"The Senator from South Carolina is so jealous of the honor of
his own State, that he will pardon me, if I interrupt him for one
moment, merely to explain the offensive statute to which he has
referred. I have nothing to say in vindication of it: I simply
desire that it should be understood. This statute, which bears date
1788, anterior to the National Government, was applicable only to
Africans or negroes not citizens of some one of the United States;
and, according to contemporary evidence, it was intended to protect
the Commonwealth against the vagabondage of fugitive slaves. But I
do not vindicate the statute; I only explain it; and I add, that it
has long since been banished from the statute-book."
There is a Report to the Massachusetts Legislature by Theodore
Lyman, Jr., as Chairman of a Committee "to report a Bill concerning
the Admission into this State of Free Negroes and Mulattoes," dated
January 16, 1822, which confirms the position of Mr. Sumner. After
a few preliminary remarks, it is said:--
"The Committee have already found in the statute-books of this
Commonwealth a law, passed in 1788, regulating the residence in
this State of certain persons of color. They believe that _this law
has never been enforced_, and, ineffectual as it has proved, they
would never have been the authors of placing among the statutes a
law so arbitrary in its principle, and in its operation _so little
accordant with the institutions, feelings, and practices of the
people of this Commonwealth_."
The Report then goes into a history of the public acts and
proceedings in relation to colored persons in Massachusetts, from
the earliest colonial times down to the date of the enactment, in
order to show the spirit of the people towards this class, and
concludes with observations like the following:--
"The feelings of the people disclosed since the year 1760 in the
votes of towns and in the verdicts of juries, ... the fact that
there is no law at present in force which makes a distinction
between white and black persons, ... the same law which allows
justices to expel blacks from the State after a certain notice
expressly recognizing the right of blacks to become citizens (a
law, the constitutionality of which has been called in question,
and which it is well known was passed on the same day as the
Abolition Act of March, 1788, in order to prevent the State from
being overrun with runaway slaves),--blacks having the same public
provisions for education, and the same public support in case of
sickness and poverty,--many blacks before and during the Revolution
having obtained their freedom by a legal process, and, as the
spirit of the Constitution of this State abrogates all exclusive
laws, thereby becoming invested with all the rights of freemen,
and with a capability of becoming freeholders, ... and, above all,
the construction given to the first principle in the Declaration
of Rights at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, both
in the public mind and in the courts of law,--clearly manifest
and demonstrate that the people of this Commonwealth have always
believed negroes and mulattoes to possess the same right and
capability to become citizens as white persons."
God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina! I know well
the gallantry of many of her sons. I know the response which she made
to the appeal of Massachusetts for union against the Stamp Act--the
Fugitive Slave Act of that day--by the pen of Christopher Gadsden.
And I remember with sorrow that this patriot was obliged to confess,
at the time, her "weakness in having such a number of slaves," though
it is to his credit that he recognized Slavery as "crime."[97] I
have no pleasure in dwelling on the humiliations of South Carolina;
I have little desire to expose her sores; I would not lay bare even
her nakedness. But the Senator, in his vaunt for "slaveholding
communities," has made a claim for Slavery so derogatory to Freedom,
and so inconsistent with history, that I cannot allow it to pass
unanswered.
[97] Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. pp. 294, 425,
426.
* * * * *
This, Sir, is not the first time, even during my little experience
here, that the same claim has been made on this floor; and this seems
the more astonishing, because the archives of the country furnish such
ample and undoubted materials for its refutation. The question of the
comparative contributions of men by different States and sections of
the country in the war of the Revolution was brought forward as early
as 1790, in the first Congress under the Constitution, in the animated
and protracted debate on the assumption of State debts by the Union.
On that occasion, Fisher Ames, a Representative from Massachusetts,
famous for classic eloquence, moved a call upon the War Department
for the number of men furnished by each State to the Revolutionary
armies. The motion, though vehemently opposed, was carried by a small
majority. Shortly afterwards an answer to the call was received from
the Department, at that time under the charge of General Knox. This
answer, which is one of the documents of our history, places beyond
cavil or criticism the exact contributions in arms made by each State.
