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.
On the question for committing the remaining part of Sections 4 and 5, of Article 7,--Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--7; New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware, no--3; Massachusetts absent. p. 1390-97.
Friday, August 24, 1787.
_In Convention_,--Governor Livingston, from the committee of eleven, to whom were referred the two remaining clauses of the fourth section, and the fifth and sixth sections, of the seventh Article, delivered in the following Report:
"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, shall 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.'
"The fifth Section to remain as in the Report.
"The sixth Section[4] to be stricken out." p. 1415.
[Footnote 4: This sixth Section was, "No Navigation act shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each House."--EDITOR.]
Saturday, August 25, 1787.
The Report of the Committee of eleven (see Friday, the twenty-fourth) being taken up,--
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, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris was for making the clause read at once, "the importation of slaves in 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.
M. 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._[5]
[Footnote 5: In the printed Journals, Connecticut, Virginia, and Georgia, voted in the affirmative.]
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, aye--7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no--4.
Mr. Baldwin, in order to restrain and more explicitly define, "the average duty," moved to strike out of the second part the words, "average of the duties and on imports," and insert "common impost on articles not enumerated;" which was agreed to, _nem. con._
Mr. Sherman was against this second part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.
Mr. King and Mr. Langdon considered this as the price of the first part.
Gen. Pinckney admitted that it was so.
Col. Mason. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on, the importation of slaves.
Mr. Gorham thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris remarked, that, as the clause now stands, it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.
Mr. Sherman, in answer to Mr. Gorham, observed, that the smallness of the duty showed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.
Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not, like merchandise, consumed, &c.
Col. Mason, in answer to Mr. Gouverneur Morris. The provision as it stands, was necessary for the case of convicts; in order to prevent the introduction of them.
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;" and then the second part, as amended, was agreed to. _pp_. 1427 to 30.
Tuesday, August 28, 1787.
Article 14, was then taken up.
General Pinckney was not satisfied with it. He seemed to wish some provision should be included in favor of property in slaves.
On the question on Article 14,--
New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, aye--9; South Carolina, no--1; Georgia, divided.
Article 15, being then taken up, the words, "high misdemeanor," were struck out, and the words, "other crime," inserted, in order to comprehend all proper cases; it being doubtful whether "high misdemeanor" had not a technical meaning too limited.
Mr. Butler and Mr. Pinckney moved to require "fugitive slaves and servants to be delivered up like criminals."
Mr. Wilson. This would oblige the Executive of the State to do it, at the public expense.
Mr. Sherman saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or servant, than a horse.
Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition, in order that some particular provision might be made, apart from this article.
Article 15, as amended, was then agreed to, _nem. con_. _pp_. 1447-8.
Wednesday, August 29, 1787.
General Pinckney said it was the true interest of the Southern States to have 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[6] of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southern States had in being united with 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 to this liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever. _p_. 1451.
[Footnote 6: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two subjects of _navigation_ and _slavery_, had taken place between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and others.]