網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

following Sabbath would have been a day of special fasting and prayer. As it was, it was evident that on the Sabbath the delegates were thinking about something besides hymns and sermons. They assembled on Monday, July 16th, and promptly agreed to an equality of votes in the second branch of the legislature. Thus closed one of the most memorable contests in all American history. Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and North Carolina voted in the affirmative, and Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia in the negative. Massachusetts was divided, Mr. Gerry and Mr. Strong voting in the affirmative, and Mr. King and Mr. Gorham in the negative.

After the consummation of the compromise the delegates. from the small States were in a better frame of mind, and a more commendable spirit pervaded the Convention. The opposition now turned in and lent a helping hand. Additional powers were readily granted to the national legislature by those who heretofore dreaded the domination of the central government. Even Patterson, of New Jersey, became a "federalist of federalists." The Connecticut compromise was "a master stroke of diplomacy," and the credit for its introduction belongs to Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER V

THE SLAVERY COMPROMISES

It was stated repeatedly during the debate on the Connecticut compromise that there was a more logical antagonism between the North and South than there was between the large and the small States. This is true. While the differences between the large and the small States were largely fictitious, there was a real diversity of interests in the case of the Northern and Southern States. The interests of the

two sections were opposite in character. The South was agricultural, while New England was mainly industrial and commercial. Slavery existed in the South and was practically extinct in the North. These two great differences founded upon slavery and commerce constituted the basis of a sectional antagonism which was prominent at times in the Convention. These differences were settled by two famous compromises of the Constitution.

When it was decided on the 11th of June that there should be proportional representation in the first branch of the national legislature, the question arose as to whether this representation was to be proportioned to wealth or to numbers. Rutledge and Butler expressed themselves in favor of making wealth the basis, but Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, moved that representation in the first branch should be "in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex, and condition, including those bound to servitude for a

term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in each State." Mr. Gerry objected to making property the basis of representation. If we include the blacks of the South, said he, why not include the cattle and the horses of the North? The motion was carried, however, by a vote of nine to two, and there is no protest registered against it in Madison's notes, except that of Gerry noted above. The vote in its favor was a large one, only New Jersey and Delaware being in the opposition. The introduction and first adoption of the famous "three-fifths" rule by the Convention did not cause that commotion which we might expect. One wonders where Gouverneur Morris and the other abolitionists were when it was proposed to count the slaves for representation. The fact of the matter is that the "three-fifths" arrangement was a familiar one to the members of the Convention, and that Gouverneur Morris and others were to be heard on the question when it was reopened at a subsequent time.

The "three-fifths" rule was an old story to many of the members of the Convention. They had met it before in the Congress of the Confederation. On March 28, 1783,

Congress was devising a method of apportioning the quotas. of revenue among the States according to population. The question then arose, Should the slaves be counted? There was a difference of opinion, and various compromises were suggested. A committee reported "that two blacks be voted as one freeman.” Mr. Wolcott suggested four to three, and Mr. Carroll four to one as the proper ratios. Madison suggested the since famous ratio of five to three, and his view was adopted. The New Jersey plan provided that three-fifths of the slaves be included in counting the population for the purpose of levying requisitions, but the Randolph resolutions included only the "free inhabitants."

Although the question of the representation of the slaves was quickly and almost unanimously disposed of by the "three-fifths" rule, the matter came up for discussion again

on the 6th of July. Mr. Pinckney "thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with the whites; but would agree to the ratio settled by Congress." Mr. Patterson made a strong speech against the representation of the slaves. He looked upon them as property and remarked that they were not represented in their respective States. "And if negroes are not represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be represented in the General Government?" If a meeting of the people were actually to take place, he continued, the slaves would not vote. Why, then, should they be represented? He said that he was opposed to the encouragement which the proposed recognition would give to the slave trade, and he commented upon the fact that Congress was ashamed to use the term "slaves," but took refuge instead behind the description "three-fifths of all other persons." Mr. Butler and General Pinckney were in favor of including the blacks equally with the whites, and consequently moved to strike out the "three-fifths" clause. The step met with opposition from Massachusetts. Gerry was opposed to including more than three-fifths of the slaves, and Gorham was willing to include that number because it was the ratio adopted by Congress. Butler desired a full representation of the negroes on the ground that the labor of a slave was equal to that of a white man and should be equally represented. Mr. Mason considered the motion favorable to his State, but declared his opposition to it because it was unjust. The slaves, in his opinion, were not equal to the freemen and should not be counted as such. After a debate, less animated than the subject would seem to warrant, the Convention, by a vote of seven to three, refused to consider the "blacks as equal to whites in the apportionment of representation." Delaware voted with South Carolina and Georgia in favor of the equality of the blacks. When the discussion was resumed, Mr. King argued against the admission of the negroes to representation at all, on the ground that it "would excite great discontent among the States having no slaves."

Mr. Wilson then proceeded to attack the "three-fifths" compromise. "Are they (the slaves) admitted as citizensthen why are they not admitted on an equality with white citizens? Are they admitted as property-then why is not other property admitted into the computation?" All the members of the Convention would no doubt agree with Mr. Wilson that there was neither rhyme nor reason in the compromise, but the majority of them justified their adherence to it on the ground of expediency. Gouverneur Morris declared that he "could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade, as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes." The Convention then by a vote of six to four refused to include three-fifths of the slaves in the enumeration for representation. It now looked as if the opponents of slavery intended to exclude the negroes entirely, and such might have been the case had a compromise not been effected, later, between representation and taxation.

The matter came up again when Gouverneur Morris moved on July 12th "that taxation should be in proportion to representation." Mr. Butler agreed to the proposition, but insisted on including all the slaves in the enumeration. Mr. Davie, of North Carolina, now thought it "high time to speak out"; so he spoke out. He said that some members of the Convention were evidently attempting "to deprive the Southern States of any share of representation for their blacks. He was sure that North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate them at least as three-fifths. If the Eastern States meant, therefore, to exclude them altogether, the business was at an end." Gouverneur Morris also spoke out. He said that "he verily believed the people of Pennsylvania will never agree to a representation of negroes." Dr. Johnson, true to his Connecticut traditions, uttered a compromise idea. He held that "wealth and population were the true, equitable rules of representation," and "that all descriptions, including blacks equally with the whites, ought to fall within the computation." General Pinckney got in a word for the

« 上一頁繼續 »