Slavery; THE Cause?

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by cash

That's a false claim. It was southern states who were opposed to banning the import of slaves. New England states sought to ban the importation.

Regards,
Cash

The New Englanders that were directly involved in the shipping trade which brought Africans to America were against ending the trade. Georgia and South Carolina were very much for continuing the import. Virginia and Maryland were against it.

Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by unionblue

WildRose,

My dear Lady, I appreciate your input into this thread and congratulate you on your desire to answer all who debate you.

I await your further responses with eager anticipation.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

You are very gracious, Union Blue. I enjoy belonging to a forum with people like the ones I've found here.

The very best to you and Happy New Year,
Rose

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The New Englanders that were directly involved in the shipping trade which brought Africans to America were against ending the trade. Georgia and South Carolina were very much for continuing the import. Virginia and Maryland were against it.

Rose

At that time there was very little overseas slave trade by those in the North, most of it was carried on by the British with the Southern states.

[cash]

Originally Posted by Wild_Rose

The New Englanders that were directly involved in the shipping trade which brought Africans to America were against ending the trade. Georgia and South Carolina were very much for continuing the import. Virginia and Maryland were against it.

Rose

It might be useful to see what they actually said about it in order to dispel such myths.

Virginia and Maryland were indeed against it, since abolishing the slave trade made their slaves that much more valuable. They conducted a very booming business selling slaves to the other states. But the New England states did not oppose ending the trade. They wanted to go along with South Carolina, Georgia, and North Carolina in order to perpetuate the Union.

Regards,
Cash

the next clause as to 3/5 of the negroes considered.
Mr. [Rufus] KING (Massachusetts). being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He thought the admission of them along with Whites at all, would excite great discontents among the States having no slaves. He had never said as to any particular point that he would in no event acquiesce in & support it; but he wd. say that if in any case such a declaration was to be made by him, it would be in this. He remarked that in the temporary allotment of Representatives made by the Committee, the Southern States had received more than the number of their white & three fifths of their black inhabitants entitled them to.
Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut). S. Carola. had not more beyond her proportion than N. York & N. Hampshire, nor either of them more than was necessary in order to avoid fractions or reducing them below their proportion. Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that State seemed to justify it. In general the allotment might not be just, but considering all circumstances, he was satisfied with it.
Mr. [Nathaniel] GHORUM (Massachusetts). supported the propriety of establishing numbers as the rule. He said that in Massts. estimates had been taken in the different towns, and that persons had been curious enough to compare these estimates with the respective numbers of people; and it had been found even including Boston, that the most exact proportion prevailed between numbers & property. He was aware that there might be some weight in what had fallen from his colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by the people of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the proposition of Congs. for changing the 8th. art: of Confedn. was before the Legislature of Massts. the only difficulty then was to satisfy them that the negroes ought not to have been counted equally with whites instead of being counted in the ratio of three fifths only.
Mr. [James] WILSON (Pennsylvania). did not well see on what principle the admission of blacks in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are they admitted as Citizens? then why are they not admitted on an equality with White Citizens? are they admitted as property? then why is not other property admitted into the computation? These were difficulties however which he thought must be overruled by the necessity of compromise. He had some apprehensions also from the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the whites, to give disgust to the people of Pena. as had been intimated by his Colleague [Mr. Govr. Morris]. But he differed from him in thinking numbers of inhabts. so incorrect a measure of wealth. He had seen the Western settlemts. of Pa. and on a comparison of them with the City of Philada. could discover little other difference, than that property was more unequally divided among individuals here than there. Taking the same number in the aggregate in the two situations he believed there would be little difference in their wealth and ability to contribute to the public wants.
Mr. Govr. [Gouverneur] MORRIS (Pennsylvania).was compelled to declare himself reduced to the dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human nature, and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as would be given by allowing them a representation for their negroes, and he did not believe those States would ever confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade. [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 11 July 1787]

