So they were deferring to the wishes of the slave states on this particular matter?
Mr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the S. States import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse, because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the Genl. Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.
Odd how the slave states had the power to enforce their demands in 1787, but by the time of the Northwest Ordinance, no one was afraid of offending them by placing restrictions on the travel and residency of their citizens and their slaves in the territories.
I doubt the slave states would have agreed to this restriction in 1787. This was a bait and switch.
The difference between 1787 and 1861 is that real politics was still possible in 1787. Slave states didn't yet believe that everything that wasn't a 100% affirmation of slavery as a positive good was a threat to their interests.
There was still a sense - in both North and South, though to varying degrees in different places - that slavery was something the new nation had to (eventually) put behind it.
The Deep South states knew that they were getting the Old Southwest (Mississippi and Alabama) for their expansion. Consequently, there were willing to let the Old Northwest (The Great Lakes states) go.
Prominent Virginians still looked forward to the eventual abolition of slavery, and it was a long way from South Carolina or Georgia to Michigan or Wisconsin. Pioneers from the Deep South would move into the adjoining territories, not make the long trek north.
For Georgia and South Carolina, maintaining the transatlantic slave trade for at least a generation was a matter of greater importance, an issue they weren't willing to compromise on.
I am aware that some Northerners also didn't want the international slave trade to end, but they weren't threatening to reject the Constitution if they didn't get their way.
It was not a bait and switch. From my readings of the constitutional convention it was the only way to get Georgia and South Carolina to agree to the constitution. There were proposals to get rid of slavery during the convention but Georgia and South Carolina would not agree to them.
The founders believed it was more important to get all the states to agree on the constitution then putting an end to slavery. Considering that the articles of confederation were a failure I would have to reluctantly agree with them.
Though I wonder if they would have told Georgia and South Carolina to go pound sand maybe they would have eventually agreed to join the Unites States and we could have ended slavery much sooner.