Following Gillon’s unsuccessful attempt in 1788, to repeal the existing
law, the State of South Carolina, by successive enactments, in spite
of the implied sanction of the Constitution until 1808, prohibited the
importation of slaves[16] up to the year 1803. In that year Governor
James B. Richardson, in his annual message to the General Assembly,
indirectly suggested the repeal of such legislation.
The language of this message is so involved that, considered without
reference to its effect, it seems to indicate some sympathy with
the prohibition of the importation; but carefully considered, the
secret sympathy of this official with those he condemns is obvious.
The promptness with which it was seized upon by the opponents of
prohibition, and the arguments culled from it, indicate that it was the
opening wedge by which the defence against the black flood, was split,
to admit it in such volume, as to make subsequent efforts to stop the
flow almost useless.
That portion of the message which dealt with the importation of Negro
slaves reads as follows:
“All possible diligence and my best efforts have been used to carry
effectually into operation the law prohibiting the importation of
Negroes into the State, but it is with concern that I have here to
state to you, that it has been without success; whether it must be
attributed principally to the ill consequences that are apprehended
would result from carrying the law into operation by emancipating
the Negroes so brought in (a remedy deemed more mischievous than the
evil of their introduction in servitude) or whether the interests of
the citizens is so interwoven with that species of property, that it
prevents their aiding the law in answering the salutary purposes,
I will not presume to determine; but I am inclined to believe both
causes operate as preventatives; for those people are continued to be
brought into the State beyond the possibility of prevention. In all
laws intended for the general benefit, they should be so calculated
that their operation should be found equal in every part of the State;
where this is not the case it means that there is some radical defect
therein, or it is inimical to the interest of the citizens; with this
law such is the situation; for in the present state of things, the
citizens in the frontier and sea coast districts do accumulate this
property without the possibility of being detected, while those of the
interior and middle districts only experience the operation of that law
from their remote situation, etc.... This indeed is a circumstance to
be lamented, but such is the true state of our situation and therefore
becomes a subject worthy of your consideration and one that I trust
will engage your endeavors to render equally energetic in every part of
the State that law which experience has proved partial in its operation
and is oppressive upon such citizens in the interior districts as hold
it the object of desire to augment their capital in the accumulation of
such property.”[17]
This expression of opinion from the Governor brought up in the House
the appointment of “a committee to inquire whether any and what
amendments are necessary, to the Act entitled, ‘An Act to prevent Negro
slaves from being brought into or entering this State’[18]; in the
Senate a bill to permit their importation.”[19]
The leading opponent in the Senate of the bill to permit importation
was State Senator Robert Barnwell, at that time in his forty-second
year. He had served with credit in the Revolutionary war, in the
course of which he had been seriously wounded; had been a delegate
to the Continental Congress; and later a member of Congress from the
2nd Congressional district of South Carolina, later still he had been
elected Speaker of the South Carolina House of Representatives.[20]
He is described by Edward Hooker as “a tall, portly, well-built man
of about sixty years—a man of singular gravity, and possessed of
great influence in the Senate. Said to be an eminent orator and very
religious character.”[21]
A synopsis of Mr. Barnwell’s remarks on this occasion has been
preserved, although, as became more and more the custom with regard
to all utterances concerning slavery, in any way critical, much was
suppressed. The account reads as follows: “He maintained that by the
immense influx of these persons into the State, the value of this
species of property would be considerably diminished, insomuch that
he did believe Negroes would be soon not worth one half of what they
might be sold for. The value of the produce raised by their labor would
be in like manner depreciated. * * * The permission given by the bill
would lead to ruinous speculation. Everyone would purchase Negroes.
