Report of the special committee
of the House of representatives
of South Carolina, on so much of
the message of his excellency
Gov, Jas. H. Adams, as relates
to slavery ard the slave trade
.Sfaft
RE PORT
OF THE
O F T H E
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
ON SO MUCH OF THE
MESSAGE OF HIS EXCELLENCY GOV. JAS. H. ADAMS,
AS RELATES TO
SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE.
CHARLESTON:
STEAM POWER. PRESS OF WALKER, EVANS & CO.
No. 3 Broad Street.
1857. '
REPORT
O F T H E
Jtyirinl GJoumittw
OF THE
I0DSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
ON SO MUCH OF THE
MESSAGE OF HIS EXGELLENCY GOV. JAS. H. ADAMS,
AS RELATES TO
SLAVERY AND THE SLAVE TRADE.
CHARLESTON:
STEAM POWER-PRESS OF WALKER, EVANS & CO.,
NO. 3 BROAD STREET.
1 8 5 7.
REPORT.
The Special Committee to whom Was referred so much of
Message No. 1, of his late Excellency Governor James H.
Adams, as relates to Slavery and the Slave Trade, ask leave to
report:
That, being duly impressed with the magnitude of the sub*
ject entrusted to them, they have given it that mature investi¬
gation, and careful attention, which its importance demands.
In deliberating over a topic which deeply absorbs the public
mind, a calm survey of all the questions involved is essential
to a wise conclusion ; and hence they submit a summary of
those views, which, they believe to be a true exposition of the
opinion of the people of South Carolina.
That slavery has always existed, is recorded in the world's
history. That it always will exist, in some form, however
modified by the several circumstances of race, climate, civili¬
zation and tradition, may be inferred; — from the evident
necessity of a menial class of duties to be performed by no
other than a menial class of individuals; from the natural
inequalities existing between the several races, classes and
conditions of men ; from the accumulation of wealth, on the
one hand, which gives patronage and power, and the continu¬
ance of poverty, on the other, which needs protection and
seeks service; from the necessity of social order and civil
government; and from all the other universal evidences which
God has manifested in the economy of his creation.
It is only African slavery, however, which we have now
to consider. And no argument is necessary to show, that this is
an essential element in our domestic and social systems, our
political government and our foreign power; and hence, is
unalterably interwoven with our destiny. With it we survive
4
or perish. And when the intelligent mind is directed to the
train of events which have resulted in this system of slavery—
to the division of the earth into distinct and well defined
continents—to the peopling of these continents with different
and unequal races of men—to the preservation of these dif¬
ferences and inequalities through all the ages of recorded his-
tor}A—to the comparatively simultaneous discovery of America
and Southern Africa—to the extermination of the American
aborigines, and the substitution of Africans, as a laboring class,
in their stead—to the gigantic progress which the slave-hold¬
ing portions of America have made, as the direct consequence
of all this—and to the litter futility of all efforts to exalt the
negro above his natural condition of servility—the best devised
schemes of philanthropy fall into nothingness, before the irre¬
sistible conviction that God designs African slavery to be an
American institution, an unavoidable and unalterable element
of American civilization. When, also, the caste systems of
Asia, the feudal hireling systems of Europe, and the cannibal
slave systems of Africa, are regarded as characteristic of the
races which they respectively illustrate, it is obvious, that the
modified form of African slavery now existing in America,
must not only have resulted from the contact of the African
with the European race, hut, in the absence of foreign inter¬
ference, must be certain of perpetuation, wherever it has taken
root, and is judiciously regulated.
With these truths admitted, our system of slavery is believed,
by your Committee, to be, not only unavoidable, but really
the best form of society under which the resources of our
country can be developed, and a healthy operation of our
government sustained. That these are very seriously threat¬
ened will now be explained.
After the reformation had been accomplished in Europe,
the schoolmen, philosophers and philanthropists, all finding
themselves in controversy, indulged in the most extended
range of enquiry, which sometimes resulted in the wildest and
most erroneous theories. Sects and sectaries without num¬
ber sprang up. The peaceful doctrines of Christianity were
perverted into pretexts for persecution, war and massacre.
5
And after the most fearful issues were crowded into the space
of hut a few generations, a portion of Europe was left under
a burden of practical infidelity. The consequence was, an
ephemeral claim of "rights," which French philosophy, at a
later period, so aptly illustrated—the right of rebellion, mur¬
der and anarchy, the right of treason, or in a single word, the
so called, "rights of man"—the right to do every thing but
obey the laws of God and his country.
The evil was brought to America, simultaneously with the
importation of negroes, and the very men who were most
active in defrauding and exterminating the native tribes of
Indians, were loudest in moralizing over the bondage of the
African slave. A very short deliberation was sufficient to
convince them, that "all men are created equal;" and that
God had no object in allowing both Europe and Africa to
pour out their thousands into the new world, in that contact
of races which could exist under no other condition than that
of the enslavement of the inferior by the superior. The result
was, at first, a sincere aversion to slavery, and an honest
effort, on the part of the European race, whose normal condi¬
tion is personal freedom, to discourage and prevent that per¬
sonal bondage which is the normal condition of the African
race; and subsequently, to prohibit the importation of Afri¬
cans, and thereby prevent, as much as possible, the increase
of that race in America, and so check the expansion and
usurp the power of the institution throughout the continent.
Thus, a proper and natural solicitude for this inferior race,
subsided into, what might properly be termed, a mania for
African liberty, a thing, as yet, unknown to the world.
In the meantime, the American revolution was accom¬
plished. The love of liberty which inspired the leaders of
that struggle, bore many of them, at an after period, beyond
the limits of a sound discretion. Forgetting the insurmount¬
able barrier which nature has planted between the two races
of our population, many of them fell victims to this new
mania, and entered zealously into the measures of the propa¬
ganda. Slavery was prohibited in the Northwest territory.
It was abolished in the Northern States. It was allowed but
6
a partial representation in Congress. And the slave trade
was prohibited, denounced, and declared piratical. So far
did the error progress, that, but for the timely awakening of
the succeeding generation to a sense of their approaching dan¬
ger, it may be feared, it would have eventuated in the most
serious and lasting calamities. The Southern States, how¬
ever, by the successful culture of cotton and other produce,
and being more alive to the material interests of the country
than to the mere sentiment of universal equality and fictitious
liberty, vindicated the integrity of their institution, by render¬
ing it indispensable to the civilized and commercial world.
This alone served to cut off much of the danger which then
threatened our system of domestic slavery. And if, at this
juncture, it had been left to its own self-development, there
can be no doubt it would long since have outlived all those
unfounded objections, and that irrational opposition which
are now bearing down upon it with the combined force of
prejudice, envy, arrogant ignorance, and growing fanaticism.
But we were not allowed the privilege of peaceably pursuing
the course of our destiny. The negro mania had grown
apace on the other side of the Atlantic. It had received a
powerful impetus from the anti-slavery policy of the Northern
States and of the Federal Government; and it took up its
abode in the French Convention and the British Parliament.
African slavery thus fell under the ban of the British and
French Empires. And though the blood-stains of St. Do¬
mingo make up a rival blemish to those of St. Bartholomew
upon the page of French history, and though the bare men¬
tion of the British West Indies would be the signal for ridi¬
cule and jest, were not those islands the most degrading
monuments of human folly, yet it is to the abolition of slavery
and the slave trade by the British and French governments,
and more especially to the continued hostility of the former,
that much of the present opposition to Southern civilization
and prosperity is due, as will now be shown.
It is a fallacy to suppose that interest alone, or any other
single motive, decides the fate of nations, or controls the des¬
tiny of a people. Ambition, pride, envy, prejudice, avarice,
7
and even religion and philanthropy are deeply involved in
the management of all human affairs. And, though it may
he, that in our advanced state of enlightenment, our interests
are frequently decisive of our policy, it is. yet true, that some
one or more of these other motives never fail to modify our
perception and appreciation of those interests. This has been
pre-eminently the case with the British government, in the
course it has pursued with respect to African slavery on this
continent and on the adjacent islands.
The time was, when slavery and the slave trade were
deemed so essential to the development of British wealth and
power, that British merchants and shipowners enjoyed a vir¬
tual monopoly of the trade. The energy, power and forecast
of Great Britain had put her into possession of the most desir¬
able regions of North America, a large proportion of the
West India Islands, and a growing expanse of territory in the
tropical regions of the Old World. Thus, with her central gov¬
ernment in a small island off the coast of Europe, she had
within her grasp greater and more various colonial resources
than any other modern power. Spain was her only rival, but
Spain was sinking to decay. Her true interests, therefore,
would have dictated a fostering care of these resources, a
gradual and cautious extension of her commerce based upon
them, a solicitude for the growth and prosperity of her depen¬
dencies, and, above all, an avoidance of those entanglements
which embroiled her with the continental powers, and which
occasioned a neglect of her colonial interests. But this desir¬
able policy she did not, probably could not, pursue. A
course of mistaken legislation resulted in the loss of those
colonies, which have sprung up, under our confederacy, as a
rival power. And the infatuation of a morbid philanthropy
brought ruin upon her West India Islands. Hoping, in vain,
that we also would yield to the general clamor for emancipa¬
tion, her error was discovered only when we declined to fol¬
low her example, but preferred to profit by it. Thus, at two
successive blows, she deprived herself of the bulk of the
American tropical and semi-tropical resources, which were
safely within her grasp. And here began her efforts to keep
8
alive the struggle which is now rending our country and
threatening the stability of our republican edifice.
The lesson so plainly taught us in West India has not been
lost to the Southern mind. It has checked the heedless phil¬
anthropy of our fathers. Emancipation in the Southern States
is now both a legal and moral impossibility. The culture and
consumption of cotton, and other slave produce, constitute, in
themselves, a mortgage upon the good faith of mankind. And
it is too late, in the progress of events, for the voice of Wilber-
forcian philanthropy to be heeded. The great want of the
day is tropical produce, and this want is destined to measure
the decay of negro humanity. Great Britain has long been
the leading commercial and manufacturing power of the world,
and hence, is deeply interested in sustaining her present, if not
recovering her past influence, in all that pertains to a profitable
solution of the difficulties attending a competent supply of this
want. Plow can she accomplish this ? She cannot regain
her lost colonies. Consistency, for the present at least, pre¬
vents her restoring her former system of labor in the West
Indies. Her "apprentice," "free emigrant," and "cooly" sys¬
tems have each failed. Her gigantic efforts in East India fall
far short of the desired result, and are more unpromising now
than ever. Failing to attain any actual advance from the
dilemma into which she has fallen, her only alternative is to
seek a comparative result. This can be accomplished only
by embarrassing, jeopardizing and crippling those countries of
America which, by avoiding her example, have preserved the
institution of slavery, and thereby continued to supply com¬
merce with the products which civilization demands as the
necessaries of life. One sure method of doing this is, to keep
up the abolition agitation in the slaveholding countries, and
to suppress the slave trade wherever it exists. This policy,
which she has industriously and successfully pursued, is not
now, and never was, any other than a well conceived scheme
of self aggrandisement.
A single remark will verify this assertion. The "free labor"
system in the British West Indies is a costly and irretrievable
failure, and the produce of those colonies is reduced to a
9
shadow of its former value and importance. If, then, the same
failure could be effected in Brazil, Cuba, and the United States,
the same reduction of produce would follow as the conse¬
quence. In other words, if the British government, by means
of her abolition measures, could, at any future time, succeed
in abolishing slavery in Brazil and Cuba, but more especially
in the United States, it is plain that, in point of relative pro¬
ductive capacity, the South and the British West Indies would
be reduced to the same footing. The same result would fol¬
low in Brazil and Cuba. It is well known, that the British
Government has a predominating influence at the Spanish and
Brazilian courts, and it is certain that no better disposed nor
more serviceable allies could be desired, in her designs upon
the South, than the abolitionists of the North, who constitute
a large and well organized party in that section of the Union.
It is not without hope, therefore, of at least a partial success,
that this long loved project is adhered to. With slavery abol¬
ished throughout America, what is now called "free African"
labor would spring up on its ruins; and, while the world
would loose a large proportion of the produce it has enjoyed,
the productive capacity of British West India, relatively to the
new "free African" countries, would return to what it was
before slavery was abolished there, and the British American
colonies would be enabled to supply the same relative amount
to the world's commerce that they did previous to the emanci¬
pation act.
The abolition policy of the British government, therefore,
having for its sole object the certain ruin of the slaveholding
powers of America, is confined in its application only to Bra¬
zil, Cuba and the Sou thern States. The course to be pursued
is necessarily different with respect to each. That in relation
to Brazil is the first we shall notice.
Having succeeded in the nominal suppression of the slave
trade in that Empire, she found that her task was only begun.
