They said Congress could then destroy their prosperity by putting export duties on their staple products.

183. Slavery in the Convention.-Slavery gave no little trouble. It existed by State authority; the Convention proposed to leave it to State regulation, but it was necessary to adjust the Government of the Union to the institution. It presented two stubborn questions. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia wanted their slaves counted in apportioning voting power in Congress, but did not want them counted in apportioning taxes; while many of the delegates from other States wanted to have slaves taxed, but did not want to have them represented. Then the three Southern States were also determined that the importation of negroes should not be interfered with, which was obnoxious to other States.

184. Conflict of Interests. Thus were the delegates divided in opinion. Thus was the Convention cut through and through by lines that crossed one another at all angles. Seldom has a deliberative assembly been compelled to deal with elements so blended and confusing. But, after all, the hope of the Convention, and of the country, lay in this very confusion. The Large-state and Small-state parties both dissolved the moment the fundamental question of constituting the government was disposed of, and the secondary question of powers. was taken up. Moreover, all the questions did not demand an answer on any one day; had they done so, the Convention must have ended in failure.

1

185. The Virginia Plan.-On May 29 Governor Randolph presented to the Convention a series of fifteen resolutions that are known as the Virginia plan. The same day Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, also presented a plan. These plans were considered in Committee of the Whole

1 It is well known to historical scholars that the so-called "Pinckney plan” as found in Elliot, Vol. I., p. 129, is a document of no authority. It was evidently filled in by Mr. Pinckney as the Convention proceeded. See The Madison Papers, Vol. III. Appendix 2, and The Writings of James Madison, Vol. IV., pp. 172, 173, 181, 182, 338, 339, 378, 379.

until June 13, when the first one, somewhat amended and expanded, was favorably reported to the Convention. This plan embodied the National theory in its strongest form. The Legislative branch should consist of two houses, the first elected by the people of the States for three years, the second by the State Legislatures for seven years; the Executive should be chosen by the two houses of the National Legislature; the Judiciary, by the second house. The representation in each House should be according to the respective population of the States, or their quotas of contribution. This rule would have given the States of Massachusetts and Virginia twenty-six Representatives in a House of sixty-six, and thirteen Senators in a Senate of twenty-eight.

186. The Jersey Plan.-On June 15 Mr. Patterson, of New Jersey, as the spokesman of the small States, presented the alternative scheme, in eleven resolutions. This plan made no change in the basis of the Government; it left Congress a single body, with an equal representation elected by the States. It provided a Federal Executive to be appointed by Congress, and a Judiciary to be appointed by the Executive. This plan was much more definite and full with regard to powers than the one introduced by Mr. Randolph. But it must be remembered that the two statesmen were looking mainly at two different things: Randolph, at organizing a new government; Patterson, at strengthening an old one.

187. Reaffirmation of the Virginia Plan.-The Randolph, Pinckney, and Patterson plans were now sent to the Committee of the Whole, that the new one might be discussed. The Committee reported, June 19, that it did not agree to the Patterson propositions, and again affirmed the Virginia plan. This action thoroughly alarmed the Smallstate men and came near upsetting the Convention. The Large-state men were now at liberty to go on and frame a constitution, if they could hold together; but they knew perfectly well that any constitution approved by a vote of

six States to five would be rejected. Fortunately, the distinctness of the first and second groups of questions left the Convention a door of escape, as we shall see in the next chapter.

188. Character of The Convention.-In all sixty-five delegates were appointed, but only fifty-five attended. Of these one had sat in the Albany Congress, three in the Stamp Act Congress, seven in the Congress of 1774, nine had signed the Declaration of Independence, forty-three had been members of Congress and eighteen were members at this time. Twenty-nine had received a liberal education, either in the colleges of the country or in the universities of Great Britain. In ability, education, and political experience, the Convention represented the best elements of the country. Washington and Franklin were the two most famous members; Madison and Hamilton were the ablest political thinkers, but there was a large number of men of a high order of ability.

