Transcriber Note
Text emphasis is denoted as _Italics_ and =Bold=.
THE HERITAGE
_of_ THE SOUTH
A HISTORY OF
THE INTRODUCTION OF SLAVERY
ITS ESTABLISHMENT FROM COLONIAL TIMES
AND FINAL EFFECT UPON
THE POLITICS OF THE UNITED STATES
[Illustration]
_By_
JUBAL A. EARLY
MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION OF 1861
Copyright 1915
By R. H. EARLY
PRESS OF
BROWN-MORRISON CO
LYNCHBURG, VA.
Editor's Note
A review is given, in the pages following, of the causes which led to
the political issue of the '60s; an issue which will be open to argument
until, in all of its bearings, it becomes understood through familiarity
with the conditions of the past. Sentiment divorced from reason occasioned
misconception. Many causes contributed to that effect. The lack of
authentic records doubtless was one; certainly ill-advised publications
inflamed, if they did not inspire, public opinion at this critical period.
The author was actuated by the desire to correct erroneous opinion in
relation to the South. His manuscript has lain unpublished during the
passing of half a century, till passion having cooled and prejudice
abated, there is no longer reason for clash from difference of feeling
upon the subject.
The African slave trade began in the year 1442, when Anthony Gonsalez,
a Portuguese, took from the Gold Coast, ten negroes, which he carried
to Lisbon. In 1481, the Portuguese built a fort on the Gold Coast, and
as early as 1502, the Spaniards began to employ negroes in the mines of
Hispaniola. In 1517, Charles V, Emperor of Spain, granted a patent to
certain persons, for the supply of 4,000 negroes, annually, to the islands
of Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica and Porto Rico. John Hawkins, afterwards
knighted by Queen Elizabeth, got into his possession, partly by the sword
and partly by other means, 300 negroes, and sold them in the West Indies.
Hawkins' second voyage was patronized by Queen Elizabeth, who participated
in the profits; and in 1618, in the reign of James I, the British
government established a regular trade on the coast of Africa.
When negotiations for the slave traffic were first agitated, the cost to
the victim seems not to have been considered. The white man's need--or
greed--demanded sacrifice. The negro, a product of the "three-cornered
rum, slave and molasses trade" was brought to New England to a condition
offering few advantages beyond certain comforts which were to be provided
by the master who was to assume all the obligations of the position.
Wrenched from his home, separated from his people, exiled to a foreign
land, which was governed by laws maintained through penalties, the
enforced emigrant was set to labor in unaccustomed ways under uncongenial
circumstances.
The experiment of settling him in a manufacturing section proved
disadvantageous to the investor. The demand for field labor furnished a
Southern market; this occasioned his removal to that part of the country,
his aptitude for the work kept him there.
His insurrectionary spirit made his training difficult. It was a trial of
endurance for master as well as apprentice, but custom and good treatment
tamed the wild nature of the latter and converted him into an important
factor in Southern industries; to this day none other has been found to
take his place in cotton or tobacco field.
He was also a form of property, and laws were made in that connection.
That instances of abuse on the part of the owner arose was axiomatic--such
is the history of life in every sphere, and that was neither a Utopian age
nor country.
Having served its aim, the slave trade diminished, then ceased. The
attitude of those engaging in and encouraging it altered, the base
of operations changed, and there remained only the people of the
slave-holding states (upon whom now fell the responsibility of the
support of these nation wards) with any reason for interest in the
subject. Perhaps it was inevitable that diverging interest should arise to
cause the politics of the country to become affected through distrust of
those who owned that particular form of property.
Originally acquired as a necessity, the slave's value lessened and the
burden on his master increased, as other interests divided his attention.
Legislation was resorted to without success in the enactment of measures
for the abolishment of a system so firmly rooted.
In 1805, Mr. Jefferson wrote "I have given up all expectation of any
early, provision for the extinguishment of slavery among us. There are
many virtuous men who would make any sacrifices to effect it, many equally
virtuous who believe it cannot be remedied." In 1814, however, Mr.
Jefferson again urged the policy of emancipation.
That many owners were in sympathy with this proposed disposition of a
vexed problem, is manifest from the records of the courts, which show that
slaves were sent to Liberia, settled in the free states, permitted to
purchase their freedom, bequeathed land and liberty by the masters who had
held them.
A strange condition existed in the holding of slaves by free negroes.
These were to be found in nearly all of the colonies and states where
there were slaves. In some counties they were numerous, while in others
they were unknown. In certain states this condition was at times forbidden
by law, but often continued in spite of the law, tolerated or ignored; the
laws upon the subject also varied from time to time. In other states free
negroes were given the privilege of being masters by special statute or
this liberty was covered by general laws.
