Chapter XII: The Essentials in the Struggle (1)

92. _How the Question Arose_ 193
93. _The Moral Movement_ 194
94. _The Political Movement_ 195
95. _The Economic Movement_ 195
96. _The Lesson for Americans_ 196

APPENDICES

A. _A Chronological Conspectus of Colonial and State Legislation
restricting the African Slave-Trade, 1641-1787_ 199

B. _A Chronological Conspectus of State, National, and
International Legislation, 1788-1871_ 234

C. _Typical Cases of Vessels engaged in the American Slave-Trade,
1619-1864_ 306

D. _Bibliography_ 316

INDEX 347

* * * * *

_Chapter I_

INTRODUCTORY.

1. Plan of the Monograph.
2. The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.

1. ~Plan of the Monograph.~ This monograph proposes to set forth the efforts made in the United States of America, from early colonial times until the present, to limit and suppress the trade in slaves between Africa and these shores.

The study begins with the colonial period, setting forth in brief the attitude of England and, more in detail, the attitude of the planting, farming, and trading groups of colonies toward the slave-trade. It deals next with the first concerted effort against the trade and with the further action of the individual States. The important work of the Constitutional Convention follows, together with the history of the trade in that critical period which preceded the Act of 1807. The attempt to suppress the trade from 1807 to 1830 is next recounted. A chapter then deals with the slave-trade as an international problem. Finally the development of the crises up to the Civil War is studied, together with the steps leading to the final suppression; and a concluding chapter seeks to sum up the results of the investigation. Throughout the monograph the institution of slavery and the interstate slave-trade are considered only incidentally.

2. ~The Rise of the English Slave-Trade.~ Any attempt to consider the attitude of the English colonies toward the African slave-trade must be prefaced by a word as to the attitude of England herself and the development of the trade in her hands.[1]

Sir John Hawkins's celebrated voyage took place in 1562, but probably not until 1631[2] did a regular chartered company undertake to carry on the trade.[3] This company was unsuccessful,[4] and was eventually succeeded by the "Company of Royal Adventurers trading to Africa," chartered by Charles II. in 1662, and including the Queen Dowager and the Duke of York.[5] The company contracted to supply the West Indies with three thousand slaves annually; but contraband trade, misconduct, and war so reduced it that in 1672 it surrendered its charter to another company for £34,000.[6] This new corporation, chartered by Charles II. as the "Royal African Company," proved more successful than its predecessors, and carried on a growing trade for a quarter of a century.

In 1698 Parliamentary interference with the trade began. By the Statute 9 and 10 William and Mary, chapter 26, private traders, on payment of a duty of 10% on English goods exported to Africa, were allowed to participate in the trade. This was brought about by the clamor of the merchants, especially the "American Merchants," who "in their Petition suggest, that it would be a great Benefit to the Kingdom to secure the Trade by maintaining Forts and Castles there, with an equal Duty upon all Goods exported."[7] This plan, being a compromise between maintaining the monopoly intact and entirely abolishing it, was adopted, and the statute declared the trade "highly Beneficial and Advantageous to this Kingdom, and to the Plantations and Colonies thereunto belonging."

Having thus gained practically free admittance to the field, English merchants sought to exclude other nations by securing a monopoly of the lucrative Spanish colonial slave-trade. Their object was finally accomplished by the signing of the Assiento in 1713.[8]

The Assiento was a treaty between England and Spain by which the latter granted the former a monopoly of the Spanish colonial slave-trade for thirty years, and England engaged to supply the colonies within that time with at least 144,000 slaves, at the rate of 4,800 per year. England was also to advance Spain 200,000 crowns, and to pay a duty of 33½ crowns for each slave imported. The kings of Spain and England were each to receive one-fourth of the profits of the trade, and the Royal African Company were authorized to import as many slaves as they wished above the specified number in the first twenty-five years, and to sell them, except in three ports, at any price they could get.

It is stated that, in the twenty years from 1713 to 1733, fifteen thousand slaves were annually imported into America by the English, of whom from one-third to one-half went to the Spanish colonies.[9] To the company itself the venture proved a financial failure; for during the years 1729-1750 Parliament assisted the Royal Company by annual grants which amounted to £90,000,[10] and by 1739 Spain was a creditor to the extent of £68,000, and threatened to suspend the treaty. The war interrupted the carrying out of the contract, but the Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle extended the limit by four years. Finally, October 5, 1750, this privilege was waived for a money consideration paid to England; the Assiento was ended, and the Royal Company was bankrupt.

By the Statute 23 George II., chapter 31, the old company was dissolved and a new "Company of Merchants trading to Africa" erected in its stead.[11] Any merchant so desiring was allowed to engage in the trade on payment of certain small duties, and such merchants formed a company headed by nine directors. This marked the total abolition of monopoly in the slave-trade, and was the form under which the trade was carried on until after the American Revolution.

That the slave-trade was the very life of the colonies had, by 1700, become an almost unquestioned axiom in British practical economics. The colonists themselves declared slaves "the strength and sinews of this western world,"[12] and the lack of them "the grand obstruction"[13] here, as the settlements "cannot subsist without supplies of them."[14] Thus, with merchants clamoring at home and planters abroad, it easily became the settled policy of England to encourage the slave-trade. Then, too, she readily argued that what was an economic necessity in Jamaica and the Barbadoes could scarcely be disadvantageous to Carolina, Virginia, or even New York. Consequently, the colonial governors were generally instructed to "give all due encouragement and invitation to merchants and others, ... and in particular to the royal African company of England."[15] Duties laid on the importer, and all acts in any way restricting the trade, were frowned upon and very often disallowed. "Whereas," ran Governor Dobbs's instructions, "Acts have been passed in some of our Plantations in America for laying duties on the importation and exportation of Negroes to the great discouragement of the Merchants trading thither from the coast of Africa.... It is our Will and Pleasure that you do not give your assent to or pass any Law imposing duties upon Negroes imported into our Province of North Carolina."[16]

The exact proportions of the slave-trade to America can be but approximately determined. From 1680 to 1688 the African Company sent 249 ships to Africa, shipped there 60,783 Negro slaves, and after losing 14,387 on the middle passage, delivered 46,396 in America. The trade increased early in the eighteenth century, 104 ships clearing for Africa in 1701; it then dwindled until the signing of the Assiento, standing at 74 clearances in 1724. The final dissolution of the monopoly in 1750 led--excepting in the years 1754-57, when the closing of Spanish marts sensibly affected the trade--to an extraordinary development, 192 clearances being made in 1771. The Revolutionary War nearly stopped the traffic; but by 1786 the clearances had risen again to 146.

To these figures must be added the unregistered trade of Americans and foreigners. It is probable that about 25,000 slaves were brought to America each year between 1698 and 1707. The importation then dwindled, but rose after the Assiento to perhaps 30,000. The proportion, too, of these slaves carried to the continent now began to increase. Of about 20,000 whom the English annually imported from 1733 to 1766, South Carolina alone received some 3,000. Before the Revolution, the total exportation to America is variously estimated as between 40,000 and 100,000 each year. Bancroft places the total slave population of the continental colonies at 59,000 in 1714, 78,000 in 1727, and 293,000 in 1754. The census of 1790 showed 697,897 slaves in the United States.[17]

In colonies like those in the West Indies and in South Carolina and Georgia, the rapid importation into America of a multitude of savages gave rise to a system of slavery far different from that which the late Civil War abolished. The strikingly harsh and even inhuman slave codes in these colonies show this. Crucifixion, burning, and starvation were legal modes of punishment.[18] The rough and brutal character of the time and place was partly responsible for this, but a more decisive reason lay in the fierce and turbulent character of the imported Negroes. The docility to which long years of bondage and strict discipline gave rise was absent, and insurrections and acts of violence were of frequent occurrence.[19] Again and again the danger of planters being "cut off by their own negroes"[20] is mentioned, both in the islands and on the continent. This condition of vague dread and unrest not only increased the severity of laws and strengthened the police system, but was the prime motive back of all the earlier efforts to check the further importation of slaves.

On the other hand, in New England and New York the Negroes were merely house servants or farm hands, and were treated neither better nor worse than servants in general in those days. Between these two extremes, the system of slavery varied from a mild serfdom in Pennsylvania and New Jersey to an aristocratic caste system in Maryland and Virginia.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] This account is based largely on the _Report of the Lords
of the Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).

[2] African trading-companies had previously been erected
(e.g. by Elizabeth in 1585 and 1588, and by James I. in 1618);
but slaves are not specifically mentioned in their charters,
and they probably did not trade in slaves. Cf. Bandinel,
_Account of the Slave Trade_ (1842), pp. 38-44.

[3] Chartered by Charles I. Cf. Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers,
Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, p. 135.

[4] In 1651, during the Protectorate, the privileges of the
African trade were granted anew to this same company for
fourteen years. Cf. Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser.,
America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, pp. 342, 355.

[5] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
Indies, 1661-1668_, § 408.

[6] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
Indies, 1669-1674_, §§ 934, 1095.

[7] Quoted in the above _Report_, under "Most Material
Proceedings in the House of Commons," Vol. I. Part I. An import
duty of 10% on all goods, except Negroes, imported from Africa
to England and the colonies was also laid. The proceeds of
these duties went to the Royal African Company.

[8] Cf. Appendix A.

[9] Bandinel, _Account of the Slave Trade_, p. 59. Cf. Bryan
Edwards, _History of the British Colonies in the W. Indies_
(London, 1798), Book VI.

[10] From 1729 to 1788, including compensation to the old
company, Parliament expended £705,255 on African companies. Cf.
_Report_, etc., as above.

[11] Various amendatory statutes were passed: e.g., 24 George
II. ch. 49, 25 George II. ch. 40, 4 George III. ch. 20, 5
George III. ch. 44, 23 George III. ch. 65.

[12] Renatus Enys from Surinam, in 1663: Sainsbury, _Cal.
State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68_, §
577.

[13] Thomas Lynch from Jamaica, in 1665: Sainsbury, _Cal.
State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68_, §
934.

[14] Lieutenant-Governor Willoughby of Barbadoes, in 1666:
Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
Indies, 1661-68_, § 1281.

[15] Smith, _History of New Jersey_ (1765), p. 254; Sainsbury,
_Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies,
1669-74_., §§ 367, 398, 812.

[16] _N.C. Col. Rec._, V. 1118. For similar instructions, cf.
_Penn. Archives_, I. 306; _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI.
34; Gordon, _History of the American Revolution_, I. letter 2;
_Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 4th Ser. X. 642.

[17] These figures are from the above-mentioned _Report_, Vol.
II. Part IV. Nos. 1, 5. See also Bancroft, _History of the
United States_ (1883), II. 274 ff; Bandinel, _Account of the
Slave Trade_, p. 63; Benezet, _Caution to Great Britain_, etc.,
pp. 39-40, and _Historical Account of Guinea_, ch. xiii.

[18] Compare earlier slave codes in South Carolina, Georgia,
Jamaica, etc.; also cf. Benezet, _Historical Account of
Guinea_, p. 75; _Report_, etc., as above.

[19] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
Indies, 1574-1660_, pp. 229, 271, 295; _1661-68_, §§ 61, 412,
826, 1270, 1274, 1788; _1669-74_., §§ 508, 1244; Bolzius and
Von Reck, _Journals_ (in Force, _Tracts_, Vol. IV. No. 5, pp.
9, 18); _Proceedings of Governor and Assembly of Jamaica in
regard to the Maroon Negroes_ (London, 1796).

[20] Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.
Indies, 1661-68_, § 1679.

* * * * *

_Chapter II_

THE PLANTING COLONIES.

3. Character of these Colonies.
4. Restrictions in Georgia.
5. Restrictions in South Carolina.
6. Restrictions in North Carolina.
7. Restrictions in Virginia.
8. Restrictions in Maryland.
9. General Character of these Restrictions.

3. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The planting colonies are those Southern settlements whose climate and character destined them to be the chief theatre of North American slavery. The early attitude of these communities toward the slave-trade is therefore of peculiar interest; for their action was of necessity largely decisive for the future of the trade and for the institution in North America. Theirs was the only soil, climate, and society suited to slavery; in the other colonies, with few exceptions, the institution was by these same factors doomed from the beginning. Hence, only strong moral and political motives could in the planting colonies overthrow or check a traffic so favored by the mother country.

