Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The full text of the King's slavery veto
PGA Weblog ^

Posted on 08/04/2021 1:37:20 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica

In my most recent prior post I referenced two things: The Wrong of Slavery, the Right of Emancipation, and the future of the African race in the United States - this book(and audiobook) is strongly related to the final report of the Freedmen's Inquiry Commission and bears many likenesses to the text.(source) Additionally: George Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. VI.

All I want to do here is give you the full text of the order from the King's own hand so you can read it for yourself. On December 10th, 1770, here was the order given by King George III:

947. No Additional Duties on Slaves in Virginia

Whereas at a general assembly begun and held in our city of Williamsburg in our colony and dominion of Virginia on the seventh day of November in the tenth year of our reign, two laws were framed and enacted by our governor, council, and House of Burgesses of our said colony and dominion of Virginia, entitled An Act for Laying an Additional Duty upon Slaves Imported into This Colony, and the other An Act for the Better Support of the Contingent Charges of Government, by which said laws additional duties, amounting to fifteen per cent were imposed upon every purchase of slaves imported or brought into that colony over and above a duty of ten per cent payable by former laws then in force; and whereas it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony; whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation. It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future, without our royal permission first obtained, to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported, imposed by the last mentioned law, shall be further continued or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony, payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769, shall upon any pretense be increased or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

Virginia: (§939); Dec. 10, 1770.

Source: Royal Instructions To British Colonial Governors 1670 - 1776 Volume II, page 679.(counted as page 232)


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: 1619project; slavery; veto

1 posted on 08/04/2021 1:37:20 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ebshumidors; nicollo; Kalam; IYAS9YAS; laplata; mvonfr; Southside_Chicago_Republican; celmak; ...

Finally found it! I have searched well over a dozen times for this, and finally found the correct keyword search that brought it up for me.


2 posted on 08/04/2021 1:38:31 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (Public meetings are superior to newspapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Darn.
Is is so hard to say “No. I am the King and you’re not allowed to do that.”


3 posted on 08/04/2021 1:40:18 PM PDT by Little Ray (Civilization runs on a narrow margin. What sustains it is not magic, but hard work. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

bkmk


4 posted on 08/04/2021 1:41:29 PM PDT by sauropod (Amateurs built the ark; Professionals built the Titanic. Anon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x; loveliberty2; DiogenesLamp; Chewbarkah; enumerated

Ping to prior discussions context - or, recently you found my last post interesting so you might have wanted where to find the original source.


5 posted on 08/04/2021 1:41:42 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica (Public meetings are superior to newspapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray

LAs clear as a 2000+ page infrastructure bill!


6 posted on 08/04/2021 1:44:53 PM PDT by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Little Ray
Is is so hard to say “No. I am the King and you’re not allowed to do that.”

Actually, that is probably a near quote of what he did say! What you read is what the Barristers (lawyers) etc. made of it! Remember lawyers are (usually) paid by their output and brevity is not a virtue!

7 posted on 08/04/2021 1:48:11 PM PDT by SES1066 (Ask not what the LEFT can do for you, rather ask what the LEFT is doing to YOU!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SES1066

I have to say that it covered most of the particulars and would be hard for legal weasel to twist. But, geez, that language.


8 posted on 08/04/2021 2:03:40 PM PDT by Little Ray (Civilization runs on a narrow margin. What sustains it is not magic, but hard work. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Great job finding and posting this. Thank you for your efforts.

“...an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony;”

Breaking this down and translating, George III or whoever does the thinking for him, asserts:
1) Raising taxes on slaves will reduce demand and thus commerce (commerce in slaves is obvious; overall commerce as well?).
2) More slaves automatically equate to raising Virginia’s output and “improvement” (presumably more land clearance, farm production, buildings, roads).

Proposition 1 is obviously true.
Proposition 2 places the judgement for those “afar” above those “on the scene”. If more slave labor would result in more output and profits, presumably, VA’s slave-owning elite and governor would know that, and desire it. Did the Crown believe the planter elite was a) ignorant of their own interests, or b) had ulterior motives (e.g.: Depriving rising men the slave labor requisite to developing western lands, and thus becoming rivals for power within the colony?; Increasing the value of their existing slave inventory by limiting supply?). Or was the Crown’s interest merely in maintaining the profits of royal cronies in the slave trade? Are the identities of such traders and the value of their slave commerce in 1770 known? How much did they stand to lose?

Presumably the buyers bore the effect of higher taxes on imported slaves, but I’d be curious to know who literally paid the tax revenue (the seller?), when (were slaves valued and taxed at arrival or at sale?), and who received the revenue (the colonial government or the Crown’s tax collectors?). The Crown was hungry for taxes in this period.


9 posted on 08/04/2021 2:43:37 PM PDT by Chewbarkah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Gotta love the royal “we” — if anything should have been rebelled against, it’s that one.

I have to teach it to students who don’t even know the expression “the royal we”. Those who have heard it have no clue what it actually means, much less the Declaration’s annulment of it.


10 posted on 08/04/2021 3:29:56 PM PDT by nicollo (I said no!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Not sure that this order says what it has been purported to say !

Seems to be a dispute over WHO can raise taxes, and who can collect them.


947. No Additional Duties on Slaves in Virginia
Whereas at a general assembly begun and held in our city of Williamsburg in our colony and dominion of Virginia on the seventh day of November in the tenth year of our reign, two laws were framed and enacted by our governor, council, and House of Burgesses of our said colony and dominion of Virginia, entitled

An Act for Laying an Additional Duty upon Slaves Imported into This Colony, and the other

An Act for the Better Support of the Contingent Charges of Government,

by which said laws additional duties,

amounting to fifteen per cent were imposed upon every purchase of slaves imported or brought into that colony over and above a duty of ten per cent payable by former laws then in force;

and whereas it hath been represented to us that so considerable an increase upon the duties of slaves imported into our colony of Virginia will have the effect to prejudice and obstruct as well the commerce of this kingdom as the cultivation and improvement of the said colony;

whereupon we have thought fit to disallow the first mentioned of the laws, leaving the other, which is of short duration, to expire by its own limitation.

It is therefore our will and pleasure that you do not upon pain of our highest displeasure give your assent for the future,

without our royal permission first obtained,

to any law or laws by which the additional duty of five per cent upon slaves imported,

imposed by the last mentioned law,

shall be further continued

or to any laws whatever by which the duties of ten per cent upon slaves imported into our said colony,

payable by laws passed antecedent to the seventh day of November, 1769,

shall upon any pretense be increased

or by which the importation of slaves shall be in any respect prohibited or obstructed.

Virginia: (§939); Dec. 10, 1770.


11 posted on 08/04/2021 3:56:49 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

bump


12 posted on 08/04/2021 4:07:49 PM PDT by Albion Wilde ("Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late." —Bob Dylan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica
Finally found it! I have searched well over a dozen times for this, and finally found the correct keyword search that brought it up for me.

I congratulate you on your research. I too have experienced the exhilaration of finally tracking down a statement or a document I was looking for.

I think debate is better served when people go to the trouble to look up their own primary sources.

13 posted on 08/05/2021 11:29:44 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ProgressingAmerica

Damn, you are effing amazing ...
a treasure on FR for sure ...
thanks ...


14 posted on 08/06/2021 8:22:26 AM PDT by Weirdad (Orthodox Americanism: It's what's good for the world! (Not communofascism!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson