USA > Massachusetts > The history of Massachusetts, the commonwealth period. 1775-1820 v. III > Part 28
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47
276
POINTS OF DEBATE.
CHAP. VII.
The principal points of debate in the convention related to the ratio of representation and the rule of voting in the 1787. national legislature ; the term for which officers should respec- tively be chosen, and the mode of their choice ; the constitu- tion of the executive - whether of one person or more, the grounds of eligibility, and the mode of election ; the constitu- tion of the judiciary, with the appointment of the judges ; and the general powers which should be conferred upon the gov- ernment in its relations to the states, and for national pur- poses.1 On the first of these points, the debates took a wide range, and the interests involved were found to be so compli- cated that the utmost prudence was required to effect even an approximation to unity. One disturbing element was the question of slavery ; a northern and a southern party were speedily developed ; and the discussion was marked with con- siderable rancor. Should slaves be recognized as persons in the constitution ? Should the institution of slavery be sanc- tioned by the government ? Should the slave trade be toler- ated, and the evils resulting from it be continued and perpetu- ated ? These questions, though not specifically raised, were involved in the discussion, and in their decision the south had a special interest. Negroes were esteemed a portion of their wealth, as valuable to them as the wealth of a freeman. With- out them, they contended, it would be impossible to live. And if, it was urged, the north expected " those preferential dis- tinctions in commerce, and other advantages," which they would derive from the connection, they " must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in return. Eleven out of the thirteen states had agreed to consider slaves
-
were the members of the federal con- vention of 1787, to the object of de- vising and preparing a constitutional system which should best supply the defects of that which it was to replace,
and best secure the permanent liberty and happiness of their country."
1 Comp. Madison Papers, ii. 631- 634, and 747 et seq.
277
THE QUESTION OF SLAVERY DISCUSSED.
in the apportionment of taxation ; and taxation and represen- CHAP. tation ought to go together." 1 VII.
To meet this point, it was at first proposed, by Mr. Butler, 1787. of South Carolina, to consider blacks as equal to whites in the apportionment of representation ; but this was rejected by a vote of seven to three, and the three fifths clause was pro- posed as a compromise. To this, however, Mr. King objected, and " thought the admission of them along with whites, at all, would excite great discontents among the states having no slaves." Mr. Wilson "had some apprehensions, also, from the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people of Pennsylvania." Gouverneur Morris " could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given them by allowing them a rep- resentation for their negroes." And when the question was taken, Delaware, Maryland, and even South Carolina, with Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, voted in the negative. Davie, of North Carolina, then "thought it was high time to speak out. He saw that it was meant by some gentlemen to deprive the Southern States of any share of rep- resentation for their blacks. He was sure that North Caro-
1 Madison Papers, ii. 686 et seq. ; 1054 et seq. ; Hildreth's U. S. ch. xlvii. The question of the necessity of slave labor at the south is ably dis- cussed by Benjamin Rush, in his pamphlet, published at Philadelphia, in 1773, entitled " An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America upon Slave Keeping." " It has been urged," he says, " by the inhabitants of the Sugar Islands and South Carolina, that it would be impossible to carry on the manufac- tures of sugar, rice, and indigo, with- out negro slaves. No manufactory can ever be of consequence enough to society to admit the least violation of the laws of justice or humanity. But [ am far from thinking the arguments ised in favor of employing negroes 'or the cultivation of these articles
should have any weight. M. Le Poivre, late envoy from the King of France to the King of Cochin China, and now intendant of the Isles of Bourbon and Mauritius, in his obser- vations upon the manners and arts of the various nations in Africa and Asia, has the following remarks : ‘It is worthy of observation, too, that the sugar cane is there cultivated by free- men, and all the process of prepara- tion and refining, the work of free hands. Compare, then, the price of the Cochin Chinese production with the same commodity which is culti- vated and prepared by the wretched slaves of our European colonies, and judge if, to procure sugar from our colonies, it was necessary to authorize by law the slavery of the unhappy Africans transported to America.'"
278
DISCUSSION ON THE SLAVE TRADE.
