e rub--it was their interest alone which, by
being operated on, would produce a check. Snap their purse-strings,
break open their strong box, deprive them of their slaves, and by
destroying the temptation to buy, you put an end to the trade, ...
nothing short of a forfeiture of the slave would afford an effectual
remedy."[15] Again, it was argued that it was impossible to prevent
imported Negroes from becoming slaves, or, what was just as bad, from
being sold as vagabonds or indentured for life.[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.[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