getting rid of their slaves,
will afford a sufficient number for cultivating all the lands in this
state."[29]

Finally, _The Federalist_, No. 41, written by James Madison, commented
as follows: "It were doubtless to be wished, that the power of
prohibiting the importation of slaves had not been postponed until the
year 1808, or rather, that it had been suffered to have immediate
operation. But it is not difficult to account, either for this
restriction on the General Government, or for the manner in which the
whole clause is expressed. It ought to be considered as a great point
gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate
forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long and so loudly
upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that within that period, it
will receive a considerable discouragement from the Federal Government,
and may be totally abolished, by a concurrence of the few States which
continue the unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has
been given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it be for
the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before them of being
redeemed from the oppressions of their European brethren!

"Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an objection
against the Constitution, by representing it on one side as a criminal
toleration of an illicit practice, and on another, as calculated to
prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America. I
mention these misconstructions, not with a view to give them an answer,
for they deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, in
which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition to the proposed
Government."[30]

38. ~Attitude of the State Conventions.~ The records of the proceedings
in the various State conventions are exceedingly meagre. In nearly all
of the few States where records exist there is found some opposition to
the slave-trade clause. The opposition was seldom very pronounced or
bitter; it rather took the form of regret, on the one hand that the
Convention went so far, and on the other hand that it did not go
farther. Probably, however, the Constitution was never in danger of
rejection on account of this clause.

Extracts from a few of the speeches, _pro_ and _con_, in various States
will best illustrate the character of the arguments. In reply to some
objections expressed in the Pennsylvania convention, Wilson said,
Dec