The Correspondence of Thomas Jefferson
By Subject
ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION / PROPERTY, SLAVES AND TAXATION
On Friday, July 12, the committee appointed to draw the articles of
Confederation reported them, and, on the 22d, the House resolved
themselves to a committee to take them into consideration. On the 30th
and 31st of that month, and 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.
Mr. 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 always 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 and 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 always 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
the same surplus in slaves. There is no more reason, therefore, for
taxing the Southern States on the farmer's head, and on his slave's
head, than the Northern ones on their farmer's heads and the heads of
their cattle; that the method proposed would, therefore, tax the
Southern States according to their numbers and 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, and 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, and 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 laboring poor were
called freemen, in others they were called slaves; but that the
difference as to the state was imaginary only.
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 laborers which produces the surplus for
taxation, and numbers, therefore, indiscriminately, are the fair index
of wealth; that it is the use of the word "property" here,
and its 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 laborers in his country, and
proportionably to its profits and abilities to pay taxes; if he buys
from his neighbor, it is only a transfer of a laborer from one farm to
another, which does not change the annual produce of the State, and
therefore, should not change its tax.
Mr. Harrison proposed, as a compromise, that two slaves should he
counted as one freeman. He affirmed that slaves did not do as 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 laborer in the
Southern colonies being from £8 to £12, while in the
Northern it was generally £24.
Mr. 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, and 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 through all the
colonies: there were as many cattle, horses and sheep, in the North as
the South, and South as the North; but not so as to slaves: that
experience has shown that those colonies have been always able to pay
most, which have the most inhabitants, whether they be black or white;
and the practice of the Southern colonies has always been to make
every farmer pay poll taxes upon all his laborers, 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.
I moved and presented a bill for the revision of the laws, which was
passed on the 24th of October; and on the 5th of November, Mr.
Pendleton, Mr. Wythe, George Mason, Thomas L. Lee, and myself, were
appointed a committee to execute the work. We agreed to meet at
Fredericksburg to settle the plan of operation, and to distribute the
work. We met there accordingly, on the 13th of January, 1777.
I proposed to abolish the law of primogeniture, and to make real
estate descendible in parcenary to the next of kin, as personal
property is, by the statute of distribution. Mr. Pendleton wished to
preserve the right of primogeniture, but seeing at once that that
could not prevail, he proposed we should adopt the Hebrew principle,
and give a double portion to the elder son. I observed, that if the
eldest son could eat twice as much, or do double work, it might be a
natural evidence of his right to a double portion; but being on a par
in his powers and wants, with his brothers and sisters, he should be
on a par also in the partition of the patrimony; and such was the
decision of the other members.
from Notes for an Autobiography, 6 January 1821
|