The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1888-04-26

leaving as late as 1910 five slaves in that
State. Connecticut was too much inter,
ested to indulge her philanthropy at the
expense of an Immediate emancipation.
In 1870 she had 2,750 slaves. So she,
too, adopted plan of gradual emanci,
patton, by the slow and prudent work
ings Of which seventeen of her slaves re-
manned as such in 1S40.
AS Mr.. Bancroft observes, that Now
York is not slave State like Carolina, is
due to her climate and not to the supe-
rior humanity of its founders, (2 vol,
303.) Whom South Carolina prohibited
the importation of slaves from Africa in
1889, New York imported them and
shipped the savage5 to this State as
American slaves. AS late as 1853 the
London Times charged that New York
had become tho greatest slave trading
mart in the world, d charge which VII
son in the "Rise and Fall Of the Slave
Power" fully corroborates. II 1790 New
York had 2l,324 slaves. She, too,
adopted an Act os gradual emancipation,
by tue operation of which in 1910 ali but
four slaves had been gotten rid OF. New
Jersey, though adopting the same
scheme, was slower III getting rid Of her
slaves, GA still remaining III 1870.
Adam Smith observed: "Tho late
resolution Of tho QuakcrS in Pcnnsyl-
varia to set set at liberty all their negro
slaves may satisfy us that their nun Der
cannot be very great. Had they mGdo
any considerable pnrb of their property
such resolution could never Eavo been
taken" (Wealth Of Nationa.) There
were 3,737 slaves in Pennsylvania III
1870, and, as Adam Smith predicted, she
~.
So she, too, provided for gradual oman-
cipation. The census of 1910 showed
| siXty-five negroes still in slavery. II
1923 negro woman was put up on the
auction block along with some machine
ry, Smiths tools aud Que COW, aud sold
for debt by the sheriff Of Fayetto county
in the State of Brotherly Love. Tbcy
were still discussing this case in the Su-
preme Court of Pennsylvania as lato as
1887, but it was about the inadcQuacv of
the price the poor wretch brought, and
not the iniquity of the transaction about
which they were contending. Nynch
VS.. Commonwealth, 6 Watts 1861 It
Was the frOsts and SHOWS which put an
end to slavery at the North, not phiian-
thropy.
1t is familiar history that the slave
trade by which slavery was established
IN this country was carried on by Old
England and New England, and not by
the South. AS Mr.. Lecky points out,
the New England trade, just prior TO the
Revolution, consisted i'll sending her
lumber to the French Islands, where she
obtained III return an abundant supply
of molasses. The molasses he distilled
into rum, and tho rum she sent to Africa
for negro slaves-(NVII., ecu. 33l J
| Or, as Mr.. McAIastcr puts it: "Scarce IL
! year passed by but numbers Of slayers
went out from Boston, from Mediord,
from Salem, from Providence, from
Newport, from Bristol, Rhode Island.
The trade Was II threcfold kind. Mo
lasses brought from Jamaica was turned
! into rum; the rum dispatched to Africa
brought negroes; the negroes carried to
JamaicG. or the Southern States wore cx-
changed fOr mOiusSes, which in turn,
taken back to Now England, was quick
ly made into rum" (Iistory Of the
People of United States, Vol. 2-l5.)
South Carolina and Georgia, two Mt
least OF the Southern States, protested
against the trade, not from any senti-
mentality, but as oyerrunning the com-
! try with Darbarians and interfering with
the immigration Of the white race. The
statute books Of South Carolina, from
| 1893 to the Revolution, are filed with
Acts endeavoring to check by taxation
! and otherwise the importation OF slaves.
G5cc 4. A. l60S, 17l2, TIA, l7l6, l7l7,
lT44, 1851, 176t) These taxes, with the
avoWed purpose expressed III their
prcamblcs Of checking this impOrtation,
were raised year by year from CO in I'LL
to El00 in 1864. We cannot ut this no-
| rfNfn To ~
under very strong impression that the
one time actually prohibited the I'M
| portatlon OF slaves and that their Act
was suspended by the board of trade in
London as proiudicial to the commcrcial
interests of England. AS soon as South
Carolina was freed from this foreign
control, in l7S7 before any action Was
taken by Congress, the State prohibited
the importation all together. in the
colony Of Georgia slavery was absolutely
excluded and by her Constitution in
1893 the State prohibited the slave trade.
1t is true that the prohibition by South
Carolina was removed from 1904 to
1907, but this was owing to the impos-
slblllty of preventing evasion of our
laws through the want of State navy,
and it was thought better to bring the
negroes directly from Africa than re-
ceive them through New York as pre-
tended Americans. SEQ report of j.
Johnson Pettigrew (anothcr Rebel briga
dior) to the Legislature of South Carroll
na, against the reoponing of the slave
trade, 1856. Year Book, City OF
Charleston, 1883.
OF the 202 vessels that arrived in
Charleston habor with slaves, during tht
five years that the ports of tho Stat,
oponed for the slave trade, G1 claimed
I to belong to Charleston and exactly the
%me number avowcdly belonged to New
r.. N%land, ii Q, Rhode Island 50, Bos!or
I, l. 'aDnecticut - 70 belonged to Great
Rrito, a. OF tho other 10, 3 belonged tc
Rajtim, ne, 4 to Norfolk, to Sweden,
to Fronce>. II we look at the list OF con
sionnna wo Wiil sec that it is not probable
tGat the Ct which claimed to belong tc
Charleston nc Tnolly did SO. For Of tho
2O2 vessels WIN e|A brought in slaves bu
- consignecs W. @re natives Of Charles
ton, while So wor, >nstive9 of Rhode Is
land, 81 Of Boston R0d 10 Of France. I
is most probable, tn, Toiore' that the =.
vessels claiming to bel 3n8 TO CharleStol