Mr. L[uther]. MARTIN (Maryland). proposed to vary the Sect: 4. art VII. so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves. 1. as five slaves are to be counted as 3 free men in the apportionment of Representatives; such a clause wd. leave an encouragement to this trafic. 2. slaves weakened one part of the Union which the other parts were bound to protect: the privilege of importing them was therefore unreasonable. 3. it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in the Constitution.
Mr. [John] RUTLIDGE (South Carolina). 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 & humanity had nothing to do with this question. Interest alone is the governing principle with nations. The true question at present is whether the Southn. 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. [Oliver] ELSEWORTH (Connecticut). 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. [Charles] PINKNEY (South Carolina). South Carolina can never receive the plan if it prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of the Congress, that State has expressly & watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the States be all left at liberty on this subject, S. Carolina may perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia & Maryland have already done. [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 21 August 1787]

[cash]

Art VII sect 4. resumed. Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut) 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, & 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 observed that the abolition of Slavery seemed to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several States would probably by degrees compleat it. He urged on the Convention the necessity of despatching its business.
Col. [George] MASON (Virginia). This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of British Merchants. The British Govt. 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 & slaves, in case other means of obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland & Virginia he said had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N. Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in vain if S. Carolina & 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 thro' S. Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages arts & manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich & 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 can not be rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & 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 Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of slavery.
Mr. [Oliver] ELSEWORTH (Connecticut). 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 ****her and free those already in the Country. -As slaves also multiply so fast in Virginia & & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies are necessary, if we go no ****her than is urged, we shall be unjust towards S. Carolina & 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 Country. 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.
Mr. [Charles] PINKNEY (South Carolina). If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece Rome & other antient States; the sanction given by France England, Holland & other modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves. If the S. States were let alone they will probably of themselves stop importations. He wd. himself as a Citizen of S. Carolina vote for it. An attempt to take away the right as proposed will produce serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to see adopted.
General [Charles Cotesworth] PINKNEY (South Carolina). declared it to be his firm opinion that if himself & all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution & use their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina & Georgia cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia she will gain by stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, & she has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require S. C. & Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal assent before the Revolution had never been refused to S. 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 of 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 S. Carola. from the Union.
Mr. [Abraham] BALDWIN (Georgia). 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 Genl. Governmt. 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-& 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. [James] WILSON (Pennsylvania). observed that if S. C. & 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. [Elbridge] GERRY (Massachusetts). 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. [John] DICKENSON (Delaware). considered it as inadmissible on every principle of honor & safety that the importation of slaves should be authorised 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 Govt. not to the States particularly interested. If Engd. & 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 Southn. States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended; especially as the power was not likely to be immediately exercised by the Genl. Government.
Mr. [Hugh] WILLIAMSON (North Carolina). stated the law of N. 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, & 50 on each from a State licensing manumission. He thought the S. States could not be members of the Union if the clause shd. be rejected, and that it was wrong to force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and which any State must disagree to.
Mr. [Rufus] KING (Massachusetts). 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 & 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 Northn. & middle States.
Mr. [John] LANGDON (New Hampshire). was strenuous for giving the power to the Genl. Govt. He cd. 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.
General [Charles Cotesworth] PINKNEY (South Carolina). thought himself bound to declare candidly that he did not think S. 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 he thought right & wch. wd. remove one difficulty that had been started.
Mr. [John] RUTLIDGE (South Carolina). If the Convention thinks that N. C., S. C. & 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 agst. striking out the Section, and seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment.
Mr. Govr. [Gouverneur] MORRIS (Pennsylvania). wished the whole subject to be committed including the clauses relating to taxes on exports & to a navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the Northern & Southern States.
Mr. [Pierce] BUTLER (South Carolina). declared that he never would agree to the power of taxing exports.
Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut). said it was better to let the S. 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 Genl. Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would be its duty to exercise the power.
Mr. [George] READ (Delaware). was for the commitment provided the clause concerning taxes on exports should also be committed.
Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut). observed that that clause had been agreed to & therefore could not committed.
Mr. [Edmund] RANDOLPH (Virginia). 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 wd. 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.
[James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 22 August 1787]

[cash]

