The question was precipitated by a clause in the report of the committee of detail, presented by John Rutledge, of South Carolina, Article 7, Section 4. “No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles exported from any State nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit, nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited.”[5]
In the light of what followed, of the existing legislation upon that subject in the State of South Carolina, and the history of the province and State, the introduction of the concluding clause of this section by her most distinguished representative was unfortunate. It gave rise to declarations concerning the State which not only do not seem to have been absolutely borne out by the facts; but which the actions and votes of her deputies themselves, to some extent stultified; yet the State was nevertheless stamped with an unenviable precedence in a matter in which she cast but one of the seven votes, in a total of eleven, by which the final decision was arrived at.
In the discussion which immediately arose upon the introduction of the report, four views with regard to this clause found expression.
Luther Martin, of Maryland, a Representative from a State, which, as will subsequently be shown, could have then been described as the most complete slave State of the thirteen, had nevertheless the discernment to realize the dangers of such a condition, and proposed to alter the section, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. He presented three grounds of objection to the denial of such: “1. As five slaves are to be counted as three free-men in the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement of the traffic. 2. Slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was, therefore, unreasonable. 3. It was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such features in the Constitution.”
In defending the clause Mr. Rutledge was not conciliatory. He “did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from their obligations to protect the Southern States against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the consumers.”
Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut supported the clause in an argument pitched upon the same utilitarian plane, but strengthened with what was an assertion of the doctrine of States rights. He “was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interests. The old Confederation had not meddled with this point and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.”
Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, while upholding the view of Mr. Rutledge, held out a hope of subsequent accord. He said “South Carolina can never receive the plan, if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of Negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on the subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done.”[6]
Upon the following day the discussion was resumed.
Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, “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 and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, thought it best to leave the matter as we found it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged upon the Convention the necessity of dispatching its business.”
Col. Mason, of Virginia, took very high ground. He declared: “This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of the British merchants. The British Government 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 and slaves in case other means of obtaining submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western people are already calling out for slaves in their new lands, and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts 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 the most pernicious effect on morals. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and 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 General Government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.”