The Slave Question
It is important to note that the controversy over slavery was not a matter of race, but rather a matter of political power and
taxation. Emancipated slaves and free blacks enjoyed the same privileges of citizenship and the same duties, including
payment of taxes as any other citizen. Indians were not taxed because they were not citizens of the states in which they
resided. Instead, they were citizens of their respective tribe and their civic loyalty was to the tribe and not the state. At the
time of the Philadelphia Convention there were five states with slave populations and eight without. Ten states had outlawed
the importation of slaves but not their possession. The institution of slavery was widely condemned in the northern states and
by many leading citizens in the southern states as well.
Under the proposed new government taxes were to be apportioned among the states in proportion to population. The
controversy that arose in the Convention over the question of slavery stemmed from the fact that northern, free states
wanted slaves to be counted as people for the purposes of taxation but counted as property for the purpose of determining
the states representation in Congress. The southern, slave states took the opposite position. They did not want slaves counted
when levying taxes, but insisted that they be counted when calculating the number of representatives the state was entitled to
in Congress.
Slaves amounted to as much as 40% of the population in some of the southern states. Counting them as people instead of
property would unfairly increase the number of the state’s representatives in Congress, since slaves were not given the right
to vote. James Wilson of Pennsylvania offered a compromise that was accepted by the delegates. Under the compromise
only three-fifths of the slave population in each state would be counted for taxing purposes and for determining
representation in Congress. Unfortunately, the language used in the Constitution to describe this arrangement has been
interpreted as considering an individual slave as only three-fifths of a person. That interpretation is still used today by enemies
of the Constitution in the effort to diminish its moral authority.
Ratification
On July 24 a committee of five, consisting of John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, Oliver Ellsworth, and
James Wilson were appointed as a “committee of detail”, and charged with the task of drafting a detailed Constitution
containing the fundamental principles approved thus far. It is to this committee and a later “committee of style” that we owe
the clear concise language of the Constitution. It is clear from comparing Madison’s notes to the final product that both
committees used a fair amount of discretion in converting their notes into a finished document. There was no stenographic
record of the proceedings and the committees had to rely on their memory and available notes in putting the Constitution
together.
From August 6 to September 10, the delegates went over every detail of the committee’s report, making changes where
warranted. On September 8, another committee of five, the “committee of style”, consisting of, William Samuel Johnson,
Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison and Rufus King, was appointed “to revise the style of and arrange
the articles which had been agreed to by the house.” Their report was presented on September 12 and ordered printed for the
delegate’s convenience. After three days of scrutiny by the delegates the finished Constitution was ordered engrossed.
On September 17, the delegates met for their final session. A number were disappointed with the results, some considered
the Constitution a “makeshift” document containing too many compromises. Edmund Randolph, George Mason and Elbridge
Gerry refused to sign the final document. In order to present an image of unanimity the signing statement read,
Compare this with the unequivocal statement of the Declaration of Independence as, “The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America.” Obviously the battle for ratification was going to be a long and difficult one.
A copy of the Constitution was first published on September 19, 1787 in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser in
Philadelphia. It was soon picked up and published in papers throughout the states. Madison, Gorham, and King immediately
left Philadelphia for New York where the Continental Congress was in session. As members of Congress they wanted
personally to placate the certain opposition expected in Congress from the expanded scope of the new Constitution.
Even though the new Constitution would mean dissolving the Continental Congress, its members nevertheless, after some
debate, voted unanimously on September 28 to submit the Constitution to the states for their approval or rejection. Congress
made no recommendation for or against its ratification.
As states began to prepare for state conventions to consider the Constitution, opposition to its ratification started to emerge.
Two factions quickly formed, “Federalists” who supported its ratification and “Anti-Federalists” who opposed it. In an
attempt to favorably influence the New York ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton enlisted the aid of James Madison and
John Jay in writing a series of essays in support of the Constitution. Their essays were intended to persuade delegates to the
New York Convention, where a full two-thirds were opposed to ratification.
