Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/313

1787] Importation of slaves. 281 affirmative side was one southern State, Delaware; on the negative, one northern State, Connecticut. The clause as reported, forbidding Congress to tax exports, was now adopted, seven States voting aye, four voting nay. All the southern States, except Delaware, voted aye. Later a provision was adopted by the Convention, as part of the next section, prohibiting the States from laying duties on imports or exports ; an extension of the draft report, which had only prohibited the States from taxing imports. The clause against taxes on migration or importation of slaves now came before the Convention. The subject aroused warm debate. Martin strongly opposed the restriction. The clause as reported would encourage the slave-trade, because of the provision already adopted reckoning five slaves as three freemen for representation. Again, slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect, by preventing further importation. And, further, the idea was opposed to the principles of the Revolution, and dishonourable to the character of Americans. Rutledge took issue with most of the views just expressed ; he denied the relevancy of the last one. The question was simply one of interest ; it came to this : should the southern States (i.e. the three southernmost States) be parties to the Union ? He was supported by his colleague Charles Pinckney. South Carolina would never adopt the Constitution if it prohibited the slave-trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, South Carolina had expressly objected to any meddling with the importation of negroes. Mason opposed the clause ; the slave traffic was infernal. Maryland and Virginia had already prohibited it; North Carolina was doing the same thing in substance. But that was vain if South Carolina and Georgia were to be at liberty to import slaves. The western people were already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and would fill the West with them if they had an opening. He spoke strongly against slavery itself; from every point of view he held it essential that the general government should have power to prevent the increase of it. General Pinckney declared it to be his firm opinion that no amount of personal influence would prevail upon his constituents to consent to the Constitution, if Congress was to have power to prohibit the slave- trade. South Carolina and Georgia could not do without slaves. Virginia would gain by stopping importation ; she had more than she wanted, and her slaves would rise in value. It would be unjust to require South Carolina and Georgia to federate on such unequal terms. He should consider that rejecting the clause was excluding South Carolina from the Union. Dickinson considered it inadmissible, on every principle of honour and safety, that the importation of slaves should be authorised by the Constitution. The true question was, whether the happiness of OH. VIII.