THE AMOUNT AND EXTENT OF THE TRADE.
We have already discussed the causes of the domestic slave trade. In
this chapter it is our purpose, chiefly, to consider its amount and
extent.
In this connection our first object will be to determine whether it
was carried on as a business before 1808. It appears that there were
exchanges of slaves going on among the States and territories before
this time, but whether this was anything more than of an occasional or
incidental nature is a question.
The statutes of some of the States give some light along this line.
South Carolina in 1792 prohibited the introduction of slaves either
by land or sea.[98] Delaware, however, as early as 1787, passed a law
which recites that: "Sundry negroes and mulattoes, as well freeman as
slaves, have been exported and sold into other States, contrary to the
principles of humanity and justice, and derogatory to the honor of this
State."
This law prohibited their exportation without a permit.[99] It seems to
have been something more than merely incidental for it was amended in
1793, as follows:
"That from and after the first Tuesday of October next, the justice of
the Court of General Quarter Sessions and Jail Delivery, or any two of
them, shall have the like power to grant a licence or permit to export,
sell or carry out for sale, any negro or mulatto slave from this State
that five justices of the peace in open Sessions now have."[100]
We have evidence to show that, by 1802, Alexandria, in the District of
Columbia, had become a sort of depot for the sale of slaves, and that
men visited it from distant parts of the United States in order to
purchase them.[101]
About this time slaves were in great demand and very high in
Mississippi,[102] and probably, also, in the new States of Kentucky
and Tennessee.[103] However, it is not to be supposed that the great
increase of the slave population in these sections before 1815 was
due, to any great extent, to the domestic slave trade. There were five
causes which may be assigned for this increase, of which the domestic
trade was, probably, among the least, if not the least. No doubt,
the most important was the immigration of slave holders with their
slaves.[104] This immigration was considerable: the white population
of Tennessee and Kentucky nearly trebled between 1790 and 1800,
and between 1800 and 1810 it about doubled, and the population of
Mississippi more than quadrupled between 1800 and 1810. Slaves, also,
increased in as great a ratio.[105] Second, we consider the South
Carolina slave trade from 1804 to 1807 inclusive. From a speech of
Mr. Smith of South were sold in the Carolinas, but that the most of
Carolina in the United States Senate, December 8, 1820, we learn that
only a small part of the negroes introduced in consequence of this
trade them were bought by the people of the Western and Southwestern
States and territories.[106] Third, was the natural increase. Fourth
would be the illegal foreign slave trade,[107] and fifth is the
domestic trade. It is impossible to more than approximate the relative
importance of these factors.
However, it seems very unlikely that the domestic trade was of much
consequence before 1815. Whatever impetus it may have received on
account of the demand for slaves just prior to the South Carolina
trade, must have been checked by the consequent heavy importation from
abroad. For, on account of this, slaves fell in price, as it is said
adults, at this time, generally sold in the Southwest at one hundred
dollars each.[108]
If the domestic slave trade had assumed any importance, or even if it
had been going on at all before 1815, it seems more than likely that
it would have been remarked by travellers, many of whom, both English
and American, visited the Southwest and other sections of the country
during the period in question. But so far as we can find, none of them
make any mention of it whatever.[109] The newspapers of the time, also,
are silent in regard to the matter. Doubtless the rise and development
of the trade was hindered or delayed by the War of 1812,[110] but
almost immediately after the close of the war, it comes into notice
and even prominence. In 1816 Paulding in his "Letters from the South"
writes of it from personal observation, and also tells of a man who had
even thus early made money in the business.[111]
At this time, indeed, conditions were very favorable to a growth of
the domestic trade. The general prosperity and the high price of
agricultural products, especially cotton and sugar,[112] caused a great
demand for slave labor for the new and fertile lands of the South and
Southwest. In 1817 and 1818 the buying up of negroes for these markets
was fast becoming a regular business, and it was a very common thing
to see gangs of them chained and marching toward the South.[113] They
were collected from various places by dealers and shipped down the
Mississippi River in flat-boats. Fourteen of these loaded with slaves
for sale were seen at Natchez at once about this time.[114]
The statement was made that 8,000 slaves were carried into Georgia
in 1817 from the Northern slave holding States.[115] It would seem
probable that the greater part of these may have been introduced by
immigrants. However, the slave trade must have been great, for on
December 20, 1817, the Georgia legislature passed a law to prohibit at
once the importation of slaves for sale.[116]
Between 1810 and 1820 slaves in the four States of Georgia,
Mississippi, Tennessee and Louisiana in round numbers increased from
202,000 to 332,000,[117] and in some of the other States the increase
was about as great. During the same time the white population in the
States named increased from 419,000 to 645,000.[118] By far the greater
part of this increase took place after 1815. To prove this we will take
Louisiana as an example. In 1810 she had a population of 76,500,[119]
and in 1815 near the close of the year her population, according to
Monette, did not exceed 90,000,[120] an increase of only 12,000; but
in 1820 it amounted to 154,000, of which more than 73,000 were negro
slaves.[121] It appears that the slaves in Louisiana increased only
about 2,000 or 2,500 from 1810 to 1815, but between 1815 and 1820
there was an increase of about 37,000.[122] This wonderful increase in
population in the West and Southwest is to be accounted for by the
fact that after the close of the War of 1812 immigration again set in
these directions, and, as most of the immigrants without doubt were
from the older Southern States, they carried with them the slaves which
they had in their native States.[123] Another source from which this
region received slaves at this time was through the operation of the
illicit foreign trade. It is probable that 10,000 or 15,000 a year were
thus introduced.[124] It therefore seems that up to this time to the
domestic trade is due probably only a minor part of the increase of the
slave population of this section.
