ember 3, 1787: "I consider this as laying the foundation for
banishing slavery out of this country; and though the period is more
distant than I could wish, yet it will produce the same kind, gradual
change, which was pursued in Pennsylvania."[31] Robert Barnwell declared
in the South Carolina convention, January 17, 1788, that this clause
"particularly pleased" him. "Congress," he said, "has guarantied this
right for that space of time, and at its expiration may continue it as
long as they please. This question then arises--What will their interest
lead them to do? The Eastern States, as the honorable gentleman says,
will become the carriers of America. It will, therefore, certainly be
their interest to encourage exportation to as great an extent as
possible; and if the quantum of our products will be diminished by the
prohibition of negroes, I appeal to the belief of every man, whether he
thinks those very carriers will themselves dam up the sources from
whence their profit is derived. To think so is so contradictory to the
general conduct of mankind, that I am of opinion, that, without we
ourselves put a stop to them, the traffic for negroes will continue
forever."[32]

In Massachusetts, January 30, 1788, General Heath said: "The gentlemen
who have spoken have carried the matter rather too far on both sides. I
apprehend that it is not in our power to do anything for or against
those who are in slavery in the southern States.... Two questions
naturally arise, if we ratify the Constitution: Shall we do anything by
our act to hold the blacks in slavery? or shall we become partakers of
other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each State is sovereign and
independent to a certain degree, and they have a right, and will
regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears
proper."[33] Iredell said, in the North Carolina convention, July 26,
1788: "When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an
event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of
human nature.... But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished
above others by that very provision."[34]

Of the arguments against the clause, two made in the Massachusetts
convention are typical. The Rev. Mr. Neal said, January 25, 1788, that
"unless his objection [to this clause] was removed, he could not put his
hand to the Constitution."[35] General Thompson exclaimed, "Shall it be
said, that after we have established our o