Slaves have existed in almost every society known to man in one form or another. Ancient Semitic tribes had slaves, the Egyptians had slaves, as did the Romans, Greeks, Spartans and most Western European nations, well into and past the Middle Ages. Slavery was not invented in modern times, but was inherited as a practice that had always existed. The first African slaves who arrived in North America came to Virginia in 1619, and they were treated more or less like indentured servants. It was only when the enormous demand for labor, especially on the Southern plantations, became apparent that the lucrative African slave trade found its way to America's shores
By the late 1600s the practice of permanent, lifetime slavery was well established by law in Virginia and elsewhere. Early colonial statutes gave virtual life-and-death authority over their property to the owners of slaves. Even though slavery is almost as old as civilization itself, by the beginning of the modern age a number of forces had begun to mitigate against continuation of the ancient practice. Although organized resistance to slavery was slow in coming, modest steps were taken in that direction. For example, in 1688 Quaker church took a stand against the practice of human bondage, the first such declaration in colonial America.
It had become apparent to many Americans by the time of the American Revolution that slavery was inconsistent with the ideals that Jefferson elucidated in the Declaration of Independence. Yet the winning of freedom from Great Britain and solving the problem of slavery at the same time were more than the founding fathers were prepared to tackle. Slavery actually began to wane during and after the Revolution, and many people quite honestly believed that it would gradually wither and die. In any case, in most Northern states, the immediate or gradual abolition of slavery started before 1800.
Slavery was a significant issue discussed during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The 3/5 Compromise, later seen by some as a pact with the devil, was a temporary means of addressing the problem so as to make ratification by a majority of the states possible. Few of the founding fathers admired the institution of slavery, and many of them worried about its future impact in the United States. Some of those like Washington and Jefferson were slave owners themselves; others, like Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, had no use for slavery at all. The clearest condemnation of slavery at the Constitutional Convention came from George Mason, a slave owner. On August 22, 1787, he said:
Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They bring the judgment of
Heaven on a Country. As nations can not be rewarded or punished in the next
World they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes national sins, by national calamities.
The Civil War was indeed a calamity. Had it not been for the invention of the cotton gin and the booming cotton economy that began to take over the South around 1800, perhaps the desire to continue the practice of slavery would have waned over time. But by 1820 the plantation system and the production of cotton had come to dominate the broad region of the South known as the cotton belt.
The slavery issue reared its head in 1819 over the admission of the state of Missouri. Because there had been agitation in the North against slavery for some time, Southern states were concerned that they might lose their grip on Congress, and slavery might be jeopardized. The Missouri Compromise was a way of keeping the number of slave states and free states even, so that in the Senate the Southern states could block any legislation interfering with what became known as the "peculiar institution." The Missouri Compromise lasted over 30 years, but it did not resolve the issue of slavery.
By 1830 the abolitionist movement had begun to take hold in the North, especially in New England. William Lloyd Garrison, who became the most outspoken opponent of slavery, gave his first famous speech against the institution on July 4, 1829. As the movement grew and spread, its advocates included many who sought reforms in other areas, such as the treatment of the mentally ill, temperance in alcohol consumption, and greater rights for women. Religious organizations were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement, and the pulpit became a place from which antislavery arguments frequently emanated.
The agitation over slavery was a contentious issue in Congress. The William Lloyd Garrison gag orders (mentioned above) were put in place to prevent endless bickering on the floor of the Senate and House. Congressmen such as John Quincy Adams fought against the silencing of the debate over slavery. But since slavery was protected by the Constitution, and since three quarters of the states would have had to ratify any amendment ending slavery, practically speaking, there was little hope of dealing with the institution at the federal level. When the issue finally led to secession, in fact, it was not over attempts to abolish slavery, but only over attempts on the part of anti-slavery forces to prevent its spread. Abraham Lincoln's election on a platform to that effect led directly to the secession movement.
Although one cannot fault the abolitionists for their desire to see slavery ended, it has been claimed that their agitation did have a negative effect on the overall circumstances of slavery. By declaring that slave owners were unchristian sinners, if not downright devils, they placed the Southern slave owners in a difficult position. They either had to agree with the charges and give up their slaves, which a few did, or they had to come to the defense of slavery in a way that had until then not been necessary. In 1800 there were few Southerners who would have claimed that slavery was a good thing. But by 1850, after decades of agitation, the South had begun to argue that the institution as a positive good.
It has been widely claimed that the agitation on the part of the abolitionists, well meant and morally unassailable, nevertheless in the short term made the problem more acute. According to that logic, it is not a stretch to say that the abolitionists helped create the Civil War. Such claims have been refuted, however: "Despite such unanimity of testimony, the assertion that the pro-slavery argument was an answer to Abolitionism will not stand the light of examination."70 The full story of the abolitionist movement is still being told, and their actions have been defended a morally justifiable.
Slavery Divides the Nation. All the other issues that divided the North and South, such as tariffs, land sales policy, internal improvements, and even the Bank of the United States, were connected in certain ways with the institution of slavery. For example, manufacturing in the South had been approximately equal to manufacturing in the north in 1800. But by 1850, a vast majority of the manufacturing had moved to the North since most Southern capital had been invested in plantations, slaves and cotton.. It must be said that the North also profited from slavery because those who financed loans to Southern landowners and those who marketed and traded in cotton were very often Northern merchants or ship owners. Protests against protective tariffs in states like South Carolina were rooted in the fact that the South was reliant on Northern manufacturing for many products.
