15. General Character of these Restrictions. The main difference in motive between the restrictions which the planting and the farming colonies put on the African slave-trade, lay in the fact that the former limited it mainly from fear of insurrection, the latter mainly because it did not pay.  Naturally, the latter motive worked itself out with much less legislation than the former; for this reason, and because they held a smaller number of slaves, most of these colonies have fewer actual statutes than the Southern colonies.  In Pennsylvania alone did this general economic revolt against the trade acquire a distinct moral tinge.  Although even here the institution was naturally doomed, yet the clear moral insight of the Quakers checked the trade much earlier than would otherwise have happened.  We may say, then, that the farming colonies checked the slave-trade primarily from economic motives.

FOOTNOTES: 

  [1] Smith, Generall Historie of Virginia (1626 and 1632), p. 126.

  [2] Cf.  Southey, History of Brazil.

  [3] De Laet, in O’Callaghan, Voyages of the Slavers, etc., p. viii.

  [4] See, e.g., Sainsbury, Cal.  State Papers; Col.  Ser.,
      America and W. Indies, 1574-1660, p. 279.

  [5] Cf. below, pp. 27, 32, notes; also Freedoms, XXX., in
      O’Callaghan, Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74 (ed. 1868), p.
      10; Brodhead, History of New York, I. 312.

  [6] The following is a summary of the legislation of the
      colony of New York; details will be found in Appendix A:—­

        1709, Duty Act:  L3 on Negroes not direct from Africa
               (Continued by the Acts of 1710, 1711).
        1711, Bill to lay further duty, lost in Council.
        1716, Duty Act:  5 oz. plate on Africans in colony ships.
                        10 oz. plate on Africans in other ships.
        1728, " " 40_s._ on Africans, L4 on colonial Negroes.
        1732, " " 40_s._ on Africans, L4 on colonial Negroes.
        1734, " " (?)
        1753, " " 40_s._ on Africans, L4 on colonial Negroes. 
                (This act was annually continued.)
       [1777, Vermont Constitution does not recognize slavery.]
        1785, Sale of slaves in State prohibited.
       [1786, " " in Vermont prohibited.]
        1788, " " in State prohibited.

  [7] O’Callaghan, Laws of New Netherland, 1638-74, pp. 31,
      348, etc.  The colonists themselves were encouraged to trade,
      but the terms were not favorable enough:  Doc. rel.  Col.  Hist. 
      New York, I. 246; Laws of New Netherland, pp. 81-2, note,
      127.  The colonists declared “that they are inclined to a
      foreign Trade, and especially to the Coast of Africa, ... in
      order to fetch thence Slaves”:  O’Callaghan, Voyages of the
      Slavers, etc., p. 172.