During the
period of the Revolution and the early years of the
Republic, sentiment in the country as a whole was
unfriendly to the institution of slavery. It
was regarded as inconsistent with Christian
civilization and out of accord with the great
principles of liberty for which the Colonies had
contended. Since slavery existed in every
state of the Union, the feeling that it was
injurious to society was in no sense dependent upon
sectional lines. Its existence was lamented by
such men as Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison,
Franklin, Hamilton, Jay and Adams. There was a
general regret that the institution had ever been
planted in America and it was hoped that in time it
would be abandoned. No effort was made to
defend it or to present it as an ideal basis for the
political and economic structure of society and at
best it was regarded as a necessary evil.1
It was opposed upon economic grounds by some and
upon moral and religious grounds by others and the
question, as Jefferson stated it, was whether "the
liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed
their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of
the people that their liberties are of the gift of
God."2 It is, therefore, not
surprising that Jefferson in the constitution which
he proposed for the state of Virginia in 1776
inserted a provision that "no person hereafter
coming into this country shall be held in slavery
under any pretext whatever." 3 His
opposition to slavery was expressed again in 1784 in
the report to Congress on a plan of government for
the Western Territory, which contained a clause
prohibiting slavery or involuntary servitude in this
territory after the year 1800.4
Three years later this principle was accepted in the
famous Northwest Ordinance.
-------------------------
1. W. F. Poole: "Anti-Slavery
Opinion before 1800"; S. B. Weeks: "Anti-Slavery
Opinion in the South," publications of the Southern
Historical Association, Vol. 2, 1898.
2. Jefferson: "Notes on
Virginia," p. 222
3. Writings of Thomas Jefferson:
Vol. 2, p. 26.
4. Writings of Thomas Jefferson:
Vol. 3, p. 432. Later in his life Jefferson
was forced to abandon his early hope that slavery
would soon cease to flourish in America; yet he
still believed in its ultimate extinction. In
1814 he said: "The love of justice and the
love of country plead equally for the cause of these
people." Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 477.
He still believed that the hour of emancipation was
advancing with the "march of time" and urged
continued effort on the part of the friends of
freedom.
[Pg. 12]
It was during the Revolutionary period that slavery was
introduced to Kentucky and one need not be surprised
to find that the newly settled district shared in
the opposition described above. The economic
and social conditions of the frontier were
antagonistic to slavery and favorable to the
development of a democratic society. Frontier
life tended to produce self reliance, independence,
and individuality. It fostered a sense of
equality. There was an absence of great
wealth, of highly polished society, and of their
leisure class. Slaveholding could not be an
important element in the social, economic, or
political life of such a people and a large
percentage of the population did not own slaves.
In addition to these pioneers in the Blue Grass
region, there were settlers of decided anti-slavery
tendencies from New England and other northern
states who settled in the northern part of the
state. Such was John Filson, the
"Yankee Schoolmaster" and the first historian of
Kentucky.5
While Kentucky remained an integral part of Virginia,
there was little opportunity for a general
expression, their opinion was indirectly voiced in
the debate before the Danville Political Club,
which, as has been stated, embraced some of the
leading men of Kentucky. At one of the
meetings, in 1788, the new federal constitution,
which has recently been submitted to the states for
ratification, was taken under consideration.
Sentiment was unanimous against the clause relating
to the importation of slaves because it deprived
Congress of the power to prohibit the foreign slave
trade before 1808. It was the opinion of the
members that Congress ought to be given power to cut
off the odious traffic at any time it should choose
to do so.6 while this act was not a
direct condemnation of slavery, it showed an early
desire to check the growth of the institution.
Though the opposition to slavery was general throughout
the country, there was, however, little organized
sentiment against the institution as such.
What there was, seems to have existed in Kentucky as
elsewhere, chiefly among the churches.
It was David Rice, the father of Presbyterianism
in the West, who took the first conspicuous step
toward securing the abolition of slavery in
Kentucky.7 He moved from Virginia
in
------------------------
5. R. H. Collins: "History
of Kentucky," Vol. 2, pp. 195, 492
6. Speed: "Political Club," p. 151
7. R. H. Bishop: "Outline of
the Church in Kentucky, containing the Memoirs of
David Rice," pp. 114, 95, 385, 417; R. H.
Collins: "History of Kentucky, "Vol. 1, p. 132f;
J. M. Brown: "Political Beginnings of
Kentucky," p. 226; Robert Davidson: "History
of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky," pp. 65-71.
