Thomas Jefferson's Autobiography The Articles of Confederation
by Thomas Jefferson
On Friday July 12. the Committee appointed to draw the articles
of confederation reported them, and on the 22d. the house resolved
themselves into a committee to take them into consideration. On the
30th. & 31st. of that month & 1st. of the ensuing, those articles
were debated which determined the proportion or quota of money which
each state should furnish to the common treasury, and the manner of
voting in Congress. The first of these articles was expressed in the
original draught in these words. "Art. XI. All charges of war & all
other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defence, or
general welfare, and allowed by the United States assembled, shall be
defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the
several colonies in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every
age, sex & quality, except Indians not paying taxes, in each colony,
a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhabitants, shall
be triennially taken & transmitted to the Assembly of the United
States."
Mr. [Samuel] Chase moved that the quotas should be fixed, not
by the number of inhabitants of every condition, but by that of the
"white inhabitants." He admitted that taxation should be alwais in
proportion to property, that this was in theory the true rule, but
that from a variety of difficulties, it was a rule which could never
be adopted in practice. The value of the property in every State
could never be estimated justly & equally. Some other measure for
the wealth of the State must therefore be devised, some standard
referred to which would be more simple. He considered the number of
inhabitants as a tolerably good criterion of property, and that this
might alwais be obtained. He therefore thought it the best mode
which we could adopt, with one exception only. He observed that
negroes are property, and as such cannot be distinguished from the
lands or personalities held in those States where there are few
slaves, that the surplus of profit which a Northern farmer is able to
lay by, he invests in cattle, horses, &c. whereas a Southern farmer
lays out that same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason
therefore for taxing the Southern states on the farmer's head, & on
his slave's head, than the Northern ones on their farmer's heads &
the heads of their cattle, that the method proposed would therefore
tax the Southern states according to their numbers & their wealth
conjunctly, while the Northern would be taxed on numbers only: that
negroes in fact should not be considered as members of the state more
than cattle & that they have no more interest in it.
Mr. John Adams observed that the numbers of people were taken
by this article as an index of the wealth of the state, & not as
subjects of taxation, that as to this matter it was of no consequence
by what name you called your people, whether by that of freemen or of
slaves. That in some countries the labouring poor were called
freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the difference
as to the state was imaginary only. What matters it whether a
landlord employing ten labourers in his farm, gives them annually as
much money as will buy them the necessaries of life, or gives them
those necessaries at short hand. The ten labourers add as much
wealth annually to the state, increase it's exports as much in the
one case as the other. Certainly 500 freemen produce no more
profits, no greater surplus for the paiment of taxes than 500 slaves.
Therefore the state in which are the labourers called freemen should
be taxed no more than that in which are those called slaves. Suppose
by any extraordinary operation of nature or of law one half the
labourers of a state could in the course of one night be transformed
into slaves: would the state be made the poorer or the less able to
pay taxes? That the condition of the laboring poor in most
countries, that of the fishermen particularly of the Northern states,
is as abject as that of slaves. It is the number of labourers which
produce the surplus for taxation, and numbers therefore
indiscriminately, are the fair index of wealth. That it is the use
of the word "property" here, & it's application to some of the people
of the state, which produces the fallacy. How does the Southern
farmer procure slaves? Either by importation or by purchase from his
neighbor. If he imports a slave, he adds one to the number of
labourers in his country, and proportionably to it's profits &
abilities to pay taxes. If he buys from his neighbor it is only a
transfer of a labourer from one farm to another, which does not
change the annual produce of the state, & therefore should not change
it's tax. That if a Northern farmer works ten labourers on his farm,
he can, it is true, invest the surplus of ten men's labour in cattle:
but so may the Southern farmer working ten slaves. That a state of
one hundred thousand freemen can maintain no more cattle than one of
one hundred thousand slaves. Therefore they have no more of that
kind of property. That a slave may indeed from the custom of speech
be more properly called the wealth of his master, than the free
labourer might be called the wealth of his employer: but as to the
state, both were equally it's wealth, and should therefore equally
add to the quota of it's tax.
