The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1853-12-29
[coPYRIGHr SECURED ny rHB AUTHOR
THE LEGAL TENURE OF SLAVERY
LETTER vi.
AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE NEVER LOCALIZED

To the Friends of Amerioan Liberty:
THIS development appears to have been the
turning point in the Parliamentary discussion.
The claim Of legality aod Of vested rights D
was silenoed. Tho suppression of the traffic
was seen to DO inevitable, and the struggle,
thenceforward, was only for pOstponement
representation. The traffic, no longer ac-
counted legal, soon lost It's responsibility, and
Parliament was compelled, by public senti-
ment, to suppress it as nuisance, scandal,
crime against society. The notion that the
African slave trade was once legal, and after
wards became Illegal by act of Parliament, If
an error. twas long thought TO be legal, just
as Slavery in England was thought to be legal.
But in both cases, the error was detected, ano
the remedy applied-n the one case, by the
Court of Kings Bench, (as will be shown il
the proper place in the other, by act of Par
lament as the suppression required the use OF
the naval force.
It is easy to see that Mr.. Pitt WAS correct in
his construction Of the act of % George II, C.
81 The language employed, instead Of au
thorzing the African slave trade, very plain
ly prohibited it, under all its forms, and equal
ly 10, whether tho natives were hunted down
and seized by the traders, las was commonly
done) or purchased by them Of those who held
them az slaves or as captives OF war. Force
and violence" in both cases were used The
act of George IL, which forbade these, was, in
this aspect, equivalent 10 the condition in the
permit of Queen Elizabeth, which provided
that that the natives should not be carried of
without their "frec consent" The act Of
George II was entitled, "An act for regula.
ting the trade to Africa mot, "An act for
authorizing the slave trade"
1t may be true that those active in procur
ing this enactment intended 10 use it for shell
ter to the slave trade. II may be true, thai
members of Parliament, and even Of the Royal
Family, we're Interested in the traffic, and de.
signed by this act to stimulate and encourag,
it. It is admitted that by the guilty comm.
vance Of those high in authority, the act WI
for long time thus used, till the nation IND
the courts took for granted the >es-Hty-cf the
traffic. But all this does 6ot alter tho fact
Tho act speaks for itself And it does not au-
thorze any slave trade ~ force and violence, y
but expressly forbds \ The slave traders
and their friends did no>dsre to attempt, OF
did not succeed in obtaining fQm Parliament
any different enactment.
This il evident from the course Of Parlis.
ment, on the occasion already alluded to, and
afterwards. We hear Of no attempt by MIR
Dundas, or any one, TO ret aside Mr.. Pitts con
struction of the statute Of George II. We hear
Of no attempt to cite any other act Of Parla
ment more favorable to the claims Of the slay,
traders. Up to that date (l7s7 or 'ss) il is Ger
tain, therefore, that there was no act of Parli
mcpt authorizing the African slave trade, as i
had been actually carried on. And after tina
date, we know there was no such enactment
and no attempt to procure any The onl,
question was that of SURPRISING tho traffic
and in 1907 the measure was carried. Anc
certainly, it has not been legalizcd since.
The entire history Of the African slave trad
under the British flag, therefore, concluaivel
shows that tho traffic was never, at any period
lsgaIised one, in any proper sense Of Il
term. 81
There in one historical incident which Ia
contributed, perhaps TO produce contrary in
preston. When tho New England Colonies
with New Jersey, Ponnsy lvania, and v,rgni,
petitioned the British hrJ for the abolitio
Of the slave trade, the petitions were unheet
ed. When several Of the Colonial Legislature
passed laws against IL they were vetoed by III
Royal Governors. In the original draft Of h
Declaration Of Independence, by MIR. Jederso,