Sherman McWilliam

8/4/2019 Sherman McWilliam

1/31

1

Patricia McWilliam

Federal Convention on the Constitution

12/12/07

Roger Sherman

Roger Sherman, a native of Connecticut and one of the delegates to the Federal

Convention on the Constitution, was a man dedicated to the creation of a system to protect the

various interests of the states. Roger Sherman was the only delegate to sign the Articles of

Association, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the

Constitution of the United States.1

Sherman had invested himself in the idea of a united

grouping of sovereign states. He had been put in charge of raising funds for the Revolutionary

War2

during which three of his sons became officers.3

His varied employments included being a

farmer, a cobbler, a lawyer, a surveyor, a landowner, a politician and a judge.4 He was a perfect

example of a self-made man, who rose up from humble beginnings to become one of the most

respected men of his time.5

He was the typical example of a New England Puritan, interested in

the local government and the protection of state power.6

Sherman was a loyal statesman above

1 Phyfe 1902, 234.2 Boutell 1896, 81-126.

3 Boutell 1896, 40.

4 Barthelmas 1997, 240.

5Ibid.

6 Mee 1987, 98.


2/31

2

all. He was loved and respected by his fellow citizens of Connecticut.7

Throughout the

Convention on the Constitution, Sherman consistently supported the institution of slavery, but

his comments during the Convention made him appear to be against the enslavement of men.

Even though the eighteenth century was not a time when slavery was viewed by society

as a necessary evil (as it came to be in the nineteenth century), Sherman appeared to find it

distasteful. This paper will explore the various ways in which Sherman showed disdain for

slavery, such as being careful with his language and publicly stating his feelings on slavery.

Also, this paper will examine the different ways Sherman supported slavery throughout the

convention. This paper will discuss the reasons that, despite his disliking the institution,

Sherman continuously supported slavery.

Anti-Slavery Sentiments

Sherman did not appear to be a supporter of slavery. He was probably not interested in

becoming a great abolitionist8, but he was uncomfortable with referring to slaves as such during

the convention. He assumed that slavery would come to an end in the United States.

Connecticut did not have any slave shippers, and the small percentage of slaves that were in the

state would slowly become emancipated.9

Slavery was disappearing in his home state. Sherman

had no reason, as Connecticuts delegate, to support slavery and many reasons to be against it.

7 Boutell 1896, 281.

8 Christopher Collier did not believe that slavery was a central issue for Sherman. Collier 1971, 270n. I argue that

even if Sherman did not seem to make impassioned anti-slavery speeches during the convention, he still showed

strong signs that he did not support slavery and, as he was a reserved man, he was not the type to make showy

displays of emotion.

9 Collier 1971, 271-272.


3/31

3

In America, many slave-owners considered themselves Christians, so the fact that Sherman was

a Puritan did not necessarily point to his being against slavery. Even so, Sherman was regarded

as a pious man, and it was doubtful that his conscience was not bothered at least in part by

slavery. Indeed, as stated above, a reading of Shermans comments throughout the convention

gave a picture of a man with a great disdain for the institution.

There was much evidence of how Sherman felt about the various topics discussed at the

convention because Sherman was involved in the talks almost every day he attended the

meetings.10

On June 11 of the convention, Sherman suggested that representation be based on

the number of free inhabitants in each state.11 The southern states did not support that idea and

wanted to count[] slaves in [the] formula for representation.12

At the beginning of the

convention Sherman had no reason to support slavery, but as the southern states reply showed,

slavery was going to become a big issue of the convention. If there had not been a need for

compromise, Sherman would not have bothered to give his support for slavery. There would

have been no need for him to support it.

Sherman publicly stated his dislike of slavery throughout the convention. During the

discussions on slavery, Sherman stated that he disapproved of the slave trade, and that the

abolition of [s]lavery seemed to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several

[s]tates would probably by degrees compleat it.13

It would be a wide stretch of the imagination

to say that Sherman held a great hatred for slavery, but it appeared that he did not think the

10 Sherman made a quick visit home during the summer of 1787. He was also on two committees. Madison 1966.

11 Finkelman 1987, 196.

12Ibid.

13 Madison 1966, 503.


4/31

4

institution would last, and he would not be sorry to see it go.14

Sherman may have believed that

slavery would fade out in the southern states as it had done in the north. Hopefully he would not

have fought so hard to create a united nation that participated in slavery if he had known the

horrors of war that would face the United States during the mid-nineteenth century.

Another way in which Sherman showed he did not care for slavery was his opposition to

the taxation of slaves. Because there were so few slaves in Connecticut, Sherman was not

concerned about saving his countrymen15

from paying import taxes. Slave importation hardly

played a role in Connecticuts economy, and there were few slaves to be found in the state.16

While the delegates were discussing the taxation of imported slaves, Sherman stood up and said

that [h]e was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse, because it

implied they wereproperty.17

Sherman thought the whole institution of slavery was a mistake

and that if there were going to be slaves, they should at least be considered people, not mere

property. Property implied a mental image of something that was not human, just a thing to be

owned. Charles Mee suggests that maybe Sherman was just not willing to acknowledge slaves

as property openly18

but was willing to do so in the privacy of his own mind. The fact that

Sherman did not like having slaves referred to as property did not mean he was a firm believer in

ending slavery, but it at least showed some sensitivity to the plight of the slaves.

Sherman seemed convinced that slavery would one day end, if not through a natural

death, then through the powers of the national government. He did not support a strong central

14 Boyd 1932, 224.

15 Most of the delegates considered their home states to be their country and that the convention was meant to create

a body over sovereign nations. Madison 1966.

16 Parsons 2007.

17 Madison 1966, 507.

18 Mee 1987, 253.


5/31


6/31

6

Sherman was known as being a Puritan, which may have affected his view on slavery.

He was considered a pious man who embodied all the elements of Puritanism: self-reliance,

industry, economy, strict morality and devoutness.24

All of these positive traits probably played

a part in his chance to be chosen as one of Connecticuts delegates. Being a Puritan would not

have necessarily been a reason for Sherman to disapprove of slavery, and only recently had

slavery as an institution became viewed as immoral.25

Obviously religious beliefs had not

stopped very many people in America from supporting the institution of slavery, and the Puritan

faith was no exception.

During the seventeenth century, Connecticut Puritans justified slavery by referring a

passage about slaves in Leviticus.26

As time marched on, though, some of the conservative

Puritans decided that slavery was no longer acceptable. In 1784, an act was passed that freed

slaves when they reached the age of 25.27

Also, after Connecticut had fought for her freedom

from England, the leaders of Connecticut had trouble justifying enslavement in their own state.

One reason that helped the political movement for the emancipation of slaves in Connecticut was

that blacks had served loyally in the Continental Army, and many of those that served were

freed for their service.28

The institution of slavery would have been contrary to the Puritan

24 Boyd 1932, 223.

25 Parsons 2007.

26Ibid. An example of a part of the Bible used to justify slavery is: Your male and female slaves are to come from

the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living

among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will

them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your

fellow Israelites ruthlessly. Bible, Leviticus 25:44-46 (NIV).

27 Parsons 2007.

28Ibid.


7/31

7

ideology and the attitudes held in Connecticut at the time. Slavery hardly seemed to be

compatible with the new ideas of freedom and independence of late eighteenth century.

Sherman seemed to detest even using the word slave, which showed a dislike for the

concept. He also did not want to use the word slave in the Constitution. Instead, persons

was used.29

Charles Mee writes that Sherman was bothered by the agreement he had made in

order to get small states rights supported by the slave states.30

Most of the other delegates had

no qualms about calling the black population slaves. Sherman often referred to slaves as

negroes rather than using the word slave when talking about the issues of representation.31

Yet, throughout the entire convention, he seemed uneasy about referring to slaves as such.

Though it is obvious that Sherman did not like using the word slave, it almost seems

impossible to know if Sherman refused to do so because of personal reasons or for political ones.

If there were some people back in Connecticut who wished to see the end of slavery, Sherman

would have been able to say that though he had made slavery a part of the constitution, he had

done so for the sake of states right and not because he wanted to support slavery in and of itself.

Even while Sherman was defending slavery, he was also making negative comments

about it. The lack of taxation on imported slaves and the slave trade itself was attacked late into

the convention on August 8. Sherman fought for the compromises previously made in the

convention but called the slave trade iniquitous.32

These were strong words for a man who

was known for his careful speech. In one of the last attacks on slavery, Sherman sided with the

slave states and opposed any taxation on imported slaves. Again, even while he defended the

29 Mee 1987, 255.

30Ibid.

31 Madison 1966, 412.

32 Madison 1966, 410.


8/31

8

conventions previous compromise, Sherman showed his dislike for the concept of slavery. He

gave the southern delegates support when the other delegates were reconsidering taxing imported

slaves. Sherman reasoned that taxing imported slaves would make the matter worse, because it

implied [slaves] wereproperty.33

The matter that Sherman worried about worsening was the

institution of slavery. He did not want slaves dehumanized to the point where they could never

be considered freeman, as most were in Connecticut.

The Supporter of Slavery

During the eighteenth century, slavery did not have the stigma that became attached to it

during the nineteenth century. There was evidence to support the idea that slavery meant very

little to Sherman. Some authors might argue that Sherman had no investment in anti-slavery

sentiments.34

But after reading through Shermans words at the convention, it is hard to believe

his discomfort with the institution did not mean he was against slavery. He was a careful

speaker, and Thomas Jefferson said he was a man who never said a foolish thing in his life.35

John Adams once remarked that Sherman ha[d] a clear head.36

Sherman was known as a cool-

headed person who never spoke thoughtlessly. He would not have made despairing comments

about slavery if he had not found it distasteful and wanted his fellow delegates to know his

feelings on the subject.

33 Madison 1966, 507.

34 Collier 1971, 271-272 and Mee 1987, 249 (Mee describes Sherman as coldly pragmatic). Carol Berkin states

that slavery was not a moral problem at the convention. Berkin 2002, 113.

35 Boyd 1932, 221.

36 Mee 1987, 136. Adams also stated that Shermans actions were the exact opposite of graceful. Ibid.


9/31

9

If Sherman did not personally support slavery, he had many reasons to lend the institution

his support throughout the convention. For one, he wanted to make sure the convention was

successful, and he was willing to make concessions in order for a national government to be

created. This section will first examine how Sherman supported slavery: through the three-fifths

clause, the taxation of imported slaves and, in some ways, the fugitive slave issue. Afterward the

paper will explore some of the reasons Sherman chose to support slavery.

Sherman supported slavery through the three-fifths clause and the issue of representation

in congress. The role that slaves would play in representation was a point of contention during

the convention. The discussion continued throughout the summer of 1787 before Sherman got

involved. The idea of considering slaves as three-fifths of a person for purposes of

representation was first brought up on June 11 of the convention,37

but it was not an original

idea. Three-fifths was the number used in the Articles of Confederation, as amended by the

Confederation Congress as a base for national taxes.38

The original idea was that slaves

represented wealth in the states so the states should be liable to pay some taxes on their slave

population. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts suggested that since slaves were property, they

should count towards representation as much as the cattle & horses of the North.39

No one

responded to Gerrys statement, but it highlighted the fact that the delegates did not agree

unanimously on how slaves should be considered in deciding representation.

The slave states had a big stake in what the convention decided to do about slavery.

When comparing the non-southern states to southern states, by just counting free inhabitants the

37 Madison 1966, 103.

38 Ohline 1971, 564, fn4.

39 Madison 1966, 103.


10/31

10

non-southern states would have gotten 59.4% of the House of Representatives while the southern

states would have gotten the remaining 40.6%.40

With the three-fifths compromise, the non-

southern states would get 53.8% of the seats (still a majority), and the southern states would get

46.2%.41

On July 6, Charles Pinckney, one of the South Carolina delegates, suggested that

slaves should count as a whole person, but he agreed to the ratio as decided by the congress

under the Articles of Confederation.42

The southern states were mainly concerned with getting

some positive representative ratio for their slaves.

William Patterson, a delegate from New Jersey, returned to the subject of representation

on July 9, stating that because slaves were property, they should not count towards

representation. He also pointed out that slave owners did not get votes in proportion to the

number of his slaves.43

Patterson made the outrageous statement to get the attention of the

convention (of course the amount of property a voter owned did not affect the weight of his

vote). He and Gerry were trying to point out the fallacy in allowing people who did not count as

people to be used to increase slave states voting power in the national government. The slave

states were in a minority at the convention. They had to form alliances with other states in order

to get their three-fifths compromise.

The debate was only warming up, however. On July 11 there was a hotly contested

debate on whether to count slaves, for representation, as equal to whites, as three-fifths or not

at all for purposes of representation.44

The delegates could not decide how they wanted to

40 W. W. Norton & Company 2006.

41Ibid.

42 Madison 1966, 248.

43 Madison 1966, 259.

44 Madison 1966, 266-276.


11/31

11

handle the issue. The fight was between states that owned states and states that did not. Or, at

least it was until the southern states struck an agreement with the small states. Sherman wanted

one branch in congress to have equal representation. The southern states wanted their slaves to

count in some way towards representation in the other branch. Sherman led the charge in

supporting the southern states and stated that their allotment of seats was correct.45

The southern

states did have large populations of slaves, and if the southern states were taxed according to the

amount of persons---free or slave---in their borders, then they should also have more

representation in the national congress. The next day, on July 12, the southern states got their

three-fifths compromise with the support of Connecticut.

46

Sherman once again supported the

southern states view on slavery.

The late attack on slavery on August 8, mentioned above, led Sherman to let the

convention know that the question of representation had already been settled after much

difficulty & deliberation.47

Sherman encouraged the delegates to let sleeping dogs lie. The

decision had already been made, and there was no point in fighting over the issue anymore. The

entire convention was held together by webs of compromise, and taking one away would cause

others to fall. Though Sherman made a valid point, his argument sounded weak. If the purpose

of the convention was to create a system that would last, perhaps it would have been more

important to make sure there was nothing in the constitution that would cause problems later for

the nation.

45 Madison 1966, 274.

46 The vote that day was six ayes (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia),

two nos and two divided states. Madison 1966, 282.

47 Madison 1966, 410.


12/31

12

The delegates were not completely satisfied by Shermans first response on August 8.

Gouverneur Morris, the outspoken delegate from Pennsylvania, attacked slavery very strongly

and suggested that there was nothing to stop the southern states from importing vast amounts of

slaves, especially since there would be no import tax upon the slaves.48

The rest of the nation

would be at the mercy of the southern slave-owners. The southern states demanded that the

national government come in if their slaves rose up in rebellion,49

but they also would not allow

the national government to cap the amount of slaves that could be imported before 1808. Rufus

King of Massachusetts declared it striking that one part of the U. S. be bound to defend another

part, and that other part be at liberty not only to increase its own danger, but to withhold the

compensation for the burden.50

The southern states did not want to pay import taxes on slaves

but wanted to be able to import them at will for twenty years and the rest of the nation to come

save them if the slaves rebelled. Morris continued his argument that the southern states would be

able to increase their population as much as they wished or could afford.51

He was exaggerating

to make a point, but Sherman stood up to coolly respond:

[Sherman] did not regard the admission of the Negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to

such insuperable objections. It was the freeman of the [s]outhern [s]tates who were in fact to be

represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the Negroes are only included in the

[e]stimate of the taxes.52

Sherman was not the type of person to make impassioned speeches like Morris had, but calmness

and logic must have impressed the rest of the delegates because again the convention voted down

48 Madison 1966, 411-412.

49 Madison 1966, 321-322.

50 Madison 1966, 409-410.

51 Madison 1966, 412.

52Ibid.


