CHAPTER XII

THE ESSENTIALS IN THE STRUGGLE

92. _How the Question Arose_ 193

93. _The Moral Movement_ 194

94. _The Political Movement_ 195

95. _The Economic Movement_ 195

96. _The Lesson for Americans_ 196

APPENDICES

A. _A Chronological Conspectus of Colonial and State Legislation

restricting the African Slave-Trade, 1641-1787_ 199

B. _A Chronological Conspectus of State, National, and

International Legislation, 1788-1871_ 234

C. _Typical Cases of Vessels engaged in the American Slave-Trade,

1619-1864_ 306

D. _Bibliography_ 316

INDEX 347

* * * * *

_Chapter I_

INTRODUCTORY.

1. Plan of the Monograph.

2. The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.

1. ~Plan of the Monograph.~ This monograph proposes to set forth the

efforts made in the United States of America, from early colonial times

until the present, to limit and suppress the trade in slaves between

Africa and these shores.

The study begins with the colonial period, setting forth in brief the

attitude of England and, more in detail, the attitude of the planting,

farming, and trading groups of colonies toward the slave-trade. It deals

next with the first concerted effort against the trade and with the

further action of the individual States. The important work of the

Constitutional Convention follows, together with the history of the

trade in that critical period which preceded the Act of 1807. The

attempt to suppress the trade from 1807 to 1830 is next recounted. A

chapter then deals with the slave-trade as an international problem.

Finally the development of the crises up to the Civil War is studied,

together with the steps leading to the final suppression; and a

concluding chapter seeks to sum up the results of the investigation.

Throughout the monograph the institution of slavery and the interstate

slave-trade are considered only incidentally.

2. ~The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.~ Any attempt to consider the

attitude of the English colonies toward the African slave-trade must be

prefaced by a word as to the attitude of England herself and the

development of the trade in her hands.[1]

Sir John Hawkins's celebrated voyage took place in 1562, but probably

not until 1631[2] did a regular chartered company undertake to carry on

the trade.[3] This company was unsuccessful,[4] and was eventually

succeeded by the "Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Africa,"

chartered by Charles II. in 1662, and including the Queen Dowager and

the Duke of York.[5] The company contracted to supply the West Indies

with three thousand slaves annually; but contraband trade, misconduct,

and war so reduced it that in 1672 it surrendered its charter to another

company for £34,000.[6] This new corporation, chartered by Charles II.

as the "Royal African Company," proved more successful than its

predecessors, and carried on a growing trade for a quarter of a century.

In 1698 Parliamentary interference with the trade began. By the Statute

9 and 10 William and Mary, chapter 26, private traders, on payment of a

duty of 10% on English goods exported to Africa, were allowed to

participate in the trade. This was brought about by the clamor of the

merchants, especially the "American Merchants," who "in their Petition

suggest, that it would be a great Benefit to the Kingdom to secure the

Trade by maintaining Forts and Castles there, with an equal Duty upon

all Goods exported."[7] This plan, being a compromise between

maintaining the monopoly intact and entirely abolishing it, was adopted,

and the statute declared the trade "highly Beneficial and Advantageous

to this Kingdom, and to the Plantations and Colonies thereunto

belonging."

Having thus gained practically free admittance to the field, English

merchants sought to exclude other nations by securing a monopoly of the

lucrative Spanish colonial slave-trade. Their object was finally

accomplished by the signing of the Assiento in 1713.[8]

The Assiento was a treaty between England and Spain by which the latter

granted the former a monopoly of the Spanish colonial slave-trade for

thirty years, and England engaged to supply the colonies within that

time with at least 144,000 slaves, at the rate of 4,800 per year.

England was also to advance Spain 200,000 crowns, and to pay a duty of

33½ crowns for each slave imported. The kings of Spain and England were

each to receive one-fourth of the profits of the trade, and the Royal

African Company were authorized to import as many slaves as they wished

above the specified number in the first twenty-five years, and to sell

them, except in three ports, at any price they could get.

It is stated that, in the twenty years from 1713 to 1733, fifteen

thousand slaves were annually imported into America by the English, of

whom from one-third to one-half went to the Spanish colonies.[9] To the

company itself the venture proved a financial failure; for during the

years 1729-1750 Parliament assisted the Royal Company by annual grants

which amounted to £90,000,[10] and by 1739 Spain was a creditor to the

extent of £68,000, and threatened to suspend the treaty. The war

interrupted the carrying out of the contract, but the Peace of

Aix-la-Chapelle extended the limit by four years. Finally, October 5,

1750, this privilege was waived for a money consideration paid to

England; the Assiento was ended, and the Royal Company was bankrupt.

By the Statute 23 George II., chapter 31, the old company was dissolved

and a new "Company of Merchants trading to Africa" erected in its

stead.[11] Any merchant so desiring was allowed to engage in the trade

on payment of certain small duties, and such merchants formed a company

headed by nine directors. This marked the total abolition of monopoly in

the slave-trade, and was the form under which the trade was carried on

until after the American Revolution.

That the slave-trade was the very life of the colonies had, by 1700,

become an almost unquestioned axiom in British practical economics. The

colonists themselves declared slaves "the strength and sinews of this

western world,"[12] and the lack of them "the grand obstruction"[13]

here, as the settlements "cannot subsist without supplies of them."[14]

Thus, with merchants clamoring at home and planters abroad, it easily

became the settled policy of England to encourage the slave-trade. Then,

too, she readily argued that what was an economic necessity in Jamaica

and the Barbadoes could scarcely be disadvantageous to Carolina,

Virginia, or even New York. Consequently, the colonial governors were

generally instructed to "give all due encouragement and invitation to

merchants and others, ... and in particular to the royal African company

of England."[15] Duties laid on the importer, and all acts in any way

restricting the trade, were frowned upon and very often disallowed.

"Whereas," ran Governor Dobbs's instructions, "Acts have been passed in

some of our Plantations in America for laying duties on the importation

and exportation of Negroes to the great discouragement of the Merchants

trading thither from the coast of Africa.... It is our Will and Pleasure

that you do not give your assent to or pass any Law imposing duties upon

Negroes imported into our Province of North Carolina."[16]

The exact proportions of the slave-trade to America can be but

approximately determined. From 1680 to 1688 the African Company sent 249

ships to Africa, shipped there 60,783 Negro slaves, and after losing

14,387 on the middle passage, delivered 46,396 in America. The trade

increased early in the eighteenth century, 104 ships clearing for Africa

in 1701; it then dwindled until the signing of the Assiento, standing at

74 clearances in 1724. The final dissolution of the monopoly in 1750

led--excepting in the years 1754-57, when the closing of Spanish marts

sensibly affected the trade--to an extraordinary development, 192

clearances being made in 1771. The Revolutionary War nearly stopped the

traffic; but by 1786 the clearances had risen again to 146.

To these figures must be added the unregistered trade of Americans and

foreigners. It is probable that about 25,000 slaves were brought to

America each year between 1698 and 1707. The importation then dwindled,

but rose after the Assiento to perhaps 30,000. The proportion, too, of

these slaves carried to the continent now began to increase. Of about

20,000 whom the English annually imported from 1733 to 1766, South

Carolina alone received some 3,000. Before the Revolution, the total

exportation to America is variously estimated as between 40,000 and

100,000 each year. Bancroft places the total slave population of the

continental colonies at 59,000 in 1714, 78,000 in 1727, and 293,000 in

1754. The census of 1790 showed 697,897 slaves in the United States.[17]

In colonies like those in the West Indies and in South Carolina and

Georgia, the rapid importation into America of a multitude of savages

gave rise to a system of slavery far different from that which the late

Civil War abolished. The strikingly harsh and even inhuman slave codes

in these colonies show this. Crucifixion, burning, and starvation were

legal modes of punishment.[18] The rough and brutal character of the

time and place was partly responsible for this, but a more decisive

reason lay in the fierce and turbulent character of the imported

Negroes. The docility to which long years of bondage and strict

discipline gave rise was absent, and insurrections and acts of violence

were of frequent occurrence.[19] Again and again the danger of planters

being "cut off by their own negroes"[20] is mentioned, both in the

islands and on the continent. This condition of vague dread and unrest

not only increased the severity of laws and strengthened the police

system, but was the prime motive back of all the earlier efforts to

check the further importation of slaves.

On the other hand, in New England and New York the Negroes were merely

house servants or farm hands, and were treated neither better nor worse

than servants in general in those days. Between these two extremes, the

system of slavery varied from a mild serfdom in Pennsylvania and New

Jersey to an aristocratic caste system in Maryland and Virginia.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This account is based largely on the _Report of the Lords

of the Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).

[2] African trading-companies had previously been erected

(e.g. by Elizabeth in 1585 and 1588, and by James I. in 1618);

but slaves are not specifically mentioned in their charters,

and they probably did not trade in slaves. Cf. Bandinel,

_Account of the Slave Trade_ (1842), pp. 38-44.

[3] Chartered by Charles I. Cf. Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers,

Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, p. 135.

[4] In 1651, during the Protectorate, the privileges of the

African trade were granted anew to this same company for

fourteen years. Cf. Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser.,

America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, pp. 342, 355.

[5] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.

Indies, 1661-1668_, § 408.

[6] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.

Indies, 1669-1674_, §§ 934, 1095.

[7] Quoted in the above _Report_, under "Most Material

Proceedings in the House of Commons," Vol. I. Part I. An import

duty of 10% on all goods, except Negroes, imported from Africa

to England and the colonies was also laid. The proceeds of

these duties went to the Royal African Company.

[8] Cf. Appendix A.

[9] Bandinel, _Account of the Slave Trade_, p. 59. Cf. Bryan

Edwards, _History of the British Colonies in the W. Indies_

(London, 1798), Book VI.

[10] From 1729 to 1788, including compensation to the old

company, Parliament expended £705,255 on African companies. Cf.

_Report_, etc., as above.

[11] Various amendatory statutes were passed: e.g., 24 George

II. ch. 49, 25 George II. ch. 40, 4 George III. ch. 20, 5

George III. ch. 44, 23 George III. ch. 65.

[12] Renatus Enys from Surinam, in 1663: Sainsbury, _Cal.

State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68_, §

577.

[13] Thomas Lynch from Jamaica, in 1665: Sainsbury, _Cal.

State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68_, §

934.

[14] Lieutenant-Governor Willoughby of Barbadoes, in 1666:

Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.

Indies, 1661-68_, § 1281.

[15] Smith, _History of New Jersey_ (1765), p. 254; Sainsbury,

_Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies,

1669-74_., §§ 367, 398, 812.

[16] _N.C. Col. Rec._, V. 1118. For similar instructions, cf.

_Penn. Archives_, I. 306; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI.

34; Gordon, _History of the American Revolution_, I. letter 2;

_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 4th Ser. X. 642.

[17] These figures are from the above-mentioned _Report_, Vol.

II. Part IV. Nos. 1, 5. See also Bancroft, _History of the

United States_ (1883), II. 274 ff; Bandinel, _Account of the

Slave Trade_, p. 63; Benezet, _Caution to Great Britain_, etc.,

pp. 39-40, and _Historical Account of Guinea_, ch. xiii.

[18] Compare earlier slave codes in South Carolina, Georgia,

Jamaica, etc.; also cf. Benezet, _Historical Account of

Guinea_, p. 75; _Report_, etc., as above.

[19] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.

Indies, 1574-1660_, pp. 229, 271, 295; _1661-68_, §§ 61, 412,

826, 1270, 1274, 1788; _1669-74_., §§ 508, 1244; Bolzius and

Von Reck, _Journals_ (in Force, _Tracts_, Vol. IV. No. 5, pp.

9, 18); _Proceedings of Governor and Assembly of Jamaica in

regard to the Maroon Negroes_ (London, 1796).

[20] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.

Indies, 1661-68_, § 1679.

* * * * *

_Chapter II_

THE PLANTING COLONIES.

3. Character of these Colonies.

4. Restrictions in Georgia.

5. Restrictions in South Carolina.

6. Restrictions in North Carolina.

7. Restrictions in Virginia.

8. Restrictions in Maryland.

9. General Character of these Restrictions.

3. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The planting colonies are those

Southern settlements whose climate and character destined them to be the

chief theatre of North American slavery. The early attitude of these

communities toward the slave-trade is therefore of peculiar interest;

for their action was of necessity largely decisive for the future of the

trade and for the institution in North America. Theirs was the only

soil, climate, and society suited to slavery; in the other colonies,

with few exceptions, the institution was by these same factors doomed

from the beginning. Hence, only strong moral and political motives could

in the planting colonies overthrow or check a traffic so favored by the

mother country.