An illicit traffic was carried on without let or hindrance. The
coffee crops continued to increase, and the slave labor of Bra¬
zil was more profitable and prosperous than ever. When the
port of Rio was first opened to commerce, the coffee crop of
10
Brazil was but 8,000,000 pounds. In 1854 it had reached
400,000,000—a rate of increase similar to that of our cotton.
This increase and prosperity it was the supposed interest and
' actual determination of the British government to impair, and
if possible destroy. The Brazilian slave population, consist¬
ing chiefly of males, and depending mainly on importations
for its increase, it was evident, that by making a more success¬
ful effort to stop importations, this population must rapidly
diminish in number, and the coffee crops, and other produce
of their labor must sustain a corresponding diminution. The
cruisers on the Afriran coast were soon found to be unable to
prevent importation. And the only remaining resort was, to
invest the Brazilian coast, and induce the execution of more
stringent prohibitory laws in the Brazilian ports. In this effort
the British government has finally succeeded, and the impor¬
tations entirely ceased in 1854.
Thus far, then, British policy has been crowned with suc¬
cess in Brazil. The only remaining step now is, to abolish
slavery there. The consummation of this final measure is
already in agitation, and has been seriously discussed within
the present year. The steady decrease in the slave population
which must ensue, if the suspension of the slave trade is per¬
sisted in, is calculated to ensure such a result.
But already does the consequence appear in the supply and
price of Rio coffee, the great staple produce of Brazil. The
crop which amounted in 1854 to 400,000,000 pounds, fell
80,000,000 short the following year, and in 1856 was equally
short. The deficiency in the supply of coffee for the world's
consumption already amounts to over 130,000,000 pounds, and
the price of "Rio" has doubled in ten years. But while the
Brazilian crop is thus decreasing, and must continue to de¬
crease as African slave labor decreases, those of Java, Suma¬
tra, Mocha, and the other coffee producing countries, are
either steadily increasing, or at least remain stationary, and
that of Ceylon has doubled in six years. This British Col¬
ony, which is nearly four times the size of Jamaica, and which
but ten years ago was fifth on the list of coffee producing
countries, is now third, and under the impetus of the high
11
prices, occasioned by the decrease of the Brazilian crop, is likely
to rise still higher in the scale. Thus it appears that British
policy is on the eve of success in Brazil. It has long since
been openly announced that the abolition of slavery through¬
out the American continent is the ardent desire of the British
government; and the lapse of but a few years will decide,
whether she will not be crowned with entire success in the
great slaveholding empire of South America.
The next object of British solicitude is Cuba. To this Isl¬
and the African slave trade is now chiefly limited. And
flushed with her recent success in Brazil, Great Britain is ap¬
plying herself to this chosen task with all the ardor which the
promise of success can inspire. This task consists in nothing
less than rendering Cuba worthless to the world. It is well
known that the policy of the two powers now assuming to
have Spain in their protection is, to "render Cuba valueless to
the United States." This is the alternative to which they
profess to be driven by the refusal of our government to sign
their proposed "tripartite treaty" in 1852. And it is too eviden t
to need confirmation, that Cuba cannot be rendered valueless
to the United States, by the proposed means of emancipation,
without at the same time being made worthless and disgrace¬
ful to the civilized portion of mankind. This island now
stands in the midst of the Antilles, a living rebuke, not only
to the barbarism of Hayti and Jamaica, but to the past frenzy
and folly of France and of England. Yet England, heedless of
the rebuke and intent only on a scheme of ruin, carnage and
desolation (which the God of nations, will in justice to his crea¬
tures, some day cause to recoil with redoubled fury upon her
own dominions, and whose sins of transgression are, even now,
so terribly visited upon her in the very heart of her Indian
empire,) is redoubling her efforts, with no little promise of suc¬
cess, entirely to cut off from Cuba a supply of that labor, the
produce of which is beneficial to the commercial world, and
this, too, with that hardy hypocrisy, which forgets that the
veil of philanthropy has long been torn away from it.
The state of things in Spain, as well as Cuba, rendered it
impossible that the same policy could succeed in Cuba that
12
has triumphed in Brazil. The evident importance of this
island to the United States, coupled with the difficulties to be
overcome at the Spanish Court, was sufficient to induce the
British ministry to call in the aid of France, the latter nation
being in such close and peculiar proximity to Spain. In this
coalition, the objects of the two governments were widely dif¬
ferent. England was intent upon her great ulterior design—
emancipation, and was anxious to enlist France, only as an
abettor in the scheme whose services could be useful at the
Court of Madrid. France, on the other hand, was indifferent
as to emancipation, but was sensibly alive to the political ad¬
vantages of the occasion, and promptly allied herself with
England. The plan of operations was soon agreed upon, and
the " tripartite treaty," was audaciously proposed to the
government of the United States with the almost certain
knowledge that it would he unhesitatingly rejected. Neither
government was sincere in the offer. England, in particular,
was anxious only for the refusal of our government, in order
that she might build new toils upon it, and carry out, with
more plausibility, and with better prospects of success, her abo¬
lition designs upon Cuba. The cooly trade was stimulated,and
large numbers of that class of "free emigrants" have annually
ever since been carried to Cuba. The suppression of the
African slave trade south of the equator, by means of the re¬
cent acts of the Brazilian government had become certain,
and consequently it was known that the slave trade would
soon be confined to Cuba. With this traffic thus narrowed
down to a single island, two means of success remained in
the hands of the British government ; one was to supply the
demand for labor with coolies, and with "free African emi¬
grants," and the other was to remove her African squadron to
the coast of Cuba, and by that means more effectually prevent
the importation of slaves, and so diminish the slave population
of that island. In the adoption of either means, however,
great caution was necessary. For besides the ever watchful
eye of the people if not the government of the United States, the
agriculture, commerce and political connections of Cuba are too
valuable to Spain to be rudely wrested from her, even though the
13
subtle arts of British diplomacy be thrown as a covering over
the naked fact. The proposition, then, to render Cuba value¬
less to the United States, contemplated the two experiments
just mentioned. Both have been tried. With what ultimate
success yet remains to be seen. A partial success, however,
already appears.
Within the last ten or twelve years, at least 24,000 coolies
have been landed in Cuba. But the coolies were soon found
not to suit either the people, the wants, or the institutions of
Cuba, and it became evident that the cooly slave trade could
not easily be made to supplant the African slave trade. The
only other alternative in this branch of the scheme was, to
supply the demand for labor with " free African emigrants."
This also was attempted when the Marquis de Pezuela was
Captain General. The plan was matured in the foreign
office at Madrid, and confidential circulars were issued from
the Captain General's office in Havana. But the people of
Cuba were not prepared to have their fertile island overrun
by a horde of lawless "free Africans," and they remonstra¬
ted with the home government. Spain was forced to recoil
from the fatal measure, and the British government had to
fall back on the slower, but, perhaps, most certain plan of sur¬
rounding Cuba with a navy, and besieging the Spanish Court
with all the artifice of diplomacy, with a view to a total sup¬
pression of the slave trade as the only means of effecting final
emancipation.
This policy is now actively pursued. The British govern¬
ment has long been urging Spain to declare the slave trade
piracy, but Spanish good sense perceives the absurdity of
such a declaration and will not accede to the proposition.
But being bound under the most solemn treaty obligations,
it is impossible for Spain to resist the frequent remonstran¬
ces of her powerful ally. These remonstrances have recently
become positive and threatening; a large British naval force
to surround Cuba is in contemplation, if not already in
commission, and the Captain General has been forced to is¬
sue a decree of the most arbitrary nature, against any further
importation of slaves. And whatever may be the disposition
of the Cuban population to evade this recent decree, or what-
14
ever may be the amount of sincerity on the part of the Span¬
ish authorities, it is certain that all the vigilance and power of
the British government will bear upon its faithful and exact
execution. It is thus no longer improbable that British policy
will meet with the same success in Cuba as in Brazil.
With the African slave trade effectually suppressed in
Brazil and Cuba, and the cooly slave trade, or the "free
negro" slave trade substituted, it is obvious that emancipation
must soon follow, and either one or the other of two re¬
sults will ensue. If the "free African emigration" system
proves a successful evasion of both the name and responsi¬
bility of slavery, a new system of bondage will be established
in all the British, French, Spanish and Dutch West India
and Guiana possessions. These possessions together are ca¬
pable of employing profitably a population of six millions,
and, therefore, if the scheme succeeds, are competent to sup¬
ply a large portion of the tropical produce needed for the
world's consumption, and by that means to contribute to the
wealth, prosperity and power of the governments to which
they respectively belong. But if, on the other hand, as your
committee believe will be the case, the deceitful artifice of
" free African emigration" will prove a failure, the abolition
of slavery in Brazil and Cuba, by whatever means attained,
will result, as it every where has in tropical latitudes, in the
utter ruin of those fruitful and prosperous countries. The
commercial world will lose a large item of trade, but the
sugar, coffee and cotton producing colonies of Great Britain,
wherever they may be throughout the world, will revive and
grow in comparative prosperity and importance. And the
Southern States of this Union will find themselves the only
remaining slaveholding country in America. This brings
your committee to the policy of the British government with
respect to us.
It will be remembered that the abolition of the slave trade
was a foregone conclusion in this country, long before the
act of 1807, which finally abolished it, and long also before
the British government adopted the measure. This was not
without its effect. During the protracted discussion of the
subject in parliament, frequent allusion is made to the ex-
15
ample set by our government. The ordinance of 1787, and
the abolition of slavery in the Northern States of the Union,
were also calculated to inspire the hope that emancipation
would gradually ensue throughout the Union. Indeed, this
was the expectation of many leading American statesmen of
that epoch. When, therefore, the British government abol¬
ished the slave trade, and the abolition party began to agitate
the scheme of abolishing slavery also in the West Indies, it
was with a well founded hope that the remaining slave States
of the Union would gradually fall into the measure. This
hope could not fail to have been encouraged by the 24th arti¬
cle of the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation of 1806,
and by the 10th article of the treaty of Ghent, which solemnly
declared the traffic in slaves to be irreconcilable with the prin¬
ciples of humanity and justice, and pledged the government of
the United States to endeavor to promote its entire abolition
throughout the world. And the hope was reasonable. For, with
slavery confined, as it then was, to but a few States, prohibited
in the territories, debarred from increase by importation, un¬
popular at home, denounced abroad, and one of its adjuncts
branded with injustice and inhumanity by two solemn treaties
between two of the then largest slaveholding powers of the
world, it could not have been foreseen that, in a single gener¬
ation, it would live down all these obstacles to its progress
and vindicate the majesty of its power through the necessi¬
ties of mankind. Had the prospect been realized, and slavery
eventually abolished throughout the United States, the com¬
parative productive power of the Southern States and of the
British West Indies would have remained unchanged by the
emancipation act, as already stated, and hence the British
government could have indulged in schemes of philanthropy
without the risk of having its colonies reduced so infinitely
below the Southern States in point of productive power. And
the evident indulgence of this hope goes far to explain what
would otherwise be the inexplicable folly of the emancipa¬
tion act.
This hope, however, well founded as it appeared, was
blasted. The tide of abolition was checked on the borders of
Virginia and Kentucky. Our cotton and other produce rap-
16
idly became a recognized necessity to the commercial world,
and more particularly to British commerce and manufactures.
The British government was thus brought to the simultaneous
conclusions, that West India emancipation was a disgraceful
failure, and Southern civilization a magnificent success. And
here began that policy on the part of England, which it has
been and should ever be, the highest aim of Southern states¬
men to fathom, to foil, and to frustate. The acquisition of
Louisiana and Florida had already extended the "slave ter¬
ritory" of the United. States far beyond its original boundary,
and the admission of four new slave States into the Union
has been the consequence. These measures were, of course,
beyond the reach of any foreign power. But an opportunity
was approaching which, if made available, might limit our
territory to the western boundarjf of Louisiana. The oppor¬
tunity was afforded by the Texan revolution.
But in the meantime, British abolition sentiment and de¬
signs were industriously infused into the existing sectional
jealousy of the hireling States. The abolition societies of
these States and of England were brought into constant and
cordial communication. Their plans were matured at the
London "World's" Convention, in 1840, and the well known
Texas plot was agreed upon.
The part to be performed by the British government em¬
braced a double object. The large territory claimed by Texas
was known to contain most of the remaining cotton land of
North America. A virtual control of these lands would,
therefore, be invaluable to British commerce. The country
was but thinly settled by the white race, and the number of
slaves was small enough to render emancipation of easy at¬
tainment. Thus, if by a timely interposition of her influ¬
ence and diplomacy, Great Britain could establish a rival cot¬
ton producing country at our very door, and prevent the
growth of slavery there, she would partially escape a growing
dependence on the slave products of the United States, and
at the same time set up a barrier to the further extension of
Southern civilization in that direction. There was but one
obstacle in the way; Texas preferred annexation to the Uni-
17
ted States. Her affairs, however, required adjustment, and
the joint opposition to her annexation, raised by the Northern
and British abolition party, occasioned delays and embarrass¬
ments highly detrimental to a young Republic in her posi¬
tion. The British government seized upon this opportunity.