13/31

13

a motion to have representation be based solely on the free population.53

Shermans statement

was a bit of a contradiction, because he was careful not call the forced guests slaves, but he

made the slaves out to be merely a method of estimating taxes. Also, Sherman had spoken out

against taxing imported slaves because it made them into property. His statement on August 8

does not appear any better than the one he cried out against. Another odd fact about Shermans

cool speech was that previously in the convention, the delegates had discussed basing

representation on wealth.54

The convention had already decided that it would be better to base

representation on population, so it seems odd that no one objected to Shermans insinuation.

More than likely, no one gave the statement very much deep thought.

Sherman supported slavery by standing behind the South on the slave importation issue.

He voiced his agreement that imported slaves should not be taxed and Connecticut as a whole

did not favor the taxing of exports.55

The southern states were concerned about the labor of their

slaves being taxed and a debate occurred on August 16. Even though the convention decided to

rule on congress power to tax exports at a later time, the short debate gave hints of a

developing compromise between New Englanders and delegates from the Deep South.56

The

small states came to realize that they could get support for their concerns if they were willing to

support the South on slavery issues.

Sherman appeared to have less respect for slaves during the decisions on the fugitive

slave clause debate. When Butler and Pinckney suggested that fugitive slaves and servants

53 Madison 1966, 413.

54 Madison 1966, 246.

55 Finkelman 1987, 213.

56Ibid.


14/31

14

be delivered up like criminals,57

Sherman returned with a quip that there was no more

propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slaver or servant, than a horse.58

The

comparison of the return of a slave being to that of a horse did not seem very characteristic of

Sherman, but he may have meant to draw attention to the ridiculousness of the suggested

addition to the constitution rather than make disparaging remarks about slaves. The motion was

dropped that day but considered again the next.

On August 29, the addition to the constitution was re-worded. Butler moved to insert, If

any person bound to service or labor in any of the U. States shall escape into another [s]tate, he

or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor, no matter what laws the state has that

the person had escaped to, that person would have to be returned to its owner.59

Once the

word slave was removed, the provision was agreed upon unanimously.60

Sherman chose not

speak up that day, perhaps because he was placated by the fact that his hated word, slave, had

been removed from the suggested provision.

Why Sherman Supported Slavery

Why Sherman supported slavery is probably an easier question to answer than why he did

not attack it. It seems fairly obvious that slavery made Sherman uncomfortable, but Sherman

wanted to help create something lasting at the convention. He stated that We are providing for

our posterity, for our children & our grand [c]hildren.61

He knew that the convention had an

57 Madison 1966, 545.

58 Madison 1966, 546.

59 Madison 1966, 552.

60Ibid.

61 Madison 1966, 288.


15/31

15

important job, and he used his quiet intelligence to help smooth over many of the bumps that the

delegates encountered along their way to creating the Constitution by suggesting compromises

that those on both sides of the issue could appreciate. Sherman was known as a great

compromiser, and he seemed to have a personal investment in seeing the Union succeed.62

He

had been deeply involved in helping the United States free itself from England, organizing the

war and getting the nation in shape after the Revolution was over.63

His main motivation in

supporting slavery was probably to see all the states agree on the creation of a united nation. He

could see that the southern states would never agree to join a system that did not allow them to

keep their institution of slavery and give them more representation in the national congress

through the slaves within their borders.

Sherman may have supported slavery because, as stated above, each state was sovereign,

and he probably did not consider that the taint of slavery would touch his state. Because each

state was sovereign, Sherman did not want a strong central government. He realized from the

Confederation Congress that the central government needed more power than the Articles of

Confederation had afforded it. Before the states had decided to have the convention, they had

proposed to give Congress the power to levy and collect a small tax on imports.64

Sherman

was very concerned with paying the national debt and during the Revolutionary War had been on

many committees of the Confederate Congress in charge of rising funds for the war.65

Though a

62 Sherman was a politician, a known statesman, and had been involved with the signing of the Articles of

Association, the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. See note 1. He had not always

been his states first choice for these important unifying meetings, but he was an important politician from

Connecticut. Collier 1971, 90.

63 Boutell 1896, 95-96.

64 Boutell 1896, 127.

65 Boutell 1896, Chapter 7, 81-126.


16/31

16

small import tax may have been a simple way to deal with national debt, Rhode Island refused to

agree upon the increase of the Confederate Congress powers.66

The Articles of the

Confederation required unanimity of the state legislatures to make any changes to the Articles.67

Because Rhode Island refused to be convinced of the importance of the import tax, the

Confederate Congress was stuck.

Rhode Islands stubbornness could probably be considered the catalyst that got the

process going for a new convention. It was this frustration that led the states to have another

convention to create a truly national government.68

Sherman was convinced of the importance

of giving the Confederation Congress stronger powers so that it could accomplish what the states

needed the central government to do. But he was also worried about giving the central

government too much power. Sherman thought the government should only be given the most

essential powers, and for having those powers very strictly circumscribed.69

In short, he wanted

to protect state sovereignty. Naturally, he thought that local governments should be given more

power than the central government.70

Only the minimum amount of sovereignty should have

been taken from the states to give to the national government.

