The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America Part 13

54. ~Key-Note of the Period.~ One of the last acts of this period strikes again the key-note which sounded throughout the whole of it. On February 20, 1806, after considerable opposition, a bill to prohibit trade with San Domingo pa.s.sed the Senate.[89] In the House it was charged by one side that the measure was dictated by France, and by the other, that it originated in the fear of countenancing Negro insurrection. The bill, however, became a law, and by continuations remained on the statute-books until 1809. Even at that distance the nightmare of the Haytian insurrection continued to haunt the South, and a proposal to reopen trade with the island caused wild John Randolph to point out the "dreadful evil" of a "direct trade betwixt the town of Charleston and the ports of the island of St. Domingo."[90]

Of the twenty years from 1787 to 1807 it can only be said that they were, on the whole, a period of disappointment so far as the suppression of the slave-trade was concerned. Fear, interest, and philanthropy united for a time in an effort which bade fair to suppress the trade; then the real weakness of the const.i.tutional compromise appeared, and the interests of the few overcame the fears and the humanity of the many.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Prince, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, p. 786; Marbury and Crawford, _Digest of the Laws of Georgia_, pp. 440, 442.

The exact text of this act appears not to be extant. Section I. is stated to have been "re-enacted by the const.i.tution."

Possibly this act prohibited slaves also, although this is not certain. Georgia pa.s.sed several regulative acts between 1755 and 1793. Cf. Renne, _Colonial Acts of Georgia_, pp. 73-4, 164, note.

[2] Marbury and Crawford, _Digest_, p. 30, -- 11. The clause was penned by Peter J. Carnes of Jefferson. Cf. W.B. Stevens, _History of Georgia_ (1847), II. 501.

[3] Grimke, _Public Laws_, p. 466.

[4] Cooper and McCord, _Statutes_, VII. 431.

[5] _Ibid._, VII. 433-6, 444, 447.

[6] _Ibid._, VII. 449.

[7] Martin, _Iredell's Acts of a.s.sembly_, I. 492.

[8] _Ibid._, II. 53.

[9] Cf. _Ibid._, II. 94; _Laws of North Carolina_ (revision of 1819), I. 786.

[10] Virginia codified her whole slave legislation in 1792 (_Va. Statutes at Large_, New Ser., I. 122), and amended her laws in 1798 and 1806 (_Ibid._, III. 251).

[11] Dorsey, _Laws of Maryland, 1796_, I. 334.

[12] _Laws of Delaware, 1797_ (Newcastle ed.), p. 942, ch. 194 b.

[13] Dallas, _Laws_, II. 586.

[14] Paterson, _Digest of the Laws of New Jersey_ (1800), pp.

307-13. In 1804 New Jersey pa.s.sed an act gradually to abolish slavery. The legislation of New York at this period was confined to regulating the exportation of slave criminals (1790), and to pa.s.sing an act gradually abolis.h.i.+ng slavery (1799). In 1801 she codified all her acts.

[15] _Acts and Laws of Connecticut_ (ed. 1784), pp. 368, 369, 388.

[16] _Ibid._, p. 412.

[17] _Perpetual Laws of Ma.s.sachusetts, 1780-89_, pp. 235-6.

[18] _Queries Respecting Slavery_, etc., in _Ma.s.s. Hist. Soc.

Coll._, 1st Ser., IV. 205.

[19] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong, 1 sess. pp. 336-41.

[20] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 1 sess. p. 903.

[21] _Ibid._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1182-3.

[22] _Journals of Cong., 1782-3_, pp. 418-9. Cf. above, pp.

56-57.

[23] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1184.

[24] _Ibid._, pp. 1182-91.

[25] _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1197-1205.

[26] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 157-8.

[27] _Annals of Cong._, I Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413-7.

[28] For the reports and debates, cf. _Annals of Cong._, 1 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1413-7, 1450-74; _House Journal_ (repr.

1826), 1 Cong. 2 sess. I. 168-81.

[29] A clerical error in the original: "interdict" and "regulate" should be interchanged.

[30] See _Memorials presented to Congress_, etc. (1792), published by the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.

[31] From the Virginia pet.i.tion.

[32] From the pet.i.tion of Baltimore and other Maryland societies.

[33] From the Providence Abolition Society's pet.i.tion.

[34] _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 2 Cong. 2 sess. I. 627-9; _Annals of Cong._, 2 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 728-31.

[35] _Annals of Cong._, 3 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 64, 70, 72; _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 76, 84-5, 96-100; _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1820), 3 Cong. 1 sess. II. 51.

[36] _Statutes at Large_, I. 347-9.

[37] _Annals of Cong._, 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 656-70, 945-1033.

[38] _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 229.

[39] Dec. 12, 1799: _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 535. For the debate, see _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong.

1 sess. pp. 230-45.

[40] _Senate Journal_ (repr. 1821), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III. 72, 77, 88, 92; see _Ibid._, Index, Bill No. 62; _House Journal_ (repr. 1826), 6 Cong. 1 sess. III., Index, House Bill No. 247.

For the debate, see _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong. 1 sess. pp.

686-700.

[41] _Annals of Cong._, 6 Cong. 1 sess. p. 697.

[42] _Ibid._, p. 699-700.