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.
To be sure, the problem had its uncertain quant.i.ties. The motives of the law-makers in South Carolina and Pennsylvania were dangerously different; the century of industrial expansion was slowly dawning and awakening that vast economic revolution in which American slavery was to play so prominent and fatal a role; and, finally, there were already in the South faint signs of a changing moral att.i.tude toward slavery, which would no longer regard the system as a temporary makeshift, but rather as a permanent though perhaps unfortunate necessity. With regard to the slave-trade, however, there appeared to be substantial unity of opinion; and there were, in 1787, few things to indicate that a cargo of five hundred African slaves would openly be landed in Georgia in 1860.
24. ~The Condition of the Slave-Trade.~ In 1760 England, the chief slave-trading nation, was sending on an average to Africa 163 ships annually, with a tonnage of 18,000 tons, carrying exports to the value of 163,818. Only about twenty of these ships regularly returned to England. Most of them carried slaves to the West Indies, and returned laden with sugar and other products. Thus may be formed some idea of the size and importance of the slave-trade at that time, although for a complete view we must add to this the trade under the French, Portuguese, Dutch, and Americans. The trade fell off somewhat toward 1770, but was flourishing again when the Revolution brought a sharp and serious check upon it, bringing down the number of English slavers, clearing, from 167 in 1774 to 28 in 1779, and the tonnage from 17,218 to 3,475 tons. After the war the trade gradually recovered, and by 1786 had reached nearly its former extent. In 1783 the British West Indies received 16,208 Negroes from Africa, and by 1787 the importation had increased to 21,023. In this latter year it was estimated that the British were taking annually from Africa 38,000 slaves; the French, 20,000; the Portuguese, 10,000; the Dutch and Danes, 6,000; a total of 74,000. Manchester alone sent 180,000 annually in goods to Africa in exchange for Negroes.[1]
25. ~The Slave-Trade and the “a.s.sociation.”~ At the outbreak of the Revolution six main reasons, some of which were old and of slow growth, others peculiar to the abnormal situation of that time, led to concerted action against the slave-trade. The first reason was the economic failure of slavery in the Middle and Eastern colonies; this gave rise to the presumption that like failure awaited the inst.i.tution in the South.
Secondly, the new philosophy of “Freedom” and the “Rights of man,” which formed the corner-stone of the Revolution, made the dullest realize that, at the very least, the slave-trade and a struggle for “liberty”
were not consistent. Thirdly, the old fear of slave insurrections, which had long played so prominent a part in legislation, now gained new power from the imminence of war and from the well-founded fear that the British might incite servile uprisings. Fourthly, nearly all the American slave markets were, in 1774-1775, overstocked with slaves, and consequently many of the strongest partisans of the system were “bulls”
on the market, and desired to raise the value of their slaves by at least a temporary stoppage of the trade. Fifthly, since the vested interests of the slave-trading merchants were liable to be swept away by the opening of hostilities, and since the price of slaves was low,[2]
there was from this quarter little active opposition to a cessation of the trade for a season. Finally, it was long a favorite belief of the supporters of the Revolution that, as English exploitation of colonial resources had caused the quarrel, the best weapon to bring England to terms was the economic expedient of stopping all commercial intercourse with her. Since, then, the slave-trade had ever formed an important part of her colonial traffic, it was one of the first branches of commerce which occurred to the colonists as especially suited to their ends.[3]
Such were the complicated moral, political, and economic motives which underlay the first national action against the slave-trade. This action was taken by the “a.s.sociation,” a union of the colonies entered into to enforce the policy of stopping commercial intercourse with England. The movement was not a great moral protest against an iniquitous traffic; although it had undoubtedly a strong moral backing, it was primarily a temporary war measure.
