"There is a great spirit of enterprise prevailing among the militia
of these Southern States, especially with the volunteers. But their
mode of going to war is so destructive, that _it is the greatest
folly in the world to trust the liberties of a people to such a
precarious defence_."[114]
[114] Ibid., p. 397.
Nothing can be more authentic or complete than this testimony. Here,
also, is what is said by David Ramsay, an estimable citizen of South
Carolina, in his History of the Revolution in that State, published in
1785, only a short time after the scenes which he describes.
"While the American soldiers lay encamped in this inactive
situation," (in the low country near Charleston,) "their tattered
rags were so completely worn out, that seven hundred of them were
as naked as they were born, excepting a small slip of cloth about
their waists; and they were nearly as destitute of meat as of
clothing."[115]
[115] History of the Revolution of South Carolina, Vol. II. p. 258.
To the same effect is a letter from Greene to Sumter, under date of
Jan. 15, 1781.
"It is a great misfortune that the little force we have is in
such a wretched state for want of clothing. More than one half
our numbers are in a manner naked, so much so that we cannot put
them on the least kind of duty. Indeed, there is a great number
that have not a rag of clothes on them, except a little piece of
blanket, in the Indian form, around their waists."[116]
[116] Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Greene, Vol. I. p. 393.
The military weakness of this "slaveholding community" is but too
apparent. As I show its occasion, you will join with me in amazement
that a Senator from South Carolina should attribute Independence to
anything "slaveholding." The records of the country, and various
voices, all disown his vaunt for Slavery. The State of South Carolina
itself, by authentic history, disowns it. I give the proofs.
The first is from the debate on the Confederation in the Continental
Congress, as early as July, 1776, when the following passage occurred,
which I quote from "Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress
in 1775 and 1776," preserved by John Adams. Mr. Lynch, a young
representative of South Carolina, showing the sensibilities, if not
the evil spirit, engendered by Slavery, speaking in behalf of the
Southern States, said: "If it is debated whether their slaves are their
property, there is an end of the Confederation. Our slaves being our
property, why should they be taxed more than the land, sheep, cattle,
horses, &c.?" Without noticing the menace against the Confederation,
the beginning of a long line, Franklin replied, with sententious
authority: "Slaves rather weaken than strengthen the State, and there
is therefore some difference between them and sheep. _Sheep will never
make any insurrections._"[117] Franklin touched the point.
[117] Works of John Adams, Vol. II. p. 498. See also Bancroft's
History of the United States, Vol. IX. p. 52.
And now listen, if you please, to peculiar and decisive testimony,
under date of 29th March, 1779, from the Secret Journals of the
Continental Congress.
"The Committee appointed to take into consideration _the
circumstances of the Southern States_, and the ways and means for
their safety and defence, report, ... That the State of South
Carolina (as represented by the Delegates to the said State, and by
Mr. Huger, who has come hither at the request of the Governor of
the said State, on purpose to explain the particular circumstances
thereof) is UNABLE to make any effectual efforts with militia, by
reason of the great proportion of citizens _necessary to remain at
home, to prevent insurrections among the negroes_, and to prevent
the desertion of them to the enemy; that the state of the country,
and _the great numbers of those people among them_, expose the
inhabitants to great _danger_, from the endeavors of the enemy to
excite them either to revolt or desert."[118]
[118] Secret Journals, Vol. I. pp. 107, 108.
Here is South Carolina secretly disclosing her military weakness, and
its ignoble occasion: thus repudiating in advance the vaunt of her
Senator, who finds strength and gratulation in Slavery rather than
in Freedom. It was during the war, and in the confessional of the
Continental Congress, that, on bended knees, she shrived herself. But
the same ignominious confession was made, some time after the war, in
open debate, on the floor of Congress, by Mr. Burke, a Representative
from South Carolina.
"There is not a gentleman on the floor who is a stranger to the
feeble situation of our State, when we entered into the war to
oppose the British power. _We were not only without money, without
an army or military stores, but we were few in number, and likely
to be entangled with our domestics, in case the enemy invaded
us._"[119]
[119] Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., II. 1484, March 30,
1790.
Similar testimony to this weakness was borne by Mr. Madison in open
debate in Congress.
"Every addition they [Georgia and South Carolina] receive to their
number of slaves _tends to weaken, and render them less capable of
self-defence_."[120]
[120] Ibid., 1st Cong. 1st Sess., I. 340, May 13, 1789.
The historian of South Carolina, Dr. Ramsay, a contemporary observer of
the very scenes which he describes, to whom I have already referred,
also exposes this weakness.
"The forces under the command of General Prevost marched through
the richest settlements of the State, where are the fewest white
inhabitants in proportion to the number of slaves. _The hapless
Africans, allured with hopes of freedom, forsook their owners_,
and repaired in great numbers to the royal army. They endeavored
to recommend themselves to their new masters by discovering where
their owners had concealed their property, and were assisting in
carrying it off."[121]
[121] History of South Carolina, Vol. I. pp. 312, 313.
The same candid historian, describing the invasion of the next year,
says:--
"The slaves a _second_ time _flocked_ to the British army."[122]
[122] Ibid., p. 334.
At a still later day, Mr. Justice Johnson, of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and a citizen of South Carolina, in his elaborate Life
of General Greene, speaking of negro slaves, makes the same unhappy
admission. He says:--
"But the number dispersed through these [Southern] States was
very great,--_so great as to render it impossible for the citizens
to muster freemen enough to withstand the pressure of the British
arms_."[123]
[123] Life of Greene, Vol. II. Appendix, p. 472.
Here is illustration from an English pamphlet entitled "Account of the
Duckenfield Hall Estate Negroes, 1806, Law Case," where will be found
the following incident.
"In 1779 I bought ten negroes, which, with sixty others, were taken
by a privateer from a plantation in South Carolina."
Thus from every quarter are we conducted to the same conclusion.
And all this cumulative and unimpeachable testimony is reinforced by
testimony of an earlier day, also from South Carolina. The Assembly of
the Colony represented to the King, in 1734, that they were
"Subject to _many intestine dangers from the great number of
negroes_ that are now among us."[124]
[124] Grahame, History of the United States, Vol. III. p. 161.