



Produced by Suzanne Shell, Victoria Woosley and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net







                         THE SUPPRESSION OF THE
                           AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE
                                 TO THE
                              UNITED STATES
                               OF AMERICA
                                1638-1870

                                Volume I
                        Harvard Historical Studies

                                  1896

                        Longmans, Green, and Co.
                                New York

                   *       *       *       *       *




Preface


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.

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 <DW64>.

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.

                                                 W.E. BURGHARDT DU BOIS.

WILBERFORCE UNIVERSITY,
    March, 1896.

                   *       *       *       *       *




Contents


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

  1. _Plan of the Monograph_                                         9
  2. _The Rise of the English Slave-Trade_                           9


CHAPTER II
THE PLANTING COLONIES

  3. _Character of these Colonies_                                  15
  4. _Restrictions in Georgia_                                      15
  5. _Restrictions in South Carolina_                               16
  6. _Restrictions in North Carolina_                               19
  7. _Restrictions in Virginia_                                     19
  8. _Restrictions in Maryland_                                     22
  9. _General Character of these Restrictions_                      23


CHAPTER III
THE FARMING COLONIES

  10. _Character of these Colonies_                                 24
  11. _The Dutch Slave-Trade_                                       24
  12. _Restrictions in New York_                                    25
  13. _Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware_                   28
  14. _Restrictions in New Jersey_                                  32
  15. _General Character of these Restrictions_                     33


CHAPTER IV
THE TRADING COLONIES

  16. _Character of these Colonies_                                 34
  17. _New England and the Slave-Trade_                             34
  18. _Restrictions in New Hampshire_                               36
  19. _Restrictions in Massachusetts_                               37
  20. _Restrictions in Rhode Island_                                40
  21. _Restrictions in Connecticut_                                 43
  22. _General Character of these Restrictions_                     44


CHAPTER V
THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION, 1774-1787

  23. _The Situation in 1774_                                       45
  24. _The Condition of the Slave-Trade_                            46
  25. _The Slave-Trade and the "Association"_                       47
  26. _The Action of the Colonies_                                  48
  27. _The Action of the Continental Congress_                      49
  28. _Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution_                     51
  29. _Results of the Resolution_                                   52
  30. _The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War_            53
  31. _The Action of the Confederation_                             56


CHAPTER VI
THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, 1787

  32. _The First Proposition_                                       58
  33. _The General Debate_                                          59
  34. _The Special Committee and the "Bargain"_                     62
  35. _The Appeal to the Convention_                                64
  36. _Settlement by the Convention_                                66
  37. _Reception of the Clause by the Nation_                       67
  38. _Attitude of the State Conventions_                           70
  39. _Acceptance of the Policy_                                    72


CHAPTER VII
TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE AND ANTI-SLAVERY EFFORT, 1787-1807

  40. _Influence of the Haytian Revolution_                         74
  41. _Legislation of the Southern States_                          75
  42. _Legislation of the Border States_                            76
  43. _Legislation of the Eastern States_                           76
  44. _First Debate in Congress, 1789_                              77
  45. _Second Debate in Congress, 1790_                             79
  46. _The Declaration of Powers, 1790_                             82
  47. _The Act of 1794_                                             83
  48. _The Act of 1800_                                             85
  49. _The Act of 1803_                                             87
  50. _State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to 1803_                  88
  51. _The South Carolina Repeal of 1803_                           89
  52. _The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803-1805_                        91
  53. _Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805-1806_                        94
  54. _Key-Note of the Period_                                      96


CHAPTER VIII
THE PERIOD OF ATTEMPTED SUPPRESSION, 1807-1825

  55. _The Act of 1807_                                             97
  56. _The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans
       be disposed of?_                                             99
  57. _The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?_     104
  58. _The Third Question: How shall the Interstate Coastwise
       Slave-Trade be protected?_                                  106
  59. _Legislative History of the Bill_                            107
  60. _Enforcement of the Act_                                     111
  61. _Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade_                   112
  62. _Apathy of the Federal Government_                           115
  63. _Typical Cases_                                              120
  64. _The Supplementary Acts, 1818-1820_                          121
  65. _Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts, 1818-1825_           126


CHAPTER IX
THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE-TRADE, 1783-1862

  66. _The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade,
       1788-1807_                                                  133
  67. _Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783-1814_                  134
  68. _Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820_                     136
  69. _The Struggle for an International Right of Search,
       1820-1840_                                                  137
  70. _Negotiations of 1823-1825_                                  140
  71. _The Attitude of the United States and the State of the
       Slave-Trade_                                                142
  72. _The Quintuple Treaty, 1839-1842_                            145
  73. _Final Concerted Measures, 1842-1862_                        148


CHAPTER X
THE RISE OF THE COTTON KINGDOM, 1820-1850

  74. _The Economic Revolution_                                    152
  75. _The Attitude of the South_                                  154
  76. _The Attitude of the North and Congress_                     156
  77. _Imperfect Application of the Laws_                          159
  78. _Responsibility of the Government_                           161
  79. _Activity of the Slave-Trade, 1820-1850_                     163


CHAPTER XI
THE FINAL CRISIS, 1850-1870

  80. _The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws_                  168
  81. _Commercial Conventions of 1855-1856_                        169
  82. _Commercial Conventions of 1857-1858_                        170
  83. _Commercial Convention of 1859_                              172
  84. _Public Opinion in the South_                                173
  85. _The Question in Congress_                                   174
  86. _Southern Policy in 1860_                                    176
  87. _Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860_              178
  88. _Notorious Infractions of the Laws_                          179
  89. _Apathy of the Federal Government_                           182
  90. _Attitude of the Southern Confederacy_                       187
  91. _Attitude of the United States_                              190


CHAPTER XII
THE ESSENTIALS IN THE STRUGGLE

  92. _How the Question Arose_                                     193
  93. _The Moral Movement_                                         194
  94. _The Political Movement_                                     195
  95. _The Economic Movement_                                      195
  96. _The Lesson for Americans_                                   196


APPENDICES

  A. _A Chronological Conspectus of Colonial and State Legislation
      restricting the African Slave-Trade, 1641-1787_              199

  B. _A Chronological Conspectus of State, National, and
      International Legislation, 1788-1871_                        234

  C. _Typical Cases of Vessels engaged in the American Slave-Trade,
      1619-1864_                                                   306

  D. _Bibliography_                                                316


INDEX                                                              347

                   *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter I_

INTRODUCTORY.

  1. Plan of the Monograph.
  2. The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.


1. ~Plan of the Monograph.~ This monograph proposes to set forth the
efforts made in the United States of America, from early colonial times
until the present, to limit and suppress the trade in slaves between
Africa and these shores.

The study begins with the colonial period, setting forth in brief the
attitude of England and, more in detail, the attitude of the planting,
farming, and trading groups of colonies toward the slave-trade. It deals
next with the first concerted effort against the trade and with the
further action of the individual States. The important work of the
Constitutional Convention follows, together with the history of the
trade in that critical period which preceded the Act of 1807. The
attempt to suppress the trade from 1807 to 1830 is next recounted. A
chapter then deals with the slave-trade as an international problem.
Finally the development of the crises up to the Civil War is studied,
together with the steps leading to the final suppression; and a
concluding chapter seeks to sum up the results of the investigation.
Throughout the monograph the institution of slavery and the interstate
slave-trade are considered only incidentally.


2. ~The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.~ Any attempt to consider the
attitude of the English colonies toward the African slave-trade must be
prefaced by a word as to the attitude of England herself and the
development of the trade in her hands.[1]

Sir John Hawkins's celebrated voyage took place in 1562, but probably
not until 1631[2] did a regular chartered company undertake to carry on
the trade.[3] This company was unsuccessful,[4] and was eventually
succeeded by the "Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Africa,"
chartered by Charles II. in 1662, and including the Queen Dowager and
the Duke of York.[5] The company contracted to supply the West Indies
with three thousand slaves annually; but contraband trade, misconduct,
and war so reduced it that in 1672 it surrendered its charter to another
company for L34,000.[6] This new corporation, chartered by Charles II.
as the "Royal African Company," proved more successful than its
predecessors, and carried on a growing trade for a quarter of a century.

In 1698 Parliamentary interference with the trade began. By the Statute
9 and 10 William and Mary, chapter 26, private traders, on payment of a
duty of 10% on English goods exported to Africa, were allowed to
participate in the trade. This was brought about by the clamor of the
merchants, especially the "American Merchants," who "in their Petition
suggest, that it would be a great Benefit to the Kingdom to secure the
Trade by maintaining Forts and Castles there, with an equal Duty upon
all Goods exported."[7] This plan, being a compromise between
maintaining the monopoly intact and entirely abolishing it, was adopted,
and the statute declared the trade "highly Beneficial and Advantageous
to this Kingdom, and to the Plantations and Colonies thereunto
belonging."

Having thus gained practically free admittance to the field, English
merchants sought to exclude other nations by securing a monopoly of the
lucrative Spanish colonial slave-trade. Their object was finally
accomplished by the signing of the Assiento in 1713.[8]

The Assiento was a treaty between England and Spain by which the latter
granted the former a monopoly of the Spanish colonial slave-trade for
thirty years, and England engaged to supply the colonies within that
time with at least 144,000 slaves, at the rate of 4,800 per year.
England was also to advance Spain 200,000 crowns, and to pay a duty of
331/2 crowns for each slave imported. The kings of Spain and England were
each to receive one-fourth of the profits of the trade, and the Royal
African Company were authorized to import as many slaves as they wished
above the specified number in the first twenty-five years, and to sell
them, except in three ports, at any price they could get.

It is stated that, in the twenty years from 1713 to 1733, fifteen
thousand slaves were annually imported into America by the English, of
whom from one-third to one-half went to the Spanish colonies.[9] To the
company itself the venture proved a financial failure; for during the
years 1729-1750 Parliament assisted the Royal Company by annual grants
which amounted to L90,000,[10] and by 1739 Spain was a creditor to the
extent of L68,000, and threatened to suspend the treaty. The war
interrupted the carrying out of the contract, but the Peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle extended the limit by four years. Finally, October 5,
1750, this privilege was waived for a money consideration paid to
England; the Assiento was ended, and the Royal Company was bankrupt.

By the Statute 23 George II., chapter 31, the old company was dissolved
and a new "Company of Merchants trading to Africa" erected in its
stead.[11] Any merchant so desiring was allowed to engage in the trade
on payment of certain small duties, and such merchants formed a company
headed by nine directors. This marked the total abolition of monopoly in
the slave-trade, and was the form under which the trade was carried on
until after the American Revolution.

That the slave-trade was the very life of the colonies had, by 1700,
become an almost unquestioned axiom in British practical economics. The
colonists themselves declared slaves "the strength and sinews of this
western world,"[12] and the lack of them "the grand obstruction"[13]
here, as the settlements "cannot subsist without supplies of them."[14]
Thus, with merchants clamoring at home and planters abroad, it easily
became the settled policy of England to encourage the slave-trade. Then,
too, she readily argued that what was an economic necessity in Jamaica
and the Barbadoes could scarcely be disadvantageous to Carolina,
Virginia, or even New York. Consequently, the colonial governors were
generally instructed to "give all due encouragement and invitation to
merchants and others, ... and in particular to the royal African company
of England."[15] Duties laid on the importer, and all acts in any way
restricting the trade, were frowned upon and very often disallowed.
"Whereas," ran Governor Dobbs's instructions, "Acts have been passed in
some of our Plantations in America for laying duties on the importation
and exportation of <DW64>s 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
<DW64>s imported into our Province of North Carolina."[16]

The exact proportions of the slave-trade to America can be but
approximately determined. From 1680 to 1688 the African Company sent 249
ships to Africa, shipped there 60,783 <DW64> slaves, and after losing
14,387 on the middle passage, delivered 46,396 in America. The trade
increased early in the eighteenth century, 104 ships clearing for Africa
in 1701; it then dwindled until the signing of the Assiento, standing at
74 clearances in 1724. The final dissolution of the monopoly in 1750
led--excepting in the years 1754-57, when the closing of Spanish marts
sensibly affected the trade--to an extraordinary development, 192
clearances being made in 1771. The Revolutionary War nearly stopped the
traffic; but by 1786 the clearances had risen again to 146.

To these figures must be added the unregistered trade of Americans and
foreigners. It is probable that about 25,000 slaves were brought to
America each year between 1698 and 1707. The importation then dwindled,
but rose after the Assiento to perhaps 30,000. The proportion, too, of
these slaves carried to the continent now began to increase. Of about
20,000 whom the English annually imported from 1733 to 1766, South
Carolina alone received some 3,000. Before the Revolution, the total
exportation to America is variously estimated as between 40,000 and
100,000 each year. Bancroft places the total slave population of the
continental colonies at 59,000 in 1714, 78,000 in 1727, and 293,000 in
1754. The census of 1790 showed 697,897 slaves in the United States.[17]

In colonies like those in the West Indies and in South Carolina and
Georgia, the rapid importation into America of a multitude of savages
gave rise to a system of slavery far different from that which the late
Civil War abolished. The strikingly harsh and even inhuman slave codes
in these colonies show this. Crucifixion, burning, and starvation were
legal modes of punishment.[18] The rough and brutal character of the
time and place was partly responsible for this, but a more decisive
reason lay in the fierce and turbulent character of the imported
<DW64>s. The docility to which long years of bondage and strict
discipline gave rise was absent, and insurrections and acts of violence
were of frequent occurrence.[19] Again and again the danger of planters
being "cut off by their own <DW64>s"[20] is mentioned, both in the
islands and on the continent. This condition of vague dread and unrest
not only increased the severity of laws and strengthened the police
system, but was the prime motive back of all the earlier efforts to
check the further importation of slaves.

On the other hand, in New England and New York the <DW64>s were merely
house servants or farm hands, and were treated neither better nor worse
than servants in general in those days. Between these two extremes, the
system of slavery varied from a mild serfdom in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey to an aristocratic caste system in Maryland and Virginia.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] This account is based largely on the _Report of the Lords
      of the Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).

  [2] African trading-companies had previously been erected
     (e.g. by Elizabeth in 1585 and 1588, and by James I. in 1618);
      but slaves are not specifically mentioned in their charters,
      and they probably did not trade in slaves. Cf. Bandinel,
      _Account of the Slave Trade_ (1842), pp. 38-44.

  [3] Chartered by Charles I. Cf. Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers,
      Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, p. 135.

  [4] In 1651, during the Protectorate, the privileges of the
      African trade were granted anew to this same company for
      fourteen years. Cf. Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser.,
      America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, pp. 342, 355.

  [5] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
      Indies, 1661-1668_, Sec. 408.

  [6] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
      Indies, 1669-1674_, Sec.Sec. 934, 1095.

  [7] Quoted in the above _Report_, under "Most Material
      Proceedings in the House of Commons," Vol. I. Part I. An import
      duty of 10% on all goods, except <DW64>s, imported from Africa
      to England and the colonies was also laid. The proceeds of
      these duties went to the Royal African Company.

  [8] Cf. Appendix A.

  [9] Bandinel, _Account of the Slave Trade_, p. 59. Cf. Bryan
      Edwards, _History of the British Colonies in the W. Indies_
      (London, 1798), Book VI.

 [10] From 1729 to 1788, including compensation to the old
      company, Parliament expended L705,255 on African companies. Cf.
      _Report_, etc., as above.

 [11] Various amendatory statutes were passed: e.g., 24 George
      II. ch. 49, 25 George II. ch. 40, 4 George III. ch. 20, 5
      George III. ch. 44, 23 George III. ch. 65.

 [12] Renatus Enys from Surinam, in 1663: Sainsbury, _Cal.
      State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68_, Sec.
      577.

 [13] Thomas Lynch from Jamaica, in 1665: Sainsbury, _Cal.
      State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68_, Sec.
      934.

 [14] Lieutenant-Governor Willoughby of Barbadoes, in 1666:
      Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
      Indies, 1661-68_, Sec. 1281.

 [15] Smith, _History of New Jersey_ (1765), p. 254; Sainsbury,
      _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies,
      1669-74_., Sec.Sec. 367, 398, 812.

 [16] _N.C. Col. Rec._, V. 1118. For similar instructions, cf.
      _Penn. Archives_, I. 306; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI.
      34; Gordon, _History of the American Revolution_, I. letter 2;
      _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 4th Ser. X. 642.

 [17] These figures are from the above-mentioned _Report_, Vol.
      II. Part IV. Nos. 1, 5. See also Bancroft, _History of the
      United States_ (1883), II. 274 ff; Bandinel, _Account of the
      Slave Trade_, p. 63; Benezet, _Caution to Great Britain_, etc.,
      pp. 39-40, and _Historical Account of Guinea_, ch. xiii.

 [18] Compare earlier slave codes in South Carolina, Georgia,
      Jamaica, etc.; also cf. Benezet, _Historical Account of
      Guinea_, p. 75; _Report_, etc., as above.

 [19] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
      Indies, 1574-1660_, pp. 229, 271, 295; _1661-68_, Sec.Sec. 61, 412,
      826, 1270, 1274, 1788; _1669-74_., Sec.Sec. 508, 1244; Bolzius and
      Von Reck, _Journals_ (in Force, _Tracts_, Vol. IV. No. 5, pp.
      9, 18); _Proceedings of Governor and Assembly of Jamaica in
      regard to the Maroon Negroes_ (London, 1796).

 [20] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
      Indies, 1661-68_, Sec. 1679.

                   *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter II_

THE PLANTING COLONIES.

  3. Character of these Colonies.
  4. Restrictions in Georgia.
  5. Restrictions in South Carolina.
  6. Restrictions in North Carolina.
  7. Restrictions in Virginia.
  8. Restrictions in Maryland.
  9. General Character of these Restrictions.


3. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The planting colonies are those
Southern settlements whose climate and character destined them to be the
chief theatre of North American slavery. The early attitude of these
communities toward the slave-trade is therefore of peculiar interest;
for their action was of necessity largely decisive for the future of the
trade and for the institution in North America. Theirs was the only
soil, climate, and society suited to slavery; in the other colonies,
with few exceptions, the institution was by these same factors doomed
from the beginning. Hence, only strong moral and political motives could
in the planting colonies overthrow or check a traffic so favored by the
mother country.


4. ~Restrictions in Georgia.~ In Georgia we have an example of a
community whose philanthropic founders sought to impose upon it a code
of morals higher than the colonists wished. The settlers of Georgia were
of even worse moral fibre than their slave-trading and whiskey-using
neighbors in Carolina and Virginia; yet Oglethorpe and the London
proprietors prohibited from the beginning both the rum and the slave
traffic, refusing to "suffer slavery (which is against the Gospel as
well as the fundamental law of England) to be authorised under our
authority."[1] The trustees sought to win the colonists over to their
belief by telling them that money could be better expended in
transporting white men than <DW64>s; that slaves would be a source of
weakness to the colony; and that the "Produces designed to be raised in
the Colony would not require such Labour as to make <DW64>s necessary
for carrying them on."[2]

This policy greatly displeased the colonists, who from 1735, the date of
the first law, to 1749, did not cease to clamor for the repeal of the
restrictions.[3] As their English agent said, they insisted that "In
Spight of all Endeavours to disguise this Point, it is as clear as Light
itself, that <DW64>s are as essentially necessary to the Cultivation of
_Georgia_, as Axes, Hoes, or any other Utensil of Agriculture."[4]
Meantime, evasions and infractions of the laws became frequent and
notorious. <DW64>s were brought across from Carolina and "hired" for
life.[5] "Finally, purchases were openly made in Savannah from African
traders: some seizures were made by those who opposed the principle, but
as a majority of the magistrates were favorable to the introduction of
slaves into the province, legal decisions were suspended from time to
time, and a strong disposition evidenced by the courts to evade the
operation of the law."[6] At last, in 1749, the colonists prevailed on
the trustees and the government, and the trade was thrown open under
careful restrictions, which limited importation, required a registry and
quarantine on all slaves brought in, and laid a duty.[7] It is probable,
however, that these restrictions were never enforced, and that the trade
thus established continued unchecked until the Revolution.


5. ~Restrictions in South Carolina.~[8] South Carolina had the largest
and most widely developed slave-trade of any of the continental
colonies. This was owing to the character of her settlers, her nearness
to the West Indian slave marts, and the early development of certain
staple crops, such as rice, which were adapted to slave labor.[9]
Moreover, this colony suffered much less interference from the home
government than many other colonies; thus it is possible here to trace
the untrammeled development of slave-trade restrictions in a typical
planting community.

As early as 1698 the slave-trade to South Carolina had reached such
proportions that it was thought that "the great number of <DW64>s which
of late have been imported into this Collony may endanger the safety
thereof." The immigration of white servants was therefore encouraged by
a special law.[10] Increase of immigration reduced this disproportion,
but <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s do extremely increase
in this Province, and through the afflicting providence of God, the
white persons do not proportionately multiply, by reason whereof, the
safety of the said Province is greatly endangered."[11] The trade,
however, by reason of the encouragement abroad and of increased business
activity in exporting naval stores at home, suffered scarcely any check,
although repeated acts, reciting the danger incident to a "great
importation of <DW64>s," were passed, laying high duties.[12] Finally,
in 1717, an additional duty of L40,[13] although due in depreciated
currency, succeeded so nearly in stopping the trade that, two years
later, all existing duties were repealed and one of L10 substituted.[14]
This continued during the time of resistance to the proprietary
government, but by 1734 the importation had again reached large
proportions. "We must therefore beg leave," the colonists write in that
year, "to inform your Majesty, that, amidst our other perilous
circumstances, we are subject to many intestine dangers from the great
number of <DW64>s that are now among us, who amount at least to
twenty-two thousand persons, and are three to one of all your Majesty's
white subjects in this province. Insurrections against us have been
often attempted."[15] In 1740 an insurrection under a slave, Cato, at
Stono, caused such widespread alarm that a prohibitory duty of L100 was
immediately laid.[16] Importation was again checked; but in 1751 the
colony sought to devise a plan whereby the slightly restricted
immigration of <DW64>s should provide a fund to encourage the
importation of white servants, "to prevent the mischiefs that may be
attended by the great importation of <DW64>s into this Province."[17]
Many white servants were thus encouraged to settle in the colony; but so
much larger was the influx of black slaves that the colony, in 1760,
totally prohibited the slave-trade. This act was promptly disallowed by
the Privy Council and the governor reprimanded;[18] but the colony
declared that "an importation of <DW64>s, equal in number to what have
been imported of late years, may prove of the most dangerous consequence
in many respects to this Province, and the best way to obviate such
danger will be by imposing such an additional duty upon them as may
totally prevent the evils."[19] A prohibitive duty of L100 was
accordingly imposed in 1764.[20] This duty probably continued until the
Revolution.

The war made a great change in the situation. It has been computed by
good judges that, between the years 1775 and 1783, the State of South
Carolina lost twenty-five thousand <DW64>s, by actual hostilities,
plunder of the British, runaways, etc. After the war the trade quickly
revived, and considerable revenue was raised from duty acts until 1787,
when by act and ordinance the slave-trade was totally prohibited.[21]
This prohibition, by renewals from time to time, lasted until 1803.


6. ~Restrictions in North Carolina.~ In early times there were few
slaves in North Carolina;[22] this fact, together with the troubled and
turbulent state of affairs during the early colonial period, did not
necessitate the adoption of any settled policy toward slavery or the
slave-trade. Later the slave-trade to the colony increased; but there is
no evidence of any effort to restrict or in any way regulate it before
1786, when it was declared that "the importation of slaves into this
State is productive of evil consequences and highly impolitic,"[23] and
a prohibitive duty was laid on them.


7. ~Restrictions in Virginia.~[24] Next to South Carolina, Virginia had
probably the largest slave-trade. Her situation, however, differed
considerably from that of her Southern neighbor. The climate, the staple
tobacco crop, and the society of Virginia were favorable to a system of
domestic slavery, but one which tended to develop into a patriarchal
serfdom rather than into a slave-consuming industrial hierarchy. The
labor required by the tobacco crop was less unhealthy than that
connected with the rice crop, and the Virginians were, perhaps, on a
somewhat higher moral plane than the Carolinians. There was consequently
no such insatiable demand for slaves in the larger colony. On the other
hand, the power of the Virginia executive was peculiarly strong, and it
was not possible here to thwart the slave-trade policy of the home
government as easily as elsewhere.

Considering all these circumstances, it is somewhat difficult to
determine just what was the attitude of the early Virginians toward the
slave-trade. There is evidence, however, to show that although they
desired the slave-trade, the rate at which the <DW64>s were brought in
soon alarmed them. In 1710 a duty of L5 was laid on <DW64>s, but
Governor Spotswood "soon perceived that the laying so high a Duty on
<DW64>s was intended to discourage the importation," and vetoed the
measure.[25] No further restrictive legislation was attempted for some
years, but whether on account of the attitude of the governor or the
desire of the inhabitants, is not clear. With 1723 begins a series of
acts extending down to the Revolution, which, so far as their contents
can be ascertained, seem to have been designed effectually to check the
slave-trade. Some of these acts, like those of 1723 and 1727, were
almost immediately disallowed.[26] The Act of 1732 laid a duty of 5%,
which was continued until 1769,[27] and all other duties were in
addition to this; so that by such cumulative duties the rate on slaves
reached 25% in 1755,[28] and 35% at the time of Braddock's
expedition.[29] These acts were found "very burthensome," "introductive
of many frauds," and "very inconvenient,"[30] and were so far repealed
that by 1761 the duty was only 15%. As now the Burgesses became more
powerful, two or more bills proposing restrictive duties were passed,
but disallowed.[31] By 1772 the anti-slave-trade feeling had become
considerably developed, and the Burgesses petitioned the king, declaring
that "The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of
Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and
under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear _will
endanger the very existence_ of your Majesty's American dominions....
Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your
Majesty to remove _all those restraints_ on your Majesty's governors of
this colony, _which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check
so very pernicious a commerce_."[32]

Nothing further appears to have been done before the war. When, in 1776,
the delegates adopted a Frame of Government, it was charged in this
document that the king had perverted his high office into a "detestable
and insupportable tyranny, by ... prompting our <DW64>s to rise in arms
among us, those very <DW64>s whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he
hath refused us permission to exclude by law."[33] Two years later, in
1778, an "Act to prevent the further importation of Slaves" stopped
definitively the legal slave-trade to Virginia.[34]


8. ~Restrictions in Maryland.~[35] Not until the impulse of the Assiento
had been felt in America, did Maryland make any attempt to restrain a
trade from which she had long enjoyed a comfortable revenue. The Act of
1717, laying a duty of 40_s._,[36] may have been a mild restrictive
measure. The duties were slowly increased to 50_s._ in 1754,[37] and L4.
in 1763.[38] In 1771 a prohibitive duty of L9 was laid;[39] and in 1783,
after the war, all importation by sea was stopped and illegally imported
<DW64>s were freed.[40]

Compared with the trade to Virginia and the Carolinas, the slave-trade
to Maryland was small, and seems at no time to have reached proportions
which alarmed the inhabitants. It was regulated to the economic demand
by a slowly increasing tariff, and finally, after 1769, had nearly
ceased of its own accord before the restrictive legislation of
Revolutionary times.[41] Probably the proximity of Maryland to Virginia
made an independent slave-trade less necessary to her.


9. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ We find in the planting
colonies all degrees of advocacy of the trade, from the passiveness of
Maryland to the clamor of Georgia. Opposition to the trade did not
appear in Georgia, was based almost solely on political fear of
insurrection in Carolina, and sprang largely from the same motive in
Virginia, mingled with some moral repugnance. As a whole, it may be said
that whatever opposition to the slave-trade there was in the planting
colonies was based principally on the political fear of insurrection.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Hoare, _Memoirs of Granville Sharp_ (1820), p. 157. For
      the act of prohibition, see W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_
      (1847), I. 311.

  [2] [B. Martyn, _Account of the Progress of Georgia_ (1741),
      pp. 9-10.]

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

  [4] Stephens, _Account of the Causes_, etc., p. 8. Cf. also
      _Journal of Trustees_, II. 210; cited by Stevens, _History of
      Georgia_, I. 306.

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

  [6] _Ibid._

  [7] _Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade_, Vol. X.; cited by C.C.
      Jones, _History of Georgia_ (1883), I. 422-5.

  [8] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of South Carolina; details will be found in Appendix
      A:--

       1698, Act to encourage the immigration of white servants.
       1703, Duty Act: 10_s._ on Africans, 20_s._ on other <DW64>s.
       1714,   "   "   additional duty.
       1714,   "   "   L2.
       1714-15, Duty Act: additional duty.
       1716,     "    "   L3 on Africans, L30 on colonial <DW64>s.
       1717,     "    "   L40 in addition to existing duties.
       1719,     "    "   L10 on Africans, L30 on colonial <DW64>s.
                            The Act of 1717, etc., was repealed.
       1721,     "    "   L10 on Africans, L50 on colonial <DW64>s.
       1722,     "    "        "     "      "       "         "
       1740,     "    "   L100 on Africans, L150 on colonial <DW64>s.
       1751,     "    "   L10  "     "      L50     "         "
       1760, Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).
       1764, Duty Act: additional duty of L100.
       1783,     "    "   L3 on Africans, L20 on colonial <DW64>s.
       1784,     "    "        "     "    L5        "         "
       1787, Art and Ordinance prohibiting importation.

  [9] Cf. Hewatt, _Historical Account of S. Carolina and
      Georgia_ (1779), I. 120 ff.; reprinted in _S.C. Hist. Coll._
      (1836), I. 108 ff.

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

 [11] The text of the first act is not extant: cf. Cooper,
      _Statutes_, III. 56. For the second, see Cooper, VII. 365,
      367.

 [12] Cf. Grimke, _Public Laws of S. Carolina_, p. xvi, No.
      362; Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 649. Cf. also _Governor Johnson
      to the Board of Trade_, Jan. 12, 1719-20; reprinted in Rivers,
      _Early History of S. Carolina_ (1874), App., xii.

 [13] Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 368.

 [14] _Ibid._, III. 56.

 [15] From a memorial signed by the governor, President of the
      Council, and Speaker of the House, dated April 9, 1734,
      printed in Hewatt, _Historical Account of S. Carolina and
      Georgia_ (1779), II. 39; reprinted in S.C. Hist. Coll. (1836),
      I. 305-6. Cf. _N.C. Col. Rec._, II. 421.

 [16] Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 556; Grimke, _Public Laws_, p.
      xxxi, No. 694. Cf. Ramsay, _History of S. Carolina_, I. 110.

 [17] Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 739.

 [18] The text of this law has not been found. Cf. Burge,
      _Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws_, I. 737, note;
      Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 286. See instructions of the
      governor of New Hampshire, June 30, 1761, in Gordon, _History
      of the American Revolution_, I. letter 2.

 [19] Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 187.

 [20] This duty avoided the letter of the English instructions
      by making the duty payable by the first purchasers, and not by
      the importers. Cf. Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 187.

 [21] Grimke, Public Laws, p. lxviii, Nos. 1485, 1486; Cooper,
      _Statutes_, VII. 430.

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

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

 [24] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of Virginia; details will be found in Appendix A:--

        1710, Duty Act: proposed duty of L5.
        1723,  "    "   prohibitive (?).
        1727,  "    "        "
        1732,  "    "   5%.
        1736,  "    "   "
        1740,  "    "   additional duty of 5%.
        1754,  "    "        "       "     5%.
        1755,  "    "        "       "     10% (Repealed, 1760).
        1757,  "    "        "       "     10% (Repealed, 1761).
        1759,  "    "   20% on colonial slaves.
        1766,  "    "   additional duty of 10% (Disallowed?).
        1769,  "    "        "       "      "        "
        1772,  "    "   L5 on colonial slaves.
              Petition of Burgesses _vs._ Slave-trade.
        1776, Arraignment of the king in the adopted Frame of Government.
        1778, Importation prohibited.

 [25] _Letters of Governor Spotswood_, in _Va. Hist. Soc.
      Coll._, New Ser., I. 52.

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

 [27] _Ibid._, IV. 317, 394; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353;
      VII. 281; VIII. 190, 336, 532.

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

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

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

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

 [32] _Miscellaneous Papers, 1672-1865_, in _Va. Hist. Soc.
      Coll._, New Ser., VI. 14; Tucker, _Blackstone's Commentaries_,
      I. Part II. App., 51.

 [33] Hening, _Statutes_, IX. 112.

 [34] Importation by sea or by land was prohibited, with a
      penalty of L1000 for illegal importation and L500 for buying
      or selling. The <DW64> was freed, if illegally brought in. This
      law was revised somewhat in 1785. Cf. Hening, _Statutes_, IX.
      471; XII. 182.

 [35] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of Maryland; details will be found in Appendix A:--

        1695, Duty Act: 10_s._
        1704,  "    "   20_s._
        1715,  "    "    "
        1717,  "    "   additional duty of 40_s._ (?).
        1754,  "    "      "        "      10_s._, total 50_s._
        1756,  "    "      "        "      20_s._  "     40_s._ (?).
        1763,  "    "      "        "      L2    "     L4.
        1771,  "    "      "        "      L5    "     L9.
        1783, Importation prohibited.

 [36] _Compleat Coll. Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 191;
      Bacon, _Laws of Maryland at Large_, 1728, ch. 8.

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

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

 [39] _Laws of Maryland since 1763_: 1771, ch. 7. Cf. _Ibid._:
      1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. 18.

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

 [41] "The last importation of slaves into Maryland was, as I
      am credibly informed, in the year 1769": William Eddis,
      _Letters from America_ (London, 1792), p. 65, note.

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

        In 1704,    4,475.  _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 605.
         " 1710,    7,935.  _Ibid._
         " 1712,    8,330.  Scharf, _History of Maryland_, I. 377.
         " 1719,   25,000.  _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 605.
         " 1748,   36,000.  McMahon, _History of Maryland_, I. 313.
         " 1755,   46,356.  _Gentleman's Magazine_, XXXIV. 261.
         " 1756,   46,225.  McMahon, _History of Maryland_, I. 313.
         " 1761,   49,675.  Dexter, _Colonial Population_, p. 21, note.
         " 1782,   83,362.  _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (9th ed.), XV. 603.
         " 1787,   80,000.  Dexter, _Colonial Population_, p. 21, note.

                   *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter III_

THE FARMING COLONIES.

  10. Character of these Colonies.
  11. The Dutch Slave-Trade.
  12. Restrictions in New York.
  13. Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
  14. Restrictions in New Jersey.
  15. General Character of these Restrictions.


10. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The colonies of this group, occupying
the central portion of the English possessions, comprise those
communities where, on account of climate, physical characteristics, and
circumstances of settlement, slavery as an institution found but a
narrow field for development. The climate was generally rather cool for
the newly imported slaves, the soil was best suited to crops to which
slave labor was poorly adapted, and the training and habits of the great
body of settlers offered little chance for the growth of a slave system.
These conditions varied, of course, in different colonies; but the
general statement applies to all. These communities of small farmers and
traders derived whatever opposition they had to the slave-trade from
three sorts of motives,--economic, political, and moral. First, the
importation of slaves did not pay, except to supply a moderate demand
for household servants. Secondly, these colonies, as well as those in
the South, had a wholesome political fear of a large servile population.
Thirdly, the settlers of many of these colonies were of sterner moral
fibre than the Southern cavaliers and adventurers, and, in the absence
of great counteracting motives, were more easily led to oppose the
institution and the trade. Finally, it must be noted that these colonies
did not so generally regard themselves as temporary commercial
investments as did Virginia and Carolina. Intending to found permanent
States, these settlers from the first more carefully studied the
ultimate interests of those States.


11. ~The Dutch Slave-Trade.~ The Dutch seem to have commenced the
slave-trade to the American continent, the Middle colonies and some of
the Southern receiving supplies from them. John Rolfe relates that the
last of August, 1619, there came to Virginia "a dutch man of warre that
sold us twenty Negars."[1] This was probably one of the ships of the
numerous private Dutch trading-companies which early entered into and
developed the lucrative African slave-trade. Ships sailed from Holland
to Africa, got slaves in exchange for their goods, carried the slaves to
the West Indies or Brazil, and returned home laden with sugar.[2]
Through the enterprise of one of these trading-companies the settlement
of New Amsterdam was begun, in 1614. In 1621 the private companies
trading in the West were all merged into the Dutch West India Company,
and given a monopoly of American trade. This company was very active,
sending in four years 15,430 <DW64>s to Brazil,[3] carrying on war with
Spain, supplying even the English plantations,[4] and gradually becoming
the great slave carrier of the day.

The commercial supremacy of the Dutch early excited the envy and
emulation of the English. The Navigation Ordinance of 1651 was aimed at
them, and two wars were necessary to wrest the slave-trade from them and
place it in the hands of the English. The final terms of peace among
other things surrendered New Netherland to England, and opened the way
for England to become henceforth the world's greatest slave-trader.
Although the Dutch had thus commenced the continental slave-trade, they
had not actually furnished a very large number of slaves to the English
colonies outside the West Indies. A small trade had, by 1698, brought a
few thousand to New York, and still fewer to New Jersey.[5] It was left
to the English, with their strong policy in its favor, to develop this
trade.


12. ~Restrictions in New York.~[6] The early ordinances of the Dutch,
laying duties, generally of ten per cent, on slaves, probably proved
burdensome to the trade, although this was not intentional.[7] The
Biblical prohibition of slavery and the slave-trade, copied from New
England codes into the Duke of York's Laws, had no practical
application,[8] and the trade continued to be encouraged in the
governors' instructions. In 1709 a duty of L3 was laid on <DW64>s from
elsewhere than Africa.[9] This was aimed at West India slaves, and was
prohibitive. By 1716 the duty on all slaves was L1 121/2_s._, which was
probably a mere revenue figure.[10] In 1728 a duty of 40_s._ was laid,
to be continued until 1737.[11] It proved restrictive, however, and on
the "humble petition of the Merchants and Traders of the City of
Bristol" was disallowed in 1735, as "greatly prejudicial to the Trade
and Navigation of this Kingdom."[12] Governor Cosby was also reminded
that no duties on slaves payable by the importer were to be laid. Later,
in 1753, the 40_s._ duty was restored, but under the increased trade of
those days was not felt.[13] No further restrictions seem to have been
attempted until 1785, when the sale of slaves in the State was
forbidden.[14]

The chief element of restriction in this colony appears to have been the
shrewd business sense of the traders, who never flooded the slave
market, but kept a supply sufficient for the slowly growing demand.
Between 1701 and 1726 only about 2,375 slaves were imported, and in 1774
the total slave population amounted to 21,149.[15] No restriction was
ever put by New York on participation in the trade outside the colony,
and in spite of national laws New York merchants continued to be engaged
in this traffic even down to the Civil War.[16]

Vermont, who withdrew from New York in 1777, in her first
Constitution[17] declared slavery illegal, and in 1786 stopped by law
the sale and transportation of slaves within her boundaries.[18]


13. ~Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.~[19] One of the first
American protests against the slave-trade came from certain German
Friends, in 1688, at a Weekly Meeting held in Germantown, Pennsylvania.
"These are the reasons," wrote "Garret henderich, derick up de graeff,
Francis daniell Pastorius, and Abraham up Den graef," "why we are
against the traffick of men-body, as followeth: Is there any that would
be done or handled at this manner?... Now, tho they are black, we cannot
conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as it is to have
other white ones. There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like
as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation,
descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those
who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"[20] This little
leaven helped slowly to work a revolution in the attitude of this great
sect toward slavery and the slave-trade. The Yearly Meeting at first
postponed the matter, "It having so General a Relation to many other
Parts."[21] Eventually, however, in 1696, the Yearly Meeting advised
"That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more
<DW64>s."[22] This advice was repeated in stronger terms for a
quarter-century,[23] and by that time Sandiford, Benezet, Lay, and
Woolman had begun their crusade. In 1754 the Friends took a step farther
and made the purchase of slaves a matter of discipline.[24] Four years
later the Yearly Meeting expressed itself clearly as "against every
branch of this practice," and declared that if "any professing with us
should persist to vindicate it, and be concerned in importing, selling
or purchasing slaves, the respective Monthly Meetings to which they
belong should manifest their disunion with such persons."[25] Further,
manumission was recommended, and in 1776 made compulsory.[26] The effect
of this attitude of the Friends was early manifested in the legislation
of all the colonies where the sect was influential, and particularly in
Pennsylvania.

One of the first duty acts (1710) laid a restrictive duty of 40_s._ on
slaves, and was eventually disallowed.[27] In 1712 William Southeby
petitioned the Assembly totally to abolish slavery. This the Assembly
naturally refused to attempt; but the same year, in response to another
petition "signed by many hands," they passed an "Act to prevent the
Importation of <DW64>s and Indians,"[28]--the first enactment of its
kind in America. This act was inspired largely by the general fear of
insurrection which succeeded the "<DW64>-plot" of 1712 in New York. It
declared: "Whereas, divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently
happened, not only in the Islands but on the Main Land of _America_, by
<DW64>s, which have been carried on so far that several of the
inhabitants have been barbarously Murthered, an Instance whereof we have
lately had in our Neighboring Colony of _New York_,"[29] etc. It then
proceeded to lay a prohibitive duty of L20 on all slaves imported. These
acts were quickly disposed of in England. Three duty acts affecting
<DW64>s, including the prohibitory act, were in 1713 disallowed, and it
was directed that "the Dep^{ty} Gov^{r} Council and Assembly of
Pensilvania, be & they are hereby Strictly Enjoyned & required not to
permit the said Laws ... to be from henceforward put in Execution."[30]
The Assembly repealed these laws, but in 1715 passed another laying a
duty of L5, which was also eventually disallowed.[31] Other acts, the
provisions of which are not clear, were passed in 1720 and 1722,[32] and
in 1725-1726 the duty on <DW64>s was raised to the restrictive figure of
L10.[33] This duty, for some reason not apparent, was lowered to L2 in
1729,[34] but restored again in 1761.[35] A struggle occurred over this
last measure, the Friends petitioning for it, and the Philadelphia
merchants against it, declaring that "We, the subscribers, ever desirous
to extend the Trade of this Province, have seen, for some time past,
the many inconveniencys the Inhabitants have suffer'd for want of
Labourers and artificers, ... have for some time encouraged the
importation of <DW64>s;" they prayed therefore at least for a delay in
passing the measure.[36] The law, nevertheless, after much debate and
altercation with the governor, finally passed.

These repeated acts nearly stopped the trade, and the manumission or
sale of <DW64>s 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 L20 and make it perpetual.[37] After
the Revolution unpaid duties on slaves were collected and the slaves
registered,[38] and in 1780 an "Act for the gradual Abolition of
Slavery" was passed.[39] As there were probably at no time before the
war more than 11,000 slaves in Pennsylvania,[40] the task thus
accomplished was not so formidable as in many other States. As it was,
participation in the slave-trade outside the colony was not prohibited
until 1788.[41]

It seems probable that in the original Swedish settlements along the
Delaware slavery was prohibited.[42] This measure had, however, little
practical effect; for as soon as the Dutch got control the slave-trade
was opened, although, as it appears, to no large extent. After the fall
of the Dutch Delaware came into English hands. Not until 1775 do we find
any legislation on the slave-trade. In that year the colony attempted
to prohibit the importation of slaves, but the governor vetoed the
bill.[43] Finally, in 1776 by the Constitution, and in 1787 by law,
importation and exportation were both prohibited.[44]


14. ~Restrictions in New Jersey.~[45] Although the freeholders of West
New Jersey declared, in 1676, that "all and every Person and Persons
Inhabiting the said Province, shall, as far as in us lies, be free from
Oppression and Slavery,"[46] yet <DW64> slaves are early found in the
colony.[47] The first restrictive measure was passed, after considerable
friction between the Council and the House, in 1713; it laid a duty of
L10, currency.[48] Governor Hunter explained to the Board of Trade that
the bill was "calculated to Encourage the Importation of white Servants
for the better Peopeling that Country."[49] How long this act continued
does not appear; probably, not long. No further legislation was enacted
until 1762 or 1763, when a prohibitive duty was laid on account of "the
inconvenience the Province is exposed to in lying open to the free
importation of <DW64>s, when the Provinces on each side have laid duties
on them."[50] The Board of Trade declared that while they did not object
to "the Policy of imposing a reasonable duty," they could not assent to
this, and the act was disallowed.[51] The Act of 1769 evaded the
technical objection of the Board of Trade, and laid a duty of L15 on the
first purchasers of <DW64>s, because, as the act declared, "Duties on
the Importation of <DW64>s in several of the neighbouring Colonies
hath, on Experience, been found beneficial in the Introduction of sober,
industrious Foreigners."[52] In 1774 a bill which, according to the
report of the Council to Governor Morris, "plainly intended an entire
Prohibition of all Slaves being imported from foreign Parts," was thrown
out by the Council.[53] Importation was finally prohibited in 1786.[54]


15. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ The main difference in
motive between the restrictions which the planting and the farming
colonies put on the African slave-trade, lay in the fact that the former
limited it mainly from fear of insurrection, the latter mainly because
it did not pay. Naturally, the latter motive worked itself out with much
less legislation than the former; for this reason, and because they held
a smaller number of slaves, most of these colonies have fewer actual
statutes than the Southern colonies. In Pennsylvania alone did this
general economic revolt against the trade acquire a distinct moral
tinge. Although even here the institution was naturally doomed, yet the
clear moral insight of the Quakers checked the trade much earlier than
would otherwise have happened. We may say, then, that the farming
colonies checked the slave-trade primarily from economic motives.


FOOTNOTES:

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

  [2] Cf. Southey, _History of Brazil_.

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

  [4] See, e.g., Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers; Col. Ser.,
      America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, p. 279.

  [5] Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; also _Freedoms_, XXX., in
      O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74_ (ed. 1868), p.
      10; Brodhead, _History of New York_, I. 312.

  [6] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of New York; details will be found in Appendix A:--

        1709, Duty Act: L3 on <DW64>s not direct from Africa
               (Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).
        1711, Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.
        1716, Duty Act:  5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.
                        10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.
        1728,  "    "   40_s._ on Africans, L4 on colonial <DW64>s.
        1732,  "    "   40_s._ on Africans, L4 on colonial <DW64>s.
        1734,  "    "   (?)
        1753,  "    "   40_s._ on Africans, L4 on colonial <DW64>s.
                (This act was annually continued.)
       [1777, Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]
        1785, Sale of slaves in State prohibited.
       [1786,  "         "   in Vermont prohibited.]
        1788,  "         "   in State prohibited.

  [7] O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74_, pp. 31,
      348, etc. The colonists themselves were encouraged to trade,
      but the terms were not favorable enough: _Doc. rel. Col. Hist.
      New York_, I. 246; _Laws of New Netherland_, pp. 81-2, note,
      127. The colonists declared "that they are inclined to a
      foreign Trade, and especially to the Coast of _Africa_, ... in
      order to fetch thence Slaves": O'Callaghan, _Voyages of the
      Slavers_, etc., p. 172.

  [8] _Charter to William Penn_, etc. (1879), p. 12. First
      published on Long Island in 1664. Possibly <DW64> slaves were
      explicitly excepted. Cf. _Magazine of American History_, XI.
      411, and _N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, I. 322.

  [9] _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, pp. 97, 125, 134; _Doc.
      rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 178, 185, 293.

 [10] The Assembly attempted to raise the slave duty in 1711,
      but the Council objected (_Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V.
      292 ff.), although, as it seems, not on account of the slave
      duty in particular. Another act was passed between 1711 and
      1716, but its contents are not known (cf. title of the Act of
      1716). For the Act of 1716, see _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_,
      p. 224.

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

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

 [13] _Ibid._, VII. 907. This act was annually renewed. The
      slave duty remained a chief source of revenue down to 1774.
      Cf. _Report of Governor Tryon_, in _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New
      York_, VIII. 452.

 [14] _Laws of New York, 1785-88_ (ed. 1886), ch. 68, p. 121.
      Substantially the same act reappears in the revision of the
      laws of 1788: _Ibid._, ch. 40, p. 676.

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

      In 1698,   2,170. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, IV. 420.
       " 1703,   2,258. _N.Y. Col. MSS._, XLVIII.; cited in Hough,
                          _N.Y. Census, 1855_, Introd.
       " 1712,   2,425. _Ibid._, LVII., LIX. (a partial census).
       " 1723,   6,171. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 702.
       " 1731,   7,743. _Ibid._, V. 929.
       " 1737,   8,941. _Ibid._, VI. 133.
       " 1746,   9,107. _Ibid._, VI. 392.
       " 1749,  10,692. _Ibid._, VI. 550.
       " 1756,  13,548. _London Doc._, XLIV. 123; cited in Hough,
                          as above.
       " 1771,  19,863. _Ibid._, XLIV. 144; cited in Hough, as above.
       " 1774,  21,149. _Ibid._,   "    "     "        "        "
       " 1786,  18,889. _Deeds in office Sec. of State_, XXII. 35.

      Total number of Africans imported from 1701 to 1726, 2,375,
      of whom 802 were from Africa: O'Callaghan, _Documentary
      History of New York_, I. 482.

 [16] Cf. below, Chapter XI.

 [17] _Vermont State Papers, 1779-86_, p. 244. The return of
      sixteen slaves in Vermont, by the first census, was an error:
      _New England Record_, XXIX. 249.

 [18] _Vermont State Papers_, p. 505.

 [19] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of Pennsylvania and Delaware; details will be found in
      Appendix A:--

      1705, Duty Act: (?).
      1710,   "   "   40_s._ (Disallowed).
      1712,   "   "   L20       "
      1712,   "   "   supplementary to the Act of 1710.
      1715,   "   "   L5 (Disallowed).
      1718,   "   "
      1720,   "   "   (?).
      1722,   "   "   (?).
      1725-6, "   "   L10.
      1726,   "   "
      1729,   "   "   L2.
      1761,   "   "   L10.
      1761,   "   "   (?).
      1768,   "   "   re-enactment of the Act of 1761.
      1773,   "   "   perpetual additional duty of L10; total, L20.
      1775, Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor (Delaware).
      1775, Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor.
      1778, Back duties on slaves ordered collected.
      1780, Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.
      1787, Act to prevent the exportation of slaves (Delaware).
      1788, Act to prevent the slave-trade.

 [20] From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.
      Cf. Whittier's poem, "Pennsylvania Hall" (_Poetical Works_,
      Riverside ed., III. 62); and Proud, _History of Pennsylvania_
      (1797), I. 219.

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

 [22] Bettle, _Notices of <DW64> Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc.
      Mem._ (1864), I. 383.

 [23] Cf. Bettle, _Notices of <DW64> Slavery, passim_.

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

 [25] _Ibid._, III. 317.

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

 [27] _Penn. Col. Rec._ (1852), II. 530; Bettle, in _Penn.
      Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 415.

 [28] _Laws of Pennsylvania, collected_, etc., 1714, p. 165;
      Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 387.

 [29] See preamble of the act.

 [30] The Pennsylvanians did not allow their laws to reach
      England until long after they were passed: _Penn. Archives_,
      I. 161-2; _Col. Rec._, II. 572-3. These acts were disallowed
      Feb. 20, 1713. Another duty act was passed in 1712,
      supplementary to the Act of 1710 (_Col. Rec._, II. 553). The
      contents are unknown.

 [31] _Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania_, 1715, p. 270; Chalmers,
      _Opinions_, II. 118. Before the disallowance was known, the
      act had been continued by the Act of 1718: Carey and Bioren,
      _Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700-1802_, I. 118; _Penn. Col. Rec._,
      III. 38.

 [32] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 165; _Penn. Col. Rec._, III.
      171; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 389, note.

 [33] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 214; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist.
      Soc. Mem._, I. 388. Possibly there were two acts this year.

 [34] _Laws of Pennsylvania_ (ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287.
      Possibly some change in the currency made this change appear
      greater than it was.

 [35] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 371; _Acts of Assembly_ (ed.
      1782), p. 149; Dallas, _Laws_, I. 406, ch. 379. This act was
      renewed in 1768: Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 451; _Penn. Col.
      Rec._, IX. 472, 637, 641.

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

 [37] A large petition called for this bill. Much altercation
      ensued with the governor: Dallas, _Laws_, I. 671, ch. 692;
      _Penn. Col. Rec._, X. 77; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._,
      I. 388-9.

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

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

 [40] There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in
      this colony:--

      In 1721, 2,500-5,000. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 604.
       " 1754, 11,000. Bancroft, _Hist. of United States_ (1883),
                 II. 391.
       " 1760, very few." Burnaby, _Travels through N. Amer._ (2d ed.),
                 p. 81.
       " 1775, 2,000. _Penn. Archives_, IV 597.

 [41] Dallas, _Laws_, II. 586.

 [42] Cf. _Argonautica Gustaviana_, pp. 21-3; _Del. Hist. Soc.
      Papers_, III. 10; _Hazard's Register_, IV. 221, Sec.Sec. 23, 24;
      _Hazard's Annals_, p. 372; Armstrong, _Record of Upland
      Court_, pp. 29-30, and notes.

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

 [44] _Ibid._, 5th Ser., I. 1178; _Laws of Delaware, 1797_
      (Newcastle ed.), p. 884, ch. 145 b.

 [45] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of New Jersey; details will be found in Appendix A:--

        1713,     Duty Act: L10.
        1763 (?), Duty Act.
        1769,      "    "   L15.
        1774,      "    "   L5 on Africans, L10 on colonial <DW64>s.
        1786,  Importation prohibited.

 [46] Leaming and Spicer, _Grants, Concessions_, etc., p. 398.
      Probably this did not refer to <DW64>s at all.

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

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

 [49] _N.J. Archives_, IV. 196. There was much difficulty in
      passing the bill: _Ibid._, XIII. 516-41.

 [50] _Ibid._, IX. 345-6. The exact provisions of the act I
      have not found.

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

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

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

 [54] _Acts of the 10th General Assembly_, May 2, 1786. There
      are two estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:--

         In 1738,   3,981. _American Annals_, II. 127.
         "  1754,   4,606.        "      "         II. 143.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter IV_

THE TRADING COLONIES.

  16. Character of these Colonies.
  17. New England and the Slave-Trade.
  18. Restrictions in New Hampshire.
  19. Restrictions in Massachusetts.
  20. Restrictions in Rhode Island.
  21. Restrictions in Connecticut.
  22. General Character of these Restrictions.


16. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The rigorous climate of New England,
the character of her settlers, and their pronounced political views gave
slavery an even slighter basis here than in the Middle colonies. The
significance of New England in the African slave-trade does not
therefore lie in the fact that she early discountenanced the system of
slavery and stopped importation; but rather in the fact that her
citizens, being the traders of the New World, early took part in the
carrying slave-trade and furnished slaves to the other colonies. An
inquiry, therefore, into the efforts of the New England colonies to
suppress the slave-trade would fall naturally into two parts: first, and
chiefly, an investigation of the efforts to stop the participation of
citizens in the carrying slave-trade; secondly, an examination of the
efforts made to banish the slave-trade from New England soil.


17. ~New England and the Slave-Trade.~ Vessels from Massachusetts,[1]
Rhode Island,[2] Connecticut,[3] and, to a less extent, from New
Hampshire,[4] were early and largely engaged in the carrying
slave-trade. "We know," said Thomas Pemberton in 1795, "that a large
trade to Guinea was carried on for many years by the citizens of
Massachusetts Colony, who were the proprietors of the vessels and their
cargoes, out and home. Some of the slaves purchased in Guinea, and I
suppose the greatest part of them, were sold in the West Indies."[5] Dr.
John Eliot asserted that "it made a considerable branch of our
commerce.... It declined very little till the Revolution."[6] Yet the
trade of this colony was said not to equal that of Rhode Island. Newport
was the mart for slaves offered for sale in the North, and a point of
reshipment for all slaves. It was principally this trade that raised
Newport to her commercial importance in the eighteenth century.[7]
Connecticut, too, was an important slave-trader, sending large numbers
of horses and other commodities to the West Indies in exchange for
slaves, and selling the slaves in other colonies.

This trade formed a perfect circle. Owners of slavers carried slaves to
South Carolina, and brought home naval stores for their ship-building;
or to the West Indies, and brought home molasses; or to other colonies,
and brought home hogsheads. The molasses was made into the highly prized
New England rum, and shipped in these hogsheads to Africa for more
slaves.[8] Thus, the rum-distilling industry indicates to some extent
the activity of New England in the slave-trade. In May, 1752, one
Captain Freeman found so many slavers fitting out that, in spite of the
large importations of molasses, he could get no rum for his vessel.[9]
In Newport alone twenty-two stills were at one time running
continuously;[10] and Massachusetts annually distilled 15,000 hogsheads
of molasses into this "chief manufacture."[11]

Turning now to restrictive measures, we must first note the measures of
the slave-consuming colonies which tended to limit the trade. These
measures, however, came comparatively late, were enforced with varying
degrees of efficiency, and did not seriously affect the slave-trade
before the Revolution. The moral sentiment of New England put some check
upon the trade. Although in earlier times the most respectable people
took ventures in slave-trading voyages, yet there gradually arose a
moral sentiment which tended to make the business somewhat
disreputable.[12] In the line, however, of definite legal enactments to
stop New England citizens from carrying slaves from Africa to any place
in the world, there were, before the Revolution, none. Indeed, not until
the years 1787-1788 was slave-trading in itself an indictable offence in
any New England State.

The particular situation in each colony, and the efforts to restrict the
small importing slave-trade of New England, can best be studied in a
separate view of each community.


18. ~Restrictions in New Hampshire.~ The statistics of slavery in New
Hampshire show how weak an institution it always was in that colony.[13]
Consequently, when the usual instructions were sent to Governor
Wentworth as to the encouragement he must give to the slave-trade, the
House replied: "We have considered his Maj^{ties} Instruction relating
to an Impost on <DW64>s & Felons, to which this House answers, that
there never was any duties laid on either, by this Goverm^{t}, and so
few bro't in that it would not be worth the Publick notice, so as to
make an act concerning them."[14] This remained true for the whole
history of the colony. Importation was never stopped by actual
enactment, but was eventually declared contrary to the Constitution of
1784.[15] The participation of citizens in the trade appears never to
have been forbidden.


19. ~Restrictions in Massachusetts.~ The early Biblical codes of
Massachusetts confined slavery to "lawfull Captives taken in iust
warres, & such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to
us."[16] The stern Puritanism of early days endeavored to carry this out
literally, and consequently when a certain Captain Smith, about 1640,
attacked an African village and brought some of the unoffending natives
home, he was promptly arrested. Eventually, the General Court ordered
the <DW64>s sent home at the colony's expense, "conceiving themselues
bound by y^e first oportunity to bear witnes against y^e haynos & crying
sinn of manstealing, as also to P'scribe such timely redresse for what
is past, & such a law for y^e future as may sufficiently deterr all
oth^{r}s belonging to us to have to do in such vile & most odious
courses, iustly abhored of all good & iust men."[17]

The temptation of trade slowly forced the colony from this high moral
ground. New England ships were early found in the West Indian
slave-trade, and the more the carrying trade developed, the more did the
profits of this branch of it attract Puritan captains. By the beginning
of the eighteenth century the slave-trade was openly recognized as
legitimate commerce; cargoes came regularly to Boston, and "The
merchants of Boston quoted <DW64>s, like any other merchandise demanded
by their correspondents."[18] At the same time, the Puritan conscience
began to rebel against the growth of actual slavery on New England soil.
It was a much less violent wrenching of moral ideas of right and wrong
to allow Massachusetts men to carry slaves to South Carolina than to
allow cargoes to come into Boston, and become slaves in Massachusetts.
Early in the eighteenth century, therefore, opposition arose to the
further importation of <DW64>s, and in 1705 an act "for the Better
Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," laid a restrictive duty of L4
on all slaves imported.[19] One provision of this act plainly
illustrates the attitude of Massachusetts: like the acts of many of the
New England colonies, it allowed a rebate of the whole duty on
re-exportation. The harbors of New England were thus offered as a free
exchange-mart for slavers. All the duty acts of the Southern and Middle
colonies allowed a rebate of one-half or three-fourths of the duty on
the re-exportation of the slave, thus laying a small tax on even
temporary importation.

The Act of 1705 was evaded, but it was not amended until 1728, when the
penalty for evasion was raised to L100.[20] The act remained in force,
except possibly for one period of four years, until 1749. Meantime the
movement against importation grew. A bill "for preventing the
Importation of Slaves into this Province" was introduced in the
Legislature in 1767, but after strong opposition and disagreement
between House and Council it was dropped.[21] In 1771 the struggle was
renewed. A similar bill passed, but was vetoed by Governor
Hutchinson.[22] The imminent war and the discussions incident to it had
now more and more aroused public opinion, and there were repeated
attempts to gain executive consent to a prohibitory law. In 1774 such a
bill was twice passed, but never received assent.[23]

The new Revolutionary government first met the subject in the case of
two <DW64>s captured on the high seas, who were advertised for sale at
Salem. A resolution was introduced into the Legislature, directing the
release of the <DW64>s, 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 <DW64>s.[24] Committees on the
slavery question were appointed in 1776 and 1777,[25] and although a
letter to Congress on the matter, and a bill for the abolition of
slavery were reported, no decisive action was taken.

All such efforts were finally discontinued, as the system was already
practically extinct in Massachusetts and the custom of importation had
nearly ceased. Slavery was eventually declared by judicial decision to
have been abolished.[26] The first step toward stopping the
participation of Massachusetts citizens in the slave-trade outside the
State was taken in 1785, when a committee of inquiry was appointed by
the Legislature.[27] No act was, however, passed until 1788, when
participation in the trade was prohibited, on pain of L50 forfeit for
every slave and L200 for every ship engaged.[28]


20. ~Restrictions in Rhode Island.~ In 1652 Rhode Island passed a law
designed to prohibit life slavery in the colony. It declared that
"Whereas, there is a common course practised amongst English men to buy
negers, to that end they may have them for service or slaves forever;
for the preventinge of such practices among us, let it be ordered, that
no blacke mankind or white being forced by covenant bond, or otherwise,
to serve any man or his assighnes longer than ten yeares, or untill they
come to bee twentie four yeares of age, if they bee taken in under
fourteen, from the time of their cominge within the liberties of this
Collonie. And at the end or terme of ten yeares to sett them free, as
the manner is with the English servants. And that man that will not let
them goe free, or shall sell them away elsewhere, to that end that they
may bee enslaved to others for a long time, hee or they shall forfeit to
the Collonie forty pounds."[29]

This law was for a time enforced,[30] but by the beginning of the
eighteenth century it had either been repealed or become a dead letter;
for the Act of 1708 recognized perpetual slavery, and laid an impost of
L3 on <DW64>s imported.[31] This duty was really a tax on the transport
trade, and produced a steady income for twenty years.[32] From the year
1700 on, the citizens of this State engaged more and more in the
carrying trade, until Rhode Island became the greatest slave-trader in
America. Although she did not import many slaves for her own use, she
became the clearing-house for the trade of other colonies. Governor
Cranston, as early as 1708, reported that between 1698 and 1708 one
hundred and three vessels were built in the State, all of which were
trading to the West Indies and the Southern colonies.[33] They took out
lumber and brought back molasses, in most cases making a slave voyage in
between. From this, the trade grew. Samuel Hopkins, about 1770, was
shocked at the state of the trade: more than thirty distilleries were
running in the colony, and one hundred and fifty vessels were in the
slave-trade.[34] "Rhode Island," said he, "has been more deeply
interested in the slave-trade, and has enslaved more Africans than any
other colony in New England." Later, in 1787, he wrote: "The inhabitants
of Rhode Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the
greater share in this traffic, of all these United States. This trade in
human species has been the first wheel of commerce in Newport, on which
every other movement in business has chiefly depended. That town has
been built up, and flourished in times past, at the expense of the
blood, the liberty, and happiness of the poor Africans; and the
inhabitants have lived on this, and by it have gotten most of their
wealth and riches."[35]

The Act of 1708 was poorly enforced. The "good intentions" of its
framers "were wholly frustrated" by the clandestine "hiding and
conveying said <DW64>s out of the town [Newport] into the country, where
they lie concealed."[36] The act was accordingly strengthened by the
Acts of 1712 and 1715, and made to apply to importations by land as well
as by sea.[37] The Act of 1715, however, favored the trade by admitting
African <DW64>s free of duty. The chaotic state of Rhode Island did not
allow England often to review her legislation; but as soon as the Act of
1712 came to notice it was disallowed, and accordingly repealed in
1732.[38] Whether the Act of 1715 remained, or whether any other duty
act was passed, is not clear.

While the foreign trade was flourishing, the influence of the Friends
and of other causes eventually led to a movement against slavery as a
local institution. Abolition societies multiplied, and in 1770 an
abolition bill was ordered by the Assembly, but it was never passed.[39]
Four years later the city of Providence resolved that "as personal
liberty is an essential part of the natural rights of mankind," the
importation of slaves and the system of slavery should cease in the
colony.[40] This movement finally resulted, in 1774, in an act
"prohibiting the importation of <DW64>s 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 <DW64> 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 <DW64> or mulatto slave brought from the coast of Africa,
into the West Indies, on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and
which <DW64> 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 <DW64> or mulatto slave give bond ... that such <DW64> or mulatto
slave shall be exported out of the colony, within one year from the date
of such bond; if such <DW64> or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to
be removed."[41]

In 1779 an act to prevent the sale of slaves out of the State was
passed,[42] and in 1784, an act gradually to abolish slavery.[43] Not
until 1787 did an act pass to forbid participation in the slave-trade.
This law laid a penalty of L100 for every slave transported and L1000
for every vessel so engaged.[44]


21. ~Restrictions in Connecticut.~ Connecticut, in common with the other
colonies of this section, had a trade for many years with the West
Indian slave markets; and though this trade was much smaller than that
of the neighboring colonies, yet many of her citizens were engaged in
it. A map of Middletown at the time of the Revolution gives, among one
hundred families, three slave captains and "three notables" designated
as "slave-dealers."[45]

The actual importation was small,[46] and almost entirely unrestricted
before the Revolution, save by a few light, general duty acts. In 1774
the further importation of slaves was prohibited, because "the increase
of slaves in this Colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient." The
law prohibited importation under any pretext by a penalty of L100 per
slave.[47] This was re-enacted in 1784, and provisions were made for the
abolition of slavery.[48] In 1788 participation in the trade was
forbidden, and the penalty placed at L50 for each slave and L500 for
each ship engaged.[49]


22. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ Enough has already been
said to show, in the main, the character of the opposition to the
slave-trade in New England. The system of slavery had, on this soil and
amid these surroundings, no economic justification, and the small number
of <DW64>s here furnished no political arguments against them. The
opposition to the importation was therefore from the first based solely
on moral grounds, with some social arguments. As to the carrying trade,
however, the case was different. Here, too, a feeble moral opposition
was early aroused, but it was swept away by the immense economic
advantages of the slave traffic to a thrifty seafaring community of
traders. This trade no moral suasion, not even the strong "Liberty" cry
of the Revolution, was able wholly to suppress, until the closing of the
West Indian and Southern markets cut off the demand for slaves.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_,
      II. 449-72; G.H. Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_; Charles
      Deane, _Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery_.

  [2] Cf. _American Historical Record_, I. 311, 338.

  [3] Cf. W.C. Fowler, _Local Law in Massachusetts and
      Connecticut_, etc., pp. 122-6.

  [4] _Ibid._, p. 124.

  [5] Deane, _Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in
      Massachusetts_, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III.
      392.

  [6] _Ibid._, III. 382.

  [7] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II.
      454.

  [8] A typical voyage is that of the brigantine "Sanderson" of
      Newport. She was fitted out in March, 1752, and carried,
      beside the captain, two mates and six men, and a cargo of
      8,220 gallons of rum, together with "African" iron, flour,
      pots, tar, sugar, and provisions, shackles, shirts, and water.
      Proceeding to Africa, the captain after some difficulty sold
      his cargo for slaves, and in April, 1753, he is expected in
      Barbadoes, as the consignees write. They also state that
      slaves are selling at L33 to L56 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 L1,324 3_d._ The captain
      then took on board 55 hhd. of molasses and 3 hhd. 27 bbl. of
      sugar, amounting to L911 77_s._ 21/2_d._, received bills on
      Liverpool for the balance, and returned in safety to Rhode
      Island. He had done so well that he was immediately given a
      new ship and sent to Africa again. _American Historical
      Record_, I. 315-9, 338-42.

  [9] _Ibid._, I. 316.

 [10] _American Historical Record_, I. 317.

 [11] _Ibid._, I. 344; cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History
      of New England_, II. 459.

 [12] Cf. _New England Register_, XXXI. 75-6, letter of John
      Saffin _et al._ to Welstead. Cf. also Sewall, _Protest_, etc.

 [13] The number of slaves in New Hampshire has been estimated
      as follows:

        In 1730,    200.   _N.H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, I. 229.
         " 1767,    633.   _Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.
         " 1773,    681.   _Ibid._
         " 1773,    674.   _N.H. Province Papers_, X. 636.
         " 1775,    479.   _Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.
         " 1790,    158.   _Ibid._

 [14] _N.H. Province Papers_, IV. 617.

 [15] _Granite Monthly_, VI. 377; Poore, _Federal and State
      Constitutions_, pp. 1280-1.

 [16] Cf. _The Body of Liberties_, Sec. 91, in Whitmore,
      _Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts
      Colony_, published at Boston in 1890.

 [17] _Mass. Col. Rec._, II. 168, 176; III. 46, 49, 84.

 [18] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II.
      456.

 [19] _Mass. Province Laws, 1705-6_, ch. 10.

 [20] _Ibid._, _1728-9_, ch. 16; _1738-9_, ch. 27.

 [21] For petitions of towns, cf. Felt, _Annals of Salem_
      (1849), II. 416; _Boston Town Records, 1758-69_, p. 183. Cf.
      also Otis's anti-slavery speech in 1761; John Adams, _Works_,
      X. 315. For proceedings, see _House Journal_, 1767, pp. 353,
      358, 387, 390, 393, 408, 409-10, 411, 420. Cf. Samuel Dexter's
      answer to Dr. Belknap's inquiry, Feb. 23, 1795, in Deane
      (_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 385). A committee on
      slave importation was appointed in 1764. Cf. _House Journal_,
      1763-64, p. 170.

 [22] _House Journal_, 1771, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236,
      240, 242-3; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 131-2.

 [23] Felt, _Annals of Salem_ (1849), II. 416-7; Swan,
      _Dissuasion to Great Britain_, etc. (1773), p. x; Washburn,
      _Historical Sketches of Leicester, Mass._, pp. 442-3; Freeman,
      _History of Cape Cod_, II. 114; Deane, in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
      Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 432; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_,
      pp. 135-40; Williams, _History of the <DW64> Race in America_,
      I. 234-6; _House Journal_, March, 1774, pp. 224, 226, 237,
      etc.; June, 1774, pp. 27, 41, etc. For a copy of the bill, see
      Moore.

 [24] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 1855-58_, p. 196; Force,
      _American Archives_, 5th Ser., II. 769; _House Journal_, 1776,
      pp. 105-9; _General Court Records_, March 13, 1776, etc., pp.
      581-9; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 149-54. Cf.
      Moore, pp. 163-76.

 [25] Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 148-9, 181-5.

 [26] Washburn, _Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts_;
      Haynes, _Struggle for the Constitution in Massachusetts_; La
      Rochefoucauld, _Travels through the United States_, II. 166.

 [27] Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, p. 225.

 [28] _Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780-89_, p. 235. The
      number of slaves in Massachusetts has been estimated as
      follows:--

      In 1676,     200. Randolph's _Report_, in _Hutchinson's Coll.
                     of Papers_, p. 485.
      "  1680,     120. Deane, _Connection of Mass. with Slavery_,
                     p. 28 ff.
      "  1708,     550. _Ibid._; Moore, _Slavery in Mass._, p. 50.
      "  1720,   2,000. _Ibid._
      "  1735,   2,600. Deane, _Connection of Mass. with Slavery_,
                     p. 28 ff.
      "  1749,   3,000. _Ibid._
      "  1754,   4,489. _Ibid._
      "  1763,   5,000. _Ibid._
      "  1764-5, 5,779. _Ibid._
      "  1776,   5,249. _Ibid._
      "  1784,   4,377. Moore, _Slavery in Mass._, p. 51.
      "  1786,   4,371. _Ibid._
      "  1790,   6,001. _Ibid._

 [29] _R.I. Col. Rec._, I. 240.

 [30] Cf. letter written in 1681: _New England Register_, XXXI.
      75-6. Cf. also Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, I. 240.

 [31] The text of this act is lost (_Col. Rec._, IV. 34;
      Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 31). The Acts of Rhode
      Island were not well preserved, the first being published in
      Boston in 1719. Perhaps other whole acts are lost.

 [32] E.g., it was expended to pave the streets of Newport, to
      build bridges, etc.: _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 191-3, 225.

 [33] _Ibid._, IV. 55-60.

 [34] Patten, _Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins_ (1843), p. 80.

 [35] Hopkins, _Works_ (1854), II. 615.

 [36] Preamble of the Act of 1712.

 [37] _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 131-5, 138, 143, 191-3.

 [38] _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 471.

 [39] Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 304, 321, 337. For
      a probable copy of the bill, see _Narragansett Historical
      Register_, II. 299.

 [40] A man dying intestate left slaves, who became thus the
      property of the city; they were freed, and the town made the
      above resolve, May 17, 1774, in town meeting: Staples, _Annals
      of Providence_ (1843), p. 236.

 [41] _R.I. Col. Rec._, VII. 251-2.

 [42] _Bartlett's Index_, p. 329; Arnold, _History of Rhode
      Island_, II. 444; _R.I. Col. Rec._, VIII. 618.

 [43] _R.I. Col. Rec._, X. 7-8; Arnold, _History of Rhode
      Island_, II. 506.

 [44] _Bartlett's Index_, p. 333; _Narragansett Historical
      Register_, II. 298-9. The number of slaves in Rhode Island has
      been estimated as follows:--

      In 1708,    426. _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 59.
       " 1730,  1,648. _R.I. Hist. Tracts_, No. 19, pt. 2, p. 99.
       " 1749,  3,077. Williams, _History of the <DW64> Race in America_,
                         I. 281.
       " 1756,  4,697. _Ibid._
       " 1774,  3,761. _R.I. Col. Rec._, VII. 253.

 [45] Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 124.

 [46] The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as
      follows:--

      In 1680,     30.  _Conn. Col. Rec._, III. 298.
       " 1730,    700.  Williams, _History of the <DW64> Race in America_,
                          I. 259.
       " 1756,  3,636.  Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.
       " 1762,  4,590.  Williams, _History of the <DW64> Race in America_,
                          I. 260.
       " 1774,  6,562.  Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.
       " 1782,  6,281.  Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.
       " 1800,  5,281.  _Ibid._, p. 141.

 [47] _Conn. Col. Rec._, XIV 329. Fowler (pp. 125-6) says that
      the law was passed in 1769, as does Sanford (p. 252). I find
      no proof of this. There was in Connecticut the same Biblical
      legislation on the trade as in Massachusetts. Cf. _Laws of
      Connecticut_ (repr. 1865), p. 9; also _Col. Rec._, I. 77. For
      general duty acts, see _Col. Rec._, V 405; VIII. 22; IX. 283;
      XIII. 72, 125.

 [48] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp. 233-4.

 [49] _Ibid._, pp. 368, 369, 388.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter V_

THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION. 1774-1787.

  23. The Situation in 1774.
  24. The Condition of the Slave-Trade.
  25. The Slave-Trade and the "Association."
  26. The Action of the Colonies.
  27. The Action of the Continental Congress.
  28. Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.
  29. Results of the Resolution.
  30. The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.
  31. The Action of the Confederation.


23. ~The Situation in 1774.~ In the individual efforts of the various
colonies to suppress the African slave-trade there may be traced certain
general movements. First, from 1638 to 1664, there was a tendency to
take a high moral stand against the traffic. This is illustrated in the
laws of New England, in the plans for the settlement of Delaware and,
later, that of Georgia, and in the protest of the German Friends. The
second period, from about 1664 to 1760, has no general unity, but is
marked by statutes laying duties varying in design from encouragement to
absolute prohibition, by some cases of moral opposition, and by the slow
but steady growth of a spirit unfavorable to the long continuance of the
trade. The last colonial period, from about 1760 to 1787, is one of
pronounced effort to regulate, limit, or totally prohibit the traffic.
Beside these general movements, there are many waves of legislation,
easily distinguishable, which rolled over several or all of the colonies
at various times, such as the series of high duties following the
Assiento, and the acts inspired by various <DW64> "plots."

Notwithstanding this, the laws of the colonies before 1774 had no
national unity, the peculiar circumstances of each colony determining
its legislation. With the outbreak of the Revolution came unison in
action with regard to the slave-trade, as with regard to other matters,
which may justly be called national. It was, of course, a critical
period,--a period when, in the rapid upheaval of a few years, the
complicated and diverse forces of decades meet, combine, act, and react,
until the resultant seems almost the work of chance. In the settlement
of the fate of slavery and the slave-trade, however, the real crisis
came in the calm that succeeded the storm, in that day when, in the
opinion of most men, the question seemed already settled. And indeed it
needed an exceptionally clear and discerning mind, in 1787, to deny that
slavery and the slave-trade in the United States of America were doomed
to early annihilation. It seemed certainly a legitimate deduction from
the history of the preceding century to conclude that, as the system had
risen, flourished, and fallen in Massachusetts, New York, and
Pennsylvania, and as South Carolina, Virginia, and Maryland were
apparently following in the same legislative path, the next generation
would in all probability witness the last throes of the system on our
soil.

To be sure, the problem had its uncertain quantities. The motives of the
law-makers in South Carolina and Pennsylvania were dangerously
different; the century of industrial expansion was slowly dawning and
awakening that vast economic revolution in which American slavery was to
play so prominent and fatal a role; and, finally, there were already in
the South faint signs of a changing moral attitude toward slavery, which
would no longer regard the system as a temporary makeshift, but rather
as a permanent though perhaps unfortunate necessity. With regard to the
slave-trade, however, there appeared to be substantial unity of opinion;
and there were, in 1787, few things to indicate that a cargo of five
hundred African slaves would openly be landed in Georgia in 1860.


24. ~The Condition of the Slave-Trade.~ In 1760 England, the chief
slave-trading nation, was sending on an average to Africa 163 ships
annually, with a tonnage of 18,000 tons, carrying exports to the value
of L163,818. Only about twenty of these ships regularly returned to
England. Most of them carried slaves to the West Indies, and returned
laden with sugar and other products. Thus may be formed some idea of the
size and importance of the slave-trade at that time, although for a
complete view we must add to this the trade under the French,
Portuguese, Dutch, and Americans. The trade fell off somewhat toward
1770, but was flourishing again when the Revolution brought a sharp and
serious check upon it, bringing down the number of English slavers,
clearing, from 167 in 1774 to 28 in 1779, and the tonnage from 17,218 to
3,475 tons. After the war the trade gradually recovered, and by 1786 had
reached nearly its former extent. In 1783 the British West Indies
received 16,208 <DW64>s 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 L180,000 annually in goods to Africa in
exchange for <DW64>s.[1]


25. ~The Slave-Trade and the "Association."~ At the outbreak of the
Revolution six main reasons, some of which were old and of slow growth,
others peculiar to the abnormal situation of that time, led to concerted
action against the slave-trade. The first reason was the economic
failure of slavery in the Middle and Eastern colonies; this gave rise to
the presumption that like failure awaited the institution in the South.
Secondly, the new philosophy of "Freedom" and the "Rights of man," which
formed the corner-stone of the Revolution, made the dullest realize
that, at the very least, the slave-trade and a struggle for "liberty"
were not consistent. Thirdly, the old fear of slave insurrections, which
had long played so prominent a part in legislation, now gained new power
from the imminence of war and from the well-founded fear that the
British might incite servile uprisings. Fourthly, nearly all the
American slave markets were, in 1774-1775, overstocked with slaves, and
consequently many of the strongest partisans of the system were "bulls"
on the market, and desired to raise the value of their slaves by at
least a temporary stoppage of the trade. Fifthly, since the vested
interests of the slave-trading merchants were liable to be swept away by
the opening of hostilities, and since the price of slaves was low,[2]
there was from this quarter little active opposition to a cessation of
the trade for a season. Finally, it was long a favorite belief of the
supporters of the Revolution that, as English exploitation of colonial
resources had caused the quarrel, the best weapon to bring England to
terms was the economic expedient of stopping all commercial intercourse
with her. Since, then, the slave-trade had ever formed an important part
of her colonial traffic, it was one of the first branches of commerce
which occurred to the colonists as especially suited to their ends.[3]

Such were the complicated moral, political, and economic motives which
underlay the first national action against the slave-trade. This action
was taken by the "Association," a union of the colonies entered into to
enforce the policy of stopping commercial intercourse with England. The
movement was not a great moral protest against an iniquitous traffic;
although it had undoubtedly a strong moral backing, it was primarily a
temporary war measure.


26. ~The Action of the Colonies.~ The earlier and largely abortive
attempts to form non-intercourse associations generally did not mention
slaves specifically, although the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 11,
1769, recommended to merchants and traders, among other things, to
agree, "That they will not import any slaves, or purchase any imported
after the first day of November next, until the said acts are
repealed."[4] Later, in 1774, when a Faneuil Hall meeting started the
first successful national attempt at non-intercourse, the slave-trade,
being at the time especially flourishing, received more attention. Even
then slaves were specifically mentioned in the resolutions of but three
States. Rhode Island recommended a stoppage of "all trade with Great
Britain, Ireland, Africa and the West Indies."[5] North Carolina, in
August, 1774, resolved in convention "That we will not import any slave
or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves, imported or brought into
this Province by others, from any part of the world, after the first day
of _November_ next."[6] Virginia gave the slave-trade especial
prominence, and was in reality the leading spirit to force her views on
the Continental Congress. The county conventions of that colony first
took up the subject. Fairfax County thought "that during our present
difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported," and said:
"We take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an
entire stop forever put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural
trade."[7] Prince George and Nansemond Counties resolved "That the
_African_ trade is injurious to this Colony, obstructs the population of
it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants from
_Europe_ from settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of
the balance of trade against this Colony."[8] The Virginia colonial
convention, August, 1774, also declared: "We will neither ourselves
import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person,
after the first day of _November_ next, either from _Africa_, the _West
Indies_, or any other place."[9]

In South Carolina, at the convention July 6, 1774, decided opposition to
the non-importation scheme was manifested, though how much this was due
to the slave-trade interest is not certain. Many of the delegates wished
at least to limit the powers of their representatives, and the
Charleston Chamber of Commerce flatly opposed the plan of an
"Association." Finally, however, delegates with full powers were sent to
Congress. The arguments leading to this step were not in all cases on
the score of patriotism; a Charleston manifesto argued: "The planters
are greatly in arrears to the merchants; a stoppage of importation would
give them all an opportunity to extricate themselves from debt. The
merchants would have time to settle their accounts, and be ready with
the return of liberty to renew trade."[10]


27. ~The Action of the Continental Congress.~ The first Continental
Congress met September 5, 1774, and on September 22 recommended
merchants to send no more orders for foreign goods.[11] On September 27
"Mr. Lee made a motion for a non-importation," and it was unanimously
resolved to import no goods from Great Britain after December 1,
1774.[12] Afterward, Ireland and the West Indies were also included, and
a committee consisting of Low of New York, Mifflin of Pennsylvania, Lee
of Virginia, and Johnson of Connecticut were appointed "to bring in a
Plan for carrying into Effect the Non-importation, Non-consumption, and
Non-exportation resolved on."[13] The next move was to instruct this
committee to include in the proscribed articles, among other things,
"Molasses, Coffee or Piemento from the _British_ Plantations or from
_Dominica_,"--a motion which cut deep into the slave-trade circle of
commerce, and aroused some opposition. "Will, can, the people bear a
total interruption of the West India trade?" asked Low of New York; "Can
they live without rum, sugar, and molasses? Will not this impatience and
vexation defeat the measure?"[14]

The committee finally reported, October 12, 1774, and after three days'
discussion and amendment the proposal passed. This document, after a
recital of grievances, declared that, in the opinion of the colonists, a
non-importation agreement would best secure redress; goods from Great
Britain, Ireland, the East and West Indies, and Dominica were excluded;
and it was resolved that "We will neither import, nor purchase any Slave
imported after the First Day of _December_ next; after which Time, we
will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned
in it ourselves, nor will we hire our Vessels, nor sell our Commodities
or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it."[15]

Strong and straightforward as this resolution was, time unfortunately
proved that it meant very little. Two years later, in this same
Congress, a decided opposition was manifested to branding the
slave-trade as inhuman, and it was thirteen years before South Carolina
stopped the slave-trade or Massachusetts prohibited her citizens from
engaging in it. The passing of so strong a resolution must be explained
by the motives before given, by the character of the drafting
committee, by the desire of America in this crisis to appear well
before the world, and by the natural moral enthusiasm aroused by the
imminence of a great national struggle.


28. ~Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.~ The unanimity with which
the colonists received this "Association" is not perhaps as remarkable
as the almost entire absence of comment on the radical slave-trade
clause. A Connecticut town-meeting in December, 1774, noticed "with
singular pleasure ... the second Article of the Association, in which it
is agreed to import no more <DW64> Slaves."[16] This comment appears to
have been almost the only one. There were in various places some
evidences of disapproval; but only in the State of Georgia was this
widespread and determined, and based mainly on the slave-trade
clause.[17] This opposition delayed the ratification meeting until
January 18, 1775, and then delegates from but five of the twelve
parishes appeared, and many of these had strong instructions against the
approval of the plan. Before this meeting could act, the governor
adjourned it, on the ground that it did not represent the province. Some
of the delegates signed an agreement, one article of which promised to
stop the importation of slaves March 15, 1775, i.e., four months later
than the national "Association" had directed. This was not, of course,
binding on the province; and although a town like Darien might declare
"our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of Slavery
in _America_"[18] yet the powerful influence of Savannah was "not likely
soon to give matters a favourable turn. The importers were mostly
against any interruption, and the consumers very much divided."[19] Thus
the efforts of this Assembly failed, their resolutions being almost
unknown, and, as a gentleman writes, "I hope for the honour of the
Province ever will remain so."[20] The delegates to the Continental
Congress selected by this rump assembly refused to take their seats.
Meantime South Carolina stopped trade with Georgia, because it "hath not
acceded to the Continental Association,"[21] and the single Georgia
parish of St. Johns appealed to the second Continental Congress to
except it from the general boycott of the colony. This county had
already resolved not to "purchase any Slave imported at _Savannah_
(large Numbers of which we understand are there expected) till the Sense
of Congress shall be made known to us."[22]

May 17, 1775, Congress resolved unanimously "That all exportations to
_Quebec_, _Nova-Scotia_, the Island of _St. John's_, _Newfoundland_,
_Georgia_, except the Parish of _St. John's_, and to _East_ and _West
Florida_, immediately cease."[23] These measures brought the refractory
colony to terms, and the Provincial Congress, July 4, 1775, finally
adopted the "Association," and resolved, among other things, "That we
will neither import or purchase any Slave imported from Africa, or
elsewhere, after this day."[24]

The non-importation agreement was in the beginning, at least, well
enforced by the voluntary action of the loosely federated nation. The
slave-trade clause seems in most States to have been observed with the
others. In South Carolina "a cargo of near three hundred slaves was sent
out of the Colony by the consignee, as being interdicted by the second
article of the Association."[25] In Virginia the vigilance committee of
Norfolk "hold up for your just indignation Mr. _John Brown_, Merchant,
of this place," who has several times imported slaves from Jamaica; and
he is thus publicly censured "to the end that all such foes to the
rights of _British America_ may be publickly known ... as the enemies of
_American_ Liberty, and that every person may henceforth break off all
dealings with him."[26]


29. ~Results of the Resolution.~ The strain of war at last proved too
much for this voluntary blockade, and after some hesitancy Congress,
April 3, 1776, resolved to allow the importation of articles not the
growth or manufacture of Great Britain, except tea. They also voted
"That no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United
Colonies."[27] This marks a noticeable change of attitude from the
strong words of two years previous: the former was a definitive promise;
this is a temporary resolve, which probably represented public opinion
much better than the former. On the whole, the conclusion is inevitably
forced on the student of this first national movement against the
slave-trade, that its influence on the trade was but temporary and
insignificant, and that at the end of the experiment the outlook for the
final suppression of the trade was little brighter than before. The
whole movement served as a sort of social test of the power and
importance of the slave-trade, which proved to be far more powerful than
the platitudes of many of the Revolutionists had assumed.

The effect of the movement on the slave-trade in general was to begin,
possibly a little earlier than otherwise would have been the case, that
temporary breaking up of the trade which the war naturally caused.
"There was a time, during the late war," says Clarkson, "when the slave
trade may be considered as having been nearly abolished."[28] The prices
of slaves rose correspondingly high, so that smugglers made
fortunes.[29] It is stated that in the years 1772-1778 slave merchants
of Liverpool failed for the sum of L710,000.[30] All this, of course,
might have resulted from the war, without the "Association;" but in the
long run the "Association" aided in frustrating the very designs which
the framers of the first resolve had in mind; for the temporary stoppage
in the end created an extraordinary demand for slaves, and led to a
slave-trade after the war nearly as large as that before.


30. ~The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.~ The Declaration
of Independence showed a significant drift of public opinion from the
firm stand taken in the "Association" resolutions. The clique of
political philosophers to which Jefferson belonged never imagined the
continued existence of the country with slavery. It is well known that
the first draft of the Declaration contained a severe arraignment of
Great Britain as the real promoter of slavery and the slave-trade in
America. In it the king was charged with waging "cruel war against human
nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in
the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and
carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable
death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the
opprobrium of _infidel_ powers, is the warfare of the _Christian_ king
of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where _men_ should be
bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every
legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.
And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished
die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and
to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the
people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes
committed against the _liberties_ of one people with crimes which he
urges them to commit against the _lives_ of another."[31]

To this radical and not strictly truthful statement, even the large
influence of the Virginia leaders could not gain the assent of the
delegates in Congress. The afflatus of 1774 was rapidly subsiding, and
changing economic conditions had already led many to look forward to a
day when the slave-trade could successfully be reopened. More important
than this, the nation as a whole was even less inclined now than in 1774
to denounce the slave-trade uncompromisingly. Jefferson himself says
that this clause "was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and
Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves,
and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern
brethren also, I believe," said he, "felt a little tender under those
censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet
they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."[32]

As the war slowly dragged itself to a close, it became increasingly
evident that a firm moral stand against slavery and the slave-trade was
not a probability. The reaction which naturally follows a period of
prolonged and exhausting strife for high political principles now set
in. The economic forces of the country, which had suffered most, sought
to recover and rearrange themselves; and all the selfish motives that
impelled a bankrupt nation to seek to gain its daily bread did not long
hesitate to demand a reopening of the profitable African slave-trade.
This demand was especially urgent from the fact that the slaves, by
pillage, flight, and actual fighting, had become so reduced in numbers
during the war that an urgent demand for more laborers was felt in the
South.

Nevertheless, the revival of the trade was naturally a matter of some
difficulty, as the West India circuit had been cut off, leaving no
resort except to contraband traffic and the direct African trade. The
English slave-trade after the peace "returned to its former state," and
was by 1784 sending 20,000 slaves annually to the West Indies.[33] Just
how large the trade to the continent was at this time there are few
means of ascertaining; it is certain that there was a general reopening
of the trade in the Carolinas and Georgia, and that the New England
traders participated in it. This traffic undoubtedly reached
considerable proportions; and through the direct African trade and the
illicit West India trade many thousands of <DW64>s came into the United
States during the years 1783-1787.[34]

Meantime there was slowly arising a significant divergence of opinion on
the subject. Probably the whole country still regarded both slavery and
the slave-trade as temporary; but the Middle States expected to see the
abolition of both within a generation, while the South scarcely thought
it probable to prohibit even the slave-trade in that short time. Such a
difference might, in all probability, have been satisfactorily adjusted,
if both parties had recognized the real gravity of the matter. As it
was, both regarded it as a problem of secondary importance, to be solved
after many other more pressing ones had been disposed of. The
anti-slavery men had seen slavery die in their own communities, and
expected it to die the same way in others, with as little active effort
on their own part. The Southern planters, born and reared in a slave
system, thought that some day the system might change, and possibly
disappear; but active effort to this end on their part was ever farthest
from their thoughts. Here, then, began that fatal policy toward slavery
and the slave-trade that characterized the nation for three-quarters of
a century, the policy of _laissez-faire, laissez-passer_.


31. ~The Action of the Confederation.~ The slave-trade was hardly
touched upon in the Congress of the Confederation, except in the
ordinance respecting the capture of slaves, and on the occasion of the
Quaker petition against the trade, although, during the debate on the
Articles of Confederation, the counting of slaves as well as of freemen
in the apportionment of taxes was urged as a measure that would check
further importation of <DW64>s. "It is our duty," said Wilson of
Pennsylvania, "to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves;
but this amendment [i.e., to count two slaves as one freeman] would give
the _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves."[35] The
matter was finally compromised by apportioning requisitions according to
the value of land and buildings.

After the Articles went into operation, an ordinance in regard to the
recapture of fugitive slaves provided that, if the capture was made on
the sea below high-water mark, and the <DW64> was not claimed, he should
be freed. Matthews of South Carolina demanded the yeas and nays on this
proposition, with the result that only the vote of his State was
recorded against it.[36]

On Tuesday, October 3, 1783, a deputation from the Yearly Meeting of the
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware Friends asked leave to present a
petition. Leave was granted the following day,[37] but no further minute
appears. According to the report of the Friends, the petition was
against the slave-trade; and "though the Christian rectitude of the
concern was by the Delegates generally acknowledged, yet not being
vested with the powers of legislation, they declined promoting any
public remedy against the gross national iniquity of trafficking in the
persons of fellow-men."[38]

The only legislative activity in regard to the trade during the
Confederation was taken by the individual States.[39] Before 1778
Connecticut, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia had by law
stopped the further importation of slaves, and importation had
practically ceased in all the New England and Middle States, including
Maryland. In consequence of the revival of the slave-trade after the
War, there was then a lull in State activity until 1786, when North
Carolina laid a prohibitive duty, and South Carolina, a year later,
began her series of temporary prohibitions. In 1787-1788 the New England
States forbade the participation of their citizens in the traffic. It
was this wave of legislation against the traffic which did so much to
blind the nation as to the strong hold which slavery still had on the
country.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] These figures are from the _Report of the Lords of the
      Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).

  [2] Sheffield, _Observations on American Commerce_, p. 28;
      P.L. Ford, _The Association of the First Congress_, in
      _Political Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.

  [3] Cf., e.g., Arthur Lee's letter to R.H. Lee, March 18,
      1774, in which non-intercourse is declared "the only advisable
      and sure mode of defence": Force, _American Archives_, 4th
      Ser., I. 229. Cf. also _Ibid._, p. 240; Ford, in _Political
      Science Quarterly_, VI. 614-5.

  [4] Goodloe, _Birth of the Republic_, p. 260.

  [5] Staples, _Annals of Providence_ (1843), p. 235.

  [6] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 735. This was
      probably copied from the Virginia resolve.

  [7] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 600.

  [8] _Ibid._, I. 494, 530. Cf. pp. 523, 616, 641, etc.

  [9] _Ibid._, I. 687.

 [10] _Ibid._, I. 511, 526. Cf. also p. 316.

 [11] _Journals of Cong._, I. 20. Cf. Ford, in _Political
      Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.

 [12] John Adams, _Works_, II. 382.

 [13] _Journals of Cong._, I. 21.

 [14] _Ibid._, I. 24; Drayton; _Memoirs of the American
      Revolution_, I. 147; John Adams, _Works_, II. 394.

 [15] _Journals of Cong._, I. 27, 32-8.

 [16] Danbury, Dec. 12, 1774: Force, _American Archives_, 4th
      Ser., I. 1038. This case and that of Georgia are the only ones
      I have found in which the slave-trade clause was specifically
      mentioned.

 [17] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1033, 1136,
      1160, 1163; II. 279-281, 1544; _Journals of Cong._, May 13,
      15, 17, 1775.

 [18] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1136.

 [19] _Ibid._, II. 279-81.

 [20] _Ibid._, I. 1160.

 [21] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1163.

 [22] _Journals of Cong._, May 13, 15, 1775.

 [23] _Ibid._, May 17, 1775.

 [24] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 1545.

 [25] Drayton, _Memoirs of the American Revolution_, I. 182.
      Cf. pp. 181-7; Ramsay, _History of S. Carolina_, I. 231.

 [26] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 33-4.

 [27] _Journals of Cong._, II. 122.

 [28] Clarkson, _Impolicy of the Slave-Trade_, pp. 125-8.

 [29] _Ibid._, pp. 25-6.

 [30] _Ibid._

 [31] Jefferson, _Works_ (Washington, 1853-4), I. 23-4. On the
      Declaration as an anti-slavery document, cf. Elliot, _Debates_
      (1861), I. 89.

 [32] Jefferson, _Works_ (Washington, 1853-4), I. 19.

 [33] Clarkson, _Impolicy of the Slave-Trade_, pp. 25-6;
      _Report_, etc., as above.

 [34] Witness the many high duty acts on slaves, and the
      revenue derived therefrom. Massachusetts had sixty
      distilleries running in 1783. Cf. Sheffield, _Observations on
      American Commerce_, p. 267.

 [35] Elliot, _Debates_, I. 72-3. Cf. Art. 8 of the Articles of
      Confederation.

 [36] _Journals of Cong._, 1781, June 25; July 18; Sept. 21,
      27; Nov. 8, 13, 30; Dec. 4.

 [37] _Ibid._, 1782-3, pp. 418-9, 425.

 [38] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1183.

 [39] Cf. above, chapters ii., iii., iv.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter VI_

THE FEDERAL CONVENTION. 1787.

  32. The First Proposition.
  33. The General Debate.
  34. The Special Committee and the "Bargain."
  35. The Appeal to the Convention.
  36. Settlement by the Convention.
  37. Reception of the Clause by the Nation.
  38. Attitude of the State Conventions.
  39. Acceptance of the Policy.


32. ~The First Proposition.~ Slavery occupied no prominent place in the
Convention called to remedy the glaring defects of the Confederation,
for the obvious reason that few of the delegates thought it expedient to
touch a delicate subject which, if let alone, bade fair to settle itself
in a manner satisfactory to all. Consequently, neither slavery nor the
slave-trade is specifically mentioned in the delegates' credentials of
any of the States, nor in Randolph's, Pinckney's, or Hamilton's plans,
nor in Paterson's propositions. Indeed, the debate from May 14 to June
19, when the Committee of the Whole reported, touched the subject only
in the matter of the ratio of representation of slaves. With this same
exception, the report of the Committee of the Whole contained no
reference to slavery or the slave-trade, and the twenty-three
resolutions of the Convention referred to the Committee of Detail, July
23 and 26, maintain the same silence.

The latter committee, consisting of Rutledge, Randolph, Gorham,
Ellsworth, and Wilson, reported a draft of the Constitution August 6,
1787. The committee had, in its deliberations, probably made use of a
draft of a national Constitution made by Edmund Randolph.[1] One clause
of this provided that "no State shall lay a duty on imports;" and, also,
"1. No duty on exports. 2. No prohibition on such inhabitants as the
United States think proper to admit. 3. No duties by way of such
prohibition." It does not appear that any reference to <DW64>s was here
intended. In the extant copy, however, notes in Edward Rutledge's
handwriting change the second clause to "No prohibition on such
inhabitants or people as the several States think proper to admit."[2]
In the report, August 6, these clauses take the following form:--

    "Article VII. Section 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the
    legislature on articles exported from any state; nor on the
    migration or importation of such persons as the several states
    shall think proper to admit; nor shall such migration or
    importation be prohibited."[3]


33. ~The General Debate.~ This, of course, referred both to immigrants
("migration") and to slaves ("importation").[4] Debate on this section
began Tuesday, August 22, and lasted two days. Luther Martin of Maryland
precipitated the discussion by a proposition to alter the section so as
to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. The debate
immediately became general, being carried on principally by Rutledge,
the Pinckneys, and Williamson from the Carolinas; Baldwin of Georgia;
Mason, Madison, and Randolph of Virginia; Wilson and Gouverneur Morris
of Pennsylvania; Dickinson of Delaware; and Ellsworth, Sherman, Gerry,
King, and Langdon of New England.[5]

In this debate the moral arguments were prominent. Colonel George Mason
of Virginia denounced the traffic in slaves as "infernal;" Luther Martin
of Maryland regarded it as "inconsistent with the principles of the
revolution, and dishonorable to the American character." "Every
principle of honor and safety," declared John Dickinson of Delaware,
"demands the exclusion of slaves." Indeed, Mason solemnly averred that
the crime of slavery might yet bring the judgment of God on the nation.
On the other side, Rutledge of South Carolina bluntly declared that
religion and humanity had nothing to do with the question, that it was a
matter of "interest" alone. Gerry of Massachusetts wished merely to
refrain from giving direct sanction to the trade, while others contented
themselves with pointing out the inconsistency of condemning the
slave-trade and defending slavery.

The difficulty of the whole argument, from the moral standpoint, lay in
the fact that it was completely checkmated by the obstinate attitude of
South Carolina and Georgia. Their delegates--Baldwin, the Pinckneys,
Rutledge, and others--asserted flatly, not less than a half-dozen times
during the debate, that these States "can never receive the plan if it
prohibits the slave-trade;" that "if the Convention thought" that these
States would consent to a stoppage of the slave-trade, "the expectation
is vain."[6] By this stand all argument from the moral standpoint was
virtually silenced, for the Convention evidently agreed with Roger
Sherman of Connecticut that "it was better to let the Southern States
import slaves than to part with those States."

In such a dilemma the Convention listened not unwillingly to the _non
possumus_ 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."

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
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,[7] and once came the counter declaration that "Greece
and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves."[8] 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.[9]

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 alone, they will probably of themselves stop
importations."[10] 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 "_laissez-faire_" 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."

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.


34. ~The Special Committee and the "Bargain."~ 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 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,[11]
and section six, on navigation acts, by a vote of 9 to 2.[12] 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.

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 _one_ 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 _Eastern_
States, notwithstanding their _aversion to slavery_, were very willing
to indulge the Southern States at least with a temporary liberty to
prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in their
turn, gratify _them_, 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."[13]

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."[14]


35. ~The Appeal to the Convention.~ The ensuing debate,[15] 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."[16] 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 Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be
prohibited," etc.[17] 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.[18] 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."[19]

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."[20]
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.[21]

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 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."[22] 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."[23]


36. ~Settlement by the Convention.~ Thus, the slave-trade article of the
Constitution stood finally as follows:--

    "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."

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 _laissez-faire_, 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 were so
courageously seeking to remedy.


37. ~Reception of the Clause by the Nation.~ 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."[24] To this Iredell replied,
through the columns of the _State Gazette_ 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."[25]

"Centinel," representing the Quaker sentiment of Pennsylvania, attacked
the clause in his third letter, published in the _Independent Gazetteer,
or The Chronicle of Freedom_, 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 <DW64>s for twenty-one
years to come, against the 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 _five_ <DW64>s, above
what _three_ whites shall be charged; when it is considered, that the
imposts on the consumption of Carolina field <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s 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?"[26]

Noah Webster's "Examination" (1787) addressed itself to such Quaker
scruples: "But, say the enemies of slavery, <DW64>s 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."[27]

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 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."[28]

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 <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s 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."[29]

Finally, _The Federalist_, 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 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!

"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."[30]


38. ~Attitude of the State Conventions.~ 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.

Extracts from a few of the speeches, _pro_ and _con_, 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."[31] 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 encourage exportation to as great an extent as
possible; and if the quantum of our products will be diminished by the
prohibition of <DW64>s, 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 <DW64>s will continue
forever."[32]

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."[33] 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."[34]

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."[35] General Thompson exclaimed, "Shall it be
said, that after we have established our own independence and freedom,
we make slaves of others?"[36] 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 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.'"[37] 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 _consenters to_
and _partakers in_ 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."[38]

In the South Carolina convention Lowndes, January 16, 1788, attacked the
slave-trade clause. "<DW64>s," 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!"[39]

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."[40]


39. ~Acceptance of the Policy.~ 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.[41] Nevertheless,
these motives were not fixed and unchangeable, and there was still
discernible a certain underlying 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 _laissez-faire_ were confirmed by the
States, and the nation entered upon the constitutional period with the
slave-trade legal in three States,[42] and with a feeling of quiescence
toward it in the rest of the Union.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Conway, _Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph_, ch. ix.

  [2] Conway, _Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph_, p. 78.

  [3] Elliot, _Debates_, I. 227.

  [4] Cf. Conway, _Life and Papers of Edmund Randolph_, pp.
      78-9.

  [5] For the following debate, Madison's notes (Elliot,
      _Debates_, V. 457 ff.) are mainly followed.

  [6] Cf. Elliot, _Debates_, V, _passim_.

  [7] By Charles Pinckney.

  [8] By John Dickinson.

  [9] Mentioned in the speech of George Mason.

 [10] Charles Pinckney. Baldwin of Georgia said that if the
      State were left to herself, "she may probably put a stop to
      the evil": Elliot, _Debates_, V. 459.

 [11] _Affirmative:_ Connecticut, New Jersey, Maryland,
      Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia,--7.
      _Negative:_ New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Delaware,--3.
      _Absent:_ Massachusetts,--1.

 [12] _Negative:_ Connecticut and New Jersey.

 [13] Luther Martin's letter, in Elliot, _Debates_, I. 373. Cf.
      explanations of delegates in the South Carolina, North
      Carolina, and other conventions.

 [14] Elliot, _Debates_, V. 471.

 [15] Saturday, Aug. 25, 1787.

 [16] Elliot, _Debates_, V. 477.

 [17] Elliot, _Debates_, V. 477. Dickinson made a similar
      motion, which was disagreed to: _Ibid._

 [18] _Ibid._, V. 478.

 [19] _Ibid._

 [20] Aug. 29: _Ibid._, V. 489.

 [21] _Ibid._, V. 492.

 [22] Elliot, _Debates_, V. 532.

 [23] _Ibid._, I. 317.

 [24] P.L. Ford, _Pamphlets on the Constitution_, p. 331.

 [25] _Ibid._, p. 367.

 [26] McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal
      Convention_, pp. 599-600. Cf. also p. 773.

 [27] See Ford, _Pamphlets_, etc., p. 54.

 [28] Ford, _Pamphlets_, etc., p. 146.

 [29] "Address to the Freemen of South Carolina on the Subject
      of the Federal Constitution": _Ibid._, p. 378.

 [30] Published in the _New York Packet_, Jan. 22, 1788;
      reprinted in Dawson's _Foederalist_, I. 290-1.

 [31] Elliot, _Debates_, II. 452.

 [32] Elliot, _Debates_, IV. 296-7.

 [33] Published in _Debates of the Massachusetts Convention_,
      1788, p. 217 ff.

 [34] Elliot, _Debates_, IV. 100-1.

 [35] Published in _Debates of the Massachusetts Convention_,
      1788, p. 208.

 [36] _Ibid._

 [37] Elliot, _Debates_, III. 452-3.

 [38] Walker, _Federal Convention of New Hampshire_, App. 113;
      Elliot, Debates, II. 203.

 [39] Elliot, _Debates_, IV. 273.

 [40] Updike's _Minutes_, in Staples, _Rhode Island in the
      Continental Congress_, pp. 657-8, 674-9. Adopted by a majority
      of one in a convention of seventy.

 [41] 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 _Debates_. 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 _Debates_. 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, _Rhode Island in the Continental Congress_. In New
      York the Committee of the Whole "proceeded through sections 8,
      9 ... with little or no debate": Elliot, _Debates_, II. 406.

 [42] South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina. North
      Carolina had, however, a prohibitive duty.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter VII_

TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE AND ANTI-SLAVERY EFFORT, 1787-1806.

