A Southern City Affirms the Morality of the Slave Trade

Proceedings of the Charleston City Council (1856)

The coastal city of Charleston, South Carolina, became a thriving commercial center during the first half of the nineteenth century, buoyed by its flourishing trade in cotton and slaves. The domestic trade in slaves was a lucrative source of city income. Those bringing slaves into the city for sale were subject to a head tax of $10 per slave. Benjamin Mordecai, a Jewish merchant from Charleston who became a leading financial supporter of the Confederate cause, petitioned the city council for exemption. His petition was rejected, but the city’s aldermen, as reported in the January 10, 1856, Charleston Daily Courier, took the opportunity to affirm the propriety of the tax and the trade in slaves.

Alderman Gourdin, from the Committee of Ways and Means, made the following report, which was adopted:

The Committee of Ways and Means, to whom was referred the memorial of Benjamin Mordecai, Esq., asking relief in the matter of an ordinance of the City Council requiring a tax of ten dollars on each slave brought into the city for sale from beyond the limits of the State, beg leave to report:

The ordinance for raising supplies for the years 1851, 1852 and 1853, provides that every slave brought into the city for sale, from beyond the limits of the State, shall be subjected to a tax of $3. Those for the same objects for the years 1854 and 1855 placed this tax at $10. The memorialist recites two points of objection to this provision of the ordinance of 1855 — the first founded upon the operation of the law upon him individually; the second upon the impolicy of the law, alleging that it operates as a commercial restraint.

On the first point, the memorialist alleges that the actual enforcement of this ordinance has been waived; that all others in the same business with himself have been charged to this time according to such rates as were in existence prior to its passage; that it seems to be only against him that the enforcement was directed, to his individual hardship and suffering; that all others having escaped this tax, he prays in his behalf a similar exemption; and he further asks an opportunity that he may show that all others in the same business with himself have been exempted.

The ordinance provides “that it shall be the duty of the City Assessor to ascertain the number of all such slaves and to assess the said tax on the owners, or persons in possession of such slaves, for the purpose of sale, &c.”

The Committee have communicated with the memorialist and with the City Assessor on the subject, and from the statements of the former, are induced to believe that the tax of $10 on each slave brought into the city for sale from beyond the limits of the State, has not been uniformly paid by others in the same business with himself. The Assessor on the other hand, alleges the difficulty of discovering the particular negros on sale in the city brought from beyond the limits of the State, and his dependence upon Brokers and others to make the return required by the Ordinance; that if this tax has not been uniformly levied, it is because of his failure to detect the particular cases of such negros being on sale, and because of the neglect or avoidance of parties in such instances to comply with the law. The Assessor further alleges that in no case or cases known to him has the party been exempted from the payment of this tax, and that when levied, subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance of 1854, he has acted under the provisions of this Ordinance, and not according to those previously in force. The Committee are of opinion that the failure or neglect of an officer, to compel parties (in previous cases) to comply with the law, and that the failure by others, through ignorance, or from any other cause, to comply with the law, constitute no valid grounds for suspending its operation in ascertained cases, to which it is strictly applicable. They therefore recommend that the prayer of the memorialist be not granted, and that the City Assessor be instructed to assess this tax on such parties as are now known to him, or may become known to him, as having sold slaves in the city from beyond the limits of the State without having paid the same. The Committee might here conclude their report without adverting to the second point of objection; the policy of the law, leaving this to be discussed when their bill for raising supplies shall be under consideration; but this topic having been introduced to public attention by the memorialist, they propose to give it a cursory and a brief review.

The Committee apprehend that this community entertains no morbid or fanatical sentiment on the subject of slavery. The discussions of the last twenty years have lead it to clear and decided opinions as to its complete consistency with moral principle, and with the highest order of civilization. It regards the removal of slaves from place to place, and their transfer from master to master, by gift, purchase or otherwise, as incidents necessarily connected with the institution. The law has refrained (and wisely, perhaps,) from defining the manner in which these rights of ownership may be exercised, leaving the usages in reference to them to the dictation and control of an intelligent and humane public sentiment. To apply these remarks. The statute law of Georgia makes it a penal offence to import into that State slaves for sale or speculation. The offender is guilty of a high misdemeanor, and the conviction, therefore, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, for each and every slave so brought into that State, and by imprisonment and labor in the Penitentiary for any time not less than one year, nor longer than four years; and persons knowingly purchasing or recovering slaves so brought into Georgia, are also guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined in a sum not exceeding $500, for each slave so illegally imported. The effect of this stringent law, in force in a neighboring and a border State, was to make Charleston a mart for the sale of slaves, drawn from the slave States lying to the north of us. This community has not forgotten, that previous to the passage of the ordinance of 1854, imposing this tax of $10, it was thought a common spectacle to see troups of slaves, of all ages, and of both sexes, uniformly dressed, paraded for air, exercise and exhibition, through our streets and thoroughfares. This spectacle of a large number of slaves, for the most part single, brought together from all quarters, without regard to family ties, for purposes purely of speculation and of cupidity, entailed upon this community by strangers, citizens of other States, was repugnant to the moral tone and sense of our people, and lead, doubtless, to the municipal regulation now complained of. The tax of $10 was, it is believed, intended to operate as a check upon the growing annoyance and evil, and the Committee think that they represent the feeling and the sentiment of this community, when they express the conviction that it will be far better that a few individual interests should suffer, and that something should be lost to the general interests of agriculture, rather than such exhibitions shall again be intruded upon it.

But it is an assumption to allege that the interest of agriculture must suffer should this tax exclude slaves, from other States, from sale in Charleston. The communications from other States of the Union, by rail roads and steamers are daily, rapid, certain and economical, and capital which seeks investment in slaves for Agricultural purposes within the State need not be defeated in its object — slaves may be brought beyond the limits of the State, and placed upon the soil, as readily as though they were brought first to Charleston, then sold and removed to the plantation. If an argument may be inferred, from a fact well known to the brokers and to others in this community, namely that the sales of slaves, the property of estates in neighboring States, Georgia and Florida for instance, have not unfrequently been transferred to Charleston, it would be that the interest of agriculture will be the better subserved by the former course, by purchases made in other States; for the expenses and risks incidental to removal would not be incurred was not a larger price than could be obtained abroad, the inducement for seeking Charleston as a market.

ROBEET [sic] N. GOURDIN.

WM. McBURNEY.

E. W. EDGERTON.

W. PORCHER MILES,

Mayor

“Proceedings of the Charleston City Council Committee of Ways and Means,” The Charleston Daily Courier, January 10, 1856.

READING AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS