|
Although the facts herein set
forth indicate that slavery in Kentucky was a comparatively mild form of
servitude it is not the aim here to leave the impression that the
antislavery element found no grounds for attacking the institution. On the
contrary, there were various elements that devised schemes for exterminating
the institution. This was especially true of the churches, which represented
more than any other one force the sentiment of the State on the subject of
emancipation. The three prominent Protestant denominations of the State were
the Presbyterians, the Baptists, and the Methodists. The only one of the
three which maintained a general continuous policy throughout the early
nineteenth century on the question of slavery was the Presbyterian.
It was on the eve of the
first Constitutional Convention of 1792 that David Rice, at that time the
leader of the Presbyterians in Kentucky, published a pamphlet under the
nom-de-plume of philanthrofis entitled Slavery Inconsistent with Justice and
Good Policy. While the author went into the general evils of slavery, such
as the lack of protection to female chastity, lack of religious and moral
instruction, and the comparative unproductiveness of slave labor, he was not
one of those violent opponents of the institution, who would abolish the
whole system without any constructive measures. A large part of his treatise
was devoted to the supposed sanction of the scriptures and his own evidence
that the same source was against rather than in favor of the system then in
vogue. It was but natural that Rice should recommend that the convention
should put an end to slavery in Kentucky in view of his firm opinions in the
matter, but he had a clear vision of the future and he expressed his
conviction that “a gradual emancipation only can be advisable.” He summed up
his ideas in this sentence: “The legislature, if they judged it expedient,
would prevent the importation of any more slaves; they would enact that all
born after such a date should be free; bo qualified by proper education to
make useful citizens, and be actually freed at a proper age.” He put these
ideas forth as a citizen of Kentucky who was interested in its welfare and
as a prospective member of the constitutional convention. When that body
assembled at Danville he did not hesitate to voice his views again but the
forces of slavery were dominant and the majority enacted the famous article
IX, which determined the slave code of the State until the institution was
abolished by the 13th amendment to the federal constitution. The
significance of the attitude of David Rice lies in the fact that as early as
the year 1792 he put forth the idea of gradual emancipation, a policy far in
advance of his age but which in the course of time was held by a large
number of the fair-minded statesmen of Kentucky.
In 1794 the Transylvania
Presbytery, which was the governing body of that sect at that time for the
whole State, passed a resolution asking that slaves should be instructed to
read the Bible, having in view the sole idea that when freedom did come to
them they would be prepared for it. The same body in 1796 expressed the
following fair-minded attitude in the form of a resolution:
Although the Presbytery are
fully convinced of the great evil of slavery, yet they view the final remedy
as alone belonging to the civil powers; and also do not think that they have
sufficient authority from the word of God to make it a term of Christian
communion. They, therefore, leave it to the consciences of the brethren to
act as they may think proper; earnestly recommending to the people under
their care to emancipate such of their slaves as they may think fit subjects
of liberty; and that they also take every possible measure, by teaching
their young slaves to read and give them such other instruction as may be in
their power, to prepare them for the enjoyment of liberty, an event which
they contemplate with the greatest pleasure, and which, they hope, will be
accomplished as soon as the nature of things will admit.
In the year 1797 the same
organization decided that slavery was a moral evil but on the question of
whether those persons holding slaves were guilty of a moral evil they
decided in the negative. As to what persons were guilty they were unable to
decide and the matter was postponed for future action.
As early as 1800 the West
Lexington Presbytery pointed to the trouble and division which slavery was
likely to cause among the churches, but they were unable to come to any
decision upon the exclusion of slaveholding members from church privileges
and in a letter to the Synod of Virginia they asked for the judgment of
higher ecclesiastical authorities. In 1802 the same body decided on a policy
of noninterference with the rights of the slaveholding members of the
church.
Beginning in 1823 the Synod
of Kentucky advocated the cause of the American Colonization Society. Their
general attitude on the slavery question was an open one as late as the year
1833 when they adopted a resolution to the effect that “inasmuch as in the
judgment of the Synod it is inexpedient to come to any decision on the very
difficult and delicate question of slavery as it is within our bounds;
therefore, resolved, that the whole matter be indefinitely postponed.” The
vote on this resolution stood 41 to 36.
The enactment of the law of
1833 forbidding the importation of slaves into Kentucky seems to have
induced the Synod to take a step in advance, for when they next met in 1834
at Danville they adopted by the decisive vote of 56 to 7 a resolution
calling for the appointment of a committee of ten to draw up a plan for the
instruction and future emancipation of slaves in the State.8 The following
year this committee published a G4-page pamphlet entitled “An Address to the
Presbyterians of Kentucky proposing a plan for the instruction and
emancipation of their slaves.” Many editions of this work were published
throughout the country even as late as 1862 when it was issued by the United
Presbyterian Board of Publication in Pittsburgh. It was heralded throughout
the northern section of the United States as a very able document and was
regarded all the more valuable because it was published in a slaveholding
State. The major portion of the pamphlet was taken up with the general
arguments setting forth the evils of the slavery system but in the last few
pages they set down their plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves in
Kentucky— the most able contribution towards a reconstruction of the
existing social system in the State which had been made up to that time.
