Footnotes

Footnotes1Hoare,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. 9–10.3Cf. Stevens,History of Georgia, I. 290 ff.4Stephens,Account of the Causes, etc., p. 8. Cf. alsoJournal of Trustees, II. 210; cited by Stevens,History of Georgia, I. 306.5McCall,History of Georgia(1811), I. 206–7.6Ibid.7Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade, Vol. X.; cited by C.C. Jones,History of Georgia(1883), I. 422–5.8The 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:10s.on Africans, 20s.on other Negroes.1714,"additional duty.1714,"£2.1714–15,Duty Act:additional duty.1716,"£3 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.1717,"£40 in addition to existing duties.1719,"£10 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.The Act of 1717, etc., was repealed.1721,"£10on Africans,£50on colonial Negroes.1722,""1740,"£100on Africans,£150on colonial Negroes.1751,"£10"£50"1760,Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).1764,Duty Act:additional duty of £100.1783,"£3on Africans,£20on colonial Negroes.1784,""£5"1787,Art and Ordinance prohibiting importation.9Cf. Hewatt,Historical Account of S. Carolina and Georgia(1779), I. 120 ff.; reprinted inS.C. Hist. Coll.(1836), I. 108 ff.10Cooper,Statutes at Large of S. Carolina, II. 153.11The text of the first act is not extant: cf. Cooper,Statutes, III. 56. For the second, see Cooper, VII. 365, 367.12Cf. Grimké,Public Laws of S. Carolina, p. xvi, No. 362; Cooper,Statutes, II. 649. Cf. alsoGovernor Johnson to the Board of Trade, Jan. 12, 1719–20; reprinted in Rivers,Early History of S. Carolina(1874), App., xii.13Cooper,Statutes, VII. 368.14Ibid., III. 56.15From 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. 421.16Cooper,Statutes, III. 556; Grimké,Public Laws, p. xxxi, No. 694. Cf. Ramsay,History of S. Carolina, I. 110.17Cooper,Statutes, III. 739.18The 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 2.19Cooper,Statutes, IV. 187.20This 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. 187.21Grimké, Public Laws, p. lxviii, Nos. 1485, 1486; Cooper,Statutes, VII. 430.22Cf.N.C. Col. Rec., IV. 172.23Martin,Iredell's Acts of Assembly, I. 413, 492.24The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Virginia; details will be found in Appendix A:—1710,Duty Act:proposed duty of £5.1723,"prohibitive (?).1727,""1732,"5%.1736,""1740,"additional duty of5%.1754,""5%.1755,""10% (Repealed, 1760).1757,""10% (Repealed, 1761).1759,"20% on colonial slaves.1766,"additional duty of 10% (Disallowed?).1769,""1772,"£5 on colonial slaves.Petition of Burgessesvs.Slave-trade.1776,Arraignment of the king in the adopted Frame of Government.1778,Importation prohibited.25Letters of Governor Spotswood, inVa. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., I. 52.26Hening,Statutes at Large of Virginia, IV. 118, 182.27Ibid., IV. 317, 394; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353; VII. 281; VIII. 190, 336, 532.28Ibid., V. 92; VI. 417, 419, 461, 466.29Ibid., VII. 69, 81.30Ibid., VII. 363, 383.31Ibid., VIII. 237, 337.32Miscellaneous Papers, 1672–1865, inVa. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., VI. 14; Tucker,Blackstone's Commentaries, I. Part II. App., 51.33Hening,Statutes, IX. 112.34Importation by sea or by land was prohibited, with a penalty of £1000 for illegal importation and £500 for buying or selling. The Negro was freed, if illegally brought in. This law was revised somewhat in 1785. Cf. Hening,Statutes, IX. 471; XII. 182.35The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Maryland; details will be found in Appendix A:—1695,Duty Act:10s.1704,"20s.1715,""1717,"additional duty of 40s.(?).1754,"0s.,total50s.1756,"20s."40s.(?).1763,"£2"£4.1771,"£5"£9.1783,Importation prohibited.36Compleat Coll. Laws of Maryland(ed. 1727), p. 191; Bacon,Laws of Maryland at Large, 1728, ch. 8.37Bacon,Laws, 1754, ch. 9, 14.38Ibid., 1763, ch. 28.39Laws of Maryland since 1763: 1771, ch. 7. Cf.Ibid.: 1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. 18.40Ibid.: 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:—In1704,4,475.Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 605."1710,7,935.Ibid."1712,8,330.Scharf,History of Maryland, I. 377."1719,25,000.Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 605."1748,36,000.McMahon,History of Maryland, I. 313."1755,46,356.Gentleman's Magazine, XXXIV. 261."1756,46,225.McMahon,History of Maryland, I. 313."1761,49,675.Dexter,Colonial Population, p. 21, note."1782,83,362.Encyclopædia Britannica(9th ed.), XV. 603."1787,80,000.Dexter,Colonial Population, p. 21, note.

