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.[4] The 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."[5] They 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.[6] Moreover, "forfeiture" and sale of the Negroes implied
a property right in them which did not exist.[7] Waiving 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.
Pages:
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166