During the twenties, however, if we are to give credit to the
statements of travellers, the trade reached very great proportions.
Baltimore, Norfolk, Richmond, Washington and other places had already
become centres. Agents were placed in these cities to attend to
purchase and shipment. "And thousands and tens of thousands," such is
the language of an English tourist, were purchased in Virginia and
Maryland for sale in Georgia, Louisiana and other States.[125] Blane,
another Englishman, who visited the United States about the same time,
is more to the point.
"It is computed," he says, "that every year from ten to fifteen
thousand slaves are sold from the States of Delaware, Maryland and
Virginia and sent to the South."[126]
Basil Hall was informed, in 1827 or 1828, that during certain seasons
of the year, "all the roads, steamboats and packets are crowded with
troops of negroes on their way to the slave markets of the South.[127]
Vessels, indeed, from the selling States were sometimes seen in New
Orleans with as many as two hundred negroes aboard."[128]
This transportation of negroes from the border States to the South
and Southwest from about 1826 to 1832 may be partly accounted for by
the probable falling off in the illicit importations[129] and by the
fact that cotton and tobacco, which were the staples of some of the
border States, were comparatively low in price,[130] making them very
unprofitable crops to cultivate in these States. The cotton raised
in North Carolina and Virginia decreased almost half during this
time.[131] While it appears as if the lower price of cotton merely had
the effect in the new States to increase the acreage in order to make
up for the deficiency in price. In the new States there was a wonderful
increase in production during this period.[132] Slaves, therefore, were
of much less productive value in the border States, while in the new
States the demand for them was scarcely lessened.
The "New Orleans Mercantile Advertiser," of January 21, 1830, says:
"Arrivals by sea and river, within a few days, have added fearfully to
the number of slaves brought to this market for sale. New Orleans is
the complete mart for the slave trade--and the Mississippi is becoming
a common highway for the traffic."[133]
In the summer of 1831, New Orleans imported 371 negroes in one week,
nearly all of whom were from Virginia.[134]
In the same year, August 1831, an insurrection of slaves, in which a
number of white people were murdered, occurred in Southampton County,
Virginia.[135] This caused much excitement throughout the slave
States. It opened the eyes of the people to the danger of a large
slave population. It seemed, for a while, that it would have a very
detrimental effect upon the domestic slave trade, for several importing
States began to consider the advisability of prohibiting the further
introduction of slaves. Two of the largest importing States,[136]
indeed, passed such laws: Louisiana, which, in March, 1831, had
repealed her law regulating the importation of slaves[137] in November
of the same year, at an extra session of her legislature enacted a law
against their importation for sale.[138] And, in January, 1832, Alabama
followed suit.[139]
The Virginia Legislature of 1831-2, also took up the question
of slavery and with open doors vigorously discussed methods of
emancipation, and of getting rid of the negro population. It was
recognized that the value of slaves in Virginia depended greatly upon
the Southern and Western markets. It was feared that other buying
States would follow the lead of Louisiana, thus cutting off the outlet
of Virginia's surplus slaves, and while the whites were constantly
emigrating, the rapidly increasing black population would tend to
become congested in the State, producing a condition of society
alarming to contemplate.[140]
But these forebodings were far from ever being realized. Indeed, even
before the end of the year the conjunction of two causes produced a
great demand for slaves and they were soon higher in price than they
had been for years. First, planters from the cotton-growing States
visited Virginia in great numbers in order to make purchases of slaves,
doubtless, thinking they could buy cheaply, as it seemed that on
account of the Southampton Insurrection Virginia was determined to get
rid of her slaves at all hazards.[141] Second, the most important was
the advance in price of cotton. This began, also, in 1832. It continued
to rise for several years and by 1836 it had doubled in price,[142]
while by 1839 its production, also, had nearly doubled. This increase
was due almost wholly to the South and Southwest, Mississippi alone
producing nearly one-fourth of the entire crop.[143]
As a consequence we should expect to note a corresponding briskness in
the slave trade. Such, indeed, was the case. We have no reason to think
that more slaves were ever exported to the South from the Northern
slave States during any equal period of time than there were from 1832
to 1836 inclusive. Of these 1836 is easily the banner year.
