The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade/Chapter 25
CHAPTER XXV.
Political History of Slavery in the United States, from 1800 to 1807.
The total population of the United States in 1800, was 5,305,925 persons, of whom 893,041 were slaves. The following table exhibits the number of slaves in each State:
| CENSUS OF 1800 — SLAVE POPULATION. | ||||
| District of Columbia | 3,244 | New Hampshire | 8 | |
| Connecticut | 951 | New York | 20,343 | |
| Delaware | 6,153 | North Carolina | 133,296 | |
| Goorgia | 59,404 | Pennsylvania | 1,706 | |
| Indiana Territory | 135 | Rhode Island | 381 | |
| Kentucky | 40,343 | South Carolina | 146,151 | |
| Maryland | 105,635 | Tennessee | 13,584 | |
| Mississippi Territory | 3,489 | Virginia | 345,796 | |
| New Jersey | 12,422 | Aggregate, 893,041. | ||
Georgia, in 1802, April 2d, ceded the territory lying west of her present limits, now forming the states of Alabama and Mississippi. Among the conditions exacted by her, and accepted by the United States, is the following:
"That the territory thus ceded shall become a state, and be admitted into the Union as soon as it shall contain sixty thousand free inhabitants, or, at an earlier period, if congress shall think it expedient, on the same conditions and restrictions, with the same privileges, and in the same manner, as provided in the ordinance of congress of the 13th day of July, 1787, for the government of the western territory of the United States: which ordinance shall, in all its parts, extend to the territory contained in the present act of cession, the article only excepted which forbids slavery."
When Ohio was made a state in 1802-3, the residue of the territory conveyed by the ordinance of 1787, was called the Indiana Territory, and William Henry Harrison was appointed governor. The new territory made repeated efforts to procure a relaxation in her favor of the restrictive clause of the ordinance of 1787, one of them through the instrumentality of a convention assembled in 1802-3, and presided over by the territorial governor; so he, with the great body of his fellow-delegates, memorialized congress, among other things, to suspend, temporarily, the operation of the sixth article of the ordinance aforesaid. This memorial was referred in the house to a select committee of three, two of them from slave states, with the since celebrated John Randolph as chairman. On the 2d of March, 1803, Mr. Randolph made what appears to have been a unanimous report from this committee, of which we give so much as relates to slavery, as follows:
"The rapid population of the state of Ohio sufficiently evinces, in the opinion of your committee, that the labor of slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement of colonies in that region. That this labor — demonstrably the dearest of any — can only be employed in the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to that quarter of the United States; that the committee deem it highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of the northwestern country, and to give strength and security to that extensive frontier. In the salutary operations of this sagacious and benevolent restraint, it is believed that the inhabitants of Indiana will, at no very distant day, find ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor, and of emigration."
The committee proceed to discuss other subjects set forth in the prayer of the memorial, and conclude with eight resolves, whereof the only one relating to slavery is as follows:
"Resolved, That it is inexpedient to suspend, for a limited time, the operation of the sixth article of the compact between the original states and the people and states west of the river Ohio."
This report, having been made at the close of the session, was referred at the next to a new committee, whereof Cæsar Rodney, a new representative from Delaware, was chairman. Mr. Rodney, from this committee, reported, (February 17, 1804) —
"That, taking into their consideration the facts stated in the said memorial and petition, they are induced to believe that a qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article of compact between the original states and the people and states west of the river Ohio, might be productive of benefit and advantage to said territory."
The report goes on to discuss the other topics embraced in the Indiana memorial, and concludes with eight resolves, of which the first (and only one relative to slavery) is as follows:
"That the sixth article of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery within the said territory, be suspended in a qualified manner, for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves, born within the United States, from any of the individual states; provided, that such individual state does not permit the importation of slaves from foreign countries: and provided further, that the descendants of all such slaves shall, if males, be free at the age of twenty-five years, and if female, at the age of twenty-one years."
On this report no action was had; but the subject, as we shall presently see, was not allowed to rest here, being repeatedly urged on congress by the inhabitants of Indiana. Had the decision rested with them, both Indiana and Illinois would have come into the Union as slave states.
The annual convention of delegates from the state societies for promoting the abolition of slavery and improving the condition of the African race, then in session at Philadelphia, presented a memorial, early in the session of 1804-5, praying congress to prohibit the further importation of slaves into the newly acquired region of Louisiana. The memorial was referred to the committee on the government of Louisiana, and a provision was inserted into the act organizing the territory of Orleans, that no slaves should be carried thither, except from some part of the United States, by citizens removing into the territory as actual settlers. This provision not to extend to negroes introduced into the United States since 1798. The intention of the latter clause was to guard against the effect of a recent act of South Carolina reviving the African slave-trade, after a cessation of it as to that state for fifteen years. This act of South Carolina, if not guarded against, might open the way for introducing an indefinite number of slaves from Africa into the new territories of Mississippi and Orleans.
In order to express the sense of the nation upon this act of South Carolina, Bard, of Pennsylvania, introduced at this session a resolution to impose a tax of ten dollars on every slave imported. In opposing this resolution in committee of the whole, Lowndes, of S. C., apologized for the conduct of his state on the ground of an alleged impossibility of enforcing the prohibition. "Such was the nature of their coast, deeply penetrated by navigable rivers, that the people of South Carolina, especially as they had stripped themselves of means by giving up to the general government the duties on imports, could not restrain their 'eastern brethren,' who, in defiance of the authority of the general government, allured by the excitement of gain, had been engaged in this trade. The repeal had become necessary to remove the spectacle of the daily violation of the law."
Lowndes added that, personally, he was opposed to the slave-trade, and that he wished the time were already arrived when it might be constitutionally prohibited by act of congress; but the imposition of the proposed tax, so far from checking the traffic, would, he thought, rather tend to its increase, by seeming to give to it a congressional sanction. Another effect of the duty would be to lay so much additional and special taxation on South Carolina, which he thought very unjust.
Bard defended his resolution on two grounds. The proposed tax was a constitutional and fair source of revenue. Since the African slave-trade made men articles of traffic, they must be subject to impost like other merchandise. The value of an imported slave being $400, a duty of ten dollars was only two and a half per cent, on the value. While this duty would add to the revenue, it would also accomplish a more important end, by showing the world that the general government was opposed to slavery, and ready to exercise its powers as far as they would go for preventing its extension. "We owe it indispensably to ourselves," said Bard, "and to the world whose eyes are upon us, to 
maintain the republican character of our government." As additional reasons in favor of his resolution, he dwelt at length on the cruelty and immorality of the slave-trade, and the danger of slave insurrections, of which St. Domingo had furnished so striking an example, and two or three alarms of which had recently occurred in Virginia.
Mr. Speaker Macon expressed the opinion that the morality or immorality of the slave-trade had nothing to do with the question before the house. "The question is not whether we shall prohibit the trade, but whether we shall tax it. Gentlemen think that South Carolina has done wrong in permitting the importation of slaves. That may be, and still this measure may also be wrong. Will it not look like an attempt in the general government to correct a state for the undisputed exercise of its constitutional power? It appears to be something like patting a state to the ban of the empire."
Lucas, of Pennsylvania, denied that South Carolina had any right to complain of the proposed duty. If she had the right, under the constitution, to permit the importation, congress, under the same constitution, had the right to impose the tax. If she chose to exercise her constitutional authority, why complain of a like exercise of it on the part of congress? If she wished to avoid paying the tax, let her prohibit the importation. Nor did he admit that, by taxing the importation, congress legalized or countenanced the traffic. The importation was not legalized by congress, but by South Carolina, congress not yet having the power to prohibit it. The tax would tend to check a traffic which, in four years, might add a hundred thousand slaves to those already in the Union. The thirst for gain was more alive in the country than ever, and the opening of the trade by South Carolina would virtually amount to a general opening; for, African slaves once introduced into one state, would find their way into all others in which slavery was allowed.
Smilie wished to steer clear of the question of morality; at the same time, he could not but think that the whole Union had a direct interest in the measure adopted by South Carolina, inasmuch as it tended to weaken the common defense of the country. Every slave brought in must be regarded in the light of an imported enemy.
Stanton, of Rhode Island, insisted strenuously on the tax. Nor did he confine his reprobation to the foreign slave-trade merely; he described, in very strong terms, his emotions at meeting, on his way to the seat of government, twenty or thirty negroes chained together and driven like mules to market.
Eppes, the son-in-law of Jefferson, zealously supported the resolution; and, notwithstanding an attempt at postponement, on the ground that perhaps South Carolina would reënact her old prohibitory law, it was finally agreed to by the house, and was referred to a committee, to bring in a bill. That bill win reported, read twice, and referred to a committee of the whole. But the entreaties of the South Carolina members, and their promises of what the state would do, arrested any further action.
Just previous to the commencement of this debate, New Jersey, the seventh and the last of the old confederation to do so, had joined the circle of the free states, by an act, passed by an almost unanimous vote, securing freedom to all persons born in that state after the fourth of July next following; the children of slave parents to become free, males at twenty-five, and females at twenty-one — a law which gave great satisfaction to Governor Bloomfield, who had been from the beginning a zealous member of the New Jersey society for the abolition of slavery. A new effort was also made in Pennsylvania to hasten the operation of the old act for gradual abolition, by giving immediate freedom to all slaves above the age of twenty-eight years; but this attempt failed as before.
In January, 1805, a proposition was brought before congress by Sloan, of New Jersey, that all children born of slaves within the District of Columbia, after the ensuing fourth of July, should become free at an age to be fixed upon. This proposition was refused reference to the committee of the whole, by a vote of sixty-five to forty-seven, and was then rejected, seventy-seven to thirty-one.
