1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

[Fact Bomb] Electoral College: Invented to Protect Slavery, Is Stupid, Is Broadly Opposed

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by SamFisher, Mar 22, 2019.

  1. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,344
    Likes Received:
    13,718
    I dont mean to mess with a good narrative, but the slavery bit about the EC is just wrong. It was invented to prevent the United States of America from becoming the United States of Virginia.

    Virginia had 2x the population of the second largest state, and had 20x the population of the least populous state, a slave state in Georgia. Total (white) population of slave states outnumbered free states into the 1800's.

    The later tension about abolishing slavery wasnt a big issue at that point and wouldn't be for a generation, New York was still a slave state, and the English were still working the slave trade.

    I'm fine with getting rid of it but you dont need to retcon a story about it being a tool of slavery.
     
  2. Cohete Rojo

    Cohete Rojo Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    10,344
    Likes Received:
    1,203
    Sure. Everyone deserves the right, but how big of a slice?
     
  3. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,046
    Likes Received:
    7,804
    Because it invalidates millions of votes. If you win TX by 5% you shouldn't get 100% of the electoral votes. You should get 5% more only.
     
    Deckard likes this.
  4. mdrowe00

    mdrowe00 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,668
    Likes Received:
    3,894
    Hm.

    ...which part of this article, then, is untrue about the Electoral College (i.e. its uses and interpretations after the founding documents for the nation were ratified?

    From your perspective, I mean? Just curious...

    The Troubling Reason the Electoral College Exists
    BY AKHIL REED AMAR
    UPDATED: NOVEMBER 26, 2018 1:16 PM ET | ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 8, 2016


    As Americans await the quadrennial running of the presidential obstacle course now known as the Electoral College, it’s worth remembering why we have this odd political contraption in the first place. After all, state governors in all 50 states are elected by popular vote; why not do the same for the governor of all states, a.k.a. the president? The quirks of the Electoral College system were exposed this week when Donald Trump secured the presidency with an Electoral College majority, even as Hillary Clinton took a narrow lead in the popular vote.

    Some claim that the founding fathers chose the Electoral College over direct election in order to balance the interests of high-population and low-population states. But the deepest political divisions in America have always run not between big and small states, but between the north and the south, and between the coasts and the interior.


    One Founding-era argument for the Electoral College stemmed from the fact that ordinary Americans across a vast continent would lack sufficient information to choose directly and intelligently among leading presidential candidates.

    This objection rang true in the 1780s, when life was far more local. But the early emergence of national presidential parties rendered the objection obsolete by linking presidential candidates to slates of local candidates and national platforms, which explained to voters who stood for what.

    Although the Philadelphia framers did not anticipate the rise of a system of national presidential parties, the 12th Amendment—proposed in 1803 and ratified a year later— was framed with such a party system in mind, in the aftermath of the election of 1800-01. In that election, two rudimentary presidential parties—Federalists led by John Adams and Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson—took shape and squared off. Jefferson ultimately prevailed, but only after an extended crisis triggered by several glitches in the Framers’ electoral machinery. In particular, Republican electors had no formal way to designate that they wanted Jefferson for president and Aaron Burr for vice president rather than vice versa. Some politicians then tried to exploit the resulting confusion.

    Enter the 12th Amendment, which allowed each party to designate one candidate for president and a separate candidate for vice president. The amendment’s modifications of the electoral process transformed the Framers’ framework, enabling future presidential elections to be openly populist and partisan affairs featuring two competing tickets. It is the 12th Amendment’s Electoral College system, not the Philadelphia Framers’, that remains in place today. If the general citizenry’s lack of knowledge had been the real reason for the Electoral College, this problem was largely solved by 1800. So why wasn’t the entire Electoral College contraption scrapped at that point?

    Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

    At the Philadelphia convention, the visionary Pennsylvanian James Wilson proposed direct national election of the president. But the savvy Virginian James Madison responded that such a system would prove unacceptable to the South: “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive [i.e., extensive] in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes.” In other words, in a direct election system, the North would outnumber the South, whose many slaves (more than half a million in all) of course could not vote. But the Electoral College—a prototype of which Madison proposed in this same speech—instead let each southern state count its slaves, albeit with a two-fifths discount, in computing its share of the overall count.

    Virginia emerged as the big winner—the California of the Founding era—with 12 out of a total of 91 electoral votes allocated by the Philadelphia Constitution, more than a quarter of the 46 needed to win an election in the first round. After the 1800 census, Wilson’s free state of Pennsylvania had 10% more free persons than Virginia, but got 20% fewer electoral votes. Perversely, the more slaves Virginia (or any other slave state) bought or bred, the more electoral votes it would receive. Were a slave state to free any blacks who then moved North, the state could actually lose electoral votes.

