Footnotes

Footnotes1Prince,Digest of the Laws of Georgia, p. 786; Marbury and Crawford,Digest of the Laws of Georgia, pp. 440, 442. The exact text of this act appears not to be extant. Section I. is stated to have been "re-enacted by the constitution." Possibly this act prohibited slaves also, although this is not certain. Georgia passed several regulative acts between 1755 and 1793. Cf. Renne,Colonial Acts of Georgia, pp. 73–4, 164, note.2Marbury and Crawford,Digest, p. 30, § 11. The clause was penned by Peter J. Carnes of Jefferson. Cf. W.B. Stevens,History of Georgia(1847), II. 501.3Grimké,Public Laws, p. 466.4Cooper and McCord,Statutes, VII. 431.5Ibid., VII. 433–6, 444, 447.6Ibid., VII. 449.7Martin,Iredell's Acts of Assembly, I. 492.8Ibid., II. 53.9Cf.Ibid., II. 94;Laws of North Carolina(revision of 1819), I. 786.10Virginia codified her whole slave legislation in 1792 (Va. Statutes at Large, New Ser., I. 122), and amended her laws in 1798 and 1806 (Ibid., III. 251).11Dorsey,Laws of Maryland, 1796, I. 334.12Laws of Delaware, 1797(Newcastle ed.), p. 942, ch. 194 b.13Dallas,Laws, II. 586.14Paterson,Digest of the Laws of New Jersey(1800), pp. 307–13. In 1804 New Jersey passed an act gradually to abolish slavery. The legislation of New York at this period was confined to regulating the exportation of slave criminals (1790), and to passing an act gradually abolishing slavery (1799). In 1801 she codified all her acts.15Acts and Laws of Connecticut(ed. 1784), pp. 368, 369, 388.16Ibid., p. 412.17Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89, pp. 235–6.18Queries Respecting Slavery, etc., inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1st Ser., IV. 205.19Annals of Cong., 1 Cong, 1 sess. pp. 336–41.20Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 1 sess. p. 903.21Ibid., 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1182–3.22Journals of Cong., 1782–3, pp. 418–9. Cf. above, pp. 56–57.23Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1184.24Ibid., pp. 1182–91.25Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1197–1205.26House Journal(repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 157–8.27Annals of Cong., I Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413–7.28For the reports and debates, cf.Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413–7, 1450–74;House Journal(repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 168–81.29A clerical error in the original: "interdict" and "regulate" should be interchanged.30SeeMemorials presented to Congress, etc. (1792), published by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.31From the Virginia petition.32From the petition of Baltimore and other Maryland societies.33From the Providence Abolition Society's petition.34House Journal(repr. 1826), 2 Cong. 2 sess. I. 627–9;Annals of Cong., 2 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 728–31.35Annals of Cong., 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70, 72;House Journal(repr. 1826), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 76, 84–5, 96–100;Senate Journal(repr. 1820), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 51.36Statutes at Large, I. 347–9.37Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 656–70, 945–1033.38Annals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 229.39Dec. 12, 1799:House Journal(repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 535. For the debate, seeAnnals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 230–45.40Senate Journal(repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 72, 77, 88, 92; seeIbid., Index, Bill No. 62;House Journal(repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III., Index, House Bill No. 247. For the debate, seeAnnals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 686–700.41Annals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 697.42Ibid., p. 699–700.43Statutes at Large, II. 70.44Annals of Cong., 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 385–6.45Ibid., p. 424.46See House Bills Nos. 89 and 101;Annals of Cong., 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 424, 459–67. For the debate, seeIbid., pp. 459–72.47Statutes at Large, II. 205.48Cf. Fowler,Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc., p. 126.49Speech of S.L. Mitchell of New York, Feb. 14, 1804:Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1000. Cf. also