Produced by Curtis Weyant, Richard J. Shiffer, and the
Online Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





[Transcriber's Note: Every effort has been made to replicate this
text as faithfully as possible, including obsolete and variant
spellings and other inconsistencies. Text that has been changed to
correct an obvious error is noted at the end of this ebook. Also, the
transcriber added the Table of Contents.]




THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

Volume III

1918




                              Table of Contents

                         Vol. III--January, 1918--No. 1

  The Story of Josiah Henson                            W. B. HARTGROVE
  Elizabeth Barrett Browning and the Negro             BENJAMIN BRAWLEY
  Palmares: The Negro Numantia                       CHARLES E. CHAPMAN
  Slavery in California                              DELILAH L. BEASLEY
  Documents
    California Freedom Papers
    Thomas Jefferson's Thoughts on the Negro
  Some Undistinguished Negroes
  Book Reviews
  Notes


                          Vol. III--April, 1918--No. 2

  Benjamin Banneker                                      HENRY E. BAKER
  George Liele and Andrew Bryan                           JOHN W. DAVIS
  Fifty Years of Howard University  - Part I        DWIGHT O. W. HOLMES
  Historical Errors of James Ford Rhodes                  JOHN R. LYNCH
  Documents
    Letters of Governor Edward Coles
  Some Undistinguished Negroes
  Book Reviews
  Notes


                           Vol. III--July, 1918--No. 3

  Slavery in Kentucky                                  IVAN E. MCDOUGLE
  Book Reviews
  Notes

                         Vol. III--October, 1918--No. 4

  Beginnings of Miscegenation of Whites and Blacks    CARTER G. WOODSON
  Gerrit Smith's Effort in Behalf of Negroes                 ZITA DYSON
  The Buxton Settlement in Canada                           FRED LANDON
  Fifty Years of Howard University - Part II        DWIGHT O. W. HOLMES
  Documents
    What the Framers of the Federal Constitution
      Thought of the Negro
  Some Undistinguished Negroes
  Book Reviews
  Notes




THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. III--JANUARY, 1918--No. 1




THE STORY OF JOSIAH HENSON[1]


No one ever uttered a more forceful truth than Frederika Bremer when
she said in speaking to Americans: "The fate of the Negro is the
romance of your history." The sketches of heroes showing the life of
those once exploited by Christian men must ever be interesting to
those who would know the origin and the development of a civilization
distinctly American. In no case is this more striking than in that of
Josiah Henson, the man who probably was present to Harriet Beecher
Stowe's mind when she graphically portrayed slavery in writing "Uncle
Tom's Cabin."

Josiah Henson was born June 15, 1789, on a farm in Charles County,
Maryland, where his mother was hired out. His parents had six
children. The only recollection he had of his father was that of
seeing his right ear cut off, his head gashed and his back lacerated,
as a result of the cruel punishment inflicted upon him because he had
dared to beat the overseer of the plantation for brutally assaulting
the slave's wife. Because of becoming morose, disobedient and
intractable thereafter, Henson's father was sold to a planter in
Alabama and his relatives never heard of him again. His mother was
then brought back to the estate of her owner, a Doctor McPherson, who
was much kinder to his slaves. Dr. McPherson gave the youth his own
name, Josiah, and the family name Henson after Dr. McPherson's uncle,
who served in the Revolutionary War. Josiah showed signs of mental and
religious development under the pious care of his Christian mother and
for that reason became his master's favorite.

Upon the death of Doctor McPherson, however, it became necessary to
sell the estate and slaves to divide his property among his heirs. The
Henson family was then scattered throughout the country and worst of
all Josiah was separated from his mother, notwithstanding his mother's
earnest entreaty that her new master, Isaac Riley, should also
purchase her baby. Instead of listening to the appeal of this
afflicted woman clinging to his hands, he disengaged himself from her
with violent blows. She was then taken to Riley's farm in Montgomery
County. Josiah was purchased by a man named Robb, a tavern keeper
living near Montgomery Court-House. Both masters were unusually cruel,
in keeping with the tyrannical methods employed by planters of that
time. Because of ill health resulting from the lack of proper care,
Josiah became very sickly. He was then providentially restored to his
mother, having been offered to her owner by Robb for a small sum, for
the reason that it was thought that he would die.

