diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/63254-h/63254-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/63254-h/63254-h.htm | 4962 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 4962 deletions
diff --git a/old/63254-h/63254-h.htm b/old/63254-h/63254-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 71c803f..0000000 --- a/old/63254-h/63254-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,4962 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - The Heritage of the South, by Jubal A. Early, a Project Gutenberg eBook. - </title> - <link rel="cover" href="images/cover_epub.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%;} - -p {margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; text-indent: 1.5em;} - -hr {width: 33%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em; - margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;} - -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-top: 2em;} -hr.full {width: 95%; margin-top: 2em;} -hr.tb {width: 45%;} -hr.r20 {width: 20%; margin-top: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;} - -table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; border-collapse: collapse; - text-align: center;} -.tblcont tr:hover {background-color: #f5f5f5;} - -.pagenum {position: absolute; right: 3.5%; font-style: normal; /* prevent italics, etc. */ - font-size: small; text-align: right; color: #808080;} /* page numbers */ - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} -.smaller {font-size: 0.8em;} -.tdl {text-align: left;} -.tdc {text-align: center; margin:0; text-indent: 0;} -.tdr {text-align: right;} -.tdr2 {text-align: right; padding-right:2em;} -h1, h2, .caption3 {font-weight: bold; text-align: center; text-indent:0;} -h1 {font-size:2.00em; margin-top: 1.5em; letter-spacing: 0.2em;} -h2 {font-size:1.50em; margin-top: 1.0em;} -.caption3 {font-size:1.25em; margin-top: 0.5em;} -.pmt4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.pmb4 {margin-bottom: 4em;} -.pmt2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.pmb2 {margin-bottom: 2em;} - -/* Images */ - -.fig_center {margin: auto; text-align: center;} - -.ind2em {padding-left: 2em;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnotes {background-color: #e6e6fa; color: black; padding:1.5em; - margin-bottom:5em;} - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} -.fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} - -/* Poetry */ -.poem {display: inline-block;} -.poem br {display: none;} -.poem .stanza {margin: 1em auto;} -/* large inline blocks don't split well on paged devices */ -@media handheld, print { .poem {display: block;} } - -.poem span.i0 {display: block; margin-left: 4.5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} -.poem span.i1 {display: block; margin-left: 5em; padding-left: 3em; text-indent: -3em;} - -.antiqua {font-family: "Old English Text MT", "Germany", "Fraktur BT", "Cooper Black", "Lucida Calligraphy", - serif; font-weight: bold; font-size: 1.5em; text-align: center;} - - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -Project Gutenberg's The Heritage of The South, by Jubal Anderson Early - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: The Heritage of The South - A History of the Introduction of Slavery; its Establishment - from Colonial times and final Effect upon the Politics of - the United - -Author: Jubal Anderson Early - -Editor: Ruth Hairston Early - -Release Date: September 21, 2020 [EBook #63254] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HERITAGE OF THE SOUTH *** - - - - -Produced by MFR, Cosmas and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - -</pre> - - - - - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 284px;"> -<img src="images/cover.png" width="284" height="413" alt="The Heritage of the South, by Jubal A. Early" /> -</div> - - -<hr class="full" /> - - - - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[ 1 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h1>THE HERITAGE<br /> -<i>of</i> THE SOUTH</h1> - - -<p class="tdc pmb2">A HISTORY OF<br /> -THE INTRODUCTION OF SLAVERY<br /> -ITS ESTABLISHMENT FROM COLONIAL TIMES<br /> -AND FINAL EFFECT UPON<br /> -THE POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES</p> - - -<div class="fig_center" style="width: 68px;"> -<img src="images/logo.png" width="68" height="134" alt="sculpture" /> -</div> - - -<p class="tdc pmt2"><i>By</i></p> - -<h2>JUBAL A. EARLY</h2> - -<p class="tdc">MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[ 2 ]</a></span></p> - - -<p class="tdc"> -<span class="smcap">Copyright 1915<br /> -By R. H. EARLY</span></p> - - -<p class="tdc"> -PRESS OF<br /> -BROWN-MORRISON CO<br /> -LYNCHBURG, VA.<br /> -</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[ 3 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2>Editor's Note</h2> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<p>A review is given, in the pages following, of the causes -which led to the political issue of the '60s; an issue which -will be open to argument until, in all of its bearings, it becomes -understood through familiarity with the conditions -of the past. Sentiment divorced from reason occasioned -misconception. Many causes contributed to that effect. -The lack of authentic records doubtless was one; certainly -ill-advised publications inflamed, if they did not inspire, -public opinion at this critical period.</p> - -<p>The author was actuated by the desire to correct erroneous -opinion in relation to the South. His manuscript -has lain unpublished during the passing of half a century, -till passion having cooled and prejudice abated, there is no -longer reason for clash from difference of feeling upon the -subject.</p> - -<p>The African slave trade began in the year 1442, when -Anthony Gonsalez, a Portuguese, took from the Gold Coast, -ten negroes, which he carried to Lisbon. In 1481, the -Portuguese built a fort on the Gold Coast, and as early as -1502, the Spaniards began to employ negroes in the mines -of Hispaniola. In 1517, Charles V, Emperor of Spain, -granted a patent to certain persons, for the supply of 4,000 -negroes, annually, to the islands of Hispaniola, Cuba, -Jamaica and Porto Rico. John Hawkins, afterwards -knighted by Queen Elizabeth, got into his possession, partly -by the sword and partly by other means, 300 negroes, and -sold them in the West Indies. Hawkins' second voyage was -patronized by Queen Elizabeth, who participated in the -profits; and in 1618, in the reign of James I, the British -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[ 4 ]</a></span> -government established a regular trade on the coast of -Africa.</p> - -<p>When negotiations for the slave traffic were first agitated, -the cost to the victim seems not to have been considered. -The white man's need—or greed—demanded sacrifice. -The negro, a product of the "three-cornered rum, slave and -molasses trade" was brought to New England to a condition -offering few advantages beyond certain comforts -which were to be provided by the master who was to assume -all the obligations of the position.</p> - -<p>Wrenched from his home, separated from his people, -exiled to a foreign land, which was governed by laws maintained -through penalties, the enforced emigrant was set to -labor in unaccustomed ways under uncongenial circumstances.</p> - -<p>The experiment of settling him in a manufacturing section -proved disadvantageous to the investor. The demand -for field labor furnished a Southern market; this occasioned -his removal to that part of the country, his aptitude for -the work kept him there.</p> - -<p>His insurrectionary spirit made his training difficult. It -was a trial of endurance for master as well as apprentice, -but custom and good treatment tamed the wild nature of -the latter and converted him into an important factor in -Southern industries; to this day none other has been found -to take his place in cotton or tobacco field.</p> - -<p>He was also a form of property, and laws were made in -that connection. That instances of abuse on the part of the -owner arose was axiomatic—such is the history of life in -every sphere, and that was neither a Utopian age nor -country.</p> - -<p>Having served its aim, the slave trade diminished, then -ceased. The attitude of those engaging in and encouraging -it altered, the base of operations changed, and there remained -only the people of the slave-holding states (upon -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[ 5 ]</a></span> -whom now fell the responsibility of the support of these -nation wards) with any reason for interest in the subject. -Perhaps it was inevitable that diverging interest should -arise to cause the politics of the country to become affected -through distrust of those who owned that particular form -of property.</p> - -<p>Originally acquired as a necessity, the slave's value lessened -and the burden on his master increased, as other interests -divided his attention. Legislation was resorted to -without success in the enactment of measures for the -abolishment of a system so firmly rooted.</p> - -<p>In 1805, Mr. Jefferson wrote "I have given up all expectation -of any early, provision for the extinguishment of -slavery among us. There are many virtuous men who -would make any sacrifices to effect it, many equally virtuous -who believe it cannot be remedied." In 1814, however, -Mr. Jefferson again urged the policy of emancipation.</p> - -<p>That many owners were in sympathy with this proposed -disposition of a vexed problem, is manifest from the records -of the courts, which show that slaves were sent to Liberia, -settled in the free states, permitted to purchase their -freedom, bequeathed land and liberty by the masters who -had held them.</p> - -<p>A strange condition existed in the holding of slaves by -free negroes. These were to be found in nearly all of the -colonies and states where there were slaves. In some -counties they were numerous, while in others they were -unknown. In certain states this condition was at times -forbidden by law, but often continued in spite of the law, -tolerated or ignored; the laws upon the subject also varied -from time to time. In other states free negroes were given -the privilege of being masters by special statute or this -liberty was covered by general laws.</p> - -<p>Certain good was accomplished by the transportation of -the African savage to a congenial clime among those who -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[ 6 ]</a></span> -trained him to become a useful citizen. Under the tutelage -of his master, he was guided, stage by stage, along the pathway -to civilization by the law he recognized in his native -land—that of coercion—till he attained his present status. -Standing upon this vantage ground, it remains for him to -work out his further advancement and to discover the position -he can maintain. In the fact that some have made -strides forward, and thus fitted themselves as leaders of the -race, lies the hope and inspiration for the rest, an encouraging -factor being the imitative faculty with which many are -gifted.</p> - -<p>Criticism today discovers that in the portrayal of the -character of "Uncle Tom" Mrs. Stowe paid a glowing -tribute to the achievement of the Southern master. Africa -has not done as much for the brother left upon her soil, -nor has the foreign missionary. We may still read of such -practices as cannibalism on the western coast of the dark -continent—even along the trail of the religious enthusiast. -Taking then into account what has been accomplished, the -claim that the Southern master was the most successful -missionary can easily be proved.</p> - -<p>We have no doubt but that some cause other than the -avarice of the white man led to the rescue of the man of -color from a life of ignorance and barbarism—to his expatriation -to this country of opportunity—to his settlement -under apprenticeship calculated to encourage self-helpfulness -by developing his capabilities. To this end he -passed through the probationary period of servitude.</p> - -<p>General Early's review of the situation previous to the -war, as here presented, illustrates the point of view of the -people of the South. His attitude towards slavery -took its color from his familiarity with the institution as it -existed in the homes of those to whom it had become a -natural condition of life. It was so incorporated with their -daily living, and with the traditions of generations, that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[ 7 ]</a></span> -they became accustomed to it without considering the reasons -for its establishment.</p> - -<p>The author was never an investor in slaves, although he -always possessed a negro servant. One who served -till age enfeebled him, was retired on a pension. Another, -cut short in his service by fatal disease, was respectfully -followed to his last resting place by the master upon whom -in health he had attended. His thoughtful care of his attendants -and his liberality when trouble overtook them, won -their affection and respect.</p> - -<p>It may be understood then that interest in slaves as property -did not enter into his defense of slavery as an institution -of his country. No selfish thought prompted the use -of his pen in the exposition of the unfairness of opinion -abroad—but, imbued with a keen sense of right, he was -actuated by the desire to dissipate that injustice which took -possession of many minds—coloring their views and proving -barriers to their sympathies.</p> - -<p>To make clear his point of view by stating the true -conditions which brought about slavery in the South and -to define the relation which existed between master and -slave, was the purpose of General Early in writing this -real story of slavery as it was established in America, and -as it continued to exist in that section of which it became -the heritage.</p> - -<p class="tdr2"> -<span class="smcap">R. H. Early.</span><br /> -</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[ 8 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2>Contents</h2> - -<hr class="r20" /> - -<table class="tblcont" summary="TOC"> -<tr> - <td class="tdl" colspan="2">CHAPTER</td> - <td class="tdr smaller">PAGE</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">I</td> - <td class="tdl">—The African Slave Trade</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">11</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">II</td> - <td class="tdl">—Origin of Slavery in the United States</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">16</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">III</td> - <td class="tdl">—Legislation on the Question of State Establishment</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">36</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">IV</td> - <td class="tdl">—Causes Leading to Secession—Secession of the Cotton States</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">62</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">V</td> - <td class="tdl">—Action of the Border Slave States—Convention of Virginia</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">88</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">VI</td> - <td class="tdl">—The Right to Withdraw</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">94</a></td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td class="tdr">VII</td> - <td class="tdl">—Injurious Effect of Misinformation</td> - <td class="tdr"><a href="#CHAPTER_VII">110</a></td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[ 9 ]</a></span></p> - - -<p class="tdc pmt4 pmb4"><i>Come now let us reason together</i></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[ 10 ]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[ 11 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="The_Heritage_of_the_South" id="The_Heritage_of_the_South">The Heritage <i>of the</i> South</a></h2> - -<hr class="r20" /> - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I">CHAPTER I</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">The African Slave Trade</p> - - -<p>The struggle for independence made by the Southern -States of the American Union, grew out of questions of self -government arising mainly in regard to the institution of -African slavery as it existed in those states, and as that institution -was the occasion for the development of the difficulties -which led immediately to the struggle, the conduct of the -states lately forming the Southern Confederacy has been -misunderstood, therefore, misrepresented, with the effect of -casting upon them not only the odium of originating the -war but even for the existence and continuance of slavery -itself.</p> - -<p>Much misapprehension has existed in the minds even of -intelligent foreigners upon these subjects and it is therefore -not inappropriate to take a retrospective view of the history -of slavery in general and especially of the slave trade and -of slavery in the United States, as well as of the questions -which led to the secession of the Southern States and to the -war consequent thereon.</p> - -<p>It is said that the Portuguese began the traffic in slaves -on the coast of Africa in the 15th century, and that at the -beginning of the 16th century negro slaves had become quite -common in Portugal.</p> - -<p>After the discovery of America, the Spaniards made -slaves of the Indians and employed them in their first settlements -in the newly discovered country, but the supply -not being found sufficient and the Indians not being very -well adapted for the purpose in the tropical regions, negro -slaves were introduced from Africa—the first being imported<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[ 12 ]</a></span> -into Hispaniola (St. Domingo), in the year 1503. -The example of Spain in regard to the use of negro slaves -in her American Colonies was followed by all the other -nations of Europe, who undertook the colonization of the -newly found continent and islands, to-wit: the Portuguese, -English, French, Dutch, Danes and Swedes.</p> - -<p>Sir John Hawkins, an English admiral and adventurer, -was the first Englishman known to have engaged in the -African slave trade, and he carried his first cargo to the -Spanish West India islands about the year 1562. Report -says that Queen Elizabeth became a partner in and shared -the profits of his subsequent voyages in the prosecution of -the trade. From that time the African slave trade became -a regular branch of English commerce, and was conducted -in its first stages principally under monopolies granted to -companies, in the profits of which members of the Royal -family, noblemen, courtiers and churchmen, as well as merchants, -shared, as was the practice in those days in all important -branches of commerce.</p> - -<p>From the restriction under Charles II, the African trade, -including that in slaves, was monopolized by the "<i>Royal -African Company</i>" for a number of years; and that company -built and established, on the coast of Africa, forts and -factories for the purpose of facilitating and protecting the -trade; but in the year 1698, the slave trade was thrown -open to private traders, upon the payment to the company -of a certain percentage towards the support of its forts and -factories.</p> - -<p>The growing demand in Europe for colonial products -now gave a new impulse to the slave trade, and its profits -were very great. It was not only recognized by the government, -but was sustained by the universal public sentiment -in England, and was fostered and cherished by Parliament -as a lucrative traffic.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[ 13 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the year 1713, by the treaty of Utrecht, the <i>Assiento</i>, -a contract originally entered into by the Spanish government -with a company of French merchants for a monopoly -by the latter of the trade in slaves to Spanish America, was -assigned to the South Sea Company. By the terms of this -contract 4,800 negro slaves were to be furnished to the -Spanish colonies annually for thirty years, the company -being privileged to introduce as many more as could be -sold.</p> - -<p>In this company Queen Anne and the King of Spain -became stockholders, as did a large portion of the nobility, -gentry, churchmen, and merchants of England. England -thus sought a monopoly of the entire slave trade, at least -so far as her own and the Spanish colonies were concerned. -The exclusive privileges granted to the Royal African Company -having expired, in the year 1750 the British Government -undertook to maintain the forts and factories on the -African coast at its own expense, and the slave trade was -thrown open to free competition on the part of its citizens. -A great increase of the trade now took place, and England -had become the leading nation in that trade, which was -carried on chiefly from the ports of Bristol and Liverpool, -but other ports including that of London shared in it—the -West Indies furnishing the principal market, but a considerable -number were also introduced into the colonies of -North America.</p> - -<p>In the meantime the Puritan settlers in New England, -under the allurements of the high profits of the trade, had -been tempted to engage in it from the time of the earliest -settlements there, which they did by evading the monopolies -and restrictions in favor of English merchants, and as New -England rum was mainly used in the traffic, by the Puritans, -the Parliament of Great Britain had, at the instance of -English merchants, passed an act, called the "Molasses -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[ 14 ]</a></span> -Act" imposing duties on molasses, sugar and rum imported -into the colonies from the French and Dutch West Indies, -for the purpose of preventing interference with the English -trade in slaves.</p> - -<p>Numerous acts of the colonial legislatures imposing duties -on the importation of slaves, had also been vetoed or repealed -by royal proclamation, because they were regarded -and styled "impediments to British commerce not to be -favoured," and all such acts continued to be vetoed and repealed -down to the time of the American Revolution, except -in the solitary case of Virginia, when, after repeated acts -imposing such duties had been vetoed or repealed, privilege -was finally given to the colonial legislature in 1734, to impose -a duty to be paid by the colonial <i>purchaser</i> and not -the English <i>seller</i>.</p> - -<p>But it was not by fostering the slave trade and prosecuting -any restrictions on it, only, that the British government -made itself responsible for African slavery in its -American colonies. In the year 1730 seven of the principal -Cherokee Chiefs from the unsettled country west of South -Carolina, were carried to England by Sir Alexander Cumming, -and while there they were induced to enter into a -treaty with the Board of Trade then having charge of -colonial affairs, by which provision was made for the return -to their owners, by the Indians, of all runaway slaves; and -in the year 1732, an act of parliament was passed "for the -more speedy recovery of debts in America" by English -creditors, among the provisions of which was one subjecting -slaves to execution in judgments for all demands. While -England thus became so identified with the introduction of -African slavery into America, all the commercial nations -of Europe were likewise implicated in the trade; and if -England took the lead in it, that fact was owing to the -superior intelligence and energy of her merchants and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[ 15 ]</a></span> -traders, and not to any qualms of conscience on the part -of other nations.</p> - -<p>In fact during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, until -towards the close of the latter, when a very few "philanthropists" -appeared, there was no sentiment in any Christian -or unchristian country which regarded the reduction -of the negroes of Africa to slavery as opposed to moral -right or religious duty, or in any other light than as a -blessing to the negroes themselves and a great benefit to -their owners.</p> - -<p>It is a fact, not undeserving of notice, in reviewing the -conduct of England in forcing African slaves upon her -American colonies, that during the whole period from the -settlement to the revolt of those colonies, all trade with -them to and from Ireland was absolutely forbidden, and -hence it is that the Irish formed so inconsiderable an element -in their population previous to the Revolution. The -native Irish were then regarded by their rulers as having -but few more rights than the negroes of Africa.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Having thus briefly shown the origin and progress of the -slave trade, I will now trace the settlement of the colonies, -which afterwards became the United States, and the introduction -of slavery into them.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[ 16 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II">CHAPTER II</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">Origin of Slavery in the United States</p> - - -<p>The first permanent settlement within the limits of the -United States—as they became afterwards—to be established, -was that of Florida, which was begun by the Spaniards -in the year 1564. Slavery was introduced into -Florida, as it was into all the Spanish colonies, and that -colony remained under the control of Spain until the year -1763, when it was ceded to Great Britain, at the close of -the war which resulted in the cession of Canada, and the -territory east of the Mississippi by France to the same -power, but in 1783, after the recognition of the independence -of the United States, Florida along with that part -of Louisiana east of the Mississippi and south of the 31st -degree of latitude, which had been ceded by France, was re-ceded -to Spain, and remained a Spanish colony until the -year 1821, when it was ceded to the United States; slavery -continuing to exist there under all these changes.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The next permanent settlement in point of time, was that -of Virginia by the English in the year 1607. In the year -1620, twenty negro slaves were brought to Jamestown in -Virginia by a Dutch man-of-war and sold to the colonists, -but the number of slaves in that colony remained so small -for a long time, that there was no legislative enactment -recognizing the existence of slavery for more than forty -years after the first introduction of it.</p> - -<p>The reduction of Indians to slavery was prohibited in -Virginia from the beginning, and in the year 1658 by the -revised laws adopted in that colony, the Indians were protected -in the possession of their lands, and in order to -secure the Indian children, placed with the colonists for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[ 17 ]</a></span> -education, from being sold as slaves, the transfer of their -service was forbidden. In the revised code adopted in -1662, very humane provisions were contained for the protection -of the Indians, in the enjoyment of their lands, and -it was enacted that no Indians entertained as servants -should be sold into slavery for a longer period than English -indented servants of like age. In the same year, the first -act was passed by the colonial legislature recognizing the -existence of slavery, and it was to the effect that children -should be held as bond or free "according to the condition -of the mothers."</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>This law recognized the generally received principle that -slavery was valid according to the laws of nations, but did -not itself enact slavery. That principle prevailed universally, -all over the world at that time, and had prevailed -since the foundation, being recognized in the bible.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In the year 1667, a law was passed providing that negro -slaves converted and baptized should not thereby become -free. The motive for the adoption of this law, was to secure -to slaves religious instruction, as an idea prevailed among -some that it was not lawful to hold a Christian in slavery, -and it was apprehended that masters might be indisposed, -under such impressions, to encourage their slaves to become -converted. In the same year it was provided by law that -"all servants, not being Christians, imported by shipping -shall be slaves for life."</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In 1671, there were in Virginia, according to a statement -furnished by Governor Berkeley, 40,000 inhabitants, including -in that number 2,000 "black slaves" and 6,000 Christian -servants. The latter consisted of English servants -brought into the colony as indented servants for a term of -years, and sold—as was the practice in all of the colonies -at that day—to pay the expenses of their passage.