  40. Influence of the Haytian Revolution.
  41. Legislation of the Southern States.
  42. Legislation of the Border States.
  43. Legislation of the Eastern States.
  44. First Debate in Congress, 1789.
  45. Second Debate in Congress, 1790.
  46. The Declaration of Powers, 1790.
  47. The Act of 1794.
  48. The Act of 1800.
  49. The Act of 1803.
  50. State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to 1803.
  51. The South Carolina Repeal of 1803.
  52. The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803-1805.
  53. Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805-1806.
  54. Key-Note of the Period.


40. ~Influence of the Haytian Revolution.~ The role which the great
<DW64> 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 <DW64> "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.

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 of the East lost control of the New
England conscience.


41. ~Legislation of the Southern States.~ 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
<DW64>s, 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 <DW64>s, and in 1798[2]
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.

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 <DW64>s, she prohibited the
slave-trade only for short periods. In 1788[3] she had forbidden the
trade for five years, and in 1792,[4] being peculiarly exposed to the
West Indian insurrection, she quickly found it "inexpedient" to allow
<DW64>s "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.[5] 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" <DW64>s.[6] This action profoundly stirred the
Union, aroused anti-slavery sentiment, led to a concerted movement for a
constitutional amendment, and, failing in this, to an irresistible
demand for a national prohibitory act at the earliest constitutional
moment.

North Carolina had repealed her prohibitory duty act in 1790,[7] but in
1794 she passed an "Act to prevent further importation and bringing of
slaves," etc.[8] Even the body-servants of West India immigrants and,
naturally, all free <DW64>s, were eventually prohibited.[9]


42. ~Legislation of the Border States.~ The Border States, Virginia and
Maryland, strengthened their non-importation laws, Virginia freeing
illegally imported <DW64>s,[10] and Maryland prohibiting even the
interstate trade.[11] 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,"[12] and forbade such a practice under
penalty of L500 for each person so engaged. The Pennsylvania Act of
1788[13] had similar provisions, with a penalty of L1000; and New Jersey
followed with an act in 1798.[14]


43. ~Legislation of the Eastern States.~ 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 secured a law against the traffic in their own
State, they turned their attention to others. Through their
remonstrances Connecticut, in 1788,[15] prohibited participation in the
trade by a fine of L500 on the vessel, L50 on each slave, and loss of
insurance; this act was strengthened in 1792,[16] 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.[17] "This," says Belknap, "was the utmost which
could be done by our legislatures; we still have to regret the
impossibility of making a law _here_, which shall restrain our citizens
from carrying on this trade _in foreign bottoms_, and from committing
the crimes which this act prohibits, _in foreign countries_, as it is
said some of them have done since the enacting of these laws."[18]

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.


44. ~First Debate in Congress, 1789.~ 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 _per capita_
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.[19] Smith of South
Carolina wanted 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."

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 <DW64>s 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."

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, at the next session dexterously postponed "until the
next session of Congress."[20]


45. ~Second Debate in Congress, 1790.~ 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,[21] was from the same interstate Yearly Meeting of Friends which
had formerly petitioned the Confederation Congress.[22] 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,[23] and both were about to be referred, when Smith of South
Carolina objected, and precipitated a sharp debate.[24] 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."

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. "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.

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."[25] 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
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."

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.[26] 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 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 _pro_ and _con_ lasting several
days.[27]


46. ~The Declaration of Powers, 1790.~ 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:[28]--

      REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE.

      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,

      _First._ 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.'

      _Secondly._ 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.

      _Thirdly._ 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 <DW64>s; 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.

      _Fourthly._ 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.

      _Fifthly._ That Congress have authority to interdict,[29] or
      (so far as it is or may be carried on by citizens of the
      United States, for supplying foreigners), to regulate 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.

      _Sixthly._ 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.

      _Seventhly._ 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.

                    *       *       *       *       *

      REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

      _First._ 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.

      _Secondly._ 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.

      _Thirdly._ 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.

      _Fourthly._ 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.


47. ~The Act of 1794.~ 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.[30] In some of these slavery was denounced as
"an outrageous violation of one of the most essential rights of human
nature,"[31] and the slave-trade as a traffic "degrading to the rights
of man" and "repugnant to reason."[32] Others declared the trade
"injurious to the true commercial interest of a nation,"[33] 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,[34] nothing was heard of the slave-trade until the
third Congress.

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 <DW64> 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,[35] and on March 22 the first
national act against the slave-trade became a law.[36] 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,[37] 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 that 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.


48. ~The Act of 1800.~ 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 <DW52> men of Pennsylvania
praying for a revision of the slave-trade laws and of the fugitive-slave
law, and for prospective emancipation.[38] 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.[39] 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 <DW64>s 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 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 <DW64>s] are the proper engines to make use of:
these people have been talked to; they have been tampered with, and this
is going on."

Finally, after censuring certain parts of this <DW64> 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.[40] Prolonged
debate ensued. Brown of Rhode Island again made a most elaborate plea
for throwing open the foreign slave-trade. <DW64>s, 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 and abolish slavery too. Nichols of
Virginia thought that surely the gentlemen would not advise the
importation of more <DW64>s; 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.

The bill was eventually recommitted and reported again.[41] "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.[42] This Act of May 10, 1800,[43] 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.


49. ~The Act of 1803.~ 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, stating the arrival of certain freed <DW64>s 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."[44] 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."[45] The result was a bill providing for the
forfeiture of any ship which should bring into States prohibiting the
same "any <DW64>, mulatto, or other person of color;" the captain of the
ship was also to be punished. After some opposition[46] the bill became
a law, February 28, 1803.[47]


50. ~State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to 1803.~ 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.[48] 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 the last twelve months, twenty
thousand enslaved <DW64>s 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."[49]

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."[50] The same tale undoubtedly might have been told of
Georgia.


51. ~The South Carolina Repeal of 1803.~ 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 long since come to think of the trade, so far as legal enactment
went, as a thing of the past.

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."[51] He then moved, as
the utmost legal measure, a tax of ten dollars per head on slaves
imported.

Debate on this proposition did not occur until February 14, when Lowndes
explained the circumstances of the repeal, and a long controversy took
place.[52] 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.

The whole debate hinged on the expediency of the measure, few defending
South Carolina's action.[53] Finally, a bill was ordered to be brought
in, which was done on the 17th.[54] 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.


52. ~The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803-1805.~ 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,[55] 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.[56] Nothing had
been said as to slavery in the South Carolina cession (1787),[57] 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.[58] The bill passed the Senate,
but caused long and excited debate in the House.[59] 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 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.[60] 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.[61]

In 1804 President Jefferson communicated papers to Congress on the
status of slavery and the slave-trade in Louisiana.[62] 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.[63] 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;[64] then to compel the emancipation at a certain age of all
those imported;[65] next, to confine all importation to that from the
States;[66] and, finally, to limit it further to slaves imported before
South Carolina opened her ports.[67] 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.[68] All slaves illegally
imported were freed.

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.[69] By dexterous wording, this bill, which
became a law March 2, 1805,[70] 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,[71] the foreign slave-trade was allowed, at least for a time.

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.[72]
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."[73] The House ordered a bill checking this to be
prepared; and such a bill was reported, but was soon dropped.[74]
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 <DW64>s were imported into
Charleston, most of whom went to the Territories.[75]


53. ~Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805-1806.~ So alarming did the trade
become that North Carolina passed a resolution in December, 1804,[76]
proposing that the States give Congress power to prohibit the trade.
Massachusetts,[77] Vermont,[78] New Hampshire,[79] and Maryland[80]
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."[81] Nothing came
of this effort; but meantime the project of taxation 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,[82] it finally came up for debate January 20,
1806.[83] Then occurred a most stubborn legislative battle, which lasted
during the whole session.[84] 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.[85] One was reported on the
27th.[86] 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.[87] 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.[88] On 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.


54. ~Key-Note of the Period.~ 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.[89] 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 <DW64>
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."[90]

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.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Prince, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, p. 786; Marbury
      and Crawford, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, 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, _Colonial Acts of Georgia_, pp. 73-4,
      164, note.

  [2] Marbury and Crawford, _Digest_, p. 30, Sec. 11. The clause
      was penned by Peter J. Carnes of Jefferson. Cf. W.B. Stevens,
      _History of Georgia_ (1847), II. 501.

  [3] Grimke, _Public Laws_, p. 466.

  [4] Cooper and McCord, _Statutes_, VII. 431.

  [5] _Ibid._, VII. 433-6, 444, 447.

  [6] _Ibid._, VII. 449.

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

  [8] _Ibid._, II. 53.

  [9] Cf. _Ibid._, II. 94; _Laws of North Carolina_ (revision of
      1819), I. 786.

 [10] Virginia codified her whole slave legislation in 1792
      (_Va. Statutes at Large_, New Ser., I. 122), and amended her
      laws in 1798 and 1806 (_Ibid._, III. 251).

 [11] Dorsey, _Laws of Maryland, 1796_, I. 334.

 [12] _Laws of Delaware, 1797_ (Newcastle ed.), p. 942, ch. 194 b.

 [13] Dallas, _Laws_, II. 586.

 [14] Paterson, _Digest of the Laws of New Jersey_ (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.

 [15] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp. 368, 369, 388.

 [16] _Ibid._, p. 412.

 [17] _Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780-89_, pp. 235-6.

 [18] _Queries Respecting Slavery_, etc., in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
      Coll._, 1st Ser., IV. 205.

 [19] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong, 1 sess. pp. 336-41.

 [20] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 1 sess. p. 903.

 [21] _Ibid._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1182-3.

 [22] _Journals of Cong., 1782-3_, pp. 418-9. Cf. above, pp.
      56-57.

 [23] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1184.

 [24] _Ibid._, pp. 1182-91.

 [25] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1197-1205.

 [26] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 157-8.

 [27] _Annals of Cong._, I Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413-7.

 [28] For the reports and debates, cf. _Annals of Cong._, 1
      Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413-7, 1450-74; _House Journal_ (repr.
      1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 168-81.

 [29] A clerical error in the original: "interdict" and
      "regulate" should be interchanged.

 [30] See _Memorials presented to Congress_, etc. (1792),
      published by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

 [31] From the Virginia petition.

 [32] From the petition of Baltimore and other Maryland
      societies.

 [33] From the Providence Abolition Society's petition.

 [34] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 2 Cong. 2 sess. I. 627-9;
      _Annals of Cong._, 2 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 728-31.

 [35] _Annals of Cong._, 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70, 72; _House
      Journal_ (repr. 1826), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 76, 84-5, 96-100;
      _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1820), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 51.

 [36] _Statutes at Large_, I. 347-9.

 [37] _Annals of Cong._, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 656-70, 945-1033.

 [38] _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 229.

 [39] Dec. 12, 1799: _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1
      sess. III. 535. For the debate, see _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong.
      1 sess. pp. 230-45.

 [40] _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 72,
      77, 88, 92; see _Ibid._, Index, Bill No. 62; _House Journal_
      (repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III., Index, House Bill No. 247.
      For the debate, see _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      686-700.

 [41] _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 697.

 [42] _Ibid._, p. 699-700.

 [43] _Statutes at Large_, II. 70.

 [44] _Annals of Cong._, 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 385-6.

 [45] _Ibid._, p. 424.

 [46] See House Bills Nos. 89 and 101; _Annals of Cong._, 7
      Cong. 2 sess. pp. 424, 459-67. For the debate, see _Ibid._,
      pp. 459-72.

 [47] _Statutes at Large_, II. 205.

 [48] Cf. Fowler, _Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut_,
      etc., p. 126.

 [49] Speech of S.L. Mitchell of New York, Feb. 14, 1804:
      _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1000. Cf. also speech of
      Bedinger: _Ibid._, pp. 997-8.

 [50] Speech of Lowndes in the House, Feb. 14, 1804: _Annals of
      Cong._, 8 Cong., 1 sess. p. 992. Cf. Stanton's speech later:
      _Ibid._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 240.

 [51] _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, 876.

 [52] _Ibid._, pp. 992-1036.

 [53] 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: _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1005.

 [54] _Ibid._, pp. 1020-36; _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 8
      Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, 580, 581-5.

 [55] On slavery in the Territories, cf. Welling, in _Report
      Amer. Hist. Assoc._, 1891, pp. 133-60.

 [56] _Statutes at Large_, I. 108.

 [57] _Journals of Cong._, XII. 137-8.

 [58] _Annals of Cong._, 5 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 511, 515, 532-3.

 [59] _Ibid._, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1235, 1249, 1277-84,
      1296-1313.

 [60] _Annals of Cong._, 5 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1313.

 [61] _Statutes at Large_, I. 549.

 [62] _Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous_, I. No. 177.

 [63] _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106, 211, 223,
      231, 233-4, 238.

 [64] _Ibid._, pp. 240, 1186.

 [65] _Ibid._, p. 241.

 [66] _Ibid._, p. 240.

 [67] _Ibid._, p. 242.

 [68] For further proceedings, see _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1
      sess. pp. 240-55, 1038-79, 1128-9, 1185-9. For the law, see
      _Statutes at Large_, II. 283-9.

 [69] First, a bill was introduced applying the Northwest
      Ordinance to the Territory (_Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 2 sess.
      pp. 45-6); but this was replaced by a Senate bill (_Ibid._, p.
      68; _Senate Journal_, repr. 1821, 8 Cong. 2 sess. III. 464).
      For the petition of the inhabitants, see _Annals of Cong._, 8
      Cong. 2 sess. p. 727-8.

 [70] The bill was hurried through, and there are no records of
      debate. Cf. _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 28-69, 727,
      871, 957, 1016-20, 1213-5. In _Senate Journal_ (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.

 [71] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 443. The whole
      trade was practically foreign, for the slavers merely entered
      the <DW64>s at Charleston and immediately reshipped them to
      New Orleans. Cf. _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 264.

 [72] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 264;
      _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 445, 878.

 [73] _House Reports_, 9 Cong. 1 sess. Feb. 17, 1806.

 [74] House Bill No. 123.

 [75] _Annals of Cong._, 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:--

      From Charleston,   61    From Connecticut,    1
        "  Rhode Island, 59      "  Sweden,         1
        "  Baltimore,     4      "  Great Britain, 70
        "  Boston,        1      "  France,         3
        "  Norfolk,       2                       202

      The consignees of these slave ships were natives of
        Charleston             13
        Rhode Island           88
        Great Britain          91
        France                 10
                             ----
                              202

      The following slaves were imported:--
        By British vessels        19,949
        "  French    "             1,078
                                  ------
                                                21,027

        By American vessels:--
        "  Charleston merchants    2,006
        "  Rhode Island   "        7,958
        "  Foreign        "        5,717
        "  other Northern "          930
        "    "   Southern "        1,437        18,048
                                  ------        ------

      Total number of slaves imported, 1804-7   39,075

      It is, of course, highly probable that the Custom House
      returns were much below the actual figures.

 [76] McMaster, _History of the People of the United States_,
      III. p. 517.

 [77] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171;
      _Mass. Resolves_, May, 1802, to March, 1806, Vol. II. A.
      (State House ed., p. 239).

 [78] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 238.

 [79] _Ibid._, V. 266.

 [80] _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 76,
      77, 79.

 [81] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171.

 [82] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.

 [83] _Ibid._, pp. 272-4, 323.

 [84] _Ibid._, pp. 346-52, 358-75, etc., to 520.

 [85] _Ibid._, pp. 374-5.

 [86] See House Bill No. 94.

 [87] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 466.

 [88] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 519-20.

 [89] _Ibid._, pp. 21, 52, 75, etc., to 138, 485-515, 1228. See
      House Bill No. 168. Cf. _Statutes at Large_, II. 421-2.

 [90] A few months later, at the expiration of the period,
      trade was quietly reopened. _Annals of Cong._, 11 Cong. 1
      sess. pp. 443-6.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter VIII_

THE PERIOD OF ATTEMPTED SUPPRESSION. 1807-1825.

  55. The Act of 1807.
  56. The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans be
        disposed of?
  57. The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?
  58. The Third Question: How shall the Interstate Coastwise Slave-Trade
        be protected?
  59. Legislative History of the Bill.
  60. Enforcement of the Act.
  61. Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade.
  62. Apathy of the Federal Government.
  63. Typical Cases.
  64. The Supplementary Acts, 1818-1820.
  65. Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts, 1818-1825.


55. ~The Act of 1807.~ 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.

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 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."[1]

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.[2]

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.

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."[3] 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.

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.

56. ~The First Question: How shall illegally imported Africans be
disposed of?~ 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.[4] The arguments on these two propositions, which were many and
far-reaching, may be roughly divided into three classes, political,
constitutional, and moral.

The political argument, reduced to its lowest terms, ran thus: those
wishing to free the <DW64>s 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."[5] They said that the
objection to free <DW64>s 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.[6] Moreover, "forfeiture" and sale of the <DW64>s implied
a property right in them which did not exist.[7] 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."[8] 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 <DW64>s willingly rather than
have them enslaved.[9]

The argument of those who insisted that the <DW64>s 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."[10] 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 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."[11]

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 <DW64>s was declared to be the only sufficient "inducement to
give information of their importation."[12] "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."[13]
If such <DW64>s be freed, "I tell you that slaves will 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."[14] Then, too, when
foreigners smuggled in <DW64>s, "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."[15] Again, it was argued that it was impossible to prevent
imported <DW64>s from becoming slaves, or, what was just as bad, from
being sold as vagabonds or indentured for life.[16] Even our own laws,
it was said, recognize the title of the African slave factor in the
transported <DW64>s; 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?[17] If he should be returned to
Africa, his home could not be found, and he would in all probability be
sold into slavery again.[18]

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 <DW64>s were forfeited, they were forfeited to the United States
government, which could dispose of them as it saw fit;[19] on the other
hand, it was said that the United States, as owner, was subject to State
laws, and could not free the <DW64>s contrary to such laws.[20] Some
alleged that the freeing of such <DW64>s struck at the title to all
slave property;[21] others thought that, as property in slaves was not
recognized in the Constitution, it could not be in a statute.[22] 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 <DW64>s
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.[23] 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.[24]

The moral argument as to the disposal of illegally imported <DW64>s 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?"[25] But, in fact, "morality has nothing to do with this
traffic,"[26] 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."[27] The other side declared that, "by the laws of
God and man," these captured <DW64>s are "entitled to their freedom as
clearly and absolutely as we are;"[28] 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 of slavery.[29]
Such arguments brought some sharp sarcasm on those who seemed anxious
"to legislate for the honor and glory of the statute book;"[30] some
desired "to know what honor you will derive from a law that will be
broken every day of your lives."[31] They would rather boldly sell the
<DW64>s and turn the proceeds over to charity.

The final settlement of the question was as follows:--

    "SECTION 4.... And neither the importer, nor any person
    or persons claiming from or under him, shall hold any right or
    title whatsoever to any <DW64>, 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 <DW64>,
    mulatto, or person of color."[32]


57. ~The Second Question: How shall Violations be punished?~ 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.[33]

Advocates of the severer punishment dwelt on the enormity of the
offence. It was "one of the highest crimes man could commit," and "a
captain of a ship engaged in this traffic was guilty of murder."[34] The
law of God punished the crime with death, and any one would rather be
hanged than be enslaved.[35] It was a peculiarly deliberate crime, in
which the offender did not act in sudden passion, but had ample time for
reflection.[36] 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?[37] 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."[38] Here, indeed, lies the remedy
for the evil of freeing illegally imported <DW64>s,--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."[39] To free such <DW64>s
is dangerous; to enslave them, wrong; to return them, impracticable; to
indenture them, difficult,--therefore, by a death penalty, keep them
from being imported.[40] 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."[41] 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.[42]

The opposition answered that the death penalty was more than
proportionate to the crime, and therefore "immoral."[43] "I cannot
believe," said Stanton of Rhode Island, "that a man ought to be hung for
only stealing a <DW64>."[44] It was argued that the trade was after all
but a "transfer from one master to another;"[45] 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?[46] 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."[47] 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."[48]

The bill as passed punished infractions as follows:--

    For equipping a slaver, a fine of $20,000 and forfeiture of the
    ship.

    For transporting <DW64>s, a fine of $5000 and forfeiture of the
    ship and <DW64>s.

    For transporting and selling <DW64>s, a fine of $1000 to
    $10,000, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and forfeiture of the
    ship and <DW64>s.

    For knowingly buying illegally imported <DW64>s, a fine of $800
    for each <DW64>, and forfeiture.


58. ~The Third Question: How shall the Interstate Coastwise Slave-Trade
be protected?~ The first proposition was to prohibit the coastwise
slave-trade altogether,[49] but an amendment reported to the House
allowed it "in any vessel 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.[50] 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."[51] The Conference Committee
finally arranged a compromise, forbidding the coastwise trade for
purposes of sale in vessels under forty tons.[52] This did not suit
Early, who declared that the law with this provision "would not prevent
the introduction of a single slave."[53] 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."[54] 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.[55]


59. ~Legislative History of the Bill.~[56] 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 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.[57]

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.[58] This was rejected by a vote of
86 to 17. On December 3, 1806, the House, in appointing committees on
the message, "_Ordered_, 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.[59] 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,
_"Provided, that no person shall be sold as a slave by virtue of this
act."_[60] This resulted in a tie vote, 60 to 60; but the casting vote
of 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.[61] The bill was then passed, by a vote of 113
to 5.[62] 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.[63]

The following diagram shows in graphic form the legislative history of
the act:--[64]

                     _Senate._      _1805._       _House._
Bradley gives notice.    +        Dec. 12.
Leave given; bill read.  +             17.
Postponed one year.      +             18.
                         |          _1806._
                                  Feb.  4.         + Bidwell's amendment.
Notice.                  +        Dec.  3.         + Committee on
Bill introduced.         +              8.         |  slave trade.
Committed.               +              9.         |
                         |             15.         + Bill reported.
                         |             17.         |
                         |             18.         |
                         |             19.         |
                         |             23.         |
                         |             29.         |
                         |             31.         |
                         |          _1807._        |
                         |        Jan.  5.         |
                         |              7.         |
                         |              8.         + Read third time;
Reported.                +             15.         |  recommitted.
                         |             16.         |
                         |             20.         + Reported
Third reading.           +             26.         |  amended.
PASSED.                  +             27.         |
                         \ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _   |
                                       28.      |  | Senate bill
                                  Feb.  9.      |  |  reported.
                                       10.      |  |
                                       11.      +  | Senate bill
                                       12.      |     amended.
Reported from House.                   13.      +       PASSED.
                          _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |
Reported to House.       |             17.           Reported back.
                          - - - - - - - - - - -
                                       18.      |    House insists;
                          - - - - - - - - - - -       asks conference.
                         \                     /
                          - - _ __ - - - - - -
                               X
House asks conference.   _ _ _/ \_ __
                                     \ _
                                      2|5 - - - -_    Conference report
                          _ _ _ _ _  _-|- - - - -      adopted.
Conference report        /            2|6
 adopted.                \_ _ _        |
Bill enrolled.                 - - - -2|8
                                March  |2.
                                       V
                      Signed by the President.

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 of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and eight."[65] 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.


60. ~Enforcement of the Act.~ 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, 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.

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,[66] directed such <DW64>s 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,[67] directed
the <DW64>s 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[68] 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.


61. ~Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade.~ 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.

"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 of 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.[69] 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."[70]

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."[71] 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."[72]
Testimony as to violations of the law and suggestions for improving it
also came in from district attorneys.[73]

The method of introducing <DW64>s 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 _kaffle_ of
<DW64>s 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 <DW64>s were sold into the
neighboring American States. The _kaffle_, under charge of <DW64>
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 <DW64>s; yet the Spanish
possessions were thriving on this inland exchange of <DW64>s and
mulattoes; Florida was a sort of nursery for slave-breeders, and many
American citizens grew rich by trafficking in Guinea <DW64>s, 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."[74]

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,"[75] the "Rebecca," the "Rosa"[76] (formerly the privateer
"Commodore Perry"), the "Dorset" of Baltimore,[77] and the "Saucy
Jack."[78] 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."[79]


62. ~Apathy of the Federal Government.~ 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.[80] 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."[81] 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, but I have little hopes of success."[82] 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."[83] 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,[84]
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."[85]

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.[86] The trade, however, seems to have
continued, as is shown by such letters as the following, written three
and a half months later:--

    PORT OF DARIEN, March 14, 1818.

    ... It is a painful duty, sir, to express to you, that I am in
    possession of undoubted information, that African and West India
    <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s 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, _for_ this bartering or bonding (as
    _it is called_, but in reality _selling_,) 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
    <DW64>s, 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 <DW64>s when legally called on so to do; which bond, it
    is _understood_, is to be _forfeited_, as the amount of the bond
    is so much less than the value of the property.... There are
    many <DW64>s ... 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.

    I have, etc.[87]

This "approbation" failed to come to the zealous collector, and on the
5th of July he wrote that, "not being favored with a reply," he has been
obliged to deliver over to the governor's agents ninety-one illegally
imported <DW64>s.[88] Reports from other districts corroborate this
testimony. The collector at Mobile writes of strange proceedings on the
part of the courts.[89] 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."[90] 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."[91] Other collectors
continually reported infractions, complaining that they could get no
assistance from the citizens,[92] or plaintively asking the services of
"one small cutter."[93]

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,[94] and the President was authorized to
seize Amelia Island.[95] 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.[96] During the years 1817 and 1818[97] some
cruisers went there irregularly, but they were too large to be
effective; 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;[98] 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."[99]

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."[100] 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;[101] informers
were unprotected and sometimes driven from home.[102] 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 United States, that any forfeitures had been incurred
under the said act."[103]

63. ~Typical Cases.~ 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.[104] 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.[105] In 1826 Lieutenant McKeever urgently
petitions Congress for his prize-money of $4,415.15, which he has not
yet received.[106] 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.[107]


64. ~The Supplementary Acts, 1818-1820.~ 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.[108] 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.

The immediate cause of the Act of 1818 was the Amelia Island
scandal.[109] Committees in both Houses reported bills, but that of the
Senate finally passed. There does not appear to have been very much
debate.[110] 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."[111] 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."[112] The act, which became a
law April 20, 1818,[113] 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:--

    For equipping a slaver, instead of a fine of $20,000, a fine of
    $1000 to $5000 and imprisonment from 3 to 7 years.

    For transporting <DW64>s, instead of a fine of $5000 and
    forfeiture of ship and <DW64>s, a fine of $1000 to $5000 and
    imprisonment from 3 to 7 years.

    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 imprisonment from 3 to 7 years.

    For knowingly buying illegally imported <DW64>s, instead of a
    fine of $800 for each <DW64> and forfeiture, a fine of $1000 for
    each <DW64>.

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.

This statute was, of course, a failure from the start,[114] 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.[115] It finally passed, after "much debate."[116] 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.[117] The House
acquiesced, and the bill became a law, March 3, 1819,[118] 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 sailed.[119] 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 <DW64>s,
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 <DW64>s.[120] Finally, an appropriation of $100,000 was made to
enforce the act.[121] 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.

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,[122] 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. This law provided that
direct participation in the slave-trade should be piracy, punishable
with death.[123]

  ----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------
  STATUTES AT LARGE.    |        DATE.         |  AMOUNT APPROPRIATED.
  ----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------
     VOL.    PAGE       |                      |
     III.    533-4      |    March   3, 1819   |          $100,000
      "      764        |      "     3, 1823   |            50,000
     IV.     141        |      "    14, 1826   |            32,000
      "      208        |    March   2, 1827   |          / 36,710
                        |                      |          \ 20,000
      "      302        |    May    24, 1828   |            30,000
      "      354        |    March   2, 1829   |            16,000
      "      462        |      "     2, 1831   |            16,000
      "      615        |    Feb.   20, 1833   |             5,000
      "      671        |    Jan.   24, 1834   |             5,000
     V.      157-8      |    March   3, 1837   |            11,413.57
      "      501        |    Aug.    4, 1842   |            10,543.42
      "      615        |    March   3, 1843   |             5,000
     IX.      96        |    Aug.   10, 1846   |            25,000
     XI.      90        |      "    18, 1856   |             8,000
      "      227        |    March   3, 1857   |             8,000
      "      404        |      "     3, 1859   |            75,000
     XII.     21        |    May    26, 1860   |            40,000
      "      132        |    Feb.   19, 1861   |           900,000
      "      219        |    March   2, 1861   |           900,000
      "      639        |    Feb.    4, 1863   |            17,000
     XIII.   424        |    Jan.   24, 1865   |            17,000
     XIV.    226        |    July   25, 1866   |            17,000
      "      415        |    Feb.   28, 1867   |            17,000
     XV.      58        |    March  30, 1868   |            12,500
      "      321        |    March   3, 1869   |            12,500
  ----------------------+----------------------+-----------------------
   Total, 50 years                                      $2,386,666.99
   Minus surpluses re-appropriated (approximate)            48,666.99?
                                                        --------------
                                                        $2,338,000
   Cost of squadron, 1843-58, @ $384,500 per year
     (_House Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. IX. No. 73)   5,767,500
   Returning slaves on "Wildfire" (_Statutes at Large_,
     XII. 41)                                              250,000
   Approximate cost of squadron, 1858-66, probably not
     less than $500,000 per year                         4,000,000?
                                                       ---------------
   Approximate money cost of suppressing the
     slave-trade                                       $12,355,500?

Cf. Kendall's Report: _Senate Doc._, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp.
211-8; _Amer. State Papers, Naval_, III. No. 429 E.; also Reports of
the Secretaries of the Navy from 1819 to 1860.


65. ~Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts, 1818-1825.~ 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 <DW64>s after 1825,
until the fifties; nevertheless, smuggling never entirely ceased, and
large numbers were thus added to the plantations of the Gulf States.

Monroe had various constitutional scruples as to the execution of the
Act of 1819;[124] 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.[125]

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."[126] In the same year Middleton of South Carolina and Wright of
Virginia estimated illicit introduction at 13,000 and 15,000
respectively.[127] 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."[128] 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."[129] As late as May he saw little hope of suppressing
the traffic.[130] Sergeant of Pennsylvania declared: "It is notorious
that, in spite of the utmost vigilance that can be employed, African
<DW64>s are clandestinely brought in and sold as slaves."[131] 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 hundreds, but by thousands."[132]
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."[133] 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."[134] 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 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."[135]

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.[136] 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."[137] 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."[138]
The governor of Sierra Leone reported the rivers Nunez and Pongas full
of renegade European and American slave-traders;[139] the trade was said
to be carried on "to an extent that almost staggers belief."[140] Down
to 1824 or 1825, reports from all quarters prove this activity in
slave-trading.

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."[141] One district attorney writes: "It appears to be
almost impossible to enforce the laws of the United States against
offenders after the <DW64>s have been landed in the state."[142] 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."[143] 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.[144] Perhaps 350 Africans were officially reported as
brought in contrary to law from 1818 to 1820: the absurdity of this
figure is apparent.[145] 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."[146]

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.[147] Finally, it must be noted that during all this time
scarcely a man suffered for 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.[148] 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, 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 _cancel this bond_.[149] A bill
to that effect passed and was approved, May 2, 1828,[150] and in
consequence these Africans remained as slaves in Georgia.

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.[151]


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 468.

  [2] Cf. below, Sec. 59.

  [3] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.

  [4] There were at least twelve distinct propositions as to the
      disposal of the Africans imported:--

      1. That they be forfeited and sold by the United States at
      auction (Early's bill, reported Dec. 15: _Annals of Cong._, 9
      Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167-8).

      2. That they be forfeited and left to the disposal of the
      States (proposed by Bidwell and Early: _Ibid._, pp. 181, 221,
      477. This was the final settlement.)

      3. That they be forfeited and sold, and that the proceeds go
      to charities, education, or internal improvements (Early,
      Holland, and Masters: _Ibid._, p. 273).

      4. That they be forfeited and indentured for life (Alston and
      Bidwell: _Ibid._, pp. 170-1).

      5. That they be forfeited and indentured for 7, 8, or 10
      years (Pitkin: _Ibid._, p. 186).

      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: _House Journal_
      (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 575; _Annals of Cong._, 9
      Cong. 2 sess. p. 477. Cf. also _Ibid._, p. 272).

      7. That the Secretary of the Treasury dispose of them, at his
      discretion, in service (Quincy: _Ibid._, p. 183).

      8. That those imported into slave States be returned to
      Africa or bound out in free States (Sloan: _Ibid._, p. 254).

      9. That all be sent back to Africa (Smilie: _Ibid._, p. 176).

      10. That those imported into free States be free, those
      imported into slave States be returned to Africa or indentured
      (Sloan: _Ibid._, p. 226).

      11. That they be forfeited but not sold (Sloan and others:
      _Ibid._, p. 270).

      12. That they be free (Sloan: _Ibid._, p. 168; Bidwell:
      _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 515).

  [5] Bidwell, Cook, and others: _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2
      sess. p. 201.

  [6] Bidwell: _Ibid._, p. 172.

  [7] Fisk: _Ibid._, pp. 224-5; Bidwell: _Ibid._, p. 221.

  [8] Quincy: _Ibid._, p. 184.

  [9] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 478; Bidwell:
      _Ibid._, p. 171.

 [10] _Ibid._, p. 172.

 [11] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 173-4.

 [12] Alston: _Ibid._, p. 170.

 [13] D.R. Williams: _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 183.

 [14] Early: _Ibid._, pp. 184-5.

 [15] Lloyd, Early, and others: _Ibid._, p. 203.

 [16] Alston: _Ibid._, p. 170.

 [17] Quincy: _Ibid._, p. 222; Macon: _Ibid._, p. 225.

 [18] Macon: _Ibid._, p. 177.

 [19] Barker: _Ibid._, p. 171; Bidwell: _Ibid._, p. 172.

 [20] Clay, Alston, and Early: _Ibid._, p. 266.

 [21] Clay, Alston, and Early: _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2
      sess. p. 266.

 [22] Bidwell: _Ibid._, p. 221.

 [23] Sloan and others: _Ibid._, p. 271; Early and Alston:
      _Ibid._, pp. 168, 171.

 [24] Ely, Bidwell, and others: _Ibid._, pp. 179, 181, 271;
      Smilie and Findley: _Ibid._, pp. 225, 226.

 [25] _Ibid._, p. 240. Cf. Lloyd: _Ibid._, p. 236.

 [26] Holland: _Ibid._, p. 241.

 [27] _Ibid._, p. 227; Macon: _Ibid._, p. 225.

 [28] Bidwell, Cook, and others: _Ibid._, p. 201.

 [29] Bidwell: _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 221. Cf.
      _Ibid._, p. 202.

 [30] Early: _Ibid._, p. 239.

 [31] _Ibid._

 [32] _Ibid._, p. 1267.

 [33] There were about six distinct punishments suggested:--

      1. Forfeiture, and fine of $5000 to $10,000 (Early's bill:
      _Ibid._, p. 167).

      2. Forfeiture and imprisonment (amendment to Senate bill:
      _Ibid._, pp. 231, 477, 483).

      3. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and fine of
      $1000 to $10,000 (amendment to amendment of Senate bill:
      _Ibid._, pp. 228, 483).

      4. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 40 years, and fine of
      $1000 to $10,000 (Chandler's amendment: _Ibid._, p. 228).

      5. Forfeiture of all property, and imprisonment (Pitkin:
      _Ibid._, p. 188).

      6. Death (Smilie: _Ibid._, pp. 189-90; bill reported to House,
      Dec. 19: _Ibid._, p. 190; Senate bill as reported to House,
      Jan. 28).

 [34] Smilie: _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 189-90.

 [35] Tallmadge: _Ibid._, p. 233; Olin: _Ibid._, p. 237.

 [36] Ely: _Ibid._, p. 237.

 [37] Smilie: _Ibid._, p. 236. Cf. Sloan: _Ibid._, p. 232.

 [38] Hastings: _Ibid._, p. 228.

 [39] Dwight: _Ibid._, p. 241; Ely: _Ibid._, p. 232.

 [40] Mosely: _Ibid._, pp. 234-5.

 [41] Tallmadge: _Ibid._, pp. 232, 234. Cf. Dwight: _Ibid._, p. 241.

 [42] Varnum: _Ibid._, p. 243.

 [43] Elmer: _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 235.

 [44] _Ibid._, p. 240.

 [45] Holland: _Ibid._, p. 240.

 [46] Early: _Ibid._, pp. 238-9; Holland: _Ibid._, p. 239.

 [47] _Ibid._, p. 233. Cf. Lloyd: _Ibid._, p. 237; Ely:
      _Ibid._, p. 232; Early: _Ibid._, pp. 238-9.

 [48] _Ibid._, p. 484.

 [49] 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. _Ibid._, p. 484.

 [50] Cf. _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 527-8.

 [51] _Ibid._, p. 528.

 [52] _Ibid._, p. 626.

 [53] _Ibid._

 [54] _Ibid._

 [55] _Ibid._, pp. 636-8; _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong.
      2 sess. V. 616, and House Bill No. 219; _Ibid._, 10 Cong. 1
      sess. VI. 27, 50; _Annals of Cong._, 10 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      854-5, 961.

 [56] 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.

 [57] Cf. _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 2 sess. IV.,
      Senate Bill No. 41.

 [58] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438. Cf. above, Sec.
      53.

 [59] 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. _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2
      sess. V. 504.

 [60] _Ibid._, V. 514-5.

 [61] 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.

 [62] Messrs. Betton of New Hampshire, Chittenden of Vermont,
      Garnett and Trigg of Virginia, and D.R. Williams of South
      Carolina voted against the bill: _House Journal_ (repr. 1826),
      9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 585-6.

 [63] _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 626-7.

 [64] The unassigned dates refer to debates, etc. The history
      of the amendments and debates on the measure may be traced in
      the following references:--

                      _Senate_ (Bill No. 41).

      _Annals of Cong._, 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.

      _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1-2 sess. IV. 11, 112,
      123, 124, 132, 133, 150, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168, etc.

                    *       *       *       *       *

                      _House_ (Bill No. 148).

      _Annals of Cong._, 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.

      _House Journal_ (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.

 [65] _Statutes at Large_, II. 426. There were some few
      attempts to obtain laws of relief from this bill: see, e.g.,
      _Annals of Cong._, 10 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1243; 11 Cong. 1 sess.
      pp. 34, 36-9, 41, 43, 48, 49, 380, 465, 688, 706, 2209; _House
      Journal_ (repr. 1826), II Cong. 1-2 sess. VII. 100, 102, 124,
      etc., and Index, Senate Bill No. 8. Cf. _Amer. State Papers,
      Miscellaneous_, II. No. 269. There was also one proposed
      amendment to make the prohibition perpetual: _Amer. State
      Papers, Miscellaneous_, I. No. 244.

 [66] Toulmin, _Digest of the Laws of Alabama_, p. 637.

 [67] _Laws of North Carolina_ (revision of 1819), II. 1350.

 [68] Prince, _Digest_, p. 793.

 [69] Fowler, _Historical Status of the <DW64> in Connecticut_,
      in _Local Law_, etc., pp. 122, 126.

 [70] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 32.

 [71] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p.
      435.

 [72] _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, p. 5.

 [73] See, e.g., _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess.
      VII. p. 575.

 [74] Drake, _Revelations of a Slave Smuggler_, p. 51. Parts of
      this narrative are highly  and untrustworthy; this
      passage, however, has every earmark of truth, and is confirmed
      by many incidental allusions.

 [75] For accounts of these slavers, see _House Reports_, 17
      Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 30-50. The "Paz" was an armed
      slaver flying the American flag.

 [76] 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.

 [77] 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.

 [78] An American slaver of 1814, which was boarded by a
      British vessel. All the above cases, and many others, were
      proven before British courts.

 [79] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 51.

 [80] _House Doc._, 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.

 [81] _House Journal_, 14 Cong. 2 sess. p. 15.

 [82] _House Doc._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 36, p. 5.

 [83] _Ibid._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 8-14. See
      Chew's letter of Oct. 17, 1817: _Ibid._, pp. 14-16.

 [84] By the secret Joint Resolution and Act of 1811 (_Statutes
      at Large_, III. 471), Congress gave the President power to
      suppress the Amelia Island establishment, which was then
      notorious. The capture was not accomplished until 1817.

 [85] _House Doc._, 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." _Amer.
      State Papers, Miscellaneous_, II. No. 441.

 [86] Special message of Jan. 13, 1818: _House Journal_, 15
      Cong. 1 sess. pp. 137-9.

 [87] Collector McIntosh, of the District of Brunswick, Ga., to
      the Secretary of the Treasury. _House Doc._, 16 Cong. 1 sess.
      III. No. 42, pp. 8-9.

 [88] _House Doc._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 6-7.

 [89] _Ibid._, pp. 11-12.

 [90] _Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous_, II. No. 529.

 [91] _House Doc._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 7.

 [92] _Ibid._, p. 6.

 [93] _House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 82.

 [94] They were not general instructions, but were directed to
      Commander Campbell. Cf. _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No.
      84, pp. 5-6.

 [95] _Statutes at Large_, III. 471 ff.

 [96] _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8-9.

 [97] _Ibid._, IV. No. 84. Cf. Chew's letters in _House
      Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348.

 [98] _House Doc._, 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.; _House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No.
      348, p. 85.

 [99] _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8-9.

[100] _House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 77.

[101] Cf. _House Doc._, 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."

[102] E.g., in July, 1818, one informer "will have to leave
      that part of the country to save his life": _Ibid._, 15 Cong.
      2 sess. VI. No. 100, p. 9.

[103] Joseph Nourse, Register of the Treasury, to Hon. W.H.
      Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury: _Ibid._, 15 Cong. 2 sess.
      VI. No. 107, p. 5.

[104] 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.

[105] 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.

[106] An act to relieve him was finally passed, Feb. 8, 1827,
      nine years after the capture. See _Statutes at Large_, VI.
      357.

[107] 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.
      _House Reports_, 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; _Amer. State Papers, Naval_, II. No. 308.

[108] 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.

[109] 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: _Annals of Cong._,
      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 <DW64>s, also looking toward international
      action. This never came to a vote: _Senate Journal_, 14 Cong.
      2 sess. pp. 46, 179, 180; _House Journal_, 14 Cong. 2 sess.
      pp. 25, 27, 380; _House Doc_, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77.
      Finally, the presidential message of 1817 (_House Journal_, 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 (_Amer. State Papers,
      Miscellaneous_, II. No. 441), and the Senate committee also
      reported a bill.

[110] The Senate debates were entirely unreported, and the
      report of the House debates is very meagre. For the
      proceedings, see _Senate Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 243,
      304, 315, 333, 338, 340, 348, 377, 386, 388, 391, 403, 406;
      _House Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 19, 20, 29, 51, 92, 131,
      362, 410, 450, 452, 456, 468, 479, 484, 492, 505.

[111] Simkins of South Carolina, Edwards of North Carolina,
      and Pindall: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.

[112] Hugh Nelson of Virginia: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 1
      sess. p. 1740.

[113] _Statutes at Large_, III. 450. By this act the first six
      sections of the Act of 1807 were repealed.

[114] Or, more accurately speaking, every one realized, in
      view of the increased activity of the trade, that it would be
      a failure.

[115] 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:
      _House Journal_, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9-19, 42, 150, 179, 330,
      334, 341, 343, 352.

[116] Of which little was reported: _Annals of Cong._, 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.

[117] The Senate had also had a committee at work on a bill
      which was reported Feb. 8, and finally postponed: _Senate
      Journal_, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234, 244, 311-2, 347. The House
      bill was taken up March 2: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 2 sess.
      p. 280.

[118] _Statutes at Large_, III. 532.

[119] _Annals of Cong._, 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
      <DW64>s.

[120] _Statutes at Large_, III. 533.

[121] 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.

[122] 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": _Senate Journal_, 16 Cong.
      1 sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 287, 314, 331, 346, 350, 409, 412,
      417, 420, 422, 424, 425; _House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      113, 280, 453, 454, 494, 518, 520, 522, 537; _Annals of
      Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 693-4, 2231, 2236-7, etc. The
      debates were not reported.

[123] _Statutes at Large_, 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:
      _Statutes at Large_, III. 510-4, 721. On March 3, 1823, it was
      slightly amended so as to give district courts jurisdiction.

[124] 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 <DW64>s, or as salary for the agent:
      _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, I. 314-7. Monroe laid the
      case before Congress in a special message Dec. 20, 1819
      (_House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 57); but no action was
      taken there.

[125] Cf. Kendall's Report, August, 1830: _Senate Doc._, 21
      Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 211-8; also see below, Chapter X.

[126] Speech in the House of Representatives, Feb. 15, 1819,
      p. 18; published in Boston, 1849.

[127] Jay, _Inquiry into American Colonization_ (1838), p. 59,
      note.

[128] Quoted in Friends' _Facts and Observations on the Slave
      Trade_ (ed. 1841), pp. 7-8.

[129] _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 270-1.

[130] _Ibid._, p. 698.

[131] _Ibid._, p. 1207.

[132] _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1433.

[133] Referring particularly to the case of the slaver
      "Plattsburg." Cf. _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No.
      92, p. 10.

[134] _House Reports_, 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: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1822, Vol. XXII., _Slave
      Trade_, Further Papers, III. p. 44. So, too, in 1823, Ashmun,
      the African agent, reports that thousands of slaves are being
      abducted.

[135] Ayres to the Secretary of the Navy, Feb. 24, 1823;
      reprinted in _Friends' View of the African Slave-Trade_
      (1824), p. 31.

[136] _House Reports_, 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 Pensee." In these 573 Africans were
      taken. The naval officers were greatly handicapped by the size
      of the ships, etc. (cf. _Friends' View_, etc., pp. 33-41).
      They nevertheless acted with great zeal.

[137] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1821, Vol. XXIII., _Slave
      Trade_, Further Papers, A, p. 76. The names and description of
      a dozen or more American slavers are given: _Ibid._, pp.
      18-21.

[138] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 15-20.

[139] _House Doc._, 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119, p. 13.

[140] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1823, Vol. XVIII., _Slave
      Trade_, Further Papers, A, pp. 10-11.

[141] _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, V. 717.

[142] R.W. Habersham to the Secretary of the Navy, August,
      1821; reprinted in _Friends' View_, etc., p. 47.

[143] _Ibid._, p. 42.

[144] _Ibid._, p. 43.

[145] Cf. above, pp. 126-7.

[146] _Friends' View_, etc., p. 42.

[147] 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.

[148] Cf. editorial in _Niles's Register_, XXII. 114. Cf. also
      the following instances of pardons:--

      PRESIDENT JEFFERSON: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham,
      convicted for "carrying on an illegal slave-trade" (pardoned
      twice). _Pardons and Remissions_, I. 146, 148-9.

      PRESIDENT MADISON: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at
      New Orleans from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 <DW64>s.
      Every penalty incurred under the Act of 1807 was remitted.
      (Note: "Several other pardons of this nature were granted.")
      _Ibid._, I. 179.

      Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for
      importing a slave. _Ibid._, I. 184-5.

      Feb. 12, 1810, William Sewall, convicted for importing slaves.
      _Ibid._, I. 194, 235, 240.

      May 5, 1812, William Babbit, convicted for importing slaves.
      _Ibid._, I. 248.

      PRESIDENT MONROE: June 11, 1822, Thomas Shields, convicted for
      bringing slaves into New Orleans. _Ibid._, IV. 15.

      Aug. 24, 1822, J.F. Smith, sentenced to five years'
      imprisonment and $3000 fine; served twenty-five months and was
      then pardoned. _Ibid._, IV. 22.

      July 23, 1823, certain parties liable to penalties for
      introducing slaves into Alabama. _Ibid._, IV. 63.

      Aug. 15, 1823, owners of schooner "Mary," convicted of
      importing slaves. _Ibid._, IV. 66.

      PRESIDENT J.Q. ADAMS: March 4, 1826, Robert Perry; his ship
      was forfeited for slave-trading. _Ibid._, IV. 140.

      Jan. 17, 1827, Jesse Perry; forfeited ship, and was convicted
      for introducing slaves. _Ibid._, IV. 158.

      Feb. 13, 1827, Zenas Winston; incurred penalties for
      slave-trading. _Ibid._, IV. 161. The four following cases are
      similar to that of Winston:--

      Feb. 24, 1827, John Tucker and William Morbon. _Ibid._, IV.
      162.

      March 25, 1828, Joseph Badger. _Ibid._, IV. 192.

      Feb. 19, 1829, L.R. Wallace. _Ibid._, IV. 215.

      PRESIDENT JACKSON: Five cases. _Ibid._, IV. 225, 270, 301,
      393, 440.

      The above cases were taken from manuscript copies of the
      Washington records, made by Mr. W.C. Endicott, Jr., and kindly
      loaned me.

[149] See _Senate Journal_, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 60, 66, 340,
      341, 343, 348, 352, 355; _House Journal_, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      59, 76, 123, 134, 156, 169, 173, 279, 634, 641, 646, 647, 688,
      692.

[150] _Statutes at Large_, VI. 376.

[151] 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: _Senate
      Journal_, 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; _House Journal_, 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: _House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 196, 200,
      227; 16 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter IX_

THE INTERNATIONAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE-TRADE.

1783-1862.

  66. The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade, 1788-1807.
  67. Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783-1814.
  68. Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820.
  69. The Struggle for an International Right of Search, 1820-1840.
  70. Negotiations of 1823-1825.
  71. The Attitude of the United States and the State of the Slave-Trade.
  72. The Quintuple Treaty, 1839-1842.
  73. Final Concerted Measures, 1842-1862.


66. ~The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade, 1788-1807.~ 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.[1] 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.

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.[2] This abolition was short-lived; for at the command
of the First Consul slavery and the slave-trade was restored in An X
(1799).[3] The trade was finally abolished by Napoleon during the
Hundred Days by a decree, March 29, 1815, which briefly declared: "A
dater de la publication du present Decret, la Traite des Noirs est
abolie."[4] The Treaty of Paris eventually confirmed this law.[5]

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.[6] The report of the Privy Council on the
subject in 1789[7] 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.[8] 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.[9]


67. ~Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783-1814.~ 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 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."[10] Fox
promptly replied: "If that be their policy, it never can be competent to
us to dispute with them their own regulations."[11] No mention of this
was, however, made in the final treaty, probably because it was thought
unnecessary.

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."[12]

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.[13] 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."[14] 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, 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."[15] Meantime additional treaties were
secured: in 1814 by royal decree Netherlands agreed to abolish the
trade;[16] 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;[17] and in 1815 Portugal agreed to abolish the
slave-trade north of the equator.[18]


68. ~Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820.~ 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.[19]

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.[20] 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
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."[21]

Treaties further restricting the trade continued to be made by Great
Britain: Spain abolished the trade north of the equator in 1817,[22] 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.[23] 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.[24]


69. ~The Struggle for an International Right of Search, 1820-1840.~
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 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.

At first it looked as if England might attempt, by judicial decisions in
her own courts, to seize even foreign slavers.[25] After the war,
however, her courts disavowed such action,[26] 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.[27] 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.[28]

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,[29] and a Senate motion to the same effect had caused long
debate.[30] 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.[31] Adams, notwithstanding this, saw
constitutional objections to the 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.[32]

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:--

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.

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.

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.

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.[33]


70. ~Negotiations of 1823-1825.~ 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.[34] 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.[35]
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 slave
trading vessel."[36]

Rush presented this _project_ 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.[37]

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.[38]

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 trade 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.[39]


71. ~The Attitude of the United States and the State of the
Slave-Trade.~ In 1824 the Right of Search was established between
England and Sweden, and in 1826 Brazil promised to abolish the trade in
three years.[40] 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.[41] This led, in the next few
years, to similar treaties with Denmark, Sardinia,[42] the Hanse
towns,[43] and Naples.[44] 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.[45] Indeed, the chances of success were now for many
years imperilled by the recurrence of deliberate search of American
vessels by the British.[46] In the majority 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 <DW64>s 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.[47] The case of the slaver "L'Amistad" also raised
difficulties with Spain. This Spanish vessel, after the <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s, 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.[48]

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 any 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."[49] 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."[50]

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 <DW64>s
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.

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.[51]


72. ~The Quintuple Treaty, 1839-1842.~ 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 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.[52] 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."[53] 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."[54] Palmerston courteously replied that he could not think
that the United States seriously intended to make its flag a refuge for
slave-traders;[55] 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."[56] 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.[57]

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 _projet_
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.[58]

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.[59] This
extraordinary epistle, issued on the minister's own responsibility,
brought a reply denying 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."[60] 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 _laissez-faire_.


73. ~Final Concerted Measures, 1842-1862.~ 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."[61] 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.[62]

This stipulation of the treaty of 1842 was never properly carried out by
the United States for any length of time.[63] Consequently the same
difficulties as to search and visit by English 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."[64] 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.[65]

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.[66] The United States
answered by alleging that even the Treaty of 1842 had been misconstrued
by England,[67] whereupon there was much warm debate in Congress, and
several attempts were made to abrogate the slave-trade article of the
treaty.[68] 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 Search
stipulations of 1833 to one for joint cruising,[69] while the Germanic
Federation,[70] Portugal,[71] and Chili[72]enounced the trade as piracy.
In 1844 Texas granted the Right of Search to England,[73] and in 1845
Belgium signed the Quintuple Treaty.[74]

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."[75]
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.

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, 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."[76] 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.[77] 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.[78]

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.[79] 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.[80] 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."[81]


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Cf. Augustine Cochin, in Lalor, _Cyclopedia_, III. 723.

  [2] By a law of Aug. 11, 1792, the encouragement formerly
      given to the trade was stopped. Cf. _Choix de rapports,
      opinions et discours prononces a la tribune nationale depuis
      1789_ (Paris, 1821), XIV. 425; quoted in Cochin, _The Results
      of Emancipation_ (Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 33, 35-8.

  [3] Cochin, _The Results of Emancipation_ (Booth's
      translation, 1863), pp. 42-7.

  [4] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1815-6, p. 196.

  [5] _Ibid._, pp. 195-9, 292-3; 1816-7, p. 755. It was
      eventually confirmed by royal ordinance, and the law of April
      15, 1818.

  [6] _Statute 28 George III._, ch. 54. Cf. _Statute 29 George
      III._, ch. 66.

  [7] 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 _Report_, London, 1789.

  [8] 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.

  [9] _Statute 46 George III._, ch. 52, 119; _47 George III._,
      sess. I. ch. 36.

