were in addition to this; so that by such cumulative duties the rate on slaves reached 25% in 1755,[28] and 35% at the time of Braddock’s expedition.[29] These acts were found “very burthensome,” “introductive of many frauds,” and “very inconvenient,"[30] and were so far repealed that by 1761 the duty was only 15%.  As now the Burgesses became more powerful, two or more bills proposing restrictive duties were passed, but disallowed.[31] By 1772 the anti-slave-trade feeling had become considerably developed, and the Burgesses petitioned the king, declaring that “The importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of Africa hath long been considered as a trade of great inhumanity, and under its present encouragement, we have too much reason to fear will endanger the very existence of your Majesty’s American dominions....  Deeply impressed with these sentiments, we most humbly beseech your Majesty to remove all those restraints on your Majesty’s governors of this colony, which inhibit their assenting to such laws as might check so very pernicious a commerce."[32]

Nothing further appears to have been done before the war.  When, in 1776, the delegates adopted a Frame of Government, it was charged in this document that the king had perverted his high office into a “detestable and insupportable tyranny, by ... prompting our negroes to rise in arms among us, those very negroes whom, by an inhuman use of his negative, he hath refused us permission to exclude by law."[33] Two years later, in 1778, an “Act to prevent the further importation of Slaves” stopped definitively the legal slave-trade to Virginia.[34]

8. Restrictions in Maryland.[35] Not until the impulse of the Assiento had been felt in America, did Maryland make any attempt to restrain a trade from which she had long enjoyed a comfortable revenue.  The Act of 1717, laying a duty of 40_s._,[36] may have been a mild restrictive measure.  The duties were slowly increased to 50_s._ in 1754,[37] and L4. in 1763.[38] In 1771 a prohibitive duty of L9 was laid;[39] and in 1783, after the war, all importation by sea was stopped and illegally imported Negroes were freed.[40]

Compared with the trade to Virginia and the Carolinas, the slave-trade to Maryland was small, and seems at no time to have reached proportions which alarmed the inhabitants.  It was regulated to the economic demand by a slowly increasing tariff, and finally, after 1769, had nearly ceased of its own accord before the restrictive legislation of Revolutionary times.[41] Probably the proximity of Maryland to Virginia made an independent slave-trade less necessary to her.

9. General Character of these Restrictions. We find in the planting colonies all degrees of advocacy of the trade, from the passiveness of Maryland to the clamor of Georgia.  Opposition to the trade did not appear in Georgia, was based almost solely on political fear of insurrection in Carolina, and sprang largely from the same motive in Virginia, mingled with some moral repugnance.  As a whole, it may be said that whatever opposition to the slave-trade there was in the planting colonies was based principally on the political fear of insurrection.