Footnotes

Footnotes1House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 468.2Cf. below, § 59.3Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.4There were at least twelve distinct propositions as to the disposal of the Africans imported:—1. That they be forfeited and sold by the United States at auction (Early's bill, reported Dec. 15:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167–8).2. That they be forfeited and left to the disposal of the States (proposed by Bidwell and Early:Ibid., pp. 181, 221, 477. This was the final settlement.)3. That they be forfeited and sold, and that the proceeds go to charities, education, or internal improvements (Early, Holland, and Masters:Ibid., p. 273).4. That they be forfeited and indentured for life (Alston and Bidwell:Ibid., pp. 170–1).5. That they be forfeited and indentured for 7, 8, or 10 years (Pitkin:Ibid., p. 186).6. That they be forfeited and given into the custody of the President, and by him indentured in free States for a term of years (bill reported from the Senate Jan. 28:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 575;Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 477. Cf. alsoIbid., p. 272).7. That the Secretary of the Treasury dispose of them, at his discretion, in service (Quincy:Ibid., p. 183).8. That those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or bound out in free States (Sloan:Ibid., p. 254).9. That all be sent back to Africa (Smilie:Ibid., p. 176).10. That those imported into free States be free, those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or indentured (Sloan:Ibid., p. 226).11. That they be forfeited but not sold (Sloan and others:Ibid., p. 270).12. That they be free (Sloan:Ibid., p. 168; Bidwell:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 515).5Bidwell, Cook, and others:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 201.6Bidwell:Ibid., p. 172.7Fisk:Ibid., pp. 224–5; Bidwell:Ibid., p. 221.8Quincy:Ibid., p. 184.9Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 478; Bidwell:Ibid., p. 171.10Ibid., p. 172.11Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 173–4.12Alston:Ibid., p. 170.13D.R. Williams:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 183.14Early:Ibid., pp. 184–5.15Lloyd, Early, and others:Ibid., p. 203.16Alston:Ibid., p. 170.17Quincy:Ibid., p. 222; Macon:Ibid., p. 225.18Macon:Ibid., p. 177.19Barker:Ibid., p. 171; Bidwell:Ibid., p. 172.20Clay, Alston, and Early:Ibid., p. 266.21Clay, Alston, and Early:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 266.22Bidwell:Ibid., p. 221.23Sloan and others:Ibid., p. 271; Early and Alston:Ibid., pp. 168, 171.24Ely, Bidwell, and others:Ibid., pp. 179, 181, 271; Smilie and Findley:Ibid., pp. 225, 226.25Ibid., p. 240. Cf. Lloyd:Ibid., p. 236.26Holland:Ibid., p. 241.27Ibid., p. 227; Macon:Ibid., p. 225.28Bidwell, Cook, and others:Ibid., p. 201.29Bidwell:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 221. Cf.Ibid., p. 202.30Early:Ibid., p. 239.31Ibid.32Ibid., p. 1267.33There were about six distinct punishments suggested:—1. Forfeiture, and fine of $5000 to $10,000 (Early's bill:Ibid., p. 167).2. Forfeiture and imprisonment (amendment to Senate bill:Ibid., pp. 231, 477, 483).3. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and fine of $1000 to $10,000 (amendment to amendment of Senate bill:Ibid., pp. 228, 483).4. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 40 years, and fine of $1000 to $10,000 (Chandler's amendment:Ibid., p. 228).5. Forfeiture of all property, and imprisonment (Pitkin:Ibid., p. 188).6. Death (Smilie:Ibid., pp. 189–90; bill reported to House, Dec. 19:Ibid., p. 190; Senate bill as reported to House, Jan. 28).34Smilie:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 189–90.35Tallmadge:Ibid., p. 233; Olin:Ibid., p. 237.36Ely:Ibid., p. 237.37Smilie:Ibid., p. 236. Cf. Sloan:Ibid., p. 232.38Hastings:Ibid., p. 228.39Dwight:Ibid., p. 241; Ely:Ibid., p. 232.40Mosely:Ibid., pp. 234–5.41Tallmadge:Ibid., pp. 232, 234. Cf. Dwight:Ibid., p. 241.42Varnum:Ibid., p. 243.43Elmer:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 235.44Ibid., p. 240.45Holland:Ibid., p. 240.46Early:Ibid., pp. 238–9; Holland:Ibid., p. 239.47Ibid., p. 233. Cf. Lloyd:Ibid., p. 237; Ely:Ibid., p. 232; Early:Ibid., pp. 238–9.48Ibid., p. 484.49This was the provision of the Senate bill as reported to the House. It was over the House amendment to this that the Houses disagreed. Cf.Ibid., p. 484.50Cf.Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 527–8.51Ibid., p. 528.52Ibid., p. 626.53Ibid.54Ibid.55Ibid., pp. 636–8;House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 616, and House Bill No. 219;Ibid., 10 Cong. 1 sess. VI. 27, 50;Annals of Cong., 10 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 854–5, 961.56On account of the meagre records it is difficult to follow the course of this bill. I have pieced together information from various sources, and trust that this account is approximately correct.57Cf.Senate Journal(repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 2 sess. IV., Senate Bill No. 41.58Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438. Cf. above, § 53.59This amendment of the Committee of the Whole was adopted by a vote of 63 to 53. The New England States stood 3 to 2 for the death penalty; the Middle States were evenly divided, 3 and 3; and the South stood 5 to 0 against it, with Kentucky evenly divided. Cf.House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 504.60Ibid., V. 514–5.61The substitution of the Senate bill was a victory for the anti-slavery party, as all battles had to be fought again. The Southern party, however, succeeded in carrying all its amendments.62Messrs. Betton of New Hampshire, Chittenden of Vermont, Garnett and Trigg of Virginia, and D.R. Williams of South Carolina voted against the bill:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 585–6.63Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 626–7.64The unassigned dates refer to debates, etc. The history of the amendments and debates on the measure may be traced in the following references:—Senate(Bill No. 41).Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 20–1; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 16, 19, 23, 33, 36, 45, 47, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 87, 93, etc.Senate Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 sess. IV. 11, 112, 123, 124, 132, 133, 150, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168, etc.House(Bill No. 148).Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 114, 151, 167–8, 173–4, 180, 183, 189, 200, 202–4, 220, 228, 231, 240, 254, 264, 266–7, 270, 273, 373, 427, 477, 481, 484–6, 527, 528, etc.House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 sess. V. 470, 482, 488, 490, 491, 496, 500, 504, 510, 513–6, 517, 540, 557, 575, 579, 581, 583–4, 585, 592, 594, 610, 613–5, 623, 638, 640, etc.65Statutes at Large, II. 426. There were some few attempts to obtain laws of relief from this bill: see, e.g.,Annals of Cong., 10 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1243; 11 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 34, 36–9, 41, 43, 48, 49, 380, 465, 688, 706, 2209;House Journal(repr. 1826), II Cong. 1–2 sess. VII. 100, 102, 124, etc., and Index, Senate Bill No. 8. Cf.Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 269. There was also one proposed amendment to make the prohibition perpetual:Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, I. No. 244.66Toulmin,Digest of the Laws of Alabama, p. 637.67Laws of North Carolina(revision of 1819), II. 1350.68Prince,Digest, p. 793.69Fowler,Historical Status of the Negro in Connecticut, inLocal Law, etc., pp. 122, 126.70House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 32.71House Journal(repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p. 435.72House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, p. 5.73See, e.g.,House Journal(repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p. 575.74Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, p. 51. Parts of this narrative are highly colored and untrustworthy; this passage, however, has every earmark of truth, and is confirmed by many incidental allusions.75For accounts of these slavers, seeHouse Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 30–50. The "Paz" was an armed slaver flying the American flag.76Said to be owned by an Englishman, but fitted in America and manned by Americans. It was eventually captured by H.M.S. "Bann," after a hard fight.77Also called Spanish schooner "Triumvirate," with American supercargo, Spanish captain, and American, French, Spanish, and English crew. It was finally captured by a British vessel.78An American slaver of 1814, which was boarded by a British vessel. All the above cases, and many others, were proven before British courts.79House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 51.80House Doc., 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 22, 38. This slaver was after capture sent to New Orleans,—an illustration of the irony of the Act of 1807.81House Journal, 14 Cong. 2 sess. p. 15.82House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 36, p. 5.83Ibid., 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 8–14. See Chew's letter of Oct. 17, 1817:Ibid., pp. 14–16.84By the secret Joint Resolution and Act of 1811 (Statutes at Large, III. 471), Congress gave the President power to suppress the Amelia Island establishment, which was then notorious. The capture was not accomplished until 1817.85House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 10–11. Cf. Report of the House Committee, Jan. 10, 1818: "It is but too notorious that numerous infractions of the law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States have been perpetrated with impunity upon our southern frontier."Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 441.86Special message of Jan. 13, 1818:House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 137–9.87Collector McIntosh, of the District of Brunswick, Ga., to the Secretary of the Treasury.House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 8–9.88House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 6–7.89Ibid., pp. 11–12.90Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 529.91House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 7.92Ibid., p. 6.93House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 82.94They were not general instructions, but were directed to Commander Campbell. Cf.House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, pp. 5–6.95Statutes at Large, III. 471 ff.96House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8–9.97Ibid., IV. No. 84. Cf. Chew's letters inHouse Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348.98House Doc., 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 22, 38; 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 100, p. 13; 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 9, etc.;House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 85.99House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8–9.100House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 77.101Cf.House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 11: "The Grand Jury found true bills against the owners of the vessels, masters, and a supercargo—all of whom are discharged; why or wherefore I cannot say, except that it could not be for want of proof against them."102E.g., in July, 1818, one informer "will have to leave that part of the country to save his life":Ibid., 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 100, p. 9.103Joseph Nourse, Register of the Treasury, to Hon. W.H. Crawford, Secretary of the Treasury:Ibid., 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, p. 5.104The slaves on the "Constitution" were not condemned, for the technical reason that she was not captured by a commissioned officer of the United States navy.105These proceedings are very