The New York Anti-Federalists were led by Governor George Clinton. The leader of the Federalists was Alexander Hamilton.
The essays by the trio of Federalists were published in the New York papers as soon as they were written, and shortly
appeared in other newspapers throughout the states. The seventy-five essays were originally published in the New York
Packet and the Independent Journal between October 1787 and August 1788. A Two-volume set of these and ten additional
essays were published in 1788 as The Federalist. They are still used today by Constitutional scholars and courts to determine
the original intent of the Framers. A nearly equal number of essays by Anti-Federalist arguing against the Constitution are
mostly ignored by historians, scholars and courts.
Although the authors of the Federalist were faithful in conveying the intent of the Framers, their purpose was to “sell” the
Constitution. Therefore, they minimized and discounted the objections of the Anti-Federalists. For example, Alexander
Hamilton assures us in Federalist No. 81 that the courts would never dare to usurp the legislative authority granted to
Congress. James Madison, in Federalist No. 41, ridicules the idea that Congress could ever use the “general welfare” clauses
in the Preamble and in Article I to pass legislation for purposes not included in the enumerated powers spelled out in Article I,
and Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84, claiming that a Bill of Rights would be
dangerous to our liberties.
Anti-Federalist such as Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, George Clinton and others, produced reams of
opposition papers, writing under such colorful names as “Brutus”, “Pennsylvania Minority”, “Federal Farmer”, “Centinel” and
“Cato”. Other Anti-Federalist leaders like Patrick Henry attempted to block ratification through their state ratifying
conventions. Civil War almost broke out in Rhode Island, the last state to ratify the Constitution, when on July 4, 1788, Anti-
Federalist Judge William West, at the head of 1,000 armed protesters, marched into Providence where the R.I. Convention
was being held.
The Anti-Federalists were at a disadvantage in the ratification debate because they were disorganized and often spoke as
anonymous individuals, whereas the Federalists were well organized and able to coordinate support in multiple states. While
many of the fears of the Anti-federalist have proven to be unfounded, many of their most dire predictions have been proven
true by history, particularly during the progressive era of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The Anti-Federalists feared
that over time the federal government created by the Constitution would consolidate its powers and become a national
government abrogating the sovereignty of the states. They also feared that the national government would become tyrannical
in its dealings with individual citizens.
The most important objection by the Anti-federalists was that the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights. They
demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution before it was ratified. George Mason had proposed that a Bill of
Rights be included in the Constitution during the Convention, but the delegates refused to consider his proposal. Once the
Philadelphia Convention had been adjourned, the Constitution had to either be ratified or rejected as written; otherwise a new
Convention would have to be convened in order to make amendments. However, once the Constitution was ratified it could
be amended under the provisions of Article V.
New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Mary-land, and South Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution without a
Bill of Rights. A stalemate developed and ratification of the Constitution was in doubt. Finally a compromise negotiated by
John Hancock and Samuel Adams, called the “Massachusetts compromise” was reached, whereby Mas-sachusetts would
ratify the Constitution with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added as soon as possible. Virginia, New York
and New Hampshire included similar language in their ratification statements. On that basis, New Hampshire became the
ninth state to ratify, making the Constitution the legal governing document for the United States. The remaining states were
forced to ratify or be left out of the Union. They soon complied and eventually all thirteen states ratified with Rhode Island
being the last on a 34-32 vote, May 29, 1790.
The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states in1789 by the first Congress under the new Constitution, and ratified in1781.
It is important to note that the controversy over slavery was not a matter of race, but rather a matter of political power and
taxation. Emancipated slaves and free blacks enjoyed the same privileges of citizenship and the same duties, including
payment of taxes as any other citizen. Indians were not taxed because they were not citizens of the states in which they
resided. Instead, they were citizens of their respective tribe and their civic loyalty was to the tribe and not the state. At the
time of the Philadelphia Convention there were five states with slave populations and eight without. Ten states had outlawed
the importation of slaves but not their possession. The institution of slavery was widely condemned in the northern states and
by many leading citizens in the southern states as well.
