November 5, 1831June 3, 1854
PROVINCIAL FREEMAN
Toronto, Canada West
MIDDLETON, CONN., May 25th, 1854.
MR. SHADD, Sir: - I have just received a bundle of papers from your office.
I shall send the subscription price of the same, in case I obtain certain information from you, which will be of great importance to me, and which was my main object in ordering papers from your office.About two months ago, I entertained a colored gentleman at my house, who stated that he was the "<< Nat Turner>> " of insurrection notoriety; his name is Owen Davis. He appeared to be one of the noblest specimens of manly dignity, I ever saw. He made some statement, however, which staggered me, and led me to suspect he might be partially insane.
He stated there were fifty thousand colored soldiers in the British service, all in garrisons in Malden, C.W. You undoubtedly know the man and can inform me whether his statement is correct. I have been conversing with a colored gentleman to-day, about him, and we concluded fast he was the greatest wonder ever seen; and I promised to write to you for information.Mr. Davis promised to write to me some time next June, and it is my intention to visit Canada this summer, provided the information I receive from you, confirm Mr. Davis' statements.
I would enclose the money for the paper now, were I sure you would not forget to answer these enquiries.
Yours, with love for principle.
EDWIN BLAKE.
---
We venture to publish the above, though designed, we suppose, for private use, believing, that the writer will agree with us in the opinion, that too great publicity cannot be given to the movements of men whose designs are clearly traceable to the purposes of self-interest, and who really injure their people more, by their dishonorable course, [ ] be repaired by the united efforts of the [ ] themselves, in a generation.No clearer evidence is needed of the misrepresentations made of Canada, by men pretending to have been in the Province, than this letter, neither of the prevailing ignorance of Canada, among people who live remote from the line. - We cannot confirm the statements made in the letter, but brother Blake will not suffer our inability to sustain accounts from Owen Davis, to prevent him from visiting this country, neither from taking our paper.
There may be such a man living in Canada, as he describes, but we have not heard of him, so cannot vouch for his identity.
There are about 40,000 colored people in Canada, not 50,000 colored soldiers in the little town of Malden. There are volunteer companies of colored soldiers, in places west, but no regulars, at this time, that we know of. During the rebellion, colored soldiers served the country very acceptably; and now, we frequently meet colored men who are pensioners, but neither at Malden, (which has not 5000 population white and colored,) nor at any other point, at present, do we believe many are to be found.
Davis has awakened to a knowledge of his identity with << Nat Turner>> , rather late. We have always understood that Nat ended his eventful but heroic life, on a Virginia scaffold; and we have read, somewhere, a speech delivered by him, at the place of execution. If it were possible to re-animate his mouldering bones, and set him "agoing," we would hardly suspect him of so much rashness or insanity, as Owen displayed.
We hope to see brother Blake in Canada, the present summer, notwithstanding our unfavorable answer.
We wish there were 50,000 colored soldiers along the line, but on this side of it. Could the colored people be induced to know the truth concerning the country, we might be enabled in a short time to chronicle such an exodus from the land of Nebraska bills, as would supply from its thousands, all drafts necessary to make up the deficiency between the present number of troops in Maiden, and Owen Davis' men.
Canada is a great country, white Americans say, and we say the same, because we know it to be so, and we have no fear that any sensible man will return to the States, dissatisfied with it, after having made the necessary observations, that is provided he will divest himself of his prejudices against the government that ensures freedom to all.
November 26, 1870
THE CHRISTIAN RECORDER
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
CHURCH DEDICATION AT DENTON, MD.
MR. EDITOR: - Yesterday, Sunday, Nov. 18th, was a memorable day in Denton, Md. It was the day set apart for the dedication of the A.M.E. Church. I have been informed that so far back as 1827 the A.M.E. Church was planted in this country the late Rev. Shadrack Bassett. After [ ] Revs. J.G. Bulaugh, Wm. Richardson, P.D.W. Schureman, and N.C.W. Cannon, were the ministers. It was during the time of the last, named minister that the A.M.E. Church's flag was trailed in the dust. It was about the time of the << Nat Turner>> insurrection in Virginia Rev. Cannon was arrested in Denton and brought before the Justice of the Peace, but nothing could be proven against him and therefore he was discharged. The officers were sent to the house of Francis Wayman to examine the trunk of Rev. Cannon. It was accordingly broken one, but what few papers were in it they were such poor scholars they could not read them. Rev. Cannon then left this place. The A.M.E. Church then went down in Denton; but the fire that slavery covers up began to burn again as soon as the wind of freedom commenced to blow.
Charles H. Wayman, the oldest brother of Bishop Wayman, who had been a leader and local preacher for some time, rose up and said: We are all free and let us be free indeed. Rev. A.D. Stanford, who was then situated in Baltimore, came down and re-organized the African M.E. Church. For some time they worshipped with their brethren of the M.E. Church, finally, their M.E. brethren said they could worship there no more. They then built a tent, and sent forth a cry, “in your tents, Oh Israel!” There they worshiped for some time. The Trustees of the white M.E. Church, of Denton, built a new one and offered their old one for sale. It was put up and sold, when the Trustees of the A.M.E. Church became the purchasers. It was pulled down and hauled on their lot for reerection. On the day when the building was raised men, women, and children turned out to help rear it up. The carpenters placed upon it a small steeple for a bell. Some of the white citizens called on Charles H. Wayman and informed him that they collected money to purchase a bell, and he must go to Baltimore and purchase one. He accordingly went and made a selection of one, and returned home with it. And on Saturday it was put up. And yesterday morning it sounded its notes over Denton, calling the people to the house of prayer. At 10 o'clock the exercises commended; bishop Wayman reading the dedicatory services. After the prayer the choir from Easton sang the 316th hymn, commencing, “Great is the Lord of hosts.”
Bishop Wayman then read for his text the Song of Solomon vi. 6-10, “Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?” This was a great day in Denton, Caroline county, Maryland, which will not soon be forgotten. In addition to the society at Denton another has been organized in Tuchahoe Neck, within a few hundred yards of the place where Bishop Wayman was born. On Monday night the Bishop went to this society to preach, and standing up near the graves of his two grand-mother, and his father, he took his old text, “I seek my brethren.”
Yours,
WM. H. SMITH.
Denton, Nov. 14th, 1870.
October 11, 1862
THE CHRISTIAN RECORDER
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
For the Christian Recorder.SIGNS OF REPENTANCE.
It is said by the teachers of religion that the strongest evidences of repentance is an open confession of sin. The recent emancipation proclamation of the President of the United States has, if it does nothing more, brought out a confession from the leaders of the present rebellion that slavery is a terrible evil; and that they have been sinners of the deepest dye, and hypocrites the most consummate, in their endeavors to magnify the horrors of the crime of the President in the issuing of his emancipation proclamation. They show us the wickedness of the system by citing as an evidence the want of discrimination on the part of slaves if servile insurrection is allowed to break out.
First, they charge that the slaves are ferocious, and will slay old and young, men, women, and children alike; and cite as an evidence << Nat Turner's>> Insurrection, in Southampton, Va. Comparatively, we have been taught that slavery was the best condition of the African, that the slaves of the South were better off than the free negroes of the North. Who would say that the negroes of the North, in mad ferocity, would murder innocent women and children? And yet these Southern mad-men are forced to confess that slaves are not able to discriminate between right and wrong, friend or foe.
Surely the coverings of these rebels are becoming too short. They cannot hide the deformity of that wicked institution. Is it possible that in this favored, Christian land, where so much has been done for the conversion of heathens, the translation of the bible into different tongues, the publication of tracts and all sorts of religious works for foreign reclamation, that there should be in our midst, and connected with the domestic household, those unreclaimed, possessing all the ferocity of heathen, with acts standing on the statute books, forbidding, on pain of imprisonment and death, the training of these brutal passions into the feelings of human beings? "What a man sows, that shall he also reap." If God should use this instrumentality to give back a bounteous harvest, I think they should not complain. The progress of this rebellion has disclosed many things in the dominions of the peculiar institution, and, among the rest, that the slave has neither been well fed or well clothed; but that he has been most bountifully worked, goaded and brutalized for the benefit of his master.
A. FIELDS, Phila.
May 18, 1861
THE CHRISTIAN RECORDER
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
The Slave Population. - The Washington correspondent of the Philadelphia Press, giving the narrative of a Virginian, says: -
"Some of their most intelligent men think they are to be overrun, overwhelmed, and absorbed by a Northern invasion. All this while they insist that their slaves are loyal! The credulity and superstition of the negro is a well-established fact. If intelligent whites are alarmed by the warlike demonstrations of the Government, how do you think the ignorant blacks will regard them? Hide from this population as you may newspapers and books, you cannot chain down their thoughts, or prevent loud rumor from blowing its stories into their ears. They will either welcome the Northern army into their midst as foes or as deliverers. If the first, they will fly, and not fight, if the second, they will fight, and not fly. When I hear the fidelity of the slaves descanted upon, I recall the terror excited by the unexpected advent of John Brown, the nervous fear that pervaded the whole South prior to the battle of New Orleans, and the << Nat Turner>> insurrection that made every farm-house in Virginia a citadel, and put arms even into the hands of the women."
November 14, 1835
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 5 No. 46
REFUGE OF OPPRESSION.
CANTERBURY AGAIN!
At a town meeting holden in Canterbury, Oct. 5th, 1835, the following Resolutions were adopted:—
Whereas the signal success of the Revolutionary struggle, gave the colonies freedom, and changed them from dependent Colonies to sovereign and independent States; and to preserve property, life and honor, the Union of these States was formed upon principles of mutual concession and compromise. By the adoption of the Constitution, each State gave its sacred guarantee that the others should enjoy all their reserved rights, and the faith of each State, to its utmost extent, was thereby pledged, that these rights should be enjoyed, and this Constitution should be kept inviolate throughout all coming time. Nearly half a century has elapsed, and every revolving year shows the wisdom of the Union, and displays equally the folly of those who may seek to disturb it.
And, whereas, there is in the Northern States, a set of men who call themselves Abolitionists, combined with their money and influence, for the purpose of exciting local jealousies, and sectional divisions, the end of which is, to divide and destroy this Union, in the hope from such a result, to thrust themselves into power, or to gain some personal preferment:—
Therefore, Resolved, That at all hazards, the Union of the States should be preserved, and that it behooves every lover of his country to stand by the Constitution, and to defend it against the machinations of all its enemies, whether open or disguised; and all confidence should be withheld from such persons; and their actions should receive no countenance or support from honest men or patriots.
Resolved, That as the Constitution does secure to the twelve slaveholding States, their right of property, to he regulated by own Laws, the
non-slaveholding States are virtually impairing this obligation, when they interfere with that relation,— we disapprove and discountenance as impolitic and unjust, all such interference.Resolved, That foreign emissaries and renegades who come here to disturb domestic peace, invade the sanctity of obligations between, States and subvert the order and harmony of our Republic, deserve the execration of all good citizens.
Resolved, That the government of the U. States— the nation with all its institutions, of right, belong to the white men, who now possess them. They are purchased by the valor and blood of their Fathers, and must never be surrendered by any other nation or race of men.
And, whereas, by the combined efforts and energies of Buffum, Tappan, Garrison and May, an attempt was made, to locate within this town, an establishment or rendezvous, falsely denominated 'a school'— designed by its projectors, as the theatre— the place to promulgate their disgusting doctrines of amalgamation and their pernicious sentiments of subverting the Union. Their pupils were to have been congregated here from all quarters under the false pretence of educating them; but really to 'scatter firebrands, arrows and death among brethren of our own blood. That newspaper which called upon the sons of Africa within our government, in the following emphatic language,
'Up, Afric, up, come strike
For God and vengeance now,'was actually the organ and mouth-piece of that establishment— the light and instructor in that 'school.' That Abolitionist, who openly declared, while the Southampton massacre was going on, that the leader of that bloody tragedy, '<< Nat Turner>> , was in all respects equal to Washington, and his cause better,' was known to be one of the early prompters and daily advisers of this deep laid project.
That our appeal to the legislature of our State, in a case of such peculiar mischief, was not only due to ourselves, but to the obligations devolving upon us under the Constitution. To have been silent, would have been participating in the wrong intended. The manner that protection was offered by the Legislature of the State, is a sure guarantee that in future, should the imposing attempt be repeated here, or elsewhere, within our State, that attempt would be met with protection to our fellow citizens, as it has been afforded us. In the open defence of the laws of the state, and in the abusive manner we have been assailed, because we sought that protection, we see displayed the temper and motive which hitherto have characterized this organized foe of our common country.
Resolved, That the effects produced by such efforts, upon the peace of the Union, are exactly those which every reflecting mind must have anticipated, when it beheld the spirit of oppression and imposition with which this combined force erected their standard of rebellion upon our soil; and when their counsel in a Court of justice, in their behalf, declared as a matter of right, that they would fix their establishment upon Canterbury, in defiance of law, we saw more than ever, the necessity of the appeal we had made: and now rejoice that the appeal was not in vain.
Resolved, That we approve the patriotic course adopted by the citizens of Boston, New Haven, Hartford, and other towns, who have acted on this subject.
Resolved, That the Town Clerk cause an attested copy of the foregoing resolutions to be published.
A true copy from record,
Attest:
ISAAC CLARK, Town Clerk.
October 18, 1834
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 4 No. 42
REFUGE OF OPPRESSION.(From the Journal of Freedom.)
PUBLIC SENTIMENT AT THE SOUTH.
It is amusing to see how extremes do meet. Ultra every-men and ultra Anties or Garrison-men agree wonderfully well to go on together blackguarding those who dare in any way labor for the instruction and conversion of slaves.[!!] We notice in the Southern Religious Telegraph (Richmond,) an indignant remake of a pitifully scurrilous toast given on a public [ ] by some tippling slaver, which threw out something against the Rev. Van Reusselaer, of ALbany, ranking him with incendiaries and agitators, he having taught and preached the simple truths of Christianity among the slaves of Virginia. The article in the Telegraph we partly insert in justice to the sentiment of respectable people of the South, on the subject of Northern men preaching among their slaves in a proper manner.
It is wholly unnecessary to defend the character of Rev. Mr. Van Rensselaer against an attack of this sort,— yet as it may not be known to many who may see this notice, we supply the following remarks from a reply to the toast, by a writer under the signature of [ ] Virginian.'
The gentleman who toasted Mr. V.R., [ ], inadvertently, I suppose, made a mistake. He calls the Reverend gentleman the Anti-Slavery Missionary.' This is not so. Rev. Van Rensselaer came to Virginia in the winter of 1832— 3. He joined the Union Seminary in Prince Edward county, and was while there, greatly esteemed and beloved by his gentlemanly deportment, amiability, and piety. The writer of this article enjoys his acquaintance. He knows it to have been his object to ascertain what facilities existed for affording religious instruction and preaching, and in a legal manner, to our slave population. Mr. V.R. is not connected with the Anti-Slavery Society, or with any combination to effect its purposes. On the contrary, he is annual subscriber of one hundred dollars to the Colonization Society, whose aims are too well known, and whose object is too well approved at the South, to [ ] any recommendation, and which is violently opposed and calumniated by the Anti-slavery gentry, with whom Mr. V.R. is so unceremoniously and unjustly associated. [ ] the gentleman who has occasioned these remarks does not believe the writer, he is respectfully referred to Mr. Bruce of Halifax, who is an extensive slaveholder, and who has had an opportunity of knowing Mr. V.R's principles and plans.
[ ]Mr. Editor, as a native Virginian, I cannot contemplate the doings of the anti-slavery men in any other light than as dangerous to our domestic
peace— yea, to the perpetuityty of the many blessings of our government. As a patriot I consider them as odious and detestable, because calculated to sow disregard among brethren. With these views, I [ ] yet love a Northern man who has self-denial to prompt him to such conduct as Mr. Van Rensselaer's. He has come among us to instruct our slaves in the principles of that religion, which teaches obedience and reverence to masters, submission, diligence, and fidelity, which comes with peace and good will to all. He is a man of piety and [ ], and a gentleman, in every sense of that noble word; and the religion he inculcates, is as far from the fanaticism of << Nat Turner>> as light is from darkness. It is, Messrs. Editors, to the want of religious instruction that we must ascribe such horrid tragedies as that of Southampton. I conversed with a black man condemned to death for the murder of his master, and when the truth of the Bible, relative to the Christian [ ] of slaves had been exhibited, he remarked, 'If I had known that before, I would never have done that act.' He had previously attempted to justify his conduct, though condemned, instead of preparing for eternity. He now confessed his guilt, and sought and obtained (as I hope) mercy.'
December 14, 1833
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 3 No. 50
Almost every mail brings us some distressing account of the sufferings of children in consequence of their garments taking fire. At this season of the year it is imprudent to keep them for a single day in linen clothing. Parents should look to it, that their children are warmly and securely clad in woolen garments; it may preserve them from colds and sickness, and perhaps from suffering and death.
SUPERSTITION OF AMERICAN SLAVES.—
The 'Journal of a missionary to the negroes of Georgia,' publishing in the Charleston Observer, has this notice of their credulity: not confined, by the way, to the ignorant negro.
They believe in second sight, in charms, and visions, and voices and dreams, &c. Designing men, men who wish to gain an ascendancy over them, avail themselves of their ignorance and superstition. This was the course pursued by Denmark Vesey, in Charleston, by << Nat Turner>> in Virginia, and others within our knowledge on a smaller scale. They begin by giving out themselves to the people as great ones in the earth. Their pretensions to courage, to divine protection, the exercise of peculiar power in consummating their own plans, or the plans of others; to invulnerability, &c. are boldly insisted on; and, of course, without any regard to truth wherever facts are appealed to for confirmation. Then they avail themselves of the passions and prejudices of the poor people and thus fit them for their own purposes. They proceed to predict events or to see visions and dream dreams, or to give out charms of various kinds and for various purposes; some charms that buried in the path, or under the door of an enemy will exert a fatal influence over him; some that will enable the possessor to make free use of any part of his owner's property without detection, and others which will remove sickness or the meditated revenge of enemies, or in the midst of dangers, preserve the person invulnerable. The charms are for any and all uses. They that make them know that they are as good for one use as for another. And then the composition of these charms is singular. A bunch of negro or animal hair, or wool, crooked sticks, glass of bottles, rusty nails, roots, &c. &c. prepared in size and quality and with various incantations, suitable to persons and circumstances. One or two coincidences are sufficient to establish the pretensions of one of these deliverers, or doctors; for they go by different names. And the consequence is, they are feared. Their power is dreaded, and a threat is sufficient to produce trembling and obedience.
February 9, 1833
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 3 No. 6
There is great force in the subjoined observations. How powerless did not Virginia feel herself on the alarming occasion spoken of!— The condition of South Carolina is still more feeble.'In the trifling insurrection at Southampton, of << Nat Turner>> , and his deluded handful of followers, was not the first thing thought of, and prayed for— the assistance of the troops of the United States? Was not the application of the committee of the citizens of Southampton immediate to the President for arms? And was not this from the inhabitants of the 'old dominion,' which they are disposed to consider, and perhaps with propriety, as the most chivalrous state in the Union? And is it persons in this situation, exposed daily and nightly to the knife and torch of the assassin and incendiary, whose vindictive nature is roused to vengeance by a keen sense of
long-suffered wrongs— a foe within their houses, and on ... who talk of nullifying the laws and withdrawing themselves from the protection of the free states of the Union? 'Whom God wills to be destroyed, he first renders insane.' Is not the doctrine of nullification, in such a situation, the first symptom of this dreadful insanity?'
July 7, 1832
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 2 No. 27
For the Liberator.
PURIFY THE CHURCH.
MR. EDITOR— We are informed, by the Rev. Mr. Early of Virginia, from the very scene of the late slaughter, that the principal white sufferers were members of the Methodist Church. Sir, may not this be the cause of their ministers, almost to a man, becoming in the last year converted to Colonizationism? << Nat Turner's>> master was considered one of the best men in that neighborhood. How important, then, is it for those who name the name of Christ, to obey his word— come out from among the wicked— touch not, taste not, handle not the unclean thing! And if judgment must first begin at the house of God, where shall the ungodly appear? Let Methodists remember that their profession of Christianity outcolors the whole world beside.
A METHODIST MINISTER.
Philadelphia, June 15, 1832.
November 19, 1831
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 1 No. 47
The Richmond Whig contains a letter from Southampton Co. (Va.) dated Oct. 31, 1831, giving an account of the capture of << Nat Turner>> , from which is taken the following extract:'Nat seems very humble; willing to answer any questions— indeed, quite communicative, and I am disposed to think, tells the truth. I heard him speak more than an hour. He readily avowed his motive; confessed he was the prime instigator of the plot, that he alone opened his master's doors, and struck his master the first blow with a hatchet. He clearly verified the accounts which have been given of him. He is a shrewd, intelligent fellow; he insists strongly upon the revelations which he received as he understood them, urging him on and pointing to this enterprise: he had taken up the impression, that he could change the aspect of the weather, and produce a draught or rain, by the efficacy of prayer; that he was in particular favor with Heaven, and that he had often mentioned it to his few associates, that he knew he should come to some great or some very bad end. His account of the plot exactly corresponds with that of the other leading men who were apprehended. He denies that any except himself and five or six others, knew any thing of it. He also says, that a day in July was fixed upon, but that when the time arrived, they dreaded to commence it. He seems, even now, to labor under as perfect a state of fanatical delusion as ever wretched man suffered. He does not hesitate to say, that even now he thinks he was right, but admits he may possibly have been deceived. Nevertheless, he seems of the opinion, that if his time were to go over again, he must necessarily act in the same way.
He denies ever having been out of the county since the insurrection, and says that he intended to lie by till better times arrived.'
November 19, 1831
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 1 No. 47
We are informed by a gentleman who arrived last evening from suffolk, that << NAT TURNER>> was tried at Jerusalem on Saturday last, and sentenced, of course, to be hung. His execution is ordered for Friday next. We also learn that three other slaves are to be executed at the same time and place; one of them taken previously to the apprehension of
Nat— the other two subsequently, and upon Nat's information.— Norfolk Herald of Nov. 11.
November 26, 1831
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 1 No. 48
SLAVERY RECORD.
A correspondent of the Richmond Whig, in giving an account of the Southampton tragedy, says of its author, << Nat Turner>> :
'Nat had for some time thought closely on this subject— for I have in my possession, some papers given up by his wife, UNDER THE LASH.'
No doubt the vengeance of the slavites was wreaked upon the body of this unhappy woman, to a bloody extent. Such is slavery!
November 26, 1831
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 1 No. 48
We learn, says the Petersburg Intelligencer, by a gentleman from Southampton, that the fanatical murderer, << Nat Turner>> , was executed, according to his sentence, at Jersualem, on Friday last, about 1 o'clock. He exhibited the utmost composure throughout the whole ceremony; and although assured that he might, if he thought proper, address the immense crowd assembled on the occasion, declined availing himself of the privilege, and told the sheriff in a firm voice, that he was ready. Not a limb nor a muscle was observed to move. His body, after death, was given over to the surgeons for dissection.
November 12, 1831
THE LIBERATOR
Boston, Massachusetts, Volume 1 No. 46
PETERSBURG, (Vir.) Nov. 4.
Capture of Nat Turner.— It is with much gratification we inform the public, that the sole contriver and leader of the late insurrection in Southampton, concerning whom such a hue and cry has been kept up for months, and so many false reports circulated— the murderer << Nat Turner>> , has at last been taken and safely lodged in prison.
It appears that on Sunday morning last, Mr. Phipps, having his gun, and going over the lands of Mr. Francis, (one of the first victims of the hellish crew,) came to a place where a number of pines had been cut down, and perceiving a slight motion among them, cautiously approached, and when within a few yards, discovered the villain who had so long eluded pursuit, endeavoring to ensconce himself in a kind of cave, the mouth of which was concealed with brush. Mr. P. raised his gun to fire, but Nat hailed him and offered to surrender. Mr. P. ordered him to give up his arms: Nat then threw away an old sword, which it seems was the only weapon he had. The prisoner, as his captor came up, submissively laid himself on the ground and was thus securely tied— not making the least resistance!
Mr. P. took Nat to his own residence, where he kept him until Monday morning— and having apprised his neighbors of his success, a considerable party accompanied him and his prisoner to Jerusalem, where, after a brief examination, the culprit was committed to jail.
Our informant (one of our own citizens, who happened to be in the county at the time) awards much praise to the people of Southampton for their forbearance on this occasion. He says that not the least personal violence was offered to Nat— who seemed, indeed, one of the most miserable objects he ever beheld— dejected, emaciated and ragged. The poor wretch, we learn, admits all that has been alleged against him— says that he has at no time been five miles from the scene of his atrocities; and that he has frequently wished to give himself up, but could never summon sufficient resolution!
Mr. Phipps, as the sole captor of Nat, is alone entitled to the several rewards (amounting in the aggregate, as we understand, to about $1,100) offered by the Commonwealth and different gentlemen, for his apprehension: and we are told, that in this instance, Fortune has favored a very deserving individual— to whom, in addition to the pleasure arising from the recollection of the deed, the money derived from it will not be unacceptable.— Intelligencer.
PETERSBURG, (Va.) Oct. 21.
FROM SOUTHAMPTON.— We learn by a gentleman from Southampton, that on Saturday last information was brought to Jerusalem by Nelson, (a fellow servant of the leader of the late insurrection,) that on that day he had seen << Nat Turner>> in the woods, who had hailed him, but that he, Nelson, seeing Nat armed, was afraid and ran away from the villain. This intelligence, as might be expected, caused much sensation among the inhabitants; and in a short time, five or six hundred people were in pursuit. At the period our informant left, the brigand had not been taken, but his place of concealment (a cave not far from the scene of his former atrocities) had been discovered, and some arms, provisions, &c. were found. We hope soon to hear of his being in the hands of justice.
<< NAT TURNER>> .
The Richmond Compiler, of the 17th inst. contains the annexed letter, dated Lewisburg, Oct. 11, and addressed to the Governor of Virginia. The editor expresses some doubt of the identity of the body supposed to be that of the ringleader in the recent murderous insurrection, and wished it had been preserved in spirits for inspection:
I have received information, to me so convincing of the fact that << Nat Turner>> has been drowned in attempting to cross New River, and believing that it will be some satisfaction to the public to know that the wretch has been punished by the justice of the Deity for his offence, I think it proper to communicate the circumstances to you. It appears that after escaping from the two Hunters on Price's mountain, he was routed at the Gap Mills in Monroe, and seen by several persons between that and Bowyer's Ferry, where he called on the 25th ult. to get over the river. Mr. Bibb, the ferryman, demanded his pass, and asked him some questions, at which he broke and took up the river. Some nine or ten days after, a drowned person was seen floating down the ferry. Mr. Bibb and some of his neighbors followed, and got him out some six or eight miles below. He had in his pockets and about him a large knife, Spanish dirk, pistol, and something like a diamond. Mr. Bibb recognized him to be the same who called to cross the river— and those with whom I have conversed agree, that if it were << Nat Turner>> who was seen on Price's mountain, it was he who has been drowned; and that he suits the description given in your Excellency's Proclamation, in every particular, except the knot on his arm, which was not examined.
(We place no reliance whatever upon the above story. To be sure, Nat is mortal like other men; but we understand the reasons why the slavites wish to kill him in print as well as in reality.)— Ed. Lib.
A gentleman from Norfolk, one of the mounted volunteers, from that Borough,
in a letter of Monday last, from Southampton, states that the celebrated Nelson,
called by the blacks 'General Nelson,' Hercules or Hark, (as abbreviated by
his comrades) Gen. Moore and the other ringleaders, except << Nat>>
. << Turner>> , the prophet, had all been short or taken prisoners;
that several had been taken who confessed assisting in the murder of their mistresses'
children; that he saw several children whose brains were knocked out, and that
they had accounts of 68 men, women and children, that had been massacred; that
things were becoming quiet at the date of his letter, and the people were returning
to their houses.
Gen. Eppes, in his letter dated Tuesday last, writes, that every thing was
quiet in Southampton, and was likely to continue so. In consequence of exaggerated
rumors which have spread through some parts of the low country, and the feverish
state of feeling there, a council of war had been held, which determined on
keeping up a strong patrol for sometime in the counties of Nansemond and Isle
of Wight,
&c.— Richmond Telegraph.
REMARKS OF EDITORS.
We continue our publication of the commentaries of editors upon the Virginia insurrection:
The Insurrection.— Never has it fallen to our lot to record so melancholy a tale connected with the history of our State, as that to which we are now called. For never since the burning of the Richmond Theatre, and the destruction of nearly a hundred lives, has there occurred an event in the history of Virginia that has produced such general and painful excitement, destroyed so many lives, and revolved so many families in grief and wo. Seldom in the most uncivilized and vindictive warfare have we heard of human passions breaking forth in such acts of wanton and cold blooded cruelty, upon helpless women and children. Even the infant in the cradle could find no mercy in the relentless hearts of the deluded wretches.
The country is filled with flying rumors; many of them strangely exaggerated. They will, if not corrected, produce much needless alarm. The reality is surely horrid enough without any exaggeration or embellishment. The blood chills at the thought and recital of these horrors.— To contemplate at one moment the full and satisfying bliss of a lovely, domestic circle, and then in a single hour, to behold them cruelly massacred, the father, mother, daughters, sons, and the cradled infant, mangled and bleeding, and thrown into heaps to putrify, or be devoured by dogs and beasts of prey!— This is a scene at which the spirit faints.
The ringleader was a slave, known by the name of << Nat Turner>> . He calls himself General Turner. He pretends to be a Baptist preacher— is a great enthusiast. He stimulated his comrades to join with him by declaring to them that he had been commissioned by Jesus Christ, and that he was acting under inspired direction in what he was going to do, and that the late singular appearance of the sun and moon, &c. was the signal from heaven for them to arise and commence the work of destruction.
Richmond (Va.) Telegraph.
TO TALK in a common place way, we get very “weak” for those speakers
among us who can never find it convenient to illustrate any point by a reference
to colored celebrities. Such a practice is nothing less than indicative of a
want of self-respect, without which, we may just as well learn, first as last,
none else will respect us. And how general is this practice. Not a sermon is
preached, or speech made, or lecture delivered, but white men are made to figure
largely in the illustration; while colored men, who have done equally well,
are passed over in silence. In calling attention to the fact that we have such
characters, we do not presume upon the ignorance of our readers, for we take
it for granted that they are well acquainted with the history of such soldiers
as Toussaint and Christophe: of such churchmen as Crowther, Holly and Allen;
of such scholars as Bannaker and Pennington; of such poets as Phillis Wheatley;
of heroes like Cinque, Madison, Washington and the scores mentioned in Still's
Underground Railroad; and of political martyrs like << Nat Turner>>
, and those who accompanied John Brown to Harper's Ferry. The fact is, the history
of the Negro and the colored people of America, is replete with names the most
glorious; and we beg to remind our orators, that a reference to them is in order.
CHARLESTON (S.C.) AFRICAN METHODIST.
In the Methodist Magazine of January 1830, may be found a letter from Charleston,
subscribed, “I am faithfully yours, Jas. O. Andrew.” It is a letter
in which every African Methodist of the country has an interest and for the
reason that a lengthy account is given of the revolt of the colored Methodists
of that city in 1817 and their union with the then lately organized “African
Methodist Episcopal Church.” The opening sentence of the letter is: “In
the year 1817 a serious division took place in the colored society in this city,
which has been more disastrous in its influence on the religious prosperity
of the slave population, than any event which has occurred in the history of
Southern Methodism.” This was the opinion of James Osgood Andrews, after
selected one of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church and who, in the
great rent of 1844, as might be expected, cast his fortunes with the slave-holding
South. With such an opinion and by such a man, there is no need to wonder that
an early opportunity was sought to crush out this Christian revolt. Nor had
they long to wait, for in less than two years after this article was written,
the insurrection in Virginia, of << Nat Turner>> – to whom,
by the way, the next number of the Church Review will contain a stirring poem
from the pen of T.T. Fortune – this insurrection, we say, gave the much
hoped for opportunity and the newly fledged A.M.E. congregation was driven apart
much after the manner of the early Christian organizations of the past.
More, of course, could be said in regard to this letter, but we end these hastily
written sentences with the remark that had Bishop Anderson lived to the present,
we are strongly of the opinion that his utterance would not be the same.
B.T.T.
THE SOUTHAMPTON TRAGEDYNEGRO OUTBREAK IN 1831.
The recent plot at Harper's Ferry recalls attention to previous disturbances
of a similar character in this country, the most noted of which was the Southampton
tragedy of 1831. It was described as follows by one of the editors of the Norfolk
Herald:
Norfolk, Aug. 24, 1831.I have a horrible and heart-rending tale to relate, and
lest even its worst feature should be distorted by rumor and exaggeration, I
have thought it proper to give you all, and the worst information that has as
yet reached us through the best sources of intelligence which the nature of
the case will admit.
A gentleman arrived here yesterday express from Suffolk, with intelligence from
the upper part of Southampton county, stating that a band of insurgent slaves
(some of them believed to be runaways from the neighboring swamps) had turned
out on Sunday night last, and murdered several whole families, amounting to
forty or fifty individuals. Some of the families were named, and among them
was that of Mrs. Catherine Whitehead, sister of our worthy townsman, Dr. N.C.
Whitehead, who, with her son and five daughters, fell a sacrifice to the savage
ferocity of these demons in human shape.
The insurrection was represented as one of a most alarming character, though
it is believed to have originated only in a design to plunder, and not with
a view to a more important objectas Mrs. Whitehead, being a wealthy lady, was
supposed to have had a large sum of money in her house. Unfortunately, a large
number of the effective male population was absent at a camp-meeting in Gates
couuty, some miles off, a circumstance which gave a temporary security to the
brigands in the perpetration of their butcheries, and the panic which they struck
at the moment prevented the assembling of a force sufficient to check their
career.
As soon as this intelligence was received, our authorities met, and decided
on making an immediate application to Colonel House, commanding at Fortress
Monroe, who, at six o'clock this morning, embarked on board the steamer Hampton,
with three companies and a piece of artillery, for Suffolk. These troops were
reinforced in the roads by detachments from the United States ships Warren and
Natchez, the whole amouting to nearly three hundred men.
To-day another express arrived from Suffolk. confirming the disastrous news
of the preceding one, and adding still more to the number of the slain. The
insurgents are believed to have from 100 to 150 mounted men, and about the same
number on foot. They are armed with fowling pieces, clubs, &c., and have
had a rencontre with a small number of the militia, who killed six, and took
eight of them prisoners. They are said to be on their way to South Quay, probably
making their way for the Dismal Swamp, in which they will be able to remain
for a short time in security. For my part, I have no fears of their doing much
further mischief. There is very little disaffection in the slaves generally,
and they cannot muster a force sufficient to effect any object of importance.
The few who have thus rushed headlong into the arena will be shot down like
crows, or captured and made examples of. The militia are collecting in all the
neighboring counties, and the utmost vigilance prevails. I subjoin a list of
the victims of their savage vengeance:
Mrs. Waters and family14
Mrs. Whitehead7
Mrs. Vaughan5
Jacob Williams5
Mr. Travis5
William Reese4
Mr. Williams3
Mr. Baines2
Mrs. Turner3
Unknown10
Total58
Besides these, a private letter adds the families of Mr. Barrow and Mr. Henry
Bryantnumbers not mentioned.
Muskets, pistols, swords, and ammunition, have been forwarded to Suffolk to-day
by Commodore Warrington, at the request of our civil authorities, and a number
of our citizens have accoutred and for red themselves as a troop of cavalry,
and set off to assist their
fellowcitizens in Southampton. I trust the next news you will hear will be that
all is quiet again.
Prompt and efficient measures were taken by the State and Federal troops to
suppress the insurrection.
We gather from letters published in the Richmond Whig, of the 29th ultimo, the
following statements: A letter from the senior editor of that paper, who is
on the spot, states that the number of the insurrectionary negroes had been
greatly exaggerated, but that it was hardly within the power of rumor itself
to exaggerate their atrocities; whole familiesfather, mother, daughter, sons,
sucking babes, and school childrenwere butchered by them, thrown into heaps,
and left to be devoured by hogs and dogs, or to putrefy on the spot. At Mr.
Levi Walter's, his wife and ten children were murdered. He himself was absent,
but, approaching while the dreadful scene was acting, was pursued, and escaped
with difficulty into a marsh. How or with whom the insurrection originated,
is not certainly known.
The prevalent belief is, that on Sunday, the 14th ult., at Barnes's Church,
near the Cross Keys, the negroes, who were observed to be disorderly; took offence
at something, and that the plan was conceived and matured in the course of the
week. At Mr. Weller's, one child escaped from the ruthless fangs of these monsters
by concealing herself in the fire-place, and another was found alive who was
badly wounded and left for dead by them. He has accompanied his letter with
a list of the killed, amounting to sixty-two, but it is not yet ascertained
to be correct. He thinks the insurgents never exceeded sixty, and that twelve
well-armed and resolute men were competent to have quelled them at any time.
Gen. Eppes, who is in command of the troops, reports, under date of the 28th
ult., that all the insurgents, except << Nat Turner>> , the leader,
had either been taken or killed. On the 29th, Gen. Broadnax reports to the Governor
that all was quiet and free from visible marauders. He thinks all have been
killed or taken, except four or five. He states that Nat, the ringleader, who
calls himself General, and pretends to be a Baptist preacher, decleares to his
comrades that he is commissioned by Jesus Christ, and proceeds under his inspired
directionsthat the late singular appearance of the sun was the sign for him.
He is not taken, and the account of his being killed at the affair of the bridge
is not correct. The General thinks “that there has existed no general
concert among the slavescircumstances, impossible to have been feigned, demonstrate
the entire ignorance on the subject of all the slaves in the counties around
Southampton, among whom he had never known more perfect order and quiet to prevail.”
He believes “that at any time twenty resolute men could have put them
down.”
He compliments, in terms of strong approbation, “the admirable conduct
and spirit of the militia, who have everywhere turned out with the utmost promptitude,
and given the most unquestionable evidence of their ability, instantly and effectually,
to put down every such attempt.” The families who had sought safety by
flight had generally returned to their homes.
SOMETHING IN A NAME.
Our correspondent certainly exhibits no little ingenuity in twisting more than three-fourths of the names of those who signed the Anti-Slavery Declaration into his communication, so as to make them subservient to his pleasantry and to the common usage of language.
(For the Liberator.)
SIGNERS OF THE ANTI-SLAVERY DECLARATION.
MR. EDITOR— Since the National Convention was held in Philadelphia,
the
anti-slavery cause has certainly presented a Green and flourishing aspect. Abolitionism
has digged a grave, and prepared a Coffin, for its dying antagonist, the American
Colonization Society, which is soon to go to that Bourne from whence it can
never return to disgrace our land, and persecute the poor and needy. No one
pretends to deny that it has Wright on its side: it cannot, therefore, be overthrown.
Besides, it is defended by a Garrison, which has successfully withstood the
desperate assaults of its numerous foes, and the fires of which are so galling
as to strike terror throughout the dominions of tyranny. It has also a war Ship-ley-ing
in the port of Philadelphia, which, though commanded by a Quaker, is not surpassed
by Old Ironsides. Should it hereafter be wounded, a first-rate surgeon, who
is neither a Quack nor a Coxcomb, stands ready to use the lance and the probe,
and will accept of no recompense. True, complete victory it may Win-slow, but
it is sure. It does nothing in a s-Kimball-skamble manner. It first got an inch—
then it took a Good-ell— and now it occupies a large portion of American
territory. Having traversed New-England, and nearly all the free States, it
is now grandly marching to the Snuthard, and will soon pass over the Alleghany
mountains; and should it be encountered by all the
men-stealers en masse, it will triumphantly re-Buffum. O'tis a cheering spectacle!
enough even to make the poor bondman leap in his chains, and invoke a Ben'son
(benizon) upon its head! It has a large White banner, upon which is inscribed
in starry letters, the glorious Mott-o— 'IMMEDIATE EMANCIPATION!'—
Enlisted in its mighty phalanx is a Lewis, worth all that have ever sat, or
probably ever will sit, upon the throne of France. It is thus that Kings-ley
down, and do homage to moral excellence. There is another estimable soldier,
whom we are proud to Rank-in it— and a third of Sterling worth. A fourth
is an eloquent and zealous Denison, ['denizen, a freeman,'] who is now lifting
up his voice like a trumpet, in behalf of those who are in bonds. The fifth
differs from him, inasmuch as he is a Still-man; but if he talks little, he
labors much. The sixth is revealing the Murray ('murrey— darkly red,')
stains of slavery to the people of Vermont, and enlisting their sympathies for
the bleeding slaves. The seventh holds a
su-Purvis-ion over the whole ground of controversy. One is a Sleeper, but he
never slumbers when on duty, and is always wide awake whenever his services
are needed. He is associated with one who keeps a Sharp look-out, and is of
tried integrity. One modestly offers to serve as a Prentice, but he needs no
instruction. There is another who is generally al-Loughhead (allowed) to be
true as the needle to the pole. We have others of as genuine worth as the Vickers
of Wakefield. The wares of our Potter are the right kind to be used in the present
campaign, and far superior to those manufactured in China. We have one Fussell
(fossil) that is invaluable in our cabinet. Some declare that our cause, once
so far At-lee-ward, would never have got ahead so fast, had it not been for
our Jocelyn (jostling.) True, and we are resolved to jostle aside all who stand
in the way of justice and humanity. Others assert that none but Yankees are
engaged in it. This is a mistake. There's one South-mayd, at least, and he is
a host in himself. Another hails from Barbadoes, although he is a loyal citizen
of Boston. Colonizationists falsely maintain that he was born in Africa. The
Adelphi Hall all will remember with affection and delight, as peculiarly captivating
and admirably furnished. Should our cause grow lethargic, it will be sure to
get such a Tappan (tapping) as will restore it to its primitive vigilance and
activity. The slaveholders, who behave at the South-wick-edly, may successfully
strain at a Virginia Nat, (<< Nat Turner>> ,) but they will be choked
if they try to swallow a Yankee Cambell. The sooner the monster SLAVERY is sent
to Davy Jones' locker, the better: if he then thirst for human blood, he may
Thurst-on.
