State of public opinion in relation to colored
population--Southern views of
Emancipation--Influence of Mr. Jefferson's
opinions--He opposed Emancipation except connected
with Colonization--Negro equality not contemplated
by the Father's of the Revolution--This proved by
the resolutions of their conventions--The true
objects of the opposition to the slave
trade--Motives of British Statesmen in forcing
Slavery on the colonies--Absurdity of supposing
negro equality was contemplated.
THE opinion that the African race would become a growing burden had its
origin before the revolution, and led the colonists to oppose the
introduction of slaves; but failing in this, through the opposition of
England, as soon as they threw off the foreign yoke many of the States
at once crushed the system--among the first acts of sovereignty by
Virginia, being the prohibition of the slave trade. In the determination
to suppress this traffic all the States united--but in emancipation
their policy differed. It was found easier to manage the slaves than the
free blacks--at least it was claimed to be so--and, for this reason, the
slave States, not long after the others had completed their work of
manumission, proceeded to enact laws prohibiting emancipations, except
on condition that the persons liberated should be removed. The newly
organized free States, too, taking alarm at this, and dreading the
influx of the free colored people, adopted measures to prevent the
ingress of this proscribed and helpless race.
These movements, so distressing to the reflecting colored man, be it
remembered, were not the effect of the action of colonizationists, but
took place, mostly, long before the organization of the American
Colonization Society; and, at its first annual meeting, the importance
and humanity of colonization was strongly urged, on the very ground that
the slave States, as soon as they should find that the persons liberated
could be sent to Africa, would relax their laws against emancipation.
The slow progress made by the great body of the free blacks in the
North, or the absence, rather, of any evidences of improvement in
industry, intelligence, and morality, gave rise to the notion, that
before they could be elevated to an equality with the whites, slavery
must be wholly abolished throughout the Union. The constant ingress of
liberated slaves from the South, to commingle with the free colored
people of the North, it was claimed, tended to perpetuate the low moral
standard originally existing among the blacks; and universal
emancipation was believed to be indispensable to the elevation of the
race. Those who adopted this view, seem to have overlooked the fact,
that the Africans, of savage origin, could not be elevated at once to an
equality with the American people, by the mere force of legal
enactments. More than this was needed, for their elevation, as all are
now, reluctantly, compelled to acknowledge. Emancipation, unaccompanied
by the means of intellectual and moral culture, is of but little value.
The savage, liberated from bondage, is a savage still.
The slave States adopted opinions, as to the negro character, opposite
to those of the free States, and would not risk the experiment of
emancipation. They said, if the free States feel themselves burdened by
the few Africans they have freed, and whom they find it impracticable to
educate and elevate, how much greater would be the evil the slave States
must bring upon themselves by letting loose a population nearly twelve
times as numerous. Such an act, they argued, would be suicidal--would
crush out all progress in civilization; or, in the effort to elevate the
negro with the white man, allowing him equal freedom of action, would
make the more energetic Anglo-Saxon the slave of the indolent African.
Such a task, onerous in the highest degree, they could not, and would
not undertake; such an experiment, on their social system, they dared
not hazard; and in this determination they were encouraged to
persevere, not only by the results of emancipation, then wrought out at
the North, but by the settled convictions which had long prevailed at
the South, in relation to the impropriety of freeing the negroes. This
opinion was one of long standing, and had been avowed by some of the
ablest statesmen of the Revolution. Among these Mr. Jefferson stood
prominent. He was inclined to consider the African inferior "in the
endowments both of body and mind" to the European; and, while expressing
his hostility to slavery earnestly, vehemently, he avowed the opinion
that it was impossible for the two races to live equally free in the
same government--that "nature, habit, opinion, had drawn indelible lines
of distinction between them"--that, accordingly, emancipation and
"deportation" (colonization) should go hand in hand--and that these
processes should be gradual enough to make proper provisions for the
blacks in a new country, and fill their places in this with free white
laborers.[2]
Another point needs examination. Notwithstanding the well-known opinions
of Mr. Jefferson, it has been urged that the Declaration of Independence
was designed, by those who issued it, to apply to the negro as well as
to the white man; and that they purposed to extend to the negro, at the
end of the struggle, then begun, all the privileges which they hoped to
secure for themselves. Nothing can be further from the truth, and
nothing more certain than that the rights of the negro never entered
into the questions then considered. That document was written by Mr.
Jefferson himself, and, with the views which he entertained, he could
not have thought, for a moment, of conferring upon the negro the rights
of American citizenship. Hear him further upon this subject and then
judge:
"It will probably be asked, why not retain and incorporate the blacks
into the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by importation of
white settlers, the vacancies they will leave? Deep-rooted prejudices
entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of
the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real
distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will
divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably
never end, but in the extermination of the one or the other race. To
these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are
physical and moral"[3]
Now it is evident, from this language, that Mr. Jefferson was not only
opposed to allowing the negroes the rights of citizenship, but that he
was opposed to emancipation also, except on the condition that the
freedmen should be removed from the country. He could, therefore, have
meant nothing more by the phrase, "all men are created equal," which he
employed in the Declaration of Independence, than the announcement of a
general principle, which, in its application to the colonists, was
intended most emphatically to assert their equality, before God and the
world, with the imperious Englishmen who claimed the divine right of
lording it over them. This was undoubtedly the view held by Mr.
Jefferson, and the extent to which he expected the language of the
Declaration to be applied.[4] Nor could the signers of that instrument,
or the people whom they represented, ever have intended to apply its
principles to any barbarous or semi-barbarous people, in the sense of
admitting them to an equality with themselves in the management of a
free government. Had this been their design, they must have enfranchised
both Indians and Africans, as both were within the territory over which
they exercised jurisdiction.
But testimony of a conclusive character is at hand, to show that quite
a different object was to be accomplished, than negro equality, in the
movements of the colonists which preceded the outbreak of the American
Revolution. They passed resolutions upon the subject of the slave trade,
it is true, but it was to oppose it, because it increased the colored
population, a result they deprecated in the strongest language. The
checking of this evil, great as the people considered it, was not the
principal object they had in view, in resolving to crush out the slave
trade. It was one of far greater moment, affecting the prosperity of the
mother country, and designed to force her to deal justly with the
colonies.
This point can only be understood by an examination of the history of
that period, so as to comprehend the relations existing between Great
Britain and her several colonies. Let us, then, proceed to the
performance of this task.
The whole commerce of Great Britain, in 1704, amounted, in value, to
thirty-two and a half millions of dollars. In less than three quarters
of a century thereafter, or three years preceding the outbreak of the
American Revolution, it had increased to eighty millions annually. More
than thirty millions of this amount, or over one-third of the whole,
consisted of exports to her West Indian and North American colonies and
to Africa. The yearly trade with Africa, alone, at this
period--1772--was over four and a third millions of dollars: a
significant fact, when it is known that this African traffic was in
slaves.
But this statement fails to give a true idea of the value of North
America and the West Indies to the mother country. Of the commodities
which she imported from them--tobacco, rice, sugar, rum--ten millions of
dollars worth, annually, were re-exported to her other dependencies, and
five millions to foreign countries--thus making her indebted to these
colonies, directly and indirectly, for more than one-half of all her
commerce.
If England was greatly dependent upon these colonies for her increasing
prosperity, they were also dependent upon her; and upon each other, for
the mutual promotion of their comfort and wealth. This is easily
understood. The colonies were prohibited from manufacturing for
themselves. This rendered it necessary that they should be supplied with
linen and woolen fabrics, hardware and cutlery, from the looms and shops
of Great Britain; and, in addition to these necessaries, they were
dependent upon her ships to furnish them with slaves from Africa. The
North American colonies were dependent upon the West Indies for coffee,
sugar, rum; and the West Indies upon North America, in turn, for their
main supplies of provisions and lumber. The North Americans, if
compelled by necessity, could do without the manufacures of England, and
forego the use of the groceries and rum of the West Indies; but Great
Britain could not easily bear the loss of half her commerce, nor could
the West India planters meet a sudden emergency that would cut off their
usual supplies of provisions.