An important compromise was getting the southern states to agree to count slaves as

three-fifths of a person instead of the whole person that the southerners wanted. The northern

states also compromised on the slaves being counted at all, but the southern states did not view

the compromise in that light. Charles Pinckney made sure the convention understood that the

66 Boutell 1896, 127.

67Ibid.

68Ibid.

69 Mee 1987, 136.

70Ibid.


17/31

17

South had made a great concession by agreeing to the three-fifths clause.71

The southern states

gave voice to many of the issues they were interested in, and maybe the only thing they conceded

was the establishment of a two branch government in which one branch had equal

representation.72

Sherman supported slavery because of the deal that had struck with the southern states on

the Connecticut Compromise. Slavery may not have been an important moral issue to him, but

he did not approve of the institution. He did not use the word slave when discussing the black

population in the South.73

And though he did not approve of the slave trade, he would leave it up

to each state to decide which moral stance it would take concerning slavery.74 Sherman seemed

to be saying that the taint of slavery would be borne by the states that allowed it to continue

within their borders. He figured that slavery should be left alone because the public good did

not require that right to be taken from the states.75

Sherman would leave the decision of

slavery in each states hands until there was strong public sentiment to remove it. Considering

that at the time of the convention the states considered themselves sovereign nations,76

each

state could have considered itself separate from the others and not responsible for the actions of

the others (except in the case of relations with foreign nations). Sherman might have felt

differently if he could have foreseen the Civil War that would cause so much strife in the nation

he had helped create.

71 Finkelman 1987, 201.

72 Finkelman 1987, 224.

73 Mee 1987, 249.

74 Mee 1987, 251.

75Ibid.

76 Madison 1966.


18/31

18

Shermans support of slavery may have been the result of his dedication to getting a

national body created. One strong view of the necessity of compromise came from William

Davie, a North Carolina delegate, who stated that if the convention would not allow the southern

states any share of [r]epresentation for their blacks the business was at an end.77

With the

southern states ready to walk out the door, someone needed to bring about the kind of

compromise that everyone could agree to. Sherman [s]upposed that it was the wish of every

one that some [g]eneral [g]overnment should be established.78

Sherman knew why he was at the

convention---he was there to finish what the people of the United Stated during the

Revolutionary War had started.

Sherman suggested compromises throughout the convention to encourage the delegates to

move along towards creating a system they could all agree on. Shermans most famous

compromise was the Connecticut Compromise.79

He said that if the first branch was to have

proportionate representation, then there ought to be a second branch that had equal

representation.80

By doing so, the large states would have their majority in the house, and the

small states would maintain equality with the large states, and with it, protection. When

Sherman first proposed the idea on May 31, it was ignored. He later got the support of the small

states. On June 7, Sherman supported the proposal that the second branch should be elected by

the state legislatures to maintain harmony between the two [g]overnments.81

He probably

supported this move not only because of his interest in the power of the states, but also because

77 Madison 1966, 278.

78 Madison 1966, 253.

79 Interestingly, John Adams had heard Sherman mention this dual system of representation eleven years before the

convention took place. Adams wrote of it in his dairy. Boutell 1896, 96.

80 Madison 1966, 43.

81 Madison 1966, 82.


19/31

19

he was sure that if there were two branches, he would be able to convince the delegates to

support the equal representation in one of the branches.

On June 11, Sherman again stated his compromise, that the proportion of suffrage in the

1st

branch should be according to the respective numbers of free inhabitants; and that in the

second branch or [s]enate, each State should have one vote and no more.82

Sherman stated he

was concerned about the large states ruling the small ones.83

This idea was very clever. It would

recognize the Articles of the Confederation that mandated equal representation in the national

congress but also allow the large states to get an advantage from their large populations.84

Sherman probably thought many of the delegates would have jumped at the compromise, but his

motion lost on June 11, five to six. Still, he was not done trying to gain support for his idea.85

He simply needed one of the larger states to break rank, and he would be able to get his motion

passed.

Shermans timing was wrong on June 11. Mee suggests that [t]he problem that it solved

was not under discussion at the moment [it had been presented].86

The South had just gotten the

three-fifths representation for their slaves. Since the South had been given a larger

representation overall in the national congress, the southern delegates were not as worried about

having an equal voice in the Senate.87

Perhaps if Sherman had made his proposal before the

population ratio question was raised, his compromise would have been accepted right away.

82 Madison 1966, 98.

83Ibid.

84 Mee 1987, 112.

85 Madison 1966, 104.

86 Mee 1987, 112.

87 Mee 1987, 164.


20/31

20

Shermans great compromise was a two branch system, but his main concern was with

putting his state on equal footing with the larger states. He did not want the large states to be

completely free to run the government in whatever manner the large states thought was best. He

would have been perfectly happy with one branch in Congress, as he stated on June 20, but that

one branch would need to follow the Articles of Confederation and allow each state one vote.88

Sherman was afraid of the power the large states would hold in a purely proportionate

government: [T]he large States have not yet suffered from the equality of votes enjoyed by the

small ones.89

Here he was implying that the large states had not been harmed by the fact

decisions in the Confederation had been made by state, each having an equal voice. Though that

might not have been quite true; the purpose of the convention was to fix the problems with the

previous arrangement between the states. Of course, even if the Articles of Confederation had

allowed decision-making power based on population rather than by state, there still would have

remained the veto problem.90

Sherman was pleased to create a compromise over the issue of

representation in the national congress, but the status quo of representation would have benefited

Connecticut more.

