Chapter LXXXII: Act 8: Parliament 1. repeated in Act 99. Parliament 7 (8)

After the opening of the slave trade to the English by
Hawkins, in 1562-1564, "the traffic in human flesh speedily
became popular. A monopoly of it was granted to the African
Company, but it was invaded by numerous interlopers, and in
1698 the trade was thrown open to all British subjects. It is
worthy of notice that while by the law of 1698 a certain
percentage was exacted from other African cargoes for the
maintenance of the forts along that coast, cargoes of negroes
were especially exempted, for the Parliament of the Revolution
desired above all things to encourage the trade. Nine years
before, a convention had been made between England and Spain
for supplying the Spanish West Indies with slaves from the
island of Jamaica, and it has been computed that between 1680
and 1700 the English tore from Africa about 300,000 negroes,
or about 15,000 every year. The great period of the English
slave trade had, however, not yet arrived. It was only in 1713
that it began to attain its full dimensions. One of the most
important and most popular parts of the Treaty of Utrecht was
the contract known as the Assiento, by which the British
Government secured for its subjects during thirty years an
absolute monopoly of the supply of slaves to the Spanish
colonies. The traffic was regulated by a long and elaborate
treaty, guarding among other things against any possible
scandal to the Roman Catholic religion from the presence of
heretical slave-traders, and it provided that in the 30 years
from 1713 to 1743 the English should bring into the Spanish
West Indies no less than 144,000 negroes, or 4,800 every year;
that during the first 25 years of the contract they might
import a still greater number on paying certain moderate
duties, and that they might carry the slave trade into
numerous Spanish ports from which it had hitherto been
excluded.
{2923}
The monopoly of the trade was granted to the South Sea
Company, and from this time its maintenance, and its extension
both to the Spanish dominions and to her own colonies, became
a central object of English policy. A few facts will show the
scale on which it was pursued From Christmas 1752 to Christmas
1762 no less than 71,115 negroes were imported into Jamaica.
In a despatch written at the end of 1762, Admiral Rodney
reports that in little more than three years 40,000 negroes
had been introduced into Guadaloupe. In a discussion upon the
methods of making the trade more effectual, which took place
in the English Parliament in 1750, it was shown that 46,000
negroes were at this time annually sold to the English
colonies alone. A letter of General O'Hara, the Governor of
Senegambia, written in 1766, estimates at the almost
incredible figure of 70,000 the number of negroes who during
the preceding fifty years had been annually shipped from
Africa. A distinguished modern historian, after a careful
comparison of the materials we possess, declares that in the
century preceding the prohibition of the slave trade by the
American Congress, in 1776, the number of negroes imported by
the English alone, into the Spanish, French, and English
colonies can, on the lowest computation, have been little less
than three millions, and that we must add more than a quarter
of a million, who perished on the voyage and whose bodies were
thrown into the Atlantic."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of English in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2). _

ALSO IN:
_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States.
(Author's last revision),
part 3, chapter 16 (volume 2)._

_D. Macpherson,
Annals of Commerce,
volume 4, pages 141-157._

See, also,
UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
AIX LA CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS;
ENGLAND: A. D. 1739, 1741;
GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743;
ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1713-1776.
Maintained in the American colonies by the English Crown
and Parliament.

"The success of the American Revolution made it possible for
the different states to take measures for the gradual
abolition of slavery and the immediate abolition of the
foreign slave-trade. On this great question the state of
public opinion in America was more advanced than in England. …
George III. … resisted the movement for abolition with all the
obstinacy of which his hard and narrow nature was capable. In
1769 the Virginia legislature had enacted that the further
importation of negroes, to be sold into slavery, should be
prohibited. But George III. commanded the governor to veto
this act, and it was vetoed. In Jefferson's first draft of the
Declaration of Independence, this action of the king was made
the occasion of a fierce denunciation of slavery, but in
deference to the prejudices of South Carolina and Georgia the
clause was struck out by Congress. When George III. and his
vetoes had been eliminated from the case, it became possible
for the States to legislate freely on the subject."

_J. Fiske,
T/w Critical Period of American History,
page 71._

"During the regal government, we had at one time obtained a
law which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
amounted nearly to a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then
sovereign, and no devices, no expedients, which could ever
after be attempted by subsequent assemblies, and they seldom
met without attempting them, could succeed in getting the
royal assent to a renewal of the duty. In the very first
session held under the republican government, the assembly
passed a law for the perpetual prohibition of the importation
of slaves. This will in some measure stop the increase of this
great political and moral evil, while the minds of our
citizens may be ripening for a complete emancipation of human
nature."

_T. Jefferson,
Notes on the State of Virginia,
query 8._

"It has been frequently stated that England is responsible for
the introduction of negro slavery into British America; but
this assertion will not stand the test of examination. … It
is, however, true that from a very early period a certain
movement against it may be detected in some American States,
that there was, especially in the Northern Provinces, a great
and general dislike to the excessive importation of negroes,
and that every attempt to prohibit or restrict that
importation was rebuked and defeated by England. … The State
Governors were forbidden to give the necessary assent to any
measures restricting it, and the English pursued this policy
steadily to the very eve of the Revolution."

_W. E. H. Lecky,
History of England in the 18th Century,
chapter 5 (volume 2)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1717.
Introduction into Louisiana.

See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1717-1718.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1735-1749.
Questioned early in Georgia.
Slavery prohibited at the beginning, and finally introduced.

