Other Compromisers

James Wilson (Pennsylvania):  It was James Wilson, together with Charles Pinckney who originally proposed the three-fifths compromise.  He also made the ingenious proposal that instead of saying that taxation shall be proportional to representation, representation shall be proportional to taxation in order to give the illusion that slaves were a object of taxation and only indirectly of representation.  But his comments at other times indicate that he did not like his own proposal.  “Are they [slaves] admitted as Citizens?  then why are the not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? are the admitted as property?  then why is not other property admitted into the computation?” When the final draft of the Constitution said “representation and direct taxation” would be on the three-fifths basis, he moved to strike out “direct taxes,” although he knew very well why they were linked.  Yet he stood by the three-fifths compromise and accepted it as necessary.   Wilson did not firmly commit himself on the issue of slave representation.  However, when Deep South delegates said both that South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to confederate is slave trade was not protected and that they would soon end slave trade on their own, Wilson pointed out the contradiction.  He was also one of two delegates who rather tepidly protested the fugitive slave clause, saying that he did not like to oblige the state executive to return slaves at public expense.

On commercial issues, Wilson was thoroughly northern.  He favored a federal authority to tax exports and apparently believed that to deny it to the federal government would automatically give the states that authority, and port states would use it to exploit their neighbors.  He opposed requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a navigation act, saying it was better to have the minority “bound hand and foot” (Mason’s words) by the majority than the majority to be bound by the minority.  If every interest was to be protected, they would have to require unanimity in passing laws.  

Nathaniel Gorham (Massachusetts):  Nathaniel Gorham was thoroughly open to a compromise on slavery.  He supported the three-fifths compromise, saying that while New Englanders might resist counting slave in representation, when the issue was taxation, they wanted all slaves counted.  He supported the compromise between New England and the Deep South, seconding a motion to extend the protection of slave trade from 1800 to 1808 and approving of taxing imported slaves.  He was uncompromising on the issue of commercial regulations, however, even willing to hazard the Union over commercial regulations, saying, “[T]he 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 the Southn States.” It was the South that faced the greatest danger in case of disunion, something he was clearly willing to consider. 

Hugh Williamson (North Carolina):  Hugh Williamson was an overall moderate.  He favored the three-fifths compromise in both taxation and representation, pointing out when the issue was representation, the North opposed counting slaves at all, but when the issue had been taxation, they took the opposite position.  He considered the three-fifths compromise reasonable.  The importation of slaves, he said, was permitted in North Carolina, but discouraged by a tax on all slaves imported.  He considered it better to protect slave trade than to see South Carolina and Georgia leave the Union.  He was unwilling to agree to any federal export tax, preferring even to pay Virginia’s taxes on exported tobacco, although when the motion was made to prohibit export taxes to either federal or state governments, he seconded it.   He also supported requiring a two-thirds vote on commercial regulations, saying that if northern states pushed commercial regulations too far, the south would build its own ships, but that southerners felt strongly about the subject.  Neither did he believe the South needed northern protection, their disease-ridden climate was protection enough.

Edmund Randolph (Virginia):  Edmund Randolph supported the three-fifths compromise, saying that he lamented that such a species of property existed, but since it did exist, owners would require security.  He was not as was not as resolute in opposing slave importation as George Mason, saying that he would rather risk the Constitution than give absolute protection to slave importation (i.e., Congress could never stop importation), but neither did he want to risk losing South Carolina and Georgia; he was willing to seek a compromise.  His most strongly southern position was on navigation acts.  Already wavering on whether to support the Constitution, he said that allowing a navigation act by a simple majority would complete the “deformity” of the system and, indeed, when he refused to sign the Constitution, he listed the lack of a restrain on navigation acts as one of his reasons for refusing to sign.  (Unlike George Mason, he did not list the protection of slave trade as a reason for refusing to sign).

All of this should make a certain pattern clear.  To the Northern states, ensuring that the South could not veto a navigation act was the single most important sectional issue.  They were quite willing to yield on slavery and on export taxes, issues that merely affected their moral sense, if they could have their way on navigation acts, an issue that affected their interests.