diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:51:42 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-15 04:51:42 -0700 |
| commit | 2e6ce37779d03b0687cf9c23d56b4a63394c5599 (patch) | |
| tree | 3fcecd9d42c6faecd34c166ee783c328912f5f53 /17700-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '17700-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 17700-h/17700-h.htm | 19025 |
1 files changed, 19025 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/17700-h/17700-h.htm b/17700-h/17700-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..fe9d0c4 --- /dev/null +++ b/17700-h/17700-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,19025 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Suppression Of The +African Slave-Trade To The United States Of America 1638–1870, by W.E.B. DuBois + </title> + <style type="text/css"> +/*<![CDATA[ XML blockout */ +<!-- + p { text-indent: 1.75em; + margin-top: 1em; + text-align: justify; + margin-bottom: .75em; + line-height: 1.75em; + } + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 { + text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ + clear: both; + } + hr { width: 75%; + margin-top: 2em; + margin-bottom: 2em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both; + } + hr.invisible {width: 0%; + margin-top: 1em; + margin-bottom: 0em; + margin-left: auto; + margin-right: auto; + clear: both;} + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 8%; + margin-right: 10%; + } + ul {list-style-type: none; + text-indent: -1em; + } + + .atitle {font-weight: bold; + text-indent: 0em; + margin-top: 1.5em; + text-align: left;} + + .atext { margin-left: 4em; + text-indent: -2em; + line-height: 1.25em;} + + .biblio p {text-indent: 1.5em; + line-height: 1.25em;} + + .col2 {vertical-align: top; + width: 35%; + text-align: left; + } + .idx {margin-top: 2em;} + + + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + .blockquot p {text-indent: 0em; + line-height: 1.25em;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; + font-size: smaller; + font-weight: lighter; + text-align: right;} /* page numbers */ + + .center {text-align: center;} + .right {text-align: right;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .u {text-decoration: underline;} + .over {text-decoration: overline;} + + .footnotes {border: none;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote p {text-indent: 0em; line-height: 1.25em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + // --> + /* XML end ]]>*/ + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Suppression of the African Slave Trade +to the United States of America, by W. E. B. Du Bois + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America + 1638-1870 + +Author: W. E. B. Du Bois + +Release Date: February 7, 2006 [EBook #17700] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SLAVE TRADE *** + + + + +Produced by Suzanne Shell, Victoria Woosley and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + + + + + +</pre> + + +<h1><!-- Page 1 --><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1"></a>THE SUPPRESSION OF THE<br /> +AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE<br /> +TO THE<br /> +UNITED STATES<br /> +OF AMERICA<br /> +1638–1870</h1> + +<h3>Volume I</h3> +<h3>Harvard Historical Studies</h3> + +<h4>1896</h4> + +<h4>Longmans, Green, and Co.</h4> +<h4>New York</h4> + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="Preface" id="Preface"></a>Preface</h2> + + +<p>This monograph was begun during my residence as +Rogers Memorial Fellow at Harvard University, and is +based mainly upon a study of the sources, i.e., national, +State, and colonial statutes, Congressional documents, reports +of societies, personal narratives, etc. The collection of laws +available for this research was, I think, nearly complete; on +the other hand, facts and statistics bearing on the economic +side of the study have been difficult to find, and my conclusions +are consequently liable to modification from this source.</p> + +<p>The question of the suppression of the slave-trade is so intimately +connected with the questions as to its rise, the system +of American slavery, and the whole colonial policy of the +eighteenth century, that it is difficult to isolate it, and at the +same time to avoid superficiality on the one hand, and unscientific +narrowness of view on the other. While I could not +hope entirely to overcome such a difficulty, I nevertheless +trust that I have succeeded in rendering this monograph a +small contribution to the scientific study of slavery and the +American Negro.</p> + +<p>I desire to express my obligation to Dr. Albert Bushnell +Hart, of Harvard University, at whose suggestion I began this +work and by whose kind aid and encouragement I have +brought it to a close; also I have to thank the trustees of the +John F. Slater Fund, whose appointment made it possible to +test the conclusions of this study by the general principles laid +down in German universities.</p> + +<p class="right"><span class="smcap" >W.E. BURGHARDT Du BOIS.</span></p> + +<p><span class="smcap">Wilberforce University,</span><br /> +March, 1896.</p> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 4 --><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4"></a> + <!-- Page 5 --><span class="pagenum">5</span><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5"></a></p> + +<h2><a name="Contents" id="Contents"></a>Contents</h2> +<table summary="toc" width="80%"> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_I">CHAPTER I</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">Introductory</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">1.</td><td align="left"><i>Plan of the Monograph</i></td><td align="right">9</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">2.</td><td align="left"><i>The Rise of the English Slave-Trade</i></td><td align="right">9</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_II">CHAPTER II</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Planting Colonies</span></td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">3.</td><td align="left"><i>Character of these Colonies</i></td><td align="right">15</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">4.</td><td align="left"><i>Restrictions in Georgia</i></td><td align="right">15</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">5.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in South Carolina</i></td><td align="right">16</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">6.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in North Carolina</i></td><td align="right">19</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">7.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in Virginia</i></td><td align="right">19</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">8.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in Maryland</i></td><td align="right">22</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">9.</td><td align="left"> <i>General Character of these Restrictions</i></td><td align="right">23</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_III">CHAPTER III</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Farming Colonies</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">10.</td><td align="left"> <i>Character of these Colonies</i></td><td align="right">24</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">11.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Dutch Slave-Trade</i></td><td align="right">24</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">12.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in New York</i></td><td align="right">25</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">13.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware</i></td><td align="right">28</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">14.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in New Jersey</i></td><td align="right">32</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">15.</td><td align="left"> <i>General Character of these Restrictions</i></td><td align="right">33</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_IV">CHAPTER IV</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Trading Colonies</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">16.</td><td align="left"> <i>Character of these Colonies</i></td><td align="right">34</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">17.</td><td align="left"> <i>New England and the Slave-Trade</i></td><td align="right">34</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">18.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in New Hampshire</i></td><td align="right">36</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">19.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in Massachusetts</i></td><td align="right">37</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">20.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in Rhode Island</i></td><td align="right">40</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">21.</td><td align="left"> <i>Restrictions in Connecticut</i></td><td align="right">43</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">22.</td><td align="left"> <i>General Character of these Restrictions</i></td><td align="right">44</td></tr> + +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_V">CHAPTER V</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Period of the Revolution</span>, 1774–1787 +<!-- Page 6 --><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6"></a><span class="pagenum">6</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">23.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Situation in 1774</i></td><td align="right">45</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">24.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Condition of the Slave-Trade</i></td><td align="right">46</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">25.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Slave-Trade and the "Association"</i></td><td align="right">47</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">26.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Action of the Colonies</i></td><td align="right">48</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">27.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Action of the Continental Congress</i></td><td align="right">49</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">28.</td><td align="left"> <i>Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution</i></td><td align="right">51</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">29.</td><td align="left"> <i>Results of the Resolution</i></td><td align="right">52</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">30.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War</i></td><td align="right">53</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">31.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Action of the Confederation</i></td><td align="right">56</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_VI">CHAPTER VI</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Federal Convention</span>, 1787</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">32.</td><td align="left"> <i>The First Proposition</i></td><td align="right">58</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">33.</td><td align="left"> <i>The General Debate</i></td><td align="right">59</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">34.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Special Committee and the "Bargain"</i></td><td align="right">62</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">35.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Appeal to the Convention</i></td><td align="right">64</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">36.</td><td align="left"> <i>Settlement by the Convention</i></td><td align="right">66</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">37.</td><td align="left"> <i>Reception of the Clause by the Nation</i></td><td align="right">67</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">38.</td><td align="left"> <i>Attitude of the State Conventions</i></td><td align="right">70</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">39.</td><td align="left"> <i>Acceptance of the Policy</i></td><td align="right">72</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_VII">CHAPTER VII</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">Toussaint L'Ouverture and Anti-Slavery Effort</span>, 1787–1807</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">40.</td><td align="left"> <i>Influence of the Haytian Revolution</i></td><td align="right">74</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">41.</td><td align="left"> <i>Legislation of the Southern States</i></td><td align="right">75</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">42.</td><td align="left"> <i>Legislation of the Border States</i></td><td align="right">76</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">43.</td><td align="left"> <i>Legislation of the Eastern States</i></td><td align="right">76</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">44.</td><td align="left"> <i>First Debate in Congress, 1789</i> </td><td align="right">77</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">45.</td><td align="left"> <i>Second Debate in Congress, 1790</i></td><td align="right">79</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">46.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Declaration of Powers, 1790</i></td><td align="right">82</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">47.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Act of 1794</i></td><td align="right">83</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">48.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Act of 1800</i></td><td align="right">85</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">49.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Act of 1803</i></td><td align="right">87</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">50.</td><td align="left"> <i>State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to 1803</i></td><td align="right">88</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">51.</td><td align="left"> <i>The South Carolina Repeal of 1803</i></td><td align="right">89</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">52.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803–1805</i> </td><td align="right">91</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">53.</td><td align="left"> <i>Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805–1806</i></td><td align="right">94</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">54.</td><td align="left"> <i>Key-Note of the Period</i></td><td align="right">96</td></tr> + +<tr><td> </td></tr> + +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_VIII">CHAPTER VIII</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Period of Attempted Suppression</span>, 1807–1825 +<!-- Page 7 --><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7"></a><span class="pagenum">7</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">55.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Act of 1807</i></td><td align="right">97</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">56.</td><td align="left"><i>The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans be disposed of?</i></td><td align="right">99</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">57.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?</i></td><td align="right">104</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">58.</td><td align="left"><i>The Third Question: How shall the Interstate Coastwise Slave-Trade be protected?</i></td><td align="right">106</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">59.</td><td align="left"> <i>Legislative History of the Bill</i></td><td align="right">107</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">60.</td><td align="left"> <i>Enforcement of the Act</i></td><td align="right">111</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">61.</td><td align="left"> <i>Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade</i></td><td align="right">112</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">62.</td><td align="left"> <i>Apathy of the Federal Government</i></td><td align="right">115</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">63.</td><td align="left"> <i>Typical Cases</i></td><td align="right">120</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">64.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Supplementary Acts, 1818–1820</i></td><td align="right">121</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">65.</td><td align="left"> <i>Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts,1818–1825</i></td><td align="right">126</td></tr> + +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_IX">CHAPTER IX</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The International Status of the Slave-Trade</span>, 1783–1862</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">66.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade,1788–1807</i></td><td align="right">133</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">67.</td><td align="left"> <i>Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783–1814</i> </td><td align="right">134</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">68.</td><td align="left"> <i>Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820</i></td><td align="right">136</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">69.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Struggle for an International Right of Search, 1820–1840</i></td><td align="right">137</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">70.</td><td align="left"> <i>Negotiations of 1823–1825</i></td><td align="right">140</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">71.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Attitude of the United States and the State of the Slave-Trade</i></td><td align="right">142</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">72.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Quintuple Treaty, 1839–1842</i></td><td align="right">145</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">73.</td><td align="left"> <i>Final Concerted Measures, 1842–1862</i></td><td align="right">148</td></tr> + +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_X">CHAPTER X</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Rise of the Cotton Kingdom</span>, 1820–1850</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">74.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Economic Revolution</i></td><td align="right">152</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">75.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Attitude of the South</i></td><td align="right">154</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">76.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Attitude of the North and Congress</i></td><td align="right">156</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">77.</td><td align="left"> <i>Imperfect Application of the Laws</i></td><td align="right">159</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">78.</td><td align="left"> <i>Responsibility of the Government</i></td><td align="right">161</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">79.</td><td align="left"> <i>Activity of the Slave-Trade,1820–1850</i></td><td align="right">163</td></tr> + +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_XI">CHAPTER XI</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Final Crisis</span>, 1850–1870 +<!-- Page 8 --><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8"></a><span class="pagenum">8</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">80.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws</i></td><td align="right">168</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">81.</td><td align="left"> <i>Commercial Conventions of 1855–1856</i></td><td align="right">169</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">82.</td><td align="left"> <i>Commercial Conventions of 1857–1858</i></td><td align="right">170</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">83.</td><td align="left"> <i>Commercial Convention of 1859</i></td><td align="right">172</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">84.</td><td align="left"> <i>Public Opinion in the South</i></td><td align="right">173</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">85.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Question in Congress</i></td><td align="right">174</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">86.</td><td align="left"> <i>Southern Policy in 1860</i></td><td align="right">176</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">87.</td><td align="left"> <i>Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860</i></td><td align="right">178</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">88.</td><td align="left"> <i>Notorious Infractions of the Laws</i></td><td align="right">179</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">89.</td><td align="left"> <i>Apathy of the Federal Government</i></td><td align="right">182</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">90.</td><td align="left"> <i>Attitude of the Southern Confederacy</i></td><td align="right">187</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">91.</td><td align="left"> <i>Attitude of the United States</i></td><td align="right">190</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center"><a href="#Chapter_XII">CHAPTER XII</a><br /> +<span class="smcap">The Essentials in the Struggle</span></td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">92.</td><td align="left"> <i>How the Question Arose</i></td><td align="right">193</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">93.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Moral Movement</i></td><td align="right">194</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">94.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Political Movement</i></td><td align="right">195</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">95.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Economic Movement</i></td><td align="right">195</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">96.</td><td align="left"> <i>The Lesson for Americans</i></td><td align="right">196</td></tr> + +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3" align="center">APPENDICES</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">A.</td><td align="left"> +<a href="#APPENDIX_A"><i>A Chronological Conspectus of Colonial and State Legislation +restricting the African Slave-Trade, 1641–1787</i></a></td><td align="right">199</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">B.</td><td align="left"> +<a href="#APPENDIX_B"><i>A Chronological Conspectus of State, National, and International +Legislation, 1788–1871</i></a></td><td align="right">234</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">C.</td><td align="left"> +<a href="#APPENDIX_C"><i>Typical Cases of Vessels engaged in the American Slave-Trade, 1619–1864</i></a> +</td><td align="right">306</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="right">D.</td><td align="left"><a href="#APPENDIX_D"><i>Bibliography</i></a></td><td align="right">316</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td align="left">INDEX</td><td align="right">347</td></tr> +</table> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 9 --><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9"></a><span class="pagenum">9</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_I" id="Chapter_I"></a><i>Chapter I</i></h2> +<h3>INTRODUCTORY.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">1. Plan of the Monograph.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">2. The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>1. <b>Plan of the Monograph.</b> This monograph proposes to set +forth the efforts made in the United States of America, from +early colonial times until the present, to limit and suppress +the trade in slaves between Africa and these shores.</p> + +<p>The study begins with the colonial period, setting forth in +brief the attitude of England and, more in detail, the attitude +of the planting, farming, and trading groups of colonies +toward the slave-trade. It deals next with the first concerted +effort against the trade and with the further action of the +individual States. The important work of the Constitutional +Convention follows, together with the history of the trade in +that critical period which preceded the Act of 1807. The +attempt to suppress the trade from 1807 to 1830 is next +recounted. A chapter then deals with the slave-trade as an +international problem. Finally the development of the crises +up to the Civil War is studied, together with the steps leading +to the final suppression; and a concluding chapter seeks to +sum up the results of the investigation. Throughout the +monograph the institution of slavery and the interstate slave-trade +are considered only incidentally.</p> + + +<p>2. <b>The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.</b> Any attempt to +consider the attitude of the English colonies toward the African +slave-trade must be prefaced by a word as to the attitude +of England herself and the development of the trade in her +hands.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">1</a></p> + +<p>Sir John Hawkins's celebrated voyage took place in 1562, +but probably not until 1631<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">2</a> did a regular chartered company +<!-- Page 10 --><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10"></a><span class="pagenum">10</span>undertake to carry on the trade.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">3</a> This company was unsuccessful,<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">4</a> +and was eventually succeeded by the "Company of +Royal Adventurers trading to Africa," chartered by Charles II. +in 1662, and including the Queen Dowager and the Duke of +York.<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">5</a> The company contracted to supply the West Indies +with three thousand slaves annually; but contraband trade, +misconduct, and war so reduced it that in 1672 it surrendered +its charter to another company for £34,000.<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">6</a> This new corporation, +chartered by Charles II. as the "Royal African Company," +proved more successful than its predecessors, and +carried on a growing trade for a quarter of a century.</p> + +<p>In 1698 Parliamentary interference with the trade began. By +the Statute 9 and 10 William and Mary, chapter 26, private +traders, on payment of a duty of 10% on English goods exported +to Africa, were allowed to participate in the trade. +This was brought about by the clamor of the merchants, especially +the "American Merchants," who "in their Petition +suggest, that it would be a great Benefit to the Kingdom to +secure the Trade by maintaining Forts and Castles there, with +an equal Duty upon all Goods exported."<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">7</a> This plan, being a +compromise between maintaining the monopoly intact and +entirely abolishing it, was adopted, and the statute declared +the trade "highly Beneficial and Advantageous to this Kingdom, +and to the Plantations and Colonies thereunto belonging."</p> + +<p>Having thus gained practically free admittance to the field, +English merchants sought to exclude other nations by securing +a monopoly of the lucrative Spanish colonial slave-trade.<!-- Page 11 --><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11"></a><span class="pagenum">11</span> +Their object was finally accomplished by the signing of the +Assiento in 1713.<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">8</a></p> + +<p>The Assiento was a treaty between England and Spain by +which the latter granted the former a monopoly of the Spanish +colonial slave-trade for thirty years, and England engaged +to supply the colonies within that time with at least 144,000 +slaves, at the rate of 4,800 per year. England was also to advance +Spain 200,000 crowns, and to pay a duty of 33½ crowns +for each slave imported. The kings of Spain and England +were each to receive one-fourth of the profits of the trade, +and the Royal African Company were authorized to import +as many slaves as they wished above the specified number in +the first twenty-five years, and to sell them, except in three +ports, at any price they could get.</p> + +<p>It is stated that, in the twenty years from 1713 to 1733, fifteen +thousand slaves were annually imported into America by the +English, of whom from one-third to one-half went to the +Spanish colonies.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">9</a> To the company itself the venture proved +a financial failure; for during the years 1729–1750 Parliament +assisted the Royal Company by annual grants which +amounted to £90,000,<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">10</a> and by 1739 Spain was a creditor to +the extent of £68,000, and threatened to suspend the treaty. +The war interrupted the carrying out of the contract, but the +Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle extended the limit by four years. +Finally, October 5, 1750, this privilege was waived for a money +consideration paid to England; the Assiento was ended, and +the Royal Company was bankrupt.</p> + +<p>By the Statute 23 George II., chapter 31, the old company +was dissolved and a new "Company of Merchants trading to +Africa" erected in its stead.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">11</a> Any merchant so desiring was +allowed to engage in the trade on payment of certain small +duties, and such merchants formed a company headed by nine +directors. This marked the total abolition of monopoly in the +<!-- Page 12 --><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12"></a><span class="pagenum">12</span>slave-trade, and was the form under which the trade was carried +on until after the American Revolution.</p> + +<p>That the slave-trade was the very life of the colonies had, +by 1700, become an almost unquestioned axiom in British +practical economics. The colonists themselves declared slaves +"the strength and sinews of this western world,"<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">12</a> and the +lack of them "the grand obstruction"<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">13</a> here, as the settlements +"cannot subsist without supplies of them."<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">14</a> Thus, +with merchants clamoring at home and planters abroad, it +easily became the settled policy of England to encourage the +slave-trade. Then, too, she readily argued that what was an +economic necessity in Jamaica and the Barbadoes could +scarcely be disadvantageous to Carolina, Virginia, or even +New York. Consequently, the colonial governors were generally +instructed to "give all due encouragement and invitation +to merchants and others, ... and in particular to the +royal African company of England."<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">15</a> Duties laid on the importer, +and all acts in any way restricting the trade, were +frowned upon and very often disallowed. "Whereas," ran +Governor Dobbs's instructions, "Acts have been passed in +some of our Plantations in America for laying duties on the +importation and exportation of Negroes to the great discouragement +of the Merchants trading thither from the +coast of Africa.... It is our Will and Pleasure that you +do not give your assent to or pass any Law imposing +duties upon Negroes imported into our Province of North +Carolina."<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">16</a></p> + +<p>The exact proportions of the slave-trade to America can be +but approximately determined. From 1680 to 1688 the African +Company sent 249 ships to Africa, shipped there 60,783<!-- Page 13 --><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13"></a><span class="pagenum">13</span> +Negro slaves, and after losing 14,387 on the middle passage, +delivered 46,396 in America. The trade increased early in the +eighteenth century, 104 ships clearing for Africa in 1701; it +then dwindled until the signing of the Assiento, standing at +74 clearances in 1724. The final dissolution of the monopoly +in 1750 led—excepting in the years 1754–57, when the closing +of Spanish marts sensibly affected the trade—to an extraordinary +development, 192 clearances being made in 1771. The +Revolutionary War nearly stopped the traffic; but by 1786 the +clearances had risen again to 146.</p> + +<p>To these figures must be added the unregistered trade of +Americans and foreigners. It is probable that about 25,000 +slaves were brought to America each year between 1698 and +1707. The importation then dwindled, but rose after the Assiento +to perhaps 30,000. The proportion, too, of these slaves +carried to the continent now began to increase. Of about +20,000 whom the English annually imported from 1733 to +1766, South Carolina alone received some 3,000. Before the +Revolution, the total exportation to America is variously estimated +as between 40,000 and 100,000 each year. Bancroft +places the total slave population of the continental colonies at +59,000 in 1714, 78,000 in 1727, and 293,000 in 1754. The census +of 1790 showed 697,897 slaves in the United States.<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">17</a></p> + +<p>In colonies like those in the West Indies and in South Carolina +and Georgia, the rapid importation into America of a +multitude of savages gave rise to a system of slavery far different +from that which the late Civil War abolished. The strikingly +harsh and even inhuman slave codes in these colonies +show this. Crucifixion, burning, and starvation were legal +modes of punishment.<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">18</a> The rough and brutal character of the +time and place was partly responsible for this, but a more +decisive reason lay in the fierce and turbulent character of +the imported Negroes. The docility to which long years of +bondage and strict discipline gave rise was absent, and in<!-- Page 14 --><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14"></a><span class="pagenum">14</span>surrections +and acts of violence were of frequent occurrence.<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">19</a> +Again and again the danger of planters being "cut off by their +own negroes"<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">20</a> is mentioned, both in the islands and on the +continent. This condition of vague dread and unrest not only +increased the severity of laws and strengthened the police system, +but was the prime motive back of all the earlier efforts +to check the further importation of slaves.</p> + +<p>On the other hand, in New England and New York the +Negroes were merely house servants or farm hands, and were +treated neither better nor worse than servants in general in +those days. Between these two extremes, the system of slavery +varied from a mild serfdom in Pennsylvania and New Jersey +to an aristocratic caste system in Maryland and Virginia.</p> +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">1</span></a> This account is based largely on the <i>Report of the Lords of the Committee of +Council</i>, etc. (London, 1789).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">2</span></a> African trading-companies had previously been erected (e.g. by Elizabeth +in 1585 and 1588, and by James I. in 1618); but slaves are not specifically mentioned +in their charters, and they probably did not trade in slaves. Cf. Bandinel, +<i>Account of the Slave Trade</i> (1842), pp. 38–44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">3</span></a> Chartered by Charles I. Cf. Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America +and W. Indies, 1574–1660</i>, p. 135.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">4</span></a> In 1651, during the Protectorate, the privileges of the African trade were +granted anew to this same company for fourteen years. Cf. Sainsbury, <i>Cal. +State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574–1660</i>, pp. 342, 355.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">5</span></a> Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661–1668</i>, +§ 408.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">6</span></a> Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1669–1674</i>, +§§ 934, 1095.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">7</span></a> Quoted in the above <i>Report</i>, under "Most Material Proceedings in the +House of Commons," Vol. I. Part I. An import duty of 10% on all goods, +except Negroes, imported from Africa to England and the colonies was also +laid. The proceeds of these duties went to the Royal African Company.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">8</span></a> Cf. Appendix A.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">9</span></a> Bandinel, <i>Account of the Slave Trade</i>, p. 59. Cf. Bryan Edwards, <i>History of +the British Colonies in the W. Indies</i> (London, 1798), Book VI.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">10</span></a> From 1729 to 1788, including compensation to the old company, Parliament +expended £705,255 on African companies. Cf. <i>Report</i>, etc., as above.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">11</span></a> Various amendatory statutes were passed: e.g., 24 George II. ch. 49, 25 +George II. ch. 40, 4 George III. ch. 20, 5 George III. ch. 44, 23 George III. +ch. 65.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">12</span></a> Renatus Enys from Surinam, in 1663: Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. +Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661–68</i>, § 577.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">13</span></a> Thomas Lynch from Jamaica, in 1665: Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. +Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661–68</i>, § 934.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">14</span></a> Lieutenant-Governor Willoughby of Barbadoes, in 1666: Sainsbury, <i>Cal. +State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661–68</i>, § 1281.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">15</span></a> Smith, <i>History of New Jersey</i> (1765), p. 254; Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, +Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1669–74</i>., §§ 367, 398, 812.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">16</span></a> <i>N.C. Col. Rec.</i>, V. 1118. For similar instructions, cf. <i>Penn. Archives</i>, I. 306; +<i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VI. 34; Gordon, <i>History of the American Revolution</i>, +I. letter 2; <i>Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, 4th Ser. X. 642.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">17</span></a> These figures are from the above-mentioned <i>Report</i>, Vol. II. Part IV. Nos. +1, 5. See also Bancroft, <i>History of the United States</i> (1883), II. 274 ff; Bandinel, +<i>Account of the Slave Trade</i>, p. 63; Benezet, <i>Caution to Great Britain</i>, etc., +pp. 39–40, and <i>Historical Account of Guinea</i>, ch. xiii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">18</span></a> Compare earlier slave codes in South Carolina, Georgia, Jamaica, etc.; also +cf. Benezet, <i>Historical Account of Guinea</i>, p. 75; <i>Report</i>, etc., as above.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">19</span></a> Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574–1660</i>, +pp. 229, 271, 295; <i>1661–68</i>, §§ 61, 412, 826, 1270, 1274, 1788; <i>1669–74</i>., §§ 508, +1244; Bolzius and Von Reck, <i>Journals</i> (in Force, <i>Tracts</i>, Vol. IV. No. 5, pp. +9, 18); <i>Proceedings of Governor and Assembly of Jamaica in regard to the Maroon +Negroes</i> (London, 1796).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">20</span></a> Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661–68</i>, +§ 1679.</p></div> +</div> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 15 --><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15"></a><span class="pagenum">15</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_II" id="Chapter_II"></a><i>Chapter II</i></h2> +<h3>THE PLANTING COLONIES.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">3. Character of these Colonies.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">4. Restrictions in Georgia.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">5. Restrictions in South Carolina.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">6. Restrictions in North Carolina.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">7. Restrictions in Virginia.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">8. Restrictions in Maryland.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">9. General Character of these Restrictions.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>3. <b>Character of these Colonies.</b> The planting colonies are +those Southern settlements whose climate and character destined +them to be the chief theatre of North American slavery. +The early attitude of these communities toward the +slave-trade is therefore of peculiar interest; for their action +was of necessity largely decisive for the future of the trade +and for the institution in North America. Theirs was the +only soil, climate, and society suited to slavery; in the other +colonies, with few exceptions, the institution was by these +same factors doomed from the beginning. Hence, only +strong moral and political motives could in the planting colonies +overthrow or check a traffic so favored by the mother +country.</p> + + +<p>4. <b>Restrictions in Georgia.</b> In Georgia we have an example +of a community whose philanthropic founders sought to +impose upon it a code of morals higher than the colonists +wished. The settlers of Georgia were of even worse moral +fibre than their slave-trading and whiskey-using neighbors in +Carolina and Virginia; yet Oglethorpe and the London proprietors +prohibited from the beginning both the rum and the +slave traffic, refusing to "suffer slavery (which is against the +Gospel as well as the fundamental law of England) to be authorised +under our authority."<a name="FNanchor_1_21" id="FNanchor_1_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_21" class="fnanchor">1</a> The trustees sought to win +the colonists over to their belief by telling them that money +could be better expended in transporting white men than +Negroes; that slaves would be a source of weakness to the +<!-- Page 16 --><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16"></a><span class="pagenum">16</span>colony; and that the "Produces designed to be raised in the +Colony would not require such Labour as to make Negroes +necessary for carrying them on."<a name="FNanchor_2_22" id="FNanchor_2_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_22" class="fnanchor">2</a></p> + +<p>This policy greatly displeased the colonists, who from 1735, +the date of the first law, to 1749, did not cease to clamor for +the repeal of the restrictions.<a name="FNanchor_3_23" id="FNanchor_3_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_23" class="fnanchor">3</a> As their English agent said, +they insisted that "In Spight of all Endeavours to disguise this +Point, it is as clear as Light itself, that Negroes are as essentially +necessary to the Cultivation of <i>Georgia</i>, as Axes, Hoes, +or any other Utensil of Agriculture."<a name="FNanchor_4_24" id="FNanchor_4_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_24" class="fnanchor">4</a> Meantime, evasions +and infractions of the laws became frequent and notorious. +Negroes were brought across from Carolina and "hired" for +life.<a name="FNanchor_5_25" id="FNanchor_5_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_25" class="fnanchor">5</a> "Finally, purchases were openly made in Savannah from +African traders: some seizures were made by those who opposed +the principle, but as a majority of the magistrates were +favorable to the introduction of slaves into the province, legal +decisions were suspended from time to time, and a strong +disposition evidenced by the courts to evade the operation of +the law."<a name="FNanchor_6_26" id="FNanchor_6_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_26" class="fnanchor">6</a> At last, in 1749, the colonists prevailed on the trustees +and the government, and the trade was thrown open under +careful restrictions, which limited importation, required a +registry and quarantine on all slaves brought in, and laid a +duty.<a name="FNanchor_7_27" id="FNanchor_7_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_27" class="fnanchor">7</a> It is probable, however, that these restrictions were +never enforced, and that the trade thus established continued +unchecked until the Revolution.</p> + + +<p>5. <b>Restrictions in South Carolina.</b><a name="FNanchor_8_28" id="FNanchor_8_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_28" class="fnanchor">8</a> South Carolina had +the largest and most widely developed slave-trade of any of +<!-- Page 17 --><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17"></a><span class="pagenum">17</span>the continental colonies. This was owing to the character of +her settlers, her nearness to the West Indian slave marts, and +the early development of certain staple crops, such as rice, +which were adapted to slave labor.<a name="FNanchor_9_29" id="FNanchor_9_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_29" class="fnanchor">9</a> Moreover, this colony +suffered much less interference from the home government +than many other colonies; thus it is possible here to trace the +untrammeled development of slave-trade restrictions in a typical +planting community.</p> + +<p>As early as 1698 the slave-trade to South Carolina had +reached such proportions that it was thought that "the great +number of negroes which of late have been imported into this +Collony may endanger the safety thereof." The immigration +of white servants was therefore encouraged by a special law.<a name="FNanchor_10_30" id="FNanchor_10_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_30" class="fnanchor">10</a> +Increase of immigration reduced this disproportion, but Negroes +continued to be imported in such numbers as to afford +considerable revenue from a moderate duty on them. About +the time when the Assiento was signed, the slave-trade so increased +that, scarcely a year after the consummation of that +momentous agreement, two heavy duty acts were passed, because +"the number of Negroes do extremely increase in this +Province, and through the afflicting providence of God, the +white persons do not proportionately multiply, by reason whereof, +the safety of the said Province is greatly endangered."<a name="FNanchor_11_31" id="FNanchor_11_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_31" class="fnanchor">11</a><!-- Page 18 --><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18"></a><span class="pagenum">18</span> +The trade, however, by reason of the encouragement abroad +and of increased business activity in exporting naval stores at +home, suffered scarcely any check, although repeated acts, reciting +the danger incident to a "great importation of Negroes," +were passed, laying high duties.<a name="FNanchor_12_32" id="FNanchor_12_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_32" class="fnanchor">12</a> Finally, in 1717, an +additional duty of £40,<a name="FNanchor_13_33" id="FNanchor_13_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_33" class="fnanchor">13</a> although due in depreciated currency, +succeeded so nearly in stopping the trade that, two +years later, all existing duties were repealed and one of £10 +substituted.<a name="FNanchor_14_34" id="FNanchor_14_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_34" class="fnanchor">14</a> This continued during the time of resistance to +the proprietary government, but by 1734 the importation had +again reached large proportions. "We must therefore beg +leave," the colonists write in that year, "to inform your Majesty, +that, amidst our other perilous circumstances, we are +subject to many intestine dangers from the great number of +negroes that are now among us, who amount at least to +twenty-two thousand persons, and are three to one of all your +Majesty's white subjects in this province. Insurrections +against us have been often attempted."<a name="FNanchor_15_35" id="FNanchor_15_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_35" class="fnanchor">15</a> In 1740 an insurrection +under a slave, Cato, at Stono, caused such widespread +alarm that a prohibitory duty of £100 was immediately laid.<a name="FNanchor_16_36" id="FNanchor_16_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_36" class="fnanchor">16</a> +Importation was again checked; but in 1751 the colony sought +to devise a plan whereby the slightly restricted immigration +of Negroes should provide a fund to encourage the importation +of white servants, "to prevent the mischiefs that may be +attended by the great importation of negroes into this Province."<a name="FNanchor_17_37" id="FNanchor_17_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_37" class="fnanchor">17</a> +Many white servants were thus encouraged to settle in +the colony; but so much larger was the influx of black slaves +that the colony, in 1760, totally prohibited the slave-trade. +This act was promptly disallowed by the Privy Council and +<!-- Page 19 --><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19"></a><span class="pagenum">19</span>the governor reprimanded;<a name="FNanchor_18_38" id="FNanchor_18_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_38" class="fnanchor">18</a> but the colony declared that "an +importation of negroes, equal in number to what have been +imported of late years, may prove of the most dangerous consequence +in many respects to this Province, and the best way +to obviate such danger will be by imposing such an additional +duty upon them as may totally prevent the evils."<a name="FNanchor_19_39" id="FNanchor_19_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_39" class="fnanchor">19</a> A prohibitive +duty of £100 was accordingly imposed in 1764.<a name="FNanchor_20_40" id="FNanchor_20_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_40" class="fnanchor">20</a> This +duty probably continued until the Revolution.</p> + +<p>The war made a great change in the situation. It has been +computed by good judges that, between the years 1775 and +1783, the State of South Carolina lost twenty-five thousand +Negroes, by actual hostilities, plunder of the British, runaways, +etc. After the war the trade quickly revived, and considerable +revenue was raised from duty acts until 1787, when by +act and ordinance the slave-trade was totally prohibited.<a name="FNanchor_21_41" id="FNanchor_21_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_41" class="fnanchor">21</a> This +prohibition, by renewals from time to time, lasted until 1803.</p> + + +<p>6. <b>Restrictions in North Carolina.</b> In early times there +were few slaves in North Carolina;<a name="FNanchor_22_42" id="FNanchor_22_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_42" class="fnanchor">22</a> this fact, together with +the troubled and turbulent state of affairs during the early +colonial period, did not necessitate the adoption of any settled +policy toward slavery or the slave-trade. Later the slave-trade +to the colony increased; but there is no evidence of any +effort to restrict or in any way regulate it before 1786, when +it was declared that "the importation of slaves into this State +is productive of evil consequences and highly impolitic,"<a name="FNanchor_23_43" id="FNanchor_23_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_43" class="fnanchor">23</a> and +a prohibitive duty was laid on them.</p> + + +<p>7. <b>Restrictions in Virginia.</b><a name="FNanchor_24_44" id="FNanchor_24_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_44" class="fnanchor">24</a> Next to South Carolina, +Virginia had probably the largest slave-trade. Her situation, +<!-- Page 20 --><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20"></a><span class="pagenum">20</span>however, differed considerably from that of her Southern +neighbor. The climate, the staple tobacco crop, and the society +of Virginia were favorable to a system of domestic slavery, +but one which tended to develop into a patriarchal serfdom +rather than into a slave-consuming industrial hierarchy. The +labor required by the tobacco crop was less unhealthy than +that connected with the rice crop, and the Virginians were, +perhaps, on a somewhat higher moral plane than the Carolinians. +There was consequently no such insatiable demand for +slaves in the larger colony. On the other hand, the power of +the Virginia executive was peculiarly strong, and it was not +possible here to thwart the slave-trade policy of the home +government as easily as elsewhere.</p> + +<p>Considering all these circumstances, it is somewhat difficult +to determine just what was the attitude of the early Virginians +toward the slave-trade. There is evidence, however, to show +that although they desired the slave-trade, the rate at which +the Negroes were brought in soon alarmed them. In 1710 a +duty of £5 was laid on Negroes, but Governor Spotswood +"soon perceived that the laying so high a Duty on Negros was +intended to discourage the importation," and vetoed the measure.<a name="FNanchor_25_45" id="FNanchor_25_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_45" class="fnanchor">25</a> +No further restrictive legislation was attempted for +some years, but whether on account of the attitude of the +governor or the desire of the inhabitants, is not clear. With<!-- Page 21 --><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21"></a><span class="pagenum">21</span> +1723 begins a series of acts extending down to the Revolution, +which, so far as their contents can be ascertained, seem to +have been designed effectually to check the slave-trade. Some +of these acts, like those of 1723 and 1727, were almost immediately +disallowed.<a name="FNanchor_26_46" id="FNanchor_26_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_46" class="fnanchor">26</a> The Act of 1732 laid a duty of 5%, which +was continued until 1769,<a name="FNanchor_27_47" id="FNanchor_27_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_47" class="fnanchor">27</a> and all other duties were in addition +to this; so that by such cumulative duties the rate on +slaves reached 25% in 1755,<a name="FNanchor_28_48" id="FNanchor_28_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_48" class="fnanchor">28</a> and 35% at the time of Braddock's +expedition.<a name="FNanchor_29_49" id="FNanchor_29_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_49" class="fnanchor">29</a> These acts were found "very burthensome," "introductive +of many frauds," and "very inconvenient,"<a name="FNanchor_30_50" id="FNanchor_30_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_50" class="fnanchor">30</a> and +were so far repealed that by 1761 the duty was only 15%. As +now the Burgesses became more powerful, two or more bills +proposing restrictive duties were passed, but disallowed.<a name="FNanchor_31_51" id="FNanchor_31_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_51" class="fnanchor">31</a> By +1772 the anti-slave-trade feeling had become considerably developed, +and the Burgesses petitioned the king, declaring that +"The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of +Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, +and under its present encouragement, we have too much +reason to fear <i>will endanger the very existence</i> of your Majesty's +American dominions.... Deeply impressed with these sentiments, +we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove <i>all +those restraints</i> on your Majesty's governors of this colony, +<i>which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very +pernicious a commerce</i>."<a name="FNanchor_32_52" id="FNanchor_32_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_52" class="fnanchor">32</a></p> + +<p>Nothing further appears to have been done before the war. +When, in 1776, the delegates adopted a Frame of Government, +it was charged in this document that the king had perverted +his high office into a "detestable and insupportable +tyranny, by ... prompting our negroes to rise in arms +among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of +his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by +law."<a name="FNanchor_33_53" id="FNanchor_33_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_53" class="fnanchor">33</a> Two years later, in 1778, an "Act to prevent the further +<!-- Page 22 --><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22"></a><span class="pagenum">22</span>importation of Slaves" stopped definitively the legal slave-trade +to Virginia.<a name="FNanchor_34_54" id="FNanchor_34_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_54" class="fnanchor">34</a></p> + + +<p>8. <b>Restrictions in Maryland.</b><a name="FNanchor_35_55" id="FNanchor_35_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_55" class="fnanchor">35</a> Not until the impulse of the +Assiento had been felt in America, did Maryland make any +attempt to restrain a trade from which she had long enjoyed +a comfortable revenue. The Act of 1717, laying a duty of 40<i>s.</i>,<a name="FNanchor_36_56" id="FNanchor_36_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_56" class="fnanchor">36</a> +may have been a mild restrictive measure. The duties were +slowly increased to 50<i>s.</i> in 1754,<a name="FNanchor_37_57" id="FNanchor_37_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_57" class="fnanchor">37</a> and £4. in 1763.<a name="FNanchor_38_58" id="FNanchor_38_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_58" class="fnanchor">38</a> In 1771 a +prohibitive duty of £9 was laid;<a name="FNanchor_39_59" id="FNanchor_39_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_59" class="fnanchor">39</a> and in 1783, after the war, +all importation by sea was stopped and illegally imported Negroes +were freed.<a name="FNanchor_40_60" id="FNanchor_40_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_60" class="fnanchor">40</a></p> + +<p>Compared with the trade to Virginia and the Carolinas, +the slave-trade to Maryland was small, and seems at no time +to have reached proportions which alarmed the inhabitants. +It was regulated to the economic demand by a slowly increasing +tariff, and finally, after 1769, had nearly ceased of +its own accord before the restrictive legislation of Revolutionary +times.<a name="FNanchor_41_61" id="FNanchor_41_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_61" class="fnanchor">41</a> Probably the proximity of Maryland to Vir<!-- Page 23 --><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23"></a><span class="pagenum">23</span>ginia +made an independent slave-trade less necessary to her.</p> + + +<p>9. <b>General Character of these Restrictions.</b> We find in +the planting colonies all degrees of advocacy of the trade, +from the passiveness of Maryland to the clamor of Georgia. +Opposition to the trade did not appear in Georgia, was based +almost solely on political fear of insurrection in Carolina, and +sprang largely from the same motive in Virginia, mingled +with some moral repugnance. As a whole, it may be said that +whatever opposition to the slave-trade there was in the planting +colonies was based principally on the political fear of +insurrection.</p> +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_21" id="Footnote_1_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_21"><span class="label">1</span></a> Hoare, <i>Memoirs of Granville Sharp</i> (1820), p. 157. For the act of prohibition, +see W.B. Stevens, <i>History of Georgia</i> (1847), I. 311.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_22" id="Footnote_2_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_22"><span class="label">2</span></a> [B. Martyn], <i>Account of the Progress of Georgia</i> (1741), pp. 9–10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_23" id="Footnote_3_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_23"><span class="label">3</span></a> Cf. Stevens, <i>History of Georgia</i>, I. 290 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_24" id="Footnote_4_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_24"><span class="label">4</span></a> Stephens, <i>Account of the Causes</i>, etc., p. 8. Cf. also <i>Journal of Trustees</i>, II. +210; cited by Stevens, <i>History of Georgia</i>, I. 306.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_25" id="Footnote_5_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_25"><span class="label">5</span></a> McCall, <i>History of Georgia</i> (1811), I. 206–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_26" id="Footnote_6_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_26"><span class="label">6</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_27" id="Footnote_7_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_27"><span class="label">7</span></a> <i>Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade</i>, Vol. X.; cited by C.C. Jones, <i>History of +Georgia</i> (1883), I. 422–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_28" id="Footnote_8_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_28"><span class="label">8</span></a> The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of South +Carolina; details will be found in Appendix A:— +</p> +<table summary="SC Legisiation Summary"> +<tr><td align="left">1698,</td><td colspan="5" align="left">Act to encourage the immigration of white servants.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1703,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left" colspan="4">10<i>s.</i> on Africans, 20<i>s.</i> on other Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1714,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="4">additional duty.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1714,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="4">£2.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1714–15,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left" colspan="4">additional duty.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1716,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="4">£3 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1717,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="4">£40 in addition to existing duties.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1719,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="4">£10 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td colspan="4" align="left"> The Act of 1717, etc., was repealed.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1721,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£10</td><td align="left">on Africans,</td><td align="left">£50</td><td align="left">on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1722,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center" colspan="2">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1740,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£100</td><td align="left">on Africans,</td><td align="left">£150</td><td align="left">on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1751,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£10</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£50</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1760,</td><td colspan="5" align="left">Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1764,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left" colspan="4">additional duty of £100.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1783,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£3</td><td align="left">on Africans,</td><td align="left">£20</td><td align="left">on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1784,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center" colspan="2">"</td><td align="left">£5</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1787,</td><td colspan="5" align="left">Art and Ordinance prohibiting importation.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_29" id="Footnote_9_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_29"><span class="label">9</span></a> Cf. Hewatt, <i>Historical Account of S. Carolina and Georgia</i> (1779), I. 120 ff.; +reprinted in <i>S.C. Hist. Coll.</i> (1836), I. 108 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_30" id="Footnote_10_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_30"><span class="label">10</span></a> Cooper, <i>Statutes at Large of S. Carolina</i>, II. 153.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_31" id="Footnote_11_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_31"><span class="label">11</span></a> The text of the first act is not extant: cf. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, III. 56. For the +second, see Cooper, VII. 365, 367.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_32" id="Footnote_12_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_32"><span class="label">12</span></a> Cf. Grimké, <i>Public Laws of S. Carolina</i>, p. xvi, No. 362; Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, +II. 649. Cf. also <i>Governor Johnson to the Board of Trade</i>, Jan. 12, 1719–20; +reprinted in Rivers, <i>Early History of S. Carolina</i> (1874), App., xii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_33" id="Footnote_13_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_33"><span class="label">13</span></a> Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 368.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_34" id="Footnote_14_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_34"><span class="label">14</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, III. 56.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_35" id="Footnote_15_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_35"><span class="label">15</span></a> From a memorial signed by the governor, President of the Council, and +Speaker of the House, dated April 9, 1734, printed in Hewatt, <i>Historical Account +of S. Carolina and Georgia</i> (1779), II. 39; reprinted in S.C. Hist. Coll. +(1836), I. 305–6. Cf. <i>N.C. Col. Rec.</i>, II. 421.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_36" id="Footnote_16_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_36"><span class="label">16</span></a> Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, III. 556; Grimké, <i>Public Laws</i>, p. xxxi, No. 694. Cf. +Ramsay, <i>History of S. Carolina</i>, I. 110.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_37" id="Footnote_17_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_37"><span class="label">17</span></a> Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, III. 739.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_38" id="Footnote_18_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_38"><span class="label">18</span></a> The text of this law has not been found. Cf. Burge, <i>Commentaries on +Colonial and Foreign Laws</i>, I. 737, note; Stevens, <i>History of Georgia</i>, I. 286. See +instructions of the governor of New Hampshire, June 30, 1761, in Gordon, +<i>History of the American Revolution</i>, I. letter 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_39" id="Footnote_19_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_39"><span class="label">19</span></a> Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, IV. 187.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_40" id="Footnote_20_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_40"><span class="label">20</span></a> This duty avoided the letter of the English instructions by making the +duty payable by the first purchasers, and not by the importers. Cf. Cooper, +<i>Statutes</i>, IV. 187.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_41" id="Footnote_21_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_41"><span class="label">21</span></a> Grimké, Public Laws, p. lxviii, Nos. 1485, 1486; Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 430.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_42" id="Footnote_22_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_42"><span class="label">22</span></a> Cf. <i>N.C. Col. Rec.</i>, IV. 172.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_43" id="Footnote_23_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_43"><span class="label">23</span></a> Martin, <i>Iredell's Acts of Assembly</i>, I. 413, 492.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_44" id="Footnote_24_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_44"><span class="label">24</span></a> The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Virginia; +details will be found in Appendix A:— +</p> +<table summary="Virginia Summary"> +<tr><td>1710,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left" colspan="2">proposed duty of £5.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1723,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">prohibitive (?).</td></tr> +<tr><td>1727,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td>1732,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">5%.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1736,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">"</td></tr> +<tr><td>1740,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">additional duty of</td><td align="left">5%.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1754,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">5%.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1755,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">10% (Repealed, 1760).</td></tr> +<tr><td>1757,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">10% (Repealed, 1761).</td></tr> +<tr><td>1759,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="2">20% on colonial slaves.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1766,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="2">additional duty of 10% (Disallowed?).</td></tr> +<tr><td>1769,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center" colspan="2">"</td></tr> +<tr><td>1772,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£5 on colonial slaves.</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td align="left" colspan="3"> Petition of Burgesses <i>vs.</i> Slave-trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1776,</td><td align="left" colspan="3">Arraignment of the king in the adopted Frame of Government.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1778,</td><td align="left" colspan="3">Importation prohibited.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_45" id="Footnote_25_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_45"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Letters of Governor Spotswood</i>, in <i>Va. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, New Ser., I. 52.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_46" id="Footnote_26_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_46"><span class="label">26</span></a> Hening, <i>Statutes at Large of Virginia</i>, IV. 118, 182.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_47" id="Footnote_27_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_47"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 317, 394; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353; VII. 281; VIII. 190, 336, 532.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_48" id="Footnote_28_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_48"><span class="label">28</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V. 92; VI. 417, 419, 461, 466.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_49" id="Footnote_29_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_49"><span class="label">29</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VII. 69, 81.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_50" id="Footnote_30_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_50"><span class="label">30</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VII. 363, 383.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_51" id="Footnote_31_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_51"><span class="label">31</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VIII. 237, 337.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_52" id="Footnote_32_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_52"><span class="label">32</span></a> <i>Miscellaneous Papers, 1672–1865</i>, in <i>Va. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, New Ser., VI. 14; +Tucker, <i>Blackstone's Commentaries</i>, I. Part II. App., 51.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_53" id="Footnote_33_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_53"><span class="label">33</span></a> Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, IX. 112.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_54" id="Footnote_34_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_54"><span class="label">34</span></a> Importation by sea or by land was prohibited, with a penalty of £1000 +for illegal importation and £500 for buying or selling. The Negro was freed, +if illegally brought in. This law was revised somewhat in 1785. Cf. Hening, +<i>Statutes</i>, IX. 471; XII. 182.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_55" id="Footnote_35_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_55"><span class="label">35</span></a> The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Maryland; +details will be found in Appendix A:— +</p> +<table summary="Maryland Summary"> +<tr><td>1695,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left">10<i>s.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td>1704,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">20<i>s.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td>1715,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td>1717,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" colspan="4">additional duty of 40<i>s.</i> (?).</td></tr> +<tr><td>1754,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">0<i>s.</i>,</td><td align="left">total</td><td align="left">50<i>s.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td>1756,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">20<i>s.</i></td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">40<i>s.</i> (?).</td></tr> +<tr><td>1763,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£2</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£4.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1771,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£5</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£9.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1783,</td><td>Importation prohibited.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_56" id="Footnote_36_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_56"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>Compleat Coll. Laws of Maryland</i> (ed. 1727), p. 191; Bacon, <i>Laws of Maryland +at Large</i>, 1728, ch. 8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_57" id="Footnote_37_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_57"><span class="label">37</span></a> Bacon, <i>Laws</i>, 1754, ch. 9, 14.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_58" id="Footnote_38_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_58"><span class="label">38</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1763, ch. 28.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_59" id="Footnote_39_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_59"><span class="label">39</span></a> <i>Laws of Maryland since 1763</i>: 1771, ch. 7. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>: 1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., +ch. 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_60" id="Footnote_40_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_60"><span class="label">40</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>: 1783, sess. Apr.-June, ch. 23.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_61" id="Footnote_41_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_61"><span class="label">41</span></a> "The last importation of slaves into Maryland was, as I am credibly informed, +in the year 1769": William Eddis, <i>Letters from America</i> (London, +1792), p. 65, note. +</p> +<p>The number of slaves in Maryland has been estimated as follows:—</p> +<table summary="Maryland slaves"> +<tr><td align="left">In</td><td align="left">1704,</td><td align="right">4,475.</td><td align="left"><i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, V. 605.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1710,</td><td align="right">7,935.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1712,</td><td align="right">8,330.</td><td align="left"> Scharf, <i>History of Maryland</i>, I. 377.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1719,</td><td align="right">25,000.</td><td align="left"><i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, V. 605.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1748,</td><td align="right">36,000.</td><td align="left">McMahon, <i>History of Maryland</i>, I. 313.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1755,</td><td align="right">46,356.</td><td align="left"><i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, XXXIV. 261.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1756,</td><td align="right">46,225.</td><td align="left">McMahon, <i>History of Maryland</i>, I. 313.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1761,</td><td align="right">49,675.</td><td align="left">Dexter, <i>Colonial Population</i>, p. 21, note.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1782,</td><td align="right">83,362.</td><td align="left"><i>Encyclopædia Britannica</i> (9th ed.), XV. 603.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1787,</td><td align="right">80,000.</td><td align="left">Dexter, <i>Colonial Population</i>, p. 21, note.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> +</div> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 24 --><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24"></a><span class="pagenum">24</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_III" id="Chapter_III"></a><i>Chapter III</i></h2> +<h3>THE FARMING COLONIES.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">10. Character of these Colonies.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">11. The Dutch Slave-Trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">12. Restrictions in New York.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">13. Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">14. Restrictions in New Jersey.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">15. General Character of these Restrictions.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>10. <b>Character of these Colonies.</b> The colonies of this group, +occupying the central portion of the English possessions, +comprise those communities where, on account of climate, +physical characteristics, and circumstances of settlement, slavery +as an institution found but a narrow field for development. +The climate was generally rather cool for the newly +imported slaves, the soil was best suited to crops to which +slave labor was poorly adapted, and the training and habits of +the great body of settlers offered little chance for the growth +of a slave system. These conditions varied, of course, in different +colonies; but the general statement applies to all. These +communities of small farmers and traders derived whatever +opposition they had to the slave-trade from three sorts of +motives,—economic, political, and moral. First, the importation +of slaves did not pay, except to supply a moderate demand +for household servants. Secondly, these colonies, as well as +those in the South, had a wholesome political fear of a large +servile population. Thirdly, the settlers of many of these colonies +were of sterner moral fibre than the Southern cavaliers +and adventurers, and, in the absence of great counteracting +motives, were more easily led to oppose the institution and +the trade. Finally, it must be noted that these colonies did not +so generally regard themselves as temporary commercial investments +as did Virginia and Carolina. Intending to found +permanent States, these settlers from the first more carefully +studied the ultimate interests of those States.</p> + + +<p>11. <b>The Dutch Slave-Trade.</b> The Dutch seem to have commenced +the slave-trade to the American continent, the Middle +colonies and some of the Southern receiving supplies from +<!-- Page 25 --><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25"></a><span class="pagenum">25</span>them. John Rolfe relates that the last of August, 1619, there +came to Virginia "a dutch man of warre that sold us twenty +Negars."<a name="FNanchor_1_62" id="FNanchor_1_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_62" class="fnanchor">1</a> This was probably one of the ships of the numerous +private Dutch trading-companies which early entered into +and developed the lucrative African slave-trade. Ships sailed +from Holland to Africa, got slaves in exchange for their +goods, carried the slaves to the West Indies or Brazil, and +returned home laden with sugar.<a name="FNanchor_2_63" id="FNanchor_2_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_63" class="fnanchor">2</a> Through the enterprise of +one of these trading-companies the settlement of New Amsterdam +was begun, in 1614. In 1621 the private companies +trading in the West were all merged into the Dutch West India +Company, and given a monopoly of American trade. This +company was very active, sending in four years 15,430 Negroes +to Brazil,<a name="FNanchor_3_64" id="FNanchor_3_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_64" class="fnanchor">3</a> carrying on war with Spain, supplying even +the English plantations,<a name="FNanchor_4_65" id="FNanchor_4_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_65" class="fnanchor">4</a> and gradually becoming the great +slave carrier of the day.</p> + +<p>The commercial supremacy of the Dutch early excited the +envy and emulation of the English. The Navigation Ordinance +of 1651 was aimed at them, and two wars were necessary +to wrest the slave-trade from them and place it in the hands +of the English. The final terms of peace among other things +surrendered New Netherland to England, and opened the +way for England to become henceforth the world's greatest +slave-trader. Although the Dutch had thus commenced the +continental slave-trade, they had not actually furnished a very +large number of slaves to the English colonies outside the +West Indies. A small trade had, by 1698, brought a few thousand +to New York, and still fewer to New Jersey.<a name="FNanchor_5_66" id="FNanchor_5_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_66" class="fnanchor">5</a> It was left +to the English, with their strong policy in its favor, to develop +this trade.</p> + + +<p>12. <b>Restrictions in New York.</b><a name="FNanchor_6_67" id="FNanchor_6_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_67" class="fnanchor">6</a> The early ordinances of +<!-- Page 26 --><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26"></a><span class="pagenum">26</span>the Dutch, laying duties, generally of ten per cent, on slaves, +probably proved burdensome to the trade, although this was +not intentional.<a name="FNanchor_7_68" id="FNanchor_7_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_68" class="fnanchor">7</a> The Biblical prohibition of slavery and the +slave-trade, copied from New England codes into the Duke +of York's Laws, had no practical application,<a name="FNanchor_8_69" id="FNanchor_8_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_69" class="fnanchor">8</a> and the trade +continued to be encouraged in the governors' instructions. In +1709 a duty of £3 was laid on Negroes from elsewhere than +Africa.<a name="FNanchor_9_70" id="FNanchor_9_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_70" class="fnanchor">9</a> This was aimed at West India slaves, and was prohibitive. +By 1716 the duty on all slaves was £1 12½<i>s.</i>, which was +probably a mere revenue figure.<a name="FNanchor_10_71" id="FNanchor_10_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_71" class="fnanchor">10</a> In 1728 a duty of 40<i>s.</i> was +laid, to be continued until 1737.<a name="FNanchor_11_72" id="FNanchor_11_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_72" class="fnanchor">11</a> It proved restrictive, however, +and on the "humble petition of the Merchants and<!-- Page 27 --><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27"></a><span class="pagenum">27</span> +Traders of the City of Bristol" was disallowed in 1735, as +"greatly prejudicial to the Trade and Navigation of this Kingdom."<a name="FNanchor_12_73" id="FNanchor_12_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_73" class="fnanchor">12</a> +Governor Cosby was also reminded that no duties on +slaves payable by the importer were to be laid. Later, in 1753, +the 40<i>s.</i> duty was restored, but under the increased trade of +those days was not felt.<a name="FNanchor_13_74" id="FNanchor_13_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_74" class="fnanchor">13</a> No further restrictions seem to have +been attempted until 1785, when the sale of slaves in the State +was forbidden.<a name="FNanchor_14_75" id="FNanchor_14_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_75" class="fnanchor">14</a></p> + +<p>The chief element of restriction in this colony appears to +have been the shrewd business sense of the traders, who +never flooded the slave market, but kept a supply sufficient +for the slowly growing demand. Between 1701 and 1726 only +about 2,375 slaves were imported, and in 1774 the total slave +population amounted to 21,149.<a name="FNanchor_15_76" id="FNanchor_15_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_76" class="fnanchor">15</a> No restriction was ever +put by New York on participation in the trade outside the +colony, and in spite of national laws New York merchants +continued to be engaged in this traffic even down to the +Civil War.<a name="FNanchor_16_77" id="FNanchor_16_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_77" class="fnanchor">16</a></p> + +<p>Vermont, who withdrew from New York in 1777, in her +<!-- Page 28 --><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28"></a><span class="pagenum">28</span>first Constitution<a name="FNanchor_17_78" id="FNanchor_17_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_78" class="fnanchor">17</a> declared slavery illegal, and in 1786 stopped +by law the sale and transportation of slaves within her boundaries.<a name="FNanchor_18_79" id="FNanchor_18_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_79" class="fnanchor">18</a></p> + + +<p>13. <b>Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.</b><a name="FNanchor_19_80" id="FNanchor_19_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_80" class="fnanchor">19</a> One of +the first American protests against the slave-trade came from +certain German Friends, in 1688, at a Weekly Meeting held in +Germantown, Pennsylvania. "These are the reasons," wrote +"Garret henderich, derick up de graeff, Francis daniell Pastorius, +and Abraham up Den graef," "why we are against the +traffick of men-body, as followeth: Is there any that would be +done or handled at this manner?... Now, tho they are +black, we cannot conceive there is more liberty to have them +slaves, as it is to have other white ones. There is a saying, that +we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; +making no difference of what generation, descent or colour +they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who +<!-- Page 29 --><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29"></a><span class="pagenum">29</span>buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"<a name="FNanchor_20_81" id="FNanchor_20_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_81" class="fnanchor">20</a> This little +leaven helped slowly to work a revolution in the attitude of +this great sect toward slavery and the slave-trade. The Yearly +Meeting at first postponed the matter, "It having so General +a Relation to many other Parts."<a name="FNanchor_21_82" id="FNanchor_21_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_82" class="fnanchor">21</a> Eventually, however, in +1696, the Yearly Meeting advised "That Friends be careful not +to encourage the bringing in of any more Negroes."<a name="FNanchor_22_83" id="FNanchor_22_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_83" class="fnanchor">22</a> This +advice was repeated in stronger terms for a quarter-century,<a name="FNanchor_23_84" id="FNanchor_23_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_84" class="fnanchor">23</a> +and by that time Sandiford, Benezet, Lay, and Woolman had +begun their crusade. In 1754 the Friends took a step farther +and made the purchase of slaves a matter of discipline.<a name="FNanchor_24_85" id="FNanchor_24_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_85" class="fnanchor">24</a> Four +years later the Yearly Meeting expressed itself clearly as +"against every branch of this practice," and declared that if +"any professing with us should persist to vindicate it, and be +concerned in importing, selling or purchasing slaves, the respective +Monthly Meetings to which they belong should +manifest their disunion with such persons."<a name="FNanchor_25_86" id="FNanchor_25_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_86" class="fnanchor">25</a> Further, manumission +was recommended, and in 1776 made compulsory.<a name="FNanchor_26_87" id="FNanchor_26_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_87" class="fnanchor">26</a> +The effect of this attitude of the Friends was early manifested +in the legislation of all the colonies where the sect was influential, +and particularly in Pennsylvania.</p> + +<p>One of the first duty acts (1710) laid a restrictive duty of +40<i>s.</i> on slaves, and was eventually disallowed.<a name="FNanchor_27_88" id="FNanchor_27_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_88" class="fnanchor">27</a> In 1712 William +Southeby petitioned the Assembly totally to abolish slavery. +This the Assembly naturally refused to attempt; but the +same year, in response to another petition "signed by many +hands," they passed an "Act to prevent the Importation of +Negroes and Indians,"<a name="FNanchor_28_89" id="FNanchor_28_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_89" class="fnanchor">28</a>—the first enactment of its kind in<!-- Page 30 --><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30"></a><span class="pagenum">30</span> +America. This act was inspired largely by the general fear of +insurrection which succeeded the "Negro-plot" of 1712 in +New York. It declared: "Whereas, divers Plots and Insurrections +have frequently happened, not only in the Islands but +on the Main Land of <i>America</i>, by Negroes, which have been +carried on so far that several of the inhabitants have been barbarously +Murthered, an Instance whereof we have lately had +in our Neighboring Colony of <i>New York</i>,"<a name="FNanchor_29_90" id="FNanchor_29_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_90" class="fnanchor">29</a> etc. It then proceeded +to lay a prohibitive duty of £20 on all slaves imported. +These acts were quickly disposed of in England. Three duty +acts affecting Negroes, including the prohibitory act, were in +1713 disallowed, and it was directed that "the Dep<sup>ty</sup> Gov<sup>r</sup> +Council and Assembly of Pensilvania, be & they are hereby +Strictly Enjoyned & required not to permit the said Laws +... to be from henceforward put in Execution."<a name="FNanchor_30_91" id="FNanchor_30_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_91" class="fnanchor">30</a> The Assembly +repealed these laws, but in 1715 passed another laying +a duty of £5, which was also eventually disallowed.<a name="FNanchor_31_92" id="FNanchor_31_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_92" class="fnanchor">31</a> Other +acts, the provisions of which are not clear, were passed in 1720 +and 1722,<a name="FNanchor_32_93" id="FNanchor_32_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_93" class="fnanchor">32</a> and in 1725–1726 the duty on Negroes was raised +to the restrictive figure of £10.<a name="FNanchor_33_94" id="FNanchor_33_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_94" class="fnanchor">33</a> This duty, for some reason +not apparent, was lowered to £2 in 1729,<a name="FNanchor_34_95" id="FNanchor_34_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_95" class="fnanchor">34</a> but restored again +in 1761.<a name="FNanchor_35_96" id="FNanchor_35_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_96" class="fnanchor">35</a> A struggle occurred over this last measure, the +Friends petitioning for it, and the Philadelphia merchants +against it, declaring that "We, the subscribers, ever desirous +<!-- Page 31 --><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31"></a><span class="pagenum">31</span>to extend the Trade of this Province, have seen, for some time +past, the many inconveniencys the Inhabitants have suffer'd +for want of Labourers and artificers, ... have for some time +encouraged the importation of Negroes;" they prayed therefore +at least for a delay in passing the measure.<a name="FNanchor_36_97" id="FNanchor_36_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_97" class="fnanchor">36</a> The law, +nevertheless, after much debate and altercation with the governor, +finally passed.</p> + +<p>These repeated acts nearly stopped the trade, and the manumission +or sale of Negroes by the Friends decreased the +number of slaves in the province. The rising spirit of independence +enabled the colony, in 1773, to restore the prohibitive +duty of £20 and make it perpetual.<a name="FNanchor_37_98" id="FNanchor_37_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_98" class="fnanchor">37</a> After the Revolution unpaid +duties on slaves were collected and the slaves registered,<a name="FNanchor_38_99" id="FNanchor_38_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_99" class="fnanchor">38</a> +and in 1780 an "Act for the gradual Abolition of Slavery" was +passed.<a name="FNanchor_39_100" id="FNanchor_39_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_100" class="fnanchor">39</a> As there were probably at no time before the war +more than 11,000 slaves in Pennsylvania,<a name="FNanchor_40_101" id="FNanchor_40_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_101" class="fnanchor">40</a> the task thus accomplished +was not so formidable as in many other States. As it +was, participation in the slave-trade outside the colony was +not prohibited until 1788.<a name="FNanchor_41_102" id="FNanchor_41_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_102" class="fnanchor">41</a></p> + +<p>It seems probable that in the original Swedish settlements +along the Delaware slavery was prohibited.<a name="FNanchor_42_103" id="FNanchor_42_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_103" class="fnanchor">42</a> This measure +had, however, little practical effect; for as soon as the Dutch +got control the slave-trade was opened, although, as it appears, +to no large extent. After the fall of the Dutch Delaware +came into English hands. Not until 1775 do we find any legislation +on the slave-trade. In that year the colony attempted +<!-- Page 32 --><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32"></a><span class="pagenum">32</span>to prohibit the importation of slaves, but the governor vetoed +the bill.<a name="FNanchor_43_104" id="FNanchor_43_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_104" class="fnanchor">43</a> Finally, in 1776 by the Constitution, and in 1787 by +law, importation and exportation were both prohibited.<a name="FNanchor_44_105" id="FNanchor_44_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_105" class="fnanchor">44</a></p> + + +<p>14. <b>Restrictions in New Jersey.</b><a name="FNanchor_45_106" id="FNanchor_45_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_106" class="fnanchor">45</a> Although the freeholders +of West New Jersey declared, in 1676, that "all and every Person +and Persons Inhabiting the said Province, shall, as far as +in us lies, be free from Oppression and Slavery,"<a name="FNanchor_46_107" id="FNanchor_46_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_107" class="fnanchor">46</a> yet Negro +slaves are early found in the colony.<a name="FNanchor_47_108" id="FNanchor_47_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_108" class="fnanchor">47</a> The first restrictive measure +was passed, after considerable friction between the +Council and the House, in 1713; it laid a duty of £10, currency.<a name="FNanchor_48_109" id="FNanchor_48_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_109" class="fnanchor">48</a> +Governor Hunter explained to the Board of Trade +that the bill was "calculated to Encourage the Importation of +white Servants for the better Peopeling that Country."<a name="FNanchor_49_110" id="FNanchor_49_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_110" class="fnanchor">49</a> How +long this act continued does not appear; probably, not long. +No further legislation was enacted until 1762 or 1763, when a +prohibitive duty was laid on account of "the inconvenience +the Province is exposed to in lying open to the free importation +of Negros, when the Provinces on each side have laid +duties on them."<a name="FNanchor_50_111" id="FNanchor_50_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_111" class="fnanchor">50</a> The Board of Trade declared that while +they did not object to "the Policy of imposing a reasonable +duty," they could not assent to this, and the act was disallowed.<a name="FNanchor_51_112" id="FNanchor_51_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_112" class="fnanchor">51</a> +The Act of 1769 evaded the technical objection of the +Board of Trade, and laid a duty of £15 on the first purchasers +of Negroes, because, as the act declared, "Duties on the Im<!-- Page 33 --><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33"></a><span class="pagenum">33</span>portation +of Negroes in several of the neighbouring Colonies +hath, on Experience, been found beneficial in the Introduction +of sober, industrious Foreigners."<a name="FNanchor_52_113" id="FNanchor_52_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_113" class="fnanchor">52</a> In 1774 a bill which, +according to the report of the Council to Governor Morris, +"plainly intended an entire Prohibition of all Slaves being imported +from foreign Parts," was thrown out by the Council.<a name="FNanchor_53_114" id="FNanchor_53_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_114" class="fnanchor">53</a> +Importation was finally prohibited in 1786.<a name="FNanchor_54_115" id="FNanchor_54_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_115" class="fnanchor">54</a></p> + + +<p>15. <b>General Character of these Restrictions.</b> The main +difference in motive between the restrictions which the planting +and the farming colonies put on the African slave-trade, +lay in the fact that the former limited it mainly from fear of +insurrection, the latter mainly because it did not pay. Naturally, +the latter motive worked itself out with much less legislation +than the former; for this reason, and because they +held a smaller number of slaves, most of these colonies have +fewer actual statutes than the Southern colonies. In Pennsylvania +alone did this general economic revolt against the trade +acquire a distinct moral tinge. Although even here the institution +was naturally doomed, yet the clear moral insight of +the Quakers checked the trade much earlier than would otherwise +have happened. We may say, then, that the farming +colonies checked the slave-trade primarily from economic +motives.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_62" id="Footnote_1_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_62"><span class="label">1</span></a> Smith, <i>Generall Historie of Virginia</i> (1626 and 1632), p. 126.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_63" id="Footnote_2_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_63"><span class="label">2</span></a> Cf. Southey, <i>History of Brazil</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_64" id="Footnote_3_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_64"><span class="label">3</span></a> De Laet, in O'Callaghan, <i>Voyages of the Slavers</i>, etc., p. viii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_65" id="Footnote_4_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_65"><span class="label">4</span></a> See, e.g., Sainsbury, <i>Cal. State Papers; Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, +1574–1660</i>, p. 279.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_66" id="Footnote_5_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_66"><span class="label">5</span></a> Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; also <i>Freedoms</i>, XXX., in O'Callaghan, <i>Laws +of New Netherland, 1638–74</i> (ed. 1868), p. 10; Brodhead, <i>History of New York</i>, +I. 312.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_67" id="Footnote_6_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_67"><span class="label">6</span></a> The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of New York; +details will be found in Appendix A:— +</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="right">1709,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Duty Act: £3 on Negroes not direct from Africa (Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1711,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1716,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left"> 5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="2"> </td><td align="left"> 10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1728,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">40<i>s.</i> on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1732,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">40<i>s.</i> on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1734,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">(?)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1753,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">40<i>s.</i> on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes. (This act was annually continued.)</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">[1777,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1785,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Sale of slaves in State prohibited.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">[1786,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">in Vermont prohibited.]</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right">1788,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">in State prohibited.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_68" id="Footnote_7_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_68"><span class="label">7</span></a> O'Callaghan, <i>Laws of New Netherland, 1638–74</i>, pp. 31, 348, etc. The colonists +themselves were encouraged to trade, but the terms were not favorable +enough: <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, I. 246; <i>Laws of New Netherland</i>, pp. +81–2, note, 127. The colonists declared "that they are inclined to a foreign +Trade, and especially to the Coast of <i>Africa</i>, ... in order to fetch thence +Slaves": O'Callaghan, <i>Voyages of the Slavers</i>, etc., p. 172.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_69" id="Footnote_8_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_69"><span class="label">8</span></a> <i>Charter to William Penn</i>, etc. (1879), p. 12. First published on Long Island +in 1664. Possibly Negro slaves were explicitly excepted. Cf. <i>Magazine of American +History</i>, XI. 411, and <i>N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, I. 322.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_70" id="Footnote_9_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_70"><span class="label">9</span></a> <i>Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718</i>, pp. 97, 125, 134; <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, +V. 178, 185, 293.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_71" id="Footnote_10_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_71"><span class="label">10</span></a> The Assembly attempted to raise the slave duty in 1711, but the Council +objected (<i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, V. 292 ff.), although, as it seems, not +on account of the slave duty in particular. Another act was passed between +1711 and 1716, but its contents are not known (cf. title of the Act of 1716). For +the Act of 1716, see <i>Acts of Assembly, 1691–1718</i>, p. 224.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_72" id="Footnote_11_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_72"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VI. 37, 38.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_73" id="Footnote_12_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_73"><span class="label">12</span></a> <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VI. 32–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_74" id="Footnote_13_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_74"><span class="label">13</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VII. 907. This act was annually renewed. The slave duty remained +a chief source of revenue down to 1774. Cf. <i>Report of Governor Tryon</i>, in <i>Doc. +rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VIII. 452.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_75" id="Footnote_14_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_75"><span class="label">14</span></a> <i>Laws of New York, 1785–88</i> (ed. 1886), ch. 68, p. 121. Substantially the same +act reappears in the revision of the laws of 1788: <i>Ibid.</i>, ch. 40, p. 676.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_76" id="Footnote_15_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_76"><span class="label">15</span></a> The slave population of New York has been estimated as follows:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>In</td><td align="right">1698,</td><td align="right">2,170.</td><td align="left"><i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, IV. 420.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1703,</td><td align="right">2,258.</td><td align="left"><i>N.Y. Col. MSS.</i>, XLVIII.; cited in Hough, <i>N.Y. Census, 1855</i>, Introd.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1712,</td><td align="right">2,425.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Ibid.</i>, LVII., LIX. (a partial census).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1723,</td><td align="right">6,171.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, V. 702.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1731,</td><td align="right">7,743.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Ibid.</i>, V. 929.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1737,</td><td align="right">8,941.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Ibid.</i>, VI. 133.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1746,</td><td align="right">9,107.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Ibid.</i>, VI. 392.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1749,</td><td align="right">10,692.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Ibid.</i>, VI. 550.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1756,</td><td align="right">13,548.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>London Doc.</i>, XLIV. 123; cited in Hough, as above.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1771,</td><td align="right">19,863.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Ibid.</i>, XLIV. 144; cited in Hough, as above.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1774,</td><td align="right">21,149.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i>,</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1786,</td><td align="right">18,889.</td><td align="left" colspan="2"><i>Deeds in office Sec. of State</i>, XXII. 35.</td></tr> +</table> +<p> +Total number of Africans imported from 1701 to 1726, 2,375, +of whom 802 were from Africa: O'Callaghan, <i>Documentary +History of New York</i>, I. 482. +</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_77" id="Footnote_16_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_77"><span class="label">16</span></a> Cf. below, Chapter XI.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_78" id="Footnote_17_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_78"><span class="label">17</span></a> <i>Vermont State Papers, 1779–86</i>, p. 244. The return of sixteen slaves in +Vermont, by the first census, was an error: <i>New England Record</i>, XXIX. +249.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_79" id="Footnote_18_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_79"><span class="label">18</span></a> <i>Vermont State Papers</i>, p. 505.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_80" id="Footnote_19_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_80"><span class="label">19</span></a> The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Pennsylvania +and Delaware; details will be found in Appendix A:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="left">1705,</td><td align="left"> Duty Act: (?).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1710,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">40<i>s.</i> (Disallowed).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1712,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£20 "</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1712,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">supplementary to the Act of 1710.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1715,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£5 (Disallowed).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1718,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1720,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">(?).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1722,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">(?).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1725–6,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£10.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1726,</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1729,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£2.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1761,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£10.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1761,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">(?).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1768,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">re-enactment of the Act of 1761.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1773,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">perpetual additional duty of £10; total, £20.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1775,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor (Delaware).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1775,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1778,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Back duties on slaves ordered collected.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1780,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1787,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Act to prevent the exportation of slaves (Delaware).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1788,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Act to prevent the slave-trade.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_81" id="Footnote_20_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_81"><span class="label">20</span></a> From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880. Cf. Whittier's +poem, "Pennsylvania Hall" (<i>Poetical Works</i>, Riverside ed., III. 62); and Proud, +<i>History of Pennsylvania</i> (1797), I. 219.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_82" id="Footnote_21_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_82"><span class="label">21</span></a> From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_83" id="Footnote_22_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_83"><span class="label">22</span></a> Bettle, <i>Notices of Negro Slavery</i>, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i> (1864), I. 383.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_84" id="Footnote_23_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_84"><span class="label">23</span></a> Cf. Bettle, <i>Notices of Negro Slavery, passim</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_85" id="Footnote_24_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_85"><span class="label">24</span></a> Janney, <i>History of the Friends</i>, III. 315–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_86" id="Footnote_25_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_86"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, III. 317.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_87" id="Footnote_26_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_87"><span class="label">26</span></a> Bettle, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i>, I. 395.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_88" id="Footnote_27_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_88"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>Penn. Col. Rec.</i> (1852), II. 530; Bettle, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i>, I. 415.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_89" id="Footnote_28_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_89"><span class="label">28</span></a> <i>Laws of Pennsylvania, collected</i>, etc., 1714, p. 165; Bettle, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. +Mem.</i>, I. 387.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_90" id="Footnote_29_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_90"><span class="label">29</span></a> See preamble of the act.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_91" id="Footnote_30_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_91"><span class="label">30</span></a> The Pennsylvanians did not allow their laws to reach England until long +after they were passed: <i>Penn. Archives</i>, I. 161–2; <i>Col. Rec.</i>, II. 572–3. These +acts were disallowed Feb. 20, 1713. Another duty act was passed in 1712, supplementary +to the Act of 1710 (<i>Col. Rec.</i>, II. 553). The contents are unknown.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_92" id="Footnote_31_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_92"><span class="label">31</span></a> <i>Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania</i>, 1715, p. 270; Chalmers, <i>Opinions</i>, II. 118. +Before the disallowance was known, the act had been continued by the Act +of 1718: Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700–1802</i>, I. 118; <i>Penn. Col. +Rec.</i>, III. 38.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_93" id="Footnote_32_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_93"><span class="label">32</span></a> Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 165; <i>Penn. Col. Rec.</i>, III. 171; Bettle, in <i>Penn. +Hist. Soc. Mem.</i>, I. 389, note.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_94" id="Footnote_33_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_94"><span class="label">33</span></a> Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 214; Bettle, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i>, I. 388. +Possibly there were two acts this year.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_95" id="Footnote_34_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_95"><span class="label">34</span></a> <i>Laws of Pennsylvania</i> (ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287. Possibly some change in +the currency made this change appear greater than it was.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_96" id="Footnote_35_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_96"><span class="label">35</span></a> Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 371; <i>Acts of Assembly</i> (ed. 1782), p. 149; Dallas, +<i>Laws</i>, I. 406, ch. 379. This act was renewed in 1768: Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, +I. 451; <i>Penn. Col. Rec.</i>, IX. 472, 637, 641.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_97" id="Footnote_36_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_97"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>Penn. Col. Rec.</i>, VIII. 576.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_98" id="Footnote_37_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_98"><span class="label">37</span></a> A large petition called for this bill. Much altercation ensued with the +governor: Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, I. 671, ch. 692; <i>Penn. Col. Rec.</i>, X. 77; Bettle, in <i>Penn. +Hist. Soc. Mem.</i>, I. 388–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_99" id="Footnote_38_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_99"><span class="label">38</span></a> Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, I. 782, ch. 810.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_100" id="Footnote_39_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_100"><span class="label">39</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 838, ch. 881.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_101" id="Footnote_40_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_101"><span class="label">40</span></a> There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>In</td><td align="right">1721,</td><td align="right">2,500–5,000.</td><td align="left"><i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, V. 604.</td></tr> +<tr><td>"</td><td align="right">1754,</td><td align="right">11,000.</td><td align="left">Bancroft, <i>Hist. of United States</i> (1883), II. 391.</td></tr> +<tr><td>"</td><td align="right">1760,</td><td align="right">"very few." </td><td align="left">Burnaby, <i>Travels through N. Amer.</i> (2d ed.), p. 81.</td></tr> +<tr><td>"</td><td align="right">1775,</td><td align="right">2,000.</td><td align="left"><i>Penn. Archives</i>, IV 597.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_102" id="Footnote_41_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_102"><span class="label">41</span></a> Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, II. 586.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_103" id="Footnote_42_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_103"><span class="label">42</span></a> Cf. <i>Argonautica Gustaviana</i>, pp. 21–3; <i>Del. Hist. Soc. Papers</i>, III. 10; <i>Hazard's +Register</i>, IV. 221, §§ 23, 24; <i>Hazard's Annals</i>, p. 372; Armstrong, <i>Record +of Upland Court</i>, pp. 29–30, and notes.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_104" id="Footnote_43_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_104"><span class="label">43</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., II. 128–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_105" id="Footnote_44_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_105"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 5th Ser., I. 1178; <i>Laws of Delaware, 1797</i> (Newcastle ed.), p. 884, ch. +145 b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_106" id="Footnote_45_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_106"><span class="label">45</span></a> The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of New Jersey; +details will be found in Appendix A:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>1713,</td><td align="left">Duty Act:</td><td align="left">£10.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1763 (?),</td><td align="left">Duty Act.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1769,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£15.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1774,</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">£5 on Africans, £10 on colonial Negroes.</td></tr> +<tr><td>1786,</td><td align="left" colspan="2">Importation prohibited.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_107" id="Footnote_46_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_107"><span class="label">46</span></a> Leaming and Spicer, <i>Grants, Concessions</i>, etc., p. 398. Probably this did +not refer to Negroes at all.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_108" id="Footnote_47_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_108"><span class="label">47</span></a> Cf. Vincent, <i>History of Delaware</i>, I. 159, 381.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_109" id="Footnote_48_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_109"><span class="label">48</span></a> <i>Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703–17</i> (ed. 1717), p. 43.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_110" id="Footnote_49_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_110"><span class="label">49</span></a> <i>N.J. Archives</i>, IV. 196. There was much difficulty in passing the bill: <i>Ibid.</i>, +XIII. 516–41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_111" id="Footnote_50_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_111"><span class="label">50</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IX. 345–6. The exact provisions of the act I have not found.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_112" id="Footnote_51_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_112"><span class="label">51</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IX. 383, 447, 458. Chiefly because the duty was laid on the importer.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_113" id="Footnote_52_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_113"><span class="label">52</span></a> Allinson, <i>Acts of Assembly</i>, pp. 315–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_114" id="Footnote_53_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_114"><span class="label">53</span></a> <i>N.J. Archives</i>, VI. 222.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_115" id="Footnote_54_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_115"><span class="label">54</span></a> <i>Acts of the 10th General Assembly</i>, May 2, 1786. There are two estimates of +the number of slaves in this colony:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>In</td><td align="left">1738,</td><td align="right">3,981.</td><td align="left"><i>American Annals</i>,</td><td align="left">II. 127.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1754,</td><td align="right">4,606.</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">II. 143.</td></tr> +</table></div> +</div> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 34 --><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34"></a><span class="pagenum">34</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_IV" id="Chapter_IV"></a><i>Chapter IV</i></h2> +<h3>THE TRADING COLONIES.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">16. Character of these Colonies.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">17. New England and the Slave-Trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">18. Restrictions in New Hampshire.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">19. Restrictions in Massachusetts.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">20. Restrictions in Rhode Island.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">21. Restrictions in Connecticut.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">22. General Character of these Restrictions.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>16. <b>Character of these Colonies.</b> The rigorous climate of +New England, the character of her settlers, and their pronounced +political views gave slavery an even slighter basis +here than in the Middle colonies. The significance of New +England in the African slave-trade does not therefore lie in +the fact that she early discountenanced the system of slavery +and stopped importation; but rather in the fact that her citizens, +being the traders of the New World, early took part in +the carrying slave-trade and furnished slaves to the other colonies. +An inquiry, therefore, into the efforts of the New England +colonies to suppress the slave-trade would fall naturally +into two parts: first, and chiefly, an investigation of the efforts +to stop the participation of citizens in the carrying slave-trade; +secondly, an examination of the efforts made to banish the +slave-trade from New England soil.</p> + + +<p>17. <b>New England and the Slave-Trade.</b> Vessels from Massachusetts,<a name="FNanchor_1_116" id="FNanchor_1_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_116" class="fnanchor">1</a> +Rhode Island,<a name="FNanchor_2_117" id="FNanchor_2_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_117" class="fnanchor">2</a> Connecticut,<a name="FNanchor_3_118" id="FNanchor_3_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_118" class="fnanchor">3</a> and, to a less extent, +from New Hampshire,<a name="FNanchor_4_119" id="FNanchor_4_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_119" class="fnanchor">4</a> were early and largely engaged +in the carrying slave-trade. "We know," said Thomas Pemberton +in 1795, "that a large trade to Guinea was carried on for +many years by the citizens of Massachusetts Colony, who +were the proprietors of the vessels and their cargoes, out and +<!-- Page 35 --><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35"></a><span class="pagenum">35</span>home. Some of the slaves purchased in Guinea, and I suppose +the greatest part of them, were sold in the West Indies."<a name="FNanchor_5_120" id="FNanchor_5_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_120" class="fnanchor">5</a> Dr. +John Eliot asserted that "it made a considerable branch of our +commerce.... It declined very little till the Revolution."<a name="FNanchor_6_121" id="FNanchor_6_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_121" class="fnanchor">6</a> +Yet the trade of this colony was said not to equal that of +Rhode Island. Newport was the mart for slaves offered for +sale in the North, and a point of reshipment for all slaves. It +was principally this trade that raised Newport to her commercial +importance in the eighteenth century.<a name="FNanchor_7_122" id="FNanchor_7_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_122" class="fnanchor">7</a> Connecticut, too, +was an important slave-trader, sending large numbers of +horses and other commodities to the West Indies in exchange +for slaves, and selling the slaves in other colonies.</p> + +<p>This trade formed a perfect circle. Owners of slavers carried +slaves to South Carolina, and brought home naval stores for +their ship-building; or to the West Indies, and brought home +molasses; or to other colonies, and brought home hogsheads. +The molasses was made into the highly prized New England +rum, and shipped in these hogsheads to Africa for more +slaves.<a name="FNanchor_8_123" id="FNanchor_8_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_123" class="fnanchor">8</a> Thus, the rum-distilling industry indicates to some +extent the activity of New England in the slave-trade. In May, +1752, one Captain Freeman found so many slavers fitting out +that, in spite of the large importations of molasses, he could +get no rum for his vessel.<a name="FNanchor_9_124" id="FNanchor_9_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_124" class="fnanchor">9</a> In Newport alone twenty-two stills +<!-- Page 36 --><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36"></a><span class="pagenum">36</span>were at one time running continuously;<a name="FNanchor_10_125" id="FNanchor_10_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_125" class="fnanchor">10</a> and Massachusetts +annually distilled 15,000 hogsheads of molasses into this "chief +manufacture."<a name="FNanchor_11_126" id="FNanchor_11_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_126" class="fnanchor">11</a></p> + +<p>Turning now to restrictive measures, we must first note the +measures of the slave-consuming colonies which tended to +limit the trade. These measures, however, came comparatively +late, were enforced with varying degrees of efficiency, and did +not seriously affect the slave-trade before the Revolution. The +moral sentiment of New England put some check upon the +trade. Although in earlier times the most respectable people +took ventures in slave-trading voyages, yet there gradually +arose a moral sentiment which tended to make the business +somewhat disreputable.<a name="FNanchor_12_127" id="FNanchor_12_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_127" class="fnanchor">12</a> In the line, however, of definite legal +enactments to stop New England citizens from carrying slaves +from Africa to any place in the world, there were, before the +Revolution, none. Indeed, not until the years 1787–1788 was +slave-trading in itself an indictable offence in any New England +State.</p> + +<p>The particular situation in each colony, and the efforts to +restrict the small importing slave-trade of New England, can +best be studied in a separate view of each community.</p> + + +<p>18. <b>Restrictions in New Hampshire.</b> The statistics of slavery +in New Hampshire show how weak an institution it always was +in that colony.<a name="FNanchor_13_128" id="FNanchor_13_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_128" class="fnanchor">13</a> Consequently, when the usual instructions +were sent to Governor Wentworth as to the encouragement he +must give to the slave-trade, the House replied: "We have considered +his Maj<sup>ties</sup> Instruction relating to an Impost on Negroes +& Felons, to which this House answers, that there never was +any duties laid on either, by this Goverm<sup>t</sup>, and so few bro't in +<!-- Page 37 --><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37"></a><span class="pagenum">37</span>that it would not be worth the Publick notice, so as to make an +act concerning them."<a name="FNanchor_14_129" id="FNanchor_14_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_129" class="fnanchor">14</a> This remained true for the whole +history of the colony. Importation was never stopped by actual +enactment, but was eventually declared contrary to the Constitution +of 1784.<a name="FNanchor_15_130" id="FNanchor_15_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_130" class="fnanchor">15</a> The participation of citizens in the trade +appears never to have been forbidden.</p> + + +<p>19. <b>Restrictions in Massachusetts.</b> The early Biblical codes +of Massachusetts confined slavery to "lawfull Captives taken +in iust warres, & such strangers as willingly selle themselves +or are sold to us."<a name="FNanchor_16_131" id="FNanchor_16_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_131" class="fnanchor">16</a> The stern Puritanism of early days endeavored +to carry this out literally, and consequently when a +certain Captain Smith, about 1640, attacked an African village +and brought some of the unoffending natives home, he was +promptly arrested. Eventually, the General Court ordered the +Negroes sent home at the colony's expense, "conceiving +themselues bound by y<sup>e</sup> first oportunity to bear witnes against +y<sup>e</sup> haynos & crying sinn of manstealing, as also to P'scribe +such timely redresse for what is past, & such a law for y<sup>e</sup> +future as may sufficiently deterr all oth<sup>r</sup>s belonging to us to +have to do in such vile & most odious courses, iustly abhored +of all good & iust men."<a name="FNanchor_17_132" id="FNanchor_17_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_132" class="fnanchor">17</a></p> + +<p>The temptation of trade slowly forced the colony from this +high moral ground. New England ships were early found in +the West Indian slave-trade, and the more the carrying trade +developed, the more did the profits of this branch of it attract +Puritan captains. By the beginning of the eighteenth century +the slave-trade was openly recognized as legitimate commerce; +cargoes came regularly to Boston, and "The merchants +of Boston quoted negroes, like any other merchandise demanded +by their correspondents."<a name="FNanchor_18_133" id="FNanchor_18_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_133" class="fnanchor">18</a> At the same time, the Puritan +conscience began to rebel against the growth of actual +slavery on New England soil. It was a much less violent +wrenching of moral ideas of right and wrong to allow Mas<!-- Page 38 --><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38"></a><span class="pagenum">38</span>sachusetts +men to carry slaves to South Carolina than to allow +cargoes to come into Boston, and become slaves in Massachusetts. +Early in the eighteenth century, therefore, opposition +arose to the further importation of Negroes, and in 1705 an +act "for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," +laid a restrictive duty of £4 on all slaves imported.<a name="FNanchor_19_134" id="FNanchor_19_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_134" class="fnanchor">19</a> One provision +of this act plainly illustrates the attitude of Massachusetts: +like the acts of many of the New England colonies, it +allowed a rebate of the whole duty on re-exportation. The +harbors of New England were thus offered as a free exchange-mart +for slavers. All the duty acts of the Southern and Middle +colonies allowed a rebate of one-half or three-fourths of the +duty on the re-exportation of the slave, thus laying a small tax +on even temporary importation.</p> + +<p>The Act of 1705 was evaded, but it was not amended until +1728, when the penalty for evasion was raised to £100.<a name="FNanchor_20_135" id="FNanchor_20_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_135" class="fnanchor">20</a> The +act remained in force, except possibly for one period of four +years, until 1749. Meantime the movement against importation +grew. A bill "for preventing the Importation of Slaves +into this Province" was introduced in the Legislature in 1767, +but after strong opposition and disagreement between House +and Council it was dropped.<a name="FNanchor_21_136" id="FNanchor_21_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_136" class="fnanchor">21</a> In 1771 the struggle was renewed. +A similar bill passed, but was vetoed by Governor +Hutchinson.<a name="FNanchor_22_137" id="FNanchor_22_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_137" class="fnanchor">22</a> The imminent war and the discussions incident +to it had now more and more aroused public opinion, and +there were repeated attempts to gain executive consent to a +prohibitory law. In 1774 such a bill was twice passed, but +never received assent.<a name="FNanchor_23_138" id="FNanchor_23_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_138" class="fnanchor">23</a></p><p><!-- Page 39 --><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39"></a><span class="pagenum">39</span></p> + +<p>The new Revolutionary government first met the subject in +the case of two Negroes captured on the high seas, who were +advertised for sale at Salem. A resolution was introduced into +the Legislature, directing the release of the Negroes, and declaring +"That the selling and enslaving the human species is a +direct violation of the natural rights alike vested in all men by +their Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles +on which this, and the other United States, have carried +their struggle for liberty even to the last appeal." To this the +Council would not consent; and the resolution, as finally +passed, merely forbade the sale or ill-treatment of the Negroes.<a name="FNanchor_24_139" id="FNanchor_24_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_139" class="fnanchor">24</a> +Committees on the slavery question were appointed +in 1776 and 1777,<a name="FNanchor_25_140" id="FNanchor_25_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_140" class="fnanchor">25</a> and although a letter to Congress on the +matter, and a bill for the abolition of slavery were reported, +no decisive action was taken.</p> + +<p>All such efforts were finally discontinued, as the system was +already practically extinct in Massachusetts and the custom of +importation had nearly ceased. Slavery was eventually declared +by judicial decision to have been abolished.