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[ 18 ]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>During what was known as Bacon's rebellion in 1676, -the Virginia Assembly, acting under the coercion of Bacon's -followers, passed an act for the prosecution of a war -against the Indians, and one of its provisions was that -all Indians taken prisoners in war should be held and accounted -slaves for life. This was the first and only provision -of the laws of that colony authorizing the reduction -of Indians to slavery, though Indian slaves, not being -Christians, brought in by shipping might be held, under -the law of 1667; but there were no slaves made under this -forced enactment of Bacon's, as the war was not prosecuted, -the rebellion having come to an end, by the death of its -leader, the same year.</p> - -<p>A law was enacted in the year 1682, by which negroes, -Moors, mulattoes or Indians, brought into the colony as -servants, by sea or land, were recognized as slaves "whether -converted to Christianity or not, provided they were not of -Christian parentage or country, or Turks or Moors in amity -with his majesty."</p> - -<p>In the year 1692, an act was passed providing for "a free -and open trade for all persons, at all times and at all places -with all Indians whatsoever," under which the Virginia -courts decided that no Indian could be reduced to slavery, -or brought into Virginia as a slave, after the passage of the -act.</p> - -<p>In the revised Code of Virginia, adopted in the year -1705, is contained the final enactment upon the subject of -slavery during the colonial state, except some acts imposing -duties on imported slaves, and by that enactment it -was provided that "all servants imported or brought into -this country by sea or land, who were not Christians in -their native country (except Turks and Moors in amity -with his majesty, and others who can make due proof of -their being free in England or any other Christian country -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[ 19 ]</a></span> -before they were shipped in order to transportation thither) -shall be accounted and be slaves, notwithstanding a conversion -to Christianity afterwards"; and it was further provided—as -in the first act on the subject—for "all children -to be bond or free according to the condition of their -mothers."</p> - -<p>The Virginia Assembly had passed, from time to time, -acts imposing a duty of twenty shillings a head on all imported -slaves, and this being renewed in 1723, was repealed -by royal proclamation, but the Board of Trade in England -intimated that they had no objection to a duty on imported -negroes, provided it was exacted from the colonial purchaser, -and not from the English seller; and in 1734 an act -was passed imposing a duty of five per cent. to be paid by -the purchaser, which was subsequently increased and -reached as high as twenty per cent.</p> - -<p>In the year 1772, the House of Burgesses of Virginia -adopted an address to George III, declaring the importation -of negroes from Africa to be an inhuman trade and -asking that all restraints be removed from the passage of -acts to check "that pernicious commerce," which request -was not granted.</p> - -<p>After the commencement of the difficulties which led to -the Revolution, the Virginia convention, which assembled -the 1st of August, 1774, and took upon itself the actual -management of the affairs of the colony, adopted among -its first acts, a resolution to import "no more slaves, nor -British goods, nor tea." Practically this resolution put -an end forever to the African slave trade so far as Virginia -was concerned, and its abolition was subsequently confirmed -during the war of the Revolution by a more formal -act passed by the legislature in the year 1778, prohibiting -the importation of slaves from any quarter, whether by -sea or land, and providing that all brought into the State -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[ 20 ]</a></span> -in violation of the law should be free. Slaves brought in -by citizens of other of the United States coming into Virginia -as actual residents, and those inherited by citizens of -Virginia in other States of the Union and brought in by -them being exempted from the operation of the act. In -addition to the grant of freedom to the slaves themselves -heavy penalties were imposed on both the buyer and seller -who violated the act. In adopting this prohibition, Virginia -was ahead of all the States in the Union except the little -State of Delaware, and its action preceded the abolition of -the slave trade, by England, thirty years.</p> - -<p>The citizens of Virginia had never engaged in the slave -trade as importers, and were merely the purchasers from -others—its legislature being prohibited from interfering -with the trade.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>About the year 1610, trading posts were established by -the Dutch within the present limits of New York, and the -name of New Netherland was given to the territory claimed, -including that of New York, New Jersey, or the Jersey, and -some other. Actual colonization began within the present -limits of New York, under the authority of the Dutch -government in the year 1629, the traders located in those -limits having been previously engaged only in trade with -the Indians. Slavery was introduced with the first settlers -and was recognized and protected by law. In the year 1664, -New Netherland was conquered from its Dutch rulers, by -an English expedition under the authority of the Duke of -York, subsequently James II, to whom a royal grant of -the territory had been made. The province of New York -was then created out of New Netherland, though it came -again, temporarily, under the Dutch for portions of the -years 1673 and 1674.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[ 21 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>Slavery was continued as it before existed until after the -Revolution. Vessels were fitted out in the port of New -York (first called New Amsterdam), for the slave trade at -an early period, and the merchants of that city engaged in -it without scruple; some of them continued to be so engaged -until the traffic was prohibited by Congressional enactment.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The settlement next in point of time was that of Plymouth, -in the year 1620, within the present limits of the -State of Massachusetts. Slavery of the Indians and also -of negroes existed in this province from the beginning. The -settlement at Plymouth by the passengers of the May -Flower, though first in point of time, was not by any means, -the leading one in Massachusetts, and the Province of Plymouth -played comparatively an unimportant part in the -history of Massachusetts. The main settlement in that -colony was made in the year 1629, by John Winthrop and -his followers, Puritans emigrating directly from England, -professedly for the purpose of securing to themselves, and -their posterity, religious freedom. It was this settlement -which gave tone and character to Massachusetts, as well as -to all the other New England provinces, which were chiefly -offshoots from Massachusetts.</p> - -<p>Though professing to be seeking a home in this wilderness -for the purpose of enjoying and establishing religious -liberty, the settlers of Massachusetts established as proscriptive -and despotic a theocracy as the world has ever seen. A -celebrated humorist has aptly said that their idea of religious -liberty consisted in enjoying their own opinions to -the fullest extent and preventing any body else from enjoying -theirs.</p> - -<p>Under their charter a government was established by the -colonists at Massachusetts Bay, which was entirely theocratic -in form and substance. To be a freeman, that is a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[ 22 ]</a></span> -citizen and voter, it was necessary to be a member of the -established church, which was the Congregational, and was -supported at the public expense. The members of that -church claimed to be God's elect, and they showed no mercy -to any other sect and allowed of no dissent whatever; all -others were heretics or heathens.</p> - -<p>From the beginning, the colonists at Massachusetts Bay, -as well as those at Plymouth, regarded the "heathen around -them" and all their possessions as fit spoil for the "Saints." -Accordingly they began at a very early period to help themselves. -In the year 1637, in a war begun against the -Piquods, that tribe of Indians was exterminated by -slaughter and capture. Of several hundred prisoners taken, -the adult males, constituting but a small portion of the -captives, were sent to the West Indies and sold into slavery, -while the women and children were distributed among the -colonists as slaves also; this was done by the constituted -authorities.</p> - -<p>These colonists commenced the building of ships in the -year 1634, and engaged in commerce, the African slave -trade, being, from the beginning, a part of that commerce. -By the year 1640, six large vessels had been built, and -fitted out by the Boston merchants, which were sent on -voyages to Spain, Madeira and the Canaries with cargoes -of fish and staves, and brought back, among other things, -cargoes of negroes from the coast of Africa for sale at -Barbadoes and the other British West India Islands.</p> - -<p>It was not a great while before the religious persecution -in Massachusetts drove off a number of dissenters from the -established faith, among them being the celebrated Roger -Williams, the founder of the Baptists in America. These -"heretics," as they were called, took refuge within the -present limits of Rhode Island, where they established, at -different points, separate governments for themselves, all of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[ 23 ]</a></span> -which were subsequently merged in that of Rhode Island. -Emigrants from Massachusetts also established themselves -at different points in the present limits of Connecticut and -formed two separate governments, one called New Haven -and the other Connecticut, which were afterwards united -under that of Connecticut. Massachusetts set up a claim -of jurisdiction over all of these settlements, but finally had -to abandon it.</p> - -<p>In the year 1641, the general court of Massachusetts, in -which the legislative power was vested, adopted a code of -fundamental laws called "Fundamentals" or "Body of -Liberties," which were compiled from two separate drafts -reported by those "Godly ministers," "the great Cotton" -as he was called, and Nathaniel Ward, who had been appointed -commissioners for that purpose. One of the "Liberties" -provided that "There shall never be any bond-slavery, -villanage nor captivity among us, unless it be lawful -captives taken in just wars, and such strangers as willingly -sell themselves or are sold unto us, and these shall -have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law -of God, established in Israel, requires. This exempts none -from servitude who shall be judged thereto by authority." -This surely was a one-sided idea of religious liberty; the -"elect" gave themselves abundant liberty to do as they -pleased in the matter. This "Fundamental" was twenty -years in advance of any legislative enactment in Virginia -recognizing the existence of slavery.</p> - -<p>A confederacy was formed, in the year 1643, between the -colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut and New -Haven, called the "United Colonies of New England" into -which the "heretics" of Rhode Island were not permitted -to enter. Slavery existed by law everywhere now in New -England, including Rhode Island, and one of the stipulations -of the compact, by which the United Colonies were -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[ 24 ]</a></span> -bound, was that fugitive servants or slaves should be delivered -up when fleeing from one province to another. The -stipulation was almost in the identical terms of that long -afterwards incorporated into the United States Constitution -upon the same subject.</p> - -<p>The harsh treatment pursued towards dissenters, including -the most delicate females, who were sometimes stripped -naked and whipped through the streets, and the trials and -execution of persons as witches, furnish revolting details -of the conduct of the "elect," but it is not intended to refer -more particularly to that here. One fact, however, in -regard to the history of Virginia and Massachusetts may be -properly mentioned—as descendants of the latter's colonists -have arraigned at the bar of public opinion, the people of -Virginia, as well as the whole South upon the subject of -slavery—and that fact is very suggestive.</p> - -<p>In the year 1644, the Indians in Virginia, under the -instigation of Opechancanough, successor of Powhatan, -undertook to exterminate the colonists in that province, -when five hundred persons, who were engaged in celebrating -a victory of the king over the Parliamentary army in -the war then raging, were massacred at the first surprise. -A ship was sent to Boston to procure powder for the defence -of the colony, but the general court declined to -furnish it. This refusal was owing to the fact that the -people of Virginia sympathized with the king in the pending -struggle, and to the further fact that three ministers -sent out from New England at the instance of some of the -"elect," who had found their way into Virginia, were sent -out of the province by Governor Berkeley for violating the -law—Governor Winthrop declaring that the massacre of the -Virginians was a punishment "for their reviling the Gospel -and those faithful ministers."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[ 25 ]</a></span></p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>A law was adopted in Connecticut, 1650, for selling -debtors for debt, which remained in force more than a -century and a half; and at the same time a law was -adopted, upon the recommendation of the commissioners -for the United Colonies of New England, providing that -Indians refusing or neglecting satisfaction for injuries -might be seized and delivered to the party injured "either -to serve, or to be shipped out and exchanged for negroes, -as the case will justly bear." About this time, the "heretics" -at Warwick, one of the settlements in Rhode Island, -complained that the authorities of Massachusetts had instigated -the Indians to commit depredations upon them, and -Easton, subsequently governor of Rhode Island, was reported -to have said of the people of Massachusetts, that -"the elect had the Holy Ghost and the devil indwelling." -Upon hearing of the execution of two persons for witchcraft, -the people of Warwick exclaimed "There are no -witches on earth, nor devils, but the ministers of New England -and such as they."</p> - -<p>In 1676, a large number of captives, taken in the war -against King Philip, in which all of New England was -united, were made slaves of, many of them were sent from -Boston to Bermuda and sold, including the infant son of -King Philip, who, some of the most prominent ministers insisted, -should be slain for his father's sins, though the more -remunerative expedient of selling him was adopted. The -captives who fell into the hands of the Rhode Islanders were -distributed as slaves, and Roger Williams, the expelled -"heretic" from Massachusetts, received a boy for his share. -A large body of Indians assembled at Dover, at the conclusion -of the war, to make peace, were treacherously captured -and some two hundred of them were sent to Boston, where -some were hung and the rest shipped off to be sold as slaves.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[ 26 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the reign of James II, the charter of Massachusetts -was vacated by legal proceedings, and in the year 1691, a -new charter was issued providing for the appointment of -the governor by the crown and for toleration to all religious -sects. This gave great dissatisfaction to the ruling church; -and the theocratic power was in a great measure destroyed, -but the controlling influence of the old religious party still -prevailed in the general court, though restrained by the -royal governor. By this charter the province of Plymouth -was incorporated with that of Massachusetts, as was the -district of Maine, but New Hampshire, previously under -the government of Massachusetts, was soon created into a -separate province.</p> - -<p>In 1701, the town of Boston instructed its representatives -to propose "putting a period to negroes being slaves," but -no action was taken, and these scruples were very short -lived, the enslaving of Indians and the prosecution of the -slave trade being still continued. The manufacture of New -England rum, which was in progress, furnished a very easy -means of prosecuting the trade, as that article was freely -exchanged on the coast of Africa with the natives for slaves. -One part of the inhabitants being imbruited by the detestable -liquor, while the other was carried off into bondage. -The traders of New England, composed of all classes, including -church dignitaries, participated largely in the -profits resulting from the impulse given to the slave trade -in 1698, and it was sustained by public sentiment in those -colonies as well as in the mother country.</p> - -<p>In 1704, in the intercolonial war with Canada, Massachusetts -offered a reward of $66 per head for Indian prisoners -under ten years of age and double as much for older -prisoners or for scalps.</p> - -<p>In 1712, Massachusetts passed an act prohibiting the -further importation of Indian slaves on pain of the forfeiture -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[ 27 ]</a></span> -of the slaves, but this prohibition did not arise from -feelings of humanity for the Indians; the reasons given for -it were, that the Indians were "of a surly and revengeful -spirit, rude and insolent in their behavior, and very ungovernable" -and because "this province being differently -circumstanced from the plantations in the islands, and having -great numbers of the Indian natives of the country -within and about them and at this time under the sorrowful -effects of their rebellion and hostilities."</p> - -<p>The merchants of England having complained that the -New Englanders were infringing upon their rights by engaging -in the slave trade, which the New England traders -now mainly carried on with rum, for the manufacture of -which molasses was imported from elsewhere than the -British West India Islands, an act of Parliament was passed -in 1733, imposing a duty on molasses, sugar and rum imported -from the French and Dutch West Indies. This act -was called the "Molasses Act," and was the first of the -series of Acts bringing about the discontent which led to -the Revolution. The traders of New England managed -to elude this act as they had done the restrictions put -upon the slave trade for the benefit of the English merchants. -The manufacture of rum and the trade from all -the ports of New England still continued with great activity -up to the commencement of the Revolution, and served to -build up the commerce of that section, as the same trade -had built up the commerce of the mother country.</p> - -<p>Some slaves were imported into all the New England -colonies, but as there was not very profitable employment -for them there, and it was vastly more remunerative to sell -than to work them, the former was preferred to the latter -mode of dealing with the subject and in it they found a -rich reward. The markets for the slaves were found in the -West Indies and in the Southern colonies, where the soil, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[ 28 ]</a></span> -climate and productions were much more suitable for -African slave labor, than in the cold regions of the north. -There were, however, in the year 1754, 2,448 negro slaves in -Massachusetts over 16 years of age, 1,000 of them being in -Boston, and the whole number exceeded 4,000, while in -Connecticut and Rhode Island the proportion of slaves to -the white population was greater than in Massachusetts.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Maryland was settled under the proprietorship of Lord -Baltimore in the year 1634, and slavery was introduced into -that colony also, the laws recognizing and regulating it -being very similar to those of Virginia. In 1649, an act -was passed by which the kidnapping of Indians to make -them slaves, was made felony, and in 1663, the first act -recognizing slavery was passed, being similar in its features -to that of Virginia. The people of Maryland did not engage -in the slave trade and were merely purchasers.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The first settlement in the Carolinas was within the -limits of what became South Carolina, and was made in the -latter half of the 16th century by French Huguenots, but -that settlement proved a failure. An attempt to make a -settlement in North Carolina under the auspices of Sir -Walter Raleigh also proved abortive. The first permanent -settlement in North Carolina was by Virginia emigrants to -the northern part of it, some years previous to the charter, -which was granted to some English noblemen and others for -both of the Carolinas. In 1665, North Carolina was taken -possession of under this charter, and a government was established -therefor. In 1670, South Carolina was permanently -settled. Though embraced in the same charter, North -and South Carolina now became separate provinces with -distinct governments. Slavery was introduced into both -provinces and was recognized by law; the number of slaves -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[ 29 ]</a></span> -continuing to increase as the population increased and the -capacities of the soil became known, which proved to be -very suitable for slave labor. There was nothing special -in the history of slavery in these provinces during the -colonial state. The people did not engage in the slave -trade, but were merely purchasers from English and New -England traders; nor did they make slaves of the Indians -by whom they were surrounded.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The first settlers within the limits of New Jersey were -Swedes, who came over prior to 1630. New Jersey, or East -and West Jersey as it was called then, was settled in 1665 -by English emigrants, and two governments were organized -therefor under grants from the Duke of York, which were -subsequently consolidated into one. Slavery was introduced -into that province as it had been in all of the others, -but the number of slaves did not become as numerous as in -the more Southern colonies, because the soil and climate -were not as suitable for slave labor.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Pennsylvania was settled in 1682 under the proprietorship -of William Penn, and the government was organized -by him, including within its jurisdiction Delaware also. -Slavery was introduced into this colony, and slaves were -held without scruple by the Quaker followers of Penn. In -1692, George Keith, a Scotch Quaker who had been the -champion of the Quakers against their persecutors—the -Reverend Cotton Mather of witch notoriety, and the other -Massachusetts divines—attacked negro slavery as inconsistent -with Quaker principles. For this he was "<i>disavowed</i>" -by the yearly meeting of the Quakers of Pennsylvania, as a -schismatic, and he instituted a meeting of his own called -"Christian Quakers." For publishing a reply to a publication -against him, he was fined by the Quaker magistrates -of Philadelphia and he subsequently became disgusted -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[ 30 ]</a></span> -with the whole sect, turned Episcopalian, went to England -and took orders there, and was one of the first missionaries -sent to the American colonies by the "Society for propagating -the gospel in foreign parts."</p> - -<p>In 1699, Penn proposed to provide by law for the marriage, -religious instruction and kind treatment of slaves, -but he met with no response from the Quaker legislature of -Pennsylvania. The "spirit" had not then moved the Quakers -to "bear their testimony" against slavery and consequently -they did not "testify." In 1712, the legislature -imposed a duty of £20 on all negroes and Indians brought -into the province by land or water, a drawback to be -allowed in case of re-exportation within twenty days, and -slaves brought in and concealed were to be sold. This act -did not owe its origin to abhorrence of slavery itself, but -was passed in a fright at some alleged plots for insurrections, -which were apprehended in consequence of one which -had been discovered in New York. The act was disallowed -by Queen Anne, and the same legislature replied to a petition -in favor of emancipating the negroes, "That it was -neither just nor expedient to set them at liberty." This -was the only "testimony" borne by the Quakers of Pennsylvania -against slavery prior to the war of the Revolution.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Delaware was originally settled by Swedes at the same -time the settlement was made in New Jersey, and it had -been embraced under the same government with Pennsylvania -at the time of Penn's settlement, but it was made a -separate province, by his consent, in the year 1691. Delaware -is entitled to the credit of being not only the first of -the provinces but the first country in the world to adopt an -express enactment prohibiting the introduction of slaves -within its limits. This it did in the year 1771, but the act -was vetoed by Governor Penn, the grandson of Wm. Penn, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[ 31 ]</a></span> -and the representative of the crown. The prohibition was -incorporated into the first State Constitution adopted in -the year 1776. Delaware was, however, a slave colony and -remained a slave State.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The first permanent settlement within the limits of the -territory of Louisiana, which embraced a very large tract -of country, was made under the auspices of D'Ibberville, -a French Canadian, at Mobile, within the limits of the -present State of Alabama in the year 1702. Bienville, -governor of Louisiana, located New Orleans, the first permanent -settlement within the limits of the State of Louisiana, -in the year 1718. Slavery was introduced into the province -of Louisiana under the direction of the French government, -a contract being made for that purpose with Anthony -Crozat, a French merchant, to whom the province and a -monopoly of its trade were granted. Crozat resigned his -patent in 1717, and a monopoly of the trade for twenty-five -years was granted to "the company of the West," commonly -called "The Mississippi Company," with which the -famous Law was connected. By its contract, the company -undertook to introduce 6,000 whites and half as many negro -slaves into the province. Slavery thus became established -in Louisiana under the express stipulation of the French -government, and continued to exist under its authority. In -1763, by the treaty made between England, France and -Spain, at the close of the war in which all three nations had -been engaged, France ceded to England, Canada and all of -the territory east of the Mississippi river, except the island -of Orleans, and to Spain all of Louisiana which had not -been ceded to England, while Spain ceded Florida to England. -In 1783, England re-ceded Florida to Spain, and at -the same time ceded to the same power that part of Louisiana -north of the 31st degree of latitude which had been -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[ 32 ]</a></span> -acquired from France. The parts of the original province -of Louisiana thus re-united, remained a Spanish province -until the year 1801, when it was re-ceded to France, and -in 1803 it was ceded to the United States. Slavery had -continued to exist in the province, and the different parts -of it, and to be recognized as legal, during all of these -changes.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>In 1733, Georgia was settled under the patronage of General -Oglethorpe, of the British Army, and it was intended -as a humanitarian scheme for furnishing refuge to impoverished -meritorious persons, and persecuted Continental -Protestants. The territory, together with the power to -legislate for twenty-one years, was granted to trustees resident -in England. The trustees at first prohibited the introduction -of slaves, but under the humanitarian ideas with -which the colony was begun, it languished and proved a -miserable failure until the year 1749. The trustees were -then induced to permit the introduction of slaves, at the -instance, among others, of the celebrated preacher, Whitfield, -and his follower, Habersham, who earnestly interceded -for the permission—Habersham stating as a reason for the -introduction of slavery that "Many of the poor slaves in -America have already been made freemen of the Heavenly -Jerusalem."