An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina on the Federal Constitution

Author: David Ramsay (Civis)

An Address to the Freemen of South Carolina, on the subjectof the Federal Constitution, Proposed by the Convention, which metin Philadelphia, May, 1787. Charleston, Printed by Bowen and Co.,No. 31, Bay.

16 mo., pp. 12.

Written by Dr. David Ramsay, member of the Continental Congress and of the South Carolina State Convention which ratified the Constitution.

Friends, Countrymen, and Fellow Citizens :

You have, at this time a new federal constitution proposed for yourconsideration. The great importance of the subject demands your mostserious attention. To assist you in forming a right judgment on thismatter, it will be proper to consider,

1st. It is the manifest interest of these states to be united.Internal wars among ourselves, would most probably be the consequenceof disunion. Our local weakness particularly proves it to be for theadvantage of South Carolina to strengthen the federal government; forwe are inadequate to secure ourselves from more powerful neighbours. [4]

2d. If the thirteen states are to be united in reality, as well as inname, the obvious principle of the union will be, that the congress, orgeneral government, should have power to regulate all general concerns.In a state of nature, each man is free, and may do what he pleases:but in society, every individual must sacrifice a part of his naturalrights; the minority must yield to the majority, and the collectiveinterest must control particular interests. When thirteen personsconstitute a family, each should forego everything that is injurious tothe other twelve. When several families constitute a parish, or county,each may adopt what regulations it pleases with regard to its domesticaffairs, but must be abridged of that liberty in other cases, where thegood of the whole is concerned.

When several parishes, counties, or districts, form a state, theseparate interests of each must yield to the collective interest ofthe whole. When several states combine in one government, the sameprinciples must be observed. These relinquishments of natural rights,are not real sacrifices: each person, county, or state, gains more thanit loses, for it only gives up a right of injuring others, and obtainsin return aid and strength to secure itself in the peaceable enjoymentof all remaining rights. If then we are to be an united people, andthe obvious ground of union must be, that all continental concernsshould be managed by Congress—let us by those principles examine thenew constitution. Look over the 8th section, which enumerates thepowers of Congress, and point out one that is not essential on thebefore recited principles of union. The first is a power to lay andcollect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, andprovide for the [5] common defence and general welfare of the UnitedStates.

When you authorised Congress to borrow money, and to contract debts,for carrying on the late war, you could not intend to abridge them ofthe means of paying their engagements, made on your account. You mayobserve that their future power is confined to provide common defenceand general welfare of the United States. If they apply money to anyother purposes, they exceed their powers. The people of the UnitedStates who pay, are to be judges how far their money is properlyapplied. It would be tedious to go over all the powers of Congress,but it would be easy to show that they all may be referred to thissingle principle, “that the general concerns of the union ought to bemanaged by the general government.” The opposers of the constitutioncannot show a single power delegated to Congress, that could be sparedconsistently with the welfare of the whole, nor a single one takenfrom the states, but such as can be more advantageously lodged in thegeneral government, than in that of the separate states.

For instance, the states cannot emit money: This is not intended toprevent the emission of paper money, but only of state paper money. Isnot this an advantage? To have thirteen paper currencies in thirteenstates is embarrassing to commerce, and eminently so to travellers.It is therefore , obviously our interest, either to have no paper,or such as will circulate from Georgia to New Hampshire. Take anotherinstance—the Congress are authorized to provide and maintain anavy.—Our sea-coast, in its whole extent needs the protectionthereof; but if this was to be done [6] by the states, they who buildships, would be more secure than they who do not. Again, if the locallegislatures might build ships of war at pleasure, the Eastern wouldhave a manifest superiority over the Southern states. Observe, howmuch better this business is referred to the regulations of Congress.A common navy, paid out of the common treasury, and to be disposedof by the united voice of a majority for the common defence of theweaker as well as of the stronger states, is promised, and will resultfrom the federal constitution. Suffer not yourselves to be imposedon by declamation. Ask the man who objects to the powers of Congresstwo questions, is it not necessary that the supposed dangerouspower should be lodged somewhere? And secondly, where can it belodged, consistently with the general good, so well as in the generalgovernment? Decide for yourselves on these obvious principles of union.