4. ~Restrictions in Georgia.~ In Georgia we have an example of a community whose philanthropic founders sought to impose upon it a code of morals higher than the colonists wished. The settlers of Georgia were of even worse moral fibre than their slave-trading and whiskey-using neighbors in Carolina and Virginia; yet Oglethorpe and the London proprietors prohibited from the beginning both the rum and the slave traffic, refusing to "suffer slavery (which is against the Gospel as well as the fundamental law of England) to be authorised under our authority."[1] The trustees sought to win the colonists over to their belief by telling them that money could be better expended in transporting white men than Negroes; that slaves would be a source of weakness to the colony; and that the "Produces designed to be raised in the Colony would not require such Labour as to make Negroes necessary for carrying them on."[2]

This policy greatly displeased the colonists, who from 1735, the date of the first law, to 1749, did not cease to clamor for the repeal of the restrictions.[3] As their English agent said, they insisted that "In Spight of all Endeavours to disguise this Point, it is as clear as Light itself, that Negroes are as essentially necessary to the Cultivation of _Georgia_, as Axes, Hoes, or any other Utensil of Agriculture."[4] Meantime, evasions and infractions of the laws became frequent and notorious. Negroes were brought across from Carolina and "hired" for life.[5] "Finally, purchases were openly made in Savannah from African traders: some seizures were made by those who opposed the principle, but as a majority of the magistrates were favorable to the introduction of slaves into the province, legal decisions were suspended from time to time, and a strong disposition evidenced by the courts to evade the operation of the law."[6] At last, in 1749, the colonists prevailed on the trustees and the government, and the trade was thrown open under careful restrictions, which limited importation, required a registry and quarantine on all slaves brought in, and laid a duty.[7] It is probable, however, that these restrictions were never enforced, and that the trade thus established continued unchecked until the Revolution.

5. ~Restrictions in South Carolina.~[8] South Carolina had the largest and most widely developed slave-trade of any of the continental colonies. This was owing to the character of her settlers, her nearness to the West Indian slave marts, and the early development of certain staple crops, such as rice, which were adapted to slave labor.[9] Moreover, this colony suffered much less interference from the home government than many other colonies; thus it is possible here to trace the untrammeled development of slave-trade restrictions in a typical planting community.

As early as 1698 the slave-trade to South Carolina had reached such proportions that it was thought that "the great number of negroes which of late have been imported into this Collony may endanger the safety thereof." The immigration of white servants was therefore encouraged by a special law.[10] Increase of immigration reduced this disproportion, but Negroes continued to be imported in such numbers as to afford considerable revenue from a moderate duty on them. About the time when the Assiento was signed, the slave-trade so increased that, scarcely a year after the consummation of that momentous agreement, two heavy duty acts were passed, because "the number of Negroes do extremely increase in this Province, and through the afflicting providence of God, the white persons do not proportionately multiply, by reason whereof, the safety of the said Province is greatly endangered."[11] The trade, however, by reason of the encouragement abroad and of increased business activity in exporting naval stores at home, suffered scarcely any check, although repeated acts, reciting the danger incident to a "great importation of Negroes," were passed, laying high duties.[12] Finally, in 1717, an additional duty of £40,[13] although due in depreciated currency, succeeded so nearly in stopping the trade that, two years later, all existing duties were repealed and one of £10 substituted.[14] This continued during the time of resistance to the proprietary government, but by 1734 the importation had again reached large proportions. "We must therefore beg leave," the colonists write in that year, "to inform your Majesty, that, amidst our other perilous circumstances, we are subject to many intestine dangers from the great number of negroes that are now among us, who amount at least to twenty-two thousand persons, and are three to one of all your Majesty's white subjects in this province. Insurrections against us have been often attempted."[15] In 1740 an insurrection under a slave, Cato, at Stono, caused such widespread alarm that a prohibitory duty of £100 was immediately laid.[16] Importation was again checked; but in 1751 the colony sought to devise a plan whereby the slightly restricted immigration of Negroes should provide a fund to encourage the importation of white servants, "to prevent the mischiefs that may be attended by the great importation of negroes into this Province."[17] Many white servants were thus encouraged to settle in the colony; but so much larger was the influx of black slaves that the colony, in 1760, totally prohibited the slave-trade. This act was promptly disallowed by the Privy Council and the governor reprimanded;[18] but the colony declared that "an importation of negroes, equal in number to what have been imported of late years, may prove of the most dangerous consequence in many respects to this Province, and the best way to obviate such danger will be by imposing such an additional duty upon them as may totally prevent the evils."[19] A prohibitive duty of £100 was accordingly imposed in 1764.[20] This duty probably continued until the Revolution.

The war made a great change in the situation. It has been computed by good judges that, between the years 1775 and 1783, the State of South Carolina lost twenty-five thousand Negroes, by actual hostilities, plunder of the British, runaways, etc. After the war the trade quickly revived, and considerable revenue was raised from duty acts until 1787, when by act and ordinance the slave-trade was totally prohibited.[21] This prohibition, by renewals from time to time, lasted until 1803.

6. ~Restrictions in North Carolina.~ In early times there were few slaves in North Carolina;[22] this fact, together with the troubled and turbulent state of affairs during the early colonial period, did not necessitate the adoption of any settled policy toward slavery or the slave-trade. Later the slave-trade to the colony increased; but there is no evidence of any effort to restrict or in any way regulate it before 1786, when it was declared that "the importation of slaves into this State is productive of evil consequences and highly impolitic,"[23] and a prohibitive duty was laid on them.

7. ~Restrictions in Virginia.~[24] Next to South Carolina, Virginia had probably the largest slave-trade. Her situation, however, differed considerably from that of her Southern neighbor. The climate, the staple tobacco crop, and the society of Virginia were favorable to a system of domestic slavery, but one which tended to develop into a patriarchal serfdom rather than into a slave-consuming industrial hierarchy. The labor required by the tobacco crop was less unhealthy than that connected with the rice crop, and the Virginians were, perhaps, on a somewhat higher moral plane than the Carolinians. There was consequently no such insatiable demand for slaves in the larger colony. On the other hand, the power of the Virginia executive was peculiarly strong, and it was not possible here to thwart the slave-trade policy of the home government as easily as elsewhere.

