THE DEVELOPMENT OF SLAVERY
It is impossible to understand slavery in Kentucky without some
knowledge of the method by which the land was settled in the latter
part of the eighteenth century. Between 1782 and 1802 the seven States
which had interest in western lands ceded their rights to the United
States and all that territory with the exception of Kentucky and the
Connecticut Reserve in Ohio was made a part of the public domain.
Hence, one of the distinguishing features of the settlement of
Kentucky as compared with Ohio was that in the latter State the land
was sold by the Federal Government to settlers coming from all parts
of the country but particularly from the northeastern section. The
result of this was that few citizens of Ohio held more than 640 acres.
Kentucky had been reserved by Virginia and consequently the method of
settlement was purely a matter governed by that State and was separate
and apart from the system which was employed by the United States
Government. Furthermore, Kentucky lands were all given out by 1790,
just one year after the beginning of our national period. The federal
land policy was at that time just beginning. Virginia gave out the
lands in Kentucky by what is known as the patent system, and all the
settlers in Kentucky held their lands by one of three different kinds
of rights.
In the first place there were those who were given tracts in the new
territory as a reward for military services which had been rendered in
the Revolution. This had been provided for by the legislature of
Virginia as early as December, 1778.[234] No land north of the Ohio
River was to be granted out as a military bounty until all the "good
lands" in the Kentucky region had been exhausted. The size of these
tracts was to be governed by the official status of the recipient in
the late war, and the bounties finally granted by Virginia ranged all
the way from one hundred to fifteen thousand acres.[235]
The Virginia legislature of 1779 found it necessary to establish a
second method of settlement in Kentucky in response to the demands of
the large number of people who were migrating to the west of the
Alleghenies. Provision was made for the granting of preemption rights
to new settlers and also for the introduction of a very generous
system of settlement rights. These settlement and preemption rights
were almost inseparable, as the latter was dependent upon the former.
It was provided that four hundred acres of land would be given to
every person or family who had settled in the region before the first
of January, 1778.[236] The word "settlement" was stated to mean either
a residence of one year in the territory or the raising of a crop of
corn. In addition to the above grant every man who had built only a
cabin or made any improvement on the land was entitled to a preemption
of one thousand acres, providing such improvements had been made prior
to January 1, 1778. Preference in the grants was to be given to the
early settlers and even the most famous heroes of the Revolution were
not allowed to interfere with the rights of those who held a
certificate of settlement.
Thus far provision had been made only for those who had settled before
1778. To them was given the best of the land. Thereafter all
settlement and preemption rights ceased and the further distribution
of land in Kentucky was by means of treasury warrants. A person
desiring land in Kentucky would appear at one of the Virginia land
offices and make an entry and pay a fee amounting to about two cents
per acre. The paper he would receive would give the approximate
location of the tract and the recipient would proceed to have the
land surveyed at his pleasure. Within three months after the survey
had been made he was to appear at the land office and have the same
recorded. A copy of this record was to be taken to the assistant
register of the land office in Kentucky and there it was to remain six
months in order to give prior settlers, if any, the right to prove
their claims to the property. No such evidence being produced a final
record of the patent was to be made and a copy given to the original
grantee.[237]
An interesting example of this method of settlement is shown by the
experience of Abraham Lincoln, the grandfather of President Lincoln.
On March 4, 1780, soon after the establishment of the new system, he
appeared at the land office in Richmond, Virginia, and was given three
treasury warrants, each for four hundred acres of land in Kentucky.
The first and third of these warrants were not returned for the final
recording until May 16, 1787, at which time Beverly Randolph, Governor
of Virginia, issued a final deed of 800 acres of land in Lincoln
County, Kentucky, to Abraham Lincoln.[238] The second treasury warrant
was not returned until July 2, 1798, more than a decade after the
death of Abraham Lincoln and six years after Kentucky had become a
State. At that time the warrant was presented with a record of the
survey by Mordecai Lincoln, the eldest son of Abraham. After some
period of investigation the deed for the four hundred acres in
Jefferson County was turned over to Mordecai Lincoln on April 26,
1799.[239]
The result of this method of granting land was that Kentucky was
settled by a comparatively few men who rented their property to
tenants. A large number of the military bounties were never settled by
the original owners but were farmed by the later incoming tenant
class. George Washington had been given five thousand acres and this
land was actually settled by the poorer white element. In the case of
the land warrant property it was true that it was usually granted to
the poorer class of early settlers but as in the instance of the
Lincoln family the land soon passed into the hands of the wealthier
settlers either by purchase or through law suits. It is commonly
stated that Daniel Boone thus became landless and was forced to
migrate to Missouri.[240]
Thus we see that Kentucky was distinctly different from all the other
settlements to the west of the Alleghenies in the original system of
land tenure and she further inherited from her mother State of
Virginia the ancient theory of a landed aristocracy which was based
upon tenantry. The early inhabitants of Kentucky can be easily divided
into three classes, the landed proprietors, their slaves, and the
tenant class of whites. The second and third classes tended to keep
alive the status of the former and led to the perpetuation of the
landed aristocracy. In Kentucky, however, the laws of descent were
always against primogeniture and this resulted in the division of the
lands of the wealthier class with each new generation.
The institution of slavery in Kentucky, as in every other State,
depended for the most part upon the existence of large plantations.
The only reason Kentucky had such large estates was because of the
method by which the land was given out by the mother State.