 [10] Sparks, _Diplomatic Correspondence_, X. 154.

 [11] Fox to Hartley, June 10, 1783; quoted in Bancroft,
      _History of the Constitution of the United States_, I. 61.

 [12] _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, III. No. 214, p. 151.

 [13] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1815-6, pp. 886, 937
      (quotation).

 [14] _Ibid._, pp. 890-1.

 [15] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1815-6, p. 887.
      Russia, Austria, and Prussia returned favorable replies:
      _Ibid._, pp. 887-8.

 [16] _Ibid._, p. 889.

 [17] She desired a loan, which England made on this condition:
      _Ibid._, pp. 921-2.

 [18] _Ibid._, pp. 937-9. Certain financial arrangements
      secured this concession.

 [19] _Ibid._, pp. 939-75

 [20] _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, III. No. 271, pp. 735-48;
      _U.S. Treaties and Conventions_ (ed. 1889), p. 405.

 [21] This was inserted in the Treaty of Paris, Nov. 20, 1815:
      _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1815-6, p. 292.

 [22] _Ibid._, 1816-7, pp. 33-74 (English version, 1823-4, p.
      702 ff.).

 [23] Cf. _Ibid._, 1817-8, p. 125 ff.

 [24] 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. _British and
      Foreign State Papers_, 1818-9, pp. 21-88; _Amer. State Papers,
      Foreign_, V. No. 346, pp. 113-122.

 [25] For cases, see _1 Acton_, 240, the "Amedie," and _1
      Dodson_, 81, the "Fortuna;" quoted in U.S. Reports, _10
      Wheaton_, 66.

 [26] Cf. the case of the French ship "Le Louis": _2 Dodson_,
      238; and also the case of the "San Juan Nepomuceno": _1
      Haggard_, 267.

 [27] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1819-20, pp. 375-9;
      also pp. 220-2.

 [28] _Ibid._, 1820-21, pp. 395-6.

 [29] _House Doc._, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77.

 [30] _Annals of Cong._, 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.

 [31] One was reported, May 9, 1820, by Mercer's committee, and
      passed May 12: _House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 497, 518,
      520, 526; _Annals of Cong._, 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: _Ibid._,
      16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1064-71. Cf. _Ibid._, pp. 476, 743, 865,
      1469.

 [32] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1820-21, pp. 397-400.

 [33] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1822-3, pp. 94-110.

 [34] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92.

 [35] _House Journal_, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 212, 280; _Annals
      of Cong._, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 922, 1147-1155.

 [36] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1823-4, pp. 409-21;
      1824-5, pp. 828-47; _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, V. No. 371,
      pp. 333-7.

 [37] _Ibid._

 [38] _Ibid._, No. 374, p. 344 ff., No. 379, pp. 360-2.

 [39] _House Reports_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70; _Amer. State
      Papers, Foreign_, 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": _Ibid._, No. 407, p. 729. The little republic
      replied courteously; and, as a _projet_ 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:
      _Ibid._, 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: _Ibid._, No. 423, pp. 837, 860, 876, 882.

 [40] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1823-4, and 1826-7.
      Brazil abolished the trade in 1830.

 [41] This treaty was further defined in 1833: _Ibid._, 1830-1,
      p. 641 ff.; 1832-3, p. 286 ff.

 [42] _Ibid._, 1833-4, pp. 218 ff., 1059 ff.

 [43] _Ibid._, 1837-8, p. 268 ff.

 [44] _Ibid._, 1838-9, p. 792 ff.

 [45] Viz., Feb. 28, 1825; April 7, 1830; Feb. 16, 1831; March
      3, 1831. The last resolution passed the House: _House
      Journal_, 21 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 426-8.

 [46] Cf. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 35-6,
      etc.; _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp.
      730-55, etc.

 [47] These were the celebrated cases of the "Encomium,"
      "Enterprize," and "Comet." Cf. _Senate Doc._, 24 Cong. 2 sess.
      II. No. 174; 25 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 216. Cf. also case of
      the "Creole": _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. II.-III. Nos. 51, 137.

 [48] _Ibid._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 179; _Senate Exec.
      Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29; 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No.
      19; _Senate Reports_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. No. 301; 32 Cong. 1
      sess. I. No. 158; 35 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 36; _House Doc._, 26
      Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 185; 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191; 28
      Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 83; _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 2 sess.
      III. No. 20; _House Reports_, 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, _15 Peters_, 518. Cf.
      Drake, _Revelations of a Slave Smuggler_, p. 98.

 [49] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1834-5, p. 136.

 [50] _Ibid._, 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.
      _Ibid._, from 1838 to 1841.

 [51] These estimates are from the following sources: _Ibid._,
      1822-3, pp. 94-110; _Parliamentary Papers_, 1823, XVIII.,
      _Slave Trade_, Further Papers, A., pp. 10-11; 1838-9, XLIX.,
      _Slave Trade_, Class A, Further Series, pp. 115, 119, 121;
      _House Doc._, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 1, p. 93; 20 Cong. 1
      sess. III. No. 99; 26 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 211; _House Exec.
      Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 193; _House Reports_, 21
      Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348; _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 1 sess.
      IV. No. 217; 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66; 31 Cong. 2 sess.
      II. No. 6; _Amer. State Papers, Naval_, I. No. 249; Buxton,
      _The African Slave Trade and its Remedy_, pp. 44-59; Friends'
      _Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade_ (ed. 1841);
      Friends' _Exposition of the Slave Trade, 1840-50_; _Annual
      Reports of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society_.

      The annexed table gives the dates of the abolition of the
      slave-trade by the various nations:--

    -------+-------------------+---------------------------+--------------
           |                   |                           |Arrangements
           |                   | Right of Search Treaty    |  for Joint
    Date.  |Slave-trade        |   with Great Britain,     |  Cruising
           |  Abolished by     |   made by                 |  with Great
           |                   |                           |  Britain,
           |                   |                           |  made by
    -------+-------------------+---------------------------+--------------
    1802   | Denmark.          |                           |
    1807   | Great Britain;    |                           |
           |   United States.  |                           |
    1813   | Sweden.           |                           |
    1814   | Netherlands.      |                           |
    1815   | Portugal (north   |                           |
           |   of the equator).|                           |
    1817   | Spain (north of   | Portugal; Spain.          |
           |   the equator).   |                           |
    1818   | France.           | Netherlands.              |
    1820   | Spain.            |                           |
    1824   |                   | Sweden.                   |
    1829   | Brazil (?).       |                           |
    1830   | Portugal.         |                           |
    1831-33|                   | France.                   |
    1833-39|                   | Denmark, Hanse Towns, etc.|
    1841   |                   | Quintuple Treaty (Austria,|
    1842   |                   |   Russia, Prussia).       | United States.
    1844   |                   | Texas.                    |
    1845   |                   | Belgium.                  | France.
    1862   |                   | United States.            |
    -------+-------------------+---------------------------+--------------



 [52] Cf. _British and Foreign State Papers_, from 1836 to
      1842.

 [53] _Ibid._, 1839-40, p. 940.

 [54] _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, pp. 5-6.

 [55] _Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 56.

 [56] _Ibid._, p. 72.

 [57] _Ibid._, pp. 133-40, etc.

 [58] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1841-2, p. 269 ff.

 [59] See below, Appendix B.

 [60] _Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 201.

 [61] _Senate Exec. Journal_, VI. 123.

 [62] _U.S. Treaties and Conventions_ (ed. 1889), pp. 436-7.
      For the debates in the Senate, see _Congressional Globe_, 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. _Senate Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II., IV. Nos.
      52, 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377.

 [63] Cf. below, Chapter X.

 [64] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 72.

 [65] _Ibid._, p. 77.

 [66] _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192, p. 4. Cf.
      _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1842-3, p. 708 ff.

 [67] _House Journal_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 431, 485-8. Cf.
      _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192.

 [68] Cf. below, Chapter X.

 [69] With a fleet of 26 vessels, reduced to 12 in 1849:
      _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1844-5, p. 4 ff.; 1849-50,
      p. 480.

 [70] _Ibid._, 1850-1, p. 953.

 [71] Portugal renewed her Right of Search treaty in 1842:
      _Ibid._, 1841-2, p. 527 ff.; 1842-3, p. 450.

 [72] _Ibid._, 1843-4, p. 316.

 [73] _Ibid._, 1844-5, p. 592. There already existed some such
      privileges between England and Texas.

 [74] _Ibid._, 1847-8, p. 397 ff.

 [75] _Ibid._, 1858-9, pp. 1121, 1129.

 [76] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1859-60, pp. 902-3.

 [77] _House Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7.

 [78] _Ibid._

 [79] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 57.

 [80] _Senate Exec. Journal_, XII. 230-1, 240, 254, 256, 391,
      400, 403; _Diplomatic Correspondence_, 1862, pp. 141, 158;
      _U.S. Treaties and Conventions_ (ed. 1889), pp. 454-9.

 [81] _Diplomatic Correspondence_, 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: _Senate Exec.
      Doc._, 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56, p. 24.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter X_

THE RISE OF THE COTTON KINGDOM. 1820-1850.

  74. The Economic Revolution.
  75. The Attitude of the South.
  76. The Attitude of the North and Congress.
  77. Imperfect Application of the Laws.
  78. Responsibility of the Government.
  79. Activity of the Slave-Trade.


74. ~The Economic Revolution.~ 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."[1] 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.[2] The effect which these
inventions had on the manufacture of cotton goods is best illustrated
by the fact that in England, the chief cotton 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.[3] 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.

Here it was that the fatal mistake of compromising with slavery in the
beginning, and of the policy of _laissez-faire_ 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.

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,
81/2_d._ From this time until 1845 the price steadily fell, until in the
latter year it reached 4_d._; 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_d._ The demand for
cotton 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.[4] 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.[5]

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
_regime_ 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 _coup-d'etat_, which failed
in the war of 1861-1865.[6]


75. ~The Attitude of the South.~ The attitude of the South toward the
slave-trade changed _pari passu_ with this development of the cotton
trade. From 1808 to 1820 the South half wished to get rid of a
troublesome and abnormal institution, 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.

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.[7]
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,[8] 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 settled the point, that
this Trade _cannot be abolished by the use of force_, 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."[9]


76. ~The Attitude of the North and Congress.~ 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;[10] one or two attempts were
made to relax the few provisions which restrained the coastwise
trade;[11] 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.[12] The anti-slavery men
presented several bills to amend and strengthen previous laws;[13] they
sought, for instance, in vain to regulate the Texan trade, through which
numbers of slaves indirectly reached the United States.[14] Presidents
and consuls earnestly recommended legislation to restrict the clearances
of vessels bound on slave-trading voyages, and to hinder the facility
with which slavers obtained fraudulent papers.[15] Only one such bill
succeeded in passing the Senate, and that was dropped in the House.[16]

The only legislation of this period was confined to a few appropriation
bills. Only one of these acts, that of 1823, appropriating $50,000,[17]
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.[18] 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 <DW64>s imported on the
"Ramirez;"[19] in 1827, $5,442.22 for the "bounty, subsistence,
clothing, medicine," etc., of fifteen Africans;[20] in 1835, $3,613 for
the support of thirty-eight slaves for two months (including a bill of
$1,038 for medical attendance).[21]

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.

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.[22]


77. ~Imperfect Application of the Laws.~ 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."[23] 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,"[24] 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;[25] but even after the signing of the treaty of
1842 the Secretary of the Navy reports: "On the coast of Africa we have
_no_ squadron. The small appropriation of the present year was believed
to be scarcely sufficient."[26] Between 1843 and 1850 the coast squadron
varied from two to six vessels, with from thirty to ninety-eight
guns;[27] "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 has expired."[28] 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.[29] As the commanders
themselves acknowledged, the squadron was too small and the
cruising-ground too large to make joint cruising effective.[30]

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."[31] 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.[32]

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 insistence in their orders on the non-existence of a
Right of Search.[33] 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.[34] 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."[35]


78. ~Responsibility of the Government.~ 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.[36]
After the conquest of Mexico, even vessels bound to California, by the
way of Cape Horn, were allowed to clear coastwise, thus giving our flag
to "the slave-pirates of the whole world."[37] 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.[38] 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."[39]

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 _one thousand dollars_, which would
be paid by any slave trader in Rio, on the _presentation of a draft_. In
all this there is little encouragement for exertion."[40] 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.[41]
Also several slavers sent home to the United States by the British, with
clear evidence of guilt, escaped condemnation through
technicalities.[42]


79. ~Activity of the Slave-Trade, 1820-1850.~ 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.[43] 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.

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."[44] In
June, 1841, the President declares: "There is reason to believe that the
traffic is on the increase," and advocates "vigorous efforts."[45] 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."[46] 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.[47] 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 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."[48] 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 _American flag_. Never was the proud banner of
freedom so extensively used by those pirates upon liberty and humanity,
as at this season."[49] One well-known American slaver was boarded
fifteen times and twice taken into port, but always escaped by means of
her papers.[50] Even American officers report that the English are doing
all they can, but that the American flag protects the trade.[51] The
evidence which literally poured in from our consuls and ministers at
Brazil adds to the story of the guilt of the United States.[52] 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."[53] Minister Proffit stated, in 1844,
that the "slave-trade is almost entirely carried on under our flag, in
American-built vessels."[54] 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.[55] The American
consul, Trist, was proven to have consciously or unconsciously aided
this trade by the issuance of blank clearance papers.[56]

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."[57] 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.[58] 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.[59] 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.[60]

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.[61] When with these facts we consider
the law facilitating "recovery" of slaves from Texas,[62] the repeated
refusals to regulate the Texan trade, and the shelving of a proposed
congressional investigation into these matters,[63] 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."[64] Between
1847 and 1853 the slave smuggler Drake had a slave depot in the Gulf,
where sometimes as many as 1,600 <DW64>s 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[65] 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 <DW64>s 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."[66]
Inherent probability and concurrent testimony confirm the substantial
truth of such confessions. For instance, one traveller discovers on a
Southern plantation <DW64>s who can speak no English.[67] The careful
reports of the Quakers "apprehend that many [slaves] are also introduced
into the United States."[68] Governor Mathew of the Bahama Islands
reports that "in more than one instance, Bahama vessels with 
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.[69]

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.


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] Beer, _Geschichte des Welthandels im 19^{ten}
      Jahrhundert_, II. 67.

  [2] A list of these inventions most graphically illustrates
      this advance:--

        1738,    John Jay, fly-shuttle.
                 John Wyatt, spinning by rollers.
        1748,    Lewis Paul, carding-machine.
        1760,    Robert Kay, drop-box.
        1769,    Richard Arkwright, water-frame and throstle.
                 James Watt, steam-engine.
        1772,    James Lees, improvements on carding-machine.
        1775,    Richard Arkwright, series of combinations.
        1779,    Samuel Compton, mule.
        1785,    Edmund Cartwright, power-loom.
        1803-4,  Radcliffe and Johnson, dressing-machine.
        1817,    Roberts, fly-frame.
        1818,    William Eaton, self-acting frame.
        1825-30, Roberts, improvements on mule.

      Cf. Baines, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, pp. 116-231;
      _Encyclopaedia Britannica_, 9th ed., article "Cotton."

  [3] Baines, _History of the Cotton Manufacture_, p. 215. A
      bale weighed from 375 lbs. to 400 lbs.

  [4] The prices cited are from Newmarch and Tooke, and refer to
      the London market. The average price in 1855-60 was about
      7_d._

  [5] From United States census reports.

  [6] Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, _The Cotton
      Kingdom_.

  [7] Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, _The Cotton
      Kingdom_.

  [8] As early as 1836 Calhoun declared that he should ever
      regret that the term "piracy" had been applied to the
      slave-trade in our laws: Benton, _Abridgment of Debates_, XII.
      718.

  [9] Governor J.H. Hammond of South Carolina, in _Letters to
      Clarkson_, No. 1, p. 2.

 [10] In 1826 Forsyth of Georgia attempted to have a bill
      passed abolishing the African agency, and providing that the
      Africans imported be disposed of in some way that would entail
      no expense on the public treasury: _Home Journal_, 19 Cong. 1
      sess. p. 258. In 1828 a bill was reported to the House to
      abolish the agency and make the Colonization Society the
      agents, if they would agree to the terms. The bill was so
      amended as merely to appropriate money for suppressing the
      slave-trade: _Ibid._, 20 Cong. 1 sess., House Bill No. 190.

 [11] _Ibid._, pp. 121, 135; 20 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 58-9, 84,
      215.

 [12] _Congressional Globe_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 328, 331-6.

 [13] Cf. Mercer's bill, _House Journal_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. p.
      512; also Strange's two bills, _Senate Journal_, 25 Cong. 3
      sess. pp. 200, 313; 26 Cong. 1 sess., Senate Bill No. 123.

 [14] _Senate Journal_, 25 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 297-8, 300.

 [15] _Senate Doc_, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 217, p. 19;
      _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6, pp. 3, 10,
      etc.; 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, pp. 5-6; 34 Cong. 1 sess.
      XV. No. 99, p. 80; _House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      117-8; cf. _Ibid._, 20 Cong. 1 sess. p. 650, etc.; 21 Cong. 2
      sess. p. 194; 27 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 31, 184; _House Doc._, 29
      Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43, p. 11; _House Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong.
      1 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 5, pp. 7-8.

 [16] _Senate Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess., Senate Bill No. 335;
      _House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1138, 1228, 1257.

 [17] _Statutes at Large_, III. 764.

 [18] Cf. above, Chapter VIII. p. 125.

 [19] Cf. _Report of the Secretary of the Navy_, 1827.

 [20] _Ibid._

 [21] _House Reports_, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 223.

 [22] This account is taken exclusively from government
      documents: _Amer. State Papers, Naval_, III. Nos. 339, 340,
      357, 429 E; IV. Nos. 457 R (1 and 2), 486 H, I, p. 161 and 519
      R, 564 P, 585 P; _House Reports_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 65;
      _House Doc._, 19 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 69; 21 Cong. 2 sess. I.
      No. 2, pp. 42-3, 211-8; 22 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 45,
      272-4; 22 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 48, 229; 23 Cong. 1
      sess. I. No. 1, pp. 238, 269; 23 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp.
      315, 363; 24 Cong, 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 336, 378; 24 Cong. 2
      sess. I. No. 2, pp. 450, 506; 25 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 3, pp.
      771, 850; 26 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 534, 612; 26 Cong. 2
      sess. I. No. 2, pp. 405, 450. It is probable that the agent
      became eventually the United States consul and minister; I
      cannot however cite evidence for this supposition.

 [23] _Report of the Secretary of the Navy_, 1824.

 [24] _Ibid._, 1826.

 [25] _Ibid._, 1839.

 [26] _Ibid._, 1842.

 [27] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1857-8, p. 1250.

 [28] Lord Napier to Secretary of State Cass, Dec. 24, 1857:
      _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1857-8, p. 1249.

 [29] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1847-8, Vol. LXIV. No. 133,
      _Papers Relative to the Suppression of the Slave Trade on the
      Coast of Africa_, p. 2.

 [30] Report of Perry: _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No.
      150, p. 118.

 [31] Consul Park at Rio Janeiro to Secretary Buchanan, Aug.
      20, 1847: _House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p.
      7.

 [32] Suppose "an American vessel employed to take in <DW64>s
      at some point on this coast. There is no American man-of-war
      here to obtain intelligence. What risk does she run of being
      searched? But suppose that there is a man-of-war in port. What
      is to secure the master of the merchantman against her [the
      man-of-war's commander's knowing all about his [the
      merchant-man's] intention, or suspecting it in time to be upon
      him [the merchant-man] before he shall have run a league on
      his way to Texas?" Consul Trist to Commander Spence: _House
      Doc._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, p. 41.]

 [33] A typical set of instructions was on the following plan:
      1. You are charged with the protection of legitimate commerce.
      2. While the United States wishes to suppress the slave-trade,
      she will not admit a Right of Search by foreign vessels. 3.
      You are to arrest slavers. 4. You are to allow in no case an
      exercise of the Right of Search or any great interruption of
      legitimate commerce.--To Commodore Perry, March 30, 1843:
      _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 104.

 [34] _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp.
      765-8. Cf. Benton's speeches on the treaty of 1842.

 [35] Report of Hotham to Admiralty, April 7, 1847:
      _Parliamentary Papers_, 1847-8, Vol. LXIV. No. 133, _Papers
      Relative to the Suppression of the Slave Trade on the Coast of
      Africa_, p. 13.

 [36] _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, III. 512.

 [37] _Tenth Annual Report of the Amer. and Foreign Anti-Slav.
      Soc._, May 7, 1850, p. 149.

 [38] _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, IV. 245.

 [39] _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, pp. 108,
      132.

 [40] _House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, p. 18.

 [41] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, pp. 286-90.

 [42] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1839-40, pp. 913-4.

 [43] Cf. United States census reports; and Olmsted, _Cotton
      Kingdom_.

 [44] _House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. p. 118.

 [45] _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 31, 184.

 [46] _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 14, 15, 86, 113.

 [47] _Senate Journal_, 28 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 191, 227.

 [48] _House Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. III. pt. I. No. 5,
      p. 7.

 [49] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, p. 152.

 [50] _Ibid._, pp. 152-3.

 [51] _Ibid._, p. 241.

 [52] Cf. e.g. _House Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. pt. I. No.
      148; 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43; _House Exec. Doc._, 30
      Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61; _Senate Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 1
      sess. IV. No. 28; 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6; 33 Cong. 1 sess.
      VIII. No. 47.

 [53] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, p. 218.

 [54] _Ibid._, p. 221.

 [55] Palmerston to Stevenson: _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess.
      V. No. 115, p. 5. In 1836 five such slavers were known to have
      cleared; in 1837, eleven; in 1838, nineteen; and in 1839,
      twenty-three: _Ibid._, pp. 220-1.

 [56] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1839, Vol. XLIX., _Slave Trade_,
      class A, Further Series, pp. 58-9; class B, Further Series, p.
      110; class D, Further Series, p. 25. Trist pleaded ignorance
      of the law: Trist to Forsyth, _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess.
      V. No. 115.

 [57] _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115.

 [58] Foote, _Africa and the American Flag_, p. 290.

 [59] _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 121,
      163-6.

 [60] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV No. 66.

 [61] Trist to Forsyth: _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No.
      115. "The business of supplying the United States with
      Africans from this island is one that must necessarily exist,"
      because "slaves are a hundred _per cent_, or more, higher in
      the United States than in Cuba," and this profit "is a
      temptation which it is not in human nature as modified by
      American institutions to withstand": _Ibid._

 [62] _Statutes at Large_, V. 674.

 [63] Cf. above, p. 157, note 1.

 [64] Buxton, _The African Slave Trade and its Remedy_, pp.
      44-5. Cf. _2d Report of the London African Soc._, p. 22.

 [65] I.e., Bay Island in the Gulf of Mexico, near the coast of
      Honduras.

 [66] _Revelations of a Slave Smuggler_, p. 98.

 [67] Mr. H. Moulton in _Slavery as it is_, p. 140; cited in
      _Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade_ (Friends' ed.
      1841), p. 8.

 [68] In a memorial to Congress, 1840: _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 1
      sess. VI. No. 211.

 [69] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1845-6, pp. 883, 968,
      989-90. The governor wrote in reply: "The United States, if
      properly served by their law officers in the Floridas, will
      not experience any difficulty in obtaining the requisite
      knowledge of these illegal transactions, which, I have reason
      to believe, were the subject of common notoriety in the
      neighbourhood where they occurred, and of boast on the part of
      those concerned in them": _British and Foreign State Papers_,
      1845-6, p. 990.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter XI_

THE FINAL CRISIS. 1850-1870.

  80. The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws.
  81. Commercial Conventions of 1855-56.
  82. Commercial Conventions of 1857-58.
  83. Commercial Convention of 1859.
  84. Public Opinion in the South.
  85. The Question in Congress.
  86. Southern Policy in 1860.
  87. Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860.
  88. Notorious Infractions of the Laws.
  89. Apathy of the Federal Government.
  90. Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.
  91. Attitude of the United States.


80. ~The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws.~ It was not altogether a
mistaken judgment that led the constitutional fathers to consider the
slave-trade as the backbone of slavery. An economic system based on
slave labor will find, sooner or later, that the demand for the cheapest
slave labor cannot long be withstood. Once degrade the laborer so that
he cannot assert his own rights, and there is but one limit below which
his price cannot be reduced. That limit is not his physical well-being,
for it may be, and in the Gulf States it was, cheaper to work him
rapidly to death; the limit is simply the cost of procuring him and
keeping him alive a profitable length of time. Only the moral sense of a
community can keep helpless labor from sinking to this level; and when a
community has once been debauched by slavery, its moral sense offers
little resistance to economic demand. This was the case in the West
Indies and Brazil; and although better moral stamina held the crisis
back longer in the United States, yet even here the ethical standard of
the South was not able to maintain itself against the demands of the
cotton industry. When, after 1850, the price of slaves had risen to a
monopoly height, the leaders of the plantation system, brought to the
edge of bankruptcy by the crude and reckless farming necessary under a
slave _regime_, and baffled, at least temporarily, in their quest of new
rich land to exploit, began instinctively to feel that the only
salvation of American slavery lay in the reopening of the African
slave-trade.

It took but a spark to put this instinctive feeling into words, and
words led to deeds. The movement first took definite form in the ever
radical State of South Carolina. In 1854 a grand jury in the
Williamsburg district declared, "as our unanimous opinion, that the
Federal law abolishing the African Slave Trade is a public grievance. We
hold this trade has been and would be, if re-established, a blessing to
the American people, and a benefit to the African himself."[1] This
attracted only local attention; but when, in 1856, the governor of the
State, in his annual message, calmly argued at length for a reopening of
the trade, and boldly declared that "if we cannot supply the demand for
slave labor, then we must expect to be supplied with a species of labor
we do not want,"[2] such words struck even Southern ears like "a thunder
clap in a calm day."[3] And yet it needed but a few years to show that
South Carolina had merely been the first to put into words the
inarticulate thought of a large minority, if not a majority, of the
inhabitants of the Gulf States.


81. ~Commercial Conventions of 1855-56.~ The growth of the movement is
best followed in the action of the Southern Commercial Convention, an
annual gathering which seems to have been fairly representative of a
considerable part of Southern opinion. In the convention that met at New
Orleans in 1855, McGimsey of Louisiana introduced a resolution
instructing the Southern Congressmen to secure the repeal of the
slave-trade laws. This resolution went to the Committee on Resolutions,
and was not reported.[4] In 1856, in the convention at Savannah, W.B.
Goulden of Georgia moved that the members of Congress be requested to
bestir themselves energetically to have repealed all laws which forbade
the slave-trade. By a vote of 67 to 18 the convention refused to debate
the motion, but appointed a committee to present at the next convention
the facts relating to a reopening of the trade.[5] In regard to this
action a pamphlet of the day said: "There were introduced into the
convention two leading measures, viz.: the laying of a State tariff on
northern goods, and the reopening of the slave-trade; the one to advance
our commercial interest, the other our agricultural interest, and which,
when taken together, as they were doubtless intended to be, and although
they have each been attacked by presses of doubtful service to the
South, are characterized in the private judgment of politicians as one
of the completest southern remedies ever submitted to popular action....
The proposition to revive, or more properly to reopen, the slave trade
is as yet but imperfectly understood, in its intentions and probable
results, by the people of the South, and but little appreciated by them.
It has been received in all parts of the country with an undefined sort
of repugnance, a sort of squeamishness, which is incident to all such
violations of moral prejudices, and invariably wears off on familiarity
with the subject. The South will commence by enduring, and end by
embracing the project."[6] The matter being now fully before the public
through these motions, Governor Adams's message, and newspaper and
pamphlet discussion, the radical party pushed the project with all
energy.


82. ~Commercial Conventions of 1857-58.~ The first piece of regular
business that came before the Commercial Convention at Knoxville,
Tennessee, August 10, 1857, was a proposal to recommend the abrogation
of the 8th Article of the Treaty of Washington, on the slave-trade. An
amendment offered by Sneed of Tennessee, declaring it inexpedient and
against settled policy to reopen the trade, was voted down, Alabama,
Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia
refusing to agree to it. The original motion then passed; and the
radicals, satisfied with their success in the first skirmish, again
secured the appointment of a committee to report at the next meeting on
the subject of reopening the slave-trade.[7] This next meeting assembled
May 10, 1858, in a Gulf State, Alabama, in the city of Montgomery.
Spratt of South Carolina, the slave-trade champion, presented an
elaborate majority report from the committee, and recommended the
following resolutions:--

    1. _Resolved_, That slavery is right, and that being right,
    there can be no wrong in the natural means to its formation.

    2. _Resolved_, That it is expedient and proper that the foreign
    slave trade should be re-opened, and that this Convention will
    lend its influence to any legitimate measure to that end.

    3. _Resolved_, That a committee, consisting of one from each
    slave State, be appointed to consider of the means, consistent
    with the duty and obligations of these States, for re-opening
    the foreign slave-trade, and that they report their plan to the
    next meeting of this Convention.

Yancey, from the same committee, presented a minority report, which,
though it demanded the repeal of the national prohibitory laws, did not
advocate the reopening of the trade by the States.

Much debate ensued. Pryor of Virginia declared the majority report "a
proposition to dissolve the Union." Yancey declared that "he was for
disunion now. [Applause.]" He defended the principle of the slave-trade,
and said: "If it is right to buy slaves in Virginia and carry them to
New Orleans, why is it not right to buy them in Cuba, Brazil, or Africa,
and carry them there?" The opposing speeches made little attempt to meet
this uncomfortable logic; but, nevertheless, opposition enough was
developed to lay the report on the table until the next convention, with
orders that it be printed, in the mean time, as a radical campaign
document. Finally the convention passed a resolution:--

    That it is inexpedient for any State, or its citizens, to
    attempt to re-open the African slave-trade while that State is
    one of the United States of America.[8]


83. ~Commercial Convention of 1859.~ The Convention of 1859 met at
Vicksburg, Mississippi, May 9-19, and the slave-trade party came ready
for a fray. On the second day Spratt called up his resolutions, and the
next day the Committee on Resolutions recommended that, _"in the opinion
of this Convention, all laws, State or Federal, prohibiting the African
slave trade, ought to be repealed."_ Two minority reports accompanied
this resolution: one proposed to postpone action, on account of the
futility of the attempt at that time; the other report recommended that,
since repeal of the national laws was improbable, nullification by the
States impracticable, and action by the Supreme Court unlikely,
therefore the States should bring in the Africans as apprentices, a
system the legality of which "is incontrovertible." "The only difficult
question," it was said, "is the future status of the apprentices after
the expiration of their term of servitude."[9] Debate on these
propositions began in the afternoon. A brilliant speech on the
resumption of the importation of slaves, says Foote of Mississippi, "was
listened to with breathless attention and applauded vociferously. Those
of us who rose in opposition were looked upon by the excited assemblage
present as _traitors_ to the best interests of the South, and only
worthy of expulsion from the body. The excitement at last grew so high
that personal violence was menaced, and some dozen of the more
conservative members of the convention withdrew from the hall in which
it was holding its sittings."[10] "It was clear," adds De Bow, "that the
people of Vicksburg looked upon it [i.e., the convention] with some
distrust."[11] When at last a ballot was taken, the first resolution
passed by a vote of 40 to 19.[12] Finally, the 8th Article of the Treaty
of Washington was again condemned; and it was also suggested, in the
newspaper which was the official organ of the meeting, that "the
Convention raise a fund to be dispensed in premiums for the best
sermons in favor of reopening the African Slave Trade."[13]


84. ~Public Opinion in the South.~ This record of the Commercial
Conventions probably gives a true reflection of the development of
extreme opinion on the question of reopening the slave-trade. First, it
is noticeable that on this point there was a distinct divergence of
opinion and interest between the Gulf and the Border States, and it was
this more than any moral repugnance that checked the radicals. The whole
movement represented the economic revolt of the slave-consuming
cotton-belt against their base of labor supply. This revolt was only
prevented from gaining its ultimate end by the fact that the Gulf States
could not get on without the active political co-operation of the Border
States. Thus, although such hot-heads as Spratt were not able, even as
late as 1859, to carry a substantial majority of the South with them in
an attempt to reopen the trade at all hazards, yet the agitation did
succeed in sweeping away nearly all theoretical opposition to the trade,
and left the majority of Southern people in an attitude which regarded
the reopening of the African slave-trade as merely a question of
expediency.

This growth of Southern opinion is clearly to be followed in the
newspapers and pamphlets of the day, in Congress, and in many
significant movements. The Charleston _Standard_ in a series of articles
strongly advocated the reopening of the trade; the Richmond _Examiner_,
though opposing the scheme as a Virginia paper should, was brought to
"acknowledge that the laws which condemn the Slave-trade imply an
aspersion upon the character of the South.[14] In March, 1859, the
_National Era_ said: "There can be no doubt that the idea of reviving
the African Slave Trade is gaining ground in the South. Some two months
ago we could quote strong articles from ultra Southern journals against
the traffic; but of late we have been sorry to observe in the same
journals an ominous silence upon the subject, while the advocates of
'free trade in <DW64>s' are earnest and active."[15] The Savannah
_Republican_, which at first declared the movement to be of no serious
intent, conceded, in 1859, that it was gaining favor, and that
nine-tenths of the Democratic Congressional Convention favored it, and
that even those who did not advocate a revival demanded the abolition of
the laws.[16] A correspondent from South Carolina writes, December 18,
1859: "The nefarious project of opening it [i.e., the slave trade] has
been started here in that prurient temper of the times which manifests
itself in disunion schemes.... My State is strangely and terribly
infected with all this sort of thing.... One feeling that gives a
countenance to the opening of the slave trade is, that it will be a sort
of spite to the North and defiance of their opinions."[17] The New
Orleans _Delta_ declared that those who voted for the slave-trade in
Congress were men "whose names will be honored hereafter for the
unflinching manner in which they stood up for principle, for truth, and
consistency, as well as the vital interests of the South."[18]

85. ~The Question in Congress.~ Early in December, 1856, the subject
reached Congress; and although the agitation was then new, fifty-seven
Southern Congressmen refused to declare a re-opening of the slave-trade
"shocking to the moral sentiment of the enlightened portion of mankind,"
and eight refused to call the reopening even "unwise" and
"inexpedient."[19] Three years later, January 31, 1859, it was
impossible, in a House of one hundred and ninety-nine members, to get a
two-thirds vote in order even to consider Kilgore's resolutions, which
declared "that no legislation can be too thorough in its measures, nor
can any penalty known to the catalogue of modern punishment for crime be
too severe against a traffic so inhuman and unchristian."[20]

Congressmen and other prominent men hastened with the rising tide.[21]
Dowdell of Alabama declared the repressive acts "highly offensive;" J.B.
Clay of Kentucky was "opposed to all these laws;"[22] Seward of Georgia
declared them "wrong, and a violation of the Constitution;"[23]
Barksdale of Mississippi agreed with this sentiment; Crawford of Georgia
threatened a reopening of the trade; Miles of South Carolina was for
"sweeping away" all restrictions;[24] Keitt of South Carolina wished to
withdraw the African squadron, and to cease to brand slave-trading as
piracy;[25] Brown of Mississippi "would repeal the law instantly;"[26]
Alexander Stephens, in his farewell address to his constituents, said:
"Slave states cannot be made without Africans.... [My object is] to
bring clearly to your mind the great truth that without an increase of
African slaves from abroad, you may not expect or look for many more
slave States."[27] Jefferson Davis strongly denied "any coincidence of
opinion with those who prate of the inhumanity and sinfulness of the
trade. The interest of Mississippi," said he, "not of the African,
dictates my conclusion." He opposed the immediate reopening of the trade
in Mississippi for fear of a paralyzing influx of <DW64>s, but carefully
added: "This conclusion, in relation to Mississippi, is based upon my
view of her _present_ condition, _not_ upon any _general theory_. It is
not supposed to be applicable to Texas, to New Mexico, or to any _future
acquisitions_ to be made south of the Rio Grande."[28] John Forsyth, who
for seven years conducted the slave-trade diplomacy of the nation,
declared, about 1860: "But one stronghold of its [i.e., slavery's]
enemies remains to be carried, to _complete its triumph_ and assure its
welfare,--that is the existing prohibition of the African
Slave-trade."[29] Pollard, in his _Black Diamonds_, urged the
importation of Africans as "laborers." "This I grant you," said he,
"would be practically the re-opening of the African slave trade; but ...
you will find that it very often becomes necessary to evade the letter
of the law, in some of the greatest measures of social happiness and
patriotism."[30]


86. ~Southern Policy in 1860.~ The matter did not rest with mere words.
During the session of the Vicksburg Convention, an "African Labor Supply
Association" was formed, under the presidency of J.D.B. De Bow, editor
of _De Bow's Review_, and ex-superintendent of the seventh census. The
object of the association was "to promote the supply of African
labor."[31] In 1857 the committee of the South Carolina legislature to
whom the Governor's slave-trade message was referred made an elaborate
report, which declared in italics: _"The South at large does need a
re-opening of the African slave trade."_ Pettigrew, the only member who
disagreed to this report, failed of re-election. The report contained an
extensive argument to prove the kingship of cotton, the perfidy of
English philanthropy, and the lack of slaves in the South, which, it was
said, would show a deficit of six hundred thousand slaves by 1878.[32]
In Georgia, about this time, an attempt to expunge the slave-trade
prohibition in the State Constitution lacked but one vote of
passing.[33] From these slower and more legal movements came others
less justifiable. The long argument on the "apprentice" system finally
brought a request to the collector of the port at Charleston, South
Carolina, from E. Lafitte & Co., for a clearance to Africa for the
purpose of importing African "emigrants." The collector appealed to the
Secretary of the Treasury, Howell Cobb of Georgia, who flatly refused to
take the bait, and replied that if the "emigrants" were brought in as
slaves, it would be contrary to United States law; if as freemen, it
would be contrary to their own State law.[34] In Louisiana a still more
radical movement was attempted, and a bill passed the House of
Representatives authorizing a company to import two thousand five
hundred Africans, "indentured" for fifteen years "at least." The bill
lacked but two votes of passing the Senate.[35] It was said that the
_Georgian_, of Savannah, contained a notice of an agricultural society
which "unanimously resolved to offer a premium of $25 for the best
specimen of a live African imported into the United States within the
last twelve months."[36]

It would not be true to say that there was in the South in 1860
substantial unanimity on the subject of reopening the slave-trade;
nevertheless, there certainly was a large and influential minority,
including perhaps a majority of citizens of the Gulf States, who favored
the project, and, in defiance of law and morals, aided and abetted its
actual realization. Various movements, it must be remembered, gained
much of their strength from the fact that their success meant a partial
nullification of the slave-trade laws. The admission of Texas added
probably seventy-five thousand recently imported slaves to the Southern
stock; the movement against Cuba, which culminated in the "Ostend
Manifesto" of Buchanan, Mason, and Soule, had its chief impetus in the
thousands of slaves whom Americans had poured into the island. Finally,
the series of filibustering expeditions against Cuba, Mexico, and
Central America were but the wilder and more irresponsible attempts to
secure both slave territory and slaves.


87. ~Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to 1860.~ The long and open
agitation for the reopening of the slave-trade, together with the fact
that the South had been more or less familiar with violations of the
laws since 1808, led to such a remarkable increase of illicit traffic
and actual importations in the decade 1850-1860, that the movement may
almost be termed a reopening of the slave-trade.

In the foreign slave-trade our own officers continue to report "how
shamefully our flag has been used;"[37] and British officers write "that
at least one half of the successful part of the slave trade is carried
on under the American flag," and this because "the number of American
cruisers on the station is so small, in proportion to the immense extent
of the slave-dealing coast."[38] The fitting out of slavers became a
flourishing business in the United States, and centred at New York City.
"Few of our readers," writes a periodical of the day, "are aware of the
extent to which this infernal traffic is carried on, by vessels clearing
from New York, and in close alliance with our legitimate trade; and that
down-town merchants of wealth and respectability are extensively engaged
in buying and selling African <DW64>s, and have been, with comparatively
little interruption, for an indefinite number of years."[39] Another
periodical says: "The number of persons engaged in the slave-trade, and
the amount of capital embarked in it, exceed our powers of calculation.
The city of New York has been until of late [1862] the principal port of
the world for this infamous commerce; although the cities of Portland
and Boston are only second to her in that distinction. Slave dealers
added largely to the wealth of our commercial metropolis; they
contributed liberally to the treasuries of political organizations, and
their bank accounts were largely depleted to carry elections in New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut."[40] During eighteen months of
the years 1859-1860 eighty-five slavers are reported to have been
fitted out in New York harbor,[41] and these alone transported from
30,000 to 60,000 slaves annually.[42] The United States deputy marshal
of that district declared in 1856 that the business of fitting out
slavers "was never prosecuted with greater energy than at present. The
occasional interposition of the legal authorities exercises no apparent
influence for its suppression. It is seldom that one or more vessels
cannot be designated at the wharves, respecting which there is evidence
that she is either in or has been concerned in the Traffic."[43] On the
coast of Africa "it is a well-known fact that most of the Slave ships
which visit the river are sent from New York and New Orleans."[44]

The absence of United States war-ships at the Brazilian station enabled
American smugglers to run in cargoes, in spite of the prohibitory law.
One cargo of five hundred slaves was landed in 1852, and the _Correio
Mercantil_ regrets "that it was the flag of the United States which
covered this act of piracy, sustained by citizens of that great
nation."[45] When the Brazil trade declined, the illicit Cuban trade
greatly increased, and the British consul reported: "Almost all the
slave expeditions for some time past have been fitted out in the United
States, chiefly at New York."[46]

88. ~Notorious Infractions of the Laws.~ This decade is especially
noteworthy for the great increase of illegal importations into the
South. These became bold, frequent, and notorious. Systematic
introduction on a considerable scale probably commenced in the forties,
although with great secrecy. "To have boldly ventured into New Orleans,
with <DW64>s freshly imported from Africa, would not only have brought
down upon the head of the importer the vengeance of our very
philanthropic Uncle Sam, but also the anathemas of the whole sect of
philanthropists and negrophilists everywhere. To import them for years,
however, into quiet places, evading with impunity the penalty of the
law, and the ranting of the thin-skinned sympathizers with Africa, was
gradually to popularize the traffic by creating a demand for laborers,
and thus to pave the way for the _gradual revival of the slave trade_.
To this end, a few men, bold and energetic, determined, ten or twelve
years ago [1848 or 1850], to commence the business of importing <DW64>s,
slowly at first, but surely; and for this purpose they selected a few
secluded places on the coast of Florida, Georgia and Texas, for the
purpose of concealing their stock until it could be sold out. Without
specifying other places, let me draw your attention to a deep and abrupt
pocket or indentation in the coast of Texas, about thirty miles from
Brazos Santiago. Into this pocket a slaver could run at any hour of the
night, because there was no hindrance at the entrance, and here she
could discharge her cargo of movables upon the projecting bluff, and
again proceed to sea inside of three hours. The live stock thus landed
could be marched a short distance across the main island, over a porous
soil which refuses to retain the recent foot-prints, until they were
again placed in boats, and were concealed upon some of the innumerable
little islands which thicken on the waters of the Laguna in the rear.
These islands, being covered with a thick growth of bushes and grass,
offer an inscrutable hiding place for the 'black diamonds.'"[47] These
methods became, however, toward 1860, too slow for the radicals, and the
trade grew more defiant and open. The yacht "Wanderer," arrested on
suspicion in New York and released, landed in Georgia six months later
four hundred and twenty slaves, who were never recovered.[48] The
Augusta _Despatch_ says: "Citizens of our city are probably interested
in the enterprise. It is hinted that this is the third cargo landed by
the same company, during the last six months."[49] Two parties of
Africans were brought into Mobile with impunity. One bark, strongly
suspected of having landed a cargo of slaves, was seized on the Florida
coast; another vessel was reported to be landing slaves near Mobile; a
letter from Jacksonville, Florida, stated that a bark had left there for
Africa to ship a cargo for Florida and Georgia.[50] Stephen A. Douglas
said "that there was not the shadow of doubt that the Slave-trade had
been carried on quite extensively for a long time back, and that there
had been more Slaves imported into the southern States, during the last
year, than had ever been imported before in any one year, even when the
Slave-trade was legal. It was his confident belief, that over fifteen
thousand Slaves had been brought into this country during the past year
[1859.] He had seen, with his own eyes, three hundred of those
recently-imported, miserable beings, in a Slave-pen in Vicksburg, Miss.,
and also large numbers at Memphis, Tenn."[51] It was currently reported
that depots for these slaves existed in over twenty large cities and
towns in the South, and an interested person boasted to a senator, about
1860, that "twelve vessels would discharge their living freight upon our
shores within ninety days from the 1st of June last," and that between
sixty and seventy cargoes had been successfully introduced in the last
eighteen months.[52] The New York _Tribune_ doubted the statement; but
John C. Underwood, formerly of Virginia, wrote to the paper saying that
he was satisfied that the correspondent was correct. "I have," he said,
"had ample evidences of the fact, that reopening the African Slave-trade
is a thing already accomplished, and the traffic is brisk, and rapidly
increasing. In fact, the most vital question of the day is not the
opening of this trade, but its suppression. The arrival of cargoes of
<DW64>s, fresh from Africa, in our southern ports, is an event of
frequent occurrence."[53]

<DW64>s, newly landed, were openly advertised for sale in the public
press, and bids for additional importations made. In reply to one of
these, the Mobile _Mercury_ facetiously remarks: "Some <DW64>s who never
learned to talk English, went up the railroad the other day."[54]
Congressmen declared on the floor of the House: "The slave trade may
therefore be regarded as practically re-established;"[55] and petitions
like that from the American Missionary Society recited the fact that
"this piratical and illegal trade--this inhuman invasion of the rights
of men,--this outrage on civilization and Christianity--this violation
of the laws of God and man--is openly countenanced and encouraged by a
portion of the citizens of some of the States of this Union."[56]

From such evidence it seems clear that the slave-trade laws, in spite of
the efforts of the government, in spite even of much opposition to these
extra-legal methods in the South itself, were grossly violated, if not
nearly nullified, in the latter part of the decade 1850-1860.


89. ~Apathy of the Federal Government.~ During the decade there was some
attempt at reactionary legislation, chiefly directed at the Treaty of
Washington. June 13, 1854, Slidell, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations, made an elaborate report to the Senate, advocating the
abrogation of the 8th Article of that treaty, on the ground that it was
costly, fatal to the health of the sailors, and useless, as the trade
had actually increased under its operation.[57] Both this and a similar
attempt in the House failed,[58] as did also an attempt to substitute
life imprisonment for the death penalty.[59] Most of the actual
legislation naturally took the form of appropriations. In 1853 there was
an attempt to appropriate $20,000.[60] This failed, and the
appropriation of $8,000 in 1856 was the first for ten years.[61] The
following year brought a similar appropriation,[62] and in 1859[63] and
1860[64] $75,000 and $40,000 respectively were appropriated. Of
attempted legislation to strengthen the laws there was plenty: e.g.,
propositions to regulate the issue of sea-letters and the use of our
flag;[65] to prevent the "coolie" trade, or the bringing in of
"apprentices" or "African laborers;"[66] to stop the coastwise
trade;[67] to assent to a Right of Search;[68] and to amend the
Constitution by forever prohibiting the slave-trade.[69]

The efforts of the executive during this period were criminally lax and
negligent. "The General Government did not exert itself in good faith to
carry out either its treaty stipulations or the legislation of Congress
in regard to the matter. If a vessel was captured, her owners were
permitted to bond her, and thus continue her in the trade; and if any
man was convicted of this form of piracy, the executive always
interposed between him and the penalty of his crime. The laws providing
for the seizure of vessels engaged in the traffic were so constructed as
to render the duty unremunerative; and marshals now find their fees for
such services to be actually less than their necessary expenses. No one
who bears this fact in mind will be surprised at the great indifference
of these officers to the continuing of the slave-trade; in fact, he will
be ready to learn that the laws of Congress upon the subject had become
a dead letter, and that the suspicion was well grounded that certain
officers of the Federal Government had actually connived at their
violation."[70] From 1845 to 1854, in spite of the well-known activity
of the trade, but five cases obtained cognizance in the New York
district. Of these, Captains Mansfield and Driscoll forfeited their
bonds of $5,000 each, and escaped; in the case of the notorious Canot,
nothing had been done as late as 1856, although he was arrested in 1847;
Captain Jefferson turned State's evidence, and, in the case of Captain
Mathew, a _nolle prosequi_ was entered.[71] Between 1854 and 1856
thirty-two persons were indicted in New York, of whom only thirteen had
at the latter date been tried, and only one of these convicted.[72]
These dismissals were seldom on account of insufficient evidence. In the
notorious case of the "Wanderer," she was arrested on suspicion,
released, and soon after she landed a cargo of slaves in Georgia; some
who attempted to seize the <DW64>s were arrested for larceny, and in
spite of the efforts of Congress the captain was never punished. The
yacht was afterwards started on another voyage, and being brought back
to Boston was sold to her former owner for about one third her
value.[73] The bark "Emily" was seized on suspicion and released, and
finally caught red-handed on the coast of Africa; she was sent to New
York for trial, but "disappeared" under a certain slave captain,
Townsend, who had, previous to this, in the face of the most convincing
evidence, been acquitted at Key West.[74]

The squadron commanders of this time were by no means as efficient as
their predecessors, and spent much of their time, apparently, in
discussing the Right of Search. Instead of a number of small light
vessels, which by the reports of experts were repeatedly shown to be the
only efficient craft, the government, until 1859, persisted in sending
out three or four great frigates. Even these did not attend faithfully
to their duties. A letter from on board one of them shows that, out of a
fifteen months' alleged service, only twenty-two days were spent on the
usual cruising-ground for slavers, and thirteen of these at anchor;
eleven months were spent at Madeira and Cape Verde Islands, 300 miles
from the coast and 3,000 miles from the slave market.[75] British
commanders report the apathy of American officers and the extreme
caution of their instructions, which allowed many slavers to escape.[76]

The officials at Washington often remained in blissful, and perhaps
willing, ignorance of the state of the trade. While Americans were
smuggling slaves by the thousands into Brazil, and by the hundreds into
the United States, Secretary Graham was recommending the abrogation of
the 8th Article of the Treaty of Washington;[77] so, too, when the Cuban
slave-trade was reaching unprecedented activity, and while slavers were
being fitted out in every port on the Atlantic seaboard, Secretary
Kennedy naively reports, "The time has come, perhaps, when it may be
properly commended to the notice of Congress to inquire into the
necessity of further continuing the regular employment of a squadron on
this [i.e., the African] coast."[78] Again, in 1855, the government has
"advices that the slave trade south of the equator is entirely broken
up;"[79] in 1856, the reports are "favorable;"[80] in 1857 a British
commander writes: "No vessel has been seen here for one year, certainly;
I think for nearly three years there have been no American cruizers on
these waters, where a valuable and extensive American commerce is
carried on. I cannot, therefore, but think that this continued absence
of foreign cruizers looks as if they were intentionally withdrawn, and
as if the Government did not care to take measures to prevent the
American flag being used to cover Slave Trade transactions;"[81]
nevertheless, in this same year, according to Secretary Toucey, "the
force on the coast of Africa has fully accomplished its main
object."[82] Finally, in the same month in which the "Wanderer" and her
mates were openly landing cargoes in the South, President Buchanan, who
seems to have been utterly devoid of a sense of humor, was urging the
annexation of Cuba to the United States as the only method of
suppressing the slave-trade![83]

About 1859 the frequent and notorious violations of our laws aroused
even the Buchanan government; a larger appropriation was obtained, swift
light steamers were employed, and, though we may well doubt whether
after such a carnival illegal importations "entirely" ceased, as the
President informed Congress,[84] yet some sincere efforts at suppression
were certainly begun. From 1850 to 1859 we have few notices of captured
slavers, but in 1860 the increased appropriation of the thirty-fifth
Congress resulted in the capture of twelve vessels with 3,119
Africans.[85] The Act of June 16, 1860, enabled the President to
contract with the Colonization Society for the return of recaptured
Africans; and by a long-needed arrangement cruisers were to proceed
direct to Africa with such cargoes, instead of first landing them in
this country.[86]


90. ~Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.~ The attempt, initiated by
the constitutional fathers, to separate the problem of slavery from that
of the slave-trade had, after a trial of half a century, signally
failed, and for well-defined economic reasons. The nation had at last
come to the parting of the ways, one of which led to a free-labor
system, the other to a slave system fed by the slave-trade. Both
sections of the country naturally hesitated at the cross-roads: the
North clung to the delusion that a territorially limited system of
slavery, without a slave-trade, was still possible in the South; the
South hesitated to fight for her logical object--slavery and free trade
in <DW64>s--and, in her moral and economic dilemma, sought to make
autonomy and the Constitution her object. The real line of contention
was, however, fixed by years of development, and was unalterable by the
present whims or wishes of the contestants, no matter how important or
interesting these might be: the triumph of the North meant free labor;
the triumph of the South meant slavery and the slave-trade.

It is doubtful if many of the Southern leaders ever deceived themselves
by thinking that Southern slavery, as it then was, could long be
maintained without a general or a partial reopening of the slave-trade.
Many had openly declared this a few years before, and there was no
reason for a change of opinion. Nevertheless, at the outbreak of actual
war and secession, there were powerful and decisive reasons for
relegating the question temporarily to the rear. In the first place,
only by this means could the adherence of important Border States be
secured, without the aid of which secession was folly. Secondly, while
it did no harm to laud the independence of the South and the kingship of
cotton in "stump" speeches and conventions, yet, when it came to actual
hostilities, the South sorely needed the aid of Europe; and this a
nation fighting for slavery and the slave-trade stood poor chance of
getting. Consequently, after attacking the slave-trade laws for a
decade, and their execution for a quarter-century, we find the Southern
leaders inserting, in both the provisional and the permanent
Constitutions of the Confederate States, the following article:--

    The importation of <DW64>s of the African race, from any foreign
    country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the
    United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is
    required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the
    same.

    Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of
    slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not
    belonging to, this Confederacy.[87]

The attitude of the Confederate government toward this article is best
illustrated by its circular of instructions to its foreign ministers:--

    It has been suggested to this Government, from a source of
    unquestioned authenticity, that, after the recognition of our
    independence by the European Powers, an expectation is generally
    entertained by them that in our treaties of amity and commerce a
    clause will be introduced making stipulations against the
    African slave trade. It is even thought that neutral Powers may
    be inclined to insist upon the insertion of such a clause as a
    _sine qua non_.

    You are well aware how firmly fixed in our Constitution is the
    policy of this Confederacy against the opening of that trade,
    but we are informed that false and insidious suggestions have
    been made by the agents of the United States at European Courts
    of our intention to change our constitution as soon as peace is
    restored, and of authorizing the importation of slaves from
    Africa. If, therefore, you should find, in your intercourse with
    the Cabinet to which you are accredited, that any such
    impressions are entertained, you will use every proper effort to
    remove them, and if an attempt is made to introduce into any
    treaty which you may be charged with negotiating stipulations on
    the subject just mentioned, you will assume, in behalf of your
    Government, the position which, under the direction of the
    President, I now proceed to develop.

    The Constitution of the Confederate States is an agreement made
    between independent States. By its terms all the powers of
    Government are separated into classes as follows, viz.:--

    1st. Such powers as the States delegate to the General
    Government.

    2d. Such powers as the States agree to refrain from exercising,
    although they do not delegate them to the General Government.

    3d. Such powers as the States, without delegating them to the
    General Government, thought proper to exercise by direct
    agreement between themselves contained in the Constitution.

    4th. All remaining powers of sovereignty, which not being
    delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution nor
    prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
    respectively, or to the people thereof.... Especially in
    relation to the importation of African <DW64>s was it deemed
    important by the States that no power to permit it should exist
    in the Confederate Government.... It will thus be seen that no
    power is delegated to the Confederate Government over this
    subject, but that it is included in the third class above
    referred to, of powers exercised directly by the States.... This
    Government unequivocally and absolutely denies its possession of
    any power whatever over the subject, and cannot entertain any
    proposition in relation to it.... The policy of the Confederacy
    is as fixed and immutable on this subject as the imperfection of
    human nature permits human resolve to be. No additional
    agreements, treaties, or stipulations can commit these States to
    the prohibition of the African slave trade with more binding
    efficacy than those they have themselves devised. A just and
    generous confidence in their good faith on this subject
    exhibited by friendly Powers will be far more efficacious than
    persistent efforts to induce this Government to assume the
    exercise of powers which it does not possess.... We trust,
    therefore, that no unnecessary discussions on this matter will
    be introduced into your negotiations. If, unfortunately, this
    reliance should prove ill-founded, you will decline continuing
    negotiations on your side, and transfer them to us at
    home....[88]

This attitude of the conservative leaders of the South, if it meant
anything, meant that individual State action could, when it pleased,
reopen the slave-trade. The radicals were, of course, not satisfied with
any veiling of the ulterior purpose of the new slave republic, and
attacked the constitutional provision violently. "If," said one, "the
clause be carried into the permanent government, our whole movement is
defeated. It will abolitionize the Border Slave States--it will brand
our institution. Slavery cannot share a government with Democracy,--it
cannot bear a brand upon it; thence another revolution ... having
achieved one revolution to escape democracy at the North, it must still
achieve another to escape it at the South. That it will ultimately
triumph none can doubt."[89]

91. ~Attitude of the United States.~ In the North, with all the
hesitation in many matters, there existed unanimity in regard to the
slave-trade; and the new Lincoln government ushered in the new policy of
uncompromising suppression by hanging the first American slave-trader
who ever suffered the extreme penalty of the law.[90] One of the
earliest acts of President Lincoln was a step which had been necessary
since 1808, but had never been taken, viz., the unification of the whole
work of suppression into the hands of one responsible department. By an
order, dated May 2, 1861, Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, was
charged with the execution of the slave-trade laws,[91] and he
immediately began energetic work. Early in 1861, as soon as the
withdrawal of the Southern members untied the hands of Congress, two
appropriations of $900,000 each were made to suppress the slave trade,
the first appropriations commensurate with the vastness of the task.
These were followed by four appropriations of $17,000 each in the years
1863 to 1867, and two of $12,500 each in 1868 and 1869.[92] The first
work of the new secretary was to obtain a corps of efficient assistants.
To this end, he assembled all the marshals of the loyal seaboard States
at New York, and gave them instruction and opportunity to inspect
actual slavers. Congress also, for the first time, offered them proper
compensation.[93] The next six months showed the effect of this policy
in the fact that five vessels were seized and condemned, and four
slave-traders were convicted and suffered the penalty of their crimes.
"This is probably the largest number [of convictions] ever obtained, and
certainly the only ones for many years."[94]

Meantime the government opened negotiations with Great Britain, and the
treaty of 1862 was signed June 7, and carried out by Act of Congress,
July 11.[95] Specially commissioned war vessels of either government
were by this agreement authorized to search merchant vessels on the high
seas and specified coasts, and if they were found to be slavers, or, on
account of their construction or equipment, were suspected to be such,
they were to be sent for condemnation to one of the mixed courts
established at New York, Sierra Leone, and the Cape of Good Hope. These
courts, consisting of one judge and one arbitrator on the part of each
government, were to judge the facts without appeal, and upon
condemnation by them, the culprits were to be punished according to the
laws of their respective countries. The area in which this Right of
Search could be exercised was somewhat enlarged by an additional article
to the treaty, signed in 1863. In 1870 the mixed courts were abolished,
but the main part of the treaty was left in force. The Act of July 17,
1862, enabled the President to contract with foreign governments for the
apprenticing of recaptured Africans in the West Indies,[96] and in 1864
the coastwise slave-trade was forever prohibited.[97] By these measures
the trade was soon checked, and before the end of the war entirely
suppressed.[98] The vigilance of the government, however, was not
checked, and as late as 1866 a squadron of ten ships, with one hundred
and thirteen guns, patrolled the slave coast.[99] Finally, the
Thirteenth Amendment legally confirmed what the war had already
accomplished, and slavery and the slave-trade fell at one blow.[100]


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1854-5, p. 1156.

  [2] Cluskey, _Political Text-Book_ (14th ed.), p. 585.

  [3] _De Bow's Review_, XXII. 223; quoted from Andrew Hunter of
      Virginia.

  [4] _Ibid._, XVIII. 628.

  [5] _Ibid._, XXII. 91, 102, 217, 221-2.

  [6] From a pamphlet entitled "A New Southern Policy, or the
      Slave Trade as meaning Union and Conservatism;" quoted in
      Etheridge's speech, Feb. 21, 1857: _Congressional Globe_, 34
      Cong. 3 sess., Appendix, p. 366.

  [7] _De Bow's Review_, XXIII. 298-320. A motion to table the
      motion on the 8th article was supported only by Kentucky,
      Tennessee, North Carolina, and Maryland. Those voting for
      Sneed's motion were Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and
      Tennessee. The appointment of a slave-trade committee was at
      first defeated by a vote of 48 to 44. Finally a similar motion
      was passed, 52 to 40.

  [8] _De Bow's Review_, XXIV. 473-491, 579-605. The Louisiana
      delegation alone did not vote for the last resolution, the
      vote of her delegation being evenly divided.

  [9] _De Bow's Review_, XXVII. 94-235.

 [10] H.S. Foote, in _Bench and Bar of the South and
      Southwest_, p. 69.

 [11] _De Bow's Review_, XXVII. 115.

 [12] _Ibid._, p. 99. The vote was:--

               _Yea._                _Nay._
      Alabama,         5 votes.  Tennessee,      12 votes.
      Arkansas,        4   "     Florida,         3   "
      South Carolina,  4   "     South Carolina,  4   "
      Louisiana,       6   "          Total      19
      Texas,           4   "
      Georgia,        10   "     Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, and
      Mississippi,     7   "     North Carolina did not vote; they either
               Total  40         withdrew or were not represented.



 [13] Quoted in _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p.
      38. The official organ was the _True Southron_.

 [14] Quoted in _24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p.
      54.

 [15] Quoted in _26th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 43.

 [16] _27th Report_, _Ibid._, pp. 19-20.

 [17] Letter of W.C. Preston, in the _National Intelligencer_,
      April 3, 1863. Also published in the pamphlet, _The African
      Slave Trade: The Secret Purpose_, etc., p. 26.

 [18] Quoted in Etheridge's speech: _Congressional Globe_, 34
      Cong. 3 sess. Appen., p. 366.

 [19] _House Journal_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105-10;
      _Congressional Globe_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 123-6; Cluskey,
      _Political Text-Book_ (14th ed.), p. 589.

 [20] _House Journal_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 298-9. Cf. _26th
      Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 45.

 [21] Cf. _Reports of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, especially
      the 26th, pp. 43-4.

 [22] _Ibid._, p. 43. He referred especially to the Treaty of
      1842.

 [23] _Ibid._; _Congressional Globe_, 35 Cong. 2 sess., Appen.,
      pp. 248-50.

 [24] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 44.

 [25] _Ibid._; _27th Report_, pp. 13-4.

 [26] _26th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 44.

 [27] Quoted in Lalor, _Cyclopaedia_, III. 733; Cairnes, _The
      Slave Power_ (New York, 1862), p. 123, note; _27th Report of
      the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 15.

 [28] Quoted in Cairnes, _The Slave Power_, p. 123, note; _27th
      Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 19.

 [29] _27th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 16; quoted from the Mobile
      _Register_.

 [30] Edition of 1859, pp. 63-4.

 [31] _De Bow's Review_, XXVII. 121, 231-5.

 [32] _Report of the Special Committee_, etc. (1857), pp. 24-5.

 [33] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 40. The
      vote was 47 to 46.

 [34] _House Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, pp.
      632-6. For the State law, cf. above, Chapter II. This refusal
      of Cobb's was sharply criticised by many Southern papers. Cf.
      _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 39.

 [35] New York _Independent_, March 11 and April 1, 1858.

 [36] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 41.

 [37] Gregory to the Secretary of the Navy, June 8, 1850:
      _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 2. Cf.
      _Ibid._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.

 [38] Cumming to Commodore Fanshawe, Feb. 22, 1850: _Senate
      Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 8.

 [39] New York _Journal of Commerce_, 1857; quoted in _24th
      Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 56.

 [40] "The Slave-Trade in New York," in the _Continental
      Monthly_, January, 1862, p. 87.

 [41] New York _Evening Post_; quoted in Lalor, _Cyclopaedia_,
      III. 733.

 [42] Lalor, _Cyclopaedia_, III. 733; quoted from a New York
      paper.

 [43] _Friends' Appeal on behalf of the  Races_ (1858),
      Appendix, p. 41; quoted from the _Journal of Commerce_.

 [44] _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 53-4;
      quoted from the African correspondent of the Boston _Journal_.
      From April, 1857, to May, 1858, twenty-one of twenty-two
      slavers which were seized by British cruisers proved to be
      American, from New York, Boston, and New Orleans. Cf. _25th
      Report_, _Ibid._, p. 122. De Bow estimated in 1856 that forty
      slavers cleared annually from Eastern harbors, clearing yearly
      $17,000,000: _De Bow's Review_, XXII. 430-1.

 [45] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, p.
      13.

 [46] _House Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, p. 38.

 [47] New York _Herald_, Aug. 5, 1860; quoted in Drake,
      _Revelations of a Slave Smuggler_, Introd., pp. vii.-viii.

 [48] _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 89. Cf.
      _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 45-9.

 [49] Quoted in _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p.
      46.

 [50] For all the above cases, cf. _Ibid._, p. 49.

 [51] Quoted in _27th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 20. Cf. _Report of
      the Secretary of the Navy_, 1859; _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36
      Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2.

 [52] _27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 21.

 [53] Quoted in _Ibid._

 [54] Issue of July 22, 1860; quoted in Drake, _Revelations of
      a Slave Smuggler_, Introd., p. vi. The advertisement referred
      to was addressed to the "Ship-owners and Masters of our
      Mercantile Marine," and appeared in the Enterprise (Miss.)
      _Weekly News_, April 14, 1859. William S. Price and seventeen
      others state that they will "pay three hundred dollars per
      head for one thousand native Africans, between the ages of
      fourteen and twenty years, (of sexes equal,) likely, sound,
      and healthy, to be delivered within twelve months from this
      date, at some point accessible by land, between Pensacola,
      Fla., and Galveston, Texas; the contractors giving thirty
      days' notice as to time and place of delivery": Quoted in
      _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 41-2.

 [55] _Congressional Globe_, 35 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1362. Cf. the
      speech of a delegate from Georgia to the Democratic Convention
      at Charleston, 1860: "If any of you northern democrats will go
      home with me to my plantation, I will show you some <DW54>s
      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, _Cyclopaedia_, III. 733.

 [56] _Senate Misc. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.

 [57] _Senate Journal_, 34 Cong. 1-2 sess. pp. 396, 695-8;
      _Senate Reports_, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.

 [58] _House Journal_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. p. 64. There was still
      another attempt by Sandidge. Cf. _26th Report of the Amer.
      Anti-Slav. Soc._, p. 44.

 [59] _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274; _Congressional
      Globe_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1245.

 [60] Congressional Globe, 32 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1072.

 [61] I.e., since 1846: _Statutes at Large_, XI. 90.

 [62] _Ibid._, XI. 227.

 [63] _Ibid._, XI. 404.

 [64] _Ibid._, XII. 21.

 [65] E.g., Clay's resolutions: _Congressional Globe_, 31 Cong.
      2 sess. pp. 304-9. Clayton's resolutions: _Senate Journal_, 33
      Cong. 1 sess. p. 404; _House Journal_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      1093, 1332-3; _Congressional Globe_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
      1591-3, 2139. Seward's bill: _Senate Journal_, 33 Cong. 1
      sess. pp. 448, 451.

 [66] Mr. Blair of Missouri asked unanimous consent in
      Congress, Dec. 23, 1858, to a resolution instructing the
      Judiciary Committee to bring in such a bill; Houston of
      Alabama objected: _Congressional Globe_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. p.
      198; _26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, p. 44.

 [67] This was the object of attack in 1851 and 1853 by
      Giddings: _House Journal_, 32 Cong. 1 sess. p. 42; 33 Cong. 1
      sess. p. 147. Cf. _House Journal_, 38 Cong. 1 sess. p. 46.

 [68] By Mr. Wilson, March 20, 1860: _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong.
      1 sess. p. 274.

 [69] Four or five such attempts were made: Dec. 12, 1860,
      _House Journal_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61-2; Jan. 7, 1861,
      _Congressional Globe_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 279; Jan. 23, 1861,
      _Ibid._, p. 527; Feb. 1, 1861, _Ibid._, p. 690; Feb. 27, 1861,
      _Ibid._, pp. 1243, 1259.

 [70] "The Slave-Trade in New York," in the _Continental
      Monthly_, January, 1862, p. 87.

 [71] New York _Herald_, July 14, 1856.

 [72] _Ibid._ Cf. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No.
      53.

 [73] _27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc._, pp. 25-6. Cf.
      _26th Report_, _Ibid._, pp. 45-9.

 [74] _27th Report_, _Ibid._, pp. 26-7.

 [75] _26th Report_, _Ibid._, p. 54.

 [76] _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1859-60, pp. 899,
      973.

 [77] Nov. 29, 1851: _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 1 sess. II.
      pt. 2, No. 2, p. 4.

 [78] Dec. 4, 1852: _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt.
      2, No. 1, p. 293.

 [79] _Ibid._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, p. 5.

 [80] _Ibid._, 34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 407.

 [81] Commander Burgess to Commodore Wise, Whydah, Aug. 12,
      1857: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1857-8, vol. LXI. _Slave Trade_,
      Class A, p. 136.

 [82] _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, p.
      576.

 [83] _Ibid._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 1, No. 2, pp. 14-15,
      31-33.

 [84] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 24.
      The Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1859, contains this
      ambiguous passage: "What the effect of breaking up the trade
      will be upon the United States or Cuba it is not necessary to
      inquire; certainly, under the laws of Congress and our treaty
      obligations, it is the duty of the executive government to see
      that our citizens shall not be engaged in it": _Ibid._, 36
      Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pp. 1138-9.

 [85] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1,
      pp. 8-9.

 [86] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 40.

 [87] _Confederate States of America Statutes at Large_, 1861,
      p. 15, Constitution, Art. 1, sect. 9, Sec.Sec. 1, 2.

 [88] From an intercepted circular despatch from J.P. Benjamin,
      "Secretary of State," addressed in this particular instance to
      Hon. L.Q.C. Lamar, "Commissioner, etc., St. Petersburg,
      Russia," and dated Richmond, Jan. 15, 1863; published in the
      _National Intelligencer_, March 31, 1863; cf. also the issues
      of Feb. 19, 1861, April 2, 3, 25, 1863; also published in the
      pamphlet, _The African Slave-Trade: The Secret Purpose_, etc.
      The editors vouch for its authenticity, and state it to be in
      Benjamin's own handwriting.

 [89] L.W. Spratt of South Carolina, in the _Southern Literary
      Messenger_, June, 1861, XXXII. 414, 420. Cf. also the
      Charleston _Mercury_, Feb. 13, 1861, and the _National
      Intelligencer_, Feb. 19, 1861.

 [90] Captain Gordon of the slaver "Erie;" condemned in the
      U.S. District Court for Southern New York in 1862. Cf. _Senate
      Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 13.

 [91] _Ibid._, pp. 453-4.

 [92] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 132, 219, 639; XIII. 424; XIV.
      226, 415; XV. 58, 321. The sum of $250,000 was also
      appropriated to return the slaves on the "Wildfire": _Ibid._,
      XII. 40-41.

 [93] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 368-9.

 [94] _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp.
      453-4.

 [95] _Statutes at Large_, XII. 531.

 [96] For a time not exceeding five years: _Ibid._, pp. 592-3.

 [97] By section 9 of an appropriation act for civil expenses,
      July 2, 1864: _Ibid._, XIII. 353.

 [98] British officers attested this: _Diplomatic
      Correspondence_, 1862, p. 285.

 [99] _Report of the Secretary of the Navy_, 1866; _House Exec.
      Doc._, 39 Cong. 2 sess. IV. p. 12.

[100] There were some later attempts to legislate. Sumner
      tried to repeal the Act of 1803: _Congressional Globe_, 41
      Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894, 2932, 4953, 5594. Banks introduced a
      bill to prohibit Americans owning or dealing in slaves abroad:
      _House Journal_, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p. 48. For the legislation
      of the Confederate States, cf. Mason, _Veto Power_, 2d ed.,
      Appendix C, No. 1.

                    *       *       *       *       *




_Chapter XII_

THE ESSENTIALS IN THE STRUGGLE.

  92. How the Question Arose.
  93. The Moral Movement.
  94. The Political Movement.
  95. The Economic Movement.
  96. The Lesson for Americans.


92. ~How the Question Arose.~ We have followed a chapter of history
which is of peculiar interest to the sociologist. Here was a rich new
land, the wealth of which was to be had in return for ordinary manual
labor. Had the country been conceived of as existing primarily for the
benefit of its actual inhabitants, it might have waited for natural
increase or immigration to supply the needed hands; but both Europe and
the earlier colonists themselves regarded this land as existing chiefly
for the benefit of Europe, and as designed to be exploited, as rapidly
and ruthlessly as possible, of the boundless wealth of its resources.
This was the primary excuse for the rise of the African slave-trade to
America.

Every experiment of such a kind, however, where the moral standard of a
people is lowered for the sake of a material advantage, is dangerous in
just such proportion as that advantage is great. In this case it was
great. For at least a century, in the West Indies and the southern
United States, agriculture flourished, trade increased, and English
manufactures were nourished, in just such proportion as Americans stole
<DW64>s and worked them to death. This advantage, to be sure, became
much smaller in later times, and at one critical period was, at least in
the Southern States, almost _nil_; but energetic efforts were wanting,
and, before the nation was aware, slavery had seized a new and well-nigh
immovable footing in the Cotton Kingdom.

The colonists averred with perfect truth that they did not commence this
fatal traffic, but that it was imposed upon them from without.
Nevertheless, all too soon did they lay aside scruples against it and
hasten to share its material benefits. Even those who braved the rough
Atlantic for the highest moral motives fell early victims to the
allurements of this system. Thus, throughout colonial history, in spite
of many honest attempts to stop the further pursuit of the slave-trade,
we notice back of nearly all such attempts a certain moral apathy, an
indisposition to attack the evil with the sharp weapons which its nature
demanded. Consequently, there developed steadily, irresistibly, a vast
social problem, which required two centuries and a half for a nation of
trained European stock and boasted moral fibre to solve.


93. ~The Moral Movement.~ For the solution of this problem there were,
roughly speaking, three classes of efforts made during this
time,--moral, political, and economic: that is to say, efforts which
sought directly to raise the moral standard of the nation; efforts which
sought to stop the trade by legal enactment; efforts which sought to
neutralize the economic advantages of the slave-trade. There is always a
certain glamour about the idea of a nation rising up to crush an evil
simply because it is wrong. Unfortunately, this can seldom be realized
in real life; for the very existence of the evil usually argues a moral
weakness in the very place where extraordinary moral strength is called
for. This was the case in the early history of the colonies; and
experience proved that an appeal to moral rectitude was unheard in
Carolina when rice had become a great crop, and in Massachusetts when
the rum-slave-traffic was paying a profit of 100%. That the various
abolition societies and anti-slavery movements did heroic work in
rousing the national conscience is certainly true; unfortunately,
however, these movements were weakest at the most critical times. When,
in 1774 and 1804, the material advantages of the slave-trade and the
institution of slavery were least, it seemed possible that moral suasion
might accomplish the abolition of both. A fatal spirit of temporizing,
however, seized the nation at these points; and although the slave-trade
was, largely for political reasons, forbidden, slavery was left
untouched. Beyond this point, as years rolled by, it was found well-nigh
impossible to rouse the moral sense of the nation. Even in the matter of
enforcing its own laws and co-operating with the civilized world, a
lethargy seized the country, and it did not awake until slavery was
about to destroy it. Even then, after a long and earnest crusade, the
national sense of right did not rise to the entire abolition of
slavery. It was only a peculiar and almost fortuitous commingling of
moral, political, and economic motives that eventually crushed African
slavery and its handmaid, the slave-trade in America.


94. ~The Political Movement.~ The political efforts to limit the
slave-trade were the outcome partly of moral reprobation of the trade,
partly of motives of expediency. This legislation was never such as wise
and powerful rulers may make for a nation, with the ulterior purpose of
calling in the respect which the nation has for law to aid in raising
its standard of right. The colonial and national laws on the slave-trade
merely registered, from time to time, the average public opinion
concerning this traffic, and are therefore to be regarded as negative
signs rather than as positive efforts. These signs were, from one point
of view, evidences of moral awakening; they indicated slow, steady
development of the idea that to steal even <DW64>s was wrong. From
another point of view, these laws showed the fear of servile
insurrection and the desire to ward off danger from the State; again,
they often indicated a desire to appear well before the civilized world,
and to rid the "land of the free" of the paradox of slavery.
Representing such motives, the laws varied all the way from mere
regulating acts to absolute prohibitions. On the whole, these acts were
poorly conceived, loosely drawn, and wretchedly enforced. The systematic
violation of the provisions of many of them led to a widespread belief
that enforcement was, in the nature of the case, impossible; and thus,
instead of marking ground already won, they were too often sources of
distinct moral deterioration. Certainly the carnival of lawlessness that
succeeded the Act of 1807, and that which preceded final suppression in
1861, were glaring examples of the failure of the efforts to suppress
the slave-trade by mere law.


95. ~The Economic Movement.~ Economic measures against the trade were
those which from the beginning had the best chance of success, but which
were least tried. They included tariff measures; efforts to encourage
the immigration of free laborers and the emigration of the slaves;
measures for changing the character of Southern industry; and, finally,
plans to restore the economic balance which slavery destroyed, by
raising the condition of the slave to that of complete freedom and
responsibility. Like the political efforts, these rested in part on a
moral basis; and, as legal enactments, they were also themselves often
political measures. They differed, however, from purely moral and
political efforts, in having as a main motive the economic gain which a
substitution of free for slave labor promised.

The simplest form of such efforts was the revenue duty on slaves that
existed in all the colonies. This developed into the prohibitive tariff,
and into measures encouraging immigration or industrial improvements.
The colonization movement was another form of these efforts; it was
inadequately conceived, and not altogether sincere, but it had a sound,
although in this case impracticable, economic basis. The one great
measure which finally stopped the slave-trade forever was, naturally,
the abolition of slavery, i.e., the giving to the <DW64> the right to
sell his labor at a price consistent with his own welfare. The abolition
of slavery itself, while due in part to direct moral appeal and
political sagacity, was largely the result of the economic collapse of
the large-farming slave system.


96. ~The Lesson for Americans.~ It may be doubted if ever before such
political mistakes as the slavery compromises of the Constitutional
Convention had such serious results, and yet, by a succession of
unexpected accidents, still left a nation in position to work out its
destiny. No American can study the connection of slavery with United
States history, and not devoutly pray that his country may never have a
similar social problem to solve, until it shows more capacity for such
work than it has shown in the past. It is neither profitable nor in
accordance with scientific truth to consider that whatever the
constitutional fathers did was right, or that slavery was a plague sent
from God and fated to be eliminated in due time. We must face the fact
that this problem arose principally from the cupidity and carelessness
of our ancestors. It was the plain duty of the colonies to crush the
trade and the system in its infancy: they preferred to enrich themselves
on its profits. It was the plain duty of a Revolution based upon
"Liberty" to take steps toward the abolition of slavery: it preferred
promises to straightforward action. It was the plain duty of the
Constitutional Convention, in founding a new nation, to compromise with
a threatening social evil only in case its settlement would thereby be
postponed to a more favorable time: this was not the case in the slavery
and the slave-trade compromises; there never was a time in the history
of America when the system had a slighter economic, political, and moral
justification than in 1787; and yet with this real, existent, growing
evil before their eyes, a bargain largely of dollars and cents was
allowed to open the highway that led straight to the Civil War.
Moreover, it was due to no wisdom and foresight on the part of the
fathers that fortuitous circumstances made the result of that war what
it was, nor was it due to exceptional philanthropy on the part of their
descendants that that result included the abolition of slavery.

With the faith of the nation broken at the very outset, the system of
slavery untouched, and twenty years' respite given to the slave-trade to
feed and foster it, there began, with 1787, that system of bargaining,
truckling, and compromising with a moral, political, and economic
monstrosity, which makes the history of our dealing with slavery in the
first half of the nineteenth century so discreditable to a great people.
Each generation sought to shift its load upon the next, and the burden
rolled on, until a generation came which was both too weak and too
strong to bear it longer. One cannot, to be sure, demand of whole
nations exceptional moral foresight and heroism; but a certain hard
common-sense in facing the complicated phenomena of political life must
be expected in every progressive people. In some respects we as a nation
seem to lack this; we have the somewhat inchoate idea that we are not
destined to be harassed with great social questions, and that even if we
are, and fail to answer them, the fault is with the question and not
with us. Consequently we often congratulate ourselves more on getting
rid of a problem than on solving it. Such an attitude is dangerous; we
have and shall have, as other peoples have had, critical, momentous, and
pressing questions to answer. The riddle of the Sphinx may be postponed,
it may be evasively answered now; sometime it must be fully answered.

It behooves the United States, therefore, in the interest both of
scientific truth and of future social reform, carefully to study such
chapters of her history as that of the suppression of the slave-trade.
The most obvious question which this study suggests is: How far in a
State can a recognized moral wrong safely be compromised? And although
this chapter of history can give us no definite answer suited to the
ever-varying aspects of political life, yet it would seem to warn any
nation from allowing, through carelessness and moral cowardice, any
social evil to grow. No persons would have seen the Civil War with more
surprise and horror than the Revolutionists of 1776; yet from the small
and apparently dying institution of their day arose the walled and
castled Slave-Power. From this we may conclude that it behooves nations
as well as men to do things at the very moment when they ought to be
done.

                    *       *       *       *       *



APPENDIX A.

A CHRONOLOGICAL CONSPECTUS OF COLONIAL AND STATE LEGISLATION RESTRICTING
THE AFRICAN SLAVE-TRADE. 1641-1787.


~1641. Massachusetts: Limitations on Slavery.~

"Liberties of Forreiners & Strangers": 91. "There shall never be any
bond slaverie villinage or Captivitie amongst vs, unles it be lawfull
Captives taken in iust warres, & such strangers as willingly selle
themselves or are sold to us. And those shall have all the liberties &
Christian usages w^{ch} y^e law of god established in Jsraell concerning
such p/^{sons} doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude
who shall be Judged there to by Authoritie."

"Capitall Laws": 10. "If any man stealeth aman or mankinde, he shall
surely be put to death" (marginal reference, Exodus xxi. 16). Re-enacted
in the codes of 1649, 1660, and 1672. Whitmore, _Reprint of Colonial
Laws of 1660_, etc. (1889), pp. 52, 54, 71-117.


~1642, April 3. New Netherland: Ten per cent Duty.~

"Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherland, imposing
certain Import and Export Duties." O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland_
(1868), p. 31.


~1642, Dec. 1. Connecticut: Man-Stealing made a Capital Offence.~

"Capitall Lawes," No. 10. Re-enacted in Ludlow's code, 1650. _Colonial
Records_, I. 77.


~1646, Nov. 4. Massachusetts: Declaration against Man-Stealing.~

Testimony of the General Court. For text, see above, page 37. _Colonial
Records_, II. 168; III. 84.


~1652, April 4. New Netherland: Duty of 15 Guilders.~

"Conditions and Regulations" of Trade to Africa. O'Callaghan, _Laws of
New Netherland_, pp. 81, 127.


~1652, May 18-20. Rhode Island: Perpetual Slavery Prohibited.~

For text, see above, page 40. _Colonial Records_, I. 243.


~1655, Aug. 6. New Netherland: Ten per cent Export Duty.~

"Ordinance of the Director General and Council of New Netherland,
imposing a Duty on exported <DW64>s." O'Callaghan, _Laws of New
Netherland_, p. 191.


~1664, March 12. Duke of York's Patent: Slavery Regulated.~

"Lawes establisht by the Authority of his Majesties Letters patents,
granted to his Royall Highnes James Duke of Yorke and Albany; Bearing
Date the 12th Day of March in the Sixteenth year of the Raigne of our
Soveraigne Lord Kinge Charles the Second." First published at Long
Island in 1664.

"Bond slavery": "No Christian shall be kept in Bond-slavery villenage or
Captivity, Except Such who shall be Judged thereunto by Authority, or
such as willingly have sould, or shall sell themselves," etc.
Apprenticeship allowed. _Charter to William Penn, and Laws of the
Province of Pennsylvania_ (1879), pp. 3, 12.


~1672, October. Connecticut: Law against Man-Stealing.~

"The General Laws and Liberties of Conecticut

"Capital Laws": 10. "If any Man stealeth a Man or Man kinde, and selleth
him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21.
16." _Laws of Connecticut_, 1672 (repr. 1865), p. 9.


~1676, March 3. West New Jersey: Slavery Prohibited (?).~

"The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, Freeholders and
Inhabitants of the Province of West New-Jersey, in America."

Chap. XXIII. "That in all publick Courts of Justice for Tryals of
Causes, Civil or Criminal, any Person or Persons, Inhabitants of the
said Province, may freely come into, and attend the said Courts, ...
that all and every Person and Persons Inhabiting the said Province,
shall, as far as in us lies, be free from Oppression and Slavery."
Leaming and Spicer, _Grants, Concessions_, etc., pp. 382, 398.


~1688, Feb. 18. Pennsylvania: First Protest of Friends against
Slave-Trade.~

"At Monthly Meeting of Germantown Friends." For text, see above, pages
28-29. _Fac-simile Copy_ (1880).


~1695, May. Maryland: 10s. Duty Act.~

"An Act for the laying an Imposition upon <DW64>s, Slaves, and White
Persons imported into this Province." Re-enacted in 1696, and included
in Acts of 1699 and 1704. Bacon, _Laws_, 1695, ch. ix.; 1696, ch. vii.;
1699, ch. xxiii.; 1704, ch. ix.


~1696. Pennsylvania: Protest of Friends.~

"That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more
<DW64>s." Bettle, _Notices of <DW64> Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._
(1864), I. 383.


~1698, Oct. 8. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.~

"An Act for the Encouragement of the Importation of White Servants."

"Whereas, the great number of <DW64>s 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."

Sec. 1. L13 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 L12 for boys between twelve and sixteen years.
Every servant must have at least four years to serve, and every boy
seven years.

Sec. 3. Planters are to take servants in proportion of one to every six
male <DW64>s above sixteen years.

Sec. 5. Servants are to be distributed by lot.

Sec. 8. This act to continue three years. Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 153.


~1699, April. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.~

"An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves imported into
this country, towards building the Capitoll." For three years; continued
in August, 1701, and April, 1704. Hening, _Statutes_, III. 193, 212,
225.


~1703, May 6. South Carolina: Duty Act.~

"An Act for the laying an Imposition on Furrs, Skinns, Liquors and other
Goods and Merchandize, Imported into and Exported out of this part of
this Province, for the raising of a Fund of Money towards defraying the
publick charges and expenses of this Province, and paying the debts due
for the Expedition against St. Augustine." 10_s._ on Africans and 20_s._
on others. Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 201.


~1704, October. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.~

"An Act imposing Three Pence per Gallon on Rum and Wine, Brandy and
Spirits; and Twenty Shillings per Poll for <DW64>s; 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 <DW7>s into this Province." Revived in 1708 and 1712. Bacon,
_Laws_, 1704, ch. xxxiii.; 1708, ch. xvi.; 1712, ch. xxii.


~1705, Jan. 12. Pennsylvania: 10s. Duty Act. ~

"An Act for Raising a Supply of Two pence half penny per Pound & ten
shillings per Head. Also for Granting an Impost & laying on Sundry
Liquors & <DW64>s Imported into this Province for the Support of
Governmt., & defraying the necessary Publick Charges in the
Administration thereof." _Colonial Records_ (1852), II. 232, No. 50.


~1705, October. Virginia: 6d. Tax on Imported Slaves.~

"An act for raising a publick revenue for the better support of the
Government," etc. Similar tax by Act of October, 1710. Hening,
_Statutes_, III. 344, 490.


~1705, October. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.~

"An act for laying an Imposition upon Liquors and Slaves." For two
years; re-enacted in October, 1710, for three years, and in October,
1712. _Ibid._, III. 229, 482; IV. 30.


~1705, Dec. 5. Massachusetts: L4 Duty Act.~

"An act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," etc.

Sec. 6. On and after May 1, 1706, every master importing <DW64>s 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 L4 per head for every such <DW64>. Both master and ship are to be
security for the payment of the same.

Sec. 7. If the master neglect to enter the slaves, he shall forfeit L8 for
each <DW64>, one-half to go to the informer and one-half to the
government.

Sec. 8. If any <DW64> 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 <DW64> sold die within six weeks after
importation. _Mass. Province Laws, 1705-6_, ch. 10.


~1708, February. Rhode Island: L3 Duty Act.~

No title or text found. Slightly amended by Act of April, 1708;
strengthened by Acts of February, 1712, and July 5, 1715; proceeds
disposed of by Acts of July, 1715, October, 1717, and June, 1729.
_Colonial Records_, IV. 34, 131-5, 138, 143, 191-3, 225, 423-4.


~1709, Sept. 24. New York: L3 Duty Act.~

"An Act for Laying a Duty on the Tonnage of Vessels and Slaves." A duty
of L3 was laid on slaves not imported directly from their native
country. Continued by Act of Oct. 30, 1710. _Acts of Assembly,
1691-1718_, pp. 97, 125, 134; Laws of New York, 1691-1773, p. 83.


~1710, Dec. 28. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.~

"An impost Act, laying a duty on <DW64>s, wine, rum and other spirits,
cyder and vessels." Repealed by order in Council Feb. 20, 1713. Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 82; Bettle, _Notices of <DW64> Slavery_, in _Penn.
Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864), I. 415.


~1710. Virginia: L5 Duty Act.~

"Intended to discourage the importation" of slaves. Title and text not
found. Disallowed (?). _Governor Spotswood to the Lords of Trade_, in
_Va. Hist. Soc. Coll._, New Series, I. 52.


~1711, July-Aug. New York: Act of 1709 Strengthened.~

"An Act for the more effectual putting in Execution an Act of General
Assembly, Intituled, An Act for Laying a Duty on the Tonnage of Vessels
and Slaves." _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, p. 134.


~1711, December. New York: Bill to Increase Duty.~

Bill for laying a further duty on slaves. Passed Assembly; lost in
Council. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 293.


~1711. Pennsylvania: Testimony of Quakers.~

" ... the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, on a representation from the
Quarterly Meeting of Chester, that the buying and encouraging the
importation of <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s."
Bettle, _Notices of <DW64> Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864),
I. 386.


~1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive (?) Duty Act.~

"A supplementary Act to an act, entituled, An impost act, laying a duty
on <DW64>s, rum," etc. Disallowed by Great Britain, 1713. Carey and
Bioren, _Laws_, I. 87, 88. Cf. _Colonial Records_ (1852), II. 553.


~1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive Duty Act.~

"An act to prevent the Importation of <DW64>s and Indians into this
Province."

"Whereas Divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently happened, not
only in the Islands, but on the Main Land of _America_, by <DW64>s,
which have been carried on so far that several of the Inhabitants have
been thereby barbarously Murthered, an instance whereof we have lately
had in our neighboring Colony of _New York_. And whereas the
Importation of Indian Slaves hath given our Neighboring _Indians_ in
this Province some umbrage of Suspicion and Dis-satisfaction. For
Prevention of all which for the future,

"_Be it Enacted_ ..., That from and after the Publication of this Act,
upon the Importation of any <DW64> or Indian, by Land or Water, into this
Province, there shall be paid by the Importer, Owner or Possessor
thereof, the sum of _Twenty Pounds per head_, for every <DW64> or Indian
so imported or brought in (except <DW64>s directly brought in from the
_West India Islands_ before the first Day of the Month called _August_
next) unto the proper Officer herein after named, or that shall be
appointed according to the Directions of this Act to receive the same,"
etc. Disallowed by Great Britain, 1713. _Laws of Pennsylvania,
collected_, etc. (ed. 1714), p. 165; _Colonial Records_ (1852), II. 553;
Burge, _Commentaries_, I. 737, note; _Penn. Archives_, I. 162.


~1713, March 11. New Jersey: L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a Duty on <DW64>, Indian and Mulatto Slaves, imported
and brought into this Province."

"_Be it Enacted_ ..., That every Person or Persons that shall hereafter
Import or bring in, or cause to be imported or brought into this
Province, any <DW64> Indian or Mulatto Slave or Slaves, every such Person
or Persons so importing or bringing in, or causing to be imported or
brought in, such Slave or Slaves, shall enter with one of the Collectors
of her Majestie's Customs of this Province, every such Slave or Slaves,
within Twenty Four Hours after such Slave or Slaves is so Imported, and
pay the Sum of _Ten Pounds_ Money as appointed by her Majesty's
Proclamation, for each Slave so imported, or give sufficient Security
that the said Sum of _Ten Pounds_, Money aforesaid, shall be well and
truly paid within three Months after such Slave or Slaves are so
imported, to the Collector or his Deputy of the District into which
such Slave or Slaves shall be imported, for the use of her Majesty, her
Heirs and Successors, toward the Support of the Government of this
Province." For seven years; violations incur forfeiture and sale of
slaves at auction; slaves brought from elsewhere than Africa to pay L10,
etc. _Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703-1717_ (ed. 1717), p. 43; _N.J.
Archives_, 1st Series, XIII. 516, 517, 520, 522, 523, 527, 532, 541.


~1713, March 26. Great Britain and Spain: The Assiento.~

"The Assiento, or Contract for allowing to the Subjects of Great Britain
the Liberty of importing <DW64>s into the Spanish America. Signed by the
Catholick King at Madrid, the 26th Day of March, 1713."

Art. I. "First then to procure, by this means, a mutual and reciprocal
advantage to the sovereigns and subjects of both crowns, her British
majesty does offer and undertake for the persons, whom she shall name
and appoint, That they shall oblige and charge themselves with the
bringing into the West-Indies of America, belonging to his catholick
majesty, in the space of the said 30 years, to commence on the 1st day
of May, 1713, and determine on the like day, which will be in the year
1743, _viz._ 144000 <DW64>s, _Piezas de India_, of both sexes, and of
all ages, at the rate of 4800 <DW64>s, _Piezas de India_, in each of the
said 30 years, with this condition, That the persons who shall go to the
West-Indies to take care of the concerns of the assiento, shall avoid
giving any offence, for in such case they shall be prosecuted and
punished in the same manner, as they would have been in Spain, if the
like misdemeanors had been committed there."

Art. II. Assientists to pay a duty of 33 pieces of eight (_Escudos_) for
each <DW64>, which should include all duties.

Art. III. Assientists to advance to his Catholic Majesty 200,000 pieces
of eight, which should be returned at the end of the first twenty years,
etc. John Almon, _Treaties of Peace, Alliance, and Commerce, between
Great-Britain and other Powers_ (London, 1772), I. 83-107.


~1713, July 13. Great Britain and Spain: Treaty of Utrecht.~

"Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the most serene and most potent
princess Anne, by the grace of God, Queen of Great Britain, France, and
Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. and the most serene and most potent
Prince Philip V the Catholick King of Spain, concluded at Utrecht, the
2/13 Day of July, 1713."

Art. XII. "The Catholick King doth furthermore hereby give and grant to
her Britannick majesty, and to the company of her subjects appointed for
that purpose, as well the subjects of Spain, as all others, being
excluded, the contract for introducing <DW64>s into several parts of the
dominions of his Catholick Majesty in America, commonly called _el Pacto
de el Assiento de Negros_, for the space of thirty years successively,
beginning from the first day of the month of May, in the year 1713, with
the same conditions on which the French enjoyed it, or at any time might
or ought to enjoy the same, together with a tract or tracts of Land to
be allotted by the said Catholick King, and to be granted to the company
aforesaid, commonly called _la Compania de el Assiento_, in some
convenient place on the river of Plata, (no duties or revenues being
payable by the said company on that account, during the time of the
abovementioned contract, and no longer) and this settlement of the said
society, or those tracts of land, shall be proper and sufficient for
planting, and sowing, and for feeding cattle for the subsistence of
those who are in the service of the said company, and of their <DW64>s;
and that the said <DW64>s may be there kept in safety till they are
sold; and moreover, that the ships belonging to the said company may
come close to land, and be secure from any danger. But it shall always
be lawful for the Catholick King, to appoint an officer in the said
place or settlement, who may take care that nothing be done or practised
contrary to his royal interests. And all who manage the affairs of the
said company there, or belong to it, shall be subject to the inspection
of the aforesaid officer, as to all matters relating to the tracts of
land abovementioned. But if any doubts, difficulties, or controversies,
should arise between the said officer and the managers for the said
company, they shall be referred to the determination of the governor of
Buenos Ayres. The Catholick King has been likewise pleased to grant to
the said company, several other extraordinary advantages, which are more
fully and amply explained in the contract of the Assiento, which was
made and concluded at Madrid, the 26th day of the month of March, of
this present year 1713. Which contract, or _Assiento de Negros_, and all
the clauses, conditions, privileges and immunities contained therein,
and which are not contrary to this article, are and shall be deemed, and
taken to be, part of this treaty, in the same manner as if they had been
here inserted word for word." John Almon, _Treaties of Peace, Alliance,
and Commerce, between Great-Britain and other Powers_, I. 168-80.


~1714, Feb. 18. South Carolina: Duty on American Slaves.~

"An Act for laying an additional duty on all <DW64> Slaves imported into
this Province from any part of America." Title quoted in Act of 1719,
Sec.30, _q.v._


~1714, Dec. 18. South Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.~

"An additional Act to an Act entitled 'An Act for the better Ordering
and Governing <DW64>s and all other Slaves.'"

Sec.9 "And _whereas_, the number of <DW64>s do extremely increase in this
Province, and through the afflicting providence of God, the white
persons do not proportionally multiply, by reason whereof, the safety
of the said Province is greatly endangered; for the prevention of which
for the future,

"_Be it further enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That all <DW64>
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 <DW64> slaves as aforesaid, shall, for every such slave,
pay unto the public receiver for the time being, (within thirty days
after such importation,) the sum of two pounds current money of this
Province." Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 365.


~1715, Feb. 18. South Carolina: Duty on American <DW64>s.~

"_An additional Act_ to an act entitled _an act for raising the sum of
L2000, of and from the estates real and personal of the inhabitants of
this Province, ratified in open Assembly the 18th day of December,
1714_; and for laying an additional duty on all Negroe slaves imported
into this Province from any part of America." Title only given. Grimke,
_Public Laws_, p. xvi, No. 362.


~1715, May 28. Pennsylvania: L5 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a Duty on _Negroes_ imported into this province."
Disallowed by Great Britain, 1719. _Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania,
1715_, p. 270; _Colonial Records_ (1852), III. 75-6; Chalmers,
_Opinions_, II. 118.


~1715, June 3. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.~

"An Act laying an Imposition on <DW64>s ...; and also on Irish Servants,
to prevent the importing too great a Number of Irish <DW7>s into this
Province." Supplemented April 23, 1735, and July 25, 1754. _Compleat
Collection of the Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 157; Bacon, _Laws_,
1715, ch. xxxvi. Sec.8; 1735, ch. vi. Sec.Sec.1-3; _Acts of Assembly, 1754_, p.
10.


~1716, June 30. South Carolina: L3 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying an Imposition on Liquors, Goods and Merchandizes,
Imported into and Exported out of this Province, for the raising of a
Fund of Money towards the defraying the publick charges and expences of
the Government." A duty of L3 was laid on African slaves, and L30 on
American slaves. Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 649.


~1716. New York: 5 oz. and 10 oz. plate Duty Act.~

"An Act to Oblige all Vessels Trading into this Colony (except such as
are therein excepted) to pay a certain Duty; and for the further
Explanation and rendring more Effectual certain Clauses in an Act of
General Assembly of this Colony, Intituled, An Act by which a Duty is
laid on <DW64>s, and other Slaves, imported into this Colony." The act
referred to is not to be found. _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, p. 224.


~1717, June 8. Maryland: Additional 20s. Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying an Additional Duty of Twenty Shillings Current Money
per Poll on all Irish Servants, ... also, the Additional Duty of Twenty
Shillings Current Money per Poll on all <DW64>s, for raising a Fund for
the Use of Publick Schools," etc. Continued by Act of 1728. _Compleat
Collection of the Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 191; Bacon, _Laws_,
1728, ch. viii.


~1717, Dec. 11. South Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.~

"A further additional Act to an Act entitled An Act for the better
ordering and governing of <DW64>s and all other Slaves; and to an
additional Act to an Act entitled An Act for the better ordering and
governing of <DW64>s and all other Slaves."

Sec. 3. "And _whereas_, the great importation of <DW64>s to this Province,
in proportion to the white inhabitants of the same, whereby the future
safety of this Province will be greatly endangered; for the prevention
whereof,

"_Be it enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That all <DW64> slaves of
any age or condition whatsoever, imported or otherwise brought into this
Province, from any part of the world, shall pay such additional duties
as is hereafter named, that is to say:--that every merchant or other
person whatsoever, who shall, eighteen months after the ratification of
this Act, import any <DW64> 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
<DW64>s, by any law in force in this Province, the additional sum of
forty pounds current money of this Province," etc.

Sec. 4. This section on duties to be in force for four years after
ratification, and thence to the end of the next session of the General
Assembly. Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 368.


~1718, Feb. 22. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.~

"An Act for continuing a duty on <DW64>s brought into this province."
Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 118.


~1719, March 20. South Carolina: L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying an Imposition on <DW64>s, 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 L10 on African
slaves, and L30 on American slaves. Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 56.


~1721, Sept. 21. South Carolina: L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for granting to His Majesty a Duty and Imposition on <DW64>s,
Liquors, and other Goods and Merchandize, imported into and exported out
of this Province." This was a continuation of the Act of 1719. _Ibid._,
III. 159.


~1722, Feb. 23. South Carolina: L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for Granting to His Majesty a Duty and Imposition on <DW64>s,
Liquors, and other Goods and Merchandizes, for the use of the Publick
of this Province."

Sec. 1. " ... on all <DW64> slaves imported from Africa directly, or any
other place whatsoever, Spanish <DW64>s excepted, if above ten years of
age, ten pounds; on all <DW64>s under ten years of age, (sucking
children excepted) five pounds," etc.

Sec. 3. "And whereas, it has proved to the detriment of some of the
inhabitants of this Province, who have purchased <DW64>s imported here
from the Colonies of America, that they were either transported thence
by the Courts of justice, or sent off by private persons for their ill
behaviour and misdemeanours, to prevent which for the future,

"_Be it enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That all <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s 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 <DW64>s came last, before whom it was
proved upon oath, that the same are new <DW64>s, and have not been six
months on shoar in any part of America," etc.

Sec. 4. "And whereas, the importation of Spanish Indians, mustees, <DW64>s,
and mulattoes, may be of dangerous consequence by inticing the slaves
belonging to the inhabitants of this Province to desert with them to the
Spanish settlements near us,

"_Be it therefore enacted_ That all such Spanish <DW64>s, 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."

Sec. 19. Rebate of three-fourths of the duty allowed in case of
re-exportation in six months.

Sec. 31. Act of 1721 repealed.

Sec. 36. This act to continue in force for three years, and thence to the
end of the next session of the General Assembly, and no longer. Cooper,
_Statutes_, III. 193.


~1722, May 12. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a duty on <DW64>s imported into this province." Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 165.


~1723, May. Virginia: Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a Duty on Liquors and Slaves." Title only; repealed
by proclamation Oct. 27, 1724. Hening, _Statutes_, IV. 118.


~1723, June 18. Rhode Island: Back Duties Collected.~

Resolve appointing the attorney-general to collect back duties on
<DW64>s. _Colonial Records_, IV. 330.


~1726, March 5. Pennsylvania: L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for the better regulating of <DW64>s in this province." Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 214; Bettle, _Notices of <DW64> Slavery_, in
_Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864), I. 388.


~1726, March 5. Pennsylvania: Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a duty on <DW64>s imported into this province." Carey
and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 213.


~1727, February. Virginia: Prohibitive Duty Act (?).~

"An Act for laying a Duty on Slaves imported; and for appointing a
Treasurer." Title only found; the duty was probably prohibitive; it was
enacted with a suspending clause, and was not assented to by the king.
Hening, _Statutes_, IV. 182.


~1728, Aug. 31. New York: L2 and L4 Duty Act.~

"An Act to repeal some Parts and to continue and enforce other Parts of
the Act therein mentioned, and for granting several Duties to His
Majesty, for supporting His Government in the Colony of New York" from
Sept. 1, 1728, to Sept. 1, 1733. Same duty continued by Act of 1732.
_Laws of New York, 1691-1773_, pp. 148, 171; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New
York_, VI. 32, 33, 34, 37, 38.


~1728, Sept. 14. Massachusetts: Act of 1705 Strengthened.~

"An Act more effectually to secure the Duty on the Importation of
<DW64>s." For seven years; substantially the same law re-enacted Jan.
26, 1738, for ten years. _Mass. Province Laws, 1728-9_, ch. 16;
_1738-9_, ch. 27.


~1729, May 10. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a Duty on <DW64>s imported into this Province." _Laws
of Pennsylvania_ (ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287.


~1732, May. Rhode Island: Repeal of Act of 1712.~

"Whereas, there was an act made and passed by the General Assembly, at
their session, held at Newport, the 27th day of February, 1711 [O.S.,
N.S. = 1712], entitled 'An Act for laying a duty on <DW64> slaves that
shall be imported into this colony,' and this Assembly being directed by
His Majesty's instructions to repeal the same;--

"Therefore, be it enacted by the General Assembly ... that the said act
... be, and it is hereby repealed, made null and void, and of none
effect for the future." If this is the act mentioned under Act of 1708,
the title is wrongly cited; if not, the act is lost. _Colonial Records_,
IV. 471.


~1732, May. Virginia: Five per cent Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a Duty upon Slaves, to be paid by the Buyers." For
four years; continued and slightly amended by Acts of 1734, 1736, 1738,
1742, and 1745; revived February, 1752, and continued by Acts of
November, 1753, February, 1759, November, 1766, and 1769; revived (or
continued?) by Act of February, 1772, until 1778. Hening, _Statutes_,
IV. 317, 394, 469; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353; VII. 281; VIII. 190,
336, 530.


~1734, November. New York: Duty Act.~

"An act to lay a duty on <DW64>s & a tax on the Slaves therein mentioned
during the time and for the uses within mentioned." The tax was 1_s._
yearly per slave. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 38.


~1734, Nov. 28. New York: L2 and L4 (?) Duty Act.~

"An Act to lay a Duty on the Goods, and a Tax on the Slaves therein
mentioned, during the Time, and for the Uses mentioned in the same."
Possibly there were two acts this year. _Laws of New York, 1691-1773_,
p. 186; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 27.


~1735. Georgia: Prohibitive Act.~

An "act for rendering the colony of Georgia more defensible by
prohibiting the importation and use of black slaves or <DW64>s into the
same." W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 311; [B. Martyn], _Account
of the Progress of Georgia_ (1741), pp. 9-10; Prince Hoare, _Memoirs of
Granville Sharp_ (London, 1820), p. 157.


~1740, April 5. South Carolina: L100 Prohibitive Duty Act.~

"An Act for the better strengthening of this Province, by granting to
His Majesty certain taxes and impositions on the purchasers of <DW64>s
imported," etc. The duty on slaves from America was L150. Continued to
1744. Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 556. Cf. _Abstract Evidence on
Slave-Trade before Committee of House of Commons, 1790-91_ (London,
1791), p. 150.


~1740, May. Virginia: Additional Five per cent Duty Act.~

"An Act, for laying an additional Duty upon Slaves, to be paid by the
Buyer, for encouraging persons to enlist in his Majesty's service: And
for preventing desertion." To continue until July 1, 1744. Hening,
_Statutes_, V. 92.


~1751, June 14. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.~

"An Act for the better strengthening of this Province, by granting to
His Majesty certain Taxes and Impositions on the purchasers of <DW64>s
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 <DW64>s and other slaves imported from
payment of the Tax, and the Liquors and other Goods and Merchandize from
the duties imposed by any former Act or Acts of the General Assembly of
this Province."

"Whereas, the best way to prevent the mischiefs that may be attended by
the great importation of <DW64>s 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,

Sec. 1. "_And be it enacted_, 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 <DW64> or other slave, hereafter to be imported, a
certain tax or sum of ten pounds current money for every such <DW64> 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 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 <DW64>s 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."

Sec. 6. "_And be it further enacted_ by the authority aforesaid, That the
said tax hereby imposed on <DW64>s 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 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 L4 and L2.

Sec. 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 L2 13_s._ 4_d._, and L1 6_s._ 8_d._

Sec. 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.

Sec. 14. Rebate of three-fourths of the tax allowed in case of
re-exportation of the slaves in six months.

Sec. 16. "_And be it further enacted_ 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.

Sec. 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, _Statutes_, III. 739.


~1753, Dec. 12. New York: 5 oz. and 10 oz. plate Duty Act.~

"An Act for granting to His Majesty the several Duties and Impositions,
on Goods, Wares and Merchandizes imported into this Colony, therein
mentioned." Annually continued until 1767, or perhaps until 1774. _Laws
of New York, 1752-62_, p. 21, ch. xxvii.; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New
York_, VII. 907; VIII. 452.


~1754, February. Virginia: Additional Five per cent Duty Act.~

"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, _Statutes_, VI. 417,
468; VII. 639; VIII. 530.


~1754, July 25. Maryland: Additional 10s. Duty Act.~

"An Act for his Majesty's Service." Bacon, _Laws_, 1754, ch. ix.


~1755, May. Virginia: Additional Ten per cent Duty Act.~

"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."

Sec. 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, Sec. 11, " ...
inasmuch as the same prevents the importation of slaves, and thereby
lessens the fund arising from the duties upon slaves." Hening,
_Statutes_, VI. 461; VII. 363. Cf. _Dinwiddie Papers_, II. 86.


~1756, March 22. Maryland: Additional 20s. Duty Act.~

"An Act for granting a Supply of Forty Thousand Pounds, for his
Majesty's Service," etc. For five years. Bacon, _Laws_, 1756, ch. v.


~1757, April. Virginia: Additional Ten per cent Duty Act.~

"An Act for granting an aid to his majesty for the better protection of
this colony, and for other purposes therein mentioned."

Sec. 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, Sec. 6, as
being "found very inconvenient." Hening, _Statutes_, VII. 69, 383.


~1759, November. Virginia: Twenty per cent Duty Act.~

"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."

Sec. 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, _q.v. Ibid._, VII. 338; VIII. 191, 336.


~1760. South Carolina: Total Prohibition.~

Text not found; act disallowed by Great Britain. Cf. Burge,
_Commentaries_, I. 737, note; W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I.
286.


~1761, March 14. Pennsylvania: L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a duty on <DW64>s and Mulattoe slaves, imported into
this province." Continued in 1768; repealed (or disallowed) in 1780.
Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 371, 451; _Acts of Assembly_ (ed. 1782), p.
149; _Colonial Records_ (1852), VIII. 576.


~1761, April 22. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive Duty Act.~

"A Supplement to an act, entituled An Act for laying a duty on <DW64>s
and Mulattoe slaves, imported into this province." Continued in 1768.
Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 371, 451; Bettle, _Notices of <DW64>
Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._ (1864), I. 388-9.


~1763, Nov. 26. Maryland: Additional L2 Duty Act.~

"An Act for imposing an additional Duty of Two Pounds per Poll on all
<DW64>s Imported into this Province."

Sec. 1. All persons importing <DW64>s 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 <DW64> so imported or brought in, on forfeiture of L10 current
money for every <DW64> 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 <DW64>s.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 3. Importers of <DW64>s, 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, _Laws_, 1763, ch. xxviii.


~1763 (circa). New Jersey: Prohibitive Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a duty on <DW64>s and Mulatto Slaves Imported into
this Province." Disallowed (?) by Great Britain. _N.J. Archives_, IX.
345-6, 383, 447, 458.


~1764, Aug. 25. South Carolina: Additional L100 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying an additional duty upon all <DW64>s hereafter to be
imported into this Province, for the time therein mentioned, to be paid
by the first purchasers of such <DW64>s." Cooper, _Statutes_, IV 187.


~1766, November. Virginia: Proposed Duty Act.~

"An act for laying an additional duty upon slaves imported into this
colony."

Sec. 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, _Statutes_,
VIII. 237, 337.


~1766. Rhode Island: Restrictive Measure (?).~

Title and text not found. Cf. _Digest_ of 1798, under "Slave Trade;"
_Public Laws of Rhode Island_ (revision of 1822), p. 441.


~1768, Feb. 20. Pennsylvania: Re-enactment of Acts of 1761.~

Titles only found. Dallas, _Laws_, I. 490; _Colonial Records_ (1852),
IX. 472, 637, 641.


~1769, Nov. 16. New Jersey: L15 Duty Act.~

"An Act for laying a Duty on the Purchasers of Slaves imported into this
Colony."

"Whereas Duties on the Importation of <DW64>s 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: _In order therefore_ 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.
A duty of "_Fifteen Pounds_, Proclamation Money, is laid." _Acts of
Assembly_ (Allinson, 1776), p. 315.


~1769 (circa). Connecticut: Importation Prohibited (?).~

Title and text not found. "Whereas, the increase of slaves is injurious
to the poor, and inconvenient, therefore," etc. Fowler, _Historical
Status of the <DW64> in Connecticut_, in _Local Law_, etc., p. 125.


~1770. Rhode Island: Bill to Prohibit Importation.~

Bill to prohibit importation of slaves fails. Arnold, _History of Rhode
Island_ (1859), II. 304, 321, 337.


~1771, April 12. Massachusetts: Bill to Prevent Importation.~

Bill passes both houses and fails of Governor Hutchinson's assent.
_House Journal_, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236, 240, 242-3.


~1771. Maryland: Additional L5 Duty Act.~

"An Act for imposing a further additional duty of five pounds current
money per poll on all <DW64>s imported into this province." For seven
years. _Laws of Maryland since 1763_: 1771, ch. vii.; cf. 1773, sess.
Nov.-Dec., ch. xiv.


~1772, April 1. Virginia: Address to the King.~

" ... The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of
Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and
under its _present encouragement_, we have too much reason to fear _will
endanger the very existence_ of your majesty's American dominions....

"Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your
majesty to _remove all those restraints_ on your majesty's governors of
this colony, _which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check
so very pernicious a commerce_." _Journals of the House of Burgesses_,
p. 131; quoted in Tucker, _Dissertation on Slavery_ (repr. 1861), p. 43.


~1773, Feb. 26. Pennsylvania: Additional L10 Duty Act.~

"An Act for making perpetual the act ... [of 1761] ... and laying an
additional duty on the said slaves." Dallas, _Laws_, I. 671; _Acts of
Assembly_ (ed. 1782), p. 149.


~1774, March, June. Massachusetts: Bills to Prohibit Importation.~

Two bills designed to prohibit the importation of slaves fail of the
governor's assent. First bill: _General Court Records_, XXX. 248, 264;
_Mass. Archives, Domestic Relations, 1643-1774_, IX. 457. Second bill:
_General Court Records_, XXX. 308, 322.


~1774, June. Rhode Island: Importation Restricted.~

"An Act prohibiting the importation of <DW64>s into this Colony."

"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, be it enacted ... that for the future, no <DW64> 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."

"Provided that the slaves of settlers and travellers be excepted.

"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to
extend, to any <DW64> or mulatto slave brought from the coast of Africa,
into the West Indies, on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and
which <DW64> 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 <DW64> or mulatto slave give bond to
the general treasurer of the said colony, within ten days after such
arrival in the sum of L100, lawful money, for each and every such <DW64>
or mulatto slave so brought in, that such <DW64> or mulatto slave shall
be exported out of the colony, within one year from the date of such
bond; if such <DW64> or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to be
removed."

"Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to
extend, to any <DW64> 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 <DW64>s in order to free them.
_Colonial Records_, VII. 251-3.

[1784, February: "It is voted and resolved, that the whole of the clause
contained in an act of this Assembly, passed at June session,
A.D. 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." _Colonial Records_, X. 8.]


~1774, October. Connecticut: Importation Prohibited.~

"An Act for prohibiting the Importation of Indian, <DW64> or Molatto
Slaves."

" ... no indian, <DW64> 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. _Colonial
Records_, XIV. 329; _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp.
233-4.


~1774. New Jersey: Proposed Prohibitive Duty.~

"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. _N.J. Archives_,
1st Series, VI. 222.


~1775, March 27. Delaware: Bill to Prohibit Importation.~

Passed the Assembly and was vetoed by the governor. Force, _American
Archives_, 4th Series, II. 128-9.


~1775, Nov. 23. Virginia: On Lord Dunmore's Proclamation.~

Williamsburg Convention to the public: "Our Assemblies have repeatedly
passed acts, laying heavy duties upon imported <DW64>s, 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 _English_ merchants." ... The Americans would, if possible,
"not only prevent any more <DW64>s from losing their freedom, but
restore it to such as have already unhappily lost it." This is evidently
addressed in part to <DW64>s, to keep them from joining the British.
_Ibid._, III. 1387.


~1776, June 29. Virginia: Preamble to Frame of Government.~

Blame for the slave-trade thrown on the king. See above, page 21.
Hening, _Statutes_, IX. 112-3.


~1776, Aug.-Sept. Delaware: Constitution.~

"The Constitution or system of Government agreed to and resolved upon by
the Representatives in full Convention of the Delaware State," etc.

Sec. 26. "No person hereafter imported into this State from _Africa_ ought
to be held in slavery on any pretence whatever; and no <DW64>, Indian, or
Mulatto slave ought to be brought into this State, for sale, from any
part of the world." Force, _American Archives_, 5th Series, I. 1174-9.


~1777, July 2. Vermont: Slavery Condemned.~

The first Constitution declares slavery a violation of "natural,
inherent and unalienable rights." _Vermont State Papers, 1779-86_, p.
244.


~1777. Maryland: <DW64> Duty Maintained.~

"An Act concerning duties."

" ... 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 <DW64>s), shall be taken or received within two years
from the end of the present session of the general assembly." _Laws of
Maryland since 1763_: 1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. xviii.


~1778, Sept. 7. Pennsylvania: Act to Collect Back Duties.~

"An Act for the recovery of the duties on <DW64>s and Mulattoe slaves,
which on the fourth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and
seventy-six, were due to this state," etc. Dallas, _Laws_, I. 782.


~1778, October. Virginia: Importation Prohibited.~

"An act for preventing the farther importation of Slaves.

Sec. 1. "For preventing the farther importation of slaves into this
commonwealth, _Be it enacted by the General Assembly_, 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.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 3. "_And be it farther enacted_, That every slave imported into this
commonwealth, contrary to the true intent and meaning of this act,
shall, upon such importation become free."

Sec. 4. Exceptions are _bona fide_ 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, _Statutes_,
IX. 471; X. 307; XII. 182.


~1779, October. Rhode Island: Slave-Trade Restricted.~

"An Act prohibiting slaves being sold out of the state, against their
consent." Title only found. _Colonial Records_, VIII. 618; Arnold,
_History of Rhode Island_, II. 449.


~1779. Vermont: Importation Prohibited.~

"An Act for securing the general privileges of the people," etc. The act
abolished slavery. _Vermont State Papers, 1779-86_, p. 287.


~1780. Massachusetts: Slavery Abolished.~

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.
_Constitution of Massachusetts_, Part I., Art. 1; prefixed to _Perpetual
Laws_ (1789).


~1780, March 1. Pennsylvania: Slavery Abolished.~

"An Act for the gradual abolition of slavery."

Sec. 5. All slaves to be registered before Nov. 1.

Sec. 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.

Sec. 11. Fugitive slaves from other states may be taken back.

Sec. 14. Former duty acts, etc., repealed. Dallas, _Laws_, I. 838. Cf.
_Penn. Archives_, VII. 79; VIII. 720.


~1783, April. Confederation: Slave-Trade in Treaty of 1783.~

"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, _History of
the Constitution_, I. 61. Cf. Sparks, _Diplomatic Correspondence_, X.
154, June, 1783.


~1783. Maryland: Importation Prohibited.~

"An Act to prohibit the bringing slaves into this state."

" ... it shall not be lawful, after the passing this act, to import or
bring into this state, by land or water, any <DW64>, 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 _bona
fide_ 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. _Laws
of Maryland since 1763_: 1783, sess. April--June, ch. xxiii.


~1783, Aug. 13. South Carolina: L3 and L20 Duty Act.~

"An Act for levying and collecting certain duties and imposts therein
mentioned, in aid of the public revenue." Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 576.


~1784, February. Rhode Island: Manumission.~

"An Act authorizing the manumission of <DW64>s, 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.
_Colonial Records_, X. 7-8; Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 503.


~1784, March 26. South Carolina: L3 and L5 Duty Act.~

"An Act for levying and collecting certain Duties," etc. Cooper,
_Statutes_, IV. 607.


~1785, April 12. New York: Partial Prohibition.~

"An Act granting a bounty on hemp to be raised within this State, and
imposing an additional duty on sundry articles of merchandise, and for
other purposes therein mentioned."

" ... _And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid_, That if
any <DW64> 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.

"_And be it further enacted_ ... 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." _Laws of New York, 1785-88_ (ed. 1886), pp.
120-21.


~1785. Rhode Island: Restrictive Measure (?).~

Title and text not found. Cf. _Public Laws of Rhode Island_ (revision of
1822), p. 441.


~1786, March 2. New Jersey: Importation Prohibited.~

"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."

"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 upon them;
and that every unnecessary Obstruction in the Way of freeing Slaves
should be removed; therefore,

Sec. 1. "_Be it Enacted by the Council and General Assembly of this State,
and it is hereby Enacted by the Authority of the same_, 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 <DW64> Slave brought from Africa since the Year Seventeen
Hundred and Seventy-six; and every Person offending by bringing into
this State any such <DW64> 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.

Sec. 2. "_And be it further Enacted by the Authority aforesaid_, That if
any Person shall either bring or procure to be brought into this State,
any <DW64> 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 <DW64> 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.

Sec. 3. "_Provided always, and be it further Enacted by the Authority
aforesaid_, 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 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." _Acts of the Tenth General
Assembly_ (Tower Collection of Laws).


~1786, Oct. 30. Vermont: External Trade Prohibited.~

"An act to prevent the sale and transportation of <DW64>s and Molattoes
out of this State." L100 penalty. _Statutes of Vermont_ (ed. 1787), p.
105.


~1786. North Carolina: Prohibitive Duty.~

"An act to impose a duty on all slaves brought into this state by land
or water."

"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.

Sec. 6. Slaves introduced from States which have passed emancipation acts
are to be returned in three months; if not, a bond of L50 is to be
forfeited, and a fine of L100 imposed.

Sec. 8. Act to take effect next Feb. 1; repealed by Act of 1790, ch. 18.
Martin, _Iredell's Acts of Assembly_, I. 413, 492.


~1787, Feb. 3. Delaware: Exportation Prohibited.~

"An Act to prevent the exportation of slaves, and for other purposes."
_Laws of Delaware_ (ed. 1797), p. 884, ch. 145 b.


~1787, March 28. South Carolina: Total Prohibition.~

"An Act to regulate the recovery and payment of debts and for
prohibiting the importation of <DW64>s for the time therein mentioned."
Title only given. Grimke, _Public Laws_, p. lxviii, No. 1485.


~1787, March 28. South Carolina: Importation Prohibited.~

"An Ordinance to impose a Penalty on any person who shall import into
this State any <DW64>s, contrary to the Instalment Act."

1. "_Be it ordained_, 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 <DW64>
slave, contrary to the Act to regulate the recovery of debts and
prohibiting the importation of <DW64>s, shall, besides the forfeiture of
such <DW64> or slave, be liable to a penalty of one hundred pounds, to
the use of the State, for every such <DW64> or slave so imported and
brought in, in addition to the forfeiture in and by the said Act
prescribed." Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 430.


~1787, October. Rhode Island: Importation Prohibited.~

"An act to prevent the slave trade and to encourage the abolition of
slavery." This act prohibited and censured trade under penalty of L100
for each person and L1,000 for each vessel. Bartlett, _Index to the
Printed Acts and Resolves_, p. 333; _Narragansett Historical Register_,
II. 298-9.

                    *       *       *       *       *



APPENDIX B.

A CHRONOLOGICAL CONSPECTUS OF STATE, NATIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL
LEGISLATION.

1788-1871.


    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.


~1788, Feb. 22. New York: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"An Act concerning slaves."

"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, _Be it
enacted_," etc.

"And to prevent the further importation of slaves into this State, _Be
it further enacted by the authority aforesaid_, That if any person shall
sell as a slave within this State any <DW64>, 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.... _And further_, That every person so
imported ... shall be free." The purchase of slaves for removal to
another State is prohibited under penalty of L100. _Laws of New York,
1785-88_ (ed. 1886), pp. 675-6.


~1788, March 25. Massachusetts: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"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."

"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:

Sec. 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 _Africa_, as slaves, or as servants for term of
years." Any person convicted of doing this shall forfeit and pay the sum
of L50 for every person received on board, and the sum of L200 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."

Sec. 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.

Sec. 4. "_Provided_ ... 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." _Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts,
1780-89_ (ed. 1789), p. 235.


~1788, March 29. Pennsylvania: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"An Act to explain and amend an act, entituled, 'An Act for the gradual
abolition of slavery.'"

Sec. 2. Slaves brought in by persons intending to settle shall be free.

Sec. 3. " ... no <DW64> 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, L75.

Sec. 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 L1000.
Dallas, _Laws_, II. 586.


~1788, October. Connecticut: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"An Act to prevent the Slave-Trade."

_"Be it enacted by the Governor, Council and Representatives in General
Court assembled, and by the Authority of the same_, 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 _Fifty
Pounds_, for every Person so received on board, as aforesaid; and of
_Five Hundred Pounds_ 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.

" ... if any Person shall kidnap ... any free <DW64>," etc., inhabitant
of this State, he shall forfeit L100. 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 L1000. Slightly amended in 1789.
_Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp. 368-9, 388.


~1788, Nov. 4. South Carolina: Temporary Prohibition.~

"An Act to regulate the Payment and Recovery of Debts, and to prohibit
the Importation of <DW64>s, for the Time therein limited."

Sec. 16. "No <DW64> 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 L100 to the use of the State for every such <DW64> or slave so
imported or brought in: _Provided_, 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.

Sec. 17. "All former instalment laws, and an ordinance imposing a penalty
on persons importing <DW64>s into this State, passed the 28th day of
March 1787, are hereby repealed." Grimke, _Public Laws_, p. 466.


~1789, Feb. 3. Delaware: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"_An additional Supplementary_ ACT _to an act, intituled_, An act to
prevent the exportation of slaves, and for other purposes."

"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:

Sec. 1. "_Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly of Delaware_,
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.

Sec. 2. "_And whereas_ it has been found by experience, that the act,
intituled, _An act to prevent the exportation of slaves, and for other
purposes_, 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
L100 for each slave exported and L20 for each attempt.

Sec. 3. Slaves to be tried by jury for capital offences. _Laws of Delaware_
(ed. 1797), p. 942, ch. 194 b.


~1789, May 13. Congress (House): Proposed Duty on Slaves Imported.~

A tax of $10 per head on slaves imported, moved by Parker of Virginia.
After debate, withdrawn. _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 336-42.


~1789, Sept. 19. Congress (House): Bill to Tax Slaves Imported.~

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. _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 1
sess. I. 37, 114; _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 1 sess., pp. 366, 903.


~1790, March 22. Congress (House): Declaration of Powers.~

See above, pages 82-83.


~1790, March 22. New York: Amendment of Act of 1788.~

"An Act to amend the act entitled 'An act concerning slaves.'"

"Whereas many inconveniences have arisen from the prohibiting the
exporting of slaves from this State. Therefore

"_Be it enacted_ ..., 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 be
transported out of this State," etc. _Laws of New York, 1789-96_ (ed.
1886), p. 151.


~1792, May. Connecticut: Act of 1788 Strengthened.~

"An Act in addition to an Act, entitled 'An Act to prevent the Slave
Trade.'"

This provided that persons directly or indirectly aiding or assisting in
slave-trading should be fined L100. 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. _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed.
1784), pp. 412-3.


~1792, Dec. 17. Virginia: Revision of Acts.~

"An Act to reduce into one, the several acts concerning slaves, free
<DW64>s, and mulattoes."

Sec. 1. "_Be it enacted_ ..., 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."

Sec. 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."

Sec. 4. "_Provided_, 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, 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_,'" 1778,
etc.

Sec. 53. This act to be in force immediately. _Statutes at Large of
Virginia, New Series_, I. 122.


~1792, Dec. 21. South Carolina: Importation Prohibited until 1795.~

"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 <DW64>s, Mulattoes, Indians,
Moors or Mestizoes, bound for a term of years, from any of the United
States, by land or by water."

"Whereas, it is deemed inexpedient to increase the number of slaves
within this State, in our present circumstances and situation;

Sec. 1. "_Be it therefore enacted_ ..., 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."

Sec. 2. No slaves, <DW64>s, 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, _Statutes_, VII. 431.


~1793, Dec. 19. Georgia: Importation Prohibited.~

"An act to prevent the importation of <DW64>s into this state from the
places herein mentioned." Title only. Re-enacted (?) by the Constitution
of 1798. Marbury and Crawford, _Digest_, p. 442; Prince, _Digest_, p.
786.


~1794, North Carolina: Importation Prohibited.~

"An act to prevent the further importation and bringing of slaves and
indented servants of colour into this state."

Sec. 1. "_Be it enacted_ ..., 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 this act, be bought, sold or hired by any
person whatever."

Sec. 2. Penalty for importing, L100 per slave; for buying or selling, the
same.

Sec. 4. Persons removing, travelling, etc., are excepted. The act was
amended slightly in 1796. Martin, _Iredell's Acts of Assembly_, II. 53,
94.


~1794, March 22. United States Statute: Export Slave-Trade Forbidden.~

"An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave Trade from the United
States to any foreign place or country." _Statutes at Large_, I. 347.
For proceedings in Congress, see _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1820), 3 Cong.
1 sess. II. 51; _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 76,
84, 85, 96, 98, 99, 100; _Annals of Cong._, 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70,
72.


~1794, Dec. 20. South Carolina: Act of 1792 Extended.~

"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 <DW64> Slaves, Mulattoes, Indians, Moors or Mestizoes, bound for a
term of years, from any of the United States, by Land or Water.'"

Sec. 1. Act of 1792 extended until Jan. 1, 1797.

Sec. 2. It shall not be lawful hereafter to import slaves, free <DW64>s,
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 L50; free <DW64>s to be
re-transported. Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 433.


~1795. North Carolina: Act against West Indian Slaves.~

"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 come into this state." Penalty, L100 for each slave over
15 years of age. _Laws of North Carolina_ (revision of 1819), I. 786.


~1796. Maryland: Importation Prohibited.~

"An Act relating to <DW64>s, and to repeal the acts of assembly therein
mentioned."

"_Be it enacted_ ..., 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 <DW64>, 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."

Sec. 2. Any citizen of the United States, coming into the State to take up
_bona fide_ 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."

Sec. 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, _Laws_, I. 334, 344.


~1796, Dec. 19. South Carolina: Importation Prohibited until 1799.~

"An Act to prohibit the importation of <DW64>s, until the first day of
January, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-nine."

"Whereas, it appears to be highly impolitic to import <DW64>s from
Africa, or other places beyond seas," etc. Extended by acts of Dec. 21,
1798, and Dec. 20, 1800, until Jan. 1, 1803. Cooper, _Statutes_, VII.
434, 436.


~1797, Jan. 18. Delaware: Codification of Acts.~

"An Act concerning <DW64> and Mulatto slaves."

Sec. 5. " ... any <DW64> 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 <DW64> 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." _Laws of Delaware_ (ed. 1797), p. 1321, ch.
124 c.


~1798, Jan. 31. Georgia: Importation Prohibited.~

"An act to prohibit the further importation of slaves into this state."

Sec. 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 <DW64> or <DW64>s of any age or sex." Every
person so offending shall forfeit for the first offence the sum of
$1,000 for every <DW64> 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.

Sec. 2. Slaves not to be brought from other States for sale after three
months.

Sec. 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, _Digest_, p. 440.


~1798, March 14. New Jersey: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"An Act respecting slaves."

Sec. 12. "_And be it enacted_, 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 <DW64> or other
slave whatsoever." Penalty, $140 for each slave; travellers and
temporary residents excepted.

Sec. 17. Any persons fitting out vessels for the slave-trade shall forfeit
them. Paterson, _Digest_, p. 307.


~1798, April 7. United States Statute: Importation into Mississippi
Territory Prohibited.~

"An Act for an amicable settlement of limits with the state of Georgia,
and authorizing the establishment of a government in the Mississippi
territory." _Statutes at Large_, I. 549. For proceedings in Congress,
see _Annals of Cong._, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 532,
533, 1235, 1249, 1277-84, 1296, 1298-1312, 1313, 1318.


~1798, May 30. Georgia: Constitutional Prohibition.~

Constitution of Georgia:--

Art. IV Sec. 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, _Digest_, p. 30.


~1800, May 10. United States Statute: Americans Forbidden to Trade from
one Foreign Country to Another.~

"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.'" _Statutes at Large_, II. 70. For proceedings in Congress,
see _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 72, 77, 88, 92.


~1800, Dec. 20. South Carolina: Slaves and Free <DW64>s Prohibited.~

"An Act to prevent <DW64> Slaves and other persons of Colour, from being
brought into or entering this State." Supplemented Dec. 19, 1801, and
amended Dec. 18, 1802. Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 436, 444, 447.


~1801, April 8. New York: Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

"An Act concerning slaves and servants."

" ... _And be it further enacted_, 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. _Laws of New
York, 1801_ (ed. 1887), pp. 547-52; _Laws of New York, 1817_ (ed. 1817),
p. 136.


~1803, Feb. 28. United States Statute: Importation into States
Prohibiting Forbidden.~

"An Act to prevent the importation of certain persons into certain
states, where, by the laws thereof, their admission is prohibited."
_Statutes at Large_, II. 205. For copy of the proposed bill which this
replaced, see _Annals of Cong._, 7 Cong. 2 sess. p. 467. For proceedings
in Congress, see _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 7 Cong. 2 sess. IV 304,
324, 347; _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821), 7 Cong. 2 sess. III. 267, 268,
269-70, 273, 275, 276, 279.


~1803, Dec. 17. South Carolina: African Slaves Admitted.~

"An Act to alter and amend the several Acts respecting the importation
or bringing into this State, from beyond seas, or elsewhere, <DW64>s and
other persons of colour; and for other purposes therein mentioned."

Sec. 1. Acts of 1792, 1794, 1796, 1798, 1800, 1802, hereby repealed.

Sec. 2. Importation of <DW64>s from the West Indies prohibited.

Sec. 3. No <DW64> over fifteen years of age to be imported from the United
States except under certificate of good character.

Sec. 5. <DW64>s illegally imported to be forfeited and sold, etc. Cooper,
_Statutes_, VII. 449.


~1804.~ [~Denmark.~

Act of 1792 abolishing the slave-trade goes into effect.]


~1804, Feb. 14. Congress (House): Proposed Censure of South Carolina.~

Representative Moore of South Carolina offered the following resolution,
as a substitute to Mr. Bard's taxing proposition of Jan. 6:--

"_Resolved_, 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. _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1
sess. p. 1004.


~1804, Feb. 15. Congress (House): Proposed Duty.~

"_Resolved_, That a tax of ten dollars be imposed on every slave
imported into any part of the United States."

"_Ordered_, 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. _House Journal_
(repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, 580, 581-2, 585; _Annals of
Cong._, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, 876, 991, 1012, 1020, 1024-36.


~1804, March 26. United States Statute: Slave-Trade Limited.~

"An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories," etc. Acts of 1794 and
1803 extended to Louisiana. _Statutes at Large_, II. 283. For
proceedings in Congress, see _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106,
211, 223, 231, 233-4, 238, 255, 1038, 1054-68, 1069-79, 1128-30,
1185-9.


~1805, Feb. 15. Massachusetts: Proposed Amendment.~

"_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._" June 8, Governor's message; Connecticut
answers that it is inexpedient; Maryland opposes the proposition.
_Massachusetts Resolves_, February, 1805, p. 55; June, 1805, p. 18. See
below, March 3, 1805.


~1805, March 2. United States Statute: Slave-Trade to Orleans Territory
Permitted.~

"An Act further providing for the government of the territory of
Orleans."

Sec. 1. A territorial government erected similar to Mississippi, with same
rights and privileges.

Sec. 5. 6th Article of Ordinance of 1787, on slaves, not to extend to this
territory.

_Statutes at Large_, II. 322. For proceedings in Congress, see _Annals
of Cong._, 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. _Statutes at
Large_, II. 331; _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong. 2 sess., pp. 50, 51, 52, 57,
68, 69, 1213, 1215. In _Journals_, see Index, Senate Bills Nos. 8, 11.


~1805, March 3. Congress (House): Massachusetts Proposition to Amend
Constitution.~

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 further
importation; it was read and ordered to lie on the table. _House
Journal_ (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V 171; _Annals of Cong._, 8 Cong.
2 sess. pp. 1221-2. For the original resolution, see _Massachusetts
Resolves_, May, 1802, to March, 1806, Vol. II. A. (State House ed., p.
239.)


~1805, Dec. 17. Congress (Senate): Proposition to Prohibit Importation.~

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. _Senate
Journal_ (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 10-11; _Annals of Cong._, 9
Cong. 1 sess. pp. 20-1.


~1806, Jan. 20. Congress (House): Vermont Proposed Amendment.~

"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.
_House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V 238; _Annals of Cong._,
9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 343-4.


~1806, Jan. 25. Virginia: Imported Slaves to be Sold.~

"An Act to amend the several laws concerning slaves."

Sec. 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."

Sec. 8. Penalty for bringing slaves, $400 per slave; the same for buying
or hiring, knowingly, such a slave.

Sec. 16. This act to take effect May 1, 1806. _Statutes at Large of
Virginia_, New Series, III. 251.


~1806, Jan. 27. Congress (House): Bill to Tax Slaves Imported.~

"A Bill laying a duty on slaves imported into any of the United States."
Finally dropped. _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 129;
_Ibid._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 195, 223, 240, 242, 243-4, 248, 260, 262,
264, 276-7, 287, 294, 305, 309, 338; _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess.
pp. 273, 274, 346, 358, 372, 434, 442-4, 533.


~1806, Feb. 4. Congress (House): Proposition to Prohibit Slave-Trade
after 1807.~

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 (?). _Annals of Cong._, 9
Cong. 1 sess. p. 438.


~1806, Feb. 10. Congress (House): New Hampshire Proposed Amendment.~

"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. _House
Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 266; _Annals of Cong._, 9
Cong. 1 sess. p. 448.


~1806, Feb. 17. Congress (House): Proposition on Slave-Trade.~

The committee on the slave-trade reported a resolution:--

"_Resolved_, 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 States."
_House Journal_, 9 Cong. 1 sess. V 264, 278, 308, 345-6; _House
Reports_, 9 Cong. 1 sess. II. Feb. 17, 1806; _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong.
1 sess. pp. 472-3.


~1806, April 7. Congress (Senate): Maryland Proposed Amendment.~

"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....

"_Resolved_, 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. _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821),
9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 76-7, 79; _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
229, 232.


~1806, Dec. 2. President Jefferson's Message.~

See above, pages 97-98. _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V.
468.


~1806, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Proposition on Slave-Trade.~

"A bill to prohibit the importation or bringing of slaves into the
United States, etc.," after Dec. 31, 1807. Finally merged into Senate
bill. _Ibid._, House Bill No. 148.


~1806, Dec. 17. Congress (House): Sloan's Proposition.~

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. _Annals of
Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167-77, 180-89.


~1806, Dec. 29. Congress (House): Sloan's Second Proposition.~

Illegally imported Africans to be either freed, apprenticed, or
returned to Africa. Lost; Jan. 5, 1807, a somewhat similar proposition
was also lost. _Ibid._, pp. 226-8, 254.


~1806, Dec. 31. Great Britain: Rejected Treaty.~

"Treaty of amity, commerce, and navigation, between His Britannic
Majesty and the United States of America."

"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." _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, III. 147, 151.


~1807, March 25. [England: Slave-Trade Abolished.~

"An Act for the Abolition of the Slave Trade." _Statute 47 George III._,
1 sess. ch. 36.]


~1807, Jan. 7. Congress (House): Bidwell's Proposition.~

"Provided, that no person shall be sold as a slave by virtue of this
act." Offered as an amendment to Sec. 3 of House bill; defeated 60 to 61,
Speaker voting. A similar proposition was made Dec. 23, 1806. _House
Journal_ (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 513-6. Cf. _Annals of Cong._,
9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 199-203, 265-7.


~1807, Feb. 9. Congress (House): Section Seven of House Bill.~

Sec. 7 of the bill reported to the House by the committee provided that all
<DW64>s 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 <DW64>s 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. The report was
never acted on. _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 477-8.


~1807, March 2. United States Statute: Importation Prohibited.~

"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 Sec. 8, so as to make less ambiguous the permit
given to the internal traffic, were introduced Feb. 27 and Nov. 27.
_Statutes at Large_, II. 426. For proceedings in Senate, see _Senate
Journal_ (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1-2 sess. IV. 11, 112, 123, 124, 132,
133, 150, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168; _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess.
pp. 16, 19, 23, 33, 36, 45, 47, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 87, 93. For
proceedings in House, see _House Journal_ (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; _Annals of Cong._, 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167,
180, 200, 220, 231, 254, 264, 270.


~1808, Feb. 23. Congress (Senate): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

"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:--

"_Resolved_ ..., 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. _Senate Journal_ (repr.
1821), 10 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 235; _Annals of Cong._, 10 Cong. 1 sess. p.
134. For the full text of the instructions, see _Amer. State Papers,
Miscellaneous_, I. 716.


~1810, Dec. 5. President Madison's Message.~

"Among the commercial abuses still committed under the American flag,
... 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." _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 11
Cong. 3 sess. VII. 435.


~1811, Jan. 15. United States Statute: Secret Act and Joint Resolution
against Amelia Island Smugglers.~

_Statutes at Large_, III. 471 ff.


~1815, March 29. [France: Abolition of Slave-Trade.~

Napoleon on his return from Elba decrees the abolition of the
slave-trade. Decree re-enacted in 1818 by the Bourbon dynasty. _British
and Foreign State Papers_, 1815-16, p. 196, note; 1817-18, p. 1025.]


~1815, Feb. 18. Great Britain: Treaty of Ghent.~

"Treaty of peace and amity. Concluded December 24, 1814; Ratifications
exchanged at Washington February 17, 1815; Proclaimed February 18,
1815."

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."
_U.S. Treaties and Conventions_ (ed. 1889), p. 405.


~1815, Dec. 8. Alabama and Mississippi Territory: Act to Dispose of
Illegally Imported Slaves.~

"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, _Digest of the Laws of Alabama_, p. 637;
_Statutes of Mississippi digested_, etc. (ed. 1816), p. 389.


~1816, Nov. 18. North Carolina: Act to Dispose of Illegally Imported
Slaves.~

"An act to direct the disposal of <DW64>s, 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.'"

Sec. 1. Every slave illegally imported after 1808 shall be sold for the use
of the State.

Sec. 2. The sheriff shall seize and sell such slave, and pay the proceeds
to the treasurer of the State.

Sec. 3. If the slave abscond, the sheriff may offer a reward not exceeding
one-fifth of the value of the slave. _Laws of North Carolina, 1816_, ch.
xii. p. 9; _Laws of North Carolina_ (revision of 1819), II. 1350.


~1816, Dec. 3. President Madison's Message.~

"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 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." _House Journal_, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 15-6.


~1817, Feb. 11. Congress (House): Proposed Joint Resolution.~

"Joint Resolution for abolishing the traffick in Slaves, and the
Colinization [_sic_] of the Free People of Colour of the United States."

"_Resolved_, ... 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....

"_Resolved_, 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.
_House Journal_, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 25-7, 380; _House Doc._, 14 Cong.
2 sess. No. 77.


~1817, July 28. [Great Britain and Portugal: First Concession of Right
of Search.~

"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, _International Law_
(1874), Sec. 197, pp. 331-2; _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1816-17,
pp. 85-118.]


~1817, Sept. 23. [Great Britain and Spain: Abolition of Trade North of
Equator.~

"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, _International Law_ (1874), Sec.
197, p. 332; _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1816-17, pp. 33-74.]


~1817, Dec. 2. President Monroe's Message on Amelia Island, etc.~

"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." _House
Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 11.


~1817, Dec. 19. Georgia: Act to Dispose of Illegally Imported Slaves.~

"An Act for disposing of any such <DW64>, 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.

Sec. 1. The governor by agent shall receive such <DW64>s, and,

Sec. 2. sell them, or,

Sec. 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, _Digest_, p. 793.


~1818, Jan. 10. Congress (House): Bill to Supplement Act of 1807.~

Mr. Middleton, from the committee on so much of the President's Message
as related to the illicit introduction 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. _House Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 131, 410.


~1818, Jan. 13. President Monroe's Special Message.~

"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. _Ibid._, pp. 137-9.


~1818, Feb. 9. Congress (Senate): Bill to Register (?) Slaves.~

"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. _Senate Journal_, 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; _House Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess.
p. 332; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 303, 305, 316.


~1818, April 4. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

Mr. Livermore's resolution:--

"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.
_House Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 420-1; _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong.
1 sess. pp. 1675-6.


~1818, April 20. United States Statute: Act in Addition to Act of 1807.~

"An Act in addition to 'An act to prohibit the introduction
[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,' and to repeal
certain parts of the same." _Statutes at Large_, III. 450. For
proceedings in Congress, see _Senate Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 243,
304, 315, 333, 338, 340, 348, 377, 386, 388, 391, 403, 406; _House
Journal_, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 450, 452, 456, 468, 479, 484, 492,505.


~1818, May 4. [Great Britain and Netherlands: Treaty.~

Right of Search granted for the suppression of the slave-trade. _British
and Foreign State Papers_, 1817-18, pp. 125-43.]


~1818, Dec. 19. Georgia: Act of 1817 Reinforced.~

No title found. "_Whereas_ 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, _Be it therefore enacted_," etc. Informers are
to receive one-tenth of the net proceeds from the sale of illegally
imported Africans, "_Provided_, nothing herein contained shall be so
construed as to extend farther back than the year 1817." Prince,
_Digest_, p. 798.


~1819, Feb. 8. Congress (Senate): Bill in Addition to Former Acts.~

"A bill supplementary to an act, passed the 2d day of March, 1807,
entitled," etc. Postponed. _Senate Journal_, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234,
244, 311-2, 347.


~1819, March 3. United States Statute: Cruisers Authorized, etc.~

"An Act in addition to the Acts prohibiting the slave trade." _Statutes
at Large_, III. 532. For proceedings in Congress, see _Senate Journal_,
15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 338, 339, 343, 345, 350, 362; _House Journal_, 15
Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9-19, 42-3, 150, 179, 330, 334, 341, 343, 352.


~1819, Dec. 7. President Monroe's Message.~

"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 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." _House Journal_, 16 Cong, 1 sess. p. 18.


~1820, Jan. 19. Congress (House): Proposed Registry of Slaves.~

"On motion of Mr. Cuthbert,

"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. _Ibid._, p. 150.


~1820, Feb. 5. Congress (House): Proposition on Slave-Trade.~

"Mr. Meigs submitted the following preamble and resolution:

"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,

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to enquire into the expediency
of devoting the public lands as a fund for the purpose of,

"1st, Employing a naval force competent to the annihilation of the slave
trade;

"2dly, The emancipation of slaves in the United States; and,

"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, 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.
_Ibid._, pp. 196, 200, 227.


~1820, Feb. 23. Massachusetts: Slavery in Western Territory.~

_"Resolve respecting Slavery":--_

"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: ...

"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. _Massachusetts Resolves_,
May, 1819, to February, 1824, pp. 147-51.


~1820, May 12. Congress (House): Resolution for Negotiation.~

"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. _House
Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 497, 518, 520-21, 526; _Annals of Cong._,
16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 697-700.


~1820, May 15. United States Statute: Slave-Trade made Piracy.~

"An act to continue in force 'An act to protect the commerce of the
United States, and punish the 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, _q.v. Statutes at Large_,
III. 600. For proceedings in Congress, see _Senate Journal_, 16 Cong. 1
sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 286-7, 314, 331, 346, 350, 409, 412, 417, 422,
424, 425; _House Journal_, 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. _House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 21, 113, 280, 453, 494.


~1820, Nov. 14. President Monroe's Message.~

"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." _Senate Journal_, 16 Cong.
2 sess. pp. 16-7.


~1821, Feb. 15. Congress (House): Meigs's Resolution.~

Mr. Meigs offered in modified form the resolutions submitted at the last
session:--

"Whereas slavery, in the United States, is an evil, acknowledged to be
of great and increasing magnitude, ... therefore,

"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

"_First place_; 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. _House Journal_, 16
Cong. 2 sess. p. 238; _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1168-70.


~1821, Dec. 3. President Monroe's Message.~

"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 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." _House Journal_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. p.
22.


~1822, April 12. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution.~

"_Resolved_, 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." _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No.
92, p. 4; _Annals of Cong._, 17 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1538.


~1822, June 18. Mississippi: Act on Importation, etc.~

"An act, to reduce into one, the several acts, concerning slaves, free
<DW64>s, and mulattoes."

Sec. 2. Slaves born and resident in the United States, and not criminals,
may be imported.

Sec. 3. No slave born or resident outside the United States shall be
brought in, under penalty of $1,000 per slave. Travellers are excepted.
_Revised Code of the Laws of Mississippi_ (Natchez, 1824), p. 369.


~1822, Dec. 3. President Monroe's Message.~

"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." _House Journal_, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 12, 21.


~1823, Jan. 1. Alabama: Act to Dispose of Illegally Imported Slaves.~

"An Act to carry into effect the laws of the United States prohibiting
the slave trade."

Sec. 1. "_Be it enacted_, ... 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: _Provided_, that
the authority of the said agent is not to extend to slaves who have been
condemned and sold."

Sec. 2. The agent must give bonds.

Sec. 3. "_And be it further enacted_, 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."

Sec. 4. A part may be hired out to support those employed in public work.

Sec. 5. "_And be it further enacted_, 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. _Acts of the Assembly
of Alabama, 1822_ (Cahawba, 1823), p. 62.


~1823, Jan. 30. United States Statute: Piracy Act made Perpetual.~

"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. _Statutes at Large_, III. 510-14, 721, 789. For proceedings in
Congress, see _Senate Journal_, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61, 64, 70, 83, 98,
101, 106, 110, 111, 122, 137; _House Journal_, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73,
76, 156, 183, 189.


~1823, Feb. 10. Congress (House): Resolution on Slave-Trade.~

Mr. Mercer offered the following resolution:--

"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. _House Journal_, 17
Cong. 2 sess. pp. 212, 280-82; _Annals of Cong._, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp.
928, 1147-55.


~1823, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the support of the navy," etc.

"To enable the President of the United States to carry into effect the
act" of 1819, $50,000. _Statutes at Large_, III. 763, 764


~1823. President: Proposed Treaties.~

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.
_House Doc._, 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119.


~1823, June 24. Great Britain: Proposed Treaty.~

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.

"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 be
recognized, and declared to be, piracy, under the law of nations."
_House Doc._, 18 Cong, 1 sess. VI. No. 119.


~1824, Feb. 6. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

Mr. Abbot's resolution on persons of color:--

"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. _House Journal_, 18 Cong. 1 sess. p. 208;
_Annals of Cong._, 18 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1399.


~1824, March 13. Great Britain: Proposed Treaty of 1824.~

"The Convention:"--

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.

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.

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 tribunal
before which they are brought.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 powers, to procure from them the acknowledgment that the
slave-trade is piracy under the law of nations.

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.

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. _Senate Doc._, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 15-20; _Niles's
Register_, 3rd Series, XXVI. 230-2. For proceedings in Senate, see
_Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, V. 360-2.


~1824, March 31. [Great Britain: Slave-Trade made Piracy.~

"An Act for the more effectual Suppression of the _African_ Slave
Trade."

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. _Statute 5 George IV._, ch. 17; _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, V.
342.]


~1824, April 16. Congress (House): Bill to Suppress Slave-Trade.~

"Mr. Govan, from the committee to which was referred so much of the
President's Message as 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."

Sec. 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. _Annals of Cong._,
18 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 2397-8; _House Journal_, 18 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 26,
180, 181, 323, 329, 356, 423.


~1824, May 21. President Monroe's Message on Treaty of 1824.~

_Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, V. 344-6.


~1824, Nov. 6. [Great Britain and Sweden: Treaty.~

Right of Search granted for the suppression of the slave-trade. _British
and Foreign State Papers_, 1824-5, pp. 3-28.]


~1824, Nov. 6. Great Britain: Counter Project of 1825.~

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. _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, V. 367; _House
Reports_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70; _House Doc._, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I.
No. 16.


~1824, Dec. 7. President Monroe's Message.~

"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 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]....

"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." _House Journal_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 11, 12, 19, 27, 241;
_House Reports_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70; Gales and Seaton, _Register
of Debates_, I. 625-8, and Appendix, p. 2 ff.


~1825, Feb. 21. United States of Colombia: Proposed Treaty.~

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 treaty. _Amer. State Papers, Foreign_, V.
729-35.


~1825, Feb. 28. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution on Slave-Trade.~

Mr. Mercer laid on the table the following resolution:--

"_Resolved_, 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. _House
Journal_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. p. 280; Gales and Seaton, _Register of
Debates_, I. 697, 736.


~1825, March 3. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution against Right of
Search.~

"Mr. Forsyth submitted the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, 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 _all_ 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. _House Journal_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. pp.
308-9; Gales and Seaton, _Register of Debates_, I. 739.


~1825, Dec. 6. President Adams's Message.~

"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 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." _House Journal_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 20, 96,
296-7, 305, 323, 329, 394-5, 399, 410, 414, 421, 451, 640.


~1826, Feb. 14. Congress (House): Proposition to Repeal Parts of Act of
1819.~

"Mr. Forsyth submitted the following resolutions, viz.:

1. "_Resolved_, 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.

2. "_Resolved_, 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 <DW64>s 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. _Ibid._, p. 258.


~1826, March 14. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the support of the navy," etc.

"For the agency on the coast of Africa, for receiving the <DW64>s,"
etc., $32,000. _Statutes at Large_, IV. 140, 141.


~1827, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the support of the Navy," etc.

"For the agency on the coast of Africa," etc., $56,710. _Ibid._, W. 206,
208.


~1827, March 11. Texas: Introduction of Slaves Prohibited.~

Constitution of the State of Coahuila and Texas. Preliminary
Provisions:--

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." _Laws and Decrees of Coahuila and Texas_ (Houston, 1839),
p. 314.


~1827, Sept. 15. Texas: Decree against Slave-Trade.~

"The Congress of the State of Coahuila and Texas decrees as follows:"

Art. 1. All slaves to be registered.

Art. 2, 3. Births and deaths to be recorded.

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."
_Ibid._, pp. 78-9.


~1828, Feb. 25. Congress (House): Proposed Bill to Abolish African
Agency, etc.~

"Mr. McDuffie, from the Committee of Ways and Means, ... reported the
following bill:

"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). _House
Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 278.


~1828, May 24. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making an appropriation for the suppression of the slave trade."
_Statutes at Large_, IV. 302; _House Journal_, 20 Cong. 1 sess., House
Bill No. 190.


~1829, Jan. 28. Congress (House): Bill to Amend Act of 1807.~

The Committee on Commerce reported "a bill (No. 399) to amend an act,
entitled 'An act to prohibit the importation of slaves,'" etc. Referred
to Committee of the Whole. _House Journal_, 20 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 58, 84,
215. Cf. _Ibid._, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 121, 135.


~1829, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making additional appropriations for the support of the navy,"
etc.

"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. _Statutes at Large_, IV. 353, 354.


~1830, April 7. Congress (House): Resolution against Slave-Trade.~

Mr. Mercer reported the following resolution:--

"_Resolved_, 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. _House Journal_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. p. 512.


~1830, April 7. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Act of March 3,
1819.~

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. _Ibid._


~1830, May 31. Congress (Statute): Appropriation.~

"An Act making a re-appropriation of a sum heretofore appropriated for
the suppression of the slave trade." _Statutes at Large_, IV. 425;
_Senate Journal_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 359, 360, 383; _House Journal_,
21 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 624, 808-11.


~1830. [Brazil: Prohibition of Slave-Trade.~

Slave-trade prohibited under severe penalties.]


~1831, 1833. [Great Britain and France: Treaty Granting Right of
Search.~

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. _British and Foreign State Papers_,
1830-1, p. 641 ff; 1832-3, p. 286 ff.]


~1831, Feb. 16. Congress (House): Proposed Resolution on Slave-Trade.~

"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, _Register of Debates_, VII. 726.


~1831, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," etc.

"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression of the slave
trade," etc., $16,000. _Statutes at Large_, IV. 460, 462.


~1831, March 3. Congress (House): Resolution as to Treaties.~

"Mr. Mercer moved to suspend the rule to enable him to submit the
following resolution:

"_Resolved_, 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. _House Journal_, 21 Cong. 2 sess. pp.
426-8.


~1833, Feb. 20. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," etc.

" ... for carrying into effect the acts for the suppression of the slave
trade," etc., $5,000. _Statutes at Large_, IV. 614, 615.


~1833, August. Great Britain and France: Proposed Treaty with the United
States.~

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."
_Parliamentary Papers_, 1835, Vol. LI., _Slave Trade_, Class B., pp.
84-92.


~1833, Dec. 23. Georgia: Slave-Trade Acts Amended.~

"An Act to reform, amend, and consolidate the penal laws of the State of
Georgia."

13th Division. "Offences relative to Slaves":--

Sec. 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.

Sec. 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, _Digest_, pp. 619,
653, 812; Cobb, _Digest_, II. 1018.


~1834, Jan. 24. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," etc.

"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression of the slave
trade," etc., $5,000. _Statutes at Large_, IV. 670, 671.


~1836, March 17. Texas: African Slave-Trade Prohibited.~

Constitution of the Republic of Texas: General Provisions:--

Sec. 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 or admission of Africans or <DW64>s
into this republic, excepting from the United States of America, is
forever prohibited, and declared to be piracy." _Laws of the Republic of
Texas_ (Houston, 1838), I. 19.


~1836, Dec. 21. Texas: Slave-Trade made Piracy.~

"An Act supplementary to an act, for the punishment of Crimes and
Misdemeanors."

Sec. 1. "_Be it enacted_ ..., That if any person or persons shall introduce
any African <DW64> or <DW64>s, 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."

Sec. 2. The introduction of <DW64>s from the United States of America,
except of those legally held as slaves there, shall be piracy. _Ibid._,
I. 197. Cf. _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, p. 42.


~1837, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," etc.

"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression of the slave
trade," etc., $11,413.57. _Statutes at Large_, V. 155, 157.


~1838, March 19. Congress (Senate): Slave-Trade with Texas, etc.~

"Mr. Morris submitted the following motion for consideration:

"_Resolved_, 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 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. _Senate
Journal_, 25 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 297-8, 300.


~1839, Feb. 5. Congress (Senate): Bill to Amend Slave-Trade Acts.~

"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.
_Congressional Globe_, 25 Cong. 3 sess. p. 172; _Senate Journal_, 25
Cong. 3 sess. pp. 200, 313.


~1839, Dec. 24. President Van Buren's Message.~

"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.

"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
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." _House Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess.
pp. 117-8.


~1840, Jan. 3. Congress (Senate): Bill to Amend Act of 1807.~

"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, "_Ordered_, That it lie on the
table." _Senate Journal_, 26 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 73, 87, 363.


~1840, May 4. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

"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. _Ibid._, pp. 356, 359, 440, 442; _House Journal_,
26 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1138, 1228, 1257.


~1841, June 1. Congress (House): President Tyler's Message.~

"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 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." _House Journal_, 27 Cong. 1
sess. pp. 31, 184.


~1841, Dec. 7. President Tyler's Message.~

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.

"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." _House Journal_, 27 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 14-5, 86, 113.


~1841, Dec. 20. [Great Britain, Austria, Russia, Prussia, and France:
Quintuple Treaty.]~ _British and Foreign State Papers_, 1841-2, p. 269
ff.


~1842, Feb. 15. Right of Search: Cass's Protest.~

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 protest to the French Minister of Foreign
Affairs, M. Guizot:--

                                       "LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES,
                                            "PARIS, FEBRUARY 13, 1842.

"SIR: 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."

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.

" ... 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 in the history of the world."

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. _Senate
Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. 52, and IV. No. 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess.
VIII. No. 377, pp. 192-5.


~1842, Feb. 26. Mississippi: Resolutions on Creole Case.~

The following resolutions were referred to the Committee on Foreign
Affairs in the United States Congress, House of Representatives, May 10,
1842:

"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,

Sec. 1. "_Be it resolved by the Legislature of the State of Mississippi_,
That ... the right of search cannot be conceded to Great Britain without
a manifest servile submission, unworthy a free nation....

Sec. 2. "_Resolved_, 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."

Sec. 3. "_Resolved_, 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 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."

Sec. 4. _Resolved_, That restitution should be demanded "at all hazards."
_House Doc._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 215.

~1842, March 21. Congress (House): Giddings's Resolutions.~

Mr. Giddings moved the following resolutions:--

Sec. 5. "_Resolved_, 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."

Sec. 6. _Resolved_, That the slaves in the brig Creole are amenable only to
the laws of the United States.

Sec. 7. _Resolved_, That those slaves by resuming their natural liberty
violated no laws of the United States.

Sec. 8. _Resolved_, That all attempts to re-enslave them are
unconstitutional, etc.

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. _House Journal_, 27 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 567-80.


~1842, May 10. Congress (House): Remonstrance of Mississippi against
Right of Search.~

"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 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. _House Journal_, 27 Cong.
2 sess. p. 800.


~1842, Aug. 4. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"An Act making appropriations for the naval service," etc.

"For carrying into effect the acts for the suppression of the slave
trade," etc. $10,543.42. _Statutes at Large_, V. 500, 501.


~1842, Nov. 10. Joint-Cruising Treaty with Great Britain.~

"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. _U.S. Treaties and Conventions_
(1889), pp. 436-7; _Senate Exec. Journal_, VI. 118-32.


~1842, Dec. 7. President Tyler's Message.~

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. _House Journal_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 16-7.


~1843, Feb. 22. Congress (Senate): Appropriation Opposed.~

Motion by Mr. Benton, during debate on naval appropriations, to strike
out appropriation "for the support of Africans recaptured on the coast
of Africa 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. _Congressional Globe_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 328, 331-6;
_Statutes at Large_, V. 615.


~1845, Feb. 20. President Tyler's Special Message to Congress.~

Message on violations of Brazilian slave-trade laws by Americans. _House
Journal_, 28 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 425, 463; _House Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess.
IV. No. 148. Cf. _Ibid._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43.


~1846, Aug. 10. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

"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." _Statutes at Large_,
IX. 96.


~1849, Dec. 4. President Taylor's Message.~

"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." _House
Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 5, pp. 7-8.


~1850, Aug. 1. Congress (House): Bill for War Steamers.~

"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. _House Journal_, 31 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1022, 1158, 1217.


~1850, Dec. 16. Congress (House): Treaty of Washington.~

"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 Britain concluded at Washington the ninth day of
August, 1842.'" Read twice, and referred to the Committee on Naval
Affairs. _Ibid._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. p. 64.


~1851, Jan. 22. Congress (Senate): Resolution on Sea Letters.~

"The following resolution, submitted by Mr. Clay the 20th instant, came
up for consideration:--

"_Resolved_, 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. _Congressional Globe_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 304-9; _Senate
Journal_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 95, 102-3.


~1851, Feb. 19. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

"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. _Senate
Journal_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 42, 45, 84, 94, 159, 193-4;
_Congressional Globe_, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 246-7.


~1851, Dec. 3. Congress (House): Bill to Amend Act of 1807.~

Mr. Giddings gave notice of a bill to repeal Sec.Sec. 9 and 10 of the act to
prohibit the importation of slaves, etc. from and after Jan. 1, 1808.
_House Journal_, 32 Cong. 1 sess. p. 42. Cf. _Ibid._, 33 Cong. 1 sess.
p. 147.


~1852, Feb. 5. Alabama: Illegal Importations.~

By code approved on this date:--

Sec.Sec. 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 controversy, he may hire the slaves
out. Ormond, _Code of Alabama_, pp. 392-3.


~1853, March 3. Congress (Senate): Appropriation Proposed.~

A bill making appropriations for the naval service for the year ending
June 30, 1854. Mr. Underwood offered the following amendment:--

"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. _Congressional Globe_, 32 Cong. 2 sess. p.
1072; _Statutes at Large_, X. 214.


~1854, May 22. Congress (Senate): West India Slave-Trade.~

Mr. Clayton presented the following resolution, which was unanimously
agreed to:--

"_Resolved_, 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. _Senate Journal_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 404,
457-8, 472-3, 476; _House Journal_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1093, 1332-3;
_Congressional Globe_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1257-61, 1511-3, 1591-3,
2139.


~1854, May 29. Congress (Senate): Treaty of Washington.~

_Resolved_, "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 be abrogated." Introduced by
Slidell, and favorably reported from Committee on Foreign Relations in
Executive Session, June 13, 1854. _Senate Journal_, 34 Cong. 1-2 sess.
pp. 396, 695-8; _Senate Reports_, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.


~1854, June 21. Congress (Senate): Bill Regulating Navigation.~

"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. _Senate
Journal_, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 448, 451; _Congressional Globe_, 33 Cong.
1 sess. pp. 1456, 1461, 1472.


~1854, June 26. Congress (Senate): Bill to Suppress Slave-Trade.~

"A bill for the more effectual suppression of the slave trade in
American built vessels." See references to May 22, 1854, above.


~1856, June 23. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Act of 1818.~

Notice given of a bill to amend the Act of April 20, 1818. _House
Journal_, 34 Cong. 1 sess. II. 1101.


~1856, Aug. 18. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent acts, $8,000.
_Statutes at Large_, XI. 90.


~1856, Nov. 24. South Carolina: Governor's Message.~

Governor Adams, in his annual message to the legislature, said:--

"It is apprehended that the opening of this trade [_i.e._, 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 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." _South Carolina House
Journal_, 1856, p. 36; Cluskey, _Political Text-Book_, 14 edition, p.
585.


~1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.~

"_Resolved_, 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.
_House Journal_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105-11; _Congressional Globe_, 34
Cong. 3 sess. pp. 123-5, and Appendix, pp. 364-70.


~1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.~

"_Resolved_, That it is inexpedient to repeal the laws prohibiting the
African slave trade." Offered by Mr. Orr; not voted upon. _Congressional
Globe_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. p. 123.


~1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.~

"_Resolved_, 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. _House Journal_,
34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 111-3; _Congressional Globe_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp.
125-6.


~1856, Dec. 15. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.~

"_Resolved_, 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.
_Congressional Globe_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. p. 125.


~1857. South Carolina: Report of Legislative Committee.~

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.
_Report of the Special Committee_, etc., published in 1857.


~1857, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent acts, $8,000.
_Statutes at Large_, XI. 227; _House Journal_, 34 Cong. 3 sess. p. 397.
Cf. _House Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 3 sess. IX. No. 70.


~1858, March (?). Louisiana: Bill to Import Africans.~

Passed House; lost in Senate by two votes. Cf. _Congressional Globe_, 35
Cong. 1 sess. p. 1362.


~1858, Dec. 6. President Buchanan's Message.~

"The truth is, that Cuba in its existing colonial condition, is a
constant source of injury and annoyance 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....

"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." _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 2, pp.
14-5. See also _Ibid._, pp. 31-3.


~1858, Dec. 23. Congress (House): Resolution on Slave-Trade.~

On motion of Mr. Farnsworth,

"_Resolved_, 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." _House Journal_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 115-6.


~1859, Jan. 5. Congress (Senate): Resolution on Slave-Trade.~

On motion of Mr. Seward, Dec. 21, 1858,

"_Resolved_, 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." _Senate Journal_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 80, 108,
115.


~1859, Jan. 13. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

Mr. Seward introduced "a bill (Senate, No. 510) in addition to the acts
which prohibit the slave trade." Referred to committee, reported, and
dropped. _Ibid._, pp. 134, 321.


~1859, Jan. 31. Congress (House): Reopening of Slave-Trade.~

"Mr. Kilgore moved that the rules be suspended, so as to enable him to
submit the following preamble and resolutions, viz:

"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--

"_Resolved_, 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, 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.

"_Resolved_, 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.

"_Resolved_, 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."

Failed of the two-thirds vote necessary to suspend the rules--the vote
being 115 to 84--and was dropped. _House Journal_, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp.
298-9.


~1859, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent acts, and to pay
expenses already incurred, $75,000. _Statutes at Large_, XI. 404.


~1859, Dec. 19. President Buchanan's Message.~

"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.]

"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, ..."
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 5-8.


~1860, March 20. Congress (Senate): Proposed Resolution.~

"Mr. Wilson submitted the following resolution; which was considered, by
unanimous consent, and agreed to:--

"_Resolved_, 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." _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p.
274.


~1860, March 20. Congress (Senate): Right of Search.~

"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.
_Ibid._


~1860, March 20. Congress (Senate): Steam Vessels for Slave-Trade.~

"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, and
referred to Committee on Naval Affairs; May 23, reported with an
amendment. _Ibid._, pp. 274, 494-5.


~1860 March 26. Congress (House): Proposed Resolutions.~

"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:

"_Resolved_, That for the more effectual suppression of the African
slave trade the treaty of 1842 ..., requiring each country to keep
_eighty_ 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....

"_Resolved_, 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.

"_Resolved_, 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." ... _House Journal_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. I.
588-9.


~1860, April 16. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

"Mr. Wilson asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in
a bill (Senate, No. 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. _Senate Journal_,
36 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 394, 485; _Congressional Globe_, 36 Cong. 1 sess.
pp. 1721, 2207-11.


~1860, May 21. Congress (House): Buyers of Imported <DW64>s.~

"Mr. Wells submitted the following resolution, and debate arising
thereon, it lies over under the rule, viz:

"_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be instructed to report
forthwith a bill providing that any person purchasing any <DW64> 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 <DW64> or person; and where such purchase is
made with a knowledge that such <DW64> 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." _House
Journal_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. II. 880.


~1860, May 26. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent acts, $40,000.
_Statutes at Large_, XII. 21.


~1860, June 16. United States Statute: Additional Act to Act of 1819.~

"An Act to amend an Act entitled 'An Act in addition to the Acts
Prohibiting the Slave Trade.'" _Ibid._, XII. 40-1; _Senate Journal_, 36
Cong. 1 sess., Senate Bill No. 464.


~1860, July 11. Great Britain: Proposed Co-operation.~

Lord John Russell suggested for the suppression of the trade:--

"1st. A systematic plan of cruising on the coast of Cuba by the vessels
of Great Britain, Spain, and the United States.

"2d. Laws of registration and inspection in the Island of Cuba, by
which the employment of slaves, imported contrary to law, might be
detected by the Spanish authorities.

"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. _House Exec.
Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, pp. 441-3, 446-8.


~1860, Dec. 3. President Buchanan's Message.~

"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." _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess.
I. No. 1, p. 24.


~1860, Dec. 12. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

Mr. John Cochrane's resolution:--

"The migration or importation of slaves into the United States or any of
the Territories thereof, from any foreign country, is hereby
prohibited." _House Journal_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61-2; _Congressional
Globe_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 77.


~1860, Dec. 24. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

"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. _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 62;
_Congressional Globe_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 182.


~1861, Jan. 7. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

Mr. Etheridge's resolution:--

Sec. 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."
_Congressional Globe_, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 279.


~1861, Jan. 23. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

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. _Ibid._, p. 527.


~1861, Feb. 1. Congress (House): Proposition to Amend Constitution.~

Resolution of Mr. Kellogg of Illinois:--

Sec. 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. _Ibid._, pp. 690, 1243, 1259-60.


~1861, Feb. 8. Confederate States of America: Importation Prohibited.~

Constitution for the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of
America, Article I. Section 7:--

"1. The importation of African <DW64>s 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.

"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 "<DW64>s of the African race." _C.S.A.
Statutes at Large, 1861-2_, pp. 3, 15.


~1861, Feb. 9. Confederate States of America: Statutory Prohibition.~

"_Be it enacted by the Confederate States of America in Congress
assembled_, 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." _Ibid._, p. 27.


~1861, Feb. 19. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To supply deficiencies in the fund hitherto appropriated to carry out
the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent acts, $900,000. _Statutes at
Large_, XII. 132.


~1861, March 2. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the Act of March 3, 1819, and subsequent acts, and to
provide compensation for district attorneys and marshals, $900,000.
_Ibid._, XII. 218-9.


~1861, Dec. 3. President Lincoln's Message.~

"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 highest grade of offence under our laws, the punishment of which
is death." _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 13.


~1862, Jan. 27. Congress (Senate): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

"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. _Senate Journal_, 37 Cong. 2 sess. p. 143; 37 Cong. 3
sess. pp. 231-2.


~1862, March 14. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

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. _Statutes at Large_, XII. 368-9.


~1862, March 25. United States Statute: Prize Law.~

"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. _Ibid._, XII.
374-5; _Congressional Globe_, 37 Cong. 2 sess., Appendix, pp. 346-7.


~1862, June 7. Great Britain: Treaty of 1862.~

"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.
_U.S. Treaties and Conventions_ (1889), pp. 454-66. See also _Senate
Exec. Journal_, XII. pp. 230, 231, 240, 254, 391, 400, 403.


~1862, July 11. United States Statute: Treaty of 1862 Carried into
Effect.~

"An Act to carry into Effect the Treaty between the United States and
her Britannic Majesty for the Suppression of the African Slave-Trade."
_Statutes at Large_, XII. 531; _Senate Journal_ and _House Journal_,
37 Cong. 2 sess., Senate Bill No. 352.


~1862, July 17. United States Statute: Former Acts Amended.~

"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."'" _Statutes at
Large_, XII. 592-3; _Senate Journal_ and _House Journal_, 37 Cong. 2
sess., Senate Bill No. 385.


~1863, Feb. 4. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed July 11, 1862,
$17,000. _Statutes at Large_, XII. 639.


~1863, March 3. Congress: Joint Resolution.~

"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." _Statutes at Large_, XII. 829.


~1863, April 22. Great Britain: Treaty of 1862 Amended.~

"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.

Right of Search extended. _U.S. Treaties and Conventions_ (1889), pp.
466-7.


~1863, Dec. 17. Congress (House): Resolution on Coastwise Slave-Trade.~

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. _Congressional Globe_, 38 Cong. 1 sess. p.
46.


~1864, July 2. United States Statute: Coastwise Slave-Trade Prohibited
Forever.~

Sec. 9 of Appropriation Act repeals Sec.Sec. 8 and 9 of Act of 1807. _Statutes at
Large_, XIII. 353.


~1864, Dec. 7. Great Britain: International Proposition.~

"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 derived from
that polluted source.

"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 [_sic_], 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--

"1st. To make a general declaration, that the governments who are
parties to it denounce the slave trade as piracy.

"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,
                                                        "RUSSELL."

Similar letters were addressed to France, Spain, Portugal, Austria,
Prussia, Italy, Netherlands, and Russia. _Diplomatic Correspondence_,
1865, pt. ii. pp. 4, 58-9, etc.


~1865, Jan. 24. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed July 11, 1862,
$17,000. _Statutes at Large_, XIII. 424.


~1866, April 7. United States Statute: Compensation to Marshals, etc.~

For additional 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; and also so much as may be
necessary to pay the salaries of judges and the expenses of mixed
courts. _Ibid._, XIV. 23.


~1866, July 25. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed July 11, 1862,
$17,000. _Ibid._, XIV. 226.


~1867, Feb. 28. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed July 11, 1862,
$17,000. _Ibid._, XIV. 414-5.


~1868, March 30. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

To carry out the treaty with Great Britain, proclaimed July 11, 1862,
$12,500. _Ibid._, XV. 58.


~1869, Jan. 6. Congress (House): Abrogation of Treaty of 1862.~

Mr. Kelsey asked unanimous consent to introduce the following
resolution:--

"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,

"_Resolved_, 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. _Congressional
Globe_, 40 Cong. 3 sess. p. 224.


~1869, March 3. United States Statute: Appropriation.~

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. _Statutes at Large_, XV. 321.


~1870, April 22. Congress (Senate): Bill to Repeal Act of 1803.~

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. _Congressional Globe_, 41 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894,
2932, 4953, 5594.


~1870, Sept. 16. Great Britain: Additional Treaty.~

"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. _U.S. Treaties
and Conventions_ (1889), pp. 472-6.


~1871, Dec. 11. Congress (House): Bill on Slave-Trade.~

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." _House Journal_, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p.
48.

                    *       *       *       *       *




APPENDIX C.

TYPICAL CASES OF VESSELS ENGAGED IN THE AMERICAN SLAVE-TRADE. 1619-1864.

    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.


~1619.~ ----. Dutch man-of-war, imports twenty <DW64>s into Virginia,
the first slaves brought to the continent. Smith, _Generall Historie of
Virginia_ (1626 and 1632), p. 126.


~1645.~ ~Rainbowe,~ under Captain Smith, captures and imports African
slaves into Massachusetts. The slaves were forfeited and returned.
_Massachusetts Colonial Records_, II. 115, 129, 136, 168, 176; III. 13,
46, 49, 58, 84.


~1655.~ ~Witte paert,~ first vessel to import slaves into New York.
O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland_ (ed. 1868), p. 191, note.


~1736, Oct.~ ----. Rhode Island slaver, under Capt. John Griffen.
_American Historical Record_, I. 312.


~1746.~ ----. Spanish vessel, with certain free <DW64>s, captured by
Captains John Dennis and Robert Morris, and <DW64>s sold by them in
Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and New York; these <DW64>s afterward
returned to Spanish colonies by the authorities of Rhode Island. _Rhode
Island Colonial Records_, V. 170, 176-7; Dawson's _Historical Magazine_,
XVIII. 98.


~1752.~ ~Sanderson,~ of Newport, trading to Africa and West Indies.
_American Historical Record_, I. 315-9, 338-42. Cf. above, p. 35, note 4.


~1788~ (_circa_). ----. "One or two" vessels fitted out in Connecticut.
W.C. Fowler, _Historical Status of the <DW64> in Connecticut_, in _Local
Law_, etc., p. 125.


~1801.~ ~Sally,~ of Norfolk, Virginia, equipped slaver; libelled and
acquitted; owners claimed damages. _American State Papers, Commerce and
Navigation_, I. No. 128.


~1803~ (?). ----. Two slavers seized with slaves, and brought to
Philadelphia; both condemned, and slaves apprenticed. Robert Sutcliff,
_Travels in North America_, p. 219.


~1804.~ ----. Slaver, allowed by Governor Claiborne to land fifty
<DW64>s in Louisiana. _American State Papers, Miscellaneous_, I. No.
177.


~1814.~ ~Saucy Jack~ carries off slaves from Africa and attacks British
cruiser. _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 46; 21 Cong. 1
sess. III. No. 348, p. 147.


~1816~ (_circa_). ~Paz,~ ~Rosa,~ ~Dolores,~ ~Nueva Paz,~ and ~Dorset,~
American slavers in Spanish-African trade. Many of these were formerly
privateers. _Ibid._, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 45-6; 21 Cong. 1
sess. III. No. 348, pp. 144-7.


~1817, Jan. 17.~ ~Eugene,~ armed Mexican schooner, captured while
attempting to smuggle slaves into the United States. _House Doc._, 15
Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, p. 22.


~1817, Nov. 19.~ ~Tentativa,~ captured with 128 slaves and brought into
Savannah. _Ibid._, p. 38; _House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No.
348, p. 81. See _Friends' View of the African Slave Trade_ (1824), pp.
44-7.


~1818.~ ----. Three schooners unload slaves in Louisiana. Collector Chew
to the Secretary of the Treasury, _House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III.
No. 348, p. 70.


~1818, Jan. 23.~ English brig ~Neptune,~ detained by U.S.S. John Adams,
for smuggling slaves into the United States. _House Doc._, 16 Cong. 1
sess. III. No. 36 (3).


~1818, June.~ ~Constitution,~ captured with 84 slaves on the Florida
coast, by a United States army officer. See references under 1818, June,
below.


~1818, June.~ ~Louisa~ and ~Merino,~ captured slavers, smuggling from
Cuba to the United States; condemned after five years' litigation.
_House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107; 19 Cong. 1 sess. VI.-IX.
Nos. 121, 126, 152, 163; _House Reports_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231;
_American State Papers, Naval Affairs_, II. No. 308; Decisions of the
United States Supreme Court in _9 Wheaton_, 391.


~1819.~ ~Antelope,~ or ~General Ramirez.~ 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
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. _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 5, 15; 21 Cong.
1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 186; _House Journal_, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 59,
76, 123 to 692, _passim_. Gales and Seaton, _Register of Debates_, IV.
pt. 1, pp. 915-6, 955-68, 998, 1005; _Ibid._, pt. 2, pp. 2501-3;
_American State Papers, Naval Affairs_, II. No. 319, pp. 750-60;
Decisions of the United States Supreme Court in _10 Wheaton_, 66, and
_12 Ibid._, 546.


~1820.~ ~Endymion,~ ~Plattsburg,~ ~Science,~ ~Esperanza,~ and
~Alexander,~ captured on the African coast by United States ships, and
sent to New York and Boston. _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No.
92, pp. 6, 15; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, pp. 122, 144, 187.


~1820.~ ~General Artigas~ imports twelve slaves into the United States.
_Friends' View of the African Slave Trade_ (1824), p. 42.

~1821~ (?). ~Dolphin,~ captured by United States officers and sent to
Charleston, South Carolina. _Ibid._, pp. 31-2.


~1821.~ ~La Jeune Eugene,~ ~La Daphnee,~ ~La Mathilde,~ and ~L'Elize,~
captured by U.S.S. Alligator; ~La Jeune Eugene~ sent to Boston; the rest
escape, and are recaptured under the French flag; the French protest.
_House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 187; _Friends' View
of the African Slave Trade_ (1824), pp. 35-41.


~1821.~ ~La Pensee,~ captured with 220 slaves by the U.S.S. Hornet;
taken to Louisiana. _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 5;
21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 186.


~1821.~ ~Esencia~ lands 113 <DW64>s at Matanzas. _Parliamentary Papers_,
1822, Vol. XXII., _Slave Trade, Further Papers_, III. p. 78.


~1826.~ ~Fell's Point~ attempts to land <DW64>s in the United States.
The <DW64>s were seized. _American State Papers, Naval Affairs_, II. No.
319, p. 751.


~1827, Dec. 20.~ ~Guerrero,~ 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. _House Journal_, 20 Cong. 1 sess. p.
650; _House_ _Reports_, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 268; 25 Cong. 2 sess.
I. No. 4; _American State Papers, Naval Affairs_, III. No. 370, p. 210;
_Niles's Register_, XXXIII. 373.


~1828, March 11.~ ~General Geddes~ brought into St. Augustine for safe
keeping 117 slaves, said to have been those taken from the wrecked
~Guerrero~ and landed at Key West (see above, 1827). _House Doc._, 20
Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 262.


~1828.~ ~Blue-eyed Mary,~ of Baltimore, sold to Spaniards and captured
with 405 slaves by a British cruiser. _Niles's Register_, XXXIV. 346.


~1830, June 4.~ ~Fenix,~ with 82 Africans, captured by U.S.S. Grampus,
and brought to Pensacola; American built, with Spanish colors. _House
Doc._, 21 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 54; _House Reports_, 24 Cong. 1 sess.
I. No. 223; _Niles's Register_, XXXVIII. 357.


~1831, Jan. 3.~ ~Comet,~ 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. _Senate Doc._, 24 Cong. 2 sess. II. No.
174; 25 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 216.


~1834, Feb. 4.~ ~Encomium,~ 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. _Ibid._


~1835, March.~ ~Enterprise,~ 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. _Ibid._


~1836, Aug.-Sept.~ ~Emanuel,~ ~Dolores,~ ~Anaconda,~ and ~Viper,~ built
in the United States, clear from Havana for Africa. _House Doc._, 26
Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 4-6, 221.


~1837.~ ----. Eleven American slavers clear from Havana for Africa.
_Ibid._, p. 221.


~1837.~ ~Washington,~ allowed to proceed to Africa by the American
consul at Havana. _Ibid._, pp. 488-90, 715 ff; 27 Cong, 1 sess. No. 34,
pp. 18-21.


~1838.~ ~Prova~ spends three months refitting in the harbor of
Charleston, South Carolina; afterwards captured by the British, with 225
slaves. _Ibid._, pp. 121, 163-6.


~1838.~ ----. Nineteen American slavers clear from Havana for Africa.
_House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, p. 221.


~1838-9.~ ~Venus,~ American built, manned partly by Americans, owned by
Spaniards. _Ibid._, pp. 20-2, 106, 124-5, 132, 144-5, 330-2, 475-9.


~1839.~ ~Morris Cooper,~ of Philadelphia, lands 485 <DW64>s in Cuba.
_Niles's Register_, LVII. 192.


~1839.~ ~Edwin~ and ~George Crooks,~ slavers, boarded by British
cruisers. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 12-4, 61-4.


~1839.~ ~Eagle,~ ~Clara,~ and ~Wyoming,~ 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 ~Eagle~ and the ~Clara,~ and they were taken to Jamaica.
The ~Wyoming~ was forfeited to the United States. _Ibid._, pp. 92-104,
109, 112, 118-9, 180-4; _Niles's Register_, LVI. 256; LVII. 128, 208.


~1839.~ ~Florida,~ protected from British cruisers by American papers.
_House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 113-5.


~1839.~ ----. Five American slavers arrive at Havana from Africa, under
American flags. _Ibid._, p. 192.


~1839.~ ----. Twenty-three American slavers clear from Havana. _Ibid._,
pp. 190-1, 221.


~1839.~ ~Rebecca,~ part Spanish, condemned at Sierra Leone. _House
Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 649-54, 675-84.


~1839.~ ~Douglas~ and ~Iago,~ American slavers, visited by British
cruisers, for which the United States demanded indemnity. _Ibid._, pp.
542-65, 731-55; _Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, pp.
39-45, 107-12, 116-24, 160-1, 181-2.


~1839, April 9.~ ~Susan,~ suspected slaver, boarded by the British.
_House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 34-41.


~1839, July-Sept.~ ~Dolphin~ (or ~Constitucao),~ ~Hound,~ ~Mary Cushing~
(or ~Sete de Avril~), with American and Spanish flags and papers.
_Ibid._, pp. 28, 51-5, 109-10, 136, 234-8; _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3
sess. III. No. 283, pp. 709-15.


~1839, Aug.~ ~L'Amistad,~ slaver, with fifty-three <DW64>s on board, who
mutinied; the vessel was then captured by a United States vessel and
brought into Connecticut; the <DW64>s were declared free. _House Doc._,
26 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 185; 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191; 28 Cong. 1
sess. IV. No. 83; _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20;
_House Reports_, 26 Cong. 2 sess. No. 51; 28 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 426;
29 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 753; _Senate Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No.
179; _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29; 32 Cong. 2 sess.
III. No. 19; _Senate Reports_, 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 _15 Peters_, 518; _Opinions of the
Attorneys-General_, III. 484-92.


~1839, Sept.~ ~My Boy,~ of New Orleans, seized by a British cruiser, and
condemned at Sierra Leone. _Niles's Register_, LVII. 353.


~1839, Sept. 23.~ ~Butterfly,~ of New Orleans, fitted as a slaver, and
captured by a British cruiser on the coast of Africa. _House Doc._, 26
Cong. 2 sess. No. 115, pp. 191, 244-7; _Niles's Register_, LVII. 223.


~1839, Oct.~ ~Catharine,~ of Baltimore, captured on the African coast by
a British cruiser, and brought by her to New York. _House Doc._, 26
Cong. 2 sess. V No. 115, pp. 191, 215, 239-44; _Niles's Register_, LVII.
119, 159.


~1839.~ ~Asp,~ ~Laura,~ and ~Mary Ann Cassard,~ foreign slavers sailing
under the American flag. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp.
126-7, 209-18; _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, p. 688
ff.


~1839.~ ~Two Friends,~ of New Orleans, equipped slaver, with Spanish,
Portuguese, and American flags. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No.
115, pp. 120, 160-2, 305.


~1839.~ ~Euphrates,~ of Baltimore, with American papers, seized by
British cruisers as Spanish property. Before this she had been boarded
fifteen times. _Ibid._, pp. 41-4; A.H. Foote, _Africa and the American
Flag_, pp. 152-6.


~1839.~ ~Ontario,~ American slaver, "sold" to the Spanish on shipping a
cargo of slaves. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 45-50.


~1839.~ ~Mary,~ of Philadelphia; case of a slaver whose nationality was
disputed. _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 736-8;
_Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, pp. 19, 24-5.


~1840, March.~ ~Sarah Ann,~ of New Orleans, captured with fraudulent
papers. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 184-7.


~1840, June.~ ~Caballero,~ ~Hudson,~ and ~Crawford;~ the arrival of
these American slavers was publicly billed in Cuba. _Ibid._, pp. 65-6.


~1840.~ ~Tigris,~ captured by British cruisers and sent to Boston for
kidnapping. _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 724-9;
_Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, P. 94.


~1840.~ ~Jones,~ seized by the British. _Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess.
VIII. No. 377, pp. 131-2, 143-7, 148-60.


~1841, Nov. 7.~ ~Creole,~ 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.
_Senate Doc._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 51 and III. No. 137.


~1841.~ ~Sophia,~ of New York, ships 750 slaves for Brazil. _House
Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43, pp. 3-8.


~1841.~ ~Pilgrim,~ of Portsmouth, N.H., ~Solon,~ of Baltimore, ~William
Jones~ and ~Himmaleh,~ of New York, clear from Rio Janeiro for Africa.
_Ibid._, pp. 8-12.


~1842, May.~ ~Illinois,~ of Gloucester, saved from search by the
American flag; escaped under the Spanish flag, loaded with slaves.
_Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 72 ff.


~1842, June.~ ~Shakespeare,~ of Baltimore, with 430 slaves, captured by
British cruisers. _Ibid._


~1843.~ ~Kentucky,~ of New York, trading to Brazil. _Ibid._, 30 Cong. 1
sess. IV. No. 28, pp. 71-8; _House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII.
No. 61, p. 72 ff.


~1844.~ ~Enterprise,~ of Boston, transferred in Brazil for slave-trade.
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 28, pp. 79-90.


~1844.~ ~Uncas,~ of New Orleans, protected by United States papers;
allowed to clear, in spite of her evident character. _Ibid._, 28 Cong. 2
sess. IX. No. 150, pp. 106-14.


~1844.~ ~Sooy,~ of Newport, without papers, captured by the British
sloop Racer, after landing 600 slaves on the coast of Brazil. _House
Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 148, pp. 4, 36-62.


~1844.~ ~Cyrus,~ of New Orleans, suspected slaver, captured by the
British cruiser Alert. _Ibid._, pp. 3-41.


~1844-5.~ ----. Nineteen slavers from Beverly, Boston, Baltimore,
Philadelphia, New York, Providence, and Portland, make twenty-two trips.
_Ibid._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, pp. 219-20.


~1844-9.~ ----. Ninety-three slavers in Brazilian trade. _Senate Exec.
Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6, pp. 37-8.


~1845.~ ~Porpoise,~ trading to Brazil. _House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2
sess. VII. No. 61, pp. 111-56, 212-4.


~1845, May 14.~ ~Spitfire,~ of New Orleans, captured on the coast of
Africa, and the captain indicted in Boston. A.H. Foote, _Africa and the
American Flag_, pp. 240-1; _Niles's Register_, LXVIII. 192, 224, 248-9.


~1845-6.~ ~Patuxent,~ ~Pons,~ ~Robert Wilson,~ ~Merchant,~ and
~Panther,~ captured by Commodore Skinner. _House Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1
sess. IX. No. 73.


~1847.~ ~Fame,~ of New London, Connecticut, lands 700 slaves in Brazil.
_House Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61, pp. 5-6, 15-21.


~1847.~ ~Senator,~ of Boston, brings 944 slaves to Brazil. _Ibid._, pp.
5-14.


~1849.~ ~Casco,~ slaver, with no papers; searched, and captured with 420
slaves, by a British cruiser. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV
No. 66, p. 13.


~1850.~ ~Martha,~ of New York, captured when about to embark 1800
slaves. The captain was admitted to bail, and escaped. A.H. Foote,
_Africa and the American Flag_, pp. 285-92.


~1850.~ ~Lucy Ann,~ of Boston, captured with 547 slaves by the British.
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV No. 66, pp. 1-10 ff.


~1850.~ ~Navarre,~ American slaver, trading to Brazil, searched and
finally seized by a British cruiser. _Ibid._


~1850~ (_circa_). ~Louisa Beaton,~ ~Pilot,~ ~Chatsworth,~ ~Meteor,~ ~R.
de Zaldo,~ ~Chester,~ etc., American slavers, searched by British
vessels. _Ibid., passim._


~1851, Sept. 18.~ ~Illinois~ brings seven kidnapped West India <DW64>
boys into Norfolk, Virginia. _House Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII.
No. 105, pp. 12-14.


~1852-62.~ ----. Twenty-six ships arrested and bonded for slave-trading
in the Southern District of New York. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2
sess. V. No. 53.


~1852.~ ~Advance~ and ~Rachel P. Brown,~ of New York; the capture of
these was hindered by the United States consul in the Cape Verd Islands.
_Ibid._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 41-5; _House Exec. Doc._, 34
Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, pp. 15-19.


~1853.~ ~Silenus,~ of New York, and ~General de Kalb,~ of Baltimore,
carry 900 slaves from Africa. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV.
No. 99, pp. 46-52; _House Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105,
pp. 20-26.


~1853.~ ~Jasper~ carries slaves to Cuba. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1
sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 52-7.


~1853.~ ~Camargo,~ of Portland, Maine, lands 500 slaves in Brazil.
_Ibid._, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47.


~1854.~ ~Glamorgan,~ of New York, captured when about to embark nearly
700 slaves. _Ibid._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 59-60.


~1854.~ ~Grey Eagle,~ of Philadelphia, captured off Cuba by British
cruiser. _Ibid._, pp. 61-3.


~1854.~ ~Peerless,~ of New York, lands 350 <DW64>s in Cuba. _Ibid._,
p. 66.


~1854.~ ~Oregon,~ of New Orleans, trading to Cuba. _Senate Exec. Doc._,
34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99, pp. 69-70.


~1856.~ ~Mary E. Smith,~ 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. _Ibid._, pp. 71-3.


~1857.~ ----. Twenty or more slavers from New York, New Orleans, etc.
_Ibid._, 35 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 49, pp. 14-21, 70-1, etc.


~1857.~ ~William Clark~ and ~Jupiter,~ of New Orleans, ~Eliza Jane,~ of
New York, ~Jos. H. Record,~ of Newport, and ~Onward,~ of Boston,
captured by British cruisers. _Ibid._, pp. 13, 25-6, 69, etc.


~1857.~ ~James Buchanan,~ slaver, escapes under American colors, with
300 slaves. _Ibid._, p. 38.


~1857.~ ~James Titers,~ of New Orleans, with 1200 slaves, captured by
British cruiser. _Ibid._, pp. 31-4, 40-1.


~1857.~ ----. Four New Orleans slavers on the African coast. _Senate
Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 1 sess., XII. No. 49, p. 30.


~1857.~ ~Cortes,~ of New York, captured. _Ibid._, pp. 27-8.


~1857.~ ~Charles,~ of Boston, captured by British cruisers, with about
400 slaves. _Ibid._, pp. 9, 13, 36, 69, etc.


~1857.~ ~Adams Gray~ and ~W.D. Miller,~ of New Orleans, fully equipped
slavers. _Ibid._, pp. 3-5, 13.


~1857-8.~ ~Charlotte,~ of New York, ~Charles,~ of Maryland, etc.,
reported American slavers. _Ibid., passim_.


~1858, Aug. 21.~ ~Echo,~ captured with 306 slaves, and brought to
Charleston, South Carolina. _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt.
4, No. 2. pt. 4, pp. 5, 14.


~1858, Sept. 8.~ ~Brothers,~ captured and sent to Charleston, South
Carolina. _Ibid._, p. 14.


~1858.~ ~Mobile,~ ~Cortez,~ ~Tropic Bird;~ cases of American slavers
searched by British vessels. _Ibid._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, p. 97
ff.


~1858.~ ~Wanderer,~ lands 500 slaves in Georgia. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 35
Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 8; _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No.
89.


~1859, Dec. 20.~ ~Delicia,~ supposed to be Spanish, but without papers;
captured by a United States ship. The United States courts declared her
beyond their jurisdiction. _House Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No.
7, p. 434.


~1860.~ ~Erie,~ with 897 Africans, captured by a United States ship.
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 41-4.


~1860.~ ~William,~ with 550 slaves, ~Wildfire,~ with 507, captured on
the coast of Cuba. _Senate Journal_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 478-80, 492,
543, etc.; _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XI. No. 44; _House
Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 83; 36 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 11;
_House Reports_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 602.


~1861.~ ~Augusta,~ slaver, which, in spite of the efforts of the
officials, started on her voyage. _Senate Exec Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess.
V. No. 40; _New York Tribune_, Nov. 26, 1861.


~1861.~ ~Storm King,~ of Baltimore, lands 650 slaves in Cuba. _Senate
Exec. Doc._, 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56, p. 3.


~1862.~ ~Ocilla,~ of Mystic, Connecticut, lands slaves in Cuba. _Ibid._,
pp. 8-13.


~1864.~ ~Huntress,~ of New York, under the American flag, lands slaves
in Cuba. _Ibid._, pp. 19-21.

                    *       *       *       *       *




APPENDIX D.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

~COLONIAL LAWS.~

[The Library of Harvard College, the Boston Public Library, and the
Charlemagne Tower Collection at Philadelphia are especially rich in
Colonial Laws.]


~Alabama and Mississippi Territory.~ 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.

~Connecticut.~ 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.

~Delaware.~ Laws of Delaware, 1700-1797, 2 vols., New Castle, 1797.

~Georgia.~ 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.

~Maryland.~ 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.

~Massachusetts.~ 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, 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.

~New Jersey.~ 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.

~New York.~ 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.

~North Carolina.~ 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.

~Pennsylvania.~ 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;
_Ibid._, 1781-1790, Philadelphia, 1793; Collection of all the Laws now
in force, 1742; Pennsylvania Archives; Pennsylvania Colonial Records.

~Rhode Island.~ 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.

~South Carolina.~ J.F. Grimke, Public Laws, Philadelphia, 1790; Thomas
Cooper and D.J. McCord, Statutes at Large, 10 vols., Columbia, 1836-41.

~Vermont.~ Statutes of Vermont, Windsor, 1787; Vermont State Papers,
Middlebury, 1823.

~Virginia.~ 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.


~UNITED STATES DOCUMENTS.~

~1789-1836.~ American State Papers--Class I., _Foreign Relations_, Vols.
III. and IV. (Reprint of Foreign Relations, 1789-1828.) Class VI.,
_Naval Affairs_. (Well indexed.)

~1794, Feb. 11.~ Report of Committee on the Slave Trade. _Amer. State
Papers, Miscellaneous_, I. No. 44.

~1806, Feb. 17.~ 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. _House Reports_, 9 Cong. 1 sess. II.

~1817, Feb. 11.~ Joint Resolution for abolishing the traffick in Slaves,
and the Colinization [_sic_] of the Free People Of Colour of the United
States. _House Doc._, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77.

~1817, Dec. 15.~ Message from the President ... communicating
Information of the Proceeding of certain Persons who took Possession of
Amelia Island and of Galvezton, [_sic_] during the Summer of the Present
Year, and made Establishments there. _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. II.
No. 12. (Contains much evidence of illicit traffic.)

~1818, Jan. 10.~ 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. _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 46 (cf. _House
Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348).

~1818, Jan. 13.~ Message from the President ... communicating
information of the Troops of the United States having taken possession
of Amelia Island, in East Florida. _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. III.
No. 47. (Contains correspondence.)

~1819, Jan. 12.~ 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. _House Doc._, 15
Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84.

~1819, Jan. 19.~ 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. _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No.
100.

~1819, Jan. 21.~ 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 <DW64>s, by
the several State Governments, under whose Jurisdiction they have
fallen. _House Doc._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107.

~1820, Jan. 7.~ Letter from the Secretary of the Navy, transmitting
information in relation to the Introduction of Slaves into the United
States. _House Doc._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 36.

~1820, Jan. 13.~ Letter from the Secretary of the Treasury, transmitting
... Information in relation to the Illicit Introduction of Slaves into
the United States, etc., _Ibid._, No. 42.

~1820, May 8.~ Report of the Committee to whom was referred ... so much
of the President's Message as relates to the Slave Trade, etc. _House
Reports_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. No. 97.

~1821, Jan. 5.~ Message from the President ... transmitting ...
Information on the Subject of the African Slave Trade. _House Doc._, 16
Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 48.

~1821, Feb. 7.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Reports_, 17
Cong. 1 sess. No. 92, pp. 15-21.

~1821, Feb. 9.~ Report of the Committee to which was referred so much of
the President's message as relates to the Slave Trade. _House Reports_,
16 Cong. 2 sess. No. 59.

~1822, April 12.~ 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, and papers on European Conference for
the Suppression of the Slave Trade.) _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess.
II. No. 92.

~1823, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 18
Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, p. 111, ff.; _Amer. State Papers, Naval
Affairs_, I. No. 258. (Contains reports on the establishment at Cape
Mesurado.)[1]

~1824, March 20.~ Message from the President ... in relation to the
Suppression of the African Slave Trade. _House Doc._, 18 Cong. 1 sess.
VI. No. 119. (Contains correspondence on the proposed treaty of 1824.)

~1824, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _Amer. State
Papers, Naval Affairs_, I. No. 249.

~1824, Dec. 7.~ 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. _House
Doc._, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1. pp. 1-56. Reprinted in _Senate Doc._,
18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1. (Matter on the treaty of 1824.)

~1825, Feb. 16.~ 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. _House Reports_, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No.
70 (Report favoring the treaty of 1824.)

~1825, Dec. 2.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 19
Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 1. p. 98.

~1825, Dec. 27.~ Slave Trade: Message from the President ...
communicating Correspondence with Great Britain in relation to the
Convention for Suppressing the Slave Trade. _House Doc._, 19 Cong. 1
sess. I. No. 16.

~1826, Feb. 6.~ 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. _House Reports_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 65.
(Contains report of the Secretary of the Navy and account of
expenditures for the African station.)

~1826, March 8.~ Slave Ships in Alabama: Message from the President ...
in relation to the Cargoes of certain Slave Ships, etc. _House Doc._, 19
Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 121; cf. _Ibid._, VIII. No. 126, and IX. Nos. 152,
163; also _House Reports_, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231. (Cases of the
Constitution, Louisa, and Merino.)

~1826, Dec. 2.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. (Part IV. of
Documents accompanying the President's Message.) _House Doc._, 19 Cong.
2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 9, 10, 74-103.

~1827, etc.~ Colonization Society: Reports, etc. _House Doc._, 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; _House Reports_, 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.

~1827, Jan. 30.~ 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. _House Doc._, 19 Cong. 2
sess. IV. No. 69.

~1827, Dec. 1 and Dec. 4.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _Amer.
State Papers, Naval Affairs,_ III. Nos. 339, 340.

~1827, Dec. 6.~ 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. _Senate Doc._, 20 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 3.

~1828, March 12.~ Recaptured Africans: Letter from the Secretary of the
Navy ... in relation to ... Recaptured Africans. _House Doc._, 20 Cong.
1 sess. V. No. 193; cf. _Ibid._, 20 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 114,
127-8; also _Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs_, III. No. 357.

~1828, April 30.~ Africans at Key West: Message from the President ...
relative to the Disposition of the Africans Landed at Key West. _House
Doc._, 20 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 262.

~1828, Nov. 27.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _Amer. State
Papers, Naval Affairs_, III. No. 370.

~1829, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 21
Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, p. 40.

~1830, April 7.~ 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. _House Reports_, 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.)

~1830, Dec. 6.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 21
Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 42-3; _Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs_,
III. No. 429 E.

~1830, Dec. 6.~ 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. _House
Doc._, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 211-8.

~1831, Jan. 18.~ Spanish Slave Ship Fenix: Message from the President
... transmitting Documents in relation to certain captives on board the
Spanish slave vessel, called the Fenix. _House Doc._, 21 Cong. 2 sess.
III. No. 54; _Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs_, III. No. 435.

~1831-1835.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 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
_Amer. State Papers, Naval Affairs_, IV. No. 457, R. Nos. 1, 2; No. 486,
H. I.; No. 519, R.; No. 564, P.; No. 585, P.

~1836, Jan. 26.~ Calvin Mickle, Ex'r of Nagle & De Frias. _House
Reports_, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 209. (Reports on claims connected with
the captured slaver Constitution.)

~1836, Jan. 27, etc.~ [Reports from the Committee of Claims on cases of
captured Africans.] _House Reports_, 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. Nos. 223, 268,
and III. No. 574. No. 268 is reprinted in _House Reports_, 25 Cong. 2
sess. I. No. 4.

~1836, Dec. 3.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 24
Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 450, 506.

~1837, Feb. 14.~ Message from the President ... with copies of
Correspondence in relation to the Seizure of Slaves on board the brigs
"Encomium" and "Enterprise." _Senate Doc._, 24 Cong. 2 sess. II. No.
174; cf. _Ibid._, 25 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 216.

~1837-1839.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 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.

~1839.~ [L'Amistad Case.] _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 185
(correspondence); 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191 (correspondence); 28 Cong.
1 sess. IV No. 83; _House Exec. Doc._, 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20;
_House Reports_, 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); _Senate Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 179
(correspondence); _Senate Exec Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29
(correspondence); 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 19; _Senate Reports_, 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).

~1840, May 18.~ Memorial of the Society of Friends, upon the subject of
the foreign slave trade. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 211.
(Results of certain investigations.)

~1840, Dec. 5.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 26
Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 405, 450.

~1841, Jan. 20.~ 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. _Senate Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 125. (Contains
much information.)

~1841, March 3.~ 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. _House Doc._, 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115
(elaborate correspondence). See also _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34;
_House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 478-755
(correspondence).

~1841, Dec. 4.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 27
Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 349, 351.

~1842, Jan. 20.~ 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.
_Senate Doc._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 51. See also _Ibid._, III. No.
137; _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. I. No. 2, p. 114.

~1842, May 10.~ Resolutions of the Legislature of the State of
Mississippi in reference to the right of search, and the case of the
American brig Creole. _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 215.
(Suggestive.)

~1842, etc.~ [Quintuple Treaty and Cass's Protest: Messages of the
President, etc.] _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 249; _Senate
Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. 52, and IV. No. 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess.
VIII. No. 377.

~1842, June 10.~ Indemnities for slaves on board the Comet and Encomium:
Report of the Secretary of State. _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 2 sess. V. No.
242.

~1842, Aug.~ Suppression of the African Slave Trade--Extradition: Case
of the Creole, etc. _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. I. No. 2, pp.
105-136. (Correspondence accompanying Message of President.)

~1842, Dec.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 27 Cong.
3 sess. I. No. 2, p. 532.

~1842, Dec. 30.~ Message from the President ... in relation to the
strength and expense of the squadron to be employed on the coast of
Africa. _Senate Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. 20.

~1843, Feb. 28.~ 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. _House Doc._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192.

~1843, Feb. 28.~ 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.). _House Reports_, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283
[Contents of Appendix: pp. 17-408, identical nearly with the Appendix to
_House Reports_, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348; pp. 408-478.
Congressional history of the slave-trade, case of the Fenix, etc. (cf.
_House Doc._, 21 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 54); pp. 478-729, search and
seizure of American vessels (same as _House Doc._, 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.]

~1843, Nov. 25.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 28
Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, pp. 484-5.

~1844, March 14.~ Message from the President ... communicating ...
information in relation to the abuse of the flag of the United States in
... the African slave trade, etc. _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV.
No. 217.

~1844, March 15.~ 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. _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 194.

~1844, May 4.~ 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. _House Reports_, 28 Cong.
1 sess. II. No. 469.

~1844, May 22.~ Suppression of the Slave-Trade on the coast of Africa:
Message from the President, etc. _House Doc._, 28 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No.
263.

~1844, Nov. 25.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 28
Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 2, p. 514.

~1845, Feb. 20.~ 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. _House Doc._, 28
Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 148. (Important evidence, statistics, etc.)

~1845, Feb. 26.~ Message from the President ... communicating ...
information relative to the operations of the United States squadron,
etc. _Senate Doc._, 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150. (Contains reports of
Commodore Perry, and statistics of Liberia.)

~1845, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 29
Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 2, p. 645.

~1845, Dec. 22.~ 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.
_House Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 43. (Contains much information.)

~1846, June 6.~ 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. _Senate Doc._, 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377.
Cf. _Ibid._, 27 Cong. 3 sess. II. No. 52, and IV. No. 223; _House Doc._,
27 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 249.

~1846-1847, Dec.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Doc._, 29
Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 4, p. 377; 30 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 8, p. 946.

~1848, March 3.~ 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.
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 30 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 28. (Full of facts.)

~1848, May 12.~ Report of the Secretary of State, in relation to ...
the seizure of the brig Douglass by a British cruiser. _Senate Exec.
Doc._, 30 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 44.

~1848, Dec. 4.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._,
30 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 605, 607.

~1849, March 2.~ 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. _House Exec.
Doc._, 30 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 61. (Contains much evidence.)

~1849, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._,
31 Cong. 1 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 5, pt. 1, pp. 427-8.

~1850, March 18.~ 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. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31
Cong. 1 sess. X. No. 40.

~1850, July 22.~ African Squadron: Message from the President ...
transmitting Information in reference to the African squadron. _House
Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 1 sess. IX. No. 73. (Gives total expenses of the
squadron, slavers captured, etc.)

~1850, Aug. 2.~ Message from the President ... relative to the searching
of American vessels by British ships of war. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31
Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66.

~1850, Dec. 17.~ Message of the President ... communicating ... a report
of the Secretary of State, with documents relating to the African slave
trade. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.

~1851-1853.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._,
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.

~1854, March 13.~ 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.
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47.

~1854, June 13.~ Report submitted by Mr. Slidell, from the Committee on
Foreign Relations, on a resolution relative to the abrogation of the
eighth article of the treaty with Great Britain of the 9th of August,
1842, etc. _Senate Reports_, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195. (Injunction of
secrecy removed June 26, 1856.)

~1854-1855, Dec.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec.
Doc._, 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.

~1856, May 19.~ Slave and Coolie Trade: Message from the President ...
communicating information in regard to the Slave and Coolie trade.
_House Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105. (Partly reprinted in
_Senate Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV No. 99.)

~1856, Aug. 5.~ 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. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XV. No. 99.
(Partly reprinted in _House Exec Doc._, 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105.)

~1856, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._,
34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, pt. 2, p. 407.

~1857, Feb. 11.~ Slave Trade: Letter from the Secretary of State, asking
an appropriation for the suppression of the slave trade, etc. _House
Exec Doc._, 34 Cong. 3 sess. IX. No. 70.

~1857, Dec. 3.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec Doc._,
35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, pt. 3, p. 576.

~1858, April 23.~ 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. _Senate
Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 49. (Valuable.)

~1858, Dec. 6.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._,
35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 4, No. 2, pt. 4, pp. 5, 13-4.

~1859, Jan. 12.~ Message of the President ... relative to the landing of
the barque Wanderer on the coast of Georgia, etc. _Senate Exec. Doc._,
35 Cong. 2 sess. VII. No. 8. See also _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2
sess. IX. No. 89.

~1859, March 1.~ Instructions to African squadron: Message from the
President, etc. _House Exec. Doc._, 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 104.

~1859, Dec. 2.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _Senate Exec.
Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pt. 3, pp. 1138-9, 1149-50.

~1860, Jan. 25.~ Memorial of the American Missionary Association,
praying the rigorous enforcement of the laws for the suppression of the
African slave-trade, etc. _Senate Misc. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.

~1860, April 24.~ 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. _House Exec. Doc._, 36
Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 73.

~1860, May 19.~ Message of the President ... relative to the capture of
the slaver Wildfire, etc. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XI. No.
44.

~1860, May 22.~ Capture of the slaver "William": Message from the
President ... transmitting correspondence relative to the capture of the
slaver "William," etc. _House Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 83.

~1860, May 31.~ 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. _House
Reports_, 36 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 602.

~1860, June 16.~ Recaptured Africans: Letter from the Secretary of the
Interior, on the subject of the return to Africa of recaptured Africans,
etc. _House Misc. Doc._, 36 Cong. 1 sess. VII. No. 96. Cf. _Ibid._, No.
97, p. 2.

~1860, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _Senate Exec.
Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pt. 3, pp. 8-9.

~1860, Dec. 6.~ African Slave Trade: Message from the President ...
transmitting ... a report from the Secretary of State in reference to
the African slave trade. _House Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7.
(Voluminous document, containing chiefly correspondence, orders, etc.,
1855-1860.)

~1860, Dec. 17.~ Deficiencies of Appropriation, etc.: Letter from the
Secretary of the Interior, communicating estimates for deficiencies in
the appropriation for the suppression of the slave trade, etc. _House
Exec. Doc._, 36 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 11. (Contains names of captured
slavers.)

~1861, July 4.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _Senate Exec.
Doc._, 37 Cong. 1 sess. No. 1, pp. 92, 97.

~1861, Dec. 2.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _Senate Exec.
Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess. Vol. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pt. 3, pp. 11, 21.

~1861, Dec. 18.~ In Relation to Captured Africans: Letter from the
Secretary of the Interior ... as to contracts for returning and
subsistence of captured Africans. _House Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2 sess.
I. No. 12.

~1862, April 1.~ Letter of the Secretary of the Interior ... in relation
to the slave vessel the "Bark Augusta." _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2
sess. V. No. 40.

~1862, May 30.~ 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. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2
sess. V. No. 53.

~1862, June 10.~ 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. _Senate Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 2
sess. V. No. 57. (Also contains correspondence.)

~1862, Dec. 1.~ Report of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._,
37 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 1, pt. 3, p. 23.

~1863, Jan. 7.~ Liberated Africans: Letter from the Acting Secretary of
the Interior ... transmitting reports from Agent Seys in relation to
care of liberated Africans. _House Exec. Doc._, 37 Cong. 3 sess. V. No.
28.

~1864, July 2.~ Message of the President ... communicating ...
information in regard to the African slave trade. _Senate Exec. Doc._,
38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56.

~1866-69.~ Reports of the Secretary of the Navy. _House Exec. Doc._, 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.

~1870, March 2.~ [Resolution on the slave-trade submitted to the Senate
by Mr. Wilson]. _Senate Misc. Doc._, 41 Cong. 2 sess. No. 66.


~GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY.~

John Quincy Adams. Argument before the Supreme Court of the United
States, in the case of the United States, Appellants, _vs._ 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.

An African Merchant (anon.). A Treatise upon the Trade from
Great-Britain to Africa; Humbly recommended to the Attention of
Government. London, 1772.

The African Slave Trade: Its Nature, Consequences, and Extent. From the
Leeds Mercury. [Birmingham, 183-.]

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.

George William Alexander. Letters on the Slave-Trade, Slavery, and
Emancipation, etc. London, 1842. (Contains Bibliography.)

American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society; Reports.

American Anti-Slavery Society. Memorial for the Abolition of Slavery and
the Slave Trade. London, 1841.

