The Pariabs of Our Early Republic

No more curious or more unexpected turn in public affairs could have arisen than this respecting a class of people unwelcome in every State, excluded from many, refused all social relations with the whites in the free States; denied, under severe penalties, all association with the slaves in the slave States; excluded from enrolment in the militia; incapable of serving as jurors, or, in most States, as witnesses against a white man; for whom no schools or hospitals existed; and who were, as a class, considered to be only criminals at large. In spite of increasingly rigorous laws against emancipation, this class had increased almost phenomenally. When the Constitution was adopted, it numbered less than sixty thousand.* At the opening of the century it was more than a hundred thousand. At the time of the admission of Louisiana, nearly ninety thousand more. It had increased nearly forty thousand since then, yet there was little amelioration of law or public prejudice. The letter of the law and the constitution. enrolled them as citizens in New York, where twenty-nine thousand resided; in Massachusetts, with less than seven thousand; § in North Carolina, with half as many as New York. There were few slaves in the Louisiana country when Louisiana asked admission into the Union, yet,

* In 1790, 59,527.

† In 1800, 108,435.

In 1810, 186,446. Louisiana was admitted in 1812.

§ In 1820 there were 6740 in Massachusetts; the area of the

State is 8315 square miles.

In 1820 North Carolina had 14,712 free persons of color.

by the treaty, this form of property must be protected, and the few determined the character of the new State. Only three States were emphasized, in 1820, as having conferred citizenship on free persons of color, and very few of these persons, it is believed, actually exercised in them both civil and political rights. Yet the rights of this handful of despised free negroes were to turn the scale in the admission of Missouri and put all federal relations in clearer light. Had there been no free persons of color, the Missouri struggle would have ceased with the passage of the enabling act. Had there been no slaves, there would have been no struggle. Had no State already conferred the rights of citizenship on some free negroes, the constitution submitted by Missouri would have raised no objections.

Should a new State be permitted to exclude the citizens of another State? This was the new issue a question of States' rights, of federal relations. Has Congress the right to decide, finally, whether the constitution of a proposed State conflicts with the constitution and laws of another State, or with the national Constitution, and refuse it admission? The question was sure to arise, sooner or later, in the republic. It came now, suddenly, and it must be answered. With union or disunion? There seemed no ground for compromise. For the slave had defenders, as property always finds defenders; but for the free negro, who would speak?

It was denied that he was in any State a citizen

Dangerous Proclivities of the Free Negro

in full enjoyment of civil rights. In North Carolina
he could not give testimony in any case in which
a white man was a party. In Massachusetts his
marriage with a white woman was null and void.
In New York he could not serve as a juror. As
each State had the right to prescribe the qualifica-
tions of its own citizens, should not Missouri be
permitted to do the same? Slavery was permitted
in Missouri. In the Southern States free persons
of color were considered the most dangerous class
possible in a community. Elevated just enough
to have some sense of liberty, they had not the ca-
pacity to estimate or enjoy all its rights, and, be-
ing between two societies, above one and below
the other, they were in a most dissatisfied state.
"They are themselves perpetual monuments of dis-
content, and firebrands to the other class of their
own color." As they were not citizens in any
State, like white men, the constitution of Missouri
did not conflict with that of the United States in
excluding them.* Moreover, free
Moreover, free negroes and mu-
lattoes were not citizens, in the meaning of that
word as used in the Constitution of the United
States. They were not entitled to its protection.
Whatever privileges they possessed were surely
local in character. At the time of the formation
of the Constitution negroes ranked with Indians,
were not taxed, and were not conceived as belong-
ing to the class of persons for whom the govern-
ment, either State or federal, was organized.†

* Barbour, of Virginia, December 8, 1820,
+ McLane, of Delaware, December 12, 1820.

In reply it was said that in the Revolution many persons of color bore arms,* and entered the ranks as freemen with the whites. Many were made free by the States, as an inducement to enlist.† A black regiment from Rhode Island won fame for the gallant defence of Red Bank. If persons of color were intentionally excluded by the national Constitution, why did it not read, "We, the white people of the United States"? As to the marriage law of Massachusetts, it interdicted the marriage of a white man with a black woman, and therefore applied to both races alike. Exclusion from the militia, in that State, proved that they were in the enjoyment of the right, and that a specific law became necessary to deprive them of it. All the broad essential rights of citizenship were theirs to hold and convey property, trial by jury, the writ of habeas corpus, the elective franchise. By the laws and the Constitution they were considered as citizens equally with the whites. For forty years they had been in the constant exercise of these rights. To vote in the election of town, county, and State officers, the same qualifications of residence and property were required from them as from the whites, and, having these qualifications, they had a voice in the election of all State officers. Had they, then, no

* See the first ordinance of Congress relative to free negro troops, January 16, 1776; Journal of Congress, Vol. ii. (Folwell's edition), p. 27.

+ See Debates in the North Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1835, pp. 351-357; also citations by Curtis in his dissenting opinion in Scott vs. Sandford, 19 Howard, p. 393.

No Discrimination in the National Constitution

federal rights? The national Constitution was made for the benefit of the people inhabiting the States at the time, and the convention of 1787 did not take into consideration the complexion of the citizens included in the compact. The black citizens of Massachusetts were as directly represented as the whites in the process initiatory to the federal compact; from their votes, in common with those of the whites, emanated the convention of Massachusetts by which the federal Constitution was ratified. They were directly represented in Congress, for they participated in the election of every Massachusetts member on the floor. In one district the qualified voters among them had actually decided the election of a member of the sixteenth Congress. Did not these facts controvert the claim that they did not exercise federal rights in common with other citizens? In attempting to exclude them, Missouri was palpably violating the Constitution of the United States.* On the following day the vote was taken, and the House rejected the resolution for the admission of Missouri by a vote of ninety-three to seventy

nine.

A month passed before the struggle was renewed, and then unexpectedly. Three memorials of the Senate and House of Representatives of Missouri, respecting the public lands, were presented on the 11th of January, 1821, and, next day, Cobb, of Georgia, moved to correct the journal so

* Eustis, of Massachusetts, December 12, 1820.