At a later day a discussion ensued on the clause touching the African slave-trade, which reveals the definitive purposes of the Convention. From the report of Mr. Madison we learn what was said. Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, said: "The morality or wisdom of Slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves."[110] According to him, Slavery was sectional. Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts, "thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slaves, _but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it_."[111] According to him, Slavery is sectional, and he would not make it national. Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, "was opposed to a tax on slaves imported, as making the matter worse, _because it implied they were property_."[112] He would not have Slavery national. After debate, the subject was referred to a committee of eleven, who reported a substitute, authorizing "a tax or duty on such migration or importation, at a rate _not exceeding the average of the duties laid on imports_."[113] This language, classifying _persons_ with merchandise, seemed to imply a recognition that they were _property_. Mr. Sherman at once declared himself "against this part, _as acknowledging men to be property_, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves."[114] Mr. Gorham "thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, _not as implying that slaves are property_, but as a discouragement to the importation of them."[115] Mr. Madison, in mild juridical phrase, "_thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men_."[116] After discussion it was finally agreed to make the clause read:-- "But a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars _for each person_."[117] [110] Madison's Debates, Aug. 21, 1787. [111] Ibid., Aug. 22. [112] Ibid. [113] Ibid., Aug. 24. [114] Ibid., Aug. 25. [115] Ibid. [116] Ibid. [117] Madison's Debates, Aug. 25. The difficulty seemed then to be removed, and the whole clause was adopted. This record demonstrates that the word "persons" was employed to show that slaves, everywhere under the Constitution, are always to be regarded as _persons_, and not as _property_, and thus to exclude from the Constitution all idea that there can be property in man. Remember well, that Mr. Sherman was opposed to the clause in its original form, "as acknowledging men to be _property_,"--that Mr. Madison was also opposed to it, because he "thought it _wrong_ to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men,"--and that, after these objections, the clause was so amended as to exclude the idea. But Slavery cannot be national, unless this idea is distinctly and unequivocally admitted into the Constitution.