<a name="FNanchor_26_141" id="FNanchor_26_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_141" class="fnanchor">26</a> The first +step toward stopping the participation of Massachusetts citizens +in the slave-trade outside the State was taken in 1785, +when a committee of inquiry was appointed by the Legislature.<a name="FNanchor_27_142" id="FNanchor_27_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_142" class="fnanchor">27</a> +No act was, however, passed until 1788, when participation +in the trade was prohibited, on pain of £50 forfeit for +every slave and £200 for every ship engaged.<a name="FNanchor_28_143" id="FNanchor_28_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_143" class="fnanchor">28</a></p><p><!-- Page 40 --><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40"></a><span class="pagenum">40</span></p> + + +<p>20. <b>Restrictions in Rhode Island.</b> In 1652 Rhode Island +passed a law designed to prohibit life slavery in the colony. It +declared that "Whereas, there is a common course practised +amongst English men to buy negers, to that end they may +have them for service or slaves forever; for the preventinge of +such practices among us, let it be ordered, that no blacke +mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise, +to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten yeares, +or untill they come to bee twentie four yeares of age, if they +bee taken in under fourteen, from the time of their cominge +within the liberties of this Collonie. And at the end or terme +of ten yeares to sett them free, as the manner is with the +English servants. And that man that will not let them goe +free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to that end that they +may bee enslaved to others for a long time, hee or they shall +forfeit to the Collonie forty pounds."<a name="FNanchor_29_144" id="FNanchor_29_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_144" class="fnanchor">29</a></p> + +<p>This law was for a time enforced,<a name="FNanchor_30_145" id="FNanchor_30_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_145" class="fnanchor">30</a> but by the beginning of +the eighteenth century it had either been repealed or become +a dead letter; for the Act of 1708 recognized perpetual slavery, +and laid an impost of £3 on Negroes imported.<a name="FNanchor_31_146" id="FNanchor_31_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_146" class="fnanchor">31</a> This duty +was really a tax on the transport trade, and produced a steady +<!-- Page 41 --><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41"></a><span class="pagenum">41</span>income for twenty years.<a name="FNanchor_32_147" id="FNanchor_32_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_147" class="fnanchor">32</a> From the year 1700 on, the citizens +of this State engaged more and more in the carrying trade, +until Rhode Island became the greatest slave-trader in America. +Although she did not import many slaves for her own +use, she became the clearing-house for the trade of other colonies. +Governor Cranston, as early as 1708, reported that between +1698 and 1708 one hundred and three vessels were built +in the State, all of which were trading to the West Indies and +the Southern colonies.<a name="FNanchor_33_148" id="FNanchor_33_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_148" class="fnanchor">33</a> They took out lumber and brought +back molasses, in most cases making a slave voyage in between. +From this, the trade grew. Samuel Hopkins, about +1770, was shocked at the state of the trade: more than thirty +distilleries were running in the colony, and one hundred and +fifty vessels were in the slave-trade.<a name="FNanchor_34_149" id="FNanchor_34_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_149" class="fnanchor">34</a> "Rhode Island," said he, +"has been more deeply interested in the slave-trade, and has +enslaved more Africans than any other colony in New England." +Later, in 1787, he wrote: "The inhabitants of Rhode +Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the +greater share in this traffic, of all these United States. This +trade in human species has been the first wheel of commerce +in Newport, on which every other movement in business has +chiefly depended. That town has been built up, and flourished +in times past, at the expense of the blood, the liberty, and +happiness of the poor Africans; and the inhabitants have lived +on this, and by it have gotten most of their wealth and +riches."<a name="FNanchor_35_150" id="FNanchor_35_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_150" class="fnanchor">35</a></p> + +<p>The Act of 1708 was poorly enforced. The "good intentions" +of its framers "were wholly frustrated" by the clandestine +"hiding and conveying said negroes out of the town +[Newport] into the country, where they lie concealed."<a name="FNanchor_36_151" id="FNanchor_36_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_151" class="fnanchor">36</a> The +act was accordingly strengthened by the Acts of 1712 and 1715, +and made to apply to importations by land as well as by sea.<a name="FNanchor_37_152" id="FNanchor_37_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_152" class="fnanchor">37</a> +The Act of 1715, however, favored the trade by admitting<!-- Page 42 --><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42"></a><span class="pagenum">42</span> +African Negroes free of duty. The chaotic state of Rhode Island +did not allow England often to review her legislation; +but as soon as the Act of 1712 came to notice it was disallowed, +and accordingly repealed in 1732.<a name="FNanchor_38_153" id="FNanchor_38_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_153" class="fnanchor">38</a> Whether the Act of +1715 remained, or whether any other duty act was passed, is +not clear.</p> + +<p>While the foreign trade was flourishing, the influence of +the Friends and of other causes eventually led to a movement +against slavery as a local institution. Abolition societies +multiplied, and in 1770 an abolition bill was ordered by the +Assembly, but it was never passed.<a name="FNanchor_39_154" id="FNanchor_39_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_154" class="fnanchor">39</a> Four years later the city +of Providence resolved that "as personal liberty is an essential +part of the natural rights of mankind," the importation +of slaves and the system of slavery should cease in the colony.<a name="FNanchor_40_155" id="FNanchor_40_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_155" class="fnanchor">40</a> +This movement finally resulted, in 1774, in an act "prohibiting +the importation of Negroes into this Colony,"—a +law which curiously illustrated the attitude of Rhode Island +toward the slave-trade. The preamble of the act declared: +"Whereas, the inhabitants of America are generally engaged +in the preservation of their own rights and liberties, among +which, that of personal freedom must be considered as the +greatest; as those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages +of liberty themselves, should be willing to extend personal +liberty to others;—Therefore," etc. The statute then +proceeded to enact "that for the future, no negro or mulatto +slave shall be brought into this colony; and in case any slave +shall hereafter be brought in, he or she shall be, and are +hereby, rendered immediately free...." The logical ending +of such an act would have been a clause prohibiting the participation +of Rhode Island citizens in the slave-trade. Not +only was such a clause omitted, but the following was inserted +instead: "Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall +extend, or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto +slave brought from the coast of Africa, into the West Indies, +<!-- Page 43 --><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43"></a><span class="pagenum">43</span>on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and which negro +or mulatto slave could not be disposed of in the West +Indies, but shall be brought into this colony. Provided, that +the owner of such negro or mulatto slave give bond ... +that such negro or mulatto slave shall be exported out of the +colony, within one year from the date of such bond; if such +negro or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to be removed."<a name="FNanchor_41_156" id="FNanchor_41_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_156" class="fnanchor">41</a></p> + +<p>In 1779 an act to prevent the sale of slaves out of the State +was passed,<a name="FNanchor_42_157" id="FNanchor_42_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_157" class="fnanchor">42</a> and in 1784, an act gradually to abolish slavery.<a name="FNanchor_43_158" id="FNanchor_43_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_158" class="fnanchor">43</a> +Not until 1787 did an act pass to forbid participation in the +slave-trade. This law laid a penalty of £100 for every slave +transported and £1000 for every vessel so engaged.<a name="FNanchor_44_159" id="FNanchor_44_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_159" class="fnanchor">44</a></p> + + +<p>21. <b>Restrictions in Connecticut.</b> Connecticut, in common +with the other colonies of this section, had a trade for many +years with the West Indian slave markets; and though this +trade was much smaller than that of the neighboring colonies, +yet many of her citizens were engaged in it. A map of +Middletown at the time of the Revolution gives, among one +hundred families, three slave captains and "three notables" +designated as "slave-dealers."<a name="FNanchor_45_160" id="FNanchor_45_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_160" class="fnanchor">45</a></p> + +<p>The actual importation was small,<a name="FNanchor_46_161" id="FNanchor_46_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_161" class="fnanchor">46</a> and almost entirely un<!-- Page 44 --><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44"></a><span class="pagenum">44</span>restricted +before the Revolution, save by a few light, general +duty acts. In 1774 the further importation of slaves was prohibited, +because "the increase of slaves in this Colony is injurious +to the poor and inconvenient." The law prohibited +importation under any pretext by a penalty of £100 per slave.<a name="FNanchor_47_162" id="FNanchor_47_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_162" class="fnanchor">47</a> +This was re-enacted in 1784, and provisions were made for the +abolition of slavery.<a name="FNanchor_48_163" id="FNanchor_48_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_163" class="fnanchor">48</a> In 1788 participation in the trade was +forbidden, and the penalty placed at £50 for each slave and +£500 for each ship engaged.<a name="FNanchor_49_164" id="FNanchor_49_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_164" class="fnanchor">49</a></p> + + +<p>22. <b>General Character of these Restrictions.</b> Enough has +already been said to show, in the main, the character of the opposition +to the slave-trade in New England. The system of slavery +had, on this soil and amid these surroundings, no economic +justification, and the small number of Negroes here furnished +no political arguments against them. The opposition to the importation +was therefore from the first based solely on moral +grounds, with some social arguments. As to the carrying trade, +however, the case was different. Here, too, a feeble moral opposition +was early aroused, but it was swept away by the immense +economic advantages of the slave traffic to a thrifty +seafaring community of traders. This trade no moral suasion, +not even the strong "Liberty" cry of the Revolution, was able +wholly to suppress, until the closing of the West Indian and +Southern markets cut off the demand for slaves.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_116" id="Footnote_1_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_116"><span class="label">1</span></a> Cf. Weeden, <i>Economic and Social History of New England</i>, II. 449–72; +G.H. Moore, <i>Slavery in Massachusetts</i>; Charles Deane, <i>Connection of Massachusetts +with Slavery</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_117" id="Footnote_2_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_117"><span class="label">2</span></a> Cf. <i>American Historical Record</i>, I. 311, 338.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_118" id="Footnote_3_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_118"><span class="label">3</span></a> Cf. W.C. Fowler, <i>Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut</i>, etc., pp. +122–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_119" id="Footnote_4_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_119"><span class="label">4</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 124.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_120" id="Footnote_5_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_120"><span class="label">5</span></a> Deane, <i>Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts</i>, in <i>Mass. +Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, 5th Ser., III. 392.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_121" id="Footnote_6_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_121"><span class="label">6</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, III. 382.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_122" id="Footnote_7_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_122"><span class="label">7</span></a> Weeden, <i>Economic and Social History of New England</i>, II. 454.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_123" id="Footnote_8_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_123"><span class="label">8</span></a> A typical voyage is that of the brigantine "Sanderson" of Newport. She +was fitted out in March, 1752, and carried, beside the captain, two mates and +six men, and a cargo of 8,220 gallons of rum, together with "African" iron, +flour, pots, tar, sugar, and provisions, shackles, shirts, and water. Proceeding +to Africa, the captain after some difficulty sold his cargo for slaves, and in +April, 1753, he is expected in Barbadoes, as the consignees write. They also +state that slaves are selling at £33 to £56 per head in lots. After a stormy and +dangerous voyage, Captain Lindsay arrived, June 17, 1753, with fifty-six slaves, +"all in helth & fatt." He also had 40 oz. of gold dust, and 8 or 9 cwt. of +pepper. The net proceeds of the sale of all this was £1,324 3<i>d.</i> The captain +then took on board 55 hhd. of molasses and 3 hhd. 27 bbl. of sugar, amounting +to £911 77<i>s.</i> 2½<i>d.</i>, received bills on Liverpool for the balance, and returned +in safety to Rhode Island. He had done so well that he was +immediately given a new ship and sent to Africa again. <i>American Historical +Record</i>, I. 315–9, 338–42.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_124" id="Footnote_9_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_124"><span class="label">9</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 316.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_125" id="Footnote_10_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_125"><span class="label">10</span></a> <i>American Historical Record</i>, I. 317.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_126" id="Footnote_11_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_126"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 344; cf. Weeden, <i>Economic and Social History of New England</i>, II. +459.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_127" id="Footnote_12_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_127"><span class="label">12</span></a> Cf. <i>New England Register</i>, XXXI. 75–6, letter of John Saffin <i>et al.</i> to Welstead. +Cf. also Sewall, <i>Protest</i>, etc.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_128" id="Footnote_13_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_128"><span class="label">13</span></a> The number of slaves in New Hampshire has been estimated as follows: +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>In</td><td align="right">1730,</td><td align="right">200.</td><td align="left"><i>N.H. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, I. 229.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1767,</td><td align="right">633.</td><td align="left"><i>Granite Monthly</i>, IV. 108.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1773,</td><td align="right">681.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1773,</td><td align="right">674.</td><td align="left"><i>N.H. Province Papers</i>, X. 636.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1775,</td><td align="right">479.</td><td align="left"><i>Granite Monthly</i>, IV. 108.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1790,</td><td align="right">158.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_129" id="Footnote_14_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_129"><span class="label">14</span></a> <i>N.H. Province Papers</i>, IV. 617.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_130" id="Footnote_15_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_130"><span class="label">15</span></a> <i>Granite Monthly</i>, VI. 377; Poore, <i>Federal and State Constitutions</i>, pp. +1280–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_131" id="Footnote_16_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_131"><span class="label">16</span></a> Cf. <i>The Body of Liberties</i>, § 91, in Whitmore, <i>Bibliographical Sketch of the +Laws of the Massachusetts Colony</i>, published at Boston in 1890.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_132" id="Footnote_17_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_132"><span class="label">17</span></a> <i>Mass. Col. Rec.</i>, II. 168, 176; III. 46, 49, 84.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_133" id="Footnote_18_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_133"><span class="label">18</span></a> Weeden, <i>Economic and Social History of New England</i>, II. 456.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_134" id="Footnote_19_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_134"><span class="label">19</span></a> <i>Mass. Province Laws, 1705–6</i>, ch. 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_135" id="Footnote_20_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_135"><span class="label">20</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, <i>1728–9</i>, ch. 16; <i>1738–9</i>, ch. 27.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_136" id="Footnote_21_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_136"><span class="label">21</span></a> For petitions of towns, cf. Felt, <i>Annals of Salem</i> (1849), II. 416; <i>Boston +Town Records, 1758–69</i>, p. 183. Cf. also Otis's anti-slavery speech in 1761; John +Adams, <i>Works</i>, X. 315. For proceedings, see <i>House Journal</i>, 1767, pp. 353, 358, +387, 390, 393, 408, 409–10, 411, 420. Cf. Samuel Dexter's answer to Dr. Belknap's +inquiry, Feb. 23, 1795, in Deane (<i>Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, 5th Ser., III. +385). A committee on slave importation was appointed in 1764. Cf. <i>House +Journal</i>, 1763–64, p. 170.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_137" id="Footnote_22_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_137"><span class="label">22</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 1771, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236, 240, 242–3; Moore, +<i>Slavery in Massachusetts</i>, pp. 131–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_138" id="Footnote_23_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_138"><span class="label">23</span></a> Felt, <i>Annals of Salem</i> (1849), II. 416–7; Swan, <i>Dissuasion to Great Britain</i>, +etc. (1773), p. x; Washburn, <i>Historical Sketches of Leicester, Mass.</i>, pp. 442–3; +Freeman, <i>History of Cape Cod</i>, II. 114; Deane, in <i>Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, 5th +Ser., III. 432; Moore, <i>Slavery in Massachusetts</i>, pp. 135–40; Williams, <i>History +of the Negro Race in America</i>, I. 234–6; <i>House Journal</i>, March, 1774, pp. 224, +226, 237, etc.; June, 1774, pp. 27, 41, etc. For a copy of the bill, see Moore.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_139" id="Footnote_24_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_139"><span class="label">24</span></a> <i>Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 1855–58</i>, p. 196; Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 5th +Ser., II. 769; <i>House Journal</i>, 1776, pp. 105–9; <i>General Court Records</i>, March +13, 1776, etc., pp. 581–9; Moore, <i>Slavery in Massachusetts</i>, pp. 149–54. Cf. +Moore, pp. 163–76.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_140" id="Footnote_25_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_140"><span class="label">25</span></a> Moore, <i>Slavery in Massachusetts</i>, pp. 148–9, 181–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_141" id="Footnote_26_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_141"><span class="label">26</span></a> Washburn, <i>Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts</i>; Haynes, <i>Struggle for the +Constitution in Massachusetts</i>; La Rochefoucauld, <i>Travels through the United +States</i>, II. 166.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_142" id="Footnote_27_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_142"><span class="label">27</span></a> Moore, <i>Slavery in Massachusetts</i>, p. 225.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_143" id="Footnote_28_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_143"><span class="label">28</span></a> <i>Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89</i>, p. 235. The number of slaves in +Massachusetts has been estimated as follows:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="center">In</td><td align="left">1676,</td><td align="right">200.</td><td align="left">Randolph's <i>Report</i>, in <i>Hutchinson's Coll. of Papers</i>, p. 485.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1680,</td><td align="right">120.</td><td align="left">Deane, <i>Connection of Mass. with Slavery</i>, p. 28 ff.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1708,</td><td align="right">550.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i>; Moore, <i>Slavery in Mass.</i>, p. 50.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1720,</td><td align="right">2,000.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1735,</td><td align="right">2,600.</td><td align="left">Deane, <i>Connection of Mass. with Slavery</i>, p. 28 ff.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1749,</td><td align="right">3,000.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1754,</td><td align="right">4,489.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1763,</td><td align="right">5,000.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1764–5,</td><td align="right">5,779.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1776,</td><td align="right">5,249.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1784,</td><td align="right">4,377.</td><td align="left">Moore, <i>Slavery in Mass.</i>, p. 51.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1786,</td><td align="right">4,371.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">1790,</td><td align="right">6,001.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_144" id="Footnote_29_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_144"><span class="label">29</span></a> <i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, I. 240.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_145" id="Footnote_30_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_145"><span class="label">30</span></a> Cf. letter written in 1681: <i>New England Register</i>, XXXI. 75–6. Cf. also +Arnold, <i>History of Rhode Island</i>, I. 240.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_146" id="Footnote_31_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_146"><span class="label">31</span></a> The text of this act is lost (<i>Col. Rec.</i>, IV. 34; Arnold, <i>History of Rhode +Island</i>, II. 31). The Acts of Rhode Island were not well preserved, the first +being published in Boston in 1719. Perhaps other whole acts are lost.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_147" id="Footnote_32_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_147"><span class="label">32</span></a> E.g., it was expended to pave the streets of Newport, to build bridges, +etc.: <i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, IV. 191–3, 225.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_148" id="Footnote_33_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_148"><span class="label">33</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 55–60.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_149" id="Footnote_34_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_149"><span class="label">34</span></a> Patten, <i>Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins</i> (1843), p. 80.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_150" id="Footnote_35_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_150"><span class="label">35</span></a> Hopkins, <i>Works</i> (1854), II. 615.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_151" id="Footnote_36_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_151"><span class="label">36</span></a> Preamble of the Act of 1712.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_152" id="Footnote_37_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_152"><span class="label">37</span></a> <i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, IV. 131–5, 138, 143, 191–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_153" id="Footnote_38_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_153"><span class="label">38</span></a> <i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, IV. 471.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_154" id="Footnote_39_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_154"><span class="label">39</span></a> Arnold, <i>History of Rhode Island</i>, II. 304, 321, 337. For a probable copy of +the bill, see <i>Narragansett Historical Register</i>, II. 299.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_155" id="Footnote_40_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_155"><span class="label">40</span></a> A man dying intestate left slaves, who became thus the property of the +city; they were freed, and the town made the above resolve, May 17, 1774, in +town meeting: Staples, <i>Annals of Providence</i> (1843), p. 236.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_156" id="Footnote_41_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_156"><span class="label">41</span></a> <i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, VII. 251–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_157" id="Footnote_42_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_157"><span class="label">42</span></a> <i>Bartlett's Index</i>, p. 329; Arnold, <i>History of Rhode Island</i>, II. 444; <i>R.I. Col. +Rec.</i>, VIII. 618.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_158" id="Footnote_43_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_158"><span class="label">43</span></a> <i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, X. 7–8; Arnold, <i>History of Rhode Island</i>, II. 506.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_159" id="Footnote_44_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_159"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>Bartlett's Index</i>, p. 333; <i>Narragansett Historical Register</i>, II. 298–9. The +number of slaves in Rhode Island has been estimated as follows:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="center">In</td><td align="right">1708,</td><td align="right">426.</td><td align="left"><i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, IV. 59.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1730,</td><td align="right"> 1,648.</td><td align="left"><i>R.I. Hist. Tracts</i>, No. 19, pt. 2, p. 99.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1749,</td><td align="right">3,077.</td><td align="left">Williams, <i>History of the Negro Race in America</i>, I. 281.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1756,</td><td align="right">4,697.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1774,</td><td align="right">3,761.</td><td align="left"><i>R.I. Col. Rec.</i>, VII. 253.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_160" id="Footnote_45_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_160"><span class="label">45</span></a> Fowler, <i>Local Law</i>, etc., p. 124.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_161" id="Footnote_46_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_161"><span class="label">46</span></a> The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as follows:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="center">In</td><td align="right">1680,</td><td align="right">30.</td><td align="left"><i>Conn. Col. Rec.</i>, III. 298.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1730,</td><td align="right">700.</td><td align="left">Williams, <i>History of the Negro Race in America</i>, I. 259.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1756,</td><td align="right">3,636.</td><td align="left">Fowler, <i>Local Law</i>, etc., p. 140.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1762,</td><td align="right">4,590.</td><td align="left">Williams, <i>History of the Negro Race in America</i>, I. 260.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1774,</td><td align="right">6,562.</td><td align="left">Fowler, <i>Local Law</i>, etc., p. 140.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1782,</td><td align="right">6,281.</td><td align="left">Fowler, <i>Local Law</i>, etc., p. 140.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1800,</td><td align="right">5,281.</td><td align="left"><i>Ibid.</i>, p. 141.</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_162" id="Footnote_47_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_162"><span class="label">47</span></a> <i>Conn. Col. Rec.</i>, XIV 329. Fowler (pp. 125–6) says that the law was passed +in 1769, as does Sanford (p. 252). I find no proof of this. There was in Connecticut +the same Biblical legislation on the trade as in Massachusetts. Cf. +<i>Laws of Connecticut</i> (repr. 1865), p. 9; also <i>Col. Rec.</i>, I. 77. For general duty +acts, see <i>Col. Rec.</i>, V 405; VIII. 22; IX. 283; XIII. 72, 125.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_163" id="Footnote_48_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_163"><span class="label">48</span></a> <i>Acts and Laws of Connecticut</i> (ed. 1784), pp. 233–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_164" id="Footnote_49_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_164"><span class="label">49</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 368, 369, 388.</p></div> +</div> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 45 --><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45"></a><span class="pagenum">45</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_V" id="Chapter_V"></a><i>Chapter V</i></h2> + +<h3>THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION. 1774–1787.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">23. The Situation in 1774.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">24. The Condition of the Slave-Trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">25. The Slave-Trade and the "Association."</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">26. The Action of the Colonies.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">27. The Action of the Continental Congress.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">28. Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">29. Results of the Resolution.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">30. The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">31. The Action of the Confederation.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>23. <b>The Situation in 1774.</b> In the individual efforts of the +various colonies to suppress the African slave-trade there may +be traced certain general movements. First, from 1638 to 1664, +there was a tendency to take a high moral stand against the +traffic. This is illustrated in the laws of New England, in the +plans for the settlement of Delaware and, later, that of Georgia, +and in the protest of the German Friends. The second +period, from about 1664 to 1760, has no general unity, but is +marked by statutes laying duties varying in design from encouragement +to absolute prohibition, by some cases of moral +opposition, and by the slow but steady growth of a spirit +unfavorable to the long continuance of the trade. The last +colonial period, from about 1760 to 1787, is one of pronounced +effort to regulate, limit, or totally prohibit the +traffic. Beside these general movements, there are many waves +of legislation, easily distinguishable, which rolled over several +or all of the colonies at various times, such as the series of +high duties following the Assiento, and the acts inspired by +various Negro "plots."</p> + +<p>Notwithstanding this, the laws of the colonies before 1774 +had no national unity, the peculiar circumstances of each colony +determining its legislation. With the outbreak of the Revolution +came unison in action with regard to the slave-trade, +as with regard to other matters, which may justly be called +national. It was, of course, a critical period,—a period when, +in the rapid upheaval of a few years, the complicated and diverse +forces of decades meet, combine, act, and react, until +<!-- Page 46 --><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46"></a><span class="pagenum">46</span>the resultant seems almost the work of chance. In the settlement +of the fate of slavery and the slave-trade, however, the +real crisis came in the calm that succeeded the storm, in that +day when, in the opinion of most men, the question seemed +already settled. And indeed it needed an exceptionally clear +and discerning mind, in 1787, to deny that slavery and the +slave-trade in the United States of America were doomed to +early annihilation. It seemed certainly a legitimate deduction +from the history of the preceding century to conclude that, as +the system had risen, flourished, and fallen in Massachusetts, +New York, and Pennsylvania, and as South Carolina, Virginia, +and Maryland were apparently following in the same +legislative path, the next generation would in all probability +witness the last throes of the system on our soil.</p> + +<p>To be sure, the problem had its uncertain quantities. The +motives of the law-makers in South Carolina and Pennsylvania +were dangerously different; the century of industrial +expansion was slowly dawning and awakening that vast +economic revolution in which American slavery was to play +so prominent and fatal a rôle; and, finally, there were already +in the South faint signs of a changing moral attitude toward +slavery, which would no longer regard the system as a temporary +makeshift, but rather as a permanent though perhaps +unfortunate necessity. With regard to the slave-trade, however, +there appeared to be substantial unity of opinion; and +there were, in 1787, few things to indicate that a cargo of five +hundred African slaves would openly be landed in Georgia in +1860.</p> + + +<p>24. <b>The Condition of the Slave-Trade.</b> In 1760 England, +the chief slave-trading nation, was sending on an average to +Africa 163 ships annually, with a tonnage of 18,000 tons, carrying +exports to the value of £163,818. Only about twenty of +these ships regularly returned to England. Most of them carried +slaves to the West Indies, and returned laden with sugar +and other products. Thus may be formed some idea of the +size and importance of the slave-trade at that time, although +for a complete view we must add to this the trade under the +French, Portuguese, Dutch, and Americans. The trade fell +off somewhat toward 1770, but was flourishing again when +the Revolution brought a sharp and serious check upon it, +<!-- Page 47 --><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47"></a><span class="pagenum">47</span>bringing down the number of English slavers, clearing, from +167 in 1774 to 28 in 1779, and the tonnage from 17,218 to 3,475 +tons. After the war the trade gradually recovered, and by 1786 +had reached nearly its former extent. In 1783 the British West +Indies received 16,208 Negroes from Africa, and by 1787 the +importation had increased to 21,023. In this latter year it was +estimated that the British were taking annually from Africa +38,000 slaves; the French, 20,000; the Portuguese, 10,000; the +Dutch and Danes, 6,000; a total of 74,000. Manchester alone +sent £180,000 annually in goods to Africa in exchange for +Negroes.<a name="FNanchor_1_165" id="FNanchor_1_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_165" class="fnanchor">1</a></p> + + +<p>25. <b>The Slave-Trade and the "Association."</b> At the outbreak +of the Revolution six main reasons, some of which were +old and of slow growth, others peculiar to the abnormal situation +of that time, led to concerted action against the slave-trade. +The first reason was the economic failure of slavery in +the Middle and Eastern colonies; this gave rise to the presumption +that like failure awaited the institution in the South. +Secondly, the new philosophy of "Freedom" and the "Rights +of man," which formed the corner-stone of the Revolution, +made the dullest realize that, at the very least, the slave-trade +and a struggle for "liberty" were not consistent. Thirdly, the +old fear of slave insurrections, which had long played so +prominent a part in legislation, now gained new power from +the imminence of war and from the well-founded fear that +the British might incite servile uprisings. Fourthly, nearly all +the American slave markets were, in 1774–1775, overstocked +with slaves, and consequently many of the strongest partisans +of the system were "bulls" on the market, and desired to raise +the value of their slaves by at least a temporary stoppage of +the trade. Fifthly, since the vested interests of the slave-trading +merchants were liable to be swept away by the opening +of hostilities, and since the price of slaves was low,<a name="FNanchor_2_166" id="FNanchor_2_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_166" class="fnanchor">2</a> there was +from this quarter little active opposition to a cessation of the +trade for a season. Finally, it was long a favorite belief of the +supporters of the Revolution that, as English exploitation of +<!-- Page 48 --><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48"></a><span class="pagenum">48</span>colonial resources had caused the quarrel, the best weapon to +bring England to terms was the economic expedient of stopping +all commercial intercourse with her. Since, then, the +slave-trade had ever formed an important part of her colonial +traffic, it was one of the first branches of commerce which +occurred to the colonists as especially suited to their ends.<a name="FNanchor_3_167" id="FNanchor_3_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_167" class="fnanchor">3</a></p> + +<p>Such were the complicated moral, political, and economic +motives which underlay the first national action against the +slave-trade. This action was taken by the "Association," a +union of the colonies entered into to enforce the policy of +stopping commercial intercourse with England. The movement +was not a great moral protest against an iniquitous +traffic; although it had undoubtedly a strong moral backing, +it was primarily a temporary war measure.</p> + + +<p>26. <b>The Action of the Colonies.</b> The earlier and largely +abortive attempts to form non-intercourse associations generally +did not mention slaves specifically, although the Virginia +House of Burgesses, May 11, 1769, recommended to +merchants and traders, among other things, to agree, "That +they will not import any slaves, or purchase any imported +after the first day of November next, until the said acts are +repealed."<a name="FNanchor_4_168" id="FNanchor_4_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_168" class="fnanchor">4</a> Later, in 1774, when a Faneuil Hall meeting +started the first successful national attempt at non-intercourse, +the slave-trade, being at the time especially flourishing, received +more attention. Even then slaves were specifically mentioned +in the resolutions of but three States. Rhode Island +recommended a stoppage of "all trade with Great Britain, Ireland, +Africa and the West Indies."<a name="FNanchor_5_169" id="FNanchor_5_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_169" class="fnanchor">5</a> North Carolina, in August, +1774, resolved in convention "That we will not import +any slave or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves, imported +or brought into this Province by others, from any part of the +world, after the first day of <i>November</i> next."<a name="FNanchor_6_170" id="FNanchor_6_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_170" class="fnanchor">6</a> Virginia gave +the slave-trade especial prominence, and was in reality the +<!-- Page 49 --><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49"></a><span class="pagenum">49</span>leading spirit to force her views on the Continental Congress. +The county conventions of that colony first took up the subject. +Fairfax County thought "that during our present difficulties +and distress, no slaves ought to be imported," and +said: "We take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest +wishes to see an entire stop forever put to such a wicked, +cruel, and unnatural trade."<a name="FNanchor_7_171" id="FNanchor_7_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_171" class="fnanchor">7</a> Prince George and Nansemond +Counties resolved "That the <i>African</i> trade is injurious to this +Colony, obstructs the population of it by freemen, prevents +manufacturers and other useful emigrants from <i>Europe</i> from +settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of the +balance of trade against this Colony."<a name="FNanchor_8_172" id="FNanchor_8_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_172" class="fnanchor">8</a> The Virginia colonial +convention, August, 1774, also declared: "We will neither ourselves +import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by +any other person, after the first day of <i>November</i> next, either +from <i>Africa</i>, the <i>West Indies</i>, or any other place."<a name="FNanchor_9_173" id="FNanchor_9_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_173" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> + +<p>In South Carolina, at the convention July 6, 1774, decided +opposition to the non-importation scheme was manifested, +though how much this was due to the slave-trade interest is +not certain. Many of the delegates wished at least to limit the +powers of their representatives, and the Charleston Chamber +of Commerce flatly opposed the plan of an "Association." +Finally, however, delegates with full powers were sent to +Congress. The arguments leading to this step were not in all +cases on the score of patriotism; a Charleston manifesto argued: +"The planters are greatly in arrears to the merchants; a +stoppage of importation would give them all an opportunity +to extricate themselves from debt. The merchants would have +time to settle their accounts, and be ready with the return of +liberty to renew trade."<a name="FNanchor_10_174" id="FNanchor_10_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_174" class="fnanchor">10</a></p> + + +<p>27. <b>The Action of the Continental Congress.</b> The first +Continental Congress met September 5, 1774, and on September +22 recommended merchants to send no more orders for +foreign goods.<a name="FNanchor_11_175" id="FNanchor_11_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_175" class="fnanchor">11</a> On September 27 "Mr. Lee made a motion +for a non-importation," and it was unanimously resolved to +<!-- Page 50 --><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50"></a><span class="pagenum">50</span>import no goods from Great Britain after December 1, 1774.<a name="FNanchor_12_176" id="FNanchor_12_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_176" class="fnanchor">12</a> +Afterward, Ireland and the West Indies were also included, +and a committee consisting of Low of New York, Mifflin of +Pennsylvania, Lee of Virginia, and Johnson of Connecticut +were appointed "to bring in a Plan for carrying into Effect +the Non-importation, Non-consumption, and Non-exportation +resolved on."<a name="FNanchor_13_177" id="FNanchor_13_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_177" class="fnanchor">13</a> The next move was to instruct this committee +to include in the proscribed articles, among other +things, "Molasses, Coffee or Piemento from the <i>British</i> Plantations +or from <i>Dominica</i>,"—a motion which cut deep into +the slave-trade circle of commerce, and aroused some opposition. +"Will, can, the people bear a total interruption of the +West India trade?" asked Low of New York; "Can they live +without rum, sugar, and molasses? Will not this impatience +and vexation defeat the measure?"<a name="FNanchor_14_178" id="FNanchor_14_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_178" class="fnanchor">14</a></p> + +<p>The committee finally reported, October 12, 1774, and after +three days' discussion and amendment the proposal passed. +This document, after a recital of grievances, declared that, in +the opinion of the colonists, a non-importation agreement +would best secure redress; goods from Great Britain, Ireland, +the East and West Indies, and Dominica were excluded; and +it was resolved that "We will neither import, nor purchase any +Slave imported after the First Day of <i>December</i> next; after +which Time, we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and +will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our +Vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those +who are concerned in it."<a name="FNanchor_15_179" id="FNanchor_15_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_179" class="fnanchor">15</a></p> + +<p>Strong and straightforward as this resolution was, time unfortunately +proved that it meant very little. Two years later, +in this same Congress, a decided opposition was manifested +to branding the slave-trade as inhuman, and it was thirteen +years before South Carolina stopped the slave-trade or Massachusetts +prohibited her citizens from engaging in it. The +passing of so strong a resolution must be explained by the +motives before given, by the character of the drafting com<!-- Page 51 --><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51"></a><span class="pagenum">51</span>mittee, +by the desire of America in this crisis to appear well +before the world, and by the natural moral enthusiasm +aroused by the imminence of a great national struggle.</p> + + +<p>28. <b>Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.</b> The unanimity +with which the colonists received this "Association" is +not perhaps as remarkable as the almost entire absence of +comment on the radical slave-trade clause. A Connecticut +town-meeting in December, 1774, noticed "with singular +pleasure ... the second Article of the Association, in which +it is agreed to import no more Negro Slaves."<a name="FNanchor_16_180" id="FNanchor_16_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_180" class="fnanchor">16</a> This comment +appears to have been almost the only one. There were in various +places some evidences of disapproval; but only in the +State of Georgia was this widespread and determined, and +based mainly on the slave-trade clause.<a name="FNanchor_17_181" id="FNanchor_17_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_181" class="fnanchor">17</a> This opposition delayed +the ratification meeting until January 18, 1775, and then +delegates from but five of the twelve parishes appeared, and +many of these had strong instructions against the approval of +the plan. Before this meeting could act, the governor adjourned +it, on the ground that it did not represent the province. +Some of the delegates signed an agreement, one article +of which promised to stop the importation of slaves March +15, 1775, i.e., four months later than the national "Association" +had directed. This was not, of course, binding on the province; +and although a town like Darien might declare "our +disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of +Slavery in <i>America</i>"<a name="FNanchor_18_182" id="FNanchor_18_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_182" class="fnanchor">18</a> yet the powerful influence of Savannah +was "not likely soon to give matters a favourable turn. The +importers were mostly against any interruption, and the consumers +very much divided."<a name="FNanchor_19_183" id="FNanchor_19_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_183" class="fnanchor">19</a> Thus the efforts of this Assembly +failed, their resolutions being almost unknown, and, as a +gentleman writes, "I hope for the honour of the Province ever +will remain so."<a name="FNanchor_20_184" id="FNanchor_20_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_184" class="fnanchor">20</a> The delegates to the Continental Congress +selected by this rump assembly refused to take their seats.<!-- Page 52 --><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52"></a><span class="pagenum">52</span> +Meantime South Carolina stopped trade with Georgia, because +it "hath not acceded to the Continental Association,"<a name="FNanchor_21_185" id="FNanchor_21_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_185" class="fnanchor">21</a> +and the single Georgia parish of St. Johns appealed to the +second Continental Congress to except it from the general +boycott of the colony. This county had already resolved not +to "purchase any Slave imported at <i>Savannah</i> (large Numbers +of which we understand are there expected) till the Sense of +Congress shall be made known to us."<a name="FNanchor_22_186" id="FNanchor_22_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_186" class="fnanchor">22</a></p> + +<p>May 17, 1775, Congress resolved unanimously "That all exportations +to <i>Quebec</i>, <i>Nova-Scotia</i>, the Island of <i>St. John's</i>, +<i>Newfoundland</i>, <i>Georgia</i>, except the Parish of <i>St. John's</i>, and to +<i>East</i> and <i>West Florida</i>, immediately cease."<a name="FNanchor_23_187" id="FNanchor_23_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_187" class="fnanchor">23</a> These measures +brought the refractory colony to terms, and the Provincial +Congress, July 4, 1775, finally adopted the "Association," and +resolved, among other things, "That we will neither import +or purchase any Slave imported from Africa, or elsewhere, +after this day."<a name="FNanchor_24_188" id="FNanchor_24_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_188" class="fnanchor">24</a></p> + +<p>The non-importation agreement was in the beginning, at +least, well enforced by the voluntary action of the loosely federated +nation. The slave-trade clause seems in most States to +have been observed with the others. In South Carolina "a +cargo of near three hundred slaves was sent out of the Colony +by the consignee, as being interdicted by the second article of +the Association."<a name="FNanchor_25_189" id="FNanchor_25_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_189" class="fnanchor">25</a> In Virginia the vigilance committee of +Norfolk "hold up for your just indignation Mr. <i>John Brown</i>, +Merchant, of this place," who has several times imported +slaves from Jamaica; and he is thus publicly censured "to the +end that all such foes to the rights of <i>British America</i> may be +publickly known ... as the enemies of <i>American</i> Liberty, +and that every person may henceforth break off all dealings +with him."<a name="FNanchor_26_190" id="FNanchor_26_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_190" class="fnanchor">26</a></p> + + +<p>29. <b>Results of the Resolution.</b> The strain of war at last +proved too much for this voluntary blockade, and after some +<!-- Page 53 --><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53"></a><span class="pagenum">53</span>hesitancy Congress, April 3, 1776, resolved to allow the importation +of articles not the growth or manufacture of Great +Britain, except tea. They also voted "That no slaves be imported +into any of the thirteen United Colonies."<a name="FNanchor_27_191" id="FNanchor_27_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_191" class="fnanchor">27</a> This marks +a noticeable change of attitude from the strong words of two +years previous: the former was a definitive promise; this is a +temporary resolve, which probably represented public opinion +much better than the former. On the whole, the conclusion +is inevitably forced on the student of this first national +movement against the slave-trade, that its influence on the +trade was but temporary and insignificant, and that at the end +of the experiment the outlook for the final suppression of the +trade was little brighter than before. The whole movement +served as a sort of social test of the power and importance of +the slave-trade, which proved to be far more powerful than +the platitudes of many of the Revolutionists had assumed.</p> + +<p>The effect of the movement on the slave-trade in general +was to begin, possibly a little earlier than otherwise would +have been the case, that temporary breaking up of the trade +which the war naturally caused. "There was a time, during +the late war," says Clarkson, "when the slave trade may be +considered as having been nearly abolished."<a name="FNanchor_28_192" id="FNanchor_28_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_192" class="fnanchor">28</a> The prices of +slaves rose correspondingly high, so that smugglers made fortunes.<a name="FNanchor_29_193" id="FNanchor_29_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_193" class="fnanchor">29</a> +It is stated that in the years 1772–1778 slave merchants +of Liverpool failed for the sum of £710,000.<a name="FNanchor_30_194" id="FNanchor_30_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_194" class="fnanchor">30</a> All this, of +course, might have resulted from the war, without the "Association;" +but in the long run the "Association" aided in +frustrating the very designs which the framers of the first resolve +had in mind; for the temporary stoppage in the end +created an extraordinary demand for slaves, and led to a slave-trade +after the war nearly as large as that before.</p> + + +<p>30. <b>The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.</b> +The Declaration of Independence showed a significant drift +of public opinion from the firm stand taken in the "Association" +resolutions. The clique of political philosophers to +which Jefferson belonged never imagined the continued exis<!-- Page 54 --><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54"></a><span class="pagenum">54</span>tence +of the country with slavery. It is well known that the +first draft of the Declaration contained a severe arraignment +of Great Britain as the real promoter of slavery and the slave-trade +in America. In it the king was charged with waging +"cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred +rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people +who never offended him, captivating and carrying them +into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable +death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, +the opprobrium of <i>infidel</i> powers, is the warfare of the <i>Christian</i> +king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market +where <i>men</i> should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his +negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit +or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage +of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he +is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, +and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, +by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: +thus paying off former crimes committed against the <i>liberties</i> +of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit +against the <i>lives</i> of another."<a name="FNanchor_31_195" id="FNanchor_31_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_195" class="fnanchor">31</a></p> + +<p>To this radical and not strictly truthful statement, even the +large influence of the Virginia leaders could not gain the assent +of the delegates in Congress. The afflatus of 1774 was +rapidly subsiding, and changing economic conditions had already +led many to look forward to a day when the slave-trade +could successfully be reopened. More important than this, the +nation as a whole was even less inclined now than in 1774 to +denounce the slave-trade uncompromisingly. Jefferson himself +says that this clause "was struck out in complaisance to South +Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain +the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still +wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe," +said he, "felt a little tender under those censures; for though +their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been +pretty considerable carriers of them to others."<a name="FNanchor_32_196" id="FNanchor_32_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_196" class="fnanchor">32</a></p> + +<p>As the war slowly dragged itself to a close, it became in<!-- Page 55 --><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55"></a><span class="pagenum">55</span>creasingly +evident that a firm moral stand against slavery and +the slave-trade was not a probability. The reaction which naturally +follows a period of prolonged and exhausting strife for +high political principles now set in. The economic forces of +the country, which had suffered most, sought to recover and +rearrange themselves; and all the selfish motives that impelled +a bankrupt nation to seek to gain its daily bread did not long +hesitate to demand a reopening of the profitable African +slave-trade. This demand was especially urgent from the fact +that the slaves, by pillage, flight, and actual fighting, had become +so reduced in numbers during the war that an urgent +demand for more laborers was felt in the South.</p> + +<p>Nevertheless, the revival of the trade was naturally a matter +of some difficulty, as the West India circuit had been cut off, +leaving no resort except to contraband traffic and the direct +African trade. The English slave-trade after the peace "returned +to its former state," and was by 1784 sending 20,000 +slaves annually to the West Indies.<a name="FNanchor_33_197" id="FNanchor_33_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_197" class="fnanchor">33</a> Just how large the trade +to the continent was at this time there are few means of ascertaining; +it is certain that there was a general reopening of +the trade in the Carolinas and Georgia, and that the New +England traders participated in it. This traffic undoubtedly +reached considerable proportions; and through the direct +African trade and the illicit West India trade many thousands +of Negroes came into the United States during the +years 1783–1787.<a name="FNanchor_34_198" id="FNanchor_34_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_198" class="fnanchor">34</a></p> + +<p>Meantime there was slowly arising a significant divergence +of opinion on the subject. Probably the whole country still +regarded both slavery and the slave-trade as temporary; but +the Middle States expected to see the abolition of both within +a generation, while the South scarcely thought it probable to +prohibit even the slave-trade in that short time. Such a difference +might, in all probability, have been satisfactorily adjusted, +if both parties had recognized the real gravity of the +matter. As it was, both regarded it as a problem of secondary +importance, to be solved after many other more pressing ones +<!-- Page 56 --><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56"></a><span class="pagenum">56</span>had been disposed of. The anti-slavery men had seen slavery +die in their own communities, and expected it to die the same +way in others, with as little active effort on their own part. +The Southern planters, born and reared in a slave system, +thought that some day the system might change, and possibly +disappear; but active effort to this end on their part was ever +farthest from their thoughts. Here, then, began that fatal policy +toward slavery and the slave-trade that characterized the +nation for three-quarters of a century, the policy of <i>laissez-faire, +laissez-passer</i>.</p> + + +<p>31. <b>The Action of the Confederation.</b> The slave-trade was +hardly touched upon in the Congress of the Confederation, +except in the ordinance respecting the capture of slaves, and +on the occasion of the Quaker petition against the trade, although, +during the debate on the Articles of Confederation, +the counting of slaves as well as of freemen in the apportionment +of taxes was urged as a measure that would check further +importation of Negroes. "It is our duty," said Wilson of +Pennsylvania, "to lay every discouragement on the importation +of slaves; but this amendment [i.e., to count two slaves +as one freeman] would give the <i>jus trium liberorum</i> to him +who would import slaves."<a name="FNanchor_35_199" id="FNanchor_35_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_199" class="fnanchor">35</a> The matter was finally compromised +by apportioning requisitions according to the value of +land and buildings.</p> + +<p>After the Articles went into operation, an ordinance in regard +to the recapture of fugitive slaves provided that, if the +capture was made on the sea below high-water mark, and the +Negro was not claimed, he should be freed. Matthews of +South Carolina demanded the yeas and nays on this proposition, +with the result that only the vote of his State was recorded +against it.<a name="FNanchor_36_200" id="FNanchor_36_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_200" class="fnanchor">36</a></p> + +<p>On Tuesday, October 3, 1783, a deputation from the Yearly +Meeting of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware +Friends asked leave to present a petition. Leave was granted +the following day,<a name="FNanchor_37_201" id="FNanchor_37_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_201" class="fnanchor">37</a> but no further minute appears. According +to the report of the Friends, the petition was against the +<!-- Page 57 --><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57"></a><span class="pagenum">57</span>slave-trade; and "though the Christian rectitude of the concern +was by the Delegates generally acknowledged, yet not +being vested with the powers of legislation, they declined +promoting any public remedy against the gross national iniquity +of trafficking in the persons of fellow-men."<a name="FNanchor_38_202" id="FNanchor_38_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_202" class="fnanchor">38</a></p> + +<p>The only legislative activity in regard to the trade during +the Confederation was taken by the individual States.<a name="FNanchor_39_203" id="FNanchor_39_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_203" class="fnanchor">39</a> Before +1778 Connecticut, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia +had by law stopped the further importation of slaves, +and importation had practically ceased in all the New England +and Middle States, including Maryland. In consequence +of the revival of the slave-trade after the War, there was then +a lull in State activity until 1786, when North Carolina laid a +prohibitive duty, and South Carolina, a year later, began her +series of temporary prohibitions. In 1787–1788 the New England +States forbade the participation of their citizens in the +traffic. It was this wave of legislation against the traffic which +did so much to blind the nation as to the strong hold which +slavery still had on the country.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_165" id="Footnote_1_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_165"><span class="label">1</span></a> These figures are from the <i>Report of the Lords of the Committee of Council</i>, +etc. (London, 1789).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_166" id="Footnote_2_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_166"><span class="label">2</span></a> Sheffield, <i>Observations on American Commerce</i>, p. 28; P.L. Ford, <i>The Association +of the First Congress</i>, in <i>Political Science Quarterly</i>, VI. 615–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_167" id="Footnote_3_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_167"><span class="label">3</span></a> Cf., e.g., Arthur Lee's letter to R.H. Lee, March 18, 1774, in which non-intercourse +is declared "the only advisable and sure mode of defence": Force, +<i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 229. Cf. also <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 240; Ford, in <i>Political +Science Quarterly</i>, VI. 614–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_168" id="Footnote_4_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_168"><span class="label">4</span></a> Goodloe, <i>Birth of the Republic</i>, p. 260.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_169" id="Footnote_5_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_169"><span class="label">5</span></a> Staples, <i>Annals of Providence</i> (1843), p. 235.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_170" id="Footnote_6_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_170"><span class="label">6</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 735. This was probably copied from +the Virginia resolve.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_171" id="Footnote_7_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_171"><span class="label">7</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 600.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_172" id="Footnote_8_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_172"><span class="label">8</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 494, 530. Cf. pp. 523, 616, 641, etc.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_173" id="Footnote_9_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_173"><span class="label">9</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 687.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_174" id="Footnote_10_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_174"><span class="label">10</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 511, 526. Cf. also p. 316.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_175" id="Footnote_11_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_175"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, I. 20. Cf. Ford, in <i>Political Science Quarterly</i>, VI. 615–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_176" id="Footnote_12_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_176"><span class="label">12</span></a> John Adams, <i>Works</i>, II. 382.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_177" id="Footnote_13_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_177"><span class="label">13</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, I. 21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_178" id="Footnote_14_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_178"><span class="label">14</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 24; Drayton; <i>Memoirs of the American Revolution</i>, I. 147; John +Adams, <i>Works</i>, II. 394.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_179" id="Footnote_15_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_179"><span class="label">15</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, I. 27, 32–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_180" id="Footnote_16_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_180"><span class="label">16</span></a> Danbury, Dec. 12, 1774: Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 1038. This +case and that of Georgia are the only ones I have found in which the slave-trade +clause was specifically mentioned.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_181" id="Footnote_17_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_181"><span class="label">17</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 1033, 1136, 1160, 1163; II. 279–281, +1544; <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, May 13, 15, 17, 1775.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_182" id="Footnote_18_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_182"><span class="label">18</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 1136.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_183" id="Footnote_19_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_183"><span class="label">19</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II. 279–81.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_184" id="Footnote_20_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_184"><span class="label">20</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 1160.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_185" id="Footnote_21_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_185"><span class="label">21</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., I. 1163.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_186" id="Footnote_22_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_186"><span class="label">22</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, May 13, 15, 1775.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_187" id="Footnote_23_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_187"><span class="label">23</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, May 17, 1775.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_188" id="Footnote_24_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_188"><span class="label">24</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., II. 1545.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_189" id="Footnote_25_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_189"><span class="label">25</span></a> Drayton, <i>Memoirs of the American Revolution</i>, I. 182. Cf. pp. 181–7; Ramsay, +<i>History of S. Carolina</i>, I. 231.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_190" id="Footnote_26_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_190"><span class="label">26</span></a> Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Ser., II. 33–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_191" id="Footnote_27_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_191"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, II. 122.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_192" id="Footnote_28_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_192"><span class="label">28</span></a> Clarkson, <i>Impolicy of the Slave-Trade</i>, pp. 125–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_193" id="Footnote_29_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_193"><span class="label">29</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 25–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_194" id="Footnote_30_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_194"><span class="label">30</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_195" id="Footnote_31_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_195"><span class="label">31</span></a> Jefferson, <i>Works</i> (Washington, 1853–4), I. 23–4. On the Declaration as an +anti-slavery document, cf. Elliot, <i>Debates</i> (1861), I. 89.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_196" id="Footnote_32_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_196"><span class="label">32</span></a> Jefferson, <i>Works</i> (Washington, 1853–4), I. 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_197" id="Footnote_33_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_197"><span class="label">33</span></a> Clarkson, <i>Impolicy of the Slave-Trade</i>, pp. 25–6; <i>Report</i>, etc., as above.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_198" id="Footnote_34_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_198"><span class="label">34</span></a> Witness the many high duty acts on slaves, and the revenue derived therefrom. +Massachusetts had sixty distilleries running in 1783. Cf. Sheffield, <i>Observations +on American Commerce</i>, p. 267.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_199" id="Footnote_35_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_199"><span class="label">35</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, I. 72–3. Cf. Art. 8 of the Articles of Confederation.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_200" id="Footnote_36_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_200"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, 1781, June 25; July 18; Sept. 21, 27; Nov. 8, 13, 30; +Dec. 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_201" id="Footnote_37_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_201"><span class="label">37</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1782–3, pp. 418–9, 425.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_202" id="Footnote_38_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_202"><span class="label">38</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1183.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_203" id="Footnote_39_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_203"><span class="label">39</span></a> Cf. above, chapters ii., iii., iv.</p></div> +</div> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 58 --><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58"></a><span class="pagenum">58</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_VI" id="Chapter_VI"></a><i>Chapter VI</i></h2> + +<h3>THE FEDERAL CONVENTION. 1787.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">32. The First Proposition.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">33. The General Debate.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">34. The Special Committee and the "Bargain."</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">35. The Appeal to the Convention.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">36. Settlement by the Convention.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">37. Reception of the Clause by the Nation.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">38. Attitude of the State Conventions.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">39. Acceptance of the Policy.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>32. <b>The First Proposition.</b> Slavery occupied no prominent +place in the Convention called to remedy the glaring defects +of the Confederation, for the obvious reason that few of the +delegates thought it expedient to touch a delicate subject +which, if let alone, bade fair to settle itself in a manner satisfactory +to all. Consequently, neither slavery nor the slave-trade +is specifically mentioned in the delegates' credentials of +any of the States, nor in Randolph's, Pinckney's, or Hamilton's +plans, nor in Paterson's propositions. Indeed, the debate +from May 14 to June 19, when the Committee of the Whole +reported, touched the subject only in the matter of the ratio +of representation of slaves. With this same exception, the report +of the Committee of the Whole contained no reference +to slavery or the slave-trade, and the twenty-three resolutions +of the Convention referred to the Committee of Detail, July +23 and 26, maintain the same silence.</p> + +<p>The latter committee, consisting of Rutledge, Randolph, +Gorham, Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of the Constitution +August 6, 1787. The committee had, in its deliberations, +probably made use of a draft of a national Constitution +made by Edmund Randolph.<a name="FNanchor_1_204" id="FNanchor_1_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_204" class="fnanchor">1</a> One clause of this provided +that "no State shall lay a duty on imports;" and, also, "1. No +duty on exports. 2. No prohibition on such inhabitants as the +United States think proper to admit. 3. No duties by way of +such prohibition." It does not appear that any reference to +Negroes was here intended. In the extant copy, however, +<!-- Page 59 --><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59"></a><span class="pagenum">59</span>notes in Edward Rutledge's handwriting change the second +clause to "No prohibition on such inhabitants or people as +the several States think proper to admit."<a name="FNanchor_2_205" id="FNanchor_2_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_205" class="fnanchor">2</a> In the report, August +6, these clauses take the following form:—</p> + +<p>"Article VII. Section 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the legislature +on articles exported from any state; nor on the migration or +importation of such persons as the several states shall think proper +to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited."<a name="FNanchor_3_206" id="FNanchor_3_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_206" class="fnanchor">3</a></p> + + +<p>33. <b>The General Debate.</b> This, of course, referred both to +immigrants ("migration") and to slaves ("importation").<a name="FNanchor_4_207" id="FNanchor_4_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_207" class="fnanchor">4</a> +Debate on this section began Tuesday, August 22, and lasted +two days. Luther Martin of Maryland precipitated the discussion +by a proposition to alter the section so as to allow a +prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. The debate +immediately became general, being carried on principally by +Rutledge, the Pinckneys, and Williamson from the Carolinas; +Baldwin of Georgia; Mason, Madison, and Randolph of Virginia; +Wilson and Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania; Dickinson +of Delaware; and Ellsworth, Sherman, Gerry, King, +and Langdon of New England.<a name="FNanchor_5_208" id="FNanchor_5_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_208" class="fnanchor">5</a></p> + +<p>In this debate the moral arguments were prominent. Colonel +George Mason of Virginia denounced the traffic in slaves +as "infernal;" Luther Martin of Maryland regarded it as "inconsistent +with the principles of the revolution, and dishonorable +to the American character." "Every principle of honor +and safety," declared John Dickinson of Delaware, "demands +the exclusion of slaves." Indeed, Mason solemnly averred that +the crime of slavery might yet bring the judgment of God on +the nation. On the other side, Rutledge of South Carolina +bluntly declared that religion and humanity had nothing to +do with the question, that it was a matter of "interest" alone. +Gerry of Massachusetts wished merely to refrain from giving +direct sanction to the trade, while others contented themselves +with pointing out the inconsistency of condemning the +slave-trade and defending slavery.</p><p><!-- Page 60 --><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60"></a><span class="pagenum">60</span></p> + +<p>The difficulty of the whole argument, from the moral +standpoint, lay in the fact that it was completely checkmated +by the obstinate attitude of South Carolina and Georgia. +Their delegates—Baldwin, the Pinckneys, Rutledge, and others—asserted +flatly, not less than a half-dozen times during +the debate, that these States "can never receive the plan if it +prohibits the slave-trade;" that "if the Convention thought" +that these States would consent to a stoppage of the slave-trade, +"the expectation is vain."<a name="FNanchor_6_209" id="FNanchor_6_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_209" class="fnanchor">6</a> By this stand all argument +from the moral standpoint was virtually silenced, for the Convention +evidently agreed with Roger Sherman of Connecticut +that "it was better to let the Southern States import slaves +than to part with those States."</p> + +<p>In such a dilemma the Convention listened not unwillingly +to the <i>non possumus</i> arguments of the States' Rights advocates. +The "morality and wisdom" of slavery, declared Ellsworth +of Connecticut, "are considerations belonging to the +States themselves;" let every State "import what it pleases;" +the Confederation has not "meddled" with the question, why +should the Union? It is a dangerous symptom of centralization, +cried Baldwin of Georgia; the "central States" wish to +be the "vortex for everything," even matters of "a local nature." +The national government, said Gerry of Massachusetts, +had nothing to do with slavery in the States; it had only to +refrain from giving direct sanction to the system. Others opposed +this whole argument, declaring, with Langdon of New +Hampshire, that Congress ought to have this power, since, as +Dickinson tartly remarked, "The true question was, whether +the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the +importation; and this question ought to be left to the national +government, not to the states particularly interested."</p> + +<p>Beside these arguments as to the right of the trade and the +proper seat of authority over it, many arguments of general +expediency were introduced. From an economic standpoint, +for instance, General C.C. Pinckney of South Carolina "contended, +that the importation of slaves would be for the interest +of the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce." +Rutledge of the same State declared: "If the Northern States +<!-- Page 61 --><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61"></a><span class="pagenum">61</span>consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of +slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will +become the carriers." This sentiment found a more or less +conscious echo in the words of Ellsworth of Connecticut, +"What enriches a part enriches the whole." It was, moreover, +broadly hinted that the zeal of Maryland and Virginia against +the trade had an economic rather than a humanitarian motive, +since they had slaves enough and to spare, and wished to sell +them at a high price to South Carolina and Georgia, who +needed more. In such case restrictions would unjustly discriminate +against the latter States. The argument from history +was barely touched upon. Only once was there an allusion to +"the example of all the world" "in all ages" to justify slavery,<a name="FNanchor_7_210" id="FNanchor_7_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_210" class="fnanchor">7</a> +and once came the counter declaration that "Greece and +Rome were made unhappy by their slaves."<a name="FNanchor_8_211" id="FNanchor_8_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_211" class="fnanchor">8</a> On the other +hand, the military weakness of slavery in the late war led to +many arguments on that score. Luther Martin and George +Mason dwelt on the danger of a servile class in war and insurrection; +while Rutledge hotly replied that he "would readily +exempt the other states from the obligation to protect the +Southern against them;" and Ellsworth thought that the very +danger would "become a motive to kind treatment." The desirability +of keeping slavery out of the West was once mentioned +as an argument against the trade: to this all seemed +tacitly to agree.<a name="FNanchor_9_212" id="FNanchor_9_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_212" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> + +<p>Throughout the debate it is manifest that the Convention +had no desire really to enter upon a general slavery argument. +The broader and more theoretic aspects of the question were +but lightly touched upon here and there. Undoubtedly, most +of the members would have much preferred not to raise the +question at all; but, as it was raised, the differences of opinion +were too manifest to be ignored, and the Convention, after +its first perplexity, gradually and perhaps too willingly set itself +to work to find some "middle ground" on which all parties +could stand. The way to this compromise was pointed out +by the South. The most radical pro-slavery arguments always +ended with the opinion that "if the Southern States were let +<!-- Page 62 --><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62"></a><span class="pagenum">62</span>alone, they will probably of themselves stop importations."<a name="FNanchor_10_213" id="FNanchor_10_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_213" class="fnanchor">10</a> +To be sure, General Pinckney admitted that, "candidly, he did +not think South Carolina would stop her importations of +slaves in any short time;" nevertheless, the Convention "observed," +with Roger Sherman, "that the abolition of slavery +seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the +good sense of the several states would probably by degrees +complete it." Economic forces were evoked to eke out moral +motives: when the South had its full quota of slaves, like Virginia +it too would abolish the trade; free labor was bound +finally to drive out slave labor. Thus the chorus of "<i>laissez-faire</i>" +increased; and compromise seemed at least in sight, +when Connecticut cried, "Let the trade alone!" and Georgia +denounced it as an "evil." Some few discordant notes were +heard, as, for instance, when Wilson of Pennsylvania made +the uncomforting remark, "If South Carolina and Georgia +were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of +slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would +never refuse to unite because the importation might be prohibited."</p> + +<p>With the spirit of compromise in the air, it was not long +before the general terms were clear. The slavery side was +strongly intrenched, and had a clear and definite demand. The +forces of freedom were, on the contrary, divided by important +conflicts of interest, and animated by no very strong and +decided anti-slavery spirit with settled aims. Under such circumstances, +it was easy for the Convention to miss the +opportunity for a really great compromise, and to descend to +a scheme that savored unpleasantly of "log-rolling." The student +of the situation will always have good cause to believe +that a more sturdy and definite anti-slavery stand at this point +might have changed history for the better.</p> + + +<p>34. <b>The Special Committee and the "Bargain."</b> Since the +debate had, in the first place, arisen from a proposition to tax +the importation of slaves, the yielding of this point by the +South was the first move toward compromise. To all but the +doctrinaires, who shrank from taxing men as property, the +argument that the failure to tax slaves was equivalent to a +<!-- Page 63 --><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63"></a><span class="pagenum">63</span>bounty, was conclusive. With this point settled, Randolph +voiced the general sentiment, when he declared that he "was +for committing, in order that some middle ground might, if +possible, be found." Finally, Gouverneur Morris discovered +the "middle ground," in his suggestion that the whole subject +be committed, "including the clauses relating to taxes on exports +and to a navigation act. These things," said he, "may +form a bargain among the Northern and Southern States." +This was quickly assented to; and sections four and five, on +slave-trade and capitation tax, were committed by a vote of 7 +to 3,<a name="FNanchor_11_214" id="FNanchor_11_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_214" class="fnanchor">11</a> and section six, on navigation acts, by a vote of 9 to 2.<a name="FNanchor_12_215" id="FNanchor_12_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_215" class="fnanchor">12</a> +All three clauses were referred to the following committee: +Langdon of New Hampshire, King of Massachusetts, Johnson +of Connecticut, Livingston of New Jersey, Clymer of +Pennsylvania, Dickinson of Delaware, Martin of Maryland, +Madison of Virginia, Williamson of North Carolina, General +Pinckney of South Carolina, and Baldwin of Georgia.</p> + +<p>The fullest account of the proceedings of this committee is +given in Luther Martin's letter to his constituents, and is confirmed +in its main particulars by similar reports of other delegates. +Martin writes: "A committee of <i>one</i> member from +each state was chosen by ballot, to take this part of the system +under their consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon +some report which should reconcile those states [i.e., South +Carolina and Georgia]. To this committee also was referred +the following proposition, which had been reported by the +committee of detail, viz.: 'No navigation act shall be passed +without the assent of two thirds of the members present in +each house'—a proposition which the staple and commercial +states were solicitous to retain, lest their commerce should be +placed too much under the power of the Eastern States, but +which these last States were as anxious to reject. This committee—of +which also I had the honor to be a member—met, +and took under their consideration the subjects committed +to them. I found the <i>Eastern</i> States, notwithstanding their +<i>aversion to slavery</i>, were very willing to indulge the Southern<!-- Page 64 --><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64"></a><span class="pagenum">64</span> +States at least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave +trade, provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratify +<i>them</i>, by laying no restriction on navigation acts; and after +a very little time, the committee, by a great majority, agreed +on a report, by which the general government was to be prohibited +from preventing the importation of slaves for a limited +time, and the restrictive clause relative to navigation acts +was to be omitted."<a name="FNanchor_13_216" id="FNanchor_13_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_216" class="fnanchor">13</a></p> + +<p>That the "bargain" was soon made is proven by the fact +that the committee reported the very next day, Friday, August +24, and that on Saturday the report was taken up. It was as +follows: "Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred +to the committee, and insert 'The migration or importation +of such persons as the several states, now existing, shall +think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the legislature +prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed +on such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the +average of the duties laid on imports.' The fifth section to +remain as in the report. The sixth section to be stricken out."<a name="FNanchor_14_217" id="FNanchor_14_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_217" class="fnanchor">14</a></p> + + +<p>35. <b>The Appeal to the Convention.</b> The ensuing debate,<a name="FNanchor_15_218" id="FNanchor_15_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_218" class="fnanchor">15</a> +which lasted only a part of the day, was evidently a sort of +appeal to the House on the decisions of the committee. It +throws light on the points of disagreement. General Pinckney +first proposed to extend the slave-trading limit to 1808, and +Gorham of Massachusetts seconded the motion. This brought +a spirited protest from Madison: "Twenty years will produce +all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to +import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to +the American character than to say nothing about it in the +Constitution."<a name="FNanchor_16_219" id="FNanchor_16_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_219" class="fnanchor">16</a> There was, however, evidently another "bargain" +here; for, without farther debate, the South and the +East voted the extension, 7 to 4, only New Jersey, Pennsylvania, +Delaware, and Virginia objecting. The ambiguous phraseology +of the whole slave-trade section as reported did not +pass without comment; Gouverneur Morris would have it +read: "The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South +<!-- Page 65 --><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65"></a><span class="pagenum">65</span>Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited," etc.<a name="FNanchor_17_220" id="FNanchor_17_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_220" class="fnanchor">17</a> This +emendation was, however, too painfully truthful for the doctrinaires, +and was, amid a score of objections, withdrawn. The +taxation clause also was manifestly too vague for practical use, +and Baldwin of Georgia wished to amend it by inserting +"common impost on articles not enumerated," in lieu of the +"average" duty.<a name="FNanchor_18_221" id="FNanchor_18_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_221" class="fnanchor">18</a> This minor point gave rise to considerable +argument: Sherman and Madison deprecated any such recognition +of property in man as taxing would imply; Mason +and Gorham argued that the tax restrained the trade; while +King, Langdon, and General Pinckney contented themselves +with the remark that this clause was "the price of the first +part." Finally, it was unanimously agreed to make the duty +"not exceeding ten dollars for each person."<a name="FNanchor_19_222" id="FNanchor_19_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_222" class="fnanchor">19</a></p> + +<p>Southern interests now being safe, some Southern members +attempted, a few days later, to annul the "bargain" by +restoring the requirement of a two-thirds vote in navigation +acts. Charles Pinckney made the motion, in an elaborate +speech designed to show the conflicting commercial interests +of the States; he declared that "The power of regulating commerce +was a pure concession on the part of the Southern +States."<a name="FNanchor_20_223" id="FNanchor_20_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_223" class="fnanchor">20</a> Martin and Williamson of North Carolina, Butler of +South Carolina, and Mason of Virginia defended the proposition, +insisting that it would be a dangerous concession on +the part of the South to leave navigation acts to a mere majority +vote. Sherman of Connecticut, Morris of Pennsylvania, +and Spaight of North Carolina declared that the very diversity +of interest was a security. Finally, by a vote of 7 to 4, Maryland, +Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia being in the minority, +the Convention refused to consider the motion, and +the recommendation of the committee passed.<a name="FNanchor_21_224" id="FNanchor_21_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_224" class="fnanchor">21</a></p> + +<p>When, on September 10, the Convention was discussing +the amendment clause of the Constitution, the ever-alert +Rutledge, perceiving that the results of the laboriously<!-- Page 66 --><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66"></a><span class="pagenum">66</span> settled +"bargain" might be endangered, declared that he "never could +agree to give a power by which the articles relating to slaves +might be altered by the states not interested in that property."<a name="FNanchor_22_225" id="FNanchor_22_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_225" class="fnanchor">22</a> +As a result, the clause finally adopted, September 15, +had the proviso: "Provided, that no amendment which may +be made prior to the year 1808 shall in any manner affect the +1st and 4th clauses in the 9th section of the 1st article."<a name="FNanchor_23_226" id="FNanchor_23_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_226" class="fnanchor">23</a></p> + + +<p>36. <b>Settlement by the Convention.</b> Thus, the slave-trade +article of the Constitution stood finally as follows:—</p> + +<p>"Article I. Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons +as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, +shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand +eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on +such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."</p> + +<p>This settlement of the slavery question brought out distinct +differences of moral attitude toward the institution, and yet +differences far from hopeless. To be sure, the South apologized +for slavery, the Middle States denounced it, and the +East could only tolerate it from afar; and yet all three sections +united in considering it a temporary institution, the corner-stone +of which was the slave-trade. No one of them had ever +seen a system of slavery without an active slave-trade; and +there were probably few members of the Convention who did +not believe that the foundations of slavery had been sapped +merely by putting the abolition of the slave-trade in the hands +of Congress twenty years hence. Here lay the danger; for +when the North called slavery "temporary," she thought of +twenty or thirty years, while the "temporary" period of the +South was scarcely less than a century. Meantime, for at least +a score of years, a policy of strict <i>laissez-faire</i>, so far as the +general government was concerned, was to intervene. Instead +of calling the whole moral energy of the people into action, +so as gradually to crush this portentous evil, the Federal Convention +lulled the nation to sleep by a "bargain," and left to +the vacillating and unripe judgment of the States one of the +most threatening of the social and political ills which they +<!-- Page 67 --><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67"></a><span class="pagenum">67</span>were so courageously seeking to remedy.</p> + + +<p>37. <b>Reception of the Clause by the Nation.</b> When the +proposed Constitution was before the country, the slave-trade +article came in for no small amount of condemnation and +apology. In the pamphlets of the day it was much discussed. +One of the points in Mason's "Letter of Objections" was that +"the general legislature is restrained from prohibiting the further +importation of slaves for twenty odd years, though such +importations render the United States weaker, more vulnerable, +and less capable of defence."<a name="FNanchor_24_227" id="FNanchor_24_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_227" class="fnanchor">24</a> To this Iredell replied, +through the columns of the <i>State Gazette</i> of North Carolina: +"If all the States had been willing to adopt this regulation +[i.e., to prohibit the slave-trade], I should as an individual +most heartily have approved of it, because even if the importation +of slaves in fact rendered us stronger, less vulnerable +and more capable of defence, I should rejoice in the prohibition +of it, as putting an end to a trade which has already +continued too long for the honor and humanity of those concerned +in it. But as it was well known that South Carolina +and Georgia thought a further continuance of such importations +useful to them, and would not perhaps otherwise have +agreed to the new constitution, those States which had been +importing till they were satisfied, could not with decency have +insisted upon their relinquishing advantages themselves had +already enjoyed. Our situation makes it necessary to bear the +evil as it is. It will be left to the future legislatures to allow +such importations or not. If any, in violation of their clear +conviction of the injustice of this trade, persist in pursuing it, +this is a matter between God and their own consciences. The +interests of humanity will, however, have gained something +by the prohibition of this inhuman trade, though at a distance +of twenty odd years."<a name="FNanchor_25_228" id="FNanchor_25_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_228" class="fnanchor">25</a></p> + +<p>"Centinel," representing the Quaker sentiment of Pennsylvania, +attacked the clause in his third letter, published in the <i>Independent +Gazetteer, or The Chronicle of Freedom</i>, November 8, +1787: "We are told that the objects of this article are slaves, and +that it is inserted to secure to the southern states the right of +introducing negroes for twenty-one years to come, against the +<!-- Page 68 --><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68"></a><span class="pagenum">68</span>declared sense of the other states to put an end to an odious +traffic in the human species, which is especially scandalous +and inconsistent in a people, who have asserted their own liberty +by the sword, and which dangerously enfeebles the districts +wherein the laborers are bondsmen. The words, dark and +ambiguous, such as no plain man of common sense would +have used, are evidently chosen to conceal from Europe, +that in this enlightened country, the practice of slavery has its +advocates among men in the highest stations. When it is recollected +that no poll tax can be imposed on <i>five</i> negroes, above +what <i>three</i> whites shall be charged; when it is considered, +that the imposts on the consumption of Carolina field negroes +must be trifling, and the excise nothing, it is plain that the +proportion of contributions, which can be expected from the +southern states under the new constitution, will be unequal, +and yet they are to be allowed to enfeeble themselves by the +further importation of negroes till the year 1808. Has not the +concurrence of the five southern states (in the convention) to +the new system, been purchased too dearly by the rest?"<a name="FNanchor_26_229" id="FNanchor_26_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_229" class="fnanchor">26</a></p> + +<p>Noah Webster's "Examination" (1787) addressed itself to +such Quaker scruples: "But, say the enemies of slavery, negroes +may be imported for twenty-one years. This exception +is addressed to the quakers, and a very pitiful exception it is. +The truth is, Congress cannot prohibit the importation of +slaves during that period; but the laws against the importation +into particular states, stand unrepealed. An immediate +abolition of slavery would bring ruin upon the whites, and +misery upon the blacks, in the southern states. The constitution +has therefore wisely left each state to pursue its own measures, +with respect to this article of legislation, during the +period of twenty-one years."<a name="FNanchor_27_230" id="FNanchor_27_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_230" class="fnanchor">27</a></p> + +<p>The following year the "Examination" of Tench Coxe said: +"The temporary reservation of any particular matter must +ever be deemed an admission that it should be done away. +This appears to have been well understood. In addition to the +arguments drawn from liberty, justice and religion, opinions +against this practice [i.e., of slave-trading], founded in sound +<!-- Page 69 --><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69"></a><span class="pagenum">69</span>policy, have no doubt been urged. Regard was necessarily +paid to the peculiar situation of our southern fellow-citizens; +but they, on the other hand, have not been insensible of the +delicate situation of our national character on this subject."<a name="FNanchor_28_231" id="FNanchor_28_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_231" class="fnanchor">28</a></p> + +<p>From quite different motives Southern men defended this +section. For instance, Dr. David Ramsay, a South Carolina +member of the Convention, wrote in his "Address": "It is +farther objected, that they have stipulated for a right to prohibit +the importation of negroes after 21 years. On this subject +observe, as they are bound to protect us from domestic violence, +they think we ought not to increase our exposure to +that evil, by an unlimited importation of slaves. Though Congress +may forbid the importation of negroes after 21 years, it +does not follow that they will. On the other hand, it is probable +that they will not. The more rice we make, the more +business will be for their shipping; their interest will therefore +coincide with ours. Besides, we have other sources of supply—the +importation of the ensuing 20 years, added to the +natural increase of those we already have, and the influx from +our northern neighbours who are desirous of getting rid of +their slaves, will afford a sufficient number for cultivating all +the lands in this state."<a name="FNanchor_29_232" id="FNanchor_29_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_232" class="fnanchor">29</a></p> + +<p>Finally, <i>The Federalist</i>, No. 41, written by James Madison, +commented as follows: "It were doubtless to be wished, that +the power of prohibiting the importation of slaves had not +been postponed until the year 1808, or rather, that it had been +suffered to have immediate operation. But it is not difficult to +account, either for this restriction on the General Government, +or for the manner in which the whole clause is expressed. +It ought to be considered as a great point gained in +favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate +forever, within these States, a traffic which has so long +and so loudly upbraided the barbarism of modern policy; that +within that period, it will receive a considerable discouragement +from the Federal Government, and may be totally abolished, +by a concurrence of the few States which continue the +unnatural traffic, in the prohibitory example which has been +<!-- Page 70 --><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70"></a><span class="pagenum">70</span>given by so great a majority of the Union. Happy would it +be for the unfortunate Africans, if an equal prospect lay before +them of being redeemed from the oppressions of their +European brethren!</p> + +<p>"Attempts have been made to pervert this clause into an +objection against the Constitution, by representing it on one +side as a criminal toleration of an illicit practice, and on +another, as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial +emigrations from Europe to America. I mention these misconstructions, +not with a view to give them an answer, for +they deserve none; but as specimens of the manner and spirit, +in which some have thought fit to conduct their opposition +to the proposed Government."<a name="FNanchor_30_233" id="FNanchor_30_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_233" class="fnanchor">30</a></p> + + +<p>38. <b>Attitude of the State Conventions.</b> The records of the +proceedings in the various State conventions are exceedingly +meagre. In nearly all of the few States where records exist +there is found some opposition to the slave-trade clause. The +opposition was seldom very pronounced or bitter; it rather +took the form of regret, on the one hand that the Convention +went so far, and on the other hand that it did not go farther. +Probably, however, the Constitution was never in danger of +rejection on account of this clause.</p> + +<p>Extracts from a few of the speeches, <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i>, in various +States will best illustrate the character of the arguments. In +reply to some objections expressed in the Pennsylvania convention, +Wilson said, December 3, 1787: "I consider this as +laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; +and though the period is more distant than I could wish, +yet it will produce the same kind, gradual change, which was +pursued in Pennsylvania."<a name="FNanchor_31_234" id="FNanchor_31_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_234" class="fnanchor">31</a> Robert Barnwell declared in the +South Carolina convention, January 17, 1788, that this clause +"particularly pleased" him. "Congress," he said, "has guarantied +this right for that space of time, and at its expiration may +continue it as long as they please. This question then arises—What +will their interest lead them to do? The Eastern States, +as the honorable gentleman says, will become the carriers of +America. It will, therefore, certainly be their interest to <!-- Page 71 --><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71"></a><span class="pagenum">71</span>encourage +exportation to as great an extent as possible; and if +the quantum of our products will be diminished by the prohibition +of negroes, I appeal to the belief of every man, +whether he thinks those very carriers will themselves dam up +the sources from whence their profit is derived. To think so is +so contradictory to the general conduct of mankind, that I am +of opinion, that, without we ourselves put a stop to them, the +traffic for negroes will continue forever."<a name="FNanchor_32_235" id="FNanchor_32_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_235" class="fnanchor">32</a></p> + +<p>In Massachusetts, January 30, 1788, General Heath said: +"The gentlemen who have spoken have carried the matter +rather too far on both sides. I apprehend that it is not in our +power to do anything for or against those who are in slavery +in the southern States.... Two questions naturally arise, if +we ratify the Constitution: Shall we do anything by our act +to hold the blacks in slavery? or shall we become partakers of +other men's sins? I think neither of them. Each State is sovereign +and independent to a certain degree, and they have a +right, and will regulate their own internal affairs, as to themselves +appears proper."<a name="FNanchor_33_236" id="FNanchor_33_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_236" class="fnanchor">33</a> Iredell said, in the North Carolina +convention, July 26, 1788: "When the entire abolition of slavery +takes place, it will be an event which must be pleasing to +every generous mind, and every friend of human nature.... +But as it is, this government is nobly distinguished above +others by that very provision."<a name="FNanchor_34_237" id="FNanchor_34_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_237" class="fnanchor">34</a></p> + +<p>Of the arguments against the clause, two made in the Massachusetts +convention are typical. The Rev. Mr. Neal said, +January 25, 1788, that "unless his objection [to this clause] was +removed, he could not put his hand to the Constitution."<a name="FNanchor_35_238" id="FNanchor_35_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_238" class="fnanchor">35</a> +General Thompson exclaimed, "Shall it be said, that after we +have established our own independence and freedom, we +make slaves of others?"<a name="FNanchor_36_239" id="FNanchor_36_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_239" class="fnanchor">36</a> Mason, in the Virginia convention, +June 15, 1788, said: "As much as I value a union of all the +states, I would not admit the Southern States into the Union +unless they agree to the discontinuance of this disgraceful +trade.... Yet they have not secured us the property of the +<!-- Page 72 --><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72"></a><span class="pagenum">72</span>slaves we have already. So that 'they have done what they +ought not to have done, and have left undone what they +ought to have done.'"<a name="FNanchor_37_240" id="FNanchor_37_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_240" class="fnanchor">37</a> Joshua Atherton, who led the opposition +in the New Hampshire convention, said: "The idea that +strikes those who are opposed to this clause so disagreeably +and so forcibly is,—hereby it is conceived (if we ratify the +Constitution) that we become <i>consenters to</i> and <i>partakers in</i> +the sin and guilt of this abominable traffic, at least for a certain +period, without any positive stipulation that it shall even +then be brought to an end."<a name="FNanchor_38_241" id="FNanchor_38_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_241" class="fnanchor">38</a></p> + +<p>In the South Carolina convention Lowndes, January 16, +1788, attacked the slave-trade clause. "Negroes," said he, +"were our wealth, our only natural resource; yet behold how +our kind friends in the north were determined soon to tie up +our hands, and drain us of what we had! The Eastern States +drew their means of subsistence, in a great measure, from +their shipping; and, on that head, they had been particularly +careful not to allow of any burdens.... Why, then, call this +a reciprocal bargain, which took all from one party, to bestow +it on the other!"<a name="FNanchor_39_242" id="FNanchor_39_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_242" class="fnanchor">39</a></p> + +<p>In spite of this discussion in the different States, only one +State, Rhode Island, went so far as to propose an amendment +directing Congress to "promote and establish such laws and +regulations as may effectually prevent the importation of +slaves of every description, into the United States."<a name="FNanchor_40_243" id="FNanchor_40_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_243" class="fnanchor">40</a></p> + + +<p>39. <b>Acceptance of the Policy.</b> As in the Federal Convention, +so in the State conventions, it is noticeable that the compromise +was accepted by the various States from widely +different motives.<a name="FNanchor_41_244" id="FNanchor_41_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_244" class="fnanchor">41</a> Nevertheless, these motives were not fixed +and unchangeable, and there was still discernible a certain underlying +<!-- Page 73 --><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73"></a><span class="pagenum">73</span>agreement in the dislike of slavery. One cannot help +thinking that if the devastation of the late war had not left an +extraordinary demand for slaves in the South,—if, for instance, +there had been in 1787 the same plethora in the slave-market +as in 1774,—the future history of the country would +have been far different. As it was, the twenty-one years of +<i>laissez-faire</i> were confirmed by the States, and the nation entered +upon the constitutional period with the slave-trade legal +in three States,<a name="FNanchor_42_245" id="FNanchor_42_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_245" class="fnanchor">42</a> and with a feeling of quiescence toward it in +the rest of the Union.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_204" id="Footnote_1_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_204"><span class="label">1</span></a> Conway, <i>Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph</i>, ch. ix.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_205" id="Footnote_2_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_205"><span class="label">2</span></a> Conway, <i>Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph</i>, p. 78.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_206" id="Footnote_3_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_206"><span class="label">3</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, I. 227.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_207" id="Footnote_4_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_207"><span class="label">4</span></a> Cf. Conway, <i>Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph</i>, pp. 78–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_208" id="Footnote_5_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_208"><span class="label">5</span></a> For the following debate, Madison's notes (Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V. 457 ff.) are +mainly followed.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_209" id="Footnote_6_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_209"><span class="label">6</span></a> Cf. Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V, <i>passim</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_210" id="Footnote_7_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_210"><span class="label">7</span></a> By Charles Pinckney.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_211" id="Footnote_8_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_211"><span class="label">8</span></a> By John Dickinson.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_212" id="Footnote_9_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_212"><span class="label">9</span></a> Mentioned in the speech of George Mason.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_213" id="Footnote_10_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_213"><span class="label">10</span></a> Charles Pinckney. Baldwin of Georgia said that if the State were left to +herself, "she may probably put a stop to the evil": Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V. 459.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_214" id="Footnote_11_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_214"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>Affirmative:</i> Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, +South Carolina, Georgia,—7. <i>Negative:</i> New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, +Delaware,—3. <i>Absent:</i> Massachusetts,—1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_215" id="Footnote_12_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_215"><span class="label">12</span></a> <i>Negative:</i> Connecticut and New Jersey.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_216" id="Footnote_13_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_216"><span class="label">13</span></a> Luther Martin's letter, in Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, I. 373. Cf. explanations of delegates +in the South Carolina, North Carolina, and other conventions.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_217" id="Footnote_14_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_217"><span class="label">14</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V. 471.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_218" id="Footnote_15_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_218"><span class="label">15</span></a> Saturday, Aug. 25, 1787.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_219" id="Footnote_16_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_219"><span class="label">16</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V. 477.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_220" id="Footnote_17_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_220"><span class="label">17</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V. 477. Dickinson made a similar motion, which was disagreed +to: <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_221" id="Footnote_18_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_221"><span class="label">18</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V. 478.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_222" id="Footnote_19_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_222"><span class="label">19</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_223" id="Footnote_20_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_223"><span class="label">20</span></a> Aug. 29: <i>Ibid.</i>, V. 489.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_224" id="Footnote_21_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_224"><span class="label">21</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V. 492.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_225" id="Footnote_22_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_225"><span class="label">22</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, V. 532.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_226" id="Footnote_23_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_226"><span class="label">23</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 317.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_227" id="Footnote_24_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_227"><span class="label">24</span></a> P.L. Ford, <i>Pamphlets on the Constitution</i>, p. 331.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_228" id="Footnote_25_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_228"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 367.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_229" id="Footnote_26_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_229"><span class="label">26</span></a> McMaster and Stone, <i>Pennsylvania and the Federal Convention</i>, pp. 599–600. +Cf. also p. 773.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_230" id="Footnote_27_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_230"><span class="label">27</span></a> See Ford, <i>Pamphlets</i>, etc., p. 54.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_231" id="Footnote_28_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_231"><span class="label">28</span></a> Ford, <i>Pamphlets</i>, etc., p. 146.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_232" id="Footnote_29_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_232"><span class="label">29</span></a> "Address to the Freemen of South Carolina on the Subject of the Federal +Constitution": <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 378.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_233" id="Footnote_30_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_233"><span class="label">30</span></a> Published in the <i>New York Packet</i>, Jan. 22, 1788; reprinted in Dawson's +<i>F[oe]deralist*</i>, I. 290–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_234" id="Footnote_31_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_234"><span class="label">31</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, II. 452.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_235" id="Footnote_32_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_235"><span class="label">32</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, IV. 296–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_236" id="Footnote_33_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_236"><span class="label">33</span></a> Published in <i>Debates of the Massachusetts Convention</i>, 1788, p. 217 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_237" id="Footnote_34_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_237"><span class="label">34</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, IV. 100–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_238" id="Footnote_35_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_238"><span class="label">35</span></a> Published in <i>Debates of the Massachusetts Convention</i>, 1788, p. 208.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_239" id="Footnote_36_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_239"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_240" id="Footnote_37_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_240"><span class="label">37</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, III. 452–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_241" id="Footnote_38_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_241"><span class="label">38</span></a> Walker, <i>Federal Convention of New Hampshire</i>, App. 113; Elliot, Debates, +II. 203.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_242" id="Footnote_39_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_242"><span class="label">39</span></a> Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, IV. 273.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_243" id="Footnote_40_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_243"><span class="label">40</span></a> Updike's <i>Minutes</i>, in Staples, <i>Rhode Island in the Continental Congress</i>, pp. +657–8, 674–9. Adopted by a majority of one in a convention of seventy.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_244" id="Footnote_41_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_244"><span class="label">41</span></a> In five States I have found no mention of the subject (Delaware, New +Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, and Maryland). In the Pennsylvania convention +there was considerable debate, partially preserved in Elliot's and Lloyd's <i>Debates</i>. +In the Massachusetts convention the debate on this clause occupied a +part of two or three days, reported in published debates. In South Carolina +there were several long speeches, reported in Elliot's <i>Debates</i>. Only three +speeches made in the New Hampshire convention seem to be extant, and +two of these are on the slave-trade: cf. Walker and Elliot. The Virginia convention +discussed the clause to considerable extent: see Elliot. The clause +does not seem to have been a cause of North Carolina's delay in ratification, +although it occasioned some discussion: see Elliot. In Rhode Island "much +debate ensued," and in this State alone was an amendment proposed: see +Staples, <i>Rhode Island in the Continental Congress</i>. In New York the Committee +of the Whole "proceeded through sections 8, 9 ... with little or no +debate": Elliot, <i>Debates</i>, II. 406.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_245" id="Footnote_42_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_245"><span class="label">42</span></a> South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina. North Carolina had, however, +a prohibitive duty.</p></div> +</div> + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 74 --><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74"></a><span class="pagenum">74</span></p> + +<h2><a name="Chapter_VII" id="Chapter_VII"></a><i>Chapter VII</i></h2> + +<h3>TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE AND ANTI-SLAVERY EFFORT, +1787–1806.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">40. Influence of the Haytian Revolution.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">41. Legislation of the Southern States.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">42. Legislation of the Border States.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">43. Legislation of the Eastern States.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">44. First Debate in Congress, 1789.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">45. Second Debate in Congress, 1790.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">46. The Declaration of Powers, 1790.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">47. The Act of 1794.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">48. The Act of 1800.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">49. The Act of 1803.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">50. State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to 1803.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">51. The South Carolina Repeal of 1803.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">52. The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803–1805.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">53. Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805–1806.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">54. Key-Note of the Period.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>40. <b>Influence of the Haytian Revolution.</b> The rôle which +the great Negro Toussaint, called L'Ouverture, played in the +history of the United States has seldom been fully appreciated. +Representing the age of revolution in America, he rose +to leadership through a bloody terror, which contrived a Negro +"problem" for the Western Hemisphere, intensified and +defined the anti-slavery movement, became one of the causes, +and probably the prime one, which led Napoleon to sell Louisiana +for a song, and finally, through the interworking of all +these effects, rendered more certain the final prohibition of +the slave-trade by the United States in 1807.</p> + +<p>From the time of the reorganization of the Pennsylvania +Abolition Society, in 1787, anti-slavery sentiment became active. +New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Delaware, Maryland, +and Virginia had strong organizations, and a national +convention was held in 1794. The terrible upheaval in the +West Indies, beginning in 1791, furnished this rising movement +with an irresistible argument. A wave of horror and fear +swept over the South, which even the powerful slave-traders +of Georgia did not dare withstand; the Middle States saw +their worst dreams realized, and the mercenary trade interests +<!-- Page 75 --><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75"></a><span class="pagenum">75</span>of the East lost control of the New England conscience.</p> + + +<p>41. <b>Legislation of the Southern States.</b> In a few years the +growing sentiment had crystallized into legislation. The +Southern States took immediate measures to close their ports, +first against West India Negroes, finally against all slaves. +Georgia, who had had legal slavery only from 1755, and had +since passed no restrictive legislation, felt compelled in 1793[1] +to stop the entry of free Negroes, and in 1798<a name="FNanchor_2_247" id="FNanchor_2_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_247" class="fnanchor">2</a> to prohibit, +under heavy penalties, the importation of all slaves. This provision +was placed in the Constitution of the State, and, although +miserably enforced, was never repealed.</p> + +<p>South Carolina was the first Southern State in which the +exigencies of a great staple crop rendered the rapid consumption +of slaves more profitable than their proper maintenance. +Alternating, therefore, between a plethora and a dearth of +Negroes, she prohibited the slave-trade only for short periods. +In 1788<a name="FNanchor_3_248" id="FNanchor_3_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_248" class="fnanchor">3</a> she had forbidden the trade for five years, and +in 1792,<a name="FNanchor_4_249" id="FNanchor_4_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_249" class="fnanchor">4</a> being peculiarly exposed to the West Indian insurrection, +she quickly found it "inexpedient" to allow Negroes +"from Africa, the West India Islands, or other place beyond +sea" to enter for two years. This act continued to be extended, +although with lessening penalties, until 1803.<a name="FNanchor_5_250" id="FNanchor_5_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_250" class="fnanchor">5</a> The home demand +in view of the probable stoppage of the trade in 1808, +the speculative chances of the new Louisiana Territory trade, +and the large already existing illicit traffic combined in that +year to cause the passage of an act, December 17, reopening +the African slave-trade, although still carefully excluding +"West India" Negroes.<a name="FNanchor_6_251" id="FNanchor_6_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_251" class="fnanchor">6</a> This action profoundly stirred the +Union, aroused anti-slavery sentiment, led to a concerted<!-- Page 76 --><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76"></a><span class="pagenum">76</span> +movement for a constitutional amendment, and, failing in +this, to an irresistible demand for a national prohibitory act +at the earliest constitutional moment.</p> + +<p>North Carolina had repealed her prohibitory duty act in +1790,<a name="FNanchor_7_252" id="FNanchor_7_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_252" class="fnanchor">7</a> but in 1794 she passed an "Act to prevent further +importation and bringing of slaves," etc.<a name="FNanchor_8_253" id="FNanchor_8_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_253" class="fnanchor">8</a> Even the body-servants +of West India immigrants and, naturally, all free +Negroes, were eventually prohibited.<a name="FNanchor_9_254" id="FNanchor_9_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_254" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> + + +<p>42. <b>Legislation of the Border States.</b> The Border States, +Virginia and Maryland, strengthened their non-importation +laws, Virginia freeing illegally imported Negroes,<a name="FNanchor_10_255" id="FNanchor_10_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_255" class="fnanchor">10</a> and Maryland +prohibiting even the interstate trade.<a name="FNanchor_11_256" id="FNanchor_11_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_256" class="fnanchor">11</a> The Middle States +took action chiefly in the final abolition of slavery within their +borders, and the prevention of the fitting out of slaving vessels +in their ports. Delaware declared, in her Act of 1789, that +"it is inconsistent with that spirit of general liberty which pervades +the constitution of this state, that vessels should be fitted +out, or equipped, in any of the ports thereof, for the +purpose of receiving and transporting the natives of Africa to +places where they are held in slavery,"<a name="FNanchor_12_257" id="FNanchor_12_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_257" class="fnanchor">12</a> and forbade such a +practice under penalty of £500 for each person so engaged. +The Pennsylvania Act of 1788<a name="FNanchor_13_258" id="FNanchor_13_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_258" class="fnanchor">13</a> had similar provisions, with a +penalty of £1000; and New Jersey followed with an act in +1798.<a name="FNanchor_14_259" id="FNanchor_14_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_259" class="fnanchor">14</a></p> + + +<p>43. <b>Legislation of the Eastern States.</b> In the Eastern +States, where slavery as an institution was already nearly defunct, +action was aimed toward stopping the notorious participation +of citizens in the slave-trade outside the State. The +prime movers were the Rhode Island Quakers. Having early +<!-- Page 77 --><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77"></a><span class="pagenum">77</span>secured a law against the traffic in their own State, they +turned their attention to others. Through their remonstrances +Connecticut, in 1788,<a name="FNanchor_15_260" id="FNanchor_15_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_260" class="fnanchor">15</a> prohibited participation in the trade by +a fine of £500 on the vessel, £50 on each slave, and loss of +insurance; this act was strengthened in 1792,<a name="FNanchor_16_261" id="FNanchor_16_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_261" class="fnanchor">16</a> the year after +the Haytian revolt. Massachusetts, after many fruitless attempts, +finally took advantage of an unusually bold case of +kidnapping, and passed a similar act in 1788.<a name="FNanchor_17_262" id="FNanchor_17_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_262" class="fnanchor">17</a> "This," says +Belknap, "was the utmost which could be done by our legislatures; +we still have to regret the impossibility of making a +law <i>here</i>, which shall restrain our citizens from carrying on +this trade <i>in foreign bottoms</i>, and from committing the crimes +which this act prohibits, <i>in foreign countries</i>, as it is said some +of them have done since the enacting of these laws."<a name="FNanchor_18_263" id="FNanchor_18_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_263" class="fnanchor">18</a></p> + +<p>Thus it is seen how, spurred by the tragedy in the West +Indies, the United States succeeded by State action in prohibiting +the slave-trade from 1798 to 1803, in furthering the cause +of abolition, and in preventing the fitting out of slave-trade +expeditions in United States ports. The country had good +cause to congratulate itself. The national government hastened +to supplement State action as far as possible, and the +prophecies of the more sanguine Revolutionary fathers +seemed about to be realized, when the ill-considered act of +South Carolina showed the weakness of the constitutional +compromise.</p> + + +<p>44. <b>First Debate in Congress, 1789.</b> The attention of the +national government was early directed to slavery and the +trade by the rise, in the first Congress, of the question of +taxing slaves imported. During the debate on the duty bill +introduced by Clymer's committee, Parker of Virginia +moved, May 13, 1789, to lay a tax of ten dollars <i>per capita</i> on +slaves imported. He plainly stated that the tax was designed +to check the trade, and that he was "sorry that the Constitution +prevented Congress from prohibiting the importation +altogether." The proposal was evidently unwelcome, and +caused an extended debate.<a name="FNanchor_19_264" id="FNanchor_19_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_264" class="fnanchor">19</a> Smith of South Carolina wanted +<!-- Page 78 --><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78"></a><span class="pagenum">78</span>to postpone a matter so "big with the most serious consequences +to the State he represented." Roger Sherman of Connecticut +"could not reconcile himself to the insertion of +human beings as an article of duty, among goods, wares, and +merchandise." Jackson of Georgia argued against any restriction, +and thought such States as Virginia "ought to let their +neighbors get supplied, before they imposed such a burden +upon the importation." Tucker of South Carolina declared it +"unfair to bring in such an important subject at a time when +debate was almost precluded," and denied the right of Congress +to "consider whether the importation of slaves is proper +or not."