See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1756.
Extent and distribution in the English American colonies.

"The number of African slaves in North America in 1756, the
generation preceding the Revolution, was about 292,000. Of
these Virginia had 120,000, her white population amounting at
the same time to 173,000. The African increase in Virginia had
been steady. In 1619 came the first 20, and in 1649 there were
300. In 1670, there were 2,000. In 1714, there were 23,000. In
1756, there were 120,000. The 172,000 who, in addition to
these, made up the African population of America, were
scattered through the provinces from New England to Georgia."

_J. E. Cooke,
Virginia,
page 367._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1769-1785.
The ending of slavery in Connecticut and New Hampshire.

"For the New England States the Revolution was the death knell
of slavery and of the slave-trade protected by the law [see
action in Massachusetts and Rhode Island detailed above and
below]. … In New Hampshire the institution died a natural
death. As Belknap said in 1792, 'Slavery is not prohibited by
any express law. … Those born since the constitution was made
[1776] are free.' Although the legal status of the negro was
somewhat different, he was practically treated in the same
manner in New Hampshire that he was treated in Rhode Island.
Connecticut did not change her royal charter into a state
constitution until 1818, and her slaves were freed in 1784.
The slave-trade in New England vessels did not cease when the
state forbade it within New England territory. It was
conducted stealthily, but steadily, even into the lifetime of
Judge Story. Felt gives instances in 1785, and the inference
is that the business was prosecuted from Salem."

_W. B. Weeden,
Economic and Social History of New England,
volume 2, pages 834-835._

{2924}

"Connecticut was one of the first colonies to pass a law
against the slave-trade. This was done in 1769. The main cause
of the final abolition of slavery in the State was the fact
that it became unprofitable. In 1784 the Legislature passed an
Act declaring that all persons born of slaves, after the 1st
of March in that year, should be free at the age of 25. Most
of those born before this time were gradually emancipated by
their masters, and the institution of slavery had almost died
out before 1806."

_E. B. Sanford,
History of Connecticut,
page 252._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1774.
The bringing of slaves into Rhode Island prohibited.

"Africans had been brought to the shores of this colony in the
earliest of the vessels in which the commerce of Newport had
reached across the Atlantic. Becoming domesticated within the
colony, the black population had in 1730 reached the number of
1,648, and in 1774 had become 3,761. How early the
philanthropic movement in their behalf, and the measures
looking towards their emancipation, had gained headway, cannot
be determined with accuracy. It is probable that the movement
originated with the Society of Friends within the colony. But
little progress had been made towards any embodiment of this
sentiment in legislative enactment, however, until the very
year of the First Continental Congress, when at the direct
instance of Stephen Hopkins (himself for many years an owner
of slaves, though a most humane master), the General Assembly
ordained [June, 1774] 'that for the future no negro or mulatto
slave shall be brought into the colony,' and that all
previously enslaved persons on becoming residents of Rhode
Island should obtain their freedom. 'In this decided action,'
once more, as has been so often seen to be the case with
movements led by Stephen Hopkins, 'Rhode Island,' says Arnold,
'took the lead of all her sister colonies.'"

_W. E. Foster,
Stephen Hopkins,
part 2, pages 98-100._

ALSO IN:
_W. D. Johnston,
Slavery in Rhode Island,
part 2._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1776-1808.
Antislavery sentiment in the Southern (American) States.
The causes of its disappearance.

Jefferson's "'Notes on Virginia' were written in 1781-2. His
condemnation of slavery in that work is most emphatic. 'The
whole commerce between master and slave,' he says, 'is a
perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions; the most
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading
submission on the other. Our children see this and learn to
imitate it. … The man must be a prodigy who can retain his
manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. With what
execration should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting
one-half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the
other, transforms those into despots and these into
enemies—destroys the morals of the one part and the amor
patriæ of the other? … Can the liberties of a nation be
thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis—a
conviction in the minds of men that these liberties are the
gift of God; that they are not to be violated but with His
wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just—that His justice cannot sleep forever.' … On the
practical question, 'What shall be done about it?' Mr.
Jefferson's mind wavered; he was in doubt. How can slavery be
abolished? He proposed, in Virginia, a law, which was
rejected, making all free who were born after the passage of
the act. And here again he hesitated. What will become of
these people after they are free? … He thought they had better
be emancipated and sent out of the country. He therefore took
up with the colonization scheme long before the Colonization
Society was founded. He did not feel sure on this point. With
his practical mind he could not see how a half million of
slaves could be sent out of the country, even if they were
voluntarily liberated; where they should be sent to, or how
unwilling masters could be compelled to liberate their slaves.
While, therefore, he did not favor immediate emancipation, he
was zealous for no other scheme. … Mr. Jefferson, in August,
1785, wrote a letter to Dr. Richard Price, of London, author
of a treatise on Liberty, in which very advanced opinions were
taken on the slavery question. Concerning the prevalence of
anti-slavery opinions at that period, he says: 'Southward of
the Chesapeake your book will find but few readers concurring
with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth
to the head of the Chesapeake, the bulk of the people will
approve its theory, and it will find a respectable minority, a
minority ready to adopt it in practice; which, for weight and
worth of character, preponderates against the greater number
who have not the courage to divest their families of a
property which, how·ever, keeps their consciences unquiet.
Northward of the Chesapeake you may find, here and there, an
opponent to your doctrine, as you find, here and there, a
robber and murderer, but in no greater number. In that part of
America there are but few slaves, and they can easily
disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put in
such train that in a few years there will be no slaves
northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a
disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in
Virginia. These [the inhabitants of Virginia] have sucked in
the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mothers'
milk, and it is to these I look with anxiety to turn the fate
of this question. Be not, therefore, discouraged.'" M. Brissot
de Warville visited Washington, at Mount Vernon, in 1788, and
conversed with him freely on the subject of slavery. "This
great man declared to me," he wrote in his narrative,
afterwards published, "that he rejoiced at what was doing in
other States on the subject [of emancipation—alluding to the
recent formation of several state societies]; that he
sincerely desired the extension of it in his own State; but he
did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to be
overcome; that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at a
prejudice which had begun to diminish; that time, patience,
and information would not fail to vanquish it."

