Footnotes

Such proceedings well illustrate the new tendency of the pro-slavery party to neglect the enforcement of the slave-trade laws, in a frantic defence of the remotest ramparts of slave property. Consequently, when, after the treaty of 1831, France and England joined in urging the accession of the United States to it, the British minister was at last compelled to inform Palmerston, December, 1833, that "the Executive at Washington appears to shrink from bringing forward, in any shape, a question, upon which depends the completion of their former object—the utter and universal Abolition of the Slave Trade—from an apprehension of alarming the Southern States."49Great Britain now offered to sign the proposed treaty of 1824 as amended; but even this Forsyth refused, and stated that the United States had determined not to become "a party of any Convention on the subject of the Slave Trade."50

Estimates as to the extent of the slave-trade agree that the traffic to North and South America in 1820 was considerable, certainly not much less than 40,000 slaves annually. From that time to about 1825 it declined somewhat, but afterward increased enormously, so that by 1837 the American importation was estimated as high as 200,000 Negroes annually. The total abolition of the African trade by American countries then brought the traffic down to perhaps 30,000 in 1842. A large and rapid increase of illicit traffic followed; so that by 1847 the importation amounted to nearly 100,000 annually. One province of Brazil is said to have received 173,000 in the years 1846–1849. In the decade 1850–1860 this activity in slave-trading continued, and reached very large proportions.

The traffic thus carried on floated under the flags of France, Spain, and Portugal, until about 1830; from 1830 to 1840 it began gradually to assume the United States flag; by 1845, a large part of the trade was under the stars and stripes; by 1850 fully one-half the trade, and in the decade, 1850–1860 nearly all the traffic, found this flag its best protection.51

72.The Quintuple Treaty, 1839–1842.In 1839 Pope Gregory XVI. stigmatized the slave-trade "as utterly unworthy of the Christian name;" and at the same time, although proscribed by the laws of every civilized State, the trade was flourishing with pristine vigor. Great advantage was given the traffic by the fact that the United States, for two decades after the abortive attempt of 1824, refused to co-operate with the rest of the civilized world, and allowed her flag to shelter and protect the slave-trade. If a fully equipped slaver sailed from New York, Havana, Rio Janeiro, or Liverpool, she had only to hoist the stars and stripes in order to proceed unmolested on her piratical voyage; for there was seldom a United Statescruiser to be met with, and there were, on the other hand, diplomats at Washington so jealous of the honor of the flag that they would prostitute it to crime rather than allow an English or a French cruiser in any way to interfere. Without doubt, the contention of the United States as to England's pretensions to a Right of Visit was technically correct. Nevertheless, it was clear that if the slave-trade was to be suppressed, each nation must either zealously keep her flag from fraudulent use, or, as a labor-saving device, depute to others this duty for limited places and under special circumstances. A failure of any one nation to do one of these two things meant that the efforts of all other nations were to be fruitless. The United States had invited the world to join her in denouncing the slave-trade as piracy; yet, when such a pirate was waylaid by an English vessel, the United States complained or demanded reparation. The only answer which this country for years returned to the long-continued exposures of American slave-traders and of the fraudulent use of the American flag, was a recital of cases where Great Britain had gone beyond her legal powers in her attempt to suppress the slave-trade.52In the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Secretary of State Forsyth declared, in 1840, that the duty of the United States in the matter of the slave-trade "has been faithfully performed, and if the traffic still exists as a disgrace to humanity, it is to be imputed to nations with whom Her Majesty's Government has formed and maintained the most intimate connexions, and to whose Governments Great Britain has paid for the right of active intervention in order to its complete extirpation."53So zealous was Stevenson, our minister to England, in denying the Right of Search, that he boldly informed Palmerston, in 1841, "that there is no shadow of pretence for excusing, much less justifying, the exercise of any such right. That it is wholly immaterial, whether the vessels be equipped for, or actually engaged in slave traffic or not, and consequently the right to search or detain even slave vessels, must be confined to the ships or vessels of those nations with whom it may have treaties on the subject."54Palmerstoncourteously replied that he could not think that the United States seriously intended to make its flag a refuge for slave-traders;55and Aberdeen pertinently declared: "Now, it can scarcely be maintained by Mr. Stevenson that Great Britain should be bound to permit her own subjects, with British vessels and British capital, to carry on, before the eyes of British officers, this detestable traffic in human beings, which the law has declared to be piracy, merely because they had the audacity to commit an additional offence by fraudulently usurping the American flag."56Thus the dispute, even after the advent of Webster, went on for a time, involving itself in metaphysical subtleties, and apparently leading no nearer to an understanding.57

In 1838 a fourth conference of the powers for the consideration of the slave-trade took place at London. It was attended by representatives of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. England laid theprojetof a treaty before them, to which all but France assented. This so-called Quintuple Treaty, signed December 20, 1841, denounced the slave-trade as piracy, and declared that "the High Contracting Parties agree by common consent, that those of their ships of war which shall be provided with special warrants and orders ... may search every merchant-vessel belonging to any one of the High Contracting Parties which shall, on reasonable grounds, be suspected of being engaged in the traffic in slaves." All captured slavers were to be sent to their own countries for trial.58

While the ratification of this treaty was pending, the United States minister to France, Lewis Cass, addressed an official note to Guizot at the French foreign office, protesting against the institution of an international Right of Search, and rather grandiloquently warning the powers against the use of force to accomplish their ends.59This extraordinary epistle, issued on the minister's own responsibility, brought a reply denyingthat the creation of any "new principle of international law, whereby the vessels even of those powers which have not participated in the arrangement should be subjected to the right of search," was ever intended, and affirming that no such extraordinary interpretation could be deduced from the Convention. Moreover, M. Guizot hoped that the United States, by agreeing to this treaty, would "aid, by its most sincere endeavors, in the definitive abolition of the trade."60Cass's theatrical protest was, consciously or unconsciously, the manifesto of that growing class in the United States who wanted no further measures taken for the suppression of the slave-trade; toward that, as toward the institution of slavery, this party favored a policy of strictlaissez-faire.

