Footnotes

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.26The 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.27No act was, however, passed until 1788, when participation in the trade was prohibited, on pain of £50 forfeit for every slave and £200 for every ship engaged.28

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

This law was for a time enforced,30but by the beginning of the eighteenth century it had either been repealed or become a dead letter; for the Act of 1708 recognized perpetual slavery, and laid an impost of £3 on Negroes imported.31This duty was really a tax on the transport trade, and produced a steadyincome for twenty years.32From 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.33They took out lumber and brought back molasses, in most cases making a slave voyage in between. From this, the trade grew. Samuel Hopkins, about 1770, was shocked at the state of the trade: more than thirty distilleries were running in the colony, and one hundred and fifty vessels were in the slave-trade.34"Rhode Island," said he, "has been more deeply interested in the slave-trade, and has enslaved more Africans than any other colony in New England." Later, in 1787, he wrote: "The inhabitants of Rhode Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the greater share in this traffic, of all these United States. This trade in human species has been the first wheel of commerce in Newport, on which every other movement in business has chiefly depended. That town has been built up, and flourished in times past, at the expense of the blood, the liberty, and happiness of the poor Africans; and the inhabitants have lived on this, and by it have gotten most of their wealth and riches."35

The Act of 1708 was poorly enforced. The "good intentions" of its framers "were wholly frustrated" by the clandestine "hiding and conveying said negroes out of the town [Newport] into the country, where they lie concealed."36The act was accordingly strengthened by the Acts of 1712 and 1715, and made to apply to importations by land as well as by sea.37The Act of 1715, however, favored the trade by admittingAfrican Negroes free of duty. The chaotic state of Rhode Island did not allow England often to review her legislation; but as soon as the Act of 1712 came to notice it was disallowed, and accordingly repealed in 1732.38Whether 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.39Four 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.40This movement finally resulted, in 1774, in an act "prohibiting the importation of Negroes into this Colony,"—a law which curiously illustrated the attitude of Rhode Island toward the slave-trade. The preamble of the act declared: "Whereas, the inhabitants of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights and liberties, among which, that of personal freedom must be considered as the greatest; as those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves, should be willing to extend personal liberty to others;—Therefore," etc. The statute then proceeded to enact "that for the future, no negro or mulatto slave shall be brought into this colony; and in case any slave shall hereafter be brought in, he or she shall be, and are hereby, rendered immediately free...." The logical ending of such an act would have been a clause prohibiting the participation of Rhode Island citizens in the slave-trade. Not only was such a clause omitted, but the following was inserted instead: "Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto slave brought from the coast of Africa, into the West Indies,on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and which negro or mulatto slave could not be disposed of in the West Indies, but shall be brought into this colony. Provided, that the owner of such negro or mulatto slave give bond ... that such negro or mulatto slave shall be exported out of the colony, within one year from the date of such bond; if such negro or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to be removed."41

In 1779 an act to prevent the sale of slaves out of the State was passed,42and in 1784, an act gradually to abolish slavery.43Not until 1787 did an act pass to forbid participation in the slave-trade. This law laid a penalty of £100 for every slave transported and £1000 for every vessel so engaged.44

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

The actual importation was small,46and almost entirely unrestricted before the Revolution, save by a few light, general duty acts. In 1774 the further importation of slaves was prohibited, because "the increase of slaves in this Colony is injurious to the poor and inconvenient." The law prohibited importation under any pretext by a penalty of £100 per slave.47This was re-enacted in 1784, and provisions were made for the abolition of slavery.48In 1788 participation in the trade was forbidden, and the penalty placed at £50 for each slave and £500 for each ship engaged.49

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

Footnotes1Cf. Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 449–72; G.H. Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts; Charles Deane,Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery.2Cf.American Historical Record, I. 311, 338.3Cf. W.C. Fowler,Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc., pp. 122–6.4Ibid., p. 124.5Deane,Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts, inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 5th Ser., III. 392.6Ibid., III. 382.7Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 454.8A typical voyage is that of the brigantine "Sanderson" of Newport. She was fitted out in March, 1752, and carried, beside the captain, two mates and six men, and a cargo of 8,220 gallons of rum, together with "African" iron, flour, pots, tar, sugar, and provisions, shackles, shirts, and water. Proceeding to Africa, the captain after some difficulty sold his cargo for slaves, and in April, 1753, he is expected in Barbadoes, as the consignees write. They also state that slaves are selling at £33 to £56 per head in lots. After a stormy and dangerous voyage, Captain Lindsay arrived, June 17, 1753, with fifty-six slaves, "all in helth & fatt." He also had 40 oz. of gold dust, and 8 or 9 cwt. of pepper. The net proceeds of the sale of all this was £1,324 3d.The captain then took on board 55 hhd. of molasses and 3 hhd. 27 bbl. of sugar, amounting to £911 77s.2½d., 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, 338–42.9Ibid., I. 316.10American Historical Record, I. 317.11Ibid., I. 344; cf. Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 459.12Cf.New England Register, XXXI. 75–6, letter of John Saffinet al.to Welstead. Cf. also Sewall,Protest, etc.13The number of slaves in New Hampshire has been estimated as follows:In1730,200.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.14N.H. Province Papers, IV. 617.15Granite Monthly, VI. 377; Poore,Federal and State Constitutions, pp. 1280–1.16Cf.The Body of Liberties, § 91, in Whitmore,Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony, published at Boston in 1890.17Mass. Col. Rec., II. 168, 176; III. 46, 49, 84.18Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 456.19Mass. Province Laws, 1705–6, ch. 10.20Ibid.,1728–9, ch. 16;1738–9, ch. 27.21For 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, seeHouse 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. 170.22House Journal, 1771, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236, 240, 242–3; Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 131–2.23Felt,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, inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 5th Ser., III. 432; Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 135–40; Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 234–6;House Journal, March, 1774, pp. 224, 226, 237, etc.; June, 1774, pp. 27, 41, etc. For a copy of the bill, see Moore.24Mass. 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. 163–76.25Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 148–9, 181–5.26Washburn,Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts; Haynes,Struggle for the Constitution in Massachusetts; La Rochefoucauld,Travels through the United States, II. 166.27Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, p. 225.28Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89, p. 235. The number of slaves in Massachusetts has been estimated as follows:—In1676,200.Randolph'sReport, inHutchinson'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.29R.I. Col. Rec., I. 240.30Cf. letter written in 1681:New England Register, XXXI. 75–6. Cf. also Arnold,History of Rhode Island, I. 240.31The 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.32E.g., it was expended to pave the streets of Newport, to build bridges, etc.:R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 191–3, 225.33Ibid., IV. 55–60.34Patten,Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins(1843), p. 80.35Hopkins,Works(1854), II. 615.36Preamble of the Act of 1712.37R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 131–5, 138, 143, 191–3.38R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 471.39Arnold,History of Rhode Island, II. 304, 321, 337. For a probable copy of the bill, seeNarragansett Historical Register, II. 299.40A 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. 236.41R.I. Col. Rec., VII. 251–2.42Bartlett's Index, p. 329; Arnold,History of Rhode Island, II. 444;R.I. Col. Rec., VIII. 618.43R.I. Col. Rec., X. 7–8; Arnold,History of Rhode Island, II. 506.44Bartlett's Index, p. 333;Narragansett Historical Register, II. 298–9. The number of slaves in Rhode Island has been estimated as follows:—In1708,426.R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 59."1730,1,648.R.I. Hist. Tracts, No. 19, pt. 2, p. 99."1749,3,077.Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 281."1756,4,697.Ibid."1774,3,761.R.I. Col. Rec., VII. 253.45Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 124.46The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as follows:—In1680,30.Conn. Col. Rec., III. 298."1730,700.Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 259."1756,3,636.Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 140."1762,4,590.Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 260."1774,6,562.Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 140."1782,6,281.Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 140."1800,5,281.Ibid., p. 141.47Conn. 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; alsoCol. Rec., I. 77. For general duty acts, seeCol. Rec., V 405; VIII. 22; IX. 283; XIII. 72, 125.48Acts and Laws of Connecticut(ed. 1784), pp. 233–4.49Ibid., pp. 368, 369, 388.

1Cf. Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 449–72; G.H. Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts; Charles Deane,Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery.

2Cf.American Historical Record, I. 311, 338.

3Cf. W.C. Fowler,Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc., pp. 122–6.

4Ibid., p. 124.

5Deane,Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in Massachusetts, inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 5th Ser., III. 392.

6Ibid., III. 382.

7Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 454.

8A typical voyage is that of the brigantine "Sanderson" of Newport. She was fitted out in March, 1752, and carried, beside the captain, two mates and six men, and a cargo of 8,220 gallons of rum, together with "African" iron, flour, pots, tar, sugar, and provisions, shackles, shirts, and water. Proceeding to Africa, the captain after some difficulty sold his cargo for slaves, and in April, 1753, he is expected in Barbadoes, as the consignees write. They also state that slaves are selling at £33 to £56 per head in lots. After a stormy and dangerous voyage, Captain Lindsay arrived, June 17, 1753, with fifty-six slaves, "all in helth & fatt." He also had 40 oz. of gold dust, and 8 or 9 cwt. of pepper. The net proceeds of the sale of all this was £1,324 3d.The captain then took on board 55 hhd. of molasses and 3 hhd. 27 bbl. of sugar, amounting to £911 77s.2½d., 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.

