Abraham Lincoln

that his was the only vote in the negative.

The ordinance of April 23, 1784, was a brief outline of that of '87. It was reported by a Committee, of which

Mr. Jefferson was chairman, and the report contained a slavery prohibition intended to take effect in 1800.

This was stricken out of the report, six States voting to retain it--three voting to strike out--one being divided

(N.C.), and the others not being represented. (The assent of nine States was necessary to retain any provision.)

And this is the vote alluded to by Mr. Lincoln. But subsequently, March 16, 1785, a motion was made by

Rufus King to commit a proposition "that there be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" in any of the

Territories; which was carried by the vote of eight States, including Maryland.--_Journal Am. Congress,_ vol.

4, pp. 373, 380, 481, 752.

When, therefore, the ordinance of '87 came before Congress, on its final passage, the subject of slavery

prohibition had been "_agitated_" for nearly three years; and the deliberate and almost unanimous vote of that

Abraham Lincoln

79

---

body upon that question leaves no room to doubt what the fathers believed, and how, in that belief, they

acted.]

[Footnote 11:--It singularly and fortunately happens that one of the "thirty-nine," "while engaged on that

instrument," viz., while advocating its ratification before the Pennsylvania Convention, did express an opinion

upon this "precise question," which opinion was never disputed or doubted, in that or any other Convention,

and was accepted by the opponents of the Constitution, as an indisputable fact. This was the celebrated James

Wilson, of Pennsylvania. The opinion is as follows:--

MONDAY, _Dec._ 3, 1787.

"With respect to the clause restricting Congress from prohibiting the migration or importation of such persons

as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808: The Hon. gentleman says

that this clause is not only dark, but intended to grant to Congress, for that time, the power to admit the

importation of slaves. No such thing was intended; but I will tell you what was done, and it gives me high

pleasure that so much was done. Under the present Confederation, the States may admit the importation of

slaves as long as they please; but by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have power to prohibit

such importation, notwithstanding the disposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as laying the

foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though the period is more distant than I could wish,

yet it will produce the same kind, gradual change which was pursued in Pennsylvania. It is with much

satisfaction that I view this power in the general government, whereby they may lay an interdiction on this

reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is also obtained; for a tax or duty may be imposed on such

importation, not exceeding $10 for each person; and this, sir, operates as a partial prohibition; it was all that

could be obtained. I am sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is reason to hope that yet a few years,

and it will be prohibited altogether. _And in the meantime, the new States which are to be formed will be

under the control of Congress in this particular, and slaves will never be introduced amongst them_."--2

_Elliott's Debates_, 423.

It was argued by Patrick Henry in the Convention in Virginia, as follows:

"May not Congress enact that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this in the last war? We

were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general. But acts of Assembly passed, that every slave who

would go to the army should be free. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is

detested. We feel its fatal effects. We deplore it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations

press with full force on the minds of Congress. Let that urbanity which, I trust, will distinguish America, and

the necessity of national defence--let all these things operate on their minds, they will search that paper, and

see if they have power of manumission. And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the

general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not

pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power? There is no ambiguous implication,

no logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point; they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will

clearly and certainly exercise it."--3 _Elliott's Debates_, 534.

Edmund Randolph, one of the framers of the Constitution, replied to Mr. Henry, admitting the general force of

the argument, but claiming that, because of other provisions, it had no application to the States where slavery

then existed; thus conceding that power to exist in Congress as to all territory belonging to the United States.

Dr. Ramsay, a member of the Convention of South Carolina, in his history of the United States, vol. 3, pages

36, 37, says: "Under these liberal principles, Congress, in organizing colonies, bound themselves to impart to

their inhabitants all the privileges of coequal States, as soon as they were capable of enjoying them. In their

infancy, government was administered for them without any expense. As soon as they should have 60,000

inhabitants, they were authorized to call a convention, and, by common consent, to form their own

constitution. This being done, they were entitled to representation in Congress, and every right attached to the

Abraham Lincoln

80

---

original States. These privileges are not confined to any particular country or complexion. They are

communicable to the emancipated slave (for in the new State of Ohio, slavery is altogether prohibited), to the

copper-colored native, and all other human beings who, after a competent residence and degree of civilization,

are capable of enjoying the blessings of regular government."]

