lectively exceed in number the representatives from such of the old thirteen states as should accede to the new confederation.* The motion came from New England; and from New England came the reply. "We are providing for our posterity," said Sherman, who had taken the principal part in securing to Connecticut a magnificent reserve of lands in northern Ohio. "Our children and our grandchildren will be as likely to be citizens of new western states as of the old states."+ His words were lost upon his own colleagues. The motion was defeated by the narrowest majority, Massachusetts being sustained by Connecticut, Delaware, and Maryland, against New Jersey and the four southernmost states, Pennsylvania being divided. The vote of Maryland and Delaware was but the dying expression of old regrets about the proprietaryship of western lands, from which they had been excluded; that of Massachusetts sprung from a jealousy which grew stronger with the ever-increasing political power of the South-west. But in spite of renewed murmurs the decision was never reversed. The final concession on the representation for slaves proceeded from North Carolina. On the eleventh of July, Williamson accepted for the permanent basis the free inhabitants and three fifths of all others.# Randolph agreed to the amendment. On the instant Butler and Cotesworth Pinckney demanded that the blacks should be counted equally with the whites. I New York, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island not being on the floor, the southern states were left with ample power to settle the question as they pleased. "The motion," said Mason, "is favorable to Virginia, but I think it unjust. As slaves are useful to the community at large, they ought not to be excluded from the estimate for representation; I cannot, however, vote for them as equals to freemen." A On the question, Delaware alone joined South Carolina and Georgia. Rutledge next insisted on proportioning representation periodically according to wealth as well as population. This was * Gilpin, 1095; Elliot, 310. + Ibid. + Ibid. #Gilpin, 1066; Elliot, 295. condemned by Mason as indefinite and impracticable, leaving to the legislature a pretext for doing nothing.* Madison saw no substantial objection to fixing numbers for the perpetual standard of representation.† In like manner Sherman, Johnson, Wilson, and Gorham looked upon population as the best measure of wealth; and accepted the propriety of establishing numbers as the rule. King refused to be reconciled to any concession of representation for slaves. Gouverneur Morris, always a hater of slavery, closed the debate by saying: "I am reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the southern states, or to human nature, and I must do it to the former; I can never agree to give such encouragement to the slave-trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes.' On the division, those who insisted on enumerating all the slaves and those who refused to enumerate any of them, as elements of representation, partially coalesced; and Connecticut, Virginia, and North Carolina, though aided by Georgia, were outvoted by Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina. [ The aspect of affairs at the adjournment was not so dangerous as it seemed. Virginia with a united delegation had her hand on the helm, while North Carolina kept watch at her side. But Gouverneur Morris brooded over the deep gulf by which the convention seemed to him rent in twain; and rashly undertook to build a bridge over the chasm. To that end he proposed the next morning that taxation should be in proportion to representation. His motion was general, extending to every branch of revenue. The convention was taken by surprise. South Carolina scorned to be driven from her object by the menace of increased contributions to the general treasury; and again demanded a full representation for all blacks. ◊ Mason pointed out that the proposal of Gouverneur Morris would so embarrass the legis * Gilpin, 1071; Elliot, 297. # Gilpin, 1078; Elliot, 301. A Gilpin, 1079; Elliot, 302. ◊ Gilpin, 1079, 1080; Elliot, 302. lature in raising a revenue that they would be driven back to requisitions on the states. Appalled at discovering that his motion was a death-blow to the new constitution, Morris limited it to direct taxation, saying: "It would be inapplicable to indirect taxes on exports and imports and consumption." * Cotesworth Pinckney took fire at the idea of taxing exports. Wilson came to the partial rescue of Morris; and the convention, without a dissentient, agreed that "direct taxation ought to be in proportion to representation." In this short interlude, by the temerity of one man, the United States were precluded from deriving an equitable revenue from real property. Morris soon saw what evil he had wrought, but he vainly strove to retrieve it. The moderating states of the South grew restless. "North Carolina," said Davie, "will never confederate on terms that do not rate their blacks at least as three fifths." Johnson, holding the negro slave to be a man, and nothing less than a man, could not forego the conclusion" that blacks equally with the whites ought to fall within the computation," and his votes conformed to his scruples. Contrary to the wishes of Gouverneur Morris and King, Randolph insisted that the representation allowed for slaves should be imbodied in the constitution, saying: "I lament that such a species of property exists; but, as it does exist, the holders of it will require this security."