in 1682 the depression which for nearly a quarter of a century had gripped the tobacco trade, somewhat abruptly came to an end. "our only commodity, tobacco, having the last winter a pretty quick market, hath encouraged ye planters," wrote secretary spencer to the board of trade in may, 1683.[7-1] apparently the tide had turned. from this time until the beginning of the war of the spanish succession more than two decades later we hear little complaint from virginia, while there are excellent reasons to suppose that the colony was experiencing a period of growth and prosperity.
in truth the tobacco trade, upon which the planters staked their all, now expanded with startling rapidity, and each year the merchants were forced to add more bottoms to the fleet which sailed for england from the chesapeake. during the early years of the restoration period tobacco exports from virginia and maryland had made but little advance. in 1663 they amounted to 7,367,140 pounds, six years later they were 9,026,046 pounds.[7-2] in 1698, however, the output of virginia and maryland was estimated by the merchant john linton to be from 70,000 to 80,000 hogsheads.[7-4] since the hogshead usually contained from 500 to 600 pounds, these figures mean that the planters were then raising from 35,000,000 to 48,000,000 pounds of tobacco. and this conclusion is supported by the fact that the crop of 1699 is valued at ￡198,115, which at a penny a pound would indicate about 47,000,000 pounds.[7-5] in fact, the production of tobacco in the ten years from 1689[116] to 1699 seems to have tripled, in the years from 1669 to 1699 to have quadrupled. in 1669 the planters considered themselves fortunate if their industry yielded them a return of ￡30,000; at the end of the century they could count with a fair degree of certainty upon six times that amount.
for virginia this startling development was all-important. during the darkest days of the restoration period her share of the total returns from the tobacco crop could hardly have exceeded ￡10,000; in 1699 it was estimated at ￡100,000. even if we accept the conservative statement that the average number of hogsheads exported from virginia in the last decade of the century varied from 35,000 to 40,000,[7-6] the planters still would have received ￡75,000 or ￡80,000. from dire poverty and distress the colony, almost in the twinkling of an eye, found itself in comparative ease and plenty.
nor is the reason difficult to discover. it had never been the intention of the british government to destroy the foreign trade of the colonies, the navigation acts having been designed only to force that trade through english channels. the planters were still at liberty to send their tobacco where they would, provided it went by way of england and paid the duty of a half penny a pound. that these restrictions so nearly put an end to shipments to the continent of europe was an unfortunate consequence which to some extent had been foreseen, but which for the time being it was impossible to avoid.
it was undoubtedly the hope of the government that the foreign market would eventually be regained and that the colonial tobacco would flow from the colonies into england and from england to all the countries of europe. prior to 1660 holland had been the distributing centre for the tobacco of virginia and maryland; now england insisted upon taking this r?le upon herself. but the authorities at london were hardly less concerned than the planters themselves at the[117] difficulties encountered in effecting this change and the unfortunate glut in the home markets which followed.
none the less they persisted in the policy they had adopted, even clinging stubbornly to the half penny a pound re-export duty, and trusting that in time they could succeed in conquering for their tobacco the lost continental markets. in this they were bitterly opposed by the dutch with whom it became necessary to fight two wars within the short space of seven years. yet steadily, although at first slowly, they made headway. in 1681 the commissioners of the customs refused the request for a cessation of tobacco planting in the colonies, on the ground that to lessen the crop would but stimulate production in foreign countries and so restrict the sale abroad of the virginia and maryland leaf.[7-7] this argument has been denounced by some as both specious and selfish, yet it was fully justified by the situation then existing. after all, the only hope for the planters lay in conquering the european market and the way to do this was to flood england with tobacco until it overflowed all artificial barriers and poured across the channel. and eventually this is just what happened. since tobacco was piling up uselessly in the warehouses and much of it could not be disposed of at any price, it was inevitable that it should be dumped upon the other nations of europe. there is in this development a close parallel with the commercial policy of germany in the years prior to the world war, when no effort was spared to produce a margin of all kinds of wares over the home needs, which was to be exported at excessively low prices. this margin was a weapon of conquest, a means of ousting the merchants of other nations from this market or that. and when once this conquest had been effected, the price could be raised again in order to assure a profit to the german manufacturers.
