of their particular interests. 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. SHERMAN, of Connecticut, "was for leaving the clause as it now stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet, as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, and 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; that is, not prohibit the importation of slaves."

Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, of Pennsylvania, wished to have the whole subject to be committed, including the clause relating to navigation acts. "These things, namely, the slave trade, to which some of the North was opposed, and the navigation act without a restriction, to which the South was opposed, may form a bargain between the Northern and the Southern States."

COMMITTEE OF ONE FROM EACH STATE.

The Committee of Eleven, to whom was referred the subject of the "bargain," reported, August 24, 1787, "in favor of not allowing the Legislature to prohibit the importation of slaves before 1800, but giving them power to impose a duty at a rate not exceeding the average of other imports."

DEBATE IN THE CONVENTION.

General PINCKNEY, August 25, moved to strike out the year 1800, and insert 1808.

Mr. GORHAM, of Massachusetts, seconded the motion.

It was then passed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, voting in the affirmative (6); New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, in the negative (4).

It was finally agreed, nem. con., to make the clause read, “but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person." Ten dollars was considered by some of the members a "fair average of other imports,"

1

comparing the price of a slave, at that time, with the price of "other articles" of importation, or five per cent. ad valorem, the money value of a slave. This sum, as a specific duty, therefore, was inserted instead of "a fair average of other imports," the phrase used in the report of the committee. Thus the price of a slave was reckoned at two hundred dollars by the Convention.

Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, August 29, moved in Convention to postpone the report of the Committee of Eleven in favor of the following proposal: "That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of the United States with foreign powers, among the United States, (the several States,) shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House." Mr. MARTIN seconded the motion. Mr. PINCKNEY remarked, that there were five different commercial interests: 1. The fisheries and West India trade, which belonged to the New England States. 2. The interests of New York lay in free trade. 3. Wheat and flour are the staples of the two Middle States, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 4. Tobacco, the staple of Virginia and Maryland, and a part of North Carolina. 5. Rice and indigo, the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. These different interests would be the source of oppressive regulations, if no check to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the maritime States for the present.'

General C. C. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, said "that it was the true interest of the Southern States to pass no regulation of commerce; but, considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views of South Carolina, (permission to import slaves,) and the interests the weak Southern States had in being united to the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents, though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled by this liberality, (as to the slave trade.) He had himself, he said, prejudices,

against the Eastern States before he came here, but would ac knowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever."

Mr. CLYMER, of Pennsylvania: "The diversity of commercial interests of necessity creates difficulties which ought not to be increased by unnecessary regulations. The Northern and Middle States will be ruined, if not allowed to defend themselves against foreign regulations.'

Mr. SHERMAN, of Connecticut, and Mr. MORRIS, of Pennsylvania, in behalf of the Eastern States, spoke against Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY's motion.

Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, "differed from those who considered the rejection of the motion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. He considered the interests of these and the Eastern States as different as the interests of Russia and Turkey. Being, notwithstanding, desirous of conciliating the affections of the Eastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of a majority."

Colonel GEORGE MASON, of Virginia: "If the Government is to be lasting, it must be founded in the confidence and affection of the people, and must be so construed as to obtain these. The majority will be governed by their interests. The Southern States are in the minority in both Houses. Is it to be expected that they will deliver themselves, bound hand and foot, to the Eastern States, and enable these to exclaim, in the words of Cromwell on a certain occasion, 'The Lord hath delivered them into our hands'?"

Mr. PINCKNEY'S motion having failed to pass, the report of the committee, striking out the clause requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a navigation act, was then agreed to nem. con.

THE SPIRIT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ELEVEN.

The spirit of the committee that reported the terms of the foregoing "bargain," may be understood from the following statement of LUTHER MARTIN, one of their number: "They 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

with at least a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratify them by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a large majority, agreed on a report."

GAIN AND LOSS TO EACH SECTION BY THE BARGAIN.

In this bargain, the Northern States gained: first, the right to pass navigation acts by a bare majority; to tax the tonnage of foreign nations for their own advantage as carriers; to lay a duty on foreign imports for their own advantage as manufacturers; secondly, to put an end to the slave trade in twenty years, and thereby to prevent, in some degree, the increase of slave representation, for their own political advantage. What did they lose? Nothing, except their share of the profits in importing slaves, after enjoying it for that period.

What did the Southern States gain by this bargain? They gained only the additional recognition of property in slaves by the Constitution; while they lost much of what the Northern States gained. They did not gain the right to import slaves for twenty years which they enjoyed before; while they lost the right to import them afterwards. They found themselves "bound hand and foot" by the tariff laws of 1828, and other tariffs.

VIRGINIA NOT A PARTY TO THE BARGAIN.

One reason why Virginia did not unite with the Southern and Eastern States in making that bargain probably was, that she neither derived the profits received by the one class, from transporting slaves to the country, nor the profits received from purchasing and working them after their importation, enjoyed by the other class. She already had slaves enough of her own, so that she had no occasion to purchase, and she had comparatively few ships for transporting them to others. She could raise slaves cheaper than she could import them, and if she had any slaves for sale, the price of them would be lessened by the importation of negroes.

Besides this, Virginia had a long standing quarrel with the

British king on account of his vetoing a bill for the suppression of the slave trade, drawn up by the youthful Jefferson, and introduced by him into the State Legislature, and then passed. The indignation caused by that regal act continued to burn in the heart of the mover, and in many a generous bosom throughout Virginia for a long time afterwards, and may have contributed to prevent her from voting to permit the continuance of the slave trade until 1808.

The course of Virginia in the Convention was somewhat equivocal, acting sometimes with the slave States, and sometimes with the non-slaveholding States. As she had taken the lead in forming a Constitution, she must have been anxious to carry it out to a successful issue. She felt the dignity of her position as the Ancient Dominion, as the mother of statesmen, and as having her favorite son acting as President of the Convention. Mr. Madison, especially, was anxious to prevent a failure, and was disposed to conciliate both sections. He and others, probably, desired to believe that the abolition of slavery would take place in all the States, and he was willing to encourage the hope of it in others. But after the completion of the "bargain" by which the slave trade was to be continued twenty years, he must have given up that belief. Indeed, he declared that, by that continuance, all the evils of allowing the permanent continuance of the slave trade would be accomplished. The Pinckneys and others, who were better circumstanced to judge correctly, never encouraged that belief, but the contrary. They made arrangements in the Constitution for the permanence of slavery in the United States, and for its increase: just what has happened.

SLAVES RECOGNIZED AS PROPERTY BY THE CONSTITUTION.

But while the "bargain" was in the course of negotiation, it was particularly objected to by ROGER SHERMAN, on the ground that, by laying a duty on slaves as on other imports, it recognizes them as "property."

There were men in the Convention who had no objections to slaves being property, and to owning them as property, who thought that it was not judicious to name them as such, or to recognize them as such in the Constitution. That instrument