EARLY OPPOSITION TO SLAVERY.--GROWTH OF THE SLAVE POWER.--THE
MISSOURI COMPROMISE.--JAY BEGINS POLITICAL AGITATION FOR THE
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
The movement which culminated in the Civil War and the total abolition
of slavery in the United States was first humanitarian, and subsequently
political. Philanthropists prepared the way for the statesman and the
soldier.
The humanitarian movement had begun before the time of William Jay and
his fellow-workers. To find its beginnings, we must look back into the
colonial days of the eighteenth century. There, among the first, was
George Keith, of Pennsylvania, denouncing the system on grounds of both
Christianity and public policy. And Samuel Sewall, Chief-Justice of
Massachusetts, who, in his pamphlet, "The Selling of Joseph," quaintly
testified to the truth. "These Ethiopians," he said, "as black as they
are, seeing they are the sons and daughters of the first Adam and the
offspring of God, they ought to be treated with respect agreeable."
Ralph Sandiford, Benjamin Lay, William Burling, Anthony Benezet, the
Huguenot, were men who spoke as sincerely as later abolitionists and
whose words were heard. There was John Woolman, of New Jersey, who
pointed out "the dark gloominess overhanging the land, the spirit of
fierceness and love of dominion," resulting from this iniquity; and Dr.
Samuel Hopkins, of Newport, R. I., whose eloquent exhortations banished
the slave trade from a congregation growing rich on its spoils; and Dr.
Benjamin Rush, of Philadelphia, who foretold that "future ages will be
at a loss which to condemn most, our folly or our guilt in abetting this
direct violation of nature and religion." The legislatures of Virginia,
South Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts in turn attempted to
restrict the slave-trade; but their efforts were annulled in England,
where the slave interest, through its champion, Lord Sandwich, forbade
any interference with "a traffic so beneficial to the nation."
The colonies had no sooner achieved their independence than they found
themselves face to face with the great question, and on the threshold of
their national life a great change was perceptible in the attitude of
the people towards slavery. The old seventeenth century idea, that to
drag a negro from his heathen wilds to labour unrequited in a Christian
community tended to the benefit of his soul, had passed away. The
slave-trade was generally recognized as indefensible. There were men who
denounced slavery itself as an abominable evil. Even those most
determined to maintain the institution took the ground that it was an
unfortunate necessity, but that it must be preserved to avoid greater
evils. In 1787, through the noble efforts of Thomas Jefferson, Timothy
Pickering, Rufus King, Nathan Dane, William Grayson, and Richard Henry
Lee, Congress passed the great ordinance which forbade slavery to cross
the Ohio River into the Northwest Territory.
The struggle between right and wrong had begun, but the opposing forces
were very unequal. On one side was humane sentiment; on the other was
deeply rooted habit, pecuniary interest, the pressure of political
questions of seemingly overriding importance. Among the great leaders of
the time there are two whose opinions and practice give an excellent
illustration of the prevailing antislavery feeling: John Jay of New
York, Patrick Henry of Virginia. There is no disagreement as to the
moral elevation of John Jay's character. Abroad and at home, officially
and unofficially, he was always the opponent of slavery. Yet Jay
purchased and held men as slaves. To obtain domestic servants otherwise
was extremely difficult. After his slaves had served him sufficiently
long and faithfully to return to him what he considered the value of his
outlay, he gave them their freedom. He believed that slavery in
principle was wrong, but he yielded so far to convenience and custom.
Patrick Henry was an antislavery man and placed his position on record
in the following words: "Is it not amazing that, at a time when the
rights of humanity are defined and understood with precision, in a
country above all others fond of liberty, in such an age, we find men
professing a religion the most humane, mild, meek, gentle, and generous
adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with
the Bible and destructive of liberty? Every thinking, honest man rejects
it in speculation, but how few in practice, from conscientious motives!
Would any one believe that I am a master of slaves of my own purchase? I
am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living without them. I
will not, I cannot, justify it; however culpable my conduct, I will so
far pay my _devoirs_ to duty as to own the excellence and rectitude of
her precepts and lament my want of conformity to them. I believe a time
will come when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable
evil; everything we can do is to improve it, if it happens in our own
day; if not, let us transmit to our own descendants, together with our
slaves, a pity for their unhappy lot and an abhorrence of slavery."
Such being the character of antislavery sentiment, its chances of
success seem hopeless enough when we hear the other side. When Congress
was considering the Articles of Confederation, Wilson, of Pennsylvania,
said: "Dismiss your slaves, freemen will take their places." The reply
of Lynch, of South Carolina, showed the existence of men willing to
sacrifice everything to the preservation of slavery. "Our slaves are our
property," said he; "if that is debated, there is an end to
confederation."
Thus, at this crisis in the national history, there first distinctively
appeared that aggressive, uncompromising party, afterwards to be known
as the Slave Power--an association of men then forming a minority even
in the South, but determined to carry its point at all hazards; men who
were willing to sacrifice every consideration of the public good to the
permanence of a system profitable to themselves, but which reduced human
beings to the level of beasts. Against a party so resolute, antislavery
opinion of the Patrick Henry variety could not prevail. Moreover, the
distracted state of the country, the imperative necessity for union,
made every other question seem secondary to the majority of patriotic
statesmen. In the Constitutional Convention, the Slave Power, then
chiefly represented by South Carolina and Georgia, by threatening to
defeat the establishment of a stable government and by making the
preservation of slavery a _sine qua non_ to the Union, obtained the
concessions so big with future disaster.
The struggle over this subject in the days of the formation of the
government was the beginning of the "irrepressible conflict." The Slave
Power had come into being as a distinct force, aiming to dominate the
rest of the community in the interest of property in man. On the other
hand, the opposition began to organize. Several abolition and
manumission societies were formed. The oldest of these was that of
Pennsylvania, which in 1787 chose Franklin for its president. A society
was formed in New York in 1785 with John Jay as president and Alexander
Hamilton as secretary; in Rhode Island in 1789, under the lead of Dr.
Hopkins. In 1791, before the Connecticut society, Jonathan Edwards the
younger maintained the doctrine of _immediate emancipation_. Similar
associations were at work in New Jersey, Virginia, and Maryland.
Antislavery men were thus uniting in their cause, but unfortunately they
were, with rare exceptions, devoid of the earnestness which
characterized their opponents. Their hostility to the system was a
sentiment rather than a principle. It could hasten somewhat emancipation
at the North; but it had no force to contend against the pecuniary
interests which were daily binding tighter the bonds of the negro in the
South. There, in the early years of the present century, the cotton-gin,
which had been invented in 1793, gave an impetus to the production of
cotton which nearly doubled the value of slaves. At the North the
profits of the African trade which supplied this increased demand for
negroes gave to the Slave Power allies almost as determined as
themselves.
The year 1808, fixed by the Constitution as the limit of the duration of
the slave-trade, witnessed the next contest. The result was a definite
prohibition of the trade by law. But it was a barren victory for the
cause of humanity. The interests involved in both Northern and Southern
States had grown so large and influential as to make the law a dead
letter. The trade continued with unabated vigour, and marked by even
greater cruelties to the wretched cargoes. The Slave Power was growing
in strength and determination, bent on controlling the national
government, influencing our foreign relations, reaching out already to
grasp new slave territory.
From 1818 to 1821 continued the great contest over the admission of
Missouri as a slave State, in which was involved the question whether
the extension and encouragement of slavery was to be the permanent
policy of the United States government. Men and words were not wanting
to expose and condemn the contemplated evil. But the Slave Power had
grown to too great proportions. Henry Clay, who had believed "slavery to
be a wrong, a grievous wrong, which no contingency can make right," now,
at the behest of slaveholders, threw his great influence against the
cause of humanity. As in the days of the Constitutional Convention the
Slave Power had secured the perpetuation of its system by threats of
preventing a union of the States, so in 1821 it obtained the principle
of the extension of slavery by threats of dissolving the Union. Thomas
Jefferson, so faithful an advocate of freedom, was now appalled by the
sound of a strife which, "like the fire-bell at midnight," announced
disaster, and he counselled concession. Even John Quincy Adams was on
the same side, "from extreme unwillingness to put the Union in hazard."