It was well known that those who dealt in this property would sell
it at a very long credit. Our citizens would purchase at all hazards
and trust to fortunate crops and favorable markets for making their
payments and it would be found that South Carolina would in a few
years, if this trade continued open, be in the same situation of debt,
and subject to all the misfortunes which that situation had produced
as at the conclusion of the Revolutionary war. The honorable member
adduced in support of his opinion other arguments still more cogent
and impressive, which from reasons very obvious, we decline making
public.”[22]
The most prominent advocate of the bill was State Senator William
Smith, the schoolmate of Andrew Jackson, later judge, and, later still,
United States Senator, the most determined of Calhoun’s political
opponents in after years. He was a native of North Carolina, of
somewhat indefinite age, a reformed drunkard; but a man of firmness and
power, and also of pleasing appearance.[23]
The report of his remarks upon this occasion is brevity itself, but
sufficient to condemn him, as it is apparent that in a spirit of
pessimism he voted against his convictions. The report is: “Mr. Smith
said he would agree to put a stop to the importation of Negroes but he
believed it to be impossible. For this reason he would vote for the
bill.”[24] The House had meantime reported that “the laws prohibiting
the importation of Negroes can be so amended as to prevent their
introduction among us,” but a strong faction were for action on the
Senate bill. “Mr. Drayton was of the opinion that the committee should
proceed to consider the bill from the Senate rather than the report
of the committee of this House. He confessed that he was a friend to
that bill in its utmost latitude. Many of the planters had cash which
they could not so well dispose of as in purchasing Negroes, and he did
not see why they should not be allowed to improve their estates in the
best manner they were able, as well as merchants or any other class of
persons.”[25]
The House was not, however, swayed from its course. It proceeded
to consider the report of the committee, and a bill in accordance
therewith was arranged to be brought before the House on the 12th. On
that date, upon a motion to postpone the second reading to February
1, 1804, the same was lost by a vote of 41 to 63; and upon the
following day the bill from the Senate came up, and, by a vote of 55
to 46, became a law.[26] With the majority appears only one great
name, Langdon Cheves. With the minority is recorded the name of a new
member, Joseph Alston, destined to something of a career, who on this
occasion, in opposition to the bill permitting importation, made a
notable speech.[27]
From the achievement of her independence in 1783, South Carolina
had legislated against the importation of Negro slaves with greater
and greater severity. The indications are all that this reversal of
her past policy was the result of the matter having been sprung as
a surprise by Governor Richardson in the second year of his term of
office, when the Senate was two to one in favor of such action as he
suggested, and even in the more popular branch of the Legislature
a majority of nine in one hundred and one votes could be secured.
Under these conditions, that a strong effort should have been at
once inaugurated by those who opposed the importation, to repeal the
Act permitting same was natural, and, upon the reassembling of the
Legislature in the fall of 1804, a bill having such for its purpose
was introduced, pressed to a vote in the Senate, and lost by only one
vote, the record being 16 for, 17 against repeal of Act permitting
importation, and two absent.[28]
Four days later the House went into committee on the following
resolution: “Resolved, that in the opinion of this House, it is
inexpedient and impolitic to permit the importation of slaves into this
State, and that a committee of five be appointed to bring in a bill for
that purpose.”[29] The resolution was adopted by a vote of 69 to 39,
and among the names of the majority appears that of William Lowndes.
Thus the two Houses being unable to agree before adjournment, it was to
be inferred, from the heavy majority in the House, against importation
and the extremely narrow margin by which it had been sustained in
the Senate, the fight would again be made, at the convening of
the Legislature, in the fall of 1805. And so it was, for upon its
reassembling Governor Paul Hamilton at once and pointedly referred
to the subject in his message: “I should be wanting in my endeavors
towards the public good were I to omit soliciting you to legislate on
the importation of slaves. Abstractedly from other considerations of
it, on which indeed much may be said, I feel myself bound to represent
its continuance as productive of effects the most injurious, in
draining us of our specie, thereby embarrassing our commercial men
and naturally lessening the sales of our produce; that viewed with
reference to population it increases our weakness not our strength;
for it must be admitted that in proportion as you add to the number
of slaves, you prevent the influx of those men who would increase the
means of defence and security. I will add, that an immediate stop to
this traffic is, in my judgment, on every principle of sound policy,
indispensable.”[30]
The message at once engaged the attention of the newly elected House,
to the Speakership of which Joseph Alston had been elected. The young
Speaker was a most interesting personality. His father, with perhaps
one exception, was the largest slave-owner in the State, and of the
latter, we are informed, that “in his opinion the true interests of
the planter were in exact accord with the dictates of an enlightened
humanity. The consequence was that his numerous plantations were models
of neatness and order and his slaves always exhibited an appearance of
health and comfort, which spoke well for their treatment.”[31]
This election to the Speakership was the beginning of a political
career for Joseph Alston, which soon led to the Governorship and might
well have extended into national fields, had it not been for the