obscure, and little was said about them. The Spanish claimants were, it was alleged with much probability, but representatives of Americans. The claim was paid under the provisions of the Treaty of Florida, and included slaves whom the court afterward declared forfeited.106An act to relieve him was finally passed, Feb. 8, 1827, nine years after the capture. SeeStatutes at Large, VI. 357.107It is difficult to get at the exact facts in this complicated case. The above statement is, I think, much milder than the real facts would warrant, if thoroughly known. Cf.House Reports, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, pp. 62–3, etc.; 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 209;Amer. State Papers, Naval, II. No. 308.108The first method, represented by the Act of 1818, was favored by the South, the Senate, and the Democrats; the second method, represented by the Act of 1819, by the North, the House, and by the as yet undeveloped but growing Whig party.109Committees on the slave-trade were appointed by the House in 1810 and 1813; the committee of 1813 recommended a revision of the laws, but nothing was done:Annals of Cong., 11 Cong. 3 sess. p. 387; 12 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1074, 1090. The presidential message of 1816 led to committees on the trade in both Houses. The committee of the House of Representatives reported a joint resolution on abolishing the traffic and colonizing the Negroes, also looking toward international action. This never came to a vote:Senate Journal, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 46, 179, 180;House Journal, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 25, 27, 380;House Doc, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77. Finally, the presidential message of 1817 (House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 11), announcing the issuance of orders to suppress the Amelia Island establishment, led to two other committees in both Houses. The House committee under Middleton made a report with a bill (Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 441), and the Senate committee also reported a bill.110The Senate debates were entirely unreported, and the report of the House debates is very meagre. For the proceedings, seeSenate Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 243, 304, 315, 333, 338, 340, 348, 377, 386, 388, 391, 403, 406;House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 19, 20, 29, 51, 92, 131, 362, 410, 450, 452, 456, 468, 479, 484, 492, 505.111Simkins of South Carolina, Edwards of North Carolina, and Pindall:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.112Hugh Nelson of Virginia:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.113Statutes at Large, III. 450. By this act the first six sections of the Act of 1807 were repealed.114Or, more accurately speaking, every one realized, in view of the increased activity of the trade, that it would be a failure.115Nov. 18, 1818, the part of the presidential message referring to the slave-trade was given to a committee of the House, and this committee also took in hand the House bill of the previous session which the Senate bill had replaced:House Journal, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9–19, 42, 150, 179, 330, 334, 341, 343, 352.116Of which little was reported:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1430–31. Strother opposed, "for various reasons of expediency," the bounties for captors. Nelson of Virginia advocated the death penalty, and, aided by Pindall, had it inserted. The vote on the bill was 57 to 45.117The Senate had also had a committee at work on a bill which was reported Feb. 8, and finally postponed:Senate Journal, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234, 244, 311–2, 347. The House bill was taken up March 2:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 2 sess. p. 280.118Statutes at Large, III. 532.119Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1430. This insured the trial of slave-traders in a sympathetic slave State, and resulted in the "disappearance" of many captured Negroes.120Statutes at Large, III. 533.121The first of a long series of appropriations extending to 1869, of which a list is given on the next page. The totals are only approximately correct. Some statutes may have escaped me, and in the reports of moneys the surpluses of previous years are not always clearly distinguishable.122In the first session of the sixteenth Congress, two bills on piracy were introduced into the Senate, one of which passed, April 26. In the House there was a bill on piracy, and a slave-trade committee reported recommending that the slave-trade be piracy. The Senate bill and this bill were considered in Committee of the Whole, May 11, and a bill was finally passed declaring, among other things, the traffic piracy. In the Senate there was "some discussion, rather on the form than the substance of these amendments," and "they were agreed to without a division":Senate Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 287, 314, 331, 346, 350, 409, 412, 417, 420, 422, 424, 425;House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 113, 280, 453, 454, 494, 518, 520, 522, 537;Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 693–4, 2231, 2236–7, etc. The debates were not reported.123Statutes at Large, III. 600–1. This act was in reality a continuation of the piracy Act of 1819, and was only temporary. The provision was, however, continued by several acts, and finally made perpetual by the Act of Jan. 30, 1823:Statutes at Large, III. 510–4, 721. On March 3, 1823, it was slightly amended so as to give district courts jurisdiction.124Attorney-General Wirt advised him, October, 1819, that no part of the appropriation could be used to purchase land in Africa or tools for the Negroes, or as salary for the agent:Opinions of Attorneys-General, I. 314–7. Monroe laid the case before Congress in a special message Dec. 20, 1819 (House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 57); but no action was taken there.125Cf. Kendall's Report, August, 1830:Senate Doc., 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 211–8; also see below, Chapter X.126Speech in the House of Representatives, Feb. 15, 1819, p. 18; published in Boston, 1849.127Jay,Inquiry into American Colonization(1838), p. 59, note.128Quoted in Friends'Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade(ed. 1841), pp. 7–8.129Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 270–1.130Ibid., p. 698.131Ibid., p. 1207.132Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1433.133Referring particularly to the case of the slaver "Plattsburg." Cf.House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 10.134House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 2. The President had in his message spoken in exhilarating tones of the success of the government in suppressing the trade. The House Committee appointed in pursuance of this passage made the above report. Their conclusions are confirmed by British reports:Parliamentary Papers, 1822, Vol. XXII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, III. p. 44. So, too, in 1823, Ashmun, the African agent, reports that thousands of slaves are being abducted.135Ayres to the Secretary of the Navy, Feb. 24, 1823; reprinted inFriends' View of the African Slave-Trade(1824), p. 31.136House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 5–6. The slavers were the "Ramirez," "Endymion," "Esperanza," "Plattsburg," "Science," "Alexander," "Eugene," "Mathilde," "Daphne," "Eliza," and "La Pensée." In these 573 Africans were taken. The naval officers were greatly handicapped by the size of the ships, etc. (cf.Friends' View, etc., pp. 33–41). They nevertheless acted with great zeal.137Parliamentary Papers, 1821, Vol. XXIII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, A, p. 76. The names and description of a dozen or more American slavers are given:Ibid., pp. 18–21.138House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 15–20.139House Doc., 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119, p. 13.140Parliamentary Papers, 1823, Vol. XVIII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, A, pp. 10–11.141Opinions of Attorneys-General, V. 717.142R.W. Habersham to the Secretary of the Navy, August, 1821; reprinted inFriends' View, etc., p. 47.143Ibid., p. 42.144Ibid., p. 43.145Cf. above, pp. 126–7.146Friends' View, etc., p. 42.147A few accounts of captures here and there would make the matter less suspicious; these, however, do not occur. How large this suspected illicit traffic was, it is of course impossible to say; there is no reason why it may not have reached many hundreds per year.148Cf. editorial inNiles's Register, XXII. 114. Cf. also the following instances of pardons:—President Jefferson: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham, convicted for "carrying on an illegal slave-trade" (pardoned twice).Pardons and Remissions, I. 146, 148–9.President Madison: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at New Orleans from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 negroes. Every penalty incurred under the Act of 1807 was remitted. (Note: "Several other pardons of this nature were granted.")Ibid., I. 179.Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for importing a slave.Ibid., I. 184–5.Feb. 12, 1810, William Sewall, convicted for importing slaves.Ibid., I. 194, 235, 240.May 5, 1812, William Babbit, convicted for importing slaves.Ibid., I. 248.President Monroe: June 11, 1822, Thomas Shields, convicted for bringing slaves into New Orleans.Ibid., IV. 15.Aug. 24, 1822, J.F. Smith, sentenced to five years' imprisonment and $3000 fine; served twenty-five months and was then pardoned.Ibid., IV. 22.July 23, 1823, certain parties liable to penalties for introducing slaves into Alabama.Ibid., IV. 63.Aug. 15, 1823, owners of schooner "Mary," convicted of importing slaves.Ibid., IV. 66.President J.Q. Adams: March 4, 1826, Robert Perry; his ship was forfeited for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 140.Jan. 17, 1827, Jesse Perry; forfeited ship, and was convicted for introducing slaves.Ibid., IV. 158.Feb. 13, 1827, Zenas Winston; incurred penalties for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 161. The four following cases are similar to that of Winston:—Feb. 24, 1827, John Tucker and William Morbon.Ibid., IV. 162.March 25, 1828, Joseph Badger.Ibid., IV. 192.Feb. 19, 1829, L.R. Wallace.Ibid., IV. 215.President Jackson: Five cases.Ibid., IV. 225, 270, 301, 393, 440.The above cases were taken from manuscript copies of the Washington records, made by Mr. W.C. Endicott, Jr., and kindly loaned me.149SeeSenate Journal, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 60, 66, 340, 341, 343, 348, 352, 355;House Journal, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 59, 76, 123, 134, 156, 169, 173, 279, 634, 641, 646, 647, 688, 692.150Statutes at Large, VI. 376.151Among interesting minor proceedings in this period were two Senate bills to register slaves so as to prevent illegal importation. They were both dropped in the House; a House proposition to the same effect also came to nothing:Senate Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 147, 152, 157, 165, 170, 188, 201, 203, 232, 237; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 63, 74, 77, 202, 207, 285, 291, 297;House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 332; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 303, 305, 316; 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 150. Another proposition was contained in the Meigs resolution presented to the House, Feb. 5, 1820, which proposed to devote the public lands to the suppression of the slave-trade. This was ruled out of order. It was presented again and laid on the table in 1821:House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 196, 200, 227; 16 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.

1House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 468.

2Cf. below, § 59.

3Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.

4There were at least twelve distinct propositions as to the disposal of the Africans imported:—1. That they be forfeited and sold by the United States at auction (Early's bill, reported Dec. 15:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167–8).2. That they be forfeited and left to the disposal of the States (proposed by Bidwell and Early:Ibid., pp. 181, 221, 477. This was the final settlement.)3. That they be forfeited and sold, and that the proceeds go to charities, education, or internal improvements (Early, Holland, and Masters:Ibid., p. 273).4. That they be forfeited and indentured for life (Alston and Bidwell:Ibid., pp. 170–1).5. That they be forfeited and indentured for 7, 8, or 10 years (Pitkin:Ibid., p. 186).6. That they be forfeited and given into the custody of the President, and by him indentured in free States for a term of years (bill reported from the Senate Jan. 28:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 575;Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 477. Cf. alsoIbid., p. 272).7. That the Secretary of the Treasury dispose of them, at his discretion, in service (Quincy:Ibid., p. 183).8. That those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or bound out in free States (Sloan:Ibid., p. 254).9. That all be sent back to Africa (Smilie:Ibid., p. 176).10. That those imported into free States be free, those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or indentured (Sloan:Ibid., p. 226).11. That they be forfeited but not sold (Sloan and others:Ibid., p. 270).12. That they be free (Sloan:Ibid., p. 168; Bidwell:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 515).

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

1. That they be forfeited and sold by the United States at auction (Early's bill, reported Dec. 15:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 167–8).2. That they be forfeited and left to the disposal of the States (proposed by Bidwell and Early:Ibid., pp. 181, 221, 477. This was the final settlement.)3. That they be forfeited and sold, and that the proceeds go to charities, education, or internal improvements (Early, Holland, and Masters:Ibid., p. 273).4. That they be forfeited and indentured for life (Alston and Bidwell:Ibid., pp. 170–1).5. That they be forfeited and indentured for 7, 8, or 10 years (Pitkin:Ibid., p. 186).6. That they be forfeited and given into the custody of the President, and by him indentured in free States for a term of years (bill reported from the Senate Jan. 28:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 575;Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 477. Cf. alsoIbid., p. 272).7. That the Secretary of the Treasury dispose of them, at his discretion, in service (Quincy:Ibid., p. 183).8. That those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or bound out in free States (Sloan:Ibid., p. 254).9. That all be sent back to Africa (Smilie:Ibid., p. 176).10. That those imported into free States be free, those imported into slave States be returned to Africa or indentured (Sloan:Ibid., p. 226).11. That they be forfeited but not sold (Sloan and others:Ibid., p. 270).12. That they be free (Sloan:Ibid., p. 168; Bidwell:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 515).

