Part 1

Produced by ellinora, David E. Brown, and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)

A

HISTORY OF THE TRIAL

OF

CASTNER HANWAY AND OTHERS,

FOR

TREASON,

AT

PHILADELPHIA IN NOVEMBER, 1851.

WITH AN INTRODUCTION UPON

THE HISTORY OF THE SLAVE QUESTION.

BY

A MEMBER OF THE PHILADELPHIA BAR.

PHILADELPHIA: URIAH HUNT & SONS, No. 44 NORTH FOURTH STREETS. 1852.

MERRIHEW AND THOMPSON, PRINTERS.

PREFACE.

The following pages contain a short history of the late Christiana Treason Trials. During their progress a phonographic report of all the proceedings was taken and printed, by order of the Court, for the use of the Judges and Counsel employed in the cause. For this a copy right was secured, and proposals issued for publishing it in full. Though more than six months have elapsed, this has not yet been done, and the only account of the transactions to which the public have access, is contained in the daily papers of New York and Philadelphia. This pamphlet has been prepared to supply the deficiency.

The sources of information used in compiling it, have been the phonographic report already referred to; a transcript of the docket of Alderman Reigart of Lancaster; a transcript of the docket of E. D. Ingraham, Esquire, Commissioner of the U. S., resident in Philadelphia; the records of the Philadelphia County Prison; the records of the Circuit and District Courts; and the files of the Evening Bulletin. Where these have not furnished a connected story, the deficiency has been supplied from the writer’s own recollection, or that of his friends, who attended upon or participated in the trial.

Some of the most glaring absurdities and incongruities contained in Mr. Brent’s pamphlet, which he calls “A Report to his Excellency Governor Lowe in relation to the Christiana Treason Trials,” have been pointed out. The very limited circulation of this work, confined, we believe, to a few who received copies as a personal favor, would render any notice of it unnecessary, had it not been published in a measure by the authority of the State, whose imaginary wrongs its author has, by these means, sought to vindicate. The almost scurrilous terms in which it denounces the majority of the citizens of Philadelphia, the people of Pennsylvania, the officers of the Court in which the trials were held, the Judges who presided, and, in short, every one connected with the case, except counsel and the witnesses for the prosecution, are conclusive evidence of more anxiety to emit spleen and mortification, than to subserve the purposes of truth and justice.

A popular, not a professional view of the subject has been attempted. It is amongst the body of the people that false reports have been spread, and to the people this statement is addressed, in hopes that it may tend to correct the evil.

In accordance with the wish of the publishers, a brief introduction has been prefixed, embracing a connected view of all the many attempts which have been made, at various periods to settle, by Congressional legislation, the embarrassing question of slavery. The main object is to show the views entertained upon the subject by the great statesmen who framed the Constitution, and watched over its first developments; and accordingly much more space has been devoted to that early legislation, than to measures which are still fresh in the recollection of those whom we address. The essay is thought to be appropriate in this connection, because the late great Compromise, of which these trials are one of the earliest fruits, is the legitimate consequence of long antecedent measures, and cannot be fully understood or appreciated without bestowing much previous study upon our early political history. The sources from which this introduction has been compiled are strictly original, consisting, as far as possible, of official or semi-official documents and reports.

SLAVERY AS A NATIONAL QUESTION.

The following brief essay is not intended to be an argumentative discussion of the subject upon which it treats. Discussions of that sort have abounded so much of late years, that there would be much more presumption than wisdom in any attempt to increase the number. But perhaps it may be matter of interest, now that the conflict has been going on for more than sixty years, to know something of its earlier phases, of its varied successes, and of the deeds done and the words spoken by those who fought the same battle long ago in the infancy of the republic. The region of historical research which we are about to explore, appears to be almost a _terra incognita_ to the majority of the fiery debaters who now-a-days are prosecuting this wordy war; or if they occasionally plunge into it for a moment, it is only to hurry back in premature triumph, dragging captive some unhappy straggling passage of Jefferson or Jay, to serve as a bone of contention for a whole generation of self-constituted agitators in and out of Congress. Now if the object is merely to perpetuate the agitation, the course pursued is unquestionably a wise one; for, short as our national history is, the stock of facts which it supplies us with upon the subject is assuredly large enough, if used with but a tithe of the economy heretofore exhibited, to last till the Union and Time itself shall be no more. But there are some quiet spirits still left who get weary of this hopeless strife, and who can scarcely afford to adopt the advice of the Scotch clergyman--to wait for rest till they get to heaven; who cannot help calling out, “Peace, peace,” however discordant the answer may be; and who, if they needs must fight, would be glad to know what they’re fighting about, fight in earnest and be done with it. To answer, then, at least one of these questions, and suggest to this rapidly increasing class precisely what the present phase of the battle is, and what hopes there are of final peace, this brief historical sketch is attempted. The purpose is not, we repeat it, to discuss the subject; the author aims not at the dignity of a disputant; he is more than satisfied with the humbler task of supplying materials for those who do,--in hopes that if rage and anger have hitherto filled the place of armorers in our battle-field, history may in future discharge the duty a little more creditably. It is proposed, then, to trace the slavery question at length, so far as it has been the source of national difficulties, embarrassments and legislation, with especial reference to its earlier history, and to the clause in the Constitution respecting fugitives, which has lately been made the subject of Congressional action.

It will not be necessary to extend our inquiries to any period anterior to the revolution, or in any way to examine the peculiar causes which first established and have long perpetuated slavery amongst us. Prior to that event, it was of course a question between Great Britain and her colonies, and nice casuistry might perhaps be needed to determine the relative amount of guilt chargeable on each of the two parties. The moral value, too, of a solemn judicial decision, “that no slave could breathe the air or stand on the free soil of England,” may be a little questioned, when it is remembered that such property would of necessity be almost worthless in her climate; and that at the very moment when a reluctant Judge pronounced these boasted words, her capitalists were rolling in wealth that grew out of the sweat on negro brows in her American plantations. We have heard of high bred Southern families in which a thousand out-door slaves are never suffered to pollute the pure air of the saloons and chambers that their masters breathe, or tread the rich carpets that their toil has paid for. The custom is undoubtedly refined and agreeable, but we never heard that it boasted to rest on higher grounds than ordinary mortals venture on.

At the time of the declaration of independence, when the colonies escaped from their long pupilage, and, with new rights and new responsibilities, set out to act an independent part among the nations of the earth, the taint of slavery was upon every one of them; in every one, the soil was tilled by negro bondmen. The laws regulating the relations between master and slave, were, it is true, widely different in the different States; in some, as in Connecticut, the privileges annexed to the condition were so wide and the facility of rising from it so great, that the constitutional euphemism which is now-a-days so boldly metaphorical, might with every propriety style them “persons held to service or labor;” in others, they were then, as now, a hopelessly degraded class, whose happiness depended entirely on the arbitrary will of their masters. Of course it is not intended to represent that the various States were equally interested in the institution. Varieties of soil, climate and social habits, had drawn the great mass of this population to what are now known as the Southern States. At the time of the Declaration, no authentic enumeration had been made; but when the first census was taken in 1791, the total number of slaves in what are now known as the Northern States, was 40,370; in the Southern, 653,910. At the earlier period of which we are now speaking, the disproportion was probably less striking, but sufficiently great to make the interests of the two sections totally opposite. The difference, however, did not depend merely upon the amount of capital invested. The feeling in the North, both moral and political, was decidedly and in many cases bitterly hostile to slavery. The most shortsighted, therefore, could not fail to foresee the speedy adoption of those measures which ultimately provided for general emancipation. Even in Virginia and Maryland, not then considered as Southern States, ardent advocates were found to plead the cause of liberty, and organized action had more than once been attempted in its behalf. Below the Virginia line, in the Carolinas and Georgia, an abolitionist was as rare a phenomenon then as he would be now; those States were yet but thinly settled, a great part of their lands unreclaimed, and no prospect of improvement appeared, except in the extensive employment of slave labor, adapted both to the climate and the character of the already established settlers.

Such was, briefly, the position of the two parties at the opening of our independent history; and such it was, also, when the Federal Convention met at Philadelphia in 1787, to frame the present Constitution. The question presented itself to this body in a threefold aspect--_First_, as to the influence which an enslaved race was entitled to exercise in the government; _secondly_, as to their further increase by importation; _thirdly_, as to how far Congress and the Constitution were bound to provide for the security of this sort of property.

