tion to alter the section so as
to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. The debate
immediately became general, being carried on principally by Rutledge,
the Pinckneys, and Williamson from the Carolinas; Baldwin of Georgia;
Mason, Madison, and Randolph of Virginia; Wilson and Gouverneur Morris
of Pennsylvania; Dickinson of Delaware; and Ellsworth, Sherman, Gerry,
King, and Langdon of New England.[5]

In this debate the moral arguments were prominent. Colonel George Mason
of Virginia denounced the traffic in slaves as "infernal;" Luther Martin
of Maryland regarded it as "inconsistent with the principles of the
revolution, and dishonorable to the American character." "Every
principle of honor and safety," declared John Dickinson of Delaware,
"demands the exclusion of slaves." Indeed, Mason solemnly averred that
the crime of slavery might yet bring the judgment of God on the nation.
On the other side, Rutledge of South Carolina bluntly declared that
religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question, that it was a
matter of "interest" alone. Gerry of Massachusetts wished merely to
refrain from giving direct sanction to the trade, while others contented
themselves with pointing out the inconsistency of condemning the
slave-trade and defending slavery.

The difficulty of the whole argument, from the moral standpoint, lay in
the fact that it was completely checkmated by the obstinate attitude of
South Carolina and Georgia. Their delegates--Baldwin, the Pinckneys,
Rutledge, and others--asserted flatly, not less than a half-dozen times
during the debate, that these States "can never receive the plan if it
prohibits the slave-trade;" that "if the Convention thought" that these
States would consent to a stoppage of the slave-trade, "the expectation
is vain."[6] By this stand all argument from the moral standpoint was
virtually silenced, for the Convention evidently agreed with Roger
Sherman of Connecticut that "it was better to let the Southern States
import slaves than to part with those States."

In such a dilemma the Convention listened not unwillingly to the _non
possumus_ arguments of the States' Rights advocates. The "morality and
wisdom" of slavery, declared Ellsworth of Connecticut, "are
considerations belonging to the States themselves;" let every State
"import what it pleases;" the Confederation has not "meddled" with the
question, why should the Union? It is a dangerous symptom of
centraliz