73.Final Concerted Measures, 1842–1862.The Treaty of Washington, in 1842, made the first effective compromise in the matter and broke the unpleasant dead-lock, by substituting joint cruising by English and American squadrons for the proposed grant of a Right of Search. In submitting this treaty, Tyler said: "The treaty which I now submit to you proposes no alteration, mitigation, or modification of the rules of the law of nations. It provides simply that each of the two Governments shall maintain on the coast of Africa a sufficient squadron to enforce separately and respectively the laws, rights, and obligations of the two countries for the suppression of the slave trade."61This provision was a part of the treaty to settle the boundary disputes with England. In the Senate, Benton moved to strike out this article; but the attempt was defeated by a vote of 37 to 12, and the treaty was ratified.62

This stipulation of the treaty of 1842 was never properly carried out by the United States for any length of time.63Consequently the same difficulties as to search and visit by Englishvessels continued to recur. Cases like the following were frequent. The "Illinois," of Gloucester, Massachusetts, while lying at Whydah, Africa, was boarded by a British officer, but having American papers was unmolested. Three days later she hoisted Spanish colors and sailed away with a cargo of slaves. Next morning she fell in with another British vessel and hoisted American colors; the British ship had then no right to molest her; but the captain of the slaver feared that she would, and therefore ran his vessel aground, slaves and all. The senior English officer reported that "had Lieutenant Cumberland brought to and boarded the 'Illinois,' notwithstanding the American colors which she hoisted, ... the American master of the 'Illinois' ... would have complained to his Government of the detention of his vessel."64Again, a vessel which had been boarded by British officers and found with American flag and papers was, a little later, captured under the Spanish flag with four hundred and thirty slaves. She had in the interim complained to the United States government of the boarding.65

Meanwhile, England continued to urge the granting of a Right of Search, claiming that the stand of the United States really amounted to the wholesale protection of pirates under her flag.66The United States answered by alleging that even the Treaty of 1842 had been misconstrued by England,67whereupon there was much warm debate in Congress, and several attempts were made to abrogate the slave-trade article of the treaty.68The pro-slavery party had become more and more suspicious of England's motives, since they had seen her abolition of the slave-trade blossom into abolition of the system itself, and they seized every opportunity to prevent co-operation with her. At the same time, European interest in the question showed some signs of weakening, and no decided action was taken. In 1845 France changed her Right ofSearch stipulations of 1833 to one for joint cruising,69while the Germanic Federation,70Portugal,71and Chili72enounced the trade as piracy. In 1844 Texas granted the Right of Search to England,73and in 1845 Belgium signed the Quintuple Treaty.74

Discussion between England and the United States was revived when Cass held the State portfolio, and, strange to say, the author of "Cass's Protest" went farther than any of his predecessors in acknowledging the justice of England's demands. Said he, in 1859: "If The United States maintained that, by carrying their flag at her masthead, any vessel became thereby entitled to the immunity which belongs to American vessels, they might well be reproached with assuming a position which would go far towards shielding crimes upon the ocean from punishment; but they advance no such pretension, while they concede that, if in the honest examination of a vessel sailing under American colours, but accompanied by strongly-marked suspicious circumstances, a mistake is made, and she is found to be entitled to the flag she bears, but no injury is committed, and the conduct of the boarding party is irreproachable, no Government would be likely to make a case thus exceptional in its character a subject of serious reclamation."75While admitting this and expressing a desire to co-operate in the suppression of the slave-trade, Cass nevertheless steadily refused all further overtures toward a mutual Right of Search.

The increase of the slave-traffic was so great in the decade 1850–1860 that Lord John Russell proposed to the governments of the United States, France, Spain, Portugal, and Brazil, that they instruct their ministers to meet at London in May or June, 1860, to consider measures for the final abolition of the trade. He stated: "It is ascertained, by repeated instances,that the practice is for vessels to sail under the American flag. If the flag is rightly assumed, and the papers correct, no British cruizer can touch them. If no slaves are on board, even though the equipment, the fittings, the water-casks, and other circumstances prove that the ship is on a Slave Trade venture, no American cruizer can touch them."76Continued representations of this kind were made to the paralyzed United States government; indeed, the slave-trade of the world seemed now to float securely under her flag. Nevertheless, Cass refused even to participate in the proposed conference, and later refused to accede to a proposal for joint cruising off the coast of Cuba.77Great Britain offered to relieve the United States of any embarrassment by receiving all captured Africans into the West Indies; but President Buchanan "could not contemplate any such arrangement," and obstinately refused to increase the suppressing squadron.78

On the outbreak of the Civil War, the Lincoln administration, through Secretary Seward, immediately expressed a willingness to do all in its power to suppress the slave-trade.79Accordingly, June 7, 1862, a treaty was signed with Great Britain granting a mutual limited Right of Search, and establishing mixed courts for the trial of offenders at the Cape of Good Hope, Sierra Leone, and New York.80The efforts of a half-century of diplomacy were finally crowned; Seward wrote to Adams, "Had such a treaty been made in 1808, there would now have been no sedition here."81