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

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

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

4. That they be forfeited and indentured for life (Alston and Bidwell:Ibid., pp. 170–1).

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

6. That they be forfeited and given into the custody of the President, and by him indentured in free States for a term of years (bill reported from the Senate Jan. 28:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 575;Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 477. Cf. alsoIbid., p. 272).

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

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

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

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

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

12. That they be free (Sloan:Ibid., p. 168; Bidwell:House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 515).

5Bidwell, Cook, and others:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 201.

6Bidwell:Ibid., p. 172.

7Fisk:Ibid., pp. 224–5; Bidwell:Ibid., p. 221.

8Quincy:Ibid., p. 184.

9Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 478; Bidwell:Ibid., p. 171.

10Ibid., p. 172.

11Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 173–4.

12Alston:Ibid., p. 170.

13D.R. Williams:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 183.

14Early:Ibid., pp. 184–5.

15Lloyd, Early, and others:Ibid., p. 203.

16Alston:Ibid., p. 170.

17Quincy:Ibid., p. 222; Macon:Ibid., p. 225.

18Macon:Ibid., p. 177.

19Barker:Ibid., p. 171; Bidwell:Ibid., p. 172.

20Clay, Alston, and Early:Ibid., p. 266.

21Clay, Alston, and Early:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 266.

22Bidwell:Ibid., p. 221.

23Sloan and others:Ibid., p. 271; Early and Alston:Ibid., pp. 168, 171.

24Ely, Bidwell, and others:Ibid., pp. 179, 181, 271; Smilie and Findley:Ibid., pp. 225, 226.

25Ibid., p. 240. Cf. Lloyd:Ibid., p. 236.

26Holland:Ibid., p. 241.

27Ibid., p. 227; Macon:Ibid., p. 225.

28Bidwell, Cook, and others:Ibid., p. 201.

29Bidwell:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 221. Cf.Ibid., p. 202.

30Early:Ibid., p. 239.

31Ibid.

32Ibid., p. 1267.

33There were about six distinct punishments suggested:—1. Forfeiture, and fine of $5000 to $10,000 (Early's bill:Ibid., p. 167).2. Forfeiture and imprisonment (amendment to Senate bill:Ibid., pp. 231, 477, 483).3. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and fine of $1000 to $10,000 (amendment to amendment of Senate bill:Ibid., pp. 228, 483).4. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 40 years, and fine of $1000 to $10,000 (Chandler's amendment:Ibid., p. 228).5. Forfeiture of all property, and imprisonment (Pitkin:Ibid., p. 188).6. Death (Smilie:Ibid., pp. 189–90; bill reported to House, Dec. 19:Ibid., p. 190; Senate bill as reported to House, Jan. 28).

33There were about six distinct punishments suggested:—

1. Forfeiture, and fine of $5000 to $10,000 (Early's bill:Ibid., p. 167).2. Forfeiture and imprisonment (amendment to Senate bill:Ibid., pp. 231, 477, 483).3. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 10 years, and fine of $1000 to $10,000 (amendment to amendment of Senate bill:Ibid., pp. 228, 483).4. Forfeiture, imprisonment from 5 to 40 years, and fine of $1000 to $10,000 (Chandler's amendment:Ibid., p. 228).5. Forfeiture of all property, and imprisonment (Pitkin:Ibid., p. 188).6. Death (Smilie:Ibid., pp. 189–90; bill reported to House, Dec. 19:Ibid., p. 190; Senate bill as reported to House, Jan. 28).

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

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

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

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

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

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

34Smilie:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 189–90.

35Tallmadge:Ibid., p. 233; Olin:Ibid., p. 237.

36Ely:Ibid., p. 237.

37Smilie:Ibid., p. 236. Cf. Sloan:Ibid., p. 232.

38Hastings:Ibid., p. 228.

39Dwight:Ibid., p. 241; Ely:Ibid., p. 232.

40Mosely:Ibid., pp. 234–5.

41Tallmadge:Ibid., pp. 232, 234. Cf. Dwight:Ibid., p. 241.

42Varnum:Ibid., p. 243.

43Elmer:Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 235.

44Ibid., p. 240.

45Holland:Ibid., p. 240.

46Early:Ibid., pp. 238–9; Holland:Ibid., p. 239.

47Ibid., p. 233. Cf. Lloyd:Ibid., p. 237; Ely:Ibid., p. 232; Early:Ibid., pp. 238–9.

48Ibid., p. 484.

49This was the provision of the Senate bill as reported to the House. It was over the House amendment to this that the Houses disagreed. Cf.Ibid., p. 484.

50Cf.Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 527–8.

51Ibid., p. 528.

52Ibid., p. 626.

53Ibid.

54Ibid.

55Ibid., pp. 636–8;House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 616, and House Bill No. 219;Ibid., 10 Cong. 1 sess. VI. 27, 50;Annals of Cong., 10 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 854–5, 961.

56On account of the meagre records it is difficult to follow the course of this bill. I have pieced together information from various sources, and trust that this account is approximately correct.

57Cf.Senate Journal(repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 2 sess. IV., Senate Bill No. 41.

58Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438. Cf. above, § 53.

59This amendment of the Committee of the Whole was adopted by a vote of 63 to 53. The New England States stood 3 to 2 for the death penalty; the Middle States were evenly divided, 3 and 3; and the South stood 5 to 0 against it, with Kentucky evenly divided. Cf.House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 2 sess. V. 504.

60Ibid., V. 514–5.

61The substitution of the Senate bill was a victory for the anti-slavery party, as all battles had to be fought again. The Southern party, however, succeeded in carrying all its amendments.

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

63Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 626–7.

64The unassigned dates refer to debates, etc. The history of the amendments and debates on the measure may be traced in the following references:—Senate(Bill No. 41).Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 20–1; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 16, 19, 23, 33, 36, 45, 47, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 87, 93, etc.Senate Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 sess. IV. 11, 112, 123, 124, 132, 133, 150, 158, 164, 165, 167, 168, etc.House(Bill No. 148).Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 114, 151, 167–8, 173–4, 180, 183, 189, 200, 202–4, 220, 228, 231, 240, 254, 264, 266–7, 270, 273, 373, 427, 477, 481, 484–6, 527, 528, etc.House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 sess. V. 470, 482, 488, 490, 491, 496, 500, 504, 510, 513–6, 517, 540, 557, 575, 579, 581, 583–4, 585, 592, 594, 610, 613–5, 623, 638, 640, etc.

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

Senate(Bill No. 41).

Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 20–1; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 16, 19, 23, 33, 36, 45, 47, 68, 69, 70, 71, 79, 87, 93, etc.

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

House(Bill No. 148).

Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 438; 9 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 114, 151, 167–8, 173–4, 180, 183, 189, 200, 202–4, 220, 228, 231, 240, 254, 264, 266–7, 270, 273, 373, 427, 477, 481, 484–6, 527, 528, etc.