His third master was "vulgar in his habits, unprincipled and cruel in
his general deportment and especially addicted to the vice of
licentiousness."[2] On his plantation Henson served as water-boy,
butler and finally as a field hand, experiencing the usual hardship of
the slave. He ate twice a day of cornmeal and salt herring, with a
little buttermilk and a few vegetables occasionally. His dress was
first a single garment, something like a long shirt reaching to the
ankles, later a pair of trousers and a shirt with the addition of a
woolen hat once in two or three years and a round jacket or overcoat
in the winter time. He slept with ten or a dozen persons in a log hut
of a single small room, with no other floor than the trodden earth,
and without beds or furniture. In spite of this, however, Henson grew
to be a robust lad, who at the age of fifteen could do a man's work.
Having too more mental capacity than most slaves, he was regarded as a
smart fellow. Hearing remarks like this about himself, Henson became
filled with ambition and pride, and aspired to a position of influence
among his fellows.

At times Henson would toil and induce his fellow slaves to work much
harder and longer than required to obtain from their master a kind
word or act, but these efforts usually produced no more from their
owner than a cold calculation of the value of Josiah to him. When,
however, the white overseer of this plantation was discharged for
stealing from his employer, Josiah had shown himself so capable that
he was made manager of the plantation. In this position his honest
management of the estate made him indispensable to his master also as
a salesman of produce in the markets of Georgetown and Washington. He
had during these years come under the influence of an anti-slavery
white man of Georgetown and had become a devout Christian with
considerable influence as a preacher among the slaves.

About this time, Josiah was serving his master in another capacity,
which brought upon him one of the greatest misfortunes of his life.
This was accompanying his master to town for protection and
deliverance when the owners of his order indulged in excessive
drinking and brawls in taverns. Sometimes in removing his master from
the midst of a fracas, he would have to handle his owner's opponent
rather roughly. On one occasion when Riley became involved in a
quarrel with his brother's overseer, Henson pushed the overseer down;
and falling while intoxicated the overseer suffered some injury. The
overseer decided to wreak vengeance on Henson for this. Finding
Henson on the way home one day the overseer assisted by three Negroes
attacked him, beating him unmercifully and left him on the ground
almost senseless with his head badly bruised and cut and with his
right arm and both shoulder blades broken. Being on a farm where no
physician or surgeon was usually called, Henson recovered with
difficulty under the kind treatment of his master's sister; but was
never able thereafter to raise his hands to his head. The culprit did
not suffer for this offense, as the court acquitted him on the grounds
of self-defense.

In the course of time Henson's master, Isaac Riley, lived so
extravagantly that he became involved in debt and lawsuits which
heralded his ruin. Seeing his estate would be seized, he intrusted to
Henson in 1825 the tremendous task of taking his 18 slaves to his
brother, Amos Riley, in Kentucky. Henson bought a one-horse wagon to
carry provisions and to relieve the women and children from time to
time. The men were compelled to walk altogether. Traveling through
Alexandria, Culpepper, Fauquier, Harper's Ferry and Cumberland, they
met on the way droves of Negroes passing in chains under the system of
the internal slave trade, while those whom Henson was conducting were
moving freely without restriction. On arriving at Wheeling, he sold
the horse and wagon and bought a boat of sufficient size to take the
whole party down the river. At Cincinnati some free Negroes came out
to greet them and urged them to avail themselves of the opportunity to
become free. Few of the slaves except Henson could appreciate this
boon offered them, but he had thought of obtaining it only by
purchase. Henson said: "Under the influence of these impressions, and
seeing that the allurements of the crowd were producing a manifest
effect, I sternly assumed the captain, and ordered the boat to be
pushed off into the stream. A shower of curses followed me from the
shore; but the Negroes under me, accustomed to obey, and, alas! too
degraded and ignorant of the advantages of liberty to know what they
were forfeiting, offered no resistance to my command." "Often since
that day," says he, "has my soul been pierced with bitter anguish at
the thought of having been thus instrumental in consigning to the
infernal bondage of slavery so many of my fellow-beings. I have
wrestled in prayer with God for forgiveness. Having experienced myself
the sweetness of liberty, and knowing too well the after misery of a
great majority of them, my infatuation has seemed to me an
unpardonable sin. But I console myself with the thought that I acted
according to my best light, though the light that was in me was
darkness."[3]

Henson finally arrived with these slaves at the farm of his master's
brother, five miles south of the Ohio and fifteen miles above the
Yellow Banks, on the Big Blackfords' Creek in Davies County, Kentucky,
April, 1825. Here the situation as to food, shelter and general
comforts was a little better than in Maryland. He served on this
plantation as superintendent and having here among more liberal white
people the opportunity for religious instruction, he developed into a
successful preacher, recognized by the Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church.

