James Madison's Plan for the Emancipation of the Slaves

0 votes

James Madison's Plan for the Emancipation of the Slaves

[note - had James Madison's plan been enacted, the Civil War could have been averted, 600,000 combat deaths averted,mass destruction of the South averted, protective tariffs averted, and the slaves freed sooner than the 1860s. And the U.S. Constitution would not have been perverted by the Civil War and Abe Lincoln. The plan seems similar to what Ron Paul suggested to Tim Russert as an alternative to the Civil War.]

James Madison openly acknowledged that slavery was a "great evil"; nonetheless, he continued to regard slaves as property. In his retirement he received several letters with questions concerning slavery. In the letter below he presented a proposal for the gradual emancipation of the slaves.

—JMU editor
Sir,
I have received your letter of the 3d instant, requesting such hints as may have occurred to me on the subject of an eventual extinguishment of slavery in the United States.

Not doubting the purity of your views, and relying on the discretion by which they will be regulated, I cannot refuse such a compliance as will, at least, manifest my respect for the object of your undertaking.

A general emancipation of slaves ought to be — 1. Gradual. 2. Equitable, and satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned. 3. Consistent with the existing and durable prejudices of the nation.

That it ought, like remedies for other deep-rooted and widespread evils, to be gradual, is so obvious, that there seems to be no difference of opinion on that point.

To be equitable and satisfactory, the consent of both the master and the slave should be obtained. That of the master will require a provision in the plan for compensating a loss of what he held as property, guarantied by the laws, and recognised by the Constitution. That of the slave, requires that his condition in a state of freedom be preferable, in his own estimation, to his actual one in a state of bondage.

To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the United States, the freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by, or allotted to, a white population. The objections to a thorough incorporation of the two people are, with most of the whites, insuperable; and are admitted by all of them to be very powerful. If the blacks, strongly marked as they are by physical and lasting peculiarities, be retained amid the whites, under the degrading privation of equal rights, political or social, they must be always dissatisfied with their condition, as a change only from one to another species of oppression; always secretly confederated against the ruling and privileged class; and always uncontrolled by some of the most cogent motives to moral and respectable conduct. The character of the free blacks, even where their legal condition is least affected by their colour, seems to put these truths beyond question. It is material, also, that the removal of the blacks be to a distance precluding the jealousies and hostilities to be apprehended from a neighbouring people, stimulated by the contempt known to be entertained for their peculiar features; to say nothing of their vindictive recollections, or the predatory propensities which their state of society might foster. Nor is it fair, in estimating the danger of collision with the whites, to charge it wholly on the side of the blacks. There would be reciprocal antipathies doubling the danger.

The colonizing plan on foot has, as far as it extends, a due regard to these requisites; with the additional object of bestowing new blessings, civil and religious, on the quarter of the Globe most in need of them. The Society proposes to transport to the African coast all free and freed blacks who may be willing to remove thither; to provide by fair means, and, it is understood, with a prospect of success, a suitable territory for their reception; and to initiate them into such an establishment as may gradually and indefinitely expand itself.

The experiment, under this view of it, merits encouragement from all who regard slavery as an evil, who wish to see it diminished and abolished by peaceable and just means, and who have themselves no better mode to propose. Those who have most doubted the success of the experiment must, at least, have wished to find themselves in an error.

But the views of the Society are limited to the case of blacks already free, or who may be gratuitously emancipated. To provide a commensurate remedy for the evil, the plan must be extended to the great mass of blacks, and must embrace a fund sufficient to induce the master, as well as the slave, to concur in it. Without the concurrence of the master, the benefit will be very limited as it relates to the Negroes, and essentially defective as it relates to the United States; and the concurrence of masters must, for the most part, be obtained by purchase.

Can it be hoped that voluntary contributions, however adequate to an auspicious commencement, will supply the sums necessary to such an enlargement of the remedy? May not another question be asked? Would it be reasonable to throw so great a burden on the individuals distinguished by their philanthropy and patriotism?

The object to be obtained, as an object of humanity, appeals alike to all; as a national object, it claims the interposition of the nation. It is the nation which is to reap the benefit. The nation, therefore, ought to bear the burden.

Must, then, the enormous sums required to pay for, to transport, and to establish in a foreign land, all the slaves in the United States, as their masters may be willing to part with them, be taxed on the good people of the United States, or be obtained by loans, swelling the public debt to a size pregnant with evils next in degree to those of slavery itself?

Happily, it is not necessary to answer this question by remarking, that if slavery, as a national evil, is to be abolished, and it be just that it be done at the national expense, the amount of the expense is not a paramount consideration. It is the peculiar fortune, or, rather, a providential blessing of the United States, to possess a resource commensurate to this great object, without taxes on the people, or even an increase of the public debt.

