against one State, and would fall
exclusively on agriculture; it would give national sanction to the
trade; it would look "like an attempt in the General Government to
correct a State for the undisputed exercise of its constitutional
powers;" the revenue would be inconsiderable, and the United States had
nothing to do with the moral principle; while a prohibitory tax would be
defensible, a small tax like this would be useless as a protection and
criminal as a revenue measure.

The whole debate hinged on the expediency of the measure, few defending
South Carolina's action.[53] Finally, a bill was ordered to be brought
in, which was done on the 17th.[54] Another long debate took place,
covering substantially the same ground. It was several times hinted that
if the matter were dropped South Carolina might again prohibit the
trade. This, and the vehement opposition, at last resulted in the
postponement of the bill, and it was not heard from again during the
session.

52. ~The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803-1805.~ About this time the cession
of Louisiana brought before Congress the question of the status of
slavery and the slave-trade in the Territories. Twice or thrice before
had the subject called for attention. The first time was in the Congress
of the Confederation, when, by the Ordinance of 1787,[55] both slavery
and the slave-trade were excluded from the Northwest Territory. In 1790
Congress had accepted the cession of North Carolina back lands on the
express condition that slavery there be undisturbed.[56] Nothing had
been said as to slavery in the South Carolina cession (1787),[57] but it
was tacitly understood that the provision of the Northwest Ordinance
would not be applied. In 1798 the bill introduced for the cession of
Mississippi contained a specific declaration that the anti-slavery
clause of 1787 should not be included.[58] The bill passed the Senate,
but caused long and excited debate in the House.[59] It was argued, on
the one hand, that the case in Mississippi was different from that in
the Northwest Territory, because slavery was a legal institution in all
the surrounding country, and to prohibit the institution was virtually
to prohibit the settling of the country. On the other hand, Gallatin
declared that if this amendment should not obtain, "he knew not how
slaves could be prevented from being introduced by way of New Orleans,
by persons who are not citizens of the United States." It was moved to
str