Primary Source: Gouverneur Morris, Constitutional Convention Speeches

Gouverneur Morris remains in many ways the least understood and most important of the delegates at the Convention. He was no grandstander, despite a reputation for daring brashness. Nor did he produce the most elaborate theoretical statements of constitutional principles within the debates. However, he was certainly one of the most persistent and visible participants. He was the only one who, on more than one occasion, expressly announced his opinions (and thus, votes) changed by the debates. He was important not so much for his draftsmanship of the final document (which could have given him Jefferson-like claim to tombstone recognition) but, rather, for his determined participation in driving a narrative of transaction as the foundation of the entire undertaking. He displayed keen recognition that the idea of political union was equivalent to concocting an unstable, always potentially explosive, solution in a chemistry laboratory.

Through Morris, we learn that the often-celebrated exclusion of the term “slave” from the document was not a simple accomplishment. For Morris had specifically moved to include the term “slave” in reference to the slave trade, paired with a reference to the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, which insisted upon the trade for their participation in the union. Morris withdrew his motion upon objection. The objection, however, arose from the perceived aspersion on the slaveholding states. But, in the course of the Convention, no one spoke more decidedly against the practice of slavery than Morris had done. Accordingly, his “dealing” with the slave interest on this occasion is evidence of the overall approach he took to the constitutional deliberation. It was all give-and-take.

July 11, Mr. Morris was “reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human nature, and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes, and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.”

August 8, Mr. Morris: “He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution- It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. & the other States having slaves. (Travel thro’ ye whole Continent & you behold the prospect continually varying with the appearance & disappearance of slavery. The moment you leave ye E. Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the institution become visible; Passing thro’ the Jerseys and entering PA every criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change. Proceed Southwdly, & every step you take thro’ ye great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with the increasing proportion of these wretched beings.)”

“Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens & let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? The Houses in this City (Philada.) are worth more than all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & dam(n)s them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.”

…

View the document on the National Constitution Center’s website here