</p> - -<p>Slavery was thus introduced into Georgia, and the Colony -began at once to prosper and advanced with rapid strides.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>The institution of slavery, it will thus be perceived, -existed at the time of the Revolution, not only in all of the -revolting colonies, acknowledged by law and sustained by -public sentiment at home and in the mother country, but -it existed in all of the territories, which afterwards became -a part of the United States, and was sanctioned by the sentiment -of all of the Christian world.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[ 33 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>But before this review of the slave trade and of slavery -in the British colonies in North America, is closed, it is -proper that England should receive credit for one incident -in her judicial history in regard to the subject. In the year -1763, the celebrated case of Somerset, a slave who had been -carried to England by his master from one of the British -West India Islands, came up before Lord Mansfield in -Westminster Hall on a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i>, and that distinguished -Chief Justice of the King's Bench, in delivering -his opinion discharging the petition, said: "The air of England -has long been too pure for a slave, and every man who -breathes it is free."</p> - -<p>This declaration is the source of much pride to Englishmen -and Lord Campbell in his "Lives of the Chief Justices" -goes into ecstasies over it. It is regarded as the -enunciation of the great principle that the common law of -England establishes universal freedom, and that wherever -it prevails it knocks the shackles from the slave and turns -him loose, a free man. Yet it was most probable that Somerset -himself, and it was certain that his ancestor, if not himself, -had been carried from Africa, in a ship that had been -fitted out under the protection of that very common law -by men breathing that same pure air, and sold into slavery -in a colony to which the same law under which he was released, -had followed the colonists. Was ever so absurd a -farce enacted as that which was enacted by the Chief Justice -of England, when he announced in Westminster Hall -before the assembled bar of London, that the air breathed -by a nation of slave-traders was too pure for the slave himself. -None but an Englishman would have failed to discover -its absurdity. Where then, was that "genius of universal -emancipation" referred to at a later period at the -Irish Bar by Curran, in such eloquent language, that it did -not waft these words on the wings of that pure air across -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[ 34 ]</a></span> -the channel to the Emerald Isle, to the coasts of Africa, to -the plantations of America and the West Indies, or to the -banks of the Ganges? Could not a breath of that pure air -be afforded at least for the ships of the British Navy, then -so sedulously guarding English slave ships through the -horrors of the "Middle Passage" from French cruisers? -No! that pure air was "fixed air" which could not extend -beyond the shores of England, and the wings of the -"genius of universal emancipation" were so clipped that -it was a more clumsy domestic bird than the barnyard fowl.</p> - -<p>At the same time that these celebrated words were uttered -in Westminster Hall, the ministers of State, and king, lords -and commons in Parliament, were cherishing with a fostering -hand that very trade which had consigned Somerset -to slavery, and was then consigning thousands upon thousands -of his native countrymen to the same fate while the -boasted navy of the "Mistress of the Seas" was escorting -the human cargoes in safety and triumph to their destination, -and in the colonies writs and executions were being -issued, according to forms framed in Westminster Hall, to -enforce from the sale of the bodies of human beings, the -collection of debts, due to men who breathed the "pure air -of England," and prided themselves on the liberties of the -common law.</p> - -<p>This decision of Lord Mansfield was one of those acts of -judicial legislation for which he was so famous, and it was -not the law. Quite as able judges as himself had previously -decided the validity and legality of slavery even in England, -and Lord Stowell, as able a judge and purer man -than he was, subsequently ruled very differently from the -decision in the Somerset case. England had no use for -slaves at home, as her toiling millions supplied every demand -for labor or service. Had it been to her interest to -have had African slaves within her own limits, her pure -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[ 35 ]</a></span> -air would have accommodated itself to their constitution. -She never sacrificed her material interests to her philanthropy. -Notwithstanding the decision of Lord Mansfield, -it was twenty-five years before the prime minister of England -(the younger Pitt) ventured to go even so far, as to -bring in a bill to mitigate the horrors "of the Middle Passage," -by limiting the number of slaves to be taken on -board a ship—it was forty-five years before another prime -minister ventured to advocate the abolition of the slave -trade, and seventy-one years before slavery was abolished -in the limited slave colonies left to England after the -American Revolution, and that was not done until this -small interest was so far overshadowed by other interests -as to make it of no importance to her.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[ 36 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III">CHAPTER III</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">Legislation on the Question of State Establishment</p> - - -<p>In order to understand the status of the slave trade and -slavery in the United States after their independence was -achieved, it is necessary to glance at the progress of the -Revolution and the adoption of the new form of government -after its close.</p> - -<p>In 1774, the contest between the mother country and the -English Colonies of North America approached a crisis, and -the first Continental Congress of delegates from the thirteen -colonies assembled at Philadelphia on the 5th of September -of that year. Fifteen articles, as the basis of an -"American Association," were adopted and signed on the -20th of October, in which, among other things the slave -trade was denounced, and entire abstinence from it and -from any trade with those engaged in it, was enjoined. -This had been preceded by the Virginia resolution on the -same subject more than two months, but the war which -ensued put an end to the trade during its continuance, -much more effectually than any resolutions or laws could -have done.</p> - -<p>The "Declaration of Colonial Rights" adopted by this -Congress enumerated eleven acts of Parliament as having -been passed in derogation of the rights of the colonies -since the accession of George III to the throne, to-wit:</p> - -<p>1. "The Sugar Act."—This act was a modification of -the "Molasses Act," by which the duties on molasses and -sugar were lowered and a few unimportant articles were -added to the list of those taxed.</p> - -<p>2. "The Stamp Act."—This act never had been executed -and had been repealed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[ 37 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>3 and 4. "The Two Quartering Acts."—The first of -these acts had been passed in 1765, after the close of the -war against the French in Canada, which resulted in the -conquest of that country from France, greatly to the advantage -of the northern colonies. It was intended to -quarter troops on the colonies for their protection against -the Indians and was in accordance with the views of the -elder Pitt, who intimated that the colonies ought to bear a -portion of the burthen of a war made for their benefit. By -the terms of this act, the colonial authorities were required -to furnish quarters, firewood, bedding, drink, soap, and -candles to the troops sent into the colonies. It had been resisted -or evaded and had been allowed to expire.</p> - -<p>The second of these acts was a re-enactment of the first, -in consequence of the disturbance at Boston.</p> - -<p>5. "The Tea Act."—This act imposed a duty of three -pence a pound on tea imported into the colonies, and allowed -a drawback of the duty of a shilling a pound on the -tea imported into England, when re-shipped to the colonies; -the practical effect of which was to lower the duties paid -by the colonists.</p> - -<p>6. "The Act Suspending the New York Legislature."—This -act was passed in consequence of the continued refusal -of that legislature to comply with the terms of the quartering -acts.</p> - -<p>7 and 8. "The Acts For the Trials in Great Britain of -Offences Committed in America."—These acts were passed -in consequence of the resistance of all British authority at -Boston.</p> - -<p>9. "The Boston Port Bill."—This act was passed in -consequence of the forcible destruction of tea in Boston -Harbor.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[ 38 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>10. "The Act For Regulating the Government of Massachusetts."—This -Act was passed in consequence of the -continuous disturbances by the people of that colony.</p> - -<p>11. "The Quebec Act."—This act was for the government -of Canada, and the other colonies had no right to complain, -except so far as it extended to the country south of -the lakes and west of those colonies.</p> - -<p>It is well to keep these causes of complaint in mind, when -considering the causes for the secession of the Southern -States previous to the late war, and the course pursued towards -those States.</p> - -<p>In the war which resulted from the resistance to the acts -specified, was involved a great principle of self-government, -which the British government has since fully acknowledged -in the treatment of all her other colonies, but it must be -confessed that there was a good deal of turbulence and -violence exhibited by American colonists in the first stages -of the contest. Without depreciating the public spirit displayed -by the people of Massachusetts during the war -which ensued, there can be no question but that by violence -and rashness the conflict was precipitated, and that much -forbearance was show by some of the British military -officials. A candid review of the history of the difficulties -preceding actual hostilities must lead any honest mind to -the conclusion that while the British ministers acted unconstitutionally -and unwisely, as the quarrel approached its -crisis, the people of Massachusetts, with whom the conflict -began, exhibited a very turbulent spirit and often acted -with unwarranted violence.</p> - -<p>The settlers of Massachusetts, on account of their peculiar -religious theories, had from the very beginning, been -impatient of all control from the mother country and -anxious to thrown it off. They had hailed the Commonwealth -with joy, had been greatly chagrined at the restoration -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[ 39 ]</a></span> -of the royal authority and had been very much embittered -by the vacation of their charter and the loss of the -theocratic form of government, and their ministry kept -alive the fires of discontent and fanned them into a flame -on all occasions. The same feeling existed throughout -New England. Virginia on the contrary had been always -a loyal colony and had not acknowledged the Parliament -or the Commonwealth in Cromwell's time, until compelled -to do so by a force sent for its conquest. Its people had -hailed the restoration with delight and there was no sentiment -in the colony demanding a separation from the -mother country which was not engendered by actual or -supposed infringement of their rights as British subjects. -Though the people of that colony had little direct interest -in the grievances complained of against the British government, -as the articles taxed entered very little into their -consumption, and no troops had been quartered among -them in an offensive manner since the Parliamentary expedition, -they made common cause with the people of Massachusetts, -as it was a question of power which involved the -rights of all the colonies. The difference was that the people -of Massachusetts and New England were anxious to -bring on a separation, while those of Virginia were not, unless -it was necessary for the protection of the rights of all -of the colonies. The statesmen of Virginia entered warmly -into the dispute both by speaking and writing, and when -the actual collision took place the people sprang to arms -and sent to Massachusetts aid in both men and provisions.</p> - -<p>It was the attempt to coerce the people of Massachusetts, -in an unconstitutional manner, to compliance with unconstitutional -laws, on the part of the British government, -more than any actual grievances of their own, that aroused -the people of Virginia to action, as that coercion if successfully -applied to one colony, might be used for the destruction -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[ 40 ]</a></span> -of all self-government in the others. This became the -traditional policy of Virginia as a sovereign State. After -the struggle began, she gave a leader to the continental -army, her wisest and best statesmen to the colonial councils, -her arms-bearing citizens to the ranks, and her resources -to the prosecution of the war. That war which was begun -in Massachusetts, long after it ceased to exist within the -limits of that State, was finally, practically, ended on the -soil of Virginia, after that soil had been terribly ravaged -by the invading armies of Great Britain.</p> - -<p>Motives similar to those which actuated Virginia, -prompted the action of all of the other Southern colonies, -and none suffered greater losses in war for the common defence -than South Carolina. This statement is not made in -order to claim for Virginia and the other Southern States -more than their due share of credit for services in the war -of the Revolution, nor to depreciate the valuable services -rendered by the more northern states of the confederation.</p> - -<p>The war was prosecuted by the colonies as a confederacy -of sovereign States. The Continental Congress was in fact -but a congress of commissioners or embassadors, whose acts -derived their validity from the tacit adoption and sanction -of the several States, and the delegates were at all times -subject to recall and substitution, by the appointment of -others—a power which was repeatedly exercised. The Declaration -of Independence itself, was made in accordance -with powers expressly delegated for that purpose to the -representatives of the several appointing powers, and derived -its force not from the action of Congress, but from -the adoption of that action by those represented in that -body.</p> - -<p>In the case of Virginia, her independence had been declared -by a convention of her own, and a State Government -had been actually organized in advance of the action of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[ 41 ]</a></span> -Congress, and she was the first thus to assert her sovereignty. -On the 15th of May, 1776, the Virginia convention -resolved to adopt a bill of rights and frame a State government, -and on the 29th of June following, the government -was put into operation by the election of a governor and -other officers—a Bill of Rights and State Constitution having -been framed and adopted in the meantime.</p> - -<p>Articles of confederation were proposed in 1777, more -than a year after the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, -for ratification by the thirteen sovereign States. -These articles required the unanimous ratification of all of -the States, and as Maryland withheld her consent to this, -until the 1st of March, 1781, they did not go into effect -until that time. In the meanwhile the Congress had continued -to exercise its permissive powers in the prosecution -of the war, but it had no means of enforcing its edicts except -in the voluntary compliance of the several States.</p> - -<p>The first three articles were as follows:</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Article I.</span> The style of this confederacy shall be "The -United States of America."</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Art. II.</span> "Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom -and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, -which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to -the United States in Congress assembled."</p> - -<p><span class="smcap">Art. III.</span> "The several States hereby severally enter into -a firm league of friendship with each other for their -common defence, the security of their liabilities and their -mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist -each other against all force opposed to, or attacks made -upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, -trade or any other pretence whatever."</p> - -<p>The other articles of confederation conferred upon Congress -very little more power than it had been exercising. -All important measures required the concurrence of nine -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[ 42 ]</a></span> -States, the votes being given by the delegates from each -State as a unit, and not in their individual capacity.</p> - -<p>The right of the States to recall their delegates and to -appoint others was expressly reserved, so that five States -acting together, could at any time block the government, -and the latter had no means of enforcing its decrees when -made, but had to rely upon the voluntary compliance of -the States as before. It will thus be seen that the government -organized under the articles of confederation remained -still a mere confederacy of several independent -States. When peace was finally made with Great Britain, -that power recognized the sovereignty and independence of -the several States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode -Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, -Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina -and Georgia by name, and not the sovereignty and independence -of the United States.</p> - -<p>After the treaty of peace, under the navigation laws of -Great Britain, American vessels trading with that country, -were restricted to the importation of products of the several -States to which they belonged, which put those States upon -the footing of so many separate nations.</p> - -<p>The action of the several States upon the subject of -slavery and the slave trade during the war and afterwards -to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United -States was as follows:</p> - -<p>Delaware, as before stated, by her constitution adopted -in 1776, prohibited the further introduction of slaves.</p> - -<p>Virginia did the same thing by her law adopted in 1778.</p> - -<p>Pennsylvania, whose legislature had ceased to be under -the control of the Quakers, as they refused to take part in -the Revolution, adopted a law in 1780, prohibiting the -further introduction of slaves and giving freedom to all -children of slave mothers born after its passage.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[ 43 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>Massachusetts incorporated a declaration in her bill of -rights adopted in 1780, that "all men are born free and -equal," and under that declaration it was decided by the -Supreme Court of that State in 1783, that slavery was prohibited. -It cannot be claimed that this declaration was intended -to have that effect, for if such had been the case it -would not have been left to judicial interpretation to give -it, but an express provision would have been incorporated -on the subject. It was a species of judicial legislation which -was submitted to because no important interest was at -stake. There were a little over 6,000 slaves in Massachusetts -at the date of the Revolution, distributed in small numbers -among the owners and employed mostly as household servants. -The population was largely engaged in commerce, -fisheries, manufactures, etc., and the character of the agriculture -was not at all adapted to slave labor. Nothing of -consequence therefore, was to be gained by contesting the -validity of the decision, and it was the easiest way of getting -rid of the matter by quiet submission.</p> - -<p>New Hampshire adopted a similar clause in her second -constitution in 1783, and under that it was held that freedom -was guaranteed to all children born after its adoption.</p> - -<p>Maryland adopted in 1783, laws in regard to the introduction -of slaves similar to those of Virginia.</p> - -<p>Connecticut and Rhode Island, in 1784, adopted laws on -the subject of slavery similar to those of Pennsylvania.</p> - -<p>The effect of these laws and decisions was to put an end -to the slave trade in all of the states but North and South -Carolina and Georgia; to abolish it in Massachusetts and -provide for its gradual extinction in New Hampshire, -Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, while it still -remained as before in the other states. It has been alleged, -and probably was true, that a large number of the slaves -in the northern states were carried to the South and sold -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[ 44 ]</a></span> -there, to avoid the operation of the emancipation measures -which were initiated. This allegation receives very strong -confirmation from a comparison of the free colonies' population -at the north at different periods, with the number of -slaves known to be there at the date of the institution of -emancipation measures, when taken in connection with the -increase to that colored population, from freed slaves and -runaways from the South.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the provisions for abolishing slavery in -the New England states, the merchants and traders of those -states resumed the importation of slaves from Africa to the -Carolinas and Georgia immediately after the close of the -war. North Carolina, however, had denounced the trade as -impolitic, and imposed a duty on future importations which -furnished an impediment to it, so far as that state was concerned.</p> - -<p>The confederation which, during the war, under the pressure -of the public danger, had answered the purpose, was -found to work very badly when peace ensued and the -states were no longer stimulated to comply with the requisitions -of Congress by immediate necessity. Though the -states were all vested with full powers to regulate their -domestic affairs, yet there was a large debt contracted in -common which it was necessary to provide for, and as the -states were forbidden by the Articles of Confederation to -make treaties, and Congress had no power to impose taxes -or duties on imports or exports, which power rested entirely -in the state legislatures, there was a very great derangement -of the finances, commerce and business of the -country, entailing very ruinous consequences upon all -classes and interests. It became, therefore, necessary to -provide a remedy for existing evils, and a convention of -delegates from the states assembled at Philadelphia in the -year 1787, for the purpose of revising the Federal system. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[ 45 ]</a></span> -This convention was assembled in accordance with the recommendation -of a previous one, that had assembled at -Annapolis on the invitation of Virginia, but found its -powers inadequate.</p> - -<p>The deliberations of the Philadelphia convention, which -were presided over by General Washington, resulted in the -adoption of the Constitution of the United States, for recommendation -to the states for their ratification, and by the -terms of the Constitution, it was provided that it should go -into effect when ratified by nine states, as to the states ratifying -it.</p> - -<p>There were many difficulties in the way of the formation -of the Constitution by reason of conflicting views and interests, -and the instrument as framed by the convention was -the result of a compromise of those views and interests. -The only questions arising in regard to slavery was in relation -to the basis of representation in Congress and taxation, -the foreign slave trade and the restoration of fugitive -slaves. The questions in regard to representation and taxation -were settled by compromise, as was that in regard to -the slave trade. Virginia and Maryland were in favor of -an absolute and immediate prohibition of the foreign slave -trade, while South Carolina and Georgia opposed any interference -with it. With the two latter states some of the New -England delegates sided, and after much discussion a compromise -was finally effected, by adopting a provision prohibiting -Congress from preventing, prior to the year 1808, -the importation of any persons the states might think proper -to admit, but giving the power to impose a duty on such -persons in the meantime, not to exceed $10 per head. This -compromise was effected by an arrangement between the -delegates of South Carolina and Georgia on the one side -and the New England delegates on the other, by which it -was agreed to insert a provision vesting Congress with the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[ 46 ]</a></span> -power to pass navigation laws by a majority vote—which -was earnestly desired by New England but was opposed by -some of the other states—and to adopt the restriction prohibiting -any interference with the slave trade until the -time designated.</p> - -<p>For the provision in regard to the slave trade as adopted, -Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Connecticut, the only -New England States represented, voted, while Virginia -voted with some of the other states against it in all its -stages—the final vote being, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, -Connecticut, Maryland, North and South Carolina -in the affirmative, and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware -and Virginia in the negative; absent or not voting, New -York, Rhode Island and Georgia.</p> - -<p>The clause in regard to the restoration of fugitive slaves -was adopted without any objection from any quarter, and -it was worded in almost the identical language of the provision -on the same subject contained in the old compact of -"The United Colonies of New England." Without the provision -for the return of slaves escaping into any of the -states or the public territory, not a solitary Southern State -would have accepted the Constitution, and its necessity, -propriety and justice were conceded on all sides without -question. When the Constitution was submitted to the -states for ratification, it met with a good deal of opposition -because it was thought to impose too great restrictions on -the rights of the states, but it was finally ratified by the end -of July, 1788, by eleven states, and steps were taken to -organize the government under it, which was done in April, -1789, by the meeting of the first Congress under the Constitution -and the inauguration of General Washington as -President.</p> - -<p>North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until November, -1789, nor Rhode Island until May, 1790, and until -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[ 47 ]</a></span> -they did ratify it they remained as foreign nations to the -other states. When the ratification was under consideration, -there was much discussion as to the construction of various -clauses, and most of the states were induced to give their -assent by the hope of adoption of amendments explaining -all ambiguities and objectionable clauses, and the ratification -was accompanied with the recommendation of such -amendments as were desired.</p> - -<p>In passing the ordinance ratifying the Constitution, the -Virginia convention adopted an explanatory preamble, declaring -that when the powers delegated should be abused -they would be resumed, and the New York convention accompanied -the ratification with a declaration of the right -to withdraw it. It is curious in view of subsequent events, -that Massachusetts proposed as an amendment "That all -powers not expressly delegated to Congress should be reserved -to the states," and another "That no person be tried -for any crime (cases in the military and naval service excepted) -without previous indictment by a grand jury; and -that in civil cases the right of trial by jury be preserved." -The first of these was recommended by Virginia and South -Carolina also, and the last by Virginia, and both were subsequently -adopted as amendments to the Constitution on -the recommendation of the first Congress, with only a -change of phraseology not at all effecting their import. -Massachusetts has changed her views since she asserted -these doctrines of states' rights and civil liberty.