The slave trade : $b Slavery and colorJervey, Theodore D. (Theodore Dehon)
History
The slave trade : $b Slavery and color
Jervey, Theodore D. (Theodore Dehon)
African Americans; Slave trade -- United States; Slavery -- United States; United States -- Race relations
This act further provided that upon failure to furnish bond the
free person of color could be ordered to leave the State, and, upon
failure to leave, be subjected to corporal punishment within a certain
time, and if still contumacious, could be imprisoned in the State
Penitentiary for a period. The other act granted to the immense black
majority what the laws of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, for almost half
a century, had denied to the feeble minority of free blacks who had
entered their borders:
“In every case civil and criminal in which a person of color is a
party or which affects the person or property of a person of color,
persons of color shall be competent witnesses.”[199]
In its day and since, this legislation has been roundly denounced.
Those in control of Federal politics saw in it a peaceful settlement
of great questions which threatened their supremacy, and bitterly and
unreservedly reprobated it, stirring up public opinion in that section,
which yet flushed with its conquest, was unwilling to permit any
interference with its great mission of “putting the bottom rail on top.”
The conquerors had preserved the Union and abolished slavery. Those
were two immense achievements, even if ruthlessly attained.
As terrible as was the price which the South paid for the abolition of
slavery, it was not too great, taking all things into consideration;
and the manner of the abolition was such, also, that in time it must
have given rise to as it did eventually produce, that mutual respect
between the sections which had not before existed.
While Emancipation, being confiscation of property without due process
of law, can never be legally justified, and only can be excused as a
war measure, yet, if the Southern people, white and black, could only
be made to see conditions as they are now in the South and to realize
that posterity does fairly demand some consideration from those who
bring it into being, one hundred years will not have passed before
it will have been incontrovertibly demonstrated that Emancipation was
more beneficial to the South than to the North. This statement is
made with a full appreciation of the fact that the War, Emancipation
and Reconstruction so reduced the South and checked its industrial
development, that thirty years were required from the inception of the
War to bring that section again up to the position it had reached in
1860, in point of wealth and industry.
War and Emancipation can therefore be excused, but Reconstruction will
ever remain an ineffaceable stain upon the conquerors. Yet, as an
emetic sometimes produces good which nothing else can bring about, so
Reconstruction may in time be shown to have been not without its good.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account