1Hoare,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.

3Cf. Stevens,History of Georgia, I. 290 ff.

4Stephens,Account of the Causes, etc., p. 8. Cf. alsoJournal of Trustees, II. 210; cited by Stevens,History of Georgia, I. 306.

5McCall,History of Georgia(1811), I. 206–7.

6Ibid.

7Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade, Vol. X.; cited by C.C. Jones,History of Georgia(1883), I. 422–5.

8The 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:10s.on Africans, 20s.on other Negroes.1714,"additional duty.1714,"£2.1714–15,Duty Act:additional duty.1716,"£3 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.1717,"£40 in addition to existing duties.1719,"£10 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.The Act of 1717, etc., was repealed.1721,"£10on Africans,£50on colonial Negroes.1722,""1740,"£100on Africans,£150on colonial Negroes.1751,"£10"£50"1760,Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).1764,Duty Act:additional duty of £100.1783,"£3on Africans,£20on colonial Negroes.1784,""£5"1787,Art and Ordinance prohibiting importation.

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

9Cf. Hewatt,Historical Account of S. Carolina and Georgia(1779), I. 120 ff.; reprinted inS.C. Hist. Coll.(1836), I. 108 ff.

10Cooper,Statutes at Large of S. Carolina, II. 153.

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

12Cf. Grimké,Public Laws of S. Carolina, p. xvi, No. 362; Cooper,Statutes, II. 649. Cf. alsoGovernor Johnson to the Board of Trade, Jan. 12, 1719–20; reprinted in Rivers,Early History of S. Carolina(1874), App., xii.

13Cooper,Statutes, VII. 368.

14Ibid., III. 56.

15From 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.

16Cooper,Statutes, III. 556; Grimké,Public Laws, p. xxxi, No. 694. Cf. Ramsay,History of S. Carolina, I. 110.

17Cooper,Statutes, III. 739.

18The 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.

19Cooper,Statutes, IV. 187.

20This 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.

21Grimké, Public Laws, p. lxviii, Nos. 1485, 1486; Cooper,Statutes, VII. 430.

22Cf.N.C. Col. Rec., IV. 172.

23Martin,Iredell's Acts of Assembly, I. 413, 492.

24The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Virginia; details will be found in Appendix A:—1710,Duty Act:proposed duty of £5.1723,"prohibitive (?).1727,""1732,"5%.1736,""1740,"additional duty of5%.1754,""5%.1755,""10% (Repealed, 1760).1757,""10% (Repealed, 1761).1759,"20% on colonial slaves.1766,"additional duty of 10% (Disallowed?).1769,""1772,"£5 on colonial slaves.Petition of Burgessesvs.Slave-trade.1776,Arraignment of the king in the adopted Frame of Government.1778,Importation prohibited.

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

25Letters of Governor Spotswood, inVa. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., I. 52.

26Hening,Statutes at Large of Virginia, IV. 118, 182.

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

28Ibid., V. 92; VI. 417, 419, 461, 466.

29Ibid., VII. 69, 81.

30Ibid., VII. 363, 383.

31Ibid., VIII. 237, 337.

32Miscellaneous Papers, 1672–1865, inVa. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Ser., VI. 14; Tucker,Blackstone's Commentaries, I. Part II. App., 51.

33Hening,Statutes, IX. 112.

