The suppression of the African slave-trade to the United States of America, 1638-1870

Preface

THIS monograph was begun during my residence as Rogers Memorial Fellow at Harvard University, and is based mainly upon a study of the sources, i. e., national, State, and colonial statutes, Congressional documents, reports of societies, personal narratives, etc. The collection of laws available for this research was, I think, nearly complete ; on the other hand, facts and statistics bearing on the economic side of the study have been difficult to find, and my conclusions are consequently liable to modification from this source.

The question of the suppression of the slave-trade is so intimately connected with the questions as to its rise, the system of American slavery, and the whole colonial policy of the eighteenth century, that 'it is diflficult to isolate it, and at the same time to avoid superficiality on the one hand, and unscientific narrowness of view on the other. While I could not hope entirely to overcome such a difficulty, I nevertheless trust that I have succeeded in rendering this monograph a small contribution to the scientific study of slavery and the American Negro.

vi PREFACE.

I desire to express my obligation to Dr. Albert Bushnell Hart, of Harvard University, at whose suggestion I began this work and by whose kind aid and encouragement I have brought it to a close ; also I have to thank the trustees of the John F. Slater Fund, whose appointment made it possible to test the conclusions of this study by the general principles laid down in German universities.

WiLBERFORCE UNIVERSITY,

CHAPTER I. Introductory

Page

1. Plan of the Monograph i

2. The Rise of the English Slave-Trade i

CHAPTER H.

The Planting Colonies.

4. Restrictions in Georgia 7<

5. Restrictions in South Carolina 9

6. Restrictions in North Carolina 11

7. Restrictions in Virginia 12

8. Restrictions in Maryland 14

CHAPTER HI.

The Fariming Colonies.

11. The Dutch Slave-Trade 17

12. Restrictions in New York 18

13. Restrictions in Pennsylvania and Delaware 20

14. Restrictions in New Jersey 24 viii CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IV.

The Trading Colonies.

Page

i6. Character of these Colonies 27

17. New England and the Slave-Trade 27

18. Restrictions in New Hampshire 29

19. Restrictions in Massachusetts 30

20. Restrictions in Rhode Island 33

21. Restrictions in Connecticut 37

CHAPTER V.

The Period of the Revolution, i 774-1 787.

23. The Situation in 1774 39

24. The Condition of the Slave-Trade 40

25. The Slave-Trade and the " Association " 41

26. The Action of the Colonies 42

27. The Action of the Continental Congress 44

28. Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution 45

29. Results of the Resolution 47

30. The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War 48

31. The Action of the Confederation 50

CHAPTER VI.

The Federal Convention, 1787.

32. The First Proposition 17,

33. The General Debate 54

34. The Special Committee and the " Bargain " 58

35. The Appeal to the Convention 59

36. Settlement by the Convention 61

37. Reception of the Clause by the Nation 62

38. Attitude of the State Conventions 65

39. Acceptance of the Policy 68

CONTENTS. IX CHAPTER VII.

TOUSSAINT L'OUVERTURE AND AnTI-SlAVERY EfFORT, 1787-1807.

Page

40. Influence of the Haytian Revolution ^o

41. Legislation of the Southern States 1i

42. Legislation of the Border States 72

43. Legislation of the Eastern States 73

44. First Debate in Congress, 1789 74

45. Second Debate in Congress, 1790 75

46. The Declaration of Powers, 1790 7^

47. The Act of 1 794 So

48. TheActof iSoo 81

50. State of the Slave-Trade from 1789 to I S03 85

51. The South CaroHna Repeal of 1803 86

52. The Louisiana Slave-Trade, 1803-1805 87

53. Last Attempts at Taxation, 1805-1S06 9^

54. Key-Note of the Period 9^

CHAPTER VIII.

The Period of Attempted Suppression, 1807-1825.

55. The Act of 1S07 94

56. The First Question : How shall illegally imported Africans be

disposed of ? 9^

t,-]. The Second Question : How shall Violations be punished ? . . 102

58. The Third Question: How shall the Interstate Coastwise Slave-

Trade be protected ? 104

59. Legislative History of the Bill 105

60. Enforcement of the Act 108

61. Evidence of the Continuance of the Trade 109

62. Apathy of the Federal Government 112

6^,. Typical Cases Ii7

64. The Supplementary Acts, 181S-1820 118

65. Enforcement of the Supplementary Acts, 1S18-1S25 123

« CONTENTS.

CHAPTER IX.

The International Status of the Slave-Trade, 17 83- 1862.

Page

66. The Rise of the Movement against the Slave-Trade, 17S8-1807 . 131

67. Concerted Action of the Powers, 1783-1814 133

68. Action of the Powers from 1 814 to 1820 134

69. The Struggle for an International Right of Search, 1820-1840 . 136

70. Negotiations of 1823-1S25 138

71. The Attitude of the United States and the State of the Slave-

Trade 141

72. The Quintuple Treaty, 1839-1842 143

73. Final Concerted Measures, 1 842-1 862 146

CHAPTER X.

