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.4

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.

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.1 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. Independ1 Id., 289-290. 2 Id., 286.

4

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

68

A CONVENTION CALLED.

credit, both public and private, and had brought total ruin on numberless widows and orphans.1

That the new government would be aristocratic, and that by its omission of a Bill of Rights it would injure the liberties of the people, were claimed by James Lincoln, if Ninety-Six.2 Pinckney replying to these and to other objections, showed that the President's term of office, his re-eligibility, and his powers and the manner of choosing him, had been fully discussed in the Convention and were the result of common approval. Nor had its members forgotten to consider a Bill of Rights, but had concluded that none was needed, because the general government having no powers, save those expressly granted to it, could not take away the rights of the people. another reason had had weight, particularly with the South Carolina members, against the insertion of a Bill of Rights. These generally began with the declaration that all men by nature are born free, but the South Carolina delegates would have made that declaration with very bad grace, while a large part of their property consisted in men, who were actually born slaves.*

But

The question being put, whether a convention should be called to consider the Constitution, it was carried unanimously. On the following day the question being whether the convention should assemble on the twelfth of May, at Charlestown, it was carried by a majority of only one, the minority favoring Columbia. The number of dele

1 Id., 306.

2 Id., 313-315.

3 Compare with Hamilton's explanation of the omission of a Bill of Rights in the Federalist, No. LXXXII, also Nos. XLIX, L, LI.

4 Elliot, IV, 315-316.

5 January 18, 1788. Id., 316.

6 76 to 75; Id., 317.

gates chosen were two hundred and thirty-six. Those from the country districts were generally instructed to oppose the Constitution, though it does not appear that all the anti-federal districts gave this specific direction.1 A convention so numerous was bound to include the most prominent men in the State. Many of the delegates were greatly distinguished; Charles C. Pinckney, Charles Pinckney and John Rutledge, who had been delegates of the State to the Philadelphia Convention were among the number. There were other members scarcely less famed, among whom were Thomas Pinckney, the Governor, who, eight years later, was the candidate of the Federalists for VicePresident; Christopher Gadsden, venerable in years and doubtless the most highly esteemed man in the Commonwealth; David Ramsey, the historian; Edward Rutledge, at one time the Governor of the State, and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence; Thomas Heyward, also a signer, and with him Henry Lawrence, John Mathews and Richard Hutson, also signers of the Articles of Confederation. The names of Francis Marion, William Washington and William Moultrie, suggested how near was the convention to the stirring incidents of the late war. Among the leading Anti-Federalists were General Sumter and Edanus Burke. No convention which assembled to ratify the Constitution surpassed this of South Carolina in ability.

On the thirteenth of May, a majority of the delegates having assembled, Thomas Pinckney, the Governor, was elected president, and the discussion of the Constitution began. As in the late session of the legislature, the Constitution was now most ably defended by the delegates of

1 Libby, 93-94.