The plan, then, which we
propose is, for the master to retain during a limited period, and with
regard to the welfare of the slave, that authority which he before held, in
perpetuity, and solely for his own interest. Let the full liberty of the
slave be secured against all contingencies, by a recorded deed of
emancipation, to take effect at a specified time. In the meanwhile, let the
servant be treated with kindness—let all those things which degrade him be
removed—let him enjoy means of instruction, let his moral and religious
improvement be sought—let his prospects be presented before him, to
stimulate him to acquire those habits of foresight, economy, industry,
activity, skill and integrity, which will fit him for using well the liberty
he is soon to enjoy.” The actual plan of potential freedom was stated
briefly in these words: “(1) We would recommend that all slaves now under 20
years of age, and all those yet to be born in our possession, be emancipated
as they severally reach their 25th year. (2) We recommend that deeds of
emancipation be drawn up, and recorded in our respective county courts,
specifying the slaves whom we are about to emancipate, and the age at which
each is to be free. (3) We recommend that our slaves be instructed in the
common elementary branches of education. (4) We recommend that strenuous and
persevering efforts be made to induce them to attend upon the ordinary
services of religion, both domestic and public. (5) We recommend that great
pains be taken to teach them the Holy Scriptures; and that, to effect this
the instrumentality of Sabbath Schools, wherever they can be enjoyed, be
united with that of domestic instruction.”
This appeal was not to the
officials of the State but to the members of a particular religious body by
its governing organization. The success or failure of the plan depended
entirely upon the individual slaveholder’s attitude in the matter. The
committee added this sentence by way of explanation: “These are measures
which all ought to adopt; and we know of no peculiarity of circumstances in
the case of any individual which can free him from culpability if he
neglects them.”
The sentiments embodied in
this appeal were not, however, any indication of the feeling among the
slaveholding Presbyterians of the State nor were they expressive of the
Synod itself, for that body never took any action upon the address, it being
the work of the committee of ten entirely. Davidson, writing in 1847, made
the following comment on the sentiment of the church people in Kentucky at
that time. “In the morbid and feverish state of the public mind, it is not
to be concealed, that by some they (the Committee) were considered as going
to an unwarrantable and imprudent length. The northern abolitionists were
waging a hot crusade against slavery, sending out itinerant lecturers, and
loading the mails with inflammatory publications. Their measures were marked
with a fanatical virulence rarely exhibited, and the people were exasperated
beyond forbearance . . . the effects were truly disastrous. The prospect of
emancipation was retarded for years. The laws bearing on the slave
population were made more stringent than ever, and their privileges were
curtailed. In Kentucky, the religious meetings of the blacks were broken up
or interrupted and their Sabbath schools dispersed.”
When the subject of
emancipation was under discussion in the Kentucky Synod one of the elders
arose and stated that he owned one hundred slaves, nearly all of whom he had
inherited. Many of them were so old that they could not provide for
themselves, others were women and children whom no one was willing to feed
and clothe for their labor. He stated emphatically that he had no desire to
hold them in bondage, but that he was willing to do whatever was best for
the slaves themselves. If he should free them, what would become of the aged
and the women and children? Furthermore, it was a serious matter to give
bond and security for the support of so many slaves of different ages and
character. He could not send them out of the State, for they were
intermarried with the slaves of others; and as to giving them wages, he
could not, for they were eating him up as it was. With a feeling of intense
interest in the slave and anxiety on his own behalf to do the right, he
asked his brethren of the Synod, what he ought to do. The position of this
kind-hearted Kentucky slaveholder shows more clearly than any other picture
we could draw the difficulties of emancipation in Kentucky even when one was
convinced of the evils of the slavery system.
The final word of the
Presbyterian Church on the whole subject of slavery was sounded at its
General Assembly in Cincinnati in 1845, when a resolution was adopted, as
submitted by Nathan L. Rice, of Kentucky, stating that it was not competent
for the church to legislate where Christ and his apostles had not
legislated. This, at least for the time being, proved acceptable to the
churches south of the Ohio and avoided a breach in the Presbyterians such as
had just taken place among the Methodists and Baptists.
The Baptists as a State
organization did not pursue a policy similar to that of the Presbyterians.
After the failure of the emancipationist campaign in 1792 and again at the
constitutional convention in 1799 a few members of the Baptist Church began
a movement for immediate abolition under the lead of several ministers—Tarrent,
Barrow, Sutton, Holmes and others. The policy which they advocated was not
only one of immediate abolition but of nonfellowship with the slaveholders
within their own denomination. There was no general governing body for the
State, as the Baptists had several so-called associations which covered only
a few counties each. The trend of opinion throughout the various
commonwealth organizations was apparently against the position held by the
emancipationist group, for the latter in 1807 withdrew from the regular
organizations and established an association of their own which they called
the Licking Locust Association. They were only able to muster the assent of
twelve churches to their newer group and soon died out in importance. The
real sentiment of the Baptists was no doubt much like that of the
Presbyterians, but these early advocates of Negro freedom in their own
organization were entirely too radical even for their own church membership.