</p> - -<p>The Constitution of the United States left slavery in the -states precisely where it was before, the only provision having -any reference to it whatever being that which fixed the -ratio of representation in the House of Representatives and -direct taxation; that in reference to the foreign slave trade, -and that guaranteeing the return of fugitive slaves. Had -it been proposed to insert any provision giving Congress -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[ 48 ]</a></span> -any power over the subject in the states, it would have been -resisted, and the insertion of such provision would have -insured the rejection of the Constitution. The government -framed under this Constitution being one of delegated -powers entirely, those powers were necessarily limited to -the objects for which they were granted, but to prevent all -misconception, the 9th and 10th amendments were adopted, -the first providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution -of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage -others retained by the people," and the other that: -"The powers not delegated to the United States by the -Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved -to the states respectively, or to the people."</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>It has now been shown how slavery originated in the -United States and that the Federal Constitution left its -regulation in every particular, where it belonged, that is -to the several states where it existed, save only in regard to -the foreign slave trade and the guarantee for the return of -fugitive slaves as mentioned.</p> - -<p>State action had already provided for the removal of -slavery from several of the northern states, and this was -followed, later, by a law adopted in New York in 1799, providing -that all children of slaves born after the 4th of July -of that year should be free, males at 28 and females at 25 -years of age, and a law adopted in New Jersey in 1804, providing -that all children of slaves born after the 4th of July -of that year should be free, the males at 25 and the females -at 21 years of age. This was the last of the acts for the -emancipation of slavery where it previously existed and -therefore, so far as regarded the original thirteen states, -slavery was confined to Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, -North and South Carolina and Georgia, except as to the -remnants left in the other states by the acts for gradual -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[ 49 ]</a></span> -emancipation, which lingered in some of them for a long -time.</p> - -<p>If African slavery was a crime, who was responsible for -it? Did the sole guilt or the greater part of it rest upon -the shoulders of the colonists who purchased the slaves already -ravished from their homes in the plains and wilds of -Africa, or on the shoulders of the descendants of the original -purchasers who found the institution already established -as a settled policy, or did it rest with those who procured -the enslavement of these ignorant and degraded barbarians -and reaped the enormous profits resulting from -their sale in their persons?</p> - -<p>Treating it as national or individual sin, where does the -guilt lie? The mercantile marines of Great Britain and -New England are monuments to the African slave trade, -upon the profits of which they were mainly built up.</p> - -<p>It has been often said that the assertion contained in the -Declaration of Independence "That all men are created -equal, etc.," was entirely inconsistent with the continuation -of slavery in any of the United States; and that the states -which continued it were guilty of a great inconsistency. -Who had then a right to make this criticism? Was it the -Englishman, with Lord Mansfield's decision staring him in -the face, and his boast of liberty under the common law on -his tongue, while his heel was upon the neck of Ireland, his -ships ploughing the main, freighted with human merchandise -packed to suffocation, and his writs of execution -levied upon the bodies of human beings to satisfy his demands? -Was it the Frenchman, who, equally guilty in the -traffic in human flesh, in the name of "Liberty, Equality -and Fraternity" glutted the guillotine with the blood of -his brethren, until he himself was forced to take refuge -from his own "Liberty" under the protection of a despotism -that kept watch upon his very thoughts? Was it the Dutchman, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[ 50 ]</a></span> -whose ships had carried the traffic in slaves to every -clime and who landed the first cargo within the limits of the -United States? Was it the Russian, who had bleeding -Poland under his feet and caused order to reign in Warsaw, -while he peopled Siberia with every age and sex, and his -ears were gladdened by the sound of the well-plied knout? -Was it the Prussian, the Austrian, the Dane, the Swede, or -the Italian? The Portuguese, the Spaniard and the Turk -have not troubled themselves about the matter.</p> - -<p>The fact is that the assertion of independence was made -by the Continental Congress, by a resolution adopted on -the 2d of July, 1776, in the following words:</p> - -<p>"<i>Resolved</i>, That these United Colonies are, and, of right, -ought to be, Free and Independent States, that they are absolved -from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all -political connection between them and the state of Great -Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."</p> - -<p>That was the authoritative assertion of the independence -of the colonies, and the Declaration of Independence -adopted afterwards was merely a manifesto put forth to the -world to show the reasons which impelled them to the step -and to justify it. The assertion that "all men are created -equal," was no more enacted by that declaration as a settled -principle than that other which defined George III to be "a -tyrant and unfit to be the ruler of a free people." The -Declaration of Independence contained a number of undoubtedly -correct principles and some abstract generalities -uttered under the enthusiasm and excitement of a struggle -for the right of self-government.</p> - -<p>The portion of it in question was not designed for the -wide application which is sought to be made of it, nor is it -capable of that application. The intention of it was to -assert the right of the people, on whose part the declaration -was made, to equality under the law with all other British -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[ 51 ]</a></span> -subjects, and to maintain their right to set up a new government -for themselves, when the one under which they had -been living had been perverted to their oppression. If it -was intended to assert the absolute equality of all men, it -was false in principle and in fact.</p> - -<p>Taken in its literal sense, it might be construed to mean -that all men are created equal in every respect, but does any -one believe, or will any one ever believe, that the native -Congo, the Hottentot or the Australian negro, is the equal, -mentally, physically and morally, of the Caucasian?</p> - -<p>Whatever construction the words quoted and those following -them may admit of, let it be borne in mind, that they -belong to the argument and not to the fact. The separation -and independence were asserted by the resolution adopted -on the 2d of July, and not by the declaration adopted on -the 4th, and the latter was no more a part of what was -authoritatively established, than the <i>obitur dictum</i> of a judge -is a part of his decision.</p> - -<p>The truth is, that several of the statesmen of the South -and especially of Virginia, deplored slavery as an evil and -expressed the hope that at some future time, in some way -that might be desired, the institution might be abolished in -such manner as to secure the welfare of both races, but none -of them could suggest any mode for doing so, and though -perfectly sincere, they contented themselves with expressing -the hope that the way might be discovered.</p> - -<p>Slavery was a fixed fact, fastened upon the colonies by -the mother country, and in the South, the slaves bore such a -proportion to the white population and the whole business -of the country was so identified with their labor, that it was -impossible to emancipate them, without entailing on both -races evils far greater than those supposed to result from -the existence of slavery itself. It was a practical question -with which the statesmen of the country had to deal as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[ 52 ]</a></span> -practical men, and all they could do, was to allow the system -to remain, as the best for all parties under the circumstances, -without reverting to the dangerous experiment of -the ideal schemes of a false philanthropy.</p> - -<p>As to the slave trade, Delaware, Virginia and Maryland -had already put an end to it as soon as they were vested -with the power to do so, and North Carolina followed suit -very shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, and -the prohibition would probably have been made general, -but for the combination of the New England states with the -two southern states that were in favor of having the trade -continued.</p> - -<p>It would not be amiss to notice what was transpiring in -England on this subject at the time the Federal Constitution -was being adopted. Clarkson, Wilberforce and others -were agitating the question of the slave trade at this time, -and the utmost that the younger Pitt, then at the head of -the government, would venture to do, was to procure the -passage of an act of Parliament, for the mitigation of the -atrocities of the "Middle Passage" by which it was provided -that slave ships should not carry beyond a certain -number of slaves in proportion to the tonnage.</p> - -<p>Even this bill met with strong opposition and among -others, from Lord Chancellor Thurlow "the Ruler of the -King's conscience." In opposing the bill he said: "It appears -that the French have offered premiums to encourage -the African trade, and that they have succeeded. The -natural presumption therefore is, that we ought to do the -same." He further said: "One witness has come to your -Lordship's bar with a face of woe, his eyes full of tears and -his countenance fraught with horror, and said 'My Lords, -I am ruined if you pass this bill! I have risked £30,000 -on the trade of this year! It is all I have been able to gain -by my industry, and if I lose it, I must go to the hospital! -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[ 53 ]</a></span> -I desire of you to think of such things, my Lords, in your -humane frenzy and to show some humanity to the whites -as well as the negroes.'"</p> - -<p>The bill, however, passed with amendments to grant compensation -for losses, and this was as far as English statesmanship -would venture to go at that time. Was it to be -expected that American statesmen should be better, wiser -and more philanthropic than English statesmen?</p> - -<p>Shortly after the close of the war, Virginia had ceded -to the Confederation for the common benefit of all the -states, the territory northwest of the Ohio river; and Massachusetts, -New York and Connecticut had ceded their -rights. (?) The claim of Connecticut skipped over Pennsylvania -and that state made a very good bargain for herself -by securing the title to the lands in what has since been -known as the "Western Reserve," though no officer or -soldier or, so far as is known, citizen of hers, had even been -in the northwestern territory.</p> - -<p>Virginia's original charter, the oldest of all covered the -country, but independent of that, it had been conquered -from the Indians and British by the forces of Virginia -under George Rogers Clarke. It was a magnificent empire -which Virginia thus surrendered for the common good and -for the cause of the Union of the states, and the only compensation -she asked was, that the land grants pledged her -own soldiers should be ratified.</p> - -<p>During the sitting of the convention which framed the -Constitution, the Congress, which was in session, adopted -the celebrated ordinance of 1787, for the government of the -territory northwest of the Ohio river, in which ordinance -was contained a prohibition of slavery in that territory -forever, and also a provision for the recovery of slaves escaping -into the territory similar to that incorporated into -the Constitution.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[ 54 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>At the first session of the first Congress, under the new -Constitution, an act was passed for the government of the -territory northwest of the Ohio river, by which the ordinance -of 1787 was recognized and confirmed.</p> - -<p>In 1787, South Carolina had surrendered her claim to -all territory west of the present limits, and in 1790, North -Carolina ceded to the United States that part of her territory -which subsequently became the state of Tennessee, with -a stipulation, "that no regulation made or to be made by -Congress shall tend to the emancipation of slaves."</p> - -<p>In 1791, Vermont, formed out of part of the territory -of New York, with the consent of the legislature of that -state, was admitted into the Union as one of the states and -came in without slavery, which was forbidden by her constitution.</p> - -<p>Kentucky (formed out of the territory of Virginia, south -of the Ohio river, with the assent of her legislature) in -1792 was admitted into the Union, and came in with slavery -as it existed in Virginia and with similar laws on the -subject.</p> - -<p>In 1793, Congress passed an act to carry into effect the -provision of the Constitution for the restitution of fugitive -slaves, providing for their delivery to the owners by order -of any United States judge, or any magistrate of the city, -town or county where they might be arrested, on due proofs -of ownership, etc.</p> - -<p>In 1796, Tennessee, formed out of the territory which -had been ceded by North Carolina, was admitted into the -Union, and came in with slavery as it existed in North -Carolina and with similar laws in regard to it.</p> - -<p>In 1798, Georgia adopted a new Constitution, in which -was a clause forbidding the importation of slaves from -"Africa or any foreign country." In this same year Congress -passed an act for the establishment of the Mississippi -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[ 55 ]</a></span> -territory out of the territory acquired from Great Britain, -which constituted that part of British West Florida lying -between a line drawn due east from the mouth of the Yazoo -to the Chattahoochie river and the 31st degree of latitude. -The act provided for the government and organization of -the Mississippi territory in every respect like the North -Western territory, except that slavery was not to be prohibited, -but an amendment was incorporated into the act -without opposition, on motion of a representative from -South Carolina, prohibiting the introduction of slaves into -the territory from without the United States.</p> - -<p>Immediately after the adoption of the Constitution, -South Carolina had passed a law prohibiting the introduction -of slaves from foreign countries for a limited period, -which was continued by renewal from time to time, and as -North Carolina had adopted a permanent law on the subject, -the foreign slave trade was now prohibited in all of -the states as well as in the public territories, but it continued -to be carried on by English, New England and New -York traders within the limits of South Carolina and -Georgia despite the laws.</p> - -<p>In 1802, Georgia ceded to the United States all of her -territory west of her present limits, including her claim to -the Mississippi territory. This cession including in it the -Mississippi territory, embraced all of the states of Mississippi -and Alabama which was north of the 31st degree of latitude -and the compact made with Georgia stipulated that when -the population reached the number of 60,000, the ceded territory -should be erected into a state on the conditions contained -in the ordinance of 1787, "That article only excepted -which prohibits slavery."</p> - -<p>In 1803, on the complaint of South Carolina of the importation, -in violation of her laws, of slaves from Africa, as -well as of free persons from the French West Indies, Congress -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[ 56 ]</a></span> -passed an act imposing a fine of $1,000 on the captain -of a vessel for the importation of such persons in violation -of the laws of a state, with forfeiture of the vessel. -Next year, however, South Carolina repealed her laws -against the African slave trade, and it continued to be -lawful there until 1808.</p> - -<p>In the same year Ohio, erected out of part of the northwestern -territory, was admitted into the Union and came in -without slavery.</p> - -<p>In this year Louisiana, which had been re-ceded to France -by Spain, was ceded to the United States by the French -government, with a stipulation in the treaty of cession that -the inhabitants should be secure in their liberty, property -and religion and should be admitted, as soon as possible, -according to the principles of the Federal Constitution to -the enjoyment of the rights of citizens of the United States. -The territory thus ceded, embraced as claimed by the -United States, all of the territory west of the Mississippi -and south of the 31st degree of latitude to the western -boundary of the old Spanish province of Florida. Slavery -existed in Louisiana at the time of its acquisition, having -been established there by the French government, and there -could be no question as to the meaning of the guarantee to -the inhabitants of security in their property, as the right of -property in slaves was universally acknowledged in all of -the civilized world, and both of the contracting parties recognized -it.</p> - -<p>In 1804, Congress passed an act organizing the ceded province -of Louisiana into the Territory of Orleans and the -District of Louisiana, the former to embrace all of the territory -south of the 33rd degree of latitude; the latter to embrace -that part north of the same degree. A provision was -embraced in the act that no slaves should be carried into -the Territory of Orleans or the District of Louisiana, except -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[ 57 ]</a></span> -from some part of the United States by citizens removing -thither as actual settlers, and this permission was not to -extend to negroes brought into the United States since 1798. -This was a direct admission of the right of the people to -remove into the territory with all of their property, including -slaves, and the restriction as to negroes brought into the -United States since 1798 was in consequence of the fact -that, from that time to the passage of the act, the introduction -of such persons was prohibited by the laws of all of -the States, showing that the right to introduce slaves was -regarded as resulting under the constitution from the rights -under the laws of the several States and from no other.</p> - -<p>By an act passed at the same session, all of the territory -ceded by Georgia was included in the territory of Mississippi.</p> - -<p>In 1805, by Act of Congress, the Territory of Orleans -was given a similar government to that of Mississippi, and -the District of Louisiana was made a territory of the second -class, that is with the power of legislation vested in the -governor and judges of the territory. Settlements had been -previously made within the limits of the District of Louisiana -on the Arkansas River and within the present limits -of Missouri, and slavery had been carried there by settlers -from the slave States. The act organizing the territory of -Louisiana provided for continuing in force all of the existing -laws and regulations until repealed by the legislature, -and thereby gave direct recognition of the system of -slavery, as it had not only been protected by the law organizing -the District of Louisiana, but existed by operation -of the old French and Spanish laws still in force.</p> - -<p>In 1807, at the second session of the 9th Congress, on the -recommendation of Mr. Jefferson, then President, an act -was passed for the prohibition of the slave trade from -foreign countries to the United States, to take effect on the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[ 58 ]</a></span> -1st day of January, 1808. Up to that time the trade had -been continued by English, New England, and New York -traders to South Carolina and Georgia by evading the laws -against it, when such were in force, but it ceased after the -United States law went into effect; many slaves were introduced -into the port of Charleston within the last four years -prior to the time when the law went into effect, brought in -by English and Northern vessels.</p> - -<p>In the same year and about the same time that the United -States law was passed, under the brief ministry of Lord -Grenville, the Parliament of Great Britain passed the act -to abolish the trade on the part of British subjects, though -not without serious opposition. Among the opponents of -the measure was another Lord Chancellor of England, -Lord Eldon, at that time for a short period out of the -office which he had held for many years, and to which he -returned in about two months after the passage of the bill -to continue in it until the year 1827. In opposing the bill, -Lord Eldon said: "I do not believe the measure now proposed -would diminish the transport of negroes, or that a -single individual would be preserved by it, at the same -time, that it would be utterly destructive of the British -interests involved in that commerce." He asked "was it -right because there was a change of men and of public -measures in consequence, that the interests of those who -petitioned against the bill should be disregarded and what -was before considered fit matter of enquiry should now be -rejected as immaterial and inapplicable?"</p> - -<p>In the argument of Wilberforce and others, in favor of -the measure, it was shown that there had never been any -natural increase of the slaves in the British and West India -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[ 59 ]</a></span> -Islands—the excess of deaths over births in Jamaica being -as follows:</p> - -<table summary="data"> -<tr> - <td>From</td><td>1698</td><td>to</td><td>1730,</td><td>3</td><td>1/2</td><td>per</td><td>cent.</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>"</td><td>1730</td><td>"</td><td>1755,</td><td>2</td><td>1/2</td><td>"</td><td>"</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>"</td><td>1755</td><td>"</td><td>1769,</td><td>1</td><td>3/4</td><td>"</td><td>"</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>"</td><td>1769</td><td>"</td><td>1780,</td><td></td><td>3/5</td><td>"</td><td>"</td> -</tr> -<tr> - <td>"</td><td>1780</td><td>"</td><td>1800,</td><td></td><td>1/24</td><td>"</td><td>"</td> -</tr> -</table> - -<p>The supply had therefore been kept up by constant importations -to meet the growing demands and the advocates -of the measure urged the following reasons for its adoption:</p> - -<p>"The grand, the decisive advantage which recommends -the abolition of the slave trade is, that by closing the supply -of foreign negroes to which the planters have hitherto been -accustomed to trust for all of their undertakings, we will -compel them to promote the multiplication of the slaves -on their estates; and it is obvious that this cannot be done -without improving their physical and moral condition. -Thus not only will the inhuman traffic itself be prevented -in so far at least as the inhabitants of this country are -concerned, but a provision will be made for the progressive -amelioration of the black population in the West Indies, -and that too on the securest of all foundations, the interests -and selfish desires of the masters in whose hands they are -placed."</p> - -<p>It seems from this that "slave breeding" was not considered -a crime by the philanthropists of that day but this -discovery was reserved for those of a later time.</p> - -<p>Slavery in the United States has now been brought down -to the time of the abolition of the slave trade by both the -United States and Great Britain, and it will be seen that -the former government had no jurisdiction over the matter -in any way, except to give protection to that species of -property in the states where it existed, in the same way that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[ 60 ]</a></span> -it was bound to protect every other species of property -within the scope of its delegated powers. Slavery existed -in the states prior to the creation of the government and -independent of it, and the states in forming that government -as sovereign states, reserved to themselves the exclusive -power of continuing or discontinuing it at their -option. Not only was this so with regard to the original -states, but by express stipulation with the states of North -Carolina and Georgia at the time of their cession of territory. -Congress had bound itself not to interfere with -slavery in that territory.</p> - -<p>Kentucky had been formed out of part of Virginia and -was admitted into the Union upon the same footing as that -state, and by the treaty with France upon the acquisition -of Louisiana, the faith of the United States was pledged -to respect and protect the right of property in slaves within -the limits of the acquired territory in the same way that -it was pledged to respect and protect the right of property -in every thing else. This embraced all of the territory within -the limits of the United States except the northwestern -territory, and to that the prohibition against slavery had -been extended by the ordinance of 1787, prior to the adoption -of the Federal Constitution. The validity of that -ordinance has been disputed, and certainly if it had any -validity, that was given by the assent of Virginia from -whom the territory was acquired. The act for the organization -of the government of the Northwestern territory -recognized the validity of the restriction contained in the -ordinance, and did not create it.</p> - -<p>The states which had thought proper to abolish or exclude -slavery because it was not to their interests to have -it, had no right to complain of its existence in other states. -If they did not desire to be allied to states which tolerated -slavery, then they should have refused to ratify the Constitution. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[ 61 ]</a></span> -Having ratified it, the faith of those states became -pledged by every consideration that can bind states as -communities, or men as individuals, to respect the institutions, -rights and property of the other states and to faithfully -abide by all of the compromises and guaranties of -the Constitution. They were bound to respect and abide by -them not only in the capacity of states, but they were -bound by the exercise of their just powers of legislation and -restraint, to compel their citizens to respect and abide by -them. This obligation extended not merely to abstaining -from all violent interference and active measures of wrong, -but from all agitation or incitement to others to do wrong, -by disturbing the peace, property or rights of other states -and the citizens thereof.</p> - -<p>The Constitution did not make the general government -censors over the morals or domestic institutions of the -several states, nor did it make the states or the citizens -thereof censors of the moral or domestic institutions of -each other. It was merely a compact formed between -sovereign states for the common defence and protection of -each other in their rights and liberties, as they existed -before its formation.