Antifederalist No. 54 Apportionment And Slavery: |
 |
This four part essay shows both northern and southern dissatisfaction with "the Great Compromise." The first is taken from the third essay of "Brutus." The second: from the speeches of Rawlins Lowndes to the South Carolina ratifying convention on January 16, 17, and 18, 1788. The third: from the sixth essay by "Cato." The fourth: from an essay by "A Georgian," appearing in The Gazette of the State of Georgia on November 15, 1787.
"In a free State," says the celebrated Montesquieu, "every man, who is supposed to be a free agent, ought to be concerned in his own government, therefore the legislature should reside in the whole body of the people, or their representatives." But it has never been alleged that those who are not free agents can, upon any rational principle, have anything to do in government, either by themselves or others. If they have no share in government, why is the number of members in the assembly to be increased on their account? Is it because in some of the States, a considerable part of the property of the inhabitants consists in a number of their fellow-men, who are held in bondage, in defiance of every idea of benevolence, justice and religion, and contrary to all the principles of liberty which have been publicly avowed in the late Glorious Revolution? If this be a just ground for representation, the horses in some of the States, and the oxen in others, ought to be represented -- for a great share of property in some of them consists in these animals; and they have as much control over their own actions as these poor unhappy creatures, who are intended to be described in the above recited clause, by the words, "all other persons." By this mode of apportionment, the representatives of the different parts of the Union will be extremely unequal; in some of the Southern States the slaves are nearly equal in number to the free men; and for all these slaves they will be entitled to a proportionate share in the legislature; this will give them an unreasonable weight in the government, which can derive no additional strength, protection, nor defense from the slaves, but the contrary. Why, then, should they be represented? What adds to the evil is, that these States are to be permitted to continue the inhuman traffic of importing slaves until the year 1808 -- and for every cargo of these unhappy people which unfeeling, unprincipled, barbarous and avaricious wretches may tear from their country, friends and tender connections, and bring into those States, they are to be rewarded by having an increase of members in the General Assembly....
BRUTUS
. . . . six of the Eastern States formed a majority in the House of Representatives. In
the enumeration he passed Rhode Island, and included Pennsylvania. Now, was it consonant
with reason, with wisdom, with policy, to suppose, in a legislature where a majority of
persons sat whose interests were greatly different from ours, that we had the smallest
chance of receiving adequate advantages? Certainly not. He believed the gentlemen that
went from this state, to represent us in Convention, possessed as much integrity, and
stood as high in point of character, as any gentlemen that could have been selected; and
he also believed that they had done every thing in their power to procure for us a
proportionate share in this new government; but the very little they had gained proved
what we may expect in future -- that the interest of the Northern States would so
predominate as to divest us of any pretensions to the title of a republic. In the first
place, what cause was there for jealousy of our importing Negroes? Why confine us to
twenty years, or rather why limit us at all? For his part, he thought this trade could be
justified on the principles of religion, humanity, and justice; for certainly to translate
a set of human beings from a bad country to a better, was fulfilling every part of these
principles. But they don't like our slaves, because they have none themselves, and
therefore want to exclude us from this great advantage. Why should the Southern States
allow of this, without the consent of nine states? . . .
We had a law prohibiting the importation of Negroes for three years, a law he greatly
approved of; but there was no reason offered why the Southern States might not find it
necessary to alter their conduct, and open their ports.
Without Negroes, this state would degenerate into one of the most contemptible in the
Union; and he cited an expression that fell from General Pinckney on a former debate, that
whilst there remained one acre of swampland in South Carolina, he should raise his voice
against restricting the importation of Negroes. Even in granting the importation for
twenty years, care had been taken to make us pay for this indulgence, each Negro being
liable, on importation, to pay a duty not exceeding ten dollars; and, in addition to this,
they were liable to a capitation tax. Negroes were our wealth, our only natural resource;
yet behold how our kind friends in the north were determined soon to tie up our hands, and
drain us of what we had! The Eastern States drew their means of subsistence, in a great
measure, from their shipping; and, on that head, they had been particularly careful not to
allow of any burdens: they were not to pay tonnage or duties; no, not even the form of
clearing out: all ports were free and open to them! Why, then, call this a reciprocal
bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it on the other!