So passed the so-called Compromise, which allowed slavery to break its
bounds and to spread over Arkansas and Missouri. The Slave Power had won
a great victory and had shown immense growth. The old apologetic
position that the system, although wrong, could not be abolished without
entailing greater evils, was now exchanged for the bold doctrine that
slavery was a good thing, to be extended and strengthened.
The struggle was growing fiercer and was becoming more clearly an issue
between North and South, but the bone of contention was yet the
extension, not the abolition, of slavery. The Slave Power, warned by the
opposition it had met with in Congress, that a new spirit was arising in
the North, instinctively felt that its position could be maintained only
by further aggression. None but slaveholders were allowed to represent
the South in Congress, where every public measure was considered first
in the light of its effect upon the institution of slavery. At home,
such humane laws regarding the blacks as still existed were repealed,
new and more cruel enactments were passed, the manumission of slaves by
grateful or repentant masters was prohibited.
While at the South opinion tended towards united and vigorous action,
the sentiments of the people at the North were divided. The majority,
although disliking slavery "in the abstract," were so fearful of the
outcome of the contention, were so anxious to see some settlement which
would put an end to agitation, that they were disposed to accept the
line drawn by the Missouri Compromise as the best solution possible, and
to resent any further antislavery expression as an element of profitless
disturbance. In this class there grew up a dislike of the negroes, a
hatred of the questions involved in their existence among us, a general
prejudice against colour, which tended greatly to the support of the
Slave Power. Many persons who preserved abolition views were lulled into
repose of conscience by support of the Colonization Society, an
organization formed in the South to get rid of free coloured persons by
shipping them to Africa, but skilfully made to appear as a philanthropic
scheme to solve the slavery problem. Men of the highest character and
with the best intentions had joined this society in the belief that
therein might be found the means of uprooting slavery. The ten years
following the Missouri Compromise were unpromising for the cause of the
slave. The Southern States were ceaselessly strengthening themselves.
Race prejudice, the fear of business disturbance, apathy, made the North
acquiescent. Cotton was king, and to that authority conscience
submitted.
Still there were signs of light and materials for improvement. In 1822
the exciting struggle for the establishment of slavery in Illinois
resulted in favour of freedom. There existed in the country one hundred
and forty antislavery societies, of which one hundred and six were in
the South. In 1826 was held in Baltimore a convention at which
eighty-one of these societies were represented. There was not enough
"fight" among these antislavery men to make much impression. Their views
were directed towards preventing the extension of slavery, towards its
abolition in the District of Columbia (where its existence involved
recognition by the United States government) and its "gradual" cessation
elsewhere. The fact of their holding the convention in Baltimore
indicates the still lingering sympathy of a considerable party in the
South, and it shows also that the Slave Power did not look upon them
with much concern. It is not until antislavery stands upon the platform
of abolition as an _immediate duty_ that it is swept from the face of
the Southern States.
There were earnest men already engaged in a new and more vigorous
crusade: Elias Hicks, the Quaker, who proclaimed boldly the sin of
owning men or condoning the practice in others; Rev. John Rankin, of
Tennessee, who removed with his congregation across the Ohio River,
rather than acquiesce in slavery; William Goodell, of Providence,
beginning a career of forty years; above all, Benjamin Lundy, who
sacrificed to the cause all that men hold dear. Between 1815 and 1818
four abolition papers were being published, _The Emancipator_ in
Tennessee, _The Abolition Intelligencer_ in Kentucky, _The Liberalist_
in Louisiana, and, most important, Lundy's _Genius of Universal
Emancipation_ in Maryland. All of these papers were published in the
South, and the majority of the manumission societies were there. Thus,
in 1826, when William Jay began his labours, the line between freedom
and slavery was not yet drawn. A few slaves were still held in New York.
Many antislavery people were to be found at the South and many
pro-slavery people at the North. The United States was a slaveholding
nation.
