A Confederate Officer Recounts the Virginia Slavery Debate of 1831-1832 

In the early 1800s northern states passed laws for the gradual elimination of slavery in their own jurisdictions. Many owners avoided the financial loss by selling their slaves to southern states. The abolition movement in the North demanding immediate emancipation in the south causing catastrophic losses was seen in the south as unacceptable and an attack on the south for the same “crime” the north was guilty of and from which vast fortunes in the trans-Atlantic slave trade had been made by northern shipping companies. The Gore and the Bush family are decendents of those made wealthy by the slave trade.

Wow! I wasn't remotely aware of this piece of history. Even as early as 1831, in the state of Virginia, the slavery debate was a hot topic. Thanks for another great history lesson Ron.

As I recall, some research indicates that a number of the American Revolutionary War leaders (and Congress members more so than military officers) had a belief that slavery would somehow go away on its own over the next few decades. So accepting it into the Constitution squeeked through. Of course this was before the "cotton gin" which pretty much cemented the desire for slaves in the South.

So very interesting - thank you. Very much for your research into this topic - just think about how many lives would have been affected in a positive way if that spark of momentum to end slavery in 1931/32 would have expanded across the South - in my experience, it is far better to let ideas for change blossom from the people themselves that are at fault… let them believe it is their own idea and encourage and applaud them for the “courageous “ action to make difficult economic changes for the betterment of all in the long run. If it is their idea they will embrace it more freely and many benefits would have surely occurred that we will never know unfortunately. Obviously, the human devastation that lasted far beyond the years of the war would have been diminished but also the economic devastation of the Southern business & trade could have been avoided. Unfortunately we will never know but it is interesting to ponder “what if”.

I am reading "The Coming Crisis of the South: How To Meet It" by Helper R. Hinton, published in 1857. It discusses this 1832 debate in some detail, and claims that in response to abolitionist pressure - from Virginians - a large number of slaves were removed from the state and "sold down the river". He also describes the corrupt efforts of VA politicians to preserve the "peculiar institution ". Hinton was a SC citizen. His book was meant to prove to Southerners that slavery was the cause of the widespread poverty, illiteracy and unemployment among non-slaveowning whites. He cites page after page of statistics proving that the North was far ahead of the South in every area, due to its policy of free labor. The North produced twice as much of everything, even agricultural products, as the South! Unfortunately his work came too late have much influence on public opinion. But it's a fascinating and well-researched polemic on how slavery was destroying the Southern economy.

Ron, thank you for this fantastic information! As always, your videos are greatly appreciated with anticipation.

Interesting that the Indian Removal Act of 1830 occurred near this time.

Ron, I am so glad you found your passion! You bubble with it! We are so lucky in witnessing your love and fervor. Thank you!

Very interesting, thanks

Wow indeed! Well said. Too bad context doesn't matter to reactionary minds.

I looked into this briefly when I was in college. One aspect that you missed was the geographic nature of the debate. The western counties (which later became West Virginia) were strongly in favor of emancipation. That split had already happened. In the eastern counties, the sticking point in 1832 was not so much positive support of slavery, but rather the lack of any acceptable plan for disposing of the slaves. There was near universal sentiment against leaving them in place in Virginia society.

As always, your posts are well made and gratefully received. Enjoy each and every one!

Kicking the can down the road seldom works out well.

Robert E. Lee also wrote about this and he was for emancipation.

My family had relatives who were prominent in Virginia. John Houston Scott, born in Rockbridge County, Virginia,1805-1891, buried in Hopewell Cemetery, in Rush County, Indiana. Relative of a John Houston who immigrated from Ireland around 1730. (Great Grandfather of Sam Houston.) Also, have an established connection to U.S. Grant.

My ancestors and I are from the south and some of them had slaves. Of course I’m against slavery, but that is easy to be now. Would I have been strong enough to fight slavery if I had been alive then? I hope the answer would be yes but as a woman what could I do? Then I learned about Elizabeth Van Lew. I would hope I would have been like her. She would be a good topic for a video.

Brilliant I have really enjoyed hearing about Maryland in the civil war ,you make so so interesting thank you.

As a Virginian, I have been interested in history since I was a child (60s), I was a aware of the 1831-32 debate in the General Assembly. This Is a great video explaining this. The north wanted to tell the south what to do. In human history sometimes when one group of people try to force another group to comply with their wishes, people die. I live about 6 miles as a crow flies from where Nat was found hiding underground. I have picked cotton by hand (60s). Very rough on your hands. The only reason the north did not have slaves, cotton will not grow up there. But, they did have ships bringing slaves from Africa and kids working in factories.😮

Horse lucky! The idea that abolishinists were responsible for the continuous of slavery is akin to blaming the rape victim being responsible for the assault.

