Chapter XII: The Essentials in the Struggle (2)

[46] Leaming and Spicer, _Grants, Concessions_, etc., p. 398.
Probably this did not refer to Negroes at all.

[47] Cf. Vincent, _History of Delaware_, I. 159, 381.

[48] _Laws and Acts of New Jersey, 1703-17_ (ed. 1717), p. 43.

[49] _N.J. Archives_, IV. 196. There was much difficulty in
passing the bill: _Ibid._, XIII. 516-41.

[50] _Ibid._, IX. 345-6. The exact provisions of the act I
have not found.

[51] _Ibid._, IX. 383, 447, 458. Chiefly because the duty was
laid on the importer.

[52] Allinson, _Acts of Assembly_, pp. 315-6.

[53] _N.J. Archives_, VI. 222.

[54] _Acts of the 10th General Assembly_, May 2, 1786. There
are two estimates of the number of slaves in this colony:--

In 1738, 3,981. _American Annals_, II. 127.
" 1754, 4,606. " " II. 143.

* * * * *

_Chapter IV_

THE TRADING COLONIES.

16. Character of these Colonies.
17. New England and the Slave-Trade.
18. Restrictions in New Hampshire.
19. Restrictions in Massachusetts.
20. Restrictions in Rhode Island.
21. Restrictions in Connecticut.
22. General Character of these Restrictions.

16. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The rigorous climate of New England, the character of her settlers, and their pronounced political views gave slavery an even slighter basis here than in the Middle colonies. The significance of New England in the African slave-trade does not therefore lie in the fact that she early discountenanced the system of slavery and stopped importation; but rather in the fact that her citizens, being the traders of the New World, early took part in the carrying slave-trade and furnished slaves to the other colonies. An inquiry, therefore, into the efforts of the New England colonies to suppress the slave-trade would fall naturally into two parts: first, and chiefly, an investigation of the efforts to stop the participation of citizens in the carrying slave-trade; secondly, an examination of the efforts made to banish the slave-trade from New England soil.

17. ~New England and the Slave-Trade.~ Vessels from Massachusetts,[1] Rhode Island,[2] Connecticut,[3] and, to a less extent, from New Hampshire,[4] were early and largely engaged in the carrying slave-trade. "We know," said Thomas Pemberton in 1795, "that a large trade to Guinea was carried on for many years by the citizens of Massachusetts Colony, who were the proprietors of the vessels and their cargoes, out and home. Some of the slaves purchased in Guinea, and I suppose the greatest part of them, were sold in the West Indies."[5] Dr. John Eliot asserted that "it made a considerable branch of our commerce.... It declined very little till the Revolution."[6] Yet the trade of this colony was said not to equal that of Rhode Island. Newport was the mart for slaves offered for sale in the North, and a point of reshipment for all slaves. It was principally this trade that raised Newport to her commercial importance in the eighteenth century.[7] Connecticut, too, was an important slave-trader, sending large numbers of horses and other commodities to the West Indies in exchange for slaves, and selling the slaves in other colonies.

This trade formed a perfect circle. Owners of slavers carried slaves to South Carolina, and brought home naval stores for their ship-building; or to the West Indies, and brought home molasses; or to other colonies, and brought home hogsheads. The molasses was made into the highly prized New England rum, and shipped in these hogsheads to Africa for more slaves.[8] Thus, the rum-distilling industry indicates to some extent the activity of New England in the slave-trade. In May, 1752, one Captain Freeman found so many slavers fitting out that, in spite of the large importations of molasses, he could get no rum for his vessel.[9] In Newport alone twenty-two stills were at one time running continuously;[10] and Massachusetts annually distilled 15,000 hogsheads of molasses into this "chief manufacture."[11]

Turning now to restrictive measures, we must first note the measures of the slave-consuming colonies which tended to limit the trade. These measures, however, came comparatively late, were enforced with varying degrees of efficiency, and did not seriously affect the slave-trade before the Revolution. The moral sentiment of New England put some check upon the trade. Although in earlier times the most respectable people took ventures in slave-trading voyages, yet there gradually arose a moral sentiment which tended to make the business somewhat disreputable.[12] In the line, however, of definite legal enactments to stop New England citizens from carrying slaves from Africa to any place in the world, there were, before the Revolution, none. Indeed, not until the years 1787-1788 was slave-trading in itself an indictable offence in any New England State.

The particular situation in each colony, and the efforts to restrict the small importing slave-trade of New England, can best be studied in a separate view of each community.

