"II. And whereas it appears just and reasonable that all

persons enlisted as aforesaid, who have faithfully served

agreeable to the terms of their enlistment, and have thereby

of course contributed towards the establishment of American

liberty and independence, should enjoy the blessings of

freedom as a reward for their toils and labours; _Be it

therefore enacted_, That each and every slave who by the

appointment and direction of his owner, hath enlisted in any

regiment or corps raised within this state, either on

continental or state establishment, and hath been received

as a substitute for any free person whose duty or lot it was

to serve in such regiment or corps, and hath served

faithfully during the term of such enlistment, or hath been

discharged from such service by some officer duly authorized

to grant such discharge, shall from and after the passing of

this act, be fully and compleatly emancipated, and shall be

held and deemed free in as full and ample a manner as if

each and every of them were specially named in this act; and

the attorney-general for the commonwealth, is hereby

required to commence an action, _in forma pauperis_, in

behalf of any of the persons above described who shall after

the passing of this act be detained in servitude by any

person whatsoever; and if upon such prosecution it shall

appeal that the pauper is entitled to his freedom in

consequence of this act, a jury shall be empanelled to

assess the damages for his detention."[626]

New York enlisted her Negro soldiers under a statutory promise of

freedom. They were required to serve three years, or until regularly

discharged. Several other States emancipated a few slaves who had

served faithfully in the army; and the recital of the noble deeds of

black soldiers was listened to with great interest, had an excellent

effect upon many white men after the war, and went far towards

mollifying public sentiment on the slavery question.

If Massachusetts were ever moved by the valor of her black soldiers to

take any action recognizing their services, the record has not been

found up to the present time. After commemorating the 5th of March for

a long time, as a day on which to inflame the public zeal for the

cause of freedom, her Legislature refused to mark the grave of the

first martyr of the Revolution, Crispus Attucks!

Slavery flourished during the entire Revolutionary period. It enjoyed

the silent acquiescence of the pulpit, the support of the public

journals, the sanction of the courts, and the endorsement of the

military establishment. In a free land (?), under the flag of the

government Negroes fought, bled, sacrificed, and died to establish,

slavery held undisputed sway. The colonial government, built by the

cruel and voracious avarice of Britain, crumbled under the

master-stroke of men who desired political and religious liberty more

than jewelled crowns; but the slave institution stood unharmed by the

shock of embattled arms. The colonists asked freedom for themselves

and children, but forged chains for Negroes and their children. And

while a few individual Negro slaves were made a present of themselves

at the close of the war, on account of their gallant service, hundreds

of thousands of their brethren were still retained in bondage

FOOTNOTES:

[622] See Slavery in Mass., p. 178.

[623] House Journal, pp. 19, 25.

[624] Mass. Archives; Revolutionary Resolves, vol. vii. p. 133.

[625] Hening, vol. ix. p. 226.

[626] Hening, vol. xi pp. 308, 309.

CHAPTER XXXI.

SLAVERY AS A POLITICAL AND LEGAL PROBLEM.

1775-1800.

BRITISH COLONIES IN NORTH AMERICA DECLARE THEIR

INDEPENDENCE.--A NEW GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED.--SLAVERY THE

BANE OF AMERICAS CIVILIZATION.--THE TORY PARTY ACCEPT THE

DOCTRINE OF PROPERTY IN MAN.--THE DOCTRINE OF THE LOCAL

CONSTITUTION IN THE SOUTH.--THE WAR PARTY THE DOMINANT

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE NORTHERN STATES.--SLAVERY

RECOGNIZED UNDER THE NEW GOVERNMENT.--ANTI SLAVERY AGITATION

IN THE STATES.--ATTEMPTED LEGISLATION AGAINST

SLAVERY.--ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION.--THEIR ADOPTION IN

1778.--DISCUSSION CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF THE WESTERN

TERRITORY.--MR. JEFFERSON'S RECOMMENDATION--AMENDMENT OF MR.

SPAIGHT.--CONGRESS IN NEW YORK IN 1787.--DISCUSSION

RESPECTING THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN

TERRITORY.--CONVENTION AT PHILADELPHIA TO FRAME THE FEDERAL

CONSTITUTION.--PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONVENTION.--THE SOUTHERN

STATES STILL ADVOCATE SLAVERY.--SPEECHES ON THE SLAVERY

QUESTION BY LEADING STATESMEN.--CONSTITUTION ADOPTED BY THE

CONVENTION IN 1787.--FIRST SESSION OF CONGRESS UNDER THE

FEDERAL CONSTITUTION HELD IN NEW YORK IN 1789.--THE

INTRODUCTION OF A TARIFF BILL.--AN ATTEMPT TO AMEND IT BY

INSERTING A CLAUSE LEVYING A TAX ON SLAVES BROUGHT BY

WATER.--EXTINCTION OF SLAVERY IN MASSACHUSETTS.--A CHANGE IN

THE PUBLIC OPINION OF THE MIDDLE AND EASTERN STATES ON THE

SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.--DR. BENJAMIN FRANKLIN'S ADDRESS TO THE

PUBLIC FOR PROMOTING THE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY.--MEMORIAL TO

THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS.--CONGRESS IN 1790.--BITTER

DISCUSSION ON THE RESTRICTION OF THE SLAVE TRADE.--SLAVE

POPULATION.--VERMONT AND KENTUCKY ADMITTED INTO THE

UNION.--A LAW PROVIDING FOR THE RETURN OF FUGITIVES FROM

'LABOR AND SERVICE.--CONVENTION OF FRIENDS HELD IN

PHILADELPHIA.--AN ACT AGAINST THE FOREIGN SLAVE

TRADE.--MISSOURI TERRITORY.--CONSTITUTION OF GEORGIA

REVISED.--NEW YORK PASSES A BILL FOR THE GRADUAL EXTINCTION

OF SLAVERY.--CONSTITUTION OF KENTUCKY REVISED.--SLAVERY AS

AN INSTITUTION FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.

The charge that the mother-country forced slavery upon the British

colonies in North America held good until the colonies threw off the

yoke, declared their independence, and built a new government, on the

4th of July, 1776. After the promulgation of the gospel of human

liberty, the United States of America could no longer point to England

as the "first man Adam" of the accursed sin of slavery. Henceforth the

American government, under the new dispensation of peace and the

equality of all men, was responsible for the continuance of slavery,

both as a political and legal problem

Slavery did not escheat to the English government upon the expiration

of its authority in North America. It became the dreadful inheritance

of the new government, and the eyesore of American civilization.

Instead of expelling it from the political institutions of the

country, it gradually became a factor of great power. Instead of

ruling it out of the courts, it was clothed with the ample garments of

judicial respectability.

The first article of the immortal Declaration of Independence was a

mighty shield of beautifully wrought truths, that the authors intended

should protect every human being on the American Continent.

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident:--that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with

certain inalienable rights; that among these are life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these

rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their

just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever

any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it

is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to

institute a new government, laying its foundation on such

principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to

them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and

happiness_."

It was to be expected, that, after such a declaration of principles,

the United States would have abolished slavery and the slave-trade

forever. While the magic words of the Declaration of Independence were

not the empty "palaver" of a few ambitious leaders, yet the practices

of the local and the national government belied the grand sentiments

of that instrument. From the earliest moment of the birth of the

United-States government, slavery began to receive political support

and encouragement. Though it was the cruel and depraved offspring of

the British government, it nevertheless was adopted by the _free

government_ of America. Political policy seemed to dictate the methods

of a political recognition of the institution. And the fact that the

slave-trade was prohibited by Congress at an early day, and by many of

the colonies also, did not affect the institution in a local sense.

The Tory party accepted the doctrine of property in man, without

hesitation or reservation. Their political fealty to the Crown, their

party exclusiveness, and their earnest desire to co-operate with the

Royal African Company in the establishment of the slave institution in

America, made them, as per necessity, the political guardians of

slavery. The institution once planted, property in man having been

acquired, it was found to be a difficult task to uproot it. Moreover,

the loss of the colonies to the British Crown did not imply death to

the Tory party. It doubtless suffered organically; but its individual

members did not forfeit their political convictions, nor suffer their

interest in the slave-trade to abate. The new States were ambitious to

acquire political power. The white population of the South was small

when compared with that of the North; but the slave population, added

to the former, swelled it to alarming proportions.

The local governments of the South had been organized upon the

fundamental principles of the Locke Constitution. The government was

lodged with the few, and their rights were built upon landed estates

and political titles and favors. Slaves in the Carolinas and Virginias

answered to the vassals and villeins of England. This aristocratic

element in Tory politics was in harmony, even in a republic, with the

later wish of the South to build a great political "government upon

Slavery as its chief corner-stone." Added to this was the desire to

abrogate the law of indenture of white servants, and thus to the odium

of slavery to loan the powerful influence of caste,--ranging the

Caucasian against the Ethiopian, the intelligent against the ignorant,

the strong against the weak.

New England had better ideas of popular government for and of the

people, but her practical position on slavery was no better than any

State in the South. The Whig party was the dominant political

organization throughout the Northern States; but the universality of

slavery made dealers in human flesh members of all parties.

The men who wrote the Declaration of Independence deprecated slavery,

as they were pronounced Whigs; but nevertheless many of them owned

slaves. They wished the evil exterminated, but confessed themselves

ignorant of a plan by which to carry their desire into effect. The

good desires of many of the people, born out of the early days of the

struggle for independent existence, perished in their very infancy;

and, as has been shown, all the States, and the Congress of the United

States, recognized slavery as existing under the new political

government.

But public sentiment changes in a country where the intellect is

unfettered. First, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, Congress and

nearly all the States pronounced against slavery; a few years later

they all recognized the sacredness of slave property; and still later

all sections of the United States seemed to have been agitated by

anti-slavery sentiments. In 1780 the Legislature of Pennsylvania

prohibited the further introduction of slaves, and gave freedom to the

children of all slaves born in the State. Delaware resolved "that no

person hereafter imported from Africa ought to be held in slavery

under any pretense whatever." In 1784 Connecticut and Rhode Island

modified their slave-code, and forbade further importations of slaves.

In 1778 Virginia passed a law prohibiting the importation of slaves,

and in 1782 repealed the law that confined the power of emancipating

to the Legislature, only on account of meritorious conduct. Private

emancipations became very numerous, and the sentiment in its favor

pronounced. But the restriction was re-enacted in about ten years. The

eloquence of Patrick Henry and the logic of Thomas Jefferson went far

to enlighten public sentiment; but the political influence of the

institution grew so rapidly that in 1785, but two years after the war,

Washington wrote LaFayette, "petitions for the abolition of slavery,

presented to the Virginia Legislature, could scarcely obtain a

hearing." Maryland, New York, and New Jersey prohibited the

slave-trade; but the institution held its place among the people until

1830. North Carolina attempted to prohibit in 1777, but-failed; but in

1786 declared the slave-trade "_of evil consequences and highly

impolitic_." South Carolina and Georgia refused to act, and the

slave-trade continued along their shores.

After the adoption of the Articles of Confederation in 1778, the

Continental Congress found itself charged with the responsibility of

deciding the conflicting claims of the various States to the vast

territory stretching westward from the Ohio River. The war over, the

payment of the public debt thus incurred demanded the consideration of

the people and of their representatives. Massachusetts, Connecticut,

New York, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia laid claim to

boundless tracts of lands outside of their State boundaries. But New

Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and South

Carolina, making no such claims, and lacking the resources to pay

their share of the war debt, suggested that the other States should

cede all the territory outside of their State lines, to the United

States Government, to be used towards liquidating the entire debt. The

proposition was accepted by the States named; but not, however,

without some modification. Virginia reserved a large territory beyond

the Ohio with which to pay the bounties of her soldiers, while

Connecticut retained a portion of the Reserve since so famous in the

history of Ohio. The duty of framing an ordinance for the government

of the Western territory was referred to a select committee by

Congress, consisting of Mr. Jefferson of Virginia (chairman), Mr.

Chase of Maryland, and Mr. Howell of Rhode Island. The plan reported

by the committee contemplated the whole region included within our

boundaries west of the old thirteen States, and as far south as our

thirty-first degree north latitude. The plan proposed the ultimate

division of this territory into seventeen States; eight of which were

to be located below the parallel of the Falls of the Ohio (now

Louisville), and nine above it. But the most interesting rule reported

by Mr. Jefferson was the following, on the 19th of April, 1784:--

"That after the year 1800, of the Christian era, there shall

be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any part of

the said _states_, otherwise than in punishment of crimes,

whereof the part shall have been convicted to be personally

guilty."

Mr. Spaight of North Carolina moved to amend the report by striking

out the above clause, which was seconded by Mr. Reed of South

Carolina. The question, upon a demand for the yeas and nays, was put:

"Shall the words moved to be stricken out stand?" The question was

lost, and the words were stricken out. The ordinance was further

amended, and finally adopted on the 23d of April

The last Continental Congress was held in the city of New York in

1787. The question of the government of the Western territory came up.

A committee was appointed on this subject, with Nathan Dane of

Massachusetts as chairman On the 11th of July the committee reported

"An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United

States, _Northwest of the Ohio_." It embodied many of the features of

Mr. Jefferson's bill, concluding with six unalterable articles of

perpetual compact, the last being the following: "There shall be

neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory,

otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the parties shall be

duly convicted." When upon its passage, a stipulation was added for

the delivery of fugitives from "labor or service:"[627] and in this

shape the entire ordinance passed on the 13th of July, 1787.

Thus it is clear that under the Confederation slavery existed, a part

of the political government, as a legal fact. There was no effort made

by Congress to abolish it. Mr. Jefferson simply sought to arrest its

progress, and confine it to the original thirteen States.

