Later in the antebellum period, southerners developed the theory that Congress lacked the power, under the Constitution, to ban or limit slavery in the territories. It is well known that Congress exercised this power when it adopted the Northwest Ordinance and enacted the Missouri Compromise. It is less well known that Congress also assumed that it had the power to limit slavery in the territories on a number of other occasions during the early republic.
Of these, the most startling occurred in 1804, when Congress enacted a statute creating “the territory of Orleans” from the Louisiana Purchase.
The Northwest Ordinance, adopted with modifications in 1789, provided simply that “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.” It prescribed no penalties or remedies.
The 1804 Act was different. The Act, formally titled “An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof” (March 26, 1804), created from a “portion of county ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana,” “a territory of the United States, under the name of the territory of Orleans,” and set forth how its government would be organized and administered. The Act designated “[t]he residue of the province of Louisiana” “the district of Louisiana,” under the control of the governor of the Indiana territory.
Section 10 of the Act strictly limited the importation of slaves into the territory and established penalties and remedies for its violation. First, no slaves could lawfully be imported from outside the United States:
Second, it was illegal to import slaves from within the United States if those slaves were brought into the United States after May 1, 1798:
Third, the only people who could bring slaves of any sort into the territory were United States citizens actually settling in the territory, and they could bring only those slaves they then owned:
Finally, as if to emphasize the point, the last clause of Section 10 reiterated that “every slave imported or brought into said territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive his or her freedom.”
Until I read the Act, I had not realized that it was so qualitatively different. Clearly, Congress was concerned that the limitations on the importation of slaves would be violated, but I am not familiar with the precise circumstances surrounding the passage of the Act. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Of these, the most startling occurred in 1804, when Congress enacted a statute creating “the territory of Orleans” from the Louisiana Purchase.
The Northwest Ordinance, adopted with modifications in 1789, provided simply that “There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory.” It prescribed no penalties or remedies.
The 1804 Act was different. The Act, formally titled “An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof” (March 26, 1804), created from a “portion of county ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana,” “a territory of the United States, under the name of the territory of Orleans,” and set forth how its government would be organized and administered. The Act designated “[t]he residue of the province of Louisiana” “the district of Louisiana,” under the control of the governor of the Indiana territory.
Section 10 of the Act strictly limited the importation of slaves into the territory and established penalties and remedies for its violation. First, no slaves could lawfully be imported from outside the United States:
It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said territory, from any port or place without the limits of the United States, or cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves. And every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within said territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars . . .; and every slave so imported or brought, shall thereupon become entitled to, and receive his or her freedom.
Second, it was illegal to import slaves from within the United States if those slaves were brought into the United States after May 1, 1798:
It shall not be lawful for any person or persons to import or bring into the said territory, from any port or place, within the limits of the United States, or to cause or procure to be so imported or brought, or knowingly to aid or assist in so importing or bringing any slave or slaves, which shall have been imported since [May 1, 1798], into any port or place within the limits of the United States; and every person so offending, and being thereof convicted before any court within said territory, having competent jurisdiction, shall forfeit and pay for each and every slave so imported or brought, the sum of three hundred dollars . . ..
Third, the only people who could bring slaves of any sort into the territory were United States citizens actually settling in the territory, and they could bring only those slaves they then owned:
[A]nd no slave or slaves shall directly or indirectly be introduced into said territory, except by a citizen of the United States, removing into said territory for actual settlement, and being at the time of such removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves . . ..
Finally, as if to emphasize the point, the last clause of Section 10 reiterated that “every slave imported or brought into said territory, contrary to the provisions of this act, shall thereupon be entitled to, and receive his or her freedom.”
Until I read the Act, I had not realized that it was so qualitatively different. Clearly, Congress was concerned that the limitations on the importation of slaves would be violated, but I am not familiar with the precise circumstances surrounding the passage of the Act. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
No comments:
Post a Comment