In 1832 it was estimated by Prof. Dew that Virginia annually exported
for sale to other States 6,000 slaves.[144] During the thirties, or
even before the slave trade was carried on between the selling and
buying States with about the same regularity as the exchanges of
cotton, flour, sugar and rice.[145] Vessels engaged in the business
advertised their accommodations. One trader, John Armfield, had three
which were scheduled to leave Alexandria for New Orleans, alternately,
the first and fifteenth of each month during the shipping season.[146]
That the trade had become extensive is evidenced by the newspapers.
Up to 1820 it was very uncommon to find a trader's advertisement in
a newspaper, but even before 1830 such advertisements had become very
plentiful. One could hardly pick up a paper published in the selling
States, especially those of the Eastern Shore of Maryland and Eastern
Virginia, without finding one or more. These advertisements often
continued from month to month and from year to year.[147]
An example or two may be interesting:
"Cash for Negroes:--I wish to purchase 600 or 700 negroes for the New
Orleans market, and will give more than any purchaser that is now or
hereafter may come into the market." Richard C. Woolfolk.[148]
"Cash for Negroes:--We will give cash for 200 negroes between the
ages of 15 and 25 years old of both sexes. Those having that kind of
property for sale will find it to their interest to give us a call."
Finnall and Freeman.[149]
The number of slaves currently estimated to have been transported to
the South and Southwest during 1835 and 1836 almost staggers belief.
The "Maryville (Tenn.) Intelligencer" made the statement in 1836 that
in 1835 60,000 slaves passed through a Western town on their way to the
Southern market.[150] Also, in 1836, the "Virginia (Wheeling) Times"
says, intelligent men estimated the number of slaves exported from
Virginia during the preceding twelve months as 120,000 of whom about
two-thirds were carried there by their masters, leaving 40,000 to have
been sold.[151] The "Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine," July 1837, gives
the "Natchez Courier" as authority for the estimate that during 1836,
250,000 slaves were transported to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana
and Arkansas from the older slave States.[152] A committee, in 1837,
appointed by the citizens of Mobile to enquire into the cause of the
prevalent financial stringency stated in their report that for the
preceding four years Alabama had annually purchased from other States
$10,000,000 worth of slave property.[153]
When the panic of 1837 came upon Mississippi, it was thought, it seems,
to have been caused through the amount of money sent out of the State
in the purchase of slaves, and Governor Lynch, upon the petition of the
people, convened the legislature in extra session, and in his message
to it says:
"The question which presents itself and which I submit for your
deliberation [is]--whether the passage of an act prohibiting the
introduction of slaves into this State as merchandise may not have a
salutary effect in checking the drain of capital annually made upon us
by the sale of this description of property."[154]
The panic of 1837 caused a falling off in the domestic slave trade, and
the low price of cotton which continued until 1846[155] hindered its
revival. The falling off in the trade is shown by the fact that the
per cent. of increase in the slave population of the cotton States was
scarcely half as great between 1840 and 1850 as during the previous
decade.[156] The slave trade, however, seems to have become brisker
in 1843, for while only 2,000 slaves are said to have been sold in
Washington in 1842, in 1843, 5,000 were sold there.[157] It does not
necessarily follow, however, that all these were sent South. The
increased number of sales was caused by two things: the decline in the
price of tobacco,[158] and the renewed activity in the sugar industry
incident upon a new duty on sugar.[159] This gave rise to a demand for
slave labor upon the sugar plantations of the South, but it was a very
limited demand. During this period the decline in the value of slaves
was great in some States,[160] and it appears very probable there was
a general depreciation in value. However, before 1850 three important
things had happened, each of which had an effect upon the slave trade.
First, the admission of Texas, December, 1845; second, the gradual
increase in the price of cotton after 1845; third, the discovery
of gold in California. The first opened a large cotton country to
development and the required slave labor could be legally supplied
only from the United States. The rise in cotton which continued almost
uniformly until 1860[161] caused a new impetus to be given to its
culture, and the discovery of gold in California infused new life into
all the channels of trade.
