Chapter 20 3. Kill Cheng Yaojin on the way

The so-called black problem is also the slave problem.Not all slaves were black, but basically all blacks were slaves.So the slave problem is also called the black problem.At the time of the Philadelphia Conference, some states in the United States were practicing slavery.Although this system is evil, it cannot be abolished for the time being.Moreover, the Articles of Confederation and the Federal Constitution try to avoid this issue, not even using the term slave, but calling it "person else described."Since it is described separately, it could have been discussed later when the constitution was drafted.However, when the meeting decided that members of the first house should be selected in proportion to the population of each state, it became a question whether these people who were otherwise described were counted in the population.

The southern states claim to count.Because the southern states are slave states, and South Carolina has the most slaves, accounting for 43% of the total population.If blacks and whites count the population equally, then South Carolina's seats, at least in the first house, will be almost doubled, and vice versa.This is not a decimal, of course it must be contested. Therefore, on July 6, South Carolina representative Charles Pinckney proposed that blacks should be counted equally with whites, at least according to the ratio established by the Articles of Confederation, which is 3/5.Two other South Carolina representatives, Butler and Cotsworth Pinckney, went further on July 11, proposing that blacks should be counted equally with whites.A black person counts as a person.Butler said that the labor of the Negroes in South Carolina is of equal value to that of the freemen of Massachusetts, and are equally productive of society and creators of the wealth of our country.They certainly deserve equal representation in the parliament of this government.

Of course, this cannot be said to be unreasonable, but it cannot be said to be very reasonable.As Paterson said on July 9, blacks have no freedom, no citizenship rights, and can only be counted as fixed assets.Because they, like other fixed assets, are completely subject to the will of their masters, they are not represented in their own state, why should they be in the general government?Do they have voting rights when states meet?No.Why should they have an equal seat in the parliament of this government when they don't even have the right to vote?There is a saying that Paterson did not say: equality and equality are not a concept.What Butler and others want is the equality of counting seats, which is not the equality of black and white personalities.To put it bluntly, they demanded that blacks be counted in the total population, and the municipal party committee fought for power, not for blacks.On the contrary, this approach indirectly encourages the slave trade.That's what Paterson said.Paterson was clearly against slavery.Both the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederacy, he said, were ashamed to use the word slave when speaking of it!His meaning is very clear, how can we pass a bill that encourages the slave trade in a disguised form today?

Mason and Govino Morris also objected to the equal counting of blacks and whites.On July 11 and 12, Guvener Morris made two speeches saying that the people of Pennsylvania would never agree to the participation of Negroes in the distribution of seats.He admitted that he was caught in a dilemma, either being unfair to the southern states or being unfair to human nature.After much deliberation, I have no choice but to be unfair to the brothers in the south.Because he could not isolate the slave trade anyway. The opinions of the two factions are so opposite, it seems that they have to compromise.This method is to count 3/5 (Williamson thinks it can be counted in this way, Gliese insists on counting at most 3/5).But counting 3/5 also has problems in legal theory.Wilson said that he really couldn't figure out what kind of algorithm this 3/5 is.Recognize them as citizens?Why not count equally with white people?as a fixed asset?Why are other fixed assets not counted?

So vote.Connecticut, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia are in favor, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina are against, and disagree that blacks should be counted as 3/5. The result of this vote is intriguing.Both Pennsylvania and South Carolina objected.But they objected for different reasons.Pennsylvania's point of view: Negroes don't count at all.Don't say 3/5, 1% can't be counted.South Carolina's requirement is: not only must blacks be counted as a population, but 100% must be counted. This can be seen from the results of the previous vote.The question on the previous vote was whether to agree to count blacks and whites equally when allocating seats?The two southern states, South Carolina and Georgia, were in favor, Pennsylvania and others (Delaware) were against.But the problem is that the Congress neither agrees that blacks and whites should be counted equally, nor that it should be counted as 3/5. Wouldn't the southern states be in great trouble?

Therefore, the next day, July 12, North Carolina Representative David stated that his state would never join without counting Negroes as at least three-fifths.It seems that North Carolina and South Carolina don't think the same way, they seem to only want 3/5 (Georgia agrees to both 3/5 and 100%, which is different among the three southern states), but 3/5 The bottom line cannot be broken.So David said, if the northern states mean that they don't even count as 3/5, then we can call off the meeting now. The representative of South Carolina, General Pinckney, also expressly wanted to protect the "fixed property" of slaves.He said that the purpose of establishing a government is to protect private property. How can slaves, a fixed asset, be put in danger?Randolph lamented the existence of such a "fixed asset," but expressed understanding of the South's demands.As Butler reiterated on July 13, the Southern states demanded the guarantee that the Negroes would never be allowed to be taken away.In fact, although the northern states opposed slavery, they also believed that they did not have the power (and indeed the ability) to abolish slavery in the southern states.What's more, there are so many troubles in the constitutional assembly. The contradiction between the big and small states has not been resolved, and the south and the north are fighting again.

