The scheme ... to encourage the emancipation of the black people of this country from that state of bondage in which they are held is a striking evidence of the benevolence of your heart. I shall be happy to join you in so laudable a work. -- George Washington letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, 1783
We tend to focus so much on our current problems today that we don't take the time to remember those who have helped get us where we are. There are Americans we can point to who fought against slavery and discrimination since before the birth of the republic. They believed in the Declaration of Independence, which says that we -- as one people -- hold certain truths to be self evident. They had notable successes as well as notable failures. But they never gave up. They waged an 80 year political campaign against the institution of slavery in this country that finally ended in a contest of wills. Before we can determine how to move into the future as one people, we need to review the political events of the past.
The 1700s
Slavery was viewed by many colonists as part of the culture from which they had just escaped. A sizable portion of the population was dedicated to its eradication, and their successes were notable. The territory of Vermont has the distinction of being the first part of the country to abolish slavery, which it did in 1777, one year after the Declaration of Independence was signed. The Virginia Assembly, on a motion from Thomas Jefferson, prohibited the further introduction of slaves in 1778. Pennsylvania abolished slavery in 1780, one year before the Revolutionary War ended. The Constitutions of Massachusetts and New Hampshire were held by their respective supreme courts to prohibit slavery in 1783; Maryland prohibited the further introduction of slaves in the same year; Connecticut and Rhode Island formally abolished slavery in 1784. The last Continental Congress unanimously prohibited slavery in the newly settled territories of present day Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa in 1787.
Although the North had spoken on its desire to abolish slavery, the northern and southern States could not agree on the issue at the Constitutional Convention, also held in 1787. Sizable concessions to slave owners had to be made in order to pass any unified Constitution for the entire country. This was due in no small part to fact that the huge debts incurred during the Revolutionary War did not even allow the Constitutional Convention to consider reimbursing slave owners for their investment in the institution of slavery, which would have been required to abolish slavery at that moment. In the end, agreement on a Constitution was reached with wording that did not allow the prohibition of slavery until the year 1808. In addition, representation in the lower House of Congress would be determined by counting citizens as well as three-fifths of the slave population. This latter concession -- although necessary for agreement on the Constitution -- disproportionately increased representation for slaveholding States in Congress and ensured that the debate on the slavery question would be prolonged far longer than necessary. Yet the three-fifths compromise could not be reduced further. The slaveholding States had insisted upon including the entire slave population to determine Congressional representation, and stood firm against any reduction below three-fifths.
But anti-slavery successes did not end after ratification of the Constitution. In 1794, Congress passed a law making it illegal for Americans to fit-out vessels with the chains and irons required to transport slaves. In 1799, New York passed a law which provided for the gradual extinguishment of slavery. In 1800, Congress made it illegal for Americans to own any part of a slave ship or to work on board such a ship. And in 1804, New Jersey enacted a law which gradually purged slavery from the State. Unfortunately, the "three-fifths compromise" precluded any agreement in Congress on the emancipation of existing slaves. Consequently, proponents and opponents of slavery took up sides in Congress to continue a political battle of legendary proportions.
The 1800s
The leader for the abolitionist side was a former member of President Washington's administration by the name of John Quincy Adams, who was commonly known as the "hell hound of slavery." Adams, a Federalist, was elected to the Senate by the Massachusetts legislature in 1802, just five years after George Washington left the White House. While in the Senate, Adams met with House members to discuss consensus building on the slavery question. Adams offered to hold talks with anyone who was willing to put aside their partisan differences for the purpose of obtaining a majority against slavery. But the Senate was involved with impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase, and America was again on the brink of war with England, who had forcibly abducted American sailors from American vessels on the high seas. Adams broke with his party permanently when he voted with the majority -- and against the Federalist party -- to retaliate against the abductions with an embargo. His fellow party members in the Massachusetts legislature took revenge by naming his replacement before his term had expired. Adams resigned his seat in the Senate rather than serve where he was not wanted.