4. ~Restrictions in Georgia.~ In Georgia we have an example of a

community whose philanthropic founders sought to impose upon it a code

of morals higher than the colonists wished. The settlers of Georgia were

of even worse moral fibre than their slave-trading and whiskey-using

neighbors in Carolina and Virginia; yet Oglethorpe and the London

proprietors prohibited from the beginning both the rum and the slave

traffic, refusing to "suffer slavery (which is against the Gospel as

well as the fundamental law of England) to be authorised under our

authority."[1] The trustees sought to win the colonists over to their

belief by telling them that money could be better expended in

transporting white men than Negroes; that slaves would be a source of

weakness to the colony; and that the "Produces designed to be raised in

the Colony would not require such Labour as to make Negroes necessary

for carrying them on."[2]

This policy greatly displeased the colonists, who from 1735, the date of

the first law, to 1749, did not cease to clamor for the repeal of the

restrictions.[3] As their English agent said, they insisted that "In

Spight of all Endeavours to disguise this Point, it is as clear as Light

itself, that Negroes are as essentially necessary to the Cultivation of

_Georgia_, as Axes, Hoes, or any other Utensil of Agriculture."[4]

Meantime, evasions and infractions of the laws became frequent and

notorious. Negroes were brought across from Carolina and "hired" for

life.[5] "Finally, purchases were openly made in Savannah from African

traders: some seizures were made by those who opposed the principle, but

as a majority of the magistrates were favorable to the introduction of

slaves into the province, legal decisions were suspended from time to

time, and a strong disposition evidenced by the courts to evade the

operation of the law."[6] At last, in 1749, the colonists prevailed on

the trustees and the government, and the trade was thrown open under

careful restrictions, which limited importation, required a registry and

quarantine on all slaves brought in, and laid a duty.[7] It is probable,

however, that these restrictions were never enforced, and that the trade

thus established continued unchecked until the Revolution.

5. ~Restrictions in South Carolina.~[8] South Carolina had the largest

and most widely developed slave-trade of any of the continental

colonies. This was owing to the character of her settlers, her nearness

to the West Indian slave marts, and the early development of certain

staple crops, such as rice, which were adapted to slave labor.[9]

Moreover, this colony suffered much less interference from the home

government than many other colonies; thus it is possible here to trace

the untrammeled development of slave-trade restrictions in a typical

planting community.

As early as 1698 the slave-trade to South Carolina had reached such

proportions that it was thought that "the great number of negroes which

of late have been imported into this Collony may endanger the safety

thereof." The immigration of white servants was therefore encouraged by

a special law.[10] Increase of immigration reduced this disproportion,

but Negroes continued to be imported in such numbers as to afford

considerable revenue from a moderate duty on them. About the time when

the Assiento was signed, the slave-trade so increased that, scarcely a

year after the consummation of that momentous agreement, two heavy duty

acts were passed, because "the number of Negroes do extremely increase

in this Province, and through the afflicting providence of God, the

white persons do not proportionately multiply, by reason whereof, the

safety of the said Province is greatly endangered."[11] The trade,

however, by reason of the encouragement abroad and of increased business

activity in exporting naval stores at home, suffered scarcely any check,

although repeated acts, reciting the danger incident to a "great

importation of Negroes," were passed, laying high duties.[12] Finally,

in 1717, an additional duty of £40,[13] although due in depreciated

currency, succeeded so nearly in stopping the trade that, two years

later, all existing duties were repealed and one of £10 substituted.[14]

This continued during the time of resistance to the proprietary

government, but by 1734 the importation had again reached large

proportions. "We must therefore beg leave," the colonists write in that

year, "to inform your Majesty, that, amidst our other perilous

circumstances, we are subject to many intestine dangers from the great

number of negroes that are now among us, who amount at least to

twenty-two thousand persons, and are three to one of all your Majesty's

white subjects in this province. Insurrections against us have been

often attempted."[15] In 1740 an insurrection under a slave, Cato, at

Stono, caused such widespread alarm that a prohibitory duty of £100 was

immediately laid.[16] Importation was again checked; but in 1751 the

colony sought to devise a plan whereby the slightly restricted

immigration of Negroes should provide a fund to encourage the

importation of white servants, "to prevent the mischiefs that may be

attended by the great importation of negroes into this Province."[17]

Many white servants were thus encouraged to settle in the colony; but so

much larger was the influx of black slaves that the colony, in 1760,

totally prohibited the slave-trade. This act was promptly disallowed by

the Privy Council and the governor reprimanded;[18] but the colony

declared that "an importation of negroes, equal in number to what have

been imported of late years, may prove of the most dangerous consequence

in many respects to this Province, and the best way to obviate such

danger will be by imposing such an additional duty upon them as may

totally prevent the evils."[19] A prohibitive duty of £100 was

accordingly imposed in 1764.[20] This duty probably continued until the

Revolution.

The war made a great change in the situation. It has been computed by

good judges that, between the years 1775 and 1783, the State of South

Carolina lost twenty-five thousand Negroes, by actual hostilities,

plunder of the British, runaways, etc. After the war the trade quickly

revived, and considerable revenue was raised from duty acts until 1787,

when by act and ordinance the slave-trade was totally prohibited.[21]

This prohibition, by renewals from time to time, lasted until 1803.

6. ~Restrictions in North Carolina.~ In early times there were few

slaves in North Carolina;[22] this fact, together with the troubled and

turbulent state of affairs during the early colonial period, did not

necessitate the adoption of any settled policy toward slavery or the

slave-trade. Later the slave-trade to the colony increased; but there is

no evidence of any effort to restrict or in any way regulate it before

1786, when it was declared that "the importation of slaves into this

State is productive of evil consequences and highly impolitic,"[23] and

a prohibitive duty was laid on them.

7. ~Restrictions in Virginia.~[24] Next to South Carolina, Virginia had

probably the largest slave-trade. Her situation, however, differed

considerably from that of her Southern neighbor. The climate, the staple

tobacco crop, and the society of Virginia were favorable to a system of

domestic slavery, but one which tended to develop into a patriarchal

serfdom rather than into a slave-consuming industrial hierarchy. The

labor required by the tobacco crop was less unhealthy than that

connected with the rice crop, and the Virginians were, perhaps, on a

somewhat higher moral plane than the Carolinians. There was consequently

no such insatiable demand for slaves in the larger colony. On the other

hand, the power of the Virginia executive was peculiarly strong, and it

was not possible here to thwart the slave-trade policy of the home

government as easily as elsewhere.

Considering all these circumstances, it is somewhat difficult to

determine just what was the attitude of the early Virginians toward the

slave-trade. There is evidence, however, to show that although they

desired the slave-trade, the rate at which the Negroes were brought in

soon alarmed them. In 1710 a duty of £5 was laid on Negroes, but

Governor Spotswood "soon perceived that the laying so high a Duty on

Negros was intended to discourage the importation," and vetoed the

measure.[25] No further restrictive legislation was attempted for some

years, but whether on account of the attitude of the governor or the

desire of the inhabitants, is not clear. With 1723 begins a series of

acts extending down to the Revolution, which, so far as their contents

can be ascertained, seem to have been designed effectually to check the

slave-trade. Some of these acts, like those of 1723 and 1727, were

almost immediately disallowed.[26] The Act of 1732 laid a duty of 5%,

which was continued until 1769,[27] and all other duties were in

addition to this; so that by such cumulative duties the rate on slaves

reached 25% in 1755,[28] and 35% at the time of Braddock's

expedition.[29] These acts were found "very burthensome," "introductive

of many frauds," and "very inconvenient,"[30] and were so far repealed

that by 1761 the duty was only 15%. As now the Burgesses became more

powerful, two or more bills proposing restrictive duties were passed,

but disallowed.[31] By 1772 the anti-slave-trade feeling had become

considerably developed, and the Burgesses petitioned the king, declaring

that "The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of

Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and

under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear _will

endanger the very existence_ of your Majesty's American dominions....

Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your

Majesty to remove _all those restraints_ on your Majesty's governors of

this colony, _which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check

so very pernicious a commerce_."[32]

Nothing further appears to have been done before the war. When, in 1776,

the delegates adopted a Frame of Government, it was charged in this

document that the king had perverted his high office into a "detestable

and insupportable tyranny, by ... prompting our negroes to rise in arms

among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he

hath refused us permission to exclude by law."[33] Two years later, in

1778, an "Act to prevent the further importation of Slaves" stopped

definitively the legal slave-trade to Virginia.[34]

8. ~Restrictions in Maryland.~[35] Not until the impulse of the Assiento

had been felt in America, did Maryland make any attempt to restrain a

trade from which she had long enjoyed a comfortable revenue. The Act of

1717, laying a duty of 40_s._,[36] may have been a mild restrictive

measure. The duties were slowly increased to 50_s._ in 1754,[37] and £4.

in 1763.[38] In 1771 a prohibitive duty of £9 was laid;[39] and in 1783,

after the war, all importation by sea was stopped and illegally imported

Negroes were freed.[40]

Compared with the trade to Virginia and the Carolinas, the slave-trade

to Maryland was small, and seems at no time to have reached proportions

which alarmed the inhabitants. It was regulated to the economic demand

by a slowly increasing tariff, and finally, after 1769, had nearly

ceased of its own accord before the restrictive legislation of

Revolutionary times.[41] Probably the proximity of Maryland to Virginia

made an independent slave-trade less necessary to her.

9. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ We find in the planting

colonies all degrees of advocacy of the trade, from the passiveness of

Maryland to the clamor of Georgia. Opposition to the trade did not

appear in Georgia, was based almost solely on political fear of

insurrection in Carolina, and sprang largely from the same motive in

Virginia, mingled with some moral repugnance. As a whole, it may be said

that whatever opposition to the slave-trade there was in the planting

colonies was based principally on the political fear of insurrection.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hoare, _Memoirs of Granville Sharp_ (1820), p. 157. For

the act of prohibition, see W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_

(1847), I. 311.

[2] [B. Martyn, _Account of the Progress of Georgia_ (1741),

pp. 9-10.]

[3] Cf. Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 290 ff.

[4] Stephens, _Account of the Causes_, etc., p. 8. Cf. also

_Journal of Trustees_, II. 210; cited by Stevens, _History of

Georgia_, I. 306.

[5] McCall, _History of Georgia_ (1811), I. 206-7.

[6] _Ibid._

[7] _Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade_, Vol. X.; cited by C.C.

Jones, _History of Georgia_ (1883), I. 422-5.

[8] The following is a summary of the legislation of the

colony of South Carolina; details will be found in Appendix

A:--

1698, Act to encourage the immigration of white servants.

1703, Duty Act: 10_s._ on Africans, 20_s._ on other Negroes.

1714, " " additional duty.

1714, " " £2.

1714-15, Duty Act: additional duty.

1716, " " £3 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.

1717, " " £40 in addition to existing duties.

1719, " " £10 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.

The Act of 1717, etc., was repealed.

1721, " " £10 on Africans, £50 on colonial Negroes.

1722, " " " " " " "

1740, " " £100 on Africans, £150 on colonial Negroes.

1751, " " £10 " " £50 " "

1760, Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).

1764, Duty Act: additional duty of £100.

1783, " " £3 on Africans, £20 on colonial Negroes.

1784, " " " " £5 " "

1787, Art and Ordinance prohibiting importation.

[9] Cf. Hewatt, _Historical Account of S. Carolina and

Georgia_ (1779), I. 120 ff.; reprinted in _S.C. Hist. Coll._

(1836), I. 108 ff.

[10] Cooper, _Statutes at Large of S. Carolina_, II. 153.

[11] The text of the first act is not extant: cf. Cooper,

_Statutes_, III. 56. For the second, see Cooper, VII. 365,

367.

[12] Cf. Grimké, _Public Laws of S. Carolina_, p. xvi, No.

362; Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 649. Cf. also _Governor Johnson

to the Board of Trade_, Jan. 12, 1719-20; reprinted in Rivers,

_Early History of S. Carolina_ (1874), App., xii.

[13] Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 368.

[14] _Ibid._, III. 56.