At the session of 1805-6, the renewed African slave-trade with South Carolina being carried on with great vigor, the question of a tax on slaves imported was again revived by Sloan. After some debate, in which the blame of the traffic was bandied about between South Carolina, by which the importation was allowed, and Rhode Island, accused of furnishing ships for the business, a bill was ordered by a decided majority. But the subject was passed over to the next session, when it would be competent for congress to provide for abolishing the trade altogether.
At the same session, the original memorial from Indiana, to suspend temporarily the operation of the sixth article of the ordinance of 1787, with several additional memorials of like purport, was again referred by the house to a select committee, whereof Mr. Gamett, of Virginia, was chairman, who, on the 14th of February, 1806, made a report in favor of the prayer of the petitioners, as follows:
"That, having attentively considered the facts stated in the said petition and memorials, they are of opinion that a qualified suspension, for a limited time, of the sixth article of compact between the original states and the people and states west of the river Ohio, would be beneficial to the people of the Indiana territory. The suspension of this article is an object almost universally desired in that territory.
"It appears to your committee to be a question entirely different from that between slavery and freedom; inasmuch as it would merely occasion the removal of persons, already slaves, from one part of the country to another. The good effects of this suspension, in the present instance, would be to accelerate the population of that territory, hitherto retarded by the operation of that article of compact, as slave-holders emigrating into the western country might then indulge any preference which they might feel for a settlement in the Indiana territory, instead of seeking, as they are now compelled to do, settlements in other states or countries permitting the introduction of slaves. The condition of the slaves themselves would be much ameliorated by it, as it is evident, from experience, that the more they are separated and diffused, the more care and attention are bestowed on them by their masters — each proprietor having it in his power to increase their comforts and conveniences, in proportion to the smallness of their numbers. The dangers, too, (if any are to be apprehended,) from too large a black population existing in anyone section of country, would certainly be very much diminished, if not entirely removed, lbit, whether dangers arc to be feared from this source or not, it is certainly an obvious dictate of sound policy to guard against them, as far as possible. If this danger does exist, or there is any cause to apprehend it, and our western brethren are not only willing but desirous to aid us in taking precautions against it, would it not be wise to accept their assistance? We should benefit ourselves, without injuring them, as their population must always so far exceed any black population which can ever exist in that country, as to render the idea of danger from that source chimerical."
After discussing other subjects embodied in the Indiana memorial, the committee close with a series of resolves, which they commend to the adoption of the house. The first is as follows:
"Resolved, That the sixth article of the ordinance of 1181, which prohibits slavery within the Indiana territory, be suspended for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves, born within the United States, from any of the individual states."
This report and resolve were committed and made a special order on the Monday following, but were never taken into consideration.
At the next session, a fresh letter from Governor William Henry Harrison, inclosing resolves of the legislative council and house of representatives in favor of suspending, for a limited period, the sixth article of compact aforesaid, was received January 21st, 180T, and referred to a select committee, whereof Mr. B. Parke, delegate from said territory, was made chairman. The committee consisted of Messrs. Alston, of North Carolina, Masters, of New York, Morrow, of Ohio, Parke, of Indiana, Rhea, of Tennessee, Sanford, of Kentucky, and Trigg, of Virginia,
Mr. Parke, from this committee, made February 12th, a third report to the house in favor of granting the prayer of the memorialists. It is as follows:
"The resolutions of the legislative council and house of representatives of the Indiana territory, relate to a suspension, for the term of ten years, of the sixth article of compact between the United States and the territories and states northwest of the river Ohio, passed the 13th of July, 1787. That article declares that there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.
"The suspension of the said article would operate an immediate essential benefit to the territory, as emigration to it will be inconsiderable for many years, except from those states where slavery is tolerated.
"And although it is not considered expedient to force the population of the territory, yet it is desirable to connect its scattered settlements, and, in admitted political rights, to place it on an equal footing with the different states. From the interior situation of the territory, it is not believed that slaves could ever become so numerous as to endanger the internal peace or future prosperity of the country. The current of emigration flowing to the western country, the territories should all be opened to their introduction. The abstract question of liberty and slavery is not involved in the proposed measure; as slavery now exists to a considerable extent in different parts of the Union, it would not augment the number of slaves, but merely authorize the removal to Indiana of such as are held in bondage in the United States. If slavery is an evil, means ought to be devised to render it least dangerous to the community, and by which the hapless situation of the slaves would be most ameliorated; and to accomplish these objects, no measure would be so effectual as the one proposed. The committee, therefore, respectfully submit to the house the following resolution:
"Resolved, That it is expedient to suspend, from and after the 1st day of January, 1808, the sixth article of compact between the United States and the territories and states northwest of the Ohio, passed the 13th day of July, 1787, for the term of ten years."
This report, with its predecessors, was committed, and made a special order, but never taken into consideration.