The disturbed condition of Mexican politics had previously
frustrated all the efforts of British diplomacy in that quarter.
But when, in 1842, Santa Anna had resolved to send an in¬
vading army into Texas, to declare emancipation to the lew
slaves that were there, British assistance was believed to have
been liberally extended, and further promised in case of suc¬
cess. And simultaneously, the project of the quintuple treaty
was announced.
It was still doubtful whether Texas would be annexed to
the United States, but it was certain that a new country was
about to be opened to the world for settlement, and that the
requisite supply of labor must come from abroad. There
were but three probable sources from which this labor could
be obtained, at least for agricultural purposes—either from the
United States, from Africa, or from East India, where the
"cooly" slave trade was then beginning to flourish. She could
not obtain slaves to any extent from the United States, except
in the event of annexation. She could not get them from
Africa, except in foreign vessels, she having none of her own,
and all such vessels would be engaged in illicit traffic were
they to enter into the slave trade, for all the maritime nations
had prohibited it. In spite of this, however, the trade was
extensively conducted in Brazil and Cuba, and might easily
have been extended across the Gulf to Texas. The importa¬
tion of coolies was not probable, unless Texas should prohibit
African/slavery, and surrender herself up to the guidance of
the British government. Thus it was probable that slavery
would be extended throughout the cotton regions of Texas,
and one possible means of this extension was the importation
of Africans. To prevent a resort to this means, was one of
the many objects contemplated in the European slave trade
coalition of 1842, as proposed to be consummated in the
quintuple treaty. The great and patriotic efforts, however, of
2
IS
Mr. Calhoun, General Jackson, and other Southern statesmen,
soon removed the doubt, and secured the annexation of Texas.
This gave the death blow to the last direct effort of the British
government to embarrass slavery in the Southern States. In¬
direct means are now the only resort.
The utter hopelessness of abolishing slavery in the South¬
ern States, except through the medium of parties in the Uni¬
ted States, became obvious. The condition of things renders
it possible for the British government to bring down ruin upon
Brazil and Cuba, by means already stated. But none of those
means are applicable to the South. Her only means of suc¬
cess here is, through the blind fury of Northern hatred to
Southern institutions. Her interest in American politics is deep
and growing. And perhaps it would not be extravagant to
say, that no event would be more consonant with the interests
and wishes of Great Britain than a dissolution of the Ameri¬
can Union. In such an event, our navigation laws would be
changed, and the British shipping interest would compete on
an equal footing with that of the North, for the carrying trade
of the South, our tariff on foreign produce and manufactures
would cease, and the British manufacturing and mining in¬
terests would compete on an equal footing with those of the
North, in the Southern market, the coasting trade would be
displaced by a foreign trade, and the great centre of exchange
for the Southern money market, would be transferred from
New York to London, and England would reap the benefit.
But these are only incidental to the great ulterior object, and
hence, the intimate coalition of the British and Nothern aboli¬
tion influence, ever since the day that Texas was annexed.
If it be true, that Great Britain ardently desires the aboli¬
tion of slavery throughout America, with the view of a com¬
parative recovery of her lost resources, and that in further¬
ance of this desire, she is earnestly striving, in Brazil and
Cuba, to accomplish an end which she well knows will cost
them a degree of ruin similar to that experienced in her own
West India colonies ; then it may be true, and your com¬
mittee is warranted from all the indications of the day in
assuming that, to sow further dissentions between the North-
19
em and Southern sections of the Union, with the hope of dis¬
solving their compact under circumstances calculated to en¬
sure a series of civil and servile wars, is the diabolical scheme
upon which British calculation has brought Northern hatred,
license and fanaticism to unite, and that it is this, and this
alone, which is now fermenting the evil passions of our peo¬
ple, blinding the vision of our statesmen, paralyzing the effi¬
cacy of our laws, viciating the harmony of our States, invad¬
ing the sanctity of our churches, debasing our literature, dis¬
tracting our foreign policy, impairing the integrity of republi¬
can institutions, disgracing our legislation, and polluting the
very alters of justice.
It is unnecessary to adduce evidence of this. It is the in¬
evitable consequence of all that has gone before. It appears
in and around every thing connected with our present and
future history. But, in thus connecting the influence and
policy of a foreign nation with the internal discord and jeal¬
ousy which is rushing headlong throughout our land, your
committee do not advance the opinion that the one results
from the other. On the contrary, they have grown up to¬
gether. The whole history of our Union displays the truth,
that the hireling and slave sections comprise two distinct peo¬
ples, having distinct civilizations, distinct characteristics, in¬
stitutions, aspirations and destinies. It is nevertheless true,
that, through the medium of the press, if not also through the
action of Northern State Legislatures, and even of the Federal
Government, the coalesced influence of the British and North¬
ern abolition sentiment, operates as directly and unitedly
against Southern civilization, as though they were one and
the same in origin and nature. And hence, it is difficult, if
not impossible, to consider the one in disconnection with the
other. The pursuits, customs, laws, religion and language of
Great Britain and the United States are the same, and so forc¬
ibly does this similitude bear upon the issue now presented
to the Southern States, that your committee feel they would
be taking too contracted a view of their subject, were they to
regard it as a simple question of domestic policy. Slavery in
the Southern States is injuriously affected, and the African
20
slave trade is prohibited and denounced, as well by treaty
stipulations as by legislative enactments. An investigation,
therefore, of the effects of existing laws upon slavery and the
slave trade, and an enquiry as to the modifications to be de¬
sired, involve our foreign as well as federal relations.
Being fully impressed with these views, your committee are
constrained to advance them in. proof of the fact that South¬
ern civilization, and Southern resources and prosperity are
endangered as well from foreign as from domestic influences.
It has been partly shown, and could, if necessary, be fully
demonstrated, that the most powerful maritime nation of Eu¬
rope has been striving for half a century, and is still exerting
every possible effort, to destroy slavery throughout America;
that it is likely soon to meet with success in Brazil and Cuba;
that, in this event, the Southern States must stand forth before
an opposing world, the only remaining civilized slaveholding
power; that under our own government the Union is sec-
tionally divided; that this division is due solely to a radical
and irreconcilable difference of sentiment with respect to
slavery; that our government is, or must soon be, in the
hands of the section thus opposed to us. And that, with this
governing section and this foreign power thus allied against
us, under the circumstance of our probable isolation, there is
no salvation for the South but in her own united exertions,
seems to be a self-evident conclusion.. The great question
then occurs, what is to be done ? Before proceeding with
this, it may be well to premise, that, since the issue is pre¬
sented to the South and the South alone, the South alone
must meet it; and since it is presented to the whole South,
the whole united South should meet it. In meeting it, how¬
ever, with a sole reliance upon the justice of our cause, and
with the certainty of that protection which the God of nations
will bestow upon those people which honor and obey his
laws, it becomes us so to shape our course that we may even¬
tually convert enemies into friends through a double convic¬
tion of their own interests and of our rights.
It has been already stated that the great want of the day
is tropical produce, and it may now be added, that this is no
21
new want. It was due to this want that the abolition senti¬
ment of our ancestors was gradually extinguished in the
Southern States. For it is well known, that just in propor¬
tion as the culture of cotton, rice, tobacco, sugar, hemp
and the other produce of slave labor, became profitable,
slavery became more popular at the South, more beneficial to
the North and to Great Britain, and more conducive to the
wealth and prosperity of each. It is. thus true, that to the
consumption of the produce of slave labor is due the perpetu¬
ation, extension and prosperity of slavery at the South.
Slavery is built upon this consumption, for, without a sale
for its produce, it would cease. So, also, is the large com¬
mercial and manufacturing interest of the North and of Great
Britain built upon Southern slavery, at least to the extent of
the amount of produce received from the South, for, without
this produce, that interest would be ruined. There is hence
a mutual dependence of slavery upon commerce and manu¬
factures, and of commerce and manufactures upon slavery
It is, consequently, the interest of each that the other should
increase and prosper, for, in the natural operation of cause
and effect, consumption begets production, and production
begets 'consumption, and any artificial cause which checks
the one, impedes the other. Cotton is the leading product of
Southern slave labor, and is the chief material consumed by
commerce and manufactures. It, therefore, is the great index
of the relation, at any time subsisting, between the supply
and demand of slave produce. If the amount produced
steadily suffices for the demand, the relation is healthy and
prosperous; if it exceeds the demand, it requires increased
consumption, at a reduced price; if it falls short of the de¬
mand, it diminishes consumption at an advanced price. The
evident remedy in one case is, to limit the production to the
point at which a profit is realized, until an increased demand
calls for an increased production ; and in the other is, to in¬
crease the production up to the point required by the in¬
creased demand. The steady increase in the demand for
cotton renders the first of these remedies entirely unneces¬
sary, while it calls loudly for the second. In answering the
22
great question, therefore, as to what measures should be taken
by the South to rescue slavery from its impending dangers,
this, as to the means of supporting the steadily increasing de¬
mand for cotton, enters with predominating force. For, if it
be true, that African slavery has heretofore been secured
against abolition by its produce having been rendered neces¬
sary to commerce, through the absence of similar produce
from any other source, it must be true, that its future security
depends upon an increased production proportionate to the
increased demand. If it is the mission of slavery, in the
Southern States, to supply mankind with that cotton, and
other produce, not so conveniently obtained elsewhere, then it
is a solemn condition of that mission, that the productive ca¬
pacity of these States shall be increased, by the readiest means,
as the demand for the produce requires. And if this condi¬
tion is not observed, if Southern productive industry is not
increased, just to the extent of the demand for its produce,
then must Southern civilization prove incompetent or recreant
to its mission, and give place for some competitor more wor¬
thy and more faithful to its trust; for, if there is a fact more
clearly demonstrated than another, it is the necessity of cotton
to mankind. At present, the bulk of the cotton known to
commerce, is the produce of African slavery in America, and
by virtue of this fact, the necessity of cotton to mankind is
reduced down to the necessity of our African slavery to com¬
merce. But if African slavery, by means of existing restric¬
tions upon the slave trade, is to be kept within its present
limits and rate of increase, while the necessity of cotton
grows annually with an increasing rate, it is plain that man¬
kind must look elsewhere than to us for the additional supply,
and when this supply is found, and permanently established,
ours will become less and less a necessity, and slavery in the
Southern States must gradually lose one of its most indispen¬
sable elements of internal wealth and prosperity, and external
importance and power.
It was, doubtless, in view of such considerations as these,
that his Excellency indicated the re-opening of the African
slave trade, as the only means of obtaining that abundance,
23
and consequent cheapness of labor, which will secure to us
the partial monopoly of the cotton trade we have heretofore
enjoyed. In this, and the other leading views of his Excel¬
lency, your committee fully concur. And, were it in the power
of the Legislature of South Carolina to re-open the slave trade,
as it did in 1803, by act, they would unhesitatingly recommend
the measure, under such restrictions as would ensure a proper
and humane prosecution of the traffic. But a provision of the
federal constitution has authorized Congress to prohibit the
importation of slaves, and another has empowered the Presi¬
dent. "to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators
present concur." This constitution also declares,that all acts
of Congress, passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties, shall
\ be the supreme law of the land. There are thus two classes
of laws emanating from the federal government which bind
the several States of the Union. 1st. Those passed by Con¬
gress and approved by the President; and 2d. Those negotiated
by the President with a foreign government, and subsequently
ratified by such government and the Senate of the United
States. Under each of these classes, there are laws which not
only prohibit the importation of slaves, but denounce such
importation in no measured terms.
Before proceeding to a discussion of these laws, and the
consideration of measures for their modification, your com¬
mittee will briefly enquire, whether, if it were in the power of
South Carolina, and the other Southern States, to re-open the
African slave trade without the intervention of Congress, their
true interests would suggest such a policy. And first with re¬
spect to this State alone. Does South Carolina need a further
importation of slaves from Africa?
This is a simple question of fact. No element of morals or
religion enters into it. It stands recorded in our Statutes, that
we have no scruples of this sort. And the undivided opinion
of South Carolina is, that the importation of negroes from
Africa, and their being made to cultivate our soil, under the
equitable laws which control and protect our common inter¬
ests, would violate no law of God nor any principle of justice.
This State comprises an area of about 20,000,000 acres.
24
According to the most reliable information, there are no-less1
than 3,750,000 acres of this area capable of successful culture,
without a large out-lay of labor and capital. There are, in
addition, 1,300,000 acres of swamp and river bottom, not
reclaimed, but unquestionably capable of the most profitable
culture, provided sufficient labor could be bestowed upon them.
