Transcriber’s Note
Italic text displayed as: _italic_
[Illustration: WADE HAMPTON, 1889
“The diffusion of the Negroes? It would deprive us of much of our labor
and make it a little harder for the present generation, but it would be
the salvation of the future.”]
THE
SLAVE TRADE
_Slavery and Color_
BY
THEODORE D. JERVEY
COLUMBIA, S. C.
THE STATE COMPANY
1925
COPYRIGHT 1925
THE STATE COMPANY
TO
A. S. SALLEY, JR.
_Secretary of the Historical Commission of South Carolina_
whose friendship has stood the test of time and whose exact knowledge,
those standing high among the scholars of American history have
recognized, this book is dedicated.
INTRODUCTORY
The following pages, from which an excerpt was published in 1913, under
the title—The Railroad The Conqueror—constitute an attempt to put
within short compass the main causes of the shifting sectionalism of
the people of the United States.
The facts and assertions upon which this sketch is based have, with
others not included, been gathered and pondered for at least sixteen
years, during which period, much at times interwoven, has, from time
to time been cut, for fear that consideration of such might lead the
thoughts of the possible reader away from the main theme.
As to the workmanship few can see more clearly than the author,
how much better that could have been, had he who undertook it been
accommodated with more leisure and equipped with scholarship and
means. Yet it is doubtful if any one could have approached the task
and pursued it through the years which have intervened between its
inception and completion with a firmer determination to present the
truth and nothing but the truth, as the writer saw and still sees it.
To publish what is herein set out, in this day of rampant commercialism
and often unconscious intolerance, requires character and courage in a
publisher.
On the other hand, submission to some, holding themselves out as
publishers and soliciting manuscripts, involves occasional risk, and in
this connection, the author feels that he would be lacking in ordinary
gratitude, did he not record the rescue of this manuscript, in an
earlier form, from the clutch of a publishing house, which having
obtained it on solicitation, for perusal and consideration, on terms
declined, held it for a year, in spite of repeated requests for its
return, replied to repeatedly, with untruthful assertions that it had
been sent back. Without any knowledge of or interest in the contents, a
stranger, to whose inquiries concerning local history, the author, from
time to time had replied, C. W. Lewis, Esq., residing in the vicinity
of the disreputable publishing house, upon request, by a personal call,
forced the delivery of the manuscript and returned it to the author.
Now complete it is submitted to the public without further comment to
speak for itself.
THE SLAVE TRADE
_Slavery and Color_
CHAPTER I
In consideration of much that appears in the numerous contributions to
the discussion of the Negro Question, it must be noticeable that in
recent years, there has been quite a broadening of the field, and that,
from what was in the past, mainly a question of slavery or freedom, for
one particular class of people, in one great country, we have advanced
to a consideration of what may effect the entire world in that, which
has been entitled by some: “The Conflict of Color,” and by others not
quite so pessimistic: “The Question of the Twentieth Century, the
Question of Color.”
In such circumstances, an examination of the evolution of this question
and a recital of some of the phases under which it has been brought up
for discussion in the history of the United States, may tend to correct
some misapprehensions and throw some additional light upon a subject,
which, in spite of the efforts to suppress it, is continually forcing
itself upon the attention of the world.
While freely admitting the impossibility of discussing this subject,
within any reasonable limits, without necessarily omitting mention
of many publications, containing an amount of extremely valuable
information, the aim of this work will be to trace the evolution of
the question as it has appeared, in the expression of both whites
and Negroes, in that country in which public opinion is said to
exercise the greatest influence upon government. In undertaking such
an examination it would be hardly necessary to make any very close
scrutiny of the Colonial period, from the fact that while there was
opinion that found expression in acts, statements and laws, the
colonies, being under the control of Great Britain, were subjected to
her policies and representative of her civilization. The extraordinary
case therefore of a Massachusetts slave-owner, Maverick, who simply
for breeding purposes, in 1636, forced an African woman of high rank,
owned by him, to accept the embraces of a common young Negro[1] was but
a way of expressing contempt for the race. The Maryland Act of 1663,
a far less coarse expression, involved all white women who failed to
entertain it. In Stroud’s “Sketch of the laws of Slavery,” published in
1827, we find on page 2:
“Section 2. And forasmuch as divers free born English women forgetful
of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation do
intermarry with Negro slaves” such “free born women ... shall serve
the master of such slave during the life of her husband and all the
issue of such free born women, so married shall be slaves as their
fathers were.”
