Page images
PDF
EPUB

want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another. -Jefferson, Works, vol. II (Ford), p. 51, Facsimile.

Jefferson's draft of the Ordinance of 1784 for the government of the territories of the United States contained this clause in relation to slavery:

After the year 1800 of the Christian era there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary Servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been convicted to be personally guilty.

The Ordinance of 1787, which provided for the government of the northwest territory, had this provision in regard to the subject under consideration:

Art. VI. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory, otherwise than in punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted;

[ocr errors]

JEFFERSON, in his "Notes on Virginia," in 1782, discusses the subject as follows:

"There must doubtless be an unhappy influence on the manners of our people produced by the existence of slavery among us. The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal. . . . If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his self-love for restraining the intemperance of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient one that his child is present. But generally it is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execration, should the statesman be loaded, who, permitting onehalf of the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one and the amor patria of the other! . . . With the morals of the people their industry also is destroyed. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a con

viction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of Fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest." -Works, vol. III (Ford), pp. 266-7.

The following letters from Jefferson will show how he felt in regard to the institution of slavery:

TO DR. PRICE, encouraging him and praising the spirit of a pamphlet against slavery, 1785:

Southward of the Chesapeak it will find but few readers concurring with it in sentiment on the subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeak, the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, and it will find a reputable minority ready to accept it in practice, a minority which for weight and worth of character preponderates against the greatest number, who have not the courage to divest their families of a property which however keeps their conscience unquiet. Northward of the Chesapeak you may find here and there an opponent to your doctrine or you may find here and there a robber and a murderer, but in no greater number. . . In a few years there will be no slaves Northward of Maryland. In Maryland I do not find such a disposition to begin the redress of this enormity as in Virginia. This is the next state to which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression.-Works, vol. IV (Ford), pp. 82-3.

TO M. DE MEUSTIER, January 24, 1786:

I conjecture there are 650,000 negroes in the 5 Southernmost states, and not 50,000 in the rest. In most of these latter effectual measures have been taken for their future emancipation. In the former, nothing is done toward that. The disposition to emancipate them is strongest in Virginia. Those who desire it, form, as yet, the minority of the whole state, but it bears a respectable proportion to the whole in numbers and weight of character, and is continually recruiting by the addition of nearly the whole of the young men as fast as they come into public life. I flatter myself it will take place there at some period of time not very distant. In Maryland and N. Carolina a very few are disposed to emancipate. In S. Carolina and Georgia not the smallest symptoms of it, but, on the contrary these 2 states and N. Carolina continue importations of negroes.-Ibid, pp. 145-6.

To M. DE MEUSTIER, 1786:

What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, impris

onment and death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him thro' his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose. But we must await with patience the workings of an overruling providence. I hope that that is preparing the deliverance of these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their oppressors, or at length by his exterminating thunder, manifest his attention to the things of this world, and that they are not left to the guidance of a blind fatality."-Ibid, P. 185.

TO ST. GEORGE TUCKER, August 28, 1797, [subscribes to emancipation], and to the mode of emancipation, I am satisfied that that must be a matter of compromise between the passions, the prejudices, and the real difficulties which will each have their weight in that operation. Perhaps the first chapter of this history, which has begun in St. Domingo

. . may prepare our minds for a peaceable accomodation between justice, policy and necessity; and furnish an answer to the difficult question, whither shall the colored emigrants go? and the sooner we put some plan underway, the greater hope there is that it may be permitted to proceed peaceably to it's ultimate effect. But if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children.— Ibid, vol. VII, pp. 167-8.

TO EDWARD COLES, 1814:

[His views] have long since been in possession of the public, and time has only served to give them stronger proof. The love of justice and the love of country plead equally the cause of these people, and it is a mortal reproach to us that they should have pleaded so long in vain. . . . The hour of emancipation is advancing in the march of time. It will come and whether brought on by the generous energy of our own minds or by the bloody process of St. Domingo is a leaf in our history not yet turned

over.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

I have seen no proposition so expedient, on the whole, as that of emancipation of those born after a given day. . . . This enterprise shall have all my prayers.