There are consequently over 5,000,000 acres of our State capa¬
ble of profitable culture, the greater portion of which only
awaits the requisite labor. The greatest proportion of this land
is in the alluvial and malarious section of the State, lying
between the heads of navigation and the sea shore, and to this
portion your committee will chiefly confine their remarks, for
the reason that no other agricultural labor than that of the
negro can ever subsist there. The upper part of the State is
more salubrious, and negro labor in that section, though
equally valuable with that in the lower, and more rapidly
increasing, is, perhaps, less absolutely indispensable. If, there¬
fore, the importation of slaves from Africa be desirable at all,
it must be in the lower section. This section comprises about
half the territory of the State, and a comparison of the amouut
of cultivated area, and the number of the slave population in
1820, and in 1850, will convey an idea of the rate at which
the agricultural wealth of this part of the State increases.
In 1820, the cultivated area of this section was about 550,-
000 acres, and the additional area of all descriptions of land,
capable of culture, but still uncultivated, was 2,200,000 acres.
The slave population amounting to 179,000 in round num¬
bers.
In 1850, the number of slaves had increased to but 226,000,
and the soil in actual cultivation cannot have exceeded 700,-
000 acres. Thus, in thirty years, a period of uninterrupted
tranquility, there was but 30 per cent, addition made to the
cultivated area, and but twenty-six per cent., which is less
than one per cent, per annum, to the slave population. The
five seaboard districts increased their slave population less than
five per cent, in these thirty years, which is less than one sixth
of one per cent, per annum. And the two adjoining districts
of Charleston and Colleton actually lost 2,600 slaves which is
25
three and a half per cent, of their slave population in 1820.
Now it is well known, that the natural increase of our slave
$ 7
population is about 2\ or 3 per cent, per annum. The ques¬
tion therefore occurs, where are the other 2 per cent, of the
slaves belonging to this section of the State ? Where are the
2| per cent, belonging to the seaboard districts ? The census
returns of Florida, Georgia, and the States to the west of them,
afford the answer. The rapid increase of slave population in
those States has occasioned a diminished rate of increase in
this, and by that means, has kept a proportionate amount of
our cultivable area out of tillage. On the other hand, if the
natural rate of increase in our slave population were preserved^
a corresponding addition would appear in our cultivated area,
and in our crops, exports, wealth and prosperity.
But, without a further resort to figures, it is sufficient to say
that the comparative decrease in the productive power of the
lower section of the State appears, though in a less degree, in
the whole State. The rate of increase in our slave population
is a fair criterion of the rate of increase in our cultivated area.
Down to 1820, this class of population increased steadily at the
rate of more than 3 per cent, per annum. From that period
to this, the new lands of the southwest being open to set¬
tlement, a constant exportation and emigration of slaves has
been kept up. So striking is the fact,that if the period of sixty
years embraced by the United States census be divided into
equal periods of 30 years, it will be found that during the
first, our slave population increased 140 per cent, and during
the last, but 49 per cent. While that population in the newer
southwestern States have, in the same thirty years, increased
from 300 to 900 per cent. According to the most moderate
estimate there cannot have been less than 130,000 slaves lost
to South Carolina since 1820, and of course a proportionate
amount of territory has failed to be brougnt into culture.
In citing these facts, your committee do not undertake to
say that they indicate an alarming deterioration in the prosper¬
ity of our State. Our citizens have a right to dispose of their
property and invest their capital to the best advantage, and if
26
the cheap lands of the west can over bid the more costly
lands of the Atlantic States in the purchase and employment
of labor, and can find a market no where but in these States,
it is impossible to prevent a constant exportation and emigra¬
tion of our slaves, which is a loss of just so much productive
industry. But if that development of our agricultural re¬
sources which is essential to the attainment of the high degree
of wealth, prosperity and power of which the State is capable,
depends upon the increase of our slave labor, it is evident that
for the last thirty-seven years the rate of approximation has
steadily decreased. That this development does depend up¬
on this increase of labor, admits of no question. And that
the causes which retard this increase should be removed, is
beyond dispute. There are but two ways of accomplishing
this ; either by closing our slave market against the demands
of the new States, or else, by opening another and a cheaper
market for the supply of those demands. To prevent the sale
of slaves to be carried beyond the limits of the State is im¬
possible, even if it were proper and desirable. The only means,
then, of keeping our labor at home, is to open another market
for the new States, or, in other words, allow them to import
their slaves from Africa instead of South Carolina. In this
view of the matter, your committee are of the opinion that
South Carolina does need a further importation of slaves from
Africa, and without citing other grounds upon which this
opinion rests, the question will now be answered, does the
South at large need a re-opening of the African slave trade ?
This depends mainly upon a single fact Is the South ca¬
pable of supplying itself with that annual increase of labor
which is necessary for the supply of the annually increasing
amount of produce required for the consumption of that por¬
tion of mankind which depends on the South for such pro¬
duce. If it is, then one of the strongest reasons for import¬
ing negroes is removed; for nothing can be plainer than the
absurdity of importing what we already have in abundance.
But, if it is not, then, one of the strongest reasons for open¬
ing the slave trade is manifest. It Is well known, that the
27
States of Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, North and South
Carolina, are the sources from which the States to the South
and West of them receive their slaves. The question is, there¬
fore, reduced to this, are these States competent to supply their
own increasing demand for labor, and that of nine other States ?
It has been shown, that South Carolina cannot dispense with
her natural increase of labor, without a material sacrifice of
her interests, amounting almost to a stagnation of her energies,
enterprise and development. North Carolina and Kentucky
may possibly "be less injured by a partial exportation of the
natural increase, of their slaves. It is claimed that the
natural increase of slaves in Maryland and Virginia is greater
than they can give profitable employment to. The inquiry is
then reduced to this, is the surplus of the natural increase of
slaves in Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, North and South
Carolina, relative to the demand for them in those States, equal
to the acknowledged deficit in the natural increase of slaves in
the nine States of Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Texas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and the
Territories of the United States relative to the demand for them
in these States and Territories?
It is likely that the demand for slaves in the older States
will be, in the future, at least as great as it has been in the
past. And, if your committee are not deceived,it will be much
greater. The effect of the constant drain upon their popula¬
tion is beginning to be felt, and, in the last fifteen years, emi¬
gration has sensibly diminished, both as regards whites and
slaves. It is, therefore, almost certain that those States will, in
the future, have a comparatively smaller surplus of slaves to
supply the other States. It is unnecessary to enter into the
causes of this; they are many and indisputable. But an esti¬
mate will be made of the number sent abroad during the last
decade of the United States census. And from this can be
deduced, the probable number which will be needed by the
slave importing States in the future.
Estimating the natural increase of slaves at 30 per cent, in
ten years, it will be found that out of this increase in the ten
years, ending with 1850,
28
Maryland kept at home 631 slaves, and exported to other States 26,279
Virginia, " 23,441 " " u 111,259
Kentucky, " 28,723 " " " 25,937
North Carolina, u 42,731 " " " 31,009
South Carolina, " 57,916 " " " 40,154
Total, 153,472 234,638
Throwing out the small figures, it may be said, from this
statement, that while the five slave exporting States succeeded
in retaining 153,000 slaves the nine slave importing States
took 234,000.
In looking at these figures, it must be remembered that dur¬
ing the first half of this decade, Texas was a foreign State, and
that even after her annexation, the tide of emigration began to
swell her numbers only towards the end of the period. The
area of the slave importing States, previous to annexation, was
417,722' square miles. Since annexation it has increased to
743,242, and, if Kansas becomes a slave State, it will reach
858,000. Besides this, the territory to the west of Arkansas is
to be settled, which swells the area of territory, requiring a
greater or less amount of slave immigration, to something like
a million square miles. If, then, the settlement of 417,722
square miles required the importation of 234,000 slaves in ten
years, and the supply of slave produce has not exceeded the
demand for it, it surely will require 500,000 slaves to settle an
area of 743,242 miles. And, if any more slave States are to be
formed out of the territories, the number will be increased to
600,000 slaves for every ten years to the end of the century.
But, of the five States which have heretofore supplied the
South with slaves, two only, Virginia and Maryland, can pro¬
fitably afford to continue the supply. They may perhaps sup¬
ply 130,000 for several decades to come. Kentucky and North
Carolina require at least two-thirds of their natural increase.
They may spare 40,000 more. South Carolina requires every
slave born upon her soil, but, it is probable, that the estab¬
lished course of the inter-State slave trade will not admit of
their being retained, and she will, for a time, be constrained to
lose some 3,000 or 4,000 slaves per annum, as heretofore.
Thus, it is almost certain, that the decennial surplus of the
slaves, in the slave exporting States, will not hereafter exceed
29
£00,000, while the decennial deficit, in the slave importing
States and territories, will amount to 500,000 or 600,000—an.
aggregate annual deficiency of thirty or forty thousand slaves,
which, if supplied at all, must come from Africa.*
Your committee are aware, that these figures are based upon
estimates, and may not be accurate, but, however great the
error may be, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion, that,
under the pressing demand for Southern produce, at least as
many slaves are required from Africa, for the settlement of
our Southwestern States and Territories, as can possibly be
obtained from the slave exporting States, without occasioning
* It has been estimated that out of the 2,048,293 slaves in the nine cotton grow¬
ing States in 1850, there were 812,709 working hands (between 10 and 00 years of
age,) engaged in the cotton fields which comprised a total area of about 5,000,000
acres, being a proportion of little over G acres per hand. The rate of increase of
the slave population in these States for the ten years previous was about 5 l-5^>er
cent., which being reduced to a per centum of each year's population, is little more
than 4 per cent, per annum. This rate of increase, it is almost certain has not been
kept up during the present decade, for it is well known that emigration from the
other States into these has diminished. But for the sake of avoiding any possible
error, it is allowed, in the following table, that the rate of increase among the work¬
ing hands in the cotton fields will continue to be 4 per cent, per annum, not only for
the present decade, but for ten years to come. The average production of cotton'
in the absence of unusually good or bad crops is about three bales to each hand.
The increase of production must of course be at the same rate as the increase of
labor, viz : 4 per cent. The increase of consumption has for several years past
been at the rate of over per cent, per annum. But supposing a slight decline in
the demand, the fraction will be thrown out, and the rate of 6 per cent, will be used
in the table. With these data, and beginning with the number of hands employed
in 1850, the following statement will exhibit, in separate columns, the estimated
crops at 3 bales per hand, increasing at 4 per cent, per annum ; the crop needed
for consumption increasing at 6 per cent, per annum ; the deficit; the number of
hands employed for estimated crops; the number required for the needed crops ;
the deficit; the number of acres cultivated for the estimated crop ; the number
required for the needed crop, and the deficit.
Year. j Esti'at'd
| crops.
Crop I -p. ,o ., 11 Hands 1 Hands 1 11 Acres 1 Acres 1
needed. | Deficlt" j | empl'd. | needed. | Deflcit" 11 cultiv'd. | needed. | Deficlt"
1850
1855
1860
1865
- 1868
2,438,287
2,966,568
3,609,282
4.391,241
4,939,548
3.262,977
4,366,599
5,843,494
6,959,695
296,409
757,317
1,452,253
2,020,147
812,769
988,856
1,203,094
1,463,747
1,646,511
1,0S7,659
1,455,533
1,947,831
2.319,898
9S,803
252,439
484,084
673,382
5,933,136
7,218,564
8,782,482
9,S79,096
6,525,954
8,733,198
11,686,986
13,919,388
592,818
1,514,634
2,904,504
4.040,292
Thus under the above suppositions there will be ten years hence over 600,000
slaves less than the number required in our cotton fields. But suppose the data of
the table objected to and that there will be a deficit of only 300 or200, or even 100,-
000, where are they to come from but Africa? What is here said of cotton applies
also to the other articles of slave produce.
30
to them a ruinous loss of their productive labor. It is, there¬
fore, without hesitation, they adopt the opinion, that the South
at large does need a re-opening of the Jlfrican slave trade.
But it is not only the South that stands in need of this
trade. Every people and nation that consume our produce
need it likewise. If, with an abundance of cheap labor, we
can profitably raise sufficient cotton for the world's consump¬
tion at ten cents per pound, why should the world pay fifteen?