Had they followed a course of action and policy more in keeping with their
own constituents they might have accomplished much good, whereas, as it was,
they only stirred up the feeling within their own denomination to such an
extent that thereafter little progress was made towards a policy of even
gradual emancipation of the slave.
Throughout the slavery era,
however, the Baptists in the State were divided into the “regular” and the
“separatists,” the former being in favor of non-interference with the
question and the latter representing the advocates of emancipation in one
form or another. Both agreed that slavery was an evil, but the regular group
was unwilling to make it the cause of the expulsion of a slaveholder from
the church. In May, 1845, a “Southern Baptist Convention” was held at
Augusta, Georgia. The meeting had been hastily called and representatives
were present only from Maryland, South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia,
Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, and the District of Columbia. Mississippi,
Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida were represented only by letters. The
convention had been summoned as a protest against the action of the “Acting
Board” of the church in the country in refusing to consent to the
appointment of a slaveholder to any field of foreign missionary labors. In
June of the same year the Kentucky Baptists for the most part withdrew from
the northern organization and pledged themselves to this newly formed
southern convention. The creed was not changed. It was simply a matter of
rebuke toward the northern section’s attitude on the slavery question.
The Methodists had also
struggled to find a peaceful solution of the problem of harmonizing
Christianity with slavery. At the meeting of the General Conference of the
Methodist Church in 1845, several days were taken up in the debate over the
status of Bishop James Osgood Andrew, of Kentucky. By inheritance and
marriage he was a slaveholder. Finally he was requested by a vote of 110 to
68 “to desist from the exercise of the office of Bishop while this
impediment remained.” The southerners in the convention became unusually
indignant, declaring that the infliction of such a stigma upon Bishop Andrew
would make it impossible for them to maintain the influence of Methodism in
the South. So they withdrew from the convention and in May, 1845, held a
convention of the Methodist churches of the Southern States in Louisville.
After a nineteen-days’ session, they decided to set up an organization of
their own to be known as the “Methodist Episcopal Church South” and to have
their first meeting at Petersburg, Virginia, in May, 1846.
The Kentucky Methodist
Conference met at Frankfort on September 17, 1845, and the entire attention
of the meeting was given over to the question of whether they would adhere
to the general conference or would pledge themselves to the newly formed
southern organization. Bishop Andrew appeared at Frankfort at the crucial
moment and stated all the facts concerning himself and the action which the
Louisville Conference had taken as a result of the trouble in the previous
General Conference. By a vote of 146 to 5 they then declared that henceforth
they would adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church South, and that all
proceedings, records and official acts would thereafter be in the name of
the “ Kentucky Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South.”
At Its annual conference in
1858 held in Hopkins ville the Louisville Conference held a very heated
debate over the rules of the church regarding slaveholders. Finally they
voted to expunge from the General Rules tiie one which forbade “the buying
and selling of men, women and children, with the intention to enslave them.”
The regulation thus repealed, although it was a part of the rules of
Methodism, was just another indication of the sentiment in Kentucky at that
time to resent more and more the encroachments of the North on the slave
system of the South and to hang on to the institution with a grim
determination. But they were not willing to go to unwarrantable lengths, for
at the Kentucky Conference held in Germantown in March, 1860, a proposition
submitted by the sister conferences to the South with a view to further
altering the rules on slaver was denied.
The churches of Kentucky for
the most part pursued a policy of benevolent neutrality in the struggle
which the slave forces of the State were having with their neighbors to the
North. The Baptists and Methodists within the commonwealth officially never
made any positive contribution to the forces of either side, and they took
no definite stand until the whole southern division of their general
national organization withdrew from membership in the national conventions
and set up an organization of their own. When this much had been done both
the Methodists and Baptists of Kentucky pledged their allegiance to their
respective newly formed southern conventions. On the other hand the
Presbyterians of the State maintained a policy that was distinctively their
own, separate and apart from any acts of their national organization. They
were the only religious body in Kentucky to issue officially a constructive
plan for the betterment of social and economic conditions under slavery.
When it came to the advocacy of even gradual emancipation they were careful
to state that the plan was only published for the benefit of the
slaveholding members of their own religious body. The Presbyterians went
further in their interference with the institution of slavery in the State
than any other religious body, but even they were not willing to try to
extend their home missionary field beyond their own membership. On the
whole, the churches in Kentucky merely followed the dictates of public
opinion on the subject of slavery, trying to pursue a policy of neutrality
as long as possible and then when it was no longer feasible, most of them
sided writh the slaveholding group. The northern section of none of these
religious bodies, however, was driven out of the State. There were a good
many of the so-called “northern” churches which remained loyal to the old
national organizations.
The summary of the actions of
the three principal religious bodies of the State shows that there was a
growing sentiment against the institution of slavery. Kentucky being a
slaveholding State, the significance of this attitude was very important.
While it may be true that the majority sentiment even among the churches was
not in favor of the elimination of slavery the very fact that even a
minority were coming to the front unmolested by violence and threats and
favoring the gradual elimination of the established institution revealed the
general trend of public opinion among the people of Kentucky. These measures
were taken entirely upon their own initiative and were not prompted by an
outside anti-slavery influence.
Any discussion of the
evolution of public opinion in Kentucky on the subject of emancipation and
of slavery in general would be incomplete without describing the attitude of
Henry Clay toward the institution in Kentucky. During almost the entire
period of slavery in Kentucky he was the foremost citizen of the State and
one of the principal slaveholders. From those two viewpoints alone anything
that he had to say on the local type and problems of slavery is valuable in
this connection.
The general position of Clay
on the subject of Negro servitude has never been very widely understood.
Among the radical abolitionists of the North he was looked upon as a friend
of slavery for the sake of political advancement and among the slaveholders
in some parts of the South he was regarded as almost a member of the
Garrisonian group of the enemies of slavery. To understand Clay’s real
position we need only to consider his relation to the institution as it
existed in his native State.
Coming from Virginia to
Lexington in 1797, Clay soon found ample opportunities for a public career.
He first came into prominence as a writer on slavery in the columns of the
Lexington Gazette and the Kentucky Reporter. When the constitutional
convention of 1799 was called for a revision of the fundamental law of the
State Clay bent all his efforts towards the adoption of a system of gradual
emancipation for the slaves of Kentucky. It was pointed out that there were
relatively few slaves in the State and that a progressive plan of liberation
would be much easier than at any future time.
The consensus of opinion at
the time was that the emancipationists led by this young man from Virginia
would have been successful, had it not been for the intervening excitement
produced by the Alien and Sedition Laws and the resulting famous Virginia
and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Clay threw himself heart and soul into the
newer campaign against the mistakes of the Federalists and the former
enthusiasm for the gradual freedom of the slaves seems to have died down in
his thought as well as among the Kentucky people in general. Thus the
constitutional convention of 1791 left the conditions of slavery as they
were.
In a speech delivered three
decades later before the Kentucky Colonization Society, Clay said in
commenting on his position in 1798: “More than thirty years ago, an attempt
was made, in this commonwealth, to adopt a system of gradual emancipation,
similar to that which the illustrious Franklin had mainly contributed to
introduce in 1780, in the state founded by the benevolent Penn. And among
the facts of my life which I look back to with most satisfaction is that of
my having cooperated, with other zealous and intelligent friends, to procure
the establishment of that system in this state. We were overpowered by
numbers, but submitted to the decision of the majority with that grace which
the minority in a republic should ever yield to that decision. I have,
nevertheless, never ceased, and shall never cease, to regret a decision, the
effects of which have been to place us in the rear of our neighbors, who are
exempt from slavery, in the state of agriculture, the progress of
manufactures, the advance of improvements, and the general progress of
society.” In his famous speech in the Senate on Abolition in 1839, referring
further to his activities in 1798, Clay stated that “no one was rash enough
to propose or think of immediate abolition. No one was rash enough to think
of throwing loose upon the community, ignorant and unprepared, the untutored
slaves of the state.”
Clay’s private dealings with
the institution were always consistent with his political principles on the
subject of slavery. He bought many slaves during his lifetime but he never
sold any.24 Clay believed that the slaves should be.
“Without any knowledge of the
relation in which I stand to my slaves, or their individual condition, you,
Mr. Mendenhall, and your associates, who have been active in getting up this
petition, call upon me forthwith to liberate freed, but at the same time
considered the difficulties attendant upon instant emancipation. Among the
mass of the slaveholders of the State, Clay was one of the very few who held
a perfectly consistent attitude on gradual emancipation as was finally shown
by his will.
the whole of them. Now let me
tell you, that some half a dozen of them, from age, decrepitude, or
infirmity, are wholly unable to gain a livelihood for themselves, and are a
heavy charge upon me. Do you think that I should conform to the dictates of
humanity by ridding myself of that charge, and sending them forth into the
world with the boon of liberty, to end a wretched existence in starvation?
Another class is composed of helpless infants, with or without improvident
mothers. Do you believe ať a Christian, that I should perform my duty toward
them by abandoning them to their fate? Then there is another class who would
not accept their freedom if I would give it to them. I have for many years
owned a slave that I wished would leave me, but ho would not. What shall I
do with that class?"
“What my treatment of my
slaves is you can learn from Charles, who accompanies me on this journey,
and who has traveled with me over the greater part of the United States, and
in both the Canadas, and has bad a thousand opportunities, if he had chosen
to embrace them, to leave me. Excuse me, Mr. .Mendenhall, for saying that my
slaves are as well fed and clad, look us sleek and hearty, and are quite as
civil and respectful in their demeanor, and as little disposed to wound the
feelings of any one, as you are.”