[Footnote 12:--The Act of 1789, as reported by the Committee, was received and read Thursday, July 16th.

The second reading was on Friday, the 17th, when it was committed to the Committee of the whole house, "on

Monday next." On Monday, July 20th, it was considered in Committee of the whole, and ordered to a third

reading on the following day; on the 21st, it passed the House, and was sent to the Senate. In the Senate it had

its first reading on the same day, and was ordered to a second reading on the following day (July 22d), and on

the 4th of August it passed, and on the 7th was approved by the President.]

[Footnote 13:--The "sixteen" represented these States: Langdon and Oilman, New Hampshire; Sherman and

Johnson, Connecticut; Morris, Fitzsimmons, and Clymer, Pennsylvania; King, Massachusetts; Paterson, New

Jersey; Few and Baldwin, Georgia; Bassett and Read, Delaware; Butler, South Carolina; Carroll, Maryland;

and Madison, Virginia]

[Footnote 14:--Vide note 3, ante.]

[Footnote 15:--Chap. 28, § 7, U.S. Statutes, 5th Congress, 2d Session.]

[Footnote 16:--Langdon was from New Hampshire, Read from Delaware, and Baldwin from Georgia.]

[Footnote 17:--Chap. 38, § 10, U.S. Statutes, 8th Congress, 1st Session.]

[Footnote 18:--Baldwin was from Georgia, and Dayton from New Jersey.]

[Footnote 19:--Rufus King, who sat in the old Congress, and also in the Convention, as the representative of

Massachusetts, removed to New York and was sent by that State to the U.S. Senate of the first Congress.

Charles Pinckney was hi the House, as a representative of South Carolina.]

[Footnote 20:--Although Mr. Pinckney opposed "slavery prohibition" in 1820, yet his views, with regard to

the powers of the general government, may be better judged by his actions in the Convention:

FRIDAY, _June 8th,_ 1787.--"Mr. Pinckney moved 'that the National Legislature shall have the power of

negativing all laws to be passed by the State Legislatures, which they may judge improper,' in the room of the

clause as it stood reported.

"He grounds his motion on the necessity of one supreme controlling power, and he considers this as the

_corner-stone_ of the present system; and hence the necessity of retrenching the State authorities, in order to

preserve the good government of the national council."--T. 400, _Elliott's Debates_.

And again, THURSDAY, _August 23d,_ 1787, Mr. Pinckney renewed the motion with some

modifications.--T. 1409. Madison Papers.

And although Mr. Pinckney, as correctly stated by Mr. Lincoln, "steadily voted against slavery prohibition,

and against all compromises," he still regarded the passage of the Missouri Compromise as a great triumph of

the South, which is apparent from the following letter:

CONGRESS HALL, _March 2d_, 1820, 3 _o'clock at night_.

DEAR SIR:---I hasten to inform you, that this moment we have carried the question to admit Missouri, and all

Abraham Lincoln

81

---

Louisiana to the southward of 36° 30', free from the restriction of slavery, and give the South, in a short time,

an addition of six, perhaps eight, members to the Senate of the United States. It is considered here by the

slaveholding States as a great triumph.

The votes were close--ninety to eighty-six--produced by the seceding and absence of a few moderate men

from the North. To the north of 36° 30,' there is to be, by the present law, restriction; which you will see by

the votes, I voted against. But it is at present of no moment; it is a vast tract, uninhabited, only by savages and

wild beasts, in which not a foot of the Indian claims to soil is extinguished, and in which, according to the

ideas prevalent, no land office will be opened for a great length of time.

With respect, your obedient servant,

CHARLES PINCKNEY.

But conclusive evidence of Mr. Pinckney's views is furnished in the fact that he was himself a member of the