</p> + +<p>Mr. Parker was evidently somewhat abashed by this onslaught +of friend and foe, but he "had ventured to introduce +the subject after full deliberation, and did not like to withdraw +it." He desired Congress, "if possible," to "wipe off the +stigma under which America labored." This brought Jackson +of Georgia again to his feet. He believed, in spite of the "fashion +of the day," that the Negroes were better off as slaves +than as freedmen, and that, as the tax was partial, "it would +be the most odious tax Congress could impose." Such sentiments +were a distinct advance in pro-slavery doctrine, and +called for a protest from Madison of Virginia. He thought +the discussion proper, denied the partiality of the tax, and +declared that, according to the spirit of the Constitution and +his own desire, it was to be hoped "that, by expressing a national +disapprobation of this trade, we may destroy it, and +save ourselves from reproaches, and our posterity the imbecility +ever attendant on a country filled with slaves." Finally, to +Burke of South Carolina, who thought "the gentlemen were +contending for nothing," Madison sharply rejoined, "If we +contend for nothing, the gentlemen who are opposed to us +do not contend for a great deal."</p> + +<p>It now became clear that Congress had been whirled into a +discussion of too delicate and lengthy a nature to allow its +further prolongation. Compromising councils prevailed; and +it was agreed that the present proposition should be withdrawn +and a separate bill brought in. This bill was, however,<!-- Page 79 --><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79"></a><span class="pagenum">79</span> +at the next session dexterously postponed "until the next session +of Congress."<a name="FNanchor_20_265" id="FNanchor_20_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_265" class="fnanchor">20</a></p> + + +<p>45. <b>Second Debate in Congress, 1790.</b> It is doubtful if +Congress of its own initiative would soon have resurrected +the matter, had not a new anti-slavery weapon appeared in +the shape of urgent petitions from abolition societies. The +first petition, presented February 11, 1790,<a name="FNanchor_21_266" id="FNanchor_21_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_266" class="fnanchor">21</a> was from the same +interstate Yearly Meeting of Friends which had formerly petitioned +the Confederation Congress.<a name="FNanchor_22_267" id="FNanchor_22_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_267" class="fnanchor">22</a> They urged Congress +to inquire "whether, notwithstanding such seeming impediments, +it be not in reality within your power to exercise justice +and mercy, which, if adhered to, we cannot doubt, must +produce the abolition of the slave trade," etc. Another Quaker +petition from New York was also presented,<a name="FNanchor_23_268" id="FNanchor_23_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_268" class="fnanchor">23</a> and both were +about to be referred, when Smith of South Carolina objected, +and precipitated a sharp debate.<a name="FNanchor_24_269" id="FNanchor_24_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_269" class="fnanchor">24</a> This debate had a distinctly +different tone from that of the preceding one, and represents +another step in pro-slavery doctrine. The key-note of these +utterances was struck by Stone of Maryland, who "feared that +if Congress took any measures indicative of an intention to +interfere with the kind of property alluded to, it would sink +it in value very considerably, and might be injurious to a great +number of the citizens, particularly in the Southern States. He +thought the subject was of general concern, and that the petitioners +had no more right to interfere with it than any other +members of the community. It was an unfortunate circumstance, +that it was the disposition of religious sects to imagine +they understood the rights of human nature better than all +the world besides."</p> + +<p>In vain did men like Madison disclaim all thought of unconstitutional +"interference," and express only a desire to see +"If anything is within the Federal authority to restrain such +violation of the rights of nations and of mankind, as is supposed +to be practised in some parts of the United States." A +storm of disapproval from Southern members met such sentiments. +<!-- Page 80 --><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80"></a><span class="pagenum">80</span>"The rights of the Southern States ought not to be +threatened," said Burke of South Carolina. "Any extraordinary +attention of Congress to this petition," averred Jackson +of Georgia, would put slave property "in jeopardy," and +"evince to the people a disposition towards a total emancipation." +Smith and Tucker of South Carolina declared that the +request asked for "unconstitutional" measures. Gerry of Massachusetts, +Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Lawrence of New +York rather mildly defended the petitioners; but after considerable +further debate the matter was laid on the table.</p> + +<p>The very next day, however, the laid ghost walked again in +the shape of another petition from the "Pennsylvania Society +for promoting the Abolition of Slavery," signed by its venerable +president, Benjamin Franklin. This petition asked Congress +to "step to the very verge of the power vested in you +for discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our +fellow-men."<a name="FNanchor_25_270" id="FNanchor_25_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_270" class="fnanchor">25</a> Hartley of Pennsylvania called up the memorial +of the preceding day, and it was read a second time and a +motion for commitment made. Plain words now came from +Tucker of South Carolina. "The petition," he said, "contained +an unconstitutional request." The commitment would alarm +the South. These petitions were "mischievous" attempts to +imbue the slaves with false hopes. The South would not submit +to a general emancipation without "civil war." The commitment +would "blow the trumpet of sedition in the +Southern States," echoed his colleague, Burke. The Pennsylvania +men spoke just as boldly. Scott declared the petition +constitutional, and was sorry that the Constitution did not +interdict this "most abominable" traffic. "Perhaps, in our Legislative +capacity," he said, "we can go no further than to impose +a duty of ten dollars, but I do not know how far I might +go if I was one of the Judges of the United States, and those +people were to come before me and claim their emancipation; +but I am sure I would go as far as I could." Jackson of Georgia +rejoined in true Southern spirit, boldly defending slavery +in the light of religion and history, and asking if it was "good +policy to bring forward a business at this moment likely to +light up the flame of civil discord; for the people of the +<!-- Page 81 --><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81"></a><span class="pagenum">81</span>Southern States will resist one tyranny as soon as another. +The other parts of the Continent may bear them down by +force of arms, but they will never suffer themselves to be divested +of their property without a struggle. The gentleman +says, if he was a Federal Judge, he does not know to what +length he would go in emancipating these people; but I believe +his judgment would be of short duration in Georgia, +perhaps even the existence of such a Judge might be in danger." +Baldwin, his New-England-born colleague, urged moderation +by reciting the difficulty with which the constitutional +compromise was reached, and declaring, "the moment we go +to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble under +our feet." Lawrence of New York wanted to commit the memorials, +in order to see how far Congress might constitutionally +interfere. Smith of South Carolina, in a long speech, said +that his constituents entered the Union "from political, not +from moral motives," and that "we look upon this measure +as an attack upon the palladium of the property of our country." +Page of Virginia, although a slave owner, urged commitment, +and Madison again maintained the appropriateness +of the request, and suggested that "regulations might be made +in relation to the introduction of them [i.e., slaves] into the +new States to be formed out of the Western Territory." Even +conservative Gerry of Massachusetts declared, with regard to +the whole trade, that the fact that "we have a right to regulate +this business, is as clear as that we have any rights whatever."</p> + +<p>Finally, by a vote of 43 to 11, the memorials were committed, +the South Carolina and Georgia delegations, Bland and +Coles of Virginia, Stone of Maryland, and Sylvester of New +York voting in the negative.<a name="FNanchor_26_271" id="FNanchor_26_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_271" class="fnanchor">26</a> A committee, consisting of Foster +of New Hampshire, Huntington of Connecticut, Gerry of +Massachusetts, Lawrence of New York, Sinnickson of New +Jersey, Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Parker of Virginia, was +charged with the matter, and reported Friday, March 5. The +absence of Southern members on this committee compelled it +to make this report a sort of official manifesto on the aims of +Northern anti-slavery politics. As such, it was sure to meet<!-- Page 82 --><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82"></a><span class="pagenum">82</span> +with vehement opposition in the House, even though conservatively +worded. Such proved to be the fact when the +committee reported. The onslaught to "negative the whole +report" was prolonged and bitter, the debate <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i> lasting +several days.<a name="FNanchor_1_246" id="FNanchor_1_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_246" class="fnanchor">1</a></p> + + +<p>46. <b>The Declaration of Powers, 1790.</b> The result is best +seen by comparing the original report with the report of the +Committee of the Whole, adopted by a vote of 29 to 25 Monday, +March 23, 1790:<a name="FNanchor_28_273" id="FNanchor_28_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_273" class="fnanchor">28</a>—</p> + + +<table summary="2 cols" cellpadding="10"> +<tr> +<td class="col2"> +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Report of the Select Committee.</span></p> + +<p>That, from the nature of the matters +contained in these memorials, they +were induced to examine the powers +vested in Congress, under the present +Constitution, relating to the Abolition +of Slavery, and are clearly of opinion,</p> + +<p><i>First.</i> That the General Government +is expressly restrained from prohibiting +the importation of such persons 'as any +of the States now existing shall think +proper to admit, until the year one +thousand eight hundred and eight.'</p> + +<p><i>Secondly.</i> That Congress, by a fair +construction of the Constitution, are +equally restrained from interfering in +the emancipation of slaves, who already +are, or who may, within the period +mentioned, be imported into, or born +within, any of the said States.</p> + +<p><i>Thirdly.</i> That Congress have no authority +to interfere in the internal regulations +of particular States, relative to +the instructions of slaves in the principles +of morality and religion; to their +comfortable clothing, accommodations, +and subsistence; to the regulation +of their marriages, and the +prevention of the violation of the +rights thereof, or to the separation of +children from their parents; to a comfortable +provision in cases of sickness, +age, or infirmity; or to the seizure, +transportation, or sale of free negroes; +but have the fullest confidence in the +wisdom and humanity of the Legislatures +of the several States, that they +will revise their laws from time to time, +when necessary, and promote the objects +mentioned in the memorials, and +every other measure that may tend to +the happiness of slaves.</p> + +<p><i>Fourthly.</i> That, nevertheless, Congress +have authority, if they shall think +it necessary, to lay at any time a tax or +duty, not exceeding ten dollars for each +person of any description, the importation +of whom shall be by any of the +States admitted as aforesaid.</p> + +<p><i>Fifthly.</i> That Congress have authority +to interdict,<a name="FNanchor_29_274" id="FNanchor_29_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_274" class="fnanchor">29</a> or (so far as it is or +may be carried on by citizens of the +United States, for supplying foreigners), +to regulate<a name="FNanchor_27_272" id="FNanchor_27_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_272" class="fnanchor">27</a> the African trade, and +to make provision for the humane +treatment of slaves, in all cases while on +their passage to the United States, or +to foreign ports, so far as respects the +citizens of the United States.</p> + +<p><i>Sixthly.</i> That Congress have also authority +to prohibit foreigners from fitting +out vessels in any port of the +United States, for transporting persons +from Africa to any foreign port.</p> + +<p><i>Seventhly.</i> That the memorialists be +informed, that in all cases to which the +authority of Congress extends, they +will exercise it for the humane objects +of the memorialists, so far as they can +be promoted on the principles of justice, +humanity, and good policy.</p> +</td> +<td class="col2"> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Report of the Committee of the +Whole.</span></p> + +<p><i>First.</i> That the migration or importation +of such persons as any of the +States now existing shall think proper +to admit, cannot be prohibited by +Congress, prior to the year one thousand +eight hundred and eight.</p> + +<p><i>Secondly.</i> That Congress have no authority +to interfere in the emancipation +of slaves, or in the treatment of them +within any of the States; it remaining +with the several States alone to provide +any regulation therein, which humanity +and true policy may require.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum">83</span><!-- Page 83 --><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83"></a></p> + +<p><i>Thirdly.</i> That Congress have authority +to restrain the citizens of the United +States from carrying on the African +trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners +with slaves, and of providing, +by proper regulations, for the humane +treatment, during their passage, of +slaves imported by the said citizens +into the States admitting such importation.</p> + +<p><i>Fourthly.</i> That Congress have authority +to prohibit foreigners from fitting +out vessels in any port of the +United States for transporting persons +from Africa to any foreign port.</p> +</td></tr> +</table> + + +<p>47. <b>The Act of 1794.</b> This declaration of the powers of the +central government over the slave-trade bore early fruit in the +second Congress, in the shape of a shower of petitions from +abolition societies in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, +New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia.<a name="FNanchor_30_275" id="FNanchor_30_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_275" class="fnanchor">30</a> In +some of these slavery was denounced as "an outrageous violation +of one of the most essential rights of human nature,"<a name="FNanchor_31_276" id="FNanchor_31_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_276" class="fnanchor">31</a><!-- Page 84 --><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84"></a><span class="pagenum">84</span> +and the slave-trade as a traffic "degrading to the rights of +man" and "repugnant to reason."<a name="FNanchor_32_277" id="FNanchor_32_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_277" class="fnanchor">32</a> Others declared the trade +"injurious to the true commercial interest of a nation,"<a name="FNanchor_33_278" id="FNanchor_33_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_278" class="fnanchor">33</a> and +asked Congress that, having taken up the matter, they do all +in their power to limit the trade. Congress was, however, determined +to avoid as long as possible so unpleasant a matter, +and, save an angry attempt to censure a Quaker petitioner,<a name="FNanchor_34_279" id="FNanchor_34_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_279" class="fnanchor">34</a> +nothing was heard of the slave-trade until the third Congress.</p> + +<p>Meantime, news came from the seas southeast of Carolina +and Georgia which influenced Congress more powerfully +than humanitarian arguments had done. The wild revolt of +despised slaves, the rise of a noble black leader, and the birth +of a new nation of Negro freemen frightened the pro-slavery +advocates and armed the anti-slavery agitation. As a result, a +Quaker petition for a law against the transport traffic in slaves +was received without a murmur in 1794,<a name="FNanchor_35_280" id="FNanchor_35_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_280" class="fnanchor">35</a> and on March 22 +the first national act against the slave-trade became a law.<a name="FNanchor_36_281" id="FNanchor_36_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_281" class="fnanchor">36</a> It +was designed "to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade +from the United States to any foreign place or country," or +the fitting out of slavers in the United States for that country. +The penalties for violation were forfeiture of the ship, a fine +of $1000 for each person engaged, and of $200 for each slave +transported. If the Quakers thought this a triumph of anti-slavery +sentiment, they were quickly undeceived. Congress +might willingly restrain the country from feeding West Indian +turbulence, and yet be furious at a petition like that of 1797,<a name="FNanchor_37_282" id="FNanchor_37_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_282" class="fnanchor">37</a> +calling attention to "the oppressed state of our brethren of +the African race" in this country, and to the interstate slave-trade. +"Considering the present extraordinary state of the +West India Islands and of Europe," young John Rutledge insisted +"that 'sufficient for the day is the evil thereof,' and t<!-- Page 85 --><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85"></a><span class="pagenum">85</span>hat +they ought to shut their door against any thing which had a +tendency to produce the like confusion in this country." After +excited debate and some investigation by a special committee, +the petition was ordered, in both Senate and House, to be +withdrawn.</p> + + +<p>48. <b>The Act of 1800.</b> In the next Congress, the sixth, another +petition threw the House into paroxysms of slavery debate. +Waln of Pennsylvania presented the petition of certain +free colored men of Pennsylvania praying for a revision of the +slave-trade laws and of the fugitive-slave law, and for prospective +emancipation.<a name="FNanchor_38_283" id="FNanchor_38_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_283" class="fnanchor">38</a> Waln moved the reference of this memorial +to a committee already appointed on the revision of the +loosely drawn and poorly enforced Act of 1794.<a name="FNanchor_39_284" id="FNanchor_39_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_284" class="fnanchor">39</a> Rutledge of +South Carolina immediately arose. He opposed the motion, +saying, that these petitions were continually coming in and +stirring up discord; that it was a good thing the Negroes were +in slavery; and that already "too much of this new-fangled +French philosophy of liberty and equality" had found its way +among them. Others defended the right of petition, and declared +that none wished Congress to exceed its powers. +Brown of Rhode Island, a new figure in Congress, a man of +distinguished services and from a well-known family, boldly +set forth the commercial philosophy of his State. "We want +money," said he, "we want a navy; we ought therefore to use +the means to obtain it. We ought to go farther than has yet +been proposed, and repeal the bills in question altogether, for +why should we see Great Britain getting all the slave trade to +themselves; why may not our country be enriched by that +lucrative traffic? There would not be a slave the more sold, +but we should derive the benefits by importing from Africa +as well as that nation." Waln, in reply, contended that they +should look into "the slave trade, much of which was still +carrying on from Rhode Island, Boston and Pennsylvania." +Hill of North Carolina called the House back from this general +discussion to the petition in question, and, while willing +to remedy any existing defect in the Act of 1794, hoped the +petition would not be received. Dana of Connecticut declared +<!-- Page 86 --><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86"></a><span class="pagenum">86</span>that the paper "contained nothing but a farrago of the French +metaphysics of liberty and equality;" and that "it was likely to +produce some of the dreadful scenes of St. Domingo." The +next day Rutledge again warned the House against even discussing +the matter, as "very serious, nay, dreadful effects, +must be the inevitable consequence." He held up the most +lurid pictures of the fatuity of the French Convention in listening +to the overtures of the "three emissaries from St. +Domingo," and thus yielding "one of the finest islands in the +world" to "scenes which had never been practised since the +destruction of Carthage." "But, sir," he continued, "we have +lived to see these dreadful scenes. These horrid effects have +succeeded what was conceived once to be trifling. Most important +consequences may be the result, although gentlemen +little apprehend it. But we know the situation of things +there, although they do not, and knowing we deprecate it. +There have been emissaries amongst us in the Southern +States; they have begun their war upon us; an actual organization +has commenced; we have had them meeting in their +club rooms, and debating on that subject.... Sir, I do believe +that persons have been sent from France to feel the +pulse of this country, to know whether these [i.e., the Negroes] +are the proper engines to make use of: these people +have been talked to; they have been tampered with, and this +is going on."</p> + +<p>Finally, after censuring certain parts of this Negro petition, +Congress committed the part on the slave-trade to the committee +already appointed. Meantime, the Senate sent down a +bill to amend the Act of 1794, and the House took this bill +under consideration.<a name="FNanchor_40_285" id="FNanchor_40_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_285" class="fnanchor">40</a> Prolonged debate ensued. Brown of +Rhode Island again made a most elaborate plea for throwing +open the foreign slave-trade. Negroes, he said, bettered their +condition by being enslaved, and thus it was morally wrong +and commercially indefensible to impose "a heavy fine and +imprisonment ... for carrying on a trade so advantageous;" +or, if the trade must be stopped, then equalize the matter<!-- Page 87 --><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87"></a><span class="pagenum">87</span> and +abolish slavery too. Nichols of Virginia thought that surely +the gentlemen would not advise the importation of more Negroes; +for while it "was a fact, to be sure," that they would +thus improve their condition, "would it be policy so to do?" +Bayard of Delaware said that "a more dishonorable item of +revenue" than that derived from the slave-trade "could not be +established." Rutledge opposed the new bill as defective and +impracticable: the former act, he said, was enough; the States +had stopped the trade, and in addition the United States had +sought to placate philanthropists by stopping the use of our +ships in the trade. "This was going very far indeed." New +England first began the trade, and why not let them enjoy its +profits now as well as the English? The trade could not be +stopped.</p> + +<p>The bill was eventually recommitted and reported again.<a name="FNanchor_41_286" id="FNanchor_41_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_286" class="fnanchor">41</a> +"On the question for its passing, a long and warm debate +ensued," and several attempts to postpone it were made; it +finally passed, however, only Brown of Rhode Island, Dent +of Maryland, Rutledge and Huger of South Carolina, and +Dickson of North Carolina voting against it, and 67 voting +for it.<a name="FNanchor_42_287" id="FNanchor_42_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_287" class="fnanchor">42</a> This Act of May 10, 1800,<a name="FNanchor_43_288" id="FNanchor_43_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_288" class="fnanchor">43</a> greatly strengthened the +Act of 1794. The earlier act had prohibited citizens from +equipping slavers for the foreign trade; but this went so far +as to forbid them having any interest, direct or indirect, in +such voyages, or serving on board slave-ships in any capacity. +Imprisonment for two years was added to the former +fine of $2000, and United States commissioned ships were +directed to capture such slavers as prizes. The slaves though +forfeited by the owner, were not to go to the captor; and +the act omitted to say what disposition should be made of +them.</p> + + +<p>49. <b>The Act of 1803.</b> The Haytian revolt, having been +among the main causes of two laws, soon was the direct instigation +to a third. The frightened feeling in the South, when +freedmen from the West Indies began to arrive in various +ports, may well be imagined. On January 17, 1803, the town +of Wilmington, North Carolina, hastily memorialized Congress, +<!-- Page 88 --><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88"></a><span class="pagenum">88</span>stating the arrival of certain freed Negroes from Guadeloupe, +and apprehending "much danger to the peace and +safety of the people of the Southern States of the Union" +from the "admission of persons of that description into the +United States."<a name="FNanchor_44_289" id="FNanchor_44_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_289" class="fnanchor">44</a> The House committee which considered this +petition hastened to agree "That the system of policy stated +in the said memorial to exist, and to be now pursued in the +French colonial government, of the West Indies, is fraught +with danger to the peace and safety of the United States. That +the fact stated to have occurred in the prosecution of that +system of policy, demands the prompt interference of the +Government of the United States, as well Legislative as Executive."<a name="FNanchor_45_290" id="FNanchor_45_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_290" class="fnanchor">45</a> +The result was a bill providing for the forfeiture of +any ship which should bring into States prohibiting the same +"any negro, mulatto, or other person of color;" the captain of +the ship was also to be punished. After some opposition<a name="FNanchor_46_291" id="FNanchor_46_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_291" class="fnanchor">46</a> the +bill became a law, February 28, 1803.<a name="FNanchor_47_292" id="FNanchor_47_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_292" class="fnanchor">47</a></p> + + +<p>50. <b>State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to 1803.</b> Meantime, +in spite of the prohibitory State laws, the African slave-trade +to the United States continued to flourish. It was notorious +that New England traders carried on a large traffic.<a name="FNanchor_48_293" id="FNanchor_48_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_293" class="fnanchor">48</a> +Members stated on the floor of the House that "it was much +to be regretted that the severe and pointed statute against the +slave trade had been so little regarded. In defiance of its +forbiddance and its penalties, it was well known that citizens +and vessels of the United States were still engaged in that +traffic.... In various parts of the nation, outfits were made +for slave-voyages, without secrecy, shame, or apprehension.... +Countenanced by their fellow-citizens at home, +who were as ready to buy as they themselves were to collect +and to bring to market, they approached our Southern harbors +and inlets, and clandestinely disembarked the sooty offspring +of the Eastern, upon the ill fated soil of the Western +hemisphere. In this way, it had been computed that, during +<!-- Page 89 --><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89"></a><span class="pagenum">89</span>the last twelve months, twenty thousand enslaved negroes had +been transported from Guinea, and, by smuggling, added to +the plantation stock of Georgia and South Carolina. So little +respect seems to have been paid to the existing prohibitory +statute, that it may almost be considered as disregarded by +common consent."<a name="FNanchor_49_294" id="FNanchor_49_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_294" class="fnanchor">49</a></p> + +<p>These voyages were generally made under the flag of a foreign +nation, and often the vessel was sold in a foreign port to +escape confiscation. South Carolina's own Congressman confessed +that although the State had prohibited the trade since +1788, she "was unable to enforce" her laws. "With navigable +rivers running into the heart of it," said he, "it was impossible, +with our means, to prevent our Eastern brethren, who, +in some parts of the Union, in defiance of the authority of +the General Government, have been engaged in this trade, +from introducing them into the country. The law was completely +evaded, and, for the last year or two [1802–3], Africans +were introduced into the country in numbers little short, I +believe, of what they would have been had the trade been a +legal one."<a name="FNanchor_50_295" id="FNanchor_50_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_295" class="fnanchor">50</a> The same tale undoubtedly might have been told +of Georgia.</p> + + +<p>51. <b>The South Carolina Repeal of 1803.</b> This vast and apparently +irrepressible illicit traffic was one of three causes +which led South Carolina, December 17, 1803, to throw aside +all pretence and legalize her growing slave-trade; the other +two causes were the growing certainty of total prohibition of +the traffic in 1808, and the recent purchase of Louisiana by the +United States, with its vast prospective demand for slave labor. +Such a combination of advantages, which meant fortunes +to planters and Charleston slave-merchants, could not longer +be withheld from them; the prohibition was repealed, and the +United States became again, for the first time in at least five +years, a legal slave mart. This action shocked the nation, +frightening Southern States with visions of an influx of untrained +barbarians and servile insurrections, and arousing and +intensifying the anti-slavery feeling of the North, which had +<!-- Page 90 --><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90"></a><span class="pagenum">90</span>long since come to think of the trade, so far as legal enactment +went, as a thing of the past.</p> + +<p>Scarcely a month after this repeal, Bard of Pennsylvania +solemnly addressed Congress on the matter. "For many reasons," +said he, "this House must have been justly surprised +by a recent measure of one of the Southern States. The +impressions, however, which that measure gave my mind, +were deep and painful. Had I been informed that some formidable +foreign Power had invaded our country, I would not, +I ought not, be more alarmed than on hearing that South +Carolina had repealed her law prohibiting the importation of +slaves.... Our hands are tied, and we are obliged to stand +confounded, while we see the flood-gate opened, and pouring +incalculable miseries into our country."<a name="FNanchor_51_296" id="FNanchor_51_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_296" class="fnanchor">51</a> He then moved, as +the utmost legal measure, a tax of ten dollars per head on +slaves imported.</p> + +<p>Debate on this proposition did not occur until February 14, +when Lowndes explained the circumstances of the repeal, and +a long controversy took place.<a name="FNanchor_52_297" id="FNanchor_52_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_297" class="fnanchor">52</a> Those in favor of the tax argued +that the trade was wrong, and that the tax would serve +as some slight check; the tax was not inequitable, for if a State +did not wish to bear it she had only to prohibit the trade; the +tax would add to the revenue, and be at the same time a +moral protest against an unjust and dangerous traffic. Against +this it was argued that if the tax furnished a revenue it would +defeat its own object, and make prohibition more difficult in +1808; it was inequitable, because it was aimed against one +State, and would fall exclusively on agriculture; it would give +national sanction to the trade; it would look "like an attempt +in the General Government to correct a State for the undisputed +exercise of its constitutional powers;" the revenue +would be inconsiderable, and the United States had nothing +to do with the moral principle; while a prohibitory tax would +be defensible, a small tax like this would be useless as a protection +and criminal as a revenue measure.</p> + +<p>The whole debate hinged on the expediency of the +measure, few defending South Carolina's action.<a name="FNanchor_53_298" id="FNanchor_53_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_298" class="fnanchor">53</a> Finally, a +<!-- Page 91 --><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91"></a><span class="pagenum">91</span>bill was ordered to be brought in, which was done on the 17th.<a name="FNanchor_54_299" id="FNanchor_54_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_299" class="fnanchor">54</a> +Another long debate took place, covering substantially the +same ground. It was several times hinted that if the matter +were dropped South Carolina might again prohibit the trade. +This, and the vehement opposition, at last resulted in the +postponement of the bill, and it was not heard from again +during the session.</p> + + +<p>52. <b>The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803–1805.</b> About this +time the cession of Louisiana brought before Congress the +question of the status of slavery and the slave-trade in the +Territories. Twice or thrice before had the subject called for +attention. The first time was in the Congress of the Confederation, +when, by the Ordinance of 1787,<a name="FNanchor_55_300" id="FNanchor_55_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_300" class="fnanchor">55</a> both slavery and +the slave-trade were excluded from the Northwest Territory. +In 1790 Congress had accepted the cession of North Carolina +back lands on the express condition that slavery there +be undisturbed.<a name="FNanchor_56_301" id="FNanchor_56_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_301" class="fnanchor">56</a> Nothing had been said as to slavery in the +South Carolina cession (1787),<a name="FNanchor_57_302" id="FNanchor_57_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_302" class="fnanchor">57</a> but it was tacitly understood +that the provision of the Northwest Ordinance would not +be applied. In 1798 the bill introduced for the cession of +Mississippi contained a specific declaration that the anti-slavery +clause of 1787 should not be included.<a name="FNanchor_58_303" id="FNanchor_58_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_303" class="fnanchor">58</a> The bill passed +the Senate, but caused long and excited debate in the +House.<a name="FNanchor_59_304" id="FNanchor_59_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_304" class="fnanchor">59</a> It was argued, on the one hand, that the case in +Mississippi was different from that in the Northwest +Territory, because slavery was a legal institution in all the +surrounding country, and to prohibit the institution was +virtually to prohibit the settling of the country. On the +other hand, Gallatin declared that if this amendment should +not obtain, "he knew not how slaves could be prevented +<!-- Page 92 --><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92"></a><span class="pagenum">92</span>from being introduced by way of New Orleans, by persons +who are not citizens of the United States." It was moved to +strike out the excepting clause; but the motion received +only twelve votes,—an apparent indication that Congress +either did not appreciate the great precedent it was establishing, +or was reprehensibly careless. Harper of South Carolina +then succeeded in building up the Charleston slave-trade +interest by a section forbidding the slave traffic from +"without the limits of the United States." Thatcher moved +to strike out the last clause of this amendment, and thus to +prohibit the interstate trade, but he failed to get a second.<a name="FNanchor_60_305" id="FNanchor_60_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_305" class="fnanchor">60</a> +Thus the act passed, punishing the introduction of slaves +from without the country by a fine of $300 for each slave, +and freeing the slave.<a name="FNanchor_61_306" id="FNanchor_61_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_306" class="fnanchor">61</a></p> + +<p>In 1804 President Jefferson communicated papers to Congress +on the status of slavery and the slave-trade in Louisiana.<a name="FNanchor_62_307" id="FNanchor_62_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_307" class="fnanchor">62</a> +The Spanish had allowed the traffic by edict in 1793, +France had not stopped it, and Governor Claiborne had refrained +from interference. A bill erecting a territorial government +was already pending.<a name="FNanchor_63_308" id="FNanchor_63_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_308" class="fnanchor">63</a> The Northern "District of +Louisiana" was placed under the jurisdiction of Indiana Territory, +and was made subject to the provisions of the Ordinance +of 1787. Various attempts were made to amend the part +of the bill referring to the Southern Territory: first, so as completely +to prohibit the slave-trade;<a name="FNanchor_64_309" id="FNanchor_64_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_309" class="fnanchor">64</a> then to compel the emancipation +at a certain age of all those imported;<a name="FNanchor_65_310" id="FNanchor_65_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_310" class="fnanchor">65</a> next, to +confine all importation to that from the States;<a name="FNanchor_66_311" id="FNanchor_66_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_311" class="fnanchor">66</a> and, finally, +to limit it further to slaves imported before South Carolina +opened her ports.<a name="FNanchor_67_312" id="FNanchor_67_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_312" class="fnanchor">67</a> The last two amendments prevailed, and +the final act also extended to the Territory the Acts of 1794 +and 1803. Only slaves imported before May 1, 1798, could be +introduced, and those must be slaves of actual settlers.<a name="FNanchor_68_313" id="FNanchor_68_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_313" class="fnanchor">68</a> All +<!-- Page 93 --><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93"></a><span class="pagenum">93</span>slaves illegally imported were freed.</p> + +<p>This stringent act was limited to one year. The next year, +in accordance with the urgent petition of the inhabitants, a +bill was introduced against these restrictions.<a name="FNanchor_69_314" id="FNanchor_69_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_314" class="fnanchor">69</a> By dexterous +wording, this bill, which became a law March 2, 1805,<a name="FNanchor_70_315" id="FNanchor_70_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_315" class="fnanchor">70</a> swept +away all restrictions upon the slave-trade except that relating +to foreign ports, and left even this provision so ambiguous +that, later, by judicial interpretation of the law,<a name="FNanchor_71_316" id="FNanchor_71_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_316" class="fnanchor">71</a> the foreign +slave-trade was allowed, at least for a time.</p> + +<p>Such a stream of slaves now poured into the new Territory +that the following year a committee on the matter was appointed +by the House.<a name="FNanchor_72_317" id="FNanchor_72_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_317" class="fnanchor">72</a> The committee reported that they +"are in possession of the fact, that African slaves, lately imported +into Charleston, have been thence conveyed into the +territory of Orleans, and, in their opinion, this practice will +be continued to a very great extent, while there is no law to +prevent it."<a name="FNanchor_73_318" id="FNanchor_73_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_318" class="fnanchor">73</a> The House ordered a bill checking this to be +prepared; and such a bill was reported, but was soon +dropped.<a name="FNanchor_74_319" id="FNanchor_74_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_319" class="fnanchor">74</a> Importations into South Carolina during this time +reached enormous proportions. Senator Smith of that State +declared from official returns that, between 1803 and 1807, +39,075 Negroes were imported into Charleston, most of<!-- Page 94 --><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94"></a><span class="pagenum">94</span> +whom went to the Territories.<a name="FNanchor_75_320" id="FNanchor_75_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_320" class="fnanchor">75</a></p> + + +<p>53. <b>Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805–1806.</b> So alarming +did the trade become that North Carolina passed a resolution +in December, 1804,<a name="FNanchor_76_321" id="FNanchor_76_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_321" class="fnanchor">76</a> proposing that the States give Congress +power to prohibit the trade. Massachusetts,<a name="FNanchor_77_322" id="FNanchor_77_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_322" class="fnanchor">77</a> Vermont,<a name="FNanchor_78_323" id="FNanchor_78_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_323" class="fnanchor">78</a> New +Hampshire,<a name="FNanchor_79_324" id="FNanchor_79_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_324" class="fnanchor">79</a> and Maryland<a name="FNanchor_80_325" id="FNanchor_80_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_325" class="fnanchor">80</a> responded; and a joint resolution +was introduced in the House, proposing as an amendment +to the Constitution "That the Congress of the United +States shall have power to prevent the further importation of +slaves into the United States and the Territories thereof."<a name="FNanchor_81_326" id="FNanchor_81_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_326" class="fnanchor">81</a> +Nothing came of this effort; but meantime the project of taxati<!-- Page 95 --><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95"></a><span class="pagenum">95</span>on +was revived. A motion to this effect, made in February, +1805, was referred to a Committee of the Whole, but was not +discussed. Early in the first session of the ninth Congress the +motion of 1805 was renewed; and although again postponed +on the assurance that South Carolina was about to stop the +trade,<a name="FNanchor_82_327" id="FNanchor_82_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_327" class="fnanchor">82</a> it finally came up for debate January 20, 1806.<a name="FNanchor_83_328" id="FNanchor_83_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_328" class="fnanchor">83</a> Then +occurred a most stubborn legislative battle, which lasted during +the whole session.<a name="FNanchor_84_329" id="FNanchor_84_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_329" class="fnanchor">84</a> Several amendments to the motion +were first introduced, so as to make it apply to all immigrants, +and again to all "persons of color." As in the former debate, +it was proposed to substitute a resolution of censure on South +Carolina. All these amendments were lost. A long debate on +the expediency of the measure followed, on the old grounds. +Early of Georgia dwelt especially on the double taxation it +would impose on Georgia; others estimated that a revenue of +one hundred thousand dollars might be derived from the tax, +a sum sufficient to replace the tax on pepper and medicines. +Angry charges and counter-charges were made,—e.g., that +Georgia, though ashamed openly to avow the trade, participated +in it as well as South Carolina. "Some recriminations +ensued between several members, on the participation of the +traders of some of the New England States in carrying on the +slave trade." Finally, January 22, by a vote of 90 to 25, a tax +bill was ordered to be brought in.<a name="FNanchor_85_330" id="FNanchor_85_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_330" class="fnanchor">85</a> One was reported on the +27th.<a name="FNanchor_86_331" id="FNanchor_86_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_331" class="fnanchor">86</a> Every sort of opposition was resorted to. On the one +hand, attempts were made to amend it so as to prohibit importation +after 1807, and to prevent importation into the Territories; +on the other hand, attempts were made to recommit +and postpone the measure. It finally got a third reading, but +was recommitted to a select committee, and disappeared until +February 14.<a name="FNanchor_87_332" id="FNanchor_87_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_332" class="fnanchor">87</a> Being then amended so as to provide for the +forfeiture of smuggled cargoes, but saying nothing as to +the disposition of the slaves, it was again relegated to a +committee, after a vote of 69 to 42 against postponement.<a name="FNanchor_88_333" id="FNanchor_88_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_333" class="fnanchor">88</a> On +<!-- Page 96 --><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96"></a><span class="pagenum">96</span>March 4 it appeared again, and a motion to reject it was lost. +Finally, in the midst of the war scare and the question of non-importation +of British goods, the bill was apparently forgotten, +and the last attempt to tax imported slaves ended, like +the others, in failure.</p> + + +<p>54. <b>Key-Note of the Period.</b> One of the last acts of this +period strikes again the key-note which sounded throughout +the whole of it. On February 20, 1806, after considerable opposition, +a bill to prohibit trade with San Domingo passed +the Senate.<a name="FNanchor_89_334" id="FNanchor_89_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_334" class="fnanchor">89</a> In the House it was charged by one side that the +measure was dictated by France, and by the other, that it +originated in the fear of countenancing Negro insurrection. +The bill, however, became a law, and by continuations remained +on the statute-books until 1809. Even at that distance +the nightmare of the Haytian insurrection continued to haunt +the South, and a proposal to reopen trade with the island +caused wild John Randolph to point out the "dreadful evil" +of a "direct trade betwixt the town of Charleston and the +ports of the island of St. Domingo."<a name="FNanchor_90_335" id="FNanchor_90_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_335" class="fnanchor">90</a></p> + +<p>Of the twenty years from 1787 to 1807 it can only be said +that they were, on the whole, a period of disappointment so +far as the suppression of the slave-trade was concerned. Fear, +interest, and philanthropy united for a time in an effort which +bade fair to suppress the trade; then the real weakness of the +constitutional compromise appeared, and the interests of the +few overcame the fears and the humanity of the many.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_246" id="Footnote_1_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_246"><span class="label">1</span></a> Prince, <i>Digest of the Laws of Georgia</i>, p. 786; Marbury and Crawford, <i>Digest +of the Laws of Georgia</i>, pp. 440, 442. The exact text of this act appears +not to be extant. Section I. is stated to have been "re-enacted by the constitution." +Possibly this act prohibited slaves also, although this is not certain. +Georgia passed several regulative acts between 1755 and 1793. Cf. Renne, <i>Colonial +Acts of Georgia</i>, pp. 73–4, 164, note.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_247" id="Footnote_2_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_247"><span class="label">2</span></a> Marbury and Crawford, <i>Digest</i>, p. 30, § 11. The clause was penned by Peter +J. Carnes of Jefferson. Cf. W.B. Stevens, <i>History of Georgia</i> (1847), II. 501.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_248" id="Footnote_3_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_248"><span class="label">3</span></a> Grimké, <i>Public Laws</i>, p. 466.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_249" id="Footnote_4_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_249"><span class="label">4</span></a> Cooper and McCord, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 431.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_250" id="Footnote_5_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_250"><span class="label">5</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VII. 433–6, 444, 447.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_251" id="Footnote_6_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_251"><span class="label">6</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VII. 449.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_252" id="Footnote_7_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_252"><span class="label">7</span></a> Martin, <i>Iredell's Acts of Assembly</i>, I. 492.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_253" id="Footnote_8_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_253"><span class="label">8</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II. 53.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_254" id="Footnote_9_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_254"><span class="label">9</span></a> Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, II. 94; <i>Laws of North Carolina</i> (revision of 1819), I. 786.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_255" id="Footnote_10_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_255"><span class="label">10</span></a> Virginia codified her whole slave legislation in 1792 (<i>Va. Statutes at Large</i>, +New Ser., I. 122), and amended her laws in 1798 and 1806 (<i>Ibid.</i>, III. 251).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_256" id="Footnote_11_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_256"><span class="label">11</span></a> Dorsey, <i>Laws of Maryland, 1796</i>, I. 334.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_257" id="Footnote_12_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_257"><span class="label">12</span></a> <i>Laws of Delaware, 1797</i> (Newcastle ed.), p. 942, ch. 194 b.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_258" id="Footnote_13_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_258"><span class="label">13</span></a> Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, II. 586.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_259" id="Footnote_14_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_259"><span class="label">14</span></a> Paterson, <i>Digest of the Laws of New Jersey</i> (1800), pp. 307–13. In 1804 New +Jersey passed an act gradually to abolish slavery. The legislation of New York +at this period was confined to regulating the exportation of slave criminals +(1790), and to passing an act gradually abolishing slavery (1799). In 1801 she +codified all her acts.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_260" id="Footnote_15_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_260"><span class="label">15</span></a> <i>Acts and Laws of Connecticut</i> (ed. 1784), pp. 368, 369, 388.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_261" id="Footnote_16_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_261"><span class="label">16</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 412.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_262" id="Footnote_17_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_262"><span class="label">17</span></a> <i>Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89</i>, pp. 235–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_263" id="Footnote_18_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_263"><span class="label">18</span></a> <i>Queries Respecting Slavery</i>, etc., in <i>Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll.</i>, 1st Ser., IV. 205.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_264" id="Footnote_19_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_264"><span class="label">19</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong, 1 sess. pp. 336–41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_265" id="Footnote_20_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_265"><span class="label">20</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 1 sess. p. 903.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_266" id="Footnote_21_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_266"><span class="label">21</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1182–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_267" id="Footnote_22_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_267"><span class="label">22</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong., 1782–3</i>, pp. 418–9. Cf. above, pp. 56–57.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_268" id="Footnote_23_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_268"><span class="label">23</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1184.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_269" id="Footnote_24_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_269"><span class="label">24</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 1182–91.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_270" id="Footnote_25_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_270"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1197–1205.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_271" id="Footnote_26_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_271"><span class="label">26</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 157–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_272" id="Footnote_27_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_272"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, I Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_273" id="Footnote_28_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_273"><span class="label">28</span></a> For the reports and debates, cf. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. +1413–7, 1450–74; <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 168–81.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_274" id="Footnote_29_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_274"><span class="label">29</span></a> A clerical error in the original: "interdict" and "regulate" should be interchanged.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_275" id="Footnote_30_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_275"><span class="label">30</span></a> See <i>Memorials presented to Congress</i>, etc. (1792), published by the Pennsylvania +Abolition Society.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_276" id="Footnote_31_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_276"><span class="label">31</span></a> From the Virginia petition.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_277" id="Footnote_32_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_277"><span class="label">32</span></a> From the petition of Baltimore and other Maryland societies.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_278" id="Footnote_33_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_278"><span class="label">33</span></a> From the Providence Abolition Society's petition.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_279" id="Footnote_34_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_279"><span class="label">34</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 2 Cong. 2 sess. I. 627–9; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 2 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 728–31.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_280" id="Footnote_35_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_280"><span class="label">35</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70, 72; <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), +3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 76, 84–5, 96–100; <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1820), 3 Cong. 1 +sess. II. 51.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_281" id="Footnote_36_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_281"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, I. 347–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_282" id="Footnote_37_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_282"><span class="label">37</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 656–70, 945–1033.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_283" id="Footnote_38_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_283"><span class="label">38</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 229.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_284" id="Footnote_39_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_284"><span class="label">39</span></a> Dec. 12, 1799: <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 535. For the +debate, see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 230–45.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_285" id="Footnote_40_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_285"><span class="label">40</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 72, 77, 88, 92; see <i>Ibid.</i>, +Index, Bill No. 62; <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III., Index, +House Bill No. 247. For the debate, see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +686–700.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_286" id="Footnote_41_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_286"><span class="label">41</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 697.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_287" id="Footnote_42_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_287"><span class="label">42</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 699–700.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_288" id="Footnote_43_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_288"><span class="label">43</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 70.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_289" id="Footnote_44_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_289"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 385–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_290" id="Footnote_45_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_290"><span class="label">45</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 424.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_291" id="Footnote_46_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_291"><span class="label">46</span></a> See House Bills Nos. 89 and 101; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 424, +459–67. For the debate, see <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 459–72.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_292" id="Footnote_47_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_292"><span class="label">47</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 205.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_293" id="Footnote_48_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_293"><span class="label">48</span></a> Cf. Fowler, <i>Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut</i>, etc., p. 126.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_294" id="Footnote_49_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_294"><span class="label">49</span></a> Speech of S.L. Mitchell of New York, Feb. 14, 1804: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 +Cong. 1 sess. p. 1000. Cf. also speech of Bedinger: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 997–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_295" id="Footnote_50_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_295"><span class="label">50</span></a> Speech of Lowndes in the House, Feb. 14, 1804: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 +Cong., 1 sess. p. 992. Cf. Stanton's speech later: <i>Ibid.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 240.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_296" id="Footnote_51_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_296"><span class="label">51</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, 876.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_297" id="Footnote_52_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_297"><span class="label">52</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 992–1036.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_298" id="Footnote_53_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_298"><span class="label">53</span></a> Huger of South Carolina declared that the whole South Carolina Congressional +delegation opposed the repeal of the law, although they maintained +the State's right to do so if she chose: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1005.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_299" id="Footnote_54_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_299"><span class="label">54</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 1020–36; <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, +580, 581–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_300" id="Footnote_55_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_300"><span class="label">55</span></a> On slavery in the Territories, cf. Welling, in <i>Report Amer. Hist. Assoc.</i>, 1891, +pp. 133–60.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_301" id="Footnote_56_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_301"><span class="label">56</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, I. 108.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_302" id="Footnote_57_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_302"><span class="label">57</span></a> <i>Journals of Cong.</i>, XII. 137–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_303" id="Footnote_58_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_303"><span class="label">58</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 5 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 511, 515, 532–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_304" id="Footnote_59_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_304"><span class="label">59</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1235, 1249, 1277–84, 1296–1313.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_305" id="Footnote_60_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_305"><span class="label">60</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 5 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1313.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_306" id="Footnote_61_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_306"><span class="label">61</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, I. 549.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_307" id="Footnote_62_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_307"><span class="label">62</span></a> <i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, I. No. 177.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_308" id="Footnote_63_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_308"><span class="label">63</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106, 211, 223, 231, 233–4, 238.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_309" id="Footnote_64_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_309"><span class="label">64</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 240, 1186.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_310" id="Footnote_65_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_310"><span class="label">65</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 241.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_311" id="Footnote_66_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_311"><span class="label">66</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 240.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_312" id="Footnote_67_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_312"><span class="label">67</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 242.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_313" id="Footnote_68_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_313"><span class="label">68</span></a> For further proceedings, see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 240–55, +1038–79, 1128–9, 1185–9. For the law, see <i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 283–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_314" id="Footnote_69_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_314"><span class="label">69</span></a> First, a bill was introduced applying the Northwest Ordinance to the Territory +(<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 45–6); but this was replaced by +a Senate bill (<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 68; <i>Senate Journal</i>, repr. 1821, 8 Cong. 2 sess. III. 464). +For the petition of the inhabitants, see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 2 sess. +p. 727–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_315" id="Footnote_70_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_315"><span class="label">70</span></a> The bill was hurried through, and there are no records of debate. Cf. +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 28–69, 727, 871, 957, 1016–20, 1213–5. In +<i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), III., see Index, Bill No. 8. Importation of slaves +was allowed by a clause erecting a Frame of Government "similar" to that of +the Mississippi Territory.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_316" id="Footnote_71_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_316"><span class="label">71</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 443. The whole trade was practically +foreign, for the slavers merely entered the Negroes at Charleston and immediately +reshipped them to New Orleans. Cf. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. +p. 264.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_317" id="Footnote_72_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_317"><span class="label">72</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 264; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 445, 878.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_318" id="Footnote_73_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_318"><span class="label">73</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. Feb. 17, 1806.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_319" id="Footnote_74_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_319"><span class="label">74</span></a> House Bill No. 123.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_320" id="Footnote_75_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_320"><span class="label">75</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73–7. This report covers the time +from Jan. 1, 1804, to Dec. 31, 1807. During that time the following was the +number of ships engaged in the traffic:— +</p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td>From</td><td align="left">Charleston,</td><td align="right">61</td><td align="left">From</td><td align="left">Connecticut, </td><td align="right">1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Rhode Island,</td><td align="right">59</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Sweden,</td><td align="right">1</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Baltimore,</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Great Britain,</td><td align="right"> 70</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Boston,</td><td align="right"> 1</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">France,</td><td align="right">3</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Norfolk,</td><td align="right">2</td><td align="center">"</td><td class="over" align="right" colspan="2">202</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="6" align="left">The consignees of these slave ships were natives of</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Charleston</td><td align="right" colspan="5">13</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Rhode Island</td><td align="right" colspan="5">88</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Great Britain</td><td align="right" colspan="5">91</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">France</td><td align="right" colspan="5">10</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right" colspan="6"><span class="over">202</span></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="6" align="left">The following slaves were imported:—</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">By</td><td align="left">British</td><td align="left">vessels</td><td align="right">19,949</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">French</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">1,078</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right" colspan="4">——</td></tr> +<tr><td align="right" colspan="6">21,027</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">By</td><td align="left">American</td><td align="left">vessels:—</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Charleston</td><td align="left">merchants</td><td align="right">2,006</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left"> Rhode Island</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">7,958</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Foreign</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">5,717</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">other Northern</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="right">930</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">other Southern</td><td align="center">"</td><td class="u" align="right">1,437</td><td class="u" colspan="2" align="right">18,048</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left" colspan="5">Total number of slaves imported, 1804–7</td><td align="right" colspan="2">39,075</td></tr> +</table> +<p>It is, of course, highly probable that the Custom House returns were much +below the actual figures.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_321" id="Footnote_76_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_321"><span class="label">76</span></a> McMaster, <i>History of the People of the United States</i>, III. p. 517.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_322" id="Footnote_77_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_322"><span class="label">77</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171; <i>Mass. Resolves</i>, May, 1802, +to March, 1806, Vol. II. A. (State House ed., p. 239).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_323" id="Footnote_78_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_323"><span class="label">78</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 238.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_324" id="Footnote_79_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_324"><span class="label">79</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V. 266.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_325" id="Footnote_80_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_325"><span class="label">80</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 76, 77, 79.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_326" id="Footnote_81_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_326"><span class="label">81</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_327" id="Footnote_82_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_327"><span class="label">82</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_328" id="Footnote_83_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_328"><span class="label">83</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 272–4, 323.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_329" id="Footnote_84_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_329"><span class="label">84</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 346–52, 358–75, etc., to 520.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_330" id="Footnote_85_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_330"><span class="label">85</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 374–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_331" id="Footnote_86_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_331"><span class="label">86</span></a> See House Bill No. 94.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_332" id="Footnote_87_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_332"><span class="label">87</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 466.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_333" id="Footnote_88_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_333"><span class="label">88</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 519–20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_334" id="Footnote_89_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_334"><span class="label">89</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 21, 52, 75, etc., to 138, 485–515, 1228. See House Bill No. 168. Cf. +<i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 421–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_335" id="Footnote_90_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_335"><span class="label">90</span></a> A few months later, at the expiration of the period, trade was quietly +reopened. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 11 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 443–6.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 97 --><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97"></a><span class="pagenum">97</span></p> +<h2><a name="Chapter_VIII" id="Chapter_VIII"></a><i>Chapter VIII</i></h2> + +<h3>THE PERIOD OF ATTEMPTED SUPPRESSION. 1807–1825.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">55. The Act of 1807.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">56. The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans be disposed of?</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">57. The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">58. The Third Question: How shall the Interstate Coastwise Slave-Trade be protected?</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">59. Legislative History of the Bill.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">60. Enforcement of the Act.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">61. Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">62. Apathy of the Federal Government.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">63. Typical Cases.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">64. The Supplementary Acts, 1818–1820.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">65. Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts, 1818–1825.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>55. <b>The Act of 1807.</b> The first great goal of anti-slavery effort +in the United States had been, since the Revolution, the +suppression of the slave-trade by national law. It would +hardly be too much to say that the Haytian revolution, in +addition to its influence in the years from 1791 to 1806, was +one of the main causes that rendered the accomplishment of +this aim possible at the earliest constitutional moment. To the +great influence of the fears of the South was added the failure +of the French designs on Louisiana, of which Toussaint +L'Ouverture was the most probable cause. The cession of +Louisiana in 1803 challenged and aroused the North on the +slavery question again; put the Carolina and Georgia slave-traders +in the saddle, to the dismay of the Border States; and +brought the whole slave-trade question vividly before the +public conscience. Another scarcely less potent influence was, +naturally, the great anti-slavery movement in England, which +after a mighty struggle of eighteen years was about to gain its +first victory in the British Act of 1807.</p> + +<p>President Jefferson, in his pacificatory message of December +2, 1806, said: "I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the +approach of the period at which you may interpose your +authority constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the +United States from all further participation in those violations +of human rights which have been so long continued on the +<!-- Page 98 --><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98"></a><span class="pagenum">98</span>unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, +the reputation, and the best interests of our country, have +long been eager to proscribe. Although no law you may pass +can take prohibitory effect till the first day of the year one +thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening period +is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, expeditions +which cannot be completed before that day."<a name="FNanchor_1_336" id="FNanchor_1_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_336" class="fnanchor">1</a></p> + +<p>In pursuance of this recommendation, the very next day +Senator Bradley of Vermont introduced into the Senate a bill +which, after a complicated legislative history, became the Act +of March 2, 1807, prohibiting the African slave-trade.<a name="FNanchor_2_337" id="FNanchor_2_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_337" class="fnanchor">2</a></p> + +<p>Three main questions were to be settled by this bill: first, +and most prominent, that of the disposal of illegally imported +Africans; second, that of the punishment of those concerned +in the importation; third, that of the proper limitation of the +interstate traffic by water.</p> + +<p>The character of the debate on these three questions, as well +as the state of public opinion, is illustrated by the fact that forty +of the sixty pages of officially reported debates are devoted to +the first question, less than twenty to the second, and only two +to the third. A sad commentary on the previous enforcement of +State and national laws is the readiness with which it was admitted +that wholesale violations of the law would take place; +indeed, Southern men declared that no strict law against the +slave-trade could be executed in the South, and that it was only +by playing on the motives of personal interest that the trade +could be checked. The question of punishment indicated the +slowly changing moral attitude of the South toward the slave +system. Early boldly said, "A large majority of people in the +Southern States do not consider slavery as even an evil."<a name="FNanchor_3_338" id="FNanchor_3_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_338" class="fnanchor">3</a> The +South, in fact, insisted on regarding man-stealing as a minor +offence, a "misdemeanor" rather than a "crime." Finally, in the +short and sharp debate on the interstate coastwise trade, the +growing economic side of the slavery question came to +the front, the vested interests' argument was squarely put, and +the future interstate trade almost consciously provided for.</p> +<p><!-- Page 99 --><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99"></a><span class="pagenum">99</span></p> +<p>From these considerations, it is doubtful as to how far it +was expected that the Act of 1807 would check the slave +traffic; at any rate, so far as the South was concerned, there +seemed to be an evident desire to limit the trade, but little +thought that this statute would definitively suppress it.</p> + +<p>56. <b>The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans +be disposed of?</b> The dozen or more propositions on +the question of the disposal of illegally imported Africans may +be divided into two chief heads, representing two radically +opposed parties: 1. That illegally imported Africans be free, +although they might be indentured for a term of years or removed +from the country. 2. That such Africans be sold as +slaves.<a name="FNanchor_4_339" id="FNanchor_4_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_339" class="fnanchor">4</a> The arguments on these two propositions, which +were many and far-reaching, may be roughly divided into +three classes, political, constitutional, and moral.</p> +<p><!-- Page 100 --><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100"></a><span class="pagenum">100</span></p> +<p>The political argument, reduced to its lowest terms, ran +thus: those wishing to free the Negroes illegally imported declared +that to enslave them would be to perpetrate the very +evil which the law was designed to stop. "By the same law," +they said, "we condemn the man-stealer and become the receivers +of his stolen goods. We punish the criminal, and then +step into his place, and complete the crime."<a name="FNanchor_5_340" id="FNanchor_5_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_340" class="fnanchor">5</a> They said that +the objection to free Negroes was no valid excuse; for if the +Southern people really feared this class, they would consent +to the imposing of such penalties on illicit traffic as would +stop the importation of a single slave.<a name="FNanchor_6_341" id="FNanchor_6_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_341" class="fnanchor">6</a> Moreover, "forfeiture" +and sale of the Negroes implied a property right in them +which did not exist.<a name="FNanchor_7_342" id="FNanchor_7_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_342" class="fnanchor">7</a> Waiving this technical point, and allowing +them to be "forfeited" to the government, then the government +should either immediately set them free, or, at the +most, indenture them for a term of years; otherwise, the law +would be an encouragement to violators. "It certainly will +be," said they, "if the importer can find means to evade the +penalty of the act; for there he has all the advantage of a +market enhanced by our ineffectual attempt to prohibit."<a name="FNanchor_8_343" id="FNanchor_8_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_343" class="fnanchor">8</a> +They claimed that even the indenturing of the ignorant barbarian +for life was better than slavery; and Sloan declared that +the Northern States would receive the freed Negroes willingly +rather than have them enslaved.<a name="FNanchor_9_344" id="FNanchor_9_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_344" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> + +<p>The argument of those who insisted that the Negroes +should be sold was tersely put by Macon: "In adopting our +measures on this subject, we must pass such a law as can be +executed."<a name="FNanchor_10_345" id="FNanchor_10_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_345" class="fnanchor">10</a> Early expanded this: "It is a principle in legislation, +as correct as any which has ever prevailed, that to give +effect to laws you must not make them repugnant to the passions +and wishes of the people among whom they are to operate. +How then, in this instance, stands the fact? Do not +gentlemen from every quarter of the Union prove, on the discussion +of every question that has ever arisen in the House, +having the most remote bearing on the giving freedom to the +<!-- Page 101 --><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101"></a><span class="pagenum">101</span>Africans in the bosom of our country, that it has excited the +deepest sensibility in the breasts of those where slavery exists? +And why is this so? It is, because those who, from experience, +know the extent of the evil, believe that the most formidable +aspect in which it can present itself, is by making these people +free among them. Yes, sir, though slavery is an evil, regretted +by every man in the country, to have among us in any considerable +quantity persons of this description, is an evil far +greater than slavery itself. Does any gentleman want proof of +this? I answer that all proof is useless; no fact can be more +notorious. With this belief on the minds of the people where +slavery exists, and where the importation will take place, if at +all, we are about to turn loose in a state of freedom all persons +brought in after the passage of this law. I ask gentlemen +to reflect and say whether such a law, opposed to the ideas, +the passions, the views, and the affections of the people of the +Southern States, can be executed? I tell them, no; it is impossible—why? +Because no man will inform—why? Because to +inform will be to lead to an evil which will be deemed greater +than the offence of which information is given, because it will +be opposed to the principle of self-preservation, and to the +love of family. No, no man will be disposed to jeopard his +life, and the lives of his countrymen. And if no one dare inform, +the whole authority of the Government cannot carry +the law into effect. The whole people will rise up against it. +Why? Because to enforce it would be to turn loose, in the +bosom of the country, firebrands that would consume +them."<a name="FNanchor_11_346" id="FNanchor_11_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_346" class="fnanchor">11</a></p> + +<p>This was the more tragic form of the argument; it also had +a mercenary side, which was presented with equal emphasis. +It was repeatedly said that the only way to enforce the law +was to play off individual interests against each other. The +profit from the sale of illegally imported Negroes was declared +to be the only sufficient "inducement to give information +of their importation."<a name="FNanchor_12_347" id="FNanchor_12_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_347" class="fnanchor">12</a> "Give up the idea of forfeiture, +and I challenge the gentleman to invent fines, penalties, or +punishments of any sort, sufficient to restrain the slave +trade."<a name="FNanchor_13_348" id="FNanchor_13_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_348" class="fnanchor">13</a> If such Negroes be freed, "I tell you that slaves will +<!-- Page 102 --><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102"></a><span class="pagenum">102</span>continue to be imported as heretofore.... You cannot get +hold of the ships employed in this traffic. Besides, slaves will +be brought into Georgia from East Florida. They will be +brought into the Mississippi Territory from the bay of Mobile. +You cannot inflict any other penalty, or devise any other +adequate means of prevention, than a forfeiture of the Africans +in whose possession they may be found after importation."<a name="FNanchor_14_349" id="FNanchor_14_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_349" class="fnanchor">14</a> +Then, too, when foreigners smuggled in Negroes, "who then ... could +be operated on, but the purchasers? There was the +rub—it was their interest alone which, by being operated on, +would produce a check. Snap their purse-strings, break open +their strong box, deprive them of their slaves, and by destroying +the temptation to buy, you put an end to the trade, ... nothing +short of a forfeiture of the slave would afford an effectual +remedy."<a name="FNanchor_15_350" id="FNanchor_15_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_350" class="fnanchor">15</a> Again, it was argued that it was impossible to +prevent imported Negroes from becoming slaves, or, what was +just as bad, from being sold as vagabonds or indentured for +life.<a name="FNanchor_16_351" id="FNanchor_16_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_351" class="fnanchor">16</a> Even our own laws, it was said, recognize the title of the +African slave factor in the transported Negroes; and if the importer +have no title, why do we legislate? Why not let the +African immigrant alone to get on as he may, just as we do +the Irish immigrant?<a name="FNanchor_17_352" id="FNanchor_17_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_352" class="fnanchor">17</a> If he should be returned to Africa, his +home could not be found, and he would in all probability +be sold into slavery again.<a name="FNanchor_18_353" id="FNanchor_18_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_353" class="fnanchor">18</a></p> + +<p>The constitutional argument was not urged as seriously as +the foregoing; but it had a considerable place. On the one +hand, it was urged that if the Negroes were forfeited, they +were forfeited to the United States government, which could +dispose of them as it saw fit;<a name="FNanchor_19_354" id="FNanchor_19_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_354" class="fnanchor">19</a> on the other hand, it was said +that the United States, as owner, was subject to State laws, +and could not free the Negroes contrary to such laws.<a name="FNanchor_20_355" id="FNanchor_20_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_355" class="fnanchor">20</a> +Some alleged that the freeing of such Negroes struck at the +title to all slave property;<a name="FNanchor_21_356" id="FNanchor_21_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_356" class="fnanchor">21</a> others thought that, as property +<!-- Page 103 --><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103"></a><span class="pagenum">103</span>in slaves was not recognized in the Constitution, it could +not be in a statute.<a name="FNanchor_22_357" id="FNanchor_22_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_357" class="fnanchor">22</a> The question also arose as to the source +of the power of Congress over the slave-trade. Southern men +derived it from the clause on commerce, and declared that it +exceeded the power of Congress to declare Negroes imported +into a slave State, free, against the laws of that State; +that Congress could not determine what should or should +not be property in a State.<a name="FNanchor_23_358" id="FNanchor_23_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_358" class="fnanchor">23</a> Northern men replied that, according +to this principle, forfeiture and sale in Massachusetts +would be illegal; that the power of Congress over the trade +was derived from the restraining clause, as a non-existent +power could not be restrained; and that the United States +could act under her general powers as executor of the Law +of Nations.<a name="FNanchor_24_359" id="FNanchor_24_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_359" class="fnanchor">24</a></p> + +<p>The moral argument as to the disposal of illegally imported +Negroes was interlarded with all the others. On the one side, +it began with the "Rights of Man," and descended to a stickling +for the decent appearance of the statute-book; on the +other side, it began with the uplifting of the heathen, and +descended to a denial of the applicability of moral principles +to the question. Said Holland of North Carolina: "It is admitted +that the condition of the slaves in the Southern States +is much superior to that of those in Africa. Who, then, will +say that the trade is immoral?"<a name="FNanchor_25_360" id="FNanchor_25_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_360" class="fnanchor">25</a> But, in fact, "morality has +nothing to do with this traffic,"<a name="FNanchor_26_361" id="FNanchor_26_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_361" class="fnanchor">26</a> for, as Joseph Clay declared, +"it must appear to every man of common sense, that the question +could be considered in a commercial point of view +only."<a name="FNanchor_27_362" id="FNanchor_27_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_362" class="fnanchor">27</a> The other side declared that, "by the laws of God and +man," these captured Negroes are "entitled to their freedom +as clearly and absolutely as we are;"<a name="FNanchor_28_363" id="FNanchor_28_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_363" class="fnanchor">28</a> nevertheless, some were +willing to leave them to the tender mercies of the slave States, +so long as the statute-book was disgraced by no explicit recognition +<!-- Page 104 --><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104"></a><span class="pagenum">104</span>of slavery.<a name="FNanchor_29_364" id="FNanchor_29_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_364" class="fnanchor">29</a> Such arguments brought some sharp sarcasm +on those who seemed anxious "to legislate for the honor +and glory of the statute book;"<a name="FNanchor_30_365" id="FNanchor_30_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_365" class="fnanchor">30</a> some desired "to know what +honor you will derive from a law that will be broken every +day of your lives."<a name="FNanchor_31_366" id="FNanchor_31_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_366" class="fnanchor">31</a> They would rather boldly sell the Negroes +and turn the proceeds over to charity.</p> + +<p>The final settlement of the question was as follows:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>"<span class="smcap">Section 4</span>.... And neither the importer, nor any person or +persons claiming from or under him, shall hold any right or title +whatsoever to any negro, mulatto, or person of color, nor to the +service or labor thereof, who may be imported or brought within +the United States, or territories thereof, in violation of this law, but +the same shall remain subject to any regulations not contravening +the provisions of this act, which the Legislatures of the several States +or Territories at any time hereafter may make, for disposing of any +such negro, mulatto, or person of color."<a name="FNanchor_32_367" id="FNanchor_32_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_367" class="fnanchor">32</a></p> +</div> + +<p>57. <b>The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?</b> +The next point in importance was that of the punishment +of offenders. The half-dozen specific propositions +reduce themselves to two: 1. A violation should be considered +a crime or felony, and be punished by death; 2. A violation +should be considered a misdemeanor, and be punished by fine +and imprisonment.<a name="FNanchor_33_368" id="FNanchor_33_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_368" class="fnanchor">33</a></p> + +<p>Advocates of the severer punishment dwelt on the enormity +of the offence. It was "one of the highest crimes man could +<!-- Page 105 --><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105"></a><span class="pagenum">105</span>commit," and "a captain of a ship engaged in this traffic was +guilty of murder."<a name="FNanchor_34_369" id="FNanchor_34_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_369" class="fnanchor">34</a> The law of God punished the crime with +death, and any one would rather be hanged than be enslaved.<a name="FNanchor_35_370" id="FNanchor_35_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_370" class="fnanchor">35</a> +It was a peculiarly deliberate crime, in which the offender +did not act in sudden passion, but had ample time for +reflection.<a name="FNanchor_36_371" id="FNanchor_36_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_371" class="fnanchor">36</a> Then, too, crimes of much less magnitude are +punished with death. Shall we punish the stealer of $50 with +death, and the man-stealer with imprisonment only?<a name="FNanchor_37_372" id="FNanchor_37_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_372" class="fnanchor">37</a> Piracy, +forgery, and fraudulent sinking of vessels are punishable with +death, "yet these are crimes only against property; whereas +the importation of slaves, a crime committed against the liberty +of man, and inferior only to murder or treason, is accounted +nothing but a misdemeanor."<a name="FNanchor_38_373" id="FNanchor_38_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_373" class="fnanchor">38</a> Here, indeed, lies the +remedy for the evil of freeing illegally imported Negroes,—in +making the penalty so severe that none will be brought in; +if the South is sincere, "they will unite to a man to execute +the law."<a name="FNanchor_39_374" id="FNanchor_39_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_374" class="fnanchor">39</a> To free such Negroes is dangerous; to enslave +them, wrong; to return them, impracticable; to indenture +them, difficult,—therefore, by a death penalty, keep them +from being imported.<a name="FNanchor_40_375" id="FNanchor_40_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_375" class="fnanchor">40</a> Here the East had a chance to throw +back the taunts of the South, by urging the South to unite +with them in hanging the New England slave-traders, assuring +the South that "so far from charging their Southern +brethren with cruelty or severity in hanging them, they would +acknowledge the favor with gratitude."<a name="FNanchor_41_376" id="FNanchor_41_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_376" class="fnanchor">41</a> Finally, if the Southerners +would refuse to execute so severe a law because they +did not consider the offence great, they would probably refuse +to execute any law at all for the same reason.<a name="FNanchor_42_377" id="FNanchor_42_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_377" class="fnanchor">42</a></p> + +<p>The opposition answered that the death penalty was more +than proportionate to the crime, and therefore "immoral."<a name="FNanchor_43_378" id="FNanchor_43_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_378" class="fnanchor">43</a> "I +<!-- Page 106 --><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106"></a><span class="pagenum">106</span>cannot believe," said Stanton of Rhode Island, "that a man +ought to be hung for only stealing a negro."<a name="FNanchor_44_379" id="FNanchor_44_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_379" class="fnanchor">44</a> It was argued +that the trade was after all but a "transfer from one master to +another;"<a name="FNanchor_45_380" id="FNanchor_45_380"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_380" class="fnanchor">45</a> that slavery was worse than the slave-trade, and +the South did not consider slavery a crime: how could it then +punish the trade so severely and not reflect on the institution?<a name="FNanchor_46_381" id="FNanchor_46_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_381" class="fnanchor">46</a> +Severity, it was said, was also inexpedient: severity often +increases crime; if the punishment is too great, people +will sympathize with offenders and will not inform against +them. Said Mr. Mosely: "When the penalty is excessive or +disproportioned to the offence, it will naturally create a repugnance +to the law, and render its execution odious."<a name="FNanchor_47_382" id="FNanchor_47_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_382" class="fnanchor">47</a> +John Randolph argued against even fine and imprisonment, +"on the ground that such an excessive penalty could not, +in such case, be constitutionally imposed by a Government +possessed of the limited powers of the Government of the +United States."<a name="FNanchor_48_383" id="FNanchor_48_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_383" class="fnanchor">48</a></p> + +<p>The bill as passed punished infractions as follows:—</p> +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>For equipping a slaver, a fine of $20,000 and forfeiture of the +ship.</p> + +<p>For transporting Negroes, a fine of $5000 and forfeiture of the +ship and Negroes.</p> + +<p>For transporting and selling Negroes, a fine of $1000 to $10,000, +imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and forfeiture of the ship and +Negroes.</p> + +<p>For knowingly buying illegally imported Negroes, a fine of $800 +for each Negro, and forfeiture.</p> +</div> + +<p>58. <b>The Third Question: How shall the Interstate +Coastwise Slave-Trade be protected?</b> The first proposition +was to prohibit the coastwise slave-trade altogether,<a name="FNanchor_49_384" id="FNanchor_49_384"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_384" class="fnanchor">49</a> but an +amendment reported to the House allowed it "in any vessel +<!-- Page 107 --><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107"></a><span class="pagenum">107</span>or species of craft whatever." It is probable that the first +proposition would have prevailed, had it not been for the +vehement opposition of Randolph and Early.<a name="FNanchor_50_385" id="FNanchor_50_385"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_385" class="fnanchor">50</a> They probably +foresaw the value which Virginia would derive from this +trade in the future, and consequently Randolph violently declared +that if the amendment did not prevail, "the Southern +people would set the law at defiance. He would begin the +example." He maintained that by the first proposition "the +proprietor of sacred and chartered rights is prevented the +Constitutional use of his property."<a name="FNanchor_51_386" id="FNanchor_51_386"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_386" class="fnanchor">51</a> The Conference Committee +finally arranged a compromise, forbidding the coastwise +trade for purposes of sale in vessels under forty tons.<a name="FNanchor_52_387" id="FNanchor_52_387"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_387" class="fnanchor">52</a> +This did not suit Early, who declared that the law with this +provision "would not prevent the introduction of a single +slave."<a name="FNanchor_53_388" id="FNanchor_53_388"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_388" class="fnanchor">53</a> Randolph, too, would "rather lose the bill, he had +rather lose all the bills of the session, he had rather lose +every bill passed since the establishment of the Government, +than agree to the provision contained in this slave bill."<a name="FNanchor_54_389" id="FNanchor_54_389"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_389" class="fnanchor">54</a> He +predicted the severance of the slave and the free States, if +disunion should ever come. Congress was, however, weary +with the dragging of the bill, and it passed both Houses +with the compromise provision. Randolph was so dissatisfied +that he had a committee appointed the next day, and +introduced an amendatory bill. Both this bill and another +similar one, introduced at the next session, failed of consideration.<a name="FNanchor_55_390" id="FNanchor_55_390"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_390" class="fnanchor">55</a></p> + + +<p>59. <b>Legislative History of the Bill.</b><a name="FNanchor_56_391" id="FNanchor_56_391"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_391" class="fnanchor">56</a> On December 12, +1805, Senator Stephen R. Bradley of Vermont gave notice of +a bill to prohibit the introduction of slaves after 1808. By a +vote of 18 to 9 leave was given, and the bill read a first time +<!-- Page 108 --><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108"></a><span class="pagenum">108</span>on the 17th. On the 18th, however, it was postponed until +"the first Monday in December, 1806." The presidential message +mentioning the matter, Senator Bradley, December 3, +1806, gave notice of a similar bill, which was brought in on +the 8th, and on the 9th referred to a committee consisting of +Bradley, Stone, Giles, Gaillard, and Baldwin. This bill +passed, after some consideration, January 27. It provided, +among other things, that violations of the act should be +felony, punishable with death, and forbade the interstate +coast-trade.<a name="FNanchor_57_392" id="FNanchor_57_392"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_392" class="fnanchor">57</a></p> + +<p>Meantime, in the House, Mr. Bidwell of Massachusetts had +proposed, February 4, 1806, as an amendment to a bill taxing +slaves imported, that importation after December 31, 1807, be +prohibited, on pain of fine and imprisonment and forfeiture +of ship.<a name="FNanchor_58_393" id="FNanchor_58_393"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_393" class="fnanchor">58</a> This was rejected by a vote of 86 to 17. On December +3, 1806, the House, in appointing committees on the message, +"<i>Ordered</i>, That Mr. Early, Mr. Thomas M. Randolph, +Mr. John Campbell, Mr. Kenan, Mr. Cook, Mr. Kelly, and +Mr. Van Rensselaer be appointed a committee" on the slave-trade. +This committee reported a bill on the 15th, which was +considered, but finally, December 18, recommitted. It was reported +in an amended form on the 19th, and amended in +Committee of the Whole so as to make violation a misdemeanor +punishable by fine and imprisonment, instead of a +felony punishable by death.<a name="FNanchor_59_394" id="FNanchor_59_394"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_394" class="fnanchor">59</a> A struggle over the disposal of +the cargo then ensued. A motion by Bidwell to except the +cargo from forfeiture was lost, 77 to 39. Another motion by +Bidwell may be considered the crucial vote on the whole bill: +it was an amendment to the forfeiture clause, and read, <i>"Provided, +that no person shall be sold as a slave by virtue of this act."</i><a name="FNanchor_60_395" id="FNanchor_60_395"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_395" class="fnanchor">60</a> +This resulted in a tie vote, 60 to 60; but the casting vote of<!-- Page 109 --><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109"></a><span class="pagenum">109</span> +the Speaker, Macon of North Carolina, defeated it. New +England voted solidly in favor of it, the Middle States +stood 4 for and 2 against it, and the six Southern States +stood solid against it. On January 8 the bill went again to a +select committee of seventeen, by a vote of 76 to 46. The +bill was reported back amended January 20, and on the 28th +the Senate bill was also presented to the House. On the +9th, 10th, and 11th of February both bills were considered in +Committee of the Whole, and the Senate bill finally replaced +the House bill, after several amendments had been +made.<a name="FNanchor_61_396" id="FNanchor_61_396"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_396" class="fnanchor">61</a> The bill was then passed, by a vote of 113 to 5.<a name="FNanchor_62_397" id="FNanchor_62_397"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_397" class="fnanchor">62</a> The +Senate agreed to the amendments, including that substituting +fine and imprisonment for the death penalty, but asked +for a conference on the provision which left the interstate +coast-trade free. The six conferees succeeded in bringing the +Houses to agree, by limiting the trade to vessels over forty +tons and requiring registry of the slaves.<a name="FNanchor_63_398" id="FNanchor_63_398"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_398" class="fnanchor">63</a></p> + +<p><!-- Page 110 --><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110"></a><span class="pagenum">110</span>The following diagram shows in graphic form the legislative +history of the act:—<a name="FNanchor_64_399" id="FNanchor_64_399"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_399" class="fnanchor">64</a></p> + +<div class="center"> +<table border="0" summary=""> +<tr><td align="right"><i>Senate</i>.</td><td></td><td align="center" colspan="2"><i>1805.</i></td><td align="left"><i>House</i>.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Bradley gives notice.</td><td>—</td><td align="left">Dec.</td><td align='right'>12.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Leave given; bill read.</td><td>—</td><td> </td><td align='right'>17.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Postponed one year.</td><td>—</td><td> </td><td align='right'>18.</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td></td><td align="center" colspan="2"><i>1806.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td></td><td align="left">Feb.</td><td align='right'>4.</td><td></td><td>—</td><td align="left">Bidwell's amendment.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Notice.</td><td>—</td><td align="left">Dec.</td><td align='right'>3.</td><td></td><td>—</td><td align="left">Committee on</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Bill introduced.</td><td>—</td><td> </td><td align='right'>8.</td><td></td><td>|</td><td align="left">slave trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Committed.</td><td>|</td><td> </td><td align='right'>9.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>—</td><td></td><td align="right">15.</td><td></td><td>|</td><td align="left">Bill reported.</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">17.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">18.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">19.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">23.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">29.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">31.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>|</td><td align="center" colspan="2"><i>1807.</i></td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td>|</td><td align="left">Jan.</td><td align="right">5.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">7.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">8.</td><td></td><td>—</td><td align="left">Read third time; recommitted.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Reported.</td><td>—</td><td> </td><td align='right'>15.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">16.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="right">20.</td><td></td><td>—</td><td align="left">Reported amended.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Third reading.</td><td>—</td><td> </td><td align='right'>26.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">PASSED.</td><td>—</td><td> </td><td align='right'>27.</td><td></td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>+</td><td>——</td><td>——</td><td>+</td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">28.</td><td>|</td><td>|</td><td align="left">Senate bill reported.</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td></td><td align="left">Feb.</td><td align="right">9.</td><td>|</td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">10.</td><td>|</td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">11.</td><td>|</td><td>|</td><td align="left">Senate bill amended.</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">12.</td><td>|</td><td>|</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Reported from House.</td><td></td><td> </td><td align="right">13.</td><td>—</td><td></td><td align="left">PASSED.</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>†</td><td>——</td><td>——</td><td>†</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Reported to House.</td><td>|</td><td> </td><td align="right">17.</td><td></td><td></td><td align="left">Reported back.</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td>†</td><td>——</td><td>——</td><td>†</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td align="right">18.</td><td>|</td><td></td><td align="left">House insists; asks conference.</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td align="right" rowspan="2" valign="middle"><</td><td>——</td><td>——</td><td>+</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">House asks conference.</td><td>\——\</td><td align="right">/.....</td><td align="left">...../</td></tr> +<tr><td></td><td colspan="2" align="right">....../</td><td align="left">\—</td><td>......</td><td rowspan="2" valign="middle" align="left">></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3"></td><td align="center">2 | 5</td><td>.....</td><td align="left">Conference report adopted.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Conference report adopted.</td><td rowspan="2" valign="middle" align="right"><</td><td>..........</td><td align="center">2 | 6</td><td></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Bill enrolled.</td><td>.....</td><td align="center">2 | 8</td></tr> +<tr><td> </td><td></td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">↓2</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="7" align="center">Signed by the President.</td></tr> +</table></div> + +<p>This bill received the approval of President Jefferson, +March 2, 1807, and became thus the "Act to prohibit the importation +of Slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction +of the United States, from and after the first day <!-- Page 111 --><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111"></a><span class="pagenum">111</span>of +January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight +hundred and eight."<a name="FNanchor_65_400" id="FNanchor_65_400"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_400" class="fnanchor">65</a> The debates in the Senate were not reported. +Those in the House were prolonged and bitter, and +hinged especially on the disposal of the slaves, the punishment +of offenders, and the coast-trade. Men were continually +changing their votes, and the bill see-sawed backward and +forward, in committee and out, until the House was thoroughly +worn out. On the whole, the strong anti-slavery +men, like Bidwell and Sloan, were outgeneraled by Southerners, +like Early and Williams; and, considering the immense +moral backing of the anti-slavery party from the +Revolutionary fathers down, the bill of 1807 can hardly be +regarded as a great anti-slavery victory.</p> + + +<p>60. <b>Enforcement of the Act.</b> The period so confidently +looked forward to by the constitutional fathers had at last arrived; +the slave-trade was prohibited, and much oratory and +poetry were expended in celebration of the event. In the face +of this, let us see how the Act of 1807 was enforced and +what it really accomplished. It is noticeable, in the first +place, that there was no especial set of machinery provided +for the enforcement of this act. The work fell first to the +Secretary of the Treasury, as head of the customs collection. +Then, through the activity of cruisers, the Secretary of the +Navy gradually came to have oversight, and eventually the +whole matter was lodged with him, although the Departments +of State and War were more or less active on different +occasions. Later, at the advent of the Lincoln government, +the Department of the Interior was charged with the +enforcement of the slave-trade laws. It would indeed be +surprising if, amid so much uncertainty and shifting of +responsibility, the law were not poorly enforced. Poor enforcement, +moreover, in the years 1808 to 1820 meant far +more than at almost any other period; for these years were, +<!-- Page 112 --><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112"></a><span class="pagenum">112</span>all over the European world, a time of stirring economic +change, and the set which forces might then take would in a +later period be unchangeable without a cataclysm. Perhaps +from 1808 to 1814, in the midst of agitation and war, there +was some excuse for carelessness. From 1814 on, however, no +such palliation existed, and the law was probably enforced as +the people who made it wished it enforced.</p> + +<p>Most of the Southern States rather tardily passed the necessary +supplementary acts disposing of illegally imported Africans. +A few appear not to have passed any. Some of these +laws, like the Alabama-Mississippi Territory Act of 1815,<a name="FNanchor_66_401" id="FNanchor_66_401"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_401" class="fnanchor">66</a> directed +such Negroes to be "sold by the proper officer of the +court, to the highest bidder, at public auction, for ready +money." One-half the proceeds went to the informer or to +the collector of customs, the other half to the public treasury. +Other acts, like that of North Carolina in 1816,<a name="FNanchor_67_402" id="FNanchor_67_402"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_402" class="fnanchor">67</a> directed the +Negroes to "be sold and disposed of for the use of the state." +One-fifth of the proceeds went to the informer. The Georgia +Act of 1817<a name="FNanchor_68_403" id="FNanchor_68_403"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_403" class="fnanchor">68</a> directed that the slaves be either sold or given to +the Colonization Society for transportation, providing the society +reimburse the State for all expense incurred, and pay for +the transportation. In this manner, machinery of somewhat +clumsy build and varying pattern was provided for the carrying +out of the national act.</p> + + +<p>61. <b>Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade.</b> Undoubtedly, +the Act of 1807 came very near being a dead letter. The +testimony supporting this view is voluminous. It consists of +presidential messages, reports of cabinet officers, letters of +collectors of revenue, letters of district attorneys, reports +of committees of Congress, reports of naval commanders, +statements made on the floor of Congress, the testimony of +eye-witnesses, and the complaints of home and foreign anti-slavery +societies.</p> + +<p>"When I was young," writes Mr. Fowler of Connecticut, +"the slave-trade was still carried on, by Connecticut shipmasters +and Merchant adventurers, for the supply of southern +ports. This trade was carried on by the consent o<!-- Page 113 --><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113"></a><span class="pagenum">113</span>f the +Southern States, under the provisions of the Federal Constitution, +until 1808, and, after that time, clandestinely. There +was a good deal of conversation on the subject, in private +circles." Other States were said to be even more involved +than Connecticut.<a name="FNanchor_69_404" id="FNanchor_69_404"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_404" class="fnanchor">69</a> The African Society of London estimated +that, down to 1816, fifteen of the sixty thousand +slaves annually taken from Africa were shipped by Americans. +"Notwithstanding the prohibitory act of America, +which was passed in 1807, ships bearing the American flag +continued to trade for slaves until 1809, when, in consequence +of a decision in the English prize appeal courts, +which rendered American slave ships liable to capture and +condemnation, that flag suddenly disappeared from the +coast. Its place was almost instantaneously supplied by the +Spanish flag, which, with one or two exceptions, was now +seen for the first time on the African coast, engaged in covering +the slave trade. This sudden substitution of the Spanish +for the American flag seemed to confirm what was +established in a variety of instances by more direct testimony, +that the slave trade, which now, for the first time, +assumed a Spanish dress, was in reality only the trade of +other nations in disguise."<a name="FNanchor_70_405" id="FNanchor_70_405"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_405" class="fnanchor">70</a></p> + +<p>So notorious did the participation of Americans in the +traffic become, that President Madison informed Congress +in his message, December 5, 1810, that "it appears that +American citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in +enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws of humanity, +and in defiance of those of their own country. The +same just and benevolent motives which produced the interdiction +in force against this criminal conduct, will doubtless +be felt by Congress, in devising further means of +suppressing the evil."<a name="FNanchor_71_406" id="FNanchor_71_406"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_406" class="fnanchor">71</a> The Secretary of the Navy wrote +the same year to Charleston, South Carolina: "I hear, not +without great concern, that the law prohibiting the importation +of slaves has been violated in frequent instances, +near St. Mary's."<a name="FNanchor_72_407" id="FNanchor_72_407"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_407" class="fnanchor">72</a> Testimony as to violations of the law and +<!-- Page 114 --><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114"></a><span class="pagenum">114</span>suggestions for improving it also came in from district +attorneys.<a name="FNanchor_73_408" id="FNanchor_73_408"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_408" class="fnanchor">73</a></p> + +<p>The method of introducing Negroes was simple. A slave +smuggler says: "After resting a few days at St. Augustine, ... +I agreed to accompany Diego on a land trip +through the United States, where a <i>kaffle</i> of negroes was to +precede us, for whose disposal the shrewd Portuguese had +already made arrangements with my uncle's consignees. I +soon learned how readily, and at what profits, the Florida +negroes were sold into the neighboring American States. +The <i>kaffle</i>, under charge of negro drivers, was to strike up +the Escambia River, and thence cross the boundary into +Georgia, where some of our wild Africans were mixed with +various squads of native blacks, and driven inland, till sold +off, singly or by couples, on the road. At this period [1812], +the United States had declared the African slave trade illegal, +and passed stringent laws to prevent the importation of +negroes; yet the Spanish possessions were thriving on this +inland exchange of negroes and mulattoes; Florida was a +sort of nursery for slave-breeders, and many American +citizens grew rich by trafficking in Guinea negroes, and +smuggling them continually, in small parties, through the +southern United States. At the time I mention, the business +was a lively one, owing to the war then going on between +the States and England, and the unsettled condition of affairs +on the border."<a name="FNanchor_74_409" id="FNanchor_74_409"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_409" class="fnanchor">74</a></p> + +<p>The Spanish flag continued to cover American slave-traders. +The rapid rise of privateering during the war was not +caused solely by patriotic motives; for many armed ships fitted +out in the United States obtained a thin Spanish disguise +at Havana, and transported thousands of slaves to Brazil and +the West Indies. Sometimes all disguise was thrown aside, and +the American flag appeared on the slave coast, as in the cases +of the "Paz,"<a name="FNanchor_75_410" id="FNanchor_75_410"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_410" class="fnanchor">75</a> the "Rebecca," the "Rosa"<a name="FNanchor_76_411" id="FNanchor_76_411"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_411" class="fnanchor">76</a> (formerly the privateer +<!-- Page 115 --><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115"></a><span class="pagenum">115</span>"Commodore Perry"), the "Dorset" of Baltimore,<a name="FNanchor_77_412" id="FNanchor_77_412"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_412" class="fnanchor">77</a> and +the "Saucy Jack."<a name="FNanchor_78_413" id="FNanchor_78_413"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_413" class="fnanchor">78</a> Governor McCarthy of Sierra Leone +wrote, in 1817: "The slave trade is carried on most vigorously +by the Spaniards, Portuguese, Americans and French. I have +had it affirmed from several quarters, and do believe it to be +a fact, that there is a greater number of vessels employed in +that traffic than at any former period."<a name="FNanchor_79_414" id="FNanchor_79_414"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_414" class="fnanchor">79</a></p> + + +<p>62. <b>Apathy of the Federal Government.</b> The United +States cruisers succeeded now and then in capturing a slaver, +like the "Eugene," which was taken when within four miles +of the New Orleans bar.<a name="FNanchor_80_415" id="FNanchor_80_415"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_415" class="fnanchor">80</a> President Madison again, in 1816, +urged Congress to act on account of the "violations and evasions +which, it is suggested, are chargeable on unworthy citizens, +who mingle in the slave trade under foreign flags, and +with foreign ports; and by collusive importations of slaves +into the United States, through adjoining ports and territories."<a name="FNanchor_81_416" id="FNanchor_81_416"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_416" class="fnanchor">81</a> +The executive was continually in receipt of ample evidence +of this illicit trade and of the helplessness of officers of +the law. In 1817 it was reported to the Secretary of the Navy +that most of the goods carried to Galveston were brought +into the United States; "the more valuable, and the slaves are +smuggled in through the numerous inlets to the westward, +where the people are but too much disposed to render them +every possible assistance. Several hundred slaves are now at +Galveston, and persons have gone from New-Orleans to +purchase them. Every exertion will be made to intercept them, +<!-- Page 116 --><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116"></a><span class="pagenum">116</span>but I have little hopes of success."<a name="FNanchor_82_417" id="FNanchor_82_417"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_417" class="fnanchor">82</a> Similar letters from naval +officers and collectors showed that a system of slave piracy +had arisen since the war, and that at Galveston there was an +establishment of organized brigands, who did not go to the +trouble of sailing to Africa for their slaves, but simply captured +slavers and sold their cargoes into the United States. +This Galveston nest had, in 1817, eleven armed vessels to prosecute +the work, and "the most shameful violations of the slave +act, as well as our revenue laws, continue to be practised."<a name="FNanchor_83_418" id="FNanchor_83_418"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_418" class="fnanchor">83</a> +Cargoes of as many as three hundred slaves were arriving in +Texas. All this took place under Aury, the buccaneer governor; +and when he removed to Amelia Island in 1817 with the +McGregor raid, the illicit traffic in slaves, which had been +going on there for years,<a name="FNanchor_84_419" id="FNanchor_84_419"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_419" class="fnanchor">84</a> took an impulse that brought it +even to the somewhat deaf ears of Collector Bullock. He reported, +May 22, 1817: "I have just received information from +a source on which I can implicitly rely, that it has already +become the practice to introduce into the state of Georgia, +across the St. Mary's River, from Amelia Island, East Florida, +Africans, who have been carried into the Port of Fernandina, +subsequent to the capture of it by the Patriot army +now in possession of it ...; were the legislature to pass an +act giving compensation in some manner to informers, it +would have a tendency in a great degree to prevent the practice; +as the thing now is, no citizen will take the trouble of +searching for and detecting the slaves. I further understand, +that the evil will not be confined altogether to Africans, but +will be extended to the worst class of West India slaves."<a name="FNanchor_85_420" id="FNanchor_85_420"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_420" class="fnanchor">85</a></p> +<p><!-- Page 117 --><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117"></a><span class="pagenum">117</span></p> +<p>Undoubtedly, the injury done by these pirates to the regular +slave-trading interests was largely instrumental in exterminating +them. Late in 1817 United States troops seized Amelia +Island, and President Monroe felicitated Congress and the +country upon escaping the "annoyance and injury" of this +illicit trade.<a name="FNanchor_86_421" id="FNanchor_86_421"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_421" class="fnanchor">86</a> The trade, however, seems to have continued, +as is shown by such letters as the following, written three and +a half months later:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Port of Darien</span>, March 14, 1818.</p> + +<p>... It is a painful duty, sir, to express to you, that I am in possession +of undoubted information, that African and West India negroes +are almost daily illicitly introduced into Georgia, for sale or +settlement, or passing through it to the territories of the United +States for similar purposes; these facts are notorious; and it is not +unusual to see such negroes in the streets of St. Mary's, and such +too, recently captured by our vessels of war, and ordered to Savannah, +were illegally bartered by hundreds in that city, <i>for</i> this bartering +or bonding (as <i>it is called</i>, but in reality <i>selling</i>,) actually took +place before any decision had [been] passed by the court respecting +them. I cannot but again express to you, sir, that these irregularities +and mocking of the laws, by men who understand them, and who, +it was presumed, would have respected them, are such, that it requires +the immediate interposition of Congress to effect a suppression +of this traffic; for, as things are, should a faithful officer of the +government apprehend such negroes, to avoid the penalties imposed +by the laws, the proprietors disclaim them, and some agent of the +executive demands a delivery of the same to him, who may employ +them as he pleases, or effect a sale by way of a bond, for the restoration +of the negroes when legally called on so to do; which bond, +it is <i>understood</i>, is to be <i>forfeited</i>, as the amount of the bond is so +much less than the value of the property.... There are many negroes +... recently introduced into this state and the Alabama territory, +and which can be apprehended. The undertaking would be +great; but to be sensible that we shall possess your approbation, and +that we are carrying the views and wishes of the government into +execution, is all we wish, and it shall be done, independent of every +personal consideration.</p> + +<p class="center">I have, etc.<a name="FNanchor_87_422" id="FNanchor_87_422"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_422" class="fnanchor">87</a></p> +</div> + +<p>This "approbation" failed to come to the zealous collector, +and on the 5th of July he wrote that, "not being favored with +<!-- Page 118 --><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118"></a><span class="pagenum">118</span>a reply," he has been obliged to deliver over to the governor's +agents ninety-one illegally imported Negroes.<a name="FNanchor_88_423" id="FNanchor_88_423"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_423" class="fnanchor">88</a> Reports from +other districts corroborate this testimony. The collector at +Mobile writes of strange proceedings on the part of the +courts.<a name="FNanchor_89_424" id="FNanchor_89_424"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_424" class="fnanchor">89</a> General D.B. Mitchell, ex-governor of Georgia and +United States Indian agent, after an investigation in 1821 by +Attorney-General Wirt, was found "guilty of having prostituted +his power, as agent for Indian affairs at the Creek +agency, to the purpose of aiding and assisting in a conscious +breach of the act of Congress of 1807, in prohibition of the +slave trade—and this from mercenary motives."<a name="FNanchor_90_425" id="FNanchor_90_425"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_425" class="fnanchor">90</a> The indefatigable +Collector Chew of New Orleans wrote to Washington +that, "to put a stop to that traffic, a naval force suitable +to those waters is indispensable," and that "vast numbers of +slaves will be introduced to an alarming extent, unless prompt +and effectual measures are adopted by the general government."<a name="FNanchor_91_426" id="FNanchor_91_426"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_426" class="fnanchor">91</a> +Other collectors continually reported infractions, +complaining that they could get no assistance from the +citizens,<a name="FNanchor_92_427" id="FNanchor_92_427"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_427" class="fnanchor">92</a> or plaintively asking the services of "one small +cutter."<a name="FNanchor_93_428" id="FNanchor_93_428"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_428" class="fnanchor">93</a></p> + +<p>Meantime, what was the response of the government to +such representations, and what efforts were made to enforce +the act? A few unsystematic and spasmodic attempts are recorded. +In 1811 some special instructions were sent out,<a name="FNanchor_94_429" id="FNanchor_94_429"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_429" class="fnanchor">94</a> and +the President was authorized to seize Amelia Island.<a name="FNanchor_95_430" id="FNanchor_95_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_430" class="fnanchor">95</a> Then +came the war; and as late as November 15, 1818, in spite of the +complaints of collectors, we find no revenue cutter on the +Gulf coast.<a name="FNanchor_96_431" id="FNanchor_96_431"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_431" class="fnanchor">96</a> During the years 1817 and 1818<a name="FNanchor_97_432" id="FNanchor_97_432"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_432" class="fnanchor">97</a> some cruisers +went there irregularly, but they were too large to be effective; +<!-- Page 119 --><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119"></a><span class="pagenum">119</span>and the partial suppression of the Amelia Island pirates was +all that was accomplished. On the whole, the efforts of the +government lacked plan, energy, and often sincerity. Some +captures of slavers were made;<a name="FNanchor_98_433" id="FNanchor_98_433"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_433" class="fnanchor">98</a> but, as the collector at Mobile +wrote, anent certain cases, "this was owing rather to accident, +than any well-timed arrangement." He adds: "from the Chandalier +Islands to the Perdido river, including the coast, and +numerous other islands, we have only a small boat, with four +men and an inspector, to oppose to the whole confederacy of +smugglers and pirates."<a name="FNanchor_99_434" id="FNanchor_99_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_434" class="fnanchor">99</a></p> + +<p>To cap the climax, the government officials were so negligent +that Secretary Crawford, in 1820, confessed to Congress +that "it appears, from an examination of the records of this +office, that no particular instructions have ever been given, by +the Secretary of the Treasury, under the original or supplementary +acts prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the +United States."<a name="FNanchor_100_435" id="FNanchor_100_435"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_435" class="fnanchor">100</a> Beside this inactivity, the government was +criminally negligent in not prosecuting and punishing offenders +when captured. Urgent appeals for instruction from +prosecuting attorneys were too often received in official silence; +complaints as to the violation of law by State officers +went unheeded;<a name="FNanchor_101_436" id="FNanchor_101_436"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_436" class="fnanchor">101</a> informers were unprotected and sometimes +driven from home.<a name="FNanchor_102_437" id="FNanchor_102_437"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_437" class="fnanchor">102</a> Indeed, the most severe comment +on the whole period is the report, January 7, 1819, of the +Register of the Treasury, who, after the wholesale and open +violation of the Act of 1807, reported, in response to a request +from the House, "that it doth not appear, from an +examination of the records of this office, and particularly +of the accounts (to the date of their last settlement) of the +collectors of the customs, and of the several marshals of the +<!-- Page 120 --><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120"></a><span class="pagenum">120</span>United States, that any forfeitures had been incurred under +the said act."<a name="FNanchor_103_438" id="FNanchor_103_438"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_438" class="fnanchor">103</a></p> + +<p>63. <b>Typical Cases.</b> At this date (January 7, 1819), however, +certain cases were stated to be pending, a history of which +will fitly conclude this discussion. In 1818 three American +schooners sailed from the United States to Havana; on June +2 they started back with cargoes aggregating one hundred and +seven slaves. The schooner "Constitution" was captured by +one of Andrew Jackson's officers under the guns of Fort Barancas. +The "Louisa" and "Marino" were captured by Lieutenant +McKeever of the United States Navy. The three vessels +were duly proceeded against at Mobile, and the case began +slowly to drag along. The slaves, instead of being put under +the care of the zealous marshal of the district, were placed in +the hands of three bondsmen, friends of the judge. The marshal +notified the government of this irregularity, but apparently +received no answer. In 1822 the three vessels were +condemned as forfeited, but the court "reserved" for future +order the distribution of the slaves. Nothing whatever either +then or later was done to the slave-traders themselves. The +owners of the ships promptly appealed to the Supreme Court +of the United States, and that tribunal, in 1824, condemned +the three vessels and the slaves on two of them.