declared that his state would never enter the Union on any terms that did not provide for counting at least three-fifths of the slaves and that “if the Eastern states meant to exclude them altogether the business was at an end.”  It was finally agreed to reckon three-fifths of the slaves in estimating taxes and to make taxation the basis of representation.  The whole discussion was renewed, however, in connection with the question of importation.  There were more threats from the far South, and some of the men from New England, prompted by commercial interest, even if they did not favor the sentiments expressed, were at least disposed to give them passive acquiescence.  From Maryland and Virginia, however, came earnest protest.  Luther Martin declared unqualifiedly that to have a clause in the Constitution permitting the importation of slaves was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character, and George Mason could foresee only a future in which a just Providence would punish such a national sin as slavery by national calamities.  Such utterances were not to dominate the convention, however; it was a day of expediency, not of morality.  A bargain was made between the commercial interests of the North and the slave-holding interests of the South, the granting to Congress of unrestricted power to enact navigation laws being conceded in exchange for twenty years’ continuance of the slave-trade.  The main agreements on the subject of slavery were thus finally expressed in the Constitution:  “Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons” (Art.  I, Sec. 2); “The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year 1808; but a tax or duty may be imposed, not exceeding ten dollars on each person” (Art.  I, Sec. 9); “No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due” (Art.  IV, Sec. 2).  With such provisions, though without the use of the question-begging word slaves, the institution of human bondage received formal recognition in the organic law of the new republic of the United States.

“Just what is the light in which we are to regard the slaves?” wondered James Wilson in the course of the debate.  “Are they admitted as citizens?” he asked; “then why are they not admitted on an equality with white citizens?  Are they admitted as property? then why is not other property admitted into the computation?” Such questions and others to which they gave rise were to trouble more heads than his in the course of the coming years, and all because a great nation did not have the courage to do the right thing at the right time.