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[ 62 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV">CHAPTER IV</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">Causes Leading to Secession—Secession of the -Cotton States</p> - - -<p>Very shortly after the organization of the government -under the new Constitution, petitions upon the subject of -the slave trade began to be presented to Congress, mostly -from the Quakers of Pennsylvania, that "non-resisting" -sect "conscientiously opposed to all war." Some of the -petitions were very inflammatory in their character, and -caused much excited debate in the early Congresses, and -one presented by Warren Mifflin, a Quaker of Delaware, -urging the injustice of slavery and the necessity for its -abolition, was returned to him by order of the House at the -second session of the second Congress on account of its -incendiary and mischievous character.</p> - -<p>In January, 1805, the first proposition for the abolition -of slavery in the District of Columbia was made. It was -made by Sloan, a democratic representative from New -Jersey, and was "that all children born after the ensuing -4th of July should be free at certain ages," but it was refused -a reference to a committee and was then rejected by -a vote of 77 to 31. It is a little remarkable in view of -subsequent events that 26 of the 31 were Northern Democrats, -and that only 5 constituting the remainder of the -vote for the proposition were Northern Federalists.</p> - -<p>After the passage of the acts in the United States and -Great Britain abolishing the slave trade, the agitation on -the subject of slavery abated very considerably for a number -of years, only, however, to be revived at a later period -in a more virulent form.</p> - -<p>In the year 1812, the state of Louisiana, erected out of -the territory of Orleans, was admitted into the Union as a -slave state, and that part of the territory east of the Pearl -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[ 63 ]</a></span> -river and bordering on the Gulf of Mexico, was added to -the territory of Mississippi. The name of Mississippi was -then given to the territory of Louisiana.</p> - -<p>In 1816, Indiana was admitted into the Union as a free -state, and in 1817, Mississippi was admitted as a slave -state, the residue of the territory of that name taking the -name of Alabama.</p> - -<p>In 1818, Illinois was admitted as a free state and in 1819, -Alabama came in as a slave state. This increase of the -number of slave states did not increase the number of -slaves, as the slaves introduced into them came from the -older slave states. If any slaves were introduced from -Africa or any foreign country, it was by such evasion of -the laws as will take place under any government, and they -were not so introduced to any appreciable extent.</p> - -<p>In 1819, towards the close of the 15th Congress, a bill -was introduced into the House of Representatives to -authorize the erection of the state of Missouri out of part -of the territory of that name, and on motion of Tallmadge, -of New York, a clause was inserted in the bill prohibiting -the further introduction of slaves and granting freedom to -the afterborn children of those already there, on arriving -at the age of twenty-five, the proposition being carried by -a vote of 87 to 76. This proposed restriction caused a very -excited debate, in the course of which Cobb, of Georgia, said -that "a fire had been kindled which all the water of the -ocean could not put out, and which only seas of blood could -extinguish;" he did not "hesitate to declare that if the -northern members persisted, the Union would be dissolved." -The bill, however, passed the House with the -restriction, but in the Senate, the latter was stricken out, -the clause prohibiting the further introduction of slaves -by a vote of 24 to 16, and the one freeing the children by -a larger vote, there being only 7 votes for retaining it. The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[ 64 ]</a></span> -House refused to concur with the Senate and the bill was -lost.</p> - -<p>At the same time the Missouri bill was introduced, another -bill was presented for establishing Arkansas territory -out of that part of the Missouri territory south of 36° 30´, -and a clause was inserted into it granting freedom to all -afterborn children of slaves, at the age of twenty-five, but -a clause prohibiting the further introduction of slaves was -defeated by a vote of 70 to 71 and the clause for freeing -the children of those already in the territory was stricken -out. Taylor of New York then proposed to add a proviso -to the bill that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude -should exist in any of the territories of the United States -north of 36° 30´, but his motion was defeated and the bill -for organizing Arkansas Territory passed both houses without -any restriction.</p> - -<p>Before the meeting of the next Congress, Massachusetts -authorized the formation of the District of Maine into a -state and a Constitution was adopted by the people in that -district for that purpose. In the meantime there was much -agitation in the North upon the subject of excluding -slavery from the territory west of the Mississippi. Upon -the meeting of the 16th Congress, a bill was introduced to -authorize the people of Missouri to frame a State Constitution, -but on motion of Taylor, the author of the proposed -proviso excluding slavery from the territories north of -36° 30´, a committee was appointed to consider the subject -of prohibiting slavery west of the Mississippi, and the -Missouri bill was postponed to await the action of the committee.</p> - -<p>A bill had been introduced for the admission of Maine—and -after the defeat of a motion to postpone it until the -Missouri bill came up—was passed. When this bill came -up in the Senate, a clause for the admission of Missouri, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[ 65 ]</a></span> -was attached to it, after the defeat of a motion to insert in -the latter a proviso for the prohibition of slavery, and -Thomas, a senator from Illinois, then proposed an amendment -prohibiting the introduction of slavery into any of -the remaining territory north of 36° 30´, which was adopted -by a vote of 34 to 10; the senators from Virginia, South -Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, and one senator from North -Carolina and Mississippi each voting in the negative. The -bill was then passed by a vote of 24 to 20, all the senators -from the slave states and the two from Illinois voting in -the affirmative, and those voting in the negative being from -the free states.</p> - -<p>The House refused to concur in the Senate's amendment, -and the Senate adhered, therefore a committee of -conference was appointed. In the meantime, the House had -been debating the Missouri bill, and pending the conference -it was passed by a vote of 93 to 84 with a clause prohibiting -the further introduction of slaves. When this bill went to -the Senate, the prohibition was stricken out and the -Thomas proviso attached, and it was then passed and returned -to the House. The Committee of Conference at -the same time reported recommending that the Senate recede -from its amendment to the Maine bill and that the -House pass the Missouri bill as amended by the Senate. -The House agreed to the amendment to the Missouri bill, -striking out the clause for prohibiting slavery, by a vote -of 90 to 87, and to that inserting the Thomas proviso, by -a vote of 134 to 42, 35 of the latter being Southern members -who objected to the proviso as unconstitutional, and 5 being -Northern men who objected because it did not go far -enough. The Senate receded from its amendment to the -Maine bill and both bills were thus passed.</p> - -<p>President Monroe signed the Missouri bill after much -hesitation, upon having his scruples as to the constitutionality -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[ 66 ]</a></span> -of the proviso removed, and upon being assured that -the restriction as to the territories extended to them only -while in the territorial condition.</p> - -<p>The bill in relation to Maine admitted that state into -the Union at once, but that in regard to Missouri was a -mere act enabling the people to frame a Constitution, and -a joint resolution for the admission of the state after the -formation of the Constitution was still necessary.</p> - -<p>When the Constitution was presented at the next session -of Congress, it was found to contain a clause requiring the -legislature to pass laws to prevent free persons of color -from settling in the state, and as the admission of Maine -was complete, the Northern members took occasion to object -to the admission of Missouri because of this clause, -though Ohio and Indiana had passed laws forbidding the -settling of free persons of color in those states, and there -was an old law of Massachusetts to the same effect, still unrepealed. -A resolution offered in the House for the admission -of Missouri, with its Constitution as it stood, was -defeated by a vote of 78 to 93, those voting in the negative -being Northern members. After much discussion and excitement -and the defeat in the House of an effort to compromise -the question, on motion of Mr. Clay, a joint committee -was appointed to take the subject into consideration, and -this committee reported a joint resolution for the admission -of Missouri, after the state legislature should have given a -solemn pledge, that the Constitution should not be construed -to authorize any act and that no act should be passed -"by which any of the citizens of either of the states should -be excluded from the enjoyment of any of the privileges -and immunities to which they are entitled under the Constitution -of the United States." The President being -authorized to announce by proclamation, the adoption of -the pledge, and Missouri then to become a state in the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[ 67 ]</a></span> -Union, this resolution was adopted, the vote being 86 to 52 -in the House, all the votes in the negative, excepting four, -being given by Northern members and the four Southern -members not being willing to submit to the concession. -Since the rejection of the proposition for compromise in -the House on the same basis, news had been received of the -final ratification by Spain of the treaty for the cession of -Florida, and as by that treaty the United States relinquished -all claim to Texas, thus reducing the whole of the -territory south of 36° 30´ and west of the Mississippi to the -Territory of Arkansas, comprising the present state of -Arkansas and the small tract of Indian country west of it, -while there remained an immense domain north of that -parallel, stretching across the Rocky Mountains to the -Pacific, a few Northern members were induced to cast their -votes for the last proposition, thus securing its passage.</p> - -<p>The required pledge was given by the legislature of Missouri, -and that state was thus admitted into the Union in -1821. For a long time, the arrangement by which the passage -of the enabling act for Missouri was secured, was -called <i>compromise</i>, and the line of 36° 30´ was called "The -Missouri Compromise Line." The subject was fully explained -by Mr. Clay in the Senate in 1850, and it will be -seen that the arrangement was no compromise at all, but -was merely one of those legislative expedients often -adopted to secure the passage of a measure. As it passed, -the restriction was merely a legislative enactment, liable -to repeal at any time like any other law. But few of the -Northern members agreed to the arrangement, and at the -very next session of Congress, the great mass of them repudiated -the idea of its being a compromise by voting -against the admission of Missouri, upon a mere pretext.</p> - -<p>The only compromise made at all was that made with the -state of Missouri about the construction of her Constitution. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[ 68 ]</a></span> -Nevertheless, the Southern States were always to regard -this legislative adoption of the line 36° 30′ as a settlement -of the question of slavery in the territories, provided it was -adhered to as such in principle and spirit, but it was not -accepted by the Northern people in that light and was made -by them the ground-work for new demands and encroachments.</p> - -<p>The proposition for the prohibition of slavery in the -territories, was not one in favor of the freedom of the -slaves themselves, as their introduction into those territories -would not increase the number of slaves, but would expand -them on a wider sphere, thus rendering it easier to -adopt measures for emancipation, at least in some of the -states if that was desirable, and making the condition of -the slaves more comfortable if emancipation did not take -place; while the restriction of the institution to the states -where it existed, would forever close the door on any steps -for its voluntary abolition and render the condition of the -slaves much less desirable. Diffusion was much the best -policy for both masters and slaves, and the opposition to -the introduction of the latter into the territories was only -a political manœuvre for the purpose of obtaining a sectional -preponderance of power, and in all of the debates, -the views expressed by the advocates of the restriction -tended to the furtherance of that object.</p> - -<p>By the final ratification of the treaty between the United -States and Spain in the year 1821, Florida became a territory -of the United States and a territorial government was -soon formed therefor.</p> - -<p>After the admission of Missouri into the Union, there -was a subsidence in the agitation upon the subject of -slavery for a number of years, though every now and then -a petition from some Quaker meeting was received and -quietly disposed of.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[ 69 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the year 1834, the British parliament passed an act -for the abolition of slavery in the British West Indies, her -colonies in those islands being all of the slave colonies left -to Great Britain. These colonies had dwindled into insignificance -and formed but a very inconsiderable part of her -gigantic colonial system. Canada, Australia, New Zealand -and her possessions in the East Indies furnished an ample -field for British settlement and colonial trade, which -dwarfed into very diminutive proportions the British interests -in the West Indies. Great Britain could therefore -afford to be philanthropic and at the cost of £20,000,000 -(about $96,000,000) she gave liberty to a very few more -than 600,000 slaves, who were placed in a condition of apprenticeship -for several years to enable the planters to accommodate -themselves to the new order of things by degrees. -She had abandoned the slave trade after, by the -loss of the American colonies, she had ceased to have a -large interest in the subject of slavery, and this grant of -£20,000,000 for the freedom of all of the negro slaves left -in her dominions, was the final atonement she made for the -millions she had consigned to slavery, and the millions who -had been cast overboard, to meet a watery grave, on their -route to slavery.</p> - -<p>To make her own gracious act more conspicuous, she -turned propagandist and commenced denouncing the -system of slavery which she had been so instrumental in -fixing upon the world, as un-Christian, inhuman and barbarous. -Having, as she considered, cast the beam out of -her own eye, she could see more distinctly the mote in that -of others, but she made no restitution of the hundreds of -millions she derived from the profits of the inhuman traffic -as she now styled it, and which had assisted in building up -her marine, manufactures and commerce. Having thus -washed her hands of the sin, as she imagined, she became -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[ 70 ]</a></span> -most intolerant in her opinions and denunciations of those -upon whom she had entailed the institution of slavery by -her avarice and power, furnishing another example of those,</p> - -<div class="poem"><div class="stanza"> -<span class="i0">"Who compound for sins they're inclined to,<br /></span> -<span class="i1">By damning those they have no mind to."<br /></span> -</div></div> - -<p>Emissaries soon came out from Great Britain to the -United States and began the agitation of the abolition of -slavery there. The preponderance of women in the New -England States caused them to be selected as proselytes -for the new crusade. There was also a class of men in -that section, offshoots of the old persecuting theocracy who -furnished recruits to the agitators. There were doubtless -many who really believed slavery to be a great sin and -wrong, who joined in the crusade from conscientious motives. -Knaves there were in plentiful supply, gowned -and ungowned, who were ready for anything which would -tend to their personal advancement in position or their -pecuniary profit. Out of these materials abolition societies -were formed and petitions began to pour into Congress for -the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and -other places within the Federal jurisdiction, while the mails -were filled with incendiary publications calculated to stir -up insurrections. John Quincy Adams, who had held -political office from his earliest manhood, until he became -President, obtained a return to political life by his election -to the lower House of Congress. Shortly after his return -there, in presenting one of the chronic petitions of the -Quakers for the abolition of slavery in the District of -Columbia, he had taken occasion to notify the House and -the country that he had no sympathy with the views of the -politicians, yet he joined the new agitators.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[ 71 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>This new agitation in Congress began about 1834-5 and -was continued with great violence for several years, a petition -being presented by Mr. Adams, during the time, for -the dissolution of the Union. After much exasperation of -feeling growing out of the presentation of the petitions in -both Houses of Congress and the circulation of incendiary -publications, some respite from the excitement in Congress -was obtained by the adoption of a rule in the lower House -for laying petitions on the table on their presentation, without -debate, and by the conservative action of the Senate. -The agitation, however was continued at the North and -began to have an important influence upon the canvass for -the presidential elections. The law for the recovery of -fugitive slaves, always inefficient because of the refusal or -failure of the states' officers to enforce it, had now become -a dead letter by the resistance to its execution by mobs and -the still more mischievous action of several of the legislatures -of the free states. The circulation of incendiary -publications through the mails had been forbidden by Congress, -but the Northern press was prolific in the production -of gross libels upon the character of the people of the -Southern states and misrepresentations of the institution of -slavery as it existed there; even the Constitution of the -United States was denounced by the new lights as "a league -with hell and a covenant with death."</p> - -<p>Arkansas had been admitted as a slave state in the year -1836 and Michigan as a free state in 1837; and in 1845 -Florida was admitted as a slave state, the same act providing -for the admission of Iowa, which was a free state, but -did not come in until 1846.</p> - -<p>On the 29th of December, the independent Republic of -Texas was admitted into the Union as a state, and came in -with slavery already established there. This admission, or -annexation as it was called, of Texas, resulted in the war -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[ 72 ]</a></span> -with Mexico and the establishment, at the close of the war -in 1848, of the Rio Grande as the southern boundary of -Texas and the acquisition of the provinces or territories of -New Mexico and upper California as United States territory.</p> - -<p>The admission of Texas gave a new impulse to the antislavery -agitation, and the acquisition, by the war, of the -new territory brought it again prominently before Congress. -Even before the close of the war with Mexico, the -old proposition for the exclusion of slavery from the public -territories was revived, with a view to its application to any -territory that might be acquired as a result of the war, and -it was then designated as the "Wilmot Proviso" from the -name of the member re-introducing it. On all propositions -to establish governments of the newly acquired territory, -after the close of the war, the "Wilmot Proviso" was -pressed with great vehemence by Northern politicians, and -was strenuously resisted by those of the South.</p> - -<p>The most extreme of the Southern politicians were willing -to extend the so-called Missouri Compromise line of -36° 30´ to the Pacific ocean, and regard it as a final settlement -of the question, but the Northern advocates of the -proviso would listen to no terms for an adjustment, and -thus again repudiated the principle and spirit of the settlement -made by the Missouri bill. Southern statesmen, while -willing to accept the line of 36° 30´ for the sake of peace, -did not claim the right to foster slavery even upon the territory -south of that line, by the action of Congress, but they -claimed that the question should be left where the Constitution -of the United States left it, that is, that the people -settling in the territories should be allowed freedom to -adopt their own institutions when they came to form state -governments, and that Congress in the meantime should -adopt no measures to forestall their action. They urged -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[ 73 ]</a></span> -that the territory was acquired by the common blood and -treasure, and that Congress, therefore, in its action, should -not give preference to one section over another and thus -virtually exclude the people of the South from the newly -acquired domain. This was a reasonable and just view of -the subject, and did not look to the increase of the number -of slaves, but merely to their expansion over a wider area, -and the older states from the rapidly increasing slave population. -Nor was the proposition to exclude slavery ever in -the interest of freedom, for it sought merely to confine -slavery to the country where it already existed, and thus -surround the slave states with a cordon of free states, so as -to increase year by year, the difficulties of prospective emancipation, -and render any but a subversion of the institution -by violence an impossibility. It was as injurious to the -slaves themselves as to the white population of the states.</p> - -<p>Had the would-be philanthropists been governed by an -enlightened regard for the welfare or freedom of the slaves, -they would not have objected to their introduction, either -into the territory north of 36° 30´ or that acquired from -Mexico, for with the greater eagerness existing at the -North for emigration, as well as that from foreign countries -and the want of adaptation of the soil and climate of the -greater part of the territory, old and new, to the staples in -the production of which slave labor could be profitably employed, -it was certain that much the larger population -settling in that territory would be from the free states and -foreign countries, and it was equally certain that, when the -people came to form new states, slavery would be prohibited -and freedom given to the slaves within the limits of most, -if not all of those states.</p> - -<p>But fanaticism of no kind, whether political or religious, -listens to reason, and among the pseudo-philanthropists -there was much of the leaven of that old spirit, which had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[ 74 ]</a></span> -prompted the hanging, burning and scourging of "heretics -and witches."</p> - -<p>There were many politicians by trade, whose aspirations -had been unsuccessful and who cared nothing for the negro -or the cause of freedom, but who fell in with the "free-soil" -movement, as it was called with the selfish hope of -building up a great sectional party under the auspices of -which they could obtain and retain that power which they -had failed to acquire otherwise. A very large mass of men -rarely think for themselves and among this class the leaders -of the "free-soil" operated extensively by impassioned appeals -to their prejudices and passions, inducing them to believe -that their vital interests required that slavery should -be excluded by law from the territories. One of the shrewdest -and most far-seeing of the "free-soil" leaders boldly declared -that there was a "higher law" than the Constitution -and that there was "an <i>impassable</i> conflict between slavery -and freedom."</p> - -<p>It cannot be denied that there were extreme men at the -South on the other side, but they were made so mostly by -the hostile attitude assumed by their opponents.</p> - -<p>The result of the agitation was that for some time no -government could be formed for any part of the new territory. -The exasperation of feeling between the two sections -of the Union, and the danger to that Union itself, became -so great that in 1850 the more moderate of the leading -statesmen of the country, with Clay and Webster at their -head, devoted themselves to the adjustment of the threatening -questions and their efforts resulted in the adoption of -certain measures commonly called the "Compromise Measures -of 1850." These measures consisted of a bill for the -admission of California into the Union, under a constitution -excluding slavery, which had been irregularly adopted -a bill to establish a territorial government for Utah and a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[ 75 ]</a></span> -bill to establish the northern and western boundaries of -Texas with her assent, and to establish a territorial government -for New Mexico, it being provided in the territorial -bills that states created out of the two territories organized -when the population should be sufficient, should be admitted -into the Union with or without slavery, as the people themselves -might decide.</p> - -<p>Along with these bills another was passed for enforcing -the provision of the Constitution in regard to the return of -fugitive slaves, as the former one could not be executed -because most of the free states had prohibited their officers -from acting under it. These measures as a whole were not -acceptable to the extreme men of either section, but the -more moderate portion of the two leading political parties -hoped that they would put an end to the agitation and restore -peace and concord to the country. Such appeared to -be their first effect, and both of the great political parties, -into which the country had been divided, without reference -to sections for many years—Democrat and Whig—in their -platforms of principles adopted in the canvass for President -in 1852, gave their adhesion to the "Compromise -Measures of 1850" as a final settlement of the questions -embraced by them.</p> - -<p>In 1848, a portion of the "free-soilers" had run Martin -Van Buren, a former President and a defeated candidate -for the Democratic nomination, as their candidate for the -Presidency, but the party did not have cohesiveness enough -to give him its whole vote, and in 1852 the "free-soil" -party had no candidate, the members of it voting with the -parties to which they had previously been attached according -to their predilections, though there was still much -muttering by the leaders.</p> - -<p>The abolition party proper, however, had a candidate for -form's sake.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[ 76 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>In 1848, Wisconsin had been added to the Union as a -free state, and there were now in the Union sixteen free -states and fifteen slave states, giving to the free states the -preponderance in the Senate, as they had long had in the -lower House. Neither Utah nor New Mexico was fitted at -all for slave labor, and there was no territory out of which -it was likely that another slave state could be formed, except -by the sub-division of Texas, while there was a prospect -for the formation of several more free states, at no distant -day, out of the territory west of the Mississippi and north -of 36° 30´ and on the Pacific coast, the territories of Minnesota -and Oregon having already been organized.