The Rise of the Cotton Kingdom, 18 20- 1850.

74. The Economic Revolution 151

TS- The Attitude of the South 154

76. The Attitude of the North and Congress 155

77. Imperfect Application of the Laws 158

78. Responsibility of the Government 161

79. Activity of the Slave-Trade, 1820-1850 162

CHAPTER XL

The Final Crisis, 185 0-18 70.

80. The Movement against the Slave-Trade Laws 168

81. Commercial Conventions of 1855-1856 169

82. Commercial Conventions of 1857-1858 170

83. Commercial Convention of 1859 ^72

84. Public Opinion in the South 173

85. The Question in Congress 175

86. Southern Policy in i860 176

87. Increase of the Slave-Trade from 1850 to i860 178

CONTENTS.

XI

Page

Z^. Notorious Infractions of the Laws . . . . i8o

89. Apathy of the Federal Government 183

90. Attitude of the Southern Confederacy 188

91. Attitude of the United States loi

CHAPTER XII.

The Essentials in the Struggle.

92. How the Question Arose 194

93. The Moral Movement igj

94. The Political Movement ic)6

95. The Economic Movement , , 107

96. The Lesson for Americans , . 107

APPENDICES.

A. A Chronological Conspectus of Colonial and State Legislation

restricting the African Slave-Trade, 1 641 -1787 201

B. A Chronological Conspectus of State, National, and International

C. Typical Cases of Vessels engaged in the American Slave-Trade,

1619-1864 289

D. Bibliography 299

INDEX 327

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 Afi'ca 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 Else 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.^

* This account is based largely on the Report of the Lords of the Covtmittee of Council, etc. (London, 17S9).

2 INTRODUCTORY. [Chap. I.

Sir John Hawkins's celebrated voyage took place in 1562, but probably not until 1631^ did a regular chartered company undertake to carry on the trade.^ This company was unsuccessful,^ 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.^ The company contracted to supply the West Indies with three thousand slaves annually; but vcontraband trade, misconduct, and war so reduced itKhat in 1672 it surrendered its charter to another company for ^34,000.^ 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*^ 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." ^ This plan, being a compromise between maintaining the monopoly intact and entirely abolishing it, was

^ 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. C£. Bandinel, Accojint of the Slave Trade (1842), pp. 38-44.

2 Chartered by Charles I. Cf. Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 15 74- 1660, p. 135.

3 In 1 65 1, 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., Ajnerica and W. Indies, 15 74- 1660, pp. 342, 355.

* Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W.Indies, 1661- 1668, § 408.

^ Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and IV. Indies, 1669- 1674, §§ 934, 1095-

^ 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.

Sect. 2.] RISE OF ENGLISH SLA VE-TRADE. 3

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 1713.1

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 33 J 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.^ 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,ooo,3 and by 1739 Spain was a creditor to the extent of ;i^68,ooo, 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.

* Cf. Appendix A.

2 Bandinel, Acco^mt of the Slave Trade, p. 59. Cf. Bryan Edwards, History of the British Colonies in the IV. Indies (London, 1798), Book VI.

8 From 1729 to 1788, including compensation to the old company, Parliament expended £705,255 on African companies. Cf. Report, etc., as above.

4 INTRODUCTORY. [Chap. I.

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.^ 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," 2 and the lack of them "the grand obstruction "^ here, as the settlements "cannot subsist without supplies of them." '^ 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."^ 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

1 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. ()S.

2 Renatus Enys from Surinam, in 1663: Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and IV. Indies, 1661-68, § z^'j'j.

3 Thomas Lynch from Jamaica, in 1665: Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and IV. Indies, i66r-68, § 934.

* Lieutenant-Governor Willoughby of Barbadoes, in 1666: Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68, § 1281.

5 Smith, History of New Jersey (1765), p. 254; Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1669-74, §§ 367, 398, 812.

Sect. 2.] RISE OF ENGLISH SLA VE-TRADE. 5

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 Carohna." ^

The exact proportions of the slave-trade to America can be but approximately determined. From 16S0 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, i®4 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 1 7 14, 78,000 in 1727, and 293,000 in 1754. The census of 1790 showed 697,897 slaves in the United States.^

In colonies like those in the West Indies and in South Carolina and Georgia, the rapid importation into America of a mul-

1 N. C. Col. Rec, V. 11 18. For similar instructions, cf. Penn. A?rhives, I. 306; Doc. rel. Col. Hist. N'eiv York, VI. 34; Gordon, Htslojy of the Americatt Revolution, I. letter 2; Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 4th Ser. X. 642.

2 These figures are from the above-mentioned Report, Vol. II. Part IV. Nos. I, 5. See also Bancroft, History of the United States (1883), II. 274 ff; Bandinel, Accoutit of the Slave Trade, p. 63 ; Benezet, Caittioti to Great Britain, etc., pp. 39-40, and Historical Account of Guinea, ch. xiii.