speech of Bedinger:Ibid., pp. 997–8.50Speech of Lowndes in the House, Feb. 14, 1804:Annals of Cong., 8 Cong., 1 sess. p. 992. Cf. Stanton's speech later:Ibid., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 240.51Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, 876.52Ibid., pp. 992–1036.53Huger of South Carolina declared that the whole South Carolina Congressional delegation opposed the repeal of the law, although they maintained the State's right to do so if she chose:Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1005.54Ibid., pp. 1020–36;House Journal(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, 580, 581–5.55On slavery in the Territories, cf. Welling, inReport Amer. Hist. Assoc., 1891, pp. 133–60.56Statutes at Large, I. 108.57Journals of Cong., XII. 137–8.58Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 511, 515, 532–3.59Ibid., 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1235, 1249, 1277–84, 1296–1313.60Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1313.61Statutes at Large, I. 549.62Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, I. No. 177.63Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106, 211, 223, 231, 233–4, 238.64Ibid., pp. 240, 1186.65Ibid., p. 241.66Ibid., p. 240.67Ibid., p. 242.68For further proceedings, seeAnnals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 240–55, 1038–79, 1128–9, 1185–9. For the law, seeStatutes at Large, II. 283–9.69First, a bill was introduced applying the Northwest Ordinance to the Territory (Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 45–6); but this was replaced by a Senate bill (Ibid., p. 68;Senate Journal, repr. 1821, 8 Cong. 2 sess. III. 464). For the petition of the inhabitants, seeAnnals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. p. 727–8.70The bill was hurried through, and there are no records of debate. Cf.Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 28–69, 727, 871, 957, 1016–20, 1213–5. InSenate Journal(repr. 1821), III., see Index, Bill No. 8. Importation of slaves was allowed by a clause erecting a Frame of Government "similar" to that of the Mississippi Territory.71Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 443. The whole trade was practically foreign, for the slavers merely entered the Negroes at Charleston and immediately reshipped them to New Orleans. Cf.Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 264.72House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 264;Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 445, 878.73House Reports, 9 Cong. 1 sess. Feb. 17, 1806.74House Bill No. 123.75Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73–7. This report covers the time from Jan. 1, 1804, to Dec. 31, 1807. During that time the following was the number of ships engaged in the traffic:—FromCharleston,61FromConnecticut,1"Rhode Island,59"Sweden,1"Baltimore,4"Great Britain,70"Boston,1"France,3"Norfolk,2"202The consignees of these slave ships were natives ofCharleston13Rhode Island88Great Britain91France10202The following slaves were imported:—ByBritishvessels19,949"French"1,078——21,027ByAmericanvessels:—"Charlestonmerchants2,006"Rhode Island"7,958"Foreign"5,717"other Northern"930"other Southern"1,43718,048Total number of slaves imported, 1804–739,075It is, of course, highly probable that the Custom House returns were much below the actual figures.76McMaster,History of the People of the United States, III. p. 517.77House Journal(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171;Mass. Resolves, May, 1802, to March, 1806, Vol. II. A. (State House ed., p. 239).78House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 238.79Ibid., V. 266.80Senate Journal(repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 76, 77, 79.81House Journal(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171.82Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.83Ibid., pp. 272–4, 323.84Ibid., pp. 346–52, 358–75, etc., to 520.85Ibid., pp. 374–5.86See House Bill No. 94.87Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 466.88Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 519–20.89Ibid., pp. 21, 52, 75, etc., to 138, 485–515, 1228. See House Bill No. 168. Cf.Statutes at Large, II. 421–2.90A few months later, at the expiration of the period, trade was quietly reopened.Annals of Cong., 11 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 443–6.