In a few years, indeed, after 1845, the demand for slaves seems to have
been greater than the supply. A writer in the "Richmond Examiner," in
1849, says:
"It being a well ascertained fact that Virginia and Maryland will not
be able to supply the great demand for negroes which will be wanted
in the South this fall and next spring, we would advise all who are
compelled to dispose of them in this market to defer selling until the
sales of the present crop of cotton can be realized as the price then
must be very high owing to two reasons: First, the ravages of the
cholera, and secondly, the high price of cotton."[162]
Indeed, during the fifteen years prior to 1860 the demand for slaves
became so great that it caused an increase of one hundred per cent.
in their price.[163] However, there was not a great increase in the
domestic slave trade. According to a custom house report there were
shipped from Baltimore in a little less than two years, in 1851 and
1852 only 1,033 negroes.[164] This is certainly not a large showing
though it is probable a great many were sent overland to the South from
this place during the same time.
In a speech before the Southern Convention at Savannah in 1856, Mr.
Scott, of Virginia, made the statement that not more than half the
lands in the sugar and cotton-growing States had been reduced to
cultivation, and that all the valuable slaves in Virginia, Maryland,
Kentucky and Missouri would be required to develop them.[165] But at
this time the prosperity of the latter militated against the transfer
of labor to the cotton-growing States. Probably the conditions in the
border States is best described by quoting from a writer in "De Bow's
Review" in 1857:
"The difficulty," he says, "of procuring slaves at reasonable rates,
has already been severely felt by the cotton planters, and this
difficulty is constantly increasing. The production of rice, tobacco,
wheat, Indian corn, etc., with stock raising, in those States affords
nearly as profitable employment for slave labor as cotton planting in
other States. They have not, as is generally supposed, a redundancy
of slave labor, nor are they likely to have so long as their present
prosperity continues.
"The recent full development of the rich agricultural and mineral
resources of these States, indeed, by an immense demand for their
staple productions, have not only given profitable employment to
slave labor, but has improved the pecuniary condition of the slave
owner and placed him above the necessity of parting with his slave
property."[166]
Even Olmsted, inadvertently, no doubt, gives evidence of the prosperity
of Virginia, a little before this time, when he says that in the
tobacco factories of Richmond and Petersburg slaves were in great
demand and received a hundred and fifty to two hundred dollars and
expenses a year.[167] In North Carolina, also, good hands would bring
about the same wages.[168]
Though the labor market in the border States was greater than the
natural increase of the negro, yet it was hardly to be compared to the
Southern demand. As a consequence, when debt, or necessity, or other
reason, compelled the sale of slaves, they were often bought by traders
and exported.[169] The statement was made by Mr. Jones, of Georgia,
in the Savannah Convention, 1856, that negroes were even then worth
from $1,000 to $1,500 each, and that there were ten purchasers to one
seller.[170]
Indeed, so great was the demand for slaves at this time that the
advisability of reopening the African slave trade became one of the
principal topics of discussion in Southern Agricultural and Commercial
Conventions.[171] In fact, the Vicksburg Convention, 1859, passed a
resolution in favor of reopening the African trade.[172]
The New Orleans newspapers during all this period give evidence of the
domestic trade. It was very common during the shipping season to see
advertisements to the effect that the subscriber, a negro trader, had
received, or had just arrived from Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas
or elsewhere, with a large lot of negroes which were offered for
sale. Usually the number would be given as fifty, seventy-five, or
even a hundred. This would be qualified by the statement that they
would be constantly receiving fresh lots. The same advertisement would
continue in the same paper for months and even years. Sometimes half
a dozen of these could be found in a single issue of a paper. It
would be impossible even to approximate from this source the number
sold during any given time, for it is likely the number offered for
sale bore but little relation to the actual number sold. The States of
Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas were most conspicuous in these
advertisements.[173]
Writers on the subject seem to be pretty well agreed that during this
period, or during the fifties, about 25,000 slaves were annually sold
South from the Northern slave States.[174]
It is interesting to notice in this connection what the Census Reports
have to show. But in reading it should be remembered that no account
is taken of the sale of slaves except as they took place between the
buying and selling States. So the sale of slaves between Virginia and
Maryland are not indicated nor those between Mississippi and Alabama.
The slave population of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee and Missouri in 1820 was in
round numbers 644,000, in 1830 997,000 being an increase of 353,000.
