to regulate commerce, foreign and domestic, lost the revenue to the country, and exposed its trade and manufacturing interests to the rapacity of foreign powers.

The Continental Congress, which changing events had rendered powerless, performed the arduous labors to which it had been called with credit to the country and honor to itself.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

A glance at some items of its legislation will render more intelligible events which have transpired under the Federal Constitution.

The first general Congress convened at Philadelphia, Sept. 5, 1774, proclaimed the following as one of its "Articles of Association."

2. "That we will neither import nor purchase any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time we will wholly discontinue the slavetrade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it."

Many of the States having ceded to the general government lands lying beyond their proper State limits, it devolved upon Congress to provide a system of government for such territory. A select committee, consisting of Mr. Jefferson of Va., Chase of Md., and Howell of R. I., submitted to Congress a plan for the government of the western territories, embracing not only the region lying north-west of the Ohio, but the entire tract from the thirty-first degree of north latitude to the northern boundary of the United States. The provision covered the cessions already made and those expected to be made by the remaining States. This plan contemplated the division of this tract into seventeen States, nine lying north of the Falls of Ohio, (Louisville,) eight below it.

ORDINANCE OF 1787.

23

333

Among other regulations reported by the committee for the government of this region, was the following:

"That after the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been convicted to be personally guilty."

The report came before Congress, April 19th, 1784, on motion of Mr. Spaight of N. C.,-seconded by Mr. Read of S. C.-A vote was taken on the adoption of the above clause, and resulted as follows: Foster and Blanchard of N. H., aye; Gerry and Partridge, Mass., aye; Ellery and Howell, R. I., aye; Sherman and Wadsworth, Ct., aye; Dewitt and Paine, N. J., aye ; Dick, N. J., aye ;* Mifflin, Montgomery, and Hand, Pa., aye; Stone and McHenry, Md., no; Hardy and Mercer, Va., no; Jefferson, Va., aye; Williamson, N. C., aye; Spaight, N. C., no; Read and Beresford, S. C., no.

The question was lost and the provision struck out.

Lost, although a heavy majority voted in its favor; six States voted in the affirmative to three in the negative; sixteen members voted for, to seven against the proposition. Under the Confederation a proposition to prevail must receive the vote of nine States. Thus failed this extensive restriction. Being further amended, the ordinance was finally approved.

The subject of providing a government for the territories was again before Congress in 1787. A committee reported, through Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, its Chairman, "An Ordinance for the government of the territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio;" the southern States having not yet ceded the larger area held by them. This bill embraced many of the provisions

*No quorum.

contained in that of Mr. Jefferson. It concludes with six unalterable articles of perpetual compact, of which the following is one :

"There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be duly convicted."

To this was added a stipulation for the rendition of fugitives from labor or service. Thus amended, the bill passed and became a law, qualifying the relation of the States and territories at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

The utter inability of Congress to protect the interests of the country and to promote its general welfare became daily more apparent. To provide for the emergency, a Convention was called to revise the Articles of Confederation. The delegates met in Philadelphia in May, and entered upon the discharge of their duties on the 25th of the same month. Gen. Washington was chosen President. The Articles of Confederation being considered by the majority radically defective, they were laid aside, and it was resolved to form a National Government, consisting of supreme, judicial, legislative, and executive depart

ments.

The conflicting interests which were represented in the Constitutional Convention rendered the work before it not less difficult in its accomplishment than it was important in its results. "States Rights" drew the distinctive line of party. Earnest and enthusiastic advocates were met by as resolute and determined opponents. This diversity of opinion, then first manifested, has, to some extent, characterized political action down to the present

SLAVERY IN THE CONSTITUTION.

25

day. Commerce was not without disturbing force, while, over-reaching all others in magnitude and importance, stood that interest which has been the topic of so much legislation since-African slavery. The sentiment of the Convention will be best drawn from the expressions of its members. The subjects of " Equalization of Representation" and the continuance of the "slave trade" being under consideration, Mr. Martin, of Maryland, said: "As five slaves in the apportionment of representatives were reckoned as equal to three freemen, such a permission amounted to an encouragement of the slave trade. Slaves weakened the union which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was, therefore, unreasonable. Such a feature in the Constitution was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character."

Mr. Rutledge "did not see how this section would encourage the importation of slaves. He was not apprehensive of insurrection, and would readily exempt the other States from every obligation to protect the South. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations."

Mr. Ellsworth said: "Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery is a consideration belonging to the States. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interests."

Mr. Mason said: "Slavery discourages art and manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They produce a pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is

born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country."

Mr. Williamson declared himself, both in opinion and practice, against slavery; but he thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all the circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on their terms, than to exclude them from the Union. Mr. Sherman objected to the tax, as acknowledging men to be property. Madison thought it " wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men ;" and the phraseology of one clause was subsequently altered to avoid any such implication.

The disputed points were ultimately compromised by amendments and concession, and the Constitution received the signature of thirty-nine out of the fifty-five members of the Convention. Of the remaining sixteen, some refused their sanction, others, known to be friendly to the Constitution, had left the Convention before its close. There was never, perhaps, another political body in which more varied and opposite views were represented, and where, through so great diversity of opinion, was attained a result so harmonious and beneficent. We have seen the development of colonial power under most disadvantageous circumstances; the consolidation of that power and its triumphal resistance to the aggressions of a great and powerful foreign force. We have seen the assembled wisdom and political sagacity of the young nation, laboring to devise a charter of State; we have seen the issue of their labor in the Federal Constitution; going forth with this into the great commonalty, we may notice its effect upon the public mind, the rise and progress of parties, and the more prominent features of political action from the adoption of the Constitution down to the present time.

1