Part 4

"Should this convention be adopted there is every reason to believe that it will be the commencement of a system destined to accomplish the entire abolition of the slave trade."

Unfortunately, the ratification of this treaty was defeated in the Senate, and not until 1862 was the "right of search" between Great Britain and America established.

In his message to Congress June 1, 1841, President Tyler writes:

"I shall also at the proper season invite your attention to the statutory enactments for the suppression of the slave trade which may require to be rendered more effective in their provisions. There is reason to believe that the traffic is on the increase.... The highest consideration of public honor as well as the strongest promptings of humanity require a resort to the most vigorous efforts to suppress the trade."

Again, in his message of December 7, 1841, President Tyler writes:

"I invite your attention to existing laws for the suppression of the African slave trade, and recommend all such alterations as may give to them greater force and efficiency. That the American flag is grossly abused by the abandoned and profligate of other nations is but too probable."

In 1842, in the preparation of the Ashburton Treaty President Tyler secured the insertion of a clause providing for the maintenance and co-operation of squadrons of the United States and Great Britain off the coast of Africa for the suppression of the trade.[45]

The ratification of this treaty was urged upon the Senate by the President in his message of August 11, 1842, as conducive to the abolition of what he termed the "unlawful and inhuman traffic."

Though Brazil, by statute, prohibited the African slave trade in 1831, yet the traffic continued and in this trade citizens of the United States as ship owners, or crew, were engaged despite the Federal statutes against such a practice. Henry A. Wise of Virginia, Consul at Rio Janeiro, made frequent and earnest reports to the State Department calling the attention of the authorities to these violations. Under date of February 18th, 1845, he writes to the Secretary of State at Washington:

"I beseech, I implore the President of the United States to take a decided stand on this subject. You have no conception of the bold effrontery and the flagrant outrages of the African slave trade, and of the shameless manner in which its worst crimes are licensed here, and every patriot in our land would blush for our country did he know and see, as I do, how our citizens sail and sell our flag to the uses and abuses of that accursed practice."[46]

In his message to Congress, under date of December 4th, 1849, President Taylor writes:

"Your attention is earnestly invited to an amendment of our existing laws relating to the African slave trade with a view to the effectual suppression of that barbarous traffic. It is not to be denied that this trade is still in part carried on by means of vessels built in the United States and owned or navigated by some of our citizens."

The foregoing recitals will serve to illustrate the uncompromising attitude of hostility on the part of leading Virginians toward the African slave trade. They sought by Federal statutes and concerted action with foreign nations to drive the pernicious traffic from the seas. They denounced the trade as inhuman, because it stimulated men to reduce free men to slavery and then entailed upon slaves the horrors and dangers of the "middle passage." They resolutely opposed any addition to the slave population of America because profoundly convinced that every such importation was fraught with menace to the social, economic and moral well-being of the nation and rendered more difficult the emancipation of those who had already been brought to her shores. As we have seen, her representatives at the first meeting of the Continental Congress had defined Virginia's position in the notable memorial which declared:

"The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But, previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa."[47]

This was the philosophy of the situation as defined by the great statesmen of the Revolutionary period and to their views their ablest successors in Virginia adhered down to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Footnote 37:

_Annals of Congress_, Vol. I, col. 336.

Footnote 38:

_Suppression of the Slave Trade_, DuBois, p. 80.

Footnote 39:

_Annals of Congress_, 15th Congress, 2nd section, part I, pp. 442-3.

Footnote 40:

_Suppression of the Slave Trade_, DuBois, p. 120, Note 3.

Footnote 41:

_Annals of Congress_, 17th Congress, second session, pp. 435 and 928.

Footnote 42:

_Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America_, Wilson, Vol. I, p. 106.

Footnote 43:

_The Confederate Cause and Conduct in the War Between the States_, McGuire and Christian, p. 17.

Footnote 44:

_Suppression of Slave Trade_, DuBois, p. 137.

Footnote 45:

_Letters and Times of the Tylers_, Tyler, Vol. II, p. 219.

Footnote 46:

_American Slave Trade_, Spear, p. 81.

Footnote 47:

_Writings of Jefferson_, Ford, Vol. I, p. 440.

VII

SOME VIRGINIA STATUTES WITH RESPECT TO SLAVERY

Having by her act of 1778, prohibiting the importation of slaves, provided against any increase in their number from without, Virginia at the close of the Revolution proceeded to legislate with respect to those already in her midst, permitting and encouraging their gradual emancipation.