_W. F. Poole,
Anti-Slavery Opinions before the year 1800,
pages 25-35, and foot-note._

{2925}

"In Virginia all the foremost statesmen—Washington, Jefferson,
Lee, Randolph, Henry, and Madison, and Mason—were opposed to the
continuance of slavery; and their opinions were shared by many
of the largest planters. For tobacco-culture slavery did not
seem so indispensable as for the raising of rice and indigo;
and in Virginia the negroes, half-civilized by kindly
treatment, were not regarded with horror by their masters,
like the ill-treated and ferocious blacks of South Carolina
and Georgia. After 1808 the policy and the sentiments of
Virginia underwent a marked change. The invention of the
cotton-gin, taken in connection with the sudden prodigious
development of manufactures in England, greatly stimulated the
growth of cotton in the ever-enlarging area of the Gulf
states, and created an immense demand for slave-labour, just
at the time when the importation of negroes from Africa came
to an end. The breeding of slaves, to be sold to the planters
of the Gulf states, then became such a profitable occupation
in Virginia as entirely to change the popular feeling about
slavery. But until 1808 Virginia sympathized with the
anti-slavery sentiment which was growing up in the northern
states; and the same was true of Maryland. … In the work of
gradual emancipation the little state of Delaware led the way.
In its new constitution of 1776 the further introduction of
slaves was prohibited, all restraints upon emancipation having
already been removed. In the assembly of Virginia in 1778 a
bill prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was moved
and carried by Thomas Jefferson, and the same measure was
passed in Maryland in 1783, while both these states removed
all restraints upon emancipation. North Carolina was not ready
to go quite so far, but in 1786 she sought to discourage the
slave-trade by putting a duty of £5 per head on all negroes
thereafter imported."

_J. Fiske,
The Critical Period of American History,
page 73._

ALSO IN:
_T. Jefferson,
Notes on the State of Virginia,
query 18._

_J. W. Draper,
History of the American Civil War,
chapters 16-17 (volume 1._

_J. R. Brackett,
The Status of the Slave, 1775-1789
(Essays in Constitutional History)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1777.
Prohibited by the organic law of Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D.1777-1778.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1781.
Emancipation in Massachusetts.

See, SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1638-1781.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
The compromises in the Constitution of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AM.: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1787.
Exclusion forever from the Northwest
Territory of the United States.

See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1787.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1790.
Guaranteed to Tennessee.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1785-1796.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1791-1802.
The Revolt of the Haytian blacks, under
Toussaint L' Ouverture, and the ending
of slavery on the island.

See HAYTI: A. D. 1632-1803.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792.
The institution entrenched in the Constitution
of the new state of Kentucky.

See KENTUCKY: A. D. 1789-1792.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1792-1807.
Earliest measures for the suppression of the slave-trade.

"In 1776 the first motion against the trade was made in the
English parliament; and soon leading statesmen of all parties,
including Fox, Burke, and Pitt, declared themselves in favour
of its abolition. In 1792 the Danish King took the lead in the
cause of humanity by absolutely prohibiting his subjects from
buying, selling, and transporting slaves; and at last, in
1807, the moral sense of the British public overrode the
vested interests of merchants and planters; parliament, at
Lord Grenville's instance, passed the famous act for the
Abolition of the Slave trade; and thenceforward successive
British governments set themselves steadily by treaty and
convention to bring other nations to follow their example. …
In 1794 the United States prohibited their subjects from
slave-trading to foreign countries, and in 1807 they
prohibited the importation of slaves into their own."

_C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, pages 67-68._

ALSO IN:
_T. Clarkson,
History of the Abolition of the African Slave Trade._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1799.
Gradual emancipation enacted in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1806.
Act of the English Parliament against the slave-trade.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1806-1812.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1815.
Declaration of the Powers against the slave-trade.