</p> - -<p>By what was called the Compromise of 1850, the South -had gained nothing whatever, except the abstract principle -inserted in the Utah and New Mexico bills, of non-interference -by Congress with the question of slavery and the -submission of the decision of the question to the people of -the territories when they came to frame their state governments, -while the North had gained the rich and growing -state of California. The bill for the restoration of fugitive -slaves was in accordance with an express stipulation in the -Constitution, without which it would never have been -adopted. Yet the execution of this law was resisted from -the very beginning and very soon most of the free states -passed laws, called "personal liberty bills" which virtually -nullified the act of Congress. Several collisions ensued between -the United States officers in their efforts to execute -the law and mobs in the free states who resisted its execution, -and even members on the floor of Congress denounced -the law and counselled resistance to it. This served to prevent -that harmonious feeling which had been expected from -the adoption of the measures of adjustment, and the new -fugitive slave act became soon a dead letter from the -danger, difficulty and expense attending its execution. Not -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[ 77 ]</a></span> -only was the guaranty contained in the Constitution, and -the act of Congress to enforce it, thus rendered nugatory, -but for many years slaves had been enticed by agents from -the North to make their escape and aid had been furnished -them while doing so, under a system which obtained the -designation of "The underground railroad." This was not -confined to citizens merely but was participated in by state -officers who were sworn to support the Constitution of the -United States, and instead of compelling their citizens and -officers to comply with the Constitution and law, many of -the free states passed laws to make it a felony for the owner -to arrest his slave or for any one to assist him.</p> - -<p>At the session of Congress for 1853-54 in the introduction -of a bill for the establishment of governments for the territories -of Kansas and Nebraska, both north of 36° 30´, a -proposition was made by Mr. Douglas, a senator from Illinois, -to incorporate a provision in regard to slavery similar -to that contained in the Utah and New Mexico bills. When -the measure was offered by a Northern man, it was supported -by nearly all of the Southern representatives as correct -in principle, though it met with the opposition of a -few Southern representatives and statesmen, who deprecated -it as tending to arouse again the excitement which -had partially subsided.</p> - -<p>The question was not one of any great practical importance, -as the climate and soil of Kansas and Nebraska furnished -a more formidable barrier to the introduction of -slaves than any legal enactment. The proposition to repeal -the enactment as to the line of 36° 30´ violated no compromise, -as has been shown, and it violated no right of any -of the Northern states or people, but merely asserted a -principle deducible from the Constitution and right in itself; -though in this case it was an abstract one.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[ 78 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>The measure was passed with the assistance of some of -the Northern Democrats, and it had the effect so much -dreaded by the conservative men who opposed it, of reviving -with new intensity the fires of the former agitation -and of giving new life to the languishing free-soil or Republican -party. Though they had never acceded to or complied -with the compromise in regard to Missouri or that of -1850, or even those of the Constitution itself, the leaders of -the free-soil party raised a tremendous clamor about the -violation of plighted faith, and soon the agitation spread -over the whole North with ten fold force.</p> - -<p>The Puritan ministers of New England, successors of -the Cotton-Mathers of religious persecution and witches-killing -notoriety, abandoned the gospel of peace for dissertations -upon the merits of Sharp's rifles, and under their -auspices a considerable number of armed emigrants were -sent to Kansas. In consequence of this movement some hot -heads from the South imprudently went to Kansas for the -purpose of disputing the settlement of that territory with -the emissaries of the New England parsons. The result was -that a very disorderly condition of things ensued in the -new territories, as is always the case where reason gives -way to passion. Many wrongs and acts of violence were -committed on both sides and there was a tremendous howl -about "bleeding Kansas" by the Northern parsons and -agitators, but not one slave was carried into Kansas and -no one thought of carrying any there.</p> - -<p>The result of the agitation consequent on the theoretic -extension of slavery to Kansas and Nebraska, and of the -troubles in Kansas, was the appearance of John C. Fremont -as the Republican free-soil candidate for the presidency -in 1856. He was beaten, but his vote showed the -existence of a formidable sectional party, in all of the free -states, based on a solitary idea. The strength of this party -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[ 79 ]</a></span> -was still further increased by an attempt to secure the admission -of Kansas into the Union, under a Constitution -liberating slavery and adopted by a convention held during -the prevalence of the bitter feud there, but the most important -result of the Kansas troubles was the development -of the character of John Brown, a bold, desperate and -fanatical Northern man, who made his appearance on the -scene of action, and participated largely in the outrages -committed by the free-soilers and abolitionists.</p> - -<p>What gave the crowning stroke to the already over-heated -animosity between the two sections, was the appearance of -John Brown on a new theatre of action. The political parsons -and the agitators of the North did not confine themselves -to the denunciation of the Southern people and of -slavery, but they lavished their anathemas upon the Constitution -which tolerated slavery and the Union which gave it, -as they alleged, protection. Nor were the denunciations -confined to Northern pulpits and abolition or free-soil -papers, but were heard in the Senate Chamber and on the -floor of the House of Representatives, and were accompanied -with the most atrocious libels on the Southern -people, in which they were represented as barbarians who -delighted in inflicting upon their slaves the most revolting -cruelties, and who engaged in the most debasing immoralities. -Encouraged by these open denunciations of the Constitution -and the Union, and stimulated by the picture of -Southern wrongs and cruelty to the slaves, which were constantly -placed before his eyes, John Brown gave way to -the wild conceptions of a fanatical mind and undertook to -subvert the government of the United States and to redress -the wrongs of the slaves by deluging the Southern states -in blood.</p> - -<p>In the year 1858, he held a secret meeting or convention -of reckless fanatics like himself at Chatham, in Canada -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[ 80 ]</a></span> -West, and devised a scheme for a provisional government -of the United States, of which he was to be the head, with -a cabinet appointed by himself, and he concocted a plan for -putting his government in operation by raising a rebellion -among the slaves and freeing them. All of these proceedings -were kept from the public until the month of October, 1859, -when John Brown, with a band of followers, made his appearance -suddenly at Harper's Ferry, within the limits of -Virginia, surprised and captured the United States arsenal -at that place, which was without a guard; killed several -citizens; captured and imprisoned others, and committed a -number of depredations and robberies in the neighborhood. -His pretended provisional government was proclaimed and -the object of the movement declared, but failing to receive -some expected re-inforcements, and not meeting with co-operation -on the part of the slaves for whom he brought a -supply of arms and expected to get others from the arsenal, -he and his band of desperadoes were soon surrounded and -the greater part captured or killed. John Brown himself -was made a prisoner in a wounded condition and he and -several of his followers were tried under the laws of Virginia, -convicted and executed for treason and murder.</p> - -<p>His plan of operations contemplated a servile insurrection -in all of the Southern states with all of the horrors of blood -and rapine, and his acts amounted to treason, not only -against the state of Virginia, but against the United States; -yet there was reason to suspect that some of the leaders of -the Republican or free-soil party, were cognizant of his designs -if they did not secretly favor them. Certain it is that -very great sympathy was openly expressed for him by -many individuals and by public meetings at the North, and -that the legislature of Massachusetts, by an almost unanimous -vote, adjourned over so as not to be in session on the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[ 81 ]</a></span> -day of his execution, avowedly as a mark of respect for him, -and of condemnation at his execution.</p> - -<p>When this desperate undertaking of John Brown to deluge -the South with fire and sword, and the marked sympathy -for him expressed at the North, were added to the -failure of the Northern states to comply with their plighted -faith in regard to the restoration of fugitive slaves—to -their interference with the institutions of those states, the -persistent libels upon the Southern people, the encouragement -given to the slaves to revolt by incendiary publications, -the attitude of hostility assumed by a great number -of the Northern representatives to the South on every occasion -in which anything had been proposed or done in regard -to slavery, and to the rapid growth of the party now -coming into the ascendency on the ground of enmity to -the South and her institutions—it may be well conceived -that a profound sensation was created in the latter section.</p> - -<p>South Carolina then proposed some agreement between -the Southern states, for the purpose of withdrawing from -a compact, the obligations of which had been so disregarded, -but Virginia discouraged this proposition, as she -was exceedingly loth to take any step looking to the severance -of a Union which she had done so much to establish, -and for which she had made so many sacrifices.</p> - -<p>By the commencement of the canvass for the Presidency -in 1860, the Democratic party had become divided on the -question of the construction of the slavery clause in the -Kansas-Nebraska bill: that is whether the power to exclude -or adopt slavery could be exercised by the people of the -territories while in the territorial condition. Mr. Douglas -and the greater portion of the Northern Democrats contended -for the former view, while nearly all of the Southern -Democrats advocated the latter. It was contended by the -Southern Democrats with great force and justice that if -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[ 82 ]</a></span> -Congress did not have the power to exclude slavery, the -legislatures of the territories, which derived their powers -from the acts organizing the territories could not have -that power. This view was conclusive, for the territorial -legislatures, being now temporary bodies deriving their sole -powers from the acts of Congress, could not exercise greater -powers than the body which created them, while the people, -when they came to form constitutions, under that clause -of the Constitution of the United States providing for the -admission of new states on the same footing with the old, -were necessarily vested with that sovereign power over this -subject and all others which belonged to the original states.</p> - -<p>The Northern Democrats contended for what was called -"Squatter Sovereignty," that is, that this sovereign power -of legislation vested in the settlers of the territories from -the beginning, and to propitiate the free-soil sentiment, -many of them contended that the clause in the Kansas-Nebraska -bill secured the territories to the north and free-soil -more effectually than could be done by Congressional -legislation, as settlers from the North could more readily -take possession of the territories and exclude slavery from -them, than settlers from the South could introduce slavery -there, while in Congress the Southern Representatives especially -in the Senate where the sections were more nearly -equal, could, with the aid of a few Northern men, prevent -any interference with slavery. This view of the subject -made the doctrine of squatter sovereignty even more offensive -than what was called the Wilmot proviso, and Southern -men contended that it was a trap to entrap them.</p> - -<p>It was in fact not a question of construction of the clause -in the Kansas-Nebraska bill but of the Constitution itself. -If Congress had no power to legislate on the subject, then -it could delegate none, and if there was such a thing as -"squatter sovereignty" it extended to all other subjects as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[ 83 ]</a></span> -well as to slavery, and the settlers in the territories might -set up for themselves without any authority from Congress, -which would involve some very extraordinary consequences, -including that even of disposing of the public lands. The -squatter sovereignty view of the question was one not to be -tolerated; and it applied to the Utah and New Mexico bills -as well as to that in regard to Kansas and Nebraska.</p> - -<p>The great mass of Southern Whigs agreed with the -Southern Democrats in their way of interpreting the principle, -but they did not regard the question as one of sufficient -practical importance to make a fight over, and old -party divisions and feuds prevented a coalescence of all of -the Southern men.</p> - -<p>Though considered by many an abstract question, as it -certainly was so far as it applied to Kansas and Nebraska, -it seemed to divide the Democratic party into two wings, -a Northern and a Southern one, with some adherents to -either wing from the opposite section. This division resulted -in the nomination of two sets of candidates by the -Democratic party—Douglas of Illinois and Johnson of -Georgia by the Northern wing, and Breckenridge of Kentucky -and Lane of Oregon by the Southern wing. The Republican -free-soil or abolition party nominated Lincoln of -Illinois and Hamlin of Maine, while the Southern Whigs -and a remnant of Northern Whigs, who had not fused with -the free-soilers and abolitionists, nominated Bell of Tennessee -and Everett of Massachusetts. The advocates of this -latter ticket proposed to sink every other issue and stand -for "The Union, the Constitution, and the enforcement of -the Laws."</p> - -<p>At the election in 1860, Lincoln and Hamlin received the -majority of the popular vote in nearly all of the Northern -states and by that vote alone secured a majority of the -votes of the electoral colleges, but they lacked very nearly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[ 84 ]</a></span> -1,000,000 votes of receiving a majority of the combined -popular vote of the United States. In this election the -Southern people were unanimous in their opposition to -Lincoln and Hamlin though divided as to the other candidates, -the few thousands of votes given on the border for -the Republican ticket, being given by Northern men who -had emigrated across the line, and amounting to a very -inconsiderable fraction.</p> - -<p>It was the first time in the history of the Government -that a mere sectional candidate had been elected and this -was done upon sectional issues alone. This result presented -an alarming state of things and developed the fact that -under a Republican form of Federal Government, with -suffrage nearly universal, it was perfectly practicable for -a minority to get possession of the government on sectional -issues and perhaps control it permanently. There had -been, before, presidents elected by a minority popular vote, -but this was on National issues and the support of the successful -candidate was confined to no particular section. Of -the thirteen presidents elected, seven had been elected from -Southern states, and all of them received majorities of the -popular vote except Mr. Polk of Tennessee, and his principal -opponent was Mr. Clay of Kentucky, a Southern man.</p> - -<p>Six had been selected from Northern states, and but one -of them, Harrison of Ohio, but a native of Virginia, received -a majority of the popular votes.</p> - -<p>Of the Southern presidents, Washington's electoral vote -was unanimous. Jefferson received twenty Northern electoral -votes at his first election, and all but nine of them at -his second. Madison received a majority of Northern -electoral votes at his first election and forty of them at his -second. Monroe received a very large majority of Northern -electoral votes at his first election and all but one at his -last, that being the only vote cast against him. Jackson -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[ 85 ]</a></span> -received 73 Northern and Northwestern electoral votes out -of 147 cast, at his first election and a very large majority at -his second election. Polk received 103 of the same vote to -58 cast for Mr. Clay and Taylor received a large majority -of the same vote.</p> - -<p>Of the Northern presidents, John Adams received 12 -electoral votes from the South. John Quincy Adams received -six electoral votes from the slave states and was -elected by the House of Representatives, receiving the -votes of several slave states. Van Buren received 61 out -of 126 votes cast by the slave states, 28 of the rest being -cast for Harrison. Harrison received a large majority of -Southern electoral votes, as did Pierce and Buchanan and -in every election the majority of Northern electoral votes -had been cast for the successful candidates, except at Jefferson's -first election, Madison's second, Jackson's first and -Buchanan's election and in this the majority of that vote -had been cast for Fremont, the sectional Republican candidate. -Two vice-presidents, Tyler from Virginia and Fillmore -of New York, had succeeded to the presidency by the -deaths of the incumbents and both of them had received -majorities of the popular vote as well as of the Northern -electoral vote.</p> - -<p>Lincoln's election therefore was the first instance of the -election of a mere sectional president. It was very evident -that if the party electing him continued in possession of -the government for any length of time, there would inevitably -follow a subversion of the rights of the states and a -consolidation of all power in the Federal government under -the control of a sectional majority, not a majority of the -whole. This form of consolidation promised to be infinitely -worse than an entire obliteration of all state lines and a -concentration of power in the hands of the entire people.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[ 86 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>Under the circumstances attending the election of Lincoln, -those of the Southern states which are usually designated -the "Cotton States" deemed that their own safety -required their withdrawal from the Union, and they consequently -withdrew. The legislature of South Carolina was -in session for the purpose of appointing electors for president, -and when the result was ascertained, a convention for -that state was called, which adopted an ordinance of secession -on the 20th of December, 1860. Georgia, Florida, -Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana soon followed the -example of South Carolina, and a Congress of the seceding -states met at Montgomery, Alabama, early in February, -1861, and organized a provisional government under the -style of the "Confederate States of America," of which -the Honorable Jefferson Davis, of Mississippi, was appointed -President, and the Honorable A. H. Stephens, of -Georgia, Vice-President.</p> - -<p>Texas had previously adopted an ordinance of secession -which went into effect when it was certified by the popular -vote and that state soon afterwards became also one of the -Confederate States.</p> - -<p>A permanent constitution was adopted for the Confederate -States to go into effect on the 22d of February, 1862, -modelled after that of the United States, but containing -some changes in the details and the powers delegated, with -more ample recognition of states rights and a prohibition -of the introduction of slaves from any other than the slave-holding -states and territories of the United States.</p> - -<p>The secession of these states had been without violence, -except to take possession of some forts and arsenals of the -United States within the limits of the seceding states, -which had been accomplished without bloodshed. Commissioners -were appointed to the United States government, to -effect a peaceful settlement of all questions between the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[ 87 ]</a></span> -two governments in regard to the public debt, territory, etc.</p> - -<p>This change in the relations of the seceding states to the -United States resulted in no change whatever in the domestic -affairs of those states, but they continued to be regulated -as before under the laws and constitutions of the -several states.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[ 88 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V">CHAPTER V</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">Action of the Border Slave States—Convention -of Virginia</p> - - -<p>The "Border Slave States," as they were called, including -North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas, which immediately -joined the "Cotton States" on the south, though -equally appreciating the outrages upon their rights and the -dangers to be apprehended in the future, were not at first -disposed to secede, as they had cherished such an habitual -attachment to the Union that they were exceedingly loth -to give it up, being governed by that sentiment described -in the Declaration of Independence in the assertion "that -mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable -than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to -which they are accustomed."</p> - -<p>The majority of the people of those states were actuated -by hope that the party which was about to obtain possession -of the government would not long hold together, and -they trusted that the sober second thought of the people of -the North would keep the dominant party within bounds -until it could be ejected from power, and that in the meantime -guaranties might be obtained for the rights of the -states, so as to bring the government back to a conformity -with its original designs, and effect a restoration of the -Union. This was especially the case with the State of Virginia, -which had made so many sacrifices to establish and -perpetuate the Union, which in great part had been the -work of her own hands. The legislature of Virginia was -in session when the secession of the "Cotton States" began, -and the crisis was of such a threatening nature that an act -was passed, providing for the assemblage of a convention, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[ 89 ]</a></span> -vested with the sovereign power of the state, but directing -at the same time, that a vote should be taken upon the -question of any ordinance of secession which might be -adopted, and that it should be submitted to the popular -vote for ratification before it should be effectual. The -legislature also by resolution, invited a convention of commissioners -from all of the non-seceding states, North and -South, to assemble at Washington for the purpose of consulting -upon and devising some plan for adjusting the -pending difficulties with a view to a restoration of the -Union. This latter convention assembled and was known -as the "Peace Convention."</p> - -<p>The election for members of the Virginia convention took -place on the first Monday in February, 1861, and a large -majority of the delegates elected were opposed to secession. -The convention assembled at the Capitol in Richmond, on -the 13th of February, and a decided union man, Mr. John -Janney, of Loudoun, was chosen President. A deliberative -body containing more general talent and worth had rarely, -if ever, assembled in the state, and all of the members -seemed to be impressed with the momentous character of -the crisis. This convention contained one distinguished -gentleman who had been President of the United States, -another who had been governor of the state, a number who -had filled seats in the Federal Congress, two who had been -heads of departments in the Cabinet at Washington, besides -many others among the most talented and distinguished -statesmen and lawyers of the state.</p> - -<p>There was a variety of sentiment among the Union members -as to the terms upon which it would be safe for the -state to remain in the Union, but a very large majority -were earnestly in favor of some adjustment in the way of -amendments to the Constitution of the United States, by -which the seceded states could be induced to return, while -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[ 90 ]</a></span> -the members favoring immediate secession constituted a -very small minority. A committee was at once appointed, -which after considerable deliberation reported a plan of adjustment -for submission to the other states through Congress, -after its adoption by the convention. In the meantime -the Peace Convention which assembled at Washington, -had adopted a proposition for adjustment which met with -no favor at the hands of the Republican members of Congress, -and was not entirely satisfactory to a majority of the -Virginia Convention. Propositions of compromise in Congress -had also failed.</p> - -<p>The Virginia Convention engaged earnestly in the discussion -of the report of its committee and counter propositions, -and continued it until the month of April, having -in the meantime voted down, by a very large majority, a -direct proposition for secession.</p> - -<p>It is difficult to describe the intense anxiety felt by most -of the members of the convention to preserve the peace of -the country and effect an amicable settlement of the -troubles. Lincoln had been inaugurated president on the -4th of March, and had delivered an inaugural address that -was enigmatical in its terms. During the whole of the discussion -which was progressing in the Virginia convention, -the members engaged in the effort to preserve peace and -restore the Union, received no offer whatever of co-operation -from the occupant of the White House, and no direct -answer ever reached them as coming from him to persons -who approached him on the questions engrossing all hearts -and minds in the state.</p> - -<p>In the early part of April, the convention had become -very anxious in regard to the uncertain condition of things, -and appointed a committee of three of its members, of great -ability and experience to wait upon Mr. Lincoln and ascertain -from him, in a respectful manner, what course he -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[ 91 ]</a></span> -proposed to take in regard to the seceded states. This committee -reached Washington a little before the attack on -Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, and had an interview -with Mr. Lincoln, receiving very little encouragement from -him. While the committee was awaiting a formal answer, -which was promised, the news of the commencement of the -bombardment of Fort Sumter was received, and the reply -from Mr. Lincoln appeared in extra issues from the press -without having been communicated to the committee.</p> - -<p>This reply was enigmatical in its terms like the inaugural, -but was rather stronger on the question of coercion. The -committee at once returned and reported to the convention -the result of its mission, and Fort Sumter having fallen, a -proclamation from Lincoln soon followed, on the 15th of -April, calling on the states, Virginia included, for 75,000 -troops "to repossess the forts, places and property which -have been seized from the Union."</p> - -<p>There was no mistaking that this meant war on the -seceded states, and the Virginia convention went into secret -session, when an ordinance of secession was introduced by -Mr. Ballard Preston, Chairman of the Committee, which -had waited on Lincoln, and up to that time an opponent of -secession. After a very earnest discussion, that ordinance -was adopted on the 17th day of April.