[1] Beer, _Geschichte des Welthandels im 19^{ten}
Jahrhundert_, II. 67.
[2] A list of these inventions most graphically illustrates
this advance:--
1738, John Jay, fly-shuttle.
John Wyatt, spinning by rollers.
1748, Lewis Paul, carding-machine.
1760, Robert Kay, drop-box.
1769, Richard Arkwright, water-frame and throstle.
James Watt, steam-engine.
1772, James Lees, improvements on carding-machine.
1775, Richard Arkwright, series of combinations.
1779, Samuel Compton, mule.
1785, Edmund Cartwright, power-loom.
1803-4, Radcliffe and Johnson, dressing-machine.
1817, Roberts, fly-frame.
1818, William Eaton, self-acting frame.
1825-30, Roberts, improvements on mule.
Cf. Baines, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 116-231;
_Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th ed., article "Cotton."
[3] Baines, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, p. 215. A
bale weighed from 375 lbs. to 400 lbs.
[4] The prices cited are from Newmarch and Tooke, and refer to
the London market. The average price in 1855-60 was about
7_d._
[5] From United States census reports.
[6] Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, _The Cotton
Kingdom_.
[7] Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, _The Cotton
Kingdom_.
[8] As early as 1836 Calhoun declared that he should ever
regret that the term "piracy" had been applied to the
slave-trade in our laws: Benton, _Abridgment of Debates_, XII.
718.
[9] Governor J.H. Hammond of South Carolina, in _Letters to
Clarkson_, No. 1, p. 2.
[10] In 1826 Forsyth of Georgia attempted to have a bill
passed abolishing the African agency, and providing that the
Africans imported be disposed of in some way that would entail
no expense on the public treasury: _Home Journal_, 19 Cong. 1
sess. p. 258. In 1828 a bill was reported to the House to
abolish the agency and make the Colonization Society the
agents, if they would agree to the terms. The bill was so
amended as merely to appropriate money for suppressing the
slave-trade: _Ibid._, 20 Cong. 1 sess., House Bill No. 190.
[11] _Ibid._, pp. 121, 135; 20 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 58-9, 84,
215.
[12] _Congressional Globe_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 328, 331-6.
[13] Cf. Mercer's bill, _House Journal_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. p.
512; also Strange's two bills, _Senate Journal_, 25 Cong. 3
sess. pp. 200, 313; 26 Cong. 1 sess., Senate Bill No. 123.
[14] _Senate Journal_, 25 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 297-8, 300.
[15] _Senate Doc_, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 217, p. 19;
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6, pp. 3, 10,
etc.; 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, pp. 5-6; 34 Cong. 1 sess.
XV. No. 99, p. 80; _House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
117-8; cf. _Ibid._, 20 Cong. 1 sess. p. 650, etc.; 21 Cong. 2
sess. p. 194; 27 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 31, 184; _House Doc._, 29
Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43, p. 11; _House Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong.
1 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 5, pp. 7-8.
[16] _Senate Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess., Senate Bill No. 335;
_House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1138, 1228, 1257.
[17] _Statutes at Large_, III. 764.
[18] Cf. above, Chapter VIII. p. 125.
[19] Cf. _Report of the Secretary of the Navy_, 1827.
[20] _Ibid._
[21] _House Reports_, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 223.
[22] This account is taken exclusively from government
documents: _Amer. State Papers, Naval_, III. Nos. 339, 340,
357, 429 E; IV. Nos. 457 R (1 and 2), 486 H, I, p. 161 and 519
R, 564 P, 585 P; _House Reports_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 65;
_House Doc._, 19 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 69; 21 Cong. 2 sess. I.
No. 2, pp. 42-3, 211-8; 22 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 45,
272-4; 22 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 48, 229; 23 Cong. 1
sess. I. No. 1, pp. 238, 269; 23 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp.
315, 363; 24 Cong, 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 336, 378; 24 Cong. 2
sess. I. No. 2, pp. 450, 506; 25 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 3, pp.
771, 850; 26 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 534, 612; 26 Cong. 2
sess. I. No. 2, pp. 405, 450. It is probable that the agent
became eventually the United States consul and minister; I
cannot however cite evidence for this supposition.
[23] _Report of the Secretary of the Navy_, 1824.
[24] _Ibid._, 1826.
[25] _Ibid._, 1839.
[26] _Ibid._, 1842.
[27] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1857-8, p. 1250.
[28] Lord Napier to Secretary of State Cass, Dec. 24, 1857:
_British and Foreign State Papers_, 1857-8, p. 1249.
[29] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1847-8, Vol. LXIV. No. 133,
_Papers Relative to the Suppression of the Slave Trade on the
Coast of Africa_, p. 2.
[30] Report of Perry: _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No.
150, p. 118.
[31] Consul Park at Rio Janeiro to Secretary Buchanan, Aug.
20, 1847: _House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p.
7.
[32] Suppose "an American vessel employed to take in negroes
at some point on this coast. There is no American man-of-war
here to obtain intelligence. What risk does she run of being
searched? But suppose that there is a man-of-war in port. What
is to secure the master of the merchantman against her [the
man-of-war's commander's knowing all about his [the
merchant-man's] intention, or suspecting it in time to be upon
him [the merchant-man] before he shall have run a league on
his way to Texas?" Consul Trist to Commander Spence: _House
Doc._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, p. 41.]
[33] A typical set of instructions was on the following plan:
1. You are charged with the protection of legitimate commerce.
2. While the United States wishes to suppress the slave-trade,
she will not admit a Right of Search by foreign vessels. 3.
You are to arrest slavers. 4. You are to allow in no case an
exercise of the Right of Search or any great interruption of
legitimate commerce.--To Commodore Perry, March 30, 1843:
_House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 104.
[34] _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp.
765-8. Cf. Benton's speeches on the treaty of 1842.
[35] Report of Hotham to Admiralty, April 7, 1847:
_Parliamentary Papers_, 1847-8, Vol. LXIV. No. 133, _Papers
Relative to the Suppression of the Slave Trade on the Coast of
Africa_, p. 13.
[36] _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, III. 512.
[37] _Tenth Annual Report of the Amer. and Foreign Anti-Slav.
Soc._, May 7, 1850, p. 149.
[38] _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, IV. 245.
[39] _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, pp. 108,
132.
[40] _House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p. 18.
[41] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, pp. 286-90.
[42] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1839-40, pp. 913-4.
[43] Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, _Cotton
Kingdom_.
[44] _House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. p. 118.
[45] _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 31, 184.
[46] _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 14, 15, 86, 113.
[47] _Senate Journal_, 28 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 191, 227.
[48] _House Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. III. pt. I. No. 5,
p. 7.
[49] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, p. 152.
[50] _Ibid._, pp. 152-3.
[51] _Ibid._, p. 241.
[52] Cf. e.g. _House Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. pt. I. No.
148; 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43; _House Exec. Doc._, 30
Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61; _Senate Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 1
sess. IV. No. 28; 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6; 33 Cong. 1 sess.
VIII. No. 47.
[53] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, p. 218.
[54] _Ibid._, p. 221.
[55] Palmerston to Stevenson: _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess.
V. No. 115, p. 5. In 1836 five such slavers were known to have
cleared; in 1837, eleven; in 1838, nineteen; and in 1839,
twenty-three: _Ibid._, pp. 220-1.
[56] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1839, Vol. XLIX., _Slave Trade_,
class A, Further Series, pp. 58-9; class B, Further Series, p.
110; class D, Further Series, p. 25. Trist pleaded ignorance
of the law: Trist to Forsyth, _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess.
V. No. 115.
[57] _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115.
[58] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, p. 290.
[59] _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 121,
163-6.
[60] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV No. 66.
[61] Trist to Forsyth: _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No.
115. "The business of supplying the United States with
Africans from this island is one that must necessarily exist,"
because "slaves are a hundred _per cent_, or more, higher in
the United States than in Cuba," and this profit "is a
temptation which it is not in human nature as modified by
American institutions to withstand": _Ibid._
[62] _Statutes at Large_, V. 674.
[63] Cf. above, p. 157, note 1.
[64] Buxton, _The African Slave Trade and its Remedy_, pp.
44-5. Cf. _2d Report of the London African Soc._, p. 22.
[65] I.e., Bay Island in the Gulf of Mexico, near the coast of
Honduras.
[66] _Revelations of a Slave Smuggler_, p. 98.
[67] Mr. H. Moulton in _Slavery as it is_, p. 140; cited in
_Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade_ (Friends' ed.
1841), p. 8.
[68] In a memorial to Congress, 1840: _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 1
sess. VI. No. 211.
[69] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1845-6, pp. 883, 968,
989-90. The governor wrote in reply: "The United States, if
properly served by their law officers in the Floridas, will
not experience any difficulty in obtaining the requisite
knowledge of these illegal transactions, which, I have reason
to believe, were the subject of common notoriety in the
neighbourhood where they occurred, and of boast on the part of
those concerned in them": _British and Foreign State Papers_,
1845-6, p. 990.
* * * * *
_Chapter XI_
THE FINAL CRISIS. 1850-1870.
80. The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws.
81. Commercial Conventions of 1855-56.
82. Commercial Conventions of 1857-58.
83. Commercial Convention of 1859.
84. Public Opinion in the South.
85. The Question in Congress.
86. Southern Policy in 1860.
87. Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860.
88. Notorious Infractions of the Laws.
89. Apathy of the Federal Government.
90. Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.
91. Attitude of the United States.
80. ~The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws.~ It was not altogether a
mistaken judgment that led the constitutional fathers to consider the
slave-trade as the backbone of slavery. An economic system based on
slave labor will find, sooner or later, that the demand for the cheapest
slave labor cannot long be withstood. Once degrade the laborer so that
he cannot assert his own rights, and there is but one limit below which
his price cannot be reduced. That limit is not his physical well-being,
for it may be, and in the Gulf States it was, cheaper to work him
rapidly to death; the limit is simply the cost of procuring him and
keeping him alive a profitable length of time. Only the moral sense of a
community can keep helpless labor from sinking to this level; and when a
community has once been debauched by slavery, its moral sense offers
little resistance to economic demand. This was the case in the West
Indies and Brazil; and although better moral stamina held the crisis
back longer in the United States, yet even here the ethical standard of
the South was not able to maintain itself against the demands of the
cotton industry. When, after 1850, the price of slaves had risen to a
monopoly height, the leaders of the plantation system, brought to the
edge of bankruptcy by the crude and reckless farming necessary under a
slave _régime_, and baffled, at least temporarily, in their quest of new
rich land to exploit, began instinctively to feel that the only
salvation of American slavery lay in the reopening of the African
slave-trade.
It took but a spark to put this instinctive feeling into words, and
words led to deeds. The movement first took definite form in the ever
radical State of South Carolina. In 1854 a grand jury in the
Williamsburg district declared, "as our unanimous opinion, that the
Federal law abolishing the African Slave Trade is a public grievance. We
hold this trade has been and would be, if re-established, a blessing to
the American people, and a benefit to the African himself."[1] This
attracted only local attention; but when, in 1856, the governor of the
State, in his annual message, calmly argued at length for a reopening of
the trade, and boldly declared that "if we cannot supply the demand for
slave labor, then we must expect to be supplied with a species of labor
we do not want,"[2] such words struck even Southern ears like "a thunder
clap in a calm day."[3] And yet it needed but a few years to show that
South Carolina had merely been the first to put into words the
inarticulate thought of a large minority, if not a majority, of the
inhabitants of the Gulf States.
81. ~Commercial Conventions of 1855-56.~ The growth of the movement is
best followed in the action of the Southern Commercial Convention, an
annual gathering which seems to have been fairly representative of a
considerable part of Southern opinion. In the convention that met at New
Orleans in 1855, McGimsey of Louisiana introduced a resolution
instructing the Southern Congressmen to secure the repeal of the
slave-trade laws. This resolution went to the Committee on Resolutions,
and was not reported.[4] In 1856, in the convention at Savannah, W.B.
Goulden of Georgia moved that the members of Congress be requested to
bestir themselves energetically to have repealed all laws which forbade
the slave-trade. By a vote of 67 to 18 the convention refused to debate
the motion, but appointed a committee to present at the next convention
the facts relating to a reopening of the trade.[5] In regard to this
action a pamphlet of the day said: "There were introduced into the
convention two leading measures, viz.: the laying of a State tariff on
northern goods, and the reopening of the slave-trade; the one to advance
our commercial interest, the other our agricultural interest, and which,
when taken together, as they were doubtless intended to be, and although
they have each been attacked by presses of doubtful service to the
South, are characterized in the private judgment of politicians as one
of the completest southern remedies ever submitted to popular action....
The proposition to revive, or more properly to reopen, the slave trade
is as yet but imperfectly understood, in its intentions and probable
results, by the people of the South, and but little appreciated by them.
It has been received in all parts of the country with an undefined sort
of repugnance, a sort of squeamishness, which is incident to all such
violations of moral prejudices, and invariably wears off on familiarity
with the subject. The South will commence by enduring, and end by
embracing the project."[6] The matter being now fully before the public
through these motions, Governor Adams's message, and newspaper and
pamphlet discussion, the radical party pushed the project with all
energy.
82. ~Commercial Conventions of 1857-58.~ The first piece of regular
business that came before the Commercial Convention at Knoxville,
Tennessee, August 10, 1857, was a proposal to recommend the abrogation
of the 8th Article of the Treaty of Washington, on the slave-trade. An
amendment offered by Sneed of Tennessee, declaring it inexpedient and
against settled policy to reopen the trade, was voted down, Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia
refusing to agree to it. The original motion then passed; and the
radicals, satisfied with their success in the first skirmish, again
secured the appointment of a committee to report at the next meeting on
the subject of reopening the slave-trade.[7] This next meeting assembled
May 10, 1858, in a Gulf State, Alabama, in the city of Montgomery.
Spratt of South Carolina, the slave-trade champion, presented an
elaborate majority report from the committee, and recommended the
following resolutions:--
1. _Resolved_, That slavery is right, and that being right,
there can be no wrong in the natural means to its formation.
2. _Resolved_, That it is expedient and proper that the foreign
slave trade should be re-opened, and that this Convention will
lend its influence to any legitimate measure to that end.
3. _Resolved_, That a committee, consisting of one from each
slave State, be appointed to consider of the means, consistent
with the duty and obligations of these States, for re-opening
the foreign slave-trade, and that they report their plan to the
next meeting of this Convention.
Yancey, from the same committee, presented a minority report, which,
though it demanded the repeal of the national prohibitory laws, did not
advocate the reopening of the trade by the States.
Much debate ensued. Pryor of Virginia declared the majority report "a
proposition to dissolve the Union." Yancey declared that "he was for
disunion now. [Applause.]" He defended the principle of the slave-trade,
and said: "If it is right to buy slaves in Virginia and carry them to
New Orleans, why is it not right to buy them in Cuba, Brazil, or Africa,
and carry them there?" The opposing speeches made little attempt to meet
this uncomfortable logic; but, nevertheless, opposition enough was
developed to lay the report on the table until the next convention, with
orders that it be printed, in the mean time, as a radical campaign
document. Finally the convention passed a resolution:--
That it is inexpedient for any State, or its citizens, to
attempt to re-open the African slave-trade while that State is
one of the United States of America.[8]
83. ~Commercial Convention of 1859.~ The Convention of 1859 met at
Vicksburg, Mississippi, May 9-19, and the slave-trade party came ready
for a fray. On the second day Spratt called up his resolutions, and the
next day the Committee on Resolutions recommended that, _"in the opinion
of this Convention, all laws, State or Federal, prohibiting the African
slave trade, ought to be repealed."_ Two minority reports accompanied
this resolution: one proposed to postpone action, on account of the
futility of the attempt at that time; the other report recommended that,
since repeal of the national laws was improbable, nullification by the
States impracticable, and action by the Supreme Court unlikely,
therefore the States should bring in the Africans as apprentices, a
system the legality of which "is incontrovertible." "The only difficult
question," it was said, "is the future status of the apprentices after
the expiration of their term of servitude."[9] Debate on these
propositions began in the afternoon. A brilliant speech on the
resumption of the importation of slaves, says Foote of Mississippi, "was
listened to with breathless attention and applauded vociferously. Those
of us who rose in opposition were looked upon by the excited assemblage
present as _traitors_ to the best interests of the South, and only
worthy of expulsion from the body. The excitement at last grew so high
that personal violence was menaced, and some dozen of the more
conservative members of the convention withdrew from the hall in which
it was holding its sittings."[10] "It was clear," adds De Bow, "that the
people of Vicksburg looked upon it [i.e., the convention] with some
distrust."[11] When at last a ballot was taken, the first resolution
passed by a vote of 40 to 19.[12] Finally, the 8th Article of the Treaty
of Washington was again condemned; and it was also suggested, in the
newspaper which was the official organ of the meeting, that "the
Convention raise a fund to be dispensed in premiums for the best
sermons in favor of reopening the African Slave Trade."[13]
84. ~Public Opinion in the South.~ This record of the Commercial
Conventions probably gives a true reflection of the development of
extreme opinion on the question of reopening the slave-trade. First, it
is noticeable that on this point there was a distinct divergence of
opinion and interest between the Gulf and the Border States, and it was
this more than any moral repugnance that checked the radicals. The whole
movement represented the economic revolt of the slave-consuming
cotton-belt against their base of labor supply. This revolt was only
prevented from gaining its ultimate end by the fact that the Gulf States
could not get on without the active political co-operation of the Border
States. Thus, although such hot-heads as Spratt were not able, even as
late as 1859, to carry a substantial majority of the South with them in
an attempt to reopen the trade at all hazards, yet the agitation did
succeed in sweeping away nearly all theoretical opposition to the trade,
and left the majority of Southern people in an attitude which regarded
the reopening of the African slave-trade as merely a question of
expediency.
This growth of Southern opinion is clearly to be followed in the
newspapers and pamphlets of the day, in Congress, and in many
significant movements. The Charleston _Standard_ in a series of articles
strongly advocated the reopening of the trade; the Richmond _Examiner_,
though opposing the scheme as a Virginia paper should, was brought to
"acknowledge that the laws which condemn the Slave-trade imply an
aspersion upon the character of the South.[14] In March, 1859, the
_National Era_ said: "There can be no doubt that the idea of reviving
the African Slave Trade is gaining ground in the South. Some two months
ago we could quote strong articles from ultra Southern journals against
the traffic; but of late we have been sorry to observe in the same
journals an ominous silence upon the subject, while the advocates of
'free trade in negroes' are earnest and active."[15] The Savannah
_Republican_, which at first declared the movement to be of no serious
intent, conceded, in 1859, that it was gaining favor, and that
nine-tenths of the Democratic Congressional Convention favored it, and
that even those who did not advocate a revival demanded the abolition of
the laws.[16] A correspondent from South Carolina writes, December 18,
1859: "The nefarious project of opening it [i.e., the slave trade] has
been started here in that prurient temper of the times which manifests
itself in disunion schemes.... My State is strangely and terribly
infected with all this sort of thing.... One feeling that gives a
countenance to the opening of the slave trade is, that it will be a sort
of spite to the North and defiance of their opinions."[17] The New
Orleans _Delta_ declared that those who voted for the slave-trade in
Congress were men "whose names will be honored hereafter for the
unflinching manner in which they stood up for principle, for truth, and
consistency, as well as the vital interests of the South."[18]
85. ~The Question in Congress.~ Early in December, 1856, the subject
reached Congress; and although the agitation was then new, fifty-seven
Southern Congressmen refused to declare a re-opening of the slave-trade
"shocking to the moral sentiment of the enlightened portion of mankind,"
and eight refused to call the reopening even "unwise" and
"inexpedient."[19] Three years later, January 31, 1859, it was
impossible, in a House of one hundred and ninety-nine members, to get a
two-thirds vote in order even to consider Kilgore's resolutions, which
declared "that no legislation can be too thorough in its measures, nor
can any penalty known to the catalogue of modern punishment for crime be
too severe against a traffic so inhuman and unchristian."[20]
Congressmen and other prominent men hastened with the rising tide.[21]
Dowdell of Alabama declared the repressive acts "highly offensive;" J.B.
Clay of Kentucky was "opposed to all these laws;"[22] Seward of Georgia
declared them "wrong, and a violation of the Constitution;"[23]
Barksdale of Mississippi agreed with this sentiment; Crawford of Georgia
threatened a reopening of the trade; Miles of South Carolina was for
"sweeping away" all restrictions;[24] Keitt of South Carolina wished to
withdraw the African squadron, and to cease to brand slave-trading as
piracy;[25] Brown of Mississippi "would repeal the law instantly;"[26]
Alexander Stephens, in his farewell address to his constituents, said:
"Slave states cannot be made without Africans.... [My object is] to
bring clearly to your mind the great truth that without an increase of
African slaves from abroad, you may not expect or look for many more
slave States."[27] Jefferson Davis strongly denied "any coincidence of
opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the
trade. The interest of Mississippi," said he, "not of the African,
dictates my conclusion." He opposed the immediate reopening of the trade
in Mississippi for fear of a paralyzing influx of Negroes, but carefully
added: "This conclusion, in relation to Mississippi, is based upon my
view of her _present_ condition, _not_ upon any _general theory_. It is
not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New Mexico, or to any _future
acquisitions_ to be made south of the Rio Grande."[28] John Forsyth, who
for seven years conducted the slave-trade diplomacy of the nation,
declared, about 1860: "But one stronghold of its [i.e., slavery's]
enemies remains to be carried, to _complete its triumph_ and assure its
welfare,--that is the existing prohibition of the African
Slave-trade."[29] Pollard, in his _Black Diamonds_, urged the
importation of Africans as "laborers." "This I grant you," said he,
"would be practically the re-opening of the African slave trade; but ...
you will find that it very often becomes necessary to evade the letter
of the law, in some of the greatest measures of social happiness and
patriotism."[30]
86. ~Southern Policy in 1860.~ The matter did not rest with mere words.
During the session of the Vicksburg Convention, an "African Labor Supply
Association" was formed, under the presidency of J.D.B. De Bow, editor
of _De Bow's Review_, and ex-superintendent of the seventh census. The
object of the association was "to promote the supply of African
labor."[31] In 1857 the committee of the South Carolina legislature to
whom the Governor's slave-trade message was referred made an elaborate
report, which declared in italics: _"The South at large does need a
re-opening of the African slave trade."_ Pettigrew, the only member who
disagreed to this report, failed of re-election. The report contained an
extensive argument to prove the kingship of cotton, the perfidy of
English philanthropy, and the lack of slaves in the South, which, it was
said, would show a deficit of six hundred thousand slaves by 1878.[32]
In Georgia, about this time, an attempt to expunge the slave-trade
prohibition in the State Constitution lacked but one vote of
passing.[33] From these slower and more legal movements came others
less justifiable. The long argument on the "apprentice" system finally
brought a request to the collector of the port at Charleston, South
Carolina, from E. Lafitte & Co., for a clearance to Africa for the
purpose of importing African "emigrants." The collector appealed to the
Secretary of the Treasury, Howell Cobb of Georgia, who flatly refused to
take the bait, and replied that if the "emigrants" were brought in as
slaves, it would be contrary to United States law; if as freemen, it
would be contrary to their own State law.[34] In Louisiana a still more
radical movement was attempted, and a bill passed the House of
Representatives authorizing a company to import two thousand five
hundred Africans, "indentured" for fifteen years "at least." The bill
lacked but two votes of passing the Senate.[35] It was said that the
_Georgian_, of Savannah, contained a notice of an agricultural society
which "unanimously resolved to offer a premium of $25 for the best
specimen of a live African imported into the United States within the
last twelve months."[36]
It would not be true to say that there was in the South in 1860
substantial unanimity on the subject of reopening the slave-trade;
nevertheless, there certainly was a large and influential minority,
including perhaps a majority of citizens of the Gulf States, who favored
the project, and, in defiance of law and morals, aided and abetted its
actual realization. Various movements, it must be remembered, gained
much of their strength from the fact that their success meant a partial
nullification of the slave-trade laws. The admission of Texas added
probably seventy-five thousand recently imported slaves to the Southern
stock; the movement against Cuba, which culminated in the "Ostend
Manifesto" of Buchanan, Mason, and Soulé, had its chief impetus in the
thousands of slaves whom Americans had poured into the island. Finally,
the series of filibustering expeditions against Cuba, Mexico, and
Central America were but the wilder and more irresponsible attempts to
secure both slave territory and slaves.
87. ~Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860.~ The long and open
agitation for the reopening of the slave-trade, together with the fact
that the South had been more or less familiar with violations of the
laws since 1808, led to such a remarkable increase of illicit traffic
and actual importations in the decade 1850-1860, that the movement may
almost be termed a reopening of the slave-trade.
In the foreign slave-trade our own officers continue to report "how
shamefully our flag has been used;"[37] and British officers write "that
at least one half of the successful part of the slave trade is carried
on under the American flag," and this because "the number of American
cruisers on the station is so small, in proportion to the immense extent
of the slave-dealing coast."[38] The fitting out of slavers became a
flourishing business in the United States, and centred at New York City.
"Few of our readers," writes a periodical of the day, "are aware of the
extent to which this infernal traffic is carried on, by vessels clearing
from New York, and in close alliance with our legitimate trade; and that
down-town merchants of wealth and respectability are extensively engaged
in buying and selling African Negroes, and have been, with comparatively
little interruption, for an indefinite number of years."[39] Another
periodical says: "The number of persons engaged in the slave-trade, and
the amount of capital embarked in it, exceed our powers of calculation.
The city of New York has been until of late [1862] the principal port of
the world for this infamous commerce; although the cities of Portland
and Boston are only second to her in that distinction. Slave dealers
added largely to the wealth of our commercial metropolis; they
contributed liberally to the treasuries of political organizations, and
their bank accounts were largely depleted to carry elections in New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut."[40] During eighteen months of
the years 1859-1860 eighty-five slavers are reported to have been
fitted out in New York harbor,[41] and these alone transported from
30,000 to 60,000 slaves annually.[42] The United States deputy marshal
of that district declared in 1856 that the business of fitting out
slavers "was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present. The
occasional interposition of the legal authorities exercises no apparent
influence for its suppression. It is seldom that one or more vessels
cannot be designated at the wharves, respecting which there is evidence
that she is either in or has been concerned in the Traffic."[43] On the
coast of Africa "it is a well-known fact that most of the Slave ships
which visit the river are sent from New York and New Orleans."[44]
The absence of United States war-ships at the Brazilian station enabled
American smugglers to run in cargoes, in spite of the prohibitory law.
One cargo of five hundred slaves was landed in 1852, and the _Correio
Mercantil_ regrets "that it was the flag of the United States which
covered this act of piracy, sustained by citizens of that great
nation."[45] When the Brazil trade declined, the illicit Cuban trade
greatly increased, and the British consul reported: "Almost all the
slave expeditions for some time past have been fitted out in the United
States, chiefly at New York."[46]
88. ~Notorious Infractions of the Laws.~ This decade is especially
noteworthy for the great increase of illegal importations into the
South. These became bold, frequent, and notorious. Systematic
introduction on a considerable scale probably commenced in the forties,
although with great secrecy. "To have boldly ventured into New Orleans,
with negroes freshly imported from Africa, would not only have brought
down upon the head of the importer the vengeance of our very
philanthropic Uncle Sam, but also the anathemas of the whole sect of
philanthropists and negrophilists everywhere. To import them for years,
however, into quiet places, evading with impunity the penalty of the
law, and the ranting of the thin-skinned sympathizers with Africa, was
gradually to popularize the traffic by creating a demand for laborers,
and thus to pave the way for the _gradual revival of the slave trade_.
To this end, a few men, bold and energetic, determined, ten or twelve
years ago [1848 or 1850], to commence the business of importing negroes,
slowly at first, but surely; and for this purpose they selected a few
secluded places on the coast of Florida, Georgia and Texas, for the
purpose of concealing their stock until it could be sold out. Without
specifying other places, let me draw your attention to a deep and abrupt
pocket or indentation in the coast of Texas, about thirty miles from
Brazos Santiago. Into this pocket a slaver could run at any hour of the
night, because there was no hindrance at the entrance, and here she
could discharge her cargo of movables upon the projecting bluff, and
again proceed to sea inside of three hours. The live stock thus landed
could be marched a short distance across the main island, over a porous
soil which refuses to retain the recent foot-prints, until they were
again placed in boats, and were concealed upon some of the innumerable
little islands which thicken on the waters of the Laguna in the rear.
These islands, being covered with a thick growth of bushes and grass,
offer an inscrutable hiding place for the 'black diamonds.'"[47] These
methods became, however, toward 1860, too slow for the radicals, and the
trade grew more defiant and open. The yacht "Wanderer," arrested on
suspicion in New York and released, landed in Georgia six months later
four hundred and twenty slaves, who were never recovered.[48] The
Augusta _Despatch_ says: "Citizens of our city are probably interested
in the enterprise. It is hinted that this is the third cargo landed by
the same company, during the last six months."[49] Two parties of
Africans were brought into Mobile with impunity. One bark, strongly
suspected of having landed a cargo of slaves, was seized on the Florida
coast; another vessel was reported to be landing slaves near Mobile; a
letter from Jacksonville, Florida, stated that a bark had left there for
Africa to ship a cargo for Florida and Georgia.[50] Stephen A. Douglas
said "that there was not the shadow of doubt that the Slave-trade had
been carried on quite extensively for a long time back, and that there
had been more Slaves imported into the southern States, during the last
year, than had ever been imported before in any one year, even when the
Slave-trade was legal. It was his confident belief, that over fifteen
thousand Slaves had been brought into this country during the past year
[1859.] He had seen, with his own eyes, three hundred of those
recently-imported, miserable beings, in a Slave-pen in Vicksburg, Miss.,
and also large numbers at Memphis, Tenn."[51] It was currently reported
that depots for these slaves existed in over twenty large cities and
towns in the South, and an interested person boasted to a senator, about
1860, that "twelve vessels would discharge their living freight upon our
shores within ninety days from the 1st of June last," and that between
sixty and seventy cargoes had been successfully introduced in the last
eighteen months.[52] The New York _Tribune_ doubted the statement; but
John C. Underwood, formerly of Virginia, wrote to the paper saying that
he was satisfied that the correspondent was correct. "I have," he said,
"had ample evidences of the fact, that reopening the African Slave-trade
is a thing already accomplished, and the traffic is brisk, and rapidly
increasing. In fact, the most vital question of the day is not the
opening of this trade, but its suppression. The arrival of cargoes of
negroes, fresh from Africa, in our southern ports, is an event of
frequent occurrence."[53]
Negroes, newly landed, were openly advertised for sale in the public
press, and bids for additional importations made. In reply to one of
these, the Mobile _Mercury_ facetiously remarks: "Some negroes who never
learned to talk English, went up the railroad the other day."[54]
Congressmen declared on the floor of the House: "The slave trade may
therefore be regarded as practically re-established;"[55] and petitions
like that from the American Missionary Society recited the fact that
"this piratical and illegal trade--this inhuman invasion of the rights
of men,--this outrage on civilization and Christianity--this violation
of the laws of God and man--is openly countenanced and encouraged by a
portion of the citizens of some of the States of this Union."[56]
From such evidence it seems clear that the slave-trade laws, in spite of
the efforts of the government, in spite even of much opposition to these
extra-legal methods in the South itself, were grossly violated, if not
nearly nullified, in the latter part of the decade 1850-1860.
89. ~Apathy of the Federal Government.~ During the decade there was some
attempt at reactionary legislation, chiefly directed at the Treaty of
Washington. June 13, 1854, Slidell, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, made an elaborate report to the Senate, advocating the
abrogation of the 8th Article of that treaty, on the ground that it was
costly, fatal to the health of the sailors, and useless, as the trade
had actually increased under its operation.[57] Both this and a similar
attempt in the House failed,[58] as did also an attempt to substitute
life imprisonment for the death penalty.[59] Most of the actual
legislation naturally took the form of appropriations. In 1853 there was
an attempt to appropriate $20,000.[60] This failed, and the
appropriation of $8,000 in 1856 was the first for ten years.[61] The
following year brought a similar appropriation,[62] and in 1859[63] and
1860[64] $75,000 and $40,000 respectively were appropriated. Of
attempted legislation to strengthen the laws there was plenty: e.g.,
propositions to regulate the issue of sea-letters and the use of our
flag;[65] to prevent the "coolie" trade, or the bringing in of
"apprentices" or "African laborers;"[66] to stop the coastwise
trade;[67] to assent to a Right of Search;[68] and to amend the
Constitution by forever prohibiting the slave-trade.[69]
The efforts of the executive during this period were criminally lax and
negligent. "The General Government did not exert itself in good faith to
carry out either its treaty stipulations or the legislation of Congress
in regard to the matter. If a vessel was captured, her owners were
permitted to bond her, and thus continue her in the trade; and if any
man was convicted of this form of piracy, the executive always
interposed between him and the penalty of his crime. The laws providing
for the seizure of vessels engaged in the traffic were so constructed as
to render the duty unremunerative; and marshals now find their fees for
such services to be actually less than their necessary expenses. No one
who bears this fact in mind will be surprised at the great indifference
of these officers to the continuing of the slave-trade; in fact, he will
be ready to learn that the laws of Congress upon the subject had become
a dead letter, and that the suspicion was well grounded that certain
officers of the Federal Government had actually connived at their
violation."[70] From 1845 to 1854, in spite of the well-known activity
of the trade, but five cases obtained cognizance in the New York
district. Of these, Captains Mansfield and Driscoll forfeited their
bonds of $5,000 each, and escaped; in the case of the notorious Canot,
nothing had been done as late as 1856, although he was arrested in 1847;
Captain Jefferson turned State's evidence, and, in the case of Captain
Mathew, a _nolle prosequi_ was entered.[71] Between 1854 and 1856
thirty-two persons were indicted in New York, of whom only thirteen had
at the latter date been tried, and only one of these convicted.[72]
These dismissals were seldom on account of insufficient evidence. In the
notorious case of the "Wanderer," she was arrested on suspicion,
released, and soon after she landed a cargo of slaves in Georgia; some
who attempted to seize the Negroes were arrested for larceny, and in
spite of the efforts of Congress the captain was never punished. The
yacht was afterwards started on another voyage, and being brought back
to Boston was sold to her former owner for about one third her
value.[73] The bark "Emily" was seized on suspicion and released, and
finally caught red-handed on the coast of Africa; she was sent to New
York for trial, but "disappeared" under a certain slave captain,
Townsend, who had, previous to this, in the face of the most convincing
evidence, been acquitted at Key West.[74]
The squadron commanders of this time were by no means as efficient as
their predecessors, and spent much of their time, apparently, in
discussing the Right of Search. Instead of a number of small light
vessels, which by the reports of experts were repeatedly shown to be the
only efficient craft, the government, until 1859, persisted in sending
out three or four great frigates. Even these did not attend faithfully
to their duties. A letter from on board one of them shows that, out of a
fifteen months' alleged service, only twenty-two days were spent on the
usual cruising-ground for slavers, and thirteen of these at anchor;
eleven months were spent at Madeira and Cape Verde Islands, 300 miles
from the coast and 3,000 miles from the slave market.[75] British
commanders report the apathy of American officers and the extreme
caution of their instructions, which allowed many slavers to escape.[76]
The officials at Washington often remained in blissful, and perhaps
willing, ignorance of the state of the trade. While Americans were
smuggling slaves by the thousands into Brazil, and by the hundreds into
the United States, Secretary Graham was recommending the abrogation of
the 8th Article of the Treaty of Washington;[77] so, too, when the Cuban
slave-trade was reaching unprecedented activity, and while slavers were
being fitted out in every port on the Atlantic seaboard, Secretary
Kennedy naïvely reports, "The time has come, perhaps, when it may be
properly commended to the notice of Congress to inquire into the
necessity of further continuing the regular employment of a squadron on
this [i.e., the African] coast."[78] Again, in 1855, the government has
"advices that the slave trade south of the equator is entirely broken
up;"[79] in 1856, the reports are "favorable;"[80] in 1857 a British
commander writes: "No vessel has been seen here for one year, certainly;
I think for nearly three years there have been no American cruizers on
these waters, where a valuable and extensive American commerce is
carried on. I cannot, therefore, but think that this continued absence
of foreign cruizers looks as if they were intentionally withdrawn, and
as if the Government did not care to take measures to prevent the
American flag being used to cover Slave Trade transactions;"[81]
nevertheless, in this same year, according to Secretary Toucey, "the
force on the coast of Africa has fully accomplished its main
object."[82] Finally, in the same month in which the "Wanderer" and her
mates were openly landing cargoes in the South, President Buchanan, who
seems to have been utterly devoid of a sense of humor, was urging the
annexation of Cuba to the United States as the only method of
suppressing the slave-trade![83]
About 1859 the frequent and notorious violations of our laws aroused
even the Buchanan government; a larger appropriation was obtained, swift
light steamers were employed, and, though we may well doubt whether
after such a carnival illegal importations "entirely" ceased, as the
President informed Congress,[84] yet some sincere efforts at suppression
were certainly begun. From 1850 to 1859 we have few notices of captured
slavers, but in 1860 the increased appropriation of the thirty-fifth
Congress resulted in the capture of twelve vessels with 3,119
Africans.[85] The Act of June 16, 1860, enabled the President to
contract with the Colonization Society for the return of recaptured
Africans; and by a long-needed arrangement cruisers were to proceed
direct to Africa with such cargoes, instead of first landing them in
this country.[86]
90. ~Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.~ The attempt, initiated by
the constitutional fathers, to separate the problem of slavery from that
of the slave-trade had, after a trial of half a century, signally
failed, and for well-defined economic reasons. The nation had at last
come to the parting of the ways, one of which led to a free-labor
system, the other to a slave system fed by the slave-trade. Both
sections of the country naturally hesitated at the cross-roads: the
North clung to the delusion that a territorially limited system of
slavery, without a slave-trade, was still possible in the South; the
South hesitated to fight for her logical object--slavery and free trade
in Negroes--and, in her moral and economic dilemma, sought to make
autonomy and the Constitution her object. The real line of contention
was, however, fixed by years of development, and was unalterable by the
present whims or wishes of the contestants, no matter how important or
interesting these might be: the triumph of the North meant free labor;
the triumph of the South meant slavery and the slave-trade.
It is doubtful if many of the Southern leaders ever deceived themselves
by thinking that Southern slavery, as it then was, could long be
maintained without a general or a partial reopening of the slave-trade.
Many had openly declared this a few years before, and there was no
reason for a change of opinion. Nevertheless, at the outbreak of actual
war and secession, there were powerful and decisive reasons for
relegating the question temporarily to the rear. In the first place,
only by this means could the adherence of important Border States be
secured, without the aid of which secession was folly. Secondly, while
it did no harm to laud the independence of the South and the kingship of
cotton in "stump" speeches and conventions, yet, when it came to actual
hostilities, the South sorely needed the aid of Europe; and this a
nation fighting for slavery and the slave-trade stood poor chance of
getting. Consequently, after attacking the slave-trade laws for a
decade, and their execution for a quarter-century, we find the Southern
leaders inserting, in both the provisional and the permanent
Constitutions of the Confederate States, the following article:--
The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign
country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the
United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is
required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the
same.
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not
belonging to, this Confederacy.[87]
The attitude of the Confederate government toward this article is best
illustrated by its circular of instructions to its foreign ministers:--
It has been suggested to this Government, from a source of
unquestioned authenticity, that, after the recognition of our
independence by the European Powers, an expectation is generally
entertained by them that in our treaties of amity and commerce a
clause will be introduced making stipulations against the
African slave trade. It is even thought that neutral Powers may
be inclined to insist upon the insertion of such a clause as a
_sine qua non_.
You are well aware how firmly fixed in our Constitution is the
policy of this Confederacy against the opening of that trade,
but we are informed that false and insidious suggestions have
been made by the agents of the United States at European Courts
of our intention to change our constitution as soon as peace is
restored, and of authorizing the importation of slaves from
Africa. If, therefore, you should find, in your intercourse with
the Cabinet to which you are accredited, that any such
impressions are entertained, you will use every proper effort to
remove them, and if an attempt is made to introduce into any
treaty which you may be charged with negotiating stipulations on
the subject just mentioned, you will assume, in behalf of your
Government, the position which, under the direction of the
President, I now proceed to develop.
The Constitution of the Confederate States is an agreement made
between independent States. By its terms all the powers of
Government are separated into classes as follows, viz.:--
1st. Such powers as the States delegate to the General
Government.
2d. Such powers as the States agree to refrain from exercising,
although they do not delegate them to the General Government.
3d. Such powers as the States, without delegating them to the
General Government, thought proper to exercise by direct
agreement between themselves contained in the Constitution.
4th. All remaining powers of sovereignty, which not being
delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people thereof.... Especially in
relation to the importation of African negroes was it deemed
important by the States that no power to permit it should exist
in the Confederate Government.... It will thus be seen that no
power is delegated to the Confederate Government over this
subject, but that it is included in the third class above
referred to, of powers exercised directly by the States.... This
Government unequivocally and absolutely denies its possession of
any power whatever over the subject, and cannot entertain any
proposition in relation to it.... The policy of the Confederacy
is as fixed and immutable on this subject as the imperfection of
human nature permits human resolve to be. No additional
agreements, treaties, or stipulations can commit these States to
the prohibition of the African slave trade with more binding
efficacy than those they have themselves devised. A just and
generous confidence in their good faith on this subject
exhibited by friendly Powers will be far more efficacious than
persistent efforts to induce this Government to assume the
exercise of powers which it does not possess.... We trust,
therefore, that no unnecessary discussions on this matter will
be introduced into your negotiations. If, unfortunately, this
reliance should prove ill-founded, you will decline continuing
negotiations on your side, and transfer them to us at
home....[88]
This attitude of the conservative leaders of the South, if it meant
anything, meant that individual State action could, when it pleased,
reopen the slave-trade. The radicals were, of course, not satisfied with
any veiling of the ulterior purpose of the new slave republic, and
attacked the constitutional provision violently. "If," said one, "the
clause be carried into the permanent government, our whole movement is
defeated. It will abolitionize the Border Slave States--it will brand
our institution. Slavery cannot share a government with Democracy,--it
cannot bear a brand upon it; thence another revolution ... having
achieved one revolution to escape democracy at the North, it must still
achieve another to escape it at the South. That it will ultimately
triumph none can doubt."[89]
91. ~Attitude of the United States.~ In the North, with all the
hesitation in many matters, there existed unanimity in regard to the
slave-trade; and the new Lincoln government ushered in the new policy of
uncompromising suppression by hanging the first American slave-trader
who ever suffered the extreme penalty of the law.[90] One of the
earliest acts of President Lincoln was a step which had been necessary
since 1808, but had never been taken, viz., the unification of the whole
work of suppression into the hands of one responsible department. By an
order, dated May 2, 1861, Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, was
charged with the execution of the slave-trade laws,[91] and he
immediately began energetic work. Early in 1861, as soon as the
withdrawal of the Southern members untied the hands of Congress, two
appropriations of $900,000 each were made to suppress the slave trade,
the first appropriations commensurate with the vastness of the task.
These were followed by four appropriations of $17,000 each in the years
1863 to 1867, and two of $12,500 each in 1868 and 1869.[92] The first
work of the new secretary was to obtain a corps of efficient assistants.
To this end, he assembled all the marshals of the loyal seaboard States
at New York, and gave them instruction and opportunity to inspect
actual slavers. Congress also, for the first time, offered them proper
compensation.[93] The next six months showed the effect of this policy
in the fact that five vessels were seized and condemned, and four
slave-traders were convicted and suffered the penalty of their crimes.
"This is probably the largest number [of convictions] ever obtained, and
certainly the only ones for many years."[94]
Meantime the government opened negotiations with Great Britain, and the
treaty of 1862 was signed June 7, and carried out by Act of Congress,
July 11.[95] Specially commissioned war vessels of either government
were by this agreement authorized to search merchant vessels on the high
seas and specified coasts, and if they were found to be slavers, or, on
account of their construction or equipment, were suspected to be such,
they were to be sent for condemnation to one of the mixed courts
established at New York, Sierra Leone, and the Cape of Good Hope. These
courts, consisting of one judge and one arbitrator on the part of each
government, were to judge the facts without appeal, and upon
condemnation by them, the culprits were to be punished according to the
laws of their respective countries. The area in which this Right of
Search could be exercised was somewhat enlarged by an additional article
to the treaty, signed in 1863. In 1870 the mixed courts were abolished,
but the main part of the treaty was left in force. The Act of July 17,
1862, enabled the President to contract with foreign governments for the
apprenticing of recaptured Africans in the West Indies,[96] and in 1864
the coastwise slave-trade was forever prohibited.[97] By these measures
the trade was soon checked, and before the end of the war entirely
suppressed.[98] The vigilance of the government, however, was not
checked, and as late as 1866 a squadron of ten ships, with one hundred
and thirteen guns, patrolled the slave coast.[99] Finally, the
Thirteenth Amendment legally confirmed what the war had already
accomplished, and slavery and the slave-trade fell at one blow.[100]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1854-5, p. 1156.
[2] Cluskey, _Political Text-Book_ (14th ed.), p. 585.
[3] _De Bow's Review_, XXII. 223; quoted from Andrew Hunter of
Virginia.
[4] _Ibid._, XVIII. 628.
[5] _Ibid._, XXII. 91, 102, 217, 221-2.
[6] From a pamphlet entitled "A New Southern Policy, or the
Slave Trade as meaning Union and Conservatism;" quoted in
Etheridge's speech, Feb. 21, 1857: _Congressional Globe_, 34
Cong. 3 sess., Appendix, p. 366.
[7] _De Bow's Review_, XXIII. 298-320. A motion to table the
motion on the 8th article was supported only by Kentucky,
Tennessee, North Carolina, and Maryland. Those voting for
Sneed's motion were Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and
Tennessee. The appointment of a slave-trade committee was at
first defeated by a vote of 48 to 44. Finally a similar motion
was passed, 52 to 40.
[8] _De Bow's Review_, XXIV. 473-491, 579-605. The Louisiana
delegation alone did not vote for the last resolution, the
vote of her delegation being evenly divided.
[9] _De Bow's Review_, XXVII. 94-235.
[10] H.S. Foote, in _Bench and Bar of the South and
Southwest_, p. 69.
[11] _De Bow's Review_, XXVII. 115.
[12] _Ibid._, p. 99. The vote was:--
_Yea._ _Nay._
Alabama, 5 votes. Tennessee, 12 votes.
Arkansas, 4 " Florida, 3 "
South Carolina, 4 " South Carolina, 4 "
Louisiana, 6 " Total 19
Texas, 4 "
Georgia, 10 " Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and
Mississippi, 7 " North Carolina did not vote; they either
Total 40 withdrew or were not represented.
[13] Quoted in _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p.
38. The official organ was the _True Southron_.
[14] Quoted in _24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p.
54.
[15] Quoted in _26th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 43.
[16] _27th Report_, _Ibid._, pp. 19-20.
[17] Letter of W.C. Preston, in the _National Intelligencer_,
April 3, 1863. Also published in the pamphlet, _The African
Slave Trade: The Secret Purpose_, etc., p. 26.
[18] Quoted in Etheridge's speech: _Congressional Globe_, 34
Cong. 3 sess. Appen., p. 366.
[19] _House Journal_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105-10;
_Congressional Globe_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 123-6; Cluskey,
_Political Text-Book_ (14th ed.), p. 589.
[20] _House Journal_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 298-9. Cf. _26th
Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 45.