Major [Pierce] BUTLER observed, that they were to pay five per cent impost.
This, Mr. LOWNDES proved, must fall upon the consumer. They are to be the carriers; and,
we being the consumers, therefore all expenses would fall upon us. A great number of
gentlemen were captivated with this new Constitution, because those who were in debt would
be compelled to pay; others pleased themselves with the reflection that no more
confiscation laws would be passed; but those were small advantages, in proportion to the
evils that might be apprehended from the laws that might be passed by Congress, whenever
there was a majority of representatives from the Eastern States, who were governed by
prejudices and ideas extremely different from ours. . . .
Great stress was laid on the admirable checks which guarded us, under the new
Constitution, from the encroachments of tyranny; but too many checks in a political
machine must produce the same mischiefs in a mechanical one -- that of throwing all into
confusion. But supposing we considered ourselves so much aggrieved as to reduce us to the
necessity of insisting on redress, what probability had we of relief? Very little indeed.
In the revolving on misfortune, some little gleams of comfort resulted from a hope of
being able to resort to an impartial tribunal for redress; but pray what reason was there
for expectancy that, in Congress, the interest of five Southern States would be considered
in a preferable point of view to the nine Eastern ones?
.... the mode of legislation in the infancy of free communities was by the collective
body, and this consisted of free persons, or those whose age admitted them to the right of
mankind and citizenship, whose sex made them capable of protecting the state, and whose
birth may be denominated Free Born; and no traces can be found that ever women, children,
and slaves, or those who were not sui juris, in the early days of legislation, met with
the free members of the community to deliberate on public measures; hence is derived this
maxim in free governments, that representation ought to bear a proportion to the number of
free inhabitants in a community; this principle your own state constitution, and others,
have observed in the establishment of a future census, in order to apportion the
representatives, and to increase or diminish the representation to the ratio of the
increase or diminution of electors. But, what aid can the community derive from the
assistance women, infants and slaves, in their deliberation, or in their defense? What
motives, therefore, could the convention have in departing from just and rational
principle of representation, which is the governing principle of this state and of all
America?
CATO
Article 1, section 2. This section mentions that, within three years after the first
meeting of the Congress of the United States, an enumeration shall take place, the number
of representatives not to exceed one member for every 30,000. This article I believe to be
inadmissable. First, it affords to small a representation, (supposing 48 at the highest
calculation) and especially in the southern states, their climate, soil, and produce, . .
. not being capable of that population as in the northern states. Would it not therefore
be better to increase the number of representatives, say one member for every 20,000 for
the states north of Virginia, and one for every 15,000 south of the said state, itself
included? Or, secondly, divide the states into districts which shall choose the
representatives, by which every part of a state will have an equal chance, without being
liable to parties or factions? Should it be said it will increase the expense, it will be
money well laid out, and the more so if we retain the paying them out of our own bands.
And, supposing the voting in the house of representatives was continued as heretofore by
states, would it not be more equal still? At any rate I would strenuously recommend to
vote by states, and not individually, as it will be accommodating the idea of equality,
which should ever be observed in a republican form of government. Or, thirdly, if it was
in proportion to the quotas of the states, as rated in taxation, then the number of
members would increase with the proportion of tax, and at that rate there would always be
an equality in the quota of tax as well as representation; for what chance of equality
according to the constitution in question, can a state have that has only one or two
votes, when others have eight or ten, (for it is evident that each representative, as well
as senator, is meant to have a vote, as it mentions no other mode but in choosing the
president), and as it is generally allowed that the United States are divided into two
natural divisions, the northern as far as Virginia, the latter included forms the
southern? This produces a wide difference in climate, soil, customs, manners of living,
and the produce of the land, as well as trade, also in population, to which it is well
observed the latter is not so favorable as the former, and never can nor will be, nature
itself being the great obstacle. And when taxation is in agitation, as also many other
points, it must produce differences in sentiments; and, in such dispute, how is it likely
to be decided? According to the mode of voting, the number of members north of Virginia
the first three years is 42, and the southern, Virginia included, 23....
Is human nature above self interest? If the northern states do not horde the southern in
taxation, it would appear then really that they are more disinterested men than we know
of.
| Go To Top | Previous | Next |
