The slave trade : $b Slavery and colorJervey, Theodore D. (Theodore Dehon)
History
The slave trade : $b Slavery and color
Jervey, Theodore D. (Theodore Dehon)
African Americans; Slave trade -- United States; Slavery -- United States; United States -- Race relations
Mr. Rutledge remarked: “If the Convention thinks that North Carolina,
South Carolina and Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their
right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The
people of these States will never be such fools as to give up so
important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the
section and seconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.”
Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, “wished the whole subject to be
committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports, and on a
Navigation Act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and
Southern States.”
Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, declared, “that he would never agree to
the power of taxing exports.”
Mr. Sherman said: “It was better to let the Southern States import
slaves than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He
was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse,
because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the
power of 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.”
Mr. Reed, of Delaware, “was for the commitment provided the clause
concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.”
Mr. Sherman, observed: “that that clause had been agreed to and
therefore could not be committed.”
Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, “was for committing in order that some
middle ground, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the
clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt
on the dilemma to which the Constitution was exposed by agreeing to
the clause it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists and many others
in the States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might
be lost to the Union. Let us then,” he said, “try the chance of a
commitment.”[7]
On the question of committing, the vote was: New Hampshire, no;
Massachusetts, abstaining from voting; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey,
aye; Pennsylvania, no; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye;
North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye; Georgia, aye;[8] In a total
of eleven States at Convention seven ayes, three noes, one not voting.
The clause having been referred to a committee consisting of Messrs.
Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin,
Madison, Williamson, C. C. Pinckney, and Baldwin, the committee
reported in favor of the clause, with an amendment making it read: “The
migration or importation of such persons as the several States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Legislature prior to the year 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of
the duties laid on imports.”[9]
Gen. Pinckney moved to strike out the words “the year 1800 and to
insert the words eighteen hundred and eight.”
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account