t heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession
would have produced a readiness, which had not been
manifested, to strengthen the General Government, and to
mark a full confidence in it. The report under consideration
had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. In
two great points, the hands of the Legislature were
absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be
prohibited. Exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable?
What are the great objects of the general system? First,
defence against foreign invasion; secondly, against internal
sedition. Shall all the States, then, be bound to defend
each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness
which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of
the United States be bound to defend another part, and that
other part be at liberty, not only to increase its own
danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If
slaves are to be imported, shall not the exports produced by
their labor supply a revenue, the better to enable the
General Government to defend their masters? There was so
much inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the
people of the Northern States could never be reconciled to
it. No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He
had hoped that some accommodation would have taken place on
this subject; that, at least, a time would have been limited
for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let
them be imported without limitation, and then be represented
in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little
persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that
he was not sure he could assent to it under any
circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be
represented, or exports should be taxable."

Mr. Roger Sherman of Connecticut,--

"Regarded the slave-trade as iniquitous: but the point of
representation having been settled after much difficulty and
deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make
opposition; especially as the present article, as amended,
did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point, in
another place of the report."[630]

Mr. Luther Martin of Maryland, in the debate, Tuesday, Aug. 21,--

"Proposed to vary Art. 7, Sect. 4, so as to allow a
pro