6 INTRODUCTORY. [Chap. I.

titude 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.^ 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.^ Again and again the danger of planters being " cut off by their own negroes " ^ 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.

^ Compare earlier slave codes in South Carolina, Georgia, Jamaica, etc. ; also of. Benezet, Historical Account of Guinea, p. T^ ; Report, etc., as above.

2 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, jfournals (in Force, Tracts, Vol. IV. No. 5, pp. 9, 18) ; Proceedings of Governor and Assembly of famaica in rega7'd to the Maroon Negroes (London, 1796).

* Sainsbury, Cal. State Papers, Col. Ser., America and W. Indies, 1661-68, § 1679.

Chapter II. The Planting Colonies

4. Restrictions in Georgia.

5. Restrictions in South Carolina.

6. Restrictions in North Carolina.

7. Restrictions in Virginia.

8. Restrictions in Maryland.

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

8 THE PLANTING COLONIES. [Chap. II.

authority." ^ The trustees sought to win the colonists over to their behef by teUing 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." ^

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.^ 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." ^ Meantime, evasions and infractions ©f the laws became frequent and notorious. Negroes were brought across from Carolina and " hired " for life.^ " 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." ^ 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.'^ It is probable, however, that these restrictions were never enforced, and that the trade thus established continued unchecked until the Revolution.

J Hoare, Mcntoirs of Granville Sharp (1820), p. 157. For the act of prohibition, see W. B. Stevens, History of Georgia (1847), I. 311.

- [B. Martyn], Account of the Progress of Georgia (1741), pp. 9-10.

3 Cf. Stevens, History of Georgia, I. 290 ff.

■* Stephens, Account of the Cazises, etc., p. 8. Cf. also Journal of Trustees, II. 210; cited by Stevens, History of Georgia, I. 306.

5 McCall, History of Georgia (181 1), I. 206-7.

« Ibid.

■^ Pub. Rec. Office, Board of Trade, Vol. X. ; cited by C. C. Jones, History of Georgia (1883), I. 422-5.

Sect. 5.] RESTRICTIONS IN SOUTH CAROLINA. 9

5. Restrictions in South Carolina.^ 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.^ 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 Ajegroes 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.^ 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

1 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: loj. on Africans, 20^'. on other Negroes.

1 7 14, " " additional duty.

1714, " " £2.

1 714-15, " " additional duty.

1716, " " ^3 on Africans, ;^30 on colonial Negroes.

1717, " " ^40 in addition to existing duties.

1 7 19, " " ^10 on Africans, ^30 on colonial Negroes.

The Act of 1 717, etc., was repealed. 1721, " " ^10 on Africans, ^50 on colonial Negroes.

T TT^ li II a u u u u

1/ — ,

1740, " " ^100 on Africans, ;^I50 on colonial Negroes.

1760, Act prohibiting importation (Disallowed).

1764, Duty Act: additional duty of ;^ioo.

1783, " " ^3 on Africans, ^20 on colonial Negroes.

1787, Act and Ordinance prohibiting importation.

2 Cf. Hewatt, Historical Account of S. Carolina and Georgia (1779), I 120 £f. ; reprinted in S. C. Hist. Coll. (1836), I. 108 ff.

3 Cooper, Statutes at Lar^e 0/ S. Carolina, II. 153.

lO THE PLANTING COLONIES. [Chap. II.

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." 1 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, reci.ting the danger incident to a " great importation of Negroes," were passed, laying high duties.^ Finally, in 1 71 7, an additional duty of ^40,^ although due in depreciated currency, succeeded so nearly in stopping the trade that, two years later, all existing duties were repealed and one of ;^io substituted.'^ 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 l^egroes 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." ^ In 1740 an insurrection under a slave, Cato, at Stono, caused such widespread alarm that a prohibitory duty of ;^ioo was immediately laid.^ Importation was again

1 The text of the first act is not extant: cf. Cooper, Statutes^ III. 56. For the second, see Cooper, VII. 365, 367.

2 Cf. Grimk^, 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.

3 Cooper, Statutes, VII. 368. •♦ Ibid., III. 56.

5 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, 11. 421.

^ Cooper, Statutes, III. 556; Grimkd, Public Laws, p. xxxi. No. 694. Cf. Ramsay, History of S. Carolina, I. no.

Sect. 6.] RESTRICTIONS IN NORTH CAROLINA. II

checked; but in 175 1 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 njegroes into this Province," ^ 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;^ but the colony declared that " an importation of /^/egroes, 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." ^ A prohibitive duty of ^100 was accordingly imposed in 1764.* 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.^ 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 ; ^ this fact, together with the

* Cooper, Statutes, III. 739.

2 The text of this la\y has not been found. C£. Burge, Commentaries on Colonial and Foreign Laws, I. 737, note; Stevens, History of Georgia, I. 2S6. See instructions of the governor of New Hampshire, June 30, 1761, in Gordon, History of the American Revohition, I. letter 2.

2 Cooper, Statjites, IV. 187.

* 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.