<a name="FNanchor_104_439" id="FNanchor_104_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_439" class="fnanchor">104</a> These slaves, +considerably reduced in number "from various causes," were +sold at auction for the benefit of the State, in spite of the Act +of 1819. Meantime, before the decision of the Supreme Court, +the judge of the Supreme Court of West Florida had awarded +to certain alleged Spanish claimants of the slaves indemnity +for nearly the whole number seized, at the price of $650 per +head, and the Secretary of the Treasury had actually paid the +claim.<a name="FNanchor_105_440" id="FNanchor_105_440"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_440" class="fnanchor">105</a> In 1826 Lieutenant McKeever urgently petitions Congress +for his prize-money of $4,415.15, which he has not yet<!-- Page 121 --><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121"></a><span class="pagenum">121</span> +received.<a name="FNanchor_106_441" id="FNanchor_106_441"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_441" class="fnanchor">106</a> The "Constitution" was for some inexplicable reason +released from bond, and the whole case fades in a very +thick cloud of official mist. In 1831 Congress sought to inquire +into the final disposition of the slaves. The information given +was never printed; but as late as 1836 a certain Calvin Mickle +petitions Congress for reimbursement for the slaves sold, for +their hire, for their natural increase, for expenses incurred, +and for damages.<a name="FNanchor_107_442" id="FNanchor_107_442"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_442" class="fnanchor">107</a></p> + + +<p>64. <b>The Supplementary Acts, 1818–1820.</b> To remedy the +obvious defects of the Act of 1807 two courses were possible: +one, to minimize the crime of transportation, and, by encouraging +informers, to concentrate efforts against the buying of +smuggled slaves; the other, to make the crime of transportation +so great that no slaves would be imported. The Act of +1818 tried the first method; that of 1819, the second.<a name="FNanchor_108_443" id="FNanchor_108_443"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_443" class="fnanchor">108</a> The latter +was obviously the more upright and logical, and the only +method deserving thought even in 1807; but the Act of 1818 +was the natural descendant of that series of compromises +which began in the Constitutional Convention, and which, +instead of postponing the settlement of critical questions to +more favorable times, rather aggravated and complicated +them.</p> + +<p>The immediate cause of the Act of 1818 was the Amelia Island +scandal.<a name="FNanchor_113_448" id="FNanchor_113_448"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_448" class="fnanchor">113</a> Committees in both Houses reported bills, but +that of the Senate finally passed. There does not appear to +<!-- Page 122 --><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122"></a><span class="pagenum">122</span>have been very much debate.<a name="FNanchor_110_445" id="FNanchor_110_445"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_445" class="fnanchor">110</a> The sale of Africans for the +benefit of the informer and of the United States was strongly +urged "as the only means of executing the laws against the +slave trade as experience had fully demonstrated since the origin +of the prohibition."<a name="FNanchor_111_446" id="FNanchor_111_446"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_446" class="fnanchor">111</a> This proposition was naturally opposed +as "inconsistent with the principles of our Government, +and calculated to throw as wide open the door to the importation +of slaves as it was before the existing prohibition."<a name="FNanchor_112_447" id="FNanchor_112_447"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_447" class="fnanchor">112</a> +The act, which became a law April 20, 1818,<a name="FNanchor_109_444" id="FNanchor_109_444"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_444" class="fnanchor">109</a> was a poorly +constructed compromise, which virtually acknowledged the +failure of efforts to control the trade, and sought to remedy +defects by pitting cupidity against cupidity, informer against +thief. One-half of all forfeitures and fines were to go to +the informer, and penalties for violation were changed as +follows:—</p> + +<p>For equipping a slaver, instead of a fine of $20,000, a fine of +$1000 to $5000 and imprisonment from 3 to 7 years.</p> + +<p>For transporting Negroes, instead of a fine of $5000 and forfeiture +of ship and Negroes, a fine of $1000 to $5000 and imprisonment +from 3 to 7 years.</p> + +<p>For actual importation, instead of a fine of $1000 to $10,000 and +imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, a fine of $1000 to $10,000, and +<!-- Page 123 --><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123"></a><span class="pagenum">123</span>imprisonment from 3 to 7 years.</p> + +<p>For knowingly buying illegally imported Negroes, instead of a fine +of $800 for each Negro and forfeiture, a fine of $1000 for each +Negro.</p> + +<p>The burden of proof was laid on the defendant, to the extent +that he must prove that the slave in question had been +imported at least five years before the prosecution. The slaves +were still left to the disposal of the States.</p> + +<p>This statute was, of course, a failure from the start,<a name="FNanchor_114_449" id="FNanchor_114_449"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_449" class="fnanchor">114</a> and +at the very next session Congress took steps to revise it. A +bill was reported in the House, January 13, 1819, but it was +not discussed till March.<a name="FNanchor_115_450" id="FNanchor_115_450"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_450" class="fnanchor">115</a> It finally passed, after "much debate."<a name="FNanchor_116_451" id="FNanchor_116_451"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_451" class="fnanchor">116</a> +The Senate dropped its own bill, and, after striking +out the provision for the death penalty, passed the bill as it +came from the House.<a name="FNanchor_117_452" id="FNanchor_117_452"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_452" class="fnanchor">117</a> The House acquiesced, and the bill +became a law, March 3, 1819,<a name="FNanchor_118_453" id="FNanchor_118_453"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_453" class="fnanchor">118</a> in the midst of the Missouri +trouble. This act directed the President to use armed +cruisers on the coasts of the United States and Africa to +suppress the slave-trade; one-half the proceeds of the +condemned ship were to go to the captors as bounty, provided +the Africans were safely lodged with a United States +marshal and the crew with the civil authorities. These provisions +were seriously marred by a proviso which Butler of +Louisiana, had inserted, with a "due regard for the interests +of the State which he represented," viz., that a captured +slaver must always be returned to the port whence she +<!-- Page 124 --><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124"></a><span class="pagenum">124</span>sailed.<a name="FNanchor_119_454" id="FNanchor_119_454"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_454" class="fnanchor">119</a> This, of course, secured decided advantages to +Southern slave-traders. The most radical provision of the act +was that which directed the President to "make such regulations +and arrangements as he may deem expedient for the +safe keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of the +United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons of +colour, as may be so delivered and brought within their jurisdiction;" +and to appoint an agent in Africa to receive +such Negroes.<a name="FNanchor_120_455" id="FNanchor_120_455"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_455" class="fnanchor">120</a> Finally, an appropriation of $100,000 was +made to enforce the act.<a name="FNanchor_121_456" id="FNanchor_121_456"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_456" class="fnanchor">121</a> This act was in some measure due +to the new colonization movement; and the return of Africans +recaptured was a distinct recognition of its efforts, and +the real foundation of Liberia.</p> + +<p>To render this straightforward act effective, it was necessary +to add but one measure, and that was a penalty commensurate +with the crime of slave stealing. This was accomplished +by the Act of May 15, 1820,<a name="FNanchor_122_457" id="FNanchor_122_457"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_457" class="fnanchor">122</a> a law which may be regarded as +the last of the Missouri Compromise measures. The act originated +from the various bills on piracy which were introduced +early in the sixteenth Congress. The House bill, in spite of +opposition, was amended so as to include slave-trading under +piracy, and passed. The Senate agreed without a division. +<!-- Page 125 --><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125"></a><span class="pagenum">125</span>This law provided that direct participation in the slave-trade +should be piracy, punishable with death.<a name="FNanchor_123_458" id="FNanchor_123_458"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_458" class="fnanchor">123</a></p> + +<table summary=""> +<tr> +<th colspan="2">STATUTES AT LARGE. </th><th colspan="2">DATE. </th><th>AMOUNT<br />APPROPRIATED.</th> +</tr> +<tr><th>VOL.</th><th>PAGE </th> +</tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">III.</td><td align="left">533–4</td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">3, 1819</td><td align="right">$100,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">764</td><td align="left">"</td><td align="right">3, 1823</td><td align="right">50,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IIV.</td><td align="left">141</td><td align="left">"</td><td align="right">14, 1826</td><td align="right">32,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">208</td><td align="left">March </td><td align="right">2, 1827</td><td align="right">36,710<br />20,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">302</td><td align="left">May</td><td align="right">24, 1828</td><td align="right">30,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">354</td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">2, 1829 </td><td align="right">16,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">462</td><td align="left">"</td><td align="right">2, 1831</td><td align="right">16,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">615</td><td align="left">Feb.</td><td align="right">20, 1833 </td><td align="right">5,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">67</td><td align="left">Jan.</td><td align="right">24, 1834</td><td align="right">5,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IV.</td><td align="left">157–8</td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">3, 1837</td><td align="right">11,413</td><td align="left">.57</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">501</td><td align="left">Aug.</td><td align="right">4, 1842</td><td align="right">10,543</td><td align="left">.42</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">615 </td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">3, 1843</td><td align="right">5,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IIX.</td><td align="left">96</td><td align="left">Aug.</td><td align="right">10, 1846</td><td align="right">25,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IXI.</td><td align="left">90</td><td align="left">"</td><td align="right">18, 1856</td><td align="right">8,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">227</td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">3, 1857</td><td align="right">8,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">404</td><td align="left">"</td><td align="right">3, 1859</td><td align="right">75,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IXII.</td><td align="left">21</td><td align="left">May </td><td align="right">26, 1860</td><td align="right">40,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">132</td><td align="left"> Feb.</td><td align="right">19, 1861</td><td align="right">900,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">219 </td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">2, 1861 </td><td align="right">900,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">639</td><td align="left">Feb. </td><td align="right">4, 1863</td><td align="right"> 17,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IXIII.</td><td align="left">424</td><td align="left">Jan. </td><td align="right">24, 1865</td><td align="right">17,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IXIV.</td><td align="left">226</td><td align="left">July </td><td align="right">25, 1866</td><td align="right">17,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">415</td><td align="left">Feb.</td><td align="right">28, 1867</td><td align="right">17,000</td></tr> +<tr> +<td align="left">IXV.</td><td align="left">58</td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">30, 1868</td><td align="right">12,500</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">321</td><td align="left">March</td><td align="right">3, 1869</td><td align="right">12,500</td></tr> +</table> + +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="left">Total, 50 years</td><td align="right">$ 2,386,666.99</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Minus surpluses re-appropriated (approximate)</td><td align="right" class="u">48,666.99?</td></tr> + +<tr><td colspan="2" align="right">$ 2,338,000</td></tr> + +<tr><td align="left">Cost of squadron, 1843–58, @ $384,500 per year (<i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. IX. No. 73) +</td><td align="right">5,767,500</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Returning slaves on "Wildfire" (<i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. 41) </td><td align="right">250,000</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Approximate cost of squadron, 1858–66, probably not less than $500,000 per year</td><td class="u" align="right">4,000,000?</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Approximate money cost of suppressing the slave-trade</td><td align="right">$ 12,355,500?</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>Cf. Kendall's Report: <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 211–8; <i>Amer. State Papers, +Naval</i>, III. No. 429 E.; also Reports of the Secretaries of the Navy from 1819 to 1860.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 126 -->126</span><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126"></a></p> + +<p>65. <b>Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts, 1818–1825.</b> +A somewhat more sincere and determined effort to enforce +the slave-trade laws now followed; and yet it is a significant +fact that not until Lincoln's administration did a slave-trader +suffer death for violating the laws of the United States. The +participation of Americans in the trade continued, declining +somewhat between 1825 and 1830, and then reviving, until it +reached its highest activity between 1840 and 1860. The development +of a vast internal slave-trade, and the consequent rise +in the South of vested interests strongly opposed to slave +smuggling, led to a falling off in the illicit introduction of +Negroes after 1825, until the fifties; nevertheless, smuggling +never entirely ceased, and large numbers were thus added to +the plantations of the Gulf States.</p> + +<p>Monroe had various constitutional scruples as to the execution +of the Act of 1819;<a name="FNanchor_124_459" id="FNanchor_124_459"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_459" class="fnanchor">124</a> but, as Congress took no action, +he at last put a fair interpretation on his powers, and appointed +Samuel Bacon as an agent in Africa to form a settlement +for recaptured Africans. Gradually the agency thus +formed became merged with that of the Colonization Society +on Cape Mesurado; and from this union Liberia was finally +evolved.<a name="FNanchor_125_460" id="FNanchor_125_460"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_460" class="fnanchor">125</a></p> + +<p>Meantime, during the years 1818 to 1820, the activity of the +slave-traders was prodigious. General James Tallmadge declared +in the House, February 15, 1819: "Our laws are already +highly penal against their introduction, and yet, it is a well +known fact, that about fourteen thousand slaves have been +brought into our country this last year."<a name="FNanchor_126_461" id="FNanchor_126_461"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_461" class="fnanchor">126</a> In the same year +Middleton of South Carolina and Wright of Virginia estimated +illicit introduction at 13,000 and 15,000 respectively. +<!-- Page 127 --><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127"></a><span class="pagenum">127</span> +<a name="FNanchor_127_462" id="FNanchor_127_462"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_462" class="fnanchor">127</a> +Judge Story, in charging a jury, took occasion to say: "We +have but too many proofs from unquestionable sources, that +it [the slave-trade] is still carried on with all the implacable +rapacity of former times. Avarice has grown more subtle in its +evasions, and watches and seizes its prey with an appetite +quickened rather than suppressed by its guilty vigils. American +citizens are steeped to their very mouths (I can hardly use +too bold a figure) in this stream of iniquity."<a name="FNanchor_128_463" id="FNanchor_128_463"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_463" class="fnanchor">128</a> The following +year, 1820, brought some significant statements from various +members of Congress. Said Smith of South Carolina: "Pharaoh +was, for his temerity, drowned in the Red Sea, in pursuing +them [the Israelites] contrary to God's express will; but +our Northern friends have not been afraid even of that, in +their zeal to furnish the Southern States with Africans. They +are better seamen than Pharaoh, and calculate by that means +to elude the vigilance of Heaven; which they seem to disregard, +if they can but elude the violated laws of their country."<a name="FNanchor_129_464" id="FNanchor_129_464"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_464" class="fnanchor">129</a> +As late as May he saw little hope of suppressing the +traffic.<a name="FNanchor_130_465" id="FNanchor_130_465"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_465" class="fnanchor">130</a> Sergeant of Pennsylvania declared: "It is notorious +that, in spite of the utmost vigilance that can be employed, +African negroes are clandestinely brought in and sold as +slaves."<a name="FNanchor_131_466" id="FNanchor_131_466"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_466" class="fnanchor">131</a> Plumer of New Hampshire stated that "of the unhappy +beings, thus in violation of all laws transported to our +shores, and thrown by force into the mass of our black population, +scarcely one in a hundred is ever detected by the officers +of the General Government, in a part of the country, +where, if we are to believe the statement of Governor Rabun, +'an officer who would perform his duty, by attempting to enforce +the law [against the slave trade] is, by many, considered +as an officious meddler, and treated with derision and contempt;' ... +I have been told by a gentleman, who has attended +particularly to this subject, that ten thousand slaves +were in one year smuggled into the United States; and that, +even for the last year, we must count the number not by +<!-- Page 128 --><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128"></a><span class="pagenum">128</span>hundreds, but by thousands."<a name="FNanchor_132_467" id="FNanchor_132_467"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_467" class="fnanchor">132</a> In 1821 a committee of Congress +characterized prevailing methods as those "of the grossest +fraud that could be practised to deceive the officers of +government."<a name="FNanchor_133_468" id="FNanchor_133_468"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_468" class="fnanchor">133</a> Another committee, in 1822, after a careful examination +of the subject, declare that they "find it impossible +to measure with precision the effect produced upon the +American branch of the slave trade by the laws above mentioned, +and the seizures under them. They are unable to state, +whether those American merchants, the American capital and +seamen which heretofore aided in this traffic, have abandoned +it altogether, or have sought shelter under the flags of other +nations." They then state the suspicious circumstance that, +with the disappearance of the American flag from the traffic, +"the trade, notwithstanding, increases annually, under the +flags of other nations." They complain of the spasmodic efforts +of the executive. They say that the first United States +cruiser arrived on the African coast in March, 1820, and remained +a "few weeks;" that since then four others had in two +years made five visits in all; but "since the middle of last November, +the commencement of the healthy season on that +coast, no vessel has been, nor, as your committee is informed, +is, under orders for that service."<a name="FNanchor_134_469" id="FNanchor_134_469"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_469" class="fnanchor">134</a> The United States African +agent, Ayres, reported in 1823: "I was informed by an American +officer who had been on the coast in 1820, that he had +boarded 20 American vessels in one morning, lying in the +port of Gallinas, and fitted for the reception of slaves. It is a +lamentable fact, that most of the harbours, between the Senegal +and the line, were visited by an equal number of American +vessels, and for the sole purpose of carrying away slaves. +Although for some years the coast had been occasionally +visited by our cruizers, their short stay and seldom appearance +<!-- Page 129 --><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129"></a><span class="pagenum">129</span>had made but slight impression on those traders, rendered +hardy by repetition of crime, and avaricious by excessive gain. +They were enabled by a regular system to gain intelligence of +any cruizer being on the coast."<a name="FNanchor_135_470" id="FNanchor_135_470"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_470" class="fnanchor">135</a></p> + +<p>Even such spasmodic efforts bore abundant fruit, and indicated +what vigorous measures might have accomplished. +Between May, 1818, and November, 1821, nearly six hundred +Africans were recaptured and eleven American slavers taken.<a name="FNanchor_136_471" id="FNanchor_136_471"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_471" class="fnanchor">136</a> +Such measures gradually changed the character of the trade, +and opened the international phase of the question. American +slavers cleared for foreign ports, there took a foreign flag and +papers, and then sailed boldly past American cruisers, although +their real character was often well known. More stringent +clearance laws and consular instructions might have +greatly reduced this practice; but nothing was ever done, and +gradually the laws became in large measure powerless to deal +with the bulk of the illicit trade. In 1820, September 16, a +British officer, in his official report, declares that, in spite of +United States laws, "American vessels, American subjects, and +American capital, are unquestionably engaged in the trade, +though under other colours and in disguise."<a name="FNanchor_137_472" id="FNanchor_137_472"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_472" class="fnanchor">137</a> The United +States ship "Cyane" at one time reported ten captures within +a few days, adding: "Although they are evidently owned by +Americans, they are so completely covered by Spanish papers +that it is impossible to condemn them."<a name="FNanchor_138_473" id="FNanchor_138_473"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_473" class="fnanchor">138</a> The governor of +Sierra Leone reported the rivers Nunez and Pongas full of +renegade European and American slave-traders;<a name="FNanchor_139_474" id="FNanchor_139_474"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_474" class="fnanchor">139</a> the trade +was said to be carried on "to an extent that almost staggers +belief."<a name="FNanchor_140_475" id="FNanchor_140_475"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_475" class="fnanchor">140</a> Down to 1824 or 1825, reports from all quarters prove +<!-- Page 130 --><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130"></a><span class="pagenum">130</span>this activity in slave-trading.</p> + +<p>The execution of the laws within the country exhibits grave +defects and even criminal negligence. Attorney-General Wirt +finds it necessary to assure collectors, in 1819, that "it is against +public policy to dispense with prosecutions for violation of +the law to prohibit the Slave trade."<a name="FNanchor_141_476" id="FNanchor_141_476"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_476" class="fnanchor">141</a> One district attorney +writes: "It appears to be almost impossible to enforce the laws +of the United States against offenders after the negroes have +been landed in the state."<a name="FNanchor_142_477" id="FNanchor_142_477"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_477" class="fnanchor">142</a> Again, it is asserted that "when +vessels engaged in the slave trade have been detained by the +American cruizers, and sent into the slave-holding states, +there appears at once a difficulty in securing the freedom to +these captives which the laws of the United States have decreed +for them."<a name="FNanchor_143_478" id="FNanchor_143_478"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_478" class="fnanchor">143</a> In some cases, one man would smuggle in +the Africans and hide them in the woods; then his partner +would "rob" him, and so all trace be lost.<a name="FNanchor_144_479" id="FNanchor_144_479"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_479" class="fnanchor">144</a> Perhaps 350 Africans +were officially reported as brought in contrary to law +from 1818 to 1820: the absurdity of this figure is apparent.<a name="FNanchor_145_480" id="FNanchor_145_480"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_480" class="fnanchor">145</a> A +circular letter to the marshals, in 1821, brought reports of only +a few well-known cases, like that of the "General Ramirez;" +the marshal of Louisiana had "no information."<a name="FNanchor_146_481" id="FNanchor_146_481"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_481" class="fnanchor">146</a></p> + +<p>There appears to be little positive evidence of a large illicit +importation into the country for a decade after 1825. It is +hardly possible, however, considering the activity in the trade, +that slaves were not largely imported. Indeed, when we note +how the laws were continually broken in other respects, absence +of evidence of petty smuggling becomes presumptive +evidence that collusive or tacit understanding of officers and +citizens allowed the trade to some extent.<a name="FNanchor_147_482" id="FNanchor_147_482"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_482" class="fnanchor">147</a> Finally, it must be +noted that during all this time scarcely a man suffered for +<!-- Page 131 --><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131"></a><span class="pagenum">131</span>participating in the trade, beyond the loss of the Africans and, +more rarely, of his ship. Red-handed slavers, caught in the act +and convicted, were too often, like La Coste of South Carolina, +the subjects of executive clemency.<a name="FNanchor_148_483" id="FNanchor_148_483"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_483" class="fnanchor">148</a> In certain cases there +were those who even had the effrontery to ask Congress to +cancel their own laws. For instance, in 1819 a Venezuelan privateer, +secretly fitted out and manned by Americans in Baltimore, +succeeded in capturing several American, Portuguese,<!-- Page 132 --><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132"></a><span class="pagenum">132</span> +and Spanish slavers, and appropriating the slaves; being +finally wrecked herself, she transferred her crew and slaves to +one of her prizes, the "Antelope," which was eventually captured +by a United States cruiser and the 280 Africans sent to +Georgia. After much litigation, the United States Supreme +Court ordered those captured from Spaniards to be surrendered, +and the others to be returned to Africa. By some mysterious +process, only 139 Africans now remained, 100 of +whom were sent to Africa. The Spanish claimants of the remaining +thirty-nine sold them to a certain Mr. Wilde, who +gave bond to transport them out of the country. Finally, in +December, 1827, there came an innocent petition to Congress +to <i>cancel this bond</i>.<a name="FNanchor_149_484" id="FNanchor_149_484"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_484" class="fnanchor">149</a> A bill to that effect passed and was approved, +May 2, 1828,<a name="FNanchor_150_485" id="FNanchor_150_485"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_485" class="fnanchor">150</a> and in consequence these Africans remained +as slaves in Georgia.</p> + +<p>On the whole, it is plain that, although in the period from +1807 to 1820 Congress laid down broad lines of legislation +sufficient, save in some details, to suppress the African slave +trade to America, yet the execution of these laws was criminally +lax. Moreover, by the facility with which slavers could +disguise their identity, it was possible for them to escape even +a vigorous enforcement of our laws. This situation could +properly be met only by energetic and sincere international +co-operation. The next chapter will review efforts directed toward +this end.<a name="FNanchor_151_486" id="FNanchor_151_486"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_486" class="fnanchor">151</a></p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_336" id="Footnote_1_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_336"><span class="label">1</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 468.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_337" id="Footnote_2_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_337"><span class="label">2</span></a> Cf. below, § 59.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_338" id="Footnote_3_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_338"><span class="label">3</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_339" id="Footnote_4_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_339"><span class="label">4</span></a> There were at least twelve distinct propositions as to the disposal of the +Africans imported:— +</p><div class="blockquot"><p> +1. That they be forfeited and sold by the United States at auction (Early's +bill, reported Dec. 15: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167–8). +</p><p> +2. That they be forfeited and left to the disposal of the States (proposed +by Bidwell and Early: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 181, 221, 477. This was the final settlement.) +</p><p> +3. That they be forfeited and sold, and that the proceeds go to charities, +education, or internal improvements (Early, Holland, and Masters: <i>Ibid.</i>, +p. 273). +</p><p> +4. That they be forfeited and indentured for life (Alston and Bidwell: <i>Ibid.</i>, +pp. 170–1). +</p><p> +5. That they be forfeited and indentured for 7, 8, or 10 years (Pitkin: <i>Ibid.</i>, +p. 186). +</p><p> +6. That they be forfeited and given into the custody of the President, and +by him indentured in free States for a term of years (bill reported from the +Senate Jan. 28: <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 575; <i>Annals of +Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 477. Cf. also <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 272). +</p><p> +7. That the Secretary of the Treasury dispose of them, at his discretion, in +service (Quincy: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 183). +</p><p> +8. That those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or bound +out in free States (Sloan: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 254). +</p><p> +9. That all be sent back to Africa (Smilie: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 176). +</p><p> +10. That those imported into free States be free, those imported into slave +States be returned to Africa or indentured (Sloan: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 226). +</p><p> +11. That they be forfeited but not sold (Sloan and others: <i>Ibid.</i>, +p. 270). +</p><p> +12. That they be free (Sloan: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 168; Bidwell: <i>House Journal</i> (repr. +1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 515). +</p></div></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_340" id="Footnote_5_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_340"><span class="label">5</span></a> Bidwell, Cook, and others: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 201.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_341" id="Footnote_6_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_341"><span class="label">6</span></a> Bidwell: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 172.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_342" id="Footnote_7_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_342"><span class="label">7</span></a> Fisk: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 224–5; Bidwell: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 221.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_343" id="Footnote_8_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_343"><span class="label">8</span></a> Quincy: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 184.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_344" id="Footnote_9_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_344"><span class="label">9</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 478; Bidwell: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 171.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_345" id="Footnote_10_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_345"><span class="label">10</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 172.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_346" id="Footnote_11_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_346"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 173–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_347" id="Footnote_12_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_347"><span class="label">12</span></a> Alston: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 170.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_348" id="Footnote_13_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_348"><span class="label">13</span></a> D.R. Williams: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 183.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_349" id="Footnote_14_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_349"><span class="label">14</span></a> Early: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 184–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_350" id="Footnote_15_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_350"><span class="label">15</span></a> Lloyd, Early, and others: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 203.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_351" id="Footnote_16_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_351"><span class="label">16</span></a> Alston: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 170.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_352" id="Footnote_17_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_352"><span class="label">17</span></a> Quincy: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 222; Macon: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 225.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_353" id="Footnote_18_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_353"><span class="label">18</span></a> Macon: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 177.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_354" id="Footnote_19_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_354"><span class="label">19</span></a> Barker: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 171; Bidwell: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 172.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_355" id="Footnote_20_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_355"><span class="label">20</span></a> Clay, Alston, and Early: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 266.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_356" id="Footnote_21_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_356"><span class="label">21</span></a> Clay, Alston, and Early: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 266.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_357" id="Footnote_22_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_357"><span class="label">22</span></a> Bidwell: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 221.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_358" id="Footnote_23_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_358"><span class="label">23</span></a> Sloan and others: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 271; Early and Alston: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 168, 171.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_359" id="Footnote_24_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_359"><span class="label">24</span></a> Ely, Bidwell, and others: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 179, 181, 271; Smilie and Findley: <i>Ibid.</i>, +pp. 225, 226.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_360" id="Footnote_25_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_360"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 240. Cf. Lloyd: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 236.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_361" id="Footnote_26_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_361"><span class="label">26</span></a> Holland: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 241.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_362" id="Footnote_27_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_362"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 227; Macon: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 225.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_363" id="Footnote_28_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_363"><span class="label">28</span></a> Bidwell, Cook, and others: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 201.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_364" id="Footnote_29_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_364"><span class="label">29</span></a> Bidwell: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 221. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 202.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_365" id="Footnote_30_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_365"><span class="label">30</span></a> Early: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 239.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_366" id="Footnote_31_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_366"><span class="label">31</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_367" id="Footnote_32_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_367"><span class="label">32</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1267.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_368" id="Footnote_33_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_368"><span class="label">33</span></a> There were about six distinct punishments suggested:— +</p><div class="blockquot"><p> +1. Forfeiture, and fine of $5000 to $10,000 (Early's bill: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 167). +</p><p> +2. Forfeiture and imprisonment (amendment to Senate bill: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 231, +477, 483). +</p><p> +3. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and fine of $1000 to +$10,000 (amendment to amendment of Senate bill: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 228, 483). +</p><p> +4. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 40 years, and fine of $1000 to +$10,000 (Chandler's amendment: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 228). +</p><p> +5. Forfeiture of all property, and imprisonment (Pitkin: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 188). +</p><p> +6. Death (Smilie: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 189–90; bill reported to House, Dec. 19: <i>Ibid.</i>, +p. 190; Senate bill as reported to House, Jan. 28).</p></div></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_369" id="Footnote_34_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_369"><span class="label">34</span></a> Smilie: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 189–90.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_370" id="Footnote_35_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_370"><span class="label">35</span></a> Tallmadge: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 233; Olin: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 237.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_371" id="Footnote_36_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_371"><span class="label">36</span></a> Ely: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 237.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_372" id="Footnote_37_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_372"><span class="label">37</span></a> Smilie: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 236. Cf. Sloan: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 232.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_373" id="Footnote_38_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_373"><span class="label">38</span></a> Hastings: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 228.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_374" id="Footnote_39_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_374"><span class="label">39</span></a> Dwight: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 241; Ely: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 232.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_375" id="Footnote_40_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_375"><span class="label">40</span></a> Mosely: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 234–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_376" id="Footnote_41_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_376"><span class="label">41</span></a> Tallmadge: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 232, 234. Cf. Dwight: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 241.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_377" id="Footnote_42_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_377"><span class="label">42</span></a> Varnum: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 243.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_378" id="Footnote_43_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_378"><span class="label">43</span></a> Elmer: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 235.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_379" id="Footnote_44_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_379"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 240.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_380" id="Footnote_45_380"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_380"><span class="label">45</span></a> Holland: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 240.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_381" id="Footnote_46_381"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_381"><span class="label">46</span></a> Early: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 238–9; Holland: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 239.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_382" id="Footnote_47_382"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_382"><span class="label">47</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 233. Cf. Lloyd: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 237; Ely: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 232; Early: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. +238–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_383" id="Footnote_48_383"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_383"><span class="label">48</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 484.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_384" id="Footnote_49_384"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_384"><span class="label">49</span></a> This was the provision of the Senate bill as reported to the House. It was +over the House amendment to this that the Houses disagreed. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, +p. 484.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_385" id="Footnote_50_385"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_385"><span class="label">50</span></a> Cf. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 527–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_386" id="Footnote_51_386"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_386"><span class="label">51</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 528.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_387" id="Footnote_52_387"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_387"><span class="label">52</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 626.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_388" id="Footnote_53_388"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_388"><span class="label">53</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_389" id="Footnote_54_389"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_389"><span class="label">54</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_390" id="Footnote_55_390"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_390"><span class="label">55</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 636–8; <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 616, and +House Bill No. 219; <i>Ibid.</i>, 10 Cong. 1 sess. VI. 27, 50; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 10 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 854–5, 961.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_391" id="Footnote_56_391"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_391"><span class="label">56</span></a> On account of the meagre records it is difficult to follow the course of +this bill. I have pieced together information from various sources, and trust +that this account is approximately correct.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_392" id="Footnote_57_392"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_392"><span class="label">57</span></a> Cf. <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 2 sess. IV., Senate Bill No. 41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_393" id="Footnote_58_393"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_393"><span class="label">58</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438. Cf. above, § 53.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_394" id="Footnote_59_394"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_394"><span class="label">59</span></a> This amendment of the Committee of the Whole was adopted by a vote +of 63 to 53. The New England States stood 3 to 2 for the death penalty; the +Middle States were evenly divided, 3 and 3; and the South stood 5 to 0 +against it, with Kentucky evenly divided. Cf. <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 +Cong. 2 sess. V. 504.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_395" id="Footnote_60_395"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_395"><span class="label">60</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V. 514–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_396" id="Footnote_61_396"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_396"><span class="label">61</span></a> The substitution of the Senate bill was a victory for the anti-slavery party, +as all battles had to be fought again. The Southern party, however, succeeded +in carrying all its amendments.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_397" id="Footnote_62_397"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_397"><span class="label">62</span></a> Messrs. Betton of New Hampshire, Chittenden of Vermont, Garnett and +Trigg of Virginia, and D.R. Williams of South Carolina voted against the +bill: <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 585–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_398" id="Footnote_63_398"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_398"><span class="label">63</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 626–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_399" id="Footnote_64_399"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_399"><span class="label">64</span></a> The unassigned dates refer to debates, etc. The history of the amendments +and debates on the measure may be traced in the following references:— +</p> +<table summary="2 cols" cellpadding="5"> +<tr> +<td class="col2"> +<p class="center"><i>Senate</i> (Bill No. 41). +</p> +<p> +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +20–1; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 16, 19, 23, 33, +36, 45, 47, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 87, 93, etc. +</p> +<p><i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 +sess. IV. 11, 112, 123, 124, 132, 133, 150, +158, 164, 165, 167, 168, etc. +</p> +</td> +<td class="col2"> +<p class="center"> +<i>House</i> (Bill No. 148). +</p><p> +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438; +9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 114, 151, 167–8, 173–4, +180, 183, 189, 200, 202–4, 220, 228, +231, 240, 254, 264, 266–7, 270, 273, +373, 427, 477, 481, 484–6, 527, 528, +etc. +</p><p> +<i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 +sess. V. 470, 482, 488, 490, 491, 496, +500, 504, 510, 513–6, 517, 540, 557, 575, +579, 581, 583–4, 585, 592, 594, 610, 613–5, +623, 638, 640, etc. +</p> +</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_400" id="Footnote_65_400"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_400"><span class="label">65</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 426. There were some few attempts to obtain laws +of relief from this bill: see, e.g., <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 10 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1243; 11 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 34, 36–9, 41, 43, 48, 49, 380, 465, 688, 706, 2209; <i>House +Journal</i> (repr. 1826), II Cong. 1–2 sess. VII. 100, 102, 124, etc., and Index, +Senate Bill No. 8. Cf. <i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, II. No. 269. There +was also one proposed amendment to make the prohibition perpetual: <i>Amer. +State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, I. No. 244.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_401" id="Footnote_66_401"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_401"><span class="label">66</span></a> Toulmin, <i>Digest of the Laws of Alabama</i>, p. 637.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_402" id="Footnote_67_402"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_402"><span class="label">67</span></a> <i>Laws of North Carolina</i> (revision of 1819), II. 1350.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_403" id="Footnote_68_403"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_403"><span class="label">68</span></a> Prince, <i>Digest</i>, p. 793.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_404" id="Footnote_69_404"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_404"><span class="label">69</span></a> Fowler, <i>Historical Status of the Negro in Connecticut</i>, in <i>Local Law</i>, etc., +pp. 122, 126.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_405" id="Footnote_70_405"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_405"><span class="label">70</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 32.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_406" id="Footnote_71_406"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_406"><span class="label">71</span></a> <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p. 435.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_407" id="Footnote_72_407"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_407"><span class="label">72</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, p. 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_408" id="Footnote_73_408"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_408"><span class="label">73</span></a> See, e.g., <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p. 575.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_409" id="Footnote_74_409"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_409"><span class="label">74</span></a> Drake, <i>Revelations of a Slave Smuggler</i>, p. 51. Parts of this narrative are +highly colored and untrustworthy; this passage, however, has every earmark +of truth, and is confirmed by many incidental allusions.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_410" id="Footnote_75_410"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_410"><span class="label">75</span></a> For accounts of these slavers, see <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. +92, pp. 30–50. The "Paz" was an armed slaver flying the American flag.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_411" id="Footnote_76_411"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_411"><span class="label">76</span></a> Said to be owned by an Englishman, but fitted in America and manned +by Americans. It was eventually captured by H.M.S. "Bann," after a hard +fight.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_412" id="Footnote_77_412"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_412"><span class="label">77</span></a> Also called Spanish schooner "Triumvirate," with American supercargo, +Spanish captain, and American, French, Spanish, and English crew. It was +finally captured by a British vessel.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_413" id="Footnote_78_413"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_413"><span class="label">78</span></a> An American slaver of 1814, which was boarded by a British vessel. All the +above cases, and many others, were proven before British courts.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_414" id="Footnote_79_414"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_414"><span class="label">79</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 51.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_415" id="Footnote_80_415"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_415"><span class="label">80</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 22, 38. This slaver was after +capture sent to New Orleans,—an illustration of the irony of the Act of +1807.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_416" id="Footnote_81_416"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_416"><span class="label">81</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 14 Cong. 2 sess. p. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_417" id="Footnote_82_417"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_417"><span class="label">82</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 36, p. 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_418" id="Footnote_83_418"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_418"><span class="label">83</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 8–14. See Chew's letter of Oct. 17, +1817: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 14–16.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_419" id="Footnote_84_419"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_419"><span class="label">84</span></a> By the secret Joint Resolution and Act of 1811 (<i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 471), +Congress gave the President power to suppress the Amelia Island establishment, +which was then notorious. The capture was not accomplished until +1817.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_420" id="Footnote_85_420"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_420"><span class="label">85</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 10–11. Cf. Report of the +House Committee, Jan. 10, 1818: "It is but too notorious that numerous infractions +of the law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United +States have been perpetrated with impunity upon our southern frontier." +<i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, II. No. 441.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_421" id="Footnote_86_421"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_421"><span class="label">86</span></a> Special message of Jan. 13, 1818: <i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 137–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_422" id="Footnote_87_422"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_422"><span class="label">87</span></a> Collector McIntosh, of the District of Brunswick, Ga., to the Secretary of +the Treasury. <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 8–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_423" id="Footnote_88_423"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_423"><span class="label">88</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 6–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_424" id="Footnote_89_424"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_424"><span class="label">89</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 11–12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_425" id="Footnote_90_425"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_425"><span class="label">90</span></a> <i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, II. No. 529.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_426" id="Footnote_91_426"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_426"><span class="label">91</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_427" id="Footnote_92_427"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_427"><span class="label">92</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_428" id="Footnote_93_428"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_428"><span class="label">93</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 82.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_429" id="Footnote_94_429"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_429"><span class="label">94</span></a> They were not general instructions, but were directed to Commander +Campbell. Cf. <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, pp. 5–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_430" id="Footnote_95_430"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_430"><span class="label">95</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 471 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_431" id="Footnote_96_431"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_431"><span class="label">96</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_432" id="Footnote_97_432"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_432"><span class="label">97</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. No. 84. Cf. Chew's letters in <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. +No. 348.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_433" id="Footnote_98_433"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_433"><span class="label">98</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 22, 38; 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. +100, p. 13; 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 9, etc.; <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 +sess. III. No. 348, p. 85.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_434" id="Footnote_99_434"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_434"><span class="label">99</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_435" id="Footnote_100_435"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_435"><span class="label">100</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 77.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_436" id="Footnote_101_436"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_436"><span class="label">101</span></a> Cf. <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 11: "The Grand Jury found +true bills against the owners of the vessels, masters, and a supercargo—all of +whom are discharged; why or wherefore I cannot say, except that it could +not be for want of proof against them."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_437" id="Footnote_102_437"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_437"><span class="label">102</span></a> E.g., in July, 1818, one informer "will have to leave that part of the country +to save his life": <i>Ibid.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 100, p. 9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_438" id="Footnote_103_438"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_438"><span class="label">103</span></a> Joseph Nourse, Register of the Treasury, to Hon. W.H. Crawford, Secretary +of the Treasury: <i>Ibid.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, p. 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_439" id="Footnote_104_439"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_439"><span class="label">104</span></a> The slaves on the "Constitution" were not condemned, for the technical +reason that she was not captured by a commissioned officer of the United +States navy.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_440" id="Footnote_105_440"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_440"><span class="label">105</span></a> These proceedings are very obscure, and little was said about them. The +Spanish claimants were, it was alleged with much probability, but representatives +of Americans. The claim was paid under the provisions of the Treaty +of Florida, and included slaves whom the court afterward declared forfeited.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_441" id="Footnote_106_441"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_441"><span class="label">106</span></a> An act to relieve him was finally passed, Feb. 8, 1827, nine years after the +capture. See <i>Statutes at Large</i>, VI. 357.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_442" id="Footnote_107_442"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_442"><span class="label">107</span></a> It is difficult to get at the exact facts in this complicated case. The above +statement is, I think, much milder than the real facts would warrant, if thoroughly +known. Cf. <i>House Reports</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231; 21 Cong. 1 +sess. III. No. 348, pp. 62–3, etc.; 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 209; <i>Amer. State +Papers, Naval</i>, II. No. 308.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_443" id="Footnote_108_443"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_443"><span class="label">108</span></a> The first method, represented by the Act of 1818, was favored by the +South, the Senate, and the Democrats; the second method, represented by +the Act of 1819, by the North, the House, and by the as yet undeveloped but +growing Whig party.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_444" id="Footnote_109_444"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_444"><span class="label">109</span></a> Committees on the slave-trade were appointed by the House in 1810 and +1813; the committee of 1813 recommended a revision of the laws, but nothing +was done: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 11 Cong. 3 sess. p. 387; 12 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1074, +1090. The presidential message of 1816 led to committees on the trade in both +Houses. The committee of the House of Representatives reported a joint +resolution on abolishing the traffic and colonizing the Negroes, also looking +toward international action. This never came to a vote: <i>Senate Journal</i>, 14 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 46, 179, 180; <i>House Journal</i>, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 25, 27, 380; +<i>House Doc</i>, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77. Finally, the presidential message of +1817 (<i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 11), announcing the issuance of orders +to suppress the Amelia Island establishment, led to two other committees in +both Houses. The House committee under Middleton made a report with a +bill (<i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, II. No. 441), and the Senate committee +also reported a bill.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_445" id="Footnote_110_445"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_445"><span class="label">110</span></a> The Senate debates were entirely unreported, and the report of the House +debates is very meagre. For the proceedings, see <i>Senate Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 +sess. pp. 243, 304, 315, 333, 338, 340, 348, 377, 386, 388, 391, 403, 406; <i>House +Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 19, 20, 29, 51, 92, 131, 362, 410, 450, 452, 456, 468, +479, 484, 492, 505.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_446" id="Footnote_111_446"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_446"><span class="label">111</span></a> Simkins of South Carolina, Edwards of North Carolina, and Pindall: <i>Annals +of Cong.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_447" id="Footnote_112_447"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_447"><span class="label">112</span></a> Hugh Nelson of Virginia: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_448" id="Footnote_113_448"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_448"><span class="label">113</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 450. By this act the first six sections of the Act of +1807 were repealed.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_449" id="Footnote_114_449"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_449"><span class="label">114</span></a> Or, more accurately speaking, every one realized, in view of the increased +activity of the trade, that it would be a failure.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_450" id="Footnote_115_450"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_450"><span class="label">115</span></a> Nov. 18, 1818, the part of the presidential message referring to the slave-trade +was given to a committee of the House, and this committee also took +in hand the House bill of the previous session which the Senate bill had +replaced: <i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9–19, 42, 150, 179, 330, 334, 341, +343, 352.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_451" id="Footnote_116_451"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_451"><span class="label">116</span></a> Of which little was reported: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1430–31. +Strother opposed, "for various reasons of expediency," the bounties for +captors. Nelson of Virginia advocated the death penalty, and, aided by Pindall, +had it inserted. The vote on the bill was 57 to 45.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_452" id="Footnote_117_452"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_452"><span class="label">117</span></a> The Senate had also had a committee at work on a bill which was reported +Feb. 8, and finally postponed: <i>Senate Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234, +244, 311–2, 347. The House bill was taken up March 2: <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 15 +Cong. 2 sess. p. 280.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_453" id="Footnote_118_453"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_453"><span class="label">118</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 532.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_454" id="Footnote_119_454"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_454"><span class="label">119</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1430. This insured the trial of slave-traders +in a sympathetic slave State, and resulted in the "disappearance" of +many captured Negroes.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_455" id="Footnote_120_455"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_455"><span class="label">120</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 533.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_456" id="Footnote_121_456"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_456"><span class="label">121</span></a> The first of a long series of appropriations extending to 1869, of which +a list is given on the next page. The totals are only approximately +correct. Some statutes may have escaped me, and in the reports of moneys +the surpluses of previous years are not always clearly distinguishable.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_457" id="Footnote_122_457"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_457"><span class="label">122</span></a> In the first session of the sixteenth Congress, two bills on piracy were +introduced into the Senate, one of which passed, April 26. In the House +there was a bill on piracy, and a slave-trade committee reported recommending +that the slave-trade be piracy. The Senate bill and this bill were considered +in Committee of the Whole, May 11, and a bill was finally passed +declaring, among other things, the traffic piracy. In the Senate there was +"some discussion, rather on the form than the substance of these amendments," +and "they were agreed to without a division": <i>Senate Journal</i>, 16 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 287, 314, 331, 346, 350, 409, 412, 417, 420, 422, +424, 425; <i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 113, 280, 453, 454, 494, 518, 520, +522, 537; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 693–4, 2231, 2236–7, etc. The +debates were not reported.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_458" id="Footnote_123_458"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_458"><span class="label">123</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 600–1. This act was in reality a continuation of the +piracy Act of 1819, and was only temporary. The provision was, however, +continued by several acts, and finally made perpetual by the Act of Jan. 30, +1823: <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 510–4, 721. On March 3, 1823, it was slightly +amended so as to give district courts jurisdiction.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_459" id="Footnote_124_459"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_459"><span class="label">124</span></a> Attorney-General Wirt advised him, October, 1819, that no part of the +appropriation could be used to purchase land in Africa or tools for the Negroes, +or as salary for the agent: <i>Opinions of Attorneys-General</i>, I. 314–7. Monroe +laid the case before Congress in a special message Dec. 20, 1819 (<i>House +Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 57); but no action was taken there.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_460" id="Footnote_125_460"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_460"><span class="label">125</span></a> Cf. Kendall's Report, August, 1830: <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, +pp. 211–8; also see below, Chapter X.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_461" id="Footnote_126_461"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_461"><span class="label">126</span></a> Speech in the House of Representatives, Feb. 15, 1819, p. 18; published in +Boston, 1849.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_462" id="Footnote_127_462"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_462"><span class="label">127</span></a> Jay, <i>Inquiry into American Colonization</i> (1838), p. 59, note.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_463" id="Footnote_128_463"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_463"><span class="label">128</span></a> Quoted in Friends' <i>Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade</i> (ed. 1841), +pp. 7–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_464" id="Footnote_129_464"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_464"><span class="label">129</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 270–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_465" id="Footnote_130_465"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_465"><span class="label">130</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 698.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_466" id="Footnote_131_466"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_466"><span class="label">131</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1207.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_467" id="Footnote_132_467"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_467"><span class="label">132</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1433.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_468" id="Footnote_133_468"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_468"><span class="label">133</span></a> Referring particularly to the case of the slaver "Plattsburg." Cf. <i>House +Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 10.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_469" id="Footnote_134_469"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_469"><span class="label">134</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 2. The President had in his +message spoken in exhilarating tones of the success of the government in +suppressing the trade. The House Committee appointed in pursuance of this +passage made the above report. Their conclusions are confirmed by British +reports: <i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, 1822, Vol. XXII., <i>Slave Trade</i>, Further Papers, +III. p. 44. So, too, in 1823, Ashmun, the African agent, reports that thousands +of slaves are being abducted.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_470" id="Footnote_135_470"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_470"><span class="label">135</span></a> Ayres to the Secretary of the Navy, Feb. 24, 1823; reprinted in <i>Friends' +View of the African Slave-Trade</i> (1824), p. 31.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_471" id="Footnote_136_471"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_471"><span class="label">136</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 5–6. The slavers were the +"Ramirez," "Endymion," "Esperanza," "Plattsburg," "Science," "Alexander," +"Eugene," "Mathilde," "Daphne," "Eliza," and "La Pensée." In these 573 Africans +were taken. The naval officers were greatly handicapped by the size of +the ships, etc. (cf. <i>Friends' View</i>, etc., pp. 33–41). They nevertheless acted +with great zeal.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_472" id="Footnote_137_472"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_472"><span class="label">137</span></a> <i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, 1821, Vol. XXIII., <i>Slave Trade</i>, Further Papers, A, +p. 76. The names and description of a dozen or more American slavers are +given: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 18–21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_473" id="Footnote_138_473"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_473"><span class="label">138</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 15–20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_474" id="Footnote_139_474"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_474"><span class="label">139</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119, p. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_475" id="Footnote_140_475"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_475"><span class="label">140</span></a> <i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, 1823, Vol. XVIII., <i>Slave Trade</i>, Further Papers, A, +pp. 10–11.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_476" id="Footnote_141_476"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_476"><span class="label">141</span></a> <i>Opinions of Attorneys-General</i>, V. 717.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_477" id="Footnote_142_477"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_477"><span class="label">142</span></a> R.W. Habersham to the Secretary of the Navy, August, 1821; reprinted +in <i>Friends' View</i>, etc., p. 47.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_478" id="Footnote_143_478"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_478"><span class="label">143</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 42.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_479" id="Footnote_144_479"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_479"><span class="label">144</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 43.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_480" id="Footnote_145_480"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_480"><span class="label">145</span></a> Cf. above, pp. 126–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_481" id="Footnote_146_481"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_481"><span class="label">146</span></a> <i>Friends' View</i>, etc., p. 42.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_482" id="Footnote_147_482"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_482"><span class="label">147</span></a> A few accounts of captures here and there would make the matter less +suspicious; these, however, do not occur. How large this suspected illicit +traffic was, it is of course impossible to say; there is no reason why it may +not have reached many hundreds per year.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_483" id="Footnote_148_483"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_483"><span class="label">148</span></a> Cf. editorial in <i>Niles's Register</i>, XXII. 114. Cf. also the following instances +of pardons:— +</p> +<div class="blockquot"><p> +<span class="smcap">President Jefferson</span>: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham, convicted for +"carrying on an illegal slave-trade" (pardoned twice). <i>Pardons and Remissions</i>, +I. 146, 148–9. +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">President Madison</span>: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at New Orleans +from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 negroes. Every penalty incurred +under the Act of 1807 was remitted. (Note: "Several other pardons of this +nature were granted.") <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 179. +</p><p > +Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for importing a +slave. <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 184–5. +</p><p> +Feb. 12, 1810, William Sewall, convicted for importing slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 194, +235, 240. +</p><p> +May 5, 1812, William Babbit, convicted for importing slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 248. +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">President Monroe</span>: June 11, 1822, Thomas Shields, convicted for bringing +slaves into New Orleans. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 15. +</p><p> +Aug. 24, 1822, J.F. Smith, sentenced to five years' imprisonment and $3000 +fine; served twenty-five months and was then pardoned. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 22. +</p><p> +July 23, 1823, certain parties liable to penalties for introducing slaves into +Alabama. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 63. +</p><p> +Aug. 15, 1823, owners of schooner "Mary," convicted of importing slaves. +<i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 66. +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">President J.Q. Adams</span>: March 4, 1826, Robert Perry; his ship was forfeited +for slave-trading. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 140. +</p><p> +Jan. 17, 1827, Jesse Perry; forfeited ship, and was convicted for introducing +slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 158. +</p><p> +Feb. 13, 1827, Zenas Winston; incurred penalties for slave-trading. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. +161. The four following cases are similar to that of Winston:— +</p><p> +Feb. 24, 1827, John Tucker and William Morbon. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 162. +</p><p> +March 25, 1828, Joseph Badger. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 192. +</p><p> +Feb. 19, 1829, L.R. Wallace. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 215. +</p><p> +<span class="smcap">President Jackson</span>: Five cases. <i>Ibid.</i>, IV. 225, 270, 301, 393, 440. +</p> +</div> +<p> +The above cases were taken from manuscript copies of the Washington +records, made by Mr. W.C. Endicott, Jr., and kindly loaned me.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_484" id="Footnote_149_484"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_484"><span class="label">149</span></a> See <i>Senate Journal</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 60, 66, 340, 341, 343, 348, 352, 355; +<i>House Journal</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 59, 76, 123, 134, 156, 169, 173, 279, 634, 641, +646, 647, 688, 692.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_485" id="Footnote_150_485"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_485"><span class="label">150</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, VI. 376.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_486" id="Footnote_151_486"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_486"><span class="label">151</span></a> Among interesting minor proceedings in this period were two Senate bills +to register slaves so as to prevent illegal importation. They were both +dropped in the House; a House proposition to the same effect also came to +nothing: <i>Senate Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 147, 152, 157, 165, 170, 188, 201, +203, 232, 237; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 63, 74, 77, 202, 207, 285, 291, 297; <i>House +Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 332; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 303, 305, 316; 16 Cong. 1 +sess. p. 150. Another proposition was contained in the Meigs resolution presented +to the House, Feb. 5, 1820, which proposed to devote the public lands +to the suppression of the slave-trade. This was ruled out of order. It was +presented again and laid on the table in 1821: <i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. +pp. 196, 200, 227; 16 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 133 --><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133"></a><span class="pagenum">133</span></p> +<h2><a name="Chapter_IX" id="Chapter_IX"></a><i>Chapter IX</i></h2> + +<h3>THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.</h3> + +<h3>1783–1862.</h3> + + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">66. The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade, 1788–1807.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">67. Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783–1814.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">68. Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">69. The Struggle for an International Right of Search, 1820–1840.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">70. Negotiations of 1823–1825.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">71. The Attitude of the United States and the State of the Slave-Trade.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">72. The Quintuple Treaty, 1839–1842.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">73. Final Concerted Measures, 1842–1862.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>66. <b>The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade, +1788–1807.</b> At the beginning of the nineteenth century England +held 800,000 slaves in her colonies; France, 250,000; +Denmark, 27,000; Spain and Portugal, 600,000; Holland, +50,000; Sweden, 600; there were also about 2,000,000 slaves +in Brazil, and about 900,000 in the United States.<a name="FNanchor_1_487" id="FNanchor_1_487"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_487" class="fnanchor">1</a> This was +the powerful basis of the demand for the slave-trade; and +against the economic forces which these four and a half millions +of enforced laborers represented, the battle for freedom +had to be fought.</p> + +<p>Denmark first responded to the denunciatory cries of the +eighteenth century against slavery and the slave-trade. In 1792, +by royal order, this traffic was prohibited in the Danish possessions +after 1802. The principles of the French Revolution +logically called for the extinction of the slave system by +France. This was, however, accomplished more precipitately +than the Convention anticipated; and in a whirl of enthusiasm +engendered by the appearance of the Dominican deputies, +slavery and the slave-trade were abolished in all French +colonies February 4, 1794.<a name="FNanchor_2_488" id="FNanchor_2_488"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_488" class="fnanchor">2</a> This abolition was short-lived; for +at the command of the First Consul slavery and the slave-trade +was restored in An X (1799).<a name="FNanchor_3_489" id="FNanchor_3_489"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_489" class="fnanchor">3</a> The trade was finally abo<!-- Page 134 --><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134"></a><span class="pagenum">134</span>lished +by Napoleon during the Hundred Days by a decree, +March 29, 1815, which briefly declared: "À dater de la publication +du présent Décret, la Traite des Noirs est abolie."<a name="FNanchor_4_490" id="FNanchor_4_490"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_490" class="fnanchor">4</a> The +Treaty of Paris eventually confirmed this law.<a name="FNanchor_5_491" id="FNanchor_5_491"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_491" class="fnanchor">5</a></p> + +<p>In England, the united efforts of Sharpe, Clarkson, and +Wilberforce early began to arouse public opinion by means of +agitation and pamphlet literature. May 21, 1788, Sir William +Dolben moved a bill regulating the trade, which passed in +July and was the last English measure countenancing the +traffic.<a name="FNanchor_6_492" id="FNanchor_6_492"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_492" class="fnanchor">6</a> The report of the Privy Council on the subject in +1789<a name="FNanchor_7_493" id="FNanchor_7_493"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_493" class="fnanchor">7</a> precipitated the long struggle. On motion of Pitt, in +1788, the House had resolved to take up at the next session +the question of the abolition of the trade.<a name="FNanchor_8_494" id="FNanchor_8_494"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_494" class="fnanchor">8</a> It was, accordingly, +called up by Wilberforce, and a remarkable parliamentary +battle ensued, which lasted continuously until 1805. The +Grenville-Fox ministry now espoused the cause. This ministry +first prohibited the trade with such colonies as England had +acquired by conquest during the Napoleonic wars; then, in +1806, they prohibited the foreign slave-trade; and finally, +March 25, 1807, enacted the total abolition of the traffic.<a name="FNanchor_9_495" id="FNanchor_9_495"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_495" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> + + +<p>67. <b>Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783–1814.</b> During +the peace negotiations between the United States and Great +Britain in 1783, it was proposed by Jay, in June, that there be +a proviso inserted as follows: "Provided that the subjects of +<!-- Page 135 --><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135"></a><span class="pagenum">135</span>his Britannic Majesty shall not have any right or claim under +the convention, to carry or import, into the said States any +slaves from any part of the world; it being the intention of +the said States entirely to prohibit the importation thereof."<a name="FNanchor_10_496" id="FNanchor_10_496"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_496" class="fnanchor">10</a> +Fox promptly replied: "If that be their policy, it never can be +competent to us to dispute with them their own regulations."<a name="FNanchor_11_497" id="FNanchor_11_497"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_497" class="fnanchor">11</a> +No mention of this was, however, made in the final +treaty, probably because it was thought unnecessary.</p> + +<p>In the proposed treaty of 1806, signed at London December +31, Article 24 provided that "The high contracting parties +engage to communicate to each other, without delay, all such +laws as have been or shall be hereafter enacted by their respective +Legislatures, as also all measures which shall have +been taken for the abolition or limitation of the African slave +trade; and they further agree to use their best endeavors to +procure the co-operation of other Powers for the final and +complete abolition of a trade so repugnant to the principles +of justice and humanity."<a name="FNanchor_12_498" id="FNanchor_12_498"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_498" class="fnanchor">12</a></p> + +<p>This marks the beginning of a long series of treaties between +England and other powers looking toward the prohibition +of the traffic by international agreement. During the +years 1810–1814 she signed treaties relating to the subject with +Portugal, Denmark, and Sweden.<a name="FNanchor_13_499" id="FNanchor_13_499"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_499" class="fnanchor">13</a> May 30, 1814, an additional +article to the Treaty of Paris, between France and Great Britain, +engaged these powers to endeavor to induce the approaching +Congress at Vienna "to decree the abolition of the +Slave Trade, so that the said Trade shall cease universally, as +it shall cease definitively, under any circumstances, on the part +of the French Government, in the course of 5 years; and that +during the said period no Slave Merchant shall import or +sell Slaves, except in the Colonies of the State of which he +is a Subject."<a name="FNanchor_14_500" id="FNanchor_14_500"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_500" class="fnanchor">14</a> In addition to this, the next day a circular +letter was despatched by Castlereagh to Austria, Russia, and +Prussia, expressing the hope "that the Powers of Europe,<!-- Page 136 --><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136"></a><span class="pagenum">136</span> +when restoring Peace to Europe, with one common interest, +will crown this great work by interposing their benign offices +in favour of those Regions of the Globe, which yet continue +to be desolated by this unnatural and inhuman traffic."<a name="FNanchor_15_501" id="FNanchor_15_501"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_501" class="fnanchor">15</a> +Meantime additional treaties were secured: in 1814 by royal +decree Netherlands agreed to abolish the trade;<a name="FNanchor_16_502" id="FNanchor_16_502"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_502" class="fnanchor">16</a> Spain was +induced by her necessities to restrain her trade to her own +colonies, and to endeavor to prevent the fraudulent use of her +flag by foreigners;<a name="FNanchor_17_503" id="FNanchor_17_503"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_503" class="fnanchor">17</a> and in 1815 Portugal agreed to abolish the +slave-trade north of the equator.<a name="FNanchor_18_504" id="FNanchor_18_504"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_504" class="fnanchor">18</a></p> + + +<p>68. <b>Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820.</b> At the Congress +of Vienna, which assembled late in 1814, Castlereagh +was indefatigable in his endeavors to secure the abolition of +the trade. France and Spain, however, refused to yield farther +than they had already done, and the other powers hesitated +to go to the lengths he recommended. Nevertheless, he secured +the institution of annual conferences on the matter, and +a declaration by the Congress strongly condemning the trade +and declaring that "the public voice in all civilized countries +was raised to demand its suppression as soon as possible," and +that, while the definitive period of termination would be left +to subsequent negotiation, the sovereigns would not consider +their work done until the trade was entirely suppressed.<a name="FNanchor_19_505" id="FNanchor_19_505"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_505" class="fnanchor">19</a></p> + +<p>In the Treaty of Ghent, between Great Britain and the +United States, ratified February 17, 1815, Article 10, proposed +by Great Britain, declared that, "Whereas the traffic in slaves +is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice," +the two countries agreed to use their best endeavors in abolishing +the trade.<a name="FNanchor_20_506" id="FNanchor_20_506"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_506" class="fnanchor">20</a> The final overthrow of Napoleon was +marked by a second declaration of the powers, who, "desiring +to give effect to the measures on which they deliberated at +the Congress of Vienna, relative to the complete and universal +<!-- Page 137 --><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137"></a><span class="pagenum">137</span>abolition of the Slave Trade, and having, each in their +respective Dominions, prohibited without restriction their +Colonies and Subjects from taking any part whatever in this +Traffic, engage to renew conjointly their efforts, with the view +of securing final success to those principles which they proclaimed +in the Declaration of the 4th February, 1815, and of +concerting, without loss of time, through their Ministers at +the Courts of London and of Paris, the most effectual measures +for the entire and definitive abolition of a Commerce so +odious, and so strongly condemned by the laws of religion +and of nature."<a name="FNanchor_21_507" id="FNanchor_21_507"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_507" class="fnanchor">21</a></p> + +<p>Treaties further restricting the trade continued to be made +by Great Britain: Spain abolished the trade north of the +equator in 1817,<a name="FNanchor_22_508" id="FNanchor_22_508"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_508" class="fnanchor">22</a> and promised entire abolition in 1820; +Spain, Portugal, and Holland also granted a mutual limited +Right of Search to England, and joined in establishing +mixed courts.<a name="FNanchor_23_509" id="FNanchor_23_509"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_509" class="fnanchor">23</a> The effort, however, to secure a general declaration +of the powers urging, if not compelling, the abolition +of the trade in 1820, as well as the attempt to secure a +qualified international Right of Visit, failed, although both +propositions were strongly urged by England at the Conference +of 1818.<a name="FNanchor_24_510" id="FNanchor_24_510"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_510" class="fnanchor">24</a></p> + + +<p>69. <b>The Struggle for an International Right of Search, +1820–1840.</b> Whatever England's motives were, it is certain +that only a limited international Right of Visit on the high +seas could suppress or greatly limit the slave-trade. Her diplomacy +was therefore henceforth directed to this end. On the +other hand, the maritime supremacy of England, so successfully<!-- Page 138 --><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138"></a><span class="pagenum">138</span>asserted during the Napoleonic wars, would, in case a +Right of Search were granted, virtually make England the policeman +of the seas; and if nations like the United States had +already, under present conditions, had just cause to complain +of violations by England of their rights on the seas, might not +any extension of rights by international agreement be dangerous? +It was such considerations that for many years brought +the powers to a dead-lock in their efforts to suppress the +slave-trade.</p> + +<p>At first it looked as if England might attempt, by judicial +decisions in her own courts, to seize even foreign slavers.<a name="FNanchor_25_511" id="FNanchor_25_511"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_511" class="fnanchor">25</a> +After the war, however, her courts disavowed such action,<a name="FNanchor_26_512" id="FNanchor_26_512"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_512" class="fnanchor">26</a> +and the right was sought for by treaty stipulation. Castlereagh +took early opportunity to approach the United States on the +matter, suggesting to Minister Rush, June 20, 1818, a mutual +but strictly limited Right of Search.<a name="FNanchor_27_513" id="FNanchor_27_513"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_513" class="fnanchor">27</a> Rush was ordered to +give him assurances of the solicitude of the United States to +suppress the traffic, but to state that the concessions asked for +appeared of a character not adaptable to our institutions. Negotiations +were then transferred to Washington; and the new +British minister, Mr. Stratford Canning, approached Adams +with full instructions in December, 1820.<a name="FNanchor_28_514" id="FNanchor_28_514"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_514" class="fnanchor">28</a></p> + +<p>Meantime, it had become clear to many in the United +States that the individual efforts of States could never suppress +or even limit the trade without systematic co-operation. +In 1817 a committee of the House had urged the opening of +negotiations looking toward such international co-operation,<a name="FNanchor_29_515" id="FNanchor_29_515"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_515" class="fnanchor">29</a> +and a Senate motion to the same effect had caused long debate.<a name="FNanchor_30_516" id="FNanchor_30_516"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_516" class="fnanchor">30</a> +In 1820 and 1821 two House committee reports, one of +which recommended the granting of a Right of Search, were +adopted by the House, but failed in the Senate.<a name="FNanchor_31_517" id="FNanchor_31_517"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_517" class="fnanchor">31</a> Adams, +notwithstanding this, saw constitutional objections to the +<!-- Page 139 --><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139"></a><span class="pagenum">139</span> +plan proposed by Canning, and wrote to him, December 30: +"A Compact, giving the power to the Naval Officers of one +Nation to search the Merchant Vessels of another for Offenders +and offences against the Laws of the latter, backed +by a further power to seize and carry into a Foreign Port, +and there subject to the decision of a Tribunal composed of +at least one half Foreigners, irresponsible to the Supreme +Corrective tribunal of this Union, and not amendable to the +controul of impeachment for official misdemeanors, was an +investment of power, over the persons, property and reputation +of the Citizens of this Country, not only unwarranted +by any delegation of Sovereign Power to the National Government, +but so adverse to the elementary principles and indispensable +securities of individual rights, ... that not +even the most unqualified approbation of the ends ... +could justify the transgression." He then suggested co-operation +of the fleets on the coast of Africa, a proposal which +was promptly accepted.<a name="FNanchor_32_518" id="FNanchor_32_518"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_518" class="fnanchor">32</a></p> + +<p>The slave-trade was again a subject of international consideration +at the Congress of Verona in 1822. Austria, France, +Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia were represented. The +English delegates declared that, although only Portugal and +Brazil allowed the trade, yet the traffic was at that moment +carried on to a greater extent than ever before. They said that +in seven months of the year 1821 no less than 21,000 slaves +were abducted, and three hundred and fifty-two vessels entered +African ports north of the equator. "It is obvious," said +they, "that this crime is committed in contravention of the +Laws of every Country of Europe, and of America, excepting +only of one, and that it requires something more than the +ordinary operation of Law to prevent it." England therefore +recommended:—</p> +<p><!-- Page 140 --><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140"></a><span class="pagenum">140</span></p> +<p>1. That each country denounce the trade as piracy, with +a view of founding upon the aggregate of such separate declarations +a general law to be incorporated in the Law of +Nations.</p> + +<p>2. A withdrawing of the flags of the Powers from persons +not natives of these States, who engage in the traffic under +the flags of these States.</p> + +<p>3. A refusal to admit to their domains the produce of the +colonies of States allowing the trade, a measure which would +apply to Portugal and Brazil alone.</p> + +<p>These proposals were not accepted. Austria would agree to +the first two only; France refused to denounce the trade as +piracy; and Prussia was non-committal. The utmost that +could be gained was another denunciation of the trade +couched in general terms.<a name="FNanchor_33_519" id="FNanchor_33_519"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_519" class="fnanchor">33</a></p> + + +<p>70. <b>Negotiations of 1823–1825.</b> England did not, however, +lose hope of gaining some concession from the United States. +Another House committee had, in 1822, reported that the +only method of suppressing the trade was by granting a Right +of Search.<a name="FNanchor_34_520" id="FNanchor_34_520"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_520" class="fnanchor">34</a> The House agreed, February 28, 1823, to request +the President to enter into negotiations with the maritime +powers of Europe to denounce the slave-trade as piracy; an +amendment "that we agree to a qualified right of search" was, +however, lost.<a name="FNanchor_35_521" id="FNanchor_35_521"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_521" class="fnanchor">35</a> Meantime, the English minister was continually +pressing the matter upon Adams, who proposed in turn +to denounce the trade as piracy. Canning agreed to this, but +only on condition that it be piracy under the Law of Nations +and not merely by statute law. Such an agreement, he said, +would involve a Right of Search for its enforcement; he proposed +strictly to limit and define this right, to allow captured +ships to be tried in their own courts, and not to commit the +United States in any way to the question of the belligerent +Right of Search. Adams finally sent a draft of a proposed +treaty to England, and agreed to recognize the slave-traffic "as +piracy under the law of nations, namely: that, although seizable +by the officers and authorities of every nation, they +should be triable only by the tribunals of the country of the +<!-- Page 141 --><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141"></a><span class="pagenum">141</span>slave trading vessel."<a name="FNanchor_36_522" id="FNanchor_36_522"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_522" class="fnanchor">36</a></p> + +<p>Rush presented this <i>project</i> to the government in January, +1824. England agreed to all the points insisted on by the +United States; viz., that she herself should denounce the trade +as piracy; that slavers should be tried in their own country; +that the captor should be laid under the most effective responsibility +for his conduct; and that vessels under convoy of +a ship of war of their own country should be exempt from +search. In addition, England demanded that citizens of either +country captured under the flag of a third power should be +sent home for trial, and that citizens of either country chartering +vessels of a third country should come under these +stipulations.<a name="FNanchor_37_523" id="FNanchor_37_523"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_523" class="fnanchor">37</a></p> + +<p>This convention was laid before the Senate April 30, 1824, +but was not acted upon until May 21, when it was so +amended as to make it terminable at six months' notice. The +same day, President Monroe, "apprehending, from the delay +in the decision, that some difficulty exists," sent a special message +to the Senate, giving at length the reasons for signing +the treaty, and saying that "should this Convention be +adopted, there is every reason to believe, that it will be the +commencement of a system destined to accomplish the entire +Abolition of the Slave Trade." It was, however, a time of +great political pot-boiling, and consequently an unfortunate +occasion to ask senators to settle any great question. A systematic +attack, led by Johnson of Louisiana, was made on all +the vital provisions of the treaty: the waters of America were +excepted from its application, and those of the West Indies +barely escaped exception; the provision which, perhaps, +aimed the deadliest blow at American slave-trade interests was +likewise struck out; namely, the application of the Right of +Search to citizens chartering the vessels of a third nation.<a name="FNanchor_38_524" id="FNanchor_38_524"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_524" class="fnanchor">38</a></p> + +<p>The convention thus mutilated was not signed by England, +who demanded as the least concession the application of the +Right of Search to American waters. Meantime the United +States had invited nearly all nations to denounce the t<!-- Page 142 --><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142"></a><span class="pagenum">142</span>rade as +piracy; and the President, the Secretary of the Navy, and a +House committee had urgently favored the granting of the +Right of Search. The bad faith of Congress, however, in the +matter of the Colombian treaty broke off for a time further +negotiations with England.<a name="FNanchor_39_525" id="FNanchor_39_525"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_525" class="fnanchor">39</a></p> + + +<p>71. <b>The Attitude of the United States and the State of +the Slave-Trade.</b> In 1824 the Right of Search was established +between England and Sweden, and in 1826 Brazil promised to +abolish the trade in three years.<a name="FNanchor_40_526" id="FNanchor_40_526"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_526" class="fnanchor">40</a> In 1831 the cause was greatly +advanced by the signing of a treaty between Great Britain and +France, granting mutually a geographically limited Right of +Search.<a name="FNanchor_41_527" id="FNanchor_41_527"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_527" class="fnanchor">41</a> This led, in the next few years, to similar treaties +with Denmark, Sardinia,<a name="FNanchor_42_528" id="FNanchor_42_528"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_528" class="fnanchor">42</a> the Hanse towns,<a name="FNanchor_43_529" id="FNanchor_43_529"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_529" class="fnanchor">43</a> and Naples.<a name="FNanchor_44_530" id="FNanchor_44_530"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_530" class="fnanchor">44</a> +Such measures put the trade more and more in the hands of +Americans, and it began greatly to increase. Mercer sought +repeatedly in the House to have negotiations reopened with +England, but without success.<a name="FNanchor_45_531" id="FNanchor_45_531"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_531" class="fnanchor">45</a> Indeed, the chances of success +were now for many years imperilled by the recurrence of deliberate +search of American vessels by the British.<a name="FNanchor_46_532" id="FNanchor_46_532"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_532" class="fnanchor">46</a> In the majo<!-- Page 143 --><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143"></a><span class="pagenum">143</span>rity +of cases the vessels proved to be slavers, and some of +them fraudulently flew the American flag; nevertheless, their +molestation by British cruisers created much feeling, and hindered +all steps toward an understanding: the United States +was loath to have her criminal negligence in enforcing her +own laws thus exposed by foreigners. Other international +questions connected with the trade also strained the relations +of the two countries: three different vessels engaged in the +domestic slave-trade, driven by stress of weather, or, in the +"Creole" case, captured by Negroes on board, landed slaves +in British possessions; England freed them, and refused to +pay for such as were landed after emancipation had been proclaimed +in the West Indies.<a name="FNanchor_47_533" id="FNanchor_47_533"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_533" class="fnanchor">47</a> The case of the slaver "L'Amistad" +also raised difficulties with Spain. This Spanish vessel, +after the Negroes on board had mutinied and killed their +owners, was seized by a United States vessel and brought into +port for adjudication. The court, however, freed the Negroes, +on the ground that under Spanish law they were not legally +slaves; and although the Senate repeatedly tried to indemnify +the owners, the project did not succeed.<a name="FNanchor_48_534" id="FNanchor_48_534"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_534" class="fnanchor">48</a></p> + +<p>Such proceedings well illustrate the new tendency of the +pro-slavery party to neglect the enforcement of the slave-trade +laws, in a frantic defence of the remotest ramparts of slave +property. Consequently, when, after the treaty of 1831, France +and England joined in urging the accession of the United +States to it, the British minister was at last compelled to +inform Palmerston, December, 1833, that "the Executive at +Washington appears to shrink from bringing forward, in an<!-- Page 144 --><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144"></a><span class="pagenum">144</span>y +shape, a question, upon which depends the completion of +their former object—the utter and universal Abolition of the +Slave Trade—from an apprehension of alarming the Southern +States."<a name="FNanchor_49_535" id="FNanchor_49_535"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_535" class="fnanchor">49</a> Great Britain now offered to sign the proposed +treaty of 1824 as amended; but even this Forsyth refused, and +stated that the United States had determined not to become +"a party of any Convention on the subject of the Slave +Trade."<a name="FNanchor_50_536" id="FNanchor_50_536"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_536" class="fnanchor">50</a></p> + +<p>Estimates as to the extent of the slave-trade agree that the +traffic to North and South America in 1820 was considerable, +certainly not much less than 40,000 slaves annually. From +that time to about 1825 it declined somewhat, but afterward +increased enormously, so that by 1837 the American importation +was estimated as high as 200,000 Negroes annually. The +total abolition of the African trade by American countries +then brought the traffic down to perhaps 30,000 in 1842. A +large and rapid increase of illicit traffic followed; so that by +1847 the importation amounted to nearly 100,000 annually. +One province of Brazil is said to have received 173,000 in the +years 1846–1849. In the decade 1850–1860 this activity in +slave-trading continued, and reached very large proportions.</p> + +<p>The traffic thus carried on floated under the flags of France, +Spain, and Portugal, until about 1830; from 1830 to 1840 it +began gradually to assume the United States flag; by 1845, a +large part of the trade was under the stars and stripes; by 1850 +fully one-half the trade, and in the decade, 1850–1860 nearly +all the traffic, found this flag its best protection.<a name="FNanchor_51_537" id="FNanchor_51_537"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_537" class="fnanchor">51</a></p> +<p><!-- Page 145 --><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145"></a><span class="pagenum">145</span></p> + +<p>72. <b>The Quintuple Treaty, 1839–1842.</b> In 1839 Pope Gregory +XVI. stigmatized the slave-trade "as utterly unworthy of +the Christian name;" and at the same time, although proscribed +by the laws of every civilized State, the trade was flourishing +with pristine vigor. Great advantage was given the +traffic by the fact that the United States, for two decades after +the abortive attempt of 1824, refused to co-operate with the +rest of the civilized world, and allowed her flag to shelter and +protect the slave-trade. If a fully equipped slaver sailed from +New York, Havana, Rio Janeiro, or Liverpool, she had only +to hoist the stars and stripes in order to proceed unmolested +on her piratical voyage; for there was seldom a United States +<!-- Page 146 --><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146"></a><span class="pagenum">146</span>cruiser to be met with, and there were, on the other hand, +diplomats at Washington so jealous of the honor of the flag +that they would prostitute it to crime rather than allow an +English or a French cruiser in any way to interfere. Without +doubt, the contention of the United States as to England's +pretensions to a Right of Visit was technically correct. Nevertheless, +it was clear that if the slave-trade was to be suppressed, +each nation must either zealously keep her flag from +fraudulent use, or, as a labor-saving device, depute to others +this duty for limited places and under special circumstances. +A failure of any one nation to do one of these two things +meant that the efforts of all other nations were to be fruitless. +The United States had invited the world to join her in denouncing +the slave-trade as piracy; yet, when such a pirate +was waylaid by an English vessel, the United States complained +or demanded reparation. The only answer which this +country for years returned to the long-continued exposures of +American slave-traders and of the fraudulent use of the American +flag, was a recital of cases where Great Britain had gone +beyond her legal powers in her attempt to suppress the slave-trade.<a name="FNanchor_52_538" id="FNanchor_52_538"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_538" class="fnanchor">52</a> +In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, +Secretary of State Forsyth declared, in 1840, that the duty of +the United States in the matter of the slave-trade "has been +faithfully performed, and if the traffic still exists as a disgrace +to humanity, it is to be imputed to nations with whom Her +Majesty's Government has formed and maintained the most +intimate connexions, and to whose Governments Great Britain +has paid for the right of active intervention in order to its +complete extirpation."<a name="FNanchor_53_539" id="FNanchor_53_539"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_539" class="fnanchor">53</a> So zealous was Stevenson, our minister +to England, in denying the Right of Search, that he +boldly informed Palmerston, in 1841, "that there is no shadow +of pretence for excusing, much less justifying, the exercise of +any such right. That it is wholly immaterial, whether the vessels +be equipped for, or actually engaged in slave traffic or +not, and consequently the right to search or detain even slave +vessels, must be confined to the ships or vessels of those +nations with whom it may have treaties on the subject."<a name="FNanchor_54_540" id="FNanchor_54_540"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_540" class="fnanchor">54</a> +Palmerston<!-- Page 147 --><span class="pagenum">147</span><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147"></a> courteously replied that he could not think that +the United States seriously intended to make its flag a refuge +for slave-traders;<a name="FNanchor_55_541" id="FNanchor_55_541"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_541" class="fnanchor">55</a> and Aberdeen pertinently declared: "Now, +it can scarcely be maintained by Mr. Stevenson that Great +Britain should be bound to permit her own subjects, with +British vessels and British capital, to carry on, before the eyes +of British officers, this detestable traffic in human beings, +which the law has declared to be piracy, merely because they +had the audacity to commit an additional offence by fraudulently +usurping the American flag."<a name="FNanchor_56_542" id="FNanchor_56_542"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_542" class="fnanchor">56</a> Thus the dispute, even +after the advent of Webster, went on for a time, involving +itself in metaphysical subtleties, and apparently leading no +nearer to an understanding.<a name="FNanchor_57_543" id="FNanchor_57_543"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_543" class="fnanchor">57</a></p> + +<p>In 1838 a fourth conference of the powers for the consideration +of the slave-trade took place at London. It was attended +by representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and +Austria. England laid the <i>projet</i> of a treaty before them, to +which all but France assented. This so-called Quintuple +Treaty, signed December 20, 1841, denounced the slave-trade +as piracy, and declared that "the High Contracting Parties +agree by common consent, that those of their ships of war +which shall be provided with special warrants and orders ... +may search every merchant-vessel belonging to any one of the +High Contracting Parties which shall, on reasonable grounds, +be suspected of being engaged in the traffic in slaves." All +captured slavers were to be sent to their own countries for +trial.<a name="FNanchor_58_544" id="FNanchor_58_544"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_544" class="fnanchor">58</a></p> + +<p>While the ratification of this treaty was pending, the United +States minister to France, Lewis Cass, addressed an official +note to Guizot at the French foreign office, protesting against +the institution of an international Right of Search, and rather +grandiloquently warning the powers against the use of force +to accomplish their ends.<a name="FNanchor_59_545" id="FNanchor_59_545"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_545" class="fnanchor">59</a> This extraordinary epistle, issued +on the minister's own responsibility, brought a reply denying +<!-- Page 148 --><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148"></a><span class="pagenum">148</span>that the creation of any "new principle of international law, +whereby the vessels even of those powers which have not participated +in the arrangement should be subjected to the right +of search," was ever intended, and affirming that no such extraordinary +interpretation could be deduced from the Convention. +Moreover, M. Guizot hoped that the United States, +by agreeing to this treaty, would "aid, by its most sincere +endeavors, in the definitive abolition of the trade."<a name="FNanchor_60_546" id="FNanchor_60_546"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_546" class="fnanchor">60</a> Cass's +theatrical protest was, consciously or unconsciously, the manifesto +of that growing class in the United States who wanted +no further measures taken for the suppression of the slave-trade; +toward that, as toward the institution of slavery, this +party favored a policy of strict <i>laissez-faire</i>.</p> + + +<p>73. <b>Final Concerted Measures, 1842–1862.</b> The Treaty of +Washington, in 1842, made the first effective compromise in +the matter and broke the unpleasant dead-lock, by substituting +joint cruising by English and American squadrons for the +proposed grant of a Right of Search. In submitting this +treaty, Tyler said: "The treaty which I now submit to you +proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the +rules of the law of nations. It provides simply that each of the +two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient +squadron to enforce separately and respectively the +laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the +suppression of the slave trade."<a name="FNanchor_61_547" id="FNanchor_61_547"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_547" class="fnanchor">61</a> This provision was a part of +the treaty to settle the boundary disputes with England. In +the Senate, Benton moved to strike out this article; but the +attempt was defeated by a vote of 37 to 12, and the treaty was +ratified.<a name="FNanchor_62_548" id="FNanchor_62_548"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_548" class="fnanchor">62</a></p> + +<p>This stipulation of the treaty of 1842 was never properly +carried out by the United States for any length of time.<a name="FNanchor_63_549" id="FNanchor_63_549"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_549" class="fnanchor">63</a> Consequently +the same difficulties as to search and visit by English<!-- Page 149 --><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149"></a><span class="pagenum">149</span> +vessels continued to recur. Cases like the following were +frequent. The "Illinois," of Gloucester, Massachusetts, while +lying at Whydah, Africa, was boarded by a British officer, but +having American papers was unmolested. Three days later she +hoisted Spanish colors and sailed away with a cargo of slaves. +Next morning she fell in with another British vessel and +hoisted American colors; the British ship had then no right +to molest her; but the captain of the slaver feared that she +would, and therefore ran his vessel aground, slaves and all. +The senior English officer reported that "had Lieutenant +Cumberland brought to and boarded the 'Illinois,' notwithstanding +the American colors which she hoisted, ... the +American master of the 'Illinois' ... would have complained +to his Government of the detention of his vessel."<a name="FNanchor_64_550" id="FNanchor_64_550"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_550" class="fnanchor">64</a> Again, a +vessel which had been boarded by British officers and found +with American flag and papers was, a little later, captured under +the Spanish flag with four hundred and thirty slaves. She +had in the interim complained to the United States government +of the boarding.<a name="FNanchor_65_551" id="FNanchor_65_551"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_551" class="fnanchor">65</a></p> + +<p>Meanwhile, England continued to urge the granting of a +Right of Search, claiming that the stand of the United States +really amounted to the wholesale protection of pirates under +her flag.<a name="FNanchor_66_552" id="FNanchor_66_552"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_552" class="fnanchor">66</a> The United States answered by alleging that even +the Treaty of 1842 had been misconstrued by England,<a name="FNanchor_67_553" id="FNanchor_67_553"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_553" class="fnanchor">67</a> +whereupon there was much warm debate in Congress, and +several attempts were made to abrogate the slave-trade article +of the treaty.<a name="FNanchor_68_554" id="FNanchor_68_554"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_554" class="fnanchor">68</a> The pro-slavery party had become more and +more suspicious of England's motives, since they had seen her +abolition of the slave-trade blossom into abolition of the system +itself, and they seized every opportunity to prevent co-operation +with her. At the same time, European interest in +the question showed some signs of weakening, and no decided +action was taken. In 1845 France changed her Right of<!-- Page 150 --><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150"></a><span class="pagenum">150</span> +Search stipulations of 1833 to one for joint cruising,<a name="FNanchor_69_555" id="FNanchor_69_555"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_555" class="fnanchor">69</a> while the +Germanic Federation,<a name="FNanchor_70_556" id="FNanchor_70_556"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_556" class="fnanchor">70</a> Portugal,<a name="FNanchor_71_557" id="FNanchor_71_557"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_557" class="fnanchor">71</a> and Chili<a name="FNanchor_72_558" id="FNanchor_72_558"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_558" class="fnanchor">72</a>enounced the +trade as piracy. In 1844 Texas granted the Right of Search to +England,<a name="FNanchor_73_559" id="FNanchor_73_559"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_559" class="fnanchor">73</a> and in 1845 Belgium signed the Quintuple Treaty.<a name="FNanchor_74_560" id="FNanchor_74_560"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_560" class="fnanchor">74</a></p> + +<p>Discussion between England and the United States was revived +when Cass held the State portfolio, and, strange to say, +the author of "Cass's Protest" went farther than any of his +predecessors in acknowledging the justice of England's demands. +Said he, in 1859: "If The United States maintained +that, by carrying their flag at her masthead, any vessel became +thereby entitled to the immunity which belongs to American +vessels, they might well be reproached with assuming a position +which would go far towards shielding crimes upon the +ocean from punishment; but they advance no such pretension, +while they concede that, if in the honest examination of +a vessel sailing under American colours, but accompanied by +strongly-marked suspicious circumstances, a mistake is made, +and she is found to be entitled to the flag she bears, but no +injury is committed, and the conduct of the boarding party is +irreproachable, no Government would be likely to make a +case thus exceptional in its character a subject of serious reclamation."<a name="FNanchor_75_561" id="FNanchor_75_561"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_561" class="fnanchor">75</a> +While admitting this and expressing a desire to +co-operate in the suppression of the slave-trade, Cass nevertheless +steadily refused all further overtures toward a +mutual Right of Search.</p> + +<p>The increase of the slave-traffic was so great in the decade +1850–1860 that Lord John Russell proposed to the governments +of the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Brazil, +that they instruct their ministers to meet at London in +May or June, 1860, to consider measures for the final abolition +of the trade. He stated: "It is ascertained, by repeated instances, +<!-- Page 151 --><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151"></a><span class="pagenum">151</span>that the practice is for vessels to sail under the American +flag. If the flag is rightly assumed, and the papers correct, +no British cruizer can touch them. If no slaves are on board, +even though the equipment, the fittings, the water-casks, and +other circumstances prove that the ship is on a Slave Trade +venture, no American cruizer can touch them."<a name="FNanchor_76_562" id="FNanchor_76_562"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_562" class="fnanchor">76</a> Continued +representations of this kind were made to the paralyzed +United States government; indeed, the slave-trade of the +world seemed now to float securely under her flag. Nevertheless, +Cass refused even to participate in the proposed conference, +and later refused to accede to a proposal for joint +cruising off the coast of Cuba.<a name="FNanchor_77_563" id="FNanchor_77_563"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_563" class="fnanchor">77</a> Great Britain offered to relieve +the United States of any embarrassment by receiving all +captured Africans into the West Indies; but President Buchanan +"could not contemplate any such arrangement," and +obstinately refused to increase the suppressing squadron.<a name="FNanchor_78_564" id="FNanchor_78_564"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_564" class="fnanchor">78</a></p> + +<p>On the outbreak of the Civil War, the Lincoln administration, +through Secretary Seward, immediately expressed a willingness +to do all in its power to suppress the slave-trade.<a name="FNanchor_79_565" id="FNanchor_79_565"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_565" class="fnanchor">79</a> +Accordingly, June 7, 1862, a treaty was signed with Great Britain +granting a mutual limited Right of Search, and establishing +mixed courts for the trial of offenders at the Cape of +Good Hope, Sierra Leone, and New York.<a name="FNanchor_80_566" id="FNanchor_80_566"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_566" class="fnanchor">80</a> The efforts of a +half-century of diplomacy were finally crowned; Seward +wrote to Adams, "Had such a treaty been made in 1808, there +would now have been no sedition here."<a name="FNanchor_81_567" id="FNanchor_81_567"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_567" class="fnanchor">81</a></p> +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_487" id="Footnote_1_487"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_487"><span class="label">1</span></a> Cf. Augustine Cochin, in Lalor, <i>Cyclopedia</i>, III. 723.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_488" id="Footnote_2_488"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_488"><span class="label">2</span></a> By a law of Aug. 11, 1792, the encouragement formerly given to the trade +was stopped. Cf. <i>Choix de rapports, opinions et discours prononcés à la tribune +nationale depuis 1789</i> (Paris, 1821), XIV. 425; quoted in Cochin, <i>The Results of +Emancipation</i> (Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 33, 35–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_489" id="Footnote_3_489"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_489"><span class="label">3</span></a> Cochin, <i>The Results of Emancipation</i> (Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 42–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_490" id="Footnote_4_490"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_490"><span class="label">4</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1815–6, p. 196.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_491" id="Footnote_5_491"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_491"><span class="label">5</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 195–9, 292–3; 1816–7, p. 755. It was eventually confirmed by +royal ordinance, and the law of April 15, 1818.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_492" id="Footnote_6_492"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_492"><span class="label">6</span></a> <i>Statute 28 George III.</i>, ch. 54. Cf. <i>Statute 29 George III.</i>, ch. 66.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_493" id="Footnote_7_493"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_493"><span class="label">7</span></a> Various petitions had come in praying for an abolition of the slave-trade; +and by an order in Council, Feb. 11, 1788, a committee of the Privy Council +was ordered to take evidence on the subject. This committee presented an +elaborate report in 1739. See published <i>Report</i>, London, 1789.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_494" id="Footnote_8_494"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_494"><span class="label">8</span></a> For the history of the Parliamentary struggle, cf. Clarkson's and Copley's +histories. The movement was checked in the House of Commons in 1789, +1790, and 1791. In 1792 the House of Commons resolved to abolish the trade +in 1796. The Lords postponed the matter to take evidence. A bill to prohibit +the foreign slave-trade was lost in 1793, passed the next session, and was lost +in the House of Lords. In 1795, 1796, 1798, and 1799 repeated attempts to +abolish the trade were defeated. The matter then rested until 1804, when the +battle was renewed with more success.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_495" id="Footnote_9_495"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_495"><span class="label">9</span></a> <i>Statute 46 George III.</i>, ch. 52, 119; <i>47 George III.</i>, sess. I. ch. 36.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_496" id="Footnote_10_496"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_496"><span class="label">10</span></a> Sparks, <i>Diplomatic Correspondence</i>, X. 154.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_497" id="Footnote_11_497"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_497"><span class="label">11</span></a> Fox to Hartley, June 10, 1783; quoted in Bancroft, <i>History of the Constitution +of the United States</i>, I. 61.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_498" id="Footnote_12_498"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_498"><span class="label">12</span></a> <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, III. No. 214, p. 151.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_499" id="Footnote_13_499"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_499"><span class="label">13</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1815–6, pp. 886, 937 (quotation).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_500" id="Footnote_14_500"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_500"><span class="label">14</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 890–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_501" id="Footnote_15_501"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_501"><span class="label">15</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1815–6, p. 887. Russia, Austria, and Prussia +returned favorable replies: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 887–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_502" id="Footnote_16_502"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_502"><span class="label">16</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 889.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_503" id="Footnote_17_503"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_503"><span class="label">17</span></a> She desired a loan, which England made on this condition: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. +921–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_504" id="Footnote_18_504"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_504"><span class="label">18</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 937–9. Certain financial arrangements secured this concession.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_505" id="Footnote_19_505"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_505"><span class="label">19</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 939–75</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_506" id="Footnote_20_506"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_506"><span class="label">20</span></a> <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, III. No. 271, pp. 735–48; <i>U.S. Treaties and +Conventions</i> (ed. 1889), p. 405.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_507" id="Footnote_21_507"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_507"><span class="label">21</span></a> This was inserted in the Treaty of Paris, Nov. 20, 1815: <i>British and Foreign +State Papers</i>, 1815–6, p. 292.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_508" id="Footnote_22_508"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_508"><span class="label">22</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1816–7, pp. 33–74 (English version, 1823–4, p. 702 ff.).