I allude to the vacant territory, the extent of which is so vast, and the vendible value of which is so well ascertained.

Supposing the number of slaves to be 1,500,000 and their price to average 400 dollars, the cost of the whole would be 600 millions of dollars. These estimates are probably beyond the fact; and from the number of slaves should be deducted: 1. Those whom their masters would not part with. 2. Those who may be gratuitously set free by their masters. 3. Those acquiring freedom under emancipation regulations of the States. 4. Those preferring slavery where they are to freedom in an African settlement. On the other hand, it is to be noted that the expense of removal and settlement is not included in the estimated sum; and that an increase of the slaves will be going on during the period required for the execution of the plan.

On the whole, the aggregate sum needed may be stated at about six hundred millions of dollars.

This will require 200 millions of acres, at three dollars per acre; or 300 millions at two dollars per acre; a quantity which, though great in itself, is perhaps not a third part of the disposable territory belonging to the United States. And to what object so good, so great, and so glorious, could that peculiar fund of wealth be appropriated? Whilst the sale of territory would, on one hand, be planting one desert with a free and civilized people, it would, on the other, be giving freedom to another people, and filling with them another desert. And if in any instances wrong has been done by our forefathers to people of one colour, by dispossessing them of their soil, what better atonement is now in our power than that of making what is rightfully acquired a source of justice and of blessings to a people of another colour?

As the revolution to be produced in the condition of the Negroes must be gradual, it will suffice if the sale of territory keep pace with its progress. For a time, at least, the proceeds would be in advance. In this case, it might be best, after deducting the expense incident to the surveys and sales, to place the surplus in a situation where its increase might correspond with the natural increase of the unpurchased slaves. Should the proceeds at any time fall short of the calls for their application, anticipations might be made by temporary loans, to be discharged as the land should find a market.

But it is probable that for a considerable period the sales would exceed the calls. Masters would not be willing to strip their plantations and farms of their labourers too rapidly. The slaves themselves, connected, as they generally are, by tender ties with others under other masters, would be kept from the list of emigrants by the want of the multiplied consents to be obtained. It is probable, indeed, that for a long time a certain portion of the proceeds might safely continue applicable to the discharge of the debts or to other purposes of the nation; or it might be most convenient, in the onset, to appropriate a certain proportion only of the income from sales to the object in view, leaving the residue otherwise applicable.

Should any plan similar to that I have sketched be deemed eligible in itself, no particular difficulty is foreseen from that portion of the nation which, with a common interest in the vacant territory, has no interest in slave property. They are too just to wish that a partial sacrifice should be made for the general good, and too well aware that whatever may be the intrinsic character of that description of property, it is one known to the Constitution, and, as such, could not be constitutionally taken away without just compensation. That part of the nation has, indeed, shown a meritorious alacrity in promoting, by pecuniary contributions, the limited scheme for colonizing the blacks, and freeing the nation from the unfortunate stain on it, which justifies the belief that any enlargement of the scheme, if founded on just principles, would find among them its earliest and warmest patrons. It ought to have great weight that the vacant lands in question have, for the most part, been derived from grants of the States holding the slaves to be redeemed and removed by the sale of them.

It is evident, however, that in effectuating a general emancipation of slaves in the mode which has been hinted, difficulties of other sorts would be encountered. The provision for ascertaining the joint consent of the masters and slaves; for guarding against unreasonable valuations of the latter; and for the discrimination of those not proper to be conveyed to a foreign residence, or who ought to remain a charge on masters in whose service they had been disabled or worn out, and for the annual transportation of such numbers, would require the mature deliberations of the national councils. The measure implies, also, the practicability of procuring in Africa an enlargement of the district or districts for receiving the exiles sufficient for so great an augmentation of their numbers.

Perhaps the Legislative provision best adapted to the case would be an incorporation of the Colonizing Society, or the establishment of a similar one, with proper powers, under the appointment and superintendence of the National Executive.

In estimating the difficulties, however, incident to any plan of general emancipation, they ought to be brought into comparison with those inseparable from other plans, and be yielded to or not according to the result of the comparison.

One difficulty presents itself which will probably attend every plan which is to go into effect under the Legislative provisions of the National Government. But whatever may be the defect of existing powers of Congress, the Constitution has pointed out the way in which it can be supplied. And it can hardly be doubted that the requisite powers might readily be procured for attaining the great object in question, in any mode whatever approved by the nation.

