Replies

The author is more right than the Smithsonian, but he is overstating the case by calling the Virginia laws “abolitionist”. They were laws aimed at suppressing or (later) banning the international slave trade into Virginia. They did not propose to abolish (or even limit the practice of) slavery itself.

A more nuanced view is found here:

https://allthingsliberty.com/2020/09/the-first-efforts-to-limit-the-african-slave-trade-arise-in-the-american-revolution-part-2-of-3-the-middle-and-southern-colonies/

Thanks for the great link. To state it plainly, the Virginia law was not outright abolitionist. The line I wrote above that I figured might be troublesome was this:

Laws such as the one which was vetoed, referenced above, this was happening all over the colonies in the 1770s. This wasn't a one time thing.

My intended focus was "This isn't a one time thing." Pennsylvania passed laws very similar to this Virginia law raising taxes to put a stop to slave trading, following a campaign(I forget some of the details at the moment) by prominent abolitionist Anthony Benezet and Benjamin Rush. Benezet, as you may know, was promoted by Ben Franklin. Of course, the law was vetoed by the Royalist governor.

As an aside, putting a stop to the slave trade instead of slavery is actually where the abolitionists were at in those days.

Massachusetts did pass an outright abolition of the slave trade around the same time period, in the 1770s, and it was vetoed by the Royal governor. Rhode Island also passed an abolitionist law in the 1770s, written by one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.

And yes, I did intend "This isn't a one time thing" both in the context of laws passed as well as vetoes received. Most of the laws that I am aware of passed the colonial legislatures - this is what the people wanted. It was the King and the King's men who didn't want it in the pre-revolutionary era. The crown wanted slavery to stay in place.

Sure, the Virginia laws were not “abolitionist” but even so, had those laws gone into effect, they would have set a standard and an outcome that would have diminished the impact of slavery on the rest of American history.

The number of imported slaves into the U.S. between 1770 and 1809 was about 160,000 (with 64,000 coming between 1801-1810), without which the overall number of slaves by 1860 would have been significantly less than the actual 3.5mm (I’m guessing those 160,000 led to an additional 500,000 slaves born by 1860)

More importantly, the proposed taxes and any subsequent, quotas or outright bans by Virginia on the slave trade would have justified more of the same; instead, by vetoing it, the King did the opposite and justified the expansion of slavery instead.