House Journal(repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1–2 sess. V. 470, 482, 488, 490, 491, 496, 500, 504, 510, 513–6, 517, 540, 557, 575, 579, 581, 583–4, 585, 592, 594, 610, 613–5, 623, 638, 640, etc.

65Statutes at Large, II. 426. There were some few attempts to obtain laws of relief from this bill: see, e.g.,Annals of Cong., 10 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1243; 11 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 34, 36–9, 41, 43, 48, 49, 380, 465, 688, 706, 2209;House Journal(repr. 1826), II Cong. 1–2 sess. VII. 100, 102, 124, etc., and Index, Senate Bill No. 8. Cf.Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 269. There was also one proposed amendment to make the prohibition perpetual:Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, I. No. 244.

66Toulmin,Digest of the Laws of Alabama, p. 637.

67Laws of North Carolina(revision of 1819), II. 1350.

68Prince,Digest, p. 793.

69Fowler,Historical Status of the Negro in Connecticut, inLocal Law, etc., pp. 122, 126.

70House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 32.

71House Journal(repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p. 435.

72House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, p. 5.

73See, e.g.,House Journal(repr. 1826), 11 Cong. 3 sess. VII. p. 575.

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

75For accounts of these slavers, seeHouse Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 30–50. The "Paz" was an armed slaver flying the American flag.

76Said to be owned by an Englishman, but fitted in America and manned by Americans. It was eventually captured by H.M.S. "Bann," after a hard fight.

77Also called Spanish schooner "Triumvirate," with American supercargo, Spanish captain, and American, French, Spanish, and English crew. It was finally captured by a British vessel.

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

79House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 51.

80House Doc., 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 22, 38. This slaver was after capture sent to New Orleans,—an illustration of the irony of the Act of 1807.

81House Journal, 14 Cong. 2 sess. p. 15.

82House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 36, p. 5.

83Ibid., 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 8–14. See Chew's letter of Oct. 17, 1817:Ibid., pp. 14–16.

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

85House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 10–11. Cf. Report of the House Committee, Jan. 10, 1818: "It is but too notorious that numerous infractions of the law prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States have been perpetrated with impunity upon our southern frontier."Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 441.

86Special message of Jan. 13, 1818:House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 137–9.

87Collector McIntosh, of the District of Brunswick, Ga., to the Secretary of the Treasury.House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 8–9.

88House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, pp. 6–7.

89Ibid., pp. 11–12.

90Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 529.

91House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 7.

92Ibid., p. 6.

93House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 82.

94They were not general instructions, but were directed to Commander Campbell. Cf.House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 84, pp. 5–6.

95Statutes at Large, III. 471 ff.

96House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8–9.

97Ibid., IV. No. 84. Cf. Chew's letters inHouse Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348.

98House Doc., 15 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 12, pp. 22, 38; 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 100, p. 13; 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 9, etc.;House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 85.

99House Doc., 15 Cong. 2 sess. VI. No. 107, pp. 8–9.

100House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, p. 77.

101Cf.House Doc., 16 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 42, p. 11: "The Grand Jury found true bills against the owners of the vessels, masters, and a supercargo—all of whom are discharged; why or wherefore I cannot say, except that it could not be for want of proof against them."

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

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

104The slaves on the "Constitution" were not condemned, for the technical reason that she was not captured by a commissioned officer of the United States navy.

105These proceedings are very obscure, and little was said about them. The Spanish claimants were, it was alleged with much probability, but representatives of Americans. The claim was paid under the provisions of the Treaty of Florida, and included slaves whom the court afterward declared forfeited.

106An act to relieve him was finally passed, Feb. 8, 1827, nine years after the capture. SeeStatutes at Large, VI. 357.

107It is difficult to get at the exact facts in this complicated case. The above statement is, I think, much milder than the real facts would warrant, if thoroughly known. Cf.House Reports, 19 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 231; 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348, pp. 62–3, etc.; 24 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 209;Amer. State Papers, Naval, II. No. 308.

108The first method, represented by the Act of 1818, was favored by the South, the Senate, and the Democrats; the second method, represented by the Act of 1819, by the North, the House, and by the as yet undeveloped but growing Whig party.

109Committees on the slave-trade were appointed by the House in 1810 and 1813; the committee of 1813 recommended a revision of the laws, but nothing was done:Annals of Cong., 11 Cong. 3 sess. p. 387; 12 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1074, 1090. The presidential message of 1816 led to committees on the trade in both Houses. The committee of the House of Representatives reported a joint resolution on abolishing the traffic and colonizing the Negroes, also looking toward international action. This never came to a vote:Senate Journal, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 46, 179, 180;House Journal, 14 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 25, 27, 380;House Doc, 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77. Finally, the presidential message of 1817 (House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 11), announcing the issuance of orders to suppress the Amelia Island establishment, led to two other committees in both Houses. The House committee under Middleton made a report with a bill (Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, II. No. 441), and the Senate committee also reported a bill.

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

111Simkins of South Carolina, Edwards of North Carolina, and Pindall:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.

112Hugh Nelson of Virginia:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.

113Statutes at Large, III. 450. By this act the first six sections of the Act of 1807 were repealed.

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

115Nov. 18, 1818, the part of the presidential message referring to the slave-trade was given to a committee of the House, and this committee also took in hand the House bill of the previous session which the Senate bill had replaced:House Journal, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9–19, 42, 150, 179, 330, 334, 341, 343, 352.

116Of which little was reported:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1430–31. Strother opposed, "for various reasons of expediency," the bounties for captors. Nelson of Virginia advocated the death penalty, and, aided by Pindall, had it inserted. The vote on the bill was 57 to 45.

117The Senate had also had a committee at work on a bill which was reported Feb. 8, and finally postponed:Senate Journal, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234, 244, 311–2, 347. The House bill was taken up March 2:Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 2 sess. p. 280.

118Statutes at Large, III. 532.

119Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1430. This insured the trial of slave-traders in a sympathetic slave State, and resulted in the "disappearance" of many captured Negroes.

120Statutes at Large, III. 533.

121The first of a long series of appropriations extending to 1869, of which a list is given on the next page. The totals are only approximately correct. Some statutes may have escaped me, and in the reports of moneys the surpluses of previous years are not always clearly distinguishable.

122In the first session of the sixteenth Congress, two bills on piracy were introduced into the Senate, one of which passed, April 26. In the House there was a bill on piracy, and a slave-trade committee reported recommending that the slave-trade be piracy. The Senate bill and this bill were considered in Committee of the Whole, May 11, and a bill was finally passed declaring, among other things, the traffic piracy. In the Senate there was "some discussion, rather on the form than the substance of these amendments," and "they were agreed to without a division":Senate Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 287, 314, 331, 346, 350, 409, 412, 417, 420, 422, 424, 425;House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 113, 280, 453, 454, 494, 518, 520, 522, 537;Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 693–4, 2231, 2236–7, etc. The debates were not reported.

123Statutes at Large, III. 600–1. This act was in reality a continuation of the piracy Act of 1819, and was only temporary. The provision was, however, continued by several acts, and finally made perpetual by the Act of Jan. 30, 1823:Statutes at Large, III. 510–4, 721. On March 3, 1823, it was slightly amended so as to give district courts jurisdiction.

