The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-10-06
AN HISTORICAL STUDY.

AN HISTORICAL STUDY.
THE Charleston News and Courier processes
to be in earnest when it says that the North
was as responsible as was the South for the
existence of slavery. In its reply to the
Journals denial it goes back to colonial
times to show the origin of slavery, and to
prove that northern merchants were en-
gagged in the slave trade. The origin of Afri-
can slavery in America is irrelevant to the
question at issue, though it should
be borne in mind that the
first slaves disposed of on American soil were
sold (1619) to settlers at jamestown, Va,
and from that time forward slavery was a
recognized institution there. That State, as
a colony, was the first to legally recognize
slavery In 1862, the question being whether
negro slaves converted to Christianity should
be held in bondage, the assembly passed a
law that children should be held, bond or
free, according to the condition of the
mother" This was the birth of the infa-
nous practice of Shareholders that has result
ed in filling the land with mulattoes. In the
following year, 1868, the Maryland Legis-
lature enacted law that "all negroes and
other slaves within the province and all ne
groes and slaves to be thereafter imported
into the province should serve during life;
and all children born of any negro should be
slaves, as their fathers were, for the term of
their lives" The Maryland Legislature fol-
lowed Virginia in forbidding the intermar
rage of feminine servants with negroes, but
nothing was said against white men doing
as they pleased, doctrine that prevailed up
to the close of the rebellion.
While some of the Southern States mildly
protested against the slave trade, there was
no action taken and no evidence given of
any marked sentiment in favor of emancipa-
tion. stand was ostensibly taken against
fresh importations of native Africans, pre-
sumably for the reason that under the exist
ing circumstances more could not be profit
ably employed, and any increase in num-
bers would inevitably depreciate the value
of those already in bondage A
provision was therefore inserted
in the constitution for the cessation
of the slave trade in 1903. But South Caro-
lima ignored this provision for several years
when that State found the traffic profitable
through the invention of the cotton-gin. At
last, however public sentiment became so
strong in condemnation of this crime against
humanity that the traffic was finally aban-
doned. Meanwhile the Northern States that
held slaves began to emancipate them.
Connecticut led, and in 1884 passed an
act that no negro or mulatto
child born within that State, after the first
day Of March of that year, should be held
in seryitude longer than until the age of
twenty-five years. New York followed with
a similar law in 1899. New Jersey fell in
with this idea five years later. These were
all Northern States: but while Virginia and
Georgia talked against the slave trade, they
took no action looking to the emancipation
of the slaves already held.
With the disappearance of slavery from the
few Northern States that held them, senti-
the Union, and it can be truthfully said that
This question. and this alone, was all that
divided the North and South 1t was fought
over in Congress year after year, the practice
being condemned solely by Northern men,
bers, and as warmly defended by delegates
from the South. In 1907, when an act was
passed by Congress for the abolition
of the slave trade, in accordance with
the provisions OF the constitution, John
Randolph, of Virginia violently denounced
it as laying the AK at the root of all South
ern property and he asked to bring in an
explanatory bill. "If this proposition should
be rejected" said he, II doubt if this House
will ever again see any Southern delegate on
this floor. I, for one, would say let us secede
at once and go home" He introduced his
bill; it was referred to committee and never
came up for action. This was Virgnia's
position on the siave-trade question. IT
should be borne in mind that twenty
PEARS were allowed by the constitution !