Michael Histand

“The pass given the slave trade added insult to the injury, creating a political incentive to enslave more Africans.12”
― David Waldstreicher, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

“States with slaves had more votes in the Congress than states without them, making the three-fifths clause reason enough to reject the document.”
― David Waldstreicher, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

“Why wasn’t the prohibition of the slave trade by the Continental Congress in 1774 an ironclad precedent? “Can we suppose what was morally evil in the year 1774, has become in the year 1788, morally good?” Perhaps tired of reading about people like themselves as living proof of the need for better leadership, the dissenters turned their antifederalist antislavery into a blast against the founders themselves.”
― David Waldstreicher, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification

“Slavery was “inconsistent with the genius of republicanism,” Martin insisted. “When our own liberties were at stake, we warmly felt for the common rights of man.” There was no logical reason why a government bound to protect the states against invasions and insurrections could not regulate the migration of slaves. Martin remained a states’ righter, but he still could not comprehend why the government could not be strong in interstate matters like slavery while leaving the states to themselves on domestic issues. The inconsistency suggested that within the structure of the Constitution, crucial liberties had been sacrificed, and not for the common good.”
― David Waldstreicher, Slavery's Constitution: From Revolution to Ratification