CHAP. lina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate VII. them at least as three fifths. If the Eastern States meant, 1787. therefore, to exclude them altogether, the business was at an end." On this, the motion for the three fifths clause was renewed by Ellsworth, of Connecticut, modified by Randolph, and, in the end, it was carried by a vote of six to two.1
On the question of the slave trade, there was less difference of opinion ; for the sentiment was common to Virginia and the Northern States " that slavery was cruel and unjust - in plain violation of the rights of man proclaimed as the founda- tion of the revolution, and inconsistent with the doctrines assumed as the basis of the American constitutions." 2 Vir- ginia and Maryland, indeed, were especially " opposed to the African slave trade ; " and, as the delegates from the Middle and Eastern States concurred in these views, there seemed, at one time, a reasonable prospect that the trade might be pro- hibited. But Georgia and South Carolina entertained a dif- ferent opinion, and were "fully determined to maintain, not the institution of slavery only, but the African slave trade also ; " and, as Massachusetts was anxious " about navigation laws," and Pennsylvania was concerned "about the taxation of exports," and Connecticut was "willing to make almost any sacrifice for the sake of getting others to agree," a " bar-
1 Martin, in Secret Proceedings, &c., 42, 43; Yates, in ibid. 122; Madison Papers, ii. 1076-1087; Hil- dreth's U. S. iii. 499-501. It was said, in the debate on this clause, that the taking of slaves into computation in apportioning the number of repre- sentatives, "involved the absurdity of increasing the power of a state in making laws for freemen, in propor- tion as that state violated the rights of freedom." Secret Proceedings, &c., 42. One of the Massachusetts delegation also observed, that " he considered it as dishonorable and hu- miliating to enter into compact with the slaves of the Southern States, as
it would be with the horses and mules of the Eastern." Ibid. 43. And Mr. Patterson very pertinently asked, “ if negroes are not represented in the states to which they belong, why should they be represented in the national. government ?" Madison
Papers, ii. 1055.
2 "Future ages," observes Benja- min Rush, in his Address on Slave Keeping, 9, " when they read the ac- counts of the slave trade, if they do not regard them as fabulous, will be at a loss which to condemn most, our folly or our guilt in abetting this direct violation of the laws of nature and religion."
---
279
RENDITION OF FUGITIVES.
gain " was struck up between " the Northern and the Southern CHAP. States," which, until the year 1808, allowed the unrestrained VII. migration or importation of such persons as the states might 1787. see fit to receive - subject, however, to the imposition of a duty by Congress, the maximum of which was fixed at ten dollars. 1
One other measure was desired by the south, relating to the rendition of fugitive slaves. The motion to include such with fugitives from justice was introduced by Butler, of South Car- olina, and seconded by his colleague, Charles Pinckney ; and, availing themselves of the phraseology of one of the old arti- cles of the New England confederation of 1643, with slight alterations to adapt it to their purpose, the " famous clause " was presented, which provides that "no person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein,
1 Martin, in Secret Proceedings, &c., 62-66; Madison Papers, iii .; Hildreth's U. S. iii. 508-520. It is worthy of notice in this connection, that the Continental Congress had resolved "that no slave be import- ed into any of the United States;" that Delaware, by her constitution. and Virginia and Maryland, by special laws, had prohibited the importation of slaves; and that similar prohibi- tions were in force in all the more northern states, though they " did not prevent the merchants of those states from carrying on the slave trade elsewhere, and already some New England ships were engaged in an infamous traffic from the coast of Africa to Georgia and the Carolinas." The views of Madison on this clause of the constitution may be learned from the Federalist, No. xlii. "It were doubtless to be wished," says he, " that the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the year 1808, or rather, that it had been suffered to have immediate operation. But it is
not difficult to account, either for this restriction on the general govern- ment, or for the manner in which the whole cause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point, gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate forever, within these states, a traffic which has so long and so loudly up- braided the barbarism of modern pol- icy; that within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement from the federal government, and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the free states which continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for the unfortunate Afri- cans, if an equal prospect lay before them, of being redeemed from the oppression of their European breth- n." The "vexed question " of the slave trade was early agitated in the new Congress, and debated with some warmth. Hildreth's U. S. 2d series, i. 91-96.