Mr. [Benjamin] Harrison proposed as a compromise, that two
slaves should be counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did
not do so much work as freemen, and doubted if two effected more than
one. That this was proved by the price of labor. The hire of a
labourer in the Southern colonies being from 8 to pound 12. while in
the Northern it was generally pound 24.
Mr. [James] Wilson said that if this amendment should take
place the Southern colonies would have all the benefit of slaves,
whilst the Northern ones would bear the burthen. That slaves
increase the profits of a state, which the Southern states mean to
take to themselves; that they also increase the burthen of defence,
which would of course fall so much the heavier on the Northern. That
slaves occupy the places of freemen and eat their food. Dismiss your
slaves & freemen will take their places. It is our duty to lay every
discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment would
give the jus trium liberorum to him who would import slaves. That
other kinds of property were pretty equally distributed thro' all the
colonies: there were as many cattle, horses, & sheep, in the North as
the South, & South as the North; but not so as to slaves. That
experience has shown that those colonies have been alwais able to pay
most which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white,
and the practice of the Southern colonies has alwais been to make
every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his labourers whether they be
black or white. He acknowledges indeed that freemen work the most;
but they consume the most also. They do not produce a greater
surplus for taxation. The slave is neither fed nor clothed so
expensively as a freeman. Again white women are exempted from labor
generally, but negro women are not. In this then the Southern states
have an advantage as the article now stands. It has sometimes been
said that slavery is necessary because the commodities they raise
would be too dear for market if cultivated by freemen; but now it is
said that the labor of the slave is the dearest.
Mr. Payne urged the original resolution of Congress, to
proportion the quotas of the states to the number of souls.
Dr. [John] Witherspoon was of opinion that the value of lands &
houses was the best estimate of the wealth of a nation, and that it
was practicable to obtain such a valuation. This is the true
barometer of wealth. The one now proposed is imperfect in itself,
and unequal between the States. It has been objected that negroes
eat the food of freemen & therefore should be taxed. Horses also eat
the food of freemen; therefore they also should be taxed. It has
been said too that in carrying slaves into the estimate of the taxes
the state is to pay, we do no more than those states themselves do,
who alwais take slaves into the estimate of the taxes the individual
is to pay. But the cases are not parallel. In the Southern colonies
slaves pervade the whole colony; but they do not pervade the whole
continent. That as to the original resolution of Congress to
proportion the quotas according to the souls, it was temporary only,
& related to the monies heretofore emitted: whereas we are now
entering into a new compact, and therefore stand on original ground.
Aug 1. The question being put the amendment proposed was
rejected by the votes of N. Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island,
Connecticut, N. York, N. Jersey, & Pennsylvania, against those of
Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Georgia was
divided.
The other article was in these words. "Art. XVII. In
determining questions each colony shall have one vote."
July 30. 31. Aug 1. Present 41. members. Mr. Chase observed
that this article was the most likely to divide us of any one
proposed in the draught then under consideration. That the larger
colonies had threatened they would not confederate at all if their
weight in congress should not be equal to the numbers of people they
added to the confederacy; while the smaller ones declared against a
union if they did not retain an equal vote for the protection of
their rights. That it was of the utmost consequence to bring the
parties together, as should we sever from each other, either no
foreign power will ally with us at all, or the different states will
form different alliances, and thus increase the horrors of those
scenes of civil war and bloodshed which in such a state of separation
& independance would render us a miserable people. That our
importance, our interests, our peace required that we should
confederate, and that mutual sacrifices should be made to effect a
compromise of this difficult question. He was of opinion the smaller
colonies would lose their rights, if they were not in some instances
allowed an equal vote; and therefore that a discrimination should
take place among the questions which would come before Congress.
