Debate in the Federal Convention. Massachusetts Con "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 1808.' "New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay, —7; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no, — 4.” - Madison Papers, Elliot, vol. v. pp. 477, 478. These specimens of the debates are sufficient to show the various shades of opinion as expressed by members of the Convention from different States. The Constitution, with the articles on slavery, as amended and finally adopted by the Federal Convention, was submitted to the people, to be ratified by them through State Conventions of delegates elected for that special purpose. In these State Conventions, the various articles were again thoroughly discussed. In Massachusetts, the delegates assembled in Boston, Jan. vention. 9th, 1788. It is hardly too much to say, that the fate of the Federal Constitution was to be decided by the action of this State Convention. By the final vote of three hundred and fifty-five members, a majority of only nineteen votes was obtained in its favor; one hundred and eighty-seven being in the affirmative, and one hundred and sixty-eight in the negative. Had the vote been taken without discussion on the first meeting of the members, there can be no doubt that the Constitution would have been rejected by a considerable majority. Elbridge Gerry, one of our delegates to the Federal Convention, had declined to sign the Constitution, and addressed a letter to the State Legislature, giving his reasons for so doing. He was invited to take a seat with the delegates in the State Convention. John Hancock and Samuel Adams, the two most eminent members of the State Convention, were both opposed to the adoption of the Constitution. Mr. Hancock, on account of his position and from motives of policy, was elected President; but he excused himself from attending until towards the close of the session, on account of illness. The circumstances connected with the change of purpose on setts Con the part of the President are related by Professor Parsons Massachuin the admirable "Memoir" of his father, Chief-Justice The- vention. ophilus Parsons. Amongst the many reasons assigned by the opponents of the Federal Constitution for their desire to defeat its adoption, the articles on the subject of slavery were brought forward. The discussion on this subject deserves our notice. In the second week of the Convention, (Jan. 17,) the subject of taxation and representation being under debate, "Mr. Wedgery asked, if a boy of six years of age was to be considered as a free person." The Hon. Rufus King, in answer, said, "All persons born free were to be considered as freemen; and, to Rufus King. make the idea of taxation by numbers more intelligible, said that five negro children of South Carolina are to pay as much tax as the three governors of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut.” On the same occasion, Judge Dana spoke: 6 Dana. "In reply to the remark of some gentlemen, that the Southern Francis States were favored in this mode of apportionment, by having five of their negroes set against three persons in the Eastern, the honorable Judge observed, that the negroes of the Southern States work no longer than when the eye of the driver is on them. Can,' asked he, 'that land flourish like this, which is cultivated by the hands of freemen? And are not three of these independent freemen of more real advantage to a State than five of those poor slaves?' As a friend to equal taxation, he rejoiced that an opportunity was presented in this Constitution to change this unjust mode of apportionment. Indeed,' concluded he, 'from a survey of every part of the Constitution, I think it the best that the wisdom of man could suggest.'' The discussion was continued; and, on the next day, Thomas Dawes, Esq., expressed his views on the subject: Dawes. “Mr. DAWES said, he was sorry to hear so many objections raised Thomas against the paragraph under consideration. He thought them wholly unfounded; that the black inhabitants of the Southern States must be considered either as slaves, and as so much property, or in the character of so many free men. If the former, why should they not be wholly setts Con Massachu- represented? Our own State laws and Constitution would lead us to vention. consider those blacks as free men; and so, indeed, would our own ideas of natural justice. If, then, they are freemen, they might form an equal basis for representation, as though they were all white inhabitants. In either view, therefore, he could not see that the Northern States would suffer, but directly to the contrary. He thought, however, that gentlemen would do well to connect the passage in dispute with another article in the Constitution, that permits Congress, in the year 1808, wholly to prohibit the importation of slaves, and, in the mean time, to impose a duty of ten dollars a head on such blacks as should be imported before that period. Besides, by the new Constitution, every particular State is left to its own option totally to prohibit the introduction of slaves into its own territories. What could the Convention do more? The members of the Southern States, like ourselves, have their prejudices. It would not do to abolish slavery by an act of Congress in a moment, and so destroy what our Southern brethren consider as property; but we may say, that although slavery is not smitten by an apoplexy, yet it has received a mortal wound, and will die of a consumption." - Debates and Proceedings, pp. 135– 139. James Neal. From the minutes of the debates, kept by Chief-Justice Parsons, and printed with the last edition of the "Debates and Proceedings," we learn that