There he remained waiting for his master three years. Unable to
persuade his wife to move to Kentucky, however, his master decided to
abandon the idea and sent an agent to bring upon those slaves another
heartrending scene of the auction block, though Henson himself was
exempted. Henson saw with deepest grief the agony which he recollected
in his own mother and which he now unfortunately said in the persons
with whom he had long been associated. He could not, therefore,
refrain from experiencing the bitterest feeling of hatred of the
system and its promoters. He furthermore lamented as never before his
agency in bringing the poor creatures hither, if such had to be the
end of the expedition. Freedom then became the all-absorbing purpose
that filled his soul. He said that he stood ready to pray, toil,
dissemble, plot like a fox and fight like a tiger.

A new light dawned upon the dark pathway of Josiah Henson, however, in
1828. A Methodist preacher, an anti-slavery white man, talked with
Henson one day confidentially about securing freedom. He thereupon
suggested to Henson to obtain his employer's consent to visit his old
master in Maryland that he might connect with friends in Ohio along
the way and obtain the sum necessary to purchase himself. His employer
readily consented and with the required pass and a letter of
recommendation from his Methodist friend to a preacher in Cincinnati,
Henson obtained contributions to the amount of one hundred and sixty
dollars on arriving in that city, where he preached to several
congregations. He then proceeded to Chillicothe where the annual
Methodist Conference was in session, his kind friend accompanying him.
With the aid of the influence and exertions of his coworker Henson was
again successful. He then purchased a suit of comfortable clothes and
an excellent horse, with which he traveled leisurely from town to
town, preaching and soliciting as he went. He succeeded so well that
when he arrived at his old home in Maryland, he was much better
equipped than his master. This striking difference and the delay of
Henson along the way from September to Christmas caused his master to
be somewhat angry. Moreover, as his master had lost most of his slaves
and other property in Maryland, he was anxious to have Henson as a
faithful worker to retrieve his losses; but this changed man would
hardly subserve such a purpose.

The conditions which he observed around him were so much worse than
what he had for some time been accustomed to and so changed was the
environment because of the departure or death of friends and relatives
during his absence that Henson resolved to become free. He then
consulted the brother of his master's wife, then a business man in
Washington, whom he had often befriended years before and who was
angry with Henson's master because the latter had defrauded him out of
certain property. This friend, therefore, gladly took up with Henson's
master the question of giving the slave an opportunity to purchase
himself. He carefully explained to the master that Henson had some
money and could purchase himself and that if, in consideration of the
valuable services he had rendered, the master refused to do so, Henson
would become free by escaping to Canada. The master agreed then to
give him his manumission papers for four hundred and fifty dollars, of
which three hundred and fifty dollars was to be in cash and the
remainder in Henson's note. Henson's money and horse enabled him to
pay the cash at once. But his master was to work a trick on him. He
did not receive his manumission papers until March 3, 1827, and when
Henson started for Kentucky his master induced him to let him send his
manumission papers to his brother in Kentucky where Henson was
returning, telling him that some ruffian might take the document from
him on the way. In returning to Kentucky Henson was arrested several
times as a fugitive, but upon always insisting on being carried before
a magistrate he was released. He had no trouble after reaching
Wheeling, from which he proceeded on a boat to Davies County,
Kentucky.

Arriving at the Kentucky home, he was informed that the master had
misrepresented the facts as to his purchase. He had written his
brother that Henson had agreed to pay one thousand dollars for
himself, the balance-of the six hundred and fifty dollars to be paid
in Kentucky. As the only evidence he had, had been sent to his
master's brother, it was impossible for him to make a case against him
in court. Things went on in uncertainty for about a year. Then came a
complaint from his master in Maryland, saying that he wanted money and
expressing the hope that Henson would soon pay the next installment.

Soon thereafter Henson received orders to go with Amos Riley carrying
a cargo to New Orleans. This suggestion was enough. He contrived to
have his manumission papers sewed up in his clothing prior to his
departure on the flat boat for New Orleans. He knew what awaited him
and his mind rapidly developed into a sort of smoldering volcano of
pent-up feeling which at one time all but impelled him to murder his
white betrayers. Blinded by passion and stung by madness, Henson
resolved to kill his four companions, to take what money they had,
then to scuttle the craft and escape to the North. One dark night
within a few days' sail of New Orleans it seemed that the opportune
hour had come. Henson was alone on the deck and Riley and the hands
were asleep. He crept down noiselessly, secured an ax, entered the
cabin, and looking by aid of the dim light, his eye fell first on
Riley. Henson felt the blade of the ax and raised it to strike the
first blow when suddenly the thought came to him, "What! Commit
murder, and you a Christian?" His religious feeling and belief in the
wonderful providence of God prevented him.

Riley talked later of getting him a good master and the like but did
not disguise the effort to sell him. Fortunately, however, Amos Riley
was suddenly taken sick and becoming more dependent on Henson then,
than Henson had been on him, he immediately ordered Henson to sell the
flat boat and find passage for him home in a sick cabin at once.
Henson did this and succeeded by careful nursing to get Amos back to
his home in Kentucky alive. Although he confessed that, if he had sold
Henson, he would have died, the family showed only a realization of an
increased value in Henson rather than an appreciation of his valuable
services. He, therefore, decided to escape to Canada.

His wife, fearing the dangers, would not at first agree to go, but
upon being told that he would take all of the children but the
youngest, she finally agreed to set out with him. Knowing of the
hardships that they must have to experience, Henson practised
beforehand the carrying of the children on his back. They crossed the
river into Indiana and proceeded toward Cincinnati, finding it
difficult to purchase food in that State, so intensely did the people
hate the Negro there. After two weeks of hardship, exhausted they
reached Cincinnati. There they were refreshed and carried 30 miles on
the way in a wagon. They directed themselves then toward the Scioto,
where they were told they would strike the military road of General
Hull, opened when he was operating against Detroit.

They set out, not knowing that the way lay through a wilderness of
howling wolves and, not taking sufficient food, they did not pass
homes from which they could purchase supplies on the way. They did not
go far before his wife fainted, but she was soon resuscitated.
Finally, they saw in the distance persons whose presence seemed to be
the dark foreboding of disaster, but the fugitives pressed on. They
proved to be Indians, who, when they saw the blacks, ran away yelping.
This excited the fugitives, as they thought the Indians were yelling
to secure the cooperation of a larger number to massacre them. Farther
on they saw other Indians standing behind trees hiding. After passing
through such trials as these for some time they came to an Indian
village, the dwellers of which, after some fear and hesitation,
welcomed them, supplied their wants and gave them a comfortable wigwam
for the night. They were then informed that they were about
twenty-five miles from the lakes. After experiencing some difficulty
in fording a dangerous stream and spending another night in the woods
they saw the houses on the outskirts; of Sandusky.

Using good judgment, however, Henson did not go into the village at
once. When about a mile from the lake, He hid his family in the woods
and then proceeded to approach the town. Soon he observed on the left
side of the town a house from which a number of men were taking
something to a vessel. Approaching them immediately he was asked
whether or not he desired to work. He promptly replied in the
affirmative and it was not long before he was assisting them in
loading corn. He soon contrived to get in line next to the only Negro
there engaged and communicated to him his plans.[4]

He told the captain, who called Henson aside and agreed to assist him
in getting to Buffalo, the boat's destination, where the fugitives
would find friends. It was agreed that the vessel should leave the
landing and that a small boat should take the fugitives aboard at
night, as there were Kentucky spies in Sandusky that might apprehend
them. Henson said he watched the vessel leave the landing and then
lower a boat for the shore and in a few minutes his black friend and
two sailors landed and went with him to get his family. Thinking that
he had been captured his wife had grown despondent and had moved from
the spot where he left her. With a little difficulty, he found her,
but when she saw him approaching with those men, she was still more
frightened. She was reassured, however, and soon they were received on
board in the midst of hearty cheers. They arrived at Buffalo the next
evening too late to cross the river. The following morning they were
brought to Burnham and went on the ferry boat to Waterloo. The good
Captain Burnham paid the passage money and gave Henson a dollar
beside. They arrived in Canada on the 28th day of October, 1830.
Describing his exultation Henson said: "I threw myself on the ground,
rolled in the sand, seized handfuls of it and kissed them, and danced
round till, in the eyes of several who were present, I passed for a
madman. 'He's some crazy fellow,' said a Colonel Warren, who happened
to be there. 'O, no, master! don't you know? I'm free!' He burst into
a shout of laughter. 'Well I never knew freedom make a man roll in the
sand in such a fashion,' Still I could not control myself. I hugged
and kissed my wife and children, and, until the first exuberant burst
of feeling was over, went on as before."

He soon found employment there with one Mr. Hibbard, whom he served
three years and was lodged in a cabin better than that in Kentucky.
His family, however, had been so exposed that during the first winter
they almost died of sickness, but his employer was kind to him. Mr.
Hibbard taught Henson's son Tom, then twelve years of age. Tom's
achievements were soon such that instead of reading the Bible to his
father to assist him in preaching he taught his father to read.
Henson then entered the service of one Mr. Risely, who had experienced
more elevation of mind than Mr. Hibbard. With this advantage Henson
not only realized more fully than ever the ignorance in which he
lived, but became interested in the elevation of his people there, who
had been content with the mere making a livelihood rather than solving
the economic problems of freedom. A good many, thereafter, agreed to
invest their savings in land. In this they had the cooperation of Mr.
Risely. Henson set out, therefore, in 1834 to explore the country and
finally selected a place for a settlement to the east of Lake St.
Clair and Detroit river later called Colchester.