Certain good was accomplished by the transportation of the African savage
to a congenial clime among those who trained him to become a useful
citizen. Under the tutelage of his master, he was guided, stage by stage,
along the pathway to civilization by the law he recognized in his native
land--that of coercion--till he attained his present status. Standing
upon this vantage ground, it remains for him to work out his further
advancement and to discover the position he can maintain. In the fact that
some have made strides forward, and thus fitted themselves as leaders
of the race, lies the hope and inspiration for the rest, an encouraging
factor being the imitative faculty with which many are gifted.
Criticism today discovers that in the portrayal of the character of "Uncle
Tom" Mrs. Stowe paid a glowing tribute to the achievement of the Southern
master. Africa has not done as much for the brother left upon her soil,
nor has the foreign missionary. We may still read of such practices as
cannibalism on the western coast of the dark continent--even along the
trail of the religious enthusiast. Taking then into account what has been
accomplished, the claim that the Southern master was the most successful
missionary can easily be proved.
We have no doubt but that some cause other than the avarice of the white
man led to the rescue of the man of color from a life of ignorance and
barbarism--to his expatriation to this country of opportunity--to his
settlement under apprenticeship calculated to encourage self-helpfulness
by developing his capabilities. To this end he passed through the
probationary period of servitude.
General Early's review of the situation previous to the war, as here
presented, illustrates the point of view of the people of the South. His
attitude towards slavery took its color from his familiarity with the
institution as it existed in the homes of those to whom it had become a
natural condition of life. It was so incorporated with their daily living,
and with the traditions of generations, that they became accustomed to it
without considering the reasons for its establishment.
The author was never an investor in slaves, although he always possessed
a negro servant. One who served till age enfeebled him, was retired
on a pension. Another, cut short in his service by fatal disease, was
respectfully followed to his last resting place by the master upon whom
in health he had attended. His thoughtful care of his attendants and his
liberality when trouble overtook them, won their affection and respect.
It may be understood then that interest in slaves as property did not
enter into his defense of slavery as an institution of his country. No
selfish thought prompted the use of his pen in the exposition of the
unfairness of opinion abroad--but, imbued with a keen sense of right,
he was actuated by the desire to dissipate that injustice which took
possession of many minds--coloring their views and proving barriers to
their sympathies.
To make clear his point of view by stating the true conditions which
brought about slavery in the South and to define the relation which
existed between master and slave, was the purpose of General Early in
writing this real story of slavery as it was established in America, and
as it continued to exist in that section of which it became the heritage.
R. H. Early.
Contents
CHAPTER PAGE
I--The African Slave Trade 11
II--Origin of Slavery in the United States 16
III--Legislation on the Question of State Establishment 36
IV--Causes Leading to Secession--Secession of the Cotton States 62
V--Action of the Border Slave States--Convention of Virginia 88
VI--The Right to Withdraw 94
VII--Injurious Effect of Misinformation 110
_Come now let us reason together_
The Heritage _of the_ South
CHAPTER I
=The African Slave Trade=
The struggle for independence made by the Southern States of the American
Union, grew out of questions of self government arising mainly in regard
to the institution of African slavery as it existed in those states,
and as that institution was the occasion for the development of the
difficulties which led immediately to the struggle, the conduct of the
states lately forming the Southern Confederacy has been misunderstood,
therefore, misrepresented, with the effect of casting upon them not
only the odium of originating the war but even for the existence and
continuance of slavery itself.
Much misapprehension has existed in the minds even of intelligent
foreigners upon these subjects and it is therefore not inappropriate
to take a retrospective view of the history of slavery in general and
especially of the slave trade and of slavery in the United States, as well
as of the questions which led to the secession of the Southern States and
to the war consequent thereon.
It is said that the Portuguese began the traffic in slaves on the coast of
Africa in the 15th century, and that at the beginning of the 16th century
negro slaves had become quite common in Portugal.
After the discovery of America, the Spaniards made slaves of the Indians
and employed them in their first settlements in the newly discovered
country, but the supply not being found sufficient and the Indians not
being very well adapted for the purpose in the tropical regions, negro
slaves were introduced from Africa--the first being imported into
Hispaniola (St. Domingo), in the year 1503. The example of Spain in regard
to the use of negro slaves in her American Colonies was followed by all
the other nations of Europe, who undertook the colonization of the newly
found continent and islands, to-wit: the Portuguese, English, French,
Dutch, Danes and Swedes.
Sir John Hawkins, an English admiral and adventurer, was the first
Englishman known to have engaged in the African slave trade, and he
carried his first cargo to the Spanish West India islands about the
year 1562. Report says that Queen Elizabeth became a partner in and
shared the profits of his subsequent voyages in the prosecution of the
trade. From that time the African slave trade became a regular branch of
English commerce, and was conducted in its first stages principally under
monopolies granted to companies, in the profits of which members of the
Royal family, noblemen, courtiers and churchmen, as well as merchants,
shared, as was the practice in those days in all important branches of
commerce.