The same letter of General Harrison, and resolves of the Indiana legislature, were submitted to the senate January 21st, 1807. They were laid on the table "for consideration," and do not appear to have even been referred at that session; but at the next, or first session of the fourth congress, which convened October 26th, 1807, the President, November 7th, submitted a letter from General Harrison and his legislature — whether a new or old one does not appear — and it was now referred to a select committee, consisting of Messrs L. Franklin, of North Carolina, Kitchel, of New Jersey, and Tiffin, of Ohio.
November 13th, Mr. Franklin, from said committee, reported as follows:
"The legislative council and house of representatives, in their resolution, express their sense of the propriety of introducing slavery into their territory, and solicit the congress of the United States to suspend, for a given number of years, the sixth article of compact in the ordinance for the government of the territory northwest of the Ohio, passed the 13th day of July, 1787. That article declares: 'There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude within the said territory.'
"The citizens of Clark county, in their remonstrance, express their sense of the impropriety of the measure, and solicit the congress of the United States not to act on the subject, so as to permit the introduction of slaves into the territory; at least, until their population shall entitle them to form a constitution and state government.
"Your committee, after duly considering the matter, respectfully submit the following resolution:
"Resolved, That it is not expedient at this time to suspend the sixth article of compact for the government of the territory of the United States northwest of the river Ohio." Here ended the effort, so long and earnestly persisted in, to procure a suspension of the restriction in the ordinance of 1787, so as to admit slavery, for a limited term, into the territory lying between the Ohio and Mississippi rivers.
The following is a copy of the resolutions above referred to, passed by the legislative council and house of representatives of the territory of Indiana, and laid before congress:
Resolved, unanimously, by the legislative council and house of representatives of the Indiana Territory, That a suspension of the sixth article of compact between the United States and the territories and states northwest of the river Ohio, passed the 13th day of July, 1787, for the term of ten years, would be highly advantageous to the said territory, and meet the approbation of at least nine-tenths of the good citizens of the same.
Resolved, unanimously, That the abstract question of liberty and slavery is not considered as involved in a suspension of. the said article, inasmuch as the number of slaves in the United States would not be augmented by the measure.
Resolved, unanimously, That the suspension of the said article would be equally advantageous to the territory, to the states from whence the negroes would be brought, and to the negroes themselves. To the territory, because of its situation with regard to the other states; it must be settled by emigrants from those in which slavery is tolerated, or for many years remain in its present situation, its citizens deprived of the greater part of their political rights, and, indeed, of all those which distinguish the American from the citizens and subjects of other governments. The states which are overburdened with negroes would be benefited by their citizens having an opportunity of disposing of the negroes which they cannot comfortably support, or of removing with them to a country abounding with all the necessaries of life; and the negro himself would exchange a scanty pittance of the coarsest food for a plentiful and nourishing diet; and a situation which admits not the most distant prospect of emancipation, for one which presents no considerable obstacle to his wishes.
Resolved, unanimously, That the citizens of this part of the former northwestern territory consider themselves as having claims upon the indulgence of congress in regard to a suspension of the said article, because at the time of the adoption of the ordinance of 1787, slavery was tolerated, and the slaves generally possessed by the citizens then inhabiting the country, amounting at least to onehalf the present population of Indiana, and because the said ordinance was passed in congress when the said citizens were not represented in that body, without their being consulted, and without their knowledge and approbation.
Resolved, unanimously, That from the situation, soil, climate, and productions of the territory, it is not believed that the number of slaves would ever bear such proportion to the white population as to endanger the internal peace and prosperity of the country.
The remaining resolutions require copies of the above to be laid before congress, and instruct the delegate of the territory to use his best endeavors to obtain a suspension of the article. In his message, at the commencement of the session of 1806-1, President Jefferson suggested to congress the interposition of its authority for the abolition of the African slave-trade. He says:
"I congratulate you, fellow-citizens, on the approach of the period at which you may interpose your authority, constitutionally, to withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have so long been continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our coun try have long been eager to proscribe."
This portion of the message was referred to a select committee of the house consisting of Messrs. Early, of Georgia, T. M. Randolph, of Va., J. Camp bell, of Md., Thomas Kenan, of N. C, Cook, of Mass., Kelly, of Pa., and Van Ransellaer, of New York.
The committee reported a bill "to prohibit the importation or bringing of slaves into the United States or the territories thereof after the 31st day of December, 1807."
As originally reported by the committee, of which Early, of Georgia, was chairman, the bill provided that all negroes, mulattoes, and persons of color illegally introduced, "should be forfeited and sold for life for the benefit of the United States." Sloan, of N. J., moved to substitute "shall be entitled to his or her freedom," an amendment very violently opposed by the southern members. Early maintained with great earnestness that the persons so illegally introduced must not only be forfeited, but must be sold as slaves and continued as such. "What else can be done with them? We of the south consider slavery a dreadful evil, but the existence of large numbers of free blacks among us as a greater evil; and yet you would by this amendment turn loose all who may be imported. You can not execute such a law, for no man will inform who loves himself or his neighbor."
The same view, the impossibility of enforcing the law, if negroes illegally imported were to become free, was urged by Macon, the speaker. Other arguments were added by his colleague, Willis Alston. "Should a state by law forbid the freeing of any slaves, congress could not contravene such a law." "Slaves being property by the laws of a state, congress could not, in opposition to those laws, consider them otherwise."
On the other hand, Smilie, of Pa., called attention to the inconsistency of laying severe penalties, as this bill did, upon all concerned in buying or selling imported slaves, while, at the same time, the United States set themselves up as sellers! Barker, of Massachusetts, argued that the United States ought not only to declare all illegally imported Africans free, but to convey them safely back to their native country. That, Macon thought, would be impracticable. Quincy opposed the amendment, because it was not right to say that a certain class of people should be free, who could not be so according to the laws of the state where they might be, and whose freedom might produce a fatal, injurious, or disagreeable effect. Only nineteen members voted in favor of Sloan's amendment; but the next day, Pitkin, of Connecticut, urged some very strong objections against forfeiting imported Africans, and selling them at public auction like bales of goods. lie admitted the inconvenience that might arise in some of the states from setting them free; but that might be obviated by binding them out for terms of years, and appointing some proper officer to look after them. As the bill now stood, it authorized the selling of forfeited slaves even in Massachusetts, where slavery was totally prohibited. He moved to recommit the bill, and after an animated debate, that motion prevailed.
When the bill came back from the select committee to which it had been referred, some debate arose upon the punishment of death to be inflicted on those engaged in the slave-trade. This, Early said, had been introduced to gratify some of the committee, and test the sense of the house. He moved to strike it out, with a view to substitute imprisonment; and, after some debate, that motion was carried.
When the disposal of the forfeited negroes was again resumed, Findley advocated biuding them out for terms of years. Bidwell strongly opposed the forfeiture, as implicating the United States in the same crime with the traders. He hoped the statute book would never be disgraced by such a law. This verbal implication of the United States being, however, avoided, he was quite willing to leave the imported Africans to the laws of the states, whatever they might be. Quincy, of Mass., in reply, insisted on the forfeiture, not only because the southern gentlemen regarded it as the only means of enforcing the law, but because it was also the only means by which the United States could obtain a control over these unfortunate creatures, so as to be certain that the best was done for them that circumstances would admit. It did not follow that they must be sold because they were forfeited. "May you not do with them what is best for human beings in that condition — naked, helpless, ignorant of our laws, character, and manners? You are afraid to trust the national government, and yet, by refusing to forfeit, you will throw them under the control of the states, all of which may, and some of which will and must retain them in slavery. The great objection to forfeiture is that it admits a title. But this does not follow. All the effect of forfeiture is, that whatever title can be acquired in the cargo shall be vested in the United States. If the cargo be such that, from the nature of the thing, no title can be acquired in it, then nothing vests in the United States. The only operation of the forfeiture is to vest the importer's color of title by the appropriate commercial term, perhaps the only term we can effectually use, to this purpose, without interfering with the rights of the states. Grant that these persons have all the rights of man: will not those rights be as valid against the United States as against the importer? And, by taking all color of title out of the importer, do we not place the United States in the best possible situation to give efficiency to the rights of man in the case of the persons imported?
"But let us admit that forfeiture does imply a species of title lost on one side and acquired on the other, such as we can not prevent being recognized in those states into which these importations will most frequently take place: which is best? which is most humane? To admit a title, gain it for the United States, and then to make these miserable creatures free, under such circumstances and at such time as the condition into which they are forced permits, or, by denying the possibility of title, to leave them to be slaves? But my colleague has a sovereign specific for this. We do not make them slaves, he says, we only leave them to the laws of the states. But if the laws of all the states may, and if some of them do and will make them slaves, by leaving them to the operation of the laws of those states, do we not as absolutely make them slaves as though we voted them to be so in express terms? To my mind, if, when we have the power, we fail to secure to ourselves the means of giving freedom to them under proper modifications, we have an agency in making them slaves. To strike out the forfeiture, as it seems to me, will defeat the very end its advocates have in view."
Fiske, of Vermont, denied that, in order to give the United States the deshed control over Africans or others illegally imported, any forfeiture was necessary. It was never thought that shipwrecked people belonged to the finder. Just so with the alleged slaves brought here. It was our duty to take them into our custody, and, if they needed assistance, to provide for them; and this might be done without seeming to recognize any title in the importer. He was inclined to the apprenticeship plan.
Clay, of Philadelphia, and Macon, strongly urged the bill as it stood, on the ground that it was only as a commercial question that congress had any jurisdiction over the slave-trade. Smilie, of Pa., insisted that this was something more than a mere commercial question, and that the bill could not be passed with this clause of forfeiture in it without damage to the national character. He quoted the declaration of independence; to which Clay replied that the declaration of independence must be taken with great qualifications. It declared that men have an inalienable right to life — yet we hang criminals; to liberty — yet we imprison; to the pursuit of happiness — and yet men must not infringe on the rights of others. If that declaration were to be taken in its fullest extent, it would warrant robbery and murder, for some might think even these crimes necessary to their happiness. Hastings, of Massachusetts, hoped the general government would never be disgraced by undertaking to sell human beings like goods, wares and merchandise. Yet, in spite of all these objections, the house refused to strike out the forfeiture, sixty-three to thirty-six.