[Pg. 13]
1783 and identified his fortunes with those of the new
settlement. Besides his active duties as a
minister of the Gospel and as the organizer of numerous
churches, he was zealously engaged in advancing the
cause of education. He established in his house in
Lincoln County, in 1784, the first grammar school of the
West. He was also the first teacher in
Transylvania Seminary, and for years the chairman of its
board of trustees. "Father" Rice, as he was
commonly known, was recognized for his ability and piety
as a leader of the religious and educational thought in
the West.8
On the even of the meeting of the convention of 1792 to
frame a constitution for Kentucky as a state in the
Union, he published, under the signature of "Philanthropos,"
a pamphlet entitled "Slavery, Inconsistent with Justice
and Good Policy"9 which embraced the doctrine
he had long preached. In this he spoke freely of
the infringement on personal rights; the want of
protection for females; the deprivation of religious and
moral instruction; the violent separation of families;
the growing danger of servile insurrection; the tendency
to sap the foundations of moral and political virtue;
the indulging in habits of idleness and vice, especially
among the young en; the comparative unproductiveness of
slave property; the discouraging of valuable immigration
from the eastward; and the probable deterioration of the
country. He undertook to answer objections that
were commonly raised to emancipation, especially those
drawn from the Scriptures, which were being used to
justify slavery. In conclusion he proposed that
the coming convention should "resolve unconditionally to
put an end to slavery in Kentucky."10 Not
content with mere argument, he succeeded in being
elected a delegate to the coming convention.11
Soon after the assembling of the convention in
Danville, in 1792,12 a special committee, of which
Colonel George Nicholas
-------------------------
8. Davidson: "History
of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky," pp. 65-71
9. Bishop: "Outline
of the Church in Kentucky," pp. 385ff, gives this
pamphlet in full
10. Ibid.
11. Lewis Collins: "Historical
Sketches of Kentucky," p. 147, gives a list of the
delegates to the Convention from the different counties.
J. M. Brown: "Political Beginnings of
Kentucky," p. 26f, Filson Club Publications. R.
H. Collins: "History of Kentucky," Vol. 1, p. 133;
Humphrey Marshall: "History of Kentucky," Vol. 1,
p. 394.
12. Marshall: "History of
Kentucky," Vol. 1, p. 394; Man Butler: "History of
Commonwealth of Kentucky," pp. 206-7.
J. T. Morehead in "An Address in Commemoration of
the First Settlement of Kentucky" (133-4), at
Jonesborough on the 25th day of May, 1840, in speaking
of the members of the convention of 1792 said: "From the
County of Mercer was the Rev. David Rice, a
minister of the Presbyterian Church. *** He sought a
place in the convention, in the hope of being able to
infuse into its deliberations a zeal for the gradual
extirpation of slavery in Kentucky. ***His learning, his
piety, his grave and venerable deportment, and his high
rank in the church to which he belonged, gave to his
opinions deserved influence, and he supported them in
debate with considerable ability.
[Pg. 14]
was the most influential member, was appointed to draft
the constitution, which was soon offered for adoption.
Apparently no serious differences existed among the
delegates except as to recognizing the existence or the
perpetuity of slavery.13 This question
was brought directly before the convention by the ninth
article which legalized slavery. After
considerable discussion the article was adopted and
while it was designed to make the institution as mild
and as humane as possible it nevertheless made it
virtually perpetual unless there should be a change in
the fundamental law. The legislature was denied
power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves
without the consent of their owners, nor could it
prevent immigrants from bringing in their slaves.
On the other hand, the General Assembly was given
extensive powers in respect to importation of slaves
into the state as merchandise.14.
It was upon the adoption of this article that the
friends and opponents of slavery joined battle.
The ablest of those who opposed the definite
establishment of slavery in Kentucky was David Rice.
During the early days of the convention he delivered an
address before that body which was one of the most
earnest and forceful productions of the period.15
In it he pointed to the agency, and obliged to act
according to the will of another free agent of the same
species; and yet he is accountable to his Creator for
the use he makes of his own free agency."16
He declared sarcastically that the legislature, in
order to be consistent, should make the master
accountable for the actions of the slaves in all things
here and after.17 He
-------------------------
13. Brown: "Political Beginnings of
Kentucky," p. 227f.
14. "The legislature shall have no power to
pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the
consent of their owners, previous to such emancipation,
and a full equivalent in money for the slaves so
emancipated. They shall have no power to prevent
emigrants to this State from bringing with them such
persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any one of
the United States, so long as any person of the same age
or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws
of this State. They shall pass laws to permit the
owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights
of creditors, and preventing them for becoming
chargeable to the county in which they reside.
They shall have full power to prevent slaves being
brought into this State as merchandize. They shall
have full power to prevent any slaves being brought into
this 'State from any foreign country, and to prevent
those from being brought into this State who have been
since the first day of January, one thousand seven
hundred and eighty-nine, or hereafter may be, imported
into any of the United States from a foreign country.
And they shall have full power to pass such laws as may
be necessary to oblige the owners of slaves to treat
them with humanity, to provide for them necessary
clothing and provision, to abstain from all injuries to
them, extending to life or limb, and in case of their
neglect or refusal to comply with the directions of such
laws, to have such slave or slaves sold for the benefit
of their owner or owners." William Littell:
"Statute Laws of Kentucky," Vol. 1, p. 32; B. P.
Poore: "The Federal and State Constitutions," Part
1, p. 653.
15. This address was printed in pamphlet for
soon after the adjournment of the convention under the
same title as his pre-convention pamphlet, but under his
own name. The pamphlet went through many editions.
16. David Rice: "Slavery, Inconsistent
with Justice and Good Policy," Edition 1792, pp. 5-6.
17. Ibid., ***, p. 6
[Pg. 15]
regarded liberty as inalienable by the legislature
except for vicious conduct, and claims to property in
slaves as invalid. "A thousand laws can never make
that innocent, which the Devine Law has made criminal:
or give them a right to that which the Divine Law
forbids them to claim."18 He replied to
the argument that slaveholders would be prevented from
emigrating to Kentucky by saying that five useful
citizens would come for every slaveholder that was lost,
and that if slavery was permitted, free labor
would seek other regions.19 The alleged
unfitness of slaves for freedom was met by the question,
"Shall we continue to maim souls, because a maimed soul
is unfit for society?"20 But he
considered that present conditions should be taken into
account and that gradual emancipation was the only
practical plan. His proposal was that the
constitution should declare against slavery as a matter
of principle, leaving it to the legislature to find the
most suitable means of abolishing it. He
suggested, however, that it would be expedient for that
body to "prevent the importation of any more slaves" and
to "enact that all born after such a date should be born
free" and that some system of education be devised for
making useful citizens of the slaves.21
Emancipation by some means he regarded as a political
necessity, and he closed with an earnest appeal that the
new state might not be strained with this sin at his
birth. "The slavery of the Negroes," he said,
"Began in iniquity; a curse has attended it, and a curse
will follow it. National vices will be punished
with a national calamities. Let us avoid these
vices, that we may avoid the punishment which they
deserve. *** Holding men in slavery is the
national vice of Virginia; and while a part of that
state, we were partakers of the guilt. As a
separate state, we are just now come to the birth; and
it depends upon our free choice whether we shall be born
in this sin, or innocent of it. We now have it in
our power to adopt it as our national crime; or to bear
a national testimony against it. I hope the latter
will be our choice; that we shall wash our hands of this
guilt; and not leave it in the power of a future
legislature, evermore to strain our reputation or our
conscience with it."22
The constitutional provision fixing slavery in the
state was ably supported by Colonel George Nicholas,
the most distin-
-------------------------
18. Rice: "Slavery,
Inconsistent ***," p. 14
19. Ibid., p. 15.
20. Ibid., p. 21
21. Ibid., p. 21
22. Ibid., p. 24
[Pg. 16]
guished man in the convention and at that time the most
eminent lawyer in Kentucky.23 After a
thorough discussion which lasted for a number of days,
the question was put to a vote. This was the only
case in which the ayes and noes were recorded in the
Journal. Under the date of Wednesday, April 18,
1792, is the following entry: "A motion was made by
Mr. Taylor, of Mercer, and seconded by Mr. Smith,
of Bourbon, to expunge the ninth article of the
constitution, respecting slavery, which was negatived;
and the yeas and nays on the question were ordered to be
entered on the Journals." 24 The result
of the vote was: yeas 16; nays 26.25
Three of the delegates, Wallace of Woodford County,
Walton of Nelson County, and Sebastian of Jefferson
County, who were generally regarded, prior to the
meeting of the convention, as emancipationists,
supported the constitution as proposed by the committee.
This change of attitude has been attributed by Brown and
others to the influence of Nicholas,26
although no evidence has been produced to support the
contention. Had they not upheld the constitution,
the final result would have been the same, though the
pro-slavery majority would have been the same, though
the pro-slavery majority would have been reduced from
ten to four.
If the constitution could be described as the work of
any one man, that man would doubtless be Colonel
George Nicholas.27 In speaking of
the political unwisdom of adopting the ninth article a
prominent historian of Kentucky makes the
-------------------------
23. Marshall: "History of
Kentucky," Vol. 1, pp.395, 414; L. Collins:
"Historical Sketches of Kentucky," p. 44; Butler:
"History of Kentucky," p. 207; Brown: "Political
Beginnings of Kentucky," p. 227. Colonel
Nicholas had immigrated from Virginia in 1791, but
the fame of his abilities and the record of his public
services had preceded him. As a member of the
Virginia Convention which had adopted the federal
constitution, he had ably sustained debate against
Patrick Henry and George Mason, and
deservedly shared with James Madison the credit
of carrying the vote that ratified that document.
A list of hte delegates to the convention is given in
L. Collins: "Historical Sketches of Kentucky," p.
147.
24. Brown: "Political Beginning
of Kentucky," p. 229.
25. Ibid., p. 230. The
following table represents the free and the slave
population in 1790 of each of the nine counties into
which Kentucky was divided at that time and the votes
cast in the constitutional convention two years later
for and against slavery.
| 1790 |
WHITES |
SLAVES |
SLAVE
PER CENT. |
VOTES IN
PRO-SLAVE |
CONVENTION
ANTI-SLAVE |
| Bourbon |
6,929 |
908 |
13 |
2 |
3 |
| Fayette |
14,626 |
3,752 |
25 |
2 |
3 |
| Jefferson |
3,857 |
903 |
24 |
2 |
0 |
| Lincoln |
5,446 |
1,094 |
18 |
3 |
2 |
| Madison |
5,035 |
739 |
15 |
4 |
1 |
| Mason |
2,500 |
229 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
| Mercer |
5,745 |
1,339 |
23 |
2 |
3 |
| Nelson |
10,032 |
1,248 |
12 |
4 |
1 |
| Woodford |
6,963 |
2,220 |
32 |
5 |
0 |
|
Total |
61,333 |
12,430 |
20 |
26 |
16 |
United States Census: Population, 1870, pp.31-33;
L. Collins: "Historical Sketches of Kentucky," p.
147; Gilbert Imlay: "Western Territory of North
America," p. 378 (map).
26. Brown: "Political Beginnings
of Kentucky," p. 230.
27. Marshall: "History of Kentucky,"
Vol. 1, p. 414; Butler: "History of Kentucky," p.
207; Brown: "Political Beginnings of Kentucky,"
p. 228. Mr. Speed in the "Danville
Political Club," p. 162, says that the influence of
Nicholas in the convention has been over estimated; that
the convention was composed of strong men who thought
and acted for themselves.
[Pg. 17]
following comment: "And the unfortunate step was
taken under the guidance of a man whose ability and
uprightness can not be questioned, whose experience in
affairs was large, and whose performances justified
confidence. But Nicholas was not yet a
Kentuckian. He had not yet learned the ways of the
West, nor comprehended where the interests of the new
commonwealth were different from what suited or seemed
to suit Virginia and her people." 28
Seven of the forty-five members of the convention were
ministers, of whom three, Bailey, Smith, and
Garrard, were Baptists; three, Crawford Swope,
and Rice, were Presbyterians; and one,
Kavanaugh, was a Methodist. 29
Though David Rice resigned his seat in the
convention before the final vote was taken, Harry
Innes, 30 elected to take his place,
supported the emancipationists. The six ministers
voted solidly against slavery, showing that the
religious leaders were in accord in this matter,
although none of the others seems to have taken as
active a part in opposition to it on the floor of the
convention as did David Rice.
The constitution of 1792
was not submitted to the people for ratification, but,
had it been, there is no reason to doubt that article
nine would have been accepted by popular vote.
There were not more than 15,000 slaves in the state and
the majority of the people, mostly immigrants from
Virginia where slavery existed and seemed to be
profitable, did not appreciate the importance of the
question. The new state had stood at the parting
of the ways and the way that was chosen was destined to
lead it to the unhappy fate so ably foretold by David
Rice.31
-------------------------
28. Brown: "Political Beginnings of
Kentucky," p. 231
29. Brown: "Political Beginnings of
Kentucky," p. 230; Lewis Collins: "Historical
Sketches of Kentucky," p. 147
30. Brown: "Political Beginnings of
Kentucky," pp. 228-229
31. For attitude of the churches of Kentucky toward
slavery before 1792, see the following chapter, pp.
19ff.
<
CLICK
HERE to RETURN to TABLE of CONTENTS > |