Considering all these circumstances, it is somewhat difficult to determine just what was the attitude of the early Virginians toward the slave-trade. There is evidence, however, to show that although they desired the slave-trade, the rate at which the Negroes were brought in soon alarmed them. In 1710 a duty of £5 was laid on Negroes, but Governor Spotswood "soon perceived that the laying so high a Duty on Negros was intended to discourage the importation," and vetoed the measure.[25] No further restrictive legislation was attempted for some years, but whether on account of the attitude of the governor or the desire of the inhabitants, is not clear. With 1723 begins a series of acts extending down to the Revolution, which, so far as their contents can be ascertained, seem to have been designed effectually to check the slave-trade. Some of these acts, like those of 1723 and 1727, were almost immediately disallowed.[26] The Act of 1732 laid a duty of 5%, which was continued until 1769,[27] and all other duties were in addition to this; so that by such cumulative duties the rate on slaves reached 25% in 1755,[28] and 35% at the time of Braddock's expedition.[29] These acts were found "very burthensome," "introductive of many frauds," and "very inconvenient,"[30] and were so far repealed that by 1761 the duty was only 15%. As now the Burgesses became more powerful, two or more bills proposing restrictive duties were passed, but disallowed.[31] By 1772 the anti-slave-trade feeling had become considerably developed, and the Burgesses petitioned the king, declaring that "The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear _will endanger the very existence_ of your Majesty's American dominions.... Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove _all those restraints_ on your Majesty's governors of this colony, _which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce_."[32]

Nothing further appears to have been done before the war. When, in 1776, the delegates adopted a Frame of Government, it was charged in this document that the king had perverted his high office into a "detestable and insupportable tyranny, by ... prompting our negroes to rise in arms among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law."[33] Two years later, in 1778, an "Act to prevent the further importation of Slaves" stopped definitively the legal slave-trade to Virginia.[34]

8. ~Restrictions in Maryland.~[35] Not until the impulse of the Assiento had been felt in America, did Maryland make any attempt to restrain a trade from which she had long enjoyed a comfortable revenue. The Act of 1717, laying a duty of 40_s._,[36] may have been a mild restrictive measure. The duties were slowly increased to 50_s._ in 1754,[37] and £4. in 1763.[38] In 1771 a prohibitive duty of £9 was laid;[39] and in 1783, after the war, all importation by sea was stopped and illegally imported Negroes were freed.[40]

Compared with the trade to Virginia and the Carolinas, the slave-trade to Maryland was small, and seems at no time to have reached proportions which alarmed the inhabitants. It was regulated to the economic demand by a slowly increasing tariff, and finally, after 1769, had nearly ceased of its own accord before the restrictive legislation of Revolutionary times.[41] Probably the proximity of Maryland to Virginia made an independent slave-trade less necessary to her.

9. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ We find in the planting colonies all degrees of advocacy of the trade, from the passiveness of Maryland to the clamor of Georgia. Opposition to the trade did not appear in Georgia, was based almost solely on political fear of insurrection in Carolina, and sprang largely from the same motive in Virginia, mingled with some moral repugnance. As a whole, it may be said that whatever opposition to the slave-trade there was in the planting colonies was based principally on the political fear of insurrection.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Hoare, _Memoirs of Granville Sharp_ (1820), p. 157. For
the act of prohibition, see W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_
(1847), I. 311.

[2] [B. Martyn, _Account of the Progress of Georgia_ (1741),
pp. 9-10.]

[3] Cf. Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 290 ff.

[4] Stephens, _Account of the Causes_, etc., p. 8. Cf. also
_Journal of Trustees_, II. 210; cited by Stevens, _History of
Georgia_, I. 306.

[5] McCall, _History of Georgia_ (1811), I. 206-7.

[6] _Ibid._

[7] _Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade_, Vol. X.; cited by C.C.
Jones, _History of Georgia_ (1883), I. 422-5.

[8] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
colony of South Carolina; details will be found in Appendix
A:--

1698, Act to encourage the immigration of white servants.
1703, Duty Act: 10_s._ on Africans, 20_s._ on other Negroes.
1714, " " additional duty.
1714, " " £2.
1714-15, Duty Act: additional duty.
1716, " " £3 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.
1717, " " £40 in addition to existing duties.
1719, " " £10 on Africans, £30 on colonial Negroes.
The Act of 1717, etc., was repealed.
1721, " " £10 on Africans, £50 on colonial Negroes.
1722, " " " " " " "
1740, " " £100 on Africans, £150 on colonial Negroes.
1751, " " £10 " " £50 " "
1760, Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).
1764, Duty Act: additional duty of £100.
1783, " " £3 on Africans, £20 on colonial Negroes.
1784, " " " " £5 " "
1787, Art and Ordinance prohibiting importation.

[9] Cf. Hewatt, _Historical Account of S. Carolina and
Georgia_ (1779), I. 120 ff.; reprinted in _S.C. Hist. Coll._
(1836), I. 108 ff.

[10] Cooper, _Statutes at Large of S. Carolina_, II. 153.

[11] The text of the first act is not extant: cf. Cooper,
_Statutes_, III. 56. For the second, see Cooper, VII. 365,
367.

[12] Cf. Grimké, _Public Laws of S. Carolina_, p. xvi, No.
362; Cooper, _Statutes_, II. 649. Cf. also _Governor Johnson
to the Board of Trade_, Jan. 12, 1719-20; reprinted in Rivers,
_Early History of S. Carolina_ (1874), App., xii.

[13] Cooper, _Statutes_, VII. 368.

[14] _Ibid._, III. 56.

[15] From a memorial signed by the governor, President of the
Council, and Speaker of the House, dated April 9, 1734,
printed in Hewatt, _Historical Account of S. Carolina and
Georgia_ (1779), II. 39; reprinted in S.C. Hist. Coll. (1836),
I. 305-6. Cf. _N.C. Col. Rec._, II. 421.