In conclusion, Mr. Editor, I would express a hope that no untimely Frost will nip the beautiful BUD OF LIBERTY, which we all know is seen to perfection in generous, charming, lovely May!— I have ventured to be somewhat playful with some of the names which are appended to that important instrument, the DECLARATION put forth to the world by the National Anti-Slavery Convention; but I doubt whether I could succeed in correctly incorporating them all into this essay, even though I should try till next Whitson-tide. To do this, witty as I may seem, I must first possess the ingenuity, the talent, the imagination, of the individual who is universally conceded to be Whittier. Thus ends my cli-Mack-ter!
Yours, truly,
NO PUN-DIT.
N.B. If there be any remark in the above which you deem too pun-gent, please reduce its strength by making it more pun-y. You will thus, perhaps, make a pun-stir.
LOCAL COLUMN.
REPORTED BY ROBERT J. HOLLAND, FOR THE CHRISTIAN RECORDER.
THE Sunday School of Zion Mission Church of which Rev. T. G. Steward is Pastor, collected $53 on Sunday April the 7th.
-----
DURING the past week Allen Chapel has undergone a thorough renovation. Mrs. Butler and a live committee of ladies have given the old edifice a neat and tidy appearance.
-----
AT the Church of Crucifixion, 8ty below South, Saturday April 13th, nineteen candidates were confirmed by Bishop Stevens. Dr. C. S. Frisby was among the number.
-----
THE "<< Nat Turner>> Association" had a grand reception at Hotel De-Storms on Wednesday evening April 10th. Festivities and speeches were the leading features of the evening.
-----
DEATH has claimed the ex-Tammany Chief, Wm. M. Tweed. What a wonderful career of crime does this event seal up to the historian. His partners in the frauds of the Tammany reign can breathe free once more; and they will- like birds- homeward fly from distant climes.
-----
AT Zion Wesley Thursday evening April 11th- the Morning Star Youth Temperance Association, Mrs. Hannah Fox, President, gave a musical and literary entertainment. Addresses were delivered by Editor Tanner and Wm. Still, Esq. Miss Still gave several select readings.
-----
JAMES E. AUGUSTN, aged 61 years, one of the best known caterers of this city, died at his residence 1105 Walnut street on Saturday night last. On retiring to bed at 10:30 P.M. he was seized with the fourth stroke of paralysis- the first attack occurring more than three years ago- which ended in his death in a half hour afterwards.
-----
ON Sunday morning, April 21st, at St. Thomas' P. E. Church, Fifth Street below Walnut, the music will be very attractive. The choir will be assisted by Mrs. Anna F. Pagans, Mrs. L. Pagans, Miss S. A. Lively and Mr. D. W. Parvis. An excellent programme will be rendered, under the direction of John M. Millis, Organist and Choir Master.
------
AT Union A. M. E. Church Sunday evening last, Rev. Horace Talbert of Wilberforce University spoke from Exodus xiv. 15.- "Go Forward." The young preacher is inspired with the necessity of an educated ministry, which during his remarks was prominent. He dwelt at length upon the need of high intellectual culture for the ministry and upon the attainment of the Christian graces by both people and preachers.
-----
"ARISE AND SHINE FOR THY LIGHT HAS COME," Isaiah xvi. 1, was the theme for a most able and convincing discourse at Bethel Church Sunday morning last by Editor Tanner. This subject was not viewed from a sectarian standpoint, but as a command from God to the colored race; and it was the more appropriate, as the occasion being set apart for a collection for Wilberforce University. The entire sermon was so resplendent with rare thought and delivered with such logical force as to deserve full insertion.
-----
GOLD.- The quotations at the gold exchange in New York fix the premium of that precious metal at 1/4 of a cent on Saturday last. It is said that the coming week will record no premium on gold. Leading bankers are already paying it out in sums of $500 at par. What a national blessing and a matter of joy for Christians that the great metal ceases to be any longer a marketable commodity, or that it furnishes any longer the pretext for gambling at our business centres, where thousands of dolla5rs have been lost or won by "tricks that are vain and deeds that are dark."
-----
MR. WM. H. CRAWFORD has returned to this city form a tour in the South, where, in Northern Alabama particularly, he paid some attention to the condition of the land and the people of that State. The land, he says, is poor, and the principal business of that State is its mining interests, which have been monopolized by northern capital. The capitalists work these mines by convict prison labor, which is obtained from the State authorities at 11 cents per day. Mr. Crawford says there is no inducement for the farmer, or laborer to go to Northern, Alabama, and expect to better his condition. His advice to all is, remain where you are and contend for your rights.
-----
A MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.- Bethel Sunday School met on Wednesday evening April 10th and organized a local Missionary Sewing Circle for the purpose of providing indigent colored children with shoes and clothing, so as to bring the little folks into Sunday School. Three children were shoed last week, and the means were provided to shoe five during the present week. Now let us stick to this good work. This movement grew out of the observations of the local reporter in his ubiguitary movements among the lowly in this city, where he learned how white missionary workers filled their schools with colored children of Methodist parents who were too poor to furnish necessary articles of clothing to their children.
-----
THE Historic and Literary of Bethel Church had up for discussion on Tuesday evening April 9th the question, "Is Man the Architect of His own Fortune?" The discussion was instructive and was listened to with close attention by an appreciative audience. The following gentlemen took part in the discussion: T. F. Henry, J. F. Ramsey, H. Price Williams, Dr. H. M. Turner, Bishop D. A. Payne, D. D., Mr. Talbot from Wilberforce University, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Burrell. A committee was appointed to examine and present questions to the society for discussion to wit: Mr. Wm. Steward, Mr. Daniel P. Adger and Mrs. Henrietta Masten. The following persons were elected to served on a committee charged with ascertaining the cost of publishing the memoirs of the late Henry Gordon: Wm. Steward George Curtis and Bishop D. A. Payne, D. D. Five dollars are offered by Mr. Wm. Steward as a prize to any one furnishing the best written composition of sheet music.
From the Herald of Freedom.
We know not by what authority this upstart brig Washington captured the Amistad.
She was the lawful prize of Commandant Joseph Cingues, who had taken her of
the Pirate Captain, who had kidnapped him and his people. Captain Gedney had
no warrant to fall upon her. Cingues and his people were not at war with the
United States, - nor, on any account, obnoxious to capture or attack, from our
ships. That she was 'suspicious' looking, is no warrant. Her look had no connection
with the cause of her capture by the Washington. She wore that, when Cingues
took her, and when sent from our republican wharves for the Pirate service.
The Captain and his crew were pirates, by our own Congress law, to say nothing of Constitutions, which our people disregard, of Common Law, which they trample on, of the Divine Law, which they do not even recognize. They were navigating a slave ship. It was in the foreign trade. A British cruiser would have made a prize of her. Our war ships would have winked at her, for love of the 'peculiar institution.' Enslaved people on board rose on her for Liberty. It was a better rising than Bunker Hill or Lexington.
They fell in with a 'good Samaritan' schooner, it seems, who helped them to a noggin of rain water, for a thousand times its value in gold. They would have taken any conceivable sum for that demijohn of water, the conscientious republicans! and our hero of the brig, thinks it was Yankee shrewdness. He does not find fault with it. He thinks they come Yankee over the 'niggers!'
They would have stuck to her the year round, if they had smelled the doubloons. These Americans have a dread of color, unless there is slavery mingled with it - or the like, in which case, they will 'amalgamate' beyond all measure. 'They suspected all was not right.' No matter for that, they lashed to her all the readier. They thought probably, from her Baltimore build, that she was a real pirate. They did not dream the gallant Cingues was aboard, or they would have fled, like the 'chivalrous south' at an insurrection of a handful of slaves.
By what warrant does this Gazette call Joseph Cingues 'buccaneer!' Has he robbed anybody - or acted the pirate? Is he a buccaneer, for being dragged aboard a pirate ship? In rising there, for his liberty, and the liberty of his kidnapped countrymen, buccaneering? Was Joseph Warren a 'buccaneer?' Is it to the memory of buccaneers that they pile that stone heap on Bunker Hill? Let the cowardly Gazette take back the word, and eat it, or keep it for the owner. The charge is a dastardly falsehood. He would not dare utter it in presence of the noble African, unpinioned on the beach, no not if he were backed by all the pro-slavery corps editorial, led on by stout Watson Webb.
Mark these 'buccaneers,' as our coward press calls them. Better not call them these names, by the way. There may be some sparks of humanity left in the bosom of this nation, in the North - some smoldering embers. If there be, the noble spirit of Cingues will touch them and, may be, kindle them into a flame. At any rate, the press had better not insult the captive Africans. Let the country shed their blood. They are able to - 'on the side of the oppressor is power.' But let them drink their blood in silence. Let them slake their civilized thirst on that. Don't call them 'buccaneers.' They are none. That Pedro was to be sacrificed, is a gratuitous flourish of the brave Gazette. Why should they hurt Pedro if they allow Ruez to seek his home, after they should get ashore in Africa. Would they send him off to cross the Atlantic alone? They saved Pedro, it is said, to steer the ship. Would not Ruez want him for that? They would have sent them all off, doubloons and all, could they only have reached their dear lost Congolese country and home. They might have asked them earnestly not to come anymore there after slaves. This would have been insolent, to be sure, but they might have asked as much as that, and Joseph Cingues might have touched the blade of his sugar knife, wherewith he slew the ill-fated Ramonflues, as he told them not to visit the Congo shore for slaves. They would have understood his gesture. No, the mighty African would not have touched their lives. He would have spared them proudly, as the lion does the hare, when once he had planted his foot again on his native sands. He would have given them food to sustain them on their way. But they will not spare him. He must be hanged.
Our Gazette closes his graphic description of the mighty Cingues, with his market price. After giving him the character of Hannibal or Othello, he winds up his period with the 'he is a negro, who would command at New Orleans, under the hammer, at least $1500!' But the lofty souled editor is mistaken. Cingues would not bring that in New Orleans. They don't want hands for the plantations, like Cingues. He is no slave. The slave jockey would not buy him. He would not like his air or his eye. Not to flatter the Gazette, we think he would himself command a much higher price at New Orleans or Washington than the stately Cingues. If we estimate him rightly by his manner of talking of human prices, he would sell well for the plantation, if he is as 'sound wind and limb,' as he is apt in spirit. How much Cingues would fetch! What an idea in describing such a man! How it would read in describing such a man! How it would read at the close of Ames's character of Hamilton or Plutocrat's Epaminondas. How it would aggravate our enthusiasm to learn at the summit of their glory what these heroes would fetch!
Cingues is no pirate, no murderer, no felon. His homicide is justifiable. Had a white man done it, it would have been glorious. It would have immortalized him. Joseph Cingues ought naught to be tried. Everybody knows he is innocent. He could not be guilty. The vessel he was immured in, was a pirate. He could have done no murder on board her, unless upon his fellow prisoners. It could not be crime, in the eye of law, to kill the crew. The law would kill them, if it were executed. Will they send the prisoners to Cuba to get rid of the responsibility of condemning or acquitting them? They dare not acquit them. The South would see in it a sanctioning of negro insurrection, and the chivalry would not sleep again. It would turn the Southampton into a glorious rising for liberty, and << Nat Turner>> would be a Sir William Wallace or a Botzarris. And to hang them will be a 'delicate business' as the world now stands. England is looking on - O'Connel, Thompson, and Brougham. They will tell the world of it in the Exeter Hall. The abolitionists are at watch too. They ought to set them all free, and try Ruez and Montes - though it would puzzle them who should 'cast the first stone at them.' We demand that Cingues and his countrymen go free, and have the aid of the country to restore them safely to Africa. Here is a chance to send folks to Africa, 'with their own consent.' See if the colonization society will lend a hand. The country should send them all to Africa in a ship of war.
We can write no more. - We wait anxiously to see what will become of the peerless
African and his unoffending countrymen. Something important, we feel, may grow
out of it to the anti-slavery cause. God may have cast this chieftain on our
shore at this crisis to aid us in the deliverance of his people.
HOPE FOR THE NEGRO AMERICAN.
-----
BY J.W. CROMWELL, EDITOR PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE.
-----
It is a hopeful sign that the Negro American is becoming more and more imbued
with the spirit of enterprise and pluck the has given birth to those movements
and fostered those industries which have added untold millions to the wealth
of both State and nation. Continued for generation to humble avocations, which
for their successful following did not call for high intellectual endowment
neither for capital nor much personal sacrifice, it was but natural that the
masses should continue for some time to move in the old ruts of mediocrity and
commonplace.
There is no consistency between a demand for equal or identical rights and privileges
and diverse interests, qualities and aspirations. It would be a new thing under
the sun for a superior to treat an inferior the same as an equal. It is against
nature. They can only keep together who are moving forward with the same pace.
They who lag behind may be pitied –aye they may be respected –but
from the very nature of things they cannot be considered equals in the thing
most essential. Very unfortunate for him or not, the colored American was by
a sudden bound placed on a legal equality with the white American and then led
to believe that equal civil rights would be accorded us. For sixteen years he
has been going through acrobatic performances in an attempt to maintain his
equilibrium while striving for these civil rights. At last he has learned his
true condition and the nature of his environment, and he is adjusting himself
accordingly. He has learned that he will only receive equal treatment when he
can assert himself as an equal in all respects. Those of us …
In view of these consideration I was somewhat amused and surprised that a gentlemen
so widely known as William Wells Brown, whose stories and books have furnished
inspiration to many a youth in the days when the skies were mot as bright as
they are today, should deprecate the attempt of those colored in a section where
it is much needed, because of a burlesque attempt in Cambridge, Mass. Mr. B.
has traveled far and wide and it seems to me that his observation should have
taught him that there is difference in localities, in people, in times, in circumstances;
that all Negroes are not alike; that 1883 is different from 1865. I wonder if
Mr. Brown has heard of the ship railway operated and owned by colored men in
Baltimore? Or of the agricultural fairs annually held at Raleigh, N.C., that
have received the commendation of all who have visited them? I presume not.
If he had, the same logic he applies against the proposed scheme could be used
in favor of it by reference to these cases.
It has been my judgment from an observation during the last eighteen years spent
south of the great dividing line, that the colored people of the South when
a fair opportunity for education is given are likely to engage in enterprises
the very idea of which is out of the question for Northern colored people. I
say this with no feeling of prejudice nor hostility against the North, for there
I was nourished from early childhood to dawning manhood; there I have brothers,
sisters, a father and many warm personal friends. But the North has made the
Negro American a menial, and his freedom is one constant wail against his industrial
proscription without serious effect (with one exception, that of Mrs. Coppin)
by organized action to overcome this proscription. The South –no thanks
to her –in order to gratify a life of ease and cupidity to the slave
aristocracy, made the Negro, the laborer, both skilled and unskilled. This enervated
the ruling class. This in freedom places the Negro laborer on such vantage ground
that, let political strife be as it may, the Negro here will have more and better
opportunity to catch and exhibit that spirit of enterprise and pluck to secure
that identification with the material development of the country which is absolutely
demanded by an inexorable law before his social or political recognition is
complete.
There are forces which will effect a greater revolution in the South for the Negro than is true of the West of today compared with the West of a third of a century past. Greater interest, is manifested in the higher education of the Negro. Not only are Northern philanthropists raising the standard of their institutions, but the Southern whites are helping in this work as they have not before. Industrial training is given more consideration. The work of buying small farms is steadily increasing. The absence of [] issues in politics is fostering the rise of local independent movement's which promise more to the Negro than adherence to nominal Republican candidates. To him who will view the future in the light of present tendencies there is no great shock in hearing of the Negro planning gigantic enterprises and of his succeeding in them, too. The men who attained their journey with the surrender at Appomattox and later, have greater faith in their possibilities than the men whose parental culture began at the period when Walker's Appeal and << Nat Turner's>> blows shook the country from center to circumference. In a word, the colored men who have made up their minds to remain in America are going to show by their acts that race is not to be a permanent bar to engaging in whatever pursuit inclination may direct them.
Washington, D.C.
EXTRACTS FROM OUR CORRESPONDENCE.
-----
Extracts of a letter; dated Hampden, Mass.
"But what bearing upon the Cause of Freedom has this great victory of
the Know Nothings in Massachusetts? Have the Liberty loving men of that State
ignored all their past principles? By no means. Those principles are too deeply
implanted in their hearts ever to be eradicated. It is true, almost the whole
of the Free Soil party in this State have voted the Know Nothing ticket, but
very many voted it who have not joined the Order. There are several reasons
for this. The Free Soilers were very desirous of seeing a new party formed in
the State, embracing all the opponents of the Slave Power; but when the Whig
leaders not only refused to take the initiative in this, but exerted all their
influence against the success of such a party, they were greatly disappointed
and were willing that any honorable means should be taken to break down that
haughty power, that seemed resolved to rule Massachusetts forever, if possible.
Again: The candidate of the Republican party for Governor has tendered his resignation,
and though it was not accepted by the Committee, it had about the same effect
as though it had been accepted. Then, again, the candidate of the Know Nothing
party was regarded as having placed himself squarely upon the Northern anti-slavery
platform, and that had its influence in determining the vote of Free-Soilers.
"It cannot be disguised, however, that large numbers of the Free-Soilers,
embracing some of their best talent, have connect themselves with the secret
order. But have these renounced their anti-slavery views and feelings in their
zeal against foreigners? Not at all, if we can trust to what they tell us. So
with many others, once known as Anti-Slavery Whigs, and Democrats. I think we
may judge of the anti-slavery views of most of the order in this State from
the letter of the Governor elect to Judge Allen, and from the Representatives
to Congress elected by them. Whatever Mr. Garner's antecedents have been his
letter places him on grounds esteemed quite anti-slavery, not only by Free-Soilers,
but by their opponents. And as for the Representatives to Congress, six of them,
De Witt, Burlingame, Trafton, Comins, Damrell, and Knapp are decided and active
Free-Soilers; Banks, you know; the rest, Morris, Hall, Buffington and Davis,
so far as I have learned, will well represent the Anti-Slavery sentiment of
Massachusetts. Trafton, the Representative of the Berkshire district, is a Methodist
minister-a man of no ordinary talent, both as a speaker and a writer. He had
done efficient service in the Anti-Slavery and Temperance causes in this State,
and the friends of both may well rejoice at his election. No man will stand
straighter than he is Congress-he has a back-bone that Sumner, even, cannot
find fault with."
-----
ROXBURY, MASS., Nov. 18,1854.
I have been a subscriber and reader of the Era for seven years and hope to be such yet another seven, if I should last so long; and I rejoice in its well-deserved success. I like your article on the Know Nothing movement. Your views appear to me to be correct, but yet I have strong hopes that the cause of Freedom may not suffer essential damage, but eventually be benefited by it. It appears to me that the many thousands who have come out from the old parties, and have joined together to "crush out" and exterminate them that have held them in thrall for so many years, have given some evidence of progress, and they will never go back again to fight under the soiled and tattered banners of Hunkerism. The names of Whig and Democrat have lost their charm; they are not terms to conjure with now. If nothing better should grow out of this apparently confused and disorderly movement if certainly cannot be worse than the state of things previously existing. The Slave Power will of course strive to control and direct it for their own advantage , as heretofore; but whether or not they will find a sufficiency of Northern dough for their purposes remains to be seen. The Slavery Question cannot be kept out of their Councils, it will not down at their bidding; and it appears to me that the Northern mind is peculiarly open to receive truth upon this great question. But I do not intend to trouble you with a long story; I thought I would just improve this opportunity of writing down a few of the thoughts, imperfectly expressed doubtless that will arise in the mind of a plain working man. The habitual reading of the National Era causes men to think.
-----
CINCINNATI, Nov, 22,1854.
For some time past I have patronized our Western Anti-Slavery newspapers, as
fast as I was able; but fearing that the present disastrous financial crisis,
and the recent revolution in political parties, by which the political press
in the free States has been so much imbed with anti-slavery sentiments, as to
make many of our friends believe that they could keep themselves sufficiently
posted in the GREAT QUESTION, by patronizing their local papers, and thereby
so far neglect the Era as to impair its usefulness, I resolved to make a small
effort towards sustaining it, and the enclosed is the result.
Hoping to be able to send you other subscribers, I remain your old friend in
the cause of Freedom.
S. B. ELLIOTT.
If every friend of the Era was so considerate, our paper would suffer little from the causes indicated.
-----
BATH, ILL., Nov. 15, 1854
Yates, I suppose, is defeated by T. L. Harris. This was the work of old Whig Hunkerism of Morgan county-Whigs who left Kentucky and Virginia, soon after the << Nat Turner>> insurrection in Southampton, to save their bacon. I know several such, personally; they have forgotten their fear, and are longing for the fleshpots of Egypt. Some has gone to Missouri, and some to Kansas, and wish to make Kansas a slave State.
-----
ALBANY, N. Y., Nov. 18,1854.
It is generally believed that Clark is elected and, if so, it has been by the
Free Soil Temperance Democrats. He owes no thanks to the Whigs of any faction,
as their leaders have tried all they could to kill him. The Know Nothings have
been pushed on by the Hards, Silver Grays, and even the friends of Seymour,
Administration. Mr. Pierce's friend enjoys the enviable position of having been
the candidate of every rum hole and brothel in the State; and while probably
scarce a dollar has been extended for Clark, unstinted sums have been extended
for Seymour. As it is said that there is an entrance fee of one dollar into
the Know Nothing lodges, that party must have expanded a large sum of money
for their candidates. Seymour has probably received more Whig votes (excluding
the foreign vote) than Democratic ones, because as fast as my observation extends,
there are more Whigs engaged in the manufacture of intoxicating drinks in this
State than Democrats-hence-whatever votes he has received is no criterion of
Democratic sentiment, Had it not been for the Temperance Question, Seymour,
as the representative of the Administration, would have received a pitiful vote.
LETTERS FROM THE EDITOR.
MATTERS AND THINGS IN VIRGINIA.
STONY CREEK, SUSSEX CO., VA.,
June 1, 1847.
To the Readers of the Era:
Some two and a half years ago, as many of my old readers may remember, I had the pleasure of sending them an occasional line from this, the lower, part of Virginia. Sussex county, adjoins Southampton, the scene of << Nat Turner's>> insurrection, and contains a large slave population. The Era was lately denounced by a meeting in New York, because it had not provoked a mob in Washington. Probably I shall incur a similar denunciation, for being able to avoid a coat of tar and feathers in the heart of the slaveholding region. But it is no difficult matter to do this. Whatever of an idol slavery may be among slaveholders in Virginia, they do not ask a stranger to fall down and worship it, nor would they respect him for volunteering any superfluous complacency towards it.
Mr. Calhoun's dogma about the blessedness of slavery has never got foothold in this State. No matter what prostitute politicians or preachers may preach, it would take a great deal to convince me that the people of Virginia have changed their opinions in relation to the "great evil" of slavery. I have yet to see the Virginian who does not regard it as a curse.
The next census will reveal startling facts concerning the population of this State, both bond and free. This county is a specimen of a large portion of Virginia. Its old families are disappearing - some removing to the South, some to the West. Fifty years ago, the children were educated without being sent abroad; they then turned in and though it no disgrace to labor with their fathers in the fields, on which the subsequently settled. Times have changed. Slaves have multiplied, and with their increase have come unthrift, bad farming, indolence, pride. The land is exhausted. It takes all the negroes earn to give the children a costly education abroad; and when they have got it, labor is the last thing they think of; home presents but few attractions, and they abandon the State, of which they will make their boast. Their parents soon follow; and thus, one by one, the old families pass away. The melancholy pine is springing up in deserted fields. As you pass along, you see a gate unhinged: the path leading to that house, with its crumbling chimney and sashless windows, is grown up with thin pale grass. Of many an old settlement, nothing remains but the well with its broken bucket, and a few neglected graves. Such a country is full of the poetry of desolation. There is nothing in it new or noisy. In all points it is the contrast of the rushing, turbid world of the West. Everything is still. Nobody makes haste. The white sands gleam in the hot sunshine; vegetation creeps up slowly through a lean soil. The dark creeks steal through gloomy forests, as if afraid of the rustling of a leaf. You travel in the woods through a long, sad avenue of pines, where the road is but wide enough for one carriage, no one dreaming of the possibility of meeting another equipage.
And there is no help for all this, while slavery shall continue. The inertness of slave labor is death to all improvement. Let the master attempt to introduce any new mode of cultivation, or any process to renew his lands, and the slaves will laugh at him. They can't be driven out of the old ruts, and the slaveholder of Virginia hardly loves money well enough to fret himself about it.
The sale of slaves to the South is carried to a great extent. The slaveholders do not, so far as I can learn, raise them for that special purpose. But, here is a man with a score of slaves, located on an exhausted plantation. It must furnish support for all; but while they increase, its capacity of supply decreases. The result is, he must emancipate or sell. But he has fallen into debt, and he sells to relieve himself from debt, and also from an excess of mouths. Or, he requires money to educate his children; or, his negroes are sold under execution. From these and other causes, large numbers of slaves are continually disappearing from the State, so that the next census will undoubtedly show a marked diminution of the slave population.
The season for this trade is generally from November to April, and some estimate that the average number of slaves passing by the Southern railroad weekly, during that period of six months, is at least two hundred. A slave trader told me that he had known one hundred pass in a single night. But this is only one route. Large numbers are sent off westwardly, and also by sea, coastwise. The Davises, in Petersburg, are the great slave dealers. They are Jews, who came to that place many years ago as poor pedlars; and, I am informed, are members of a family which has its representatives in Philadelphia, New York, &c! These men are always in the market, giving the highest price for slaves. During the summer and fall they buy them up at low prices, trim, shave, wash them, fatten them so that they may look sleek, and sell them to great profit. It might not be unprofitable to inquire how much Northern cities, are connected with this detestable business.
There are many planters here who cannot be persuaded to sell their slaves. They have far more than they can find work for, and could at any time obtain a high price for them. The temptation is strong, for they want more money and fewer dependants. But they resist it, and nothing can induce them to part with a single slave, though they know that they would be greatly the gainers in a pecuniary sense, were they to sell one-half of them. Such men are too good to be slaveholders. Would that they might see it their duty to go one step further, and become emancipators! The majority of this class of planters are religious men, and this is the class to which generally are to be referred the various cases of emancipation by will, of which from time to time we hear accounts.
I have made some inquiry as to the ability of slaves to read in this region, but estimates differ. A gentleman, who was born and has always lived here, says there is one or more of the slaves on almost every plantation that can read. Another, a large planter, says that on an average not one in fifty can read. Another, not one in a thousand. There are laws against teaching them to read, but they certainly are not rigidly enforced, perhaps because no attempt worthy of notice is made to teach them. We asked a large slaveholder what possible objection there could be to giving the Bible to the slaves? He could not see any; he seemed to think it might be a benefit. Can there be a doubt of this? Is not God, the God of the slave as well as of the free? Has He not revealed Himself for the benefit of all? Is there a word that He has spoken that should not be read and pondered by every creature whom He has made? Good God! what a treasure were thy Book to the poor, degraded bondman! The source of Light, it would also be a fountain of Peace.
G.B.
SLAVERY RECORD.
ANNUAL VIEW OF SLAVERY.
Below is a summary of events which have taken place in the several slave States, and elsewhere, during the present year, as recorded in our columns. This view of slavery is sufficiently dreadful, although it is necessarily limited and imperfect. We can give no account of the numerous families which have been torn asunder, and the thousands of men, women and children who have been bought and sold like cattle; nor of the bloody scourgings of a great army of sable victims; nor of their deprivations and sorrows and sins; nor of the profligate violations of female chastity by slave owners and their sons; nor of the various crimes which do not obtain public notoriety. Of broken hearts, and bitter tears, and lacerated bodies, we can take no cognizance. O! if all these scenes could be exhibited, in a collective form, the view would shake the nerves of the nation!
In the insurrections which have taken place in Martinique, Antigua, St. Jago, Caraccas, and Tortola, a vast quantity of blood has been shed, and many lives lost— the result of Colonial Slavery. We wish those who talk of breaking up this horrible system by a gradual process, to look at the following expose.
MARYLAND.
A Mrs. Insley murdered by a black man and woman. The man hung.
A black man murdered by Thomas J. Bond. Bond sentenced to twelve years imprisonment.
Betsey, a slave, sentenced to be hung at Hagerstown, for infanticide.
LOUISIANA.
A slavite fined $200, (!!) for shooting a female slave in New-Orleans.
Law passed by the Legislature, condemning to death any person who shall make any signs, or use in public or private any language, having a tendency to produce discontent among the free colored population!!
The slave Elijah hung in New-Orleans for having wounded (not mortally) a Mr. Pandely. A colored lad, formerly his companion, died in spasms on witnessing his execution.
Sunday Schools for the instruction of the blacks prohibited by law. Penalty $500 for the first offence— death for the second!!
Three hundred and seventy-one slaves imported into the port of
New-Orleans in one week: upwards of a thousand; in the course of three or four
weeks.
GEORGIA.
A tax of $100 imposed by the City Council of Savannah, on every free man of color coming to that city in any vessel or otherwise.
A slaveholder shot by the overseer of his slaves.
A slave whipped to death near Macon, by his overseer. The murderer unpunished.
Another slave hacked to pieces with a hand-saw used on his naked carcass by his owner.
Several slaves, suspected of treasonable designs without the least evidence, tied to the limbs of trees and cruelly stabbed with swords. Two of them had their skulls split open.
A subscriber to the Liberator in Macon tarred and feathered, carried on a rail, ducked into the river, and taken to the whipping-post, by a mob, for presuming to take the paper.
Five thousand dollars offered for the apprehension of either the editor or the publisher of the Liberator, by the Senate of Georgia.
Alderman Binns presented by the Grand Jury of Scriven County, for having proposed to a Convention in Philadelphia the purchase and colonizing of all the slaves.
KENTUCKY.
A slave hung for attempting to commit a rape. Another for the murder of a Mrs. Dodd. Two others for attempting to poison their master.
Three of her own children drowned by a female slave, in consequence of her being chastised by her master.
SOUTH CAROLINA.
A slave hung for having (as the Charleston papers state) accidentally set on fire a cotton factory!!
Peter, a slave, executed for having slightly wounded a white man. Also the slave Glasgow, for attempting to poison his master.
A reward of $1500 offered by the Vigilance Association of Charleston, for the apprehension and conviction of any white person detected in circulating the Liberator in that quarter.
TENNESSEE.
A black girl, afflicted with the small pox, burnt to death (supposed purposely) in a lone building.
FLORIDA.
A female slave shot at Pensacola by Lieut. Wm. H. Baker, of the U.S. Army. No record of the punishment of the murderer.
ALABAMA.
A slave in Florence whipped to death by his master, George Hill.
NORTH CAROLINA.
A slave executed for petty larceny.
Sixty slaves surrounded and shot in a swamp, on suspicion of being revolters.
Nineteen slaves, at Portsmouth, attempted to escape in a lighter, but were retaken.
A law passed by the General Assembly, requiring a quarantine of forty days of every vessel bringing a free man of color into any port.
A planter, named Woodruff, waylaid and killed by five slaves. The slaves executed.
Several slaves, convicted during the late conspiracy, had their heads cut off and stuck on poles at the four corners of the town. Thirteen others executed— others sentenced to transportation.
The Editor of the Liberator indicted by a Grand Jury.
A slave murdered at Rutherfordton, by one Henry Cloninger. C. convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to pay a trifling fine.
VIRGINIA.
Capt. Thomas Hand killed at Cape May in an engagement with a gang of runaway slaves, who succeeded in getting clear.
Dick, a slave, executed for attempting to commit a rape on a white woman.
Mr. Robinson, a respectable white gentleman, stripped naked, severely scourged by a mob of slavites, and compelled to leave the State, for having said, in a private colloquy, that the blacks were men entitled to their freedom.
Upwards of one hundred slaves slaughtered in the Southampton
tragedy— many of them in cold blood while walking in the streets; and
about sixty white individuals, men, women, and children.
Some of the conspirators had their noses and ears cut off, the flesh of their cheeks cut out, their jaws broken asunder— in that condition, they were set up as marks to shoot at. The whites burnt one with red hot irons, cut off his ears and nose, stabbed him, cut his hamstrings, stuck him like a hog, and at last cut off his head, and spiked it to the whipping-post.
Mr. Henry Lewis, a planter in Prince George, burnt in his house, after first being murdered and robbed by his slaves. Five of the slaves hung.
<< Nat Turner>> , the instigator of the insurrection, hung, and two or three others, in consequence of his confession.
Three petitions presented to the Legislature, asking compensation— one from Levi Waller, for two slaves— another from Peter Edwards, for three slaves— another from Richard Potter for two slaves, unlawfully put to death, without trial, in the late insurrection.
Another petition presented, praying that a law may be passed forbidding colored youth being taught trades.'
An infant slave drowned by its mother.
MISCELLANEOUS.
A constable in New-York City mortally wounded in attempting to arrest a runaway slave.
Several free persons of color kidnapped in various parts of the country.
The body of a black man found in a hogshead of molasses in Connecticut.
A white woman arrested at Alexandria for having kidnapped a colored girl.
About thirty or forty slaves executed at Martinique for a conspiracy.
Two thousand slaves landed at Cuba, from Feb. 1 to March 15.
Several hundred slaves reported to have been killed in an insurrection at St. Jago.
Nearly one hundred slaves, from Africa, drowned in chains by the wrecking of a slave vessel on one of the Virgin Islands.
Another turn of the screw— another stride to perdition! There is now
about as much certainty that God will destroy the slave states by a series of
calamities as that the sun will rise to-morrow. Terrible are His fierce rebukes
and fiery indignation. Vengeance belongs to Him, and when He punishes who shall
stand? Slaveholders are constantly avowing their desire to see slavery abolished;
but they adopt no measures but such as are expressly designed to increase the
burdens of the bondman, and calculated to bring swift destruction upon themselves.
O, ye infatuated men, listen to the voice of the Lord your God! 'Wash ye, make
you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to
do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless,
plead for the widow. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of
the land: but if ye refuse, and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword;
for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.'
Let the reader examine the first six resolutions which follow, and say whether it be possible for madness, cruelty and tyranny to go further? and whether we are not justified in believing that they who adopted them are given over to believe a lie, that they may be damned? The slaves must be liberated by the people of the free States. It is useless to wait for the consent of the planters: they never will be ready to act. Either slavery or the Union must be given up.
From the Baltimore Chronicle.
PUBLIC MEETING.
At a numerous meeting of the citizens of Somerset county, held at the Court House of said county, on the 18th of October, 1831, Gov. Thomas K. Carroll was requested to act as President, and Dr. John Woolford and Gen. Matthias Dashiell as Vice Presidents— Col. Robert Stewart and Littleton E. Dennis, Esq. were appointed Secretaries.
The objects of the meeting were then stated in an appropriate address by the President.
On motion, the following persons were appointed a committee to draft resolutions expressive of the views of this Convention, viz: Geo. Handy, Daniel Ballard, Robert I. Henry, Shiles Crocket, James Polk, Arnold E. Jones, Jesse Hughes and Wm. H. Curtis, Esqrs., who, after retiring a short time, returned, and reported the following resolutions, which were, with much unanimity, adopted:—
1. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Convention, it is impolitic and unwise, and incompatible with the welfare, happiness and prosperity of this state, to permit free negroes to reside therein.
2. Resolved, That the liberation of slaves in this state, either by deed of manumission, or last will and testament, is repugnant to the interest of the state, and ought, therefore, to be prohibited by law.
3. Resolved, That the laws, regarding the assemblage of negroes, are insufficient, and ought to be so amended as to prohibit their assemblage altogether, unless to attend the preaching of the gospel by a regularly licensed white clergyman.
4. Resolved, That the instruction of negroes in reading or writing tends to produce discontent and disorder among the slaves of the state, and ought to be prohibited by law.
5. Resolved, That, for the better protection of the state, the Legislature be requested to pass a law, giving authority to Brigadier Generals, to draw from the armories of the state, any number of arms which they may deem requisite, in their respective brigades.
6. Resolved, That the laws, in regard to owners permitting their slaves to act as free, are insufficient, and ought to be amended; and the practice of hiring slaves to free negroes, ought to be prohibited by law.
7. Resolved, That a respectful petition be drafted and signed by the President and Secretaries, and such other persons as may sign the same, and forwarded to the next General Assembly, embracing the objects of the above resolutions.
8. Resolved, That a committee of sixteen persons be appointed by the President and Vice Presidents, to prepare a petition, in conformity with the above resolutions, and condered to the citizens of this county for their signatures.
9. Resolved, That each member of the said committee, shall procure a copy of the said petition, whose duty it shall be to obtain signatures thereto, and forward the same in time, to the next legislature.
10. Resolved, That it be and is hereby recommended to the citizens of the several counties in this State to hold Conventions and forward such petitions to the next General Assembly, as may tend to effect the objects for which this meeting is held.
11. Resolved, That this meeting will give all lawful, voluntary and energetic support to the magistrates, constables and other officers, the more effectually to enable them to execute the laws for the suppression of tumultuous and nightly meetings of the blacks, and for the prevention of their having fire-arms in their possession.
12. Resolved, That the Editor of the Village Herald be respectfully requested to insert the above resolutions in his paper, and that the editors of newspapers throughout the State of Maryland be and are hereby respectfully requested to insert the same in their respective papers.
In compliance with the 8th resolution, Wm. W. Handy, Jesse Walter, Ralph Lowe, John Austin, Levin W. Disharuon, Geo. Hopkins, (of Matt.) Robert Stewart, Geo. A. Dasheill, W. Whayland, James Polk, Henry Newman, Gabriel Webster, James Cottman, Robert W. Swan, Robert I. Henry, and Thomas Robertson, Esquires, were appointed a committee to prepare a petition, obtain signatures, and forward the same to the next General Assembly of Maryland.
On motion of Col. Geo. Dasheill, the thanks of this convention were tendered to the President, Vice Presidents and Secretaries. The Convention then adjourned sine die.
THOMAS K. CARROLL, Pres't.
JOHN WOOLFORD,
MATTHIAS DASHEILL,Vice Pres'ts.
Robert Stewart,
Littleton E. Dennis,Secretaries.
The Norfolk papers state that << Nat Turner>> , the leader of the
late slave insurrection in Virginia, has positively been taken. A letter published
in the Herald, says:—
'MONROE, (Southampton,) Oct. 31.
'A party of our men caught Captain Nat yesterday. You may have it published if you think proper. It is positively so, for I have seen him this morning.'
The Beacon states that he was taken in the following manner:
A Mr. Francis, of Southampton County, came upon Nat suddenly, started him from a fodder stack last Thursday morning, in the vicinity of his late butcheries, and fired at him with a horseman's pistol, but he made his escape into the woods. Notice being given of this occurrence, a party immediately went in pursuit, and on Sunday a Mr. Phipps surprised him in a thicket in the neighborhood where he had been seen on Thursday. Mr. P. levelled his gun at him and demanded his surrender; Nat finding death inevitable, if he resisted or fled, surrendered, and was conducted to the jail at Jerusalem.
(COPYRIGHT SECURED BY THE AUTHOR.)
For the National Era.
THE LEGAL TENURE OF SLAVERY.
-------
LETTER XXVII.
-------
THE PREAMBLE OF THE CONSTITUTION, LIKE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AUTHORIZES
AND DEMANDS A NATIONAL ABOLITION OF SLAVERY - Concluded.
-------
To the Friends of American Liberty;
(2.) ”To establish justice.” If the Constitution was “ordained”
to “establish justice,” it was ordained to overthrow and prevent
Slavery, which is the climax and perfection of injustice. “Justice,”
is “equity, agreeableness to right.” It “consists in giving
to every one what is his due. Injustice is “iniquity, wrong, any violation
of another's rights.” All men know, intuitively, that Slavery is injustice,
and that “to establish justice” in this country, would be to suppress
Slavery. All men know, therefore, intuitively, that if the Constitution was
“ordained” to “establish justice,” it was “ordained”
to
abolish Slavery; and that, vice versa, if the Constitution was not “ordained”
to “establish justice.” The proposition is too self-evident to admit
of argument. It can only be plainly stated, and addressed to men's consciences;
and if they are honest, and true to their own convictions, they will acknowledge
its claims. Whether we go by the rule of “strict construction,”
(the meaning of the words,) or the rule of the Supreme Court, that “the
intention must be collected from the words,” or whether we go by the declared
“spirit and intent” of the Preamble, it all comes to the same thing,
and affirms the power of the Constitution, “ordained for the United States
of America,” to overthrow American Slavery. If it has not this power,
it cannot be proved that it has any power at all, or is of any value.
(3. “To insure domestic tranquillity.” Slavery is that “peculiar
domestic institution” that renders “domestic tranquillity”
impossible! The statesman, the poet, or the jurist, who would picture or define
a state of society from which “domestic tranquillity” was totally
banished, would have to define or describe Slavery. “The whole commerce
between master and slave,” said Jefferson, “is a perpetual exercise
of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part,
and degrading submissions on the other.” “Domestic tranquillity!”
Where? On the plantation, under the crack of the driver's whip? Where? In the
master's bed-chamber, with his pistols under his pillow? Where? In the streets,
promenaded by the nightly patrol? Where? At the domestic fireside, and in the
bosom of matronly beauty? “We, Southern ladies,” said a sister of
James Madison to the late Rev. George Bowne, “are dignified with the title
of wives, but we are only mistresses of seraglios.” “Domestic tranquillity!”
