seventeenth, "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. It was alleged that slaves increase the weakness of any state which admits them; that an invading enemy could easily turn them against ourselves and the neighboring states; and that, as we are allowed a representation for them, 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. 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. 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. 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 in our power for the security of this species of property. We would have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think them bad."*

"Six of the seven eastern states," continued Lowndes, "form a majority in the house of representatives. Their interest will so predominate as to divest us of any pretensions to the title of a republic. They draw their subsistence, in a great measure, from their shipping; the regulation of our commerce throws into their hands the carrying trade under payment of whatever freightage they think proper to impose. Why should the southern states allow this without the consent of Elliot, iv., 277-286.

*

nine states? If at any future period we should remonstrate, 'mind your business' will be the style of language held out toward the southern states." "The fears that the northern interests will prevail at all times," said Edward Rutledge, "are ill-founded. Carry your views into futurity. Several of the northern states are already full of people; the migrations to the South are immense; in a few years we shall rise high in our representation, while other states will keep their present position."*

The argument of Lowndes rested on the idea that the southern states are weak. "We are weak," answered Cotesworth Pinckney; "by ourselves we cannot form a union strong enough for the purpose of effectually protecting each other. Without union with the other states, South Carolina must soon fall. Is there any one among us so much a Quixote as to suppose that this state could long maintain her independence if she stood alone, or was only connected with the southern states? I scarcely believe there is. As, from the nature of our climate and the fewness of our inhabitants, we are undoubtedly weak, should we not endeavor to form a close union with the eastern

states, who are strong? We certainly ought to endeavor to increase that species of strength which will render them of most service to us both in peace and war. I mean their navy. Justice to them and humanity, interest and policy, concur in prevailing upon us to submit the regulation of commerce to the general government.†

Lowndes renewed his eulogy on the old confederation. "The men who signed it were eminent for patriotism and virtue; and their wisdom and prudence particularly appear in their care sacredly to guarantee the sovereignty of each state. The treaty of peace expressly agreed to acknowledge us free, sovereign, and independent states; but this new constitution, being sovereign over all, sweeps those privileges away." ‡

Cotesworth Pinckney answered: "We were independent before the treaty, which does not grant, but acknowledges our independence. We ought to date that blessing from an older charter than the treaty of peace; from a charter which our Elliot, iv., 272, 274, 276, 277, 288.

*

babes should be taught to lisp in their cradles; which our youth should learn as a carmen necessarium, an indispensable lesson; which our young men should regard as their compact of freedom; and which our old should repeat with ejaculations of gratitude for the bounties it is about to bestow on their posterity. I mean the declaration of independence, made in congress the 4th of July 1776. This manifesto, which for importance of matter and elegance of composition stands unrivalled, confutes the doctrine of the individual sovereignty and independence of the several states. The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this declaration. The several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it; as if to impress on America that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent. Let us, then, consider all attempts to weaken this union by maintaining that each state is separately and individually independent, as a species of political heresy which can never benefit us, but may bring on us the most serious distresses." *

Lowndes sought to rally to his side the friends of paper money, and asked triumphantly: "What harm has paper money done?" "What harm?" retorted Cotesworth Pinckney. "Beyond losses by depreciation, paper money has corrupted the morals of the people; has diverted them from the paths of honest industry to the ways of ruinous speculation; has destroyed both public and private credit; and has brought total ruin on numberless widows and orphans."†

James Lincoln of Ninety-six pressed the objection that the constitution contained no bill of rights. Cotesworth Pinckney answered: "By delegating express powers, we certainly reserve to ourselves every power and right not mentioned in the constitution. Another reason weighed particularly with the members from this state. Bills of rights generally begin with declaring that all men are by nature born free. Now, we should make that declaration with a very bad grace when a large part of our property consists in men who are actually born slaves."+

* Elliot, iv., 301, 302.

Elliot, iv., 306.

Elliot, iv., 315, 316.

Lowndes, following the lead of the opposition of Virginia, had recommended another convention in which every objection could be met on fair grounds, and adequate remedies applied.* The proposal found no acceptance; but he persevered in cavilling and objecting. At last John Rutledge impatiently expressed a hope that Lowndes would find a seat in the coming convention, and pledged himself there to prove that all those grounds on which he dwelt amounted to no more than mere declamation; that his boasted confederation was not worth a farthing; that if such instruments were piled up to his chin they would not shield him from one single national calamity; that the sun of this state, so far from being obscured by the new constitution, would, when united with twelve other suns, astonish the world by its lustre." +

The resolution for a convention to consider the constitution was unanimously adopted. In the rivalry between Charleston and Columbia as its place of meeting, Charleston carried the day by a majority of one vote.

The purest spirit of patriotism and union and veneration for the men of the revolution pervaded South Carolina at the time of her choice of delegates. Foremost among them were the venerable Christopher Gadsden and John Rutledge, Moultrie and Motte, William Washington, Edward Rutledge, the three Pinckneys, Grimké, and Ramsay; the chancellor and the leading judges of the state; men chiefly of English, Scotch, Scotch-Irish, and Huguenot descent; a thorough representation of the best elements and culture of South Carolina.

The convention organized itself on the thirteenth of May, with Thomas Pinckney, then Governor of South Carolina, as president. The ablest man in the opposition was Edanus Burke; but the leader in support of the Virginia malcontents was Sumter. A week's quiet consideration of the constitution by paragraphs showed the disposition of the convention, when on the twenty-first Sumter, as a last effort of those who wished to act with Virginia, made a motion for an adjournment for five months, to give time for the further consideration of the federal convention. A few gave way to the hope of conciliating by moderation; but after debate the motion * Elliot, iv., 290. Elliot, iv., 312. Elliot, iv., 316, 317.

received only eighty-nine votes against one hundred and thirtyfive. Three or four amendments were recommended; and then, at five o'clock in the evening of the twenty-third, the constitution was ratified by one hundred and forty-nine votes against seventy-three-more than two to one.* As the count was declared, the dense crowd in attendance, carried away by a wild transport of joy, shook the air with their cheers.

When order was restored, the aged Christopher Gadsden said: "I can have but little expectation of seeing the happy effects that will result to my country from the wise decisions of this day, but I shall say with good old Simeon: Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, for mine eyes have seen the salvation of my country." +

The delegates of South Carolina to the federal convention received a vote of thanks. Those in the opposition promised as good citizens to accept the result. In 1765 South Carolina was one of the nine states to meet in convention for resistance to the stamp-act; and now she was the eighth state of the nine required for the adoption of the constitution.

When the astonishing tidings reached New Hampshire, her people grew restless to be the state yet needed to assure the new bond of union; but for that palm she must run a race with Virginia.

* Elliot, iv., 318, 338-340.

Penn. Packet, 14 June 1788.