Under the proposed new government taxes were to be apportioned among the states in proportion to population. The
controversy that arose in the Convention over the question of slavery stemmed from the fact that northern, free states
wanted slaves to be counted as people for the purposes of taxation but counted as property for the purpose of determining
the states representation in Congress. The southern, slave states took the opposite position. They did not want slaves counted
when levying taxes, but insisted that they be counted when calculating the number of representatives the state was entitled to
in Congress.
Slaves amounted to as much as 40% of the population in some of the southern states. Counting them as people instead of
property would unfairly increase the number of the state’s representatives in Congress, since slaves were not given the right
to vote. James Wilson of Pennsylvania offered a compromise that was accepted by the delegates. Under the compromise
only three-fifths of the slave population in each state would be counted for taxing purposes and for determining
representation in Congress. Unfortunately, the language used in the Constitution to describe this arrangement has been
interpreted as considering an individual slave as only three-fifths of a person. That interpretation is still used today by enemies
of the Constitution in the effort to diminish its moral authority.
Ratification
On July 24 a committee of five, consisting of John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, Nathaniel Gorham, Oliver Ellsworth, and
James Wilson were appointed as a “committee of detail”, and charged with the task of drafting a detailed Constitution
containing the fundamental principles approved thus far. It is to this committee and a later “committee of style” that we owe
the clear concise language of the Constitution. It is clear from comparing Madison’s notes to the final product that both
committees used a fair amount of discretion in converting their notes into a finished document. There was no stenographic
record of the proceedings and the committees had to rely on their memory and available notes in putting the Constitution
together.
From August 6 to September 10, the delegates went over every detail of the committee’s report, making changes where
warranted. On September 8, another committee of five, the “committee of style”, consisting of, William Samuel Johnson,
Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, James Madison and Rufus King, was appointed “to revise the style of and arrange
the articles which had been agreed to by the house.” Their report was presented on September 12 and ordered printed for the
delegate’s convenience. After three days of scrutiny by the delegates the finished Constitution was ordered engrossed.
On September 17, the delegates met for their final session. A number were disappointed with the results, some considered
the Constitution a “makeshift” document containing too many compromises. Edmund Randolph, George Mason and Elbridge
Gerry refused to sign the final document. In order to present an image of unanimity the signing statement read,
- “Done in Convention by the Unanimous consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of
Our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty-seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the
twelfth.”
Compare this with the unequivocal statement of the Declaration of Independence as, “The Unanimous Declaration of the
Thirteen United States of America.” Obviously the battle for ratification was going to be a long and difficult one.
A copy of the Constitution was first published on September 19, 1787 in the Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser in
Philadelphia. It was soon picked up and published in papers throughout the states. Madison, Gorham, and King immediately
left Philadelphia for New York where the Continental Congress was in session. As members of Congress they wanted
personally to placate the certain opposition expected in Congress from the expanded scope of the new Constitution.
Even though the new Constitution would mean dissolving the Continental Congress, its members nevertheless, after some
debate, voted unanimously on September 28 to submit the Constitution to the states for their approval or rejection. Congress
made no recommendation for or against its ratification.
As states began to prepare for state conventions to consider the Constitution, opposition to its ratification started to emerge.
Two factions quickly formed, “Federalists” who supported its ratification and “Anti-Federalists” who opposed it. In an
attempt to favorably influence the New York ratifying convention, Alexander Hamilton enlisted the aid of James Madison and
John Jay in writing a series of essays in support of the Constitution. Their essays were intended to persuade delegates to the
New York Convention, where a full two-thirds were opposed to ratification.
The New York Anti-Federalists were led by Governor George Clinton. The leader of the Federalists was Alexander Hamilton.
