A Southern Debate on Slavery (1829)

BY THE VIRGINIA CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

[Mr. MONROE.]

WHAT has been the leading spirit of this State, ever since our independence was obtained? She has always declared herself in favour of the equal rights of man. The revolution was conducted on that principle. Yet there was at that time, a slavish population in Virginia. We hold it in the condition in which the revolution found it, and what can be done with this population? If they were extinct, or had not been here, white persons would occupy their place, and perform all the offices now performed by them, and consequently, be represented. If the white people were not taxed, they also would be free from taxation. If you set them free, look at the condition of the society. Emancipate them, and what would be their condition? Four hundred thousand, or a greater number of poor, without one cent of property, what would become of them? Disorganization would follow, and perfect confusion. They are separated from the rest of society, by a different colour; there can be no intercourse or equality between them; nor can you remove them. How is it practicable? The thing is impossible, and they must remain as poor, free from the controul of their masters, and must soon fall upon the rest of the society, and resort to plunder for subsistence. As to the practicability of emancipating them, it can never be done by the State itself, nor without the aid of the Union. And what would be their condition, supposing they were emancipated, and not removed beyond the limits of the Union? The experiment has in part been tried. They have emigrated to Pennsylvania in great numbers, and form a part of the population of Philadelphia, and likewise of New-York and Boston. But those who were the most ardent advocates of emancipation, in those portions of the Union, have become shocked at the charges of maintaining them, as well as at the effect of their example. Nay, Sir, look at Ohio, anti what has she recently done? Ohio acknowledges the equal rights of all, yet she has driven them off from her territory. She has been obliged to do it. If emancipation be possible, I look to the Union to aid in effecting it.

Sir, what brought us together in the revolutionary war? It was the doctrine of equal rights. Each part of the country, encouraged and supported every other part of it. None took advantage of the other’s distresses. And if we find that this evil has preyed upon the vitals of the Union, and has been prejudicial to all the States, where it has existed, and is likewise repugnant to their several State Constitutions, and Bills of Rights, why may we not expect, that they will unite with us, in accomplishing its removal? If we make the attempt and cannot accomplish it, the effect will at least, be to abate the great number of petitions and memorials, which are continually pouring in upon the Government. This matter is before the nation, and the principles, and consequences, involved in it, are of the highest importance. . . .

[Mr. LEIGH.] But it is not a consideration of this vital power of taxation alone, which should impel us of the East, to resist, to the bitter end, this transfer of power to the West. There may be unjust legislation, as well as oppressive taxation. Our slave property is a subject, in the management of which, the owners cannot admit any interference, without the extremest danger. It seems to be supposed, in the United States and in Great Britain too, that those who possess the least portion of that kind of property, are better entitled, and more competent to manage it, than those who have the most; and by parity of reason, those who hold none, have the very best title, and the greatest degree of competency, to the management of it. Upon this principle it is, that Mr. Wilberforce, and the party of the Saints in England, insist on taking the regulation of the slave property in the West Indies into their hands, against the earnest remonstrances of the planters to whom it belongs. So, the statesmen of the Northern States, fancy themselves better acquainted with the subject, than those of the South; and our brethren of the Northern part of this State, claim greater fitness for the task, than their fellow-citizens of the Southern counties. The gentleman from Hampshire, (Mr. Naylor,) thinks, that slavery is one of the causes of the decline of Virginia; and I suppose he would be ready to promote her prosperity, by removing this cause of her decline——

(Mr. Naylor rose, and denied the inference which the gentleman had drawn, from any thing which he had said. He deprecated the idea which had been suggested, as to the emancipation of the slaves. And he took occasion further to state, that he considered it perfectly consistent with the principles of morality and justice, situated as we are, to hold them as we now do.)

Mr. Leigh—The gentleman from Hampshire is advanced in years, and may not change his sentiments—but, when Mr. Wilberforce proposed to abolish the slave trade, he did not imagine, that he should ever find it wise to abolish slavery in the West Indies:—When men’s minds once take this direction, they pursue it as steadily, as man pursues his course to the grave.

Sir, the venerable gentleman from Loudoun (Mr. Monroe) spoke of the impracticability of any scheme of emancipation, without the aid of the General Government. Is he, then, and if he is, are we reconciled to the idea of the interference of the General Government in this most delicate and peculiar interest of our own? What right can that Government have to interfere in it?

(Mr. Monroe here explained. . . . I did not mean to convey the idea that the United States should interfere, of right, as is advocated by many. I meant to suggest, that if the wisdom of Virginia should decide that it was practicable, and invite the aid of the General Government, that it should then be afforded at her instance, and not that of the United States, as having the least authority in the matter.)

Mr. Leigh—I thank the gentleman for his explanation. And now, will he give me leave to propound to him one question—Whether, with his knowledge and experience of the operations of the General Government, he does not know, that if once it be allowed, that that Government may constitutionally interfere at the instance of the State, it will not be inferred, that it can constitutionally interfere without any instance of the

State Government? The moment such an attempt shall be, there will, there must be, an end of this Union. . . .

