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 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 consult 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