    If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

    Southerner Thomas Jefferson, for example, won the election of 1800-01 against Northerner John Adams in a race where the slavery-skew of the electoral college was the decisive margin of victory: without the extra electoral college votes generated by slavery, the mostly southern states that supported Jefferson would not have sufficed to give him a majority. As pointed observers remarked at the time, Thomas Jefferson metaphorically rode into the executive mansion on the backs of slaves.

    The 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson had featured an even sharper division between northern states and southern states. Thus, at the time the Twelfth Amendment tinkered with the Electoral College system rather than tossing it, the system’s pro-slavery bias was hardly a secret. Indeed, in the floor debate over the amendment in late 1803, Massachusetts Congressman Samuel Thatcher complained that “The representation of slaves adds thirteen members to this House in the present Congress, and eighteen Electors of President and Vice President at the next election.” But Thatcher’s complaint went unredressed. Once again, the North caved to the South by refusing to insist on direct national election.

    In light of this more complete (if less flattering) account of the electoral college in the late 18th and early 19th century, Americans should ask themselves whether we want to maintain this odd—dare I say peculiar?—institution in the 21st century.
     
  5. KingCheetah

    KingCheetah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    56,653
    Likes Received:
    48,745
    American sized
     
  6. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,344
    Likes Received:
    13,718
    What I see is a single back and forth between Mason and Madison out of context as the basis of this argument and a bunch of exposition by the author.

    Direct representation would have favored both slavery and Virginia at that point. Mason just was looking for a way to wrangle more power since he was screwed by 2 senators per state.

    Both outcomes favor slavery and slave states. One of the two makes Virginia more powerful, but slavery isnt in danger of being forced to give up slavery in the other.

    Sometimes reps from free states did things that weren't about freeing slaves and sometimes slave state reps did things that weren't about protecting slavery from some onslaught of emancipation, especially since the movement was in a nascent stage.

    I know history gets compressed the further back you go, but in 1780, they were 80 years from the Civil War and slavery wasn't being challenged significantly except by weirdo Quakers and other religious nuts.

    It's like people in 1900 Alabama worrying about the government imposing mixed schools on the South. It was so far from being a thing at that point.
     
    #26 Ottomaton, Mar 22, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
    Rashmon, Nook and mdrowe00 like this.
  7. biff17

    biff17 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2018
    Messages:
    2,901
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    But you already invalidate millions of votes with the current electoral college process.

    How does that jibe with you?
     
  8. mdrowe00

    mdrowe00 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,668
    Likes Received:
    3,894
    De nada.

    ...soooo...

    ...I was screwed no matter what, right? ;)

    ...not worthy of voting on my own...but still valuable as a chip to get more votes for somebody else...
     
    Invisible Fan and Nook like this.
  9. Nook

    Nook Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    Messages:
    54,778
    Likes Received:
    115,111
    Not a fan of the South?
     
  10. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,344
    Likes Received:
    13,718
    Pretty much. Sorry.

    It useful, perhaps, to remember that the people eventually against slavery were happy to look the other way at this point.

    Wish I had something more upbeat.

    Also, at this point British East India company was busy starving 20-30 million Indians to death to buy opium to turn all of China into junkies so they could have their Earl Gray for breakfast. Probably right before they beat their wives without reprocusion.

    Basically sucked to be anything but a white protestant middle aged man at this point in history. Actually that applies to most of European history.
     
  11. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,344
    Likes Received:
    13,718
    It's a noble man who will sacrifice his own vote for the good of the country.
     
    Nook likes this.
  12. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    21,126
    Likes Received:
    12,973
    And as whitish mid 30s male.... we look like a bunch sissies who can only be happy when we have all the power not just part of it.
     
  13. ipaman

    ipaman Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2002
    Messages:
    13,046
    Likes Received:
    7,804
    It doesn't at all but updating a system vs eliminating a system is easier to achieve imo. It's government in a large, diverse, republic. If you want change it has to be baby steps or you get a lot of disenfranchised gridlock.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  14. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    59,080
    Likes Received:
    36,707
    The historical record does not support your version of events. In fact, it is the opposite of what you say.


    The truth is less noble. The Electoral College was actually a workaround meant to satisfy a divided Constitutional Convention at the cost of actual functionality. The framers considered three ways to elect a president.

    Roger Sherman of Connecticut proposed election by Congress, to make the executive “absolutely dependent on that body, as it was the will of that which was to be executed.”

    Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania proposed popular election. “If the people should elect,” Morris said, “they will never fail to prefer some man of distinguished character, or services; some man, if he might so speak, of continental reputation.”