The debate then turned upon the punishment to be inflicted on the masters and owners of vessels engaged in the slave-trade. The substitution, which had been adopted in committee of the whole, of imprisonment for death, was warmly opposed by the greater part of the northern members, a few excepted, who professed scruples at inflicting capital punishment at all. "We have been repeatedly told," said Mosely, of Connecticut, "and told with an air of triumph, by gentlemen from the south, that their citizens have no concern in this infamous traffic; that people from the north are the importers of negroes, and thereby the seducers of southern citizens to buy them. We have a right to presume, then, that the citizens of the south will entertain no particular partiality for these wicked traffickers, but will be ready to subject them to the most exemplary punishment So far as the people of Connecticut are concerned, I am sure that, should any citizen of the north be convicted under this law, so far from thinking it cruel in their southern brethren to hang them, such a punishment of such culprits would be acknowledged with gratitude as a favor."
The southern members all opposed the punishment of death as too severe to be carried into execution.-'A large majority of the people in the southern states," said Early, "do not consider slaveholding as a crime. They do not believe it immoral to hold men in bondage. Many deprecate slavery as an evil — a political evil — but not as a crime. Reflecting men apprehend incalculable evils from it some future day, but very few consider it a crime. It is best to be candid on this subject. If they considered the holding men in slavery as a crime, they would necessarily accuse themselves. I will tell the truth, a large majority of people in the southern states do not consider slavery even an evil. Let gentlemen go and travel in that quarter of the union, and they will find this to be the fact."
Holland, of North Carolina, gave a similar account of the public sentiment of the south: "Slavery is generally considered a political evil, and, in that point of view, nearly all are disposed to stop the trade for the future. But has capital punishment been usually inflicted on offenses merely political? Fine and imprisonment are the common punishments in such cases. The people of the south do not generally consider slaveholding as a moral offense. The importer might say to the informer, I have done no worse than you, nor even so bad. It is true, I have brought these slaves from Africa; but I have only transported them from one master to another. I am not guilty of holding human beings in bondage; you are. You have hundreds on your plantation in that miserable condition. By your purchase you tempt traders to increase that evil which your ancestors introduced into the country, and which you yourself contribute to augment. And the same language the importer might hold to the judge or jury who might try him. Under such circumstances, the law inflicting death could not be executed. But if the punishment should be fine and imprisonment only, the people of the south will be ready to execute the law." Holland, like all the other southern speakers on this subject, wished to place the prohibition of the slave-trade on political, and not on moral grounds. The negroes, he said, brought from Africa were unquestionably brought from a state of slavery. All admitted that, as slaves, they were infinitely better off in America than in Africa. How, then, he argued, could the trade be immoral?
The infliction of capital punishment was also objected to by Stanton, one of the democratic members from Rhode Island. "Some people of my state," he remarked, "have been tempted by the high price offered for negroes by the southern people to enter into this abominable traffic. I wish the law made strong enough to prevent the trade in future, but I can not believe that a man ought to be hung for only stealing a negro!" — a declaration received by the house with a loud laugh. "Those who buy are as bad as those who import, and deserve hanging just as much."
"We are told," said Theodore Dwight, of Connecticut, "that morality has nothing to do with this traffic; that it is not a question of morals, but of politics. The president, in his message at the opening of the session, has expressed a very different opinion. He speaks of this traffic as a violation of human rights, which those who regarded morality, and the reputation and best interests of the country, have long been eager to prohibit. The gentleman from North Carolina has argued that, in importing Africans, we do them no harm; that we only transfer them from a state of slavery at home to a state of slavery attended by fewer calamities here. But by what authority do we interfere with their concerns? Who empowered us to judge for them which is the worse and which is the better state? Have these miserable beings ever been consulted as to their removal? Who can say that the state in which they were born, and to which they are habituated, is not more agreeable to them than one altogether untried, of which they have no knowledge, and about which they can not even make any calculations? Let the gentleman ask his own conscience whether it be not a violation of human rights thus forcibly to carry these wretches from their home and their country?"
Clay insisted that capital punishment under this law could not be carried into execution even in Pennsylvania, of which state it had been the policy to dispense with the penalty of death in all cases except for murder in the first degree. But on this point Findley and Smilie expressed very decidedly an opposite opinion. This was a crime, they said, above murder; it was man-stealing added to murder. In spite, however, of all efforts, the substitution of imprisonment for death prevailed by a vote of sixty-three to fifty-two.