1Prince,Digest of the Laws of Georgia, p. 786; Marbury and Crawford,Digest of the Laws of Georgia, pp. 440, 442. The exact text of this act appears not to be extant. Section I. is stated to have been "re-enacted by the constitution." Possibly this act prohibited slaves also, although this is not certain. Georgia passed several regulative acts between 1755 and 1793. Cf. Renne,Colonial Acts of Georgia, pp. 73–4, 164, note.

2Marbury and Crawford,Digest, p. 30, § 11. The clause was penned by Peter J. Carnes of Jefferson. Cf. W.B. Stevens,History of Georgia(1847), II. 501.

3Grimké,Public Laws, p. 466.

4Cooper and McCord,Statutes, VII. 431.

5Ibid., VII. 433–6, 444, 447.

6Ibid., VII. 449.

7Martin,Iredell's Acts of Assembly, I. 492.

8Ibid., II. 53.

9Cf.Ibid., II. 94;Laws of North Carolina(revision of 1819), I. 786.

10Virginia codified her whole slave legislation in 1792 (Va. Statutes at Large, New Ser., I. 122), and amended her laws in 1798 and 1806 (Ibid., III. 251).

11Dorsey,Laws of Maryland, 1796, I. 334.

12Laws of Delaware, 1797(Newcastle ed.), p. 942, ch. 194 b.

13Dallas,Laws, II. 586.

14Paterson,Digest of the Laws of New Jersey(1800), pp. 307–13. In 1804 New Jersey passed an act gradually to abolish slavery. The legislation of New York at this period was confined to regulating the exportation of slave criminals (1790), and to passing an act gradually abolishing slavery (1799). In 1801 she codified all her acts.

15Acts and Laws of Connecticut(ed. 1784), pp. 368, 369, 388.

16Ibid., p. 412.

17Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89, pp. 235–6.

18Queries Respecting Slavery, etc., inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1st Ser., IV. 205.

19Annals of Cong., 1 Cong, 1 sess. pp. 336–41.

20Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 1 sess. p. 903.

21Ibid., 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1182–3.

22Journals of Cong., 1782–3, pp. 418–9. Cf. above, pp. 56–57.

23Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1184.

24Ibid., pp. 1182–91.

25Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1197–1205.

26House Journal(repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 157–8.

27Annals of Cong., I Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413–7.

28For the reports and debates, cf.Annals of Cong., 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413–7, 1450–74;House Journal(repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 168–81.

29A clerical error in the original: "interdict" and "regulate" should be interchanged.

30SeeMemorials presented to Congress, etc. (1792), published by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

31From the Virginia petition.

32From the petition of Baltimore and other Maryland societies.

33From the Providence Abolition Society's petition.

34House Journal(repr. 1826), 2 Cong. 2 sess. I. 627–9;Annals of Cong., 2 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 728–31.

35Annals of Cong., 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70, 72;House Journal(repr. 1826), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 76, 84–5, 96–100;Senate Journal(repr. 1820), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 51.

36Statutes at Large, I. 347–9.

37Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 656–70, 945–1033.

38Annals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 229.

39Dec. 12, 1799:House Journal(repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 535. For the debate, seeAnnals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 230–45.

40Senate Journal(repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 72, 77, 88, 92; seeIbid., Index, Bill No. 62;House Journal(repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III., Index, House Bill No. 247. For the debate, seeAnnals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 686–700.

41Annals of Cong., 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 697.

42Ibid., p. 699–700.

43Statutes at Large, II. 70.

44Annals of Cong., 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 385–6.

45Ibid., p. 424.

46See House Bills Nos. 89 and 101;Annals of Cong., 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 424, 459–67. For the debate, seeIbid., pp. 459–72.

47Statutes at Large, II. 205.

48Cf. Fowler,Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc., p. 126.

49Speech of S.L. Mitchell of New York, Feb. 14, 1804:Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1000. Cf. also speech of Bedinger:Ibid., pp. 997–8.

50Speech of Lowndes in the House, Feb. 14, 1804:Annals of Cong., 8 Cong., 1 sess. p. 992. Cf. Stanton's speech later:Ibid., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 240.

51Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, 876.

52Ibid., pp. 992–1036.

53Huger of South Carolina declared that the whole South Carolina Congressional delegation opposed the repeal of the law, although they maintained the State's right to do so if she chose:Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1005.

54Ibid., pp. 1020–36;House Journal(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, 580, 581–5.

55On slavery in the Territories, cf. Welling, inReport Amer. Hist. Assoc., 1891, pp. 133–60.

