00000334 |
Previous | 334 of 866 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
AN EXTENSIVE SALE OF CONSCIENCE. 303
General Pinckney opposed the motion of his namesake and colleague,
Mr. Charles Pinckney. " It was," said he, " 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 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."' By the liberal conduct of the Eastern States to the views of South Carolina, "he meant," says
Mr. Madison in a note, "the permission to import slaves. An understanding
on the tiuo subjects of navigation and slavery had taken place behueen these
parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion depending, as well
as the language of General Pinckney and others." "He differed," said
Gouverneur Morris, "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 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." 2
The vote on the motion required two-thirds of each House to pass an Act
to regulate commerce, reveals the existence and the extent of the compromise
in question as plainly as the words of Mr. Madison. Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, and Georgia voted in the affirmative, while New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and South
Carolina voted in the negative.3 Thus South Carolina was the only
Southern State which voted to confer the power in question on the Northern
majority, or against requiring two-thirds of each House to regulate commerce. It is curious to note the corresponding change in the vote of the
Northern States on the subject of slavery. On the question for agreeing to
include three-fifths of the blacks in the basis of representation, when, on a
former occasion, it came up for decision, every Northern State, except Connecticut, voted in the negative, or against the representation of slaves. * But
now, notwithstanding all the inflammatory speeches of King, Morris, and
■other Northern members against slavery and the slave trade, every Northern
State, except New~ Jersey, voted for the provision, or for the representation of
slaves.5 Was not this a most extensive sale of conscience ?
It was an evil hour for the Southern States, when the power over commerce was yielded to the Northern majority. A great effort was made in the
convention by Northern members to confer on Congress the power to tax
•exports; but the design of such a measure was too obvious to be tolerated by
1 Madison Papers, p. 1451. i Ibid., p. 1456.
2 Ibid., p. 1451. • s jbid., p. 1078.
3 Ibid., p. 1078.
| 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 | 00000334 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | AN EXTENSIVE SALE OF CONSCIENCE. 303 General Pinckney opposed the motion of his namesake and colleague, Mr. Charles Pinckney. " It was," said he, " 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 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."' By the liberal conduct of the Eastern States to the views of South Carolina, "he meant," says Mr. Madison in a note, "the permission to import slaves. An understanding on the tiuo subjects of navigation and slavery had taken place behueen these parts of the Union, which explains the vote on the motion depending, as well as the language of General Pinckney and others." "He differed," said Gouverneur Morris, "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 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." 2 The vote on the motion required two-thirds of each House to pass an Act to regulate commerce, reveals the existence and the extent of the compromise in question as plainly as the words of Mr. Madison. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia voted in the affirmative, while New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and South Carolina voted in the negative.3 Thus South Carolina was the only Southern State which voted to confer the power in question on the Northern majority, or against requiring two-thirds of each House to regulate commerce. It is curious to note the corresponding change in the vote of the Northern States on the subject of slavery. On the question for agreeing to include three-fifths of the blacks in the basis of representation, when, on a former occasion, it came up for decision, every Northern State, except Connecticut, voted in the negative, or against the representation of slaves. * But now, notwithstanding all the inflammatory speeches of King, Morris, and ■other Northern members against slavery and the slave trade, every Northern State, except New~ Jersey, voted for the provision, or for the representation of slaves.5 Was not this a most extensive sale of conscience ? It was an evil hour for the Southern States, when the power over commerce was yielded to the Northern majority. A great effort was made in the convention by Northern members to confer on Congress the power to tax •exports; but the design of such a measure was too obvious to be tolerated by 1 Madison Papers, p. 1451. i Ibid., p. 1456. 2 Ibid., p. 1451. • s jbid., p. 1078. 3 Ibid., p. 1078. |