Jay was a deeply interested observer of the contest in Congress which
resulted in the Missouri Compromise. In 1819, when he was thirty years
of age, his attitude towards the extension of slavery was stated in a
letter to Elias Boudinot:
"I have no doubt that the laws of God, and, as a necessary and
inevitable consequence, the true interests of our country, forbid the
extension of slavery. If our country is ever to be redeemed from the
curse of slavery the present Congress must stand between the living and
the dead and stay the plague. Now is the accepted time, now is the day
of salvation. If slavery once takes root on the other side of the
Mississippi, it can never afterwards be extiminated, but will extend
with the future Western Empire, poisoning the feelings of humanity,
checking the growth of those principles of virtue and religion which
constitute alike the security and happiness of civil society."
In the year 1826 occurred an incident which marks the beginning of a new
phase in the antislavery struggle--the movement which demanded abolition
in the District of Columbia. There, on territory exclusively under the
jurisdiction of the National Congress, it could be claimed justly that
the question of States rights was not involved and that the
constitutional provisions did not apply. In this movement, which
continued until its object was accomplished in April, 1862, William Jay
was a pioneer.
In August of the year 1826 John Owen, the proprietor of a paper-mill at
Croton Falls, near the Jay farm at Bedford, received a parcel from New
York which happened to have been wrapped in a Washington newspaper, _The
National Intelligencer_, of the 1st of August. On looking it over his
eye was caught by the following advertisement:
"Was committed to the jail of Washington County, District of
Columbia, on the 22d of July last, a runaway negro man by the name
of Gilbert Horton. He is five feet high, stout made, large full
eyes, and a scar on his left arm near the elbow; had on when
committed a tarpaulin hat, linen shirt, blue cloth jacket and
trousers; says that he was born free in the State of New York near
Peekskill. The owner or owners of the above-described negro man, if
any, are requested to come and take him away, or he will be sold for
his jail fees and other expenses, as the law directs."
There is a sort of grim humour about this advertisement, appearing, as
it did, according to law, in the capital of the great free republic of
the world, under a flag supposed to typify human liberty. It declared
that a man who claimed to be and actually was a citizen of the State of
New York was held in jail without any charge and would be sold into
lifelong slavery unless claimed as a slave by an owner who did not
exist. It declared, in short, that a free citizen of the United States
who had any negro blood in his veins would be reduced to slavery by the
act of setting foot in the capital of his country. Here was an issue
which involved the rights of the State of New York, but could not be
said to be an attack on those of Virginia or South Carolina.
Mr. Owen recognized in the Gilbert Horton thus described a free man who
had worked in his neighbourhood. He lost no time in mounting his horse
and riding over to Bedford to submit the matter to Judge Jay. By the
latter's advice a letter was despatched at once to the marshal of the
District of Columbia, giving proofs of Horton's freedom, and a meeting
was called of the citizens of Westchester County to take action on the
subject. This meeting, held on the 30th of August, with Oliver Green in
the chair and William Jay as secretary, passed the following
resolutions:
"I. That this meeting view this procedure with the indignation
becoming men who have a just sense of the value of personal
liberty, and a proper abhorrence of cruelty and oppression.
"II. That the evidence affords unequivocal proof of the freedom of
Horton.
"III. That the secretary is hereby desired to transmit to his
Excellency the Governor the evidence above referred to, and, in the
name of this meeting, to request his Excellency to demand from the
proper authorities the instant liberation of the said Horton as a
free citizen of the State of New York.
"IV. That by the fourth article of the Constitution of the United
States the citizens of each State are entitled to all the privileges
and immunities of the several States, and that it is the duty of the
State of New York to protect its citizens in the enjoyment of these
rights without regard to their complexion.
"V. That the law under which Horton has been imprisoned, and by
which a free citizen without evidence of crime and without trial by
jury may be condemned to servitude for life, is repugnant to our
republican institutions, and revolting to justice and humanity; and
that the representatives of this State in Congress are hereby
requested to use their endeavours to procure its repeal.
"VI. That the secretary, with John Owen, Esq., be a committee to
prepare and to present to the citizens of this county, for their
signatures, a petition to Congress for the immediate abolition of
slavery in the District of Columbia.
"VII. That the proceedings of this meeting be signed by the chairman
and secretary, and published."