That the smaller states should be secured in all questions concerning
life or liberty & the greater ones in all respecting property. He
therefore proposed that in votes relating to money, the voice of each
colony should be proportioned to the number of its inhabitants.
Dr. Franklin thought that the votes should be so proportioned
in all cases. He took notice that the Delaware counties had bound up
their Delegates to disagree to this article. He thought it a very
extraordinary language to be held by any state, that they would not
confederate with us unless we would let them dispose of our money.
Certainly if we vote equally we ought to pay equally; but the smaller
states will hardly purchase the privilege at this price. That had he
lived in a state where the representation, originally equal, had
become unequal by time & accident he might have submitted rather than
disturb government; but that we should be very wrong to set out in
this practice when it is in our power to establish what is right.
That at the time of the Union between England and Scotland the latter
had made the objection which the smaller states now do. But
experience had proved that no unfairness had ever been shown them.
That their advocates had prognosticated that it would again happen as
in times of old, that the whale would swallow Jonas, but he thought
the prediction reversed in event and that Jonas had swallowed the
whale, for the Scotch had in fact got possession of the government
and gave laws to the English. He reprobated the original agreement
of Congress to vote by colonies and therefore was for their voting in
all cases according to the number of taxables.
Dr. Witherspoon opposed every alteration of the article. All
men admit that a confederacy is necessary. Should the idea get
abroad that there is likely to be no union among us, it will damp the
minds of the people, diminish the glory of our struggle, & lessen
it's importance; because it will open to our view future prospects of
war & dissension among ourselves. If an equal vote be refused, the
smaller states will become vassals to the larger; & all experience
has shown that the vassals & subjects of free states are the most
enslaved. He instanced the Helots of Sparta & the provinces of Rome.
He observed that foreign powers discovering this blemish would make
it a handle for disengaging the smaller states from so unequal a
confederacy. That the colonies should in fact be considered as
individuals; and that as such, in all disputes they should have an
equal vote; that they are now collected as individuals making a
bargain with each other, & of course had a right to vote as
individuals. That in the East India company they voted by persons, &
not by their proportion of stock. That the Belgic confederacy voted
by provinces. That in questions of war the smaller states were as
much interested as the larger, & therefore should vote equally; and
indeed that the larger states were more likely to bring war on the
confederacy in proportion as their frontier was more extensive. He
admitted that equality of representation was an excellent principle,
but then it must be of things which are coordinate; that is, of
things similar & of the same nature: that nothing relating to
individuals could ever come before Congress; nothing but what would
respect colonies. He distinguished between an incorporating & a
federal union. The union of England was an incorporating one; yet
Scotland had suffered by that union: for that it's inhabitants were
drawn from it by the hopes of places & employments. Nor was it an
instance of equality of representation; because while Scotland was
allowed nearly a thirteenth of representation they were to pay only
one fortieth of the land tax. He expressed his hopes that in the
present enlightened state of men's minds we might expect a lasting
confederacy, if it was founded on fair principles.
John Adams advocated the voting in proportion to numbers. He
said that we stand here as the representatives of the people. That
in some states the people are many, in others they are few; that
therefore their vote here should be proportioned to the numbers from
whom it comes. Reason, justice, & equity never had weight enough on
the face of the earth to govern the councils of men. It is interest
alone which does it, and it is interest alone which can be trusted.
That therefore the interests within doors should be the mathematical
representatives of the interests without doors. That the
individuality of the colonies is a mere sound. Does the
individuality of a colony increase it's wealth or numbers. If it
does, pay equally. If it does not add weight in the scale of the
confederacy, it cannot add to their rights, nor weigh in argument.
A. has pound 50. B. pound 500. C. pound 1000. in partnership. Is it
just they should equally dispose of the monies of the partnership?