Where? At the auction-block, where the screaming child is torn from its frantic
mother, and the despairing husband from his fainting wife? “Domestic tranquillity!”
Where the institution of marriage and the family relation are blotted out, or
are left without any legal sanctity or protection? How can the Constitution
“insure domestic tranquillity” without suppressing Slavery? How,
without restoring and protecting the domestic relations? Have God and Nature
made “domestic tranquillity” possible without these? No! And consequently
they have not made it possible for a Government that does not suppress Slavery,
to “insure domestic tranquillity,” nor for a Constitution to confer
the power of doing the latter, without conferring the power of doing the former.
“Strict construction,” - the meaning of the words - the intention,
as gathered from the words - the “spirit,” scope, and power, of
the paragraph, are all at one, here.
(4.) “Provide for the common defence.” Mark this, “the common
defence” of “the people of the United States;” not of the
slave-holders exclusively, or of the “free,” or of the “whites.”
The defence of the slaves, then, among others, is to be provided for. “Defence”
- against whom, and against what - if not defence against Slavery, the greatest
of all injuries?
But leaving this, how shall the “common defence” of the country
- the white people, the slaveholders themselves - be provided for, without providing
for the extinction of Slavery? Two incidents of our history may instruct us:
<< Nat Turner's>> Southampton insurrection in 1831, and President
Madison's Gilpin-like flight to Bladensburg at the approach of a British detachment,
with the burning of the Capitol, in 1813. A servile war, a foreign invasion,
or both combined, may leave the nation defenceless, without the abolition of
Slavery. John Quincy Adams clearly proved “the war power of Congress to
abolish Slavery.” By the same principle, Congress may prevent war, or
may prepare for it, by abolishing Slavery beforehand. Our weakness at that point
is coming to be felt and perceived. Our diplomacy with England, since the British
abolition of Slavery in the West Indies, has put on a subdued tone. A nation
that permits Slavery is always in a state of civil war; and though for years
that war may be prosecuted only on one side, it is liable at any moment to put
on new forms. A population of slaves is a population of natural enemies. “And
with what execration,” said Jefferson, “should the statesman be
loaded, who, permitting one-half of the citizens thus to trample on the rights
of the other, transforms those into depots and these into enemies, destroys
the morals of the one part, and the amor patrioe of the other.” “Indeed,
I tremble for my country, when I reflect that God is just, and that his justice
cannot sleep forever.” “The Almighty has no attributes which can
take sides with us in such a contest.”
The “execration” of Jefferson rests on the Federal Constitution,
if it ought to be construed as “permitting” Slavery; and the same
construction of it enlists the Federal Government in a war against Liberty,
and against every “attribute of the Almighty!” Can such a construction
of it be a prudent one? Neither the letter nor the spirit of the Constitution,
nor the rule of the Supreme Court, require or allow any such construction of
it. The power to “provide for the common defence” is the power to
“declare war and make peace” - to make peace with the three millions
of natural enemies in our midst, with whom we have so long been at war. The
Federal Government cannot provide for the general defence without providing
for the abolition of Slavery.
(5.) “To promote the general welfare.” This is another declared
object of the Constitution, which cannot be attained without the abolition of
Slavery, which notoriously and in various ways obstructs the “general
welfare.” It curses the very soil where it is tolerated. It undermines
the national industry. It impoverishes the whole South, diminishes the national
revenue, and throws the public burdens of the country on the free States. It
demoralizes and weakens the nation. A volume might be filed with statistics
showing how Slavery counteracts public growth, prosperity, and welfare. Southern
statesmen admit this. No measure of political economy is so much needed, in
this country, as the abolition of Slavery. There is nothing that the Federal
Government can do that will insure national prosperity, while it continues to
tolerate Slavery. Finally.
(6.) ”To secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
There is no evading this. It needs no inference. It speaks direct to the point,
and in language which no one can mistake. All men know that Liberty is the opposite
of Slavery, and that the existence of the one is the absence of the other; the
same as in respect to light and darkness, life and death. “We the people
of the United States, in order to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves
and our posterity, do make and ordain this Constitution, for the United States
of America.” The people of the United States say this. They say it for
all the States, for all the people of all the States, and their posterity. Here
is no distinction between free States and slave States, between blacks and whites.
What is says for one, it says for all. If it cannot secure liberty for all,
it can secure it for none.
No one will deny that great multitudes of the “posterity” of “the
people” who ordained and established the Constitution, in clouding the
descendants of members of the Convention who drafted it, are now held as slaves.
Is it constitutional to hold them as slaves, or is it not? If it is, of what
use is the Constitution? If it is not, by what rule can it be determined that
any slaves are constitutionally held, or who or which they are that are thus
held?
And, besides this, the impossibility of “securing the blessings of Liberty”
to any potion of the people, so long as Slavery is tolerated and protected,
is coming to be extensively understood. Already the same Federal enactments
that protect Slavery, remove from every man the defences of personal liberty,
and subject to persecution those who practice Christ's religion, by showing
mercy to the poor.* Leading statesmen, civilians, and literary gentlemen of
the South, Governor McDuffie, Benjamin Watkins Leigh, Mr. Pickens, John C. Calhoun,
Mr. Hammond, Professor Dew, and others, have taught distinctly that the laboring
population of any country, “bleached or unbleached,” are “a
dangerous element of the body politic;” that they cannot permanently participate
in political affairs; that the “whole Confederacy” will come to
adopt Slavery; that “the capitalist will own the laborer;” that
“the South has less trouble with her slaves than the North with her free
laborers.”
Henry Clay, in his great speech in the Senate, in 1839, argued the impossibility
of abolishing Slavery, from the want of constitutional power in the General
Government, also from the great number of the slaves, and the vast amount of
capital invested in them. And in the same speech he anticipated the disappearance
of all distinctions of color in “one hundred and fifty or two hundred
years.” Thus does the denial of power in the Federal Government to abolish
Slavery involve, as a necessary consequence, the denial of power in the Federal
Government to “secure the blessings of Liberty” to the great mass
of the laboring whites, who are a large majority of the people of the free States!
WILLIAM GOODELL.
-------
*It ought to be borne in mind, that neither the Fugitive Slave bill, as it is
called, nor the clause of the Constitution upon which it is professedly based,
make any mention of slaves, or contain the slightest allusion to race or color.
Yet it provides for the delivering up of the person seized, upon the oath of
the claimant, by a summary process, making no provision for his legal defence,
without jury trial, or any of the proper defences of Freedom! Every one sees
that it is an outrage upon the colored people; but few reflect that the case
is their own, and that, so far as civil government and law are concerned, every
man, however exalted his position in society, however white his skin, and however
unmixed his “Anglo-Saxon” descent, is precisely in the predicament
of Jerry, or Burns. A people blind enough to overlook this, or base enough to
submit to it, must be rapidly preparing themselves for the position that Governor
McDuffie and his associates assigned to them!
For the Christian Recorder.
TIDINGS FROM THE FIELDS.
-----
Richmond District - Virginia Conference.
-----
BY REV. W.B. DERRICK.
-----
MR. EDITOR: - Again we are called to notice the fact, that another quarter in
the Conference year has gone; another three months of life's race is run; yet
we survive the blast, amid the clash of arms and the clamor of factions. The
field that is occupied by the ministers if an extensive one, and the labors
they have performed, are most important in their results. The difficulties that
have hindered the more successful prosecution of the work have been many, some
very hard to overcome, all adding largely to the care, anxiety and toil of the
brethren. But we are glad to be able to record the fact, that they have all
willingly and cheerfully sacrificed their own comforts and case, to minister
the gospel of the love of God to the destitute and needy, thus evincing to the
world the genuineness of their Christ-like spirit, and the grand evidence of
a true gospel mission. Passing by many of the difficulties which might with
propriety be mentioned, we will speak of the bright side of the picture. The
following places were visited with the usual quarterly meeting exercises, which
have been followed by glorious results, and hundreds are brought to Christ.
RICHMOND STATUS.
Rev. Daniel [ ] is the worthy and efficient pastor who works manfully for the success of Zion, temporal and spiritual and it gives me infinite pleasure to state that his toils are attended with most blessed results. His preaching has been followed by precious seasons, and souls are inquiring the way, as he is now in the midst of a glorious awakening. He fills the bill. Dollar money during the quarter $40.00.
DANVILLE STATION.
Rev. John H. Sprigg's labors are blessed with glorious showers from the heavenly
fountain. He is moving the host before him, holding with trembling hands the
enemy; while his voice is heard for Zion's sake, I will no hold my peace, &c.
Bro. Spriggs keeps a constant watch for the general interest of the church.
Amid his ministerial duties he conducts a fine day school. God is blessing his
labors abundantly. He is hospitable and kind. Dollar money $50.00.
FARMSVILLE STATION.
Rev. J.E.W. Moore, son of the venerable Daniel Moore, has the pastoral care of this people. Brother Moore is doing a fine work. God's spirit has entered his church with such force, that sinners have had to bow and acknowledge their guilt. None know him but to admire. He is kind and gentle, and attentive to the calling of his office. No interest will suffer at his hands. Dollar money $18.00.
SUFFOLK STATION.
Rev. Matthew Marshall who is considered as one of the fathers of the Conference,
ministers to this people. None seems to take to heart a people's interest more
thoroughly than this good man, both temporally and spiritually. None seems to
comprehend the demand of the hour as to the necessity of a higher walk in the
Christian graces, likewise mode with his labors. God's power has been felt and
souls are coming to Christ. Dollar money $15.00.
DEEP CREEK CIRCUIT.
Rev. James Haynes has labored with great acceptability among his members. Success attends each effort put forward by him for Zion's good. His labors will be a monument to his name is after years. Since the adjournment of Conference, a fine house of worship has been purchased and half the purchase money paid down cash. A glorious revival is going on all over the work. Dollar money $15.00.
PROSPECT CIRCUIT.
Rev. Robert Armsted is hard at work, and none seems to meet with more Divine approval in their efforts, than this humble man of God. His house is kept warm with hallowed fire from on high. Souls are coming to Christ through his preaching. Brother Armsted is ever mindful of his obligations in attending to every duty as far as possible. Much respected, he is among the number who shall possess the promised land. Dollar money $20.00.
HARMONY CIRCUIT.
Rev. Shadrack Jones has done, and is still doing a fine work. He holds the foes of Zion with strong arms. One of the greatest visitations of the Spirit for the quarter was to be witnessed in the charge of this zealous man of God. His house of worship was dedicated on the 9th of September, and like the noise of a mighty wind, the spirit fanned the house. Dollar money $15.00.
SOUTHAMPTON CIRCUIT.
Rev. J. Henderson reigns king throughout the realm. At the home of <<
Nat Turner>> he labors with much zeal, likewise success. At no point I
have visited, do the people seem to be more loyal to the church. African Methodism
holds the fort and hearts of this people. A fine house of worship is about to
be erected. Much has been done since the adjournment of Conference. Dollar money
$15.00.
HENRY CIRCUIT.
Rev. Jeremiah Cuffy is hard at work building a fine house of worship. Although temporarily engaged, his spiritual interests are not neglected. The entire circuit has been blessed with refreshing showers. Many have united with the army, professing saving faith in Christ. Bro. Cuffy is an active worker. Dollar money $10.00.
CHATHAM CIRCUIT.
Rev. Wm. Gray, pastor in charge is about completing his house of worship, after
which Chatham promises to start afresh, taking her place with her sisters in
the line of march to prosperity. This people too, have had blessed seasons.
Dollar money, $7.00.
CHESTERFIELD AND MANCHESTER.
Rev. Brown recently coming among us from the Zion Church, and assigned to the charge on the removal of Rev. C.E. Steward, bids fair to succeed. Dollar money $5.00.
PETERSBURG.
Elder Halyard holds on, although oftimes dark clouds dim his pathway. As to
taking the fort, I believe we can conquer with a man who is living in the age
of progress, and not in the past. A man of nerve as well as brain.
CHARLOTTE COURT HOUSE.
Rev. J.W. Montgomery amid hardships, without a regular place to worship in has
thus far succeeded in purchasing a place to worship, and has been blessed through
the guiding hands of a kind Providence to make a payment upon said property.
Often he is compelled to meet in the woods for want of a place; still they are
not discouraged, but with David they exclaim. “Why art thou cast down,
O my soul, hope thou in the Lord.” Dollar money $5.00.
ALEXANDER MISSION.
Rev. Cheeks yet contends for a part of the field, believing that the A.M.E. Church has a perfect right to plant her standard here as any other sect. The prospect seems pleasing. We have a fine Sabbath School here. A brighter day will soon appear.
PENN'S MISSION.
Rev. Isaac York contends hard to spread the cause. The surroundings are oftimes gloomy, still the promises are of each a nature, as furnishes a strong pillar to rest upon. As this is a new mission field much cannot be said as yet. Dollar money $5.00.
NORTH DANVILLE MISSION.
Rev. Clark has charge here, and, although it is a new work, the prospect is pleasing. A kind friend donated a lot on which to build a church, which will be erected soon.
South Boston, another new mission, remains to be supplied.
Burkville is also a new mission, to which Rev. J.C. Acworth has been assigned.
Zanesville mission is under the pastoral care of Rev. Pinkart. Much remains to make the point, still with earnest prayer God's blessing will rest upon it. Dollar money $7.00.
PROSPECTUS.
I am more than pleased to state that at no period in the existence of our church
in Virginia, has the prospects appeared more pleasing. The cause of Methodism
is looming up in strength; those that were taught to believe that the only way
that Christ's approval could be had was by immersion, are today anxious listeners
to the teachings of our church; and greater still a large class of them are
believers. Another pleasing feature is that the mode of worship is changing;
that uncalled for excitement is passing away, and a more refined mode of worship
takes its place. Without this change we will lose our children who are attending
the various schools. The minister need not stamp and beat his Bible into fragments.
Thank god, all those uncalled-for antics are finding a resting place with the
things of the past.
Rev. and dear brethren, likewise members throughout the District, please accept
my sincere thanks for the kind treatment shown me during my visit.
Richmond, Va.
ADDRESS.
of the Rev. Theodore S. Wright.
BEFORE THE CONVENTION OF THE NEW YORK STATE
ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT, HELD AT UTICA, SEPT. 30.
Rev. THEODORE S. WRIGHT, of N. York, moved the adoption of the Annual Report,
and said:
Mr. President, - All who have heard the Report which has been presented are satisfied it needs no eulogy. It supports itself. But, sir, I would deem it a privilege to throw out a few thoughts upon it - thoughts which arise on beholding this audience. My mind is involuntarily led back a few years to the period prior to the commencement of this great moral effort for the removal of the giant sin of oppression from our land. It is well known to every individual who is at all acquainted with the history of slavery in this land, that the convention of 1776, when the foundations of our government were lain, proclaimed to the world the inalienable rights of man; and they supposed that the great principles of liberty would work the distribution of slavery through this land. This remark is sustained by an examination of the document then framed, and by the fact that the term "slavery" is not even named. The opinion that slavery would be abolished - indeed, that it had already received a death-blow, was cherished by all the reformers. - This spirit actuated Woolman, Penn, Edwards, Jefferson, and Benezet, and it worked out the entire emancipation of the North. - But it is well known that about 1817, a different drift was given - a new channel was opened for the benevolence which was working so well. The principle of expatriation, like a great sponge, went around in church and state, among men of all classes, and sponged up all the benevolent feelings which were then prevalent, and which promised so much for the emancipation of the enslaved and down-trodden millions of our land. That, sir, we call the dark period. - Oh, sir! if my father who sits beside me were to rise up and tell you how he felt, and how men of his age felt, and how I felt, (though a boy at the time,) sir, it would be seen to have been a dark period. Why, sir, it would be seen to have been a dark period. Why, sir, the heavens gathered blackness, and there was nothing cheering in our prospects. A spirit was abroad, which said 'this is not your country and home,' a spirit which would take us away from our fire-sides, tear the freeman away from his oppressed brother. - This spirit was tearing the free father away from his children, separating husband and wife, sundering those cords of consanguinity which bind the free with the slave. This scheme was as popular as it possibly could be. The slaveholder and the pro-slavery man, the man of expanded views, the man who loved the poor and oppressed of every hue and of every clime, all united in this feeling and principle of expatriation. But, sir, there were hundreds of thousands of men in the land, who never could sympathize in this feeling; I mean those who were to be removed. The people of color were broken-hearted; they knew, sir, there were physical impossibilities to their removal. They knew, sir, that nature, reason, justice, and inclination forbade the idea of their removing; and hence in 1817, the people of color in Philadelphia, with James Forten at their head, - (and I envy them the honor they had in the work in which they were engaged,) in an assembly of three thousand, before high heaven, in the Presence of Almighty God, and in the midst of a persecuting nation, resolved that they never would leave the land. They resolved to cling to their oppressed brethren. They felt that every ennobling spirit forbade their leaving them. They resolved to remain here, come what would, persecution or death. They determined to grapple themselves to their enslaved brethren as with hooks of steel. My father, at Schnectady, under great anxiety, took a journey to Philadelphia, to investigate the subject. - This was the spirit which prevailed among the people of color, and it extended to every considerable place in the North, and as far South as Washington and Baltimore. They lifted up their voice and said, this is my country, here I was born, here I have toiled and suffered, and here will I die. Sir, it was a dark period. Although they were unanimous, and expressed their opinions, they could not gain access to the public mind: for the press would not communicate the facts in the case - it was silent. In the city of New York, after a large meeting, where protests were drawn up against the system of colonization, there was not a single public journal in the city, secular or religious, which would publish the views of the people of color, on the subject.
Sir, despair brooded over our minds. It seemed as though every thing was against us. We sow philanthropists, for instance, such men as Rev. Dr. Cox, swept away by the waves of expatriation. Other men, such as our President before us, who were engaged in schemes of benevolence in behalf of the people here, abandoning those schemes. It was a general opinion that it would do no good to elevate the people of color here. - Our hearts broke. We saw that colonization never could be carried out; for the annual increase of the people of color was 70,000. - We used to meet together and talk and weep and what to do we knew not. We saw indications that coercive measures would be resorted to. Immediately after the insurrection in Virginia, under << Nat Turner>> , we saw colonization spreading all over the land; and it was popular to say the people of color must be removed. The press came out against us, and we trembled. Maryland passed laws to force out the colored people. It was deemed proper to make them go, whether they would or not. Then we despaired. Ah, Mr. President, that was a dark and gloomy period. The united views and intentions of the people of color were made known, and the nation awoke as from slumber. The 'Freedom's Journal,' edited by Rev. Sam'l. E. Cornish, announced the facts in the case, our entire opposition. Sir, it came like a clap of thunder! I recollect at Princeton, where I was then studying, Dr. Miller came out with his letter, disapproving of the editor's views, and all the faculty and the students gave up the paper. Benj. Lundy of Baltimore nobly lifted up his voice. But he did not feel the vileness of colonization. A young man, for making certain expositions touching slavery, was incarcerated in a dungeon, where truth took a lodgment in his heart, where he avowed eternal hatred to slavery, and where, before high heaven, in the secrecy of his dungeon, with the chains upon him, he resolved to devote his life to the cause of emancipation. * * And when the President of the American Anti-Slavery Society stepped forward and paid the fine, we were crying for help - we were remonstrating. We had no other means but to stand up as men, and protest. We declared, this is our country and our home; here are the graves of our fathers. But none came to the rescue.
At that dark moment we heard a voice; - it was the voice of GARRISON, speaking in trumpet tones! It was like the voice of an angel of mercy! Home, hope then cheered or path. The signs of the times began to indicate brighter days. he thundered, and next we hear of a Jocelyn of New Haven, an Arthur Tappan at his side, pleading for the rights of the Colored American. He stood up in New Haven amid commotion and persecution, like a rock amid the dashing waves. Ought I not this afternoon to call upon my soul, and may I not ask you to call upon your souls to bless the LORD for HIS unspeakable goodness in bringing about the present state of things? What gratitude is called for on our part, when we contrast the state of things developed in your report with the dark period when we could number the abolitionists, when they were few and far between? Now a thousand societies exist, and there are hundreds of thousands of members. Praise God, and persevere in this great work. Should we not be encouraged? We have every thing to hope for, and nothing to fear. God is at the helm. The Bible is your platform - the Holy Spirit will aid you. We have every thing necessary pledged, because God is with us. Hath He not said - "Break every yoke, undo the heavy burdens, and let the oppressed go free?" - "Remember them that are in bonds, as bound with them?" Why do I see so many who minister at the sacred altar - so many who have every thing to lose and nothing to gain, personally, by identifying themselves with this cause? Nothing but the spirit of Almighty God has brought these men here.
This cause, noble though persecuted, has a lodgment in the piety of our countrymen, and never can be expatriated. How manifest has been the progress of this cause! Why, sir, three years ago, nothing was more opprobrious than to be called an 'abolitionist' or 'anti-slaveryman!'
Now, you would be considered as uncharitable towards pro-slavery men, whether editors of newspapers, presidents of colleges, or theological seminaries, if you advance the idea that they are not abolitionists, or anti-slavery men. Three years ago, when a man professed to be an abolitionist, we knew where he was. He was an individual who recognized the identity of the human family. Now a man may call himself an abolitionist and we know not where to find him. Your tests are taken away. A rush is made into the abolition ranks. Free discussion, petition Anti-Texas, and political favor converts are multiplying. Many throw themselves in, without understanding the breadth and depth of the principles of emancipation. I fear not the annexation of Texas. I fear not all the machinations, calumny and opposition of slaveholders, when contrasted with the annexation of men whose hearts have not been deeply imbued with these high and holy principles. Why, sir, unless men come out and take their stand on the principle of recognizing man as man, I tremble for the ark, and I fear our society will become like the expatriation society; every body an abolitionist. These points which have lain in the dark, must be brought out to view. The identity of the human family, the principle of recognizing all men as brethren - that is the doctrine, that is the point which touches the quick of the community. It is an easy thing to task about the vileness of slavery at the South, but to call the dark man a brother, heartily to embrace the doctrine advanced in the second article of the constitution, to treat all men according to their moral worth, to treat the man of color in all circumstances as a man and a brother - that is the test.
Every man who comes into this society ought to be catechized. It should be ascertained whether he looks upon man as man, all of one blood and one family. A healthful atmosphere must be created, in which the slave may live, when rescued from the horrors of slavery. I am sensible I am detaining you, but I feel that this is an important point. I am alarmed sometimes, when I look at the constitutions of our societies. I am afraid that brethren sometimes endeavor so to form the constitutions of societies that they will be popular. I have seen constitutions of abolition societies, where nothing was said about the improvement of the man of color! They have overlooked the giant sin of prejudice. They have passed by this foul monster, which is at once the parent and offspring of slavery. Whilst you are thinking about the annexation of Texas - whilst you are discussing the great principles involved in this noble cause, remember this prejudice must be killed, or slavery will never be abolished. Abolitionists must annihilate in their own bosoms, the cord of caste. We must be consistent - recognize the colored man in every respect as a man and brother. In doing this, we shall have to encounter scorn; we shall have to breast the storm. - This society would do well to spend a whole day in thinking about it and praying over it. Every abolitionist would do well to spend a day in fasting and prayer over it, and in looking at his own heart. Far be it from me to condemn abolitionists. I rejoice and bless God for this first institution which has combined its energies for the overthrow of this heaven-daring - this soul-crushing prejudice.
The successors of Penn, Franklin, and Woolman, have shown themselves the friends
of the colored race. They have done more in this cause than any other church,
and they are still doing great things, both in Europe and America. I was taught
in childhood to remember the man of the broad-brimmed hat and drab-colored coat,
and venerate him. No class have testified more to the truth on this subject.
They lifted up their voices against slavery and the slave-trade. But, ah! with
but here and there a noble exception, they go but half way. - When they come
to the grand doctrine, to lay the axe right down at the root oft he tree, and
destroy the very spirit of slavery - they are defective. Their doctrine is,
to set the slave free, and let him take care of himself. Hence, we hear nothing
about their being brought into the Friends' Church, or of their being viewed
and treated according to their moral worth. Our hearts have recently been gladdened
by an address of the Annual Meeting of the Friends' Society in the city of N.
York, in which they insist on the doctrine of immediate emancipation. But hat
very good man who signed that document, as the organ of that society within
the past year, received a man of color, a Presbyterian minister, into his house,
gave him his meals alone in the kitchen, and did not introduce him to his family.
That shows how men can testify against slavery at the South, and not assail
it at the North, were it is tangible. Here is something for abolitionists to
do. What can the friends of emancipation effect, while the spirit of slavery
is so fearfully prevalent? Let every man take his stand, burn out this prejudice,
live it down, talk it down, every where consider the colored man as a man, in
the church, the stage, the steamboat, the public house, in all places, and the
death-blow to slavery will be struck.
A NATIVE OF NORTH BRIDGEWATER.
SLAVERY RECORD.
CONFESSIONS OF << NAT TURNER>> .
These confessions occupy 23 pages 12mo., and are stated to have been fully and voluntarily made to Thomas R. Gray, in the prison where Nat was confined. An edition of 50,000 copies has been printed in Baltimore, which will only serve to rouse up other leaders and cause other insurrection, by creating among the blacks admiration for the character of Nat, and a deep, undying sympathy for his fate. We advise the Grand Juries in the several slave States to indict Mr. Gray and the printers of the pamphlet forthwith; and the legislative bodies at the south to offer a large reward for their apprehension.
The history of Nat is certainly somewhat remarkable. He was born October 2d, 1800. In his childhood, from some circumstances, his mother and others said in his presence that he would surely be a prophet, as the Lord had shewn him things that had happened before his birth. This remark made a deep impression upon his mind, and affected all his subsequent conduct. He learned to read with such facility, that he had no recollection whatever of learning the alphabet— grew up a prodigy reverenced among his fellows— was never addicted to stealing, or known to have a dollar in his life, to swear an oath, or drink a drop of spirits— studiously wrapped himself in mystery, and devoted his hours to fasting and prayer, and communion with the Spirit. He had a vision, and saw white spirits and black spirits engaged in battle, and the sun was darkened— the thunder rolled in the Heavens, and blood flowed in streams— and he heard a voice saying, 'Such is your luck, such you are called to see, and let it come rough or smooth, you must bear it.' While laboring in the field, he discovered drops of blood on the corn, as though it were dew from heaven— and found on the leaves in the woods hieroglyphic characters, and numbers, with the forms of men in different attitudes portrayed in blood— &c. &c. &c.
From all this it appears that Nat was partially insane, and led astray by a religious fanaticism. We make an extract from his Confessions, giving an account of the origin and progress of the dreadful tragedy in Southampton.
'Since the commencement of 1830, I had been living with Mr. Joseph Travis, who was to me a kind master, and placed the greatest confidence in me; in fact, I had no cause to complain of his treatment to me. On Saturday evening, the 20th of August, it was agreed between Henry, Hark and myself, to prepare a dinner the next day for the men we expected, and then to concert a plan, as we had not yet determined on any. Hark, on the following morning, brought a pig, and Henry, brandy, and being joined by Sam, Nelson, Will and Jack, they prepared in the woods a dinner, where about three o'clock, I joined them.
Q. Why were you so backward in joining them?
A. The same reason that had caused me not to mix with them for years before.
I saluted them on coming up, and asked Will how came he there: he answered, his life was worth no more than others, and his liberty as dear to him. I asked him if he thought to obtain it? He said he would, or lose his life. This was enough to put him in full confidence. Jack, I knew, was only a tool in the hands of Hark. It was quickly agreed we should commence at home (Mr. J. Travis') on that night, and until we had armed and equipped ourselves, and gathered sufficient force, neither age nor sex was to be spared, (which was invariably adhered to.) We remained at the feast, until about two hours in the night, when we went to the house and found Austin; they all went to the cider press and drank, except myself. On returning to the house, Hark went to the door with an axe, for the purpose of breaking it open, as we knew we were strong enough to murder the family, if they were awaked by the noise; but reflecting that it might create an alarm in the neighborhood, we determined to enter the house secretly, and murder them whilst sleeping. Hark got a ladder and set it against the chimney, on which I ascended, and hoisting a window, entered and came down stairs, unbarred the door, and removed the guns from their places. It was then observed that I must spill the first blood. On which, armed with a hatchet, and accompanied by Will, I entered my master's chamber; it being dark, I could not give a death blow; the hatchet glanced from his head, he sprang from the bed and called his wife; it was his last word. Will laid him dead, with a blow of his axe, and Mrs. Travis shared the same fate, as she lay in bed. The murder of this family, five in number, was the work of a moment, not one of them awoke; there was a little infant sleeping in a cradle, that was forgotten, until we had left the house and gone some distance, when Henry and Will returned and killed it; we got here, four guns that would shoot, and several old muskets, with a pound or two of powder. We remained some time at the barn, where we paraded; I formed them in a line as soldiers, and after carrying them through all the manoeuvres I was master of, marched them off to Mr. Salathul Francis', about six hundred yards distant. Sam and Will went to the door and knocked. Mr. Francis asked who was there? Sam replied it was him, and he had a letter for him, on which he got up and came to the door; they immediately seized him, and dragging him out a little from the door; he was despatched by repeated blows on the head; there was no other white person in the family. We started from there for Mrs. Reese's, maintaining the most perfect silence on our march, where finding the door unlocked, we entered, and murdered Mrs. Reese in her bed, while sleeping; her son awoke, but it was only to sleep the sleep of death; he had only time to say who is that, and he was no more. From Mrs. Reese's we went to Mrs. Turner's, a mile distant, which we reached about sunrise, on Monday morning. Henry, Austin and Sam, went to the still, where, finding Mr. Peebles, Austin shot him, and the rest of us went to the house; as we approached, the family discovered us, and shut the door. Vain hope! Will, with one stroke of his axe, opened it, and we entered and found Mrs. Turner and Mrs. Newsome in the middle of a room, almost frightened to death. Will immediately killed Mrs. Turner, with one blow of his axe. I took Mrs. Newsome by the hand, and with the sword I had when I was apprehended, I struck her several blows over the head, but not being able to kill her, as the sword was dull. Will turning around and discovering it, despatched her also. A general destruction of property and search for money and ammunition, always succeeded the murders. By this time my company amounted to fifteen, and nine men mounted, who started for Mrs. Whitehead's (the other six were to go through a by way to Mr. Bryant's and rejoin us at Mrs. Whitehead's)— as we approached the house, we discovered Mr. Richard Whitehead standing in the cotton patch, near the lane fence; we called him over into the lane, and Will, the executioner, was near at hand, with his fatal axe, to send him to an untimely grave. As we pushed on to the house, I discovered some one run round the garden, and thinking it was some of the white family, I pursued them, but finding it was a servant girl belonging to the house, I returned to commence the work of death, but they whom I left, had not been idle; all the family were already murdered, but Mrs. Whitehead and her daughter Margaret. As I came round to the door, I saw Will pulling Mrs. Whitehead out of the house, and at the step he nearly severed her head from her body, with his broad axe. Miss. Margaret, when I discovered her, had concealed herself in the corner, formed by the projection of the cellar cap from the house; on my approach she fled, but was soon overtaken, and after repeated blows with a sword, I killed her by a blow on the head, with a fence rail. By this time, the six who had gone by Mr. Bryant's, rejoined us, and informed me they had done the work of death assigned them. We again divided, part going to Mr. Richard Porter's, and from thence to Nathaniel Francis', the others to Mr. Howell Harris', and Mr. T. Doyles. On my reaching Mr. Porter's, he had escaped with his family. I understood there, that the alarm had already spread, and I immediately returned to bring up those sent to Mr. Doyles, and Mr. Howell Harris'; the party I left going on to Mr. Francis', having told them I would join them in that neighborhood. I met these sent to Mr. Doyles' and Mr. Harris' returning, having met Mr. Doyle on the road and killed him; and learning from some who joined them, that Mr. Harris was from home, I immediately pursued the course taken by the party gone on before; but knowing they would complete the work of death and pillage at Mr. Francis' before I could get there, I went to Mr. Peter Edwards', expecting to find them there, but they had been here also. I then went to Mr. John T. Barrow's, they had been here and murdered him. I pursued on their track to Capt. Newit Harris', where I found the greater part mounted, and ready to start; the men now amounting to about forty, shouted and hurraed as I rode up, some were in the yard, loading their guns, others drinking. They said Captain Harris and his family had escaped, the property in the house they destroyed, robbing him of money and other valuables. I ordered them to mount and march instantly; this was about nine or ten o'clock, Monday morning. I proceeded to Mr. Levi Waller's, two or three miles distant. I took my station in the rear, and as it 'twas my object to carry terror and devastation wherever we went, I placed fifteen or twenty of the best armed and most to be relied on, in front, who generally approached the houses as fast as their horses could run; this was for two purposes, to prevent their escape and strike terror to the inhabitants— on this account I never got to the houses, after leaving Mrs. Whitehead's, until the murders were committed, except in one case. I sometimes got in sight in time to see the work of death completed, viewed the mangled bodies as they lay, in silent satisfaction, and immediately started in quest of other victims.— Having murdered Mrs. Waller and ten children, we started for Mr. William Williams'— having killed him and two little boys that were there; while engaged in this, Mrs. Williams fled and got some distance from the house, but she was pursued, overtaken, and compelled to get up behind one of the company, who brought her back, and after showing her the mangled body of her lifeless husband, she was told to get down and lay by his side, where she was shot dead. I then started for Mr. Jacob Williams, where the family were murdered— Here we found a young man named Drury, who had come on business with Mr. Williams— he was pursued, overtaken and shot. Mrs. Vaughan was the next place we visited— and after murdering the family here, I determined on starting for Jerusalem.'
The remainder of the pamphlet is occupied principally in detailing Nat's various
shifts to escape and final capture. It does not appear that he ever saw a copy
of the 'infernal Liberator' or of 'Walker's Pamphlet.' He denied any knowledge
of the plot in North Carolina.
Reflections, and the Tennessee
Conference of 1872.
-----
BY BISHOP J.M. BROWN, D.D.
-----
Arriving at the deport of Clarksville, I found our good Brother-Rev. B.L. Brooks-awaiting my arrival. Meeting our brother, reminded me of others days, when we were joint members of the old Missouri Conference, when it included Kentucky, Missouri Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. That this work might be made a success and the Redeemer' kingdom extended in all this region was detained for this purpose, from the Indiana Conference, Revs. B.L. Brooks, Page, Tyler, Charles Doughty, Willis Miles, John Garrow, and your correspondent. There were besides these, a few local brethren, but two of whom I now recollect viz., Revs. M.R. Dickerson and T.A. Smith. Others were added, but if I recollect correctly, not at this conference. At no period of our history were the days darker or more ominous of evil than these; and no class of our preachers, at any period of our church history, had more to fear than these. Undaunted did they enter upon their duty and real cheerful were they. “Ignorance is bliss;” so it seemed to us; so onward we dashed, unquestioning our duty or the propriety of our course.
ORGANIZATION OF THE MISSOURI
CONFERENCE.
Bishop Daniel A. Payne organized the Missouri Conference in 1855, at Louisville
KY, and commissioned the feeble band to go forth and posses these fields.
OPPOSITION TO ITS ORGANIZATION.
At the General Conference of 1848, Rev. Robt. Johnson of the Indiana Conference
offered a resolution to set off the Missouri Conference and seconded by your
correspondent, but seven long years passed, before the organization was effected,
because the brethren of the Indiana Conference thought it unwise and impracticable.
So they have since opposed the Illinois Conference. I have seen strong men weep
because they so thoroughly opposed the dismemberment of that conference. Others
blessed with more strength, and those who saw farther and who believed that
it is not the amount of territory occupied, but the territory well worked, by
thoroughly drilled men. The sequel shows how useless their opposition, as the
results have been so grand and the Church has been so blessed, by this action
in all the regions then mapped off. No prophet ever felt and saw more fully
the final results of his predictions and the consequence of their action, than
the Bishop who organized this conference, and the men whom he sent forth to
proclaim their Divine Master's will.
THE CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR ACTION.
No doubt they felt anxious, no doubt sorrow entered their hearts when they saw,
bone of their bone, and flesh of their flesh, sold, whipped, scared; mothers,
weeping because separated from their children, and the husband agonized because
torn from loved ones, for such scenes were a common occurrence on all the boats
then running on the Ohio and Mississippi rivers; which compelled each one to
hate his surroundings and to resolve to do all in his power to unnamable his
brethren. No matter where an African M.E. preacher was found at the beginning
and close of the war, but what he felt that God had raised up the opposing forces
to help them, to free our long oppressed brethren; and they were always found
either in the army helping us, or acting as chaplains, calling on the God of
hosts to give success to the right, or teaching our brethren or sisters while
at work in someone of the many Hospitals. We have yet to find in all of our
itinerant or local ranks, a preacher who was an advocate of the cause of our
oppressors. Not even hypocritically. The results are wherever our church is
planted a school is established, our people are strengthened, servility is conquered,
manly sentiment infused, ideas of higher civilization are taught and the tendency
is everywhere to draw men of noble and broad Christian views, to the African
M.E. Church. She is indenting herself in all of the newly emancipated States,
and she is found in all the large cities, towns and villages of the South-thus
is she infusing her sentiments and principles into all the former slave States,
amongst both our own brethren, and our former oppressors; this feeling, favorable
to our race, is growing.
THE OPPOSING FORCES
Our complexion was against us; this was a badge of our oppression, the color
of the man, the opinion of our friends to the contrary notwithstanding. This
mark upon us set every mean police after us and every disturber of peace found
us in his hands for any mean purpose, which their evil heart might dictate.
No degrading element was ever refused a place among the slaves; the fiddler
was, as a general thing welcomed, and rum was not refused, and other degrading
elements were sought and infused, but no person was regarded by many as so dangerous
as a “negro preacher.” I have heard the opinion expressed in my
presence (they did not know my position, and therefore spoke freely) for such
men as << Nat Turner>> and Mark Vessey, had not made for us a favorable
opinion. Our preachers had the odds against them 1st, because the A.M.E. preachers
had no one to lean upon but themselves and their God. Neither of the great denominations
felt favorable toward our organization, and especially was this true of the
two great Methodist organizations, and we did not dare in those dark days, to
look to them for the slightest favor. Of course we cannot blame the then Northern
wing of the M.E. Church, because that church with the known antagonism existing
at that time between Northern and Southern religionists, would have given them
no more favor, -or but little more-in the South than us; the only favorable
thing they had was color. Because of this very strange state of things, the
slaveholder obeying his deep seated opposition to freedom, would, of course,
lead them to detest and oppose an organization controlled by “free negro
preachers,” and an organization whose central idea is “liberty to
all.” Our poor itinerant brethren felt and experienced all the ills incident
to their peculiar life. Sorrow often entered their pour hearts, like a hot iron.
The Rev. Baziel S. Brooks, at that time stationed at Louisville, KY, in the
midst of a terrible persecution, which the infuriated enemies of our race had
inaugurated, was compelled to fly for safety into Indiana.
BISHOP D.A. PAYNE NOT ALLOWED TO
OFFICIATE IN NEW ORLEANS, LA.
Bishop Payne in 1857, as was his duty, paid us,
-Dr. Revels, Rev. Willis Miles, and your correspondent, who had the oversight
of our work in that region-an Episcopal visit, to feed the flock over which
the Holy Ghost had made the “Episcopal, who was commanded by God “to
feed.” But these members of the church of Christ, notwithstanding they
were, (a portion of them) slaves, whom He had “purchased with His own
blood,” was not allowed to minister at the altar of the church of Christ.
The Mayor and chief of police were applied to for permission to so officiate,
but they refused to grant him such permission. He had letters from the Rev.
Dr. Elliot (I think that is his name,) Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church
of Missouri, to the then Bishop Polk (afterwards Gen. Polk) of the same church
for Louisiana, to afford him such protection as would shield him from the police
of that city. This his reverence declined, even to say one favorable word to
the authorities of New Orleans. No one who knows our Bishop Payne, but what
must admit that he is an accomplished gentleman, the equal of any episcopate
in this or other lands. He is not as some white and colored men, officiously
offensive. He does not obtrude himself upon any class of men. His behaviors
at all times are such as would commend him to any class of accomplished gentlemen
or ladies of any color. He only them, as now, asks to do good, and delve deeply
into classic lore, and the depths of sacred literature. He then was the equal
of his Episcopal brother, refusing him assistance, and certainly more prudent,
the sequel in the career has proved; but all of this availed nothing, the colored
bishop must leave his designated field of labor and the command “Go preach
to all the world” must not be obeyed in all this region. Besides the opposition
coming from the whites, whom we expected to oppose us, there were others who
busied themselves in the work of “the Evil one.”
COLORED OPPOSERS.
Strange to say, our colored brethren were the most busy enemies we had. They
were jealous of our men because such as we sent South were more intelligent,
and hence more successful. To the A.M.E. Church the better class of our race
flocked, both slave and free. This often gave us trouble, and when least expecting
it, were arrested and imprisoned. When bishop Payne was about to leave, being
dissatisfied with my surroundings in New Orleans, I asked to be relived, when
on the boat this question was renewed, and he promised to consider my request
and give me an answer, and as he never trifled with his men or deceived them,
I felt assured he would do so. Sure enough he did so, and ordered me to Louisville,
KY, to the charge of Asbury Chapel, where I continued for one year. His letter
containing his order to my new field was placed in my pocket and with it there
I was arrested for “being in the state contrary to law, for truing to
pass for a white man, for holding unlawful meetings, i.e. mixed meetings, of
slave and free persons, for teaching slaves and free persons how to read-in
my school-for being a dangerous and suspicious person.” Part of these
charges I was guilty of, but as I know they could not prove them, I gave them
the opportunity to do so and I asked for my accusers, none appearing, the Recorder
or Judge could not do otherwise than discharge me. He did so on all the charges
but one, viz., that I was a “dangerous and suspicious person,” and
in an angry tune said, “You must leave the State in sixty days, otherwise
you go to the penitentiary. On his person is found a letter from a man in Cincinnati
Ohio, (there is where Bishop P. lived at that time) who orders him to leave
this city for Louisville, who is this man ordering one of our citizens.”