56Statutes at Large, I. 108.

57Journals of Cong., XII. 137–8.

58Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 511, 515, 532–3.

59Ibid., 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1235, 1249, 1277–84, 1296–1313.

60Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1313.

61Statutes at Large, I. 549.

62Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, I. No. 177.

63Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106, 211, 223, 231, 233–4, 238.

64Ibid., pp. 240, 1186.

65Ibid., p. 241.

66Ibid., p. 240.

67Ibid., p. 242.

68For further proceedings, seeAnnals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 240–55, 1038–79, 1128–9, 1185–9. For the law, seeStatutes at Large, II. 283–9.

69First, a bill was introduced applying the Northwest Ordinance to the Territory (Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 45–6); but this was replaced by a Senate bill (Ibid., p. 68;Senate Journal, repr. 1821, 8 Cong. 2 sess. III. 464). For the petition of the inhabitants, seeAnnals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. p. 727–8.

70The bill was hurried through, and there are no records of debate. Cf.Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 28–69, 727, 871, 957, 1016–20, 1213–5. InSenate Journal(repr. 1821), III., see Index, Bill No. 8. Importation of slaves was allowed by a clause erecting a Frame of Government "similar" to that of the Mississippi Territory.

71Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 443. The whole trade was practically foreign, for the slavers merely entered the Negroes at Charleston and immediately reshipped them to New Orleans. Cf.Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 264.

72House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 264;Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 445, 878.

73House Reports, 9 Cong. 1 sess. Feb. 17, 1806.

74House Bill No. 123.

75Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73–7. This report covers the time from Jan. 1, 1804, to Dec. 31, 1807. During that time the following was the number of ships engaged in the traffic:—FromCharleston,61FromConnecticut,1"Rhode Island,59"Sweden,1"Baltimore,4"Great Britain,70"Boston,1"France,3"Norfolk,2"202The consignees of these slave ships were natives ofCharleston13Rhode Island88Great Britain91France10202The following slaves were imported:—ByBritishvessels19,949"French"1,078——21,027ByAmericanvessels:—"Charlestonmerchants2,006"Rhode Island"7,958"Foreign"5,717"other Northern"930"other Southern"1,43718,048Total number of slaves imported, 1804–739,075It is, of course, highly probable that the Custom House returns were much below the actual figures.

75Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73–7. This report covers the time from Jan. 1, 1804, to Dec. 31, 1807. During that time the following was the number of ships engaged in the traffic:—

It is, of course, highly probable that the Custom House returns were much below the actual figures.

76McMaster,History of the People of the United States, III. p. 517.

77House Journal(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171;Mass. Resolves, May, 1802, to March, 1806, Vol. II. A. (State House ed., p. 239).

78House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 238.

79Ibid., V. 266.

80Senate Journal(repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 76, 77, 79.

81House Journal(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171.

82Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.

83Ibid., pp. 272–4, 323.

84Ibid., pp. 346–52, 358–75, etc., to 520.

85Ibid., pp. 374–5.

86See House Bill No. 94.

87Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 466.

88Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 519–20.

89Ibid., pp. 21, 52, 75, etc., to 138, 485–515, 1228. See House Bill No. 168. Cf.Statutes at Large, II. 421–2.

90A few months later, at the expiration of the period, trade was quietly reopened.Annals of Cong., 11 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 443–6.

55.The Act of 1807.The first great goal of anti-slavery effort in the United States had been, since the Revolution, the suppression of the slave-trade by national law. It would hardly be too much to say that the Haytian revolution, in addition to its influence in the years from 1791 to 1806, was one of the main causes that rendered the accomplishment of this aim possible at the earliest constitutional moment. To the great influence of the fears of the South was added the failure of the French designs on Louisiana, of which Toussaint L'Ouverture was the most probable cause. The cession of Louisiana in 1803 challenged and aroused the North on the slavery question again; put the Carolina and Georgia slave-traders in the saddle, to the dismay of the Border States; and brought the whole slave-trade question vividly before the public conscience. Another scarcely less potent influence was, naturally, the great anti-slavery movement in England, which after a mighty struggle of eighteen years was about to gain its first victory in the British Act of 1807.