Economically Kentucky was not adapted to plantation life. The greater
part of the State required then, as it still does, the personal care
and supervision of the owner or tenant. The original distribution of
land made this impossible and there grew up a large class of
landholders who seldom labored with their hands, because of the
traditional system. A large number of inhabitants as early as 1805,
Michaux found, were cultivating their lands themselves, but those who
could do so had all the work done by Negro slaves.[241]
With passing years, while Kentucky maintained slavery, it came to
have a social system not like that in the South but one more like the
typical structure of the middle nineteenth century West. There were
several reasons for this. In the first place, the absence of the
policy of primogeniture in time came to distribute the lands over a
much larger population. In the second place, while all the land in
Kentucky had been granted by the year 1790, the patrician land-holding
element was completely submerged by the flood of so-called plebeians
who came in soon after Kentucky became a State. In 1790 there were
only 61,133 white people in Kentucky, and although all the land had
been granted, the white population in the next decade nearly tripled,
reaching 179,871 in 1800, and this increase, at a slightly smaller
rate, continued down to about 1820. Still further the nature of the
soil made it more profitable for the wealthier landed class to let out
their holdings to the incoming whites who did their own work and in
time came to own the property. "Each year increased this element of
the state at the expense of the larger properties."[242]
POPULATION FROM 1790 TO 1860 WITH RATES OF INCREASE
+=======================================================================+
| | |Per | |Per | |Per | |Per |
| | White |Cent |Free |Cent |Slave |Cent | Total |Cent |
| | |Incr. |Colored|Incr. | |Incr. | |Incr. |
+----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+--------------+------+
|1790| 61,133| | 114| | 11,830| | 73,077 | |
|1800|179,871|194.22| 741|550.00| 40,343|241.02| 220,955 |202.36|
|1810|324,237| 80.26| 1,713|131.17| 80,561| 99.69| 406,511 | 83.98|
|1820|434,644| 34.05| 2,759| 61.06|126,732| 57.31| 564,317[243]| 38.82|
|1830|517,787| 19.12| 4,917| 78.21|165,213| 30.36| 687,917 | 21.09|
|1840|590,253| 13.99| 7,317| 48.81|182,258| 10.31| 779,828 | 13.36|
|1850|761,413| 28.99| 10,011| 36.81|210,981| 15.75| 982,405 | 25.98|
|1860|919,484| 20.76| 10,684| 6.72|225,483| 6.87|1,155,684[244]| 17.64|
A study of the growth of the slave and white population of Kentucky
from 1790 to 1860 is necessary to an adequate understanding of the
slave problem. It will be found advantageous to deal with two sets of
figures--one relating to the slave population within the State and the
other with the slave increase in Kentucky as compared with the
general increase throughout the United States. It would not be of any
value to compare the figures for Kentucky with those of any other
State, for that would involve the discussion of local factors which
are beyond the scope of this investigation.
First of all we shall take the census statistics for the State for all
eight of the enumerations which were taken during the slavery era. The
figures for the year 1790 were originally taken when Kentucky was a
part of the State of Virginia, but they are included, since Kentucky
became a State before the census was published. Furthermore they
furnish an interesting light upon the growth of the slave population
during the first decade of the new commonwealth. The important part of
this table is in the increases, on a percentage basis, in the slave
and white populations. Another viewpoint of the growth of the slave
population may be seen in this little table:
RATIO OF SLAVES TO THE TOTAL POPULATION
Per Cent
1790 16.1
1800 18.2
1810 19.18
1820 22.4
1830 24.0
1840 23.3
1850 21.4
1860 19.5
Here it will be seen that the proportion of slaves increased down to
1830 and then began to decline. Most authorities are agreed that this
was in a large measure due to the enactment of the law of 1833
forbidding the importation of slaves into Kentucky. But before dealing
with that question it would be well to have before us the figures for
the whole country at the same period.
FREE NEGRO AND SLAVE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1790 TO 1860,
WITH RATES OF INCREASE
====================================================================
| Free Negro |Per Cent Increase| Slaves |Per Cent Increase |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1790 | 59,557 | | 697,624 | |
1800 | 108,435 | 82.1 | 893,602 | 28.1 |
1810 | 186,446 | 71.9 |1,191,362 | 33.3 |
1820 | 233,634 | 25.3 |1,538,022 | 29.1 |
1830 | 319,599 | 36.8 |2,009,043 | 30.6 |
1840 | 386,293 | 20.9 |2,487,355 | 23.8 |
1850 | 434,495 | 12.5 |3,204,313 | 28.8 |
1860 | 488,070 | 12.3 |3,953,760 | 23.4 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The facts seem more significant, if we compare the slave increase in
Kentucky with that of the Negroes in the country as a whole. Bearing
in mind that Kentucky was a comparatively new region when it became a
State and that at that time slavery was firmly established along the
seaboard, we are not surprised to find that the slave increase in
Kentucky was much more rapid for the first three or four decades than
it was in the nation as a whole. After the year 1830 the increase in
the United States, on a percentage basis, was much greater than in
Kentucky. It seems that the institution started in with a boom and
then eventually died down in Kentucky.
There were several reasons for this fact. A glance at the increase of
whites in Kentucky for the last three decades will show that they were
forging ahead while the slaves were relatively declining. This was due
to a large amount of immigration of that class of white people who
were not slaveholding. A second factor was the non-importation act of
1833. About the same time there came to be a conviction among a large
portion of the population that slavery in Kentucky was economically
unprofitable. There is abundant ground for the position that the law
of 1833 was passed because of a firm conviction that there were enough
slaves in the State. The only ones who could profit by any amount of
importation were the slave dealers and beyond a certain point even
their trade would prove unprofitable. If there was ever a single
slaveholder who defended importation on the ground that more slaves
were needed in Kentucky he never spoke out in public and gave his
reasons for such a position.
