ment. The legislation of all the Southern communities, both as colonies and states, for more than 165 years-certainly commencing as far back as 1698-has been distinguished by constant efforts either to embarrass or entirely prohibit the African slave trade. Alone among the nations of Christendom, though fruitlessly against the unanimous policy of the European Governments, they struggled to prevent the increase of slaves from Africa upon the American continent; and never, from that day to this, have they abandoned their determination to exclude the importation of negroes. Not one of the Yankee States has ever enacted laws prohibiting that commerce; nor has Pennsylvania, New York, or New Jersey. The Yankees carried on the business with great vigour, until its prohibition by the Act of Congress of March 2, 1807, which took effect on January 1, 1808. Previous to this, however, Acts had been passed, March 2, 1794, and May 10, 1800, preventing the fitting out of ships in the American States for conducting the slave trade with foreign countries. 350,000 slaves were imported into the American States, viz. up to 1740, 130,000; between that date and 1776, 170,000; from 1783 to 1808, 50,000. There is a reason for everything, and the expression Yankee trick is not an exception to this general rule. It is well known that the African slave trade has been carried on principally by the New Englanders, but in the multitude of their new religions, Young Men's Christian Associations, and evangelical (?) haranguings, they have allured the rest of the world into the belief that they were the first people that emancipated their slaves, when the truth is, that they never gave freedom to the African race, and but two of their StatesConnecticut and Rhode Island-enacted laws of territorial abolition affecting only unborn generations. Massachusetts, the greatest braggart of them all, has never done anything in the matter; nor has Maine, New Hampshire, nor Vermont. The erroneous impression in reference to the 'philanthropy' of Massachusetts has been induced by the knowledge that at the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution in 1789 she was the only State of the thirteen without slaves. By an official census taken in 1754 she possessed 4,896, one-half of whom were over 16 years of age, and their owners were not 200 VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, ETC. permitted to manumit them without giving security that they should not become a burden upon the parish; the greater portion were, however, sent to the other colonies, and the advertisements in the Boston newspapers of that date prove that the young negroes were given away during infancy to the neighbouring colonies who would take them as slaves, so that the labour of the mothers might not be lost: hence the first census of the United States, taken in 1790, does not record a single slave; that of 1830 notices the fact of one person being held in bondage, who was probably taken there as a private servant from some other State. The first slave ship fitted out in the English colonies sailed from Boston in 1648. Maine holds precisely the same position in regard to the negro race as Massachusetts; her people, who had been deserted by the Commissioners appointed to govern them, united themselves with that colony in 1652, but their action was not confirmed by the Crown until 1691, Massachusetts having in the meanwhile purchased the proprietaries right; the political co-partnership continued until March 15, 1820, when Maine was admitted as an independent State into the Federal Union. The census of 1830 records two slaves within her borders. The laws of Vermont also seem to be silent on the subject of slavery. The political situation of this State had been very singular; she was not represented in the Revolutionary Congress, nor was she recognised as an independent commonwealth by Great Britain. She applied for admission into the Union, but New York and New Hampshire both claimed control over her territory, and it was only upon the threat of her people to place themselves again under the dominion of the British throne that she was permitted to subscribe to the Federal compact on March 4, 1791. The census taken in 1790 reports seventeen slaves within her limits. The statute books of New Hampshire are equally dumb in reference to emancipation or abolition in any shape; the census acknowledges 158 slaves in 1790, 8 in 1800, 3 in 1830, and 1 in 1840. Rhode Island adopted a plan of gradual abolition, by declaring that all slaves born in that State after March 1, 1784, should be free. Her census figures stand thus:-952 in 1790, 381 in 1800, 108 in 1810, 48 in 1820, 17 in 1830, and 5 in 1840. In proportion to the size of this State she was very largely engaged in the slave trade, having fifty-four vessels employed in that traffic when the Act of Prohibition took effect, January 1, 1808. Connecticut passed laws at the same time similar to those of Rhode Island: her slave population was 2,759 in 1790, 951 in 1800, 310 in 1810, 97 in 1820, 25 in 1830, and 17 in 1840. It must not be forgotten, too, that Massachusetts was the first State to formally recognise 'property in man,' and has never rescinded the code of rights styled fundamentals,' adopted as early as 1641, wherein the lawfulness of Indian as well as negro slavery and the African slave trade is approved. African slaves, however, have always been held under common law; they were not stolen by the English from the coast of Africa, as has been alleged, but regularly purchased from their owners in that country when the traffic was as legal as any other branch of commerce. In 1650 Connecticut passed laws causing Indians who failed to make satisfaction for injuries to be seized, either to serve or to be shipped out and exchanged for negroes, as the case will justly bear.' Rhode Island joined in the general habit of the day, with the exception of the town of Providence. The community of the heretical Roger Williams alone placed the services of the black and white races on the same footing. Having shown the position of the Yankee States in reference to slavery, a sketch of the institution in the other 'Free States' will be next in order. 