Sherman came from a small state, so he was concerned that his states interests would be

swallowed up by the interests of the large states. He could not accept a national congress in

which representation was made based only on population. If representation was only based on

population, three or four of the large [s]tates would rule the others as they please.91

Sherman

also realized that the large states would not agree to equal representation. Shermans two-branch

88 Madison 1966, 160-161.

89 Madison 1966, 161.

90 Having more representatives would not have solved the amendment problem because each state had a veto power

over any decision to change the powers of the Confederation Congress.

91 Boutell 1896, 143.


21/31

21

congress would protect the small states without taking away all the advantages the large states

felt they should have. Each State like each individual had its peculiar habits usages and

manners, which constituted its happiness. It would not therefore give to others a power over this

happiness, any more than an individual would do, when he could avoid it.92

Sherman warned

the delegates at the convention that if the large states were not willing to compromise, it was

unlikely the small states would simply give in to the demands of the large states. If the small

states were willing to give up their sovereignty, the large states also had to be willing to do so.

The convention needed to worry about losing the small states over representation issues and the

southern states over slave issues.

On June 28, the large state delegates argued again over whether representation should be

based on some equitable ratio, meaning either by population or wealth.93

This arrangement

would have given most of the power in congress to the larger states that also had more wealth

than the smaller states. Shermans response was [t]he question is not what rights naturally

belong to men; but how they may be most equally & effectually guarded in [s]ociety. And if

some give up more than others in order to attain this end, there can be no room for complain.94

The idea of giving up power to a sovereign for the protection it offers was seen early on in

political philosophy through Thomas HobbesLeviathan (1651). It was important for the

delegates to realize that they would all benefit if they were willing to give up some of their

sovereignty for the good of the whole.

92 Madison 1966, 161.

93 Boutell 1896, 143.

94 Madison 1966, 208.


22/31

22

Sherman had actually thought about the rights of man long before the convention. In

1772, he expressed his views about them in a letter:

It is a fundamental principle in the British Constitution, and I think must be in every free state, that

no laws bind the people but such as they consentto be governed by, therefore, so far as the people

of the colonies are bound by laws made without their consent, they must be in a state of slavery or

absolute subjection to the will of others; if this right belongs to the people of the colonies, why

should they not claim it and enjoy it? If it does not belong to them as well as to their fellow

subjects in Great Britain, how came they to be deprived of it?95

Even though the larger states were being asked to equate themselves with smaller states, at least

all the states were free to choose to belong to the Union. The states were no longer enslaved to

the will of Great Britain. They had earned their freedom and were given the great chance to

create a nation like never before seen in the history of the world. Any government that the states

consented to would be the will of the states, making the nation just. Sherman drew attention to

the concept of a social contract in order to convince the larger states that even if they were giving

up some of their sovereign powers, so were the smaller states, and in the end all the states would

benefit from their sacrifice.

Continuing on that line of thought, Sherman also argued that richer states should not be

entitled to more votes merely by virtue of being rich. The rich man who enters into [s]ociety

along with the poor man, gives up more than the poor man, yet with an equal vote he is equally

safe.

96

Sherman went on to explain, [w]ere he to have more votes than the poor man in

proportion to his superior stake, the rights of the poor man would immediately cease to be

95 Phyfe 1902, 241 (emphasis mine).

96 Madison 1966, 208.


23/31

23

secure.97

If the small states, the poor man, were not allowed some equal footing with the

large states, there would be little incentive for the small states to join the Union. Even though

becoming a member of the Union would offer the small states a measure of protection from

foreign powers, the small states would be exposing themselves to the will of the large states. If

the smaller states joined the Union, they could become jealous and attack the larger states

interests, putting the larger states in an unstable situation.

Sherman thought the only way to keep the wealthy safe from the jealousy of the poor

was to make both the wealthy and poor equal. By allowing one branch to represent states

proportionately and the other to represent states equally, there must be always a majority of

States as well as a majority of the people on the side of public measures.98

Sherman thought

this was a fair idea: majority rule among the people and the states. He knew what he needed to

do for Connecticuts interests to be met, and he would fight hard for the issues he thought were

most important for his state, such as equality in the national government while letting those less

important, such as slavery, fall to the wayside.

Though some of Shermans statements showed that he was unhappy with the institution

of slavery, he also showed that was not a supporter of popular involvement in the government.

Sherman thought of each state as having its own personality: its peculiar habits, usages, and

manners.99

The states were the important unit, not the individuals within them. He said the

people should have as little to do as may be about the Government.100

He also did not think

that it was necessary for the there to be a popular ratification of the amendments to the Articles

97 Madison 1966, 208-209.

98 Madison 1966, 253.

99 Mee 1987, 182, quoting Sherman.

100 Madison 1966, 39.


24/31

24

of Confederation.101

The state legislatures could ratify the conventions final decision.

