Slavery Debate in the United States

The General Debate (the Federal Convention, 1789)

In the book “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1), W. E. B. Du Bois explained the following: This, of course, referred both to immigrants (“migration”) and to slaves (“importation”).4 Debate on this section began Tuesday, August 22, and lasted two days. Luther Martin of Maryland precipitated the discussion by a proposition 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.”6By 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 centralization, 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 61consult 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, 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 argument against the trade: to this all seemed tacitly to agree.

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 62alone, 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.” The student of the situation will always have good cause to believe that a more sturdy and definite anti-slavery stand at this point might have changed history for the better. (1)

In Summary

The word “slavery” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, but the document gave indirect sanction to the institution. The delegates to the Continental Congress provided that three-fifths of “all other Persons” would be counted in determining the number of congressmen each state could elect to the House of Representatives. The Constitution then required the return to their owners of fugitive slaves (“persons held to Service or Labour”) crossing state lines. And it set the date for ending the slave trade (“the Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit”) at 1808, 20 years after ratification.

Each of these provisions was hotly debated at the Convention, and each was finally accepted in a spirit of compromise. Even members of Northern antislavery societies, such as Alexander Hamilton, opposed pursuing the issue, arguing that such an effort would irrevocably divide the states and endanger the more urgent goal of a strong national government. Compromise was urged also by such prominent Southerners as George Washington and James Madison, who detested slavery but believed it would disappear once the Union was confirmed.

The moral issue, however, was raised passionately at the Convention on several occasions. Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania denounced slavery as a “nefarious institution, the curse of heaven on the states where it prevailed.” He contrasted the prosperity and human dignity of free regions with “the misery and poverty” of slave states. Ironically, the most eloquent attack on slavery at the Convention was voiced by Virginian George Mason, whom Jefferson called “the wisest man of his generation.” Slavery, Mason said, “produces the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant…. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor when they see it performed by slaves…. I hold it essential … that the general government should have the power to prevent the increase of slavery.” In the coming years, the abolitionist movement would use the same arguments and bring to bear the same sense of moral outrage; but for the moment the issue of slavery was evaded, both as a word and as a moral challenge. It would ultimately take the tragic conflagration of the Civil War (1861-1865) to end human bondage in the United States and start the country along the difficult path to full racial equality. (2)

Civil Liberties and the Antislavery Controversy

Emancipation of Slavery

See emancipation and the other entries on the antislavery, including the antislavery movement, in this encyclopedia.

Resources

Notes and References

1. W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1893), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.
2. “An outline of American government” (1980), by Richard C. Schroeder

See Also

Further Reading

• American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society; Reports.
• Samuel Hazard, editor. The Register of Pennsylvania. 16 vols. Philadelphia, 1828?36.
• J.D.B. De Bow. The Commercial Review of the South and West. (Also De Bow’s Review of the Southern and Western States.) 38 vols. New Orleans, 1846?69.
• Pennsylvania Historical Society. The Charlemagne Tower Collection of American Colonial Laws. (Bibliography.) Philadelphia, 1890.
• Lewis Cass. An Examination of the Question, now in Discussion, … concerning the Right of Search. By an American. [Philadelphia, 1842.]
• John Fraser Macqueen. Chief Points in the Laws of War and Neutrality, Search and Blockade, etc. London and Edinburgh, 1862.
• Friends. Facts and Observations relative to the Participation of American Citizens in the African Slave Trade. Philadelphia, 1841.
• L.W. Spratt . The Foreign Slave Trade the Source of Political Power, etc. Charleston, 1858.

Nash, Gary, and Jean Soderlund. Freedom by Degrees: Emancipation and Its Aftermath in Pennsylvania. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

Northrup, David. Indentured Labor in the Age of Imperialism, 1834–1922. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

O’Phelan, Scarlett. Rebellions and Revolts in Eighteenth Century Peru and Upper Peru. Koln, Bo¨hlau Verlag, 1985.

Painter, Nell Irvin. Exodusters: Black Migration to Kansas after Reconstruction. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1992.

Patterson, Orlando. Slavery and Social Death: A Comparative Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Peebles, Patrick. Plantation Tamils of Ceylon. London: Leicester University Press, 2001.

Perry, Lewis, and Michael Fellman, eds., Antislavery Reconsidered. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1979.

Rabinowitz, Howard N. Race Relations in the Urban South, 1865–1890. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1996.

Rice, C. Duncan. The Scots Abolitionists, 1833–1861. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1981.

Ripley, C. Peter, ed. The Black Abolitionist Papers. 5 vols. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

Rose, Willie Lee. Rehearsal for Reconstruction: The Port Royal Experiment. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.

Schmidt-Nowara, Christopher. Empire and Anti-Slavery: Spain, Cuba and Puerto Rico, 1833–1874. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press, 1999.

Scully, Pamela. Liberating the Family? Gender and British Slave Emancipation in the Rural Western Cape, 1823–1853. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1997.

Seeber, Edward. Anti-Slavery Opinion in France during the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1937.

Sikainga, Ahmad. Slaves into Workers: Emancipation and Labor in Colonial Sudan. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1996.

Solow, Barbara L., and Stanley L. Engerman, eds. British Capitalism and Caribbean Slavery: The Legacy of Eric Williams. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Stauffer, John. The Black Hearts of Men: Radical Abolitionists and the Transformation of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Stouffer, Allen P. The Light of Nature and the Law of God: Antislavery in Ontario, 1833–1877. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1992.

Temperley, Howard. British Antislavery, 1833–1870. London: Longman, 1972.

Toledano, Ehud. The Ottoman Slave Trade and its Suppression, 1840–1890. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982.

Vorenberg, Michael. Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Walters, Ronald G. The Antislavery Appeal: American Abolitionism after 1830. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 1984; Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

Walvin, James, ed. Slavery and British Society, 1776–1846. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1982.

Whyte, Iain. Scotland and the Abolition of Black Slavery 1756–1838. Edinburgh: University Press, 2006.

Williams, Eric. Capitalism and Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1944.

Wyatt-Brown, Bertram. Lewis Tappan and the Evangelical War Against Slavery. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University Press, 1969.

Zilversmit, Arthur. The First Emancipation: The Abolition of Slavery in the North. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.