124Attorney-General Wirt advised him, October, 1819, that no part of the appropriation could be used to purchase land in Africa or tools for the Negroes, or as salary for the agent:Opinions of Attorneys-General, I. 314–7. Monroe laid the case before Congress in a special message Dec. 20, 1819 (House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 57); but no action was taken there.

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

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

127Jay,Inquiry into American Colonization(1838), p. 59, note.

128Quoted in Friends'Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade(ed. 1841), pp. 7–8.

129Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 270–1.

130Ibid., p. 698.

131Ibid., p. 1207.

132Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1433.

133Referring particularly to the case of the slaver "Plattsburg." Cf.House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 10.

134House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 2. The President had in his message spoken in exhilarating tones of the success of the government in suppressing the trade. The House Committee appointed in pursuance of this passage made the above report. Their conclusions are confirmed by British reports:Parliamentary Papers, 1822, Vol. XXII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, III. p. 44. So, too, in 1823, Ashmun, the African agent, reports that thousands of slaves are being abducted.

135Ayres to the Secretary of the Navy, Feb. 24, 1823; reprinted inFriends' View of the African Slave-Trade(1824), p. 31.

136House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 5–6. The slavers were the "Ramirez," "Endymion," "Esperanza," "Plattsburg," "Science," "Alexander," "Eugene," "Mathilde," "Daphne," "Eliza," and "La Pensée." In these 573 Africans were taken. The naval officers were greatly handicapped by the size of the ships, etc. (cf.Friends' View, etc., pp. 33–41). They nevertheless acted with great zeal.

137Parliamentary Papers, 1821, Vol. XXIII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, A, p. 76. The names and description of a dozen or more American slavers are given:Ibid., pp. 18–21.

138House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 15–20.

139House Doc., 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119, p. 13.

140Parliamentary Papers, 1823, Vol. XVIII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, A, pp. 10–11.

141Opinions of Attorneys-General, V. 717.

142R.W. Habersham to the Secretary of the Navy, August, 1821; reprinted inFriends' View, etc., p. 47.

143Ibid., p. 42.

144Ibid., p. 43.

145Cf. above, pp. 126–7.

146Friends' View, etc., p. 42.

147A few accounts of captures here and there would make the matter less suspicious; these, however, do not occur. How large this suspected illicit traffic was, it is of course impossible to say; there is no reason why it may not have reached many hundreds per year.

148Cf. editorial inNiles's Register, XXII. 114. Cf. also the following instances of pardons:—President Jefferson: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham, convicted for "carrying on an illegal slave-trade" (pardoned twice).Pardons and Remissions, I. 146, 148–9.President Madison: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at New Orleans from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 negroes. Every penalty incurred under the Act of 1807 was remitted. (Note: "Several other pardons of this nature were granted.")Ibid., I. 179.Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for importing a slave.Ibid., I. 184–5.Feb. 12, 1810, William Sewall, convicted for importing slaves.Ibid., I. 194, 235, 240.May 5, 1812, William Babbit, convicted for importing slaves.Ibid., I. 248.President Monroe: June 11, 1822, Thomas Shields, convicted for bringing slaves into New Orleans.Ibid., IV. 15.Aug. 24, 1822, J.F. Smith, sentenced to five years' imprisonment and $3000 fine; served twenty-five months and was then pardoned.Ibid., IV. 22.July 23, 1823, certain parties liable to penalties for introducing slaves into Alabama.Ibid., IV. 63.Aug. 15, 1823, owners of schooner "Mary," convicted of importing slaves.Ibid., IV. 66.President J.Q. Adams: March 4, 1826, Robert Perry; his ship was forfeited for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 140.Jan. 17, 1827, Jesse Perry; forfeited ship, and was convicted for introducing slaves.Ibid., IV. 158.Feb. 13, 1827, Zenas Winston; incurred penalties for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 161. The four following cases are similar to that of Winston:—Feb. 24, 1827, John Tucker and William Morbon.Ibid., IV. 162.March 25, 1828, Joseph Badger.Ibid., IV. 192.Feb. 19, 1829, L.R. Wallace.Ibid., IV. 215.President Jackson: Five cases.Ibid., IV. 225, 270, 301, 393, 440.The above cases were taken from manuscript copies of the Washington records, made by Mr. W.C. Endicott, Jr., and kindly loaned me.

148Cf. editorial inNiles's Register, XXII. 114. Cf. also the following instances of pardons:—

President Jefferson: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham, convicted for "carrying on an illegal slave-trade" (pardoned twice).Pardons and Remissions, I. 146, 148–9.President Madison: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at New Orleans from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 negroes. Every penalty incurred under the Act of 1807 was remitted. (Note: "Several other pardons of this nature were granted.")Ibid., I. 179.Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for importing a slave.Ibid., I. 184–5.Feb. 12, 1810, William Sewall, convicted for importing slaves.Ibid., I. 194, 235, 240.May 5, 1812, William Babbit, convicted for importing slaves.Ibid., I. 248.President Monroe: June 11, 1822, Thomas Shields, convicted for bringing slaves into New Orleans.Ibid., IV. 15.Aug. 24, 1822, J.F. Smith, sentenced to five years' imprisonment and $3000 fine; served twenty-five months and was then pardoned.Ibid., IV. 22.July 23, 1823, certain parties liable to penalties for introducing slaves into Alabama.Ibid., IV. 63.Aug. 15, 1823, owners of schooner "Mary," convicted of importing slaves.Ibid., IV. 66.President J.Q. Adams: March 4, 1826, Robert Perry; his ship was forfeited for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 140.Jan. 17, 1827, Jesse Perry; forfeited ship, and was convicted for introducing slaves.Ibid., IV. 158.Feb. 13, 1827, Zenas Winston; incurred penalties for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 161. The four following cases are similar to that of Winston:—Feb. 24, 1827, John Tucker and William Morbon.Ibid., IV. 162.March 25, 1828, Joseph Badger.Ibid., IV. 192.Feb. 19, 1829, L.R. Wallace.Ibid., IV. 215.President Jackson: Five cases.Ibid., IV. 225, 270, 301, 393, 440.

President Jefferson: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham, convicted for "carrying on an illegal slave-trade" (pardoned twice).Pardons and Remissions, I. 146, 148–9.

President Madison: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at New Orleans from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 negroes. Every penalty incurred under the Act of 1807 was remitted. (Note: "Several other pardons of this nature were granted.")Ibid., I. 179.

Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for importing a slave.Ibid., I. 184–5.

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

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

President Monroe: June 11, 1822, Thomas Shields, convicted for bringing slaves into New Orleans.Ibid., IV. 15.

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

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

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

President J.Q. Adams: March 4, 1826, Robert Perry; his ship was forfeited for slave-trading.Ibid., IV. 140.

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

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

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

March 25, 1828, Joseph Badger.Ibid., IV. 192.

Feb. 19, 1829, L.R. Wallace.Ibid., IV. 215.

President Jackson: Five cases.Ibid., IV. 225, 270, 301, 393, 440.

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

149SeeSenate Journal, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 60, 66, 340, 341, 343, 348, 352, 355;House Journal, 20 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 59, 76, 123, 134, 156, 169, 173, 279, 634, 641, 646, 647, 688, 692.

150Statutes at Large, VI. 376.

