regulate the mode of furnishing them, either by the militia themselves, by the State governments, or by Congress. "Laws for disciplining" involved penalties and everything necessary for enforcing them. Ellsworth and Sherman wished to leave the control of the militia exclusively to the State governments. The primary object, as Madison pointed out, was to secure a well disciplined militia; therefore, the whole subject should be under the control of Congress. He suggested that the appointment of all, except general officers, should be reserved to the States. But the State party, not assenting to this, the appointment of all officers was reserved to the States without dissent, in which amended form the Committee's proposition passed.

In the Committee's draft, Congress was forbidden to lay taxes or duties on articles exported from a State, or on the migration or importation of such persons as the States might think proper to admit, and it was forbidden to prohibit such migration or importation. This referred to slaves and the slave trade. The clause, as Langdon remarked, left the States at liberty to tax exports, which was a clear discrimination against non-exporting States, such as New Hampshire. To guard against the oppression of the trade of the South by the North, the concurrence of two-thirds or three-fourths of the legislature might be

1 At this point in the discussion Dayton moved a substitute for the committee's clause, one which afterwards was in part embodied in the Constitution: "To establish a uniform and general system of disciplining for the militia of these States, and to make laws for organizing, arming, disciplining and governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States; reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers and of authority over the militia not herein given to the general government." For the part of Dayton's motion italicized see Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16. Compare this part italicized with Sherman's motion of August 27, see Elliot, V, 465 and 480.

required, to levy an export tax, but Ellsworth thought that the power of regulating trade, between the States, would sufficiently protect each of them; if not, the attempt of any State to tax the products of another passing through its hands would force a direct exportation and defeat itself. Congress should not tax exports, because this would discourage industry, just as taxes on imports discouraged luxury. The productions of the States varied so widely, there could be no uniformity in an export tax. Tobacco, rice and indigo were about all the articles that could be taxed. The attempt, at best, would only engender incurable jealousies. Williamson plainly told the Convention that to allow Congress to levy such a tax would destroy the last hope of the adoption of the plan.

Morris, disregarding particular States, insisted that local considerations ought not to impede general interests. He did not believe that the power in Congress, of regulating the trade between the States, would prevent Pennsylvania from taxing New Jersey. If an export tax was forbidden an embargo could not be laid, though, in time of war, an embargo might be of critical importance. Dickinson, partly agreeing with him, thought that it would be dangerous to prohibit an export tax forever; it would be better to except particular articles. Sherman was for prohibiting Congress in all cases. The enumeration of particular articles would be difficult and invidious, and the States would never surrender their power over trade. Madison inclined to Dickinson's views, as he believed that the tax sometime would prove expedient. Both Ellsworth and McHenry thought that the authority to lay an embargo was included in the war power and therefore need not be specially conferred. Gerry stood, with Williamson, opposed to any grant of power to Congress over exports, for he feared that the general government might oppress the

States as much as Great Britain oppressed Ireland. When America should become a manufacturing country, observed Fitzsimons, an export tax would be proper; therefore it should not be forbidden. If the States were to be reduced to mere corporations, Mason said he would favor subjecting both their exports and imports to a power of general taxation; for the eight northern States had a different interest from the five southern. In the House the North would have thirty-six votes against twenty-nine from the South, and in the Senate, eight for every two of the South; the southern States were justly suspicious. An import tax would be the same throughout the country, but an export tax must vary in different parts. The impolicy of taxing tobacco had been demonstrated, he thought, by the experiment of Virginia. The current of sentiment against the tax being so strong, Madison and Wilson suggested that the requirement of two-thirds of each House to tax exports would be a lesser evil than a total prohibition; but this suggestion failed by one vote.1 It was then decided that no export tax whatever should be laid.2

Luther Martin now proposed that the importation of slaves should be prohibited, or taxed; if not, as five slaves were to be counted as three free men, in the apportionment of representation, the slave trade would be encouraged. Slaves weakened one part of the Union at the expense of the other. The privilege of importing them was, there

1 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware, aye; Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia (Mason, Randolph and Blair, no; Washington and Madison, aye), North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, no.

2 Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Virginia (Washington and Madison, no), North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, aye; New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Delaware,

no,

fore, unreasonable. It was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution. But Rutledge could not see how the clause reported by the Committee would encourage the slave trade. Speaking for the South, he was not apprehensive of a servile insurrection. It was quite right to exempt the northern States from any obligation to protect the southern against their slaves. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question. The governing principle with nations is interest alone.

The question at issue was whether the southern States would be parties to the Union. If the northern consulted their own interest, they would not oppose the increase of slaves; for it would increase the commodities of which they would become the carriers, Ellsworth quite agreed with him. Each State should be free to import as it pleased; for to the States belonged the responsibility of the morality or wisdom of slavery. They were the best judges of their particular interests, and whatever enriched one enriched all. The old Confederation had not meddled with slavery, and there seemed no great necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new government.

Pinckney was convinced that South Carolina would never accept the plan, if it prohibited the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State had expressly opposed all intermeddling with the importation of negroes. Sherman disapproved the slave trade, yet, as the States possessed the right of importation, and as the public did not require its surrender, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the Constitution, he thought it best to leave the matter as the Convention found it.1 The abolition of slavery, he said,

1 August 22.

was going on in the United States, and doubtless the good sense of the States, would, by degrees, complete it. To Mason, the slave trade was odious and a source of constant danger and a discouragement to art and manufactures. It led freemen to despise labor; prevented the emigration of whites, and produced a pernicious effect on manners. Every slave master was born a petty tyrant. As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be punished, he said, in this,1 and he believed that national calamities would be the punishment for national sins. Many inhabitants in Kentucky were already engaged in the slave trade and largely for this reason it found support among the Virginia members from that region. Mason was earnest that the general government should be given power to prevent the increase of slavery.

Ellsworth took the somewhat academic view that the institution would die out in America; that as population increased, poor white laborers would be so plentiful as to render slaves useless. Abolition had already taken place in Massachusetts2 and was making progress in Connecticut. General Pinckney assured the Convention, that if he and his colleagues were to sign a Constitution which empowered the general legislature to tax slaves, or to forbid the slave trade, it would be useless for him and all the members from the southern States to attempt to gain the assent of their constituents to the plan. South Carolina and Georgia could not do without slaves; though Virginia would gain if importation ceased, because her slaves would

1 Compare the well-known passage in Lincoln's second inaugural address; Works, II, 651.

2 See Winchendon vs. Hatfield; 4 Massachusetts, 128; and Littleton vs. Tuttle, Ib. and note. Gradual abolition began in

Massachusetts in 1784.