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." Economic forces were evoked to
eke out moral motives: when the South had its full quota of slaves, like
Virginia it too would abolish the trade; free labor was bound finally to
drive out slave labor. Thus the chorus of "_laissez-faire_" increased;
and compromise seemed at least in sight, when Connecticut cried, "Let
the trade alone!" and Georgia denounced it as an "evil." Some few
discordant notes were heard, as, for instance, when Wilson of
Pennsylvania made the uncomforting remark, "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."
With the spirit of compromise in the air, it was not long before the
general terms were clear. The slavery side was strongly intrenched, and
had a clear and definite demand. The forces of freedom were, on the
contrary, divided by important conflicts of interest, and animated by no
very strong and decided anti-slavery spirit with settled aims. Under
such circumstances, it was easy for the Convention to miss the
opportunity for a really great compromise, and to descend to a scheme
that savored unpleasantly of "log-rolling." Th
|