Part 16

The offer of the Governor of South Carolina to stipulate the neutrality of his State during the war has been sometimes called in question. But, unhappily, the case is too clear. General Moultrie, who commanded at Charleston, under the Governor, and whose name has been since given to one of the forts in the harbor there, has furnished an authentic record in two volumes, entitled "Memoirs of the American Revolution, so far as it related to the States of North and South Carolina and Georgia." He is my witness. As the British approached, the Governor and his Council became frightened, and proceeded forthwith to talk about capitulation. At last, after debate, "the question was carried for giving up the town upon a neutrality."[104] Colonel John Laurens was requested to carry this offer of capitulation from the Governor to General Prevost, the British commander; but "he begged to be excused from carrying such a message; that it was much against his inclination; that he would do anything to serve his country, but he could not think of carrying such a message as that." Other envoys were found who most reluctantly undertook this service. The message was as follows:--

"To propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and America, and the question, _whether the State shall belong to Great Britain or remain one of the United States_, be determined by the treaty of peace between those two powers."[105]

[104] Moultrie, Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 432.

[105] Ibid., p. 433.

The same story is told by others. Ramsay, himself of South Carolina, in his "History of the American Revolution," says:--

"Commissioners from the garrison were instructed 'to propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and America, and that the question, _whether the State shall belong to Great Britain or remain one of the United States_, be determined by the treaty of peace between these powers.'"[106]

[106] History of the American Revolution, Vol. II. p. 118.

Chief Justice Marshall, in his authentic work, thus chronicles the disgraceful business:--

"The town was summoned to surrender, and the day was spent in sending and receiving flags. The neutrality of South Carolina during the war, leaving the question, _whether that State should finally belong to Great Britain or the United States_, to be settled in the treaty of peace, was proposed by the garrison, and rejected by Prevost."[107]

[107] Life of Washington, Vol. I. (2d edition) pp. 298, 299.

It is also presented with precision by Professor Bowen, of Harvard University, in his recent Life of General Lincoln, who remarks on it as follows:--

"This proposal did not come merely from the commander of a military garrison, in which case, of course, it would have been only nugatory; the Governor of the State, clothed with discretionary powers, was in the place, and probably most of his Council along with him. Whether such a proposition would have been justifiable under any circumstances is a question that needs not be discussed; at any rate, it would not have evinced much honorable or patriotic feeling. But to make such an offer in the present case was conduct little short of treason."[108]

[108] Life of Benjamin Lincoln: Sparks's American Biography, 2d Ser. Vol. XIII. p. 285.

This author concludes an animated review of the proposition with the remark, that it "was equivalent to an offer from the State to return to its allegiance to the British Crown."[109]

[109] Life of Benjamin Lincoln: Sparks's American Biography, 2d Ser. Vol. XIII. p. 286.

The fate of the State was typified in the capture by the British, some time afterwards, of the ship "South Carolina," of forty guns, the largest and most costly of our infant navy, and called by Cooper "much the heaviest ship that ever sailed under the American flag, until the new frigates were constructed during the War of 1812."[110] But here is the same story. Her service was altogether inadequate.

[110] History of the Navy of the United States (2d edition), Vol. I. p. 213.

At last, the military genius and remarkable exertions of General Greene, a Northern man, who assumed the command of the Southern army, prevailed in rescuing South Carolina from British power. But the trials of this successful leader reveal in a striking manner the weakness of the "slaveholding" State he saved. Some of these are graphically presented in his letters.

Writing to President Reed, of Pennsylvania, under date of 4th May, 1781, he says:--

"The strength and resources of these [Southern] States to support the war have been greatly magnified and overrated; and those whose business and true interest it was to give a just state of the situation of things have joined in the deception, and, from a false principle of pride of having the country thought powerful, have led people to believe it was so. It is true, there were many inhabitants, but they were spread over a great extent of country, and near equally divided between the King's interest and ours. The majority is greatly in favor of the enemy's interest now, as great numbers of the Whigs have left the country.... The love of pleasure and the want of principle among many of those who are our friends render the exertions very languid in support of our cause; _and unless the Northern States can give more effectual support, these States must fall_."[111]

[111] Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, Vol. II. p. 351. Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Nathaniel Greene, Vol. II. p. 87.

Writing to Colonel Davie, under date of 23d May, 1781, General Greene again exposes the actual condition of the country.