“I shall, Mr. Mendenhall,
take your petition into respectful and deliberate consideration; but before
I come to a final decision, I should like to know what you and your
associated are willing to do for the slaves in my possession, if I should
think proper to liberate them. I own about fifty, who are probably worth
about fifteen thousand dollars. To turn them loose upon society without any
means of subsistence or support would be an act of cruelty. Are you willing
to raise and secure the payment of fifteen thousand dollars for their
benefit, if I should be induced to free them! The security of the payment of
that sum would materially lessen the obstacle in the way of their
emancipation.”—Colton, Reed & McKinley, Works of Henry Clay, Vol. 6, pp.
388-390.
This sums up in Clay’s own
words his treatment of the slaves that were under his control. It is not to
be presumed in any case that general conditions in the State were like this.
There were obvious reasons why Clay couldn’t get one or two of his slaves to
accept freedom when be offered it, for they realized that they were far
better off under his own particular care than they could ever hope to be
under an absolutely free status in society.
25 So consistent was Clay in
deed as well as words in spite of all that the opposing forces had
accomplished in the State of Kentucky that when he died he left a will which
3id for his own slaves just what he would have had others do in his
lifetime. As long as he lived he refused to emancipate his slaves but when
he passed away he left a written document, the following portion of which
forms the eminent climax to a career of continuous labors for the eventual
good of the Kentucky slave owners as well as the slaves themselves.
With a more radical policy
than that of Henry Clay the Kentucky Abolition Society had been established
as early as 1807, but its membership was composed largely of Presbyterian
and Baptist preachers who were not in sympathy with the stand taken by the
constitutional convention of 1709. It was not until about 1830 that there
began in the State any real movement which was wide enough in influence to
be taken as an indication of the trend of public opinion. It will be
recalled that it was not until 1835 that the Presbyterian Synod was able to
decide on a plan of gradual emancipation.
It was in 1831 that some 48
slaveholders of Kentucky met and declared themselves in favor of the gradual
liberation of the slaves.20 James G. Birney, who was at that time living in
Danville, took this statement of the slave owners rather seriously and sent
out an invitation to the prominent:
“In the sale of any of my
slaves, I direct that members of families shall not be separated without
their consent.
“My will is, and I
accordingly direct, that the issue of all my female slaves, which shall be
born after the fir^t day of January, 1850, shall be free at the respective
ages, of the males at twenty-eight, and of the females at twenty-five; and
that the three years next preceding their arrival at the age of freedom,
they shall be entitled to their Lire or wages for those years, or of the
fair value of their services, to defray the expense of transporting them to
one of tho African colonies and of furnishing them with an outfit on their
arrival there.
“And I further direct, that
they be taught to read, to write, and to cipher, and that they be sent to
Africa. I further will and direct, that the issue of any of the females, who
are so to be entitled to their freedom, at the age of twenty-five, shall be
free at their birth, and that they be bound out as apprentices to learn
farming, or some useful trade, upon the condition also, of being taught to
read, to write, and to cipher. And I direct also, that the age of twenty-one
having been attained, they shall be sent to one of the African colonies, to
raise the necessary funds for which purpose, if they shall not have
previously earned them, they must be hired out for a sufficient length of
time.
“I require and enjoin my
executors and descendants to pay particular attention to the execution of
this provision of my will. And if they should sell any of the females who or
whose issue are to be free, I especially desire them to guard carefully the
rights of such issue by all suitable stipulations and sanctions in the
contract of sale. But I hope that it may not be necessary to sell any such
persons who are to be entitled to their freedom, but that they may be
retained in the possession of some of my descendants. ’ ’—Colton, Seed &
McKinley, Vol. 3, p. 153.
Soon after this episode
Birney came out in opposition to both gradual emancipation and colonization.
The majority of liberal-minded Kentuckians were coming more and more to
believe in these two propositions as the ultimate solution of the slave
problems of the State and once Birney came out in opposition to them he was
put down as a radical abolitionist. In July, 1S35, the feeling of the people
of Danville was aroused to the highest pitch and his antislavery paper The
Philanthropist was forced to suspend publication when the local printer was
bought out. The interesting story of Birney and his troubles with his fellow
townsmen does not come within the scope of this investigation and feeling of
the peojgle throughout the State, however, was well shown by the fact that
for the next two months Birney made personal visits to Lexington, Frankfort
and Louisville in an attempt to get a printer to issue his newspaper. He was
entirely unsuccessful and on September 13 he wrote to Gerrit Smith that he
had determined to move to Cincinnati. While the people of the State could
not agree with Birney’s attitude on slavery they were the first to admire
his courage. George D. Prentice, the pro-slavery editor of the Louisville
Journal, had this comment to make:
“He is an enthusiastic, but,
in our opinion, a visionary philanthropist, whose efforts, though well
intended, are likely to be of no real service to the cause of humanity. He
at least shows, however, that he has the courage to reside among the people
whose institutions he assails. He is not like William Lloyd Garrison living
in Massachusetts, and opening the battery upon the states five hundred or
one thousand miles off. He is not such a coward or fool as to think of
cannonading the South from the steeple of a New England meeting house.”
