THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE ‘ AND NEGRO SLAVERY: 1776 91875 Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNWERSITY DIETRTCH HANS SCHLOBOHM 1970 .-\O .A; T Lllllllll Illzlllfllflllll LM MI E Tm iii"; 1| ‘ 1/ {a 3 , This is to certify that the thesis entitled The Declaration of Independence And Negro Slavery: 1776-1876 presented by Dietrich Hans Schlobohm has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for __P_b_._D_._ degree in __H:Lstor_y Date .2339 0-169 'm'. -30 m - {3m 307m . T ' W» M ‘3 v J FEB 20 2001 ' .f. JAN 0 3 2063 (,a J (7 f, U a; l 7 ABSTRACT THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND NEGRO SLAVERY: 1776-1876 By Dietrich Hans Schlobohm One of the fundamental statements of American political faith has long been the Declaration of Independence. During the course of the nineteenth century the Declaration was used and interpreted in a variety of ways. Numerous indi- viduals, groups and movements identified themselves with its principles in h0pes of realizing some aim or idea. This can be seen by studying the questions of state's rights, secession, woman's rights, temperance, labor reformand suffrage. The Declaration was most frequently used, however, with regard to the problem of slavery. This dissertation analyzes and describes how Americans of varying persuasions have interpreted and applied the document's principles with respect to the issues of slavery, race and eduality. “Hence, the study also explores prevailing attitudes on these ques- tions, and in particular American beliefs concerning the Negro and his status in American life. In a broader sense this work reflects nineteenth century American views on the purpose of government and the nature of society. While Dietrich Hans Schlobohm. the first fifty years of the Declaration's history is reviewed, the focus of concentration is on the period from 1826 to 1876. In the 1830's the Declaration of Independence became an antislavery manifesto. Abolitionists used the document's concepts of equality, inalienable rights and consent of the governed to justify their cause and highlight the in- consistency between American principles and the practice of slavery. Such usage continued during the 1840's and through the Civil War. The Declaration and its principles, however, were often questioned and criticized. Some of the strongest criticism came from proslavery Southerners who did not repudiate the document per se, but who rejected it as inter- preted by antislavery men. Southerners, in fact, often used Jefferson's famous paper to support their own aims and ideas such as state's rights and secession. Northern anti- abolitionists also leveled criticism against the document fearing that abolitionist activities and use of the Declaration's doctrines posed a threat to the Union. Also discussed in this study is the Declaration's role in the politics of the period and its relationship to the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. These areas of study reinforcethe thesis that the document served a diversity of purposes and was frequently utilized in an Dietrich Hans Schlobohm inconsistent and contradictory manner. The rhetoric of many antislavery Republicans for example, often far exceeded what they were willing to do in practice. Not only Republicans, but many of those who identified themselves with the docu- ment either did not completely comprehend, or were unwilling to accept its full implications. The most important materials used for this study were articles, pamphlets and books containing the writings and speeches of those involved in the slavery controversy. The Congressional Record and Fourth of July orations were also extremely valuable. THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE AND NEGRO SLAVERY: 1776-1876 By Dietrich Hans Schlobohm A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of History 1970 g 6 25‘: 7 7* /" 7 0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In finishing this dissertation I wish to extend my thanks to Dr. Douglas Miller, my major professor, who has been most helpful in providing encouragement, construc- tive criticism, and the freedom necessary to pursue my own ideas. The time and effort which he has devoted to this work is sincerely appreciated. It has also been my privilege to work with Professor Marjorie Gesner whose teaching and personal concern will not be forgotten. I am likewise grateful to Professor Frederick Williams whose careful reading of the manuscript resulted in many helpful suggestions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS: AN INCERODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 II SLAVERY AND THE DECLARATION: 1776-1840 c o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 22 III CONSTITUTIONAL ABOLITIONISTS SPEAK OUT: 1840' s O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O 71 IV GLITTERING GENERALITIES OR ABSOLUTE TRUTHS?: 1850's . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 V THE DECLARATION REALIZED?: 1860.8 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 177 VI ONE HUNDRED YEARS LATER: THE DECLARATION IN RETROSPECT . . . . . . . . . 231 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY . . . . . . . . . . . 250 iii ‘CHAPTER I THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS: AN INTRODUCTION On July 4, 1776 a defiant group of.men in Philadelphia finished debating and formally adapted one of this nation's most important documents. The Declaration of Independence was the proclamation used by Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers to symbolize and justify political indepen- dence from Great Britain. The Declaration, however, was not only significant because it allegedly gave the new nation its legitimacy, but also because it became a basic expression of American principles. Many Americans have in fact viewed it as a fundamental basis for government. The Declaration of Independence, while often revered as one of America's most sacred documents, has also remained one of its most controversial. This is because there have always been basic questions regarding the Declaration's purpose and meaning which have never been adequately re- solved, at least not in any unanimous sense. Robert Frost in a poem entitled Thqulack Cottage has remarked: That's a hard mystery of Jefferson's. What did he mean? Of course the easy way Is to decide it simply isn't true. 1 2 It may not be. I heard a fellow say so. But never mind, the Welshman got it planted Where it will trouble us a thousand years. Each age will have to reconsider it! The "hard mystery" referred to by Frost represents the statement of political philosOphy found in the Declaration's famous second paragraph. That section proclaims certain M self-evident truths and inalienable rights, and also com- -.,--..-..— .9... /————--——“-‘--—'-- wwwwwwwwwww ments upon the relationship between man and government. R23} Americans have repeatedly referred to these so-called truths and rights with a sense of emphatic absolutism. This is a rather interesting phenomenon since those rights and truths have always been rather ambiguous and subject to question. In attempting to explain the meaning of Jefferson's statement of political philOSOphy, Americans ~W have in fact often been vague and inconsistent. '~m.um‘4’u-‘-’F “- VA Jm- v-v-u Were the political principles of the Declaration to be regarded as absolutes, as ideals, or as glittering generalities? While this question has been frequently discussed it has never received a final answer. The Declaration of 1776 has meant different things to a great number of Americans at various times in our history. In a very real sense the Declaration's history represents a significant aspect of the American experience. lRobert Frost, " The Black Cottage," Complete Poem___s_ of Robert Frost (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, E49), PP- 75-75. 3 In the late eighteenth and during the course of the nineteenth century the Declaration of Independence was interpreted in a variety of ways and associated with num- erous political, social and economic causes. It was used, for example, in support of antislavery, state's rights, woman's rights, temperance, labor reform, suffrage, and numerous other movements and ideas. During the nineteenth century, however, the Declaration and its principles were most frequently invoked and debated in regard to the ques- tion of slavery. The primary purpose of this dissertation therefore will be to examine this fundamental expression of the American creed and attempt to discover how Americans of varying persuasions have interpreted and applied it in regard to the issues of slavery, race and equality:} Hence, the study also explores prevailing attitudes on these questions, and in particular American beliefs concerning the Negro and his status in American life. In a broader sense this work reflects nineteenth century American views on the purpose of government and the nature of society. The focus of concentration will be on the period from 1826 to 1876. In order to provide the reader, however, with a more meaningful framework I will first briefly review the Declaration's history from 1776 to 1826, and also discuss how the document was used in respect to such questions as state's rights, secession, woman's rights, temperance, suffrage and labor. In the years shortly following the Declaration's adaption independence received the greatest attention. While the document's political philosOphy was sometimes referred to, especially by antislavery advocates, it was more often associated with the act of separation from England.2 By the fall of 1776, for example, the self- evident truths of the Declaration were rarely referred to by American political prOpagandists. John Adams in a letter to his wife Abigail, dated July 3, 1776, emphasized the passing of the July 2nd resolution, paying little attention to the Declaration itself. When he did_r9f??_t9wtthdch- ment he associated it with the idea of American independence rather-than theinalienable rights of man.3 Even Thomas Jefferson, while certainly not rejecting the Declaration's political principles, also stressed its importance as a rationale for independence. In a letter to Henry Lee dated May 8, 1825 he stated: 2The question of slavery and the Declaration of Independence during the Revolutionary period will be dis- cussed in Chapter II. 3Philip F. Detweiler, "The Changing Reputation of the Declaration of Independence: The First Fifty Years," William & Mary Quarterly, 3rd Series, XIX (1962), pp. 557, BEST—”Charies FTIAdams, ed., The Works gfiJohn Adams (10 vols.; Boston: Charles C. Little & James Brown, IEEO-IBSEI, I, 230, 232. The July 2nd resolution referred to by Adams was Richard H. Lee's resolution of June 7, 1776 which declared "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, .,. . ." 5 When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for re- dress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed prOper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before; but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. /( Philip F. Detweiler, an historian who has done considerable work on this subject, has noted that the founding fathers "viewed the Declaration principally as a proclamation of independence."5 July 4th anniversary celebrations in the years shortly following independence, also indicate that the Declaration was primarily associated with the act of separation. At one such Philadelphia celebration in 1778, the Declaration was ignored, while the act of independence was stressed. As one recent historian has noted, following the Revolutionary War the right to revolution was repeatedly deemphasized in July 4th orations.6 4Paul L. Fbrd, ed., The Writings 9: Thomas Jefferson (10 vols.; New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 18§9), E, 343. 5Detweiler, pp. 913., pp. 557, 558. The best account of the Declaration of Independence during the years of 1776 to 1826 is an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation by Detweiler entitled "The Declaration of Independence in Jefferson's Lifetime" (Tulane University, 1954). 6David Hawks, A Transaction‘gf Free Men: The Birth and Course of the Declaration of Independence INEw York: Charles ScribneFTs—Sans, 1964), p.-§12T' Merle Cfirti, Probin. 93; Past (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1955), p. 159. Detweiler, "The Changing Reputation of the Declaration of Independence," pp. 559. 560. 6 Early historical accounts of the Revolutionary period also tended to stress the element of independence. David Ramsey in his History 9: the American Revolution (1789) devoted several pages to the Declaration, but did not discuss its political philos0phy. Similarly, William Gordon in his account of the Revolution published that same year also ignored the Declaration's principles and emphasized the factor of political independence.7 During the Constitutional Convention the Declaration was rarely referred to and the vast amount of political literature concerning the disputed Constitution contains few references to Jefferson's paper. John Bach McMaster once noted that during this period "very scanty reCOgnition seems to have been given to the equality of men, or to their inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."8 While McMaster's argument may have validity it does not necessarily mean the principles of the Declaration were rejected by the framers of the Constitution. The available evidence, however, does tend to support the conclusion that Americans of the Revolutionary period 7David Ramsey, The Histo_y Lf the American Revolution (2 vols.: Trenton, N. JT: James J. Wi Ison, 1789, 1811), pp. 431~434. William Gordon, The History Lf the Rise, Pro ess, and Establishment Lf* the Independence of the ,fl__te§‘§£a£g§_ of AmerICa (New _Y6rk: JohnWoods, 17897, p. 91 MASDetweiler, pp. cit., pp. 562- 563. John Bach.McMaster, $9 msition Lf Political Social and Industrial Ri hts n America —(CIeveland: The Imperial Press, 19%3), p—O 7 primarily associated the proclamation of 1776 with separa- tion from the mother country. With the adOption of the Constitution, a new system of government was launched which inadvertently affected the reputation of the Declaration of Independence. During the 1790's, largely because of rivalry between political parties, a change in emphasis occurred respecting the Declaration; men became more interested in its principles. In studying the Federalists one notices that they were not avid sup- porters of the Declaration for two main reasons: (1) they were pro-British which was in conflict with the anti-British nature of the Declaration, and (2) they were wary of a political philosOphy which sanctioned the right to revolution, and upheld the equality of all men. The Federalists there- fore tended "to criticize the democratic excess which they associated with Republican interpretation of the Declaration's principles." By 1801, however, the Republicans were dominant politically and identified the Declaration with the ideas of natural rights, equality, and consent of the governed. With the passing of the French Revolution, and the dis- integration of the Federalist party, the Jeffersonian conception of the Declaration was assured a place in American history.9 Following the War of 1812, a growing sense of 9Detweiler, 22. 3133., pp. 565-568. 570-571. 8 nationalism emerged in the United States. A leading maga- zine noted that "It is delightful to see the words 'national character,‘ 'national feeling,’ and the like, coming into common use; . . . ." This national self-consciousness led to a renewed interest in the events, causes, and principles of the Revolution, and also added to "the growing prestige of the Declaration." Another magazine editorial on American independence in July of 1816 praised the founding fathers and stressed the importance of the principles of equality and consent of the governed, maintaining that such concepts should not be ridiculed.lo In this post-War of 1812 period there were many fac- tors which indicate an increased interest and pride in the Declaration of Independence. John Binns, for example, the publisher of the Democratic Press, in 1816 announced his plans to issue engraved cOpies of the Declaration. A notice placed by Binns in Nileg' Weeklpregister stated that We are firmly persuaded that the more the principles of the Declaration of Independence are spread out before the eyes of the world, the more they will be admired, by foreign nations as well as our own; and every innocent and honest device that may serve to attract attention toward them will serve, also to promote the great cause of public liberty. Binns felt that elegant facsimiles of the Declaration would lONiles' Weekly Register, July 19, 1817, p. 321; July 13, 1816, p. 3 1. North American Review, January 1826, pp. 177-1780 Detweiler, Jo Cit. , P. 571. 9 help peOple familiarize themselves with its principles. Benjamin Owen Tyler a professional penman and writing instructor also had ideas about publishing facsimiles of the Declaration. This he did in 1818, beating Binns into print and creating a publishers quarrel between them. Binns, however, did manage to publish a more ornate fac- simile the following year. Both ventures were financially successful and brought considerable attention to the Declaration.11 In February of 1817 Congress authorized President Madison to commission John Trumbull, a well known American artist interested in history, to do several paintings com- memorating the most important events of the Revolution. One of these was the now famous painting of Jefferson and his committee presenting the Declaration to Congress. Samuel A. Wells a grandson of Samuel Adams, in a letter to Jefferson dated June 2, 1819, remarked that while he was disappointed with Trumbull's work on the Declaration, it had nevertheless been favorably received by the public.12 llNiles' Weekl Register, July 6, 1816, p. 310. Dumas Malone, The tor of the Declaration Lf Inde endence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954),— pp. 253-254. 12U. S., The Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the United States, 14th.663g.,*2nd Sess., -1817, p. 1318. JEhE_H.‘WHaze1ton,inhe Historical Value of Trumbull's Declaration of Independence, " The Penns lvania Ma azine Lf Histo_y and Biography, vol. M(1967), pp. 32, 35,3 ”6 Trumbull's painting of the Declaration is on permanent dis- play in the rotunda of the Capitol in Washington. 10 Several years later, John Q. Adams in his capacity as Secretary of State had printed an official facsimile of the original Declaration, which became the basis for all later engravings.l3 Adams, who was an ardent admirer of the Declaration, sent cOpies to the surviving signers and other important persons in the country. An incident during this same period which brought more attention to Jefferson's paper involved the author himself. In 1822, at least two newspapers, the Philadelphia Egigg and the Federal Republic challenged the idea of Jefferson's sole authorship of the Declaration. Then at a Salem, Massachusetts July 4th celebration, in the follow- __....._.‘m.. ..._.,_ *, ing year, Timothy Pickering asserted that Jefferson's con- Wnb~ tribut' -"3313125 the famous paper was not particularly“ h- ~"~“‘"-.~- 1 WV nan-g... h.— .. _ _ Iv”.- Mv~‘..,... .4». “ guns. sigpifigant and that the document was vastly improved by Congresngggiétions. Jefferson could not ignore the incident, which had now become a public issue, and expressed his feelings in a letter to James Madison. He questioned and disputed several of Pickering‘s statements regarding the authorship and adaption of the Declaration, maintaining that either Pickering misquoted his source of information or that John Adams' memory had failed him.14 l3Malone, _p. cit., p. 254. ~ l4Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Pa ers of Thomas Jefferson (16 vols. Princeton, N. J.: -Princeton.UEiversity Press, 1950-19613, I, 300. Adams, 91;. 913., II, 512—515. Ford, . cit., X, 267-269. Pickering's source was a letter fgom_33hn Adams dated August 6, 1822. 11 An examination of historical works published during the 1820's also indicates that there was an increased interest in the Revolutionary period. In 1822 Hezekiah Niles published his Principles and Agtg g: the American Revolution. From 1820 to 1827 John Sanderson, who Was both an author and teacher, published a nine volume series entitled Biography 23.322 Sigpers 39 Egg Declaration.gf Independence. The North American Review commenting on Sanderson's work, noted that "the Declaration of Independence - a national monument, not more lasting than brass, but as durable in its effects and association, as the republic itself and the name of freedom, - still deserves every illustration, which documents, tradition, or the arts can afford."15 One year after the printing of Sanderson's last volume, Timothy Pitkin's two volume history of the United States from 1763 to 1797 appeared. Also published (1825), Chancellor James Kent's Commentaries 22 American Bag (1826), and Charles Goodrich's Lizgg g: the Signers (1829). While I believe these publications support Detweiler's contention regarding a renewal of interest in the f Revolutionary period and the Declaration, an analysis of Sanderson's and Pitkin's work does not reveal any particular lsflggth,American.figgigg, January, 1823, p. 195. 12 emphasis upon the philos0phy of.Jefferson's paper. In fact, both authors ignore the political principles expressed in the Declaration and basically associate the document with the act of independence.16 - On July 4, 1826 cities and towns across the country honored the fiftieth anniversary of American independence with "jubilee" celebrations. Some of the most equuent orators and prominent statesmen of the day delivered speeches in honor of the nation's birth. One such oration was given by the renowned Edward Everett at Cambridge, Massachusetts. Everett eXpressed the questionable Opinion that the Declaration marked the most important event in the history of the world. He also stressed the importance of reasserting the prin- ciples of equality and consent of the governed.17 July 4th, 1826 however, was destined to have a special significance for Americans because on this very day two of the surviving signers and authors of the Declaration —- l6 . . John Sanderson, Biography 2: the Slépersizg the Declaration of Independence (9 vols.; Phi a e phia: R. W. Pomeroy, 1826:1827}, I, ccxviii-ccxix; II, 24-28. Timothy Pitkin, A Political and Civil History 3; the United States of America (2 vols.° New Haven, Conn.: Hezekiah Howe & Tia-Fm T Peck, 1828 , I, 365, 370-371. l7Edward Everett, Ag Oration Delivered a} Cambridge on the Fiftieth Anniversary 9: the Declaration g: Independence '(Boston: cummings, Hilliard, &_Ca., 1826), pp. 14, 12, 24, 35. Another Fourth of July 1826 oration which emphasized the principles of the Declaration was Henry Colman's "An Oration Delivered in Salem on the Fourth of July, 1826" reviewed in the United States Literary Gazette, September, 1826, pp. 428- 429. 13 Thomas Jefferson and John Adams -— died within hours of one another.' To many Americans such a coincidence could not be purely a matter of chance or circumstance. The American Annual Register appears to have summed up the feeling of many Americans by interpreting the occurrence as the interposition of divine providence, stamping American independence "with a perpetual seal of sacredness." The magazine also stated that "the whole range of.history may be appealed to, in vain to produce an event of equal singu- larity and interest." In the weeks that followed numerous eulogies and orations were delivered in memory of the two revered founders. In commenting on their lives and achieve- ments, the Declaration of Independence was oftenmentioned.18 During the first fifty years of the nation's history the Declaration came to receive increasing attention and recognition. While the document was primarily associated with the act of independence its political principles also became an increasing source of interest and controversy. This latter point will be pursued in the following chapter which.will discuss the antislavery movement and the famous Missouri controversy debates of 1819-1821. 18American Annual Re ister, 1825-1826, Part I, p. 28; Part II, p.225. Also see the hristian Examiner and Theolo ’cal Review, July & August, 1826, pp. 316-3T7—and Niles' Weekly Register, July 15, 1826, p. 350. "Eulogies on Thomas Jefferson and John Adams," American Quarterly Review, March, 1827, pp. 54-77. Niles'Weekly Register for the months of July and August in.1826_contains numerous eulogies and comments on the lives and achievements of Jefferson and Adams. 14 Two of the most significant aspects of the Declaration's history during the middle years of the nineteenth century were: (1) the diversity of purposes it served and (2) the concentration upon its political philos0phy. The Declaration and its doctrines were used by many different persons, groups and movements in support of a variety of Causes. \‘ In one July 4th, 1826 ceremony during the "jubilee" of independence, for example, Robert Owen the utOpian socialist proclaimed a Declaration of Mental Independence. Speaking at New Harmony, Indiana, he called upon all of mankind to free themselves from the Oppressions of "Private or Individual Property, Absurd and Irrational systems of Religion, and Marriage founded on Individual PrOperty . . . ." According to Owen such institutions clearly hindered men in their pursuit of happiness.19 The Declaration of Independence was also used by many Americans to clarify the nature of the Union in the decades before the Civil War. Unionists argued that the Declaration supported the idea that the colonies united to form one peOple and one nation. State's rights advocates, however, often maintained the Declaration proclaimed the states to be sovereign and independent entities and ultimate sovereignty therefore resided with the states and not the 19John H. Noyes, Histogy 9;; American Socialisms (New York: Hillary House, td., 1875, 1951), pp. 39, 45, 46. 15 national government. An advocate of the unionist position was John Q. Adams. In a July 4, 1831 oration before a Quincy, Massachusetts audience he noted that the Declaration did not refer to individual states, but rather was a proclamation made by the "United Colonies" in the name of one peOple. According to Adams, union and independence were inseparable, and the concepts of nullification and secession were clearly re- 20 futed by the nation's founding document. In support of the opposing point of view, John C. Calhoun in‘A Discourse 3n Egg Constitution and Government 2; 3hg_United States (1851) used the last paragraph Of the Declaration, which affirms that the states are "free and independent,“ to support state's rights doctrine. Similarly, Supreme Court Justice Archibald Campbell of Alabama in his separate Opinion in the Dred Scott case contended that the Declaration of 1776 supported the concept Of sovereign and 21 independent states. Sectional tension and disagreement Over the nature of 20John Q. Adams, An Oration Addressed to the Citizens of Erie T33}; of Quincy 9.5.39.9. Fourth pf Jul ,‘1'8 I (Boston: ‘Richardson,'53rd & olbrook, 1831), pp.-6:Z',_T%T 18. 21Richard K. Cralle, ed., The Works 3: John Q. Calhoun (6 vols.; New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1854-1857), I, 115, 116, 123, 124; VI, 107-109. A Reportigf the Decision.gfl§gg Supreme Court_gf the H, §, ig,§hg Case gfffired Scott vs. JOhn F-.A- Sanford—(New York: D. Appleton E Co., 18577, p. 502. Justice Campbell agreed with the decision of the Court, but filed a separate Opinion. 16 the Union finally led the nation to civil war in 1861. During the secession crisis of 1860 and 1861 both Southerners and Northerners, however, identified the principles of state rights and secession with the political philoSOphy Of the Declaration. The proclamation of 1776 had specifi- cally stated that when the peOple believed government had failed in its purpose they had the right to change or abolish it. Southern political leaders such as Jefferson Davis of MissiSsippi and Gustavus A. Henry of Tennessee used the Declaration's principles of inalienable rights, consent of the governed and the right to revolution to justify secession. The New Orleans Daily Crescent in discussing the South's right to secession in a November 13, 1860 editorial referred to the peOples' right to alter or abolish government as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and added that "higher authority than the above ED. of I;I is not to be found in the history of the United States."22 Northern newspapers while not necessarily supporting secession, often admitted the South's right to such action. 22Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall 2; Egg Confederate Government (2 vols.; New YBFk: Thomas Ybseloff, 1881, 1958), I, 153, 184. Ralph H. Gabriel, The Course 2: American Democratic Thought: An Ingellectual Histor Since5181 (2nd ed. rev.; New York: The Ronald Press 0., 194 , 956), p. 122. Dwight L. Dumond, ed., Southern Editorials 2g ~ Secession (New York: The Cehtury Co., 19317, pp.