The following are passages from the Declaration against the
Slave Trade, which was signed by the representatives of the
Powers at the Congress of Vienna, February 8, 1815: "Having
taken into consideration that the commerce known by the name
of 'the Slave Trade' has been considered by just and
enlightened men of all ages as repugnant to the principles of
humanity and universal morality; … that at length the public
voice, in all civilized countries, calls aloud for its prompt
suppression; that since the character and the details of this
traffic have been better known, and the evils of every kind
which attend it, completely developed, several European
Governments have, virtually, come to the resolution of putting
a stop to it, and that, successively all the Powers possessing
Colonies in different parts of the world have acknowledged,
either by Legislative Acts, or by Treaties, or other formal
engagements, the duty and necessity of abolishing it: That by
a separate Article of the late Treaty of Paris, Great Britain
and France engaged to unite their efforts at the Congress of
Vienna, to induce all the Powers of Christendom to proclaim
the universal and definitive Abolition of the Slave Trade:
That the Plenipotentiaries assembled at this Congress …
declare, in the face of Europe, that, considering the
universal abolition of the Slave Trade as a measure
particularly worthy of their attention, conformable to the
spirit of the times, and to the generous principles of their
august Sovereigns, they are animated with the sincere desire
of concurring in the most prompt and effectual execution of
this measure, by all the means at their disposal. … The said
Plenipotentiaries at the same time acknowledge that this
general Declaration cannot prejudge the period that each
particular Power may consider as most desirable for the
definitive abolition of the Slave Trade. Consequent]y, the
determining the period when this trade is to cease universally
must be a subject of negociation between the Powers; it being
understood, however, that no proper means of securing its
attainment, and of accelerating its progress, are to be
neglected."

_L. Hertslet,
Collection of Treaties and Conventions,
volume 1, page 11._

{2926}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1816-1849.
The organization of the American Colonization Society.
The founding of Liberia.