18. ~Restrictions in New Hampshire.~ The statistics of slavery in New Hampshire show how weak an institution it always was in that colony.[13] Consequently, when the usual instructions were sent to Governor Wentworth as to the encouragement he must give to the slave-trade, the House replied: "We have considered his Maj^{ties} Instruction relating to an Impost on Negroes & Felons, to which this House answers, that there never was any duties laid on either, by this Goverm^{t}, and so few bro't in that it would not be worth the Publick notice, so as to make an act concerning them."[14] This remained true for the whole history of the colony. Importation was never stopped by actual enactment, but was eventually declared contrary to the Constitution of 1784.[15] The participation of citizens in the trade appears never to have been forbidden.

19. ~Restrictions in Massachusetts.~ The early Biblical codes of Massachusetts confined slavery to "lawfull Captives taken in iust warres, & such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us."[16] The stern Puritanism of early days endeavored to carry this out literally, and consequently when a certain Captain Smith, about 1640, attacked an African village and brought some of the unoffending natives home, he was promptly arrested. Eventually, the General Court ordered the Negroes sent home at the colony's expense, "conceiving themselues bound by y^e first oportunity to bear witnes against y^e haynos & crying sinn of manstealing, as also to P'scribe such timely redresse for what is past, & such a law for y^e future as may sufficiently deterr all oth^{r}s belonging to us to have to do in such vile & most odious courses, iustly abhored of all good & iust men."[17]

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

The Act of 1705 was evaded, but it was not amended until 1728, when the penalty for evasion was raised to £100.[20] The act remained in force, except possibly for one period of four years, until 1749. Meantime the movement against importation grew. A bill "for preventing the Importation of Slaves into this Province" was introduced in the Legislature in 1767, but after strong opposition and disagreement between House and Council it was dropped.[21] In 1771 the struggle was renewed. A similar bill passed, but was vetoed by Governor Hutchinson.[22] The imminent war and the discussions incident to it had now more and more aroused public opinion, and there were repeated attempts to gain executive consent to a prohibitory law. In 1774 such a bill was twice passed, but never received assent.[23]

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

All such efforts were finally discontinued, as the system was already practically extinct in Massachusetts and the custom of importation had nearly ceased. Slavery was eventually declared by judicial decision to have been abolished.[26] The first step toward stopping the participation of Massachusetts citizens in the slave-trade outside the State was taken in 1785, when a committee of inquiry was appointed by the Legislature.[27] No act was, however, passed until 1788, when participation in the trade was prohibited, on pain of £50 forfeit for every slave and £200 for every ship engaged.[28]

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

This law was for a time enforced,[30] but by the beginning of the eighteenth century it had either been repealed or become a dead letter; for the Act of 1708 recognized perpetual slavery, and laid an impost of £3 on Negroes imported.[31] This duty was really a tax on the transport trade, and produced a steady income for twenty years.[32] From the year 1700 on, the citizens of this State engaged more and more in the carrying trade, until Rhode Island became the greatest slave-trader in America. Although she did not import many slaves for her own use, she became the clearing-house for the trade of other colonies. Governor Cranston, as early as 1708, reported that between 1698 and 1708 one hundred and three vessels were built in the State, all of which were trading to the West Indies and the Southern colonies.[33] They took out lumber and brought back molasses, in most cases making a slave voyage in between. From this, the trade grew. Samuel Hopkins, about 1770, was shocked at the state of the trade: more than thirty distilleries were running in the colony, and one hundred and fifty vessels were in the slave-trade.[34] "Rhode Island," said he, "has been more deeply interested in the slave-trade, and has enslaved more Africans than any other colony in New England." Later, in 1787, he wrote: "The inhabitants of Rhode Island, especially those of Newport, have had by far the greater share in this traffic, of all these United States. This trade in human species has been the first wheel of commerce in Newport, on which every other movement in business has chiefly depended. That town has been built up, and flourished in times past, at the expense of the blood, the liberty, and happiness of the poor Africans; and the inhabitants have lived on this, and by it have gotten most of their wealth and riches."[35]

The Act of 1708 was poorly enforced. The "good intentions" of its framers "were wholly frustrated" by the clandestine "hiding and conveying said negroes out of the town [Newport] into the country, where they lie concealed."[36] The act was accordingly strengthened by the Acts of 1712 and 1715, and made to apply to importations by land as well as by sea.[37] The Act of 1715, however, favored the trade by admitting African Negroes free of duty. The chaotic state of Rhode Island did not allow England often to review her legislation; but as soon as the Act of 1712 came to notice it was disallowed, and accordingly repealed in 1732.[38] Whether the Act of 1715 remained, or whether any other duty act was passed, is not clear.