The Report of the Committee of eleven [see friday the 24th. instant] being taken up,
General [Charles Cotesworth] PINKNEY (South Carolina). 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. [Nathaniel] GHORUM (Massachusetts). 2ded. the motion
Mr. [James] MADISON (Virginia). 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 National character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.
On the motion; which passed in the affirmative.
N. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
Mr. Govr. [Gouverneur] MORRIS (Pennsylvania). was for making the clause read at once, "importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S. Carolina & 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. [George] MASON (Virginia). was not against using the term "slaves" but agst. naming N. C., S. C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the people of those States.
Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut). liked a description better than the terms proposed, which had been declined by the old Congs. & were not pleasing to some people.
Mr. [George] CLYMER (Pennsylvania). concurred with Mr. Sherman
Mr. [Hugh] WILLIAMSON (North Carolina). said that both in opinion & practice he was against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a view of all circumstances, to let in S. C. & Georgia on those terms, than to exclude them from the Union.
Mr. Govr. [Gouverneur] MORRIS (Pennsylvania). withdrew his motion.
Mr. [John] DICKENSON (Delaware). 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 U- S- until the year 1808"-which was disagreed to nem: cont:
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."
N. H. Mas. Con. Md. N. C. S. C. Geo: ay
N. J. Pa. Del. Virga...no
Mr. [Abraham] BALDWIN (Georgia). in order to restrain & more explicitly define "the average duty" moved to strike out of the 2d. part the words "average of the duties laid on imports" and insert "common impost on articles not enumerated" which was agreed to nem: cont:
Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut). was agst. this 2d. part, as acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.
Mr. [Rufus] KING (Massachusetts). & Mr. [John] LANGDON (New Hampshire). considered this as the price of the 1st. part.
General [Charles Cotesworth] PINKNEY (South Carolina). admitted that it was so.
Col. [George] MASON (Virginia). Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on the importation of slaves.
Mr. [Nathaniel] GHORUM (Massachusetts). thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to the importation of them.
Mr. Govr. [Gouverneur] MORRIS (Pennsylvania). remarked that as the clause now stands it implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.
Mr. [Roger] SHERMAN (Connecticut). in answer to Mr. Ghorum observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation.
Mr. [James] MADISON (Virginia). thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandize, consumed, &c
Col. [George] MASON (Virginia). (in answr. to Govr. Morris) the provision as it stands was necessary for the case of Convicts in order to prevent the introduction of them.
It was finally agreed nem: contrad: to make the clause read "but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten dollars for each person," and then the 2d. part as amended was agreed to.
Sect 5. art. VII was agreed to nem: con: as reported. [James Madison, Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, 25 August 1787]

[milhistbuff1]

Rose,
re: post 1061, I am not saying slavery was the only cause of the war of 1812, or the civil war. The issue of slavery is complicated indeed. But it's origins are indisputably southern. Maryland and Virginia took the lead in the mid to late 1600's in transforming a non racial form of indentured servitude to one based solely on the color of your skin. as soon as i get a chance i will post some of those early laws.
respectfully,
Matt

[Wild_Rose]

Cash, I've actually spent the last couple of days reading from the source you cite. I mentioned earlier in a post that it was not for moral reasons that Virginia and South Carolina opposed further slave imports.

Rose

[Wild_Rose]

Originally Posted by milhistbuff1

Rose,
re: post 1061, I am not saying slavery was the only cause of the war of 1812, or the civil war. The issue of slavery is complicated indeed. But it's origins are indisputably southern. Maryland and Virginia took the lead in the mid to late 1600's in transforming a non racial form of indentured servitude to one based solely on the color of your skin. as soon as i get a chance i will post some of those early laws.
respectfully,
Matt

Matt, I'm aware of this old Virginia law from the seventeenth century:

"No negro or Indian though baptized and enjoyned their own freedome shall be capable of any purchase of Christians but yet not debarred from buying any of their owne nation."

"Christians", in this case meant "white", which would lead us to believe blacks and native Americans did own white slaves since a law was passed to prohibit it.

This isn't exactly what you are speaking of, but I thought it was interesting that the state didn't mind minorities owning slaves. The state did object, apparently on racial grounds, to minorities owning whites.

Regards,
Rose

[Fifth Iowa]

While reading from “A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union” to which Unionblue provided the link http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html in another forum, I found (among a diverse list of allegations) the following: “It (i.e. the federal government) seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.”

A provocative declaration. And, sad to say, one with a significant amount of evidence to support it. It appears from their own testimony and correspondence, that only a minority of the soldiers fought for the end of slavery. Preserving the ideal of the Union itself appeared to be the primary motivating impulse for the majority of Yankee volunteers.