Interviewer: The Gordon story is unique in American history. What was it that first attracted you to it?
Soodalter: The sheer drama of the story. I was an undergrad in the late 60's, and very little had actually been written about Gordon. Diving into the primary sources had all the aspects of a treasure hunt. At the outset, all I really knew was that President Lincoln had resisted considerable political pressure, and allowed a young sea captain to hang for slave trading.

I: Did you have sympathy for Gordon?
S: Initially, yes. I'd come from a comfortable white middle-class home, and although a student of American history, my exposure to the horrors of the slave trade was academic, not visceral. In Gordon, I saw a loving husband and father dying at the end of a rope, and it felt tragic.

I: And now?
S: My sympathy - and my outrage - lie with the millions of humans that Gordon and his ilk unfeelingly ripped from their homes and destroyed. In Gordon's time, there was an attrition rate of over 17% aboard slave ships. Of every 100 captives chained below deck, 17 died. And this doesn't encompass the vast numbers who died in bondage after the slavers delivered them. The true tragedy lies in our government's unforgivably lax approach to enforcing the slave trade laws, in its refusal to cooperate with Great Britain when cooperation would have meant ending the slave traffic decades earlier, and in letting men like Gordon evade punishment as a matter of policy. Gordon died for the thousands of slavers who pursued their careers untroubled by the rule of law.

I: You have said that you are an admirer of Abraham Lincoln. And yet, he stated publicly that he considered blacks inferior to whites, and that he would not attempt to interfere with slavery in the southern United States. How do you reconcile your admiration with these issues?
S: I think it is a common pitfall that we tend to judge history's personages by today's moral standards. Lincoln was a product of his time. His racial views were honed and tempered by where he was, and when. Bear in mind, though, that he welcomed Frederick Douglass to the White House, and spoke with him as an equal. I think Lincoln's perceptions on race altered during the course of his presidency. As to his refusal to interfere with slavery, Lincoln hated the whole idea of slavery, but it was not prohibited by the Constitution, and he was a strict constructionist. And it's important to remember that his main objective was to keep the Union together.

I: Lincoln wasn't the only one to make allowances for slavery while working to end the slave trade. Didn't the prosecutor in the Gordon case make similar statements?
S: Delafield Smith did tell the jury that he was set on hanging a slave trader, but was not an abolitionist by any means. This was a common distinction made at the time: Slavery was the social, cultural and economic way of things, but slave trading was tantamount to kidnapping. It was an artificial distinction at best, but it helped many white Americans sleep at night.

I: Were you disappointed that Smith was not a slavery-hating crusader?
S: I was, at first. We all look for the man on the white horse. But I think it's enough that he did all within his power to stop the slave trade in New York and the country. In that regard, he was a crusader. I can't judge his politics from this distance, nor should I. I learned long ago that there is no such thing as an unbiased history, and I make no claims on that score, but my task was to record the events as accurately as possible, warts and all.

I: Aside from the slavers' victims, who in your story holds your sympathy?
S: I would have to say Elizabeth Gordon. She was a fragile young woman - married at 15, and mother to a young child - thrust into this awful nightmare. Her days were filled with the sights and smells of the "Tombs" prison, as all hope of saving her husband gradually dissipated. I so regret that there is no record of Elizabeth after her husband's execution.

I: In writing the book, was there a particular point when you were most effected?
S: Yes. I was typing along at a good clip, and I came to the point where Judge Shipman was to pronounce sentence. I stopped and read what Shipman said, then I read it aloud. I had always thought it a remarkable speech, but having become so immersed in writing the book, I found that it had renewed impact. I discovered that as I was reading it, I wept.

I: You've ended your book with a chapter on the modern-day slave trade. In what ways do you see this as an extension of the trade of Gordon's day?
S: The slave trade of Gordon's time pales in comparison. Today's slave trade is infinitely more vast, more widespread, more secretive, and more difficult to eradicate than that of the 19th century. It's estimated that there are over 27 million people in bondage in the world today, with the United States a prime destination. They are brought in through our airports with false papers, or smuggled across our borders. There are slaves in nearly every state, working in a number of different jobs. They come from Asia, India, Africa, the former Soviet states, and South and Central America. It has reached epidemic proportions, and most Americans are unaware of its scope - or even its existence. Once again, the government must rally, and make a supreme effort to stomp it out. Too little is being done, as tens of thousands are trafficked into the United States every year.