Federal Government Slavery Policy in the United States

Apathy of the Federal Government (the Period of Attempted Suppression of Slavery)

In the book “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1), W. E. B. Du Bois explained the following: The United States cruisers succeeded now and then in capturing a slaver, like the “Eugene,” which was taken when within four miles of the New Orleans bar.80 President Madison again, in 1816, urged Congress to act on account of the “violations and evasions which, it is suggested, are chargeable on unworthy citizens, who mingle in the slave trade under foreign flags, and with foreign ports; and by collusive importations of slaves into the United States, through adjoining ports and territories.”81 The executive was continually in receipt of ample evidence of this illicit trade and of the helplessness of officers of the law. In 1817 it was reported to the Secretary of the Navy that most of the goods carried to Galveston were brought into the United States; “the more valuable, and the slaves are smuggled in through the numerous inlets to the westward, where the people are but too much disposed to render them every possible assistance.

Several hundred slaves are now at Galveston, and persons have gone from New-Orleans to purchase them. Every exertion will be made to intercept them, but I have little hopes of success.” Similar letters from naval officers and collectors showed that a system of slave piracy had arisen since the war, and that at Galveston there was an establishment of organized brigands, who did not go to the trouble of sailing to Africa for their slaves, but simply captured slavers and sold their cargoes into the United States. This Galveston nest had, in 1817, eleven armed vessels to prosecute the work, and “the most shameful violations of the slave act, as well as our revenue laws, continue to be practised.”Cargoes of as many as three hundred slaves were arriving in Texas. All this took place under Aury, the buccaneer governor; and when he removed to Amelia Island in 1817 with the McGregor raid, the illicit traffic in slaves, which had been going on there for years,84 took an impulse that brought it even to the somewhat deaf ears of Collector Bullock. He reported, May 22, 1817: “I have just received information from a source on which I can implicitly rely, that it has already become the practice to introduce into the state of Georgia, across the St. Mary’s River, from Amelia Island, East Florida, Africans, who have been carried into the Port of Fernandina, subsequent to the capture of it by the Patriot army now in possession of it …; were the legislature to pass an act giving compensation in some manner to informers, it would have a tendency in a great degree to prevent the practice; as the thing now is, no citizen will take the trouble of searching for and detecting the slaves. I further understand, that the evil will not be confined altogether to Africans, but will be extended to the worst class of West India slaves.”85

Undoubtedly, the injury done by these pirates to the regular slave-trading interests was largely instrumental in exterminating them. Late in 1817 United States troops seized Amelia Island, and President Monroe felicitated Congress and the country upon escaping the “annoyance and injury” of this illicit trade.86 The trade, however, seems to have continued, as is shown by such letters as the following, written three and a half months later:—

Port of Darien, March 14, 1818.

… It is a painful duty, sir, to express to you, that I am in possession of undoubted information, that African and West India negroes are almost daily illicitly introduced into Georgia, for sale or settlement, or passing through it to the territories of the United States for similar purposes; these facts are notorious; and it is not unusual to see such negroes in the streets of St. Mary’s, and such too, recently captured by our vessels of war, and ordered to Savannah, were illegally bartered by hundreds in that city, for this bartering or bonding (as it is called, but in reality selling,) actually took place before any decision had [been] passed by the court respecting them. I cannot but again express to you, sir, that these irregularities and mocking of the laws, by men who understand them, and who, it was presumed, would have respected them, are such, that it requires the immediate interposition of Congress to effect a suppression of this traffic; for, as things are, should a faithful officer of the government apprehend such negroes, to avoid the penalties imposed by the laws, the proprietors disclaim them, and some agent of the executive demands a delivery of the same to him, who may employ them as he pleases, or effect a sale by way of a bond, for the restoration of the negroes when legally called on so to do; which bond, it is understood, is to be forfeited, as the amount of the bond is so much less than the value of the property…. There are many negroes … recently introduced into this state and the Alabama territory, and which can be apprehended. The undertaking would be great; but to be sensible that we shall possess your approbation, and that we are carrying the views and wishes of the government into execution, is all we wish, and it shall be done, independent of every personal consideration.