[Mr. MOORE.] Having expressed my belief that our slaves are by nature equally as free and independent as ourselves, or in other words, that they are by nature, entitled to equal rights and privileges, it may not be improper, that I should make one or two remarks, which though they have no immediate bearing upon the question before us, may serve to prevent any misapprehension of my sentiments upon a subject of such vital importance to this State as that of slavery. I give it then, as my deliberate opinion, that although our slaves are by nature, entitled to equal rights with the rest of the human race, and although it would be both our interest and our duty to send them out from amongst us, if any practicable scheme could be suggested for effecting that object; that yet, all questions as to their rights, are questions between them and ourselves exclusively. It is moreover my opinion, that if the necessity of the case does not furnish a sufficient excuse for our retaining them in servitude, (as I hope it does,) that we are answerable for our injustice towards them, only to our own consciences, and to the Great God of all: and that no foreign people or power, have a right in any manner, under any circumstances, or under any pretence, to interfere between them and us. And so far do I carry my ideas of exclusive right, upon this subject, that if the majority of the people of Virginia, or of their representatives, were to determine to reduce all the free negroes amongst us to a state of slavery, although the proposition in itself would be most abhorrent to my feelings; yet I should regard myself as a traitor to my country, if I did not resist by all the means in my power, any attempt which might be made, on the part of any other people, to interfere. . . .

[Mr. JOHNSON.] Let it be once openly avowed and adopted as a principle of your Constitution, that the price which the Western people must pay for the protection of your slaves, is the surrender of their power in the Government, and you render that property hateful to them in the extreme, and hold out to them the strongest of all possible temptations to make constant war upon it, to render it of no value to you, and to induce you to part with it. A large district of your country, marked out by a geographical line, containing a large minority of the freemen of the country, and expected soon to contain the majority having a large representation in both branches of your Legislature, where its voice can be constantly heard, and its complaints will be perpetually poured forth; this district is to be placed under the ban of the

Empire, and its people to be told, that your slaves exclude them from the pale of authority. I will not say, you will madden them into acts of violence or disloyalty, by such a measure—I believe it not—the people of the West, though zealous and persevering in pursuit of their rights, are in general an industrious and contented people, as obedient to the law, as prudent and as loyal as any people under the sun. But will you not make them zealots on that subject, on which your right of property depends, and which is so intimately connected with your domestic peace? Will you not drive them to seek allies among your own people, associates in the measures, which are necessary to remove the obstacle that stands in their road to power?

Unless I am deceived, very grossly deceived, Mr. Chairman, they would find many and ardent auxiliaries, in the bosom of your own society. How many are there, who owning none of this property, and doomed to the laborious offices of life, feel a sort of degradation in being compelled to perform them in common with the slave, and a sentiment of envy towards their owners? How many who professing conscientious scruples, are even now continually propagating doctrines, which tend to insubordination? . . .

[Mr. STANARD.] . . . The property we seek to protect, not merely serves the uses of man, but itself supplies the place of men. Its value does not consist in consumption—it is not mere brute matter, contributing to the comfort and ornament of life, but it consists of intelligent, sentient, responsible beings, that have passions to be inflamed, hearts to feel, understandings to be enlightened, and who are capable of catching the flame of enthusiasm, from the eloquent effusions of agitators, if not here, at least in other parts of the State: and who may not only be lost to their masters as property, but may change conditions, and become masters themselves; so far, at least, as the ravages of a servile war shall have [leave?] any subject to be ruled over. These are the dangers which necessarily belong to the existence of this species of property within our borders. Are these considerations to have no weight? Will gentlemen still consider our slaves as mere brute matter? Will they shut their eyes to the fact, that there are and will continue to be political missionaries, who, with malignant purposes, or under the stimulation of a misguided philanthropy, industriously spread a contagion which no power may be able to arrest? Shall we shut our eyes and ears to all experience? Nothing is so easily propagated as such enthusiasm, when it comes with all the force of an apparent respect for human right, and a spirit of general philanthropy. Sir, is this the day when such principles will not be propagated? Are the people of the South so steady, as to be impregnably shielded against the sway of such a spirit? Can any gentleman look to the recent history of this country, and say that there are not some feelings, which, under the impulse of enthusiasm, may pass with the rapidity of lightning across the whole extent of this Union?

. . . Sir, I dread not the vices of my brethren, but opinions that to them have the showy of virtue. I fear not their meditated wrong, but their misguided philanthropy. . . .

. . . Is it necessary for me to tell this Assembly, that in regard to these interests, respect is to be had to legislation which affects it even as property? That a wise regard to interests and feelings of the Eastern part of the State, present an irresistible claim on our brethren of the West, not to push their theories so as to take away from us the power to govern our slaves, and make laws of police for them? By the transit of power to hands not acquainted with our situation and dangers, and shielded by a barrier of mountains, who have no fears to sharpen their intellect to the approach of evil, and who know not how to adapt laws to the wants, the condition, the feelings, and the passions of the slaves in regard to those who retain them in bondage, interests, not of property merely, but of life itself, are implicated; these, and all their dearest connexions.

(Richmond, 1830), 149–307 passim.