Here it is,--taken from the original, in a volume of the "American
State Papers,"[98] published under the authority of Congress. This is
official.
[98] Military Affairs, Vol. I. pp. 14-19. Compare with Coll. New
Hamp. Hist. Soc., Vol. I. p. 236.
_Statement of the number of troops and militia furnished by the several
States, for the support of the Revolutionary War, from 1775 to 1783,
inclusive._
Number of Number of Total militia Conjectural
continental militia. and continental estimate of
NORTHERN STATES. troops. troops. militia.
New Hampshire 12,496 2,093 14,589 3,700
Massachusetts 67,907 15,155 83,062 9,500
Rhode Island 5,908 4,284 10,192 1,500
Connecticut 32,039 7,792 39,831 3,000
New York 17,781 3,312 21,093 8,750
Pennsylvania 25,608 7,357 32,965 2,000
New Jersey 10,726 6,055 16,781 2,500
------ ------ ------ ------
Total 172,465 46,048 218,513 30,950
SOUTHERN STATES.
Delaware 2,387 376 2,763 1,000
Maryland 13,912 5,464 19,376 4,000
Virginia 26,678 4,163 30,841 21,880
North Carolina 7,263 2,706 9,969 12,000
South Carolina 6,417 ---- 6,417 25,850
Georgia 2,679 ---- 2,679 9,900
------ ------ ------ ------
Total 59,336 12,709 72,045 74,630
At this time there was but little difference in numbers between the
population of the Southern States and that of the Northern States. By
the census of 1790 the Southern had a population of 1,851,804; the
Northern a population of 1,882,615. Notwithstanding this essential
equality of population in the two sections, the North furnished vastly
more men than the South.
Of continental troops, the Southern States furnished 59,336; the
Northern, 172,465: making about three men furnished to the continental
army by the Northern States to one from the Southern.
Of militia whose services are authenticated by the War Office, the
Southern States furnished 12,709; the Northern, 46,048: making nearly
four men contributed to the militia by the Northern States to one from
the Southern.
Of militia whose services are not authenticated by the War Office,
but are set down in the return as "conjectural" only, we have 74,630
furnished by the Southern States, and 30,950 by the Northern: making,
under this head, five men contributed by the Southern to two from the
Northern. The chief services of the Southern States, for which the
venerable Senator now claims so much, it will be observed with a smile,
were _conjectural_ only.
Looking, however, at the sum-total of continental troops, authenticated
militia, and "conjectural" militia, we have 146,675 from the Southern
States, while 249,463 were from the Northern: making upwards of 100,000
men contributed to the war by the Northern more than by the Southern.
The disparity swells, when we compare South Carolina and Massachusetts
directly. Of continental troops and authenticated militia and
"conjectural" militia, South Carolina furnished 32,267, while
Massachusetts furnished 92,562: making nearly three for every one
furnished by South Carolina. Look, however, at the continental troops
and the authenticated militia from the two States, and here you
will find only 6,417 furnished by South Carolina, while 83,062 were
furnished by Massachusetts,--_being thirteen times more than by South
Carolina, and much more than by all the Southern States together_. Here
are facts and figures of which the Senator ought not to be ignorant.
So obvious was this at the time, that we find John Adams recording
in his Autobiography, that "almost the whole army was derived
from New England."[99] General Knox, in a letter to Colonel Joseph
Ward, of Massachusetts, under date of July 28, 1780, with regard to
the reestablishment of the army, has a few words in point. After
complaining of the general inertness, as sufficient "to induce a
ready belief that the mass of America have taken _a monstrous deal of
opium_," he says:--
"It is true, the Eastern States and New York have done something in
this instance, but no others. Propagate this truth."[100]
[99] Works, Vol. III. p. 48; see also p. 87.
[100] Jackson's History of Newton, p. 517.
In a letter to General Gates, under date of Philadelphia, March 23,
1776, John Adams touches a difference in sentiment between the Northern
and Southern States, which of itself accounts for this disparity of
military contributions.