[16] Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 556; Grimké, _Public Laws_, p.
xxxi, No. 694. Cf. Ramsay, _History of S. Carolina_, I. 110.

[17] Cooper, _Statutes_, III. 739.

[18] The text of this law has not been found. Cf. Burge,
_Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws_, I. 737, note;
Stevens, _History of Georgia_, I. 286. See instructions of the
governor of New Hampshire, June 30, 1761, in Gordon, _History
of the American Revolution_, I. letter 2.

[19] Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 187.

[20] This duty avoided the letter of the English instructions
by making the duty payable by the first purchasers, and not by
the importers. Cf. Cooper, _Statutes_, IV. 187.

[21] Grimké, Public Laws, p. lxviii, Nos. 1485, 1486; Cooper,
_Statutes_, VII. 430.

[22] Cf. _N.C. Col. Rec._, IV. 172.

[23] Martin, _Iredell's Acts of Assembly_, I. 413, 492.

[24] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
colony of Virginia; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1710, Duty Act: proposed duty of £5.
1723, " " prohibitive (?).
1727, " " "
1732, " " 5%.
1736, " " "
1740, " " additional duty of 5%.
1754, " " " " 5%.
1755, " " " " 10% (Repealed, 1760).
1757, " " " " 10% (Repealed, 1761).
1759, " " 20% on colonial slaves.
1766, " " additional duty of 10% (Disallowed?).
1769, " " " " " "
1772, " " £5 on colonial slaves.
Petition of Burgesses _vs._ Slave-trade.
1776, Arraignment of the king in the adopted Frame of Government.
1778, Importation prohibited.

[25] _Letters of Governor Spotswood_, in _Va. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, New Ser., I. 52.

[26] Hening, _Statutes at Large of Virginia_, IV. 118, 182.

[27] _Ibid._, IV. 317, 394; V. 28, 160, 318; VI. 217, 353;
VII. 281; VIII. 190, 336, 532.

[28] _Ibid._, V. 92; VI. 417, 419, 461, 466.

[29] _Ibid._, VII. 69, 81.

[30] _Ibid._, VII. 363, 383.

[31] _Ibid._, VIII. 237, 337.

[32] _Miscellaneous Papers, 1672-1865_, in _Va. Hist. Soc.
Coll._, New Ser., VI. 14; Tucker, _Blackstone's Commentaries_,
I. Part II. App., 51.

[33] Hening, _Statutes_, IX. 112.

[34] Importation by sea or by land was prohibited, with a
penalty of £1000 for illegal importation and £500 for buying
or selling. The Negro was freed, if illegally brought in. This
law was revised somewhat in 1785. Cf. Hening, _Statutes_, IX.
471; XII. 182.

[35] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
colony of Maryland; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1695, Duty Act: 10_s._
1704, " " 20_s._
1715, " " "
1717, " " additional duty of 40_s._ (?).
1754, " " " " 10_s._, total 50_s._
1756, " " " " 20_s._ " 40_s._ (?).
1763, " " " " £2 " £4.
1771, " " " " £5 " £9.
1783, Importation prohibited.

[36] _Compleat Coll. Laws of Maryland_ (ed. 1727), p. 191;
Bacon, _Laws of Maryland at Large_, 1728, ch. 8.

[37] Bacon, _Laws_, 1754, ch. 9, 14.

[38] _Ibid._, 1763, ch. 28.

[39] _Laws of Maryland since 1763_: 1771, ch. 7. Cf. _Ibid._:
1777, sess. Feb.-Apr., ch. 18.

[40] _Ibid._: 1783, sess. Apr.-June, ch. 23.

[41] "The last importation of slaves into Maryland was, as I
am credibly informed, in the year 1769": William Eddis,
_Letters from America_ (London, 1792), p. 65, note.

The number of slaves in Maryland has been estimated as follows:--

In 1704, 4,475. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 605.
" 1710, 7,935. _Ibid._
" 1712, 8,330. Scharf, _History of Maryland_, I. 377.
" 1719, 25,000. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 605.
" 1748, 36,000. McMahon, _History of Maryland_, I. 313.
" 1755, 46,356. _Gentleman's Magazine_, XXXIV. 261.
" 1756, 46,225. McMahon, _History of Maryland_, I. 313.
" 1761, 49,675. Dexter, _Colonial Population_, p. 21, note.
" 1782, 83,362. _Encyclopædia Britannica_ (9th ed.), XV. 603.
" 1787, 80,000. Dexter, _Colonial Population_, p. 21, note.

* * * * *

_Chapter III_

THE FARMING COLONIES.

10. Character of these Colonies.
11. The Dutch Slave-Trade.
12. Restrictions in New York.
13. Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.
14. Restrictions in New Jersey.
15. General Character of these Restrictions.

10. ~Character of these Colonies.~ The colonies of this group, occupying the central portion of the English possessions, comprise those communities where, on account of climate, physical characteristics, and circumstances of settlement, slavery as an institution found but a narrow field for development. The climate was generally rather cool for the newly imported slaves, the soil was best suited to crops to which slave labor was poorly adapted, and the training and habits of the great body of settlers offered little chance for the growth of a slave system. These conditions varied, of course, in different colonies; but the general statement applies to all. These communities of small farmers and traders derived whatever opposition they had to the slave-trade from three sorts of motives,--economic, political, and moral. First, the importation of slaves did not pay, except to supply a moderate demand for household servants. Secondly, these colonies, as well as those in the South, had a wholesome political fear of a large servile population. Thirdly, the settlers of many of these colonies were of sterner moral fibre than the Southern cavaliers and adventurers, and, in the absence of great counteracting motives, were more easily led to oppose the institution and the trade. Finally, it must be noted that these colonies did not so generally regard themselves as temporary commercial investments as did Virginia and Carolina. Intending to found permanent States, these settlers from the first more carefully studied the ultimate interests of those States.

