VIRGINIA CONVENTION.

GOV.  RANDOLPH.  This is one point of weakness I wish for the honor of my countrymen that it was the only one.  There is another circumstance which renders us more vulnerable.  Are we not weakened by the population of those whom we hold in slavery?  The day may come when they may make impression upon us.  Gentlemen who have been long accustomed to the contemplation of the subject, think there is a cause of alarm in this case:  the number of those people, compared to that of the whites, is in an immense proportion:  their number amounts to 236,000—­that of the whites, only to 352,000. * * * * I beseech them to consider, whether Virginia and North Carolina, both oppressed with debts and slaves, can defend themselves externally, or make their people happy internally.

GEORGE MASON.  We are told in strong language, of dangers to which we will be exposed unless we adopt this Constitution.  Among the rest, domestic safety is said to be in danger.  This government does not attend to our domestic safety.  It authorizes the importation of slaves for twenty-odd years, and thus continues upon us that nefarious trade.  Instead of securing and protecting us, the continuation of this detestable trade adds daily to our weakness.  Though this evil is increasing, there is no clause in the Constitution that will prevent the Northern and Eastern States from meddling with our whole property of that kind.  There is a clause to prohibit the importation of slaves after twenty years, but there is no provision made for securing to the Southern States those they now possess.  It is far from being a desirable property.  But it will involve us in great difficulties and infelicity to be now deprived of them.  There ought to be a clause in the Constitution to secure us that property, which we have acquired under our former laws, and the loss of which would bring ruin on a great many people.

MR. LEE.  The honorable gentleman abominates it, because it does not prohibit the importation of slaves, and because it does not secure the continuance of the existing slavery!  Is it not obviously inconsistent to criminate it for two contradictory reasons?  I submit it to the consideration of the gentleman, whether, if it be reprehensible in the one case, it can be censurable in the other?  MR. LEE then concluded by earnestly recommending to the committee to proceed regularly.

MR. HENRY.  It says that “no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded.”  If you give this clause a fair construction, what is the true meaning of it?  What does this relate to?  Not domestic insurrections, but war.  If the country be invaded, a State may go to war; but cannot suppress insurrections.  If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded.—­They cannot therefore suppress it, without the interposition of Congress.