Such were the relations existing between Great Britain and the colonies,
and between the colonies themselves, when the Bostonians cast the tea
overboard. This act of resistance to law, was followed by the passage,
through Parliament, of the Boston Port Bill, closing Boston Harbor to
all commerce whatsoever. The North American colonies, conscious of their
power over the commerce of Great Britain, at once obeyed the call of the
citizens of Boston, and united in the adoption of peaceful measures, to
force the repeal of the obnoxious act. Meetings of the people were held
throughout the country, generally, and resolutions passed, recommending
the non-importation and non-consumption of all British manufactures and
West India products; and resolving, also, that they would not export any
provisions, lumber, or other products, whatever, to Great Britain or any
of her colonies. These resolutions were accompanied by another, in many
of the counties of Virginia, in some of the State conventions, and,
finally, in those of the Continental Congress, in which the slave trade,
and the purchase of additional slaves, were specially referred to as
measures to be at once discontinued. These resolutions, in substance,
declare, as the sentiment of the people: That the African trade is
injurious to the colonies; that it obstructs the population of them by
freemen; that it prevents the immigration of manufacturers and other
useful emigrants from Europe from settling among them; that it is
dangerous to virtue and the welfare of the population; that it occasions
an annual increase of the balance of trade against them; that they most
earnestly wished to see an entire stop put to such a wicked, cruel, and
unlawful traffic; that they would not purchase any slaves hereafter to
be imported, nor hire their vessels, nor sell their commodities or
manufactures to those who are concerned in their importation.
From these facts it appears evident, that the primary object of all the
resolutions was to cripple the commerce of England. Those in relation to
the slave trade, especially, were expected, at once, when taken in
connection with the determination to withhold all supplies of provisions
from the West India planters--to stop the slave trade, and deprive the
British merchants of all further profits from that traffic. But it would
do more than this, as it would compel the West India planters, in a
great degree, to stop the cultivation of sugar and cotton, for export,
and force them to commence the growing of provisions for food--thus
producing ruinous consequences to British manufactures and commerce.[5]
But, in the opposition thus made to the slave trade, there is no act
warranting the conclusion that the negroes were to be admitted to a
position of equality with the whites. The sentiments expressed, with a
single exception,[6] are the reverse, and their increase viewed as an
evil. South Carolina and Georgia did not follow the example of Virginia
and North Carolina in resolving against the slave trade, but acquiesced
in the non-intercourse policy, until the grievances complained of should
be remedied. Another reason existed for opposing the slave trade; this
was the importance of preventing the increase of a population that might
be employed against the liberties of the colonies. That negroes were
thus employed, during the Revolution, is a matter of history; and that
the British hoped to use that population for their own advantage, is
clearly indicated by the language of the Earl of Dartmouth, who
declared, as a sufficient reason for turning a deaf ear to the
remonstrances of the colonists against the further importation of
slaves, that "Negroes cannot become Republicans--they will be a power in
our hands to restrain the unruly colonists."
And, now, will any one say, that the fathers of the Revolution ever
intended to declare the negro the equal of the white man, in the sense
that he was entitled to an equality of political privileges under the
constitution of the United States!
FOOTNOTES:
[2] Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. page 370.
[3] Randall's Life of Jefferson, vol. i. page 370, Note.
[4] That Mr. Jefferson was considered as having no settled plans or
views in relation to the disposal of the blacks, and that he was
disinclined to risk the disturbance of the harmony of the country for
the sake of the negro, appears evident from the opinions entertained of
him and his schemes by John Quincy Adams. After speaking of the zeal of
Mr. Jefferson, and the strong manner in which, at times, he had spoken
against slavery, Mr. Adams says: "But Jefferson had not the spirit of
martyrdom. He would have introduced a flaming denunciation of slavery
into the Declaration of Independence, but the discretion of his
colleagues struck it out. He did insert a most eloquent and impassioned
argument against it in his Notes on Virginia; but, on that very account,
the book was published almost against his will. He projected a plan of
general emancipation, in his revision of the Virginia laws, but finally
presented a plan leaving slavery precisely where it was; and, in his
Memoir, he leaves a posthumous warning to the planters that they must,
at no distant day, emancipate their slaves, or that worse will follow;
but he withheld the publication of his prophecy till he should himself
be in the grave."--_Life of J. Q. Adams, page 177, 178._
[5] See a more extended detail of the proceedings in relation to this
subject, both in England and the colonies, in the Appendix.
[6] Providence, Rhode Island.