The climax of Birney’s career
in Kentucky had been reached in the early part of 1835 when he split with
the Kentucky Colonization Society. Judge Underwood in the annual
colonization address at Frankfort had attempted to show that the only way to
exterminate slavery in the State was by African colonization. He advocated
the expenditure of $140,000 annually for the transportation of four thousand
Negroes between the ages of seventeen and twenty. The plan if followed for
fifty years he stated would rid the State of all slaves.30 In a letter to
Gerrit Smith on January 31, 1835, Birney voiced his opposition to the plan
of Judge Underwood and to any scheme of colonization. Thus on another point
he was to be classed as a radical abolitionist and his career of usefulness
in Kentucky was at an end. If he had chosen a more middle ground and aided
will be found treated at length in ’William Birney’s James G. Birney and His
Times.
“The proposition in Kentucky
for gradual emancipation did not prevail, but it was sustained by a large
and respectable minority. That minority had increased, and was increasing,
until the abolitionists commenced their operations. The effect has been to
dissipate all prospects whatever, for the present, of any’ scheme of gradual
or other emancipation. The people of that state have been shocked and
alarmed by these abolition movements, and the number who would now favor a
system even of gradual emancipation is probably less than it was in the
years 1798-9. At the session of the legislature held in 1837-8 the question
of calling a convention was submitted to a consideration of the people by a
law passed in conformity with the Constitution of that state. Many motives
existed for the passage of the law, and among them that of emancipation had
its influence. When the question was passed upon by the people at their last
annual election, only about one fourth of the whole voters of the state
supported a call of a convention.
The series of events from
1831 to 1835, centering around the activities of Birney, brought the
attention of the public to the slavery question more than ever. As was
common in all other movements of popular interest it became the custom for
local gatherings to be held to discuss the problem. It was always customary
at the conclusion of these meetings to draw up a series of resolutions and
it is noticeable that they all voiced a similarity of sentiment on the
slavery question. A typical set of resolves were those drawn up at a
gathering held in Sbelbyville in June, 1835:
“Resolved, that the system of
domestic slavery as it now exists in this commonwealth, is both a moral and
a political evil, and in violation of the rights of man.
“Resolved, as the opinion of
this meeting, that the additional value which would be given to our
property, and its products by the introduction of free white labor, would in
itself be sufficient, under a system of gradual emancipation, to transport
the whole of our colored population.
“Resolved, that no system of
emancipation will meet with our approbation, unless colonization be
inseparably connected with it, and that any scheme of emancipation which
will leave the blacks within our borders, is more to be deprecated than
slavery itself.”
These resolutions were just
another indication that the resentiment of the people of Kentucky during the
decade from 1830 to 1840 was in favor of gradual emancipation of the slaves
and their colonization in Africa. We have seen that this was the plan of the
various church bodies, and also of abolition, was the leading consideration
among the people for opposing the call. But for that, but for the agitation
of the question of abolition in states whose population had no right, in the
opinion of the people of Kentucky, to interfere in the matter, the vote for
a convention would have been much larger, if it had not been carried. . . .
Prior to the agitation of this subject of abolition, there was a progressive
melioration in the condition of the slaves—schools of instruction were
opened by humane and religious persons. These are now all checked, and a
spirit of insubordination having shown itself in some localities, traceable,
it is believed, to abolition movements and exertions, the legislative
authority has found it expedient to infuse fresh vigor into the police and
the laws which regulate the conduct of the slaves. ’ ’—Colton, Reed &
McKinley, Works of Henry Clay, Vol. 6, pp. 153-154.
During the decade from 1840
to 1850 this outside pressure of which Shaler speaks was at its height. We
have seen typical examples of it within the borders of Kentucky in the
discussion of the cases of Delia Webster, Calvin Fairbank and John B. Mahan.
The change in the trend of popular thought during this period does not show
itself much in the open until 1849, when the third constitutional convention
was about to assemble. It was then that all phases of the problem of slavery
were discussed, in the press, in the pulpit, on the platform and in the
elections. George D. Prentice in an editorial gave the best exposition of
Kentucky sentiment. He said: “The sentiment of Kentucky we believe to be,
that slavery is an evil which must be borne with patience, simply because
there is no known plan for its rapid extinction which would not produce
incalculable sacrifices and appalling risks. At the same time we think the
people of Kentucky are not inclined to increase the evil, but are inclined
to favor its gradual emancipation and remote termination, by prohibiting the
further introduction of slaves and by some provision tending to encourage
voluntary emancipation with colonization. These measures they believe, taken
in connection with the known tendency in widening circles to substitute free
for slave labor, will hasten the social revolution in question as fast as it
can be carried with safety to the Commonwealth or with benefit to the
colonized negro.”
So universal was this feeling
that even Cassius M. Clay, the only real abolitionist left in the State,
came out more or less in favor of it. Under his leadership there was held at
Frankfort, April 25, 1849, an emancipation convention to which all the more
radical element were invited. Clay himself proved to be the most radical
member of the convention but when they came to draw up a series of
resolutions the only ones to pass were those which favored the absolute
prohibition of the importation of any more slaves into Kentucky and the
complete power to enforce and perfect, under the new constitution, whenever
the people desired it, a system of gradual emancipation of the slaves. Here
we are confronted with the unusual fact that the radical element of the
State agreed with the plan of George D. Prentice, one of the chief
pro-slavery men of Kentucky, and with that of Henry Clay.