Unfortunately there are few statistics concerning the number of
slaveholders in Kentucky. Cassius M. Clay in his appeal to the people
in 1845 stated that there were 31,495 owners of slaves in the
State.[245] The same year the auditor's tax books showed that there
were 176,107 slaves in Kentucky.[246] This would mean an average of
5.5 slaves for each owner. The accuracy of these figures is
substantiated by those for the census of 1850 which gave 210,981
slaves held by 38,456 slaveholders or an average of 5.4 to each owner.
These holders were classified according to the number of slaves held
as follows:
Holders of 1 slave 9,244
Holders of over 1 and less than 5 slaves 13,284
Holders of 5 and under 10 slaves 9,579
Holders of 10 and under 20 slaves 5,022
Holders of 20 and under 50 slaves 1,198
Holders of 50 and under 100 slaves 53
Holders of 100 and under 200 slaves 5
38,385[247]
This distribution shows that, although the average number of slaves
held may have been 5.4 for each slaveholder, 21,528 or 50 per cent of
them held less than five slaves each, and that 34,129 or 88 per cent
held less than 20 each. Of the 132,920 free families in the State only
28 per cent held any slaves at all. This was somewhat below the
average for the whole South. The total number of families holding
slaves in the United States, by the census of 1850, was 347,525. With
an average of 5.7 persons to each family there were about 2,000,000
persons in the relation of slave owners, or about one third of the
whole white population of the slave States. In South Carolina,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana about one half of the white
population was thus classified. As stated above, this percentage in
Kentucky was only twenty-eight.
This comparison can be more clearly shown by a table of the slave
States from the census of 1850 showing the number of white people, the
slaveholders, slaves, and the average number of slaves for each
slaveholder.
======================================================================
| Whites | Slave |Per Cent | Slaves | Average per |
| | holders |of Whites | | Holder |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama | 426,514| 29,295 | 6.8 | 342,844| 11.6 |
Arkansas | 162,189| 5,999 | 3.7 | 47,100| 7.8 |
Florida | 47,203| 3,520 | 7.4 | 39,310| 11.1 |
Georgia | 521,572| 38,456 | 7.3 | 381,622| 9.9 |
Kentucky | 761,413| 38,385 | 5.0 | 210,981| 5.4 |
Louisiana | 255,491| 20,670 | 8.0 | 244,809| 11.4 |
Maryland | 417,943| 16,040 | 3.8 | 90,368| 5.6 |
Mississippi | 295,718| 23,116 | 7.8 | 309,878| 13.4 |
Missouri | 592,004| 19,185 | 3.2 | 87,422| 4.5 |
North Carolina| 553,028| 28,303 | 5.1 | 288,548| 10.2 |
South Carolina| 274,563| 25,596 | 9.3 | 384,984| 15.0 |
Tennessee | 756,836| 33,864 | 4.4 | 239,459| 7.0 |
Texas | 154,034| 7,747 | 5.2 | 58,161| 7.5 |
Virginia | 894,800| 55,063 | 6.1 | 472,528| 8.5 |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the fourteen real slaveholding States of the Union Kentucky
stood ninth in the number of slaves in 1850, but was third in the
number of slave owners and with the exception of Missouri had less
slaves for each owner than any other State. From the third column of
this table, however, we are rather surprised to find that not only in
Missouri but in Arkansas, Maryland and Tennessee the number of
slaveholders was smaller in proportion to the total white population
than in Kentucky.
Value of Slaves at Value of Real and Personal Property
$400 per Head Less the Value of Slaves
Alabama $137,137,600 $ 81,066,732
Arkansas 18,840,000 21,001,025
Florida 15,724,000 7,474,734
Georgia 152,672,800 182,752,914
Kentucky 84,392,400 217,236,056
Louisiana 97,923,600 136,075,164
Maryland 36,147,200 183,070,164
Mississippi 123,951,200 105,000,000
Missouri 34,968,800 102,278,907
North Carolina 115,419,200 111,381,272
South Carolina 153,993,600 134,264,094
Tennessee 95,783,600 111,671,104
Texas 23,264,400 32,097,940
Virginia 189,011,200 202,634,638
Helper in his _Impending Crisis_ made the following interesting table
from the census figures for 1850. He set a perfectly arbitrary
valuation of $400 on each slave, but, if one takes into account the
infants and the aged unable to work, his general appraisement of the
slave group is fair enough for the time and for a basis of comparison.
It will be seen at a glance that after taking out the value of the
slaves in all the States Kentucky was the richest southern
commonwealth.
From the three preceding tables it is apparent that while the Kentucky
slaveholders represented about 28 per cent of the white population of
the State, on the average they held less slaves than in the other
Southern States. Slave property in Kentucky was a much smaller part of
the wealth of the commonwealth than in the States to the south. The
relatively large number of holders is to be explained by the type of
slavery which existed in the State. Many persons held a few servants
in bondage and those who held many slaves were very few in number.
The question of the sale of slaves from Kentucky into the southern
market presents a much more formidable problem. The chief charge that
the anti-slavery people made against Kentucky was that the State
regularly bred and reared slaves for the market in the lower South.
What was the attitude of the Kentucky slaveholder and the people in
general on the question of the domestic slave trade? There is no doubt
that in the later years of slavery there were sold in the State many
slaves who ultimately found their way into the southern market
notwithstanding the contempt of the average Kentucky slaveholder for
the slave trade. This trend of opinion will be seen as we proceed. If
the sentiment was decidedly against such human commerce how did so
many slaves become victims of the slave trader?
