[16] Even 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?[17] If 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;[19] on 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.[20] Some
alleged that the freeing of such Negroes struck at the title to all
slave property;[21] others thought that, as property in slaves was not
recognized in the Constitution, it could not be in a statute.[22] The
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.
Pages:
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170