In this occurs these words. “How long, O Lord holy and true, shalt these
things be?” 'Who is he. Ah there is a mystery about this, there is an
understanding between these two men.”
Such were the apprehensions of the servants of an institution which required
“eternal vigilance,” to protect it. Conscience stricken, they oft
imagined the “shaking of each leaflet, a bailiff after them.” So
this maddened Judge thought my little brother, and your (then) youthful correspondent,
capable of all kinds of mischief, that my presence would no doubt be productive
of threats being cut, an uprising upon neighbors plantations, and other ills
too numerous to mention, so my flock and school must be left.
One sad night our brave but unholy judge reflected! My attorney informed him,
unless he removed his order requiring me to leave the State, immediately, or
at any time, he would appeal the case to a higher court because he had violated
the law applying to my case. During his sad reflections, there stole o'er his
mind sad apprehensions of other difficulties, that his rulings might possibly
be over ruled, for he was a novice in his position. He sent for me, made an
indirect apology, and pointed out a way by which the order could be removed
I complied with his suggestion, and he made me again a citizen, and gave me
documents to that effect, which I still have among my papers. My own conviction
is that mean colored men gave me much of this trouble. The evidence of it was
quite clear at that time; but weary of this incessant conflict, I obeyed my
Bishop's order and went to Louisville and one year thereafter I was ordered
to Baltimore City.
THE NEW FIELD-THE BISHOP'S
OPINION.
Notwithstanding my trials in New Orleans, I loved the people and the work, and
in my greenness asked the Bishop if the Baltimore charge compared favorably
to New Orleans. His answer was: “Why man it is like leaving the occupancy
of the kitchen and occupying the parlor.” Such in many respects was the
case. No calaboose, no police to be a torment to me, the whites were both respectful
and kind, as well as our colored friends. I loved both charges, for both had
their faults and virtues.
VICTORY CAME AFTER A TERRIBLE
STRUGGLE.
During all this struggle, this terrible conflict from all the South-west, this
determination to blot African Methodism out by a combined foe of treacherous
colored persons, and what then seemed an almost invincible enemy in the person
of the oppressors of our dear brethren-our enslaved and suffering people. The
African M.E. Church kept at work and refused to leave her chosen field of operation,
and God watched the efforts of such men as elders Brooks, Tyler, Doughty, Miles,
Myers, Garrow, Early, and others who stood firm to their conviction of right,
and at the termination of the terrible conflict of arms between the sections,
fully fledged and equipped by trial, suffering, and deprivation, to snatch and
save our flickering cause from extinction. We had preserved Dr. Payne to organize
our first churches in Tenn., in the city of Nashville, and elders Tyler and
Woodfork, if I am correctly informed, to organize our church in Memphis.
(To be continued.)
(From the Village Record.)
FOOD FOR REFLECTION.
South Carolina says, that she will nullify such laws of the United States as she does not approve of; and she has elected to her own legislature, a majority of persons favorable to that measure.
South Carolina has assumed the tone of a conqueror, and speaks as if entitled to dictate to all the other members of the confederacy. The whole of the white inhabitants of that State, is little more than the number in the City of Philadelphia or New-York. Her domestic enemies, the slaves, are in number nearly one half more than the whites.
Suppose South Carolina were an Island, far separated by the ocean from any other land, how long could her white inhabitants keep the black ones in slavery— the black ones increasing by births to the whites in a ratio of about five to three?
How long could the white population in all the slave States, unsupported by the free States, preserve their dominion over the blacks? Does a riot or a fire occur in any of their cities or villages, that the first thought is not of a servile insurrection?
In case of the invasion of the Middle or Northern States by a foreign enemy, could any of the slaveholding States venture to send a single regiment out of their own bounds to the assistance of their Northern allies?
If this be the situation of the slaveholding States at present, how much worse will it be if the reformed parliament of Great Britain, about to assemble, shall take measures, as it is supposed they will do, for the speedy emancipation of all the slaves in their West India Islands?
In the trifling insurrection at Southampton of '<< Nat Turner>>
, and his deluded handful of followers,' was not the first thing thought of,
and prayed
for— the assistance of the troops of the United States? Was not the
application of the Committee of the citizens of Southampton immediately to the
President for men and arms? And was not this from the inhabitants of the 'old
dominion,' which they are disposed to consider, and perhaps with propriety—
as the most chivalrous state in the Union? And is it persons in this situation,
exposed daily and nightly to the knife and torch of the assassin and incendiary,
whose vindictive nature is roused to vengeance by a keen sense of long suffered
wrongs— a foe within their houses and on their own hearths—
is it persons in this situation who talk of nullifying the laws and withdrawing
themselves from the protection of the free states of the Union? 'Whom God wills
[ ] destroyed, he first renders insane.' Is not the doctrine of nullification,
in such a situation, the first symptoms of this dreadful insanity?
Perhaps this may be the will of Providence; at any rate it seems to have become necessary for the middle States to consider what would be the probable result of a dissolution of the present Union, and the formation of new confederacies.
The greatest and perhaps the only regret of the free States at such an event, is the apprehension of an injury which the cause of republicanism might suffer from such a measure.— If it were done in wrath and bloodshed, the great cause of mankind, of which the important experiment is now making in the United States of America, would sustain a wound, from which it might require a great length of time to recover; but this would not be the case if it were effected with kind feelings, and as a measure of propriety, resulting from peculiar circumstances which made it desirable.
Is there not danger of a republic, as well as a monarchy, becoming too powerful for the peace and safety of her neighbors? Is it likely to promote the happiness of her own citizens, that the measure of her strength shall greatly exceed what is necessary for self defence, and the protection of their rights and liberties? Is there not danger that an excess of power might lead her to become the aggressor in contests, which otherwise with honor to herself, she might, prudently, have avoided?— Is there less of pride and ambition among our own citizens, than among the subjects of other countries?
Is it calculated where the bounds of our republic shall stop? When we may say— 'Thus far shalt thou go, and no further? Suppose Great Britain should say to the Canadas— and it would be wisdom for her to say so— 'You are annually costing us much more than you are worth to us; and in our present views of retrenchment and reform, we do not think it proper to incur the expense of maintaining the host of civil and military officers for your benefit which we have hitherto done, and in return for which we draw no taxes, and little trade from you. Go, take care of yourselves, we enfranchise you,' and the Canadas should apply to become members of the confederacy— should we accept them, and add them as two more stars to our national banner?
Suppose that, on the South, the inhabitants of Texas should declare themselves independent of Mexico; and that Texas, a province as large as several of our States united, should apply to the great republic to be permitted to shelter herself under the wings of her eagle; shall we comply with her request? Why, we know already that our embassador to Mexico, was instructed to treat for that province: that long and labored disquisitions have been published in the papers of the southern states, to prove the NECESSITY of our being possessed of it; and that millions would be paid for it by our government, insatiable of territory. And at this moment, see Texas, as if to promote our views, in partial insurrection; held only by the feeble arm of Mexico, palsied by factions and cabals, and unable to enforce her laws within the extent of her immense wastes. This is the precise situation in which our government is always prompt to act. Listen to what our third President said when he was laying his plans for the purchase of the Floridas— 'We have some claims to extend on the sea coast, westwardly, to the Rio del Norte or Bravo. The claims will be a subject of negociation with Spain; and if, as soon as she is at war, we push them strongly with one hand, holding out a price in the other, we shall certainly obtain the Floridas; and all in good time.' So, I presume, our Southern friends expect to add Texas to the great republic, 'and all in good time.' Do we not obtain all their lands from the Indians in the same way?
Look on the map, at the limits of the 'old thirteen United States,' that passed
so triumphantly through the revolution, and see how small they are, compared
with the additions made to them by the purchases from France and Spain, of Louisiana
and the Floridas:— and are we not yet large
enough?— Have not our 'black spirits and white' enough of discordant
elements among them, that we should be continually seeking for more, and crying
with the 'secret, black and midnight hags,'
'Double, double toil and trouble;
Fire, burn; and, cauldron, bubble?'
It is not time to ask ourselves, to what all this shall tend?
I do not censure the purchases of Louisiana and the Floridas. These purchases, if used to a right, end, may be useful to mankind; but it becomes us to look at the result which we would wish to obtain, and to endeavor to direct our affairs so as to produce it. At present, the States appear to be in the situation of the members of a copartnership, who, having become prosperous and wealthy, far beyond their original expectation, having 'waxed fat and kicked,' entertain amongst themselves, widely different views of the measures most proper to be pursued for their own interests, and whose tempers, as well as their opinions, their very prosperity, instead of harmonizing, has rendered [ ] and discordant. Pennsylvania, whose intelligence and population entitle her to a much higher rank in the federation than she has been permitted to take, is in favor of the encouragement of domestic-industry, of internal improvements, (embracing roads and canals, upon which much of her industry and wealth is to depend,) and of a sound and equable currency, throughout the whole extent of the Union. Absolutely necessary as these all appear for her prosperity, she finds every maxim of her policy most bitterly opposed by some of the States of the South.— The views of Pennsylvania are those of by far the greater part of the inhabitants of the States east of her— and is that policy upon which the prosperity of the free States has depended, to be borne down and destroyed by the wrong-headed violence of some of the Southern States, who are in reality too weak to assure their own safety for a day, if unprotected by the power of those whose patience and forbearance have induced their wilful antagonists to treat their wishes and interests with insolence and contumely? It is wise, however, in those who are strong, to be temperate: but if the violent language of some of the Southern States be not altered, it will become a duty to themselves for the citizens of the free States to consider how long it will be proper to bear with it; and whether, if the slaveholding States think themselves strong enough to form a confederacy among themselves, of sufficient force to meet the emergencies to which their peculiar situation is exposed, it might not be better to propose that measure to them, before their violence be carried to a length at which it will be no longer bearable. We may invite them to make the essay, and see how we could separate amicably, and what part of the members of the present confederacy they would get to unite with them in the new arrangement.
Louisiana would not, I presume, join Georgia and South Carolina. Virginia and Maryland, that are debating about the best and most expeditious methods of getting rid of their slaves, would not. The confederacy would then be confined to Georgia, and one or both of the Carolinas; and, perhaps, East Florida, provided the arts of the leading men in Charleston, and such persons as A.S. Clayton, can accomplish so much. But what need Pennsylvania care how these things are disposed of? Might not she and the States north and east of her united, be 'confident against the world in arms,' in a good cause?
What effect would a new arrangement of the states, if amicably made, have upon the cause of republicanism, in other countries? Suppose that Pennsylvania, New-Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont, united. No one would doubt their having ample extent and sufficient power. That would be the first confederacy. Virginia, Maryland and Delaware, would probably desire to join with them; but suppose they added themselves to North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and East Florida, for a second confederacy. West Florida and Alabama would join Louisiana, whose commercial capital will, at some day not very remote, rival those that are the most famed in story. The current of trade would probably attach to her Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee, and when a sufficient number of American citizens shall inhabit it, ('all in good time') Texas. This would make the third confederacy. Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Michigan, and their dependencies, would be abundantly extensive for the fourth one. Or Kentucky and Missouri might attach themselves to the Mississippi confede racy, and the lands claimed by the United States, west of all those, extending to the Pacific, containing in square miles an amount equal to all I have mentioned, would afford sufficient scope for others hereafter.— Look at the map.
Suppose the separation of the Carolinas, and Georgia made in anger, with force and bloodshed— then, indeed, might we deprecate it as disastrous to ourselves, and injurious to the cause of freedom, and the amelioration of mankind over the globe. Then indeed, would it be deeply a source of grief, that our country, which is without a foe abroad, should be rent into fragments by the wickedness and folly of some of her own citizens. But suppose that peace and harmony could be improved by a new arrangement; and that a division could be made, and new confederacies formed with kind and friendly feelings, taking into due consideration locality and climate, each confederacy having sufficient power for its own maintenance and support, with a general league, among the whole offensive and defensive, against the encroachments and interference of all foreign powers. We should then show to all the enemies of republicanism— to those who think man unfit to be his own leader, and the maker of the laws which are to govern him, a situation which as yet has never been shown; where power was voluntarily divided and distributed as it would be most useful; where, when the situation, and exigencies, and growth of the nation rendered it desirable, new arrangements of territory could be made, while all the movements of the complicated political machine were preserved in the most perfect order; where man sought but the happiness of his fellow man, and was willing to do unto others what he wished them to do unto him. Could we more powerfully enforce those maxims which we ought to be desirous of inculcating on all nations, that Providence intended mankind for a state of equality and self government?
I say nothing about the national debt being paid off— nor of the wild
lands which belong to the present Union, being sold, and the proceeds divided
among the several states (a division which would be particularly useful to Pennsylvania,
in consequence of her present debt, incurred in making her canals and rail roads;)
nor of the necessity there would be, in the first instance, of appropriating
a sufficient extent of territory in the west for the residence of all the Indians
whom it is the determination of the Southern States to banish from their limits,
and from the graves of their fathers; nor of the propriety of reserving a similar
place of refuge for the persecuted race of Africa, when their present masters
shall think their release from their fetters proper or necessary. I say nothing
about the improper disparity of votes allowed to the Southern slaveholders,
in consequence of their possession of that kind of property which calls for
all their force to keep it in subjection, and which forms the great moral blot
upon the escutcheon of our country, &c. &c. What I have said, are slight
hints, thrown out at present, merely for the purpose of calling reflection to
a most important subject; and with the belief that the situation of our country
now calls loudly for that reflection. Perhaps it will not be long before it
will require action. Our present situation was foreseen and commented upon,
by some of our wisest statesmen, when the addition of Louisiana to the thirteen
states, gave assurance that at some future day, the formation of new confederacies
would become necessary. I am not more anxious for the sake of our own general
welfare, than for that of the example which we shall exhbit to the rest of the
world, that this shall be done in amity. I might quote much said on this subject
to which time has given the appearance of prophecy. I will, however, make but
one reference, which may here be considered in place. Mr. Jefferson, in a letter
to Mr. Breckenridge, nearly thirty years ago, just after the treaty for the
purchase of Louisiana, and before that treaty was ratified by the Congress of
the United States, says— 'When I view the Atlantic states procuring
for those on the eastern waters of the Mississippi, friendly, instead of hostile
neighbors on its western waters, I do not view it as an Englishman would the
procuring future blessings for the French nation, with whom he has no relation
of blood or affection. The future inhabitants of the Atlantic and Mississippi
states will be our sons. We leave them in distinct, but bordering establishments.
We think we see their happiness in their union, and wish it. Events may prove
it otherwise; and if we see their interest in separation, why should we take
side with our Atlantic rather than our Mississippi descendants? It is the elder
and the younger son differing. GOD bless them both, and keep them in Union,
if it be for their good; but separate them, if it be better.'
THE SOBER SECOND THOUGHT.
The first effect of the Harper's Ferry invasion is an extraordinary degree
of excitement, indignation, rage, and fear. The hatred of abolitionists was
never so high as at the present moment. The last vestiges of conservatism in
the South seem to have been destroyed. Reason has fled to brutish beasts, and
men are no longer capable of weighing evidence or judging dispassionately. No
man's life and reputation are safe in the South while the present reign of terror
lasts, because any man is liable to fall under suspicion; and to suspect a man
of being an abolitionist is to condemn him to ignominious punishment.
Such is the feeling of the hour. It looks discouraging to the cause of Freedom
and Progress, and might lead the superficial observer to the conclusion that
the Pro-Slavery sentiment will for years remain at fever heat. It seems to banish
all hope of the prevalence of liberal opinions in the South, and to inaugurate
the reign of despotism.
We confess that such was, for a moment, our own desponding view of the case;
but the more we look at the matter in the light of history, of common experience,
and of reason, the less we are prone to indulge in gloomy forebodings. A reaction
must come; the public passions must calm down, and with returning reason must
come the consciousness of the constant and frightful dangers which forever environ
Slavery. This terrible fact even now impresses itself upon the minds of the
Southern peoples and is the real cause of the excitement which reigns among
them. In vain will they attempt to disguise it. There is no escape from it.
They may denounce the Abolitionists and the “Black Republicans”
as the only cause of the difficulty; they may talk of crushing out Abolitionism,
of settling the Slavery question, or even of disunion, as a sovereign and certain
remedy for their grievances, but they cannot hide the fact from themselves that
Slavery is a terrible evil. We doubt if an intelligent man in the whole South
would have the hardihood to dispute this proposition at the present time. Six
weeks ago, the blessings and beauties of the system were the theme of daily
eul[ ]gy; but since the Harper's Ferry invasion, we have not met with the first
syllable of praise of the blessings of Slavery. The Southern journals and politicians
are furious in denouncing its enemies, and defending Slavery as just and moral,
but not a word is said of its blessings.
It is a highly interesting fact, and corroborotes the above remarks, that by
far the greatest debate on Slavery which, has ever taken place in Virginia,
or in the South, was caused by the most formidable insurrection of slaves that
has yet occurred. The “agitation of the Slavery question” is now
deprecated by the South, as tending to produce insurrections; while the great
fact in the case is, that “agitation” was the consequence of insurrection.
The slaveholding interest is therefore mistaking the cause for the effect. They
will very probably find, as they did in 18[ ]2, that insurrections are to be
deprecated, among other reasons, on account of their tendency to produce “agitation.”
The Southampton insurrection occurred in August, 1831. It seems to have ouginated
spontaneously among the negroes, he a time of profound peace, when no Northern
on Southern abolitionists “agitated” or threatened the repose of
the South, or gave any advice to the blacks. It was the most extensive and bloody
revolt which has yet taken place, and, like the Harper's Ferry affair, produced
a profound state of alarm and excitement. The whole South flew to arms, and
stood ready to defend society against the horrors of servile insurrection which
their own fears created. All parties in the South pledged themselves to stand
by the “institutions” of their country; and one would naturally
infer that the tendency to emancipation was permanently checked.
But the result was quite different. The revolt of the slaves, in August, called
forth the strongest expression of opinion against Slavery from both political
parties in the ensuing Legislature which has ever yet been made. A strong Emancipation
party was formed. The magnitude of the movement will be better appreciated when
we mention the fact that its organs were the two most influential newspapers
in the State, then and now, viz: the Richmond Enquirer, then edited by the late
Thomas Ritchie, and the Richmond Whig, edited by John Hampden Pleasants.
A few brief extracts from the leading speeches made on the occasion will be
sufficient to show that the speakers avowed radical Anti-Slavery sentiments.
They denounced the institution of Slavery, as not merely impolitic and dangerous,
but wrong and cruel.
Mr. Moore, of Rockbridge, said:
“In the first place, I shall confine my remarks to such of those evils
as affect the white population exclusively. And even in that point of view,
I think that Slavery, as it exists among us, may be regarded as the heaviest
calamity which has ever befallen any portion of the human race. If we look back
through the long course of time which has elapsed since the creation to the
present moment, we shall scarcely be able to point out a people whose situation
was not, in many respects, preferable to our own, and that of the other States
in which Negro Slavery exists. True, sir, we shall see nations which have groaned
under the yoke of despotism for hundreds and thousands of years; but the individuals
composing those nations have enjoyed a degree of happiness, peace, and freedom
from apprehension, which the holders of slaves in this country can never know.”
How eloquent, and how true, is this passage! It embodies the most secret and
inward thought of every Virginian at this moment. It follows them, waking and
sleeping, like a spectre. They feel its portentous truth.
Mr. Rives, of Campbell, said:
“On the multiplied and desolating evils of Slavery, he was not disposed
to say much. The curse and deteriorating consequences were within the observation
and experience of the members of the House and the people of Virginia, and it
did seem to him that there could not be two opinions about it.”
Mr. Powell said:
“I can scarcely persuade myself that there is a solitary gentleman in
this House who will not readily admit that Slavery is an evil, and that its
removal, if practicable, is a consummation most devoutly to be wished. I have
not heard, nor do I expect to hear, a voice raised in this Hall to the contrary.
Sir, the gentleman from Buckingham a few days ago sketched to us, and sketched
it too with a masterly hand, a picture of the withering and blighting effects
of Slavery. That picture is before this House, and I will not attempt to add
to it a shade or another tint; I will not, sir, lest instead of adding to its
effect, I might with a less skillful hand diminish it. Sir, Virginia, the muchloved
and venerated mother of us all, from being the first State in this great Confederacy,
is now the third, possibly the fourth; and her declining fortunes have long
been the source of melancholy reflection to her patriotic sons. What, sir, is
the cause of this decline? Whatever others may think, to my mind it is clear
that the answer to this interrogatory is, her slave population. Hinc illac lachrymae.”
Mr. Preston, of Jefferson, the county in which Harper's Ferry is situated, said:
“Sir, Mr. Jefferson, whose hand drew the preamble to the bill of rights,
has eloquently remarked that we had invoked for ourselves the benefit of a principle
which we had denied to others. He saw and felt that slaves, as men, were embraced
within this principle.”
Mr. Summers, of Kanawha, still a prominent citizens of Western Virginia, and
a few years back, the Whig candidate for Governor, said:
“But, sir, the evils of this system cannot be enumerated. It were unnecessary to attempt it. They glare upon us at every step. When the owner looks to his wasted estate, he knows and feels them. When the statesman examines the condition of his country, he finds her moral influence gone, her physical strength diminished, her physical power wasted, he sees and must confess them. * * * Sir, we should take courage from the goodness of the cause in which we are engaged. It is one on which Heaven will smile. We shall not be left unaided in our exertions. Slavery is a national calamity. Such it has been regarded by those who are entirely free from the evil. Nine of the nonslaveholding States have generously offered to the South the common treasury for the remoral of the common evil. Such, too, was the purport of the resolutions submitted to the Senate of the United States by Rufus King, at the close of his long and useful public life.”
Mr. Chandler, of Norfolk, said:
“But, sir, will this evilthis cursenot increase? Will not the life, liberty,
prosperity, happiness, and safety, of those who may come after us be endangered
in a still greater degree by it? How, then, can we reconcile it to ourselves,
to fasten this upon them? Do we not endanger the very national existence by
entailing Slavery upon them?”
Thomas J. Randolph, of Albemarle, a grandson of Mr. Jefferson, said:
“The gentleman has spoken of the increase of the female slaves being a
part of the profit. It is admitted; but no great evil can be averted, no good
attained, without some inconvenience. It may be questioned how far it is desirable
to foster and encourage this branch of profit. It is a practicean increasing
practice, in parts of Virginiato rear slaves for market. How can an honorable
mind, a patriot and a lover of his country, bear to see this Ancient Dominion,
rendered illustrious by the noble devotion and patriotism of her sons to the
cause of Liberty, converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared
for market, like oxen in the shambles? Is it better, is it not worse than the
slave tradethat trade which enlisted the labor of the good and the wise of every
creed and every clime to abolish it? * * * The gentleman has appealed to the
Christian religion in justification of Slavery. I would ask him upon what part
of those pure doctrines does he rely, to which of those sublime precepts does
he advert, to sustain his position? Is it that which teaches charity, justice,
and good will to all, or is it that which teaches that 'Ye do unto others as
ye would they should do unto you.'”
Another Representative from Jefferson and Harper's Ferry, Mr. Henry Berry, said:
“I believe that no cancer on the physical body was ever more certain,
steady, and fatal in its progress, than is the cancer on the political body
of the State of Virginia. It is eating into her very vitals. And shall we admit
that the evil is past remedy? Shall we act the part of a puny patient, suffering
under the ravages of a fatal disease, who would say the remedy is too painful,
the dose too nauseous, I cannot bear it; who would close his eyes in despair,
and give himself up to death? No, sir, I would bear the knife and the cautery
for the sake of health.”
Mr. Thomas Marshall, of Fauquier, in the same section of Virginia, said:
“Wherefore, then, object to Slavery? Because it is ruinous to the whitesretards
improvement, roots out an industrious population, banishes the yeomanry of the
country, deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, the carpenter,
of employment and support.”
Mr. James McDowell, of Rockbridge, since Governor of the State and a distinguished
member of Congress, said:
“Sir, you may place the slave where you pleaseyou may dry up, to your
utmost, the fountains of his feelings, the springs of his
thoughtyou may close upon his mind every avenue to knowledge, and cloud it over
with artificial nightyou may yoke him to your labor as an ox which liveth only
to work, and worketh only to liveyou may put him under any process, which, without
destroying his value as a slave, will debase and crush him as a rational beingyou
may do this, and the idea that he was born to be free will survive it all. It
is allied to his hope of immortalityit is the ethereal part of his nature, which
oppression cannot reachit is a torch lit up in his soul by the hand of the Deity,
and never meant to be extinguished by the hand of man.”
It would be difficult to find anywhere a more eloquent tribute to the God-given
rights of man than this. The same speaker, in another part of the speech, gives
the following prophetic warning to the South:
“If gentlemen do not see and feel the evil of Slavery while this Federal
Union lasts, they will see and feel it when it is gone; they will see and suffer
it then in a magnitude of desolating power, to which 'the pestilence that walketh
at noonday' would be a blessingto which the malaria which is now threatening
extinction to the 'eternal city,' as the proud one of the pontiffs and Caesars
is called, would be as refreshing and as balmy as the first breath of spring
to the chamber of disease. * * * Was it the fear of << Nat Turner>>
and his deluded, drunken handful of fellows, which produced, or could produce,
such effects? Was it this that induced distant counties, where the very name
of Southampton was strange, to arm and equip for a struggle? No, sir; it was
the suspicion eternally attached to the slave himselfthe suspicion that a <<
Nat Turner>> might be in every family; that the same bloody deed could
be acted over at any time, and in any place; that the materials for it were
spread through the land, and always ready for a like explosion.”
What Virginian will not at this moment acknowledge the terrible force of these
words?
Mr. Philip A. Bolling, of Buckingham, said:
“There is a 'still small voice' which speaks to the heart of man in a
tone too clear and distinct to be disregarded. It tells him that every system
of Slavery is based upon injustice and oppression. If gentlemen disregard it
now, and lull their consciences to sleep, they may be aroused to a sense of
their danger when it is too late to repair their errors.
“However the employment of slave labor might be defended, gentlemen would
not, could not, justify the traffic in human beings. * * * How many a broken
heart, how many a Rachel mourns, because her house is left unto her desolate!
The time has come when these feelings could not be suppressed; the day would
come when they could not be resisted.”
Mr. Brodnax, of Dinwiddie, said:
“That Slavery in Virginia is an evil, it would be idle and more than idle
for any human being to doubt or deny. It is a mildew which has blighted in its
course every region it has touched, from the creation of the world.”
The Hon. Charles J. Faulkner, who also resides in the vicinity of Harper's Ferry,
made a long, eloquent, and radically abolition speech. We have only room for
a few brief extracts. It will be seen that, like all the Representatives from
that region, he was, perhaps all unconsciously, prophetic. He said:
“Again, sir, I ask, what new light has dawned upon the gentleman from
Mecklenburg, (the late William O. Goode,) that we should be called upon to retrace
our course, and to disappoint the hopes which our first manly decision gave?
Does not the same evil exist? Is it not increasing? Does not every day give
it permanency and force? Is it not rising like a heavy and portentous cloud
above the horizon, extending its deep and sable volumes athwart the sky, and
gathering in its impenetrable folds the active materials of elemental war? And
yet, shall we be requested to close our eyes to the danger, and without an effortwithout
even an inquiryto yield to the impulses of a dark and withering despair? Sir,
is this manly legislation? Is it correctis it honestlegislation? Is it acting
with that fidelity to our constituents which their sacred interest requires?”
We regret to say that Mr. Faulkner did the thing he denounced. He closed his
eyes, thinking thereby to escape the impending storm, and for twenty odd years
has withheld the honest legislation which he insisted upon in 1832. It is to
be hoped that the scare given him and the whole South by the mad prank of Old
Brown may serve to awaken him to a sense of duty. We quote a few more sentences,
to show the spirit of the above prophetic warnings. He said:
“Sir, tax our lands, vilify our country, carry the sword of extermination
through our delenceless villages; but spare us, I implore you, spare us the
curse of Slavery, that bitterest drop from the chalice of the destroying angel.”
He insisted that society in self-defence had a right to abolish Slavery, even
without compensation to the masters. But we must conclude our extracts with
the following passage, which he emphatically adopts from Mr. Jefferson:
“You must approach ityou must bear ityou must adopt some plan of emancipation,
or worse will follow.”
Such was the sentiment prevalent among the enlightened minds of Virginia twenty-seven
years ago. Who will have the courage to break the long silence of the public
conscience? We should have hopes of Governor Wise, but for his vain expectation
of a Presidential nomination. Perhaps the great work is left for younger men,
whose minds are less sophisticated by following the crooked policy of the old
and corrupt parties of the day.
For the National Era.
SOLOMON PEPPERELL'S THANKSGIVING.
BY MARTHA RUSSELL.
CHAP. I.
'Squire Pepperell was a well-kept man - an exceedingly well-kept man, and a
rather well-favored man, too, as no one would deny, that saw him, as he leaned
over his front gate on Thanksgiving evening, and watched the carriage that bore
his only son and heir back to the busy life of the city. True, he was swarthy,
almost, as an Indian, and there was a hardness about the lines of his face that
might suggest to a person of sensitive nerves and quick apprehension, the idea
of dogged obstinacy, not to say cruelty, and a striking fullness about the ears
and throat, that reminded one of the animal; but, then, such people run away
with a thousand fancies, and 'Squire Pepperell was a very respectable man.
He had been keeping Thanksgiving that day, and certainly no man among us had
more reason to be thankful. At least, so said the good gossips, as they referred
to the time when he had started in the world, with only the clothes on his back,
and those none of the best, and compared it with his present position; and,
certes, if success in the accumulation of property be the criterion of prosperity,
they were right; or, if a keen, shrewd brain, a heart of stone, a conscience
of the accommodating qualities of gutta percha, and a hand of iron, are to be
set down as the choicest gifts in God's great catalogue of blessings, then they
were right. He had never doubted, or rather, in the whole sixty years of his
existence, had never given himself time to doubt but what they were, and actually
seemed to think that, in working out the problem of life, with money for a quotient,
he was fulfilling the highest destiny of man.
Yes, he was a very respectable man; everything about him, from the bold region
of self-esteem and firmness, which rose like cold, snow-covered promontories
from a sea of stiff iron-gray hair, to the toe of his well-polished boot, indicated
it - and a very popular man withal, as was exceedingly natural, seeing he owned
all the land between Spencer's farm and the Mill river, to say nothing of his
money invested, elsewhere - had been elected twice to the State Legislature,
paid the heaviest town tax of any one in the place, and though not "a professor,"
always bought one of the highest seats in church, and had, at several times
during late years, manifested quite an interest in the subject of religion;
so much so, that several good, honest souls among us entertained a strong hope
that he might yet become "a burning and shining light in the church,"
and his great property pay its legitimate share towards all benevolent objects.
It must be confessed, however, that there was here and there, an old person,
gifted with a stubborn memory, which would not let them forget, or fail to remind
others, how that wealth had been obtained. But these were old-fashioned people,
whose notions of right and wrong were as old-fashioned and musty as themselves;
therefore, few heeded their words. Besides, 'Squire Pepperell was so "public-spirited"
- at leasts, so the younger and more ambitious portion of our community asserted;
and who does not know that the possession of the somewhat indefinite virtues
included under that general head, cover a multitude of private sins?
"Hadn't the 'Squire subscribed more than any one else towards the new graveyard
fence; and hadn't he said, repeatedly, that if Jem Morgan would only pull down
or move off his forlorn-looking old barn near the south corner of the common,
by the bridge, that he would level the spot, plant it with shade trees, and
build a new bridge at his own expense, if the town would not move in the matter?
And hadn't his son, Mr. William, sent a handsome donation towards purchasing
an organ for the church?"
What could such people as old Job Harris, William Miner, and Deacon Dulley,
say to such undeniable proofs of the 'Squire's "public spirit" as
these, even if he had, as no one pretended to deny, kept a grog-shop in days
gone by, and sold rum to his neighbors, until their fine farms passed into his
hands, and they and their children into the street or almshouse? "Such
things were customary in those days. Somebody else would have done it if he
hadn't; and they ought to be thankful that the property fell into the hands
of one who would put it to such good use." Say? why, nothing; that is,
nothing which had any weight with the majority; for we would not wish to have
it inferred that anything could stop old Job and Widow Miner from having "their
say," or Deacon Dudley from speaking what he averred to be "the everlasting
truth."
Never, perhaps, had 'Squire Pepperell's popularity been greater than on this
same old festival day. The one drop needed to fill his cup of earthly blessings
to overflowing, had been granted. His only child, William, who was a lawer of
fair practice in a neighboring State, had very unexpectedly been elected to
Congress. That son had, for the first time for many years, come home to eat
his festival dinner at his father's table. He had duly attended church, where
his ready recognition of old acquaintances was considered quite remarkable by
many, though why his memory should have been supposed to be less tenacious than
theirs, it would be difficult to tell; and they all assured him that they "should
have known him anywhere." His political honors, his wife's costume and
manners, the beauty of his little boys, formed a piquant sauce for the Thanksgiving
dinners of the congregation; and however people might differ in their opinions
on these topics, there was one with regard to which they manifested a delightful
unanimity, viz: that the people of Maplehurst were quite as eligible to the
highest political offices as anybody else.
'Squire Pepperell had not lived among us all his days for nothing. He had counted
on making this impression; therefore his face was so resplendent with self-satisfaction,
as he leaned over the gate to shake hands for the second time with the Doctor
and his newly-married wife, as they passed, that the somewhat hard temper of
the lady melted beneath its influence, backed by some very complimentary remarks
about the ladies in general, which he knew she would appropriate in particular,
until she could not help observing to her husband, as they turned away, that
she "wondered how people could call 'Squire Pepperell proud and hard; it
must be all envy, for he certainly was a'most agreeable man."
It is strange how opinions differ. Little Addy Greene had often seen the same
expression on his face, even more unctuous and benign, when he had praised her
scholarship in the village school, (for our people, as is often the case in
village politics, when they found him eligible to one office, had nominated
him to all others in their power, school visiter among the rest,) and more especially
did his countenance assume this kind of radiant effulgence, when she met him
on her way home from school, and he drew up his horse, and urged her to take
a seat in his carriage, as he was going right past her house." While he
scanned her slight but beautifully rounded, figure, until the bright blood rose
unconsciously to her cheek and temples, and she involuntarily shrank away from
him. But, then, Addy was a simple, ignorant village girl - nobody but old blind
Tim Greene's grand-daughter, if she was a beauty.
Really, friends it would have done your hearts good, and given you a conception
of a true festival face (so to speak) for all time, if you could have seen the
'Squire, as he stood there by his gate, and let his eye range slowly over his
broad acres, from Spencer's to the river. But as his glance swept along the
winding course of the river, a change came over his spirit. There must always
be some alloy in the most perfect earthly success - some drop of bitterness
in the sweetest cup; and if Solomon of Israel found it so in the by-gone ages,
why should Solomon Pepperell be exempt? Life is pretty much the same thing now
as then, we trow. And there, a full mile off, but just as plain to his eye as
if it made a part of his door-yard, lay the small green meadow, the very thought
of which filled him with heaviness and displeasure, and made his other possessions
seem almost valueless in his eyes. It was like the vineyard of Naboth to Ahab,
and he coveted it, not because it was "near his house," but because
it notched right into his territories, and the possession of it would bring
them even with the river, to say nothing about its being a most excellent bit
of land. There it lay, its sere, brown slopes looking even sunny and cheerful
in that wintry atmosphere, and the dark frown deepened on his brow as he discerned,
even at that distance, the figure of its owner, << Nat Turner>>
, who, poor and plagued and shiftless as he was, had had the impudence, more
than once, not only to refuse his large offers for it, but to stand up and take
an oath, to his very face, that "so long as he lived, never should he or
any of his race possess that sunny remnant of the inheritance of his fathers;
nor even after his death, if it lay in his power to prevent it." Inefficient
as he was in almost things, he kept this oath with dogged obstinacy. To be sure,
when Nat's whole tribe of children took the scarlet fever, there was a fair
prospect that he would be obliged to yield; but old Deacon Dudley stood ready
to lend a helping hand; and the Doctor, like a "soft-hearted fool,"
as the 'Squire called him, gave in most of his bill, especially after little
Nat died, so there was nothing left for him to do but frown and grate his teeth,
and employ the little pettifogging lawyer who had recently come into the village,
and rented an office of him, to get hold of some claim on Turner, if possible.
The little man thought he had partially succeeded, and it was the knowledge
of this that partly neutralized the depth and blackness of the 'Squire's frown,
as he made his way into the house, and proceeded once to look over the papers,
and calculate the chances in his favor.
CHAP. II.
Dinner was over at the alms-house - Thanksgiving dinner, if the rack of a rather
diminutive goose, the remnants of pudding, and the broken vegetables, from which
Sally Smart, the matron, had satisfied her own appetite, and permitted her husband
and children to do the same, before it was placed upon the paupers' table, could
be considered worthy of that name - and the half dozen paralytic, rheumatic,
broken-down souls, that made up the town poor, hobbled away from the table,
some crouching over the ashes, and mumbling with toothless gums of the fine
times they had when they were young. Two or three, who carried thankful hearts
under all life's changes, lingered in the sunlight, to warm their frozen blood,
and listen to old Nehemiah Tyler's account of the sermont, (for he was the only
one of their number who had been able to go to church,) while one tall, gaunt,
white-haired old man, who had lingered longest at the table, although he seemed
to eat little or nothing, buttoned his neatly-brushed but threadbare coat around
him, and hastily left the room.
"The old Colonel is in something of a hurry. He might have staid and just
had a sociable chat, seeing its Thanksgiving," croaked old Grannie Bean,
as she extended her skinny fingers for a pinch of Scotch snuff from the proffered
box of one of her cronies.
"Whist, Grannie; he is worrying his life out over little Milly. Didn't
you see, he scarcely swallowed a mouthful of his dinner, but saved it all for
her. I saw him slip it into a paper, and put it under his coat. He thinks she
could eat, poor thing, if she had anything cooked up nice," returned another.
"And how is the poor child, Mabel?" asked one of old Smith's audience,
a patient, meek-eyed looking woman, whose distorted limbs showed her to be a
cripple. "I have not seen her for nearly a week; for this last storm has
got into my bones, and I can't get up stairs for the life of me. I don't like
to say much to the Colonel about her, for its 'pears to me he gets more and
more light-headed every day."
"Mad - mad as a March hare," muttered Grannie Bean, while the person
addressed as Mabel went on to say -
"Very poorly, Mary Dinnies. The Doctor says she can't hold out but a leetle
while longer; and, considering all the circumstances, I don't know as we can
desire to have her. It's as good as a sermon to hear her talk, though once in
a while she gets kinder out, and talks all manner of strange stuff about seeing
her mother, and the angels, and I don't know what. And, then, the old man does
get crazier and crazier every day - and, between them both, they say some queer
things."
"No wonder," returned Mary Dinnies, musingly. "It's little I
thought, when, a tailoress girl, I used to sew in his family week after week,
and everything went on so prosperously and so happily that I sometimes envied
them, that he would spend his last days in the poor-house - or myself, either,
for that matter," she added, after a pause, as she looked down on her distorted
hands.
"An' it's no ways likely you would, if John Morris had lived, or if you
hadn't gone to work before you got over that dreadful fit of fever, Mary,"
returned old Grannie Bean. "You was most a dreadful sick person. but as
for little Milly Gilbert, or Milly Lee, as the Colonel insists on call her -
for it's getting to be impossible to make him understand that it isn't his Milly,
who died away off yonder, when the child was born; (I argued with him yesterday
about it, until I got out of all manner of patience) - it's my mind that she
won't live out the night. There were two corpse-lights in the candle last night,
and I never knew that sign fail. You needn't shake your head, neighbor Tyler;
for it's my firm belief that no person dies without warning."
Leaving these worthies to their dispute about "omens and warnings,"
let us follow their gaunt old confrere to the forlorn chamber wither he had
hurried. We use the word forlorn, but perchance a stronger term would be better;
for it were well if the unswept floor - the miserable bed - the tattered, stringless
curtain before the window - the stained and dusty stand, holding cracked teacups
and sticky-looking phials - the tarnished, broken-handled spoon, did not cause
the most benevolent heart to turn away in disgust.
Aye, it was a poor, mean, miserable place; but so, also, was that stable at
Bethlehem; and here, as there, lay a child - not watched over and guarded, alas!
by that mother-love which hath lifted, the curse from woman's discrowned brow,
and was consecrated afresh in the person of the Virgin Mother. No; there was
no love here save the dim flame which gleamed and flickered in the heart of
a feeble, half-crazed old man; and yet, no one could gaze on that meek, transparent
face, so think and wan, so patient, and serene, that looked out from those tumbled
pillows, without feeling that something of the divine presence of Him who made
that humble birthplace sacred to all time was here, casting into shade the miserable
accessaries of the scene, by bright visions of the eternal home in heaven. A
girlish, childish face it was, of some eight years old or so, and very beautiful
too, with its blue eyes, deep and clear as inland seas, and the mass of sunny
hair floating like a golden cloud above them.
The old man spread his hoarded treasures upon a clean bit of paper before her,
and, gazing wistfully into her eyes, pressed her to eat, in his broken, disjointed
way.