Washington speaks in no uncertain words in regard to his desires and intentions:

TO ROBT. MORRIS, April 12, 1786:

I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery]; but there is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that is by legislative authority; and this,

[blocks in formation]

Washington, by his will, freed all his slaves. WILLIAM PINCKNEY, in Maryland House of Delegates, 1789, says:

Iniquitous and most dishonorable to Maryland, is that dreary system of partial bondage which her laws have hitherto supported with a solicitude worthy of a better object and her citizens, by their practice, countenanced. Founded in a disgraceful traffic, to which the present country lent its fostering aid, from motives of interest, but which even she would have disdained to encourage, had England been the destined mart of such inhuman merchandize, its continuance is as shameful as its origin.-Elliot's Debates, vol. —, p. —. JOHN JAY says:

Till America comes into this measure [abolition] her progress to Heaven will be impious. This is a strong expression but it is just. I believe that God is just, and I believe it to be a maxim in His, as in other courts, that those who ask equity ought to do it. -Letter from Spain, 1780, Goodell, p. 30.

THE SLAVE COMPROMISES IN THE CONSTITUTION.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, three-fifth of all other Persons.-The Constitution, art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3.

On the above article of the Constitution a long debate took place in the Constitutional Convention. Various opinions in regard to its merits were expressed by the members of the convention. The following extracts will well illustrate the general trend of the debate.

GERRY (MASS.): Why should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle and horses in the North?

PINCKNEY (S. C.): . . . He thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with the whites; but would agree to the ratio settled by Congress.

BUTLER (S. C.) insisted that the labor of a slave in South Carolina was as productive and valuable as that of a free man in Massachusetts; that as wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the nation, they

were equally valuable to it with freemen; and that consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them in a government which was instituted principally for the protection of property, and was itself to be supported by property.

WILSON (PA.) did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three-fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as citizens— then why not admitted on an equality with white citizens? Are they admitted as property-then why not all other property?

RANDOLPH (VA.): He urged strenuously that express security ought to be provided for including slaves in the ratio of representation. He lamented that such a species of property existed. But as it did exist, the holders of it would require this security. It was perceived that the design was entertained by some of excluding slaves altogether; the Legislature therefore ought not to be left at liberty.

PINCKNEY (S. C.) reminded the committee that if the convention should fail to insert some security to the Southern States against an emancipation of slaves, he should be bound by duty to his state to vote against their report.

ROGER SHERMAN (CONN.) did not regard the admission of the negroes into the ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable objections. It was the freemen of the Southern States who were, in fact, to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and the negroes are only included in the estimate of the taxes. . The Madison Papers, pp. 148, 302, 324, 832, 336, 418, 480.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.-The Constitution, art. I, sec. 9, cl. 1.

On this clause again a long debate ensued: RUTLEDGE (S. C.): . . Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their interest, they will not oppose the increase of Slaves, which will increase the commodities of which they will have become the carriers.

ELLSWORTH (CONN.) was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best judges of their particular interests.

PINCKNEY (S. C.): South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade.

SHERMAN (CONN.): He disapproved of the slave trade, yet as the States were now possessed of the

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors]

MASON (VA.): This infamous traffic originated in the avarice of British merchants. . . . The evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war, . . . Maryland and Virginia had already prohibited the importation of slaves. . . . All this would be in vain, if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. ... The Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South Carolina and Georgia.

BALDWIN (GA.): . . . Georgia could not give up this one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to herself she may probably put a stop to the evil. . . .

WILLIAMSON (N. C.): . . He thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected.

KING (MASs.): If Southern States would not confederate with the tax on slaves imported, so he thought Northern would not if this clause were omitted.

RUTLEDGE (S. C.): If the convention thinks North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest.

MADISON (VA.): Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a time will be more dishonorable to the American character than to say nothing about it in the constitution. . . .

He thought it wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in men.-The Madison Papers, pp. 577, 578, 581, 582, 608, 610.

A few extracts from speeches made in the State conventions to consider the adoption of the constitution throw still more light on the views prevailing at the time.

JAS. WILSON (Pa.):

I consider this clause as laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country; and though the period is more distant than I could wish it, it will produce the same kind, gradual change as was produced in Pennsylvania. . . . The new States which are to be formed will be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slavery will never be introduced among them.-Elliot's Debates, vol. II, p. 452.