26. ~The Action of the Colonies.~ The earlier and largely abortive attempts to form non-intercourse a.s.sociations generally did not mention slaves specifically, although the Virginia House of Burgesses, May 11, 1769, recommended to merchants and traders, among other things, to agree, “That they will not import any slaves, or purchase any imported after the first day of November next, until the said acts are repealed.”[4] Later, in 1774, when a Faneuil Hall meeting started the first successful national attempt at non-intercourse, the slave-trade, being at the time especially flourishing, received more attention. Even then slaves were specifically mentioned in the resolutions of but three States. Rhode Island recommended a stoppage of “all trade with Great Britain, Ireland, Africa and the West Indies.”[5] North Carolina, in August, 1774, resolved in convention “That we will not import any slave or slaves, or purchase any slave or slaves, imported or brought into this Province by others, from any part of the world, after the first day of _November_ next.”[6] Virginia gave the slave-trade especial prominence, and was in reality the leading spirit to force her views on the Continental Congress. The county conventions of that colony first took up the subject. Fairfax County thought “that during our present difficulties and distress, no slaves ought to be imported,” and said: “We take this opportunity of declaring our most earnest wishes to see an entire stop forever put to such a wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade.”[7] Prince George and Nansemond Counties resolved “That the _African_ trade is injurious to this Colony, obstructs the population of it by freemen, prevents manufacturers and other useful emigrants from _Europe_ from settling amongst us, and occasions an annual increase of the balance of trade against this Colony.”[8] The Virginia colonial convention, August, 1774, also declared: “We will neither ourselves import, nor purchase any slave or slaves imported by any other person, after the first day of _November_ next, either from _Africa_, the _West Indies_, or any other place.”[9]
In South Carolina, at the convention July 6, 1774, decided opposition to the non-importation scheme was manifested, though how much this was due to the slave-trade interest is not certain. Many of the delegates wished at least to limit the powers of their representatives, and the Charleston Chamber of Commerce flatly opposed the plan of an “a.s.sociation.” Finally, however, delegates with full powers were sent to Congress. The arguments leading to this step were not in all cases on the score of patriotism; a Charleston manifesto argued: “The planters are greatly in arrears to the merchants; a stoppage of importation would give them all an opportunity to extricate themselves from debt. The merchants would have time to settle their accounts, and be ready with the return of liberty to renew trade.”[10]
27. ~The Action of the Continental Congress.~ The first Continental Congress met September 5, 1774, and on September 22 recommended merchants to send no more orders for foreign goods.[11] On September 27 “Mr. Lee made a motion for a non-importation,” and it was unanimously resolved to import no goods from Great Britain after December 1, 1774.[12] Afterward, Ireland and the West Indies were also included, and a committee consisting of Low of New York, Mifflin of Pennsylvania, Lee of Virginia, and Johnson of Connecticut were appointed “to bring in a Plan for carrying into Effect the Non-importation, Non-consumption, and Non-exportation resolved on.”[13] The next move was to instruct this committee to include in the proscribed articles, among other things, “Mola.s.ses, Coffee or Piemento from the _British_ Plantations or from _Dominica_,”–a motion which cut deep into the slave-trade circle of commerce, and aroused some opposition. “Will, can, the people bear a total interruption of the West India trade?” asked Low of New York; “Can they live without rum, sugar, and mola.s.ses? Will not this impatience and vexation defeat the measure?”[14]
The committee finally reported, October 12, 1774, and after three days’
discussion and amendment the proposal pa.s.sed. This doc.u.ment, after a recital of grievances, declared that, in the opinion of the colonists, a non-importation agreement would best secure redress; goods from Great Britain, Ireland, the East and West Indies, and Dominica were excluded; and it was resolved that “We will neither import, nor purchase any Slave imported after the First Day of _December_ next; after which Time, we will wholly discontinue the Slave Trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our Vessels, nor sell our Commodities or Manufactures to those who are concerned in it.”[15]
Strong and straightforward as this resolution was, time unfortunately proved that it meant very little. Two years later, in this same Congress, a decided opposition was manifested to branding the slave-trade as inhuman, and it was thirteen years before South Carolina stopped the slave-trade or Ma.s.sachusetts prohibited her citizens from engaging in it. The pa.s.sing of so strong a resolution must be explained by the motives before given, by the character of the drafting committee, by the desire of America in this crisis to appear well before the world, and by the natural moral enthusiasm aroused by the imminence of a great national struggle.
28. ~Reception of the Slave-Trade Resolution.~ The unanimity with which the colonists received this “a.s.sociation” is not perhaps as remarkable as the almost entire absence of comment on the radical slave-trade clause. A Connecticut town-meeting in December, 1774, noticed “with singular pleasure … the second Article of the a.s.sociation, in which it is agreed to import no more Negro Slaves.”[16] This comment appears to have been almost the only one. There were in various places some evidences of disapproval; but only in the State of Georgia was this widespread and determined, and based mainly on the slave-trade clause.[17] This opposition delayed the ratification meeting until January 18, 1775, and then delegates from but five of the twelve parishes appeared, and many of these had strong instructions against the approval of the plan. Before this meeting could act, the governor adjourned it, on the ground that it did not represent the province. Some of the delegates signed an agreement, one article of which promised to stop the importation of slaves March 15, 1775, i.e., four months later than the national “a.s.sociation” had directed. This was not, of course, binding on the province; and although a town like Darien might declare “our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of Slavery in _America_”[18] yet the powerful influence of Savannah was “not likely soon to give matters a favourable turn. The importers were mostly against any interruption, and the consumers very much divided.”[19] Thus the efforts of this a.s.sembly failed, their resolutions being almost unknown, and, as a gentleman writes, “I hope for the honour of the Province ever will remain so.”[20] The delegates to the Continental Congress selected by this rump a.s.sembly refused to take their seats.
Meantime South Carolina stopped trade with Georgia, because it “hath not acceded to the Continental a.s.sociation,”[21] and the single Georgia parish of St. Johns appealed to the second Continental Congress to except it from the general boycott of the colony. This county had already resolved not to “purchase any Slave imported at _Savannah_ (large Numbers of which we understand are there expected) till the Sense of Congress shall be made known to us.”[22]
May 17, 1775, Congress resolved unanimously “That all exportations to _Quebec_, _Nova-Scotia_, the Island of _St. John’s_, _Newfoundland_, _Georgia_, except the Parish of _St. John’s_, and to _East_ and _West Florida_, immediately cease.”[23] These measures brought the refractory colony to terms, and the Provincial Congress, July 4, 1775, finally adopted the “a.s.sociation,” and resolved, among other things, “That we will neither import or purchase any Slave imported from Africa, or elsewhere, after this day.”[24]
The non-importation agreement was in the beginning, at least, well enforced by the voluntary action of the loosely federated nation. The slave-trade clause seems in most States to have been observed with the others. In South Carolina “a cargo of near three hundred slaves was sent out of the Colony by the consignee, as being interdicted by the second article of the a.s.sociation.”[25] In Virginia the vigilance committee of Norfolk “hold up for your just indignation Mr. _John Brown_, Merchant, of this place,” who has several times imported slaves from Jamaica; and he is thus publicly censured “to the end that all such foes to the rights of _British America_ may be publickly known … as the enemies of _American_ Liberty, and that every person may henceforth break off all dealings with him.”[26]
29. ~Results of the Resolution.~ The strain of war at last proved too much for this voluntary blockade, and after some hesitancy Congress, April 3, 1776, resolved to allow the importation of articles not the growth or manufacture of Great Britain, except tea. They also voted “That no slaves be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies.”[27] This marks a noticeable change of att.i.tude from the strong words of two years previous: the former was a definitive promise; this is a temporary resolve, which probably represented public opinion much better than the former. On the whole, the conclusion is inevitably forced on the student of this first national movement against the slave-trade, that its influence on the trade was but temporary and insignificant, and that at the end of the experiment the outlook for the final suppression of the trade was little brighter than before. The whole movement served as a sort of social test of the power and importance of the slave-trade, which proved to be far more powerful than the plat.i.tudes of many of the Revolutionists had a.s.sumed.
The effect of the movement on the slave-trade in general was to begin, possibly a little earlier than otherwise would have been the case, that temporary breaking up of the trade which the war naturally caused.
“There was a time, during the late war,” says Clarkson, “when the slave trade may be considered as having been nearly abolished.”[28] The prices of slaves rose correspondingly high, so that smugglers made fortunes.[29] It is stated that in the years 1772-1778 slave merchants of Liverpool failed for the sum of 710,000.[30] All this, of course, might have resulted from the war, without the “a.s.sociation;” but in the long run the “a.s.sociation” aided in frustrating the very designs which the framers of the first resolve had in mind; for the temporary stoppage in the end created an extraordinary demand for slaves, and led to a slave-trade after the war nearly as large as that before.
30. ~The Slave-Trade and Public Opinion after the War.~ The Declaration of Independence showed a significant drift of public opinion from the firm stand taken in the “a.s.sociation” resolutions. The clique of political philosophers to which Jefferson belonged never imagined the continued existence of the country with slavery. It is well known that the first draft of the Declaration contained a severe arraignment of Great Britain as the real promoter of slavery and the slave-trade in America. In it the king was charged with waging “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of _infidel_ powers, is the warfare of the _Christian_ king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where _men_ should be bought and sold, he has prost.i.tuted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.
And that this a.s.semblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the _liberties_ of one people with crimes which he urges them to commit against the _lives_ of another.”[31]
To this radical and not strictly truthful statement, even the large influence of the Virginia leaders could not gain the a.s.sent of the delegates in Congress. The afflatus of 1774 was rapidly subsiding, and changing economic conditions had already led many to look forward to a day when the slave-trade could successfully be reopened. More important than this, the nation as a whole was even less inclined now than in 1774 to denounce the slave-trade uncompromisingly. Jefferson himself says that this clause “was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe,” said he, “felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.”[32]
As the war slowly dragged itself to a close, it became increasingly evident that a firm moral stand against slavery and the slave-trade was not a probability. The reaction which naturally follows a period of prolonged and exhausting strife for high political principles now set in. The economic forces of the country, which had suffered most, sought to recover and rearrange themselves; and all the selfish motives that impelled a bankrupt nation to seek to gain its daily bread did not long hesitate to demand a reopening of the profitable African slave-trade.
This demand was especially urgent from the fact that the slaves, by pillage, flight, and actual fighting, had become so reduced in numbers during the war that an urgent demand for more laborers was felt in the South.
Nevertheless, the revival of the trade was naturally a matter of some difficulty, as the West India circuit had been cut off, leaving no resort except to contraband traffic and the direct African trade. The English slave-trade after the peace “returned to its former state,” and was by 1784 sending 20,000 slaves annually to the West Indies.[33] Just how large the trade to the continent was at this time there are few means of ascertaining; it is certain that there was a general reopening of the trade in the Carolinas and Georgia, and that the New England traders partic.i.p.ated in it. This traffic undoubtedly reached considerable proportions; and through the direct African trade and the illicit West India trade many thousands of Negroes came into the United States during the years 1783-1787.[34]
Meantime there was slowly arising a significant divergence of opinion on the subject. Probably the whole country still regarded both slavery and the slave-trade as temporary; but the Middle States expected to see the abolition of both within a generation, while the South scarcely thought it probable to prohibit even the slave-trade in that short time. Such a difference might, in all probability, have been satisfactorily adjusted, if both parties had recognized the real gravity of the matter. As it was, both regarded it as a problem of secondary importance, to be solved after many other more pressing ones had been disposed of. The anti-slavery men had seen slavery die in their own communities, and expected it to die the same way in others, with as little active effort on their own part. The Southern planters, born and reared in a slave system, thought that some day the system might change, and possibly disappear; but active effort to this end on their part was ever farthest from their thoughts. Here, then, began that fatal policy toward slavery and the slave-trade that characterized the nation for three-quarters of a century, the policy of _laissez-faire, laissez-pa.s.ser_.
