Madison and Jefferson by Nancy Isenberg, Andrew Burstein Page B
Authors: Nancy Isenberg, Andrew Burstein
Ads: Link
time when the rights of humanity are defined and understood with precision, in a country above all others fond of liberty … we find men professing religion the most humane, mild, gentle, and generous, adopting a principle as repugnant to humanity as it is inconsistent with the Bible and destructive to liberty?” Henry did not speak in the abstract: “Would anyone believe I am the master of slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living here without them. I will not, I cannot justify it.” 33
His words embodied the paradox facing Virginians. Since 1765 whiteAmericans had repeatedly and dramatically termed their suffering at the hands of Parliament “enslavement.” Yet all soon realized that their poignant metaphor invited comparisons to the slavery they practiced. In the famous case of
Somerset v. Steuart
(1772), British jurist Lord Mansfield ruled that slavery could not be sanctioned by the common law. It was, as the trial transcript reads, incompatible with the “natural rights of mankind” and the “mild and humane precepts of Christianity.” Once a slave stood on British soil, the very air he breathed gave him legal protection and made him free. A writer in the
New-York Journal
assumed that this ruling would produce “greater ferment” than had the Stamp Act protests, for it placed the regulation of American slavery within the jurisdiction of British courts.
Mansfield had no intention of freeing British slaves or of undermining the British slave trade. But he did imply that Parliament could, if it chose, pass legislation affecting slavery in the colonies. A successful attorney in the case went so far as to declare that the laws of Virginia were as repugnant to the British constitution as the customs found in the “barbarous nations” of Africa. Another contended that recognizing Virginia law in England was no different than permitting a Muslim to bring his fair-skinned slaves to London and rape them at will. 34
Benjamin Franklin, in England at the time, saw the case as a perfect example of the hypocrisy of Englishmen. The state could congratulate itself on the “Virtue, Love of Liberty, and Equity of its Courts, in setting free a single Negro” named Somerset, while at the same time protecting what Franklin called a “detestable” slave trade on the high seas.
The British did not stop taking potshots at America after
Somerset.
In 1775 the conservative wit Samuel Johnson, essayist and lexicographer, wrote a heckling pamphlet,
Taxation, No Tyranny
, in which he mocked the colonists’ use of the slavery metaphor. Johnson famously asked readers: “If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of slaves?” The American slave poet Phillis Wheatley came to a similar conclusion in a 1774 letter published widely in New England newspapers, pointing out the “strange absurdity” of American slaveholders “whose Words and Actions are so diametrically opposed.” 35
The great contradiction could not be ignored. Only weeks before the First Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia, the
Pennsylvania Packet
boldly inquired: “Can we suppose the people of England will grant the force of our reasoning, when they are told, that
every colony
in the continent, is deeply involved in the inconsistent practice of keeping
their fellowcreatures, in perpetual bondage?
” Cognizant of the
Somerset
ruling, the same patriot writer reasoned that if slaves were instantly free on British soil, then the only way Americans could contend for genuine liberty was to drive an “inhumane practice” from their borders. He urged Congress to outlaw the slave trade. And so it did: in calling for a general boycott of British goods, the colonies’ delegates all agreed to a ban on the importation of slaves, which was kept in force even after the other import restrictions were lifted. 36
The contest with Lord Dunmore obviously tested
His words embodied the paradox facing Virginians. Since 1765 whiteAmericans had repeatedly and dramatically termed their suffering at the hands of Parliament “enslavement.” Yet all soon realized that their poignant metaphor invited comparisons to the slavery they practiced. In the famous case of
Somerset v. Steuart
(1772), British jurist Lord Mansfield ruled that slavery could not be sanctioned by the common law. It was, as the trial transcript reads, incompatible with the “natural rights of mankind” and the “mild and humane precepts of Christianity.” Once a slave stood on British soil, the very air he breathed gave him legal protection and made him free. A writer in the
New-York Journal
assumed that this ruling would produce “greater ferment” than had the Stamp Act protests, for it placed the regulation of American slavery within the jurisdiction of British courts.
Mansfield had no intention of freeing British slaves or of undermining the British slave trade. But he did imply that Parliament could, if it chose, pass legislation affecting slavery in the colonies. A successful attorney in the case went so far as to declare that the laws of Virginia were as repugnant to the British constitution as the customs found in the “barbarous nations” of Africa. Another contended that recognizing Virginia law in England was no different than permitting a Muslim to bring his fair-skinned slaves to London and rape them at will. 34
Benjamin Franklin, in England at the time, saw the case as a perfect example of the hypocrisy of Englishmen. The state could congratulate itself on the “Virtue, Love of Liberty, and Equity of its Courts, in setting free a single Negro” named Somerset, while at the same time protecting what Franklin called a “detestable” slave trade on the high seas.
The British did not stop taking potshots at America after
Somerset.
In 1775 the conservative wit Samuel Johnson, essayist and lexicographer, wrote a heckling pamphlet,
Taxation, No Tyranny
, in which he mocked the colonists’ use of the slavery metaphor. Johnson famously asked readers: “If slavery be thus fatally contagious, how is it we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of slaves?” The American slave poet Phillis Wheatley came to a similar conclusion in a 1774 letter published widely in New England newspapers, pointing out the “strange absurdity” of American slaveholders “whose Words and Actions are so diametrically opposed.” 35
The great contradiction could not be ignored. Only weeks before the First Continental Congress assembled in Philadelphia, the
Pennsylvania Packet
boldly inquired: “Can we suppose the people of England will grant the force of our reasoning, when they are told, that
every colony
in the continent, is deeply involved in the inconsistent practice of keeping
their fellowcreatures, in perpetual bondage?
” Cognizant of the
Somerset
ruling, the same patriot writer reasoned that if slaves were instantly free on British soil, then the only way Americans could contend for genuine liberty was to drive an “inhumane practice” from their borders. He urged Congress to outlaw the slave trade. And so it did: in calling for a general boycott of British goods, the colonies’ delegates all agreed to a ban on the importation of slaves, which was kept in force even after the other import restrictions were lifted. 36
The contest with Lord Dunmore obviously tested
Similar Books