STATUTE PERMITTING EMANCIPATIONS

Under British rule, slaveholders were forbidden to manumit their slaves, except with the permission of the Council.[48] In 1782, the General Assembly of Virginia enacted a law, under which slaveholders were authorized to emancipate their slaves by deed or will duly made and recorded.[49]

By an act passed in 1785, it was provided that slaves brought into the state and remaining twelve months should be free.[50]

In 1787, acts were passed validating certain manumissions made by wills prior to 1782, the General Assembly declaring that it was "just and proper" that "the benevolent intentions" of the testators should be carried into effect.[51]

In 1788, an act was passed making the enslaving of the child of free blacks a crime punishable by death upon the scaffold.[52]

In 1795, an act was passed allowing a slave to sue _in forma pauperis_ in any court proceedings affecting his freedom. He might make complaint to the nearest magistrate or court and the owner was then required to give bond to permit the slave to attend the next term of the court and maintain his cause. If the owner failed or refused to comply, the slave was taken into the custody of the state, counsel was assigned to defend his cause and every process of the law allowed him without cost.[53] Following the adoption of the foregoing laws, the General Assembly, in 1803, passed an act to still further safeguard the rights of negroes who had secured their freedom. By this last act the authorities were required to keep registers in each county in which were to be recorded the names of all the free negroes and also the names of slaves whose right to manumission would accrue upon the death of the person having only an estate for life in such slaves.

STATUTE RESTRICTING EMANCIPATION

The effect of these acts facilitating and encouraging manumissions at length began to appear. At the close of the Revolution there were less than three thousand free negroes in Virginia.[54] In the ten years next succeeding, they reached thirteen thousand, and the census of 1810 records their number at thirty thousand, five hundred and seventy. Here was a new problem—the presence in a state dominated by white men of a considerable body of negroes possessing neither the privileges of the whites nor amenable to the restrictions imposed upon the great mass of the blacks. As a result of these conditions, acts were passed in 1806 providing that no slaves thereafter manumitted should remain in Virginia. In 1819 an act was passed authorizing the County Courts to permit such as were "sober, peaceful, orderly and industrious to remain in the state."[55] Later, it was provided by statute that all slaves thereafter manumitted should leave the state within twelve months from the date of their emancipation. Thenceforward slaveholders were accorded the right to manumit their slaves, subject to the claims of their creditors and to the obligation upon the former slaves of going beyond the state within twelve months following their manumission.

While these last mentioned statutes embarrassed the work of emancipation, they stimulated the sentiment in favor of colonization. However, despite the difficulties which confronted them, slaveholders still continued to emancipate their slaves and hostility to the institution of slavery—the conviction that it was a burden upon the commonwealth—became more and more widespread among the people. The growth of these sentiments continued until the year 1832. The Rev. Philip Slaughter, a writer with pro-slavery sympathies, records:

"That was the culminating point—the flood tide of anti-slavery feeling which had been gradually rising for more than a century in Virginia was then precipitated upon us before its time by the Southampton convulsion."[56]

To the disastrous effects upon public sentiment of this tragic event which occurred in August, 1831, must be added the reactionary influence of the Abolitionists, who now began their work of agitation and their arraignment, not simply of slavery nor of slaveholders, but of the morality and civilization of every community in which the institution existed. The failure, too, of the General Assembly of Virginia at its session of 1832 to adopt any plan for the gradual abolition of slavery or for the removal beyond the state of the free negroes then within her borders was also strongly reactionary. Despite the ability and influence of the anti-slavery leaders in that body no remedial legislation was adopted and thousands of the people accepted the result as proof of the fact that the practical difficulties in the way of emancipation were such as to shut out the hope of its accomplishment.

Footnote 48:

_Hening's Statutes_, Vol. IV, p. 132.

Footnote 49:

_Hening's Statutes_, Vol. XI, p. 39.

Footnote 50:

_Hening's Statutes_, Vol. XII, p. 182.

Footnote 51:

_Hening's Statutes_, Vol. XII, pp. 611 and 613.

Footnote 52:

_Idem_, p. 531.

Footnote 53:

_History of Slavery in Virginia_, Ballagh, p. 123.

Footnote 54:

_History of Slavery in Virginia_, Ballagh, p. 121.

Footnote 55:

_Idem_, p. 125.

Footnote 56:

_The Virginian History of African Colonization_, Slaughter, p. 55.

VIII

THE MOVEMENT IN THE VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE OF 1832 TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE STATE

The Southampton Insurrection, which occurred in August, 1831, was one of those untoward incidents which so often marked the history of slavery. Under the leadership of one Nat Turner, a negro preacher, of some education, who felt that he had been called of God to deliver his race from bondage, the negroes attacked the whites at night and before the assault could be suppressed fifty-seven whites, principally women and children, had been killed. This deplorable event assumed an even more portentous aspect when it was realized that the leader was a slave to whom the privilege of education had been accorded and that one of his lieutenants was a free negro. In addition there existed a widespread belief among the whites that influences and instigations from without the state were responsible for the insurrection.

