The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United States — John Shaqi
The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United StatesEarly, Jubal Anderson
History
The Heritage of The South: A History of the Introduction of Slavery; Its Establishment From Colonial Times and Final Effect Upon the Politics of the United States
Early, Jubal Anderson
Slavery -- United States; United States -- Politics and government -- 1861-1865
It would not be amiss to notice what was transpiring in England on this
subject at the time the Federal Constitution was being adopted. Clarkson,
Wilberforce and others were agitating the question of the slave trade at
this time, and the utmost that the younger Pitt, then at the head of the
government, would venture to do, was to procure the passage of an act of
Parliament, for the mitigation of the atrocities of the "Middle Passage"
by which it was provided that slave ships should not carry beyond a
certain number of slaves in proportion to the tonnage.
Even this bill met with strong opposition and among others, from Lord
Chancellor Thurlow "the Ruler of the King's conscience." In opposing
the bill he said: "It appears that the French have offered premiums to
encourage the African trade, and that they have succeeded. The natural
presumption therefore is, that we ought to do the same." He further said:
"One witness has come to your Lordship's bar with a face of woe, his eyes
full of tears and his countenance fraught with horror, and said 'My Lords,
I am ruined if you pass this bill! I have risked £30,000 on the trade
of this year! It is all I have been able to gain by my industry, and if
I lose it, I must go to the hospital! I desire of you to think of such
things, my Lords, in your humane frenzy and to show some humanity to the
whites as well as the negroes.'"
The bill, however, passed with amendments to grant compensation for
losses, and this was as far as English statesmanship would venture to go
at that time. Was it to be expected that American statesmen should be
better, wiser and more philanthropic than English statesmen?
Shortly after the close of the war, Virginia had ceded to the
Confederation for the common benefit of all the states, the territory
northwest of the Ohio river; and Massachusetts, New York and Connecticut
had ceded their rights. (?) The claim of Connecticut skipped over
Pennsylvania and that state made a very good bargain for herself by
securing the title to the lands in what has since been known as the
"Western Reserve," though no officer or soldier or, so far as is known,
citizen of hers, had even been in the northwestern territory.
Virginia's original charter, the oldest of all covered the country, but
independent of that, it had been conquered from the Indians and British by
the forces of Virginia under George Rogers Clarke. It was a magnificent
empire which Virginia thus surrendered for the common good and for the
cause of the Union of the states, and the only compensation she asked was,
that the land grants pledged her own soldiers should be ratified.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account