tragedy which cut it short. He had just married Theodosia Burr, the
fascinating and accomplished daughter of Aaron Burr. But the death of
his only son in 1812 and almost immediately after, the loss of his wife
at sea, seemed literally to destroy all his interest in life and take
it from him. This debate in 1805, in which he was the foremost figure,
is alluded to in the diary of Edward Hooker, by whom we are informed
that the principle speakers in the House were Simons, Alston, Miles,
Taylor and Wright. The resolution under consideration, as drawn up by
Joseph Alston, was prefaced with several considerations, such as the
inconsistency of the slave trade with the precepts of Christianity—with
justice, humanity, etc., and later with the true interests of
the State. In the argument of Mr. Miles, of Richland, appear the
extraordinary insinuations of Governor Richardson, as to the injustice
of the law with regard to those who found it difficult to violate it,
and whom it did prohibit from importing slaves. Of the members of
the House and Senate who sufficiently struck the attention of Hooker
to draw from him something like a pen portrait, Barnwell, Lowndes
and Alston stand out the clearest. He estimated Alston to be about
twenty-eight years of age. He was not quite twenty-seven. He describes
him thus: “Mr. Alston is a short man and rather thick. Of a dark
complexion, with thick black hair and a formidable pair of whiskers,
that cover a great part of his face, and nearly meet at the chin. His
dress and demeanor are well deserving the name buckish. When not in
the legislative hall, he may be seen as often as anywhere, about the
stables, looking at fine horses, dressed in a short jockey-like surtout
or frock, and laced and tossled boots, with a segar in his mouth, and
much more of the ‘gig and tandem’ levity than the austere virtues of a
senatorial leader. Indeed he is one of the last persons that I should
have picked out from the crowd of people in town for a president of one
branch of the Legislature.”
Of the speech he says: “Alston’s speech appears to me more like an
extemporaneous one, though it is said by such as are acquainted with
him that he always, without exception, writes his speeches. He like
Simons, used notes, but did not recur to them so often; nor did he
confine himself so much to method, nor avoid so scrupulously every
expression not stamped with elegance, yet his arrangement was not bad,
nor his language undignified. He did not at first speak with uncommon
fluency, indeed he stammered a little, but when he became once fairly
engaged his words appeared to flow with great ease. His figures
and allusions were eminently striking and beautiful, and his speech
abounded with them. He dropped some excellent moral and political
sentiments, quoted two or three texts of sublime morality from the
Scriptures, and with great vehemence and apparent sincerity urged the
House to consult the dictates of justice and humanity, in opposition
to sordid interest. His manner of delivery was extremely good and
his gestures forcible and expressive. He labored some time, and with
success, to show that the increase of slaves tends to destroy that
equality which is the basis of our republican institutions and insists
that it is not only unjust to bring them in, but demonstrably injurious
to the real interests of the State. In his argument was a fund of good
sense and useful information. The utmost silence pervaded the House
while he spoke thirty-five or forty minutes.”[32]
The resolution was adopted, and the bill prohibiting importation was
sent to the Senate by a vote of 56 to 28.[33]
Later, by the same pen, we have a brief description of the last speech
upon this bill of that Senator, who in opposition to it, may be said to
have cast the most important vote he was ever called upon to give.
Allusion has been before made to the brief reason given by Senator
William Smith for his vote, for opening the ports to importation of
slaves, which he declared himself not in favor of, but thought it
impossible to prevent, in 1803, when he, constituting one of the
majority of two to one in that branch of the General Assembly, voted to
open them. Public opinion had swept away that great majority, and from
the House, with just such a vote, two to one, the bill to prohibit came
to the Senate. The following is Hooker’s description of the situation,
and the part played by Smith:
“The bill having passed the lower House, the public feeling is excited
about its event here. Mr. Smith, a lawyer from York District, made a
long and rather tedious speech against it. He is not fluent, nor does
he use the handsomest language, but in the course of his argument gets
out considerable that is to the purpose.”[34]
Smith’s vote was sufficient to kill the bill. It failed of passage by
15 to 16 in the Senate.[35] He thus, by his vote alone made impossible,
what he claimed to favor, but declined to support, because he asserted
he believed to be impossible. Later in the United States Senate he
disclosed, that in the four years he thus secured for the slave trade
to pour its flood upon South Carolina, in 202 vessels, 39,075 slaves
were brought into the port of Charleston[36] for which he had the
effrontery to hold almost everybody but himself responsible. This
disastrous piece of legislation increased the Negro population of South
Carolina in that decade 41 per cent, against an increase of only 9
per cent whites, and checked almost entirely the remarkable increase
of whites, which had marked the previous decade. As to the effect
upon the business of Charleston, in the reminiscence of one of the
editors of the daily press, we have an illuminating illustration of the
truth of Senator Barnwell’s prophecy. Says Mr. Thomas: “In November
1803, I returned from my fourth voyage with a printed catalogue of
fifty thousand volumes of books in every branch of literature, arts
and sciences, being by far the largest importation ever made into the
United States. I had only got them opened and arranged for sale three
days when news arrived from Columbia that the Legislature then in
session had opened the port for the importation of slaves from Africa.