[118]
it is improbable that the english economists of the seventeenth century, like those of modern germany, had foreseen exactly what would happen, but the results were none the less similar. when once the english leaf had secured a strong hold upon the baltic and upon france and spain, it was a matter of the greatest difficulty to oust it, especially as the ever increasing influx of slaves made it possible for the planters to meet the lower prices of foreign competitors and still clear a profit. thus it was that during the years from 1680 to 1708 the chesapeake tobacco succeeded in surmounting all the difficulties placed in its way by the navigation acts, the necessity of the double voyage, the re-export duty of a half penny a pound, and so gradually flooded the continental market.
it is unfortunate that figures for re-exported tobacco during the earlier years of the restoration period are lacking. in 1688, however, it is stated that the duty of a half penny a pound was yielding the crown an annual revenue of ￡15,000, which would indicate that about 7,200,000 pounds were leaving for foreign ports.[7-8] ten years later, if we may believe the testimony of john linton, exports of tobacco totalled 50,000 or 60,000 hogsheads, or from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 pounds. not more than a fourth of the colonial leaf, he tells us, was consumed in england itself.[7-9] once more virginia and maryland were producing tobacco for all europe, once more they enjoyed a world market.
this trade was extended from one end of the continent to the other. vessels laden with american tobacco found their way not only to the ports of france and holland and spain, but even to the distant cities of sweden and russia.[7-10] the baltic trade alone amounted to from 5,000 to 10,000 hogsheads, and added from ￡10,000 to ￡24,000 to the income of the planters. the chief russian port of entry was narva,[119] which took annually some 500 hogsheads, but large quantities were shipped also to riga and raval.[7-11] the northern nations bought the cheaper varieties, for no tobacco could be too strong for the hardy men of sweden and russia.
the trade was of great importance to england, as the leaf, after it had gone through the process of manufacture, sold for about six pence a pound, yielding to the nation in all from ￡60,000 to ￡130,000.[7-12] as the english were still largely dependent upon the baltic for potash and ship stores, this constituted a most welcome addition to the balance of trade. to the colonies also it was vital, carrying off a large part of the annual crop, and so tending to sustain prices.
france, too, proved a good customer for english tobacco, and in the years prior to the war of the spanish succession took annually from 8,000 to 10,000 hogsheads, or from 4,000,000 to 6,000,000 pounds.[7-13] micajah perry reported to the lords of trade that from 6,000 to 10,000 hogsheads went to france from london alone, while a very considerable amount was sent also from other ports.[7-14]
far more surprising is the fact that even spain consumed millions of pounds of english leaf. with her own colonies producing the best tobacco in the world and in the face of its practical exclusion from the english market, it is strange that the government at madrid should have permitted this commerce to continue. the obvious course for the spaniards under the economic theories of the day would have been to exclude english tobacco, both in order to protect their own planters and to retaliate for the restrictions upon their product. yet it is estimated that from 6,000 to 10,000 hogsheads entered spain each year.[7-15] a pamphlet published in 1708 entitled the present state of tobacco plantations in america stated that before the outbreak of the war then raging, france and spain together had taken annually about 20,000 hogsheads.[7-16]
[120]
the dutch, too, despite their bitter rivalry with the british, found it impossible to do without virginia tobacco. purchasing the finest bright orinoco, they mixed it with leaf of their own growth in the proportion of one to four, and sold it to other european nations. in this way they sought to retain their position as a distributing center for the trade and to give employment to hundreds of poor workers. in all the dutch seem to have purchased from england about 5,000 hogsheads a year.[7-17]
the enhanced importance of the tobacco trade is reflected in a steady increase of british exports to virginia and maryland. the planters, now that they found it possible to market their leaf, laid out the proceeds in the manufactured products of england. at the end of the seventeenth century the two colonies were importing goods to the value of ￡200,000 annually. in 1698, which was an exceptionally good year, their purchases were no less than ￡310,133.[7-18]
in short the tobacco colonies had at last found their proper place in the british colonial system. both they and the mother country, after long years of experimentation, years of misfortune and recrimination, had reached a common ground upon which to stand. although maryland and virginia still fell short of the ideal set for the british colonies, although they failed to furnish the raw stuffs so urgently needed by the home industries, at least they yielded a product which added materially to shipping, weighed heavily in the balance of trade and brought a welcome revenue to the royal exchequer.
the crown reaped a rich return from tobacco, a return which grew not only with the expansion of the trade, but by the imposition from time to time of heavier duties. in the period from 1660 to 1685, when the tariff remained at[121] two pence a pound, the yield must have varied from ￡75,000 to ￡100,000. if we assume that the average consumption in england was 9,000,000 pounds and the average exports 3,000,000 the total revenue would have been ￡81,250. in 1685, however, an additional duty of three pence a pound was placed upon tobacco upon its arrival in england, all of which was refunded when the product was re-exported. in 1688, when the tobacco consumed in england was 8,328,800 pounds, the old and new duties, amounting in all to five pence, must have yielded ￡173,515. when to this is added ￡15,000 from the half penny a pound on the 7,200,000 pounds of leaf sent abroad, the total reaches ￡188,515.
in 1698 still another penny a pound was added to the tax, making a grand total of six pence on colonial tobacco disposed of in england. this new duty, together with the rapid increase in the foreign trade, enriched the exchequer by another ￡100,000. in 1699, if we assume that 12,000,000 pounds were consumed in england, the return would have been ￡300,000; while half a penny a pound on 36,000,000 pounds of re-exported leaf, would have brought the total to ￡375,000. that this figure was approximately correct we have evidence in the statement of the author of the present state of the tobacco plantations, written in 1705, that the revenue yielded by the tobacco of virginia and maryland amounted annually to ￡400,000.[7-19] this sum constituted a very appreciable proportion of the royal income, so appreciable in fact as to make the tobacco trade a matter of vital importance in the eyes of the king's ministers. they were charged at all times to avoid any contingency which might lessen the imports and reduce the customs.
the increase in the tobacco trade stimulated industry, not only by increasing exports to virginia and maryland, but also[122] by creating a new english industry. for most of the tobacco, before it was sent abroad, was subjected to a process of manufacture, by which the leaf was cut and rolled and otherwise prepared for the consumer. this industry gave employment to hundreds of poor persons in england and required a considerable outlay of capital.[7-20]
to british navigation the trade was vital. each year scores of merchantmen crossed to the chesapeake and swarmed in every river and creek, delivering their english goods to the planters and taking in return the hogsheads of tobacco. in 1690 the tobacco fleet numbered about 100 ships, aggregating 13,715 tons; in 1706 it counted no less than 300 sails.[7-21] nor must it be forgotten that re-exported tobacco also added many a goodly merchantman to the navy and gave employment to many a seaman. altogether virginia and maryland constituted an invaluable asset, an asset which ranked in importance secondly only to the sugar plantations.
it would naturally be supposed that the fortunate turn of events which restored to the tobacco colonies their european market would have reacted favorably upon the small planters of virginia, not only insuring plenty to those already established, but adding new recruits from the ranks of the indentured servants; that the process of making prosperous freemen from the poor immigrants who flocked to the colony, the process interrupted by the passage of the navigation acts, would have been resumed now that these laws no longer prevented the flow of tobacco into the continental countries.
such was not the case, however. a comparison of the lists of immigrants with the rent roll of 1704 shows that but an insignificant proportion of the newcomers succeeded in establishing themselves as landowners. in four lists examined for the year 1689, comprising 332 names, but seven persons can[123] be positively identified upon the rent roll. in 1690, eight lists of 933 names, reveal but twenty-eight persons who were landowners in 1704. of 274 immigrants listed in 1691, six only appear on the roll. in 1695, seven lists comprising 711 names, show but ten who possessed farms nine years later. of 74 headrights appearing in 1696, but two are listed on the roll; of 119 in 1697 only nine; of 169 in 1698 one only; of 454 in 1699, only seven; of 223 in 1700 but six.[7-22] all in all not more than five per cent. of the newcomers during this period prospered and became independent planters. apparently, then, the restored prosperity of the colony was not shared by the poorer classes, the increased market for tobacco did not better materially the chances of the incoming flood of indentured servants.
the explanation of this state of affairs is found in the fact that tobacco, despite its widened market, experienced no very pronounced rise in price. the average return to the planters during the good years seems to have been one penny a pound.[7-23] this, it is true, constituted an advance over the worst days of the restoration period, but it was far from approaching the prices of the civil war and commonwealth periods. for the poor freedman, it was not sufficient to provide for his support and at the same time make it possible to accumulate a working capital. he could not, as he had done a half century earlier, lay aside enough to purchase a farm, stock it with cattle, hogs and poultry, perhaps even secure a servant or two. now, although no longer reduced to misery and rags as in the years from 1660 to 1682, he could consider himself fortunate if his labor sufficed to provide wholesome food and warm clothing. how, it may be asked, could virginia and maryland produce the vast crops now required by the foreign trade, if the price was still so low? prior to and just after bacon's rebellion the planters repeatedly asserted that their labors only served[124] to bring them into debt, that to produce an extensive crop was the surest way for one to ruin himself. why was it that twenty years later, although prices were still far below the old level, they could flood the markets of the world?
the answer can be summed up in one word—slavery. the first cargo of negroes arrived in the colony in 1619 upon a dutch privateer. presumably they were landed at jamestown, and sold there to the planters.[7-24] the vessel which won fame for itself by this ill-starred action, was sailing under letters of marque from the prince of orange and had been scouring the seas in search of spanish prizes. although the dutch master could have had no information that slaves were wanted in the colony, he seems to have taken it for granted that he would not be forbidden to dispose of his human freight.
the introduction of this handful of negroes—there were but twenty in all—was not the real beginning of the slave system in the colonies. for many years the institution which was to play so sinister a part in american history did not flourish, and the slaves grew in numbers but slowly. in the muster roll of settlers in virginia, taken in 1624, there were listed only 22 negroes.[7-25] sixteen years later the black population probably did not exceed 150.[7-26] in 1649, when virginia was growing rapidly and the whites numbered 15,000, there were but 300 negroes in the colony.[7-27] a sporadic importation of slaves continued during the commonwealth period, but still the number was insignificant, still the bulk of the labor in the tobacco fields was done by indentured servants and poor freeholders.
in 1670 governor berkeley reported to the board of trade that out of a total population of 40,000, but five per cent were slaves.[7-28] eleven years later the number of blacks was estimated at 3,000.[7-29] in 1635 twenty-six negroes were brought in, the largest purchaser being charles harmar.[7-30] in 1636[125] the importations were but seven, in 1637 they were 28, in 1638 thirty, in 1639 forty-six, in 1642 seven only, in 1643 eighteen, in 1649 seventeen.[7-31] but with the passage of the years somewhat larger cargoes began to arrive. in 1662 richard lee claimed among his headrights no less than 80 negroes, in 1665 the scarboroughs imported thirty-nine. in 1670, however, berkeley declared that "not above two or three ships of negroes" had arrived in the province in the previous seven years.[7-32]
it is evident, then, that during the larger part of the seventeenth century slavery played but an unimportant r?le in the economic and social life of the colony. the planters were exceedingly anxious to make use of slave labor, which they considered the foundation of the prosperity of their rivals of the spanish tobacco colonies, but slave labor was most difficult to obtain. the trade had for many years been chiefly in the hands of the dutch, and these enterprising navigators sold most of their negroes to the spanish plantations. ever since the days of henry viii the english had made efforts to secure a share of this profitable traffic, but with very meagre success.[7-33]
the dutch had established trading stations along the african coast, guarded by forts and war vessels. any attempts of outsiders to intrude upon the commerce was regarded by them as an act of open aggression to be resisted by force of arms. to enter the trade with any hope of success it became necessary for the english to organize a company rich enough to furnish armed protection to their merchantmen. but no such organization could be established during the civil war and commonwealth periods, and it was not until 1660 that the african company, under the leadership of the duke of york entered the field.[7-34]
this was but the beginning of the struggle, however. the dutch resisted strenuously, stirring up the native chieftains[126] against the english, seizing their vessels and breaking up their stations. not until two wars had been fought was england able to wring from the stubborn netherlanders an acknowledgment of her right to a share in the trade. even then the virginians were not adequately supplied, for the sugar islands were clamoring for slaves, and as they occupied so important a place in the colonial system they were the first to be served. throughout the last quarter of the seventeenth century negroes in fairly large numbers began to arrive in the chesapeake, but it was only in the years from 1700 to 1720 that they actually accomplished the overthrow of the old system of labor and laid the foundations of a new social structure. throughout the seventeenth century the economic system of the tobacco colonies depended upon the labor of the poor white man, whether free or under terms of indenture; in the eighteenth century it rested chiefly upon the black shoulders of the african slave.
there could be no manner of doubt as to the desirability of the slaves from an economic standpoint, apparently the only standpoint that received serious consideration. the indentured servant could be held usually for but a few years. hardly had he reached his greatest usefulness for his master than he demanded his freedom. thus for the man of large means to keep his fields always in cultivation it was necessary constantly to renew his supply of laborers. if he required twenty hands, he must import each year some five or six servants, or run the risk of finding himself running behind. but the slave served for life. the planter who had purchased a full supply of negroes could feel that his labor problems were settled once and for all. not only could he hold the slaves themselves for life, but their children also became his property and took their places in the tobacco fields as soon as they approached maturity.
[127]
thus in the end the slave was far cheaper. the price of a servant depended largely upon the cost of his passage across the ocean. we find that william matthews, having three years and nine months to serve, was rated in the inventory of his master, john thomas, at ￡12.[7-35] a servant of robert leightenhouse, having two years to serve, was put at ￡9;[7-36] while on the other hand we find another listed in the estate of colonel francis epes, also having two years to serve, at only ￡5.[7-37] a white lad under indenture for seven years to mr. ralph graves was valued at ￡10.[7-38] on the whole it would seem that the price of a sturdy man servant varied from ￡2 to ￡4 for each year of his service. on the other hand a vigorous slave could be had at from ￡18 to ￡30. assuming that he gave his master twenty-five years of service, the cost for each year would be but one pound sterling. there could be no doubt, then, that in the mere matter of cost he was much cheaper than the indentured white man.
it is true that the negro was none too efficient as a laborer. born in savagery, unacquainted with the english tongue, knowing little of agriculture, it was a matter of some difficulty for him to accustom himself to his task in the tobacco fields. yet when his lesson had been learned, when a few years of experience had taught him what his master expected him to do, the slave showed himself quite adequate to the requirements of the one staple crop. the culture of tobacco is not essentially difficult, especially when pursued in the unscientific manner of the colonial period. it required many, but not skilled hands. the slave, untutored and unintelligent, proved inadequate to the industrial needs of the northern colonies. the niceties of shipbuilding were beyond his capacities, he was not needed as a fisherman, he was not a good sailor, he was useless in the system of intensive agriculture in vogue[128] north of maryland. but in the tobacco field he would do. he could not at first tend so many plants as his white rival, he could not produce tobacco of such fine quality, but what he lacked in efficiency he more than made up for in cheapness.