If these thoughts can be of any aid in your search of a remedy for the great evil under which the nation labors, you are very welcome to them.
Letter to Robert J. Evans, author of the pieces published under the name of Benjamin Rush, June 15, 1819 (Madison 1865, III, pages 133-138).

http://www.ungardesign.com/websites/madison/main_pages/madis...

http://www.ungardesign.com/websites/madison/home.htm

RELATED

Speech in the Virginia State Convention
of 1829-1830

December 2, 1829

On the Question of the Ratio of Representation in the Two Branches
of the Legislature

Mr. MADISON rose and addressed the Chair; the members rushed from their seats and crowded around him:

http://www.ungardesign.com/websites/madison/main_pages/madis...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Your post is a little too long to read

But I think the war was about states leaving the union. Slavery was phasing out anyway.
How about slavery today? We pay 1/3 of our wages to banksters out the gate. And they are taking this money to enslave us more.
The income tax goes directly to interest to the Fed. Nothing else.
Where do we gop from here?

"Slavery was phasing out

"Slavery was phasing out anyway."

Not in most of the South. It was in some areas. The problem was that many southern states had rigged legislatures that over-represented slave owners. South Carolina was that way. Virginia was as well, which is why West Virginia got the hell out of dodge when they got the chance in 1863.

The rigged legislatures made it almost impossible to get rid of slavery.

"We pay 1/3 of our wages to banksters out the gate."

Real slavery where you get chained up and whipped is a lot worse than that. Frankly, to call any tax that is below 50% "slavery" is really an insult to real slaves, like the people sitting in prison for the drug war.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.

This plan would not have

This plan would not have averted the War Between The States. The pretenses would simply have been changed. As we all know, the war had nothing to do with slavery.

--------------------------------------

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

http://www.meetup.com/The-National-17th-Amendment-Group/

You didn't read my comments

You didn't read my comments at the beginning. I wrote the plan would have averted "protective tariffs".

The North pushed through high protective tariffs for industrial products. The South, since it relied on slavery that crushed individual liberty and creativity, did not have an industrial base.

If Madison's plan were adopted, the South would have been able to build an industrial base.

Slavery was the underlying cause for the Civil War. When you enslave 45% of your population, that has a gigantic negative effect on your economy, and warps the entire society. Consequently, the South became a poor, backward area that missed out on the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution. Poor, weak nations usually get gobbled up by strong energetic nations. Once the South left the Union, it had no protection from foreign invaders, and was quickly conquered.

Madison's plan would not only have freed the slaves, but resulted in an influx of $400 per slave for their freedom, resulted in a influx of capital necessary that could have jump-started industry down their.

To say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is just plain stupid.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.

Galileo Said,

Once the South left the Union, it had no protection from foreign invaders, and was quickly conquered. (quote)

Well it took the foreign Yankees four years, not so quickly.

Four years of Independence,

Four years of Independence, you think that's a long time? And the last 1 1/2 years, the South had foreign armies tromping all over their territory.

The South could have one the war in only one way; if Stonewall Jackson had lived, there would have been a negotiated peace.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.

Four years

is longer than I've had.

Stupid Lincoln?

To say that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is just plain stupid. (quote)

That's what "stupid" Lincoln said. Are we to believe his public statements?
His call for troops to invade was not to free the slaves.

I said slavery was an

I said slavery was an underlying cause of the Civil War.

The North was passing high protective tariffs on manufactured goods, ever heard of that?

That's because the South had virtually no manufacturing. You know why that was? Because they enslaved 45% of their population.

Meanwhile, up in the North, free people were innovating and the economy was booming.

Also, many in the North did not like slavery. They saw high protective tariffs as not only good for themselves, but also a good way to bleed the slave owners dry.

You really think it was just random chance that all the free states were on one side, and all the major slaves states JUST HAPPENED to be on the other side, in the Civil War?

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.

OK

got it. Lincoln didn't buy it but you do.
First, before Lincoln called for the states to provide troops to invade the seceded Gulf states, there were more slave states in the union than out. Even after the war started Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, West Virginia (after 1863) were still in the union and slave. In the beginning all states were slave states. No, it's not random that slavery ended first up north. White working people demanded slaves and free blacks be removed because the whites couldn't stand the economic competition. That's why there were Black Codes to keep them down south.
As has been often said the men north and south didn't think they were fighting to determine the fate of black folks. The end of slavery was a result of the war. Slavery was ending all over the world and would have ended in the south, war or no war.

It didn't end in South

It didn't end in South Africa.

PS

I would not believe ANYTHING dishonest Abe Lincoln said.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.

The northerns explained how much cheaper it is to not provide

care for your slaves and keep them just the same--Wages. A slave owner had to provide EVERYTHING for their slaves and needed to protect their investments, with wage slavery, there's no real expense to losing one if 5 more are waiting for the "opportunity".

I'm not sure

Fortune Favors the Bold

how this differs so much from other emancipation ideas. Why would this have been more acceptable to the slave owners?

Fortune Favors the Bold

What other emancipation

What other emancipation plans?

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.

A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for James Madison.