* * * * *
_Extracts from Debates in the Congress of Confederation, preserved by
Thomas Jefferson, 1776_.
On Friday, the twelfth of July, 1776, the committee appointed to draw
the articles of Confederation reported them, and on the twenty-second,
the House resolved themselves into a committee to take them into
consideration. On the thirtieth and thirty-first of that month, and
the first of the ensuing, those articles were debated which determined
the proportion or quota of money which each State should furnish to
the common treasury, and the manner of voting in Congress. The first
of these articles was expressed in the original draught in these
words:--
"Article 11. All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be
incurred for the common defence, or general welfare, and allowed by
the United States assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common
treasury, which shall be supplied by the several colonies in
proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age, sex and quality,
except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony, a true account of
which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall be triennially
taken and transmitted to the assembly of the United States."
Mr. Chase (of Maryland) moved, that the quotas should be paid, not by
the number of inhabitants of every condition but by that of the "white
inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be always in proportion
to property; that this was in theory the true rule, but that from a
variety of difficulties it was a rule which could never be adopted in
practice. The value of the property in every State could never be
estimated justly and equally. Some other measure for the wealth of the
State must therefore be devised, some standard referred to which would
be more simple. He considered the number of inhabitants as a tolerably
good criterion of property, and that this might always be obtained. He
therefore thought it the best mode we could adopt, with one exception
only. He observed that negroes are property, and as such cannot be
distinguished from the lands or personalities held in those States
where there are few slaves. That the surplus of profit which a
Northern farmer is able to lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c.;
whereas, a Southern farmer lays out that same surplus in slaves. There
is no more reason therefore for taxing the Southern States on the
farmer's head and on his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their
farmer's heads and the heads of their cattle. That the method proposed
would therefore tax the Southern States according to their numbers and
their wealth conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers
only: that negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the
State, more than cattle, and that they have no more interest in it.
Mr. John Adams (of Massachusetts) observed, that the numbers of people
were taken by this article as an index of the wealth of the State, and
not as subjects of taxation. That as to this matter, it was of no
consequence by what name you called your people, whether by that of
freemen or of slaves. That in some countries the laboring poor were
called freemen, in others they were called slaves: but that the
difference as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether
a landlord employing ten laborers on his farm gives them annually as
much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them
those necessaries at short hand? The ten laborers add as much wealth,
annually to the State, increase its exports as much, in the one case
as the other. Certainly five hundred freemen produce no more profits,
no greater surplus for the payment of taxes, than five hundred slaves.
Therefore the State in which are the laborers called freemen, should
be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose,
by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law, one half the
laborers of a State could in the course of one night be transformed
into slaves,--would the State be made the poorer, or the less able to
pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most
countries,--that of the fishermen, particularly, of the Northern
States,--is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of laborers
which produces the surplus for taxation; and numbers, therefore,
indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use of
the word "property" here, and its application to some of the people of
the State, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern farmer
procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his
neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of laborers
in his country, and proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay
taxes; if he buys from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a
laborer from one firm to another, which does not change the annual
produce of the State, and therefore should not change its tax; that if
a Northern farmer works ten laborers on his farm, he can, it is true,
invest the surplus of ten men's labor in cattle; but so may the
Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a State of one hundred
thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of one hundred
thousand slaves; therefore they have no more of that kind of property.
That a slave may, indeed, from the custom of speech, be more properly
called the wealth of his master, than the free laborer might be called
the wealth of his employer: but as to the State, both were equally its
wealth, and should therefore equally add to the quota of its tax.
Mr. Harrison (of Virginia) proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves
should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do
as much work as freemen, and doubted if two affected more than one.
That this was proved by the price of labor, the hire of a laborer in
the Southern colonies being from £9 to £12, while in the Northern it
was generally £24.
Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said, that if this amendment should take
place, the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,
whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves increase
the profits of a State, which the Southern States mean to take to
themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence, which
would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern; that slaves
occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your slaves,
and freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every
discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would
give thee _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves. That
other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed through all
the colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, and sheep, in the
North as the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves:
that experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to
pay most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or
white; and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to
make every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, whether they
be black or white. He acknowledged indeed that freemen worked the
most; but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater
surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so
expensively as a freeman. Again, white women are exempted from labor
generally, which negro women are not. In this then the Southern States
have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been
said that slavery was necessary, because the commodities they raise
would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is
said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.
Mr. Payne (of Massachusetts) urged the original resolution of Congress,
to proportion the quotas of the States to the number of souls.
Mr. Witherspoon (of New-Jersey) was of opinion, that the value of
lands and houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and
that it was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true
barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself, and
unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes eat the
food of freemen, and therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat the
food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has been said
too, that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes the State
is to pay, we do no more than those States themselves do, who always
take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual is to pay.
But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern Colonies, slaves
pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole continent.
That as to the original resolution of Congress, it was temporary only,
and related to the moneys heretofore emitted: whereas we are now
entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.
