We err greatly in judging the people of the seventeenth century by the standards of the twentieth. There was work to do--the world's work--and many of the workers, though they saw dimly, or not at all, the task in hand, were so eager to do their share of it that they voluntarily sold themselves into bondage in order to go about it. Were such men as these, or their contemporaries, likely to see anything wrong in compelling the less developed but strong-armed Africans to take hold and "keep the ball rolling"? Manifestly, slavery was an unavoidable feature of the evolution of the race, and the slave-owners of yesterday were as well justified in their belief that slavery was just, as we are in our belief that the able financier--the good business man--is entitled to a much greater share of the good things of life than a man of different mental caliber--say a college professor, for example. The traffic in slaves followed immediately upon demand. Says Winthrop's _Journal_:-- "One of our ships which went to the Canaries with pipe-staves in the beginning of November last, [1644] returned now and brought wine, and sugar and salt and some tobacco which she had at Barbadoes in exchange for Africans which she carried from the Isle of Maio." The _Desire_, with her slaves from Providence, was the first American slaver, but long before the end of the seventeenth century the colonial ships trading to the Madeiras and Canaries made a regular practice of slaving. For the wine and salt which were obtained in the islands were not of sufficient bulk to fill the holds of their ships. The enterprising captains wanted to make use of the vacant space between cargo and deck, and nothing they could find for that purpose would yield as much profit as negro slaves bought on the coast of Africa, and carried to the one-crop colonies like Barbados and Virginia. It is true that when the captain of a Massachusetts ship helped to raid an African village, and thus, by assault, captured two slaves, the General Court ordered them returned to Africa. But in deciding the questions arising in this case the Court distinctly, if indirectly, affirmed the doctrine that slaves were property: "For the negroes, (they being none of his _but stolen_), we think meete to alowe nothing." If he had obtained them by purchase, the Court would have allowed him full value.