In Massachusetts, January 30, 1788, General Heath said:  “The gentlemen who have spoken have carried the matter rather too far on both sides.  I apprehend that it is not in our power to do anything for or against those who are in slavery in the southern States....  Two questions naturally arise, if we ratify the Constitution:  Shall we do anything by our act to hold the blacks in slavery? or shall we become partakers of other men’s sins?  I think neither of them.  Each State is sovereign and independent to a certain degree, and they have a right, and will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves appears proper."[33] Iredell said, in the North Carolina convention, July 26, 1788:  “When the entire abolition of slavery takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to every generous mind, and every friend of human nature....  But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished above others by that very provision."[34]

Of the arguments against the clause, two made in the Massachusetts convention are typical.  The Rev. Mr. Neal said, January 25, 1788, that “unless his objection [to this clause] was removed, he could not put his hand to the Constitution."[35] General Thompson exclaimed, “Shall it be said, that after we have established our own independence and freedom, we make slaves of others?"[36] Mason, in the Virginia convention, June 15, 1788, said:  “As much as I value a union of all the states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful trade....  Yet they have not secured us the property of the slaves we have already.  So that ’they have done what they ought not to have done, and have left undone what they ought to have done.’"[37] Joshua Atherton, who led the opposition in the New Hampshire convention, said:  “The idea that strikes those who are opposed to this clause so disagreeably and so forcibly is,—­hereby it is conceived (if we ratify the Constitution) that we become consenters to and partakers in the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic, at least for a certain period, without any positive stipulation that it shall even then be brought to an end."[38]

In the South Carolina convention Lowndes, January 16, 1788, attacked the slave-trade clause.  “Negroes,” said he, “were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how our kind friends in the north were determined soon to tie up our hands, and drain us of what we had!  The Eastern States drew their means of subsistence, in a great measure, from their shipping; and, on that head, they had been particularly careful not to allow of any burdens....  Why, then, call this a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow it on the other!"[39]

In spite of this discussion in the different States, only one State, Rhode Island, went so far as to propose an amendment directing Congress to “promote and establish such laws and regulations as may effectually prevent the importation of slaves of every description, into the United States."[40]