Very interesting. Thanks Ron.

I think the timing of this conversation is critical. It's a recollection of a conversation in 1861 about an event thirty years before -- the debate about emancipation in the Virginia legislature. Since the war was already started and the split had occurred, Thomas Jefferson Randolph's contention that the matter was dropped as a reaction to northern abolitionist's rhetoric strikes me as an attempt after the fact to justify him being on the side of right and it was the fault of northerners after all that slavery still existed. It's human nature in action. You aren't going to cast stones at your own side at the beginning of a war.

Excellent history lesson. By the way, as in today’s world, who paid the so-called abolitionist protesters to go to someone’s town and violently protest, which ended up turning the public against abolition of slavery? Timeless tactic. Cui Bono.

Extraordinary episode today! The words from the mouths and pens of the regular nearly nameless soldiers who actually fought the Civil War and why, on both sides, are the blunt non-twistable clear truth. I learn so much from this channel. For instance, I had never before heard the southern argument that slavery was an institution they inherited and not their invention. I had never thought of their position from that angle. - The American Civil War was like no war in history and with its outcome is the noblest most difficult thing ever done by humankind.

Did you anticipate the extent to which you touched a nerve of so many viewers? Interesting how opinions are not always supported by solid research - or is such a phenomenon actually the basis for the trajectory of all public discourse and resolution? Why is the course of events often influenced more by "fire eater" rhetoric than thoughtful consideration? Is the strength of political and rhetorical attack an accurate measure of the response, as the quoted resources in your wonderful presentation suggests? Lots of good material out there on slavery and the path to the civil war. A personal opinion: it is important to understand the intersections of racism with both sides of the argument.

Thanks for the episode. Just wondering, any professors of whataboutism in here or perhaps an alt-fact scientist?

This proves that extremists and fanatics often cause more harm than good!

There is nothing in this presentation to support the notion that the cotten states, economically dependent on slavery would ever have emancipated their slaves. No evidence is presented to support this ludicrous argument other than this flimsy 1832 proposal never commited to a draft bill. Not only would it have crippled the cotton economy, but slaves were exceptionally valuable property, and freeing the slaves would to their owners be equivalent to the government stealing their land. Yet the presenter makes the dubious argument that were it not for the abolitionist polarizing views on emanciption, that the cotton states might have freed their slaves. The presenter needs to do more research and provide more substantial evidence to back his argument. Sure, legislatures debate all kinds of things. Doesn't mean a debated proposal had any hope in hell of being passed. The chronicler's relative Thomas Jefferson also debated with himself about freeing his slaves. During his adult life he owned 600, yet freed only a handful. 5 years after his death, they have this discussion in Virginia. Big deal. On his death, the vast majority of Jeffersons slaves remained slaves- sold off to pay his debts. So the person who wrote that all people are created equal with the inalienable right to liberty may have proposed the right thing. But even in his life, over a matter he had complete control over, he lost the debate with himself. Words are cheap. Actions matter. Well intentioned debates don't.

Would be nice to know what the arguments were for both sides.

What if? Can you imagine extrapolating the possiblities? My mind goes numb. Extremely interesting on which to contemplate. I appreciate your ability to show intimate moments.

Given that the North profited from the slave trade and from the production of cotton by slaves, why was the notion of compensating slave owners for their slaves ever considered? Isn't that how the British ended slavery in their colonies? Compensating slave owners would have saved both the North and South the terrible cost in loss of lives that followed.