The news had not been five hours in the city before two large British
Guineamen that had been laying off and on the port for several days,
expecting it, came up to town, and from that day my business began to
decline, although then in a situation to carry it on to three times the
extent I had ever done before. Previous to this the planters had large
sums of money laying idle in the banks, which they liberally expended
not only for their actual, but supposed wants. A great change at once
took place in everything. Vessels were fitted out in numbers for the
coast of Africa, and as fast as they returned their cargoes were bought
up with avidity, not only consuming the large funds which had been
accumulating, but all that could be procured, and finally exhausting
credit and mortgaging the slaves for payment, many of whom were not
redeemed for ten years afterwards to my knowledge.”[37]
On the other hand the State of Ohio, which had been admitted in 1800
with 45,628 whites and only 336 colored, was so disturbed by the
growth of its colored population that before they reached in number
two thousand, that State passed the notorious Black Laws of January 9,
1805, of which Section 4 reads as follows: “That no black or mulatto
person shall hereafter be permitted to be sworn or give evidence in
any Court of record or elsewhere in the State in any cause depending
or matter of controversy, where either party to the same is a white
person, or in any prosecution which shall be instituted in behalf of
this State against any white person.”[38]
While South Carolina did not permit the full sweep of such in her
Courts,[39] holding a free person of color born of a free white woman
an admissible witness yet, with such legislation in Ohio, and Indiana,
it is not surprising, Fiske, of New York, six years later failed to
establish his contention that “color was a mere matter of accident *
* * All men were born free and equal”; and that his attempt to reject
the Senate amendment to the Orleans bill, i. e. the insertion of the
word “white” before the words “free male inhabitants,” in defining the
electorate, should have been brushed aside by Sheffey, of Virginia,
with the simple declaration that “such doctrines would prostrate the
civil institutions of Virginia.”[40] It was one thing to protest as
Col. Mason did against the slave trade; but, with some four hundred
thousand slaves, double what any other State possessed, Virginia was
prepared to contend for her property rights, and the position seems to
have been met with acquiescence by Congress.
FOOTNOTES:
[16] Stat. S. C. Vol. 7 pp. 431-448.
[17] _Charleston Courier_, December 5, 1803.
[18] Ibid. December 6, 1803.
[19] Ibid. December 13, 1803.
[20] S. C. Hist. & Genealog. Mag. Vol. 2, p. 72.
[21] Annual Report American Hist. Ass. 1896, Vol. 1, p. 870.
[22] _Charleston Courier_, December 26, 1803.
[23] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 148.
[24] _Charleston Courier_, December 26, 1803.
[25] Ibid. January 2, 1804.
[26] _City Gazette and Daily Advertiser_, December 21, 1803.
[27] Memoirs of Aaron Burr, Vol. 2, p. 270.
[28] _Charleston Courier_, December 12, 1804.
[29] Ibid. December 24, 1804.
[30] _Charleston Courier_, December 2, 1805.
[31] Jervey, Robert Y. Hayne & His Times, p. 534.
[32] Annual Report American Hist. Assn. 1896, Vol. 1, p. 868.
[33] _Charleston Courier_, December 13, 1805.
[34] Annual Report American Hist. Assn. Vol. 1, p. 878, 1896.
[35] _Charleston Courier_, December 9, 1805.
[36] Charleston Year Book, 1880, p. 263.
[37] Thomas’s Reminiscences, Case Tiffany & Burnham, Vol. 2, p. 35.
[38] C. L. Martzolff, Ohio University, Nov. 30, 1909.
[39] S. C. Reports, Brevard, Vol. 2, p. 145. _State vs. McDowell._
[40] _Charleston Courier_, February 27, 1811.