GEN. HEATH (Mass.):

The migration or importation, etc., is confined to the States now existing only: new States cannot claim it. Congress by their ordinance for erecting new

[blocks in formation]

ish slavery in the States. Another thing will contribute to bring this event about. Slavery is detested. We feel its effects. We deplore it with all the pity of humanity.-Ib. vol. III, p. 463.

On the presentation of the Quaker memorial on slave trade to the House of Representatives, March, 1790, JACKSON (Ga.), said:

The situation of the slaves here, their situation in their native states, and the disposal of them in case of emancipation, should be considered. That slavery was an evil habit he did not mean to controvert; but that habit was already established, and there were peculiar situations in countries which rendered that habit necessary. Such situations the states of South Carolina and Georgia were in: large tracts of the most fertile lands on the continent remained uncultivated for the want of population. It was frequently advanced on the floor of Congress how unhealthy those elimates were, and how impossible it was for northern constitutions to exist there. What, he asked, is to be done with this uncultivated territory? Is it to remain a waste? Is the rice trade to be banished from our coasts? Are Congress willing to deprive themselves of the revenue arising from that trade, and which is daily increasing, and to throw this great advantage in the hands of other countries? . . .-Annals, vol. II, pp. 1197-1205.

Eight years later, the territory of Mississippi was organized. On motion to strike out the clause protecting slavery in the territory, MR. HARPER (S. C.), said:

In the Northwest Territory the regulation forbidding slavery was a very proper one, as the people inhabiting

that part of the country were from parts where slavery did not prevail, and they had of course no slaves amongst them; but in the Miss. Territory . . that species of property already exists, and persons emigrating there from the Southern States would carry with them property of this kind. To agree to such a proposition would, therefore, be a decree of banishment to all the persons settled there and of exclusion to all those intending to go there . . . it struck at the habits and customs of the people.-Berton's Debates, vol. II, p. 221 f.

MR. VARNUM (Mass.)

thought the high-price of lands in the N. W. Territory was due to the absence of slavery "and if the Southern States could get clear of their slaves, the price of their land would immediately rise."-Ib., p. 221 f.

MR GILES (Va.)

thought that if the slaves of the Southern States were permitted to go into this Western country, by lessening the number in those States, and spreading them over a large surface of country there would be a greater probability of ameliorating their condition.-lb., p. 221 f.

At the time of the organization of Arkansas as a territory, in 1819, a long and bitter debate took place. These extracts show the spirit:

WALKER (N. C.):

Shall they [the South] be proscribed and prohibited from taking their slaves? Sir, if so, your land will be an uncultivated waste-a fruitless soil; it is further south than the 35th degree of latitude, a low and warm country, that will not support a laboring white population.

Slavery is an evil we have long deplored but cannot cure; it was entailed upon us by our ancestors; it was not our original sin, and we cannot, in our present situation, release ourselves from the embarrassment; and, as it is an evil, the more diffusive, the lighter it will be felt, and the wider it is extended the more equal the proportion of inconvenience.-Annals, vol. XXXIV, p. 1226.

MCLANE (Delaware):

The fixing of a line on the West of the Miss., north of which slavery should not be tolerated had always been with him a favorite policy, and he hoped the day was not distant when upon principles of fair compromise it might constitutionally be effected.

If we meet upon principles of reciprocity we cannot fail to do justice to all. It has already been avowed by gentlemen . . . from the South and the West that they will agree upon a line which shall divide the slaveholding from the non-slaveholding states. It is this proposition I am anxious to effect; but I wish to

effect it by some compact which shall be binding upon all parties, and all subsequent legislatures; which cannot be changed and will not fluctuate with the diversity of feeling and of sentiment to which this Empire in its course must be destined.-Ib., p. 1227 f.

The Missouri question, and line of 36° 30', 1819-'21.

REID (Ga.):

Slavery is "an unnatural state; a dark cloud which obscures half the lustre of our free institutions! But it is a fixed evil which we can only alleviate. Are we called upon to emancipate our slaves? I answer, their welfare-the safety of our citizens, forbid it."-Annals, vol. XXXV, p. 1024.