[15] From a memorial signed by the governor, President of the

Council, and Speaker of the House, dated April 9, 1734,

printed in Hewatt, _Historical Account of S. Carolina and

Georgia_ (1779), II. 39; reprinted in S.C. Hist. Coll. (1836),

I. 305-6. Cf. _N.C. Col. Rec._, II. 421.

[16] Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 556; Grimké, _Public Laws_, p.

xxxi, No. 694. Cf. Ramsay, _History of S. Carolina_, I. 110.

[17] Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 739.

[18] The text of this law has not been found. Cf. Burge,

_Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws_, I. 737, note;

Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 286. See instructions of the

governor of New Hampshire, June 30, 1761, in Gordon, _History

of the American Revolution_, I. letter 2.

[19] Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 187.

[20] This duty avoided the letter of the English instructions

by making the duty payable by the first purchasers, and not by

the importers. Cf. Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 187.

[21] Grimké, Public Laws, p. lxviii, Nos. 1485, 1486; Cooper,

_Statutes_, VII. 430.

[22] Cf. _N.C. Col. Rec._, IV. 172.

[23] Martin, _Iredell's Acts of Assembly_, I. 413, 492.

[24] The following is a summary of the legislation of the

colony of Virginia; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1710, Duty Act: proposed duty of £5.

1723, " " prohibitive (?).

1727, " " "

1732, " " 5%.

1736, " " "

1740, " " additional duty of 5%.

1754, " " " " 5%.

1755, " " " " 10% (Repealed, 1760).

1757, " " " " 10% (Repealed, 1761).

1759, " " 20% on colonial slaves.

1766, " " additional duty of 10% (Disallowed?).

1769, " " " " " "

1772, " " £5 on colonial slaves.

Petition of Burgesses _vs._ Slave-trade.

1776, Arraignment of the king in the adopted Frame of Government.

1778, Importation prohibited.

[25] _Letters of Governor Spotswood_, in _Va. Hist. Soc.

Coll._, New Ser., I. 52.

[26] Hening, _Statutes at Large of Virginia_, IV. 118, 182.

[27] _Ibid._, IV. 317, 394; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353;

VII. 281; VIII. 190, 336, 532.

[28] _Ibid._, V. 92; VI. 417, 419, 461, 466.

[29] _Ibid._, VII. 69, 81.

[30] _Ibid._, VII. 363, 383.

[31] _Ibid._, VIII. 237, 337.

[32] _Miscellaneous Papers, 1672-1865_, in _Va. Hist. Soc.

Coll._, New Ser., VI. 14; Tucker, _Blackstone's Commentaries_,

I. Part II. App., 51.

[33] Hening, _Statutes_, IX. 112.

[34] Importation by sea or by land was prohibited, with a

penalty of £1000 for illegal importation and £500 for buying

or selling. The Negro was freed, if illegally brought in. This

law was revised somewhat in 1785. Cf. Hening, _Statutes_, IX.

471; XII. 182.

[35] The following is a summary of the legislation of the

colony of Maryland; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1695, Duty Act: 10_s._

1704, " " 20_s._

1715, " " "

1717, " " additional duty of 40_s._ (?).

1754, " " " " 10_s._, total 50_s._

1756, " " " " 20_s._ " 40_s._ (?).

1763, " " " " £2 " £4.

1771, " " " " £5 " £9.

1783, Importation prohibited.

[36] _Compleat Coll. Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 191;

Bacon, _Laws of Maryland at Large_, 1728, ch. 8.

[37] Bacon, _Laws_, 1754, ch. 9, 14.

[38] _Ibid._, 1763, ch. 28.

[39] _Laws of Maryland since 1763_: 1771, ch. 7. Cf. _Ibid._:

1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. 18.

[40] _Ibid._: 1783, sess. Apr.-June, ch. 23.

[41] "The last importation of slaves into Maryland was, as I

am credibly informed, in the year 1769": William Eddis,

_Letters from America_ (London, 1792), p. 65, note.

The number of slaves in Maryland has been estimated as follows:--

In 1704, 4,475. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 605.

" 1710, 7,935. _Ibid._

" 1712, 8,330. Scharf, _History of Maryland_, I. 377.

" 1719, 25,000. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 605.

" 1748, 36,000. McMahon, _History of Maryland_, I. 313.

" 1755, 46,356. _Gentleman's Magazine_, XXXIV. 261.

" 1756, 46,225. McMahon, _History of Maryland_, I. 313.

" 1761, 49,675. Dexter, _Colonial Population_, p. 21, note.

" 1782, 83,362. _Encyclopædia Britannica_ (9th ed.), XV. 603.

" 1787, 80,000. Dexter, _Colonial Population_, p. 21, note.

* * * * *

_Chapter III_

THE FARMING COLONIES.

10. Character of these Colonies.

11. The Dutch Slave-Trade.

12. Restrictions in New York.

13. Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.

14. Restrictions in New Jersey.

15. General Character of these Restrictions.

10. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The colonies of this group, occupying

the central portion of the English possessions, comprise those

communities where, on account of climate, physical characteristics, and

circumstances of settlement, slavery as an institution found but a

narrow field for development. The climate was generally rather cool for

the newly imported slaves, the soil was best suited to crops to which

slave labor was poorly adapted, and the training and habits of the great

body of settlers offered little chance for the growth of a slave system.

These conditions varied, of course, in different colonies; but the

general statement applies to all. These communities of small farmers and

traders derived whatever opposition they had to the slave-trade from

three sorts of motives,--economic, political, and moral. First, the

importation of slaves did not pay, except to supply a moderate demand

for household servants. Secondly, these colonies, as well as those in

the South, had a wholesome political fear of a large servile population.

Thirdly, the settlers of many of these colonies were of sterner moral

fibre than the Southern cavaliers and adventurers, and, in the absence

of great counteracting motives, were more easily led to oppose the

institution and the trade. Finally, it must be noted that these colonies

did not so generally regard themselves as temporary commercial

investments as did Virginia and Carolina. Intending to found permanent

States, these settlers from the first more carefully studied the

ultimate interests of those States.

11. ~The Dutch Slave-Trade.~ The Dutch seem to have commenced the

slave-trade to the American continent, the Middle colonies and some of

the Southern receiving supplies from them. John Rolfe relates that the

last of August, 1619, there came to Virginia "a dutch man of warre that

sold us twenty Negars."[1] This was probably one of the ships of the

numerous private Dutch trading-companies which early entered into and

developed the lucrative African slave-trade. Ships sailed from Holland

to Africa, got slaves in exchange for their goods, carried the slaves to

the West Indies or Brazil, and returned home laden with sugar.[2]

Through the enterprise of one of these trading-companies the settlement

of New Amsterdam was begun, in 1614. In 1621 the private companies

trading in the West were all merged into the Dutch West India Company,

and given a monopoly of American trade. This company was very active,

sending in four years 15,430 Negroes to Brazil,[3] carrying on war with

Spain, supplying even the English plantations,[4] and gradually becoming

the great slave carrier of the day.

The commercial supremacy of the Dutch early excited the envy and

emulation of the English. The Navigation Ordinance of 1651 was aimed at

them, and two wars were necessary to wrest the slave-trade from them and

place it in the hands of the English. The final terms of peace among

other things surrendered New Netherland to England, and opened the way

for England to become henceforth the world's greatest slave-trader.

Although the Dutch had thus commenced the continental slave-trade, they

had not actually furnished a very large number of slaves to the English

colonies outside the West Indies. A small trade had, by 1698, brought a

few thousand to New York, and still fewer to New Jersey.[5] It was left

to the English, with their strong policy in its favor, to develop this

trade.

12. ~Restrictions in New York.~[6] The early ordinances of the Dutch,

laying duties, generally of ten per cent, on slaves, probably proved

burdensome to the trade, although this was not intentional.[7] The

Biblical prohibition of slavery and the slave-trade, copied from New

England codes into the Duke of York's Laws, had no practical

application,[8] and the trade continued to be encouraged in the

governors' instructions. In 1709 a duty of £3 was laid on Negroes from

elsewhere than Africa.[9] This was aimed at West India slaves, and was

prohibitive. By 1716 the duty on all slaves was £1 12½_s._, which was

probably a mere revenue figure.[10] In 1728 a duty of 40_s._ was laid,

to be continued until 1737.[11] It proved restrictive, however, and on

the "humble petition of the Merchants and Traders of the City of

Bristol" was disallowed in 1735, as "greatly prejudicial to the Trade

and Navigation of this Kingdom."[12] Governor Cosby was also reminded

that no duties on slaves payable by the importer were to be laid. Later,

in 1753, the 40_s._ duty was restored, but under the increased trade of

those days was not felt.[13] No further restrictions seem to have been

attempted until 1785, when the sale of slaves in the State was

forbidden.[14]

The chief element of restriction in this colony appears to have been the

shrewd business sense of the traders, who never flooded the slave

market, but kept a supply sufficient for the slowly growing demand.

Between 1701 and 1726 only about 2,375 slaves were imported, and in 1774

the total slave population amounted to 21,149.[15] No restriction was

ever put by New York on participation in the trade outside the colony,

and in spite of national laws New York merchants continued to be engaged

in this traffic even down to the Civil War.[16]

Vermont, who withdrew from New York in 1777, in her first

Constitution[17] declared slavery illegal, and in 1786 stopped by law

the sale and transportation of slaves within her boundaries.[18]

13. ~Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.~[19] One of the first

American protests against the slave-trade came from certain German

Friends, in 1688, at a Weekly Meeting held in Germantown, Pennsylvania.

"These are the reasons," wrote "Garret henderich, derick up de graeff,

Francis daniell Pastorius, and Abraham up Den graef," "why we are

against the traffick of men-body, as followeth: Is there any that would

be done or handled at this manner?... Now, tho they are black, we cannot

conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as it is to have

other white ones. There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like

as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation,

descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those

who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"[20] This little

leaven helped slowly to work a revolution in the attitude of this great

sect toward slavery and the slave-trade. The Yearly Meeting at first

postponed the matter, "It having so General a Relation to many other

Parts."[21] Eventually, however, in 1696, the Yearly Meeting advised

"That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more

Negroes."[22] This advice was repeated in stronger terms for a

quarter-century,[23] and by that time Sandiford, Benezet, Lay, and

Woolman had begun their crusade. In 1754 the Friends took a step farther

and made the purchase of slaves a matter of discipline.[24] Four years

later the Yearly Meeting expressed itself clearly as "against every

branch of this practice," and declared that if "any professing with us

should persist to vindicate it, and be concerned in importing, selling

or purchasing slaves, the respective Monthly Meetings to which they

belong should manifest their disunion with such persons."[25] Further,

manumission was recommended, and in 1776 made compulsory.[26] The effect

of this attitude of the Friends was early manifested in the legislation

of all the colonies where the sect was influential, and particularly in

Pennsylvania.

One of the first duty acts (1710) laid a restrictive duty of 40_s._ on

slaves, and was eventually disallowed.[27] In 1712 William Southeby

petitioned the Assembly totally to abolish slavery. This the Assembly

naturally refused to attempt; but the same year, in response to another

petition "signed by many hands," they passed an "Act to prevent the

Importation of Negroes and Indians,"[28]--the first enactment of its

kind in America. This act was inspired largely by the general fear of

insurrection which succeeded the "Negro-plot" of 1712 in New York. It

declared: "Whereas, divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently

happened, not only in the Islands but on the Main Land of _America_, by

Negroes, which have been carried on so far that several of the

inhabitants have been barbarously Murthered, an Instance whereof we have

lately had in our Neighboring Colony of _New York_,"[29] etc. It then

proceeded to lay a prohibitive duty of £20 on all slaves imported. These

acts were quickly disposed of in England. Three duty acts affecting

Negroes, including the prohibitory act, were in 1713 disallowed, and it

was directed that "the Dep^{ty} Gov^{r} Council and Assembly of

Pensilvania, be & they are hereby Strictly Enjoyned & required not to

permit the said Laws ... to be from henceforward put in Execution."[30]

The Assembly repealed these laws, but in 1715 passed another laying a

duty of £5, which was also eventually disallowed.[31] Other acts, the

provisions of which are not clear, were passed in 1720 and 1722,[32] and

in 1725-1726 the duty on Negroes was raised to the restrictive figure of

£10.[33] This duty, for some reason not apparent, was lowered to £2 in

1729,[34] but restored again in 1761.[35] A struggle occurred over this

last measure, the Friends petitioning for it, and the Philadelphia

merchants against it, declaring that "We, the subscribers, ever desirous

to extend the Trade of this Province, have seen, for some time past,

the many inconveniencys the Inhabitants have suffer'd for want of

Labourers and artificers, ... have for some time encouraged the

importation of Negroes;" they prayed therefore at least for a delay in

passing the measure.[36] The law, nevertheless, after much debate and

altercation with the governor, finally passed.

These repeated acts nearly stopped the trade, and the manumission or

sale of Negroes by the Friends decreased the number of slaves in the

province. The rising spirit of independence enabled the colony, in 1773,

to restore the prohibitive duty of £20 and make it perpetual.[37] After

the Revolution unpaid duties on slaves were collected and the slaves

registered,[38] and in 1780 an "Act for the gradual Abolition of

Slavery" was passed.[39] As there were probably at no time before the

war more than 11,000 slaves in Pennsylvania,[40] the task thus

accomplished was not so formidable as in many other States. As it was,

participation in the slave-trade outside the colony was not prohibited

until 1788.[41]

It seems probable that in the original Swedish settlements along the

Delaware slavery was prohibited.[42] This measure had, however, little

practical effect; for as soon as the Dutch got control the slave-trade

was opened, although, as it appears, to no large extent. After the fall

of the Dutch Delaware came into English hands. Not until 1775 do we find

any legislation on the slave-trade. In that year the colony attempted

to prohibit the importation of slaves, but the governor vetoed the

bill.[43] Finally, in 1776 by the Constitution, and in 1787 by law,

importation and exportation were both prohibited.[44]

14. ~Restrictions in New Jersey.~[45] Although the freeholders of West

New Jersey declared, in 1676, that "all and every Person and Persons

Inhabiting the said Province, shall, as far as in us lies, be free from

Oppression and Slavery,"[46] yet Negro slaves are early found in the

colony.[47] The first restrictive measure was passed, after considerable

friction between the Council and the House, in 1713; it laid a duty of

£10, currency.[48] Governor Hunter explained to the Board of Trade that

the bill was "calculated to Encourage the Importation of white Servants

for the better Peopeling that Country."[49] How long this act continued

does not appear; probably, not long. No further legislation was enacted

until 1762 or 1763, when a prohibitive duty was laid on account of "the

inconvenience the Province is exposed to in lying open to the free

importation of Negros, when the Provinces on each side have laid duties

on them."[50] The Board of Trade declared that while they did not object

to "the Policy of imposing a reasonable duty," they could not assent to

this, and the act was disallowed.[51] The Act of 1769 evaded the

technical objection of the Board of Trade, and laid a duty of £15 on the

first purchasers of Negroes, because, as the act declared, "Duties on

the Importation of Negroes in several of the neighbouring Colonies

hath, on Experience, been found beneficial in the Introduction of sober,

industrious Foreigners."[52] In 1774 a bill which, according to the

report of the Council to Governor Morris, "plainly intended an entire

Prohibition of all Slaves being imported from foreign Parts," was thrown

out by the Council.[53] Importation was finally prohibited in 1786.[54]

15. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ The main difference in

motive between the restrictions which the planting and the farming

colonies put on the African slave-trade, lay in the fact that the former

limited it mainly from fear of insurrection, the latter mainly because

it did not pay. Naturally, the latter motive worked itself out with much

less legislation than the former; for this reason, and because they held

a smaller number of slaves, most of these colonies have fewer actual

statutes than the Southern colonies. In Pennsylvania alone did this

general economic revolt against the trade acquire a distinct moral

tinge. Although even here the institution was naturally doomed, yet the

clear moral insight of the Quakers checked the trade much earlier than

would otherwise have happened. We may say, then, that the farming

colonies checked the slave-trade primarily from economic motives.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Smith, _Generall Historie of Virginia_ (1626 and 1632), p. 126.

[2] Cf. Southey, _History of Brazil_.

[3] De Laet, in O'Callaghan, _Voyages of the Slavers_, etc., p. viii.

[4] See, e.g., Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers; Col. Ser.,

America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, p. 279.

[5] Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; also _Freedoms_, XXX., in

O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74_ (ed. 1868), p.

10; Brodhead, _History of New York_, I. 312.

[6] The following is a summary of the legislation of the

colony of New York; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1709, Duty Act: £3 on Negroes not direct from Africa

(Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).

1711, Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.

1716, Duty Act: 5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.

10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.

1728, " " 40_s._ on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.

1732, " " 40_s._ on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.

1734, " " (?)

1753, " " 40_s._ on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.

(This act was annually continued.)

[1777, Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]

1785, Sale of slaves in State prohibited.

[1786, " " in Vermont prohibited.]

1788, " " in State prohibited.

[7] O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74_, pp. 31,

348, etc. The colonists themselves were encouraged to trade,

but the terms were not favorable enough: _Doc. rel. Col. Hist.

New York_, I. 246; _Laws of New Netherland_, pp. 81-2, note,

127. The colonists declared "that they are inclined to a

foreign Trade, and especially to the Coast of _Africa_, ... in

order to fetch thence Slaves": O'Callaghan, _Voyages of the

Slavers_, etc., p. 172.

[8] _Charter to William Penn_, etc. (1879), p. 12. First

published on Long Island in 1664. Possibly Negro slaves were

explicitly excepted. Cf. _Magazine of American History_, XI.

411, and _N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, I. 322.

[9] _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, pp. 97, 125, 134; _Doc.

rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 178, 185, 293.

[10] The Assembly attempted to raise the slave duty in 1711,

but the Council objected (_Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V.

292 ff.), although, as it seems, not on account of the slave

duty in particular. Another act was passed between 1711 and

1716, but its contents are not known (cf. title of the Act of

1716). For the Act of 1716, see _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_,

p. 224.

[11] _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 37, 38.

[12] _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 32-4.

[13] _Ibid._, VII. 907. This act was annually renewed. The

slave duty remained a chief source of revenue down to 1774.

Cf. _Report of Governor Tryon_, in _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New

York_, VIII. 452.

[14] _Laws of New York, 1785-88_ (ed. 1886), ch. 68, p. 121.

Substantially the same act reappears in the revision of the

laws of 1788: _Ibid._, ch. 40, p. 676.

[15] The slave population of New York has been estimated as

follows:--

In 1698, 2,170. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, IV. 420.

" 1703, 2,258. _N.Y. Col. MSS._, XLVIII.; cited in Hough,

_N.Y. Census, 1855_, Introd.

" 1712, 2,425. _Ibid._, LVII., LIX. (a partial census).

" 1723, 6,171. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 702.

" 1731, 7,743. _Ibid._, V. 929.

" 1737, 8,941. _Ibid._, VI. 133.

" 1746, 9,107. _Ibid._, VI. 392.

" 1749, 10,692. _Ibid._, VI. 550.

" 1756, 13,548. _London Doc._, XLIV. 123; cited in Hough,

as above.

" 1771, 19,863. _Ibid._, XLIV. 144; cited in Hough, as above.

" 1774, 21,149. _Ibid._, " " " " "

" 1786, 18,889. _Deeds in office Sec. of State_, XXII. 35.

Total number of Africans imported from 1701 to 1726, 2,375,

of whom 802 were from Africa: O'Callaghan, _Documentary

History of New York_, I. 482.

[16] Cf. below, Chapter XI.

[17] _Vermont State Papers, 1779-86_, p. 244. The return of

sixteen slaves in Vermont, by the first census, was an error:

_New England Record_, XXIX. 249.

[18] _Vermont State Papers_, p. 505.

[19] The following is a summary of the legislation of the

colony of Pennsylvania and Delaware; details will be found in

Appendix A:--

1705, Duty Act: (?).

1710, " " 40_s._ (Disallowed).

1712, " " £20 "

1712, " " supplementary to the Act of 1710.

1715, " " £5 (Disallowed).

1718, " "

1720, " " (?).

1722, " " (?).

1725-6, " " £10.

1726, " "

1729, " " £2.

1761, " " £10.

1761, " " (?).

1768, " " re-enactment of the Act of 1761.

1773, " " perpetual additional duty of £10; total, £20.

1775, Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor (Delaware).

1775, Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor.

1778, Back duties on slaves ordered collected.

1780, Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.

1787, Act to prevent the exportation of slaves (Delaware).

1788, Act to prevent the slave-trade.

[20] From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.

Cf. Whittier's poem, "Pennsylvania Hall" (_Poetical Works_,

Riverside ed., III. 62); and Proud, _History of Pennsylvania_

(1797), I. 219.

[21] From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.

[22] Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc.

Mem._ (1864), I. 383.

[23] Cf. Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery, passim_.

[24] Janney, _History of the Friends_, III. 315-7.

[25] _Ibid._, III. 317.

[26] Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 395.

[27] _Penn. Col. Rec._ (1852), II. 530; Bettle, in _Penn.

Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 415.

[28] _Laws of Pennsylvania, collected_, etc., 1714, p. 165;

Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 387.

[29] See preamble of the act.

[30] The Pennsylvanians did not allow their laws to reach

England until long after they were passed: _Penn. Archives_,

I. 161-2; _Col. Rec._, II. 572-3. These acts were disallowed

Feb. 20, 1713. Another duty act was passed in 1712,

supplementary to the Act of 1710 (_Col. Rec._, II. 553). The

contents are unknown.

[31] _Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania_, 1715, p. 270; Chalmers,

_Opinions_, II. 118. Before the disallowance was known, the

act had been continued by the Act of 1718: Carey and Bioren,

_Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700-1802_, I. 118; _Penn. Col. Rec._,

III. 38.

[32] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 165; _Penn. Col. Rec._, III.

171; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 389, note.

[33] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 214; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist.

Soc. Mem._, I. 388. Possibly there were two acts this year.

[34] _Laws of Pennsylvania_ (ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287.

Possibly some change in the currency made this change appear

greater than it was.

[35] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 371; _Acts of Assembly_ (ed.

1782), p. 149; Dallas, _Laws_, I. 406, ch. 379. This act was

renewed in 1768: Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 451; _Penn. Col.

Rec._, IX. 472, 637, 641.

[36] _Penn. Col. Rec._, VIII. 576.

[37] A large petition called for this bill. Much altercation

ensued with the governor: Dallas, _Laws_, I. 671, ch. 692;

_Penn. Col. Rec._, X. 77; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._,

I. 388-9.

[38] Dallas, _Laws_, I. 782, ch. 810.

[39] _Ibid._, I. 838, ch. 881.

[40] There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in

this colony:--

In 1721, 2,500-5,000. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 604.

" 1754, 11,000. Bancroft, _Hist. of United States_ (1883),

II. 391.

" 1760, very few." Burnaby, _Travels through N. Amer._ (2d ed.),

p. 81.

" 1775, 2,000. _Penn. Archives_, IV 597.

[41] Dallas, _Laws_, II. 586.

[42] Cf. _Argonautica Gustaviana_, pp. 21-3; _Del. Hist. Soc.

Papers_, III. 10; _Hazard's Register_, IV. 221, §§ 23, 24;

_Hazard's Annals_, p. 372; Armstrong, _Record of Upland

Court_, pp. 29-30, and notes.

[43] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 128-9.

[44] _Ibid._, 5th Ser., I. 1178; _Laws of Delaware, 1797_

(Newcastle ed.), p. 884, ch. 145 b.

[45] The following is a summary of the legislation of the

colony of New Jersey; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1713, Duty Act: £10.

1763 (?), Duty Act.

1769, " " £15.

1774, " " £5 on Africans, £10 on colonial Negroes.

1786, Importation prohibited.

[46] Leaming and Spicer, _Grants, Concessions_, etc., p. 398.

Probably this did not refer to Negroes at all.

[47] Cf. Vincent, _History of Delaware_, I. 159, 381.

[48] _Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703-17_ (ed. 1717), p. 43.

[49] _N.J. Archives_, IV. 196. There was much difficulty in

passing the bill: _Ibid._, XIII. 516-41.

[50] _Ibid._, IX. 345-6. The exact provisions of the act I

have not found.

[51] _Ibid._, IX. 383, 447, 458. Chiefly because the duty was

laid on the importer.

[52] Allinson, _Acts of Assembly_, pp. 315-6.

[53] _N.J. Archives_, VI. 222.

[54] _Acts of the 10th General Assembly_, May 2, 1786. There

are two estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:--

In 1738, 3,981. _American Annals_, II. 127.

" 1754, 4,606. " " II. 143.

* * * * *

_Chapter IV_

THE TRADING COLONIES.

16. Character of these Colonies.

17. New England and the Slave-Trade.

18. Restrictions in New Hampshire.

19. Restrictions in Massachusetts.

20. Restrictions in Rhode Island.

21. Restrictions in Connecticut.

22. General Character of these Restrictions.

16. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The rigorous climate of New England,

the character of her settlers, and their pronounced political views gave

slavery an even slighter basis here than in the Middle colonies. The

significance of New England in the African slave-trade does not

therefore lie in the fact that she early discountenanced the system of

slavery and stopped importation; but rather in the fact that her

citizens, being the traders of the New World, early took part in the

carrying slave-trade and furnished slaves to the other colonies. An

inquiry, therefore, into the efforts of the New England colonies to

suppress the slave-trade would fall naturally into two parts: first, and

chiefly, an investigation of the efforts to stop the participation of

citizens in the carrying slave-trade; secondly, an examination of the

efforts made to banish the slave-trade from New England soil.

17. ~New England and the Slave-Trade.~ Vessels from Massachusetts,[1]

Rhode Island,[2] Connecticut,[3] and, to a less extent, from New

Hampshire,[4] were early and largely engaged in the carrying

slave-trade. "We know," said Thomas Pemberton in 1795, "that a large

trade to Guinea was carried on for many years by the citizens of

Massachusetts Colony, who were the proprietors of the vessels and their

cargoes, out and home. Some of the slaves purchased in Guinea, and I

suppose the greatest part of them, were sold in the West Indies."[5] Dr.

John Eliot asserted that "it made a considerable branch of our

commerce.... It declined very little till the Revolution."[6] Yet the

trade of this colony was said not to equal that of Rhode Island. Newport

was the mart for slaves offered for sale in the North, and a point of

reshipment for all slaves. It was principally this trade that raised

Newport to her commercial importance in the eighteenth century.[7]

Connecticut, too, was an important slave-trader, sending large numbers

of horses and other commodities to the West Indies in exchange for

slaves, and selling the slaves in other colonies.

This trade formed a perfect circle. Owners of slavers carried slaves to

South Carolina, and brought home naval stores for their ship-building;

or to the West Indies, and brought home molasses; or to other colonies,

and brought home hogsheads. The molasses was made into the highly prized

New England rum, and shipped in these hogsheads to Africa for more

slaves.[8] Thus, the rum-distilling industry indicates to some extent

the activity of New England in the slave-trade. In May, 1752, one

Captain Freeman found so many slavers fitting out that, in spite of the

large importations of molasses, he could get no rum for his vessel.[9]

In Newport alone twenty-two stills were at one time running

continuously;[10] and Massachusetts annually distilled 15,000 hogsheads

of molasses into this "chief manufacture."[11]

Turning now to restrictive measures, we must first note the measures of

the slave-consuming colonies which tended to limit the trade. These

measures, however, came comparatively late, were enforced with varying

degrees of efficiency, and did not seriously affect the slave-trade

before the Revolution. The moral sentiment of New England put some check

upon the trade. Although in earlier times the most respectable people

took ventures in slave-trading voyages, yet there gradually arose a

moral sentiment which tended to make the business somewhat

disreputable.[12] In the line, however, of definite legal enactments to

stop New England citizens from carrying slaves from Africa to any place

in the world, there were, before the Revolution, none. Indeed, not until

the years 1787-1788 was slave-trading in itself an indictable offence in

any New England State.

The particular situation in each colony, and the efforts to restrict the

small importing slave-trade of New England, can best be studied in a

separate view of each community.

18. ~Restrictions in New Hampshire.~ The statistics of slavery in New

Hampshire show how weak an institution it always was in that colony.[13]

Consequently, when the usual instructions were sent to Governor

Wentworth as to the encouragement he must give to the slave-trade, the

House replied: "We have considered his Maj^{ties} Instruction relating

to an Impost on Negroes & Felons, to which this House answers, that

there never was any duties laid on either, by this Goverm^{t}, and so

few bro't in that it would not be worth the Publick notice, so as to

make an act concerning them."[14] This remained true for the whole

history of the colony. Importation was never stopped by actual

enactment, but was eventually declared contrary to the Constitution of

1784.[15] The participation of citizens in the trade appears never to

have been forbidden.

19. ~Restrictions in Massachusetts.~ The early Biblical codes of

Massachusetts confined slavery to "lawfull Captives taken in iust

warres, & such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to

us."[16] The stern Puritanism of early days endeavored to carry this out

literally, and consequently when a certain Captain Smith, about 1640,

attacked an African village and brought some of the unoffending natives

home, he was promptly arrested. Eventually, the General Court ordered

the Negroes sent home at the colony's expense, "conceiving themselues

bound by y^e first oportunity to bear witnes against y^e haynos & crying

sinn of manstealing, as also to P'scribe such timely redresse for what

is past, & such a law for y^e future as may sufficiently deterr all

oth^{r}s belonging to us to have to do in such vile & most odious

courses, iustly abhored of all good & iust men."[17]

The temptation of trade slowly forced the colony from this high moral

ground. New England ships were early found in the West Indian

slave-trade, and the more the carrying trade developed, the more did the

profits of this branch of it attract Puritan captains. By the beginning

of the eighteenth century the slave-trade was openly recognized as

legitimate commerce; cargoes came regularly to Boston, and "The

merchants of Boston quoted negroes, like any other merchandise demanded

by their correspondents."[18] At the same time, the Puritan conscience

began to rebel against the growth of actual slavery on New England soil.

It was a much less violent wrenching of moral ideas of right and wrong

to allow Massachusetts men to carry slaves to South Carolina than to

allow cargoes to come into Boston, and become slaves in Massachusetts.

Early in the eighteenth century, therefore, opposition arose to the

further importation of Negroes, and in 1705 an act "for the Better

Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," laid a restrictive duty of £4

on all slaves imported.[19] One provision of this act plainly

illustrates the attitude of Massachusetts: like the acts of many of the

New England colonies, it allowed a rebate of the whole duty on

re-exportation. The harbors of New England were thus offered as a free

exchange-mart for slavers. All the duty acts of the Southern and Middle

colonies allowed a rebate of one-half or three-fourths of the duty on

the re-exportation of the slave, thus laying a small tax on even

temporary importation.

The Act of 1705 was evaded, but it was not amended until 1728, when the

penalty for evasion was raised to £100.[20] The act remained in force,

except possibly for one period of four years, until 1749. Meantime the

movement against importation grew. A bill "for preventing the

Importation of Slaves into this Province" was introduced in the

Legislature in 1767, but after strong opposition and disagreement

between House and Council it was dropped.[21] In 1771 the struggle was

renewed. A similar bill passed, but was vetoed by Governor

Hutchinson.[22] The imminent war and the discussions incident to it had

now more and more aroused public opinion, and there were repeated

attempts to gain executive consent to a prohibitory law. In 1774 such a

bill was twice passed, but never received assent.[23]

The new Revolutionary government first met the subject in the case of

two Negroes captured on the high seas, who were advertised for sale at

Salem. A resolution was introduced into the Legislature, directing the

release of the Negroes, and declaring "That the selling and enslaving

the human species is a direct violation of the natural rights alike

vested in all men by their Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the

avowed principles on which this, and the other United States, have

carried their struggle for liberty even to the last appeal." To this the

Council would not consent; and the resolution, as finally passed, merely

forbade the sale or ill-treatment of the Negroes.[24] Committees on the

slavery question were appointed in 1776 and 1777,[25] and although a

letter to Congress on the matter, and a bill for the abolition of

slavery were reported, no decisive action was taken.

All such efforts were finally discontinued, as the system was already

practically extinct in Massachusetts and the custom of importation had

nearly ceased. Slavery was eventually declared by judicial decision to

have been abolished.[26] The first step toward stopping the

participation of Massachusetts citizens in the slave-trade outside the

State was taken in 1785, when a committee of inquiry was appointed by

the Legislature.[27] No act was, however, passed until 1788, when

participation in the trade was prohibited, on pain of £50 forfeit for

every slave and £200 for every ship engaged.[28]

20. ~Restrictions in Rhode Island.~ In 1652 Rhode Island passed a law

designed to prohibit life slavery in the colony. It declared that

"Whereas, there is a common course practised amongst English men to buy

negers, to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever;

for the preventinge of such practices among us, let it be ordered, that

no blacke mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise,

to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten yeares, or untill they

come to bee twentie four yeares of age, if they bee taken in under

fourteen, from the time of their cominge within the liberties of this

Collonie. And at the end or terme of ten yeares to sett them free, as

the manner is with the English servants. And that man that will not let

them goe free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to that end that they

may bee enslaved to others for a long time, hee or they shall forfeit to

the Collonie forty pounds."[29]

This law was for a time enforced,[30] but by the beginning of the

eighteenth century it had either been repealed or become a dead letter;

for the Act of 1708 recognized perpetual slavery, and laid an impost of

£3 on Negroes imported.[31] This duty was really a tax on the transport

trade, and produced a steady income for twenty years.[32] From the year

1700 on, the citizens of this State engaged more and more in the

carrying trade, until Rhode Island became the greatest slave-trader in

America. Although she did not import many slaves for her own use, she

became the clearing-house for the trade of other colonies. Governor

Cranston, as early as 1708, reported that between 1698 and 1708 one

hundred and three vessels were built in the State, all of which were

trading to the West Indies and the Southern colonies.[33] They took out

lumber and brought back molasses, in most cases making a slave voyage in

between. From this, the trade grew. Samuel Hopkins, about 1770, was

shocked at the state of the trade: more than thirty distilleries were

running in the colony, and one hundred and fifty vessels were in the

slave-trade.[34] "Rhode Island," said he, "has been more deeply

interested in the slave-trade, and has enslaved more Africans than any

other colony in New England." Later, in 1787, he wrote: "The inhabitants

of Rhode Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the

greater share in this traffic, of all these United States. This trade in

human species has been the first wheel of commerce in Newport, on which

every other movement in business has chiefly depended. That town has

been built up, and flourished in times past, at the expense of the

blood, the liberty, and happiness of the poor Africans; and the

inhabitants have lived on this, and by it have gotten most of their

wealth and riches."[35]

The Act of 1708 was poorly enforced. The "good intentions" of its

framers "were wholly frustrated" by the clandestine "hiding and

conveying said negroes out of the town [Newport] into the country, where

they lie concealed."[36] The act was accordingly strengthened by the

Acts of 1712 and 1715, and made to apply to importations by land as well

as by sea.[37] The Act of 1715, however, favored the trade by admitting

African Negroes free of duty. The chaotic state of Rhode Island did not

allow England often to review her legislation; but as soon as the Act of

1712 came to notice it was disallowed, and accordingly repealed in

1732.[38] Whether the Act of 1715 remained, or whether any other duty

act was passed, is not clear.

While the foreign trade was flourishing, the influence of the Friends

and of other causes eventually led to a movement against slavery as a

local institution. Abolition societies multiplied, and in 1770 an

abolition bill was ordered by the Assembly, but it was never passed.[39]

Four years later the city of Providence resolved that "as personal

liberty is an essential part of the natural rights of mankind," the

importation of slaves and the system of slavery should cease in the

colony.[40] This movement finally resulted, in 1774, in an act

"prohibiting the importation of Negroes into this Colony,"--a law which

curiously illustrated the attitude of Rhode Island toward the

slave-trade. The preamble of the act declared: "Whereas, the inhabitants

of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights

and liberties, among which, that of personal freedom must be considered

as the greatest; as those who are desirous of enjoying all the

advantages of liberty themselves, should be willing to extend personal

liberty to others;--Therefore," etc. The statute then proceeded to enact

"that for the future, no negro or mulatto slave shall be brought into

this colony; and in case any slave shall hereafter be brought in, he or

she shall be, and are hereby, rendered immediately free...." The logical

ending of such an act would have been a clause prohibiting the

participation of Rhode Island citizens in the slave-trade. Not only was

such a clause omitted, but the following was inserted instead:

"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to

extend, to any negro or mulatto slave brought from the coast of Africa,

into the West Indies, on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and

which negro or mulatto slave could not be disposed of in the West

Indies, but shall be brought into this colony. Provided, that the owner

of such negro or mulatto slave give bond ... that such negro or mulatto

slave shall be exported out of the colony, within one year from the date

of such bond; if such negro or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to

be removed."[41]

In 1779 an act to prevent the sale of slaves out of the State was

passed,[42] and in 1784, an act gradually to abolish slavery.[43] Not

until 1787 did an act pass to forbid participation in the slave-trade.

