One can almost see the Old Dictator leap to his feet. "Religion & humanity had nothing to do with this question," Rutledge thundered. "Interest alone is the governing principle with Nations—The true question at present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers." But could not tax, he might have added.
For more than three months, the convention had more or less succeeded in avoiding the slave trade. Like a dead mouse in the walls, the delegates had usually pretended the subject did not exist, despite the overpowering stink. Even Rutledge's rider to the export tax clause had engendered no comment other than his own. With one short statement, Luther Martin had ended all that.
With the issue finally on the floor, Ellsworth supported Rutledge. "Let every State import what it pleases," he insisted. "The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves."
Concluding debate for the day, Charles Pinckney asserted with typical subtlety that "South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly & watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes." Pinckney closed by offering an inducement. "If the states be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia & Maryland have already done."13
When Pinckney had completed his remarks, the session was adjourned without a vote on Luther Martin's motion. As they left for their lodgings, George Mason and other planters of the Upper South must have been livid and more than a little nervous. Rutledge and F'mckney had been expected to insist on continuing the slave trade of course, but Ellsworth? If the African trade continued, the domestic slave trade, on which Virginia was banking so heavily, was doomed. Whether Mason visited Luther Martin's rooms or passed the time alone is unknown, but he must have spent the night stewing, because when he arrived at Convention Hall on August 22, he was in an obvious fury.
Roger Sherman opened the session. Speaking in his "strange New England cant," he asserted that he "disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the states were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, & 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."14
Mason spoke next. Jefferson, describing Mason's skills as an orator, had said, "His elocution was neither flowing nor smooth, but his language was strong, his manner most impressive, and strengthened by a dash of biting cynicism when provocation made it seasonable."15 Never was provocation more seasonable, so, in his strongest, most impressive, and biting manner, George Mason delivered perhaps the best known, most impassioned, and most misunderstood address of the entire convention.
"This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British Merchants," began the owner of more than three hundred human beings. "The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing of slaves alone but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have by the Enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands . . . he mentioned dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Italy . . . Maryland & Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N. Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain if S. Carolina & Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands: and will fill that country with slaves if they can be got through S. Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich and strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners.
James Madison's notes on George Mason's speech on slavery
"Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant," Mason bellowed. "They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country . . . He lamented that some of our eastern brethren had, with a lust of gain, embarked in this nefarious traffic . . . He held it essential in every point of view, that the Genl. Govt. should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery."16
These were essentially the same sentiments that Mason had voiced in Virginia, where he had received an excellent reception from his fellow planters. But this was not the Virginia legislature. Immediately after Mason had taken his seat, Oliver Ellsworth rose. Ellsworth, who seemed more attuned to other delegates' hypocrisies than his own, noted, "As he had never owned a slave, he could not judge the effects of slavery on character." He continued, "As slaves multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no further than is urged [restricting imports only] we shall be unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle." Ellsworth added, "If it was to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those already in the country."17
Mason was unused to such treatment and since freeing slaves was, needless to say, not at all what he had in mind, he did not respond. More than that, he did not open his mouth for the rest of the day, as unusual an occurrence in Philadelphia that summer as snow. Mason's pique did not end the debate. After Ellsworth, the Pinckneys weighed m. Charles noted all the advanced civilizations of antiquity in which slavery was common, and then repeated his offer to end the slave trade in South Carolina, even promising to vote for it. His cousin, however, was more to the point. "South Carolina and Georgia can not do without slaves," asserted the general. "As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping importations. Her slaves will rise in value and she has more than she wants . . . the importation of slaves," he went on, "would be for the interest of the whole union. The more slaves, the more produce to the carrying trade; the more consumption also and the more of this the more revenue for the common treasury."
Pinckney added that a prohibition of the slave trade would be tantamount to excluding South Carolina from the Union. Williamson of North Carolina and Abraham Baldwin of Georgia both agreed that their states could not agree to union if the extension of the slave trade were rejected.
