Read Ebook: The slave trade by Jervey Theodore D Theodore Dehon

Font size: 10 px 15 px 20 px 25 px 30 px 35 px

Background color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Text color: BlackWhiteGrayLight GrayDark GrayDim Gray

Apply/Save settings

Ebook has 1442 lines and 98382 words, and 29 pages

Release date: December 26, 2023

Original publication: Columbia: The State Company, 1925

THE SLAVE TRADE

BY THEODORE D. JERVEY

COLUMBIA, S. C. THE STATE COMPANY 1925

COPYRIGHT 1925 THE STATE COMPANY

A. S. SALLEY, JR.

whose friendship has stood the test of time and whose exact knowledge, those standing high among the scholars of American history have recognized, this book is dedicated.

INTRODUCTORY

The following pages, from which an excerpt was published in 1913, under the title--The Railroad The Conqueror--constitute an attempt to put within short compass the main causes of the shifting sectionalism of the people of the United States.

The facts and assertions upon which this sketch is based have, with others not included, been gathered and pondered for at least sixteen years, during which period, much at times interwoven, has, from time to time been cut, for fear that consideration of such might lead the thoughts of the possible reader away from the main theme.

As to the workmanship few can see more clearly than the author, how much better that could have been, had he who undertook it been accommodated with more leisure and equipped with scholarship and means. Yet it is doubtful if any one could have approached the task and pursued it through the years which have intervened between its inception and completion with a firmer determination to present the truth and nothing but the truth, as the writer saw and still sees it.

To publish what is herein set out, in this day of rampant commercialism and often unconscious intolerance, requires character and courage in a publisher.

On the other hand, submission to some, holding themselves out as publishers and soliciting manuscripts, involves occasional risk, and in this connection, the author feels that he would be lacking in ordinary gratitude, did he not record the rescue of this manuscript, in an earlier form, from the clutch of a publishing house, which having obtained it on solicitation, for perusal and consideration, on terms declined, held it for a year, in spite of repeated requests for its return, replied to repeatedly, with untruthful assertions that it had been sent back. Without any knowledge of or interest in the contents, a stranger, to whose inquiries concerning local history, the author, from time to time had replied, C. W. Lewis, Esq., residing in the vicinity of the disreputable publishing house, upon request, by a personal call, forced the delivery of the manuscript and returned it to the author. Now complete it is submitted to the public without further comment to speak for itself.

THE SLAVE TRADE

In consideration of much that appears in the numerous contributions to the discussion of the Negro Question, it must be noticeable that in recent years, there has been quite a broadening of the field, and that, from what was in the past, mainly a question of slavery or freedom, for one particular class of people, in one great country, we have advanced to a consideration of what may effect the entire world in that, which has been entitled by some: "The Conflict of Color," and by others not quite so pessimistic: "The Question of the Twentieth Century, the Question of Color."

In such circumstances, an examination of the evolution of this question and a recital of some of the phases under which it has been brought up for discussion in the history of the United States, may tend to correct some misapprehensions and throw some additional light upon a subject, which, in spite of the efforts to suppress it, is continually forcing itself upon the attention of the world.

While freely admitting the impossibility of discussing this subject, within any reasonable limits, without necessarily omitting mention of many publications, containing an amount of extremely valuable information, the aim of this work will be to trace the evolution of the question as it has appeared, in the expression of both whites and Negroes, in that country in which public opinion is said to exercise the greatest influence upon government. In undertaking such an examination it would be hardly necessary to make any very close scrutiny of the Colonial period, from the fact that while there was opinion that found expression in acts, statements and laws, the colonies, being under the control of Great Britain, were subjected to her policies and representative of her civilization. The extraordinary case therefore of a Massachusetts slave-owner, Maverick, who simply for breeding purposes, in 1636, forced an African woman of high rank, owned by him, to accept the embraces of a common young Negro was but a way of expressing contempt for the race. The Maryland Act of 1663, a far less coarse expression, involved all white women who failed to entertain it. In Stroud's "Sketch of the laws of Slavery," published in 1827, we find on page 2:

"Section 2. And forasmuch as divers free born English women forgetful of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation do intermarry with Negro slaves" such "free born women ... shall serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband and all the issue of such free born women, so married shall be slaves as their fathers were."

The Revolutionary war, which shook off this controlling force, associated the States together, under the Articles of Confederation, thus paving the way for that great experiment, the Constitutional Federal Republic, which succeeded it.

It was in the deliberations of the great Convention, which framed that "more perfect union", that the Negro question really first arose, as a matter of vital political concern; nor among all the questions which confronted that extraordinary body, did there appear a graver one, than that affecting the status of the colored people of the Union.

This class represented, at that time, about one-fifth of the population of the thirteen States, which it was the aim to unite, or 737,208 blacks as against 3,172,006 whites, and while of these 737,208 colored persons some 59,527 were free, in every one of the thirteen States, except Massachusetts, there were slaves, and in only one State, outside of New England, Pennsylvania, were free persons of color more numerous than slaves.

In eight of the thirteen States the Negro slaves greatly outnumbered the free persons of color; while in still another, with a total of 5,572 colored persons, the colored freedmen exceeded the slaves by only 54.