In 1850 with new land accessions from the Mexican War, the issue of slavery was opened once again. The 1850 Compromise temporarily resolved the issue. Almost immediately afterward, the new, tougher Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, brought the problems of slavery to the North more vividly than ever. The Underground Railroad, which had enabled slaves to escape to the northern states and often on to Canada, was seen by Southerners as a conspiracy to rob them of their economic well-being; thus the Fugitive Slave Act and its strong provisions led to many slave catchers invading the North in search of what they deemed lost property. Very often attempts to bring slaves back to the South were met with resistance. Violence broke out in many Northern areas where freed slaves were being apprehended. Abolitionists sometimes purchased freedom for slaves rather than allowing them to be taken back South. In some ways that fueled the fires more, as Southerners saw that as a means of getting reimbursed for recalcitrant slaves who were known as runners and were therefore undesirable in the first place.
America in the 1850s Slavery, States' Rights & Popular Sovereignty The Approach to Civil War
The Politics of Slavery in the 1850s. Since the United States Constitution recognized and even protected the institution of slavery, it was clear to everyone at the time that to abolish slavery at the national level would require a Constitutional amendment. To obtain the necessary three-quarters majority of the states to ratify an anti-slavery amendment would have been virtually impossible. Dealing with the issue of slavery therefore had to be carried out in the context of what the Constitution said on the subject.
Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution stated:
"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."
At first no federal law was invoked to enforce that article, since it was assumed that the states could handle any problems arising from it. In 1793, however, a dispute between Virginia and Pennsylvania regarding a runaway slave led to passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. The Act stated in part:
Sec. 3. And be it also enacted, That when a person held to labour in any of the United States _ shall escape into any other of the said states or territory, the person to whom such labour or service may be due, his agent or attorney, is hereby empowered to seize or arrest such fugitive from labour, and to take him or her before any judge of the circuit or district courts of the United States, _ and upon proof to the satisfaction of such judge or magistrate _ that the person so seized or arrested, doth, _ owe service or labour to the person claiming him or her, it shall be the duty of such judge or magistrate to give a certificate _ which shall be sufficient warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour, to the state or territory from which he or she fled.
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That any person who shall knowingly and willingly obstruct or hinder such claimant, _ or shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant, _ shall, for either of the said offences, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars.
In 1808, in accordance with the Constitution, Congress banned the further importation of slaves to the United States. Slave trading within the United States, however, remained legal. In 1787 the Northwest Ordinance had prohibited slavery in areas covered by the act, but the restriction was not extended to other territories.71 In 1820, however, the acquisition of Louisiana from France precipitated a crisis. The subject of slavery in that territory came to a head over the issue of the admission of the state of Missouri. The Missouri Compromise allowed the extension of slavery into certain areas and prevented it in others, which resolved the issue temporarily. The act merely postponed the crisis, however, as Jefferson and many others recognized at the time.
Although a powerful abolitionist movement began around 1830, it is doubtful that the abolitionist cause ever reached majority proportions throughout the northern states. (Neither, of course, was pro-slavery feeling in the South anywhere near unanimous.) When, as a result of the Mexican-American War, the United States added some 500,000 square miles of new territory in 1848 (over 1,000,000 counting Texas), the nation once again had to decide whether slavery was to be allowed in the new territories of the United States. Both opponents and supporters of slavery recognized that the battle over slavery was to be fought in the territories, where the results would affect the balance in the Senate and House of Representatives. Indeed, that was where it was fought.
The reemergence of the issue in the 1848 election foreshadowed the crisis which evolved and grew in the 1850s. During that election campaign the doctrine of "popular sovereignty" appeared, the idea that people in each territory ought to have the liberty to decide for themselves whether to be slave or free territory. The problem with that idea was that absent laws (such as the Northwest Ordinance) prohibiting slavery, nothing prevented slave owners from taking their "property" into the new territories. Thus, when the population became large enough for the territory to begin thinking of statehood, slavery had to be considered when the people in the territories wrote their constitutions and applied to Congress for admission.
Since approval of those state constitutions was an essential step on the road to statehood, Congress had some control over the process. So the issue became a national one and not one of states' (or territorial) rights. The issue might have been resolved by extending the Missouri Compromise to the Pacific to cover the new territory, However, since the movement to prohibit slavery in the territories was much stronger in 1850 than it had been in 1820, politicians were not able to deal with it as readily as before.
The idea of popular sovereignty, introduced during the 1848 election, seemed a reasonable solution. After all, it was basically democratic: Why not let the people in each new territory decide for themselves whether or not they want slavery? (Of course participation in that decision was never extended to the slave population.) Second, it seemed acceptable to Americans for whom "states' rights" was the basis for their attitude toward the federal government The two major problems with the doctrine were, first, that slaves and free blacks were excluded from the decision-making process, and second, that it ignored the concerns of Americans who hoped, as Abraham Lincoln and others did, that slavery was on its way out. If slavery was allowed to go into the territories, then the life of slavery would surely be extended.
In the end, whether it was a wise idea or not, popular sovereignty only made things worse. Some believed that you could allow slavery into the territories but prevent it "de facto" by failing to pass the legislation necessary to support it. In fact, what happened was great turmoil in places like Kansas, where the local population actually got into a civil war over slavery. But that came later. In 1850, when California was ready for admission, slavery was a federal issue. For a short time, it seemed to have been handled reasonably, when after months of debate, the 1850 Compromise was passed.
World History