George Cabot on this occasion remarked: "The Southern States have the slave-trade, and are sovereign States. This Constitution is the best way to get rid of it." During the next week (Friday, Jan. 25), the clause relating to "the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit under consideration; when "" was "Mr. NEAL (from Kittery) went over the ground of objection to this section, on the idea that the slave-trade was allowed to be continued for twenty years. His profession, he said, obliged him to bear witness against any thing that should favor the making merchandise of the bodies of men; and, unless his objection was removed, he could not put his hand to the Constitution. Other gentlemen said, in addition to this idea, that there was not even a provision that the negroes ever shall be free; and setts Con "Gen. THOMPSON exclaimed: 'Mr. President, Shall it be said, Massachuthat, after we have established our own independence and freedom, vention. we make slaves of others? O Washington! What a name has he had! How he has immortalized himself! But he holds those in General slavery who have as good right to be free as he has. He is still for Thompson. self; and, in my opinion, his character has sunk fifty per cent.' "On the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this article towards the abolition of slavery was one of the beauties of the Constitution. They observed that, in the Confederation, there was no provision whatever for its ever being abolished: but this Constitution provides that Congress may, after twenty years, totally annihilate the slave-trade; and that, as all the States, except two, have passed laws to this effect, it might reasonably be expected that it would then be done. In the interim, all the States were at liberty to prohibit it. "SATURDAY, Jan. 26, 1788. "The debate on the ninth section still continued desultory, and consisted of similar objections and answers thereto as had before been used. Both sides deprecated the slave-trade in the most pointed terms. On one side, it was pathetically lamented by Mr. Nasson, Major Lusk, Mr. Neal, and others, that this Constitution provided for the continuation of the slave-trade for twenty years; on the other, the Hon. Judge Dana, Mr. Adams, and others, rejoiced that a door was now to be opened for the annihilation of this odious, abhorrent practice, in a certain time."-Debates and Proceedings, pp. 208, 209. On Wednesday, Jan. 30, General Heath, who had been detained by indisposition from attending many of the meetings, was present, and participated in the debate. A part of his remarks were as follows: Heath. "The paragraph respecting the migration or importation of such General persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, &c., is one of those considered during my absence; and I have heard nothing on the subject, save what has been mentioned this morning. But I think the gentlemen who have spoken have carried the matter rather too far on both sides. "I apprehend that it is not in our power to do any thing for or against those who are in slavery in the Southern States. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery more than I do. It is generally detested by the people of this Commonwealth; and I setts Convention. Massachu- ardently hope that the time will soon come, when our brethren in the Southern States will view it as we do, and put a stop to it: but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions naturally arise: If we ratify the Constitution, shall we do any thing by our act to hold the blacks in slavery? or shall we become partakers of other men's sins? I think, neither of them. Each State is sovereign and independent to a certain degree; and they have a right, and will regulate their own internal affairs as to themselves appears proper. And shall we refuse to eat or to drink or to be united with those who do not think or act just as we do? Surely not. We are not, in this case, partakers of other men's sins; for in nothing do we voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellow-men. A restriction is laid on the Federal Government, which could not be avoided and a union take place. The Federal Convention went as far as they could. The migration, or importation, &c., is confined to the States now existing only new States cannot claim it. Congress, by their ordinance for erecting new States, some time since declared that the new States shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in them; but, whether those in slavery in the Southern States will be emancipated after the year 1808, I do not pretend to determine: I rather doubt it." - Debates and Proceedings, pp. 216–217. Isaac One of the longest speeches in the Convention, on the subject of slavery, was made by the Rev. Isaac Backus of Middleborough, on the 4th of February, just before the debates were finally closed. A part of this speech will show its character: "Much, Sir, hath been said about the importation of slaves into this country. I believe, that, according to my capacity, no man abhors that wicked practice more than I do, and would gladly make use of all lawful means toward the abolishing of slavery in all parts of the land. But let us consider where we are, and what we are doing. In the Articles of Confederation, no provision was made to hinder the importation of slaves into any of these States; but a door is now opened hereafter to do it, and each State is at liberty now to abolish slavery as soon as they please. And let us remember our former connection with Great Britain, from whom many in our land think we ought not to have revolted. How did they carry on the slave-trade? I know that the Bishop of Gloucester, in an annual |