</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_509" id="Footnote_23_509"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_509"><span class="label">23</span></a> Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 1817–8, p. 125 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_510" id="Footnote_24_510"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_510"><span class="label">24</span></a> This was the first meeting of the London ministers of the powers according +to agreement; they assembled Dec. 4, 1817, and finally called a meeting of +plenipotentiaries on the question of suppression at Aix-la-Chapelle, beginning +Oct. 24, 1818. Among those present were Metternich, Richelieu, Wellington, +Castlereagh, Hardenberg, Bernstorff, Nesselrode, and Capodistrias. +Castlereagh made two propositions: 1. That the five powers join in urging +Portugal and Brazil to abolish the trade May 20, 1820; 2. That the powers +adopt the principle of a mutual qualified Right of Search. Cf. <i>British and +Foreign State Papers</i>, 1818–9, pp. 21–88; <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, V. No. +346, pp. 113–122.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_511" id="Footnote_25_511"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_511"><span class="label">25</span></a> For cases, see <i>1 Acton</i>, 240, the "Amedie," and <i>1 Dodson</i>, 81, the "Fortuna;" +quoted in U.S. Reports, <i>10 Wheaton</i>, 66.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_512" id="Footnote_26_512"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_512"><span class="label">26</span></a> Cf. the case of the French ship "Le Louis": <i>2 Dodson</i>, 238; and also the +case of the "San Juan Nepomuceno": <i>1 Haggard</i>, 267.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_513" id="Footnote_27_513"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_513"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1819–20, pp. 375–9; also pp. 220–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_514" id="Footnote_28_514"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_514"><span class="label">28</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1820–21, pp. 395–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_515" id="Footnote_29_515"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_515"><span class="label">29</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_516" id="Footnote_30_516"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_516"><span class="label">30</span></a> <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 71, 73–78, 94–109. The motion +was opposed largely by Southern members, and passed by a vote of 17 +to 16.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_517" id="Footnote_31_517"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_517"><span class="label">31</span></a> One was reported, May 9, 1820, by Mercer's committee, and passed May +12: <i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 497, 518, 520, 526; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 697–9. A similar resolution passed the House next session, +and a committee reported in favor of the Right of Search: <i>Ibid.</i>, 16 Cong. 2 +sess. pp. 1064–71. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 476, 743, 865, 1469.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_518" id="Footnote_32_518"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_518"><span class="label">32</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1820–21, pp. 397–400.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_519" id="Footnote_33_519"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_519"><span class="label">33</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1822–3, pp. 94–110.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_520" id="Footnote_34_520"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_520"><span class="label">34</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_521" id="Footnote_35_521"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_521"><span class="label">35</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 212, 280; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 17 Cong. 2 +sess. pp. 922, 1147–1155.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_522" id="Footnote_36_522"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_522"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1823–4, pp. 409–21; 1824–5, pp. 828–47; +<i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, V. No. 371, pp. 333–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_523" id="Footnote_37_523"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_523"><span class="label">37</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_524" id="Footnote_38_524"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_524"><span class="label">38</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, No. 374, p. 344 ff., No. 379, pp. 360–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_525" id="Footnote_39_525"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_525"><span class="label">39</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70; <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, V. +No. 379, pp. 364–5, No. 414, p. 783, etc. Among the nations invited by the +United States to co-operate in suppressing the trade was the United States of +Colombia. Mr. Anderson, our minister, expressed "the certain belief that the +Republic of Colombia will not permit herself to be behind any Government +in the civilized world in the adoption of energetic measures for the suppression +of this disgraceful traffic": <i>Ibid.</i>, No. 407, p. 729. The little republic +replied courteously; and, as a <i>projet</i> for a treaty, Mr. Anderson offered the +proposed English treaty of 1824, including the Senate amendments. Nevertheless, +the treaty thus agreed to was summarily rejected by the Senate, +March 9, 1825: <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 735. Another result of this general invitation of the +United States was a proposal by Colombia that the slave-trade and the status +of Hayti be among the subjects for discussion at the Panama Congress. As a +result of this, a Senate committee recommended that the United States take +no part in the Congress. This report was finally disagreed to by a vote of 19 +to 24: <i>Ibid.</i>, No. 423, pp. 837, 860, 876, 882.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_526" id="Footnote_40_526"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_526"><span class="label">40</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1823–4, and 1826–7. Brazil abolished the +trade in 1830.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_527" id="Footnote_41_527"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_527"><span class="label">41</span></a> This treaty was further defined in 1833: <i>Ibid.</i>, 1830–1, p. 641 ff.; 1832–3, +p. 286 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_528" id="Footnote_42_528"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_528"><span class="label">42</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1833–4, pp. 218 ff., 1059 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_529" id="Footnote_43_529"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_529"><span class="label">43</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1837–8, p. 268 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_530" id="Footnote_44_530"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_530"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1838–9, p. 792 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_531" id="Footnote_45_531"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_531"><span class="label">45</span></a> Viz., Feb. 28, 1825; April 7, 1830; Feb. 16, 1831; March 3, 1831. The last +resolution passed the House: <i>House Journal</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 426–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_532" id="Footnote_46_532"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_532"><span class="label">46</span></a> Cf. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 35–6, etc.; <i>House Reports</i>, +27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 730–55, etc.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_533" id="Footnote_47_533"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_533"><span class="label">47</span></a> These were the celebrated cases of the "Encomium," "Enterprize," and +"Comet." Cf. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 24 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 174; 25 Cong. 3 sess. III. +No. 216. Cf. also case of the "Creole": <i>Ibid.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. II.-III. Nos. +51, 137.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_534" id="Footnote_48_534"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_534"><span class="label">48</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 179; <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. +No. 29; 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 19; <i>Senate Reports</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. No. 301; +32 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 158; 35 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 36; <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 1 +sess. IV. No. 185; 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191; 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 83; +<i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20; <i>House Reports</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. +No. 51; 28 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 426; 29 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 753; also Decisions +of the U.S. Supreme Court, <i>15 Peters</i>, 518. Cf. Drake, <i>Revelations of a +Slave Smuggler</i>, p. 98.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_535" id="Footnote_49_535"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_535"><span class="label">49</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1834–5, p. 136.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_536" id="Footnote_50_536"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_536"><span class="label">50</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 135–47. Great Britain made treaties meanwhile with Hayti, Uruguay, +Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentine Confederation, Mexico, Texas, etc. Portugal +prohibited the slave-trade in 1836, except between her African colonies. +Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, from 1838 to 1841.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_537" id="Footnote_51_537"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_537"><span class="label">51</span></a> These estimates are from the following sources: <i>Ibid.</i>, 1822–3, pp. 94–110; +<i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, 1823, XVIII., <i>Slave Trade</i>, Further Papers, A., pp. 10–11; +1838–9, XLIX., <i>Slave Trade</i>, Class A, Further Series, pp. 115, 119, 121; <i>House +Doc.</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 1, p. 93; 20 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 99; 26 Cong. +1 sess. VI. No. 211; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 193; <i>House +Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348; <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. +217; 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66; 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6; <i>Amer. State +Papers, Naval</i>, I. No. 249; Buxton, <i>The African Slave Trade and its Remedy</i>, +pp. 44–59; Friends' <i>Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade</i> (ed. 1841); +Friends' <i>Exposition of the Slave Trade, 1840–50</i>; <i>Annual Reports of the American +and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society</i>. +</p><p> +The annexed table gives the dates of the abolition of the slave-trade by the +various nations:— +</p> +<table summary="" border="1"> +<tr><th>Date.</th><th>Slave-trade Abolished by</th> +<th>Right of Search<br /> Treaty with<br />Great Britain,<br />made by</th> +<th>Arrangements for<br />Joint Cruising with<br /> Great Britain,<br />made by</th> +</tr> + +<tr><td align="left">1802</td><td align="left">Denmark.</td><td rowspan="5"> </td><td rowspan="14"> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1807</td><td align="left">Great Britain; United States. </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1813</td><td align="left">Sweden.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1814</td><td align="left">Netherlands.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1815</td><td align="left">Portugal (north of the equator).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1817</td><td align="left">Spain (north of the equator).</td><td align="left">Portugal; Spain.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1818</td><td align="left">France.</td><td align="left">Netherlands.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1820</td><td align="left">Spain.</td><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1824</td><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">Sweden.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1829</td><td align="left">Brazil (?).</td><td rowspan="2"> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1830</td><td align="left">Portugal.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1831–33</td><td rowspan="7"> </td><td align="left">France.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1833–39</td><td align="left">Denmark, Hanse Towns, etc.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1841</td><td rowspan="2" align="left">Quintuple Treaty (Austria,<br /> Russia, Prussia).</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1842</td><td align="left">United States.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1844</td><td align="left">Texas.</td><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1845</td><td align="left">Belgium.</td><td align="left">France.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1862</td><td align="left">United States.</td><td rowspan="2"> </td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_538" id="Footnote_52_538"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_538"><span class="label">52</span></a> Cf. <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, from 1836 to 1842.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_539" id="Footnote_53_539"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_539"><span class="label">53</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1839–40, p. 940.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_540" id="Footnote_54_540"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_540"><span class="label">54</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, pp. 5–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_541" id="Footnote_55_541"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_541"><span class="label">55</span></a> <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 56.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_542" id="Footnote_56_542"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_542"><span class="label">56</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 72.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_543" id="Footnote_57_543"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_543"><span class="label">57</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 133–40, etc.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_544" id="Footnote_58_544"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_544"><span class="label">58</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1841–2, p. 269 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_545" id="Footnote_59_545"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_545"><span class="label">59</span></a> See below, Appendix B.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_546" id="Footnote_60_546"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_546"><span class="label">60</span></a> <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 201.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_547" id="Footnote_61_547"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_547"><span class="label">61</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Journal</i>, VI. 123.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_548" id="Footnote_62_548"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_548"><span class="label">62</span></a> <i>U.S. Treaties and Conventions</i> (ed. 1889), pp. 436–7. For the debates in +the Senate, see <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. Appendix. Cass resigned +on account of the acceptance of this treaty without a distinct denial of +the Right of Search, claiming that this compromised his position in France. +Cf. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II., IV. Nos. 52, 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. +No. 377.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_549" id="Footnote_63_549"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_549"><span class="label">63</span></a> Cf. below, Chapter X.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_550" id="Footnote_64_550"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_550"><span class="label">64</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 72.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_551" id="Footnote_65_551"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_551"><span class="label">65</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 77.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_552" id="Footnote_66_552"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_552"><span class="label">66</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192, p. 4. Cf. <i>British and Foreign State +Papers</i>, 1842–3, p. 708 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_553" id="Footnote_67_553"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_553"><span class="label">67</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 431, 485–8. Cf. <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. +3 sess. V. No. 192.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_554" id="Footnote_68_554"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_554"><span class="label">68</span></a> Cf. below, Chapter X.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_555" id="Footnote_69_555"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_555"><span class="label">69</span></a> With a fleet of 26 vessels, reduced to 12 in 1849: <i>British and Foreign State +Papers</i>, 1844–5, p. 4 ff.; 1849–50, p. 480.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_556" id="Footnote_70_556"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_556"><span class="label">70</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1850–1, p. 953.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_557" id="Footnote_71_557"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_557"><span class="label">71</span></a> Portugal renewed her Right of Search treaty in 1842: <i>Ibid.</i>, 1841–2, +p. 527 ff.; 1842–3, p. 450.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_558" id="Footnote_72_558"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_558"><span class="label">72</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1843–4, p. 316.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_559" id="Footnote_73_559"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_559"><span class="label">73</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1844–5, p. 592. There already existed some such privileges between +England and Texas.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_560" id="Footnote_74_560"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_560"><span class="label">74</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1847–8, p. 397 ff.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_561" id="Footnote_75_561"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_561"><span class="label">75</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1858–9, pp. 1121, 1129.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_562" id="Footnote_76_562"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_562"><span class="label">76</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1859–60, pp. 902–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_563" id="Footnote_77_563"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_563"><span class="label">77</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_564" id="Footnote_78_564"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_564"><span class="label">78</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_565" id="Footnote_79_565"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_565"><span class="label">79</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 57.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_566" id="Footnote_80_566"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_566"><span class="label">80</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Journal</i>, XII. 230–1, 240, 254, 256, 391, 400, 403; <i>Diplomatic +Correspondence</i>, 1862, pp. 141, 158; <i>U.S. Treaties and Conventions</i> (ed. 1889), +pp. 454–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_567" id="Footnote_81_567"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_567"><span class="label">81</span></a> <i>Diplomatic Correspondence</i>, 1862, pp. 64–5. This treaty was revised in 1863. +The mixed court in the West Indies had, by February, 1864, liberated 95,206 +Africans: <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56, p. 24.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 152 --><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152"></a><span class="pagenum">152</span></p> +<h2><a name="Chapter_X" id="Chapter_X"></a><i>Chapter X</i></h2> + +<h3>THE RISE OF THE COTTON KINGDOM.<br />1820–1850.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">74. The Economic Revolution.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">75. The Attitude of the South.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">76. The Attitude of the North and Congress.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">77. Imperfect Application of the Laws.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">78. Responsibility of the Government.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">79. Activity of the Slave-Trade.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>74. <b>The Economic Revolution.</b> The history of slavery and +the slave-trade after 1820 must be read in the light of the industrial +revolution through which the civilized world passed +in the first half of the nineteenth century. Between the years +1775 and 1825 occurred economic events and changes of the +highest importance and widest influence. Though all branches +of industry felt the impulse of this new industrial life, yet, "if +we consider single industries, cotton manufacture has, during +the nineteenth century, made the most magnificent and gigantic +advances."<a name="FNanchor_1_568" id="FNanchor_1_568"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_568" class="fnanchor">1</a> This fact is easily explained by the remarkable +series of inventions that revolutionized this industry between +1738 and 1830, including Arkwright's, Watt's, Compton's, and +Cartwright's epoch-making contrivances.<a name="FNanchor_2_569" id="FNanchor_2_569"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_569" class="fnanchor">2</a> The effect which +these inventions had on the manufacture of cotton goods is +best illustrated by the fact that in England, the chief cotton +<!-- Page 153 --><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153"></a><span class="pagenum">153</span>market of the world, the consumption of raw cotton rose +steadily from 13,000 bales in 1781, to 572,000 in 1820, to +871,000 in 1830, and to 3,366,000 in 1860.<a name="FNanchor_3_570" id="FNanchor_3_570"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_570" class="fnanchor">3</a> Very early, therefore, +came the query whence the supply of raw cotton was to +come. Tentative experiments on the rich, broad fields of the +Southern United States, together with the indispensable invention +of Whitney's cotton-gin, soon answered this question: +a new economic future was opened up to this land, and +immediately the whole South began to extend its cotton culture, +and more and more to throw its whole energy into this +one staple.</p> + +<p>Here it was that the fatal mistake of compromising with +slavery in the beginning, and of the policy of <i>laissez-faire</i> pursued +thereafter, became painfully manifest; for, instead now +of a healthy, normal, economic development along proper industrial +lines, we have the abnormal and fatal rise of a slave-labor +large farming system, which, before it was realized, had +so intertwined itself with and braced itself upon the economic +forces of an industrial age, that a vast and terrible civil war +was necessary to displace it. The tendencies to a patriarchal +serfdom, recognizable in the age of Washington and Jefferson, +began slowly but surely to disappear; and in the second +quarter of the century Southern slavery was irresistibly changing +from a family institution to an industrial system.</p> + +<p>The development of Southern slavery has heretofore been +viewed so exclusively from the ethical and social standpoint +that we are apt to forget its close and indissoluble connection +with the world's cotton market. Beginning with 1820, a little +after the close of the Napoleonic wars, when the industry of +cotton manufacture had begun its modern development and +the South had definitely assumed her position as chief producer +of raw cotton, we find the average price of cotton per +pound, 8½<i>d.</i> From this time until 1845 the price steadily fell, +until in the latter year it reached 4<i>d.</i>; the only exception to +this fall was in the years 1832–1839, when, among other +things, a strong increase in the English demand, together +with an attempt of the young slave power to "corner" the +market, sent the price up as high as 11<i>d.</i> The demand for cotton +<!-- Page 154 --><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154"></a><span class="pagenum">154</span>goods soon outran a crop which McCullough had pronounced +"prodigious," and after 1845 the price started on a +steady rise, which, except for the checks suffered during the +continental revolutions and the Crimean War, continued until +1860.<a name="FNanchor_4_571" id="FNanchor_4_571"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_571" class="fnanchor">4</a> The steady increase in the production of cotton explains +the fall in price down to 1845. In 1822 the crop was a +half-million bales; in 1831, a million; in 1838, a million and a +half; and in 1840–1843, two million. By this time the world's +consumption of cotton goods began to increase so rapidly +that, in spite of the increase in Southern crops, the price kept +rising. Three million bales were gathered in 1852, three and a +half million in 1856, and the remarkable crop of five million +bales in 1860.<a name="FNanchor_5_572" id="FNanchor_5_572"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_572" class="fnanchor">5</a></p> + +<p>Here we have data to explain largely the economic development +of the South. By 1822 the large-plantation slave system +had gained footing; in 1838–1839 it was able to show its +power in the cotton "corner;" by the end of the next decade +it had not only gained a solid economic foundation, but it +had built a closed oligarchy with a political policy. The +changes in price during the next few years drove out of competition +many survivors of the small-farming free-labor system, +and put the slave <i>régime</i> in position to dictate the policy +of the nation. The zenith of the system and the first inevitable +signs of decay came in the years 1850–1860, when the rising +price of cotton threw the whole economic energy of the +South into its cultivation, leading to a terrible consumption +of soil and slaves, to a great increase in the size of plantations, +and to increasing power and effrontery on the part of the +slave barons. Finally, when a rising moral crusade conjoined +with threatened economic disaster, the oligarchy, encouraged +by the state of the cotton market, risked all on a political <i>coup-d'état</i>, +which failed in the war of 1861–1865.<a name="FNanchor_6_573" id="FNanchor_6_573"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_573" class="fnanchor">6</a></p> + + +<p>75. <b>The Attitude of the South.</b> The attitude of the South +toward the slave-trade changed <i>pari passu</i> with this development +of the cotton trade. From 1808 to 1820 the South half +wished to get rid of a troublesome and abnormal institution, +<!-- Page 155 --><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155"></a><span class="pagenum">155</span>and yet saw no way to do so. The fear of insurrection and of +the further spread of the disagreeable system led her to consent +to the partial prohibition of the trade by severe national +enactments. Nevertheless, she had in the matter no settled +policy: she refused to support vigorously the execution of the +laws she had helped to make, and at the same time she acknowledged +the theoretical necessity of these laws. After 1820, +however, there came a gradual change. The South found herself +supplied with a body of slave laborers, whose number had +been augmented by large illicit importations, with an abundance +of rich land, and with all other natural facilities for raising +a crop which was in large demand and peculiarly adapted +to slave labor. The increasing crop caused a new demand for +slaves, and an interstate slave-traffic arose between the Border +and the Gulf States, which turned the former into slave-breeding +districts, and bound them to the slave States by ties +of strong economic interest.</p> + +<p>As the cotton crop continued to increase, this source of +supply became inadequate, especially as the theory of land +and slave consumption broke down former ethical and prudential +bounds. It was, for example, found cheaper to work a +slave to death in a few years, and buy a new one, than to care +for him in sickness and old age; so, too, it was easier to despoil +rich, new land in a few years of intensive culture, and +move on to the Southwest, than to fertilize and conserve the +soil.<a name="FNanchor_7_574" id="FNanchor_7_574"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_574" class="fnanchor">7</a> Consequently, there early came a demand for land and +slaves greater than the country could supply. The demand for +land showed itself in the annexation of Texas, the conquest of +Mexico, and the movement toward the acquisition of Cuba. +The demand for slaves was manifested in the illicit traffic that +noticeably increased about 1835, and reached large proportions +by 1860. It was also seen in a disposition to attack the government +for stigmatizing the trade as criminal,<a name="FNanchor_8_575" id="FNanchor_8_575"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_575" class="fnanchor">8</a> then in a disinclination +to take any measures which would have rendered +our repressive laws effective; and finally in such articulate +declarations by prominent men as this: "Experience having +<!-- Page 156 --><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156"></a><span class="pagenum">156</span>settled the point, that this Trade <i>cannot be abolished by the use +of force</i>, and that blockading squadrons serve only to make it +more profitable and more cruel, I am surprised that the attempt +is persisted in, unless as it serves as a cloak to some +other purposes. It would be far better than it now is, for the +African, if the trade was free from all restrictions, and left to +the mitigation and decay which time and competition would +surely bring about."<a name="FNanchor_9_576" id="FNanchor_9_576"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_576" class="fnanchor">9</a></p> + + +<p>76. <b>The Attitude of the North and Congress.</b> With the +North as yet unawakened to the great changes taking place +in the South, and with the attitude of the South thus in process +of development, little or no constructive legislation +could be expected on the subject of the slave-trade. As the +divergence in sentiment became more and more pronounced, +there were various attempts at legislation, all of which +proved abortive. The pro-slavery party attempted, as early as +1826, and again in 1828, to abolish the African agency and +leave the Africans practically at the mercy of the States;<a name="FNanchor_10_577" id="FNanchor_10_577"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_577" class="fnanchor">10</a> one +or two attempts were made to relax the few provisions +which restrained the coastwise trade;<a name="FNanchor_11_578" id="FNanchor_11_578"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_578" class="fnanchor">11</a> and, after the treaty of +1842, Benton proposed to stop appropriations for the African +squadron until England defined her position on the +Right of Search question.<a name="FNanchor_12_579" id="FNanchor_12_579"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_579" class="fnanchor">12</a> The anti-slavery men presented +several bills to amend and strengthen previous laws;<a name="FNanchor_13_580" id="FNanchor_13_580"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_580" class="fnanchor">13</a> they +sought, for instance, in vain to regulate the Texan trade, +through which numbers of slaves indirectly reached the +United States.<a name="FNanchor_14_581" id="FNanchor_14_581"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_581" class="fnanchor">14</a> Presidents and consuls earnestly re<!-- Page 157 --><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157"></a><span class="pagenum">157</span>commended +legislation to restrict the clearances of vessels bound +on slave-trading voyages, and to hinder the facility with +which slavers obtained fraudulent papers.<a name="FNanchor_15_582" id="FNanchor_15_582"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_582" class="fnanchor">15</a> Only one such +bill succeeded in passing the Senate, and that was dropped +in the House.<a name="FNanchor_16_583" id="FNanchor_16_583"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_583" class="fnanchor">16</a></p> + +<p>The only legislation of this period was confined to a few +appropriation bills. Only one of these acts, that of 1823, appropriating +$50,000,<a name="FNanchor_17_584" id="FNanchor_17_584"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_584" class="fnanchor">17</a> was designed materially to aid in the +suppression of the trade, all the others relating to expenses +incurred after violations. After 1823 the appropriations dwindled, +being made at intervals of one, two, and three years, +down to 1834, when the amount was $5,000. No further appropriations +were made until 1842, when a few thousands +above an unexpended surplus were appropriated. In 1843 +$5,000 were given, and finally, in 1846, $25,000 were secured; +but this was the last sum obtainable until 1856.<a name="FNanchor_18_585" id="FNanchor_18_585"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_585" class="fnanchor">18</a> Nearly all of +these meagre appropriations went toward reimbursing Southern +plantation owners for the care and support of illegally +imported Africans, and the rest to the maintenance of the African +agency. Suspiciously large sums were paid for the first +purpose, considering the fact that such Africans were always +worked hard by those to whom they were farmed out, and +often "disappeared" while in their hands. In the accounts we +nevertheless find many items like that of $20,286.98 for the +maintenance of Negroes imported on the "Ramirez;"<a name="FNanchor_19_586" id="FNanchor_19_586"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_586" class="fnanchor">19</a> in 1827, +$5,442.22 for the "bounty, subsistence, clothing, medicine," +etc., of fifteen Africans;<a name="FNanchor_20_587" id="FNanchor_20_587"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_587" class="fnanchor">20</a> in 1835, $3,613 for the support of +thirty-eight slaves for two months (including a bill of $1,038 +<!-- Page 158 --><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158"></a><span class="pagenum">158</span>for medical attendance).<a name="FNanchor_21_588" id="FNanchor_21_588"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_588" class="fnanchor">21</a></p> + +<p>The African agency suffered many vicissitudes. The first +agent, Bacon, who set out early in 1820, was authorized by +President Monroe "to form an establishment on the island of +Sherbro, or elsewhere on the coast of Africa," and to build +barracks for three hundred persons. He was, however, warned +"not to connect your agency with the views or plans of the +Colonization Society, with which, under the law, the Government +of the United States has no concern." Bacon soon died, +and was followed during the next four years by Winn and +Ayres; they succeeded in establishing a government agency on +Cape Mesurado, in conjunction with that of the Colonization +Society. The agent of that Society, Jehudi Ashmun, became +after 1822, the virtual head of the colony; he fortified and enlarged +it, and laid the foundations of an independent community. +The succeeding government agents came to be +merely official representatives of the United States, and the +distribution of free rations for liberated Africans ceased in +1827.</p> + +<p>Between 1819 and 1830 two hundred and fifty-two recaptured +Africans were sent to the agency, and $264,710 were +expended. The property of the government at the agency was +valued at $18,895. From 1830 to 1840, nearly $20,000 more +were expended, chiefly for the agents' salaries. About 1840 the +appointment of an agent ceased, and the colony became gradually +self-supporting and independent. It was proclaimed as +the Republic of Liberia in 1847.<a name="FNanchor_22_589" id="FNanchor_22_589"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_589" class="fnanchor">22</a></p> +<p><!-- Page 159 --><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159"></a><span class="pagenum">159</span></p> + +<p>77. <b>Imperfect Application of the Laws.</b> In reviewing efforts +toward the suppression of the slave-trade from 1820 to +1850, it must be remembered that nearly every cabinet had a +strong, if not a predominating, Southern element, and that +consequently the efforts of the executive were powerfully +influenced by the changing attitude of the South. Naturally, +under such circumstances, the government displayed little activity +and no enthusiasm in the work. In 1824 a single vessel +of the Gulf squadron was occasionally sent to the African +coast to return by the route usually followed by the slavers; +no wonder that "none of these or any other of our public +ships have found vessels engaged in the slave trade under the +flag of the United States, ... although it is known that the +trade still exists to a most lamentable extent."<a name="FNanchor_23_590" id="FNanchor_23_590"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_590" class="fnanchor">23</a> Indeed, all that +an American slaver need do was to run up a Spanish or a +Portuguese flag, to be absolutely secure from all attack or inquiry +on the part of United States vessels. Even this desultory +method of suppression was not regular: in 1826 "no vessel has +been despatched to the coast of Africa for several months,"<a name="FNanchor_24_591" id="FNanchor_24_591"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_591" class="fnanchor">24</a> +and from that time until 1839 this country probably had no +slave-trade police upon the seas, except in the Gulf of Mexico. +In 1839 increasing violations led to the sending of two fast-sailing +vessels to the African coast, and these were kept there +more or less regularly;<a name="FNanchor_25_592" id="FNanchor_25_592"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_592" class="fnanchor">25</a> but even after the signing of the +treaty of 1842 the Secretary of the Navy reports: "On the coast +of Africa we have <i>no</i> squadron. The small appropriation of +the present year was believed to be scarcely sufficient."<a name="FNanchor_26_593" id="FNanchor_26_593"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_593" class="fnanchor">26</a> Between +1843 and 1850 the coast squadron varied from two to +six vessels, with from thirty to ninety-eight guns;<a name="FNanchor_27_594" id="FNanchor_27_594"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_594" class="fnanchor">27</a> "but the +force habitually and actively engaged in cruizing on the +ground frequented by slavers has probably been less by one-fourth, +if we consider the size of the ships employed and their +withdrawal for purposes of recreation and health, and the +movement of the reliefs, whose arrival does not correspond +exactly with the departure of the vessels whose term of service +<!-- Page 160 --><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160"></a><span class="pagenum">160</span>has expired."<a name="FNanchor_28_595" id="FNanchor_28_595"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_595" class="fnanchor">28</a> The reports of the navy show that in only four +of the eight years mentioned was the fleet, at the time of report, +at the stipulated size of eighty guns; and at times it was +much below this, even as late as 1848, when only two vessels +are reported on duty along the African coast.<a name="FNanchor_29_596" id="FNanchor_29_596"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_596" class="fnanchor">29</a> As the commanders +themselves acknowledged, the squadron was too +small and the cruising-ground too large to make joint cruising +effective.<a name="FNanchor_30_597" id="FNanchor_30_597"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_597" class="fnanchor">30</a></p> + +<p>The same story comes from the Brazil station: "Nothing +effectual can be done towards stopping the slave trade, as our +squadron is at present organized," wrote the consul at Rio +Janeiro in 1847; "when it is considered that the Brazil station +extends from north of the equator to Cape Horn on this continent, +and includes a great part of Africa south of the equator, +on both sides of the Cape of Good Hope, it must be +admitted that one frigate and one brig is a very insufficient +force to protect American commerce, and repress the participation +in the slave trade by our own vessels."<a name="FNanchor_31_598" id="FNanchor_31_598"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_598" class="fnanchor">31</a> In the Gulf of +Mexico cruisers were stationed most of the time, although +even here there were at times urgent representations that the +scarcity or the absence of such vessels gave the illicit trade +great license.<a name="FNanchor_32_599" id="FNanchor_32_599"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_599" class="fnanchor">32</a></p> + +<p>Owing to this general negligence of the government, and +also to its anxiety on the subject of the theoretic Right of +Search, many officials were kept in a state of chronic deception +in regard to the trade. The enthusiasm of commanders +was dampened by the lack of latitude allowed and by the repeated +<!-- Page 161 --><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161"></a><span class="pagenum">161</span>insistence in their orders on the non-existence of a +Right of Search.<a name="FNanchor_33_600" id="FNanchor_33_600"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_600" class="fnanchor">33</a> When one commander, realizing that he +could not cover the trading-track with his fleet, requested English +commanders to detain suspicious American vessels until +one of his vessels came up, the government annulled the +agreement as soon as it reached their ears, rebuked him, and +the matter was alluded to in Congress long after with horror.<a name="FNanchor_34_601" id="FNanchor_34_601"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_601" class="fnanchor">34</a> +According to the orders of cruisers, only slavers with +slaves actually on board could be seized. Consequently, fully +equipped slavers would sail past the American fleet, deliberately +make all preparations for shipping a cargo, then, when +the English were not near, "sell" the ship to a Spaniard, hoist +the Spanish flag, and again sail gayly past the American fleet +with a cargo of slaves. An English commander reported: "The +officers of the United States' navy are extremely active and +zealous in the cause, and no fault can be attributed to them, +but it is greatly to be lamented that this blemish should in so +great a degree nullify our endeavours."<a name="FNanchor_35_602" id="FNanchor_35_602"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_602" class="fnanchor">35</a></p> + + +<p>78. <b>Responsibility of the Government.</b> Not only did the +government thus negatively favor the slave-trade, but also +many conscious, positive acts must be attributed to a spirit +hostile to the proper enforcement of the slave-trade laws. In +cases of doubt, when the law needed executive interpretation, +the decision was usually in favor of the looser construction +of the law; the trade from New Orleans to Mobile was, +for instance, declared not to be coastwise trade, and consequently, +to the joy of the Cuban smugglers, was left utterly +free and unrestricted.<a name="FNanchor_36_603" id="FNanchor_36_603"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_603" class="fnanchor">36</a> After the conquest of Mexico, even +vessels bound to California, by the way of Cape Horn, were +<!-- Page 162 --><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162"></a><span class="pagenum">162</span>allowed to clear coastwise, thus giving our flag to "the slave-pirates +of the whole world."<a name="FNanchor_37_604" id="FNanchor_37_604"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_604" class="fnanchor">37</a> Attorney-General Nelson declared +that the selling to a slave-trader of an American vessel, +to be delivered on the coast of Africa, was not aiding or +abetting the slave-trade.<a name="FNanchor_38_605" id="FNanchor_38_605"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_605" class="fnanchor">38</a> So easy was it for slavers to sail +that corruption among officials was hinted at. "There is certainly +a want of proper vigilance at Havana," wrote Commander +Perry in 1844, "and perhaps at the ports of the +United States;" and again, in the same year, "I cannot but +think that the custom-house authorities in the United States +are not sufficiently rigid in looking after vessels of suspicious +character."<a name="FNanchor_39_606" id="FNanchor_39_606"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_606" class="fnanchor">39</a></p> + +<p>In the courts it was still next to impossible to secure the +punishment of the most notorious slave-trader. In 1847 a consul +writes: "The slave power in this city [i.e., Rio Janeiro] is +extremely great, and a consul doing his duty needs to be supported +kindly and effectually at home. In the case of the +'Fame,' where the vessel was diverted from the business intended +by her owners and employed in the slave trade—both +of which offences are punishable with death, if I rightly read +the laws—I sent home the two mates charged with these offences, +for trial, the first mate to Norfolk, the second mate to +Philadelphia. What was done with the first mate I know not. +In the case of the man sent to Philadelphia, Mr. Commissioner +Kane states that a clear prima facie case is made out, +and then holds him to bail in the sum of <i>one thousand dollars</i>, +which would be paid by any slave trader in Rio, on the <i>presentation +of a draft</i>. In all this there is little encouragement for +exertion."<a name="FNanchor_40_607" id="FNanchor_40_607"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_607" class="fnanchor">40</a> Again, the "Perry" in 1850 captured a slaver which +was about to ship 1,800 slaves. The captain admitted his guilt, +and was condemned in the United States District Court at +New York. Nevertheless, he was admitted to bail of $5,000; +this being afterward reduced to $3,000, he forfeited it and +escaped. The mate was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.<a name="FNanchor_41_608" id="FNanchor_41_608"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_608" class="fnanchor">41</a> +<!-- Page 163 --><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163"></a><span class="pagenum">163</span>Also several slavers sent home to the United States by +the British, with clear evidence of guilt, escaped condemnation +through technicalities.<a name="FNanchor_42_609" id="FNanchor_42_609"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_609" class="fnanchor">42</a></p> + + +<p>79. <b>Activity of the Slave-Trade, 1820–1850.</b> The enhanced +price of slaves throughout the American slave market, +brought about by the new industrial development and the +laws against the slave-trade, was the irresistible temptation +that drew American capital and enterprise into that traffic. In +the United States, in spite of the large interstate traffic, the +average price of slaves rose from about $325 in 1840, to $360 +in 1850, and to $500 in 1860.<a name="FNanchor_43_610" id="FNanchor_43_610"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_610" class="fnanchor">43</a> Brazil and Cuba offered similar +inducements to smugglers, and the American flag was ready +to protect such pirates. As a result, the American slave-trade +finally came to be carried on principally by United States capital, +in United States ships, officered by United States citizens, +and under the United States flag.</p> + +<p>Executive reports repeatedly acknowledged this fact. In 1839 +"a careful revision of these laws" is recommended by the President, +in order that "the integrity and honor of our flag may +be carefully preserved."<a name="FNanchor_44_611" id="FNanchor_44_611"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_611" class="fnanchor">44</a> In June, 1841, the President declares: +"There is reason to believe that the traffic is on the increase," +and advocates "vigorous efforts."<a name="FNanchor_45_612" id="FNanchor_45_612"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_612" class="fnanchor">45</a> His message in December +of the same year acknowledges: "That the American flag is +grossly abused by the abandoned and profligate of other nations +is but too probable."<a name="FNanchor_46_613" id="FNanchor_46_613"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_613" class="fnanchor">46</a> The special message of 1845 explains +at length that "it would seem" that a regular policy of +evading the laws is carried on: American vessels with the +knowledge of the owners are chartered by notorious slave +dealers in Brazil, aided by English capitalists, with this intent.<a name="FNanchor_47_614" id="FNanchor_47_614"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_614" class="fnanchor">47</a> +The message of 1849 "earnestly" invites the attention of +Congress "to an amendment of our existing laws relating to +the African slave-trade, with a view to the effectual suppression +<!-- Page 164 --><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164"></a><span class="pagenum">164</span>of that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied," continues +the message, "that this trade is still, in part, carried on by +means of vessels built in the United States, and owned or +navigated by some of our citizens."<a name="FNanchor_48_615" id="FNanchor_48_615"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_615" class="fnanchor">48</a> Governor Buchanan of +Liberia reported in 1839: "The chief obstacle to the success of +the very active measures pursued by the British government +for the suppression of the slave-trade on the coast, is the +<i>American flag</i>. Never was the proud banner of freedom so +extensively used by those pirates upon liberty and humanity, +as at this season."<a name="FNanchor_49_616" id="FNanchor_49_616"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_616" class="fnanchor">49</a> One well-known American slaver was +boarded fifteen times and twice taken into port, but always +escaped by means of her papers.<a name="FNanchor_50_617" id="FNanchor_50_617"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_617" class="fnanchor">50</a> Even American officers report +that the English are doing all they can, but that the +American flag protects the trade.<a name="FNanchor_51_618" id="FNanchor_51_618"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_618" class="fnanchor">51</a> The evidence which literally +poured in from our consuls and ministers at Brazil adds +to the story of the guilt of the United States.<a name="FNanchor_52_619" id="FNanchor_52_619"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_619" class="fnanchor">52</a> It was proven +that the participation of United States citizens in the trade +was large and systematic. One of the most notorious slave +merchants of Brazil said: "I am worried by the Americans, +who insist upon my hiring their vessels for slave-trade."<a name="FNanchor_53_620" id="FNanchor_53_620"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_620" class="fnanchor">53</a> +Minister Proffit stated, in 1844, that the "slave-trade is almost +entirely carried on under our flag, in American-built +vessels."<a name="FNanchor_54_621" id="FNanchor_54_621"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_621" class="fnanchor">54</a> So, too, in Cuba: the British commissioners affirm +that American citizens were openly engaged in the traffic; +vessels arrived undisguised at Havana from the United +States, and cleared for Africa as slavers after an alleged sale.<a name="FNanchor_55_622" id="FNanchor_55_622"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_622" class="fnanchor">55</a> +The American consul, Trist, was proven to have consciously +or unconsciously aided this trade by the issuance of blank +<!-- Page 165 --><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165"></a><span class="pagenum">165</span>clearance papers.<a name="FNanchor_56_623" id="FNanchor_56_623"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_623" class="fnanchor">56</a></p> + +<p>The presence of American capital in these enterprises, and +the connivance of the authorities, were proven in many cases +and known in scores. In 1837 the English government informed +the United States that from the papers of a captured +slaver it appeared that the notorious slave-trading firm, +Blanco and Carballo of Havana, who owned the vessel, had +correspondents in the United States: "at Baltimore, Messrs. +Peter Harmony and Co., in New York, Robert Barry, Esq."<a name="FNanchor_57_624" id="FNanchor_57_624"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_624" class="fnanchor">57</a> +The slaver "Martha" of New York, captured by the "Perry," +contained among her papers curious revelations of the guilt +of persons in America who were little suspected.<a name="FNanchor_58_625" id="FNanchor_58_625"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_625" class="fnanchor">58</a> The slaver +"Prova," which was allowed to lie in the harbor of Charleston, +South Carolina, and refit, was afterwards captured with +two hundred and twenty-five slaves on board.<a name="FNanchor_59_626" id="FNanchor_59_626"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_626" class="fnanchor">59</a> The real reason +that prevented many belligerent Congressmen from pressing +certain search claims against England lay in the fact that +the unjustifiable detentions had unfortunately revealed so +much American guilt that it was deemed wiser to let the matter +end in talk. For instance, in 1850 Congress demanded information +as to illegal searches, and President Fillmore's +report showed the uncomfortable fact that, of the ten American +ships wrongly detained by English men-of-war, nine were +proven red-handed slavers.<a name="FNanchor_60_627" id="FNanchor_60_627"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_627" class="fnanchor">60</a></p> + +<p>The consul at Havana reported, in 1836, that whole cargoes +of slaves fresh from Africa were being daily shipped to Texas +in American vessels, that 1,000 had been sent within a few +months, that the rate was increasing, and that many of these +slaves "can scarcely fail to find their way into the United +States." Moreover, the consul acknowledged that ships frequently +cleared for the United States in ballast, taking on a +cargo at some secret point.<a name="FNanchor_61_628" id="FNanchor_61_628"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_628" class="fnanchor">61</a> When with these facts we consider +<!-- Page 166 --><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166"></a><span class="pagenum">166</span>the law facilitating "recovery" of slaves from Texas,<a name="FNanchor_62_629" id="FNanchor_62_629"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_629" class="fnanchor">62</a> the +repeated refusals to regulate the Texan trade, and the shelving +of a proposed congressional investigation into these matters,<a name="FNanchor_63_630" id="FNanchor_63_630"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_630" class="fnanchor">63</a> +conjecture becomes a practical certainty. It was estimated in +1838 that 15,000 Africans were annually taken to Texas, and +"there are even grounds for suspicion that there are other +places ... where slaves are introduced."<a name="FNanchor_64_631" id="FNanchor_64_631"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_631" class="fnanchor">64</a> Between 1847 and +1853 the slave smuggler Drake had a slave depot in the Gulf, +where sometimes as many as 1,600 Negroes were on hand, +and the owners were continually importing and shipping. +"The joint-stock company," writes this smuggler, "was a very +extensive one, and connected with leading American and +Spanish mercantile houses. Our island<a name="FNanchor_65_632" id="FNanchor_65_632"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_632" class="fnanchor">65</a> was visited almost +weekly, by agents from Cuba, New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia, +Boston, and New Orleans.... The seasoned and +instructed slaves were taken to Texas, or Florida, overland, +and to Cuba, in sailing-boats. As no squad contained more +than half a dozen, no difficulty was found in posting them to +the United States, without discovery, and generally without +suspicion.... The Bay Island plantation sent ventures +weekly to the Florida Keys. Slaves were taken into the great +American swamps, and there kept till wanted for the market. +Hundreds were sold as captured runaways from the Florida +wilderness. We had agents in every slave State; and our coasters +were built in Maine, and came out with lumber. I could +tell curious stories ... of this business of smuggling Bozal +negroes into the United States. It is growing more profitable +every year, and if you should hang all the Yankee merchants +engaged in it, hundreds would fill their places."<a name="FNanchor_66_633" id="FNanchor_66_633"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_633" class="fnanchor">66</a> Inherent +<!-- Page 167 --><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167"></a><span class="pagenum">167</span>probability and concurrent testimony confirm the substantial +truth of such confessions. For instance, one traveller discovers +on a Southern plantation Negroes who can speak no English.<a name="FNanchor_67_634" id="FNanchor_67_634"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_634" class="fnanchor">67</a> +The careful reports of the Quakers "apprehend that +many [slaves] are also introduced into the United States."<a name="FNanchor_68_635" id="FNanchor_68_635"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_635" class="fnanchor">68</a> +Governor Mathew of the Bahama Islands reports that "in +more than one instance, Bahama vessels with coloured crews +have been purposely wrecked on the coast of Florida, and the +crews forcibly sold." This was brought to the notice of the +United States authorities, but the district attorney of Florida +could furnish no information.<a name="FNanchor_69_636" id="FNanchor_69_636"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_636" class="fnanchor">69</a></p> + +<p>Such was the state of the slave-trade in 1850, on the threshold +of the critical decade which by a herculean effort was destined +finally to suppress it.</p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_568" id="Footnote_1_568"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_568"><span class="label">1</span></a> Beer, <i>Geschichte des Welthandels im 19<sup>ten</sup> Jahrhundert</i>, II. 67.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_569" id="Footnote_2_569"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_569"><span class="label">2</span></a> A list of these inventions most graphically illustrates this advance:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="left">1738,</td><td align="left">John Jay, fly-shuttle.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">John Wyatt, spinning by rollers.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1748,</td><td align="left">Lewis Paul, carding-machine.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1760,</td><td align="left"> Robert Kay, drop-box.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1769,</td><td align="left">Richard Arkwright, water-frame and throstle.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left"> </td><td align="left">James Watt, steam-engine.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1772,</td><td align="left">James Lees, improvements on carding-machine.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1775,</td><td align="left">Richard Arkwright, series of combinations.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1779,</td><td align="left">Samuel Compton, mule.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1785,</td><td align="left">Edmund Cartwright, power-loom.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1803–4,</td><td align="left">Radcliffe and Johnson, dressing-machine.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1817,</td><td align="left">Roberts, fly-frame.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1818,</td><td align="left">William Eaton, self-acting frame.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">1825–30,</td><td align="left">Roberts, improvements on mule.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p> +Cf. Baines, <i>History of the Cotton Manufacture</i>, pp. 116–231; <i>Encyclopædia Britannica</i>, +9th ed., article "Cotton."</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_570" id="Footnote_3_570"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_570"><span class="label">3</span></a> Baines, <i>History of the Cotton Manufacture</i>, p. 215. A bale weighed from +375 lbs. to 400 lbs.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_571" id="Footnote_4_571"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_571"><span class="label">4</span></a> The prices cited are from Newmarch and Tooke, and refer to the London +market. The average price in 1855–60 was about 7<i>d.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_572" id="Footnote_5_572"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_572"><span class="label">5</span></a> From United States census reports.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_573" id="Footnote_6_573"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_573"><span class="label">6</span></a> Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, <i>The Cotton Kingdom</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_574" id="Footnote_7_574"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_574"><span class="label">7</span></a> Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, <i>The Cotton Kingdom</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_575" id="Footnote_8_575"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_575"><span class="label">8</span></a> 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, <i>Abridgment +of Debates</i>, XII. 718.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_576" id="Footnote_9_576"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_576"><span class="label">9</span></a> Governor J.H. Hammond of South Carolina, in <i>Letters to Clarkson</i>, No. +1, p. 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_577" id="Footnote_10_577"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_577"><span class="label">10</span></a> 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: <i>Home Journal</i>, +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: <i>Ibid.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess., House Bill No. +190.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_578" id="Footnote_11_578"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_578"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 121, 135; 20 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 58–9, 84, 215.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_579" id="Footnote_12_579"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_579"><span class="label">12</span></a> <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 328, 331–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_580" id="Footnote_13_580"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_580"><span class="label">13</span></a> Cf. Mercer's bill, <i>House Journal</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. p. 512; also Strange's two +bills, <i>Senate Journal</i>, 25 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 200, 313; 26 Cong. 1 sess., Senate +Bill No. 123.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_581" id="Footnote_14_581"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_581"><span class="label">14</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i>, 25 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 297–8, 300.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_582" id="Footnote_15_582"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_582"><span class="label">15</span></a> <i>Senate Doc</i>, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 217, p. 19; <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 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; <i>House Journal</i>, 26 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 117–8; +cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. p. 650, etc.; 21 Cong. 2 sess. p. 194; 27 Cong. 1 sess. +pp. 31, 184; <i>House Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43, p. 11; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, +31 Cong. 1 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 5, pp. 7–8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_583" id="Footnote_16_583"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_583"><span class="label">16</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i>, 26 Cong. 1 sess., Senate Bill No. 335; <i>House Journal</i>, 26 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1138, 1228, 1257.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_584" id="Footnote_17_584"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_584"><span class="label">17</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 764.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_585" id="Footnote_18_585"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_585"><span class="label">18</span></a> Cf. above, Chapter VIII. p. 125.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_586" id="Footnote_19_586"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_586"><span class="label">19</span></a> Cf. <i>Report of the Secretary of the Navy</i>, 1827.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_587" id="Footnote_20_587"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_587"><span class="label">20</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_588" id="Footnote_21_588"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_588"><span class="label">21</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 223.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_589" id="Footnote_22_589"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_589"><span class="label">22</span></a> This account is taken exclusively from government documents: <i>Amer. +State Papers, Naval</i>, 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; <i>House Reports</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. +65; <i>House Doc.</i>, 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.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_590" id="Footnote_23_590"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_590"><span class="label">23</span></a> <i>Report of the Secretary of the Navy</i>, 1824.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_591" id="Footnote_24_591"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_591"><span class="label">24</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1826.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_592" id="Footnote_25_592"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_592"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1839.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_593" id="Footnote_26_593"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_593"><span class="label">26</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1842.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_594" id="Footnote_27_594"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_594"><span class="label">27</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1857–8, p. 1250.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_595" id="Footnote_28_595"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_595"><span class="label">28</span></a> Lord Napier to Secretary of State Cass, Dec. 24, 1857: <i>British and Foreign +State Papers</i>, 1857–8, p. 1249.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_596" id="Footnote_29_596"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_596"><span class="label">29</span></a> <i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, 1847–8, Vol. LXIV. No. 133, <i>Papers Relative to the +Suppression of the Slave Trade on the Coast of Africa</i>, p. 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_597" id="Footnote_30_597"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_597"><span class="label">30</span></a> Report of Perry: <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 118.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_598" id="Footnote_31_598"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_598"><span class="label">31</span></a> Consul Park at Rio Janeiro to Secretary Buchanan, Aug. 20, 1847: <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_599" id="Footnote_32_599"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_599"><span class="label">32</span></a> 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: <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, p. 41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_600" id="Footnote_33_600"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_600"><span class="label">33</span></a> 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: <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. +2 sess. IX. No. 104.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_601" id="Footnote_34_601"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_601"><span class="label">34</span></a> <i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 765–8. Cf. Benton's +speeches on the treaty of 1842.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_602" id="Footnote_35_602"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_602"><span class="label">35</span></a> Report of Hotham to Admiralty, April 7, 1847: <i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, +1847–8, Vol. LXIV. No. 133, <i>Papers Relative to the Suppression of the Slave Trade +on the Coast of Africa</i>, p. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_603" id="Footnote_36_603"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_603"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>Opinions of Attorneys-General</i>, III. 512.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_604" id="Footnote_37_604"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_604"><span class="label">37</span></a> <i>Tenth Annual Report of the Amer. and Foreign Anti-Slav. Soc.</i>, May 7, 1850, +p. 149.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_605" id="Footnote_38_605"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_605"><span class="label">38</span></a> <i>Opinions of Attorneys-General</i>, IV. 245.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_606" id="Footnote_39_606"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_606"><span class="label">39</span></a> <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, pp. 108, 132.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_607" id="Footnote_40_607"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_607"><span class="label">40</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p. 18.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_608" id="Footnote_41_608"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_608"><span class="label">41</span></a> Foote, <i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, pp. 286–90.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_609" id="Footnote_42_609"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_609"><span class="label">42</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1839–40, pp. 913–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_610" id="Footnote_43_610"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_610"><span class="label">43</span></a> Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, <i>Cotton Kingdom</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_611" id="Footnote_44_611"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_611"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 26 Cong. 1 sess. p. 118.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_612" id="Footnote_45_612"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_612"><span class="label">45</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 27 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 31, 184.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_613" id="Footnote_46_613"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_613"><span class="label">46</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 14, 15, 86, 113.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_614" id="Footnote_47_614"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_614"><span class="label">47</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 191, 227.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_615" id="Footnote_48_615"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_615"><span class="label">48</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. III. pt. I. No. 5, p. 7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_616" id="Footnote_49_616"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_616"><span class="label">49</span></a> Foote, <i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, p. 152.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_617" id="Footnote_50_617"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_617"><span class="label">50</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 152–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_618" id="Footnote_51_618"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_618"><span class="label">51</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 241.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_619" id="Footnote_52_619"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_619"><span class="label">52</span></a> Cf. e.g. <i>House Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. pt. I. No. 148; 29 Cong. 1 sess. +III. No. 43; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61; <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, +30 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 28; 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6; 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. +No. 47.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_620" id="Footnote_53_620"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_620"><span class="label">53</span></a> Foote, <i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, p. 218.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_621" id="Footnote_54_621"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_621"><span class="label">54</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 221.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_622" id="Footnote_55_622"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_622"><span class="label">55</span></a> Palmerston to Stevenson: <i>House Doc.</i>, 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: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 220–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_623" id="Footnote_56_623"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_623"><span class="label">56</span></a> <i>Parliamentary Papers</i>, 1839, Vol. XLIX., <i>Slave Trade</i>, 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, <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 +sess. V. No. 115.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_624" id="Footnote_57_624"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_624"><span class="label">57</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_625" id="Footnote_58_625"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_625"><span class="label">58</span></a> Foote, <i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, p. 290.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_626" id="Footnote_59_626"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_626"><span class="label">59</span></a> <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 121, 163–6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_627" id="Footnote_60_627"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_627"><span class="label">60</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV No. 66.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_628" id="Footnote_61_628"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_628"><span class="label">61</span></a> Trist to Forsyth: <i>House Doc.</i>, 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 <i>per cent</i>, 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": +<i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_629" id="Footnote_62_629"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_629"><span class="label">62</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, V. 674.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_630" id="Footnote_63_630"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_630"><span class="label">63</span></a> Cf. above, p. 157, note 1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_631" id="Footnote_64_631"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_631"><span class="label">64</span></a> Buxton, <i>The African Slave Trade and its Remedy</i>, pp. 44–5. Cf. <i>2d Report +of the London African Soc.</i>, p. 22.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_632" id="Footnote_65_632"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_632"><span class="label">65</span></a> I.e., Bay Island in the Gulf of Mexico, near the coast of Honduras.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_633" id="Footnote_66_633"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_633"><span class="label">66</span></a> <i>Revelations of a Slave Smuggler</i>, p. 98.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_634" id="Footnote_67_634"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_634"><span class="label">67</span></a> Mr. H. Moulton in <i>Slavery as it is</i>, p. 140; cited in <i>Facts and Observations +on the Slave Trade</i> (Friends' ed. 1841), p. 8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_635" id="Footnote_68_635"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_635"><span class="label">68</span></a> In a memorial to Congress, 1840: <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 1 sess. VI. +No. 211.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_636" id="Footnote_69_636"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_636"><span class="label">69</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 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": <i>British +and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1845–6, p. 990.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr /> +<p><!-- Page 168 --><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168"></a><span class="pagenum">168</span></p> +<h2><a name="Chapter_XI" id="Chapter_XI"></a><i>Chapter XI</i></h2> + +<h3>THE FINAL CRISIS. 1850–1870.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td align="left">80. The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">81. Commercial Conventions of 1855–56.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">82. Commercial Conventions of 1857–58.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">83. Commercial Convention of 1859.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">84. Public Opinion in the South.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">85. The Question in Congress.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">86. Southern Policy in 1860.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">87. Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">88. Notorious Infractions of the Laws.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">89. Apathy of the Federal Government.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">90. Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">91. Attitude of the United States.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>80. <b>The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws.</b> 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 <i>régime</i>, 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 +<!-- Page 169 --><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169"></a><span class="pagenum">169</span>of the African slave-trade.</p> + +<p>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."<a name="FNanchor_1_637" id="FNanchor_1_637"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_637" class="fnanchor">1</a> 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,"<a name="FNanchor_2_638" id="FNanchor_2_638"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_638" class="fnanchor">2</a> +such words struck even Southern ears like "a thunder clap in +a calm day."<a name="FNanchor_3_639" id="FNanchor_3_639"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_639" class="fnanchor">3</a> 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.</p> + + +<p>81. <b>Commercial Conventions of 1855–56.</b> 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.<a name="FNanchor_4_640" id="FNanchor_4_640"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_640" class="fnanchor">4</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_5_641" id="FNanchor_5_641"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_641" class="fnanchor">5</a> In +regard to this action a pamphlet of the day said: "There were +<!-- Page 170 --><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170"></a><span class="pagenum">170</span>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."<a name="FNanchor_6_642" id="FNanchor_6_642"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_642" class="fnanchor">6</a> +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.</p> + + +<p>82. <b>Commercial Conventions of 1857–58.</b> 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.<a name="FNanchor_7_643" id="FNanchor_7_643"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_643" class="fnanchor">7</a> This next meeting assembled May 10, 1858, in a +Gulf State, Alabama, in the city of Montgomery. Spratt of<!-- Page 171 --><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171"></a><span class="pagenum">171</span> +South Carolina, the slave-trade champion, presented an elaborate +majority report from the committee, and recommended +the following resolutions:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>1. <i>Resolved</i>, That slavery is right, and that being right, there can be +no wrong in the natural means to its formation.</p> + +<p>2. <i>Resolved</i>, 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.</p> + +<p>3. <i>Resolved</i>, 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.</p> +</div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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:—</p> + +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_8_644" id="FNanchor_8_644"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_644" class="fnanchor">8</a></p> +<p><!-- Page 172 --><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172"></a><span class="pagenum">172</span></p> + +<p>83. <b>Commercial Convention of 1859.</b> 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, <i>"in the opinion of this Convention, +all laws, State or Federal, prohibiting the African slave +trade, ought to be repealed."</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_9_645" id="FNanchor_9_645"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_645" class="fnanchor">9</a> 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 <i>traitors</i> +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."<a name="FNanchor_10_646" id="FNanchor_10_646"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_646" class="fnanchor">10</a> "It was clear," +adds De Bow, "that the people of Vicksburg looked upon it +[i.e., the convention] with some distrust."<a name="FNanchor_11_647" id="FNanchor_11_647"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_647" class="fnanchor">11</a> When at last a +ballot was taken, the first resolution passed by a vote of 40 to +19.<a name="FNanchor_12_648" id="FNanchor_12_648"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_648" class="fnanchor">12</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_13_649" id="FNanchor_13_649"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_649" class="fnanchor">13</a></p> +<p><!-- Page 173 --><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173"></a><span class="pagenum">173</span></p> + +<p>84. <b>Public Opinion in the South.</b> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>Standard</i> in +a series of articles strongly advocated the reopening of the +trade; the Richmond <i>Examiner</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_14_650" id="FNanchor_14_650"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_650" class="fnanchor">14</a> +<!-- Page 174 --><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174"></a><span class="pagenum">174</span> +In March, 1859, the <i>National Era</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_15_651" id="FNanchor_15_651"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_651" class="fnanchor">15</a> The Savannah <i>Republican</i>, 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.<a name="FNanchor_16_652" id="FNanchor_16_652"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_652" class="fnanchor">16</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_17_653" id="FNanchor_17_653"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_653" class="fnanchor">17</a> +The New Orleans <i>Delta</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_18_654" id="FNanchor_18_654"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_654" class="fnanchor">18</a></p> + +<p>85. <b>The Question in Congress.</b> 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."<a name="FNanchor_19_655" id="FNanchor_19_655"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_655" class="fnanchor">19</a> +Three years later, January 31, 1859, it was impossible,<!-- Page 175 --><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175"></a><span class="pagenum">175</span> +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."<a name="FNanchor_20_656" id="FNanchor_20_656"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_656" class="fnanchor">20</a></p> + +<p>Congressmen and other prominent men hastened with the +rising tide.<a name="FNanchor_21_657" id="FNanchor_21_657"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_657" class="fnanchor">21</a> Dowdell of Alabama declared the repressive acts +"highly offensive;" J.B. Clay of Kentucky was "opposed to +all these laws;"<a name="FNanchor_22_658" id="FNanchor_22_658"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_658" class="fnanchor">22</a> Seward of Georgia declared them "wrong, +and a violation of the Constitution;"<a name="FNanchor_23_659" id="FNanchor_23_659"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_659" class="fnanchor">23</a> 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;<a name="FNanchor_24_660" id="FNanchor_24_660"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_660" class="fnanchor">24</a> Keitt of South Carolina +wished to withdraw the African squadron, and to cease to +brand slave-trading as piracy;<a name="FNanchor_25_661" id="FNanchor_25_661"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_661" class="fnanchor">25</a> Brown of Mississippi "would +repeal the law instantly;"<a name="FNanchor_26_662" id="FNanchor_26_662"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_662" class="fnanchor">26</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_27_663" id="FNanchor_27_663"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_663" class="fnanchor">27</a> 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<!-- Page 176 --><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176"></a><span class="pagenum">176</span> +her <i>present</i> condition, <i>not</i> upon any <i>general theory</i>. It is not +supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New Mexico, or to any +<i>future acquisitions</i> to be made south of the Rio Grande."<a name="FNanchor_28_664" id="FNanchor_28_664"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_664" class="fnanchor">28</a> +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 <i>complete its triumph</i> and assure its welfare,—that is +the existing prohibition of the African Slave-trade."<a name="FNanchor_29_665" id="FNanchor_29_665"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_665" class="fnanchor">29</a> Pollard, +in his <i>Black Diamonds</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_30_666" id="FNanchor_30_666"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_666" class="fnanchor">30</a></p> + + +<p>86. <b>Southern Policy in 1860.</b> 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 <i>De Bow's +Review</i>, and ex-superintendent of the seventh census. The object +of the association was "to promote the supply of African +labor."<a name="FNanchor_31_667" id="FNanchor_31_667"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_667" class="fnanchor">31</a> 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: +<i>"The South at large does need a re-opening of the African slave +trade."</i> 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.<a name="FNanchor_32_668" id="FNanchor_32_668"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_668" class="fnanchor">32</a> In Georgia, about this time, an attempt to +expunge the slave-trade prohibition in the State Constitution +lacked but one vote of passing.<a name="FNanchor_33_669" id="FNanchor_33_669"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_669" class="fnanchor">33</a> From these slower and more +legal movements came others less justifiable. The long argument +<!-- Page 177 --><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177"></a><span class="pagenum">177</span>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.<a name="FNanchor_34_670" id="FNanchor_34_670"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_670" class="fnanchor">34</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_35_671" id="FNanchor_35_671"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_671" class="fnanchor">35</a> It was said that +the <i>Georgian</i>, 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."<a name="FNanchor_36_672" id="FNanchor_36_672"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_672" class="fnanchor">36</a></p> + +<p>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.</p> +<p><!-- Page 178 --><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178"></a><span class="pagenum">178</span></p> + +<p>87. <b>Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860.</b> 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.</p> + +<p>In the foreign slave-trade our own officers continue to report +"how shamefully our flag has been used;"<a name="FNanchor_37_673" id="FNanchor_37_673"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_673" class="fnanchor">37</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_38_674" id="FNanchor_38_674"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_674" class="fnanchor">38</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_39_675" id="FNanchor_39_675"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_675" class="fnanchor">39</a> +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."<a name="FNanchor_40_676" id="FNanchor_40_676"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_676" class="fnanchor">40</a> +During eighteen months of the years 1859—1860 eighty-five +slavers are reported to have been fitted out in New Yo<!-- Page 179 --><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179"></a><span class="pagenum">179</span>rk +harbor,<a name="FNanchor_41_677" id="FNanchor_41_677"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_677" class="fnanchor">41</a> and these alone transported from 30,000 to 60,000 +slaves annually.<a name="FNanchor_42_678" id="FNanchor_42_678"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_678" class="fnanchor">42</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_43_679" id="FNanchor_43_679"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_679" class="fnanchor">43</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_44_680" id="FNanchor_44_680"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_680" class="fnanchor">44</a></p> + +<p>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 <i>Correio Mercantil</i> regrets "that it was +the flag of the United States which covered this act of piracy, +sustained by citizens of that great nation."<a name="FNanchor_45_681" id="FNanchor_45_681"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_681" class="fnanchor">45</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_46_682" id="FNanchor_46_682"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_682" class="fnanchor">46</a></p> + +<p>88. <b>Notorious Infractions of the Laws.</b> 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 +<!-- Page 180 --><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180"></a><span class="pagenum">180</span>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 <i>gradual revival of the slave +trade</i>. 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.'"<a name="FNanchor_47_683" id="FNanchor_47_683"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_683" class="fnanchor">47</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_48_684" id="FNanchor_48_684"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_684" class="fnanchor">48</a> The Augusta <i>Despatch</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_49_685" id="FNanchor_49_685"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_685" class="fnanchor">49</a> Two parties of Africans were brought into +<!-- Page 181 --><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181"></a><span class="pagenum">181</span>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.<a name="FNanchor_50_686" id="FNanchor_50_686"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_686" class="fnanchor">50</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_51_687" id="FNanchor_51_687"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_687" class="fnanchor">51</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_52_688" id="FNanchor_52_688"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_688" class="fnanchor">52</a> +The New York <i>Tribune</i> 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."<a name="FNanchor_53_689" id="FNanchor_53_689"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_689" class="fnanchor">53</a></p> +<p><!-- Page 182 --><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182"></a><span class="pagenum">182</span></p> +<p>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 <i>Mercury</i> facetiously remarks: +"Some negroes who never learned to talk English, +went up the railroad the other day."<a name="FNanchor_54_690" id="FNanchor_54_690"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_690" class="fnanchor">54</a> Congressmen declared +on the floor of the House: "The slave trade may therefore be +regarded as practically re-established;"<a name="FNanchor_55_691" id="FNanchor_55_691"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_691" class="fnanchor">55</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_56_692" id="FNanchor_56_692"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_692" class="fnanchor">56</a></p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p>89. <b>Apathy of the Federal Government.</b> 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 +<!-- Page 183 --><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183"></a><span class="pagenum">183</span>increased under its operation.<a name="FNanchor_57_693" id="FNanchor_57_693"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_693" class="fnanchor">57</a> Both this and a similar +attempt in the House failed,<a name="FNanchor_58_694" id="FNanchor_58_694"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_694" class="fnanchor">58</a> as did also an attempt to substitute +life imprisonment for the death penalty.<a name="FNanchor_59_695" id="FNanchor_59_695"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_695" class="fnanchor">59</a> Most of the +actual legislation naturally took the form of appropriations. +In 1853 there was an attempt to appropriate $20,000.<a name="FNanchor_60_696" id="FNanchor_60_696"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_696" class="fnanchor">60</a> This +failed, and the appropriation of $8,000 in 1856 was the first +for ten years.<a name="FNanchor_61_697" id="FNanchor_61_697"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_697" class="fnanchor">61</a> The following year brought a similar appropriation,<a name="FNanchor_62_698" id="FNanchor_62_698"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_698" class="fnanchor">62</a> +and in 1859<a name="FNanchor_63_699" id="FNanchor_63_699"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_699" class="fnanchor">63</a> and 1860<a name="FNanchor_64_700" id="FNanchor_64_700"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_700" class="fnanchor">64</a> $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;<a name="FNanchor_65_701" id="FNanchor_65_701"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_701" class="fnanchor">65</a> to +prevent the "coolie" trade, or the bringing in of "apprentices" +or "African laborers;"<a name="FNanchor_66_702" id="FNanchor_66_702"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_702" class="fnanchor">66</a> to stop the coastwise trade;<a name="FNanchor_67_703" id="FNanchor_67_703"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_703" class="fnanchor">67</a> to assent +to a Right of Search;<a name="FNanchor_68_704" id="FNanchor_68_704"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_704" class="fnanchor">68</a> and to amend the Constitution +by forever prohibiting the slave-trade.<a name="FNanchor_69_705" id="FNanchor_69_705"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_705" class="fnanchor">69</a></p> + +<p>The efforts of the executive during this period were criminally +lax and negligent. "The General Government did not<!-- Page 184 --><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184"></a><span class="pagenum">184</span> +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."<a name="FNanchor_70_706" id="FNanchor_70_706"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_706" class="fnanchor">70</a> 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 <i>nolle prosequi</i> +was entered.<a name="FNanchor_71_707" id="FNanchor_71_707"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_707" class="fnanchor">71</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_72_708" id="FNanchor_72_708"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_708" class="fnanchor">72</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_73_709" id="FNanchor_73_709"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_709" class="fnanchor">73</a> The bark "Emily" was seized on suspicion and +<!-- Page 185 --><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185"></a><span class="pagenum">185</span>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.<a name="FNanchor_74_710" id="FNanchor_74_710"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_710" class="fnanchor">74</a></p> + +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_75_711" id="FNanchor_75_711"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_711" class="fnanchor">75</a> British commanders report the +apathy of American officers and the extreme caution of their +instructions, which allowed many slavers to escape.<a name="FNanchor_76_712" id="FNanchor_76_712"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_712" class="fnanchor">76</a></p> + +<p>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;<a name="FNanchor_77_713" id="FNanchor_77_713"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_713" class="fnanchor">77</a> 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."<a name="FNanchor_78_714" id="FNanchor_78_714"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_714" class="fnanchor">78</a> Again, in 1855, the government has<!-- Page 186 --><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186"></a><span class="pagenum">186</span> "advices +that the slave trade south of the equator is entirely broken +up;"<a name="FNanchor_79_715" id="FNanchor_79_715"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_715" class="fnanchor">79</a> in 1856, the reports are "favorable;"<a name="FNanchor_80_716" id="FNanchor_80_716"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_716" class="fnanchor">80</a> 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;"<a name="FNanchor_81_717" id="FNanchor_81_717"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_717" class="fnanchor">81</a> +nevertheless, in this same year, according to Secretary Toucey, +"the force on the coast of Africa has fully accomplished its +main object."<a name="FNanchor_82_718" id="FNanchor_82_718"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_718" class="fnanchor">82</a> 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!<a name="FNanchor_83_719" id="FNanchor_83_719"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_719" class="fnanchor">83</a></p> + +<p>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,<a name="FNanchor_84_720" id="FNanchor_84_720"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_720" class="fnanchor">84</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_85_721" id="FNanchor_85_721"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_721" class="fnanchor">85</a> The Act of June 16, 1860, enabled the<!-- Page 187 --><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187"></a><span class="pagenum">187</span> +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.<a name="FNanchor_86_722" id="FNanchor_86_722"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_722" class="fnanchor">86</a></p> + + +<p>90. <b>Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.</b> 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<!-- Page 188 --><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188"></a><span class="pagenum">188</span>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:—</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_87_723" id="FNanchor_87_723"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_723" class="fnanchor">87</a></p> + +<p>The attitude of the Confederate government toward this +article is best illustrated by its circular of instructions to its +foreign ministers:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>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 <i>sine qua non</i>.</p> +</div> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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.:—</p> + +<div class="blockquot"> +<p>1st. Such powers as the States delegate to the General Government.</p> +<p><!-- Page 189 --><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189"></a><span class="pagenum">189</span></p> +<p>2d. Such powers as the States agree to refrain from exercising, +although they do not delegate them to the General Government.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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....<a name="FNanchor_88_724" id="FNanchor_88_724"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_724" class="fnanchor">88</a></p> +</div> + +<p>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<!-- Page 190 --><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190"></a><span class="pagenum">190</span> +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."<a name="FNanchor_89_725" id="FNanchor_89_725"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_725" class="fnanchor">89</a></p> + +<p>91. <b>Attitude of the United States.</b> 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.<a name="FNanchor_90_726" id="FNanchor_90_726"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_726" class="fnanchor">90</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_91_727" id="FNanchor_91_727"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_727" class="fnanchor">91</a> 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.<a name="FNanchor_92_728" id="FNanchor_92_728"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_728" class="fnanchor">92</a> 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. +<!-- Page 191 --><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191"></a><span class="pagenum">191</span>Congress also, for the first time, offered them proper compensation.<a name="FNanchor_93_729" id="FNanchor_93_729"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_729" class="fnanchor">93</a> +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."<a name="FNanchor_94_730" id="FNanchor_94_730"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_730" class="fnanchor">94</a></p> + +<p>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.<a name="FNanchor_95_731" id="FNanchor_95_731"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_731" class="fnanchor">95</a> 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,<a name="FNanchor_96_732" id="FNanchor_96_732"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_732" class="fnanchor">96</a> and in 1864 the coastwise +slave-trade was forever prohibited.<a name="FNanchor_97_733" id="FNanchor_97_733"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_733" class="fnanchor">97</a> By these measures the +trade was soon checked, and before the end of the war entirely +suppressed.<a name="FNanchor_98_734" id="FNanchor_98_734"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_734" class="fnanchor">98</a> 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 +<!-- Page 192 --><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192"></a><span class="pagenum">192</span>coast.<a name="FNanchor_99_735" id="FNanchor_99_735"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_735" class="fnanchor">99</a> Finally, the Thirteenth Amendment legally confirmed +what the war had already accomplished, and slavery and the +slave-trade fell at one blow.<a name="FNanchor_100_736" id="FNanchor_100_736"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_736" class="fnanchor">100</a></p> + +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_637" id="Footnote_1_637"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_637"><span class="label">1</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1854–5, p. 1156.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_638" id="Footnote_2_638"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_638"><span class="label">2</span></a> Cluskey, <i>Political Text-Book</i> (14th ed.), p. 585.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_639" id="Footnote_3_639"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_639"><span class="label">3</span></a> <i>De Bow's Review</i>, XXII. 223; quoted from Andrew Hunter of Virginia.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_640" id="Footnote_4_640"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_640"><span class="label">4</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, XVIII. 628.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_641" id="Footnote_5_641"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_641"><span class="label">5</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, XXII. 91, 102, 217, 221–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_642" id="Footnote_6_642"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_642"><span class="label">6</span></a> 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: <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess., Appendix, p. 366.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_643" id="Footnote_7_643"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_643"><span class="label">7</span></a> <i>De Bow's Review</i>, 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.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_644" id="Footnote_8_644"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_644"><span class="label">8</span></a> <i>De Bow's Review</i>, XXIV. 473–491, 579–605. The Louisiana delegation +alone did not vote for the last resolution, the vote of her delegation being +evenly divided.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_645" id="Footnote_9_645"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_645"><span class="label">9</span></a> <i>De Bow's Review</i>, XXVII. 94–235.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_646" id="Footnote_10_646"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_646"><span class="label">10</span></a> H.S. Foote, in <i>Bench and Bar of the South and Southwest</i>, p. 69.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_647" id="Footnote_11_647"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_647"><span class="label">11</span></a> <i>De Bow's Review</i>, XXVII. 115.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_648" id="Footnote_12_648"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_648"><span class="label">12</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 99. The vote was:— +</p> +<table summary=""> +<tr><td align="center" colspan="3"><i>Yea.</i></td><td align="center" colspan="3"><i>Nay.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Alabama,</td><td align="right">5</td><td align="center">votes.</td> +<td align="left">Tennessee,</td><td align="right">12</td><td align="center">votes.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Arkansas,</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Florida,</td><td align="right">3</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">South Carolina,</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">South Carolina,</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Louisiana,</td><td align="right">6</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Total</td><td align="right">19</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Texas,</td><td align="right">4</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Georgia,</td><td align="right">10</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left" rowspan="2" colspan="3"> Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, <br />and North Carolina did not vote;<br />they either withdrew or were not represented.</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Mississippi,</td><td align="right">7</td><td align="center">"</td></tr> +<tr><td align="left">Total</td><td align="right">40</td></tr> +</table> +</div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_649" id="Footnote_13_649"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_649"><span class="label">13</span></a> Quoted in <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 38. The official organ +was the <i>True Southron</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_650" id="Footnote_14_650"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_650"><span class="label">14</span></a> Quoted in <i>24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 54.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_651" id="Footnote_15_651"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_651"><span class="label">15</span></a> Quoted in <i>26th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 43.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_652" id="Footnote_16_652"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_652"><span class="label">16</span></a> <i>27th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 19–20.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_653" id="Footnote_17_653"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_653"><span class="label">17</span></a> Letter of W.C. Preston, in the <i>National Intelligencer</i>, April 3, 1863. Also +published in the pamphlet, <i>The African Slave Trade: The Secret Purpose</i>, etc., +p. 26.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_654" id="Footnote_18_654"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_654"><span class="label">18</span></a> Quoted in Etheridge's speech: <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. Appen., +p. 366.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_655" id="Footnote_19_655"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_655"><span class="label">19</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105–10; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 34 Cong. +3 sess. pp. 123–6; Cluskey, <i>Political Text-Book</i> (14th ed.), p. 589.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_656" id="Footnote_20_656"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_656"><span class="label">20</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 298–9. Cf. <i>26th Report of the Amer. +Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 45.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_657" id="Footnote_21_657"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_657"><span class="label">21</span></a> Cf. <i>Reports of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, especially the 26th, pp. 43–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_658" id="Footnote_22_658"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_658"><span class="label">22</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 43. He referred especially to the Treaty of 1842.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_659" id="Footnote_23_659"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_659"><span class="label">23</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess., Appen., pp. 248–50.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_660" id="Footnote_24_660"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_660"><span class="label">24</span></a> <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_661" id="Footnote_25_661"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_661"><span class="label">25</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>; <i>27th Report</i>, pp. 13–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_662" id="Footnote_26_662"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_662"><span class="label">26</span></a> <i>26th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_663" id="Footnote_27_663"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_663"><span class="label">27</span></a> Quoted in Lalor, <i>Cyclopædia</i>, III. 733; Cairnes, <i>The Slave Power</i> (New York, +1862), p. 123, note; <i>27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 15.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_664" id="Footnote_28_664"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_664"><span class="label">28</span></a> Quoted in Cairnes, <i>The Slave Power</i>, p. 123, note; <i>27th Report of the Amer. +Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 19.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_665" id="Footnote_29_665"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_665"><span class="label">29</span></a> <i>27th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 16; quoted from the Mobile <i>Register</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_666" id="Footnote_30_666"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_666"><span class="label">30</span></a> Edition of 1859, pp. 63–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_667" id="Footnote_31_667"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_667"><span class="label">31</span></a> <i>De Bow's Review</i>, XXVII. 121, 231–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_668" id="Footnote_32_668"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_668"><span class="label">32</span></a> <i>Report of the Special Committee</i>, etc. (1857), pp. 24–5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_669" id="Footnote_33_669"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_669"><span class="label">33</span></a> <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 40. The vote was 47 to 46.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_670" id="Footnote_34_670"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_670"><span class="label">34</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 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. <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 39.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_671" id="Footnote_35_671"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_671"><span class="label">35</span></a> New York <i>Independent</i>, March 11 and April 1, 1858.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_672" id="Footnote_36_672"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_672"><span class="label">36</span></a> <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_673" id="Footnote_37_673"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_673"><span class="label">37</span></a> Gregory to the Secretary of the Navy, June 8, 1850: <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 +Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 2. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_674" id="Footnote_38_674"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_674"><span class="label">38</span></a> Cumming to Commodore Fanshawe, Feb. 22, 1850: <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 +Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_675" id="Footnote_39_675"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_675"><span class="label">39</span></a> New York <i>Journal of Commerce</i>, 1857; quoted in <i>24th Report of the Amer. +Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 56.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_676" id="Footnote_40_676"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_676"><span class="label">40</span></a> "The Slave-Trade in New York," in the <i>Continental Monthly</i>, January, +1862, p. 87.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_677" id="Footnote_41_677"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_677"><span class="label">41</span></a> New York <i>Evening Post</i>; quoted in Lalor, <i>Cyclopædia</i>, III. 733.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_678" id="Footnote_42_678"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_678"><span class="label">42</span></a> Lalor, <i>Cyclopædia</i>, III. 733; quoted from a New York paper.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_679" id="Footnote_43_679"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_679"><span class="label">43</span></a> <i>Friends' Appeal on behalf of the Coloured Races</i> (1858), Appendix, p. 41; +quoted from the <i>Journal of Commerce</i>.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_680" id="Footnote_44_680"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_680"><span class="label">44</span></a> <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, pp. 53–4; quoted from the African +correspondent of the Boston <i>Journal</i>. 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. <i>25th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, +p. 122. De Bow estimated in 1856 that forty slavers cleared annually from +Eastern harbors, clearing yearly $17,000,000: <i>De Bow's Review</i>, XXII. 430–1.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_681" id="Footnote_45_681"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_681"><span class="label">45</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, p. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_682" id="Footnote_46_682"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_682"><span class="label">46</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, p. 38.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_683" id="Footnote_47_683"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_683"><span class="label">47</span></a> New York <i>Herald</i>, Aug. 5, 1860; quoted in Drake, <i>Revelations of a Slave +Smuggler</i>, Introd., pp. vii.-viii.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_684" id="Footnote_48_684"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_684"><span class="label">48</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 89. Cf. <i>26th Report of the Amer. +Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, pp. 45–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_685" id="Footnote_49_685"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_685"><span class="label">49</span></a> Quoted in <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 46.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_686" id="Footnote_50_686"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_686"><span class="label">50</span></a> For all the above cases, cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 49.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_687" id="Footnote_51_687"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_687"><span class="label">51</span></a> Quoted in <i>27th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 20. Cf. <i>Report of the Secretary of the Navy</i>, +1859; <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_688" id="Footnote_52_688"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_688"><span class="label">52</span></a> <i>27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_689" id="Footnote_53_689"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_689"><span class="label">53</span></a> Quoted in <i>Ibid.</i></p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_690" id="Footnote_54_690"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_690"><span class="label">54</span></a> Issue of July 22, 1860; quoted in Drake, <i>Revelations of a Slave Smuggler</i>, +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.) <i>Weekly News</i>, 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 <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, pp. 41–2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_691" id="Footnote_55_691"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_691"><span class="label">55</span></a> <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 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, +<i>Cyclopædia</i>, III. 733.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_692" id="Footnote_56_692"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_692"><span class="label">56</span></a> <i>Senate Misc. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_693" id="Footnote_57_693"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_693"><span class="label">57</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i>, 34 Cong. 1–2 sess. pp. 396, 695–8; <i>Senate Reports</i>, 34 +Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_694" id="Footnote_58_694"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_694"><span class="label">58</span></a> <i>House Journal</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. p. 64. There was still another attempt by +Sandidge. Cf. <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-Slav. Soc.</i>, p. 44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_695" id="Footnote_59_695"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_695"><span class="label">59</span></a> <i>Senate Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 36 Cong. 1 +sess. p. 1245.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_696" id="Footnote_60_696"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_696"><span class="label">60</span></a> Congressional Globe, 32 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1072.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_697" id="Footnote_61_697"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_697"><span class="label">61</span></a> I.e., since 1846: <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XI. 90.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_698" id="Footnote_62_698"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_698"><span class="label">62</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, XI. 227.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_699" id="Footnote_63_699"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_699"><span class="label">63</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, XI. 404.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_700" id="Footnote_64_700"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_700"><span class="label">64</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, XII. 21.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_701" id="Footnote_65_701"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_701"><span class="label">65</span></a> E.g., Clay's resolutions: <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 304–9. +Clayton's resolutions: <i>Senate Journal</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. p. 404; <i>House Journal</i>, +33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1093, 1332–3; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +1591–3, 2139. Seward's bill: <i>Senate Journal</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 448, 451.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_702" id="Footnote_66_702"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_702"><span class="label">66</span></a> 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: <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. p. +198; <i>26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, p. 44.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_703" id="Footnote_67_703"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_703"><span class="label">67</span></a> This was the object of attack in 1851 and 1853 by Giddings: <i>House Journal</i>, +32 Cong. 1 sess. p. 42; 33 Cong. 1 sess. p. 147. Cf. <i>House Journal</i>, 38 Cong. 1 +sess. p. 46.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_704" id="Footnote_68_704"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_704"><span class="label">68</span></a> By Mr. Wilson, March 20, 1860: <i>Senate Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_705" id="Footnote_69_705"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_705"><span class="label">69</span></a> Four or five such attempts were made: Dec. 12, 1860, <i>House Journal</i>, 36 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61–2; Jan. 7, 1861, <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. +p. 279; Jan. 23, 1861, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 527; Feb. 1, 1861, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 690; Feb. 27, 1861, +<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 1243, 1259.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_706" id="Footnote_70_706"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_706"><span class="label">70</span></a> "The Slave-Trade in New York," in the <i>Continental Monthly</i>, January, +1862, p. 87.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_707" id="Footnote_71_707"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_707"><span class="label">71</span></a> New York <i>Herald</i>, July 14, 1856.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_708" id="Footnote_72_708"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_708"><span class="label">72</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i> Cf. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 53.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_709" id="Footnote_73_709"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_709"><span class="label">73</span></a> <i>27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc.</i>, pp. 25–6. Cf. <i>26th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, +pp. 45–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_710" id="Footnote_74_710"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_710"><span class="label">74</span></a> <i>27th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 26–7.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_711" id="Footnote_75_711"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_711"><span class="label">75</span></a> <i>26th Report</i>, <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 54.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_712" id="Footnote_76_712"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_712"><span class="label">76</span></a> <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1859–60, pp. 899, 973.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_713" id="Footnote_77_713"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_713"><span class="label">77</span></a> Nov. 29, 1851: <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 32 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 2, No. 2, p. 4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_714" id="Footnote_78_714"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_714"><span class="label">78</span></a> Dec. 4, 1852: <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 32 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 293.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_715" id="Footnote_79_715"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_715"><span class="label">79</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, p. 5.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_716" id="Footnote_80_716"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_716"><span class="label">80</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 407.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_717" id="Footnote_81_717"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_717"><span class="label">81</span></a> Commander Burgess to Commodore Wise, Whydah, Aug. 12, 1857: <i>Parliamentary +Papers</i>, 1857–8, vol. LXI. <i>Slave Trade</i>, Class A, p. 136.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_718" id="Footnote_82_718"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_718"><span class="label">82</span></a> <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, p. 576.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_719" id="Footnote_83_719"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_719"><span class="label">83</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 1, No. 2, pp. 14–15, 31–33.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_720" id="Footnote_84_720"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_720"><span class="label">84</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 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": <i>Ibid.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pp. 1138–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_721" id="Footnote_85_721"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_721"><span class="label">85</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pp. 8–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_722" id="Footnote_86_722"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_722"><span class="label">86</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. 40.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_723" id="Footnote_87_723"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_723"><span class="label">87</span></a> <i>Confederate States of America Statutes at Large</i>, 1861, p. 15, Constitution, +Art. 1, sect. 9, §§ 1, 2.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_724" id="Footnote_88_724"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_724"><span class="label">88</span></a> 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 <i>National Intelligencer</i>, March 31, 1863; cf. also the issues of +Feb. 19, 1861, April 2, 3, 25, 1863; also published in the pamphlet, <i>The African +Slave-Trade: The Secret Purpose</i>, etc. The editors vouch for its authenticity, +and state it to be in Benjamin's own handwriting.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_725" id="Footnote_89_725"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_725"><span class="label">89</span></a> L.W. Spratt of South Carolina, in the <i>Southern Literary Messenger</i>, June, +1861, XXXII. 414, 420. Cf. also the Charleston <i>Mercury</i>, Feb. 13, 1861, and the +<i>National Intelligencer</i>, Feb. 19, 1861.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_726" id="Footnote_90_726"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_726"><span class="label">90</span></a> Captain Gordon of the slaver "Erie;" condemned in the U.S. District +Court for Southern New York in 1862. Cf. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. +I. No. 1, p. 13.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_727" id="Footnote_91_727"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_727"><span class="label">91</span></a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 453–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_728" id="Footnote_92_728"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_728"><span class="label">92</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, 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": <i>Ibid.</i>, XII. 40–41.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_729" id="Footnote_93_729"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_729"><span class="label">93</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. 368–9.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_730" id="Footnote_94_730"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_730"><span class="label">94</span></a> <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 453–4.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_731" id="Footnote_95_731"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_731"><span class="label">95</span></a> <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. 531.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_732" id="Footnote_96_732"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_732"><span class="label">96</span></a> For a time not exceeding five years: <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 592–3.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_733" id="Footnote_97_733"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_733"><span class="label">97</span></a> By section 9 of an appropriation act for civil expenses, July 2, 1864: <i>Ibid.</i>, +XIII. 353.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_734" id="Footnote_98_734"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_734"><span class="label">98</span></a> British officers attested this: <i>Diplomatic Correspondence</i>, 1862, p. 285.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_735" id="Footnote_99_735"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_735"><span class="label">99</span></a> <i>Report of the Secretary of the Navy</i>, 1866; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 39 Cong. 2 sess. +IV. p. 12.</p></div> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_736" id="Footnote_100_736"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_736"><span class="label">100</span></a> There were some later attempts to legislate. Sumner tried to repeal the +Act of 1803: <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 41 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894, 2932, 4953, 5594. +Banks introduced a bill to prohibit Americans owning or dealing in slaves +abroad: <i>House Journal</i>, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p. 48. For the legislation of the Confederate +States, cf. Mason, <i>Veto Power</i>, 2d ed., Appendix C, No. 1.