South Carolina: Premier Defender of Slavery

The most stubborn defenders of slavery were, of course, the South Carolina delegation.  They were occasionally joined by a colleague from Georgia, but South Carolina took the lead.  The issue the South Carolinians were most insistent on was slave importation, followed by slave representation.  They were willing to make concessions on commercial regulations to gain northern votes on slavery.  South Carolina appears to have been the only Southern state willing to give ground on this issue, presumably because slavery was more important to them.

John Rutledge:  John Rutledge served on the Committee of Detail that drew up the first draft of the Constitution and was presumably responsible for the three provisions that favored the South.  He made no attempt to morally defend the importation of slaves, “Religion & humanity had nothing to do with this question.  Interest alone is the governing principle with nations.”  Quite simply, he said, the Deep South would not join the Union unless their importation of slaves was secured.  To sweeten the deal, he offered to excuse other states from protecting the South from slave insurrections, and pointed out the increasing slave would increase southern produce that northern ships could transport.  But the Deep South would never be “such fools as to give up so important an interest.” He was also willing to make concessions on a navigation act.  The power would not necessarily be abused, and in any event, and at worst it would only bear a little hard on the South.  A navigation act would be necessary to secure the West India trade.  He also called for a provision against any constitutional amendment that would disrupt the compromise protecting slave trade until 1808.

Pierce Butler:  It was Pierce Butler who proposed requiring fugitive slaves to be extradited between states on the same terms as criminals.  He also moved to include all slaves in representation:

[He] insisted that the labour of a slave in S. Carola was as productive & valuable as that of a freeman in Masst, that as wealth was the great meand of defence and utility to the Nation they were equally valuable to it with freemen; that the consequently 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.

He also opposed export taxes.  He also joined his other South Carolina colleagues in supporting the sectional compromise between New England and South Carolina; he said the interests of the “Eastern” and Southern states were as different as Russia and Turkey, but he would agree to allow navigation acts by a simple majority in the interest of conciliation.  Butler was very clear about South Carolina’s interests, “The security the Southn States want is that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some gentlemen within or without doors, have a very good mind to do.”

   Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (General Pinckney):  Charles Cotesworth Pinckney favored including all slaves in representation and was willing to include all slaves in taxation to win the privilege.  He also opposed taxing exports and saw the two as linked:

S. Carolina has in one year exported to the amount of  600,000 pounds Sterling all of which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks.  Will she be represented in proportion to this amount?  She will not.  Neither ought she to be subject to a tax on it.

General Pinckney was especially clear in pointing out that Virginia’s motives in opposing slave trade were not altogether altruistic, “As to Virginia she will gain by stopping the importations.  Her slaves will rise in value & she has more than she wants.”  The Deep South could not do without slaves, and would not agree to the Constitution without protection of slave importation, even if the entire delegation agreed to it.  Like Butler, he argued that slaves would increase exports and shipping.  He would agree to let slaves be taxed like other imports, but a prohibition on slave imports would exclude South Carolina from the Union.  The original proposed compromise would have protected slave trade until 1800; General Pinckney moved to extend it to 1808 and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, in accordance with the sectional compromise, seconded the motion.  In turn, he upheld South Carolina’s half of the bargain.  Although he said it was in the interest of the Southern states to have no regulations on commerce, considering New England’s “liberal conduct” toward South Carolina and the interest of the “weak” southern states to be united with the “strong Eastern States,” he would agree to allowing commercial regulations by a simple majority. 

            Like the others, General Pinckney was very protective of South Carolina’s interest in slaves.  He was even uneasy about the Constitutional provision that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States,” wanting some provision in favor of property in slaves.

Charles Pinckney (Mr. Pinckney):  Charles Pinckney offered the only speech approaching a moral defense of slavery in the Constitutional Convention:

If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world.  He cited the case of Greece Rome & other antient States; the sanction given by France England, Holland & other modern States.  In all ages one half mankind have been slaves.  

Yet at the same time he said that left to herself, South Carolina would probably end slave importations, and that he himself would support such a law, and also, quite contradictorily, that South Carolina would never agree to the Constitution unless it protected the importation of slaves.

As stated before, it was Charles Pinckney, together with Wilson, who originally proposed the three-fifths compromise.  Yet once the formula was adopted, he later moved to include all slaves in representation, and for much the same reason as General Pinckney and Butler:

The blacks are the labourers, the peasants of the Southern States: they are as productive of pecuniary resources as those of the Northern States.  They add equally to the wealth, and considering money as the sinew of war, to the strength of the nation. 

Unlike the other South Carolina delegates, Charles Pinckney did not consider himself bound by a sectional compromise on commercial regulations.  Instead, he proposed to require a two-thirds majority on all commercial regulations, internal or external.  He feared oppressive regulations of a simple majority, saying the power of regulating commerce was a “pure concession” by the South, which did not need the protection of the northern states.  In this he was overruled.  At the end of the Convention Charles Pinckney urged the others to sign the Constitution despite their objections, saying he had objections of his own, including the authority of Congress to regulate trade by a simple majority.

And now, on to the most interesting and complex topic debated at the Constitutional Convention -- how democratic should the new government be, and by what definition?

---

*No such provision was included. However, nearly a hundred years later, the Confederate Constitution would do just that, guarantying the citizens of the Confederacy the right to take their slaves to any state or territory without compromising their ownership.

North-South Issues and the Connecticut Delegation

The Connecticut delegates, for whatever reason, sided with the Deep South, particularly on the issue of slave importation.  When the subject was being debated, delegates from most of the states spoke up for prohibiting the importation of slaves, the South Carolina delegates had one set of allies, the delegates from Connecticut.  Indeed, it is difficult to draw the line between statesmanship (willingness to make tough compromises) and spinelessness, but the Connecticut delegation gives the impression of crossing that line altogether.

Roger Sherman:  Roger Sherman particularly crossed the line between statesmanship and spinelessness as on the issue of slave importation.  Although considered the slave trade "iniquitous," he said that he did not believe the public good required it to be prohibited, and it was better to let the Deep South import slaves than depart.  At the same time, “He acknowledged that if the power or prohibiting the importation should be given to the general government that it would be exercised.  He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.”  This is an extraordinary argument; we must forbid the government from doing the right thing, or it would actually have to do it!  Like Madison, Sherman opposed allowing a tax on imported slaves as implying they were property and preferred mealy-mouthed euphemisms to actually using the word “slave.”

Sherman was equally spineless on slave representation.  He defended the three-fifths compromise by saying that representation was based on taxation and that slaves were included in the estimate of taxation and only incidentally in representation – this although he had been present when Morris and Wilson proposed that ploy as nothing but clever window dressing.  He did rather tepidly protest the requirement to return runaway slaves, saying he saw no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave or a servant than a horse, but neither Sherman nor anyone else was prepared to treat fugitive slaves as a major issue. 

He also took the southern viewpoint in opposing a federal tax on exports, saying that since different states had different exports, a federal export tax was apt to be discriminatory.  The authority to tax exports should be left to states, and the federal government could use its authority to regulate interstate commerce to prevent states with major ports from oppressing their neighbors.  On the other hand, he seemed to like prohibiting anyone, federal or state, from taxing exports.  Sherman did take the northern viewpoint on the most important issue to New England; commercial regulation, arguing that there were enough different interests to prevent the majority from abusing its power, and that requiring a two-thirds vote would obstruct laws too much.

            Oliver Ellsworth:  Unlike Sherman, Oliver Ellsworth’s defense of slave trade was no so much spineless as frankly amoral.  “The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the states themselves.  What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interest.”  He defended the importation of slaves on states rights grounds, “let every state import what it pleases.”   Yet giving Congress authority to regulate foreign trade necessarily meant not allowing each state to import what it pleased.  Why may an exception to the one import that was morally indefensible?  To George Mason’s argument that slavery was corrupting, Ellsworth replied,  "As he had never owned a slave could not judge the effects of slavery on character:  He said however that if it was to be considered we ought to go farther and free those already in the Country."  This is not an abolitionist argument; quite the contrary, Ellsworth is warning Mason that it is unwise for a Virginia planter to take too strong a moral stand against slavery, or he will end up condemning himself.  He then went on to point out that Virginians’ opposition to slavery is not entirely altruistic; their slaves were multiplying so fast it was cheaper to raise than import them, whereas in the rice swamps of the Deep South slave die off and imports are necessary.  Slavery will die out as more poor laborers immigrate; the process was already underway in New England.  “As to the danger of insurrections from foreign influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.”