11. ~The Dutch Slave-Trade.~ The Dutch seem to have commenced the slave-trade to the American continent, the Middle colonies and some of the Southern receiving supplies from them. John Rolfe relates that the last of August, 1619, there came to Virginia "a dutch man of warre that sold us twenty Negars."[1] This was probably one of the ships of the numerous private Dutch trading-companies which early entered into and developed the lucrative African slave-trade. Ships sailed from Holland to Africa, got slaves in exchange for their goods, carried the slaves to the West Indies or Brazil, and returned home laden with sugar.[2] Through the enterprise of one of these trading-companies the settlement of New Amsterdam was begun, in 1614. In 1621 the private companies trading in the West were all merged into the Dutch West India Company, and given a monopoly of American trade. This company was very active, sending in four years 15,430 Negroes to Brazil,[3] carrying on war with Spain, supplying even the English plantations,[4] and gradually becoming the great slave carrier of the day.

The commercial supremacy of the Dutch early excited the envy and emulation of the English. The Navigation Ordinance of 1651 was aimed at them, and two wars were necessary to wrest the slave-trade from them and place it in the hands of the English. The final terms of peace among other things surrendered New Netherland to England, and opened the way for England to become henceforth the world's greatest slave-trader. Although the Dutch had thus commenced the continental slave-trade, they had not actually furnished a very large number of slaves to the English colonies outside the West Indies. A small trade had, by 1698, brought a few thousand to New York, and still fewer to New Jersey.[5] It was left to the English, with their strong policy in its favor, to develop this trade.

12. ~Restrictions in New York.~[6] The early ordinances of the Dutch, laying duties, generally of ten per cent, on slaves, probably proved burdensome to the trade, although this was not intentional.[7] The Biblical prohibition of slavery and the slave-trade, copied from New England codes into the Duke of York's Laws, had no practical application,[8] and the trade continued to be encouraged in the governors' instructions. In 1709 a duty of £3 was laid on Negroes from elsewhere than Africa.[9] This was aimed at West India slaves, and was prohibitive. By 1716 the duty on all slaves was £1 12½_s._, which was probably a mere revenue figure.[10] In 1728 a duty of 40_s._ was laid, to be continued until 1737.[11] It proved restrictive, however, and on the "humble petition of the Merchants and Traders of the City of Bristol" was disallowed in 1735, as "greatly prejudicial to the Trade and Navigation of this Kingdom."[12] Governor Cosby was also reminded that no duties on slaves payable by the importer were to be laid. Later, in 1753, the 40_s._ duty was restored, but under the increased trade of those days was not felt.[13] No further restrictions seem to have been attempted until 1785, when the sale of slaves in the State was forbidden.[14]

The chief element of restriction in this colony appears to have been the shrewd business sense of the traders, who never flooded the slave market, but kept a supply sufficient for the slowly growing demand. Between 1701 and 1726 only about 2,375 slaves were imported, and in 1774 the total slave population amounted to 21,149.[15] No restriction was ever put by New York on participation in the trade outside the colony, and in spite of national laws New York merchants continued to be engaged in this traffic even down to the Civil War.[16]

Vermont, who withdrew from New York in 1777, in her first Constitution[17] declared slavery illegal, and in 1786 stopped by law the sale and transportation of slaves within her boundaries.[18]

13. ~Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware.~[19] One of the first American protests against the slave-trade came from certain German Friends, in 1688, at a Weekly Meeting held in Germantown, Pennsylvania. "These are the reasons," wrote "Garret henderich, derick up de graeff, Francis daniell Pastorius, and Abraham up Den graef," "why we are against the traffick of men-body, as followeth: Is there any that would be done or handled at this manner?... Now, tho they are black, we cannot conceive there is more liberty to have them slaves, as it is to have other white ones. There is a saying, that we shall doe to all men like as we will be done ourselves; making no difference of what generation, descent or colour they are. And those who steal or robb men, and those who buy or purchase them, are they not all alike?"[20] This little leaven helped slowly to work a revolution in the attitude of this great sect toward slavery and the slave-trade. The Yearly Meeting at first postponed the matter, "It having so General a Relation to many other Parts."[21] Eventually, however, in 1696, the Yearly Meeting advised "That Friends be careful not to encourage the bringing in of any more Negroes."[22] This advice was repeated in stronger terms for a quarter-century,[23] and by that time Sandiford, Benezet, Lay, and Woolman had begun their crusade. In 1754 the Friends took a step farther and made the purchase of slaves a matter of discipline.[24] Four years later the Yearly Meeting expressed itself clearly as "against every branch of this practice," and declared that if "any professing with us should persist to vindicate it, and be concerned in importing, selling or purchasing slaves, the respective Monthly Meetings to which they belong should manifest their disunion with such persons."[25] Further, manumission was recommended, and in 1776 made compulsory.[26] The effect of this attitude of the Friends was early manifested in the legislation of all the colonies where the sect was influential, and particularly in Pennsylvania.

One of the first duty acts (1710) laid a restrictive duty of 40_s._ on slaves, and was eventually disallowed.[27] In 1712 William Southeby petitioned the Assembly totally to abolish slavery. This the Assembly naturally refused to attempt; but the same year, in response to another petition "signed by many hands," they passed an "Act to prevent the Importation of Negroes and Indians,"[28]--the first enactment of its kind in America. This act was inspired largely by the general fear of insurrection which succeeded the "Negro-plot" of 1712 in New York. It declared: "Whereas, divers Plots and Insurrections have frequently happened, not only in the Islands but on the Main Land of _America_, by Negroes, which have been carried on so far that several of the inhabitants have been barbarously Murthered, an Instance whereof we have lately had in our Neighboring Colony of _New York_,"[29] etc. It then proceeded to lay a prohibitive duty of £20 on all slaves imported. These acts were quickly disposed of in England. Three duty acts affecting Negroes, including the prohibitory act, were in 1713 disallowed, and it was directed that "the Dep^{ty} Gov^{r} Council and Assembly of Pensilvania, be & they are hereby Strictly Enjoyned & required not to permit the said Laws ... to be from henceforward put in Execution."[30] The Assembly repealed these laws, but in 1715 passed another laying a duty of £5, which was also eventually disallowed.[31] Other acts, the provisions of which are not clear, were passed in 1720 and 1722,[32] and in 1725-1726 the duty on Negroes was raised to the restrictive figure of £10.[33] This duty, for some reason not apparent, was lowered to £2 in 1729,[34] but restored again in 1761.[35] A struggle occurred over this last measure, the Friends petitioning for it, and the Philadelphia merchants against it, declaring that "We, the subscribers, ever desirous to extend the Trade of this Province, have seen, for some time past, the many inconveniencys the Inhabitants have suffer'd for want of Labourers and artificers, ... have for some time encouraged the importation of Negroes;" they prayed therefore at least for a delay in passing the measure.[36] The law, nevertheless, after much debate and altercation with the governor, finally passed.