34Importation by sea or by land was prohibited, with a penalty of £1000 for illegal importation and £500 for buying or selling. The Negro was freed, if illegally brought in. This law was revised somewhat in 1785. Cf. Hening,Statutes, IX. 471; XII. 182.

35The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of Maryland; details will be found in Appendix A:—1695,Duty Act:10s.1704,"20s.1715,""1717,"additional duty of 40s.(?).1754,"0s.,total50s.1756,"20s."40s.(?).1763,"£2"£4.1771,"£5"£9.1783,Importation prohibited.

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

36Compleat Coll. Laws of Maryland(ed. 1727), p. 191; Bacon,Laws of Maryland at Large, 1728, ch. 8.

37Bacon,Laws, 1754, ch. 9, 14.

38Ibid., 1763, ch. 28.

39Laws of Maryland since 1763: 1771, ch. 7. Cf.Ibid.: 1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. 18.

40Ibid.: 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:—In1704,4,475.Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 605."1710,7,935.Ibid."1712,8,330.Scharf,History of Maryland, I. 377."1719,25,000.Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 605."1748,36,000.McMahon,History of Maryland, I. 313."1755,46,356.Gentleman's Magazine, XXXIV. 261."1756,46,225.McMahon,History of Maryland, I. 313."1761,49,675.Dexter,Colonial Population, p. 21, note."1782,83,362.Encyclopædia Britannica(9th ed.), XV. 603."1787,80,000.Dexter,Colonial Population, p. 21, note.

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:—

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 fromthem. John Rolfe relates that the last of August, 1619, there came to Virginia "a dutch man of warre that sold us twenty Negars."1This 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.2Through the enterprise of one of these trading-companies the settlement of New Amsterdam was begun, in 1614. In 1621 the private companies trading in the West were all merged into the Dutch West India Company, and given a monopoly of American trade. This company was very active, sending in four years 15,430 Negroes to Brazil,3carrying on war with Spain, supplying even the English plantations,4and 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.5It was left to the English, with their strong policy in its favor, to develop this trade.

12.Restrictions in New York.6The early ordinances ofthe Dutch, laying duties, generally of ten per cent, on slaves, probably proved burdensome to the trade, although this was not intentional.7The Biblical prohibition of slavery and the slave-trade, copied from New England codes into the Duke of York's Laws, had no practical application,8and the trade continued to be encouraged in the governors' instructions. In 1709 a duty of £3 was laid on Negroes from elsewhere than Africa.9This was aimed at West India slaves, and was prohibitive. By 1716 the duty on all slaves was £1 12½s., which was probably a mere revenue figure.10In 1728 a duty of 40s.was laid, to be continued until 1737.11It proved restrictive, however, and on the "humble petition of the Merchants andTraders of the City of Bristol" was disallowed in 1735, as "greatly prejudicial to the Trade and Navigation of this Kingdom."12Governor Cosby was also reminded that no duties on slaves payable by the importer were to be laid. Later, in 1753, the 40s.duty was restored, but under the increased trade of those days was not felt.13No 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 21,149.15No 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 herfirst Constitution17declared slavery illegal, and in 1786 stopped by law the sale and transportation of slaves within her boundaries.18

13.Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.19One 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 whobuy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"20This 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."21Eventually, however, in 1696, the Yearly Meeting advised "That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more Negroes."22This advice was repeated in stronger terms for a quarter-century,23and 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.24Four 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."25Further, manumission was recommended, and in 1776 made compulsory.26The 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 40s.on slaves, and was eventually disallowed.27In 1712 William Southeby petitioned the Assembly totally to abolish slavery. This the Assembly naturally refused to attempt; but the same year, in response to another petition "signed by many hands," they passed an "Act to prevent the Importation of Negroes and Indians,"28—the first enactment of its kind inAmerica. This act was inspired largely by the general fear of insurrection which succeeded the "Negro-plot" of 1712 in New York. It declared: "Whereas, divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently happened, not only in the Islands but on the Main Land ofAmerica, by Negroes, which have been carried on so far that several of the inhabitants have been barbarously Murthered, an Instance whereof we have lately had in our Neighboring Colony ofNew York,"29etc. It then proceeded to lay a prohibitive duty of £20 on all slaves imported. These acts were quickly disposed of in England. Three duty acts affecting Negroes, including the prohibitory act, were in 1713 disallowed, and it was directed that "the DeptyGovrCouncil and Assembly of Pensilvania, be & they are hereby Strictly Enjoyned & required not to permit the said Laws ... to be from henceforward put in Execution."30The Assembly repealed these laws, but in 1715 passed another laying a duty of £5, which was also eventually disallowed.31Other acts, the provisions of which are not clear, were passed in 1720 and 1722,32and in 1725–1726 the duty on Negroes was raised to the restrictive figure of £10.33This duty, for some reason not apparent, was lowered to £2 in 1729,34but restored again in 1761.35A struggle occurred over this last measure, the Friends petitioning for it, and the Philadelphia merchants against it, declaring that "We, the subscribers, ever desirousto extend the Trade of this Province, have seen, for some time past, the many inconveniencys the Inhabitants have suffer'd for want of Labourers and artificers, ... have for some time encouraged the importation of Negroes;" they prayed therefore at least for a delay in passing the measure.36The law, nevertheless, after much debate and altercation with the governor, finally passed.

These repeated acts nearly stopped the trade, and the manumission or sale of Negroes by the Friends decreased the number of slaves in the province. The rising spirit of independence enabled the colony, in 1773, to restore the prohibitive duty of £20 and make it perpetual.37After the Revolution unpaid duties on slaves were collected and the slaves registered,38and in 1780 an "Act for the gradual Abolition of Slavery" was passed.39As there were probably at no time before the war more than 11,000 slaves in Pennsylvania,40the 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.42This 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 attemptedto prohibit the importation of slaves, but the governor vetoed the bill.43Finally, in 1776 by the Constitution, and in 1787 by law, importation and exportation were both prohibited.44

14.Restrictions in New Jersey.45Although 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,"46yet Negro slaves are early found in the colony.47The first restrictive measure was passed, after considerable friction between the Council and the House, in 1713; it laid a duty of £10, currency.48Governor 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."49How long this act continued does not appear; probably, not long. No further legislation was enacted until 1762 or 1763, when a prohibitive duty was laid on account of "the inconvenience the Province is exposed to in lying open to the free importation of Negros, when the Provinces on each side have laid duties on them."50The 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.51The Act of 1769 evaded the technical objection of the Board of Trade, and laid a duty of £15 on the first purchasers of Negroes, because, as the act declared, "Duties on the Importation of Negroes in several of the neighbouring Colonies hath, on Experience, been found beneficial in the Introduction of sober, industrious Foreigners."52In 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.53Importation 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.