Under these conditions, it was not unnatural that the question should have presented itself as one of slavery versus freedom, rather than Negroes versus whites, and for the seventy years in which slavery continued to exist, that fact served to obscure, to quite an extent, the appreciation of the distinct question of color and race. Yet by some, at an exceedingly early date, it was recognized, that apart from the consideration of how they might be held, the mere presence in the Republic of a large and growing number of people of an inferior race, presented a serious problem.

When the consideration of the basis upon which Federal representation should rest, and direct taxes be apportioned, was reached, the framers of the Constitution found themselves, therefore, confronted with a political question of the first magnitude, in the existence of the slave trade.

What was the slave? A man or a chattel?

The question was precipitated by a clause in the report of the committee of detail, presented by John Rutledge, of South Carolina, Article 7, Section 4. "No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on articles exported from any State nor on the migration or importation of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit, nor shall such migration or importation be prohibited."

In the light of what followed, of the existing legislation upon that subject in the State of South Carolina, and the history of the province and State, the introduction of the concluding clause of this section by her most distinguished representative was unfortunate. It gave rise to declarations concerning the State which not only do not seem to have been absolutely borne out by the facts; but which the actions and votes of her deputies themselves, to some extent stultified; yet the State was nevertheless stamped with an unenviable precedence in a matter in which she cast but one of the seven votes, in a total of eleven, by which the final decision was arrived at.

In the discussion which immediately arose upon the introduction of the report, four views with regard to this clause found expression.

Luther Martin, of Maryland, a Representative from a State, which, as will subsequently be shown, could have then been described as the most complete slave State of the thirteen, had nevertheless the discernment to realize the dangers of such a condition, and proposed to alter the section, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. He presented three grounds of objection to the denial of such: "1. As five slaves are to be counted as three free-men in the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an encouragement of the traffic. 2. Slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing them was, therefore, unreasonable. 3. It was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such features in the Constitution."

In defending the clause Mr. Rutledge was not conciliatory. He "did not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from their obligations to protect the Southern States against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with the 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 become the consumers."

Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut supported the clause in an argument pitched upon the same utilitarian plane, but strengthened with what was an assertion of the doctrine of States rights. He "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. The old Confederation had not meddled with this point and he did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one."

Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, while upholding the view of Mr. Rutledge, held out a hope of subsequent accord. He said "South Carolina can never receive the plan, if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of Negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on the subject, South Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have already done."

Upon the following day the discussion was resumed.

Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, "was for leaving the clause as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to be taken from them and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of Government, thought it best to leave the matter as we found it. He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged upon the Convention the necessity of dispatching its business."

Mr. Ellsworth spoke again, and quite to the point: "As he had never owned a slave, could not judge of the effect of slavery on character. He said, however, that if it was to be considered in a moral light, we ought to go further and free those already in the country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly swamps foreign supplies are necessary. If we go no further than is urged we shall be unjust to South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck in our country. Provision is already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrection from foreign influence that will become a motive to kind treatment of the slaves."

Mr. Charles Pinckney said: "If slavery be wrong it is justified by the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the Southern States were left alone they will probably of themselves stop importation. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will produce serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to see adopted."

Gen. C. C. Pinckney "declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself and all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their personal influence it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value and she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require South Carolina and Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to South Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of Slaves would be for the interest of the Whole Union. The more slaves the more produce to employ the carrying trade. The more consumption also, and the more of this the more of revenue for the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union."

Mr. Baldwin, of Georgia, "had conceived national objects alone to be before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the central States who wished to have a vortex for everything--that her distance would preclude her from equal advantage--and that she could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge her favorite prerogative. If left to herself she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture he took notice of the sect of which he said was a respectable class of people who carried their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity to the claims of the whole animal creation."

Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, "observed that if South Carolina and Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because the importation might be prohibited. As the section now stands all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article."

Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, "thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any sanction to it."

Mr. Dickinson, of Delaware, "considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor and safety that the importation of slaves should be authorized to the States by the Constitution. The true question was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation, and the question ought to be left to the National Government, not to the States particularly interested. If England and France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time excluded from both these kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the General Government."

Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, "stated the law of North Carolina on the subject, to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of five pounds on each slave imported from Africa. Ten pounds on each from elsewhere, and fifty pounds on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the Southern States could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected, and that it was wrong to force anything down not absolutely necessary and which any State must disagree to."

Mr. King, of Massachusetts, "thought the subject should be considered in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other that great and equal opposition would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty, while every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States."

Mr. Langdon, of New Hampshire, "was strenuous for giving the power to the General Government. He could not with a good conscience leave it with the States who could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by the opinion here given that they will themselves cease to import slaves."

Gen. Pinckney, "thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think South Carolina would stop her importation of slaves in any short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved to commit the clause that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax with other imports, which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty that had been started."

Mr. Rutledge remarked: "If the Convention thinks that North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of these States will never be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the section and seconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment."

Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, "wished the whole subject to be committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports, and on a Navigation Act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and Southern States."

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, declared, "that he would never agree to the power of taxing exports."

Mr. Reed, of Delaware, "was for the commitment provided the clause concerning taxes on exports should also be committed."

Share on: WhatsApp @Hash Facebook Tweet