On the 25th of May, 1787, the convention to frame the Federal

Constitution met at Philadelphia, although the day appointed was the

14th. George Washington was chosen president, a committee chosen to

report rules of proceeding, and a secretary appointed. The sessions

were held with closed doors, and all the proceedings were secret. It

contained the most eminent men in the United States,--generals of the

army, statesmen, lawyers, and men of broad scholarship. The question

of congressional apportionment was early before them, and there was

great diversity of opinion. But, as there was no census, therefore

there could be no just apportionment until an enumeration of the

people was taken. Until that was accomplished, the number of delegates

was fixed at sixty-five. Massachusetts was the only State in the Union

where slavery did not exist. The Northern States desired

representation according to the free inhabitants only; while all of

the Southern States, where the great mass of slaves was, wanted

representation according to the entire population, bond and free. Some

of the Northern delegates urged their view with great force and

eloquence. Mr. Patterson of New Jersey said he regarded slaves as mere

property. They were not represented in the States: why should they be

in the general government? They were not allowed to vote: why should

they be represented? He regarded it as an encouragement to the

slave-trade. Mr. Wilson of Pennsylvania said, "Are they admitted as

citizens? then, why not on an equality with citizens? Are they

admitted as property? then, why is not other property admitted into

the computation?" It was evident that neither extreme view could

carry: so the proposition carried to reckon three-fifths of the slaves

in estimating taxes, and to make taxation the basis of representation.

New Jersey and Delaware voted Nay; Massachusetts and South Carolina

were divided; and New York was not represented, her delegates having

failed to arrive.

It was apparent during the early stages of the debates, that a

constitution had to be made that would be acceptable to the Southern

delegates. A clause was inserted relieving the Southern States from

duties on exports, and upon the importation of slaves; and that no

navigation act should be passed except by a two-thirds vote. By

denying Congress the authority of giving preference to American over

foreign shipping, it was designed to secure cheap transportation for

Southern exports; but, as the shipping was largely owned in the

Eastern States, their delegates were zealous in their efforts to

prevent any restriction of the power of Congress to enact navigation

laws. It has been already shown that all the States, with the

exception of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, had

prohibited the importation of slaves. The prohibition of duties on the

importation of slaves was demanded by the delegates from South

Carolina and Georgia. They assured the Convention that without such a

provision they could never give their assent to the constitution. This

declaration dragooned some Northern delegates into a support of the

restriction, but provoked some very plain remarks concerning slavery.

Mr. Pinckney said, that, "If the Southern States were let alone, they

would probably of themselves stop importations. He would himself, as a

citizen of South Carolina, vote for it."

Mr. Sherman remarked that "the abolition of slavery seemed to be going

on in the United States, and that the good sense of the several states

would probably by degrees complete it;" and Mr. Ellsworth thought that

"slavery, in time, will not be a speck in our country." Mr. Madison

said "he thought it _wrong_ to admit in the Constitution the idea of

property in men."

Slavery, notwithstanding the high-sounding words just quoted, was

recognized in and by three separate clauses of the Constitution The

word "slave" was excluded, but the language does not admit of any

doubt.

"Art. I. Sect. 2.... Representatives and direct taxes shall

be apportioned among the several States which may be

included within this Union, according to their respective

numbers; which shall be determined by adding to the whole

number of free persons, including those bound to service for

a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,

_three-fifths of all other persons.[628] ..._

"Art I. Sect. 9. The migration or importation of such

_persons_ as any of the States now existing shall think

proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress

prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight; but

a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not

exceeding ten dollars for each person....

"Art. IV. Sect. 2.... No _person_ held to service or labor

in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,

shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be

discharged from such service or labor, but shall be

delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or

labor may be due."

The debate on the above was exciting and interesting, as the subject

of slavery was examined in all its bearings. Finally the Constitution

was submitted to Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, to receive the

finishing touches of his facile pen. On the 8th of August, 1787,

during the debate, he delivered the following speech:--

"He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was

a nefarious institution. It was the curse of Heaven on the

States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the

Middle States, where a rich and noble cultivation marks the

prosperity and happiness of the people, with the misery and

poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Virginia,

Maryland, and the other States having slaves. Travel through

the whole continent, and you behold the prospect continually

varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery.

The moment you leave the Eastern States, and enter New York,

the effects of the institution become visible. Passing

through the Jerseys, and entering Pennsylvania, every

criterion of superior improvement witnesses the change.

Proceed southwardly, and every step you take through the

great regions of slaves presents a desert, increasing with

the increasing proportion of these wretched beings. Upon

what principle it is that the slaves shall be computed in

the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens,

and let them vote. Are they property? Why, then, is no other

property included? The houses in this city (Philadelphia)

are worth more than all the wretched slaves who cover the

rice-swamps of South Carolina. The admission of slaves into

the representation, when fairly explained, comes to

this,--that the inhabitant of Georgia and South Carolina,

who goes to the coast of Africa, and, in defiance of the

most sacred laws of humanity, tears away his

fellow-creatures from their dearest connections, and damns

them to the most cruel bondage, shall have more votes in a

government instituted for the protection of the rights of

mankind than the citizen of Pennsylvania or New Jersey, who

views with a laudable horror so nefarious a practice. He

would add, that domestic slavery is the most prominent

feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed

Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the

favorite offspring of aristocracy. And what is the proposed

compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every

principle of right, of every impulse of humanity? They are

to bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of

the Southern States, for their defence against those very

slaves of whom they complain. They must supply vessels and

seamen in case of foreign attack. The Legislature will have

indefinite power to tax them by excises and duties on

imports, both of which will fall heavier on them than on the

Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used by a Northern

freeman will pay more tax than the whole consumption of the

miserable slave, which consists of nothing more than his

physical subsistence and the rag that covers his nakedness.

On the other side, the Southern States are not to be

restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched

Africans, at once to increase the danger of attack and the

difficulty of defence: nay, they are to be encouraged to it

by an assurance of having their votes in the National

Government increased in proportion: and are, it the same

time, to have their exports and their slaves exempt from all

contributions for the public service. Let it not be said

that direct taxation is to be proportioned to

representation. It is idle to suppose that the General

Government can stretch its hand directly into the pockets of

the people scattered over so vast a country. They can only

do it through the medium of exports, imports, and excises.

For what, then, are all the sacrifices to be made? He would

sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all the

negroes in the United States than saddle posterity with such

a Constitution."[629]

Mr. Rufus King of Massachusetts in the same debate said,--

"The admission of slaves was a most grating circumstance to

his mind, and he believed would be so to a great part of the

people of America. He had not made a strenuous opposition to

it heretofore, because he had hoped that this concession

would have produced a readiness, which had not been

manifested, to strengthen the General Government, and to

mark a full confidence in it. The report under consideration

had, by the tenor of it, put an end to all those hopes. In

two great points, the hands of the Legislature were

absolutely tied. The importation of slaves could not be

prohibited. Exports could not be taxed. Is this reasonable?

What are the great objects of the general system? First,

defence against foreign invasion; secondly, against internal

sedition. Shall all the States, then, be bound to defend

each, and shall each be at liberty to introduce a weakness

which will render defence more difficult? Shall one part of

the United States be bound to defend another part, and that

other part be at liberty, not only to increase its own

danger, but to withhold the compensation for the burden? If

slaves are to be imported, shall not the exports produced by

their labor supply a revenue, the better to enable the

General Government to defend their masters? There was so

much inequality and unreasonableness in all this, that the

people of the Northern States could never be reconciled to

it. No candid man could undertake to justify it to them. He

had hoped that some accommodation would have taken place on

this subject; that, at least, a time would have been limited

for the importation of slaves. He never could agree to let

them be imported without limitation, and then be represented

in the National Legislature. Indeed, he could so little

persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that

he was not sure he could assent to it under any

circumstances. At all events, either slaves should not be

represented, or exports should be taxable."

Mr. Roger Sherman of Connecticut,--

"Regarded the slave-trade as iniquitous: but the point of

representation having been settled after much difficulty and

deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make

opposition; especially as the present article, as amended,

did not preclude any arrangement whatever on that point, in

another place of the report."[630]

Mr. Luther Martin of Maryland, in the debate, Tuesday, Aug. 21,--

"Proposed to vary Art. 7, Sect. 4, so as to allow a

prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. In the

first place, as five slaves are to be counted as three free

men in the apportionment of representatives, such a clause

would leave an encouragement to this traffic. In the second

place, slaves weakened one part of the Union, which the

other parts were bound to protect: the privilege of

importing them was therefore unreasonable. And, in the third

place, it was inconsistent with the principles of the

Revolution, and dishonorable to the American character, to

have such a feature in the Constitution.

"Mr. RUTLEDGE did not see how the importation of slaves

could be encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive

of insurrections, and would readily exempt the other States

from the obligation to protect the Southern against them.

Religion and humanity had nothing to do with this question:

interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The

true question at present is, whether the Southern States

shall or shall not be parties to the Union. If the Northern

States consult their interest, they will not oppose the

increase of slaves, which will increase the commodities of

which they will become the carriers.

"Mr. ELLSWORTH was for leaving the clause as it stands. Let

every State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom

of slavery are considerations belonging to the States

themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole, and the

States are the best judges of their particular interest. The

old Confederation had not meddled with this point; and he

did not see any greater necessity for bringing it within the

policy of the new one.

"Mr. PINCKNEY. South Carolina can never receive the plan if

it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of

the powers of Congress, that State has expressly and

watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of

Negroes, _If the States be all left at liberty on this

subject, South Carolina may perhaps, by degrees, do of

herself what is wished, as Virginia and Maryland have

already done_.

"Adjourned.

"WEDNESDAY, Aug. 22.

"_In Convention_.--Art. 7, Sect. 4, was resumed.

"Mr. SHERMAN was for leaving the clause as it stands. He

disapproved of the slave-trade; yet, as the States were now

possessed of the right to import slaves, as the public good

did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was

expedient to have as few objections as possible to the

proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave

the matter as we find it. ... He urged on the Convention the

necessity of despatching its business.

"Col. MASON. This infernal traffic originated in the avarice

of British merchants. The British Government constantly

checked the attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The

present question concerns, not the importing States alone,

but the whole Union. The evil of having slaves was

experienced during the late war. Had slaves been treated as

they might have been by the enemy, they would have proved

dangerous instruments in their hands. But their folly dealt

by the slaves as it did by the Tories. He mentioned the

dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily,

and the instructions given by Cromwell to the commissioners

sent to Virginia,--to arm the servants and slaves, in case

other means of obtaining its submission should fail.

Maryland and Virginia, he said, had already prohibited the

importation of slaves expressly. North Carolina had done the

same in substance. All this would be in vain, if South

Carolina and Georgia be at liberty to import. The Western

people are already calling out for slaves for their new

lands; and will fill that country with slaves, if they can

be got through South Carolina and Georgia. Slavery

discourages arts and manufactures. The poor despise labor

when performed by slaves. They prevent the emigration of

whites, who really enrich and strengthen a country. _They

produce the most pernicious effect on manners. Every master

of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of

heaven on a country. As nations cannot be rewarded or

punished in the next world, they must be in this. By an

inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes

national sins by national calamities_. He lamented that some

of our Eastern brethren had, from a lust of gain, embarked

in this nefarious traffic. As to the States being in

possession of the right to import, this was the case with

many other rights, now to be properly given up. He held it

essential, in every point of view, that the General

Government should have power to prevent the increase of

slavery.

"Mr. ELLSWORTH, as he had never owned a slave, could not

judge of the effects of slavery on character. He said,

however, that, if it was to be considered in a moral light,

we ought to go further, and free those already in the

country. As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia and

Maryland, that it is cheaper to raise than import them,

whilst in the sickly rice-swamps foreign supplies are

necessary, if we go no further than is urged, we shall be

unjust towards South Carolina and Georgia. Let us not

intermeddle. As population increases, poor laborers will be

so plenty as to render slaves useless. _Slavery, in time,

will not be a speck in our county_. Provision is already

made in Connecticut for abolishing it; and the abolition has

already taken place in Massachusetts. As to the danger of

insurrections from foreign influence, that will become a

motive to kind treatment of the slaves.

"Gen. PINCKNEY declared it to be his firm opinion, that if

himself and all his colleagues were to sign the

Constitution, and use their personal influence, it would be

of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their

constituents. South Carolina and Georgia cannot do without

slaves. As to Virginia, she will gain more by stopping the

importations. Her slaves will rise in value, and she has

more than she wants. It would be unequal to require South

Carolina and Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms.

He said, the royal assent, before the Revolution, had never

been refused to South Carolina as to Virginia. He contended,

that the importation of slaves would be for the interest of

the whole Union. The more slaves, the more produce to employ

the carrying-trade: the more consumption also; and, the more

of this, the more revenue for the common treasury. He

admitted it to be reasonable, that slaves should be dutied

like other imports; but should consider a rejection of the

clause as an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union.

"Mr. BALDWIN had conceived national objects alone to be

before the Convention: not such as, like the present, were

of a local nature. Georgia was decided on this point. That

State has always hitherto supposed a General Government to

be the pursuit of the Central States, who wished to have a

vortex for every thing; that her distance would preclude

her from equal advantage; and that she could not prudently

purchase it by yielding national powers. From this it might

be understood in what light she would view an attempt to

abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. _If left to

herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil_. As one

ground for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect

of ----, which, he said, was a respectable class of people,

who carried their ethics beyond the mere _equality of

men_,--extending their humanity to the claims of the whole

animal creation.

"Mr. WILSON observed, that, _if South Carolina and Georgia

were themselves disposed to get rid of the importation of

slaves in a short time, as had been suggested, they would

never refuse to unite because the importation might be

prohibited_. As the section now stands, all articles

imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt. This is,

in fact, a bounty on that article.

"Mr. GERRY thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of

the States as to slaves, but ought to be careful not to give

any sanction to it.