the african seems to have withstood remarkably well the diseases indigenous to eastern virginia. there are occasional reports of epidemics among the slaves, but usually they were fairly immune both to malaria and dysentery. a census taken in 1714, when there were perhaps 15,000 negroes in the colony, records burials for sixty-two slaves only.[7-39] the births of slaves for the same year totalled 253.[7-40] these figures indicate not only the excellent physical condition in which these black workers were kept by their masters, but the rapidity with which they were multiplying. the low death rate is in part explained by the fact that only strong men and women were transported to the colonies, but it is none the less clearly indicative of the ease with which the african accustomed himself to the climate of tidewater virginia.
as a rule the negro was more docile than the white servant, especially if the latter happened to be from the ruder elements of english society. he was not so apt to resist his master or to run away to the mountains. yet plots among the blacks were not unknown. in 1710 a conspiracy was discovered among the slaves of surry and james city counties which was to have been put into execution on easter day. the negroes planned to rise simultaneously, destroy any who stood in their way, and make good their escape out of the colony. among the chief conspirators were jamy, belonging to mr. john broadnax, mr. samuel thompson's peter, tom and cato of mr. william edwards, great jack and little jack of mr. john edwards, and will belonging to mr. henry hart. "two or three of these were tried this general court," wrote colonel jennings, "found guilty and will be executed. and i hope[129] their fate will strike such a terror in the other negroes as will keep them from forming such designs for the future."[7-41] the lesson did not prove lasting, however, for in 1730 a number of slaves from norfolk and princess anne counties assembled while the whites were at church, and chose officers to command them in a bold stroke for freedom. as in the previous attempt they were discovered, many arrested and several of the ringleaders executed.[7-42]
neither the merchants nor the planters seem to have been conscious of any wrong in the seizure and sale of negroes. they regarded the native africans as hardly human, mere savages that were no more deserving of consideration than oxen or horses. and as it was right and proper to hitch the ox or the horse to the plow, so it was equally legitimate to put the negro to work in the fields of sugar cane or tobacco. whatever hardships he had to endure upon the voyage to america or by reason of his enforced labor, they considered amply compensated by his conversion to christianity.
it is true that the colony of virginia early in the eighteenth century imposed a heavy duty upon the importation of slaves, but it did so neither from any consciousness of wrong in slavery itself or a perception of the social problems which were to grow out of it. at the time the price of tobacco was declining rapidly and many planters were losing money. feeling that their misfortunes arose from overproduction, which in turn was the result of the recent purchases of negroes, the colonial legislators decided to check the trade. "the great number of negroes imported here and solely employed in making tobacco," wrote governor spotswood in 1711, "hath produced for some years past an increase in tobacco far disproportionate to the consumption of it ... and consequently lowered the price of it."[7-43] "the people of virginia will not now be so fond of purchasing negroes as of late,"[130] declared president jennings of the virginia council in 1708, "being sensibly convinced of their error, which has in a manner ruined the credit of the country."[7-44]
during the years from 1680 to 1700 slaves arrived in the colony in increasing numbers. in 1681 william fitzhugh, in a letter to ralph wormeley, refers to the fact that several slave ships were expected that year in the york river.[7-45] at this period, for the first time in virginia history, we find negroes in large numbers entered as headrights upon the patent rolls. in 1693 captain john storey received a grant of land for the importation of 79 negroes, in 1694 robert beverley brought in seventy, in 1695 william randolph twenty-five.[7-46] before the end of the century it is probable that the slaves in virginia numbered nearly 6,000, and had already become more important to the economic life of the colony than the indentured servants.[7-47]
the chief purchasers at this time were men of large estates. the advantages of slave labor were manifest to planters of the type of william byrd or william fitzhugh, men who had built up fortunes by their business ability. it is but natural that they should have turned early from the indentured servant to stock their plantations with the cheaper and more remunerative african workers.
