CONCLUSION.

The slave-holding system had been introduced into the southern states of the Union, and domesticated there for many years, before the attention of any body was much attracted towards its evils consequences. It had spread even to the north, and of the thirteen provinces which first confederated to form the United States of America, there was not one, in which slavery did. not exist at the time of the union, to a greater or less

extent.

For a considerable period however, prior to the revolutionary war, the people of Virginia,-that state in which the system of slavery had originated, and whence it had spread south and north, became aware of its evil effects, at least to a certain degree, and grew exceedingly urgent with the mother country to put an end to the African slave trade, or at all events to the importation of slaves into Virginia. This boon was denied, through the influence with the government at home, of those British merchants engaged in the. African trade; and this refusal is specially set forth in the Declaration of Independence, as one of those grievances which justified the Revolution, and the civil war by which it was attended.

The revolution led to a general discussion as to the nature of government, and the foundations of civil society; and gave an almost universal currency to a metaphysical theory of human rights, fully stated in the Declaration of Independence and elsewhere. This theory, though it is not a true one, and has led, and always will lead to great errors and mistakes, if logic

ally carried out,-is nevertheless a noble and a glorious theory, and the cause of humanity has been not a little indebted to it. The axioms of this metaphysical theory of rights,-which remains to this day, the generally received doctrine throughout the United States,--are at total variance with the whole system of slavery, and in a very short time after those maxims began to prevail, they came into conflict with it.

In those states in which the slave-holding interest was weak, to wit, in Massachusetts, New-Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey and Pennsylvania, the metaphysical theory of humán rights triumphed, sooner or later, over the slave system, and slavery was abolished in all those states. Being abolished however not upon a full, clear, sound and philosophical view of the matter, but merely upon certain points of metaphysics, no proper means were taken to ensure to the enfranchised class the practical enjoyment of the rights bestowed upon them; and they remain to this day, a degraded caste, subject in every one of those states, to legal disabilities greater or less, and to social disabilities without number.

In the states farther south, the matter worked differently according to the different situation of those states. In Delaware, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, the evil effects of the slave-holding system, even in its economical operation, had become very apparent. This was an argument easily felt and understood; for it is a fact too true, that most men feel and reason best through their pockets. Accordingly in these four states, the metaphysical theory of human rights made a goodly struggle with the system of slavery. All the great men of those states, at that time, Washington, Jefferson, Henry, in fact every citizen who attained to any eminence during the revolutionary struggle, was in favor of emancipation. The reason given by Washington for not at once emancipating his slaves, was, that emancipation, in order to be effectual for the public good and the benefit of the emancipated, ought to be universal, brought about by

a general law, and for such a law he always professed himself ready and desirous to go. This argument in favor of retaining one's slaves, did not however prevail with the more ardent and enthusiastic, and even with the most sober and discreet, including Washington himself, when they came to sit down calmly and make their wills, it seemed to lose the greater part of its force. Thus it happened that although no attempt was made to obtain any general law of emancipation,-ignorance, selfishness and prejudice being too prevalent,-it nevertheless came to pass that by private manumission, the number of the emancipated began rapidly to increase.

In South Carolina and Georgia the state of public opinion was different. Slave labor in those states was still very valuable, and their leading men, with a few honorable exceptions, were great sticklers for slavery and the slave trade. Indeed they absolutely refused to become parties to the Federal Constitution, unless the Federal Government would renounce the right to prohibit the foreign slave trade, prior to 1808.

As regards the growing empire of the north-western states, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin, they owe an eternal debt of gratitude to Thomas Jefferson, who was the original author of that celebrated section of the ordinance, of 1787, by which the introduction of slavery into the territory north-west of the Ohio, is forever prohibited. That ordinance, at the time of its passage, embraced all the unsettled territory belonging to the United States.

Vermont, formed out of lands the possession of which had been disputed between New-York and NewHampshire, and Maine, a more modern offset from the vigorous stem of Massachusetts-were free states from the beginning. Kentucky and Tennessee, set off from Virginia and North Carolina, inherited from their mother states, the infection of slavery.

Meanwhile the struggle between the metaphysical theory of human rights, and the slave-holding system, still went on in Virginia, Maryland and North Caro

lina. But by degrees the spirit of despotism gained the ascendency; and fearful lest individual humanity should accomplish that emancipation by private beneficence, which the Legislatures refused to bring about by any general law, the force of public opinion, as well as of legislation, was brought so to bear, as in a great measure to put an end to voluntary emancipation. The existing regulations upon that subject, in the several slave states of the union, have been stated in a previous chapter. So jealous has the slave-holding spirit of the south become, that in those constitutions which have been latest remodeled, the Legislatures are expressly deprived of the power of passing any general act of emancipation.

It may be stated as a general fact, to which only some slight exceptions occur, that ever since the conclusion of the revolutionary war, the slave-holding spirit of the south has been growing more violent, bitter and exclusive. This fact is easily explained. A careful comparison of opinions and prices current, will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the attachment of the southern people to the institution of slavery, has always been most precisely graduated by the market value of slaves;-a circumstance well worthy of observation, because it goes very far to show, that after all, the question of slavery at the south, is neither more nor less than a mere question of money, and a question therefore, which money, after all, may be able to settle.

During the revolutionary war the value of slave property in Virginia and the neighboring states, sunk to a very low ebb; and the people at that time, exhibited a certain disposition towards emancipation. When the war of the French Revolution had created a vast foreign demand for American agricultural produce, the value of slaves rose, and the disposition to emancipate sunk in proportion.

Thus it happened that when in the year 1803, the territory now comprised in the states of Alabama and Mississippi was obtained by the United States, from

1

the state of Georgia, by purchase, it was no longer possible to make that section of the ordinance of 1787 which secured perpetual freedom to the states northwest of the Ohio, applicable to this newly acquired territory. Indeed this territory by an express article of the compact of cession, was excluded from the operation of that section of the ordinance of 1787, though all the other sections were extended to it. In this way, Alabama and Mississippi became slave-holding states, and were admitted as such into the union.

Nor did Mr. Jefferson, when by his famous treaty with France, he doubted the geographical extent of his country, and acquired the vast territory of Louisiana, deem it prudent to bring forward any ordinance for the perpetuation of freedom through those vast regions. The state of Louisiana was admitted into the union, just before the commencement of the war of 1812, a period of great political excitement upon other topics, which precluded, as is probable, any discussion of the question of slavery at that time.

When however, in 1819, the territory of Missouri applied for admission into the union, the question whether slavery was to be allowed to spread unchecked over the vast regions of the west, came fairly up for discussion.

In the decision of the Missouri question, the friends of freedom have been generally represented as having sustained a severe defeat. This representation however does not seem to be entirely correct. Slave-holders with their slaves had been allowed to settle in Missouri, and they had formed a state constitution, by virtue of which slavery was tolerated. Under these circumstances it was not easy to refuse the State admission into the union, nor was it easy to dictate what kind of a constitution it should have. That controversy was finally settled by a compromise, according to which it was agreed, that slavery should be allowed in Missouri and Arkansas, into which territories it had been already introduced, but that throughout the whole remaining portions of the Louisiana territory,