This law laid a penalty of £100 for every slave transported and £1000

for every vessel so engaged.[44]

21. ~Restrictions in Connecticut.~ Connecticut, in common with the other

colonies of this section, had a trade for many years with the West

Indian slave markets; and though this trade was much smaller than that

of the neighboring colonies, yet many of her citizens were engaged in

it. A map of Middletown at the time of the Revolution gives, among one

hundred families, three slave captains and "three notables" designated

as "slave-dealers."[45]

The actual importation was small,[46] and almost entirely unrestricted

before the Revolution, save by a few light, general duty acts. In 1774

the further importation of slaves was prohibited, because "the increase

of slaves in this Colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient." The

law prohibited importation under any pretext by a penalty of £100 per

slave.[47] This was re-enacted in 1784, and provisions were made for the

abolition of slavery.[48] In 1788 participation in the trade was

forbidden, and the penalty placed at £50 for each slave and £500 for

each ship engaged.[49]

22. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ Enough has already been

said to show, in the main, the character of the opposition to the

slave-trade in New England. The system of slavery had, on this soil and

amid these surroundings, no economic justification, and the small number

of Negroes here furnished no political arguments against them. The

opposition to the importation was therefore from the first based solely

on moral grounds, with some social arguments. As to the carrying trade,

however, the case was different. Here, too, a feeble moral opposition

was early aroused, but it was swept away by the immense economic

advantages of the slave traffic to a thrifty seafaring community of

traders. This trade no moral suasion, not even the strong "Liberty" cry

of the Revolution, was able wholly to suppress, until the closing of the

West Indian and Southern markets cut off the demand for slaves.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_,

II. 449-72; G.H. Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_; Charles

Deane, _Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery_.

[2] Cf. _American Historical Record_, I. 311, 338.

[3] Cf. W.C. Fowler, _Local Law in Massachusetts and

Connecticut_, etc., pp. 122-6.

[4] _Ibid._, p. 124.

[5] Deane, _Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in

Massachusetts_, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III.

392.

[6] _Ibid._, III. 382.

[7] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II.

454.

[8] A typical voyage is that of the brigantine "Sanderson" of

Newport. She was fitted out in March, 1752, and carried,

beside the captain, two mates and six men, and a cargo of

8,220 gallons of rum, together with "African" iron, flour,

pots, tar, sugar, and provisions, shackles, shirts, and water.

Proceeding to Africa, the captain after some difficulty sold

his cargo for slaves, and in April, 1753, he is expected in

Barbadoes, as the consignees write. They also state that

slaves are selling at £33 to £56 per head in lots. After a

stormy and dangerous voyage, Captain Lindsay arrived, June 17,

1753, with fifty-six slaves, "all in helth & fatt." He also

had 40 oz. of gold dust, and 8 or 9 cwt. of pepper. The net

proceeds of the sale of all this was £1,324 3_d._ The captain

then took on board 55 hhd. of molasses and 3 hhd. 27 bbl. of

sugar, amounting to £911 77_s._ 2½_d._, received bills on

Liverpool for the balance, and returned in safety to Rhode

Island. He had done so well that he was immediately given a

new ship and sent to Africa again. _American Historical

Record_, I. 315-9, 338-42.

[9] _Ibid._, I. 316.

[10] _American Historical Record_, I. 317.

[11] _Ibid._, I. 344; cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History

of New England_, II. 459.

[12] Cf. _New England Register_, XXXI. 75-6, letter of John

Saffin _et al._ to Welstead. Cf. also Sewall, _Protest_, etc.

[13] The number of slaves in New Hampshire has been estimated

as follows:

In 1730, 200. _N.H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, I. 229.

" 1767, 633. _Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.

" 1773, 681. _Ibid._

" 1773, 674. _N.H. Province Papers_, X. 636.

" 1775, 479. _Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.

" 1790, 158. _Ibid._

[14] _N.H. Province Papers_, IV. 617.

[15] _Granite Monthly_, VI. 377; Poore, _Federal and State

Constitutions_, pp. 1280-1.

[16] Cf. _The Body of Liberties_, § 91, in Whitmore,

_Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts

Colony_, published at Boston in 1890.

[17] _Mass. Col. Rec._, II. 168, 176; III. 46, 49, 84.

[18] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II.

456.

[19] _Mass. Province Laws, 1705-6_, ch. 10.

[20] _Ibid._, _1728-9_, ch. 16; _1738-9_, ch. 27.

[21] For petitions of towns, cf. Felt, _Annals of Salem_

(1849), II. 416; _Boston Town Records, 1758-69_, p. 183. Cf.

also Otis's anti-slavery speech in 1761; John Adams, _Works_,

X. 315. For proceedings, see _House Journal_, 1767, pp. 353,

358, 387, 390, 393, 408, 409-10, 411, 420. Cf. Samuel Dexter's

answer to Dr. Belknap's inquiry, Feb. 23, 1795, in Deane

(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 385). A committee on

slave importation was appointed in 1764. Cf. _House Journal_,

1763-64, p. 170.

[22] _House Journal_, 1771, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236,

240, 242-3; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 131-2.

[23] Felt, _Annals of Salem_ (1849), II. 416-7; Swan,

_Dissuasion to Great Britain_, etc. (1773), p. x; Washburn,

_Historical Sketches of Leicester, Mass._, pp. 442-3; Freeman,

_History of Cape Cod_, II. 114; Deane, in _Mass. Hist. Soc.

Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 432; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_,

pp. 135-40; Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,

I. 234-6; _House Journal_, March, 1774, pp. 224, 226, 237,

etc.; June, 1774, pp. 27, 41, etc. For a copy of the bill, see

Moore.

[24] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 1855-58_, p. 196; Force,

_American Archives_, 5th Ser., II. 769; _House Journal_, 1776,

pp. 105-9; _General Court Records_, March 13, 1776, etc., pp.

581-9; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 149-54. Cf.

Moore, pp. 163-76.

[25] Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 148-9, 181-5.

[26] Washburn, _Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts_;

Haynes, _Struggle for the Constitution in Massachusetts_; La

Rochefoucauld, _Travels through the United States_, II. 166.

[27] Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, p. 225.

[28] _Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780-89_, p. 235. The

number of slaves in Massachusetts has been estimated as

follows:--

In 1676, 200. Randolph's _Report_, in _Hutchinson's Coll.

of Papers_, p. 485.

" 1680, 120. Deane, _Connection of Mass. with Slavery_,

p. 28 ff.

" 1708, 550. _Ibid._; Moore, _Slavery in Mass._, p. 50.

" 1720, 2,000. _Ibid._

" 1735, 2,600. Deane, _Connection of Mass. with Slavery_,

p. 28 ff.

" 1749, 3,000. _Ibid._

" 1754, 4,489. _Ibid._

" 1763, 5,000. _Ibid._

" 1764-5, 5,779. _Ibid._

" 1776, 5,249. _Ibid._

" 1784, 4,377. Moore, _Slavery in Mass._, p. 51.

" 1786, 4,371. _Ibid._

" 1790, 6,001. _Ibid._

[29] _R.I. Col. Rec._, I. 240.

[30] Cf. letter written in 1681: _New England Register_, XXXI.

75-6. Cf. also Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, I. 240.

[31] The text of this act is lost (_Col. Rec._, IV. 34;

Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 31). The Acts of Rhode

Island were not well preserved, the first being published in

Boston in 1719. Perhaps other whole acts are lost.

[32] E.g., it was expended to pave the streets of Newport, to

build bridges, etc.: _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 191-3, 225.

[33] _Ibid._, IV. 55-60.

[34] Patten, _Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins_ (1843), p. 80.

[35] Hopkins, _Works_ (1854), II. 615.

[36] Preamble of the Act of 1712.

[37] _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 131-5, 138, 143, 191-3.

[38] _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 471.

[39] Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 304, 321, 337. For

a probable copy of the bill, see _Narragansett Historical

Register_, II. 299.

[40] A man dying intestate left slaves, who became thus the

property of the city; they were freed, and the town made the

above resolve, May 17, 1774, in town meeting: Staples, _Annals

of Providence_ (1843), p. 236.

[41] _R.I. Col. Rec._, VII. 251-2.

[42] _Bartlett's Index_, p. 329; Arnold, _History of Rhode

Island_, II. 444; _R.I. Col. Rec._, VIII. 618.

[43] _R.I. Col. Rec._, X. 7-8; Arnold, _History of Rhode

Island_, II. 506.

[44] _Bartlett's Index_, p. 333; _Narragansett Historical

Register_, II. 298-9. The number of slaves in Rhode Island has

been estimated as follows:--

In 1708, 426. _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 59.

" 1730, 1,648. _R.I. Hist. Tracts_, No. 19, pt. 2, p. 99.

" 1749, 3,077. Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,

I. 281.

" 1756, 4,697. _Ibid._

" 1774, 3,761. _R.I. Col. Rec._, VII. 253.

[45] Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 124.

[46] The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as

follows:--

In 1680, 30. _Conn. Col. Rec._, III. 298.

" 1730, 700. Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,

I. 259.

" 1756, 3,636. Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.

" 1762, 4,590. Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,

I. 260.

" 1774, 6,562. Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.

" 1782, 6,281. Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.

" 1800, 5,281. _Ibid._, p. 141.

[47] _Conn. Col. Rec._, XIV 329. Fowler (pp. 125-6) says that

the law was passed in 1769, as does Sanford (p. 252). I find

no proof of this. There was in Connecticut the same Biblical

legislation on the trade as in Massachusetts. Cf. _Laws of

Connecticut_ (repr. 1865), p. 9; also _Col. Rec._, I. 77. For

general duty acts, see _Col. Rec._, V 405; VIII. 22; IX. 283;

XIII. 72, 125.

[48] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp. 233-4.

[49] _Ibid._, pp. 368, 369, 388.

* * * * *

_Chapter V_

THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION. 1774-1787.

23. The Situation in 1774.

24. The Condition of the Slave-Trade.

25. The Slave-Trade and the "Association."

26. The Action of the Colonies.

27. The Action of the Continental Congress.

28. Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.

29. Results of the Resolution.

30. The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.

31. The Action of the Confederation.

23. ~The Situation in 1774.~ In the individual efforts of the various

colonies to suppress the African slave-trade there may be traced certain

general movements. First, from 1638 to 1664, there was a tendency to

take a high moral stand against the traffic. This is illustrated in the

laws of New England, in the plans for the settlement of Delaware and,

later, that of Georgia, and in the protest of the German Friends. The

second period, from about 1664 to 1760, has no general unity, but is

marked by statutes laying duties varying in design from encouragement to

absolute prohibition, by some cases of moral opposition, and by the slow

but steady growth of a spirit unfavorable to the long continuance of the

trade. The last colonial period, from about 1760 to 1787, is one of

pronounced effort to regulate, limit, or totally prohibit the traffic.

Beside these general movements, there are many waves of legislation,

easily distinguishable, which rolled over several or all of the colonies

at various times, such as the series of high duties following the

Assiento, and the acts inspired by various Negro "plots."

Notwithstanding this, the laws of the colonies before 1774 had no

national unity, the peculiar circumstances of each colony determining

its legislation. With the outbreak of the Revolution came unison in

action with regard to the slave-trade, as with regard to other matters,

which may justly be called national. It was, of course, a critical

period,--a period when, in the rapid upheaval of a few years, the

complicated and diverse forces of decades meet, combine, act, and react,

until the resultant seems almost the work of chance. In the settlement

of the fate of slavery and the slave-trade, however, the real crisis

came in the calm that succeeded the storm, in that day when, in the

opinion of most men, the question seemed already settled. And indeed it

needed an exceptionally clear and discerning mind, in 1787, to deny that

slavery and the slave-trade in the United States of America were doomed

to early annihilation. It seemed certainly a legitimate deduction from

the history of the preceding century to conclude that, as the system had

risen, flourished, and fallen in Massachusetts, New York, and

Pennsylvania, and as South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland were

apparently following in the same legislative path, the next generation

would in all probability witness the last throes of the system on our

soil.