So Wilson proposed a euphemism to solve the problem.The specific method and statement is that slaves should be included in taxation rules, and seats are directly linked to taxation. The ratio is based on the resolution of the Confederate Assembly on April 18, 1783 (ie 3/5).That is to say, because the tax amount is calculated as 3/5 for slaves, the population is also calculated as 3/5.This is also well-founded.According to Gorham's explanation, the Congress of the Confederation set the ratio of 3/5 for blacks, originally to formulate taxation rules.At that time, the representatives of the slave states said that the taxation of slaves should be lower, and this is where the 3/5 came from.It is only 3/5 when paying taxes, so is it 100% when electing members?South Carolina's request is obviously a bit unreasonable.Similarly, since 3/5 of "persons described otherwise" were counted extra when allocating seats, please pay that much more tax too.In other words, since people have paid so much more taxes, of course they should count so many more people and allocate so many more seats.This statement is reasonable, and both sides can be justified.As a result of the vote, the six states of Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia were in favor, two states of New Jersey and Delaware were against, and Massachusetts and South Carolina were both in favor and half against. The meeting passed the motion.

Although the contradiction was resolved, it also left hidden dangers.Because the slave issue is far from that simple, and the requirements of the southern states are not so simple. They also demand the legalization of the slave trade.This made many people intolerable, and both Govenerau Morris and Rufus King came out to denounce slavery as a heinous crime (on August 8th).However, if you compromise this time, you will have to compromise the second time.Sherman said that trying to trade is an unjust act, but the problem of seat allocation is very difficult, and it was finally resolved, so don't add extra complications. On August 22, he said that the emancipation of slaves must be done, but the most urgent task is to complete the constitution-making task.In order not to arouse serious opposition to the Constitution, it is best to maintain the status quo.Ellsworth also said that whether slavery conforms to the principles of morality and wisdom is a matter for the states to consider.It might be unfair to South Carolina and Georgia if it goes too far.Let's not interrupt!

This not only condones an evil system, but also sets a very bad start—threat of separation at every turn, and it can succeed.Rufus King saw this.Rufus King was a Massachusetts representative, a Harvard graduate, and one of the earliest abolitionists.He was 32 years old when he attended the Constitutional Convention. At first, he was surprised by the Virginia plan, but after reacting, he strongly supported it, and even did not agree with the compromise. When discussing the Wilson motion on July 12, Rufus King pointed out that some people said, at every opportunity, give us fairness or we'll secede.Well, it is still in the mediation stage, and they are not strong enough, even if they are like this, how about they have full wings in the future?He added that it would be downright short-sighted to fail to foresee even this!

It turned out he was right.The most recent example is that when discussing the issue of the slave trade, the two Pinckney delegates from South Carolina announced with one voice: South Carolina and Georgia cannot live without slaves, and if the slave trade is prohibited, we will never accept the Constitution!A far-reaching example is the Civil War. In late 1860 and early 1861, the southern states seceded from the Union, literally breaking away from the United States.It was South Carolina that led the way in secession, on December 20, 1860, precisely because of the slave issue. But we can't be harsh, let alone blame the founding leaders of the United States. They were definitely in a state of distress at the time.Madison, Wilson, and Govino Morris, on the one hand, had to face the attacks of small states on the issue of Senate seats, and on the other hand, they had to deal with the demands of the southern states on the issue of the proportion of the House of Representatives.In fact, as early as June 30, the second day after Johnson and Ellsworth proposed the "Connecticut Compromise", Madison pointed out (and he repeatedly mentioned it later) that the interests of the states were not divided. Size, while in the north and south, the main reason is whether to keep slaves.Slavery, and its aftermath, formed mutually exclusive dividing lines.He predicted that the slave states of the South would demand that blacks and slaves be counted in the population as a counterweight to the non-slave states of the North.Therefore, he advocated that both houses should allocate seats according to the proportion of population, one of which only counts free people, and the other counts all people, so as to balance the North and the South.It should be said that this was truly far-sighted, because at this time the question of whether blacks were counted had not been raised (the first time it was raised on July 6).But unfortunately, Madison has been unable to influence the process of the meeting and the compromise plan.