"Try a little bit of the wing, darling - just a little bit; wings are good
for sick folks," he went on. "I remember, a bit of chicken's wing
was the first thing they let your mother eat, after she had the typhus fever.
How are you ever to get strong and well again, if you don't eat? There, that's
a good girl," he added, as she made an effort to swallow a bit of the good.
Meat makes folks strong and hearty, and when the warm weather comes you will
be well; you know the Doctor said so. Ah, yes, when the warm weather comes;
I wish it was here now," he added, with a shiver, as a keen November blast
rattled the window-casing, and sent the dilapidated curtain floating banner-like
out into the room.
"Yes, I shall be well, quite well, then, grandfather, without doubt,"
said the little one, looking up in his face with a singular blending of tenderness
and anxiety, sorrow and joy, on her wan face. "Sit close by me, grandfather,"
she said, after a pause - "close here, so that I can look in your eyes;
and now listen to me. Ah, your hand is almost as cold as mine," she added,
as with her little shrunken fingers she attempted to draw it to her bosom. "I
shall be quite well, grandfather, when summer comes, for then I shall be where
they neither hunger nor thirst any more. I think I shall die, grandfather; I
have thought so a long time; and they will lay me by the side of grandmother's
grave, where we used to sit so often, on pleasant Sundays, last summer. But
I shall not be there, grandfather; the minister told me all about it. He says
I shall be with Jesus Christ, the Good Shepherd, who loves little children,
and that I shall never be cold nor hungry nor tired any more; and I don't know
how it is, grandfather, but I seem to see it all, sometimes, just as Mr. Geddes
said. You won't grieve much will you?" she whispered - "not very much;
for I asked Mr. Geddes about it, and he said that in a little while you would
come to me if you were good; and I told him you were good, grandfather - very
good."
While the little one spoke, the old man's wandering glance seemed to settle
into one of calm intelligence, but it was only for a moment; for now, with his
gaunt hand passing caressingly over her golden locks, he said, eagerly, "Die!
You are getting fidgety, little Milly. It's no wonder - in this cold room, where
never a bit of sunshine comes; but old folks die first. See! I have lived to
be over seventy. I don't see how that can be," he went on, musingly, "for
I was forty-four the day you was born, Milly - we were both born the 10th day
of June, and - you are so little child. I can't make it out; but then my head
gets kinder confused sometimes. But we shall live a good while yet, Milly. You
know what the Doctor says about the warm weather; he knows better than you.
And who knows what you may turn up before that time? We may get back my property
again," he added, getting up and walking the floor with excited steps;
"we may be in our own house again, where the meanest room was better than
this - my father's house - and then we'll see who will step before my Milly.
No, no, child; if we die, it must be beneath our own roof - in the very room
where we were born. It's strange how slow these lawyers are!" he said,
musingly, as, almost exhausted by his vehemence, he again sank into a chair
by her side. "It's more than a year, I think, since I spoke to Judge Kane
about it, and it is not settled yet!"
(TO BE CONCLUDED IN OUR NEXT.)
SELECTIONS.
From the Liberty Bell.
CHARITY BOWERY.
BY L.M. CHILD.
The following story was told me by an aged colored woman in New York. I shall
endeavor to relate it precisely in her own words, so oft repeated that they
are tolerably well impressed on my memory. Some confusion of names, dates, and
incidents, I may very naturally make. I profess only to give "the pith
and marrow" of Charity's story, deprived of the highly dramatic effect
it received from her swelling emotions, earnest looks and changing tones.
"I am about sixty-five years old. I was born on an estate called Pembroke, about 3 miles from Edenton, North Carolina. My master was very kind to his slaves. If an overseer whipped them, he turned him away. He used to whip them himself, sometimes with hickory switches as large as my little finger. - My mother suckled all his children. She was reckoned a very good servant, and our mistress made it a point to give one of my mother's children to each of hers. I fell to the lot of Elizabeth, her second daughter. It was my business to wait upon her. Oh, my old mistress was a kind woman. She was all the same as a mother to poor Charity. If Charity wanted to learn to spin, she let her learn; if Charity wanted to learn to knit, she let her learn; if Charity wanted to learn to weave, she let her learn. I had a wedding when I was married; for mistress didn't like to have her people take up with one another, without any minister to marry them. - When my dear good mistress died, she charged her children never to separate me and my husband; 'For,' said she, 'if ever there was a mach made in heaven, it was Charity and her husband.' My husband was a nice good man; and mistress knew we set stores by one another. Her children promised her they never would separate me from my husband and children. Indeed, they used to tell me they would never sell me at all; and I am sure they meant what they said. But my young master got into trouble. He used to come home and sit leaning his head on his hand by the hour together, without speaking to anybody. I see something was the matter; and I begged of him to tell me what made him look so worried. He told me he owed seventeen hundred dollars that he could not pay; and he was afraid he would have to go to prison. I begged him to sell me and my children rather than go to jail. I see the tears come to his eyes. 'I don't know, Charity,' said he; 'I'll see what can be done. One thing you may feel easy about; I will never separate you from your husband and children, let what will come.'
"Two or three days after, he come to me, and says he, 'Charity, how should you like to be sold to Mr. McKinley?' I told him I would rather be sold to him than to anybody else, because my husband belonged to him. My husband was a nice good man, and we set stores by one another. Mr. McKinley agreed to buy us; and so I and my children went there to live. He was a kind master; but as for mistress McKinley - she was a divil! Mr. McKinley died a few years after he bought us; and in his will he give me an my husband free; but I never knowed anything about it for years afterward. I don't know how they managed it. My poor husband died, and never knowed that he was free. But it's all the same now. He's among the ransomed. He used to say, 'Thank God, it's only a little way home; I shall soon be with Jesus.' Oh, he had a fine old Christian heart."
Here the old woman sighed deeply, and remained silent for a moment, while her right hand slowly rose and fell upon her lap, as if her thoughts were mournfully busy. At last she resumed:
"Sixteen children I've had, first and last; and twelve I've nursed for my mistress. From the time my first baby was born, I always set my heart upon buying freedom for some of my children. I thought it was of more consequence to them than to me; for I was old and used to being a slave. But mistress McKinley wouldn't let me have my children. One after another - one after another - she sold 'em away from me. Oh, how many times that woman broke my heart!"
Here her voice choked, and the tears began to flow. She wiped them quickly with the corner of her apron, and continued: "I tried every way I could to lay up a copper, to buy my children; but I found it pretty hard; for mistress kept me at work all the time. It was 'Charity! Charity! Charity!' from morning till night. - 'Charity do this,' and 'Charity do that.'
"I used to do the washings of the family; and large washings they were. The public road run right by my little hut, and I thought to myself, while I stood there at the wash-tub, I might just as well as not be earning something to buy my children. So I set up a little oyster-board; and when anybody came along that wanted a few oysters and a cracker, I left my wash-tub and waited upon him. When I got a little money laid up, I went to my mistress and tried to buy one of my children. - She knew not how long my heart had been set upon it, and how hard I had worked for it. But she wouldn't let me have one! So I went to work again; and I set up late o'night, in hopes I could earn enough to tempt her. When I had two hundred dollars, I went to her again; but she thought she could find a better market, and she wouldn't let me have one. AT last, what do you think that woman did? She sold me and five of my children to the speculators! Oh, how I did feel when I heard my children was sold to the speculators!"*
After a short pause, her face again brightened up, and her voice suddenly changed to a gay and sprightly tone.
"Surely, ma'am, ther's always some good comes of being kind to folks. - While I kept my oyster-board, there was a thin, peaked-looking man used to buy of me. Sometimes he would say, 'Aunt Charity, (he always called me Aunt Charity,) you must fix me up a nice little mess, for I feel poorly today. I always made something good for him; and if he didn't happen to have any change, I always trusted him. He liked my messes mighty well. Now, who do you think that should turn out to be, but the very speculator that bought me! He come to me, and says he, 'Aunt Charity, (he always called me Aunt Charity,) you've been very good to me, and fixed me up many a nice little mess when I've been poorly; and now you shall have your freedom for it; and I'll give you your youngest child.'"
"That was very kind," said I; "but I wish he had given you all
of them."
With a look of great simplicity, and in tones of expostulation, the slave-mother
replied, "Oh, he couldn't afford that, you know."
"Well," continued she, "after that, I concluded I'd come to the Free States. But mistress McKinley had one child of mine; a boy about twelve years old. I had always set my heart upon buying Richard. He was the image of his father; and my husband was a nice good man; and we set stores by one another. Besides, I was always uneasy in my mind about Richard. He was a spirity lad; and I knew it was hard for him to be a slave. Many a time I have said to him, 'Richard, let what will happen, never lift your hand against your master.'
"But I knew it would always be hard work for him to bring his mind to be a slave. I carried all my money to my mistress, and told her I had more due to me; and if all of it wasn't enough to buy my poor boy, I'd work hard, and send her all my earnings, till she said I had paid enough. She knew she could trust me. She knew Charity always kept her word. But she was a hard-hearted woman. She wouldn't let me have my boy. With a heavy heart, I went to work to earn more, in hopes I might one day be able to buy him. To be sure, I didn't get much more time than I did when I was a slave; for mistress was always calling upon me, and I didn't like to disoblige her. I wanted to keep the right side of her. In hopes she'd let me have my boy. One day she sent me of an errand. I had to wait some time. When I come back, mistress was counting heap of bills in her lap. She was a rich woman, - she rolled in gold. My little girl stood behind her chair; and as mistress counted the money, - ten dollars, - twenty dollars, - fifty dollars, - I see that she kept crying. I thought may be mistress had struck her. But when I see the tears keep rolling down her cheeks all the time, I went up to her, and whispered, 'What's the matter?' She pointed to mistress' lap, and said, 'Broder's money! Broder's money!' Oh, then I understood it all! I said to mistress McKinley, 'Have you sold my boy?' Without looking up from counting her money, she drawled out, 'Yes, Charity; and I got a great price for him!'" (Here the colored woman imitated to perfection the languid, indolent tones common to Southern ladies.)
"Oh, my heart was too full! She had sent me away on an errand, because she didn't want to be troubled with our cries. I hadn't any chance to see my poor boy. I shall never see him again in this world. My heart felt as if it was under a great load of lead. I couldn't speak a word to reproach her. I never reproached her from that day to this. As I went out of the room, I lifted up my hands, and all I could say was, 'Mistress, how could you do it?'"
The poor creature's voice had grown more and more tremulous, as she proceeded, and was at length stifled with sobs.
In a few moments, she resumed her story: "When my boy was gone, I thought I might sure enough as well go to the Free States. But mistress McKinley had a little grandchild of mine. His mother died when he was born. I thought it would be some comfort to me, if I could buy little orphan Sammy. So I carried all the money I had to my mistress again, and asked her if she would let me buy my grandson. But she wouldn't let me have him. - Then I had nothing more to wait for; so I come on to the Free States. - Here I have taken in washing, and my daughter is smart at her needle, and we get a very comfortable living."
"Do you ever hear from any of your children?" said I.
"Yes, ma'am, I hear from one of them. Mistress McKinley sold one to a lady that comes to the North every summer; and she brings my daughter with her."
"Don't she know that it is a good chance to take her freedom, when she comes to the North?" said I.
"To be sure she knows that," replied Charity, with significant emphasis. "But my daughter is pious. She's member of a church. Her mistress knows she wouldn't tell a lie for her right hand. She makes her promise on the Bible, that she won't try to run away, and that she will go back to the South with her; and so, ma'am, for her honor and her Christianity's sake, she goes back into slavery."
"Is her mistress kind to her?"
"Yes, ma'am' but then everybody likes to be free. Her mistress is very kind. She says I may buy her for four hundred dollars; and that's a low price for her - two hundred paid down, and the rest as we can earn it. Kitty and I are trying to lay up enough to buy her."
"What has become of your mistress McKinley? Do you ever hear from her?"
"Yes, ma'am, I often hear from her; and summer before last, as I was walking up Broadway, with a basket of clean clothes, who should I meet but my old mistress McKinley! She gave a sort of a start, and said in her drawling way, 'O, Charity, is it you?' Her voice sounded deep and hollow, as if it come from under the ground; for she was far gone in a consumption. If I wasn't mistaken, there was a little something about here (laying her hand on her heart) that made her feel strangely when she met poor Charity. Says I, 'How do you do, mistress McKinley? How does little Sammy do?' (That was my little grandson, you know, that she wouldn't let me buy.
"'I'm poorly, Charity,' says she; 'very poorly. Sammy's a smart boy. He's grown tall and tends table nicely. Every night I teach him his prayers.'"
The indignant grandmother drawled out the last word in a tone, which Garrick himself could not have surpassed. Then suddenly changing both voice and manner, she added, in tones of earnest dignity, "Och! I couldn't stand that! Good morning, ma'am!" said I.
I smiled, as I inquired whether she had heard from Mrs. McKinley since.
"Yes, ma'am. The lady that brings my daughter to the North every summer, told me last Fall she didn't think she could live long. When she went home, she asked me if I had any message to send to my old mistress McKinley. I told her I had a message to send. Tell her, says I, to prepare to meet poor Charity at the judgment seat."
About a year after this conversation, I again visited New York, and called to see Charity Bowery. I asked her if she had heard any further tidings of her scattered children. The tears came to her eyes. "You know I told you," said she, "that I found out my poor Richard was sold to a Mr. Mitchell, of Alabama. A white gentleman, who has been very kind to me, went to them parts lately, and brought me back news of Richard. His master ordered him to be flogged, and he wouldn't come up to be tied. 'If you don't come up, you black rascal, I'll shoot you,' said his master. 'Shoot away,' said Richard; 'I won't come to be flogged.' His master pointed a pistol at him - and, in two hours my poor boy was dead! Richard was a spirity lad. I always knew it was hard for him to be a slave. Well, he's free now. God be praised, he's free now; and I shall soon be with him."
In the course of my conversations with this interesting woman, she told me
much about the patrols, who, armed with arbitrary power, and frequently intoxicated,
break into the houses of the colored people, and subject them to all manner
of outrages. But nothing seemed to have excited her imagination so much as the
insurrection of << Nat Turner>> . The panic that prevailed throughout
the Slave States on that occasion of course reached her ear in repeated echoes,
and the reasons are obvious why it should have awakened intense interest. It
was in fact a sort of Hegira to her mind, from which she was prone to date all
important events in the history of her limited world.
"On Sundays," said she, "I have seen the negroes up in the country
going away under large oaks, and in secret places, sitting in the woods with
spelling-books. The brightest and best men were killed in Nat's time. Such ones
are always suspected. All the colored folks were afraid to pray in the time
of the old prophet Nat. There was no law about it; but the whites reported it
round among themselves, that if a note was heard, we should have some dreadful
punishment; and after that, the low whites would fall upon any slaves they heard
praying or singing a hymn, and often killed them before their masters or mistresses
could get to them."
I asked Charity to give me a specimen of their hymns. In a voice cracked with age, but still retaining considerable sweetness, she sang:
A few more beatings of the wind and rain,
Ere the winter will be over -
Glory, Hallelujah!
Some friends has gone before me;
I must try to go and meet them -
Glory, Hallelujah!
A few more risings and settings of the sun,
Ere the winter will be over -
Glory, Hallelujah!
There's a better day a-coming -
There's a better day a-coming -
Oh, Glory, Hallelujah!
With a very arch expression, she looked up, as she concluded, and said, "They
wouldn't let us sing that. They wouldn't let us sing that. They thought we was
going to rise, because we sung, 'better days are coming.'"
It is now more than a year since poor Charity went where "the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary are at rest."
* Men who make a trade of buying up coffles of slaves for sale, as speculators
buy up droves of cattle for the Brighton market.
For the National Era
THE SOUTHERN PLATFORM;
OR,
MANUAL OR SOUTHERN SENTIMENT ON THE
SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.
Being a Compilation from the Writings of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and
others, whose names are consecrated in the affections of the Southern People
- the Debates in the Federal and State Conventions which framed and ratified
the Constitution of the United States - those which occurred in the first Congresses
which sat during the Administration of General Washington - and extracts from
the Debate in the Virginia Legislature in 1832; with various letters, judicial
decisions, &c.
-------
BY DANIEL R. GOODLOE, OF NORTH CAROLINA.
-------
(CONCLUDED.)
DEBATE ON EMANCIPATION, IN THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE, IN 1832.
Extracts from the speech of Thos. J. Randolph, of Albemarle.
I will quote, in part, the statistics of the gentleman from Dinwiddle, whose
accuracy cannot be questioned. Judging the future by the past, in forty years
the colored population in Eastern Virginia will exceed the white 200,000. In
the last forty years, the whites in the same district have increased 54 per
cent, the blacks 186 per cent. Forty years ago, the whites exceeded the colored,
25,000; the colored now exceeds the whites 81,000 - a net gain of the blacks
over the whites, in forty years, of 106,000; and these results, too, during
an exportation of near 260,000 slaves since the year 1790 - now perhaps the
fruitful progenitors of half a million in other States. By reference to Document
No. 16, on your table, you will perceive that, in the year 1830, of that part
of the population of ten years old, and under, the blacks exceed the whites
26 per cent.; over that age, only 3 per cent. What a change will not eighteen
years make for the worse, when those children shall be grown; what a change
will not forty years, with its geometrical progression, evolve, when they shall
become fathers and mothers, and some of them grandmothers? If exportation ceases,
some of those now within the hearing of my voice may live to see the colored
population of Virginia 2,000,000, or 2,500,000; children now born may live to
see them 3,000,000, determining their increase by their average increase in
the United States in the last forty years.
Sir, is not this the case of the salus populi, demonstrated to exist in the
certain future? Who will be so hardly as to assert that, when the time arrives,
a remedy can be applied? Who will say that 2,000,000 can be attempted to be
removed? They will say to you, long before that, "We will not go."
Here, sir, applies that wise maxim of the law, "Venienti occurite morbo,"
(meet the coming ill.)
The gentleman has spoken of the increase of the female slaves being a part of
the profit. It is admitted; but no great evil can be averted, no good attained,
without some inconvenience. It may be questioned how far it is desirable to
foster and encourage this branch of profit. It is a practice - and an increasing
practice in parts of Virginia - to rear slaves for market. How can an honorable
mind, a patriot, and a lover of his country, bear to see this ancient Dominion,
rendered illustrious by the noble devotion and patriotism of her sons in the
cause of Liberty, converted into one grand menagerie, where men are to be reared
for market, like oxen in the shambles? Is it better - is it not worse - than
the slave trade - that trade which enlisted the labor of the good and the wise
of every creed and every clime to abolish it? The trader receives the slave
- a stranger in language, aspect, and manner - from the merchant, who has brought
him from the interior. The ties of father, mother, husband, and child, have
all been rest in twain. Before he receives him, his soul has become callous.
But here, sir, individuals, whom the master has known from infancy, with whom
he has been sporting in the innocent gambols of childhood, who has been accustomed
to look to him for protection, he tears from the mother's arms, and sells into
a strange country, among strange people, subject to cruel task-masters. In my
opinion, sir, it is much worse.
He has compared slave property to a capital in money. I wish it were money,
sir, or anything else than what it is. It is not money; it is labor - it is
the labor which produces that for which money is the representative. The interest
on money is 4 to 6 per cent. The hire of male slaves is about 15 per cent. upon
their value. In ten years, or less, you have returned your principal, with interest.
Thus it is with much of the one hundred millions of property, the loss of which
the gentleman has so eloquently depicted in ruining the country. He has attempted
to justify Slavery here, because it exists in Africa, and has stated that it
exists all over the world. Upon the same principle, he could justify Mohometanism,
with its plurality of wives, petty wars for plunder, robbery, and murder, or
any other of the abominations and enormities of savage tribes. Does Slavery
exist in any part of civilized Europe? No, sir, in no part of it. America is
the only civilized Christian nation that bears the opprobrium. In every other
country, where civilization and Christianity have existed together, they have
erased it from their codes, they have blotted it from the page of their history.
The gentleman has appealed to the Christian religion in justification of Slavery.
I would ask him upon what part of those pure doctrines does he rely, to which
of those sublime precepts does he advert, to sustain his position? Is it that
which teaches charity, justice, and good-will to all; or is it that which teaches,
"that ye do unto others as ye would they should do unto you?"
Extracts from the speech of Henry Berry, of Jefferson.
Sir, I believe that no cancer on the physical body was ever more certain, steady,
and fatal in its progress, than is this cancer on the political body of the
State of Virginia. It is eating into her very vitals. And shall we admit that
the evil is past remedy? Shall we act the part of a puny patient, suffering
under the ravages of a fatal disease, who would say the remedy is too painful,
the dose too nauseous, I cannot bear it; who would close his eyes in despair,
and give himself up to death? No, sir; I would bear the knife and the cautery,
for the sake of health.
I believe it is high time that this subject should be discussed and considered
by the people of Virginia. I believe that the people are awakened on the subject,
but not alarmed; I believe they will consider it calmly, and decide upon it
correctly. Sir, I have no fears, now, for any general results from any efforts
at insurrection, by this unfortunate class of our population. I know that we
have the power to crush any such effort at a blow. I know that any such effort
on their part, at this day, will end in the annihilation of all concerned in
it; and I believe our greatest security now, is in their knowledge of these
things - in their knowledge of their own weakness.
Pass as severe laws as you will, to keep these unfortunate creatures in ignorance,
it is vain, unless you can extinguish that spark of intellect which God has
given them. Let any man who advocates Slavery, examine the system of laws which
we have adopted (from stern necessity, it may be said) towards these creatures,
and he may shed a tear upon that; and would to God, sir, the memory of it might
be blotted out forever. Sir, we have, as far as possible, closed every avenue
by which light might enter their minds; we have only to go one step further
to extinguish the capacity to see the light, and our work would be completed;
they would then be reduced to the level of the beasts of the field, and we should
be safe; and I am not certain that we would not do it, if we could find out
the necessary process - and that under the plea of necessity. But, sir, this
is impossible. And can man be in the midst of freemen, and not know what freedom
is? Can he feel that he has the power to assert his liberty, and will he not
do it? Yes, sir; with the certainty of the current of time will he do it, whenever
he has the power. Sir, to prove that the time will come, I need offer no other
argument than that of arithmetic, the conclusions from which are clear demonstrations
on this subject. The data are before us all, and every man can work out the
process for himself. Sir, a death-struggle must come between the two classes,
in which the one or the other will be extinguished forever. Who can contemplate
such a catastrophe as even possible, and be indifferent?
Extract from the speech of Thomas Marshall, of Fauquier.
Wherefore, then, object to Slavery? Because it is ruinous to the whites - retards
improvement, roots out an industrious population, banishes the yeomanry of the
country, deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker, the carpenter,
of employment and support. The evil admits of no remedy. It is increasing, and
will continue to increase, until the whole country will be inundated with one
black wave covering its whole extent, with a few white faces here and there
floating on the surface. The master has no capital but what is vested in human
flesh; the father, instead of being richer for his sons, is at a loss to provide
for them. There is no diversity of occupations, no incentive to enterprise.
Labor of every species is disreputable, because performed mostly by slaves.
Our towns are stationary, our villages almost everywhere declining; and the
general aspect of the country marks the curse of a wasteful, idle, reckless
population, who have no interest in the soil, and care not how much it is impoverished.
Public improvements are neglected, and the entire continent does not present
a region for which nature has done so much, and art so little.
Extract from the speech of James McDowell, jr., of Rockbridge.
Who, sir, that looks at this property as a legislator, and marks its effect
upon our national advance, but weeps over it as the worst of patrimonies? Who
that looks to this unhappy bondage of our unhappy people in the midst of our
society, and thinks of its incidents and its issues, but weeps over it as a
curse upon him who inflicts as upon him who suffers it?
If I am to judge from the tone of our debate, from the concessions on all hands
expressed, there is not a man in this body - not one, perhaps, that is even
represented here - who would not have thanked the generations that have gone
before us, if, acting as public men, they had brought this bondage to a close
- who would not have thanked them, if, acting as private men, on private notions,
they had relinquished the property which their mistaken kindness has devolved
upon us. Proud as are the names, for intellect and patriotism, which enrich
the volumes of our history, and reverentially as we turn to them at this period
of waning reputation, that name, that man, above all parallel, would have been
the chief, who could have blotted out this curse from his country - those, above
all others, would have received the homage of an eternal gratitude, who, casting
away every suggestion of petty interest, had broken the yoke which in an evil
hour had been imposed, and had translated, as a free man, to another continent,
the outcast and the wretched being who burdens ours with his presence, and defiles
it with his crimes.
But, sir, it has been otherwise appointed. Slavery has come down to us from
our fathers, and the question now is, Shall we, in turn, hand it over to our
children - hand it over to them, aggravated with every attribute of evil? Shall
we perpetuate the calamity we deplore, and become to posterity the objects,
not of kindness, but of cursing?
Sir, you may place the slave where you please - you may dry up to your utmost,
the fountains of his feelings, the springs of his thought - you may close upon
his mind every avenue to knowledge, and cloud it over with artificial night
- you may yoke him to your labor, as the ox, which liveth only to work, and
worketh only to live - you may put him under any process, which, without destroying
his value as a slave, will debase and crush him as a rational being - you may
do this, and the idea that he was born to be free will survive it all. It is
allied to his hope of immortality - it is the ethereal part of his nature, which
oppression cannot reach - it is a torch lit up in his soul by the hand of the
Deity, and never meant to be extinguished by the hand of man.
If gentlemen do not see nor feel the evil of Slavery while this Federal Union
lasts, they will see and feel it when it is gone; they will see and suffer it
then, in a magnitude of desolating power, to which the "pestilence that
walketh at noonday" would be a blessing - to which the malaria that is
now threatening extinction to the "eternal city," as the proud one
of the Pontiffs and the Caesars is called, would be as refreshing and as balmy
as the first breath of spring to the chamber of disease.
It has been frankly and unquestionably declared, from the very commencement
of this debate, by the most decided enemies of abolition themselves, as well
as others, that this property is an "evil" - that it is a dangerous
property. Yes, sir; so dangerous has it been represented to be, even by those
who desire to retain it, that we have been reproached for speaking of it otherwise
than in fireside whispers - reproached for entertaining debate upon it in this
Hall; and the discussion of it with open doors, and to the general ear, has
been charged upon us as a climax of rashness and folly, which threatens issues
of calamity to our country. It is, then, a dangerous property. No one disguises
the danger of this property - that it is inevitable, or that it is increasing.
How, then, is t he Government to avert it? By a precautionary and preventive
legislation, or by permitting it to "grow with our growth" until it
becomes intolerable, and then correcting it by the sword? In the one way or
the other - by the peaceful process of legislation or the bloody one of the
bayonet - our personal and public security must be maintained against the dangers
of this property.
(After meeting, in an impressive and dignified manner, the facetious remarks
of another member of the House, who considered the insurrection as a "petty
affair," and wished, by his wit, to turn the whole scene into ridicule,
J. McDowell read a number of extracts from letters, written by and to the most
distinguished characters in the State, respecting the dismay and terror which
almost universally pervaded the minds of the citizens in every part of the State.
He then proceeded:)
Now, sir, I ask you - I ask gentlemen - in conscience to say, Was this a "petty
affair?" I ask you whether that was a petty affair which startled the feelings
of your whole population; which threw a portion of it into alarm - a portion
of it into panic; which wrung out from an affrighted people the thrilling cry,
day after day conveyed to your Executive, "We are in peril of our lives,
send us arms for defence." Was that a "petty affair," which drove
families from their homes, which assembled women and children in crowds, and
without shelter, at places of common refuge, in every condition of weakness
and infirmity, under every suffering which want and pain and terror could inflict,
yet willing to endure all - willing to meet death from famine, death from climate,
death from hardships - preferring anything, rather, to the horrors of meeting
it from a domestic assassin? Was that a "petty affair," which erected
a peaceful and confiding portion of the State into a military camp; which outlawed
from pity the unfortunate beings whole brothers had offended; which barred every
door, penetrated every bosom with fear or suspicion; which so banished every
sense of security from every man's dwelling; that, let a hoof or a horn but
break upon the silence of the night, and an aching throb would be driven to
the heart, the husband would look to his weapon, and the mother would shudder
and weep upon her cradle!
Was it the fear of << Nat Turner>> , and his deluded drunken handful
of fellows, which produced, or could produce, such effects? Was it this that
induced distant counties, where the very name of Southampton was strange, to
arm and equip for a struggle? No, sir; it was the suspicion eternally attached
to the slave himself - the suspicion that a << Nat Turner>> might
be in every family; that the same bloody deed could be acted over at any time,
and in any place; that the materials for it were spread through the land, and
always ready for a like explosion. Nothing but the force of this withering apprehension
- nothing but the paralyzing and deadening weight with which it falls upon and
prostrates the heart of every man who has helpless dependents to protect - nothing
but this could have thrown a brave people into consternation, or could have
made any portion of this powerful Commonwealth, for a single instant, to have
quailed and trembled.
This Commonwealth, in the late war, stood the shock of England's power, and
the skill of England's veterans, with scarce a moment of public disquiet. Admiral
Cockburn, with his incendiary spirit, and backed by his incendiary myrmidons,
alarmed not the State - struck no fear into its private families; and had his
spirit been tenfold more savage than it was, and his army an hundred fold, stronger,
and had he plied every energy and pledged every faculty of his soul to the destruction
of the State, he could not have produced one moment of that terror for private
security which seizes upon all at the cry of insurrection. He would have been
our enemy in the field, would have warred an open combat with the disciplined
and the gallant of the land. But an insurgent enemy wars at the firesides, makes
his battle-ground in the chamber, and seeks, at the hour of repose, for the
life of the slumbering and the helpless. No wonder, sir, that the gentleman
from Burnswick, (Mr. Gholson,) with his sensibilities aroused by the acts and
the full energies of such an enemy as this, should have said that "they
filled the mind with the most appalling apprehensions."
Why, from the earliest period of our history to the massacre of Southampton,
was a silence, deep and awful as that of death, observed upon this subject?
Why was it forbidden in legislative debate or to the public press, and spoken
only in mysterious whispers around the domestic hearth? Because a sense of security
required, or was thought to require, this course. Why, sir, is this mystery
new dispelled? Why has the grave opened its "ponderous and marble jaws?"
Why is the subject openly and freely discussed in every place, and under every
form? Because a general sense of insecurity pervades the land, and our citizens
are deeply impressed with the belief that something must be done. The numerous
petitions and memorials which crowd your table furnish abundant evidence of
this truth. They may mistake the remedy, but they indicate most clearly that
some action is imperiously required at our hands - that the evil has attained
a magnitude which demands all the skill and energy of prompt and able legislation.
It is contended, on the other hand, that nothing efficient can be accomplished,
and that any proceedings by this Legislature will reduce the value of property,
and endanger the security of the people. With respect to the first consideration,
he would say that the price of property can never be injuriously affected by
a system which would operate on that portion only of the slaves who belong to
masters desirous to liberate them, or to sell them for their own benefit, at
a reduced price. The effect, if any, upon the residue, must be to enhance their
value. As to the other and more serious objection, he would remark that it constitutes,
and must forever constitute, an obstacle to abolition, requiring all the wisdom
and discretion of Legislature and people; but the removal of free blacks, or
the purchase and deportation of slaves, can involve no danger. If, indeed, the
whole fabric shall totter to its fall, when touched by the gentlest hand, it
must rest on a precarious foundation. If danger lurks under just, benignant
legislation, aiming to relieve both master and slave - to combine justice with
humanity - will the period ever come when it will be safe to act?
But, admitting the subject cannot be approached without danger now, the great
question for us to determine is, whether, by delay, it may not become fearfully
worse, and in process of time attain a magnitude far transcending our feeble
powers. We owe it to our children to determine whether we or they shall incur
the hazard of attempting something. Gentlemen say, Let things alone; the evil
will correct itself. Sir, we may let things alone, but they will not let us
alone. We cannot correct the march of time, nor stop the current of events.
We cannot change the course of nature, nor prevent the silent but sure operation
of causes now at work."
Extracts from the speech of Philip A. Bolling, of Buckingham.
The time will come - and it may be sooner than many are willing to believe -
when this oppressed and degraded race cannot be held as they now are - when
a change will be effected, by means abhorrent, Mr. Speaker, to you, and to the
feelings of every good man.
The wounded adder will recoil, and sting the foot that tramples upon it. The
day is fast approaching when those who oppose all action upon this subject,
and, instead of aiding in devising some feasible plan for freeing their country
from an acknowledged curse, cry "impossible," to every plan suggested,
will curse their perverseness and lament their folly.
Those gentlemen who hug Slavery to their bosoms, and "roll it as a sweet
morsel under their tongues," have been very lavish in their denunciations
of all who are for stirring one inch on this subject.
There is, sir, a "still, small voice," which speaks to the heart of
man in a tone too clear and distinct to be disregarded. It tells him that every
system of Slavery is based upon injustice and oppression. If gentlemen disregard
it now, and lull their consciences to sleep, they may be aroused to a sense
of their danger when it is too late to repair their errors.
However the employment of slave labor might be defended, gentlemen would not,
could not, justify the traffic in human beings. High-minded men should disdain
to hold their fellow-creatures as articles of traffic, disregarding all the
ties of blood and affection, tearing asunder all those sympathies dear to men
- dividing husbands and wives, parents and children, as they would cut asunder
a piece of cotton cloth. They have hearts and feelings, like other men. How
many a broken heart, how many a Rachel, mourns, because her house is left unto
her desolate! The time has come when these feelings could not be suppressed
- the day would come when they could not be resisted. Slavery was, and had long
been, offensive to the moral feelings of a large proportion of the community.
Their lips had been sealed, but their minds had been unfettered; many had thought,
and thought deeply, on the subject. This, sir, is a Christian community. They
read in their Bibles, "Do unto all men as you would have them do unto you;"
and this golden rule and Slavery are hard to reconcile. Gentlemen may, perhaps,
curl the lip of scorn at such considerations; but such a feeling existed in
Virginia.
Extracts from the speech of Charles J. Faulkner, of Berkley.
Mystery in State affairs, I have always considered impolitic and unwise. It
is unsuited to the genius of this Government, which is based upon the rights
of the people to a free and full examination of whatever concerns their interest
and happiness. Sir, they pay you for your counsel; they have a right to it.
If there be danger, let us know it, and prepare for the worst. If Slavery can
be eradicated, let us get rid of it. If it cannot, let that melancholy fact
be distinctly ascertained; and let those who are, we have been told, now awaiting
with painful solicitude the result of your determination, pack up their household
goods, and find among the forests and prairies of the West that security and
repose which their native land does not afford.
Wherever the voice of your people has been heard, since the agitation of this
question, it has sustained your determination, and called for the present inquiry.
I have heard of courts, meetings, county petitions, and county memorials. I
have heard from the north, the cast, and the south. They are all, with one voice,
against the continuance of Slavery - none for it. The press, too - that mirror
of public sentiment - that concentrated will of a whole community - has been
heard from one extremity of the State to the other. Its power is with us; its
moral force is united, efficient, and encouraging.
Again, sir, I ask, what new fact has occurred - what new light has dawned upon
the gentleman from Mecklenburg - that we should be called upon to retrace our
course, and to disappoint the hopes which our first manly decision gave? Does
not the same evil exist? Is it not increasing? Does not every day give it permanency
and force? Is it not rising, like a heavy and portentous cloud, above the horizon,
extending its deep and sable volumes athwart the sky, and gathering in its impenetrable
folds the active materials of elemental war? And yet, shall we be requested
to close our eyes to the danger, and, without an effort, without even an inquiry,
to yield to the impulses of a dark and withering despair? Sir, is this manly
legislation? Is it correct? Is it honest legislation? Is it acting with that
fidelity to our constituents which their sacred interest requires?
Sir, if this evil, great as it is, was even stationary - if the worthy gentleman
from Mecklenburg and Brunswick (Mr. Gholson) could give us any assurance that
it would not increase until it reaches a point which is too horrible to contemplate,
I might be induced to acquiesce in the course which their pathetic appeals suggest.
But when they know it is otherwise - when they know that each successive blow
is detracting from the small space of ground left between us and the angry ocean
chafing at our feet, how can they advise us - how can they advise their own
constituents - to remain still, when the next advancing wave may overwhelm them
and us in hopeless ruin and destruction?
But, sir, vain and idle is every effort to strangle this inquiry! As well might
you attempt to chain the ocean, or to stay the avenging thunderbolts of Heaven,
as to drive the people from any inquiry which may result in their better condition.
This is too deep, too engrossing a subject of consideration. It addresses itself
too strongly to our interests, to our passions, and to our feelings. There is
not a county, not a town, not a newspaper, not a fireside, in the State, where
the subject is not fully and fearlessly canvassed; and shall we, the constitutional
inquest of the Commonwealth, sworn to make a true inquiry into all the grievances
of the people, and to the best of our ability to apply the remedy - shall we
alone be found to shrink from this inquiry?
The member from whose speech we gave the last extract, after contrasting the
prosperity and comfort of the free States over those involved in Slavery, pertinently
asks: "To what, sir, is all this ascribable?" and emphatically replies:
"To that vice in the organization of society, by which one half of its
inhabitants are engaged, in interest and feeling, against the other half: to
that unfortunate state of society in which free men regard labor as disgraceful,
and slaves shrink from it as a burden tyrannically imposed upon them;"
"to that condition of things in which half a million of your population
can feel no sympathy with the society in the prosperity of which they are forbidden
to participate, and no attachment to a Government at whose hands they receive
nothing but injustice."
Mr. FAULKNER. Sir, shall we be told that the West has no cause for alarm - that
the character and pursuits of our people present insuperable obstacles to the
existence of an excessive slave population amongst us? Sir, the suggestion is
false; it is contradicted by the past history of that portion of the State -
by uniform observation and experience. The slave population has increased since
1790, in the country whites, equal to its increase in other portions of Virginia.
It has increased in a ratio alarming to every western patriot. In 1790 there
were, west of the Blue Ridge, but 15,178 slaves. By the census of 1830, it appears
that we have now 53,437. It has thus nearly quadrupled in forty years. If such
is the result of the ordinary sources of the increase of that population - exposed
to continual drain, as has been the case with us, by exportation to the Southern
markets - what I pray you, will be the ratio of its increase, now that the Southern
markets are closed, and the flood-gates of an eastern redundancy are opened
upon us? It presents a prospect too horrible to contemplate.
From the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer.
TO THE PEOPLE OF VIRGINIA.
The insurrection which occurred in Southampton last summer, was, in every point of view, a most extraordinary event, most extraordinary, whether we have regard to its exciting causes, or its immediate mischiefs, or its general effects. For, as the very peculiar incentives by which it was instigated, could never have been detected by any effort of reason without the positive evidence of facts developed in the trials of the conspirators, and as the gloomiest imagination could hardly have prefigured such a scene of atrocious crime as that which marked the brief career of this rebellion, so no human sagacity could have foreseen or conjectured those general and remoter consequences which have already flowed from it, and which, but too probably, may still flow on; consequences, the direct reverse of what common reason would have anticipated; stranger than the exciting causes of the insurrection; and involving and portending dangers and mischiefs, compared with which the murders perpetrated in its progress were evils too partial and trivial to deserve a further thought. The proceedings of the House of Delegates would almost seem to justify a belief that there was something prophetic in that hallucination, by which << Nat Turner>> declared he was himself incited, and instigated to incite others to that detestable and detested massacre; namely, that he had repeated Revelations from the Spirit, which fully confirmed him in the impression that he was ordained for some great purpose in the hands of the Almighty.
We have this man's own account of those instigations of the devil, (to give them the appropriate epithet,) which prompted the conspiracy, and directed, throughout, the execution of its designs. It is curious to observe, how exactly, in his confessions, he describes the usual course of an imposter; the affectation of mystery, sanctity, and importance, the partial self delusion which seems necessary to his success, the resort at last to ordinary incentives to mischief, and the whole process by which he works on the minds of others. He was moved, he says, by 'divine inspiration;' by 'revelations of the Holy Ghost,' often repeated; by 'visions, wherein he saw white spirits and black spirits engaged in battle, and the sun was darkened, the thunder rolled in the heavens, and blood flowed in streams;' by 'loud noises in the heavens' also, announcing the Spirit, which instantly appeared to him, 'and said that the Serpent was loosened, and Christ had laid down the yoke he had borne for the sins of men, and that he (<< Nat Turner>> ) should take it on, and fight against the Serpent, for the time was fast approaching when the first should be the last and the last should be the first'— by promises of the Spirit, that, 'by signs in the Heavens, it would make known to him when be should commence the great work'— by the appearance of the first sign, which was no other than the eclipse of the sun in February last— and by the appearance of the sign again, namely, that unusual state of the atmosphere shortly preceding the outbreaking of the conspiracy, which gave the sun's rays a bluish tint. Prompted and directed by these supernatural influences, upon the appearance of the first sign, 'the seal was removed from his lips, and he communicated the great work laid out for him to do, to four in whom he had the greatest confidence;' and when the sign appeared again, he got together a petty gang of six followers, whom he incited, partly by the contagion of the evil spirit with which he was himself possessed, and partly by another spirit, which he invoked doubtless with better assurance of its efficacy, the spirit, namely, of brandy, to conspire with him in the great work. And by these seven men was the great work commenced. Others joined them in their progress; but the whole gang of insurgents, from first to last, seem not to have exceeded sixty men, of whom five were free negroes. That there was no general plot of insurrection among the slaves of that district of country, or even of the immediate vicinity, is quite certain. There was no concerted plan of action among the conspirators themselves; no provision of means to accomplish their object; hardly, indeed, any definite object. They rose in the dead of night; and, in a thinly peopled neighborhood, where the alarm could not be rapidly spread, they succeeded, during the night and the following morning, in murdering ten men, fourteen women, and thirty-one children. It was a mere scene of massacre, than which, for the narrow bounds of space and time to which it was confined, none was ever more indiscriminate, ruthless, and abominable. Their last effort was an attack on Dr. Blunt's house by a party of twenty, which was repelled by two men and three boys. They were met, as promptly as could possibly have been expected, considering the circumstances of the onslaught, by the militia of the county, or rather of the neighborhood; by whom, before any of the forces wisely ordered thither from a distance had arrived at the scene of action, the whole gang had been dispersed, and all of them either slain in the pursuit, or made prisoners, except the ringleader, whom the sense of 'divine inspiration' by no means divested of an especial regard for his own safety. I did not understand at the time, but I perfectly understand now, why so much pains was taken to fix upon the people of Southampton, the imputation of want of promptitude and courage upon the occasion; a charge founded on the single circumstance, that the first very small party which encountered the insurgents, fired with precipitation and without effect, and retreated to another party which was advancing, that they might return to the charge, as, in fact, they did, with assured certainty of success. I now understand, likewise, the reason of that graver imputatation of wanton cruelty practised on the innocent, after danger from the guilty was over. I believe there never was a more groundless slander. If, under the excitement produced by the sight of their murdered neighbors and relatives, and of the mangled bodies of women and children, and in the uncertainty existing at the time as to the extent of the conspiracy, some few slaves were slain, whom terror, not the sense of guilt, had urged to flight; far from being surprised at the fact, much more imputing blame to the militia on that account, a candid mind will find cause for wonder, and for praise, in the extreme moderation with which they checked the impulse of vengeance.