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr /> + +<p><!-- Page 193 --><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193"></a><span class="pagenum">193</span></p> +<h2><a name="Chapter_XII" id="Chapter_XII"></a><i>Chapter XII</i></h2> +<h3>THE ESSENTIALS IN THE STRUGGLE.</h3> + +<table summary="Chapter Sections"> +<tr><td>92. How the Question Arose.</td></tr> +<tr><td>93. The Moral Movement.</td></tr> +<tr><td>94. The Political Movement.</td></tr> +<tr><td>95. The Economic Movement.</td></tr> +<tr><td>96. The Lesson for Americans.</td></tr> +</table> + +<p>92. <b>How the Question Arose.</b> 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.</p> + +<p>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 <i>nil</i>; 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.</p> + +<p>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 +<!-- Page 194 --><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194"></a><span class="pagenum">194</span>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.</p> + + +<p>93. <b>The Moral Movement.</b> 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 +<!-- Page 195 --><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195"></a><span class="pagenum">195</span>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.</p> + + +<p>94. <b>The Political Movement.</b> 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.</p> + + +<p>95. <b>The Economic Movement.</b> 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 +<!-- Page 196 --><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196"></a><span class="pagenum">196</span>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + + +<p>96. <b>The Lesson for Americans.</b> 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 +<!-- Page 197 --><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197"></a><span class="pagenum">197</span>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.</p> + +<p>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.</p> + +<p>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<!-- Page 198 --><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198"></a><span class="pagenum">198</span> +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.</p> +<p><!-- Page 199 --><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199"></a><span class="pagenum">199</span></p> + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_A" id="APPENDIX_A"></a>APPENDIX A.</h2> + +<h3>A CHRONOLOGICAL CONSPECTUS OF COLONIAL<br /> +AND STATE LEGISLATION RESTRICTING<br /> +THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE.<br /> +1641-1787.</h3> + + +<p class="atitle">1641. Massachusetts: Limitations on Slavery.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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<sup>ch</sup> y<sup>e</sup> law of +god established in Jsraell concerning such p/<sup>sons</sup> +doeth morally require. This exempts none from +servitude who shall be Judged there to by Authoritie."</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Reprint +of Colonial Laws of 1660</i>, etc. (1889), pp. 52, 54, +71–117.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1642, April 3. New Netherland: Ten per cent Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherland, +imposing certain Import and Export +Duties." O'Callaghan, <i>Laws of New Netherland</i> +(1868), p. 31.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1642, Dec. 1. Connecticut: Man-Stealing made a Capital +Offence.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Capitall Lawes," No. 10. Re-enacted in Ludlow's +code, 1650. <i>Colonial Records</i>, I. 77.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1646, Nov. 4. Massachusetts: Declaration against Man-Stealing.</p> + +<p class="atext">Testimony of the General Court. For text, see above, +page 37. <i>Colonial Records</i>, II. 168; III. 84.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1652, April 4. New Netherland: Duty of 15 Guilders.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Conditions and Regulations" of Trade to Africa. +O'Callaghan, <i>Laws of New Netherland</i>, pp. 81, 127.</p> +<p><!-- Page 200 --><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200"></a><span class="pagenum">200</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1652, May 18–20. Rhode Island: Perpetual Slavery Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">For text, see above, page 40. <i>Colonial Records</i>, I. 243.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1655, Aug. 6. New Netherland: Ten per cent Export Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Ordinance of the Director General and Council of +New Netherland, imposing a Duty on exported +Negroes." O'Callaghan, <i>Laws of New Netherland</i>, +p. 191.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1664, March 12. Duke of York's Patent: Slavery Regulated.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Charter to William +Penn, and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania</i> +(1879), pp. 3, 12.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1672, October. Connecticut: Law against Man-Stealing.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The General Laws and Liberties of Conecticut</p> + +<p class="atext">"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." +<i>Laws of Connecticut</i>, 1672 (repr. 1865), p. 9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1676, March 3. West New Jersey: Slavery Prohibited (?).</p> + +<p class="atext">"The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, +Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Province of +West New-Jersey, in America."</p> + +<p class="atext">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, <i>Grants, Concessions</i>, etc., pp. 382, +398.</p> +<p><!-- Page 201 --><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201"></a><span class="pagenum">201</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1688, Feb. 18. Pennsylvania: First Protest of Friends against Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"At Monthly Meeting of Germantown Friends." For +text, see above, pages 28–29. <i>Fac-simile Copy</i> (1880).</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1695, May. Maryland: 10s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Laws</i>, 1695, ch. ix.; +1696, ch. vii.; 1699, ch. xxiii.; 1704, ch. ix.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1696. Pennsylvania: Protest of Friends.</p> + +<p class="atext">"That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing +in of any more negroes." Bettle, <i>Notices of Negro +Slavery</i>, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i> (1864), I. 383.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1698, Oct. 8. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the Encouragement of the Importation of +White Servants."</p> + +<p class="atext">"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."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. Planters are to take servants in proportion of one +to every six male Negroes above sixteen years.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. Servants are to be distributed by lot.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 8. This act to continue three years. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, +II. 153.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1699, April. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Statutes</i>, +III. 193, 212, 225.</p> +<p><!-- Page 202 --><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202"></a><span class="pagenum">202</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1703, May 6. South Carolina: Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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<i>s.</i> on Africans +and 20<i>s.</i> on others. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, II. 201.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1704, October. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Laws</i>, 1704, ch. xxxiii.; 1708, ch. +xvi.; 1712, ch. xxii.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1705, Jan. 12. Pennsylvania: 10s. Duty Act. </p> + +<p class="atext">"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." +<i>Colonial Records</i> (1852), II. 232, No. 50.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1705, October. Virginia: 6d. Tax on Imported Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act for raising a publick revenue for the better +support of the Government," etc. Similar tax by +Act of October, 1710. Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, III. 344, +490.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1705, October. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Ibid.</i>, +III. 229, 482; IV. 30.</p> +<p><!-- Page 203 --><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203"></a><span class="pagenum">203</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1705, Dec. 5. Massachusetts: £4 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and +Mixt Issue," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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. +<i>Mass. Province Laws, 1705–6</i>, ch. 10.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1708, February. Rhode Island: £3 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">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. <i>Colonial +Records</i>, IV. 34, 131–5, 138, 143, 191–3, 225, 423–4.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1709, Sept. 24. New York: £3 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Acts of Assembly, +1691–1718</i>, pp. 97, 125, 134; Laws of New York, +1691–1773, p. 83.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1710, Dec. 28. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, +<i>Laws</i>, I. 82; Bettle, <i>Notices of Negro Slavery</i>, in +<i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i> (1864), I. 415.</p> +<p><!-- Page 204 --><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204"></a><span class="pagenum">204</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1710. Virginia: £5 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Intended to discourage the importation" of slaves. +Title and text not found. Disallowed (?). <i>Governor +Spotswood to the Lords of Trade</i>, in <i>Va. Hist. Soc. +Coll.</i>, New Series, I. 52.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1711, July-Aug. New York: Act of 1709 Strengthened.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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." <i>Acts of Assembly, 1691–1718</i>, p. 134.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1711, December. New York: Bill to Increase Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">Bill for laying a further duty on slaves. Passed Assembly; +lost in Council. <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, +V. 293.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1711. Pennsylvania: Testimony of Quakers.</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... 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, <i>Notices of Negro +Slavery</i>, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i> (1864), I. 386.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive (?) Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, +<i>Laws</i>, I. 87, 88. Cf. <i>Colonial Records</i> (1852), II. 553.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prevent the Importation of Negroes and +Indians into this Province."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas Divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently +happened, not only in the Islands, but on +the Main Land of <i>America</i>, 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 <i>New York</i>. And +whereas the Importation of Indian Slaves hath +given our Neighboring <i>Indians</i> in this Province +some umbrage of Suspicion and Dis-satisfaction. +For Prevention of all which for the future,</p> +<p><!-- Page 205 --><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205"></a><span class="pagenum">205</span></p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it Enacted</i> ..., 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 <i>Twenty +Pounds per head</i>, for every Negro or Indian so imported +or brought in (except Negroes directly +brought in from the <i>West India Islands</i> before the +first Day of the Month called <i>August</i> 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. <i>Laws of Pennsylvania, collected</i>, +etc. (ed. 1714), p. 165; <i>Colonial Records</i> (1852), II. +553; Burge, <i>Commentaries</i>, I. 737, note; <i>Penn. Archives</i>, +I. 162.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1713, March 11. New Jersey: £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a Duty on Negro, Indian and +Mulatto Slaves, imported and brought into this +Province."</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it Enacted</i> ..., 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 <i>Ten Pounds</i> Money as appointed +by her Majesty's Proclamation, for each +Slave so imported, or give sufficient Security that +the said Sum of <i>Ten Pounds</i>, 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<!-- Page 206 --><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206"></a> +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. <i>Laws and Acts +of New Jersey, 1703–1717</i> (ed. 1717), p. 43; <i>N.J. Archives</i>, +1st Series, XIII. 516, 517, 520, 522, 523, 527, +532, 541.</p><p class="pagenum">206</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1713, March 26. Great Britain and Spain: The Assiento.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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."</p> + +<p class="atext">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, <i>viz.</i> 144000 negroes, <i>Piezas de India</i>, of both +sexes, and of all ages, at the rate of 4800 negroes, +<i>Piezas de India</i>, 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."</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. II. Assientists to pay a duty of 33 pieces of eight +(<i>Escudos</i>) for each Negro, which should include all +duties.</p> +<p class="pagenum">207</p> +<p class="atext">Art. III. Assientists to advance to his Catholic Majesty +200,000 pieces of eight, which should be returned<!-- Page 207 --><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207"></a> +at the end of the first twenty years, etc. John +Almon, <i>Treaties of Peace, Alliance, and Commerce, +between Great-Britain and other Powers</i> (London, +1772), I. 83–107.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1713, July 13. Great Britain and Spain: Treaty of Utrecht.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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."</p> +<p class="pagenum">208</p> +<p class="atext">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 <i>el Pacto de el Assiento de Negros</i>, 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 <i>la Compania de el Assiento</i>, 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 <!-- Page 208 --><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208"></a>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 <i>Assiento de +Negros</i>, 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, <i>Treaties of Peace, +Alliance, and Commerce, between Great-Britain and +other Powers</i>, I. 168–80.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1714, Feb. 18. South Carolina: Duty on American Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>q.v.</i></p> + + +<p class="atitle">1714, Dec. 18. South Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An additional Act to an Act entitled 'An Act for the +better Ordering and Governing Negroes and all +other Slaves.'"</p> + +<p class="atext">§9 "And <i>whereas</i>, 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, +<!-- Page 209 --><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209"></a>the safety of the said Province is greatly endangered; +for the prevention of which for the future,</p> +<p class="pagenum">209</p> +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it further enacted</i> 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, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 365.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1715, Feb. 18. South Carolina: Duty on American Negroes.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>An additional Act</i> to an act entitled <i>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</i>; and +for laying an additional duty on all Negroe slaves +imported into this Province from any part of +America." Title only given. Grimké, <i>Public Laws</i>, +p. xvi, No. 362.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1715, May 28. Pennsylvania: £5 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a Duty on <i>Negroes</i> imported into +this province." Disallowed by Great Britain, 1719. +<i>Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania, 1715</i>, p. 270; <i>Colonial +Records</i> (1852), III. 75–6; Chalmers, <i>Opinions</i>, +II. 118.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1715, June 3. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Compleat Collection of the Laws of Maryland</i> +(ed. 1727), p. 157; Bacon, <i>Laws</i>, 1715, ch. xxxvi. +§8; 1735, ch. vi. §§1–3; <i>Acts of Assembly, 1754</i>, p. 10.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1716, June 30. South Carolina: £3 Duty Act.</p> +<p class="pagenum">210</p> +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying an Imposition on Liquors, Goods +and Merchandizes, Imported into and Exported +<!-- Page 210 --><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210"></a>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, <i>Statutes</i>, II. 649.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1716. New York: 5 oz. and 10 oz. plate Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Acts of Assembly, +1691–1718</i>, p. 224.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1717, June 8. Maryland: Additional 20s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Compleat +Collection of the Laws of Maryland</i> (ed. 1727), p. 191; +Bacon, <i>Laws</i>, 1728, ch. viii.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1717, Dec. 11. South Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. "And <i>whereas</i>, 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,</p> +<p class="pagenum">211</p> +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it enacted</i> 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<!-- Page 211 --><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211"></a> +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.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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, <i>Statutes</i>, +VII. 368.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1718, Feb. 22. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for continuing a duty on Negroes brought +into this province." Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. +118.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1719, March 20. South Carolina: £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Statutes</i>, +III. 56.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1721, Sept. 21. South Carolina: £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Ibid.</i>, III. 159.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1722, Feb. 23. South Carolina: £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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 +<!-- Page 212 --><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212"></a> this Province."</p> +<p class="pagenum">212</p> +<p class="atext">§ 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.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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,</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it enacted</i> 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.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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,</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it therefore enacted</i> 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."</p> +<p><!-- Page 213 --><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213"></a><span class="pagenum">213</span></p> +<p class="atext">§ 19. Rebate of three-fourths of the duty allowed in +case of re-exportation in six months.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 31. Act of 1721 repealed.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 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, <i>Statutes</i>, +III. 193.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1722, May 12. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a duty on Negroes imported into +this province." Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 165.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1723, May. Virginia: Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves." +Title only; repealed by proclamation Oct. 27, 1724. +Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, IV. 118.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1723, June 18. Rhode Island: Back Duties Collected.</p> + +<p class="atext">Resolve appointing the attorney-general to collect +back duties on Negroes. <i>Colonial Records</i>, IV. 330.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1726, March 5. Pennsylvania: £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the better regulating of Negroes in this +province." Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 214; Bettle, +<i>Notices of Negro Slavery</i>, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i> +(1864), I. 388.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1726, March 5. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a duty on Negroes imported into +this province." Carey and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 213.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1727, February. Virginia: Prohibitive Duty Act (?).</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Statutes</i>, IV. 182.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1728, Aug. 31. New York: £2 and £4 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Laws of New +York, 1691–1773</i>, pp. 148, 171; <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. +New York</i>, VI. 32, 33, 34, 37, 38.</p> +<p><!-- Page 214 --><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214"></a><span class="pagenum">214</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1728, Sept. 14. Massachusetts: Act of 1705 Strengthened.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Mass. Province Laws, 1728–9</i>, ch. 16; +<i>1738–9</i>, ch. 27.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1729, May 10. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a Duty on Negroes imported into +this Province." <i>Laws of Pennsylvania</i> (ed. 1742), +p. 354, ch. 287.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1732, May. Rhode Island: Repeal of Act of 1712.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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;—</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Colonial Records</i>, IV. 471.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1732, May. Virginia: Five per cent Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Statutes</i>, +IV. 317, 394, 469; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353; +VII. 281; VIII. 190, 336, 530.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1734, November. New York: Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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<i>s.</i> yearly per +slave. <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VI. 38.</p> +<p><!-- Page 215 --><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215"></a><span class="pagenum">215</span></p> + +<p class="atitle">1734, Nov. 28. New York: £2 and £4 (?) Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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. <i>Laws of New York, +1691–1773</i>, p. 186; <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VI. +27.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1735. Georgia: Prohibitive Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">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, +<i>History of Georgia</i>, I. 311; [B. Martyn], <i>Account +of the Progress of Georgia</i> (1741), pp. 9–10; +Prince Hoare, <i>Memoirs of Granville Sharp</i> (London, +1820), p. 157.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1740, April 5. South Carolina: £100 Prohibitive Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, <i>Statutes</i>, +III. 556. Cf. <i>Abstract Evidence on Slave-Trade before +Committee of House of Commons, 1790–91</i> (London, +1791), p. 150.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1740, May. Virginia: Additional Five per cent Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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, +<i>Statutes</i>, V. 92.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1751, June 14. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.</p> + +<p class="atext">"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 +<!-- Page 216 --><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216"></a>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."</p> +<p class="pagenum">216</p> +<p class="atext">"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,</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>And be it enacted</i>, by his Excellency James Glen, +Esquire, Governor in chief and Captain General +in and over the Province of South Carolina, by +and with the advice and consent of his Majesty's +honorable Council, and the House of Assembly of +the said Province, and by the authority of the +same, That from and immediately after the passing +of this Act, there shall be imposed on and +paid by all and every the inhabitants of this Province, +and other person and persons whosoever, +first purchasing any negro or other slave, hereafter +to be imported, a certain tax or sum of ten +pounds current money for every such negro and +other slave of the height of four feet two inches +and upwards; and for every one under that +height, and above three feet two inches, the sum +of five pounds like money; and for all under three +feet two inches, (sucking children excepted) two +<!-- Page 217 --><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217"></a>pounds and ten shillings like money, which every +such inhabitant of this Province, and other person +and persons whosoever shall so purchase or buy +as aforesaid, which said sums of ten pounds and +five pounds and two pounds and ten shillings respectively, +shall be paid by such purchaser for +every such slave, at the time of his, her or their +purchasing of the same, to the public treasurer of +this Province for the time being, for the uses hereinafter +mentioned, set down and appointed, under +pain of forfeiting all and every such negroes +and slaves, for which the said taxes or impositions +shall not be paid, pursuant to the directions of +this Act, to be sued for, recovered and applied in +the manner hereinafter directed."</p><p class="pagenum">217</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 6. "<i>And be it further enacted</i> by the authority aforesaid, +That the said tax hereby imposed on negroes +and other slaves, paid or to be paid by or on the +behalf of the purchasers as aforesaid, by virtue of +this Act, shall be applied and appropriated as followeth, +and to no other use, or in any other manner +whatever, (that is to say) that three-fifth parts +(the whole into five equal parts to be divided) of +the net sum arising by the said tax, for and during +the term of five years from the time of passing this +Act, be applied and the same is hereby applied for +payment of the sum of six pounds proclamation +money to every poor foreign protestant whatever +from Europe, or other poor protestant (his Majesty's +subject) who shall produce a certificate under +the seal of any corporation, or a certificate +under the hands of the minister and church-wardens +of any parish, or the minister and elders of +any church, meeting or congregation in Great +Britain or Ireland, of the good character of such +poor protestant, above the age of twelve and under +the age of fifty years, and for payment of the +sum of three pounds like money, to every such +poor protestant under the age of twelve and +above the age of two years; who shall come into +<!-- Page 218 --><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218"></a>this Province within the first three years of the +said term of five years, and settle on any part of +the southern frontier lying between Pon Pon and +Savannah rivers, or in the central parts of this +Province," etc. For the last two years the bounty +is £4 and £2.</p><p class="pagenum">218</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 7. After the expiration of this term of five years, the +sum is appropriated to the protestants settling +anywhere in the State, and the bounty is £2 13<i>s.</i> +4<i>d.</i>, and £1 6<i>s.</i> 8<i>d.</i></p> + +<p class="atext">§ 8. One other fifth of the tax is appropriated to survey +lands, and the remaining fifth as a bounty for +ship-building, and for encouraging the settlement +of ship-builders.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 14. Rebate of three-fourths of the tax allowed in case +of re-exportation of the slaves in six months.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 16. "<i>And be it further enacted</i> by the authority aforesaid, +That every person or persons who after the +passing this Act shall purchase any slave or slaves +which shall be brought or imported into this +Province, either by land or water, from any of his +Majesty's plantations or colonies in America, that +have been in any such colony or plantation for the +space of six months; and if such slave or slaves +have not been so long in such colony or plantation, +the importer shall be obliged to make oath +or produce a proper certificate thereof, or otherwise +every such importer shall pay a further tax or +imposition of fifty pounds, over and besides the +tax hereby imposed for every such slave which he +or they shall purchase as aforesaid." Actual settlers +bringing slaves are excepted.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 41. This act to continue in force ten years from its +passage, and thence to the end of the next session +of the General Assembly, and no longer. Cooper, +<i>Statutes</i>, III. 739.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1753, Dec. 12. New York: 5 oz. and 10 oz. plate Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for granting to His Majesty the several Duties +and Impositions, on Goods, Wares and Merchandizes +imported into this Colony, therein<!-- Page 219 --><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219"></a> +mentioned." Annually continued until 1767, or +perhaps until 1774. <i>Laws of New York, 1752–62</i>, +p. 21, ch. xxvii.; <i>Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York</i>, VII. +907; VIII. 452.</p><p class="pagenum">219</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1754, February. Virginia: Additional Five per cent Duty +Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the encouragement and protection of the +settlers upon the waters of the Mississippi." For +three years; continued in 1755 and 1763; revived in +1772, and continued until 1778. Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, +VI. 417, 468; VII. 639; VIII. 530.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1754, July 25. Maryland: Additional 10s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for his Majesty's Service." Bacon, <i>Laws</i>, 1754, +ch. ix.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1755, May. Virginia: Additional Ten per cent Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to explain an act, intituled, An act for raising +the sum of twenty thousand pounds, for the protection +of his majesty's subjects, against the insults +and encroachments of the French; and for +other purposes therein mentioned."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 10. " ... from and after the passing of this act, +there shall be levied and paid to our sovereign +lord the king, his heirs and successors, for all +slaves imported, or brought into this colony and +dominion for sale, either by land or water, from +any part [port] or place whatsoever, by the buyer, +or purchaser, after the rate of ten per centum, on +the amount of each respective purchase, over and +above the several duties already laid on slaves, imported +as aforesaid, by an act or acts of Assembly, +now subsisting, and also over and above the duty +laid by" the Act of 1754. Repealed by Act of May, +1760, § 11, " ... inasmuch as the same prevents +the importation of slaves, and thereby lessens the +fund arising from the duties upon slaves." Hening, +<i>Statutes</i>, VI. 461; VII. 363. Cf. <i>Dinwiddie +Papers</i>, II. 86.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1756, March 22. Maryland: Additional 20s. Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for granting a Supply of Forty Thousand +Pounds, for his Majesty's Service," etc. For five<!-- Page 220 --><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220"></a> +years. Bacon, <i>Laws</i>, 1756, ch. v.</p><p class="pagenum">220</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1757, April. Virginia: Additional Ten per cent Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for granting an aid to his majesty for the +better protection of this colony, and for other +purposes therein mentioned."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 22. " ... from and after the ninth day of July, one +thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight, during +the term of seven years, there shall be paid for all +slaves imported into this colony, for sale, either by +land or water, from any port or place whatsoever, +by the buyer or purchaser thereof, after the rate +of ten per centum on the amount of each respective +purchase, over and above the several duties +already laid upon slaves imported, as aforesaid, by +any act or acts of Assembly now subsisting in this +colony," etc. Repealed by Act of March, 1761, § 6, +as being "found very inconvenient." Hening, +<i>Statutes</i>, VII. 69, 383.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1759, November. Virginia: Twenty per cent Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to oblige the persons bringing slaves into this +colony from Maryland, Carolina, and the West-Indies, +for their own use, to pay a duty."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. " ... from and after the passing of this act, there +shall be paid ... for all slaves imported or +brought into this colony and dominion from +Maryland, North-Carolina, or any other place in +America, by the owner or importer thereof, after +the rate of twenty per centum on the amount of +each respective purchase," etc. This act to continue +until April 20, 1767; continued in 1766 and +1769, until 1773; altered by Act of 1772, <i>q.v. Ibid.</i>, +VII. 338; VIII. 191, 336.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1760. South Carolina: Total Prohibition.</p> + +<p class="atext">Text not found; act disallowed by Great Britain. Cf. +Burge, <i>Commentaries</i>, I. 737, note; W.B. Stevens, +<i>History of Georgia</i>, I. 286.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1761, March 14. Pennsylvania: £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a duty on Negroes and Mulattoe +slaves, imported into this province." Continued in +1768; repealed (or disallowed) in 1780. Carey and<!-- Page 221 --><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221"></a> +Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 371, 451; <i>Acts of Assembly</i> (ed. +1782), p. 149; <i>Colonial Records</i> (1852), VIII. 576.</p><p class="pagenum">221</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1761, April 22. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A Supplement to an act, entituled An Act for laying +a duty on Negroes and Mulattoe slaves, imported +into this province." Continued in 1768. Carey +and Bioren, <i>Laws</i>, I. 371, 451; Bettle, <i>Notices of +Negro Slavery</i>, in <i>Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem.</i> (1864), I. +388–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1763, Nov. 26. Maryland: Additional £2 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for imposing an additional Duty of Two +Pounds per Poll on all Negroes Imported into this +Province."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. All persons importing Negroes by land or water +into this province, shall at the time of entry pay +to the naval officer the sum of two pounds, current +money, over and above the duties now payable +by law, for every Negro so imported or +brought in, on forfeiture of £10 current money +for every Negro so brought in and not paid for. +One half of the penalty is to go to the informer, +the other half to the use of the county schools. +The duty shall be collected, accounted for, and +paid by the naval officers, in the same manner as +former duties on Negroes.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. But persons removing from any other of his Majesty's +dominions in order to settle and reside +within this province, may import their slaves for +carrying on their proper occupations at the time +of removal, duty free.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. Importers of Negroes, exporting the same within +two months of the time of their importation, on +application to the naval officer shall be paid the +aforesaid duty. Bacon, <i>Laws</i>, 1763, ch. xxviii.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1763 (<i>circa</i>). New Jersey: Prohibitive Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a duty on Negroes and Mulatto +Slaves Imported into this Province." Disallowed +(?) by Great Britain. <i>N.J. Archives</i>, IX. 345–6, 383, +447, 458.</p> +<p class="pagenum">222<!-- Page 222 --><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1764, Aug. 25. South Carolina: Additional £100 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying an additional duty upon all Negroes +hereafter to be imported into this Province, +for the time therein mentioned, to be paid by the +first purchasers of such Negroes." Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, +IV 187.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1766, November. Virginia: Proposed Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act for laying an additional duty upon slaves imported +into this colony."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. " ... from and after the passing of this act there +shall be levied and paid ... for all slaves imported +or brought into this colony for sale, either +by land or water from any port or place whatsoever, +by the buyer or purchaser, after the rate of +ten per centum on the amount of each respective +purchase over and above the several duties already +laid upon slaves imported or brought into this +colony as aforesaid," etc. To be suspended until +the king's consent is given, and then to continue +seven years. The same act was passed again in +1769. Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, VIII. 237, 337.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1766. Rhode Island: Restrictive Measure (?).</p> + +<p class="atext">Title and text not found. Cf. <i>Digest</i> of 1798, under +"Slave Trade;" <i>Public Laws of Rhode Island</i> (revision +of 1822), p. 441.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1768, Feb. 20. Pennsylvania: Re-enactment of Acts of 1761.</p> + +<p class="atext">Titles only found. Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, I. 490; <i>Colonial Records</i> +(1852), IX. 472, 637, 641.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1769, Nov. 16. New Jersey: £15 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for laying a Duty on the Purchasers of Slaves +imported into this Colony."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas Duties on the Importation of Negroes in +several of the neighbouring Colonies hath, on Experience, +been found beneficial in the Introduction +of sober, industrious Foreigners, to settle +under His Majesty's Allegiance, and the promoting +a Spirit of Industry among the Inhabitants in +general: <i>In order therefore</i> to promote the same +good Designs in this Government, and that such +as choose to purchase Slaves may contribute some +equitable Proportion of the publick Burdens," etc. +<!-- Page 223 --><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223"></a>A duty of "<i>Fifteen Pounds</i>, Proclamation Money, +is laid." <i>Acts of Assembly</i> (Allinson, 1776), p. 315.</p> +<p class="pagenum">223</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1769 (circa). Connecticut: Importation Prohibited (?).</p> + +<p class="atext">Title and text not found. "Whereas, the increase of +slaves is injurious to the poor, and inconvenient, +therefore," etc. Fowler, <i>Historical Status of the Negro +in Connecticut</i>, in <i>Local Law</i>, etc., p. 125.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1770. Rhode Island: Bill to Prohibit Importation.</p> + +<p class="atext">Bill to prohibit importation of slaves fails. Arnold, +<i>History of Rhode Island</i> (1859), II. 304, 321, 337.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1771, April 12. Massachusetts: Bill to Prevent Importation.</p> + +<p class="atext">Bill passes both houses and fails of Governor Hutchinson's +assent. <i>House Journal</i>, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, +234, 236, 240, 242–3.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1771. Maryland: Additional £5 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for imposing a further additional duty of five +pounds current money per poll on all negroes imported +into this province." For seven years. <i>Laws +of Maryland since 1763</i>: 1771, ch. vii.; cf. 1773, sess. +Nov.-Dec., ch. xiv.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1772, April 1. Virginia: Address to the King.</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... The importation of slaves into the colonies +from the coast of Africa hath long been considered +as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its +<i>present encouragement</i>, we have too much reason +to fear <i>will endanger the very existence</i> of your majesty's +American dominions....</p> + +<p class="atext">"Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most +humbly beseech your majesty to <i>remove all those +restraints</i> on your majesty's governors of this colony, +<i>which inhibit their assenting to such laws as +might check so very pernicious a commerce</i>." <i>Journals +of the House of Burgesses</i>, p. 131; quoted in Tucker, +<i>Dissertation on Slavery</i> (repr. 1861), p. 43.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1773, Feb. 26. Pennsylvania: Additional £10 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for making perpetual the act ... [of 1761] +... and laying an additional duty on the said +slaves." Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, I. 671; <i>Acts of Assembly</i> (ed. +1782), p. 149.</p> +<p class="pagenum">224<!-- Page 224 --><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1774, March, June. Massachusetts: Bills to Prohibit Importation.</p> + +<p class="atext">Two bills designed to prohibit the importation of +slaves fail of the governor's assent. First bill: <i>General +Court Records</i>, XXX. 248, 264; <i>Mass. Archives, +Domestic Relations, 1643–1774</i>, IX. 457. Second bill: +<i>General Court Records</i>, XXX. 308, 322.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1774, June. Rhode Island: Importation Restricted.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act prohibiting the importation of Negroes into +this Colony."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas, the inhabitants of America are generally engaged +in the preservation of their own rights and +liberties, among which, that of personal freedom +must be considered as the greatest; as those who +are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty +themselves, should be willing to extend personal +liberty to others;—</p> + +<p class="atext">"Therefore, be it enacted ... that for the future, no +negro or mulatto slave shall be brought into this +colony; and in case any slave shall hereafter be +brought in, he or she shall be, and are hereby, +rendered immediately free, so far as respects personal +freedom, and the enjoyment of private +property, in the same manner as the native Indians."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Provided that the slaves of settlers and travellers be +excepted.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, +or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto +slave brought from the coast of Africa, into the +West Indies, on board any vessel belonging to this +colony, and which negro or mulatto slave could +not be disposed of in the West Indies, but shall be +brought into this colony.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Provided, that the owner of such negro or mulatto +slave give bond to the general treasurer of the said +colony, within ten days after such arrival in the +sum of £100, lawful money, for each and every +such negro or mulatto slave so brought in, that +such negro or mulatto slave shall be exported out +of the colony, within one year from the date of +<!-- Page 225 --><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225"></a>such bond; if such negro or mulatto be alive, and +in a condition to be removed."</p><p class="pagenum">225</p> + +<p class="atext">"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, +or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto +slave that may be on board any vessel belonging +to this colony, now at sea, in her present voyage." +Heavy penalties are laid for bringing in Negroes +in order to free them. <i>Colonial Records</i>, VII. +251–3.</p> + +<p class="atext">[1784, February: "It is voted and resolved, that the +whole of the clause contained in an act of this Assembly, +passed at June session, <span class="smcap">a.d.</span> 1774, permitting +slaves brought from the coast of Africa +into the West Indies, on board any vessel belonging +to this (then colony, now) state, and who +could not be disposed of in the West Indies, &c., +be, and the same is, hereby repealed." <i>Colonial +Records</i>, X. 8.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1774, October. Connecticut: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for prohibiting the Importation of Indian, +Negro or Molatto Slaves."</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... no indian, negro or molatto Slave shall at any +time hereafter be brought or imported into this +Colony, by sea or land, from any place or places +whatsoever, to be disposed of, left or sold within +this Colony." This was re-enacted in the revision +of 1784, and slaves born after 1784 were ordered +to be emancipated at the age of twenty-five. <i>Colonial +Records</i>, XIV. 329; <i>Acts and Laws of Connecticut</i> +(ed. 1784), pp. 233–4.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1774. New Jersey: Proposed Prohibitive Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A Bill for laying a Duty on Indian, Negroe and Molatto +Slaves, imported into this Colony." Passed +the Assembly, and was rejected by the Council as +"plainly" intending "an intire Prohibition," etc. +<i>N.J. Archives</i>, 1st Series, VI. 222.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1775, March 27. Delaware: Bill to Prohibit Importation.</p> + +<p class="atext">Passed the Assembly and was vetoed by the governor. +Force, <i>American Archives</i>, 4th Series, II. 128–9.</p> +<p class="pagenum"><!-- Page 226 --><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226"></a>226</p> + +<p class="atitle">1775, Nov. 23. Virginia: On Lord Dunmore's Proclamation.</p> + +<p class="atext">Williamsburg Convention to the public: "Our Assemblies +have repeatedly passed acts, laying heavy duties +upon imported Negroes, by which they meant +altogether to prevent the horrid traffick; but their +humane intentions have been as often frustrated +by the cruelty and covetousness of a set of <i>English</i> +merchants." ... The Americans would, if possible, +"not only prevent any more Negroes from +losing their freedom, but restore it to such as have +already unhappily lost it." This is evidently addressed +in part to Negroes, to keep them from +joining the British. <i>Ibid.</i>, III. 1387.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1776, June 29. Virginia: Preamble to Frame of Government.</p> + +<p class="atext">Blame for the slave-trade thrown on the king. See +above, page 21. Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, IX. 112–3.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1776, Aug.-Sept. Delaware: Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The Constitution or system of Government agreed to +and resolved upon by the Representatives in full +Convention of the Delaware State," etc.</p> + + +<p class="atext">§ 26. "No person hereafter imported into this State +from <i>Africa</i> ought to be held in slavery on any +pretence whatever; and no Negro, Indian, or Mulatto +slave ought to be brought into this State, for +sale, from any part of the world." Force, <i>American +Archives</i>, 5th Series, I. 1174–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1777, July 2. Vermont: Slavery Condemned.</p> + +<p class="atext">The first Constitution declares slavery a violation of +"natural, inherent and unalienable rights." <i>Vermont +State Papers, 1779–86</i>, p. 244.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1777. Maryland: Negro Duty Maintained.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act concerning duties."</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... no duties imposed by act of assembly on any +article or thing imported into or exported out of +this state (except duties imposed on the importation +of negroes), shall be taken or received within +two years from the end of the present session of +the general assembly." <i>Laws of Maryland since 1763</i>: +1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. xviii.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum">227</span><!-- Page 227 --><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1778, Sept. 7. Pennsylvania: Act to Collect Back Duties.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the recovery of the duties on Negroes +and Mulattoe slaves, which on the fourth day of +July, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-six, +were due to this state," etc. Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, I. +782.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1778, October. Virginia: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act for preventing the farther importation of +Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "For preventing the farther importation of slaves +into this commonwealth, <i>Be it enacted by the General +Assembly</i>, That from and after the passing of +this act no slave or slaves shall hereafter be imported +into this commonwealth by sea or land, +nor shall any slaves so imported be sold or bought +by any person whatsoever.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. "Every person hereafter importing slaves into this +commonwealth contrary to this act shall forfeit +and pay the sum of one thousand pounds for +every slave so imported, and every person selling +or buying any such slaves shall in like manner forfeit +and pay the sum of five hundred pounds for +every slave so sold or bought," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. "<i>And be it farther enacted</i>, That every slave imported +into this commonwealth, contrary to the +true intent and meaning of this act, shall, upon +such importation become free."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 4. Exceptions are <i>bona fide</i> settlers with slaves not +imported later than Nov. 1, 1778, nor intended to +be sold; and transient travellers. Re-enacted in +substance in the revision of October, 1785. For a +temporary exception to this act, as concerns citizens +of Georgia and South Carolina during the +war, see Act of May, 1780. Hening, <i>Statutes</i>, IX. +471; X. 307; XII. 182.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1779, October. Rhode Island: Slave-Trade Restricted.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act prohibiting slaves being sold out of the state, +against their consent." Title only found. <i>Colonial +Records</i>, VIII. 618; Arnold, <i>History of Rhode Island</i>, +II. 449.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 228 -->228</span><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1779. Vermont: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for securing the general privileges of the people," +etc. The act abolished slavery. <i>Vermont State +Papers, 1779–86</i>, p. 287.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1780. Massachusetts: Slavery Abolished.</p> + +<p class="atext">Passage in the Constitution which was held by the +courts to abolish slavery: "Art. I. All men are born +free and equal, and have certain, natural, essential, +and unalienable rights; among which may be +reckoned the right of enjoying and defending +their lives and liberties," etc. <i>Constitution of Massachusetts</i>, +Part I., Art. 1; prefixed to <i>Perpetual +Laws</i> (1789).</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1780, March 1. Pennsylvania: Slavery Abolished.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the gradual abolition of slavery."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. All slaves to be registered before Nov. 1.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 10. None but slaves "registered as aforesaid, shall, +at any time hereafter, be deemed, adjudged, or +holden, within the territories of this commonwealth, +as slaves or servants for life, but as free +men and free women; except the domestic slaves +attending upon Delegates in Congress from the +other American States," and those of travellers not +remaining over six months, foreign ministers, etc., +"provided such domestic slaves be not aliened or +sold to any inhabitant," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 11. Fugitive slaves from other states may be taken +back.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 14. Former duty acts, etc., repealed. Dallas, <i>Laws</i>, I. +838. Cf. <i>Penn. Archives</i>, VII. 79; VIII. 720.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1783, April. Confederation: Slave-Trade in Treaty of 1783.</p> + +<p class="atext">"To the earnest wish of Jay that British ships should +have no right under the convention to carry into +the states any slaves from any part of the world, it +being the intention of the United States entirely +to prohibit their importation, Fox answered +promptly: 'If that be their policy, it never can be +competent to us to dispute with them their own +regulations.'" Fox to Hartley, June 10, 1783, in +Bancroft, <i>History of the Constitution</i>, I. 61. Cf. +Sparks, <i>Diplomatic Correspondence</i>, X. 154, June,<!-- Page 229 --><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229"></a> +1783.</p><p class="pagenum">229</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1783. Maryland: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prohibit the bringing slaves into this +state."</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... it shall not be lawful, after the passing this act, +to import or bring into this state, by land or +water, any negro, mulatto, or other slave, for +sale, or to reside within this state; and any person +brought into this state as a slave contrary to +this act, if a slave before, shall thereupon immediately +cease to be a slave, and shall be free; provided +that this act shall not prohibit any person, +being a citizen of some one of the United States, +coming into this state, with a <i>bona fide</i> intention +of settling therein, and who shall actually reside +within this state for one year at least, ... to import +or bring in any slave or slaves which before +belonged to such person, and which slave or +slaves had been an inhabitant of some one of the +United States, for the space of three whole years +next preceding such importation," etc. <i>Laws of +Maryland since 1763</i>: 1783, sess. April—June, ch. +xxiii.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1783, Aug. 13. South Carolina: £3 and £20 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for levying and collecting certain duties and +imposts therein mentioned, in aid of the public +revenue." Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, IV. 576.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1784, February. Rhode Island: Manumission.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act authorizing the manumission of negroes, mulattoes, +and others, and for the gradual abolition +of slavery." Persons born after March, 1784, to be +free. Bill framed pursuant to a petition of Quakers. +<i>Colonial Records</i>, X. 7–8; Arnold, <i>History of +Rhode Island</i>, II. 503.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1784, March 26. South Carolina: £3 and £5 Duty Act.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for levying and collecting certain Duties," etc. +Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, IV. 607.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1785, April 12. New York: Partial Prohibition.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act granting a bounty on hemp to be raised +within this State, and imposing an additional duty +<!-- Page 230 --><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230"></a>on sundry articles of merchandise, and for other +purposes therein mentioned."</p><p class="pagenum">230</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... <i>And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid</i>, +That if any negro or other person to be imported +or brought into this State from any of the +United States or from any other place or country +after the first day of June next, shall be sold as a +slave or slaves within this State, the seller or his +or her factor or agent, shall be deemed guilty of a +public offence, and shall for every such offence +forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds lawful +money of New York, to be recovered by any person," +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>And be it further enacted</i>.... That every such person +imported or brought into this State and sold contrary +to the true intent and meaning of this act +shall be freed." <i>Laws of New York, 1785–88</i> (ed. +1886), pp. 120–21.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1785. Rhode Island: Restrictive Measure (?).</p> + +<p class="atext">Title and text not found. Cf. <i>Public Laws of Rhode Island</i> +(revision of 1822), p. 441.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1786, March 2. New Jersey: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prevent the importation of Slaves into the +State of New Jersey, and to authorize the Manumission +of them under certain restrictions, and to +prevent the Abuse of Slaves."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas the Principles of Justice and Humanity require +that the barbarous Custom of bringing the +unoffending African from his native Country and +Connections into a State of Slavery ought to be +discountenanced, and as soon as possible prevented; +and sound Policy also requires, in order +to afford ample Support to such of the Community +as depend upon their Labour for their daily +Subsistence, that the Importation of Slaves into +this State from any other State or Country whatsoever, +ought to be prohibited under certain Restrictions; +and that such as are under Servitude in +the State ought to be protected by Law from +those Exercises of Wanton Cruelty too often practiced +<!-- Page 231 --><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231"></a>upon them; and that every unnecessary Obstruction +in the Way of freeing Slaves should be +removed; therefore,</p><p class="pagenum">231</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it Enacted by the Council and General Assembly +of this State, and it is hereby Enacted by the Authority +of the same</i>, That from and after the Publication +of this Act, it shall not be lawful for any Person +or Persons whatsoever to bring into this State, either +for Sale or for Servitude, any Negro Slave +brought from Africa since the Year Seventeen +Hundred and Seventy-six; and every Person offending +by bringing into this State any such Negro +Slave shall, for each Slave, forfeit and Pay the +Sum of Fifty Pounds, to be sued for and recovered +with Costs by the Collector of the Township +into which such Slave shall be brought, to be applied +when recovered to the Use of the State.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. "<i>And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid</i>, +That if any Person shall either bring or procure +to be brought into this State, any Negro or +Mulatto Slave, who shall not have been born in +or brought from Africa since the Year above mentioned, +and either sell or buy, or cause such Negro +or Mulatto Slave to be sold or remain in this +State, for the Space of six Months, every such Person +so bringing or procuring to be brought or +selling or purchasing such Slave, not born in or +brought from Africa since the Year aforesaid, shall +for every such Slave, forfeit and pay the Sum of +Twenty Pounds, to be sued for and recovered +with Costs by the Collector of the Township into +which such Slave shall be brought or remain after +the Time limited for that Purpose, the Forfeiture +to be applied to the Use of the State as aforesaid.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. "<i>Provided always, and be it further Enacted by the +Authority aforesaid</i>, That Nothing in this Act contained +shall be construed to prevent any Person +who shall remove into the State, to take a settled +Residence here, from bringing all his or her Slaves +without incurring the Penalties aforesaid, excepting +<!-- Page 232 --><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232"></a>such Slaves as shall have been brought from +Africa since the Year first above mentioned, or to +prevent any Foreigners or others having only a +temporary Residence in this State, for the Purpose +of transacting any particular Business, or on +their Travels, from bringing and employing such +Slaves as Servants, during the Time of his or her +Stay here, provided such Slaves shall not be sold +or disposed of in this State." <i>Acts of the Tenth +General Assembly</i> (Tower Collection of Laws).</p><p class="pagenum">232</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1786, Oct. 30. Vermont: External Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prevent the sale and transportation of Negroes +and Molattoes out of this State." £100 penalty. +<i>Statutes of Vermont</i> (ed. 1787), p. 105.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1786. North Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to impose a duty on all slaves brought into +this state by land or water."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas the importation of slaves into this state is +productive of evil consequences, and highly impolitic," +etc. A prohibitive duty is imposed. The +exact text was not found.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 6. Slaves introduced from States which have passed +emancipation acts are to be returned in three +months; if not, a bond of £50 is to be forfeited, +and a fine of £100 imposed.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 8. Act to take effect next Feb. 1; repealed by Act of +1790, ch. 18. Martin, <i>Iredell's Acts of Assembly</i>, I. +413, 492.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1787, Feb. 3. Delaware: Exportation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prevent the exportation of slaves, and for +other purposes." <i>Laws of Delaware</i> (ed. 1797), +p. 884, ch. 145 b.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1787, March 28. South Carolina: Total Prohibition.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to regulate the recovery and payment of debts +and for prohibiting the importation of negroes +for the time therein mentioned." Title only given. +Grimké, <i>Public Laws</i>, p. lxviii, No. 1485.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1787, March 28. South Carolina: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Ordinance to impose a Penalty on any person +who shall import into this State any Negroes,contrary to the Instalment Act."</p> +<p><!-- Page 233 --><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233"></a><span class="pagenum">233</span></p> + +<p class="atext">1. "<i>Be it ordained</i>, by the honorable the Senate and +House of Representatives, met in General Assembly, +and by the authority of the same, That any +person importing or bringing into this State a negro +slave, contrary to the Act to regulate the recovery +of debts and prohibiting the importation +of negroes, shall, besides the forfeiture of such negro +or slave, be liable to a penalty of one hundred +pounds, to the use of the State, for every such +negro or slave so imported and brought in, in +addition to the forfeiture in and by the said Act +prescribed." Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 430.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1787, October. Rhode Island: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prevent the slave trade and to encourage +the abolition of slavery." This act prohibited and +censured trade under penalty of £100 for each +person and £1,000 for each vessel. Bartlett, <i>Index +to the Printed Acts and Resolves</i>, p. 333; <i>Narragansett +Historical Register</i>, II. 298–9.</p> +<!-- Page 234 --><p><span class="pagenum">234</span><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234"></a></p> + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_B" id="APPENDIX_B"></a>APPENDIX B.</h2> + +<h3>A CHRONOLOGICAL CONSPECTUS OF STATE, +NATIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL +LEGISLATION.<br /> +1788–1871.</h3> + + +<p>As the State statutes and Congressional reports and bills are difficult to find, +the significant parts of such documents are printed in full. In the case of +national statutes and treaties, the texts may easily be found through the +references.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1788, Feb. 22. New York: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act concerning slaves."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas in consequence of the act directing a revision +of the laws of this State, it is expedient that +the several existing laws relative to slaves, should +be revised, and comprized in one. Therefore, <i>Be +it enacted</i>," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"And to prevent the further importation of slaves into +this State, <i>Be it further enacted by the authority +aforesaid</i>, That if any person shall sell as a slave +within this State any negro, or other person, who +has been imported or brought into this State, after" +June 1, 1785, "such seller, or his or her factor +or agent, making such sale, shall be deemed guilty +of a public offence, and shall for every such offence, +forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds.... +<i>And further</i>, That every person so imported +... shall be free." The purchase of slaves for removal +to another State is prohibited under penalty +of £100. <i>Laws of New York, 1785–88</i> (ed. 1886), +pp. 675–6.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1788, March 25. Massachusetts: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prevent the Slave-Trade, and for granting +Relief to the Families of such unhappy Persons as +may be kidnapped or decoyed away from this +Commonwealth."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas by the African trade for slaves, the lives and +liberties of many innocent persons have been from +time to time sacrificed to the lust of gain: And +whereas some persons residing in this Commonwealth +may be so regardless of the rights of human +kind, as to be concerned in that unrighteous +commerce:</p> +<!-- Page 235 --><p><span class="pagenum">235</span><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235"></a></p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "Be it therefore enacted by the Senate and House +of Representatives, in General Court assembled, +and by the authority of the same, That no citizen +of this Commonwealth, or other person residing +within the same, shall for himself, or any other +person whatsoever, either as master, factor, supercargo, +owner or hirer, in whole or in part, of any +vessel, directly or indirectly, import or transport, +or buy or sell, or receive on board, his or their +vessel, with intent to cause to be imported or +transported, any of the inhabitants of any State or +Kingdom, in that part of the world called <i>Africa</i>, +as slaves, or as servants for term of years." Any +person convicted of doing this shall forfeit and +pay the sum of £50 for every person received on +board, and the sum of £200 for every vessel fitted +out for the trade, "to be recovered by action of +debt, in any Court within this Commonwealth, +proper to try the same; the one moiety thereof to +the use of this Commonwealth, and the other +moiety to the person who shall prosecute for and +recover the same."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. All insurance on said vessels and cargo shall be null +and void; "and this act may be given in evidence +under the general issue, in any suit or action commenced +for the recovery of insurance so made," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 4. "<i>Provided</i> ... That this act do not extend to vessels +which have already sailed, their owners, factors, +or commanders, for and during their present +voyage, or to any insurance that shall have been +made, previous to the passing of the same." <i>Perpetual +Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89</i> (ed. 1789), +p. 235.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1788, March 29. Pennsylvania: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to explain and amend an act, entituled, 'An +Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.'"</p> +<!-- Page 236 --><p><span class="pagenum">236</span><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236"></a></p> +<p class="atext">§ 2. Slaves brought in by persons intending to settle +shall be free.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. " ... no negro or mulatto slave, or servant for +term of years," except servants of congressmen, +consuls, etc., "shall be removed out of this state, +with the design and intention that the place of +abode or residence of such slave or servant shall +be thereby altered or changed, or with the design +and intention that such slave or servant, if a female, +and pregnant, shall be detained and kept +out of this state till her delivery of the child of +which she is or shall be pregnant, or with the design +and intention that such slave or servant shall +be brought again into this state, after the expiration +of six months from the time of such slave or +servant having been first brought into this state, +without his or her consent, if of full age, testified +upon a private examination, before two Justices of +the peace of the city or county in which he or she +shall reside, or, being under the age of twenty-one +years, without his or her consent, testified in manner +aforesaid, and also without the consent of his +or her parents," etc. Penalty for every such offence, +£75.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. " ... if any person or persons shall build, fit, +equip, man, or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel, +within any port of this state, or shall cause any +ship or other vessel to sail from any port of this +state, for the purpose of carrying on a trade or +traffic in slaves, to, from, or between Europe, +Asia, Africa or America, or any places or countries +whatever, or of transporting slaves to or from one +port or place to another, in any part or parts of +the world, such ship or vessel, her tackle, furniture, +apparel, and other appurtenances, shall be +forfeited to the commonwealth.... And, moreover, +all and every person and persons so building, +fitting out," etc., shall forfeit £1000. Dallas, +<i>Laws</i>, II. 586.</p> +<!-- Page 237 --><p><span class="pagenum">237</span><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1788, October. Connecticut: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prevent the Slave-Trade."</p> + +<p class="atext"><i>"Be it enacted by the Governor, Council and Representatives +in General Court assembled, and by the Authority +of the same</i>, That no Citizen or Inhabitant +of this State, shall for himself, or any other Person, +either as Master, Factor, Supercargo, Owner +or Hirer, in Whole, or in Part, of any Vessel, directly +or indirectly, import or transport, or buy +or sell, or receive on board his or her Vessel, +with Intent to cause to be imported or transported, +any of the Inhabitants of any Country in +Africa, as Slaves or Servants, for Term of Years; +upon Penalty of <i>Fifty Pounds</i>, for every Person so +received on board, as aforesaid; and of <i>Five +Hundred Pounds</i> for every such Vessel employed +in the Importation or Transportation aforesaid; +to be recovered by Action, Bill, Plaint or Information; +the one Half to the Plaintiff, and the other +Half to the Use of this State." And all insurance +on vessels and slaves shall be void. This act to +be given as evidence under general issue, in any +suit commenced for recovery of such insurance.</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... if any Person shall kidnap ... any free Negro," +etc., inhabitant of this State, he shall forfeit £100. +Every vessel clearing for the coast of Africa or any +other part of the world, and suspected to be in +the slave-trade, must give bond in £1000. Slightly +amended in 1789. <i>Acts and Laws of Connecticut</i> (ed. +1784), pp. 368–9, 388.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1788, Nov. 4. South Carolina: Temporary Prohibition.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to regulate the Payment and Recovery of +Debts, and to prohibit the Importation of Negroes, +for the Time therein limited."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 16. "No negro or other slave shall be imported or +brought into this State either by land or water on +or before the first of January, 1793, under the penalty +of forfeiting every such slave or slaves to any +person who will sue or inform for the same; and +under further penalty of paying £100 to the use +<!-- Page 238 --><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238"></a>of the State for every such negro or slave so imported +or brought in: <i>Provided</i>, That nothing in +this prohibition contained shall extend to such +slaves as are now the property of citizens of the +United States, and at the time of passing this act +shall be within the limits of the said United States.</p><p class="pagenum">238</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 17. "All former instalment laws, and an ordinance +imposing a penalty on persons importing negroes +into this State, passed the 28th day of March 1787, +are hereby repealed." Grimké, <i>Public Laws</i>, p. 466.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1789, Feb. 3. Delaware: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>An additional Supplementary</i> ACT <i>to an act, intituled</i>, +An act to prevent the exportation of slaves, and +for other purposes."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas it is inconsistent with that spirit of general +liberty which pervades the constitution of this +state, that vessels should be fitted out, or +equipped, in any of the ports thereof, for the purpose +of receiving and transporting the natives of +Africa to places where they are held in slavery; or +that any acts should be deemed lawful, which +tend to encourage or promote such iniquitous +traffic among us:</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of +Delaware</i>, That if any owner or owners, master, +agent, or factor, shall fit out, equip, man, or otherwise +prepare, any ship or vessel within any port +or place in this state, or shall cause any ship, or +other vessel, to sail from any port or place in this +state, for the purpose of carrying on a trade or +traffic in slaves, to, from, or between, Europe, +Asia, Africa, or America, or any places or countries +whatever, or of transporting slaves to, or +from, one port or place to another, in any part or +parts of the world; such ship or vessel, her tackle, +furniture, apparel, and other appurtenances, shall +be forfeited to this state.... And moreover, all +and every person and persons so fitting out ... +any ship or vessel ... shall severally forfeit and +pay the sum of Five Hundred Pounds;" one-half +to the state, and one-half to the informer.</p> +<!-- Page 239 --><p><span class="pagenum">239</span><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239"></a></p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. "<i>And whereas</i> it has been found by experience, that +the act, intituled, <i>An act to prevent the exportation +of slaves, and for other purposes</i>, has not produced +all the good effects expected therefrom," any one +exporting a slave to Maryland, Virginia, North +Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, or the West +Indies, without license, shall forfeit £100 for each +slave exported and £20 for each attempt.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. Slaves to be tried by jury for capital offences. <i>Laws +of Delaware</i> (ed. 1797), p. 942, ch. 194 b.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1789, May 13. Congress (House): Proposed Duty on Slaves +Imported.</p> + +<p class="atext">A tax of $10 per head on slaves imported, moved by +Parker of Virginia. After debate, withdrawn. <i>Annals +of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 336–42.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1789, Sept. 19. Congress (House): Bill to Tax Slaves Imported.</p> + +<p class="atext">A committee under Parker of Virginia reports, "a bill +concerning the importation of certain persons +prior to the year 1808." Read once and postponed +until next session. <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 1 +Cong. 1 sess. I. 37, 114; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 1 Cong. 1 +sess., pp. 366, 903.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1790, March 22. Congress (House): Declaration of +Powers.</p> + +<p class="atext">See above, pages 82–83.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1790, March 22. New York: Amendment of Act of 1788.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to amend the act entitled 'An act concerning +slaves.'"</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas many inconveniences have arisen from the +prohibiting the exporting of slaves from this +State. Therefore</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it enacted</i> ..., That where any slave shall hereafter +be convicted of a crime under the degree of +a capital offence, in the supreme court, or the +court of oyer and terminer, and general gaol delivery, +or a court of general sessions of the peace +within this State, it shall and may be lawful to and +for the master or mistress to cause such slave to +<!-- Page 240 --><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240"></a>be transported out of this State," etc. <i>Laws of New +York, 1789–96</i> (ed. 1886), p. 151.</p><p class="pagenum">240</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1792, May. Connecticut: Act of 1788 Strengthened.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act in addition to an Act, entitled 'An Act to prevent +the Slave Trade.'"</p> + +<p class="atext">This provided that persons directly or indirectly aiding +or assisting in slave-trading should be fined £100. +All notes, bonds, mortgages, etc., of any kind, +made or executed in payment for any slave imported +contrary to this act, are declared null and +void. Persons removing from the State might +carry away their slaves. <i>Acts and Laws of Connecticut</i> +(ed. 1784), pp. 412–3.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1792, Dec. 17. Virginia: Revision of Acts.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to reduce into one, the several acts concerning +slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it enacted</i> ..., That no persons shall henceforth +be slaves within this commonwealth, except +such as were so on the seventeenth day of October," +1785, "and the descendants of the females of +them."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. "Slaves which shall hereafter be brought into this +commonwealth, and kept therein one whole year +together, or so long at different times as shall +amount to one year, shall be free."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 4. "<i>Provided</i>, That nothing in this act contained, +shall be construed to extend to those who may +incline to remove from any of the United States +and become citizens of this, if within sixty days +after such removal, he or she shall take the following +oath before some justice of the peace of this +commonwealth: '<i>I, A.B., do swear, that my removal +into the state of Virginia, was with no intent +of evading the laws for preventing the further importation +of slaves, nor have I brought with me any +slaves, with an intention of selling them, nor have any +of the slaves which I have brought with me, been imported +from Africa, or any of the West India islands, +since the first day of November</i>,'" 1778, etc.</p> +<!-- Page 241 --><p><span class="pagenum">241</span><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241"></a></p> +<p class="atext">§ 53. This act to be in force immediately. <i>Statutes at +Large of Virginia, New Series</i>, I. 122.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1792, Dec. 21. South Carolina: Importation Prohibited +until 1795.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prohibit the importation of Slaves from +Africa, or other places beyond sea, into this State, +for two years; and also to prohibit the importation +or bringing in Slaves, or Negroes, Mulattoes, +Indians, Moors or Mestizoes, bound for a term of +years, from any of the United States, by land or +by water."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas, it is deemed inexpedient to increase the +number of slaves within this State, in our present +circumstances and situation;</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it therefore enacted</i> ..., That no slave shall +be imported into this State from Africa, the West +India Islands, or other place beyond sea, for and +during the term of two years, commencing from +the first day of January next, which will be in the +year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and +ninety-three."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. No slaves, Negroes, Indians, etc., bound for a +term of years, to be brought in from any of the +United States or bordering countries. Settlers may +bring their slaves. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 431.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1793, Dec. 19. Georgia: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prevent the importation of negroes into this +state from the places herein mentioned." Title +only. Re-enacted (?) by the Constitution of 1798. +Marbury and Crawford, <i>Digest</i>, p. 442; Prince, +<i>Digest</i>, p. 786.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1794, North Carolina: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prevent the further importation and bringing +of slaves and indented servants of colour into +this state."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it enacted</i> ..., That from and after the first +day of May next, no slave or indented servant of +colour shall be imported or brought into this state +by land or water; nor shall any slave or indented +servant of colour, who may be imported or +brought contrary to the intent and meaning of +<!-- Page 242 --><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242"></a>this act, be bought, sold or hired by any person +whatever."</p><p class="pagenum">242</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. Penalty for importing, £100 per slave; for buying +or selling, the same.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 4. Persons removing, travelling, etc., are excepted. +The act was amended slightly in 1796. Martin, <i>Iredell's +Acts of Assembly</i>, II. 53, 94.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1794, March 22. United States Statute: Export Slave-Trade +Forbidden.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade +from the United States to any foreign place or +country." <i>Statutes at Large</i>, I. 347. For proceedings +in Congress, see <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1820), +3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 51; <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 3 +Cong. 1 sess. II. 76, 84, 85, 96, 98, 99, 100; <i>Annals +of Cong.</i>, 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70, 72.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1794, Dec. 20. South Carolina: Act of 1792 Extended.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to revive and extend an Act entitled 'An Act +to prohibit the importation of Slaves from Africa, +or other places beyond Sea, into this State, for +two years; and also, to prohibit the importation +or bringing in of Negro Slaves, Mulattoes, Indians, +Moors or Mestizoes, bound for a term of +years, from any of the United States, by Land or +Water.'"</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. Act of 1792 extended until Jan. 1, 1797.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. It shall not be lawful hereafter to import slaves, +free Negroes, etc., from the West Indies, any part +of America outside the United States, "or from +other parts beyond sea." Such slaves are to be forfeited +and sold; the importer to be fined £50; free +Negroes to be re-transported. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, +VII. 433.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1795. North Carolina: Act against West Indian Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prevent any person who may emigrate from +any of the West India or Bahama islands, or the +French, Dutch or Spanish settlements on the +southern coast of America, from bringing slaves +into this state, and also for imposing certain restrictions +on free persons of colour who may hereafter<!-- Page 243 --><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243"></a> +come into this state." Penalty, £100 for each +slave over 15 years of age. <i>Laws of North Carolina</i> +(revision of 1819), I. 786.</p><p class="pagenum">243</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1796. Maryland: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act relating to Negroes, and to repeal the acts of +assembly therein mentioned."</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it enacted</i> ..., That it shall not be lawful, from +and after the passing of this act, to import or +bring into this state, by land or water, any negro, +mulatto or other slave, for sale, or to reside within +this state; and any person brought into this state +as a slave contrary to this act, if a slave before, +shall thereupon immediately cease to be the property +of the person or persons so importing or +bringing such slave within this state, and shall be +free."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. Any citizen of the United States, coming into the +State to take up <i>bona fide</i> residence, may bring +with him, or within one year import, any slave +which was his property at the time of removal, +"which slaves, or the mother of which slaves, +shall have been a resident of the United States, or +some one of them, three whole years next preceding +such removal."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. Such slaves cannot be sold within three years, except +by will, etc. In 1797, "A Supplementary Act," +etc., slightly amended the preceding, allowing +guardians, executors, etc., to import the slaves of +the estate. Dorsey, <i>Laws</i>, I. 334, 344.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1796, Dec. 19. South Carolina: Importation Prohibited +until 1799.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prohibit the importation of Negroes, until +the first day of January, one thousand seven +hundred and ninety-nine."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas, it appears to be highly impolitic to import +negroes from Africa, or other places beyond seas," +etc. Extended by acts of Dec. 21, 1798, and Dec. +20, 1800, until Jan. 1, 1803. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. +434, 436.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum">244</span><!-- Page 244 --><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1797, Jan. 18. Delaware: Codification of Acts.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act concerning Negro and Mulatto slaves."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. " ... any Negro or Mulatto slave, who hath been +or shall be brought into this state contrary to the +intent and meaning of [the act of 1787]; and any +Negro or Mulatto slave who hath been or shall be +exported, or sold with an intention for exportation, +or carried out for sale from this state, contrary +to the intent and meaning of [the act of +1793], shall be, and are hereby declared free; any +thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding." +<i>Laws of Delaware</i> (ed. 1797), p. 1321, ch. 124 c.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1798, Jan. 31. Georgia: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to prohibit the further importation of slaves +into this state."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. " ... six months after the passing of this act, it +shall be unlawful for any person or persons to import +into this state, from Africa or elsewhere, any +negro or negroes of any age or sex." Every person +so offending shall forfeit for the first offence the +sum of $1,000 for every negro so imported, and +for every subsequent offence the sum of $1,000, +one half for the use of the informer, and one half +for the use of the State.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. Slaves not to be brought from other States for sale +after three months.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. Persons convicted of bringing slaves into this State +with a view to sell them, are subject to the same +penalties as if they had sold them. Marbury and +Crawford, <i>Digest</i>, p. 440.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1798, March 14. New Jersey: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act respecting slaves."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 12. "<i>And be it enacted</i>, That from and after the passing +of this act, it shall not be lawful for any person +or persons whatsoever, to bring into this +state, either for sale or for servitude, any negro or +other slave whatsoever." Penalty, $140 for each +slave; travellers and temporary residents excepted.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 17. Any persons fitting out vessels for the slave-trade +shall forfeit them. Paterson, <i>Digest</i>, p. 307.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum">245</span><!-- Page 245 --><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1798, April 7. United States Statute: Importation into +Mississippi Territory Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for an amicable settlement of limits with the +state of Georgia, and authorizing the establishment +of a government in the Mississippi territory." +<i>Statutes at Large</i>, I. 549. For proceedings in +Congress, see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. +511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 532, 533, 1235, 1249, 1277–84, +1296, 1298–1312, 1313, 1318.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1798, May 30. Georgia: Constitutional Prohibition.</p> + +<p class="atext">Constitution of Georgia:—</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. IV § 11. "There shall be no future importation of +slaves into this state from Africa, or any foreign +place, after the first day of October next. The legislature +shall have no power to pass laws for the +emancipation of slaves, without the consent of +each of their respective owners previous to such +emancipation. They shall have no power to prevent +emigrants, from either of the United States +to this state, from bringing with them such persons +as may be deemed slaves, by the laws of any +one of the United States." Marbury and Crawford, +<i>Digest</i>, p. 30.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1800, May 10. United States Statute: Americans Forbidden +to Trade from one Foreign Country to +Another.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act in addition to the act intituled 'An act to prohibit +the carrying on the Slave Trade from the +United States to any foreign place or country.'" +<i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 70. For proceedings in Congress, +see <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 +sess. III. 72, 77, 88, 92.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1800, Dec. 20. South Carolina: Slaves and Free Negroes +Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prevent Negro Slaves and other persons of +Colour, from being brought into or entering this +State." Supplemented Dec. 19, 1801, and amended +Dec. 18, 1802. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 436, 444, 447.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1801, April 8. New York: Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act concerning slaves and servants."</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 246 -->246</span><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246"></a></p> +<p class="atext">" ... <i>And be it further enacted</i>, That no slave shall +hereafter be imported or brought into this State, +unless the person importing or bringing such +slave shall be coming into this State with intent +to reside permanently therein and shall have resided +without this State, and also have owned +such slave at least during one year next preceding +the importing or bringing in of such slave," etc. +A certificate, sworn to, must be obtained; any +violation of this act or neglect to take out such +certificate will result in freedom to the slave. +Any sale or limited transfer of any person hereafter +imported to be a public offence, under +penalty of $250, and freedom to the slave transferred. +The export of slaves or of any person freed +by this act is forbidden, under penalty of $250 +and freedom to the slave. Transportation for crime +is permitted. Re-enacted with amendments +March 31, 1817. <i>Laws of New York, 1801</i> (ed. 1887), +pp. 547–52; <i>Laws of New York, 1817</i> (ed. 1817), +p. 136.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1803, Feb. 28. United States Statute: Importation into +States Prohibiting Forbidden.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons +into certain states, where, by the laws thereof, +their admission is prohibited." <i>Statutes at Large</i>, +II. 205. For copy of the proposed bill which this +replaced, see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 7 Cong. 2 sess. +p. 467. For proceedings in Congress, see <i>House +Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 7 Cong. 2 sess. IV 304, 324, +347; <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 7 Cong. 2 sess. III. +267, 268, 269–70, 273, 275, 276, 279.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1803, Dec. 17. South Carolina: African Slaves Admitted.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to alter and amend the several Acts respecting +the importation or bringing into this State, from +beyond seas, or elsewhere, Negroes and other persons +of colour; and for other purposes therein +mentioned."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. Acts of 1792, 1794, 1796, 1798, 1800, 1802, hereby +repealed.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 247 -->247</span><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247"></a></p> +<p class="atext">§ 2. Importation of Negroes from the West Indies +prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. No Negro over fifteen years of age to be imported +from the United States except under certificate of +good character.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. Negroes illegally imported to be forfeited and +sold, etc. Cooper, <i>Statutes</i>, VII. 449.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1804.[Denmark.</p> + +<p class="atext">Act of 1792 abolishing the slave-trade goes into effect.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1804, Feb. 14. Congress (House): Proposed Censure of +South Carolina.</p> + +<p class="atext">Representative Moore of South Carolina offered the +following resolution, as a substitute to Mr. Bard's +taxing proposition of Jan. 6:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That this House receive with painful sensibility +information that one of the Southern States, +by a repeal of certain prohibitory laws, have permitted +a traffic unjust in its nature, and highly impolitic +in free Governments." Ruled out of order +by the chairman of the Committee of the Whole. +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1004.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1804, Feb. 15. Congress (House): Proposed Duty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed on +every slave imported into any part of the United +States."</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Ordered</i>, That a bill, or bills, be brought in, pursuant +to the said resolution," etc. Feb. 16 "a bill laying +a duty on slaves imported into the United States" +was read, but was never considered. <i>House Journal</i> +(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, 580, 581–2, +585; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, +876, 991, 1012, 1020, 1024–36.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1804, March 26. United States Statute: Slave-Trade +Limited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories," etc. +Acts of 1794 and 1803 extended to Louisiana. <i>Statutes +at Large</i>, II. 283. For proceedings in Congress, +see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106, +211, 223, 231, 233–4, 238, 255, 1038, 1054–68, 1069–79, +1128–30, 1185–9.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 248 -->248</span><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1805, Feb. 15. Massachusetts: Proposed Amendment.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolve requesting the Governor to transmit to the Senators +and Representatives in Congress, and the Executives +of the several States this Resolution, as an +amendment to the Constitution of the United States, +respecting Slaves.</i>" June 8, Governor's message; +Connecticut answers that it is inexpedient; Maryland +opposes the proposition. <i>Massachusetts Resolves</i>, +February, 1805, p. 55; June, 1805, p. 18. See +below, March 3, 1805.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1805, March 2. United States Statute: Slave-Trade to +Orleans Territory Permitted.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act further providing for the government of the +territory of Orleans."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. A territorial government erected similar to Mississippi, +with same rights and privileges.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. 6th Article of Ordinance of 1787, on slaves, not to +extend to this territory.</p> + +<p class="atext"><i>Statutes at Large</i>, II. 322. For proceedings in Congress, +see <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 28, 30, +45–6, 47, 48, 54, 59–61, 69, 727–8, 871–2, 957, +1016–9, 1020–1, 1201, 1209–10, 1211. Cf. <i>Statutes +at Large</i>, II. 331; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 2 sess., +pp. 50, 51, 52, 57, 68, 69, 1213, 1215. In <i>Journals</i>, see +Index, Senate Bills Nos. 8, 11.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1805, March 3. Congress (House): Massachusetts Proposition +to Amend Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Varnum of Massachusetts presented the resolution +of the Legislature of Massachusetts, "instructing +the Senators, and requesting the Representatives +in Congress, from the said State, to take all legal +and necessary steps, to use their utmost exertions, +as soon as the same is practicable, to obtain an +amendment to the Federal Constitution, so as to +authorize and empower the Congress of the +United States to pass a law, whenever they may +deem it expedient, to prevent the further importation +of slaves from any of the West India Islands, +from the coast of Africa, or elsewhere, into +the United States, or any part thereof." A motion +was made that Congress have power to prevent +<!-- Page 249 --><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249"></a>further importation; it was read and ordered to lie +on the table. <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 +sess. V 171; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. +1221–2. For the original resolution, see <i>Massachusetts +Resolves</i>, May, 1802, to March, 1806, Vol. II. +A. (State House ed., p. 239.)</p><p class="pagenum">249</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1805, Dec. 17. Congress (Senate): Proposition to Prohibit +Importation.</p> + +<p class="atext">A "bill to prohibit the importation of certain persons +therein described into any port or place within the +jurisdiction of the United States, from and after" +Jan. 1, 1808, was read twice and postponed. <i>Senate +Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 10–11; <i>Annals +of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 20–1.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Jan. 20. Congress (House): Vermont Proposed +Amendment.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Olin, one of the Representatives from the State +of Vermont, presented to the House certain resolutions +of the General Assembly of the said State, +proposing an article of amendment to the Constitution +of the United States, to prevent the further +importation of slaves, or people of color, from +any of the West India Islands, from the coast of +Africa, or elsewhere, into the United States, or +any part thereof; which were read, and ordered to +lie on the table." No further mention found. +<i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V 238; +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 343–4.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Jan. 25. Virginia: Imported Slaves to be Sold.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to amend the several laws concerning slaves."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. If the jury before whom the importer is brought +"shall find that the said slave or slaves were +brought into this commonwealth, and have remained +therein, contrary to the provisions of this +act, the court shall make an order, directing him, +her or them to be delivered to the overseers of the +poor, to be by them sold for cash and applied as +herein directed."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 8. Penalty for bringing slaves, $400 per slave; the +same for buying or hiring, knowingly, such alave.</p> +<!-- Page 250 --><p><span class="pagenum">250</span><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250"></a></p> + +<p class="atext">§ 16. This act to take effect May 1, 1806. <i>Statutes at +Large of Virginia</i>, New Series, III. 251.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Jan. 27. Congress (House): Bill to Tax Slaves +Imported.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A Bill laying a duty on slaves imported into any of +the United States." Finally dropped. <i>House Journal</i> +(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 129; <i>Ibid.</i>, 9 +Cong. 1 sess. V. 195, 223, 240, 242, 243–4, 248, +260, 262, 264, 276–7, 287, 294, 305, 309, 338; <i>Annals +of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 273, 274, 346, 358, +372, 434, 442–4, 533.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Feb. 4. Congress (House): Proposition to Prohibit +Slave-Trade after 1807.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Bidwell moved that the following section be +added to the bill for taxing slaves imported,—that +any ship so engaged be forfeited. The proposition +was rejected, yeas, 17, nays, 86 (?). <i>Annals of +Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Feb. 10. Congress (House): New Hampshire Proposed +Amendment.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Tenney ... presented to the House certain resolutions +of the Legislature of the State of New +Hampshire, 'proposing an amendment to the +Constitution of the United States, so as to authorize +and empower Congress to pass a law, whenever +they may deem it expedient, to prevent the +further importation of slaves,' or people of color, +into the United States, or any part thereof." Read +and laid on the table. <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), +9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 266; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 +sess. p. 448.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Feb. 17. Congress (House): Proposition on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">The committee on the slave-trade reported a resolution:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That it shall not be lawful for any person or +persons, to import or bring into any of the Territories +of the United States, any slave or slaves that +may hereafter be imported into the United +<!-- Page 251 --><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251"></a>States." <i>House Journal</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. V 264, 278, +308, 345–6; <i>House Reports</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. II. Feb. 17, +1806; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 472–3.</p><p class="pagenum">251</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, April 7. Congress (Senate): Maryland Proposed +Amendment.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wright communicated a resolution of the legislature +of the state of Maryland instructing their +Senators and Representatives in Congress to use +their utmost exertions to obtain an amendment to +the constitution of the United States to prevent +the further importation of slaves; whereupon, Mr. +Wright submitted the following resolutions for +the consideration of the Senate....</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the migration or importation of slaves +into the United States, or any territory thereof, be +prohibited after the first day of January, 1808." +Considered April 10, and further consideration +postponed until the first Monday in December +next. <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. +IV. 76–7, 79; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +229, 232.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Dec. 2. President Jefferson's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">See above, pages 97–98. <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 +Cong. 2 sess. V. 468.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Proposition on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill to prohibit the importation or bringing of +slaves into the United States, etc.," after Dec. 31, +1807. Finally merged into Senate bill. <i>Ibid.</i>, House +Bill No. 148.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Dec. 17. Congress (House): Sloan's Proposition.</p> + +<p class="atext">Proposition to amend the House bill by inserting after +the article declaring the forfeiture of an illegally +imported slave, "And such person or slave shall be +entitled to his freedom." Lost. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167–77, 180–89.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Dec. 29. Congress (House): Sloan's Second Proposition.</p> + +<p class="atext">Illegally imported Africans to be either freed, apprenticed, +or returned to Africa. Lost; Jan. 5, 1807, a<!-- Page 252 --><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252"></a> +somewhat similar proposition was also lost. <i>Ibid.</i>, +pp. 226–8, 254.</p><p class="pagenum">252</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1806, Dec. 31. Great Britain: Rejected Treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between +His Britannic Majesty and the United States of +America."</p> + +<p class="atext">"Art. XXIV. The high contracting parties engage to +communicate to each other, without delay, all +such laws as have been or shall be hereafter enacted +by their respective Legislatures, as also all +measures which shall have been taken for the abolition +or limitation of the African slave trade; +and they further agree to use their best endeavors +to procure the co-operation of other Powers for +the final and complete abolition of a trade so repugnant +to the principles of justice and humanity." +<i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, III. 147, 151.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1807, March 25. [England: Slave-Trade Abolished.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade." <i>Statute +47 George III.</i>, 1 sess. ch. 36.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1807, Jan. 7. Congress (House): Bidwell's Proposition.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Provided, that no person shall be sold as a slave by +virtue of this act." Offered as an amendment to +§ 3 of House bill; defeated 60 to 61, Speaker voting. +A similar proposition was made Dec. 23, +1806. <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. +V. 513–6. Cf. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 199–203, 265–7.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1807, Feb. 9. Congress (House): Section Seven of House +Bill.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 7 of the bill reported to the House by the committee +provided that all Negroes imported should be +conveyed whither the President might direct and +there be indentured as apprentices, or employed +in whatever way the President might deem best +for them and the country; provided that no such +Negroes should be indentured or employed except +in some State in which provision is now +made for the gradual abolition of slavery. Blank +spaces were left for limiting the term of indenture. +<!-- Page 253 --><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253"></a>The report was never acted on. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 477–8.</p><p class="pagenum">253</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1807, March 2. United States Statute: Importation Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to prohibit the importation of Slaves into any +port or place within the jurisdiction of the United +States, from and after the first day of January, in +the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred +and eight." Bills to amend § 8, so as to make less +ambiguous the permit given to the internal traffic, +were introduced Feb. 27 and Nov. 27. <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, II. 426. For proceedings in Senate, see <i>Senate +Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1–2 sess. IV. 11, +112, 123, 124, 132, 133, 150, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168; +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 16, 19, 23, 33, +36, 45, 47, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 87, 93. For proceedings +in House, see <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 9 +Cong. 2 sess. V. 470, 482, 488, 490, 491, 496, 500, +504, 510, 513–6, 517, 540, 557, 575, 579, 581, 583–4, +585, 592, 594, 610, 613–4, 616, 623, 638, 640; 10 +Cong. 1 sess. VI. 27, 50; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 9 Cong. +2 sess. pp. 167, 180, 200, 220, 231, 254, 264, 270.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1808, Feb. 23. Congress (Senate): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Agreeably to instructions from the legislature of the +state of Pennsylvania to their Senators in Congress, +Mr. Maclay submitted the following resolution, +which was read for consideration:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i> ..., That the Constitution of the United +States be so altered and amended, as to prevent +the Congress of the United States, and the legislatures +of any state in the Union, from authorizing +the importation of slaves." No further +mention. <i>Senate Journal</i> (repr. 1821), 10 Cong. +1 sess. IV. 235; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 10 Cong. 1 sess. +p. 134. For the full text of the instructions, see +<i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, I. 716.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1810, Dec. 5. President Madison's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Among the commercial abuses still committed under +the American flag, ... it appears that American +<!-- Page 254 --><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254"></a>citizens are instrumental in carrying on a traffic in +enslaved Africans, equally in violation of the laws +of humanity, and in defiance of those of their own +country. The same just and benevolent motives +which produced the interdiction in force against +this criminal conduct, will doubtless be felt by +Congress, in devising further means of suppressing +the evil." <i>House Journal</i> (repr. 1826), 11 Cong. +3 sess. VII. 435.</p><p class="pagenum">254</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1811, Jan. 15. United States Statute: Secret Act and Joint +Resolution against Amelia Island Smugglers.</p> + +<p class="atext"><i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 471 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1815, March 29. [France: Abolition of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Napoleon on his return from Elba decrees the abolition +of the slave-trade. Decree re-enacted in 1818 +by the Bourbon dynasty. <i>British and Foreign State +Papers</i>, 1815–16, p. 196, note; 1817–18, p. 1025.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1815, Feb. 18. Great Britain: Treaty of Ghent.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Treaty of peace and amity. Concluded December 24, +1814; Ratifications exchanged at Washington February +17, 1815; Proclaimed February 18, 1815."</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. X. "Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable +with the principles of humanity and justice, and +whereas both His Majesty and the United States +are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote +its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed +that both the contracting parties shall use their +best endeavors to accomplish so desirable an +object." <i>U.S. Treaties and Conventions</i> (ed. 1889), +p. 405.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1815, Dec. 8. Alabama and Mississippi Territory: Act to +Dispose of Illegally Imported Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act concerning Slaves brought into this Territory, +contrary to the Laws of the United States." Slaves +to be sold at auction, and the proceeds to be divided +between the territorial treasury and the collector +or informer. Toulmin, <i>Digest of the Laws of +Alabama</i>, p. 637; <i>Statutes of Mississippi digested</i>, etc. +(ed. 1816), p. 389.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 255 -->255</span><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1816, Nov. 18. North Carolina: Act to Dispose of Illegally +Imported Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act to direct the disposal of negroes, mulattoes +and persons of colour, imported into this state, +contrary to the provisions of an act of the Congress +of the United States, entitled 'an act to prohibit +the importation of slaves into any port or +place, within the jurisdiction of the United States, +from and after the first day of January, in the year +of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and +eight.'"</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. Every slave illegally imported after 1808 shall be +sold for the use of the State.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. The sheriff shall seize and sell such slave, and pay +the proceeds to the treasurer of the State.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. If the slave abscond, the sheriff may offer a reward +not exceeding one-fifth of the value of the slave. +<i>Laws of North Carolina, 1816</i>, ch. xii. p. 9; <i>Laws of +North Carolina</i> (revision of 1819), II. 1350.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1816, Dec. 3. President Madison's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The United States having been the first to abolish, +within the extent of their authority, the transportation +of the natives of Africa into slavery, by +prohibiting the introduction of slaves, and by +punishing their citizens participating in the traffick, +cannot but be gratified at the progress, +made by concurrent efforts of other nations, towards +a general suppression of so great an evil. +They must feel, at the same time, the greater solicitude +to give the fullest efficacy to their own +regulations. With that view, the interposition of +Congress appears to be required by the violations +and evasions which, it is suggested, are chargeable +on unworthy citizens, who mingle in the +slave trade under foreign flags, and with foreign +ports; and by collusive importations of slaves +into the United States, through adjoining ports +and territories. I present the subject to Congress, +with a full assurance of their disposition to apply +all the remedy which can be afforded by an +amendment of the law. The regulations which +<!-- Page 256 --><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256"></a>were intended to guard against abuses of a +kindred character, in the trade between the several +States, ought also to be rendered more effectual +for their humane object." <i>House Journal</i>, 14 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 15–6.</p><p class="pagenum">256</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1817, Feb. 11. Congress (House): Proposed Joint Resolution.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Joint Resolution for abolishing the traffick in Slaves, +and the Colinization [<i>sic</i>] of the Free People of +Colour of the United States."</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, ... That the President be, and he is hereby +authorized to consult and negotiate with all the +governments where ministers of the United States +are, or shall be accredited, on the means of effecting +an entire and immediate abolition of the +traffick in slaves. And, also, to enter into a +convention with the government of Great Britain, +for receiving into the colony of Sierra Leone, such +of the free people of colour of the United States +as, with their own consent, shall be carried +thither....</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That adequate provision shall hereafter be +made to defray any necessary expenses which may +be incurred in carrying the preceding resolution +into effect." Reported on petition of the Colonization +Society by the committee on the President's +Message. No further record. <i>House Journal</i>, +14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 25–7, 380; <i>House Doc.</i>, 14 +Cong. 2 sess. No. 77.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1817, July 28. [Great Britain and Portugal: First Concession +of Right of Search.</p> + +<p class="atext">"By this treaty, ships of war of each of the nations +might visit merchant vessels of both, if suspected +of having slaves on board, acquired by illicit +traffic." This "related only to the trade north of +the equator; for the slave-trade of Portugal within +the regions of western Africa, to the south of the +equator, continued long after this to be carried on +with great vigor." Woolsey, <i>International Law</i> +(1874), § 197, pp. 331–2; <i>British and Foreign State +Papers</i>, 1816–17, pp. 85–118.]</p> +<!-- Page 257 --><p><span class="pagenum">257</span><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257"></a></p> + + +<p class="atitle">1817, Sept. 23. [Great Britain and Spain: Abolition of +Trade North of Equator.</p> + +<p class="atext">"By the treaty of Madrid, ... Great Britain obtained +from Spain, for the sum of four hundred thousand +pounds, the immediate abolition of the trade +north of the equator, its entire abolition after +1820, and the concession of the same mutual right +of search, which the treaty with Portugal had just +established." Woolsey, <i>International Law</i> (1874), +§ 197, p. 332; <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1816–17, +pp. 33–74.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1817, Dec. 2. President Monroe's Message on Amelia +Island, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A just regard for the rights and interests of the +United States required that they [i.e., the Amelia +Island and Galveston pirates] should be suppressed, +and orders have been accordingly issued +to that effect. The imperious considerations which +produced this measure will be explained to the +parties whom it may, in any degree, concern." +<i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 11.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1817, Dec. 19. Georgia: Act to Dispose of Illegally Imported +Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for disposing of any such negro, mulatto, or +person of color, who has been or may hereafter +be imported or brought into this State in violation +of an act of the United States, entitled an act +to prohibit the importation of slaves," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. The governor by agent shall receive such Negroes, +and,</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. sell them, or,</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. give them to the Colonization Society to be transported, +on condition that the Society reimburse +the State for all expense, and transport them at +their own cost. Prince, <i>Digest</i>, p. 793.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, Jan. 10. Congress (House): Bill to Supplement Act +of 1807.</p> +<p class="pagenum">258</p> +<p class="atext">Mr. Middleton, from the committee on so much of the +President's Message as related to the illicit introduction<!-- Page 258 --><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258"></a> +of slaves into the United States from +Amelia Island, reported a bill in addition to former +acts prohibiting the introduction of slaves +into the United States. This was read twice and +committed; April 1 it was considered in Committee +of the Whole; Mr. Middleton offered a substitute, +which was ordered to be laid on table and to +be printed; it became the Act of 1819. See below, +March 3, 1819. <i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +131, 410.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, Jan. 13. President Monroe's Special Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"I have the satisfaction to inform Congress, that the +establishment at Amelia Island has been suppressed, +and without the effusion of blood. The +papers which explain this transaction, I now lay +before Congress," etc. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 137–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, Feb. 9. Congress (Senate): Bill to Register (?) Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill respecting the transportation of persons of +color, for sale, or to be held to labor." Passed Senate, +dropped in House; similar bill Dec. 9, 1818, +also dropped in House. <i>Senate Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 +sess. pp. 147, 152, 157, 165, 170, 188, 201, 203, 232, +237; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 63, 74, 77, 202, 207, 285, +291, 297; <i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 332; 15 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 303, 305, 316.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, April 4. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Livermore's resolution:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"No person shall be held to service or labour as a slave, +nor shall slavery be tolerated in any state hereafter +admitted into the Union, or made one of +the United States of America." Read, and on the +question, "Will the House consider the same?" it +was determined in the negative. <i>House Journal</i>, 15 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 420–1; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 15 Cong. +1 sess. pp. 1675–6.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, April 20. United States Statute: Act in Addition to +Act of 1807.</p> +<p class="pagenum">259</p> +<p class="atext">"An Act in addition to 'An act to prohibit the introduction +[importation] of slaves into any port or<!-- Page 259 --><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259"></a> +place within the jurisdiction of the United States, +from and after the first day of January, in the year +of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and +eight,' and to repeal certain parts of the same." +<i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 450. For proceedings in +Congress, see <i>Senate Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +243, 304, 315, 333, 338, 340, 348, 377, 386, 388, 391, +403, 406; <i>House Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 450, +452, 456, 468, 479, 484, 492,505.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, May 4. [Great Britain and Netherlands: Treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">Right of Search granted for the suppression of the +slave-trade. <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1817–18, +pp. 125–43.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1818, Dec. 19. Georgia: Act of 1817 Reinforced.</p> + +<p class="atext">No title found. "<i>Whereas</i> numbers of African slaves +have been illegally introduced into the State, in +direct violation of the laws of the United States +and of this State, <i>Be it therefore enacted</i>," etc. Informers +are to receive one-tenth of the net proceeds +from the sale of illegally imported Africans, +"<i>Provided</i>, nothing herein contained shall be so +construed as to extend farther back than the year +1817." Prince, <i>Digest</i>, p. 798.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1819, Feb. 8. Congress (Senate): Bill in Addition to Former +Acts.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill supplementary to an act, passed the 2d day of +March, 1807, entitled," etc. Postponed. <i>Senate +Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234, 244, 311–2, 347.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1819, March 3. United States Statute: Cruisers Authorized, +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act in addition to the Acts prohibiting the slave +trade." <i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 532. For proceedings +in Congress, see <i>Senate Journal</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 338, 339, 343, 345, 350, 362; <i>House Journal</i>, 15 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9–19, 42–3, 150, 179, 330, 334, +341, 343, 352.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1819, Dec. 7. President Monroe's Message.</p> + +<p class="pagenum">260</p> +<p class="atext">"Due attention has likewise been paid to the suppression +of the slave trade, in compliance with a law +of the last session. Orders have been given to the +<!-- Page 260 --><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260"></a>commanders of all our public ships to seize all +vessels navigated under our flag, engaged in that +trade, and to bring them in, to be proceeded +against, in the manner prescribed by that law. It +is hoped that these vigorous measures, supported +by like acts by other nations, will soon terminate +a commerce so disgraceful to the civilized world." +<i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong, 1 sess. p. 18.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1820, Jan. 19. Congress (House): Proposed Registry of +Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"On motion of Mr. Cuthbert,</p> + +<p class="atext">"Resolved, That the Committee on the Slave Trade be +instructed to enquire into the expediency of establishing +a registry of slaves, more effectually to prevent +the importation of slaves into the United +States, or the territories thereof." No further mention. +<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 150.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1820, Feb. 5. Congress (House): Proposition on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Meigs submitted the following preamble and +resolution:</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas, slavery in the United States is an evil of +great and increasing magnitude; one which merits +the greatest efforts of this nation to remedy: +Therefore,</p> + +<p class="atext">"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire +into the expediency of devoting the public lands +as a fund for the purpose of,</p> + +<p class="atext">"1st, Employing a naval force competent to the annihilation +of the slave trade;</p> + +<p class="atext">"2dly, The emancipation of slaves in the United States; +and,</p> + +<p class="atext">"3dly, Colonizing them in such way as shall be conducive +to their comfort and happiness, in Africa, +their mother country." Read, and, on motion of +Walker of North Carolina, ordered to lie on the +table. Feb. 7, Mr. Meigs moved that the House +now consider the above-mentioned resolution, +but it was decided in the negative. Feb. 18, he +made a similar motion and proceeded to discussion, +<!-- Page 261 --><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261"></a>but was ruled out of order by the Speaker. +He appealed, but the Speaker was sustained, and +the House refused to take up the resolution. No +further record appears. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 196, 200, 227.</p><p class="pagenum">261</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1820, Feb. 23. Massachusetts: Slavery in Western Territory.</p> + +<p class="atext"><i>"Resolve respecting Slavery":—</i></p> + +<p class="atext">"The Committee of both Houses, who were appointed +to consider 'what measures it may be proper for +the Legislature of this Commonwealth to adopt, +in the expression of their sentiments and views, +relative to the interesting subject, now before +Congress, of interdicting slavery in the New +States, which may be admitted into the Union, +beyond the River Mississippi,' respectfully submit +the following report: ...</p> + +<p class="atext">"Nor has this question less importance as to its influence +on the slave trade. Should slavery be further +permitted, an immense new market for slaves +would be opened. It is well known that notwithstanding +the strictness of our laws, and the vigilance +of the government, thousands are now +annually imported from Africa," etc. <i>Massachusetts +Resolves</i>, May, 1819, to February, 1824, pp. 147–51.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1820, May 12. Congress (House): Resolution for Negotiation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives +of the United States of America in Congress assembled, +That the President of the United States +be requested to negociate with all the governments +where ministers of the United States are or +shall be accredited, on the means of effecting an +entire and immediate abolition of the slave trade." +Passed House, May 12, 1820; lost in Senate, May +15, 1820. <i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 497, +518, 520–21, 526; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. +pp. 697–700.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1820, May 15. United States Statute: Slave-Trade made +Piracy.</p> +<p class="pagenum">262</p> +<p class="atext">"An act to continue in force 'An act to protect the +commerce of the United States, and punish the +<!-- Page 262 --><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262"></a>crime of piracy,' and also to make further provisions +for punishing the crime of piracy." Continued +by several statutes until passage of the Act of +1823, <i>q.v. Statutes at Large</i>, III. 600. For proceedings +in Congress, see <i>Senate Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 +sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 286–7, 314, 331, 346, 350, +409, 412, 417, 422, 424, 425; <i>House Journal</i>, 16 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 453, 454, 494, 518, 520, 522, 537, +539, 540, 542. There was also a House bill, which +was dropped: cf. <i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. +pp. 21, 113, 280, 453, 494.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1820, Nov. 14. President Monroe's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"In execution of the law of the last session, for the +suppression of the slave trade, some of our public +ships have also been employed on the coast of +Africa, where several captures have already been +made of vessels engaged in that disgraceful +traffic." <i>Senate Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 16–7.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1821, Feb. 15. Congress (House): Meigs's Resolution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Meigs offered in modified form the resolutions +submitted at the last session:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas slavery, in the United States, is an evil, acknowledged +to be of great and increasing magnitude, ... +therefore,</p> + +<p class="atext">"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire +into the expediency of devoting five hundred million +acres of the public lands, next west of the +Mississippi, as a fund for the purpose of, in the</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>First place</i>; Employing a naval force, competent to the +annihilation of the slave trade," etc. Question to +consider decided in the affirmative, 63 to 50; laid +on the table, 66 to 55. <i>House Journal</i>, 16 Cong. 2 +sess. p. 238; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. +1168–70.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1821, Dec. 3. President Monroe's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Like success has attended our efforts to suppress the +slave trade. Under the flag of the United States, +and the sanction of their papers, the trade may be +considered as entirely suppressed; and, if any of +our citizens are engaged in it, under the flag and +<!-- Page 263 --><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263"></a>papers of other powers, it is only from a respect +to the rights of those powers, that these offenders +are not seized and brought home, to receive the +punishment which the laws inflict. If every other +power should adopt the same policy, and pursue +the same vigorous means for carrying it into effect, +the trade could no longer exist." <i>House Journal</i>, +17 Cong. 1 sess. p. 22.</p><p class="pagenum">263</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1822, April 12. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the President of the United States be +requested to enter into such arrangements as he +may deem suitable and proper, with one or more +of the maritime powers of Europe, for the effectual +abolition of the slave trade." <i>House Reports</i>, 17 +Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 4; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, +17 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1538.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1822, June 18. Mississippi: Act on Importation, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An act, to reduce into one, the several acts, concerning +slaves, free negroes, and mulattoes."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. Slaves born and resident in the United States, and +not criminals, may be imported.