It has been said we are independent individuals making a bargain
together. The question is not what we are now, but what we ought to
be when our bargain shall be made. The confederacy is to make us one
individual only; it is to form us, like separate parcels of metal,
into one common mass. We shall no longer retain our separate
individuality, but become a single individual as to all questions
submitted to the confederacy. Therefore all those reasons which
prove the justice & expediency of equal representation in other
assemblies, hold good here. It has been objected that a proportional
vote will endanger the smaller states. We answer that an equal vote
will endanger the larger. Virginia, Pennsylvania, & Massachusetts
are the three greater colonies. Consider their distance, their
difference of produce, of interests & of manners, & it is apparent
they can never have an interest or inclination to combine for the
oppression of the smaller. That the smaller will naturally divide on
all questions with the larger. Rhode isld, from it's relation,
similarity & intercourse will generally pursue the same objects with
Massachusetts; Jersey, Delaware & Maryland, with Pennsylvania.
Dr. [Benjamin] Rush took notice that the decay of the liberties
of the Dutch republic proceeded from three causes. 1. The perfect
unanimity requisite on all occasions. 2. Their obligation to consult
their constituents. 3. Their voting by provinces. This last
destroyed the equality of representation, and the liberties of great
Britain also are sinking from the same defect. That a part of our
rights is deposited in the hands of our legislatures. There it was
admitted there should be an equality of representation. Another part
of our rights is deposited in the hands of Congress: why is it not
equally necessary there should be an equal representation there?
Were it possible to collect the whole body of the people together,
they would determine the questions submitted to them by their
majority. Why should not the same majority decide when voting here
by their representatives? The larger colonies are so providentially
divided in situation as to render every fear of their combining
visionary. Their interests are different, & their circumstances
dissimilar. It is more probable they will become rivals & leave it
in the power of the smaller states to give preponderance to any scale
they please. The voting by the number of free inhabitants will have
one excellent effect, that of inducing the colonies to discourage
slavery & to encourage the increase of their free inhabitants.
Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins observed there were 4 larger, 4 smaller,
& 4 middle-sized colonies. That the 4 largest would contain more
than half the inhabitants of the confederated states, & therefore
would govern the others as they should please. That history affords
no instance of such a thing as equal representation. The Germanic
body votes by states. The Helvetic body does the same; & so does the
Belgic confederacy. That too little is known of the ancient
confederations to say what was their practice.
Mr. Wilson thought that taxation should be in proportion to
wealth, but that representation should accord with the number of
freemen. That government is a collection or result of the wills of
all. That if any government could speak the will of all, it would be
perfect; and that so far as it departs from this it becomes
imperfect. It has been said that Congress is a representation of
states; not of individuals. I say that the objects of its care are
all the individuals of the states. It is strange that annexing the
name of "State" to ten thousand men, should give them an equal right
with forty thousand. This must be the effect of magic, not of
reason. As to those matters which are referred to Congress, we are
not so many states, we are one large state. We lay aside our
individuality, whenever we come here. The Germanic body is a
burlesque on government; and their practice on any point is a
sufficient authority & proof that it is wrong. The greatest
imperfection in the constitution of the Belgic confederacy is their
voting by provinces. The interest of the whole is constantly
sacrificed to that of the small states. The history of the war in
the reign of Q. Anne sufficiently proves this. It is asked shall
nine colonies put it into the power of four to govern them as they
please? I invert the question, and ask shall two millions of people
put it in the power of one million to govern them as they please? It
is pretended too that the smaller colonies will be in danger from the
greater. Speak in honest language & say the minority will be in
danger from the majority. And is there an assembly on earth where
this danger may not be equally pretended? The truth is that our
proceedings will then be consentaneous with the interests of the
majority, and so they ought to be. The probability is much greater
that the larger states will disagree than that they will combine. I
defy the wit of man to invent a possible case or to suggest any one
thing on earth which shall be for the interests of Virginia,
Pennsylvania & Massachusetts, and which will not also be for the
interest of the other states.