There were five general causes which led to the sale of slaves in
Kentucky: (1) When they became so unruly that the master was forced to
sell; (2) when their sale was necessary to settle an estate; (3) when
the master was reduced to the need of the money value in preference to
the labor; (4) when captured runaways were unclaimed after one year;
and (5) when the profit alone was desired by unscrupulous masters.
Many other reasons have been given, but a careful investigation of
all available material confines practically every known case of sale
to one of the above classifications. Mrs. Stowe in her _Key to Uncle
Tom's Cabin_[249] maintained that the prevalence of the slave trade in
Kentucky was due to the impoverishment of the soil beyond recovery and
the decrease in the economic value of the slave to its owner. This
argument is fallacious, for the very blue-grass region which held most
of the slaves is today the most fertile section of the State.
As long as a slave conducted himself in accordance with the spirit of
the slave code there was little chance of his owner selling him
against his will. The president of the Constitutional Convention of
1849 stated that in the interior of the State, where slaves were the
most numerous, very few Negroes were sold out of the State and that
they were mostly those whose bad and ungovernable disposition was such
that their owners could no longer control them[250]. A true picture of
the average master's attitude has been given us by Prof. N. S. Shaler.
"What negroes there were," said he, "belonged to a good class. The
greater number of them were from families which had been owned by the
ancestors of their masters in Virginia. In my grandfather's household
and those of his children there were some two dozen of these blacks.
They were well cared for; none of them were ever sold, though there
was the common threat that 'if you don't behave, you will be sold
South.' One of the commonest bits of instruction my grandfather gave
me was to remember that my people had in a century never bought or
sold a slave except to keep families together. By that he meant that a
gentleman of his station should not run any risk of appearing as a
'negro trader,' the last word of opprobrium to be slung at a man. So
far as I can remember, this rule was well kept and social ostracism
was likely to be visited on any one who was fairly suspected of buying
or selling slaves for profit. This state of opinion was, I believe,
very general among the better class of slave owners in Kentucky. When
negroes were sold it was because they were vicious and intractable.
Yet there were exceptions to this high-minded humor."[251]
When a master had a bad Negro about the only thing that could be done
for the sake of discipline was to sell him. If the owner kept the
slave, the latter would corrupt his fellows and if he were set free,
the master would reward where he ought to punish. The human interest
which the owner took in his servant when the demands of the
institution necessitated his sale is shown in the case of the Negro
Frank, owned by A. Barnett, of Greensburg. Witness these words of the
master in a runaway advertisement: "His transgressions impelled me,
some years since to take him to New Orleans and sell him, where he
became the property of a Spaniard, who branded him on each cheek thus,
(B), which is plain to be seen when said negro is newly shaved. I went
to New Orleans again last May, where, having my feelings excited by
the tale Frank told me, I purchased him again."[252] After the master
had gone to all this trouble in the interest of the slave the latter
ran away shortly after his return to Kentucky.
[Transcriber's Note: In the previous paragraph, (B) actually
appears as the letter B, rotated 90 degrees, counter-clockwise.]
It was often necessary to sell slaves in order to settle an estate. It
was seldom possible for a man to will his property in Negroes without
some divisions becoming necessary at the hands of the executor in the
just interest of the heirs. These public auctions usually took place
on court day, at the courthouse door and were conducted by the master
commissioner of the circuit court. The following advertisement reveals
the necessity and the procedure:
SALE OF NEGROES
By virtue of a decree of the Fayette Circuit, the undersigned
will, as Commissioner to carry into effect said decree, sell to
the highest bidder, on the public square in the city of
Lexington, on Monday the 10th of March next, being county court
day, the following slaves, to wit:
Keiser, Carr, Sally, Bob, Susan, Sam, Sarah and Ben; belonging to
the estate of Alexander Culbertson, deceased. The sale to be on a
credit of three months, the purchaser to give bond with approved
security. The sale to take place between the hours of 11 o'clock
in the morning and 3 o'clock in the evening.
February 26, 1834 JOHN CLARK, _Commissioner_[253]
On the same day the sheriff of the county might appear at the
courthouse door in accordance with a previous announcement and auction
off any unclaimed runaway that had been lodged in the county jail or
hired out under his authority for a period of a year or more. The
slaves thus sold were usually fugitives from the lower South who had
been apprehended on their way to Ohio or Indiana. Although the utmost
publicity would have been given to their capture, in accordance with
the law, few of the planters of the far South seem ever to have
claimed their property. The usual legal code in this matter is shown
by the notice below:
NOTICE: Agreeably to an act of the General Assembly, passed
January 11, 1845, I will, on the first Monday of May, 1846,
before the Court House door, in the city of Louisville, sell to
the highest bidder, on a credit of six months, the purchaser
giving bond with good security, having the force and effect of a
replevin bond, JOHN, a runaway slave, 18 or 19 years of age, 5
feet 3 or 4 inches high, a rather heavy built, supposed to be the
property of Daniel McCaleb or Calip, residing on the coast some
twenty miles below New Orleans.
F. S. J. RONALD _Deputy Sheriff_
for JAMES HARRISON _Sheriff Jefferson Co_.[254]
Feb. 25, 1846.
Under the three causes of sale thus far cited the blame would not be
placed upon the master. In the case of the unruly Negro the owner was
according to the ethics of that day not at fault. In the settlement of
an estate the slaveholder was no longer a factor, for his demise alone
had brought the sale. In the case of the runaway the owner was
unknown. Mrs. Stowe probably showed the attitude of the average
Kentucky master when she pictured Uncle Tom as being sold for the
southern market only because of the economic necessities of the owner.