Footnotes1Cf. Augustine Cochin, in Lalor,Cyclopedia, III. 723.2By a law of Aug. 11, 1792, the encouragement formerly given to the trade was stopped. Cf.Choix de rapports, opinions et discours prononcés à la tribune nationale depuis 1789(Paris, 1821), XIV. 425; quoted in Cochin,The Results of Emancipation(Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 33, 35–8.3Cochin,The Results of Emancipation(Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 42–7.4British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, p. 196.5Ibid., pp. 195–9, 292–3; 1816–7, p. 755. It was eventually confirmed by royal ordinance, and the law of April 15, 1818.6Statute 28 George III., ch. 54. Cf.Statute 29 George III., ch. 66.7Various petitions had come in praying for an abolition of the slave-trade; and by an order in Council, Feb. 11, 1788, a committee of the Privy Council was ordered to take evidence on the subject. This committee presented an elaborate report in 1739. See publishedReport, London, 1789.8For the history of the Parliamentary struggle, cf. Clarkson's and Copley's histories. The movement was checked in the House of Commons in 1789, 1790, and 1791. In 1792 the House of Commons resolved to abolish the trade in 1796. The Lords postponed the matter to take evidence. A bill to prohibit the foreign slave-trade was lost in 1793, passed the next session, and was lost in the House of Lords. In 1795, 1796, 1798, and 1799 repeated attempts to abolish the trade were defeated. The matter then rested until 1804, when the battle was renewed with more success.9Statute 46 George III., ch. 52, 119;47 George III., sess. I. ch. 36.10Sparks,Diplomatic Correspondence, X. 154.11Fox to Hartley, June 10, 1783; quoted in Bancroft,History of the Constitution of the United States, I. 61.12Amer. State Papers, Foreign, III. No. 214, p. 151.13British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, pp. 886, 937 (quotation).14Ibid., pp. 890–1.15British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, p. 887. Russia, Austria, and Prussia returned favorable replies:Ibid., pp. 887–8.16Ibid., p. 889.17She desired a loan, which England made on this condition:Ibid., pp. 921–2.18Ibid., pp. 937–9. Certain financial arrangements secured this concession.19Ibid., pp. 939–7520Amer. State Papers, Foreign, III. No. 271, pp. 735–48;U.S. Treaties and Conventions(ed. 1889), p. 405.21This was inserted in the Treaty of Paris, Nov. 20, 1815:British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, p. 292.22Ibid., 1816–7, pp. 33–74 (English version, 1823–4, p. 702 ff.).23Cf.Ibid., 1817–8, p. 125 ff.24This was the first meeting of the London ministers of the powers according to agreement; they assembled Dec. 4, 1817, and finally called a meeting of plenipotentiaries on the question of suppression at Aix-la-Chapelle, beginning Oct. 24, 1818. Among those present were Metternich, Richelieu, Wellington, Castlereagh, Hardenberg, Bernstorff, Nesselrode, and Capodistrias. Castlereagh made two propositions: 1. That the five powers join in urging Portugal and Brazil to abolish the trade May 20, 1820; 2. That the powers adopt the principle of a mutual qualified Right of Search. Cf.British and Foreign State Papers, 1818–9, pp. 21–88;Amer. State Papers, Foreign, V. No. 346, pp. 113–122.25For cases, see1 Acton, 240, the "Amedie," and1 Dodson, 81, the "Fortuna;" quoted in U.S. Reports,10 Wheaton, 66.26Cf. the case of the French ship "Le Louis":2 Dodson, 238; and also the case of the "San Juan Nepomuceno":1 Haggard, 267.27British and Foreign State Papers, 1819–20, pp. 375–9; also pp. 220–2.28Ibid., 1820–21, pp. 395–6.29House Doc., 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77.30Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 71, 73–78, 94–109. The motion was opposed largely by Southern members, and passed by a vote of 17 to 16.31One was reported, May 9, 1820, by Mercer's committee, and passed May 12:House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 497, 518, 520, 526;Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 697–9. A similar resolution passed the House next session, and a committee reported in favor of the Right of Search:Ibid., 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1064–71. Cf.Ibid., pp. 476, 743, 865, 1469.32British and Foreign State Papers, 1820–21, pp. 397–400.33British and Foreign State Papers, 1822–3, pp. 94–110.34House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92.35House Journal, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 212, 280;Annals of Cong., 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 922, 1147–1155.36British and Foreign State Papers, 1823–4, pp. 409–21; 1824–5, pp. 828–47;Amer. State Papers, Foreign, V. No. 371, pp. 333–7.37Ibid.38Ibid., No. 374, p. 344 ff., No. 379, pp. 360–2.39House Reports, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70;Amer. State Papers, Foreign, V. No. 379, pp. 364–5, No. 414, p. 783, etc. Among the nations invited by the United States to co-operate in suppressing the trade was the United States of Colombia. Mr. Anderson, our minister, expressed "the certain belief that the Republic of Colombia will not permit herself to be behind any Government in the civilized world in the adoption of energetic measures for the suppression of this disgraceful traffic":Ibid., No. 407, p. 729. The little republic replied courteously; and, as aprojetfor a treaty, Mr. Anderson offered the proposed English treaty of 1824, including the Senate amendments. Nevertheless, the treaty thus agreed to was summarily rejected by the Senate, March 9, 1825:Ibid., p. 735. Another result of this general invitation of the United States was a proposal by Colombia that the slave-trade and the status of Hayti be among the subjects for discussion at the Panama Congress. As a result of this, a Senate committee recommended that the United States take no part in the Congress. This report was finally disagreed to by a vote of 19 to 24:Ibid., No. 423, pp. 837, 860, 876, 882.40British and Foreign State Papers, 1823–4, and 1826–7. Brazil abolished the trade in 1830.41This treaty was further defined in 1833:Ibid., 1830–1, p. 641 ff.; 1832–3, p. 286 ff.42Ibid., 1833–4, pp. 218 ff., 1059 ff.43Ibid., 1837–8, p. 268 ff.44Ibid., 1838–9, p. 792 ff.45Viz., Feb. 28, 1825; April 7, 1830; Feb. 16, 1831; March 3, 1831. The last resolution passed the House:House Journal, 21 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 426–8.46Cf.House Doc., 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 35–6, etc.;House Reports, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 730–55, etc.47These were the celebrated cases of the "Encomium," "Enterprize," and "Comet." Cf.Senate Doc., 24 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 174; 25 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 216. Cf. also case of the "Creole":Ibid., 27 Cong. 2 sess. II.-III. Nos. 51, 137.48Ibid., 26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 179;Senate Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29; 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 19;Senate Reports, 31 Cong. 2 sess. No. 301; 32 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 158; 35 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 36;House Doc., 26 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 185; 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191; 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 83;House Exec. Doc., 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20;House Reports, 26 Cong. 2 sess. No. 51; 28 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 426; 29 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 753; also Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,15 Peters, 518. Cf. Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, p. 98.49British and Foreign State Papers, 1834–5, p. 136.50Ibid., pp. 135–47. Great Britain made treaties meanwhile with Hayti, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentine Confederation, Mexico, Texas, etc. Portugal prohibited the slave-trade in 1836, except between her African colonies. Cf.Ibid., from 1838 to 1841.51These estimates are from the following sources:Ibid., 1822–3, pp. 94–110;Parliamentary Papers, 1823, XVIII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, A., pp. 10–11; 1838–9, XLIX.,Slave Trade, Class A, Further Series, pp. 115, 119, 121;House Doc., 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 1, p. 93; 20 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 99; 26 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 211;House Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 193;House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348;Senate Doc., 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 217; 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66; 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6;Amer. State Papers, Naval, I. No. 249; Buxton,The African Slave Trade and its Remedy, pp. 44–59; Friends'Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade(ed. 1841); Friends'Exposition of the Slave Trade, 1840–50;Annual Reports of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.The annexed table gives the dates of the abolition of the slave-trade by the various nations:—Date.Slave-trade Abolished byRight of SearchTreaty withGreat Britain,made byArrangements forJoint Cruising withGreat Britain,made by1802Denmark.1807Great Britain; United States.1813Sweden.1814Netherlands.1815Portugal (north of the equator).1817Spain (north of the equator).Portugal; Spain.1818France.Netherlands.1820Spain.1824Sweden.1829Brazil (?).1830Portugal.1831–33France.1833–39Denmark, Hanse Towns, etc.1841Quintuple Treaty (Austria,Russia, Prussia).1842United States.1844Texas.1845Belgium.France.1862United States.52Cf.British and Foreign State Papers, from 1836 to 1842.53Ibid., 1839–40, p. 940.54House Doc., 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, pp. 5–6.55Senate Doc., 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 56.56Ibid., p. 72.57Ibid., pp. 133–40, etc.58British and Foreign State Papers, 1841–2, p. 269 ff.59See below, Appendix B.60Senate Doc., 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 201.61Senate Exec. Journal, VI. 123.62U.S. Treaties and Conventions(ed. 1889), pp. 436–7. For the debates in the Senate, seeCongressional Globe, 27 Cong. 3 sess. Appendix. Cass resigned on account of the acceptance of this treaty without a distinct denial of the Right of Search, claiming that this compromised his position in France. Cf.Senate Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess. II., IV. Nos. 52, 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377.63Cf. below, Chapter X.64Senate Exec. Doc., 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 72.65Ibid., p. 77.66House Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192, p. 4. Cf.British and Foreign State Papers, 1842–3, p. 708 ff.67House Journal, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 431, 485–8. Cf.House Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192.68Cf. below, Chapter X.69With a fleet of 26 vessels, reduced to 12 in 1849:British and Foreign State Papers, 1844–5, p. 4 ff.; 1849–50, p. 480.70Ibid., 1850–1, p. 953.71Portugal renewed her Right of Search treaty in 1842:Ibid., 1841–2, p. 527 ff.; 1842–3, p. 450.72Ibid., 1843–4, p. 316.73Ibid., 1844–5, p. 592. There already existed some such privileges between England and Texas.74Ibid., 1847–8, p. 397 ff.75Ibid., 1858–9, pp. 1121, 1129.76British and Foreign State Papers, 1859–60, pp. 902–3.77House Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7.78Ibid.79Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 57.80Senate Exec. Journal, XII. 230–1, 240, 254, 256, 391, 400, 403;Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, pp. 141, 158;U.S. Treaties and Conventions(ed. 1889), pp. 454–9.81Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, pp. 64–5. This treaty was revised in 1863. The mixed court in the West Indies had, by February, 1864, liberated 95,206 Africans:Senate Exec. Doc., 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56, p. 24.

1Cf. Augustine Cochin, in Lalor,Cyclopedia, III. 723.

2By a law of Aug. 11, 1792, the encouragement formerly given to the trade was stopped. Cf.Choix de rapports, opinions et discours prononcés à la tribune nationale depuis 1789(Paris, 1821), XIV. 425; quoted in Cochin,The Results of Emancipation(Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 33, 35–8.

3Cochin,The Results of Emancipation(Booth's translation, 1863), pp. 42–7.

4British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, p. 196.

5Ibid., pp. 195–9, 292–3; 1816–7, p. 755. It was eventually confirmed by royal ordinance, and the law of April 15, 1818.

6Statute 28 George III., ch. 54. Cf.Statute 29 George III., ch. 66.

7Various petitions had come in praying for an abolition of the slave-trade; and by an order in Council, Feb. 11, 1788, a committee of the Privy Council was ordered to take evidence on the subject. This committee presented an elaborate report in 1739. See publishedReport, London, 1789.

8For the history of the Parliamentary struggle, cf. Clarkson's and Copley's histories. The movement was checked in the House of Commons in 1789, 1790, and 1791. In 1792 the House of Commons resolved to abolish the trade in 1796. The Lords postponed the matter to take evidence. A bill to prohibit the foreign slave-trade was lost in 1793, passed the next session, and was lost in the House of Lords. In 1795, 1796, 1798, and 1799 repeated attempts to abolish the trade were defeated. The matter then rested until 1804, when the battle was renewed with more success.

9Statute 46 George III., ch. 52, 119;47 George III., sess. I. ch. 36.

10Sparks,Diplomatic Correspondence, X. 154.

11Fox to Hartley, June 10, 1783; quoted in Bancroft,History of the Constitution of the United States, I. 61.

12Amer. State Papers, Foreign, III. No. 214, p. 151.

13British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, pp. 886, 937 (quotation).

14Ibid., pp. 890–1.

15British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, p. 887. Russia, Austria, and Prussia returned favorable replies:Ibid., pp. 887–8.

16Ibid., p. 889.

17She desired a loan, which England made on this condition:Ibid., pp. 921–2.

18Ibid., pp. 937–9. Certain financial arrangements secured this concession.

19Ibid., pp. 939–75

20Amer. State Papers, Foreign, III. No. 271, pp. 735–48;U.S. Treaties and Conventions(ed. 1889), p. 405.

21This was inserted in the Treaty of Paris, Nov. 20, 1815:British and Foreign State Papers, 1815–6, p. 292.

22Ibid., 1816–7, pp. 33–74 (English version, 1823–4, p. 702 ff.).

23Cf.Ibid., 1817–8, p. 125 ff.

24This was the first meeting of the London ministers of the powers according to agreement; they assembled Dec. 4, 1817, and finally called a meeting of plenipotentiaries on the question of suppression at Aix-la-Chapelle, beginning Oct. 24, 1818. Among those present were Metternich, Richelieu, Wellington, Castlereagh, Hardenberg, Bernstorff, Nesselrode, and Capodistrias. Castlereagh made two propositions: 1. That the five powers join in urging Portugal and Brazil to abolish the trade May 20, 1820; 2. That the powers adopt the principle of a mutual qualified Right of Search. Cf.British and Foreign State Papers, 1818–9, pp. 21–88;Amer. State Papers, Foreign, V. No. 346, pp. 113–122.

25For cases, see1 Acton, 240, the "Amedie," and1 Dodson, 81, the "Fortuna;" quoted in U.S. Reports,10 Wheaton, 66.

26Cf. the case of the French ship "Le Louis":2 Dodson, 238; and also the case of the "San Juan Nepomuceno":1 Haggard, 267.

27British and Foreign State Papers, 1819–20, pp. 375–9; also pp. 220–2.

28Ibid., 1820–21, pp. 395–6.

29House Doc., 14 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 77.

30Annals of Cong., 15 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 71, 73–78, 94–109. The motion was opposed largely by Southern members, and passed by a vote of 17 to 16.

31One was reported, May 9, 1820, by Mercer's committee, and passed May 12:House Journal, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 497, 518, 520, 526;Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 697–9. A similar resolution passed the House next session, and a committee reported in favor of the Right of Search:Ibid., 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1064–71. Cf.Ibid., pp. 476, 743, 865, 1469.

32British and Foreign State Papers, 1820–21, pp. 397–400.

33British and Foreign State Papers, 1822–3, pp. 94–110.

34House Reports, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92.

35House Journal, 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 212, 280;Annals of Cong., 17 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 922, 1147–1155.

36British and Foreign State Papers, 1823–4, pp. 409–21; 1824–5, pp. 828–47;Amer. State Papers, Foreign, V. No. 371, pp. 333–7.

37Ibid.

38Ibid., No. 374, p. 344 ff., No. 379, pp. 360–2.

39House Reports, 18 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 70;Amer. State Papers, Foreign, V. No. 379, pp. 364–5, No. 414, p. 783, etc. Among the nations invited by the United States to co-operate in suppressing the trade was the United States of Colombia. Mr. Anderson, our minister, expressed "the certain belief that the Republic of Colombia will not permit herself to be behind any Government in the civilized world in the adoption of energetic measures for the suppression of this disgraceful traffic":Ibid., No. 407, p. 729. The little republic replied courteously; and, as aprojetfor a treaty, Mr. Anderson offered the proposed English treaty of 1824, including the Senate amendments. Nevertheless, the treaty thus agreed to was summarily rejected by the Senate, March 9, 1825:Ibid., p. 735. Another result of this general invitation of the United States was a proposal by Colombia that the slave-trade and the status of Hayti be among the subjects for discussion at the Panama Congress. As a result of this, a Senate committee recommended that the United States take no part in the Congress. This report was finally disagreed to by a vote of 19 to 24:Ibid., No. 423, pp. 837, 860, 876, 882.

40British and Foreign State Papers, 1823–4, and 1826–7. Brazil abolished the trade in 1830.

41This treaty was further defined in 1833:Ibid., 1830–1, p. 641 ff.; 1832–3, p. 286 ff.

42Ibid., 1833–4, pp. 218 ff., 1059 ff.

43Ibid., 1837–8, p. 268 ff.

44Ibid., 1838–9, p. 792 ff.

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

46Cf.House Doc., 26 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 115, pp. 35–6, etc.;House Reports, 27 Cong. 3 sess. III. No. 283, pp. 730–55, etc.

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

48Ibid., 26 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 179;Senate Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 29; 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 19;Senate Reports, 31 Cong. 2 sess. No. 301; 32 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 158; 35 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 36;House Doc., 26 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 185; 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 191; 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 83;House Exec. Doc., 32 Cong. 2 sess. III. No. 20;House Reports, 26 Cong. 2 sess. No. 51; 28 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 426; 29 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 753; also Decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court,15 Peters, 518. Cf. Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, p. 98.

49British and Foreign State Papers, 1834–5, p. 136.

50Ibid., pp. 135–47. Great Britain made treaties meanwhile with Hayti, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentine Confederation, Mexico, Texas, etc. Portugal prohibited the slave-trade in 1836, except between her African colonies. Cf.Ibid., from 1838 to 1841.

51These estimates are from the following sources:Ibid., 1822–3, pp. 94–110;Parliamentary Papers, 1823, XVIII.,Slave Trade, Further Papers, A., pp. 10–11; 1838–9, XLIX.,Slave Trade, Class A, Further Series, pp. 115, 119, 121;House Doc., 19 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 1, p. 93; 20 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 99; 26 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 211;House Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 193;House Reports, 21 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 348;Senate Doc., 28 Cong. 1 sess. IV. No. 217; 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66; 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6;Amer. State Papers, Naval, I. No. 249; Buxton,The African Slave Trade and its Remedy, pp. 44–59; Friends'Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade(ed. 1841); Friends'Exposition of the Slave Trade, 1840–50;Annual Reports of the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.The annexed table gives the dates of the abolition of the slave-trade by the various nations:—Date.Slave-trade Abolished byRight of SearchTreaty withGreat Britain,made byArrangements forJoint Cruising withGreat Britain,made by1802Denmark.1807Great Britain; United States.1813Sweden.1814Netherlands.1815Portugal (north of the equator).1817Spain (north of the equator).Portugal; Spain.1818France.Netherlands.1820Spain.1824Sweden.1829Brazil (?).1830Portugal.1831–33France.1833–39Denmark, Hanse Towns, etc.1841Quintuple Treaty (Austria,Russia, Prussia).1842United States.1844Texas.1845Belgium.France.1862United States.

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

52Cf.British and Foreign State Papers, from 1836 to 1842.

53Ibid., 1839–40, p. 940.

54House Doc., 27 Cong. 1 sess. No. 34, pp. 5–6.

55Senate Doc., 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 56.

56Ibid., p. 72.

57Ibid., pp. 133–40, etc.

58British and Foreign State Papers, 1841–2, p. 269 ff.

59See below, Appendix B.

60Senate Doc., 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377, p. 201.

61Senate Exec. Journal, VI. 123.

62U.S. Treaties and Conventions(ed. 1889), pp. 436–7. For the debates in the Senate, seeCongressional Globe, 27 Cong. 3 sess. Appendix. Cass resigned on account of the acceptance of this treaty without a distinct denial of the Right of Search, claiming that this compromised his position in France. Cf.Senate Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess. II., IV. Nos. 52, 223; 29 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 377.

63Cf. below, Chapter X.

64Senate Exec. Doc., 28 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 150, p. 72.

65Ibid., p. 77.

66House Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192, p. 4. Cf.British and Foreign State Papers, 1842–3, p. 708 ff.

67House Journal, 27 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 431, 485–8. Cf.House Doc., 27 Cong. 3 sess. V. No. 192.

68Cf. below, Chapter X.

69With a fleet of 26 vessels, reduced to 12 in 1849:British and Foreign State Papers, 1844–5, p. 4 ff.; 1849–50, p. 480.

70Ibid., 1850–1, p. 953.

71Portugal renewed her Right of Search treaty in 1842:Ibid., 1841–2, p. 527 ff.; 1842–3, p. 450.

72Ibid., 1843–4, p. 316.

73Ibid., 1844–5, p. 592. There already existed some such privileges between England and Texas.

74Ibid., 1847–8, p. 397 ff.

75Ibid., 1858–9, pp. 1121, 1129.

76British and Foreign State Papers, 1859–60, pp. 902–3.

77House Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7.

78Ibid.

79Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 57.

80Senate Exec. Journal, XII. 230–1, 240, 254, 256, 391, 400, 403;Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, pp. 141, 158;U.S. Treaties and Conventions(ed. 1889), pp. 454–9.

81Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, pp. 64–5. This treaty was revised in 1863. The mixed court in the West Indies had, by February, 1864, liberated 95,206 Africans:Senate Exec. Doc., 38 Cong. 1 sess. No. 56, p. 24.

74.The Economic Revolution.The history of slavery and the slave-trade after 1820 must be read in the light of the industrial revolution through which the civilized world passed in the first half of the nineteenth century. Between the years 1775 and 1825 occurred economic events and changes of the highest importance and widest influence. Though all branches of industry felt the impulse of this new industrial life, yet, "if we consider single industries, cotton manufacture has, during the nineteenth century, made the most magnificent and gigantic advances."1This fact is easily explained by the remarkable series of inventions that revolutionized this industry between 1738 and 1830, including Arkwright's, Watt's, Compton's, and Cartwright's epoch-making contrivances.2The effect which these inventions had on the manufacture of cotton goods is best illustrated by the fact that in England, the chief cottonmarket of the world, the consumption of raw cotton rose steadily from 13,000 bales in 1781, to 572,000 in 1820, to 871,000 in 1830, and to 3,366,000 in 1860.3Very early, therefore, came the query whence the supply of raw cotton was to come. Tentative experiments on the rich, broad fields of the Southern United States, together with the indispensable invention of Whitney's cotton-gin, soon answered this question: a new economic future was opened up to this land, and immediately the whole South began to extend its cotton culture, and more and more to throw its whole energy into this one staple.

Here it was that the fatal mistake of compromising with slavery in the beginning, and of the policy oflaissez-fairepursued thereafter, became painfully manifest; for, instead now of a healthy, normal, economic development along proper industrial lines, we have the abnormal and fatal rise of a slave-labor large farming system, which, before it was realized, had so intertwined itself with and braced itself upon the economic forces of an industrial age, that a vast and terrible civil war was necessary to displace it. The tendencies to a patriarchal serfdom, recognizable in the age of Washington and Jefferson, began slowly but surely to disappear; and in the second quarter of the century Southern slavery was irresistibly changing from a family institution to an industrial system.

The development of Southern slavery has heretofore been viewed so exclusively from the ethical and social standpoint that we are apt to forget its close and indissoluble connection with the world's cotton market. Beginning with 1820, a little after the close of the Napoleonic wars, when the industry of cotton manufacture had begun its modern development and the South had definitely assumed her position as chief producer of raw cotton, we find the average price of cotton per pound, 8½d.From this time until 1845 the price steadily fell, until in the latter year it reached 4d.; the only exception to this fall was in the years 1832–1839, when, among other things, a strong increase in the English demand, together with an attempt of the young slave power to "corner" the market, sent the price up as high as 11d.The demand for cottongoods soon outran a crop which McCullough had pronounced "prodigious," and after 1845 the price started on a steady rise, which, except for the checks suffered during the continental revolutions and the Crimean War, continued until 1860.4The steady increase in the production of cotton explains the fall in price down to 1845. In 1822 the crop was a half-million bales; in 1831, a million; in 1838, a million and a half; and in 1840–1843, two million. By this time the world's consumption of cotton goods began to increase so rapidly that, in spite of the increase in Southern crops, the price kept rising. Three million bales were gathered in 1852, three and a half million in 1856, and the remarkable crop of five million bales in 1860.5

Here we have data to explain largely the economic development of the South. By 1822 the large-plantation slave system had gained footing; in 1838–1839 it was able to show its power in the cotton "corner;" by the end of the next decade it had not only gained a solid economic foundation, but it had built a closed oligarchy with a political policy. The changes in price during the next few years drove out of competition many survivors of the small-farming free-labor system, and put the slaverégimein position to dictate the policy of the nation. The zenith of the system and the first inevitable signs of decay came in the years 1850–1860, when the rising price of cotton threw the whole economic energy of the South into its cultivation, leading to a terrible consumption of soil and slaves, to a great increase in the size of plantations, and to increasing power and effrontery on the part of the slave barons. Finally, when a rising moral crusade conjoined with threatened economic disaster, the oligarchy, encouraged by the state of the cotton market, risked all on a politicalcoup-d'état, which failed in the war of 1861–1865.6

75.The Attitude of the South.The attitude of the South toward the slave-trade changedpari passuwith this development of the cotton trade. From 1808 to 1820 the South half wished to get rid of a troublesome and abnormal institution,and yet saw no way to do so. The fear of insurrection and of the further spread of the disagreeable system led her to consent to the partial prohibition of the trade by severe national enactments. Nevertheless, she had in the matter no settled policy: she refused to support vigorously the execution of the laws she had helped to make, and at the same time she acknowledged the theoretical necessity of these laws. After 1820, however, there came a gradual change. The South found herself supplied with a body of slave laborers, whose number had been augmented by large illicit importations, with an abundance of rich land, and with all other natural facilities for raising a crop which was in large demand and peculiarly adapted to slave labor. The increasing crop caused a new demand for slaves, and an interstate slave-traffic arose between the Border and the Gulf States, which turned the former into slave-breeding districts, and bound them to the slave States by ties of strong economic interest.

As the cotton crop continued to increase, this source of supply became inadequate, especially as the theory of land and slave consumption broke down former ethical and prudential bounds. It was, for example, found cheaper to work a slave to death in a few years, and buy a new one, than to care for him in sickness and old age; so, too, it was easier to despoil rich, new land in a few years of intensive culture, and move on to the Southwest, than to fertilize and conserve the soil.7Consequently, there early came a demand for land and slaves greater than the country could supply. The demand for land showed itself in the annexation of Texas, the conquest of Mexico, and the movement toward the acquisition of Cuba. The demand for slaves was manifested in the illicit traffic that noticeably increased about 1835, and reached large proportions by 1860. It was also seen in a disposition to attack the government for stigmatizing the trade as criminal,8then in a disinclination to take any measures which would have rendered our repressive laws effective; and finally in such articulate declarations by prominent men as this: "Experience havingsettled the point, that this Tradecannot be abolished by the use of force, and that blockading squadrons serve only to make it more profitable and more cruel, I am surprised that the attempt is persisted in, unless as it serves as a cloak to some other purposes. It would be far better than it now is, for the African, if the trade was free from all restrictions, and left to the mitigation and decay which time and competition would surely bring about."9

76.The Attitude of the North and Congress.With the North as yet unawakened to the great changes taking place in the South, and with the attitude of the South thus in process of development, little or no constructive legislation could be expected on the subject of the slave-trade. As the divergence in sentiment became more and more pronounced, there were various attempts at legislation, all of which proved abortive. The pro-slavery party attempted, as early as 1826, and again in 1828, to abolish the African agency and leave the Africans practically at the mercy of the States;10one or two attempts were made to relax the few provisions which restrained the coastwise trade;11and, after the treaty of 1842, Benton proposed to stop appropriations for the African squadron until England defined her position on the Right of Search question.12The anti-slavery men presented several bills to amend and strengthen previous laws;13they sought, for instance, in vain to regulate the Texan trade, through which numbers of slaves indirectly reached the United States.14Presidents and consuls earnestly recommended legislation to restrict the clearances of vessels bound on slave-trading voyages, and to hinder the facility with which slavers obtained fraudulent papers.15Only one such bill succeeded in passing the Senate, and that was dropped in the House.16

The only legislation of this period was confined to a few appropriation bills. Only one of these acts, that of 1823, appropriating $50,000,17was designed materially to aid in the suppression of the trade, all the others relating to expenses incurred after violations. After 1823 the appropriations dwindled, being made at intervals of one, two, and three years, down to 1834, when the amount was $5,000. No further appropriations were made until 1842, when a few thousands above an unexpended surplus were appropriated. In 1843 $5,000 were given, and finally, in 1846, $25,000 were secured; but this was the last sum obtainable until 1856.18Nearly all of these meagre appropriations went toward reimbursing Southern plantation owners for the care and support of illegally imported Africans, and the rest to the maintenance of the African agency. Suspiciously large sums were paid for the first purpose, considering the fact that such Africans were always worked hard by those to whom they were farmed out, and often "disappeared" while in their hands. In the accounts we nevertheless find many items like that of $20,286.98 for the maintenance of Negroes imported on the "Ramirez;"19in 1827, $5,442.22 for the "bounty, subsistence, clothing, medicine," etc., of fifteen Africans;20in 1835, $3,613 for the support of thirty-eight slaves for two months (including a bill of $1,038for medical attendance).21

The African agency suffered many vicissitudes. The first agent, Bacon, who set out early in 1820, was authorized by President Monroe "to form an establishment on the island of Sherbro, or elsewhere on the coast of Africa," and to build barracks for three hundred persons. He was, however, warned "not to connect your agency with the views or plans of the Colonization Society, with which, under the law, the Government of the United States has no concern." Bacon soon died, and was followed during the next four years by Winn and Ayres; they succeeded in establishing a government agency on Cape Mesurado, in conjunction with that of the Colonization Society. The agent of that Society, Jehudi Ashmun, became after 1822, the virtual head of the colony; he fortified and enlarged it, and laid the foundations of an independent community. The succeeding government agents came to be merely official representatives of the United States, and the distribution of free rations for liberated Africans ceased in 1827.

Between 1819 and 1830 two hundred and fifty-two recaptured Africans were sent to the agency, and $264,710 were expended. The property of the government at the agency was valued at $18,895. From 1830 to 1840, nearly $20,000 more were expended, chiefly for the agents' salaries. About 1840 the appointment of an agent ceased, and the colony became gradually self-supporting and independent. It was proclaimed as the Republic of Liberia in 1847.22

77.Imperfect Application of the Laws.In reviewing efforts toward the suppression of the slave-trade from 1820 to 1850, it must be remembered that nearly every cabinet had a strong, if not a predominating, Southern element, and that consequently the efforts of the executive were powerfully influenced by the changing attitude of the South. Naturally, under such circumstances, the government displayed little activity and no enthusiasm in the work. In 1824 a single vessel of the Gulf squadron was occasionally sent to the African coast to return by the route usually followed by the slavers; no wonder that "none of these or any other of our public ships have found vessels engaged in the slave trade under the flag of the United States, ... although it is known that the trade still exists to a most lamentable extent."23Indeed, all that an American slaver need do was to run up a Spanish or a Portuguese flag, to be absolutely secure from all attack or inquiry on the part of United States vessels. Even this desultory method of suppression was not regular: in 1826 "no vessel has been despatched to the coast of Africa for several months,"24and from that time until 1839 this country probably had no slave-trade police upon the seas, except in the Gulf of Mexico. In 1839 increasing violations led to the sending of two fast-sailing vessels to the African coast, and these were kept there more or less regularly;25but even after the signing of the treaty of 1842 the Secretary of the Navy reports: "On the coast of Africa we havenosquadron. The small appropriation of the present year was believed to be scarcely sufficient."26Between 1843 and 1850 the coast squadron varied from two to six vessels, with from thirty to ninety-eight guns;27"but the force habitually and actively engaged in cruizing on the ground frequented by slavers has probably been less by one-fourth, if we consider the size of the ships employed and their withdrawal for purposes of recreation and health, and the movement of the reliefs, whose arrival does not correspond exactly with the departure of the vessels whose term of servicehas expired."28The reports of the navy show that in only four of the eight years mentioned was the fleet, at the time of report, at the stipulated size of eighty guns; and at times it was much below this, even as late as 1848, when only two vessels are reported on duty along the African coast.29As the commanders themselves acknowledged, the squadron was too small and the cruising-ground too large to make joint cruising effective.30

