Western Prejudice and the Extension of Slavery

WESTERN PREJUDICE AND THE EXTENSION OF SLAVERY Eugene H. Berwanger Few pubuc issues during the antebellum years caused as much excitement among the people of the western states and territories as attempts to legalize slavery within their borders. Although the struggle between the pro and antislavery forces in Kansas received national attention, demands for Negro servitude in California in 1849 and in Oregon in 1857 produced controversy among the people in those states. Earlier, bondage had been advocated in Indiana and Illinois and agitation for the institution did not cease until the 1820's. While slavery was rejected in all of these states for various reasons, the antagonism which many white people felt toward the Negro race played a significant role in influencing their decisions to prohibit their entry, either as slaves or free men. The most prolonged effort to establish a bondage system occurred in Indiana and Illinois. From 1796 to 1807 the Indiana territorial legislature or individual groups petitioned Congress to repeal the slavery restriction clause of the Northwest Ordinance; all of the petitions were ignored or rejected. Thereupon, proslavery settlers, believing that forced labor would hasten the development of the territories, persuaded the territorial legislatures of Indiana and Illinois to pass laws which sanctioned Negro indenture systems. The Illinois legislature also allowed slaves, under yearly, nonrenewable contracts, to work in the salines at Shawneetown. The use of Negro labor was justified by the argument that only the colored race could endure the arduous work in the salt mines.1 When the two states framed their first constitutions, slavery was again advocated. Proslavery agitators, however, had little chance for success. Delegates to the Indiana constitutional convention assumed they were obligated to prohibit slavery because the territorial petii Annals of Congress, 7 Cong., 2 sess., 473-474; 9 Cong., 1 sess., 293; 10 Cong., 1 sess., 25-26; Robert Morrison et al., Report of the Committee on the Petition of Sundry Inhabitants of the Counties of St. Clair and Randolph in the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio (n.p., 1796), pp. 1-11; Francis Philbrick (ed.), Pope's Digest, 1815 (Springfield, IU., 1940), II, 190-191. 197 198CIVIL WAR HISTORY tion requesting statehood specified that the state constitution would conform to the antislavery provision of the Northwest Ordinance.2 Because the Illinois statehood petition did not contain a similar clause Congress stipulated, in the enabling act, that the state constitution should not violate the Ordinance. As a result, the proslavery members of the Illinois delegation subordinated their personal wishes to insure immediate admission into the Union. But the slavery prohibition article of the Illinois constitution, as worded, permitted the French inhabitants to retain their slaves. The document also recognized as legally binding all long-term Negro indenture contracts entered into before the constitution became effective and continued the use of slave labor in the salt works until 1825.3 The prohibition of slavery failed to quell agitation for a bondage system. Moreover, the years of depression following the panic of 1819 added strength to the proslavery movement. Land speculators, in particular, saw in slavery a chance to sell their depreciated holdings to slaveowners who were passing through Indiana and Illinois to settle in Missouri. Many of these emigrants stated that their only reason for not remaining in the two states was the slavery restriction. Other proslavery people generally assumed that the adoption of slavery might restore economic prosperity because Missouri seemed unaffected by the panic.4 In order to initiate economic reforms which might lessen the severity of the depression but which were not permitted by the state constitutions, the Indiana and Illinois legislatures submitted to popular referenda proposals for conventions to revise the original documents . Since a majority of the representatives in both states were conspicuously proslavery, the antislavery elements in the states presumed the true purpose of revision was to legalize bondage. Although the proslavery proponents in Indiana did not agitate for slavery within the state, one editor accused them of writing articles in Kentucky newspapers which were then circulated among the Hoosiers. Illinois proslavery forces, on the other hand, candidly expressed their hope aVincennes (Ind.) Western Sun, Jan. 27, 1816. 3Jusün S. Buck, Illinois...