-
280
DIFFICULTIES OF THE SLAVE QUESTION.
CHAP. be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be deliv- VII. ered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor 1787. may be duc." 1
Thus the question of slavery had been presented in a three- fold form, and on each the south had carried their point. The legality of slavery in the slave states was virtually recog- nized ; the slave trade itself was licensed for twenty years ; and fugitive slaves were to be returned to their masters.2 How far such compromises were justified by circumstances wise men have found it difficult to decide. It should be re- membered, however, that, if the measures were wrong, involv- ing a sacrifice of moral principle, the north was to blame for sanctioning that wrong, and is justly obnoxious to the conse- quences of its misconduct. Ellsworth was no true prophet in predicting that, in time, "slavery will not be a speck in our country." It has multiplied sevenfold, and is, without doubt, one of the most serious evils in the nation. Whether it will ever be peaceably abolished, or whether it will continue to expand and increase, diffusing abroad a moral miasma, to taint and corrupt the whole body politic, arc questions which are certainly of vital importance. But may we not hope that a merciful God will open a way, in accordance with the spirit of the gospel of Christ, by which the country may be rid of this evil, without the intervention of a violence which could end only in the dismemberment of the Union, or in an exas- peration of feeling which would rankle so deeply as to banish forever brotherly love ? This is the problem for the statesmen of the nineteenth century : who does not pray that it may be happily solved ? To a certain extent the issue is sectional ; nor can this be avoided while slavery exists. The antagonism of freedom and slavery is perpetual. Fire and water are not
1 Hildreth's U. S. iii. 522.
2 These statements are to be under- stood rather of the effects of the meas- ures adopted than of specific clauses
in the constitution itself; for not a word about slavery is said in that instrument.
281
RESULT OF THE CONVENTION.
more opposite. And as one or the other must gain the CHAP. ascendency, which shall it be ? There is force in the opinion VII. which is fast gaining ground, that "freedom is national, while 1787. slavery is sectional." 1
The result of the convention was the adoption of a constitu- Sep. 17. tion, which was laid before Congress, and submitted to con- Sep. 28. ventions of the people in the different states for adoption or rejection.2 The convention in Massachusetts " for the purpose of assenting to and ratifying the constitution recommended by the grand federal convention," convened at Boston, on the ninth of the following January, and continued in session for. 1788. nearly a month. The members of this body, over three hun- Feb. 7. Jan. 9. dred and fifty in number, were among the most eminent men in the state - comprising as well a portion of those who had served at Philadelphia as many who were engaged in the con- vention for framing the constitution of Massachusetts, and others, not inferior in intellectual ability, from the various walks of social life.3
The first business was to organize ; and this was effected by the choice of Governor Hancock as president, Judge William Cushing as vice president, George Richards Minot, Esq., as. secretary, and Jacob Kuhn as messenger, who for nearly fifty
1 " It is a truth denied by few, at the present day, that political and domestic slavery are inconsistent with justice, and that these must neces- sarily wage eternal war; so that, wherever the latter exists in perfec- tion, the former must fly before her, or fall prostrate at her feet." Dis- course of Rev. Samuel Miller, preached in New York, July 4, 1793, 19.
2 Statesman's Manual, ii. 1506; Sparks's Washington, ix. 267-269. For the draught of the constitution as thus submitted, see the Pamphlet, published in 1787, to be circulated in Massachusetts, and comp. Madison Papers, ii. and iii., and Debates in the Mass. Convention, ed. 1808, 3-20.
The ratification of the conventions of nine states was to be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution be- tween the states so ratifying the same. For Arthur Lee's opinion of this instrument, see his Letter to John Adams, October 3, 1787, in Adams's Works, ix. 554, 555.
3 For a list of the delegates, see the Debates, &c., 225-229. This convention was recommended to be held by the Senate, October 20, and by the House, October 25, 1787 ; and the date assigned for its assembling was the 2d Wednesday in the follow- ing January. See the Const. of the U. S., published in 1787, 18-20.