The slave population in the selling States of Virginia, Maryland,
Delaware, North Carolina, Kentucky and the District of Columbia at
the same periods[175] was 873,000 and 993,000 respectively, being an
increase in these States of 120,000. Total increase of slaves in both
sections during the decade, 473,000, from which we deduct 50,000 due
to the illicit foreign traffic,[176] leaving 423,000 from natural
increase or about 28 per cent. Had the selling States increased at
this ratio, instead of 120,000 their increase would have been 244,000.
This would seem to indicate that at least 12,400 annually were carried
South during this decade. However, only the smaller part of these, and
those of the following decade as well, were transported through the
operation of the domestic slave trade. Mr. P.A. Morse, of Louisiana,
writing in 1857, says that the augmentation of slaves within the cotton
States was caused mostly by the migration of slave owners.[177] The
"Virginia Times," in 1836, says of the number of slaves exported during
the preceding twelve months "not more than one-third have been sold,
the others having been carried by their owners who have removed."[178]
We conclude from these and other sources[179] that at least
three-fifths of the removals of slaves from the border slave States to
those farther South from 1820 to 1850 were due to emigration.[180]
Thus it is shown that probably 5,000[181] slaves were annually exported
by the selling States from 1820 to 1830 by means of the domestic trade.
In the next decade adding Florida to the buying State and transferring
South Carolina[182] and Missouri[183] to the selling list, we find
that in 1830 and in 1840 the buying States had 672,000 and 1,127,000
respectively, being an increase of 455,000; while for the same periods
the selling States had 1,333,000 and 1,361,000, being an increase of
28,000. The whole increase, therefore, was 483,000,[184] deducting
40,000 due to illicit foreign trade,[185] we have 443,000 or about 22
per cent. as the natural increase. Had the selling States increased at
same rate it would have been 293,000 for the decade. Deducting 28,000
we find that 265,000 can be accounted for only as having been exported.
Deducting three-fifths for emigration we have, removing 106,000 for the
domestic traffic, an average of 10,600 per year.
By 1850, the buying States had another increase of 478,000 and the
selling States 180,000. Total increase from 1840 to 1850, 658,000.[186]
Deducting 50,000 illicitly imported,[187] we have 606,000 or about 24
per cent. total increase. Accordingly the selling States should have a
natural increase of 326,000. Deducting the actual number we have left
146,000, which must have been transported. Deducting three-fifths on
account of emigration, there would remain about 58,000 or nearly 6,000
per year for the domestic trade.
Adding Texas to the buying States in 1850, they then have 1,663,000,
and in 1860 2,296,000, or an increase of 633,000 during the decade.
And the selling States 1,541,000 and 1,657,000 respectively, being an
increase of 116,000. Total increase 749,000.[188] Deducting 70,000
which were brought in by illicit trade[189] we have a remainder of
679,000 or 21 per cent. natural increase. From natural increase
selling States should have had 207,000 more than the actual. Deducting
three-fifths on account of emigration leaves a little more than 8,000
per year sold South annually for these ten years.
It is very probable that the emigration to the cotton States fell
off during the fifties owing to the great prosperity in the border
States, and it might be fair to reduce the number estimated to have
been carried South by emigration to one-third or one-half, which would
leave ten or twelve thousand per year for the domestic slave trade.
We feel quite confident that this statistical review of the domestic
slave trade, based as it is upon the Census Reports, gives a truer idea
of the actual amount of the trade between the selling and the buying
States than could be got from any other sources.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 98: Acts Gen. Assembly of S.C. from Feb., 1791, to Dec.,
1794, inclusive, Vol. I., 215.]
[Footnote 99: Hurd: Law of Freedom and Bondage, Vol. II., p. 74-75.]
[Footnote 100: Laws of the State of Delaware, 1793, p. 105.]
[Footnote 101: Mr. Miner, of Pennsylvania, in a speech in Congress,
January 6, 1829, read the following presentment made by the Grand Jury
at Alexandria in 1802. "We the Grand Jury for the body of the County
of Alexandria in the District of Columbia, present as a grievance the
practice of persons coming from distant parts of the United States
into this district for the purpose of purchasing slaves."--Gales and
Seaton's Register of Debates in Congress, Vol. V., p. 177. At this time
the foreign slave trade was prohibited by statutes in all the states.]
[Footnote 102: Claibourne: Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and
State, Vol. I., p. 144.]
[Footnote 103: It is to be remembered that this was just before the
opening of the foreign slave trade by South Carolina.]
[Footnote 104: Monette: History of the Valley of the Mississippi, Vol.
II., pp. 177-191, 269, 295, 547. Niles' Register, Sept. 13 and Oct. 18,
1817.]
[Footnote 105: Census 1870. Population and Statistics, p. 4, 7
(recapitulation).]