Is it worth the while of mankind to shut Africa out of its
only sphere of usefulness, simply that they may be compelled
to pay us five cents additional price for every pound of our
cotton, which in a crop of 3,500,000 bales would amount to
$78,000,000 ? Is hollow hypocrisy worth this tax upon the
consumers of cotton ? But this is not the only tax which
commerce and manufactures have to pay for the suppression
of the slave trade. A few short crops of cotton serve not only
to raise the price, but to diminish freight, and to put the cot¬
ton mills upon short time, and even to shut them up for a sea¬
son, thereby throwing thousands of hands out of employment,
and suspending the profits of capital. All this is to be added
to the large bonus on philanthropy already summed up. And
if a few successive short crops occasion such losses to the
world, what will be the state of things in England, in the
Northern States and in Europe, when short time and a peri¬
odical closing of mills, become a permanent necessity in their
manufacturing districts ? It is in view of these, and like ques¬
tions, and the train of argument they suggest, that your com¬
mittee believe the importation of slaves from Africa, at this
juncture particularly, would not only meet a pressing demand
for labor in our own country, but would, if possible, be more
beneficial to the commercial and manufacturing interests of
Europe and America, than to ourselves.*
* The importance of Southern slavery, and the means of increasing our slave
population, (as the demand for our produce increases) to North America and to
Europe, is too evident to need explanation. During the past year, (1856.) Great
Britain alone is estimated to have realized over $190,000,0(P from sources depen¬
dent on slave labor. The annual consumption of coffee in hireling countries
amounts to at least 600,000,000 pounds, valued at $60,000,000, of which more than
half is the produce of slave labor. So also is more than half the sugar consumed
31
What has been said of cotton applies to all the great staple
products of slave labor. And if Great Britain succeeds in
abolishing slavery in Brazil and Cuba, which it has been
shown is not unlikely, an active competition in the sugar and
tobacco market will spring up between the sugar and tobacco
growing States of the South and the rest of the world. This
competition will call for an additional supply of slaves, inde¬
pendent of the demand of the cotton interest, and thus an
in hireling countries; and the bulk of the rice and tobacco, to say nothing of
cotton and other articles, the produce of slave labor. Owing to the scarcity of
slaves, as compared with the demand for their produce, the price of all our staples
has risen, and of course the consumption is more costly, and consumers have to
pay the additional cost.
The following tables will point out the connection between the abundance or
scarcity of slave labor, and the low or high price of that labor's produce, and
consequently the importance of the slave trade, in the present condition of things,
to the consumers of slave produce.
Table of prices compiled for March, 1848 and 1857.
1848. 1857.
Cotton—Midd. to good Midd. Up.. 6| a 7i .... 13 $a 14 Advance, 7£ a 6f
Sugar—Cuba Muscovado, 41 a 5^.... 9 a 10£ " 4J a 5
Coffee—Rio, 6| a 10 a 12 " 31 a 4£
Rice, per cwt 3.37£ a 3.62^... .4.50 a 5.12J " 1.12^ a 1.50
Tobacco. Not ascertained.
Slaves—average value, $350 a 400 .... $600 a 700 " $250 a 300
Table showing the rise and fall in the price of sugar, as compared with the increase
and decrease of the African Slave Trade in years past.
Av. price ord. Hav. Sug. per cwt. African Slave Trade.
Year. Price. Rise. Fall. Increased. Decreased.
1825 to '30... .34s. 6<i. 9 per cent. 21 per cent.
1830 to '35 24«. 8d. 21 per cent 37 per cent.
1835 to '40....295. 3d. 19 percent 73 per cent
1840 25s. 4d 13 per cent 53 per cent.
1841 to '44 215. Id. 17 per cent 29 per cent.
1845 to '47 265. Id. 18 per cent 44 per cent
Table showing the production of Sugar, as compared with the increase of the
Cooly Slave Trade.
Average amount of Sugar Av. No. Cooly slaves Whole No. of Cooly
annually exported annually imported slaves remaining at
Year. from Mauritius. into Mauritius. the end of the time.
1843 to '45 64,889,225lbs 23,037 54,939
1845 to '50 112,344,494/^5 7,392 73,812
1850 to '55 148,110,65916s 13,632 121,273
The following tables, compiled from official sources, exhibit the proportionate
value of the leading articles of slave produce to the commercial and manufactur¬
ing interests of the United States.
32
additional inducement will be held out for the importation of
Africans.
Having thus mentioned a few of the reasons why the Afri¬
can slave trade may be regarded as essential to the develop,
ment of Southern resources, enterprise and power, a mere
allusion will be made to the importance of the trade to a
timely and propitious expansion of Southern civilization.
Tt is now placed beyond doubt, that the leading object of
Northern policy is, to settle our Territories and bring them
into the Union as hireling States, more rapidly than the
South can introduce slave States. The area of the Northern
States is much less than ours, their population many millions
more. Beside which, they receive annual reinforcements of
four or five hundred thousand European emigrants to swell
their numbers, and thereby assist them in the work of settling
new States, while we have not received a single negro for
fifty years. If, in the existing struggle, this advantage on their
part is to be preserved, by our own consent and co-operation,
we would be wise to enter into a calculation of the number
Year.
Value of the Cot¬
ton, Rice and To¬
bacco, exported
from the U. States
to foreign coun¬
tries.
Value of all other
domestic produce
exported to for¬
eign countries.
Value of manu¬
factures of Cot¬
ton, Tobacco, Su¬
gar, Hemp, and
Flax exported to
foreign countries.
Value of all other
articles manufac¬
ture from domes¬
tic produce, ex¬
ported to foreign
countries.
1821
1825
1830
1835
1840
1845
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
$ 27,300,753
44,887,517
37,248,072
75,422,210
75,690,340
61,369,918
84,567,196
123,705,495
100,467,044
122,433,381
106,240,393
104,574,265
142,994,427
$ 16,371,141
21,922,249
21,276,806
25,037,271
35,940,221
37,075,412
50,333,037
54,914,643
54,464,103
67,435,781
108,909,911
88,176,870
167,591,903
$4,948,844
6,013,872
8.970,869
9,951,576
11,283,137
8,887,110
9,872,642
11,033,958
$6,190,738
9,182,579
•11,216,098
8,911,355
11,316,793
17,962,301
18,960,657
19,937,034
Year.
Capit'l inves¬
ted in cotton
manufact'r's
in the United
States.
Hands
employ¬
ed in
ditto.
Value of raw
cotton used
in ditto.
Value of the
products of
ditto.
Home con¬
sumption of
domestic cot¬
ton goods.
Home con¬
sumption
of foreign
cotton
goods.
1840
1850
1855
$74,500,931
$92,28f
$28,984,048
$46,350,453
61,869,1.84
70,964,712
$42,800,846
57,134,760
65,107,531
$ 5,400.995
19,681,612
15,744,558
To this should be added the Sugar, Rice, Tobacco, Hemp and other articles of
slave produce consumed in the domestic trade of the United States.
33
of our days, and bespeak from some chosen historian a be¬
coming record of our decay and subjugation.
It maybe objected,that the importation of negroes will reduce
the value of the slaves already in the country, and so depre¬
ciate the vested interests of the Southern States. This raises
a question of political economy, and one answer is, that what¬
ever addition is made to our slave population, it must neces¬
sarily be gradual; that a reduction in the price of our native
slaves, occasioned thereby, must also be gradual, and will
affect only the slave trading interest of a few individuals,
and hence will not embarrass the country ; that such reduction
will be conducive to the general wealth, because it will be
occasioned by an increase in the productive power of the
country, and hence promote the agricultural, compiercial,
manufacturing and professional interests of the South; and
that, under our system of slavery, and from the very nature
of the case, no more slaves will ever be imported than may
be actually needed, over and above those furnished by Vir¬
ginia and other States, for the settlement of the country.
It is an accepted principle of economy, that " the demand
must exist for labor, before laborers can be employed." And
a previous command of capital must exist, before there can
be a demand for labor. " Labor can be put in requisition
by capital only." This is strictly applicable to the slave trade.
The demand for slaves must exist, before they can be sold.
There must, therefore, be a demand for slaves, or they will
not be imported. That there is a demand for slaves, far greater
than can be supplied by the natural increase of our negroes,
is a fact utterly beyond dispute. And this growing demand,
it is well known, has seriously augmented the price of slaves.
The true question involved then is, not whether the 163,000
owners of slaves in the five slave exporting States would have
their interests a little impaired, and but a very small portion
of them have negroes for their stock in trade; but, whether
the monopoly they now hold is just and proper, whether the
value of their slaves should continue to be augmented at the
expense of the country, whether it is not true that they can¬
not furnish the labor required by the country, and whether
3
34
the interests of ten millions of people in the Southern States,
and thrice that number in the hireling States and in Europe,
which require a large addition to our productive industry, in
the form of slaves, should not be paramount to that of the few
who, either for the payment of debt, or in a spirit of specula¬
tion, sell their slaves to the highest bidder ? The answer to
this is evident.
But it is not necessary in a report of this sort to enter into
a discussion of the many considerations both in favor and
against a measure of such importance; nor does time and
space allow it.
Your Committee will therefore pass over this and other ob¬
jections which may be urged against a further importation of
slaves. And they do this the more willingly because, from
the investigation they have given the subject, they believe
that every objection may be logically and satisfactorily re¬
moved, and that the evils to be apprehended would be less
than the benefits to follow. The proposition is deeply inter¬
esting to the civilized world, involving as it does the monied
interest of so many millions, the civilization and Christian en¬
lightenment of thousands of hopeless savages, the harmony
and mutual support of agriculture, commerce and manufac¬
tures, the contact and destiny of God's most oppositely con¬
stituted human creatures, the replenishing of the earth, and,
above all, the solution of one of nature's most intricate prob¬
lems. With time, then, and the intelligent consideration of
the age, it might safely be left, were it not for the unceasing
hostility of British and American abolitionists, on the one
hand, and the pressing necessity of an immediate supply of
labor, on the other. The Southern States at present have
their common destiny in their own hands, but a short career
of inaction, discord and hesitation, may end in their perma¬
nent injury if not ultimate ruin. If, therefore, it is the general
opinion that negroes should be imported from Africa, no time
should be lost in taking the necessary steps. And this bring?
us to the Acts of Congress and the treaties which bear upon
the subject.
The Constitution of the United States clearly contemplates
35
a prohibition of the slave-trade, whenever a majority of Con
gress shall deem such -prohibition advisable. The right of pro¬
hibiting carries with it such power on the part of Congress as
may be requisite and necessary for enforcing the prohibition,
and the South has no just cause of complaint in this respect.
The slave-trade was prohibited with singular unanimity both
on the part of Southern and Northern members of Congress.
If, therefore, it now be desirable to repeal the prohibition, Con¬
gress is the only tribunal which can lawfully do it It forms
no part of the duty assigned to your Committee, to enquire
into the probability of such repeal ever being effected by a
body composed as Congress now is. If the measure is thought
advisable it should be recommended, without regard to the
prospect of its adoption. And your Committee being mindful
of the good which would result to all interested, not only in
the culture, but in the manufacture and consumption of South¬
ern produce,recommend, in accordance with established usage,
that our Senators in Congress be instructed and our Repre¬
sentatives requested to exert their influence for a repeal of all
Acts prohibiting the importation of slaves.
But, while it is admitted that no cause of complaint exists
in the mere. prohibition of the slave-trade,because of our own
acquiescence in the measure, there is ample room to doubt,
whether, in view of the evident change in Southern opinion,
and the untiring hostility to slavery which has sprung up in
the hireling States of the Union and in England, since the
several acts and treaties on the subject were passed and rati¬
fied, it is not proper, and even a solemn duty on the part of
the South, to insist without alternative upon a repeal of those
portions of acts and treaties which, going beyond a simple
prohibition, as contemplated in the compact, stigmatize this
corner-stone of Southern civilization as piratical, inhuman,
unjust and irreligious, and thereby serve to justify that hos¬
tility in the sight of nations. There is a wide difference be¬
tween being denounced by others, and being self denounced.
The one, may be a mischievous and false accusation, but the
other, is no less than self condemnation. Southern institu¬
tions might reasonably hope to survive the assaults of an
36
external enemy, if they stand unimpeached before the world,
and have that honest support which springs from a con¬
viction of right But, if our Statute Book bears the record
of our piracy and gross injustice and inhumanity, under our
own hands and seals; if foreign nations can point us to the
same attestations, solemnly made in the name of the nation,
where is that conviction of right, which an honest man must
feel before he can espouse the cause he is called upon to de¬
fend? If there is any meaning in the declarations of our
government, here referred to, the Southern States stand before
the world a confederation of self-impeached, self-convicted and
self-condemned people. If there is any truth in the declara¬
tion that the slave trade is piracy, there is an equal amount of
truth in the conclusion, arrived at by his Excellency, that
every slave in South Carolina and in the United States, is
plunder. The consideration of time does not enter into this
conclusion. Piracy is theft. Theft is a violation of an eter¬
nal law of nature and nature's God, and whatever is piracy
now, must be piracy in all time, past and to come. Plunder
is the property stolen, and whatever is plunder at one time
must likewise be plunder at all other times. So, also, are the
laws of justice and humanity eternal and unalterable, in spite
of there being different standards by which they are estimated.
Las Casas opened the slave trade through a motive of hu¬
manity, just as pure and exalted as that through which Wil-
bebforce closed it. Whatever may be the standard of justice
and humanity, by which the slave trade was measured in the
several denunciations of it recorded in our treaties and statutes,
it must be general, and of universal application, as well at one
period as at another. Until, therefore, these unqualified stig¬
mas are expunged from the record, there can be no logical
impropriety in any hostility against us, on the part of all
mankind, nor any inconsistency in the desire to emancipate
our slaves. If we are a nation of self convicted pirates, the
world should take us in custody.
