ation, 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."

Beside these arguments as to the right of the trade and the proper seat
of authority over it, many arguments of general expediency were
introduced. From an economic standpoint, for instance, General C.C.
Pinckney of South Carolina "contended, that the importation of slaves
would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more
produce." Rutledge of the same State declared: "If the Northern States
consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of slaves,
which will increase the commodities of which they will become the
carriers." This sentiment found a more or less conscious echo in the
words of Ellsworth of Connecticut, "What enriches a part enriches the
whole." It was, moreover, broadly hinted that the zeal of Maryland and
Virginia against the trade had an economic rather than a humanitarian
motive, since they had slaves enough and to spare, and wished to sell
them at a high price to South Carolina and Georgia, who needed more. In
such case restrictions would unjustly discriminate against the latter
States. The argument from history was barely touched upon. Only once was
there an allusion to "the example of all the world" "in all ages" to
justify slavery,[7] and once came the counter declaration that "Greece
and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves."[8] On the other hand, the
military weakness of slavery in the late war led to many arguments on
that score. 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