The general effect which the news of this insurrection produced upon the public mind, so far as I could judge from my own observation and information diligently sought from others, was exactly such as might reasonably have been expected, and no more. At first, the thought naturally presented itself, that the rebellion grew out of some more general plot for insurrection, extending to that whole district of country, if not further; and a thousand rumors (of course) were invented and circulated, well suited to confirm, keep alive, and renew that impression in the nervous and timid; but all thinking men saw, at once, that if any such general plot had been in agitation, the partial outbreaking of it in Southampton was alone sufficient to avert its mischiefs. There remained a vague sense of insecurity, arising from the reflection, that the mischief of such insurrections, however partial and transient, must, like the thunderbolt, fall on some particular spot; and that, in the lottery of evil, it may perchance fall on ourselves, our friends, or neighbors. This, I suppose, disturbed not the slumbers of any man of ordinary firmness. No such man entertained the least apprehension that any enterprise of the kind can never eventuate in any general, extensive, permanent injury to the free white race, which, for the present, constitutes this community; since the first alarm must always dispel the danger. The only serious apprehension was, and is, that repetitions of serville rebellion may result (in what all good men would lament) such a destruction of the slave race as may exceed the just measure of punishment, and the necessity of example. Whatever may be thought abroad, these people engage our care, not only because they are subjects of property, but because they are objects of humanity, and, in many instances, of affection. As to that universal panic produced by the Southampton insurrection, those thrilling agonies of terror, affecting not only old women of both sexes, and children of all ages, from infancy to dotage, but bearded men, men of reflection and courage; that after abjection of spirit, in short, and dastard cowardice, which, as I am informed, certain orators of the House of Delegates, in the debate on the question of reference of the memorial of the Society of Friends, depicted with such glowing eloquence; I must protest, that I have seen nothing of it. I never heard any thing of it, till I heard of that debate; and, to speak plainly, notwithstanding the respectability of the gentlemen by whom it was avouched, I do not believe a word of it. I am quite sure, that the gentlemen who thought proper to display their rhetoric on that topic, (those, at least, with whom I am acquainted,) have never themselves felt any thing of this panic. I know hundreds and thousands who are wholly exempt from this panic. Do we see any symptoms of the panic in the conduct of the Southampton militia? in the promptitude and vigor with which they suppressed the insurrection which is supposed to have produced the panic, or in their moderation after it was suppressed? Let it be put to the test of experiment, when and how it may, I am convinced the experimenters will find there is no panic. Yet this supposed state of panic has afforded the main arguments, by which not only the project of liberation by colonization with due regard to the rights of slave property, but the schemes for abolition without the least regard to those rights, have been recommended!
Suppose this unmanly panic does or did exist; was it wise to proclaim it to
the world? to bond and free? thereby, so far forth as the publication of the
disgraceful truth can operate, encouraging our slaves to rebellion, as an enterprise
of probable success, and little danger or difficulty, and discouraging their
masters from any efforts of resistance, as likely to be unsupported, and therefore
vain. Suppose information of the existence of such a panic, addressed to a body
of practical statesmen; and suppose it agreed, on all hands, (as is reported
to have been 'emphatically said,' or rather repeated after Mr. Ritchie, who
repeated it after some southern editor, who copied it from the slang of the
English newspapers,) that something must be done; that, unless something can
be done, we ought to 'flee to the mountains for our lives;' that, if nothing
can be done, this land may be justly likened to Sodom and Gomorrah, about to
be consumed by fire from heaven, and the favored few must be warned to 'stay
not in the plain;' how could it be accounted for, that the direct obvious methods
of dispelling alarm, and reassuring the community of safety, should be overlooked?
that no care should be given to revise and improve the ordinary police of the
country, and to infuse into it more vigilance, activity, order, prudence? that
it should occur to no man, to provide such a disposable force, as would stifle
the spirit of insurrection, if it exists, or quell it in its first movement?
I say, with entire confidence, that if the Legislature would only provide, that
a company of minute men shall be drafted from each regiment on this side the
mountain, completely armed and equipped, placed under the command of officers
appointed by the executive, and acting under its general instructions, trained
with more frequency and care than usual, subjected to martial law from the moment
of warning— organized, in short, upon the principle on which minute-men
were organized in the revolutionary war; this would be such a disposable force
as would give complete assurance of safety to the country, and render insurrection
hopeless and innocuous, if not impossible. Who could have anticipated, that
the bloody horrors of the Southampton massacre, instead of suggesting plans
for stricter discipline, would give birth to schemes of emancipation? Who could
have imagined, that the friends of liberation by abolition, and the friends
of liberation by colonization, would, by that cause, be stimulated to more active
exertion, and to a rivalry of zeal? Who could have divined, that the projects
of either party would find, in the recollection of that scene, the motive to
a more favorable hearing? Have the accursed deeds of << Nat Turner>>
and his gang elevated the slave race in the opinion of our philosophers and
philanthropists, and established a new title to favor? If the wisdom of any
of these projects was as certain and obvious as their absurdity seems glaring,
ought they to have been brought forward; ought they to have been entertained
at such a time and in such a juncture of affairs, as to give the appearance
at least, if not to manifest the reality, that they are not recommended to our
sense of justice or of policy, but addressed to our
fears— our fears of danger, present or prospective, from our slaves?
I blush— I cannot repress the sentiment— I burn with shame and
indignation at the thought!
There have been presented to the House of Delegates petitions from twelve counties
and 1,188 citizens in all, praying that some provisions should be made by law,
for the removal of the free negroes from the commonwealth; their views, it is
obvious, are hostile to all schemes of emancipation whatever, and their petitions
seem not, as yet, to have attracted any serious notice. Petitions have been
presented from six counties, signed by 398 citizens, praying that an effort
should be made to procure an amendment of the constitution of the United States,
authorizing the federal government to assist in ridding us of the black population:
these also have hitherto escaped particular notice. Two Colonization Societies,
and 366 citizens of four counties, have preferred memorials and petitions, suggesting
(I state their general object as I understand it) measures for their removal,
first of the free negroes, and then of slaves hereafter to be emancipated by
their owners, or purchased by the public at a fair price, with a view to colonization,
and the appropriation of means to effect the purpose. Then there have been presented—
a petition of sixty-one citizens of Warwick, the prayer of which I interpret
to mean, generally, that something may be
done— and petitions from Buckingham and London, signed by no fewer than
twenty-seven men,— and petitions from Augusta, signed by three hundred
and forty-three women,— and a memorial of the Society of Friends (of
Hanover, I believe)— and a memorial of a meeting of (we know not how
many) citizens of Albemarle, praying for the abolition of slavery; some, upon
the plan since proposed by Mr. Randolph; some, in general terms; all without
the least regard to the rights of slave property as by law established and vested.
And upon the strength of these petitions, it was said, 'that the people, stimulated by recent occurrences, with a simultaneous movement and united voice, demanded the interposition of the Legislature, and required that something should be done!' And these are 'the petitions from all quarters of the State,' under which 'the table almost literally groaned,' crying out in language so strong and so loud as not to be disregarded, for something to be done. As that groaning of the table surely cannot be attributed to the number of the petitioners, it must have been owing to their quality— or, perhaps, the phrase was suggested by the peculiar tone of the petitions, and especially that of the three hundred and forty-three ladies of Augusta, who (as the House was solemnly assured) will be compelled to tear asunder the ties that bind them to their country, and to 'fly to foreign lands in pursuit of happiness and safety, if something be not done to arrest this threatening evil,' that is, something which 'in time will extirpate slavery.' Were these 'doleful jeremiades' (to borrow a phrase from Mr. Jefferson) composed by persons who would not count, or for persons who they supposed could not count? Or were they, in truth, only flourishes of rhetoric; intended to establish the fundamental proposition, which is the common basis of all the projects, expressed in that happy saying, that something must be done? There has been, I must say, a tone of exaggeration pervading the debates upon this subject, dictated no doubt by over much zeal, which would be ludicrous if it were not mischievous.
The memorial of the Society of Friends, (the first, I believe, that was presented
to the House,) was, after an unavailing opposition, referred to a select committee;
to which, of course, in the sequel, were referred all the other memorials and
petitions as they were presented. This committee having been, (for some reason
not necessary to be inquired into,) rather slow in making its report, Mr. Goode,
of Mecklenburg— thinking that the consideration of the subject by the
House, coupled with the language of the daily press, which had taken part in
favor of abolition, had caused the diffusion of opinions highly injurious to
the interests and to the peace of the country, that the action of the House
on the subject was useless, that it was creating great pain and anxiety among
a large portion of the citizens of the State, that it was raising expectations
in the minds of the black population, doomed to a disappointment which could
not fail to engender feelings dangerous to all parties— moved the following
resolution: 'Resolved, that the select committee raised on the subject of slaves,
free negroes, and the melancholy occurrences growing out of the tragical massacre
in Southampton— be discharged from the further consideration of all
petitions, memorials, and resolutions, which have for their object the manumission
of persons held in servitude under the existing laws of the commonwealth; and
that it is not expedient to legislate on the subject.' Whereupon, Mr. Randolph,
of Albemarle, moved to strike out the substantial part of the resolution following
the word 'Southampton,' and to insert an instruction to the committee, which
would make the resolution run thus: 'Resolved, that the select committee raised
on the subject of slaves, free negroes, and the melancholy occurrences growing
out of the tragical massacre in
Southampton— be instructed to inquire into the expediency of submitting
to the qualified voters in the several towns, cities, boroughs, and counties,
of this commonwealth, the propriety of providing by law, that the children of
all female slaves, who may be born in this State on or after the 4th day of
July, 1840, shall be come the property of the commonwealth, the males at the
age of twenty-one, and females at the age of eighteen, if detained by the owners
within the limits of Virginia until they shall respectively arrive at the ages
aforesaid to be hired out until the nett sum arising therefrom shall be sufficient
to defray the expense of their removal beyond the limits of the United States:
and that the said committee have leave to report by bill or otherwise.
I have nothing to say concerning the motives which dictated this proposition to the mover, or which have gained for it the support of others: the motives of individuals are, generally, of no importance to any but themselves, and affect only their own consciences and characters. I am willing to believe their motives virtuous: I discuss only men's actions, and the consequences of them. It will be remarked, that the very frame of Mr. Randolph's proposition as he has connected it with the beginning words of Mr. Goode's resolution, exhibits this project for the extirpation of negro slavery 'in time,' as suggested by, as a consequence of, 'the melancholy occurrences growout of the tragical massacre in Southampton.' This was, probably, the effect of accidental collocation: and I should not have noticed it, if the policy of such a measure had not been in fact recommended, throughout the whole debate which ensued, by perpetual reference to the Southampton massacre— its actual horrors, the greater horrors it portends, and terrors it has excited. As the proposal of this scheme stands acknowledged the eldest born offspring of the Southampton massacre, we need not doubt it will have brethren. And the very proposal, and much more the leading topic of argument in favor of it, contain a plain indication to those whom it concerns, that, if the proposal should fail at the present session, (as it must have been foreseen that it would,) another insurrection and massacre, a repetition of servile rebellion, would serve to promote the eventual adoption of the plan— or, perhaps, suggest to the friends of this great cause, an improvement upon their plan, whereby emancipation, instead of being deferred to the children of slaves born after July, 1840, shall be given presently to the existing race. The intelligence of the blacks— ay, and the ignorance of the whites— have been exaggerated, like the evils of slavery and every thing else that belongs to the subject, as if fancy held the pencil in her wildest mood, and mocked at sober reason and truth: but, (if no incendiaries shall find encouragement to action in these 'miraculous' proceedings of the House of Delegates) there are some few blacks that have intelligence enough to understand such indication as these, and to explain them to the rest; and the great body of the whites have intelligence to understand them too, though some few of them do not, and to apply the means of obviating their effects.
There are two obvious remarks suggested by that part of Mr. Randolph's amendment which proposes to refer this hopeful plan of emancipation to the qualified voters throughout the Commonwealth. The first is, that one cannot but admire, that, either it never occurred to his mind that the inevitable effect of referring such a question to the people, in such a form, would be to present all the topics that belong to it, the same topics that have been debated in the House of Delegates, for public discussion, in every court yard, in every neighborhood, at every public meeting of the people for any purpose: or, if this did occur to him, he should be utterly unconcerned for the consequences to which such a public general discussion of such a subject might lead; the agitating, exciting, maddening effects it might probably produce in either race, bond or free. The other remark is, that the reference of the question to the qualified voters at large, would be a palpable evasion, if not direct violation, of those provisions of the new constitution whereby the representation of the several parts of the Commonwealth is adjusted; and if such a precedent were established, it would not only render those particular provisions nugatory to all practical purposes, but the very principle of a written constitution futile. The history of the late convention cannot, I suppose, be already forgotten. All men must remember the vehement contest concerning the basis of representation, which so long distracted its councils, that that contest grew, chiefly if not entirely, out of this very subject of slave population and property, and the unequal distribution of it between the western and eastern parts of the State; that the western delegation demanded a representation to be apportioned, from time to time, according to free white population only, to which a portion of the eastern delegation acceded, while the great body of it insisted, that representation ought to be apportioned upon a mixed principle of persons and interests, and this with an especial view to the security of our slave property; and that the arrangement of representation which was in fact made, was what the eastern delegation was at last content to take, though the western was unwilling to give; as our security against impositions of unequal burdens on our slave property, and against all manner of injurious legislation concerning it by persons who had little or no common interest with us in the subject. It was not supposed, at the time, that they had as little fellow-feeling for us, as common interest with us. And now, within two short years after this arrangement of the representation was settled and ordained, a proposal is made to refer a plan for the violent abrogation of the rights of slave property without the consent of its owners, to the vote of the qualified voters throughout the commonwealth! If such a proposition should ever be adopted, of what avail would the scheme of representation ordained by the constitution, to the main purpose for which it was intended? If such a precedent were once established, these appeals to people would soon grow into a system. There is a plausibility in such proposals well calculated to work on the timid and wavering who falter under the sense of responsibility; of whom some are to be found in all assemblies of men.
Every question of great and vital interest- whatever the ordinary Legislature cannot constitutionally do— whatever that body, at present organized, cannot be prevailed upon to do, by its own authority— will be referred to the people in their collective sovereign capacity. The acts and behests of the sovereignty are, in their nature, paramount and absolute. From them there is no appeal but the last— the appeal to heaven. The obligation of the constitution will be, in effect, abrogated. We shall have no fixed, settled principles of Government, to which authority will look for direction, and to which individuals may appeal for security of their rights— but a revolutionary Government— I do not mean a Government established after a revolution, but a Government revolutionary in its action— to which obedience, not being due by any ordinary social contract, must be exacted by force. The American principle of a written Constitution, according to the school of politics in which I was bred, enforces the obligation of the constitution, whatever it may be, so long as it endures, on those who disapprove as well as on those who approve its provisions, and requires a strict observance of them, as the highest political and moral duty, from every functionary entrusted with the exercise of authority.
Let us suppose all objections to Mr. Randolph's plan, founded on the violation it proposes of the rights of slave property as vested by existing laws, surmounted— let us suppose those prejudices (if any one please so to regard them) which attach men to their rights of property of all kinds, and the moral sense of right and wrong which influences vulgar minds, supplanted by a more liberal philosophy, or enlightened by a purer religion, or subdued by an imperious necessity which knows no laws and allows no choice— and then, let us bestow a brief consideration to the plan itself, in point of policy and practicability: I shall confine myself to the most simple and obvious views of it. The plan proposes, 'That the children of all female slaves born after the 4th day of July, 1840, shall become the property of the Commonwealth, the males at the age of twenty-one years, and the females at the age of eighteen, if detained by the owners within the limits of Virginia, until they shall respectively arrive at the ages aforesaid, to be hired out until the nett sum arising therefrom shall be sufficient to defray the expense of their removal beyond the limits of the United States.'
Now, it is well known, that the owners of slaves must bear the charge of rearing
the young, tending the sick, and maintaining the diseased, the decrepid and
the aged; that they must defray, and are only able to defray, this charge out
of the profits of the labor of such as are in the vigor of youth or manhood;
and that, in the surplus of those profits over and above their charge, and in
the increase of their slave property, very frequently only in the latter, consists
their gain. And here is a plan, whereby the charge of rearing the young born,
after July, 1840, and the charge of maintaining the old, at least until the
parent stock which shall then be in existence shall pass away, is to be imposed
upon the owners, while the profits of those who are in the rigor of youth and
manhood are to be taken away from them! Without care for themselves, without
care for their wives and children, all the profit of their other capital, land
or money, skill or industry, must be devoted to the advancement of this scheme;
and even that fund would prove inadequate to ensure its success, or even to
make a fair experiment of it. They would become slaves to their slaves—
they must descend, indeed, to a much worse condition— for they would
have the master's care upon their minds and consciences without the sense of
a master's protection. Is it supposed that any tyranny can subdue us to the
patient endurance of such a state of things? Every prudent slaveholder in the
slaveholding parts of the State, would either migrate with his slaves to some
State where his rights in slave property would be secured to him by the laws,
or would surrender at once his rights in the parent stock, as well as in their
future increase, and seek some land where he may enjoy at least the earnings
of his own industry. In the first place, the country would be deserted; in the
other, it would be abandoned to the slaves, to be cultivated under the management
of the State. The plan would result in a sacrifice, more probably an abandonment,
of our landed, as well as the abolition of our slave property. Can any thing
but force, can any force, tame us to wrongs like these?— But suppose
that, by some miraculous influence exerted upon our minds, we could be brought
to submit to the experiment which Mr. Randolph proposes to make upon our property
and our happiness, and to direct all our means and all our energies to the accomplishment
of this plan. Then, all the children of slaves born after the year 1840, will
in 1858 and 1860, become the property of the Commonwealth, to be hired out,
and thenceforth, until they shall earn by their labor the means of transportation,
and (I suppose) settlement, beyond the limits of the United States. There is
not a man that ever bestowed a thought upon such subjects, who does not know,
that property of any kind in the hands of the public is worse managed, and more
unprofitable than property of the like kind in the hands of individuals; and
slave property let out to hire under the management of public agents, having
no other interest than to enhance to the utmost the expenses of their agency,
will be peculiarly unproductive. Select the Friends— select the Saints—
select the Philosophers; the officers of this anomalous administrative department
will give us the most flattering annual reports, and professions of benevolence,
zeal and fidelity, without mercy: but they will not fail to appropriate to themselves
as large a share of the profits as they possibly can. The young men of twenty-one,
and the young women of eighteen, will not cease to multiply their race; the
breeding women will not hire for their victuals and clothes; the children, the
maimed and the diseased, will all be a dead charge upon the general fund of
profits. We may be quite sure, that the nett profits will never suffice to defray
the expense of the transportation of one half— no, nor a tythe of the
number of the annual increase— unless, indeed, it may be anticipated
that this slave property of the Commonwealth, left to the dominion of these
who shall hire them from year to year, without any interest to preserve them,
without any object but temporary gain, will be subjected to such hardships and
privations, as will not only prevent all increase, but reduce the number within
some manageable compass— in which view (and it is by no means improbable
one) the slave trade in its worst form, was humanity to the unhappy victims
of it, and calculated to inspire noble and generous sentiments in the ruffians
who carried it on, compared with the effects of this plan upon both races. I
have no thought that this plan, or any plan of the kind, will ever be put to
the test of actual experiment; but if any such experiment shall ever be attempted,
I apprehend that the parent slaves, seeing their children destined to enjoy
freedom, will think themselves entitled to participate in the blessing, and
that the young men, with liberty held up to them in prospect, will not be inclined
to await patiently the slow, interminable operation of that singular system
of finance on which the reversion is to depend. There is no imaginable device
better suited than this plan, to produce a general servile war, the consequence
of which must be the destruction of the negro race; and in this way, possibly,
it might tend to 'extirpate slavery in time;' but all men who have any concern
for our own peace and happiness, and all who feel any real sentiment of humanity
towards the slaves, will concur in condemning and deprecating the means, as
most ruinous and most cruel. I see it has been gravely argued, that when slavery
shall be abolished throughout the land, and the black race shall have been deported,
there will be an influx of white population to supply their place. But when—
in what 'long process of
time'— will the abolition and deportation be completed? And while that
work is going on, what white man, impelled from any cause to leave his native
land— if he can find another country in the world that will receive
him, much more if he may find a happy settlement in the immense regions of the
West— will ever emigrate to Virginia, and encounter all the numberless
and nameless dangers, which the process of abolition and deportation cannot
fail to engender?
Mr. Randolph (as I am informed) recommended this plan in debate, chiefly by the authority of Mr. Jefferson. The highest degree of veneration for Mr. Jefferson, and the most boundless confidence in his opinions, are natural in his grandson; and amiable as I doubt not they are sincere; and if he carries such sentiments to excess, it only renders him, personally, more the object of esteem. But I am mistaken, if Mr. Jefferson's authority is of force to make men forego the exercise of common reason, and neglect the plainest dictates of prudence. And I shall say boldly (without fear or care for the charge of presumption it may bring upon me) that this plan, by whomsoever devised, and by whosoever opinions sanctioned, is unwise and impracticable, pernicious, unjust and cruel.
The arguments by which a constitutional power to abolish the rights of slave property, without the consent and against the will of its owners, has been claimed for the Legislature, and vindicated in debate, would seem, to an ordinary observer of human affairs, altogether wonderful. Whenever, in the late Convention, any member of the Eastern Delegation expressed apprehensions for the security of our slave property, the Western Delegation, and that portion of the Eastern which concurred with them, treated those apprehensions as idle fears, and even as mere pretences, and made the most solemn assurances that their constituents respected the right of slave property as highly as any other kind, and held them absolutely inviolable. I believed most of them were perfectly sincere— I did not think they were all so— I apprehended there were some, who even thought of the existence of slave property as a weakness in the constitution of Eastern society, which they might play upon when it should suit any purpose they might have in view, and by which they might bend us to their wishes. But, in my mind, it was wholly unimportant whether their professions were sincere or deceitful; for, whoever has any experience of mankind, knows, that men who vainly undertake to regulate affairs and to direct events, are themselves so much the creatures of circumstances, the mere effects of causes, that none but the most vigorous minds are capable even of making an effort to resist them, much more rising above them, or know to-day what sentiments they shall entertain to-morrow. Let us now see how the professions made on that occasion, and those solemn assurances to the East, have been fulfilled.
It has been by some gravely contended (in the debate in the House of Delegates)
that, though the rights of slave property, in respect of the parent stock now
existing, are vested rights of property, yet there is not, and cannot be, any
vested right of property in their increase yet unborn— as if every question
of property did not depend upon the laws, and was not to be ascertained by reference
to the laws— and as if the same laws (they have been in force for ages)
which give the owners of slaves a vested property in the existing stock, did
not also give them a like vested property in their future increase. If the rights
of property in slaves now in being, be admitted to be property vested by law,
which the Legislature cannot constitutionally take away, how it can be reconciled
with the integrity of common sense, that the right of property in their future
increase, assured by the same laws, is not equally vested and inviolable, surpasses
my comprehension. One gentleman, as he was at first understood, denied that
there could be any property in slaves; by which, as he afterwards explained
himself, he meant any constitutional property in them; that is, any property
secured to its owners by the constitution: slave property, according to him,
is only statutory property, the Legislature is competent to repeal the statutes
whereby it is vested, and so to divest and abrogate this property. The novelty
of the distinction is its only merit; for it deserves not the praise of ingenuity.
There is no particular kind of property mentioned in the constitution, and specifically
assured to its owners. The constitution intended to secure all kinds of property
to its owners, against the power of the public to take it away without compensation;
a fundamental principle of all the governments of Christendom; a principle,
which Louis XIV, or Napoleon, in the plenitude of their power, durst never openly
invade. All our property is vested, and held under statutory or common law;
and, as the Legislature has surely the same power to repeal the one as the other,
I should like to know what property is to be regarded as constitutional property,
and therefore inviolable? If there be any property which, according to this
odd distinction, can be regarded as peculiarly statutory property, it is the
landed property of western Virginia, all of which was derived under statute
law, and modern statute law: may the Legislature by repealing the land laws,
take that property away from its owners, if it shall see or imagine any cause
to do so, and resume the disposition of it according to its arbitrary will?—
The constitution ordains, in express terms, that the Legislature shall not pass
'any law, whereby private property shall be taken for public uses, without just
compensation:' to obviate which stern interdict, it has been suggested, that
the abolition of slave property, by seizing it into the hands of the commonwealth,
in order out of its profits to defray the expense of deporting it, is not taking
it away for public uses, but for the good of its owners, however they may think
to the contrary! a specimen of jesuitry that would have startled Ignatius Loyola
himself. But 'a voice has been heard from the west'— a voice from Berkley—
miraculous and overpowering as those 'loud noises in the Heavens,' which were
heard by Nat Turner— a voice from Berkley, proclaiming the notable discovery,
that our slave property is a 'nuisance,' and may be abated as such. And this
notion, which seems to be the result of a mere confusion of ideas, is lauded
as absolutely conclusive. It is remarkable, that this 'nuisance' is more offensive
in a direct ratio to its distance from the complaining party and in an inverse
ratio to the quantity of offending matter in his neighborhood. That 'magazine
of gunpowder' in the town of Norfolk, is a 'nuisance' to the county of Berkley,
and to all the people of the west! The people of the west, in which there are
comparatively few slaves— in which there never can be any great increment
of that kind of property, because their agriculture does not require it, and
because, in a great part of their country, the negro race cannot be acclimated—
the people of the West find our slave property, in our planting country where
it is valuable, a 'nuisance' to them! This reverses the proverb, that men bear
the ills of others better than their own. I have known men sell all their slave
property, and vest the proceeds in stock; and then become zealous for the abolition
of slavery. And it would be matter of curiosity to ascertain, if it could be
done, the aggregate number of the slaves held by all the orators, and all the
printers, who are so willing to abate this 'nuisance' of slave property, held
by other people— I suspect the census would be very short. The doctrines
that have been for many years continually preached in Pennsylvania may, for
ought I know, have rendered the slave property held in our counties lying near
in neighborhood to that State; a 'nuisance' to its owners— in which
case, I am sure they have known how to get rid of it without the process of
abolition— and the same doctrines preached here, may, it we take no
care of ourselves, make our slave property a 'nuisance' to us. But the great
argument by which the constitutional power of the Legislature is abrogate our
slave property, has been indicated is the plea of necessity, strong, invincible,
absolute necessity. And of that necessity, what is the evidence? The late massacre
in Southampton; the racking sense of insecurity, the benumbing panic, the unextinguishable
terrors, which it has produced throughout the principal slaveholding districts
of the State! The necessity which our Western brethren are under, to violate
our rights of slave property, to 'extirpate slavery in time,' and to begin the
work without delay, is the necessity of relieving us from this our melancholy
state of fear, which (as they have alleged and repeated a thousand times) the
advocates of the just rights of slaves property themselves, representatives
of the East and of the South, have described and avouched. And these having
really (it seems) indulged in some flourishes of rhetoric, on that
topic— having committed themselves (as the phrase is) and thereby imposed
fetters on their own mind— are fain to bear the taunt which is offered
as an argument for the justice.
Strange as all this seems, there has been language held in these debates, yet more marvelous. I shall collect a few specimens from the printed speeches of the advocates of abolition, in order that the public may clearly apprehend the prudent care they have for our domestic peace and security. The gentleman who opened the debate on that side of the question was very, very moderate; he only referred to the declaration in the bill of rights, that all men are by nature free and equal, and applying it to our slaves, said, 'It was a truth held sacred by every American and by every republican throughout the world. And he presumed it could not be denied in that hall, as a general principle, that it is an act of injustice, tyranny and oppression, to hold any part of the human race in bondage against their consent. That circumstances may exist which may put it out of the power of the owners for a time to grant their slaves liberty, he admitted to be possible; and if they do exist in any case, it may excuse but not justify the owner in holding them. The right to the enjoyment of liberty is one of the most perfect, inherent, unalienable rights which pertain to the whole human race, and of which they can never be divested, except by an act of gross injustice.' Another gentleman, after having said, with equal modesty and truth, that 'He was admonished by his youth and inexperience, that this was a matter demanding the most profound experience, and the greatest caution and delicacy, and that, therefore, he had neither of those requisites necessary for its decision'— proceeded to pour forth a strain of declamation, whereof I give the following specimens, as proofs of the 'great caution and delicacy' which he thought 'the matter demanded.'— 'This question of slavery, Mr. Speaker, is one which seems, in all countries and ages in which it has ever been tolerated, directly or indirectly, to have called' to its aid a mystic sort of right, and a superstitious sort of veneration, that has deterred even the most intrepid mind from an investigation into the rights and an exposure of the wrongs on which it has been sustained.'— 'I esteem, Mr. Speaker, the exhibition now before our eyes, and the aspect which this hall at this moment presents, as the grandest revolution of the age, a great moral revolution, in which our minds and opinions have triumphed over error and interest, and left our judgments free to decide, and our tongues free to speak the principles of justice and the voice of humanity.' He argued that 'slaves which were not property by the common law, were made so by a statutory enactment; a statutory enactment, which, by the operation of mere law, has erected, they (his opponents) suppose, an insurmountable barrier to those natural and unalienable rights, which we cannot divest ourselves of, and of which none others can divest us. The slave has a natural right to regain his liberty, and who has a higher right to reduce them to slavery again?' 'Look, Mr. Speaker, to France.— Though we may deplore the scenes through which she has passed, are there any here who do not rejoice at her revolution? I rejoiced, Mr. Speaker, when her oppressed people tore down every monument of her former kingly greatness. I rejoiced when all that was venerable and ancient was prostrated in the dust.' (What? the good as well as the bad— the Christian religion as well as the Roman Catholic hierarchy!) 'I rejoiced when I saw a foreign Prince on the throne of the Bourbons. And, Mr. Speaker, if those who are not slaves here, were not what they are— if, Mr. Speaker, they were white men in oppression and bondage, I would rejoice in a revolution here. It is the line which God and Nature has drawn between us in their color, and the appalling consequences of such a result are so deeply to be feared, so solemnly to be deplored, and so decisively to be provided against'— he means, not by measures to keep the slaves in due subordination, but by projects for the liberation of them.
I presume, this gentleman can hardly suppose, that the blacks (whom he had already told, that they had a natural right to regain their liberty, and upon whom his eloquence will surely not be lost) will not see any thing in their own color, that ought to prevent him from rejoicing at a revolt or a revolution effected by them. I was inclined to forgive the mistiming and misapplication of the common places of eloquence which abound on this subject, in consideration of that 'youth and inexperience' which the gentleman himself acknowledges, and upon the unhappy Matthioli's plea, that they were spoken, 'par indiscretion et volubilite de langue;' but they have been written out to be printed, and printed, and published; and indiscretion is as often as mischievous as vice, though certainly never so criminal. Another gentleman, with more art indeed, but in my opinion with equal indiscretion, said, that 'He would not advert (no, that he would not) to the great principles of eternal justice which demand at our hands the release of these people' (the slaves)— 'he would not examine here, the authority upon which one part of the human family assume the right to enslave the other— he would not open the great volume of nature's laws, to ascertain if it is written there, that all men are alike in the sight of him, who must regard, with equal beneficence, the creature of his hands, without distinction of color or condition.' Yet, in the sequel, he did all this, and arrived at the same conclusion with the friend who had proceeded him in the same line of observation, (to use a modern parliamentary phrase) 'that the slave, as a living man, has a right to assert and regain his liberty if he can.' It was an observation of the gentleman who opened the debate on the side of abolition, in enumerating the evils of slavery, that the slaves, 'will be ready to flock to the standard of an invading foe, whenever he may be disposed to tempt them to it by holding out to them the strongest temptation which can ever be presented to the human mind, namely, the possession of liberty;' and that 'we may often have enemies, who will not be too magnanimous to avail themselves of advantages which cost them nothing.' Now, I ask any man, who has heard or read these debates in the House of Delegates, whether, if a public enemy were landed on our shores, and he should issue a manifesto with design to bring our slaves to his standard, and to arm them against us, there is a single topic which might be expected to be found in such a manifesto, suited to seduce and inflame their minds, that might not be extracted from the speeches in favor of the abolition? We might, indeed, expect them from a public enemy; but we never, never should have expected them from our friends and fellow citizens.
Let it be borne in mind, that these speeches have been delivered in the House of Delegates with all parliamentary solemnity, so as to make the deepest and most general impression; and that they have been spoken, and written out to be printed, and published, in this city of Richmond, the place of all others, where their influence is most likely to take effect on the minds of the blacks, and spread. Well, therefore, has this discussion been described as 'miraculous!' But the miracle is a menace of evil, not a promise of good. I am very far from suspecting (if I did suspect, I would say it) that the authors of these speeches, or any man among them has the least design to incite servile rebellion; but, looking to the effect of causes put into action, I do say that if through supineness and utter exemption from those fears that have been imputed to us, such an insurrection shall break out, it will be owing, not to the hallucinations or imposture of another << Nat Turner>> , nor to the seditious practices of negro preachers, nor to the machinations of the organized convention of free blacks in Philadelphia, nor to the dissemination of the incendiary writings of The Liberator, or the African Sentinel, or the Genius of Universal Emancipation— but to measures proposed, and to speeches delivered, in our own Legislature, published and disseminated by our own public journals. By one of these, indeed, we have been comforted with the assurance, 'that the intelligence of the slaves has long ago reached the point to which the fears of some imagined this discussion would conduct it. They have not now to learn those abstract theories which teach the universal equality of man and his rights; but the same extent of intelligence informs them of the impossible, the worse than hopeless expectation, of engaging in a successful struggle for their maintenance'— that is, in other words, they have a reason to be convinced, but not passions to be inflamed. Is the justness of this opinion approved by the success of << Nat Turner's>> imposture on his gang? Or has this improvement of slave intelligence, this perfection of stoical philosophy, taken place in the interval that has elapsed since the Southampton insurrection? Let us not rely upon such assurances as these, and neglect to adopt for ourselves, since the Legislature will not adopt for us, those appropriate measures of vigilance and precaution, in which and in which only, we shall be certain of the subordination of our slaves, and the security of our homes.
The evils of slavery have been displayed in this debate, with an emulation
of eloquence, most ill-timed, at any rate, if not (considering our actual condition,
and while yet no plan of riddance has been settled, and the question is whether
any such plan is feasible) unwise, ill-judged and pernicious in the extreme,
and, in my opinion, those evils have been exaggerated too, in a manner which
sober reason must forever condemn. The subject is too large for this paper;
neither is it necessary to my purpose, that it should be here discussed. It
appears to me that the real nature of the evil has been very indistinctly understood;
while all the 'ills that flesh is heir to,' physical and moral, evils that flow
from a thousand springs, have been indiscriminately imputed to this single cause.
The least calm observation would have reduced the black catalogue of evils that
has been exhibited, by the half or more: the least exercise of reason would
have found some alteration in a comparison of our condition, for good or evil,
with that of other nations, and would certainly have traced many of the evils
complained of as infesting our society, to other parentage. For example: I myself
heard a gentleman impute the prevalence of the practice of usury to the existence
of slavery— for, as he ingeniously argued, the slaveholder obtains credit,
and contracts debts, upon the faith of the slave property he holds; and when
judgment is recovered against the poor debtor, and he has to raise the money
or go to jail, 'then comes the Paper-shaver, and kindly proffers the money at
thirty-three and a third per cent,' and 'the very fact, that we see such cattle
daily raising into importance from the dregs of society'— not meaning
'by dregs of society' the poor but honest man,' but men lost to honor, virtue
and common honesty— 'is a proof of the necessity of a change of our
condition.' It was not perceived, that the argument concludes, not that slave
property only, but that all property upon the faith of which men may obtain
credit, is an evil, and ought to be abrogated. And I most conscientiously believe,
that the day is not far distant, when a direct attack will be made upon the
very principle of property. In these debates also, a general demoralization
of the master race, has been represented as the necessary and inseparable effect
of the existence of slavery: and accordingly, ignorance in 'the great body of
the people' throughout the whole slaveholding country— idleness, dissipation,
sensual indulgence, enervation, vice— luxury which tempts 'the epicure
to the groaning tables of the palace, to banquet and to die'— whatever,
in short, is most degrading to the national character of a community, has been
imputed to us, with a boldness and insolence, which could not fail to kindle
resentment, if we were conscious of a single trait of likeness in this attempt
at caricature. As to the comparisons that have been made, between the people
of the New-England States and those of the slaveholding States, in respect of
the general diffusion of education among them, or rather the contrasts which
have been run between their intelligence and our ignorance; I shall not deny,
that 'elementary education' is more generally diffused among the people of New-England,
and especially of Connecticut, than in Virginia, or any of the slaveholding
country, or perhaps any country in the world, not excepting the lowlands of
Scotland, and I shall agree that that kind of education is above all, the most
truly useful and valuable in a republican society; but I apprehend the superiority
of the New-England States over us in this particular, is attributable to far
other causes than the absence of domestic slavery there, and the existence of
it here. To put the question fairly to the test of experience, let the comparison
be instituted between the state of intelligence of 'the great body of the people'
of Pennsylvania, and that 'of the great body of the people' of the slaveholding
country— or between 'the great body of the people' of the western, and
'the great body of the people' of eastern Virginia. This last comparison has
been attempted; and the result is, a vast superiority of our western fellow-citizens
over us, in intelligence, enterprise and moral worth! I presume the result of
all such comparisons would depend very much upon the pre-conceived opinions
of those by whom they should be made. The contest is idle, if not pernicious.
I disdain to defend the moral character of our society. Depravation of the manners
and morals of the citizens of a State, the necessary concomitant, or the consequence
of the existence of domestic slavery! Witness the republics of Greece and Rome
in their best days. Let common candor and justice give us credit for our virtues,
and let malice make the drawback for vices; still, this society of slaveholding
Virginia, and I doubt not that all the slaveholding country, may challenge a
comparison for purity of manners and morals, for kindness, generosity and honesty,
with any people under the sun. It is, however, fair to state, that a gentleman
born in eastern Virginia bears testimony against us— 'a slave population
exercises the most pernicious influence on the manners, habits and character
of those among whom it exists. Lisping infancy learns the vocabulary of abusive
epithets, and struts the embryo tyrant of its little domain. The consciousness
of superior destiny takes possession of his mind at its earliest dawning, and
love of power and rule grows with his growth and strengthens with his strength.
When in the sublime lessons of christianity he is taught to do unto others as
he would have others do unto him, he never dreams that the degraded negro is
within the pale of that holy canon. Unless enabled to rise above the operation
of powerful causes, he enters the world with miserable nations of
self-importance, and under the government of an unbridled temper.' I am afraid
that too many young men every where, 'enter the world with miserable notions
of self-importance.' For the rest (excepting the christianity in it) the passage
I have quoted, and a good deal more that follows it of the same strain, is not
original; if it had been, I should have passed it by without notice. In what
part of eastern. Virginia the gentleman was born I know not, but I am quite
sure his own observation never would have suggested the account he has given
of us. There is not a man in this whole country who does not remember playing
in his boyhood with negroes of his own age, and fighting with them, too, upon
a footing of perfect equality. He could not look upon the face of a negro child
in the land, whose sprightly, cheerful, happy countenance would not beam with
evidence that the description is not faithful to the fact. He could not have
bestowed to thought upon the actual condition of our slaves— he could
not have reflected a moment upon the ratio of increase of that population—
he could not have adverted to his oown statistics— without seeing, that
we practise not the tyranny, when we attain to man's estate, which he represents
us as imbibing in our youth, and without finding in that fact a complete refutation
of the story he has thought proper to repeat. But what shall I say to his wilful
attempt to dissuade the
non-slaveholders among us, from uniting with the slaveholders, in executing
the ordinary duties of police, intended to keep our slaves out of mischief,
and in due subordination? I cannot see the following paragraph (extracted from
his speech) in any other light. 'At all times, the NON-slaveholders of Virginia
are subjected to the most outrageous injustice by the presence of this population.
To prevent, as far as may be, the mischiefs of insubordination, police laws
have, from time to time, been enacted— the execution of which, for the
most part, is thrown upon those who themselves own none of this property. In
the character of PATROLS, they are made to perform onerous and disagreeable
duties— not to protect themselves and their property, but to protect
the slaveholders in the enjoyment of that which it is the interest of the non-slaveholders
should not exist. He is thus made to fold to his own bosom and protect the adder
which stings him.' The speech from which this extract is taken bears internal
evidence of having been laboriously prepared— a speech made, rather
than spoken, and then carefully written out for the press.
