“’The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited,’ &c.  This, he said, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be defeated.  He wished it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was a compliance with those States.  If the change of language, however, should be objected to by the members from those States, he should not urge it.

     “Col.  MASON was not against using the term ‘slaves,’ but
     against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,
     lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

     “Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms
     proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress, and
     were not pleasing to some people.

     “Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman.

“Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that, both in opinion and practice, he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.

     “Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.

“Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the States which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves; and, for that purpose, moved to amend the clause so as to read.—­

     “’The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall
     permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature
     of the United States until the year 1808;’—­

     “which was disagreed to, nem. con.

     “The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as
     follows:—­

“’The migration or importation of such persons as the several States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808.’

     “New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North
     Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay,—­7; New Jersey,
     Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no,—­4."[632]

* * * * *

The above specimens of the speeches on the slavery question, during the debate, are sufficient to furnish a fair idea of the personal opinion of the great thinkers of that time on slavery.  It is clear that it was the wish of the great majority of the Northern delegates to abolish the institution, in a domestic as well as in a foreign sense; but they were not strong enough to resist the temptation to compromise their profoundest convictions on a question as broad and far-reaching as the Union that they were met to launch anew.  Thus by an understanding, or, as Gouverneur Morris called it, “a bargain,” between the commercial representatives of the Northern States