District of Columbia should be ceded to the State of Maryland, to be exercised in common with such rights in that State, subject, nevertheless, to the judicial jurisdiction of the District.1

The amendments of the peace convention further declared "that the bringing into the District of Columbia of such persons for sale, or placing them in depots to be afterwards transferred to other places for sale as merchandise, is prohibited." 2

Another considerable class of amendments, besides prohibiting the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, further forbade Congress to prohibit slavery from existing in the arsenals, navy-yards, dockyards, forts, or other places under its exclusive jurisdiction within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. Such a provision was included in the peace convention amendments, as well as in those of Crittenden, Johnson, Douglas, Florence, and others. Mr. Hindman of Arkansas would have changed the prohibition into a requirement that the Federal Government should protect property in slaves wherever the Federal jurisdiction extends."

113. RIGHT OF TRANSIT WITH SLAVES.

Troublesome questions had arisen out of the fact that slaves brought by their masters into free States or in transit through free territory were often liberated. To meet the case, four amendments were introduced guaranteeing the rights of masters or owners to their slaves while sojourning in or in transit through any State or Territory of the United States."

Three of these amendments were presented December 12, 1860. The remaining one was introduced by Mr. Florence, in January, 1861. At the same time he offered an amendment which declared that citizens of any State sojourning in another State should not be subject to violence or punishment, nor be injured in their persons or property without trial by jury and due process of law. In the series of amendments offered by Mr. Saulsbury, in 1864, as a substitute for the thirteenth amendment, was a proposition to allow the right of transit with slaves south of 36° 30', but not north of said line."

6

3 App., Nos. 799, 806, 818, 829, 845, 852d, 865, 869d, 874f, 894, 917, 924, 936, 943, 958, 969, 971c. 4 App., No. 806.

5 App.. Nos. 788, 793, 808, 882.

App., No. 885.

'App., No. 1009.

114. SLAVE INSURRECTIONS AND CONSPIRACIES.

Another of the series which Mr. Florence proposed declared that all acts of any inhabitant of the United States tending to incite slaves to insurrection or action of domestic violence, or to abscond, should be considered contrary to law and as penal offenses. Near the close of the session a somewhat different amendment was included in the series of propositions presented by Senator Pugh of Ohio and Senator Powell of Kentucky. It declared that "Congress shall pass efficient laws for the punishment of all persons in any of the States who shall in any manner aid and abet invasion or insurrection in any other State." In 1864 Mr. Saulsbury included in the resolution offered as a substitute for the thirteenth amendment this identical proposition coupled with another which declared that all conspiracies in any State to interfere with lawful rights in any other State or against the United States should be suppressed.3 These measures were naturally sug gested by the insurrection at Harpers Ferry under John Brown, in October, 1859.

115. COLONIZATION OF FREE NEGROES.

The project of mitigating the evil of slavery and eventually of its abolition through the colonization of negroes had been a favorite scheme ever since the early years of the century, when "colonization societies" were established. This plan was especially urged by those philanthropists who were opposed to extreme measures. The Southern men likewise were not as a rule averse to the movement, for the presence of free negroes among them was undesirable. It is not surprising, therefore, that during the discussion of the question of the constitutionality of Congress granting aid to the colonization movement, in the Twenty-second Congress, the proposal was twice made. that the Constitution should be amended so as to give Congress the express power to assist the colonization of negroes.5

The first of these resolutions, introduced by Mr. Archer of Virginia, proposed the expediency of amending the Constitution so as to empower Congress "to appropriate the revenue

'App., No. 885.

2App., Nos. 948, 968.

App., Nos. 1014, 1015.

4 Von Holst, U. S. Hist., 1, pp. 329-333; Rhodes, Hist. of U. S., I, pp. 381-382.

5 Georgia and some of the Gulf States passed resolutions against Congress aiding colonization societies. See Niles' Register, XXXVII, p. 428. Between 1823-1825 Ohio and seven other States passed resolutions in favor of colonization or gradual emancipation. Jours, of house and senate of Penn. (1823-1826), in passim.

1

accruing from the proceeds of the sale of the public lands,” in part, "in the aid of the removal of such portion of the colored population of the States as they may respectively ask aid in removing, on such conditions and to such places as may be mutually agreed upon." The remainder of the resolution authorized Congress to acquire suitable territory and to govern the same as Territories for such time as is necessary, after which the Territory should be established into a State or States independent of the United States and never should be admitted into the Union.3

The second resolution came from the legislature of Maryland, which State had been especially prominent in favoring the colonization movement. This resolution called for governmental aid "in the removal of the free people of color from the United States, if deemed in accordance with the Constitution;" and, if not, for such "an amendment to the Constitution as shall enable Congress to make such appropriation." No important action was taken on either of these propositions.

Similar propositions do not appear again until the winter of 1860-61, when Mr. Douglas revived this amendment, which was later in the session advocated by Mr. Clemens of Virginia." By the terms of this amendment the United States should be empowered to acquire districts of country in Africa and South America for the colonization, at the expense of the Federal Treasury, of such free negroes and mulattoes as the several States may wish to have removed from their limits, and from the District of Columbia and other places under the jurisdiction of Congress.

In 1862 President Lincoln in his annual message recommended to Congress the passage of three amendments in regard to slavery. One of these was to enable Congress to appropriate money and otherwise provide for colonizing free colored persons, with their own consent, at any place or places without the United States."