In the scheme of the Colonization Society (as I understand the explanation given of it by its principal patron in the House of Delegates) the most sacred regard for the rights of slave property is professed, and I doubt not honestly designed; however in its indirect effects, it may impair the value, or impose a burdensome charge upon the profits of it. This plan also looks to the ultimate liberation of the slaves, and to the removal and colonization of the whole black population; that is, to the removal and colonization of the blacks now free, in the first instance, then of the slaves hereafter to be emancipated, and last, of slaves to be purchased of their owners by the public at a fair price, with a view to the colonization of them; for which purpose, it is proposed to appropriate $200,000 per annum, to be raised (I suppose, for it is hardly to be imagined that any other ways and means will ever be agreed to) by an additional tax on slaves. I shall not, at present, examine the policy or practicability of this scheme; most probably, I shall never have occasion to examine it. I have, however, looked at the gentleman's statistics and estimates, and they have raised in my mind not a little surprise. They are founded, entirely, upon common arithmetic, without regard to the known elements of the political economy, which enter essentially into all calculations of the kind, and constitute, indeed, the only difficulty in making them. I tell him that common arithmetic will not work any one of his problems. But I have referred to this scheme now, only for the purpose of remarking, that I never should have expected that the members of the colonization societies would press their schemes upon the attention of the Legislature, in the present juncture of affairs, when there was, in truth, so little hope of success— when the only certain consequence they could apprehend from the effort, was to increase the agitation of the public mind, already alarmed by the rumors of projects— when they must have foreseen, that their plans could only be recommended by the same topics of argument that would lay the grand work for schemes of abolition without regard to the rights of slave property, as well as their own— when they ought to have reflected, that it might appear (in the words of their own advocate) 'that excitement and apprehension was the motive which impelled us to action, that the adoption of their plan might be regarded by the slaves as a partial 'concession' made in 'the moment that an insurrectionary spirit had displayed itself,' and thus prove an incentive to other insurrections 'in quick succession, until the awful drama would be closed by sweeping from the earth, a poor, ignorant, deluded and misguided people:' that it was 'a subject which ought never to be publicly discussed, until the general sense of the community was strongly inclined to efficient action, and the time, the mode, and the measure of each action generally understood and sanctioned; that 'above all, we ought never to excite in the minds of this ignorant class of our population, delusive hopes and expectations,' making 'them more unhappy and ourselves less secure.' I should never have expected, that the gentleman who recommended this scheme of colonization to the House, would have done so, after seeing the turn which the subject had taken, and after finding all his argument to prove that something must be done, would surely be perverted to the accomplishment of the purpose widely different from his own, and, in his opinion most unjust and pernicious. How could it possibly have escaped his reflection, that the same prudential and just reasons, which he himself assigned to show the impropriety of entertaining the project of abolition, applied with equal force against his own plan. Will the members of the Colonization Society never perceive, that their exertions work effects besides their purposes? From the first, their plans have been continually engendering vague hopes in the slave population, which supplanted contentment in their minds— 'made them more unhappy, and ourselves less secure:' and now, their efforts have mainly contributed to engender projects of another kind, yet more delusive to the slaves, and pernicious and dangerous, in every point of view, to them as well as to us. We are told, 'that the idea of restoring these people to the region in which nature had planted them, and to whose climate she had fitted their constitution— the idea of benefitting not only our condition and theirs by the removal, but making them the means of carrying back to a great continent, lost in the profoundest depths of savage barbarism, and unconscious of the existence God who created them— not only the arts, and comforts, and multiplied advantages of civilized life— but what is more valuable than all, a knowledge of true religion, intelligence of a redeemer— is one of the grandest and noblest, one of the most expensive and glorious ideas which ever entered into the imagination of man.' It may be so to those who can kindle their imaginations to hope that it can ever be realized; but with me, the vastness of the grandeur takes away all the nobleness, for it argues absolute impossibility.
I observe a western member states, that a certain member from the east, had called on the western delegation for aid— had invited all portions of the Commonwealth to join in this sacred cause, to relieve us from the impending danger: and I have heard that the eastern member alluded to, did call upon the western delegation to join with them, in some just, rational and practicable plan for the abolition of slavery. What that plan was, whether he had matured any, whether he had settled the first principles of it in his own mind, I cannot learn. I understand it was not announced. Whatever it was, the time, the juncture, the very predicament in which the question stood, the temper already manifested in the debate, might have admonished him not to give his countenance to any scheme of abolition whatever; for, it was obvious that no such scheme as he could think just, would ever be agreed to by those friends of abolition, who had made up their minds to set at nought the rights of slave property. If I could agree with that gentleman, that it is possible to devise a practicable plan for the abolition of slavery, he would surely agree with me, that no work which human wisdom ever essayed, is beset with more difficulties; that it is not to be accomplished by a simple expression of Legislative will; that it would require the most consummate ability, and days and months of the severest labor, to digest and mature it for practical, operation. Until that work shall be completed, the plain matured, and ascertained to be feasible, all vague suggestions of the kind must be fraught with mischief. But, in truth, I am convinced that no plan for the abolition of slavery, and the deportation of the slaves, is possible. I have given my mind to the subject, over and over again— I have examined all the schemes for the purpose, that have been proposed in time, with a willingness and earnest desire to be convinced, until I found them all hopeless; and I have never seen one that would bear the slightest touch of examination. It might be possible to remove and colonize the whites; the adoption of any of these schemes for abolition, may, in effect, expel us from our country: but it is morally, politically, physically, impossible to remove and colonize the black population en masse. Necessity, it has been argued, imperiously dictates abolition and deportation. On the contrary, we lie under an invincible necessity to keep them here, and to hold them in subjection; a necessity imposed upon us by Providence. For I firmly believe, that it was a dispensation of Providence which sent them hither; it is dispensation of Providence, that here they shall remain; and Providence, in its own good time, will dispose of them and us according to its wisdom. Such a change as is proposed, of the destiny of millions of human beings, is a work too mighty for the finite wisdom of man, and it is the part neither of true philosophy nor of true religion to attempt it.
In the event, the House adopted the following preamble and resolution: 'Profoundly sensible of the great evils arising from the colored population of this Commonwealth; induced by humanity as well as policy to an immediate effort for the removal in first place, as well of those who are now free, as of such as may hereafter become free; believing that this effort, while it is in just accordance with the sentiments of the community on the subject, will absorb all our present means; and that a further action for the removal of slaves should await a more definite development of public opinion— Resolved, that it is inexpedient for the Legislature to make any legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery.' It is obvious that the question of the abolition of slavery is intentionally kept alive; and the agitating, perplexing, annoying effects of a general discussion of it, are visited upon the people of the slaveholding districts of the State, to the manifest detriment of their property, and the probable jeopardy of their tranquillity and safety.
Now, I too think, that something must be done; and I shall give my
fellow-citizens, without reserve, my deliberate opinion what it behoves them
to do.
1. I earnestly recommend them to provide (quietly and silently, but, at the same time, promptly and sufficiently) arms and ammunition for the defence of themselves, and their families and neighbors; to concert their plans of action among themselves, in anticipation of any insurrectionary spirit that may manifest itself among the slaves; to hold themselves in constant readiness to meet and suppress servile rebellion, at a minute's warning; to arrange voluntary bodies of minute men, in short, appointing convenient places of rendezvous for them; meantime, to maintain the strictest discipline; to stifle the slightest breath of sedition, to exercise the closest vigilance, to infuse the utmost activity, the highest order and prudence into their ordinary police, of which it is susceptible. Let no man shun the patrole duty. Let there be no inhumanity towards the blacks, whatever cause of excitement may arise— for our own credit, none— but no neglect, no imprudent indulgence. If we exercise due caution, no want of discretion in others will endanger our peace; if we neglect or remit a proper care for ourselves, we need not now expect that others will exercise any care for us, and our wives and children must bear the consequences of our supineness and folly.
2. As our wise and considerate representatives have resolved to await, and in effect to invite, a development of the public sentiment, it is hardly necessary to remind the people of Eastern and Southern Virginia of the vital importance of their next elections. I trust in Heaven, that no consideration of personal friendship, no partiality for private worth, will have the least influence on their votes— that they will select their representatives, with a single regard to this question; upon which their property, their prosperity, their safety, their very existence in this our native land, depends— that they will return no man who shall not openly renounce and abjure all projects for abolition, present or prospective, or for the liberation of slaves by colonization; all schemes, in short, professing that object, by whatever means or process. To my western fellow-citizens I do not presume to offer advice: but I hope they will seriously and deliberately consider whether they have any ends which can be accomplished by the abolition of slavery (if that were possible) or by projects for abolition which can never have any other effect than to impair the value of our property, to jeopard our peace and safety, to light a torch which, if it shall consume the dwellings of some of us, will surely be extinguished in negro blood; and whether, if they have any ends in view, which such projects, portending such consequences, may really tend to the accomplishment of, these are justifiable means. I pray them to consider whether any end can justify such means. And then, their next elections will resolve the question, whether inflammatory language, which can have no effect but one, let it flow from the indiscretion or over-much zeal, and not from vicious design, be excusable and praiseworthy in their eyes.
I do most earnestly and deliberately recommend to all the people of the slaveholding parts of Virginia— and moreover to all the people of southern and south-western slaveholding States, who have a common interest with us, and are exposed to the same dangers— to discourage every man by his own example, and by advice to his neighbors, the circulation among them of the papers of the Virginia abolition presses, upon the like reasons of common prudence, that would not tolerate the dissemination of writings wilfully incendiary. I do not think, and therefore I do not say, that our abolition presses are wilfully incendiary; and therefore, I entertain no resentment towards the editors. But to us it can make no odds, whether their publications are editorial or contributed— in the form of speeches or of essays— dictated by indiscretion or carelessness of consequences, or blindness to them; to us the danger and the mischief are the same, as if they were dictated by the most malignant design. The effusions of inflammatory matter they have already poured forth, and the temper in which they have taken up the subject, should warn us all of the burning lava yet to be discharged upon us; which, like the travail of a volcano in the immediate neighborhood of our dwellings, threatens the more danger and mischief for coming from them. The public sentiment, we see, is to be 'developed'— the subject is to be discussed— and he that does not foresee in what tone it will be discussed in the public prints, cannot be made to take warning. Let us pay no regard to the claim which may be asserted for the independence, of the press: if, in the exercise of their independence, they choose to print, we, in the exercise of our independence, may choose to suppress, to the utmost of our power, what we deem inflammatory, dangerous, mischievous. Every man has a perfect right to withdraw his subscription from any newspaper, and to discourage the circulation of it; and if he thinks the opinions it maintains likely to produce evil, he is bound in duty to his country, to exercise that right. I have been credibly informed, that the publications contained in a certain independent press during the late war, giving an account of the defenceless condition of Washington, were the real incentives to Gen. Ross's visit to that city. The claim to such in dependence of the press, as not only gives it freedom to publish, but a right to free unrestrained circulation among those whom the circulation may injure, is, in truth, a claim to absolute dominion; which I shall never acknowledge in any man or set of men whatever. I want no sedition laws— I would have none— there is a check, a sufficient check, in the influence of public opinion, if timely, promptly and vigorously exerted; and, in my deliberate judgment, prudence, justice, necessity, require the people of the whole slaveholding country to unite in the exercise of that check, upon the present occasion.
I have thus laid before my countrymen, a full and fair account of the House of Delegates of the measures proposed and the doctrines broached there, and of the projects not yet abandoned, upon which they are called upon to reflect and to act. My conscience acquits me of ill will towards any man or set of men: it is a deep sense of the duty I owe to society, that alone prompts me to this publication of my opinions. I have given the public my thoughts fully and freely, and I would as freely give my name, if I did not know that that could add no weight to my arguments or opinions.
APPOMATTOX.
The Calhoun RevolutionIts Basis and its Progress.
SPEECH OF HON. J.R. DOOLITTLE,
OF WISCONSIN,
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
JANUARY 3, 1860.
-----
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I desire, also, to submit a few observations
upon one portion of the President's message referred to by the honorable Senator
(Mr. BROWN) who has just preceded me. I read from the message:
“I cordially congratulate you upon the final settlement, by the Supreme
Court of the United States, of the question of slavery in the Territories, which
had presented an aspect so truly formidable at the commencement of my Administration.
The right has been established of every citizen to take his property of any
kind, including slaves, into the common Territories belonging equally to all
the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the Federal
Constitution. Neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature, nor any human
power, has any authority to annual or impair this vested right.”
And again, I read upon the same page:
“Thus has the status of a Territory, during the intermediate period from
its first settlement until it shall become a State, been irrevocably fixed by
the final decision of the Supreme Court.”
In the first place, sir, what strikes me with great force is the radical change
in the opinions of Mr. Buchanan within the last twelve years. Twelve years ago,
he stated deliberately to the American people that “the inference, in
his opinion, was irresistible, that Congress had the power to legislate upon
the subject of slavery in the Territories.” To-day, as President, he declares
that.
“The right has been established of every citizen to take his property of any kind, including slaves, into the common Territories belonging equally to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the Federal Constitution:” and that “neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature, nor any human power, has any authority to annul or impair this vested right.”
Sir, is it not most remarkable that a man of his ability and experience, after
having, at the ripened age of fifty years and upwards, declared that the question
is so free from all doubt that, in his opinion, the inference is irresistible
that Congress has the power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the
Territories, should, for some reason, now, in the later years of his life, after
he has passed the period of three-score, so completely change his opinions on
this question as to maintain and declare that “neither Congress, nor a
Territorial Legislature, nor any human power,” has the right to resist
the introduction of slavery into the Territories of the United States, or “to
annul or impair that vested right? z” What an extraordinary change must
have come over the opinion of this man within the last few years!
But, sir, the change in his opinion is no greater than the change which has
come over the opinions of hundreds and thousands in the Southern States. In
1846, the opinion found few advocates among the men of the South, that Congress
had not the constitutional power to legislate upon the subject of slavery in
the Territories, and fewer still that slavery is carried into and protected
in them under the Federal Constitution. There were none at the North. It is
a new thought; it is an afterthought. It is not an original conclusion to which
men's minds have come, but it is a part of a systematic attempt to revolutionize
public opinion, to promote what the slave power deems to be its pecuniary and
political interests. The leading men of the South, having taken these new grounds,
have dictated to the party in power, during the last and present Administrations,
a change in its opinions and its policy.
A distinguished gentleman, the Vice President of the United States, for whom
I entertain the highest respect, in a late speech delivered in Kentucky, used
the following language, speaking of the different state of circumstances under
which the men of the South now find themselves, compared with what it was ten
years ago:
“We have the Executive; we have the laws; we have the decisions of the courts; and that is a great advance from where we stood ten years ago.”
In February, 1847, Mr. Calhoun introduced in the Senate a resolution declaring,
for the first time, this doctrine, that the Constitution, of its own force,
guaranties the right to take slaves into the Territories of the United States;
and, at the same time, another resolution denying the power of Congress to inhibit
it. Up to that time, very few, among the prominent men at the South, assented
to that doctrine. Under his lead, however, they have changed their ground, and
have changed the ground of the Democratic party, using its organization to force
on a revolution in opinion on this question; and to a very great extent, I confess,
they have already succeeded with those who still act with that party.
I do not deny that they voted against the Congressional prohibition sought to
be applied in 1846; but what I say is this, that there were very few of them
who took the ground at that day that the Congress of the United States, under
the Constitution, had not the power to make the prohibition, if they sought
to apply it. Sir, the whole history of this Government, from the beginning down
to 1847, was a history of prohibition or limitation of slavery on the part of
Congress; and there never was an act organizing any Territory under the authority
of the United States, which did not in the act itself recognise the power of
Congress to legislate upon the subject of slavery previous to 1847; but I shall
have occasion to refer to them more in detail here-after.
I desire for a single moment now to inquire into, and, if possible, probe this
thing to the bottom, and see what has brought about this revolution of sentiment
upon this question. The truth is, that the South have changed their ground on
the whole subject of slaveryslavery in the abstract, and slavery in its relations
to the legislative and judicial powers of this Government. We of the Republican
party stand where our fathers stood, where your fathers stood, and where you
yourselves stood but a very few years ago, on this question of slavery. You
then, and your fathers always, admitted slavery to be an evil, to be tolerated
as a necessity until you could see your way to get rid of it; but you did not
take the ground that slavery was a blessing, and in accordance with natural
right.
You have not, until recently, assumed the doctrine that the natural and normal
condition of the laboring man is that of a slave. It is within the last few
years that this doctrine has been promulgated at the South, and I grant that
there, it has made and is making most rapid strides. It reaches your schools,
and it reaches your churches, and it reaches your public journals.
Mr. CHESNUT. With the permission of the Senator from Wisconsin, I deny that
the position at the South is that the normal condition of the laboring man is
that of slavery. The position is, that the normal condition of the African among
us is that of slavery, and the proper condition. It is the true and only beneficial
relation. That is the ground we assume as the position, not of the white laborer,
but of the African laborer, in this country.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I understand, Mr. President, that some of the leading men and
journals of the South, in defending slavery, do not undertake to justify it
upon the ground of negro slavery alone. The Review of Mr. De Bow, the Richmond
Enquirer, the Charleston Mercury, the Richmond Examiner, and the book published
by Mr. Fitzhugh, which was commended very generally by the leading Democratic
press to the people of the South, take the ground and justify slavery, not because
slaves are negroesthe descendants of Hambut put it upon the broader ground,
and, as they allege, the only defensible ground upon which slavery can rest,
that the natural and normal condition of the laboring man is that of a slave;
and that the true ground on which to reconcile this conflict between capital
and labor is, that capital should own its labor, and not hire it.
(Mr. DOOLITTLE was here interrupted by Mr. CLAY, of Alabama, and also by Mr.
BROWN, of Mississippi, who made some remarks, which are omitted, substantially
concurring with Mr. CHESNUT. See Appendix, Note A.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I shall, perhaps, from what has now occurred,
do what I did not intend in the outset, refer to some Southern authorities bearing
on this question. I do not say that all the leading men and presses of the South
to-day take the ground that the laboring man is a slave, whether white or black,
but I do maintain that some of their leading presses and some of their leading
men do take that position, and do justify slavery, upon the ground that the
true way to reconcile this troublesome question of capital and labor is simply
this that capital should own its labor and not hire it. The honorable Senator
from South Carolina, (Mr. HAMMOND,) the colleague of the gentleman who first
interrupted me, in his famous speech, delivered here, denominated the “mud-sill
speech”I speak of it with no disrespect to him, but merely to designate
the speech in which that term was usedsubstantially took the ground that the
laboring white men of the North were slaves in fact, though not in name, as
much so as the negroes of the South who are actually held in the condition of
slavery. That is one authority.
(Here Mr. CHESNUT made some more extended remarks. Mr. D. resumed.)
I do not deny that men at the South differ in their opinions, some, perhaps
the majority, as yet, maintaining that the doctrine that the natural and normal
condition of the laboring man is that of a slave, applies to the negro race,
and to the negro race alone; but, at the same time, I maintain that leading
men and presses at the South undertake to justify slavery, not upon the ground
of negro slavery as an exceptional institution, but upon the broader and higher
ground that slavery, in the abstract, is right and natural, and “the most
safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.”
Mr. PUGH. I hope the Senator will permit me to interrupt him., I want to make
a suggestion.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. If the gentleman is from the South, at this stage of the discussion
I will give way.
Mr. PUGH. No, sir; I wish to say something to you as a Northern man, if the
Senator will permit me.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I desired to address myself to the Senate; and when I was speaking
upon a subject which concerned particularly Southern States, and was addressing
myself to Southern men, I consented to be interrupted by them. If, however,
my friend from Ohio desires to say anything special, I have no objection to
hear him.
Mr. PUGH. I was about to suggest to the Senator, that the shortest way to settle
the fact was to name some man or some newspaper, because I have heard just such
suggestions as that made a thousand times to the people of the nonslaveholding
States, and I believe it has done more to produce this ill blood than any other
course of assertion. Now, the Senator is contredicted; let him give the authority,
and it can be easily settled one way or the other.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I name the Richmond Examiner, which said:
“Our object in these preliminary remarks is to show how unwise it is for the South to attempt to justify negro slavery as an exceptional institution. It is the only form of slavery which has excited the prejudices of mankind, and given rise to abolition; the only kind of slavery which has not been, until recently, universal. The experience, the practices, and the history of mankind, amply vindicate slavery, in the abstract, as a natural, universal, and conservative institution. In justifying slavery in the general or abstract, we have to contend with the prejudices growing out of the African slave trade, out of the cruel treatment of slaves wherever that trade exists, and the still greater prejudices of race and color. Still, it is shown by history, both sacred and profane, that domestic slavery is a natural, normal, and, till lately, universal institution.”
The Richmond Enquirer I will name for another-----
Mr. CLAY. Will the Senator pardon me for a moment? I did not hear the words,
“white slavery,” in the extract which he has read, and I want to
know now, after reading that extract merely, severed from the context, by what
authority he maintains that the Richmond Examiner holds to the doctrine that
slavery is the normal condition of the laboring classes of all races? I say,
that the very extract he has read fails to sustain his allegation, and I venture
to assert that, if he will produce the whole article, it will disprove it clearly.
(Mr. CLAY here made some further remarks, mainly personal to himself.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. As to the meaning of the paragraph I have read, that is a question
of construction between the honorable Senator and myself.
Mr. CLAY, I ask for the word “white” there.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. It seems to me perfectly clear that the construction I give is
correct. It claims that slavery cannot be defended as an institution based on
negro slavery alone. The Richmond Enquirer took the same ground, when it said:
“Until recently, the defence of slavery has labored under great difficulties,
because its apologistsfor they were merely apologists took half-way ground.
They confined the defence of slavery to mere negro slavery, thereby giving up
the slavery principle, admitting other forms of slavery to be wrong, and yielding
up the authority of the Bible, and of the history, practices, and experience
of mankind. Human experience, showing the universal success of slave society,
and the universal failure of free society, and was unavailing to them, because
they were precluded from employing it by admitting Slavery in the abstract to
be wrong. The defence of mere negro slavery involved them in still greater difficulty.
“The line of defence, however, is now changed. The South”
The editor undertakes to speak for the South
“The South now maintains that slavery is right, natural, and necessary.
It shows that all Divine and almost all human authority justifies it. The South
further charges that the little experiment of free society in Western Europe
has been from the beginning a cruel failure, and that symptoms of failure are
abundant in our North. While it is far more obvious that negroes be slaves than
whites for they are only at to labor, not to directyet the principle of Slavery
is in itself right, and does not depend on difference of complexion.”
Mr. Johnson a distinguished gentleman from Georgia, in a speech delivered in
the city of Philadelphia in 1856, said, substantially, that the ground on which
the South now stands is, that capital should own and not hire its labor.
But, Mr. President, it is not material to my present purpose to inquire how
many or how few of the men of the South now maintain these views. Most certainly,
I shall not stand here to question for one moment the sincerity of those gentlemen
who disclaim such extreme opinions, and maintain, as they now do, that slavery
should be confined to the negro race alone. I take them at their word, and accept
precisely what they now say. Their position is, that slavery is a blessing,
an institution approved of God, and to be maintained by man. That I understand
to be the ground upon which the gentlemen now stand. Well, sir, that is substantially
all that I intended to say in the beginning, when I was interrupted, in order
to show that the South have changed their ground on this question of slaverynegro
slavery, if you please. How long is it since the leading men of the South, and
in all the States of the South, their judges upon the benches of their Supreme
Courts, their statesmen in Congress and out of Congress, took the ground which
the Richmond Enquirer stated was taken by the South, that slavery was an evil
to be apologized for, to be borne as a necessity, rather than bear something
worse? How long is it since they have taken the ground that slavery is a positive
good; a divine institution, on which you may ask the blessing of the church
and the blessing of Heaven? It has all come up within the last few years, under
the lead of Mr. Calhoun; there is no disputing this fact.
Sir, but the other day, in this very Senate, the Senator from Virginia, (Mr.
HUNTER,) in speaking of the course which had been pursued by Mr. Letcher, the
lately-elected Governor of Virginia, in relation to some speech or doctrines
that had been promulgated in Western, Virginia, stood up here and stated the
fact frankly, in substanceI speak from memorythat we in Virginia have changed
our ground; we do not stand where we stood anciently; we do not stand where
our fathers stood upon this slavery question; as much as to say, we do not believe
in what Washington believed, and Jefferson believed, and Madison believed, and
Monroe believed, and all the leading men of Virginia, for the first fifty years
of our existence under the Constitution, believed; we have changed our opinion
in Virginia, and instead of now admitting that slavery is an evil, to be restricted
and discouraged, and which we may hope and pray may be some day entirely removed
from the Republic, we now take the ground that it is a blessing, to be fostered,
encouraged, and extended, as a benefit to the black man and a benefit to the
white. Mr. President, I do not find fault with gentlemen when they change their
opinions-----
Mr. MASON. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.
Mr. MASON. The Senator, I presume, in referring to a Senator from Virginia,
referred to my colleague.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I did.
Mr. MASON. I have not a very distinct recollection of what opinions he advanced
on the occasion to which the Senator alludes. I presume he alludes to a debate
during the present session.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MASON. I think, however, that he has been quoted by the honorable Senator,
substantially, correctly. Certainly, I believe that because of the aggressions
committed by the servile States, commonly called the free States, upon the condition
of African bondage in the South, the mind of the South has been more turned
toward it, and by reason of that further consideration, more deliberation, pondering
more deeply upon the relations subsisting between the African race in this country
and the white race, the opinion once entertained, certainly in my own State,
by able and distinguished men and patriots, that the condition of African slavery
was one more to be deplored than to be fostered, has undergone a change, and
that the uniformI might almost say universalsentiment in my own State upon the
subject of African bondage is, that it is a blessing to both races, one to be
encouraged, cherished, and fostered; and to that extent the opinion of Virginia
is different from the opinion entertained by those distinguished men who have
now gone, but who, we believe, best knowing their sentiments, if they lived
in this day would concur with us. That is the present opinion. I was not present
when this debate arose, and I am at some loss to know how this question of the
merits or demerits of the condition of African bondage has arisen in the Senate
of the United States, for it is a question I should think purely abstract, and
with which we have nothing to do. (See Note B.)
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, the honorable Senator who has just taken his seat
was not present when the debate arose. This discussion has grown up and become,
in its nature, somewhat conversational, in consequence of my having been interrupted
several times, having made in the outset a general remark on this subject of
slavery, that the men of the South had latterly taken different ground from
that heretofore occupied by them, and the honorable Senator from Virginia now
confirms the statement which I made, for which I am much obliged to the honorable
Senator. I take it that it must be conceded that the same opinions are not today
entertained on the subject of slavery, as an abstract question, among the leading
men of the South, which were entertained for the first fifty years of the existence
of this Government under the Constitution of the United States. This revolution
is fundamental, and if we go to the very bottom of it, we shall find that it
is based upon the idea recently adopted, as the honorable gentleman from Virginia
has now stated, that negro slavery is right, a blessing to both races, black
and white. The churches of the South, the schools of the South, the public press
of the South, the Legislatures of the South, and the statesmen of the South,
to-day maintain that doctrine. From this comparatively new idea have proceeded
all those struggles which have agitated the country for the last ten years.
Claiming to be a positive good, slavery becomes, of necessity, aggressive. It
demands
First, that the power of Congress to restrict or limit its expansion shall be
given up;
Secondly, that the people of a Territory shall have no power to limit or exclude
it; and
Thirdly, that by a decree of the Supreme Court, which the President declares
to be irrevocable, the Constitution, of its own force, guaranties the right
to take and hold slaves, under its protection, in all the Territories we now
have, or may hereafter ever acquire.
I do not complain of gentlemen who may change their opinions. It is any man's
rightmore, sir, dutyto change his opinion when convinced of error; but what
I complain of is this: that when you have changed your opinions, you insist
that we shall also change our opinions, and take the same new grounds which
you now take; and say, that if we of the free States, whom you sometimes call
the majority in this Confederacy, shall still maintain the same opinions which
our fathers maintained, and your fathers maintained, and upon which you have
but recently changed your own views, and shall honestly exercise our political
rights, and elect a President of the United States, as we legally may, who concurs
with us in our opinion that slavery is an evil, and ought not to be extended
into the Territories, you propose, some of you propose, to break up the Government.
I do not refer, of course, to the honorable Senator from Virginia on my left;
but there are those here and other men standing in high places who declare before
the world, that unless we do acquiesce in this change of opinion upon this question,
politically and judicially, unless we acquiesce in this doctrine, and take the
ground which Mr. Buchanan has taken in his message, this Government is to be
broken in pieces, and the Constitution overthrown. If we, being in a majority,
still hold to the opinions of those who made the Constitution, you will destroy
the Constitution. If we, being in a majority, shall still cherish the opinions
of those who formed the Union, you will dissolve the Union. Now, sir, we have
a right to complain of that. You are to convince us by argument, and if you
can do so, it is well enough. We have no objection to any argument addressed
to our understanding, to convince us of our error; but when that argument is
to be accompanied by a threat that the Government itself is to be destroyed
unless we accede to this new opinion which you yourselves have recently formed,
we have a right to complain. I repeat, sir, and we do complain.
Mr. President, so much has been said in relation to the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the Dred Scott case, that I desire to submit a
few words on that subject also. I do not deny the power of that court, in any
case of which it has jurisdiction, to make a final decision in that particular
case; but if, in the course of that adjudication, the judges of the court give
expression to an opinion bearing upon a political question, I deny that that
opinion has any binding force whatever upon us, as members of the Senate, or
upon the President of the United States, acting in his capacity as President,
either to approve or disapprove the legislation of Congress. This Supreme Court
have power to decide a case over which they have jurisdiction, because there
is no other tribunal to which an appeal can be made; and, in a case of that
kind, their decision is final and binding upon the parties to the suit. Their
rights, under the decision, become vested; but that any opinion which they may
express, in the course of that adjudication, is or ought to control the political
or the legislative action of the members of this body, or the political action
of the people of the United States, I deny altogether, as the most dangerous
of all doctrines ever promulged on the floor of the Senate or elsewhere. Grant
to this Supreme Court, composed of judges irresponsible to the people, and appointed
for life, this power of construction over the Constitution, and, though the
men upon that bench were angels instead of men, there would be established in
this Government an oligarchy as despotic as it would be irresponsible. It was
John Randolph, I think, who made that most significant remark, “the Book
of Judges comes before the Book of Kings.”
The business of a court is not to make or unmake laws or Constitutions. Their
business is simply to decide the rights of parties. In arriving at that decision,
they may and must pass on the law itself before they can apply it; but they
pass upon the question of law merely as the means of arriving at their decision,
as incidental to the duty which they have to perform in deciding the rights
of the parties. The court may decide right or wrong; and whether they decide
right or wrong; if there is no appeal from their decision, the parties in that
particular case are bound by the decision, notwithstanding; and the rights acquired
under it, whether they are based on a right decision or a wrong decision, become
fixed and vested, because there is no appeal to any other human tribunal.
But, Mr. Buchanan says, “the status of a Territory” “has been
irrevocably fixed by the final decision of the Supreme Court.” Yes, sir,
irrevocably fixed, that is the word! Sir, suppose this court should change its
opinion to-morrow; would that change the Constitution? Suppose that, in any
new case coming before it this same question of constitutional power should
be again discussed, and the court should do as this court has often done, and
as other courts no less able and distinguished have done a thousand times in
the history of judicial proceedings, overrule their own former opinion, would
that change the Constitution? Not at all, sir; the Constitution would remain
the same. I protest against this monstrous doctrine; and especially when it
is promulged by the leaders of the Democratic party of the United States. That
was not the Democratic doctrine when General Jackson was President, and Chief
Justice Taney was his Secretary. That was not the doctrine in relation to the
constitutionality of the United States Bank. The Supreme Court once decided
that a bank was constitutional. Who believes, if that question was presented
to that court to-day, that it would decide that a Bank of the United States
was constitutional?
The decision of judges is, after all, but an opinion of men; an opinion which
must necessarily be acquiesced in by the parties whose rights are determined;
but it is not an opinion to be acquiesced in either by the legal profession,
of by political parties, or by the Senate of the United States acting in its
official capacity. Such opinions are to be treated respectfully, as the opinions
of other respectable men; but when we come to act in our capacity as Senators
of the United States, we do not how down to the opinion which may have been
delivered is the Dred Scott case, or in any other case, by the Supreme Court
of the United States, or of any State in this Union. We are reduced to a very
strange state of things, if the mere dictum or opinion of any court is to be
received, to control the action of the Legislative body of the Government, or
to control the action of great political parties.
Without discussing the question, which has been often referred to, whether the
Supreme Court had or had not jurisdiction over the question of the constitutionality
of the Missouri compromise, I desire, for a few moments, to call your attention
to the history of the legislation of this Government bearing on that question:
and I undertake to show that every Administration of the Government of the United
States, beginning with Washington, and coming down to the close of the Administration
of James K. Polk, yes sir, that every Administration, upon their official oaths,
asserted and exercised the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of
slavery in the Territories, and to legislate by way of restriction. To go back
to the Administration of Washington, the ordinance of the Confederation of 1787
was re-enacted, under the Constitution, during his Administration, and received
his official signature. It was the eighth act, I believe, which ever passed
the Congress of the United States, which thus gave constitutional sanction and
validity to that great measure against slavery extension. In the Administration
of John Adams, Indiana was organized, in which this same provision was re-enacted.
Come down to the Administration of Mr. Jefferson, who was the apostle and leader
of the great Republican party of this country. To say nothing of the organic
act of the Territory of Michigan approved by him, which re-enacted the ordinance
of 1787, excluding slavery forever, I come, at once, to the organization of
the Territory of Orleansa Territory which was acquired by treaty from France,
in which the institution of slavery existed under the laws of France. The tenth
section of the act organizing that Territory provided that the foreign slave
trade, and also that the domestic slave trade, should not be permitted in that
Territory. Although that provision of the Constitution, which was to take effect
in 1808, giving Congress the power to put an end to the slave trade in the existing
States, had not yet taken effect, yet in 1804, four years before that time,
in the bill organizing the Territory of Orleans, the foreign slave trade was
prohibited; so, too, was the domestic slave trade prohibited, and no man was
permitted to take a slave into the Territory of Orleans for sale at all, and
no slave could be taken into that Territory, except by a bona fide owner removing
into the Territory for actual settlement. Here, even in the Territory of Orleans,
where slavery existed when we acquired it, Congress exercised the power of legislation
upon the subject of slavery, and exercised it by way of restriction. I do not
say that it exercised all its power; I do not say that Congress did all that
it could do to prevent slavery going into that Territory; but Congress did legislate
on that subject, and did legislate by way of restriction. It provided that,
if any man took a slave into the Territory for sale, or if any man took a slave
into the Territory unless he was actually emigrating into the Territory, and
took the slave as a part of his settlement with him, the slave should be emancipatedemancipated
by act of Congressand the man who was guilty of a violation of its provisions
should pay a fine of $300.
Mr. COLLAMER. Will the gentleman indulge me a moment?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly.
Mr. COLLAMER. In that same act, in relation to the Territory of Orleans, it
was further provided that slaves should not be taken into that Territory, either
for sale or in families, if they had been imported into the United States since
1798.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am obliged to my honorable friend from Vermont. I accept the
correction, and the fact is important. I would read the section of the act,
but I do not desire to take up the time which would be necessary to do so.
(Mr. PUGH, in the course of debate, in reply, having given his construction
to the act organizing Orleans Territory, Mr. DOOLITTLE said:
Mr. President, that the gentleman and myself may have no misunderstanding about
the question of what is provided in the law, I now read the section.
Mr. PUGH. Well; read it, and see if I am not right.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Here it is. I read from the Orleans act:
“SEC. 10. It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or
bring into the said Territory, from any port or place without the limits of
the United States, or cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly
to aid or assist in so importing or bringing, any slave or slaves. And every
person so offending, and being there of having competent jurisdiction, shall
forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of
$300; one moiety for the use of the United States, and other moiety for the
use of the person or persons who shall sue for the same; and every slave so
imported or brought shall become entitled to, and receive his or her freedom.
It shall not be Lawful for any person or persons to imported or bring into the
said Territory, from any port or place within the limits of the United States,
or to cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or
assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, which shall have been
imported since the 1st day of May, 1798, into any port or place within the limits
of the United States, or which may hereafter be so imported, from any port or
place without the limits of the United States; and every person so offending
and being thereof convicted before any court within said Territory, having competent
jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay, for each and every slave so imported or
brought, the sum of $300; one moiety for the use of the United States, and the
other moiety for the use of the person or persons who shall sue for the same.”
And, now, I will call the Senator's attention to what follows. These are the
two cases to which he has referred:
“And no slave or slaves shall directly or indirectly be introduced into
said Territory, except by a citizen of the United States removing into said
Territory for actual settlement, and being, at the time of such removal, a bona
fide owner of such slave or slaves; and every slave, imported or brought into
the said Territory contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be
entitled to, and receive, his or her freedom.”
What I stated in relation to the Orleans Territory was this: that Congress exercised
the power, not only to prevent the foreign slave trade, and to prevent, as my
friend from Vermont also stated, the bringing into the Territory slaves, from
any of the States, either for sale or in families, that had been imported into
the United States after 1798, but also to put an end to the entire domestic
slave trade; and while I said that Congress did not do all that it had the power
to do to prevent slaves going into that Territory, Congress did legislate by
way of restriction, not allowing any man to take a slave into the Territory
for sale; allowing no man to take a slave into the Territory unless he was bona
fide removing for settlement, and taking his slaves with him as a part of his
settlement; and not even then, unless imported before 1798. That is the substance
of what I stated, and the section which I have read bears me out entirely.)
Again, sir, in the cession from North Carolina, it was provided that Congress
should make no regulation tending to the emancipation of slaves. Why insert
such a provision, if Congress had no such power?
Mr. President, when do we first hear of this celebrated doctrine, which has
made so much figure before the American people within the last six or eight
years, of Territorial independence, squatter sovereignty, or whatever it may
be termed, the absolute right of a Territory, just as soon as it is organized,
to legislate for itself upon all matters of internal concern, independent of
the control of Congress? During the Administration of Mr. Jefferson, Mr. St.
Clair, then Governor of the Northwestern Territory, first broached this doctrine,
that the moment a Territory is once organized, that moment it becomes a State,
independent of the action of Congress, with sovereign power to legislate for
itself, in an address, in this language:
“For all internal affairs, we have a complete Legislature of our own,
and they are no more bound by an act of Congress than by an edict of the First
Consul of France.”
President Jefferson, through Mr. Madison, as Secretary of State, met this doctrine
in this style; he addressed Mr. St. Clair the following note:
“SIR: The President, observing in an address lately delivered by you to
the Convention at Chilicothe an intemperance and indecorum of language towards
the Legislature of the United States, and a disorganising spirit and tendency
of very evil example, and grossly violating the rules of conduct enjoined by
your public station, determines that your commission of Governor of the Northwestern
Territory shall cease on the receipt of this notification.”
Mr. PUGH. I would ask the Senator where he got that extract from Governor St.
Clair's speech. Did he ever read the whole speech?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, I have not read the whole speech; but I have read, as I suppose,
the substance of it.
Mr. PUGH. It shows that the Senator had better have done it. Governor St. Clair
was not speaking of that question at all, but he was endeavoring to persuade
the Convention of the people of Ohio, met to form a State Constitution, to trample
under foot the enabling act of Congress. It had nothing to do with the Territorial
Government. It was a speech delivered in Chilicothe, in 1803.
(Some further colloquy ensued, and Mr. DOOLITTLE resumed. See Note D.)
During Mr. Jefferson's Administration, there occurred another memorable event,
bearing upon this subject, never to be forgotten. The Territory of Indiana petitioned
Congress to repeal the Slavery restriction. It was refused by Mr. Jefferson's
Administration. The petition was referred to a committee, of which John Randolph
was chairman, who reported against it, declaring that it was “highly dangerous
and inexpedient to impair a provision wisely calculated to promote the growth
and prosperity of the Northwest Territory.”
If you pass on from the organization of the Territory of Orleans, and come down
to the organization of the Territory of Illinois in 1809, and again of Missouri
in 1812, in the Administration of Mr. Madison, the same power of Congress was
recognised and exercised, though not to the extent of entire exclusion from
the last. Pass down to the Administration of Mr. Monroe when the compromise
was passed. When the question of its constitutionality was before Mr. Monroe,
he summoned his Cabinet together, and took their opinions; and they gave their
unanimous opinions in favor of the power of Congress to exclude slavery from
the Territories of the United States. Upon that subject, I beg leave to read
an extract from the diary of John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State:
“March 3, 1820.When I came this day to my office, I found there a note,
requesting me to call at one o'clock at the President's House. It was then one,
and I immediately went over. He expected that the two bills, for the admission
of Maine and to enable Missouri to make a Constitution, would have been brought
to him for his signature; and he had summoned all the members of the Administration,
to ask their opinions in writing, to be deposited in the Department of State,
upon two questions: 1. Whether Congress had a constitutional right to prohibit
slavery in a Territory; and, 2. Whether the eighth section of the Missouri bill
(which interdicts slavery forever in the territory north of 36 degrees 30 minutes
latitude) was applicable only to the Territorial state, or would extend to it
after it should become a State. As to the first question, it was unanimously
agreed that Congress have the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories.”