President Jefferson, in his pacificatory message of December 2, 1806, said: "I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on theunoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have long been eager to proscribe. Although no law you may pass can take prohibitory effect till the first day of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening period is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, expeditions which cannot be completed before that day."1

In pursuance of this recommendation, the very next day Senator Bradley of Vermont introduced into the Senate a bill which, after a complicated legislative history, became the Act of March 2, 1807, prohibiting the African slave-trade.2

Three main questions were to be settled by this bill: first, and most prominent, that of the disposal of illegally imported Africans; second, that of the punishment of those concerned in the importation; third, that of the proper limitation of the interstate traffic by water.

The character of the debate on these three questions, as well as the state of public opinion, is illustrated by the fact that forty of the sixty pages of officially reported debates are devoted to the first question, less than twenty to the second, and only two to the third. A sad commentary on the previous enforcement of State and national laws is the readiness with which it was admitted that wholesale violations of the law would take place; indeed, Southern men declared that no strict law against the slave-trade could be executed in the South, and that it was only by playing on the motives of personal interest that the trade could be checked. The question of punishment indicated the slowly changing moral attitude of the South toward the slave system. Early boldly said, "A large majority of people in the Southern States do not consider slavery as even an evil."3The South, in fact, insisted on regarding man-stealing as a minor offence, a "misdemeanor" rather than a "crime." Finally, in the short and sharp debate on the interstate coastwise trade, the growing economic side of the slavery question came to the front, the vested interests' argument was squarely put, and the future interstate trade almost consciously provided for.

From these considerations, it is doubtful as to how far it was expected that the Act of 1807 would check the slave traffic; at any rate, so far as the South was concerned, there seemed to be an evident desire to limit the trade, but little thought that this statute would definitively suppress it.

56.The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans be disposed of?The dozen or more propositions on the question of the disposal of illegally imported Africans may be divided into two chief heads, representing two radically opposed parties: 1. That illegally imported Africans be free, although they might be indentured for a term of years or removed from the country. 2. That such Africans be sold as slaves.4The arguments on these two propositions, which were many and far-reaching, may be roughly divided into three classes, political, constitutional, and moral.

The political argument, reduced to its lowest terms, ran thus: those wishing to free the Negroes illegally imported declared that to enslave them would be to perpetrate the very evil which the law was designed to stop. "By the same law," they said, "we condemn the man-stealer and become the receivers of his stolen goods. We punish the criminal, and then step into his place, and complete the crime."5They said that the objection to free Negroes was no valid excuse; for if the Southern people really feared this class, they would consent to the imposing of such penalties on illicit traffic as would stop the importation of a single slave.6Moreover, "forfeiture" and sale of the Negroes implied a property right in them which did not exist.7Waiving this technical point, and allowing them to be "forfeited" to the government, then the government should either immediately set them free, or, at the most, indenture them for a term of years; otherwise, the law would be an encouragement to violators. "It certainly will be," said they, "if the importer can find means to evade the penalty of the act; for there he has all the advantage of a market enhanced by our ineffectual attempt to prohibit."8They claimed that even the indenturing of the ignorant barbarian for life was better than slavery; and Sloan declared that the Northern States would receive the freed Negroes willingly rather than have them enslaved.9