Pennsylvania's Wilson could not resist pointing out that "if S. C. & Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time as had been suggested, they would never refuse to Unite because the importation might be prohibited." But Wilson was not so much asking for the slave trade to end as he was trying to raise revenue through it. "As the section now stands," he added, "all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article." Rufus king, modifying his stance from moral outrage to fiscal propriety, seconded Wilson's objection, noting, "the exemption of slaves from duty whilst every other import was subjected to it, was an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northn. & middle States."
Then Delaware's John Dickinson rose. The man who had lamented how slavery branded America in the eyes of the world said that he "considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor and safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the states by the Constitution." He hastened to add, however, that "the true question was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation."
After Langdon also expressed doubts about the Lower South ever terminating the slave trade on its own, General Pinckney felt the need to repudiate his young cousin. The general "thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think S. Carolina would stop importations of slaves in any short time." Then he made his offer to the New Englanders by moving "to commit the clause that slaves might be liable to an equal tax with other imports which he thought right & wch. wd. Remove one difficulty that had
been started."
Rutledge added, by way of closing argument, "If the Convention thinks that N. C; S. C. & Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is in vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest." He agreed that the matter should be committed.
The choice was clear. Northerners could choose to align themselves with the moral arguments of Virginia (hollow as they may have been) or the economic inducements of South Carolina. Gouverneur Morris, the man who had spoken with such vitriol less than two weeks earlier, let Virginia know what that choice was likely to be. He "wished the whole subject to be committed including the clauses relating to taxes on exports & to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern & Southern States." Morris, like king and Dickinson, seemed willing to pay almost any price for union.
After Mason's jeremiad, the entire discussion had been conducted between northerners and delegates from the Lower South, as if they were hammering out their deal on the floor of the convention. Not only was Mason silent—no member of the Virginia delegation said anything at all until just before the vote to commit, when Edmund Randolph addressed the convention, his desperation obvious.
Randolph said he "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 wd. 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 chance of a commitment."
The motion to commit passed 7-3. Immediately thereafter, Pinckney and Langdon moved to also commit the section requiring two-thirds of each house to accede to any navigation act. Gorham protested. "Is it meant to require a greater proportion of votes?" he asked, fearing a three-fourths majority. He reminded the southerners of their end of the deal. "He desired it to be remembered that the eastern states had no motive to union but a commercial one. They were able to protect themselves. They were not afraid of external danger, and did not need the aid of southern states." To clarify, Wilson proposed commitment "in order to reduce the proportion of votes required."
Ellsworth did not want to take any chances on another committee wrecking the deal. He "was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of opinions has a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this middle & moderate ground he was afraid we should lose two States, with such others as may be disposed to stand aloof, should fly into a variety of shapes & directions, and most probably into several confederations and not without bloodshed." Nevertheless, the motion to commit the rule on navigation acts passed 9-2.
Another committee of eleven was appointed to work out a compromise on navigation acts and the slave trade. Madison was chosen to represent Virginia and Luther Martin represented Maryland. This is how Martin later described the proceedings:
"I found the Eastern States notwithstanding their aversion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the Southern States, at least with 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 very great majority, agreed on a report by which the general government was to be prohibited from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted."18
On August 24, the committee of eleven presented its report, although there was to be no discussion until the next day. The reworked clause read, "The migration or importation of such persons as the several states now existing shall think it proper to admit, shall not be prohibited 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 duties laid on imports."19 The section requiring a two-thirds majority to pass navigation acts was stricken.
The following morning, the elder Pinckney moved to extend the window on slave trading until 1808, a motion seconded by Gorham. To this point, Madison had stayed out of the debate. Nor did he seem to have participated much in the committee of eleven. Now, however, watching his beautiful edifice reduced to compromises over a repugnant practice and petty profiteering, he could sit by no longer. "Twenty years will produce all the mischief that be can apprehended from the liberty to import slaves," he observed tartly. "So long a term will be more dishonorable to the national character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution."20
The vote for the extension until 1808 passed easily, New England and the Lower South between them constituting a majority of the eleven states present. After the vote, Gouverneur Morris, whose wit could be lacerating, moved that the clause should read, "importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S—Carolina &Georgia." He said this "would be most fair and . . . he wished it be known also that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with these States."