[21] Cf. _Reports of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, especially
the 26th, pp. 43-4.
[22] _Ibid._, p. 43. He referred especially to the Treaty of
1842.
[23] _Ibid._; _Congressional Globe_, 35 Cong. 2 sess., Appen.,
pp. 248-50.
[24] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 44.
[25] _Ibid._; _27th Report_, pp. 13-4.
[26] _26th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 44.
[27] Quoted in Lalor, _Cyclopædia_, III. 733; Cairnes, _The
Slave Power_ (New York, 1862), p. 123, note; _27th Report of
the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 15.
[28] Quoted in Cairnes, _The Slave Power_, p. 123, note; _27th
Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 19.
[29] _27th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 16; quoted from the Mobile
_Register_.
[30] Edition of 1859, pp. 63-4.
[31] _De Bow's Review_, XXVII. 121, 231-5.
[32] _Report of the Special Committee_, etc. (1857), pp. 24-5.
[33] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 40. The
vote was 47 to 46.
[34] _House Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, pp.
632-6. For the State law, cf. above, Chapter II. This refusal
of Cobb's was sharply criticised by many Southern papers. Cf.
_26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 39.
[35] New York _Independent_, March 11 and April 1, 1858.
[36] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 41.
[37] Gregory to the Secretary of the Navy, June 8, 1850:
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 2. Cf.
_Ibid._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.
[38] Cumming to Commodore Fanshawe, Feb. 22, 1850: _Senate
Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 8.
[39] New York _Journal of Commerce_, 1857; quoted in _24th
Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 56.
[40] "The Slave-Trade in New York," in the _Continental
Monthly_, January, 1862, p. 87.
[41] New York _Evening Post_; quoted in Lalor, _Cyclopædia_,
III. 733.
[42] Lalor, _Cyclopædia_, III. 733; quoted from a New York
paper.
[43] _Friends' Appeal on behalf of the Coloured Races_ (1858),
Appendix, p. 41; quoted from the _Journal of Commerce_.
[44] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 53-4;
quoted from the African correspondent of the Boston _Journal_.
From April, 1857, to May, 1858, twenty-one of twenty-two
slavers which were seized by British cruisers proved to be
American, from New York, Boston, and New Orleans. Cf. _25th
Report_, _Ibid._, p. 122. De Bow estimated in 1856 that forty
slavers cleared annually from Eastern harbors, clearing yearly
$17,000,000: _De Bow's Review_, XXII. 430-1.
[45] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, p.
13.
[46] _House Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, p. 38.
[47] New York _Herald_, Aug. 5, 1860; quoted in Drake,
_Revelations of a Slave Smuggler_, Introd., pp. vii.-viii.
[48] _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 89. Cf.
_26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 45-9.
[49] Quoted in _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p.
46.
[50] For all the above cases, cf. _Ibid._, p. 49.
[51] Quoted in _27th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 20. Cf. _Report of
the Secretary of the Navy_, 1859; _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36
Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2.
[52] _27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 21.
[53] Quoted in _Ibid._
[54] Issue of July 22, 1860; quoted in Drake, _Revelations of
a Slave Smuggler_, Introd., p. vi. The advertisement referred
to was addressed to the "Ship-owners and Masters of our
Mercantile Marine," and appeared in the Enterprise (Miss.)
_Weekly News_, April 14, 1859. William S. Price and seventeen
others state that they will "pay three hundred dollars per
head for one thousand native Africans, between the ages of
fourteen and twenty years, (of sexes equal,) likely, sound,
and healthy, to be delivered within twelve months from this
date, at some point accessible by land, between Pensacola,
Fla., and Galveston, Texas; the contractors giving thirty
days' notice as to time and place of delivery": Quoted in
_26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 41-2.
[55] _Congressional Globe_, 35 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1362. Cf. the
speech of a delegate from Georgia to the Democratic Convention
at Charleston, 1860: "If any of you northern democrats will go
home with me to my plantation, I will show you some darkies
that I bought in Virginia, some in Delaware, some in Florida,
and I will also show you the pure African, the noblest Roman
of them all. I represent the African slave trade interest of
my section:" Lalor, _Cyclopædia_, III. 733.
[56] _Senate Misc. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.
[57] _Senate Journal_, 34 Cong. 1-2 sess. pp. 396, 695-8;
_Senate Reports_, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.
[58] _House Journal_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. p. 64. There was still
another attempt by Sandidge. Cf. _26th Report of the Amer.
Anti-Slav. Soc._, p. 44.
[59] _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274; _Congressional
Globe_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1245.
[60] Congressional Globe, 32 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1072.
[61] I.e., since 1846: _Statutes at Large_, XI. 90.
[62] _Ibid._, XI. 227.
[63] _Ibid._, XI. 404.
[64] _Ibid._, XII. 21.
[65] E.g., Clay's resolutions: _Congressional Globe_, 31 Cong.
2 sess. pp. 304-9. Clayton's resolutions: _Senate Journal_, 33
Cong. 1 sess. p. 404; _House Journal_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
1093, 1332-3; _Congressional Globe_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
1591-3, 2139. Seward's bill: _Senate Journal_, 33 Cong. 1
sess. pp. 448, 451.
[66] Mr. Blair of Missouri asked unanimous consent in
Congress, Dec. 23, 1858, to a resolution instructing the
Judiciary Committee to bring in such a bill; Houston of
Alabama objected: _Congressional Globe_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. p.
198; _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 44.
[67] This was the object of attack in 1851 and 1853 by
Giddings: _House Journal_, 32 Cong. 1 sess. p. 42; 33 Cong. 1
sess. p. 147. Cf. _House Journal_, 38 Cong. 1 sess. p. 46.
[68] By Mr. Wilson, March 20, 1860: _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong.
1 sess. p. 274.
[69] Four or five such attempts were made: Dec. 12, 1860,
_House Journal_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61-2; Jan. 7, 1861,
_Congressional Globe_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 279; Jan. 23, 1861,
_Ibid._, p. 527; Feb. 1, 1861, _Ibid._, p. 690; Feb. 27, 1861,
_Ibid._, pp. 1243, 1259.
[70] "The Slave-Trade in New York," in the _Continental
Monthly_, January, 1862, p. 87.
[71] New York _Herald_, July 14, 1856.
[72] _Ibid._ Cf. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No.
53.
[73] _27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 25-6. Cf.
_26th Report_, _Ibid._, pp. 45-9.
[74] _27th Report_, _Ibid._, pp. 26-7.
[75] _26th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 54.
[76] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1859-60, pp. 899,
973.
[77] Nov. 29, 1851: _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 1 sess. II.
pt. 2, No. 2, p. 4.
[78] Dec. 4, 1852: _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt.
2, No. 1, p. 293.
[79] _Ibid._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, p. 5.
[80] _Ibid._, 34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 407.
[81] Commander Burgess to Commodore Wise, Whydah, Aug. 12,
1857: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1857-8, vol. LXI. _Slave Trade_,
Class A, p. 136.
[82] _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, p.
576.
[83] _Ibid._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 1, No. 2, pp. 14-15,
31-33.
[84] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 24.
The Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1859, contains this
ambiguous passage: "What the effect of breaking up the trade
will be upon the United States or Cuba it is not necessary to
inquire; certainly, under the laws of Congress and our treaty
obligations, it is the duty of the executive government to see
that our citizens shall not be engaged in it": _Ibid._, 36
Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pp. 1138-9.
[85] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1,
pp. 8-9.
[86] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 40.
[87] _Confederate States of America Statutes at Large_, 1861,
p. 15, Constitution, Art. 1, sect. 9, §§ 1, 2.
[88] From an intercepted circular despatch from J.P. Benjamin,
"Secretary of State," addressed in this particular instance to
Hon. L.Q.C. Lamar, "Commissioner, etc., St. Petersburg,
Russia," and dated Richmond, Jan. 15, 1863; published in the
_National Intelligencer_, March 31, 1863; cf. also the issues
of Feb. 19, 1861, April 2, 3, 25, 1863; also published in the
pamphlet, _The African Slave-Trade: The Secret Purpose_, etc.
The editors vouch for its authenticity, and state it to be in
Benjamin's own handwriting.
[89] L.W. Spratt of South Carolina, in the _Southern Literary
Messenger_, June, 1861, XXXII. 414, 420. Cf. also the
Charleston _Mercury_, Feb. 13, 1861, and the _National
Intelligencer_, Feb. 19, 1861.
[90] Captain Gordon of the slaver "Erie;" condemned in the
U.S. District Court for Southern New York in 1862. Cf. _Senate
Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 13.
[91] _Ibid._, pp. 453-4.
[92] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 132, 219, 639; XIII. 424; XIV.
226, 415; XV. 58, 321. The sum of $250,000 was also
appropriated to return the slaves on the "Wildfire": _Ibid._,
XII. 40-41.
[93] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 368-9.
[94] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp.
453-4.
[95] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 531.
[96] For a time not exceeding five years: _Ibid._, pp. 592-3.
[97] By section 9 of an appropriation act for civil expenses,
July 2, 1864: _Ibid._, XIII. 353.
[98] British officers attested this: _Diplomatic
Correspondence_, 1862, p. 285.
[99] _Report of the Secretary of the Navy_, 1866; _House Exec.
Doc._, 39 Cong. 2 sess. IV. p. 12.
[100] There were some later attempts to legislate. Sumner
tried to repeal the Act of 1803: _Congressional Globe_, 41
Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894, 2932, 4953, 5594. Banks introduced a
bill to prohibit Americans owning or dealing in slaves abroad:
_House Journal_, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p. 48. For the legislation
of the Confederate States, cf. Mason, _Veto Power_, 2d ed.,
Appendix C, No. 1.
* * * * *
_Chapter XII_
THE ESSENTIALS IN THE STRUGGLE.
92. How the Question Arose.
93. The Moral Movement.
94. The Political Movement.
95. The Economic Movement.
96. The Lesson for Americans.
92. ~How the Question Arose.~ We have followed a chapter of history
which is of peculiar interest to the sociologist. Here was a rich new
land, the wealth of which was to be had in return for ordinary manual
labor. Had the country been conceived of as existing primarily for the
benefit of its actual inhabitants, it might have waited for natural
increase or immigration to supply the needed hands; but both Europe and
the earlier colonists themselves regarded this land as existing chiefly
for the benefit of Europe, and as designed to be exploited, as rapidly
and ruthlessly as possible, of the boundless wealth of its resources.
This was the primary excuse for the rise of the African slave-trade to
America.
Every experiment of such a kind, however, where the moral standard of a
people is lowered for the sake of a material advantage, is dangerous in
just such proportion as that advantage is great. In this case it was
great. For at least a century, in the West Indies and the southern
United States, agriculture flourished, trade increased, and English
manufactures were nourished, in just such proportion as Americans stole
Negroes and worked them to death. This advantage, to be sure, became
much smaller in later times, and at one critical period was, at least in
the Southern States, almost _nil_; but energetic efforts were wanting,
and, before the nation was aware, slavery had seized a new and well-nigh
immovable footing in the Cotton Kingdom.
The colonists averred with perfect truth that they did not commence this
fatal traffic, but that it was imposed upon them from without.
Nevertheless, all too soon did they lay aside scruples against it and
hasten to share its material benefits. Even those who braved the rough
Atlantic for the highest moral motives fell early victims to the
allurements of this system. Thus, throughout colonial history, in spite
of many honest attempts to stop the further pursuit of the slave-trade,
we notice back of nearly all such attempts a certain moral apathy, an
indisposition to attack the evil with the sharp weapons which its nature
demanded. Consequently, there developed steadily, irresistibly, a vast
social problem, which required two centuries and a half for a nation of
trained European stock and boasted moral fibre to solve.