The argument of those who insisted that the Negroes should be sold was tersely put by Macon: "In adopting our measures on this subject, we must pass such a law as can be executed."10Early expanded this: "It is a principle in legislation, as correct as any which has ever prevailed, that to give effect to laws you must not make them repugnant to the passions and wishes of the people among whom they are to operate. How then, in this instance, stands the fact? Do not gentlemen from every quarter of the Union prove, on the discussion of every question that has ever arisen in the House, having the most remote bearing on the giving freedom to theAfricans in the bosom of our country, that it has excited the deepest sensibility in the breasts of those where slavery exists? And why is this so? It is, because those who, from experience, know the extent of the evil, believe that the most formidable aspect in which it can present itself, is by making these people free among them. Yes, sir, though slavery is an evil, regretted by every man in the country, to have among us in any considerable quantity persons of this description, is an evil far greater than slavery itself. Does any gentleman want proof of this? I answer that all proof is useless; no fact can be more notorious. With this belief on the minds of the people where slavery exists, and where the importation will take place, if at all, we are about to turn loose in a state of freedom all persons brought in after the passage of this law. I ask gentlemen to reflect and say whether such a law, opposed to the ideas, the passions, the views, and the affections of the people of the Southern States, can be executed? I tell them, no; it is impossible—why? Because no man will inform—why? Because to inform will be to lead to an evil which will be deemed greater than the offence of which information is given, because it will be opposed to the principle of self-preservation, and to the love of family. No, no man will be disposed to jeopard his life, and the lives of his countrymen. And if no one dare inform, the whole authority of the Government cannot carry the law into effect. The whole people will rise up against it. Why? Because to enforce it would be to turn loose, in the bosom of the country, firebrands that would consume them."11

This was the more tragic form of the argument; it also had a mercenary side, which was presented with equal emphasis. It was repeatedly said that the only way to enforce the law was to play off individual interests against each other. The profit from the sale of illegally imported Negroes was declared to be the only sufficient "inducement to give information of their importation."12"Give up the idea of forfeiture, and I challenge the gentleman to invent fines, penalties, or punishments of any sort, sufficient to restrain the slave trade."13If such Negroes be freed, "I tell you that slaves willcontinue to be imported as heretofore.... You cannot get hold of the ships employed in this traffic. Besides, slaves will be brought into Georgia from East Florida. They will be brought into the Mississippi Territory from the bay of Mobile. You cannot inflict any other penalty, or devise any other adequate means of prevention, than a forfeiture of the Africans in whose possession they may be found after importation."14Then, too, when foreigners smuggled in Negroes, "who then ... could be operated on, but the purchasers? There was the rub—it was their interest alone which, by being operated on, would produce a check. Snap their purse-strings, break open their strong box, deprive them of their slaves, and by destroying the temptation to buy, you put an end to the trade, ... nothing short of a forfeiture of the slave would afford an effectual remedy."15Again, it was argued that it was impossible to prevent imported Negroes from becoming slaves, or, what was just as bad, from being sold as vagabonds or indentured for life.16Even our own laws, it was said, recognize the title of the African slave factor in the transported Negroes; and if the importer have no title, why do we legislate? Why not let the African immigrant alone to get on as he may, just as we do the Irish immigrant?17If he should be returned to Africa, his home could not be found, and he would in all probability be sold into slavery again.18

The constitutional argument was not urged as seriously as the foregoing; but it had a considerable place. On the one hand, it was urged that if the Negroes were forfeited, they were forfeited to the United States government, which could dispose of them as it saw fit;19on the other hand, it was said that the United States, as owner, was subject to State laws, and could not free the Negroes contrary to such laws.20Some alleged that the freeing of such Negroes struck at the title to all slave property;21others thought that, as propertyin slaves was not recognized in the Constitution, it could not be in a statute.22The question also arose as to the source of the power of Congress over the slave-trade. Southern men derived it from the clause on commerce, and declared that it exceeded the power of Congress to declare Negroes imported into a slave State, free, against the laws of that State; that Congress could not determine what should or should not be property in a State.23Northern men replied that, according to this principle, forfeiture and sale in Massachusetts would be illegal; that the power of Congress over the trade was derived from the restraining clause, as a non-existent power could not be restrained; and that the United States could act under her general powers as executor of the Law of Nations.24

The moral argument as to the disposal of illegally imported Negroes was interlarded with all the others. On the one side, it began with the "Rights of Man," and descended to a stickling for the decent appearance of the statute-book; on the other side, it began with the uplifting of the heathen, and descended to a denial of the applicability of moral principles to the question. Said Holland of North Carolina: "It is admitted that the condition of the slaves in the Southern States is much superior to that of those in Africa. Who, then, will say that the trade is immoral?"25But, in fact, "morality has nothing to do with this traffic,"26for, as Joseph Clay declared, "it must appear to every man of common sense, that the question could be considered in a commercial point of view only."27The other side declared that, "by the laws of God and man," these captured Negroes are "entitled to their freedom as clearly and absolutely as we are;"28nevertheless, some were willing to leave them to the tender mercies of the slave States, so long as the statute-book was disgraced by no explicit recognitionof slavery.29Such arguments brought some sharp sarcasm on those who seemed anxious "to legislate for the honor and glory of the statute book;"30some desired "to know what honor you will derive from a law that will be broken every day of your lives."31They would rather boldly sell the Negroes and turn the proceeds over to charity.

The final settlement of the question was as follows:—

"Section 4.... And neither the importer, nor any person or persons claiming from or under him, shall hold any right or title whatsoever to any negro, mulatto, or person of color, nor to the service or labor thereof, who may be imported or brought within the United States, or territories thereof, in violation of this law, but the same shall remain subject to any regulations not contravening the provisions of this act, which the Legislatures of the several States or Territories at any time hereafter may make, for disposing of any such negro, mulatto, or person of color."32

57.The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?The next point in importance was that of the punishment of offenders. The half-dozen specific propositions reduce themselves to two: 1. A violation should be considered a crime or felony, and be punished by death; 2. A violation should be considered a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine and imprisonment.33

Advocates of the severer punishment dwelt on the enormity of the offence. It was "one of the highest crimes man couldcommit," and "a captain of a ship engaged in this traffic was guilty of murder."34The law of God punished the crime with death, and any one would rather be hanged than be enslaved.35It was a peculiarly deliberate crime, in which the offender did not act in sudden passion, but had ample time for reflection.36Then, too, crimes of much less magnitude are punished with death. Shall we punish the stealer of $50 with death, and the man-stealer with imprisonment only?37Piracy, forgery, and fraudulent sinking of vessels are punishable with death, "yet these are crimes only against property; whereas the importation of slaves, a crime committed against the liberty of man, and inferior only to murder or treason, is accounted nothing but a misdemeanor."38Here, indeed, lies the remedy for the evil of freeing illegally imported Negroes,—in making the penalty so severe that none will be brought in; if the South is sincere, "they will unite to a man to execute the law."39To free such Negroes is dangerous; to enslave them, wrong; to return them, impracticable; to indenture them, difficult,—therefore, by a death penalty, keep them from being imported.40Here the East had a chance to throw back the taunts of the South, by urging the South to unite with them in hanging the New England slave-traders, assuring the South that "so far from charging their Southern brethren with cruelty or severity in hanging them, they would acknowledge the favor with gratitude."41Finally, if the Southerners would refuse to execute so severe a law because they did not consider the offence great, they would probably refuse to execute any law at all for the same reason.42

The opposition answered that the death penalty was more than proportionate to the crime, and therefore "immoral."43"Icannot believe," said Stanton of Rhode Island, "that a man ought to be hung for only stealing a negro."44It was argued that the trade was after all but a "transfer from one master to another;"45that slavery was worse than the slave-trade, and the South did not consider slavery a crime: how could it then punish the trade so severely and not reflect on the institution?46Severity, it was said, was also inexpedient: severity often increases crime; if the punishment is too great, people will sympathize with offenders and will not inform against them. Said Mr. Mosely: "When the penalty is excessive or disproportioned to the offence, it will naturally create a repugnance to the law, and render its execution odious."47John Randolph argued against even fine and imprisonment, "on the ground that such an excessive penalty could not, in such case, be constitutionally imposed by a Government possessed of the limited powers of the Government of the United States."48

The bill as passed punished infractions as follows:—

Back to Index Next