Jefferson and Slavery: A Response to David Barton on the Glenn Beck Show, Part Two

On Friday, we posted part one of our response to David Barton’s appearance on the Glenn Beck Show (8/16/12).  On that show, Barton defended his claim that Virginia law did not allow Thomas Jefferson to emancipate his slaves. In The Jefferson Lies, Barton does not cite the part of the 1782 Virginia law that allowed slave owners to emancipate their slaves. In his book, Barton does not mention that owners were allowed to free their slaves during the life of the owner and gives no explanation for why he omitted that portion. During his appearance on the Glenn Beck Show, he mentioned the section of the law that allowed manumissions, but gave no explanation about why he failed to include it in his book.

On the Beck show, Barton said Virginia law required slave owners to provide a security bond for emancipated slaves. Since Jefferson was often in debt, he was unable to provide these funds for his slaves.  Part of the problem in getting clarity has been Barton’s presentation of the evidence in The Jefferson Lies.  He says on page 94 that “Jefferson was unable to free his slaves under the requirements of state law…” Actually, Jefferson was able to free his slaves after 1782 in accord with the provisions of the law on manumission. Barton is now arguing that Jefferson’s inability was financial and not legal.

On the Beck show, Beck made an analogy to small business owners in the present. He said that one is allowed to start a business but the government regulations make it so difficult that it is practically impossible. To accept that analogy as relevant, one must find evidence that Virginia government regulations prevented manumissions. To be sure, during the years between 1782-1806, there were government regulations (writing a deed, and a small clerk’s fee for filing the deed), but they were not so onerous that manumission was impossible, as is demonstrated by the many private manumissions and the large one of over 450 slaves initiated by Robert Carter.  And most important for Barton’s financial argument, we can find no evidence, nor has Barton presented any, that security bonds were required for slaves who were in the proper age range and of sound mind and body. As we demonstrate below, the evidence Barton presents does not relate to Virginia.

The one citation in The Jefferson Lies on the subject of security bonds is on page 92, where Barton writes:

Subsequent laws imposed even harsher restrictions, mandating that a slave could not be freed unless the owner guaranteed a full security bond for the education, livelihood, and support of the freed slave.

The footnote at the end of that sentence is to an 1857 book by W.O. Blake titled, The History of Slavery and the Slave Trade, Ancient and Modern. Barton cites page 386 as his source for this information. Below is the entire page 386 from that book. Instead of a reference to Virginia law, this page completes a discussion of the fate of children born of black and white parents and begins one on emancipation in Massachusetts.

Laws were even found necessary in some of those colonies to limit what was esteemed a superfluity of parental tenderness. In the Anglo American colonies, colored children were hardly less numerous. But conventional decorum more potent than law forbade any recognition by the father. They followed the condition of the mother. They were born and they remained slaves. European blood was thus constantly transferred into servile veins and hence among the slaves sold and bought to day in our American markets may be found the descendants of men distinguished in colonial and national annals. –Hildreth’s History United States

In Massachusetts, a controversy arose as to the justice and legality of negro slavery which was conducted by able writers. It began about 1766 and was continued until 1773, when the subject was very warmly agitated. In 1767 and afterwards, attempts were made in the legislature to restrict the further importation of slaves. It was even questioned whether under the laws of Massachusetts any person could be held as a slave. This point was carried before the superior court in a suit by a negro to recover wages from his alleged master. The negroes collected money among themselves to carry on the suit and it terminated favorably. Other suits were instituted between that time and the revolution and the juries invariably gave their verdict in favor of freedom. The pleas on the part of the masters were that the negroes were purchased in open market and bills of sale were produced in evidence that the laws of the province recognized slavery as existing in it by declaring that no person should manumit his slave without giving bond for his maintenance &c. On the part of the blacks it was pleaded that the royal charter expressly declared all persons born or residing in the province to be as free as the king’s subjects in Great Britain that by the law of England no subject could be deprived of his liberty but by the judgment of his peers that the laws of the province respecting an evil and attempting to mitigate or regulate it did not authorize it and on some occasions the plea was that though the slavery of the parents were admitted yet no disability of that kind could descend to the children. The view taken by the Massachusetts juries was sanctioned about the same time in England by a solemn decision of the court of king’s bench in the celebrated case of James Somersett mentioned in a former chapter. Being brought before Lord Mansfield on a writ of habeas corpus his case was referred to the full court. After the argument Lord Mansfield said In five or six cases of this nature I have known it accommodated by agreement between the parties On its first coming before me I strongly recommended it here But if the parties will have it decided we must give our opinion Compassion will not on the one hand nor inconvenience on the other be to decide but the law The question now is whether any dominion authority or coercion can be exercised in this country on a slave according to the American laws The difficulty of adopting the relation without adopting it in all…