    Objections came from George Mason of Virginia, who thought “the extent of the Country renders it impossible that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the Candidates”— and other Southern delegates who feared domination by the largest states. “The most populous States by combining in favor of the same individual will be able to carry their points,” said Charles Pinckney of South Carolina.

    Southern opposition came with obvious subtext. By population, South Carolina was the seventh largest of 13 states. Maryland was the sixth. North Carolina was the third. And Virginia was a colossus — the largest state in the incipient union. But large minorities of their residents were enslaved. In Virginia, it was roughly 40 percent, giving the state a smaller voting population than its more populous neighbors to the north.

    Hugh Williamson of North Carolina made this point explicit in his objection: Because there won’t always be “distinguished characters” with national recognition who could win a majority of votes, “the people will be sure to vote for some man in their own State, and the largest State will be sure to succeed.” But this will not be Virginia, “since her slaves will have no suffrage.”

    James Madison, another Virginian, actually favored popular election of the president but saw the writing on the wall. “The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern states,” he said a few days later as discussion continued, “and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes.”​


    Basically the opposite of what you said is true. The EC wasn't instituted to prevent Virginia from being too powerful, it was allowed because it made Virginia powerful. This is why most of the first Presidents were....Virginian slaveholders.

    And to say that slavery wasn't a big issue during the Constitutional Convention is just breathtakingly wrong.

    It was one of the single most important issues, both directly in the form of the 3/5th compromise and the prohibition on the slave trade in article 1 and was indirectly implicated in nearly every major sectional compormise or controversy.
     
    No Worries and mdrowe00 like this.
  15. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    59,080
    Likes Received:
    36,707
    Where is this alternative history of the Constitutional Convention that you are privy to?

    Is this some Joseph Smith magic gold plates deal?
     
  16. robbie380

    robbie380 ლ(▀̿Ĺ̯▀̿ ̿ლ)
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2002
    Messages:
    23,336
    Likes Received:
    9,746
    Should we get rid of the Senate too?
     
  17. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,344
    Likes Received:
    13,718
    It was an issue in terms of wanting to use it as a tool to maximize their own power or minimise someone elses. It was not a legit issue in terms of the Electoral College abolishing or preserving slavery. It was an issue like States Rights was the cause of the Civil War.

    The Electoral College didn't "preserve or protect slavery". The 3/5ths compromise was a tool slave owners used to wheedle out more power for themselves, as the Senate was a tool small states used to wheedle more power. Absence of the Electoral College in 178x doesnt bring the end of slavery in 1800 or have any material effect on the institution of slavery. When the convention was over, George Mason didnt pat his pals on the back and say, "Thank God we've made the world safe for slavery!"
     
    #37 Ottomaton, Mar 22, 2019
    Last edited: Mar 22, 2019
  18. biff17

    biff17 Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2018
    Messages:
    2,901
    Likes Received:
    1,382
    don't agree it has to be baby steps but agree it needs to be changed not abolished.
     
  19. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    59,080
    Likes Received:
    36,707
    The slave states settled for 3/5ths to wheedle out more power for themselves with that power being to protect the institution of slavery

    The EC incorporates all of this by reference - it was explicitly chosen in lieu of this to incorporate outsize power for slave states in chooosing a preident, and that is exactly what it did.

    That's just not my argument, that's what the factual record indicates, according to all available primary and secondary sources.

    If you've constructed (and you apparently have) a fictional universe where nobody really objected to slavery until "a generation" had pased though - I don't really see much poitn in arguing with you. You can live your own "retconned" bullshit town, here's some of the actual minutes of the constitutional convention (these are just notes)



    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp



    Mr. KING wished to know what influence the vote just passed was meant [FN18] have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the admission of slaves into the rule of Representation. He could not reconcile his mind to the article if it was to prevent objections to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to his mind, & he believed would be so to a great part of the people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to it heretofore because he had hoped that this concession would have produced a readiness which had not been manifested, to strengthen the Genl. Govt. and to mark a full confidence in it. The Report under consideration had by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. In two great points the hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be prohibited-exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable? What are the great objects of the Genl. System? 1. [FN19] defence agst. foreign invasion. 2. [FN19] agst. internal sedition. Shall all the States then be bound to defend each; & shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of the U. S. be bound to defend another part, and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the exports produced by their labor, supply a revenue the better to enable the Genl. Govt. to defend their masters? -There was so much inequality & unreasonableness in all this, that the people of the Northern States could never be reconciled to it. No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some accomodation wd. have taken place on this subject; that at least a time wd. have been limited for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let them be imported without limitation & then be represented in the Natl. Legislature. Indeed he could so little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that he was not sure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be represented, or exports should be taxable.

    Mr. SHERMAN regarded the slave trade as iniquitous; but the point of representation having been settled after much difficulty & deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition; especially as the present article as amended did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point in another place of the Report.

