"It, sometimes, suits the slaveholders to claim, that their slavery is an exclusively State concern; and that the North has, therefore, nothing to do with it"

Gerrit Smith’s statement addresses a central rhetorical strategy of pro-slavery advocates in pre-Civil War America. Slaveholders often argued that slavery was a matter of state rights rather than a national concern, claiming that each state had the sovereign authority to decide whether to allow slavery within its own borders. By labeling slavery as “an exclusively State concern,” they sought to limit the influence and input of the Northern, largely anti-slavery population, and to prevent federal or external interference. Smith’s wording “sometimes suits the slaveholders” reveals the opportunistic aspect of this argument; slaveholders invoked states’ rights not as a consistent principle, but as a convenient shield whenever their institution was threatened by national scrutiny or efforts at reform.

This tactic essentially served to insulate slavery from criticism or legislative action from outside the South. By asserting that the North “has, therefore, nothing to do with it,” they attempted to silence abolitionist movements and delegitimize moral arguments against slavery coming from outside their states. The argument disregards the interconnectedness of the American economy and politics, slavery affected the nation as a whole, through trade, legislation, the expansion of territories, and the national conscience. The economic benefits harvested by the South from slave labor were not limited by state lines; Northern industry and commerce were also linked to slave-grown cotton and other products. Moral outrage over slavery’s existence resonated deeply with many Northerners, challenging the notion that slavery was purely an internal Southern matter.

Smith’s critique lays bare the hypocrisy of the slaveholders’ argument: whenever federal power threatened to restrict or abolish slavery, slaveholding states invoked state sovereignty. Yet, when it came to protecting or expanding their interests, such as enforcing the return of fugitive slaves, they demanded national action. Thus, their concern for state rights was conditional, revealing it as a rhetorical device to perpetuate the institution of slavery and resist change. The North was compelled to respond, not only out of economic and political necessity, but also as a matter of national principle and human rights.