These repeated acts nearly stopped the trade, and the manumission or sale of Negroes by the Friends decreased the number of slaves in the province. The rising spirit of independence enabled the colony, in 1773, to restore the prohibitive duty of £20 and make it perpetual.[37] After the Revolution unpaid duties on slaves were collected and the slaves registered,[38] and in 1780 an "Act for the gradual Abolition of Slavery" was passed.[39] As there were probably at no time before the war more than 11,000 slaves in Pennsylvania,[40] the task thus accomplished was not so formidable as in many other States. As it was, participation in the slave-trade outside the colony was not prohibited until 1788.[41]

It seems probable that in the original Swedish settlements along the Delaware slavery was prohibited.[42] This measure had, however, little practical effect; for as soon as the Dutch got control the slave-trade was opened, although, as it appears, to no large extent. After the fall of the Dutch Delaware came into English hands. Not until 1775 do we find any legislation on the slave-trade. In that year the colony attempted to prohibit the importation of slaves, but the governor vetoed the bill.[43] Finally, in 1776 by the Constitution, and in 1787 by law, importation and exportation were both prohibited.[44]

14. ~Restrictions in New Jersey.~[45] Although the freeholders of West New Jersey declared, in 1676, that "all and every Person and Persons Inhabiting the said Province, shall, as far as in us lies, be free from Oppression and Slavery,"[46] yet Negro slaves are early found in the colony.[47] The first restrictive measure was passed, after considerable friction between the Council and the House, in 1713; it laid a duty of £10, currency.[48] Governor Hunter explained to the Board of Trade that the bill was "calculated to Encourage the Importation of white Servants for the better Peopeling that Country."[49] How long this act continued does not appear; probably, not long. No further legislation was enacted until 1762 or 1763, when a prohibitive duty was laid on account of "the inconvenience the Province is exposed to in lying open to the free importation of Negros, when the Provinces on each side have laid duties on them."[50] The Board of Trade declared that while they did not object to "the Policy of imposing a reasonable duty," they could not assent to this, and the act was disallowed.[51] The Act of 1769 evaded the technical objection of the Board of Trade, and laid a duty of £15 on the first purchasers of Negroes, because, as the act declared, "Duties on the Importation of Negroes in several of the neighbouring Colonies hath, on Experience, been found beneficial in the Introduction of sober, industrious Foreigners."[52] In 1774 a bill which, according to the report of the Council to Governor Morris, "plainly intended an entire Prohibition of all Slaves being imported from foreign Parts," was thrown out by the Council.[53] Importation was finally prohibited in 1786.[54]

15. ~General Character of these Restrictions.~ The main difference in motive between the restrictions which the planting and the farming colonies put on the African slave-trade, lay in the fact that the former limited it mainly from fear of insurrection, the latter mainly because it did not pay. Naturally, the latter motive worked itself out with much less legislation than the former; for this reason, and because they held a smaller number of slaves, most of these colonies have fewer actual statutes than the Southern colonies. In Pennsylvania alone did this general economic revolt against the trade acquire a distinct moral tinge. Although even here the institution was naturally doomed, yet the clear moral insight of the Quakers checked the trade much earlier than would otherwise have happened. We may say, then, that the farming colonies checked the slave-trade primarily from economic motives.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Smith, _Generall Historie of Virginia_ (1626 and 1632), p. 126.

[2] Cf. Southey, _History of Brazil_.

[3] De Laet, in O'Callaghan, _Voyages of the Slavers_, etc., p. viii.

[4] See, e.g., Sainsbury, _Cal. State Papers; Col. Ser.,
America and W. Indies, 1574-1660_, p. 279.

[5] Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; also _Freedoms_, XXX., in
O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74_ (ed. 1868), p.
10; Brodhead, _History of New York_, I. 312.

[6] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
colony of New York; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1709, Duty Act: £3 on Negroes not direct from Africa
(Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).
1711, Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.
1716, Duty Act: 5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.
10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.
1728, " " 40_s._ on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.
1732, " " 40_s._ on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.
1734, " " (?)
1753, " " 40_s._ on Africans, £4 on colonial Negroes.
(This act was annually continued.)
[1777, Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]
1785, Sale of slaves in State prohibited.
[1786, " " in Vermont prohibited.]
1788, " " in State prohibited.

[7] O'Callaghan, _Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74_, pp. 31,
348, etc. The colonists themselves were encouraged to trade,
but the terms were not favorable enough: _Doc. rel. Col. Hist.
New York_, I. 246; _Laws of New Netherland_, pp. 81-2, note,
127. The colonists declared "that they are inclined to a
foreign Trade, and especially to the Coast of _Africa_, ... in
order to fetch thence Slaves": O'Callaghan, _Voyages of the
Slavers_, etc., p. 172.

[8] _Charter to William Penn_, etc. (1879), p. 12. First
published on Long Island in 1664. Possibly Negro slaves were
explicitly excepted. Cf. _Magazine of American History_, XI.
411, and _N.Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, I. 322.

[9] _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_, pp. 97, 125, 134; _Doc.
rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 178, 185, 293.

[10] The Assembly attempted to raise the slave duty in 1711,
but the Council objected (_Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V.
292 ff.), although, as it seems, not on account of the slave
duty in particular. Another act was passed between 1711 and
1716, but its contents are not known (cf. title of the Act of
1716). For the Act of 1716, see _Acts of Assembly, 1691-1718_,
p. 224.

[11] _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 37, 38.

[12] _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, VI. 32-4.

[13] _Ibid._, VII. 907. This act was annually renewed. The
slave duty remained a chief source of revenue down to 1774.
Cf. _Report of Governor Tryon_, in _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New
York_, VIII. 452.