Sherman felt that the only reason for letting the general public vote for ratification of the

constitution was if the delegates meant to destroy the state governments.102

Few of the delegates

actually wanted to create a strong central government and get rid of the state governments. By

having the states ratify the constitution, the delegates would be promoting harmony between the

[n]ational & [s]tate government.103

It made sense that a man who showed so much disdain for

the average citizen of Connecticut would show even less for slaves. Sherman was also against

inserting a bill of rights into the constitution.104

He felt that it was the states duty to protect

those rights.

105

Sherman did not support the idea of the national government protecting the

people from the states. Also, the national government was supposed to only have a very limited

purpose. The people were meant to look to their states first, nation second.

Sherman used his shrewd political mind to get the support he needed to gain agreement

for the Connecticut Compromise. Midway through the Convention, there was a mysterious

alliance between the southern states and the small states, headed by Rutledge and Sherman.

Somehow Rutledge and Sherman agreed to support each other on some upcoming issues. One

account of the alliance between Rutledge and Sherman was that they met in a taproom on June

101 Madison 1966, 70. Sherman talked about amendments to the Articles of Confederation because when the

delegates first came together, they did so without the idea of scrapping the old government and creating a

completely new one. It was only later in the convention that the delegates came to accept that they were acting

completely outside of the guidelines that had been set by their states that sent them.

Also, Sherman was one of the delegates who did not arrive at the convention ready to throw out the old plan and

come up with a new national government; he was actually in favor of amending the Articles of Confederation.

Boutell 1896, 156.

102 Madison 1966, 74.

103Ibid.

104 Mee 1987, 271.

105Ibid.


25/31

25

30.106

The agreement was that Sherman would stand up for the institution of slavery and

Rutledge would support an equal vote for each state in the Senate. There was little proof of a

meeting between Rutledge and Sherman, but supposedly they agreed to get each other the votes

they each needed to have their common interests passed in the Convention.107

This cooperation

was termed a dirty compromise by Paul Finkelman.108

Finkelman felt that the northern

delegates made a grave error in deciding to support slavery to have their interests agreed upon in

the convention.

There was more to the agreement between the northern and southern states than Sherman

getting support for his two congressional branches proposal. One of the big points that

Connecticut and the rest of the New England states could agree on with the southern states was

taxation on exports. Both parts of the United States depended heavily on exports.109

The

South produced a lot of raw materials for trading and New England states engaged in a lot of sea

trading. They united and demanded that no export taxes were to be imposed and no imported

slaves would be taxable.110

The prohibition on import slave taxes was obviously for the Souths

benefit, but the New England states were worried about the heightened support111

needed to pass

navigation acts within congress. They made an agreement to support the southern states in

keeping the slave trade open.112

These sorts of alliances allowed the convention to move

106 Barry 1971, 329-331.

107 Mee 1987, 199, 201.

108 Finkelman 1987, 214.

109 Berkin 2002, 114.

110Ibid.

111 They would require a two-thirds vote instead of a simple majority like most congressional acts would require.

Goldfarb 1994, 25.

112Ibid.


26/31

26

forward, but there may have been other ways for the New Englanders to keep their exports tax-

free without having to strengthen the nations ties with slavery.

The agreement between Sherman and the southern delegates seemed to be agreeable to

both sides. South Carolina was concerned about keeping others from imposing regulations on

her and Shermans proposal would keep southern interests protected from the interests of other

states.113

The South had a stronger representation in the house once the convention decided that

slaves could count three-fifths of a free man, but the southern states were also concerned about

navigation laws and the slave trade. Looking back at the convention, perhaps the southern states

received more concessions than they gave,114 but the convention was being pulled apart over

disagreements and Sherman wanted to this document finished. Besides the problems of the

slavery question, there were also conflicts between the small states and the large ones.115

The

small states were threatening to leave the convention if they could not gain equality in the

government. Sherman was willing to ally himself with the southern states if it meant his

compromise would be agreed to.

Finkelmans dirty compromise was in full swing August 22. Sherman, as he had done

throughout the convention, stated the he disapproved of slavery, but that he would not condemn

it in other parts of the nation.116

His support of the slave trade got a little confused though when

he stated that the abolition of [s]lavery seemed to be going on.117

The ending of slavery was a

very different concept from the ending of the slave trade, but perhaps Sherman considered the

113 Mee 1987, 122.

114 Finkelman 1987, 224.

115 Mee 1987, 198.

116 Finkelman 1987, 214.

117 Madison 1966, 503.


27/31

27

two linked. If slavery ended in the United States, then the slave trade would halt due to a lack of

demand for slaves. Another part of Shermans argument in support of protecting the slave trade

was the fact that the convention had been in session for almost three months.118

Sherman must

have been tired of going over the same issues. Also, he had been away from home for a long

time, and he was not a young man. (In fact, Sherman was the second oldest delegate at sixty-

six.119

)

Another reason that Sherman may have supported the South in the continuance of slavery

was that he did not believe that slavery would last long. As stated above, Sherman foresaw the

abolition of [s]lavery.120 If slavery was going to end soon after the convention, there was no

reason for Sherman not to support slavery in order to get his political goals accomplished.

