Volume III Part 82 (1/2)
_Extract from ”Debates in the Federal Convention” of 1787, for the formation of the Const.i.tution of the United States_.
Monday, June 11, 1787.
It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to the words, ”equitable ratio of representation,” at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words, ”according to the quotas of contribution.” On motion of Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, this was postponed, in order to add, after the words, ”equitable rates of representation,” the words following: ”In proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, s.e.x 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”--this being the rule in the act of Congress, agreed to by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the States, and requiring a census only every five, seven, or ten years.
Mr. Gerry (of Ma.s.sachusetts) thought property not the rule of representation. Why, then, should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than, the cattle and horses of the North?
On the question,--Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9; New jersey, Delaware, no--2. _Vol. II. pp._ 842-3.
Sat.u.r.day, June 30, 1787.
He (Mr. Madison) admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any cla.s.s of citizens, or any description of states, ought to be secured as far as possible. Wherever there is danger of attack, there ought to be given a const.i.tutional power of defence. But he contended that the States were divided into different interests, not by their difference of size, but by other circ.u.mstances; the most material of which resulted partly from climate, but princ.i.p.ally from the effects of their having or not having slaves. These two causes concurred in forming the great division of interests in the United States. It did not lie between the large and small States. IT LAY BETWEEN THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN; and if any defensive power were necessary, it ought to be mutually given to these two interests. He was so strongly impressed with this important truth, that he had been casting about in his mind for some expedient that would answer the purpose. The one which had occurred was, that instead of proportioning the votes of the States in both branches to their respective numbers of inhabitants, computing the slaves in the ratio of five to three, they should he represented in one branch according to the number of free inhabitants only; and in the other, according to the whole number, counting the slaves us free. By this arrangement the Southern scale would have the advantage in one House, and the Northern in the other. He had been restrained from proposing this expedient by two considerations; one was his unwillingness to urge any diversity of interests on an occasion where it is but too apt to arise of itself; the other was, the inequality of powers that must be vested in the two branches, and which would destroy the equilibrium of interests. _pp._ 1006-7.
Monday, July 9, 1787.
Mr. Patterson considered the proposed estimate for the future according to the combined rules of numbers and wealth, as too vague.
For this reason New Jersey was against it. He could regard negro slaves in no light but as property. They are no free agents, have no personal liberty, no faculty of acquiring property, but on the contrary are themselves property, and like other property, entirely at the will of the master. Has a man in Virginia a number of votes in proportion to the number of his slaves? And if negroes are not represented in the States to which they belong, why should they be represented in the General Government. What is the true principle of representation? It is an experiment by which an a.s.sembly of certain individuals, chosen, by the people, is subst.i.tuted in place of the inconvenient meeting of the people themselves. If such a meeting of the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote? They would not. Why then should they be represented? He was also against such an indirect encouragement of the slave trade; observing that Congress, in their act relating to the change of the eighth article of Confederation, had been a.s.signed to use the term ”slaves,” and had subst.i.tuted a description.
Mr. Madison reminded Mr. Patterson that his doctrine of representation, which was in its principle the genuine one, must for ever silence the pretensions of the small States to an equality of votes with the large ones. They ought to vote in the same proportion in which their citizens would do if the people of all the States were collectively met. He suggested, as a proper ground of compromise, that in the first branch the States should be represented according to their number of free inhabitants; and in the second, which has for one of its primary objects, the guardians.h.i.+p of property, according to the whole number, including slaves.
Mr. Butler urged warmly the justice and necessity of regarding wealth in the apportionment of representation.
Mr. King had always expected, that, as the Southern States are the richest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless some respect was paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages which they will derive from the connexion, they must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of thirteen of the States had agreed to consider slaves in the apportionment of taxation; and taxation and representation ought to go together. _pp_. 1054-5-6.
Tuesday, July 10; 1787.
Mr. King remarked that the four Eastern States, having 800,000 souls, have one-third fewer representatives than the four Southern States, having not more than 700,000 souls, rating the blacks as five for three. The Eastern people will advert to these circ.u.mstances, and be dissatisfied. He believed them to be very desirous of uniting with their Southern brethren, but did not think it prudent to rely so far on that disposition, as to subject them to any gross inequality. He was fully convinced that THE QUESTION CONCERNING A DIFFERENCE OF INTERESTS DID NOT LIE WHERE IT HAD HITHERTO BEEN DISCUSSED, BETWEEN THE GREAT AND SMALL STATES: BUT BETWEEN THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN. _p_.
1057.
Wednesday, July 11, 1787.
Mr. Butler and General Pinckney insisted that blacks be included in rule of representation _equally_ with the whites; and for that purpose moved that the words ”three-fifths” be struck out.
Mr. Gerry thought that three fifths of them was, to say the least, the full proportion that could be admitted.
Mr. Gorham. This ratio was fixed by Congress as a rule of taxation.
Then, it was urged, by the delegates representing the States having slaves, that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At present, when the ratio of representation is to be established, we are a.s.sured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on the former occasion had convinced them that three fifths was pretty near the just proportion, he should vote according to the same opinion now.
Mr. Butler insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as productive and valuable as that of a freeman in Ma.s.sachusetts; that as wealth was the greatest means of defence and utility to the nation, they were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government which was inst.i.tuted princ.i.p.ally, for the protection of property, and was itself to be supported by property.
Mr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was favorable to Virginia, because he thought it unjust. It was certain that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land, increased the exports and imports, and of course the revenue, would supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in cases of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these important respects they were useful to the community at large, they ought not to be excluded from the estimate of representation. He could not, however, regard them as equal to freemen, and could not vote for them as such. He added, as worthy of remark, that the Southern States have this peculiar species of property, over and above the other species of property common to all the States.
Mr. Williamson reminded Mr. Gorham, that if the Southern States contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites, when taxation was in view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their equality. He did not, however, either then or now, concur in either extreme, but approved of the ratio of three-fifths.
On Mr. Butler's motion, for considering blacks as equal to whites in the apportionment of representation,--Delaware, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--3; Ma.s.sachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, no--7. New York not on the floor.
Mr. Gouverneur Morris said he had several objections to the proposition of Mr. Williamson. In the first place it fettered the Legislature too much. In the second place, it would exclude some States altogether who would not have a sufficient number to ent.i.tle them to a single representation. In the third place, it will not consist with the resolution pa.s.sed on Sat.u.r.day last, authorizing the Legislature to adjust the representation, from time to time on the principles of population and wealth; nor with the principles of equity. If slaves were to be considered as inhabitants, not as wealth, then the said resolution would not be pursued; if as wealth, then why is no other wealth but slaves included? These objections may perhaps be removed by amendments.... Another objection with him, against admitting the blacks into the census, was, that the people of Pennsylvania would revolt at the idea of being put on a footing with slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have such an effect.