[Footnote 106: Annals of Congress, 16th Congress, 2nd Session, p. 77.]
[Footnote 107: Above Chap. I. Vincent Nolte, p. 189. Am. Col. So.
Reports, Vol. I., p. 94. Du Bois, p. 111.]
[Footnote 108: Clay's Col. Society Speech, Dec. 17, 1829.]
[Footnote 109: William Darby travelled all through the Southwestern
part of the country from about 1805 to 1815, and wrote two books: "A
Geographical Description of the State of Louisiana, Mississippi and the
Territory of Alabama", published in 1817, and the Emigrants' Guide,
1818. He visited both Natchez and New Orleans. F. Cumming Sketches of
a Tour to the Western Country, 1807 to 1809. John Bradbury: Travels
in the Interior of America in the years 1809-10-11, including a
description of Upper Louisiana, together with the Illinois and Western
Territories. Christian Scutz: Travels on an Inland Voyage Through the
States of New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee,
and through the territories of Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, and New
Orleans in the years 1807, 1808. Vincent Nolte: Fifty Years in Both
Hemispheres. And others.]
[Footnote 110: Niles' Reg., Vol. XIII., p. 119, Oct. 18, 1817.]
[Footnote 111: (Paulding): Letters from the South, pp. 122, 128.]
[Footnote 112: Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, Vol. VI., p. 473.]
[Footnote 113: Birkbeck: Notes on a Journey from the Coast of Virginia
to the Territory of Illinois, p. 25. Palmer: Journal of Travels in the
United States, p. 142. Francis Hall, Travels in Canada and the United
States, p. 358.]
[Footnote 114: Fearon: Sketches of America, p. 268.]
[Footnote 115: Facts Respecting Slavery, p. 2 in (Yale) Slavery
Pamphlet, Vol. LXI.]
[Footnote 116: Acts of the General Assembly of Georgia, p. 139.
Note.--From 1810 to 1820 slaves increased in Georgia about 44,000, or
43 per cent. The illicit foreign traffic to this State was great during
part of this time. Torrey says in 1817, that it was common for masters
in Maryland, Delaware and District of Columbia to endeavor to reform
bad slaves by threatening to sell them to Georgia. Torrey: Portraiture
of Slavery in United States, p. 37.]
[Footnote 117: Census 1870, Vol. Pop. and Statistics, p. 7.]
[Footnote 118: Ibid., p. 4.]
[Footnote 119: Ibid., pp. 4, 6, 7.]
[Footnote 120: Monette: History of Mississippi Valley, Vol. II., p.
515.]
[Footnote 121: Census 1870. Pop. and Social Statistics, pp. 4, 6, 7.]
[Footnote 122: In 1810 there were in Louisiana 34,660 slaves and 7,585
free colored (census reports); according to Monette (Vol. II., p. 515)
in 1815 there were about 45,000 blacks. It is reasonable to suppose
that at least 8,500 of these must have been free negroes as there were
10,476 free negroes in Louisiana in 1820. (Census reports.)]
[Footnote 123: Monette: Vol. IV., pp. 281, 433, 444, 445. Evans: A
Pedestrious Tour, p. 173. Niles' Reg., Vol. XIII., pp. 40, 119. Sept.
13, Oct. 18, 1817.]
[Footnote 124: State Papers, 16th Congress, 1st Session, Vol. III.,
Doc. 42. Niles' Reg., May 2, 1818, Jan. 22, 1820; Sept. 6, 1817. Wm.
Jay: Miscellaneous Writings, p. 277, Chap. I. above.]
[Footnote 125: (Isaac Candler): A Summary View of America during a
Journey in 1822-23; p. 273.]
[Footnote 126: (Wm. Newnham Blane): An Excursion through the United
States and Canada, p. 226.]
[Footnote 127: Basil Hall: Travels in North America, Vol. II., p. 219.]
[Footnote 128: Ibid.: p. 220. Niles' Reg., Dec. 27, 1828.]
[Footnote 129: Du Bois, p. 128.]
[Footnote 130: Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, Vol. VI., p. 473.]
[Footnote 131: Woodbury's Report, p. 13.]
[Footnote 132: Ibid.]
[Footnote 133: Quoted from the African Repository, Vol. V., p. 381.]
[Footnote 134: Niles' Reg., Nov. 26, 1831.]
[Footnote 135: Richmond Enquirer, Aug. 30, 1831.]
[Footnote 136: Dew: Debates in Virginia Legislature, p. 59. In (Yale)
Slav. Pamp., Vol. XLVII.]
[Footnote 137: Acts Legislature Louisiana, 1831, p. 78.]
