Quiz for American Voices:
The First National Debate over Slavery

Question

1. For which of the following reasons did Luther Martin from Maryland propose a clause to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves at the Philadelphia convention?

A.
B.
C.
D.
Correct. The answer is b. Luther Martin proposed a clause to prohibit or tax the importation of slaves because he believed that the Atlantic slave trade was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character.
Incorrect. The answer is b. Luther Martin proposed a clause to prohibit or tax the importation of slaves because he believed that the Atlantic slave trade was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character.

Question

2. What arguments did the Connecticut delegates make in Philadelphia in favor of permitting the continued importation of slaves into the United States?

A.
B.
C.
D.
Correct. The answer is a. Both of the Connecticut delegates argued that the importation of slavery should be allowed to continue in any state that chose to do so. The states, not the national government, they suggested, should decide their approach to slavery.
Incorrect. The answer is a. Both of the Connecticut delegates argued that the importation of slavery should be allowed to continue in any state that chose to do so. The states, not the national government, they suggested, should decide their approach to slavery.

Question

3. Delegates from which of the following states were highly invested in the defeat of Luther Martin’s proposal to limit or tax the importation of slaves?

A.
B.
C.
D.
Correct. The answer is c. The two delegates from South Carolina, John Rutledge and Charles Pinckney, were highly invested in defeating Luther Martin’s proposal. These men were both slave owners and argued that if Martin’s clause was adopted and their ability to import slaves limited, they would consider excluding their state from the Union.
Incorrect. The answer is c. The two delegates from South Carolina, John Rutledge and Charles Pinckney, were highly invested in defeating Luther Martin’s proposal. These men were both slave owners and argued that if Martin’s clause was adopted and their ability to import slaves limited, they would consider excluding their state from the Union.

Question

4. At the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, Mr. Neal and General Thompson justified their objections to the institution of slavery on what grounds?

A.
B.
C.
D.
Correct. The answer is b. Mr. Neal objected to slavery on moral grounds, arguing that he was obliged “to bear witness against any thing that should favor the making merchandize of the bodies of men.” General Thompson also made a moral argument, arguing that it was wrong for Americans to make slaves of others while they proclaimed freedom and liberty for themselves.
Incorrect. The answer is b. Mr. Neal objected to slavery on moral grounds, arguing that he was obliged “to bear witness against any thing that should favor the making merchandize of the bodies of men.” General Thompson also made a moral argument, arguing that it was wrong for Americans to make slaves of others while they proclaimed freedom and liberty for themselves.

Question

5. What was a critical point of disagreement between George Mason of Virginia and Mr. Heath of Massachusetts on the question of slavery in the United States?

A.
B.
C.
D.
Correct. The answer is b. These two men disagreed strongly over the question of whether or not an individual state was culpable for slavery, even if that state did not permit it. Mason suggested that “As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” Thus he argued that the whole country was responsible for and would suffer consequences for the continuation of slavery in some states. Heath, on the other hand, said, “if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do anything 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. . . . We are not in this case partakers of other men’s sins.”
Incorrect. The answer is b. These two men disagreed strongly over the question of whether or not an individual state was culpable for slavery, even if that state did not permit it. Mason suggested that “As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” Thus he argued that the whole country was responsible for and would suffer consequences for the continuation of slavery in some states. Heath, on the other hand, said, “if we ratify the Constitution, shall we do anything 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. . . . We are not in this case partakers of other men’s sins.”