Footnotes1Smith,Generall Historie of Virginia(1626 and 1632), p. 126.2Cf. Southey,History of Brazil.3De Laet, in O'Callaghan,Voyages of the Slavers, etc., p. viii.4See, e.g., Sainsbury,Cal. State Papers; Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574–1660, p. 279.5Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; alsoFreedoms, XXX., in O'Callaghan,Laws of New Netherland, 1638–74(ed. 1868), p. 10; Brodhead,History of New York, I. 312.6The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of New York; details will be found in Appendix A:—1709,Duty Act: £3 on Negroes not direct from Africa (Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).1711,Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.1716,Duty Act:5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.1728,"40s.on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.1732,"40s.on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.1734,"(?)1753,"40s.on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes. (This act was annually continued.)[1777,Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]1785,Sale of slaves in State prohibited.[1786,"in Vermont prohibited.]1788,"in State prohibited.7O'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 ofAfrica, ... in order to fetch thence Slaves": O'Callaghan,Voyages of the Slavers, etc., p. 172.8Charter to William Penn, etc. (1879), p. 12. First published on Long Island in 1664. Possibly Negro slaves were explicitly excepted. Cf.Magazine of American History, XI. 411, andN.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., I. 322.9Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718, pp. 97, 125, 134;Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 178, 185, 293.10The 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, seeActs of Assembly, 1691–1718, p. 224.11Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, VI. 37, 38.12Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, VI. 32–4.13Ibid., VII. 907. This act was annually renewed. The slave duty remained a chief source of revenue down to 1774. Cf.Report of Governor Tryon, inDoc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, VIII. 452.14Laws 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. 676.15The slave population of New York has been estimated as follows:—In1698,2,170.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. 482.16Cf. below, Chapter XI.17Vermont State Papers, 1779–86, p. 244. The return of sixteen slaves in Vermont, by the first census, was an error:New England Record, XXIX. 249.18Vermont State Papers, p. 505.19The 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,"40s.(Disallowed).1712,"£20 "1712,"supplementary to the Act of 1710.1715,"£5 (Disallowed).1718,""1720,"(?).1722,"(?).1725–6,"£10.1726,"1729,"£2.1761,"£10.1761,"(?).1768,"re-enactment of the Act of 1761.1773,"perpetual additional duty of £10; total, £20.1775,Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor (Delaware).1775,Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor.1778,Back duties on slaves ordered collected.1780,Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.1787,Act to prevent the exportation of slaves (Delaware).1788,Act to prevent the slave-trade.20From 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. 219.21From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.22Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem.(1864), I. 383.23Cf. Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, passim.24Janney,History of the Friends, III. 315–7.25Ibid., III. 317.26Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 395.27Penn. Col. Rec.(1852), II. 530; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 415.28Laws of Pennsylvania, collected, etc., 1714, p. 165; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 387.29See preamble of the act.30The 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.31Acts 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. 38.32Carey and Bioren,Laws, I. 165;Penn. Col. Rec., III. 171; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 389, note.33Carey and Bioren,Laws, I. 214; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 388. Possibly there were two acts this year.34Laws of Pennsylvania(ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287. Possibly some change in the currency made this change appear greater than it was.35Carey 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, 641.36Penn. Col. Rec., VIII. 576.37A large petition called for this bill. Much altercation ensued with the governor: Dallas,Laws, I. 671, ch. 692;Penn. Col. Rec., X. 77; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 388–9.38Dallas,Laws, I. 782, ch. 810.39Ibid., I. 838, ch. 881.40There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:—In1721,2,500–5,000.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 597.41Dallas,Laws, II. 586.42Cf.Argonautica Gustaviana, pp. 21–3;Del. Hist. Soc. Papers, III. 10;Hazard's Register, IV. 221, §§ 23, 24;Hazard's Annals, p. 372; Armstrong,Record of Upland Court, pp. 29–30, and notes.43Force,American Archives, 4th Ser., II. 128–9.44Ibid., 5th Ser., I. 1178;Laws of Delaware, 1797(Newcastle ed.), p. 884, ch. 145 b.45The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of New Jersey; details will be found in Appendix A:—1713,Duty Act:£10.1763 (?),Duty Act.1769,"£15.1774,"£5 on Africans, £10 on colonial Negroes.1786,Importation prohibited.46Leaming and Spicer,Grants, Concessions, etc., p. 398. Probably this did not refer to Negroes at all.47Cf. Vincent,History of Delaware, I. 159, 381.48Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703–17(ed. 1717), p. 43.49N.J. Archives, IV. 196. There was much difficulty in passing the bill:Ibid., XIII. 516–41.50Ibid., IX. 345–6. The exact provisions of the act I have not found.51Ibid., IX. 383, 447, 458. Chiefly because the duty was laid on the importer.52Allinson,Acts of Assembly, pp. 315–6.53N.J. Archives, VI. 222.54Acts of the 10th General Assembly, May 2, 1786. There are two estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:—In1738,3,981.American Annals,II. 127."1754,4,606."II. 143.

1Smith,Generall Historie of Virginia(1626 and 1632), p. 126.

2Cf. Southey,History of Brazil.

3De Laet, in O'Callaghan,Voyages of the Slavers, etc., p. viii.

4See, e.g., Sainsbury,Cal. State Papers; Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574–1660, p. 279.

5Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; alsoFreedoms, XXX., in O'Callaghan,Laws of New Netherland, 1638–74(ed. 1868), p. 10; Brodhead,History of New York, I. 312.