‘235, 236. Also see "The Right of Secession,“ DeBow's Review, XXX (April, 1861), p. 398. Secessionists believed that the national government was formed by a voluntary compact among the states from which.members could withdraw at their discretion. l7 Horace Greeley's New York Daily Tribune, for example, in a February 28, 1861 editorial stated that the great principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration of American Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, is sound and just; and that, if Slave States, the Cotton States, or the Gulf States only, choose to form an indsgendent nation, they have a clear moral right to do so. Another aSpect of American life which saw frequent use of the Declaration and its principles was the various reform movements which gained momentum in the late 1820's, 1830's, and 1840‘s. One Of the most notable of such groups was the woman's rights movement. In attempting to Obtain legal and political equality with men, women such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucretia Mott, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone, Ernestine Rose and numerous others frequently made use of the doctrines of inalienable rights, equality and consent of the governed. At the Seneca Falls, New York convention in 1848, for example, Elizabeth C. Stanton presented a Declaration of Sentiments which paraphrased the Declaration of Independence paragraph by paragraph. Mrs. Stanton 23Howard C. Perkins, ed., Northern Editorials on Secession (2 vols.; New York: DJHAppleton - Century-Co., 1942), I, 359, 360. Further references to other northern newspapers using the Declaration of Independence in recog- nition of the southern states' right to secede can be found in vol. I, 186, 187, 188, 199, 200, 201, 352, 353; vol. II, 651. Even many abolitionists believed the South had a legal right to secede from the Union based on the principles of the Declaration. See, for example, George M. Fredrickson, The Inner Civil War: Northern Intellectuals Egg the Crisis .gf‘yhg Union (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), ppC_58, 59. l8 believed that political equality with men was clearly expressed in the proclamation of 1776. Ernestine Rose, a well educated Polish emigre, was representative of many woman's rights advocates when she claimed equality with men by quoting the second paragraph of the Declaration Of Independence in an October l8th,l854 address. She stressed that the document proclaimed the doctrine of consent of the governed, and "as woman is a subject of government she ought to have a voice in enacting the laws."24 Another active group within the reform mOvement of the period were those who believed society's problems could be solved through the practice of temperance. At the founding Of the American Temperance Society on February 13, 1826 a Declaration of Independence was adOpted which the _ Rev. John Marsh hOped would come to surpass the original Declaration Of 1776 in prestige and influence. Some tem- perance supporters saw a close parallel between the revolu- tionary movement of 1776 and the temperance movement of the 1820's and 1830's. The Declaration of 1776 brought Americans political freedOm, but the practice Of drinking was a serious threat to that freedom. A July 4th temperance celebration in Philadelphia in 1835 included the reading 24Elizabeth c. Stanton, Susan B. Anthony and Matilda J. Gage, eds., History of Woman Suffrage (6 vols.; Rochester, N. Y.: Charles Mann, 1881-1985), I, 68-73, 376, 377. Fbr further references to the Declaration by woman's rights advocates see I, 106, 107, 129, 130, 237, 238, 262, 315, 315, 376, 377, 382- l9 of a Declaration of Temperance which closely resembl the original Declaration of Independence. The 1835 pref '““” clamation declared that whenever any habit or custom threat- ened the peOple's inalienable rights to life, liberty and happiness they had the right to alter or abolish such cus- toms. According to temperance supporters: ". ...'without temperance there can be no virtue, no happiness, no inde- pendence, individual or national."25 The Declaration of Independence was also used by those seeking to extend the franchise in various states. Thomas Wilson Dorr who led the famous rebellion for suffrage in Rhode Island during the early 1840's frequently made use of the Declaration. Speaking before the State Constitutional Assembly in May of 1842 he maintained that the Declaration expressed the following fundamental principles of Amer’ government: (1) that governments were based on of the governed and, (2) that the peOple ‘ alter or abolish government when i+ their safety and happiness.26 ass John,Marsh,\ (Boston: William Pit ely used James Gillpatrick, An Desert Temperance SOOi. particular Edmands, 1832), p. 17. _Temperance with Rgpubligp imarily Benedict, 1835), pp. 6, 3 _p f OWZZI£Eing 1311251131 3116111323. .william(Byrdsall, O a ers: y__ 0 o 8 Part New the-Afierican Common Man, I781 40, 4I. 15pm, 5 .—'6pp. 0711,17. 20 The proclamation of 1776 also found eXpression within the labor movement of the 1830's. Robert Walker, chairman of the New York Committee of Mechanics and Workingmen in a November 26th,l830 address demanded equal rights for working men and the poor. In his speech Walker also asked: Is it in keeping with the Declaration of Independence, to proclaim 'equal rights' the birthright of every American citizen, and yet charter monOpolies for the benefit of the few, at the expense of the rights and the interests of the many? Other labor leaders such as Seth Luther of Rhode Island made use of the Declaration of Independence as did the Locofocos who represented the radical wing of the Democratic party and often associated themselves with the cause of labor.27 Several important points should be kept in mind regarding the persons and groups just discussed. First, the material and ideas presented were not intended to represent a conclusive study, but rather to demonstrate the diversity of purposes which the Declaration served. The Declaration was not limited in use to any particular class of peOple or section of the country. Americans with some- times sharply differing backgrounds and beliefs freely used and endorsed the document. Second, reformers in particular made frequent use of the document. This was primarily 271219... pp. 55. 56, 57, 58, 60. Fitzwilliam Byrdsall, The History 2f the Loco-Foco or Equal Ri hts Part (New York: Clements E Packard, 1842), pp. 39, 40, 41. 21 because the Declaration was widely respected by Americans and also contained ideas which could easily be applied to a broad range of objectives. Many reformers appeared to have viewed the Declaration as an ideal or guide which, if only followed, would set America on the right course. Third, the focus of concentration was primarily on the statement of political philOSOphy found in the Declaration's second paragraph. Nevertheless, while the Declaration's principles were used for a variety of purposes during the nineteenth century they were most frequently used within the context of slavery.28 28From a quantitative point Of view, the debate and criticism generated by the Declaration in regard to slavery and Negro equality easily surpassed all of its other uses combined. CHAPTER II SLAVERY AND THE DECLARATION: 1776-1840 The birth date of slave in America was 1619 when a Dutch frigate deposited 20 Reg£8§§‘in Jamestown, Virginia. While some colonies and groups had questioned the practice of slavery, it was not forcefully attacked until the Revolutionary period, and a large scale movement devoted to its abolition did not begin until the 1830's. This crus sade continued on through the Civil War and did not relent until 1870 when a majority of abolitionists viewed the Fifteenth Amendment as final victory.1 The Declaration Of Independence played an important role in this_strugg1e_ because of its emphasis upon individual rights and because many per_sons viewed it as a basic expression ofthe American creed. The Declaration elicited Opinions on such vital ,m questions as race, equality and the nature and purpose Of American society and therefore merits serious examination 1James M. McPherson, Stru 16 For 9Equalitywrinceton, N. J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 61954?, pj I have found it impossible tO make a clear and meaningful dis- tinction between the terms antislavery men and abolitionists, and have therefore chosen to use the terms interchangeably. In cases, however, where such a distinction is crucial, I ‘will attempt to provide the necessary clarifications. 22 23 and consideration. This chapter then will briefly treat the question of slavery and the Declaration from 1776 through the 1830's when the antislavery movement gained forceful momentum. The American Revolution, while primarily a movement for political independence, also acted as a catalyst in effecting social change. One result of the colonial con- flict with Great Britain was a growth in antislavery senti- ment. Men such as John Woolman, Anthony Benezet, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine and Benjamin Rush actively spoke out against slavery. In the years shortly preceding indepen- dence antislavery supporters Often identified the colonial cause with that of the black man. Thomas Paine, for example, made such an association in a March 1775 article and called for an end to slavery.2 During the Revolutionary War and the 1780's advocates of Negro emancipation repeatedly pointed to the inconsistency between the practice of slavery and the use of natural rights principles to justify colonial claims. The Rev. William Gordon of Roxbury, Massachusetts referred to the Declaration of Independence in reminding his fellow citizens that slavery was inconsistent with their own struggle for freedom. Such thoughts were also echoed by Anthony Benezet, 2John H. Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom (New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1947. 1965). pp. 1253726“. ”Arthur Zilversmit, The First Emancipation: the Abolition g: Slavery-ip the North (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 19 7 9 PP. 959669 g7. 24 the Pennsylvania Quaker, in a pamphlet published in 1783. In the following year the Rhode Island legislature passed a bill providing for the gradual abolition of slavery, stating that slavery was contrary to the rights of.man.3 It is also perhaps revealing to note that a bill of rights attached to the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 contained language similar to the Declaration of Independence, declaring for example, the equality of all men. In the Jennison case of 1783 Chief Justice William Cushing Of the Massachusetts Supreme Court noted that slavery was incon- sistent with natural rights principles and the fundamental law of the state. According to Cushing, the Constitution of 1780 proclaimed all men to be free and equal and guaran- teed tO protect their rights to life, liberty and prOperty. On this basis the court ruled that slavery was illegal in Massachusetts.4 Antislavery supporters continued to use natural rights arguments and the Declaration to protest against slavery in 3Zilversmit, o . cit., pp. 94, 96-99, 170, 110, 121. William S. Jenkins, O-SIaveryThought ip the Old South (Chapel Hill, N. C.: The Univ. 0 N. arolIna'PEESs, 1935), pp. 34. 35. 4Zilversmit, pp, 213,, pp. 112, 114, 115. It should be noted, however, that the Massachusetts Constitution Of 1780 did not mention slavery and there is no evidence that its framers intended the document to abolish the practice. See Zilversmit, pp. 112, 113. Similarly, there is also no evidence that the Declaration of Independence was viewed as a part Of the constitutional law of Massachusetts or that it was responsible for abolishing slavery in that state. See Imy discussion of the Declaration's legality in Chapter V, 226-228. 25 the 1790's. In 1791 Benjamin Banneker, the Negro astro- nomer, sent Thomas Jefferson, along with a cOpy of his Almanac, a letter criticizing Jefferson for upholding the principles of equality and inalienable rights, and continu- ing to own slaves. Two years later in a July 4, 1793 oration before the Tammany Society of New York, the Rev. Samuel Miller speaking on slavery stated: "Alas that we should so soon forget the principles, upon which our wonder- ful revolution was founded." George Buchanan in an oration delivered on the same day in Baltimore repeated the charge of inconsistency between slavery and the principles of American independence.5 The natural rights philosoPhy of the Revolutionary are played an important role in stimulating the growth of abolitionist sentiment in the North, and appears to have been a significant factor in the actual steps taken to eliminate slavery.6 Antislavery advocates effectively used natural rights principles and the Declaration of Independence 5Lorenzo D. Turner, Anti-Slavepy Sentiment i2 American Literature Prior 39 186 (Washington, D. C.: The Assn. For the Study of Negro Li e and History, 1929), pp. 14, 15. Merle Curti, Probin REE Past (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955), pp. 105, 1 . Jenkins, _p. 313., p. 37. ’ 6During the Revolution and in the decade shortly thereafter most northern states took some kind of action towards eliminating slavery. Arthur Zilversmit builds a strong case that the natural rights and revolutionary philos- Ophy of the period played an instrumental role in this regard. See Zilversmit, _p..gi§., pp. 137, 138, 226, 227, 228. 26 to demonstrate the inconsistency between slavery and the basis of American government. While the Declaration was invoked at times to bring attention to the contradiction it does not appear that the document or its principles were the major weapon in the antislavery argument. Nor does there appear to have been any detailed use, analysis or criticism of the Declaration's principles during the Revolutionary era.7 The early part of the nineteenth century up until approximately 1831 has Often been referred to as the "neglected period" of antislavery activity. This is par- ticularly true for the period before 1819, for while anti- slavery agitation never really ceased to exist during these years it was not eSpecially vociferous or well organized. In the first two decades of its existence, Congress, under the new Constitution only debated slavery on a few occasions, and in the decade after 1807 foreign affairs and the problems 8 of war tended to dominate the nation's interest. It is not surprising therefore to find only occasional 7The major antislavery arguments used during the Revolutionary period appear to have consisted of religious, moral and natural rights principles. Zilversmit in his treatment of the period, for example, presents no evidence that the specific principles found in the Declaration's preamble received a great deal of discussion or attention. Also see Philip Detweiler's “The Declaration of Independence in Jefferson's Lifetime" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane Univ., 1954), pp. 103, 109, 110. 8Jenkins, 2p. cit., pp. 49, 50, 56. Alice F. Tyler, _E§eedom's Ferment (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1944, 1962), p. 470. 27 references to the Declaration with regard to slavery in these years. One instance in which the document received _mention was the congressional slave trade debates of 1806. Representative John Smilie Of Pennsylvania referred to the Declaration in criticizing the infamous practice. Smilie's colleague, Joseph Clay also from Pennsylvania, however, challenged such usage. According to Clay the principles of the document had to be qualified. He noted, for example, that men did not really have an inalienable right to life and liberty. In the same year John Parish a Quaker writer and staunch abolitionist, published a book called Remarks 3p the Slavery g: the Black PeoEle in which he maintained that Congress had the power to abolish slavery. He based his argument on the Declaration and the Constitution's preamble.9 A revealing episode concerning slavery and the Declaration occurred in 1818 and involved the future Supreme Court Justice of the United States, Roger B. Taney. In that year Jacob Gruber, a Methodist minister, gave an anti- slavery address in Hagerstown, Maryland which greatly dis- turbed and alienated his audience. Gruber severely criticized slavery and slaveholders alike. In his remarks he referred to the Declaration's doctrines of equality and inalienable 9Detweiler, pp. cit., pp. 117, 118, 107. Jacobus tenBroek, E ual Under an: The Anti-Slaver Ori ins g; the Fourteenth imendment (rev. ed.; New York: 801Iier Rooks, 1—9_5—1,—l'_965'), p. 71, f. n. #2. 28 rights and suggested that it was inconsistent to affirm such principles and also own slaves.lo Gruber was subsequently charged with encouraging slaves to riot and participate in rebellion, and brought to trial. Fortunately, he was able to secure the services of Roger B. Taney, then a young and ambitious lawyer. Taney based his defense on Gruber's right of free speech under Maryland law. He argued that it was not unlawful to voice one's Opinion on slavery and noted that "Mr. Gruber did quote the language of our great act of national indepen- dence, and insisted on the principles contained in that venerated document." Taney went on to maintain that slavery was a national disgrace which had to somehow be eliminated. He declared: Yet while it [slavery] continues it is a blot on our national character, and every real lover of freedom confidently hOpes that it will be effectively, though it must be gradually, wiped away . . . . And until it shall be accomplished: until the time shall come when we can point without a blush, to the language held in the Declaration of Independence, every friend Of humanity will seek to lighten the galling chain of slavery, and better, to the utmoit of his power, the wretched condition of the slave. 1 The young lawyer had clearly used the Declaration to . 10Carl B. Swisher, Roger B. Taney (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1935), p. 95. Gruber's remarks were actu- ally made at a.Methodist camp meeting before a large audience consisting of some 2600 whites and 400 blacks. llSwisher, 2p.'gij., pp. 96, 97, 98. Anonymous, The Unjust Judge: A Memorial 2; R0 er B. Taney, Late Chief Justice 33 the United States New York: Baker & Godwin, 1865): PP- 8: 9- 29 demonstrate that slavery was inconsistent with American principles. It is significant to note, however, that Taney's interpretation of the Declaration changed in later years and that his earlier views became a source of em- barrassment for him.12 The single episode in American history, before 1830, which probably did the most to publicize the principles of the Declaration was the Missouri controversy. Glover Moore in his book on this subject finds that throughout the de- bates both Northerners and Southerners made frequent reference to natural rights philOSOphy and the Declaration of Independence to support their views.13 Philip Detweiler contends that during the Missouri debates the Declaration itself became a subject of controversy. "For the first time in our history its preamble was examined and analyzed, praised or criticized, in large-scale fashion." Because the Declaration played an important role in the debates its own meaning came into question. Part of the reason why strong appeals were made to the document was because the Constitution did not clearly define what the nature and jposition of slavery was to be in American society. Represen- ‘Mative Timothy Fuller of Massachusetts believed that the 12See Chapter IV, pp.l45-l46. It should also be rurted that Gruber was acquitted. l3Glover Moore, The Missouri Coptroversy, 1819-1821 (Univ. of Kentucky Press, 1953), p. 307. 3O Declaration contained the fundamental principles upon which American government was based and implied that it served as an "interpretative guide" to the Constitution.14 Not all Americans would agree with Fuller, especially in regard to his latter point, but it is an idea which constantly recurs as one traces the Declaration through the nineteenth century. In February of 1819, the House of Representatives began to discuss the question of statehood for Missouri and Alabama. It was during the discussion of the Missouri Bill that James Tallmadge, a Democratic congressman from New York, introduced his famous amendment which stated that the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall be duly convicted; and that all children Of slaves, born within the said state, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free, but miy be held to service until the age of twenty- five years. This amendment provided the Spark which ignited the famous debate over slavery. During January and February of 1820 the Declaration came to play its most important role in the debates. For it was at this time that the document was most Often re- ferred to. Many antislavery advocates, both citizens and l4Philip F. Detweiler, "Congressional Debate on Slavery and the Declaration of Independence, 1819-1821," American Historical Review, LXIII (1958), pp. 598, 602, 603-604. 15Moore, _p, 233., p. 35. 31 congressmen, held that the concept of equality expressed in the Declaration indicated that slavery should not be allowed in Missouri. On January 18, 1820, for example, a petition was sent to the Senate by a group of Connecticut citizens, stating in part that "the peculiar phraseology of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, declaring that 'all men are created equal,‘ & 0., shows conclusively that the illustrious authors of that document never con- templated the further extension of slavery in these United States." The petition also went on to note that when the Constitution was adOpted the intent of the Declaration was held in abeyance in order to effect a compromise with the southern states. But with regard to the admission of new states to the Union, the original intention Of the Declaration should apply. Antislavery congressmen in both the House and Senate endorsed such views, especially the notion that the Declaration's reference to equality was good reason for Opposing the extension of slavery to Missouri.16 16U. S., The Debates and Proceedings 3f the Congress of the United state—m t cong., Ist Sess., 1820, pp. 2457, 2159:2480. The congressional record will be cited here- after as the Congressional Globe. Detweiler, "Congressional Debate," p. 604. Senator James Barbour of Virginia was extremely critical of antislavery use of the Declaration, especially with reSpect to the idea that the founding fathers had waivered the document's principles in regard to the Older states, but now [in 1820] these principles and intentions must be applied. Barbour sharply ridiculed such logic and justly so. See Detweiler, "Congressional Debate," p. 610. 32 In reSponse to such ideas, proslavery forces in Congress began to develop a critical view of Jefferson's paper. Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, for example, stated that the Declaration was not a part of the Constitution and that the extension of slavery was a con- stitutional question and did not involve the Declaration. ~/ Representative Louis McLane of Delaware, addressing the House on February 7th discussed the relationship between the Declaration and slavery. He believed that "abstract principles" such as "all men are created equal" did not pertain to Negroes. In regard to the Declaration he noted that It was pronounced by the freemen of the country, and not by slaves. No one pretended that they acquired any claim to freedom on this account; on the contrary, the Revolution found them in a state of servitude, the acknowledgement of our actual independence left them so, and the Constitution of the United States perpetu- ated their condition. Others, such as Senator William Pinkney of Maryland were critical of the so-called self-evident truths of the Declaration. Speaking before the Senate on February 15, 1820, he stated that "the self-evident truths announced in the Declaration of Independence are not truths at all, if taken literally; and the practical conclusions contained in the same passage of that declaration prove that they were never designed to be so received." Philip Detweiler points out that the question of whether Such "truths" were abstrac- tions or truths indeed was a principal point of disagreement 33 during the debates.17 Other Southerners such as Representative John Tyler of Virginia maintained that the restrictionist view of the antislavery advocates was interfering with the right of Missourians to self-government. Both Tyler and Louis McLane argued that the right to self-government was one of the main principles of the Revolution and the Declaration. According to Alexander Smyth of Virginia, such restrictions were in essence an infringement upon the inalienable rights of 18 These proslavery Southerners native, white Missourians. clearly utilized the Declaration to reinforce their own views on slavery. In a subtle way they were using the document to support the state's rights doctrine. The Missouri debates reveal several important points about the Declaration: (1) the document received a con- siderable amount of use and recognition, (2) for the first time in the nation's history its principles of equality, inalienable rights and consent of the governed were presented, analyzed and criticized in a forceful and detailed manner, and (3) proslavery congressmen were not only critical of the Declaration, but some even used it to support their own views on slavery.19 17Detweiler, "Congressional Debate," pp. 605-606. Congressional Globe, 16th Cong., 1st Sess., 1820, pp. 1154, 405. l8Congressional Globe, 16th Cong., 1st Sess., 1820, pp. 1383-1384, 1155. Detweiler, "Congressional Debate," p. 608. 19Detweiler, "Congressional Debate," pp. 614-615. 34 Besides promoting sectional attitudes and tensions, the Missouri debates are significant because they represent a crucial turning point in southern attitudes toward slavery. In the period from 1790 to 1820 the majority of Southerners supported the institution of slavery, but seldom felt re- quired to vigorously defend it. Their general attitude tended to be rather passive and apologetic.20 Beginning in 1820, however, the southern attitude toward slavery became much more adamant and defensive. The main factors responsible for this change were: (1) the Missouri controversy, (2) the growing activity of the American Colonization Society, and (3) the increasing amount of antislavery literature being produced by abolitionist groups. This defensive attitude was also reenforced by the mounting economic investment which the South had in slaves and the belief that slavery was profitable. In reaction to the growing antislavery sentiment, Southerners developed arguments in defense of slavery. They pointed out that the Constitution was a compromise between the North and South which recognized the legality of slavery and promised to protect the slaveowner's rights.21 Pro- slavery writers also made strong use of history, the Bible and the laws of God to support their arguments. Apologists for slavery, as in the Missouri debates, also challenged 2OJenkins, _p. cit., p. 48. 21Ibid., pp. 65, 66, 157. 35 natural rights philOSOphy and the principles of the Declaration of Indpendence, to which antislavery supporters increasingly referred. Southerners such as Senator John Randolph of Virginia and Thomas Cooper of South Carolina were representative of those who challenged the Declaration's doctrines, especially the idea of equality. During a March 1826 congressional debate over sending a delegate to the Panama Congress, Senator Randolph touched upon the subject of slavery and criticized the idea of equality as advanced by Opponents of the institution. Although expressed in the Declaration, the concept "that all men were born free and equal" was "a most pernicious falsehood." According to Randolph, the Declaration was a "fanfaronade of abstractions" which could not be used by slaves to demand their freedom. Thomas COOper, the South Carolina intellectual and college profes- sor, in the 1829 edition of his Lectures 9p.3h§ Elements ‘2; Political Economy also attacked the political philOSOphy of the Declaration, rejecting the doctrines of equality and inalienable rights as being nonsense and unattainable.22 The proslavery response to the Declaration of 22COngressional Globe, 19th Cong., 1st Sess., 1826, pp. 125, 127. Dumas Malone, The Public Life of Thomas Coo er: 1783-1839 (Columbia{—ST C.: Univ. Of_South Oarolina Press, 19 , l , p. 290. Jenkins, pp. 933., p. 125. COOper merits a special note of explanation. In the 1790's he had been a radical, Jeffersonian Republican, but in later years he came to reject much of Jefferson's social and political philosOphy. He in fact became an influential proslavery writer. 36 Independence and its principles became more involved and complex in the 1830's primarily because antislavery use Of the Declaration intensified. Some Of the main themes which will therefore be examined in the remaining portion of this chapter are: (1) the Declaration as an antislavery mani- festo in the 1830's, (2) the southern proslavery response to such usage, and (3) the northern anti-abolitionist re— action to the Declaration. In the early 1830's a full scale controversy develOped over the question of slavery which would continue unabated until resolved by the Civil War and the Fifteenth Amendment. As Nat Turner, the Virginia Assembly, William Lloyd Garrison and a host of others came into public view the issue Of slavery became an ever encompassing web, ensnaring men, movements and institutions. In August of 1831, Nat Turner, a Negro slave and religious fanatic, led an ill-fated insurrection in south- eastern Virginia which resulted in the massacre Of some 57 ‘whites. This incident received national attention and provoked the famous Virginia slavery debates during the winter of 1831-1832. The debates are important because they represent the last major public discussion of slavery in the South in which a noticeable amount of antislavery sentiment was clearly present. The majority of delegates in the Virginia Assembly supported slavery, but there were a substantial number of 37 reformers and antislavery men who had serious reservations about the institution. Conservatives in the legislature were extremely critical of reformers and those who pro- posed abolition programs. They feared that such actions would result in decreasing slave prices and more insur- 23 rections. The debates indicate that most antislavery men were concerned about the consequences of slavery on the white pOpulation, and only a few radical reformers and abolitionists referred to natural rights philos0phy and the principles of the Declaration of Independence to support their arguments against slavery.24 One of the small group of Virginians who believed that slavery was contrary to the basic prin- ciples of American government was Samuel Moore of Rockbridge County. Besides being detrimental to slaveholders and Virginians in general, slavery violated the basic tenets of the American creed -- freedom and equality. Moore felt that all men had an inalienable right to liberty.25 Speak- ing to the Assembly on January 18, John H. Gholson, a proslavery apologist from Brunswick, criticized Moore's 23Joseph C. Robert, The Road from Monticello: ,A Stud of the Virginia Slavery Debate 2: 1832 (Durham, N. C.: Du—Ee University Press, 1941), p. 25. . 24Ibid., p. 24. Robert notes that most moderate reformers joined the conservatives in.rejecting the natural rights arguments presented during the debates. 25Richmond Enquirer, January 19, 1832, pp. 1, 2. 38 comments of January 11th. Gholson rejected Moore's notion that because all men were free and equal by nature, slavery should be abolished. In his speech, Gholson was also criti- cal of Thomas Jefferson Randolph's prOposal for the abolition of slavery. Randolph had presented a plan which called for the emancipation of all slaves born after July 4, 1840 upon their reaching the age of twenty-one. The date chosen by Randolph obviously had a symbolic meaning. Emancipation was clearly identified with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Gholson in his remarks praised the 4th Of July as an important day in the nation's history, but stated that if the House of Delegates decided "to connect with its [July 4th] history, the adoption of this unjust, partial, tyrannical and monstrous measure [Randolph's plan], permit me, . . . to offer a prayer to heaven, that the recording Angel, as he writes it down, may drOp a tear upon it, and 26 While Gholson obviously was en- blot it out forever." gaging in histrionics, he made his point. July 4th and the Declaration of Independence should be identified with independence from Great Britain, and not emancipation or equality. The views of proslavery advocates such as Gholson did not prevent other antislavery men from raising their voices during the debates. Representative William B. Preston in a speech on January 16 before the Assembly noted that the 26Ibid., January 21, 1832, p. 2; January 24, 1832, p. 3. 