Their delegates--Baldwin, the Pinckneys,
Rutledge, and others--asserted flatly, not less than a half-dozen times
during the debate, that these States "can never receive the plan if it
prohibits the slave-trade;" that "if the Convention thought" that these
States would consent to a stoppage of the slave-trade, "the expectation
is vain."[6] By this stand all argument from the moral standpoint was
virtually silenced, for the Convention evidently agreed with Roger
Sherman of Connecticut that "it was better to let the Southern States
import slaves than to part with those States."
In such a dilemma the Convention listened not unwillingly to the _non
possumus_ arguments of the States' Rights advocates. The "morality and
wisdom" of slavery, declared Ellsworth of Connecticut, "are
considerations belonging to the States themselves;" let every State
"import what it pleases;" the Confederation has not "meddled" with the
question, why should the Union? It is a dangerous symptom of
centralization, cried Baldwin of Georgia; the "central States" wish to
be the "vortex for everything," even matters of "a local nature." The
national government, said Gerry of Massachusetts, had nothing to do with
slavery in the States; it had only to refrain from giving direct
sanction to the system. Others opposed this whole argument, declaring,
with Langdon of New Hampshire, that Congress ought to have this power,
since, as Dickinson tartly remarked, "The true question was, whether the
national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation; and
this question ought to be left to the national government, not to the
states particularly interested.
Pages:
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104