[Footnote 138: Acts of Extra Sess. of 10th Leg. of Louisiana, p. 4.]
[Footnote 139: Laws of Alabama, 1831-2, p. 12.]
[Footnote 140: Slavery Speeches in Virginia Legislature, Richmond
Enquirer, Jan. 19, 21, 24; March 30, 1832.]
[Footnote 141: Dew: Debate in Virginia Legislature, p. 50. (Yale) Slav.
Pamp., Vol. XLVII.]
[Footnote 142: Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, Vol. VI., p. 473.]
[Footnote 143: Census 1890, Statistics of Agriculture, p. 42.]
[Footnote 144: Dew: Debates in Virginia Legislature, p. 49. (Yale) Sl.
Pamp., Vol. XLVII. Dew made this statement in a paper in which his
argument required him to prove that the greatest possible number were
sent from Virginia.]
[Footnote 145: Liberator, May 18, 1833.]
[Footnote 146: Daily National Intelligencer, Feb. 10, 1836.]
[Footnote 147: Snow Hill (Md.) Messenger and Worcester Co. Advertiser,
May 14, 1832, Feb. 11, 1833, March 11, 1833. Winyaw Intelligencer
(S.C.), Dec. 11, 1803. Norfolk and Portsmouth Herald, Jan. 16, 1826.
Cambridge Chronicle (Md.), Feb. 12, 1831. Charleston (S. C.), Mercury,
Feb. 18, 1833.]
[Footnote 148: Village Herald (Princess Anne, Md.), Jan. 7, 1831.]
[Footnote 149: The Virginia Herald (Fredericksburg, Va.), Jan. 2, 1836.]
[Footnote 150: Slavery and the Internal Slave Trade, p. 17.]
[Footnote 151: Ibid., p. 13.]
[Footnote 152: Quarterly Anti-Slavery Magazine, Vol. II., p. 411.]
[Footnote 153: Sl. and Internal Sl. Trade, p. 14. Christian Freeman,
July 24, 1845.]
[Footnote 154: The Mississippian, April 21, 1837.]
[Footnote 155: Hammond: The Cotton Industry, Appendix I. De Bow's
Review, Vol. XXIII., p. 475.]
[Footnote 156: De Bow's Review, Vol. XXIII., p. 477.]
[Footnote 157: Emancipator, Oct. 26, and Nov. 26, 1843.]
[Footnote 158: De Bow: Industrial Resources, Vol. III., p. 349.]
[Footnote 159: Ibid.: p. 275. Emancipator, Oct. 26, 1843.]
[Footnote 160: Liberator, May 19, 1837, May 24, 31, 1839, April 30,
1847.]
[Footnote 161: Hammond: Cotton Industry, Appendix I.]
[Footnote 162: Quoted from the National Era, Sept. 27, 1849.]
[Footnote 163: De Bow's Review. Vol. XXVI., p. 649.]
[Footnote 164: Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin, p. 149.]
[Footnote 165: De Bow's Review, Vol. XXII., pp. 216-218.]
[Footnote 166: P.A. Morse, of Louisiana, De Bow's Review, Vol. XXIII.,
p. 480. Note.--The statement was made by a South Carolina delegate to
the Southern Convention at Montgomery in 1858, that Virginia was then
the best market in the Union for the slaves of his State. De Bow's
Review, Vol. XXIV., p. 595.]
[Footnote 167: Olmsted: Seaboard Slave States, p. 127.]
[Footnote 168: Liberator, Jan. 12, 1855.]
[Footnote 169: De Bow's Review, Vol. XXVI., p. 650.]
[Footnote 170: Ibid.: Vol. XXII., p. 222.]
[Footnote 171: De Bow's Review, Vol. XVIII., p. 628; Vol. XXII., pp.
216, 217, 218; Vol. XXIV., pp. 581, 585, 574, 588.]
[Footnote 172: Ibid.: Vol. XXVII., p. 470.]
[Footnote 173: New Orleans Picaynne, Jan. 8, 15, 1846; Feb. 3, Dec. 10,
1856; Jan. 7, 14, 1858; Dec. 31, 1859.]
[Footnote 174: Sumner's Works, Vol. V., p. 62; Olmsted, Cotton Kingdom,
Vol. I., (note) p. 58. Chambers: Slavery and Color, p. 148. Chase and
Sanborn: The North and the South, p. 22.
Note.--The estimate of 60,000 given in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine is
scarcely worth consideration. Hunt's Magazine, Vol. XLIII., p. 642.]
[Footnote 175: See Chap. I., this volume.]
[Footnote 176: Census 1820 and 1830.]