----. Reports and Proceedings.

American Colonization Society. Annual Reports, 1818-1860. (Cf. above,
United States Documents.)

J.A. Andrew and A.G. Browne, proctors. Circuit Court of the United
States, Massachusetts District, ss. In Admiralty. The United States, by
Information, _vs._ the Schooner Wanderer and Cargo, G. Lamar, Claimant.
Boston, 1860.

Edward Armstrong, editor. The Record of the Court at Upland, in
Pennsylvania. 1676-1681. Philadelphia, 1860. (In _Memoirs_ of the
Pennsylvania Historical Society, VII. 11.)

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.")

Assiento, or, Contract for allowing to the Subjects of Great Britain the
Liberty of Importing <DW64>s 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.

R.S. Baldwin. Argument before the Supreme Court of the United States, in
the case of the United States, Appellants, _vs._ Cinque, and Others,
Africans of the Amistad. New York, 1841.

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.

Anthony Benezet. Inquiry into the Rise and Progress of the Slave Trade,
1442-1771. (In his Historical Account of Guinea, etc., Philadelphia,
1771.)

----. Notes on the Slave Trade, etc. [1780?].

Thomas Hart Benton. Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to
1856. 16 vols. Washington, 1857-61.

Edward Bettle. Notices of <DW64> Slavery, as connected with Pennsylvania.
(Read before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Aug. 7, 1826.
Printed in _Memoirs_ of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Vol. I.
Philadelphia, 1864.)

W.O. Blake. History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern.
Columbus, 1859.

Jeffrey R. Brackett. The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789. (Essay V. in
Jameson's _Essays in the Constitutional History of the United States,
1775-89_. Boston, 1889.)

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.

British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. Annual and Special Reports.

----. 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.

[A British Merchant.] The African Trade, the Great Pillar and Support
of the British Plantation Trade in America: shewing, etc. London, 1745.

[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.

William Brodie. Modern Slavery and the Slave Trade: a Lecture, etc.
London, 1860.

Thomas Fowell Buxton. The African Slave Trade and its Remedy. London,
1840.

John Elliot Cairnes. The Slave Power: its Character, Career, and
Probable Designs. London, 1862.

Henry C. Carey. The Slave Trade, Domestic and Foreign: why it Exists and
how it may be Extinguished. Philadelphia, 1853.

[Lewis Cass]. An Examination of the Question, now in Discussion, ...
concerning the Right of Search. By an American. [Philadelphia, 1842.]

William Ellery Channing. The Duty of the Free States, or Remarks
suggested by the case of the Creole. Boston, 1842.

David Christy. Ethiopia, her Gloom and Glory, as illustrated in the
History of the Slave Trade, etc. (1442-1857.) Cincinnati, 1857.

Rufus W. Clark. The African Slave Trade. Boston, [1860.]

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.

----. An Essay on the Impolicy of the African Slave Trade. In two
parts. Second edition. London, 1788.

----. An Essay on the Slavery and Commerce of the Human Species,
particularly the African. London and Dublin, 1786.

----. The History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the
Abolition of the African Slave-Trade, by the British Parliament. 2 vols.
Philadelphia, 1808.

Michael W. Cluskey. The Political Text-Book, or Encyclopedia ... for the
Reference of Politicians and Statesmen. Fourteenth edition.
Philadelphia, 1860.

T.R.R. Cobb. An Historical Sketch of Slavery, from the Earliest Periods.
Philadelphia and Savannah. 1858.

T.R.R. Cobb. Inquiry into the Law of <DW64> Slavery in the United States
of America. Vol. I. Philadelphia and Savannah, 1858.

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.

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.

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.

Continental Congress. Journals and Secret Journals.

Moncure D. Conway. Omitted Chapters of History disclosed in the Life and
Papers of Edmund Randolph, etc. New York and London, 1888.

Thomas Cooper. Letters on the Slave Trade. Manchester, Eng., 1787.

Correspondence with British Ministers and Agents in Foreign Countries,
and with Foreign Ministers in England, relative to the Slave Trade,
1859-60. London, 1860.

The Creole Case, and Mr. Webster's Despatch; with the comments of the
New York "American." New York, 1842.

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.

James Dana. The African Slave Trade. A Discourse delivered ...
September, 9, 1790, before the Connecticut Society for the Promotion of
Freedom. New Haven, 1791.

Henry B. Dawson, editor. The Foederalist: A Collection of Essays,
written in favor of the New Constitution, as agreed upon by the
Foederal Convention, September 17, 1787. Reprinted from the Original
Text. With an Historical Introduction and Notes. Vol. I. New York,
1863.

Paul Dean. A Discourse delivered before the African Society ... in
Boston, Mass., on the Abolition of the Slave Trade ... July 14, 1819.
Boston, 1819.

Charles Deane. The Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery and the
Slave-Trade, etc. Worcester, 1886. (Also in _Proceedings_ of the
American Antiquarian Society, October, 1886.)

----. Charles Deane. Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in
Massachusetts. (In _Collections_ of the Massachusetts Historical
Society, 5th Series, III. 373.)

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.

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.

Franklin B. Dexter. Estimates of Population in the American Colonies.
Worcester, 1887.

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.]

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.

John Drayton. Memoirs of the American Revolution. 2 vols. Charleston,
1821.

Paul Dudley. An Essay on the Merchandize of Slaves and Souls of Men.
Boston, 1731.

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.

Jonathan Edwards. The Injustice and Impolicy of the Slave Trade, and of
the Slavery of the Africans, etc. [New Haven,] 1791.

Jonathan Elliot. The Debates ... on the adoption of the Federal
Constitution, etc. 4 vols. Washington, 1827-30.

Emerson Etheridge. Speech ... on the Revival of the African Slave Trade,
etc. Washington, 1857.

Alexander Falconbridge. An Account of the Slave Trade on the Coast of
Africa. London, 1788.

Andrew H. Foote. Africa and the American Flag. New York, 1854.

----. The African Squadron: Ashburton Treaty; Consular Sea Letters.
Philadelphia, 1855.

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.

Paul Leicester Ford. The Association of the First Congress, (In
Political Science Quarterly, VI. 613.)

----. Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, published
during its Discussion by the People, 1787-8. (With Bibliography, etc.)
Brooklyn, 1888.

William Chauncey Fowler. Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut,
Historically considered; and The Historical Status of the <DW64>, in
Connecticut, etc. Albany, 1872, and New Haven, 1875.

[Benjamin Franklin.] An Essay on the African Slave Trade. Philadelphia,
1790.

[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.

----. An Appeal on the Iniquity of Slavery and the Slave Trade. (At
London Yearly Meeting.) London and Cincinnati, 1844.

----. 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 <DW52> Races. Philadelphia, 1858.

----. 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.

----. 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,
proposed legislation, etc.)

[Friends.] An Exposition of the African Slave Trade, from the year 1840,
to 1850, inclusive. Prepared from official documents. Philadelphia,
1857.

----. Extracts and Observations on the Foreign Slave Trade.
Philadelphia, 1839.

----. Facts and Observations relative to the Participation of
American Citizens in the African Slave Trade. Philadelphia, 1841.

----. Faits relatifs a la Traite des Noirs, et Details sur Sierra
Leone; par la Societe des Ames. Paris, 1824.

----. Germantown Friends' Protest against Slavery, 1688. Fac-simile
Copy. Philadelphia, 1880.

----. Observations on the Inslaving, importing and purchasing of
<DW64>s; 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.

----. 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.

----. 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.

----. A View of the Present State of the African Slave Trade.
Philadelphia, 1824.

Carl Garcis. Das Heutige Voelkerrecht und der Menschenhandel. Eine
voelkerrechtliche Abhandlung, zugleich Ausgabe des deutschen Textes der
Vertraege von 20. Dezember 1841 und 29. Maerz 1879. Berlin, 1879.

----. Der Sklavenhandel, das Voelkerrecht, und das deutsche Recht.
(In Deutsche Zeit- und Streit-Fragen, No. 13.) Berlin, 1885.

Agenor Etienne de Gasparin. Esclavage et Traite. Paris, 1838.

Joshua R. Giddings. Speech ... on his motion to reconsider the vote
taken upon the final passage of the "Bill for the relief of the owners
of slaves lost from on Board the Comet and Encomium." [Washington,
1843.]

Benjamin Godwin. The Substance of a Course of Lectures on British
Colonial Slavery, delivered at Bradford, York, and Scarborough. London,
1830.

----. Lectures on Slavery. From the London edition, with additions.
Edited by W.S. Andrews. Boston, 1836.

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.

----. 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.

Daniel R. Goodloe. The Birth of the Republic. Chicago, [1889.]

[Great Britain.] British and Foreign State Papers.

----. Sessional Papers. (For notices of slave-trade in British
Sessional Papers, see Bates Hall Catalogue, Boston Public Library, pp.
347 _et seq._)

[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.

[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.

George Gregory. Essays, Historical and Moral. Second edition. London,
1788. (Essays 7 and 8: Of Slavery and the Slave Trade; A Short Review,
etc.)

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.]

H. Hall. Slavery in New Hampshire. (In _New England Register_, XXIX.
247.)

Isaac W. Hammond. Slavery in New Hampshire in the Olden Time. (In
_Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.)

James H. Hammond. Letters on Southern Slavery: addressed to Thomas
Clarkson. [Charleston, (?)].

Robert G. Harper. Argument against the Policy of Reopening the African
Slave Trade. Atlanta, Ga., 1858.

Samuel Hazard, editor. The Register of Pennsylvania. 16 vols.
Philadelphia, 1828-36.

Hinton R. Helper. The Impending Crisis of the South: How to Meet it.
Enlarged edition. New York, 1860.

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.

William B. Hodgson. The Foulahs of Central Africa, and the African Slave
Trade. [New York, (?)] 1843.

John Codman Hurd. The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States. 2
vols. Boston and New York, 1858, 1862.

----. The International Law of the Slave Trade, and the Maritime
Right of Search. (In the American Jurist, XXVI. 330.)

----. 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.

William Jay. Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery. Boston, 1853.

----. A View of the Action of the Federal Government, in Behalf of
Slavery. New York, 1839.

T. and J.W. Johnson. Inquiry into the Law of <DW64> Slavery in the United
States.

Alexandre Moreau de Jonnes. Recherches Statistiques sur l'Esclavage
Colonial et sur les Moyens de le supprimer. Paris, 1842.

M.A. Juge. The American Planter: or The Bound Labor Interest in the
United States. New York, 1854.

Friedrich Kapp. Die Sklavenfrage in den Vereinigten Staaten. Goettingen
and New York, 1854.

----. Geschichte der Sklaverei in den Vereinigten Staaten von
Amerika. Hamburg, 1861.

Frederic Kidder. The Slave Trade in Massachusetts. (In _New-England
Historical and Genealogical Register_, XXXI. 75.)

George Lawrence. An Oration on the Abolition of the Slave Trade ... Jan.
1, 1813. New York, 1813.

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.

Letter from ... in London, to his Friend in America, on the ... Slave
Trade, etc. New York, 1784.

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.

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.

----. The Foreign Slave Trade, etc., No. 2. London, 1838.

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.

Theodore Lyman, Jr. The Diplomacy of the United States, etc. Second
edition. 2 vols. Boston, 1828.

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.

Marion J. McDougall. Fugitive Slaves. Boston, 1891.

John Fraser Macqueen. Chief Points in the Laws of War and Neutrality,
Search and Blockade, etc. London and Edinburgh, 1862.

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.

James Madison. Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Fourth
President of the United States. In four volumes. Published by order of
Congress. Philadelphia, 1865.

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.

Marana (pseudonym). The Future of America. Considered ... in View of ...
Re-opening the Slave Trade. Boston, 1858.

E. Marining. Six Months on a Slaver. New York, 1879.

George C. Mason. The African Slave Trade in Colonial Times. (In American
Historical Record, I. 311, 338.)

Frederic G. Mather. Slavery in the Colony and State of New York. (In
_Magazine of American History_, XI. 408.)

Samuel May, Jr. Catalogue of Anti-Slavery Publications in America,
1750-1863. (Contains bibliography of periodical literature.)

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.

Charles F. Mercer. Memoires relatifs a l'Abolition de la Traite
Africaine, etc. Paris, 1855.

C.W. Miller. Address on Re-opening the Slave Trade ... August 29, 1857.
Columbia, S.C., 1857.

George H. Moore. Notes on the History of Slavery in Massachusetts. New
York, 1866.

----. Slavery in Massachusetts. (In _Historical Magazine_, XV. 329.)

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.

John Pennington, Lord Muncaster. Historical Sketches of the Slave Trade
and its effect on Africa, addressed to the People of Great Britain.
London, 1792.

Edward Needles. An Historical Memoir of the Pennsylvania Society, for
Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. Philadelphia, 1848.

New England Anti-Slavery Convention. Proceedings at Boston, May 27,
1834. Boston, 1834.

Hezekiah Niles (_et al._), 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.)

Robert Norris. A Short Account of the African Slave-Trade. A new edition
corrected. London, 1789.

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.)

Frederick Law Olmsted. A Journey in the Back Country. New York, 1860.

----. A Journey in the Seaboard Slave States, etc. New York, 1856.

----. A Journey through Texas, etc. New York, 1857.

----. The Cotton Kingdom, etc. 2 vols. New York, 1861.

Sir W.G. Ouseley. Notes on the Slave Trade; with Remarks on the Measures
adopted for its Suppression. London, 1850.

Pennsylvania Historical Society. The Charlemagne Tower Collection of
American Colonial Laws. (Bibliography.) Philadelphia, 1890.

Edward A. Pollard. Black Diamonds gathered in the Darkey Homes of the
South. New York, 1859.

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.

Robert Proud. History of Pennsylvania. 2 vols. Philadelphia. 1797-8.

[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.

[James Ramsey.] Objections to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, with
Answers, etc. Second edition. London, 1788.

[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.

Remarks on the Colonization of the Western Coast of Africa, by the Free
<DW64>s of the United States, etc. New York, 1850.

Right of Search. Reply to an "American's Examination" of the "Right of
Search, etc." By an Englishman. London, 1842.

William Noel Sainsbury, editor. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial
Series, America and the West Indies, 1574-1676. 4 vols. London, 1860-93.

George Sauer. La Traite et l'Esclavage des Noirs. London, 1863.

George S. Sawyer. Southern Institutes; or, An Inquiry into the Origin
and Early Prevalence of Slavery and the Slave-Trade. Philadelphia, 1858.

Selections from the Revised Statutes: Containing all the Laws relating
to Slaves, etc. New York, 1830.

Johann J. Sell. Versuch einer Geschichte des Negersclavenhandels. Halle,
1791.

[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.

A Short Account of that part of Africa Inhabited by the <DW64>s, ... and
the Manner by which the Slave Trade is carried on. Third edition.
London, 1768.

A Short Sketch of the Evidence for the Abolition of the Slave-Trade.
Philadelphia, 1792.

Joseph Sidney. An Oration commemorative of the Abolition of the Slave
Trade in the United States.... Jan. 2. 1809. New York, 1809.

[A Slave Holder.] Remarks upon Slavery and the Slave-Trade, addressed to
the Hon. Henry Clay. 1839.

The Slave Trade in New York. (In the _Continental Monthly_, January,
1862, p. 86.)

Joseph Smith. A Descriptive Catalogue of Friends' Books. (Bibliography.)
2 vols. London, 1867.

Capt. William Snelgrave. A New Account of some Parts of Guinea, and the
Slave-Trade. London, 1734.

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.

L.W. Spratt. A Protest from South Carolina against a Decision of the
Southern Congress: Slave Trade in the Southern Congress. (In Littell's
_Living Age_, Third Series, LXVIII. 801.)

----. Speech upon the Foreign Slave Trade, before the Legislature of
South Carolina. Columbia, S.C., 1858.

----. The Foreign Slave Trade the Source of Political Power, etc.
Charleston, 1858.

William Stith. The History of the First Discovery and Settlement of
Virginia. Virginia and London, 1753.

George M. Stroud. A Sketch of the Laws relating to Slavery in the
Several States of the United States of America. Philadelphia, 1827.

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.

F.T. Texugo. A Letter on the Slave Trade still carried on along the
Eastern Coast of Africa, etc. London, 1839.

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.

Jesse Torrey. A Portraiture of Domestic Slavery ... and a Project of
Colonial Asylum for Free Persons of Colour. Philadelphia, 1817.

Drs. Tucker and Belknap. Queries respecting the Slavery and Emancipation
of <DW64>s 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.)

David Turnbull. Travels in the West. Cuba; with Notices of Porto Rico,
and the Slave Trade. London, 1840.

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); Journals (House and Senate); Miscellaneous Documents (House and
Senate); Reports (House and Senate); Statutes at Large.

United States Supreme Court. Reports of Decisions.

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.

Virginia State Convention. Proceedings and Debates, 1829-30. Richmond,
1830.

G. Wadleigh. Slavery in New Hampshire. (In _Granite Monthly_, VI. 377.)

Emory Washburn. Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts. (In Proceedings
of the Massachusetts Historical Society, May, 1857. Boston, 1859.)

William B. Weeden. Economic and Social History of New England,
1620-1789. 2 vols. Boston, 1890.

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.

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.

George W. Williams. History of the <DW64> Race in America from 1619 to
1880. 2 vols. New York, 1883.

Henry Wilson. History of the Antislavery Measures of the Thirty-seventh
and Thirty-eighth United-States Congresses, 1861-64. Boston, 1864.

----. History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. 3
vols. Boston, 1872-7.


FOOTNOTES:

[1]  The Reports of the Secretary of the Navy are found among
the documents accompanying the annual messages of the President.

                    *       *       *       *       *




Index


ABOLITION of slave-trade by Europe, 145 n.

Abolition Societies, organization of, 42, 74;
  petitions of, 79, 80-85.

Adams, C.F., 151.

Adams, J.Q., on Right of Search, 139;
  proposes Treaty of 1824, 140;
  message, 271-72.

Adams, Governor of S.C., message on slave-trade, 169, 170, 289-90.

Advertisements for smuggled slaves, 182 n.

Africa, English trade to, 10, 12-13;
  Dutch trade to, 24-25;
  Colonial trade to, 26, 35, 36, 41-42, 47, 75, 76;
  "Association" and trade to, 47, 52;
  American trade to, 88, 112, 113, 116, 148, 179, 180, 181-82, 185-87;
  reopening of trade to, 168-92.

African Agency, establishment, 124, 126;
  attempts to abolish, 156;
  history, 158.

"African Labor Supply Association," 176.

African Society of London, 113.

African squadron, establishment of, 123, 124;
  activity of, 128, 129, 146, 148, 157, 159, 184, 185, 186, 191.

Aix-la-Chapelle, Peace, 11;
  Congress, 137 n.

Alabama, in Commercial Convention, 170;
  State statutes, 112, 254, 263-64, 287-88.

Alston, speeches on Act of 1807, 99 n., 101 n., 102 n.

Amelia Island, illicit traffic at, 116, 117, 121, 254;
  capture of, 118, 257.

Amendments to slave-trade clause in Constitution proposed, 72, 94,
  111 n., 183, 248-51, 253, 258, 266, 298, 299.

American Missionary Society, petition, 182.

"L'Amistad," case of, 143, 311.

Anderson, minister to Colombia, 142 n.

"Antelope" ("Ramirez"), case of, 129 n., 132, 284.

"Apprentices," African, importation of, 172, 177;
  Louisiana bill on, 177;
  Congressional bill on, 183.

Appropriations to suppress the slave-trade, chronological list of, 125 n.;
  from 1820 to 1850, 157-58;
  from 1850 to 1860, 183;
  from 1860 to 1870, 190;
  statutes, 255, 265, 272-76, 277-78, 285, 286-89, 291, 294, 297, 300,
    301, 304.

Argentine Confederation, 144 n.

Arkansas, 170.

Arkwright, Richard, 152.

Ashmun, Jehudi, 158.

Assiento treaty, 4, 206, 207;
  influence of, 7, 22, 45.

"Association," the, reasons leading to, 47, 48;
  establishment of, 50, 51;
  results of, 52-53.

Atherton, J., speech of, 72.

"Augusta," case of the slaver, 315.

Aury, Capt., buccaneer, 116.

Austria, at Congress of Vienna, 155-56;
  at Congress of Verona, 139-40;
  signs Quintuple Treaty, 147, 281.

Ayres, Eli, U.S. African agent, 158;
  report of, 128, 129.


BABBIT, William, slave-trader, 131 n.

Bacon, Samuel, African agent, 126, 158.

Badger, Joseph, slave-trader, 131 n.

Baldwin, Abraham, in Federal Convention, 59, 60, 63, 65;
  in Congress, 81, 108.

Baltimore, slave-trade at, 131-32, 165, 166.

Banks, N.P., 192, 305.

Barancas, Fort, 120.

Barbadoes, 12.

Bard (of Pa.), Congressman, 90.

Barksdale, Wm. (of Miss.), 175.

Barnwell, Robert (of S.C.), 70.

Barry, Robert, slave-trader, 165.

Bay Island slave-depot, 166.

Bayard, J.A. (of Del.), Congressman, 87.

Bedinger, G.M. (of Ky.), 89 n.

Belgium, 150.

Belknap, J. (of Mass.), 77.

Benezet, Anthony, 29.

Benton, Thomas H., 140, 156, 285.

Betton (of N.H.), Congressman, 109 n.

Biblical Codes of Law, 26, 37, 44 n.

Bidwell (of Mass.), Congressman, 99 n., 100 n., 102 n., 104 n., 108-10,
    111, 252.

Blanco and Caballo, slave-traders, 165.

Bland, T. (of Va.), Congressman, 81.

Bolivia, 144 n.

Border States, interstate slave-trade from, 155;
  legislation of, 76;
  see also under individual States.

Boston, slave-trade at, 37, 85, 166, 184.

Bozal <DW64>s, 166.

Braddock's Expedition, 21.

Bradley, S.R., Senator, 98, 107, 108.

Brazil, slave-trade to, 25, 114, 144, 163, 164, 171, 179, 275;
  slaves in, 133;
  proposed conference with, 150;
  squadron on coasts of, 160.

Brazos Santiago, 180.

Brown (of Miss.), Congressman, 175.

Brown, John (of Va.), slave-trader, 52.

Brown, John (of R.I.), 85-87.

Buchanan, James A., refuses to co-operate with England, 151;
  issues "Ostend Manifesto," 177;
  as president, enforces slave-trade laws, 186;
  messages, 291, 294-95, 298.

Buchanan, Governor of Sierra Leone, 164.

Bullock, Collector of Revenue, 116.

Burgesses, Virginia House of, petitions vs. slave-trade, 21;
  declares vs. slave-trade, 21;
  in "Association," 48.

Burke, Aedanus (of S.C.), 78-80.

Butler, Pierce (of S.C.), Senator, 65.


CALHOUN, J.C., 155 n.

California, vessels bound to, 162.

Campbell, John, Congressman, 108.

Campbell, Commander, U.S.N., 118 n.

Canning, Stratford, British Minister, 138, 140.

Canot, Capt., slave-trader, 184.

Cape de Verde Islands, 185.

Cartwright, Edmund, 152.

Cass, Lewis, 147-51, 281.

Castlereagh, British Cabinet Minister, 135, 136.

Cato, insurrection of the slave, 18.

"Centinel," newspaper correspondent, 67.

Central America, 177.

Chandalier Islands, 119.

Chandler, John (of N.H.), 104 n.

Charles II., of England, 10.

Charleston, S.C., attitude toward "Association," 49;
  slave-trade at, 89, 92, 93, 96, 113, 165.

Chew, Beverly, Collector of Revenue, 116, 118.

Chili, 150.

Chittenden, Martin (of Vt.), 109 n.

Claiborne, Wm., Governor of La., 92.

Clarkson, William, 53, 134.

Clay, J.B. (of Ky.), Congressman, 175.

Clay, Congressman, 102 n.

Clearance of slavers, 157, 162, 164, 184, 280, 287, 288.

Clymer, George (of Pa.), 63, 77.

Coastwise slave-trade, 98, 106-09, 156, 161, 183, 191, 302.

Cobb, Howell, Sec. of the Treasury, 177.

Coles (of Va.), Congressman, 81.

Colombia, U.S. of, 142, 270.

Colonies, legislation of, see under individual Colonies, and Appendix A;
  slave-trade in, 11, 13, 22, 25, 34-36, 46-47, 53-56;
  status of slavery in, 13-14, 23, 24, 33-34, 44, 199, 200.

Colonization Society, 126, 156 n., 158, 196.

"Comet," case of the slaver, 143, 309.

Commercial conventions, Southern, 169-73.

Company of Merchants Trading to Africa, 11.

Compromises in Constitution, 62-66, 196-98.

Compton, Samuel, 152.

Confederate States of America, 187-90, 299, 300.

Confederation, the, 56-57, 228.

Congress of the United States, 77-111,
    112, 121-26, 128, 131, 156-58, 174, 190-92, 239, 247-66, 268, 271-75,
    278-81, 284-94, 295-97, 298-99, 301-02, 304-05.

Congress of Verona, 139.

Congress of Vienna, 135, 137.

Connecticut, restrictions in, 43-44, 57;
  elections in, 178;
  Colonial and State legislation, 199, 200, 223, 225, 236, 240.

"Constitution," slaver, 120, 121, 307.

Constitution of the United States, 58-73, 78, 79-83, 94, 102-03, 107,
    111 n., 139, 183, 196, 248-51, 253, 258, 266, 298, 299.
  See also Amendments and Compromises.

Continental Congress, 49-52.

Cook, Congressman, 100 n., 103 n., 108.

Cosby, Governor of N.Y., 27.

Cotton, manufacture of, 152, 153;
  price of, 153-54;
  crop of, 154.

Cotton-gin, 153.

Coxe, Tench, 68.

Cranston, Governor of R.I., 41.

Crawford, W.H., Secretary, 119, 175.

"Creole," case of the slaver, 143, 283-84, 312.

Crimean war, 154.

Cruising Conventions, 138, 139, 146, 148-49, 285, 289, 292, 297-98.

Cuba, cruising off, 151, 297;
  movement to acquire, 155, 177, 186;
  illicit traffic to and from, 161, 162, 164, 166, 171.

Cumberland, Lieut., R.N., 149.

"Cyane," U.S.S., 129.


DANA (of Conn.), Congressman, 86.

Danish slave-trade, 47.

Darien, Ga., 51, 117.

Davis, Jefferson, 175.

De Bow, J.D.B., 172, 176.

Declaration of Independence, 53-54.

Delaware, restrictions in, 31, 56, 76;
  attitude toward slave-trade, 64, 72 n., 74;
  Colonial and State statutes, 225, 226, 232, 238-39, 244.

Denmark, abolition of slave-trade, 133, 247.

Dent (of Md.), Congressman, 87.

Dickinson, John, in the Federal Convention, 59, 60, 63.

Dickson (of N.C.), Congressman, 87.

Disallowance of Colonial acts, 11, 12, 18-19, 21, 27, 29, 32, 42.

Dobbs, Governor of N.C., 12.

Dolben, Sir William, M.P., 134.

Douglas, Stephen A., 181.

Dowdell (of Ala.), Congressman, 175.

Drake, Capt., slave-smuggler, 114, 166.

Driscoll, Capt., slave-trader, 184.

Duke of York's Laws, 26, 200.

Dunmore, Lord, 226.

Dutch. See Holland.

Dutch West India Company, 25.

Duty, on African goods, 10;
  on slaves imported, 10, 11, 12, 16-22, 26-32, 38, 40-42, 59, 62-66,
    67, 68, 77-84, 89, 90, 95, 96, 196, 199-206, 208-27, 229, 232, 239,
    247, 250.

Dwight, Theodore, of Conn., 105 n.


EARLY, Peter (of Ga.), 99 n., 100, 102, 104-08, 111.

East Indies, 50.

Economic revolution, 152-54.

Edwards (of N.C.), Congressman, 122 n.

Ellsworth, Oliver (of Conn.), in Federal Convention, 58, 59, 61.

Elmer, Congressman, 106 n.

Ely, Congressman, 103 n., 105 n.

Emancipation of slaves, 31, 39, 42, 44, 68, 70, 76, 79-84, 192, 196,
    226-29.

"Encomium," case of, 143, 309.

England, slave-trade policy, 9-14, 25, 30, 42, 46-50, 53, 54, 97, 134-51,
    153, 191, 206, 207, 208, 252, 254, 256, 259, 265-69, 275, 276, 281,
    285, 297, 301, 302, 303, 305.
  See Disallowance.

English Colonies. See Colonies.

"Enterprise," case of, 143, 309.

Escambia River, 114.


FAIRFAX County, Virginia, 49.

Faneuil Hall, meeting in, 48.

Federalist, the, on slave-trade, 69.

Fernandina, port of, 116.

Filibustering expeditions, 177.

Findley, Congressman, 103 n.

Fisk, Congressman, 100 n.

Florida, 52, 102, 114, 116, 120, 166, 170, 180, 181.
  See St. Mary's River and Amelia Island.

Foote, H.S. (of Miss.), 172.

Forsyth, John, Secretary of State, 144, 146, 156 n., 176.

Foster (of N.H.), Congressman, 81.

Fowler, W.C., 112-13.

Fox, C.J., English Cabinet Minister, 135 n.

France, Revolution in, 133;
  Colonial slave-trade of, 46, 92, 133, 254;
  Convention of, 86, 133;
  at Congress of Vienna, 135;
  at Congress of Verona, 139;
  treaties with England, 143, 150, 275, 276;
  flag of, in slave-trade, 144;
  refuses to sign Quintuple Treaty, 147;
  invited to conference, 150.

Franklin, Benjamin, 80.

Friends, protest of, vs. slave-trade, 28-29;
  attitude towards slave-trade, 30-31, 33, 43, 68-69, 77, 204;
  petitions of, vs. slave-trade, 56, 57, 77, 84;
  reports of, on slave-trade, 167.


GAILLARD, Congressman, 108.

Gallatin, Albert, 91-92.

Gallinas, port of, Africa, 128.

Galveston, Tex., 115.

Garnett (of Va.), Congressman, 109 n.

"General Ramirez." See "Antelope."

Georgia, slavery in, 13, 14;
  restrictions in, 15, 16, 75, 176-77;
  opposition to "Association," 51, 52;
  demands slave-trade, 16, 55, 60-67;
  attitude toward restrictions, 80, 81, 84, 132;
  smuggling to, 89, 95, 102, 114, 116, 117, 180, 181;
  Colonial and State statutes, 112, 215, 241, 244, 245, 257, 259, 276-77.

Germanic Federation, 150.

Gerry, Elbridge, in the Federal Convention, 59, 60;
  in Congress, 80, 81.

Ghent, Treaty of, 136, 254.

Giddings, J.R., 183 n., 284, 287.

Giles, W.B. (of Va.), Congressman, 108.

Gordon, Capt., slave-trader, 190 n.

Good Hope, Cape of, 151, 160, 191.

Gorham, N. (of Mass.), in Federal Convention, 58, 65.

Goulden, W.B., 169.

Graham, Secretary of the Navy, 185.

Great Britain. See England.

Gregory XVI., Pope, 145.

Grenville-Fox ministry, 134.

Guadaloupe, 88.

Guinea. See Africa.

Guizot, F., French Foreign Minister, 147.


HABERSHAM, R.W., 130 n.

Hamilton, Alexander, 58.

Hanse Towns, 142.

Harmony and Co., slave-traders, 165.

Harper (of S.C.), Congressman, 92.

Hartley, David, 80, 81.

Hastings, Congressman, 105 n.

Havana, Cuba, 119, 120, 145, 162, 165.

Hawkins, Sir John, 9.

Hayti, 144 n.;
  influence of the revolution, 74-77, 84-88, 96-97.
  See San Domingo.

Heath, General, of Mass., 71.

Henderick, Garrett, 28.

Hill (of N.C.), Congressman, 85.

Holland, participation of, in slave-trade, 24, 25, 47;
  slaves in Colonies, 133;
  abolishes slave-trade, 136;
  treaty with England, 137, 259;
  West India Company, 25.

Holland, Congressman, 99 n., 103, 106 n.

Hopkins, John, slave-trader, 131 n.

Hopkins, Samuel, 41.

Horn, Cape, 160, 162.

Huger (of S.C.), Congressman, 87, 91 n.

Hunter, Andrew, 169 n.

Hunter, Governor of N.J., 32.

Hutchinson, Wm., Governor of Mass., 38.


IMPORT duties on slaves. See Duty.

Indians, 29.

Instructions to Governors, 12, 18-19, 27, 30, 33, 36;
  to naval officers, 119, 161, 185.
  See Disallowance.

Insurrections. See Slaves.

Iredell, James (of N.C.), 67, 71.

Ireland, 48.


JACKSON, Andrew, pardons slave-traders, 131 n.

Jackson, J. (of Ga.), 78, 80, 81.

Jacksonville, Fla., 181.

Jamaica, 12.

Jay, William, 134-35.

Jefferson, Thomas, drafts Declaration of Independence, 53, 54;
  as President, messages on slave-trade, 92, 97-98, 251;
  signs Act of 1807, 110;
  pardons slave-traders, 131 n.

Jefferson, Capt, slave-trader, 184.

Johnson (of Conn.), 50, 63.

Johnson (of La.), 141.

Joint-cruising. See Cruising Conventions.


KANE, Commissioner, 162.

Keitt, L.M. (of S.C.), Congressman, 175.

Kelly, Congressman, 108.

Kenan, Congressman, 108.

Kendall, Amos, 126 n.

Kennedy, Secretary of the Navy, 185.

Kentucky, 108 n., 170 n., 172 n.

Key West, 185.

Kilgore, resolutions in Congress, 175, 293.

King, Rufus, in Federal Convention, 59, 63, 65.

Knoxville, Tenn., 170.


LA COSTE, Capt., slave-trader, 131.

Lafitte, E., and Co., 177.

Langdon, John, 59, 60, 63, 65.

Lawrence (of N.Y.), 80, 81.

Laws. See Statutes.

Lee, Arthur, 48 n.

Lee, R.H., 48 n., 49.

Legislation. See Statutes.

Le Roy, L., slave-trader, 131 n.

Liberia, 124, 158.
  See African Agency.

Lincoln, Abraham, 111, 126, 151, 190, 300-01.

Liverpool, Eng., 53, 145.

Livingstone (of N.Y.), in Federal Convention, 63.

Lloyd, Congressman, 102 n., 106 n.

London, Eng., 135, 137, 137 n., 147, 150, 154 n.

"Louisa," slaver, 120, 121.

Louisiana, sale of, 74, 97;
  slave-trade to, 75, 91-94;
  influence on S.C. repeal of 1803, 89;
  status of slave-trade to, 91-94, 171;
  State statutes, 177, 291.

Low, I. (of N.Y.), 50.

Lowndes, R. (of S.C.), 72, 89 n., 90.


MCCARTHY, Governor of Sierra Leone, 115.

McGregor Raid, the, 116.

McIntosh, Collector of Revenue, 117 n.

McKeever, Lieut., U.S.N., 120, 121.

Macon, N., 100, 102 n., 109.

Madeira, 185.

Madison, James, in the Federal Convention, 59, 63, 64;
  in Congress, 78-81;
  as President, 113, 115, 137 n., 254, 255-56.

Madrid, Treaty of, 257.

Maine, 166.

Manchester, Eng., 47.

Mansfield, Capt., slave-trader, 184.

"Marino," slaver, 120, 121.

Martin, Luther (of Md.), in the Federal Convention, 59, 61, 63, 65.

Maryland, slavery in, 14;
  restrictions in, 22, 23, 57, 76;
  attitude toward slave-trade, 65, 74, 83, 94;
  Colonial and State statutes, 201, 202, 209, 210, 219-20, 221, 223, 226,
    229, 243, 251.

Mason, George, 59, 61, 65-67, 71.

Mason, J.M., 177.

Massachusetts, in slave-trade, 34-36;
  restrictions in, 37-39, 77;
  attitude toward slave-trade, 71, 77, 83, 94;
  Colonial and State legislation, 199, 201, 203, 214, 223, 224, 228, 234,
    248, 249, 261.

Masters, Congressman, 99 n.

Mathew, Capt., slave-trader, 184.

Mathew, Governor of the Bahama Islands, 167.

Matthews (of S.C.), 56.

Meigs, Congressman, 132 n., 262.

Memphis, Tenn., 181.

Mercer, John (of Va.), 139 n., 142, 156 n.

Messages, Presidential, 97-98, 113, 115, 141, 148, 157, 163, 251, 254,
    255-60, 262, 264, 269, 271, 279, 280-81, 285, 291, 292, 294-95, 298,
    300-01.

Mesurado, Cape, 126, 158.

Mexico, treaty with England, 144 n.;
  conquest of, 155, 161, 177.

Mexico, Gulf of, 118, 159, 160, 166 n.

Mickle, Calvin, 121.

Middle Colonies, 24, 33, 57, 66.

Middleton (of S.C.), Congressman, 126.

Middletown, Conn., 43.

Mifflin, W. (of Penn.), in Continental Congress, 50.

Miles (of S.C.), Congressman, 175.

Mississippi, slavery in, 91;
  illicit trade to, 102;
  legislation, 112, 254, 263, 283, 284.

Missouri, 123.

Missouri Compromise, 124.

Mitchell, Gen. D.B., 118.

Mitchell, S.L. (of N.Y.), Congressman, 89 n.

Mixed courts for slave-traders, 137, 139, 151, 191.

Mobile, Ala., illicit trade to, 118, 119, 161, 181.

Monroe, James, as President, messages on slave-trade, 117, 141, 257, 258,
    259-60, 262-63, 265, 269;
  establishment of African Agency, 126, 158;
  pardons, 131 n.

Morbon, Wm., slave-trader, 131 n.

Morris, Gouverneur, in Federal Convention, 59, 63, 64, 65.

Morris, Governor of N.J., 33.

Moseley, Congressman, 106.


NANSEMOND County, Va., 49.

Naples (Two Sicilies), 142.

Napoleon I., 74, 134, 136, 254.

Navigation Ordinance, 25.

Navy, United States, 111, 115, 118-20, 123, 124, 128, 159-61, 163, 184-86,
    191, 259, 286, 295, 301;
  reports of Secretary of, 185, 186, 318-31.

Neal, Rev. Mr., in Mass. Convention, 71.

<DW64>s, character of, 13-14.
  See Slaves.

<DW64> plots, 18, 30, 204.

Nelson, Hugh (of Va.), 122 n., 123 n.

Nelson, Attorney-General, 162.

Netherlands. See Holland.

New England, slavery in, 14, 34, 44;
  slave-trade by, 34-36, 43, 57;
  Colonial statutes, see under individual Colonies.

New Hampshire, restrictions in, 36, 37;
  attitude toward slave-trade, 34, 72, 94;
  State legislation, 250.

New Jersey, slavery in, 14;
  restrictions in, 32, 33, 76;
  attitude toward slavery, 64, 74, 178;
  Colonial and State statutes, 200, 205, 221, 222, 225, 230, 244.

New Mexico, 176.

New Netherland, 24, 199, 200.

New Orleans, illicit traffic to, 92, 115, 131 n., 161, 166, 171, 179.

Newport, R.I., 35, 41.

New York, slavery in, 14;
  restrictions in, 25-27;
  Abolition societies in, 74, 83;
  Colonial and State statutes, 203-04, 210, 213, 214, 218, 229-30, 234,
    239, 245-46.

New York City, illicit traffic at, 162, 166, 178-81, 190, 191.

Nichols (of Va.), Congressman, 87.

Norfolk, Va., 162.

North Carolina, restrictions in, 19, 57, 76;
  "Association" in, 48, 55;
  reception of Constitution, 65, 71;
  cession of back-lands, 91;
  Colonial and State statutes, 112, 232, 241, 242, 255.

Northwest Territory, 91.

Nourse, Joseph, Registrar of the Treasury, 120 n.

Nova Scotia, 52.

Nunez River, Africa, 129.


OGLETHORPE, General James, 15.

Olin (of Vt.), Congressman, 105 n.

Ordinance of 1787, 91.

"Ostend Manifesto," 177.


PAGE, John (of Va.), 81.

Palmerston, Lord, 146.

Panama Congress, 142 n.

Pardons granted to slave-traders, 131 n.

Paris, France, Treaty of, 134, 135, 137 n.

Parker, R.E. (of Va.), 77-78, 81.

Parliament, slave-trade in, 10, 134.

Pastorius, F.D., 28.

Paterson's propositions, 58.

Peace negotiations of 1783, 134.

Pemberton, Thomas, 34.

Pennsylvania, slavery in, 14;
  restrictions in, 28-31, 76;
  attitude towards slave-trade, 56, 67, 70, 80, 83;
  in Constitutional Convention, 64;
  Colonial and State statutes, 201-05, 209, 211, 213-14, 220, 221, 222,
    223, 227, 235-36.

Pennsylvania Society for the Abolition of Slavery, 74, 80.

Perdido River, 119.

Perry, Commander, U.S.N., 162.

Perry, Jesse, slave-trader, 131 n.

Perry, Robert, slave-trader, 131 n.

"Perry," U.S.S., 162, 165.

Petitions, of Abolition societies, 56, 79-81, 83, 84;
  of free <DW64>s, 85, 86.

Pettigrew (of S.C.), 176.

Philadelphia, 162, 166.

Pinckney, Charles (of S.C.), in Federal Convention, 58-60, 65.

Pinckney, C.C. (of S.C.), in Federal Convention, 59-63, 64.

Pindall, Congressman, 122 n., 123 n.

Piracy, slave-trade made, 124-25, 140, 141, 146, 149, 155 n.

Pitkin, T. (of Conn.), 99 n., 104 n.

Pitt, William, 134.

Plumer, Wm. (of N.H.), 127.

Pollard, Edward, 176.

Pongas River, Africa, 129.

Portugal, treaties with England, 135, 137, 145 n., 150, 256;
  slaves in colonies, 46, 133;
  abolition of slave-trade by, 136, 144 n.;
  use of flag of, 144.

Presidents. See under individual names.

Price of slaves, 163.

Prince George County, Va., 49.

Privy Council, report to, 134.

Proffit, U.S. Minister to Brazil, 164.

Prohibition of slave-trade by Ga., 15, 75;
  S.C., 17, 89;
  N.C., 19;
  Va., 20;
  Md., 22;
  N.Y., 26;
  Vermont, 28;
  Penn., 28, 29;
  Del., 31;
  N.J., 32;
  N.H., 36;
  Mass., 37;
  R.I., 40;
  Conn., 43;
  United States, 110;
  England, 135;
  Confederate States, 188.
  See also Appendices.

Providence, R.I., 42.

Prussia at European Congresses, 135-36, 139, 147, 281.

Pryor, R.A. (of Va.), 171.


QUAKERS. See Friends.

Quarantine of slaves, 16.

Quebec, 52.

Quincy, Josiah, Congressman, 100 n., 102 n.

Quintuple Treaty, 145, 147, 281.


RABUN, Wm., Governor of Ga., 127.

Ramsey, David (of S.C.), 69.

Randolph, Edmund, in the Federal Convention, 58, 59, 63.

Randolph, John, Congressman, 106-07.

Randolph, Thomas M., Congressman, 108.

Registration of slaves, 16, 132 n., 258, 260.

Revenue from slave-trade, 87, 90, 95, 111, 112.
  See Duty Acts.

Rhode Island, slave-trade in, 34, 35, 85;
  restrictions in, 40-43;
  "Association" in, 48;
  reception of Constitution by, 72;
  abolition societies in, 42, 74, 83;
  Colonial and State legislation, 200, 203, 213, 214, 222, 223, 224-25,
    227-30, 233.

Rice Crop, 17, 20.

Right of Search, 137-42, 145 n., 148-51, 156, 183, 185, 191, 256, 295.

Rio Grande river, 176.

Rio Janeiro, Brazil, 145, 160, 162.

Rolfe, John, 25.

Royal Adventurers, Company of, 10.

Royal African Company, 10-11.

Rum, traffic in, 35, 36, 50.

Rush, Richard, Minister to England, 138.

Russell, Lord John, 150, 297, 303.

Russia in European Congresses, 135, 139, 147;
signs Quintuple Treaty, 147, 281.

Rutledge, Edward, in Federal Convention, 58-61, 65.

Rutledge, John, Congressman, 84-87.


ST. AUGUSTINE, 114.

St. Johns, Island of, 52.

St. Johns Parish, Ga., 52.

St. Mary's River, Fla., 113-14, 116, 117.

"Sanderson," slaver, 35 n.

Sandiford, 29.

San Domingo, trade with, stopped, 50, 96;
  insurrection in, 74, 84, 86, 96;
  deputies from, 133.

Sardinia, 142.

Savannah, Ga., 16, 51, 169.

Search. See Right of Search.

Sewall, Wm., slave-trader, 131 n.

Seward, Wm. H., Secretary, 151, 289, 293.

Seward (of Ga.), Congressman, 175.

Sharpe, Granville, 134.

Sherbro Islands, Africa, 158.

Sherman, Roger, in the Federal Convention, 59, 60, 62, 65;
  in Congress, 78.

Shields, Thomas, slave-trader, 131 n.

Sierra Leone, 129, 151, 191.

Sinnickson (of N.J.), Congressman, 81.

Slave Power, the, 153, 198.

Slavers:
  "Alexander," 129 n.;
  "Amedie," 138 n.;
  "L'Amistad," 143;
  "Antelope" ("Ramirez"), 132;
  "Comet," 143 n.;
  "Constitution," 120, 121;
  "Creole," 143;
  "Daphne," 129 n.;
  "Dorset," 115;
  "Eliza," 129 n.;
  "Emily," 185;
  "Encomium," 143 n.;
  "Endymion," 129 n.;
  "Esperanza," 129 n.;
  "Eugene," 115, 129 n.;
  "Fame," 162;
  "Fortuna," 138 n.;
  "Illinois," 149;
  "Le Louis," 138 n.;
  "Louisa," 120;
  "Marino," 120;
  "Martha," 165;
  "Mary," 131 n.;
  "Mathilde," 129 n.;
  "Paz," 115;
  "La Pensee," 129 n.;
  "Plattsburg," 128 n., 129 n.;
  "Prova," 165;
  "Ramirez" ("Antelope"), 129 n., 130;
  "Rebecca," 115;
  "Rosa," 115;
  "Sanderson," 35 n.;
  "San Juan Nepomuceno," 138 n.;
  "Saucy Jack," 115;
  "Science," 129 n.;
  "Wanderer," 180, 184, 186;
  "Wildfire," 190 n.;
  see also Appendix C.

Slavery. See Table of Contents.

Slaves, number imported, 11, 13, 23 n., 27 n., 31 n., 33 n., 36 n.,
    39 n., 40 n., 43 n., 44 n., 89, 94, 181;
  insurrections of, 13, 18, 30, 204;
  punishments of, 13;
  captured on high seas, 39, 56, 186;
  illegal traffic in, 88, 95, 112-21, 126-32, 165, 166, 179;
  abducted, 144.

Slave-trade, see Table of Contents;
  internal, 9, 155;
  coastwise, 98, 106-09, 156, 161, 183, 191, 302.

Slave-traders, 10, 11, 25, 34, 35, 37, 41, 93, 113, 119, 126-29, 146,
    161, 176, 178, 180, 184;
  prosecution and conviction of, 119, 120, 121, 126, 127, 130, 161, 162,
    183, 190, 191;
  Pardon of, 131;
  punishment of, 37, 104, 122, 127, 132, 190, 191, 199, 261, 264, 268,
    274, 296.
  For ships, see under Slavers, and Appendix C.

Slidell, John, 182.

Sloan (of N.J.), Congressman, 99 n., 100, 105 n., 111, 251, 252.

Smilie, John (of Pa.), Congressman, 99 n., 105 n., 104 n.

Smith, Caleb B., 190.

Smith, J.F., slave-trader, 131 n.

Smith (of S.C.), Senator, 78-81, 93.

Smith, Capt., slave-trader, 37.

Smuggling of slaves, 76, 108, 109, 114, 116, 117, 127, 128, 129, 130,
    166, 179-82.

Sneed (of Tenn.), Congressman, 170.

Soule, Pierre, 177.

South Carolina, slavery in, 13, 14, 17, 18, 93;
  restrictions in, 16-19, 75;
  attitude toward slave-trade, 49, 52, 55, 57, 81, 84;
  in the Federal Convention, 59-67, 70, 72;
  illicit traffic to, 89;
  repeal of prohibition, 89, 90, 92, 95;
  movement to reopen slave-trade, 169, 171, 172 n., 173;
  Colonial and State statutes, 201, 208-13, 215, 218, 220, 222, 229, 232,
    237-38, 241-43, 245-47, 289-91.

Southeby, Wm., 29.

Southern Colonies, 15, 23.
  See under individual Colonies.

Spaight, in Federal Convention, 65.

Spain, signs Assiento, 11;
  colonial slave-trade of, 10;
  colonial slavery, 133;
  war with Dutch, 25;
  abolishes slave-trade, 136, 137, 145 n.;
  L'Amistad case with, 143;
  flag of, in slave-trade, 113, 114, 115, 144, 150, 159;
  treaties, 206, 208, 257.

Spottswood, Governor of Virginia, 20.

Spratt, L.W. (of S.C.), 171, 172, 190 n.

Stanton (of R.I.), Congressman, 89 n., 106.

States. See under individual States.

Statutes, Colonial, see under names of individual Colonies;
  State, 56-57, 75-77;
    see under names of individual States, and Appendices A and B;
  United States, Act of 1794, 83, 242;
    Act of 1800, 85, 245;
    Act of 1803, 87, 246;
    Act of 1807, 97, 253;
    Act of 1818, 121, 258;
    Act of 1819, 123, 259;
    Act of 1820, 124, 261;
    Act of 1860, 187, 297;
    Act of 1862, 191, 302;
    see also Appendix B, 247, 248, 254, 264, 272, 273, 276, 277, 285,
      286, 289, 291, 294, 300, 303, 304.

Stephens, Alexander, 175.

Stevenson, A., Minister to England, 146-47.

Stone (of Md.), Congressman, 79, 81, 108.

Stono, S.C., insurrection at, 18.

Sumner, Charles, 192 n., 305.

Sweden, 135, 142, 269;
  Delaware Colony, 31;
  slaves in Colonies, 133.

Sylvester (of N.Y.), Congressman, 81.


TAYLOR, Zachary, 286.

Texas, 116, 144 n., 150, 155, 156, 165, 176, 180, 273, 277-78.

Treaties, 11, 135-37, 141, 142, 145, 147-50, 151, 159, 206, 207, 228,
    252, 254, 256, 259, 265, 269, 275, 276, 281, 285, 288, 292, 301-05.

Trist, N., 160 n., 164, 165 n.

Tyler, John, 148, 285, 286.


UNDERWOOD, John C., 181.

United States, 55, 74, 77, 84, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 97, 98, 102, 103, 110,
    114, 117, 119, 120, 122, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 138, 136-51, 153,
    156, 157, 158, 162-67, 168, 178, 179, 185, 188, 190, 242, 245-48, 264,
    272-76, 277, 285, 286, 289, 291, 294, 297, 300-04.
  See also Table of Contents.

Up de Graeff, Derick, 28.

Up den Graef, Abraham, 28.

Uruguay, 144 n.

Utrecht, Treaty of, 207.


VAN BUREN, Martin, 79-80.

Van Rensselaer, Congressman, 108.

Varnum, J., Congressman, 105 n.

Venezuela, 144 n.

Vermont, 28, 57, 94, 226, 228, 232, 249.

Verona, Congress of, 139.

Vicksburg, Miss., 172, 181.

Vienna, Congress of, 135.

Virginia, first slaves imported, 28, 306;
  slavery in, 14;
  restrictions in, 19-22, 76;
  frame of government of, 21;
  "Association" in, 48, 52, 57;
  in the Federal Convention, 61, 62, 64, 71;
  abolition sentiment in, 74, 78, 83;
  attitude on reopening the slave-trade, 171, 173 n.;
  Colonial and State statutes, 201-04, 213-15, 219-20, 222, 226, 227,
    240, 249.


WALLACE, L.R., slave-trader, 131 n.

Waln (of Penn.), Congressman, 85.

"Wanderer," case of the slaver, 180, 184.

Washington, Treaty of (1842), 148-50, 170, 172, 182, 185, 285, 286,
    288, 292.

Watt, James, 152 n.

Webster, Daniel, 147, 281.

Webster, Noah, 68.

Wentworth, Governor of N.H., 36.

West Indies, slave-trade to and from, 10, 13, 17, 25, 35, 37, 41, 42,
    46, 48, 50, 55, 114, 117, 141, 151, 275;
  slavery in, 13, 168, 193;
  restrictions on importation of slaves from, 26, 75, 76, 87;
  revolution in, 74-77, 84-88, 96-97;
  mixed court in, 151 n., 191.

Western territory, 81, 261.

Whitney, Eli, 153.

Whydah, Africa, 149.

Wilberforce, Wm., 134.

Wilde, R.H., 132.

"Wildfire," slaver, 190 n., 315.

"William," case of the slaver, 315.

Williams, D.R. (of N.C.), Congressman, 102 n., 109 n., 111.

Williamsburg district, S.C., 169.

Williamson (of S.C.), in Federal Convention, 59, 63, 65.

Wilmington, N.C., 88.

Wilson, James, in Federal Convention, 56, 58, 62, 70.

Wilson (of Mass.), Congressman, 295, 296, 298.

Winn, African agent, 158.

Winston, Zenas, slave-trader, 131 n.

Wirt, William, 118, 126 n., 130.

Woolman, John, 29.

Wright (of Va.), 126.


YANCEY, W.L., 171.


                            TRANSCRIBER'S NOTES

1. Text surrounded by underscores (_) was italicised in the original.
2. Text surrounded by tildes (~) was bolded in the original.
3. Footnotes have been collected at the end of each chapter. Footnote
   numbering restarts with each new chapter. In the original, footnotes
   were collected at the bottom of each page and numbering restarted for
   each page.
4. Letters preceded by ^ and surrounded by {} indicates letters
   superscripted in the original.





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

*** 