6The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of New York; details will be found in Appendix A:—1709,Duty Act: £3 on Negroes not direct from Africa (Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).1711,Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.1716,Duty Act:5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.1728,"40s.on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.1732,"40s.on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.1734,"(?)1753,"40s.on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes. (This act was annually continued.)[1777,Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]1785,Sale of slaves in State prohibited.[1786,"in Vermont prohibited.]1788,"in State prohibited.

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

7O'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 ofAfrica, ... in order to fetch thence Slaves": O'Callaghan,Voyages of the Slavers, etc., p. 172.

8Charter to William Penn, etc. (1879), p. 12. First published on Long Island in 1664. Possibly Negro slaves were explicitly excepted. Cf.Magazine of American History, XI. 411, andN.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll., I. 322.

9Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718, pp. 97, 125, 134;Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 178, 185, 293.

10The 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, seeActs of Assembly, 1691–1718, p. 224.

11Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, VI. 37, 38.

12Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, VI. 32–4.

13Ibid., VII. 907. This act was annually renewed. The slave duty remained a chief source of revenue down to 1774. Cf.Report of Governor Tryon, inDoc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, VIII. 452.

14Laws 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.

15The slave population of New York has been estimated as follows:—In1698,2,170.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.

15The slave population of New York has been estimated as follows:—

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.

16Cf. below, Chapter XI.

17Vermont 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.

18Vermont State Papers, p. 505.

19The 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,"40s.(Disallowed).1712,"£20 "1712,"supplementary to the Act of 1710.1715,"£5 (Disallowed).1718,""1720,"(?).1722,"(?).1725–6,"£10.1726,"1729,"£2.1761,"£10.1761,"(?).1768,"re-enactment of the Act of 1761.1773,"perpetual additional duty of £10; total, £20.1775,Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor (Delaware).1775,Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor.1778,Back duties on slaves ordered collected.1780,Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.1787,Act to prevent the exportation of slaves (Delaware).1788,Act to prevent the slave-trade.

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

20From 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.

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

22Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem.(1864), I. 383.

23Cf. Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, passim.

24Janney,History of the Friends, III. 315–7.

25Ibid., III. 317.

26Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 395.

27Penn. Col. Rec.(1852), II. 530; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 415.

28Laws of Pennsylvania, collected, etc., 1714, p. 165; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 387.

29See preamble of the act.

30The 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.

31Acts 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.

32Carey and Bioren,Laws, I. 165;Penn. Col. Rec., III. 171; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 389, note.

33Carey and Bioren,Laws, I. 214; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 388. Possibly there were two acts this year.

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

35Carey 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.

36Penn. Col. Rec., VIII. 576.

37A large petition called for this bill. Much altercation ensued with the governor: Dallas,Laws, I. 671, ch. 692;Penn. Col. Rec., X. 77; Bettle, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem., I. 388–9.

38Dallas,Laws, I. 782, ch. 810.

39Ibid., I. 838, ch. 881.

40There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:—In1721,2,500–5,000.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.

40There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:—

41Dallas,Laws, II. 586.

42Cf.Argonautica Gustaviana, pp. 21–3;Del. Hist. Soc. Papers, III. 10;Hazard's Register, IV. 221, §§ 23, 24;Hazard's Annals, p. 372; Armstrong,Record of Upland Court, pp. 29–30, and notes.

43Force,American Archives, 4th Ser., II. 128–9.

44Ibid., 5th Ser., I. 1178;Laws of Delaware, 1797(Newcastle ed.), p. 884, ch. 145 b.

45The following is a summary of the legislation of the colony of New Jersey; details will be found in Appendix A:—1713,Duty Act:£10.1763 (?),Duty Act.1769,"£15.1774,"£5 on Africans, £10 on colonial Negroes.1786,Importation prohibited.

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

46Leaming and Spicer,Grants, Concessions, etc., p. 398. Probably this did not refer to Negroes at all.

47Cf. Vincent,History of Delaware, I. 159, 381.

48Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703–17(ed. 1717), p. 43.

49N.J. Archives, IV. 196. There was much difficulty in passing the bill:Ibid., XIII. 516–41.