On receiving from Judge Jay the Westchester resolutions, Governor
Clinton submitted them immediately to President John Quincy Adams, who
was paying a summer visit to his home at Quincy, Mass., with a
respectful demand for the liberation of Gilbert Horton as a free man and
a citizen. The President sent the papers with a letter from himself to
Henry Clay, then Secretary of State. Henry Clay was absent at the time,
and the Chief Clerk of the department wrote to Governor Clinton that the
instructions of the President had been anticipated by the discharge of
Horton by the marshal of the District. The committal had taken place
under an old law of Maryland, "which was adopted by Congress with the
other general laws then in force in that State for the county of
Washington upon its assuming exclusive jurisdiction over the territory."
This disposal of the case left the principle at issue untouched, and Jay
could not be satisfied with such a result. His views are expressed in a
letter written in September to Hon. Charles Miner, a member of Congress:
"Since I read a resolution introduced by you in relation to slavery in
the District of Columbia, the subject has been scarcely absent from my
mind, and the late imprisonment in Washington of a citizen of this
county afforded an opportunity which I gladly embraced of obtaining an
expression of public opinion. I do not entertain the slightest hope that
our petition will be favourably received, nor the slightest apprehension
that the cause we espouse will not finally triumph. The history of the
abolition of the slave-trade teaches us the necessity of patient
perseverance, and affords a pledge that perseverance will be ultimately
crowned with success. We have nothing to fear, but much to hope, from
the violence and threats of our opponents. Apathy is the only obstacle
we have reason to dread, and to remove this obstacle it is necessary
that the attention of the public should be constantly directed to the
subject. Every discussion in Congress in relation to slavery, no matter
how great may be the majority against us, advances our cause. We shall
rise more powerful from every defeat."
Jay's next step was to draft the memorial to Congress ordered by the
Westchester resolutions. It declared:
"The outrage offered to a citizen of this county, and a violation of
the constitutional rights involved in that outrage, affords to the
meeting new and strong evidences of the impropriety of the
continuance of slavery in the District of Columbia. As citizens of
the republic, professing to acknowledge that all men are created
equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights, and that among them are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, your petitioners cannot but regard it as
derogatory to the government of the country that its laws should
violate any of these rights in a territory under its exclusive
jurisdiction. To your honourable body was given by the Constitution
the exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatever over that District,
and your right and ability to grant the prayer of these petitioners
cannot be called in question, and the confined limit of the District
and the comparatively small number of slaves it contains obviates
the objections sometimes urged against sudden emancipation.
"Your petitioners therefore earnestly entreat your honourable body
that the government of this great republic, glorying as it does in
acknowledging and protecting the rights of mankind, diffusing the
blessings of freedom, may no longer by law withhold these rights and
blessings from any portion of the inhabitants of its own immediate
territory, but in the exercise of your prerogative you will
immediately provide for the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia in such manner as in your wisdom may seem best."
The publication of the Westchester resolutions elicited no unfavourable
comments at the North, but it gave no little disquietude to Southern
editors, two of whom declared that black persons travelling in the South
should carry proofs of their freedom, as whites in Europe were compelled
to carry passports. The introduction of the subject into Congress, even
at that day, when there was no excitement at the North on the subject of
slavery, brought out the susceptibility and dictatorial tone of the
slaveholding interest which marked all subsequent debates up to the
election of Lincoln.
Soon after the assembling of Congress in 1827, Mr. Aaron Ward,
representing Westchester County, introduced the resolution: "That the
committee on the District of Columbia be directed to enquire whether
there be in force in the said District any law which authorizes the
imprisonment of any man of colour and his sale as an unclaimed slave for
gaol fees, and if so to enquire into the expediency of repealing the
same." Mr. Ward accompanied his resolution with remarks of a moderate
character, referring to the circumstances of Horton's arrest, the fact
of his being a citizen of New York, and the danger in which he stood of
being sold as a slave; he contrasted the law under which such
proceedings could be had with the provisions of the national
Constitution; and he concluded by saying: "The jurisdiction of the
District, sir, ought to be exhibited to the country and to the world
without a stain. Its object should be not to oppress but to vindicate
the rights of freemen, and if there is a spot on earth where these
rights are to be held sacred that place is the District of Columbia."
For a Northern man merely to touch upon the rights of coloured persons
was enough to arouse the leading Southern members of the House to angry
opposition. John Forsythe, who as minister to Spain had arranged the
session of Florida, James Hamilton, already an extreme advocate of
States rights and afterwards Governor of South Carolina, Charles A.
Wickliffe, afterwards Postmaster-General under President Tyler, and
George McDuffie, of Georgia, all took pains to throw ridicule upon the
resolution, or to oppose its consideration. They considered, no doubt
correctly, that to have any negroes spoken of in Congress otherwise than
as property was an indirect blow at slavery. W. L. Brent, of Maryland,
said that the resolution as it stood was calculated to excite only angry
debate and irritated feelings. If the mover would omit the words "being
a citizen of any State," the most objectionable part would be removed.
Mr. Ward consented to this emasculation and his resolution was then
carried. The committee reported on the 16th July, that in the District
of Columbia, "if a free man of colour should be apprehended as a
runaway, he is subjected to the payment of all fees and rewards given by
law for apprehending runaways; and upon failure to make such payment, is
liable to be sold as a slave." "That is," said Judge Jay, "a man
acknowledged to be free and unaccused of any offence is to be sold as a
slave to pay fees and rewards given by law for apprehending runaways. If
Turkish despotism is disgraced by an enactment of equal atrocity, we are
ignorant of the fact." The committee thought the law rather hard, and
recommended such an alteration of it as would make such charges payable
by the corporation of Washington. But even this alteration was never
made. "The code of Washington," Jay said some years later, "is yet
polluted by unquestionably the most iniquitous statute in Christendom."
And the fact continued that a coloured citizen of a free State could be
sold into slavery if found in Washington. Convinced that no reform could
be expected except by the total abolition of slavery on United States
territory, convinced, too, that this was the first necessary step in a
campaign against slavery itself, Jay set on foot a movement for popular
petitions to Congress and for legislative expression in behalf of their
consideration. The Pennsylvania Legislature passed such resolutions in
January, 1829; the New York Assembly followed soon afterwards, when Jay
wrote to his friend Charles Miner: "The mail this evening brings the
news that resolutions instructing our representatives in Congress to
vote for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia have
passed our Assembly by a vote of 57 to 39. In the fulness of my heart I
thank God and take courage." Among his co-workers at this time was Henry
D. Sedgwick, to whom he wrote in 1831: "I have read your pamphlet with
much interest; your ideas on the abolition of slavery correspond with
those I have long entertained and expressed. Duty is the only safe rule
of expediency. No nation ever has suffered, and none ever will, for
doing justice and loving mercy. But moral considerations apart, I have
no doubt it would be wise policy in the Southern States immediately to
emancipate their slaves. The period must arrive when slavery must cease
on this continent. The progress of knowledge and religion, the example
of St. Domingo, the abolition of slavery in Mexico and South America,
the decreasing value of slave labour, and the rapidly augmenting
coloured population in the South, all combine in rendering this event
inevitable. But the slaves will either receive their freedom as a boon,
or they will wrest it by force from their masters; and the evils
attending these two modes of emancipation certainly bear no proportion
to each other. You remark, 'Our country fought for justice and should
be ready to render the justice which it demanded.' I observe a similar
sentiment in a letter written by my father from Spain to Judge Benson
during the contest to which you allude. Speaking of the abolition of
slavery, he says, 'Till America comes into this measure her prayers to
Heaven for liberty will be impious.' This is a strong expression, but it
is just. Were I in your Legislature I would prepare a bill for the
purpose with great care, and would never cease moving it till it became
a law or I ceased to be a member. I believe that God governs the world,
and I believe it to be a maxim in His Court, as in ours, that those who
ask for equity ought to do it. I do not think the free States guiltless
of upholding slavery while, through their representatives, they tolerate
it in the District of Columbia. Were the free States to will it, slavery
would cease at the capital of the republic, and an example would be set
that could not fail of having a salutary influence."
[Illustration: After Gilbert Stuart. A. W. Elson & Co., Boston
John Jay]