"Samuel J. Mills organized at Williams College, in 1808, for
missionary work, an undergraduate society, which was soon
transferred to Andover, and resulted in the establishment of
the American Bible Society and Board of Foreign Missions. But
the topic which engrossed Mills' most enthusiastic attention
was the Negro. The desire was to better his condition by
founding a colony between the Ohio and the Lakes; or later,
when this was seen to be unwise, in Africa. On going to New
Jersey to continue his theological studies, Mills succeeded in
interesting the Presbyterian clergy of that State in his
project. Of this body one of the most prominent members was
Dr. Robert Finley. Dr. Finley succeeded in assembling at
Princeton the first meeting ever called to consider the
project of sending Negro colonists to Africa. Although
supported by few save members of the seminary, Dr. Finley felt
encouraged to set out for Washington in December 1816, to
attempt the formation of a colonization society. Earlier in
this same year there had been a sudden awakening of Southern
interest in colonization. … The interest already awakened and
the indefatigable efforts of Finley and his friend Colonel
Charles Marsh, at length succeeded in convening the assembly
to which the Colonization Society owes its existence. It was a
notable gathering. Henry Clay, in the absence of Bushrod
Washington, presided, setting forth in glowing terms the
object and aspirations of the meeting. … John Randolph of
Roanoke, and Robert Wright of Maryland, dwelt upon the
desirability of removing the turbulent free-negro element and
enhancing the value of property in slaves. Resolutions
organizing the Society passed, and committees appointed to
draft a Constitution and present a memorial to Congress. …
With commendable energy the newly organized Society set about
the accomplishment of the task before it. Plans were discussed
during the summer, and in November two agents, Samuel J. Mills
and Ebenezer Burgess, sailed for Africa to explore the western
coast and select a suitable spot. … Their inspection was
carried as far south [from Sierra Leone] as Sherbro Island,
where they obtained promises from the natives to sell land to
the colonists on their arrival with goods to pay for it. In
May they embarked on the return voyage. Mills died before
reaching home. His colleague made a most favorable report of
the locality selected, though, as the event proved, it was a
most unfortunate one. After defraying the expenses of this
exploration the Society's treasury was practically empty. It
would have been most difficult to raise the large sum
necessary to equip and send out a body of emigrants; and the
whole enterprise would have languished and perhaps died but
for a new impelling force. … Though the importation of slaves
had been strictly prohibited by the Act of Congress of March
2, 1807, no provision had been made for the care of the
unfortunates smuggled in in defiance of the Statute. They
became subject to the laws of the State in which they were
landed; and these laws were in some cases so devised that it
was profitable for the dealer to land his cargo and incur the
penalty. The advertisements of the sale of such a cargo of
'recaptured Africans' by the State of Georgia drew the
attention of the Society and of General Mercer in particular
to this inconsistent and abnormal state of affairs. His
profound indignation shows forth in the Second Annual Report
of the Society, in which the attention of the public is
earnestly drawn to the question; nor did he rest until a bill
was introduced into the House of Representatives designed to
do away with the evil. This bill became a law on March 3,
1819. … The clause which proved so important to the embryo
colony was that dealing with the captured cargoes: 'The
President of the United States is hereby authorized to make
such regulations and arrangements as he may deem expedient for
the safe-keeping, support, and removal beyond the limits of
the United States, of all such negroes, mulattoes, or persons
of color as may be so delivered and brought within their
jurisdiction; and to appoint a proper person or persons
residing upon the coast of Africa as agent or agents for
receiving the negroes, mulattoes, or persons of color,
delivered from on board vessels seized in the prosecution of
the slave trade by commanders of the United States armed
vessels.' The sum of $100,000 was appropriated for carrying
out the provisions of the Act. President Monroe determined to
construe it as broadly as possible in aid of the project of
colonization. After giving Congress, in his message, December
20, 1818, fair notice of his intention, no objection being
made, he proceeded to appoint two agents, the Rev. Samuel
Bacon, already in the service of the Colonization Society, and
John P. Bankson as assistant, and to charter the ship
Elizabeth. The agents were instructed to settle on the coast
of Africa, with a tacit understanding that the place should be
that selected by the Colonization Society. … For the expenses
of the expedition $33,000 was placed in the hands of Mr.
Bacon. Dr. Samuel A. Crozier was appointed by the Society as
its agent and representative; and 86 negroes from various
states—33 men, 18 women, and the rest children, were embarked.
On the 6th of February, 1820, the Mayflower of Liberia weighed
anchor in New York harbor, and, convoyed by the U. S.
sloop-of-war Cyane, steered her course toward the shores of
Africa. The pilgrims were kindly treated by the authorities at
Sierra Leone, where they arrived on the 9th of March; but on
proceeding to Sherbro Island they found the natives had
reconsidered their promise, and refused to sell them land.
While delayed by negotiations the injudicious nature of the
site selected was disastrously shown. The low marshy ground
and the bad water quickly bred the African fever, which soon
carried off all the agents and nearly a fourth of the
emigrants. The rest, weakened and disheartened, were soon
obliged to seek refuge at Sierra Leone. In March, 1821, a body
of 28 new emigrants under charge of J. B. Winn and Ephraim
Bacon, reached Freetown in the brig Nautilus. Winn collected
as many as he could of the first company, also the stores sent
out with them, and settled the people in temporary quarters at
Fourah Bay, while Bacon set out to explore the coast anew and
secure suitable territory. An elevated fertile and desirable
tract was at length discovered between 250 and 300 miles S. E.
of Sierra Leone. This was the region of Cape Montserado. It
seemed exactly suited to the purposes of the colonists, but
the natives refused to sell their land for fear of breaking up
the traffic in slaves; and the agent returned discouraged.
Winn soon died, and Bacon returned to the United States. In
November, Dr. Eli Ayres was sent over as agent, and the U. S.
schooner Alligator, commanded by Lieutenant Stockton, was
ordered to the coast to assist in obtaining a foothold for the
colony. Cape Montserado was again visited; and the address and
firmness of Lieutenant Stockton accomplished the purchase of a
valuable tract of land.
{2927}
The cape upon which the settlers proposed to build their first
habitations consists of a narrow peninsula or tongue of land
formed by the Montserado River, which separates it from the
mainland. Just within the mouth of the river lie two small
islands, containing together less than three acres. To these,
the Plymouth of Liberia, the colonists and their goods were
soon transported. But again the fickle natives repented the
bargain, and the settlers were long confined to 'Perseverance
Island,' as the spot was aptly named. … After a number of
thrilling experiences the emigrants, on April 25, 1822,
formally took possession of the cape, where they had erected
rude houses for themselves; and from this moment we may date
the existence of the colony. Their supplies were by this time
sadly reduced; the natives were hostile and treacherous; fever
had played havoc with the colonists in acclimating; and the
incessant downpour of the rainy season had set in. Dr. Ayres
became thoroughly discouraged, and proposed to lead them back
to Sierra Leone. Then it was that Elijah Johnson, an emigrant
from New York, made himself forever famous in Liberian history
by declaring that he would never desert the home he had found
after two years' weary quest! His firmness decided the
wavering colonists; the agents with a few faint-hearted ones
sailed off to America; but the majority remained with their
heroic Negro leader. The little band, deserted by their
appointed protectors, were soon reduced to the most dire
distress, and must have perished miserably but for the arrival
of unexpected relief. The United States Government had at last
gotten hold of some ten liberated Africans, and had a chance
to make use of the agency established for them at so great an
expense. They were accordingly sent out in the brig Strong
under the care of the Rev. Jehudi Ashmun. A quantity of stores
and some 37 emigrants sent by the Colonization Society
completed the cargo. Ashmun had received no commission as
agent for the colony, and expected to return on the Strong;
under this impression his wife had accompanied him. But when
he found the colonists in so desperate a situation he nobly
determined to remain with them at any sacrifice. … On the 24th
of May, 1823, the brig Oswego arrived with 61 new emigrants
and a liberal supply of stores and tools, in charge of Dr.
Ayres, who, already the representative of the Society, had now
been appointed Government Agent and Surgeon. One of the first
measures of the new agent was to have the town surveyed and
lots distributed among the whole body of colonists. Many of
the older settlers found themselves dispossessed of the
holdings improved by their labor, and the colony was soon in a
ferment of excitement and insurrection. Dr. Ayres, finding his
health failing, judiciously betook himself to the United
States. The arrival of the agent had placed Mr. Ashmun in a
false position of the most mortifying character. … Seeing the
colony again deserted by the agent and in a state of
discontent and confusion, he forgot his wrongs and remained at
the helm. Order was soon restored but the seeds of
insubordination remained. The arrival of 103 emigrants from
Virginia on the Cyrus, in February 1824, added to the
difficulty, as the stock of food was so low that the whole
colony had to be put on half rations. This necessary measure
was regarded by the disaffected as an act of tyranny on
Ashmun's part; and when shortly after the complete prostration
of his health compelled him to withdraw to the Cape De Verde
Islands, the malcontents sent home letters charging him with
all sorts of abuse of power, and finally with desertion of his
post! The Society in consternation applied to Government for
an expedition of investigation, and the Rev. R. R. Gurley,
Secretary of the Society, and an enthusiastic advocate of
colonization, was despatched in June on the U. S. schooner
Porpoise. The result of course revealed the probity, integrity
and good judgment of Mr. Ashmun; and Gurley became thenceforth
his warmest admirer. As a preventive of future discontent a
Constitution was adopted at Mr. Gurley's suggestion, giving
for the first time a definite share in the control of affairs
to the colonists themselves. Gurley brought with him the name
of the colony—Liberia, and of its settlement on the
Cape—Monrovia, which had been adopted by the Society on the
suggestion of Mr. Robert Goodloe Harper of Maryland. He
returned from his successful mission in August leaving the
most cordial relations established throughout the colony.
Gurley's visit seemed to mark the turning of the tide, and a
period of great prosperity now began." The national
independence of the commonwealth of Liberia was not assumed
until 1847, when the first President of the Republic, Joseph
J. Roberts, was elected.