Another attempt was afterwards made by Sloan, of New Jersey, to strike out the forfeiture clause; but he could not even succeed in obtaining the yeas and nays upon it. Three days after, the bill having been engrossed and the question being on its passage, the northern members seemed suddenly to recollect themselves. Again it was urged that by forfeiting the slaves imported, and putting the proceeds into the public treasury, the bill gave a direct sanction to the principle of slavery, and cast a stain upon the national character. In order that some other plan might be devised, consistent at once with the honor of the Union and the safety of the slave-holding states, it was moved to recommit the bill to a committee of seventeen — one from each state. This motion, made by Bedinger, of Kentucky, was supported not only by Sloan, Bidwell, Findley, and Smilie, but also by Quincy, of Boston, and Clay, of Philadelphia, who seemed at length to have taken the alarm at the extent to which they had been playing into the hands of the slaveholders. It was urged, on the other side, that the bill, as it stood, was satisfactory to nearly or quite all the members from the southern states, who alone were interested in the matter, and that to recommit a bill at this stage was very unusual. Tho motion to recommit was carried, however, seventy-six to forty-nine. The committee of seventeen proposed that all persons imported in violation of the ad should he sent to Mich stales as had prohibited slavery, or had enacted laws for its gradual abolition, and should there be hound out as apprentices for a limited time, at the expiration of which they were to heroine free.
When this report came rip for discussion, a very extraordinary degree of excitement was exhibited by several of the southern members. Early declared that the people of the south would resist this provision with their lives; and lie moved, by way of compromise, as he said, to substitute for it a delivery of the imported negroes to the slate authorities, to be disposed of as they might see fit — the same, in substance, with Bidwell's suggestion. This Smilie pronounced a new scene indeed! Was the house to be frightened by threats of civil war? Early denied having made any such threats. He merely meant to intimate that troops would be necessary to enforce the act. The whole day, thus commenced, was consumed in a very violent debate, of which no detailed report has been preserved.
While this subject had been under discussion in the house, the senate had passed and sent down a bill having the same object in view. The house bill, with the report of the committee, having been laid upon the table, the senate bill was taken up. That bill provided that neither the importer, nor any purchaser under him, should "have or gain" any title to the persons illegally imported, leaving them to be disposed of as the states might direct. Williams, of South Carolina, moved to substitute the word "retain" instead of the words "have or gain." The motion to strike out prevailed, but, instead of "retain," the word "hold" was substituted; whereupon Williams declared, in a very vehement speech, that he considered this word "hold" as leading to the destruction and massacre of all the whites in the southern states; and he attacked Bidwell with great violence as the author of this calamity. The punishment of death was also stricken from the bill, and, thus amended, it was reported to the house. These amendments being concurred in, the bill was passed, one hundred and thirteen to five, and was sent back to the senate.
But, notwithstanding this concession to the south, the trouble was not yet over. Among other precautions against the transportation coastwise of imported slaves, the senate bill had forbidden the transport, for the purpose of sale, of any negro whatever on board any vessel under forty tons burden. A proviso had been added by the house, excluding from the operation of this section the coastwise transportation of slaves accompanied by the owner or his agent. The refusal of the senate to concur in this amendment called out John Randolph, who hitherto had hardly spoken. "If the bill passed without this proviso, the southern people," he said, "would set the act at defiance. He would set the first example. He would go with his own slaves, and be at the expense of asserting the rights of the slaveholders. The next step would be to prohibit the slaveholder himself going from one state to another. The bill without the amendment was worse than the exaction of ship-money. The proprietor of sacred and chartered rights was prevented from the constitutional use of his property." Other speeches were made in the same high strain, and finally a committee of conference was appointed, by which an amended proviso was agreed to, allowing the transportation of negroes, not imported contrary to the provisions of the act, in vessels of any sort on any river or inland bay within the jurisdiction of the United States. This, however, was far from satisfying the more violent southern members. Randolph still insisted "that the provisions of the bill, so far as related to the coastwise transportation of slaves, touched upon the right of private property," and he expressed a fear lest at any future period this claim of power might be made the pretext for a general emancipation. "He would rather lose all the bills of the session, every bill passed since the establishment of the government, than submit to such a provision. It went to blow the constitution into ruins. If disunion should ever take place, the line of disseverance would not be between the east and the west, lately the topic of so much alarm, but between the slaveholding and the non-slaveholding states." Early and Williams joined in these demonstrations; but the report of the committee of conference was agreed to, sixty-three to forty-nine.[1]
The act, as finally passed, imposed a fine of $20,000 upon all persons concerned in fitting out any vessel for the slave-trade, with the forfeiture of the vessel; likewise a fine of $5,000, with forfeiture also of the vessel, for taking on board any negro, mulatto, or person of color in any foreign country, with the purpose of selling such person within the jurisdiction of the United States as a slave. For actually transporting from any foreign country and selling as a slave, or to be held to service or labor within the United States, any such person as above described, the penalty was imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years, with a fine not exceeding $10,000 nor less than $1,000. The purchaser, if cognizant of the facts, was also liable to a fine of $800 for every person so purchased. Neither the importer nor the purchaser were to hold any right or title to such person, or to his or her service or labor; but all such persons were to remain subject to any regulations for their disposal, not contrary to the provisions of this act, which might be made by the respective states and territories. Coasting vessels transporting slaves from one state to another were to have the name, age, sex, and description of such slaves, with the names of the owners, inserted in their manifests, and certified also by the officers of the port of departure; which manifests, before landing any of the slaves, were to be exhibited and sworn to before the officer of the port of arrival, under pain of forfeiture of the vessel, and a fine of $1,000 for each slave as to whom these formalities might be omitted. No vessel of less than forty tons burden was to take any slaves on board except for transportation on the inland bays and rivers of the United States; and any vessel found hovering on the coast with slaves on board, in contravention of this act, was liable to seizure and condemnation; for which purpose the president was authorized to employ the ships of the navy, half the proceeds of the captured vessels and their cargoes to go to the captors. The masters of vessels so seized were liable to a fine of $10,000, and imprisonment for not less than two nor more than four years. The negroes found on board were to be delivered to such persons as the states might respectively appoint to receive them, or, in default of such appointment, to the overseers of the poor of the place to which they might be brought; and if, under state regulations, they should be "sold or disposed of," the penalties of this act upon the seller and purchaser were not to attach in such cases.