"Mr. DICKINSON considered it as inadmissible, on every

principle of honor and safety, that the importation of

slaves should be authorized to the States by the

Constitution. The true question was, whether the national

happiness would be promoted or impeded by the importation;

and this question ought to be left to the National

Government, not to the States particularly interested. If

England and France permit slavery, slaves are, at the same

time, excluded from both those kingdoms. Greece and Rome

were made unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that

the Southern States would refuse to confederate on the

account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely

to be immediately exercised by the General Government.

"Mr. WILLIAMSON stated the law of North Carolina on the

subject; to wit, that it did not directly prohibit the

importation of slaves. It imposed a duty of £5 on each slave

imported from Africa, £10 on each from elsewhere, and £50 on

each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the

Southern States could not be members of the Union, if the

clause should be rejected: and it was wrong to force any

thing down not absolutely necessary, and which any State

must disagree to.

"Mr. KING thought the subject should be considered in a

political light only. If two States will not agree to the

Constitution, as stated on one side, he could affirm with

equal belief, on the other, that great and equal opposition

would be experienced from the other States. He remarked on

the exemption of slaves from duty, whilst every other import

was subjected to it, as an inequality that could not fail to

strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle

States.

"Mr. LANGDON was strenuous for giving the power to the

General Government. He could not, with a good conscience,

leave it with the States, who could then go on with the

traffic, without being restrained by the opinions here

given, _that they will themselves cease to import slaves_.

"Gen. PINCKNEY thought himself bound to declare candidly,

that he did not think South Carolina would stop her

importations of slaves in any short time; but only stop them

occasionally, as she now does. He moved to commit the

clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal tax

with other imports, which he thought right, and which would

remove one difficulty that had been started.

"Mr. RUTLEDGE. If the Convention thinks that North Carolina,

South Carolina, and Georgia will ever agree to the plan,

unless their right to import slaves be untouched, the

expectation is vain. The people of those States will never

be such fools as to give up so important an interest. He was

strenuous against striking out the section, and seconded the

motion of Gen. Pinckney for a commitment.

"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS wished the whole subject to be

committed, including the clauses relating to taxes on export

and to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain

among the Northern and Southern States.

"Mr. BUTLER declared, that he never would agree to the power

of taxing exports.

"Mr. SHERMAN said it was better to let the Southern States

import slaves than to part with them, if they made that a

_sine qua non_. He was opposed to a tax on slaves imported,

as making the matter worse, because it implied they were

_property_. He acknowledged, that, if the power of

prohibiting the importation should be given to the General

Government, it would be exercised. He thought it would be

its duty to exercise the power.

'Mr. READ was for the commitment, provided the clause

concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.

"Mr. SHERMAN observed, that that clause had been agreed to,

and therefore could not be committed.

"Mr. RANDOLPH was for committing, in order that some middle

ground might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to

the clause as it stands. He would sooner risk the

Constitution. He dwelt on the dilemma to which the

Convention was exposed. By agreeing to the clause, it would

revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many others in the

States having no slaves. On the other hand, two States might

be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the chance

of a commitment."[631]

Three days later (Saturday, Aug. 25) the debate on the subject was

resumed, and the report of the committee of eleven was taken up. It

was in the following words:--

"Strike out so much of the fourth section as was referred to

the Committee, and insert 'The migration or importation of

such persons as the several States, now existing, think

proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Legislature

prior to the year 1800; but a tax or duty may be imposed on

such migration or importation, at a rate not exceeding the

average of the duties laid on imports.'

* * * * *

"Gen. PINCKNEY moved to strike out the words 'the year

eighteen hundred' as the year limiting the importation of

slaves, and to insert the words 'the year eighteen hundred

and eight.'

"Mr. GORHAM seconded the motion.

"Mr. MADISON. Twenty years will produce all the mischief

that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves.

So long a term will be more dishonorable to the American

character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.

"On the motion, which passed in the affirmative,--

"New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay,--7, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no,--4.

"Mr. GOUVERNOUR MORRIS was for making the clause read at

once,--

"'The importation of slaves into North Carolina, South

Carolina, and Georgia, shall not be prohibited,' &c. This,

he said, would be most fair, and would avoid the ambiguity

by which, under the power with regard to naturalization, the

liberty reserved to the States might be defeated. He wished

it to be known, also, that this part of the Constitution was

a compliance with those States. If the change of language,

however, should be objected to by the members from those

States, he should not urge it.

"Col. MASON was not against using the term 'slaves,' but

against naming North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia,

lest it should give offence to the people of those States.

"Mr. SHERMAN liked a description better than the terms

proposed, which had been declined by the old Congress, and

were not pleasing to some people.

"Mr. CLYMER concurred with Mr. Sherman.

"Mr. WILLIAMSON said, that, both in opinion and practice, he

was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of

humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in South

Carolina and Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them

from the Union.

"Mr. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS withdrew his motion.

"Mr. DICKINSON wished the clause to be confined to the

States which had not themselves prohibited the importation

of slaves; and, for that purpose, moved to amend the clause

so as to read.--

"'The importation of slaves into such of the States as shall

permit the same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature

of the United States until the year 1808;'--

"which was disagreed to, _nem. con._

"The first part of the Report was then agreed to, amended as

follows:--

"'The migration or importation of such persons as the

several States now existing shall think proper to admit

shall not be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year

1808.'

"New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North

Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, ay,--7; New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Delaware, Virginia, no,--4."[632]

* * * * *

The above specimens of the speeches on the slavery question, during

the debate, are sufficient to furnish a fair idea of the personal

opinion of the great thinkers of that time on slavery. It is clear

that it was the wish of the great majority of the Northern delegates

to abolish the institution, in a domestic as well as in a foreign

sense; but they were not strong enough to resist the temptation to

compromise their profoundest convictions on a question as broad and

far-reaching as the Union that they were met to launch anew. Thus by

an understanding, or, as Gouverneur Morris called it, "a bargain,"

between the commercial representatives of the Northern States and the

delegates of South Carolina and Georgia, and in spite of the

opposition of Maryland and Virginia, the unrestricted power of

Congress to enact navigation-laws was conceded to the Northern

merchants; and to the Carolina rice-planters, as an equivalent, twenty

years' continuance of the African slave-trade. This was the third

great "compromise" of the Constitution. The other two were the

concession to the smaller States of an equal representation in the

Senate; and, to the slaveholders, the counting three-fifths of the

slaves in determining the ratio of representation. If this third

compromise differed from the other two by involving not merely a

political but a moral sacrifice, there was this partial compensation

about it, that it was not permanent like the others, but expired, by

limitation, at the end of twenty years.[633]

The Constitution was adopted by the Convention, and signed, on the

17th of September, 1787. It was then forwarded to Congress, then in

session in New-York City, with the recommendation that that body

submit it to the State conventions for ratification; which was

accordingly done. Delaware adopted it on the 7th of December, 1787;

Pennsylvania, Dec. 12; New Jersey, Dec. 18; Georgia, Jan. 2, 1788;

Connecticut, Jan. 9; Massachusetts, Feb. 7; Maryland, April 28; South

Carolina, May 23; New Hampshire, June 21 (and, being the ninth

ratifying, gave effect to the Constitution); Virginia ratified June

27; New York, July 26. North Carolina gave a conditional ratification

on the 7th of August, but Congress did not receive it until January,

1790; nor that of Rhode Island, until June of the same year.

At the conclusion of the deliberations of the convention that framed

the Constitution, it was voted that its journal be intrusted to the

custody of George Washington. He finally deposited it in the State

Department, and it was printed in 1818 by order of Congress.

The first session of Congress, under the new Constitution, was held

in the city of New York, in 1789. A quorum was obtained on the 6th of

April; and the first measure brought up for consideration was a

tariff-bill which Mr. Parker of Virginia sought to amend by inserting

a clause levying an impost-tax of ten dollars upon every slave brought

by water. "He was sorry the Constitution prevented Congress from

prohibiting the importation altogether. It was contrary to revolution

principles, and ought not to be permitted." Thus the question of

slavery made its appearance early at the first session of the first

Congress under the present Constitution. At that time Georgia was the

only State in the Union that seemed to retain a pecuniary interest in

the importation of slaves. Even South Carolina had passed an Act

prohibiting for one year the importation of slaves. In this, as on

several occasions before, she was actuated on account of the low

prices of produce,--too low to be remunerative. But, notwithstanding

this, Mr. Smith, the member from the Charleston district, grew quite

captious over the proposition of the gentleman from Virginia. He

'Hoped that such an important and serious proposition would

not be hastily adopted. It was rather a late moment for the

first introduction of a subject so big with serious

consequences. No one topic had been yet introduced so

important to South Carolina and the welfare of the Union."

Mr. Sherman got the floor, and said he

"Approved the object of the motion, but did not think it a

fit subject to be embraced in this bill. He could not

reconcile himself to the insertion of human beings, as a

subject of impost, among goods, wares, and merchandise. He

hoped the motion would be withdrawn for the present, and

taken up afterwards as an independent subject."

Mr. Jackson of Georgia

"Was not surprised, however others might be so, at the

quarter whence this motion came. Virginia, as an old settled

State, had her complement of slaves, and the natural

increase being sufficient for her purpose, she was careless

of recruiting her numbers by importation. But gentlemen

ought to let their neighbors get supplied before they

imposed such a burden. He knew this business was viewed in

an odious light at the Eastward, because the people there

were capable of doing their own work, and had no occasion

for slaves. But gentlemen ought to have some feeling for

others. Surely they do not mean to tax us for every comfort

and enjoyment of life, and, at the same time, to take from

us the means of procuring them! He was sure, from the

unsuitableness of the motion to the business now before the

house, and the want of time to consider it, the gentleman's

candor would induce him to withdraw it. Should it ever be

brought forward again, he hoped it would comprehend the

white slaves as well as the black, imported from all the

jails of Europe; wretches convicted of the most flagrant

crimes, who were brought in and sold without any duty

whatever. They ought to be taxed equally with Africans, and

he had no doubt of the equal constitutionality and propriety

of such a course."

Mr. Parker of Virginia obtained the floor again, and proceeded to

reply to the remarks offered upon his amendment by Sherman, Jackson,

and Smith. He declared,--

"That, having introduced the motion on mature reflection, he

did not like to withdraw it. The gentleman from Connecticut

had said that human beings ought not to be enumerated with

goods, wares, and merchandise. Yet he believed they were

looked upon by African traders in that light. He hoped

Congress would do all in their power to restore to human

nature its inherent privileges; to wipe off, if possible,

the stigma under which America labored; to do away with the

inconsistence in our principles justly charged upon us; and

to show, by our actions, the pure beneficence of the

doctrine held out to the world in our Declaration of

Independence."

Mr. Ames of Massachusetts

"Detested slavery from his soul; but he had some doubts

whether imposing a duty on their importation would not have

an appearance of countenancing the practice."

Mr. Madison made an eloquent speech in support of Mr. Parker's

amendment. He said,--

"The confounding men with merchandise might be easily

avoided by altering the title of the bill; it was, in fact,

the very object of the motion to prevent men, so far as the

power of Congress extended, from being confounded with

merchandise. The clause in the Constitution allowing a tax

to be imposed, though the traffic could not be prohibited

for twenty years, was inserted, he believed, for the very

purpose of enabling Congress to give some testimony of the

sense of America with respect to the African trade. By

expressing a national disapprobation of that trade, it is to

be hoped we may destroy it, and so save ourselves from

reproaches, and our posterity from the imbecility ever

attendant on a country filled with slaves. This was as much

the interest of South Carolina and Georgia as of any other

States. Every addition they received to their number of

slaves tended to weakness, and rendered them less capable of

self-defence. In case of hostilities with foreign nations,

their slave population would be a means, not of repelling

invasions, but of inviting attack. It was the duty of the

general government to protect every part of the Union

against danger, as well internal as external. Every thing,

therefore, which tended to increase this danger, though it

might be a local affair, yet, if it involved national

expense or safety, became of concern to every part of the

Union, and a proper subject for the consideration of those

charged with the general administration of the government."

Mr. Bland approved the position taken by Mr. Madison, while Mr. Burke

of South Carolina charged the gentlemen with having wasted the time of

Congress upon a useless proposition. He contended, that, while slaves

were not mentioned in the Constitution, they would come under the

general five per cent _ad valorem_ duty on all unenumerated articles,

which would be equivalent to the proposition of the gentleman from

Virginia. Mr. Madison replied by saying, that no collector of customs

would presume to apply the terms "goods," "wares," and "merchandise"

to persons. Mr. Sherman followed him in the same strain, and denied

that persons were anywhere recognised as property in the Constitution.

Finally, at the suggestion of Mr. Madison, Mr. Parker consented to

withdraw his motion with the understanding that a separate bill should

be brought in. A committee was appointed to discharge that duty, but

the noble resolve found a quiet grave in the committee-room.