[Footnote 177: De Bow's Review, Vol. XXIII., p. 476.]
[Footnote 178: Slavery and the Internal Slave Trade, p. 13.]
[Footnote 179: Andrews: Sl. and Domestic Sl. Trade, pp. 174, 171, 117,
167. Smedes: Memorials of a Southern Planter, pp. 48-50. Cary: Slave
Trade, Domestic and Foreign, p. 109. (Ingraham): The Southwest, Vol.
II., p. 233.
We have not taken into account the slaves brought by planters
themselves independently of the traders. See Dew's "Debates,"
Pro-Slavery Argument, p. 361.]
[Footnote 180: Other things which perhaps ought to be considered, but
which do not seem to modify results are mentioned in this note; i.e.,
the mortality on the sugar plantations (Stearns' Notes on Uncle Tom's
Cabin, pp. 174-5), and the deaths caused by removal of slaves from a
northern climate (Olmsted: Journey in the Back Country, 122; Chambers:
Slavery and Color, 147-8). Negroes advertised for sale in the far South
were often advertised as acclimated (Mississippi Republican, Sept. 17,
1823; Daily Picayune, Jan. 30, 1856). To offset the loss of life thus
caused it is well to remember that the increase of slaves carried to
the South was not taken into account, but treated as if they too were
carried there. For instance, 1,000 slaves imported in 1830 would at
a 20 per cent. rate of increase number 1,200 by 1840, or to take the
middle date 1835, 1,100. So each 1,000 slaves brought in during the
decade would increase by 100. If 40,000 were introduced by the illicit
foreign traffic between 1830 and 1840, and 106,000 by the trade from
the border States, it would mean a natural increase of 14,600 for the
ten years. This it seems would offset both the deaths on the sugar
plantation, and those caused by removal to another climate.
Next to be considered are refugees and manumitted slaves; Miss
Martineau said that there were about 10,000 negroes in Upper Canada
about 1838, chiefly fugitive slaves (W. Travel., Vol. II., p. 101).
The Census of 1860 reports that (Vol. Pop. XVI.) 1,011 slaves escaped
in 1850, and only 803 in 1860, and that the slave population increased
in slave states more than 20 per cent. during the 10 years, and free
colored population in the free States only about 13 per cent. It
is estimated in De Bow's Industrial Resources (Vol. III., p. 129)
that about 1,540 annually escaped. (For other estimates see Seibert
Underground R.R., pp. 192, 221 et seq.)
The Census of 1860 reports that more than 3,000 were manumitted in
census year of 1860, but this was more than twice as many as in 1850.
(1860 Vol. Pop., p. XV.). To offset the fugitive slaves and those
manumitted the following is given: kidnapped free negroes from a few
hundred to two or three thousand yearly free negroes sold into slavery
for jail fees, etc. Liberator, Nov. 19, 1841, July 17, 1834; Speech of
Mr. Miner in Congress Jan. 7, 1829; (Sturge: A Visit to the U.S., p.
101) voluntary return to slavery--many States made laws before 1860 to
provide for such action on the part of the slaves. (Hurd, Vol. II., p.
12, 24, 94, et seq.).
The things as mentioned above do not modify the amount of the domestic
slave trade as indicated by the statistical review in the text. If one
should argue that the allowances we have made are not sufficient, we
would ask him to take notice also that it is more than probable that
most of the manumissions and escapes from slavery were in the border
States, and to that extent lessens the amount of the apparent slave
trade. It is impossible to be definite here, we can only approximate.]
[Footnote 181: This about accords with Alexander, who said that by
means of the internal trade about 4,000 or 5,000 arrived in the
Southern States annually. Transatlantic Sketches, p. 230.]
[Footnote 182: Between 1830 and 1840 the number of increase in South
Carolina was only about 12,000, while during the previous decade it was
about 57,000, if for no other reason showing her to be an exporting
State.]
[Footnote 183: Shaffner: The War in America, p. 256. (Ingraham): The
Southwest, Vol. II., p. 237. It was rather hard to determine whether
Missouri should be classed with selling or buying States. It is likely
she did some of both as did some others. But practically all her
increase after 1830 at least (aside from natural increase) seemed to
be due to immigration from Kentucky and Virginia, though her increase
was very large, we think she would rank as a selling State anyhow after
1830.]
[Footnote 184: Census 1830 and 1840.]
[Footnote 185: Chap. I., this volume.]
[Footnote 186: Census 1840 and 1850.]
[Footnote 187: Chap. I., this volume.]
[Footnote 188: Census 1850 and 1860.]
[Footnote 189: Chap. I., this volume.]