31. ~The Action of the Confederation.~ The slave-trade was hardly touched upon in the Congress of the Confederation, except in the ordinance respecting the capture of slaves, and on the occasion of the Quaker pet.i.tion against the trade, although, during the debate on the Articles of Confederation, the counting of slaves as well as of freemen in the apportionment of taxes was urged as a measure that would check further importation of Negroes. “It is our duty,” said Wilson of Pennsylvania, “to lay every discouragement on the importation of slaves; but this amendment [i.e., to count two slaves as one freeman] would give the _jus trium liberorum_ to him who would import slaves.”[35] The matter was finally compromised by apportioning requisitions according to the value of land and buildings.
After the Articles went into operation, an ordinance in regard to the recapture of fugitive slaves provided that, if the capture was made on the sea below high-water mark, and the Negro was not claimed, he should be freed. Matthews of South Carolina demanded the yeas and nays on this proposition, with the result that only the vote of his State was recorded against it.[36]
On Tuesday, October 3, 1783, a deputation from the Yearly Meeting of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware Friends asked leave to present a pet.i.tion. Leave was granted the following day,[37] but no further minute appears. According to the report of the Friends, the pet.i.tion was against the slave-trade; and “though the Christian rect.i.tude of the concern was by the Delegates generally acknowledged, yet not being vested with the powers of legislation, they declined promoting any public remedy against the gross national iniquity of trafficking in the persons of fellow-men.”[38]
The only legislative activity in regard to the trade during the Confederation was taken by the individual States.[39] Before 1778 Connecticut, Vermont, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia had by law stopped the further importation of slaves, and importation had practically ceased in all the New England and Middle States, including Maryland. In consequence of the revival of the slave-trade after the War, there was then a lull in State activity until 1786, when North Carolina laid a prohibitive duty, and South Carolina, a year later, began her series of temporary prohibitions. In 1787-1788 the New England States forbade the partic.i.p.ation of their citizens in the traffic. It was this wave of legislation against the traffic which did so much to blind the nation as to the strong hold which slavery still had on the country.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] These figures are from the _Report of the Lords of the Committee of Council_, etc. (London, 1789).
[2] Sheffield, _Observations on American Commerce_, p. 28; P.L. Ford, _The a.s.sociation of the First Congress_, in _Political Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.
[3] Cf., e.g., Arthur Lee’s letter to R.H. Lee, March 18, 1774, in which non-intercourse is declared “the only advisable and sure mode of defence”: Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 229. Cf. also _Ibid._, p. 240; Ford, in _Political Science Quarterly_, VI. 614-5.
[4] Goodloe, _Birth of the Republic_, p. 260.
[5] Staples, _Annals of Providence_ (1843), p. 235.
[6] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 735. This was probably copied from the Virginia resolve.
[7] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 600.
[8] _Ibid._, I. 494, 530. Cf. pp. 523, 616, 641, etc.
[9] _Ibid._, I. 687.
[10] _Ibid._, I. 511, 526. Cf. also p. 316.
[11] _Journals of Cong._, I. 20. Cf. Ford, in _Political Science Quarterly_, VI. 615-7.
[12] John Adams, _Works_, II. 382.
[13] _Journals of Cong._, I. 21.
[14] _Ibid._, I. 24; Drayton; _Memoirs of the American Revolution_, I. 147; John Adams, _Works_, II. 394.
[15] _Journals of Cong._, I. 27, 32-8.
[16] Danbury, Dec. 12, 1774: Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1038. This case and that of Georgia are the only ones I have found in which the slave-trade clause was specifically mentioned.
[17] Force, _American Archives_, 4th Ser., I. 1033, 1136, 1160, 1163; II. 279-281, 1544; _Journals of Cong._, May 13, 15, 17, 1775.