Saturday, August 16, 2014

James Madison: Compromiser on North-South Issues

The next sub-group of delegates were the compromisers.  These may roughly be defined at the delegates who wanted to avoid sectional conflict and were eager to make concessions to sweep the whole thing under the rug.


James Madison (Virginia):  Madison, as mentioned in a previous post, opposed equality in the Senate.  Wanting proportional representation in both houses, he proposed instead of the three-fifths compromise that house be proportional to free population and one be proportional to total population, so that the north would dominate one house and the south the other.  His only fear was that if the houses had unequal power they equilibrium between sections would be destroyed. The house based on free population would be to protector of people and the one based on total population would be the protector of property (including slaves.  Despite including slaves in the property he wanted to protect, Madison was clearly uncomfortable about slavery.  He opposed the protection of slave importation, even on a temporary (20 year) basis and opposed taxing slaves imported on the grounds that it legitimized that idea that there could be property in people.  In discussing the tendency of majorities to oppress minorities, he even said, “We have seen the mere distinction of colour made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man.” 

Madison took a decidedly northern viewpoint on commercial issues.  He favored allowing Congress to tax exports, even though it would be unfavorable to the South because the Southern States, as the most vulnerable and in need of naval protection, should be willing to shoulder a heavier share of the burdens.  Besides, if states were allowed to tax exports, port states would unjustly exploit states without major ports.*  Considering that export taxes were one of Virginia’s main sources of revenue, this was certainly a statesmanlike position.  Since foreign trade would be the main source of revenue it would not matter whether it was drawn solely from imports or from both imports and exports.  As an alternative, he proposed requiring a two-thirds vote to tax exports.  He also took the northern viewpoint that Congress should be able to pass a navigation act by a simple majority.  Among his reasons, he included that allowing one third of Congress to block a navigation act would increase the danger of bribery by a foreign power, that an oppressive act was unlikely to pass both houses of the legislature and the executive veto, that the agriculture interest outnumbered the commercial even in the north, and that American shipping needed to be encouraged for security reasons.  Besides, he said, in a final gesture of statesmanship:

The increase of the coasting trade, and of seamen, would also be favorable to the S. States, by increasing, the consumption of their produce.  If the Wealth of the Eastern should in a still greater proportion be augmented, that wealth wd contribute more to the public wants, and otherwise be a national benefit.

Although not one of the great north-south issues, Madison also briefly came out in favor of direct popular election of the President, an arrangement that would obviously put the South at a disadvantage, since slaves did not vote.  Yet, Madison said, it was all-important to keep election of the executive out of the hands of the legislature, which would lead to dangerous intrigue.  “[L]ocal considerations must give way to the general interest.  As an individual from the S. States he was willing to make the sacrifice.”  



*It was generally assumed at the time that either the central government or the states would have the authority to tax exports, and that the two were mutually exclusive.  Ultimately a compromise was reached; neither would be allowed to tax exports.

No comments:

Post a Comment