Footnotes

About 1859 the frequent and notorious violations of our laws aroused even the Buchanan government; a larger appropriation was obtained, swift light steamers were employed, and, though we may well doubt whether after such a carnival illegal importations "entirely" ceased, as the President informed Congress,84yet some sincere efforts at suppression were certainly begun. From 1850 to 1859 we have few notices of captured slavers, but in 1860 the increased appropriation of the thirty-fifth Congress resulted in the capture of twelve vessels with 3,119 Africans.85The Act of June 16, 1860, enabled thePresident to contract with the Colonization Society for the return of recaptured Africans; and by a long-needed arrangement cruisers were to proceed direct to Africa with such cargoes, instead of first landing them in this country.86

90.Attitude of the Southern Confederacy.The attempt, initiated by the constitutional fathers, to separate the problem of slavery from that of the slave-trade had, after a trial of half a century, signally failed, and for well-defined economic reasons. The nation had at last come to the parting of the ways, one of which led to a free-labor system, the other to a slave system fed by the slave-trade. Both sections of the country naturally hesitated at the cross-roads: the North clung to the delusion that a territorially limited system of slavery, without a slave-trade, was still possible in the South; the South hesitated to fight for her logical object—slavery and free trade in Negroes—and, in her moral and economic dilemma, sought to make autonomy and the Constitution her object. The real line of contention was, however, fixed by years of development, and was unalterable by the present whims or wishes of the contestants, no matter how important or interesting these might be: the triumph of the North meant free labor; the triumph of the South meant slavery and the slave-trade.

It is doubtful if many of the Southern leaders ever deceived themselves by thinking that Southern slavery, as it then was, could long be maintained without a general or a partial reopening of the slave-trade. Many had openly declared this a few years before, and there was no reason for a change of opinion. Nevertheless, at the outbreak of actual war and secession, there were powerful and decisive reasons for relegating the question temporarily to the rear. In the first place, only by this means could the adherence of important Border States be secured, without the aid of which secession was folly. Secondly, while it did no harm to laud the independence of the South and the kingship of cotton in "stump" speeches and conventions, yet, when it came to actual hostilities, the South sorely needed the aid of Europe; and this a nation fighting for slavery and the slave-trade stood poor chance of getting. Consequently, after attacking the slave-tradelaws for a decade, and their execution for a quarter-century, we find the Southern leaders inserting, in both the provisional and the permanent Constitutions of the Confederate States, the following article:—

The importation of negroes of the African race, from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.87

The attitude of the Confederate government toward this article is best illustrated by its circular of instructions to its foreign ministers:—

It has been suggested to this Government, from a source of unquestioned authenticity, that, after the recognition of our independence by the European Powers, an expectation is generally entertained by them that in our treaties of amity and commerce a clause will be introduced making stipulations against the African slave trade. It is even thought that neutral Powers may be inclined to insist upon the insertion of such a clause as asine qua non.

You are well aware how firmly fixed in our Constitution is the policy of this Confederacy against the opening of that trade, but we are informed that false and insidious suggestions have been made by the agents of the United States at European Courts of our intention to change our constitution as soon as peace is restored, and of authorizing the importation of slaves from Africa. If, therefore, you should find, in your intercourse with the Cabinet to which you are accredited, that any such impressions are entertained, you will use every proper effort to remove them, and if an attempt is made to introduce into any treaty which you may be charged with negotiating stipulations on the subject just mentioned, you will assume, in behalf of your Government, the position which, under the direction of the President, I now proceed to develop.

The Constitution of the Confederate States is an agreement made between independent States. By its terms all the powers of Government are separated into classes as follows, viz.:—

1st. Such powers as the States delegate to the General Government.2d. Such powers as the States agree to refrain from exercising, although they do not delegate them to the General Government.3d. Such powers as the States, without delegating them to the General Government, thought proper to exercise by direct agreement between themselves contained in the Constitution.4th. All remaining powers of sovereignty, which not being delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.... Especially in relation to the importation of African negroes was it deemed important by the States that no power to permit it should exist in the Confederate Government.... It will thus be seen that no power is delegated to the Confederate Government over this subject, but that it is included in the third class above referred to, of powers exercised directly by the States.... This Government unequivocally and absolutely denies its possession of any power whatever over the subject, and cannot entertain any proposition in relation to it.... The policy of the Confederacy is as fixed and immutable on this subject as the imperfection of human nature permits human resolve to be. No additional agreements, treaties, or stipulations can commit these States to the prohibition of the African slave trade with more binding efficacy than those they have themselves devised. A just and generous confidence in their good faith on this subject exhibited by friendly Powers will be far more efficacious than persistent efforts to induce this Government to assume the exercise of powers which it does not possess.... We trust, therefore, that no unnecessary discussions on this matter will be introduced into your negotiations. If, unfortunately, this reliance should prove ill-founded, you will decline continuing negotiations on your side, and transfer them to us at home....88

1st. Such powers as the States delegate to the General Government.

2d. Such powers as the States agree to refrain from exercising, although they do not delegate them to the General Government.

3d. Such powers as the States, without delegating them to the General Government, thought proper to exercise by direct agreement between themselves contained in the Constitution.

4th. All remaining powers of sovereignty, which not being delegated to the Confederate States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.... Especially in relation to the importation of African negroes was it deemed important by the States that no power to permit it should exist in the Confederate Government.... It will thus be seen that no power is delegated to the Confederate Government over this subject, but that it is included in the third class above referred to, of powers exercised directly by the States.... This Government unequivocally and absolutely denies its possession of any power whatever over the subject, and cannot entertain any proposition in relation to it.... The policy of the Confederacy is as fixed and immutable on this subject as the imperfection of human nature permits human resolve to be. No additional agreements, treaties, or stipulations can commit these States to the prohibition of the African slave trade with more binding efficacy than those they have themselves devised. A just and generous confidence in their good faith on this subject exhibited by friendly Powers will be far more efficacious than persistent efforts to induce this Government to assume the exercise of powers which it does not possess.... We trust, therefore, that no unnecessary discussions on this matter will be introduced into your negotiations. If, unfortunately, this reliance should prove ill-founded, you will decline continuing negotiations on your side, and transfer them to us at home....88

This attitude of the conservative leaders of the South, if it meant anything, meant that individual State action could, when it pleased, reopen the slave-trade. The radicals were, of course, not satisfied with any veiling of the ulterior purpose of the new slave republic, and attacked the constitutional provision violently. "If," said one, "the clause be carried into thepermanent government, our whole movement is defeated. It will abolitionize the Border Slave States—it will brand our institution. Slavery cannot share a government with Democracy,—it cannot bear a brand upon it; thence another revolution ... having achieved one revolution to escape democracy at the North, it must still achieve another to escape it at the South. That it will ultimately triumph none can doubt."89

91.Attitude of the United States.In the North, with all the hesitation in many matters, there existed unanimity in regard to the slave-trade; and the new Lincoln government ushered in the new policy of uncompromising suppression by hanging the first American slave-trader who ever suffered the extreme penalty of the law.90One of the earliest acts of President Lincoln was a step which had been necessary since 1808, but had never been taken, viz., the unification of the whole work of suppression into the hands of one responsible department. By an order, dated May 2, 1861, Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, was charged with the execution of the slave-trade laws,91and he immediately began energetic work. Early in 1861, as soon as the withdrawal of the Southern members untied the hands of Congress, two appropriations of $900,000 each were made to suppress the slave trade, the first appropriations commensurate with the vastness of the task. These were followed by four appropriations of $17,000 each in the years 1863 to 1867, and two of $12,500 each in 1868 and 1869.92The first work of the new secretary was to obtain a corps of efficient assistants. To this end, he assembled all the marshals of the loyal seaboard States at New York, and gave them instruction and opportunity to inspect actual slavers.Congress also, for the first time, offered them proper compensation.93The next six months showed the effect of this policy in the fact that five vessels were seized and condemned, and four slave-traders were convicted and suffered the penalty of their crimes. "This is probably the largest number [of convictions] ever obtained, and certainly the only ones for many years."94

Meantime the government opened negotiations with Great Britain, and the treaty of 1862 was signed June 7, and carried out by Act of Congress, July 11.95Specially commissioned war vessels of either government were by this agreement authorized to search merchant vessels on the high seas and specified coasts, and if they were found to be slavers, or, on account of their construction or equipment, were suspected to be such, they were to be sent for condemnation to one of the mixed courts established at New York, Sierra Leone, and the Cape of Good Hope. These courts, consisting of one judge and one arbitrator on the part of each government, were to judge the facts without appeal, and upon condemnation by them, the culprits were to be punished according to the laws of their respective countries. The area in which this Right of Search could be exercised was somewhat enlarged by an additional article to the treaty, signed in 1863. In 1870 the mixed courts were abolished, but the main part of the treaty was left in force. The Act of July 17, 1862, enabled the President to contract with foreign governments for the apprenticing of recaptured Africans in the West Indies,96and in 1864 the coastwise slave-trade was forever prohibited.97By these measures the trade was soon checked, and before the end of the war entirely suppressed.98The vigilance of the government, however, was not checked, and as late as 1866 a squadron of ten ships, with one hundred and thirteen guns, patrolled the slavecoast.99Finally, the Thirteenth Amendment legally confirmed what the war had already accomplished, and slavery and the slave-trade fell at one blow.100

Footnotes1British and Foreign State Papers, 1854–5, p. 1156.2Cluskey,Political Text-Book(14th ed.), p. 585.3De Bow's Review, XXII. 223; quoted from Andrew Hunter of Virginia.4Ibid., XVIII. 628.5Ibid., XXII. 91, 102, 217, 221–2.6From a pamphlet entitled "A New Southern Policy, or the Slave Trade as meaning Union and Conservatism;" quoted in Etheridge's speech, Feb. 21, 1857:Congressional Globe, 34 Cong. 3 sess., Appendix, p. 366.7De Bow's Review, XXIII. 298–320. A motion to table the motion on the 8th article was supported only by Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Maryland. Those voting for Sneed's motion were Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The appointment of a slave-trade committee was at first defeated by a vote of 48 to 44. Finally a similar motion was passed, 52 to 40.8De Bow's Review, XXIV. 473–491, 579–605. The Louisiana delegation alone did not vote for the last resolution, the vote of her delegation being evenly divided.9De Bow's Review, XXVII. 94–235.10H.S. Foote, inBench and Bar of the South and Southwest, p. 69.11De Bow's Review, XXVII. 115.12Ibid., p. 99. The vote was:—Yea.Nay.Alabama,5votes.Tennessee,12votes.Arkansas,4"Florida,3"South Carolina,4"South Carolina,4"Louisiana,6"Total19Texas,4"Georgia,10"Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky,and North Carolina did not vote;they either withdrew or were not represented.Mississippi,7"Total4013Quoted in26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 38. The official organ was theTrue Southron.14Quoted in24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 54.15Quoted in26th Report,Ibid., p. 43.1627th Report,Ibid., pp. 19–20.17Letter of W.C. Preston, in theNational Intelligencer, April 3, 1863. Also published in the pamphlet,The African Slave Trade: The Secret Purpose, etc., p. 26.18Quoted in Etheridge's speech:Congressional Globe, 34 Cong. 3 sess. Appen., p. 366.19House Journal, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105–10;Congressional Globe, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 123–6; Cluskey,Political Text-Book(14th ed.), p. 589.20House Journal, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 298–9. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 45.21Cf.Reports of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., especially the 26th, pp. 43–4.22Ibid., p. 43. He referred especially to the Treaty of 1842.23Ibid.;Congressional Globe, 35 Cong. 2 sess., Appen., pp. 248–50.2426th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 44.25Ibid.;27th Report, pp. 13–4.2626th Report,Ibid., p. 44.27Quoted in Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733; Cairnes,The Slave Power(New York, 1862), p. 123, note;27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 15.28Quoted in Cairnes,The Slave Power, p. 123, note;27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 19.2927th Report,Ibid., p. 16; quoted from the MobileRegister.30Edition of 1859, pp. 63–4.31De Bow's Review, XXVII. 121, 231–5.32Report of the Special Committee, etc. (1857), pp. 24–5.3326th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 40. The vote was 47 to 46.34House Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, pp. 632–6. For the State law, cf. above, Chapter II. This refusal of Cobb's was sharply criticised by many Southern papers. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 39.35New YorkIndependent, March 11 and April 1, 1858.3626th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 41.37Gregory to the Secretary of the Navy, June 8, 1850:Senate Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 2. Cf.Ibid., 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.38Cumming to Commodore Fanshawe, Feb. 22, 1850:Senate Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 8.39New YorkJournal of Commerce, 1857; quoted in24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 56.40"The Slave-Trade in New York," in theContinental Monthly, January, 1862, p. 87.41New YorkEvening Post; quoted in Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733.42Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733; quoted from a New York paper.43Friends' Appeal on behalf of the Coloured Races(1858), Appendix, p. 41; quoted from theJournal of Commerce.4426th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 53–4; quoted from the African correspondent of the BostonJournal. From April, 1857, to May, 1858, twenty-one of twenty-two slavers which were seized by British cruisers proved to be American, from New York, Boston, and New Orleans. Cf.25th Report,Ibid., p. 122. De Bow estimated in 1856 that forty slavers cleared annually from Eastern harbors, clearing yearly $17,000,000:De Bow's Review, XXII. 430–1.45Senate Exec. Doc., 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, p. 13.46House Exec. Doc., 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, p. 38.47New YorkHerald, Aug. 5, 1860; quoted in Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, Introd., pp. vii.-viii.48House Exec. Doc., 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 89. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 45–9.49Quoted in26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 46.50For all the above cases, cf.Ibid., p. 49.51Quoted in27th Report,Ibid., p. 20. Cf.Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1859;Senate Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2.5227th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 21.53Quoted inIbid.54Issue of July 22, 1860; quoted in Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, Introd., p. vi. The advertisement referred to was addressed to the "Ship-owners and Masters of our Mercantile Marine," and appeared in the Enterprise (Miss.)Weekly News, April 14, 1859. William S. Price and seventeen others state that they will "pay three hundred dollars per head for one thousand native Africans, between the ages of fourteen and twenty years, (of sexes equal,) likely, sound, and healthy, to be delivered within twelve months from this date, at some point accessible by land, between Pensacola, Fla., and Galveston, Texas; the contractors giving thirty days' notice as to time and place of delivery": Quoted in26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 41–2.55Congressional Globe, 35 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1362. Cf. the speech of a delegate from Georgia to the Democratic Convention at Charleston, 1860: "If any of you northern democrats will go home with me to my plantation, I will show you some darkies that I bought in Virginia, some in Delaware, some in Florida, and I will also show you the pure African, the noblest Roman of them all. I represent the African slave trade interest of my section:" Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733.56Senate Misc. Doc., 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.57Senate Journal, 34 Cong. 1–2 sess. pp. 396, 695–8;Senate Reports, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.58House Journal, 31 Cong. 2 sess. p. 64. There was still another attempt by Sandidge. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-Slav. Soc., p. 44.59Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274;Congressional Globe, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1245.60Congressional Globe, 32 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1072.61I.e., since 1846:Statutes at Large, XI. 90.62Ibid., XI. 227.63Ibid., XI. 404.64Ibid., XII. 21.65E.g., Clay's resolutions:Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 304–9. Clayton's resolutions:Senate Journal, 33 Cong. 1 sess. p. 404;House Journal, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1093, 1332–3;Congressional Globe, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1591–3, 2139. Seward's bill:Senate Journal, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 448, 451.66Mr. Blair of Missouri asked unanimous consent in Congress, Dec. 23, 1858, to a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to bring in such a bill; Houston of Alabama objected:Congressional Globe, 35 Cong. 2 sess. p. 198;26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 44.67This was the object of attack in 1851 and 1853 by Giddings:House Journal, 32 Cong. 1 sess. p. 42; 33 Cong. 1 sess. p. 147. Cf.House Journal, 38 Cong. 1 sess. p. 46.68By Mr. Wilson, March 20, 1860:Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.69Four or five such attempts were made: Dec. 12, 1860,House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61–2; Jan. 7, 1861,Congressional Globe, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 279; Jan. 23, 1861,Ibid., p. 527; Feb. 1, 1861,Ibid., p. 690; Feb. 27, 1861,Ibid., pp. 1243, 1259.70"The Slave-Trade in New York," in theContinental Monthly, January, 1862, p. 87.71New YorkHerald, July 14, 1856.72Ibid.Cf.Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 53.7327th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 25–6. Cf.26th Report,Ibid., pp. 45–9.7427th Report,Ibid., pp. 26–7.7526th Report,Ibid., p. 54.76British and Foreign State Papers, 1859–60, pp. 899, 973.77Nov. 29, 1851:House Exec. Doc., 32 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 2, No. 2, p. 4.78Dec. 4, 1852:House Exec. Doc., 32 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 293.79Ibid., 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, p. 5.80Ibid., 34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 407.81Commander Burgess to Commodore Wise, Whydah, Aug. 12, 1857:Parliamentary Papers, 1857–8, vol. LXI.Slave Trade, Class A, p. 136.82House Exec. Doc., 35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, p. 576.83Ibid., 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 1, No. 2, pp. 14–15, 31–33.84Senate Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 24. The Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1859, contains this ambiguous passage: "What the effect of breaking up the trade will be upon the United States or Cuba it is not necessary to inquire; certainly, under the laws of Congress and our treaty obligations, it is the duty of the executive government to see that our citizens shall not be engaged in it":Ibid., 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pp. 1138–9.85Senate Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pp. 8–9.86Statutes at Large, XII. 40.87Confederate States of America Statutes at Large, 1861, p. 15, Constitution, Art. 1, sect. 9, §§ 1, 2.88From an intercepted circular despatch from J.P. Benjamin, "Secretary of State," addressed in this particular instance to Hon. L.Q.C. Lamar, "Commissioner, etc., St. Petersburg, Russia," and dated Richmond, Jan. 15, 1863; published in theNational Intelligencer, March 31, 1863; cf. also the issues of Feb. 19, 1861, April 2, 3, 25, 1863; also published in the pamphlet,The African Slave-Trade: The Secret Purpose, etc. The editors vouch for its authenticity, and state it to be in Benjamin's own handwriting.89L.W. Spratt of South Carolina, in theSouthern Literary Messenger, June, 1861, XXXII. 414, 420. Cf. also the CharlestonMercury, Feb. 13, 1861, and theNational Intelligencer, Feb. 19, 1861.90Captain Gordon of the slaver "Erie;" condemned in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York in 1862. Cf.Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 13.91Ibid., pp. 453–4.92Statutes at Large, XII. 132, 219, 639; XIII. 424; XIV. 226, 415; XV. 58, 321. The sum of $250,000 was also appropriated to return the slaves on the "Wildfire":Ibid., XII. 40–41.93Statutes at Large, XII. 368–9.94Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 453–4.95Statutes at Large, XII. 531.96For a time not exceeding five years:Ibid., pp. 592–3.97By section 9 of an appropriation act for civil expenses, July 2, 1864:Ibid., XIII. 353.98British officers attested this:Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, p. 285.99Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1866;House Exec. Doc., 39 Cong. 2 sess. IV. p. 12.100There were some later attempts to legislate. Sumner tried to repeal the Act of 1803:Congressional Globe, 41 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894, 2932, 4953, 5594. Banks introduced a bill to prohibit Americans owning or dealing in slaves abroad:House Journal, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p. 48. For the legislation of the Confederate States, cf. Mason,Veto Power, 2d ed., Appendix C, No. 1.

1British and Foreign State Papers, 1854–5, p. 1156.

2Cluskey,Political Text-Book(14th ed.), p. 585.

3De Bow's Review, XXII. 223; quoted from Andrew Hunter of Virginia.

4Ibid., XVIII. 628.

5Ibid., XXII. 91, 102, 217, 221–2.

6From a pamphlet entitled "A New Southern Policy, or the Slave Trade as meaning Union and Conservatism;" quoted in Etheridge's speech, Feb. 21, 1857:Congressional Globe, 34 Cong. 3 sess., Appendix, p. 366.

7De Bow's Review, XXIII. 298–320. A motion to table the motion on the 8th article was supported only by Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Maryland. Those voting for Sneed's motion were Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee. The appointment of a slave-trade committee was at first defeated by a vote of 48 to 44. Finally a similar motion was passed, 52 to 40.

8De Bow's Review, XXIV. 473–491, 579–605. The Louisiana delegation alone did not vote for the last resolution, the vote of her delegation being evenly divided.

9De Bow's Review, XXVII. 94–235.

10H.S. Foote, inBench and Bar of the South and Southwest, p. 69.

11De Bow's Review, XXVII. 115.

12Ibid., p. 99. The vote was:—Yea.Nay.Alabama,5votes.Tennessee,12votes.Arkansas,4"Florida,3"South Carolina,4"South Carolina,4"Louisiana,6"Total19Texas,4"Georgia,10"Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky,and North Carolina did not vote;they either withdrew or were not represented.Mississippi,7"Total40

12Ibid., p. 99. The vote was:—

13Quoted in26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 38. The official organ was theTrue Southron.

14Quoted in24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 54.

15Quoted in26th Report,Ibid., p. 43.

1627th Report,Ibid., pp. 19–20.

17Letter of W.C. Preston, in theNational Intelligencer, April 3, 1863. Also published in the pamphlet,The African Slave Trade: The Secret Purpose, etc., p. 26.

18Quoted in Etheridge's speech:Congressional Globe, 34 Cong. 3 sess. Appen., p. 366.

19House Journal, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 105–10;Congressional Globe, 34 Cong. 3 sess. pp. 123–6; Cluskey,Political Text-Book(14th ed.), p. 589.

20House Journal, 35 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 298–9. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 45.

21Cf.Reports of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., especially the 26th, pp. 43–4.

22Ibid., p. 43. He referred especially to the Treaty of 1842.

23Ibid.;Congressional Globe, 35 Cong. 2 sess., Appen., pp. 248–50.

2426th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 44.

25Ibid.;27th Report, pp. 13–4.

2626th Report,Ibid., p. 44.

27Quoted in Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733; Cairnes,The Slave Power(New York, 1862), p. 123, note;27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 15.

28Quoted in Cairnes,The Slave Power, p. 123, note;27th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 19.

2927th Report,Ibid., p. 16; quoted from the MobileRegister.

30Edition of 1859, pp. 63–4.

31De Bow's Review, XXVII. 121, 231–5.

32Report of the Special Committee, etc. (1857), pp. 24–5.

3326th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 40. The vote was 47 to 46.

34House Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. IV. No. 7, pp. 632–6. For the State law, cf. above, Chapter II. This refusal of Cobb's was sharply criticised by many Southern papers. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 39.

35New YorkIndependent, March 11 and April 1, 1858.

3626th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 41.

37Gregory to the Secretary of the Navy, June 8, 1850:Senate Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 2. Cf.Ibid., 31 Cong. 2 sess. II. No. 6.

38Cumming to Commodore Fanshawe, Feb. 22, 1850:Senate Exec. Doc., 31 Cong. 1 sess. XIV. No. 66, p. 8.

39New YorkJournal of Commerce, 1857; quoted in24th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 56.

40"The Slave-Trade in New York," in theContinental Monthly, January, 1862, p. 87.

41New YorkEvening Post; quoted in Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733.

42Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733; quoted from a New York paper.

43Friends' Appeal on behalf of the Coloured Races(1858), Appendix, p. 41; quoted from theJournal of Commerce.

4426th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 53–4; quoted from the African correspondent of the BostonJournal. From April, 1857, to May, 1858, twenty-one of twenty-two slavers which were seized by British cruisers proved to be American, from New York, Boston, and New Orleans. Cf.25th Report,Ibid., p. 122. De Bow estimated in 1856 that forty slavers cleared annually from Eastern harbors, clearing yearly $17,000,000:De Bow's Review, XXII. 430–1.

45Senate Exec. Doc., 33 Cong. 1 sess. VIII. No. 47, p. 13.

46House Exec. Doc., 34 Cong. 1 sess. XII. No. 105, p. 38.

47New YorkHerald, Aug. 5, 1860; quoted in Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, Introd., pp. vii.-viii.

48House Exec. Doc., 35 Cong. 2 sess. IX. No. 89. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 45–9.

49Quoted in26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 46.

50For all the above cases, cf.Ibid., p. 49.

51Quoted in27th Report,Ibid., p. 20. Cf.Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1859;Senate Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2.

5227th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 21.

53Quoted inIbid.

54Issue of July 22, 1860; quoted in Drake,Revelations of a Slave Smuggler, Introd., p. vi. The advertisement referred to was addressed to the "Ship-owners and Masters of our Mercantile Marine," and appeared in the Enterprise (Miss.)Weekly News, April 14, 1859. William S. Price and seventeen others state that they will "pay three hundred dollars per head for one thousand native Africans, between the ages of fourteen and twenty years, (of sexes equal,) likely, sound, and healthy, to be delivered within twelve months from this date, at some point accessible by land, between Pensacola, Fla., and Galveston, Texas; the contractors giving thirty days' notice as to time and place of delivery": Quoted in26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 41–2.

55Congressional Globe, 35 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1362. Cf. the speech of a delegate from Georgia to the Democratic Convention at Charleston, 1860: "If any of you northern democrats will go home with me to my plantation, I will show you some darkies that I bought in Virginia, some in Delaware, some in Florida, and I will also show you the pure African, the noblest Roman of them all. I represent the African slave trade interest of my section:" Lalor,Cyclopædia, III. 733.

56Senate Misc. Doc., 36 Cong. 1 sess. No. 8.

57Senate Journal, 34 Cong. 1–2 sess. pp. 396, 695–8;Senate Reports, 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. No. 195.

58House Journal, 31 Cong. 2 sess. p. 64. There was still another attempt by Sandidge. Cf.26th Report of the Amer. Anti-Slav. Soc., p. 44.

59Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274;Congressional Globe, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1245.

60Congressional Globe, 32 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1072.

61I.e., since 1846:Statutes at Large, XI. 90.

62Ibid., XI. 227.

63Ibid., XI. 404.

64Ibid., XII. 21.

65E.g., Clay's resolutions:Congressional Globe, 31 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 304–9. Clayton's resolutions:Senate Journal, 33 Cong. 1 sess. p. 404;House Journal, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1093, 1332–3;Congressional Globe, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 1591–3, 2139. Seward's bill:Senate Journal, 33 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 448, 451.

66Mr. Blair of Missouri asked unanimous consent in Congress, Dec. 23, 1858, to a resolution instructing the Judiciary Committee to bring in such a bill; Houston of Alabama objected:Congressional Globe, 35 Cong. 2 sess. p. 198;26th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., p. 44.

67This was the object of attack in 1851 and 1853 by Giddings:House Journal, 32 Cong. 1 sess. p. 42; 33 Cong. 1 sess. p. 147. Cf.House Journal, 38 Cong. 1 sess. p. 46.

68By Mr. Wilson, March 20, 1860:Senate Journal, 36 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.

69Four or five such attempts were made: Dec. 12, 1860,House Journal, 36 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 61–2; Jan. 7, 1861,Congressional Globe, 36 Cong. 2 sess. p. 279; Jan. 23, 1861,Ibid., p. 527; Feb. 1, 1861,Ibid., p. 690; Feb. 27, 1861,Ibid., pp. 1243, 1259.

70"The Slave-Trade in New York," in theContinental Monthly, January, 1862, p. 87.

71New YorkHerald, July 14, 1856.

72Ibid.Cf.Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. V. No. 53.

7327th Report of the Amer. Anti-slav. Soc., pp. 25–6. Cf.26th Report,Ibid., pp. 45–9.

7427th Report,Ibid., pp. 26–7.

7526th Report,Ibid., p. 54.

76British and Foreign State Papers, 1859–60, pp. 899, 973.

77Nov. 29, 1851:House Exec. Doc., 32 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 2, No. 2, p. 4.

78Dec. 4, 1852:House Exec. Doc., 32 Cong. 2 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 293.

79Ibid., 34 Cong. 1 sess. I. pt. 3, No. 1, p. 5.

80Ibid., 34 Cong. 3 sess. I. pt. 2, No. 1, p. 407.

81Commander Burgess to Commodore Wise, Whydah, Aug. 12, 1857:Parliamentary Papers, 1857–8, vol. LXI.Slave Trade, Class A, p. 136.

82House Exec. Doc., 35 Cong. 1 sess. II. pt. 3, No. 2, p. 576.

83Ibid., 35 Cong. 2 sess. II. pt. 1, No. 2, pp. 14–15, 31–33.

84Senate Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 24. The Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1859, contains this ambiguous passage: "What the effect of breaking up the trade will be upon the United States or Cuba it is not necessary to inquire; certainly, under the laws of Congress and our treaty obligations, it is the duty of the executive government to see that our citizens shall not be engaged in it":Ibid., 36 Cong. 1 sess. III. No. 2, pp. 1138–9.

85Senate Exec. Doc., 36 Cong. 2 sess. III. pt. 1, No. 1, pp. 8–9.

86Statutes at Large, XII. 40.

87Confederate States of America Statutes at Large, 1861, p. 15, Constitution, Art. 1, sect. 9, §§ 1, 2.

88From an intercepted circular despatch from J.P. Benjamin, "Secretary of State," addressed in this particular instance to Hon. L.Q.C. Lamar, "Commissioner, etc., St. Petersburg, Russia," and dated Richmond, Jan. 15, 1863; published in theNational Intelligencer, March 31, 1863; cf. also the issues of Feb. 19, 1861, April 2, 3, 25, 1863; also published in the pamphlet,The African Slave-Trade: The Secret Purpose, etc. The editors vouch for its authenticity, and state it to be in Benjamin's own handwriting.

89L.W. Spratt of South Carolina, in theSouthern Literary Messenger, June, 1861, XXXII. 414, 420. Cf. also the CharlestonMercury, Feb. 13, 1861, and theNational Intelligencer, Feb. 19, 1861.

90Captain Gordon of the slaver "Erie;" condemned in the U.S. District Court for Southern New York in 1862. Cf.Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, p. 13.

91Ibid., pp. 453–4.

92Statutes at Large, XII. 132, 219, 639; XIII. 424; XIV. 226, 415; XV. 58, 321. The sum of $250,000 was also appropriated to return the slaves on the "Wildfire":Ibid., XII. 40–41.

93Statutes at Large, XII. 368–9.

94Senate Exec. Doc., 37 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 453–4.

95Statutes at Large, XII. 531.

96For a time not exceeding five years:Ibid., pp. 592–3.

97By section 9 of an appropriation act for civil expenses, July 2, 1864:Ibid., XIII. 353.

98British officers attested this:Diplomatic Correspondence, 1862, p. 285.

99Report of the Secretary of the Navy, 1866;House Exec. Doc., 39 Cong. 2 sess. IV. p. 12.

100There were some later attempts to legislate. Sumner tried to repeal the Act of 1803:Congressional Globe, 41 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 2894, 2932, 4953, 5594. Banks introduced a bill to prohibit Americans owning or dealing in slaves abroad:House Journal, 42 Cong. 2 sess. p. 48. For the legislation of the Confederate States, cf. Mason,Veto Power, 2d ed., Appendix C, No. 1.

92.How the Question Arose.We have followed a chapter of history which is of peculiar interest to the sociologist. Here was a rich new land, the wealth of which was to be had in return for ordinary manual labor. Had the country been conceived of as existing primarily for the benefit of its actual inhabitants, it might have waited for natural increase or immigration to supply the needed hands; but both Europe and the earlier colonists themselves regarded this land as existing chiefly for the benefit of Europe, and as designed to be exploited, as rapidly and ruthlessly as possible, of the boundless wealth of its resources. This was the primary excuse for the rise of the African slave-trade to America.

Every experiment of such a kind, however, where the moral standard of a people is lowered for the sake of a material advantage, is dangerous in just such proportion as that advantage is great. In this case it was great. For at least a century, in the West Indies and the southern United States, agriculture flourished, trade increased, and English manufactures were nourished, in just such proportion as Americans stole Negroes and worked them to death. This advantage, to be sure, became much smaller in later times, and at one critical period was, at least in the Southern States, almostnil; but energetic efforts were wanting, and, before the nation was aware, slavery had seized a new and well-nigh immovable footing in the Cotton Kingdom.

The colonists averred with perfect truth that they did not commence this fatal traffic, but that it was imposed upon them from without. Nevertheless, all too soon did they lay aside scruples against it and hasten to share its material benefits. Even those who braved the rough Atlantic for the highest moral motives fell early victims to the allurements ofthis system. Thus, throughout colonial history, in spite of many honest attempts to stop the further pursuit of the slave-trade, we notice back of nearly all such attempts a certain moral apathy, an indisposition to attack the evil with the sharp weapons which its nature demanded. Consequently, there developed steadily, irresistibly, a vast social problem, which required two centuries and a half for a nation of trained European stock and boasted moral fibre to solve.

93.The Moral Movement.For the solution of this problem there were, roughly speaking, three classes of efforts made during this time,—moral, political, and economic: that is to say, efforts which sought directly to raise the moral standard of the nation; efforts which sought to stop the trade by legal enactment; efforts which sought to neutralize the economic advantages of the slave-trade. There is always a certain glamour about the idea of a nation rising up to crush an evil simply because it is wrong. Unfortunately, this can seldom be realized in real life; for the very existence of the evil usually argues a moral weakness in the very place where extraordinary moral strength is called for. This was the case in the early history of the colonies; and experience proved that an appeal to moral rectitude was unheard in Carolina when rice had become a great crop, and in Massachusetts when the rum-slave-traffic was paying a profit of 100%. That the various abolition societies and anti-slavery movements did heroic work in rousing the national conscience is certainly true; unfortunately, however, these movements were weakest at the most critical times. When, in 1774 and 1804, the material advantages of the slave-trade and the institution of slavery were least, it seemed possible that moral suasion might accomplish the abolition of both. A fatal spirit of temporizing, however, seized the nation at these points; and although the slave-trade was, largely for political reasons, forbidden, slavery was left untouched. Beyond this point, as years rolled by, it was found well-nigh impossible to rouse the moral sense of the nation. Even in the matter of enforcing its own laws and co-operating with the civilized world, a lethargy seized the country, and it did not awake until slavery was about to destroy it. Even then, after a long and earnest crusade, the national sense of right did not rise to the entire abolition of slavery. It was onlya peculiar and almost fortuitous commingling of moral, political, and economic motives that eventually crushed African slavery and its handmaid, the slave-trade in America.

94.The Political Movement.The political efforts to limit the slave-trade were the outcome partly of moral reprobation of the trade, partly of motives of expediency. This legislation was never such as wise and powerful rulers may make for a nation, with the ulterior purpose of calling in the respect which the nation has for law to aid in raising its standard of right. The colonial and national laws on the slave-trade merely registered, from time to time, the average public opinion concerning this traffic, and are therefore to be regarded as negative signs rather than as positive efforts. These signs were, from one point of view, evidences of moral awakening; they indicated slow, steady development of the idea that to steal even Negroes was wrong. From another point of view, these laws showed the fear of servile insurrection and the desire to ward off danger from the State; again, they often indicated a desire to appear well before the civilized world, and to rid the "land of the free" of the paradox of slavery. Representing such motives, the laws varied all the way from mere regulating acts to absolute prohibitions. On the whole, these acts were poorly conceived, loosely drawn, and wretchedly enforced. The systematic violation of the provisions of many of them led to a widespread belief that enforcement was, in the nature of the case, impossible; and thus, instead of marking ground already won, they were too often sources of distinct moral deterioration. Certainly the carnival of lawlessness that succeeded the Act of 1807, and that which preceded final suppression in 1861, were glaring examples of the failure of the efforts to suppress the slave-trade by mere law.

95.The Economic Movement.Economic measures against the trade were those which from the beginning had the best chance of success, but which were least tried. They included tariff measures; efforts to encourage the immigration of free laborers and the emigration of the slaves; measures for changing the character of Southern industry; and, finally, plans to restore the economic balance which slavery destroyed, by raising the condition of the slave to that of complete freedom and responsibility. Like the political efforts, these rested inpart on a moral basis; and, as legal enactments, they were also themselves often political measures. They differed, however, from purely moral and political efforts, in having as a main motive the economic gain which a substitution of free for slave labor promised.

The simplest form of such efforts was the revenue duty on slaves that existed in all the colonies. This developed into the prohibitive tariff, and into measures encouraging immigration or industrial improvements. The colonization movement was another form of these efforts; it was inadequately conceived, and not altogether sincere, but it had a sound, although in this case impracticable, economic basis. The one great measure which finally stopped the slave-trade forever was, naturally, the abolition of slavery, i.e., the giving to the Negro the right to sell his labor at a price consistent with his own welfare. The abolition of slavery itself, while due in part to direct moral appeal and political sagacity, was largely the result of the economic collapse of the large-farming slave system.

96.The Lesson for Americans.It may be doubted if ever before such political mistakes as the slavery compromises of the Constitutional Convention had such serious results, and yet, by a succession of unexpected accidents, still left a nation in position to work out its destiny. No American can study the connection of slavery with United States history, and not devoutly pray that his country may never have a similar social problem to solve, until it shows more capacity for such work than it has shown in the past. It is neither profitable nor in accordance with scientific truth to consider that whatever the constitutional fathers did was right, or that slavery was a plague sent from God and fated to be eliminated in due time. We must face the fact that this problem arose principally from the cupidity and carelessness of our ancestors. It was the plain duty of the colonies to crush the trade and the system in its infancy: they preferred to enrich themselves on its profits. It was the plain duty of a Revolution based upon "Liberty" to take steps toward the abolition of slavery: it preferred promises to straightforward action. It was the plain duty of the Constitutional Convention, in founding a new nation, to compromise with a threatening social evil only in case its settlementwould thereby be postponed to a more favorable time: this was not the case in the slavery and the slave-trade compromises; there never was a time in the history of America when the system had a slighter economic, political, and moral justification than in 1787; and yet with this real, existent, growing evil before their eyes, a bargain largely of dollars and cents was allowed to open the highway that led straight to the Civil War. Moreover, it was due to no wisdom and foresight on the part of the fathers that fortuitous circumstances made the result of that war what it was, nor was it due to exceptional philanthropy on the part of their descendants that that result included the abolition of slavery.

With the faith of the nation broken at the very outset, the system of slavery untouched, and twenty years' respite given to the slave-trade to feed and foster it, there began, with 1787, that system of bargaining, truckling, and compromising with a moral, political, and economic monstrosity, which makes the history of our dealing with slavery in the first half of the nineteenth century so discreditable to a great people. Each generation sought to shift its load upon the next, and the burden rolled on, until a generation came which was both too weak and too strong to bear it longer. One cannot, to be sure, demand of whole nations exceptional moral foresight and heroism; but a certain hard common-sense in facing the complicated phenomena of political life must be expected in every progressive people. In some respects we as a nation seem to lack this; we have the somewhat inchoate idea that we are not destined to be harassed with great social questions, and that even if we are, and fail to answer them, the fault is with the question and not with us. Consequently we often congratulate ourselves more on getting rid of a problem than on solving it. Such an attitude is dangerous; we have and shall have, as other peoples have had, critical, momentous, and pressing questions to answer. The riddle of the Sphinx may be postponed, it may be evasively answered now; sometime it must be fully answered.

It behooves the United States, therefore, in the interest both of scientific truth and of future social reform, carefully to study such chapters of her history as that of the suppression of the slave-trade. The most obvious question which thisstudy suggests is: How far in a State can a recognized moral wrong safely be compromised? And although this chapter of history can give us no definite answer suited to the ever-varying aspects of political life, yet it would seem to warn any nation from allowing, through carelessness and moral cowardice, any social evil to grow. No persons would have seen the Civil War with more surprise and horror than the Revolutionists of 1776; yet from the small and apparently dying institution of their day arose the walled and castled Slave-Power. From this we may conclude that it behooves nations as well as men to do things at the very moment when they ought to be done.

1641. Massachusetts: Limitations on Slavery.

"Liberties of Forreiners & Strangers": 91. "There shall never be any bond slaverie villinage or Captivitie amongst vs, unles it be lawfull Captives taken in iust warres, & such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And those shall have all the liberties & Christian usages wchyelaw of god established in Jsraell concerning such p/sonsdoeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be Judged there to by Authoritie."

"Capitall Laws": 10. "If any man stealeth aman or mankinde, he shall surely be put to death" (marginal reference, Exodus xxi. 16). Re-enacted in the codes of 1649, 1660, and 1672. Whitmore,Reprint of Colonial Laws of 1660, etc. (1889), pp. 52, 54, 71–117.

1642, April 3. New Netherland: Ten per cent Duty.

"Ordinance of the Director and Council of New Netherland, imposing certain Import and Export Duties." O'Callaghan,Laws of New Netherland(1868), p. 31.

1642, Dec. 1. Connecticut: Man-Stealing made a Capital Offence.

"Capitall Lawes," No. 10. Re-enacted in Ludlow's code, 1650.Colonial Records, I. 77.

1646, Nov. 4. Massachusetts: Declaration against Man-Stealing.

Testimony of the General Court. For text, see above, page 37.Colonial Records, II. 168; III. 84.

1652, April 4. New Netherland: Duty of 15 Guilders.

"Conditions and Regulations" of Trade to Africa. O'Callaghan,Laws of New Netherland, pp. 81, 127.

1652, May 18–20. Rhode Island: Perpetual Slavery Prohibited.

For text, see above, page 40.Colonial Records, I. 243.

1655, Aug. 6. New Netherland: Ten per cent Export Duty.

"Ordinance of the Director General and Council of New Netherland, imposing a Duty on exported Negroes." O'Callaghan,Laws of New Netherland, p. 191.

1664, March 12. Duke of York's Patent: Slavery Regulated.

"Lawes establisht by the Authority of his Majesties Letters patents, granted to his Royall Highnes James Duke of Yorke and Albany; Bearing Date the 12th Day of March in the Sixteenth year of the Raigne of our Soveraigne Lord Kinge Charles the Second." First published at Long Island in 1664.

"Bond slavery": "No Christian shall be kept in Bond-slavery villenage or Captivity, Except Such who shall be Judged thereunto by Authority, or such as willingly have sould, or shall sell themselves," etc. Apprenticeship allowed.Charter to William Penn, and Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania(1879), pp. 3, 12.

1672, October. Connecticut: Law against Man-Stealing.

"The General Laws and Liberties of Conecticut

"Capital Laws": 10. "If any Man stealeth a Man or Man kinde, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall be put to death. Exod. 21. 16."Laws of Connecticut, 1672 (repr. 1865), p. 9.

1676, March 3. West New Jersey: Slavery Prohibited (?).

"The Concessions and Agreements of the Proprietors, Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Province of West New-Jersey, in America."

Chap. XXIII. "That in all publick Courts of Justice for Tryals of Causes, Civil or Criminal, any Person or Persons, Inhabitants of the said Province, may freely come into, and attend the said Courts, ... that all and every Person and Persons Inhabiting the said Province, shall, as far as in us lies, be free from Oppression and Slavery." Leaming and Spicer,Grants, Concessions, etc., pp. 382, 398.

1688, Feb. 18. Pennsylvania: First Protest of Friends against Slave-Trade.

"At Monthly Meeting of Germantown Friends." For text, see above, pages 28–29.Fac-simile Copy(1880).

1695, May. Maryland: 10s. Duty Act.

"An Act for the laying an Imposition upon Negroes, Slaves, and White Persons imported into this Province." Re-enacted in 1696, and included in Acts of 1699 and 1704. Bacon,Laws, 1695, ch. ix.; 1696, ch. vii.; 1699, ch. xxiii.; 1704, ch. ix.

1696. Pennsylvania: Protest of Friends.

"That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more negroes." Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem.(1864), I. 383.

1698, Oct. 8. South Carolina: White Servants Encouraged.

"An Act for the Encouragement of the Importation of White Servants."

"Whereas, the great number of negroes which of late have been imported into this Collony may endanger the safety thereof if speedy care be not taken and encouragement given for the importation of white servants."

§ 1. £13 are to be given to any ship master for every male white servant (Irish excepted), between sixteen and forty years, whom he shall bring into Ashley river; and £12 for boys between twelve and sixteen years. Every servant must have at least four years to serve, and every boy seven years.

§ 3. Planters are to take servants in proportion of one to every six male Negroes above sixteen years.

§ 5. Servants are to be distributed by lot.

§ 8. This act to continue three years. Cooper,Statutes, II. 153.

1699, April. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.

"An act for laying an imposition upon servants and slaves imported into this country, towards building the Capitoll." For three years; continued in August, 1701, and April, 1704. Hening,Statutes, III. 193, 212, 225.

1703, May 6. South Carolina: Duty Act.

"An Act for the laying an Imposition on Furrs, Skinns, Liquors and other Goods and Merchandize, Imported into and Exported out of this part of this Province, for the raising of a Fund of Money towards defraying the publick charges and expenses of this Province, and paying the debts due for the Expedition against St. Augustine." 10s.on Africans and 20s.on others. Cooper,Statutes, II. 201.

1704, October. Maryland: 20s. Duty Act.

"An Act imposing Three Pence per Gallon on Rum and Wine, Brandy and Spirits; and Twenty Shillings per Poll for Negroes; for raising a Supply to defray the Public Charge of this Province; and Twenty Shillings per Poll on Irish Servants, to prevent the importing too great a Number of Irish Papists into this Province." Revived in 1708 and 1712. Bacon,Laws, 1704, ch. xxxiii.; 1708, ch. xvi.; 1712, ch. xxii.

1705, Jan. 12. Pennsylvania: 10s. Duty Act.

"An Act for Raising a Supply of Two pence half penny per Pound & ten shillings per Head. Also for Granting an Impost & laying on Sundry Liquors & negroes Imported into this Province for the Support of Governmt., & defraying the necessary Publick Charges in the Administration thereof."Colonial Records(1852), II. 232, No. 50.

1705, October. Virginia: 6d. Tax on Imported Slaves.

"An act for raising a publick revenue for the better support of the Government," etc. Similar tax by Act of October, 1710. Hening,Statutes, III. 344, 490.

1705, October. Virginia: 20s. Duty Act.

"An act for laying an Imposition upon Liquors and Slaves." For two years; re-enacted in October, 1710, for three years, and in October, 1712.Ibid., III. 229, 482; IV. 30.

1705, Dec. 5. Massachusetts: £4 Duty Act.

"An act for the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixt Issue," etc.

§ 6. On and after May 1, 1706, every master importing Negroes shall enter his number, name, and sex in the impost office, and insert them in the bill of lading; he shall pay to the commissioner and receiver of the impost £4 per head for every such Negro. Both master and ship are to be security for the payment of the same.

§ 7. If the master neglect to enter the slaves, he shall forfeit £8 for each Negro, one-half to go to the informer and one-half to the government.

§ 8. If any Negro imported shall, within twelve months, be exported and sold in any other plantation, and a receipt from the collector there be shown, a drawback of the whole duty will be allowed. Like drawback will be allowed a purchaser, if any Negro sold die within six weeks after importation.Mass. Province Laws, 1705–6, ch. 10.

1708, February. Rhode Island: £3 Duty Act.

No title or text found. Slightly amended by Act of April, 1708; strengthened by Acts of February, 1712, and July 5, 1715; proceeds disposed of by Acts of July, 1715, October, 1717, and June, 1729.Colonial Records, IV. 34, 131–5, 138, 143, 191–3, 225, 423–4.

1709, Sept. 24. New York: £3 Duty Act.

"An Act for Laying a Duty on the Tonnage of Vessels and Slaves." A duty of £3 was laid on slaves not imported directly from their native country. Continued by Act of Oct. 30, 1710.Acts of Assembly, 1691–1718, pp. 97, 125, 134; Laws of New York, 1691–1773, p. 83.

1710, Dec. 28. Pennsylvania: 40s. Duty Act.

"An impost Act, laying a duty on Negroes, wine, rum and other spirits, cyder and vessels." Repealed by order in Council Feb. 20, 1713. Carey and Bioren,Laws, I. 82; Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem.(1864), I. 415.

1710. Virginia: £5 Duty Act.

"Intended to discourage the importation" of slaves. Title and text not found. Disallowed (?).Governor Spotswood to the Lords of Trade, inVa. Hist. Soc. Coll., New Series, I. 52.

1711, July-Aug. New York: Act of 1709 Strengthened.

"An Act for the more effectual putting in Execution an Act of General Assembly, Intituled, An Act for Laying a Duty on the Tonnage of Vessels and Slaves."Acts of Assembly, 1691–1718, p. 134.

1711, December. New York: Bill to Increase Duty.

Bill for laying a further duty on slaves. Passed Assembly; lost in Council.Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York, V. 293.

1711. Pennsylvania: Testimony of Quakers.

" ... the Yearly Meeting of Philadelphia, on a representation from the Quarterly Meeting of Chester, that the buying and encouraging the importation of negroes was still practised by some of the members of the society, again repeated and enforced the observance of the advice issued in 1696, and further directed all merchants and factors to write to their correspondents and discourage their sending any more negroes." Bettle,Notices of Negro Slavery, inPenn. Hist. Soc. Mem.(1864), I. 386.

1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive (?) Duty Act.

"A supplementary Act to an act, entituled, An impost act, laying a duty on Negroes, rum," etc. Disallowed by Great Britain, 1713. Carey and Bioren,Laws, I. 87, 88. Cf.Colonial Records(1852), II. 553.

1712, June 7. Pennsylvania: Prohibitive Duty Act.

"An act to prevent the Importation of Negroes and Indians into this Province."

"Whereas Divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently happened, not only in the Islands, but on the Main Land ofAmerica, by Negroes, which have been carried on so far that several of the Inhabitants have been thereby barbarously Murthered, an instance whereof we have lately had in our neighboring Colony ofNew York. And whereas the Importation of Indian Slaves hath given our NeighboringIndiansin this Province some umbrage of Suspicion and Dis-satisfaction. For Prevention of all which for the future,

"Be it Enacted..., That from and after the Publication of this Act, upon the Importation of any Negro or Indian, by Land or Water, into this Province, there shall be paid by the Importer, Owner or Possessor thereof, the sum ofTwenty Pounds per head, for every Negro or Indian so imported or brought in (except Negroes directly brought in from theWest India Islandsbefore the first Day of the Month calledAugustnext) unto the proper Officer herein after named, or that shall be appointed according to the Directions of this Act to receive the same," etc. Disallowed by Great Britain, 1713.Laws of Pennsylvania, collected, etc. (ed. 1714), p. 165;Colonial Records(1852), II. 553; Burge,Commentaries, I. 737, note;Penn. Archives, I. 162.

1713, March 11. New Jersey: £10 Duty Act.

"An Act for laying a Duty on Negro, Indian and Mulatto Slaves, imported and brought into this Province."

"Be it Enacted..., That every Person or Persons that shall hereafter Import or bring in, or cause to be imported or brought into this Province, any Negro Indian or Mulatto Slave or Slaves, every such Person or Persons so importing or bringing in, or causing to be imported or brought in, such Slave or Slaves, shall enter with one of the Collectors of her Majestie's Customs of this Province, every such Slave or Slaves, within Twenty Four Hours after such Slave or Slaves is so Imported, and pay the Sum ofTen PoundsMoney as appointed by her Majesty's Proclamation, for each Slave so imported, or give sufficient Security that the said Sum ofTen Pounds, Money aforesaid, shall be well and truly paid within three Months after such Slave or Slaves are so imported, to the Collector or his Deputy of the District into whichsuch Slave or Slaves shall be imported, for the use of her Majesty, her Heirs and Successors, toward the Support of the Government of this Province." For seven years; violations incur forfeiture and sale of slaves at auction; slaves brought from elsewhere than Africa to pay £10, etc.Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703–1717(ed. 1717), p. 43;N.J. Archives, 1st Series, XIII. 516, 517, 520, 522, 523, 527, 532, 541.

Back to Index Next