00000326 |
Previous | 326 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
MARYLAND'S OPPOSITION TO THE SLAVE TRADE. 295
However, as it required, under the Articles of Confederation, the vote of
two-thirds of the States to make the transfer, and as no Southern State
would unite with the North in so unjust a measure, they were deprived of the
power to cede the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi to Spain. Failing
in this method they sought to obtain their object by obtaining from Congress
instructions to the Secretary of State, Mr. Jay, to negotiate a treaty with
Spain, upon the basis that the claims of the United States to the Mississippi
should not be conceded, and then to have that part of the instructions which
concerned the condition revoked, which they contended might be done by a
simple vote of the majority in Congress, which was composed of Northern
men.a That is, they could not directly deprive the South and West of the
use of the Mississippi by the vote of a majority nor by less than two-thirds
of the States; but then they could do precisely the same thing indirectly by
a bare majority of one State. They only had to authorize a treaty to be made,
declaring that the use of the Mississippi should not be ceded away, and then,
by the vote of ,a bare majority, repeal that part of the instructions; and the
Secretary might then barter away the very right which two-thirds of the
States had expressly declared should not be conceded.
Notwithstanding the. scheme was so cleverly contrived, it failed,8. owing
to the meeting of the convention of 1787 to form a new constitution.3
When the Federal Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia,
on the 15th of May, 1787, the North and the South stood there face to face,
fresh in the recollection of the late tremendous conflict, and of the angry
tempest which had so recently shaken and endangered the Union.
On the 6th of August, Mr. RuHedge, of South Carolina, "delivered the
report of the committee of detail," containing the provision, [Article VII.,
Sec. 4], that—
"No tax 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 migration or importation be prohibited"
This clause made no change in the fundamental law of the Union, but
merely allowed, as the existing Articles of Confederation did, every State to
import negroes from Africa, or to continue the slave trade as long as it
pleased.
Up to this time no effort had been made on the part of the Northern
States toward abolishing slavery within the Union; nor was there the
slightest opposition made, nor a word uttered by them when this provision
was reported for the proposed Constitution. The slave trade was then
actively carried on by the North, and to check it, Maryland, through Luther
Martin, her representative in the convention, appealed to that body to stop
this pernicious traffic. The North was not disposed, of course, to give it up,
but with the South it had become ah intolerable grievance. They had long
1 The Lost Principle, p. 149. 3 Southern Revieiu, July, 1867, p. 122, etc.
2 Madison Papers, pp. 622-641.
| Title | History of Maryland - 3 |
| Creator | Scharf, J. Thomas (John Thomas) |
| Publisher | J. B. Piet |
| Place of Publication | Baltimore |
| Date | 1879 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000326 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | MARYLAND'S OPPOSITION TO THE SLAVE TRADE. 295 However, as it required, under the Articles of Confederation, the vote of two-thirds of the States to make the transfer, and as no Southern State would unite with the North in so unjust a measure, they were deprived of the power to cede the exclusive navigation of the Mississippi to Spain. Failing in this method they sought to obtain their object by obtaining from Congress instructions to the Secretary of State, Mr. Jay, to negotiate a treaty with Spain, upon the basis that the claims of the United States to the Mississippi should not be conceded, and then to have that part of the instructions which concerned the condition revoked, which they contended might be done by a simple vote of the majority in Congress, which was composed of Northern men.a That is, they could not directly deprive the South and West of the use of the Mississippi by the vote of a majority nor by less than two-thirds of the States; but then they could do precisely the same thing indirectly by a bare majority of one State. They only had to authorize a treaty to be made, declaring that the use of the Mississippi should not be ceded away, and then, by the vote of ,a bare majority, repeal that part of the instructions; and the Secretary might then barter away the very right which two-thirds of the States had expressly declared should not be conceded. Notwithstanding the. scheme was so cleverly contrived, it failed,8. owing to the meeting of the convention of 1787 to form a new constitution.3 When the Federal Constitutional Convention assembled at Philadelphia, on the 15th of May, 1787, the North and the South stood there face to face, fresh in the recollection of the late tremendous conflict, and of the angry tempest which had so recently shaken and endangered the Union. On the 6th of August, Mr. RuHedge, of South Carolina, "delivered the report of the committee of detail," containing the provision, [Article VII., Sec. 4], that— "No tax 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 migration or importation be prohibited" This clause made no change in the fundamental law of the Union, but merely allowed, as the existing Articles of Confederation did, every State to import negroes from Africa, or to continue the slave trade as long as it pleased. Up to this time no effort had been made on the part of the Northern States toward abolishing slavery within the Union; nor was there the slightest opposition made, nor a word uttered by them when this provision was reported for the proposed Constitution. The slave trade was then actively carried on by the North, and to check it, Maryland, through Luther Martin, her representative in the convention, appealed to that body to stop this pernicious traffic. The North was not disposed, of course, to give it up, but with the South it had become ah intolerable grievance. They had long 1 The Lost Principle, p. 149. 3 Southern Revieiu, July, 1867, p. 122, etc. 2 Madison Papers, pp. 622-641. |
