LOWNDES OPPOSES THE CONSTITUTION.

63

pense of so much blood. He believed that when the new Constitution should be adopted, the sun of the southern States would set never to rise again. By the new plan, the eastern States would form a majority in the House of Representatives; what safety did this augur for the South? Jealousy of the slave trade and its limitation to twenty years, or, for that matter, any limitation at all, were without cause, and he spoke words destined to be echoed and re-echoed for seventy years,1 that the trade was justifiable on the principles of religion and humanity, for it transported human beings from a bad country to a good one. The North did not like slavery, because it had no slaves, and, therefore, wished to exclude the South from its great advantage.2 At this time North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, as Pendleton observed, permitted the importation of slaves, but he might have added that the constitution of Delaware forbade it.3 Lowndes defended the trade, asserting that, without her negroes, South Carolina would degenerate into one of the most contemptible States in the Union; and he strenuously objected to the taxation of ten dollars which might be levied on each negro imported. Negroes, he said, were the wealth and natural resource of the State, but the North was determined to tie up the hands of its people and strip them of what they had.*

1 For an account of, the proposed re-opening of the African slave trade in 1860, see post; Vol. III, index.

2 Elliot, IV, 272, see the Declaration of Causes and the Appeal of the slave-holding States issued by South Carolina in 1860. Post pp. 561-581.

3 1776, Article XXVI. This was the only explicit prohibition in any State constitution. It will be remembered that during the debate on the slave trade in the Federal Convention, it was suggested that Georgia and the Carolinas be prohibited by name in the Constitution from engaging in it.

4 Elliot, IV, 273.

64

LINES OF IMMIGRATION.

Pinckney, in reply, explained that the Convention had found it necessary to give extensive powers to the federal government, over both the persons and the estates of citizens, and, therefore, had thought it right to draw one branch of the legislature immediately from the people, wealth and numbers both being considered in the representation. The best rule for ascertaining wealth, it had been thought, was the productive labor of the inhabitants, and in conformity with this rule and a spirit of concession, three-fifths of the slaves had been added to the whole number of free persons. The first House of Representatives would consist of sixty-five members, of whom South Carolina would send five. This was one-thirteenth of the entire number, and the same proportion that the State had in the Confederation.

At this time it was generally believed that population was likely to increase most rapidly southward and southwestward, as the movement of population was in that direction.1 The prospect, therefore, that the southern States would have an adequate share in representation was encouraging. As yet the South was weak. South Carolina without union with the other States must decay. Lowndes's objections to the restrictions on the slave trade after the year 1808, led Pinckney to explain that the southern delegates, in settling the slave trade, had to contend with the reasons and political prejudices of the eastern and middle States and with the interested and inconsistent opinions of Virginia, which was warmly opposed to the further importation of slaves. Pinckney reasserted his belief that slave labor was essential to the prosperity of South Carolina. He did not hold with the opponents

1 For an account of the lines of migration to the West and a map showing the wilderness roads, see my Constitutional History of the American People, 1776-1850, I, 157-158.

SLAVES.

1

65

of unlimited importation, that slaves increased the weakness of the State admitting them, or that they were a dangerous specie of property in time of war. The middle States and Virginia had demanded immediate and total prohibition, and the southern delegates had secured what they could, unlimited importation for twenty years.1 The compromise was the more impressive, because it was the work of a special committee. The clause limiting free importation after twenty years did not declare that importation should then be stopped; it might be continued. The South was secure; the general government could never emancipate the negroes, for no such power was given to it,2 as it was admitted that it had only the powers expressly given it by the several States. The South had secured the right to recover its slaves in whatever part of the Union they might take refuge, a right it had not possessed before. Considering all the circumstances, the southern delegates had made the best terms possible for the security of slave property. They would have made a better bargain had they been able, but on the whole the one made was not bad.1

3

Lowndes was not convinced, however, and repeated his argument that the eastern States had the best of the bargain; for, as the carrying trade was in their hands, they could compel the payment of exorbitant freight charges. He did not believe that the eastern States possessed ships enough to carry all the produce of the South. Paper money, too, was prohibited, though it was popular with many, and he demanded to know what evils had the State

1 Id., 282, 283, 285.

2 This argument runs on through the speeches made in 1865, by the opponents of emancipation. See Vol. III.

3 This idea was incorporated by several States, in a proposed amendment, and by South Carolina, among them.

4 Elliot, IV, 286.

ever experienced by using a little paper money as a relief from pressing emergencies. Formerly the State had issued paper bills annually and recalled them every five years, to the great convenience and advantage of its people. Paper money had carried the country triumphantly through the war and fully established its independence; but, now a stop was to be put upon paper issues, however great the public distress might be. The absence of a Bill of Rights, too, was another serious defect in the new plan. After pronouncing a glowing eulogy on the old Confederation, he advised, as Randolph had done, that a new federal convention be called. This praise of the old Articles caused Jacob Read to remark, that the boasted efficiency of Congress was farcical.2 John Mathews, the Chancellor of the State, observed that had the Confederation been in force in 1776, the country would inevitably have been lost, because Congress, under the Articles, had no power to give Washington adequate authority, and he denied the accuracy of Lowndes's statement, that the carrying capacity of northern ships was insufficient to meet the demands of the South.3

The eulogy of the Confederation brought out another speech from Pinckney, which ranks with his celebrated speech in the Federal Convention. He agreed with the Chancellor that independence had been won, not because of the Confederation, but owing to the vast abilities of Washington, the enthusiasm of the people and the assistance of France. The United States were independent before the treaty with Great Britain, in 1783, which was not a grant, but the acknowledgment of a fact.

1 Id., 289-290.

2 Id., 286.

3 Id., 298.

Independ

4 Compare this statement and the ones following with President Lincoln's opinion of the origin of the Union, post; Vol. III, pp. 4-9.

PINCKNEY'S REPLY.

67

ence dated back to that old charter made in Congress on the fourth of July, 1776, in which the several States were not even enumerated. The separate independence and individual sovereignty of the States, said he, were never thought of by the enlightened patriots who framed the declaration. Freedom and independence had arisen from the union, without which they would have been impossible. All attempts to weaken the Union by maintaining that each State was separately and individually independent should be considered a species of political heresy which could produce no benefit, but which might bring most serious distresses upon the country.

His answer to Lowndes was comprehensive and complete. The general good of the Union required that all the powers which the Constitution specified ought to be vested where it had placed them, and Pinckney fell back on Wilson's argument in Pennsylvania, that as all the powers granted sprang from the people and were to be exercised by persons frequently chosen mediately or immediately by them, and that as the people in each State had a share in the government in proportion to their importance, there was no danger of the abuse of these powers, so long as the people remained incorrupt, and corruption was more effectually guarded against in the proposed government than in any that had ever been formed.1 Applying his principles in detail, he showed that every grant of power was made secure by adequate limitations, and that no part of the plan was beyond the ultimate control of the people. Answering Lowndes's question, what harm paper money had done, he replied that it had corrupted the morals of the people; had diverted them from paths of industry to ways of ruinous speculation; had destroyed

1 Id., 300-302.