</p> - -<p>A number of members of the convention, including myself, -who afterwards fully sustained the action of the state, -voted against the passage of this ordinance with the hope, -even in that stage of the controversy, that the people of -the North would not respond to the call of Lincoln for -troops, and that a disruption of the Union and the horrors -of war might still be avoided. The scenes which occurred -during the discussion which ensued after the convention -went into secret session, were characterized by a solemnity -rarely witnessed in a deliberative body and several members -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[ 92 ]</a></span> -while speaking were unable to restrain their tears. As -for myself, it was exceedingly difficult to surrender the attachment -of a lifetime to that Union which had been cemented -by the blood of so many patriots, and which I had -been accustomed to look upon (in the language of Washington) -as the palladium of the political safety and prosperity -of the country, and therefore I had hoped even against -hope, but I soon became convinced fully that the action of -the convention was right, and that it could have pursued no -other course, consistently with the honor and dignity of -Virginia, and in this opinion I have remained firmly fixed, -notwithstanding the result of the war which ensued.</p> - -<p>After the passage of the ordinance of secession, provision -was made for submitting it to the popular vote for ratification, -at the elections to be held on the fourth Thursday in -May. In the meantime steps were taken for placing the -state in a condition of defence, and an ordinance was passed -directing the governor to call into service of the state as -many volunteers as might be necessary to defend it against -invasion. Colonel Robert E. Lee, a native and citizen of -Virginia, who had resigned his commission in the United -States Army on hearing the action of his state, was appointed -by the governor, with the consent of the convention, -commander-in-chief of all of the forces of the state with the -rank of Major General.</p> - -<p>In the meantime an arrangement was made with the Confederate -Government for assistance in defending the state, in -the event of an attempt by the government at Washington -to march troops into or through it with a view to an invasion -of any of the seceded states, and the Confederate -Government was invited to remove to the City of Richmond.</p> - -<p>The convention remained in session until the first day of -May, when it adjourned over to the second week in June to -await the result of the popular vote on the ordinance of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[ 93 ]</a></span> -secession. The ratification was given by an overwhelming -majority of the popular vote, and upon the re-assembling -of the convention the ordinance was duly signed by the -greater part of the members. I had voted for the ratification -at the polls and now put my signature to the ordinance.</p> - -<p>Virginia now had fully and completely dissolved her -connection with the United States, and resumed the powers -she had delegated when she ratified the Constitution. To -this step she had been impelled against her previous inclinations, -by the course of the government at Washington, to -avoid being dragged into an unholy war against the Cotton -States, and to maintain the cherished principles for which -she had fought, and which she had uniformly asserted since -the adoption of the United States Constitution. When the -act of secession was complete, she adopted the Constitution -of the Confederate States, both provisional and permanent, -and was fully admitted into the Confederacy.</p> - -<p>North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas likewise withdrew -from the Union and became members of the Confederacy -for the same reasons which influenced Virginia. Missouri -subsequently passed an ordinance of secession and -joined the Confederacy, but that state was soon overrun by -United States troops, and the regular government was subverted -and another substituted in its place by the force -of Federal bayonets. Kentucky undertook to occupy a -neutral position until the greater part of that state was in -the power of the Federal troops, when an irregular government -was formed which passed an ordinance of secession -and joined the Confederacy. The situation of Maryland -was such that she was soon overrun by troops and prevented -any legislative expression of opinion, the members of her -legislature being seized and imprisoned. Little Delaware -was so situated that its voice was never heard at all.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[ 94 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI">CHAPTER VI</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">The Right to Withdraw</p> - - -<p>The causes which led to the secession of the Southern -States have never been given, and when they are compared -with those which led to the American Revolution as given -by the First Continental Congress, the latter sink into comparative -insignificance. A large portion of the wrongs complained -of in the Declaration of Independence were acts -committed after the commencement of the collisions between -the British troops and the Colonists, and if these were compared -with those committed by the Federal troops in the -beginning of the war, in Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, -to say nothing of the long list of outrages perpetrated during -its progress, the indictment against King George contained -in the eloquent language of the Declaration of Independence, -would be a very tame affair in comparison with -that which could be preferred against the Government at -Washington.</p> - -<p>The third article of the Confederation had specified the -object for which it had been formed, and that it was "A -firm league of friendship" for the common defence, the security -of the liberties and the mutual and general welfare, -and that the states bound themselves to assist each other -against all force offered to or attacks made upon them or -any of them "on account of religion, sovereignty, trade or -any other pretense whatever." The preamble to the Constitution -recites that it was made "to form a more perfect -union." More perfect how? To the subversion of the -liberties and sovereignty of the states? Had the conduct -of the Northern States been that of the members of "a -firm league and friendship?" And when they had so flagrantly -violated and neglected the plain stipulations of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[ 95 ]</a></span> -Constitution, did not the Southern States have the same -right to withdraw from the connection with them, that the -colonies had to withdraw from the connection with Great -Britain, because the government which had been instituted -for "the common defence and general welfare" had become -"destructive of those ends?"</p> - -<p>Who was to judge of whether there was a necessity for -severing the connection, the oppressor or the oppressed? If -the former, then the decision would have been against the -colonies. If colonies, the mere offshoots from the mother -country, could undertake to judge the sufficiency of the -grievances and the mode and measure of redress, could not -sovereign states which had framed the government of which -they complained, do the same thing? In seceding from the -Union, the Cotton States had acted as states, and not as -factious individuals resisting the laws or authority of the -government. The right of no one had been violated, and -it was not proposed to violate the rights of any individuals -or states, but merely to dissolve a compact, the terms of -which had been violated. To undertake to coerce those -states by military force was subversive of the whole spirit -and purpose of the Constitution, and made the government -the master, instead of the agent, of the powers which had -created it. This doctrine of coercion had never been asserted -by any respectable statesman since the foundation of -the government, and was at war with all of its principles -and aims. When therefore the other states were called -upon to engage in this war of coercion against the Cotton -States, it was not only their right but their duty to resist. -By the very terms of the Constitution, it was made the -duty of the Federal Government to protect the states -against invasion. Did that government have the right to -invade the state it was bound to protect? It was not -authorized even to protect the states against domestic violence -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[ 96 ]</a></span> -except upon invitation of the legislature or of the -executive, when the legislature was not in session. Was -it authorized to create that domestic violence? The power -of coercion involved the anomalous consequence of reducing -the states to conquered provinces when exercised, and this -involved the self-destruction of the government itself.</p> - -<p>In regard to this question of the right of the states to -withdraw, and the power of coercion, it is not inappropriate -to call attention to the following views expressed by Mr. -Horace Greeley, one of the ablest writers and firmest supporters -of the Republican or abolition party. In an article -published in the <i>New York Tribune</i> a few days after the -election of Lincoln in 1860, and reproduced in his work -styled "The American Conflict" he says:</p> - -<p>"That was a base and hypocritic row that was once raised -at Southern dictation about the ears of John Quincy -Adams, because he presented a petition for the dissolution -of the Union. The petitioner had a right to make the request; -it was the member's duty to present it. And now -if the Cotton States consider the value of the Union debatable, -we maintain their perfect right to discuss it. Nay! -we hold, with Mr. Jefferson, to the inalienable right of -communities to alter or abolish forms of government that -have become injurious or oppressive, and if the Cotton -States shall decide that they can do better out of the Union -than in it, we insist upon letting them go in peace. The -right to secede may be a revolutionary one but it exists -nevertheless, and we do not see how one party can have a -right to do what another party has a right to prevent. We -must ever resist the asserted right of any state to coercion -in the Union, and nullify and defy the laws thereof; to -withdraw from the Union is quite another matter. And -whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately -resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[ 97 ]</a></span> -to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof -one section is pinned to another by bayonets.</p> - -<p>"But while we uphold the practical liberty, if not the -abstract right of secession, we must insist that the step be -taken, if ever it shall be, with the deliberation and gravity -becoming so momentous an issue.</p> - -<p>"Let ample time be given for reflection, let the subject -be fully canvassed before the people, and let a popular -vote be taken in every case before secession is decreed. Let -the people be told just why they are asked to break up the -Confederation; let them reflect, deliberate, then vote; and -let the act of secession be the echo of an unmistakable -popular fiat. A judgment thus rendered, a demand for -separation so backed, would either be acquiesced in without -effusion of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to -defy or defeat it, would place themselves clearly in the -wrong."</p> - -<p>It would be hard to conceive language more forcible for -defining the right of the states to withdraw and the wrong -and criminality of the attempt to coerce them when they -had exercised that right, than this of Mr. Greeley's. It derives -additional force as coming from him, when it is recollected -that he had ever been inimical to the institutions of -the South, and it announced principles which had been -previously asserted in all questions of the Union, and underlay -the whole superstructure of a government which itself -was founded on the right of revolution. It is difficult -to realize the fact that the man who uttered language like -that quoted, subsequently became one of the most strenuous -advocates of the war of coercion, which was waged on the -Southern states. Mr. Greeley cannot avoid the effect of his -statement of the principles asserted in his article, by contending -that the act of separation was not "the echo of an -unmistakeable popular fiat," and that the Southern people -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[ 98 ]</a></span> -were precipitated into secession without due deliberation.</p> - -<p>When the right to discuss, deliberate and decide, exists, -those possessing it, must necessarily be the sole judges of -how it is to be exercised. The Southern states did deliberate -and did decide that they could no longer remain in -the Union with safety, and therefore they determined to -withdraw from it. If the Southern people had been hurried -into secession by their leaders, they are the parties to -complain and to hold the guilty ones responsible. They -have not done so, and what right had Mr. Greeley and his -party to become their champions against their wishes? He -and his party are estopped from denying that the Southern -people, did with almost entire unanimity, adopt secession and -willingly gave their support to the cause of separation; for -since their country was overrun by a superior military -force, their state governments overthrown; military despotisms -established over them; and in the effort to reconstruct -the Union, the great mass of the people disfranchised, and -the right of suffrage given to the freed slaves, because it -was alleged that the Southern people were still rebellious, -and so wedded to the idea of secession, notwithstanding the -bitter experience of the war, that they could not be trusted -with the right to vote and hold office. All of this was done -with Mr. Greeley's full knowledge and sanction.</p> - -<p>It has been shown how long, how earnestly, and how -anxiously the question was discussed in Virginia, and that -secession was resorted to by that state only when a war of -coercion had been proclaimed, and she had been required -to furnish troops to carry it on. The state of Virginia believed, -with Mr. Greeley, that it would be a grievous wrong -to "rush upon carnage to defy and defeat" the right of -the Cotton States to withdraw from the Union; and she determined -to do what he had declared his purpose of doing: -that is "resist all coercive measures." The ordinance of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[ 99 ]</a></span> -secession was submitted to the popular vote at an election -held more than one month after its adoption by the convention, -and it was ratified by an overwhelming majority, -thus showing beyond dispute that it was "the echo of an -unmistakable popular fiat." Did not "those who rushed -upon carnage to defy and defeat" "a judgment thus -rendered, a separation so backed," "place themselves -clearly in the wrong?"</p> - -<p>Yet Virginia was the first of the seceding states invaded -by the Federal army; her towns and plains were devastated -by a long and cruel war; her people plundered, imprisoned -and murdered; her territory severed, and a new state -erected within her limits, in violation of the Constitution -of the United States. Subsequently a military despotism -was thrust upon them, and the freed slaves were vested -with the right of suffrage and the capacity to hold office, -while such wide measures of disfranchisement were adopted -that enough men competent to fill the petty offices of state, -even with those whose fears and cupidity led them to -apostatize and the influx of adventurers could not be found -in all the limits of that old commonwealth which has been -designated "the mother of states and of statesmen."</p> - -<p>In the case of Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, the -people were overrun by Federal troops owing to the peculiar -nature of their situation, and they were deprived of -the opportunity of freely discussing and deliberating upon -the questions involved, though the legislature of Missouri -did pass an ordinance of secession. Did not those people, -under such circumstances, have the right individually to -resist so flagrant an outrage upon their rights and liberties? -They were not only deprived of the liberty of peaceably assembling -to discuss their grievances, but it was sought to -deprive them of the right "to keep and bear arms," as expressly -guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[ 100 ]</a></span> -in order that they might have the means always -of defending their liberties and rights, and the only resource -they had was to unite as individuals in the defence -of the common cause, and of their own violated homes and -liberties.</p> - -<p>It has been said that the Confederate states began the -war by firing upon Fort Sumter. If those states had the -right to withdraw from the Union and the United States -had no right to resist or coerce them then the attempt to -maintain a garrisoned fort in one of the most important -harbors of the Confederacy, was an act of war. This had, -nevertheless, been patiently borne with, for nearly three -months after the secession of South Carolina, in whose -principal harbor the Fort was situated, and it was only -when the Government of the United States had given -notice of its intention to supply Fort Sumter "peaceably, -if possible, otherwise by force," and the vessels for that -purpose had appeared off the harbor, that the attack began. -The commissioners sent to Washington to effect a peaceable -settlement of all questions had then been denied an audience, -and informed that the authorities at Washington -would hold no intercourse with them.</p> - -<p>The war was thus inevitable, and the Federal authorities -were quietly preparing for it, in order to entrap the border -states. The threat to supply Fort Sumter indicated a purpose -of war; was then the Confederate Government to wait -until the measures of the Government at Washington had -been so completely taken that the former would find itself -helpless in the hands of its enemy? The port of Charleston -was necessary to it as an inlet for obtaining supplies and -arms for its defence, was it then to allow the port, which -could block the entrance to that harbor, to be placed in a -condition to render the blockade complete, the harbor -worthless and Charleston untenable?</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[ 101 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>There can be no question of the right of the Confederate -Government to force a surrender of the fort, which had -been refused, and that it was fully warranted in pursuing -the course it did. I must confess that, at the time, I deeply -deplored and condemned the attack on Fort Sumter, on the -score of policy, because I regarded the threat of the Washington -Government as designed to provoke a commencement -of the conflict by the firing of the first shot, and not -intended really to be carried into effect. It is now manifest -that war had already been resolved upon, and the firing of -the first gun on Fort Sumter was not its commencement. -The war was begun by the attempt to hold the forts in the -Confederate harbors.</p> - -<p>It has been alleged that the Southern States had previously -controlled the policy of the government, and that -they seceded because they had now lost that power. There -had never been a president elected from any of the Cotton -States, which established the Confederate Government except -from Louisiana, of which state General Taylor was a -nominal resident, but really a native of Virginia, and an -officer in the army, and he lived but a little over a year -after his inauguration. These Cotton States had furnished -comparatively few cabinet ministers, and they had in the -main been opposed to the policy pursued by the government -in regard to the most important branches of legislation, -such as internal improvements, the public lands, tariff, -etc. Their leading interest, the culture of cotton, had received -no fostering care whatever from the government, -and South Carolina had been complaining for more than -thirty years that her interest had been sacrificed to Northern -cupidity by high tariff and at one time she had taken -steps to nullify the laws on that subject. In no sense could -the state which initiated secession, be said to be actuated by -disappointment at the loss of Federal power.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[ 102 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>It is true that they had lost the power to protect themselves -in the Union, as the Constitution had been so flagrantly -violated and were now threatened with submission—and -for this they seceded.</p> - -<p>The state of Virginia had given four of the Southern -presidents to the Union, and Tennessee the other two. -Washington had been the unanimous choice of all of the -states; Jefferson, Madison and Munroe had been national -men in their policy and had received the support of a large -majority of the Northern vote; Munroe being accepted -without opposition at his last election and receiving all of -the votes, North and South, but one northern electoral -vote. Munroe was the last Virginian elected or nominated -as President. It is true Tyler had succeeded to the office by -the death of Harrison, but he had not received the vote of -Virginia even as vice-president.</p> - -<p>Virginia had voted against Clay, Harrison, Taylor and -Scott, all natives of the state, when they were candidates -for the presidency, and she had cast her vote three times -against Mr. Clay, and in the cases of Harrison, Taylor and -Scott, her vote had been cast for Northern men against -them. All of the presidents she had given had been re-elected, -because there was nothing sectional or local in their -policy, while no Northern president had been re-elected, -though three out of the six had been candidates again. In -the election of 1860, the state of Virginia cast its vote for -Bell and Everett, by a plurality vote over Breckenridge -and Lane, and Douglas and Johnson, showing that in this -election she was not liable to the charge of sectionalism, -even if that charge could be brought against the supporters -of Breckenridge and Lane, which is by no means admitted. -No interest of Virginia had at any time been fostered by -the action of the government, in any stage of its history, -and the government had not even taken steps to obtain -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[ 103 ]</a></span> -from foreign countries a diminution of the enormous duties -placed on her leading staple, tobacco, but her statesmen, -when in office, had pursued a policy looking to the general -welfare and prosperity. If she had furnished many statesmen -to the common councils, it was because of the general -confidence in their patriotism, and freedom from all selfish -ambition and narrow-minded notions of policy.</p> - -<p>Her history from the beginning of the controversy with -Great Britain had been one of sacrifices for the benefit of -all of the states. She had promptly sent troops to Massachusetts -on the commencement of the war of the Revolution -in that state, all of its battlefields were red with the -blood of her sons; and that war had been terminated on her -own soil. With a territory larger than that of all of the -other states at the conclusion of peace, she had surrendered -an empire beyond the Ohio river, for the sake of Union -and for the common benefit; and subsequently, she had -consented to the erection of the state of Kentucky within -her remaining territory.</p> - -<p>As the acknowledgement of the independence of the -states had left her, she would have been amply able to take -care of herself, and erect a powerful government of her -own, yet she had contracted her power and narrowed her -limits for what she considered the common good.<a name="FNanchor_1" id="FNanchor_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[A]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_1" id="Footnote_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1"><span class="label">[A]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Note</span>—The following extract is from the "History of the -American Civil War" by Professor Draper, a Northern Union -man, which shows the nature of Virginia's sacrifices: "At the -time of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia was the most -powerful of the colonies; she occupied a central position and had -in Norfolk one of the best harbors on the Atlantic. She had a -vast western territory, an imposing commerce, and in the production -and export of tobacco not only a source of wealth, but from -the mercantile connections it gave her in Europe, a means of refinement. -It was through this circumstance that so many of her -young men were educated abroad. When the epoch of separation -from the mother country had come, and the question of Confederation -arose, she might have asserted her colonial supremacy; she -might have been the central power. Many of her ablest men subsequently -thought that in her voluntary equalization with the -feeblest colonies, the spontaneous surrender of her vast domain, -the self-abnegation with which she sacrificed all her privileges on -the altar of the Union, she had made a fatal mistake. In her -action there was something very noble."</p></div> - -<p>The Union had not advanced her pecuniary or material -interests, yet, in all of its trials, she had been its firmest -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[ 104 ]</a></span> -supporter and her blood had been freely shed in all of its -wars and upon all of its battlefields. It was only where -that Union was to be perverted from its original designs -and made the means of humiliating and degrading the -Southern states, herself included, that Virginia resolved -upon severing the connection.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, New England had made no sacrifices -for the Union, and had received only benefits from it. To -that section the Union had been a "paying operation" in -every way: its fisheries, commerce and factories had been -fostered and protected by high bounties and duties until -its comparatively sterile soil bloomed as a garden, while its -surplus population found homes in the fertile region surrendered -by Virginia. Descendants of the Puritans did -not undertake to become "philanthropists" until the slave -trade with the South ceased to be profitable.</p> - -<p>Notwithstanding the benefits received by the New England -states from the Union, the first proposition for its -dissolution came from those states when the country was -engaged in a foreign war—the war of 1812 with Great -Britain—because that war was caused by a temporary suspension -of their commerce. Most of these states refused to -permit their militia to be marched beyond their limits for -the common defence and the question of a separate peace -with the public enemy was mooted, notwithstanding the -fact that the war had been undertaken in defence of commercial -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[ 105 ]</a></span> -rights in which New England was principally interested. -Such was the spirit manifested in that section -that the British government in declaring a blockade for -the coast of the United States, for some time exempted the -New England coast from that blockade and did not invade -those states.</p> - -<p>Upon the passage of an act for a general embargo in -1814, so as to put a stop to the contraband trade from New -England, the Massachusetts legislature was flooded with -petitions for redress and protection against the act of the -Federal government in enforcing the embargo, and a committee -to which the petitions were referred, made a report -in which the following views, among others, were expressed:</p> - -<p>"The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to -protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United -States, as well as for the purposes of domestic regulation. -We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent -State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, -without the power to protect its people or to defend -them from oppression from whatever quarter it comes. -Whenever the national compact is violated and the citizens -of this state are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized enactments, -this legislature is bound to interpose its power and -to wrest from the oppressor its victim."</p> - -<p>To show the spirit animating the people of Massachusetts -in the assertion of these doctrines—however true they might -be in principle—when the news was received of the abdication -of Buonaparte and the restoration of the Bourbons in -1814—thus leaving the British government at liberty to -employ all of its forces against the United States, the people -of Massachusetts as well as of all New England hailed -the news with joy and exultation, "as the harbinger of -peace and the renewal of commerce;" and the event was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[ 106 ]</a></span> -celebrated at Boston by a religious ceremony and a sermon -from the celebrated Dr. Channing.