The same story comes from the Brazil station: "Nothing effectual can be done towards stopping the slave trade, as our squadron is at present organized," wrote the consul at Rio Janeiro in 1847; "when it is considered that the Brazil station extends from north of the equator to Cape Horn on this continent, and includes a great part of Africa south of the equator, on both sides of the Cape of Good Hope, it must be admitted that one frigate and one brig is a very insufficient force to protect American commerce, and repress the participation in the slave trade by our own vessels."31In the Gulf of Mexico cruisers were stationed most of the time, although even here there were at times urgent representations that the scarcity or the absence of such vessels gave the illicit trade great license.32

Owing to this general negligence of the government, and also to its anxiety on the subject of the theoretic Right of Search, many officials were kept in a state of chronic deception in regard to the trade. The enthusiasm of commanders was dampened by the lack of latitude allowed and by the repeatedinsistence in their orders on the non-existence of a Right of Search.33When one commander, realizing that he could not cover the trading-track with his fleet, requested English commanders to detain suspicious American vessels until one of his vessels came up, the government annulled the agreement as soon as it reached their ears, rebuked him, and the matter was alluded to in Congress long after with horror.34According to the orders of cruisers, only slavers with slaves actually on board could be seized. Consequently, fully equipped slavers would sail past the American fleet, deliberately make all preparations for shipping a cargo, then, when the English were not near, "sell" the ship to a Spaniard, hoist the Spanish flag, and again sail gayly past the American fleet with a cargo of slaves. An English commander reported: "The officers of the United States' navy are extremely active and zealous in the cause, and no fault can be attributed to them, but it is greatly to be lamented that this blemish should in so great a degree nullify our endeavours."35

78.Responsibility of the Government.Not only did the government thus negatively favor the slave-trade, but also many conscious, positive acts must be attributed to a spirit hostile to the proper enforcement of the slave-trade laws. In cases of doubt, when the law needed executive interpretation, the decision was usually in favor of the looser construction of the law; the trade from New Orleans to Mobile was, for instance, declared not to be coastwise trade, and consequently, to the joy of the Cuban smugglers, was left utterly free and unrestricted.36After the conquest of Mexico, even vessels bound to California, by the way of Cape Horn, wereallowed to clear coastwise, thus giving our flag to "the slave-pirates of the whole world."37Attorney-General Nelson declared that the selling to a slave-trader of an American vessel, to be delivered on the coast of Africa, was not aiding or abetting the slave-trade.38So easy was it for slavers to sail that corruption among officials was hinted at. "There is certainly a want of proper vigilance at Havana," wrote Commander Perry in 1844, "and perhaps at the ports of the United States;" and again, in the same year, "I cannot but think that the custom-house authorities in the United States are not sufficiently rigid in looking after vessels of suspicious character."39

In the courts it was still next to impossible to secure the punishment of the most notorious slave-trader. In 1847 a consul writes: "The slave power in this city [i.e., Rio Janeiro] is extremely great, and a consul doing his duty needs to be supported kindly and effectually at home. In the case of the 'Fame,' where the vessel was diverted from the business intended by her owners and employed in the slave trade—both of which offences are punishable with death, if I rightly read the laws—I sent home the two mates charged with these offences, for trial, the first mate to Norfolk, the second mate to Philadelphia. What was done with the first mate I know not. In the case of the man sent to Philadelphia, Mr. Commissioner Kane states that a clear prima facie case is made out, and then holds him to bail in the sum ofone thousand dollars, which would be paid by any slave trader in Rio, on thepresentation of a draft. In all this there is little encouragement for exertion."40Again, the "Perry" in 1850 captured a slaver which was about to ship 1,800 slaves. The captain admitted his guilt, and was condemned in the United States District Court at New York. Nevertheless, he was admitted to bail of $5,000; this being afterward reduced to $3,000, he forfeited it and escaped. The mate was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.41Also several slavers sent home to the United States by the British, with clear evidence of guilt, escaped condemnation through technicalities.42

79.Activity of the Slave-Trade, 1820–1850.The enhanced price of slaves throughout the American slave market, brought about by the new industrial development and the laws against the slave-trade, was the irresistible temptation that drew American capital and enterprise into that traffic. In the United States, in spite of the large interstate traffic, the average price of slaves rose from about $325 in 1840, to $360 in 1850, and to $500 in 1860.43Brazil and Cuba offered similar inducements to smugglers, and the American flag was ready to protect such pirates. As a result, the American slave-trade finally came to be carried on principally by United States capital, in United States ships, officered by United States citizens, and under the United States flag.

Executive reports repeatedly acknowledged this fact. In 1839 "a careful revision of these laws" is recommended by the President, in order that "the integrity and honor of our flag may be carefully preserved."44In June, 1841, the President declares: "There is reason to believe that the traffic is on the increase," and advocates "vigorous efforts."45His message in December of the same year acknowledges: "That the American flag is grossly abused by the abandoned and profligate of other nations is but too probable."46The special message of 1845 explains at length that "it would seem" that a regular policy of evading the laws is carried on: American vessels with the knowledge of the owners are chartered by notorious slave dealers in Brazil, aided by English capitalists, with this intent.47The message of 1849 "earnestly" invites the attention of Congress "to an amendment of our existing laws relating to the African slave-trade, with a view to the effectual suppressionof that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied," continues the message, "that this trade is still, in part, carried on by means of vessels built in the United States, and owned or navigated by some of our citizens."48Governor Buchanan of Liberia reported in 1839: "The chief obstacle to the success of the very active measures pursued by the British government for the suppression of the slave-trade on the coast, is theAmerican flag. Never was the proud banner of freedom so extensively used by those pirates upon liberty and humanity, as at this season."49One well-known American slaver was boarded fifteen times and twice taken into port, but always escaped by means of her papers.50Even American officers report that the English are doing all they can, but that the American flag protects the trade.51The evidence which literally poured in from our consuls and ministers at Brazil adds to the story of the guilt of the United States.52It was proven that the participation of United States citizens in the trade was large and systematic. One of the most notorious slave merchants of Brazil said: "I am worried by the Americans, who insist upon my hiring their vessels for slave-trade."53Minister Proffit stated, in 1844, that the "slave-trade is almost entirely carried on under our flag, in American-built vessels."54So, too, in Cuba: the British commissioners affirm that American citizens were openly engaged in the traffic; vessels arrived undisguised at Havana from the United States, and cleared for Africa as slavers after an alleged sale.55The American consul, Trist, was proven to have consciously or unconsciously aided this trade by the issuance of blankclearance papers.56

Back to Index Next