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. No slave born or resident outside the United +States shall be brought in, under penalty of +$1,000 per slave. Travellers are excepted. <i>Revised +Code of the Laws of Mississippi</i> (Natchez, 1824), p. +369.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1822, Dec. 3. President Monroe's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A cruise has also been maintained on the coast of +Africa, when the season would permit, for the +suppression of the slave-trade; and orders have +been given to the commanders of all our public +ships to seize our own vessels, should they find +any engaged in that trade, and to bring them in +for adjudication." <i>House Journal</i>, 17 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 12, 21.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1823, Jan. 1. Alabama: Act to Dispose of Illegally Imported +Slaves.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to carry into effect the laws of the United +States prohibiting the slave trade."</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 264 -->264</span><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264"></a></p> +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it enacted</i>, ... That the Governor of this state +be ... authorized and required to appoint some +suitable person, as the agent of the state, to receive +all and every slave or slaves or persons of +colour, who may have been brought into this +state in violation of the laws of the United States, +prohibiting the slave trade: <i>Provided</i>, that the authority +of the said agent is not to extend to slaves +who have been condemned and sold."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. The agent must give bonds.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. "<i>And be it further enacted</i>, That the said slaves, +when so placed in the possession of the state, as +aforesaid, shall be employed on such public work +or works, as shall be deemed by the Governor of +most value and utility to the public interest."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 4. A part may be hired out to support those employed +in public work.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. "<i>And be it further enacted</i>, That in all cases in +which a decree of any court having competent authority, +shall be in favor of any or claimant or +claimants, the said slaves shall be truly and faithfully, +by said agent, delivered to such claimant +or claimants: but in case of their condemnation, +they shall be sold by such agent for cash to the +highest bidder, by giving sixty days notice," etc. +<i>Acts of the Assembly of Alabama, 1822</i> (Cahawba, +1823), p. 62.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1823, Jan. 30. United States Statute: Piracy Act made +Perpetual.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act in addition to 'An act to continue in force +"An act to protect the commerce of the United +States, and punish the crime of piracy,"'" etc. +<i>Statutes at Large</i>, III. 510–14, 721, 789. For proceedings +in Congress, see <i>Senate Journal</i>, 17 Cong. +2 sess. pp. 61, 64, 70, 83, 98, 101, 106, 110, 111, 122, +137; <i>House Journal</i>, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73, 76, 156, +183, 189.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1823, Feb. 10. Congress (House): Resolution on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Mercer offered the following resolution:—</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 265 -->265</span><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265"></a></p> +<p class="atext">"Resolved, That the President of the United States be +requested to enter upon, and to prosecute, from +time to time, such negotiations with the several +maritime powers of Europe and America, as he +may deem expedient, for the effectual abolition of +the African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation +as piracy, under the law of nations, by +the consent of the civilized world." Agreed to Feb. +28; passed Senate. <i>House Journal</i>, 17 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 212, 280–82; <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 17 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 928, 1147–55.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1823, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the support of the +navy," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"To enable the President of the United States to carry +into effect the act" of 1819, $50,000. <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, III. 763, 764</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1823. President: Proposed Treaties.</p> + +<p class="atext">Letters to various governments in accordance with the +resolution of 1823: April 28, to Spain; May 17, to +Buenos Ayres; May 27, to United States of Colombia; +Aug. 14, to Portugal. See above, Feb. 10, +1823. <i>House Doc.</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1823, June 24. Great Britain: Proposed Treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">Adams, March 31, proposes that the trade be made piracy. +Canning, April 8, reminds Adams of the +treaty of Ghent and asks for the granting of a mutual +Right of Search to suppress the slave-trade. +The matter is further discussed until June 24. +Minister Rush is empowered to propose a treaty +involving the Right of Search, etc. This treaty was +substantially the one signed (see below, March 13, +1824), differing principally in the first article.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Article I. The two high contracting Powers, having +each separately, by its own laws, subjected their +subjects and citizens, who may be convicted of +carrying on the illicit traffic in slaves on the coast +of Africa, to the penalties of piracy, do hereby +agree to use their influence, respectively, with the +other maritime and civilized nations of the world, +to the end that the said African slave trade may +<!-- Page 266 --><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266"></a>be recognized, and declared to be, piracy, under +the law of nations." <i>House Doc.</i>, 18 Cong, 1 sess. +VI. No. 119.</p><p class="pagenum">266</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, Feb. 6. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Abbot's resolution on persons of color:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"That no part of the constitution of the United States +ought to be construed, or shall be construed to +authorize the importation or ingress of any person +of color into any one of the United States, +contrary to the laws of such state." Read first and +second time and committed to the Committee of +the Whole. <i>House Journal</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. p. 208; +<i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1399.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, March 13. Great Britain: Proposed Treaty of 1824.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The Convention:"—</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. I. "The commanders and commissioned officers of +each of the two high contracting parties, duly authorized, +under the regulations and instructions +of their respective Governments, to cruize on the +coasts of Africa, of America, and of the West Indies, +for the suppression of the slave trade," shall +have the power to seize and bring into port any +vessel owned by subjects of the two contracting +parties, found engaging in the slave-trade. The +vessel shall be taken for trial to the country where +she belongs.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. II. Provides that even if the vessel seized does not +belong to a citizen or citizens of either of the two +contracting parties, but is chartered by them, she +may be seized in the same way as if she belonged +to them.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. III. Requires that in all cases where any vessel of +either party shall be boarded by any naval officer +of the other party, on suspicion of being concerned +in the slave-trade, the officer shall deliver +to the captain of the vessel so boarded a certificate +in writing, signed by the naval officer, specifying +his rank, etc., and the object of his visit. Provision +is made for the delivery of ships and papers to the +<!-- Page 267 --><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267"></a>tribunal before which they are brought.</p> +<p class="pagenum">267</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. IV. Limits the Right of Search, recognized by the +Convention, to such investigation as shall be necessary +to ascertain the fact whether the said vessel +is or is not engaged in the slave-trade. No person +shall be taken out of the vessel so visited unless +for reasons of health.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. V. Makes it the duty of the commander of either +nation, having captured a vessel of the other under +the treaty, to receive unto his custody the vessel +captured, and send or carry it into some port +of the vessel's own country for adjudication, in +which case triplicate declarations are to be signed, +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. VI. Provides that in cases of capture by the officer +of either party, on a station where no national +vessel is cruising, the captor shall either send or +carry his prize to some convenient port of its own +country for adjudication, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. VII. Provides that the commander and crew of +the captured vessel shall be proceeded against as +pirates, in the ports to which they are brought, +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. VIII. Confines the Right of Search, under this +treaty, to such officers of both parties as are +especially authorized to execute the laws of their +countries in regard to the slave-trade. For every +abusive exercise of this right, officers are to be +personally liable in costs and damages, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. IX. Provides that the government of either nation +shall inquire into abuses of this Convention and +of the laws of the two countries, and inflict on +guilty officers the proper punishment.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. X. Declares that the right, reciprocally conceded +by this treaty, is wholly and exclusively founded +on the consideration that the two nations have by +their laws made the slave-trade piracy, and is not +to be taken to affect in any other way the rights +of the parties, etc.; it further engages that each +power shall use its influence with all other civilized +<!-- Page 268 --><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268"></a>powers, to procure from them the acknowledgment +that the slave-trade is piracy under the +law of nations.</p><p class="pagenum">268</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. XI. Provides that the ratifications of the treaty +shall be exchanged at London within twelve +months, or as much sooner as possible. Signed by +Mr. Rush, Minister to the Court of St. James, +March 13, 1824.</p> + +<p class="atext">The above is a synopsis of the treaty as it was laid +before the Senate. It was ratified by the Senate +with certain conditions, one of which was that the +duration of this treaty should be limited to the +pleasure of the two parties on six months' notice; +another was that the Right of Search should be +limited to the African and West Indian seas: i.e., +the word "America" was struck out. This treaty as +amended and passed by the Senate (cf. above, +p. 141) was rejected by Great Britain. A counter +project was suggested by her, but not accepted (cf. +above, p. 144). The striking out of the word +"America" was declared to be the insuperable objection. +<i>Senate Doc.</i>, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. +15–20; <i>Niles's Register</i>, 3rd Series, XXVI. 230–2. +For proceedings in Senate, see <i>Amer. State Papers, +Foreign</i>, V. 360–2.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, March 31. [Great Britain: Slave-Trade made Piracy.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act for the more effectual Suppression of the +<i>African</i> Slave Trade."</p> + +<p class="atext">Any person engaging in the slave-trade "shall be +deemed and adjudged guilty of Piracy, Felony and +Robbery, and being convicted thereof shall suffer +Death without Benefit of Clergy, and Loss of +Lands, Goods and Chattels, as Pirates, Felons and +Robbers upon the Seas ought to suffer," etc. <i>Statute +5 George IV.</i>, ch. 17; <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, +V. 342.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, April 16. Congress (House): Bill to Suppress Slave-Trade.</p> +<p class="pagenum">269</p> +<p class="atext">"Mr. Govan, from the committee to which was +referred so much of the President's Message as +<!-- Page 269 --><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269"></a>relates to the suppression of the Slave Trade, +reported a bill respecting the slave trade; which +was read twice, and committed to a Committee of +the Whole."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. Provided a fine not exceeding $5,000, imprisonment +not exceeding 7 years, and forfeiture of ship, +for equipping a slaver even for the foreign trade; +and a fine not exceeding $3,000, and imprisonment +not exceeding 5 years, for serving on board +any slaver. <i>Annals of Cong.</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +2397–8; <i>House Journal</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 26, +180, 181, 323, 329, 356, 423.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, May 21. President Monroe's Message on Treaty of +1824.</p> + +<p class="atext"><i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, V. 344–6.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, Nov. 6. [Great Britain and Sweden: Treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">Right of Search granted for the suppression of the +slave-trade. <i>British and Foreign State Papers</i>, 1824–5, +pp. 3–28.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, Nov. 6. Great Britain: Counter Project of 1825.</p> + +<p class="atext">Great Britain proposes to conclude the treaty as +amended by the Senate, if the word "America" is +reinstated in Art. I. (Cf. above, March 13, 1824.) +February 16, 1825, the House Committee favors +this project; March 2, Addington reminds Adams +of this counter proposal; April 6, Clay refuses to +reopen negotiations on account of the failure of +the Colombian treaty. <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, +V. 367; <i>House Reports</i>, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70; +<i>House Doc.</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 16.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1824, Dec. 7. President Monroe's Message.</p> +<p class="pagenum">270</p> +<p class="atext">"It is a cause of serious regret, that no arrangement +has yet been finally concluded between the two +Governments, to secure, by joint co-operation, +the suppression of the slave trade. It was the object +of the British Government, in the early stages +of the negotiation, to adopt a plan for the +suppression, which should include the concession +of the mutual right of search by the ships of war +of each party, of the vessels of the other, for suspected +<!-- Page 270 --><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270"></a>offenders. This was objected to by this +Government, on the principle that, as the right of +search was a right of war of a belligerant towards +a neutral power, it might have an ill effect to extend +it, by treaty, to an offence which had been +made comparatively mild, to a time of peace. Anxious, +however, for the suppression of this trade, it +was thought adviseable, in compliance with a resolution +of the House of Representatives, founded +on an act of Congress, to propose to the British +Government an expedient, which should be free +from that objection, and more effectual for the +object, by making it piratical.... A convention +to this effect was concluded and signed, in London," +on the 13th of March, 1824, "by plenipotentiaries +duly authorized by both Governments, to +the ratification of which certain obstacles have +arisen, which are not yet entirely removed." [For +the removal of which, the documents relating to +the negotiation are submitted for the action of +Congress]....</p> + +<p class="atext">"In execution of the laws for the suppression of the +slave trade, a vessel has been occasionally sent +from that squadron to the coast of Africa, with +orders to return thence by the usual track of the +slave ships, and to seize any of our vessels which +might be engaged in that trade. None have been +found, and, it is believed, that none are thus employed. +It is well known, however, that the trade +still exists under other flags." <i>House Journal</i>, 18 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 11, 12, 19, 27, 241; <i>House Reports</i>, +18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70; Gales and Seaton, +<i>Register of Debates</i>, I. 625–8, and Appendix, p. 2 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1825, Feb. 21. United States of Colombia: Proposed +Treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">The President sends to the Senate a treaty with the +United States of Colombia drawn, as United +States Minister Anderson said, similar to that +signed at London, with the alterations made by +the Senate. March 9, 1825, the Senate rejects this +<!-- Page 271 --><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271"></a>treaty. <i>Amer. State Papers, Foreign</i>, V. 729–35.</p> +<p class="pagenum">271</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1825, Feb. 28. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution on +Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Mercer laid on the table the following resolution:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the President of the United States be +requested to enter upon, and prosecute from time +to time, such negotiations with the several maritime +powers of Europe and America, as he may +deem expedient for the effectual abolition of the +slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation, as piracy, +under the law of nations, by the consent of +the civilized world." The House refused to consider +the resolution. <i>House Journal</i>, 18 Cong. 2 +sess. p. 280; Gales and Seaton, <i>Register of Debates</i>, +I. 697, 736.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1825, March 3. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution +against Right of Search.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Forsyth submitted the following resolution:</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That while this House anxiously desires that +the Slave Trade should be, universally, denounced +as Piracy, and, as such, should be detected and +punished under the law of nations, it considers +that it would be highly inexpedient to enter into +engagements with any foreign power, by which +<i>all</i> the merchant vessels of the United States +would be exposed to the inconveniences of any +regulation of search, from which any merchant +vessels of that foreign power would be exempted." +Resolution laid on the table. <i>House Journal</i>, +18 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 308–9; Gales and Seaton, +<i>Register of Debates</i>, I. 739.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1825, Dec. 6. President Adams's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The objects of the West India Squadron have been, +to carry into execution the laws for the suppression +of the African Slave Trade: for the protection +of our commerce against vessels of piratical character.... +These objects, during the present year, +have been accomplished more effectually than at +any former period. The African Slave Trade has +<!-- Page 272 --><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272"></a>long been excluded from the use of our flag; and +if some few citizens of our country have continued +to set the laws of the Union, as well as those +of nature and humanity, at defiance, by persevering +in that abominable traffic, it has been only by +sheltering themselves under the banners of other +nations, less earnest for the total extinction of the +trade than ours." <i>House Journal</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. +pp. 20, 96, 296–7, 305, 323, 329, 394–5, 399, 410, +414, 421, 451, 640.</p><p class="pagenum">272</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1826, Feb. 14. Congress (House): Proposition to Repeal +Parts of Act of 1819.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Forsyth submitted the following resolutions, +viz.:</p> + +<p class="atext">1. "<i>Resolved</i>, That it is expedient to repeal so much of +the act of the 3d March, 1819, entitled, 'An act in +addition to the acts prohibiting the slave trade,' as +provides for the appointment of agents on the +coast of Africa.</p> + +<p class="atext">2. "<i>Resolved</i>, That it is expedient so to modify the said +act of the 3d of March, 1819, as to release the +United States from all obligation to support the +negroes already removed to the coast of Africa, +and to provide for such a disposition of those +taken in slave ships who now are in, or who may +be, hereafter, brought into the United States, as +shall secure to them a fair opportunity of obtaining +a comfortable subsistence, without any aid +from the public treasury." Read and laid on the +table. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 258.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1826, March 14. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the support of the +navy," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For the agency on the coast of Africa, for receiving +the negroes," etc., $32,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, IV. +140, 141.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1827, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the support of the +Navy," etc.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 273 -->273</span><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273"></a></p> +<p class="atext">"For the agency on the coast of Africa," etc., $56,710. +<i>Ibid.</i>, W. 206, 208.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1827, March 11. Texas: Introduction of Slaves Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">Constitution of the State of Coahuila and Texas. Preliminary +Provisions:—</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. 13. "From and after the promulgation of the constitution +in the capital of each district, no one +shall be born a slave in the state, and after six +months the introduction of slaves under any pretext +shall not be permitted." <i>Laws and Decrees of +Coahuila and Texas</i> (Houston, 1839), p. 314.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1827, Sept. 15. Texas: Decree against Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The Congress of the State of Coahuila and Texas decrees +as follows:"</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. 1. All slaves to be registered.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. 2, 3. Births and deaths to be recorded.</p> + +<p class="atext">Art. 4. "Those who introduce slaves, after the expiration +of the term specified in article 13 of the +Constitution, shall be subject to the penalties +established by the general law of the 13th of July, +1824." <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 78–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1828, Feb. 25. Congress (House): Proposed Bill to Abolish +African Agency, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. McDuffie, from the Committee of Ways and +Means, ... reported the following bill:</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill to abolish the Agency of the United States on +the Coast of Africa, to provide other means of +carrying into effect the laws prohibiting the slave +trade, and for other purposes." This bill was +amended so as to become the act of May 24, 1828 +(see below). <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. +No. 348, p. 278.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1828, May 24. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making an appropriation for the suppression +of the slave trade." <i>Statutes at Large</i>, IV. 302; +<i>House Journal</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess., House Bill No. +190.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1829, Jan. 28. Congress (House): Bill to Amend Act of +1807.</p> +<p class="pagenum">274</p> +<p class="atext">The Committee on Commerce reported "a bill (No. +399) to amend an act, entitled 'An act to prohi<!-- Page 274 --><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274"></a>bit +the importation of slaves,'" etc. Referred to +Committee of the Whole. <i>House Journal</i>, 20 Cong. +2 sess. pp. 58, 84, 215. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. +pp. 121, 135.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1829, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making additional appropriations for the +support of the navy," etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For the reimbursement of the marshal of Florida for +expenses incurred in the case of certain Africans +who were wrecked on the coast of the United +States, and for the expense of exporting them to +Africa," $16,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, IV. 353, 354.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1830, April 7. Congress (House): Resolution against Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Mercer reported the following resolution:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the President of the United States be +requested to consult and negotiate with all the +Governments where Ministers of the United +States are, or shall be accredited, on the means of +effecting an entire and immediate abolition of the +African slave trade; and especially, on the expediency, +with that view, of causing it to be universally +denounced as piratical." Referred to +Committee of the Whole; no further action recorded. +<i>House Journal</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. p. 512.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1830, April 7. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Act of March 3, 1819.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Mercer, from the committee to which was referred +the memorial of the American Colonization Society, +and also memorials, from the inhabitants of +Kentucky and Ohio, reported with a bill (No. +412) to amend "An act in addition to the acts prohibiting +the slave trade," passed March 3, 1819. +Read twice and referred to Committee of the +Whole. <i>Ibid.</i></p> + + +<p class="atitle">1830, May 31. Congress (Statute): Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making a re-appropriation of a sum heretofore +appropriated for the suppression of the slave +trade." <i>Statutes at Large</i>, IV. 425; <i>Senate Journal</i>, +21 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 359, 360, 383; <i>House Journal</i>, 21<!-- Page 275 --><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275"></a> +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 624, 808–11.</p><p class="pagenum">275</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1830. [Brazil: Prohibition of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Slave-trade prohibited under severe penalties.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1831, 1833. [Great Britain and France: Treaty Granting +Right of Search.</p> + +<p class="atext">Convention between Great Britain and France granting +a mutual limited Right of Search on the East +and West coasts of Africa, and on the coasts of the +West Indies and Brazil. <i>British and Foreign State +Papers</i>, 1830–1, p. 641 ff; 1832–3, p. 286 ff.]</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1831, Feb. 16. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution on +Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Mercer moved to suspend the rule of the House +in regard to motions, for the purpose of enabling +himself to submit a resolution requesting the Executive +to enter into negotiations with the maritime +Powers of Europe, to induce them to enact +laws declaring the African slave trade piracy, and +punishing it as such." The motion was lost. Gales +and Seaton, <i>Register of Debates</i>, VII. 726.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1831, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression +of the slave trade," etc., $16,000. <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, IV. 460, 462.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1831, March 3. Congress (House): Resolution as to +Treaties.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Mercer moved to suspend the rule to enable him +to submit the following resolution:</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the President of the United States be +requested to renew, and to prosecute from time +to time, such negotiations with the several maritime +powers of Europe and America as he may +deem expedient for the effectual abolition of the +African slave trade, and its ultimate denunciation +as piracy, under the laws of nations, by the consent +of the civilized world." The rule was suspended +by a vote of 108 to 36, and the resolution +passed, 118 to 32. <i>House Journal</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess.pp. 426–8.</p> +<!-- Page 276 --><p><span class="pagenum">276</span><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276"></a></p> + + +<p class="atitle">1833, Feb. 20. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... for carrying into effect the acts for the suppression +of the slave trade," etc., $5,000. <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, IV. 614, 615.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1833, August. Great Britain and France: Proposed Treaty +with the United States.</p> + +<p class="atext">British and French ministers simultaneously invited +the United States to accede to the Convention just +concluded between them for the suppression of +the slave-trade. The Secretary of State, Mr. +M'Lane, deferred answer until the meeting of +Congress, and then postponed negotiations on account +of the irritable state of the country on the +slave question. Great Britain had proposed that +"A reciprocal right of search ... be conceded by +the United States, limited as to place, and subject +to specified restrictions. It is to be employed only +in repressing the Slave Trade, and to be exercised +under a written and specific authority, conferred +on the Commander of the visiting ship." In the +act of accession, "it will be necessary that the right +of search should be extended to the coasts of the +United States," and Great Britain will in turn extend +it to the British West Indies. This proposal +was finally refused, March 24, 1834, chiefly, as +stated, because of the extension of the Right of +Search to the coasts of the United States. This +part was waived by Great Britain, July 7, 1834. On +Sept. 12 the French Minister joined in urging +accession. On Oct. 4, 1834, Forsyth states that the +determination has "been definitely formed, not to +make the United States a party to any Convention +on the subject of the Slave Trade." <i>Parliamentary +Papers</i>, 1835, Vol. LI., <i>Slave Trade</i>, Class B., pp. +84–92.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1833, Dec. 23. Georgia: Slave-Trade Acts Amended.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 277 -->277</span><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277"></a></p> +<p class="atext">"An Act to reform, amend, and consolidate the penal +laws of the State of Georgia."</p> + +<p class="atext">13th Division. "Offences relative to Slaves":—</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "If any person or persons shall bring, import, or +introduce into this State, or aid or assist, or +knowingly become concerned or interested, in +bringing, importing, or introducing into this +State, either by land or by water, or in any manner +whatever, any slave or slaves, each and every +such person or persons so offending, shall be +deemed principals in law, and guilty of a high +misdemeanor, and ... on conviction, shall be +punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred +dollars each, for each and every slave, ... and +imprisonment and labor in the penitentiary for +any time not less than one year, nor longer than +four years." Residents, however, may bring slaves +for their own use, but must register and swear +they are not for sale, hire, mortgage, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 6. Penalty for knowingly receiving such slaves, $500. +Slightly amended Dec. 23, 1836, e.g., emigrants +were allowed to hire slaves out, etc.; amended +Dec. 19, 1849, so as to allow importation of slaves +from "any other slave holding State of this +Union." Prince, <i>Digest</i>, pp. 619, 653, 812; Cobb, +<i>Digest</i>, II. 1018.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1834, Jan. 24. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression +of the slave trade," etc., $5,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, +IV. 670, 671.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1836, March 17. Texas: African Slave-Trade Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">Constitution of the Republic of Texas: General Provisions:—</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 9. All persons of color who were slaves for life before +coming to Texas shall remain so. "Congress shall +pass no laws to prohibit emigrants from bringing +their slaves into the republic with them, and holding +them by the same tenure by which such slaves +were held in the United States; ... the importation +<!-- Page 278 --><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278"></a>or admission of Africans or negroes into +this republic, excepting from the United States of +America, is forever prohibited, and declared to be +piracy." <i>Laws of the Republic of Texas</i> (Houston, +1838), I. 19.</p><p class="pagenum">278</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1836, Dec. 21. Texas: Slave-Trade made Piracy.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act supplementary to an act, for the punishment +of Crimes and Misdemeanors."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it enacted</i> ..., That if any person or persons +shall introduce any African negro or negroes, contrary +to the true intent and meaning of the ninth +section of the general provisions of the constitution, ... +except such as are from the United +States of America, and had been held as slaves +therein, be considered guilty of piracy; and upon +conviction thereof, before any court having cognizance +of the same, shall suffer death, without +the benefit of clergy."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. The introduction of Negroes from the United +States of America, except of those legally held as +slaves there, shall be piracy. <i>Ibid.</i>, I. 197. Cf. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, p. 42.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1837, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression +of the slave trade," etc., $11,413.57. <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, V. 155, 157.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1838, March 19. Congress (Senate): Slave-Trade with +Texas, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Morris submitted the following motion for consideration:</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed +to inquire whether the present laws of +the United States, on the subject of the slave +trade, will prohibit that trade being carried on between +citizens of the United States and citizens of +the Republic of Texas, either by land or by sea; +and whether it would be lawful in vessels owned +by citizens of that Republic, and not lawful in +<!-- Page 279 --><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279"></a>vessels owned by citizens of this, or lawful in +both, and by citizens of both countries; and also +whether a slave carried from the United States +into a foreign country, and brought back, on returning +into the United States, is considered a free +person, or is liable to be sent back, if demanded, +as a slave, into that country from which he or she +last came; and also whether any additional legislation +by Congress is necessary on any of these +subjects." March 20, the motion of Mr. Walker +that this resolution "lie on the table," was determined +in the affirmative, 32 to 9. <i>Senate Journal</i>, +25 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 297–8, 300.</p><p class="pagenum">279</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1839, Feb. 5. Congress (Senate): Bill to Amend Slave-Trade +Acts.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Strange, on leave, and in pursuance of notice +given, introduced a bill to amend an act entitled +an act to prohibit the importation of slaves into +any port in the jurisdiction of the United States; +which was read twice, and referred to the Committee +on Commerce." March 1, the Committee +was discharged from further consideration of the +bill. <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 25 Cong. 3 sess. p. 172; +<i>Senate Journal</i>, 25 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 200, 313.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1839, Dec. 24. President Van Buren's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"It will be seen by the report of the Secretary of the +navy respecting the disposition of our ships of +war, that it has been deemed necessary to station +a competent force on the coast of Africa, to prevent +a fraudulent use of our flag by foreigners.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Recent experience has shown that the provisions in +our existing laws which relate to the sale and +transfer of American vessels while abroad, are extremely +defective. Advantage has been taken of +these defects to give to vessels wholly belonging +to foreigners, and navigating the ocean, an apparent +American ownership. This character has been +so well simulated as to afford them comparative +security in prosecuting the slave trade, a traffic +emphatically denounced in our statutes, regarded +<!-- Page 280 --><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280"></a>with abhorrence by our citizens, and of which the +effectual suppression is nowhere more sincerely +desired than in the United States. These circumstances +make it proper to recommend to your +early attention a careful revision of these laws, so +that ... the integrity and honor of our flag may +be carefully preserved." <i>House Journal</i>, 26 Cong. 1 +sess. pp. 117–8.</p><p class="pagenum">280</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1840, Jan. 3. Congress (Senate): Bill to Amend Act of 1807.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Agreeably to notice, Mr. Strange asked and obtained +leave to bring in a bill (Senate, No. 123) to amend +an act entitled 'An act to prohibit the importation +of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction +of the United States from and after the 1st +day of January, in the year 1808,' approved the 2d +day of March, 1807; which was read the first and +second times, by unanimous consent, and referred +to the Committee on the Judiciary." Jan. 8, it was +reported without amendment; May 11, it was considered, +and, on motion by Mr. King, "<i>Ordered</i>, +That it lie on the table." <i>Senate Journal</i>, 26 Cong. +1 sess. pp. 73, 87, 363.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1840, May 4. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Davis, from the Committee on Commerce, reported +a bill (Senate, No. 335) making further provision +to prevent the abuse of the flag of the +United States, and the use of unauthorized papers +in the foreign slavetrade, and for other purposes." +This passed the Senate, but was dropped in the +House. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 356, 359, 440, 442; <i>House Journal</i>, +26 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1138, 1228, 1257.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1841, June 1. Congress (House): President Tyler's Message.</p> +<p class="pagenum">281</p> +<p class="atext">"I shall also, at the proper season, invite your attention +to the statutory enactments for the suppression of +the slave trade, which may require to be rendered +more efficient in their provisions. There is reason +to believe that the traffic is on the increase. +Whether such increase is to be ascribed to the +abolition of slave labor in the British possessions +<!-- Page 281 --><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281"></a>in our vicinity, and an attendant diminution in the +supply of those articles which enter into the general +consumption of the world, thereby augmenting +the demand from other quarters, ... it were +needless to inquire. The highest considerations of +public honor, as well as the strongest promptings +of humanity, require a resort to the most vigorous +efforts to suppress the trade." <i>House Journal</i>, 27 +Cong. 1 sess. pp. 31, 184.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1841, Dec. 7. President Tyler's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">Though the United States is desirous to suppress the +slave-trade, she will not submit to interpolations +into the maritime code at will by other nations. +This government has expressed its repugnance to +the trade by several laws. It is a matter for deliberation +whether we will enter upon treaties containing +mutual stipulations upon the subject with +other governments. The United States will demand +indemnity for all depredations by Great +Britain.</p> + +<p class="atext">"I invite your attention to existing laws for the +suppression of the African slave trade, and recommend +all such alterations as may give to them +greater force and efficacy. That the American flag +is grossly abused by the abandoned and profligate +of other nations is but too probable. Congress +has, not long since, had this subject under its consideration, +and its importance well justifies renewed +and anxious attention." <i>House Journal</i>, 27 +Cong. 2 sess. pp. 14–5, 86, 113.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1841, Dec. 20. [Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and +France: Quintuple Treaty.] <span style="font-weight: normal;"><i>British and Foreign +State Papers</i>, 1841–2, p. 269 ff.</span></p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, Feb. 15. Right of Search: Cass's Protest.</p> + +<p class="atext">Cass writes to Webster, that, considering the fact that +the signing of the Quintuple Treaty would oblige +the participants to exercise the Right of Search +denied by the United States, or to make a change +in the hitherto recognized law of nations, he, on +his own responsibility, addressed the following +<!-- Page 282 --><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282"></a>protest to the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, +M. Guizot:—</p><p class="pagenum">282</p> + +<p class="atext">"<span class="smcap">Legation of the United States, +"Paris, February 13, 1842</span>.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<span class="smcap">Sir</span>: The recent signature of a treaty, having for its +object the suppression of the African slave trade, +by five of the powers of Europe, and to which +France is a party, is a fact of such general notoriety +that it may be assumed as the basis of any +diplomatic representations which the subject may +fairly require."</p> + +<p class="atext">The United States is no party to this treaty. She denies +the Right of Visitation which England asserts. +[Quotes from the presidential message of Dec. 7, +1841.] This principle is asserted by the treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">" ... The moral effect which such a union of five +great powers, two of which are eminently maritime, +but three of which have perhaps never had +a vessel engaged in that traffic, is calculated to +produce upon the United States, and upon other +nations who, like them, may be indisposed to +these combined movements, though it may be regretted, +yet furnishes no just cause of complaint. +But the subject assumes another aspect when they +are told by one of the parties that their vessels are +to be forcibly entered and examined, in order to +carry into effect these stipulations. Certainly the +American Government does not believe that the +high powers, contracting parties to this treaty, +have any wish to compel the United States, by +force, to adopt their measures to its provisions, or +to adopt its stipulations ...; and they will see +with pleasure the prompt disavowal made by +yourself, sir, in the name of your country, ... of +any intentions of this nature. But were it otherwise, ... +They would prepare themselves with +apprehension, indeed, but without dismay—with +regret, but with firmness—for one of those desperate +struggles which have sometimes occurred<!-- Page 283 --><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283"></a> +in the history of the world."</p><p class="pagenum">283</p> + +<p class="atext">If, as England says, these treaties cannot be executed +without visiting United States ships, then France +must pursue the same course. It is hoped, therefore, +that his Majesty will, before signing this +treaty, carefully examine the pretensions of England +and their compatibility with the law of nations +and the honor of the United States. <i>Senate +Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. 52, and IV. No. 223; +29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, pp. 192–5.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, Feb. 26. Mississippi: Resolutions on Creole Case.</p> + +<p class="atext">The following resolutions were referred to the Committee +on Foreign Affairs in the United States +Congress, House of Representatives, May 10, 1842:</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas, the right of search has never been yielded +to Great Britain," and the brig Creole has not +been surrendered by the British authorities, etc., +therefore,</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 1. "<i>Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi</i>, +That ... the right of search cannot be +conceded to Great Britain without a manifest servile +submission, unworthy a free nation....</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 2. "<i>Resolved</i>, That any attempt to detain and search +our vessels, by British cruisers, should be held and +esteemed an unjustifiable outrage on the part of +the Queen's Government; and that any such outrage, +which may have occurred since Lord Aberdeen's +note to our envoy at the Court of St. +James, of date October thirteen, eighteen hundred +and forty-one, (if any,) may well be deemed, by +our Government, just cause of war."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 3. "<i>Resolved</i>, That the Legislature of the State, in +view of the late murderous insurrection of the +slaves on board the Creole, their reception in a +British port, the absolute connivance at their +crimes, manifest in the protection extended to +them by the British authorities, most solemnly declare +their firm conviction that, if the conduct of +those authorities be submitted to, compounded +for by the payment of money, or in any other +<!-- Page 284 --><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284"></a>manner, or atoned for in any mode except by the +surrender of the actual criminals to the Federal +Government, and the delivery of the other identical +slaves to their rightful owner or owners, or +his or their agents, the slaveholding States would +have most just cause to apprehend that the American +flag is powerless to protect American +property; that the Federal Government is not +sufficiently energetic in the maintenance and preservation +of their peculiar rights; and that these +rights, therefore, are in imminent danger."</p><p class="pagenum">284</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 4. <i>Resolved</i>, That restitution should be demanded "at +all hazards." <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 215.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, March 21. Congress (House): Giddings's Resolutions.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Giddings moved the following resolutions:—</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 5. "<i>Resolved</i>, That when a ship belonging to the citizens +of any State of this Union leaves the waters +and territory of such State, and enters upon the +high seas, the persons on board cease to be subject +to the slave laws of such State, and therefore +are governed in their relations to each other by, +and are amenable to, the laws of the United +States."</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 6. <i>Resolved</i>, That the slaves in the brig Creole are +amenable only to the laws of the United States.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 7. <i>Resolved</i>, That those slaves by resuming their natural +liberty violated no laws of the United States.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 8. <i>Resolved</i>, That all attempts to re-enslave them are +unconstitutional, etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">Moved that these resolutions lie on the table; defeated, +53 to 125. Mr. Giddings withdrew the resolutions. +Moved to censure Mr. Giddings, and he was +finally censured. <i>House Journal</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 567–80.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, May 10. Congress (House): Remonstrance of Mississippi +against Right of Search.</p> +<p class="pagenum">285</p> +<p class="atext">"Mr. Gwin presented resolutions of the Legislature of +the State of Mississippi, against granting the right +of search to Great Britain for the purpose of suppressing +<!-- Page 285 --><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285"></a>the African slave trade; urging the Government +to demand of the British Government +redress and restitution in relation to the case of +the brig Creole and the slaves on board." Referred +to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. <i>House Journal</i>, +27 Cong. 2 sess. p. 800.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, Aug. 4. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," +etc.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression +of the slave trade," etc. $10,543.42. <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, V. 500, 501.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, Nov. 10. Joint-Cruising Treaty with Great Britain.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Treaty to settle and define boundaries; for the final +suppression of the African slave-trade; and for the +giving up of criminals fugitive from justice. Concluded +August 9, 1842; ratifications exchanged at +London October 13, 1842; proclaimed November +10, 1842." Articles VIII., and IX. Ratified by the +Senate by a vote of 39 to 9, after several unsuccessful +attempts to amend it. <i>U.S. Treaties and +Conventions</i> (1889), pp. 436–7; <i>Senate Exec. Journal</i>, +VI. 118–32.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1842, Dec. 7. President Tyler's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">The treaty of Ghent binds the United States and Great +Britain to the suppression of the slave-trade. The +Right of Search was refused by the United States, +and our Minister in France for that reason protested +against the Quintuple Treaty; his conduct +had the approval of the administration. On this +account the eighth article was inserted, causing +each government to keep a flotilla in African +waters to enforce the laws. If this should be +done by all the powers, the trade would be swept +from the ocean. <i>House Journal</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. +pp. 16–7.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1843, Feb. 22. Congress (Senate): Appropriation Opposed.</p> +<p class="pagenum">286</p> +<p class="atext">Motion by Mr. Benton, during debate on naval appropriations, +to strike out appropriation "for the +support of Africans recaptured on the coast of Africa +<!-- Page 286 --><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286"></a>or elsewhere, and returned to Africa by the +armed vessels of the United States, $5,000." Lost; +similar proposition by Bagby, lost. Proposition to +strike out appropriation for squadron, lost. March +3, bill becomes a law, with appropriation for Africans, +but without that for squadron. <i>Congressional +Globe</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 328, 331–6; +<i>Statutes at Large</i>, V. 615.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1845, Feb. 20. President Tyler's Special Message to Congress.</p> + +<p class="atext">Message on violations of Brazilian slave-trade laws by +Americans. <i>House Journal</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. pp. +425, 463; <i>House Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 148. +Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1846, Aug. 10. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression +of the slave trade, including the support of recaptured +Africans, and their removal to their country, +twenty-five thousand dollars." <i>Statutes at Large</i>, +IX. 96.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1849, Dec. 4. President Taylor's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Your attention is earnestly invited to an amendment +of our existing laws relating to the African slave-trade, +with a view to the effectual suppression of +that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied that +this trade is still, in part, carried on by means of +vessels built in the United States, and owned or +navigated by some of our citizens." <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 5, pp. 7–8.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1850, Aug. 1. Congress (House): Bill for War Steamers.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill (House, No. 367) to establish a line of war +steamers to the coast of Africa for the suppression +of the slave trade and the promotion of commerce +and colonization." Read twice, and referred to +Committee of the Whole. <i>House Journal</i>, 31 Cong. +1 sess. pp. 1022, 1158, 1217.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1850, Dec. 16. Congress (House): Treaty of Washington.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Burt, by unanimous consent, introduced a joint +resolution (No. 28) 'to terminate the eighth article +of the treaty between the United States and Great +<!-- Page 287 --><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287"></a>Britain concluded at Washington the ninth day +of August, 1842.'" Read twice, and referred to +the Committee on Naval Affairs. <i>Ibid.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 +sess. p. 64.</p><p class="pagenum">287</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1851, Jan. 22. Congress (Senate): Resolution on Sea +Letters.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The following resolution, submitted by Mr. Clay the +20th instant, came up for consideration:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on Commerce be instructed +to inquire into the expediency of making +more effectual provision by law to prevent the +employment of American vessels and American +seamen in the African slave trade, and especially +as to the expediency of granting sea letters or +other evidence of national character to American +vessels clearing out of the ports of the empire of +Brazil for the western coast of Africa." Agreed to. +<i>Congressional Globe</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 304–9; +<i>Senate Journal</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 95, 102–3.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1851, Feb. 19. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill (Senate, No. 472) concerning the intercourse +and trade of vessels of the United States with certain +places on the eastern and western coasts of +Africa, and for other purposes." Read once. <i>Senate +Journal</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 42, 45, 84, 94, 159, +193–4; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. +246–7.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1851, Dec. 3. Congress (House): Bill to Amend Act of 1807.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Giddings gave notice of a bill to repeal §§ 9 and +10 of the act to prohibit the importation of slaves, +etc. from and after Jan. 1, 1808. <i>House Journal</i>, 32 +Cong. 1 sess. p. 42. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. +p. 147.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1852, Feb. 5. Alabama: Illegal Importations.</p> + +<p class="atext">By code approved on this date:—</p> + +<p class="atext">§§ 2058–2062. If slaves have been imported contrary +to law, they are to be sold, and one fourth paid +to the agent or informer and the residue to the +treasury. An agent is to be appointed to take +charge of such slaves, who is to give bond. Pending +<!-- Page 288 --><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288"></a>controversy, he may hire the slaves out. Ormond, +<i>Code of Alabama</i>, pp. 392–3.</p><p class="pagenum">288</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1853, March 3. Congress (Senate): Appropriation Proposed.</p> + +<p class="atext">A bill making appropriations for the naval service for +the year ending June 30, 1854. Mr. Underwood +offered the following amendment:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"For executing the provisions of the act approved 3d +of March, 1819, entitled 'An act in addition to +the acts prohibiting the slave trade,' $20,000." +Amendment agreed to, and bill passed. It appears, +however, to have been subsequently amended in +the House, and the appropriation does not stand +in the final act. <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 32 Cong. 2 +sess. p. 1072; <i>Statutes at Large</i>, X. 214.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1854, May 22. Congress (Senate): West India Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Clayton presented the following resolution, which +was unanimously agreed to:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on Foreign Relations +be instructed to inquire into the expediency of +providing by law for such restrictions on the +power of American consuls residing in the Spanish +West India islands to issue sea letters on the +transfer of American vessels in those islands, as +will prevent the abuse of the American flag in +protecting persons engaged in the African slave +trade." June 26, 1854, this committee reported "a +bill (Senate, No. 416) for the more effectual +suppression of the slave-trade in American built +vessels." Passed Senate, postponed in House. <i>Senate +Journal</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 404, 457–8, 472–3, +476; <i>House Journal</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1093, +1332–3; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +1257–61, 1511–3, 1591–3, 2139.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1854, May 29. Congress (Senate): Treaty of Washington.</p> + +<p class="atext"><i>Resolved</i>, "that, in the opinion of the Senate, it is expedient, +and in conformity with the interests and +sound policy of the United States, that the eighth +article of the treaty between this government and +Great Britain, of the 9th of August, 1842, should<!-- Page 289 --><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289"></a> +be abrogated." Introduced by Slidell, and favorably +reported from Committee on Foreign Relations +in Executive Session, June 13, 1854. <i>Senate +Journal</i>, 34 Cong. 1–2 sess. pp. 396, 695–8; <i>Senate +Reports</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.</p><p class="pagenum">289</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1854, June 21. Congress (Senate): Bill Regulating Navigation.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Seward asked and obtained leave to bring in a +bill (Senate, No. 407) to regulate navigation to +the coast of Africa in vessels owned by citizens of +the United States, in certain cases; which was read +and passed to a second reading." June 22, ordered +to be printed. <i>Senate Journal</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +448, 451; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. +1456, 1461, 1472.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1854, June 26. Congress (Senate): Bill to Suppress Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"A bill for the more effectual suppression of the slave +trade in American built vessels." See references to +May 22, 1854, above.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1856, June 23. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Act of 1818.</p> + +<p class="atext">Notice given of a bill to amend the Act of April 20, +1818. <i>House Journal</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. II. 1101.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1856, Aug. 18. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent +acts, $8,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XI. 90.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1856, Nov. 24. South Carolina: Governor's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">Governor Adams, in his annual message to the legislature, +said:—</p> +<p class="pagenum">290</p> +<p class="atext">"It is apprehended that the opening of this trade [<i>i.e.</i>, +the slave-trade] will lessen the value of slaves, and +ultimately destroy the institution. It is a sufficient +answer to point to the fact, that unrestricted immigration +has not diminished the value of labor +in the Northwestern section of the confederacy. +The cry there is, want of labor, notwithstanding +capital has the pauperism of the old world to +press into its grinding service. If we cannot supply +the demand for slave labor, then we must expect +<!-- Page 290 --><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290"></a>to be supplied with a species of labor we do not +want, and which is, from the very nature of +things, antagonistic to our institutions. It is much +better that our drays should be driven by slaves—that +our factories should be worked by slaves—that +our hotels should be served by slaves—that +our locomotives should be manned by slaves, than +that we should be exposed to the introduction, +from any quarter, of a population alien to us by +birth, training, and education, and which, in the +process of time, must lead to that conflict between +capital and labor, 'which makes it so difficult to +maintain free institutions in all wealthy and highly +civilized nations where such institutions as ours +do not exist.' In all slaveholding States, true policy +dictates that the superior race should direct, and +the inferior perform all menial service. Competition +between the white and black man for this service, +may not disturb Northern sensibility, but it +does not exactly suit our latitude." <i>South Carolina +House Journal</i>, 1856, p. 36; Cluskey, <i>Political Text-Book</i>, +14 edition, p. 585.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That this House of Representatives regards +all suggestions and propositions of every kind, by +whomsoever made, for a revival of the African +slave trade, as shocking to the moral sentiment of +the enlightened portion of mankind; and that any +action on the part of Congress conniving at or +legalizing that horrid and inhuman traffic would +justly subject the government and citizens of the +United States to the reproach and execration of all +civilized and Christian people throughout the +world." Offered by Mr. Etheridge; agreed to, 152 +to 57. <i>House Journal</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105–11; +<i>Congressional Globe</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 123–5, +and Appendix, pp. 364–70.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 291 -->291</span><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That it is inexpedient to repeal the laws prohibiting +the African slave trade." Offered by Mr. +Orr; not voted upon. <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 34 +Cong. 3 sess. p. 123.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That it is inexpedient, unwise, and contrary +to the settled policy of the United States, to repeal +the laws prohibiting the African slave trade." Offered +by Mr. Orr; agreed to, 183 to 8. <i>House Journal</i>, +34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 111–3; <i>Congressional +Globe</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 125–6.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the House of Representatives, expressing, +as they believe, public opinion both North +and South, are utterly opposed to the reopening +of the slave trade." Offered by Mr. Boyce; not +voted upon. <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. +p. 125.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1857. South Carolina: Report of Legislative Committee.</p> + +<p class="atext">Special committee of seven on the slave-trade clause in +the Governor's message report: majority report of +six members, favoring the reopening of the African +slave-trade; minority report of Pettigrew, opposing +it. <i>Report of the Special Committee</i>, etc., +published in 1857.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1857, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent +acts, $8,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XI. 227; <i>House +Journal</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. p. 397. Cf. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. IX. No. 70.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1858, March (?). Louisiana: Bill to Import Africans.</p> + +<p class="atext">Passed House; lost in Senate by two votes. Cf. +<i>Congressional Globe</i>, 35 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1362.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1858, Dec. 6. President Buchanan's Message.</p> +<p class="pagenum">292</p> +<p class="atext">"The truth is, that Cuba in its existing colonial condition, +is a constant source of injury and annoyance<!-- Page 292 --><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292"></a> +to the American people. It is the only spot in the +civilized world where the African slave trade is +tolerated; and we are bound by treaty with Great +Britain to maintain a naval force on the coast of +Africa, at much expense both of life and treasure, +solely for the purpose of arresting slavers bound +to that island. The late serious difficulties between +the United States and Great Britain respecting the +right of search, now so happily terminated, could +never have arisen if Cuba had not afforded a market +for slaves. As long as this market shall remain +open, there can be no hope for the civilization of +benighted Africa....</p> + +<p class="atext">"It has been made known to the world by my predecessors +that the United States have, on several occasions, +endeavored to acquire Cuba from Spain +by honorable negotiation. If this were accomplished, +the last relic of the African slave trade +would instantly disappear. We would not, if we +could, acquire Cuba in any other manner. This is +due to our national character.... This course +we shall ever pursue, unless circumstances should +occur, which we do not now anticipate, rendering +a departure from it clearly justifiable, under the +imperative and overruling law of self-preservation." +<i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 2, +pp. 14–5. See also <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 31–3.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1858, Dec. 23. Congress (House): Resolution on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">On motion of Mr. Farnsworth,</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on Naval Affairs be requested +to inquire and report to this House if +any, and what, further legislation is necessary on +the part of the United States to fully carry out and +perform the stipulations contained in the eighth +article of the treaty with Great Britain (known +as the 'Ashburton treaty') for the suppression of +the slave trade." <i>House Journal</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 115–6.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 293 -->293</span><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1859, Jan. 5. Congress (Senate): Resolution on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">On motion of Mr. Seward, Dec. 21, 1858,</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on the Judiciary inquire +whether any amendments to existing laws +ought to be made for the suppression of the African +slave trade." <i>Senate Journal</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. +pp. 80, 108, 115.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1859, Jan. 13. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Seward introduced "a bill (Senate, No. 510) in addition +to the acts which prohibit the slave trade." +Referred to committee, reported, and dropped. +<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 134, 321.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1859, Jan. 31. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Kilgore moved that the rules be suspended, so as +to enable him to submit the following preamble +and resolutions, viz:</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas the laws prohibiting the African slave trade +have become a topic of discussion with newspaper +writers and political agitators, many of them +boldly denouncing these laws as unwise in policy +and disgraceful in their provisions, and insisting +on the justice and propriety of their repeal, and +the revival of the odious traffic in African slaves; +and whereas recent demonstrations afford strong +reasons to apprehend that said laws are to be set +at defiance, and their violation openly countenanced +and encouraged by a portion of the citizens +of some of the States of this Union; and +whereas it is proper in view of said facts that the +sentiments of the people's representatives in Congress +should be made public in relation thereto: +Therefore—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That while we recognize no right on the +part of the federal government, or any other law-making +power, save that of the States wherein it +exists, to interfere with or disturb the institution +of domestic slavery where it is established or protected +by State legislation, we do hold that Congress +has power to prohibit the foreign traffic<!-- Page 294 --><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294"></a>, and +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.</p><p class="pagenum">294</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the laws in force against said traffic +are founded upon the broadest principles of philanthropy, +religion, and humanity; that they +should remain unchanged, except so far as legislation +may be needed to render them more +efficient; that they should be faithfully and +promptly executed by our government, and respected +by all good citizens.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Executive should be sustained and +commended for any proper efforts whenever and +wherever made to enforce said laws, and to bring +to speedy punishment the wicked violators +thereof, and all their aiders and abettors."</p> + +<p class="atext">Failed of the two-thirds vote necessary to suspend the +rules—the vote being 115 to 84—and was dropped. +<i>House Journal</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 298–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1859, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent +acts, and to pay expenses already incurred, +$75,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XI. 404.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1859, Dec. 19. President Buchanan's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"All lawful means at my command have been employed, +and shall continue to be employed, to execute +the laws against the African slave trade. +After a most careful and rigorous examination of +our coasts, and a thorough investigation of the +subject, we have not been able to discover that +any slaves have been imported into the United +States except the cargo by the Wanderer, numbering +between three and four hundred. Those engaged +in this unlawful enterprise have been +rigorously prosecuted, but not with as much success +as their crimes have deserved. A number of +them are still under prosecution. [Here follows a +history of our slave-trade legislation.]</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 295 -->295</span><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295"></a></p> +<p class="atext">"These acts of Congress, it is believed, have, with very +rare and insignificant exceptions, accomplished +their purpose. For a period of more than half a +century there has been no perceptible addition to +the number of our domestic slaves.... Reopen +the trade, and it would be difficult to determine +whether the effect would be more deleterious on +the interests of the master, or on those of the native +born slave, ..." <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. +1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 5–8.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, March 20. Congress (Senate): Proposed Resolution.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wilson submitted the following resolution; +which was considered, by unanimous consent, +and agreed to:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed +to inquire into the expediency of so +amending the laws of the United States in relation +to the suppression of the African slave trade as to +provide a penalty of imprisonment for life for a +participation in such trade, instead of the penalty +of forfeiture of life, as now provided; and also an +amendment of such laws as will include in the +punishment for said offense all persons who fit +out or are in any way connected with or interested +in fitting out expeditions or vessels for the +purpose of engaging in such slave trade." <i>Senate +Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, March 20. Congress (Senate): Right of Search.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wilson asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, +leave to bring in a joint resolution (Senate, +No. 20) to secure the right of search on the +coast of Africa, for the more effectual suppression +of the African slave trade." Read twice, and +referred to Committee on Foreign Relations. +<i>Ibid.</i></p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, March 20. Congress (Senate): Steam Vessels for +Slave-Trade.</p><p class="pagenum">296</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wilson asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, +leave to bring in a bill (Senate, No. 296) +for the construction of five steam screw sloops-of-war, +for service on the African coast." Read twice,<!-- Page 296 --><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296"></a> +and referred to Committee on Naval Affairs; May +23, reported with an amendment. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 274, +494–5.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860 March 26. Congress (House): Proposed Resolutions.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Morse submitted ... the following resolutions; +which were read and committed to the Committee +of the Whole House on the state of the +Union, viz:</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That for the more effectual suppression of +the African slave trade the treaty of 1842 ..., +requiring each country to keep <i>eighty</i> guns on the +coast of Africa for that purpose, should be so +changed as to require a specified and sufficient +number of small steamers and fast sailing brigs or +schooners to be kept on said coast....</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That as the African slave trade appears to be +rapidly increasing, some effective mode of identifying +the nationality of a vessel on the coast of +Africa suspected of being in the slave trade or of +wearing false colors should be immediately +adopted and carried into effect by the leading +maritime nations of the earth; and that the government +of the United States has thus far, by refusing +to aid in establishing such a system, shown +a strange neglect of one of the best means of suppressing +said trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the African slave trade is against the +moral sentiment of mankind and a crime against +human nature; and that as the most highly civilized +nations have made it a criminal offence or +piracy under their own municipal laws, it ought +at once and without hesitation to be declared a +crime by the code of international law; and that +... the President be requested to open negotiations +on this subject with the leading powers of +Europe." ... <i>House Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. I. +588–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, April 16. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> +<p class="pagenum">297</p> +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wilson asked, and by unanimous consent +obtained, leave to bring in a bill (Senate, No. +<!-- Page 297 --><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297"></a>408) for the more effectual suppression of the +slave trade." Bill read twice, and ordered to lie on +the table; May 21, referred to Committee on the +Judiciary, and printed. <i>Senate Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 +sess. pp. 394, 485; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 36 Cong. 1 +sess. pp. 1721, 2207–11.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, May 21. Congress (House): Buyers of Imported +Negroes.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wells submitted the following resolution, and debate +arising thereon, it lies over under the rule, +viz:</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed +to report forthwith a bill providing that +any person purchasing any negro or other person +imported into this country in violation of the laws +for suppressing the slave trade, shall not by reason +of said purchase acquire any title to said negro or +person; and where such purchase is made with a +knowledge that such negro or other person has +been so imported, shall forfeit not less than one +thousand dollars, and be punished by imprisonment +for a term not less than six months." <i>House +Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. II. 880.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, May 26. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent +acts, $40,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. 21.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, June 16. United States Statute: Additional Act to +Act of 1819.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An Act in addition +to the Acts Prohibiting the Slave Trade.'" <i>Ibid.</i>, +XII. 40–1; <i>Senate Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess., Senate +Bill No. 464.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, July 11. Great Britain: Proposed Co-operation.</p> + +<p class="atext">Lord John Russell suggested for the suppression of the +trade:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"1st. A systematic plan of cruising on the coast of Cuba +by the vessels of Great Britain, Spain, and the +United States.</p> + +<p class="atext">"2d. Laws of registration and inspection in the Island +of Cuba, by which the employment of slaves, imported +<!-- Page 298 --><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298"></a>contrary to law, might be detected by the +Spanish authorities.</p><p class="pagenum">298</p> + +<p class="atext">"3d. A plan of emigration from China, regulated by +the agents of European nations, in conjunction +with the Chinese authorities." President Buchanan +refused to co-operate on this plan. <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, pp. 441–3, +446–8.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, Dec. 3. President Buchanan's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"It is with great satisfaction I communicate the fact +that since the date of my last annual message not +a single slave has been imported into the United +States in violation of the laws prohibiting the African +slave trade. This statement is founded upon +a thorough examination and investigation of the +subject. Indeed, the spirit which prevailed some +time since among a portion of our fellow-citizens +in favor of this trade seems to have entirely subsided." +<i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. +1, p. 24.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, Dec. 12. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. John Cochrane's resolution:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"The migration or importation of slaves into the +United States or any of the Territories thereof, +from any foreign country, is hereby prohibited." +<i>House Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61–2; <i>Congressional +Globe</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 77.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1860, Dec. 24. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Mr. Wilson asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, +leave to bring in a bill (Senate, No. 529) +for the more effectual suppression of the slave +trade." Read twice, and referred to Committee on +the Judiciary; not mentioned again. <i>Senate Journal</i>, +36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 62; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 36 +Cong. 2 sess. p. 182.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Jan. 7. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Etheridge's resolution:—</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 299 -->299</span><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299"></a></p> +<p class="atext">§ 5. "The migration or importation of persons held to +service or labor for life, or a term of years, into +any of the States, or the Territories belonging +to the United States, is perpetually prohibited; +and Congress shall pass all laws necessary to make +said prohibition effective." <i>Congressional Globe</i>, +36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 279.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Jan. 23. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Resolution of Mr. Morris of Pennsylvania:— +"Neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature shall +make any law respecting slavery or involuntary +servitude, except as a punishment for crime; but +Congress may pass laws for the suppression of the +African slave trade, and the rendition of fugitives +from service or labor in the States." Mr. Morris +asked to have it printed, that he might at the +proper time move it as an amendment to the report +of the select committee of thirty-three. It was +ordered to be printed. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 527.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Feb. 1. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend +Constitution.</p> + +<p class="atext">Resolution of Mr. Kellogg of Illinois:—</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 16. "The migration or importation of persons held +to service or involuntary servitude into any State, +Territory, or place within the United States, from +any place or country beyond the limits of the +United States or Territories thereof, is forever +prohibited." Considered Feb. 27, 1861, and lost. +<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 690, 1243, 1259–60.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Feb. 8. Confederate States of America: Importation +Prohibited.</p> + +<p class="atext">Constitution for the Provisional Government of the +Confederate States of America, Article I. Section +7:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"1. The importation of African negroes from any foreign +country other than the slave-holding States +of the United States, is hereby forbidden; and +Congress are required to pass such laws as shall +effectually prevent the same.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 300 -->300</span><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300"></a></p> +<p class="atext">"2. The Congress shall also have power to prohibit the +introduction of slaves from any State not a member +of this Confederacy." March 11, 1861, this article +was placed in the permanent Constitution. +The first line was changed so as to read "negroes +of the African race." <i>C.S.A. Statutes at Large, +1861–2</i>, pp. 3, 15.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Feb. 9. Confederate States of America: Statutory +Prohibition.</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Be it enacted by the Confederate States of America in +Congress assembled</i>, That all the laws of the United +States of America in force and in use in the Confederate +States of America on the first day of +November last, and not inconsistent with the +Constitution of the Confederate States, be and +the same are hereby continued in force until altered +or repealed by the Congress." <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 27.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Feb. 19. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To supply deficiencies in the fund hitherto appropriated +to carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and +subsequent acts, $900,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. +132.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent +acts, and to provide compensation for district +attorneys and marshals, $900,000. <i>Ibid.</i>, XII. +218–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1861, Dec. 3. President Lincoln's Message.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The execution of the laws for the suppression of the +African slave trade has been confided to the Department +of the Interior. It is a subject of gratulation +that the efforts which have been made for +the suppression of this inhuman traffic have been +recently attended with unusual success. Five vessels +being fitted out for the slave trade have been +seized and condemned. Two mates of vessels engaged +in the trade, and one person in equipping +a vessel as a slaver, have been convicted and subjected +to the penalty of fine and imprisonment, +and one captain, taken with a cargo of Africans +on board his vessel, has been convicted of the +<!-- Page 301 --><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301"></a>highest grade of offence under our laws, the punishment +of which is death." <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 +Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 13.</p><p class="pagenum">301</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1862, Jan. 27. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Agreeably to notice Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, +asked and obtained leave to bring in a bill (Senate, +No. 173), for the more effectual suppression +of the slave trade." Read twice, and referred to +Committee on the Judiciary; Feb. 11, 1863, reported +adversely, and postponed indefinitely. <i>Senate +Journal</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. p. 143; 37 Cong. 3 +sess. pp. 231–2.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1862, March 14. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">For compensation to United States marshals, district +attorneys, etc., for services in the suppression of +the slave-trade, so much of the appropriation of +March 2, 1861, as may be expedient and proper, +not exceeding in all $10,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, +XII. 368–9.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1862, March 25. United States Statute: Prize Law.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to facilitate Judicial Proceedings in Adjudications +upon Captured Property, and for the better +Administration of the Law of Prize." Applied to +captures under the slave-trade law. <i>Ibid.</i>, XII. +374–5; <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess., Appendix, +pp. 346–7.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1862, June 7. Great Britain: Treaty of 1862.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Treaty for the suppression of the African slave trade. +Concluded at Washington April 7, 1862; ratifications +exchanged at London May 20, 1862; proclaimed +June 7, 1862." Ratified unanimously by +the Senate. <i>U.S. Treaties and Conventions</i> (1889), +pp. 454–66. See also <i>Senate Exec. Journal</i>, XII. pp. +230, 231, 240, 254, 391, 400, 403.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1862, July 11. United States Statute: Treaty of 1862 Carried +into Effect.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to carry into Effect the Treaty between the +United States and her Britannic Majesty for the +Suppression of the African Slave-Trade." <i>Statutes</i> +<i>at Large</i>, XII. 531; <i>Senate Journal</i> and <!-- Page 302 --><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302"></a><i>House Journal</i>, +37 Cong. 2 sess., Senate Bill No. 352.</p><p class="pagenum">302</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1862, July 17. United States Statute: Former Acts +Amended.</p> + +<p class="atext">"An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An Act to amend +an Act entitled "An Act in Addition to the Acts +prohibiting the Slave Trade."'" <i>Statutes at Large</i>, +XII. 592–3; <i>Senate Journal</i> and <i>House Journal</i>, 37 +Cong. 2 sess., Senate Bill No. 385.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1863, Feb. 4. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed +July 11, 1862, $17,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XII. 639.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1863, March 3. Congress: Joint Resolution.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Joint Resolution respecting the Compensation of the +Judges and so forth, under the Treaty with Great +Britain and other Persons employed in the +Suppression of the Slave Trade." <i>Statutes at +Large</i>, XII. 829.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1863, April 22. Great Britain: Treaty of 1862 Amended.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Additional article to the treaty for the suppression of +the African slave trade of April 7, 1862." Concluded +February 17, 1863; ratifications exchanged +at London April 1, 1863; proclaimed April 22, 1863.</p> + +<p class="atext">Right of Search extended. <i>U.S. Treaties and Conventions</i> +(1889), pp. 466–7.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1863, Dec. 17. Congress (House): Resolution on Coastwise +Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Julian introduced a bill to repeal portions of the +Act of March 2, 1807, relative to the coastwise +slave-trade. Read twice, and referred to Committee +on the Judiciary. <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 38 Cong. +1 sess. p. 46.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1864, July 2. United States Statute: Coastwise Slave-Trade +Prohibited Forever.</p> + +<p class="atext">§ 9 of Appropriation Act repeals §§ 8 and 9 of Act of +1807. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XIII. 353.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1864, Dec. 7. Great Britain: International Proposition.</p> + +<p class="atext">"The crime of trading in human beings has been for +many years branded by the reprobation of all civilized +nations. Still the atrocious traffic subsists, +and many persons flourish on the gains they have +<!-- Page 303 --><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303"></a>derived from that polluted source.</p> +<p class="pagenum">303</p> + +<p class="atext">"Her Majesty's government, contemplating, on the +one hand, with satisfaction the unanimous abhorrence +which the crime inspires, and, on the +other hand, with pain and disgust the slave-trading +speculations which still subist [<i>sic</i>], have come +to the conclusion that no measure would be so +effectual to put a stop to these wicked acts as the +punishment of all persons who can be proved to +be guilty of carrying slaves across the sea. Her +Majesty's government, therefore, invite the government +of the United States to consider whether +it would not be practicable, honorable, and humane—</p> + +<p class="atext">"1st. To make a general declaration, that the governments +who are parties to it denounce the slave +trade as piracy.</p> + +<p class="atext">"2d. That the aforesaid governments should propose +to their legislatures to affix the penalties of piracy +already existing in their laws—provided, only, +that the penalty in this case be that of death—to +all persons, being subjects or citizens of one of the +contracting powers, who shall be convicted in a +court which takes cognizance of piracy, of being +concerned in carrying human beings across the sea +for the purpose of sale, or for the purpose of serving +as slaves, in any country or colony in the +world." Signed,</p> + +<p class="atext" style="text-align: right;"><span class="smcap">Russell.</span>"</p> + +<p class="atext">Similar letters were addressed to France, Spain, Portugal, +Austria, Prussia, Italy, Netherlands, and +Russia. <i>Diplomatic Correspondence</i>, 1865, pt. ii. pp. +4, 58–9, etc.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1865, Jan. 24. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed +July 11, 1862, $17,000. <i>Statutes at Large</i>, XIII. 424.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1866, April 7. United States Statute: Compensation to +Marshals, etc.</p> +<p class="pagenum">304</p> +<p class="atext">For additional compensation to United States marshals, +district attorneys, etc., for services in <!-- Page 304 --><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304"></a>the +suppression of the slave-trade, so much of the appropriation +of March 2, 1861, as may be expedient +and proper, not exceeding in all $10,000; and also +so much as may be necessary to pay the salaries of +judges and the expenses of mixed courts. <i>Ibid.</i>, +XIV. 23.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1866, July 25. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed +July 11, 1862, $17,000. <i>Ibid.</i>, XIV. 226.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1867, Feb. 28. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed +July 11, 1862, $17,000. <i>Ibid.</i>, XIV. 414–5.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1868, March 30. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed +July 11, 1862, $12,500. <i>Ibid.</i>, XV. 58.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1869, Jan. 6. Congress (House): Abrogation of Treaty of +1862.</p> + +<p class="atext">Mr. Kelsey asked unanimous consent to introduce the +following resolution:—</p> + +<p class="atext">"Whereas the slave trade has been practically suppressed; +and whereas by our treaty with Great +Britain for the suppression of the slave trade large +appropriations are annually required to carry out +the provisions thereof: Therefore,</p> + +<p class="atext">"<i>Resolved</i>, That the Committee on Foreign Affairs are +hereby instructed to inquire into the expediency +of taking proper steps to secure the abrogation or +modification of the treaty with Great Britain +for the suppression of the slave trade." Mr. Arnell +objected. <i>Congressional Globe</i>, 40 Cong. 3 sess. +p. 224.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1869, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.</p> + +<p class="atext">To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed +July 11, 1862, $12,500; provided that the salaries of +judges be paid only on condition that they reside +where the courts are held, and that Great Britain +be asked to consent to abolish mixed courts. <i>Statutes +at Large</i>, XV. 321.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 305 -->305</span><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305"></a></p> + +<p class="atitle">1870, April 22. Congress (Senate): Bill to Repeal Act of +1803.</p> + +<p class="atext">Senate Bill No. 251, to repeal an act entitled "An act to +prevent the importation of certain persons into +certain States where by the laws thereof their admission +is prohibited." Mr. Sumner said that the +bill had passed the Senate once, and that he +hoped it would now pass. Passed; title amended +by adding "approved February 28, 1803;" June 29, +bill passed over in House; July 14, consideration +again postponed on Mr. Woodward's objection. +<i>Congressional Globe</i>, 41 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894, +2932, 4953, 5594.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1870, Sept. 16. Great Britain: Additional Treaty.</p> + +<p class="atext">"Additional convention to the treaty of April 7, 1862, +respecting the African slave trade." Concluded +June 3, 1870; ratifications exchanged at London +August 10, 1870; proclaimed September 16, 1870. +<i>U.S. Treaties and Conventions</i> (1889), pp. 472–6.</p> + + +<p class="atitle">1871, Dec. 11. Congress (House): Bill on Slave-Trade.</p> + +<p class="atext">On the call of States, Mr. Banks introduced "a bill +(House, No. 490) to carry into effect article thirteen +of the Constitution of the United States, and +to prohibit the owning or dealing in slaves by +American citizens in foreign countries." <i>House +Journal</i>, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p. 48.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 306 -->306</span><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306"></a></p> + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_C" id="APPENDIX_C"></a>APPENDIX C.</h2> + +<h3>TYPICAL CASES OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN THE +AMERICAN SLAVE-TRADE.<br /> +1619-1864.</h3> + + +<div class="blockquot"><p>This chronological list of certain typical American slavers is not intended to +catalogue all known cases, but is designed merely to illustrate, by a few +selected examples, the character of the licit and the illicit traffic to the +United States.</p></div> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1619.</b> ——. Dutch man-of-war, imports twenty Negroes +into Virginia, the first slaves brought to the continent. +Smith, <i>Generall Historie of Virginia</i> (1626 and 1632), p. 126.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1645.</b> <b>Rainbowe,</b> under Captain Smith, captures and imports +African slaves into Massachusetts. The slaves were forfeited +and returned. <i>Massachusetts Colonial Records</i>, II. 115, 129, 136, +168, 176; III. 13, 46, 49, 58, 84.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1655.</b> <b>Witte paert,</b> first vessel to import slaves into New York. +O'Callaghan, <i>Laws of New Netherland</i> (ed. 1868), p. 191, +note.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1736, Oct.</b> ——. Rhode Island slaver, under Capt. John +Griffen. <i>American Historical Record</i>, I. 312.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1746.</b> ——. Spanish vessel, with certain free Negroes, +captured by Captains John Dennis and Robert Morris, and +Negroes sold by them in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and +New York; these Negroes afterward returned to Spanish +colonies by the authorities of Rhode Island. <i>Rhode Island +Colonial Records</i>, V. 170, 176–7; Dawson's <i>Historical Magazine</i>, +XVIII. 98.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1752.</b> <b>Sanderson,</b> of Newport, trading to Africa and West +Indies. <i>American Historical Record</i>, I. 315–9, 338–42. Cf. +above, p. 35, note 4.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1788</b> (<i>circa</i>). ——. "One or two" vessels fitted out in +Connecticut. W.C. Fowler, <i>Historical Status of the Negro in +Connecticut</i>, in <i>Local Law</i>, etc., p. 125.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1801.</b> <b>Sally,</b> of Norfolk, Virginia, equipped slaver; libelled and +acquitted; owners claimed damages. <i>American State Papers, +Commerce and Navigation</i>, I. No. 128.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1803</b> (?). ——. Two slavers seized with slaves, and +brought to Philadelphia; both condemned, and slaves apprenticed. +<!-- Page 307 --><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307"></a>Robert Sutcliff, <i>Travels in North America</i>, p. 219.</p> +<p class="pagenum">307</p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1804.</b> ——. Slaver, allowed by Governor Claiborne to +land fifty Negroes in Louisiana. <i>American State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, +I. No. 177.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1814.</b> <b>Saucy Jack</b> carries off slaves from Africa and attacks +British cruiser. <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, +p. 46; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 147.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1816</b> (<i>circa</i>). <b>Paz,</b> <b>Rosa,</b> <b>Dolores,</b> <b>Nueva Paz,</b> and <b>Dorset,</b> +American slavers in Spanish-African trade. Many of these +were formerly privateers. <i>Ibid.</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, +pp. 45–6; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, pp. 144–7.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1817, Jan. 17.</b> <b>Eugene,</b> armed Mexican schooner, captured +while attempting to smuggle slaves into the United States. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, p. 22.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1817, Nov. 19.</b> <b>Tentativa,</b> captured with 128 slaves and +brought into Savannah. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 38; <i>House Reports</i>, 21 +Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 81. See <i>Friends' View of the +African Slave Trade</i> (1824), pp. 44–7.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1818.</b> ——. Three schooners unload slaves in Louisiana. +Collector Chew to the Secretary of the Treasury, <i>House Reports</i>, +21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 70.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1818, Jan. 23.</b> English brig <b>Neptune,</b> detained by U.S.S. +John Adams, for smuggling slaves into the United States. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 36 (3).</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1818, June.</b> <b>Constitution,</b> captured with 84 slaves on the +Florida coast, by a United States army officer. See references +under 1818, June, below.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1818, June.</b> <b>Louisa</b> and <b>Merino,</b> captured slavers, smuggling +from Cuba to the United States; condemned after five +years' litigation. <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107; +19 Cong. 1 sess. VI.-IX. Nos. 121, 126, 152, 163; <i>House Reports</i>, +19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231; <i>American State Papers, +Naval Affairs</i>, II. No. 308; Decisions of the United States +Supreme Court in <i>9 Wheaton</i>, 391.</p> + +<p class="pagenum">308</p> +<p class="atext"><b>1819.</b> <b>Antelope,</b> or <b>General Ramirez.</b> The Colombia (or Arraganta), +a Venezuelan privateer, fitted in the United States +and manned by Americans, captures slaves from a Spanish +slaver, the Antelope, and from other slavers; is wrecked, +and transfers crew and slaves to Antelope; the latter, under +the name of the General Ramirez, is captured with 280 +<!-- Page 308 --><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308"></a>slaves by a United States ship. The slaves were distributed, +some to Spanish claimants, some sent to Africa, and some +allowed to remain; many died. <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 +sess. II. No. 92, pp. 5, 15; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. +186; <i>House Journal</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 59, 76, 123 to 692, +<i>passim</i>. Gales and Seaton, <i>Register of Debates</i>, IV. pt. 1, pp. +915–6, 955–68, 998, 1005; <i>Ibid.</i>, pt. 2, pp. 2501–3; <i>American +State Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, II. No. 319, pp. 750–60; Decisions +of the United States Supreme Court in <i>10 Wheaton</i>, +66, and <i>12 Ibid.</i>, 546.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1820.</b> <b>Endymion,</b> <b>Plattsburg,</b> <b>Science,</b> <b>Esperanza,</b> and <b>Alexander,</b> +captured on the African coast by United States +ships, and sent to New York and Boston. <i>House Reports</i>, 17 +Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 6, 15; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. +348, pp. 122, 144, 187.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1820.</b> <b>General Artigas</b> imports twelve slaves into the United +States. <i>Friends' View of the African Slave Trade</i> (1824), p. 42.</p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1821</b> (?). <b>Dolphin,</b> captured by United States officers and sent +to Charleston, South Carolina. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 31–2.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1821.</b> <b>La Jeune Eugène,</b> <b>La Daphnée,</b> <b>La Mathilde,</b> and +<b>L'Elize,</b> captured by U.S.S. Alligator; <b>La Jeune Eugène</b> +sent to Boston; the rest escape, and are recaptured under +the French flag; the French protest. <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. +1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 187; <i>Friends' View of the African Slave +Trade</i> (1824), pp. 35–41.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1821.</b> <b>La Pensée,</b> captured with 220 slaves by the U.S.S. +Hornet; taken to Louisiana. <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. +II. No. 92, p. 5; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 186.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1821.</b> <b>Esencia</b> lands 113 Negroes at Matanzas. <i>Parliamentary +Papers</i>, 1822, Vol. XXII., <i>Slave Trade, Further Papers</i>, III. +p. 78.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1826.</b> <b>Fell's Point</b> attempts to land Negroes in the United +States. The Negroes were seized. <i>American State Papers, +Naval Affairs</i>, II. No. 319, p. 751.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1827, Dec. 20.</b> <b>Guerrero,</b> Spanish slaver, chased by British, +cruiser and grounded on Key West, with 561 slaves; a part +(121) were landed at Key West, where they were seized by +the collector; 250 were seized by the Spanish and taken to +Cuba, etc. <i>House Journal</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. p. 650; <i>House</i> +<i>Reports</i>, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 268; 25 Cong. 2 sess. I. No.<!-- Page 309 --><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309"></a> +4; <i>American State Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, III. No. 370, p. 210; +<i>Niles's Register</i>, XXXIII. 373.</p><p class="pagenum">309</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1828, March 11.</b> <b>General Geddes</b> brought into St. Augustine +for safe keeping 117 slaves, said to have been those taken +from the wrecked <b>Guerrero</b> and landed at Key West (see +above, 1827). <i>House Doc.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 262.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1828.</b> <b>Blue-eyed Mary,</b> of Baltimore, sold to Spaniards and +captured with 405 slaves by a British cruiser. <i>Niles's Register</i>, +XXXIV. 346.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1830, June 4.</b> <b>Fenix,</b> with 82 Africans, captured by U.S.S. +Grampus, and brought to Pensacola; American built, with +Spanish colors. <i>House Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 54; +<i>House Reports</i>, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 223; <i>Niles's Register</i>, +XXXVIII. 357.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1831, Jan. 3.</b> <b>Comet,</b> carrying slaves from the District of Columbia +to New Orleans, was wrecked on Bahama banks +and 164 slaves taken to Nassau, in New Providence, where +they were freed. Great Britain finally paid indemnity for +these slaves. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 24 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 174; 25 +Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 216.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1834, Feb. 4.</b> <b>Encomium,</b> bound from Charleston, South +Carolina, to New Orleans, with 45 slaves, was wrecked near +Fish Key, Abaco, and slaves were carried to Nassau and +freed. Great Britain eventually paid indemnity for these +slaves. <i>Ibid.</i></p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1835, March.</b> <b>Enterprise,</b> carrying 78 slaves from the District +of Columbia to Charleston, was compelled by rough +weather to put into the port of Hamilton, West Indies, +where the slaves were freed. Great Britain refused to pay +for these, because, before they landed, slavery in the West +Indies had been abolished. <i>Ibid.</i></p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1836, Aug.-Sept.</b> <b>Emanuel,</b> <b>Dolores,</b> <b>Anaconda,</b> and <b>Viper,</b> +built in the United States, clear from Havana for Africa. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 4–6, 221.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1837.</b> ——. Eleven American slavers clear from Havana +for Africa. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 221.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1837.</b> <b>Washington,</b> allowed to proceed to Africa by the American +consul at Havana. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 488–90, 715 ff; 27 Cong, +1 sess. No. 34, pp. 18–21.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 310 -->310</span><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1838.</b> <b>Prova</b> spends three months refitting in the harbor of +Charleston, South Carolina; afterwards captured by the +British, with 225 slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 121, 163–6.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1838.</b> ——. Nineteen American slavers clear from +Havana for Africa. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, +p. 221.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1838–9.</b> <b>Venus,</b> American built, manned partly by Americans, +owned by Spaniards. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 20–2, 106, 124–5, 132, 144–5, +330–2, 475–9.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Morris Cooper,</b> of Philadelphia, lands 485 Negroes in +Cuba. <i>Niles's Register</i>, LVII. 192.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Edwin</b> and <b>George Crooks,</b> slavers, boarded by British +cruisers. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 12–4, +61–4.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Eagle,</b> <b>Clara,</b> and <b>Wyoming,</b> with American and Spanish +flags and papers and an American crew, captured by +British cruisers, and brought to New York. The United +States government declined to interfere in case of the <b>Eagle</b> +and the <b>Clara,</b> and they were taken to Jamaica. The <b>Wyoming</b> +was forfeited to the United States. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 92–104, +109, 112, 118–9, 180–4; <i>Niles's Register</i>, LVI. 256; LVII. 128, +208.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Florida,</b> protected from British cruisers by American +papers. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 113–5.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> ——. Five American slavers arrive at Havana from +Africa, under American flags. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 192.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> ——. Twenty-three American slavers clear from +Havana. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 190–1, 221.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Rebecca,</b> part Spanish, condemned at Sierra Leone. +<i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 649–54, +675–84.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Douglas</b> and <b>Iago,</b> American slavers, visited by British +cruisers, for which the United States demanded indemnity. +<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 542–65, 731–55; <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 +sess. VIII. No. 377, pp. 39–45, 107–12, 116–24, 160–1, +181–2.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839, April 9.</b> <b>Susan,</b> suspected slaver, boarded by the British. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 34–41.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839, July-Sept.</b> <b>Dolphin</b> (or <b>Constitução),</b> <b>Hound,</b> <b>Mary +Cushing</b> (or <b>Sete de Avril</b>), with American and Spanish +flags and papers. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 28, 51–5, 109–10, 136, 234–8; +<!-- Page 311 --><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311"></a><i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 709–15.</p> +<p class="pagenum">311</p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1839, Aug.</b> <b>L'Amistad,</b> slaver, with fifty-three Negroes on +board, who mutinied; the vessel was then captured by a +United States vessel and brought into Connecticut; the Negroes +were declared free. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. +185; 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191; 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. +83; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20; <i>House +Reports</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. No. 51; 28 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 426; +29 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 753; <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. +IV. No. 179; <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29; +32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 19; <i>Senate Reports</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. +No. 301; 32 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 158; 35 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. +36; Decisions of the United States Supreme Court in <i>15 Peters</i>, +518; <i>Opinions of the Attorneys-General</i>, III. 484–92.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839, Sept.</b> <b>My Boy,</b> of New Orleans, seized by a British +cruiser, and condemned at Sierra Leone. <i>Niles's Register</i>, +LVII. 353.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839, Sept. 23.</b> <b>Butterfly,</b> of New Orleans, fitted as a slaver, +and captured by a British cruiser on the coast of Africa. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. No. 115, pp. 191, 244–7; <i>Niles's +Register</i>, LVII. 223.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839, Oct.</b> <b>Catharine,</b> of Baltimore, captured on the African +coast by a British cruiser, and brought by her to New York. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V No. 115, pp. 191, 215, 239–44; +<i>Niles's Register</i>, LVII. 119, 159.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Asp,</b> <b>Laura,</b> and <b>Mary Ann Cassard,</b> foreign slavers +sailing under the American flag. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 +sess. V. No. 115, pp. 126–7, 209–18; <i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. +3 sess. III. No. 283, p. 688 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Two Friends,</b> of New Orleans, equipped slaver, with +Spanish, Portuguese, and American flags. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 +Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 120, 160–2, 305.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Euphrates,</b> of Baltimore, with American papers, seized +by British cruisers as Spanish property. Before this she had +been boarded fifteen times. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 41–4; A.H. Foote, +<i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, pp. 152–6.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Ontario,</b> American slaver, "sold" to the Spanish on +shipping a cargo of slaves. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. +No. 115, pp. 45–50.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 312 -->312</span><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> <b>Mary,</b> of Philadelphia; case of a slaver whose nationality +was disputed. <i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, +pp. 736–8; <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, pp. +19, 24–5.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1840, March.</b> <b>Sarah Ann,</b> of New Orleans, captured with +fraudulent papers. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, +pp. 184–7.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1840, June.</b> <b>Caballero,</b> <b>Hudson,</b> and <b>Crawford;</b> the arrival +of these American slavers was publicly billed in Cuba. <i>Ibid.</i>, +pp. 65–6.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1840.</b> <b>Tigris,</b> captured by British cruisers and sent to Boston +for kidnapping. <i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, +pp. 724–9; <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, +P. 94.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1840.</b> <b>Jones,</b> seized by the British. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 +sess. VIII. No. 377, pp. 131–2, 143–7, 148–60.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1841, Nov. 7.</b> <b>Creole,</b> of Richmond, Virginia, transporting +slaves to New Orleans; the crew mutiny and take her to +Nassau, British West Indies. The slaves were freed and +Great Britain refused indemnity. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 +sess. II. No. 51 and III. No. 137.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1841.</b> <b>Sophia,</b> of New York, ships 750 slaves for Brazil. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43, pp. 3–8.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1841.</b> <b>Pilgrim,</b> of Portsmouth, N.H., <b>Solon,</b> of Baltimore, +<b>William Jones</b> and <b>Himmaleh,</b> of New York, clear from +Rio Janeiro for Africa. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 8–12.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, May.</b> <b>Illinois,</b> of Gloucester, saved from search by the +American flag; escaped under the Spanish flag, loaded with +slaves. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 72 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, June.</b> <b>Shakespeare,</b> of Baltimore, with 430 slaves, captured +by British cruisers. <i>Ibid.</i></p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1843.</b> <b>Kentucky,</b> of New York, trading to Brazil. <i>Ibid.</i>, 30 +Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 28, pp. 71–8; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 +Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p. 72 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844.</b> <b>Enterprise,</b> of Boston, transferred in Brazil for slave-trade. +<i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 28, pp. +79–90.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844.</b> <b>Uncas,</b> of New Orleans, protected by United States +papers; allowed to clear, in spite of her evident character. +<i>Ibid.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, pp. 106–14.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 313 -->313</span><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1844.</b> <b>Sooy,</b> of Newport, without papers, captured by the British +sloop Racer, after landing 600 slaves on the coast of Brazil. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 148, pp. 4, 36–62.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844.</b> <b>Cyrus,</b> of New Orleans, suspected slaver, captured by +the British cruiser Alert. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 3–41.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844–5.</b> ——. Nineteen slavers from Beverly, Boston, +Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Providence, and Portland, +make twenty-two trips. <i>Ibid.</i>, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. +No. 61, pp. 219–20.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844–9.</b> ——. Ninety-three slavers in Brazilian trade. +<i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6, pp. 37–8.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845.</b> <b>Porpoise,</b> trading to Brazil. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. +2 sess. VII. No. 61, pp. 111–56, 212–4.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845, May 14.</b> <b>Spitfire,</b> of New Orleans, captured on the +coast of Africa, and the captain indicted in Boston. A.H. +Foote, <i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, pp. 240–1; <i>Niles's +Register</i>, LXVIII. 192, 224, 248–9.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845–6.</b> <b>Patuxent,</b> <b>Pons,</b> <b>Robert Wilson,</b> <b>Merchant,</b> and +<b>Panther,</b> captured by Commodore Skinner. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. IX. No. 73.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1847.</b> <b>Fame,</b> of New London, Connecticut, lands 700 slaves +in Brazil. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, +pp. 5–6, 15–21.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1847.</b> <b>Senator,</b> of Boston, brings 944 slaves to Brazil. <i>Ibid.</i>, +pp. 5–14.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1849.</b> <b>Casco,</b> slaver, with no papers; searched, and captured +with 420 slaves, by a British cruiser. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 +Cong. 1 sess. XIV No. 66, p. 13.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850.</b> <b>Martha,</b> of New York, captured when about to embark +1800 slaves. The captain was admitted to bail, and escaped. +A.H. Foote, <i>Africa and the American Flag</i>, pp. 285–92.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850.</b> <b>Lucy Ann,</b> of Boston, captured with 547 slaves by the +British. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV No. 66, pp. +1–10 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850.</b> <b>Navarre,</b> American slaver, trading to Brazil, searched +and finally seized by a British cruiser. <i>Ibid.</i></p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850</b> (<i>circa</i>). <b>Louisa Beaton,</b> <b>Pilot,</b> <b>Chatsworth,</b> <b>Meteor,</b> <b>R. +de Zaldo,</b> <b>Chester,</b> etc., American slavers, searched by +British vessels. <i>Ibid., passim.</i></p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1851, Sept. 18.</b> <b>Illinois</b> brings seven kidnapped West India +Negro boys into Norfolk, Virginia. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 34<!-- Page 314 --><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314"></a> +Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, pp. 12–14.</p><p class="pagenum">314</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1852–62.</b> ——. Twenty-six ships arrested and bonded for +slave-trading in the Southern District of New York. <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 53.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1852.</b> <b>Advance</b> and <b>Rachel P. Brown,</b> of New York; the capture +of these was hindered by the United States consul in the +Cape Verd Islands. <i>Ibid.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 41–5; +<i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, pp. 15–19.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1853.</b> <b>Silenus,</b> of New York, and <b>General de Kalb,</b> of Baltimore, +carry 900 slaves from Africa. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 +Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 46–52; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 +Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, pp. 20–26.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1853.</b> <b>Jasper</b> carries slaves to Cuba. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 +Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 52–7.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1853.</b> <b>Camargo,</b> of Portland, Maine, lands 500 slaves in Brazil. +<i>Ibid.</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854.</b> <b>Glamorgan,</b> of New York, captured when about to embark +nearly 700 slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, +pp. 59–60.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854.</b> <b>Grey Eagle,</b> of Philadelphia, captured off Cuba by British +cruiser. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 61–3.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854.</b> <b>Peerless,</b> of New York, lands 350 Negroes in Cuba. +<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 66.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854.</b> <b>Oregon,</b> of New Orleans, trading to Cuba. <i>Senate Exec. +Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 69–70.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1856.</b> <b>Mary E. Smith,</b> sailed from Boston in spite of efforts +to detain her, and was captured with 387 slaves, by the Brazilian +brig Olinda, at port of St. Matthews. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 71–3.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> ——. Twenty or more slavers from New York, +New Orleans, etc. <i>Ibid.</i>, 35 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 49, pp. +14–21, 70–1, etc.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> <b>William Clark</b> and <b>Jupiter,</b> of New Orleans, <b>Eliza +Jane,</b> of New York, <b>Jos. H. Record,</b> of Newport, and <b>Onward,</b> +of Boston, captured by British cruisers. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 13, +25–6, 69, etc.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> <b>James Buchanan,</b> slaver, escapes under American colors, +with 300 slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 38.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> <b>James Titers,</b> of New Orleans, with 1200 slaves, captured +by British cruiser. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 31–4, 40–1.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 315 -->315</span><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> ——. Four New Orleans slavers on the African +coast. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 1 sess., XII. No. 49, p. 30.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> <b>Cortes,</b> of New York, captured. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 27–8.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> <b>Charles,</b> of Boston, captured by British cruisers, with +about 400 slaves. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 9, 13, 36, 69, etc.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857.</b> <b>Adams Gray</b> and <b>W.D. Miller,</b> of New Orleans, fully +equipped slavers. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 3–5, 13.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857–8.</b> <b>Charlotte,</b> of New York, <b>Charles,</b> of Maryland, etc., +reported American slavers. <i>Ibid., passim</i>.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1858, Aug. 21.</b> <b>Echo,</b> captured with 306 slaves, and brought +to Charleston, South Carolina. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. +2 sess. II. pt. 4, No. 2. pt. 4, pp. 5, 14.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1858, Sept. 8.</b> <b>Brothers,</b> captured and sent to Charleston, +South Carolina. <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 14.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1858.</b> <b>Mobile,</b> <b>Cortez,</b> <b>Tropic Bird;</b> cases of American slavers +searched by British vessels. <i>Ibid.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. +7, p. 97 ff.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1858.</b> <b>Wanderer,</b> lands 500 slaves in Georgia. <i>Senate Exec. +Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 8; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. +2 sess. IX. No. 89.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1859, Dec. 20.</b> <b>Delicia,</b> supposed to be Spanish, but without +papers; captured by a United States ship. The United States +courts declared her beyond their jurisdiction. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, p. 434.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860.</b> <b>Erie,</b> with 897 Africans, captured by a United States +ship. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 41–4.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860.</b> <b>William,</b> with 550 slaves, <b>Wildfire,</b> with 507, captured on +the coast of Cuba. <i>Senate Journal</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 478–80, +492, 543, etc.; <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XI. No. +44; <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 83; 36 Cong. +2 sess. V. No. 11; <i>House Reports</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 602.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1861.</b> <b>Augusta,</b> slaver, which, in spite of the efforts of the +officials, started on her voyage. <i>Senate Exec Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. +2 sess. V. No. 40; <i>New York Tribune</i>, Nov. 26, 1861.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1861.</b> <b>Storm King,</b> of Baltimore, lands 650 slaves in Cuba. +<i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56, p. 3.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1862.</b> <b>Ocilla,</b> of Mystic, Connecticut, lands slaves in Cuba. +<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 8–13.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1864.</b> <b>Huntress,</b> of New York, under the American flag, lands +slaves in Cuba. <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 19–21.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 316 -->316</span><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316"></a></p> + + +<hr /> +<h2><a name="APPENDIX_D" id="APPENDIX_D"></a>APPENDIX D.</h2> +<h4>BIBLIOGRAPHY.</h4> + +<h3>COLONIAL LAWS.</h3> + + +<div class="blockquot"><p>[The Library of Harvard College, the Boston Public Library, and the +Charlemagne Tower Collection at Philadelphia are especially rich in Colonial +Laws.]</p></div> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Alabama and Mississippi Territory.</b> Acts of the Assembly of +Alabama, 1822, etc.; J.J. Ormond, Code of Alabama, +Montgomery, 1852; H. Toulmin, Digest of the Laws of +Alabama, Cahawba, 1823; A. Hutchinson, Code of Mississippi, +Jackson, 1848; Statutes of Mississippi etc., digested, +Natchez, 1816 and 1823.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Connecticut.</b> Acts and Laws of Connecticut, New London, 1784 +[-1794], and Hartford, 1796; Connecticut Colonial +Records; The General Laws and Liberties of Connecticut +Colonie, Cambridge, 1673, reprinted at Hartford +in 1865; Statute Laws of Connecticut, Hartford, 1821.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Delaware.</b> Laws of Delaware, 1700–1797, 2 vols., New Castle, +1797.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Georgia.</b> George W.J. De Renne, editor, Colonial Acts of +Georgia, Wormsloe, 1881; Constitution of Georgia; +T.R.R. Cobb, Digest of the Laws, Athens, Ga., 1851; +Horatio Marbury and W.H. Crawford, Digest of the +Laws, Savannah, 1802; Oliver H. Prince, Digest of the +Laws, 2d edition, Athens, Ga., 1837.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Maryland.</b> James Bisset, Abridgment of the Acts of Assembly, +Philadelphia, 1759; Acts of Maryland, 1753–1768, +Annapolis, 1754 [-1768]; Compleat Collection of the +Laws of Maryland, Annapolis, 1727; Thomas Bacon, +Laws of Maryland at Large, Annapolis, 1765; Laws of +Maryland since 1763, Annapolis, 1787, year 1771; Clement +Dorsey, General Public Statutory Law, etc., 1692–1837, +3 vols., Baltimore, 1840.</p> + +<p class="pagenum">317</p> +<p class="atext"><b>Massachusetts.</b> Acts and Laws of His Majesty's Province of +the Massachusetts-Bay in New-England, Boston, 1726; +Acts and Resolves ... of the Province of the Massachusetts +Bay, 1692–1780 [Massachusetts Province +Laws]; Colonial Laws of Massachusetts,<!-- Page 317 --><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317"></a> reprinted +from the editions of 1660 and 1672, Boston, 1887, 1890; +General Court Records; Massachusetts Archives; Massachusetts +Historical Society Collections; Perpetual +Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–1789, Boston, 1789; +Plymouth Colony Records; Records of the Governor +and Company of the Massachusetts Bay.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>New Jersey.</b> Samuel Allinson, Acts of Assembly, Burlington, +1776; William Paterson, Digest of the Laws, Newark, +1800; William A. Whitehead, editor, Documents relating +to the Colonial History of New Jersey, Newark, +1880–93; Joseph Bloomfield, Laws of New Jersey, +Trenton, 1811; New Jersey Archives.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>New York.</b> Acts of Assembly, 1691–1718, London, 1719; E.B. +O'Callaghan, Documentary History of New York, 4 +vols., Albany, 1849–51; E.B. O'Callaghan, editor, +Documents relating to the Colonial History of New +York, 12 vols., Albany, 1856–77; Laws of New York, +1752–1762, New York, 1762; Laws of New York, 1777–1801, +5 vols., republished at Albany, 1886–7.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>North Carolina.</b> F.X. Martin, Iredell's Public Acts of Assembly, +Newbern, 1804; Laws, revision of 1819, 2 vols., Raleigh, +1821; North Carolina Colonial Records, edited +by William L. Saunders, Raleigh, 1886–90.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Pennsylvania.</b> Acts of Assembly, Philadelphia, 1782; Charter +and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, +1879; M. Carey and J. Bioren, Laws of Pennsylvania, +1700–1802, 6 vols., Philadelphia, 1803; A.J. Dallas, +Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700–1781, Philadelphia, 1797; +<i>Ibid.</i>, 1781–1790, Philadelphia, 1793; Collection of all +the Laws now in force, 1742; Pennsylvania Archives; +Pennsylvania Colonial Records.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Rhode Island.</b> John Russell Bartlett, Index to the Printed +Acts and Resolves, of ... the General Assembly, 1756–1850, +Providence, 1856; Elisha R. Potter, Reports and +Documents upon Public Schools, etc., Providence, +1855; Rhode Island Colonial Records.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>South Carolina.</b> J.F. Grimké, Public Laws, Philadelphia, +1790; Thomas Cooper and D.J. McCord, Statutes at +Large, 10 vols., Columbia, 1836–41.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 318 -->318</span><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>Vermont.</b> Statutes of Vermont, Windsor, 1787; Vermont +State Papers, Middlebury, 1823.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>Virginia.</b> John Mercer, Abridgement of the Acts of Assembly, +Glasgow, 1759; Acts of Assembly, Williamsburg, 1769: +Collection of Public Acts ... passed since 1768, Richmond, +1785; Collections of the Virginia Historical +Society; W.W. Hening, Statutes at Large, 13 vols., +Richmond, etc., 1819–23; Samuel Shepherd, Statutes at +Large, New Series (continuation of Hening), 3 vols, +Richmond, 1835–6.</p> + + +<h3>UNITED STATES DOCUMENTS.</h3> + +<p class="atext"><b>1789–1836.</b> American State Papers—Class I., <i>Foreign Relations</i>, +Vols. III. and IV. (Reprint of Foreign Relations, +1789–1828.) Class VI., <i>Naval Affairs</i>. (Well indexed.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1794, Feb. 11.</b> Report of Committee on the Slave Trade. +<i>Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous</i>, I. No. 44.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1806, Feb. 17.</b> Report of the Committee appointed on the +seventh instant, to inquire whether any, and if any, +what Additional Provisions are necessary to Prevent +the Importation of Slaves into the Territories of the +United States. <i>House Reports</i>, 9 Cong. 1 sess. II.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1817, Feb. 11.</b> Joint Resolution for abolishing the traffick in +Slaves, and the Colinization [<i>sic</i>] of the Free People Of +Colour of the United States. <i>House Doc.</i>, 14 Cong. 2 +sess. II. No. 77.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1817, Dec. 15.