The General Assembly of Virginia met in regular session in December, 1831, and the effect upon the popular mind of this tragic occurrence was evidenced in the numerous petitions presented praying for the removal beyond the state of all free negroes, or the enactment of such laws as should provide for the abolition of slavery. The institution itself, the feasibility of its abolition, the status of the free negroes, the danger to the state from their presence, were thus brought before the Legislature. It was a body containing many able men but elected without reference to this great subject, and with no previous interchange of views or formulation of plans among the advocates of reform. The discussions which followed were more notable for the fierce arraignment of the institution than for the presentation of practical plans for its abolition.

Henry Wilson, in his _Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America_, says of this discussion:

"It was one of the ablest, most eloquent and brilliant debates that ever took place in the Legislature of any of the states. Most of those who participated in it were young and rising men who afterward achieved high positions and commanding influence."[57]

Mr. Ballagh records that:

"Day after day multitudes thronged the Capitol to hear the speeches. The Assembly in its zeal for the discussion set aside all prudential considerations, such as the possible effect of incendiary utterances that might make the slave believe his lot one of injustice and cruelty, and so give him the excuse of a revolt, or might encourage further aggressions by Northern Abolitionists."[58]

LEADERS OF THE MOVEMENT

Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Mr. Jefferson's grandson; Thomas Marshall, son of the Chief Justice; James McDowell, afterward Congressman and Governor; Charles J. Faulkner, afterward Congressman and Minister to France, and William Ballard Preston, afterward Congressman and Secretary of the Navy in President Taylor's Cabinet, were among the leaders of the anti-slavery men, and some idea may be formed of the character of their speeches from the extracts hereinafter cited.

The principal discussion revolved around the report of a committee which declared "that it is inexpedient for the present Legislature to make any legislative enactment for the abolition of slavery," to which Mr. Preston moved the substitution of the word "expedient" for "inexpedient," and Mr. Bryce moved, as a substitute for both, that the commonwealth should provide for the immediate removal of the negroes now free and those who may hereafter become free "believing that this will absorb all of our present means." By a vote of 58 to 73 Mr. Preston's amendment was defeated,[59] and Mr. Bryce's substitute adopted by a vote of 65 to 58.[60] In line with this declaration, the House thereupon passed a bill which provided by a comprehensive and continuous system for the deportation and colonization of the free negroes of the commonwealth, and such as thereafter might become free. The measure carried an appropriation of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars for the first year (1832) and Ninety Thousand Dollars for the year 1833 and was adopted by a vote of 79 to 41.[61] In urging its passage, William H. Broadnax insisted that many owners "would manumit their slaves if means for their removal were furnished by the state, but who could not if the additional burden of removal were placed upon them."[62] This bill, so fraught with far-reaching consequences, was subsequently defeated in the Senate by one vote.

PLANS PROPOSED

Several plans for the gradual emancipation and deportation of the slaves were brought forward and discussed, but all failed of enactment. Thomas R. Dew declares that, "no enlarged, wise or practical plan of operations was proposed by the Abolitionists."[63] And Mr. Ballagh says, that "will was not wanting but method unhappily was."[64]

THE EFFECTS OF FAILURE

The failure of this General Assembly to adopt any plan of emancipation or any comprehensive scheme for the deportation of the free negroes already in the state had a disastrous effect upon the attitude of thousands of Virginians towards slavery. Despairing of relief from either of these sources and yet facing the peril of which the Nat Turner Insurrection was the warning sign, her lawmakers sought in repressive legislation to nullify the dangers of slave insurrection. Many accepted the institution as permanent and busied themselves marshalling arguments in vindication of its rightfulness and in refuting with growing bitterness the assaults of its opponents.

ABOLITIONISTS AND PRO-SLAVERY MEN

But in addition to the Southampton Massacre, and the failure of the Legislature to enact any effective legislation, the contemporary rise of the Abolitionists in the North came as an even more powerful factor to embarrass the efforts of the Virginia emancipators. Unlike the anti-slavery men of former years, this new school not only attacked the institution of slavery but the morality of slaveholders and their sympathizers. In their fierce arraignment, not only were the humane and considerate linked in infamy with the cruel and intolerant, but the whole population of the slave-owning states, their civilization and their morals were the object of unrelenting and incessant assaults. Thus thousands sincerely desiring the abolition of slavery were driven to silence or into the ranks of its apologists in the widespread and indignant determination of Virginians to resent these libels upon their character and defeat these attempts to excite servile insurrections.