I repeat it, sir, the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe were unanimously of opinion that
Congress had the power to prohibit slavery in a Territory; and in that Cabinet
were William Wirt, William H. Crawford, and John C. Calhoun.
Mr. CHESNUT. I think it is due to the memory of Mr. Calhoun to state what I
believe to be known to most Senators, and is according to my recollection, that
upon the floor of the Senate, in response to this charge, made by the Senator
from Missouri, Mr. Benton, he denied ever having given such an opinion in relation
to the Missouri compromise. I state that much, as due to the memory of Mr. Calhoun.
Mr. HAMLIN. If my friend from Wisconsin will allow me a moment, I will state
that I recollect very well the denial to which the Senator from South Carolina
has alluded. Mr. Calhoun did, upon the floor of the Senate, make that denial;
but I also recollect that a Senator of this body at that time, Mr. Dix, of New
York, obtained from the State Department what purported to be an abstract from
the envelope in which those opinions were enclosed. The opinions themselves
were not found.
Mr. PUGH. And never have been.
Mr. HAMLIN. But the envelope was found in the Department.
(See Appendix, Note C.)
(Mr. PUGH (among other things) said: I said the other day, and I have said it
many times here and elsewhere, that I was in favor of maintaining the principle
of the Missouri compromise up to the time that California formed her State Constitution;
not that I believed it to be constitutional, but it having been tried before
the adoption of the Constitution, and having been acquiesced in, and being the
shortest way to make peace, I was in favor of extending the Missouri-compromise
line to the Pacific ocean up to the time that the State of California formed
a State Government. That drove me to the other doctrine of
non-intervention and popular sovereignty. Therefore it is in vain for the gentleman
to cite the Missouri compromise, or any of its corollaries.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I have discussed simply the question of constitutional power,
not of expediency. I ask the honorable Senator whether, in his opinion, he can
go for anything which is unconstitutional, if it is expedient?
Mr. PUGH. No, sir.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I discussed the simple question of the constitutionality of the
power of Congress on that subject, not of expediency.
Mr. PUGH. Does the Senator see no difference between a power of universal prohibition
and a power of division? Can he see no difference between an act of Congress
that provides that no slaves shall be taken into any Territory, and an act of
Congress which divides the Territory equally between the slaveholding and nonslaveholding
States? Is it possible that the Senator sees no distinction? If so, I despair
of enlightening him.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. President, I was speaking of the constitutional power of
Congress to legislate upon and exclude slavery from the Territories; and if
it has the constitutional power to exclude ten slaves, it has the constitutional
power to exclude ten thousand, or exclude them all. If it has the power to exclude
slavery from half the Territory, it has the power to exclude it from the whole.
I was simply arguing the question of constitutional power; and while I admit
that, in reference to some of the Southern Territories, Congress did not, in
the exercise of its constitutional power, do all that it had a right to do,
yet it did exercise a portion of that power by way of limitation, even of slavery,
in the slaveholding Territories of the South. On the question of power, there
is not difference whether we exclude half or exclude the whole, or front half
or the whole of the Territory.)
The bill received the signature of President Monroe, who thus, upon his official
oath, asserted and exercised the constitutional power of excluding slavery from
the Territories.
But let us pass on from 1820, and come down at once to General Jackson's Administration.
I understand General Jackson to be good Democratic Republican authority. He
certainly was when I belonged to the Democratic Republican party of this country,
although many whom I now see upon the other side of the Chamber, standard-bearers
of the Democracy of to-day, were not then enrolled within its ranks. I do not
refer to my honorable friend from Alabama, (Mr. FITZPATRICK.) In 1836, Wisconsin
was organized as a Territory, and this same provision for slavery restriction
was reincorporated in the bill for its organization; and, to show how little
General Jackson and his Administration thought of this new degma, that the moment
a Territory is organized, Congress has no longer any power over its legislation,
I will refer you to some facts which took place during his Administration.
The Territorial Legislature of Florida and the Territorial Legislature of Wisconsin
assumed the power to incorporate certain banking institutions. During the Administration
of General Jackson, a law was introduced into Congress, and passed both houses
and received his signature, repealing those bank charters; and it went further,
and declared that no Territorial Legislature should have power to incorporate
a bank without the consent of Congress. This shows what he thought of this idea
that Territories, from the moment they are organized, become sovereign, and
indpendent of the control of Congress. Such an idea was never dreamed of by
the Democratic party in its better days.
But again, sir, Iowa was organized in 1838, during Mr. Van Buren's Administration,
and the next year, I believe, there was an act passed to alter and amend the
organic acts of Wisconsin and Iowa; and what was that alteration? Up to that
time, 1839, the Governor of a Territory always had an absolute veto on every
law passed by a Territorial Legislature. The Governor not only had the right
to veto it absolutely, but it was made his duty if he approved a bill to submit
it to Congress, to be approved or disapproved by Congress before it should take
any effect; but in 1839, the Territorial organic acts of Wisconsin and Iowa
were amended, and it was provided that the veto power of the Governor should
be reduced from an absolute veto to a veto requiring but two-thirds of both
branches of the Legislature to pass a bill over it; but in the second section
of that act it was expressly provided that
“This act shall not be so construed as to deprive Congress of the right
to disapprove of any law passed by the said Legislative Assembly, or in any
way to impair or alter the power of Congress over laws passed by said Assembly.”
Where was this new dogma of Territorial sovereignty then? Sir, it had never
seen the light. No man of standing in the country had ever dreamed of it at
that time, unless it be Arthur St. Clair, of whom and of whose fate, I have
already spoken. The power of Congress to control the legislation of the Territories
was an admitted power, exercised by all Administrations contended for by all
parties in this Government from the beginning down to the period of which I
speak. But, sir, I stop not there. Coming down still later, to the Administration
of James K. Polk, when Mr. Buchanan was Secretary of State, Oregon was organized,
and the same provision was inserted in the organic act of that Territory, by
which slavery was prohibited therein forever.
It is true, therefore, as I have stated, that in the history of this Government,
from the Administration of Washington to 1847, to the close of Mr. Polk's Administration,
every Administration from the beginning has not only asserted, but, upon its
official oath and responsibility, it has exercised, the power to legislate for
the Territories over their internal concernsnot only upon their local concerns
generally, but upon the subject of slavery, and to legislate by way of restriction.
Mr. PUGH. Does the Senator mean to say that that was the opinion of President
Polk?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. He signed the bill, and when he signed the bill
Mr. PUGH. I ask the Senator if he is aware of the fact that Mr. Polk brought
to the Capitol a message to vet othe Wilmot proviso, and that it is in existence
now? He brought it to the Capitol, and would have vetoed the bill, and the message
is in existence.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The facts, I believe, are these: Mr. Polk, at one time, contemplated
vetoing the Oregon bill. He subsequently sent a special message to the Congress
of the United States, in which he stated, in substance, that if the Territory
of Oregon had reached below 36° 30', he would have vetoed the billnot because
Congress had not the power, but on the simple ground of expediency, that his
was in favor of extending the compromise line of 30° 36' to the Pacific
ocean. That is the ground on which he placed it.
Mr. PUGH. That is not the fact to which I called the Senator's attention.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I will ask the Senator, do you say that Mr. Polk, in that message,
denied the power of Congress?
Mr. PUGH. He did. I was going to tell the Senator that the message to which
I referred, the original, is endorsed in Mr. Polk's handwriting:
“I brought this message, signed, to the Capitol, on the night of the 3d
of March, 1849, intending to send it to the House of Representatives if they
had persisted in the amendment to the civil and diplomatic appropriation bill”
Which was the Wilmot proviso; but the House having receded, the message never
was sent in. The paper is in existence. Large extracts of it have been published
within the last month in the papers.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I shall be obliged to the honorable gentleman if he will produce
the message, and point out the paragraph in it in which Mr. Polk denies the
power of Congress to legislate upon the subject of slavery in the Territories.
Mr. PUGH. The first sentence says it. I will get the Senator the message.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Get it, if you please. The special message which he sent to Congress
at the subsequent session, after approving of the Oregon bill, stated, as I
understand it, the grounds on which he would have vetoed the Oregon bill if
that Territory had extended below 36° 30', not upon the ground of constitutional
power, but upon expendiency. If, however, Mr. Polk has written a message declaring
that the bill was unconstitutional, and has affixed his signature to a bill
which he considered unconstitutional, that does not alter the fact which I stated,
that every Administration has asserted, and has exercised upon its official
oath and responsibility, the power of legislating on the subject of slavery
in the Territories of the United States, from Washington down to the close of
Mr. Polk's Administration; although, if the Senator from Ohio is correct, it
would place Mr. Polk under a very grave imputation. I think, however, he must
be mistaken.
(Mr. PUGH (in the course of the subsequent debate) said: I believe the gentleman
claims nothing under Tyler.
Mr. DOOLITTLE (in reply to that) said: It is true I did not refer to Mr. Tyler's
Administration when Mr. Calhoun was Secretary of State, but I will refer Senators
to it now, to show that Congress went even further than they did in any other
Administration. In the Texas joint resolutions of admission, this language will
be found:
“New States, of convenient size, and not exceeding four in number, in
addition to the said State of Texas, and having sufficient population, may hereafter,
by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which
shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution.
And such States as may be formed out of that portion of said territory lying
south of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri-compromise
line, shall be admitted into the Union with or without slavery, as the people
of each State asking admission may desire. And in such State or States as shall
be formed out of said territory north of said Missouri-compromise line, slavery,
or involuntary servitude, (except for crimes,) shall be prohibited”.
Mr. Tyler and his Administration went so far as to prohibit slavery in the States.)
(Mr. PUGH again, in the course of the subsequent debate upon this point said,
among other things:
But, sir, I have heard the Senator talk about what former Presidents and former
Congresses have done. He does not open the Constitution of the United States,
and show us this power. He says it existed because it has been exercised. Does
he argue that way about other subjects? Does he go back to 1793, to the act
providing for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, and to its recognition by
every department of this Government, and by all the States, and does he say
that it is a settled question? Oh, no, that is not settled; it is unsettled;
and I have heard the Senator himself get up on this floor and say that he did
not understand the Constitution of the United States to vest in Congress any
power to provide for the reclamation of fugitives from service.
To which Mr. DOOLITTLE replied. The difference between the honorable Senator
and myself is simply this: he can argue words out of the instrument, or words
into the instrument, at his plensure; I cannot do it. The clause of the Constitution
in reference to fugitives from service does not say that Congress shall have
the power to legislate on that subject at all; it says no such thing. It simply
says that a State shall not, by any act of its own, discharge from service a
fugitive who may be held to service under the laws of another State; and I tell
the gentleman that, as an original question, coming up for discussion, any good
lawyer and strict constructionist of the Constitution will say, as I say, that
the Constitution of the United States does not, in that clause, give to Congress
any power to legislate at all. But in relation to the other clause of the Constitution
to which I have referred, it expressly says Congress shall have the power. That
is the difference. In the one case it does not say it where the gentleman says
it has the power. In the other case, where he denies the power, and I insist
that Congress has it, the Constitution says it shall have the power. Now, let
us see these clauses. I have heard of a man being able to argue the seal off
a bond in a court of justice
Mr. PUGH. I wish the Senator would read his passage, for I am very anxious to
conclude my remarks. I am willing to hear it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The clause in relation to fugitives escaping from service is
as follows:
“No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein,
be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim
of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
Now, there is no power given to Congress to legislate on that subject. It does
inhibit the power of a State to legislate in a certain way, and any law or any
proceeding on the part of a State which has the effect to discharge the fugitive
from labor, is unconstitutional and void, by the Constitution of the United
States; and every State court, every State judge, and every judge of the Supreme
Court, is bound so to declare it. That is the true construction of this clause.
But in relation to the other clause the language is:
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.”
The Supreme Court, in five different decisions, beginning about 1810, and the
last one in 1853just about six months before you passed your Nebraska billunanimously
decided that this clause of the Constitution gave Congress power to govern and
legislate for the Territories. The difference between him and me is this: where
I maintain Congress has the power, the Constitution says it shall have the power;
he maintains it has the power where the Constitution does not say it. My honorable
friend here has the faculty of arguing words in or arguing words out at his
pleasure. I have never yet learned to do that.
Mr. DOOLITTLE (in the regular order of debate) said:
And now, sir, let us for a single moment look at the question, aside from all
precedent and judicial construction, and see where we stand. What is the language
of the Constitution:
“The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules
and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the
United States.”
It has sometimes been said that the power which Congress exercises is a power
over the territory as property merely. Suppose we take that position, that Congress
controls it as mere property; what then may Congress do? What may the owner
of property do? He may sell it, or refuse to sell it; he may lease it, or refuse
to lease it; he may sell it to a white man, to an Indian, to a negro, or he
may refuse to sell it to either; he can lease it to one, or refuse to lease
it to another. He can say that the foot of a slave shall never tread upon it.
If you concede that Congress can control it as property, you concede the whole
ground of power; for Congress would then have power to keep off every Chinaman,
every negro, every alien, and could keep off even our own citizens; and Congress
does exercise the power of keeping even our own citizens off certain portions
of the public domain.
Again, you say that Congress is to treat it as mere property. Well, let us view
it in another light. What do the facts show? Look at Wisconsin and Iowa, and
then, at Missouri. The public lands of Wisconsin and Iowa have sold, on an average,
for almost a dollar an acre; and why? Because they were not cursed with the
presence of a negro servile population, and were peopled by freemen, and by
them alone. How was it with Missouri? So long as it was understood and generally
believed that Missouri was to be a slave State, and to remain a slave State,
that population sought its home with reluctance in Missouri; and what has been
the effect on your public lands in that State of the presence of slave labor?
They scarcely averaged twenty-five cents an acreland just as good as it is in
Wisconsin, just as good as it is in Iowa. Why? Because Slavery existed in Missouri.
So, if we are to come down to the mere mercenary consideration of dollars and
cents, and discuss this as a question of property, if Congress controls the
Territory as mere property, the question whether Slavery should go into Kansas
or not, is a mere question of property alone, would make $40,000,000 difference
to the people of the United States.
But another says he believes in popular sovereignty, and therefore Congress
should have no power to legislate for the Territories. So do I believe; but
I will tell you the kind of popular sovereignty that I believe in. The people
of the United States, and the States of the Union represented here in Congress,
are the popular sovereigns in the Territories, and therefore Congress should
have power to legislate for them. The people who purchase the Territories, who
pay for the Territories, who, if necessary, fight for the Territories; the people
who own them, and expect to settle in them, or send their children there; who
pay the expenses of the Legislatures, the judges, and the Governors of the Territoriesthey
are the people who are rightfully sovereign in the Territories of the United
States, and not the first band of settlers who happen to go there, whether from
one State or from another. It is the people and States of the whole United States
represented in Congress who are sovereign there until the Territories are grown
up to sovereignty, when the power of Congress over them should cease, and they
be admitted into the sisterhood of States.
Again, sir: all must concede that Congress has power to pass an organic act.
What is that but a law for the Territorythe fundamental law, controlling all
other Territorial laws? It is equally certain that Congress can repeal or amend
the organic act. From this consideration alone, Mr. Buchanan was right when
he said the “inference is irresistible, that Congress has the power to
legislate” for the Territories.
But, Mr. President, to return once more to this Dred Scott decision. We are
always bound to respect the final decision of any court, so far as the particular
case is concerned, for the parties to it are compelled to acquiesce in the decision,
where the court have jurisdiction; but as to the political opinions expressed
by some of the judges in making that decision, I feel compelled to say, frankly,
they do not command my respect. This may be, perhaps, the first time when it
is alleged that the precise question has arisen before the Supreme Court of
the United States as to the power of Congress to legislate on the subject of
slavery in the Territories, but it is by no means the first time the question
has arisen before that court as to the general power, or the source of the constitutional
power, of Congress over the Territories. That question has been presented to
the court in four or five different cases, running through a period of almost
fifty years. The first of these cases, that of Sere vs. Pitot, arose in 1810,
and is reported in 6 Cranch, 336. The Supreme Court of the United States, without
any dissenting opinion, and in the most explicit language, then declared:
“The power of governing and legislating for a Territory is the inevitable
consequence of the right to acquire and hold territory. Could this position
be contested the Constitution declares that Congress shall have power to dispose
of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other
property belonging to the United States;' accordingly, we find Congress possessing
and exercising the absolute and undisputed power of governing and legislating
for the Territory of Orleans.”
Sir, can any court, in stating the power which Congress exercises over the Territories
of the United States, use any broader language than when it declares that Congress
possesses and exercises the absolute and undisputed right of governing and legislating
for a Territory?
Again, in 1828eighteen years afterwardsCanter's case, which is reported in 1
Peters, 511, came before the Supreme Court, and then the Court declared:
“In the mean time, Florida continues to be a Territory of the United States,
governed by that clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress 'to make
all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property
belonging to the United States.' Perhaps the power of governing a Territory
belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a State, acquired
the means of self-government, may result necessarily from the facts that it
is not within the jurisdiction of any particular State, and is within the power
and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern may be the inevitable
consequence of the right to acquire territory. Whichever may be the source whence
the power may be derived, the possession of it is unquestioned.”
That was the language of the Supreme Court, with no dissenting voice. It was
not the opinion of a bare majority, where the whole world knows that the court
is divided according to its political opinions upon a question presented before
it, but the unanimous opinion of the whole court, declaring the power which
Congress possesses and exercises over the Territories of the Union. Again, in
the case of McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; and again, in 1840, in the
case of the United States vs. Gratiot, 16 Peters, 537, the court, in delivering
its opinion, without a dissenting voice, referred to this clause of the Constitution
as the true and undoubted source of the power over the Territories. And what
is a remarkable fact, which the country ought to know, in the judicial history
of this Government, is, that as late as the December term, 1853, a very few
weeks before the introduction of the Nebraska bill, and the proposition to repeal
the Missouri compromise, the Supreme Court of the United States, in an opinion
delivered by Judge Wayne, with the unanimous approbation of the court, consisting
of the same judges that pronounced the Dred Scott opinion, speaking of the Territory
of California, said:....
Here we have the unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court on cases arising at
five different periods in its history, beginning in 1810, and coming down to
1853, when the judges, by no divided opinions based upon political opinions
or otherwise, did as our fathers did, as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe,
and Jackson did, maintain and declare the right of Congress to exercise the
undisputed power of legislating for the Territories of the United States.
But let us now see upon what grounds they avoid the effect of these decisions.
They now take the ground, among others, that that clause of the Constitution
of the United States does not refer to any territory acquired since the Constitution
was formed that it only referred to the territory then belonging to the United
States. That is one of the grounds on which they place it; and yet, the case
coming up from Florida was in relation to territory acquired afterwards; the
case coming up from Orleans was in relation to territory acquired in 1853; and
the last, in relation to California, acquired by the Mexican war or treaty of
peaceall of it territory acquired since the Constitution took effect. Do not
the majority of that court plant themselves upon a very narrow ground, to avoid
the effect of its former decisions?
Mr. President, when I am told by gentlemen that I must respect the decision
of the Supreme Court, and that my judgment must bow before its opinion, I ask
you which opinion? An opinion delivered by a divided court, in the midst of
intense excitement, upon a question of all others the ground of political strife,
and made in accordance with preconceived political opinions and party associations?
Shall I bow my judgment before that opinion, or shall I hold in reverence the
opinion of that court pronounced unanimously by its judges, through a period
of near forty years, in which they maintain, and declare again and again and
again, the unquestionable and unquestioned power of Congress to legislate over
the Territories of the United States?
To the gentlemen upon the other side of the Chamber, I would say, in all frankness,
I do not doubt your sincerity nor question your integrity when you tell me that
the South has changed its ground on this question; but when I concede to you
that, you must concede the same to me, and those who act with me on this side
of the Chamber. I believe that every Administration of the Government, from
the beginning to 1847, has officially asserted and exercised this power. I,
also, believe that not only the Supreme Court of every free State, but the Supreme
Court of every slave State in this Union, that ever gave an opinion on the question,
previous to 1847, has always maintained that slavery rests upon local law, and
local law alone; that the Constitution is not a general charter to carry slavery
all over the Territories of the Union. No case, I believe, previous to 1847,
can be found when the Supreme Court of any State, North or South, has taken
the ground that the Constitution of the United States, of its own force, carries
the law of slavery into the Territories of the Union. They, and all of them,
whenever they have spoken at all, have conceded to Congress the unquestioned
and unquestionable power to legislate for the Territories of the Union, and
also that slavery rests only upon local law. Now, gentlemen, when you tell us
that we must renounce our opinions, when you say to us in substance that the
life-long opinions which we have entertained, which our fathers taught us, which
your fathers taught us also, we must now surrender; that we must bow down and
worship a political dogma which to-day declares that the Constitution of the
United States, of its own force, carries slavery into, or, what is the same
thing, guaranties the right to take and hold slaves in, every Territory which
we now have, or may hereafter acquire, we tell gentlemen we cannot conscientiously
change our opinions; and because you accompany this with the declaration that,
if we do not change them, but will maintain and act upon them, and elect a man
who believes in them President of the United States, you will break up this
Confederacy, we tell you frankly, gentlemen, that does not change our opinion
either; it cannot be changed by any such argument as that. Instead of addressing
our manhood, it is addressed to the want of it; and we give you to understand
distinctly that, on this question, our opinions are still unchanged, and this
last argument, if it has any effect, makes them more fixed and determined.
We still believe that freedom is national, that slavery is sectional and local,
and rests upon local law alone. We do not believe that, if we should acquire
Canada to-morrow, there is any such
slave-extending power in the Constitution of the United States as will, of its
own force, at once repeal the laws of Canada against slavery, and establish
it there, so that a man from Virginia or South Carolina could take his slaves
at once into the territory of Canada, and hold them there, beyond the power
of Congress, or any other human power, protected by the Federal Constitution.
Nor do we believe that it has any such power over the Mexican laws in the Territory
of Utah, California, New Mexico, or any other territory we may acquire from
Mexico, as of its own force, to repeal, at once, those laws which abolished
slavery there, and re-establish the law of slavery, so that you can take your
slaves into them, without any positive law authorizing it, and hold them there
by virtue of the Constitution.
If this ground is conceded, where will the people of the North stand? If we
concede the ground that the Constitution of the United States, of its own force,
would authorize you to carry slaves into Canada if we should purchase it to-morrow,
the same Constitution would authorize you to carry it into Wisconsin, and we
could not hinder it; and why? Before answering this question, perhaps I ought
to say that the Supreme Court, in the opinion which they have delivered, in
my humble judgment, on a fair construction of that opinion, have as yet gone
no further than to deny to Congress and to the people of the Territory the power
to prohibit slavery; but Mr. Buchanan, in the message from which I read the
extract, goes altogether beyond the Supreme Court, in my judgment. Mr. Buchanan
assumes not only that neither Congress nor any other human power has the power
to prohibit its entry, but that the Constitution, under the decision of the
Supreme Court, with its own positive force, guaranties the right to carry and
hold slaves in the Territories which we now have or may hereafter acquire. He
says:
“The right has been established of every citizen to take his property
of any kind, including slaves, into the common Territories belonging equally
to all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there under the
Federal Constitution.”
He does not stop with Chief Justice Taney and the judges of the Supreme Court,
who deny that Congress or the Territory has the power to legislate, and therefore
pronounce the Missouri restriction unconstitutional; but he goes further, and
undertakes to make it out that the Constitution of the United States, by its
own positive force, guaranties slavery in all the Territories.
But, to return to the question. If it has that effect in a Territory, it has
it in a State. The Constitution of the United States was made for States, and
not for Territories at all. It only mentions them to give Congress the power
to govern them. It is the paramount law of the land, anything in any State Constitution
or law to the contrary notwithstanding; and if the Constitution of the United
States has the power to repeal the law against slavery in Canada, should we
acquire it, and to guaranty the right to take and hold slaves there, it can
repeal the Constitution of Wisconsin restricting slavery, and guaranty the right
to take and hold slaves there. Does not the Constitution mean the same thing
everywhere?the same in Wisconsin and in Kansas? And do you not recollect, sir,
that the very moment the Dred Scott decision was pronounced, the newspaper in
Washington which claimed to represent the views of the AdministrationI refer
to the Uniondeclared that every State law and Constitution of every State in
the Union abolishing slavery was, under that decision, against the Constitution
of the United States, and therefore void. There is no half way with this doctrine;
there is no middle ground; there is no neutrality in it. I tell you, he that
is not with us is against us. You understand it, sir. You claim that your doctrine
carries slavery into every Territory by force of the Constitution; and it is
because you claim this, because you are asserting this aggressive doctrine in
favor of slavery, that we are prepared to resist it by our action, to resist
it in all lawful and in all honorable ways. We are pledged to do so, and we
expect to do so.
Mr. President, the truth is, that a revolution, based upon this novel idea,
that slavery is a blessing, has been inaugurated in this country within the
last twelve years, is now in progress, and has not been altogether bloodless
either. It was this same aggressive idea which led Mr. Atchison in Missouri,
in 1853, months before the Nebraska bill ever saw the light, to proclaim to
the people of Western Missouri that slavery is a thing of divine right(the same
doctrine which afterwards culminated in the Lecompton Constitution;) that it
is above and before all Constitutions; that Constitutions are to protect it,
not to abolish it; and, assuming this, it was resolved to force it into the
Territory of Kansas at all hazards, “at whatever sacrifice of blood or
treasure,” to use the language of the resolution of a meeting which he
addressed long before the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act. There is the place
where, and that was the time when, the war was declared on this question. It
was to carry out this aggressive policy, to carry the institution of slavery
into Territories free from it, made free by the law of Congress itself, that
that act was passed. I shall not go over what followed; we are too familiar
with that bloody chapter in our history. That aggression, too successful in
the beginning, failed in the end. Republicanism, taking the alarm, reorganized
itself, in 1856, and, though defeated in the canvass, achieved a victory. By
its moral power it made some of the chosen instruments of that aggression stand
back aghast, and shrink from the consequences of their own work. The revolutionary
leaders were beaten, with the Administration in their hands. Kansas is free.
We now say, I repeat, to our friends from the South, that, while it is your
right to change your opinions on this question, when you undertake to force
those opinions upon the country for the purpose of compelling the Government
of the United States to revolutionize its whole policy, to carry out an aggressive
policy for slavery extension everywhere, it is our intention and full purpose
to resist this revolution in the Government, and to overcome itpeacefully of
course, but we expect to overcome it.
Mr. President, I have detained the Senate longer than I anticipated; but there
is contained in those few sentences of the annual message which I have read,
that which covers the whole ground; and, if adopted and acquiesced in by the
American peoplewhich, in my opinion, it will not bethe Calhoun revolution would
be complete; there would be no longer any free Territories; all would be slave
Territories; there would no longer be any free States; all would be slave States.
The honorable Senator from Virginia, not now in his seat, (Mr. MASON,) applied
to the free States generally a term which I can hardly suffer to pass without
notice. He called them “the servile States.” I know not in what
sense the honorable gentleman intended to apply this term to the State which
I represent; but in whatever sense, I shall never apply any term of opprobrium
or disrespect to any of the States, and certainly never to the State from which
ho comes. No, sir; Virginia is a State in whose history and achievements we
take pride, and for whose opinions, for whose earlier opinions, we hold the
highest respect. Wisconsin, the State which I represent, was born of Virginia;
she was born in the day of her pride, and when the true principles of Virginia
found place in her history, and were expressed by her living statesmen. Sir,
I will employ no opprobrious epithet towards Virginianever. It is a State in
the memory of whose great names we of Wisconsin feel proud. To Virginia we owe
a debt of gratitude we can never repay. She has saved us, by her masterly policy
in the day of the infancy of the Northwestern Territory, from being cursed by
the presence of that institution which, without speaking disrespectfully of
her, I may be permitted to say, in may humble opinion, is sucking her very life's
blood.
Mr. President, I can speak, too, of the State of New York, for it was my native
State. At the beginning of this century, where stood Virginia and New York in
comparison with each other? Virginia had double the white population of New
York; to-day she has but one million, perhaps, of white population, while New
York has more than three millions. New York is now the Empire State; she has
taken the place which Virginia once proudly occupied. Virginia has as noble
harbors and rivers and waterfalls, a larger territory and better soils, and
a milder climate, than New York. But for her heavy misfortune, in the presence
of her servile negro population, there is every reason to believe she would
to-day have had a white population of at least three millions. What has Virginia
got in exchange for two millions of white children? She has half a million of
slaves and a quarter of a million of free negroes, perhaps. Do you ask me what
is the cause of all this change in her comparative position? What has produced
it? Why is it that to-day, if our country were invaded by a foreign foe, even
Wisconsin, young as she is, can bring as many troops into the field, and raise
as much bread to sustain them, as Virginia herself? Why is it? The answer is
too plain. It is the presence of this servile population in Virginia which has
produced this change in her comparative relations to her sister States, and
in comparison even to her youngest-born, Wisconsin, which I am proud this day
to represent. (See Note E.)
APPENDIX.
It will be observed that, in the revision of the above speech, some portions of debate and collequy are omitted, and the order of the debate within brackets changed, that all said by me upon one subject may appear together.
NOTE A.
Mr. Calhoun, the great leader of this new school, far in advance of his followers,
used this language in the Senate in 1838:
“Many in the South once believed that it (slavery) was a moral and political
evil; that folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and
regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.
It is impossible with us that the conflict can take place between labor and
capital, which make it so difficult to establish and maintain free institutions
in all wealthy and highly-civilized nations where such institutions as ours
(slavery) do not exist.”Appendix Cong. Globe, 1837-'8, p. 62.
Extracts from Mr. Hammond's speech in the Senate, from South Carolina, an eloquent
disciple in the school of Mr. Calhoun, March 4, 1858, speaking of a class which
he denominated the “mud sill” of society:
“Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to
her hand. * * * We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. * * * We
are old-fashioned at the South yet; it is a word discarded now by 'ears pohte.'
I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it;
it is there; it is everywhere; it is eternal; * * * in short, your whole hireling
class of manual laborers and 'operatives,' as you call them, are essentially
slaves. The difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life, and
well compensated; * * * yours are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily
compensated; * * * we do not think that whites should be slaves, either by law
or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. * * * Yours
are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals
in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation.
Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political power. Yours do vote, and,
being the majority, they are the depositaries of all your political power.”
The Richmond Enquirer, in 1855, then the leading journal of the Democratic party
in the South, said:
“At the North, and in Western Europe, by attempting to dispense with a
natural and necessary, and bitherto universal, limb, element, or institution
of society, you have thrown everything into chaotic confusion. In dispensing
with domestic slavery, you have destroyed order, and removed the strongest argument
to prove the existence of Deity, the author of that order.”
Againthe same journal says, in another number:
“This is but part of our programme; we mean to show up free societyto
show that the little experiment made in a corner of Western Europe has signally
failed. Then we will invade our North, where a similar experiment is makingnot
made. We will point to a thousand premonitory symptoms of ultimate failure,
and always adduce the Abolitionists themselves as our witnesses. In fine, we
intend, from time to time, to institute a searching comparison between slave
society and free society, and to prove that the former is the old almost universal,
normal, and natural, condition of civilized society.”
The Lynchburg Republican, the leading paper in Central Virginia, in 1854, speaking
of the “awful problem presented for solution by the conflict between capital
and labor,” asks:
“And is there no solutionno harmonizing remedy? * * Woman is inferior
to man; God and nature declare the fact; but where the cause of quarrel between
the two? The child is inferior to its parents; but no war can grow up between
them. In the last cases, the inferiority and subjection have ever been recognised.
Not so with capital and labor. They have never ceased to fight for the mastery,
and they NEVER will, until their true relations are recognised and acted upon
by society. If this were done, their clashing interests would be harmonized
and made identical. How and where is this done? We answer, that it is accomplished
by slavery, as it exists in the Southern States. * * * Slavery is the corner-stone
of our republicanism. * * * Slavery is the great peacemaker between capital
and labor.”
Mr. Fitzhugh, in a book entitled “Free Society a Failure,” commended
very extensively by Democratic journals South, says:
“We do not adopt the theory that Ham was the ancestor of the negro race.
The Jewish slaves were not negroes, and to confine the justification of slavery
to that race, would be to weaken its scriptural authority, and to lose the whole
weight of profane authority, for we read of no negro slavery in ancient times.
* * * Slavery, black or white, is right and necessary. * * * The slaves are
governed far better than the free laborers at the North are governed. Our negroes
are not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but their
moral condition is better.”
How different the opinions of the old Republican party, South as well as North!
NOTE B.
VIRGINIA OPINION IN THE REVOLUTIONARY ERA.
George Washington to Gen. Lafayette.
“I agree with you cordially in your views in regard to negro slavery. I have long considered it a most serious evil, both socially and politically, and I should rejoice in any feasible scheme to rid our States of such a burden. The Congress of 1787 adopted and ordinance which prohibits the existence of involuntary servitude in our Northwestern Territory forever. I consider it a wise measure. It met with the approval and assent of nearly every member from the States more immediately interested in slave labor. The prevailing opinion in Virginia is against the spread of slavery in our new Territories. AND I TRUST WE SHALL HAVE A CONFEDERACY OF FREE STATES.”
Same to Robert Morris, 1786.
“I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely
than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it, (slavery,) but there
is only one proper and effectual mode in which it can be accomplished, and that
is by legislative authority: and this, so far as my suffrage will go, shall
never be wanting.”I Sparks's Washington, 158.
Mr. Jefferson, in his Notes on Virginia:
“The abolition of domestic slavery is the greatest object of desire in
these Colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But
previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves, it is necessary to exclude further
importations from Africa.”American Archives, 4th series, vol. 1. p. 696.
Again, Mr. Jefferson, with that wonderful sagacity which seems almost inspired,
not only points out the evil, but, in the same sentence, points out the only
practical solution of it:
“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, THAN THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TO BE FREE: nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same Government. Nature, habit, and opinion, have drawn indelible lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degree as that the evil will wear off insensibly, and their places be, pari passu, filled up with free white laborers. It, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospects held up.”
Madison, in 1780:
“Congress might, for example, respecting the introduction of slaves into
the new States to be formed out of the Western Territory, make regulations,
such as were beyond their power in relation to the old settled States.”
VIRGINIA OPINION, AS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS OF HER LEGISLATURE AS LATE AS 1832.
Mr. Moore, of Rockbridge, said:
“In the first place, I shall confine my remarks to such of those evils
as effect the white population exclusively. And even in that point of view I
think that slavery, as it exists among us, may be regarded as the heaviest calamity
which has ever befallen any portion of the human race.”
Mr. Rives, of Campbell, said:
“On the multiplied and desolating evils of slavery, he was not disposed
to say much. The curse and deteriorating consequences were within the observation
and experience of the members of the House and the people of Virginia, and it
did seem to him that there could not be two opinions about it.”
Mr. Powell said:
“I can scarcely persuade myself that there is a solitary gentleman in
this House who will not readily admit that slavery is an evil, and that its
removal, if practicable, is a consummation most devoutly to be wished. I have
not heard, nor do I expect to hear, a voice raised in this hall to the contrary.”
Another Representative from Jefferson and Harper's Ferry, Mr. Henry Berry,
said:
“I believe that no cancer on the physical body was ever more certain,
steady, and fatal in its progress, than is the cancer on the political body
of the State of Virginia. It is eating into her very vitals.”
Mr. Thomas Marshall, of Fauquier, in the same section of Virginia, said:
“Wherefore, then, object to slavery? Because it is ruinous to the whites,
retards improvement, roots out an industrious population, banishes the yeomanry
of the country, deprives the spinner, the weaver, the smith, the shoemaker,
the carpenter, of employment and support.”
(Mr. Preston of Jefferson, Mr. Summers of Kanawha, Mr. Chandler of Norfolk,
Thomas J. Randolph, grandson of Jefferson, Mr. Bolling of Buckingham, urged
the same views with great eloquence and power.)
Mr. Brodnax, of Dinwiddie, said:
“That slavery in Virginia is an evil, it would be idle, and more than
idle, for any human being to doubt or deny. It is a mildew which has blighted
in its course every region it has touched, from the creation of the world.”
The Hon. Charles J. Faulkner, who also resides in the vicinity of Harper's
Ferry, made a long, eloquent, and radically abolition speech, in which he said:
“Does not the same evil exist? Is it not increasing? Does not every day
give it permanency and force? Is it not rising like a heavy and portentous cloud
above the horizon, extending its deep and sable volumes athwart the sky, and
gathering in its impenetrable folds the active materials of elemental war?”
Mr. James McDowell, of Rockbridge, since Governor of the State, and a distinguished
member of Congress, said:
“Sir, you may place the slave where you please, you may dry up, to your
utmost, the fountains of his foelings, the springs of his thought; you may close
upon his mind every avenue to knowledge, and cloud it over with artificial night;
you may yoke him to your labor as an ox which liveth only to work, and worketh
only to live; you may put him under any process, which, without destroying his
value as a slave, will debase and crush him as a national being; you may do
this, and the idea that he was born to be free will survive it all. It is allied
to his hope of immortality; it is the ethereal part of his nature, which oppression
cannot reach; it is a torch lit up in his soul by the hand of the Deity, and
never meant to be extinguished by the hand of man.”
In another part of the speech, he gives the following prophetic warning to
the South, and which those who now madly talk about dissolving the Union would
do well to heed:
“If gentlemen do not see and feel the evil of slavery while this Federal
Union lasts, they will see and feel it when it is gone; they will see and suffer
it then in a magnitude of desolating power, to which 'the pestilence that walketh
at noonday' would be a blessingto which the malaria which is now threatening
extinction to the 'Eternal City,' as the proud one of the[ ] and[ ] is called,
would be as refreshing and as balmy as the first breath of spring to the chamber
of disease. * * * Was it the fear of Net Turner, and his drunken, deluded handful
of fellows, which produced, or could produce, such effects? Was it this that
induced distant counties, where the very name of Southampton was strange, to
arm and equip for a struggle? No, sir; it was the suspicion eternally attached
to the slave himself; the suspicion that a << Nat Turner>> might
be in every family; that the same bloody deed could be acted over at any time,
and in any place; that the materials for it were spread through the land, and
always ready for a like explosion.”
NOTE C.
Without raising any question as to the integrity or personal honor of Mr. Calhoun,
the facts show, I think, conclusively, that in 1820, as a member of Mr. Monroe's
Cabinet, he must have given his opinion in favor of the constitutionality of
the Missouri compromise. The denial of Mr. Calhoun was made in 1848 almost thirty
years after the event. It is not positive and absolute in its terms, but is
based upon a want of recollection. Mr. Dix, of New York, was speaking upon this
question, and Mr. Calhoun said:
“If the Senator will give way, it will be, perhaps, better that I make
a statement at once respecting this subject, as far as my recollection will
serve me. During the whole period of Mr. Monroe's Administration, I remember
no occasion on which the members of his Administration gave written opinions.
I have an impression, thoughnot a very distinct onethat on one occasion they
were required to give written opinions; but, for some reason not now recollected,
the request was not carried into effect.”
He subsequently denied it, I am told, in more positive terms.
The facts, however, going to show that Mr. Calhoun favored the Missouri compromise
in 1820 are: 1st. An admission made in 1838, by him, in these words:
“He was not a member of Congress when that compromise was made, but it
is due to candor to state that his impressions were in its favor; but it is
equally due to it to say, that, with his present experience and knowledge of
the spirit which then, for the first time, began to disclose itself, he had
entirely changed his
opinion.”Appendix Cong. Globe, 1838, p. 70.
2d. Mr. Dix read in the Senate, July 26, 1848, (Appendix Gong. Globe, pp. 1178-'9,)
from Mr. Monroe's manuscripts, a fac simile of a paper endorsed “Interrogatories,
Missouri, March 4, 1820. To the Heads of Departments and Attorney General.”
Questions, (on opposite page.)
“Has Congress a right, under the powers vested in it by the Constitution,
to make a regulation prohibiting slavery in a Territory?
“Is the 8th section of the act which passed both houses on the 34 instant,
for the admission of Missouri into the Union, consistent with the Constitution?”
3d. He also read extracts from the diary of Mr. Adams, of March 4, 5, and 6,
1820, positively stating that the Cabinet were summoned to give their opinions,
and that they did give them, unanimously in the affirmative, to the first question.
4th. The facsimile of a letter in Mr. Monroe's handwriting, supposed to have
been written to General Jackson, in which he says:
“I took the opinion in writing of the Administration as to the constitutionality
of restraining the Territories, which was explicit in favor of it, and as it
was that the 8th section of the act was applicable to Territories only, and
not to States when they should be admitted into the Union.”
5th. The Index Book of the Department of State, referring to the filing of Cabinet
answers.
All these facts together place this matter of history beyond reasonable doubt.
NOTE D.
Extract from Gov. St. Clair's speech (National Intelligencer, December 6, 1802)
to the Convention of the Northwestern Territory:
“That the people of a Territory should form a Convention and a Constitution
needed no act of Congress. To pretend to authorize it was, on their part, an
interference with the internal affairs of the country, which they had neither
the power nor the right to make. The act is not binding on the people, and is,
in truth, a nullity; and could it be brought before that tribunal where acts
of Congress can be tried, would be declared a nullity. To all acts of Congress
that respect the United States (they can make no other) in their corporate capacity,
and which are extended by express words to a Territory, we are bound to yield
obedience. For all internal affairs, we have a complete Legislature of our own,
and in them are no more bound by an act of Congress than we would be bound by
an edict of the First Consul of France.”
In his speech, he used other disrespectful language towards Congress, but his
main positions are based, as I understand him, upon the principle stated in
his speech of Territorial sovereignty.
NOTE E.
The title to the Northwestern Territory was disputed between New York and Virginia,
claimed by both, and relinquished by both to the old Confederation. Many believe
that New York held the paramount title.