Yet despite these two striking illustrations at these early dates,
broadly speaking, we might claim that in British America “up to 1700
and perhaps beyond, the sentiment North and South concerning the
Negro or his enslavement differed but slightly; for while the South
Carolina Act of 1690 did provide severe regulations for Negro and
Indian slaves, a study of the statutes from 1698”[2] “and later of the
press, indicates a sentiment against the importation of Negroes, which
however was forced upon that province, as upon others, by the British
Government.”[3]
The Revolutionary war, which shook off this controlling force,
associated the States together, under the Articles of Confederation,
thus paving the way for that great experiment, the Constitutional
Federal Republic, which succeeded it.
It was in the deliberations of the great Convention, which framed that
“more perfect union”, that the Negro question really first arose, as a
matter of vital political concern; nor among all the questions which
confronted that extraordinary body, did there appear a graver one, than
that affecting the status of the colored people of the Union.
This class represented, at that time, about one-fifth of the population
of the thirteen States, which it was the aim to unite, or 737,208
blacks as against 3,172,006 whites[4], and while of these 737,208
colored persons some 59,527 were free, in every one of the thirteen
States, except Massachusetts, there were slaves, and in only one State,
outside of New England, Pennsylvania, were free persons of color more
numerous than slaves.
In eight of the thirteen States the Negro slaves greatly outnumbered
the free persons of color; while in still another, with a total of
5,572 colored persons, the colored freedmen exceeded the slaves by only
54.
Under these conditions, it was not unnatural that the question should
have presented itself as one of slavery versus freedom, rather than
Negroes versus whites, and for the seventy years in which slavery
continued to exist, that fact served to obscure, to quite an extent,
the appreciation of the distinct question of color and race. Yet by
some, at an exceedingly early date, it was recognized, that apart from
the consideration of how they might be held, the mere presence in the
Republic of a large and growing number of people of an inferior race,
presented a serious problem.
When the consideration of the basis upon which Federal representation
should rest, and direct taxes be apportioned, was reached, the framers
of the Constitution found themselves, therefore, confronted with a
political question of the first magnitude, in the existence of the
slave trade.
What was the slave? A man or a chattel?
The question was precipitated by a clause in the report of the
committee of detail, presented by John Rutledge, of South Carolina,
Article 7, Section 4. “No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature
on articles exported from any State nor on the migration or importation
of such persons as the several States shall think proper to admit, nor
shall such migration or importation be prohibited.”[5]
In the light of what followed, of the existing legislation upon that
subject in the State of South Carolina, and the history of the province
and State, the introduction of the concluding clause of this section
by her most distinguished representative was unfortunate. It gave rise
to declarations concerning the State which not only do not seem to have
been absolutely borne out by the facts; but which the actions and votes
of her deputies themselves, to some extent stultified; yet the State
was nevertheless stamped with an unenviable precedence in a matter in
which she cast but one of the seven votes, in a total of eleven, by
which the final decision was arrived at.
In the discussion which immediately arose upon the introduction of the
report, four views with regard to this clause found expression.
Luther Martin, of Maryland, a Representative from a State, which, as
will subsequently be shown, could have then been described as the most
complete slave State of the thirteen, had nevertheless the discernment
to realize the dangers of such a condition, and proposed to alter
the section, so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation
of slaves. He presented three grounds of objection to the denial
of such: “1. As five slaves are to be counted as three free-men in
the apportionment of Representatives, such a clause would leave an
encouragement of the traffic. 2. Slaves weakened one part of the Union,
which the other parts were bound to protect; the privilege of importing
them was, therefore, unreasonable. 3. It was inconsistent with the
principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character
to have such features in the Constitution.”