But, in another respect, while your Committee admit that
the Federal Constitution contemplates a prohibition of the
slave trade, in case Congress shall see fit to pass such an act;
37
it may be gravely questioned, whether, in authorizing the Exec¬
utive " to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators
present concur," it ever contemplated such stipulations as
those in the treaty of Ghent and of Washington, which de¬
nounce the slave trade in such terms as unavoidably imply a
similar denunciation of slavery itself, which is recognized and
protected under the guarantees of that very compact. It is
not now contended that these stipulations are literally uncon¬
stitutional. The constitution imposes no specific and positive
restriction upon the treaty making power, as in fact it could
not, with any good result. The Senate is the appointed safe¬
guard against any improper negotiation on the part of the
Executive, and, hence, whatever treaty is duly ratified becomes
law, except it violates some provision of the constitution, or
trenches upon the power assigned to some other department
of the government. But, though possibly constitutional, these
treaty stipulations are contrary to the spirit of the compact,
and to the true policy of the country. It was appropriately
urged by the Secretary of State, in the recent correspondence
on the proposed tripartite convention relative to Cuba, that
"it may well be doubted whether the Constitution of the
United States would allow the treaty-making power to impose
a permanent disability on the American Government, for all
coming time, and prevent it, under any future change of cir¬
cumstances, from doing what has been so often done in times
past," (i. e., purchase territory.) If this position is correct, and
it received the sanction of the country, it would seem doubt¬
ful, whether the constitution allows the treaty-making power
to bind the Federal Government, in connection with that of
Great Britain, to a perpetual warfare against the traffic which
has built up the country, and which warfare turns out to be
hurtful and derogatory to a portion of the United States.
Change of circumstances must inevitably occasion a change
of policy. The prominent circumstances of our country
change with such rapidity that some effort is required to
keep pace with them, even in their outlines. Since the treaty
of Ghent was ratified, one million of square miles have been
added to the territory of the United States; even since the
38
treaty of Washington, the bulk of this territory has beeil ac¬
quired. And no circumstance can better illustrate the doubt¬
ful propriety, if not the absence of authority, on the part of
the treaty-making power, to impose such restrictions on the
institutions of one half the States, as tend to prevent their
benefitting by any acquisition of territory. If it is true that
the constitution does not, in its spirit, allow the treaty-making
power to prevent the government from adding territory to the
United States, it follows that it does not allow that power to
prevent an increase of the productive industry of the United
States, for the cultivation and settlement of such territory.
The right to acquire involves the right to use, and if the treaty
making power cannot prevent the acquisition, it cannot pre¬
vent the use. Use in this case means settlement. And it is
well known that the settlement of our territories is greatly
stimulated by the annual immigration of four hundred thou¬
sand Europeans, who supply the demand for labor in the
older States, occasioned by the emigration of our citizens to
the territories. But this immigration is confined chiefly to the
hireling States. The immigration of Africans, the only race
able to labor in the Southern States, is prohibited by these
treaties. Hence, the South has no supply of foreign labor,
corresponding with that of the North, to make up the defi¬
ciency occasioned by emigration. And the consequence is
that the treaty-making power, in acquiring territory, and at the
same time prohibiting the importation of slaves, preserves to
the North the ability to use, but takes it from the South.
The constitution authorizes Congress to prohibit the " mi¬
gration" as well as " importation" of persons, and gives
power to levy a tax " on such importation," but not on such
migration; the reason for the distinction being that the per¬
sons imported axe property, and therefore taxable, while those
migrating are called free, and therefore not taxable as property.
The power on the part of Congress to prohibit " migration,"
however, is just as clearly delegated as that to forbid " impor¬
tation." And if the treaty-making power claims upon the
strength of this grant of power to Congress a co-ordinate and
similar authority with respect to " migration" and "importa-
39
tion," this question may he fairly propounded: Would the
people of the United States regard the treaty-making power as
confining itself to its proper and legitimate sphere, if, in imi¬
tation of the treaties of Ghent and of Washington, it agreed
with the British, French and other European governments,
to prohibit the " migration" of their subjects to the United
States? If, as your committee think, such a treaty would be
hurtful and objectionable to the States which are now bene¬
fitted by such migration, then mu'stthe prohibition of" impor¬
tation" be equally hurtful and objectionable to the States
which would be benefitted by importation. There is no dif¬
ference in the two cases so far as the right of the treaty-mak¬
ing power is concerned; and there is none in any other respect
than the. status of the persons imported and that of those
migrating. And if the treaty-making power can constitution¬
ally discriminate and enter into engagements based solely
upon this difference with foreign powers, notoriously and
openly hostile to slavery, then has that power the high sanc¬
tion of our solemn compact, to ally itself with the known
enemies of Southern civilization, giving them " aid and com¬
fort ;" to stigmatize our institution, holding it up to the exe¬
cration of mankind ; and to continue a system of territorial
expansion wholly for the benefit of the North and to the detri¬
ment of the South.
But your committee are prepared to show that the treaty
power can have no such co-ordinate authority, and can take
no such concurrent action as is here suggested. The authority
to make treaties, though general and undefined, is not un¬
limited. To explain this fully, however, will not now be
attempted, but a few considerations will at once point out the
nature of the limitations to which the treaty-power is subject.
This matter was discussed in Congress as early as 1796, and
again in 1816, with a degree of ability and in a spirit of calm
inquiry seldom surpassed in the history of our government.
And a few of the principles then elucidated will suffice on the
present occasion, without comment or exemplification.
In the first place, the treaty-power is, of course, acknowl¬
edged to be subordinate to the constitution, and cannot, there-
40
fore, violate nor render void any of its provisions, whether
they apply to the legislative, executive, or judiciary depart*
merit of government. No treaty, for example, can annihilate
a constitutional power of Congress. The power to make trea¬
ties being general, must of necessity be limited with respect to
any specific power granted to Congress, for unless " the special
powers granted to Congress limit the general power of treaty-
making, there are no bounds to it, it must absorb all others,
repeal all laws in contravention to it, and act without control."
Among the powers granted to Congress is that to prohibit the
importation of slaves. It is optional with that body and that
only, whether " migration" or "importation" shall be allowed
or prohibited. So, also, Congress alone is authorized u to bor¬
row money," to "raise and support armies," and to " provide
and maintain a navy," and with that body alone does it rest
whether or not armies and navies shall be raised, or money
borrowed on the credit of the United States. These and alt
the other constitutional powers of Congress are beyond the
sphere of the treaty power, and "however different in their
nature or importance, are on the same footing in the consti¬
tution," and must be equally binding on that power. No
treaty can form an offensive alliance which would bind Con¬
gress to furnish an army and navy, and to borrow money to
pay them for carrying on a war, because Congress alone is au¬
thorized to declare war and provide the means for its execu¬
tion. So likewise, no treaty can provide for the importation
of slaves, for the reason that Congress is authorized to pro¬
hibit it, and the converse would seem to be true. The treaty
stipulations in question may, therefore, he regarded at least as
of questionable conformity to the spirit of the constitution. It
can scarcely be doubted that previous to the year 1808, any
treaty prohibiting the importation of slaves would have been
void, because of the fact that Congress, with whom the power
rests, was prevented from enacting such prohibition down to
that year. If this be the case, the converse proposition must
be equally true, and since the year 1808 no treaty can provide
for the importation of slaves, for the reason just mentioned.
Thus, the fact that Congress is anterior to a certain date di-
41
vested of and subsequent to that date invested with the powe
to prohibit this importation, must be admitted to limit the
treaty power in all action adverse to any exercise of the power
thus vested in Congress. If this limitation does not exist, the
legislative and treaty powers of the government are in con¬
flict; the constitution, from which they are derived, is a con¬
tradiction, and the government is divided against itself. But
if, on the other hand, this limitation as to adverse action does
exist, the question follows, whether a limitation exists as to
concurrent action. In general terms, are the legislative and
treaty powers concurrent in their nature, and can they take
concurrent action in relation to this or any other constitutional
power of Congress?
In the debate of 1796, it was urged, that since Congress is
authorized " to pass laws to carry into execution all powers
vested by the constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any department or officer thereof," there can be
no authority " out of the purview of this general and exten¬
sive legislative control." The treaty power, being vested in a
" department or officer" of the government, must fall within
this purview. And Congress must have power to pass laws for
carrying a treaty into effect, if in its opinion any be necessary.
Mr. Gallatin, argued, that laws and treaties are not
only different in their nature, and "are made not only by
different powers, but those powers are distributed, under
different modifications, among the several branches of the
Government. Thus, no law could be made by the legis¬
lature giving themselves power to execute it; and no treaty
by the Executive, embracing objects specifically assigned to
the legislature, without their assent." " The power given gen¬
erally to the Executive, of making contracts with other nations,
does not imply that of making legislative regulations, but when
the contract happens to embrace legislative objects, the assist¬
ance of the legislature becomes necessary to give it effect."
Mr. Madison pointed to the provision in the constitution
which declares, that "the constitution and laws of the United
States, made in pursuance thereof, and treaties made, or to be
made under the authority of the United States, shall be the
42
supreme law of the land. And the Judges in every State
shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws
of any State notwithstanding." And deduced from it, that
"the term supreme, as applied to treaties, evidently meant a
supremacy 6ver the State Constitutions and laws, and not
over the Constitution and laws of the United States. And
that the judicial authority, and the existing laws alone of the
States, fell within the supremacy expressly enjoined." And
while he did not entirely adopt the opinion that the treaty and
legislative powers move in such separate orbits, and operate
on such separate objects, as to be incapable of interfering with
each other, he could not regard them "as concurrent powers
relating to the same objects." "A concurrent exercise of the
treaty and legislative powers on the same objects, would" he
maintained, "be evidently impracticable." And he agreed
with Mr. Gallatin in the opinion, that "the congressional
power may be viewed as co-operative with the treaty power,
on the legislative subjects submitted to Congress by the Con¬
stitution," in cases where such subjects were necessarily in¬
volved in a treaty. Accepting these views, your committee
submit, that the Constitution does contemplate responsive or
co-operative action on the part of Congress, and at the entire
discretion of that body, when, in contracting with foreign
powers, the treaty power is compelled to stipulate upon sub¬
jects involving subsequent legislative action; but they have
nowhere seen it claimed, and think it cannot be assumed, that
the Constitution, either in spirit or letter, authorizes the treaty
power to undertake responsive or co-operative, still less con¬
current action, by entering into stipulations with foreign na¬
tions upon any subject assigned to the legislative department.
All delegations of power to Congress, whether specified or im¬
plied are special trusts, reposed in that department and no
other, according to the maxim that "the expression of one is
the exclusion of another." But the general grant of power to
the President and Senate to make treaties, is a residuary trust,
which must inevitably and unavoidably be distinct from any
special trust. Mr. Calhoun, in 1816, expressed the principle
more clearly and philosophically. He said in substance, that
43
"the treaty-making power, when it is legitimately exercised, al¬
ways does that which cannot he done by law." "A treaty
always affects the interest of two; a law only that of a single
nation." " The truth is, the legislative and treaty-making
powers are never, in the strict sense, concurrent. They both
may have the same subject, as in the case of commerce; but
they discharge functions entirely different in their nature in
relation to it When we speak of concurrent powers, we
mean when both can do the same thing; but I contend, that,
when the two powers under discussion are confined to their
proper sphere, not only the law cannot do what could be done
by treaty, but the reverse is true; (a treaty cannot do what
could be done by law,) that is, they never are nor can be con¬
current powers." " The grant of the power to make treaties
is couched in the most general terms., Whatever limits are
imposed by these terms ought to be the result of a sound con¬
struction of the instrument. All grants of power under the
Constitution must be construed by that instrument; for, hav¬
ing their existence from it, they must of necessity assume that
form which the constitution has imposed. This is acknowl¬
edged to be true of the legislative power, and it is doubtless
equally so of the treaty power. Whatever^ then, concerns our
foreign relations; whatever requires the consent of another
nation, belongs to the treaty-making power, and can only be
regulated by it; and it is competent to regulate all such sub¬
jects, provided such regulations are not inconsistent with the
Constitution. If so, they are void. No treaty can alter the
fabric of our Government, nor can it do that which the Con¬
stitution has expressly forbidden to be done; nor can it do
that differently which is directed to be done in a given mode,
all other modes being prohibited"
"Besides these constitutional limits, the treaty-making
power, like all powers, has others derived from its nature and
objects. It has for its object, contracts with foreign nations;
as the powers of Congress have for their object, whatever may
be done in relation to the powers delegated to it, without the
consent of foreign nations. Each, in its proper sphere oper¬
ates with general influence; but When they become erratic
44
they are portentous and dangerous. A treaty never can legi¬
timately do that which can he done by law; and the converse
is also true." In short, the Constitution by the very act-of
granting power to one department of government, withholds it
from every other; and in consequence of this, no legislative
power can require the concurrent or co-operative action of the
treaty power, while, from the fact, that the passage of laws to
carry into execution all powers vested in any department or
officer of the Government, is a legislative power, there are cases
in which the treaty power may require the concurrent or co¬
operative action of the legislative power. But the power to
prohibit or allow the importation of slaves into the United
States at large, is unquestionably granted to Congress, (and
the legislature of each State can prohibit it,) and it follows, as
well from this fact, as from the nature of the power, that the
treaty-making department departs from its legitimate sphere
of action, in contracting with foreign powers on the subject.