It has been objected, that the eastern states have an advantage intheir representation in Congress. Let us examine this objection—thefour eastern states send seventeen members to the house ofrepresentatives, but Georgia, South-Carolina, North-Carolina andVirginia, send twenty-three. The six northern states send twenty-seven,the six southern thirty. In both cases, we have a superiority;—but,say the objectors, add Pennsylvania to the northern states, and thereis a majority against us. It is obvious to reply, add Pennsylvania tothe southern states, and they have a majority. The objection amounts tono more than that seven are more than six. It must be known to many ofyou, that the Southern states, from their vast extent of uncultivatedcountry, are daily receiving new settlers; but in New England theircountry is [7] so small, and their land so poor, that their inhabitantsare constantly emigrating. As the rule of representation in Congressis to vary with the number of inhabitants, our influence in thegeneral government will be constantly increasing. In fifty years, itis probable that the Southern states will have a great ascendancyover the Eastern. It has been said that thirty-five men, not electedby yourselves, may make laws to bind you. This objection, if it hasany force, tends to the destruction of your state government. By ourconstitution, sixty-nine make a quorum; of course, thirty-five membersmay make a law to bind all the people of South-Carolina.—Charleston,and any one of the neighboring parishes send collectively thirty-sixmembers; it is therefore possible, in the absence of all others, thatthree of the lower parishes might legislate for the whole country.Would this be a valid objection against your own constitution? Itcertainly would not—neither is it against the proposed federal plan.Learn from it this useful lesson—insist on the constant attendance ofyour members, both in the state assembly, and Continental Congress;your representation in the latter, is as numerous in a relativeproportion with the other states as it ought to be. You have athirteenth part in both houses; and you are not, on principles ofequality, entitled to more.

It has been objected, that the president, and two-thirds of the senate,though not of your election, may make treaties binding on the state.Ask these objectors—do you wish to have any treaties? They will sayyes. Ask then who can be more properly trusted with the power of makingthem, than they to whom the convention have referred it? Can the statelegislature? They would con- [8] sult their local interests.—Can theContinental House of Representatives? When sixty-five men can keep asecret, they may.—Observe the cautious guards which are placed roundyour interests. Neither the senate nor president can make treaties bytheir separate authority.—They must both concur.—This is more inyour favour than the footing on which you now stand. The delegates inCongress of nine states, without your consent, can now bind you; by thenew constitution there must be two-thirds of the members present, andalso the president, in whose election you have a vote. Two-thirds areto the whole, nearly as nine to thirteen. If you are not wanting toyourselves by neglecting to keep up the state’s compliment of senators,your situation with regard to preventing the controul of your localinterests by the Northern states, will be better under the proposedconstitution than it is now under the existing confederation.

It has been said, we will have a navigation act, and be restricted toAmerican bottoms, and that high freight will be the consequence. Wecertainly ought to have a navigation act, and we assuredly ought togive a preference, though not a monopoly, to our own shipping.

If this state is invaded by a maritime force, to whom can we apply forimmediate aid?—To Virginia and North-Carolina? Before they can marchby land to our assistance, the country may be overrun. The Easternstates, abounding in men and in ships, can sooner relieve us, thanour next door neighbours. It is therefore not only our duty, but ourinterest to encourage their shipping. They have sufficient resources ona few months notice, to furnish tonnage enough to carry off all yourexports; and they can afford, and doubtless will undertake [9] to beyour carriers on as easy terms as you now pay for freight in foreignbottoms.

On this subject, let us consider what we have gained, also what theyhave lost, by the revolution. We have gained a free trade with all theworld, and consequently a higher price for our commodities; it may besaid, and so have they. But they who reply in this manner, ought toknow, that there is an amazing difference in our favour; their countryaffords no valuable exports, and of course the privilege of a freetrade is to them of little value, while our staple commodity commandsa higher price than was usual before the war. We have also gainedan exemption from quit-rents, to which the eastern states were notsubjected. Connecticut and Rhode Island were nearly as free before therevolution as since. They had no royal governor or councils to controulthem, or to legislate for them. Massachusetts and New Hampshire weremuch nearer independence in their late constitution than we were. Theeastern states, by the revolution, have been deprived of a market fortheir fish, of their carrying trade, their ship-building, and almost ofevery thing but their liberties.

As the war has turned out so much in our favour, and so much againstthem, ought we to grudge them the carrying of our produce, especiallywhen it is considered, that by encouraging their shipping, we increasethe means of our own defence? Let us examine also the federalconstitution, by the principles of reciprocal concession. We havelaid a foundation for a navigation act. This will be a general good;but particularly so to our northern brethren. On the other hand,they have agreed to change the federal rule of paying the continentaldebt, according to the value of land, as laid down in the confede- [10]ration, for a new principle of apportionment, to be founded on thenumbers of inhabitants in the several states respectively. This isan immense concession in our favour. Their land is poor; our’s rich;their numbers great; our’s small; labour with them is done by whitemen, for whom they pay an equal share; while five of our negroes onlycount as equal to three of their whites. This will make a difference ofmany thousands of pounds in settling our continental accounts. It isfarther objected, that they have stipulated for a right to prohibit theimportation of negroes after 21 years. On this subject observe, as theyare bound to protect us from domestic violence, they think we oughtnot to increase our exposure to that evil, by an unlimited importationof slaves. Though Congress may forbid the importation of negroes after21 years, it does not follow that they will. On the other hand, it isprobable that they will not. The more rice we make, the more businesswill be for their shipping; their interest will therefore coincide withour’s. Besides, we have other sources of supply—the importation of theensuing 20 years, added to the natural increase of those we alreadyhave, and the influx from our northern neighbours, who are desirousof getting rid of their slaves, will afford a sufficient number forcultivating all the lands in this state.

Let us suppose the union to be dissolved by the rejection of the newconstitution, what would be our case? The united states owe severalmillions of dollars to France, Spain, and Holland. If an efficientgovernment is not adopted, which will provide for the payment of ourdebt, especially of that which is due to foreigners—who will be thelosers? Most certainly the southern states. Our ex- [11] ports, asbeing the most valuable, would be the first objects of capture onthe high seas, or descents would be made on our defenceless coasts,till the creditors of the United States had paid themselves at theexpense of this weaker part of the union. Let us also compare thepresent confederation with the proposed constitution. The former canneither protect us at home, nor gain us respect abroad; it cannotsecure the payment of our debts, nor command the resources of ourcountry, in case of danger. Without money, without a navy, or the meansof even supporting an army of our own citizens in the field, we lieat the mercy of every invader; our seaport towns may be laid undercontribution, and our country ravaged.

By the new constitution, you will be protected with the force of theunion, against domestic violence and foreign invasion. You will have anavy to defend your coast.—The respectable figure you will make amongthe nations, will so far command the attention of foreign powers, thatit is probable you will soon obtain such commercial treaties, as willopen to your vessels the West-India islands, and give life to yourexpiring commerce.

In a country like our’s, abounding with free men all of one rank,where property is equally diffused, where estates are held in feesimple, the press free, and the means of information common, tyrannycannot reasonably find admission under any form of government; butits admission is next to impossible under one where the peopleare the source of all power, and elect either mediately by theirrepresentatives, or immediately by themselves the whole of their rulers.

Examine the new constitution with candor and liberality. Indulge nonarrow prejudices to the disadvantage of your brethren of the [12]other states; consider the people of all the thirteen states, as aband of brethren, speaking the same language, professing the samereligion, inhabiting one undivided country, and designed by heavento be one people. Content that what regards all the states should bemanaged by that body which represents all of them; be on your guardagainst the misrepresentations of men who are involved in debt; suchmay wish to see the constitution rejected, because of the followingclause, “no state shall emit bills of credit, make any thing butgold and silver coin, a tender in payment of debts, pass any expostfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.” This willdoubtless bear hard on debtors who wish to defraud their creditors,but it will be real service to the honest part of the community.Examine well the characters and circumstances of men who are averseto the new constitution. Perhaps you will find that the above recitedclause is the real ground of the opposition of some of them, thoughthey may artfully cover it with a splendid profession of zeal for stateprivileges and general liberty.

On the whole, if the proposed constitution be not calculated to betteryour country, and to secure to you the blessings for which you haveso successfully contended, reject it: but if it be an improvement onthe present confederation, and contains within itself the principlesof farther improvement suited to future circumstances, join the mightycurrent of federalism, and give it your hearty support. You were amongthe first states that formed an independent constitution; be not amongthe last in accepting and ratifying the proposed plan of federalgovernment; it is your sheet anchor; and without it independence mayprove a curse.

CIVIS.

Credit: Pamphlet text preserved and compiled by Paul Leicester Ford. See the full Ford collection at on Patriot Echoes.