A review of the pages (click the link to go to the book) before and after page 386 finds no mention of requirements for security bonds in Virginia. If you read on to page 389 of that book, you will read:

The Virginia Assembly, on the motion of Jefferson, prohibited in 1778 the further introduction of slaves. In 1782, the old colonial statute was repealed which forbade emancipations except for meritorious services to be adjudged by the governor and council. This repeal remained in force for ten years during which period private emancipations were very numerous. But for the subsequent reenactment of the old restrictions the free colored population of Virginia might now have exceeded the slaves. Maryland followed the footsteps of Virginia both in prohibiting the further introduction of slaves and in removing the restraints on emancipation.

Note that private manumissions were numerous according to this source used by Barton. Actually, the significant restrictions were not added until 1806.  There is nothing mentioned here about a security bond.

In part three, we will address the remaining claims about slavery.

Here again is the Glenn Beck segment on slavery:

For additional parts of this series see:

Jefferson and Slavery: A Response to David Barton on the Glenn Beck Show, Part One

Print Friendly

  • Flora Poste

    “On the Beck show, Beck made an analogy to small business owners in the present. He said that one is allowed to start a business but the government regulations make it so difficult that it is practically impossible.”

    What a silly analogy. The paperwork to legally set up my sole proprietorship took all of two days. I’ve gotten lots of FREE help and advice on making my business a success from my local small business development center, which is funded by the federal Small Business Administration.

    Mr. Barton appears to inhabit an alternate reality America. Please someone call Dr. Who and ask him to fix it so that Barton stays in his own time stream and can no longer interfere with this one.

  • Pingback: Jefferson and Slavery: A Response to David Barton on the Glenn Beck Show, Part One

  • Jim Guinnessey

    David Barton has been the darling of the Christian Right and its allies in the GOP for some time now. Despite everything in the Constitution of the USA that prohibits a mingling of Church and State Barton and his cronies, pandering always to evangelicals who vote Republican, insist that the USA was founded as a Christian State. That he basically reveals his propaganda via Beck,Colson and Fox News networks indicates that his primary targets are susceptible white evangelicals who vote Republican (the self-proclaimed Party of God). The ultimate goal of David Barton, his backers and his audience, is to establish the USA as a theocratic nation with Jesus as President. If these crazies weren’t so serious the whole Barton movement would be laughable.

  • TxHistoryProf

    I am gla to see the Somersett Case of 1772 mentioned. This case also pushed southern colonies to sign the DOI for fear of King George emancipating American slaves. Barton neglects that part. Alfred Blumrosen’s “Slave Nation” and Jack Rakove’s “Revolutionaries”give a contemporary view of this case.

  • George

    Warren,

    I have written a short commentary on a part of the 08/16/12 Barton interview on Glenn Beck in which I look at one of the smaller issue exchanges that were discussed (Kaskaskia Indians) that day. My purpose is to add yet an additional (albeit non-professional) voice to the growing list of people who recognize and wish to speak out against the purposeful distortions that Barton imparts. As I do not have an outlet for my thoughts, and as it is directly relating to the work you and Michael have put forth; I would like to submit it to this blog. But before doing so, I wanted to know if that would be OK to do. It is 1775 words long. If that would be too much, I would like to know if I could get it to you otherwise, to use as you may see fit.

  • http://secularsquare.blogspot.com secularsquare

    Mr. Throckmorton-

    At Barton’s Wallbuilders site, he defines part of the organization’s educational mission as teaching about those times when our nation’s laws and policies reflected biblical values. I assume 18th Virginia laws qualify. Does Barton explain in his book whether or not slavery is a bibical value? Does Barton explain why the Christians who sat in the Virginia General Assembly made it more difficult to privately emancipate slaves?

  • Pingback: Jefferson and Slavery: A Response to David Barton on the Glenn Beck Show, Part Three

  • Pingback: Did Thomas Jefferson Fund the Thompson Hot-Pressed Bible or Simply Buy One?

  • Pingback: Is abortion murder? Hurley, Iowa Senate and Medical fact

  • Pingback: A Year Ago Thomas Nelson Lost Confidence in The Jefferson Lies


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X