The constitution entrusts Congress with power either to pro¬
hibit or permit the importation of slaves into the territory of
the United States, and Congress is competent to pass all such
laws as are necessary and proper to carry the power into exe¬
cution. But the treaty power has not only undertaken a con¬
current prohibition, it has gone much further; it has called in
the aid of Great Britain; and it assumes to extend the prohi¬
bition to other countries; it seeks to propagate a code of
morals throughout the world; and to give a tendency to the
law of nations, which is subversive of our own domestic insti¬
tutions; it has allied our government with that of another
nation, for the employment of a naval force, to do that which
has been assigned to Congress, and which Congress is able to
do without the aid of a foreign power.
Entertaining these views, to which a mere allusion can now
be made, your committee cannot regard these treaty obliga¬
tions as strictly in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution,
or as comporting with the equality due the South in the
means of settling the territories acquired by treaty, a true po¬
sition of our institution in the estimation of the world, or a
just appreciation of our own rights. They, therefore, believe
45
that, whatever may be said of the expediency of the several
acts of Congress in relation to the slave trade, and whether it
he advisable to re-open the trade or not, all treaty stipulations
whatever, on the subject, should be abrogated, to the end that
whatever sectional discrepancy of opinion may prevail in
Congress, and whatever issues may result from them, no for¬
eign government shall have the pretext, of even the slightest
obligation 011 our part, to influence the action of our govern¬
ment. And hence, it is earnestly recommended that our
Senators in Congress be instructed to propose the abrogation
of all existing treaty stipulations on the subject of the slave
trade, and that our Representatives be requested to support
the proposition.
In submitting this recommendation, your committee deem
it proper to mention a few additional reasons why it should
meet with cordial support. "Among the oldest traditions of
the Federal Government is an aversion to political alliances
with European powers. In his memorable farewell address,
President Washington says: 'The great rule of conduct for
us, in regard to foreign relations, is, in extending our com¬
mercial relations, to have with them as little political connec¬
tion as possible.' * * President Jefferson, in his first in¬
augural address, warned the country against ' entangling al¬
liances.This, with but few exceptions, has been the un¬
varied policy of the United States. And the following treaty
stipulations are exceptions of the gravest importance to the
South. The treaty of Ghent contains the following: " Article
X.—Whereas, the traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the
principles of humanity and justice; and whereas, both his
Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their
efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that
both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavors to
accomplish so desirable an object." (Concluded December
24th, 1814.)
The treaty known as the "Treaty of Washington," (con¬
cluded August. 9th, 1842,) and entitled, treaty to settle
and define the boundaries between the territories of the United
46
States and the possessions of her Britannic Majesty in North
America; for the final suppression of the African slave trade;
and for the giving up of criminals, fugitives from justice, in
certain cases,'' contains the following in its preamble, and
among its articles: "And whereas, notwithstanding the laws
which have at various times been passed by the two govern¬
ments, and the efforts made to suppress it, (the slave trade,)
that criminal traffic is still prosecuted and carried on; and
whereas, the United States of America, and her Majesty, the
Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,
are determined that, so far as may be in their power, it shall
be effectually abolished; * * * It is hereby agreed,
* * * Article VIII.—The parties mutually stipulate that
each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service, on the
coast of Africa, a sufficient and adequate squadron, or naval
force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry
in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and
respectively, the laws, rights and obligations of each of the
two countries, for the suppression of the slave trade; the said
squadrons to be independent of each other, but the two gov¬
ernments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the
officers commanding their respective forces, as shall enable,
them most effectually to act in concert and co-operation, upon
mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for the attain¬
ment of the true object of this article; copies of all such orders
to be communicated by each government to the other, re¬
spectively.
" Article IX.—Whereas, notwithstanding all efforts which
may be made on the coast of Africa for suppressing the slave
trade, the facilities for carrying on that traffic and avoiding
the vigilance of cruisers by the fraudulent use of flags, and
other means, are so great, and the temptations for pursuing
it, while a market can be found for slaves, so strong, as that
the desired result may be long delayed, unless all markets be
shut against the purchase of African negroes, the parties to
this treaty agree that they will unite in all becoming repre¬
sentations and remonstrances with any and all powers within
47
whose dominions such markets are allowed to exist; and that
they will urge upon all such powers the propriety and duty of
closing such markets effectually, at once and forever.
"Article XI.—The eighth article of this treaty shall be in
force for five years from the date of the exchange of the rati¬
fications, and afterwards until one or the other party shall
signify a wish to terminate it."
These stipulations make up together, in the opinion of your
committee, as close a " political connection," and as complete
an "alliance" as can well exist between nations. That they
were entered into with the general consent of the country is
beyond question. And this general consent may be sufficient
excuse for the departure from our "great rule of conduct" for
the avoidance of " entangling alliances." But if their only
justification is the fact of their being generally assented to, it
is well to enquire upon what grounds that assent originally
rested, and whether overwhelming reasons do not now exist
for a withdrawal o^such assent.
The whole alliance rests upon the assumption that " the
traffic in slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of hu¬
manity and justice." It is unnecessary now to prove that this
assumption is wholly untrue, for whatever were the prevailing
sentiments of the day, in 1814 or even as late as 1842, it is
now conceded throughout the Southern States, that the slave
trade does not violate either principle. A considerable portion
of mankind are gradually coming to the same conclusion, and
only await a fit opportunity for a candid avowal of it. If, then,
the sole basis of this alliance is a fallacy, common reason
would dictate its immediate termination, unless some great
ulterior object demands a continuance in spite of the fiction
out of which it springs.
The avowed object on the part of the United States, is, to
abolish the traffic, not within our own limits, (that was done
by the act of 1808,) but throughout the world, to overstep our
own affairs, and go abroad and teach the nations of the earth
what are the principles by which they must be guided, while
the ulterior object of England has already been shown to be
emancipation throughout America; and the means proposed
48
are two—1st, by armed intervention, and 2d, by persuasion
and remonstrance. The question then is, whether in the face
of an acknowledged fallacy, and supposing there were rro
constitutional objections, it is worth while to persist in the
proposed measures. And first, what would be the result of an
entire suppression of the slave trade throughout the world ?
This has already been explained. Slavery would necessarily
be abolished in Cuba and Brazil, and in a great measure re¬
stricted to its present limits in the United States. And, either
a new and rival system of negro labor would spring up to
compete with us, or, what is more likely, the fairest portions
of tropical America would sink into ruin and barbarism. The
United States would feel the effect of this as much as any
other part of the world. Our commerce with Cuba and
Brazil, which is large, profitable and steadily increasing, would
be destroyed, and we would have no equivalent, not even the
consolation of an approving conscience. Is such a result as.
this to be desired?
But it may well be doubted whether it does not weaken our
own position before the world, to engage in an alliance against
friendly and neighboring powers, for allowing a traffic, to
which we are originally indebted for our own agricultural and
commercial prosperity, and which is essential to theirs. Ex¬
cept ourselves, Brazil and Cuba are the only remaining slave-
holding powers in America, and, after admitting that the
"traffic in slaves is not irreconcilable with the principles of
humanity and justice," why should we expostulate with them
for buying slaves? It is not deemed our duty to remonstrate
against the iniquities of the East Indian opium trade, or the
cooly slave trade. We do not undertake with armed fleets
and diplomatic envoys to propagate the cherished principles of
civil liberty, republican government and Christian religion
throughout the world; and it is still less incumbent on us to
ally ourselves with a government openly hostile to our insti¬
tutions, for no higher purpose than that of destroying the same
institutions in those two neighboring countries which have
the highest claims upon our sympathy and support, and with
which, of all others, we should harmonize and be friendly.
49
It may also be questioned, whether our obligations under
these stipulations are not virtually cancelled, as well by the
recent course of the British government as by their want of
constitutional authority. It must be remembered, that when
the treaty of Ghent was ratified, Great Britain was a large
slaveholding power, and the importation of "free negroes," so
called, or of coolies, was not contemplated. The suppression
of the slave trade meant, at that time, the non-importation of
negroes, be their alleged status what it may. The spirit, if not
the letter of the article, was against the importation of negroes
under any name, pretext or circumstance whatever. So also
■ with the Treaty of Washington. When this convention was
ratified, emancipation had been consummated in the British
colonies. France too had abolished slavery. England and
France were under mutual treaty obligations to prevent the.
importation of slaves into their respective dominions. All
suspected vessels on the African coast, except they were Amer¬
ican, were liable, by virtue of existing treaties, to be searched
by British cruisers ; and it was partly to avoid the question of
the right of search, always a source of dispute between the
governments of Great Britain and the United States, and partly
to suppress the slave trade, that the stipulations were made.
This treaty is much more explicit than that of Ghent, and your
committee would call particular attention to the careful phrase¬
ology of the 9th Article, which very clearly defines what is
meant, in the treaty, by the term "slave trade." In all allu¬
sions to the subject, in both treaties, the word "slave" is used,
except in this article, where the following passage occurs,—
"the desired result may be long delayed, unless all markets be
shut against the purchase of tAfrican negroes," and the parties
agree to urge the "closing of such markets." There must have
been a reason for the use of this expression. It is well known,
that in the phraseology of treaties, the greatest caution is
observed in the use of words. In the absence of all corres¬
pondence between the negotiators, no official cotemporary
explanation exists, and no other, but that afforded by the obvious
meaning of the words and the main object of the treaty,- is
admissible.
4
50
It has always been urged, as one of the gravest objections
to the slave trade, that the demand for negroes on the coast, is
said to occasion wars in the interior, which are waged with a
view of obtaining captives to supply the market. The invol¬
untary separation of the negro from his relatives, is the next
objection strongly urged. Of course, then, the suppression of
these two alleged evils, is the great leading ostensible object
of all efforts to abolish the traffic; and whatever is calculated
to keep up these supposed evils must be contrary to the obvious
meaning and intention of the treaty.
That this is necessarily the case, will appear upon the least
reflection. The only remaining objections to the traffic, in
addition to the two just mentioned, were the alleged general
inhumanity and injustice of it, and what was familiarly known
as "the horrors of the middle passage." The first of these is
no longer urged, at least by the great mass of Southern men.
And the second can easily be obviated. With the aid of steam
navigation to shorten the passage, laws can be enacted and
enforced, which would convert the alleged "horrors" of the
passage into the mere ordinary inconvenience of a sea voyage,
to which "emigrants" either from Europe, Asia, or Africa are
now subjected. Even during the old Liverpool and Bristol
trade, very important approaches were made to a due regard
for the negro's comfort in the passage across the sea, as is
attested in the Act of 23d George 2d, and others like it. But
the possibility of this important amelioration is no longer ques¬
tionable. It has been practically demonstrated in the late
voyage of the ship Phoenix from Africa to Guadaloupe, last
ing 39 days, in which out of a cargo of 296 negroes, only 14
are said to have died. A similar result appears in the arrival
of two cargoes of negroes at the British island of Trinidad dur¬
ing the past summer. Both the French and British contractors
are conducting the traffic upon an improved system of trans¬
portation, which when fully developed and carried on in steam
propellers will remove this objection entirely. Thus, out of
the four objections enumerated two are virtually removed,
while the others must remain, as long as there is a demand
for negroes, whether they be called slaves or emigrants.
51
If, then, the object of the alliance be, as much the preven¬
tion of the sale of negroes in Africa as the "horrors of the
middle passage," it is worthy of enquiry, whether it ever would
have been formed if the subjects of England and France, and
any other nation but the United States, were to be allowed to
purchase as many "African negroes" as they please, provided
the negroes are called emigrants and not slaves. It does not
concern the parties having "African negroes" to sell, whether
the purchaser carries them to Brazil, Cuba, Guadaloupe, or
Trinidad. The transaction is the same, it is a bono fide sale,
and whether the purchaser chooses to liberate his newly bought
slave, upon condition of ten years service, or to retain him in
bondage, is a matter with which the parties selling have noth¬
ing to do, and which, consequently, does not affect the internal
wars, and other means, said to be resorted to, for obtaining
slaves to supply the demand of Brazil, Cuba, Guadaloupe or
Trinidad, just as the one or the other happens to make the
first or highest bid. So far, then, as the alliance binds the
contracting powers to close all "such markets" as are open for
"the purchase of African negroes," your committee is of opin¬
ion that the obligation extends as well to the British and
French purchasers as to Spanish, Brazilian or Cuban.