282
THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION MEETS.
CHAP. years served as messenger to the General Court.1 By the VII. kindness of the church, the sessions of the convention were 1788. held at first in the meeting house still standing on Brattle Street - a venerable edifice, in the walls of which is fixed a cannon ball discharged by the Americans during the siege of Boston, and which is said to be inserted in the place where the ball struck.2 This house, however, "on account of the diffi- culty of hearing," was " found inconvenient," and the conven- Jan. 11. tion adjourned to the representatives' chamber, in the Old State House, at the corner of State and Washington Streets, and from thence, at a later date, to the "meeting house in Long Lane." 3
The motion preliminary to the general discussion was made by Caleb Strong, afterwards governor of the state; and, at his instance, it was voted " that this convention, sensible how important it is that the great subject submitted to their deter- mination should be discussed and considered with moderation, candor, and deliberation, will enter into a free conversation on the several parts thereof, by paragraphs, until every mem- ber shall have had opportunity to express his sentiments on the same ; after which the convention will consider and de- bate at large the question whether this convention will adopt and ratify the proposed constitution, before any vote is taken expressive of the sense of the convention upon the whole or any part thereof." 4
Upon the first section of the first article there was "a short conversation ; " but the first paragraph of the second section,
·
1 Of this venerable man, all who knew him spoke in terms of the ut- most respect. Quiet and unobtru- sive, yet gentlemanly in his manners, and distinguished for his courtesy and his impartiality, he retained his post through various political changes, and his death was lamented as a public loss - the loss of an able and useful man. His successor, Mr. Benjamin Stevens, the present courteous and
gentlemanly sergeant-at-arms, has held his office for twenty-two years, and has recently entered upon his twenty-third term.
2 Lothrop's Hist. of Brattle Street Church.
Debates, &c., 25, 61. " Long Lane" is now known as Federal Street; and the meeting house re- ferred to is the Federal Street Church.
4 Debates, &c., 25, 26.
283
DEBATE ON BIENNIAL ELECTIONS.
relating to the constitution of the House of Representatives, CHAP. and especially the matter of "biennial elections," caused " a VII. lengthy debate." 1 In Massachusetts, annual elections had been 1788. " the practice of the state ever since its first settlement ; " and it was contended by Dr. Taylor that this " had been consid- ered as the safeguard of the liberties of the people, and the annihilation of it the avenue through which tyranny would enter." 2 The Hon. Mr. White also " thought the security of the people lay in frequent elections," and declared that, for his part, "he would rather they should be for six months than for two years." 3 Mr. Turner, of Scituate, thought that " nature pointed out the propriety of annual elections by its annual renewal ; " but it was observed, in reply, by Governor Bow- doin, that, "if the revolution of the heavenly bodies was to be the principle to regulate elections, it was not fixed to any period ; as, in some of the systems, it would be very short, and in the last discovered planet it would be eighty of our years." 4
The friends of biennial elections were more numerous than the opponents of the measure, and argued in its defence with signal ability. Mr. Sedgwick observed that "annual elections in a single state might be best, for a variety of reasons ; " but when the great affairs of thirteen states were considered, such a period, in his estimation, was too short.5 Mr. Dawes re- marked that "the right of electing representatives in the Congress was the acquisition of a new privilege by the people, and therefore in their favor, even if the representatives were chosen for forty, instead of for two years." 6 The speech of
1 Debates, &c., 26.
2 Debates, &c., 27, and comp. ibid. 46. See also the remarks of Elbridge Gerry, in the federal convention, in Madison Papers, ii. 847. "The peo- ple of New England will never give up the point of annual elections. They know of the transition made in Eng- land from triennial to septennial elections, and will consider such an innovation here as the prelude to a
like usurpation. He considered an- nual elections as the only defence of the people against tyranny. He was as much against a triennial house as against a hereditary executive."
3 Debates, &c., 28. Comp. ibid. 45, 54.
4 Debates, &c., 35. Comp. ibid. 38.
5 Debates, &c., 27.
6 Debates, &c., 28.
284
DEBATE ON BIENNIAL ELECTIONS.
