The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America is a Webnovel created by W. E. B. Du Bois.
This lightnovel is currently completed.
[111] Simkins of South Carolina, Edwards of North Carolina, and Pindall: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.
[112] Hugh Nelson of Virginia: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1740.
[113] _Statutes at Large_, III. 450. By this act the first six sections of the Act of 1807 were repealed.
[114] Or, more accurately speaking, every one realized, in view of the increased activity of the trade, that it would be a failure.
[115] Nov. 18, 1818, the part of the presidential message referring to the slave-trade was given to a committee of the House, and this committee also took in hand the House bill of the previous session which the Senate bill had replaced: _House Journal_, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 9-19, 42, 150, 179, 330, 334, 341, 343, 352.
[116] Of which little was reported: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1430-31. Strother opposed, “for various reasons of expediency,” the bounties for captors. Nelson of Virginia advocated the death penalty, and, aided by Pindall, had it inserted. The vote on the bill was 57 to 45.
[117] The Senate had also had a committee at work on a bill which was reported Feb. 8, and finally postponed: _Senate Journal_, 15 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 234, 244, 311-2, 347. The House bill was taken up March 2: _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 2 sess.
p. 280.
[118] _Statutes at Large_, III. 532.
[119] _Annals of Cong._, 15 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1430. This insured the trial of slave-traders in a sympathetic slave State, and resulted in the “disappearance” of many captured Negroes.
[120] _Statutes at Large_, III. 533.
[121] The first of a long series of appropriations extending to 1869, of which a list is given on the next page. The totals are only approximately correct. Some statutes may have escaped me, and in the reports of moneys the surpluses of previous years are not always clearly distinguishable.
[122] In the first session of the sixteenth Congress, two bills on piracy were introduced into the Senate, one of which pa.s.sed, April 26. In the House there was a bill on piracy, and a slave-trade committee reported recommending that the slave-trade be piracy. The Senate bill and this bill were considered in Committee of the Whole, May 11, and a bill was finally pa.s.sed declaring, among other things, the traffic piracy. In the Senate there was “some discussion, rather on the form than the substance of these amendments,” and “they were agreed to without a division”: _Senate Journal_, 16 Cong.
1 sess. pp. 238, 241, 268, 287, 314, 331, 346, 350, 409, 412, 417, 420, 422, 424, 425; _House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp.
113, 280, 453, 454, 494, 518, 520, 522, 537; _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 693-4, 2231, 2236-7, etc. The debates were not reported.
[123] _Statutes at Large_, III. 600-1. This act was in reality a continuation of the piracy Act of 1819, and was only temporary. The provision was, however, continued by several acts, and finally made perpetual by the Act of Jan. 30, 1823: _Statutes at Large_, III. 510-4, 721. On March 3, 1823, it was slightly amended so as to give district courts jurisdiction.
[124] Attorney-General Wirt advised him, October, 1819, that no part of the appropriation could be used to purchase land in Africa or tools for the Negroes, or as salary for the agent: _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, I. 314-7. Monroe laid the case before Congress in a special message Dec. 20, 1819 (_House Journal_, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 57); but no action was taken there.
[125] Cf. Kendall’s Report, August, 1830: _Senate Doc._, 21 Cong. 2 sess. I. No. 1, pp. 211-8; also see below, Chapter X.
[126] Speech in the House of Representatives, Feb. 15, 1819, p. 18; published in Boston, 1849.
[127] Jay, _Inquiry into American Colonization_ (1838), p. 59, note.
[128] Quoted in Friends’ _Facts and Observations on the Slave Trade_ (ed. 1841), pp. 7-8.
[129] _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 270-1.
[130] _Ibid._, p. 698.
[131] _Ibid._, p. 1207.
[132] _Annals of Cong._, 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1433.
[133] Referring particularly to the case of the slaver “Plattsburg.” Cf. _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No.
92, p. 10.
[134] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, p. 2. The President had in his message spoken in exhilarating tones of the success of the government in suppressing the trade. The House Committee appointed in pursuance of this pa.s.sage made the above report. Their conclusions are confirmed by British reports: _Parliamentary Papers_, 1822, Vol. XXII., _Slave Trade_, Further Papers, III. p. 44. So, too, in 1823, Ashmun, the African agent, reports that thousands of slaves are being abducted.
[135] Ayres to the Secretary of the Navy, Feb. 24, 1823; reprinted in _Friends’ View of the African Slave-Trade_ (1824), p. 31.
[136] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 5-6.
The slavers were the “Ramirez,” “Endymion,” “Esperanza,”
“Plattsburg,” “Science,” “Alexander,” “Eugene,” “Mathilde,”
“Daphne,” “Eliza,” and “La Pensee.” In these 573 Africans were taken. The naval officers were greatly handicapped by the size of the ships, etc. (cf. _Friends’ View_, etc., pp. 33-41).
They nevertheless acted with great zeal.
[137] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1821, Vol. XXIII., _Slave Trade_, Further Papers, A, p. 76. The names and description of a dozen or more American slavers are given: _Ibid._, pp.
18-21.
[138] _House Reports_, 17 Cong. 1 sess. II. No. 92, pp. 15-20.
[139] _House Doc._, 18 Cong. 1 sess. VI. No. 119, p. 13.
[140] _Parliamentary Papers_, 1823, Vol. XVIII., _Slave Trade_, Further Papers, A, pp. 10-11.
[141] _Opinions of Attorneys-General_, V. 717.
[142] R.W. Habersham to the Secretary of the Navy, August, 1821; reprinted in _Friends’ View_, etc., p. 47.
[143] _Ibid._, p. 42.
[144] _Ibid._, p. 43.
[145] Cf. above, pp. 126-7.
[146] _Friends’ View_, etc., p. 42.
[147] A few accounts of captures here and there would make the matter less suspicious; these, however, do not occur. How large this suspected illicit traffic was, it is of course impossible to say; there is no reason why it may not have reached many hundreds per year.
[148] Cf. editorial in _Niles’s Register_, XXII. 114. Cf. also the following instances of pardons:–
PRESIDENT JEFFERSON: March 1, 1808, Phillip M. Topham, convicted for “carrying on an illegal slave-trade” (pardoned twice). _Pardons and Remissions_, I. 146, 148-9.
PRESIDENT MADISON: July 29, 1809, fifteen vessels arrived at New Orleans from Cuba, with 666 white persons and 683 negroes.
Every penalty incurred under the Act of 1807 was remitted.
(Note: “Several other pardons of this nature were granted.”) _Ibid._, I. 179.
Nov. 8, 1809, John Hopkins and Lewis Le Roy, convicted for importing a slave. _Ibid._, I. 184-5.
Feb. 12, 1810, William Sewall, convicted for importing slaves.
_Ibid._, I. 194, 235, 240.
May 5, 1812, William Babbit, convicted for importing slaves.
_Ibid._, I. 248.