The failure of this first attempt, under the new Constitution, to

restrict slavery, did not lame the cause to any great extent. It was

rather accelerated. The manner and spirit of the debate on the subject

quickened public thought, animated the friends of the Negro, and

provoked many people to good works. Slavery had ceased to exist in

Massachusetts. Several suits, entered by slaves against their masters

for restraining their liberty, had been won. The case of Elizabeth

Freeman, better known as "Mum Bet," was regarded as the first-fruits

of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights in the new Constitution of

1780. The Duke de la Rochefoucault Laincort gives the following

interesting account of the extinction of slavery in Massachusetts:--

"In 1781, some negroes, prompted by private suggestion,

maintained that they were not slaves: they found advocates,

among whom was Mr. Sedgwick, now a member of the Senate of

the United States; and the cause was carried before the

Supreme Court. Their counsel pleaded, 1°. That no antecedent

law had established slavery, and that the laws which seemed

to suppose it were the offspring of error in the

legislators, who had no authority to enact them;--2°, That

such laws, even if they had existed, were annulled by the

new Constitution. They gained the cause under both aspects:

and the solution of this first question that was brought

forward set the negroes entirely at liberty, and at the same

time precluded their pretended owners from all claim to

indemnification, since they were proved to have possessed

and held them in slavery without any right. As there were

only a few slaves in Massachusetts, the decision passed

without opposition, and banished all further idea of

slavery."[634]

Mr. Nell gives an account of the legal death of slavery in

Massachusetts, but unfortunately does not cite any authority. John

Quincey Adams, in reply to a question put by John C. Spencer, stated

that, "a note had been given for the price of a slave in 1787. This

note was sued, and the Court ruled that the maker had received no

consideration, as a man could not be sold. From that time forward,

slavery died in the Old Bay State." There were several suits

instituted by slaves against their reputed masters in 1781-82; but

there are strong evidences that slavery died a much slower death in

Massachusetts than many are willing to admit. James Sullivan wrote to

Dr. Belknap in 1795:--

"In 1781, at the Court in Worcester County, an indictment

was found against a white man named Jennison for assaulting,

beating, and imprisoning Quock Walker, a black. He was tried

at the Supreme Judicial Court in 1783. His defence was, that

the black was his slave, and that the beating, etc., was the

necessary restraint and correction of the master. This was

answered by citing the aforesaid clause in the declaration

of rights. The judges and jury were of opinion that he had

no right to imprison or beat the negro. He was found guilty

and fined 40 shillings. This decision put an end to the idea

of slavery in Massachusetts."[635]

There are two things in the above that throw considerable uncertainty

about the subject as to the precise date of the end of slavery in the

Commonwealth. First, the suit referred to was tried in 1783, three

years after the adoption of the new Constitution. Second, the good

doctor does not say that the decision sealed the fate of slavery, but

only that it "was a mortal wound to slavery in Massachusetts."

From 1785-1790, there was a wonderful change in the public opinion of

the Middle and Eastern States on the subject of slavery. Most of them

had passed laws providing for gradual emancipation. The Friends of New

York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania began to organize a crusade against

domestic slavery. In the fall of 1789, while the Congressional debates

were still fresh in the minds of the people, the venerable Dr.

Benjamin Franklin, as president of the "Pennsylvania Society for

Promoting the Abolition of Slavery," etc., issued the following

letter:--

"AN ADDRESS TO THE PUBLIC.

_From the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition

of Slavery, and the Relief of Free Negroes unlawfully held

in Bondage_.

It is with peculiar satisfaction we assure, the friends of

humanity, that, in prosecuting the design of our

association, our endeavors have proved successful, far

beyond our most sanguine expectations.

"Encouraged by this success, and by the daily progress of

that luminous and benign spirit of liberty which is

diffusing itself throughout the world, and humbly hoping for

the continuance of the divine blessing on our labors, we

have ventured to make an important addition to our original

plan; and do therefore earnestly solicit the support and

assistance of all who can feel the tender emotions of

sympathy and compassion, or relish the exalted pleasure of

beneficence.

"Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature,

that its very extirpation, if not performed with solicitous

care, may sometimes open a source of serious evils.

"The unhappy man, who has long been treated as a brute

animal, too frequently sinks beneath the common standard of

the human species. The galling chains that bind his body do

also fetter his intellectual faculties, and impair the

social affections of his heart. Accustomed to move like a

mere machine, by the will of a master, reflection is

suspended; he has not the power of choice; and reason and

conscience have but little influence over his conduct,

because he is chiefly governed by the passion of fear. He is

poor and friendless; perhaps worn out by extreme labor, age,

and disease.

"Under such circumstances, freedom may often prove a

misfortune to himself, and prejudicial to society.

"Attention to emancipated black people, it is therefore to

be hoped, will become a branch of our national police; but,

as far as we contribute to promote this emancipation, so far

that attention is evidently a serious duty incumbent on us,

and which we mean to discharge to the best of our judgement

and abilities.

"To instruct, to advise, to qualify those who have been

restored to freedom, for the exercise and enjoyment of civil

liberty; to promote in them habits of industry; to furnish

them with employments suited to their age, sex, talents, and

other circumstances; and to procure their children an

education calculated for their future situation in

life,--these are the great outlines of the annexed plan

which we have adopted, and which we conceive will

essentially promote the public good, and the happiness of

these our hitherto too much neglected fellow-creatures.

"A plan so extensive cannot be carried into execution

without considerable pecuniary resources, beyond the present

ordinary funds of the Society. We hope much from the

generosity of enlightened and benevolent freemen, and will

gratefully receive any donations or subscriptions for this

purpose which may be made to our Treasurer, James Starr, or

to James Pemberton, Chairman of our Committee of

Correspondence.

"Signed by order of the Society,

"B. FRANKLIN, _President_.

"Philadelphia, 9th of November, 1789."

And as his last public act, Franklin gave his signature to the

subjoined memorial to the United States Congress:--

"The memorial respectfully showeth,--

"That, from a regard for the happiness of mankind, an

association was formed several years since in this State, by

a number of her citizens, of various religious

denominations, for promoting the abolition of slavery, and

for the relief of those unlawfully held in bondage. A just

and acute conception of the true principles of liberty, as

it spread through the land, produced accessions to their

numbers, many friends to their cause, and a legislative

co-operation with their views, which, by the blessing of

Divine Providence, have been successfully directed to the

relieving from bondage a large number of their

fellow-creatures of the African race. They have also the

satisfaction to observe, that, in consequence of that spirit

of philanthropy and genuine liberty which is generally

diffusing its beneficial influence, similar institutions are

forming at home and abroad.

"That mankind are all formed by the same Almighty Being,

alike objects of his care, and equally designed for the

enjoyment of happiness, the Christian religion teaches us to

believe, and the political creed of Americans fully

coincides with the position. Your memorialists, particularly

engaged in attending to the distresses arising from slavery,

believe it their indispensable duty to present this subject

to your notice. They have observed, with real satisfaction,

that many important and salutary powers are vested in you

for 'promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of

liberty to the people of the United States'; and as they

conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be

administered, without distinction of color, to all

descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the

pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the

relief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either

omitted or delayed.

"From a persuasion that equal liberty was originally the

portion, and is still the birth-right, of all men; and

influenced by the strong ties of humanity, and the

principles of their institution, your memorialists conceive

themselves bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen

the bands of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the

blessings of freedom. Under these impressions, they

earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of

slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance the

restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in

this land of freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage,

and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are

groaning in servile subjection; that you will devise means

for removing this inconsistency from the character of the

American people; that you will promote mercy and justice

towards this distressed race; and that you will step to the

very verge of the power vested in you for discouraging every

species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.

"BENJ. FRANKLIN, _President_.

"PHILADELPHIA, February 3, 1790."

The session of Congress held in 1790 was stormy. The slavery question

came back to haunt the members. On the 12th of February, the memorial

from the Pennsylvania society was read. It provoked fresh discussion,

and greatly angered many of the Southern members. As soon as its

reading was completed, the "Quaker Memorial," that had been read the

day previous, was called up; and Mr. Hartley moved its commitment. A

long and spirited debate ensued. It was charged that the memorial was

"a mischievous attempt, an improper interference, at the best, an act

of imprudence;" and that it "would sound an alarm and blow the trumpet

of sedition through the Southern States." Mr. Scott of Pennsylvania

replied by saying, "I cannot entertain a doubt that the memorial is

strictly agreeable to the Constitution. It respects a part of the duty

particularly assigned to us by that instrument." Mr. Sherman was in

favor of the commitment of the memorial, and gave his reasons _in

extenso_. Mr. Smith of South Carolina said, "Notwithstanding all the

calmness with which some gentlemen have viewed the subject, they will

find that the mere discussion of it will create alarm. We have been

told that, if so, we should have avoided discussion by saying nothing.

But it was not for that purpose we were sent here. We look upon this

measure as an attack upon property; it is, therefore, our duty to

oppose it by every means in our power. When we entered into a

political connection with the other States, this property was there.

It had been acquired under a former government conformably to the laws

and constitution, and every attempt to deprive us of it must be in the

nature of an _ex post facto_ law, and, as such, forbidden by our

political compact." Following the unwise and undignified example set

by the gentlemen who had preceded him on that side of the question, he

slurred the Quakers. "His constituents wanted no lessons in religion

and morality, and least of all from such teachers."

Madison, Gerry, Boudinot, and Page favored commitment. Upon the

question to commit, the yeas and nays being demanded, the reference

was made by a vote of forty-three to eleven. Of the latter, six were

from Georgia and South Carolina, two from Virginia, two from Maryland,

and one from New York. A special committee was announced, to whom the

memorial was referred, consisting of one member from each of the

following States: New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York,

New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. At the end of a month, the

committee made the following report to Congress:--

"1st. That the general government was expressly restrained,

until the year 1808, from prohibiting the importation of any

persons whom any of the existing states might till that time

think proper to admit. 2d. That, by a fair construction of

the constitution, congress was equally restrained from

interfering to emancipate slaves within the states, such

slaves having been born there, or having been imported

within the period mentioned. 3d. That congress had no power

to interfere in the internal regulation of particular states

relative to the instruction of slaves in the principles of

morality and religion, to their comfortable clothing,

accommodation, and subsistence, to the regulation of

marriages or the violation of marital rights, to the

separation of children and parents, to a comfortable

provision in cases of age or infirmity, or to the seizure,

transportation, and sale of free negroes; but entertained

the fullest confidence in the wisdom and humanity of the

state legislature that, from time to time, they would revise

their laws, and promote these and all other measures tending

to the happiness of the slaves. The fourth asserted that

congress had authority to levy a tax of ten dollars, should

they see fit to exact it, upon every person imported under

the special permission of any of the states. The fifth

declared the authority of congress to interdict or to

regulate the African slave-trade, so far as it might be

carried on by citizens of the United States for the supply

of foreign countries, and also to provide for the humane

treatment of slaves while on their passage to any ports of

the United States into which they might be admitted. The

sixth asserted the right of congress to prohibit foreigners

from fitting out vessels in the United States to be employed

in the supply of foreign countries with slaves from Africa.

The seventh expressed an intention on the part of congress

to exercise their authority to its full extent to promote

the humane objects aimed at in the Quaker's memorial."

Mr. Tucker took the floor against the report of the committee, and,

after a bitter speech upon the unconstitutionality of meddling with

the slavery question in any manner, moved a substitute for the whole,

in which he pronounced the recommendations of the committee "as

unconstitutional, and tending to injure some of the States of the

Union." Mr. Jackson seconded the motion in a rather intemperate

speech, which was replied to by Mr. Vining. The substitute of Mr.

Tucker was declared out of order. Mr. Benson moved to recommit in

hopes of getting rid of the subject, but the motion was overwhelmingly

voted down. The report was taken up article by article. The three

first resolutions (those relating to the authority of Congress over

slavery in the States) were adopted; while the second and third were

merged into one, stripped of its objectionable features. But on the

fourth the debate was carried to a high pitch. This one related to the

ten-dollar tax. Mr. Tucker moved to amend by striking out the fourth

resolution. Considerable discussion followed; and, upon the question

being put, it was carried by one vote. The fifth resolution,

affirming the power of Congress to regulate the slave-trade, drew the

fire of Jackson, Smith, and Tucker. Mr. Madison offered to modify it

somewhat. It was argued by the opponents of this resolution, that

Congress, under the plea of regulating the trade, might prohibit it

entirely. Mr. Vining of Delaware, somewhat out of patience with the

demands of the Southern members, told those gentlemen very plainly

that they ought to be satisfied with the changes already made to

gratify them; that they should show some respect to the committee;

that all the States from Virginia to New Hampshire had passed laws

prohibiting the slave-trade; and then delivered an eloquent defence of

the Quakers. The resolution, as modified by Mr. Madison, carried.

The sixth resolution, relating to the foreign slave-trade carried on

from ports of the United States, received considerable attention. Mr.

Scott made an elaborate speech upon it, in which he claimed, that, if

it were a question as to the power of Congress to regulate the foreign

slave-trade, he had no doubts as to the authority of that body. "I

desire," said that gentleman, "that the world should know, I desire

that those people in the gallery, about whom so much has been said,

should know, that there is at least one member on this floor who

believes that Congress have ample powers to do all they have asked

respecting the African slave-trade. Nor do I doubt that Congress will,

whenever necessity or policy dictates the measure, exercise those

powers." Mr. Jackson attempted to reply. He started out with a labored

argument showing the divine origin of slavery, quoting Scriptures;

showed that the Greeks and Romans had held slaves, etc. He was

followed and supported by Smith of South Carolina. Boudinot obtained

the floor, and, after defending the Quakers and praising Franklin,

declared that there was nothing unreasonable in the memorial; that it

simply requested them "to go to the utmost verge of the Constitution,"

and not beyond it. Further debate was had, when the sixth resolution

was adopted.

The seventh resolution, pledging Congress to exert their full powers

for the restriction of the slave-trade--and, as some understood it, to

discountenance slavery--was struck out. The committee then arose and

reported the resolutions to the house. The next day, the 23d March,

1790, after some preliminary business was disposed of, a motion was

made to take up the report of the committee. Ames, Madison, and others

thought the matter, having occupied so much of the time of the house,

should be left where it was; or rather, as Mr. Madison expressed it,

simply entered on the Journals as a matter of public record. After

some little discussion, this motion prevailed by a vote of twenty-nine

to twenty-five. The entry was accordingly made as follows:--

"That the migration or importation of such persons as any of

the states now existing shall think proper to admit, can not

be prohibited by congress prior to the year 1808.

