See _Statutes at Large_, VI.
357.
[107] It is difficult to get at the exact facts in this
complicated case. The above statement is, I think, much milder
than the real facts would warrant, if thoroughly known. Cf.
_House Reports_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231; 21 Cong. 1
sess. III. No. 348, pp. 62-3, etc.; 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No.
209; _Amer. State Papers, Naval_, II. No. 308.
[108] The first method, represented by the Act of 1818, was
favored by the South, the Senate, and the Democrats; the
second method, represented by the Act of 1819, by the North,
the House, and by the as yet undeveloped but growing Whig
party.
[109] Committees on the slave-trade were appointed by the
House in 1810 and 1813; the committee of 1813 recommended a
revision of the laws, but nothing was done: _Annals of Cong._,
11 Cong. 3 sess. p. 387; 12 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1074, 1090. The
presidential message of 1816 led to committees on the trade in
both Houses. The committee of the House of Representatives
reported a joint resolution on abolishing the traffic and
colonizing the Negroes, also looking toward international
action. This never came to a vote: _Senate Journal_, 14 Cong.
2 sess. pp. 46, 179, 180; _House Journal_, 14 Cong. 2 sess.
pp.
Pages:
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217