6 New York, for the first time, in 1799, passed an Act making free the future issue of her slaves after the males had attained 28, and the females 25 years. Another law was adopted in 1817, declaring them free on the 4th of July, 1827. She held within her borders 21,344 in 1790, 20,343 in 1800, 15,017 in 1810, 10,088 in 1820, 75 in 1830, and 4 in 1840. In 1784, New Jersey enacted laws for the prospective extinction of slavery-viz.: that all children born after July 4, 1804, should be free. Her slave population was 11,423 in 1790, 12,422 in 1800, 10,851 in 1810, 7,557 in 1820, 2,254 in 1830, 674 in 1840, 236 in 1850, and 18 in 1860. As early as 1780 Pennsylvania provided for gradual abolition ; all slaves born after that time were to become free at the age of 28 years. Her census stood as follows:-3,737 in 1790, 1,706 in 1800, 795 in 1810, 211 in 1820, 403 in 1830, 64 in 1840. The Constitution of this State, adopted in 1838, does not prohibit slavery; her Legislature can, therefore, make her a slaveholding State at any time. New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania are classed as middle States. In 1626 importations of slaves commenced at New York; the city itself owned shares in a slave ship, advanced money for its outfit, and participated in the profits. The slaves were sold at auction to the highest bidder, and the average price was about $140. The Governor was instructed to use every exertion to promote the sale of negroes. Bancroft, the great Yankee historian, remarks-that New York is not a 'slave State like South Carolina, is due to climate, and not to the superior humanity of its founders.' The slaves constituted one-sixth of the population of the city of New York in 1750. New Jersey was dismembered from New York when New Netherlands was conquered by England in 1664. The next year a bounty of seventy-five acres of land was offered by the proprietaries for the importation of each able-bodied slave. This was, doubtless, done in part to gain favour with the Duke of York, then President of the African Company. The Quakers of Pennsylvania did not entirely eschew the holding of negro slaves. William Penn himself was a slaveholder. He, in 1699, proposed to provide for the marriage, religious instruction, ' and kind treatment of slaves;' but the Legislature vouchsafed no response to his recommendation. In 1712, to a general petition for the emancipation of negro slaves by law, the answer of the same body was, 'it is neither just nor convenient to set 'them at liberty.' Slaves, however, were never numerous in Pennsylvania: and as that species of property did not 'pay,' manumissions were frequent. The larger portion were to be found in Philadelphia, one-fourth of the population of which city, in 1750, are supposed to have been of African descent. 6 The States of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and that part of Minnesota east of the Mississippi, were formed out of the north-western territory ceded to the United States, under the Articles of Confederation, in 1784, by the State of 6 any 6 Virginia. In that year Mr. Jefferson submitted to Congress a report for its organisation into five States, with the following proposition: That after the year 1800 of the Christian era 'there should be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in of the said States.' This clause was, however, rejected because it did not provide for the recovery of fugitives from service. In 1787 it was again presented and passed in the following shape: There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary 'servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment ' of crimes whereof the parties shall be duly convicted;' and that any person escaping into the same, from whom labour or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, 'such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the 'person claiming his or her labour or service as aforesaid.' This ordinance' was adopted in the month of July during the sitting of Congress at New York. At the same time, the Convention that framed the Federal Constitution, consisting of delegates from twelve States, Rhode Island being unrepresented, was holding its meetings at Philadelphia. Virginia, and not the Northern States, was the cause of the restriction in relation to slavery in the north-western territory, but its climate was hostile to that kind of labour, as events have proved. The States, as independent sovereignties, have a right to hold slaves if they deem proper. Article IV. section 2, of the Constitution, says: The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' A 'coloured' person, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, cannot be a citizen of the United States. Ohio had 6 slaves in 1830, and 3 in 1840. Indiana possessed 135 in 1800, 237 in 1810, 190 in 1820, 3 in 1830, and 3 in 1840. Illinois contained 168 in 1810, 917 in 1820, 747 in 1830, 331 in 1840. Michigan held 24 in 1810, and 32 in 1830; and Wisconsin, 11 in 1840. The only other Free States' are Iowa and Minnesota, west of the Mississippi-in the former State there were 16 slaves in 1840--and California and Oregon, that never had persons held to labour.' It will thus be seen that the cry of abolition or emancipation by the Northerners is pure hypocrisy. Most of their slaves were sent to the South, and 'philanthropy' in the matter is a |