AUGUST 1st. The question being put, the amendment proposed was
rejected by the votes of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode-Island,
Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, against those of
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North, and South Carolina. Georgia was
divided. _Vol. I. pp_. 27-8-9, 30-1-2.
_Extracts from Madison's Report of Debates in the Congress of the
Confederation._
TUESDAY, Feb. 11, 1783.
Mr. Wolcott declares his opinion that the Confederation ought to be
amended by substituting numbers of inhabitants as the rule; admits the
difference between freemen and blacks; and suggests a compromise, by
including in the numeration such blacks only as were within sixteen
and sixty years of age. _p_. 331.
TUESDAY, March 27, 1783.
The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs:
Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) was strenuous in their favor; said he was
in Congress when the Articles of Confederation directing a valuation
of land were agreed to; that it was the effect of the impossibility of
compromising the different ideas of the Eastern and Southern States,
as to the value of slaves compared with the whites, the alternative in
question.
Mr. Clark (of New Jersey) was in favor of them. He said that he was
also in Congress when this article was decided; that the Southern
States would have agreed to numbers in preference to the value of
land, if half their slaves only should be included; but that the
Eastern States would not concur in that proposition.
It was agreed, on all sides, that, instead of fixing the proportion by
ages, as the, report proposed, it would be best to fix the proportion
in absolute numbers. With this view, and that the blank might be
filled up, the clause was recommitted. _p._ 421-2.
FRIDAY, March 28, 1783.
The committee last mentioned, reported that two blacks be rated as one
freeman.
Mr. Wolcott (of Connecticut) was for rating them as four to three. Mr.
Carroll as four to one. Mr. Williamson (of North Carolina) said he was
principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an incumbrance
to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes. Mr.
Higginson (of Massachusetts) as four to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South
Carolina) said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate
slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would he a
juster proportion. Mr. Holton as four to three.--Mr. Osgood said he
did not go beyond four to three. On a question for rating them as
three to two, the votes were. New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no;
Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey, aye;
Pennsylvania, aye; Delaware, aye; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North
Carolina, no; South Carolina, no. The paragraph was then proposed, by
general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it;
but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would be
agreed to.
After some further discussions on the Report, in which the necessity
of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into
view, Mr. Madison (of Virginia) said that, in order to give a proof of
the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that
slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. Rutledge (of South
Carolina) seconded the motion. Mr. Wilson (of Pennsylvania) said he
would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.
Mr. Lee was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that
two slaves were not equal to one freeman.
On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New
Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no;
Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye; Maryland, aye;
Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye: South Carolina, aye.
A motion was then made by Mr. Bland, seconded by Mr. Lee, to strike
out the clause so amended, and, on the question "Shall it stand," it
passed in the negative; New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye;
Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South
Carolina, no; so the clause was struck out.
The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that
the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that
incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those
of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the States having
slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility
of the others, ought to have greater weight in the case; and that the
exports of the former States were greater than of the latter. On the
other side, it was said, that slaves were not put to labor as young as
the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their
labor, they did as little as possible and omitted every exertion of
thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it: that if the exports
of the States having slaves exceeded those of the others, their
imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in
agriculture, not in manufacturers; and that, in fact, the balance of
trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the
others.
On the main question, New Hampshire, aye; Massachusetts, no; Rhode
Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York (Mr. Lloyd, aye); New Jersey,
aye; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye;
South Carolina, no. _pp._ 423-4-5.
Tuesday, April 1, 1783.
Congress resumed the Report on Revenue, &c. Mr. Hamilton, who had been
absent when the last question was taken for substituting numbers in
place of the value of land, moved to reconsider that vote. He was
seconded by Mr. Osgood. Those who voted differently from their former
votes were influenced by the conviction of the necessity of the
change, and despair on both sides of a more favorable rate of the
slaves. The rate of three-fifths was agreed to without opposition.
_p_. 430.
Monday, May 26.
The Resolutions on the Journal, instructing the ministers in Europe to
remonstrate against the carrying off the negroes--also those for
furloughing the troops--passed _unanimously_. _p_. 456.
* * * * *
_Extract from "Debates in the Federal Convention" of 1787, for the
formation of the Constitution 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,
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"--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 Massachusetts) 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,--Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye--9;
New jersey, Delaware, no--2. _Vol. II. pp._ 842-3.
Saturday, June 30, 1787.
He (Mr. Madison) admitted that every peculiar interest, whether in any
class 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 constitutional power of defence. But he contended that the
States were divided into different interests, not by their difference
of size, but by other circumstances; the most material of which
resulted partly from climate, but principally 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 assembly of certain
individuals, chosen, by the people, is substituted 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 assigned to use the term "slaves," and had
substituted 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 guardianship 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 circumstances, 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
assured 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 Massachusetts; 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 instituted principally, 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; Massachusetts, 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 entitle
them to a single representation. In the third place, it will not
consist with the resolution passed on Saturday 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.
pp. 1067-8-9 & 1072.