Perhaps Sherman felt guilty and was trying to justify his support of slavery to the other

delegates. Finkelman pointed out that though many of the founding fathers liked to call

[slavery] temporary, the evidence of the convention show[ed] that they should have known

better.121

Perhaps all the delegates were ignoring the fact that slavery could be around for as

long as the southern states found it profitable. Oliver Ellsworth, the other Connecticut delegate,

said that slavery in time will not be a speck in our country.122

Ellsworths prediction was true,

but the eradication of slavery cost the United States the blood of its sons. The southern delegates

never made any attempt to hide the fact that they believed slavery would be a permanent part of

their culture and society.123

It was impossible to know that if the northern states had presented

118 Finkelman 1987, 215.

119 Boutell 1896, 130.

120 Madison 1966, 503.

121 Finkelman 1987, 222.

122 Berkin 2002, 113.

123Ibid.


28/31

28

a united front against slavery, perhaps the South would not have joined the Union. If such an

event had occurred, maybe the southern nation would have failed. But if it had prospered,

slavery probably would have lasted much longer than it did. Maybe it would have ended without

the bloodshed, though maybe not.

Conclusion

It would be too easy to examine Shermans decisions through modern lenses. But slavery

in the eighteenth century was not the necessary evil it became in the nineteenth century. It was

unclear whether Sherman really did not care about the plight of the slaves when he agreed to

help the southern states in return for their support on the two branch system. More than likely

Shermans only concern was creating a system that his state could be protected under and

protected from, and since slavery was a non-issue in Connecticut, it was not a factor for

Sherman. Sherman truly appeared to find slavery distasteful, however. He expressed more than

once his disapproval of slavery and that he thought it would end soon. He also hated to use the

word slave when discussing the issue in the convention. Sherman came from a state that had

slowly been emaciating the slaves within her borders. Sherman was also a Puritan, which may

have added to his objection to slavery. Though in the past Puritans allowed the institution of

slavery to develop in Connecticut, during the political career of Sherman, the Puritans were

beginning to view slavery in a negative light. Slavery may not have weighed heavily on

Shermans mind, but he obviously felt differently about the institution than many of the other

delegates at the convention. Many did not seem to care one way or the other. Those that were

completely against slavery were very loud and showy about their hatred. Sherman, the reserved


29/31

29

man that he was, stated his opinions clearly and concisely and let each delegate decide for

himself what the best course of action was for the Union.

Sherman wanted to create a national congressional body that would be strong enough to

look after the needs of the United States, but his first concern was protecting his state---his

nation---Connecticut. He had displayed the highest qualities of a statesman.124

Connecticut

respected Sherman for the loyal service he gave to Connecticut throughout his life. His friends

and contemporaries considered him a thoughtful man and deliberate speaker. Sherman knew

when to compromise and when to stand strong.125

Sherman was willing to engage in political

collaboration in order to help the delegates create a constitution that, if not perfect, was at least

acceptable to all the men involved. He was always loyal to his state, and would have left the

convention without coming to an agreement if he could not have secured the equal representation

in one branch of congress. Sherman had been willing to bend to effect compromise for the

constitution. He had gone to the convention with the idea of finishing what he had started with

the Declaration of Independence and for creating a nation that would continue for generations

into the future. Looking back with the knowledge of history, it appeared that Sherman made a

very poor choice in political bed partners, but maybe an imperfect union was better than no

union at all.

124 Boutell 1896, 164.

125Ibid.


30/31

30

Works Cited

Barry, Richard. Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina. Manchester, NH: Ayer Publishing, 1971.

Barthelmas, Della Gray. The Signers of the Declaration of Independence. North Carolina:

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1997.

Berkin, Carol.A Brillian Solution. New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2002.

Boutell, Lewis Henry. The Life of Roger Sherman. Chicago: McClurg, 1896.

Boyd, Julian P. "Roger Sherman: Portrait of a Cordwainer Statesman." The New England

Quarterly 5, no. 2 (April 1932): 221-236.

Charles L. Mee, Jr. The Genius of the People. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987.

Collier, Christopher.Roger Sherman's Connecticut. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University

Press, 1971.

Finkelman, Paul. "Slavery and the Constitutional Convention: Making a Covenant with Death."

InBeyond Confederation, by Stepen Botein, and Edward C. Carter II, eds. Richard Beeman, 188-

225. Chapel Hill, NC: Uniersity of North Carolina Press, 1987.

Goldfarb, Stephen J. "An Inquiry into the Politics of the Prohibition of the International Slave

Trade."Agricultural History 68, no. 2 (1994): 20-34.

Lightner, David L. "The Founders and the Interstate Slave Trade."Journal of the Early Republic

22, no. 1 (2002): 25-51.

Madison, James.Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787. New York: W. W. Norton

& Company, 1966.

Ohline, Howard A. "Republicanism and Slavery: Origins of the Three-Fifths Clause in the

United States Constitution." The William and Mary Quarterly 28, no. 4 (October 1971): 563-584.

Parsons, David L. Slavery in Connecticut 1640-1848. 2007.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1980/6/80.06.09.x.html#g (accessed December 11,

2007).

Phyfe, R. Eston. "Roger Sherman - A Connecticut Man - A Maker of the Nation." The

Connecticut Magazine 7 (1902): 234-248.


31/31

W. W. Norton & Company.American Government. 2006.

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/polisci/lowi/lowi9/principles/ch02.asp (accessed December

12, 2007).

Documents

Sherman McWilliam