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 constitution." Possibly this act prohibited slaves also, although this is not certain. Georgia passed 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] Grimké, 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 Assembly, 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 passed 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 passing an act gradually abolishing 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 Massachusetts, 1780–89, pp. 235–6.
[18] Queries Respecting Slavery, etc., in Mass. 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 petition.
[32] From the petition of Baltimore and other Maryland societies.
[33] From the Providence Abolition Society's petition.
[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.
[43] Statutes at Large, II. 70.
[44] Annals of Cong., 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 385–6.
[45] Ibid., p. 424.
[46] See House Bills Nos. 89 and 101; Annals of Cong., 7 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 424, 459–67. For the debate, see Ibid., pp. 459–72.
[47] Statutes at Large, II. 205.
[48] Cf. Fowler, Local Law in Massachusetts and Connecticut, etc., p. 126.
[49] Speech of S.L. Mitchell of New York, Feb. 14, 1804: Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1000. Cf. also speech of Bedinger: Ibid., pp. 997–8.
[50] Speech of Lowndes in the House, Feb. 14, 1804: Annals of Cong., 8 Cong., 1 sess. p. 992. Cf. Stanton's speech later: Ibid., 9 Cong. 2 sess. p. 240.
[51] Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 820, 876.
[52] Ibid., pp. 992–1036.
[53] Huger of South Carolina declared that the whole South Carolina Congressional delegation opposed the repeal of the law, although they maintained the State's right to do so if she chose: Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. p. 1005.
[54] Ibid., pp. 1020–36; House Journal (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 1 sess. IV 523, 578, 580, 581–5.
[55] On slavery in the Territories, cf. Welling, in Report Amer. Hist. Assoc., 1891, pp. 133–60.
[56] Statutes at Large, I. 108.
[57] Journals of Cong., XII. 137–8.
[58] Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 511, 515, 532–3.
[59] Ibid., 5 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 1235, 1249, 1277–84, 1296–1313.
[60] Annals of Cong., 5 Cong. 2 sess. p. 1313.
[61] Statutes at Large, I. 549.
[62] Amer. State Papers, Miscellaneous, I. No. 177.
[63] Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 106, 211, 223, 231, 233–4, 238.
[64] Ibid., pp. 240, 1186.
[65] Ibid., p. 241.
[66] Ibid., p. 240.
[67] Ibid., p. 242.
[68] For further proceedings, see Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 240–55, 1038–79, 1128–9, 1185–9. For the law, see Statutes at Large, II. 283–9.
[69] First, a bill was introduced applying the Northwest Ordinance to the Territory (Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 45–6); but this was replaced by a Senate bill (Ibid., p. 68; Senate Journal, repr. 1821, 8 Cong. 2 sess. III. 464). For the petition of the inhabitants, see Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. p. 727–8.
[70] The bill was hurried through, and there are no records of debate. Cf. Annals of Cong., 8 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 28–69, 727, 871, 957, 1016–20, 1213–5. In Senate Journal (repr. 1821), III., see Index, Bill No. 8. Importation of slaves was allowed by a clause erecting a Frame of Government "similar" to that of the Mississippi Territory.
[71] Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 443. The whole trade was practically foreign, for the slavers merely entered the Negroes at Charleston and immediately reshipped them to New Orleans. Cf. Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 1 sess. p. 264.
[72] House Journal (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 264; Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 445, 878.
[73] House Reports, 9 Cong. 1 sess. Feb. 17, 1806.
[74] House Bill No. 123.
[75] Annals of Cong., 16 Cong. 2 sess. pp. 73–7. This report covers the time from Jan. 1, 1804, to Dec. 31, 1807. During that time the following was the number of ships engaged in the traffic:—
| From | Charleston, | 61 | From | Connecticut, | 1 | |
| " | Rhode Island, | 59 | " | Sweden, | 1 | |
| " | Baltimore, | 4 | " | Great Britain, | 70 | |
| " | Boston, | 1 | " | France, | 3 | |
| " | Norfolk, | 2 | " | 202 | ||
| The consignees of these slave ships were natives of | ||||||
| Charleston | 13 | |||||
| Rhode Island | 88 | |||||
| Great Britain | 91 | |||||
| France | 10 | |||||
| 202 | ||||||
| The following slaves were imported:— | ||||||
| By | British | vessels | 19,949 | |||
| " | French | " | 1,078 | |||
| —— | ||||||
| 21,027 | ||||||
| By | American | vessels:— | ||||
| " | Charleston | merchants | 2,006 | |||
| " | Rhode Island | " | 7,958 | |||
| " | Foreign | " | 5,717 | |||
| " | other Northern | " | 930 | |||
| " | other Southern | " | 1,437 | 18,048 | ||
| Total number of slaves imported, 1804–7 | 39,075 | |||||
It is, of course, highly probable that the Custom House returns were much below the actual figures.
[76] McMaster, History of the People of the United States, III. p. 517.
[77] House Journal (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171; Mass. Resolves, May, 1802, to March, 1806, Vol. II. A. (State House ed., p. 239).
[78] House Journal (repr. 1826), 9 Cong. 1 sess. V. 238.
[79] Ibid., V. 266.
[80] Senate Journal (repr. 1821), 9 Cong. 1 sess. IV. 76, 77, 79.
[81] House Journal (repr. 1826), 8 Cong. 2 sess. V. 171.
[82] Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 274.
[83] Ibid., pp. 272–4, 323.
[84] Ibid., pp. 346–52, 358–75, etc., to 520.
[85] Ibid., pp. 374–5.
[86] See House Bill No. 94.
[87] Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. p. 466.
[88] Annals of Cong., 9 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 519–20.
[89] Ibid., pp. 21, 52, 75, etc., to 138, 485–515, 1228. See House Bill No. 168. Cf. Statutes at Large, II. 421–2.
[90] A few months later, at the expiration of the period, trade was quietly reopened. Annals of Cong., 11 Cong. 1 sess. pp. 443–6.