    Mr. MADISON objected to 1 for every 40,000, inhabitants as a perpetual rule. The future increase of population if the Union shd. be permanent, will render the number of Representatives excessive.

    Mr. GHORUM. It is not to be supposed that the Govt. will last so long as to produce this effect. Can it be supposed that this vast Country including the Western territory will 150 years hence remain one nation?

    Mr. ELSEWORTH. If the Govt. should continue so long, alterations may be made in the Constitution in the manner proposed in a subsequent article.

    Mr. SHERMAN & Mr. MADISON moved to insert the words "not exceeding" before the words "1 for every 40,000, which was agreed to nem. con.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to insert "free" before the word inhabitants. Much he said would depend on this point. He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. Travel thro' ye. whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye. E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible, passing thro' the Jerseys & entering Pa. every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed south wdly & every step you take thro' ye. great region of slaves presents a desert increasing, with ye. increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this city [Philada.] are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, [FN20]shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. He would add that Domestic slavery is the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the favorite offspring of Aristocracy. And What is the proposed compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every principle of right, of every impulse of humanity. They are to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the S. States; for their defence agst. those very slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels & seamen in case of foreign Attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by excises, and duties on imports: both of which will fall heavier on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness. On the other side the Southern States are not to be restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of defence; nay they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of having their votes in the Natl. Govt. increased in proportion, and are at the same time to have their exports & their slaves exempt from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It is idle to suppose that the Genl. Govt. can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a Country. They can only do it through the medium of exports imports & excises. For what then are all these sacrifices to be made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with such a Constitution.

    Mr. DAYTON 2ded. the motion. He did it he said that his sentiments on the subject might appear whatever might be the fate of the amendment.

    Mr. SHERMAN. did not regard the admission of the Negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southn. States who were in fact to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the Negroes are only included in the Estimate of the taxes. This was his idea of the matter.

     
  20. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    59,080
    Likes Received:
    36,707

    Minutes of the Federal Convention, August 22, 1787



    ***

    Art VII sect 4. [FN1], [FN2] resumed. Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, & as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it. He observed that the abolition of Slavery seemed to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatching its business.

    Col. MASON. This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The British Govt. constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might have been by the Enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves, as it did by the Tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily; and the instructions given by Cromwell to the Commissioners sent to Virginia, to arm the servants & slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland & Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N. Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain if S. Carolina & Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands, and will fill that Country with slaves if they can be got thro' S. Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the Right to import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.

    Mr. ELSWORTH. As he had never owned a slave could not judge of the effects of slavery on character: He said however that if it was to be considered in a moral light we ought to go farther and free those already in the Country. -As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia & & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no farther than is urged, we shall be unjust towards S. Carolina & Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck in our Country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrections from foreign influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

    Mr. PINKNEY. If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece Rome & other antient States; the sanction given by France England, Holland & other modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the S. States were let alone they will probably of themselves stop importations. He wd. himself as a Citizen of S. Carolina vote for it. An attempt to take away the right as proposed will produce serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to see adopted.

    General PINKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself & all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution & use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina & Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, & she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require S. C. & Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to S. Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ the carrying trade; The more consumption also, and the more of this, the more of revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of S. Carola. from the Union.

    Mr. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a Genl. Governmt. to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for every thing- that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage-& that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of -------- which he said was a respectable class of people, who carried their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.

    Mr. WILSON observed that if S. C. & Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time as had been suggested, they would never refuse to Unite because the importation might be prohibited. As the Section now stands all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article.

    Mr. GERRY thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to Slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.

    Mr. DICKENSON considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor & safety that the importation of slaves should be authorised to the States by the Constitution. The true question was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation, and this question ought to be left to the National Govt. not to the States particularly interested. If Engd. & France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time excluded from both those Kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southn. States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the Genl. Government.

    Mr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of N. Carolina on the subject, to wit that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of 5. on each slave imported from Africa. 10 on each from elsewhere, & 50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the S. States could not be members of the Union if the clause shd. be rejected, and that it was wrong to force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.

    Mr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other, that great & equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty whilst every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northn. & middle States.

    Mr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the Genl. Govt. He cd. not with a good conscience leave it with the States who could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by the opinions here given that they will themselves cease to import slaves.

    Genl. PINKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think S. Carolina would stop her importations of slaves in any short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved to commit the clause that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports which he he thought right & wch. wd. remove one difficulty that had been started.

    Mr. RUTLIDGE. If the Convention thinks that N. C. S. C. & Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous agst. striking out the Section, and seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS wished the whole subject to be committed including the clauses relating to taxes on exports & to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern & Southern States.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now