39 statutes which made men slaves violated a man's natural and inalienable rights. Thomas Jefferson himself, Preston pointed out, was extremely critical of slavery, especially in his original draft Of the Declaration of Independence. Preston summed up his remarks on this subject by stating that a plan for emancipation, a delegate's right to express his Opinion, and religious freedom were all derived from the same source: the Declaration of Independence. Several days after Preston spoke, Charles Faulkner addressing the same Assembly, noted that "the idea of a gradual emancipa- tion and the removal of the slaves from this Commonwealth, is coeval with the declaration of your own independence from the British yoke."27 James McDowell of Rockbridge, in his remarks made on January 21, maintained that the practice of slavery represented "one of the most striking instances upon record, of a peOple resolutely violating toward others, that principle of absolute freedom on which they erected their own independence, and which they were the first to proclaim to the world as the only just and admissible rule Of pOpular government."28 As previously mentioned, most antislavery delegates did not refer to the natural rights philos0phy of the 27Ibid., February 9, 1832, pp. 1, 2; February 2, 1832, p. 10 28James M'Dowell, Speech 2; James M'Dowell J3. in the ,House Of Delegates 2: Virginia o the Slave Question.TRiEEmond: Th. W. White, 1 3 ), p. 5. 40 Declaration of Independence or the Virginia Bill of Rights. Perhaps a typical example of this was Patrick Henry's grand- son, William Roane. While concerned about slavery, Roane in regard to natural rights philos0phy stated "Nor do I believe in that Fan-faronade about the natural equality of man. I do not believe that all men are by nature equal, or that it is in the power of human art to make them so." More severe in his criticism.than Roane was the proslavery- minded James Knox who had no use at all for abolition prOposals. Knox succinctly stated that not only was slavery recognized in law, but the Declaration of Independence did not emancipate the slaves and the Virginia Constitution protected such prOperty rights. In response to the anti- slavery forces' use of Jefferson's views on slavery, Knox stated that what "might have been practicable at the time that Mr. Jefferson advanced his abstract Opinion is cer- tainly inexpedient now; and if persisted in . . . without :regard to circumstances, will produce a wreak of devasta- tion, . . ..." Knox's views were representative of the xnajority's, for when the final votes were taken, the pro- jposals for gradual emancipation and expulsion of Negroes .from,Virginia were defeated.29 The Virginia slavery debates indicate that relatively 29Richmond Enquirer, February 4, 1832, p. 2; February 11, 1832, pp. 1, 2. 0n the strongest antislavery bill prOposed (pining the debates, that of William B. Preston's to abolish slavery in Virginia, the proslavery supporters won by a V0159 0f 73 t0 580 41 few delegates referred to the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration, but it is interesting to note that those who did often made a strong association between emancipa- tion and the Declaration. The inconsistency between slavery and Jefferson's famous paper was only apparently clear to a few men. In the future the number would grow. Throughout the course of its existence the abolitionist movement identified itself with natural rights philos0phy, very Often invoking the principles of the Declaration of Independence. Abolitionists did not appear to feel ill at ease or bothered by their references to abstract concepts of rights. They often presented their arguments in ideal terms. Carl Becker, in his study on the Declaration, has perceptively noted that "Whenever men become sufficiently dissatisfied with what is, with the existing regime of positive law and custom, they will be found reaching out be- yond it for the rational basis of what they conceive ought to be.“30 Many abolitionists believed that the philOSOphy of the Declaration should be America's main objective, and indicated this by using its principles as the rationale for their arguments and actions. Basic to the abolitionist creed was the idea that slavery violated the self-evident truths of the Declaration and therefore created an 30Carl L. Becker, The Declaration 2: Independence: ,5 Study in the Histor .3: Political Ideas (New York: 'Vintage Backs, 195 , originally published 1922), pp. 133-134. 42 inconsistency between what America ought to be and what it was in practice. One student of the antislavery move- ment has noted that by identifying with the principles of the Declaration and the fundamental law, the abolitionists changed the nature of the controversy. ”Their movement became a holy crusade, not the struggle of a few men for the freedom Of the blacks, but a great moral battle for first principles, for God and liberty, for the divine and natural rights of’man."3l Dissatisfaction with the apparent inconsistency be- tween the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the institution of slavery can be found in the speeches and writings of numerous antislavery advocates. At a July 4th, 1826 Jubilee celebration of American independence, in Braintree, Massachusetts, the Reverend Josiah Bent declared that slavery stood in contradiction to the basic principles of American government and the ideas of the Declaration of Independence. Americans could not really celebrate a "Jubilee of freedom" until slavery was abolished.32 Sym- bolic of this contradiction was the fact that free Negroes often celebrated Independence Day on July 5th. Peter Osborne, a Connecticut Negro, in a July 4th oration given 31Russel B. Nye, Fettered Freedom: Civil Liberties and the Slavepy Controversy, 1830-1860 (E.—Lansing, Mich.: Mich. State Univ. Press, 19497, p. 196. 32Rev. Josiah Bent, An Oration Delivered a: Braintree .gp July 4, 1826 (Boston: E. Bellamy, 1826), pp. l9,~l4. 43 on the 5th of July, 1832 noted that free Negroes in the North celebrated July 4th on the following day because the principles of the Declaration had not yet been fully re- alized, i. e., they did not apply to Negroes.33 Writing about Jefferson and the Declaration in his diary in 1819, John Quincy Adams recorded some thoughts which some twelve years later would appear prOphetical: His [Jefferson's] Declaration of Independence is an abridged Alcoran of political doctrine, laying Open the first foundation of civil society; but he does not appear to have been aware that it also laid Open a precipice into which the slaveholding planters of his country sooner or later must fall. With the Declaration of Independence on their lips, and the merciless scourge of slavery in their hands, a more flagrant image of human inconsistency can scarcely be conceived than one of our Southern slaveholding republicans.34 In a July 4, 1829 address to the Park Street Church in Boston another American spoke of the "glaring contradiction, as exists between our creed and practice." Continuing in this vein, he stated that "I am sick of our unmeaning dec- lamation in praise of liberty and equality; of our hypo- critical cant about the inalienable rights of’man."35 At the time he uttered these words, William Lloyd Garrison 33Herbert Aptheker, ed., And Not Ever Man? (Berlin: Seven Seas Publishers, I9 1 , pp. 105, 106. 34Charles Francis Adams, ed., Memoirs 2; John gaincy Adams (14 vols.; Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott and Co., 1874:1877), IV, 492. See also VIII, 299-300. 353. F. Wallcut, ed., Selections From the writin s and Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison (Boston: R. F. ‘WEIlcut, 18527: p. 53. 44 had not yet made a wholehearted commitment to the cause of immediate abolition, but that was soon to come. Garrison was one of the most controversial abolitionist figures and also one of the most important antislavery symbols of his time. While he and his followers were not numerically a powerful force, their ideas had a significant impact upon the crusade against slavery.36 Garrison based his case against slavery upon certain moral assumptions and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. His speeches and writings contain numerous references to the Declaration and its principles. In the same year that Nat Turner led the Southampton insurrection, William Lloyd Garrison launched his famous Liberator. Garrison's first issue on January 1, 1831 made a commitment to the immediate abolition of slavery and quoted the famous second paragraph of the Declaration in support of such action. The Liberator was not widely read in the North, but was made famous by the South's reaction 36Nineteenth and early twentieth-century historians tended to view Garrison as the central figure in the aboli- tionist movement. In 1933, however, Gilbert H. Barnes in his provocative study Tee Antislavery Impulse was strongly critical of Garrison and deemphasized his importance. According to Barnes, Theodore Weld was the prime mover in the antislavery movement. This view has also been reenforced and promoted by Dwight L. Dumond. See, for example, his Antislavery: The Crusade For Freedom ip America (1961). 'Several recent books which attempt to restore Garrison's tarnished image and reemphasize his importance are John L. Thomas' Tee Liberator: William Lloyd Garrison (1963), ‘Walter M. Merrill's Ageinst Wind and Tide (1963) and Aileen S. Kraditor's Means and Ends Te American Abolitionism (1969). 45 to its radical and inflammatory statements. Southern newspapers often reprinted statements from the Liberator 37 which disturbed end enraged slave-owners. At the 1833 convention held in Philadelphia to or- ganize officially the American Anti-Slavery Society, dele- gates adOpted a Declaration of Sentiments. This document, reputedly written by Garrison, quoted at length from the Declaration of Independence. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Sentiments proclaimed that the American system of government was based upon the idea "that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.“ The men who formed the American Anti-Slavery Society made it perfectly clear that their primary purpose was the practi- cal realization of the Declaration's principles. All men should experience the equality and possess the liberty necessary to enjoy the fruits of their labor. One of the concluding thoughts found in the Declaration of Sentiments was that ". . . we [the delegates] plant ourselves upon the Declaration of our Independence and the truths of Divine Revelation, as upon the Everlasting Rock."38 37Wallcut, ep. cit., pp. 62, 63, Tyler, ep. cit., p. 486. 38Wendell P. Garrison and Francis J. Garrison, William Llo d Garrison: .232 Stoyy 2T His Life Told By His ChIIdren vols.; Boston: Houghton, MIfflin and Co., 1885-1889), I, 408, 410, 412. It is interesting to note that aboli- tionists often saw the Declaration of Independence and the Bible as being partners in the same great crusade. 46 While Garrison must be given credit for providing one of the sparks which ignited the antislavery movement, not all men sympathetic to the cause were as radical. Men such as William Ellery Channing, Francis Wayland and John Quincy Adams were much more moderate in their demands, al- though they strongly condemned slavery as deleterious to both whites and blacks. Like Garrison, however, these men often used the principles of the Declaration to support their views. William Ellery Channing's famous,§eeeylee Slavery (1835) was considered one of the most important antislavery tracts of the time. In this work, Channing maintained that all men have rights which are inalienable, unchangeable and not derived from society. Such rights were God-given and pro- hibited the practice of one man owning another as prOperty. Channing noted that the American peOple, in the Declaration of Independence, clearly expressed their belief in the concept of inalienable rights. Americans "published uni- versal, everlasting principles, which are to work out the deliverance of every human being." He also stated that slavery prevented a man from exercising his "fundamental right to inquire into, consult and seek his own happiness."39 39Louis Filler, The Crusade Against Slavery: 1830-1860 (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1963, originally published 1960), p. 101. Benjamin F. Wright, American Interpretations ‘eT Natural Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1931), p. 225. William E. Channing, Slaver (Boston: James Munroe and Co., 1835), pp. 31, 30, 147‘I677I , 46, 49. 47 Not all of Channing's neighbors agreed with his views, as is evident from an article written in Essex County, Mas- sachusetts in 1836. The anonymous author, in reference to Channing's essay, asserted that the idea of inalienable rights was purely subjective "fancy" and that rights in practice were whatever a given community declared them to be.40 Another influential moderate on slavery was the Reverend Francis Wayland, President of Brown University. Wayland's book entitled The Elements e: Moral Science (1835) was very pOpular and became a major American textbook in moral philoSOphy. Wayland believed that the natural rights of man were part of God's moral law. He contended that all men had an equal right to use their mind and body as they saw fit in order to "promote their own happiness" as long as they did not interfere with the rights of others. To support thisview, Wayland quoted the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence on equality and inalienable rights. He also stated that whenever a person or an in- stitution interfered with an individual's rights, his per- sonal liberty had been violated. Closely related to this concept, according to Wayland, was the idea that governments 4OAnonymous, Remarks ea Slaver ey William E. Channing (Boston: John H. Eastburn, 1836), p. 37. 48 derived their power and authority from the consent of the governed.41 Wayland clearly used the principles of the Declaration to support his concept of personal liberty and to criticize the practice of slavery. He implied that the doctrine of personal liberty was not affected by race. Although never officially an abolitionist, John Quincy) Adams strongly believed that slavery was morally wrong. His views on slavery were much closer to men like Benjamin Lundy and Channing than to radicals like Garrison and Phillips. Nevertheless, the Declaration of Independence played an important role in his political philosOphy.42 Whether discussing slavery, the right to petition, or state's rights he inevitably referred to the principles of the Declaration. Adams believed that the main purpose of 41Wright, pp. ei_t_.. . 219. Francis Wayland, Th_e Elements 2T Moral Science $1835), ed. Joseph L. Blau (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1963), pp. 187, 198, 199. Wayland, like other college presidents of his day, taught the senior course in moral philosophy. His book basically dealt with what we today would call ethics. 42It should be noted that Adams had an important influence upon the thinking of many of his contemporaries, especially with regard to the Declaration of Independence. Some of those whom he influenced were Chief Justice Joseph Story, Charles Sumner, William Goodell and Joshua Giddings. See, for example, Joseph Story, Commentaries 2e the Constitution of the United States (2 vols.; Boston: Little, Brown & Co., '1833, 18737, I, 147, 150, 151. Charles Sumner, The Works of Charles Sumner (15 vols.; Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1870-18827, V, 323, , 25. David Donald, Charles Sumner and the Coming 2T the Civil Te; (New York: ‘Alfred A.7Knopf7'I965), p. 153. WIIIiEE‘EEodell, Views 9: American Censtitutional Law (Utica, N. Y.: Lawson & Chaplin, 1845), pp. 137, 138, 139. ‘UEBrge W. Julian, The Life 2: Joshua g, Giddinge (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & 00., 1892), p. 375. 49 government was human betterment, and that the Declaration was symbolic of the fact that man was not only interested in, but capable of progress. Speaking before the Cincinnati Astronomical Society in 1843, he declared "that the form of government founded upon the principle of the natural equality of.mankind, and of which the unalienable rights of individual man are the cornerstone, is the form of government best adapted to the pursuit of happiness, as well of every individual as of the community."43 In one of his many references to slavery, Adams asserted that the founding fathers, including southern patriots, saw the inconsistency between slavery and the principles Of the Declaration. Jefferson was against slavery and other southern, revolutionary leaders never tried to justify it and hOped some day to see its demise. Adams :made these remarks at a Fourth of July celebration in Newburyport, Massachusetts in 1837. During the same oration he noted that the main purpose of assembling that day was not to celebrate independence but to celebrate the pro- clamation of human emancipation: the Declaration of Independence proclaimed "the emancipation of man from the thraldom of’man."44 Adams clearly stated that the Declaration 43Adrienne Koch and William Peden, eds., The Selected ‘Writings 2T John and John 'nc Adams (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946), pp. xxxiii, 4 . 44John Quincy Adams, Ag Oration Delivered before the Inhabitants 2T the Town 2T Newburypprt . . . July 4th, 1837 '(Newburyport, Mass.: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 50, 53, 54. 50 carried the idea of freedom for the slave. Less than a year before he gave his July 4th oration, Adams had become involved in the petition controversy. In 1836 many southern and some northern congressmen, disturbed by abolitionist activities, and wanting to avoid discussion of slavery in Congress had pushed a Gag Rule through the House of Representatives. By this rule petitions were officially received and then permanently tabled. John Quincy Adams was the leading figure in Opposition to this practice, and made numerous references to the Declaration in support of his position.45 Writing to his constituents in.March of 1837, Adams denied charges leveled by his critics that the presentation of antislavery petitions infringed upon the rights of the South, especially the slaveholders. He admitted that to a certain extent the Constitution recognized the right of owning prOperty in slaves, but contended that "they are rights incompatible with the inalienable rights of all mankind, as set forth in the Declaration of Independence . . . ." In the Spring of 1839, Adams denounced the House of Representatives for refusing to consider abolitionist peti- tions and declared that such action violated the self-evident —— 4SSamue1 F. Bemis,'John nc Adams and Egg Union (New York: Alfred A. Kn0pf, 195 , . 345. It was the petition controversy which finally gave abolitionists an issue with which to gain Northern support for their cause. 51 truths of the Declaration.46 When a group of southern Whigs attempted to censure him for his petition activities, he responded by having the Clerk of the House read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration. Adams also per- sonally added that if there is a principle sacred on earth and established by the instrument just read [D. of I; , it is the right of the peOple to alter, to change, to destroy, the government if it becomes oppressive to them. There would be no such right existing if the peOple had not the power in pursuance of that right, to petition for it . . . . I rest that petition on the Declaration of Independence.47 John Quincy Adams therefore basically argued that the right of petition was one of man's inalienable rights and guaran- teed by the Declaration. Like most men with strong convictions attempting to make a point, Adams tended to exaggerate at times. First, while some of the southern, revolutionary leaders may have had reservations about slavery, it does not appear that all or even.most of them saw blatant contradictions between slavery and the Declaration. And while Adams' remark about the Declaration resulting in the emancipation of humanity sounds impressive, it has a hollow ring. In practice, Adams was a moderate on slavery, e. g., he believed that the 46Josiah Quincy, Memoir 2f the Life of John Qgéncy Adams (Boston: Phillips, Sampson & Co., 1859), - . Wrigh , gp. cit., p. 171 47Bemis, gp.lgi§., pp. 430-431 52 states had the right to control slavery where it existed.48 William Lloyd Garrison, a strong critic of Adams, addressed himself to this matter in a July 4th, 1839, oration at South Scituate, Massachusetts. Garrison noted that John Quincy Adams was theoretically an Opponent of slavery, but pointed out that Adams Opposed the abolition Of slavery in the District of Columbia. Adams defended his position by stating that the majority of residents in the District were Opposed to abolition, and to override their will would be to violate the principle of consent of the governed, a fundamental principle of the Declaration. Garrison ac- cepted the idea of consent of the governed, but not if it meant Oppression Of One race by another. Principles lost their validity if they were misinterpreted and abused.49 The main point of this criticism is not to attack or discredit John Quincy Adams, but to demonstrate that Adams moulded and interpreted the principles Of the Declaration to conform to his own beliefs. .This practice, however, was not unique to Adams. One Of the important points which this paper will illustrate is that many men usethhe Declaration not only to support their personal views, but in an incon- 48John Q. Adams, _p. cit., p. 53. 49William Lloyd Garrison, An Address Delivered Before the Anti- lslavery Society at South Scituate, Massachusetts 89 (Boston: Dow and Jackson, 183973 pp. 26, ‘27, 28, 29 Also see George A. Lipsky, John Quincy Adams, His Theor and Ideas (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1950), p. Eiler, l. 220, po 990 53 sistent and contradictory fashion. By the late 1830's radicals such as Garrison had broadened their interpretation Of the Declaration. In a July 4th speech given in 1838, Garrison repeated his demand for the immediate emancipation Of all slaves. He emphati- cally stated that "There are two important truths, which as far as practicable, I mean every slave shall be made to understand. The first is, that he has a right to his free- dom now; the other is, that this is recognized as a self- evident truth in the Declaration Of American Independence." Garrison also implied that slaves had the right to fight for their freedom. Such action would be in the tradition of Nat Turner, and the American Revolution. The American peOple extended this right to all mankind in their 50 Garrison was clearly using Declaration of Independence. the Declaration to support the ideas Of "freedom now" and the individual's right to resist an unjust government. One result of the mounting controversy over slavery, which has already been indicated, was that the Declaration and its principles became the subject of increased discussion. But perhaps more important than this was the fact that such discussion led to increased analysis and criticism of the famous document. Before the 1830's the attention paid to the Declaration Of Independence was not particularly intense or detailed. With the exception of the Missouri debates, —-v 50Walcutt, gp. cit., pp. 190, 191, 192. 54 criticism was limited to casual and isolated incidents.51 But this situation changed as antislavery forces increasingly made use of the Declaration's principles. John Quincy Adams' son Charles Francis Adams writing in 1856 noted that in 1776 and during the Revolution the document was viewed as a justification for independence, but in later years it became important for its ”abstract principles," i. e., political philosophy, and had subsequently been viewed as 52 having a universal application. George Fitzhugh in his famous Sociology for the South (1854) stated that until slavery became such a controversial issue and the abolition- ist movement came into being, the meaning and intention Of the Declaration Of Independence had not been seriously considered. With the rise of the slavery controversy, the basis Of American government and the meaning of the Declaration and similar documents, e. g., the Virginia Bill of Rights became important and crucial questions.53 Proslavery men were put on the defensive by anti- slavery forces in the 1830's because they were placed in the position Of not only having to justify slavery, but of 51See the references to Joseph Clay, John Randolph and Thomas COOper in Chapter II, pp. 27, 35. 52Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works 2f John Adams (10 vols.; Boston: Charles C. Little & James Brown, 1856- 1856 ), I, 235- 53George Fitzhugh, Sociology For the South, 2; the Failure of Free Society(Richmond: 1854, Burt Franklin, ed., 1366 )9 P7177 . 55 having to explain away the Obvious inconsistency between the words Of the Declaration Of Independence and the "peculiar institution." To a great extent their response to abolition- ist attacks and the charge Of inconsistency was to challenge antislavery interpretations Of equality and inalienable rights and to question the actions and intentions Of the founding fathers. Many northern anti-abolitionists also joined Southerners in questioning and criticizing the Declaration because they believed abolitionist activities and use Of the document threatened the nation's unity and stability. James G. Birney, the Alabama slaveowner turned aboli- tionist, in a letter to Ralph R. Gurley dated December 3, 1833, mentioned that southern planters in general rejected the notion that their slaves had any natural rights and believed the concept that "all men are created equal" was "ridiculous nonsense."54 Birney's remarks concerning the IDeclaration's equality clause not only applied to southern planters but to the overwhelming majority Of proslavery apologists whether they were Northerners or Southerners. One of the earliest reSponses to abolitionist inter- pretations Of the Declaration of Independence in the 1830's came from Jarvis Gregg, a Dartmouth College tutor who wrote —i 54Dwight L. Dumond, ed., Letters of James G. Birney: 18 1-18 7 (2 vols.; New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., 193 I, 97. 56 a detailed article on the Declaration in 1834. Gregg, while not actually a proslavery writer, tended to condone slavery in practice. His basic concern was with abolitionists who he felt interpreted and applied the Declaration in a distorted and harmful way.55 Gregg began his article by noting that there had recently been much discussion of slavery, but very little analysis and questioning of principles. Gregg believed that such discussion could only be beneficial and lead to truth if the fundamental principles and accepted axioms being presented were true. Much of the confusion resulting from the slavery controversy, according to Gregg, was due to "the unquestioning admission Of certain principles, which have passed into the mass Of received truths . . . ." One such principle was the notion found in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal." Most men, according to Gregg, agreed that all men were not equal, especially in terms Of physical, intellectual and cultural attributes. But he went one step further and maintained that social and civil inequalities were natural and had always existed. God had in fact established such 55Jarvis Gregg, "Declaration Of Independence" The American Quarterly Observer II (1834). pp. 87, 80, 81, 57, 58, 86, 89. Gregg stated that he was against abusing slaves and did not support slavery as a permanent institution, but he also felt that slavery was not necessarily sinful. Slaves should only be given freedom if such action were beneficial to themselves and society. 57 natural inequalities and distinctions. Gregg believed that while the doctrine Of natural equality was pOpular theory in the United States, Americans had not really adOpted such notions.56 James Kirke Paulding, a prominent novelist and poli— tician from New York, reinforced Gregg's views in a book entitled Slavery in_the United States (1836). He argued that while the Declaration referred to the equality of all men, such equality might be forfeited if a person committed a crime or became a prisoner of war.57 Paulding symbolized the fact that proslavery men were not all Southerners. An outstanding defender of slavery during the 1830's and 1840's, who addressed himself to this issue, was Chancellor William Harper, the South Carolina jurist and political thinker. His response to those who used the equality clause in support of emancipation was, “is it not palpably nearer the truth to say that no man was ever born free, and that no two men were ever born equal." Diversity was the dominant element in society and slavery was quite natural. According to Harper, the notions Of equality and inalienable rights were not only nonsense, but actually 56Ibid., 13p. 49, 53, 54, 55, 58. Gregg suggested that the principles of the Declaration Of Independence were not challenged, but rather accepted On blind faith. He admitted that the Declaration was a noble document, but asked whether the founding fathers were infallible, and maintained that the Declaration's concepts were Open to question. See pp. 50, 52, 53. 57James K. Paulding, Slavery in the United States (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1836), pp. 37, 42, Z§. 58 were a threat to the stability of southern society.58 Harper admitted that the Declaration Of Independence was an important document, but maintained that it should be freely criticized, especially if it contained absurd and erroneous ideas. With regard to the question Of equality, for example, he implied that if the document were not prOperly interpreted and understood it could be a harmful and threat- ening force.59 Harper appears to have influenced another proslavery writer who was concerned about abolitionist use of the Declaration's principles. Daniel K. Whitaker was the publisher of the SOuthern Literary Journal and often printed articles and comments by Harper. In a series Of public letters addressed to William Ellery Channing entitled Sidney's Letters (1837), Whitaker stated that Jefferson had made a mistake when he included the doctrine of equality in the Declaration. The South Carolina publisher believed such an idea was an illusion and threatened the nation's stability.6O One of the South's most famous antebellum novelists, William Gilmore Simms, in response to abolitionist claims, —— 58Chancellor William Harper, Memoir on Slavery, Read Before the Societ for the Advancement 2f igarning 2; South :garolina, 1837 (aharleston: James S. Burges, 1 3 ), p. 6, 9. 59%.: PP. 6: 9- ’ 60 Daniel K. Whitaker, Sidney's Letters to William E. Channing (Charleston: Edward c. Councell, 183777—557‘51, 52. —.‘ 59 also commented upon the meaning and validity of the equality clause. In his essay entitled The Morals 3f Slavery (1837), he stated that the concept was a fine sounding idea, but in actuality was vague and erroneous. Reiterating earlier proslavery arguments he noted that contrary to the Declaration, men were not created equal. The “endless varieties" and "boundless inequalities" of God's creation were evidence Of this.61 Simms, however, went further than.many of his fellow proslavery supporters by suggesting what the equality doc- rine actually meant tO the revolutionary generation, rather than just pointing Out the flaws and absurdity Of such a concept. He asserted that the founding fathers used the equality clause in a limited sense. What they really meant by "all men are created equal" was that Americans were equal to Englishmen in physical and intellectual abilities, that Americans deserved equal rights, and should be allowed to govern themselves. In another variation On the equality theme, Simms maintained the founding fathers also believed that in God's eyes all men were equal, and that each person in his proper place, living up to his potential and ful- filling his duties, had an equal right to society's security and protection. Simms strongly emphasized the idea of the 61William Gilmore Simms, "The Morals Of Slavery," The Pro-Slavery Ar ent (Charleston: Walker, Richards and Co., 1852), pp. 25%, 251. 60 individual maintaining his prOper place. At one point in his remarks on equality and the Declaration he asserted that the founding fathers never understood the principles of the document in a literal or unqualified sense. He was certain that the revolutionary leaders never intended the Declaration to signify more than his own exposition of its meaning.62 Another proslavery response tO the doctrine of equality, as used by abolitionists, was to deny its application to Negro slaves. In his book on slavery, James Kirke Paulding maintained that the Declaration's reference to equality was not intended tO include slaves.‘ The provisions Of American constitutions and declarations only included slaves within their meaning when the word slave was Specifically mentioned. According to Paulding, many slaves had also lost their freedom long before they came to America.63 Paulding concluded his remarks on the Declaration and equality by stating that the document "was not an elaborate .metaphysical discussion Of human rights, but a mere assertion Of great general principles; and to have enumerated all the exceptions would have been giving the world a volume in folio, instead Of a simple declaration Of rights. The charge Of inconsistency between our principles and practice, 62Ibid., pp. 252, 258, 253. Simms also noted that the Declaration had been a controversial document for quite some time and a final decision on its meaning was a long way off. 63Pau1ding,‘_p, 233., pp. 43, 44. 61 is therefore entirely unfounded."64 Like other proslavery writers, Paulding believed that for the Declaration to be meaningful, it had to be prOperly interpreted. While discussing the Declaration's equality clause in his book The South Vindicated (1836), William Drayton of South Carolina suggested that abolitionists were not Objec- tive in their criticism of slavery and that they frequently referred tO abstractions and axioms without giving thought to the practical effects Of what they advocated. He quoted James R. Burden, president of the Pennsylvania State Senate, to help support his contention that antislavery men had perverted the meaning Of Jefferson's famous paper. Burden's point was simply that slavery was not inconsistent with colonial independence and freedom. If the signers of the Declaration believed slavery was inconsistent with colonial freedom, why had they not emancipated the slaves? Burden also stated, according to Drayton, that slavery continued to exist after the adOption of the Constitution and was actually protected by that document.65 Drayton's use Of Burden's Opinions served two purposes- 64Ibid., p. 43. 65James R. Burden was not so much a proslavery sup- porter as he was an antiabolitionist. Like many Northerners in the 1830's he believed that abolitionists were a threat to the Union. See Lorman Ratner, Powder Ke : Northern Opposition 19 the Antislaverprovement, 1 31-1840 (New York: 'Basic Books Inc., I968), pp. 55, 73. William Drayton, The South Vindicated From the Treason and Fanaticism of The 'NOrthern Abolitionists-(Philadelphia: H. Manly, I83377 3p. 80, 83, 84. 62 They supported his own views regarding the Declaration and also demonstrated that Northerners as well as Southerners held such Opinions. The South Carolinian's main point, however, was that the principles Of the Declaration were not intended to include Negroes and that abolitionists had misinterpreted the document. Another method used by proslavery and antiabolitionist writers to counter antislavery arguments was to challenge the concept Of inalienable rights. Jarvis Gregg believed that men did have certain rights, but whether they were inalienable was another question. Rights, in Gregg's view, were social and conventional rather than absolute. He rejected Jefferson's notion that men had certain civil and political rights which could not be limited or alienated, and that if attempts were made to suppress these rights the individual had the right to resist or resort tO revo- lution. Gregg contended that the right to life was not inalienable because in many states if a person committed a crime he might forfeit his life. And if a society was threatened by military force a man might be required to sacrifice his life in defense of the community.66 Neither was the right to liberty absolute. PeOple were not free to always do as they pleased. Men were forced to serve in the military, children were subject to parental 66Gregg, _p, cit., pp. 60, 66, 67, 68. 63 authority and qualifications were established for voting. According to Gregg, a man could not claim the right to life, liberty and equality on the basis Of his humanity. A man had to prove that "this or that [right or action] will at the same time promote both his own and the general good."67 It is interesting to observe that many of the pro- slavery apologists from the 1830's through the Civil War used arguments quite similar to those presented by Gregg. While Gregg may not have originated these criticisms of inalienable rights, he did present a detailed eXpOsition Of arguments which would become a basic part Of the proslavery repertory. William Gilmore Simms questioned the validity Of inalienable rights as found in the Declaration of Independence and noted that such rights were alienated every day. Men constantly forfeited their lives by committing crimes and lost their liberty for other Offenses. Paulding believed that all men had certain natural rights, but this did not mean that society could not take a human life to protect itself, nor that in pursuing one's happiness, one could interfere with the rights of others. Chancellor Harper suggested that the idea of inalienable rights was ambiguous and pointed out that the laws of society were in fact 67Ibid., pp. 68, 69, 72. 64 designed to restrain men in what they might decide was 9\ their pursuit Of happiness. Society at times had to deprive men of their rights for its own security. The issue of privileges and rights, he concluded, was not based upon the abstract idea of natural rights, but upon convention and tradition, i. e., what society decided was sound, safe and expedient.68 Defenders of the "peculiar institution" also answered the abolitionist charge Of inconsistency by questioning the actions and intentions of the revolutionary leaders. Men such as Harper, Simms, and Whitaker believed that the founding fathers were carried away by the revolutionary fervor Of the times and were not really in a good position to lay down philOSOphical principles. Simms' comments in _ M 1837 were perhaps representative of this view. He wrote: "They [the founding fathers] were much excited, nay rather angry, in the days Of the 'declaration,' and hence it is what they alleged to be self evident thgg, is, at this time, when we are comparatively cool, a source of very great doubt and disputation." Simms also suggested that one should not take the\g:neializatignssgfiths\Desla£gtion tOO seriously. They were brief and purposely exaggerated because the colonists were attempting to gain the attention and support 68Simms, _p. cit., p. 259. Paulding, _p. cit., p. 43. Harper, gp. cit., pp. 8, 9, 10, 7. 65 of other nations.69 Whitaker was critical of peOple, especially abolition- ists, who used the Declaration and did not consider the circumstances under which it was written. The true purpose Of the Declaration was to justify colonial separation in light of British Oppression. Whitaker stated, for example, that He Jefferson had reference therefore, we may suppose, to states and nations, and not to individuals, when he spoke of the equality of mankind and their right to liberty. All men, in their natural, or state capacity, were equally entitled, and equally at liberty, to rid themselves of Oppression, and act for themselves, -- a right which, as individual citizens, they did not possess and could not exercise, as against an established government.7 This statement not Only expressed Whitaker‘s idea of the true purpose Of the Declaration, but conveniently eliminated the Negro slave's demand for freedom since the equality clause supposedly did not apply to individuals. In a subtle way it also reinforced the concept Of state's rights. The writings Of slavery apologists reveal some signi- ficant facts regarding the South's conception Of the Declaration Of Independence. Proslavery writers tended to view the Declaration cautiously and in a critical light. Praise for the Declaration, if expressed at all, tended to be restrained and qualified. While not revered, it does 698imms, pp. 313., pp. 250—251, 253. 70Daniel K. Whitaker, "Channing's Duty of the Free States," Southern Quarterly Review (July, 1842), P. 156. 66 appear to have been respected by many Southerners, especi- ally as a document justifying colonial independence.71 For the Declaration to be admired and respected by Southerners, however, it had to be properly interpreted and understood. And on this point problems arose. As inter- preted by the abolitionists it became to most Southerners a meaningless and absurd document, an antislavery manifesto. Proslavery writers such as Drayton and Simms believed the Declaration should not be taken too seriously and that its generalizations had to be qualified. But they did not reject it. What they did reject was the abolitionist inter- pretation of the Declaration.72 Other writers such as Harper and Whitaker were more severe in their criticism of the Declaration. Deeply dis- turbed by the antislavery interpretation of the Declaration, they strongly attacked the document's principles, and even Jefferson himself. These writers, however, also did not totally reject the Declaration.73 There are other sources of information which lend 71For evidence that Southerners primarily associated the Declaration with separation from.Great Britain see Whitaker, "Channing' s Duty of the Free States, " p. 156, Harper, 2p, cit., p. 6. Simms, 2p, cit., p. 252. Also see my references to John C. Calhoun in Chapter III,;» 80. 72 . . Dra yton, ° °1t° PP- 80: 83 84 Simms . Olt. pp. 252 253, 257722581— ’ ’ ’ _P_ _ , 73Whitaker, "Channing's Duty of the Free States," p. 156. Harper, 2p. cit., p. 6. 67 support to the idea that Southerners did not completely reject the Declaration Of Independence. One contemporary historian has pointed out the strong southern attachment to the concept of liberty, often symbolized in July 4th celebrations. Right up to the Civil War the Fourth of July continued to be an important patriotic celebration in the South. A typical southern July 4th toast to the Union went as follows: "The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the U. S. -- Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable." During;Fourth of July ceremonies the Declaration was almost always read as a prelude to formal orations, and Southerners often.made references to the famous paper during or in commenting upon such celebrations. Another reason why Southerners did not completely disapprove of the Declaration was that its principles proved useful in supporting state's rights and secession arguments.74 Another interesting aspect of the Declaration's his- tory in the 1830's was that criticism of the document was not limited to SOutherners. Northerners such as Jarvis Gregg, James Burden and James Kirke Paulding Openly questioned the Declaration and especially rejected it as interpreted by 74Charles G. Sellers, "The Travail of Slavery," The Southerner g§_American (1960), Bobbs Merrill Reprint (H—l94), pp. 40, 4T, 42, 43. ‘Fietcher M. Green, "Listen to the Eagle Scream: One Hundred Years of the Fburth of July in North Carolina (1776-1876)," North Carolina Historical Review (July, October, 1954). pp. 36—‘5‘4, 34, 536. See Chapter I, pp..l4-l6. 68 the abolitionists. They appear to have been more concerned about abolitionists than slavery. A Senate speech given by Henry Clay on February 7th of 1839 indicates that criti- cism of abolitionists could also be found in western states. Like the majority of Americans during this period, excluding Southerners, Clay gravitated towards a compromising or middle position. In years past he had admitted that slavery was a moral evil and had supported efforts to eliminate the institution. In his speech on February 7th he reiterated the point that he was "no friend of slavery." However, by 1839 he was also Opposed to Negro emancipation for several reasons, one of which was that he did not believe whites and blacks could live together in peace and equality. Abolitionists were fomenting revolution rather than peace- ful reform. Immediate emancipation would be disastrous. According to Clay, in places where blacks outnumbered whites, the blacks would use the principles of the Declaration, such as the peOple's right to change, alter or abolish government to establish a new government which would be Oppressive toward whites. He was therefore critical Of abolitionists and stated that by "elevating themselves to a sublime but impracticable philOSOphy, they would teach us to eradicate all the repugnances Of our nature, and to take to our bosoms and our boards, the black man as we do the white, 69 on the same footing of equal social condition."75 In essence men like Gregg, Burden, Paulding and Clay were representative of many Northerners and Westerners who feared that abolitionist activities threatened the Union and stability of American society. Antislavery agitation not only alienated the South, but might lead to disunion or even social chaos.76 In brief then, the 1830's saw the antislavery move- ment adOpt the Declaration of Independence and its principles as a primary rationale in support of their cause; clearly using it to conform to their own ideas and purposes. Such action provoked a strong southern reaponse which was ex- tremely critical of the Declaration as interpreted by the abolitionists. The majority of Southerners, however, did not_reject the Declaration per so. They associated the document primarily with colonial separation from Great Britain, and also used it at times to support the state's rights doctrine. The antislavery interpretation of the Declaration also elicited criticism from Northerners and 75D Mallor 1 . y, ed., The Life Egg S eeches of Henr Cla (2 vols.; Philadelphia: 'LEEry and Getz, I859),_II, 39 , 402, 407-410, 418, 594, 595, 414. Filler, pp, cit., pp. 100, 150. With the elections of 1840 close at hand UTEy may have been trying to appease Southerners by strongly criti- cizing abolitionists and Opposing the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 76Lorman Ratner in his book Powder Keg (1968) dis- cusses Northern Opposition to abolitionism, See especially pages 51-87. 7O Westerners who either supported slavery or feared that abolitionists were a threat to American society. CHAPTER III CONSTITUTIONAL ABOLITIONISTS SPEAK OUT: 1840's The decade of the 1840's witnessed several develOp- ments regarding slavery which distinctly set that decade apart from the 1830's and which also had an important in— fluence upon the Declaration's history. To begin with, a substantial number of abolitionists came to believe that speeches, writings and petitions were not sufficient. Some kind of political action would be needed to rid the nation of slavery. At the national meetings Of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1839 and 1840 there was increasing friction between the politically minded abolitionists and the Garrisonians. The basic issues which split these groups were: (1) criticism of the churches, (2) the role of women in the movement, and (3) the need for a political party devoted to abolition.1 The result was that the American Anti-Slavery Society split apart in 1840, and many of the political abolitionists worked at organizing and lLouis Filler, The Crusade Against Slavegy: 1830-1860 (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1963), pp. 135, 142. Louis Filler, ed., Wendell Phillips pg Civil Rights and Freedom, p. 28. Jacobus ten Brock, Equal Under Lag: ‘Ihg Antislavegy Origins 2f the Fourteenth Amendment rev. ed.; New York: olller Books, I951, I965), p. 1367 71 72 strengthening the Liberty party which strongly identified itself with the Declaration's doctrines. A second develOpment closely related to the first wasthe emergence of a small group of abolitionists who were generally interested in political action and who as- serted constitutionally radical views. The Declaration of Independence and its principles were an important element in their constitutional theories, and in the antislavery politics of the period. These two develOpments then will be major tOpics of discussion in this chapter. During the same decade, antislavery supporters and proslavery apologists continued to debate the meaning and importance of the Declaration's political philosOphy. And as in the 1830's (the question of equality and the charge "xv” that slavery was inconsistent with the principles of the Declaration continued to be major points of controversy with, however, some new variations.) As was mentioned in the preceding chapter, Southerners were not the only persons to criticize abolitionist objec- tives and their use of the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay, for example, was not so much a critic of the Declaration, as he was of abolitionist interpretations of that document. In a Richmond, Indiana speech in October of 1842 Clay admitted that the Declaration was a great statement of abstract principles, but noted that concepts such as equality were impossible to achieve in a realistic 73 and practical sense. He especially rejected the abolitionist contention that one of the main objectives of the Declaration was to abolish slavery. Southern states would never have adOpted a declaration whose purpose was to abolish slavery. According to Clay, to assert that such was one of the Declaration's aims was to charge the signers with political fraud and hypocritical conduct. He concluded his argument on this point by stating that "if the doctrines of ultra political abolitionists had been seriously promulgated at the epoch of our Revolution, our glorious Independence would never have been achieved -- never, never."2 One of the most famous northern critics of the Declaration was Orestes A. Brownson, a political thinker and writer. Like Henry Clay he too eXpressed concern over antislavery interpretations of Jefferson's paper. In an 1843 article entitled the "Origin and Ground of Government" he stated that the Declaration was a patriotic and admirable document, But the principles laid down as self-evident truths in the preamble of the instrument by which independence was declared, were not only not called for as the ground of the justification of the measure, but were, to say the least, of questionable soundness, and have led to the adoption by a large portion of our peOple, of theories practically incompatible with government itself, and 2D. Mallory, ed., The Life and S eechesBOfH01a (2 vols.; Phila.: Leary 8E fiétzf—8 l 5 .621593, 594. Clay' s comments about the Declaration and abolition appear to be a sharp reaction to the views of political abolitionists such as Alvan Stewart, George Mellen and Lysander Spooner. See pp. 86-95 of this chapter for their ideas on this question. 74 everything like social order. One such "questionable" notion was the idea that "all men are created equal." Regardless of the fact that Americans constantly repeated this idea, Brownson did not believe it was a self-evident truth.u According to him, the only real sense in.which men were equal was in their account- ability to God.3 Richard Ely Selden, the New Yorker who wrote Criticism pp the Declaration 2; Independence (1846), did not believe slavery could be justified and wanted to see the practice abolished. He maintained, however, that abolitionists would have a stronger case against slavery if they omitted from their arguments the idea of equality and other so-called 3Henry F. Brownson, ed., Th2 Works gf Orestes A. Brownson (20 vols.; Detroit: Thorndike Nourse, 1882;1887), XV, 329. 330- It is interesting to note that in the 1830's Brownson was a radical Jacksonian Democrat with anti-capitalist views who identified himself with the working classes and supported labor reform and extending the suffrage. In an 1834 July 4th oration he strongly affirmed the doctrine of equality, suggested that true equality and freedom were yet to be realized in America, and although he did not lavishly praise the Declaration, he did not criticize it. See Orestes A. Brownson, Ag Address Delivered g3 Dedham, July 4th, 1834 (Dedham, Mass.: H. Mann, 1834), pp. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9,_IO. By the 1840's, however, he had become more conservative, a trend which appears to have continued throughout his life. While Brownson admitted slavery was theoretically evil, he appears to have condoned the institution in practice. By 1838, he believed abolitionists represented a more serious evil and was extremely critical of their ideas and objectives. Abolitionist claims were not only unrealistic, but posed a threat to true liberty. See Arthur M. Schlesinger's, Orestes A. Brownson: {A Pil im's Progress (New York: Octagon Books, 1939, 1963), pp. 79, 80. 75 self-evident truths. In analyzing the Declaration, Selden concentrated on its famous second paragraph which he felt was the most confusing and the most often quoted. Selden suggested that the nation's dignity and honor were deni- grated "for thus publishing to the world in our first and gravest document, this swelling axiom, [the equality clause] as contemptible for its inapplicability, as for its false- hood." According to Selden, many readers, and even Jefferson, had vague notions about the self-evident truths of the Declaration. He questioned whether Jefferson actu- ally believed in the statement that "all men are created equal." To begin with, the statement could not be proved and Jefferson himself continued to own slaves after writing it. Furthermore, no government in the world had ever treated men as though they were equals. All of’man's knowledge and experience indicated the contrary.4 Since Selden was an antislavery supporter with rather interesting views, and one who discussed the Declaration's principles in elaborate detail, his ideas merit further examination. Besides questioning the doctrine of equality Selden also challenged the notion of inalienable rights, giving the standard arguments on the issue. But he did add an important argument of his own. He said that an abstract 4Richard E. Selden, Criticism on the Declaration p; Inde endence, as_§ Literagy Documenf.(New York: The News Offices, I846), pp. 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 39. 76 right to something like life or liberty was worthless and absurd unless one actually had possession of such rights. He cited the right to liberty which slaves had, according to the Declaration, as an example of this. Selden concluded his argument on this point by stating that rights to things one has not got, and cannot get; are just equal to no rights at all. The magnificent parade in the Declaration, of inalienable rights to life and liberty therefore, are but a rhetorical cheat - a fiction of the s0phist's brain.5 Selden also went on to suggest that if Jefferson really believed in the principles of equality and inalien- able rights there would have been no need to include the idea that governments are instituted to secure these rights. If the previously mentioned rights were so absolute and inalienable, why was "human government" necessary? Selden's eXplanation of the contradictions and nonsense which he found in the Declaration was that Jefferson did not have a clear understanding of what he wrote about. But his gravest error "lay in his attempt to mgkg truths." Selden's at- titude toward the Declaration can be summed up in the following remark: "I must say, a more crude and profitless jumble of words, than fills the passages in the forepart of the Declaration, is nowhere to be found in any State document north of Mason and Dixon's line."6 ———— 5Ibid., pp. 19, 20, 21. 6ibid., p. 24, 25. 77 Selden's thoughts on the Declaration of Independence are interesting primarily because they are so unique. He was not only a Northerner, but had strong antislavery views. It evidently bothered him that so much antislavery literature referred to the Declaration. He firmly believed that the abolitionists could have strengthened their case if they had stOpped using the so-called self-evident truths of the document.7 To Selden it logically followed that absurd rationales would result in absurd arguments. Many Americans, however, did not perceive this, or, if they did, they chose to ignore it. , The vast majority Of Southerners, on the other hand, would readily endorse Selden's logic concerning absurd rationales. One such individual was Charles F2 Mercer, the Virginia congressman and critic of the Declaration, who exPressed his views in a book called Ap_Exposition 2f the Government 3; the United State_s_ (1845). Although a Southerner, Mercer was a staunch Unionist, who had strong reservations about slavery. He actively supported colonization and worked in behalf of abolishing the slave trade. Mercer, nevertheless, asserted that because the Declaration was so revered and admired it had not been generally exposed to criticism. He argued that the document contained faults and errors. For instance, one of its most serious falsehoods 7Ibid., pp. 15, 22, 39. These pages also contain evidence of Selden's antislavery views. 78 was its statement of equality. According to Mercer, men could not and should not be equal. He believed that those who did not have a stake in society, such as prOperty, should not be allowed the same power and influence in governing society.8 Mercer's basic point was that it would be better for the country and its government if peOple would be objective and recognize the Declaration for what it was. It was an important and useful document, but it contained some errone- ous concepts which should be recognized and left Open to criticism. Such action could only strengthen the nation and its character. Other Southerners such as James H. Hammond and John C. Calhoun, both from South Carolina, did not share Mercer's reservations concerning slavery and were in fact leading defenders of the "peculiar institution" during the 1830's and 1840's. They did, however, agree with Mercer regarding the Declaration and the doctrine of equality. Hammond in his Letters 2h Slavery (1845) strongly rejected the natural rights philosoPhy and abstract notions of equality being advocated by the antislavery forces of the period.9 8Charles F. JMercer, An Exposition Lf the Weakness and Inefficiengy of the Government of the United States Lf NOrth America-T184 5), pp. 235, 236. 9James H. Hammond, "Hammond's Letters on Slavery," The Pro-Slaver Argument; As Maintained hy the MLst Distinguished writers 0 the Southern —States (Charleston: Walker & Richards & Co., 18527__pp. 104, 110. William S. Jenkins, Pro-Slaver Thought in the Old South (Chapel Hill, S. C.: The Univ. 0 N. Carolina Press,119355: PP. 127, 128. I‘ a de H "E’ U- 79 John C. Calhoun held a corresponding view of such ideas and his strongest attack on the principles of the Declaration can probably be found in his speech on the Oregon bill in June of l848. Calhoun stated that the idea that "all men are born free and equal" had become axiomatic in.the minds of many peOple and posed a serious threat to the Union. He noted furthermore that the concept "as now expressed and understood, is the most false and dangerous of all political errors." Since the prOposition was under- stood by many in a literal sense, it should be criticized on that basis. He suggested, for example, that men were not born free since they were dependent and subject to their parents until maturity. And as for equality, it was quite obvious that the natural condition of men was one of in- equality.10 This, however, was not the main point of Calhoun's argument. He suggested that the pOpular notion that "all men are born free and equal," grew out of the equality clause found in the Declaration of Independence. The popularity of the doctrine was due in part to the fact that it was associated with the famous Declaration. Calhoun maintained, jhowever, that the equality clause was included in the ,Declaration'without good reason: “It made no necessary lORichard K. Cralle, ed., The Works 9; John 2. Calhoun (6 vols.; New York: D. Appleton 8c Co., 1854-‘8'1 5‘7), I , 507, 508. v.» «7‘4 F ‘a I trots ‘53, 54.6t 1131 f i. CIETQ 80 part of our justification in separating from the parent country, and declaring ourselves independent." British Oppression and violations of American rights were sufficient causes. It is perhaps significant to note that Orestes Brownson had advanced a similar argument some years earlier. Calhoun, continuing his criticism of the equality principle, stated that the absurd doctrine had done more than anything else "to retard the cause Of liberty and civilization." He believed it was a great mistake to have allowed such a false and destructive idea to be written into the Declaration. America would have to pay a price for its blunder.ll While critical of some of the Declaration's principles and indirectly of its illustrious author, Calhoun did not completely reject the Declaration. Thomas Hart Benton in his Thirty lgagg‘zigg_(l856) reported that early in 1849, a group of southern congressmen led by Calhoun sought to protest their dissatisfaction with current antislavery agitation. The group drew up a manifesto of southern grievances which resembled and was referred to as a "second Declaration of Independence."12 lllbid., pp. 508, 511, 512. Brownson, _p..g;1., KN} pp. 325, 330. Calhoun like other Southerners primarily associated the Declaration of Independence with the act of colonial independence. 12Thomas H. Benton, Thirt Years View (2 vols.; New 'York: D. Appleton & Co., 1855), II, 733. 734. Calhoun's 'use of the Declaration with respect to the question Of state's rights reveals that he could utilize the famous document if it suited his purposes. See, for example, Cralle, _pp.2££-, I, 115, 116, 123, 124; VI, 107-109. CH Ct ‘FL ‘ih c 5H9 Elk 05 N3»\\ 81 Contemporaries of Calhoun, who held different views on equality and the Declaration were Charles Sumner and Theodore Parker. Sumner was a leader of the Massachusetts "conscience" Whigs, a founder of the Republican party and an outstanding antislavery spokesman in the Senate during the 1850's. Sumner became actively involved in the anti- slavery crusade during the late 1840's. It was around this same time that he came under the influence of John Quincy Adams, adOpting many of the latter's views, including those concerning the Declaration of Independence.13 In the case of SaraL Q. Roberts vs. the City 2; Boston (1849), Sumner, acting in behalf of the plaintiff, argued before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts that separate schools for black children were unconstitutional. A.major part of Sumner's presentation dealt with the question of equality. Stressing the importance of this concept, he criticized John C. Calhoun for stating that the claim to equality found in the Declaration of Independence was "the most false and dangerous of all political errors." Sumner emphasized the importance Of equality before the law and quoted from the preamble of the Declaration to support his view. While agreeing that all men were not equal in terms of physical and mental ability, he quickly pointed Out that such inequality was not "inconsistent with complete civil l3David Donald, Charles Sumner and the Coming g; the Civil War (New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1955), p. 153. 82 and political equality." Continuing in this vein, he as- serted that "the equalitydeclared by our fathers in 1776, and made the fundamental Law Of Massachusetts in 1780, was Equality before 3L§.L§!." One of the main objectives of the Declaration Of Independence and the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, according to Sumner, had been to abolish civil and political distinctions and privileges in American society.14 If men did not have equal access to political and social rights, the fundamental principles of American government as found in the Declaration were repudiated. While the court ruled against the plaintiff, Sumner made his case and would be heard from again. Theodore Parker, the Boston abolitionist and Unitarian minister, like Charles Sumner, revered the Declaration Of Independence and believed that all men, black and white, should enjoy political and social equality. Like Sumner, Parker was as concerned about northern attitudes towards equality and the Declaration, as he was about southern views. In a speech before the New England Antislavery Convention in Boston on May 31, 1848 he noted that peOple claimed they believed in freedom and the principles of the Declaration such as equality, and yet somehow managed to see the Negro as an exception to those principles. PeOple maintained, for l4Charles Sumner, The Works 2; Charles Sumner (15 vols.; Boston: Lee & Shepard, 1870-1882), II, 331, 32§, 340, 341. 83 example, that the compromises of the Constitution had to be respected. Parker's main point was that there was a basic inconsistency between what Americans professed to believe and what they practiced. He asserted that the abolitionist response to this problem was to instill the principles of the Declaration "into the minds of the peOple, knowing that if it be there, actions will follow fast enough."15 While the Declaration's doctrine of equality was one of the major points of controversy in the debates over slavery it was not the only principle proclaimed by the document which came into question. The proclamation of 1776 also referred to the peOple's right to "alter" or "abolish" government. Abolitionists, at times, made use of this principle to justify changing the nature of American society in order to realize freedom and equality for the Negro. William.Lloyd Garrison, it will be recalled, in a July 4th,l838 speech.maintained that the right to freedom was recognized as a self-evident truth in the Declaration of Independence. Drawing an analogy between the colonial struggle for independence and slavery, he declared that "if any man has a right to fight for liberty, this right 15Theodore Parker, Speeches, Addresses and Occasional Sermons (3 vols.; Boston: Horace B. Fuller, 1855,71860), II, 34:, 3450 r...— Hr“ tirl It '3‘ ply 3: x h .. . ._‘ 0.. 1)!!! 84 equally extends to all men subjected to bondage." Garrison implied that slaves had the right to fight for their free- dom. The Declaration of Independence, according to Garrison, had clearly proclaimed the right to resist or change govern- ment when it failed in its purpose.16 Obviously not all Americans agreed with the ideas expressed by Garrison. Orestes Brownson, for example,}in his "Origin and Ground of Government" questioned the peOple's right to resist, alter or abolish government. Whether such a right was legitimate depended upon how the word ”peOple" was defined. According to BrOwnson, if it were defined just as individuals, or a group of individuals, it was not valid. Only when the term "peOple” was used in the sense of a body politic or political community, as legally con- vened in a constitutional convention, for example, could the "peOple" legitimately)alter or abolish government.l7 Some Americans, however, would disagree with Brownson's exposition of this principle. Henry David Thoreau in his famous essay on Civil DisObedience (1849) supported the idea of abolitionists withdrawing their support from the government of Massachusetts if they felt bound by conscience F7 15R. F. Wallcut, ed., Selections From the Writings aLd Speeches of William Lloyd Garrison (Boston: R. F. Wallcut, 18527" p"p".—I‘U, 191,192. 17Brownson, 2p. cit., XV, 330, 331. Browgson also noted that since the colonists were not rebelli g against their own colonial governments the right to revolution was unnecessarily included in the Declaration. 1.1a Ayhv r»; SH 1.1 ‘h. Eu v vie \u 85 to do so. Thoreau maintained that "all men recognized the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its 18 Thoreau's inefficiency are great and unendurable." conception of this principle was much more individualisti- cally oriented than Brownson's. Every man had the right to follow his individual conscience in such matters. Going one step further than Thoreau, a pamphlet pub- lished by the New England Anti-Slavery Convention in 1843 argued that the slaves had every right under the Declaration of Independence "to wage war," if necessary, against their masters in order to obtain their rights and freedom. The pamphlet noted that the Declaration specifically stated that if government became destructive of its purpose, peOple had a right to change and or abolish it.19 This review of the Declaration during the 1840's has thus far revealed some interesting points. To begin with, the document continued to serve as an important rationale in the antislavery argument and therefore continued to be a source of controversy. As in the 1830's the Declaration's preamble was challenged on philosOphical grounds as well T 18Henry David Thoreau, Walden and Civil Disobedience ed. Sherman Paul (Boston: The Riverside Press, 19477. pp. 244, 238. 19William H. Pease and Jane H. Pease, eds.; The Antislavery Argg%ent (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill 50., 1965), pp. 21 9 7o I‘M-V. km H‘ \ “fwd MN“ ' 86 as from the point of view that the founding fathers had never intended the meaning which abolitionists gave to such principles. Second, some of the Declaration's leading critics were not proslavery supporters, but men who had reservations about slavery, or even strong antislavery views, as for example, Charles Mercer and Richard Selden. Third, one of the most disputed elements of the Declaration's political philos0phy continued to be the doctrine of equality. Men like Charles Sumner implied, for example, that equality before the law had been made a part of the fundamental law of the land by the Declaration. Finally, while the concepts of equality and inalienable rights were frequently invoked, antislavery men also at times made use of the document's right to revolution doctrine. While some abolitionists talked about the right to revolution very few were actually ready to put such a principle into practice.20 During the late 1830's, however, an increasing number of abolitionists came to believe that rhetoric alone would not rid the nation of slavery. Some kind of political action.was needed and hence the Liberty party was organized. 201n the late 1850's a militant group of abolitionists including men such as Theodore Parker, Thomas Wentworth Higginson and Gerrit Smith appear to have supported John Brown's revolutionary attempt to emancipate the slaves of Virginia. See Filler, Crusade égainst Slaver , pp. 268-270. .l- a: . . .1. ..C r\ .(v .r . De Mi 5U O MK v». Cu NI.“ «5 AC .r, . 01¢ xc \ :N QM r. exiy Nuts a. a 87 Closely related to this develOpment was the emergence of a small group of politically and constitutionally minded abolitionists who increasingly vocalized their somewhat radical views of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The ideas of Alvan Stewart, George Mellen, Lysander Spooner, William Goodell and James G. Birney significantly influenced antislavery thought. One of the remaining objectives of this chapter therefore will be to examine how this group of abolitionists used the Declaration in their constitutional arguments. Although the views of Stewart and others were widely publicized within antislavery circles, they were often con- sidered too extreme to be adOpted as official abolitionist 21 These men were not, however, radicals in the policy. same sense as William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips. The latter condemned the Constitution since it sanctioned slavery, urged disunion, and attempted to persuade fellow abolitionists not to vote or hold office. On the other hand, the conStitutional abolitionists, as they will hence- forth be called, viewed the Constitution as an antislavery document, and were less extreme in the choice of actions 21While their works gained wide circulation within antislavery circles they were often a source of controversy. See Jacobus tenBroek, Equal Under Law: The Antislavery Origins of the Fourteenth Amendment—(New Ybrk: ’Collier Books, l§§l,‘l965), p. 72. Also note criticism by William Bowditch and Wendell Phillips of Lysander Spooner's views further along in this chapter. - R\b :: .v Ir... \~ - a \ T.‘ ual. \( ‘3‘ », K I‘. ‘ a: his 1‘ .0 CV .\ ... 88 they advocated to eradicate slavery.22 One of the most important figures in this group was Alvan Stewart, a leading abolitionist from Utica, New York who organized the New York Anti-Slavery Society in 1835, and urged abolitionists to political action in the late 1830's. A contemporary historian notes that he was the first person to maintain that Congress had the con— stitutional authority and duty to eliminate slavery every- where in the Union.23 Stewart's theory and his interpreta- tion of the Constitution as an antislavery document had a great impact upon the constitutional abolitionists, who elaborated upon his constitutional ideas in the 1840's. The main sources with which Stewart attacked slavery were the Declaration of Independence, the guarantee clause of the Constitution (Article IveSec. 4.)and.the Fifth 22Aileen S. Kraditor in Means and Ends in American Abolitionism, Garrison and His Critics 3g Strate and Tactics, 183421850 (New York: Pantheon Books, 19 77T‘p. 8 makes an important distinction between abolitionists. Radical abolitionists were those "who like Garrison, be- lieved that American society, North as well as South, was fundamentally immoral, with slavery only the worse of its many sins, and looked forward to a thorough-going change in its institutional structure and ideology." Conservative abolitionists were those "who were reformers rather than radicals in that they considered Northern society fundamen- tally good and believed the abolition of slavery would eliminate a deviation from its essential goodness and thereby strengthen and preserve its basically moral arrange- ments." According to this distinction.men such as Stewart, Mellen, Spooner, Goodell and Birney would fall into the latter group. 23tenBroek, _p, cit.. pp. 281, 67. “ad “U. n . nu. an. 2K. .‘ 89 Amendment.24 Although his views of the Declaration were not as extreme as some of those held by other abolitionists, they did play an important part in his condemnation of slavery. Stewart viewed the Declaration as an expression of great moral truths and fundamental political principles. The revelation of these principles in the Declaration was the greatest contribution to the welfare of mankind since the birth of Christ. According to Stewart, other men had thought about the concepts of equality, inalienable rights, and consent of the governed, but it was the American peOple who first clearly endorsed and proclaimed them to the world. America in a very definite sense was a chosen nation, some- thing akin to a "city upon a hill.“ Her founding fathers had been chosen, like Moses, to ascend into the presence of God and behold the great truths which should determine the basis of society and structure of government.25 Stewart was aware, however, that all Americans did not 24Ibid., pp. 71, 72. Dwight L. Dumond, Antislavery: the Crusade for Freedom in America (Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan Press, 1961), pp. 294, 295. Article IV, Section 4, of the Constitution guarantees to each State a republican form of government. The Fifth Amendment appears to have been the most important element in Stewart's constitutional theory regarding slavery. See, e. g., tenBroek, gp, 213,, pp. 66-71. For the importance of the Fifth Amendment in antislavery golitical thought see the Liberty party reso- 1utions of 1 43 on p. 139 of tenBroek's book. 25Luther R. Marsh, ed., Writings and Speeches 2; Alvan Stewart, 9g Slavery (New York: A. B. Burdick, 1860), PP- 343, 14?, 143. 90 feel as he did in regard to the Declaration. He, therefore, often stressed the fact that its principles were not just rhetorical generalities, but fUndamental truths. Those who accepted the slaveholders' view that its principles were merely abstractions brought dishonor upon their country. If Americans had in fact whole-heartedly accepted all the ideas contained in the Declaration, right from the beginning, there would have been no slavery problem. In a Philadelphia speech in May of 1838 he declared that "to tolerate slavery a single year in one of these States, after this Declaration of Independence, was a base hypocrisy, a violation of our engagements to mankind and to God." Stewart believed that the adOption of the Declaration of Independence theoretically abolished slavery. The problem, however, was that Americans had not put this concept into practice.26 In reaponse to those who argued that the Constitution sanctioned slavery, Stewart pointed to the guarantee clause and the Fifth Amendment contained in that document. The Constitution was in essence an antislavery document. It was inconceivable to Stewart that the same generation of men who signed the Declaration could adOpt a proslavery Constitution in contradiction to the principles of 1776.27 26Alvan Stewart, 5 Legal Argument Before the Supreme Court 2f the State gf New Jerse , A3 jhg MEI Term g3 Trenton, .32; Egg Deliverance gifZOOO Persons From Bondage (New York: Finch & Weed, 18457, p. 59. Marsh, gp.,gi§., pp. 144, 349. 27Dumond, _p. cit., p. 294. sf‘ rd w ‘ 1.~ - \ ‘~HIJ Emu“ \Iflu n.~.,\\.:{.. 0 Qkfiu 91 George Mellen writing in 1841 praised Stewart's position on slavery and agreed that the practice violated the spirit and intention of the Constitution. Like Stewart, he suggested that the founding fathers could not have guaranteed the South's right to practice slavery because to have done so would have been a repudiation of their be- lief in the principles of the Declaration. Mellen noted that Jefferson's original draft of the document contained a clause criticizing slavery, and although it was omitted from the final version, the majority of Americans in 1776, stood Opposed to the institution. Continuing in this vein, he declared that the great principles that animated them [Americans] still remained embodied in the instrument; CD. of IJ and, the moment it was adOpted by this country, every slave was free; and such undoubtedly must have been the understanding of the men who promulgated it, unless they should be accused of the want of uggerstanding the meaning of the words they had used. According to Mellen, the founding fathers definitely intended to include the Negro within the meaning of the Declaration's second paragraph. Freedom for the slave was one of the Declaration's main objectives. Mellen also 28G. w. F. Mellen, Ag Argument 2;; the Unconstitution— ality g; Slaver (Boston: Saxton & Pierce, 1841), pp. 5, 14, 15, 34, 5 . Assertions by political abolitionists such as Mellen, Stewart and Spooner that one of the main purposes of the Declaration was to abolish slavery often elicited a strong response from antiabolitionists. See, e. g., Henry Clay's comments in the beginning of this chapter. Further criticism by Clay of political abolitionists and their views can be found in the Life and Speeches 2: Hengy Clay (ed. by D. Mallory), II, 399, 400, 593-595. 92 noted that one of the reasons why Negroes did not achieve freedom was that no Negro leaders stepped forward to assert the black man's rights.29 Although saying noble things about the Declaration, Mellen's views leave some basic questions unanswered. Why was Jefferson's clause on slavery struck from the document? If one of the Declaration's main objectives was to free the slaves, why did not most revolutionary leaders and signers free their own? With such widespread opposition to slavery why were laws not passed abolishing the institution? One might also add that leading Negroes such as the astronomer Benjamin Banneker did step forward to assert Negro rights, but to no avail.30 Mellen also commented upon the relationship between the Constitution and the Declaration. He contended that the former was definitely in harmony with the principles of the Declaration. For example, both the preamble to the Constitution and the Fifth Amendment reaffirmed the concepts of equality and inalienable rights.31 29Mellen, pp. cit., pp. 34, 51. 3OLorenzo Dow Turner, Anti-Slavery Sentiment ig American Literature Prior 32.186fi (Washington, D. C.: The Assn. For the'Study of Negro Life and History, 1929), pp. 14- 15. Turner noted,in 1791 along with his Almanac, Banneker sent Thomas Jefferson a letter asking how he could continue to own slaves after/professing to believe in the concepts of equality and inalienable rights. 31Mellen, 22. cit., pp. 52, 53, 56. tenBroek, _p. cit., p. 75, f. no #12. 93 One of the most controversial of the constitutional Litionists was Lysander Spooner, a Massachusetts lawyer, unequivocally believed that slavery had no legal and stitutional basis for existence. His book entitled Constitutionality pf Slavery (1845) became campaign arature for the Liberty party and abolitionist movement general. To understand Spooner's views on slavery, the stitution, and the Declaration one has to understand basic assumptions with which he worked. Spooner be- red that natural law was the highest form of law. tural law, then, is the paramount law," and if positive was ever contrary to natural law it was invalid. He itained therefore "that no rule of civil conduct, that is >nsistent with the natural rights of men, can be right- -y established by government, or consequently be made .gatory as law, either upon the peOple, or upon judicial >unals."32 In his book, Spooner presented a unique and interest- constitutional interpretation of the Declaration's iciples. Slavery being his main concern, he used several tments involving the Declaration to demonstrate the agality of such a hideous practice. Spooner noted that -776 the Declaration was recognized as being constitutionally 32Lysander Spooner, The Unconstitutionality g; Slavery :ton: Bela.Marsh, 1845), pp. 7, 8, 18, 19. 94 lawful for the purpose of declaring colonial independence. Continuing in this vein, he suggested that "If then, the act of absolution [independence] was lawful, does it not necessarily follow that the principles that legalized the act, were also law?"33 In other words, the colonists must have considered the doctrine of inalienable rights as part of the constitutional law of the country. This line of thought led him to the conclusion that if the Declaration were part of the constitutional law of the United States just for a day, it legally abolished slavery. Spooner did not believe that slavery ever had a legal basis for exis- tence, but for the sake of argument, if it did, it was abolished by the Declaration. Since this was the case, slaveholders presently had the obligation of demonstrating that slavery had been "constitutionally established" since July 4th, 1776.34 This of course was something which Spooner knew would be difficult to prove. Spooner presented a corollary to his first line of argument. He pointed out that the Declaration of Independence clearly recognized that man's inalienable rights were self-evident truths. And all self-evident truths were a part of "all laws and contracts" even though they were not always specifically listed. It would be impossible, for 33Ibid., p. 42. 34Ibid., pp. 42, 43. 95 mple, to list all the self-evident truths that might be ociated with the administration of a particular law. refore, all such truths were taken for granted unless cifically and constitutionally denied. He contended t the concept of inalienable rights had never been denied any constitution or statute in the United States. refore freedom was a legal right which all men had, ck or white.35 Spooner, however, admitted that in practice the con- t that all men had an inalienable right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness had been denied to the Negro America. This was something which happened to many at truths when they were only partially accepted and lemented. “He noted that American courts would never ow one white man to enslave another and were therefore lty of not applying the fundamental law of the land sistently.36 To Spooner's way of thinking this contra- tion did not change the fact that the doctrine of inalien— 9 rights was still a basic part of the constitutional of the United States. Not all abolitionists, however, agreed with Spooner's stitutional theories. Garrisonians such as William ditch and Wendell Phillips firmly believed the Constitution I__. 351bie., pp. 43. 44. 36Ibid., pp. 44. 45. ~h .h-m’ 96 was a proslavery document. Bowditch wrote an essay entitled The Constitutionality 2: Slavery which was in essence a refutation of Spooner's work. With regard to the Declaration, Bowditch rejected Spooner's contention that it was part of the constitutional law protecting the colonists' natural rights. He found no evidence to support the idea that the colonists "expressly or impliedly gave Congress the power to abolish slavery."37 One of Spooner's severest critics was also a fellow abolitionist. Wendell Phillips was an intellectual leader of the radical wing in the antislavery movement. In 0p- position to many abolitionists, Phillips like Garrison categorically repudiated the Constitution and maintained that the American system was synonymous with slavery. Phillips was of course an arch critic of slavery, but in reviewing Spooner's book he came to the conclusion that many of the latter's arguments were erroneous. He strongly disagreed with Spooner's Contention that the Constitution did not recognize or sanction slavery. Phillips, on the contrary, believed that that was the basic problem with the Constitution; it was clearly a proslavery document.38 In addition to this, Phillips rejected Spooner's 37Kraditor,_9_p. cit., pp. 208, 209. 38Wendell Phillips, Review of _ysander(Spooner's Essay on the Unconstitutionali_y+of Slaver Boston's Andrews & Prentiss, 1847), PP. 35.3 35. 97 ment that the Declaration of Independence abolished ery. Phillips asserted that the Declaration declared pendence from Great Britain and this was all it was nded to do. He stated, for example, that "No court ever held it to be the 'fundamental law' of the country. he contrary, it is simply a State paper -- a political -- changing the form of government, and having no tion to individual rights."39 To support this view noted from John Quincy Adams' Fourth of July oration vered at Quincy in 1831. He noted that Adams in dis- ing this question had stated that the Declaration e no change in the laws . . . . It left all municipal slation, all regulation of private individual rights interests to the peOple of each separate Colony." lips concluded his criticism by declaring that "Every knows and every page of our history proves, that the aration was neither intended nor supposed to abolish cry."40 The foregoing comments reveal some interesting facts only about abolitionists, but also about Wendell Phillips. t, not all abolitionists agreed on the constitutionality lavery nor in their interpretation of the Declaration of pendence. Second, Phillips appears to have interpreted 39Ibid., p. 87. 40Ibid. . fr-” 98 the Declaration to suit his own purposes. He clearly interpreted the document in different ways at different times. For example, at a woman's rights convention held at Worcester, Massachusetts in 1851 Phillips offered a series of resolutions supporting woman's rights, including one which quoted at length from the Declaration's preamble. Phillips declared that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness were inalienable rights which also applied to women. In addition, the consent of the governed principle 41 In this instance the Declaration also included women. was definitely more than just a "State paper" and it clearly had a "relation to individual rights." In the following year at a Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society meeting, Phillips criticized Rufus Choate for referring to the prin- ciples of the Declaration as "infamous ethics." Speaking to a Brooklyn, New York audience after John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, his response to the question "Has a slave a right to resist his master?" was: "I will not argue that question to a peOple hoarse with shouting ever since July 4, 1776, that all men are created equal, that the right to liberty is inalienable and that 'resistance to tyrants is obedience to God'."42 In the foregoing instances Phillips obviously associated the Declaration with more than the 41Wendell Phillips, Speeches, Lectures, and Letters (Boston: James Redpath, 1863), pp. l2, 13. 42Ibid., pp. 60-61, 279. 99 of political independence. His use of John Quincy Ls' Fourth of July oration must also be called into :tion. In the quote used by Phillips, Adams was ad- :sing himself to the question of state sovereignty and »n, not slavery. Adams was in fact attempting to prove ; the Declaration while joining the colonies into a »n of states, did not violate any of the rights of the :es or the peOple residing therein.43 John Q. Adams . had stronger views on the Declaration than Phillips .d lead the reader to believe. It will be recalled that .s maintained that the rights of slaveowners were "in- .atible with the inalienable rights of all mankind, as forth in the Declaration of Independence," and in a :r oration asserted that the main reason for assembling ‘uly 4th was not to celebrate independence from Great ‘ain but to celebrate "the emancipation of man from the .1dom of.man."44 Another constitutional abolitionist who was influen- . in antislavery circles was the Reverend William Goodell. ve in temperance and antislavery since the early 1830's, f— 43John Q. Adams, Ag Oration Addressed 33 the Citizens he Town of ggincy, on the Fourth of Jul , 1831 (Boston: EEdESE: ford & Holbrook, 1831), pp. 17— l. 44Josiah Quincy, Memoir 9; Egg Life 3: John‘Q. Adams ton: Phillips, Sampson and Co., 1859), p. 280. John dams, An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants 2; Town 2f Newburyport . . . July 4th, 1837 (Newburyport, .: Charles Whipple, 1837), pp. 53, 54. lOO founded the Liberty League in 1847 after coming to the :1usion that the Liberty party's program of opposition slavery was too narrow. Being interested in the re- .onship between slavery and law, he published his ideas Views 9f American Constitutional Law (1845). Goodell ltained that the United States had established a fun- antal system of principles before the Constitution was >ted, and that these doctrines were eXpressed in the -aration of Independence. He argued that since the -aration was never repealed by any of the states it Lined "as the fundamental basis and ground work of ‘ican Constitutional Law." The Articles of Confederation the Constitution were merely "adjustments" and ela- Ltions of the Declaration's principles.45 Goodell eloped this line of thought to the point where he con- Led that the Declaration had "paramount authority . . . ' all our gthgg Constitutions and laws." These arguments to the conclusion that not only did the Declaration .ish slavery, but that the practice was illegal in all ;es and territories of the Union.46 While difficult to positively prove, it appears that tell was strongly influenced by Mellen and especially pner. His reference to the fact that the Declaration had L_.__ 45William Goodell, Views of American Constitutional In Its Bearing U on American Slavery (Utica, N. Y.: :on —& Chaplin, 1845 9 PP. 136,138. 46Ibid., pp. 139, 141. lOl er been repealed by the states was an elaboration of of Spooner's main points.47 Goodell, however, did a the argument one step further than his colleagues. maintained that the principles of the Declaration of ependence were not only part of the constitutional law, that they were the supreme constitutional authority. hence slavery must be viewed as having no legal and stitutional basis for existence.48 It is interesting to note that Goodell made the Laration the most important element in American con- tutional law. To support his view on the paramount iority of the Declaration he relied on three major rces: (1) John Adams‘ July 4th oration of 1837, decisions of Massachusetts Courts and (3) Representative 1 C. Spencer's comments in the New York Legislature in 3.49 The historical validity of many of the ideas advanced the constitutional abolitionists, regarding the Declaration Independence and the Constitution, is rather doubtful definitely Open to question. Slavery, for example, I: 47Further evidence of Spooner's influence can be 1d in Goodell's, Slaverw and Anti-Slavery (1852), pp. 22, 78, 476. Also see tenBroek,‘_p. cit., p. 85, f. n. #20. 48Goodell, Views g: American Constitutional Law, 138, 139. 491bid., pp. 139, 140. Goodell went into greater 111 on the meaning of some of the Declaration's basic 1ciples in his book Our National Charters (1863). See, g., Chapter V, p. 187. 102 was not abolished by the Declaration nor was this one of the document's objectives. There is also little historical evidence to support the assertions that slaves were intended to be included within the meaning Of the Declaration's equality clause, and that the Constitution was intended tO be an expression or reaffirmation Of the Declaration's principles. And whether those principles were an essential part of the nation's constitutional law or had the force of law was a frequently debated question, which shall be dis- cussed at length in one of the following chapters. The important point, however, is that such ideas gained influence and were accepted by many as truth. James G. Birney, the ex-slave owner from Alabama who became a staunch Opponent Of slavery, was strongly influenced by the constitutional abolitionists and eventually joined their ranks. Birney believed that Americans should never sanction anything which was contrary to the principles of the Declaration. For this reason he was firmly Opposed to slavery. Birney's constitutional views, however, evolved slowly during the 1840's. In 1844 he suggested that Congress might have the power to abolish slavery. To support this Opinion he stated that the concepts of freedom and rights expressed in the Declaration had been made a part of the Constitution. This fact plus the Fifth Amendment would 103 appear to give Congress such authority.50 In a series of articles published in the Albany Patriot in 1847, Birney again addressed himself to the constitu- tional problem Of slavery. He asserted in one of these letters that the Declaration with its ideas of equality and inalienable rights definitely supported the slave in his demand and right to freedom. Birney believed that the principles Of the Declaration formed a part Of the fundamen- tal law Of the country and therefore the Constitution could not have sanctioned slavery, because such action would amount to a repudiation Of the former document. By 1850 he positively claimed that, under the Constitution, slavery could be abolished everywhere in the United States.51 Commenting upon the legality Of the Declaration in his second public letter to the Albany Patriot, Birney noted that peOple had argued that the document was not as binding upon Americans as was the Constitution. Birney admitted this was true in a certain sense but stated that the Constitution shows the relations Of the individual to the government and those of government to the indi- vidual. The Declaration not only regulates the nature of government as far as the individual is concerned, but also its nature, so far as other nations are con- cerned.'5 I think Birney's point was that the Declaration was actually 50Kraditor, pp. cit., p. 190. SltenBroek, Jo Cit. , pp. 84-850 mend, is Cit. , p. 72. Kraditor, 2p. cit., p. 190. 52tenBroek, _p. cit., p. 304, f. n. #3. EB; 104 7e important than the Constitution because it dealt with a fundamental "nature Of government" which would directly ?1uence the nature of a country's constitution as well the rights of its citizens. The views of Gerrit Smith, a philanthrOpical abolition- ; from New York, exemplify the influence which constitu- >nal abolitionists exerted. By the late 1840's Smith le strong use of the Declaration Of Independence in his 1stitutiona1 arguments. Believing slavery to be wrong :ause it deprived men of their natural rights, he Often >ted the Declaration to sustain his beliefs. In an 1850 lress to the New York State Assembly he declared that for me purposes the Declaration was "the highest Constitutional :hority in the Nation." One such purpose was slavery. ' he asserted that if slavery had ever been legal in :rica it was definitely abolished when Americans pro- Limed in their Declaration the principles of equality and Llienable rights. Smith also noted that if the revered :ument "is our authority for the self-government of a >ple, equally is it Our authority for maintaining, that :edom is the birthright Of e11."53 One of the most important develOpments Of the anti- tvery movement during the 1840's was the organization Of 53Gerrit Smith, Substance Of the S eech Made By rit Smith in the Ca itol of the State O 'N§_ York, ch 11th and _12th, 1850 (Syracuse, N. Y. V. W. Smith :o.,‘185077’pp. 11, 12,13. - _. .”.~ w 105 a political party dedicated to abolition. Men in both major political parties, especially the Whig party, had Of course always held antislavery views, but since these were national organizations, slavery was an issue to be avoided and compromised. In the late 1830's politically minded abolitionists such as Alvan Stewart, Gerrit Smith, James G. Birney, Joshua Leavitt and William Goodell had become more interested in political action. One of the primary causes which split the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1840 was in fact this issue Of political activity.54 Many antislavery men were against organizing along political lines because they feared such action would entail compromising on principles, resulting in a loss of moral‘ purpose.55 Nevertheless, interest in politics was quite evident at the American Anti-Slavery Society Convention held in Albany, New York in 1839. While the convention did not advocate the organization of a new political party it did reaffirm the principle that antislavery men should only vote for candidates committed to emancipation. The convention's position paper also noted that many represen- tatives in Congress did not support nor understand the principles Of the Declaration of Independence.56 54Louis Filler, The Crusade Against Slavery, p. 135. tenBroek, 22. cit., p. 136. 55Filler, The Crusade Against Slavery, p. 153. 56Dumond, _p. cit., p. 295. 106 During the spring of 1840 the politically minded abolitionists succeeded in organizing the Liberty party, with James G. Birney as its presidential candidate in that year's election. Although Birney did not make a strong showing his candidacy served notice that slavery was going to play an increasingly important role in the nation's politics. From its beginning, the Liberty party strongly iden— tified with the principles Of the Declaration Of Independence. This is clearly evident from an examination of the party's platforms and resolutions. In 1843, for example, the party adOpted a set of resolutions which proclaimed: (l) the concept of natural equality, (2) that the Declaration's principle of inalienable rights "was made the fundamental law of the land by the Fifth Amendment," and (3) that slavery was a violation of man's natural rights. Most important of these resolutions was the second because it clearly equated the principles of the Declaration with the Constitution and the public law Of the United States. The Liberty party's 57 platform in 1844 contained similar statements. 57Wright, pp. 211., p. 213. The second resolution mentioned read as follows: "The fUndamental truth of the Declaration Of Independence, that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, was made the fundamental law of our National Government by that amend- ment Of the Constitution which declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process Of law.“ See tenBroek, Op, 213., p. 139. In his book, tenBrOek also noted that Liberty party 107 Liberty party men frequently referred to the Declaration support their aims and ideas. Charles D. Cleveland, iressing the Liberty party of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia alared that the party's principles were the same as those 58 pressed in the Declaration. One of the more important a“- -w tislavery gatherings held during the 1840's was the 1 1 1thern and Western Liberty Convention sponsored by the aerty party in June Of 1845. At that convention anti- .15 avery men such as Elihu Burritt, Henry B. Stanton, William Seward, Gerrit Smith, Horace Greeley and Lewis Tappan 1rd Salmon P. Chase give the keynote address. According Chase, the founding fathers proclaimed in the Declaration Independence, the fundamental principles upon which they tended to establish the country's government. The concepts equality and inalienable rights were "solemnly proclaimed The Basis Of A National Faith." Chase also stated that ass who drew up the Constitution intended it to be an I— 1 believed that since the principle of inalienable rights 3 made a part of the Constitution by the Fifth Amendment, a federal government had a positive mandate, without >ecific constitutional directives" to protect men in their 1damental rights. See pp. 139, 140. Kirk H. Porter and 1ald B. Johnson, eds., National Party Platforms: 1840- 33 (Urbana, 111.: Univ. Of Illinois Press, l966),"’p."'5. 58Charles D. Cleveland, Anti-Slavegy Addresses 2: L4 and 1845 (Phila.: J. A. Bancroft & Co., 18675, p. 12. 108 expression Of the Declaration's doctrines.59 In 1846 Alvan Stewart wrote a public letter to the Liberty party expressing some of his views on the Declaration.60 He suggested that Americans had been so captivated by the Declaration's principles during the past seventy years, especially praising it at July 4th celebrations, that they had failed to act upon it. Americans had not put the prin- ciples Of that document into practice. It was therefore the duty and reSponsibility of a movement such as the Liberty party to make sure the Declaration became a reality in American life. Stewart also stated that abolitionists in the Liberty party hold the Declaration of Independence tO be an elementary law, the law of laws, the rock Of first principles, to which the nation descended, and on which it built in the honest hour 2f_its agony: and that every other institution or constitution contraveging its great essentials is null and void, . . . . 1 Concluding his remarks, Stewart asserted that if the Declaration had not expressed the idea "that all men were created free and equal," and had instead recognized the legitimacy Of slavery, American independence could not have 59Ibid., pp. 79, 84. It appears that Chase was in- fluenced by the ideas of the constitutional abolitionists, but it should be noted that there is little historical evi- dence to support his contention that the framers of the Constitution intended that document to be an expression Of the Declaration's principles. 6OAlvan Stewart was one Of the first men to urge the organization of a political party dedicated to abolition. See tenBroek, _p. cit., p. 281. 61MarSh, _Ro Eli-£0, pp. 42, 440 109 an won. He distinctly suggested that equality was what 3 Revolution was all about and that Negroes were intended be included within the meaning of that concept.62 It is interesting to note that other antislavery )upS adOpted platforms and passed resolutions in which a Declaration played a significant part. At the Honeoye Jerty Mass Meeting in upper New York during December of 46 a Declaration of Sentiments was adOpted which quoted 3m the second paragraph of the Declaration's preamble. 3 Convention also adOpted a resolution which stated: That the Constitution Of the United States was based upon the fundamental principles of common law already cited and upon the self-evident truths Of the Declaration of American Independence - that in the light of those fundamental principles and self-evident truths, it is to be construed, as well as in the light of its declared Objects, as set forth in its preamble . . . 3 next resolution declared that since the Constitution )uld be interpreted in light Of the Declaration and its 1 preamble, it was Obvious that slavery was unconstitutional 1 illegal.63 That all men and groups within the antislavery movement 62Ibid., pp. 44-45. Like many men deeply committed a cause, Stewart tended to exaggerate at times. TO gin with, the Declaration did not proclaim "all men are gated free and equal." It stated "all men are created 1al.“ His assertion that the Revolution could not have an won without that expression Of freedom and equality 1nd in the Declaration is certainly Open to question, as his_contention regarding the Negro and equality. 63tenBroek, gp. cit., p. 142. The page cited also itains other resolutions bearing upon the Declaration l the Constitution. .t Ar '— “VQP 110 were not solely interested in Negro emancipation can be seen from the Objectives of the Liberty League. At the League's New York Macedon Convention in 1847, for example, tariffs and land monOpolies were held to be in violation Of man's inalienable rights. Similar resolutions can be found in the Honeoye Liberty Mass Meeting's Declaration of Sentiments.64 Many antislavery men in the mid 1840's came to believe that the Liberty party needed a broader base. By 1846, for example, James G. Birney was convinced that the party would have to expand its platform if it was to gain the support Of most Northerners.65 In 1848, "conscience" Whigs, dis— satisfied Democrats and a substantial number of Liberty party men joined together in support of the Free Soil party. Whether or not that party was an expansion or ab- sorption of the Liberty party and its principles is a moot 66 question. Regardless of the answer, slavery continued to be an important political issue. 6+lElQ-9 p. 138. See f. n. #2 on the page cited which lists resolutions passed at these meetings. 65Dumond, 22. cit., pp. 301, 302; Kraditor, 9p. cit., p. 152. 66Dumond in his book Antislavegy, p. 304, maintains that the Free Soil party represented "an expansion Of the Liberty party under a new name." For an Opposing point Of view see Filler's, Crusade Against Slavery, pp. 190-191. It should also be noted that while a substantial number Of Liberty party men joined the Free Soil coalition, many refused to lend their support because the new party did not take a positive stand on the abolition Of slavery. See Kraditor, gp,‘git., pp. 180-182. 111 Free Soilers frequently made references to Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. In 1848 the Free Soil party adOpted the so-called "Jefferson Proviso," expressing the idea that Jefferson in his Northwest Ordinance Of 1784 supported the exclusion of slavery from the territories.67 Owen Lovejoy, brother Of the famous abolitionist martyr, was an example of a Liberty party man who supported the Free Soil coalition. An Ottawa, Illinois newspaper reported in July Of 1848 that Lovejoy had stated that Congress had an Obligation to prevent slavery from spreading to the territories, and that he used the Declaration, and Preamble Of the Constitution to support his Opinion.68 Four years later the Free Soil party platform contained a resolution which stated that governments received their power and authority from the consent of the governed and that the purpose Of government was to protect men in their inalienable rights.69 One Free Soiler in particular who strongly identified with the Declaration's principles was Charles Sumner. In earlier years he had been a "conscience" Whig, and by 1848 67Merrill D. Peterson, The Jefferson Image in the American {ind (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 19607, pp. 190, 191. 68Edward Magdol, Owen Lovejoy: Abolitionist in Cong§ess (New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1967), PP- 4.: 85- 69tenBroek, gp. cit., p. 140, f. n. #4. try—w 112 was one Of the leaders Of the Free Soil party in Massachusetts. At a political rally in June Of 1848, he declared that the Whig party was no longer "the party of Humanity" and that he now belonged to a party which was based upon the Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution.70 Speak- ing to a group of citizens that same month in Worcester, Massachusetts, he noted that the crucial question before the nation involved the Slave Power and its attempt to extend slavery. The Free Soil Movement had risen to meet this challenge. The Movement was in fact a continuation of the American Revolution. It was "an effort to carry into effect the principles of the Declaration Of Independence . . . - to bring back the Constitution to the principles and practice Of its early founders . . . ." The aims of slave- holders were in contradiction to the inalienable rights of men proclaimed in the Declaration and reaffirmed in the preamble to the Constitution. Sumner contended that "the Constitution was the crowning labor Of the men who gave us the Declaration Of Independence. It was established to perpetuate, in organic law, those rights which the Declaration had promulgated, and which the sword Of Washington had secured."71 Following the National Free Soil Convention at Buffalo 7OSumner, _p, cit., II, 76. 71Ibid., pp. 85, 78. 113 in August of 1848, Sumner played an important role in pro- moting the party's cause. In a letter dated October 26, 1848, addressed to the Free Soil party of Ward County Massachusetts he referred to the Buffalo convention pro- posals as the party's Declaration of Independence. Para- phrasing the Declaration, he wrote: Now in the course of human events, it has become our duty to dissolve the political bands which have hitherto bound us to the Old organizations, and to assume a separate existence. Our Declaration Of Independence was put forth at Buffalo. Let us, in the spirit Of the fathers, pledge Ourselves to sustain it with lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Our cause is holier than theirs, inasmuch as it is nobler to Struggle for the freedom of others than for our own.7 Just as the colonists had to cut the bonds of allegiance to the mother country, so too did Opponents Of slavery have to sever ties with ineffective political parties. Sumner in essence was emphasizing the right and duty of citizens to band together for the purpose of changing society. That slavery was the crucial issue in Sumner's mind can also be seen from his remarks at a party convention in the fall of 1849. Addressing the delegates assembled, he maintained that Jefferson was one Of the country's earliest abolitionists and that the principles of both the Declaration and the Constitution were clearly Opposed to the pernicious practice.73 72Ibid., p. 159. 731bid., pp. 291-292. 114 Sumner's views require some comment and qualification. While Jefferson believed slavery was a destructive practice, he cannot be considered an abolitionist, at least not in the mid-nineteenth century sense of the term. Sumner's attitudes on the Declaration and the Constitution are also g interesting not only because they are questionable, but 5 because they indicate that he was influenced by the ideas Of constitutional abolitionists. He referred to the . 1 Constitution, for example, as an antislavery document whose purpose was to perpetuate the principles Of the Declaration.74 This brief review Of antislavery political activity during the 1840's reveals some significant points about the Declaration. To begin with, it is clear that the document played an important role in the rhetoric Of antislavery politics. It is also quite apparent that the ideas Of the constitutional abolitionists, regarding the Declaration, influenced Liberty party men, Liberty Leaguers and others. Not only was the Declaration viewed as standing in contra- diction tO slavery, but its principles were held to be the basis of American government. Many abolitionist supporters believed that the Declaration should serve as an interpre— tive guide to the Constitution, and that the latter document was a reaffirmation Of the first. The.Declaration's'doctrines were considered by many to comprise an essential part Of the 74Ibid., pp. 292, 78. 115 fundamental law of the land. As an addendum.to political party activity in the 1840's it should be noted that the two major parties, Democrat and Whig, tended to avoid the Declaration. The Whig national party platforms during the 1840's never re- ferred to the Declaration. From 1840 to 1856 the Democratic party in its national platforms did include a reference to the Declaration, but it was vague and meaningless.75 This was of course not unexpected since the Declaration was a controversial document and national parties required cO- hesiveness and not controversy to be effective. 75Porter and Johnson, pp. cit., pp. 1-24. CHAPTER IV GLITTERING GENERALITIES 0R ABSOLUTE TRUTHS?: 1850's Throughout the 1850's the controversy over slavery, while experiencing brief respites, continued to intensify and promote sectional animosity. Certain basic questions such as the function and purpose of government, the nature of citizenship, and the rights of the individual continued to be sources of contention. And because these questions were debated the Declaration of Independence continued to be a disputed document in the politics of the period. In fact, the most revealing aspects Of the Declaration's his- tory during the 1850's can be found in studying contro- versial historical events and develOpments. Of primary importance in this regard were the Compromise Of 1850, the Kansas—Nebraska debates, the Dred Scott case, the Lincoln- Douglas debates and the emergence of the Republican party. By the years 1849-1850 sectional conflict between the North and South reached a new high due to a variety of factors: (1) the Wilmot Proviso alarmed Southerners because it attempted to restrict the slaveowner's mobility, (2) the delicate balance between free and slave states was about to 116 117 be upset by the admission Of California into the Union, and (3) the antislavery crusade continued to attack the "peculiar institution" and its possible expansion. To soothe these tensions, congressional legislators produced the Compromise of 1850 which was basically an attempt to reduce sectional strife by alleviating southern and northern anxieties over slavery.l Early in 1850 when the House of Representatives resumed discussion on the question of slavery in the ter- ritories, many southern congressmen voiced the Opinion that the new territories did not have the right to prohibit slavery. For this reason they Opposed the admission Of California as a free state. Speaking to the House on this subject in February of 1850, Horace Mann, who had replaced John Quincy Adams in Congress, maintained that by their devotion to slavery, Southerners were repudiating the fun- damental principles Of American government. With a note Of cynicism he suggested that southern congressmen use the following parody of the Declaration tO support their cause: We hold these truths to be self-evident that men are not created equal; that they are not endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights; that white men, of the Anglo-Saxon race, were born to rob, tyrannize, and enjoy; and black men Of the African race to labor, and 1James G. Randall and David Donald, The Civil War and Reconstruction (2nd ed.; Boston: D. C. Heath & Co., 118 suffer, and Obey; . . . .2 Representative Charles Durkee Of Wisconsin, speaking in the same chamber several months later echoed Mann's thoughts and referred to the Wilmot Proviso as being in harmony with the Declaration's precepts.3 One of the most controversial figures of the Compromise debates was William H. Seward Of New York who believed in the existence of a higher law which to him was synonymous with the law of God. Such law was paramount to statute law and even the Constitution. Seward supported the Wilmot Proviso because he believed slavery violated the higher law.4 In a July 1850 speech on the Compromise bill he noted that many Of his colleagues argued that because of natural conditions Of climate and geography slavery did not have to be Officially excluded from territories like New Mexico. They believed that to urge passage of legislation similar to the Ordinance Of 1787 was to deal in abstractions. Seward's reaction to this argument was that all acts and 2U. S., The Debates and Proceedings pf the Congress of the United States, vol. 94-Append., 31st Cong., 1st S€ss., 1850, pp. 219, 223. Hereafter the congressional record will be cited as the Congressional Globe. 3W. G. Bean, "Anti—Jeffersonianism in the Ante-Bellum South," North Carolina Historical Review, XII (April, 1935), p. 105. 4The Wilmot Proviso which was introduced in the House Of Representatives on August 8, 1846 by Representative David Wilmot, a Pennsylvania Democrat, sparked the contro- versy over slavery and the territories. , '5‘“- "p. 119 declarations eXpressing human rights dealt with abstractions. The Declaration Of Independence, for example proclaimed the concepts of natural equality and inalienable rights. Seward went on to say, however, that such "abstractions of human rights are the only permanent foundations of society. B} It is by referring to them that men determine what is ”‘T: established because it is Right, in order to uphold it forever; . . .15 Seward clearly saw the principles Of the .1, Declaration as being an essential part of the higher law. Theodore Parker, the Unitarian minister and a leading Boston abolitionist also frequently used the ideas of the Declaration in arguing against those who denied the authority of higher law. Parker believed that the idea of freedom as expressed in the Declaration of Independence was "derived from human nature; it rests on the immutable Laws Of God; it is part of the natural religion of mankind." According to Parker the supreme law Of the land was not found in the Constitution, but in God's law.6 The views Of men such as Seward and Parker were Often subjected to criticism. Lewis Cass of Michigan rejected 5Benjamin F. Wright, American Interpretations 2; Natural Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1931), p. 221. George E. Baker, ed., The Works 2; William H. Seward (5 vols.; Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1884), I, 100, 101, 102. 6Theodore Parker, Additional Speeches, Addresses and Occasional Sermons (2 vols.; Boston: Horace B. Fuller, 1855, 1867), II, 251-252. Henry S. Commager, Theodore Parker (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1936), pp. 26§T”2lo 120 the higher law doctrine because he felt it allowed men to arbitrarily decide when to obey or disobey certain laws. Cass admitted that there were certain inalienable rights given to man by God as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. But he also stated that "Among these is the right to institute governments - as the Declaration asserts - and there this principle stops - when once instituted, it is the duty of every man to obey the laws, unless the cp- pression is such to justify a revolution."7 Cass was directly criticizing Seward and others who would use the Declaration of Independence to subvert the constitutional law of the land. A.major element of the Compromise of 1850 which antagonized antislavery supporters was the new Fugitive Slave law. Rufus W. Clark, a Boston abolitionist minister, believed that obedience to the new law was a violation of the Declaration and the Constitution. Reiterating this point in a Senate speech, Charles Sumner asserted that important political acts such as the Fugitive Slave act and documents like the Constitution should be interpreted in light of the Declaration's principles of equality and inalienable rights. Joshua Giddings, a leader of the abolitionist bloc in Congress, who had been strongly in— fluenced by John Quincy Adams, also spoke out against the 7Congressional Globe, vol. 106, 33rd Cong., lst Sess., 1854. p. 279. 121 new law. Giddings, however, went one step further than his congressional colleagues. In a December 1850 speech before the House, he maintained that passage of the Fugitive Slave act involved Northerners as well as Southerners in the crime of perpetuating slavery. Continuing in this vein, he warned his colleagues that if the Union ever became an instrument which degraded the people of the United States they would reject it, just as their forefathers had rejected union with Great Britain. For when government failed to protect men in their inalienable rights and sustain the principles of equality, the people had the right to adOpt a new form of government - they had the right to revolution.8 That all Americans did not interpret the Declaration as did Giddings is obvious from an article apparently written by Thomas Kettell, editor of the United States Magazine and Democratic Review. In the May 1851 issue of this pub— lication, Kettell argued that compromises of the Constitution, especially with respect to slavery, should "be respected and held inviolable" unless they were disapproved "by the common consent" of the peOple. In other words, slavery could only be abolished by the consent of the governed. Kettell was also very critical of so-called "philos0phical 8Rufus W. Clark, A RevieW'gf the Rev; Moses Stuart's Pam hlet on Slavery, Entitled Conscience and the Constitution (Boston: —C. C. P. Moody, 18507, pp. 827 83. Charles Sumner, The Works of Charles Sumner (15 vols.; Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1870-18825, III, I11, 112. Joshua R. Giddings, S eeches in Congress (Boston: John P. Jewett & Co., 1853), pp. 4 l, H20 L F- war 122 legislation" and maintained that to dissolve the Union over a moral question was absurd and served no constructive purpose. To support this view he again referred to the Declaration by quoting from its second paragraph. He wrote that "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments, long established, should not be changed for light and trifling causes; . . . ."9 The congressional debates of 1850 indicate that the Declaration of Independence often became the focus of attention. Besides being discussed with respect to the specific questions of slavery, it was also associated with the principles of the Wilmot Proviso, higher law, and the right to revolution. And while the Declaration was most often used by antislavery supporters, its principles were also used by men such as Thomas Kettell to condone slavery. The relief which a majority of Americans appear to have experienced after the enactment of the Compromise of 1850 was short lived. Not only were abolitionists and secessionist-minded Southerners dissatisfied with the settlement, but by 1854 the slavery controversy flared anew 9Thomas P. Kettell, ”Constitutional Compromises," The U. S. Magazine and Democratic Review, XXVIII (May, T1 517, pp. 387, 388, 389._J_Kettell was also the author of a book entitled Southern Wealth and Northern Profits in which.he argued that the SOuth was the most productive section in the United States and that the North exploited the South economically, enjoying, for example, the major share of profits. He also rejected the claim that the southern economy suffered because of slavery. 