Really? An article about the fact that a family in Rhode Island was involved in importing slaves to the south supports your conclusion that the South Carolina and Georgia delegates to the Continental Congress were in their pocket? If that's how you "connect the dots" then I think the reasons you hold the beliefs you do is explained.
But since we're connecting dots here, how about this one, which is a much shorter stretch: Southern plantation owners were reliant on slave labor, and the delegates to the Continental Congress were representing their economic interests.
I'm done for the day, but I'll leave you with one more quote, from the Constitutional ratification debate in South Carolina:
Gen. C. C. Pinckney: . . . The general then said he would make a few observations on the objections which the gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On this point your delegates had to contend with the religious and political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and with the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, who was warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions the gentleman has quoted--that, while there remained one acre of swamp-land uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice against restricting the importation of negroes. I am as thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them South Carolina would soon be a desert waste.
Not just “a family in Rhode Island”. The 2nd richest man in America in the early 19th century, from the far North, who singly accounted for up to 2% of the active population at one point (credited for 10,000+ in the U.S. when there were ~1,000,000).
There were many other families from RI (like the Brown University Brown’s in Providence), NY, etc. They effectively controlled major ports in the south such as Charleston, SC. So with all their wealth and power, you still assume they didn’t have the ears of the appropriate delegates? Many more so than the 88% of slave owners in the south who owned 2 slaves or less?
How many cases of 1% here, 2% there do you need to understand it wasn’t just a peculiar “Southern” institution???
Like in so many cases in political history, just “follow the money”.
oh, and pinckney signed the constitution. per that statement, do you think he’d sign knowing he had no way out if the other states wanted to abolish slavery? was he forced to sign or did he do so voluntarily?
the agreement was to play together nice or peacefully separate, but no where did that document grant a self-righteous tyrant (redundant) the authority to wage war against any of the sovereign parties in the compact.
but 600,000 deaths buys you a lot of cred when you re-write the books i guess.