The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870 | Page 7

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so far repealed that by 1761 the duty was only 15%.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 40s.,[36] may have been a mild restrictive
measure. The duties were slowly increased to 50s. 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: 10s. on Africans, 20s. on other Negroes. 1714, " " additional duty.
1714, " " £2. 1714-15, Duty Act: additional duty. 1716, " " £3 on
Africans,