In establishing a rule of future apportionment, great diversity of
opinion was expressed. Although slavery then existed in all the States
except Massachusetts, the great mass of the slave population was in the
Southern States. These States claimed a representation according to
numbers, bond and free, while the Northern States were in favor of a
representation according to the number of free persons only. This rule
was forcibly urged by several of the Northern delegates. Mr. Paterson
regarded slaves only as property. They were not represented in the
States; why should they be in the General Government? They were not
allowed to vote; why should they be represented? It was an encouragement
of the slave trade. Said Mr. Wilson: "Are they admitted as citizens?
Then why not on an equality with citizens? Are they admitted as
property? Then why is not other property admitted into the computation?"
A large portion of the members of the convention, from both sections of
the Union, aware that neither extreme could be carried, favored the
proposition to count the whole number of free citizens and three-fifths
of all others.
Prior to this discussion, a select committee, to whom this subject had
been referred, had reported in favor of a distribution of the members on
the basis of wealth and numbers, to be regulated by the Legislature.
Before the question was taken on this report, a proviso was moved and
agreed to that direct taxes should be in proportion to representation.
Subsequently a proposition was moved for reckoning three-fifths of the
slaves in estimating taxes, and making taxation the basis of
representation, which was adopted, New Jersey and Delaware against it,
Massachusetts and South Carolina divided; New York not represented, her
three delegates being all absent. Yates and Lansing, both of the State
rights party, considering their powers explicitly confined to a revision
of the confederation, and being chagrined at the defeat of their
attempts to secure an equal vote in the first branch of the Legislature,
had left the convention, not to return. From that time (July 11th) New
York had no vote in the convention. Alexander Hamilton had left before
the others, to be absent six weeks; and though he returned and took part
in the deliberations, the State, not having two delegates present, was
not entitled to a vote. On the 23d Gilman and Langdon, the delegates
from New Hampshire, arrived, when eleven States were again represented.
The term of service of members of the first branch was reduced to two
years, and of those of the second branch to six years; one-third of the
members of the latter to go out of office every two years; the
representation in this body to consist of two members from each State,
voting individually, as in the other branch, and not by States, as under
the confederation. Sundry other modifications were made in the
provisions relating to this department.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account