Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

James Madison's statements on this subject are well known, and none will be included below. Less well known, however, are the declarations of others of the period who understood the challenges faced by the Framers, and saw the Constitution's provisions as a means of "annihilating" the slave trade.

"On the other side, gentlemen said, that the step taken in this article towards the abolition of slavery was one of the beauties of the Constitution. They observed, that in the Confederation there was no provision whatever for its being abolished; but the Constitution provides that Congress may, after twenty years, totally annihilate the slave trade, and that, as all the states, except two, have passed laws to the effect [prohibiting importation of slaves], it might reasonably be expected that it would then be done. In the interim, all the states were at liberty to prohibit it." - James Neal, Ratification Process, Massachusetts

"I am sorry that it could be extended no farther; but so far as it operates, it presents us with the pleasing prospect that the rights of mankind will be acknowledged and established throughout the Union. If there was no other lovely feature in the Constitution but this one, it would diffuse a beauty over its whole countenance. Yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders." - James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution

"I apprehend that it is not in our power to do anything for or against those who are in slavery in the Southern States. No gentleman within these walls detests every idea of slavery more than I do; it is generally detested by the people of this commonwealth; and I ardently hope that the time will soon come when our brethren in the Southern States will view it as we do, and put a stop to it; but to this we have no right to compel them. Two questions naturally arise: If we ratify our Constitution, shall we do any thing by our act to hold the blacks in slavery? or shall we become the partakers of other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each state is sovereign and independent to a certain degree, and the states have a right, and they will regulate their own internal affairs as to themselves appear proper; and shall we refuse to eat, or to drink, or to be united, with those who do not think, or act, just as we do? Surely no. We are not in this case, partakers of other men's sins, for in nothing do we voluntarily encourage the slavery of our fellowmen. A restriction is laid on the federal government, which ould not be avoided, and a union take place. The federal convention went as far as they could. The migration or importation, etc. is confined to the states now existing only; new states cannnot claim it. Congress, by their ordinance for erecting new states, some time since, declared that the new states shall be republican, and that there shall be no slavery in them." - General William Heath, Ratification Process, Massachusetts

George Mason, delegate from Virginia and Signer of the Constitution, spoke of the role of the British government in the orgins of the slave trade:

"This infernal traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. The British government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing states alone but the whole Union. Maryland and Virginia. . . had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the same in substance."

Mason's comments already had been borne out by none other than Edmund Burke, in his "Speech on Conciliation" as early as 1775 when the British government had heard a proposal for enfranchising the slaves as a means of retaliation toward the colonies. Here are Burke's words:

"With regard to the high aristocratic spirit of Virginia and the southern colonies, it has been proposed [in the British Parliament], I know, to reduce it by declaring a general en-franchisement of the slaves. This project had its advocates . . . yet I never could argue myself into any opinion of it. Slaves are often much attached to their masters. A general wild offer of liberty would not always be accepted. History furnishes few instances of it. It is sometimes as hard to persuade slaves to be free as it is to compel freemen to be slaves; and in this auspicious scheme we should have both these pleasing tasks on our hands at once. But when we talk of enfranchisement, do we not perceive that the American master may enfranchise too, and arm servile hands in defence of freedom? _ . . . slaves as the unfortunate black people are, and dull as all men are from slavery, must they not a little suspect the offer of freedom from that very nation, one of whose causes of quarrel with those masters is their refusal to deal any more in that in human traffic? An offer of freedom from England would come rather oddly, shipped to them in an African vessel which is refused an entry into the ports of Virginia or Carolina, with a cargo of three hundred Angola negroes. It would be curious to see the Guinea captain attempting at the same instant to publish his proclamation of liberty and to advertise his sale of slaves." -Edmund Burke, March 22, 1775 - Speech on Conciliation

Finally, from Thomas Jefferson's "Autobiography":

"The first establishment in Virginia which became permanent was made in 1607. I have found no mention of negroes in the colony until about 1650. The first brought here as slaves were by a Dutch ship; after which the English commenced the trade and continued it until the revolutionary war. That suspended. . . their future importation for the present, and the business of the war pressing constantly on the (Virginia) legislature, this subject was not acted on finally until the year 1778, when I brought a bill to prevent their further importation. This passed without opposition, leaving to future efforts its final eradication."

For any who might be interested, chapter 7 of The Summer of 1787 is a very well written and thoroughly documented volume on the exact subject of this thread.