I have, etc.

This “approbation” failed to come to the zealous collector, and on the 5th of July he wrote that, “not being favored with 118a reply,” he has been obliged to deliver over to the governor’s agents ninety-one illegally imported Negroes.88 Reports from other districts corroborate this testimony. The collector at Mobile writes of strange proceedings on the part of the courts.89 General D.B. Mitchell, ex-governor of Georgia and United States Indian agent, after an investigation in 1821 by Attorney-General Wirt, was found “guilty of having prostituted his power, as agent for Indian affairs at the Creek agency, to the purpose of aiding and assisting in a conscious breach of the act of Congress of 1807, in prohibition of the slave trade—and this from mercenary motives.”90 The indefatigable Collector Chew of New Orleans wrote to Washington that, “to put a stop to that traffic, a naval force suitable to those waters is indispensable,” and that “vast numbers of slaves will be introduced to an alarming extent, unless prompt and effectual measures are adopted by the general government.”91 Other collectors continually reported infractions, complaining that they could get no assistance from the citizens,92 or plaintively asking the services of “one small cutter.”93

Meantime, what was the response of the government to such representations, and what efforts were made to enforce the act? A few unsystematic and spasmodic attempts are recorded. In 1811 some special instructions were sent out,94 and the President was authorized to seize Amelia Island.95 Then came the war; and as late as November 15, 1818, in spite of the complaints of collectors, we find no revenue cutter on the Gulf coast.96 During the years 1817 and 181897 some cruisers went there irregularly, but they were too large to be effective; 119and the partial suppression of the Amelia Island pirates was all that was accomplished. On the whole, the efforts of the government lacked plan, energy, and often sincerity. Some captures of slavers were made;98 but, as the collector at Mobile wrote, anent certain cases, “this was owing rather to accident, than any well-timed arrangement.” He adds: “from the Chandalier Islands to the Perdido river, including the coast, and numerous other islands, we have only a small boat, with four men and an inspector, to oppose to the whole confederacy of smugglers and pirates.”99

To cap the climax, the government officials were so negligent that Secretary Crawford, in 1820, confessed to Congress that “it appears, from an examination of the records of this office, that no particular instructions have ever been given, by the Secretary of the Treasury, under the original or supplementary acts prohibiting the introduction of slaves into the United States.”100 Beside this inactivity, the government was criminally negligent in not prosecuting and punishing offenders when captured. Urgent appeals for instruction from prosecuting attorneys were too often received in official silence; complaints as to the violation of law by State officers went unheeded;101 informers were unprotected and sometimes driven from home.102 Indeed, the most severe comment on the whole period is the report, January 7, 1819, of the Register of the Treasury, who, after the wholesale and open violation of the Act of 1807, reported, in response to a request from the House, “that it doth not appear, from an examination of the records of this office, and particularly of the accounts (to the date of their last settlement) of the collectors of the customs, and of the several marshals of the 120United States, that any forfeitures had been incurred under the said act.”103

Resources

Notes and References

1. W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1893), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Further Reading

• J.A. Andrew and A.G. Browne, proctors. Circuit Court of the United States, Massachusetts District, ss. In Admiralty. The United States, by Information, vs. the Schooner Wanderer and Cargo, G. Lamar, Claimant. Boston, 1860.
• John Codman Hurd. The Law of Freedom and Bondage in the United States. 2 vols. Boston and New York, 1858, 1862.
• John Drayton. Memoirs of the American Revolution. 2 vols. Charleston, 1821.
• James Ramsay. An Inquiry into the Effects of putting a Stop to the African Slave Trade, and of granting Liberty to the Slaves in the British Sugar Colonies. London, 1784.
• Thomas Clarkson. An Essay on the Comparative Efficiency of Regulation or Abolition, as applied to the Slave Trade. Shewing that the latter only can remove the evils to be found in that commerce. London, 1789.
• Marana (pseudonym). The Future of America. Considered … in View of … Re-opening the Slave Trade. Boston, 1858.
• Friends. Proceedings in relation to the Presentation of the Address of the [Great Britain and Ireland] Yearly Meeting on the Slave-Trade and Slavery, to Sovereigns and those in Authority in the nations of Europe, and in other parts of the world, where the Christian religion is professed. Cincinnati, 1855.
• F.T. Texugo. A Letter on the Slave Trade still carried on along the Eastern Coast of Africa, etc. London, 1839.