GOOD VIDEO

I am finding the topic of antebellum era abolitionist movements in the South increasingly interesting. I have never really considered that matter seriously until recent times. There is no question that slavery was the greatest catalyst that led to secession, but it was far from the only factor behind secession and was not the single reason Southerners felt the call to take up arms against the North. There is no guarantee that secession wouldn't have occurred without the issue of slavery being the primary catalyst. Perhaps secession would have still occured but at some point further into the future? Perhaps secession would have even occurred in an entirely different region of the country than in the South? Perhaps it was and still is a gesture of the grossest form of naivity to presume that any union was ever going to last indefinitely? I was completely unaware of abolitionist movements in the South until fairly recently but have begun to learn of an abolitionist movement in the state of Virginia during the antebellum era. In my own state of North Carolina there was far less interest in preserving slavery in the western part of the state than there was in the east where most of the larger slave owning plantations existed. I believe there was a similar rift in Tennessee between east and west where the majority of the plantations existed in the west. A lot of the conflict in NC and Tennessee alike were not centered directly or even indirectly around slavery but there were certainly political tensions within the states. Share cropping was what ultimately replaced chattel slavery in the South during the Reconstruction era. Many a poor whites as well as black former slaves would become share croppers and share cropping lasted well into the 20th century. Share cropping in both theory and in practice alike became a good substitute for slavery when it was done fairly and honestly. Share cropping allowed the land owners who had lost almost everything they had during the war to get back on their feet. Share cropping allowed poor whites and free'd blacks who had nothing and no where to go and who were starving stability. It gave them opportunities to become land and home owners and places to grow food and make some sort of a living for themselves. The downside to share cropping was most of the poor whites and blacks alike were uneducated and that created opportunities for them to get screwed out of and manipulated out of what they earned from share cropping. By hook or by crook many of them would lose their homes and land sooner or later but that certainly was not always the case or necessarily even the norm. There is no reason to conclude that share cropping could not have replaced slavery without a Civil War that costed hundreds of thousands of dead and countless crippled and maimed veterans along with massive amounts of destruction to private and public properties alike.

Great history lesson sir! What a shame the great state of Virginia didn't pass that legislation. Virginia was a powerful and well respected state. Other slave holding states probably would have followed suit. Perhaps the Civil War wouldn't have been necessary. I wonder if those men regretted their decision after seeing the total devastation inflicted on Virginia as a consequence of the war.

Back in college I did an extensive term paper on the subject of abolition in the US, comparing it to England, Russia and Brazil. In spite of my best efforts I wasn't able to find any trace of abolitionists (either freelance or legislative) making substantive proposals to eliminate slavery. It was just a never-ending cycle of insults and moral opprobrium directed at slave owners. I mean if you want a group of people to abandon a profitable economic model incentives must be offered. Have you ever found any proposals to end slavery legislatively? (btw - love your channel and commentary)

Fascinating! Thanks so much for posting this.

In 1832,18 slaves in Maryland were relocated to Guyana, South America. This was due in fact to the response of Maryland to the Nat Turner rebellion.Maryland advertised and outfitted 3 ships to repatriate any and all African Americans ,back to Africa.

Fascinating. Thank you for sharing this.

Can’t blame Abolitionists for the failure of this early debate. Think about what they were debating; Emancipation, Colonialism ( what? Moving black people to Cuba? ) and ejecting free Blacks. No mechanism for any of it because of landed interests so scapegoat northern abolitionists

Hot-headed abolitionists set their own cause back 30 years. Wow.

Peter Cartwright blamed the abolitionist for the Civil War. And the things he said in his “Autobiography” sound a like like what you are saying.

I always understood that VA was debating manumission at the time of the Turner uprising, and because of it , the legislature voted against i5

To think slavery was the Sole cause of the War, is as ingnorant as those how say it had nothing to do with the conflict. Bottomline for better or worse, Slavery was Legal under the Constitution.

Sounds a touch self-serving to me - it was all the abolitionists’ fault for calling us names.

This is extremely revelatory and hints subtly at the many other political agendas that separated north and south. Lee evidently went sleepless till he made his decision. The states rights issues do not seem to be looked at as hard as they should.

I believe that they would never have emancipated the slaves. They were too" valuable." Blaming it on the abolitionists is a cop out.

Wow is right! Never heard of this before, thank you for a really interesting video!

Sounds nice, but it probably never would have happened, and it didn't.

Virginia was absolutely the cultural leader of the Mid & Upper South - and probably the entire South. If She had committed to the path of gradual emancipation it is very likely that many of the other slaveholding states would have followed her example. Would this have meant that a secession crisis or civil war would not have happened? That is impossible to know, but it would have removed the largest, and most emotionally charged controversy between the northern and Southern states, though the question of the scope & authority of the general government & taxes would still have been alive and well. Remember, Andrew Jackson threatened war against South Carolina when that state dared resist federal tax policy. It isn't inconceivable that a similar crisis might brew up later in the country's history when the population & economies might very well be large enough to spiral into the chaos of war. Honestly, it would be an interesting alt-history read...

General Richard Taylor’s book “Destruction & Reconstruction” explains so much.

Didn't the British abolish. slavery in their sphere of influence in 1830? This would have affected the Virginia debate.

Some Ladies will get a cat or many cats, and name them and even dress them in clothes and consider them their children.

I think you are ignoring the Tariff controversy, and the desire of the Southern States to govern themselves. You should check out The Real Reason the South Seceded by Donald Livingston. The South was no longer a part of the USA; therefore, the only slaves in the USA belonged to the States forced to remain in the Union.

So Virginians knew emancipation was the right thing to do, but the microaggressions of the abolitionists were just too much to bear. Without a nice safe space in which to craft their legislation, they had no choice but to cling to slavery and eventually plunge into the Civil War on the side of the slave holders' rebellion. I guess when you take the microaggression into account, it makes sense that slavery and the war was the abolitionists' fault.

It’s interesting that at the time of the debate New England is not mentioned. In the midst of the war perhaps it was convenient to blame others for the opportunity missed by the Va. legislature. Very interesting!

Another historian that believes the war was fought over slavery. ZZZZZZZZ

Would amansipation of the slaves at that time lead to minimum wage or the welfare state? Maybe the repatriation of the black slaves back to area of origin. What about the white slaves? Would this have negatively affected the black slave owners as well?

If only this could have been settled amicably in the 1830s with resettlement colonies in a back to Africa program that northern abolitionists started in West Africa. It would have avoided the worst conflict in American history that we are still dealing with to this very day.

the civil war was about the north getting a national bank.

And look where we are now with African Americans .

It is hard to imagine that slavery even took place in America, but it did.

Sins of the parents carry over to their offspring. It could last seven generations. Many of these people claimed to be Christ like but their actions spoke differently. And still yet, this article has been interesting.

Very informative

Interesting. As you know it’s not enough to rely solely on Randolph’s account as to why the concept fell apart. There are several things, such as time from the urgency of the moment, that could influence the decision besides abolition ferver in the North. Also there had been a significant anti-pro- slavery divide in the Virginia and Kentucky Baptist churches that started just post revolution and carried on to 1820 or so, so abolition/anti-slavery sentiments were not uncommon in Virginia. See Jon Meacham’s recent book on Lincoln, chapter 1

Very interesting and instructive of the times to hear the very idea of "freedom for all humankind" referred to, multiple times, as a "scheme". And beyond that, reading about how the southerners basically "dug in their heels" on the issue, not out of a sense of doing the right thing, but because the abolitionists "up nawth" were vociferously voicing their scorn and moral disgust at the southern "institution". It is interesting to note, though, that there were southern voices in VA trying to force the issue as early as 1831. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Even today, many Americans dig in their heels "on the wrong side of history" just because they're determined that "nobody is going to tell ME what to do!!"

Wow, indeed, Ron. To think that there was a chance to avoid the bloodshed and the road was not taken. They probably didn't even dream of the casualties and pain for so many would ensue from the war. I've always wondered what the debates were like and the political landscape that was seen in the state houses were before and after the war. I need to do some more digging into my own state of Louisiana.

Conclusion: We needed more slave revolts apparently. We needed more abolitionists like John Brown to assist revolts. If the slavers were punished justly by their slaves, then perhaps many Americans loyal to the USA wouldn’t have had to experience the horrors of war. Unfortunately, I suspect that even if there were three more slave revolts prior to the 1860’s, the institution of slavery would still be upheld, because more money was invested in slave capital than all other types of capital COMBINED (railroads, shipping, factories, tools, etc.). Of course when Lincoln won the White House, seven states seceded before his inauguration, for fear of losing their expensive slaves. This is why the debate in the 1830’s about freeing slaves was mute and decided before it ever began. As for the Confederate soldier featured in this video, who said that Virginians inherited this slavery, so it wasn’t their fault that it still existed… …he is not arguing in good faith. He knows that the planter had the power to end it all whenever he desired. He knew that non-planters could aid (arm) the slaves to help get their freedom, or utilize more diplomatic solutions, like publicly shaming slavers, thus making it more taboo, or pitching in funds to help buy the freedom of slaves from their stingy masters. Instead, this man chose to die for the planters’ interests, which made him more of a stooge to the master than then negro who was only picking cotton for the master.

Looks like Va. would eventually free the slaves if the bombardment of hatred had held off a while. Some of the things they did I can compare with antifa today. Thanks Ron, Ed from Lynchburg

The detail of how slaveowners would be paid for the expropriation of their property would have sunk any emancipation of slaves in any slaveholding state until defeat in the Civil War.

The true reason for the civil war was South Carolina discovered gold and started minting double eagles and NEW ENGLAND had to go to war to keep them down.

Thomas Jefferson on slavery: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.” Not until the Civil War did the view become prevalent that slavery was a positive good for blacks. Or at least that’s where I see that argument start to be raised with a straight face.

Revisionist history. The slave owners got their butts kicked it’s been sore since then.