[14] _Laws of New York, 1785-88_ (ed. 1886), ch. 68, p. 121.
Substantially the same act reappears in the revision of the
laws of 1788: _Ibid._, ch. 40, p. 676.

[15] The slave population of New York has been estimated as
follows:--

In 1698, 2,170. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, IV. 420.
" 1703, 2,258. _N.Y. Col. MSS._, XLVIII.; cited in Hough,
_N.Y. Census, 1855_, Introd.
" 1712, 2,425. _Ibid._, LVII., LIX. (a partial census).
" 1723, 6,171. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 702.
" 1731, 7,743. _Ibid._, V. 929.
" 1737, 8,941. _Ibid._, VI. 133.
" 1746, 9,107. _Ibid._, VI. 392.
" 1749, 10,692. _Ibid._, VI. 550.
" 1756, 13,548. _London Doc._, XLIV. 123; cited in Hough,
as above.
" 1771, 19,863. _Ibid._, XLIV. 144; cited in Hough, as above.
" 1774, 21,149. _Ibid._, " " " " "
" 1786, 18,889. _Deeds in office Sec. of State_, XXII. 35.

Total number of Africans imported from 1701 to 1726, 2,375,
of whom 802 were from Africa: O'Callaghan, _Documentary
History of New York_, I. 482.

[16] Cf. below, Chapter XI.

[17] _Vermont State Papers, 1779-86_, p. 244. The return of
sixteen slaves in Vermont, by the first census, was an error:
_New England Record_, XXIX. 249.

[18] _Vermont State Papers_, p. 505.

[19] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
colony of Pennsylvania and Delaware; details will be found in
Appendix A:--

1705, Duty Act: (?).
1710, " " 40_s._ (Disallowed).
1712, " " £20 "
1712, " " supplementary to the Act of 1710.
1715, " " £5 (Disallowed).
1718, " "
1720, " " (?).
1722, " " (?).
1725-6, " " £10.
1726, " "
1729, " " £2.
1761, " " £10.
1761, " " (?).
1768, " " re-enactment of the Act of 1761.
1773, " " perpetual additional duty of £10; total, £20.
1775, Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor (Delaware).
1775, Bill to prohibit importation vetoed by the governor.
1778, Back duties on slaves ordered collected.
1780, Act for the gradual abolition of slavery.
1787, Act to prevent the exportation of slaves (Delaware).
1788, Act to prevent the slave-trade.

[20] From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.
Cf. Whittier's poem, "Pennsylvania Hall" (_Poetical Works_,
Riverside ed., III. 62); and Proud, _History of Pennsylvania_
(1797), I. 219.

[21] From fac-simile copy, published at Germantown in 1880.

[22] Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery_, in _Penn. Hist. Soc.
Mem._ (1864), I. 383.

[23] Cf. Bettle, _Notices of Negro Slavery, passim_.

[24] Janney, _History of the Friends_, III. 315-7.

[25] _Ibid._, III. 317.

[26] Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 395.

[27] _Penn. Col. Rec._ (1852), II. 530; Bettle, in _Penn.
Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 415.

[28] _Laws of Pennsylvania, collected_, etc., 1714, p. 165;
Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 387.

[29] See preamble of the act.

[30] The Pennsylvanians did not allow their laws to reach
England until long after they were passed: _Penn. Archives_,
I. 161-2; _Col. Rec._, II. 572-3. These acts were disallowed
Feb. 20, 1713. Another duty act was passed in 1712,
supplementary to the Act of 1710 (_Col. Rec._, II. 553). The
contents are unknown.

[31] _Acts and Laws of Pennsylvania_, 1715, p. 270; Chalmers,
_Opinions_, II. 118. Before the disallowance was known, the
act had been continued by the Act of 1718: Carey and Bioren,
_Laws of Pennsylvania, 1700-1802_, I. 118; _Penn. Col. Rec._,
III. 38.

[32] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 165; _Penn. Col. Rec._, III.
171; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._, I. 389, note.

[33] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 214; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist.
Soc. Mem._, I. 388. Possibly there were two acts this year.

[34] _Laws of Pennsylvania_ (ed. 1742), p. 354, ch. 287.
Possibly some change in the currency made this change appear
greater than it was.

[35] Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 371; _Acts of Assembly_ (ed.
1782), p. 149; Dallas, _Laws_, I. 406, ch. 379. This act was
renewed in 1768: Carey and Bioren, _Laws_, I. 451; _Penn. Col.
Rec._, IX. 472, 637, 641.

[36] _Penn. Col. Rec._, VIII. 576.

[37] A large petition called for this bill. Much altercation
ensued with the governor: Dallas, _Laws_, I. 671, ch. 692;
_Penn. Col. Rec._, X. 77; Bettle, in _Penn. Hist. Soc. Mem._,
I. 388-9.

[38] Dallas, _Laws_, I. 782, ch. 810.

[39] _Ibid._, I. 838, ch. 881.

[40] There exist but few estimates of the number of slaves in
this colony:--

In 1721, 2,500-5,000. _Doc. rel. Col. Hist. New York_, V. 604.
" 1754, 11,000. Bancroft, _Hist. of United States_ (1883),
II. 391.
" 1760, very few." Burnaby, _Travels through N. Amer._ (2d ed.),
p. 81.
" 1775, 2,000. _Penn. Archives_, IV 597.

[41] Dallas, _Laws_, II. 586.

[42] Cf. _Argonautica Gustaviana_, pp. 21-3; _Del. Hist. Soc.
Papers_, III. 10; _Hazard's Register_, IV. 221, §§ 23, 24;
_Hazard's Annals_, p. 372; Armstrong, _Record of Upland
Court_, pp. 29-30, and notes.

[43] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., II. 128-9.

[44] _Ibid._, 5th Ser., I. 1178; _Laws of Delaware, 1797_
(Newcastle ed.), p. 884, ch. 145 b.

[45] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
colony of New Jersey; details will be found in Appendix A:--

1713, Duty Act: £10.
1763 (?), Duty Act.
1769, " " £15.
1774, " " £5 on Africans, £10 on colonial Negroes.
1786, Importation prohibited.