Using these data [slave ship registry and number of slaves per ship in Boston and “South Carolina” ports, Risky] and and data covered in Donnan 1930-35 and Coughtry in 1981 I analyzed ports in South Carolina, Massachusetts, Virginia, Georgia and voyages for Rhode Island merchants. Another complementary pattern was discovered. into Savannah, for example, North American merchants played a leading role as slave traders, importing 38.9% of the slaves in 45.8% of the ships between 1755 and 1767 (British merchants imported only 29.1% of the slaves.) North American merchants had a much smaller capacity: 15.1 slaves per ship compared to 116.0 slaves per British merchants.
——
In short, using total shipping tonnage and average ship size (tons) as measures, the data reveal that the pattern of New England involvement - its subordinate role when compared to Britain - was a result of colonial domination rather than of morality. British merchants dominated the more lucrative routes direct from Africa to large ports like South Carolina. Colonial merchants, especially New England merchants, were the leading traders on less lucrative long-distance routes like those routes between Africa and Savannah and the shuttle traffic between the West Indies and the southern colonies.