Adams chose a particularly inopportune moment in history to leave the Senate. Everyone knew that the 20-year Constitutional limit for the enactment of laws prohibiting slavery was fast approaching in 1808, and at the commencement of the 1806-7 session of Congress, President Thomas Jefferson made it clear to the House and Senate that he wanted the institution abolished:
After great debate, Congress made the further importation of slaves into the United States illegal effective January 1, 1808. The joy of abolitionists was celebrated again in March of 1808 with news from England that Parliament had passed a similar law.
While Adams served in the administrations of Presidents James Madison and James Monroe, the consensus he had sought against slavery degenerated into an argument about what should be done with existing slaves, and which States were to be declared "free States" and which were to be "slave States". Opinions on the "peculiar institution" bubbled over into a bitter two-year Congressional debate when Missouri's application for admission as a slave State failed in 1819. The solution to this problem was the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which admitted Missouri as a "slave State" and Maine as a "free State", but prohibited further slavery west and north of Missouri's southern border. This effectively confined the further spread of slavery to the southern States and set up a division of the country. But 1820 also saw severe new penalties enacted by Congress for Americans involved in kidnapping blacks on foreign shores with the intent to make them slaves. Henceforth, the penalty would be death. It was hoped that this new law would put an end to the illegal slave trade which had sprung up as a result of the 1808 law making it illegal to import slaves.
When John Quincy Adams won the presidency in 1824 as a Democratic-Republican, he found that he was not able to influence the formidable pro-slavery voting bloc in the House of Representatives; therefore, when he was defeated for re-election in 1828, he retired to his farm in Massachusetts and allowed his name to be put forth as a candidate for the House of Representatives. In 1830 he won a seat in the House, where he continued to do battle on the slavery question.
Adams had collected hundreds of anti-slavery petitions, which he duly presented to the House. There was great debate as to whether the petitions should even be received, but Adams prevailed, citing the right of citizens to petition their government. In attempting to refer the petitions to a committee for action, though, he was not so successful. Motions to table the petitions always passed. The reason for this was the disproportionate pro-slavery representation in the House caused by the Constitutional provision requiring 3/5 of all slaves to be counted for the purpose of determining the number of Representatives from each State -- even though blacks could not yet vote. This provision was not changed until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. As a result, the House was able to pass a resolution in January 1837, by a 2 to 1 majority, stating "that all petitions relating to slavery, without being printed or referred, shall be laid on the table, and no action shall be had thereon."
The British Parliament did not have this lopsided pro-slavery representation to contend with, though, and was able to abolish slavery throughout the British Empire in 1833, after making 20 million pounds Sterling (about $100 million) available to compensate slave-owners for the loss of their "property." Over 770,000 slaves were freed throughout the British Empire in 1833.
Back in the United States, John Quincy Adams was far from finished. The very next month after the gag rule was passed, he presented petitions to the House which allegedly came from slaves, and asked the Speaker if they fell under the gag rule for petitions from citizens. The House went berserk. Adams sat back and allowed the discussion to proceed almost to the point of his own censure before he reminded his colleagues that he had not introduced the petitions, but merely asked if introducing them would be proper. He further stated that the petitions were in support of slavery, thus opening a debate on the question in the face of the gag rule. Adams successfully used such tactics to bring his petitions before the House for the next 12 years. Slowly and incrementally, Adams gained support for his position, until, in 1844, Adams succeeded in obtaining a repeal of the gag rule. Adams never won the support he needed to refer a single petition to committee, but he never wavered in his willingness to bring these petitions before the House. When asked why he persisted and whether he was disheartened by rejection, he would only answer "duty is ours; results are God's."
Adams' efforts were not all for naught. In early 1841, in the midst of all he was doing in the House, he argued the Amistad case before the Supreme Court, seeking freedom for a number of Cuban slaves. The slaves had been on the schooner L'Amistad during transport from Havana to Principe, an island just off the western equatorial coast of Africa. The slaves took possession of the craft by killing the captain and compelled the survivors of the crew to steer for the African mainland. The helmsman took the ship instead into Long Island Sound, where the slaves were seized. The Secretary of State and the Attorney General under Democratic President Martin Van Buren both tried to uphold Cuba's claim to the slaves, but abolitionists had other ideas.
Lewis Tappan, who would later found the American Missionary Association -- a division of the present-day United Church of Christ -- defended the slaves throughout the lower courts. Seminary students from Yale University and members of local churches tutored the captives and raised funds for their defense. When the case reached the highest court in the land, abolitionists knew where to turn for a willing ally, and thanks in large part to Adams' skillful pleading before the Supreme Court, the slaves were set free. Nevertheless, the Amistad case ended on a sour note. After the captives were set free, they had no money with which to return home. Even with the help of local religious leaders, it took many years and many appearances by Cinque -- the leader of the captives -- to raise the necessary funds. Yet when they finally returned to Africa, Cinque himself began his new life by engaging in the slave trade.
In 1848, fifty-four years after his appointment as Minister to the Netherlands by then President George Washington, Adams collapsed on the floor of the House from a stroke and was carried to Speaker Robert Winthrop's quarters in the capitol, where he died two days later. Truly, if America had listened to John Quincy Adams, the coming war between the States could have been averted.
Instead, the debate raged. America's "Manifest Destiny" had pushed the U.S. border north to the 49th parallel, west to the Pacific Ocean and south to Florida and the Rio Grande. These acquisitions led to another bitter quarrel in Congress over the status of existing slaves in the new territories. Senator Stephen Douglas pushed five bills through the Senate which admitted California as a free State, finalized the boundaries for Texas, granted territorial status to Utah and New Mexico, abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia and, ironically enough, placed federal officers at the disposal of slaveholders seeking fugitives; they were collectively known as the Compromise of 1850. President Millard Fillmore was more than happy to sign the bills and Secretary of State Daniel Webster said "I can now sleep of nights."
The same Senator Douglas who sought and won the Compromise of 1850 had his eye on the White House, though, and he knew that he could not succeed in that endeavor without accommodating the South. In 1854, he introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill in the Senate, which allowed Congress to wash its hands of the problem with existing slaves in these two new territories by permitting the residents to vote on the issue, thereby nullifying the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and making slavery a distinct possibility from Missouri to Utah and north to the 49th parallel. Democratic President Franklin Pierce signed the bill into law after lobbying strenuously for its passage. The result? Thousands of slavery advocates and opponents invaded the territory to establish residency for the purpose of casting a vote. Skirmishes between pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces broke out; hundreds were murdered. The bloodshed was unquestionably a harbinger of things to come -- the fighting relented only briefly just prior to the start of the coming war.
Three years later, in 1857, the Supreme Court heard the case of Dred Scott, a slave who sued for freedom after his master died. The Supreme Court declared that slaves were not persons eligible to receive the rights of citizens -- not even the right to sue in court -- and that Congress could not prohibit slavery. The chasm between North and South only widened.
Abraham Lincoln made good use of these conflicting laws and legal decisions when he tried to wrest Stephen Douglas' Senate seat away from him in 1858. In the second of seven Lincoln-Douglas debates, Lincoln asked Douglas if residents could, in an any lawful way, exclude slavery from their territory prior to the formation of a State constitution. It was a loaded question in light of the recent Dred Scott decision, and some party members did not want Lincoln to ask it for fear that posing the question would alienate some supporters in the senate race, but Lincoln replied "I am killing larger game; if Douglas answers, he can never be president...". Douglas answered in the affirmative and infuriated Southerners in the process.
Although Douglas retained his Senate seat, the damage done during the Lincoln-Douglas debates proved to be unmanageable for the Democratic Party; Democrats split into northern and southern factions at their National Convention in 1860 and could only agree to hold separate Conventions in separate cities. Stephen Douglas obtained the presidential nomination that he so earnestly desired, but it only came from the Northern faction -- the Southern faction nominated the incumbent Democratic Vice-President, John Breckinridge. To make matters worse, a third party candidate -- John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party -- decided to run. Consequently, when the Republicans nominated Abraham Lincoln, it was a foregone conclusion that he would be elected, even though his name did not appear on any Southern ballot. Douglas came in with 29.4% of the popular vote, Breckinridge accumulated 18.2% and Bell garnered 12.6%. Lincoln won with 39.8% of the popular vote and 59.4% of the electoral vote.
On December 3rd, 1860, less than one full month after the election, Democratic President James Buchanan gave a speech before Congress in which he stated:
He went on to pacify the South by saying:
And he announced that the federal government had no power to prevent secession when he said:
South Carolina seceded on December 20th. President Buchanan reiterated his position in a special message to Congress on January 8, 1861 in which he said:
Elaborating further on his inaction with regard to South Carolina, he said:
Mississippi seceded on January 9th, followed by Florida on the 10th. Before February 1861 came to a close, three more States had seceded from the Union. February also saw Jefferson Davis inaugurated as president of the Confederate States of America.
When Lincoln gave his inaugural address on March 4th, he used every logical argument to persuade the South to stay in the Union long enough for all of the States to consider a Constitutional amendment on the slavery question, and he addressed the Supreme Court's usurpation of the amendment process in Dred Scott by saying:
Confederate politicians believed that the conciliatory tone of this new president threatened their ability to attract the remaining slave States into the Confederacy, thus ensuring that the traditions of Northern and Southern life would be defended on the battlefield. Fort Sumter was fired upon on April 12th.
When the smoke cleared four years later, 600,000 free men -- a full 3% of the U.S. population at the time -- had perished in a contest of wills over the fate of those in bondage. Moved by this, a former slave by the name of Frederick Douglass would say "I esteem myself a good, persistent hater of injustice and oppression, but my resentment ceases when they cease, and I have no heart to visit upon children the sins of their fathers."
President Lincoln's original idea -- a Constitutional amendment -- was ratified by 3/4 of the States on December 6, 1865. And the belief of Frederick Douglass that we must not "visit upon children the sins of their fathers" was codified in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 4 of which states:
The 1900s
We have come a long way since then, with the high point culminating in the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which proclaims:
Since that time, however, Americans have started to think of themselves as something other than one people. We tend to identify ourselves today by ethnicity, which is a fancy way of saying skin color or national origin. We have used our ethnicity to gain advantage over our fellow man, though they may have done us no harm; we demand apologies and reparations, though we have not personally suffered; we encourage deceitful politicians, though they exploit the very discrimination we once sought to end. For those of us with relatives who laid down their lives to end slavery in this country, this is simply not acceptable. We want to finish the work of our forefathers. We want to go forward into the future as one people, no matter whether we are black, brown, white, red, yellow or polka dotted. We are Americans. And if we, as Americans, do not stop this destructive tendency to discriminate based upon things that none of us can change -- like skin color -- then we may not even move into the future as one country.
At one time in this country, new immigrants would not allow their children to speak anything but English at home, because we were all Americans, here in this New World to achieve and succeed, each in accordance with their own abilities. Now we identify ourselves as hyphenated Americans: African-Americans, Italian-Americans, Asian-Americans, and on and on. The arguments of those who seek to divide the country by erecting preference programs do not endure the light of scrutiny. The "legacy of slavery" has allegedly caused family breakdown in their communities, yet 79% of black children in 1960 grew up in two-parent households compared to 37% in 1991. Black illegitimacy was 19% in 1940 compared to 66 percent in 1997. Are we to believe that there was less discrimination in 1940 than there was in 1997? And do we really believe that colleges would ever turn down someone with a 4-figure SAT score, regardless of skin color?
A people fractured at home cannot be united as a country, and will not achieve great things in the future; they will spend all their energies bickering with each other. We must dust off our belief in God and cast off the shackles of discrimination -- whether that discrimination is in our favor or not. Those who have benefited from some of the preference programs which have sprung up since 1964 are understandably concerned that a removal of these programs will return us to a time when discrimination against their skin color was rampant. We must be ever on our guard against reverting to the past. We must move forward into the future as one people, dedicated to achievement, loathing of indolence and tolerant of discrimination only for those personal attributes which it is within our power to change. We must never discriminate -- for or against -- based upon something as utterly meaningless and so thoroughly uncontrollable as the color of one's skin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------Copyright 1998, VINCE PAGE