While the foreign trade was flourishing, the influence of the Friends and of other causes eventually led to a movement against slavery as a local institution. Abolition societies multiplied, and in 1770 an abolition bill was ordered by the Assembly, but it was never passed.[39] Four years later the city of Providence resolved that "as personal liberty is an essential part of the natural rights of mankind," the importation of slaves and the system of slavery should cease in the colony.[40] This movement finally resulted, in 1774, in an act "prohibiting the importation of Negroes into this Colony,"--a law which curiously illustrated the attitude of Rhode Island toward the slave-trade. The preamble of the act declared: "Whereas, the inhabitants of America are generally engaged in the preservation of their own rights and liberties, among which, that of personal freedom must be considered as the greatest; as those who are desirous of enjoying all the advantages of liberty themselves, should be willing to extend personal liberty to others;--Therefore," etc. The statute then proceeded to enact "that for the future, no negro or mulatto slave shall be brought into this colony; and in case any slave shall hereafter be brought in, he or she shall be, and are hereby, rendered immediately free...." The logical ending of such an act would have been a clause prohibiting the participation of Rhode Island citizens in the slave-trade. Not only was such a clause omitted, but the following was inserted instead: "Provided, also, that nothing in this act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to any negro or mulatto slave brought from the coast of Africa, into the West Indies, on board any vessel belonging to this colony, and which negro or mulatto slave could not be disposed of in the West Indies, but shall be brought into this colony. Provided, that the owner of such negro or mulatto slave give bond ... that such negro or mulatto slave shall be exported out of the colony, within one year from the date of such bond; if such negro or mulatto be alive, and in a condition to be removed."[41]

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_,
II. 449-72; G.H. Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_; Charles
Deane, _Connection of Massachusetts with Slavery_.

[2] Cf. _American Historical Record_, I. 311, 338.

[3] Cf. W.C. Fowler, _Local Law in Massachusetts and
Connecticut_, etc., pp. 122-6.

[4] _Ibid._, p. 124.

[5] Deane, _Letters and Documents relating to Slavery in
Massachusetts_, in _Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III.
392.

[6] _Ibid._, III. 382.

[7] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II.
454.

[8] A typical voyage is that of the brigantine "Sanderson" of
Newport. She was fitted out in March, 1752, and carried,
beside the captain, two mates and six men, and a cargo of
8,220 gallons of rum, together with "African" iron, flour,
pots, tar, sugar, and provisions, shackles, shirts, and water.
Proceeding to Africa, the captain after some difficulty sold
his cargo for slaves, and in April, 1753, he is expected in
Barbadoes, as the consignees write. They also state that
slaves are selling at £33 to £56 per head in lots. After a
stormy and dangerous voyage, Captain Lindsay arrived, June 17,
1753, with fifty-six slaves, "all in helth & fatt." He also
had 40 oz. of gold dust, and 8 or 9 cwt. of pepper. The net
proceeds of the sale of all this was £1,324 3_d._ The captain
then took on board 55 hhd. of molasses and 3 hhd. 27 bbl. of
sugar, amounting to £911 77_s._ 2½_d._, received bills on
Liverpool for the balance, and returned in safety to Rhode
Island. He had done so well that he was immediately given a
new ship and sent to Africa again. _American Historical
Record_, I. 315-9, 338-42.

[9] _Ibid._, I. 316.

[10] _American Historical Record_, I. 317.

[11] _Ibid._, I. 344; cf. Weeden, _Economic and Social History
of New England_, II. 459.

[12] Cf. _New England Register_, XXXI. 75-6, letter of John
Saffin _et al._ to Welstead. Cf. also Sewall, _Protest_, etc.

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

In 1730, 200. _N.H. Hist. Soc. Coll._, I. 229.
" 1767, 633. _Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.
" 1773, 681. _Ibid._
" 1773, 674. _N.H. Province Papers_, X. 636.
" 1775, 479. _Granite Monthly_, IV. 108.
" 1790, 158. _Ibid._

[14] _N.H. Province Papers_, IV. 617.

[15] _Granite Monthly_, VI. 377; Poore, _Federal and State
Constitutions_, pp. 1280-1.

[16] Cf. _The Body of Liberties_, § 91, in Whitmore,
_Bibliographical Sketch of the Laws of the Massachusetts
Colony_, published at Boston in 1890.

[17] _Mass. Col. Rec._, II. 168, 176; III. 46, 49, 84.

[18] Weeden, _Economic and Social History of New England_, II.
456.

[19] _Mass. Province Laws, 1705-6_, ch. 10.

[20] _Ibid._, _1728-9_, ch. 16; _1738-9_, ch. 27.

[21] For petitions of towns, cf. Felt, _Annals of Salem_
(1849), II. 416; _Boston Town Records, 1758-69_, p. 183. Cf.
also Otis's anti-slavery speech in 1761; John Adams, _Works_,
X. 315. For proceedings, see _House Journal_, 1767, pp. 353,
358, 387, 390, 393, 408, 409-10, 411, 420. Cf. Samuel Dexter's
answer to Dr. Belknap's inquiry, Feb. 23, 1795, in Deane
(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 385). A committee on
slave importation was appointed in 1764. Cf. _House Journal_,
1763-64, p. 170.

[22] _House Journal_, 1771, pp. 211, 215, 219, 228, 234, 236,
240, 242-3; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 131-2.

[23] Felt, _Annals of Salem_ (1849), II. 416-7; Swan,
_Dissuasion to Great Britain_, etc. (1773), p. x; Washburn,
_Historical Sketches of Leicester, Mass._, pp. 442-3; Freeman,
_History of Cape Cod_, II. 114; Deane, in _Mass. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, 5th Ser., III. 432; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_,
pp. 135-40; Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,
I. 234-6; _House Journal_, March, 1774, pp. 224, 226, 237,
etc.; June, 1774, pp. 27, 41, etc. For a copy of the bill, see
Moore.

[24] _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings, 1855-58_, p. 196; Force,
_American Archives_, 5th Ser., II. 769; _House Journal_, 1776,
pp. 105-9; _General Court Records_, March 13, 1776, etc., pp.
581-9; Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 149-54. Cf.
Moore, pp. 163-76.

[25] Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, pp. 148-9, 181-5.

[26] Washburn, _Extinction of Slavery in Massachusetts_;
Haynes, _Struggle for the Constitution in Massachusetts_; La
Rochefoucauld, _Travels through the United States_, II. 166.

[27] Moore, _Slavery in Massachusetts_, p. 225.

[28] _Perpetual Laws of Massachusetts, 1780-89_, p. 235. The
number of slaves in Massachusetts has been estimated as
follows:--

In 1676, 200. Randolph's _Report_, in _Hutchinson's Coll.
of Papers_, p. 485.
" 1680, 120. Deane, _Connection of Mass. with Slavery_,
p. 28 ff.
" 1708, 550. _Ibid._; Moore, _Slavery in Mass._, p. 50.
" 1720, 2,000. _Ibid._
" 1735, 2,600. Deane, _Connection of Mass. with Slavery_,
p. 28 ff.
" 1749, 3,000. _Ibid._
" 1754, 4,489. _Ibid._
" 1763, 5,000. _Ibid._
" 1764-5, 5,779. _Ibid._
" 1776, 5,249. _Ibid._
" 1784, 4,377. Moore, _Slavery in Mass._, p. 51.
" 1786, 4,371. _Ibid._
" 1790, 6,001. _Ibid._

[29] _R.I. Col. Rec._, I. 240.

[30] Cf. letter written in 1681: _New England Register_, XXXI.
75-6. Cf. also Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, I. 240.

[31] The text of this act is lost (_Col. Rec._, IV. 34;
Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 31). The Acts of Rhode
Island were not well preserved, the first being published in
Boston in 1719. Perhaps other whole acts are lost.

[32] E.g., it was expended to pave the streets of Newport, to
build bridges, etc.: _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 191-3, 225.

[33] _Ibid._, IV. 55-60.

[34] Patten, _Reminiscences of Samuel Hopkins_ (1843), p. 80.

[35] Hopkins, _Works_ (1854), II. 615.

[36] Preamble of the Act of 1712.

[37] _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 131-5, 138, 143, 191-3.

[38] _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 471.

[39] Arnold, _History of Rhode Island_, II. 304, 321, 337. For
a probable copy of the bill, see _Narragansett Historical
Register_, II. 299.

[40] A man dying intestate left slaves, who became thus the
property of the city; they were freed, and the town made the
above resolve, May 17, 1774, in town meeting: Staples, _Annals
of Providence_ (1843), p. 236.

[41] _R.I. Col. Rec._, VII. 251-2.

[42] _Bartlett's Index_, p. 329; Arnold, _History of Rhode
Island_, II. 444; _R.I. Col. Rec._, VIII. 618.

[43] _R.I. Col. Rec._, X. 7-8; Arnold, _History of Rhode
Island_, II. 506.

[44] _Bartlett's Index_, p. 333; _Narragansett Historical
Register_, II. 298-9. The number of slaves in Rhode Island has
been estimated as follows:--

In 1708, 426. _R.I. Col. Rec._, IV. 59.
" 1730, 1,648. _R.I. Hist. Tracts_, No. 19, pt. 2, p. 99.
" 1749, 3,077. Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,
I. 281.
" 1756, 4,697. _Ibid._
" 1774, 3,761. _R.I. Col. Rec._, VII. 253.

[45] Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 124.

[46] The number of slaves in Connecticut has been estimated as
follows:--

In 1680, 30. _Conn. Col. Rec._, III. 298.
" 1730, 700. Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,
I. 259.
" 1756, 3,636. Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.
" 1762, 4,590. Williams, _History of the Negro Race in America_,
I. 260.
" 1774, 6,562. Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.
" 1782, 6,281. Fowler, _Local Law_, etc., p. 140.
" 1800, 5,281. _Ibid._, p. 141.

[47] _Conn. Col. Rec._, XIV 329. Fowler (pp. 125-6) says that
the law was passed in 1769, as does Sanford (p. 252). I find
no proof of this. There was in Connecticut the same Biblical
legislation on the trade as in Massachusetts. Cf. _Laws of
Connecticut_ (repr. 1865), p. 9; also _Col. Rec._, I. 77. For
general duty acts, see _Col. Rec._, V 405; VIII. 22; IX. 283;
XIII. 72, 125.

[48] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp. 233-4.

[49] _Ibid._, pp. 368, 369, 388.

* * * * *

_Chapter V_

THE PERIOD OF THE REVOLUTION. 1774-1787.

23. The Situation in 1774.
24. The Condition of the Slave-Trade.
25. The Slave-Trade and the "Association."
26. The Action of the Colonies.
27. The Action of the Continental Congress.
28. Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.
29. Results of the Resolution.
30. The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.
31. The Action of the Confederation.

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

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

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

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

25. ~The Slave-Trade and the "Association."~ At the outbreak of the Revolution six main reasons, some of which were old and of slow growth, others peculiar to the abnormal situation of that time, led to concerted action against the slave-trade. The first reason was the economic failure of slavery in the Middle and Eastern colonies; this gave rise to the presumption that like failure awaited the institution in the South. Secondly, the new philosophy of "Freedom" and the "Rights of man," which formed the corner-stone of the Revolution, made the dullest realize that, at the very least, the slave-trade and a struggle for "liberty" were not consistent. Thirdly, the old fear of slave insurrections, which had long played so prominent a part in legislation, now gained new power from the imminence of war and from the well-founded fear that the British might incite servile uprisings. Fourthly, nearly all the American slave markets were, in 1774-1775, overstocked with slaves, and consequently many of the strongest partisans of the system were "bulls" on the market, and desired to raise the value of their slaves by at least a temporary stoppage of the trade. Fifthly, since the vested interests of the slave-trading merchants were liable to be swept away by the opening of hostilities, and since the price of slaves was low,[2] there was from this quarter little active opposition to a cessation of the trade for a season. Finally, it was long a favorite belief of the supporters of the Revolution that, as English exploitation of colonial resources had caused the quarrel, the best weapon to bring England to terms was the economic expedient of stopping all commercial intercourse with her. Since, then, the slave-trade had ever formed an important part of her colonial traffic, it was one of the first branches of commerce which occurred to the colonists as especially suited to their ends.[3]

Such were the complicated moral, political, and economic motives which underlay the first national action against the slave-trade. This action was taken by the "Association," a union of the colonies entered into to enforce the policy of stopping commercial intercourse with England. The movement was not a great moral protest against an iniquitous traffic; although it had undoubtedly a strong moral backing, it was primarily a temporary war measure.

26. ~The Action of the Colonies.~ The earlier and largely abortive attempts to form non-intercourse associations generally did not mention slaves specifically, although the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 11, 1769, recommended to merchants and traders, among other things, to agree, "That they will not import any slaves, or purchase any imported after the first day of November next, until the said acts are repealed."[4] Later, in 1774, when a Faneuil Hall meeting started the first successful national attempt at non-intercourse, the slave-trade, being at the time especially flourishing, received more attention. Even then slaves were specifically mentioned in the resolutions of but three States. Rhode Island recommended a stoppage of "all trade with Great Britain, Ireland, Africa and the West Indies."[5] North Carolina, in August, 1774, resolved in convention "That we will not import any slave or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves, imported or brought into this Province by others, from any part of the world, after the first day of _November_ next."[6] Virginia gave the slave-trade especial prominence, and was in reality the leading spirit to force her views on the Continental Congress. The county conventions of that colony first took up the subject. Fairfax County thought "that during our present difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported," and said: "We take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an entire stop forever put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade."[7] Prince George and Nansemond Counties resolved "That the _African_ trade is injurious to this Colony, obstructs the population of it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants from _Europe_ from settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of the balance of trade against this Colony."[8] The Virginia colonial convention, August, 1774, also declared: "We will neither ourselves import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person, after the first day of _November_ next, either from _Africa_, the _West Indies_, or any other place."[9]

In South Carolina, at the convention July 6, 1774, decided opposition to the non-importation scheme was manifested, though how much this was due to the slave-trade interest is not certain. Many of the delegates wished at least to limit the powers of their representatives, and the Charleston Chamber of Commerce flatly opposed the plan of an "Association." Finally, however, delegates with full powers were sent to Congress. The arguments leading to this step were not in all cases on the score of patriotism; a Charleston manifesto argued: "The planters are greatly in arrears to the merchants; a stoppage of importation would give them all an opportunity to extricate themselves from debt. The merchants would have time to settle their accounts, and be ready with the return of liberty to renew trade."[10]

27. ~The Action of the Continental Congress.~ The first Continental Congress met September 5, 1774, and on September 22 recommended merchants to send no more orders for foreign goods.[11] On September 27 "Mr. Lee made a motion for a non-importation," and it was unanimously resolved to import no goods from Great Britain after December 1, 1774.[12] Afterward, Ireland and the West Indies were also included, and a committee consisting of Low of New York, Mifflin of Pennsylvania, Lee of Virginia, and Johnson of Connecticut were appointed "to bring in a Plan for carrying into Effect the Non-importation, Non-consumption, and Non-exportation resolved on."[13] The next move was to instruct this committee to include in the proscribed articles, among other things, "Molasses, Coffee or Piemento from the _British_ Plantations or from _Dominica_,"--a motion which cut deep into the slave-trade circle of commerce, and aroused some opposition. "Will, can, the people bear a total interruption of the West India trade?" asked Low of New York; "Can they live without rum, sugar, and molasses? Will not this impatience and vexation defeat the measure?"[14]

The committee finally reported, October 12, 1774, and after three days' discussion and amendment the proposal passed. This document, after a recital of grievances, declared that, in the opinion of the colonists, a non-importation agreement would best secure redress; goods from Great Britain, Ireland, the East and West Indies, and Dominica were excluded; and it was resolved that "We will neither import, nor purchase any Slave imported after the First Day of _December_ next; after which Time, we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our Vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it."[15]

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

28. ~Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.~ The unanimity with which the colonists received this "Association" is not perhaps as remarkable as the almost entire absence of comment on the radical slave-trade clause. A Connecticut town-meeting in December, 1774, noticed "with singular pleasure ... the second Article of the Association, in which it is agreed to import no more Negro Slaves."[16] This comment appears to have been almost the only one. There were in various places some evidences of disapproval; but only in the State of Georgia was this widespread and determined, and based mainly on the slave-trade clause.[17] This opposition delayed the ratification meeting until January 18, 1775, and then delegates from but five of the twelve parishes appeared, and many of these had strong instructions against the approval of the plan. Before this meeting could act, the governor adjourned it, on the ground that it did not represent the province. Some of the delegates signed an agreement, one article of which promised to stop the importation of slaves March 15, 1775, i.e., four months later than the national "Association" had directed. This was not, of course, binding on the province; and although a town like Darien might declare "our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of Slavery in _America_"[18] yet the powerful influence of Savannah was "not likely soon to give matters a favourable turn. The importers were mostly against any interruption, and the consumers very much divided."[19] Thus the efforts of this Assembly failed, their resolutions being almost unknown, and, as a gentleman writes, "I hope for the honour of the Province ever will remain so."[20] The delegates to the Continental Congress selected by this rump assembly refused to take their seats. Meantime South Carolina stopped trade with Georgia, because it "hath not acceded to the Continental Association,"[21] and the single Georgia parish of St. Johns appealed to the second Continental Congress to except it from the general boycott of the colony. This county had already resolved not to "purchase any Slave imported at _Savannah_ (large Numbers of which we understand are there expected) till the Sense of Congress shall be made known to us."[22]

May 17, 1775, Congress resolved unanimously "That all exportations to _Quebec_, _Nova-Scotia_, the Island of _St. John's_, _Newfoundland_, _Georgia_, except the Parish of _St. John's_, and to _East_ and _West Florida_, immediately cease."[23] These measures brought the refractory colony to terms, and the Provincial Congress, July 4, 1775, finally adopted the "Association," and resolved, among other things, "That we will neither import or purchase any Slave imported from Africa, or elsewhere, after this day."[24]

The non-importation agreement was in the beginning, at least, well enforced by the voluntary action of the loosely federated nation. The slave-trade clause seems in most States to have been observed with the others. In South Carolina "a cargo of near three hundred slaves was sent out of the Colony by the consignee, as being interdicted by the second article of the Association."[25] In Virginia the vigilance committee of Norfolk "hold up for your just indignation Mr. _John Brown_, Merchant, of this place," who has several times imported slaves from Jamaica; and he is thus publicly censured "to the end that all such foes to the rights of _British America_ may be publickly known ... as the enemies of _American_ Liberty, and that every person may henceforth break off all dealings with him."[26]

29. ~Results of the Resolution.~ The strain of war at last proved too much for this voluntary blockade, and after some hesitancy Congress, April 3, 1776, resolved to allow the importation of articles not the growth or manufacture of Great Britain, except tea. They also voted "That no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies."[27] This marks a noticeable change of attitude from the strong words of two years previous: the former was a definitive promise; this is a temporary resolve, which probably represented public opinion much better than the former. On the whole, the conclusion is inevitably forced on the student of this first national movement against the slave-trade, that its influence on the trade was but temporary and insignificant, and that at the end of the experiment the outlook for the final suppression of the trade was little brighter than before. The whole movement served as a sort of social test of the power and importance of the slave-trade, which proved to be far more powerful than the platitudes of many of the Revolutionists had assumed.

The effect of the movement on the slave-trade in general was to begin, possibly a little earlier than otherwise would have been the case, that temporary breaking up of the trade which the war naturally caused. "There was a time, during the late war," says Clarkson, "when the slave trade may be considered as having been nearly abolished."[28] The prices of slaves rose correspondingly high, so that smugglers made fortunes.[29] It is stated that in the years 1772-1778 slave merchants of Liverpool failed for the sum of £710,000.[30] All this, of course, might have resulted from the war, without the "Association;" but in the long run the "Association" aided in frustrating the very designs which the framers of the first resolve had in mind; for the temporary stoppage in the end created an extraordinary demand for slaves, and led to a slave-trade after the war nearly as large as that before.

30. ~The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.~ The Declaration of Independence showed a significant drift of public opinion from the firm stand taken in the "Association" resolutions. The clique of political philosophers to which Jefferson belonged never imagined the continued existence of the country with slavery. It is well known that the first draft of the Declaration contained a severe arraignment of Great Britain as the real promoter of slavery and the slave-trade in America. In it the king was charged with waging "cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of _infidel_ powers, is the warfare of the _Christian_ king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where _men_ should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the _liberties_ of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the _lives_ of another."[31]

To this radical and not strictly truthful statement, even the large influence of the Virginia leaders could not gain the assent of the delegates in Congress. The afflatus of 1774 was rapidly subsiding, and changing economic conditions had already led many to look forward to a day when the slave-trade could successfully be reopened. More important than this, the nation as a whole was even less inclined now than in 1774 to denounce the slave-trade uncompromisingly. Jefferson himself says that this clause "was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe," said he, "felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."[32]

As the war slowly dragged itself to a close, it became increasingly evident that a firm moral stand against slavery and the slave-trade was not a probability. The reaction which naturally follows a period of prolonged and exhausting strife for high political principles now set in. The economic forces of the country, which had suffered most, sought to recover and rearrange themselves; and all the selfish motives that impelled a bankrupt nation to seek to gain its daily bread did not long hesitate to demand a reopening of the profitable African slave-trade. This demand was especially urgent from the fact that the slaves, by pillage, flight, and actual fighting, had become so reduced in numbers during the war that an urgent demand for more laborers was felt in the South.

Nevertheless, the revival of the trade was naturally a matter of some difficulty, as the West India circuit had been cut off, leaving no resort except to contraband traffic and the direct African trade. The English slave-trade after the peace "returned to its former state," and was by 1784 sending 20,000 slaves annually to the West Indies.[33] Just how large the trade to the continent was at this time there are few means of ascertaining; it is certain that there was a general reopening of the trade in the Carolinas and Georgia, and that the New England traders participated in it. This traffic undoubtedly reached considerable proportions; and through the direct African trade and the illicit West India trade many thousands of Negroes came into the United States during the years 1783-1787.[34]

Meantime there was slowly arising a significant divergence of opinion on the subject. Probably the whole country still regarded both slavery and the slave-trade as temporary; but the Middle States expected to see the abolition of both within a generation, while the South scarcely thought it probable to prohibit even the slave-trade in that short time. Such a difference might, in all probability, have been satisfactorily adjusted, if both parties had recognized the real gravity of the matter. As it was, both regarded it as a problem of secondary importance, to be solved after many other more pressing ones had been disposed of. The anti-slavery men had seen slavery die in their own communities, and expected it to die the same way in others, with as little active effort on their own part. The Southern planters, born and reared in a slave system, thought that some day the system might change, and possibly disappear; but active effort to this end on their part was ever farthest from their thoughts. Here, then, began that fatal policy toward slavery and the slave-trade that characterized the nation for three-quarters of a century, the policy of _laissez-faire, laissez-passer_.

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

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

On Tuesday, October 3, 1783, a deputation from the Yearly Meeting of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware Friends asked leave to present a petition. Leave was granted the following day,[37] but no further minute appears. According to the report of the Friends, the petition was against the slave-trade; and "though the Christian rectitude of the concern was by the Delegates generally acknowledged, yet not being vested with the powers of legislation, they declined promoting any public remedy against the gross national iniquity of trafficking in the persons of fellow-men."[38]

The only legislative activity in regard to the trade during the Confederation was taken by the individual States.[39] Before 1778 Connecticut, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia had by law stopped the further importation of slaves, and importation had practically ceased in all the New England and Middle States, including Maryland. In consequence of the revival of the slave-trade after the War, there was then a lull in State activity until 1786, when North Carolina laid a prohibitive duty, and South Carolina, a year later, began her series of temporary prohibitions. In 1787-1788 the New England States forbade the participation of their citizens in the traffic. It was this wave of legislation against the traffic which did so much to blind the nation as to the strong hold which slavery still had on the country.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] These figures are from the _Report of the Lords of the
Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).

[2] Sheffield, _Observations on American Commerce_, p. 28;
P.L. Ford, _The Association of the First Congress_, in
_Political Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.

[3] Cf., e.g., Arthur Lee's letter to R.H. Lee, March 18,
1774, in which non-intercourse is declared "the only advisable
and sure mode of defence": Force, _American Archives_, 4th
Ser., I. 229. Cf. also _Ibid._, p. 240; Ford, in _Political
Science Quarterly_, VI. 614-5.

[4] Goodloe, _Birth of the Republic_, p. 260.

[5] Staples, _Annals of Providence_ (1843), p. 235.

[6] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 735. This was
probably copied from the Virginia resolve.

[7] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 600.

[8] _Ibid._, I. 494, 530. Cf. pp. 523, 616, 641, etc.

[9] _Ibid._, I. 687.

[10] _Ibid._, I. 511, 526. Cf. also p. 316.

[11] _Journals of Cong._, I. 20. Cf. Ford, in _Political
Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.

[12] John Adams, _Works_, II. 382.

[13] _Journals of Cong._, I. 21.

[14] _Ibid._, I. 24; Drayton; _Memoirs of the American
Revolution_, I. 147; John Adams, _Works_, II. 394.

[15] _Journals of Cong._, I. 27, 32-8.

[16] Danbury, Dec. 12, 1774: Force, _American Archives_, 4th
Ser., I. 1038. This case and that of Georgia are the only ones
I have found in which the slave-trade clause was specifically
mentioned.

[17] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1033, 1136,
1160, 1163; II. 279-281, 1544; _Journals of Cong._, May 13,
15, 17, 1775.

[18] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1136.

[19] _Ibid._, II. 279-81.

[20] _Ibid._, I. 1160.

[21] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1163.

[22] _Journals of Cong._, May 13, 15, 1775.

[23] _Ibid._, May 17, 1775.

[24] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 1545.

[25] Drayton, _Memoirs of the American Revolution_, I. 182.
Cf. pp. 181-7; Ramsay, _History of S. Carolina_, I. 231.

[26] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 33-4.

[27] _Journals of Cong._, II. 122.

[28] Clarkson, _Impolicy of the Slave-Trade_, pp. 125-8.

[29] _Ibid._, pp. 25-6.

[30] _Ibid._

[31] Jefferson, _Works_ (Washington, 1853-4), I. 23-4. On the
Declaration as an anti-slavery document, cf. Elliot, _Debates_
(1861), I. 89.

[32] Jefferson, _Works_ (Washington, 1853-4), I. 19.

[33] Clarkson, _Impolicy of the Slave-Trade_, pp. 25-6;
_Report_, etc., as above.

[34] Witness the many high duty acts on slaves, and the
revenue derived therefrom. Massachusetts had sixty
distilleries running in 1783. Cf. Sheffield, _Observations on
American Commerce_, p. 267.

[35] Elliot, _Debates_, I. 72-3. Cf. Art. 8 of the Articles of
Confederation.