Lacy K. Ford Deliver Us from Evil, The Slave

Podstrony

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.” Pickens contended that the ban on importing slaves fromother states forced South Carolina to “leave their land uncultivated” and deprivedthe state of prospective citizens of “character, usefulness, enterprise, and wealth.” 66Throughout the  session, legislators wrestled with the issue of the  banon slave imports.Neither the House nor the Senate proved willing to heed Pickens’urging to repeal the ban outright.Instead, both chambers considered bills creatingspecifi c but limited exceptions to the general prohibition.67 The House and Sen-ate tentatively approved diff ering drafts of legislation allowing citizens to importslaves acquired by inheritance or marriage from decedents or spouses in other statesand permitting slaveholders to bring slaves they owned in other states into SouthCarolina without interference.A conference committee composed of members fromeach chamber had difficulty resolving the diff erences between the two bills, but onDecember , , the legislature fi nally agreed on a statute that approved verylimited exceptions to the  ban.The new law created a system of special licenses,approved by the county courts, that allowed residents of the state to bring in slavesfrom other states if they could prove they had owned those slaves before the ban waspassed in  or if they had acquired those slaves through inheritance or marriage.This law required applicants to provide extensive documentation (such as wills, mar-riage certifi cates, or some other “satisfactory evidence”) in order to acquire a licenseto bring slaves into the state.Such cumbersome legal requirements, as well as the stiffpenalties for violators, were included to prevent abuse of the statute by traders.68Undeterred by their failure in , however, advocates of repealing the ban onslave imports pressed their case again in .Fear of insurrection waned as theCamden incident faded in citizens’ minds, and emerging Upcountry cotton districtsregained their appetite for importing slaves, with some districts overtly reversing theirposition from two years earlier.In October , a York grand jury complained thatthe ban was “unequal and unjust” in its operation and demanded either an outrightP A T E R N A L I S M C O N T E S T E D191repeal or a modifi cation allowing residents to import slaves “for their own use.”A Chester District grand jury claimed that the ban was unfair and “particularly detri-mental” to “the interests of the upper country.” 69 Governor Pickens again attackedthe prohibition of the importation of slaves in his  message to the legislature,terming the ban “repugnant to the interests of many of our citizens.” The ban, Pickensclaimed, prevented the immigration of “prudent and conscientious men, who wouldbe valuable acquisitions to our society,” while it did little to prevent the illegal impor-tation of slaves.Pickens argued that despite the severe penalties imposed and strongenforcement provisions specifi ed by the  law, the ban had grown so unpopularin many areas that it was “violated in many instances with impunity, as no one willincur the odium attached to the character of an informer.” 70Pickens’ call for repeal sparked “eloquent and animated debates” in the  leg-islature.71 In the state house of representatives, inland cotton planters, led by JohnWitherspoon of Marion and George McDuffie of Abbeville, championed reopeningthe interstate trade.Charlestonians, including state house Speaker and future nul-lifi er Robert Y.Hayne, future Unionist Daniel Huger, and aging Federalist KeatingSimons, a leading opponent of the reopening the foreign slave trade fi fteen years ear-lier, vigorously opposed reopening the state to imports.72 After extended debate, the legislature voted to repeal the  ban on slave imports.The House approvedthe fi nal reading of the bill by a large majority, –.The House vote to repealrefl ected the continued sectional division on the issue.More than three-quarters ofthe votes in favor of repeal came from the interior districts, while three-quarters ofthe votes against repeal came from the Lowcountry parishes.Eight of every nineinterior delegates voted in favor of repeal.Two of every three parish representa-tives voted against repeal.73 Additionally, Senate votes on reopening the state toslave imports followed a pattern similar to votes concerning the international slavetrade during the – era.On the key state senate vote on December , advo-cates of repealing the ban on the importation of slaves prevailed narrowly, –.The traditional division between the interior cotton districts and the Lowcountryparishes shaped the outcome.Senators from interior districts favored reopening theinterstate trade by a margin of –.Camden’s Chapman Levy, the senator fromKershaw District and owner of two of the slaves executed as leaders of the Camdeninsurrection, joined the Upcountry majority voting to reopen the trade.Yet senatorsRobert Clendenin of York and John McCreary of Chester voted against repeal, indefi ance of grand jury sentiment in their districts [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

zanotowane.pl

doc.pisz.pl

pdf.pisz.pl

bezglutenowo.pev.pl