While sojourning for his
health in New Orleans in February, 1849, Clay sent Richard Pindell for
publication a letter on the gradual emancipation of slavery in Kentucky, as
the State at that time was about to hold another constitutional convention.
This long and able document constitutes the most constructive program for
the progressive elimination of slavery from the State that was ever drawn
up. It embodied not only the fundamental principles of Clay’s attitude on
the Kentucky slavery question but it undoubtedly typified the real position
of the average high-minded Kentucky slaveholder of that day. Clay frankly
admitted that he had little hope of the immediate success of the plan, but
he thought it was his duty to present the facts of the problem to the people
of his own State, at a time when they were about to alter the existing
constitution. The spirit of the plan as well as its context shows that Clay
had thoroughly considered the emancipation question from all aspects,
especially in relation to its practical operation. The actual plan was based
on three principles: (1) that any gradual emancipation should be slow in its
operation, so as not to disturb the existing habits of society; (2) as an
indispensable condition the liberated slaves were to be sent out of the
State and colonized in Africa; (3) and the expenses of their transportation
and six months subsistence were to be borne by a fund supplied by the labur
of the freed negro.
Regarding the progressive
plan of liberation. Clay suggested that a certain date, January 1, 1855 or
1860, be fixed for the commencement of the plan. All slaves born after that
date were to be free at the age of twenty-five; but they were liable
thereafter to be hired out under State authority for a period of not more
than three years, in order to raise money to pay for their expenses of
transportation to their colony and their subsistence for the term of six
months. It was suggested that the offspring of those who were to be free at
twenty-five should be free at their birth, but subject to apprenticeship
until they reached their majority and then to be hired out as in the case of
the parent to pay the expenses of transportation to the colony and their
settlement there. In the meanwhile the master would have the usual legal
rights over the slaves and could sell, devise or remove them out of the
State.
Clay considered colonization
to be an indispensable part of his scheme and went so far as to say that he
would be “utterly opposed” to any system of emancipation without it. He
firmly believed that the nearly two hundred thousand blacks along with their
descendants “could never live in peace and harmony and equality with the
residue of the population” if they were free. He thought the expense of
colonizing should be borne by a fund from the labor of the liberated Negro
because he was the individual who secured the most benefit thereby. The
non-slaveholder should not be taxed for any share in the expense and the
slaveholder would have enough sacrifices to make without any additional
financial burdens. Clay figured that the average annual hire of each slave
would be about fifty dollars, or one hundred and fifty dollars for the whole
x^eriod of three years. One third of this sum would be required for the
transportation of the Negro to Africa and the other two thirds would go
towards a fund to establish him in his new country.
The persistence of Clay in
his avowed convictions on the subject of slavery and emancipation in
Kentucky was kept up in spite of the fact that within a few days after the
publication of his plan of emancipation throughout Kentucky the House of
Representatives at Frankfort by the unanimous vote of 93 to 0 declared that
“we the representatives of the people of Kentucky, are opposed to abolition
or emancipation of slavery in any shape or form whatever, except as now
provided by the laws and constitution of the state.”38 This was their answer
to the plea set forth by Clay and strange to say the same group of men voted
unanimously at the same session to return Clay for six years more to the
United States Senate.
"That the system will be
attended with some sacrifices on the part of the slaveholders, which are to
be regretted, need not be denied. What great and beneficent enterprise was
ever accomplished without risk and sacrifice! But these sacrifices are
distant, contingent, and inconsiderable. Assuming the year I860 for the
commencement of the system, all slaves born prior to that time would remain
such during their lives, and the present loss of the slaveholder would be
only the difference in value of the female slave whose off spring, if she
had any, born after the first day of January, 1860, should be free at the
age of twenty-five or should be slaves for life. In the meantime, if the
right to remove or sell the slave out of the State should be exercised, that
trifling loss would not be incurred. The slaveholder, after the commencement
of the system, would lose the difference between the "value of the slaves
for life and slaves until the age of twenty-five years. He might also incur
some inconsiderable expense in rearing from their birth the issue of those
who were to be free at twenty-five, until they were old enough to be
apprenticed out; but as it is probable that they would be most generally
bound to him, he would receive some indemnity from their services until they
attained their majority.”
Reform” had been held at the
State capital on February 5, 1849, and had drawn up a series of twelve
resolutions on the several questions which were to be debated in the
constitutional convention. They made mention incidentally of the desired
reforms in connection with slavery stating “that we do not desire or
contemplate any change in the relative condition of master and slave in the
new Constitution, and intend a firm and decided resistance to any such
change. We have no objection to a proper provision for colonizing the
present free blacks, and those who shall hereafter be set free, but protest
against abolition or emancipation without the consent of the owner, unless
upon full compensation and colonization.”