"The importation of Africans into South Carolina," says Hildreth, "during the four years from the reopening of the traffic up to the-period when the law of the United States went into effect, amounted to about 40,000, of whom half were brought by English vessels. A very large proportion of the remainder seem to have been introduced by Rhode Islanders. The English act for the abolition of the slave-trade, and especially the commercial restrictions which went into operation simultaneously with the American act, contributed to give it an efficacy which otherwise it might not have had. At a subsequent period, after the reestablishment of freedom of navigation, additional provisions, as we shall see, became necessary.
"The convention of delegates from the various abolition societies had continued, since its institution in 1793, to meet annually at Philadelphia; but of late the delegations from the south had greatly fallen off, and the convention of the present year resolved that its future meetings should be only triennial. That spirit, twin-born with the struggle for liberty and independence, which had produced in three states (Massachusetts, Vermont, and Ohio,) the total prohibition of slavery, in six others provisions for its gradual abolition, and, in spite of the efforts of the people of Indiana for its temporary introduction, (efforts renewed again at the present session, but again, notwithstanding the favorable report of a committee, without success,) its continued prohibition in the territories northwest of the Ohio, culminating now in the total prohibition of the foreign slave-trade, seems to have become, for a considerable interval, less active, or at least, less marked in its manifestations. The greater part of the societies whence the delegates came gradually died out, and even the triennial convention presently ceased. Jefferson preserved, with all his zeal on this subject, a dead silence. In his private letters he sometimes alluded to the necessity of steps for getting rid of the evil of slavery; but he took good care not to hazard his popularity at the south by any public suggestions on the subject.
"That dread of and antipathy to free negroes which had been evinced in the debate on the slave-trade prohibition act had not been without its influence upon the legislation of the states. Indeed, it had led to some serious infractions of these alleged rights of property, but a very distant approach to which by the general government had thrown Randolph into such excitement. In 1196, North Carolina had reënforced and reënacted her law prohibiting emancipation except for meritorious services and by allowance of the county courts. South Carolina, in 1800, had prohibited emancipation except by consent of a justice of the peace and of five indifferent freeholders. Another South Carolina act of the same year had declared it unlawful for any number of slaves, free negroes, mulattoes, or mestizoes to assemble together, even though in the presence of white persons, "for mental instruction or religious worship." The same influences were felt in Virginia, aggravated, perhaps, by two successive alarms of insurrection, one in 1799, the other in 1801. The freedom of emancipation allowed by the act of 1782 was substantially taken away in 1805, by a provision that thenceforward emancipated slaves remaining in the state for twelve months after obtaining their freedom should be apprehended and sold for the benefit of the poor of the county — a forfeiture given afterward to the literary fund. Overseers of the poor, binding out black or mulatto orphans as apprentices, were forbidden to require their masters to teach them reading, writing, or arithmetic. Free blacks coming into the state were to be sent back to the places whence they came. The legislature of Kentucky presently (1808) went so far as to provide that free negroes coming into that state should give security to depart within twenty days, and on failure to do so should be sold for a year — the same process to be repeated if, twenty days after the end of the year, they were still found within the state. 'Such is the fate,' exclaims Marshall, the historian of Kentucky, indignant at this barbarous piece of legislation, 'of men not represented, at the hands of law-makers, often regardless of the rights of others, and even of the first principles of humanity.' Yet this statute remains in force to the present day, and many like ones, in other states, have since been added to it. Whether the excessive dread of the increase of free negroes, which still prevails, and which seems every day to grow more and more rabid throughout the southern states, has any better foundation than mere suspicion and fear, is not so certain. In Delaware and Maryland the free colored population is far greater in proportion than elsewhere; yet life and property are more secure in those than in any other slaveholding states, nor are they inferior in wealth and industry."[2]