of repeal, and the Senate bill was passed.  On the test vote the ayes were 55 and the noes 46.[17] The act continued the exclusion of West Indian negroes, and provided that slaves brought in from sister states of the Union must have official certificates of good character; but as to the African trade it removed all restrictions.  In 1805 a bill to prohibit imports again was introduced into the legislature, but after debate it was defeated.[18]

[Footnote 16:  Ibid., Dec. 20, 1803.]

[Footnote 17:  Charleston City Gazette, Dec. 22, 1803.]

[Footnote 18:  “Diary of Edward Hooker” in the American Historical Association Report for 1896, p. 878.]

The local effect of the repeal is indicated in the experience of E.S.  Thomas, a Charleston bookseller of the time who in high prosperity had just opened a new importation of fifty thousand volumes.  As he wrote in after years, the news that the legislature had reopened the slave trade “had not been five hours in the city, before two large British Guineamen, that had been lying on and off the port for several days expecting it, came up to town; and from that day my business began to decline....  A great change at once took place in everything.  Vessels were fitted out in numbers for the coast of Africa, and as fast as they returned their cargoes were bought up with avidity, not only consuming the large funds that had been accumulating, but all that could be procured, and finally exhausting credit and mortgaging the slaves for payment....  For myself, I was upwards of five years disposing of my large stock, at a sacrifice of more than a half, in all the principal towns from Augusta in Georgia to Boston."[19]

[Footnote 19:  E.S.  Thomas, Reminiscences, II, 35, 36.]

As reported at the end of the period, the importations amounted to 5386 slaves in 1804; 6790 in 1805; 11,458 in 1806; and 15,676 in 1807.[20] Senator William Smith of South Carolina upon examining the records at a later time placed the total at 39,310, and analysed the statistics as follows:  slaves brought by British vessels, 19,449; by French vessels, 1078; by American vessels, operated mostly for the account of Rhode Islanders and foreigners, 18,048.[21] If an influx no greater than this could produce the effect which Thomas described, notwithstanding that many of the slaves were immediately reshipped to New Orleans and many more were almost as promptly sold into the distant interior, the scale of the preceding illicit trade must have been far less than the official statements and the apologies in Congress would indicate.

[Footnote 20:  Virginia Argus, Jan. 19, 1808.]

[Footnote 21:  Annals of Congress, 1821-1822, pp. 73-77.]