The power of regulating commerce was a pure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the Northern States at present.—p. 1450.
General PINCKNEY said it was the true interest of the Southern States to have no regulation of commerce; but considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views[[7]] of South Carolina, and the interest the weak Southern States had in being united with the strong Eastern States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commercial regulations, and that his constituents, though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled to this liberality. He had, himself, he said, prejudices against the Eastern States before he came here, but would acknowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever.—p. 1451.
[Footnote [7]: He meant the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the two subjects of navigation and slavery, had taken place between those parts of the Union, which explains the vote of the motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and others.]
Mr. PINCKNEY replied, that his enumeration meant the five minute interests. It still left the two great divisions of Northern and Southern interests.
Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS opposed the object of the motion as highly injurious.—A navy was essential to security, particularly of the Southern States;—
Mr. WILLIAMSON. As to the weakness of the Southern States, he was not alarmed on that account. The sickliness of their climate for invaders would prevent their being made an object. He acknowledged that he did not think the motion requiring two-thirds necessary in itself; because if a majority of the Northern States should push their regulations too far, the Southern States would build ships for themselves; but he knew the Southern people were apprehensive on this subject, and would be pleased with the precaution.
Mr. SPAIGHT was against the motion. The Southern States could at any time save themselves from oppression, by building ships for their own use.—p. 1452.
Mr. BUTLER differed from those who considered the rejection of the motion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. He considered the interests of these and of the Eastern States to be as different as the interests of Russia and Turkey. Being, notwithstanding, desirous of conciliating the affections of the Eastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of a majority.—p. 1453.
Mr. MADISON. He added, that the Southern States would derive an essential advantage, in the general security afforded by the increase of our maritime strength. He stated the vulnerable situation of them all, and of Virginia in particular.
Mr. RUTLEDGE was against the motion of his colleague. At the worst, a navigation act could bear hard a little while only on the Southern States. As we are laying the foundation for a great empire, we ought to take a permanent view of the subject, and not look at the present moment only.