To be sure, the problem had its uncertain quantities. The motives of the

law-makers in South Carolina and Pennsylvania were dangerously

different; the century of industrial expansion was slowly dawning and

awakening that vast economic revolution in which American slavery was to

play so prominent and fatal a rôle; and, finally, there were already in

the South faint signs of a changing moral attitude toward slavery, which

would no longer regard the system as a temporary makeshift, but rather

as a permanent though perhaps unfortunate necessity. With regard to the

slave-trade, however, there appeared to be substantial unity of opinion;

and there were, in 1787, few things to indicate that a cargo of five

hundred African slaves would openly be landed in Georgia in 1860.

24. ~The Condition of the Slave-Trade.~ In 1760 England, the chief

slave-trading nation, was sending on an average to Africa 163 ships

annually, with a tonnage of 18,000 tons, carrying exports to the value

of £163,818. Only about twenty of these ships regularly returned to

England. Most of them carried slaves to the West Indies, and returned

laden with sugar and other products. Thus may be formed some idea of the

size and importance of the slave-trade at that time, although for a

complete view we must add to this the trade under the French,

Portuguese, Dutch, and Americans. The trade fell off somewhat toward

1770, but was flourishing again when the Revolution brought a sharp and

serious check upon it, bringing down the number of English slavers,

clearing, from 167 in 1774 to 28 in 1779, and the tonnage from 17,218 to

3,475 tons. After the war the trade gradually recovered, and by 1786 had

reached nearly its former extent. In 1783 the British West Indies

received 16,208 Negroes from Africa, and by 1787 the importation had

increased to 21,023. In this latter year it was estimated that the

British were taking annually from Africa 38,000 slaves; the French,

20,000; the Portuguese, 10,000; the Dutch and Danes, 6,000; a total of

74,000. Manchester alone sent £180,000 annually in goods to Africa in

exchange for Negroes.[1]

25. ~The Slave-Trade and the "Association."~ At the outbreak of the

Revolution six main reasons, some of which were old and of slow growth,

others peculiar to the abnormal situation of that time, led to concerted

action against the slave-trade. The first reason was the economic

failure of slavery in the Middle and Eastern colonies; this gave rise to

the presumption that like failure awaited the institution in the South.

Secondly, the new philosophy of "Freedom" and the "Rights of man," which

formed the corner-stone of the Revolution, made the dullest realize

that, at the very least, the slave-trade and a struggle for "liberty"

were not consistent. Thirdly, the old fear of slave insurrections, which

had long played so prominent a part in legislation, now gained new power

from the imminence of war and from the well-founded fear that the

British might incite servile uprisings. Fourthly, nearly all the

American slave markets were, in 1774-1775, overstocked with slaves, and

consequently many of the strongest partisans of the system were "bulls"

on the market, and desired to raise the value of their slaves by at

least a temporary stoppage of the trade. Fifthly, since the vested

interests of the slave-trading merchants were liable to be swept away by

the opening of hostilities, and since the price of slaves was low,[2]

there was from this quarter little active opposition to a cessation of

the trade for a season. Finally, it was long a favorite belief of the

supporters of the Revolution that, as English exploitation of colonial

resources had caused the quarrel, the best weapon to bring England to

terms was the economic expedient of stopping all commercial intercourse

with her. Since, then, the slave-trade had ever formed an important part

of her colonial traffic, it was one of the first branches of commerce

which occurred to the colonists as especially suited to their ends.[3]

Such were the complicated moral, political, and economic motives which

underlay the first national action against the slave-trade. This action

was taken by the "Association," a union of the colonies entered into to

enforce the policy of stopping commercial intercourse with England. The

movement was not a great moral protest against an iniquitous traffic;

although it had undoubtedly a strong moral backing, it was primarily a

temporary war measure.

26. ~The Action of the Colonies.~ The earlier and largely abortive

attempts to form non-intercourse associations generally did not mention

slaves specifically, although the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 11,

1769, recommended to merchants and traders, among other things, to

agree, "That they will not import any slaves, or purchase any imported

after the first day of November next, until the said acts are

repealed."[4] Later, in 1774, when a Faneuil Hall meeting started the

first successful national attempt at non-intercourse, the slave-trade,

being at the time especially flourishing, received more attention. Even

then slaves were specifically mentioned in the resolutions of but three

States. Rhode Island recommended a stoppage of "all trade with Great

Britain, Ireland, Africa and the West Indies."[5] North Carolina, in

August, 1774, resolved in convention "That we will not import any slave

or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves, imported or brought into

this Province by others, from any part of the world, after the first day

of _November_ next."[6] Virginia gave the slave-trade especial

prominence, and was in reality the leading spirit to force her views on

the Continental Congress. The county conventions of that colony first

took up the subject. Fairfax County thought "that during our present

difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported," and said:

"We take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an

entire stop forever put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural

trade."[7] Prince George and Nansemond Counties resolved "That the

_African_ trade is injurious to this Colony, obstructs the population of

it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants from

_Europe_ from settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of

the balance of trade against this Colony."[8] The Virginia colonial

convention, August, 1774, also declared: "We will neither ourselves

import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person,

after the first day of _November_ next, either from _Africa_, the _West

Indies_, or any other place."[9]

In South Carolina, at the convention July 6, 1774, decided opposition to

the non-importation scheme was manifested, though how much this was due

to the slave-trade interest is not certain. Many of the delegates wished

at least to limit the powers of their representatives, and the

Charleston Chamber of Commerce flatly opposed the plan of an

"Association." Finally, however, delegates with full powers were sent to

Congress. The arguments leading to this step were not in all cases on

the score of patriotism; a Charleston manifesto argued: "The planters

are greatly in arrears to the merchants; a stoppage of importation would

give them all an opportunity to extricate themselves from debt. The

merchants would have time to settle their accounts, and be ready with

the return of liberty to renew trade."[10]

27. ~The Action of the Continental Congress.~ The first Continental

Congress met September 5, 1774, and on September 22 recommended

merchants to send no more orders for foreign goods.[11] On September 27

"Mr. Lee made a motion for a non-importation," and it was unanimously

resolved to import no goods from Great Britain after December 1,

1774.[12] Afterward, Ireland and the West Indies were also included, and

a committee consisting of Low of New York, Mifflin of Pennsylvania, Lee

of Virginia, and Johnson of Connecticut were appointed "to bring in a

Plan for carrying into Effect the Non-importation, Non-consumption, and

Non-exportation resolved on."[13] The next move was to instruct this

committee to include in the proscribed articles, among other things,

"Molasses, Coffee or Piemento from the _British_ Plantations or from

_Dominica_,"--a motion which cut deep into the slave-trade circle of

commerce, and aroused some opposition. "Will, can, the people bear a

total interruption of the West India trade?" asked Low of New York; "Can

they live without rum, sugar, and molasses? Will not this impatience and

vexation defeat the measure?"[14]

The committee finally reported, October 12, 1774, and after three days'

discussion and amendment the proposal passed. This document, after a

recital of grievances, declared that, in the opinion of the colonists, a

non-importation agreement would best secure redress; goods from Great

Britain, Ireland, the East and West Indies, and Dominica were excluded;

and it was resolved that "We will neither import, nor purchase any Slave

imported after the First Day of _December_ next; after which Time, we

will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned

in it ourselves, nor will we hire our Vessels, nor sell our Commodities

or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it."[15]

Strong and straightforward as this resolution was, time unfortunately

proved that it meant very little. Two years later, in this same

Congress, a decided opposition was manifested to branding the

slave-trade as inhuman, and it was thirteen years before South Carolina

stopped the slave-trade or Massachusetts prohibited her citizens from

engaging in it. The passing of so strong a resolution must be explained

by the motives before given, by the character of the drafting

committee, by the desire of America in this crisis to appear well

before the world, and by the natural moral enthusiasm aroused by the

imminence of a great national struggle.

28. ~Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.~ The unanimity with which

the colonists received this "Association" is not perhaps as remarkable

as the almost entire absence of comment on the radical slave-trade

clause. A Connecticut town-meeting in December, 1774, noticed "with

singular pleasure ... the second Article of the Association, in which it

is agreed to import no more Negro Slaves."[16] This comment appears to

have been almost the only one. There were in various places some

evidences of disapproval; but only in the State of Georgia was this

widespread and determined, and based mainly on the slave-trade

clause.[17] This opposition delayed the ratification meeting until

January 18, 1775, and then delegates from but five of the twelve

parishes appeared, and many of these had strong instructions against the

approval of the plan. Before this meeting could act, the governor

adjourned it, on the ground that it did not represent the province. Some

of the delegates signed an agreement, one article of which promised to

stop the importation of slaves March 15, 1775, i.e., four months later

than the national "Association" had directed. This was not, of course,

binding on the province; and although a town like Darien might declare

"our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of Slavery

in _America_"[18] yet the powerful influence of Savannah was "not likely

soon to give matters a favourable turn. The importers were mostly

against any interruption, and the consumers very much divided."[19] Thus

the efforts of this Assembly failed, their resolutions being almost

unknown, and, as a gentleman writes, "I hope for the honour of the

Province ever will remain so."[20] The delegates to the Continental

Congress selected by this rump assembly refused to take their seats.

Meantime South Carolina stopped trade with Georgia, because it "hath not

acceded to the Continental Association,"[21] and the single Georgia

parish of St. Johns appealed to the second Continental Congress to

except it from the general boycott of the colony. This county had

already resolved not to "purchase any Slave imported at _Savannah_

(large Numbers of which we understand are there expected) till the Sense

of Congress shall be made known to us."[22]

May 17, 1775, Congress resolved unanimously "That all exportations to

_Quebec_, _Nova-Scotia_, the Island of _St. John's_, _Newfoundland_,

_Georgia_, except the Parish of _St. John's_, and to _East_ and _West

Florida_, immediately cease."[23] These measures brought the refractory

colony to terms, and the Provincial Congress, July 4, 1775, finally

adopted the "Association," and resolved, among other things, "That we

will neither import or purchase any Slave imported from Africa, or

elsewhere, after this day."[24]

The non-importation agreement was in the beginning, at least, well

enforced by the voluntary action of the loosely federated nation. The

slave-trade clause seems in most States to have been observed with the

others. In South Carolina "a cargo of near three hundred slaves was sent

out of the Colony by the consignee, as being interdicted by the second

article of the Association."[25] In Virginia the vigilance committee of

Norfolk "hold up for your just indignation Mr. _John Brown_, Merchant,

of this place," who has several times imported slaves from Jamaica; and

he is thus publicly censured "to the end that all such foes to the

rights of _British America_ may be publickly known ... as the enemies of

_American_ Liberty, and that every person may henceforth break off all

dealings with him."[26]

29. ~Results of the Resolution.~ The strain of war at last proved too

much for this voluntary blockade, and after some hesitancy Congress,

April 3, 1776, resolved to allow the importation of articles not the

growth or manufacture of Great Britain, except tea. They also voted

"That no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United

Colonies."[27] This marks a noticeable change of attitude from the

strong words of two years previous: the former was a definitive promise;

this is a temporary resolve, which probably represented public opinion

much better than the former. On the whole, the conclusion is inevitably

forced on the student of this first national movement against the

slave-trade, that its influence on the trade was but temporary and

insignificant, and that at the end of the experiment the outlook for the

final suppression of the trade was little brighter than before. The

whole movement served as a sort of social test of the power and

importance of the slave-trade, which proved to be far more powerful than

the platitudes of many of the Revolutionists had assumed.

The effect of the movement on the slave-trade in general was to begin,

possibly a little earlier than otherwise would have been the case, that

temporary breaking up of the trade which the war naturally caused.

"There was a time, during the late war," says Clarkson, "when the slave

trade may be considered as having been nearly abolished."[28] The prices

of slaves rose correspondingly high, so that smugglers made

fortunes.[29] It is stated that in the years 1772-1778 slave merchants

of Liverpool failed for the sum of £710,000.[30] All this, of course,

might have resulted from the war, without the "Association;" but in the

long run the "Association" aided in frustrating the very designs which

the framers of the first resolve had in mind; for the temporary stoppage

in the end created an extraordinary demand for slaves, and led to a

slave-trade after the war nearly as large as that before.

30. ~The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.~ The Declaration

of Independence showed a significant drift of public opinion from the

firm stand taken in the "Association" resolutions. The clique of

political philosophers to which Jefferson belonged never imagined the

continued existence of the country with slavery. It is well known that

the first draft of the Declaration contained a severe arraignment of

Great Britain as the real promoter of slavery and the slave-trade in

America. In it the king was charged with waging "cruel war against human

nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in

the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and

carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable

death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the

opprobrium of _infidel_ powers, is the warfare of the _Christian_ king

of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where _men_ should be

bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every

legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished

die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and

to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the

people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes

committed against the _liberties_ of one people with crimes which he

urges them to commit against the _lives_ of another."[31]

To this radical and not strictly truthful statement, even the large

influence of the Virginia leaders could not gain the assent of the

delegates in Congress. The afflatus of 1774 was rapidly subsiding, and

changing economic conditions had already led many to look forward to a

day when the slave-trade could successfully be reopened. More important

than this, the nation as a whole was even less inclined now than in 1774

to denounce the slave-trade uncompromisingly. Jefferson himself says

that this clause "was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and

Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves,

and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern

brethren also, I believe," said he, "felt a little tender under those

censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet

they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."[32]

As the war slowly dragged itself to a close, it became increasingly

evident that a firm moral stand against slavery and the slave-trade was

not a probability. The reaction which naturally follows a period of

prolonged and exhausting strife for high political principles now set

in. The economic forces of the country, which had suffered most, sought

to recover and rearrange themselves; and all the selfish motives that

impelled a bankrupt nation to seek to gain its daily bread did not long

hesitate to demand a reopening of the profitable African slave-trade.

This demand was especially urgent from the fact that the slaves, by

pillage, flight, and actual fighting, had become so reduced in numbers

during the war that an urgent demand for more laborers was felt in the

South.

Nevertheless, the revival of the trade was naturally a matter of some

difficulty, as the West India circuit had been cut off, leaving no

resort except to contraband traffic and the direct African trade. The

English slave-trade after the peace "returned to its former state," and

was by 1784 sending 20,000 slaves annually to the West Indies.[33] Just

how large the trade to the continent was at this time there are few

means of ascertaining; it is certain that there was a general reopening

of the trade in the Carolinas and Georgia, and that the New England

traders participated in it. This traffic undoubtedly reached

considerable proportions; and through the direct African trade and the

illicit West India trade many thousands of Negroes came into the United

States during the years 1783-1787.[34]

Meantime there was slowly arising a significant divergence of opinion on

the subject. Probably the whole country still regarded both slavery and

the slave-trade as temporary; but the Middle States expected to see the

abolition of both within a generation, while the South scarcely thought

it probable to prohibit even the slave-trade in that short time. Such a

difference might, in all probability, have been satisfactorily adjusted,

if both parties had recognized the real gravity of the matter. As it

was, both regarded it as a problem of secondary importance, to be solved

after many other more pressing ones had been disposed of. The

anti-slavery men had seen slavery die in their own communities, and

expected it to die the same way in others, with as little active effort

on their own part. The Southern planters, born and reared in a slave

system, thought that some day the system might change, and possibly

disappear; but active effort to this end on their part was ever farthest

from their thoughts. Here, then, began that fatal policy toward slavery

and the slave-trade that characterized the nation for three-quarters of

a century, the policy of _laissez-faire, laissez-passer_.

31. ~The Action of the Confederation.~ The slave-trade was hardly

touched upon in the Congress of the Confederation, except in the

ordinance respecting the capture of slaves, and on the occasion of the

Quaker petition against the trade, although, during the debate on the

Articles of Confederation, the counting of slaves as well as of freemen

in the apportionment of taxes was urged as a measure that would check

further importation of Negroes. "It is our duty," said Wilson of

Pennsylvania, "to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves;

but this amendment [i.e., to count two slaves as one freeman] would give

the _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves."[35] The

matter was finally compromised by apportioning requisitions according to

the value of land and buildings.

After the Articles went into operation, an ordinance in regard to the

recapture of fugitive slaves provided that, if the capture was made on

the sea below high-water mark, and the Negro was not claimed, he should

be freed. Matthews of South Carolina demanded the yeas and nays on this

proposition, with the result that only the vote of his State was

recorded against it.[36]

On Tuesday, October 3, 1783, a deputation from the Yearly Meeting of the

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware Friends asked leave to present a

petition. Leave was granted the following day,[37] but no further minute

appears. According to the report of the Friends, the petition was

against the slave-trade; and "though the Christian rectitude of the

concern was by the Delegates generally acknowledged, yet not being

vested with the powers of legislation, they declined promoting any

public remedy against the gross national iniquity of trafficking in the

persons of fellow-men."[38]

The only legislative activity in regard to the trade during the

Confederation was taken by the individual States.[39] Before 1778

Connecticut, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia had by law

stopped the further importation of slaves, and importation had

practically ceased in all the New England and Middle States, including

Maryland. In consequence of the revival of the slave-trade after the

War, there was then a lull in State activity until 1786, when North

Carolina laid a prohibitive duty, and South Carolina, a year later,

began her series of temporary prohibitions. In 1787-1788 the New England

States forbade the participation of their citizens in the traffic. It

was this wave of legislation against the traffic which did so much to

blind the nation as to the strong hold which slavery still had on the

country.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] These figures are from the _Report of the Lords of the

Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).

[2] Sheffield, _Observations on American Commerce_, p. 28;

P.L. Ford, _The Association of the First Congress_, in

_Political Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.

[3] Cf., e.g., Arthur Lee's letter to R.H. Lee, March 18,

1774, in which non-intercourse is declared "the only advisable

and sure mode of defence": Force, _American Archives_, 4th

Ser., I. 229. Cf. also _Ibid._, p. 240; Ford, in _Political

Science Quarterly_, VI. 614-5.

[4] Goodloe, _Birth of the Republic_, p. 260.

[5] Staples, _Annals of Providence_ (1843), p. 235.

[6] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 735. This was

probably copied from the Virginia resolve.

[7] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 600.

[8] _Ibid._, I. 494, 530. Cf. pp. 523, 616, 641, etc.

[9] _Ibid._, I. 687.

[10] _Ibid._, I. 511, 526. Cf. also p. 316.

[11] _Journals of Cong._, I. 20. Cf. Ford, in _Political

Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.

[12] John Adams, _Works_, II. 382.

[13] _Journals of Cong._, I. 21.

[14] _Ibid._, I. 24; Drayton; _Memoirs of the American

Revolution_, I. 147; John Adams, _Works_, II. 394.

[15] _Journals of Cong._, I. 27, 32-8.

[16] Danbury, Dec. 12, 1774: Force, _American Archives_, 4th

Ser., I. 1038. This case and that of Georgia are the only ones

I have found in which the slave-trade clause was specifically

mentioned.

[17] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1033, 1136,

1160, 1163; II. 279-281, 1544; _Journals of Cong._, May 13,

15, 17, 1775.

[18] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1136.

[19] _Ibid._, II. 279-81.

[20] _Ibid._, I. 1160.

[21] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1163.

[22] _Journals of Cong._, May 13, 15, 1775.

[23] _Ibid._, May 17, 1775.

[24] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 1545.

[25] Drayton, _Memoirs of the American Revolution_, I. 182.

Cf. pp. 181-7; Ramsay, _History of S. Carolina_, I. 231.

[26] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 33-4.

[27] _Journals of Cong._, II. 122.

[28] Clarkson, _Impolicy of the Slave-Trade_, pp. 125-8.

[29] _Ibid._, pp. 25-6.

[30] _Ibid._

[31] Jefferson, _Works_ (Washington, 1853-4), I. 23-4. On the

Declaration as an anti-slavery document, cf. Elliot, _Debates_

(1861), I. 89.

[32] Jefferson, _Works_ (Washington, 1853-4), I. 19.

[33] Clarkson, _Impolicy of the Slave-Trade_, pp. 25-6;

_Report_, etc., as above.

[34] Witness the many high duty acts on slaves, and the

revenue derived therefrom. Massachusetts had sixty

distilleries running in 1783. Cf. Sheffield, _Observations on

American Commerce_, p. 267.

[35] Elliot, _Debates_, I. 72-3. Cf. Art. 8 of the Articles of

Confederation.

[36] _Journals of Cong._, 1781, June 25; July 18; Sept. 21,

27; Nov. 8, 13, 30; Dec. 4.

[37] _Ibid._, 1782-3, pp. 418-9, 425.

[38] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1183.

[39] Cf. above, chapters ii., iii., iv.

* * * * *

_Chapter VI_

THE FEDERAL CONVENTION. 1787.

32. The First Proposition.

33. The General Debate.

34. The Special Committee and the "Bargain."

35. The Appeal to the Convention.

36. Settlement by the Convention.

37. Reception of the Clause by the Nation.

38. Attitude of the State Conventions.

39. Acceptance of the Policy.

32. ~The First Proposition.~ Slavery occupied no prominent place in the

Convention called to remedy the glaring defects of the Confederation,

for the obvious reason that few of the delegates thought it expedient to

touch a delicate subject which, if let alone, bade fair to settle itself

in a manner satisfactory to all. Consequently, neither slavery nor the

slave-trade is specifically mentioned in the delegates' credentials of

any of the States, nor in Randolph's, Pinckney's, or Hamilton's plans,

nor in Paterson's propositions. Indeed, the debate from May 14 to June

19, when the Committee of the Whole reported, touched the subject only

in the matter of the ratio of representation of slaves. With this same

exception, the report of the Committee of the Whole contained no

reference to slavery or the slave-trade, and the twenty-three

resolutions of the Convention referred to the Committee of Detail, July

23 and 26, maintain the same silence.

The latter committee, consisting of Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham,

Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of the Constitution August 6,

1787. The committee had, in its deliberations, probably made use of a

draft of a national Constitution made by Edmund Randolph.[1] One clause

of this provided that "no State shall lay a duty on imports;" and, also,

"1. No duty on exports. 2. No prohibition on such inhabitants as the

United States think proper to admit. 3. No duties by way of such

prohibition." It does not appear that any reference to Negroes was here

intended. In the extant copy, however, notes in Edward Rutledge's

handwriting change the second clause to "No prohibition on such

inhabitants or people as the several States think proper to admit."[2]

In the report, August 6, these clauses take the following form:--

"Article VII. Section 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the

legislature on articles exported from any state; nor on the

migration or importation of such persons as the several states

shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or

importation be prohibited."[3]

33. ~The General Debate.~ This, of course, referred both to immigrants

("migration") and to slaves ("importation").[4] Debate on this section

began Tuesday, August 22, and lasted two days. Luther Martin of Maryland

precipitated the discussion by a proposition to alter the section so as

to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. The debate

immediately became general, being carried on principally by Rutledge,

the Pinckneys, and Williamson from the Carolinas; Baldwin of Georgia;

Mason, Madison, and Randolph of Virginia; Wilson and Gouverneur Morris

of Pennsylvania; Dickinson of Delaware; and Ellsworth, Sherman, Gerry,

King, and Langdon of New England.[5]

In this debate the moral arguments were prominent. Colonel George Mason

of Virginia denounced the traffic in slaves as "infernal;" Luther Martin

of Maryland regarded it as "inconsistent with the principles of the

revolution, and dishonorable to the American character." "Every

principle of honor and safety," declared John Dickinson of Delaware,

"demands the exclusion of slaves." Indeed, Mason solemnly averred that

the crime of slavery might yet bring the judgment of God on the nation.

On the other side, Rutledge of South Carolina bluntly declared that

religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question, that it was a

matter of "interest" alone. Gerry of Massachusetts wished merely to

refrain from giving direct sanction to the trade, while others contented

themselves with pointing out the inconsistency of condemning the

slave-trade and defending slavery.

The difficulty of the whole argument, from the moral standpoint, lay in

the fact that it was completely checkmated by the obstinate attitude of

South Carolina and Georgia. Their delegates--Baldwin, the Pinckneys,

Rutledge, and others--asserted flatly, not less than a half-dozen times

during the debate, that these States "can never receive the plan if it

prohibits the slave-trade;" that "if the Convention thought" that these

States would consent to a stoppage of the slave-trade, "the expectation

is vain."[6] By this stand all argument from the moral standpoint was

virtually silenced, for the Convention evidently agreed with Roger

Sherman of Connecticut that "it was better to let the Southern States

import slaves than to part with those States."