CHAP. Fisher Ames is reported in full, and was an eloquent plea in VII. favor of the clause, based upon the ground, that, whatever 1788. reasons could be urged in favor of annual, as good, if not bet- ter, could be offered in favor of biennial, elections.1 The speech of General Heath was eminently characteristic. He " consid- ered himself a citizen of the United States," and his "ideas and views were commensurate with the continent - extending in length from the St. Croix to the St. Maria, and in breadth from the Atlantic to the Lake of the Woods ; for over all this extensive territory was the federal government to be extend- ed." Still, although he was of opinion - quoting from Mon- tesquieu - that " the greatness of power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration ; most legislators have fixed it for a year ; a longer space would be dangerous," he was ready to favor the clause as it stood, because Congress was to " sit but once annually," and as much business in each session would be left unfinished, for the same representatives to con- sider and complete such business would be "a great saving of expense, which would otherwise be lost." 2 General Brooks, with a comprehensive wisdom, observed that no instance had been cited in which biennial elections had proved " destructive to the liberties of the people ; " that the Parliaments in Eng- land had been triennial and septennial, "yet life, liberty, and property, it was generally conceded, were nowhere better secured than in Great Britain."3 Mr. Gore took another view of the subject, and thought the term "frequent" was as justly applicable to biennial as to annual elections, if the extent of the interests involved was remembered ; and that two years was "a short -time for the representatives to hold their office." 4 The Hon. Rufus King, one of the mem- bers of the federal convention, and a gentleman of distin-
1 Debates, &c., 30-35 ; Ames's 2 Debates, &c., 36-38.
Works, ed. 1809, 20-25; Carey's Am. Museum for 1788, iii. 358-362.
3 Debates, &c., 38, 39.
4 Debates, &c., 40-42.
285
CHOICE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
guished ability and talent, explained the grounds on which ne CHAP. favored the clause, and concurred with Mr. Gore that two VII. years was "short enough for a representative in Congress. 1788. If one year was necessary for a representative to be useful in the state legislature, where the objects of his deliberation were local, and within his constant observation, two years did not appear too long where the objects of deliberation were not confined to one state, but extended to thirteen states." 1 Judge Dana took the same view, and pleaded from his own experience in favor of the expediency of " biennial elections of federal representatives," as " preferable to annual elec- tions." 2
The discussion thus far had developed the fact that the fourth section of the first article was intimately connected with the second ; and both were, accordingly, considered together.3 The principal objection to this section was, that it did not limit the power of Congress. It might be well enough, it was said, to concede the power to direct the time and place of choosing representatives, in case of neglect or failure on the part of any state ; but, if no limit was assigned, great inconveniences, and even grievances, might arise ; nay, Congress might control the election of representatives. But it was urged, in reply, that the power to regulate the election of representatives must be lodged somewhere ; and where could it be more safely lodged than in the General Congress ? The democratic branch of the national government, chosen by the people, was designed to be a check on the federal branch, chosen by the states. Hence, if the state legislatures were allowed conclusively to regulate the elections of the democratic
1 Debates, &c., 42-44.
2
Debates, &c., 45. See also the Federalist, Nos. lii. liii.
3 This section read as follows : "The times, place, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature there-
of; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators." Hence a uniform rule was early established for all the states, providing for the choice of represen- tatives on the second Monday in No- vember.
286
PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.
CHAP. branch, they might, by such an interference, at first weaken, and VII. at last destroy, the federal branch, and diminish and annihilate 1788. that control of the general government which the people ought always to have through their immediate representatives. The possibility of the abuse of a measure, it was said, was no argument against its adoption, unless the measure itself was absolutely dangerous. But this was not contended, that the measure was dangerous. No power is conceded of wresting from the people the right of regulating the elections. Con- gress could not, in any case, strip the people of this right. It was theirs inalienably. They could only regulate the exercise of this right ; and this it was proper they should do, or other and greater evils might eventually ensue. An argument that proves too much proves nothing. And might not this be said of the argument against the fourth section ? 1
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.