The first of these was rightly regarded at the time, as by far the most important, not only because of the magnitude of the interests directly involved in its decision, but still more so, because of the principles which, though scarcely remembered at present, were undoubtedly the basis of the Compromise, in which the deliberations of the convention resulted. A moment’s reference to the slave census, referred to above, will show how great was the contrariety of interests involved, and give a tolerably correct idea of the influences by which the various States were governed in discussing the subject. For whatever pleasure it might give us to conceal the humiliating fact, candor will compel us to acknowledge, that even in those heroic times of our history, interest seldom gave way to any nobler feeling when a question like this was to be determined. The original claim set up by the South but abandoned upon the final vote--except by South Carolina, Georgia, and Delaware--was that the black population should be as largely represented in Congress, as the white. It is impossible to give anything but a very brief outline of the arguments used upon both sides. Without venturing to insist upon the obvious absurdity, that an enslaved and helpless race were really entitled to representation because of any rights _they_ themselves might have to defend or duties which they might be bound to discharge, the Southern members took the position, not regarded at that time as utterly heterodox, that a State is entitled to be represented, not merely because of its containing so many human beings, but because so many human beings are in reality only the exponent of so much wealth or so much power contributed by such State to the support of the general government. The federal value of the State is in direct proportion to the amount of this power, and what difference could it make whether it emanated as in the South from a race called slaves, supported at the direct expense of their masters, who supplied them liberally with all the necessaries of life; or as in the North, from a population occupying precisely the same relative position in the social scale, performing labor of the same description, maintained, though in a somewhat different way by the same capitalist, and called Freeman--if one were entitled to representation, why not the other? The negro population was as essentially a producing power and as original an element of wealth as any body of free laborers could be, and therefore as fully entitled to have their interests consulted in the proceedings of a Government instituted for the express purpose of providing for the security of property. But in addition to this, they were entitled to make this claim not only as producers, but also as consumers of those foreign productions, the importation of which would form one great element of wealth in the Eastern States.

The fallacy of this reasoning, specious as it might seem, was warmly commented on and exposed by the opposite side. If the Southern slave was to be regarded as any other human being, and as possessed of those inalienable rights which the Declaration of Independence proudly claimed for all humanity, why not at once call him a citizen and give him the right to be represented, not by his master, but by himself? If he was nothing but property, why not speak out openly and attempt to make property the basis of representation, and the Government a tool in the hands of a moneyed aristocracy? It was conceded that the slaveholding States were at that time by far the wealthiest part of the confederacy, but this wealth of slavery was not and could not be an element of power, but rather of weakness and confusion. If it was argued that slaves filled, in the South, the same relative position as free laborers in the North, and their employment necessarily excluded to a great extent the introduction of a population which would otherwise be entitled to representation, then in the same way free and active _mind_, the only thing that deserves to be represented, was likewise excluded. But on a similar principle, the horses, cattle, and even the machinery of the North, which was nothing but a substitute for so much manual labor, were equally entitled to be heard on the floor of Congress. Why should property in one form go to Congress, and be shut out when it takes another and more human one? “The houses in Philadelphia alone,” said Gouverneur Morris, “are worth all the wretched slaves that cover the rice swamps of South Carolina.” He ridiculed the idea of treating the Southern slave as a consumer--“for the Bohea tea used by a Northern Freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his physical subsistence, and the rag which covers his nakedness.”

As a last resort, however, the Carolinas had an argument ready which defied all ingenuity, learning, or statesmanship to answer, and which has so often proved potential in after discussions. “North Carolina would never confederate on any terms that did not rate the black population at least at three-fifths.” Connecticut generosity immediately interposed to prevent so disastrous a result, and after another fruitless effort to obtain an equality of representation, as some of the members rather metaphorically termed it, for the luckless slaves, the clause as it now stands was adopted by an almost unanimous vote. Thus was established the second great compromise of the Constitution. It is in vain to support it now upon the grounds which its friends originally occupied. Truer views of the real origin and real ends of Government, have forever exploded amongst us the notion, that property can in any way with justice be made an element of representation; and that article in the Constitution stands now solely upon any merit which it may have acquired as a necessary concession to reconcile clashing interests; and it will probably hold its place as long as slavery exists, upon the simple ground so tersely laid down at the close of the discussion--that North Carolina would never have confederated without it.

The course of the debate had, however, clearly shown that the slavery question was at best nothing but the stalking horse behind which deeper influences moved; that though the battle cry on one side might be the rights of man, and on the other the rights of the master, yet the battle cry in this, as in many other cases, hinted but remotely at the real grounds of the war. The slaveholding States were at that time the richest part of the Union, but their wealth arose exclusively from agriculture, and their interests of course centered in this, and in the exportation of their products. The Eastern and Middle States, though then comparatively poor, were clearly destined to be the commercial power of the Union, though the extent of that commerce and the enormous wealth of which it has been the source, was then little dreamed of. The great West was as yet a power unknown, and scarcely foreseen even by the most sagacious statesmen. The object of the South, therefore, was to increase their productive power, to give it as great an influence as possible in the affairs of the country, to leave commerce unfettered, and especially to exempt exports from the payment of duties. That of the North, on the other hand, was to give Congress such large powers in the regulation of commerce, as might be employed in the protection of their infant marine against foreign competition; and to diminish the duties on imports. In short it was merely a question as to which should be the predominating interest--whether the South should be a huge plantation to be drained of its wealth by the merchant princes of the North, or whether the northern cities should be nothing but the trading depots of Southern nabobs. The representation of slaves, the chief productive element of Southern wealth, was selected as the test question, and the powers of both parties were developed to the utter-most in debating it. In the end, the North gained the commercial privileges upon which it had insisted, the South three-fifths of the anomalous representation which they demanded, together with the exemption of exports from taxation. The overwhelming power and wealth which the North have since acquired, and which must certainly be in some measure attributed to this early policy, sufficiently proves that they made an excellent “bargain” as one of their members termed it; the _morality_ of the arrangement we do not propose to discuss, but certainly while that compromise, be it good or bad, remains in the Constitution, the interested work of both parties, it would require the nicest casuistry to determine which of them is entitled to indulge in any special self-glorification in the premises.

The second question above stated, acquired great additional importance from the mode in which the first had been determined; though minor and more local interests prevailed to alter the arrangement of the contending forces. The whole of the middle and Eastern States were of course, both from principle and policy, opposed to the perpetuation of the slave trade. They had everything to lose and nothing to gain by it. If this population must needs be represented on the floor of Congress, certainly their next object was to reduce it to the smallest numbers possible. But in addition to these very obvious interests, Virginia and Maryland had other and private reasons for wishing to abolish a trade which, as their lands were already overloaded by this unhappy race, could be of no possible service to them, while to some extent it must deprive them of the ever-extending southern market, into which their surplus, “annually arising and renewing,” might be profitably disgorged. Virginia philanthropy was therefore earnest to put an end to so nefarious a traffic, and its ruinously debilitating and demoralizing effects were vividly depicted by her talented delegates. South Carolina and Georgia, whose original swamps were yet unredeemed from their primeval worthlessness and desolation, and all whose hopes of future greatness, both political and agricultural, depended on the increase of this very available population, were sadly dismayed at the dismal prospect thus suddenly and unfeelingly opened before them by the desertion of their late allies. In vain they sought to discover, and no wonder the problem puzzled them, why it should be a damning crime to buy prisoners of war on the banks of the Niger, but a very laudable and eminently patriotic course to buy black children and mulattoes bred for the purpose on the banks of the Potomac.

We would not, however, represent that this question was debated by all the Northern members with such exclusively interested views as marked their treatment of the preceding one. Many of them were really alive to the horrors of a trade which the whole civilized world was beginning to look upon with detestation, and they protested vehemently against its toleration under a new and republican government. But South Carolina was by this time thoroughly versed in that omnipotent logic which has tied up so many Gordian knots from that time to this. “Religion and humanity,” said Rutledge, “have nothing to do with the question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is, whether the Southern States shall or shall not be parties to the Union.” “South Carolina,” said Cotesworth Pinckney, “can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade;” and “Georgia,” echoed Baldwin, “will never become a member of the Union, if forbidden to import slaves.” Ellsworth, from Connecticut, forthwith took the alarm--“was afraid of losing two States, while such others as might be disposed to stand aloof, would fly into a variety of shapes and directions, and most probably into several confederacies, not without bloodshed.” This singular imaginary spectacle of States _flying into a variety of shapes_, which has rambled through the brains of successive generations, till the genius of the last great compromiser exalted it into the sublime metaphor of erratic planets rushing madly from their spheres, of course settled the question at once, and the slave trade was tolerated till 1808, under the harmless euphemism of the migration and importation of such persons as any of the then existing States might think proper to admit.