"What have we done to her," said the Rev. Nehemiah Adams of Boston, "but admonish, threaten and indict her before God, excommunicate her, stir up insurrection among her slaves, endanger her homes, make her Christians and ministers odious in other lands."[65]

From this period, too, may be noticed the gradual increase in the number of pro-slavery men in Virginia. This element did not justify slavery simply because of the difficulties and dangers attending emancipation, but they asserted that the institution was good in itself, sanctioned by religion, a blessing to the blacks and essential to the well-being of the whites. The growth of this new school in its aggressiveness and the extreme character of its utterances kept pace with the like development of the Abolitionists. As the latter denounced slavery as "man-stealing"—and slaveholders—as "thieves," the former marshalled Bible texts to show the divine origin and Heaven-approved character of the institution. As the Abolitionists portrayed the "degrading" and "brutalizing" effects of slavery upon the character of slaveholding communities, the pro-slavery men pointed to the moral and civic virtues which undoubtedly existed in such communities, and claimed that these very virtues were attributable to the institution of slavery. As Abolitionists, relying upon the insistence that slavery was a "monstrous oppression," justified slave insurrections to effect freedom, the pro-slavery men sought to drive into silence their fellow Virginians of anti-slavery sentiments because any acknowledgment that it was illegal and that the condition of the slave was at war with the laws of natural right warranted the slave in killing his master to secure his freedom.

THE GROWTH OF PRO-SLAVERY SENTIMENTS

Thus, from 1833 on to the time of the war, the pro-slavery advocates grew in influence and aggressiveness, though what proportion of the population of Virginia they represented it is impossible to determine. Their extreme utterances undoubtedly gave them great prominence, as the march of events, in like manner, augmented their power. The sentiments of the anti-slavery men found little place in the turmoil of the times. Their position was strongly analogous to that of the majority of the Northern people, who, in the midst of the war cries of the Abolitionists, continued in silence their business pursuits.

Footnote 57:

_Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America_, Wilson, Vol. I, p. 195.

Footnote 58:

_History of Slavery in Virginia_, Ballagh, p. 138.

Footnote 59:

_Journal of House of Delegates_, 1832, p. 109.

Footnote 60:

_Idem_, p. 110.

Footnote 61:

_Idem_, p. 158.

Footnote 62:

_Virginian History of African Colonization_, Slaughter, p. 48.

Footnote 63:

_An Essay on Slavery_, Thomas R. Dew, 1849, p. 6.

Footnote 64:

_History of Slavery in Virginia_, Ballagh, p. 138.

Footnote 65:

_South Side View of Slavery_, Adams, p. 127.

IX

THE NORTHERN ABOLITIONISTS AND THEIR REACTIONARY INFLUENCE UPON ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENT IN VIRGINIA

Thomas Jefferson Randolph was the foremost advocate of gradual emancipation in the Virginia Legislature of 1832. In a pamphlet printed in 1870 reviewing political conditions in Virginia he makes the following statement with reference to the subject of emancipation and the influences which hindered its accomplishment after the year 1833:

"After the adjournment of the Legislature in 1833, the question was discussed before the people fairly and squarely, as one of the abolition of slavery. I was re-elected on that ground in my county. The feeling extended rapidly from that time in Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri until Northern abolitionism reared its head. Southern abolition was reform and an appeal to the master; Northern abolition was revolution and an appeal to the slave. One was peaceful and the other mutually destructive of both races by a servile insurrection. The Southern people feared to trust to the intervention of persons themselves exempt by position from the imagined dangers of the transition."[66]

VIEWS OF PROMINENT VIRGINIANS

George Tucker, Professor of Political Economy, in the University of Virginia, in his work, _The Progress of the United States in Population and Wealth_, published in 1843, referring to the subject, writes:

"This is not the place for assailing or defending slavery; but it may be confidently asserted that the efforts of Abolitionists have hitherto made the people in the slaveholding states cling to it more tenaciously. Those efforts are viewed by them as an intermeddling in their domestic concerns that is equally unwarranted by the comity due to sister states, and to the solemn pledges of the Federal compact. In the general indignation which is thus excited, the arguments in favor of negro emancipation, once open and urgent, have been completely silenced, and its advocates among the slaveholders, who have not changed their sentiments, find it prudent to conceal them.... Such have been the fruits of the zeal of Northern Abolitionists in those states in which slavery prevails; and the fable of the Wind and the Sun never more forcibly illustrated the difference between gentle and violent means in influencing men's wills."[67]

In 1847, Dr. Henry Ruffner, President of Washington College, delivered an address upon the subject of slavery in Virginia which attracted widespread attention. In this speech, made in the midst of the growing controversy, he refers to the reactionary influence of the Abolitionists as follows: