[23] Northern 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?"[25] But, in fact, "morality has nothing to do with this
traffic,"[26] for, 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."[27] The 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;"[28] nevertheless, 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 recognition of slavery.
Pages:
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171