tledge
opposed the new bill as defective and impracticable: the former act, he
said, was enough; the States had stopped the trade, and in addition the
United States had sought to placate philanthropists by stopping the use
of our ships in the trade. "This was going very far indeed." New England
first began the trade, and why not let them enjoy its profits now as
well as the English? The trade could not be stopped.

The bill was eventually recommitted and reported again.[41] "On the
question for its passing, a long and warm debate ensued," and several
attempts to postpone it were made; it finally passed, however, only
Brown of Rhode Island, Dent of Maryland, Rutledge and Huger of South
Carolina, and Dickson of North Carolina voting against it, and 67 voting
for it.[42] This Act of May 10, 1800,[43] greatly strengthened the Act
of 1794. The earlier act had prohibited citizens from equipping slavers
for the foreign trade; but this went so far as to forbid them having any
interest, direct or indirect, in such voyages, or serving on board
slave-ships in any capacity. Imprisonment for two years was added to the
former fine of $2000, and United States commissioned ships were directed
to capture such slavers as prizes. The slaves though forfeited by the
owner, were not to go to the captor; and the act omitted to say what
disposition should be made of them.

49. ~The Act of 1803.~ The Haytian revolt, having been among the main
causes of two laws, soon was the direct instigation to a third. The
frightened feeling in the South, when freedmen from the West Indies
began to arrive in various ports, may well be imagined. On January 17,
1803, the town of Wilmington, North Carolina, hastily memorialized
Congress, stating the arrival of certain freed Negroes from Guadeloupe,
and apprehending "much danger to the peace and safety of the people of
the Southern States of the Union" from the "admission of persons of that
description into the United States."[44] The House committee which
considered this petition hastened to agree "That the system of policy
stated in the said memorial to exist, and to be now pursued in the
French colonial government, of the West Indies, is fraught with danger
to the peace and safety of the United States. That the fact stated to
have occurred in the prosecution of that system of policy, demands the
prompt interference of the Government of the United States, as well
Legislative as Executive."[45] The result wa