"That congress have no right to interfere in the

emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any

of the states, it remaining with the several states alone to

provide any regulations therein which humanity and true

policy require.

"That congress have authority to restrain the citizens of

the United States from carrying on the African slave-trade

for the purpose of supplying foreigners with slaves, and of

providing by proper regulations for the humane treatment,

during their passage, of slaves imported by the said

citizens into the said states admitting such importation.

"That congress have also authority to prohibit foreigners

from fitting out vessels in any port of the United States

for transporting persons from Africa to any foreign port."

The census of 1790 gave the slave population of the States as

follows:--

SLAVE POPULATION.--CENSUS OF 1790.

Connecticut 2,759

Delaware 8,887

Georgia 29,264

Kentucky 11,830

Maryland 103,036

New Hampshire 158

New Jersey 11,423

New York 21,324

North Carolina 100,572

Pennsylvania 3,737

Rhode Island 952

South Carolina 107,094

Vermont 17

Virginia 293,427

Territory south of Ohio 3,417

Aggregate, 697,897.

Vermont was admitted into the Union on the 18th of February, 1791; and

the first article of the Bill of Rights declared that "no male person

born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be bound by

law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice after he

arrives at the age of twenty-one years, nor female, in like manner,

after she arrives at the age of twenty-one years, unless they are

bound by their own consent after they arrive at such age, or are bound

by law for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like."

This provision was contained in the first Constitution of that State,

and, therefore, it was the first one to abolish and prohibit slavery

in North America.

On the 4th of February, 1791, Kentucky was admitted into the Union by

Act of Congress, though it had no Constitution. But the next year a

Constitution was framed. By it the Legislature was denied the right to

emancipate slaves without the consent of the owner, nor without paying

the full price of the slaves before emancipating them; nor could any

laws be passed prohibiting emigrants from other states from bringing

with them persons deemed slaves by the laws of any other states in the

Union, so long as such persons should be continued as slaves in

Kentucky. The Legislature had power to prohibit the bringing into the

state slaves for the purpose of sale. Masters were required to treat

their slaves with humanity, to properly feed and clothe them, and to

abstain from inflicting any punishment extending to life and limb.

Laws could be passed granting owners the right to emancipate their

slaves, but requiring security that the slaves thus emancipated should

not become a charge upon the county.

During the session of Congress in 1791, the Pennsylvania Society for

the Abolition of Slavery presented another memorial, calling upon

Congress to exercise the powers they had been declared to possess by

the report of the committee which had been spread upon the Journals of

the house. Thus emboldened, other anti-slavery societies, of Rhode

Island, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, and a few local societies of

Maryland, presented memorials praying for the suppression of slavery

in the United States. They were referred to a select committee; and,

as they made no report, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, the next

year, called the attention of Congress to the subject. On the 24th of

November, 1792, a Mr. Warner Mifflin, an anti-slavery Quaker from

Delaware, addressed a memorial to Congress on the general subject of

slavery, which was read and laid upon the table without debate. On the

26th of November, Mr. Stute of North Carolina offered some sharp

remarks upon the presumption of the Quaker, and moved that the

petition be returned to the petitioner, and that the clerk be

instructed to erase the entry from the Journal. This provoked a heated

discussion; but at length the petition was returned to the author,

and the motion to erase the record from the Journal was withdrawn by

the mover.

In 1793 a law was passed providing for the return of fugitives from

justice and from service, "In case of the escape out of any state or

territory of any person held to service or labor under the laws

thereof, the person to whom such labor was due, his agent, or

attorney, might seize the fugitive and carry him before any United

States judge, or before any magistrate of the city, town, or county in

which the arrest was made; and such judge or magistrate, on proof to

his satisfaction, either oral or by affidavit before any other

magistrate, that the person seized was really a fugitive, and did owe

labor as alleged, was to grant a certificate to that effect to the

claimant, this certificate to serve as sufficient warrant for the

removal of the fugitive to the state whence he had fled. Any person

obstructing in any way such seizure or removal, or harboring or

concealing any fugitive after notice, was liable to a penalty of $500,

to be recovered by the claimant."

In 1794 an anti-slavery convention was held in Philadelphia, in which

nearly all of the abolition societies of the country were represented.

A memorial, carefully avoiding constitutional objections, was drawn

and addressed to Congress to do whatever they could toward the

suppression of the slave-trade. This memorial, with several other

petitions, was referred to a special committee. In due time they

reported a bill, which passed without much opposition. It was the

first act of the government toward repressing the slave-trade, and was

as mild as a summer's day. On Wednesday, the 7th of January, 1795,

another meeting was held in Philadelphia, the second, to consider

anti-slavery measures. The Act of Congress was read.

"_An Act to prohibit the carrying on the Slave-trade from

the United States to any foreign place or country._

"SECTION I. BE _it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress

assembled_, That no citizen or citizens of the United

States, or foreigner, or any other person coming into, or

residing within the same, shall, for himself or any other

person whatsoever, either as master, factor or owner, build,

fit, equip, load or otherwise prepare any ship or vessel,

within any port or place of the said United States, nor

shall cause any ship or vessel to sail from any port or

place within the same, for the purpose of carrying on any

trade or traffic in slaves, to any foreign country; or for

the purpose of procuring, from any foreign kingdom, place or

country, the inhabitants of such kingdom, place or country,

to be transported to any foreign country, port or place

whatever, to be sold or disposed of, as slaves: And if any

ship or vessel shall be so fitted out, as aforesaid, for the

said purposes, or shall be caused to sail, so as aforesaid,

every such ship or vessel, her tackle, furniture, apparel

and other appurtenances, shall be forfeited to the United

States; and shall be liable to be seized, prosecuted and

condemned, in any of the circuit courts or district court

for the district, where the said ship or vessel may be found

and seized.

"SECTION II. _And be it further enacted_, That all and every

person, so building, fitting out, equipping, loading, or

otherwise preparing, or sending away, any ship or vessel,

knowing, or intending, that the same shall be employed in

such trade or business, contrary to the true intent and

meaning of this act, or any ways aiding or abetting therein,

shall severally forfeit and pay the sum of two thousand

dollars, one moiety thereof, to the use of the United

States, and the other moiety thereof, to the use of him or

her, who shall sue for and prosecute the same.

"SECTION III. _And be it further enacted_, That the owner,

master or factor of each and every foreign ship or vessel,

clearing out for any of the coasts or kingdoms of Africa, or

suspected to be intended for the slave-trade, and the

suspicion being declared to the officer of the customs, by

any citizen, on oath or affirmation, and such information

being to the satisfaction of the said officer, shall first

give bond with sufficient sureties, to the Treasurer of the

United States, that none of the natives of Africa, or any

other foreign country or place, shall be taken on board the

said ship or vessel, to be transported, or sold as slaves,

in any other foreign port or place whatever, within nine

months thereafter.

"SECTION IV. _And be it further enacted_, That if any

citizen or citizens of the United States shall, contrary to

the true intent and meaning of this act, take on board,

receive or transport any such persons, as above described,

in this act, for the purpose of selling them as slaves, as

aforesaid, he or they shall forfeit and pay, for each and

every person, so received on board, transported, or sold as

aforesaid, the sum of two hundred dollars, to be recovered

in any court of the United States proper to try the same;

the one moiety thereof, to the use of the United States, and

the other moiety to the use of such person or persons, who

shall sue for and prosecute the same.

"FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG,

_Speaker of the House of Representatives_.

"JOHN ADAMS,

_Vice-President of the United States, and

President of the Senate_.

"Approved--March the twenty-second, 1794.

G'o: WASHINGTON, _President of the United States_."

In 1797 Congress again found themselves confronted by the dark problem

of slavery, that would not down at their bidding. The Yearly Meeting

of the Quakers of Philadelphia sent a memorial to Congress,

complaining that about one hundred and thirty-four Negroes, and others

whom they knew not of, having been lawfully emancipated, were

afterwards reduced to bondage by an _ex post facto_ law passed by

North Carolina, in 1777, for that cruel purpose. After considerable

debate, the memorial went to a committee, who subsequently reported

that the matter complained of was purely of judicial cognizance, and

that Congress had no authority in the premises.

During the same session a bill was introduced creating all that

portion of the late British Province of West Florida, within the

jurisdiction of the United States, into a government to be called the

Mississippi Territory. It was to be conducted in all respects like the

territory north-west of the Ohio, with the single exception that

slavery should not be prohibited. During the discussion of this

section of the bill, Mr. Thatcher of Massachusetts moved to amend by

striking out the exception as to slavery, so as to make it conform to

the ideas expressed by Mr. Jefferson a few years before in reference

to the Western Territory. But, after a warm debate, Mr. Thatcher's

motion was lost, having received only twelve votes. An amendment of

Mr. Harper of South Carolina, offered a few days later, prohibiting

the introduction of slaves into the new Mississippi Territory, from

without the limits of the United States, carried without opposition.

Georgia revised her Constitution in 1798, and prohibited the

importation of slaves "from Africa or any foreign place." Her

slave-code was greatly moderated. Any person maliciously killing or

dismembering a slave was to suffer the same punishment as if the act

had been committed upon a free white person, except in case of

insurrection, or "unless such death should happen by accident, in

giving such slave moderate correction." But, like Kentucky, the

Georgia constitution forbade the emancipation of slaves without the

consent of the individual owner; and encouraged emigrants to bring

slaves into the State.

In 1799, after three failures, the Legislature of New York passed a

bill for the gradual extinction of slavery. It provided that all

persons in slavery at the time of the passage of the bill should

remain in bondage for life, but all their children, born after the

fourth day of July next following, were to be free, but were required

to remain under the direction of the owner of their parents, males

until twenty-eight, and females until twenty-five. Exportation of

slaves was disallowed; and if the attempt were made, and the parties

apprehended, the slaves were to be free _instanter_. Persons moving

into the State were not allowed to bring slaves, except they had

owned them for a year previous to coming into the State.

In 1799 Kentucky revised her Constitution to meet the wants of a

growing State. An attempt was made to secure a provision providing for

gradual emancipation. It was supported by Henry Clay, who, as a young

lawyer and promising orator, began on that occasion a brilliant

political career that lasted for a half-century. But not even his

magic eloquence could secure the passage of the humane amendment, and

in regard to the question of slavery the Constitution received no

change.

As the shadows gathered about the expiring days of the eighteenth

century, it was clear to be seen that slavery, as an institution, had

rooted itself into the political and legal life of the American

Republic. An estate prolific of evil, fraught with danger to the new

government, abhorred and rejected at first, was at length adopted with

great political sagacity and deliberateness, and then guarded by the

solemn forms of constitutional law and legislative enactments.

FOOTNOTES:

[627] St. Clair Papers, vol. i. p. 120.

[628] The clause "three fifths of all other persons" refers to Negro

slaves. The Italics are our own. The Negro is referred to as _person_

all through the Constitution.

[629] Madison Papers, Elliot, vol. v. pp. 392, 393.

[630] Ibid., vol. v pp. 391, 392.

[631] Madison Papers, Elliot, vol. v. pp. 457-461.

[632] Madison Papers, Elliot, vol. v. pp. 477, 478.

[633] Examine Hildreth and the Secret Debates on the subject of the

"compromises."

[634] Travels, etc., vol. ii. p. 166.

[635] M.H.S. Coll., 5th Series, III., p. 403.

APPENDIX.

Part I.

_PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS_.

CHAPTER I.

THE UNITY OF MANKIND.

In Acts xvii. 26 the apostle says, "And God hath made of one blood all

nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined

the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." In

Mark xvi. 15, 16, is recorded that remarkable command of our Saviour,

"GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, and preach the gospel TO EVERY CREATURE. He

that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth

not shall be damned." (See also Matt. xxviii. 18, 20.) Now there is a

very close connection between the statement here made by the apostle,

and the command here given by our Lord Jesus Christ; for it was in

obedience to this command that the apostle was at that time at Athens.

There, amid the proud and conceited philosophers of Greece, in the

centre of their resplendent capital, surrounded on every hand by their

noblest works of art and their proudest monuments of learning, the

apostle proclaims the equality of ALL MEN, their common origin, guilt,

and danger, and their universal obligations to receive and embrace the

gospel. The Athenians, like other ancient nations, and like them, too,

in opposition to their own mythology, regarded themselves as a

peculiar and distinct race, created upon the very soil which they

inhabited, and pre-eminently elevated above the barbarians of the

earth,--as they regarded the other races of men. Paul, however, as an

inspired and infallible teacher, authoritatively declares that "God

who made the world and all things therein," "hath made of one blood,"

and caused to descend from one original pair the whole species of men,

who are now by His providential direction so propagated as to inhabit

"all the face of the earth," having marked out in his eternal and

unerring counsel the determinate periods for their inhabiting, and the

boundaries of the regions they should inhabit.

The apostle in this passage refers very evidently to the record of the

early colonization and settling of the earth contained in the books of

Moses. Some Greek copies preserve only the word [Greek: enos], leaving

out [Greek: aimatos], a reading which the vulgar Latin follows. The

Arabic version, to explain both, has _ex homine_, or as De Dieu

renders it, _ex Adamo uno_, there being but the difference of one

letter in the Eastern languages between _dam_ and _adam_, the one

denoting blood, and the other man. But if we take this passage as our

more ordinary copies read it, [Greek: exenos aimatos], it is still

equally plain that the meaning is not that all mankind were made of

the same uniform matter, as the author of the work styled Pre-Adamites

weakly imagined, for on that ground, not only mankind, but the whole

world might be said to be _ex henos haimatos_, i.e., of the same

blood, since all things in the world were at first formed out of the

same matter. The word _[Greek: aima]_ therefore must be here rendered

in the same sense as that in which it occurs in the best Greek

authors--_the stock out of which men come_ Thus Homer says,--

"_[Greek: Ei eteon g emos esti kai aimtos êmeteroio]_".