151Among interesting minor proceedings in this period were two Senate bills to register slaves so as to prevent illegal importation. They were both dropped in the House; a House proposition to the same effect also came to nothing:Senate Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 147, 152, 157, 165, 170, 188, 201, 203, 232, 237; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 63, 74, 77, 202, 207, 285, 291, 297;House Journal, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 332; 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 303, 305, 316; 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 150. Another proposition was contained in the Meigs resolution presented to the House, Feb. 5, 1820, which proposed to devote the public lands to the suppression of the slave-trade. This was ruled out of order. It was presented again and laid on the table in 1821:House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 196, 200, 227; 16 Cong. 2 sess. p. 238.

66.The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade, 1788–1807.At the beginning of the nineteenth century England held 800,000 slaves in her colonies; France, 250,000; Denmark, 27,000; Spain and Portugal, 600,000; Holland, 50,000; Sweden, 600; there were also about 2,000,000 slaves in Brazil, and about 900,000 in the United States.1This was the powerful basis of the demand for the slave-trade; and against the economic forces which these four and a half millions of enforced laborers represented, the battle for freedom had to be fought.

Denmark first responded to the denunciatory cries of the eighteenth century against slavery and the slave-trade. In 1792, by royal order, this traffic was prohibited in the Danish possessions after 1802. The principles of the French Revolution logically called for the extinction of the slave system by France. This was, however, accomplished more precipitately than the Convention anticipated; and in a whirl of enthusiasm engendered by the appearance of the Dominican deputies, slavery and the slave-trade were abolished in all French colonies February 4, 1794.2This abolition was short-lived; for at the command of the First Consul slavery and the slave-trade was restored in An X (1799).3The trade was finally abolished by Napoleon during the Hundred Days by a decree, March 29, 1815, which briefly declared: "À dater de la publication du présent Décret, la Traite des Noirs est abolie."4The Treaty of Paris eventually confirmed this law.5

In England, the united efforts of Sharpe, Clarkson, and Wilberforce early began to arouse public opinion by means of agitation and pamphlet literature. May 21, 1788, Sir William Dolben moved a bill regulating the trade, which passed in July and was the last English measure countenancing the traffic.6The report of the Privy Council on the subject in 17897precipitated the long struggle. On motion of Pitt, in 1788, the House had resolved to take up at the next session the question of the abolition of the trade.8It was, accordingly, called up by Wilberforce, and a remarkable parliamentary battle ensued, which lasted continuously until 1805. The Grenville-Fox ministry now espoused the cause. This ministry first prohibited the trade with such colonies as England had acquired by conquest during the Napoleonic wars; then, in 1806, they prohibited the foreign slave-trade; and finally, March 25, 1807, enacted the total abolition of the traffic.9

67.Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783–1814.During the peace negotiations between the United States and Great Britain in 1783, it was proposed by Jay, in June, that there be a proviso inserted as follows: "Provided that the subjects ofhis Britannic Majesty shall not have any right or claim under the convention, to carry or import, into the said States any slaves from any part of the world; it being the intention of the said States entirely to prohibit the importation thereof."10Fox promptly replied: "If that be their policy, it never can be competent to us to dispute with them their own regulations."11No mention of this was, however, made in the final treaty, probably because it was thought unnecessary.

In the proposed treaty of 1806, signed at London December 31, Article 24 provided that "The high contracting parties engage to communicate to each other, without delay, all such laws as have been or shall be hereafter enacted by their respective Legislatures, as also all measures which shall have been taken for the abolition or limitation of the African slave trade; and they further agree to use their best endeavors to procure the co-operation of other Powers for the final and complete abolition of a trade so repugnant to the principles of justice and humanity."12

This marks the beginning of a long series of treaties between England and other powers looking toward the prohibition of the traffic by international agreement. During the years 1810–1814 she signed treaties relating to the subject with Portugal, Denmark, and Sweden.13May 30, 1814, an additional article to the Treaty of Paris, between France and Great Britain, engaged these powers to endeavor to induce the approaching Congress at Vienna "to decree the abolition of the Slave Trade, so that the said Trade shall cease universally, as it shall cease definitively, under any circumstances, on the part of the French Government, in the course of 5 years; and that during the said period no Slave Merchant shall import or sell Slaves, except in the Colonies of the State of which he is a Subject."14In addition to this, the next day a circular letter was despatched by Castlereagh to Austria, Russia, and Prussia, expressing the hope "that the Powers of Europe,when restoring Peace to Europe, with one common interest, will crown this great work by interposing their benign offices in favour of those Regions of the Globe, which yet continue to be desolated by this unnatural and inhuman traffic."15Meantime additional treaties were secured: in 1814 by royal decree Netherlands agreed to abolish the trade;16Spain was induced by her necessities to restrain her trade to her own colonies, and to endeavor to prevent the fraudulent use of her flag by foreigners;17and in 1815 Portugal agreed to abolish the slave-trade north of the equator.18

68.Action of the Powers from 1814 to 1820.At the Congress of Vienna, which assembled late in 1814, Castlereagh was indefatigable in his endeavors to secure the abolition of the trade. France and Spain, however, refused to yield farther than they had already done, and the other powers hesitated to go to the lengths he recommended. Nevertheless, he secured the institution of annual conferences on the matter, and a declaration by the Congress strongly condemning the trade and declaring that "the public voice in all civilized countries was raised to demand its suppression as soon as possible," and that, while the definitive period of termination would be left to subsequent negotiation, the sovereigns would not consider their work done until the trade was entirely suppressed.19

In the Treaty of Ghent, between Great Britain and the United States, ratified February 17, 1815, Article 10, proposed by Great Britain, declared that, "Whereas the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and justice," the two countries agreed to use their best endeavors in abolishing the trade.20The final overthrow of Napoleon was marked by a second declaration of the powers, who, "desiring to give effect to the measures on which they deliberated at the Congress of Vienna, relative to the complete and universalabolition of the Slave Trade, and having, each in their respective Dominions, prohibited without restriction their Colonies and Subjects from taking any part whatever in this Traffic, engage to renew conjointly their efforts, with the view of securing final success to those principles which they proclaimed in the Declaration of the 4th February, 1815, and of concerting, without loss of time, through their Ministers at the Courts of London and of Paris, the most effectual measures for the entire and definitive abolition of a Commerce so odious, and so strongly condemned by the laws of religion and of nature."21

Treaties further restricting the trade continued to be made by Great Britain: Spain abolished the trade north of the equator in 1817,22and promised entire abolition in 1820; Spain, Portugal, and Holland also granted a mutual limited Right of Search to England, and joined in establishing mixed courts.23The effort, however, to secure a general declaration of the powers urging, if not compelling, the abolition of the trade in 1820, as well as the attempt to secure a qualified international Right of Visit, failed, although both propositions were strongly urged by England at the Conference of 1818.24

69.The Struggle for an International Right of Search, 1820–1840.Whatever England's motives were, it is certain that only a limited international Right of Visit on the high seas could suppress or greatly limit the slave-trade. Her diplomacy was therefore henceforth directed to this end. On the other hand, the maritime supremacy of England, so successfullyasserted during the Napoleonic wars, would, in case a Right of Search were granted, virtually make England the policeman of the seas; and if nations like the United States had already, under present conditions, had just cause to complain of violations by England of their rights on the seas, might not any extension of rights by international agreement be dangerous? It was such considerations that for many years brought the powers to a dead-lock in their efforts to suppress the slave-trade.