9Ibid., I. 316.

10American Historical Record, I. 317.

11Ibid., I. 344; cf. Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 459.

12Cf.New England Register, XXXI. 75–6, letter of John Saffinet al.to Welstead. Cf. also Sewall,Protest, etc.

13The number of slaves in New Hampshire has been estimated as follows:In1730,200.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.

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

14N.H. Province Papers, IV. 617.

15Granite Monthly, VI. 377; Poore,Federal and State Constitutions, pp. 1280–1.

16Cf.The Body of Liberties, § 91, in Whitmore,Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts Colony, published at Boston in 1890.

17Mass. Col. Rec., II. 168, 176; III. 46, 49, 84.

18Weeden,Economic and Social History of New England, II. 456.

19Mass. Province Laws, 1705–6, ch. 10.

20Ibid.,1728–9, ch. 16;1738–9, ch. 27.

21For 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, seeHouse 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.

22House Journal, 1771, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236, 240, 242–3; Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 131–2.

23Felt,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, inMass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 5th Ser., III. 432; Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 135–40; Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 234–6;House Journal, March, 1774, pp. 224, 226, 237, etc.; June, 1774, pp. 27, 41, etc. For a copy of the bill, see Moore.

24Mass. 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.

25Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, pp. 148–9, 181–5.

26Washburn,Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts; Haynes,Struggle for the Constitution in Massachusetts; La Rochefoucauld,Travels through the United States, II. 166.

27Moore,Slavery in Massachusetts, p. 225.

28Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89, p. 235. The number of slaves in Massachusetts has been estimated as follows:—In1676,200.Randolph'sReport, inHutchinson'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.

28Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780–89, p. 235. The number of slaves in Massachusetts has been estimated as follows:—

29R.I. Col. Rec., I. 240.

30Cf. letter written in 1681:New England Register, XXXI. 75–6. Cf. also Arnold,History of Rhode Island, I. 240.

31The 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.

32E.g., it was expended to pave the streets of Newport, to build bridges, etc.:R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 191–3, 225.

33Ibid., IV. 55–60.

34Patten,Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins(1843), p. 80.

35Hopkins,Works(1854), II. 615.

36Preamble of the Act of 1712.

37R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 131–5, 138, 143, 191–3.

38R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 471.

39Arnold,History of Rhode Island, II. 304, 321, 337. For a probable copy of the bill, seeNarragansett Historical Register, II. 299.

40A 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.

41R.I. Col. Rec., VII. 251–2.

42Bartlett's Index, p. 329; Arnold,History of Rhode Island, II. 444;R.I. Col. Rec., VIII. 618.

43R.I. Col. Rec., X. 7–8; Arnold,History of Rhode Island, II. 506.

44Bartlett's Index, p. 333;Narragansett Historical Register, II. 298–9. The number of slaves in Rhode Island has been estimated as follows:—In1708,426.R.I. Col. Rec., IV. 59."1730,1,648.R.I. Hist. Tracts, No. 19, pt. 2, p. 99."1749,3,077.Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 281."1756,4,697.Ibid."1774,3,761.R.I. Col. Rec., VII. 253.

44Bartlett's Index, p. 333;Narragansett Historical Register, II. 298–9. The number of slaves in Rhode Island has been estimated as follows:—

45Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 124.

46The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as follows:—In1680,30.Conn. Col. Rec., III. 298."1730,700.Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 259."1756,3,636.Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 140."1762,4,590.Williams,History of the Negro Race in America, I. 260."1774,6,562.Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 140."1782,6,281.Fowler,Local Law, etc., p. 140."1800,5,281.Ibid., p. 141.

46The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as follows:—

47Conn. 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; alsoCol. Rec., I. 77. For general duty acts, seeCol. Rec., V 405; VIII. 22; IX. 283; XIII. 72, 125.

48Acts and Laws of Connecticut(ed. 1784), pp. 233–4.

49Ibid., pp. 368, 369, 388.