as the english secured a stronger hold upon the african trade slaves arrived in ever increasing numbers. during the years from 1699 to 1708 no less than 6,843 came in, a number perhaps exceeding the entire importations of the seventeenth century.[7-48] in the summer of 1705 alone 1,800 negroes arrived.[7-49] with what rapidity the black man was taking the place of the indentured servant and the poor freeman as the chief laborer of the colony is shown by the fact that in 1708, in a total tithable list of 30,000, no less than 12,000 were slaves. president jennings at the same time reported that[131] the number of servants was inconsiderable.[7-50] "before the year 1680 what negroes came to virginia were usually from barbadoes," jennings told the board of trade in 1708. "between 1680 and 1698 the negro trade become more frequent, tho not in any proportion to what it hath been of late, during which the african company have sent several ships and others by their licence having bought their slaves of the company brought them here for sale, among which lately alderman jeffreys and sir jeffry jeffreys were principally concerned."[7-51]
the wars of charles xii, however, which proved disastrous to the baltic trade, and the war of the spanish succession which cut off exports of tobacco to france and spain, caused a serious decline in prices and made it impossible for the planters to continue the large purchases of slaves. this fact, together with the duty which had been imposed with the express purpose of keeping them out, reduced the importations to a minimum during the years from 1710 to 1718.[7-52] but with the reopening of the tobacco market and the return of prosperity to virginia, the black stream set in again with redoubled force. in 1730, out of a total population of 114,000, no less than 30,000 were negroes.[7-53] in other words the slaves, who in 1670 had constituted but five per cent of the people, now comprised twenty-six per cent. slavery, from being an insignificant factor in the economic life of the colony, had become the very foundation upon which it was established.
as we have seen it was not slavery but the protracted accumulation of surplus stocks of tobacco in england which had broken the long continued deadlock of the tobacco trade during the restoration period and caused the overflow into continental markets. that the labor of blacks at first played no essential part in the movement is evident from the fact that in 1682 when it first became pronounced, the slave population[132] of virginia and maryland was still insignificant. but that the trade not only continued after the glut in england had been cleared up, but increased with startling rapidity, was unquestionably the result of more universal use of negroes in the years immediately preceding the war of the spanish succession. slavery so cheapened the cost of production that it was now quite possible for those who used them to pay the half penny a pound duty on re?xported tobacco in england, and still undersell all rivals in the european market. before many years had passed the tobacco trade, with all that it meant both to england and to the colonies, rested almost entirely upon the labor of the savage black man so recently brought from the african wilds.
that this fact was fully understood at the time is attested by various persons interested in the colony and the trade. in 1728 francis fane, in protesting against the imposition of a new tax in virginia on the importation of slaves declared "that laying a duty on negroes can only tend to make them scarcer and dearer, the two things that for the good of our trade and for the benefit of virginia ought chiefly to be guarded against, since it is well known that the cheepness of virginia tobacco in european marketts is the true cause of the great consumption thereof in europe, and one would have therefore expected rather to have seen an act allowing a premium on the importation of negroes to have encouraged the bringing them in, than an act laying so large a duty to discourage their importation."[7-54] similarly colonel spencer wrote to the board of trade. "the low price of tobacco requires it should be made as cheap as possible. the blacks can make it cheaper than whites, so i conceive it is for his majesty's interest full as much as the country's or rather much more, to have blacks as cheap as possible in virginia."[7-55]
it is evident, then, that the opening of the european market[133] and the vast expansion of the tobacco trade, while bringing prosperity to the larger planters, was no great boon to the man who tilled his fields with his own hands. it assured him a ready sale for his crop, it is true, but at prices so low as to leave him a very narrow margin of profit. the new era which was opening, the so-called golden era of virginia history, was not for him. virginia in the eighteenth century was to be the land of the slave holder, not of the little planter.