"The animosity between the Whigs and Tories of this State renders their situation truly deplorable. There is not a day passes but there are more or less who fall a sacrifice to this savage disposition. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither Whig nor Tory can live."[112]

[112] Gordon, History of the Rise, etc., of the Independence of the United States, Vol. IV. p. 99.

To Lafayette, General Greene, under date of 29th December, 1780, describes the weakness of his troops.

"It is now within a few days of the time you mentioned of being with me. Were you to arrive, you would find a few ragged, half-starved troops in the wilderness, destitute of everything necessary for either the comfort or convenience of soldiers.... The country is almost laid waste, and the inhabitants plunder one another with little less than savage fury. We live from hand to mouth, and have nothing to subsist on but what we collect with armed parties. In this situation, I believe you will agree with me, there is nothing inviting this way, especially when I assure you our whole force fit for duty, that are properly clothed and properly equipped, does not amount to eight hundred men."[113]

[113] Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Greene, Vol. I. p. 340.

Writing to Mr. Varnum, a member of Congress, the General says:--

"There is a great spirit of enterprise prevailing among the militia of these Southern States, especially with the volunteers. But their mode of going to war is so destructive, that _it is the greatest folly in the world to trust the liberties of a people to such a precarious defence_."[114]

[114] Ibid., p. 397.

Nothing can be more authentic or complete than this testimony. Here, also, is what is said by David Ramsay, an estimable citizen of South Carolina, in his History of the Revolution in that State, published in 1785, only a short time after the scenes which he describes.

"While the American soldiers lay encamped in this inactive situation," (in the low country near Charleston,) "their tattered rags were so completely worn out, that seven hundred of them were as naked as they were born, excepting a small slip of cloth about their waists; and they were nearly as destitute of meat as of clothing."[115]

[115] History of the Revolution of South Carolina, Vol. II. p. 258.

To the same effect is a letter from Greene to Sumter, under date of Jan. 15, 1781.

"It is a great misfortune that the little force we have is in such a wretched state for want of clothing. More than one half our numbers are in a manner naked, so much so that we cannot put them on the least kind of duty. Indeed, there is a great number that have not a rag of clothes on them, except a little piece of blanket, in the Indian form, around their waists."[116]

[116] Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Greene, Vol. I. p. 393.

The military weakness of this "slaveholding community" is but too apparent. As I show its occasion, you will join with me in amazement that a Senator from South Carolina should attribute Independence to anything "slaveholding." The records of the country, and various voices, all disown his vaunt for Slavery. The State of South Carolina itself, by authentic history, disowns it. I give the proofs.

The first is from the debate on the Confederation in the Continental Congress, as early as July, 1776, when the following passage occurred, which I quote from "Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress in 1775 and 1776," preserved by John Adams. Mr. Lynch, a young representative of South Carolina, showing the sensibilities, if not the evil spirit, engendered by Slavery, speaking in behalf of the Southern States, said: "If it is debated whether their slaves are their property, there is an end of the Confederation. Our slaves being our property, why should they be taxed more than the land, sheep, cattle, horses, &c.?" Without noticing the menace against the Confederation, the beginning of a long line, Franklin replied, with sententious authority: "Slaves rather weaken than strengthen the State, and there is therefore some difference between them and sheep. _Sheep will never make any insurrections._"[117] Franklin touched the point.

[117] Works of John Adams, Vol. II. p. 498. See also Bancroft's History of the United States, Vol. IX. p. 52.

And now listen, if you please, to peculiar and decisive testimony, under date of 29th March, 1779, from the Secret Journals of the Continental Congress.

"The Committee appointed to take into consideration _the circumstances of the Southern States_, and the ways and means for their safety and defence, report, ... That the State of South Carolina (as represented by the Delegates to the said State, and by Mr. Huger, who has come hither at the request of the Governor of the said State, on purpose to explain the particular circumstances thereof) is UNABLE to make any effectual efforts with militia, by reason of the great proportion of citizens _necessary to remain at home, to prevent insurrections among the negroes_, and to prevent the desertion of them to the enemy; that the state of the country, and _the great numbers of those people among them_, expose the inhabitants to great _danger_, from the endeavors of the enemy to excite them either to revolt or desert."[118]

[118] Secret Journals, Vol. I. pp. 107, 108.