123 in the Kansas-Nebraska debates. In its original form the Kansas-Nebraska act simply attempted to organize the Nebraska territory, but as modified by its guiding force, Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois, it incorporated the concept of pOpular sovereignty and also repealed that part of the Missouri Compromise which had excluded slavery north of 36° 30' in the Louisiana territory. This latter modifica- tion especially antagonized the antislavery forces. Northerners, who did not necessarily hold antislavery views, were also disturbed by the bill and accompanying debates because they believed the slavery question had been finally settled in 1850. Many feared that the issue would again become a disruptive force threatening the Union.10 Congressional debate on the Kansas-Nebraska bill began in January of 1854. Antislavery men were Opposed to the measure, while moderates and proslavery forces generally favored it. Benjamin Franklin Wade, the fiery senator from Ohio, opposed the bill and in a February 6th speech main- tained that he did not acknowledge the slaveowner's right to own prOperty in slaves because he was a believer in the Declaration of Independence, which referred to the equality and inalienable rights of all men. Senator Archibald Dixon loAllan Nevins, Ordeal 2f the Union: 1852-1857 (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947), II, 94, 95, 98, 108. Randall and Donald, _p.‘git., pp. 95-96. Paul M. Angle, ed., Created Equal? : The Complete Lincoln- Douglas Debates g: 1858 (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 195 9 p- 11. 124 of Kentucky challenged Wade's statement and asked him if he believed slaves were equal to the free laborers of the North. Wade reSponded by stating that slaves were equal to everyone else; equal before the law and equal before God, but degraded by the Oppressive institution of slavery. Dixon pressed Wade on this point and asked if he believed the free Negroes of Ohio were equal to the whites of that state. Wade answered that free Negroes were equal to whites in the sight of God and in the language of the Declaration, but admitted that their wealth, living standard and influence were not comparable to that of whites.11 Apologists for slavery often used the technique adOpted by Senator Dixon to indicate the contradictions in the antislavery arguments. Speaking to the Senate on February 24th, Andrew P. Butler of South Carolina suggested that Wade and other antislavery supporters had taken a contradictory position by maintaining "that the black man, under the sentimental idea contained in the Declaration of Independence, has a right to claim an equality with the white man." The South Carolinian had clearly taken notice of Wade's admission that free Negroes, even in the North, were not on the same level as whites. Butler also argued "that Abolitionists cannot make those [Nearer->8] equal llCongressional Globe, vol. 103, 33rd Cong., lst Sess., 1854, p. 339. 125 whom God has made unequal."12 In a February 20th speech before the Senate, John Pettit of Indiana, a supporter of the Kansas-Nebraska bill, eXpressed his dissatisfaction with abolitionist opponents of the measure, their use of the Declaration of Independence and their claims that all men were created equal. Pettit noted that no matter how unpOpular, egotistical, or absurd his actions might be, he would have to contradict the words of the Declaration. He stated that I cannot in the first place, believe that Mr. Jefferson ever intended to give the meaning or force which is attempted now to be applied to this language when he said: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.' I hold it to be a self- evident lie, there is no such thing. Pettit was also critical of Jefferson for not qualifying his statement on equality and pointed out that such a notion ‘was obviously false. This criticism of the equality clause did not go unnoticed. Antislavery men were sorely pro- voked, and Pettit long remained the butt of their criticism.13 One of the first to respond to Pettit's remarks was Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, a leading Opponent of the bill, who believed that such criticism was a disservice to l2Congressional Globe, vol. 106, 33rd Cong., lst Sess., 1854, p. 233. 13Ibid., p. 214. It is interesting to note that many of Pettit's critics stressed the fact that he had called the Declaration "a self-evident lie," when in reality he only referred to the famous equality clause as such. It should be pointed out, however, that he did imply that the other so-called self-evident truths were also Open to question. 126 the founding fathers and the revered document. He strongly resented Pettit's implying that the truths of the Declaration were lies and absurdities. In regard to the question of equality he argued that the founding fathers did not claim all men were equal in strength, beauty and intellect, but held that they believed all men were equal in the sight of God and in respect to certain "natural inborn rights."l4 Several days after Sumner made these remarks, Senator Albert Gallatin Brown of Mississippi suggested that if the Massachusetts senator wanted to see an example of the kind of equality mentioned in the Declaration, he should visit Mississippi. Brown declared that "In the South all men are equal. I mean, of course, white men; negroes are not men, within the meaning of the Declaration.“ He noted that since menial work in the South was performed by Negroes, whites did not have to lower themselves and therefore equality among the latter was preserved. The unique aSpect of Brown's view was that he appeared to believe in the kind of equality which most proslavery writers rejected.15 Further evidence that antislavery opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska act were disturbed by the criticism that Pettit and others leveled at the Declaration can be found in the congressional debates of March and April. Addressing l4Sumner, _p. cit., III, 293. 15Congressional Globe, vol. 106, 33rd Cong., 1st Sess., 1854, p. 230. 127 the Senate on the second day of March, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio noted that the Declaration Of Independence had been Openly questioned and criticized. He stated that "its doctrines are deemed hypocritical; and that which our fore- fathers believed was a self-evident truth, the defenders of this bill have discovered to be a self-evident lie." On March 3rd, Benjamin Wade, who considered the Declaration to be his main weapon in Opposing the Kansas-Nebraska act stated that the prOponents of the bill had repudiated the renowned document. Principles Of human rights which he had assumed "were universally acknowledged" had been re- ferred to as "self-evident falsehoods."l6 Gerrit Smith, the New York abolitionist who served less than one full term in the House of Representatives (1853-1854) became one of the leading Opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska bill. One reason for this was his belief that the Declaration of Independence had made slavery illegal. He was therefore especially bothered when pro- slavery supporters subjected the celebrated document to ridicule. In a speech on the disputed bill before the House on April 6th, 1854 he touched upon the Declaration. According to Smith, the Constitution as some claimed was not a higher authority than the Declaration. 0n the con- trary, the Constitution derived its "legitimacy and authority l6Ibid., pp. 299, 300, 310. 128 from the Declaration Of Independence" and the latter docu- ment was "the very soul Of every legitimate American Constitution - the Constitution of Constitutions - the Law of Laws." Smith maintained that the central truths of the Declaration, i. e., the concepts Of equality and in- alienable rights should be the most important factors "in all the shaping and interpretation of American politics." He also asserted the idea that if the Declaration had not contained the central truths referred to, there would not have been an American nation or successful revolution.l7 William Lloyd Garrison, delivering an Independence Day oration before a large crowd at Framingham, Massachusetts on July 4, 1854, also commented upon criticism directed against the Declaration. He noted with great indignation that the thoughts of men such as George Washington, Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson were labeled "fallacies" and "dangerous heresies," and that in "the American Senate, the Declaration Of Independence has been scouted as a tissue of lies and absurdities." Garrison believed that such actions discredited both the nation and the founding fathers. According to Garrison, July 4, 1776 symbolized the greatest l7Gerrit Smith, S eeches of Gerrit Smith is Congress (New York: Mason Brothers, 18557, pp. 131, 132, 130, 133. This last point was Of_course exactly what Alvan Stewart had said in his public letter to the Liberty party in 1846. The influence Of the constitutional abolitionists can be readily seen in Smith's remarks on the Declaration. For Stewart's comments see Chapter III, p. 108. 129 political event in world history. For the Declaration proclaimed "equality of Rights" for all men. Such a radical political document could and should be used to relieve' Oppression not only in America but everywhere in the world.18 In an October 16, 1854 speech in Peoria, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, a relatively unknown lawyer and one-term congressman, indicated his displeasure with attacks waged against the Declaration of Independence. He first mentioned why he Opposed the Kansas-Nebraska act. To begin with, it fostered the institution Of slavery which he believed was contrary to the principles of the Declaration, especially the concept Of equality. According to Lincoln the issue of slavery also "forces so many really good men . . . into an Open war with the very fundamental principles Of civil liberty - criticising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest." He noted, for example, that when Senator John Pettit referred to the Declaration as a selfeevident lie that none of the other supporters of the bill criticized l8The Liberator, July 7, 1854. p. 106. This same issue of The Liberator reported that upon completing his July 4th address at Framingham, Garrison proceeded to burn a cOpy Of the Fugitive Slave law, several fugitive slave court de- cisions and a cOpy of the Constitution. As he burned the Constitution he reportedly branded it "a covenant with death, and an agreement with hell." In Garrison's eyes the Constitution repudiated everything which the Declaration stood for. 130 Pettit for his remarks.19 During the course of the Senate debate over the contro- versial bill on March 3, an informative dialogue developed among Benjamin Wade, John Pettit and Andrew P. Butler over the principles and meaning of the Declaration, which vividly captures the manner in which Americans Of varying persuasions interpreted the famous document. Senator Wade broached the subject by suggesting it was quite understandable that supporters of the bill criticized the Declaration because one could not really believe in the ideas of Jefferson's celebrated paper and also support an act which would ex- tend and promote slavery. He concluded his Opening speech by asking Senator Pettit Of Indiana if he believed that one man had an inalienable right to govern another and take away his liberty. Pettit's response was evasive. He noted that if the Declaration had stated that "all men ought to have been created equal" he would have no objections to the document. Wade countered by stating that the Declaration's doctrine of equality referred to men's inalienable rights. and not their physical or intellectual capacities. All men were equal in terms of rights and "no man has a right to 20 trample upon another.“ This was what the equality clause l9Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works 2; Lincoln (9 vols.; New Brunswick, N. J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1953), II, 255, 275. 20Congressional Globe, vol. 106, 33rd Cong., lst Sess., 1854, pp. 310: 311. 131 was all about according to Wade. Answering his adamant colleague, Pettit suggested that the Declaration's importance rested with its statement of rights: (1) that the Colonies had the right to claim independence as a nation, and (2) that Americans possessed the right of self-government. In his reply, Wade admitted that the Declaration proclaimed the rights Pettit mentioned, but maintained that the document did more than this. It was an expression Of men's personal rights and equality. Wade also expressed the Opinion that "without the influence Of those soul inspiring principles [equality and inalienable rights] it would have been impossible for the patriots of 21 In that day [1776] to have achieved our independence." short, one Of Benjamin Wade's primary objections to Pettit's conception of the Declaration was that it was too narrow and restrictive. Immediately following the Wade-Pettit debate, Senator Andrew P. Butler of North Carolina placed Wade on the defensive by asking whether the peOple of Ohio considered the Negro to be morally and politically equal to the white man. Wade responded by admitting that Negroes were dis- criminated against and did not fully enjoy the Declaration's principles, as did whites. (But he added that "He [the NegrO] has every other privilege that I have, except it is 21Ibid. Wade's last assertion was the same question- able point which Alvan Stewart made some eight years earlier, in his public letter of 1846 to the Liberty party. 132 the very doubtful privilege of holding office and giving a vote."22 It is indeed difficult to refrain from questioning Wade's interpretation of the Declaration Of Independence, especially his insistence upon its references to personal rights and equality. For Wade's conception of the Declaration was in essence no broader than Pettit's or Butler's. \How could Wade seriously speak of equality and rights for the black man if he was unwilling to allow the Negro two of the most important political rights needed to achieve such Objectives? Wade was symbolic of many antislavery supporters who spoke Of Negro equality in the abstract but who in practice entertained racist views. Like many other Northerners and Westerners, Wade Opposed the extension of slavery because he feared and disliked the thought of living in close proximity to Negroes.23 TO find further evidence Of the discrepancy between the rhetoric of northern, antislavery politicians and their actual intentions and beliefs one need only look at the 22Ibid., p. 311. 23Eugene Berwanger in his book The Frontier A inst Slavery (Urbana, Illin.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1967) discusses northern and western prejudice and discrimination against Negroes. The author also describes measures taken to prevent Negroes from migrating to these areas. See, e. g., pp. 30-59, 125, 127, 139, 140. Benjamin Wade's views are mentioned on p. 127. V. Jacque Voegeli in Free but Not Equal (Chicago: Univ. Of Chicago Press, 1967), found the same kind of prejudice and discrimination for the Midwest during the Civil War. See pp. 18-20, 181. 133 remarks of nationally known Republicans such as Abraham Lincoln and Lyman Trumbull. Although these men frequently used the principles of the Declaration Of Independence to criticize slavery, they were unfortunately a product of the same racist milieu as Benjamin Wade. Lincoln, for example, appears to have had mixed views on the question of Negro equality. While he believed the Declaration's doctrines applied to Negroes, it is apparent from a speech‘ delivered in Springfield on June 26, 1857 that he Opposed the extension Of slavery not only because he wanted to contain and eliminate the institution, but also because he believed the races should be kept separate. At one point in his speech he asserted that "as an immediate separation of the races] is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black peOple never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas."24 During a December 8, 1859 Senate debate over John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, Lyman Trumbull of Illinois maintained that Republicans believed in the concept of equality and the basic natural rights of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To this he added statements such as: "the negro has the same natural rights 2"'Balser, pp. _c_i_t., II, 408. Lincoln's views on the Declaration Of Independence and Negro equality will be discussed in greater detail in the section on the Lincoln- Douglas debates. 134 that I have . . . ." When criticized by Andrew Johnson Of Tennessee several days later, however, Trumbull qualified his position and admitted that equality was an abstract truth and that in reality all peOple did not have equal rights. He declared, for example, that When we organize our society, we will infringe as little on that great natural right [equality] as possible; but no government is perfect and therefore we do in Illinois make a distinction between whites and blacks; and we make a distinction between the political rights of men and women. While we do that, we admit the great God- given truth that all are created equal. Johnson continued to press Trumbull and asked him if in establishing a community in one of the territories, bearing in mind the ideas of liberty and equality proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, whether he would make Negroes equal to whites in regard to rights. Trumbull's response was "I would not give to the negro pOpulation the same political rights that I would to the white pOpulation in every case. I do not know that I would in any case." Trumbull also stated that he did not believe whites and blacks could live together in peace and happiness. He therefore was in favor of "separating these races by a system which shall rid the country of the black race, as it becomes free."25 Wade, Trumbull and even Lincoln to a certain extent, were representative Of many northern, anti- slavery politicians, who used the doctrines Of the -25Congressional Globe, vol. 121, 36th Cong., lst Sess., 1859, pp. 54, 56: 102. 135 Declaration Of Independence to promote their own cause, but who in reality held views far short of what their rhetorical references to the Declaration implied. The Kansas-Nebraska debates as discussed thus far have followed a somewhat logical pattern. Antislavery men who Opposed the bill used the Declaration of Independence to reinforce their position, while supporters Of the bill, many of whom held proslavery views, Often challenged and criticized the document and its concepts. A.more revealing aspect of the debates with regard to the Declaration, however, can be found in concentrating upon the question Of pOpular sovereignty. For in advocating this doctrine many Of the bill's prOponents actually used the Declaration to support their position. The ideas of self-government and consent Of the governed were Often identified with pOpular sovereignty. Lewis Cass in a February 20th speech before the Senate suggested that new communities such as the territories had "an inalienable right to manage their internal affairs for themselves." Senator John R. Thomson of New Jersey speaking to the same august body on February 28th strongly supported the Kansas-Nebraska act and felt that the main principle Of the bill was that Of self-government, which was also the basis Of the Declaration of Independence. Several days later Stephen A. Douglas became involved in the Senate debate and stated: It is apparent that the Declaration of Independence had 136 its origin in the violation of that great fundamental principle which secured to the peOple of the Colonies the right to regulate their own domestic affairs in their own way; and that the Revolution resulted in the triumph of that princégle, and the recognition of the right asserted by it. Douglas' main point was that the basic principle of the Declaration and the Kansas-Nebraska bill was the same. Both documents were based upon the idea of self-government, that the peOple of a community or territory had the right to manage their own domestic affairs. And since section eight of the Missouri Compromise hindered this Objective, it had to be repealed. He also noted that the abolitionists by demanding congressional control over slavery in the territories were violating the concept of self-government which was the basis of the American system Of government. During the same debate William C. Dawson of Georgia simi- larly stated that the principles of the bill were consistent with the ideas upon which the nation was founded - the right to self-government. Addressing the House of Representatives on March 15th, Samuel A. Bridges of Pennsylvania asserted that letting the peOple of a ter— ritory decide on the question of slavery themselves "would 'be only to carry out the idea of pOpular sovereignty and of'selfegovernment." According to Bridges, these principles were clearly expresSed in the Declaration of Independence. ¥ 26Congressional Globe, vol. 106, 33rd Cong., lst Sess., 1854, pp. 279, 255, 337. 137 Samuel Caruthers of Missouri, Speaking to the House on April 7th, noted that the great men of 1850, seeking to preserve the Union, searched for a great principle which could be used as a basis of compromise. He declared that they [the men of 1850] found in the very cornerstone - embodied in the Declaration of Independence - a strong and vigorous principle . . . . the principle contained in the grand and solemn declaration that 'Governments claim their just powers From the Consent of The Governed.'ZY The main point which Caruthers and the others just men- tioned stressed was that the principles of self-government and consent of the governed, proclaimed in the Declaration, were consistent with those of the bill in question. The Declaration of Independence and the Kansas-Nebraska act were clearly harmonious documents in their eyes. There were those, however, who did not see the ap- parent harmony. In a speech delivered on October 16, 1854 in Peoria, Illinois, Abraham Lincoln noted that one of the main arguments used to support the repeal of the Missouri Compromise restriction on slavery was the peOple's right to self-government. Lincoln affirmed his belief in this right, but maintained that it had been erroneously applied in the Iflansas-Nebraska debates. He believed that the Negro was a imen.like any other and stated "that no man is good enough to govern another man, without that other's consent. I —._ 27M°9 PP- 304: 354, 501. 138 say this is the leading principle - the sheet anchor of American republicanism." According to Lincoln, governing a man without his consent violated the principle of self- government. Frederick Douglass, the Negro abolitionist, speaking to a Chicago audience in November of 1854, sug- gested that the only aspect of pOpular sovereignty con- tained in the bill was the power of the peOple in the ter- ritories to buy and sell human beings. And such power was a denial of the concept of pOpular sovereignty, at least for black peOple. He maintained that "the only intelligible principle on which pOpular sovereignty is founded, is found in the Declaration of American Independence" which proclaimed the truths of equality and inalienable rights of all men. The Kansas-Nebraska act in Douglass' mind was a repudiation Of true pOpular sovereignty.28 In an article primarily devoted to the Kansas-Nebraska bill and the slavery question a Vermont abolitionist named Leonard Marsh noted that the more cautious proslavery supporters of the act did not criticize the Declaration's principles, but on the contrary used the concept of self- ngernment to justify their position. Marsh rejected the argument presented by Stephen Douglas and others that the bill was in harmony with basic American principles and the k 28Basler, 2p. cit., II, 265. Philip S. Foner, ed., The Life and Writings 2f Frederick Dou lass (4 vols.; New Egrk: International Publishers, 1950-1955), II, 329, 330, l. 139 Declaration of Independence. He maintained that apply- ing the idea of self-government as the proslavery forces did would result in the same kind of Oppression which the founding fathers fought against in the Revolution. Ac- cording to Marsh, the Declaration symbolized resistance to the kind of Oppression which the Kansas-Nebraska act pro- moted. Marsh asked whether Kansas and Nebraska should be communities in which the inalienable rights of all men were protected or just those who were white. Continuing this line Of thought, he posed the following question: Was it one of man's sacred and inalienable rights to create "A human brothel wherewithal to breed children for market?"29 Charles Sumner, discussing the concept of pOpular sovereignty some years later, in a speech before a Republican state convention in Massachusetts noted that the doctrine was recognized by the Declaration of Independence. But he pointed out that the document placed restrictions on that concept. For pOpular sovereignty to be valid it had to be consistent with the other principles of the Declaration. As a sanction for slavery, pOpular sovereignty was being 1misused since slavery violated other principles of the Declaration such as the equality and inalienable rights of a; 29Leonard Marsh, A Bake-Pan For the Dou h—Faces (Burlington, Vt.: C. Goodrich, 1854), pp. 21, 22, 23, 24: 25: 35, 36- 140 30 all men. Perhaps the most significant factor regarding ref- erences to the Declaration during the Kansas-Nebraska debates was that its principles were used by both supporters and Opponents of the bill, by proslavery as well as anti- slavery men, by Northerners, Southerners and Westerners. This fact further demonstrates the diversity Of purposes which the Declaration served. It also substantiates the point that men repeatedly used the Declaration to conform to their own views and Objectives. Another event during the 1850's which focused attention upon the Declaration of Independence was the well known 3°Sumner, _o_p. c_ij., v, 250, 251, 252. Also see Sumner's February 21, 1854 speech in the Senate on this subject, III, 323, 324. The principle of pOpular sovereignty continued to be a debatable issue, involving the Declaration of Independence throughout the 1850's and up to the Civil War. Stephen A. Douglas, for example, wrote an article on the question which appeared in the September, 1859 issue of Harper's Magazine. Douglas pointed out that his concept of pOpular sovereignty was in harmony with "the Jeffersonian plan of government for the territories," and that the main point of.the American Revolution concerned "the inalienable right of each colony to self-government." aDouglas made strong use of the Declaration to support his position. Carl Schurz, a Lincoln Republican .from Missouri, strongly criticized Douglas' views in a Jeuuwuw'41 1860 speech delivered in Springfield, Massachusetts. (has of Schurz's main points was that Douglas had grossly 1misinterpreted the Declaration of Independence and the 'N. W. Ordinance of 1787. Schurz argued that both Jefferson's plan of 1784 and the Ordinance of 1787 promulgated the true principles of the Declaration by attempting to abolish Slavery. See Merrill D. Peterson, The Jefferson Ima e lg tgg .mmerican Mind (New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1960), pp. 195, , l 7. Frederic Bancroft, ed., S eeches, Corregpondence and Political Papers of Carl Schurz (6 vols.; New York: a-.Putnast Sons, 19137,II, 103. 141 Dred Scott case. In March of 1857 the Supreme Court handed down a decision stating that Negroes were not citizens of the United States and that the federal government had no authority to prohibit slavery in the territories. The case was extremely important because it dealt with the controversial questions of citizenship and the nature of the Union. Delivering the majority Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney noted that one of the basic questions in the case was whether Negroes were citizens within the meaning of the Constitution. It was in regard to this question that Taney made significant use of the Declaration. He asserted that the histories of the Revolutionary period and the language Of the Declaration indicated that neither slaves nor free Negroes were considered to be citizens at the time independence was declared. Furthermore, in the century before independence, Negroes were seen as an in- ferior race by the western world. They were, according to Taney, viewed primarily as prOperty in every one of the Colonies which signed the Declaration. After quoting the second paragraph Of the document, Taney stated that The general words above quoted would seem to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so understood. But it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the peOple who framed and adOpted this declaration; for if the language, as understood in that day, would embrace them, the conduct Of the distinguished men who framed the Declaration of 142 Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly l inconsistent with the principles they asserted; . . . .3 Taney also added that the founding fathers could not have possibly intended to include the Negro within the meaning of the Declaration because the black man "by common consent had been excluded from civilized Governments and the family of nations, and doomed to slavery." As further evidence to support his contention, Taney noted that many of the States passed laws before and after the Declaration's adOption, assigning the Negro to an inferior status. In conclusion, he asserted that the language of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, plus the laws of the federal government and the States all supported the position that Negroes were not considered citizens according to the Constitution.32 The Court's decision was especially sig- nificant for the antislavery cause because it legally re- futed the argument that Negroes were included within the meaning of the Declaration and therefore slavery should be abolished. It is also interesting to note Taney's statement that if the words of the Declaration's famous second paragraph were used today [1857] in a similar document, they would ¥ 31Vincent C. HOpkins, Dred Scott's Case (New York: Fordham Univ. Press, 1951), piw64. A Report of the Decision of the Su reme Court of the U. S. ip -the Case pf Dred Scott vs. John .“A. Sandded NewIYork: D. Appleton & Co., 1357), PP 453, 407. 453, 415- 2Re ort of the Supreme Court ip the Case p§_ Dred Scott, 3ppt‘E‘T0, 412, 426. «FL .fih 143 be construed "to embrace the whole human family." Why Taney believed this to be so he did not make clear. Per- haps the amount of antislavery sentiment in the country had reached the point where such an interpretation was possible. Nevertheless, he chose to interpret the document, and justifiably so, in light of its purpose in 1776. Opposed to Taney's majority Opinion were the dis- senting Opinions of JuStices Benjamin Curtis and John McLean. The more revealing of the two in terms of the Declaration was Justice Curtis'. To begin with, Curtis rejected the majority's view that the Negro could not be considered a full-fledged citizen. He pointed out that at the time of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation Negroes held the right to vote in five States and were viewed as citizens of those States.33 With regard to the Declaration, Curtis stated that he would not discuss attitudes toward Negroes at the time of the Revolution, nor the meaning of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. But he did refer to the ideas of that document as "universal abstract truths." Curtis also argued that the signers could not be accused of inconsistency for proclaiming the great truths of the Declaration. They were willing to implement such ideas, but not if such action effected changes which did more harm k ”laid... pp. 572. 573, 582. 144 than good. According to Curtis, the founding fathers did not believe that the natural rights expressed in the Declaration belonged to the white race exclusively. Curtis concluded his argument, however, by stating that it did little good to argue about the intentions of the founders and the meaning of the celebrated document. The justices should instead pay more attention to the constitutions and the laws of the states in dealing with questions such as Negro citizenship.34 Curtis' remarks indicate that while he viewed the Declaration as a distinguished document, expressing fundamental principles, he did not appear to believe that it carried the force of constitutional law. Justice Curtis was, of course, not the only American who dissented from the Court's 1857 decision. In a speech made on June 27th at Springfield, Illinois Abraham Lincoln perceptively pointed out that Justice Taney admitted that the language of the Declaration of Independence could be interpreted in a more comprehensive sense to include all races of men. According to Lincoln, Taney and.men like Stephen A. Douglas insisted "that the authors of that instrument [D. of I.] did not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not at once, actually place them on an.equality with the whites." Lincoln.noted, however, that the signers also did not immediately place all whites on an equal basis after adOpting the document. Lincoln ‘ 34Ibid.. pp. 574. 575. 145 maintained that the founding fathers meant to include all men within the meaning of the Declaration of Independence, but that they did not mean "to declare all men equal in all respects." He also noted that while all men did not have equal intelligence, morality and physical ability, they were equal in respect to their inalienable rights.35 Roger B. Taney's comments about the Negro and the Declaration are especially interesting if compared with those he made some years earlier in the Gruber case (1818). In defending Jacob Gruber, Taney clearly used the Declaration to demonstrate that slavery was inconsistent with American principles. The interpretation, however, which he gave to the Declaration in 1857 indicated that his ideas had changed.36 This point was forcefully made in an article written by an anonymous author in 1865, a year after Taney's death. The writer was not only critical of Taney's reasoning in the Dred Scott case, but also of his inconsistent use of * 35Basler, pp. _c_i_t_., II, 405, 406. 36Carl B. Swisher, Roger B. Taney (New York: The Bkacmillan Co., 1935), pp. 95, 96, 97, 98. Anonymous, Th2 lbi‘ust Jud e: A Memorial pf Roger B. Taney, Late Chief Jd‘l‘f'st ce p_ the 3757—. New“ York: Baker and Goodwin—‘86, l 5), 'DE). 8, 9. 'Taney's role in the Gruber case is discussed 1:1 Chapter II. His later views on the Declaration and Negroes had actually been formulated much earlier than 1857. As Atitorney General under Andrew Jackson in 1832 he expressed thue Opinion that Negroes whether free or slave did not have a llegal right to citizenship, nor was the Declaration in- teznded to apply to those of the African race. See Swisher, 22- _c_i£o. pp. 154. 157. 158. 146 the Declaration. He noted that in the Gruber case, Taney spoke of slavery as being imposed on the Colonies by Great Britain, and in the Dred Scott case contended that slavery was readily accepted by the Colonies, as well as in England and the rest of western civilization. The anonymous author also argued that in 1818 Taney used the Declaration to support the view that slavery was a national disgrace and in 1857 the famous justice maintained that slaves were not meant to be included within the meaning of the Declaration. Taney's critic asserted that when the signers used the words"all men are created equal" that is exactly what they meant. The anonymous author also believed that the Declaration of Independence served as America's conscience and that in the Dred Scott case, Taney had betrayed the nation in violating that conscience. Taney had perverted the meaning of the Declaration.37 The charges of betrayal and perversion are somewhat severe. Taney's inconsistent use of the Declaration can 'perhaps be better eXplained by changing circumstances. In 1818 he was a young man and perhaps more idealistic and thdmistic about effecting change. His involvement in the tfic>lonization movement may have also influenced his thinking. ktld in 1818 the preservation of the Union was not at stake, n<>r was slavery such a crucial issue. Like so many others he interpreted the Declaration to conform to his immediate ‘1 37Anonymous,‘gpg Unjust Judge, pp. 43, 44, 15, 47. 147 concerns and purposes. As has been indicated, Justice Taney's decision caused another famous American to comment upon the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln, the Illinois lawyer and politician, in discussing such issues as the Kansas-Nebraska act and the Dred Scott case made numerous references to the Declaration. It was within the context of his famous debates with Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, however, that his most extensive, although not necessarily most important, discussion of the Declaration can be found. Lincoln's interpretation of the Declaration and its principles was probably one of the most important expositions of its meaning since 1776. It is apparent from Lincoln's many comments on the Declaration that he deeply respected the document and was concerned that this fundamental expression of the American creed was in danger. In a eulogy to Henry Clay, delivered in July of 1852, he expressed his disappointment over the growing ridicule and criticism leveled against the Declaration. Some years later, in a letter to Henry L. Pierce and other Boston citizens concerning a Jefferson Day celebration, he referred to the principles of the Declaration as the "defi- nitions and axioms Of a free society." Further along in the letter he stated that labelling the Declaration's principles as "glittering generalities" and "self-evident 148 lies" threatened the basis of America's free society.38 In Lincoln's eyes such attacks represented an attempt to subjugate free government with slavery. One Of Lincoln's clearest and most important state- ments regarding the meaning and purpose of the Declaration of Independence can be found in a June 26, 1857 speech he gave in Springfield, Illinois. Lincoln.naintained that when the founding fathers spoke of the concepts of equality and inalienable rights they meant simply to declare the righ , so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should be familiar to all and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all peOple of all colors every- where. According tO Lincoln, the signers had set up an ideal which they hOped would some day be realized in practice. Lincoln believed the Declaration "contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere." In his eyes the document was not limited in application solely to the case of colonial separation from England, as men like Stephen A. Douglas suggested. Such an interpretation was far too narrow. Lincoln, to the contrary, believed that the Declaration contained a universal quality which 38Basler, _p, 233., II, 130; III, 375. 149 applied to all men at all times.39 The differing views of the Declaration held by Abraham Lincoln anqutephen A. Douglas became quite Obvious during the famous debates these two senatorial candidates waged in the summer and fall of 1858. The political campaign conducted by Lincoln and Douglas was not only important because of the issues discussed, but also because their speeches and debates became the focus of national attention. This was the first election campaign to be reported in modern fashion. Correspondents, for example, accompanied the candidates on the campaign trail and complete cOpies of the debates and speeches usually appeared in newspapers all over the country.40 Returning from Washington on July 9th, Douglas Offi- cially Opened his campaign with a speech in Chicago. On the following day, Lincoln spoke in the same city and dis- cussed, among other things, the expression of equality found in the Declaration of Independence. He maintained that the idea "that all men were created equal" was a moral principle which applied to all men and not just the colonists as Douglas had implied the previous evening. Lincoln sug- gested that exceptions to the honored document weakened its 39Ibid., II, 405-406, 407. 40 Paul M. Angle, ed., Created Equal? : The Com lete Lincoln-Douglas Debates pf 1858 (Chicago:- Univ. of EEicago Press, 1 5 , p. xxv. 150 influence. For "if one man say it [D. of 1:] does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?" Lincoln attempted to clarify his thoughts on the question of equality in his concluding remarks when he stated ”let it [principle of equality] be as nearly reached as we can. If we can not give freedom to every creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any other creature."41 One week later Douglas spoke in Springfield, Illinois and rejected Lincoln's contention that the Declaration's equality clause applied to all men. Douglas argued that the founding fathers only intended the doctrine to apply to white men of Eur0pean ancestry and that they used it to defend colonial political and religious rights. Under no circumstances, according to Douglas, did the signers mean to include Negroes or Indians within the sc0pe of the equality clause. To support his argument, Douglas pointed out that every signer of the Declaration represented slave- holding constituents, and asked why Negroes were not elevated to political and social equality if they were meant to be included within the Declaration's meaning.42 41Ibid., pp. 40, 41, 42. 42Ibid., pp. 62, 63. Douglas was unequivocal in his Opinion concerning the founding fathers' intentions. In an October 7, speech at Galesburg, Illinois he stated that "this government was made by our fathers on the white basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and was intended to be administered 151 Speaking in Springfield on the evening of July 17, Lincoln attempted to answer several of the points made by Douglas earlier that same day. (He admitted that all men were not equal in all respects, but stressed their equality with regard to inalienable rights. The Negro while not equal to whites in many ways still had the right to work for himself and keep what he earned. Lincoln viewed the tendency to exclude the Negro from the Declaration's pur- pose as an effort "to dehumanize the negro - to take away from him the right of ever striving to be a.man."43 Lincoln avoided answering Douglas' question concerning the elevation of Negroes to a level of political and social equality comparable to that of whites, but other speeches and writings during this period shed light upon his ideas regarding this question. In a letter to a constituent named James N. Brown dated October 18, 1858, Lincoln ad- mitted that while the idea of equality expressed in the Declaration was a fundamental principle of American govern- ment, it did not have the legal force of law. And upon another occasion Lincoln noted that the doctrine of equality did not have any practical value in supporting the colonial claim for independence. The principles of equality and by white men in all time to come." See Angle, IE. cit., p. 294. Douglas made the same statement severa weEEE earlier at Jonesboro, Illinois on September 15, adding that he did not believe Negroes were capable of self-government. See Angle, _p, 213., p. 200. ”Angle, _p. 3.13., pp. 81, 82, 382. 152 inalienable rights were placed in the Declaration for a "future use." According to Lincoln, their purpose was to act as a deterrent to possible Oppression in the future, especially from groups or factions within the country.44 Harry V. Jaffa, a present day historian who has contri- buted to the Lincoln bibliography, has attempted to explain the emphasis which Lincoln placed upon including the Negro within the meaning of the Declaration's principles. Jaffa believes that Lincoln realized the heterogeneous composition of the American peOple could seriously weaken the nation, and therefore stressed the universality of the Declaration in order to promote national unity. Only such principles could effectively transcend the diverse religious and ethnic strains in American life. According to Jaffa, Lincoln perceived that if the ideas of the Declaration did not apply to Negroes, the same claim could be used to exclude other groups from the full benefits of American life.45 As has been indicated, the Lincoln-Douglas debates 44Basler, pp. p13,, III, 327; II, 406. Angle, pp, pip. p. 101. Carl Schurz, however, did attem t to answer Douglas! question for Lincoln. In a January 4, 1 60 Springfield, Massachusetts speech Schurz maintained that the founding fathers could not be accused of hypocrisy because they did in fact try to implement the principles of the Declaration by supporting gradual emancipation. According to Schurz, it was not the signers, but succeeding generations who failed to live up to the Declaration. See Bancroft, pp. 213., I, 96, 97. 45Harry v. Jaffa, Crisis 9f the House Divided (New York: Doubleday & Co., 1959), pp. 360, 361. 153 demonstrate that Lincoln repeatedly reaffirmed his belief that the principles of the Declaration applied to all men, white or black. Lincoln's views, however, are Open to question for there is evidence which suggests that he did not fully realize the contradictions within his own thought or was a victim of the same racist mentality which enslaved the majority of his fellow citizens. Speaking before an Ottawa, Illinois audience in August of 1858 he clearly stated that he was Opposed to political and social equality between the races, and admitted that real equality for the Negro would probably never be achieved. Perhaps Lincoln's most revealing thoughts can be found in a joint debate held at Charleston, Illinois some weeks later. Commenting upon the question of equality Lincoln declared that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with.white peOple; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living 46 together on terms of social and political equality. At Galesburg, Illinois on October 7th Lincoln and Douglas engaged in another joint debate at which time Douglas accused his Opponent of being inconsistent in his speeches. Douglas noted that in northern Illinois where there was a lot of antislavery sentiment, Lincoln stressed 46Angle, o . pip, pp. 117, 235. For further evidence of Lincoln's Opposition to granting the Negro social and political equality with whites see Basler, pp, gip., II, 408, and Angle,‘gp.'gi3., p. 268. 154 the fact that the Declaration proclaimed equality to all men, but that in the southern part of the state, where there was more proslavery sentiment he emphasized the point that he was opposed to social and political equality between the races.47 Douglas' charges cannot be easily dismissed. Any careful study of the debates indicates that Lincoln followed the pattern described. While Douglas' comments cannot be ignored it should also be pointed out that his own campaign positions are open to question. Carl Schurz, a Lincoln Republican from Missouri, in a Springfield, Massachusetts speech delivered in January of 1860, noted that Douglas in order to avoid alienating either the North or the South would not state whether slavery was right or wrong. Commenting upon Douglas' interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, Schurz perceptively remarked that To interpret the Declaration of Independence according to the evident meaning of its words would displease the South; to call it a self-evident lie would cer- tainly shock the moral sensibilities of the North. So he [Douglas] recognizes it as a venerable document, but makes the language, which is so dear to the hearts of the North, express a meaning which coincides with the ideas of the South. Schurz's criticism is valid. Douglas did praise the Declaration for the purpose of satisfying Northerners and then interpreted its principles in a manner which would not alienate the South. He stressed, for example, the fact 47Angle, pp. cit.. pp. 291, 292 155 that the document represented a rationale for American actions against Great Britain, and that its principles clearly did not apply to Negroes.48 Returning to Lincoln and his interpretation of the Declaration of Independence, it is apparent that the problem with his position was similar to that of Wade's, Trumbull's and other antislavery men. How could one speak of equality and inalienable rights for the blackman if one was unwilling to grant the political and economic power necessary to realize such principles in practice? Without political rights the "standard maxim” and "progressive improvement," which Lincoln spoke of, would be extremely difficult to achieve. Lincoln tried to reconcile the principles of the Declaration with public attitudes toward the Negro and with the existing legal structure. In one sense he failed in this endeavor as did the antislavery crusade in general. Failure was inherent in such a reconciliation because the hearts and minds of men could not accept true political, social and economic equality. 48Bancroft, o . gij,, I, 91, 92, 95, 98. It is quite obvious from churz's remarks on the Declaration that he-was strongly influenced by Lincoln. In his January 4, 1860 Springfield, Massachusetts speech he viewed the Declaration as an attempt to remold "human society upon the basis of liberty and equality." He also stated that "It I D. of 1.] is the summing up of the results of the philosOphical develop- ‘ment of the age; it is the practical embodiment of the progressive ideas which . . . pervaded the very atmosphere of all civilized countries." See Bancroft, pp. g;3., I, 98. 156 In another sense Lincoln succeeded. While believing Negroes were inferior to whites he did not completely close the door to improvement and change. He also gave the Declaration of Independence a more humanitarian and uni- versal interpretation than did Douglas and the Democrats. His restatement of the Declaration's meaning gave new life to the ideal formulated in 1776. The Declaration was a tangible statement of rights which men could reach out for when they became "sufficiently dissatisfied with what is, with the existing regime of positive law and custom." In essence, Lincoln's interpretation of the Declaration's prin- ciples reinforced the theoretical framework necessary to sustain an Open and fluid society.49 Abraham Lincoln became of course one of the leading figures of the new Republican party. One of the crucial political develOpments of the 1850's, which had an important influence on the Declaration's history, was the emergence 49The question of Lincoln's use of the Declaration has been discussed by various historians. Many of the so- called Civil War revisionist historians such as James G. Randall and Avery Craven are critical of Lincoln's use of the Declaration. They charge or imply that Lincoln used the document to further his own interests and those of his party. See Jaffa, pp. gi§., p. 363. Richard Hofstadter in his essay on Lincoln in The American Political Tradition (New York: Vintage Books, 19487‘perceptively points out the contradictions in Lincoln's views regarding the Negro, equality and the Declaration of Independence. See pp. 111- 113, 116-117. For an Opposing view see Harry V. Jaffa's Crisis pf the House Divided, pp. 321, 322, all of Chapter KVII and especIally p. 378. Jaffa is essentially an apolo- gist for Lincoln and attempts to explain the apparent inconsistencies stressed by Lincoln's critics. 157 of that party. The debate and passage of the Kansas-Nebraska act had in fact been the most important element in the party's develOpment. The new party was basically composed of "conscience" Whigs, avid antislavery men and free soil Democrats. These diverse groups were able to unite and achieve a semblance of unity because of their common Op- position to the extension of slavery. During its early years the Republican party closely identified with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. This can be seen from the party's first national convention held in Philadelphia in June of 1856. The platform adopted at that convention.made important use of the Declaration's political philosophy. The first resolution stated that “the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution, are essential to the preserva- tion of our republican institutions . . . .“ The second resolution affirmed the party's belief in the inalienable rights of all men and the fact that government's primary purpose was to protect such rights. The resolution also clearly invoked the Declaration's principles and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution to demonstrate the illegality 50 of extending slavery to the territories. 50John Tweedy, A Histor ‘2; the Republican Natigpal Conventions From 185§ng 19 (Danbury, Conn.: John Tweedy, 1910), pp. 16, 17. These resolutions became the source of much controversy. The lst resolution stated: That the 158 One of the key figures involved in drawing up the Republican platform of 1856 was Joshua Giddings, the veteran antislavery congressman from Ohio. Giddings was most in- strumental in getting the party to adOpt the resolutions referring to the Declaration. Using the ideas of the Declaration in the fight against slavery was not new to Giddings. As early as 1849 he used the document to endorse the Wilmot Proviso. Speaking before the House of Representatives, in February of that year, he asserted that in establishing governments in newly acquired ter- ritories, the United States should follow the guide lines expressed in the Declaration. Noting that'governments are instituted among men to secure the enjoyment of life and liberty," he argued that the Declaration clearly spoke out against slavery and the federal government should therefore maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence, and embodied in the Federal Constitution, are essential to the preservation of our republican insti- tutions and that the Federal Constitution, the rights of the states, and the union of the states, must and shall be preserved. The 2nd resolution stated: That with our re- publican fathers, we hold it to be a self-evident truth, that all men are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and that the primary object and ulterior design of our federal government were to secure these rights to all persons under its exclusive jurisdiction: that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in all our national territory, ordained that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or prOperty, with out due process of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it for the purpose of establishing slavery in the territories of the U. S. by positive legis- lation, prohibiting its existence or extension therein. 159 not allow the institution to exist in newly acquired ter- ritories. In 1856 Giddings believed that it was equally as important to reaffirm the principles of the Declaration in establishing the foundations of a new national party. He declared that the Declaration of Independence was the basis of his Republicanism and that it was the "first anti- slavery document."51 It is interesting to note that the Republican party's identification with the principles of the Declaration elicited a wide range of criticism. Many Whigs, Democrats and Southerners reacted unfavorably to Republican refer- ences to the document. One of the leading critics of the party's use of the Declaration, especially in respect to its 1856 national platform, was Rufus Choate, the Massachusetts lawyer and politician. Choate, whose sym- pathies lay with the old Whig party, did not favor any of the presidential candidates in 1856 and believed that the Republican party was a grave threat to the security of the Union. In an August 9, 1856 letter addressed to the Whig 51George w. Julian, pip Life of Joshua Giddin s (Chicago: A. C. McClurg & Co.,—18927. pp. 335, 33 . Joshua R. Giddin s, Speeches ;p_Congpess (Boston: John P. Jewett & Co., 1853 , p. 345. Bean, pp, pip., p. 105. It is inter- esting to note that George W. Julian author of the book on Giddings was himself a leading abolitionist, and important Republican in the 1850's and 1860's. He believed getting the Republican party to adOpt a resolution quoting the principles of the Declaration of Independence was an.im- portant achievement because many southern politicians and some Northerners had gotten into the habit of criticizing and ridiculing those principles. See p. 336. 160 Central Committee of Maine he noted that while Republicans espoused the doctrines of human rights found in the Declaration, they were attempting to create fear and hatred between North and South.52 On several occasions Choate became involved in criti- cal analyses of Republican use of the Declaration. In his letter of August 9th to the Maine Whigs, he referred to the Republican party's doctrines as those "glittering and sounding generalities of natural right which make up the Declaration of Independence.” He also raised the question: "Is it man as he ought to be, or man as he is, that we must live with . . .?"53 His point was simply that the ideals of the Republican party were fine in theory, but not in practice. In a speech before a Lowell, Massachusetts audience on October 28th, Choate went into greater detail regarding 523amuel G. Brown, The Works 9; Rufus Choate With a Memoir of His Life (2 vols.; Boston: Little, Brown & Co., l33277‘l7’2li,‘2l2, 214. While known primarily for his brilliance and success as a lawyer, Choate was also an influential figure in Massachusetts politics, especially with regard to the Whig party. Although he believed slavery was morally wrong he never supported abolitionism. Claude M. Fuess, Rufus Choate: The Wizard of the Law (New York: Minton, Balch and Co., 19237} pp.‘65=897‘19I2218. Choate's views were often publicized and his remark describing the Declaration as "glittering and sounding generalities" received considerable attention, particularly in later years. See, for example, Basler, _p, 213., III, 375 and Peterson, 2p. cit., pp. 201, 202. 53Ihid., pp. 215, 214. 161 Republicans and the Declaration. Commenting upon references to that document in the 1856 party platform, he criticized and resented the idea that Republicans had derived some new and important meaning or understanding from Jefferson's famous paper, something which other Americans supposedly had not achieved. He wanted to know upon what basis the party claimed "some special and characteristic relation" to the Declaration. HOW were Republicans going to inter- pret the document in a new and significant manner? And just what did Republicans mean when they stated that they were "going to execute their constitutional powers in the spirit of the Declaration"?54 Choate believed there were blatant contradictions in the way Republicans applied the Declaration. Quoting from the first resolution of the 1856 platform, he asked how certain principles could be "promulgated" in the Declaration of Independence and “embodied" in the Constitution if the former document spoke of equality and inalienable rights, and the latter, in its fugitive slave clause, demanded that runaway slaves be returned to their masters.55 The Massachusetts critic was not the only person who leveled such criticism at Republicans. During the Lincoln- Douglas debates the "Little Giant" attacked Lincoln's use 54Brown, pp. p;p., II, 403, 404, 405, 406. 55Ibid., p. 405. 162 of the Declaration. In December of 1859 during a Senate debate on the Harpers Ferry incident, the question of Republican party principles again came under attack. Lyman Trumbull, an antislavery Republican from Illinois, was asked by Senators Clement Clay of Alabama and David L. Yulee of Florida to explain the principles of the Republican party, especially the meaning of the first part of the 1856 party platform. Trumbull stated that the principles were those proclaimed in the Declaration and embodied in the Constitution. In regard to the party platform, he declared that it expressed the basic natural rights of all men to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a belief in the concept of equality. According to Trumbull, the founding fathers in adOpting the Declaration of Independence were attempting to organize a government as close as pos- sible to the great principles of natural rights. Chal- lenging Trumbull's interpretation, Senator Clay asked him to explain the apparent contradiction evidenced by the founding fathers' ownership of slaves. Trumbull rather weakly replied that although they proclaimed great principles, the signers had to be practical, and ownership of slaves did not detract from the validity of the Declaration's principles.56 The relationship between the federal government, the S6Congressional Globe, vol. 121, 36th Cong, lst Sess., 1859, pp. 51, 55. 163 Constitution and the Declaration was a subject which also received criticism from anti-Republicans. In his October 28th remarks at Lowell, Rufus Choate argued that if Republicans maintained that the federal government received any powers from the Declaration of Independence they were wrong. The national government received its authority from the Constitution. And if Republicans contended that the Declaration should be used "to interpret the language of the Constitution,” they were also in error. According to Choate, the two documents were written at different times for different purposes and could not be used to interpret one another. As far as Choate was concerned "Independence was the work of the higher passions. The Constitution was the slow product p_f_wisdom."S7 This kind of criticism did not abate in the years before the Civil War. Speaking before the Senate on April 11, l86O Senator James Chesnut of South Carolina remarked that