If you remain inexorable; if you persist in refusing the humble, the decent, the reasonable prayer of Missouri, is there no danger that her resistance will rise in proportion to your oppression? Sir, the firebrand, which is even now cast into your society will require blood-ay; and the blood of freemen-for its quenching. Your Union shall tremble as under the force of an earthquake.-Ib., p. 1033.

BARBOUR (Va.):

I am not easily alarmed, nor am I disposed to be an alarmist; but this I will say, that I fear this subject will be an ignited spark, which, communicated to an immense mass of combustion, will produce an explosion that will shake this Union to its center. This portentious subject, twelve months ago, was a little spark scarcely visible above the horizon; it has already overeast the heavens, obscuring every other object.—Ib., p. 107.

WHITMAN (Mass.):

.

In the degree in which you increase the proportion of the free beyond that of the slave population, in the same ratio you increase the chance for emancipation, final and total. The best mode, . . . to promote the cause of a final emancipation would be to suffer the slaves to be scattered thinly over the western States. The permission of slavery in the Territory of Arkansas will afford no additional facilities to the introduction of this unfortunate race from abroad. The natural increase will be the same whether in one part of the Union or the other; or if it would be greater in the Western country, it would be the consequence of an ameliorated condition and therefore not to be regretted.-Annals, vol. XXXIV, pp. 1274-5.

Why may we not continue in this way, admitting states off against the non-slaveholding states westerly, with the restriction, and off against the slaveholding States without it? True, sectional lines are to be abhorred: But we have them in relation to this subject

already. The line [of the Ohio] is distinctly marked. Having so begun we must continue on.-Ib., p.

1278.

JEFFERSON writes:

[1820.] The coincidence of a marked principle, moral and political, with geographical lines, once conceived, I feared would never more be obliterated from the mind; that it would be recurring on every occasion and renewing, irritations, until it would kindle such mutual and mortal hatred as to render separation preferable to eternal discord. I have been among the most sanguine in believing that our Union would be of long duration. I now doubt it much.-Jefferson, Works, vol. VII (Washington ed.), p. 158.

QUESTIONS.

1. Were negroes subject to military service? 2. What does this imply in regard to their position? 3. Were there many negroes in the north? 4. Why the law against the negroes being abroad at night? 5. How long had they been away from Africa at this time? 6. Why did they question whether the negro should be Christianized? 7. How did they settle the matter? 8. How about their right to testify? 9. Why do you suppose such a law was passed? 10. Why the acts against assembling of negroes? 11. Make a list of the states that had harsh laws against the negro. 12. Why such laws? 13. Who first began to oppose slavery? 14. What reasons given? 15. Write an essay on the subject of slavery in the colonies. 16. What change of tone at the beginning of the Revolution? 17. From what section does the greatest opposition come? 18. How do you explain the change? 19. Who did they blame for the slave trade? 20. Did they stop it? 21. How were they going to try to stop it? 22. How did Jefferson feel on the subject? 23. Collect all the thoughts you can from Jefferson on the subject. 24. In 1785 how, according to Jefferson, was slavery regarded north of the Potomac? 25. How did the leaders in Virginia feel about emancipation? 26. Did Jefferson predict truthfully in regard to future? 27. Make an outline to show the views, plans, and predictions of Jefferson. 28. What other men opposed? 29. What were their arguments? 30. What do you believe to be the cause of such a radical revolution in thought? 31. Name the compromises in the constitution. 32. Give their terms. 33. Any change in tone in discussion from that of writings just quoted? 34. What does the change mean? 35. What section is strongest against slavery and the slave trade? 36. Write an essay on slavery in the constitution, including therein the debates. 37. Trace the character of the arguments in congress. 38. Gather all the moral arguments you can. 39. Do both sides use them? 40. Note all the industrial points in the arguments. 41. Which side uses such arguments most effectively? 42. What is the political argument? 43. Compare the feeling of 1775 and that of 1820. 44. Mark all the changes. 45. Which section has changed most? 46. What predictions do Adams and Jefferson make about 1820? 47. What is their argument? 48. Did they prove to be correct? 49. Jefferson's thought on compromise of 1820? 50. Write essay on whole subject.

H. W. CALDwell.

« PreviousContinue »