In defending the clause Mr. Rutledge was not conciliatory. He “did
not see how the importation of slaves could be encouraged by this
section. He was not apprehensive of insurrections and would readily
exempt the other States from their obligations to protect the Southern
States against them. Religion and humanity had nothing to do with the
question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations.
The true question at present is whether the Southern States shall or
shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult
their interest they will not oppose the increase of slaves which will
increase the commodities of which they will become the consumers.”
Mr. Ellsworth of Connecticut supported the clause in an argument
pitched upon the same utilitarian plane, but strengthened with what
was an assertion of the doctrine of States rights. He “was for leaving
the clause as it stands. Let every State import what it pleases. The
morality or 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 interests. The old
Confederation had not meddled with this point and he did not see any
greater necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one.”
Mr. Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, while upholding the view of
Mr. Rutledge, held out a hope of subsequent accord. He said “South
Carolina can never receive the plan, if it prohibits the slave trade.
In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that State has
expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation
of Negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on the subject, South
Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as
Virginia and Maryland have already done.”[6]
Upon the following day the discussion was resumed.
Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, “was for leaving the clause as it stands.
He disapproved of the slave trade; yet as the States were now possessed
of the right to import slaves, as the public good did not require it to
be taken from them and as it was expedient to have as few objections as
possible to the proposed scheme of Government, thought it best to leave
the matter as we found it. He observed that the abolition of slavery
seemed to be going on in the United States, and that the good sense of
the several States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged upon
the Convention the necessity of dispatching its business.”
Col. Mason, of Virginia, took very high ground. He declared: “This
infernal traffic originated in the avarice of the British merchants.
The British Government constantly checked the attempts of Virginia
to put a stop to it. The present question concerns not the importing
States alone, but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was
experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as they might
have been by the enemy, they would have proved dangerous instruments
in their hands. But their folly dealt by the slaves as it did by
the Tories. He mentioned the dangerous insurrections of the slaves
in Greece and Sicily, and the instructions given by Cromwell to the
commissioners sent to Virginia to arm the servants and slaves in case
other means of obtaining submission should fail. Maryland and Virginia,
he said, had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly.
North Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be vain,
if South Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western
people are already calling out for slaves in their new lands, and
will fill that country with slaves, if they can be got through South
Carolina and Georgia. Slavery discourages arts and manufactures.
The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the
immigration of whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. They
produce the most pernicious effect on morals. Every master of slaves is
born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of Heaven on a country.
As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world they must
be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects Providence
punishes national sins by national calamities. He lamented that some
of our Eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, embarked in this
nefarious traffic. As to the States being in possession of the right
to import, this was the case with many other rights now to be properly
given up. He held it essential in every point of view that the General
Government should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.”
Mr. Ellsworth spoke again, and quite to the point: “As he had never
owned a slave, could not judge of the effect of slavery on character.
He said, however, that if it was to be considered in a moral light, we
ought to go further and free those already in the country. As slaves
also multiply so fast in Virginia and Maryland that it is cheaper to
raise than import them, whilst in the sickly swamps foreign supplies
are necessary. If we go no further than is urged we shall be unjust
to South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not intermeddle. As population
increases, poor laborers will be so plenty as to render slaves useless.
Slavery in time will not be a speck in our country. Provision is
already made in Connecticut for abolishing it. And the abolition has
already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrection
from foreign influence that will become a motive to kind treatment of
the slaves.”
Mr. Charles Pinckney said: “If slavery be wrong it is justified by
the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and
other States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland and other
modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the
Southern States were left alone they will probably of themselves stop
importation. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote
for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will produce
serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to see adopted.”
Gen. C. C. Pinckney “declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself
and all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution and use their
personal influence it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent
of their constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without
slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain by stopping the importations.
Her slaves will rise in value and she has more than she wants. It
would be unequal to require South Carolina and Georgia to confederate
on such unequal terms. He said the royal assent before the Revolution
had never been refused to South Carolina as to Virginia. He contended
that the importation of Slaves would be for the interest of the Whole
Union. The more slaves the more produce to employ the carrying trade.
The more consumption also, and the more of this the more of revenue for
the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves should
be dutied like other imports, but should consider a rejection of the
clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union.”
Mr. Baldwin, of Georgia, “had conceived national objects alone to be
before the Convention, not such as like the present were of a local
nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always
hitherto supposed a General Government to be the pursuit of the
central States who wished to have a vortex for everything—that her
distance would preclude her from equal advantage—and that she could not
prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might
be understood in what light she would view an attempt to abridge her
favorite prerogative. If left to herself she may probably put a stop
to the evil. As one ground for this conjecture he took notice of the
sect of which he said was a respectable class of people who carried
their ethics beyond the mere equality of men, extending their humanity
to the claims of the whole animal creation.”
Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, “observed that if South Carolina and
Georgia were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of
slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would never refuse
to unite because the importation might be prohibited. As the section
now stands all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are
exempt. This is in fact a bounty on that article.”
Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, “thought we had nothing to do with the
conduct of the States as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give
any sanction to it.”
Mr. Dickinson, of Delaware, “considered it as inadmissible on every
principle of honor and safety that the importation of slaves should
be authorized to the States by the Constitution. The true question
was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded by
the importation, and the question ought to be left to the National
Government, not to the States particularly interested. If England and
France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time excluded from both
these kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made unhappy by their slaves. He
could not believe that the Southern States would refuse to confederate
on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to
be immediately exercised by the General Government.”
Mr. Williamson, of North Carolina, “stated the law of North Carolina on
the subject, to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the importation
of slaves. It imposed a duty of five pounds on each slave imported from
Africa. Ten pounds on each from elsewhere, and fifty pounds on each
from a State licensing manumission. He thought the Southern States
could not be members of the Union if the clause should be rejected, and
that it was wrong to force anything down not absolutely necessary and
which any State must disagree to.”
Mr. King, of Massachusetts, “thought the subject should be considered
in a political light only. If two States will not agree to the
Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief
on the other that great and equal opposition would be experienced from
the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from duty,
while every other import was subjected to it, as an inequality that
could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and
Middle States.”
Mr. Langdon, of New Hampshire, “was strenuous for giving the power to
the General Government. He could not with a good conscience leave it
with the States who could then go on with the traffic, without being
restrained by the opinion here given that they will themselves cease to
import slaves.”
Gen. Pinckney, “thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did
not think South Carolina would stop her importation of slaves in any
short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now does. He moved
to commit the clause that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax
with other imports, which he thought right, and which would remove one
difficulty that had been started.”
Mr. Rutledge remarked: “If the Convention thinks that North Carolina,
South Carolina and Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their
right to import slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The
people of these States will never be such fools as to give up so
important an interest. He was strenuous against striking out the
section and seconded the motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.”
Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, “wished the whole subject to be
committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on exports, and on a
Navigation Act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern and
Southern States.”
Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, declared, “that he would never agree to
the power of taxing exports.”
Mr. Sherman said: “It was better to let the Southern States import
slaves than to part with them, if they made that a _sine qua non_. He
was opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse,
because it implied they were property. He acknowledged that if the
power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the General
Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty
to exercise the power.”
Mr. Reed, of Delaware, “was for the commitment provided the clause
concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.”
Mr. Sherman, observed: “that that clause had been agreed to and
therefore could not be committed.”
Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, “was for committing in order that some
middle ground, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the
clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the Constitution. He dwelt
on the dilemma to which the Constitution was exposed by agreeing to
the clause it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists and many others
in the States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might
be lost to the Union. Let us then,” he said, “try the chance of a
commitment.”[7]
On the question of committing, the vote was: New Hampshire, no;
Massachusetts, abstaining from voting; Connecticut, aye; New Jersey,
aye; Pennsylvania, no; Delaware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye;
North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, aye; Georgia, aye;[8] In a total
of eleven States at Convention seven ayes, three noes, one not voting.
The clause having been referred to a committee consisting of Messrs.
Langdon, King, Johnson, Livingston, Clymer, Dickinson, L. Martin,
Madison, Williamson, C. C. Pinckney, and Baldwin, the committee
reported in favor of the clause, with an amendment making it read: “The
migration or importation of such persons as the several States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Legislature prior to the year 1800, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such migration or importation at a rate not exceeding the average of
the duties laid on imports.”[9]
Gen. Pinckney moved to strike out the words “the year 1800 and to
insert the words eighteen hundred and eight.”
Mr. Gorham, of Massachusetts, seconded the motion. This action brought
from one, who up to that time does not appear to have participated in
the discussion, Mr. Madison, the declaration that: “twenty years 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 national
character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.”[10]
The reported clause had been referred to the committee against the vote
of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Delaware. Virginia and New Jersey
both opposed the amendment; but as it received the vote of both New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, which had not voted for the commitment, it
was supported by seven out of the eleven States, the three New England
States present and four of the five Southern States, the three Middle
States present, and one Southern State, opposing.
While reasonable men must always be alive to the necessity of
compromise, and while also the great responsibilities of the situation
concerning this matter are apparent, yet this most important discussion
and vote establishes some facts, with regard to the constitutional
Union, which the honest historian cannot disregard.
First: The migration or importation of Negroes was prohibited in spite
of the declaration of the representatives of the three Southern States,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, that some of the Southern
States could not accept the Constitution if it did.
Second: A tax upon the importation was imposed through the aid of the
vote of New England, whose representatives had warned the Convention
that it would be a recognition of slavery to tax importation. The
claim, therefore made, that South Carolina and Georgia forced the
recognition of the slave trade is not borne out by the facts in the
case. Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia followed the suggestion of
Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, and, abandoning the principles for
which they had contended, “formed a bargain” by which the slave trade
was surrendered for the recognition of slavery by the Constitution.
Upon considering the discussion, although Ellsworth’s shrewd criticism
crippled, to some extent, the lofty flight of Mason of Virginia, yet
the speech of the latter puts him upon a higher plane of statesmanship
than that occupied by any deputy present. On the other hand, no matter
how high their reputations otherwise may have been established, none
descended to so low a plane as King, of Massachusetts and Rutledge of
South Carolina; while no individual exhibited as much ignorance of the
existing situation as he, who by the temperance of his utterance and
the influence of his high personal character, most thoroughly mastered
it.
Gen. C. C. Pinckney did not seem to know that South Carolina had not
been permitted by Great Britain to throw off the slave trade, when,
as a province, she sought to do so,[11] or that the sentiment of the
people of his State, even while he was speaking, had found expression
in an Act which prohibited the bringing into the State of “any Negro
slave contrary to the Act to regulate the recovery of debts and
prohibiting the importation of Negroes”[12] and which was sufficiently
strong even after the above compromise to negative, by a vote of 93
to 40, Gillon’s attempt in the South Carolina Legislature in 1788, to
repeal the law prohibiting importation.[13] No severer criticism of
the General’s statesmanship on this point was ever promulgated than
that, thirty-four years later, which his devoted brother, Gen. Thomas
Pinckney, furnished, in some reflections, published by him[14] without
any thought of how positively they ran counter to the dictum of his
brother—“South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without slaves”—he warned
South Carolinians that Negro artisans were taking the places of whites.
But, turning from this discussion, it is of importance to consider just
how the Negro population of the United States was located at the time
of the adoption of the Constitution.
