Skip to Main Content

Convention: A Daily Journal

Center for Civics Education

Convention: A Daily Journal

Convention: A Daily Journal is a day-by-day journal of the 1787 Constitutional Convention convened by twelve of the original thirteen states to amend the Articles of Confederation and create a “more perfect union.” It chronicles the daily activities of the Convention, profiles the delegates and their interactions with each other, and looks back to life in America in the 1780s. Writing in the first person, the story is told from an “observer” hearing events as told in contemporary newspaper accounts and delegates’ personal notes and letters.


Tuesday, August 21, 1787

August 21, 2020 - 4 minute read


Slaves cooking in a plantation

This evening New Jersey’s David Brearley dashed off a letter to his colleague William Paterson who had returned to New Jersey two weeks ago. “Cannot you come down and assist us?” he asked. “We have many reasons for desiring this…We actually stand in need of your abilities.” Brearley had hoped the Convention would adjourn by the first of September, but “at present I have no prospect of our getting through before the latter end of that month. Every article is again argued over, with as much earnestness and obstinacy as before it was committed.”

Today’s session obviously contributed to Brearley’s frustration. It began with the report of the Grand Committee which had been charged with devising recommendations concerning the militia and assumption of State debts by the national government. Both propositions were read and laid on the table for future consideration. John Dickinson then moved to postpone the next regular order of business (Article VII, Sect. 3) in order to reconsider Art. IV, Sect. 4, limiting the number of representatives for each of the large States. Roger Sherman agreed to reconsideration, but not postponement. Dickinson withdrew his motion.

Which brought them back to the regular order of business – the militia and State debts. Sherman made a motion, then withdrew it “to make way for one of Mr. Williamson’s,” which was promptly postponed. Confused? Is there any doubt as to the basis of Brearley’s frustration and his projection that the Convention will not adjourn until late September?

Oliver Ellsworth, Elbridge Gerry, and Luther Martin each made proposals pertaining to taxation, but each was easily defeated with a minimum of debate. Finally, the Convention was back on track, considering each proposition in order as it appeared in the report of the Committee of Detail. However, the next section to be considered, Article VII, Sect. 4 ignited a contentious debate which degenerated into an ugly exchange about slavery.

Sect. 4 provides that “no tax or duty 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 such migration or importation be prohibited.” John Langdon represents New Hampshire, a non-exporting State. “This section leaves the States at liberty to tax exports,” he observed. “New Hampshire and other non-exporting States will be subject to be taxed by the States exporting its produce.” Ellsworth also represents a small State (Connecticut) but is less concerned. “The power of Congress to regulate trade between the States will protect them against each other,” he asserted. Gouverneur Morris felt the weight of the arguments but is concerned that parochial issues are re-surfacing. “These local considerations ought not to impede the general interest,” he pleaded, but they could not be avoided.

As usual, Elbridge Gerry raised the specter of a national government run amok, trampling over the States. “Strenuously opposed” to its power over exports, he charged “it might be made use of to compel the States to comply with the will of the general government. We have given it more power already than we know now will be exercised. It will enable the general government to oppress the States as much as Ireland is oppressed by Great Britain.” Gerry’s dire predictions aside, the provision of Article VII, Sect. 4 prohibiting the national government from levying a tax in exports was approved 7 – 4 without any changes.

Next, Luther Martin turned to the remaining parts of Sect. 4, injunctions against prohibiting and taxing the importation of slaves, although the word “slaves” was not used in the report. “As five slaves are to be counted as three free men in the apportionment of representation,” he began, “such a clause would leave an encouragement to this traffic. Slaves weaken one part of the Union, which the other parts are bound to protect. The privilege of importing them is therefore unreasonable. It is inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.”

Martin is often abrasive and not particularly popular. He is blunt where others are circumspect, often rude when others are polite. Today he was bold and principled. He put the issue of slavery front and center, provoking a debate many delegates wished to avoid and evoking reactions that will reverberate for decades to come. Incensed at these charges, John Rutledge rose. He “did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section.” He was not apprehensive of slave insurrections but would “readily exempt the other States from the obligation to protect the southern States from them.” As for the morality of slavery, Rutledge declared, “religion and humanity have nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.”

Rutledge confronted the northern States with the point of interests. “If the northern States consult their interests,” he insisted, “they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.”

Oliver Ellsworth, representing Connecticut, “was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judge of their particular interest. The old Confederation had not meddled with this point, and I do not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.” Clearly. Ellsworth wants this issue to “go away.”

“South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade,” Charles Pinckney barked. “In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, South Carolina has expressed and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done.” Adjourned.

Back to top