Authors: Alfred W. Blumrosen
Slave Nation (39 page)
14
. Smith, Ed.,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 7, 621–2. From July 6 through July 11, the date the committee bill was reported, the states of MA, NY, NJ, VA, NC, SC, and GA were present. July, 1987,
JCC
Vol. 32, 303-13
15
. Ibid. The provision was taken from King’s 1785 proposal, see
Chapter 10
.
16
. This additional period would have allowed slave owners sufficient time to settle the area and become influential. As Madison commented on the twenty-year permission for the importation of slaves at the Convention in Philadelphia later that summer: “Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term will be more dishonorable to the national character than to say nothing about it in the Constitution.” Farrand,
Records
, Vol. II, 415, Aug. 15, 1787.
18
. See “Bartholomew Tardiveau to Governor St. Clair, June 30, 1789,” in William Henry Smith, Ed.,
The St. Clair Papers
II, (New York: Da Capo Press, 1971) 117–19. As it turned out, Governor St. Clair interpreted the clause as not applicable to existing slaves. Carter,
Territorial Papers
, Vol. II 332–33. St. Clair had become the first governor of the territory after Manasseh Cutler had withdrawn his support from Parsons at the behest of his “southern friends” and shifted his support to St. Clair. Not for the first, nor the last, time has the selection of an administrator influenced the interpretation of a statute. Nevertheless, the slave interests complained to Congress that the clause was causing slave owners to go to Missouri instead of Illinois. The slave interests came close to securing repeal of the antislavery state constitutional provision in Illinois in 1823. See
Chapter 13
, the Edward Coles story.
19
. Finkelman, “Slavery and Bondage” in Williams,
Northwest Ordinance
; MacLeod
, Slavery, Race
49–56. Governor St. Clair later interpreted it as applying to slaves subsequently brought into the territory, rather than as freeing those already there. But even this interpretation deprived slave owners of some rights they had previously, most particularly, the right to the labor of children born of slave mothers.
20
.
JCC
Vol. 32, 343
21
. Maryland had voted no in 1784, did not vote in 1787.
22.
JCC
Vol. 26, 247
23
JCC
Vol. 28, 165
24.
JCC
Vol. 32, 343
25
. Carrington carried the amendment to the Virginia cession agreement required by the ordinance through the Virginia legislature in 1788. His opinion in
Pleasants v. Pleasants
supported a broad interpretation of manumission agreements. See Robert Cover,
Justice Accuse: Antislavery and the Judicial Process
(New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975) 69–71
26
. William H. Smith,
Life and Public Service of Arthur St. Clair
(Original,1882; Da Capo, 1971) 132, explains the antislavery clause by “the prevalence of antislavery sentiment among the prominent statesmen of Virginia, at that period. It was not until after 1808, the date of the suppression of the slave trade, when Virginia assumed a new relation to the cotton states, that this sentiment became unfashionable in the Old Dominion. In 1784–87, the echo of the Declaration of Independence had not yet died away. Jefferson believed slavery to be an evil, and drafted an article prohibiting it in all territory after 1800.”
27
. Grayson had pressed the same motion through Congress in 1785 or 1786. William Blount (NC) was “interested” in the Mississippi question. See Collier,
Decision in Philadelphia
, 212–15
28
. Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 8, 621–2
29
. Dane wrote to Rufus King on August 12, Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 8, 636–37, discussing appointments of officers for the territory, and the timing of elections. “Much will depend on the directions given to the first settlements in my opinion, and as the eastern states for the sake of doing away the temporary governments, etc., established in 1784, and for establishing some order in that country gave up as much as could be reasonably expected, I think it will be just and proper for them to establish as far as they can consistently, eastern politics in it, especially in the state adjoining Pennsylvania. You are informed, I presume, of the terms of the Ohio contract. All circumstances considered I think they are advantageous to the public.”
Carrington, who was chairman of the committee which reported the Ordinance, wrote to Monroe on Aug. 7th: “We have at last made a break into the western lands.…This…will be a means of introducing into the country, in the first instance, a description of men who will fix the character and politics throughout the whole territory, and which will probably endure to the latest period of time. This company is formed of the best men in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and they will move out immediately. I am about to join them with a few shares; what think you of such an adventure?” Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, Vol. 8, 631
Manasseh Cutler, the lobbyist for the Ohio Company, emphasized this point in pressing the Congress for the land contract. After threatening to walk out on the proposed deal and buy land from the states instead of Congress, Cutler said “At length, told them that if Congress would accede to the terms I had proposed, I would extend the purchase to the tenth township from the Ohio, and to the Scioto inclusively, by which Congress would pay near four millions of the national debt; that our intention was an actual, a large, and an immediate settlement of the most robust and industrious people in America; and that it would be made systematically, which must instantly enhance the value of federal lands, and prove an important acquisition to Congress. On these terms I would renew the negotiations, if Congress was disposed to take the matter up again.” Cutler, life, p. 296.
30
. Manasseh Cutler saw that persuading the southerners, not the northerners, was the way to secure vast land grants to the Ohio Company. He paved the way with extensive correspondence with southern figures, then made his celebrated trip to New York, spending three days there, before journeying to Philadelphia, where he spent his time largely with southern representatives.
31
. MacLeod,
Slavery, Race
, 44. Both MacLeod (54) and Finkelman, “Slavery and Bondage” in Williams,
Northwest Ordinance
, 74–7 overstate the importance of “enforcement” of fundamental rights, particularly in the period after the adoption of the ordinance. There was no enforcement mechanism at all for any purpose in most of the northwest territory at that time. “Ambiguous” overestimates the importance of “enforcement” of fundamental rights, particularly in the early period of our history.
32
. Robinson,
Structure of American Politics
, 382, states that the territory south of the Ohio “ was tacitly set aside for future consideration.” David Brion Davis,
Problem of Slavery
, 155: “The Northwest Ordinance tacitly implied that there would be no opposition to the extension of slavery south of the Ohio.” Peter J. Parish,
Slavery: History and Historians
(Harper & Row, 1995) 18: “In 1787, the framers of the Constitution employed various circumlocutions to avoid using the actual word ‘slavery,’ but they gave the institution tacit recognition and protection where it already existed.” Lynd, “Compromise,” in Williams,
Northwest Ordinance
.
Fehrenbacher,
Dred Scott Case
, 86–87, suggests that the two policies concerning slavery were not intended. “Without being entirely conscious of doing so, perhaps, it officially adopted a policy of having two policies regarding slavery in the western territories. North of the Ohio, slavery was forbidden.…South of the Ohio, Congress did not establish or protect slavery in federal territory. It merely refrained from prohibiting the institution or exercising any kind of authority over it.” He disagrees with the “tacit sanction of slavery” theory as a “perspective distorted by hindsight,” because the decision to limit the ordinance to the northwest was made before the antislavery clause was introduced.(79) But the decisions to exclude slavery from the northwest and to repeal the 1784 ordinance to the extent it was inconsistent were taken at the same time and together divided the nation in two. Fehrenbacher erroneously assumed that the Northwest Ordinance repealed the 1784 ordinance in its entirety. (79) Feherenbacher does not address the probability that, because the colonies that ceded their land claims to the United States—particularly Virginia— had explicitly permitted slavery, that institution remained lawful until Congress acted against it. See
Chapter 9
.
Paul Finkelman, a major student of the Northwest Ordinance, has concluded, “The vigorous defense of slavery by the Deep South delegates to the Convention stands in contrast to the adoption of Article VI of the ordinance, if that article is seen as ‘antislavery.’ However, it is likely that the Deep South delegates in Congress thought that the Article would protect slavery where it was and allow it to spread to the southwest; thus they may have seen the article as pro-slavery, or at least as protective of slavery.” But he agrees that the “chain of events [leading to its adoption] remains a puzzle.” Finkelman, “Slavery and Bondage” in Williams,
Northwest Ordinance
, 88n4, 67
34
. Clarence W. Alvord,
Governor Edward Coles
, 394-395; “Coles’ History of the Ordinance of 1787, read before the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, June 9, 1856.”
35
. “Grayson to James Monroe, Aug. 8, 1787,” Smith,
Letters of Delegates
, 631–2. “Since my last, Congress has passed the ordinance for the government of the western country, in a manner something different from the one which you drew, though I expect the departure is not so essential but that it will meet your approbation. You will observe that the consent of Virginia is necessary to entitle the people to certain rights, as also that the former act is repealed absolutely; I am satisfied, therefore, you will do every thing in your power to get the state to alter her act of cession in such a manner, as will square with the ordinance: It seems that the subject was not taken up last year. The clause respecting slavery was agreed to by the southern members for the purpose of preventing tobacco and indigo from being made on the N.W. side of the Ohio, as well as for sev’l other political reasons.” There follows a discussion of how the Ohio Company has purchased lands and proposed to “settle the country very thick and without delay; of course the adjacent lands will become very valuable…from the great number of inhabitants in the eastern states, and in the Jerseys, I should not be surprised to see them in a very few years extend themselves by additional purchases quite to the Mississippi, thereby form a complete barrier for our state [Virginia], at the same [time] greatly validating the lands on the Virginia side of the Ohio.”
This and other letters have given rise to speculation concerning the reasons for the southern switch. Lynd has extensive discussion on the issue at 180–8 of “Compromise.”
36
. See Grayson’s letter, note supra. His reference to “several other political reasons” carries on the southern tradition of avoiding public or written discussion of slavery considerations at that period. At the Virginia ratifying convention, Grayson expressed concern about northern domination of the new government, and possible northern oppression of southern slave interests by taxing slaves. See Banning,
Sacred Fire
, 254. See also Mason’s concerns, expressed in Frederic Bancroft,
Slave Trading in the Old South
(University of SC Press, 1996) 7–8
37
. See
Chapter 10
for a discussion of the legality of slavery in the territory between 1783 and 1787.
38
. Lynd,
Class Conflict
, 185–213
39
. Lynd,
Class Conflict
, 185-213. Davis,
Problem of Slavery
, 154n75, doubts this thesis because evidence of such a deal would have come out in later debates. But this is unlikely because the later debates at the Convention did not involve the repudiation of the Northwest Ordinance. Lynd believed that discussions between delegates to New York and Philadelphia may have fashioned a compromise which took account of the uncertainties as to whether the northwest or the southwest would be developed more rapidly and what effect this would have on control of the Congress under the Constitution which was in the process of formulation. His view is that the expected southern opposition to the antislavery provision in the ordinance was tempered by three factors: (1) the northwest states might support southern policies in Congress without slavery, (2) the ordinance might have been viewed as tacit endorsement of slavery in the southwest, and (3) there may have been an agreement to speed admission of the new states in the northwest by lowering population requirements for admission.
41
. Farrand,
Records
, Vol. I, 589-99
42
. It did not appear in the draft of July 11. Lynd,
Class Conflict
, 208
43
. Farrand,
Records
, Vol. II, 13-19
44
. Paul Finkelman, “Slavery and the Constitutional Convention.” The “liberation” of a quarter of the slaves in the South during the war both demonstrated the necessity of slavery and contributed to southern nervousness about their personal security. On the effect of the loss of slaves during the war on slave holders at the end of the Revolution, see Frey, 237–8, 243. See also, Paul Finkelman,
Imperfect Union
, 28, 36
“General Pinckney, August 21,” Farrand,
Records
, Vol. II, 364 (Madison) “South Carolina can never receive the plan if its prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the powers of Congress, that state has expressly and watchfully excepted that of meddling with the importation of Negroes.”