By the census taken in 1790 it was indicated that about six-sevenths of
the entire colored population of the thirteen States constituting the
Union, inhabited the four States of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina
and South Carolina, of which about one-half were found in Virginia, the
population in the order of their numbers being as follows: Virginia
305,493; Maryland 111,099; South Carolina, 108,895; North Carolina,
105,547. The Negro population of Georgia at that date was but slightly
in excess of the Negro population of New York, being only 29,662 to New
York’s 25,978, while in the region north of Maryland there were nearly
three times as many Negroes as in the region south of South Carolina.
Considering the percentage of blacks to whites in the different
sections, South Carolina had the greatest, with a colored population
rising as high as 44 per cent of the total. Virginia came second, with
a percentage of 41, Georgia was third, with 36; Maryland fourth, with
35; North Carolina fifth, with 27; Delaware sixth, with 26; New Jersey
seventh, with 9; New York eighth, with 8; Rhode Island ninth, with 7,
and Pennsylvania tenth, with less than three per cent.
There is still another standpoint, however, from which this population
might be considered; that is with regard to the area of the State
containing the same, and considered in this light, Maryland, with a
Negro population in excess of that of South Carolina, and with an area
of only one-third, was the most distinct Negro State of the Union.
Delaware came second, and Virginia third. In the two States of Maryland
and Virginia, with a combined area of 79,124 square miles, there was
considerably more than one-half of the colored population of the United
States, 416,572. In the region to the south, embracing the three States
of North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, with an area of 143,040
square miles, there were as yet but 244,104 Negroes, or about one-third
of the number, considered with regard to the area they inhabited, which
makes very obvious the contention of Ellsworth that the abrogation of
the slave trade would have operated as a distinct commercial benefit to
Maryland and Virginia, enabling them to supply to the region south of
them, at enhanced prices, the slaves they might raise for market.
Virginia, Maryland and Delaware then constituted at this time the black
belt, containing, as they did, four-sevenths of the colored population
of the Union, three-fourths of the remainder being in the region below
and one-fourth above.
In the first decade of the Constitution the density of this colored
population in Virginia and Maryland was actually increased; while,
at the same time, through an extraordinary accession to her white
population, in spite of great gains to the colored, South Carolina’s
colored percentage decreased, and it is on this account that what
happened in the next decade of the Constitution in South Carolina is
of so much importance. A consideration of these events will show, that,
in spite of the declaration of her great deputies, that “South Carolina
could not do without slaves,” and that her people “would never be
such fools as to give up so important an interest” as “their right to
import slaves,” they not only proposed to give up the right, but strove
earnestly to do so, and only after thirty years of unavailing effort,
accompanied by an ever increasing investment in that class of property,
did the strong minority, which had opposed it, acquiesce in Calhoun’s
most unwise view, that the blacks furnished “the best substratum of
population, upon which great and flourishing Commonwealths may be most
easily and safely reared.”[15]
Once it was accepted, the march was steadily on to disaster.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Phillips, American Negro Slavery, p. 361.
[2] Statutes of S. C., Vols. 2 & 7, pp. 153, 367, 370.
[3] S. C. Gazette, Feb. 26, 1732, McCrady, S. C. under the Royal
Government, p. 378.
[4] Compendium of the Ninth Census of the United States, p. 13.
[5] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, p. 183.
[6] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, p. 364.
[7] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, pp. 369, 374.
[8] Ibid. p. 374.
[9] Ibid. p. 400.
Prof. Farrand renders “abst” absent, which the context contradicts.
King of Massachusetts, was put on the committee.
[10] Farrand. Records of the Federal Convention, Vol. 2, p. 415.
[11] S. C. Gazette, Feb. 19, 1732, Stat. S. C. Vol. 7, pp. 367-370.
McCrady, S. C. Under the Royal Government, p. 378.
[12] Stat. S. C. Vol. 7, p. 430.
[13] State Gazette, Jan. 28, 1788.
[14] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne and His Times, p. 130.
[15] Calhoun’s Correspondence, p. 369.