93. ~The Moral Movement.~ For the solution of this problem there were,
roughly speaking, three classes of efforts made during this
time,--moral, political, and economic: that is to say, efforts which
sought directly to raise the moral standard of the nation; efforts which
sought to stop the trade by legal enactment; efforts which sought to
neutralize the economic advantages of the slave-trade. There is always a
certain glamour about the idea of a nation rising up to crush an evil
simply because it is wrong. Unfortunately, this can seldom be realized
in real life; for the very existence of the evil usually argues a moral
weakness in the very place where extraordinary moral strength is called
for. This was the case in the early history of the colonies; and
experience proved that an appeal to moral rectitude was unheard in
Carolina when rice had become a great crop, and in Massachusetts when
the rum-slave-traffic was paying a profit of 100%. That the various
abolition societies and anti-slavery movements did heroic work in
rousing the national conscience is certainly true; unfortunately,
however, these movements were weakest at the most critical times. When,
in 1774 and 1804, the material advantages of the slave-trade and the
institution of slavery were least, it seemed possible that moral suasion
might accomplish the abolition of both. A fatal spirit of temporizing,
however, seized the nation at these points; and although the slave-trade
was, largely for political reasons, forbidden, slavery was left
untouched. Beyond this point, as years rolled by, it was found well-nigh
impossible to rouse the moral sense of the nation. Even in the matter of
enforcing its own laws and co-operating with the civilized world, a
lethargy seized the country, and it did not awake until slavery was
about to destroy it. Even then, after a long and earnest crusade, the
national sense of right did not rise to the entire abolition of
slavery. It was only a peculiar and almost fortuitous commingling of
moral, political, and economic motives that eventually crushed African
slavery and its handmaid, the slave-trade in America.
94. ~The Political Movement.~ The political efforts to limit the
slave-trade were the outcome partly of moral reprobation of the trade,
partly of motives of expediency. This legislation was never such as wise
and powerful rulers may make for a nation, with the ulterior purpose of
calling in the respect which the nation has for law to aid in raising
its standard of right. The colonial and national laws on the slave-trade
merely registered, from time to time, the average public opinion
concerning this traffic, and are therefore to be regarded as negative
signs rather than as positive efforts. These signs were, from one point
of view, evidences of moral awakening; they indicated slow, steady
development of the idea that to steal even Negroes was wrong. From
another point of view, these laws showed the fear of servile
insurrection and the desire to ward off danger from the State; again,
they often indicated a desire to appear well before the civilized world,
and to rid the "land of the free" of the paradox of slavery.
Representing such motives, the laws varied all the way from mere
regulating acts to absolute prohibitions. On the whole, these acts were
poorly conceived, loosely drawn, and wretchedly enforced. The systematic
violation of the provisions of many of them led to a widespread belief
that enforcement was, in the nature of the case, impossible; and thus,
instead of marking ground already won, they were too often sources of
distinct moral deterioration. Certainly the carnival of lawlessness that
succeeded the Act of 1807, and that which preceded final suppression in
1861, were glaring examples of the failure of the efforts to suppress
the slave-trade by mere law.
95. ~The Economic Movement.~ Economic measures against the trade were
those which from the beginning had the best chance of success, but which
were least tried. They included tariff measures; efforts to encourage
the immigration of free laborers and the emigration of the slaves;
measures for changing the character of Southern industry; and, finally,
plans to restore the economic balance which slavery destroyed, by
raising the condition of the slave to that of complete freedom and
responsibility. Like the political efforts, these rested in part on a
moral basis; and, as legal enactments, they were also themselves often
political measures. They differed, however, from purely moral and
political efforts, in having as a main motive the economic gain which a
substitution of free for slave labor promised.
The simplest form of such efforts was the revenue duty on slaves that
existed in all the colonies. This developed into the prohibitive tariff,
and into measures encouraging immigration or industrial improvements.
The colonization movement was another form of these efforts; it was
inadequately conceived, and not altogether sincere, but it had a sound,
although in this case impracticable, economic basis. The one great
measure which finally stopped the slave-trade forever was, naturally,
the abolition of slavery, i.e., the giving to the Negro the right to
sell his labor at a price consistent with his own welfare. The abolition
of slavery itself, while due in part to direct moral appeal and
political sagacity, was largely the result of the economic collapse of
the large-farming slave system.
96. ~The Lesson for Americans.~ It may be doubted if ever before such
political mistakes as the slavery compromises of the Constitutional
Convention had such serious results, and yet, by a succession of
unexpected accidents, still left a nation in position to work out its
destiny. No American can study the connection of slavery with United
States history, and not devoutly pray that his country may never have a
similar social problem to solve, until it shows more capacity for such
work than it has shown in the past. It is neither profitable nor in
accordance with scientific truth to consider that whatever the
constitutional fathers did was right, or that slavery was a plague sent
from God and fated to be eliminated in due time. We must face the fact
that this problem arose principally from the cupidity and carelessness
of our ancestors. It was the plain duty of the colonies to crush the
trade and the system in its infancy: they preferred to enrich themselves
on its profits. It was the plain duty of a Revolution based upon
"Liberty" to take steps toward the abolition of slavery: it preferred
promises to straightforward action. It was the plain duty of the
Constitutional Convention, in founding a new nation, to compromise with
a threatening social evil only in case its settlement would thereby be
postponed to a more favorable time: this was not the case in the slavery
and the slave-trade compromises; there never was a time in the history
of America when the system had a slighter economic, political, and moral
justification than in 1787; and yet with this real, existent, growing
evil before their eyes, a bargain largely of dollars and cents was
allowed to open the highway that led straight to the Civil War.
Moreover, it was due to no wisdom and foresight on the part of the
fathers that fortuitous circumstances made the result of that war what
it was, nor was it due to exceptional philanthropy on the part of their
descendants that that result included the abolition of slavery.
With the faith of the nation broken at the very outset, the system of
slavery untouched, and twenty years' respite given to the slave-trade to
feed and foster it, there began, with 1787, that system of bargaining,
truckling, and compromising with a moral, political, and economic
monstrosity, which makes the history of our dealing with slavery in the
first half of the nineteenth century so discreditable to a great people.
Each generation sought to shift its load upon the next, and the burden
rolled on, until a generation came which was both too weak and too
strong to bear it longer. One cannot, to be sure, demand of whole
nations exceptional moral foresight and heroism; but a certain hard
common-sense in facing the complicated phenomena of political life must
be expected in every progressive people. In some respects we as a nation
seem to lack this; we have the somewhat inchoate idea that we are not
destined to be harassed with great social questions, and that even if we
are, and fail to answer them, the fault is with the question and not
with us. Consequently we often congratulate ourselves more on getting
rid of a problem than on solving it. Such an attitude is dangerous; we
have and shall have, as other peoples have had, critical, momentous, and
pressing questions to answer. The riddle of the Sphinx may be postponed,
it may be evasively answered now; sometime it must be fully answered.
It behooves the United States, therefore, in the interest both of
scientific truth and of future social reform, carefully to study such
chapters of her history as that of the suppression of the slave-trade.
The most obvious question which this study suggests is: How far in a
State can a recognized moral wrong safely be compromised? And although
this chapter of history can give us no definite answer suited to the
ever-varying aspects of political life, yet it would seem to warn any
nation from allowing, through carelessness and moral cowardice, any
social evil to grow. No persons would have seen the Civil War with more
surprise and horror than the Revolutionists of 1776; yet from the small
and apparently dying institution of their day arose the walled and
castled Slave-Power. From this we may conclude that it behooves nations
as well as men to do things at the very moment when they ought to be
done.
* * * * *
APPENDIX A.
A CHRONOLOGICAL CONSPECTUS OF COLONIAL AND STATE LEGISLATION RESTRICTING
THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE. 1641-1787.
~1641. Massachusetts: Limitations on Slavery.~
"Liberties of Forreiners & Strangers": 91. "There shall never be any
bond slaverie villinage or Captivitie amongst vs, unles it be lawfull
Captives taken in iust warres, & such strangers as willingly selle
themselves or are sold to us. And those shall have all the liberties &
Christian usages w^{ch} y^e law of god established in Jsraell concerning
such p/^{sons} doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude
who shall be Judged there to by Authoritie."
"Capitall Laws": 10. "If any man stealeth aman or mankinde, he shall
surely be put to death" (marginal reference, Exodus xxi. 16). Re-enacted
in the codes of 1649, 1660, and 1672. Whitmore, _Reprint of Colonial
Laws of 1660_, etc. (1889), pp. 52, 54, 71-117.
~1642, April 3. New Netherland: Ten per cent Duty.~
"Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherland, imposing
certain Import and Export Duties." O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland_
(1868), p. 31.
~1642, Dec. 1. Connecticut: Man-Stealing made a Capital Offence.~
"Capitall Lawes," No. 10. Re-enacted in Ludlow's code, 1650. _Colonial
Records_, I. 77.
~1646, Nov. 4. Massachusetts: Declaration against Man-Stealing.~
Testimony of the General Court. For text, see above, page 37. _Colonial
Records_, II. 168; III. 84.
~1652, April 4. New Netherland: Duty of 15 Guilders.~
"Conditions and Regulations" of Trade to Africa. O'Callaghan, _Laws of
New Netherland_, pp. 81, 127.
~1652, May 18-20. Rhode Island: Perpetual Slavery Prohibited.~
For text, see above, page 40. _Colonial Records_, I. 243.
~1655, Aug. 6. New Netherland: Ten per cent Export Duty.~
"Ordinance of the Director General and Council of New Netherland,
imposing a Duty on exported Negroes." O'Callaghan, _Laws of New
Netherland_, p. 191.
~1664, March 12. Duke of York's Patent: Slavery Regulated.~
"Lawes establisht by the Authority of his Majesties Letters patents,
granted to his Royall Highnes James Duke of Yorke and Albany; Bearing
Date the 12th Day of March in the Sixteenth year of the Raigne of our
Soveraigne Lord Kinge Charles the Second." First published at Long
Island in 1664.
"Bond slavery": "No Christian shall be kept in Bond-slavery villenage or
Captivity, Except Such who shall be Judged thereunto by Authority, or
such as willingly have sould, or shall sell themselves," etc.
Apprenticeship allowed. _Charter to William Penn, and Laws of the
Province of Pennsylvania_ (1879), pp. 3, 12.
~1672, October. Connecticut: Law against Man-Stealing.~
"The General Laws and Liberties of Conecticut
"Capital Laws": 10. "If any Man stealeth a Man or Man kinde, and selleth
him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21.
16." _Laws of Connecticut_, 1672 (repr. 1865), p. 9.
~1676, March 3. West New Jersey: Slavery Prohibited (?).~
"The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, Freeholders and
Inhabitants of the Province of West New-Jersey, in America."
Chap. XXIII. "That in all publick Courts of Justice for Tryals of
Causes, Civil or Criminal, any Person or Persons, Inhabitants of the
said Province, may freely come into, and attend the said Courts, ...
that all and every Person and Persons Inhabiting the said Province,
shall, as far as in us lies, be free from Oppression and Slavery."
Leaming and Spicer, _Grants, Concessions_, etc., pp. 382, 398.
~1688, Feb. 18. Pennsylvania: First Protest of Friends against
Slave-Trade.~
"At Monthly Meeting of Germantown Friends." For text, see above, pages
28-29. _Fac-simile Copy_ (1880).
~1695, May. Maryland: 10s. Duty Act.~
"An Act for the laying an Imposition upon Negroes, Slaves, and White
Persons imported into this Province." Re-enacted in 1696, and included
in Acts of 1699 and 1704. Bacon, _Laws_, 1695, ch. ix.; 1696, ch. vii.;
1699, ch. xxiii.; 1704, ch. ix.
~1696. Pennsylvania: Protest of Friends.~
"That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more
negroes." Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._
(1864), I. 383.
~1698, Oct. 8. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.~
"An Act for the Encouragement of the Importation of White Servants."
"Whereas, the great number of negroes which of late have been imported
into this Collony may endanger the safety thereof if speedy care be not
taken and encouragement given for the importation of white servants."
§ 1. £13 are to be given to any ship master for every male white servant
(Irish excepted), between sixteen and forty years, whom he shall bring
into Ashley river; and £12 for boys between twelve and sixteen years.
Every servant must have at least four years to serve, and every boy
seven years.
§ 3. Planters are to take servants in proportion of one to every six
male Negroes above sixteen years.
§ 5. Servants are to be distributed by lot.
§ 8. This act to continue three years. Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 153.
~1699, April. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.~
"An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves imported into
this country, towards building the Capitoll." For three years; continued
in August, 1701, and April, 1704. Hening, _Statutes_, III. 193, 212,
225.
~1703, May 6. South Carolina: Duty Act.~
"An Act for the laying an Imposition on Furrs, Skinns, Liquors and other
Goods and Merchandize, Imported into and Exported out of this part of
this Province, for the raising of a Fund of Money towards defraying the
publick charges and expenses of this Province, and paying the debts due
for the Expedition against St. Augustine." 10_s._ on Africans and 20_s._
on others. Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 201.
~1704, October. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.~
"An Act imposing Three Pence per Gallon on Rum and Wine, Brandy and
Spirits; and Twenty Shillings per Poll for Negroes; for raising a Supply
to defray the Public Charge of this Province; and Twenty Shillings per
Poll on Irish Servants, to prevent the importing too great a Number of
Irish Papists into this Province." Revived in 1708 and 1712. Bacon,
_Laws_, 1704, ch. xxxiii.; 1708, ch. xvi.; 1712, ch. xxii.
~1705, Jan. 12. Pennsylvania: 10s. Duty Act. ~
"An Act for Raising a Supply of Two pence half penny per Pound & ten
shillings per Head. Also for Granting an Impost & laying on Sundry
Liquors & negroes Imported into this Province for the Support of
Governmt., & defraying the necessary Publick Charges in the
Administration thereof." _Colonial Records_ (1852), II. 232, No. 50.
~1705, October. Virginia: 6d. Tax on Imported Slaves.~
"An act for raising a publick revenue for the better support of the
Government," etc. Similar tax by Act of October, 1710. Hening,
_Statutes_, III. 344, 490.
~1705, October. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.~
"An act for laying an Imposition upon Liquors and Slaves." For two
years; re-enacted in October, 1710, for three years, and in October,
1712. _Ibid._, III. 229, 482; IV. 30.
~1705, Dec. 5. Massachusetts: £4 Duty Act.~
"An act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," etc.
§ 6. On and after May 1, 1706, every master importing Negroes shall
enter his number, name, and sex in the impost office, and insert them in
the bill of lading; he shall pay to the commissioner and receiver of the
impost £4 per head for every such Negro. Both master and ship are to be
security for the payment of the same.
§ 7. If the master neglect to enter the slaves, he shall forfeit £8 for
each Negro, one-half to go to the informer and one-half to the
government.
§ 8. If any Negro imported shall, within twelve months, be exported and
sold in any other plantation, and a receipt from the collector there be
shown, a drawback of the whole duty will be allowed. Like drawback will
be allowed a purchaser, if any Negro sold die within six weeks after
importation. _Mass. Province Laws, 1705-6_, ch. 10.
~1708, February. Rhode Island: £3 Duty Act.~
No title or text found. Slightly amended by Act of April, 1708;
strengthened by Acts of February, 1712, and July 5, 1715; proceeds
disposed of by Acts of July, 1715, October, 1717, and June, 1729.
_Colonial Records_, IV. 34, 131-5, 138, 143, 191-3, 225, 423-4.
~1709, Sept. 24. New York: £3 Duty Act.~
"An Act for Laying a Duty on the Tonnage of Vessels and Slaves." A duty
of £3 was laid on slaves not imported directly from their native
country. Continued by Act of Oct. 30, 1710. _Acts of Assembly,
1691-1718_, pp. 97, 125, 134; Laws of New York, 1691-1773, p. 83.
~1710, Dec. 28. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.~
"An impost Act, laying a duty on Negroes, wine, rum and other spirits,
cyder and vessels." Repealed by order in Council Feb. 20, 1713. Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 82; Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery_, in _Penn.
Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864), I. 415.
~1710. Virginia: £5 Duty Act.~
"Intended to discourage the importation" of slaves. Title and text not
found. Disallowed (?). _Governor Spotswood to the Lords of Trade_, in
_Va. Hist. Soc. Coll._, New Series, I. 52.
~1711, July-Aug. New York: Act of 1709 Strengthened.~
"An Act for the more effectual putting in Execution an Act of General
Assembly, Intituled, An Act for Laying a Duty on the Tonnage of Vessels
and Slaves." _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, p. 134.
~1711, December. New York: Bill to Increase Duty.~
Bill for laying a further duty on slaves. Passed Assembly; lost in
Council. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 293.
~1711. Pennsylvania: Testimony of Quakers.~
" ... the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, on a representation from the
Quarterly Meeting of Chester, that the buying and encouraging the
importation of negroes was still practised by some of the members of the
society, again repeated and enforced the observance of the advice issued
in 1696, and further directed all merchants and factors to write to
their correspondents and discourage their sending any more negroes."
Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864),
I. 386.
~1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive (?) Duty Act.~
"A supplementary Act to an act, entituled, An impost act, laying a duty
on Negroes, rum," etc. Disallowed by Great Britain, 1713. Carey and
Bioren, _Laws_, I. 87, 88. Cf. _Colonial Records_ (1852), II. 553.
~1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive Duty Act.~
"An act to prevent the Importation of Negroes and Indians into this
Province."
"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 thereby barbarously Murthered, an instance whereof we have lately
had in our neighboring Colony of _New York_. And whereas the
Importation of Indian Slaves hath given our Neighboring _Indians_ in
this Province some umbrage of Suspicion and Dis-satisfaction. For
Prevention of all which for the future,
"_Be it Enacted_ ..., That from and after the Publication of this Act,
upon the Importation of any Negro or Indian, by Land or Water, into this
Province, there shall be paid by the Importer, Owner or Possessor
thereof, the sum of _Twenty Pounds per head_, for every Negro or Indian
so imported or brought in (except Negroes directly brought in from the
_West India Islands_ before the first Day of the Month called _August_
next) unto the proper Officer herein after named, or that shall be
appointed according to the Directions of this Act to receive the same,"
etc. Disallowed by Great Britain, 1713. _Laws of Pennsylvania,
collected_, etc. (ed. 1714), p. 165; _Colonial Records_ (1852), II. 553;
Burge, _Commentaries_, I. 737, note; _Penn. Archives_, I. 162.
~1713, March 11. New Jersey: £10 Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a Duty on Negro, Indian and Mulatto Slaves, imported
and brought into this Province."
"_Be it Enacted_ ..., That every Person or Persons that shall hereafter
Import or bring in, or cause to be imported or brought into this
Province, any Negro Indian or Mulatto Slave or Slaves, every such Person
or Persons so importing or bringing in, or causing to be imported or
brought in, such Slave or Slaves, shall enter with one of the Collectors
of her Majestie's Customs of this Province, every such Slave or Slaves,
within Twenty Four Hours after such Slave or Slaves is so Imported, and
pay the Sum of _Ten Pounds_ Money as appointed by her Majesty's
Proclamation, for each Slave so imported, or give sufficient Security
that the said Sum of _Ten Pounds_, Money aforesaid, shall be well and
truly paid within three Months after such Slave or Slaves are so
imported, to the Collector or his Deputy of the District into which
such Slave or Slaves shall be imported, for the use of her Majesty, her
Heirs and Successors, toward the Support of the Government of this
Province." For seven years; violations incur forfeiture and sale of
slaves at auction; slaves brought from elsewhere than Africa to pay £10,
etc. _Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703-1717_ (ed. 1717), p. 43; _N.J.
Archives_, 1st Series, XIII. 516, 517, 520, 522, 523, 527, 532, 541.
~1713, March 26. Great Britain and Spain: The Assiento.~
"The Assiento, or Contract for allowing to the Subjects of Great Britain
the Liberty of importing Negroes into the Spanish America. Signed by the
Catholick King at Madrid, the 26th Day of March, 1713."
Art. I. "First then to procure, by this means, a mutual and reciprocal
advantage to the sovereigns and subjects of both crowns, her British
majesty does offer and undertake for the persons, whom she shall name
and appoint, That they shall oblige and charge themselves with the
bringing into the West-Indies of America, belonging to his catholick
majesty, in the space of the said 30 years, to commence on the 1st day
of May, 1713, and determine on the like day, which will be in the year
1743, _viz._ 144000 negroes, _Piezas de India_, of both sexes, and of
all ages, at the rate of 4800 negroes, _Piezas de India_, in each of the
said 30 years, with this condition, That the persons who shall go to the
West-Indies to take care of the concerns of the assiento, shall avoid
giving any offence, for in such case they shall be prosecuted and
punished in the same manner, as they would have been in Spain, if the
like misdemeanors had been committed there."
Art. II. Assientists to pay a duty of 33 pieces of eight (_Escudos_) for
each Negro, which should include all duties.
Art. III. Assientists to advance to his Catholic Majesty 200,000 pieces
of eight, which should be returned at the end of the first twenty years,
etc. John Almon, _Treaties of Peace, Alliance, and Commerce, between
Great-Britain and other Powers_ (London, 1772), I. 83-107.
~1713, July 13. Great Britain and Spain: Treaty of Utrecht.~
"Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the most serene and most potent
princess Anne, by the grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France, and
Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. and the most serene and most potent
Prince Philip V the Catholick King of Spain, concluded at Utrecht, the
2/13 Day of July, 1713."
Art. XII. "The Catholick King doth furthermore hereby give and grant to
her Britannick majesty, and to the company of her subjects appointed for
that purpose, as well the subjects of Spain, as all others, being
excluded, the contract for introducing negroes into several parts of the
dominions of his Catholick Majesty in America, commonly called _el Pacto
de el Assiento de Negros_, for the space of thirty years successively,
beginning from the first day of the month of May, in the year 1713, with
the same conditions on which the French enjoyed it, or at any time might
or ought to enjoy the same, together with a tract or tracts of Land to
be allotted by the said Catholick King, and to be granted to the company
aforesaid, commonly called _la Compania de el Assiento_, in some
convenient place on the river of Plata, (no duties or revenues being
payable by the said company on that account, during the time of the
abovementioned contract, and no longer) and this settlement of the said
society, or those tracts of land, shall be proper and sufficient for
planting, and sowing, and for feeding cattle for the subsistence of
those who are in the service of the said company, and of their negroes;
and that the said negroes may be there kept in safety till they are
sold; and moreover, that the ships belonging to the said company may
come close to land, and be secure from any danger. But it shall always
be lawful for the Catholick King, to appoint an officer in the said
place or settlement, who may take care that nothing be done or practised
contrary to his royal interests. And all who manage the affairs of the
said company there, or belong to it, shall be subject to the inspection
of the aforesaid officer, as to all matters relating to the tracts of
land abovementioned. But if any doubts, difficulties, or controversies,
should arise between the said officer and the managers for the said
company, they shall be referred to the determination of the governor of
Buenos Ayres. The Catholick King has been likewise pleased to grant to
the said company, several other extraordinary advantages, which are more
fully and amply explained in the contract of the Assiento, which was
made and concluded at Madrid, the 26th day of the month of March, of
this present year 1713. Which contract, or _Assiento de Negros_, and all
the clauses, conditions, privileges and immunities contained therein,
and which are not contrary to this article, are and shall be deemed, and
taken to be, part of this treaty, in the same manner as if they had been
here inserted word for word." John Almon, _Treaties of Peace, Alliance,
and Commerce, between Great-Britain and other Powers_, I. 168-80.
~1714, Feb. 18. South Carolina: Duty on American Slaves.~
"An Act for laying an additional duty on all Negro Slaves imported into
this Province from any part of America." Title quoted in Act of 1719,
§30, _q.v._
~1714, Dec. 18. South Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.~
"An additional Act to an Act entitled 'An Act for the better Ordering
and Governing Negroes and all other Slaves.'"
§9 "And _whereas_, the number of negroes do extremely increase in this
Province, and through the afflicting providence of God, the white
persons do not proportionally multiply, by reason whereof, the safety
of the said Province is greatly endangered; for the prevention of which
for the future,
"_Be it further enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That all negro
slaves from twelve years old and upwards, imported into this part of
this Province from any part of Africa, shall pay such additional duties
as is hereafter named, that is to say:--that every merchant or other
person whatsoever, who shall, six months after the ratification of this
Act, import any negro slaves as aforesaid, shall, for every such slave,
pay unto the public receiver for the time being, (within thirty days
after such importation,) the sum of two pounds current money of this
Province." Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 365.
~1715, Feb. 18. South Carolina: Duty on American Negroes.~
"_An additional Act_ to an act entitled _an act for raising the sum of
£2000, of and from the estates real and personal of the inhabitants of
this Province, ratified in open Assembly the 18th day of December,
1714_; and for laying an additional duty on all Negroe slaves imported
into this Province from any part of America." Title only given. Grimké,
_Public Laws_, p. xvi, No. 362.
~1715, May 28. Pennsylvania: £5 Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a Duty on _Negroes_ imported into this province."
Disallowed by Great Britain, 1719. _Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania,
1715_, p. 270; _Colonial Records_ (1852), III. 75-6; Chalmers,
_Opinions_, II. 118.
~1715, June 3. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.~
"An Act laying an Imposition on Negroes ...; and also on Irish Servants,
to prevent the importing too great a Number of Irish Papists into this
Province." Supplemented April 23, 1735, and July 25, 1754. _Compleat
Collection of the Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 157; Bacon, _Laws_,
1715, ch. xxxvi. §8; 1735, ch. vi. §§1-3; _Acts of Assembly, 1754_, p.
10.
~1716, June 30. South Carolina: £3 Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying an Imposition on Liquors, Goods and Merchandizes,
Imported into and Exported out of this Province, for the raising of a
Fund of Money towards the defraying the publick charges and expences of
the Government." A duty of £3 was laid on African slaves, and £30 on
American slaves. Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 649.
~1716. New York: 5 oz. and 10 oz. plate Duty Act.~
"An Act to Oblige all Vessels Trading into this Colony (except such as
are therein excepted) to pay a certain Duty; and for the further
Explanation and rendring more Effectual certain Clauses in an Act of
General Assembly of this Colony, Intituled, An Act by which a Duty is
laid on Negroes, and other Slaves, imported into this Colony." The act
referred to is not to be found. _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, p. 224.
~1717, June 8. Maryland: Additional 20s. Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying an Additional Duty of Twenty Shillings Current Money
per Poll on all Irish Servants, ... also, the Additional Duty of Twenty
Shillings Current Money per Poll on all Negroes, for raising a Fund for
the Use of Publick Schools," etc. Continued by Act of 1728. _Compleat
Collection of the Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 191; Bacon, _Laws_,
1728, ch. viii.
~1717, Dec. 11. South Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.~
"A further additional Act to an Act entitled An Act for the better
ordering and governing of Negroes and all other Slaves; and to an
additional Act to an Act entitled An Act for the better ordering and
governing of Negroes and all other Slaves."
§ 3. "And _whereas_, the great importation of negroes to this Province,
in proportion to the white inhabitants of the same, whereby the future
safety of this Province will be greatly endangered; for the prevention
whereof,
"_Be it enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That all negro slaves of
any age or condition whatsoever, imported or otherwise brought into this
Province, from any part of the world, shall pay such additional duties
as is hereafter named, that is to say:--that every merchant or other
person whatsoever, who shall, eighteen months after the ratification of
this Act, import any negro slave as aforesaid, shall, for every such
slave, pay unto the public receiver for the time being, at the time of
each importation, over and above all the duties already charged on
negroes, by any law in force in this Province, the additional sum of
forty pounds current money of this Province," etc.
§ 4. This section on duties to be in force for four years after
ratification, and thence to the end of the next session of the General
Assembly. Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 368.
~1718, Feb. 22. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.~
"An Act for continuing a duty on Negroes brought into this province."
Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 118.
~1719, March 20. South Carolina: £10 Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying an Imposition on Negroes, Liquors, and other Goods
and Merchandizes, imported, and exported out of this Province, for the
raising of a Fund of Money towards the defraying the Publick Charges and
Expences of this Government; as also to Repeal several Duty Acts, and
Clauses and Paragraphs of Acts, as is herein mentioned." This repeals
former duty acts (e.g. that of 1714), and lays a duty of £10 on African
slaves, and £30 on American slaves. Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 56.
~1721, Sept. 21. South Carolina: £10 Duty Act.~
"An Act for granting to His Majesty a Duty and Imposition on Negroes,
Liquors, and other Goods and Merchandize, imported into and exported out
of this Province." This was a continuation of the Act of 1719. _Ibid._,
III. 159.
~1722, Feb. 23. South Carolina: £10 Duty Act.~
"An Act for Granting to His Majesty a Duty and Imposition on Negroes,
Liquors, and other Goods and Merchandizes, for the use of the Publick
of this Province."
§ 1. " ... on all negro slaves imported from Africa directly, or any
other place whatsoever, Spanish negroes excepted, if above ten years of
age, ten pounds; on all negroes under ten years of age, (sucking
children excepted) five pounds," etc.
§ 3. "And whereas, it has proved to the detriment of some of the
inhabitants of this Province, who have purchased negroes imported here
from the Colonies of America, that they were either transported thence
by the Courts of justice, or sent off by private persons for their ill
behaviour and misdemeanours, to prevent which for the future,
"_Be it enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That all negroes imported
in this Province from any part of America, after the ratification of
this Act, above ten years of age, shall pay unto the Publick Receiver as
a duty, the sum of fifty pounds, and all such negroes under the age of
ten years, (sucking children excepted) the sum of five pounds of like
current money, unless the owner or agent shall produce a testimonial
under the hand and seal of any Notary Publick of the Colonies or
plantations from whence such negroes came last, before whom it was
proved upon oath, that the same are new negroes, and have not been six
months on shoar in any part of America," etc.
§ 4. "And whereas, the importation of Spanish Indians, mustees, negroes,
and mulattoes, may be of dangerous consequence by inticing the slaves
belonging to the inhabitants of this Province to desert with them to the
Spanish settlements near us,
"_Be it therefore enacted_ That all such Spanish negroes, Indians,
mustees, or mulattoes, so imported into this Province, shall pay unto
the Publick Receiver, for the use of this Province, a duty of one
hundred and fifty pounds, current money of this Province."
§ 19. Rebate of three-fourths of the duty allowed in case of
re-exportation in six months.
§ 31. Act of 1721 repealed.
§ 36. This act to continue in force for three years, and thence to the
end of the next session of the General Assembly, and no longer. Cooper,
_Statutes_, III. 193.
~1722, May 12. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a duty on Negroes imported into this province." Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 165.
~1723, May. Virginia: Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves." Title only; repealed
by proclamation Oct. 27, 1724. Hening, _Statutes_, IV. 118.
~1723, June 18. Rhode Island: Back Duties Collected.~
Resolve appointing the attorney-general to collect back duties on
Negroes. _Colonial Records_, IV. 330.
~1726, March 5. Pennsylvania: £10 Duty Act.~
"An Act for the better regulating of Negroes in this province." Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 214; Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery_, in
_Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864), I. 388.
~1726, March 5. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a duty on Negroes imported into this province." Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 213.
~1727, February. Virginia: Prohibitive Duty Act (?).~
"An Act for laying a Duty on Slaves imported; and for appointing a
Treasurer." Title only found; the duty was probably prohibitive; it was
enacted with a suspending clause, and was not assented to by the king.
Hening, _Statutes_, IV. 182.
~1728, Aug. 31. New York: £2 and £4 Duty Act.~
"An Act to repeal some Parts and to continue and enforce other Parts of
the Act therein mentioned, and for granting several Duties to His
Majesty, for supporting His Government in the Colony of New York" from
Sept. 1, 1728, to Sept. 1, 1733. Same duty continued by Act of 1732.
_Laws of New York, 1691-1773_, pp. 148, 171; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New
York_, VI. 32, 33, 34, 37, 38.
~1728, Sept. 14. Massachusetts: Act of 1705 Strengthened.~
"An Act more effectually to secure the Duty on the Importation of
Negroes." For seven years; substantially the same law re-enacted Jan.
26, 1738, for ten years. _Mass. Province Laws, 1728-9_, ch. 16;
_1738-9_, ch. 27.
~1729, May 10. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a Duty on Negroes imported into this Province." _Laws
of Pennsylvania_ (ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287.
~1732, May. Rhode Island: Repeal of Act of 1712.~
"Whereas, there was an act made and passed by the General Assembly, at
their session, held at Newport, the 27th day of February, 1711 [O.S.,
N.S. = 1712], entitled 'An Act for laying a duty on negro slaves that
shall be imported into this colony,' and this Assembly being directed by
His Majesty's instructions to repeal the same;--
"Therefore, be it enacted by the General Assembly ... that the said act
... be, and it is hereby repealed, made null and void, and of none
effect for the future." If this is the act mentioned under Act of 1708,
the title is wrongly cited; if not, the act is lost. _Colonial Records_,
IV. 471.
~1732, May. Virginia: Five per cent Duty Act.~
"An Act for laying a Duty upon Slaves, to be paid by the Buyers." For
four years; continued and slightly amended by Acts of 1734, 1736, 1738,
1742, and 1745; revived February, 1752, and continued by Acts of
November, 1753, February, 1759, November, 1766, and 1769; revived (or
continued?) by Act of February, 1772, until 1778. Hening, _Statutes_,
IV. 317, 394, 469; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353; VII. 281; VIII. 190,
336, 530.
~1734, November. New York: Duty Act.~
"An act to lay a duty on Negroes & a tax on the Slaves therein mentioned
during the time and for the uses within mentioned." The tax was 1_s._
yearly per slave. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 38.
~1734, Nov. 28. New York: £2 and £4 (?) Duty Act.~
"An Act to lay a Duty on the Goods, and a Tax on the Slaves therein
mentioned, during the Time, and for the Uses mentioned in the same."
Possibly there were two acts this year. _Laws of New York, 1691-1773_,
p. 186; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 27.
~1735. Georgia: Prohibitive Act.~
An "act for rendering the colony of Georgia more defensible by
prohibiting the importation and use of black slaves or negroes into the
same." W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 311; [B. Martyn], _Account
of the Progress of Georgia_ (1741), pp. 9-10; Prince Hoare, _Memoirs of
Granville Sharp_ (London, 1820), p. 157.
~1740, April 5. South Carolina: £100 Prohibitive Duty Act.~
"An Act for the better strengthening of this Province, by granting to
His Majesty certain taxes and impositions on the purchasers of Negroes
imported," etc. The duty on slaves from America was £150. Continued to
1744. Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 556. Cf. _Abstract Evidence on
Slave-Trade before Committee of House of Commons, 1790-91_ (London,
1791), p. 150.
~1740, May. Virginia: Additional Five per cent Duty Act.~
"An Act, for laying an additional Duty upon Slaves, to be paid by the
Buyer, for encouraging persons to enlist in his Majesty's service: And
for preventing desertion." To continue until July 1, 1744. Hening,
_Statutes_, V. 92.
~1751, June 14. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.~
"An Act for the better strengthening of this Province, by granting to
His Majesty certain Taxes and Impositions on the purchasers of Negroes
and other slaves imported, and for appropriating the same to the uses
therein mentioned, and for granting to His Majesty a duty on Liquors and
other Goods and Merchandize, for the uses therein mentioned, and for
exempting the purchasers of Negroes and other slaves imported from
payment of the Tax, and the Liquors and other Goods and Merchandize from
the duties imposed by any former Act or Acts of the General Assembly of
this Province."
"Whereas, the best way to prevent the mischiefs that may be attended by
the great importation of negroes into this Province, will be to
establish a method by which such importation should be made a necessary
means of introducing a proportionable number of white inhabitants into
the same; therefore for the effectual raising and appropriating a fund
sufficient for the better settling of this Province with white
inhabitants, we, his Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the
House of Assembly now met in General Assembly, do cheerfully give and
grant unto the King's most excellent Majesty, his heirs and successors,
the several taxes and impositions hereinafter mentioned, for the uses
and to be raised, appropriated, paid and applied as is hereinafter
directed and appointed, and not otherwise, and do humbly pray his most
sacred Majesty that it may be enacted,