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

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

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

24.The Condition of the Slave-Trade.In 1760 England, the chief slave-trading nation, was sending on an average to Africa 163 ships annually, with a tonnage of 18,000 tons, carrying exports to the value of £163,818. Only about twenty of these ships regularly returned to England. Most of them carried slaves to the West Indies, and returned laden with sugar and other products. Thus may be formed some idea of the size and importance of the slave-trade at that time, although for a complete view we must add to this the trade under the French, Portuguese, Dutch, and Americans. The trade fell off somewhat toward 1770, but was flourishing again when the Revolution brought a sharp and serious check upon it,bringing down the number of English slavers, clearing, from 167 in 1774 to 28 in 1779, and the tonnage from 17,218 to 3,475 tons. After the war the trade gradually recovered, and by 1786 had reached nearly its former extent. In 1783 the British West Indies received 16,208 Negroes from Africa, and by 1787 the importation had increased to 21,023. In this latter year it was estimated that the British were taking annually from Africa 38,000 slaves; the French, 20,000; the Portuguese, 10,000; the Dutch and Danes, 6,000; a total of 74,000. Manchester alone sent £180,000 annually in goods to Africa in exchange for Negroes.1

25.The Slave-Trade and the "Association."At the outbreak of the Revolution six main reasons, some of which were old and of slow growth, others peculiar to the abnormal situation of that time, led to concerted action against the slave-trade. The first reason was the economic failure of slavery in the Middle and Eastern colonies; this gave rise to the presumption that like failure awaited the institution in the South. Secondly, the new philosophy of "Freedom" and the "Rights of man," which formed the corner-stone of the Revolution, made the dullest realize that, at the very least, the slave-trade and a struggle for "liberty" were not consistent. Thirdly, the old fear of slave insurrections, which had long played so prominent a part in legislation, now gained new power from the imminence of war and from the well-founded fear that the British might incite servile uprisings. Fourthly, nearly all the American slave markets were, in 1774–1775, overstocked with slaves, and consequently many of the strongest partisans of the system were "bulls" on the market, and desired to raise the value of their slaves by at least a temporary stoppage of the trade. Fifthly, since the vested interests of the slave-trading merchants were liable to be swept away by the opening of hostilities, and since the price of slaves was low,2there 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 ofcolonial 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."4Later, 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."5North 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 ofNovembernext."6Virginia gave the slave-trade especial prominence, and was in reality theleading 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."7Prince George and Nansemond Counties resolved "That theAfricantrade is injurious to this Colony, obstructs the population of it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants fromEuropefrom settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of the balance of trade against this Colony."8The 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 ofNovembernext, either fromAfrica, theWest 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.11On September 27 "Mr. Lee made a motion for a non-importation," and it was unanimously resolved toimport no goods from Great Britain after December 1, 1774.12Afterward, 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."13The next move was to instruct this committee to include in the proscribed articles, among other things, "Molasses, Coffee or Piemento from theBritishPlantations or fromDominica,"—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 ofDecembernext; after which Time, we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our Vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it."15

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

28.Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.The unanimity with which the colonists received this "Association" is not perhaps as remarkable as the almost entire absence of comment on the radical slave-trade clause. A Connecticut town-meeting in December, 1774, noticed "with singular pleasure ... the second Article of the Association, in which it is agreed to import no more Negro Slaves."16This 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.17This 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 inAmerica"18yet 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."19Thus 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."20The 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,"21and 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 atSavannah(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 toQuebec,Nova-Scotia, the Island ofSt. John's,Newfoundland,Georgia, except the Parish ofSt. John's, and toEastandWest Florida, immediately cease."23These 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."25In 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 ofBritish Americamay be publickly known ... as the enemies ofAmericanLiberty, 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 somehesitancy 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."27This 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."28The prices of slaves rose correspondingly high, so that smugglers made fortunes.29It is stated that in the years 1772–1778 slave merchants of Liverpool failed for the sum of £710,000.30All 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 ofinfidelpowers, is the warfare of theChristianking of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market wheremenshould 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 thelibertiesof one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against thelivesof 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.33Just how large the trade to the continent was at this time there are few means of ascertaining; it is certain that there was a general reopening of the trade in the Carolinas and Georgia, and that the New England traders participated in it. This traffic undoubtedly reached considerable proportions; and through the direct African trade and the illicit West India trade many thousands of Negroes came into the United States during the years 1783–1787.34

Meantime there was slowly arising a significant divergence of opinion on the subject. Probably the whole country still regarded both slavery and the slave-trade as temporary; but the Middle States expected to see the abolition of both within a generation, while the South scarcely thought it probable to prohibit even the slave-trade in that short time. Such a difference might, in all probability, have been satisfactorily adjusted, if both parties had recognized the real gravity of the matter. As it was, both regarded it as a problem of secondary importance, to be solved after many other more pressing oneshad 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 oflaissez-faire, laissez-passer.

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

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

On Tuesday, October 3, 1783, a deputation from the Yearly Meeting of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware Friends asked leave to present a petition. Leave was granted the following day,37but no further minute appears. According to the report of the Friends, the petition was against theslave-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.39Before 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.

Back to Index Next