In like manner those who are near relations, are called by Sophocles

_[Greek: oi pros aimatos]_. And hence the term _consanguinity_,

employed to denote nearness of relation. Virgil uses _sanguis_ in the

same sense.

"_Trojano a sanguine duci_."

So that the apostle's meaning is, that however men now are dispersed

in their habitations, and however much they differ in language and

customs from each other, yet they were all originally of the same

stock, and derived their succession from the first man whom God

created, that is, from Adam, from which name the Hebrew word for

blood--i.e.--_dam_--is a derivative.

Neither can it be conceived on what account Adam in the Scripture is

called "the first man," and said to be "made a living soul," and "of

the earth earthy," unless it is to denote that he was absolutely the

first of his kind, and was, therefore, designed to be the standard and

measure of all the races of men. And thus when our Saviour would trace

up all things to the beginning, he illustrates his doctrine by quoting

those words which were pronounced after Eve was formed. "But from the

beginning of the creation, God made them male and female, for this

cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife"

Now nothing can be more plain and incontrovertible than that those of

whom these words were spoken, were the first male and female which

were made in "the beginning of the creation." It is equally evident

that these words were spoken of Adam and Eve for "Adam said, This is

now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man

leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife" If

the Scriptures then of the New Testament be true, it is most plain and

evident that all mankind are descended from Adam.[636]

* * * * *

THE CURSE OF CANAAN.

It is not necessary--nay, it is not admissible--to take the words of

Noah, as to Shem and Japheth, as _prophetic_ We shall presently see

that, as prophetic, they have failed. Let us not, in expounding

Scripture, introduce the _supernatural_ when the _natural_ is

adequate. Noah had now known the peculiarities of his sons long

enough, and well enough, to be able to make some probable conjecture

as to their future course, and then success or failure in life. It is

what parents do now a-days. They say of one son, He will succeed,--he

is so dutiful, so economical, so industrious. They say of another,

This one will make a good lawyer--he is so sharp in an argument. Of

another, they say, We will educate him for the ministry, for he has

suitable qualifications While of another they may be constrained to

predict that he will not succeed, because he is indolent, and selfish,

and sensual. Does it require special inspiration for a father, having

ordinary common sense, to discover the peculiar talents and

dispositions of his children, and to predict the probable future of

each of them? Some times they hit it sometimes they miss it. Shall it

not be conceded to Noah that he could make as probable a conjecture,

as to his sons, as your father made as to you, or as you think

yourselves competent to make for either of your sons? Noah made a

good hit. What he said as to the future of his sons, and of their

posterity, has turned out, in some respects, as he said it would, but

_not exactly_,--not so exactly as to authorize our calling his words

an inspired prophecy, as we shall presently show.

But, if we set out to establish or to justify slavery upon these words

of Noah, on the assumption GOD _spake_ by Noah as to the curse and

blessings here recorded, we have a right to expect to find the facts

of history to correspond. If the facts of history do not correspond

with these words of Noah, then God did not speak them by Noah as his

own. Let us face this matter. It is said, by those who interpret the

curse of Canaan as divine authority for slavery, that God _has hereby

ordained that the descendants of Ham shall be slaves_. The descendants

of Shem are not, of course, doomed to that curse. Now, upon the

supposition that these are the words of God, and not the denunciations

of an irritated father just awaking from his drunkenness, we ought not

to find any of _Canaan's descendants out of a condition of slavery,

nor any of the descendants of Shem in it_. If we do, then either these

are not God's words, or God's words have not come true.

But it is a fact that not all of Ham's entire descendants, nor even of

Canaan's descendants (on whom _alone_, and not _at all on Ham_, nor on

his three other sons, Noah's curse fell), are now, _nor ever have

been_, as a whole, in a state of bondage. The Canaanites were not

slaves, but free and powerful tribes, when the Hebrews entered their

territory. The Carthaginians, it is generally admitted, were descended

from Canaan. They certainly were free and powerful when, in frequent

wars, they contended, often with success, against the formidable

Romans. If the curse of Noah was intended for all the descendants of

Ham, it signally failed in the case of the first military hero

mentioned in the Bible, who was the founder of a world-renowned city

and empire. I refer to Nimrod, who was a son of Cush, the oldest son

of Ham. Of this Nimrod the record is, "He began to be a mighty one in

the earth: he was a mighty hunter before the Lord: and the beginning

of his Kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the

land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur and builded

Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh

and Calah; the same is a great city." This is Bible authority,

informing us that the grandson of Ham (Nimrod, the son of Cush) was a

mighty man--_the great man_ of the world, in his day--the founder of

the Babylonian empire, and the ancestor of the founder of the city of

Nineveh, one of the grandest cities of the ancient world. We are not

led to conclude, from these wonderful achievements by the posterity of

Cush (who was the progenitor of the Negroes), that this line of Ham's

descendants was so _weak in intellect_ as to be unable to set up and

maintain a government.[637]

FOOTNOTES

[636] The Unity of the Human Races, pp. 14-17.

[637] Curse of Canaan, pp. 5-7. By Rev. C.H. Edgar.

* * * * *

CHAPTER III.

NEGRO CIVILIZATION.

DR. WISEMAN has also shown that both Aristotle and Herodotus describe

the Egyptians--to whom Homer, Lycurgus, Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato

resorted for wisdom--as having the black skin, the crooked legs, the

distorted feet and the woolly hair of the Negro, from which we do not

wish, or feel it necessary to infer that the Egyptians were Negroes,

but _first_ that the ideas of degradation and _not-human_, associated

with the dark-colored African races of people _now_, were not attached

to them at an early period of their history; and _secondly_, that

while depicted as Negroes, the Egyptians were regarded by these

profound ancients--the one a naturalist and the other a historian--as

one of the branches of the human family, and as identified with a

nation of whose descent from Ham there is no question.[638] Egyptian

antiquity, not claiming priority of social existence for itself, often

pointed to the regions of Habesh, or high African Ethiopia, and

sometimes to the North, for the seat of the gods and demigods, because

both were the intermediate stations of the progenitor tribes.[639]

There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the primitive

Egyptians were conformed much more to the African than to the European

form and physiognomy, and therefore that there was a time when

learning, commerce, arts, manufactures, etc., were all associated with

a form and character of the human race now regarded as the evidence

only of degradation and barbarous ignorance.

But why question this fact when we can refer to the ancient and once

glorious kingdoms of Meroe, Nubia, and Ethiopia, and to the prowess

and skill of other ancient and interior African Nations? And among the

existing nations of interior Africa, there is seen a manifold

diversity as regards the blackest races. The characteristics of the

most truly Negro race are not found in _all_, nor to the same degree

in _many_.

Clapperton and other travellers among the Negro tribes of interior

Africa, attest the superiority of the pure Negroes above the mixed

races around them, in all moral characteristics, and describe also

large and populous kingdoms with numerous towns, well cultivated

fields, and various manufactures, such as weaving, dyeing, tanning,

working in iron and other metals, and in pottery.[640]

From the facts we have adduced it seems to follow, that one of the

earliest races of men of whose existence, civilization and

physiognomy, we have any remaining proofs, were dark or black colored.

"We must," says Prichard, "for the present look upon the black races

as the aborigines of Kelænonesia, or Oceanica,--that is as the

immemorial and primitive inhabitants. There is no reason to doubt that

they were spread over the Austral island long before the same or the

contiguous regions were approached by the Malayo-Polynesians. We

cannot say definitely how far back this will carry us, but as the

distant colonizations of the Polynesians probably happened before the

island of Java received arts and civilization from Hindustan, it must

be supposed to have preceded by some ages the Javan era of Batara

Guru, and therefore to have happened before the Christian era."

The Negro race is known to have existed 3,345 years, says Dr. Morton,

268 years later than the earliest notice of the white race, of which

we have distinct mention B.C. 2200. This makes the existence of a

Negro race certain about 842 years after the flood, according to the

Hebrew chronology, or 1650 years after the flood, according to the

Septuagint chronology, which may very possibly have been the original

Hebrew chronology. There is thus ample time given for the

multiplication and diffusion of man over the earth, and for the

formation--either by natural or supernatural causes, in combination

with the anomalous and altogether extraordinary condition of the

earth--of all the various races of men.

It is also apparent from the architecture, and other historical

evidences of their character, that dark or black races, with more or

less of the Negro physiognomy, were in the earliest period of their

known history cultivated and intelligent, having kingdoms, arts, and

manufactures. And Mr. Pickering assures us that there is no fact to

show that Negro slavery is not of modern origin. The degradation of

this race of men therefore, must be regarded as the result of external

causes, and not of natural, inherent and original incapacity.[641]

FOOTNOTES:

[638] See Dr. Wiseman's Lectures on the connection between Science and

Revealed Religion, Am. ed., pp. 95-98

[639] See Nat. Hist. Human Species p. 373.

[640] See British Encyclopædia, vol. ii. pp. 237, 238

[641] Tiedeman, on the Brain of the Negro, in the Phil. Trans., 1838,

p. 497

* * * * *

CHAPTER VI.

NEGRO TYPE.

It has often been said that, independently of the woolly hair and the

complexion of the Negroes, there are sufficient differences between

them and the rest of mankind to mark them as a very peculiar tribe.

This is true, and yet the principal differences are perhaps not so

constant as many persons imagine. In our West Indian colonies very

many Negroes, especially females, are seen, whose figures strike

Europeans as remarkably beautiful. This would not be the case if they

deviated much from the idea prevalent in Europe, or from the European

standard of beauty. Yet the slaves in the colonies, particularly in

those of England, were brought from the west coast of intertropical

Africa, where the peculiarities of figure, which in our eyes

constitute deformity in the Negro, are chiefly prevalent. The black

people imported into the French and to some of the Portuguese

colonies, from the eastern coast of the African continent, and from

Congo, are much better made. The most degraded and savage nations are

the ugliest. Among the most improved and the partially civilized, as

the Ashantees, and other interior States, the figure and the features

of the native people approach much more to the European. The ugliest

Negro tribes are confined to the equatorial countries; and on both

sides of the equator, as we advance towards the temperate zones, the

persons of the inhabitants are most handsome and well formed.

In a later period of this work I shall cite authors who have proved

that many races belonging to this department of mankind are noted for

the beauty of their features, and their fine stature and proportions.

Adanson has made this observation of the Negroes on the Senegal. He

thus describes the men. "Leur taille est pour l'ordinaire au-dessus de

la mediocre, bien prise et sans défaut. Ils sont forts, robustes, et

d'un tempérament propre à la fatigue. Ils ont les yeux noirs et bien

fendus, peu de barbe, les traits du visage assez agréables." They are

complete Negroes, for it is added that their complexion is of a fine

black, that their hair is black, frizzled, cottony, and of extreme

fineness. The women are said to be of nearly equal stature with the

men, and equally well made. "Leur visage est d'une douceur extrême.

Elles ont les yeux noirs, bien fendus, la bouche et les lèvres

petites, et les traits du visage bien proportionnés. Il s'en trouve

plusieurs d'une beauté parfaite." Mr. Rankin, a highly intelligent

traveller, who reports accurately and without prejudice the results of

his personal observation, has recently given a similar testimony in

regard to some of the numerous tribes of northern Negro-land, who

frequent the English colony of Sierra Leone. In the skull of the more

improved and civilized nations among the woolly-haired blacks of

Africa, there is comparatively slight deviation from the form which

may be looked upon as the common type of the human head. We are

assured, for example, by M. Golberry, that the Ioloffs, whose colour

is a deep transparent black, and who have woolly hair, are robust and

well made, and have regular features. Their countenances, he says, are

ingenuous, and inspire confidence: they are honest, hospitable,

generous, and faithful. The women are mild, very pretty, well made,

and of agreeable manners. On the other side of the equinoctial line,

the Congo Negroes, as Pigafetta declares, have not thick lips or ugly

features; except in colour they are very like the Portuguese. Kafirs

in South Africa frequently resemble Europeans, as many late travellers

have declared. It has been the opinion of many that the Kafirs ought

to be separated from the Negroes as a distinct branch of the human

family. This has been proved to be an error. In the conformation of

the skull, which is the leading character, the Kafirs associate

themselves with the great majority of woolly African nations.[642]

THE NEGROES.

The Negroes inhabit Africa from the southern margin of the Sahara as

far as the territory of the Hottentots and Bushmen, and from the

Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, although the extreme east of their

domain has been wrested from them by intrusive Hamites and Semites.

Most negroes have high and narrow skulls. According to Welcker the

average percentage of width begins at 68 and rises to 78. The

variations are so great that, among eighteen heads from Equatorial

Africa, Barnard Davis found no less than four brachyrephals. In the

majority dolichocephalism is combined with a prominence of the upper

jaw and an oblique position of the teeth, yet there are whole nations

which are purely mesognathous. It is to be regretted that in the

opinion of certain mistaken ethnologists, the negro was the ideal of

every thing barbarous and beast-like. They endeavoured to deny him any

capability of improvement, and even disputed his position as a man.

The negro was said to have an oval skull, a flat forehead, snout-like

jaws, swollen lips, a broad flat nose, short crimped hair, falsely

called wool, long arms, meagre thighs, calfless legs, highly elongated

heels, and flat feet. No single tribe, however, possesses all these

deformities. The colour of the skin passes through every gradation,

from ebony black, as in the Joloffers, to the light tint of the

mulattoes, as in the Wakilema, and Barth even describes

copper-coloured negroes in Marghi. As to the skull in many tribes, as

in the above mentioned Joloffers, the jaws are not prominent, and the

lips are not swollen. In some tribes the nose is pointed, straight, or

hooked; even "Grecian profiles" are spoken of, and travellers say with

surprise that they cannot perceive anything of the so-called negro

type among the negroes.

