alone, bade fair to settle itself in a manner satisfactory to all.  Consequently, neither slavery nor the slave-trade is specifically mentioned in the delegates’ credentials of any of the States, nor in Randolph’s, Pinckney’s, or Hamilton’s plans, nor in Paterson’s propositions.  Indeed, the debate from May 14 to June 19, when the Committee of the Whole reported, touched the subject only in the matter of the ratio of representation of slaves.  With this same exception, the report of the Committee of the Whole contained no reference to slavery or the slave-trade, and the twenty-three resolutions of the Convention referred to the Committee of Detail, July 23 and 26, maintain the same silence.

The latter committee, consisting of Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of the Constitution August 6, 1787.  The committee had, in its deliberations, probably made use of a draft of a national Constitution made by Edmund Randolph.[1] One clause of this provided that “no State shall lay a duty on imports;” and, also, “1.  No duty on exports. 2.  No prohibition on such inhabitants as the United States think proper to admit. 3.  No duties by way of such prohibition.”  It does not appear that any reference to Negroes was here intended.  In the extant copy, however, notes in Edward Rutledge’s handwriting change the second clause to “No prohibition on such inhabitants or people as the several States think proper to admit."[2] In the report, August 6, these clauses take the following form:—­

“Article VII.  Section 4.  No tax or duty shall be laid by the legislature on articles exported from any state; nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several states shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited."[3]

33. The General Debate. 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.