</p> - -<p>In the fall of 1814, the legislature of Massachusetts invited -a convention of the New England states, which assembled -in Hartford in December of that year and adopted -a series of resolutions in which it was declared, among -other things, that, "In cases of deliberate, dangerous and -palpable violations of the Constitution, affecting the sovereignty -of a state and the liberties of a people, it was not -only the right but the duty also of that state, to interpose -its authority for their protection, when emergencies occur, -either beyond the reach of the judicial tribunal or too pressing -to admit of delay incident to their forms; states which -have no common umpire must be their own judges and -execute their own decisions." The danger to the Union -from these steps on the part of Massachusetts and the other -New England states, in a time of public war, was put to -an end by the unexpected arrival of the news of a treaty -of peace; this perhaps prevented the former state from proceeding -to assert her sovereignty and making a separate -peace with Great Britain.</p> - -<p>In fact in 1809, during the existence of the troubles -growing out of the embargo passed before the close of Mr. -Jefferson's administration, John Quincy Adams had communicated -to the government at Washington that the object -of the dominant party in Massachusetts was, and had -been for several years, the establishment of a separate confederacy, -as he knew from unequivocal evidence; and that -in case of a civil war, the aid of Great Britain to affect -that purpose would be assuredly resorted to, as it would be -indispensably necessary to the design.</p> - -<p>There was strong reason to suspect that during the war -some secret arrangement existed with the enemy, by which -New England withheld from the country the support of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[ 107 ]</a></span> -her troops and her soil was kept free from invasion. In -all the measures then resorted to in order to embarrass the -government, Massachusetts took the lead, yet when a war -of invasion and subjugation against the Southern states -was waged, Massachusetts found no constitutional difficulties, -had no scruples about sending her troops into the -South.</p> - -<p>The idea that any of the Southern states resorted to -secession because of the loss of the power and patronage -of the government is not founded on fact, as neither had -ever been used for their special benefit even when in the -hands of Southern men, but it was the Northern states -whose trade and factories had grown up under the fostering -care of the government throughout its whole history, -while the schools of the Northwest had been richly endowed -from the public lands and the gigantic system of railroads -in the same quarter had been built up mainly from grants -of this common property.</p> - -<p>It has been further alleged that it was the slave power -which attempted to break up the government, because of -its defeat, and that that power had hitherto controlled the -government in its interest. In the first place, it is as well -to state that as far as the executive branch of the government -was concerned, there had been nothing of which to -complain on the part of the Southern people. The great -difficulty had been with the legislative department, which -always manifested a disposition, more or less, to be aggressive -on the subject of slavery, and the Southern people -looked to the executive to interpose its conservative influence. -The preponderance of Northern men in Congress, -already increased by the admission of Oregon and Minnesota, -and soon further to be increased by the admission of -Kansas, had become so great, that the only hope of the -South was in the executive, and when that branch of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[ 108 ]</a></span> -government was also sectionalized, there was no safety for -the weaker section. The people of the South had never asked -the government to protect slavery; they had merely asked -that it should be let alone, and left where the Constitution -left it.</p> - -<p>In entering the Union, they had stipulated for a government -for certain general purposes, and not one to regulate -their domestic affairs; and they claimed that the government -should be confined to the purposes for which it was -instituted. That government had in no way acted so as to -strengthen slavery, and it had not been able to comply with -the express stipulation for the return of fugitive slaves. -Slavery had been excluded from an immense territory by -the action of the government, but it had not been carried -to one foot of territory by that action. All of the new -states east of the Mississippi, except Florida, had been -formed out of territory originally belonging to the slave -states, and they had been admitted into the Union under -that provision of the Constitution which declared that such -states should be admitted upon the same footing in every -respect with the original states and to add to this obligation -not to interfere with their domestic institutions, the states -ceding the territory had expressly stipulated that there -should be no interference with slavery.</p> - -<p>Louisiana came in by treaty as slave territory, and with -a stipulation for the protection of the people in their property. -Out of that territory, three slave states had been -formed, and they were the last there was any prospect of -forming; while the free states of Iowa, Oregon and Minnesota -had already been admitted from the same territory -with the prospect of the speedy admission of Kansas and -Nebraska and the not remote prospect of an indefinite -number of other free states from the same territory. -Texas had come in as a state from the condition of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[ 109 ]</a></span> -an independent republic and the measures leading to -her admission had resulted in the acquisition and admission -of California as a free state with a prospect of -more free states from the territory acquired. So that -in every case of the introduction of new slave territory -into the Union, there had been largely more than -equivalent in territory for the formation of free states except -in the case of the slave territory of Florida; and when -that was acquired the vastly larger and more important -slave territory of Texas had been surrendered. It is not a -fact, then, in any sense of the term, that the government -had been used for the protection and growth of the slave -power. That power, if it might be called such, was relatively -stronger the day the Constitution was formed than -it was ever afterwards.</p> - -<hr class="chap" /> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[ 110 ]</a></span></p> - - - - -<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VII" id="CHAPTER_VII">CHAPTER VII</a></h2> - -<p class="antiqua">Injurious Effect of Misinformation</p> - - -<p>In connection with this claim of the slave power were the -most shocking misrepresentations of the condition of the -slaves themselves and of the social relations of the Southern -people, in order to array the prejudices of the world against -their cause. This course of misrepresentation had long -been pursued before the war, and was not confined to -American writers, but many works appeared from the -British press containing libels upon the society of the -Southern states and false views of slavery as established -there. Such works in both countries were evidently written -by persons with prejudiced minds or who knew little -practically of slavery as it existed in the South. Such was -the intolerance of the public sentiment which had been -fostered in both countries upon the subject, that no candid -and impartial account of the workings of domestic slavery -as it existed in the Southern states would be received with -the slightest favor, whilst the exaggerated accounts of -cruelty practiced by the slave-owners, and consequent sufferings -of the slaves were eagerly accepted as the truth.</p> - -<p>A very striking evidence of this prejudice was furnished -by the reception given to the works of two female writers -not many years since. The one, Miss Harriett Beecher, later -Mrs. Stowe, wrote a work of fiction called "Uncle Tom's -Cabin," containing misrepresentations of slavery and -slanders upon Southern society. Drawing upon a fertile -imagination and pandering to the prejudices of the uninformed, -she published the book, which had a great run in -Europe as well as America, and was translated into almost -all of the continental languages. The incidents contained -in the book were either erroneous in point of fact or greatly -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[ 111 ]</a></span> -exaggerated, but the book itself was still more untrue as -a picture of Southern society and slavery, and would have -been a misrepresentation if every fact contained in it had -been true in isolated cases. But the book was received as a -true and faithful picture of society and slavery in the South, -not merely by the agitators of abolition, but by that very -considerable class of persons in the world who allow others -to do their thinking, and when the authoress visited Great -Britain, she was treated with great attention and extensively -feted by the nobility, gentry and others. The view -of Southern slavery which she drew is perhaps accepted by -nine-tenths of the otherwise well informed persons in -Europe.</p> - -<p>In remarkable contrast to Miss Beecher's case, was that of -Miss Murray, a lady of talents and refinement, who held -the position of maid of honor to Queen Victoria. Miss -Murray visited the United States as a tourist with all of -her predilections against slavery, but she happened to be -one of those persons who, not satisfied with hearsay report, -took the necessary trouble to inform herself intelligently -upon the subject. In the course of her travels, she went into -the Southern states, where she remained for some time as a -guest on some of the plantations. She had the opportunity of -observing the workings of domestic slavery as it actually -existed and in all of its details, and she availed herself of -that opportunity to make her own reflections. In letters to -friends at home she gave the result of her actual observations -and upon her return to England was induced to publish -her letters. These letters represented slavery in the -Southern states in a very different light from that in which -it was accustomed to be presented to the British public, and -the consequence was that Miss Murray was notified by the -ministry that it was not desirable that she should longer -occupy the relation she held to the Queen, as the views she -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[ 112 ]</a></span> -expressed in regard to slavery were not consonant with the -policy of the British government; so she was retired.</p> - -<p>This illustrates the difference in the reception of two -works on the subject of slavery given by the British public: -one a work of fiction from a prejudiced writer, the other a -matter-of-fact account of an eye witness of what she undertook -to describe.</p> - -<p>If British ministers could thus view the subject and be -guilty of the injustice they perpetrated in Miss Murray's -case, what could be expected of the great mass of British -readers? It is hard to conceive how the glory or prosperity -of a nation could be advanced by giving currency to fallacies, -or suppressing the truth in regard to the actual condition -of African slavery in the Southern states.</p> - -<p>It would seem that as Great Britain had had so much -to do with fostering the institution in those states, it would -be rather gratifying, than otherwise, to its ministers and -its people, to know that the descendants of those who had -been ravished from their native country by the cupidity of -their predecessors, were in a contented and comfortable condition. -But such was not then "the policy of the government" -and perhaps the philanthropic disciple of Exeter -Hall who callously passed by the misery, want and immorality -at her own door in the great city of London, -while she shed tears over the imaginary woes pictured by -Miss Beecher, would have been equally as indignant as the -British ministers with Miss Murray for attempting to disabuse -her of the delusion which caused those tears to flow.</p> - -<p>Such is, and perhaps ever will be, the character of human -philanthropy, that it troubles itself more about the -sufferings which exist a long way off or only in imagination, -than those which are before its eyes. One weeps over -the trials of the hero or heroine in a novel or a play, while -we pass the miserable child of want and sin in the street -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[ 113 ]</a></span> -with perfect indifference. If slavery did not have its evils -and its wrongs, it would not be a human institution, and -as long as "man's inhumanity to man makes countless -thousands mourn," so long will evils and wrongs exist in -every relation of human society. These exist in the relation -of governor and governed, parent and child, husband -and wife, master and servant, employer and employed, -neighbor and neighbor, and are not excluded even from the -church.</p> - -<p>It is not pretended therefore that some masters did not -abuse their servants, but these were rare instances, more -perhaps than in any other relation of like, and if for no -other reason, the great mass of masters were induced to -treat their slaves well, because it was their interest to do so. -Let any one compare the condition of the African in his -native land, with that of the slaves of the South before the -violent abolition of slavery, and then say whether that -institution, which had produced such a vast improvement -in his condition was so great a wrong after all.<a name="FNanchor_2" id="FNanchor_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[B]</a></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a name="Footnote_2" id="Footnote_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2"><span class="label">[B]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Note</span>—Professor Draper, in his "History of the American Civil -War" thus represents the condition of the negro in his native land. -"The Negro in Africa."</p> - -<p>"On the west coast of Africa, the true negro-land, the thermometer -not infrequently stands at 120° in the shade. For months -together it remains, night and day, above 80°. The year is divided -into the dry and the rainy season; the latter setting in with an incessant -drizzle, continues until May. It culminates in the most -awful thunderstorms and overwhelming rains. This is particularly the -case in the mountains. When the dry season has fairly begun a -pestiferous miasm is engendered from the vast quantities of vegetable -matter brought down into the low lands by torrents. From -the fevers thus arising the negroes themselves suffer severely.</p> - -<p>"Moisture and heat, thus so fatal in their consequences to man, -give to that country its amazing vegetable luxuriance. For -hundreds of square miles there is an impenetrable jungle, infested -with intolerable swarms of musquitoes. The interior is magnificently -wooded. The mangrove thickets that line the river banks -upon the coast are here replaced by a dark evergreen verdure, -interspersed with palms and aloes. A rank herbage obstructs the -course of the streams. The crocodile, hippopotamus, pelican find -here a suitable abode. Monkeys swarm in the woods; in the more -gloomy recesses live the chimpanzee, gorilla and other anthropoid -apes approaching man most closely in stature and habits of life. -In the open land—the prairie of equatorial Africa—game is infrequent; -there are a few antelopes and horned cattle, but no horses. -Man—or perhaps more truly woman—is the only beast of burden.</p> - -<p>"Plantains, sweet potatoes, cassava, pumpkins, ground-nuts, -Indian corn, the flesh of the deer, antelope, bear, snake, furnish to -the negro, his food. He lives in a hut constructed of bamboo or -flakes of bark, thatched with matting or palm leaves. His villages -are often palisaded. Too lazy, except when severely pressed, to -attend to the labors of the field, he compels his wives to plant the -roots or seeds, and gather the scanty harvest. In hunting and in -war, his main occupation, he relies upon cunning and will follow -his prey with surprising agility, crawling like a snake prone upon -the ground. He has little or no idea of property in land; slaves -are his currency; he makes his purchase and pays his debts with -them. 'A slave is a note of hand that may be discounted or -pawned. He is a bill of exchange that carries himself to his destination, -and pays a debt bodily. He is a tax that walks corporeally -into the chieftain's treasury.'</p> - -<p>"Ferocious in his amours, the African negro has no sentiment -of love. The more wives he possesses the richer he is. If he inclines -to traffic, each additional father-in-law is an additional trading -connection; if devoted to war, an ally. His animal passions -too often disdain all such mercenary suggestions; he brings home -new wives for the sake of new gratifications. Fond of ornaments, -his prosperity is displayed in thick bracelets and anklets of iron -or brass. An old European hat or a tattered dress-coat, without -any other article of clothing is a sufficient badge of kingship. He -inclines to nocturnal habits. He will spend all the night lolling -with his companions on the ground at a blazing fire, though the -thermometer may be at more than 80°, occupying himself in smoking -native tobacco, drinking palm wine and telling stories about -witches and spirits. He is an inveterate gambler, a jester and a -buffoon. He knows nothing of hero-worship; his religion is a -worship of fetiches.</p> - -<p>"They are such objects as the fingers and tails of monkeys, -human hair, skin, teeth, bones, old nails, copper chains, claws and -skulls of birds, seeds of plants. He believes that evil spirits walk -at the sunset hour by the edge of forests; he adores the devil, who -is thought to haunt burial-grounds and, in mortal terror of his -enmity, leaves food for him in the woods. He welcomes the new -moon by dancing in her shine. Whatever misfortune or sickness -befalls him, he imputes to sorcery and punishes the detected -wizard or witch with death. He determines guilt by the ordeal of -fire: the accused who can seize a red-hot copper ring without being -burned is innocent. His medicine-man—a wind raiser and rain-maker—pursues -his main business of exorcism in a head-dress of -black feathers, with a string of spirit-charms around his neck and -a basket of snake-bone incantations. The more advanced tribes -have already risen to idol worship; they adore grotesque figures -of the human form, and following the course through which intelligence -in other races has passed, they have wooden gods who can -speak and nod and wink.</p> - -<p>"In this deplorable, this benighted condition, the negro nevertheless -shows tokens of a capacity for better things. He is an eager -trader, and knows the value of his ebony, bar-wood, beeswax, palm -oil, ivory. He has learned how to cheat; nay, more, infrequently -he can out-cheat the white man. He can adulterate the caoutchouc -and other products he brings down to the coast and pass them off -as pure. His color secures him from the detection of a blush when -he lies. Though utterly ignorant of any conception of art, he is -not unskillful in the manufacture of cooking pots and tobacco pipes -of clay; he has a bellows-forge of his own invention; he can reduce -iron from its ores and manufacture it. He makes shields of -elephants' hide, cross-bows, and other weapons of war. But in the -construction of musical instruments his skill is chiefly displayed. -From drums of goat-skins, from harps and gourds, he extracts their -melancholy sounds and disturbs the nocturnal African forests with -his plaintive melodies.</p> - -<p>"It has been affirmed by those who have known them well, that -the equatorial negro tribes do not increase but tend to die out -spontaneously. This is attributed to infanticide and to the ravages -of miasmic fever, which in its most malignant form will often -destroy its victim in a single day. Even though quinine be taken -as a prophylactic no white man can enter their country with impunity. -The night dews are absolutely mortal."</p></div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[ 114 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>The most conclusive answer to all the slanders against -Southern slave owners is to be found in the rapid multiplication -of the slaves by natural increase, which could not -have taken place if such barbarities had been practiced or -such immorality had existed, as has been represented. -Our detractors have convicted themselves of the slanders -they have uttered by taking the Southern slave from -the Cotton fields to the ballot box and vested him with -all the privileges of an American citizen. If the institution -of slavery has so tutored the negro that immediately -his bonds are loosened, he is qualified for the privileges of -the ballot box, what a civilizing tendency that institution -must have had. If on the contrary that institution has -kept him in utter ignorance of moral and Christian duty -and made him the cringing, degraded creature he has been -represented, what a monster must be he who proposes to -vest in the untutored savage the power of governing others -while the white man is disfranchised. In his native land -he has never reached the dignity of a civilized being, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[ 115 ]</a></span> -he has never been civilized until transplanted into slavery. -Even till this day there are native Africans who continue -in a state of barbarism despite the civilizing influence of -the British government and the efforts of missionaries. -In the western country away from the coast and civilization, -tribes of the "hinterland" practice cannibalistic rites, -the victim being preferably a blood relation of the sacrificer. -The unfortunates are kidnapped, then with ghoulish ceremony -and weird incantations they are frightfully mutilated; -while life still remains a demoniacal feast is held -and human flesh consumed to offset the "Ju-Ju" or spell -of evil omen. Then the victim is put out of his misery and -buried so that the white man shall know nothing of the -mysteries ages old, which the tribes of Africa revere; many -of the victims are young women and girls, captured by -members of secret societies and taken to some remote spot -in the bush.</p> - -<p>Whatever of eminence any individual of the race has -attained, is due directly or indirectly to the civilizing influence -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[ 116 ]</a></span> -of the institution of slavery. It was the master of -slaves who accomplished the greatest missionary success -and the progress of his ward since is due to the training -and influence of the past.</p> - -<p>Foreign people have said that if the Confederate Government -had freed the slaves, it might have been recognized -by European nations. Such persons should recall that -when Don Quixote freed the galley slaves he had then to -defend himself against them—they would see the absurdity -of such an idea. What could the people of the South have -done in the prosecution of the war if 3,000,000 slaves had -been turned loose among them and the whole labor system -of the country deranged?</p> - -<p>Our victors say that having submitted "to the arbitrament -of arms," and having been overcome, the question of -right has been decided against us, and that we are a conquered -people who must submit to the fate of the conquered; -but though the gordian knot was cut with the -sword, constitutional questions cannot be solved in the same -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[ 117 ]</a></span> -way, such a view would but prove the wrong of the whole -doctrine of coercion. The Constitution created by sovereign -states, whatever the powers delegated, could never have -contemplated the possibility of one of those states being reduced -to the condition of a conquered province. That -Constitution was as binding in those states, which remained -after the secession of the Southern states as before, and it -was as much an outrage to make war upon those latter for -the act of secession, as it would have been to have destroyed -their existence as states while they remained in the Union.</p> - -<p>It is true that the South claimed to be a sovereign independent -people after their withdrawal, and were so by -every principle of right and justice, but that position did -not authorize the making of war against them. A counter-claim -was that the seceding states had no right to withdraw, -and therefore those arrayed in opposition undertook -to compel them to submission to the rule and laws of -the Union: upon that ground alone could they justify the -war. They were the aggressors and disregarded the Constitution -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[ 118 ]</a></span> -and the Union and they also were the ones who -violated the principle and precept of that Constitution, -which they were sworn to support and defend.</p> - -<p>The doctrine has been broached that the highest law -that can exist is that established by force of arms. That the -red-handed conquerors or the armed robber on the highway -should assert this, is not to be wondered at, but when -it comes from the men who have been compelled to yield -to force of arms while struggling for the right, the mantle -of charity should be allowed to fall over the weakness which -cannot resist the temptations of adversity.</p> - -<p>In regard to this question of submitting our rights to -"the arbitrament of arms," much irrational language has -been used and very erroneous opinions have been expressed -as to the result. There was never a greater mistake of -terms or perversion of language than that made in saying -that the Southern states submitted their right to be withdrawn -from the Union to the arbitrament of arms or having -lost, that the question of right has been decided against -them. Those states proposed to withdraw peaceably, tendered -a peaceful solution of all of the questions which might -arise out of their former relations to the United States -government. That government declared a war of coercion, -and the Southern states of necessity resorted to arms to defend -their rights and homes when most wrongfully and -unjustly invaded. In no sense can they be said to have -submitted any of their rights to the arbitrament of arms any -more than the traveller on the highway submits his money -to the arbitrament of arms between himself and the robber, -and the result of the war decided no question of principle, -but simply furnished another instance of the fact that in -this world, the truth does not always prevail and that might -is often more powerful than right.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[ 119 ]</a></span></p> - -<p>Not only has the question of right not been decided by -the arbitrament of arms, but the proposition that "The -voice of the people is the voice of God" is no better established -now than on that memorable occasion when the -people cried "crucify him! crucify him!"</p> - - -<hr class="tb" /> - - -<p class="caption3">ERRATA</p> - - -<div class="ind2em"> -<a href="#Page_51">Page 51</a>, line 17— -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"obitu" should be "obitur."</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#Page_58">Page 58</a>, lines 15 and 19— -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"Elden" should be "Eldon."</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#Page_77">Page 77</a>, line 11— -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">the letter "a" should be inserted before the word "felony."</span><br /> -<br /> -<a href="#Page_82">Page 82</a>, line 26— -<span style="margin-left: 1em;">"interferfence" should be "interference."</span><br /> -</div> - - - -<hr class="full" /> - -<div class="transnotes"> - -<p class="caption3">Transcriber Note</p> - -<p>Minor typos were corrected. All corrections in the <b>ERRATA</b> have been -applied.</p> - -</div> - - - - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's The Heritage of The South, by Jubal Anderson Early - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HERITAGE OF THE SOUTH *** - -***** This file should be named 63254-h.htm or 63254-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/3/2/5/63254/ - -Produced by MFR, Cosmas and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> -</html> |