by Jonathan Elliot

Previous Day | Full Calendar | Next Day

Friday, March 28, 1783

The committee last mentioned reported that two blacks be rated as one freeman.

Mr. WOLCOTT was for rating them as four to three.

Mr. CARROLL as four to one.

Mr. WILLIAMSON said, he was principled against slavery; and that he thought slaves an encumbrance to society, instead of increasing its ability to pay taxes.

Mr. HIGGINSON as four to three.

Mr. RUTLEDGE said, for the sake of the object, he would agree to rate slaves as two to one, but he sincerely thought three to one would be a juster proportion.

Mr. HOLTEN as four to three.

Mr. OSGOOD said, he did not go beyond four to three.

On a question for rating them as three to two, the votes were, New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, divided; Connecticut, ay; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, ay; Maryland, no; Virginia, no; North Carolina, no; South Carolina, no.

The paragraph was then postponed, by general consent, some wishing for further time to deliberate on it, but it appearing to be the general opinion that no compromise would he agreed to.

After some further discussions on the report, in which the necessity of some simple and practicable rule of apportionment came fully into view, Mr. MADISON said that, in order to give a proof of the sincerity of his professions of liberality, he would propose that slaves should be rated as five to three. Mr. RUTLEDGE seconded the motion. Mr. WILSON said, he would sacrifice his opinion on this compromise.

Mr. LEE was against changing the rule, but gave it as his opinion that two slaves were not equal to one freeman.

On the question for five to three, it passed in the affirmative; New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, divided; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, ay.

A motion was then made by Mr. BLAND, seconded by Mr. LEE, to strike out the clause so amended, and, on the question, “Shall it stand?” it passed in the negative; New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New Jersey, ay; Pennsylvania, ay; Delaware, no; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, no: so the clause was struck out.

The arguments used by those who were for rating slaves high were, that the expense of feeding and clothing them was as far below that incident to freemen as their industry and ingenuity were below those of freemen; and that the warm climate within which the states having slaves lay, compared with the rigorous climate and inferior fertility of the others, ought to have great weight in the case; and that the exports of the former states were greater than of the latter. On the other side, it was said that slaves were not put to labor as young as the children of laboring families; that, having no interest in their labor, they did as little as possible, and omitted every exertion of thought requisite to facilitate and expedite it; that if the exports of the states having slaves exceeded those of the others, their imports were in proportion, slaves being employed wholly in agriculture, not manufactures; and that, in fact, the balance of trade formerly was much more against the Southern States than the others.

On the main question, New Hampshire, ay; Massachusetts, no; Rhode Island, no; Connecticut, no; New York, (Mr. Floyd, ay;) New Jersey,, ay; Delaware, no; Maryland, ay; Virginia, ay; North Carolina, ay; South Carolina, no.

Previous Day | Full Calendar | Next Day

)