The slave trade

by Theodore D. Jervey

Mr. Ellsworth spoke again, and quite to the point: “As he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the effect of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those already in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly swamps foreign supplies are necessary. If we go no further than is urged we shall be unjust to South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrection from foreign influence that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves.”

Mr. Charles Pinckney said: “If slavery be wrong it is justified by the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the Southern States were left alone they will probably of themselves stop importation. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will produce serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to see adopted.”

Gen. C. C. Pinckney “declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their personal influence it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value and she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require South Carolina and Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to South Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of Slaves would be for the interest of the Whole Union. The more slaves the more produce to employ the carrying trade. The more consumption also, and the more of this the more of revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union.”

Mr. Baldwin, of Georgia, “had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for everything—that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage—and that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge her favorite prerogative. If left to herself she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture he took notice of the sect of which he said was a respectable class of people who carried their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation.”

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, “observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article.”

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, “thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it.”

Mr. Dickinson, of Delaware, “considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor and safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the States by the Constitution. The true question was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation, and the question ought to be left to the National Government, not to the States particularly interested. If England and France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time excluded from both these kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the General Government.”

Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, “stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of five pounds on each slave imported from Africa. Ten pounds on each from elsewhere, and fifty pounds on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected, and that it was wrong to force anything down not absolutely necessary and which any State must disagree to.”

Mr. King, of Massachusetts, “thought the subject should be considered in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other that great and equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, while every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States.”

Mr. Langdon, of New Hampshire, “was strenuous for giving the power to the General Government. He could not with a good conscience leave it with the States who could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by the opinion here given that they will themselves cease to import slaves.”