Islands, or other place beyond sea” to enter for two years.  This act continued to be extended, although with lessening penalties, until 1803.[5] The home demand in view of the probable stoppage of the trade in 1808, the speculative chances of the new Louisiana Territory trade, and the large already existing illicit traffic combined in that year to cause the passage of an act, December 17, reopening the African slave-trade, although still carefully excluding “West India” Negroes.[6] This action profoundly stirred the Union, aroused anti-slavery sentiment, led to a concerted movement for a constitutional amendment, and, failing in this, to an irresistible demand for a national prohibitory act at the earliest constitutional moment.

North Carolina had repealed her prohibitory duty act in 1790,[7] but in 1794 she passed an “Act to prevent further importation and bringing of slaves,” etc.[8] Even the body-servants of West India immigrants and, naturally, all free Negroes, were eventually prohibited.[9]

42. Legislation of the Border States. The Border States, Virginia and Maryland, strengthened their non-importation laws, Virginia freeing illegally imported Negroes,[10] and Maryland prohibiting even the interstate trade.[11] The Middle States took action chiefly in the final abolition of slavery within their borders, and the prevention of the fitting out of slaving vessels in their ports.  Delaware declared, in her Act of 1789, that “it is inconsistent with that spirit of general liberty which pervades the constitution of this state, that vessels should be fitted out, or equipped, in any of the ports thereof, for the purpose of receiving and transporting the natives of Africa to places where they are held in slavery,"[12] and forbade such a practice under penalty of L500 for each person so engaged.  The Pennsylvania Act of 1788[13] had similar provisions, with a penalty of L1000; and New Jersey followed with an act in 1798.[14]

43. Legislation of the Eastern States. In the Eastern States, where slavery as an institution was already nearly defunct, action was aimed toward stopping the notorious participation of citizens in the slave-trade outside the State.  The prime movers were the Rhode Island Quakers.  Having early secured a law against the traffic in their own State, they turned their attention to others.  Through their remonstrances Connecticut, in 1788,[15] prohibited participation in the trade by a fine of L500 on the vessel, L50 on each slave, and loss of insurance; this act was strengthened in 1792,[16] the year after the Haytian revolt.  Massachusetts, after many fruitless attempts, finally took advantage of an unusually bold case of kidnapping, and passed a similar act in 1788.[17] “This,” says Belknap, “was the utmost which could be done by our legislatures; we still have to regret the impossibility of making a law here, which shall restrain our citizens from carrying on this trade in foreign bottoms, and from committing the crimes which this act prohibits, in foreign countries, as it is said some of them have done since the enacting of these laws."[18]