# Ellsworth seconded Randolph, whose motion was tempered in its form by Wilson, so as to avoid the direct mention of slavery or slave. "The southern states," said King, "threaten to separate now in case injury shall be done them. There will be no point of time at which they will not be able to say, 'Do us justice or we will separate.'" The final motion to make blacks equal with whites in fixing the ratio of representation received no support but from South Carolina and Georgia; || and the compromise, proportioning representation to direct taxation, and both to the number of the free and three fifths of others, was established by the southern states, even Georgia approving, and South Carolina relenting so far as to divide its vote.▲ * Gilpin, 1080; Elliot, 302. Gilpin, 1081; Elliot, 302. #Gilpin, 1083; Elliot, 304. Gilpin, 1084-1087; Elliot, 304-306. A Gilpin, 1086, 1087; Elliot, 306. Randolph, on the thirteenth, seized the opportunity to propose numbers as the sole rule of representation. Gouverneur Morris "stated the result of his deep meditation": "The southern gentlemen will not be satisfied unless they see the way open to their gaining a majority in the public councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power from the maritime to the interior and landed interest will, I foresee, be an oppression to commerce. In this struggle between the two ends of the union, the middle states ought to join their eastern brethren. If the southern states get the power into their hands and be joined as they will be with the interior country, everything is to be apprehended.” By the interior, Morris had specially in his mind the rising states of Kentucky and Tennessee. Butler replied: "The southern states want security that their negroes may not be taken from them, which some gentlemen within or without doors have a very good mind to do. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia will have relatively many more people than they now have. The people and strength of America are evidently bearing to the South and South-west." * "The majority," said Wilson, "wherever found, ought to govern. The interior country, should it acquire this majority, will avail itself of its right whether we will or no. If numbers be not a proper rule, why is not some better rule pointed out? Congress have never been able to discover a better. No state has suggested any other. Property is not the sole nor the primary end of government and society; the improvement of the human mind is the most noble object. With respect to this and other personal rights, numbers are surely the natural and precise measure of representation, and could not vary much from the precise measure of property." + The apportionment of representation according to numbers was adopted without a negative, Delaware alone being divided. The American declaration of independence proclaimed all men free and equal; the federal convention founded representation on numbers alone. The equality of votes of the states in the senate being re* Gilpin, 1091-1093; Elliot, 308, 309. + Gilpin, 1093, 1094; Elliot, 309. VOL. VI.-19 Gilpin, 1094; Elliot, 309. ported to the convention on the fourteenth, was resisted by Wilson, King, and Madison to the last as contrary to justice. On the other hand, Sherman held that the state governments could not be preserved unless they should have a negative in the general government. Caleb Strong, a statesman of consummate prudence, from the valley of the Connecticut, a graduate of Harvard, and a fit representative of the country people of Massachusetts, lucidly reviewed the case, and, from the desire to prevent the dissolution of the union, found himself compelled to vote for the compromise. Madison replied in an elaborate speech, which closed with these words: "The perpetuity which an equality of votes in the second branch will give to the preponderance of the northern against the southern scale is a serious consideration. It seems now well understood that the real difference of interests lies, not between the large and small, but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination. Should a proportional representation take place, the northern will still outnumber the other; but every day will tend toward an equilibrium."* The great poet of the Hellenic race relates how the most famed of its warriors was lured by one of the heavenly powers from the battle-field to chase a phantom. Had the South joined with the smaller states to establish the suffrage by states in both branches of the general legislature, it would, in less than ten years,† have arrived at an equality, alike in the house and in the senate. But it believed that swarms of emigrants were about to throng every path to the South-west, bearing with them affluence and power. It did not yet know the dynamic energy of freedom in producing wealth, and attracting and employing and retaining population. The equality of the vote in the senate, which Virginia and South Carolina vehemently resisted, was to gain and preserve for the slaveholding states a balance in one branch of the legislature; in the other, where representation was apportioned to population, the superiority of the free commonwealths would increase from decade to decade till slavery in the United States should be no * Gilpin, 1104; Elliot, 315. In 1796, on the admission of Tennessee. |