JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts, and Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, spoke in opposition to this amendment. The amendment was rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, against those of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware; Georgia being divided.

March 28, 1783, on the same subject, it was voted that slaves be taxed 3 to 5. New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, no; Connecticut, no; New York, aye.

PROPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTION.

April 1, 1783. Mr. GORHAM, of Massachusetts, in the Congress of the Confederation, observed, as a cogent reason for hastening the business, "that the Eastern States, at the invitation of the Legislature of Massachusetts, were, with New York, about to form a convention for regulating matters of common concern, and that, if any plan should be sent out by Congress, they would probably coöperate with Congress in giving efficacy to it."

Mr. MERCER, of Virginia, expressed great disquietude at this information; considered it as a dangerous precedent; and "that it behooved the gentleman to explain fully the object of the Convention, as it would be necessary for the Southern States to be otherwise very circumspect in agreeing to any plans on the supposition that the general Confederacy was to continue."

Mr. OSGOOD, of Massachusetts, and Mr. GORHAM, explained "that the object of the proposed Convention was to guard against an interference of taxes among States whose local situation required such precautions."

Mr. BLAND, of Virginia, said "he always considered these conventions as improper, and contravening the spirit of the general government. He said they had the appearance of YOUNG CON

Mr. MADISON and Mr. HAMILTON disapproved of those partial conventions, not as absolute violations of the Confederacy, but, as ultimately tending to them, and as, in the mean time, excit

ing pernicious jealousies; the latter observing, "he wished, instead of them, to see a GENERAL CONVENTION take place."

SECTIONAL FEELING IN THE ARMY OF THE REVOLUTION.

Nowhere were these sectional jealousies more prevalent than in the motley army assembled, from distant quarters, under Washington's own command. REED, the adjutant-general, speaking on this subject, observes: "The Southern troops, comprising the regiments south of the Delaware, looked with very unkind feelings on those of New England." "It is with great concern," says Washington, in one of his general orders, “that the general understands that jealousies have arisen among the troops from the different provinces, and reflections are thrown out which can only tend to irritate each other, and injure the noble cause in which we are engaged, and which we ought to support with one hand and one heart."

In a letter to Gen. Schuyler, 1776, he says: "I must entreat your attention to do away the unhappy and pernicious distinctions and jealousies between troops of different governments. Enjoin this upon the officers, and let them inculcate and press home to the soldiery the necessity of order and harmony among those who are engaged in one common cause, and mutually contending for all that freemen hold most dear."

JOHN ADAMS, speaking of the violent passions and discordant interests at work throughout the country, from Florida to Canada, observes: "It requires more serenity of temper, a deeper understanding, and more courage, than fell to the lot of Marlborough, to ride in this whirlwind." IRVING'S Life of Washington, vol. ii., p. 287.

REMARKS.

It is then manifest:

1. That there were original and acquired diversities of character in the early settlers of the States, which were the foundation of sectional feelings at the commencement of the American Revolution.

2. That these feelings, for the time, were overborne by the

common dangers and the common interests in respect to Great Britain, which established a strong bond of sympathy between them.

3. That, nevertheless, sectional interests were recognized and sectional feelings manifested in the Congress of the Confederation, and in the army, that were a great embarrassment to the Government and to the commander-in-chief.

4. That, notwithstanding these sectional feelings in the minds of those who indulged them, and in the hearts of the people generally, national feelings so far prevailed through the several States, that they contended successfully through a seven years' war with the mother country, and won the independence which they had declared, and took their place by common consent among the civilized nations of the earth, as a Confederacy, styled, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

CHAPTER II.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

THE Common fear of Great Britain had caused the States to adopt the "Articles of Confederation." When that fear was removed by the treaty of peace, January, 1783, those articles had lost their power as a bond of union. The common fear of imbecility and anarchy, into which they were in danger of ⚫sinking down, after the excitements of the war had passed off, caused them to adopt the Constitution.

The Convention was composed of gentlemen of high moral principle, of undoubted patriotism, and of courteous manners, of broad views, some of them accustomed to act together in the Continental Congress or in the army, and all of them entertaining a great respect for Washington, the President. The Convention assembled in May, 1787.

Still sectional difficulties arose in that body, which, with others inherent in the subjects under discussion, threatened its dissolution, before they had accomplished the object for which they came together. These subjects were: 1. Navigation. 2. Slavery. The North insisted on having protection for their property in commerce; the South insisted on having protection. for their property in slaves.

NAVIGATION.

The Committee of Detail had reported the following proposal: "No navigation act shall be passed (by Congress) without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each House." This clause the Southern States were anxious to

retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much in the power of the Eastern States; but which the latter were anxious to reject, that thus a bare majority of Congress might pass navigation laws to their advantage, even though injurious to the Southern States.

THE SLAVE TRADE.

By the same committee, the slave trade was left just where the old Confederation had left it, without giving Congress the power to abolish it, or to lay any duty on imported slaves. This proposal was acceptable to the Southern States, but not to the Northern; for the delegates from the latter thought that slaves imported ought to be placed under the general provision for taxing imports, and some few of them also thought that they ought to favor morals by the abolition of the slave trade.

Mr. KING, of Massachusetts, "thought the subject ought to be viewed in a political light only. If two States (South Carolina and Georgia) 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 other States." He remarked that "the exemption of slaves from duty, while every other import was subject to it, is an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States."

Gen. COTESWORTH PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, in his reply, said “that he thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think that South Carolina would stop the importation of slaves in any short time, but only stop it occasionally, as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal duty with other imports, which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty which had been stated.”

Tuesday, August 21 and 22, 1787.-Mr. ELLSWORTH, of Connecticut, was for leaving the clause (which did not prohibit the importation of slaves) as it now stands. "Let every State import what it pleases. The wisdom or morality of slavery are considerations that belong to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole; and the States are the best judges