When in such a position the master felt called upon to explain the
necessities of the case. He was very careful not to be cast under the
suspicion of public opinion as a "slave trader," which, as Shaler has
said, was the "last word of opprobrium." Witness a few instances in
evidence:
NEGROES FOR SALE
A yellow negro woman of fine constitution, and two children, from
the country, and sold for no fault but to raise money. Will not
be sold to go down the river. Her husband, a fine man, can be had
also. Apply at the store of
JARVIS AND TRABUE--3rd & Main[255]
The editor of the _Lexington Reporter_ was very careful not to get
under the ban of his constituents when he was forced to sell a farm
hand and his wife.
FOR SALE
A negro man, a first rate farm hand, about 27 years of age; and a
very likely woman, the wife of the man, about 22 years of age, a
good house servant. They will not be sold separately, or to any
person wishing to take them out of the State. Enquire at this
office.[256]
In 1834 Thomas J. Allen, a citizen of Louisville, desired to exchange
his property in the city for 40 or 50 slaves, but he specifically
stated that they were to be for his own use and that he wanted them to
be "in families."[257] The same attitude appears in the case of a
house servant for sale with the reasons for such specifically stated:
FOR SALE
I wish to sell a negro woman, who has been accustomed to house
work. She is an excellent cook, washes and scours, and is in
every respect, an active and intelligent servant. I do not
require her services, which is my only reason for wishing to
dispose of her.
MASLIN SMITH[258]
The prevalence of statements giving the reasons for and the
restrictions upon these sales should show beyond any reasonable doubt
that public opinion would not tolerate any suspicion of a heartless
traffic in slaves. These sentiments were especially prevalent in the
central portion of the State. The only case known to the writer where
a large number of slaves were sold without any qualification was near
Harrodsburg in August, 1845; but in this instance all the man's
property, including 450 acres of land, was sold at the same time.[259]
There were, naturally, some unscrupulous masters who cared little for
the fate of their slaves when sold. They placed no restrictions upon
the sale, either in destination or in the break-up of family ties. We
will cite only two, one for the earlier and one for the later period,
noticeable chiefly for the lack of regard for Negro family life.
NEGROES FOR SALE
The subscriber has for sale a negro man and woman, each about 24
years of age, both are excellent plantation hands, together with
two children. They will be sold separately or altogether.
LUIDORES LUCAS[260]
FOR SALE
I wish to sell a negro woman and four children. The woman is 22
years old, of good character, a good cook and washer. The
children are very likely, from 6 years down to 1-1/2. I will sell
them together or separately to suit purchasers.
J. T. UNDERWOOD.[261]
The aggregate of all these causes was sufficient to bring about a
supply for the southern market. The question now arises as to how the
demand was met commercially. To what extent were there slave traders
in Kentucky? George Prentice, the famous editor of the _Louisville
Journal_, himself a loyal exponent of slavery, early pointed out that
Kentucky had an ample supply of Negroes and that they were being sent
south in large numbers. He further stated that any one who wanted
slaves could always purchase them by leaving an order in
Louisville.[262] This opinion was expressed at a time when the
non-importation act of 1833 had been in force for sixteen years, which
meant that Kentucky was producing slaves faster than she needed them.
It was only two months after this that Richard Henry Collins in an
editorial in the _Maysville Eagle_ gave a flagrant example of a slave
trader in Kentucky who violated the spirit as well as the letter of
the law. But the sentiment of the people on the slave dealer had been
expressed much earlier. In 1833 a Lexington editor felt exasperated
because of the appearance of a large group of slaves in the streets of
the city on their way to be sold south. When another trader appeared
with his Negro slaves held together with a chain he voiced his wrath
in this fashion:
"A few weeks ago we gave an account of a company of men, women
and children, part of them manacled, passing through the streets.
Last week, a number of slaves were driven through the main street
of our city, among them were a number manacled together, two
abreast, all connected by, and supporting, a heavy iron chain,
which extended the whole length of the line."[263]
About the same time a citizen of Danville sold a Negro woman to a
regular slave trader. The news spread around the town rapidly and to
save himself from the threats of the gathering mob the owner was
compelled for his own safety to follow the slave dealer and repurchase
the woman at a decided increase in price.[264]
It is very difficult to find out how many slave dealers there were in
the State, for few of them ever came out in the open and advertised
their trade. As would be expected from its size and situation
Louisville was the place where the dealer could ply his trade to the
best advantage. It was the central business point and the port from
which most slaves from Kentucky were shipped down the Ohio and
Mississippi. There is no mention in the newspapers of any dealers
there before the year 1845. Thereafter there were several who
advertised for any number of slaves and made no secret of the purpose
of purchase. In the _Journal_ for October 29, 1845, William Kelly
called for all persons who had slaves to sell to see him and offered
them the highest prices. He further stated that he had slaves for
sale. His name does not often appear in succeeding years. During the
next decade there were four regular dealers who apparently did
considerable business: T. Arterburn, J. Arterburn, William F. Talbott,
and Thomas Powell. Later John Mattingly came upon the scene presumably
from St. Louis. In July, 1845, the Arterburn brothers began a series
of advertisements which ran for several years. "We wish to purchase
100 negroes for the Southern market, for which we will pay the highest
prices in cash."[265] Talbott began his publicity in 1848 with these
words: "The subscriber wishes to purchase 100 negroes, for which he
will pay the highest cash prices. Can always be found at the
Louisville Hotel."[266] Two years later he was still advertising, but
had ceased placing any limit on the number to be bought and had moved
his quarters to the Hotel O'Rain.[267] Thomas Powell also began in
1848 with this stock phraseology--"Persons having negroes for sale can
find a purchaser at the highest cash prices by calling on the
subscriber, on Sixth Street, between Main and Market, adjoining H.
Duncan's stable."[268] This advertisement ran continually for a
period of two years. John Mattingly evidently came from Missouri in
the same year, and remained until 1852, when he returned to St. Louis
to ply his trade.[269] While he was in Louisville he ran an
advertisement in the _Journal_ after this fashion: "The undersigned
wishes to purchase 100 negroes both men and women, for which he will
pay the highest cash prices. Those who have negroes for sale would do
well to call on him at the Gait House."[270]
It is noticeable that none of the Louisville directories for this
period mention any slave dealers. This failure may have been due
merely to the fact that there were so few traders in the city and that
they were more or less transient residents. On the other hand, public
opinion apparently never acknowledged that there were any real
citizens of the city engaged in the slave trade. Beginning in 1840 the
_Louisville Journal_ published a weekly paper called _Louisville
Prices Current_. In 1855 this was succeeded by the _Commercial Review
and Louisville Prices Current_, which was published by the Louisville
Chamber of Commerce. These two papers devoted themselves exclusively
to the commercial transactions of the city and gave price quotations
weekly for every conceivable kind of goods in the market together with
the volume of sales. Strange to say, there has not been found a single
issue of either of these papers, which mentions the selling price of
slaves or any transaction in Negroes. If there was a trade in slaves
which was regarded purely as a commercial enterprise, as some would
have us think, then it is very hard to understand why these splendid
trade papers did not contain any account of the business.
There were some Louisville business men who bought and sold slaves as
only one of the branches of their commercial activities. This would
account to some extent for the failure to list traders in the local
directories for it is noticeable that such men never called themselves
slave dealers. As early as the year 1825 John Stickney established
the _Louisville Intelligence Office_ on Main Street, which was a sort
of labor and real estate exchange. He advertised that he sold books;
had money to loan; houses for rent and sale; horses and Negroes for
sale and hire; carriages for sale; conducted a labor exchange, and
recommended the best boarding houses.[271] A year later J. C. Gentry
opened the "Western Horse Market" at the corner of Market and Fourth
Streets. He advertised that he conducted a livery stable, and also
sold on commission, at public or private sale, horses, carriages,
cattle, wagons and slaves; and that he would conduct an auction on
Wednesdays and Saturdays.[272] A similar case was that of A. C. Scott,
who in 1854 opened a real estate and land office but who stated in the
press that he not only bought and sold land and rented houses but that
he would sell and hire slaves.[273] Consequently Scott was listed as a
real estate and land agent in the local directories. It is impossible
to determine how many of these occasional slave dealers there were,
but in so far as available material shows these three were the only
ones to announce their trade publicly.
It would appear from all the evidence at hand that while Kentucky
furnished many slaves for the southern market there was no general
internal slave trade, as a commercial enterprise. There were in
Louisville, however, a few heartless business men who took advantage
of the decreasing value of slave labor in Kentucky and the rising
prices of slaves in the far South. In this respect, Kentucky became a
field of supply for the slave markets of the lower South.
Unfortunately there are no statistics available by which the number of
slaves sent south can be computed. The most comprehensive anti-slavery
publication on the internal slave trade was unable to decide with
certainty what proportion of slaves for the southern market was
furnished by each of the so-called breeding States. The author of
_Slavery and Internal Slave Trade in the United States_ estimated
that 80,000 slaves were annually exported from seven States to the
South. He gave no figures that were not his own estimates. He ranked
the seven States, however, in the order of the number of slaves which
he thought they furnished as follows: Virginia, Maryland, North
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Delaware.[274]
Martin estimates that Kentucky sent on the average about 5,000 slaves
to the southern market.[275] Again this must be considered purely
conjectural. It is reasonable to suppose that during the last two
decades of the slavery era there were few slaves imported into
Kentucky that were intended for the purely Kentucky market. What
Negroes came into Kentucky were for the most part on their way to the
more profitable southern trade. The average death rate among the
slaves during this period was 1.9 per one hundred and the birth rate
was 3.2, or an excess of births over deaths of 1.1 per hundred. This
would make the annual natural increase among the slave population
about 2,000 per year. Comparing this with the growth of the slave
group from 1840 to 1850 we find that the increase of slaves was much
more. But it was during the next decade that the slave trade reached
its height and here we find that the slave population increased
14,502, whereas the natural increase during that period should have
been 23,190. Hence the slaves failed to reach even their natural
increase by a deficiency of 8,688. Taken literally that would mean
that during the ten-year period that number of slaves were exported
from Kentucky. But it is reasonable to suppose that many more than
that were sent to the South. With the exception of the last decade,
however, the slave population of Kentucky increased faster than the
mere natural increase of the Negroes. The law would not permit of any
importation of slaves intended for Kentucky, so the export of purely
Kentucky slaves appears never to have been prominent except during the
decade from 1850 to 1860.
The selling price of slaves naturally presents itself at this point.
