  The Anti-Slavery Sentiments of Prominent Virginians (Concluded) The period from 1833-1860 witnessed, as we have seen, the rise and progress of the abolition movement at the North and the growth of pro-slavery sentiment in Virginia and the South. These conditions are reflected in the deliverances of many prominent anti-slavery Virginians, and by a growing indisposition on the part of others of this element to publicly declare their sentiments or to take part in the discussions, which, with growing bitterness, marked the times. ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENTS FROM 1833-1860 George Washington Parke Custis, speaking on the 21st of January, 1833, before the American Colonization Society, said: "Some alarmists tell us that the slave population is to be freed. And, sir, does any one regret that the hope is held out, that with our own consent, we shall one day see an end of slavery? Should this Society be, as I doubt not it will, the happy means of producing this result, it will be renowned as having done one of the greatest and best deeds that have blessed the world." The following extract from a speech of William C. Rives serves not only to illustrate his anti-slavery sentiments, but the rise of the two antagonistic parties—the Abolitionists in the North and the Pro-slavery men in the William C. Rives, speaking in the United States Senate on the 6th day of February, 1837, after deprecating the action of Mr. Webster in presenting abolition petitions as precipitating controversy over a subject with respect to which Congress had no jurisdiction, then replied to the position of Mr. Calhoun, that slavery was a beneficent institution, as follows: "But, sir, while I have been thus prepared and determined to defend the constitutional rights of the South at every hazard, I have not felt myself bound to conform my understanding and conscience to the standard of faith that has recently been set up by some gentlemen in regard to the general question of slavery. I have not considered it a part of my duty as a representative from the South, to deny, as has been done by this new school, the natural freedom and equality of man; to contend that slavery is a positive good; that it is inseparable from the condition of man; that it must exist in some form or other in every political community; and that it is even an essential ingredient in Republican government. No, sir, I have not thought it necessary, in order to defend the rights and institutions of the South, to attack the great principles which lie at the foundation of our political system, and to revert to the dogmas of Sir Robert Filmer, exploded a century and a half ago by the immortal works of Sidney and Locke.... "In pursuing this course I have the satisfaction of reflecting that I follow the example of the greatest men and purest patriots who have illustrated the annals of our country—of the Fathers of the Republic itself. "It never entered into their minds, while laying the foundation of the great and glorious fabric of our free government, "In following such lights as these, I feel that I sin against no principle of republicanism, and against no safeguard of Southern rights and Southern policy when I frankly say in answer to the interrogatory of the gentleman from South Carolina, that I do regard slavery as an evil—an evil not uncompensated, I know, by collateral effects of high value on the social and intellectual character of my countrymen; but still in the eye of religion, philanthropy and reason, an evil." Charles Fenton Mercer, in his work, An Exposition of the Weakness and Inefficiency of the Government of the United States, published in 1845, said: "How shall we approach the horrid subject of slavery, the blackest of all blots, the foulest of all deformities? Here are a people descended from the very centre of civilization and free institutions of Europe, bearing with them the full tide of liberal principles, and the very cap and essence of liberty, and boasting not only of their descent, but that they are more than worthy of their ancestors, that have sanctioned slavery in its most abject form, and now, by actual enumeration, have upwards of three millions of them." R. R. Howison, the Virginia historian, in his History of Virginia, published in 1848, alluding to slavery in the state, said: Dr. Henry Ruffner, President of Washington College, delivered in 1847 an address which was printed in pamphlet form and widely distributed, dealing with the subject of slavery and emancipation. Referring to the attitude and efforts of the Abolitionists and the effect upon anti-slavery sentiment in the state, he said: "But, fellow-citizens, shall we suffer this meddlesome sect of Abolitionists to blind our eyes to the evils of slavery and to tie up our hands when the condition of the country, and the welfare of ourselves and our children, summon us to immediate action?... "Having failed in their first mode of action by denunciatory pamphlets and newspapers, and by petitions to Congress, the most violent class of Abolitionists have now formed themselves into a political party aiming to subvert the Federal Constitution which guarantees the rights of slaveholders, and to destroy the Federal Union which is the glory and safeguard of us all. Thus they have armed against themselves every American patriot; and what is most remarkable, they have met from the opposite extreme those Southern politicians and ultra pro-slavery men—called 'Chivalry' and 'Nullifiers,' who so often predict and threaten a dissolution of the Union." Matthew F. Maury, writing in 1851, said: "I am sure you would rejoice to see the people of Virginia Bishop William Meade in 1854, writing of slavery, said: "While we must acknowledge that the advantage of the African trade notwithstanding the cruelties accompanying it has been on the side of that people both temporally and spiritually; yet we can never be brought to believe that the introduction into, and the multiplication of slavery in Virginia has advanced either her religious, political, or agricultural interests. On the contrary we are confident that it has injured all." In 1857, alluding to the foregoing statement, he wrote: "I have been for the last fifty years, and more especially for the last thirty, travelling much the length and breadth of Virginia, making observations for myself, conversing with intelligent farmers, politicians, ministers of the gospel, and other Christians on the subjects referred to above. ... I have not only reconsidered them myself, but freely conversed with many sound-minded persons concerning the views there presented; and the result has been an increased conviction that they are correct and have been in time past, and still are held by the great body of our citizens, Christians, and statesmen." The statement of Howison, made in 1848—that, "in general, the people of Virginia hold slavery to be an enormous evil, bearing with fatal power upon their prosperity," is confirmed by these conclusions of Bishop Meade, expressed ten years later. "In this enlightened age, there are few, I believe, but will acknowledge that as an institution slavery is a moral and political evil in any country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it, however, a greater evil to the white than to the black race, and while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are strongly for the former...." "While we see the course of the final abolition of slavery is onward, and we give it the aid of our prayers and all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in His hands, who sees the end and chooses to work by slow influences." RESULTS OF ANTI-SLAVERY SENTIMENTS If it be urged that despite the foregoing anti-slavery sentiments the institution remained intrenched in the laws of Virginia, and supported by a strong body of public opinion, it may be replied that the views of these Virginians, and others of like mind, were nevertheless productive of far-reaching and beneficent results. They were effective in robbing slavery of many of its most abhorrent and oppressive incidents. Under the public opinion thus generated the institution in Virginia assumed, as a rule, the patriarchal character—master and slave being bound by ties of mutual obligation and affection. Many of the legal hardships inseparable from the system were reduced to a minimum. Thus the breaking up of families, by sale of their members, was confined as nearly as possible to the distribution of estates and the collection of debts by process of law. In all the category of disreputable callings, there were none so despised as the slave-trader. The odium descended upon his children and his children's children. Against the legal right to buy and sell slaves for profit, this public sentiment lifted a strong arm, and rendered NUMBER OF EMANCIPATIONS IN VIRGINIA The position of these Virginians was also of great importance in keeping before the mind of the people the conception that slavery was an abnormal institution, and that with her growth in wealth and white population, Virginia could and would free herself from what Robert E. Lee described as "a moral and political evil." Furthermore these sentiments were productive of an actual emancipation, the character and extent of which has been little appreciated. If devotion to the cause is to be measured by the actual manumissions effected, then Virginia's emancipators could contemplate with pride their record. George Wythe liberated his slaves at the close of the Revolution. Robert E. Lee, executor of George Washington Parke Custis, left his place at the front with the Army of Northern Virginia to emancipate the slaves of his testator as directed by the latter in his will.
|
|
