his people and then he heard of their opportunities in the free States and in Liberia. He, therefore, made his escape in July, 1851, and reached Canada in safety. After remaining two years in Canada he decided to enter the employ of the proprietor of the Cataract House on the American side of Niagara Falls. What happened then is best told in his own language. He says:

"Then a constable of Buffalo came in, on Sunday after dinner, and sent the barkeeper into the dining-room for me. I went into the hall, and met the constable,--I had my jacket in my hand, and was going to put it up. He stepped up to me. 'Here, Watson,' (this was the name I assumed on escaping,) 'you waited on me, and I'll give you some change.' His fingers were then in his pocket, and he dropped a quarter dollar on the floor. I told him, 'I have not waited on you--you must be mistaken in the man, and I don't want another waiter's money.' He approached,--I suspected, and stepped back toward the dining-room door. By that time he made a grab at me, caught me by the collar of my shirt and vest,--then four more constables, he had brought with him, sprung on me,--they dragged me to the street door--there was a jamb--I hung on by the doorway. The head constable shackled my left hand. I had on a new silk cravat twice around my neck; he hung on to this, twisting it till my toungue lolled out of my mouth, but he could not start me through the door. By this time the waiters pushed through the crowd,--there were three hundred visitors there at the time,--and Smith and Graves, colored waiters, caught me by the hands,--then the others came on, and dragged me from the officers by main force. They dragged me over chairs and everything, down to the ferry way. I got into the cars, and the waiters were lowering me down, when the constables came and stopped them, saying, 'Stop that murderer!'--they called me a _murderer_! Then I was dragged down the steps by the waiters, and flung into the ferry boat. The boatmen rowed me to within fifty feet of the Canada shore--into Canada water--when the head boatman in the other boat gave the word to row back. They did accordingly,--but they could not land me at the usual place on account of the waiters. So they had to go down to Suspension Bridge; they landed me, opened a way through the crowd--shackled me, pushed me into a carriage, and away we went. The head constable then asked me 'if I knew any person in Lockport.' I told him 'no,' Then, 'In Buffalo?' 'No.' 'Well then,' said he, 'let's go to Buffalo--Lockport is too far.' We reached Buffalo at ten o'clock at night, when I was put in jail. I told the jailer I wished he would be so good as to tell a lawyer--to come round to the jail. Mr.---- came, and I engaged him for my lawyer. When the constables saw that pretending to know no one in Buffalo, I had engaged one of the best lawyers in the place, they were astonished. I told them that 'as scared as they thought I was, I wanted them to know that I had my senses about me.' The court was not opened until nine days; the tenth day my trial commenced. The object was, to show some evidence as if of murder, so that they could take me to _Baltimore_. On the eleventh day the claimant was defeated, and I was cleared at 10 A.M. After I was cleared, and while I was yet in the court room, a telegraphic despatch came from a Judge in Savannah, saying that I was no murderer, but a fugitive slave. However, before a new warrant could be got out, I was in a carriage and on my way. I crossed over into Canada, and walked thirty miles to the Clifton House."--Benjamin Drew, _A North-Side View of Slavery_, pp. 102-104.