The essays by the trio of Federalists were published in the New York papers as soon as they were written, and shortly
appeared in other newspapers throughout the states. The seventy-five essays were originally published in the New York
Packet and the Independent Journal between October 1787 and August 1788. A Two-volume set of these and ten additional
essays were published in 1788 as The Federalist. They are still used today by Constitutional scholars and courts to determine
the original intent of the Framers. A nearly equal number of essays by Anti-Federalist arguing against the Constitution are
mostly ignored by historians, scholars and courts.
Although the authors of the Federalist were faithful in conveying the intent of the Framers, their purpose was to “sell” the
Constitution. Therefore, they minimized and discounted the objections of the Anti-Federalists. For example, Alexander
Hamilton assures us in Federalist No. 81 that the courts would never dare to usurp the legislative authority granted to
Congress. James Madison, in Federalist No. 41, ridicules the idea that Congress could ever use the “general welfare” clauses
in the Preamble and in Article I to pass legislation for purposes not included in the enumerated powers spelled out in Article I,
and Hamilton argues against the need for a Bill of Rights in Federalist No. 84, claiming that a Bill of Rights would be
dangerous to our liberties.
Anti-Federalist such as Melancton Smith, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Yates, George Clinton and others, produced reams of
opposition papers, writing under such colorful names as “Brutus”, “Pennsylvania Minority”, “Federal Farmer”, “Centinel” and
“Cato”. Other Anti-Federalist leaders like Patrick Henry attempted to block ratification through their state ratifying
conventions. Civil War almost broke out in Rhode Island, the last state to ratify the Constitution, when on July 4, 1788, Anti-
Federalist Judge William West, at the head of 1,000 armed protesters, marched into Providence where the R.I. Convention
was being held.
The Anti-Federalists were at a disadvantage in the ratification debate because they were disorganized and often spoke as
anonymous individuals, whereas the Federalists were well organized and able to coordinate support in multiple states. While
many of the fears of the Anti-federalist have proven to be unfounded, many of their most dire predictions have been proven
true by history, particularly during the progressive era of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The Anti-Federalists feared
that over time the federal government created by the Constitution would consolidate its powers and become a national
government abrogating the sovereignty of the states. They also feared that the national government would become tyrannical
in its dealings with individual citizens.
The most important objection by the Anti-federalists was that the Constitution did not contain a Bill of Rights. They
demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the Constitution before it was ratified. George Mason had proposed that a Bill of
Rights be included in the Constitution during the Convention, but the delegates refused to consider his proposal. Once the
Philadelphia Convention had been adjourned, the Constitution had to either be ratified or rejected as written; otherwise a new
Convention would have to be convened in order to make amendments. However, once the Constitution was ratified it could
be amended under the provisions of Article V.
New York, Virginia, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Mary-land, and South Carolina refused to ratify the Constitution without a
Bill of Rights. A stalemate developed and ratification of the Constitution was in doubt. Finally a compromise negotiated by
John Hancock and Samuel Adams, called the “Massachusetts compromise” was reached, whereby Mas-sachusetts would
ratify the Constitution with the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added as soon as possible. Virginia, New York
and New Hampshire included similar language in their ratification statements. On that basis, New Hampshire became the
ninth state to ratify, making the Constitution the legal governing document for the United States. The remaining states were
forced to ratify or be left out of the Union. They soon complied and eventually all thirteen states ratified with Rhode Island
being the last on a 34-32 vote, May 29, 1790.
The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states in1789 by the first Congress under the new Constitution, and ratified in1781.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
E-mail address
jfm@illinoisconservative.com
jfm@illinoisconservative.com
| Philosophy of Evil Socialism in America "The struggle of History is not between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat; it is between government and the governed." Jerry McDaniel |
Purchase a book for your
library or as a gift
library or as a gift
| Philosophy of Evil Socialism In America By Jerry McDaniel Chapter 13, Cont'd The Philadelphia Convention |
| In God We Trust |
| Christian Patriots USA |