In Kentucky these records are very few because the tax books in
practically all the counties of the State have been destroyed. We have
no accurate statements extant before about the year 1855. The prices
which we have obtained are quotations from the auction of slaves of
estates to settle the interests of the heirs. On January court day, in
1855, there were sold in the settlement of estates in Bourbon,
Fayette, Clark and Franklin Counties Negro men who brought $1,260,
$1,175, $1,070, $1,378, $1,295, $1,015 and $1,505.[276] The county
commissioner of Harrison auctioned the slaves of the deceased George
Kirkpatrick with the following prices received:
America 40 years of age }
Peggy 6 years of age } all for $1,600
Eliza 4 years of age }
Brown 6 months of age }
Peter 23 years of age $1,290
Emanuel 24 years of age 750
Tom 16 years of age 1,015
Ann 14 years of age 775
Emma 12 years of age 865
Sarah 26 years of age 350[277]
The county commissioner at Henderson received the following prices for
slaves in the settlement of several estates on January 28, 1858:[278]
Ruth 33 years of age $ 800
Willis 59 years of age 475
George 35 years of age 1,200
Delphy 80 years of age 75
Leila 65 years of age 282
Clarissa 24 years of age 1,131
Andrew 19 years of age 1,500
Susan 17 years of age 470
Jennie 17 years of age 1,100
Cupid 85 years of age 74
Eliza 32 years of age 500
Bell 41 years of age 1,000
This sale is most significant for the cases of "Delphy," 80 years old,
and "Cupid," 85 years of age. It is difficult to account for such a
sale in any discussion of the slave trade, but it does show the
humanitarian side of Kentucky slavery. Negroes at such an age had no
economic value even if they were given away, because the expense of
their maintenance was more than the value of any possible labor they
could perform.
At Georgetown in December of the same year we have this record:[279]
Griffin 45 years of age $ 640
Mary 14 years of age 1,060
Ellen 12 years of age 800
Elizabeth 11 years of age 406 (one-eyed)
Sanford 9 years of age 700
Arabel 10 years of age 690
Adam 41 years of age 700
Bettie 3 years of age 260
Aaron 28 years of age 1,191
Sam 25 years of age 1,350
The auction of the slaves of the estate of Spencer C. Graves at
Lexington in April, 1859, brought these prices:[280]
John 18 years of age $1,500
Dick 21 years of age 1,400
Jerry 38 years of age 700
Major 50 years of age 480
Charles 31 years of age 1,155
John Jr 18 years of age 1,140
Billy 31 years of age 1,100
Isabella 40 years, with 3 children, ages
11, 5 and 2 1,610
Rebecca 30 years, with 3 children, ages
11, 6 and 4 2,410
Lucy 18 years of age, with infant 1,280
Davidella 31 years of age 1,220
Mary Ann 31 years of age 835
Patience 18 years of age 1,350
Catharine 15 years of age 1,130
Such a series of prices would show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
value of slaves was determined entirely by the increasing demand for
slaves in the lower South and was in no way an indication of the value
of slave labor within Kentucky. As was pointed out earlier in this
chapter, the labor value of an agricultural slave in the State
steadily decreased after about the year 1830.
Was slavery profitable to the Kentucky planters? In the many debates
on the slavery question which took place after 1830 no one ever stood
out in the affirmative. The only ones to discuss the economic side of
the issue were those in opposition to slavery. As has often been said
of the Kentucky situation, "the program was to use negroes to raise
corn to feed hogs to feed negroes, who raised more corn to feed more
hogs." Tobacco was the largest crop raised in the State and corn came
next. Neither proved to be peculiarly adapted to slave labor. There
were few large plantations in the State where it could be made
advantageous. What Negro work there was to be done was never confined
to any particular kind of cultivation but was used in the manner of
farm labor today in the State. Squire Turner, of Madison County, in
the Constitutional Convention of 1849 made a careful summary of the
existing economic problems of slavery. "There are," said he, "about
$61,000,000 worth of slave property in the state which produces less
than three per cent profit on the capital invested, or about half as
much as the moneyed capital would yield. There are about 200,000
slaves in Kentucky. Of these about seventy-five per cent are
superannuated, sick, women in unfit condition for labor, and infants
unable to work, who yield no profit. Show me a man that has forty or
fifty slaves on his estate, and if there are ten out of that number
who are available and valuable, it is as much as you can expect. But
my calculation allows you to have seventy-five per cent who are barely
able to maintain themselves, to pay for their own clothing, fuel,
house room and doctor's bills. Is there any gentleman who has a large
number of slaves, who will say that they are any more profitable than
that?"[281]
No one in the convention answered the last question put by Squire
Turner. But regardless of such an economic condition, not a single
piece of remedial legislation was passed and the members of the
Constitutional Convention added a provision to the Bill of Rights
which rooted the slavery system firmer than ever. That most admirable
of all southern characters, and at the same time the most difficult to
understand, the Kentucky master, took little heed of a question of
dollars and cents when it interfered with his moral and humanitarian
sentiments. He had inherited, in most cases, the slaves that were his.
He knew well enough that the system did not pay but supposing that he
should turn his slaves loose, what would become of them? What could
they do for a living? The experience of later years proved that his
apparently obstinate temperament was mixed with a good deal of wisdom,
for once the slaves were set free their status was not to any great
extent ameliorated if they went abroad from the plantation where they
had lived from childhood.
