Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut supported the clause in an argument pitched upon the same utilitarian plane, but strengthened with what was an assertion of the doctrine of States rights. He “was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interests. The old Confederation had not meddled with this point and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.” Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, while upholding the view of Mr. Rutledge, held out a hope of subsequent accord. He said “South Carolina can never receive the plan, if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of Negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on the subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done.”[6] Upon the following day the discussion was resumed. Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, “was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, thought it best to leave the matter as we found it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged upon the Convention the necessity of dispatching its business.”