Luther Martin and George Mason dwelt on the danger of a
servile class in war and insurrection; while Rutledge hotly replied that
he "would readily exempt the other states from the obligation to protect
the Southern against them;" and Ellsworth thought that the very danger
would "become a motive to kind treatment." The desirability of keeping
slavery out of the West was once mentioned as an argument against the
trade: to this all seemed tacitly to agree.[9]
Throughout the debate it is manifest that the Convention had no desire
really to enter upon a general slavery argument. The broader and more
theoretic aspects of the question were but lightly touched upon here and
there. Undoubtedly, most of the members would have much preferred not to
raise the question at all; but, as it was raised, the differences of
opinion were too manifest to be ignored, and the Convention, after its
first perplexity, gradually and perhaps too willingly set itself to work
to find some "middle ground" on which all parties could stand. The way
to this compromise was pointed out by the South. The most radical
pro-slavery arguments always ended with the opinion that "if the
Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves stop
importations."[10] To be sure, General Pinckney admitted that,
"candidly, he did not think South Carolina would stop her importations
of slaves in any short time;" nevertheless, the Convention "observed,"
with Roger Sherman, "that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on
in the United States, and that the good sense of the several states
would probably by degrees complete it.
Pages:
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106