Ellsworth apparently believed that representation should be by wealth, but supported three-fifths compromise “until some other rule shall more accurately ascertain the wealth of the several States.”   He opposed federal export taxes for much the same reasons as Sherman; because most exports were from the South (tobacco, rice, indigo), a federal export tax would be discriminatory and lead to conflict between the states.  An export tax would also discourage industry and production, as opposed to an import tax, which discouraged luxury and consumption.  And, like Sherman, Ellsworth believed that federal regulation of interstate commerce would prevent states with major ports from exploiting their neighbors or, alternately, that if port states taxed their neighbors too much, their neighbors would start exporting directly.  He was apparently even willing to concede the most important issue to the north, a two-thirds vote on commercial regulations, to avoid splitting the union.

William Samuel Johnson:  However, the most proslavery of the Connecticut delegates was William Samuel Johnson.  Johnson only addressed one north-south issue; the issue of slave representation:  

Dr. Johnson, thought that wealth and population were the true equitable rule of representation; but he conceived that these two principles resolved themselves into one; population being the best measure of wealth. He concluded therefore that ye number of people ought to be established as the rule, and that all descriptions including blacks [i.e., slaves] equally with the whites, ought to fall within the computation.

When the vote on including all slaves in representation was taken, only South Carolina and Georgia voted for it; the other Southern states, even Virginia where slaves were 40% of the population, thought including all slaves in representation was going to far. Outside those two states, only William Samuel Johnson of Connecticut and two unnamed Pennsylvanians supported counting all slaves in representation.

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.  

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.

Other Anti-Slavery Delegates

No other delegate spoke up as strongly against slavery as Morris or Mason, but some seemed opposed to "slave power" in one way or another.

            Elbridge Gerry (Massachusetts):  Elbridge Gerry said little on North-South issues.  He opposed any slave representation, saying that slaves should no more be the rule of representation in the South than horses and cattle in the North and listed slave representation as one of his reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution.  With regard to importation of slaves, he somewhat ambiguously said, “We had nothing to do with the conduct of States as to Slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.”  Apparently, this meant that he did not take any moral responsibility for states that owned slaves, but did not want any explicit protection of slavery in the Constitution.  He agreed with the South that an export tax might be applied discriminatorily against one section of the country, or used to coerce or compel states.  Gerry did not speak on navigation acts although, like all New Englanders, he presumably regarded them as critically important.

            William Paterson (New Jersey):  The only North-South issue William Paterson addressed was the issue of slave representation, which he opposed.  Representation, he said, is a substitute for the entire population meeting as a legislature, which, of course, is not possible.  “If such a meeting of the people was actually to take place, would the slaves vote?  They would not.  When then shd they be represented.”  He also said that including states in representation would encourage slave importation, and pointed out that the Articles of Confederation had twisted themselves into knots to avoid actually saying slave, a practice the Constitution continued.

            John Dickinson (Delaware):  John Dickinson “considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor & safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the States by the Constitution” and made clear that he considered the issue to be a national and not a state one.  In response to Charles Pinckney, who said that Greece, Rome, England, France and Holland all allowed slaves, Dickinson replied that all these societies experienced more harm than good from slavery.  At the very least, he wanted importation to be limited to states (North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia) that currently permitted slaves to be imported.  When the Constitution said that representation and direct taxation would be apportioned by the 3/5 rule, Dickinson unsuccessfully moved to remove “direct taxation,” although removing the reference to taxation would certainly make the rule less palatable.  He opposed a complete ban on export taxes, proposing instead to exempt certain items and believed that Congress should be required to approve inspection fees on exports to prevent states from disguising export taxes as inspection fees.

