[1772]

ILLEGALITY OF SLAVERY.

235

XXIII. XXIV.

SLAVERY MISSOURI COMPROMISE POLITICAL, SoCIAL AND ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF SLAVERY.

Parallel: Von Holst, I. 340-409; Wilson, I. 135-61; Greeley, I. 74So; Bryant and Gay, IV. 262-70; Spencer, III. 323-7; Tucker, III. 262-4, 269-86; Benton, View, I. 8-10; Benton, Deb., VI. 333-66, 370-2, 382-565, 567-72; Stephens, War between the States, II. 131-62; Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 44-68.

On the question "Is every man in England entitled to the liberty of his person unless forfeited by the laws of England?" Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in 1772 in the Somerset case decided that "the power (slave-holding) claimed in this return never was in use here. We can not say the cause set forth in this return is allowed or approved of by the laws of this kingdom, and therefore the man must be discharged." (Goodell, Slavery and Anti-Slavery, 51.) But two years before, 1770, the right of a master to hold a slave had been denied by the Superior Court of Mass., in James vs. Lechmere, upon grounds the same substantially as those upon which Mansfield discharged Somerset. (Ibid. 112, N.) In spite of this and of the fact that the rulings of the English courts were valid for the colonies except where they conflicted with colonial charters, slaves were held in Mass. until another similar decision was given after the Revolution; and even in 1833 Chief Justice Shaw had difficulty in fixing the date and grounds of decisions. upon this point previous to his time.

236 SLAVERY ABOLISHED IN MANY STATES. [1780]

Chief Justice Shaw declared "that by the constitution, adopted in 1780, slavery was abolished in Mass. [in 1782] upon the ground that it was contrary to natural right and the plain principles of justice." For, the Declaration of Rights affirmed that "All men are born free and equal."

In the N. H. constitution adopted in 1783, a declaration similar to that in the Mass. constitution was said likewise to have abolished slavery in that State. In R. I. the Assembly enacted that after March 1784 all blacks born in that State should be free. In Conn. a law providing for the gradual abolition of slavery was passed in 1814. Vt. expressly prohibited slavery in its bill of rights. In 1799 N. Y. passed an act for the gradual abolition of slavery; and in 1817 another act declared all slaves in N. Y. free in 1827, and on the 4th of July 1827 the act took effect. N. J. enacted in 1820 that all slaves born after 1805 should be free at the age of 25. Still, in 1846 it appeared necessary to pass a law ostensibly abolishing slavery. Penn. in 1780, passed an act for the gradual emancipation of slavery.

The census of 1790, however, shows that slavery still prevailed even in States where it had been prohibited, Mass. excepted.

[1840] NORTH & SOUTH ECONOMICALLY COMPARED.

237

Even in 1840, of the so-called non-slaveholding States, only Mass., Me., Vt., and Mich. had no slaves; and in that class of States 1,129 slaves were then held. But the number of slaves in the South had increased from 650,000 in 1790 to 2,486,000 in 1840.

This division of the country on the basis of slavery was largely due to the difference of climate and of agricultural products. At first these influences were not appreciated. Jefferson and many other Southern leaders, both before and at the adoption of the Constitution, desired the gradual abolition of slavery; but the indecision of the North in the Constitutional Convention (Notes, 87) delayed its abolition until the discovery of the Cotton Gin (Notes, 93) revealed to the South the value of slave labor and fixed upon it the system of slavery.

As the condition of existence of slave labor is boundless expansion, when once the South had embarked its fortunes on the side of slavery it sought to extend its territory farther south and southwest. Hence the acquisition of La. and Florida, and when admitted as States their absorption by the slaveholding interest. But the non-slaveholding interest more than held its own in this race for the ascendency. The essence of free labor is intensity, i. e. the highest development and employment of individual power. Hence, while the industry of the South was limited to the cultivation of the soil, and that on a large scale and in a superficial way, the industry of the North was not limited to agriculture only, although its system of farming-small farms highly and economically cultivated was very successful; it also turned its attention largely to manufactures. This variety and abundance of employment, together with the taking up of large tracts of rich western

238 STRUGGLE FOR BALANCE OF POWER. [1790]

soil, accelerated greatly the growth of population at the North. The population of the two sections according to the first four censuses was as follows:

Of course the representation of the two sections in the House varied proportionally, and is shown as follows:

The South was, therefore, obliged, if it would secure its supremacy, by the admission of a sufficient number of new and slave States to keep control of the Senate. For, in this body representation was independent of population. This struggle for the balance of power is seen from the adoption of the Constitution. Then the North comprised 7 States, and the South 6. To the North Vt. was added in 1791; to the South Ky. in 1792, and Tenn. in 1796, thus giving 8 States to each section. The North secured O. in 1808, but the South La. in 1812. To the North was added Ind. in 1816, and Ill. in 1818; but to the South Miss. in 1817 and Ala. in 1819; each section at that time, therefore, comprised 11 States. (Johnson, Am. Politics, Apen: Von Holst, I. 356.)

The desire to maintain the balance of power or to incline it in its own favor explains "the stubborn tenacity and passionate energy with which the South for three years fought out the Missouri struggle and all the later contests in behalf of the extension of slave territory." (V. H., I. 356.)

In Feb. 1819 it was recommended to the House by the Committee of the Whole that Mo. be admitted into

[1820]

THE MISSOURI STRUGGLE.

239

the Union. But Talmage of N. Y. moved the amendment that the admission should be made dependent upon two conditions: Prohibition of the further introductior of slaves into Mo., and the emancipation of all slave children born after the admission as soon as they reached the age of 25. The House adopted the amendment, but was unable to induce the Senate to do the same. At the next session, Me. having applied for admission, the Senate coupled the two territories together, and gave the House the alternative of admitting both or neither.

On the principle of State sovereignty the south openly denied that Congress had the right to make the admission of any territory into the Union subject to any condition. The South argued that the Federal Gov't has only the powers granted it by the sovereign States; newly admitted States become members of the Union with equal rights; no other grant of power can, therefore, be demanded from them than those voluntarily made by the 13 original States; no one affirms that these States gave up the right to decide whether slavery should be permitted or forbidden within their boundaries. The South also maintained (1) that Mo., being a part of the La. territory, belonged to the whole Union, and, if slaveholders could not move to Mo. with their slaves, half of the Union was denied the right of colonization; (2) that the fulfilment of the second condition would infringe upon the right of property guaranteed to masters by the treaty with France for the purchase of the La. Territory ; (Stat. at L.. VIII. 200-6) (3) that, as this treaty provided that the inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be admitted as soon as possible into the Union," Congress could not without reason delay the admission of Mo. For it had the requisite number of inhabitants.

66

The argument of the North was rather moral than legal. They appealed to the principles of the Declaration of