little discussed in California, so settled appears the public mind relative thereto. Public meetings have scarcely ever considered it.' 775 The framers of the first California constitution wished not merely to insure the freedom of labor, but also to protect it from the degradation which they declared would be the inevitable result of association with an inferior race. No one subject was so warmly debated as the section proposed by McCarver providing that, "The Legislature shall, at its first session, pass such laws as will effectually prohibit free persons of color from immigrating to and settling in this State, and to effectually prevent the owners of slaves from bringing them into this State for the purpose of setting them free." McCarver, in support of the need of such a section, said that he was acquainted with men who had received letters from the states declaring that in a short time hundreds of negroes would be brought to California for the purpose of working them in the mines prior to their liberation. Steuarts and Semple also knew of slave owners who were intending to carry out this plan, and several other members presented mathematical proofs of the great profits of such a procedure.10 It seemed evident that, unless something were done to prevent it, the state would soon be fairly overrun with a horde of ex-slaves. While these fears were greatly exaggerated, later history proves that they were not altogether groundless. Probably there had already been a few such cases. The census of 1850 shows less than a thousand negroes in California, but over two hundred of these were in Sacramento, the district represented by McCarver. Most of the others were located in the mining counties. Jones, a delegate from the miners, spoke as though the subject were one which they had fully discussed, declaring that, in canvassing his district, he found but one person who was not anxious to secure such an exclusion.''11 5 Brown, op. cit., p. xix. e Ibid., p. 137. 7 Ibid., pp. 137, 140. 8 Ibid., pp. 146-7. 9 Ibid., p. 138. 10 Ibid., pp. 138, 335. 11 Ibid., pp. 332-3. The debates on McCarver's amendment were renewed at three different periods in the sessions of the convention, and over two whole days were occupied with the heated arguments which it called forth. These discussions not only throw much light on the labor conditions at that time, but in the strong race feeling displayed they foreshadow the labor controversies that have been most characteristic of the later history of the state. The points brought out in lengthy debates on the exclusion of free negroes may all be grouped under five arguments: First, their inferiority of race would make assimilation on terms of equality impossible. Second, they would degrade labor, and so discourage a more desirable class of immigrants. Third, monopolies and social inequalities would result from their exploitation. Fourth, they would constitute a vicious and disorderly element in the community. Fifth, the expenses of governing and supporting them would increase the burden of taxation. 9912 Wozencraft, the first speaker in support of the amendment, opened with a forceful argument to prove that when the two races were brought together certain social evils were inevitable. If they wished freedom and equality, then the inferior race must not be brought in contact with the superior, for said he, "be assured the one will rule and the other must serve. He, as well as Semple,13 indulged in lofty dreams of the future greatness of California, but in order to realize them he declared, "We must throw aside all the weights and clogs that have fettered society elsewhere. We must inculcate moral and industrial habits. We must exclude the low, vicious, and depraved. Every member of society should be on a level with the mass-able to perform his appropriate duty. Having equal rights, he must be capable of maintaining those rights, and aiding in their equal diffusion to others. There should be that equilibrium in society which pervades all nature, and that equilibrium can only be established by acting in conformity with the laws of nature. There should be no incongruities in the structure; it should be a harmonious whole, and there should be no discordant particles, if you would have a happy unity." The delegate from San Luis Obispo, a lawyer from New York, also set forth fully and forcefully the social evils of introducing an inharmonious element in the population. He said, "I am opposed to the introduction into this country of negroes, peons of Mexico, or any class of that kind; I care not whether they be free or bond. It is a well established fact, and the history of every state in the Union clearly proves it, that negro labor, whether slave or free, when opposed to white labor, degrades it. Here are thousands upon thousands of enterprising, able, and intelligent young men, leaving their homes and coming to California. They cannot all devote themselves to digging gold in the placers here; they will be compelled to turn their attention to other branches of industry; and if you do not degrade white labor there will not be the slightest difficulty in obtaining white men to labor. But there will be a difficulty if they are to work with negroes. 7714 That these ex-slaves would degrade labor was an argument of the opening discussion which was taken up and repeated with all sorts of variations by the following speakers. The superior intelligence and culture of many of the men who had swarmed into the mines was pointed out. Their representative, who was born in Kentucky and had been a resident of Louisiana, exclaimed, "Sir, in the mining districts of this country we want no such competition. The labor of the white man brought into competition with the labor of the negro is always degraded. There is now a respectable and intelligent class of population in the mines; men of talent and education; men digging there in the pit with the spade and pick, who would be amply competent to sit in these halls. Do you think they would dig with the African? No, sir, they would leave this country first. ''15 The fear of the growth of monopolies furnished the third ground of opposition. It was asserted that these groups of negroes who would be brought by their masters to work in the 14 Brooks, pp. 143-5. 15 Ibid., p. 333. mines, "would become a monopoly of the worst character. The profits of the mines would go into the pockets of single individuals. The labor of intelligent and enterprising white men who, from the want of capital, are compelled to do their own work would afford no adequate remuneration." It is difficult to see how the greater profits of the capitalists could lessen the earnings of individual miners, but such were the fears of several of the delegates. There was a general conviction that the negroes were thoroughly undesirable citizens; only one man in the convention seemed willing to defend their character. He asserted that in New York he had known men of color who were most respectable citizens, men of wealth, intelligence, and business capacity. He could not agree to any provision which would deprive such men of their rights." But Hastings from Ohio, McCarver, and Semple from Kentucky, Wozencraft from Louisiana, Tefft from New York, Hoppe from Missouri, all testified against them. With these formidable indictments of shiftlessness, indolence, vice, and riotous conduct charged against them, and the assurance that thousands would be brought into the state, the suggestion that an increased burden of taxation would be necessary for their support and control gained considerable weight.18 However, not all the members were carried away by this strong combination of real argument and race prejudice. Dimmick and Gilbert were quite sceptical about the possibility of slave owners bringing their negroes to California in large numbers. They pointed out the difficulties, expenses, and risks of such a course, and spoke eloquently of the injustice and inconsistency of following the earlier lofty declarations of freedom and equality contained in the constitution, with this measure which discriminated against the free citizens of other states, not because, as Gilbert boldly declared, they had committed any crime, but simply because they were black.19 Gilbert also pointed out that such a provision would be in conflict with the section 16 Brooks, p. 144; see also pp. 138, 140, 142, 146. 17 Ibid., p. 143. 18 Ibid., 331. 19 Ibid., p. 149. of the United States Constitution which provided that, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several states." He did not believe that Congress would accept the constitution with such a provision. 20 Notwithstanding his impassioned plea in the name of justice and human progress, the committee of the whole adopted McCarver's amendment providing for legislation excluding free negroes from the state. When the measure came up for the final vote two weeks later, the opinions of the delegates had undergone a great change. The fears that such a section might delay the admission of the state were strengthened by references to difficulties with a similar provision in the Missouri constitution.21 Other members felt that the constitution was becoming overburdened with provisions, and that the convention was encroaching on the functions of the legislature. The fate of the measure was settled by the announcement of a San Francisco delegate that he had heard from his constituents and they were much opposed to the measure. Indeed, he declared that should the constitution contain such a provision, it would be unanimously rejected in San Francisco.2 22 By a standing vote of 9 to 33 the amendment was lost. COMPROMISE MEASURES BY WHICH CALIFORNIA WAS It is evident that the members of the constitutional convention had but little realization of the national significance of this question of the type of labor to be admitted to California. The section of the new constitution excluding slavery which they had accepted without question was for months the subject of the most violent controversy on the part of the representatives of the older states. The great statesmen were brought face to face with the hideous possibilities of disunion and all its terrible consequences, as realized ten years later. They succeeded at last in postponing the struggle by the compromise measures 20 Brooks, p. 150. 21 Ibid., p. 334. 22 Ibid., p. 338. |