Slavery DBQ Essay

In U.S History, the issue of slavery was an issue which led many historical events and reforms. Slavery was one of the issues which led to events such as the Civil War, and was what pushed for change for people of color. As of today, the historical issue of slavery still encourages people to push for racial equality, and still remains a very prevalent topic within society. In 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention debated about the issue of slavery. People against slavery emphasized the evilness and hypocriticalness of people who wanted to keep slavery, but people who were pro-slavery argued that it brought the Union economic benefits.

In the first Source, it is stated how Sherman “was for leaving the clause as it stands”. Sherman did not agree with slave trade as a whole, but recognized that some states were bound and dependent on slaves. His argument is that although it is unethical and immoral, it is simply more convenient to leave the topic where it currently stands. Mason, however, boldly claims that every master is a tyrant and that the general government should prevent the increase of slavery. Pinckney argues that how South Carolina and Georgia’s cannot survive without slaves, and how the work of slaves benefits the whole Union. He draws the connection between more slaves and more trade, meaning more consumption and revenue for everyone, including the treasury. Rutledge backs Pinckney’s claims by mentioning that the interests of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia will only agree if their interests are met, and it would be unwise to have those states give up such a core interests.

The second source presents statistics about the average annual value of commodity exports from 1768-1772. It becomes apparent that the main southern exports are tobacco, rice, grain, and grain products, while the main northern exports are grain, grain products, fish, livestock, beef, and pork. In general, the south does export the most - combined they have more than the North. This brings credibility to argument about the economic benefits slavery brings to the Union - without slavery there would definitely be a significant decrease as the South were dependent on them.

In the third source, James Iredell Sr acknowledges the fact that slavery is “a trade utterly inconsistent with rights of humanity, and under which great cruelties have been exercised.” He also acknowledges how South Carolina and George would not ever agree to have it fully removed. So, what could the solution be? Iredell’s argument is that, if people do not agree or accept the Constitution, will it remedy evil? Iredell’s answer to this is, no, it doesn’t. If the Constitution isn’t adopted, slavery will never end. If it is adopted, it could cease after a certain amount of time if Congress sees it necessary. He argues that the benefits of our government set them apart from other governments during the time, as he claims that “this government is nobly distinguished above others by that very provision”. As a result, the benefits that Iredell claim is that they set a example of humanity, “by providing for the abolition of this inhumane traffic, through at a distant period.”

In conclusion, people against slavery emphasized the evilness and immorality behind slavery, but people who were pro-slavery argued that was not only a system where states were dependent on it, but it brought the Union economic benefits, shown through statistics. Furthermore, James Iredell presents a middle ground for this issue - to not instantly abolish slavery, but rather do it over a period of time, giving the dependent states time and room to adjust. Each states would like to appeal to their own interests, but in order to be successful, compromise is sometimes required, and James Iredell’s solution, in my personal opinion, presents itself as the best out of all the other solutions.