            Rufus King (Massachusetts):  Rufus King’s overall position was not so much opposition to any one concession to the South as to the cumulative weight of all of them.  Protecting the importation of slaves, including them in representation, pledging states to protect each other, and forbidding a tax on the exports that slaves produced were all too much. 

Shall all the States then be bound to defend each; & shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence (sic.) more difficult?  Shall one part of the U.S. be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold compensation for the burden?

King said he was not sure he could assent to protecting the importation of slaves under any circumstances, but at the very least he would not agree to their importation and representation.  “At all events, either slave should not be represented, or exports should be taxed.”  This would seem to imply that slave importation was the point he was most willing to concede.  He also said that the Northern states would never agree to make all imports taxable except for slaves.  Nonetheless, he ultimately went along with the same devil’s bargain as the other New Englanders.  King’s views on slave representation were somewhat ambiguous – he said he opposed representation by population because it would mean including slaves, yet he also agreed that the South should have greater representation because of its greater wealth.

            Luther Martin (Maryland):  It was Luther Martin who first proposed to remove the passage that protected slave importation.  The reasons he gave were (1) including slaves in representation would encourage representation, (2) slaves weakened one part of the Union that others were bound to protect, and (3) “it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.”  Presumably it was that last argument that carried the most weight with Martin.  Martin, as an extreme state sovereignty man, wanted representation to be by states instead of by population, and therefore he had not position on slave representation.  It is probably significant, though, that he did not protest slave representation; as a Maryland delegate he was, after all, a Southerner.  He also took the Southern viewpoint on commercial regulations, seconding a motion to require a two-thirds vote for all commercial regulations, internal or external.

            Unlike Mason, Martin appeared ready to put his hatred of slavery even above his fear of federal authority.  At Maryland’s ratification convention, he not only damned the Constitution for protecting slave trade and called for a prohibition on it, but said he wanted to “authorize the general government from time to time, to make such regulations as should be thought most advantageous for the gradual abolition of slavery, and the emancipation of the slaves where are already in the States.”  So said the foremost advocate of states rights at the Constitutional Convention, on a subject that everyone else was eager to punt to the states!  (Whether he actually meant it was just trying to score any possible point against the Constitution a different question).

Anti-Slavery Delegates: George Mason

George Mason (Virginia): The second strongest denunciation of slavery came from a Virginia planter who was a large-scale slave owner:

"Slavery discourages arts & manufactures.  The poor despise labor when performed by slaves.  They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a country.  They produce the most pernicious effect on manners.  Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant.  They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country.  As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this.  By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins by national calamities."

So what is Mason saying here?  He is denouncing slavery, obviously, but what troubles him most about slavery is not so much the wrong done to slaves as the damage done to (white) society.  Unlike Morris, Mason addressed his strongest denunciation of slavery to slave importation, rather than slave representation.  He was quick to dissociate Virginia from any complicity in the crime:

This infernal trafic (sic.) originated in the avarice of British Merchants.  The British Govt constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. . . . He lamented that some of our Eastern [New England] brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic [8/22/87, pp. 503-504].

When the compromise was reached protecting the importation of slaves, Mason had no objections to using the word “slaves,” but opposed naming the state which wanted to import them.  He considered taxing imported slaves as a lesser evil than importing them; not to tax amounted to a bounty .  On the subject of slave representation, Mason believed that some slaves should be included in representation because they were a source of wealth and might in cases of emergency become soldiers.  But his opposition to slavery would not allow him to favor including all slaves in representation, even though it would be favorable to Virginia.

            On export taxes and commercial regulations, Mason acted as a Southerner, and particularly as a Virginian.  He opposed a federal tax on exports as oppressive to Southern States [8/16/87, pp. 466-67; 8/21/87, p. 501].  When the states were forbidden from taxing exports (a major source of revenue for Virginia), he held out (successfully) at least for allowing Virginia to charge inspection and storage fees on its exported tobacco.  He also favored requiring a 2/3 majority for a navigation act to protect the South, which would otherwise deliver them up “bound hand & foot” to the North.  What he feared most, Mason said, was not so much in increase in freight, but a few merchants in Boston, New York and Philadelphia monopolizing trade.