At first it looked as if England might attempt, by judicial decisions in her own courts, to seize even foreign slavers.25After the war, however, her courts disavowed such action,26and the right was sought for by treaty stipulation. Castlereagh took early opportunity to approach the United States on the matter, suggesting to Minister Rush, June 20, 1818, a mutual but strictly limited Right of Search.27Rush was ordered to give him assurances of the solicitude of the United States to suppress the traffic, but to state that the concessions asked for appeared of a character not adaptable to our institutions. Negotiations were then transferred to Washington; and the new British minister, Mr. Stratford Canning, approached Adams with full instructions in December, 1820.28

Meantime, it had become clear to many in the United States that the individual efforts of States could never suppress or even limit the trade without systematic co-operation. In 1817 a committee of the House had urged the opening of negotiations looking toward such international co-operation,29and a Senate motion to the same effect had caused long debate.30In 1820 and 1821 two House committee reports, one of which recommended the granting of a Right of Search, were adopted by the House, but failed in the Senate.31Adams, notwithstanding this, saw constitutional objections to theplan proposed by Canning, and wrote to him, December 30: "A Compact, giving the power to the Naval Officers of one Nation to search the Merchant Vessels of another for Offenders and offences against the Laws of the latter, backed by a further power to seize and carry into a Foreign Port, and there subject to the decision of a Tribunal composed of at least one half Foreigners, irresponsible to the Supreme Corrective tribunal of this Union, and not amendable to the controul of impeachment for official misdemeanors, was an investment of power, over the persons, property and reputation of the Citizens of this Country, not only unwarranted by any delegation of Sovereign Power to the National Government, but so adverse to the elementary principles and indispensable securities of individual rights, ... that not even the most unqualified approbation of the ends ... could justify the transgression." He then suggested co-operation of the fleets on the coast of Africa, a proposal which was promptly accepted.32

The slave-trade was again a subject of international consideration at the Congress of Verona in 1822. Austria, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Prussia were represented. The English delegates declared that, although only Portugal and Brazil allowed the trade, yet the traffic was at that moment carried on to a greater extent than ever before. They said that in seven months of the year 1821 no less than 21,000 slaves were abducted, and three hundred and fifty-two vessels entered African ports north of the equator. "It is obvious," said they, "that this crime is committed in contravention of the Laws of every Country of Europe, and of America, excepting only of one, and that it requires something more than the ordinary operation of Law to prevent it." England therefore recommended:—

1. That each country denounce the trade as piracy, with a view of founding upon the aggregate of such separate declarations a general law to be incorporated in the Law of Nations.

2. A withdrawing of the flags of the Powers from persons not natives of these States, who engage in the traffic under the flags of these States.

3. A refusal to admit to their domains the produce of the colonies of States allowing the trade, a measure which would apply to Portugal and Brazil alone.

These proposals were not accepted. Austria would agree to the first two only; France refused to denounce the trade as piracy; and Prussia was non-committal. The utmost that could be gained was another denunciation of the trade couched in general terms.33

70.Negotiations of 1823–1825.England did not, however, lose hope of gaining some concession from the United States. Another House committee had, in 1822, reported that the only method of suppressing the trade was by granting a Right of Search.34The House agreed, February 28, 1823, to request the President to enter into negotiations with the maritime powers of Europe to denounce the slave-trade as piracy; an amendment "that we agree to a qualified right of search" was, however, lost.35Meantime, the English minister was continually pressing the matter upon Adams, who proposed in turn to denounce the trade as piracy. Canning agreed to this, but only on condition that it be piracy under the Law of Nations and not merely by statute law. Such an agreement, he said, would involve a Right of Search for its enforcement; he proposed strictly to limit and define this right, to allow captured ships to be tried in their own courts, and not to commit the United States in any way to the question of the belligerent Right of Search. Adams finally sent a draft of a proposed treaty to England, and agreed to recognize the slave-traffic "as piracy under the law of nations, namely: that, although seizable by the officers and authorities of every nation, they should be triable only by the tribunals of the country of theslave trading vessel."36

Rush presented thisprojectto the government in January, 1824. England agreed to all the points insisted on by the United States; viz., that she herself should denounce the trade as piracy; that slavers should be tried in their own country; that the captor should be laid under the most effective responsibility for his conduct; and that vessels under convoy of a ship of war of their own country should be exempt from search. In addition, England demanded that citizens of either country captured under the flag of a third power should be sent home for trial, and that citizens of either country chartering vessels of a third country should come under these stipulations.37

This convention was laid before the Senate April 30, 1824, but was not acted upon until May 21, when it was so amended as to make it terminable at six months' notice. The same day, President Monroe, "apprehending, from the delay in the decision, that some difficulty exists," sent a special message to the Senate, giving at length the reasons for signing the treaty, and saying that "should this Convention be adopted, there is every reason to believe, that it will be the commencement of a system destined to accomplish the entire Abolition of the Slave Trade." It was, however, a time of great political pot-boiling, and consequently an unfortunate occasion to ask senators to settle any great question. A systematic attack, led by Johnson of Louisiana, was made on all the vital provisions of the treaty: the waters of America were excepted from its application, and those of the West Indies barely escaped exception; the provision which, perhaps, aimed the deadliest blow at American slave-trade interests was likewise struck out; namely, the application of the Right of Search to citizens chartering the vessels of a third nation.38

The convention thus mutilated was not signed by England, who demanded as the least concession the application of the Right of Search to American waters. Meantime the United States had invited nearly all nations to denounce the trade as piracy; and the President, the Secretary of the Navy, and a House committee had urgently favored the granting of the Right of Search. The bad faith of Congress, however, in the matter of the Colombian treaty broke off for a time further negotiations with England.39

71.The Attitude of the United States and the State of the Slave-Trade.In 1824 the Right of Search was established between England and Sweden, and in 1826 Brazil promised to abolish the trade in three years.40In 1831 the cause was greatly advanced by the signing of a treaty between Great Britain and France, granting mutually a geographically limited Right of Search.41This led, in the next few years, to similar treaties with Denmark, Sardinia,42the Hanse towns,43and Naples.44Such measures put the trade more and more in the hands of Americans, and it began greatly to increase. Mercer sought repeatedly in the House to have negotiations reopened with England, but without success.45Indeed, the chances of success were now for many years imperilled by the recurrence of deliberate search of American vessels by the British.46In the majority of cases the vessels proved to be slavers, and some of them fraudulently flew the American flag; nevertheless, their molestation by British cruisers created much feeling, and hindered all steps toward an understanding: the United States was loath to have her criminal negligence in enforcing her own laws thus exposed by foreigners. Other international questions connected with the trade also strained the relations of the two countries: three different vessels engaged in the domestic slave-trade, driven by stress of weather, or, in the "Creole" case, captured by Negroes on board, landed slaves in British possessions; England freed them, and refused to pay for such as were landed after emancipation had been proclaimed in the West Indies.47The case of the slaver "L'Amistad" also raised difficulties with Spain. This Spanish vessel, after the Negroes on board had mutinied and killed their owners, was seized by a United States vessel and brought into port for adjudication. The court, however, freed the Negroes, on the ground that under Spanish law they were not legally slaves; and although the Senate repeatedly tried to indemnify the owners, the project did not succeed.48

Back to Index Next