There was a certain amount of profit in the labor of able-bodied
slaves but they only represented a fraction of the Negroes whom the
master was called upon to support. The law compelled the owner to
maintain his old and helpless slaves and this represented the spirit
of the large majority of the slaveholders. Those were rare cases
indeed when an owner was hailed into court for failing to provide for
an infirm member of his slave household. The true Kentuckian never
begrudged the expense that such support incurred. One of the ablest
lawyers of the State, Benjamin Hardin, made the statement that "if it
were not for supporting my slaves, I would never go near a
courthouse."[282]
Rev. Stuart Robinson, speaking before the Kentucky Colonization
Society in 1849, gave another viewpoint of the economic value of the
slave. "The increase of slaves in Kentucky," said he, "has hardly
reached three thousand annually for eighteen years past. The increase
since 1840 has been 27,653--the increase for the year just closed
2,921. In twenty-six counties, embracing one fourth of the slave
population--some of them the largest slave-holding counties--there has
been an actual decrease in the last year of 881 slaves. In twelve
other counties the increase has been only twenty-three. There are ten
counties in the State, which contain one third of all the slave
population of Kentucky; in these ten counties, the increase of slaves
for five years past has been 2,728--an increase of less than one per
cent per annum. Nor is this slow increase of slavery to be attributed
to any stagnation or decline of public prosperity, for in the meantime
the state has been growing in population and wealth as heretofore.
During these five years the taxable property of the Commonwealth has
increased in value more than seventy-six millions. Now this decrease
of slaves while the other property of the commonwealth is increasing
must arise from one of three causes--and in either case the inference
is the same as to the fate of slavery in Kentucky. (1) Is it because
the climate is unhealthy to the African? If so then African labor
cannot continue. (2) Is it owing to emigration? Then something is
wrong in the system of labor, that causes the emigration of our
people--for no finer soil--no more desirable residence can be found in
the world. (3) Or is it owing to the domestic slave trade? Then for
some reason slave labor is less profitable here than elsewhere, and
must soon be given up."[283]
These figures quoted by the speaker on the slave population for year
by year are available in the auditor's tax books for the years 1840 to
1859:[284]
1840 164,817
1841 168,853
1842 171,035
1843 176,107
1844 178,837
1845 182,742
1846 185,582
1847 189,549
1848 192,470
1849 195,110
1850 196,847
1851 196,336
1852 200,867
1853 200,015
1854 200,181
1855 202,790
1856 201,160
1857 201,590
1858 207,559
1859 208,625
The very small growth shown here would barely account for the natural
increase among the slaves by virtue of the high birth rate. The
mortality rates were about the same for slaves as for whites. The
relative decline was undoubtedly due to the rising prices for slaves
which were sent to the South and the consequent decreasing value of a
slave's labor to the Kentuckian. He knew beyond a doubt that the time
would eventually come when he would have to part with his slave and
that portion of the holders who were not averse to selling their
chattels did so during this period.
FOOTNOTES:
[234] Hening's Statutes, Vol. X, p. 50.
[235] Hening's Statutes, Vol. XI, p. 309; Treat, P. J., _National Land
System_, p. 235.
[236] _Ibid._, Vol. X, pp. 35-45.
[237] Winterbotham, _An Historical Geographical Commercial and
Topographical View of the United States_, Vol. 3, pp. 156-157.
[238] Kentucky Land Grants, Book 13, p. 59.
[239] _Ibid._, Book 8, p. 228.
[240] Shaler's _Autobiography_, p. 33.
[241] Michaux (Thwaite's Reprint), _Travels to the West of the
Allegheny Mountains_, Vol. 3, p. 237.
[242] Shaler, N. S., _Kentucky_, p. 196.
[243] Includes 182 Indians.
[244] Includes 33 Indians.
[245] Greeley, Horace, _Writings, Speeches and Addresses of Cassius M.
Clay_, p. 177.
[246] _Collected Documents_, 1847, p. 581.
[247] De Bow's _Statistical Review_, p. 95.
[248] Adapted from De Bow's _Statistical Review_, pp. 67, 85, 99.
[249] Stowe, _Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin_, p. 143.
[250] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, October 17, 1849.
[251] Shaler's _Autobiography_, p. 36.
[252] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, December 24, 1829.
[253] _Lexington Observer and Kentucky Reporter_, February 27, 1834.
[254] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, March 4, 1846.
[255] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, September 3, 1845.
[256] _Lexington Observer_ and _Kentucky Reporter_, Jan. 28, 1835.
[257] _Ibid._, July 9, 1834.
[258] _Lexington Observer_ and _Kentucky Reporter_, Jan. 7, 1835.
[259] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, August 6, 1845.
[260] _Bairdstown Candid Review_, June 20, 1809.
[261] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, May 2, 1849.
[262] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, September 26, 1849.
[263] _Lexington Western Luminary_, June 5, 1833.
[264] Blanchard and Rice, _Debates on Slavery_, p. 133.
[265] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, July 30, 1845.
[266] _Ibid._, July 19, 1848.
[267] _Ibid._, August 14, 1850.
[268] _Ibid._, August 2, 1848.
[269] _St. Louis Daily Times_, October 14, 1852.
[270] _Louisville Daily Journal_, November 23, 1848.
[271] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, November 2, 1825.
[272] _Ibid._, September 13, 1826.
[273] _Louisville Daily Times_, March 1, 1854.
[274] _Slavery and Internal Slave Trade in the U. S._, p. 12.
[275] Martin, Asa E., _Anti-Slavery Movement in Kentucky_, p. 89.
[276] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 74.
[277] _Cynthiana News_, January 10, 1858.
[278] _Henderson Weekly Commercial_, January 29, 1858.
[279] _Georgetown Gazette_, December 23, 1858.
[280] _Weekly Free South_ (Newport), April 29, 1859.
[281] Debates of the Convention of 1849, p. 73.
[282] Little, L. P., _Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, p.
544.
[283] _Presbyterian Herald_, April 12, 1849.
[284] _Collected Documents_, 1847, pp. 581-583; 1853, pp. 401-403;
1860, pp. 241-246.