"However, my dear friend Gates, all our misfortunes arise from
a single source, _the reluctance of the Southern Colonies to
republican government_."[101]
[101] Works, Vol. I. p. 207.
Nothing could be stronger, although it is painful to think that it was
true.
Foreign testimony, also, is in harmony with the official Statement.
The Marquis de Chastellux, who travelled through the States towards
the close of the Revolution, records somewhere that he "never met
anybody from the North who had not been in the army." So marked and
preeminent was the service of the Northern States, ay, Sir, so peculiar
and special was the service of Boston, from which comes the present
petition, that the Revolution was known in Europe by the name of this
patriotic town. Edmund Burke exclaimed in Parliament: "The cause of
Boston is become the cause of all America. Every part of America is
united in support of Boston. By these acts of oppression you have made
Boston the Lord Mayor of America."[102] And it was the same on the
Continent. Our fathers in arms for Independence were known as "the
insurgents of Boston." The French King was praised for protecting with
his arms what was called "the justice of the Bostonians."[103] In
saying this, I do not speak vaguely or without authority.
[102] Hansard, Parliamentary History, Vol. XVIII. col. 45.
[103] Vie Publique et Privée de Louis XVI., p. 43. See also
Memoir of the Right Honorable Hugh Elliot, by the Countess of
Minto, published since this speech, where will be found (p. 48) a
letter from a fine lady of Vienna, who, writing to Mr. Elliot in
1775, confesses that she has been "Bostonian at heart": _J'etais
Bostonienne de coeur._
Did occasion require, I might go further, and minutely portray the
imbecility of Southern States, and particularly of South Carolina,
in the War of the Revolution, as compared with Northern States. This
is a sad chapter, upon which I dwell unwillingly. Faithful annals
record, that, as early as 1778, the six South Carolina regiments,
composing, with the Georgia regiment, the regular force of the Southern
Department, did not, in the whole, muster above eight hundred men;
nor was it possible to fill up their ranks. The succeeding year, the
Governor of South Carolina, pressed by British forces, offered to
stipulate the neutrality of his State during the war, leaving its
permanent position to be decided at the peace: a premonitory symptom
of the secession menaced in our own day. After the fatal field of
Camden, no organized American force was left in this region. The three
Southern States--_animis opibusque parati_, according to the vaunt
of the Senator--had not a single battalion in the field. During all
this period the men of Massachusetts were serving their country, not
at home, but away from their own borders: for, from the Declaration of
Independence, Massachusetts never felt the pressure of a hostile foot.
The offer of the Governor of South Carolina to stipulate the neutrality
of his State during the war has been sometimes called in question. But,
unhappily, the case is too clear. General Moultrie, who commanded at
Charleston, under the Governor, and whose name has been since given to
one of the forts in the harbor there, has furnished an authentic record
in two volumes, entitled "Memoirs of the American Revolution, so far as
it related to the States of North and South Carolina and Georgia." He
is my witness. As the British approached, the Governor and his Council
became frightened, and proceeded forthwith to talk about capitulation.
At last, after debate, "the question was carried for giving up the town
upon a neutrality."[104] Colonel John Laurens was requested to carry
this offer of capitulation from the Governor to General Prevost, the
British commander; but "he begged to be excused from carrying such
a message; that it was much against his inclination; that he would
do anything to serve his country, but he could not think of carrying
such a message as that." Other envoys were found who most reluctantly
undertook this service. The message was as follows:--
"To propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and
America, and the question, _whether the State shall belong to Great
Britain or remain one of the United States_, be determined by the
treaty of peace between those two powers."[105]
[104] Moultrie, Memoirs, Vol. I. p. 432.
[105] Ibid., p. 433.
The same story is told by others. Ramsay, himself of South Carolina, in
his "History of the American Revolution," says:--
"Commissioners from the garrison were instructed 'to propose a
neutrality during the war between Great Britain and America, and
that the question, _whether the State shall belong to Great Britain
or remain one of the United States_, be determined by the treaty of
peace between these powers.'"[106]
[106] History of the American Revolution, Vol. II. p. 118.
Chief Justice Marshall, in his authentic work, thus chronicles the
disgraceful business:--
"The town was summoned to surrender, and the day was spent in
sending and receiving flags. The neutrality of South Carolina
during the war, leaving the question, _whether that State should
finally belong to Great Britain or the United States_, to be
settled in the treaty of peace, was proposed by the garrison, and
rejected by Prevost."[107]
[107] Life of Washington, Vol. I. (2d edition) pp. 298, 299.
It is also presented with precision by Professor Bowen, of Harvard
University, in his recent Life of General Lincoln, who remarks on it as
follows:--
"This proposal did not come merely from the commander of a military
garrison, in which case, of course, it would have been only
nugatory; the Governor of the State, clothed with discretionary
powers, was in the place, and probably most of his Council along
with him. Whether such a proposition would have been justifiable
under any circumstances is a question that needs not be discussed;
at any rate, it would not have evinced much honorable or patriotic
feeling. But to make such an offer in the present case was conduct
little short of treason."[108]
[108] Life of Benjamin Lincoln: Sparks's American Biography, 2d
Ser. Vol. XIII. p. 285.
This author concludes an animated review of the proposition with the
remark, that it "was equivalent to an offer from the State to return to
its allegiance to the British Crown."[109]
[109] Life of Benjamin Lincoln: Sparks's American Biography, 2d
Ser. Vol. XIII. p. 286.
The fate of the State was typified in the capture by the British, some
time afterwards, of the ship "South Carolina," of forty guns, the
largest and most costly of our infant navy, and called by Cooper "much
the heaviest ship that ever sailed under the American flag, until the
new frigates were constructed during the War of 1812."[110] But here is
the same story. Her service was altogether inadequate.
[110] History of the Navy of the United States (2d edition), Vol.
I. p. 213.
At last, the military genius and remarkable exertions of General
Greene, a Northern man, who assumed the command of the Southern army,
prevailed in rescuing South Carolina from British power. But the trials
of this successful leader reveal in a striking manner the weakness
of the "slaveholding" State he saved. Some of these are graphically
presented in his letters.
Writing to President Reed, of Pennsylvania, under date of 4th May,
1781, he says:--
"The strength and resources of these [Southern] States to support
the war have been greatly magnified and overrated; and those
whose business and true interest it was to give a just state of
the situation of things have joined in the deception, and, from a
false principle of pride of having the country thought powerful,
have led people to believe it was so. It is true, there were many
inhabitants, but they were spread over a great extent of country,
and near equally divided between the King's interest and ours. The
majority is greatly in favor of the enemy's interest now, as great
numbers of the Whigs have left the country.... The love of pleasure
and the want of principle among many of those who are our friends
render the exertions very languid in support of our cause; _and
unless the Northern States can give more effectual support, these
States must fall_."[111]
[111] Life and Correspondence of Joseph Reed, Vol. II. p. 351.
Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Nathaniel Greene, Vol. II. p.
87.
Writing to Colonel Davie, under date of 23d May, 1781, General Greene
again exposes the actual condition of the country.
"The animosity between the Whigs and Tories of this State renders
their situation truly deplorable. There is not a day passes
but there are more or less who fall a sacrifice to this savage
disposition. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the Tories,
and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen in this way
in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever.
If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will
be depopulated in a few months more, as neither Whig nor Tory can
live."[112]
[112] Gordon, History of the Rise, etc., of the Independence of the
United States, Vol. IV. p. 99.
To Lafayette, General Greene, under date of 29th December, 1780,
describes the weakness of his troops.
"It is now within a few days of the time you mentioned of being
with me. Were you to arrive, you would find a few ragged,
half-starved troops in the wilderness, destitute of everything
necessary for either the comfort or convenience of soldiers....
The country is almost laid waste, and the inhabitants plunder one
another with little less than savage fury. We live from hand to
mouth, and have nothing to subsist on but what we collect with
armed parties. In this situation, I believe you will agree with
me, there is nothing inviting this way, especially when I assure
you our whole force fit for duty, that are properly clothed and
properly equipped, does not amount to eight hundred men."[113]
[113] Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Greene, Vol. I. p. 340.