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +Information of the Proceeding of certain Persons +who took Possession of Amelia Island and of Galvezton, +[<i>sic</i>] during the Summer of the Present Year, and +made Establishments there. <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. +II. No. 12. (Contains much evidence of illicit traffic.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1818, Jan. 10.</b> Report of the Committee to whom was referred +so much of the President's Message as relates to the +introduction of Slaves from Amelia Island. <i>House Doc.</i>, +15 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 46 (cf. <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. +1 sess. III. No. 348).</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1818, Jan. 13.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +information of the Troops of the United States +having taken possession of Amelia Island, in East Florida. +<!-- Page 319 --><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319"></a><i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 47. (Contains +correspondence.)</p><p class="pagenum">319</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1819, Jan. 12.</b> Letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting +copies of the instructions which have been issued +to Naval Commanders, upon the subject of the +Importation of Slaves, etc. <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. +IV. No. 84.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1819, Jan. 19.</b> Extracts from Documents in the Departments +of State, of the Treasury, and of the Navy, in relation +to the Illicit Introduction of Slaves into the United +States. <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 100.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1819, Jan. 21.</b> Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury ... +in relation to Ships engaged in the Slave Trade, which +have been Seized and Condemned, and the Disposition +which has been made of the Negroes, by the several +State Governments, under whose Jurisdiction they +have fallen. <i>House Doc.</i>, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1820, Jan. 7.</b> Letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting +information in relation to the Introduction of +Slaves into the United States. <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 1 +sess. III. No. 36.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1820, Jan. 13.</b> Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting +... Information in relation to the Illicit Introduction +of Slaves into the United States, etc., <i>Ibid.</i>, +No. 42.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1820, May 8.</b> Report of the Committee to whom was referred +... so much of the President's Message as relates to +the Slave Trade, etc. <i>House Reports</i>, 16 Cong. 1 sess. +No. 97.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1821, Jan. 5.</b> Message from the President ... transmitting +... Information on the Subject of the African Slave +Trade. <i>House Doc.</i>, 16 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 48.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1821, Feb. 7.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Reports</i>, +17 Cong. 1 sess. No. 92, pp. 15–21.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1821, Feb. 9.</b> Report of the Committee to which was referred +so much of the President's message as relates to the +Slave Trade. <i>House Reports</i>, 16 Cong. 2 sess. No. 59.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1822, April 12.</b> Report of the Committee on the Suppression +of the Slave Trade. Also Report of 1821, Feb. 9, reprinted. +(Contains discussion of the Right of Search,<!-- Page 320 --><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320"></a> +and papers on European Conference for the Suppression +of the Slave Trade.) <i>House Reports</i>, 17 Cong. 1 sess. +II. No. 92.</p><p class="pagenum">320</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1823, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +18 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, p. 111, ff.; <i>Amer. State Papers, +Naval Affairs</i>, I. No. 258. (Contains reports on the establishment +at Cape Mesurado.)<a name="FNanchor_1_737" id="FNanchor_1_737"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_737" class="fnanchor">1</a></p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1824, March 20.</b> Message from the President ... in relation +to the Suppression of the African Slave Trade. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119. (Contains correspondence +on the proposed treaty of 1824.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1824, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>Amer. +State Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, I. No. 249.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1824, Dec. 7.</b> Documents accompanying the Message of the +President ... to both Houses of Congress, at the +commencement of the Second Session of the Eighteenth +Congress: Documents from the Department of +State. <i>House Doc.</i>, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1. pp. 1–56. +Reprinted in <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1. +(Matter on the treaty of 1824.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1825, Feb. 16.</b> Report of the Committee to whom was referred +so much of the President's Message, of the 7th +of December last, as relates to the Suppression of the +Slave Trade. <i>House Reports</i>, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70 +(Report favoring the treaty of 1824.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1825, Dec. 2.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 1. p. 98.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1825, Dec. 27.</b> Slave Trade: Message from the President ... +communicating Correspondence with Great Britain in +relation to the Convention for Suppressing the Slave +Trade. <i>House Doc.</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 16.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1826, Feb. 6.</b> Appropriation—Slave Trade: Report of the +Committee of Ways and Means on the subject of the +estimate of appropriations for the service of the year +1826. <i>House Reports</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 65. (Contains +report of the Secretary of the Navy and account +of expenditures for the African station.)</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 321 -->321</span><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1826, March 8.</b> Slave Ships in Alabama: Message from the +President ... in relation to the Cargoes of certain +Slave Ships, etc. <i>House Doc.</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. +121; cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, VIII. No. 126, and IX. Nos. 152, 163; also +<i>House Reports</i>, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231. (Cases of +the Constitution, Louisa, and Merino.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1826, Dec. 2.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. (Part IV. +of Documents accompanying the President's Message.) +<i>House Doc.</i>, 19 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 9, 10, +74–103.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1827, etc.</b> Colonization Society: Reports, etc. <i>House Doc.</i>, 19 +Cong. 2 sess. IV. Nos. 64, 69; 20 Cong. 1 sess. III. +Nos. 99, 126, and V. No. 193; 20 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. +2, pp. 114, 127–8; 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, p. 211–18; +<i>House Reports</i>, 19 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 101; 21 Cong. 1 +sess. II. No. 277, and III. No. 348; 22 Cong. 1 sess. II. +No. 277.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1827, Jan. 30.</b> Prohibition of the Slave Trade: Statement +showing the Expenditure of the Appropriation for the +Prohibition of the Slave Trade, during the year 1826, +and an Estimate for 1827. <i>House Doc.</i>, 19 Cong. 2 sess. +IV. No. 69.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1827, Dec. 1 and Dec. 4.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the +Navy. <i>Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs,</i> III. Nos. 339, +340.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1827, Dec. 6.</b> Message from the President ... transmitting +... a Report from the Secretary of the Navy, showing +the expense annually incurred in carrying into effect +the Act of March 2, 1819, for Prohibiting the Slave +Trade. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 3.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1828, March 12.</b> Recaptured Africans: Letter from the +Secretary of the Navy ... in relation to ... Recaptured +Africans. <i>House Doc.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. V. +No. 193; cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 20 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 114, +127–8; also <i>Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, III. +No. 357.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1828, April 30.</b> Africans at Key West: Message from the President +... relative to the Disposition of the Africans +Landed at Key West. <i>House Doc.</i>, 20 Cong. 1 sess. VI. +No. 262.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 322 -->322</span><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1828, Nov. 27.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>Amer. +State Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, III. No. 370.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1829, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +21 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, p. 40.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1830, April 7.</b> Slave Trade ... Report: "The committee to +whom were referred the memorial of the American Society +for colonizing the free people of color of the +United States; also, sundry memorials from the inhabitants +of the State of Kentucky, and a memorial from +certain free people of color of the State of Ohio, report," +etc., 3 pp. Appendix. Collected and arranged by +Samuel Burch. 290 pp. <i>House Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. +III. No. 348. (Contains a reprint of legislation and +documents from 14 Cong. 2 sess. to 21 Cong. 1 sess. +Very valuable.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1830, Dec. 6.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 42–3; <i>Amer. State +Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, III. No. 429 E.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1830, Dec. 6.</b> Documents communicated to Congress by the +President at the opening of the Second Session of the +Twenty-first Congress, accompanying the Report of +the Secretary of the Navy: Paper E. Statement of expenditures, +etc., for the removal of Africans to Liberia. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 211–8.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1831, Jan. 18.</b> Spanish Slave Ship Fenix: Message from the +President ... transmitting Documents in relation to +certain captives on board the Spanish slave vessel, +called the Fenix. <i>House Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. +54; <i>Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, III. No. 435.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1831–1835.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +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. Also <i>Amer. State +Papers, Naval Affairs</i>, IV. No. 457, R. Nos. 1, 2; No. +486, H. I.; No. 519, R.; No. 564, P.; No. 585, P.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1836, Jan. 26.</b> Calvin Mickle, Ex'r of Nagle & De Frias. <i>House +Reports</i>, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 209. (Reports on +claims connected with the captured slaver Constitution.)</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 323 -->323</span><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1836, Jan. 27, etc.</b> [Reports from the Committee of Claims +on cases of captured Africans.] <i>House Reports</i>, 24 +Cong. 1 sess. I. Nos. 223, 268, and III. No. 574. No. +268 is reprinted in <i>House Reports</i>, 25 Cong. 2 sess. I. +No. 4.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1836, Dec. 3.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +24 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 450, 506.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1837, Feb. 14.</b> Message from the President ... with copies +of Correspondence in relation to the Seizure of Slaves +on board the brigs "Encomium" and "Enterprise." +<i>Senate Doc.</i>, 24 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 174; cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 25 +Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 216.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1837–1839.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +25 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 3, pp. 762, 771, 850; 25 Cong. 3 +sess. I. No. 2, p. 613; 26 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 534, +612.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1839.</b> [L'Amistad Case.] <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. +185 (correspondence); 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191 (correspondence); +28 Cong. 1 sess. IV No. 83; <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20; <i>House Reports</i>, 26 +Cong. 2 sess. No. 51 (case of altered Ms.); 28 Cong. 1 +sess. II. No. 426 (Report of Committee); 29 Cong. 1 +sess. IV. No. 753 (Report of Committee); <i>Senate Doc.</i>, +26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 179 (correspondence); <i>Senate +Exec Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29 (correspondence); +32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 19; <i>Senate Reports</i>, +31 Cong. 2 sess. No. 301 (Report of Committee); +32 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 158 (Report of Committee); +35 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 36 (Report of Committee).</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1840, May 18.</b> Memorial of the Society of Friends, upon the +subject of the foreign slave trade. <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. +1 sess. VI. No. 211. (Results of certain investigations.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1840, Dec. 5.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 405, 450.</p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1841, Jan. 20.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +... copies of correspondence, imputing malpractices +to the American consul at Havana, in regard to +granting papers to vessels engaged in the slave-trade. +<i>Senate Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 125. (Contains +much information.)</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 324 -->324</span><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1841, March 3.</b> Search or Seizure of American Vessels, etc.: +Message from the President ... transmitting a report +from the Secretary of State, in relation to seizures or +search of American vessels on the coast of Africa, etc. +<i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115 (elaborate correspondence). +See also <i>Ibid.</i>, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34; +<i>House Reports</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 478–755 +(correspondence).</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1841, Dec. 4.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 349, 351.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, Jan. 20.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +... copies of correspondence in relation to the +mutiny on board the brig Creole, and the liberation of +the slaves who were passengers in the said vessel. <i>Senate +Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 51. See also <i>Ibid.</i>, III. +No. 137; <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. I. No. 2, p. 114.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, May 10.</b> Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of +Mississippi in reference to the right of search, and the +case of the American brig Creole. <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 +Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 215. (Suggestive.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, etc.</b> [Quintuple Treaty and Cass's Protest: Messages of +the President, etc.] <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. +249; <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. 52, and IV. +No. 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, June 10.</b> Indemnities for slaves on board the Comet and +Encomium: Report of the Secretary of State. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 242.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, Aug.</b> Suppression of the African Slave Trade—Extradition: +Case of the Creole, etc. <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 +sess. I. No. 2, pp. 105–136. (Correspondence accompanying +Message of President.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, Dec.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +27 Cong. 3 sess. I. No. 2, p. 532.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1842, Dec. 30.</b> Message from the President ... in relation to +the strength and expense of the squadron to be employed +on the coast of Africa. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 +sess. II. No. 20.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1843, Feb. 28.</b> Construction of the Treaty of Washington, etc.: +Message from the President ... transmitting a report +from the Secretary of State, in answer to the resolution +of the House of the 22d February, 1843. <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 +<!-- Page 325 --><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325"></a>Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192.</p> +<p class="pagenum">325</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1843, Feb. 28.</b> African Colonization.... Report: "The +Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the +memorial of the friends of African colonization, assembled +in convention in the city of Washington in +May last, beg leave to submit the following report," +etc. (16 pp.). Appendix. (1071 pp.). <i>House Reports</i>, 27 +Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283 [Contents of Appendix: pp. +17–408, identical nearly with the Appendix to <i>House +Reports</i>, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348; pp. 408–478. +Congressional history of the slave-trade, case of the +Fenix, etc. (cf. <i>House Doc.</i>, 21 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. +54); pp. 478–729, search and seizure of American vessels +(same as <i>House Doc.</i>, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, +pp. 1–252); pp. 730–755, correspondence on British +search of American vessels, etc.; pp. 756–61, Quintuple +Treaty; pp. 762–3, President's Message on Treaty +of 1842; pp. 764–96, correspondence on African +squadron, etc.; pp. 796–1088, newspaper extracts on +the slave-trade and on colonization, report of Colonization +Society, etc.]</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1843, Nov. 25.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 484–5.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844, March 14.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +... information in relation to the abuse of +the flag of the United States in ... the African slave +trade, etc. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 217.</p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1844, March 15.</b> Report: "The Committee on the Judiciary, +to whom was referred the petition of ... John +Hanes, ... praying an adjustment of his accounts for +the maintenance of certain captured African slaves, ask +leave to report," etc. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. +No. 194.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844, May 4.</b> African Slave Trade: Report: "The Committee +on Foreign Affairs, to whom was referred the petition +of the American Colonization Society and others, respectfully +report," etc. <i>House Reports</i>, 28 Cong. 1 sess. +II. No. 469.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844, May 22.</b> Suppression of the Slave-Trade on the coast of +Africa: Message from the President, etc. <i>House Doc.</i>, 28<!-- Page 326 --><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326"></a> +Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 263.</p><p class="pagenum">326</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1844, Nov. 25.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, p. 514.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845, Feb. 20.</b> Slave-Trade, etc.: Message from the President +... transmitting copies of despatches from the American +minister at the court of Brazil, relative to the +slave-trade, etc. <i>House Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. +148. (Important evidence, statistics, etc.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845, Feb. 26.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +... information relative to the operations of the +United States squadron, etc. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 28 Cong. 2 +sess. IX. No. 150. (Contains reports of Commodore +Perry, and statistics of Liberia.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Doc.</i>, +29 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, p. 645.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1845, Dec. 22.</b> African Slave-Trade: Message from the President +... transmitting a report from the Secretary of +State, together with the correspondence of George W. +Slacum, relative to the African slave trade. <i>House Doc.</i>, +29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43. (Contains much information.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1846, June 6.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +... copies of the correspondence between the +government of the United States and that of Great +Britain, on the subject of the right of search; with copies +of the protest of the American minister at Paris +against the quintuple treaty, etc. <i>Senate Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. +1 sess. VIII. No. 377. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. +52, and IV. No. 223; <i>House Doc.</i>, 27 Cong. 2 sess. V. +No. 249.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1846–1847, Dec.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Doc.</i>, 29 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 4, p. 377; 30 Cong. 1 sess. +II. No. 8, p. 946.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1848, March 3.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +a report from the Secretary of State, with the +correspondence of Mr. Wise, late United States minister +to Brazil, in relation to the slave trade. <i>Senate Exec. +Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 28. (Full of facts.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1848, May 12.</b> Report of the Secretary of State, in relation to +... the seizure of the brig Douglass by a British<!-- Page 327 --><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327"></a> +cruiser. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 44.</p><p class="pagenum">327</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1848, Dec. 4.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 605, 607.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1849, March 2.</b> Correspondence between the Consuls of the +United States at Rio de Janeiro, etc., with the Secretary +of State, on the subject of the African Slave Trade: +Message of the President, etc. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 30 +Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61. (Contains much evidence.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1849, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 5, pt. 1, pp. +427–8.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850, March 18.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy, showing +the annual number of deaths in the United States +squadron on the coast of Africa, and the annual cost +of that squadron. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. X. +No. 40.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850, July 22.</b> African Squadron: Message from the President +... transmitting Information in reference to the African +squadron. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. IX. +No. 73. (Gives total expenses of the squadron, slavers +captured, etc.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850, Aug. 2.</b> Message from the President ... relative to the +searching of American vessels by British ships of war. +<i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1850, Dec. 17.</b> Message of the President ... communicating +... a report of the Secretary of State, with documents +relating to the African slave trade. <i>Senate Exec. +Doc.</i>, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1851–1853.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 32 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 2, No. 2, pt. 2, pp. 4–5; +32 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, pt. 2, p. 293; 33 Cong. +1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, pt. 3, pp. 298–9.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854, March 13.</b> Message from the President ... communicating +... the correspondence between Mr. Schenck, +United States Minister to Brazil, and the Secretary of +State, in relation to the African slave trade. <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854, June 13.</b> Report submitted by Mr. Slidell, from the +Committee on Foreign Relations, on a resolution +relative to the abrogation of the eighth article of the +<!-- Page 328 --><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328"></a>treaty with Great Britain of the 9th of August, 1842, +etc. <i>Senate Reports</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195. (Injunction +of secrecy removed June 26, 1856.)</p><p class="pagenum">328</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1854–1855, Dec.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 33 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, pt. 2, +pp. 386–7; 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, pt. 3, p. 5.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1856, May 19.</b> Slave and Coolie Trade: Message from the +President ... communicating information in regard +to the Slave and Coolie trade. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 +Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105. (Partly reprinted in <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV No. 99.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1856, Aug. 5.</b> Report of the Secretary of State, in compliance +with a resolution of the Senate of April 24, calling for +information relative to the coolie trade. <i>Senate Exec. +Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99. (Partly reprinted in +<i>House Exec Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1856, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, pt. 2, p. 407.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857, Feb. 11.</b> Slave Trade: Letter from the Secretary of State, +asking an appropriation for the suppression of the +slave trade, etc. <i>House Exec Doc.</i>, 34 Cong. 3 sess. IX. +No. 70.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1857, Dec. 3.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Exec +Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, pt. 3, p. 576.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1858, April 23.</b> Message of the President ... communicating +... reports of the Secretary of State and the Secretary +of the Navy, with accompanying papers, in relation to +the African slave trade. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 1 +sess. XII. No. 49. (Valuable.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1858, Dec. 6.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 4, No. 2, pt. 4, pp. 5, +13–4.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1859, Jan. 12.</b> Message of the President ... relative to the +landing of the barque Wanderer on the coast of Georgia, +etc. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 8. +See also <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 89.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1859, March 1.</b> Instructions to African squadron: Message +from the President, etc. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 35 Cong. 2 +sess. IX. No. 104.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 329 -->329</span><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1859, Dec. 2.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pt. 3, pp. 1138–9, +1149–50.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, Jan. 25.</b> Memorial of the American Missionary Association, +praying the rigorous enforcement of the laws for +the suppression of the African slave-trade, etc. <i>Senate +Misc. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, April 24.</b> Message from the President ... in answer +to a resolution of the House calling for the number of +persons ... belonging to the African squadron, who +have died, etc. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XII. +No. 73.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, May 19.</b> Message of the President ... relative to the +capture of the slaver Wildfire, etc. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 +Cong. 1 sess. XI. No. 44.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, May 22.</b> Capture of the slaver "William": Message from +the President ... transmitting correspondence relative +to the capture of the slaver "William," etc. <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 83.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, May 31.</b> The Slave Trade ... Report: "The Committee +on the Judiciary, to whom was referred Senate Bill No. +464, ... together with the messages of the President +... relative to the capture of the slavers 'Wildfire' and +'William,' ... respectfully report," etc. <i>House Reports</i>, +36 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 602.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, June 16.</b> Recaptured Africans: Letter from the Secretary +of the Interior, on the subject of the return to Africa +of recaptured Africans, etc. <i>House Misc. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. +1 sess. VII. No. 96. Cf. <i>Ibid.</i>, No. 97, p. 2.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pt. 3, pp. +8–9.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, Dec. 6.</b> African Slave Trade: Message from the President ... +transmitting ... a report from the Secretary +of State in reference to the African slave trade. +<i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7. (Voluminous +document, containing chiefly correspondence, +orders, etc., 1855–1860.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1860, Dec. 17.</b> Deficiencies of Appropriation, etc.: Letter +from the Secretary of the Interior, communicating +estimates for deficiencies in the appropriation for the +<!-- Page 330 --><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330"></a>suppression of the slave trade, etc. <i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 36 +Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 11. (Contains names of captured +slavers.)</p><p class="pagenum">330</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1861, July 4.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 1 sess. No. 1, pp. 92, 97.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1861, Dec. 2.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. Vol. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pt. 3, +pp. 11, 21.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1861, Dec. 18.</b> In Relation to Captured Africans: Letter from +the Secretary of the Interior ... as to contracts for +returning and subsistence of captured Africans. <i>House +Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 12.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1862, April 1.</b> Letter of the Secretary of the Interior ... in +relation to the slave vessel the "Bark Augusta." <i>Senate +Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 40.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1862, May 30.</b> Letter of the Secretary of the Interior ... in +relation to persons who have been arrested in the +southern district of New York, from the 1st day of +May, 1852, to the 1st day of May, 1862, charged with +being engaged in the slave trade, etc. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, +37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 53.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1862, June 10.</b> Message of the President ... transmitting a +copy of the treaty between the United States and her +Britannic Majesty for the suppression of the African +slave trade. <i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. +57. (Also contains correspondence.)</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1862, Dec. 1.</b> Report of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 1, pt. 3, p. 23.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1863, Jan. 7.</b> Liberated Africans: Letter from the Acting Secretary +of the Interior ... transmitting reports from +Agent Seys in relation to care of liberated Africans. +<i>House Exec. Doc.</i>, 37 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 28.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1864, July 2.</b> Message of the President ... communicating ... +information in regard to the African slave trade. +<i>Senate Exec. Doc.</i>, 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56.</p> + + +<p class="atext"><b>1866–69.</b> Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. <i>House Exec. +Doc.</i>, 39 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 1, pt. 6, pp. 12, 18–9; 40 +Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 1, p. 11; 40 Cong. 3 sess. IV. No. +1, p. ix; 41 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 4, 5, 9, 10.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 331 -->331</span><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331"></a></p> + +<p class="atext"><b>1870, March 2.</b> [Resolution on the slave-trade submitted to +the Senate by Mr. Wilson]. <i>Senate Misc. Doc.</i>, 41 Cong. +2 sess. No. 66.</p> + + +<h3>GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY.</h3> + +<div class="biblio"> +<p>John Quincy Adams. Argument before the Supreme Court +of the United States, in the case of the United States, Appellants, +<i>vs.</i> Cinque, and Others, Africans, captured in the +schooner Amistad, by Lieut. Gedney, delivered on the 24th +of Feb. and 1st of March, 1841. With a Review of the case of +the Antelope. New York, 1841.</p> + +<p>An African Merchant (anon.). A Treatise upon the Trade +from Great-Britain to Africa; Humbly recommended to the +Attention of Government. London, 1772.</p> + +<p>The African Slave Trade: Its Nature, Consequences, and +Extent. From the Leeds Mercury. [Birmingham, 183-.]</p> + +<p>The African Slave Trade: The Secret Purpose of the Insurgents +to Revive it. No Treaty Stipulations against the Slave +Trade to be entered into with the European Powers, etc. Philadelphia, +1863.</p> + +<p>George William Alexander. Letters on the Slave-Trade, +Slavery, and Emancipation, etc. London, 1842. (Contains +Bibliography.)</p> + +<p>American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society; Reports.</p> + +<p>American Anti-Slavery Society. Memorial for the Abolition +of Slavery and the Slave Trade. London, 1841.</p> + +<p>——. Reports and Proceedings.</p> + +<p>American Colonization Society. Annual Reports, 1818–1860. +(Cf. above, United States Documents.)</p> + +<p>J.A. Andrew and A.G. Browne, proctors. Circuit Court of +the United States, Massachusetts District, ss. In Admiralty. +The United States, by Information, <i>vs.</i> the Schooner +Wanderer and Cargo, G. Lamar, Claimant. Boston, 1860.</p> + +<p>Edward Armstrong, editor. The Record of the Court at +Upland, in Pennsylvania. 1676–1681. Philadelphia, 1860. (In +<i>Memoirs</i> of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, VII. 11.)</p> + +<p>Samuel Greene Arnold. History of the State of Rhode Island +and Providence Plantations. 2 vols. New York, 1859–60. +(See Index to Vol. II., "Slave Trade.")</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 332 -->332</span><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332"></a></p> +<p>Assiento, or, Contract for allowing to the Subjects of Great +Britain the Liberty of Importing Negroes into the Spanish +America. Sign'd by the Catholick King at Madrid, the Twenty +sixth Day of March, 1713. By Her Majesties special Command. +London, 1713.</p> + +<p>R.S. Baldwin. Argument before the Supreme Court of the +United States, in the case of the United States, Appellants, <i>vs.</i> +Cinque, and Others, Africans of the Amistad. New York, 1841.</p> + +<p>James Bandinel. Some Account of the Trade in Slaves +from Africa as connected with Europe and America; From +the Introduction of the Trade into Modern Europe, down to +the present Time; especially with reference to the efforts +made by the British Government for its extinction. London, +1842.</p> + +<p>Anthony Benezet. Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of the +Slave Trade, 1442–1771. (In his Historical Account of Guinea, +etc., Philadelphia, 1771.)</p> + +<p>——. Notes on the Slave Trade, etc. [1780?].</p> + +<p>Thomas Hart Benton. Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, +from 1789 to 1856. 16 vols. Washington, 1857–61.</p> + +<p>Edward Bettle. Notices of Negro Slavery, as connected +with Pennsylvania. (Read before the Historical Society of +Pennsylvania, Aug. 7, 1826. Printed in <i>Memoirs</i> of the Historical +Society of Pennsylvania, Vol. I. Philadelphia, 1864.)</p> + +<p>W.O. Blake. History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient +and Modern. Columbus, 1859.</p> + +<p>Jeffrey R. Brackett. The Status of the Slave, 1775–1789. (Essay +V. in Jameson's <i>Essays in the Constitutional History of the +United States, 1775–89</i>. Boston, 1889.)</p> + +<p>Thomas Branagan. Serious Remonstrances, addressed to +the Citizens of the Northern States and their Representatives, +on the recent Revival of the Slave Trade in this Republic. +Philadelphia, 1805.</p> + +<p>British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Annual and Special +Reports.</p> + +<p>——. Proceedings of the general Anti-Slavery Convention, +called by the committee of the British and Foreign +Anti-Slavery Society, and held in London, ... June, 1840. +London, 1841.</p> + +<p>[A British Merchant.] The African Trade, the Great Pillar +and Support of the British Plantation Trade in America: +<!-- Page 333 --><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333"></a><span class="pagenum">333</span>shewing, etc. London, 1745.</p> + +<p>[British Parliament, House of Lords.] Report of the Lords +of the Committee of the Council appointed for the Confederation +of all Matters relating to Trade and Foreign Plantations, +etc. 2 vols. [London,] 1789.</p> + +<p>William Brodie. Modern Slavery and the Slave Trade: a +Lecture, etc. London, 1860.</p> + +<p>Thomas Fowell Buxton. The African Slave Trade and its +Remedy. London, 1840.</p> + +<p>John Elliot Cairnes. The Slave Power: its Character, Career, +and Probable Designs. London, 1862.</p> + +<p>Henry C. Carey. The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign: why +it Exists and how it may be Extinguished. Philadelphia, 1853.</p> + +<p>[Lewis Cass]. An Examination of the Question, now in +Discussion, ... concerning the Right of Search. By an +American. [Philadelphia, 1842.]</p> + +<p>William Ellery Channing. The Duty of the Free States, or +Remarks suggested by the case of the Creole. Boston, 1842.</p> + +<p>David Christy. Ethiopia, her Gloom and Glory, as illustrated +in the History of the Slave Trade, etc. (1442–1857.) +Cincinnati, 1857.</p> + +<p>Rufus W. Clark. The African Slave Trade. Boston, [1860.]</p> + +<p>Thomas Clarkson. An Essay on the Comparative Efficiency +of Regulation or Abolition, as applied to the Slave Trade. +Shewing that the latter only can remove the evils to be found +in that commerce. London, 1789.</p> + +<p>——. An Essay on the Impolicy of the African Slave +Trade. In two parts. Second edition. London, 1788.</p> + +<p>——. An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of +the Human Species, particularly the African. London and +Dublin, 1786.</p> + +<p>——. The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment +of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, by the +British Parliament. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1808.</p> + +<p>Michael W. Cluskey. The Political Text-Book, or Encyclopedia ... +for the Reference of Politicians and Statesmen. +Fourteenth edition. Philadelphia, 1860.</p> + +<p>T.R.R. Cobb. An Historical Sketch of Slavery, from the +Earliest Periods. Philadelphia and Savannah. 1858.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 334 -->334</span><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334"></a></p> +<p>T.R.R. Cobb. Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in +the United States of America. Vol. I. Philadelphia and Savannah, +1858.</p> + +<p>Company of Royal Adventurers. The Several Declarations +of the Company of Royal Adventurers of England trading +into Africa, inviting all His Majesties Native Subjects in general +to Subscribe, and become Sharers in their Joynt-stock, +etc. [London,] 1667.</p> + +<p>Confederate States of America. By Authority of Congress: +The Statutes at Large of the Provisional Government of the +Confederate States of America, from the Institution of the +Government, Feb. 8, 1861, to its Termination, Feb. 18, 1862, +Inclusive, etc. (Contains provisional and permanent constitutions.) +Edited by James M. Matthews. Richmond, 1864.</p> + +<p>Constitution of a Society for Abolishing the Slave-Trade. +With Several Acts of the Legislatures of the States of Massachusetts, +Connecticut and Rhode-Island, for that Purpose. +Printed by John Carter. Providence, 1789.</p> + +<p>Continental Congress. Journals and Secret Journals.</p> + +<p>Moncure D. Conway. Omitted Chapters of History disclosed +in the Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph, etc. New +York and London, 1888.</p> + +<p>Thomas Cooper. Letters on the Slave Trade. Manchester, +Eng., 1787.</p> + +<p>Correspondence with British Ministers and Agents in Foreign +Countries, and with Foreign Ministers in England, relative +to the Slave Trade, 1859–60. London, 1860.</p> + +<p>The Creole Case, and Mr. Webster's Despatch; with the +comments of the New York "American." New York, 1842.</p> + +<p>B.R. Curtis. Reports of Decisions in the Supreme Court +of the United States. With Notes, and a Digest. Fifth edition. +22 vols. Boston, 1870.</p> + +<p>James Dana. The African Slave Trade. A Discourse delivered ... +September, 9, 1790, before the Connecticut Society +for the Promotion of Freedom. New Haven, 1791.</p> + +<p>Henry B. Dawson, editor. The Fœderalist: A Collection of +Essays, written in favor of the New Constitution, as agreed +upon by the Fœderal Convention, September 17, 1787. Reprinted +from the Original Text. With an Historical Introduction +and Notes. Vol. I. New York, 1863.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 335 -->335</span><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335"></a></p> +<p>Paul Dean. A Discourse delivered before the African Society ... +in Boston, Mass., on the Abolition of the Slave +Trade ... July 14, 1819. Boston, 1819.</p> + +<p>Charles Deane. The Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery +and the Slave-Trade, etc. Worcester, 1886. (Also in <i>Proceedings</i> +of the American Antiquarian Society, October, 1886.)</p> + +<p>——. Charles Deane. Letters and Documents relating +to Slavery in Massachusetts. (In <i>Collections</i> of the Massachusetts +Historical Society, 5th Series, III. 373.)</p> + +<p>Debate on a Motion for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade, +in the House of Commons, on Monday and Tuesday, April +18 and 19, 1791. Reported in detail. London, 1791.</p> + +<p>J.D.B. De Bow. The Commercial Review of the South +and West. (Also De Bow's Review of the Southern and Western +States.) 38 vols. New Orleans, 1846–69.</p> + +<p>Franklin B. Dexter. Estimates of Population in the American +Colonies. Worcester, 1887.</p> + +<p>Captain Richard Drake. Revelations of a Slave Smuggler: +being the Autobiography of Capt. Richard Drake, an African +Trader for fifty years—from 1807 to 1857, etc. New York, +[1860.]</p> + +<p>Daniel Drayton. Personal Memoir, etc. Including a Narrative +of the Voyage and Capture of the Schooner Pearl. Published +by the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, +Boston and New York, 1855.</p> + +<p>John Drayton. Memoirs of the American Revolution. 2 +vols. Charleston, 1821.</p> + +<p>Paul Dudley. An Essay on the Merchandize of Slaves and +Souls of Men. Boston, 1731.</p> + +<p>Edward E. Dunbar. The Mexican Papers, containing the +History of the Rise and Decline of Commercial Slavery in +America, with reference to the Future of Mexico. First Series, +No. 5. New York, 1861.</p> + +<p>Jonathan Edwards. The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave +Trade, and of the Slavery of the Africans, etc. [New Haven,] +1791.</p> + +<p>Jonathan Elliot. The Debates ... on the adoption of the +Federal Constitution, etc. 4 vols. Washington, 1827–30.</p> + +<p>Emerson Etheridge. Speech ... on the Revival of the African +Slave Trade, etc. Washington, 1857.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 336 -->336</span><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336"></a></p> +<p>Alexander Falconbridge. An Account of the Slave Trade on +the Coast of Africa. London, 1788.</p> + +<p>Andrew H. Foote. Africa and the American Flag. New +York, 1854.</p> + +<p>——. The African Squadron: Ashburton Treaty; +Consular Sea Letters. Philadelphia, 1855.</p> + +<p>Peter Force. American Archives, etc. In Six Series. +Prepared and Published under Authority of an act of +Congress. Fourth and Fifth Series. 9 vols. Washington, +1837–53.</p> + +<p>Paul Leicester Ford. The Association of the First Congress, +(In Political Science Quarterly, VI. 613.)</p> + +<p>——. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United +States, published during its Discussion by the People, 1787–8. +(With Bibliography, etc.) Brooklyn, 1888.</p> + +<p>William Chauncey Fowler. Local Law in Massachusetts and +Connecticut, Historically considered; and The Historical Status +of the Negro, in Connecticut, etc. Albany, 1872, and New +Haven, 1875.</p> + +<p>[Benjamin Franklin.] An Essay on the African Slave Trade. +Philadelphia, 1790.</p> + +<p>[Friends.] Address to the Citizens of the United States of +America on the subject of Slavery, etc. (At New York Yearly +Meeting.) New York, 1837.</p> + +<p>——. An Appeal on the Iniquity of Slavery and the +Slave Trade. (At London Yearly Meeting.) London and Cincinnati, +1844.</p> + +<p>——. The Appeal of the Religious Society of Friends +in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, etc., [Yearly Meeting] +to their Fellow-Citizens of the United States on behalf of the +Coloured Races. Philadelphia, 1858.</p> + +<p>——. A Brief Statement of the Rise and Progress of +the Testimony of the Religious Society of Friends against +Slavery and the Slave Trade. 1671–1787. (At Yearly Meeting in +Philadelphia.) Philadelphia, 1843.</p> + +<p>——. The Case of our Fellow-Creatures, the Oppressed +Africans, respectfully recommended to the Serious +Consideration of the Legislature of Great-Britain, by the People +called Quakers. (At London Meeting.) London, 1783 and +1784. (This volume contains many tracts on the African slave-trade, +especially in the West Indies; also descriptions of trade,<!-- Page 337 --><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337"></a><span class="pagenum">337</span> +proposed legislation, etc.)</p> + +<p>[Friends.] An Exposition of the African Slave Trade, from +the year 1840, to 1850, inclusive. Prepared from official documents. +Philadelphia, 1857.</p> + +<p>——. Extracts and Observations on the Foreign +Slave Trade. Philadelphia, 1839.</p> + +<p>——. Facts and Observations relative to the Participation +of American Citizens in the African Slave Trade. Philadelphia, +1841.</p> + +<p>——. Faits relatifs à la Traite des Noirs, et Détails +sur Sierra Leone; par la Société des Ames. Paris, 1824.</p> + +<p>——. Germantown Friends' Protest against Slavery, +1688. Fac-simile Copy. Philadelphia, 1880.</p> + +<p>——. Observations on the Inslaving, importing and +purchasing of Negroes; with some Advice thereon, extracted +from the Epistle of the Yearly-Meeting of the People called +Quakers, held at London in the Year 1748. Second edition. +Germantown, 1760.</p> + +<p>——. Proceedings in relation to the Presentation of the +Address of the [Great Britain and Ireland] Yearly Meeting on +the Slave-Trade and Slavery, to Sovereigns and those in Authority +in the nations of Europe, and in other parts of the world, +where the Christian religion is professed. Cincinnati, 1855.</p> + +<p>——. Slavery and the Domestic Slave Trade in the +United States. By the committee appointed by the late Yearly +Meeting of Friends held in Philadelphia, in 1839. Philadelphia, +1841.</p> + +<p>——. A View of the Present State of the African +Slave Trade. Philadelphia, 1824.</p> + +<p>Carl Garcis. Das Heutige Völkerrecht und der Menschenhandel. +Eine völkerrechtliche Abhandlung, zugleich Ausgabe +des deutschen Textes der Verträge von 20. Dezember 1841 und +29. März 1879. Berlin, 1879.</p> + +<p>——. Der Sklavenhandel, das Völkerrecht, und das +deutsche Recht. (In Deutsche Zeit- und Streit-Fragen, No. +13.) Berlin, 1885.</p> + +<p>Agénor Étienne de Gasparin. Esclavage et Traite. Paris, +1838.</p> + +<p>Joshua R. Giddings. Speech ... on his motion to reconsider +the vote taken upon the final passage of the "Bill<!-- Page 338 --><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338"></a><span class="pagenum">338</span> for +the relief of the owners of slaves lost from on Board the +Comet and Encomium." [Washington, 1843.]</p> + +<p>Benjamin Godwin. The Substance of a Course of Lectures +on British Colonial Slavery, delivered at Bradford, York, and +Scarborough. London, 1830.</p> + +<p>——. Lectures on Slavery. From the London edition, +with additions. Edited by W.S. Andrews. Boston, 1836.</p> + +<p>William Goodell. The American Slave Code in Theory and +Practice: its Distinctive Features shown by its Statutes, Judicial +Decisions, and Illustrative Facts. New York, 1853.</p> + +<p>——. Slavery and Anti-Slavery; A History of the +great Struggle in both Hemispheres; with a view of the Slavery +Question in the United States. New York, 1852.</p> + +<p>Daniel R. Goodloe. The Birth of the Republic. Chicago, +[1889.]</p> + +<p>[Great Britain.] British and Foreign State Papers.</p> + +<p>——. Sessional Papers. (For notices of slave-trade in +British Sessional Papers, see Bates Hall Catalogue, Boston +Public Library, pp. 347 <i>et seq.</i>)</p> + +<p>[Great Britain: Parliament.] Chronological Table and Index +of the Statutes, Eleventh Edition, to the end of the Session 52 +and 53 Victoria, (1889.) By Authority. London, 1890.</p> + +<p>[Great Britain: Record Commission.] The Statutes of the +Realm. Printed by command of His Majesty King George the +Third ... From Original Records and Authentic Manuscripts. +9 vols. London, 1810–22.</p> + +<p>George Gregory. Essays, Historical and Moral. Second edition. +London, 1788. (Essays 7 and 8: Of Slavery and the Slave +Trade; A Short Review, etc.)</p> + +<p>Pope Gregory XVI. To Catholic Citizens! The Pope's +Bull [for the Abolition of the Slave Trade], and the words +of Daniel O'Connell [on American Slavery.] New York, +[1856.]</p> + +<p>H. Hall. Slavery in New Hampshire. (In <i>New England Register</i>, +XXIX. 247.)</p> + +<p>Isaac W. Hammond. Slavery in New Hampshire in the +Olden Time. (In <i>Granite Monthly</i>, IV. 108.)</p> + +<p>James H. Hammond. Letters on Southern Slavery: addressed +to Thomas Clarkson. [Charleston, (?)].</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 339 -->339</span><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339"></a></p> +<p>Robert G. Harper. Argument against the Policy of Reopening +the African Slave Trade. Atlanta, Ga., 1858.</p> + +<p>Samuel Hazard, editor. The Register of Pennsylvania. 16 +vols. Philadelphia, 1828–36.</p> + +<p>Hinton R. Helper. The Impending Crisis of the South: +How to Meet it. Enlarged edition. New York, 1860.</p> + +<p>Lewis and Sir Edward Hertslet, compilers. A Complete +Collection of the Treaties and Conventions, and Reciprocal +Regulations, at present subsisting between Great Britain and +Foreign Powers, and of the Laws, Decrees, and Orders in +Council, concerning the same; so far as they relate to Commerce +and Navigation, ... the Slave Trade, etc. 17 vols., +(Vol. XVI., Index.) London, 1840–90.</p> + +<p>William B. Hodgson. The Foulahs of Central Africa, and +the African Slave Trade. [New York, (?)] 1843.</p> + +<p>John Codman Hurd. The Law of Freedom and Bondage in +the United States. 2 vols. Boston and New York, 1858, 1862.</p> + +<p>——. The International Law of the Slave Trade, and +the Maritime Right of Search. (In the American Jurist, XXVI. +330.)</p> + +<p>——. The Jamaica Movement, for promoting the +Enforcement of the Slave-Trade Treaties, and the Suppression +of the Slave-Trade; with statements of Fact, Convention, and +Law: prepared at the request of the Kingston Committee. +London, 1850.</p> + +<p>William Jay. Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery. Boston, +1853.</p> + +<p>——. A View of the Action of the Federal Government, +in Behalf of Slavery. New York, 1839.</p> + +<p>T. and J.W. Johnson. Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery +in the United States.</p> + +<p>Alexandre Moreau de Jonnès. Recherches Statistiques sur +l'Esclavage Colonial et sur les Moyens de le supprimer. Paris, +1842.</p> + +<p>M.A. Juge. The American Planter: or The Bound Labor +Interest in the United States. New York, 1854.</p> + +<p>Friedrich Kapp. Die Sklavenfrage in den Vereinigten +Staaten. Göttingen and New York, 1854.</p> + +<p>——. Geschichte der Sklaverei in den Vereinigten +Staaten von Amerika. Hamburg, 1861.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 340 -->340</span><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340"></a></p> +<p>Frederic Kidder. The Slave Trade in Massachusetts. (In +<i>New-England Historical and Genealogical Register</i>, XXXI. +75.)</p> + +<p>George Lawrence. An Oration on the Abolition of the +Slave Trade ... Jan. 1, 1813. New York, 1813.</p> + +<p>William B. Lawrence. Visitation and Search; or, An Historical +Sketch of the British Claim to exercise a Maritime +Police over the Vessels of all Nations, in Peace as well as in +War. Boston, 1858.</p> + +<p>Letter from ... in London, to his Friend in America, on +the ... Slave Trade, etc. New York, 1784.</p> + +<p>Thomas Lloyd. Debates of the Convention of the State of +Pennsylvania on the Constitution, proposed for the Government +of the United States. In two volumes. Vol. I. Philadelphia, +1788.</p> + +<p>London Anti-Slavery Society. The Foreign Slave Trade, A +Brief Account of its State, of the Treaties which have been +entered into, and of the Laws enacted for its Suppression, +from the date of the English Abolition Act to the present +time. London, 1837.</p> + +<p>——. The Foreign Slave Trade, etc., No. 2. London, +1838.</p> + +<p>London Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade, and +for the Civilization of Africa. Proceedings at the first Public +Meeting, held at Exeter Hall, on Monday, 1st June, 1840. +London, 1840.</p> + +<p>Theodore Lyman, Jr. The Diplomacy of the United States, +etc. Second edition. 2 vols. Boston, 1828.</p> + +<p>Hugh M'Call. The History of Georgia, containing Brief +Sketches of the most Remarkable Events, up to the Present +Day. 2 vols. Savannah, 1811–16.</p> + +<p>Marion J. McDougall. Fugitive Slaves. Boston, 1891.</p> + +<p>John Fraser Macqueen. Chief Points in the Laws of War +and Neutrality, Search and Blockade, etc. London and Edinburgh, +1862.</p> + +<p>R.R. Madden. A Letter to W.E. Channing, D.D., on the +subject of the Abuse of the Flag of the United States in the +Island of Cuba, and the Advantage taken of its Protection in +promoting the Slave Trade. Boston, 1839.</p> + +<p>James Madison. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, +Fourth President of the United States. In four volumes<!-- Page 341 --><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341"></a><span class="pagenum">341</span>. +Published by order of Congress. Philadelphia, 1865.</p> + +<p>James Madison. The Papers of James Madison, purchased +by order of Congress; being his Correspondence and Reports +of Debates during the Congress of the Confederation and his +Reports of Debates in the Federal Convention. 3 vols. Washington, +1840.</p> + +<p>Marana (pseudonym). The Future of America. Considered ... +in View of ... Re-opening the Slave Trade. Boston, +1858.</p> + +<p>E. Marining. Six Months on a Slaver. New York, 1879.</p> + +<p>George C. Mason. The African Slave Trade in Colonial +Times. (In American Historical Record, I. 311, 338.)</p> + +<p>Frederic G. Mather. Slavery in the Colony and State +of New York. (In <i>Magazine of American History</i>, XI. +408.)</p> + +<p>Samuel May, Jr. Catalogue of Anti-Slavery Publications +in America, 1750–1863. (Contains bibliography of periodical +literature.)</p> + +<p>Memorials presented to the Congress of the United States +of America, by the Different Societies instituted for promoting +the Abolition of Slavery, etc., etc., in the States of Rhode-Island, +Connecticut, New-York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and +Virginia. Philadelphia, 1792.</p> + +<p>Charles F. Mercer. Mémoires relatifs à l'Abolition de la +Traite Africaine, etc. Paris, 1855.</p> + +<p>C.W. Miller. Address on Re-opening the Slave Trade ... +August 29, 1857. Columbia, S.C., 1857.</p> + +<p>George H. Moore. Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts. +New York, 1866.</p> + +<p>——. Slavery in Massachusetts. (In <i>Historical Magazine</i>, +XV. 329.)</p> + +<p>Jedidiah Morse. A Discourse ... July 14, 1808, in Grateful +Celebration of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade by the +Governments of the United States, Great Britain and Denmark. +Boston, 1808.</p> + +<p>John Pennington, Lord Muncaster. Historical Sketches of +the Slave Trade and its effect on Africa, addressed to the People +of Great Britain. London, 1792.</p> + +<p>Edward Needles. An Historical Memoir of the Pennsylvania +Society, for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery.<!-- Page 342 --><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342"></a><span class="pagenum">342</span> +Philadelphia, 1848.</p> + +<p>New England Anti-Slavery Convention. Proceedings at +Boston, May 27, 1834. Boston, 1834.</p> + +<p>Hezekiah Niles (<i>et al.</i>), editors. The Weekly Register, etc. +71 vols. Baltimore, 1811–1847. (For Slave-Trade, see I. 224; III. +189; V. 30, 46; VI. 152; VII. 54, 96, 286, 350; VIII. 136, 190, +262, 302, Supplement, p. 155; IX. 60, 78, 133, 172, 335; X. 296, +400, 412, 427; XI. 15, 108, 156, 222, 336, 399; XII. 58, 60, 103, +122, 159, 219, 237, 299, 347, 397, 411.)</p> + +<p>Robert Norris. A Short Account of the African Slave-Trade. +A new edition corrected. London, 1789.</p> + +<p>E.B. O'Callaghan, translator. Voyages of the Slavers St. +John and Arms of Amsterdam, 1659, 1663; with additional papers +illustrative of the Slave Trade under the Dutch. Albany, +1867. (New York Colonial Tracts, No. 3.)</p> + +<p>Frederick Law Olmsted. A Journey in the Back Country. +New York, 1860.</p> + +<p>——. A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, etc. +New York, 1856.</p> + +<p>——. A Journey through Texas, etc. New York, 1857.</p> + +<p>——. The Cotton Kingdom, etc. 2 vols. New York, +1861.</p> + +<p>Sir W.G. Ouseley. Notes on the Slave Trade; with Remarks +on the Measures adopted for its Suppression. London, +1850.</p> + +<p>Pennsylvania Historical Society. The Charlemagne Tower +Collection of American Colonial Laws. (Bibliography.) Philadelphia, +1890.</p> + +<p>Edward A. Pollard. Black Diamonds gathered in the +Darkey Homes of the South. New York, 1859.</p> + +<p>William F. Poole. Anti-Slavery Opinions before the Year +1800. To which is appended a fac-simile reprint of Dr. George +Buchanan's Oration on the Moral and Political Evil of Slavery, +etc. Cincinnati, 1873.</p> + +<p>Robert Proud. History of Pennsylvania. 2 vols. Philadelphia. +1797–8.</p> + +<p>[James Ramsay.] An Inquiry into the Effects of putting a +Stop to the African Slave Trade, and of granting Liberty to +the Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies. London, 1784.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 343 -->343</span><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343"></a></p> +<p>[James Ramsey.] Objections to the Abolition of the Slave +Trade, with Answers, etc. Second edition. London, 1788.</p> + +<p>[John Ranby.] Observations on the Evidence given before +the Committees of the Privy Council and House of Commons +in Support of the Bill for Abolishing the Slave Trade. +London, 1791.</p> + +<p>Remarks on the Colonization of the Western Coast of Africa, +by the Free Negroes of the United States, etc. New York, +1850.</p> + +<p>Right of Search. Reply to an "American's Examination" of +the "Right of Search, etc." By an Englishman. London, 1842.</p> + +<p>William Noel Sainsbury, editor. Calendar of State Papers, +Colonial Series, America and the West Indies, 1574–1676. 4 +vols. London, 1860–93.</p> + +<p>George Sauer. La Traite et l'Esclavage des Noirs. London, +1863.</p> + +<p>George S. Sawyer. Southern Institutes; or, An Inquiry into +the Origin and Early Prevalence of Slavery and the Slave-Trade. +Philadelphia, 1858.</p> + +<p>Selections from the Revised Statutes: Containing all the +Laws relating to Slaves, etc. New York, 1830.</p> + +<p>Johann J. Sell. Versuch einer Geschichte des Negersclavenhandels. +Halle, 1791.</p> + +<p>[Granville Sharp.] Extract of a Letter to a Gentleman in +Maryland; Wherein is demonstrated the extreme wickedness +of tolerating the Slave Trade. Fourth edition. London, 1806.</p> + +<p>A Short Account of that part of Africa Inhabited by the +Negroes, ... and the Manner by which the Slave Trade is +carried on. Third edition. London, 1768.</p> + +<p>A Short Sketch of the Evidence for the Abolition of the +Slave-Trade. Philadelphia, 1792.</p> + +<p>Joseph Sidney. An Oration commemorative of the Abolition +of the Slave Trade in the United States.... Jan. 2. +1809. New York, 1809.</p> + +<p>[A Slave Holder.] Remarks upon Slavery and the Slave-Trade, +addressed to the Hon. Henry Clay. 1839.</p> + +<p>The Slave Trade in New York. (In the <i>Continental Monthly</i>, +January, 1862, p. 86.)</p> + +<p>Joseph Smith. A Descriptive Catalogue of Friends' Books. +(Bibliography.) 2 vols. London, 1867.</p> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 344 -->344</span><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344"></a></p> +<p>Capt. William Snelgrave. A New Account of some Parts of +Guinea, and the Slave-Trade. London, 1734.</p> + +<p>South Carolina. General Assembly (House), 1857. Report of +the Special Committee of the House of Representatives ... +on so much of the Message of His Excellency Gov. Jas. H. +Adams, as relates to Slavery and the Slave Trade. Columbia, +S.C., 1857.</p> + +<p>L.W. Spratt. A Protest from South Carolina against a Decision +of the Southern Congress: Slave Trade in the Southern +Congress. (In Littell's <i>Living Age</i>, Third Series, LXVIII. 801.)</p> + +<p>——. Speech upon the Foreign Slave Trade, before +the Legislature of South Carolina. Columbia, S.C., 1858.</p> + +<p>——. The Foreign Slave Trade the Source of Political +Power, etc. Charleston, 1858.</p> + +<p>William Stith. The History of the First Discovery and Settlement +of Virginia. Virginia and London, 1753.</p> + +<p>George M. Stroud. A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery +in the Several States of the United States of America. Philadelphia, +1827.</p> + +<p>James Swan. A Dissuasion to Great-Britain and the Colonies: +from the Slave-Trade to Africa. Shewing the Injustice +thereof, etc. Revised and Abridged. Boston, 1773.</p> + +<p>F.T. Texugo. A Letter on the Slave Trade still carried on +along the Eastern Coast of Africa, etc. London, 1839.</p> + +<p>R. Thorpe. A View of the Present Increase of the Slave +Trade, the Cause of that Increase, and a mode for effecting its +total Annihilation. London, 1818.</p> + +<p>Jesse Torrey. A Portraiture of Domestic Slavery ... and a +Project of Colonial Asylum for Free Persons of Colour. Philadelphia, +1817.</p> + +<p>Drs. Tucker and Belknap. Queries respecting the Slavery +and Emancipation of Negroes in Massachusetts, proposed by +the Hon. Judge Tucker of Virginia, and answered by the Rev. +Dr. Belknap. (In Collections of the Massachusetts Historical +Society, First Series, IV. 191.)</p> + +<p>David Turnbull. Travels in the West. Cuba; with Notices of +Porto Rico, and the Slave Trade. London, 1840.</p> + +<p>United States Congress. Annals of Congress, 1789–1824; +Congressional Debates, 1824–37; Congressional Globe, 1833–73; +Congressional Record, 1873-; Documents (House and +Senate); Executive Documents (House and Senate); <!-- Page 345 --><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345"></a><span class="pagenum">345</span>Journals +(House and Senate); Miscellaneous Documents (House and +Senate); Reports (House and Senate); Statutes at Large.</p> + +<p>United States Supreme Court. Reports of Decisions.</p> + +<p>Charles W. Upham. Speech in the House of Representatives, +Massachusetts, on the Compromises of the Constitution, +with an Appendix containing the Ordinance of 1787. +Salem, 1849.</p> + +<p>Virginia State Convention. Proceedings and Debates, +1829–30. Richmond, 1830.</p> + +<p>G. Wadleigh. Slavery in New Hampshire. (In <i>Granite +Monthly</i>, VI. 377.)</p> + +<p>Emory Washburn. Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts. +(In Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, May, +1857. Boston, 1859.)</p> + +<p>William B. Weeden. Economic and Social History of New +England, 1620–1789. 2 vols. Boston, 1890.</p> + +<p>Henry Wheaton. Enquiry into the Validity of the British +Claim to a Right of Visitation and Search of American Vessels +suspected to be engaged in the African Slave-Trade. Philadelphia, +1842.</p> + +<p>William H. Whitmore. The Colonial Laws of Massachusetts. +Reprinted from the Edition of 1660, with the Supplements +to 1772. Containing also the Body of Liberties of 1641. +Boston, 1889.</p> + +<p>George W. Williams. History of the Negro Race in America +from 1619 to 1880. 2 vols. New York, 1883.</p> + +<p>Henry Wilson. History of the Antislavery Measures of the +Thirty-seventh and Thirty-eighth United-States Congresses, +1861–64. Boston, 1864.</p> + +<p>——. History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power +in America. 3 vols. Boston, 1872–7.</p> +</div> +<div class="footnotes"><h3>Footnotes</h3> + +<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_737" id="Footnote_1_737"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_737"><span class="label">1</span></a> The Reports of the Secretary of the Navy are found among the documents +accompanying the annual messages of the President.</p></div> +</div> + + +<hr /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><!-- Page 346 -->346</span><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346"></a> +<!-- Page 347 --><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347"></a></span></p> +<h2><a name="Index" id="Index"></a>Index</h2> + + +<ul> + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Abolition</span> of slave-trade by Europe, <a href="#Page_145">145</a> n.</li> + +<li>Abolition Societies, organization of, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>; +<ul> +<li>petitions of, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80–85</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Adams, C.F., <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.</li> + +<li>Adams, J.Q., on Right of Search, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>; +<ul> +<li>proposes Treaty of 1824, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>;</li> +<li>message, <a href="#Page_271">271–72</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Adams, Governor of S.C., message on slave-trade, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289–90</a>.</li> + +<li>Advertisements for smuggled slaves, <a href="#Page_182">182</a> n.</li> + +<li>Africa, English trade to, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12–13;</a> +<ul> +<li>Dutch trade to, <a href="#Page_24">24–25;</a></li> +<li>Colonial trade to, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41–42</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> +<li>"Association" and trade to, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> +<li>American trade to, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181–82</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185–87;</a></li> +<li>reopening of trade to, <a href="#Page_168">168–92</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>African Agency, establishment, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>;</li> +<li>attempts to abolish, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li> +<li>history, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> + +<li>"African Labor Supply Association," <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>African Society of London, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>.</li> + +<li>African squadron, establishment of, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>; +<ul> +<li>activity of, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Aix-la-Chapelle, Peace, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>; +<ul> +<li>Congress, <a href="#Page_137">137</a> n.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Alabama, in Commercial Convention, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>; +<ul> +<li>State statutes, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263–64</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287–88.</a></li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Alston, speeches on Act of 1807, <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_101">101</a> n., <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n.</li> + +<li>Amelia Island, illicit traffic at, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>; +<ul> +<li>capture of, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Amendments to slave-trade clause in Constitution proposed, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a> n., <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248–51</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>.</li> + +<li>American Missionary Society, petition, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>.</li> + +<li>"L'Amistad," case of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>.</li> + +<li>Anderson, minister to Colombia, <a href="#Page_142">142</a> n.</li> + +<li>"Antelope" ("Ramirez"), case of, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n., <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</li> + +<li>"Apprentices," African, importation of, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>; +<ul> +<li>Louisiana bill on, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</li> +<li>Congressional bill on, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Appropriations to suppress the slave-trade, chronological list of, <a href="#Page_125">125</a> n.; +<ul> +<li>from 1820 to 1850, <a href="#Page_157">157–58;</a></li> +<li>from 1850 to 1860, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>;</li> +<li>from 1860 to 1870, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li> +<li>statutes, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272–76</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277–78</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286–89</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Argentine Confederation, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.</li> + +<li>Arkansas, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.</li> + +<li>Arkwright, Richard, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> + +<li>Ashmun, Jehudi, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> + +<li>Assiento treaty, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>; +<ul> +<li>influence of, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>"Association," the, reasons leading to, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>; +<ul> + +<li>establishment of, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>;</li> +<li>results of, <a href="#Page_52">52–53</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Atherton, J., speech of, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li> + +<li>"Augusta," case of the slaver, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> + +<li>Aury, Capt., buccaneer, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> + +<li>Austria, at Congress of Vienna, <a href="#Page_155">155–56;</a> +<ul> + +<li>at Congress of Verona, <a href="#Page_139">139–40;</a></li> +<li>signs Quintuple Treaty, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Ayres, Eli, U.S. African agent, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>; +<ul> + +<li>report of, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Babbit</span>, William, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Bacon, Samuel, African agent, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> + +<li>Badger, Joseph, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Baldwin, Abraham, in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>; +<ul> + +<li>in Congress, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Baltimore, slave-trade at, <a href="#Page_131">131–32</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> + +<li>Banks, N.P., <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> + +<li>Barancas, Fort, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li> + +<li>Barbadoes, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> + +<li>Bard (of Pa.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.</li> + +<li>Barksdale, Wm. (of Miss.), <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Barnwell, Robert (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> + +<li>Barry, Robert, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> + +<li>Bay Island slave-depot, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> + +<li>Bayard, J.A. (of Del.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>. +<!-- Page 348 --><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348"></a></li> +<li>Bedinger, G.M. (of Ky.), <a href="#Page_89">89</a> n.</li> + +<li>Belgium, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> + +<li>Belknap, J. (of Mass.), <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li> + +<li>Benezet, Anthony, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li>Benton, Thomas H., <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>.</li> + +<li>Betton (of N.H.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_109">109</a> n.</li> + +<li>Biblical Codes of Law, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a> n.</li> + +<li>Bidwell (of Mass.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_100">100</a> n., <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n., <a href="#Page_104">104</a> n., <a href="#Page_108">108–10</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.</li> + +<li>Blanco and Caballo, slave-traders, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> + +<li>Bland, T. (of Va.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Bolivia, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.</li> + +<li>Border States, interstate slave-trade from, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>; +<ul> + +<li>legislation of, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> +<li>see also under individual States.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Boston, slave-trade at, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>Bozal Negroes, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> + +<li>Braddock's Expedition, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</li> + +<li>Bradley, S.R., Senator, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Brazil, slave-trade to, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>; +<ul> + +<li>slaves in, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> +<li>proposed conference with, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>;</li> +<li>squadron on coasts of, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Brazos Santiago, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>.</li> + +<li>Brown (of Miss.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Brown, John (of Va.), slave-trader, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li>Brown, John (of R.I.), <a href="#Page_85">85–87</a>.</li> + +<li>Buchanan, James A., refuses to co-operate with England, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>; +<ul> + +<li>issues "Ostend Manifesto," <a href="#Page_177">177;</a></li> +<li>as president, enforces slave-trade laws, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</li> +<li>messages, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294–95</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Buchanan, Governor of Sierra Leone, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> + +<li>Bullock, Collector of Revenue, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> + +<li>Burgesses, Virginia House of, petitions vs. slave-trade, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>; +<ul> + +<li>declares vs. slave-trade, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</li> +<li>in "Association," <a href="#Page_48">48</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Burke, Aedanus (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_78">78–80</a>.</li> + +<li>Butler, Pierce (of S.C.), Senator, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Calhoun</span>, J.C., <a href="#Page_155">155</a> n.</li> + +<li>California, vessels bound to, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>Campbell, John, Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Campbell, Commander, U.S.N., <a href="#Page_118">118</a> n.</li> + +<li>Canning, Stratford, British Minister, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>.</li> + +<li>Canot, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>Cape de Verde Islands, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> + +<li>Cartwright, Edmund, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> + +<li>Cass, Lewis, <a href="#Page_147">147–51</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> + +<li>Castlereagh, British Cabinet Minister, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>.</li> + +<li>Cato, insurrection of the slave, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> + +<li>"Centinel," newspaper correspondent, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.</li> + +<li>Central America, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> + +<li>Chandalier Islands, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> + +<li>Chandler, John (of N.H.), <a href="#Page_104">104</a> n.</li> + +<li>Charles II., of England, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li> + +<li>Charleston, S.C., attitude toward "Association," <a href="#Page_49">49</a>; +<ul> + +<li>slave-trade at, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Chew, Beverly, Collector of Revenue, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> + +<li>Chili, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> + +<li>Chittenden, Martin (of Vt.), <a href="#Page_109">109</a> n.</li> + +<li>Claiborne, Wm., Governor of La., <a href="#Page_92">92</a>.</li> + +<li>Clarkson, William, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Clay, J.B. (of Ky.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Clay, Congressman, <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n.</li> + +<li>Clearance of slavers, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>.</li> + +<li>Clymer, George (of Pa.), <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li> + +<li>Coastwise slave-trade, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106–09</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> + +<li>Cobb, Howell, Sec. of the Treasury, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> + +<li>Coles (of Va.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Colombia, U.S. of, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li> + +<li>Colonies, legislation of, see under individual Colonies, and <a href="#APPENDIX_A">Appendix A</a>; +<ul> + +<li>slave-trade in, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34–36</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46–47</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53–56;</a></li> +<li>status of slavery in, <a href="#Page_13">13–14</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33–34</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Colonization Society, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a> n., <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>.</li> + +<li>"Comet," case of the slaver, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> + +<li>Commercial conventions, Southern, <a href="#Page_169">169–73</a>.</li> + +<li>Company of Merchants Trading to Africa, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>.</li> + +<li>Compromises in Constitution, <a href="#Page_62">62–66</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196–98.</a></li> + +<li>Compton, Samuel, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>.</li> + +<li>Confederate States of America, <a href="#Page_187">187–90</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>.</li> + +<li>Confederation, the, <a href="#Page_56">56–57</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>.</li> + +<li>Congress of the United States, <a href="#Page_77">77–111</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121–26</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156–58</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190–92</a>, +<a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247–66</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271–75</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278–81</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284–94</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295–97</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298–99</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301–02</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304–05</a>.</li> + +<li>Congress of Verona, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>.<!-- Page 349 --><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349"></a></li> + +<li>Congress of Vienna, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>.</li> + +<li>Connecticut, restrictions in, <a href="#Page_43">43–44</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>; +<ul> +<li>elections in, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State legislation, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>"Constitution," slaver, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li> + +<li>Constitution of the United States, <a href="#Page_58">58–73</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79–83</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102–03</a>, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a> n., <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248–51</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>. +<ul> +<li>See also Amendments and Compromises.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Continental Congress, <a href="#Page_49">49–52</a>.</li> + +<li>Cook, Congressman, <a href="#Page_100">100</a> n., <a href="#Page_103">103</a> n., <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Cosby, Governor of N.Y., <a href="#Page_27">27</a>.</li> + +<li>Cotton, manufacture of, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>; +<ul> +<li>price of, <a href="#Page_153">153–54;</a></li> +<li>crop of, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Cotton-gin, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.</li> + +<li>Coxe, Tench, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li>Cranston, Governor of R.I., <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li>Crawford, W.H., Secretary, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>"Creole," case of the slaver, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283–84</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li> + +<li>Crimean war, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li> + +<li>Cruising Conventions, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148–49</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297–98</a>.</li> + +<li>Cuba, cruising off, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>; +<ul> + +<li>movement to acquire, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</li> +<li>illicit traffic to and from, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Cumberland, Lieut., R.N., <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> + +<li>"Cyane," U.S.S., <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Dana</span> (of Conn.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</li> + +<li>Danish slave-trade, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.</li> + +<li>Darien, Ga., <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> + +<li>Davis, Jefferson, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>De Bow, J.D.B., <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>Declaration of Independence, <a href="#Page_53">53–54</a>.</li> + +<li>Delaware, restrictions in, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>; +<ul> +<li>attitude toward slave-trade, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a> n., <a href="#Page_74">74</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238–39</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Denmark, abolition of slave-trade, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>.</li> + +<li>Dent (of Md.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> + +<li>Dickinson, John, in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li>Dickson (of N.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> + +<li>Disallowance of Colonial acts, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18–19</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</li> + +<li>Dobbs, Governor of N.C., <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> + +<li>Dolben, Sir William, M.P., <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Douglas, Stephen A., <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> + +<li>Dowdell (of Ala.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Drake, Capt., slave-smuggler, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> + +<li>Driscoll, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>Duke of York's Laws, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> + +<li>Dunmore, Lord, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>.</li> + +<li>Dutch. See Holland.</li> + +<li>Dutch West India Company, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> + +<li>Duty, on African goods, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>; +<ul> +<li>on slaves imported, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16–22</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26–32</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40–42</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62–66</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77–84</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199–206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208–27</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Dwight, Theodore, of Conn., <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Early</span>, Peter (of Ga.), <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104–08</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li> + +<li>East Indies, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> + +<li>Economic revolution, <a href="#Page_152">152–54</a>.</li> + +<li>Edwards (of N.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_122">122</a> n.</li> + +<li>Ellsworth, Oliver (of Conn.), in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>.</li> + +<li>Elmer, Congressman, <a href="#Page_106">106</a> n.</li> + +<li>Ely, Congressman, <a href="#Page_103">103</a> n., <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n.</li> + +<li>Emancipation of slaves, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79–84</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226–29</a>.</li> + +<li>"Encomium," case of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> + +<li>England, slave-trade policy, <a href="#Page_9">9–14</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46–50</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134–51</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265–69</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>. +<ul> + +<li>See Disallowance.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>English Colonies. See Colonies.</li> + +<li>"Enterprise," case of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>.</li> + +<li>Escambia River, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Fairfax</span> County, Virginia, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> + +<li>Faneuil Hall, meeting in, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>.</li> + +<li>Federalist, the, on slave-trade, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> + +<li>Fernandina, port of, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> + +<li>Filibustering expeditions, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.<!-- Page 350 --><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350"></a></li> +<li>Findley, Congressman, <a href="#Page_103">103</a> n.</li> + +<li>Fisk, Congressman, <a href="#Page_100">100</a> n.</li> + +<li>Florida, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>. +<ul> + +<li>See St. Mary's River and Amelia Island.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Foote, H.S. (of Miss.), <a href="#Page_172">172</a>.</li> + +<li>Forsyth, John, Secretary of State, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a> n., <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>Foster (of N.H.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Fowler, W.C., <a href="#Page_112">112–13</a>.</li> + +<li>Fox, C.J., English Cabinet Minister, <a href="#Page_135">135</a> n.</li> + +<li>France, Revolution in, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>; +<ul> +<li>Colonial slave-trade of, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>;</li> +<li>Convention of, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> +<li>at Congress of Vienna, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> +<li>at Congress of Verona, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>;</li> +<li>treaties with England, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>;</li> +<li>flag of, in slave-trade, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>;</li> +<li>refuses to sign Quintuple Treaty, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li> +<li>invited to conference, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Franklin, Benjamin, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.</li> + +<li>Friends, protest of, vs. slave-trade, <a href="#Page_28">28–29;</a> +<ul> + +<li>attitude towards slave-trade, <a href="#Page_30">30–31</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_68">68–69</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li> +<li>petitions of, vs. slave-trade, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>;</li> +<li>reports of, on slave-trade, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Gaillard</span>, Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Gallatin, Albert, <a href="#Page_91">91–92</a>.</li> + +<li>Gallinas, port of, Africa, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.</li> + +<li>Galveston, Tex., <a href="#Page_115">115</a>.</li> + +<li>Garnett (of Va.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_109">109</a> n.</li> + +<li>"General Ramirez." See "Antelope."</li> + +<li>Georgia, slavery in, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>; +<ul> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176–77;</a></li> +<li>opposition to "Association," <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>;</li> +<li>demands slave-trade, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60–67;</a></li> +<li>attitude toward restrictions, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li> +<li>smuggling to, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276–77</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Germanic Federation, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li> + +<li>Gerry, Elbridge, in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>; +<ul> +<li>in Congress, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Ghent, Treaty of, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> + +<li>Giddings, J.R., <a href="#Page_183">183</a> n., <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>.</li> + +<li>Giles, W.B. (of Va.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Gordon, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> n.</li> + +<li>Good Hope, Cape of, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> + +<li>Gorham, N. (of Mass.), in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Goulden, W.B., <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> + +<li>Graham, Secretary of the Navy, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> + +<li>Great Britain. See England.</li> + +<li>Gregory XVI., Pope, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>.</li> + +<li>Grenville-Fox ministry, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Guadaloupe, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> + +<li>Guinea. See Africa.</li> + +<li>Guizot, F., French Foreign Minister, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Habersham</span>, R.W., <a href="#Page_130">130</a> n.</li> + +<li>Hamilton, Alexander, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.</li> + +<li>Hanse Towns, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> + +<li>Harmony and Co., slave-traders, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> + +<li>Harper (of S.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>.</li> + +<li>Hartley, David, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Hastings, Congressman, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n.</li> + +<li>Havana, Cuba, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> + +<li>Hawkins, Sir John, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>.</li> + +<li>Hayti, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.; +<ul> +<li>influence of the revolution, <a href="#Page_74">74–77</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84–88</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96–97</a>.</li> +<li>See San Domingo.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Heath, General, of Mass., <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + +<li>Henderick, Garrett, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li>Hill (of N.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.</li> + +<li>Holland, participation of, in slave-trade, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>; +<ul> +<li>slaves in Colonies, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> +<li>abolishes slave-trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> +<li>treaty with England, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>;</li> +<li>West India Company, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Holland, Congressman, <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106</a> n.</li> + +<li>Hopkins, John, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Hopkins, Samuel, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li>Horn, Cape, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>Huger (of S.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91</a> n.</li> + +<li>Hunter, Andrew, <a href="#Page_169">169</a> n.</li> + +<li>Hunter, Governor of N.J., <a href="#Page_32">32</a>.</li> + +<li>Hutchinson, Wm., Governor of Mass., <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Import</span> duties on slaves. See Duty.</li> + +<li>Indians, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li>Instructions to Governors, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18–19</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>; +<ul> + +<li>to naval officers, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> +<li>See Disallowance.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Insurrections. See Slaves.<!-- Page 351 --><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351"></a></li> + +<li>Iredell, James (of N.C.), <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + +<li>Ireland, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Jackson</span>, Andrew, pardons slave-traders, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Jackson, J. (of Ga.), <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Jacksonville, Fla., <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> + +<li>Jamaica, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>.</li> + +<li>Jay, William, <a href="#Page_134">134–35</a>.</li> + +<li>Jefferson, Thomas, drafts Declaration of Independence, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>; +<ul> +<li>as President, messages on slave-trade, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97–98</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>;</li> +<li>signs Act of 1807, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li> +<li>pardons slave-traders, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Jefferson, Capt, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>Johnson (of Conn.), <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li>Johnson (of La.), <a href="#Page_141">141</a>.</li> + +<li>Joint-cruising. See Cruising Conventions.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Kane</span>, Commissioner, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>Keitt, L.M. (of S.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Kelly, Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Kenan, Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Kendall, Amos, <a href="#Page_126">126</a> n.</li> + +<li>Kennedy, Secretary of the Navy, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> + +<li>Kentucky, <a href="#Page_108">108</a> n., <a href="#Page_170">170</a> n., <a href="#Page_172">172</a> n.</li> + +<li>Key West, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> + +<li>Kilgore, resolutions in Congress, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>.</li> + +<li>King, Rufus, in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Knoxville, Tenn., <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">La Coste</span>, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>.</li> + +<li>Lafitte, E., and Co., <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> + +<li>Langdon, John, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Lawrence (of N.Y.), <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Laws. See Statutes.</li> + +<li>Lee, Arthur, <a href="#Page_48">48</a> n.</li> + +<li>Lee, R.H., <a href="#Page_48">48</a> n., <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> + +<li>Legislation. See Statutes.</li> + +<li>Le Roy, L., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Liberia, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>. +<ul> +<li>See African Agency.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Lincoln, Abraham, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300–01</a>.</li> + +<li>Liverpool, Eng., <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>.</li> + +<li>Livingstone (of N.Y.), in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li>Lloyd, Congressman, <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n., <a href="#Page_106">106</a> n.</li> + +<li>London, Eng., <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a> n., <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a> n.</li> + +<li>"Louisa," slaver, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> + +<li>Louisiana, sale of, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>; +<ul> +<li>slave-trade to, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_91">91–94;</a></li> +<li>influence on S.C. repeal of 1803, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li> +<li>status of slave-trade to, <a href="#Page_91">91–94</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>;</li> +<li>State statutes, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Low, I. (of N.Y.), <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> + +<li>Lowndes, R. (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a> n., <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">McCarthy</span>, Governor of Sierra Leone, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>.</li> + +<li>McGregor Raid, the, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.</li> + +<li>McIntosh, Collector of Revenue, <a href="#Page_117">117</a> n.</li> + +<li>McKeever, Lieut., U.S.N., <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> + +<li>Macon, N., <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n., <a href="#Page_109">109</a>.</li> + +<li>Madeira, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li> + +<li>Madison, James, in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>; +<ul> +<li>in Congress, <a href="#Page_78">78–81;</a></li> +<li>as President, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a> n., <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255–56</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Madrid, Treaty of, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> + +<li>Maine, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> + +<li>Manchester, Eng., <a href="#Page_47">47</a>.</li> + +<li>Mansfield, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>"Marino," slaver, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> + +<li>Martin, Luther (of Md.), in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Maryland, slavery in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>; +<ul> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> +<li>attitude toward slave-trade, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219–20</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Mason, George, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65–67</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + +<li>Mason, J.M., <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> + +<li>Massachusetts, in slave-trade, <a href="#Page_34">34–36;</a> +<ul> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_37">37–39</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>;</li> +<li>attitude toward slave-trade, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State legislation, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Masters, Congressman, <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n.</li> + +<li>Mathew, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>Mathew, Governor of the Bahama Islands, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>.</li> + +<li>Matthews (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_56">56</a>. +<!-- Page 352 --><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352"></a></li> +<li>Meigs, Congressman, <a href="#Page_132">132</a> n., <a href="#Page_262">262</a>.</li> + +<li>Memphis, Tenn., <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> + +<li>Mercer, John (of Va.), <a href="#Page_139">139</a> n., <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a> n.</li> + +<li>Messages, Presidential, <a href="#Page_97">97–98</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255–60</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280–81</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294–95</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300–01</a>.</li> + +<li>Mesurado, Cape, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> + +<li>Mexico, treaty with England, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.; +<ul> +<li>conquest of, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Mexico, Gulf of, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a> n.</li> + +<li>Mickle, Calvin, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.</li> + +<li>Middle Colonies, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>.</li> + +<li>Middleton (of S.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>.</li> + +<li>Middletown, Conn., <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li> + +<li>Mifflin, W. (of Penn.), in Continental Congress, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> + +<li>Miles (of S.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Mississippi, slavery in, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>; +<ul> +<li>illicit trade to, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>;</li> +<li>legislation, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Missouri, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>.</li> + +<li>Missouri Compromise, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.</li> + +<li>Mitchell, Gen. D.B., <a href="#Page_118">118</a>.</li> + +<li>Mitchell, S.L. (of N.Y.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_89">89</a> n.</li> + +<li>Mixed courts for slave-traders, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> + +<li>Mobile, Ala., illicit trade to, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> + +<li>Monroe, James, as President, messages on slave-trade, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259–60</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262–63</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>; +<ul> +<li>establishment of African Agency, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li> +<li>pardons, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Morbon, Wm., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Morris, Gouverneur, in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Morris, Governor of N.J., <a href="#Page_33">33</a>.</li> + +<li>Moseley, Congressman, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Nansemond</span> County, Va., <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> + +<li>Naples (Two Sicilies), <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> + +<li>Napoleon I., <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>.</li> + +<li>Navigation Ordinance, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> + +<li>Navy, United States, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118–20</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159–61</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184–86</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>; +<ul> +<li>reports of Secretary of, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_318">318–31</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Neal, Rev. Mr., in Mass. Convention, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li> + +<li>Negroes, character of, <a href="#Page_13">13–14</a>. +<ul> +<li>See Slaves.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Negro plots, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>.</li> + +<li>Nelson, Hugh (of Va.), <a href="#Page_122">122</a> n., <a href="#Page_123">123</a> n.</li> + +<li>Nelson, Attorney-General, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>Netherlands. See Holland.</li> + +<li>New England, slavery in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>; +<ul> +<li>slave-trade by, <a href="#Page_34">34–36</a>, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial statutes, see under individual Colonies.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>New Hampshire, restrictions in, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>; +<ul> +<li>attitude toward slave-trade, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> +<li>State legislation, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>New Jersey, slavery in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>; +<ul> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> +<li>attitude toward slavery, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>New Mexico, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>New Netherland, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>.</li> + +<li>New Orleans, illicit traffic to, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n., <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>.</li> + +<li>Newport, R.I., <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>.</li> + +<li>New York, slavery in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>; +<ul> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_25">25–27;</a></li> +<li>Abolition societies in, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_203">203–04</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229–30</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245–46</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>New York City, illicit traffic at, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178–81</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> + +<li>Nichols (of Va.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.</li> + +<li>Norfolk, Va., <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>North Carolina, restrictions in, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>; +<ul> +<li>"Association" in, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> +<li>reception of Constitution, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li>cession of back-lands, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Northwest Territory, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>.</li> + +<li>Nourse, Joseph, Registrar of the Treasury, <a href="#Page_120">120</a> n.</li> + +<li>Nova Scotia, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li>Nunez River, Africa, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Oglethorpe</span>, General James, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>.</li> + +<li>Olin (of Vt.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n.</li> + +<li>Ordinance of 1787, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>.</li> + +<li>"Ostend Manifesto," <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Page</span>, John (of Va.), <a href="#Page_81">81</a>. +<a name="Page_353" id="Page_353"></a></li> +<li>Palmerston, Lord, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>.</li> + +<li>Panama Congress, <a href="#Page_142">142</a> n.</li> + +<li>Pardons granted to slave-traders, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Paris, France, Treaty of, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a> n.</li> + +<li>Parker, R.E. (of Va.), <a href="#Page_77">77–78</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Parliament, slave-trade in, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Pastorius, F.D., <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li>Paterson's propositions, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>.</li> + +<li>Peace negotiations of 1783, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Pemberton, Thomas, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li> + +<li>Pennsylvania, slavery in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>; +<ul> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_28">28–31</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> +<li>attitude towards slave-trade, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> +<li>in Constitutional Convention, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_201">201–05</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213–14</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_235">235–36</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>.</li> + +<li>Perdido River, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>.</li> + +<li>Perry, Commander, U.S.N., <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>Perry, Jesse, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Perry, Robert, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>"Perry," U.S.S., <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li> + +<li>Petitions, of Abolition societies, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79–81</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>; +<ul> +<li>of free Negroes, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Pettigrew (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>Philadelphia, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>.</li> + +<li>Pinckney, Charles (of S.C.), in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_58">58–60</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Pinckney, C.C. (of S.C.), in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59–63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>.</li> + +<li>Pindall, Congressman, <a href="#Page_122">122</a> n., <a href="#Page_123">123</a> n.</li> + +<li>Piracy, slave-trade made, <a href="#Page_124">124–25</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a> n.</li> + +<li>Pitkin, T. (of Conn.), <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_104">104</a> n.</li> + +<li>Pitt, William, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Plumer, Wm. (of N.H.), <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li> + +<li>Pollard, Edward, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>Pongas River, Africa, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>.</li> + +<li>Portugal, treaties with England, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a> n., <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>; +<ul> + +<li>slaves in colonies, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> +<li>abolition of slave-trade by, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.;</li> +<li>use of flag of, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Presidents. See under individual names.</li> + +<li>Price of slaves, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>.</li> + +<li>Prince George County, Va., <a href="#Page_49">49</a>.</li> + +<li>Privy Council, report to, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Proffit, U.S. Minister to Brazil, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>.</li> + +<li>Prohibition of slave-trade by Ga., <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>; +<ul> + +<li>S.C., <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li> +<li>N.C., <a href="#Page_19">19</a>;</li> +<li>Va., <a href="#Page_20">20</a>;</li> +<li>Md., <a href="#Page_22">22</a>;</li> +<li>N.Y., <a href="#Page_26">26</a>;</li> +<li>Vermont, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li> +<li>Penn., <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>;</li> +<li>Del., <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li> +<li>N.J., <a href="#Page_32">32</a>;</li> +<li>N.H., <a href="#Page_36">36</a>;</li> +<li>Mass., <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> +<li>R.I., <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;</li> +<li>Conn., <a href="#Page_43">43</a>;</li> +<li>United States, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li> +<li>England, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> +<li>Confederate States, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>.</li> +<li>See also Appendices.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Providence, R.I., <a href="#Page_42">42</a>.</li> + +<li>Prussia at European Congresses, <a href="#Page_135">135–36</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> + +<li>Pryor, R.A. (of Va.), <a href="#Page_171">171</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Quakers</span>. See Friends.</li> + +<li>Quarantine of slaves, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li> + +<li>Quebec, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li>Quincy, Josiah, Congressman, <a href="#Page_100">100</a> n., <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n.</li> + +<li>Quintuple Treaty, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Rabun</span>, Wm., Governor of Ga., <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li> + +<li>Ramsey, David (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_69">69</a>.</li> + +<li>Randolph, Edmund, in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>.</li> + +<li>Randolph, John, Congressman, <a href="#Page_106">106–07</a>.</li> + +<li>Randolph, Thomas M., Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Registration of slaves, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a> n., <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>.</li> + +<li>Revenue from slave-trade, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>. +<ul> + +<li>See Duty Acts.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Rhode Island, slave-trade in, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>; +<ul> + +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_40">40–43;</a></li> +<li>"Association" in, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> +<li>reception of Constitution by, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li>abolition societies in, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State legislation, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224–25</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227–30</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Rice Crop, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> + +<li>Right of Search, <a href="#Page_137">137–42</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a> n., <a href="#Page_148">148–51</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>.</li> + +<li>Rio Grande river, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li> + +<li>Rio Janeiro, Brazil, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>.</li> + +<li>Rolfe, John, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>.</li> + +<li>Royal Adventurers, Company of, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li> + +<li>Royal African Company, <a href="#Page_10">10–11</a>.</li> + +<li>Rum, traffic in, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>.</li> + +<li>Rush, Richard, Minister to England, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>.</li> + +<li>Russell, Lord John, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li> + +<li>Russia in European Congresses, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>; +<ul> +<li>signs Quintuple Treaty, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> +</ul><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354"></a></li> +<li>Rutledge, Edward, in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_58">58–61</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Rutledge, John, Congressman, <a href="#Page_84">84–87</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">St. Augustine</span>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li> + +<li>St. Johns, Island of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li>St. Johns Parish, Ga., <a href="#Page_52">52</a>.</li> + +<li>St. Mary's River, Fla., <a href="#Page_113">113–14</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>.</li> + +<li>"Sanderson," slaver, <a href="#Page_35">35</a> n.</li> + +<li>Sandiford, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li>San Domingo, trade with, stopped, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>; +<ul> + +<li>insurrection in, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>;</li> +<li>deputies from, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Sardinia, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>.</li> + +<li>Savannah, Ga., <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> + +<li>Search. See Right of Search.</li> + +<li>Sewall, Wm., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Seward, Wm. H., Secretary, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>.</li> + +<li>Seward (of Ga.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Sharpe, Granville, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Sherbro Islands, Africa, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> + +<li>Sherman, Roger, in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>; +<ul> + +<li>in Congress, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Shields, Thomas, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Sierra Leone, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> + +<li>Sinnickson (of N.J.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + +<li>Slave Power, the, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.</li> + +<li>Slavers: +<ul> +<li>"Alexander," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Amedie," <a href="#Page_138">138</a> n.;</li> +<li>"L'Amistad," <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> +<li>"Antelope" ("Ramirez"), <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li> +<li>"Comet," <a href="#Page_143">143</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Constitution," <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li> +<li>"Creole," <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> +<li>"Daphne," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Dorset," <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> +<li>"Eliza," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Emily," <a href="#Page_185">185</a>;</li> +<li>"Encomium," <a href="#Page_143">143</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Endymion," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Esperanza," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Eugene," <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Fame," <a href="#Page_162">162</a>;</li> +<li>"Fortuna," <a href="#Page_138">138</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Illinois," <a href="#Page_149">149</a>;</li> +<li>"Le Louis," <a href="#Page_138">138</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Louisa," <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li> +<li>"Marino," <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li> +<li>"Martha," <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li> +<li>"Mary," <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Mathilde," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Paz," <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> +<li>"La Pensée," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Plattsburg," <a href="#Page_128">128</a> n., <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Prova," <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li> +<li>"Ramirez" ("Antelope"), <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n., <a href="#Page_130">130</a>;</li> +<li>"Rebecca," <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> +<li>"Rosa," <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> +<li>"Sanderson," <a href="#Page_35">35</a> n.;</li> +<li>"San Juan Nepomuceno," <a href="#Page_138">138</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Saucy Jack," <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> +<li>"Science," <a href="#Page_129">129</a> n.;</li> +<li>"Wanderer," <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</li> +<li>"Wildfire," <a href="#Page_190">190</a> n.;</li> +<li>see also Appendix C.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Slavery. See Table of Contents.</li> + +<li>Slaves, number imported, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a> n., <a href="#Page_27">27</a> n., <a href="#Page_31">31</a> n., <a href="#Page_33">33</a> n., <a href="#Page_36">36</a> n., <a href="#Page_39">39</a> n., <a href="#Page_40">40</a> n., <a href="#Page_43">43</a> n., <a href="#Page_44">44</a> n., <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>; +<ul> + +<li>insurrections of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>;</li> +<li>punishments of, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>;</li> +<li>captured on high seas, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</li> +<li>illegal traffic in, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112–21</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126–32</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>;</li> +<li>abducted, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Slave-trade, see Table of Contents; +<ul> +<li>internal, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>;</li> +<li>coastwise, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_106">106–09</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Slave-traders, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126–29</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>; +<ul> + +<li>prosecution and conviction of, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>;</li> +<li>Pardon of, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>;</li> +<li>punishment of, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li> +<li>For ships, see under Slavers, and Appendix C.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Slidell, John, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>.</li> + +<li>Sloan (of N.J.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n., <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.</li> + +<li>Smilie, John (of Pa.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_99">99</a> n., <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n., <a href="#Page_104">104</a> n.</li> + +<li>Smith, Caleb B., <a href="#Page_190">190</a>.</li> + +<li>Smith, J.F., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Smith (of S.C.), Senator, <a href="#Page_78">78–81</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>.</li> + +<li>Smith, Capt., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>.</li> + +<li>Smuggling of slaves, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179–82</a>.</li> + +<li>Sneed (of Tenn.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.</li> + +<li>Soulé, Pierre, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.</li> + +<li>South Carolina, slavery in, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>; +<ul> + +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_16">16–19</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li> +<li>attitude toward slave-trade, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>;</li> +<li>in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59–67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>;</li> +<li>illicit traffic to, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li> +<li>repeal of prohibition, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>;</li> +<li>movement to reopen slave-trade, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a> n., <a href="#Page_173">173</a>;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208–13</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237–38</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241–43</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245–47</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289–91</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + +<li>Southeby, Wm., <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li>Southern Colonies, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>. +<ul> + +<li>See under individual Colonies.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Spaight, in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.<a name="Page_355" id="Page_355"></a></li> +<li>Spain, signs Assiento, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>; +<ul> + +<li>colonial slave-trade of, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>;</li> +<li>colonial slavery, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> +<li>war with Dutch, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>;</li> +<li>abolishes slave-trade, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a> n.;</li> +<li>L'Amistad case with, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> +<li>flag of, in slave-trade, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> +<li>treaties, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Spottswood, Governor of Virginia, <a href="#Page_20">20</a>.</li> + +<li>Spratt, L.W. (of S.C.), <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> n.</li> + +<li>Stanton (of R.I.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_89">89</a> n., <a href="#Page_106">106</a>.</li> + +<li>States. See under individual States.</li> + +<li>Statutes, Colonial, see under names of individual Colonies; +<ul> + +<li>State, <a href="#Page_56">56–57</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75–77</a>;</li> +<li>see under names of individual States, and Appendices A and B;</li> +<li>United States, Act of 1794, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1800, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1803, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_246">246</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1807, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1818, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1819, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1820, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1860, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>;</li> +<li>Act of 1862, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>;</li> +<li>see also Appendix B, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Stephens, Alexander, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>.</li> + +<li>Stevenson, A., Minister to England, <a href="#Page_146">146–47</a>.</li> + +<li>Stone (of Md.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Stono, S.C., insurrection at, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>.</li> + +<li>Sumner, Charles, <a href="#Page_192">192</a> n., <a href="#Page_305">305</a>.</li> + +<li>Sweden, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>; +<ul> + +<li>Delaware Colony, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>;</li> +<li>slaves in Colonies, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Sylvester (of N.Y.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Taylor</span>, Zachary, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> + +<li>Texas, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n., <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277–78</a>.</li> + +<li>Treaties, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135–37</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147–50</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301–05</a>.</li> + +<li>Trist, N., <a href="#Page_160">160</a> n., <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a> n.</li> + +<li>Tyler, John, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Underwood</span>, John C., <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> + +<li>United States, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136–51</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162–67</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_245">245–48</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272–76</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_300">300–04</a>. +<ul> + +<li>See also Table of Contents.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Up de Graeff, Derick, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li>Up den Graef, Abraham, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>.</li> + +<li>Uruguay, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.</li> + +<li>Utrecht, Treaty of, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>.</li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Van Buren</span>, Martin, <a href="#Page_79">79–80</a>.</li> + +<li>Van Rensselaer, Congressman, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>.</li> + +<li>Varnum, J., Congressman, <a href="#Page_105">105</a> n.</li> + +<li>Venezuela, <a href="#Page_144">144</a> n.</li> + +<li>Vermont, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</li> + +<li>Verona, Congress of, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>.</li> + +<li>Vicksburg, Miss., <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.</li> + +<li>Vienna, Congress of, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>.</li> + +<li>Virginia, first slaves imported, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>; +<ul> + +<li>slavery in, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>;</li> +<li>restrictions in, <a href="#Page_19">19–22</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> +<li>frame of government of, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>;</li> +<li>"Association" in, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> +<li>in the Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>;</li> +<li>abolition sentiment in, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> +<li>attitude on reopening the slave-trade, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a> n.;</li> +<li>Colonial and State statutes, <a href="#Page_201">201–04</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213–15</a>, <a href="#Page_219">219–20</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</li> +</ul></li> + + + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Wallace</span>, L.R., slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Waln (of Penn.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>.</li> + +<li>"Wanderer," case of the slaver, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li> + +<li>Washington, Treaty of (1842), <a href="#Page_148">148–50</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>.</li> + +<li>Watt, James, <a href="#Page_152">152</a> n.</li> + +<li>Webster, Daniel, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li> + +<li>Webster, Noah, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>.</li> + +<li>Wentworth, Governor of N.H., <a href="#Page_36">36</a>.</li> + +<li>West Indies, slave-trade to and from, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>; +<ul> + +<li>slavery in, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>;</li> +<li>restrictions on importation of slaves from, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;</li> +<li>revolution in, <a href="#Page_74">74–77</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84–88</a>, <a href="#Page_96">96–97;</a></li> +<li>mixed court in, <a href="#Page_151">151</a> n., <a href="#Page_191">191</a>.</li> +</ul></li> +<li>Western territory, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</li> + +<li>Whitney, Eli, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>.<a name="Page_356" id="Page_356"></a></li> +<li>Whydah, Africa, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.</li> + +<li>Wilberforce, Wm., <a href="#Page_134">134</a>.</li> + +<li>Wilde, R.H., <a href="#Page_132">132</a>.</li> + +<li>"Wildfire," slaver, <a href="#Page_190">190</a> n., <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> + +<li>"William," case of the slaver, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>.</li> + +<li>Williams, D.R. (of N.C.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_102">102</a> n., <a href="#Page_109">109</a> n., <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li> + +<li>Williamsburg district, S.C., <a href="#Page_169">169</a>.</li> + +<li>Williamson (of S.C.), in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>.</li> + +<li>Wilmington, N.C., <a href="#Page_88">88</a>.</li> + +<li>Wilson, James, in Federal Convention, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li> + +<li>Wilson (of Mass.), Congressman, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li> + +<li>Winn, African agent, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>.</li> + +<li>Winston, Zenas, slave-trader, <a href="#Page_131">131</a> n.</li> + +<li>Wirt, William, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_126">126</a> n., <a href="#Page_130">130</a>.</li> + +<li>Woolman, John, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>.</li> + +<li>Wright (of Va.), <a href="#Page_126">126</a>.</li> + +<li> </li> +<li><span class="smcap">Yancey</span>, W.L., <a href="#Page_171">171</a>.</li> +</ul> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Suppression of the African Slave +Trade to the United States of America, by W. E. B. Du Bois + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK SLAVE TRADE *** + +***** This file should be named 17700-h.htm or 17700-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/1/7/7/0/17700/ + +Produced by Suzanne Shell, Victoria Woosley and the Online +Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |