USA > Indiana > Indiana, a redemption from slavery > Part 25
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33
From these premises the petitioners argued that there could never be any harmony of political interests be- tween the two sections ; that nothing could be expected but discord and hatred. which would eventually destroy the peace and prosperity of the entire Territory. Nay, more : " Already have the seeds of discord been sown ; already have they presented a prospect of rapid growth ; but your petitioners offer up their earnest and sincere prayers to Heaven to avert, through the guardians and pro- tectors of their liberties and property, the sad and much dreaded effects of the threatened commotions." From the consideration of these evils the petitioners passed to the unwarrantable manner in which they had been "precipitated into the second grade." They declared that the governor had called for the vote of the people on petitions from Knox County alone ; that a majority of the Illinois people, who voted at all, voted against the
343
THE SECOND GRADE.
change; that the votes of Clark and Dearborn taken together had been against it; that Wayne had cast no vote ; and on these facts they sneered in italics at the governor's being " satisfied that there was a majority of the freeholders in the territory in favor of entering into the second grade of government." This petition was the strongest as to number and respectability of signa- tures that had gone up from the Indiana Territory. Among its three hundred and fifty signers were John Hay and William Biggs of the legislature, but Shadrach Bond's name does not appear. He was not ready to take so radical a stand against the Knox County party, although he refused to follow it to the other extreme of advance to state government without separation.
In proper chronological order the account of this peti- tion should have preceded that of the members of the legislature, for it was prepared and circulated during the summer of 1805. After they had learned that the counter-petition by the members of the legislature was forwarded, the Illinois people concluded that further action ought to be taken by them, and accordingly a committee of citizens from the several townships was appointed to take the matter in charge. This committee met on November 5, 1805, and decided to submit an additional memorial on their grievances and their wrongs. The subjects to be considered in this memorial were de- cided by resolution in the committee meeting, and one of them is worthy of preservation as illustrating the ani- mus of the pro-slavery anti-Harrison faction, for it shows clearly their unhappy situation between a desire to criti- cise the legislature and their fear of giving offense to the people by any apparent opposition to the introduction of slaves. They say : "And whereas the Ordinance of
344
INDIANA.
1787, for the Government of this Territory, is Respected by the people as the Constitution of their Country, this Committee entertain a hope that the General Govern- ment, after Guaranteeing to the people the privileges in that ordinance Contained, will not pass unnoticed the Violation thereof By the late act of the Legislature of this Territory Authorizing the importation of Slaves, and involuntary servitude for a term of years. And altho' this committee entertain no doubt but that the Act in Question will render service, by adding a Spring to the Growth of this Country, They express the disap- probation of a people, who never will Consent to a Vio- lation of that ordinance, for this privilege of slavery. When Congress shall deem a Change of the Ordinance expedient, they will Cheerfully agree to the measure." When the memorial came to be drawn, however, it dawned on the committee that this ground would best be left unoccupied, for, after all, the masses were much less interested in the inviolable preservation of the Or- dinauce than they were in the introduction of slavery. Hence they omitted this feature entirely, and substituted for it a fervent appeal for either a conditional or an absolute revocation of the sixth article of compact. They sated their longing for criticism of the Harrison faction by a protest against the petition for a state gov- ernment, charging that its object was "to continue the seat of government at Vincennes, where some of our principal characters have ample possessions," and by lamenting the increase of executive power through the creation of a court of chancery for the Territory, of which there was a single judge appointed by the governor.1 This memorial, together with the minutes of the meet- 1 Laws 1st Sess. 1st Ass., pp. 11-13.
345
THE SECOND GRADE.
ing of the committee that prepared it, was presented to the House of Representatives on January 17, 1806.1
There was still another petition that went from Indi- ana to this Congress, and we must not overlook it, for it was the first expression of the anti-slavery people, al- though on its face it has no reference whatever to slavery ; probably because they supposed they had sufficient grounds for their request outside of that subject. The Dearborn County people were becoming quite as weary as their Illinois brethren of the increasing greatness of Knox County and the domineering spirit of the faction in power. They derived no appreciable advantage from the advance to the second grade, against which they had voted, and yet they were subjected to increased taxation on account of it. They were opposed to the introduction of slavery, either with or without the consent of Con- gress, and yet it was to be forced upon them by the in- denture law. They prepared a memorial setting forth that they were separated from the seat of government by nearly two hundred miles of " a Wilderness occupy'd only by Indians and likely for many years to Remain Unoccupied by any Other persons ; " that the interven- ing country was "in General Very Broken and therefore Very unlikely to afford a communication to the seat of Government ; " and that they were situated near to, and in easy communication with, the State of Ohio. For these reasons they asked that they might be reannexed to that state. This memorial had one hundred and five signers, nearly all of them residents of the Whitewater Valley, and among them were a number of the old Quaker settlers who afterwards took an active part in the slavery controversy ; though at this time the settlers
1 See original papers, House files.
346
INDIANA.
of this sect had just begun their great emigration to southeastern Indiana.1
All of these petitions, together with the previous peti- tions and reports thereon, were referred by the House of Representatives to a select committee of seven, as fol- lows : Mr. Garnett of Virginia, Mr. Morrow of Ohio, Mr. Parke of Indiana, Mr. Hamilton of Pennsylvania, Mr. Smith of South Carolina, Mr. Walton of Kentucky, and Mr. Van Cortlandt of New York - three Northern States, three Southern States, and Indiana Territory. The petition of the Vincennes convention of 1802 was also referred to this committee, although by its own terms it had become void on March 4, 1805. Mr. Parke was apparently of influence on the committee, for their report, as presented by Mr. Garnett on February 14, 1806, favored everything that the Harrison party wished except the advance to a state government prior to divi- sion. As to that point the committee said: " A Terri- tory, when once erected into a State, cannot be divided or dismembered without its own consent ; the formation, therefore, of two States out of this Territory, originally intended by the Ordinance of 1787, could not constitu- tionally be effected, if the two sections were once per- mitted to form one State, without the consent of that State, however necessary the extent and population of that Territory might render such division." They also said that a division of the Territory so soon after enter- ing the second grade would be impolitic and unjust, but that it should be made as soon as either section had suf- ficient population to enable it to form a state government. As to slavery, the committee swallowed the philanthropic
1 Original, House files. This petition is in the writing of George Holman, one of the most influential of the signers.
347
THE SECOND GRADE.
view bodily, and reported that as " our Western brethren are not only willing but desirous to aid us" in relieving the South of its surplus negroes, it would be expedient to suspend the operation of the sixth article for ten years, so as to permit the introduction of slaves born within the United States. They also reported in favor of removing the property qualifications of voters, and against the proposals for division from Dearborn, Ran- dolph, and St. Clair counties.1 The report was referred to a committee of the whole house for February 20, but was not taken up. Later in the session, on March 26, John Randolph presented two additional petitions, from Randolph and St. Clair counties, for the division of the Territory and the introduction of slavery to the western part. These were accompanied by a census estimate, prepared by Robert Morrison, who had taken the last national census in that region, in which the population of these two counties was said to be 4,311 souls. These documents were referred to the same committee, but no further action was taken.2
This action of Congress threw the questions back to the Territory, but with a material modification. The question of advance to a state government by the entire Territory was no longer of any importance, for it had been ascertained that Congress would never authorize it. The only remaining branch of the separation question was whether a division could be obtained before one of the sections was ready to form a state government. The Harrison party was opposed to this ; but it was not a serious matter, for division was now only a question of time, and Congress had intimated its intention of
1 Am. State Papers: Misc., vol. i. p. 450.
2 Annals 1st Sess. 9th Cong., pp. 466, 848.
348
INDIANA.
putting that time at the greatest possible distance. Un- der these circumstances the General Assembly convened again on November 3, 1806, and the two factions of the pro-slavery party readily reached the conclusion, that, by fighting each other when there was no occasion for it, they were wasting the strength they would need to secure the object which both wanted. They accordingly came to an amicable agreement to unite in the effort for the introduction of slavery, and let the people fight out the question of division, free from legislative inter- ference. On this understanding the legislators pro- ceeded harmoniously with their pro-slavery work. They adopted a series of resolutions declaring that the suspen- sion of the sixth article would be highly advantageous to the Territory, to the South, and to the negroes ; that nine tenths of the people of the Territory desired it; that slaves were held in the Territory when the Ordinance was adopted ; that the Ordinance was adopted without the " knowledge and approbation " of the people of the Territory ; and on these grounds they directed their representative in Congress to use his best endeavors to secure a suspension of the article. These resolutions were declared to have been passed by a unanimous vote, and were certified by Jesse B. Thomas, Speaker of the House, and Pierre Menard, President pro tem. of the Council.1
The pro-slavery work of this legislature was not limited to this petition. On account of doubts which had arisen as to the legal nature of the indenture con- tracts, it was enacted that the time of service of in- dented negroes and mulattoes might be levied upon and sold as personal property. The negro was required to
1 Am. State Papers: Misc., vol. i. p. 467.
349
THE SECOND GRADE.
serve the purchaser for the remainder of his term, and the purchaser was required to perform whatever con- tract had been made by the original master. If no con- tract of compensation had been made, the purchaser was made liable for " freedom dues ;" that is to say, at the close of the term of service he must furnish the negro with "one new and complete suit of cloathing, suited to the season of the year, towit: a coat, waistcoat, pair of breeches and shoes, two pairs of stockings, two shirts, a hat and a blanket." 1 There was also enacted a strin- gent law for the police of slaves. If a slave or servant was found ten miles or more from the home of his mas- ter, without a pass, any one might take him before a jus- tice of the peace, who could order him punished by not more than twenty-five lashes. If a slave went upon the plantation of a person other than his master, without leave from his master, such person might punish the offender with ten lashes. A slave who participated in a riot or unlawful assembly, or made seditious speeches, was punishable with thirty-nine stripes, on conviction before a justice. Any person who harbored a slave or servant was made subject to a fine of one hundred dol- lars, while aiding one to escape was finable in five hun- dred dollars.2
Notwithstanding the harmony at Vincennes, the fight between the two factions of the pro-slavery party went merrily on in the Illinois country. The separationists got together their committee which had been elected the year previous, and made a renewal of their plea for an independent government. With the exception of a claim to a population of 5,000 souls, they made but one
1 Laws 2d Sess. 1st Genl. Ass., p. 13; 4 Gov. and Judges, p. 26. 2 Ibid., p. 21.
350
INDIANA.
new argument, which was a statement that, in view of the complications which might arise from the European peace, then in prospect, " they cannot but shudder at - the horrors which may arise from a disaffection in the West :-- and can it be much, to the American people to grant to their brethren in this distant region a govern- ment to which, in an evil hour, they can speedily fly for direction and support." 1 Elijah Backus was sent to Washington as agent to urge the claims of the peti- tioners upon Congress. The Harrison faction in Ran- dolph County rallied and produced a counter-petition, in which they denounced the committee of the opposition party as a sham and a fraud, which "turns the name convention into contempt and ridicule." They declared that no election whatever for members of this committee had been held in two of the townships ; that in Kaskas- kia no notice of an election was given ; and that the members elected from that place constituted one half of the meeting by which they were elected. They denied that any advantage could be gained by division, and ex- pressed fear that it would make their situation worse. The signatures show that the Harrison party was losing ground in Randolph. Nearly all of the one hundred and two signers were French, and forty-two of them could not write their names. Of the few names that would be familiar to an Illinois historian of to-day, those of George Fisher, Hippolyte Menard, and François Me- nard were the most prominent.2
The resolutions of the legislature, asking the suspen- sion of the sixth article, were presented to the House of Representatives on January 20, 1807, and referred to a select committee, of the approved North and South 1 Original, House files. 2 Original, House files.
351
THE SECOND GRADE.
representation, as follows : Parke of Indiana, Varnum of Massachusetts, Alston of North Carolina, Kelly of Pennsylvania, Sandford of Kentucky, Jere. Morrow of Pennsylvania, and P. R. Thompson of Virginia. They reported, on February 12, that it would be expedient to suspend the 6th article of compact for ten years, "from and after the 1st day of January, 1808." This qualifi- cation was made out of deference to the feeling concern- ing the slave-trade, which was now almost unanimously against that villainous traffic. The subject had been almost constantly agitated since the formation of the Constitution, and it was certain that with the last day of 1807, to which the Constitution protected it, the slave- trade would exist no longer, so far as the United States was concerned, except as a forbidden and criminal occu- pation. In addition to that, the sentiment had grown so strong that no proposition met with favor if it in any way stimulated or increased the slave-trade during the few remaining months of its necessary existence. The increase of slave territory within the United States would naturally have this effect, and in consequence the time of the act's taking effect was deferred. How much farther the slave-trade question affected the intro- duction of slavery into Indiana is a query for whose solution I have found no exact evidence, but it is my belief that but for the constitutional continuance of the slave-trade to 1808, and the indignation and bitterness that resulted from it, the sixth article would have been suspended and slavery would have been admitted north of the Ohio.
At the opening of this session of 1806-7, Mr. Jeffer- son said in his message : "I congratulate you, fellow- citizens, on the approach of the period at which you
352
INDIANA.
may interpose your authority, constitutionally, to with- draw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabi- tants of Africa, and which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe. Although no law you may pass can take prohibitory effect till the first day of the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening period is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, ex- peditions which cannot be completed before that day." 1 The subject engrossed much of the attention of Congress during the session, although there was practical una- nimity as to the general purpose of the proposed law ; in fact, the slave-trade had already been prohibited in all of the states except South Carolina. The prohibitory law passed the Senate without division, both in its original form and as amended. In the House there was much debate, but it was confined almost wholly to matters of detail, the chief point of controversy being the disposi- tion of such slaves as might be imported contrary to law after the importation was prohibited. It was conceded that these must be taken from their holders, if the pro- hibition were made effectual, for the forfeiture of vessels engaged in the trade, and fine and imprisonment of the owners and crews, had already been tried with little effect ; the ship-owners, particularly those of Rhode Island, had invented systems of collusion in the pur- chase of libelled vessels which made the loss trifling in comparison with the enormous profits of the trade. But if the slaves were taken from their holders, what was to be done with them ? Evidently it would not do to set 1 Annals 2d Sess. 9th Cong., p. 14.
353
THE SECOND GRADE.
them free, ignorant of our language and with no means of support, on the shores where they happened to be landed; and to take them back and set them free on the coast of Africa would generally have been equally inhumane. It was proposed that they should be for- feited to the United States for such disposition as should be thereafter provided, but this was objected to because it recognized a right of property in the negroes. It was proposed that they should be bound to service for a term of years, but this met a similar objection. The dilemma was finally solved by divesting the holder, or any of his assignees, of all title, and leaving the negro imported contrary to law to be dealt with as the state to which he was brought might see fit.1
The bill passed the House by a vote of 63 to 49, but this was no test of the feeling of the members as to the importation of slaves. The large negative vote here was called out by a compromise amendment for the preven- tion of the transportation of slaves coastwise for the pur- pose of sale, and this the dissenting members declared had nothing to do with importation. The original bill had passed by a vote of 113 to 5, and a part of these few negatives were due to a feeling that the bill did not prevent importation through Florida.2 The majority in the House which would have voted against the suspen- sion of the sixth article was at least as great as that on the final passage of the prohibitory act, and it probably would have been considerably greater. John Randolph led the opposition to the law, on account of the provision as to the coastwise trade, and yet, as we have seen, he favored the maintenance of the Ordinance as it stood.
1 Annals 9th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 1266.
2 Ibid., pp. 486, 626.
354
INDIANA.
The report of the committee was referred to a committee of the whole for February 16, but it was not called up, and then the slavery matter dropped for that session. The matter of division advanced but one step farther. The petitions from the Illinois people, for and against division, were presented on February 20, and referred to the same committee as the slavery resolutions. On the 26th Parke reported favorably to division, and a resolution was adopted "That it is expedient to divide the Indiana Territory," 1 but no other action was taken.
Thus again both questions were thrown back to In- diana to form the leading issues of a new campaign. The failure of Congress to act resulted in renewed local disputation that served to push forward the crystalliza- tion of those party organizations which were still in an immature state. A decision either way would have al- tered the character of immigration; would have pre- vented the local occurrences of the next two years ; would have changed the color of Indiana politics for years to come. These questions that are difficult of settlement - these questions that will not down-are the ones whose heat melts public feeling for the mold, and when once molded a generation may pass before its outlines can be altered.
1 Annals 9th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 624.
CHAPTER X.
THE HARMONY OF DISCORD.
THE terms of the representatives to the first General Assembly expired on June 30, 1807 ; and in anticipation of this a law had been passed at the last session pro- viding for an election on the first Monday in February of that year.1 At this election there was an increased show of strength by the anti-slavery people in the east- ern counties, and by the anti-Harrison faction in the Illinois country, but not enough to affect materially the representation. The greatest change was in Dearborn, but, by assuring every one that he was heartily in favor of whatever they wanted, Jesse B. Thomas was again elected there. Shadrach Bond and William Biggs were returned from St. Clair, and George Fisher from Ran- dolph, as before. Davis Floyd of Clark had his hands full with his trial for complicity with Burr, and James Beggs was elected in his place. The delegates from Knox County were General W. Johnston and Luke Decker, but this was not a political change, for their party affiliations were the same as those of their prede- cessors, Benjamin Parke and John Johnson. The coun- cilors, of course, held over.
Of the three new members we have already met Decker as a member of the Vincennes convention of 1802. General Washington Johnston was a native of 1 Laws 2d Sess. 1st Genl. Ass., p. 5.
356
INDIANA.
Culpepper County, Virginia. He came to Vincennes in 1793, and was the first attorney at the bar of that county of whom there is any record. He was very active in - the work of the Masonic order; usually delivered the customary oration on the day of St. John the Evange- list, the patron saint of the Vincennes lodge; and was one of the organizers of the grand lodge of Indiana in 1817-1818. He held many offices, in some of which we shall find him hereafter. James Beggs might have made more claim to greatness than any other member of this legislature. He was one of three brothers who came west in the latter part of the last century, settled for a short time in Kentucky, and then came north of the Ohio because it was free soil, or at least more nearly so than Kentucky. They were all Virginians of Irish descent, the sons of Thomas Beggs, a commissary in the Revolutionary army. Being fairly well-to-do, each bought a five hundred acre tract in Clark's Grant and settled down to farming. James was a graduate of William and Mary's ; the other two had good common- school educations. They were religious pioneers. John, the oldest, was a Baptist -later a follower of Alex- ander Campbell, and the others were stanch Methodists. They had enough Virginia in them to be very fond of reading and not at all covetous of hard work. John was for some years a judge of the Clark County courts. Charles was a captain of militia, and served with credit at Tippecanoe. James was several times in the legisla- ture. Beyond this they were not known in public life, but in the Falls country they were men of distinction, men of great strength, of great heart, of great brain. Their qualities made them factors of great importance in local politics, and during the territorial period they
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.