According to Paul Broca, the upper limbs of the negro are

comparatively much shorter than the lower, and therefore less ape-like

than in Europeans, and, although in the length of the femur the negro

may approximate to the proportions of the ape, he differs from them by

the shortness of the humerus more than is the case with Europeans.

Undoubtedly narrow and more or less high skulls are prevalent among

the negroes. But the only persistent character which can be adduced as

common to all is greater or less darkness of skin, that is to say,

yellow, copper-red, olive, or dark brown, passing into ebony black.

The colour is always browner than that of Southern Europe. The hair is

generally short, elliptic in section, often split longitudinally, and

much crimped. That of the negroes of South Africa, especially of the

Kaffirs and Betshuans, is matted into tufts, although not in the same

degree as that of the Hottentots. The hair is black, and in old age

white, but there are also negroes with red hair, red eye-brows, and

eye-lashes, and among the Monbuttoo, on the Uelle, Schweinfurth even

discovered negroes with ashy fair hair. Hair on the body and beards

exist, though not abundantly; whiskers are rare although not quite

unknown.

The negroes form but a single race, for the predominant as well as the

constant characters recur in Southern as well as in Central Africa,

and it was therefore a mistake to separate the Bantu negroes into a

peculiar race. But, according to language, the South Africans can well

be separated, as a great family, from the Soudan negroes.[643]

FOOTNOTES:

[642] Prichard's Physical History of Mankind, vol. i. pp. 247-249.

* * * * *

THE RELATION OF PHYSICAL CHARACTER TO CLIMATE.

We shall now find, on comparing these several departments with each

other, that marked differences of physical character, and particularly

of complexion, distinguished the human races which respectively

inhabit them, and that these differences are successive or by

gradations.

First, Among the people of level countries within the Mediterranean

region, including Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Moors, and the

Mediterranean islanders, black hair with dark eyes is almost

universal, scarcely, one person in some hundreds presenting an

exception to this remark with this colour of the hair and eyes is

conjoined a complexion of brownish white, which the French call the

colour of brunettes. We must observe, that throughout all the zones

into which we have divided the European region, similar complexions to

this of the Mediterranean countries are occasionally seen The

qualities, indeed, of climate are not so diverse, but that even the

same plants are found sporadically, in the North of Europe as in the

Alps and Pyrenees. But if we make a comparison between the prevalent

colours of great numbers, we can easily trace a succession of shades

or of different hues.

Secondly, In the southernmost of the three zones, to the northward of

the Pyreno-Alpine line, namely, in the latitude of France, the

prevalent colour of the hair is a chestnut brown, to which the

complexion and the colour of the eyes bear a certain relation.

Thirdly, In the northern parts of Germany, England, in Denmark,

Finland and a great part of Russia, the xanthous variety, strongly

marked, is prevalent The Danes have always been known as a people of

florid complexion, blue eyes, and yellow hair The Hollanders were

termed by Silius Italicus, "Auricomi Batavi," the golden haired

Batavians, and Linnæus has defined the Finns as a tribe distinguished

by "capillis flavis prolixis."

Fourthly, In the northern division we find the Norwegians and Swedes

to be generally tall, white haired men, with light gray eyes

characters so frequent to the northward of the Baltic, that Linnæus

has specified them in a definition of the inhabitants of Swedish

Gothland. We have then to the northward of Mount Atlas, four well

marked varieties of human complexion succeeding each other, and in

exact accordance with the gradations of latitude and of climate from

south to north. The people are thus far nearly white in the colour of

their skin, but in the more southerly of the three regions above

defined, with a mixture of brown, or of the complexion of brunettes,

or such as we term swarthy or sallow persons.

Fifthly, In the next region, to the southward of Atlas, the native

inhabitants, are the "gentes sub fusci coloris" of Leo, and the

immigrant Arabs in the same country are, as we have seen by abundant

testimonies, of a similar high brown hue, but varying between that and

a perfect black.

Sixthly, With the tropic and the latitude of the Senegal, begins the

region of predominant and almost universal black, and this continues,

if we confine ourselves to the low and plain countries, through all

inter tropical Africa.

Seventhly, Beyond this is the country of copper coloured and red

people, who, in Kafirland, are the majority, while in inter-tropical

Africa there are but few such tribes, and those in countries of

mountainous elevation.

Lastly, Towards the Cape are the tawny Hottentots, scarcely darker

than the Mongoles, whom they resemble in many other particulars

besides colour.

It has long been well known, that as travellers ascend mountains, in

whatever region, they find the vegetation at every successive level

altering its character, and assuming a more northern aspect, thus

indicating that the state of the atmosphere, temperature and physical

agencies in general, assimilate as we approach alpine regions, to the

peculiarities locally connected with high latitudes. If therefore,

complexions and other bodily qualities belonging to races of men

depend upon climate and external conditions, we should expect to find

them varying in reference to elevation of surface, and if they should

be found actually to undergo such variations, this will be a strong

argument that these external characters do, in fact, depend upon local

conditions. Now, if we inquire respecting the physical characters of

the tribes inhabiting high tracts within either of the regions above

marked out, we shall find that they coincide with those which prevail

in the level or low parts of more northern tracts. The Swiss, in the

high mountains above the plains of Lombardy, have sandy or brown hair.

What a contrast presents itself to the traveller who descends into the

Milanese, where the peasants have black hair and eyes, with

strongly-marked Italian and almost Oriental features. In the higher

parts of the Biscayan country, instead of the swarthy complexion and

black hair of the Castilians, the natives have a fair complexion with

light-blue eyes and flaxen or auburn hair. And in Atlantica, while the

Berbers of the plains are of brown complexion with black hair, we have

seen that the Shuluh mountaineers are fair, and that the inhabitants

of the high tracts of Mons Aurasius are completely xanthous, having

red or yellow hair and blue eyes, which fancifully, and without the

shadow of any proof, they have been conjectured to have derived from

the Vandal troops of Genseric.

Even in the inter-tropical region, high elevations of surface, as they

produce a cooler climate, seem to occasion the appearance of light

complexions. In the high parts of Senegambia, which front the

Atlantic, and are cooled by winds from the Western Ocean, where, in

fact, the temperature is known to be moderate and even cool at times,

the light copper-coloured Frelahs are found surrounded on every side

by Negro nations inhabiting lower districts; and nearly in the same

parallel, but at the opposite side of Africa, are the high plains of

Enarea and Kaffa, where the inhabitants are said to be fairer than the

natives of southern Europe. The Galla and the Abyssinians themselves

are, in proportion to the elevation of the country inhabited by them,

fairer than the natives of low countries; and lest an exception should

be taken to a comparison of straight-haired races with woolly Negroes

or Shungalla, they bear the same comparison with the Danakil, Hazorta,

and the Bishari tribes, resembling them in their hair and features,

who inhabit the low tracts between the mountains of Tigre and the

shores of the Red Sea, and who are equally or nearly as black as

Negroes.

We may find occasion to observe that an equally decided relation

exists between local conditions and the existence of other characters

of human races in Africa. Those races who have the Negro character in

an exaggerated degree, and who may be said to approach to deformity in

person--the ugliest blacks with depressed foreheads, flat noses,

crooked legs--are in many instances inhabitants of low countries,

often of swampy tracts near the sea-coast, where many of them, as the

Papels, have scarcely any other means of subsistence than shell fish,

and the accidental gifts of the sea. In many places similar Negro

tribes occupy thick forests in the hollows beneath high chains of

mountains, the summits of which are inhabited by Abyssinian or

Ethiopian races. The high table-lands of Africa are chiefly, as far as

they are known, the abode or the wandering places of tribes of this

character, or of nations who, like the Kafirs, recede very

considerably from the Negro type. The Mandingos are, indeed, a Negro

race inhabiting a high region; but they have neither the depressed

forehead nor the projecting features considered as characteristic of

the Negro race.[644]

FOOTNOTES:

[643] Peschel, The Races of Man, pp. 462-464.

* * * * *

CHAPTER VII.

CITIES OF AFRICA.

_Carthage_. The foundation of this celebrated city is ascribed to

Elissa, a Tyrian princess, better known as Dido; it may therefore be

fixed at the year of the world 3158; when Joash was king of Judah; 98

years before the building of Rome, and 846 years before Christ. The

king of Tyre, father of the famous Jezebel, called in Scripture

Ethbaal, was her great grandfather. She married her near relation

Acerbas, also called Sicharbas, or Sichæus, an extremely rich prince,

Pygmalion, king of Tyre, was her brother. Pygmalion put Sichæus to

death in order that he might have an opportunity to seize his immense

treasures, but Dido eluded her brother's cruel avarice, by secretly

conveying away her deceased husband's possessions. With a large train

of followers she left her country, and after wandering some time,

landed on the coast of the Mediterranean, in Africa, and located her

settlement at the bottom of the gulf, on a peninsula, near the spot

where Tunis now stands. Many of the neighboring people, allured by the

prospect of gain, repaired thither to sell to those foreigners the

necessities of life, and soon became incorporated with them. The

people thus gathered from different places soon grew very numerous.

And the citizens of Utica, an African city about fifteen miles

distant, considering them as their countrymen, as descended from the

same common stock, advised them to build a city where they had

settled. The other natives of the country, from their natural esteem

and respect for strangers, likewise encouraged them to the same

object. Thus all things conspiring with Dido's views, she built her

city, which was appointed to pay in annual tribute to the Africans for

the ground it stood upon, and called it Carthage--a name that in the

Phoenician and Hebrew languages, [which have a great affinity,]

signifies the "New City." It is said that in digging the foundation, a

horse's head was found, which was thought to be a good omen, and a

presage of the future warlike genius of that people. Carthage had the

same language and national character as its parent state--Tyre. It

became at length, particularly at the period of the Punic War, one of

the most splendid cities in the world, and had under its dominion 300

cities bordering upon the Mediterranean. From the small beginning we

have described, Carthage increased till her population numbered

700,000, and the number of her temples and other public buildings was

immense. Her dominion was not long confined to Africa. Her ambitious

inhabitants extended their conquest into Europe, by invading Sardinia,

seizing a great part of Sicily, and subduing almost all of Spain.

Having sent powerful colonies everywhere, they enjoyed the empire of

the seas for more than six hundred years and formed a State which was

able to dispute pre-eminence with the greatest empire of the world, by

their wealth, their commerce, their numerous armies, their formidable

fleets, and above all by the courage and ability of their commanders,

and she extended her commerce over every part of the known world. A

colony of Phoenicians or Ethiopians, known in Scripture as Canaanites,

settled in Carthage. The Carthaginians settled in Spain and Portugal.

The first inhabitants of Spain were the Celts, a people of Gaul, after

them the Phoenicians possessed themselves of the most southern parts

of the country, and may well be supposed to have been the first

civilizers of this kingdom, and the founders of the most ancient

cities. After these, followed the Grecians, then the Carthaginians.

Portugal was anciently called Lusitania, and inhabited by tribes of

wandering people, till it became subject to the Carthaginians and

Phoenicians, who were dispossessed by the Romans 250 years before

Christ. (ROLLIN.)

The Carthaginians were masters of all the coast which lies on the

Mediterranean, and all the country as far as the river Iberus. Their

dominions, at the time when Hannibal the Great set out for Italy, all

the coast of Africa from the Aræ Phileanorum, by the great Syrtis, to

the pillars of Hercules was subject to the Carthaginians, who had

maintained three great wars against the Romans. But the Romans finally

prevailed by carrying the war into Africa, and the last Punic war

terminated with the overthrow of Carthage (NEPOS, _in Vita Annibalis_,

liv.)

The celebrated Cyrene was a very powerful city, situated on the

Mediterranean, towards the greater Syrtis, in Africa, and had been

built by Battus, the Lacedæmonian. (ROLLIN.)

_Cyrene_--(Acts xi. 20.) A province and city of Libya. There was

anciently a Phoenician colony called Cyrenaica, or "Libya, about

Cyrene." (Acts ii. 10.).

_Cyrene_--A country west of Egypt, and the birthplace of Callimachus

the poet, Eratosthenes the historian, and Simon who bore the Saviour's

cross. Many Jews from hence were at the Pentecost, and were converted

under Peter's sermon (Acts ii.). The region, now under the Turkish

power, and has become almost a desert. It is now called Cairoan. Some

of the Cyrenians were among the earliest Christians (Acts xi. 20); and

one of them, it is supposed, was a preacher at Antioch (Acts xiii. 1).

We find also, that among the most violent opposers of Christianity

were the Cyrenians, who had a synagogue at Jerusalem, as had those of

many other nations. It is said there were four hundred and eighty

synagogues in Jerusalem.

_Lybia_, or Libya (Acts ii. 10), was anciently among the Greeks, a

general name for Africa, but properly it embraced only so much of

Africa as lay west of Egypt, on the southern coast of the

Mediterranean. Profane geographers call it Libya Cyrenaica, because

Cyrene was its capitol. It was the country of the Lubims (2 Chron.

xii. 3), or Lehabims, of the Old Testament, from which it is supposed

to have derived its name.

The ancient city of Cyrene is now called Cyreune, Cairoan, or Cayran

and lies in the dominion of Tripoli. This district of the earth has

lately occasioned much interest among Italian and French geographers.

Great numbers of Jews resided here (Matt. xxvii. 32).

_Libya_, a part of Africa, bordering on Egypt, famous for its armed

chariots and horses (2 Chron. xvi. 8).

_Ophir_, the son of Joktan, gave name to a country in Africa, famous

for gold, which was renowned even in the time of Job (Job xxi. 24,

xxviii. 16); and from the time of David to the time of Jehoshaphat the

Hebrews traded with it, and Uzziah revived this trade when he made

himself master of Elath, a noted port on the Red Sea. In Solomon's

time, the Hebrew fleet took up three years in their voyage to Ophir,

and brought home gold, apes, peacocks, spices, ivory, ebony and

almug-trees (1 Kings ix. 28, x. 11, xxii. 48, 2 Chron. ix. 10).

