The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1888-04-25

not thrive in her latitude her Legislature
provided gradual scheme Of emanclpa
tion, which took lifetime to work out
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 emanel
patton, by the slow and prudent work
mgs of which seventeen Of her slaves re-
NAMED as such in lS40.
As Mr.. Bancroft observes, that New
York is not q slave State like Carolina, is
due to her climate and not to the supe.
rior humanity of its founders, q vol,
$685. When South Carolina prohibited
the importation of slaves from Africa in
17S9, New York imported them and
shipped the savages to this State as
American slaves. As late as 1858 the
London Times charged that New York
had become the greatest slave trading
mart in the world, q charge which VIII
son in the ssRise and Fall Of the Slave
Power" fully corroborates. In 1890 New
York had 21,S24 slaves. She, too,
adopted an Act of gradual emancip patton.
by the operation of which in lS4O all but
four slaves had been gotten rid OF. New
Jersey, though adopting the same
scheme, was slower in getting nd of her
slaves, 674 still remaining in 1910.
Adam Smith observed: s'The late
resolution of the Quakers in Pennsyl-
vania to set set at liberty all their negro
slaves may satisfy US that their nunbeE
cannot be very great. Had they made
any considerable part of their property
such resolution could never have been
taken" wealth of Nations.) There
were 3,737 slaves in Pennsylvania in
1880, and, as Adam Smith predicted, she
would not sacrifice so much property.
So she, too, provided for gradual eman,
cipation. The census of 1S40 showed
sxty-fge negroes still in slavery. N
1928 a negro woman was put up on the
auction block along with some machine
ry, Smiths tools and one COW, and sold
for debt by the sheriff of Fayette county.
in the State of Brotherly Love. They
were still discussing this case in the Su-
preme Court Of Pennsylvania as late as
1887, but it wss about the insdequacy of
the price the poor wretch brought, and
not the iniquity of the transaction about
which they were contending. lynch
VS.. Commonwealth, 6 Watts 495.) It
was the frosts and SHOWS which put an
end to slavery at the North, not phiian-
thropy.
It 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 In sending her
lumber to the French Islands, where she
obtained in return an abundant supply
of molasses. The molasses she distilled
into rum and the rum she sent to Africa
for negro slaves-(XVl., Cen. 334. }
Or, as Mr.. McMaster puts it: "Scarce
year passed by but numbers of slsvers
went out from Boston, from Medford,
from Salem, from Providence, from
Newport, from Bristol, Rhode Island.
The trade was q threefold kind. Mo-
lasses brought from Jamaica was turned
into rum; the rum dispatched to Africa
brought negroes; the negroes carried to
Jamaica or the Southern States were ex-
changed for molasses, which In turn,
taken back to New England, was quick
" made into rum" (History of the
People of United States, Vol. 2-15.)
South Carolina and Georgia, two at
least of the Southern States, protested
against the trade, not from any senh-
mentality, but as overrunning the coun-
try with barbarians and interfering with
the immigration of the white race. The
statute books of South Carolina, from
1898 to the Revolution, are filed with
Acts endeavoring to check by taxation
and otherwise the importation Of slaves.
(See A. A. 1893, 1712, lila, 17l6, 17l7,
l744, l751, 1764.l These taxes, with the
aycwed purpose expressed In their
preambles of checking this importation,
were raised year by year from 81 in l7l4
to sl00 in 1764. We cannot at this mo-
ment refer to the authority, but we are
under very strong impression that the
Colonial Council Of South Carolina at
one time actually prohibited the I'M
portation of slaves and that their Act
was suspended by the board of trade In
London as preiudicial to the commercial
interests of England. AS soon as South
Carolina was freed from this foreign
control, in 1857, before any action was
taken by Congress, the State prohibited
the importstion all together. In the
colony of Georgia slavery was absolutely
excluded and by her Constitution In
1898 the State prohibited the slave trade.
It is true that the prohibition by South
Carolina was removed from 1904 to
1907, but this was owing to the impos-
sibility 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-
cei7e them through New York as pre-
tended Americans. See report OF j.
johnson Pettigrew (another Rebel brlga
dier) to the Legislature Of South Carroll
ma, against the reopening of the slave
trade, 1856. Year Book, City of
Charleston, 1883.
OF the 202 vessels that arrived IN
Charleston habovwith slaves, during the
five years ths % ports of the State
opened for th lave trade, 81 claimed
to belong to Charleston and exactly the
same number avowedly belonged to New
England, q e, Rhode Island SO, Boston
l. Connecticut L J 70 belonged to Great
Britain. OF the other 10, 3 belonged to
Baltimore, 4 TO Norfolk, 2 to Sweden, l
L. L.a.aaa lk .ro loalz o. tho lict of nan-