Mr. Saulsbury also included in the articles submitted by him as a substitute for the thirteenth amendment a section which

The resolution also covered internal improvements. See post, par. 156.

2 See Webster's speech of March 7, 1850. Works, v, p. 364.

3 App., No. 609b. Mr. Bailey, in 1825, had included in his amendment in regard to internal improvements provision for empowering Congress to promote also education, colonization, and the liberal and useful arts. App., No. 543; post, par. 171.

4 App., No. 609c.

5 App., No. 844.

App., No. 930. See post, par. 120, note 1.

App., No. 975.

permitted Congress to assist free persons of African descent to emigrate and colonize in Africa.'

As a result of the civil war, all the negroes were made free, and a general colonization scheme was thus rendered impossible. The present relations of the races seem to indicate that the negroes will remain a permanent element in the population of the United States.

116. THE FOREIGN SLAVE TRADE.

With the exception of the colonization schemes, the amendments upon slavery so far discussed were all attempts to settle the crisis of 1860-61. The slave trade was almost the only slavery question upon which there had been an earlier series of amendments.

By one of these compromises of the Constitution the importation of slaves prior to the year 1808 could not be forbidden by Congress. The ratifying convention of Rhode Island (May 29, 1790) was the only one of the State conventions proposing an amendment in regard to the slave trade.2 This resolution declared: "As a traffic tending to establish and continue the slavery of any part of the human species is disgraceful to the cause of liberty and humanity, Congress shall, as soon as may be, promote and establish such laws as may effectually prevent the importation of slaves of every description." This protest denotes a marked change in the public sentiment, for many of the inhabitants of Rhode Island had engaged in the slave trade and a large number of unemancipated negroes still lived within her borders.

The approach of the year 1808, when the period of the compromise would terminate, was marked by the presentation of resolutions from seven States to prohibit the further importation of slaves.3 The legislature of North Carolina appears to have been the first to propose this amendment, which it did in 1804. The approval of the legislature of Massachusetts followed in 1804-05, and a member from that State immediately introduced in Congress an amendment embodying the sense of their resolutions. The next year similar resolutions were received from the legislatures of Vermont, New Hampshire,

'App., No. 1018.

2 App., No. 120. The State had passed a gradual emancipation law in 1784.

3 App., Nos. 361a, 362b, 368, 368a, 369, 372, 375, 384. See below.

4 App., No. 361a, McMaster, Hist. of U. S., III, pp. 517-518. Du Bois, Suppression of the Slave Trade, p. 91. It is referred to in a resolution of the legislature of Georgia of nonconcurrence. Massachusetts Archives, House Mis., 5927.

Maryland, and Tennessee, and early in 1808 from the legislature of Pennsylvania.

Early in 1807, however, Congress had passed an act forbidding the importation of foreign slaves after January 1, 1808, thus fixing upon the earliest date possible under the compromise clause of the Constitution.' The bill passed by very large majorities, the vote in the House being 113 to 5, but over some of the details there was an acrimonious discussion, in which John Randolph took a prominent part. Notwithstanding this statute and various others, one of which made the slave trade piracy, the African slave trade continued to be a flourishing business.3

In 1860-61 numerous amendments were proposed among the compromise measures presented prohibiting the African or for eign slave trade. That the South was ready to grant this concession is made evident by the fact that the foreign slave trade was prohibited by the constitution of the Confederate States." In the series of amendments offered by Senator Saulsbury, in 1864, as a substitute for the thirteenth amendment, there was one prohibiting the African slave trade on pain of death and forfeiture of all the rights and property of persons engaged therein."

117. INTERSTATE SLAVE TRADE AND INTRODUCTION OF FREE NEGROES.

Although the commerce clause of the Constitution gave Congress the right to prohibit the interstate slave trade, the States jealously asserted the privilege of prohibiting or permitting the

Statutes at Large, 11, p. 426.

Principal opposition came from Brown of Rhode Island. See Niles' Register, VII, 49-53. Du Bois, pp. 94–108.

3 The messages of the President, the reports of officials, and the debates in Congress all reveal the fact that the trade still went on. Numerous bills and resolutions have been presented on this subject. The following are the most important statutes passed by Congress down to the close of the Thirty-sixth Congress, 1860-61: (1) 1794, March 22, prohib iting outward slave trade. (2) 1798, April 7, prohibiting slave trade to the Mississippi territory. (3) 1800, May 10, forbidding American trading in slaves from one foreign country to another. (4) 1803, February 28, forbidding importation of slaves into States prohibiting it. (5) 1804, March 26, forbidding trade to Louisiana. (6) 1807, March 2, forbidding slave trade after January 1, 1808. (7) 1818, April 20, act in addition to act of 1807. (8) 1819, March 3, statute in addition to act of 1818. (9) 1820, May 15, statute making slave trade piracy. (10) 1823, January 30, continuing act of 1820 making slave trade piracy. Between 1828 and 1861, eleven appropriation bills for the suppression of the trade. 1860, June 16, amendment to act of 1819. 1862, July 17, act to amend slave-trade act. See Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, The Suppression of the African Slave Trade to the United States of America. Appendix B in passim.

4 App., Nos. 786, 848, 857, 869f, 872, 8741, 883, 899, 915, 917, 921, 938, 947, 963, 966, 971d, 969. 5 Art. I, sec. 9. Du Bois, Slave Trade, pp. 188-191.