an revolt. Massachusetts, after many fruitless attempts, finally
took advantage of an unusually bold case of kidnapping, and passed a
similar act in 1788.[17] "This," says Belknap, "was the utmost which
could be done by our legislatures; we still have to regret the
impossibility of making a law _here_, which shall restrain our citizens
from carrying on this trade _in foreign bottoms_, and from committing
the crimes which this act prohibits, _in foreign countries_, as it is
said some of them have done since the enacting of these laws."[18]

Thus it is seen how, spurred by the tragedy in the West Indies, the
United States succeeded by State action in prohibiting the slave-trade
from 1798 to 1803, in furthering the cause of abolition, and in
preventing the fitting out of slave-trade expeditions in United States
ports. The country had good cause to congratulate itself. The national
government hastened to supplement State action as far as possible, and
the prophecies of the more sanguine Revolutionary fathers seemed about
to be realized, when the ill-considered act of South Carolina showed the
weakness of the constitutional compromise.

44. ~First Debate in Congress, 1789.~ The attention of the national
government was early directed to slavery and the trade by the rise, in
the first Congress, of the question of taxing slaves imported. During
the debate on the duty bill introduced by Clymer's committee, Parker of
Virginia moved, May 13, 1789, to lay a tax of ten dollars _per capita_
on slaves imported. He plainly stated that the tax was designed to check
the trade, and that he was "sorry that the Constitution prevented
Congress from prohibiting the importation altogether." The proposal was
evidently unwelcome, and caused an extended debate.[19] Smith of South
Carolina wanted to postpone a matter so "big with the most serious
consequences to the State he represented." Roger Sherman of Connecticut
"could not reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings as an
article of duty, among goods, wares, and merchandise." Jackson of
Georgia argued against any restriction, and thought such States as
Virginia "ought to let their neighbors get supplied, before they imposed
such a burden upon the importation." Tucker of South Carolina declared
it "unfair to bring in such an important subject at a time when debate
was almost precluded," and denied the right of Congress to "consider
whether the importation of slaves is proper or not."