As a further explanation of the meaning of this expres¬
sion, it may be observed, that, with but few rare exceptions,
there are no free negroes in those parts of Africa from which
slaves and " emigrants" are obtained; and all who are ac¬
quainted with the facts, unite in declaring that the few who
really are free could not be induced voluntarily to bind them¬
selves to a term of service in a foreign country. The expres¬
sion, " purchase of African negroes," then, so far as the status
of the negro previous to the purchase is concerned, means the
purchase of African slaves. But so far as his status subse¬
quent to the purchase is concerned, it means the purchase of
" aprentices," "emigrants," freemen or slaves, according as
the purchaser happens to dispose of the negro purchased. In
the hands of the vendor, the negro is unquestionably a slave;
an the hands of the vendee he may become anything else.
52
One of the commonest modes of emancipation is by purchase.
All the British West India negroes were purchased by the
British government, in order to be set free. Slaves are al¬
lowed in many countries to purchase themselves, when they
can pay the allotted price for their freedom. In all such cases
the purchase affects a change in- the status of the negro, and
hence the term negro is the only appropriate one to be used
It might cause a confusion of ideas to speak of purchasing a
slave, when the very act of purchasing makes the individual
free, and the very moment he is purchased he is free. And
the same would be the case in speaking of purchasing a "free
emigrant," when from the very nature of the case the indi¬
vidual must be a slave, or he could not be sold. But the
term "African negro," used in the treaty, being descriptive of
the individual only, and not of his status, either before or
after the purchase, conveys a clear idea of the transaction,
without entering -into the motives attending it. It must have
been in view of such considerations as these, and with the
design of avoiding ambiguity and misinterpretation, that the
learned and distinguished negotiators used the more general
and comprehensive term, "African negro," in preference, or
rather in contradistinction to the word slave. And the pre¬
caution turns out to be admirably well timed. For the pur¬
chase of "African negroes" is no longer confined to the for¬
bidden traffic in slaves, but new markets are opened in the
British and French colonies.
Putting this interpretation upon the letter, spirit and object
of the alliance, your committee see no room to doubt that the
British government, in allowing its subjects to purchase Afri¬
can negroes, is fairly chargeable with a departure from its
obligations, and that, in consequence, the Government of the
United States is at liberty to break it off, and, for the other
reasons stated, is in duty bound so to do.
Many other reasons occur to your committee for the recom¬
mendations they venture to submit, but as they will naturally
occur to all who enter into an investigation of the subject,
they will dispense with any allusion to them, and proceed
53
to a very brief consideration of the other suggestion of his
Excellency, relating to the exemption of one slave to each
slave owner from liability to levy for debt.
Your committee concur with his excellency in the opinion
that a more general ownership of slaves among our white
population is desirable throughout the South. There were at
the last census 53,000 white families in this State, and but
25,600 owners of slaves, and South Carolina has the largest
proportion of slave owners among the Southern States.* If,
therefore, it could be made to appear that the exemption of
one or more slaves from sale by execution, would produce
that result, the experiment might be worthy of trial. But it is
not certain, in the estimation of your committee, that the pro¬
posed measure will, to any material extent, accomplish the
object, while there are grave objections to discriminating ex¬
emptions or restrictions of any kind. Discriminations are
generally odious, and there are grounds for the belief that the
proposed exemption may create a feeling on the part of some
non-slave owners different from that anticipated, and which
does not now exist. The owner of real estate, equal in value
to one or more slaves, is as much identified with the welfare
of the State as the owner of slaves, and would with reason
regard such legislation as partial and unwise.
*The following table has been compiled during the preparation of this report, and
is thought sufficiently interesting for the place now assigned it:
Proportion of slaveholders
to the whole white pop¬
ulation in the several
Southern States, accord¬
ing to the United States
Census for 1-850. Small
fractions omitted :
Proportion of persons own¬
ing less than five slaves
to the whole number of
slaveholders in the re¬
spective States, in 1850 :
Proportion of persons own¬
ing less than five slaves,
to the whole white pop¬
ulation in the respective
States, in 1850 :
pr. ct.
1. South Carolina... .9.3
2. Louisiana 8.1
3. Florida 8.0
4. Mississippi. 7.8
5. Georgia ..7.4
6. Alabama 6.9
7. Virginia 6.2
8 North Carolina... .5.1
Kentucky 5.0
Texas 5.0
Tennessee 4.5
12. Maryland 3.8
13. Arkansas 3.7
14. Missouri 3.2
9
10
11.
pr. ct.
Missouri 66.0
Maryland 63.5
Kentucky 59.2
Texas 59.0
Arkansas 55.5
Tennessee 54.0
6.
Louisiana 52.5' 7.
8.
9.
10.
Alabama 44.011
Virginia 49.0
Florida 48.3
Georgia 47.5
Mississippi 43.0
North Carolina.. .38.0
South Carolina 37.6
pr. ct-
Louisiana 4.2
Georgia 3.5
Florida 3.5
South Carolina 3.5
Mississippi 3.3
Alabama 3.0
Virginia 3.0
Texas.. .." 3.0
Kentucky 3.0
Maryland 2.5
Tennessee 2.3
Missouri 2.1
Arkansas 2.0
North Carolina 2.0
54
The surest inducement for the purchase of slave property is
its cheapness, that is to say the smallness of its cost as com¬
pared with its usefulness to the purchaser. And this is par¬
ticularly the case with that class of citizens to which the
exemption would be serviceable. The proposed exemption is
not calculated to reduce the cost of slaves. A reduction of
this sort in the existing condition of the country, can be ac¬
complished only by importing slaves from Africa, which, has
already been discussed. Fully concurring, therefore, in the
object, we doubt the expediency of the measure, and cannot
suggest it to the House.
Your committee, in conclusion, recommend the adoption of
the following resolutions:
Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed to
propose to the Senate the abrogation of the eighth article of the
Treaty of Washington, as provided for in the eleventh article of
that treaty, and also of all other treaty stipulations in relation
to the slave trade, and that our representatives in Congress
be requested to make the same proposal to the House of Rep¬
resentatives.
Resolved, That our Senators and Representatives in Congress
be requested, whenever the repeal of any act prohibiting the
slave trade or declaring it piracy, be proposed to their respec¬
tive bodies, to give it their support.
Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor be requested to
send a copy of the above report and resolutions to the governor
of each of the Southern States, that it may be laid before their
respective Legislatures.
EDWARD B. BRYAN,
Chairman.
APPENDIX.
The following is the portion of the Governor's message re¬
ferred to the Committee:
" The outward pressure against the institution of slavery should
prompt us to do all we can to fortify it within. Diffusion is
strength—-concentration weakness/ Our true policy is to diffuse
the slave population as much as possible, and thus secure in the
whole community the motive of self interest for its support. I
have no doubt of the inherent ability of the institution to maintain
itself against all assaults. It is the basis of our political organism,
and it would not be difficult to show that the poorest White man
among us is directly concerned in its preservation ; but the argu¬
ment of self-interest is easy of comprehension and sure of action.
I recommend the passage of a law exempting from sale (under
contracts to be hereafter entered into) at least one slave. Such an
immunity would stimulate every one to exert himself to possess
his family at least of a property in some degree above the casu¬
alties of debt. As you multiply the number who acquire the
property, so will you widen and deepen the determination to sus¬
tain the institution.
" The consumption of cotton has steadily increased, and will in
a few years exceed the supply—not from want, on our part, of
land on which to grow it, but from want of operators to cultivate
it. The demand for the article being greater than the supply, the
price must go up, in the absence of all disturbing causes. As
long as this continues to be the case, we must prosper; but the
certain effect of high prices will be to stimulate the growth of it in
foreign countries, and in time to destroy the monopoly which we
have so long enjoyed. The possession of this monopoly is the
chief element of Southern prosperity, and the dependence of the
manufacturing interest on us for a supply of this article will con¬
tinue to prove to be one of our strongest safeguards. The amount
56
of cotton now grown in the East Indies should open our eyes to
our true policy. The idea that African slaves only can success¬
fully grow cotton, is an entire mistake. Under British domina¬
tion, free slaves are now producing in the East, more than the en¬
tire crop of the United States in 1820. From a report of the Hon.
W. L. Marcy, Secretary of State, in answer to a resolution of
Congress, it appears that during the year 1855, the shipments of
cotton to Great Britain, were, from the United States, in round
numbers, 679 millions of pounds, and from the East Indies, Egypt
and Brazil, 202 millions of pounds. Whenever England and the
Continent can procure their supply of the raw material elsewhere
than from us, and the cotton States are limited to the home mar¬
ket, then will our doom be sealed. Destroy the value of slave
labor, and emancipation follows inevitably. This England, our
commercial rival, clearly sees, and hence her systematic efforts to
stimulate the production of cotton in the East. The success which
has thus far attended those efforts, will incite her to redouble them.
The East Indies abound in fertile land and cheap labor. France,
too, is encouraging and stimulating its growth in Algeria, with
like advantages of soil and labor. To maintain our present posi¬
tion, we must have cheap labor also. This can be obtained in
but one way—by re-opening the African slave trade. Until Prov¬
idence interposes and changes his organism, the African must
continue to be a " hewer of wood and a drawer of water." It is a
diseased sentimentality which starts back at the idea of legalizing
the slave trade, and at the same time contemplates without emo¬
tion the cruel servitude which capital exacts of labor, all the world
over. There was a time when canting philanthropists had in¬
stilled into us a belief that slavery was wrong. Investigation has
entirely changed the once common sentiment on this point. The
South now believes that a mysterious Providence has brought the
two races together on this continent for wise purposes, and that
the existing relation has been mutually beneficial. Southern
slavery has elevated the African to a degree of civilization which
the black race has never attained in any other age or country.
"We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe
and stable basis for free institutions in the world." Had the slave
trade never been closed, the equilibrium between the North and
the South would not have been destroyed. The North has had
the old world from which to draw her supply of labor, and hence
the rapid settlement of the Northwest. Since 1808, the South has
57
supplied her own labor, and has necessarily made slower progress
in settling up the Southwest. If the trade were now open, I am
persuaded that the South would not consent to close it ; and this
is, perhaps, the best answer to the argument derived from the
mere sentiment that is arrayed against the proposition. It is ap¬
prehended that the opening of this trade will lessen the value of
slaves, and ultimately destroy the institution. It is a sufficient
answer to point to the fact, that unrestricted immigration has not
diminished the value of labor in the Northwestern section of the
confederacy. The cry there is, want of labor, notwithstanding
capital has the pauperism of the old world to press into its grind¬
ing service. If we cannot supply the demand for slave labor, then
we must expect to be supplied with a species of labor we do not
want, and which is, from the very nature of things, antagonistic to
our institutions. It is much better that our drays should be driven
by slaves—that our factories should be worked by slaves—that
our hotels should be served by slaves—that our locomotives should
be manned by slaves, than that we should be exposed to the in¬
troduction, from any quarter, of a population, alien to us by birth,
training, and education, and which, in the process of time, must
lead to that conflict between capital and labor, " which makes it so
difficult to maintain free institutions in all wealthy and highly
civilized nations where such institutions as ours do not exist." In
all slaveholding States, true policy dictates that the superior race
should direct, and the inferior perform all menial service. Com¬
petition between the white and black man for this service, may
not disturb Northern sensibility, but it does not exactly suit our
latitude. Irrespective, however, of interest, the act of Congress
declaring the slave trade piracy, is a brand upon us, which I
think it important to remove. If the trade be piracy, the slave
must be plunder ; and no ingenuity can avoid the logical neces¬
sity of such conclusion. My hopes and fortunes are indissolubly
associated with this form of society. I feel that I would be want¬
ing in duty, if I did not urge you to withdraw your assent to an
act, which is itself a direct condemnation to your institutions. But
we have interests to enforce a course of self-respect. I believe, as
I have already stated, that more slaves are necessary to a contin¬
uance of our monopoly in plantation products. I believe that they
are necessary to the full development of our whole round of agri¬
cultural and mechanical resources ; that they are necessary to the
restoration of the South, to an equality of power in the General
58
Government, perhaps to the very integrity of slave society, dis¬
turbed as it has been by causes which have induced an undue
proportion of the ruling race. To us have been committeed the
fortunes of this peculiar form of society resulting from the union
of unequal races. It has vindicated its claim to the approbation
of an enlightened humanity. It has civilized and christianized
the African. It has exalted the white race itself to higher hopes
and purposes, and it is perhaps of the most sacred obligation, that
we should give it the means of expansion, and that we should
press it forward to a perpetuity of progress."