            When Mason refused to sign the Constitution, several of the reasons he gave were specifically Virginian objections.  He objected to Congress’s authority to regulate foreign trade by a simple majority, a provision very popular in the North.  He objected to the prohibition on states taxing exports, even though Virginia was using this provision to unjustly tax North Carolina tobacco being exported through Virginia, without any voice or benefit.  And he objected to the protection of slave importation, saying that he would rather see South Carolina and Georgia secede than agree to such a provision.  Mason’s opposition to slavery had its limits.  In the Virginia ratifying convention, he objected not only to the protection of slave trade, but also to the failure to protect slavery where it existed from any interference from Congress.  Nor, so far as I can tell, did he free his own slaves, even in his will.

Anti-Slavery Delegates: Gouverneur Morris

            Because of the differing interests listed in my previous post,, delegates do not line up on as neat a spectrum on north-south issues as they do on centralization.  But they do make a rather rough spectrum, with many uneasy exceptions.

Anti-Slavery Delegates

            I place two kinds of delegates in this category, the ones who expressed serious moral opposition to slavery (some of whom had a southern outlook on other issues) and ones who took a northern position across the board, even if they did not take a strong moral stand.

  Gouverneur Morris:  The strongest denunciation came from the least democratic-minded and most cynical of the delegates.  Gouverneur Morris said:

[T]he inhabitant of Georgia and S.C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages shall have more votes in a Govt instituted for the protection of the rights of mankind, than the citizen of Pa or N. Jersey who views with laudable horror so nefarious a practice.  He would add that slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution.  The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of Aristocracy. 

This speech may be an implied challenge to Virginians and perhaps other southerners who might considered Morris as an advocate or aristocracy – at least he didn’t own human beings or come from a region that (generally) condoned the practice.  One of Morris’s “aristocratic” viewpoints, which he shared with the Deep Southern South Carolinians was that he favored representation by wealth rather than by population.  But the South Carolinians wanted to include slaves in representation because they were a source of wealth.  Morris argued that, on the contrary, slaves were a source of poverty:

Travel thro’ ye whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery.  The moment you leave ye E. Sts [New England] & enter New York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro’ the Jerseys & entering Pa every criterion of superior improvement witness the change.  Proceed southwdly & every step you take thro’ ye great region of slaves presents a desert with ye increasing proportion of these wretched beings . . . The Houses in this city [Philadelphia] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the swamps of South Carolina. . . . [T]he bohea tea used by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness.  

This is, incidentally, the only acknowledgement that slavery was not an exclusively Southern phenomenon, but also occurred in New York and New Jersey as well.  Morris even went so far as to say, “He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the Negroes in the U. State, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.”  This remark was probably more a flourish than something meant to be taken literally.

            These remarks were addressed to slave representation, rather than slave importation.  The condemnation of slave importation is certainly there, but it is secondary.  Morris’s real cynicism on that issue becomes clear in another of his speeches:

[He was] reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human nature, and he must do it to the former.  For he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation of their negroes, and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.    

The cynicism here is remarkable.  Slave trade is murderous and criminal; everyone agreed on that.  Morris is unwilling to give it indirect encouragement by including slaves in representation, but takes for granted that slave trade itself will be allowed.  The real proof of his cynicism is when the issue of slave importation itself was raised, Morris made no such moral denunciations; he proposed that the provision on slave importation, export taxes and navigation acts be sent to a committee for a sectional compromise.  When the compromise was proposed, he did acidly remark that it ought to read “importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S. Carolina & Georgia shall not be prohibited,” but by and large he was took his moral stands where northern interests were at stake; where mere moral principles were at stake, he was all too quick to cut a deal.

            Morris took a thoroughly Northern view on other sectional issues.  He favored allowing a tax on exports, arguing that the North had exports too (lumber, flour, beaver skins) and favored allowing a navigation act by a simple majority to encourage American shipping and a navy.  In a contest between “Eastern” and Southern states, he made clear that he believed the middle states should take sides with the North.