Anti-Slavery Opinions before the Year 1800 Part 4

[27] Dr. Belknap says the clause "all men are born free and equal" was inserted in the Declaration of Rights of Ma.s.sachusetts "not merely as a moral and political truth, but with a particular view to establish the liberation of the negroes on a general principle, and so it was understood by the people at large; but some doubted whether it was sufficient"--p. 203. That some persons had this result in view is probable; but contemporaneous records and acts of the citizens do not justify the statement that "so it was understood by the people at large." Dr. Belknap was living in New Hampshire at the time, and did not come to Boston till 1786. The construction put upon the clause, by the Supreme Court, was evidently a happy afterthought; and was inspired by that _public opinion_ to which Dr. Belknap himself, in his reply to Judge Tucker, ascribes the extinction of slavery.

[28] The Pennsylvanian Society a.s.sumed all the expenses of the Convention, of entertaining the delegates, and of printing the proceedings. The delegates of the Pennsylvanian Society were William Rogers, Samuel P. Griffiths, Samuel Coats, William Rawle, Robert Patterson, and Benjamin Rush. The printed proceedings of this convention, which is in the New York Historical Society's library, I have not had access to. Joseph Bloomfield, of New Jersey, an officer of the Revolution, attorney-general, governor of the state from 1801-12, and member of Congress from 1817-21, was president of the Convention.

[29] The memorial was presented in both branches of Congress, January 28, 1794. The record in the House was as follows: "A memorial from the several societies formed in different parts of the United States, for promoting the abolition of slavery, in convention a.s.sembled at Philadelphia, on the first instant, was presented to the House and read, praying that Congress may adopt such measures as may be the most effectual and expedient for the abolition of the slave-trade. Also, a memorial of the Providence Society, for abolishing the slave-trade, to the same effect. _Ordered_, That the said memorials be referred to Mr.

Trumbull [of Connecticut], Mr. Ward [of Ma.s.sachusetts], Mr. Giles [of Virginia], Mr. Talbot [of New York], and Mr. Grove [of North Carolina]; that they do examine the matter thereof, and report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House." Annals of Congress, iv, p. 349.

A bill was reported in conformity to the wishes of the memorialists, pa.s.sed its several stages without debate, and was approved March 22, 1794. For the bill, see Id., p. 1426.

[30] The address is as follows:

"_To the Citizens of the United States_:

"The Address of the Delegates from the several Societies formed in different parts of the United States, for promoting the Abolition of Slavery, in convention a.s.sembled at Philadelphia, on the first day of January, 1794.

"FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: United to you by the ties of citizenship, and partakers with you in the blessings of a free government, we take the liberty of addressing you upon a subject highly interesting to the credit and prosperity of the United States.

"It is the glory of our country to have originated a system of opposition to the commerce in that part of our fellow-creatures who compose the nations of Africa. Much has been done by the citizens of some of the States to abolish this disgraceful traffic, and to improve the condition of those unhappy people whom the ignorance, or the avarice of our ancestors had bequeathed to us as slaves. But the evil still continues, and our country is yet disgraced by laws and practices which level the creature man with a part of the brute creation. Many reasons concur in persuading us to abolish domestic slavery in our country. It is inconsistent with the safety of the liberties of the United States. Freedom and slavery can not long exist together. An unlimited power over the time, labor, and posterity of our fellow-creatures, necessarily unfits man for discharging the public and private duties of citizens of a republic. It is inconsistent with sound policy, in exposing the States which permit it, to all those evils which insurrections and the most resentful war have introduced into one of the richest islands in the West Indies. It is unfriendly to the present exertions of the inhabitants of Europe in favor of liberty. What people will advocate freedom, with a zeal proportioned to its blessings, while they view the purest republic in the world tolerating in its bosom a body of slaves? In vain has the tyranny of kings been rejected, while we permit in our country a domestic despotism which involves in its nature most of the vices and miseries that we have endeavored to avoid. It is degrading to our rank as men in the scale of being. Let us use our reason and social affections for the purposes for which they were given, or cease to boast a pre-eminence over animals that are unpolluted by our crimes.

"But higher motives to justice and humanity towards our fellow-creatures, remain yet to be mentioned. Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity. It prostrates every benevolent and just principle of action in the human heart. It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the Great Sovereign of the universe, who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men. But if this view of the enormity of the evil of domestic slavery should not affect us, there is one consideration more, which ought to alarm and impress us, especially at the present juncture. It is a violation of a Divine precept of universal justice, which has in no instance escaped with impunity. The crimes of nations, as well as individuals, are often designated in their punishments; and we conceive it to be no forced construction of some of the calamities which now distress or impend over our country, to believe that they are the measure of the evils which we have meted to others. The ravages committed upon many of our fellow-citizens by the Indians, and the depredations upon the liberty and commerce of others, of the citizens of the United States by the Algerines, both unite in proclaiming to us in the most forcible language, 'to loose the bands of wickedness, to break every yoke, to undo the heavy burthens, and to let the oppressed go free.'

"We shall conclude this address by recommending to you:

"_First._ To refrain immediately from that species of rapine and murder which has improperly been softened by the name of the African trade. It is Indian cruelty and Algerine piracy in another form.

"_Second._ To form Societies in every State, for the purpose of promoting the abolition of the slave-trade, of domestic slavery, for the relief of persons unlawfully held in bondage, and for the improvement of the condition of Africans and their descendants amongst us.

"The Societies which we represent, have beheld with triumph the success of their exertions in many instances, in favor of their African brethren; and, in full reliance upon the continuance of Divine support and direction, they humbly hope their labors will never cease while there exists a single slave in the United States."

[31] Mr. Jackson opposed the reference of the memorial to a committee, and wished it to be thrown aside. Mr. Burke, of South Carolina, said he saw the disposition of the House, and feared the memorial would be referred. He "was certain the commitment would sound an alarm, and blow the trumpet of sedition in the Southern States."

Mr. Seney, of Maryland, denied that there was anything unconst.i.tutional in the memorial; its only object was that Congress should exercise their const.i.tutional authority to abate the horrors of slavery as far as they could.

Mr. Parker, of Virginia, said: "I hope the pet.i.tion of these respectable people will be attended to with all the readiness the importance of its object demands; and I cannot help expressing the pleasure I feel in finding so considerable a part of the community attending to matters of such momentous concern to the future prosperity and happiness of the people of America. I think it my duty as a citizen of the Union to espouse their cause."

Mr. Page, of Virginia (governor from 1802-1805), said he was in favor of the commitment. He hoped that the designs of the respectable memorialists would not be stopped at the threshold, in order to preclude a fair discussion of the prayer of the memorial. With respect to the alarm that was apprehended, he conjectured there was none; but there might be just cause, if the memorial was _not_ taken into consideration. He placed himself in the case of a slave, and said that, on hearing that Congress had refused to listen to the decent suggestions of a respectable part of the community, he should infer that the general government (from which was expected great good would result to every cla.s.s of citizens) had shut their ears against the voice of humanity; and he should despair of any alleviation of the miseries he and his posterity had in prospect. If anything could induce him to rebel, it must be a stroke like this. But if he was told that application was made in his behalf, and that Congress was willing to hear what could be urged in favor of discouraging the practice of importing his fellow-wretches, he would trust in their justice and humanity, and wait for the decision patiently. He presumed that these unfortunate people would reason in the same way.

Mr. Madison, of Virginia, said, if there were the slightest tendency by the commitment to break in upon the const.i.tution, he would object to it; but he did not see upon what ground such an event could be apprehended. He admitted that Congress was restricted by the const.i.tution from taking measures to abolish the slave-trade; yet there was a variety of ways by which it could countenance the abolition of slavery; and regulations might be made in relation to the introduction of slaves into the new States, to be formed out of the Western Territory.

The memorial was committed by a vote of 43 yeas to 14 nays. Of the Virginia delegation, 8 voted yea and 2 nay; Maryland, 3 yea, 1 nay; Delaware and North Carolina, both delegations absent. Mr. Vining, the member for Delaware, however, spoke and voted later with the friends of the memorialists.

The committee reported on the 8th of March. The report was discussed in committee of the whole, and amended to read as follows:

"_First._ That the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, can not be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808.

"_Second._ That Congress have no authority to interfere in the emanc.i.p.ation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any of the States--it remaining with the several States alone, to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true policy may require.

"_Third._ That Congress have authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on the African trade, for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of providing, by proper regulations, for the humane treatment during their pa.s.sage of slaves imported by the said citizens into the States admitting such importation."

This was the first legislation on the subject of slavery in the new Congress, and was carried by 29 votes to 25--North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voting unanimously in the negative. All the other States (except Rhode Island, from which no member was present) voted in the affirmative or divided. New Hampshire voted 1 yea, 1 nay; Ma.s.sachusetts, 6 yeas, 3 nays; Connecticut, 2 yeas, 2 nays; New York, 5 yeas, 2 nays; New Jersey, 3 yeas; Pennsylvania, 5 yeas; Virginia, 5 yeas, 6 nays; Maryland, 1 yea, 4 nays; Delaware, 1 yea.

[32] At this period, one hundred and fifteen American citizens, captured by piracy, were held as slaves in Algiers, for whom large ransoms were demanded by the pirates.

[33] The convention, after discussing principles, appointed a "committee of detail," consisting of Mr. Rutledge of South Carolina, Mr. Randolph of Virginia, Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania, Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut, and Mr. Gorham of Ma.s.sachusetts, to reduce to the form of a const.i.tution the resolutions agreed upon. This committee without instructions, or authority from the resolutions adopted, introduced a clause forever prohibiting the abolition of the African slave-trade.

Mr. Randolph earnestly protested against this clause. He was opposed to any restriction on the power of Congress to abolish it. He "could never agree to the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Const.i.tution." Madison Papers, p. 1396. Mr. Ellsworth "was for leaving the clause as it now stands. Let every State import what it pleases.

The morality, the wisdom of slavery, are considerations belonging to the States themselves. What enriches a part, enriches the whole; and the States are the best judges of their particular interest." Id., p.

1389. It was moved, as a compromise, to guarantee the slave-trade for twenty years, by postponing the restriction to 1808. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gorham, of Ma.s.sachusetts, and it pa.s.sed. Mr. Madison, of Virginia, opposed it. "Twenty years," he said, "will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American character, than to say nothing about it in the Const.i.tution." Id., p.

1427. Mr. Mason, of Virginia, p.r.o.nounced the traffic as "infernal."

Id., p. 1390.

[34] Life of Benjamin Lundy, Phil. 1847, p. 218. The total membership of the 130 societies was 6625, exclusive of twelve societies in Illinois from which no returns had been received. These statistics were gathered by the American Anti-Slavery Convention, which was held at Philadelphia, in 1827.

Addenda.

Since the preceding pages were in type, I have seen, in the library of the New York Historical Society, the printed minutes of the first convention held by the Abolition Societies of the United States, which met at Philadelphia, January 1, 1794, and was several days in session, of which mention was made on page 59. These minutes show that my statement of the societies represented needs correction. The Rhode Island Society appears to have had no delegates present. The Virginia Society appointed delegates; but, for reasons stated below, they were not admitted.

Several societies, however, were represented, of which before I had seen no mention. As the convention met in the depth of winter, and as traveling was then expensive and difficult, it is evidence of a deep interest in the subject, that so many delegations attended.

The convention met in the City Hall, at Philadelphia, and organized by choosing Joseph Bloomfield, of New Jersey, President; John McCrea, Secretary; and Joseph Fry, Door-keeper.

The following societies were represented by the delegates named:

_Connecticut Society_--Uriah Tracy.

_New York Society_--Peter Jay Munroe, Moses Rogers, Thomas Franklin, Jr., William Dunlap.

_New Jersey Society_--Joseph Bloomfield, William c.o.xe, Jr., John Wistar, Robert Pearson, Franklin Davenport.

_Pennsylvania Society_--William Rogers, William Rawle, Samuel Powel Griffitts, Robert Patterson, Samuel Coates, Benjamin Rush.

_Washington (Pa.) Society_--Absalom Baird.

_Delaware Society_--Warren Mifflin, Isaiah Rowland, Joseph Hodgson, John Pemberton.

_Wilmington (Del.) Society_--Joseph Warner, Isaac H. Starr, Robert Coram.

_Maryland Society_--Samuel Sterett, James Winchester, Joseph Townsend, Adam Fonerdon, Jesse Hollingsworth.

_Chester-town (Md.) Society_--Joseph Wilkinson, James Maslin, Abraham Ridgely.

A letter, directed to the convention, from Robert Pleasants, chairman of the Committee of Correspondence of the Virginia Society, was presented and read. By this letter it appeared that Samuel Pleasants and Israel Pleasants, of Philadelphia, were appointed to represent that society in the convention; and in case of their declining, or being prevented from acting, the convention were at liberty to nominate two other persons as their representatives. In the letter was inclosed "an authentic account of several vessels lately fitted out in Virginia for the African slave-trade." The convention, after considering the proposition of the Virginia Society, adopted the following resolution:

"_Resolved_, That as information, and an unreserved comparison of one another's sentiments, relative to the important cause in which we are severally engaged, are our princ.i.p.al objects; and as the persons appointed by the Virginia Society are not citizens of that State, nor members of that Society, to admit them, or, according to their proposals for us to elect others as their representatives, would be highly improper."

The president was directed to acknowledge the receipt of the letter, to inform the Virginia Society of the above resolution, and to thank them for the important information contained in the letter.

Benjamin Rush, William Dunlap, Samuel Sterett, William Rawle, and Warner Mifflin, were appointed a committee to report the objects proper for the consideration of the convention, and the best plan for carrying the same into execution. Under the direction of this committee, memorials were prepared to be sent to the legislatures of the several States which had not abolished slavery; a memorial to Congress asking for the enactment of a law making the use of vessels and men in the slave-trade a penal offense; and an address to the citizens of the United States, already printed in a note, pp. 60-63. It was also voted "to recommend to the different Abolition societies to appoint delegates to meet in convention, at Philadelphia, on the first Wednesday of January, 1795, and on the same day in every year afterward, until the great objects of their original a.s.sociation be accomplished."