This element dominated the
convention. The body not only ignored any plan of emancipation but drew the
reins of the existing institution tighter than ever before by incorporating
in the Bill of Rights the famous phrase that “the right of property is
before and higher than any constitutional sanction, and the right of the
owner of a slave to such slave and its increase is the same and as
inviolable as the right of the owner of any property whatsoever.” Such a
statement was, however, not brought on by the words of Clay, but was a
direct answer to the “higher law than the constitution” plea of the
abolitionists.40 The convention amended the standard article on slavery with
a section to the effect that the “General Assembly should pass laws We know
how Clay felt about this matter, for he referred to it at length in his
speech in the Senate on February 20, 1S50, in the debate on the Compromise
resolutions. Speaking particularly of his letter of emancipation he
declared: “I knew at the moment that I wrote that letter in New Orleans, as
well as I know at this moment, that a majority of the people of Kentucky
would not adopt my scheme, or probably any project whatever of gradual
emancipation. Perfectly well did I know it; but I was anxious that, if any
of my posterity, or any human lieing who comes after me, should have
occasion to look into my sertiments, and ascertain what they were on this
great institution of slavery, to put them on record then; and ineffectual as
I saw the project would be, I felt it was a duty which I owed to myself, to
truth, to my country, and to my God, to record my sentiments. The State of
Kentucky has decided as I anticipated she would do. I regret it; but I
acquiesce in her decision.'’—Colton, Keed & McKinley, Works of Henry Clay,
Vol. 3, p. 353. providing that any free negro or mulatto immigrating to, and
any slave thereafter emancipated in, and refusing to leave that State,
should be deemed guilty of a felony, punished by confinement in the
penitentiary.”
The obvious purpose of this
amendment was to reduce the number of Negroes in the State. Accordingly
every slave emancipated was forced to leave the State and the Negro
population was decreased just so much every time any slaves were set free.
The convention was thus willing to do something towards eliminating the
Negro, but was not in favor of any scheme of a general gradual liberation of
the slaves. The necessary legislative act for carrying out the provision of
the constitution was enacted March 24, 1851. This law only went half way in
that it only prevented those Negroes who had been freed in Kentucky from
living in the State. It was not until March 3, 1860, that the prohibition
was extended to all free Negro immigration into the State. An interesting
development of this policy was shown in the enactment of the legislature in
1863 which declared it unlawful for any Negro or mulatto claiming to be free
under the Emancipation Proclamation to migrate to or remain in the State.
Any Negro violating this law was to be treated as a runaway slave.
The desire of the State
authorities to eliminate the free Negro was accompanied by constructive
measures in behalf of the emancipated slave. On March 3, 1856, the State
legislature passed a law appropriating $5,000 annually to aid the Kentucky
Colonization Society in the transportation of free Negroes to Liberia.44 The
universal sentiment of the time was that the salvation of the Negro race
rested in their elimination from the State even as free men and their
transportation to their native African soil. Henry Clay of all others was
the most persistent advocate of colonization.
We have seen that the general
trend of public opinion from about 1798 had been progressively in favor of
gradual emancipation provided it was coupled with some form of colonization
which would remove the liberated Negroes from the State. Public sentiment,
however, received a serious set-back about 1838 with the beginning of the
Underground Railroad system and the incoming of the abolitionist literature.
In a speech in the Kentucky legislature of 1838 James T. Morehead, one of
the leading anti-slavery statesmen of the State, portrayed the coming of the
newer era in the history of Kentucky slavery when the people would make more
strenuous efforts to hold firmly to the slavery institution. Morehead
pictured the popular mind in these words: “Any man who desires to see
slavery abolished—any friend of emancipation, gradual or immediate—who
supposes for a moment that now is the time to carry out this favorite
policy, must be blind to the prognostics that lower from every quarter of
the political sky. Sir, the present is not the period to unmanacle the slave
in this or any other state of the Union. Four years ago you might have had
some hope. But the wild spirit of fanaticism has done much to retard the
work of emancipation and to rivet the fetters of slavery' in Kentucky. . . .
The advocates of abolition—the phrenzied fanatics of the North, neither
sleep nor slumber. Their footsteps are even now to be seen wherever mischief
can be perpetrated—and it may be that while the people of Kentucky are
reposing in the confidence of fancied security, the tocsin of rebellion may
resound through the land—the firebrand of the incendiary may wrap their
dwellings in flames—their towns and cities may become heaps of ashes before
their eyes and their minds drawn off from all thoughts of reforming the
government to consider the means necessary for their self-preservation—the
protection of their families and all that is dear to men.”
Such was the idea of one of
the most prominent public men of Kentucky and such became in time the
opinion of the average citizen who had come to believe in gradual
emancipation as the hope and solution of the Negro problem in the State. The
future course of events regarding slavery in Maysville Eagle, April 11,
1838.
Kentucky is to be explained
by this radical change of mind. Thus did the wise and constructive plans of
the gradual emancipationists come to naught with the incoming of the radical
abolitionist movement which the Kentucky populace thought would bring about
a civil insurrection among the slaves in their own State. The abolitionists
misunderstood the gradual emancipation movement in Kentucky and really
fanned the flame of the pro-slavery sentiment that came in its place. |