189. The Words "Strong" and "Weak."-The ambiguities lurking in these words have much confused the history of the Federal Convention. To say that a man favored a strong" or a "weak" government does not settle his status. For example, although Mr. Randolph favored a strong government," he resisted giving Congress the control of commerce, and finally refused to sign the Constitution lest it become an instrument of tyranny. His "strong government " was one of three departments, having a bicameral Congress, in which the States should be ratably represented. Mr. Patterson, and the Northern State men generally, wanted a "weak government," and yet they wished to give Congress the control of commerce. Their "weak government" was one in which the States were equally represented.

190. Composition of the Large-state Party. This party was not composed exclusively of large States. Had it been, it could never have commanded more than three votes out of twelve. North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted, on the motions involving this issue, along with Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts. Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, and Maryland made up the other party. New Hampshire was not pres ent until July 23, and Rhode Island not at any time. Had these two States been present from the beginning, it is impossible to say what the final outcome would have been. "A more fortunate union of circumstances for even-handed compromise could hardly have been imagined. The large States had, through all the preliminary debates, a majority of six to five, large enough to insure a general run of

success in nationalizing the new government, but not so large as to obviate the necessity of deference to the minority.”

191. Slavery in the Colonies.-In 1619, the very year that Virginia won her House of Burgesses, a Dutch ship landed a few negroes at Jamestown, and with that act the history of slavery in the United States began. For a time its growth was very slow; few negroes were imported, and their natural increase was small. Afterwards, both importations and the natural increase became more rapid. The increase in the total number of slaves, as well as their distribution North and South, is shown by this table : 1

Generally, the Colonies were opposed to the slave trade and to slavery. Statutes by the score designed to limit or prohibit the importation of slaves, are found in their statute books. But this opposition was always overborne by British traders supported by the British government. The feeling of the country is shown by a resolution adopted by Congress, April 6, 1776, three months before independence was declared: "That no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies." Some of the States, as Virginia, had already taken the same action. In 1787 slavery had ceased to exist in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and in the five other Northern States it was doomed to early extinction. The most enlightened Southern men looked upon the institution as a great evil to be remedied as soon as possible; and it appears to have been the general expectation in the South that the remedy would come at an early day. The industrial prosperity of the Southern States, and particularly of the two Carolinas and Georgia, for the time depended upon slave labor. It was almost universally believed that emancipation would be attended by greater evils than slavery itself. Even Mr. Jefferson, who was a strong antislavery man, said the two races, equally free, could not live together in the same government.

1 Lalor's Cyclopædia of Political Science, "Slavery."

CHAPTER IX.

THE CONSTITUTION FRAMED.

See references of last chapter, to which may be added Johnston's article, Compromises in U. S. History, I., III., (in Lalor's Cyclopædia.)

192.

First Compromise.-Twice before June 15 it had been suggested that different rules of suffrage should be adopted for the different Houses. No attention was paid to these suggestions at the time. On June 29 Mr. Johnson, of Connecticut, proposed that instead of longer opposing the National idea to the State idea, the Convention should combine the two,-make the suffrage proportional in the one House and equal in the other. Mr. Ellsworth, also of Connecticut, made that motion. The Union, he said, was partly National, partly Federal; proportional representation in the first branch would be conformable to the National principle, and an equality of voices in the other would be conformable to the Federal principle. Dr. Franklin seconded the motion. "The small States contended," he said, "that the National principle would endanger their liberties; the large States contended that the Federal principle would endanger their money. When a broad table is planks do not fit, the

to be made, and the edges of the artist takes a little from both and makes a good joint.” This motion, sometimes called the "Connecticut Compromise," was finally adopted. With it were coupled two other propositions. The first of these, "all bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives," was concession to the large States. The other one, that in apportioning Representatives and direct taxes three-fifths of the slaves should be counted, was a concession to the Carolinas and Georgia. This compromise was not adopted as a whole at one time, but by separate votes, item by