From the restriction under Charles II, the African trade, including that
in slaves, was monopolized by the "_Royal African Company_" for a number
of years; and that company built and established, on the coast of Africa,
forts and factories for the purpose of facilitating and protecting the
trade; but in the year 1698, the slave trade was thrown open to private
traders, upon the payment to the company of a certain percentage towards
the support of its forts and factories.
The growing demand in Europe for colonial products now gave a new impulse
to the slave trade, and its profits were very great. It was not only
recognized by the government, but was sustained by the universal public
sentiment in England, and was fostered and cherished by Parliament as a
lucrative traffic.
In the year 1713, by the treaty of Utrecht, the _Assiento_, a contract
originally entered into by the Spanish government with a company of French
merchants for a monopoly by the latter of the trade in slaves to Spanish
America, was assigned to the South Sea Company. By the terms of this
contract 4,800 negro slaves were to be furnished to the Spanish colonies
annually for thirty years, the company being privileged to introduce as
many more as could be sold.
In this company Queen Anne and the King of Spain became stockholders, as
did a large portion of the nobility, gentry, churchmen, and merchants
of England. England thus sought a monopoly of the entire slave trade,
at least so far as her own and the Spanish colonies were concerned. The
exclusive privileges granted to the Royal African Company having expired,
in the year 1750 the British Government undertook to maintain the forts
and factories on the African coast at its own expense, and the slave trade
was thrown open to free competition on the part of its citizens. A great
increase of the trade now took place, and England had become the leading
nation in that trade, which was carried on chiefly from the ports of
Bristol and Liverpool, but other ports including that of London shared in
it--the West Indies furnishing the principal market, but a considerable
number were also introduced into the colonies of North America.
In the meantime the Puritan settlers in New England, under the allurements
of the high profits of the trade, had been tempted to engage in it from
the time of the earliest settlements there, which they did by evading
the monopolies and restrictions in favor of English merchants, and as
New England rum was mainly used in the traffic, by the Puritans, the
Parliament of Great Britain had, at the instance of English merchants,
passed an act, called the "Molasses Act" imposing duties on molasses,
sugar and rum imported into the colonies from the French and Dutch West
Indies, for the purpose of preventing interference with the English trade
in slaves.
Numerous acts of the colonial legislatures imposing duties on the
importation of slaves, had also been vetoed or repealed by royal
proclamation, because they were regarded and styled "impediments to
British commerce not to be favoured," and all such acts continued to be
vetoed and repealed down to the time of the American Revolution, except
in the solitary case of Virginia, when, after repeated acts imposing such
duties had been vetoed or repealed, privilege was finally given to the
colonial legislature in 1734, to impose a duty to be paid by the colonial
_purchaser_ and not the English _seller_.
But it was not by fostering the slave trade and prosecuting any
restrictions on it, only, that the British government made itself
responsible for African slavery in its American colonies. In the year 1730
seven of the principal Cherokee Chiefs from the unsettled country west
of South Carolina, were carried to England by Sir Alexander Cumming, and
while there they were induced to enter into a treaty with the Board of
Trade then having charge of colonial affairs, by which provision was made
for the return to their owners, by the Indians, of all runaway slaves; and
in the year 1732, an act of parliament was passed "for the more speedy
recovery of debts in America" by English creditors, among the provisions
of which was one subjecting slaves to execution in judgments for all
demands. While England thus became so identified with the introduction of
African slavery into America, all the commercial nations of Europe were
likewise implicated in the trade; and if England took the lead in it, that
fact was owing to the superior intelligence and energy of her merchants
and traders, and not to any qualms of conscience on the part of other
nations.
In fact during the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, until towards the close
of the latter, when a very few "philanthropists" appeared, there was no
sentiment in any Christian or unchristian country which regarded the
reduction of the negroes of Africa to slavery as opposed to moral right or
religious duty, or in any other light than as a blessing to the negroes
themselves and a great benefit to their owners.
It is a fact, not undeserving of notice, in reviewing the conduct of
England in forcing African slaves upon her American colonies, that during
the whole period from the settlement to the revolt of those colonies, all
trade with them to and from Ireland was absolutely forbidden, and hence it
is that the Irish formed so inconsiderable an element in their population
previous to the Revolution. The native Irish were then regarded by their
rulers as having but few more rights than the negroes of Africa.
* * * * *
Having thus briefly shown the origin and progress of the slave trade, I
will now trace the settlement of the colonies, which afterwards became the
United States, and the introduction of slavery into them.