_Tarshish_ (Isa. xxiii. 1), or Tharsish (1 Kings x. 22). It is

supposed that some place of this name existed on the eastern coast of

Africa or among the southern ports of Asia, with which the ships of

Hiram and Solomon traded in gold and silver, ivory, and apes and

peacocks (2 Chron. ix. 21). It is said that once in every three years

these ships completed a voyage, and brought home their merchandise.

Hence, it is inferred, the place with which they traded must have been

distant from Judea.

The vessels given by Hiram to Solomon, and those built by Jehoshaphat,

to go to Tarshish, were all launched at Eziongeber, it the northern

extremity of the eastern gulf of the Red Sea, now called the Gulf of

Ahaba (2 Chron xx. 36). The name of Tarshish was from one of the sons

of Javan (Gen. x. 4).

_Phut_ (Gen. x. 6), or Put (Nah. iii. 9), was the third son of Ham,

and his descendants, sometimes called Libyans, are supposed to be the

Mauritanians, or Moors of modern times. They served the Egyptians and

Tyrians as soldiers (Jer. xlvi. 9; Ezek. xxvii. 10, xxx. 5, xxxviii.

5).

_Pul_. A district in Africa, thought by Bochart to be an island in the

Nile, not far from Syene (Isa. lxvi. 19).

_Seba_ (Isa. xliii. 3) A peninsular district of African Ethiopia,

deriving its name from the eldest son of Cush (Gen. x. 7), who is

supposed to have been the progenitor of the Ethiopians. It is called

Seba by the Hebrews.

FOOTNOTES:

[644] Prichard. vol. ii pp. 334-338.

CITIES OF ETHIOPIA

_Ethiopian_ is a name derived from the "land of Ethiopia," the first

settled country before the flood. "The second river that went out of

Eden, to water the garden, or earth, was Gihon; the same that

encompasseth the whole land, or country, of _Ethiopia_" (Gen. ii. 13).

Here Adam and his posterity built their tents and tilled the ground

(Gen. iii. 23, 24).

The first city was Enoch, built before the flood in the land of Nod on

the east of Eden,--a country now called Arabia. Cain the son of Adam,

went out of Eden and dwelt in the land of Nod. We suppose, according

to an ancient custom he married his sister and she bare Enoch. And

Cain built a city and called the name of the city after the name of

his son, Enoch, (Gen. iv. 16, 17). We know there must have been more

than Cain and his son Enoch in the land of Nod to build a city but who

were they?... (MALCOM'S _Bible Dictionary_.)

The first great city described in ancient and sacred history was built

by the Cushites, or Ethiopians. They surrounded it with walls which,

according to Rollin, were eighty-seven feet in thickness, three

hundred and fifty feet in height and four hundred and eighty furlongs

in circumference. And even this stupendous work they shortly after

eclipsed by another, of which Diodorus says, "Never did any city come

up to the greatness and magnificence of this."

It is a fact well attested by history, that the Ethiopians once bore

sway, not only in all Africa, but over almost all Asia; and it is said

that even two continents, could not afford field enough for the

expansion of their energies.

"They found their way into Europe, and built a city on the western

coast of Spain, called by them Iberian Ethiopia." "And," says a

distinguished writer, "wherever they went, they were rewarded for

their _wisdom_."

THE TOWER OF BABEL--Nimrod, the son of Cush, an Ethiopian, attempted

to build the Tower of Babel (Gen. x. 8-10 xi. 4-9). One hundred and

two years after the flood, in the land of Shinar--an extensive and

fertile plain, lying between Mesopotamia on the west and Persia on the

east, and watered by the Euphrates,--mankind being all of one

language, one color, and one religion,--they agree to erect a tower of

prodigious extent and height. Their design was not to secure

themselves against a second deluge, or they would have built their

tower on a high mountain, but to get themselves a famous character,

and to prevent their dispersion by the erection of a monument which

should be visible from a great distance. No quarries being found in

that alluvial soil, they made bricks for stone, and used slime for

mortar. Their haughty and rebellious attempt displeased the Lord; and

after they had worked, it is said, twenty-two years, he confounded

their language. This effectually stopped the building, procured it the

name of _Babel_, or _Confusion_, and obliged some of the offspring of

Noah to disperse themselves and replenish the world. The tower of

Babel was in sight from the great city of Babylon. Nimrod was a hunter

and monarch of vast ambition. When he rose to be king of Babylon he

re-peopled Babel, which had been desolate since the confusion of

tongues, but did not dare to attempt the finishing of the tower. The

Scriptures inform us, he became "mighty upon earth;" but the extent of

his conquests is not known. (MALCOM'S _Bible Dictionary_.)

The private houses, in most of the ancient cities, were simple in

external appearance, but exhibited, in the interior, all the splendor

and elegance of refined luxury. The floors were of marble; alabaster

and gilding were displayed on every side. In every great house there

were several fountains, playing in magnificent basins. The smallest

house had three pipes,--one for the kitchen, another for the garden,

and a third for washing. The same magnificence was displayed in the

mosques, churches, and coffee houses. The environs presented, at all

seasons of the year, a pleasing verdure, and contained extensive

series of gardens and villas.

THE GREAT AND SPLENDID CITY OF BABYLON.--This city was founded by

Nimrod, about 2,247 years B.C., in the land of Shinar, or Chaldea, and

made the capital of his kingdom. It was probably an inconsiderable

place, until it was enlarged and embellished by Semiramis; it then

became the most magnificent city in the world, surpassing even Nineveh

in glory. The circumference of both these cities was the same, but the

walls which surrounded Babylon were twice as broad as the walls of

Nineveh, and having a hundred brass gates. The city of Babylon stood

on the river Euphrates, by which it was divided into two parts,

eastern and western; and these were connected by a cedar bridge of

wonderful construction, uniting the two divisions. Quays of beautiful

marble adorned the banks of the river; and on one bank stood the

magnificent Temple of Belus, and on the other the Queen's Palace.

These two edifices were connected by a passage under the bed of the

river. This city was at least forty-five miles in circumference; and

would, of course, include eight cities as large as London and its

appendages. It was laid out in six hundred and twenty five squares,

formed by the intersection of twenty-five streets at right angles The

walls, which were of brick, were three hundred and fifty feet high,

and eighty-seven feet broad. A trench surrounded the city, the sides

of which were lined with brick and waterproof cement. This city was

famous for its hanging gardens, constructed by one of its kings, to

please his queen. She was a Persian, and was desirous of seeing

meadows on mountains, as in her own country. She prevailed on him to

raise artificial gardens, adorned with meadows and trees. For this

purpose, vaulted arches were raised from the ground, one above

another, to an almost inconceivable height, and of a magnificence and

strength sufficient to support the vast weight of the whole garden

Babylon was a great commercial city, and traded to all parts of the

earth then known, in all kinds of merchandise, and she likewise traded

in slaves, and the souls of men. For her sins she has been blotted

from existence,--even her location is a matter of supposition. Great

was Babylon of old; in merchandise did she trade, and in souls. For

her sins she thus became blotted from the sight of men.

* * * * *

THE ETHIOPIAN KINGS OF EGYPT.

1. _Menes_ was the first king of Egypt. We have accounts of but one of

his successors--Timans, during the first period, a space of more than

two centuries.

2. _Shishak_ was king of Ethiopia, and doubtless of Egypt. After his

death

3. _Zerah_ the son of Judah became king of Ethiopia, and made himself

master of Egypt and Libya; and intending to add Judea to his dominions

made war upon Asa king of Judea. His army consisted of a million of

men, and three hundred chariots of war (2 Chron. xiv. 9).

4. _Sabachus_, an Ethiopian, king of Ethiopia, being encouraged by an

oracle, entered Egypt with a numerous army, and possessed himself of

the country. He reigned with great clemency and justice. It is

believed, that this Sabachus was the same with Solomon, whose aid was

implored by Hosea king of Israel, against Salmanaser king of Assyria.

5. _Sethon_ reigned fourteen years. He is the same with Sabachus, or

Savechus the son of Sabacan or Saul the Ethiopian who reigned so long

over Egypt.

6. _Tharaca_, an Ethiopian, joined Sethon, with an Ethiopian army to

relieve Jerusalem. After the death of Sethon, who had filled the

Egyptian throne fourteen years, Tharaca ascended the throne and

reigned eight years over Egypt.

7. _Sesach_ or Shishak was the king of Egypt to whom Jeroboam fled to

avoid death at the hands of king Solomon. Jeroboam was entertained

till the death of Solomon, when he returned to Judea and was made king

of Israel. (2 Chron. xi. and xii.)

This Sesach, in the fifth year of the reign of Rehoboam marched

against Jerusalem, because the Jews had transgressed against the Lord.

He came with twelve hundred chariots of war, and sixty thousand

horses. He had brought numberless multitudes of people, who were all

Libyans, Troglodytes, and Ethiopians. He seized upon all the strongest

cities of Judah, and advanced as far as Jerusalem. Then the king, and

the princes of Israel, having humbled themselves, and implored the

protection of the God of Israel, he told them, by his prophet

Shemaiah, that, because they humbled themselves, he would not utterly

destroy them, as they had deserved but that they should be the

servants of Sesach, in order _that they might know_ the difference of

_his service, and the service of the kingdoms of the country_. Sesach

retired from Jerusalem, after having plundered the treasures of the

house of the Lord, and of the king's house, he carried off every thing

with him, _and even also the three hundred shields of gold which

Salomon had made_.

The following are the kings of Egypt mentioned in Scripture by the

common appellation of Pharaoh:--

8. _Psammetichus_.--As this prince owed his preservation to the

Ionians and Carians, he settled them in Egypt, from which all

foreigners hitherto had been excluded; and, by assigning them

sufficient lands and fixed revenues, he made them forget their native

country. By his order, Egyptian children were put under their care to

learn the Greek tongue; and on this occasion, and by this means, the

Egyptians began to have a correspondence with the Greeks, and, from

that era, the Egyptian history, which till then had been intermixed

with pompous fables, by the artifice of the priests, begins, according

to Herodotus, to speak with greater truth and certainty.

As soon as Psammetichus was settled on the throne, he engaged in a war

against the king of Assyria, on account of the limits of the two

empires. This war was of long continuance. Ever since Syria had been

conquered by the Assyrians, Palestine, being the only country that

separated the two kingdoms, was the subject of continual discord; as

afterwards it was between the Ptolemies and the Seleucidæ. They were

perpetually contending for it, and it was alternately won by the

stronger. Psammetichus, seeing himself the peaceable possessor of all

Egypt, and having restored the ancient form of government, thought it

high time for him to look to his frontiers, and to secure them against

the Assyrian, his neighbour, whose power increased daily. For this

purpose he entered Palestine at the head of an army.

Perhaps we are to refer to the beginning of this war, an incident

related by Diodorus; that the Egyptians, provoked to see the Greeks

posted on the right wing by the king himself in preference to them,

quitted the service, being upwards of two hundred thousand men, and

retired into Ethiopia, where they met with an advantageous settlement

Be this as it will, Psammetichus entered Palestine, where his career

was stopped by Azotus, one of the principal cities of the country,

which gave him so much trouble, that he was forced to besiege it

twenty nine years before he could take it. This is the longest siege

mentioned in ancient history. Psammetichus died in the 24th year of

the reign of Josiah king of Judah; and was succeeded by his son Nechoa

or Necho--in Scriptures frequently called Pharaoh Necho.

9. _Nechao_ or _Pharaoh-Necho_ reigned sixteen years king of Egypt, (2

Chron. xxxv. 20,) whose expeditions are often mentioned in profane

history

The Babylonians and Medes having destroyed Nineveh, and with it the

empire of the Assyrians, were thereby become so formidable, that they

drew upon themselves the jealousy of all their neighbours. Nechao,

alarmed at the danger, advanced to the Euphrates, at the head of a

powerful army, in order to check their progress. Josiah, king of

Judah, so famous for his uncommon piety, observing that he took his

route through Judea, resolved to oppose his passage. With this view he

raised all the forces of his kingdom, and posted himself in the valley

of Megiddo (a city on this side of Jordan, belonging to the tribe of

Manasseh, and called Magdolus by Herodotus). Nechao informed him by a

herald, that his enterprise was not designed against him; that he had

other enemies in view, and that he had undertaken this war in the name

of God, who was with him; that for this reason he advised Josiah not

to concern himself with this war for fear it otherwise should turn to

his disadvantage. However, Josiah was not moved by these reasons; he

was sensible that the bare march of so powerful an army through Judea

would entirely ruin it. And besides, he feared that the victor, after

the defeat of the Babylonians, would fall upon him and dispossess him

of part of his dominions. He therefore marched to engage Nechao; and

was not only overthrown by him, but unfortunately received a wound of

which he died at Jerusalem, whither he had ordered himself to be

carried.

Nechao, animated by this victory, continued his march and advanced

towards the Euphrates. He defeated the Babylonians; took Carchemish, a

large city in that country; and securing to himself the possession of

it by a strong garrison, returned to his own kingdom after having been

absent three months.

Being informed in his march homeward, that Jehoaz had caused himself

to be proclaimed king at Jerusalem, without first asking his consent,

he commanded him to meet him at Riblah in Syria. The unhappy prince

was no sooner arrived there than he was put in chains by Nechao's

order, and sent prisoner to Egypt, where he died. From thence,

pursuing his march, he came to Jerusalem, where he gave the sceptre to

Eliakim (called by him Jehoiakim), another of Josiah's sons, in the

room of his brother; and imposed an annual tribute on the land, of a

hundred talents of silver, and one talent of gold. This being done, he

returned in triumph to Egypt.