Contesting Slavery: The Politics of Bondage and Freedom in the New American Nation

Slave Smugglers, Slave Catchers, and Slave Rebels: Slavery and American State Development, 1787–1842

Slave Smugglers, Slave Catchers, and Slave Rebels Slavery and American State Development, 1787–1842 David F. Ericson The1860 Democratic Convention fractured over the demand of the Southern Democrats for a federally imposed territorial slave code. The Northern Democrats refused to accede to this demand, which they saw as an unprecedented intrusion of the federal government on a traditional state and local function. Their principle was their candidate’s principle as well. Illinois Senator Stephen A Douglas championed ‘‘popular sovereignty,’’ the power of the territories themselves, rather than the federal government, to enact territorial slave codes. The Northern Democrats were historically correct, at least on the specific point in dispute. Congress had not been in the practice of enacting territorial slave codes. On the broader relation between the federal government and slavery , however, it was the Southern Democrats who were correct. State actors had engaged in actions that were supportive of the institution of slavery from the very origins of the federal government. A federally imposed territorial slave code would not have been unprecedented in light of that prior history.∞ The literature of politics and history has largely adopted the position that the continuing presence of slavery on American soil had little to do with the development of the federal government.≤ It contends that, if anything, the presence of slavery depressed the development of the federal government, because of fears that a strong central state would act to abolish the institution. The Southernbased ‘‘Old Republicans,’’ such as Nathaniel Macon (North Carolina) and John Randolph (Virginia), had adopted this position in opposing the ‘‘American System ’’ policies in the post–War of 1812 years. Scholars of politics and history have 184 David F. Ericson often noted how the demand of Southern Democrats for a federally imposed territorial slave code in 1860 was inconsistent with their traditional states’ rights position. They have not often noted how that demand was consistent with the past practices of the federal government.≥ The presence of slavery powerfully affected the development of the federal government. This relationship was particularly strong during the antebellum period, but slavery also had significant effects on state development during earlier periods of American history. Slavery was not the sole engine of state development before the Civil War. Other factors, such as the market revolution, frontier settlement, and wars with Great Britain and Mexico, also had major effects.∂ Yet the relationship between slavery and the development of the federal government remains relatively unexplored, especially in the years prior to the Mexican-American War. Slavery had significant effects on the development of the federal government during this earlier period in at least three policy areas.∑ In the slave-trade policy area, Congress enacted laws and executive officials (eventually) engaged in coordinated efforts to interdict activities in violation of those laws. In the fugitiveslave policy area, Congress enacted one major piece of legislation and executive officials engaged in a variety of efforts to recover fugitive slaves and secure compensation for slave losses. Finally, in the military-deployment policy area, the army deployed troops in response to (potential) slave revolts as well as to remove Native Americans from Southern states and territories in order to facilitate slavery expansion. In each policy area, the presence of slavery placed the federal government on a particular path of development. Those paths were conspicuously military paths. The Slave Trade This policy area had two tracks. The first track featured the federal ban on slave imports. Federal efforts to interdict slave smuggling into the United States in violation of that ban characterized its implementation. The second track featured the federal laws against the participation of American citizens , ships, and flags in the international slave trade. Federal efforts to interdict slave trading outside the territorial limits of the United States in violation of those laws characterized its implementation. The first track was the more successful one because, unlike the second, it was largely selfenforcing . The frontier for the international slave trade was much larger than for slave smuggling into the United States, and the profits to be made Slave Smugglers, Slave Catchers, and Slave Rebels 185 from the trade were much greater. This difference meant that the second track had the more significant effect on the development of the federal government.∏ After much debate, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention added a slave-trade clause to their plan of government. The clause authorized Congress to...