_J. H. T. McPherson,
History of Liberia
(Johns Hopkins University Studies,
series 9, number 10), chapters 2-3 and 5._

ALSO IN:
_S. Wilkeson,
History of the American Colonies in Liberia._

_A. H. Foote,
Africa and the American Flag,
chapters 10-11._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1818-1821.
The opening struggle of the American conflict.
The Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1821-1854.
Emancipation in New Granada, Venezuela and Ecuador.

See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1821-1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1823.
Abolition in Central America.

See CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1825.
Bolivar's Emancipation in Bolivia.

See PERU: A. D. 1825-1826.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1827.
Final Emancipation in New York.

See NEW YORK: A. D. 1827.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1828-1832.
The rise of the Abolitionists in the United States.
Nat Turner's Insurrection.

While the reign of Andrew Jackson [1828-1836] paved the way on
which the slave-holding interest ascended to the zenith of its
supremacy over the Union, there arose, at the same time, in
the body of the abolitionists, the enemy which undermined the
firm ground under the feet of that same slave-holding
interest. The expression, 'abolition of slavery,' is to be met
with even before the adoption of the constitution. But the
word 'abolitionism,' as descriptive of a definite political
programme, occurs for the first time in this period. … The
immediate precursor, and, in a certain sense, the father of
the abolitionists, was Benjamin Lundy, a Quaker, born in New
Jersey. In Wheeling, West Virginia, where he learned the
saddler's trade, he had ample opportunity to become acquainted
with the horrors of slavery, as great cargoes of slaves, on
their way to the southern states, frequently passed the place.
{2928}
Lundy had been endeavoring for some years to awaken an active
interest among his neighbors in the hard lot of the slaves,
when the Missouri question brought him to the resolve to
consecrate his whole life to their cause. In 1821, he began to
publish the 'Genius of Universal Emancipation,' which is to be
considered the first abolition organ. The 19th century can
scarcely point to another instance in which the command of
Christ, to leave all things and follow him, was so literally
construed and followed. Lundy gave up his flourishing
business, took leave of his wife and of his two dearly beloved
children, and began a restless, wandering life, to arouse
consciences everywhere to a deeper understanding of the sin
and curse of slavery. In the autumn of 1829 he obtained, as
associate publisher of his sheet, William Lloyd Garrison, a
young litterateur, born in Newburyport, Massachusetts, who,
from the position of a poor apprentice to a tradesman, rose to
be a type-setter, and from being a type-setter to be a
journalist. The removal of Garrison from New England to
Baltimore, where Lundy was then publishing the 'Genius,' was
an event pregnant with consequences. Garrison had long been a
zealous enemy of slavery, but had hitherto seen the right way
of doing away with the evil in the efforts of the colonization
society. What he now saw of slavery and its effects with his
own eyes produced a complete revolution in his views in a few
months. He not only recognized the impossibility of preventing
the extension of slavery by colonizing the free negroes in
Africa, to say nothing of gradually doing away with it
altogether, but he became convinced also that the leading
spirits of the colonization society purposely sought to induce
the philanthropists of the north to enter on a wrong course,
in the interests of slavery. Hence his own profession of faith
was, henceforth, 'immediate and unconditional emancipation.'
His separation from the more moderate Lundy, which was
rendered unavoidable by this course, was hastened by an
outside occurrence. The captain of a ship from New England
took on board at Baltimore a cargo of slaves destined for New
Orleans. Garrison denounced him on that account with
passionate violence. The matter was carried before the court,
and he was sentenced to prison and to pay a money fine for
publishing a libelous article and for criminally inciting
slaves to insurrection. After an imprisonment of seven weeks,
his fine was paid by a New York philanthropist, Arthur Tappan,
and Garrison left the city to spread his convictions by means
of public lectures through New England. Although his success
was not very encouraging, he, in January, 1831, established a
paper of his own in Boston, known as 'The Liberator.' He was
not only its publisher, and sole writer for it, but he had to
be his own printer and carrier. His only assistant was a
negro. … In one year, Garrison had found so many who shared
his views, that it was possible to found the 'New England
Anti-Slavery Society' in Boston [January, 1832]. The example
was imitated in other states. The movement spread so rapidly
that as early as December, 1833, a 'national' anti-slavery
convention could be held in Philadelphia. The immediate
practical result of this was the foundation of the 'American
Anti-Slavery Society.' … In the same year that Garrison raised
the standard of unconditional abolitionism in Boston, an event
happened in Virginia, which, from the opposite side,
contributed powerfully to lead the slavery question over into
its new stage of development. In August, 1831, an uprising of
slaves, under the leadership of Nat Turner, occurred in
Southampton county. It was, however, quickly subdued, but cost
the life of 61 white persons, mostly women and children. The
excitement throughout the entire south, and especially in
Virginia and the states contiguous to it, was out of all
proportion with the number of the victims and the extent of
the conspiracy."

