That's very strange to see a book review from 1835 of a book series first published (as far as I can tell) in 1859. This considering the book's 10 volume series kept running well after a decade later, since time machines hadn't been invented in the 1830's, but it doesn't matter. I'm no fan of any one historian since they all say the same thing. Here is Alan Taylor in his
The Internal Enemy: Slavery and War in Virginia, 1772-1832.
To discourage more slave imports, the colony's legislature levied a heavy tax, but the imperial government vetoed it in defense of the interests of British traders.
Knowing where to look, I could do this all day. A lot of historians have confirmed this. I'm on solid ground. And even without the historians I can still do it, I've got the original sources in hand.
"Now why would the colonial government of Virginia want to make it more expensive to import African slaves?"
Ask them, don't ask me, I have no interpretation for you to assail and take out of context; or impugn in light of some historian you have a personal grudge against. The Virginians living in 1772 will tell you. Ask the Virginians from 1772, what is their answer? Humanitarianism
https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.001_0169_0169/
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.
That's the beauty of this particular situation. Virginia passed the law. The King vetoed it. Virginia replied, begging the King to do the right thing. It was a three phase process, and we have all of it, right here in black and white text to look at. And again, Virginia was not the only colony who faced this garbage.
There is a very curious unwillingness to admit that the empire might have actually treated us badly. Maybe I'm the oddball who actually reads the Declaration of Independence from top to bottom in the beginning of July, including all the grievances. You know in my wacky pro-American jingoism and all that. If that's just me, that's fine. I will always put America first. What's wrong with that?
Yes. Britain treated us badly. Very badly. All I care about is what the historians are saying, and in particular what the original sources are saying. Don't misunderstand - It's not that the historians validate the documents, it's that the documents validate the historians. Your Bancroft navel gazing isn't necessary, I'm not a fan as I said. But he could've been a liar about everything on every page - this one is validated. It's confirmed. So, that's it. Now if there is something I am a fan of, it's this letter from the Library of Congress from the 1772 Virginians. THAT is a beautiful sight indeed. I'd suggest you print out the letter and frame it on your wall. It's only one page, it's a very short read. Want an mp3? I got that too.
Why is it so terribly difficult to accept that Americans were abolitionist in the transatlantic diaspora context before the British were when all the facts say that that's undeniably true?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-XJcYxRziE
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
The book review in question was of Volume I; from what I've been able to ascertain, Bancroft published it originally in 1834. You may be referencing a later edition.
That's the beauty of this particular situation. Virginia passed the law. The King vetoed it. Virginia replied, begging the King to do the right thing. It was a three phase process, and we have all of it, right here in black and white text to look at. And again, Virginia was not the only colony who faced this garbage.
I have not stated one whit about the characterization of the slave trade.
What I found odd was that you decried modern historians for "playing the race card" when the same source you relied upon regarding the slave trade (inhumane as it was) likewise stated that their opposition to it was also rooted in preference for whites over blacks. (And all the other primary sources pulled by woodpusher more than suffice to validate this sentiment.)
Even as tensions over slavery grew through the antebellum years, prominent voices in the North and South likewise showed a general preference for one race over another.
It is true that many Founders were opposed to the slave trade for moral reasons. It is also true that many of the same retained their slaves after slipping free of Great Britain after the Revolution (at which point maintaining that the British Crown still imposed the institution upon them becomes a nonsensical proposition).
It is also true that many of these Founders openly disclosed a preference for white folk (or people of European stock in general) over that of black folk from Africa.
These are not mutually exclusive positions.