It would not be easy to find in the history of contests between nations or factions of men any epithet more inexcusable, or around which more misrepresentations have clustered, than "the slave power." It has disfig

ured the literature of the Northern States; it has served up there as the most effective weapon to silence any man who pleaded for justice to the South; and during the last thirty-two years it has often dared to show its hideous and malignant head in the South.

Let us review the so-called historical evidence which is supposed to establish the charge involved in this phrase.

1. The South, by threats of refusing to go into the Union under the Constitution, compelled the North to consent to a continuance of the African slave trade till 1808.

It is quite true that the members of the Convention from Georgia and South Carolina made some such threat; but those two States were not "the South." And it is also true that the New England members, as is elsewhere fully explained, readily consented to the demands of those two States as an equivalent for the privilege granted to them to monopolize the carrying trade. This "bargain" was due to that spirit of concession manifested by Rufus King, a new Englander, on a different subject. 1 He "had always expected that, as the Southern States are the richest, they would not league themselves with the Northern, unless some respect were paid to their superior wealth. If the latter expect those preferential distinctions in commerce, and other advantages which

1 Elliot's Debates, Volume V, page 290.

1

they will derive from the connection, they must not expect to receive them without allowing some advantages in return."

2. By threats of some sort the South drove the North to yield to the demand that "three-fifths" of the slaves should be counted in ascertaining the representative population of the States, so as to give the South a greater relative power in the administration of the Government.

This charge is fully met by the records of the Congress of the Confederation and of the Convention of 1787. They prove that it is a child of ignorance or malice.

Under the Articles of Confederation the Congress (wherein each State cast one vote) possessed no power to levy taxes on the people, but each State was bound to supply the treasury by taxes collected in its own borders according to the number of acres of land granted to or surveyed for any person, etc. But for some reason this basis of taxation was not satisfactory; and on April 18, 1783, some amendments to the Articles were proposed to the States, one of which was that the sum to be furnished by each State should be "in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and three-fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes,"1 etc.

In the adjustment of this ratio there was much difference of views. The purpose was to ascertain the wealthproducing power of each State. And it was agreed that a slave was not equal to a white man in this respect. The debate (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5, p. 79) was interest

1 Elliot's Debates, Volume I, page 94.

ing, as showing that Northern men wished to include nearly all the slaves. A committee which had had the subject under consideration reported "that two blacks be rated as one freeman.'

Mr. Wolcott, of Connecticut, was for rating them as "four to three."

Mr. Carroll, of Maryland, was for rating them as "four to one."

Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, 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, of Massachusetts, was in favor of "four to three."

Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, 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, of Massachusetts, was in favor of "four to one."

Mr. Osgood, of Massachusetts, was for "four to three." Mr. Lee, of Virginia, "thought two slaves were not equal to one white man."

Thus it is seen that three-fifths was a larger ratio than the Southern Members desired.'

2

The proposed amendment of the Articles of Confederation was ratified by eleven States, and the public mind acquiesced in the judgment of the Congress that, in the production of wealth, five slaves were equal to three white men.

Hence the Convention of 1787, when it came to imbed in the Constitution the doctrine that taxation and rep

1 See Note W.

2 Delaware and South Carolina refused to ratify.

resentation ought to go together, provided that "representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States" according to the basis already virtually agreed to.

The debate on fixing a basis of representation was as interesting as that on the basis of direct taxes.

"Mr. Sherman," of Connecticut, "proposed" (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5, p. 178) "that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch (House of Representatives) should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants.

1

*

* *

"Mr. Rutledge proposed that the proportion of suffrage in the first branch should be according to the quotas of contribution. The justice of this, he said, could not be contested.

"Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, urged the same idea; adding that money was power; and that the States ought to have weight in the Government in proportion to their wealth.

"Mr. King, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, in order to bring the question to a point moved 'that the right of suffrage in the first branch *** ought not to be according to the rule in the Articles of Confederation-one vote to each State-but according to some equitable ratio of representation.'

* *

*

"Mr. Dickinson, of Delaware, contended for the actual contributions of the States, as the rule, etc. By

1 The opposition of New Englanders to counting three-fifths of the slaves in the representative population brought Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, to his feet. He "reminded Mr. Gorham (of Massachusetts) that, if the Southern States contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation was in view, the Eastern States, on the same occasion, contended for their equality."-El. Deb., 5, 296.

thus connecting the interests of the States with their duty, the latter would be sure to be performed. 1

1 * * *

"On the question for agreeing to King's and Wilson's motion it passed in the affirmative. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye, 7; New York, New Jersey, Delaware, no, 3; Maryland, divided.

"It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, and seconded by Mr. Butler, to add to the words 'equitable ratio of representation,' at the end of the motion just agreed to, the words 'according to the quotas of contribution."

"On motion of Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, seconded by Mr. Pinckney, of South Carolina, this was postponed in order to add, after the words 'equitable ratio of representation,' the words following-'in proportion to the whole number of white and other free citizens and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition, including

'Mr. Dickinson here hints at the failure of some of the States to furnish their quotas of réquisitions, and he evidently supposed that under the new Constitution the old system would be pursued. This supposition seems to have prevailed throughout the States. In the North Carolina Convention which met in Hillsboro,' July 1, 1788, and declined to carry the State into the new Union, Mr. Gowdy, of Guilford County, objecting to the plan of the Constitution, said: "Mr. Chairman, this clause of taxation will give an advantage to some States over the others. It will be oppresssive to the Southern States. Taxes are (to be) equal to our representation. To augment our taxes, and increase our burdens, our negroes are to be represented. * * * I wish not to be represented with negroes if it in creases my burdens." To this Mr. Davie replied that it was the "same principle (three-fifths of the slaves) which was proposed some years ago by Congress, and assented to by twelve of the States.' Elliot's Debates, 4, 30.

Another objection to the plan was that there would be two sets of tax gatherers in every State. To this Mr. Hamilton, in No. XXX of the Federalist, replied that if Congress collected direct taxes, it would, in his opinion, “make use of the State officers and State regu lations."