Mason, thinking Morris serious, replied that while he was not against using the word "slave," he thought it would offend his good friends to the South to have their states named. Sherman also thought naming the states a bad idea. George Clymer, a Pennsylvania shipper, agreed, and North Carolina's Williamson, while assuring the delegates that "both in opinion and practice he was against slavery," thought it "more in favor of humanity" not to exclude South Carolina and Georgia from the Union.
Morris withdrew his motion.
As to the question of taxing the imported slaves, Mason quickly asserted, "Not to tax will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves." Were a sufficiently high tax imposed on African slaves, he hoped, Virginia slaves might begin to be more appealing.
Even the South Carolina delegates could not object, and a tax was approved. What was most interesting in this exchange, however, was a throwaway by Madison, who "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men." Apparently it was not equally wrong that there indeed was property in men.21
Not until the following Wednesday, August 29, did the recommendation by the committee of eleven to strike the section requiring a two-thirds majority on navigation acts come up for discussion. As soon as the question was introduced, Charles Pinckney, always drawn to the outrageous, tried to renege on South Carolina's quid pro quo. "The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of S. States. They did not need the protection of the N. States at present."22 He moved that the section read, "No act of the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of the U. S. with foreign powers, or among the several States, shall be passed without the assent of two thirds of the members of each House." Luther Martin seconded.
Charles Pinckney
Passage of Pinckney's motion might have saved Virginia. Like the slave system, navigation acts would have a vast economic impact on the South, and, perhaps to avoid their impact, South Carolina might have seen that realigning itself with its slaveholding brethren was preferable to doing business with the New Englanders.
But any such hope was soon dashed. Once again, the elder Pinckney was quick to rein in his cousin. "Considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southn. 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." The general added that "he had himself... prejudices against the Eastern States before he came here but would acknowledge that he found them as liberal and candid as any man whatever."
Clymer and Sherman followed, both indicating that a two-thirds majority was a bad idea, neither mentioning the bargain that was by now enough of an open secret that Madison included it as a note in his records.23 Richard Dobbs Spaight, a North Carolina planter, announced that he opposed Charles Pinckney's motion, as did Pinckney's fellow S
outh Carolinian Pierce Butler.
George Mason tried again. "If the Govt. is to be lasting, it must be founded in the confidence & affections of the people . . . The Majority will be governed by their interests. The Southern States are the minority in both houses. Is it to be expected that they will deliver themselves bound hand & foot to the Eastern States and enable them to exclaim in the words of Cromwell on a certain occasion—' the Lord hath delivered them into our hands?' "
Wilson refuted Mason, noting that "the majority would be no more governed by interest than the minority." Madison delivered a long address, one of his few at this stage of the proceedings, noting both sides of the question but concluding that northern control over commerce would actually be a benefit to Virginia, as "the increase of the Coasting trade, and of seamen, would be favor able to the S. States by increasing the consumption of their produce."
After Rutledge also announced himself against Pinckney's motion, stating that "it did not follow from a grant of the power to regulate trade that it would be abused," and that navigation acts were necessary in "laying the foundation for a great empire," Edmund Randolph took the floor.
The putative author of the Virginia Plan spoke with despair. "There were features so odious in the Constitution as it now stands, that he doubted whether he should be able to agree to it. A rejection of the motion would complete the deformity of the system . . . He did not mean, however, to enter into the merits. What he had in view was merely to pave the way for a declaration which he might be hereafter obliged to make if an accumulation of the obnoxious ingredients should take place, that he could not give his assent to plan."
If the slave trade were continued and the North prevailed with a simple majority for navigation acts, Randolph and Mason were almost certain to refuse to endorse the plan. Patrick Henry was already on record as opposing the entire idea and the possibility began to loom that Virginia, one of the two most important states, might refuse to ratify the Constitution altogether. Still, northern shippers, having granted concessions on almost everything else, were not about to see their prosperity threatened. Gorham said, "If the government is to be so fettered as to be unable to relieve the eastern states what motive can they have to join in it, and thereby tie their own hands from measures which they could otherwise take for themselves."
Dark Bargain Page 20