50Ibid., IX. 345–6. The exact provisions of the act I have not found.

51Ibid., IX. 383, 447, 458. Chiefly because the duty was laid on the importer.

52Allinson,Acts of Assembly, pp. 315–6.

53N.J. Archives, VI. 222.

54Acts of the 10th General Assembly, May 2, 1786. There are two estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:—In1738,3,981.American Annals,II. 127."1754,4,606."II. 143.

54Acts of the 10th General Assembly, May 2, 1786. There are two estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:—

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,1Rhode Island,2Connecticut,3and, to a less extent, from New Hampshire,4were 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 andhome. Some of the slaves purchased in Guinea, and I suppose the greatest part of them, were sold in the West Indies."5Dr. John Eliot asserted that "it made a considerable branch of our commerce.... It declined very little till the Revolution."6Yet 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.7Connecticut, 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.8Thus, 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.9In Newport alone twenty-two stillswere at one time running continuously;10and 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.12In 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.13Consequently, 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 MajtiesInstruction relating to an Impost on Negroes & Felons, to which this House answers, that there never was any duties laid on either, by this Govermt, and so few bro't inthat it would not be worth the Publick notice, so as to make an act concerning them."14This 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 1784.15The 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."16The stern Puritanism of early days endeavored to carry this out literally, and consequently when a certain Captain Smith, about 1640, attacked an African village and brought some of the unoffending natives home, he was promptly arrested. Eventually, the General Court ordered the Negroes sent home at the colony's expense, "conceiving themselues bound by yefirst oportunity to bear witnes against yehaynos & crying sinn of manstealing, as also to P'scribe such timely redresse for what is past, & such a law for yefuture as may sufficiently deterr all othrs belonging to us to have to do in such vile & most odious courses, iustly abhored of all good & iust men."17

The temptation of trade slowly forced the colony from this high moral ground. New England ships were early found in the West Indian slave-trade, and the more the carrying trade developed, the more did the profits of this branch of it attract Puritan captains. By the beginning of the eighteenth century the slave-trade was openly recognized as legitimate commerce; cargoes came regularly to Boston, and "The merchants of Boston quoted negroes, like any other merchandise demanded by their correspondents."18At the same time, the Puritan conscience began to rebel against the growth of actual slavery on New England soil. It was a much less violent wrenching of moral ideas of right and wrong to allow Massachusetts men to carry slaves to South Carolina than to allow cargoes to come into Boston, and become slaves in Massachusetts. Early in the eighteenth century, therefore, opposition arose to the further importation of Negroes, and in 1705 an act "for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," laid a restrictive duty of £4 on all slaves imported.19One provision of this act plainly illustrates the attitude of Massachusetts: like the acts of many of the New England colonies, it allowed a rebate of the whole duty on re-exportation. The harbors of New England were thus offered as a free exchange-mart for slavers. All the duty acts of the Southern and Middle colonies allowed a rebate of one-half or three-fourths of the duty on the re-exportation of the slave, thus laying a small tax on even temporary importation.

The Act of 1705 was evaded, but it was not amended until 1728, when the penalty for evasion was raised to £100.20The 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.21In 1771 the struggle was renewed. A similar bill passed, but was vetoed by Governor Hutchinson.22The imminent war and the discussions incident to it had now more and more aroused public opinion, and there were repeated attempts to gain executive consent to a prohibitory law. In 1774 such a bill was twice passed, but never received assent.23

The new Revolutionary government first met the subject in the case of two Negroes captured on the high seas, who were advertised for sale at Salem. A resolution was introduced into the Legislature, directing the release of the Negroes, and declaring "That the selling and enslaving the human species is a direct violation of the natural rights alike vested in all men by their Creator, and utterly inconsistent with the avowed principles on which this, and the other United States, have carried their struggle for liberty even to the last appeal." To this the Council would not consent; and the resolution, as finally passed, merely forbade the sale or ill-treatment of the Negroes.24Committees on the slavery question were appointed in 1776 and 1777,25and although a letter to Congress on the matter, and a bill for the abolition of slavery were reported, no decisive action was taken.

Back to Index Next