your authority constitutionally" to prohibit the slavetrade. The next day — December 3 — Bradley, of Vermont, introduced the bill that became the act of March 2, 1807.
The first part of it considered was the disposal of the slaves in vessels to be captured while attempting to bring slaves in — that the ship-owners would violate the law was taken as a matter of course. The antislavery men wanted the negroes so captured to be free, but were willing to have them indentured, even for life. This was asking more than could be obtained. The fear of having free blacks turned loose in slave-holding communities — the fear that the free blacks would incite insurrections was too strong.
Of course there were moral objections to selling the slaves, but Congressman Joseph Clay declared "morality has nothing to do with this traffic. It must appear to every man of common-sense that the question can be considered in a commercial point of view only." Worse yet, Congressmen were found to argue for the "decent appearance" of the statute book. They were drabs who feared detection, not the sin.
Of course, in the state of civilization then prevailing the commercial consideration necessarily prevailed. The law (section 4), as at last passed, provided that "neither the importer, nor any person or persons claiming under him, shall hold any right or title whatsoever"? to any negro which might be captured on a slaver coming to the United States, "but the same shall remain subject to any regulations," not contrary to this act, which "the several States or Territories" might make in the matter.
So Congress in trying to stop the traffic provided