Typical Cases (the Period of Attempted Suppression of Slavery)

In the book “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1), W. E. B. Du Bois explained the following: At this date (January 7, 1819), however, certain cases were stated to be pending, a history of which will fitly conclude this discussion. In 1818 three American schooners sailed from the United States to Havana; on June 2 they started back with cargoes aggregating one hundred and seven slaves. The schooner “Constitution” was captured by one of Andrew Jackson’s officers under the guns of Fort Barancas. The “Louisa” and “Marino” were captured by Lieutenant McKeever of the United States Navy. The three vessels were duly proceeded against at Mobile, and the case began slowly to drag along. The slaves, instead of being put under the care of the zealous marshal of the district, were placed in the hands of three bondsmen, friends of the judge. The marshal notified the government of this irregularity, but apparently received no answer. In 1822 the three vessels were condemned as forfeited, but the court “reserved” for future order the distribution of the slaves. Nothing whatever either then or later was done to the slave-traders themselves. The owners of the ships promptly appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that tribunal, in 1824, condemned the three vessels and the slaves on two of them.104 These slaves, considerably reduced in number “from various causes,” were sold at auction for the benefit of the State, in spite of the Act of 1819. Meantime, before the decision of the Supreme Court, the judge of the Supreme Court of West Florida had awarded to certain alleged Spanish claimants of the slaves indemnity for nearly the whole number seized, at the price of $650 per head, and the Secretary of the Treasury had actually paid the claim.105 In 1826 Lieutenant McKeever urgently petitions Congress for his prize-money of $4,415.15, which he has not yet121 received.106 The “Constitution” was for some inexplicable reason released from bond, and the whole case fades in a very thick cloud of official mist. In 1831 Congress sought to inquire into the final disposition of the slaves. The information given was never printed; but as late as 1836 a certain Calvin Mickle petitions Congress for reimbursement for the slaves sold, for their hire, for their natural increase, for expenses incurred, and for damages.107

Resources

Notes and References

1. W. E. B. Du Bois, “The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America 1638-1870” (1893), Longmans, Green and Co., London, New York, Bombay and Calcuta.

See Also

Further Reading

• Edward Armstrong, editor. The Record of the Court at Upland, in Pennsylvania. 1676–1681. Philadelphia, 1860. (In Memoirs of the Pennsylvania Historical Society, VII. 11.)
• John Codman Hurd . The International Law of the Slave Trade, and the Maritime Right of Search. (In the American Jurist, XXVI. 330.)
• Paul Dudley. An Essay on the Merchandize of Slaves and Souls of Men. Boston, 1731.
• James Ramsey. Objections to the Abolition of the Slave Trade, with Answers, etc. Second edition. London, 1788.
• Thomas Clarkson. An Essay on the Impolicy of the African Slave Trade. In two parts. Second edition. London, 1788.
• E. Marining. Six Months on a Slaver. New York, 1879.
• Friends. Slavery and the Domestic Slave Trade in the United States. By the committee appointed by the late Yearly Meeting of Friends held in Philadelphia, in 1839. Philadelphia, 1841.
• R. Thorpe. A View of the Present Increase of the Slave Trade, the Cause of that Increase, and a mode for effecting its total Annihilation. London, 1818.