Here is South Carolina secretly disclosing her military weakness, and its ignoble occasion: thus repudiating in advance the vaunt of her Senator, who finds strength and gratulation in Slavery rather than in Freedom. It was during the war, and in the confessional of the Continental Congress, that, on bended knees, she shrived herself. But the same ignominious confession was made, some time after the war, in open debate, on the floor of Congress, by Mr. Burke, a Representative from South Carolina.

"There is not a gentleman on the floor who is a stranger to the feeble situation of our State, when we entered into the war to oppose the British power. _We were not only without money, without an army or military stores, but we were few in number, and likely to be entangled with our domestics, in case the enemy invaded us._"[119]

[119] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., II. 1484, March 30, 1790.

Similar testimony to this weakness was borne by Mr. Madison in open debate in Congress.

"Every addition they [Georgia and South Carolina] receive to their number of slaves _tends to weaken, and render them less capable of self-defence_."[120]

[120] Ibid., 1st Cong. 1st Sess., I. 340, May 13, 1789.

The historian of South Carolina, Dr. Ramsay, a contemporary observer of the very scenes which he describes, to whom I have already referred, also exposes this weakness.

"The forces under the command of General Prevost marched through the richest settlements of the State, where are the fewest white inhabitants in proportion to the number of slaves. _The hapless Africans, allured with hopes of freedom, forsook their owners_, and repaired in great numbers to the royal army. They endeavored to recommend themselves to their new masters by discovering where their owners had concealed their property, and were assisting in carrying it off."[121]

[121] History of South Carolina, Vol. I. pp. 312, 313.

The same candid historian, describing the invasion of the next year, says:--

"The slaves a _second_ time _flocked_ to the British army."[122]

[122] Ibid., p. 334.

At a still later day, Mr. Justice Johnson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a citizen of South Carolina, in his elaborate Life of General Greene, speaking of negro slaves, makes the same unhappy admission. He says:--

"But the number dispersed through these [Southern] States was very great,--_so great as to render it impossible for the citizens to muster freemen enough to withstand the pressure of the British arms_."[123]

[123] Life of Greene, Vol. II. Appendix, p. 472.

Here is illustration from an English pamphlet entitled "Account of the Duckenfield Hall Estate Negroes, 1806, Law Case," where will be found the following incident.

"In 1779 I bought ten negroes, which, with sixty others, were taken by a privateer from a plantation in South Carolina."

Thus from every quarter are we conducted to the same conclusion.

And all this cumulative and unimpeachable testimony is reinforced by testimony of an earlier day, also from South Carolina. The Assembly of the Colony represented to the King, in 1734, that they were

"Subject to _many intestine dangers from the great number of negroes_ that are now among us."[124]

[124] Grahame, History of the United States, Vol. III. p. 161.

Another representation shortly afterwards declared:--

"If any stop be put to the exportation of rice from South Carolina to Europe, it ... may render the whole Colony an easy prey to their neighbors, the Indians and Spaniards, _and also to those yet more dangerous enemies, their own negroes, who are ready to revolt on the first opportunity_, and are eight times as many in number as there are white men able to bear arms."[125]

[125] Ibid., p. 215.

Thus was it before, as during the Revolution,--weakness always, nothing but weakness.

And this is precisely according to human experience. It was in South Carolina as it had been in other lands where Slavery prevailed. Here I read the testimony of a remarkable writer, Archbishop Whately.

"For if there be any one truth which the deductions of reason alone, independent of history, would lead us to anticipate, and which again history alone would establish independently of antecedent reasoning, it is this: that a whole class of men placed permanently under the ascendency of another as subjects, without the rights of citizens, must be _a source, at the best, of weakness, and generally of danger, to the State_.... It is notorious, accordingly, how much Sparta was weakened and endangered by the Helots, always ready to avail themselves of any public disaster as an occasion for revolt."[126]

[126] Essays on Some of the Dangers to Christian Faith, pp. 214-216, note F, 2d edition. See also Bacon's Essays, with Annotations by Whately, pp. 127-130: Annotations to Essay XV.

The Archbishop then recalls how Hannibal for sixteen years maintained himself in Italy against the Romans, and, though scantily supplied from Carthage, recruited his ranks by the aid of Roman subjects. Truly does he say that every page of history teaches the same lesson, and proclaims in every different form, "How long shall these men be a snare unto us?"[127]--and also, "The remnant of these nations which thou shalt not drive out shall be pricks in thine eyes and thorns in thy side."[128]

[127] Exodus, x. 7.

[128] Numbers, xxxiii. 58.

* * * * *

Surely, Sir, this is enough, and more. From authentic documents, including the very muster-rolls of the Revolution, we learn the small contributions of men and the military weakness of the Southern States, particularly of South Carolina, as compared with the Northern States; and from the very lips of South Carolina herself, on four different occasions,--by a Committee, by one of her Representatives in Congress, by her historian, and by an eminent citizen,--we have the confession, not only of weakness, but that this weakness was caused by Slavery. And yet, in the face of this combined and authoritative testimony, we are called to listen, in the American Senate, to the arrogant boast, from a venerable Senator, that American Independence was achieved by the arms and treasure of "slaveholding communities": an assumption baseless as the fabric of a vision, in any way it may be interpreted,--whether as meaning baldly that Independence was achieved by those Southern States, the peculiar home of Slavery, or that it was achieved by any strength or influence which came from that noxious source. Sir, I speak here for a Commonwealth of just renown, but I speak also for a cause which is more than any Commonwealth, even that which I represent; and I cannot allow the Senator to discredit either. Not by Slavery, but in spite of Slavery, was Independence achieved. Not _because_, but _notwithstanding_, there were "slaveholding communities," did triumph descend upon our arms. It was the inspiration of Liberty Universal that conducted us through the Red Sea of the Revolution, as it had already given to the Declaration of Independence its mighty tone, resounding through the ages. "Let it be remembered," said the Nation, speaking by the voice of the Continental Congress, at the close of the war, "that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended were THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN NATURE."[129] Yes, Sir, in this behalf, and by this sign, we conquered.

[129] Address to the States, April 26, 1783: Journal of Congress, Vol. VIII. p. 201.

Such, Sir, is my answer on this head to the Senator from South Carolina. If the work which I undertook has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. Justice demanded that it should be thorough. But, while thus repelling insinuations against Massachusetts, and assumptions for Slavery, I would not unnecessarily touch the sensibilities of that Senator, or of the State which he represents. I cannot forget, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we are bound together by ties of a common country,--that Massachusetts and South Carolina are sister States, and that the concord of sisters ought to prevail between them; but I am constrained to declare, that, throughout this debate, I have sought in vain any token of that just spirit which within the sphere of its influence is calculated to promote the concord whether of State or of individuals.

* * * * *

And now, for the present, I part with the venerable Senator from South Carolina. Pursuing his inconsistencies, and exposing them to judgment, I had almost forgotten his associate leader in the wanton personal assault upon me in this long debate,--I mean the veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON], who is now directly in my eye. With imperious look, and in the style of Sir Forcible Feeble, that Senator undertakes to call in question my statement, that the Fugitive Slave Act denies the writ of _Habeas Corpus_; and in doing this, he assumes a superiority for himself, which, permit me to tell him now in this presence, nothing in him can warrant. Sir, I claim little for myself; but I shrink in no respect from any comparison with that Senator, veteran though he be. Sitting near him, as has been my fortune since I had the honor of a seat in this chamber, I have come to know something of his conversation, something of his manners, something of his attainments, something of his abilities, something of his character,--ay, Sir, and something of _his_ associations; and, while I would not disparage him in any of these respects, I feel that I do not exalt myself unduly, that I do not claim too much for the position which I hold or the name which I have established, when I openly declare, that, as Senator of Massachusetts, and as man, I place myself at every point in unhesitating comparison with that honorable assailant. And to his peremptory assertion, that the Fugitive Slave Act _does not_ deny the _Habeas Corpus_, I oppose my assertion, peremptory as his own, that it _does_,--and there I leave that issue.

Mr. President, I welcome the sensibility which the Senator from Virginia manifests at the exposure of the Fugitive Slave Act. He is the author of that enormity. From his brain came forth the soulless monster. He is, therefore, its natural guardian. The Senator is, I believe, a lawyer. And now, since at last he shows parental solicitude to shield his offspring, he must do more than vainly parry the objection that it denies the great writ of _Habeas Corpus_. It is true, Sir, if anything but Slavery were in question, such an objection, if merely plausible, would be fatal; but it is not to be supposed that the partisans of an institution founded on denial of human rights can appreciate the proper efficacy of that writ. Sir, I challenge the Senator to defend his progeny,--not by assertion, but by reason. Let him rally all the ability, learning, and subtilty which he can command, and undertake the impossible work.