It will not be questioned that of all men, except the slaves
themselves, the slaveholders were most deeply interested in the
subject of emancipation. They possessed a direct pecuniary interest in
the slaves and were usually the owners of large tracts of land
dependent, it was believed, for cultivation, upon their labor. Thus it
was thought that emancipation without compensation involved not only
the loss of their slaves, but a great depreciation in the value of
their lands. In addition to these direct losses would come the burden
of caring for the poor, the afflicted, and the criminal classes of the
ex-slaves, not to mention the cost of educating the rising
generation—the major part of all of which would fall upon the
communities where the ex-slaves lived, and thus upon the remnant of
property left to their former owners.
To the foregoing embarrassments must be added the rights of creditors.
A great majority of the slaves in Virginia descended to their owners
by the laws of inheritance, just as the plantations of which they were
virtually part. With the slaves and the lands, came the debts of the
ancestors, or, in the progress of time, new debts were incurred. In
all such instances the debts of creditors must be provided for before
any change could be made in the status of slaves bound for their
payment. All these considerations convinced fair-minded men that some
substantial measure of compensation must be made the slaveholders
before they could be expected to absolve their slaves from service.
But from what source was this great fund to be gathered? Despite the
widespread sentiment favorable to emancipation, neither state nor
nation gave sign of willingness to assume the burden.
But beyond the financial difficulties mentioned was the attitude of
that class of slaveholders who cherished no desire for emancipation
and resented every such suggestion as a wanton invasion of their
safety and their rights. They were satisfied with the status quo; they
neither desired change nor discussion of its supposed advantages. They
met every proposal with a resolute insistence upon their legal rights
under the constitutions, State and Federal, and manifested an
intolerance of thought and speech with respect to the institution
which filled the friends of moderation and progress with mournful
appreciation of the hindrances which beset their path.