_H. von Holst,
Constitutional and Political History of the United States,
volume 2, chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_W. P. and F. J. Garrison,
William Lloyd Garrison: The Story of his Life,
volume 1, chapters 6-9._

_S. J. May,
Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict,
pages 1-90._

_G. L. Austin,
Life and Times of Wendell Phillips,
chapter 3._

_O. Johnson,
William Lloyd Garrison and his Times,
chapters 1-5._

_J. F. Rhodes,
History of the United States from 1850,
chapter 1._

_B. Tuckerman,
William Jay and the Constitutional Movement
for the Abolition of Slavery._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1829-1837.
Emancipation in Mexico, resisted in Texas.
Schemes of the American slave power for acquiring that state.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836;
and MEXICO: A. D. 1829-1837.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1834-1838.
Emancipation in the British colonies.

"The abolition of slavery, as Fox had said, was the natural
consequence of the extinction of the slave trade; and in 1833
the act for the Abolition of Slavery throughout the British
colonies was passed. The law was to take effect from the first
of August 1834, but the slaves were to be apprenticed to their
former owners till 1838 and in the case of agricultural slaves
till 1840, and £20,000,000 sterling were voted as compensation
to the slave-holders at the Cape, in Mauritius, and in the
West Indies. As a matter of fact, however, two colonies,
Antigua and the Bermudas, had the good sense to dispense with
the apprenticeship system altogether, and in no case was it
prolonged beyond 1838. … When Burke wrote, there were,
according to his account, in the British West Indies at least
230,000 slaves against at the most 90,000 whites. In 1788 it
is stated that there were 450,000 negroes in the British sugar
colonies. At the last registration prior to emancipation,
after British Guiana and Trinidad had become British
possessions, the number of slaves was given at some 674,000."

_C. P. Lucas,
Historical Geography of the British Colonies,
volume 2, pages 68-69._

See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1832-1833.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1836.
The Atherton Gag.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1847.
The Liberty Party and the Liberty League.

"Nothing affords more striking evidence of the gravity and
difficulties of the antislavery struggle [in the United
States] than the conflicting opinions and plans of the honest
and earnest men engaged in it. … The most radical difference
was that which separated those who rejected from those who
adopted the principle of political action. The former were
generally styled the 'old organization,' or Garrisonian
Abolitionists; the latter embraced the Liberty Party and those
antislavery men who still adhered to the Whig and Democratic
parties." In 1847 the Liberty Party became divided, and a
separate body was formed which took the name of the Liberty
League, and which nominated Gerrit Smith for President, with
Elihu Burritt for Vice-President. "As distinguished from the
other wing, it may be said that the members of the Liberty
League were less practical, more disposed to adhere to
theories, and more fearful of sacrificing principle to
policy."

_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_W. Birney,
James G. Birney and his Times,
chapter 29._

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1840, and 1844.

{2929}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1840-1860.
The Underground Railroad.

The Underground Railroad was the popular designation given [in
the United States] to those systematic and co-operative
efforts which were made by the friends of the fleeing slave to
aid him in eluding the pursuit of the slave-hunters, who were
generally on his track. This 'institution,' as it was
familiarly called, played an important part in the great drama
of slavery and anti-slavery. By its timely and effective aid
thousands were enabled to escape from the prison-house of
bondage. … The practical working of the system required
'stations' at convenient distances, or rather the houses of
persons who held themselves in readiness to receive fugitives,
singly or in numbers, at any hour of day or night, to feed and
shelter, to clothe if necessary, and to conceal until they
could be despatched with safety to some other point along the
route. There were others who held themselves in like readiness
to take them by private or public conveyance. … When the wide
extent of territory embraced by the Middle States and all the
Western States east of the Mississippi is borne in mind, and
it is remembered that the whole was dotted with these
'stations,' and covered with a network of imaginary routes,
not found, indeed, in the railway guides or on the railway
maps; that each station had its brave and faithful men and
women, ever on the alert to seek out and succor the coming
fugitive, and equally intent on deceiving and thwarting his
pursuers; that there were always trusty and courageous
conductors waiting, like the 'minute-men' of the Revolution,
to take their living and precious freights, often by
unfrequented roads, on dark and stormy nights, safely on their
way; and that the numbers actually rescued were very great,
many counting their trophies by hundreds, some by thousands,
two men being credited with the incredible estimate of over
2,500 each,—there are materials from which to estimate,
approximately at least, the amount of labor performed, of cost
and risk incurred on the despised and deprecated Underground
Railroad, and something of the magnitude of the results
secured."

_H. Wilson,
History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America,
volume 2, chapter 6._

ALSO IN:
_J. F. Clarke,
Anti-Slavery Days,
chapter 3._

_W. Still,
The Underground Railroad._

_M. G. McDougal,
Fugitive Slaves
(Fay House Monographs, 3)._

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844.
Attempted insurrection in Cuba.

See CUBA: A. D. 1514-1851.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1844-1845.
The contest over the annexation of Texas.

See TEXAS: A. D. 1836-1845.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1845-1846.
Revolt in the Democratic Party against slavery extension.
The Wilmot Proviso.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1845-1846.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill.
Repeal of the Missouri Compromise.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854.
Abolition in Venezuela.

See VENEZUELA: A. D. 1829-1886.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1855.
Solidification of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.
Birth of the Republican Party of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1854-1855.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1854-1859.
The struggle for Kansas.

See KANSAS: A. D. 1854-1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1856.
Abolition in Peru.

See PERU: A. D. 1826-1876.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1857.
The Dred Scott case.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1857.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1859.
John Brown at Harper's Ferry.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1859.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1860-1865.
The slaveholders' Rebellion in the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1860 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER), and after.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (May).
The first war-thrust.
General Butler declares the slaves to be Contraband of War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (MAY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August).
Act of Congress freeing slaves employed
in the service of the Rebellion.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (AUGUST).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1861 (August-September).
Fremont's premature Proclamation of Emancipation
in Missouri, and Lincoln's modification of it.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1861 (AUGUST-OCTOBER: MISSOURI).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Compensated Emancipation proposed by President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH) PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S
PROPOSAL OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Federal officers forbidden, by the amended Military Code,
to surrender fugitive slaves.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MARCH) AMENDMENT OF THE MILITARY
CODE.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the District of Columbia and
the Territories of the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (APRIL-JUNE).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
General Hunter's Emancipation Order,
rescinded by President Lincoln.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (MAY)
GENERAL HUNTER'S EMANCIPATION ORDER.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
First arming of the Freedmen in the War for the Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (MAY: SOUTH CAROLINA).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Gradual Emancipation in West Virginia provided for.

See WEST VIRGINIA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL-DECEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862
Act confiscating the property and freeing the slaves of Rebels.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
President Lincoln's preliminary or monitory
Proclamation of Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1862 (SEPTEMBER).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1862.
Abolition in the Dutch West Indies.

See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1863.
President Lincoln's final Proclamation of Emancipation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Laws.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864 (JUNE).

{2930}

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1864.
Constitutional abolition of slavery in Louisiana.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, forever prohibiting slavery.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1865 (JANUARY).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Abolition in Tennessee by Constitutional Amendment.

See TENNESSEE: A. D. 1865-1866.

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1865.
Emancipation of the families of colored soldiers.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (MARCH).

SLAVERY: Modern: Negro: A. D. 1869-1893.
The slave-trade in Africa and the European measures
for its suppression.

"While Livingstone was making his terrible disclosures
respecting the havoc wrought by the slave-trader in east
central Africa, Sir Samuel Baker was striving to effect in
north central Africa what has been so successfully
accomplished in the Congo State. During his expedition for the
discovery of the Albert Nyanza, his explorations led him
through one of the principal man-hunting regions, wherein
murder and spoliation were the constant occupations of
powerful bands from Egypt and Nubia. These revelations were
followed by diplomatic pressure upon the Khedive Ismail, and
through the personal influence of an august personage he was
finally induced to delegate to Sir Samuel the task of
arresting the destructive careers of the slavers in the region
of the upper Nile. In his book Ismailïa we have the record of
his operations by himself. The firman issued to him was to the
effect that he 'was to subdue to the Khedive's authority the
countries to the south of Gondokoro, to suppress the slave
trade, to introduce a system of regular commerce, to open to
navigation the great lakes of the equator, and to establish a
chain of military stations and commercial depots throughout
central Africa.' This mission began in 1869, and continued
until 1874. On Baker's retirement from the command of the
equatorial Soudan the work was intrusted to Colonel C. G.
Gordon—commonly known as Chinese Gordon. Where Baker had
broken ground, Gordon was to build; what his predecessor had
commenced, Gordon was to perfect and to complete. If energy,
determination and self-sacrifice received their due, then had
Gordon surely won for the Soudan that peace and security which
it was his dear object to obtain for it. But slaving was an
old institution in this part of the world. Every habit and
custom of the people had some connection with it. They had
always been divided from prehistoric time into enslavers and
enslaved. How could two Englishmen, accompanied by only a
handful of officers, removed 2,000 miles from their base of
supplies, change the nature of a race within a few years?
Though much wrong had been avenged, many thousands of slaves
released, many a slaver's camp scattered, and many striking
examples made to terrify the evil-doers, the region was wide
and long; and though within reach of the Nile waters there was
a faint promise of improvement, elsewhere, at Kordofan,
Darfoor, and Sennaar, the trade flourished. After three years
of wonderful work, Gordon resigned. A short time afterwards,
however, he resumed his task, with the powers of a dictator,
over a region covering 1,100,000 square miles. But the
personal courage, energy, and devotion of one man opposed to a
race can effect but little. … After another period of three
years he again resigned. Then followed a revulsion. The
Khedivial government reverted to the old order of things. …
All traces of the work of Baker and Gordon have long ago been
completely obliterated. Attention has been given of late to
Morocco. This near neighbor of England is just twenty years
behind Zanzibar. … While the heart of Africa responds to the
civilizing influences moving from the east and the west and
the south, Morocco remains stupidly indifferent and inert, a
pitiful example of senility and decay. The remaining portion
of North Africa which still fosters slavery is Tripoli. The
occupation of Tunis by France has diverted such traffic in
slaves as it maintained to its neighbor. Though the
watchfulness of the Mediterranean cruisers renders the trade a
precarious one, the small lateen boats are frequently able to
sail from such ports as Benghazi, Derna, Solum, etc., with
living freight, along the coast to Asia Minor. In the
interior, which is inaccessible to travellers, owing to the
fanaticism of the Senoussi sect, caravans from Darfoor and
Wadai bring large numbers of slaves for the supply of
Tripolitan families and Senouissian sanctuaries. … The
partition of Africa among the European powers [by the Berlin
Conference of 1885 and the Anglo-German Convention of 1890] …
was the first effective blow dealt to the slave trade in inner
Africa.

See AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.