Henson thereafter directed his attention to those whom he had left in
bondage. If he felt any compunction of conscience for having conducted
the party of Maryland slaves through a free State without making an
effort to free them, he made up for that in later years. Addressing an
audience of Negroes some years later at Fort Erie, Pennsylvania, he
took occasion to remind them of their duty to assist in the
emancipation of their fellowmen in the South. In the audience was a
young man named James Lightfoot, who had fled from a plantation near
Maysville, Kentucky. Seeing his duty as never before, he approached
Father Henson to arrange for the rescue of his enslaved kinsmen.
Knowing the agony in which he was, Henson undertook the perilous task
of bringing them to Canada. Leaving his family alone he traveled on
foot through New York, Pennsylvania and Ohio into Kentucky. He had
little difficulty in finding the Lightfoots. On presenting them a
small token of the loved one, who, they were told, had gone to the
land of freedom, they exhibited no little excitement. Unfortunately,
however, Lightfoot's parents were so far advanced in years and his
sisters had so many children that they could not travel. As the young
men, who could have gone, were not anxious to be separated from their
loved ones, all declined the invitation to make this effort for
freedom at that time, promising to undertake it a year thereafter, if
Henson returned for them.

Henson agreed to do so and in the meantime went forty or fifty miles
into Bourbon County in the interior of Kentucky in quest of a large
party of Negroes who were said to be ready to escape. After a search
for about a week he discovered that there were about thirty fugitives
collected from various States. With them he started on the return trip
to Canada, traveling by night and resting by day. They contrived to
cross the Ohio river and reached Cincinnati in three days. There they
were assisted and directed to Richmond, Indiana, a settlement of
Quakers, who helped them on their way. After a difficult journey of
two weeks they reached Toledo and took passage for Canada, which they
reached in safety.

Henson then remained on his farm in Canada some months, but when the
appointed time for the delivery of the enslaved kinsmen of James
Lightfoot arrived, he set out again for Kentucky. He passed through
Lancaster, Ohio, where the people were very much excited over a
meteoric shower, thinking that the day of judgment had come. Henson
thought so too, but believing that he was promoting a righteous cause,
he kept on. On arriving at Portsmouth on the Ohio, he narrowly escaped
being detected by Kentuckians in the town. He resorted to the
stratagem of binding his head with dried leaves in a cloth and
pretended to be so seriously afflicted that he could not speak.
Arriving at Maysville, he had little difficulty in finding the slaves
whom he was seeking. The second person whom he met was Jefferson
Lightfoot, the brother of James Lightfoot for whom Henson was making
this trip. Saturday night, as usual, was set as the time for the
execution of this affair, for the reason that they would not be missed
until Monday and would, therefore, have a day ahead. They started from
Maysville in a boat, hoping to reach Cincinnati before daylight, but
the boat sprang a leak and the party narrowly escaped being drowned.
They procured another boat, however, and got within ten miles of
Cincinnati before daylight. To avoid being detected, they abandoned
the boat and proceeded to walk to Cincinnati, but faced another
difficulty when they reached the Miami, which at that point was too
deep to be forded. But in going up the river seeking a shallow place
they were seemingly led providentially by a cow that waded across
before them. As the weather was cold and they were in a state of
perspiration on wading through, the youngest Lightfoot was seized with
serious contractions, but recovered after receiving such ministrations
as could be given on the way. They were assisted in Cincinnati and the
next day started on their journey to Canada. They had not gone far
before the young Lightfoot became so seriously ill that he had to be
carried on a litter, and this became so irksome that he himself begged
to be left in the wilderness to die alone rather than handicap the
whole party with such good prospects for freedom. With considerable
reluctance, they acceded to his request, and sad indeed was the
parting. But before they had gone more than two miles on their journey
one of the brothers of the sick man suddenly decided to return, as he
could not suffer to have his brother die thus in the wilderness, and
be devoured by wolves. They returned and found the young man seemingly
in a dying condition. They at once decided to resume their journey and
had not gone far before they saw a Quaker whose _thee_ and _thou_ led
them to believe that he was their friend. They then told him their
story, which was sufficient. He immediately returned home, taking them
with him. The fugitives remained there for the night and arranged for
the boy to remain with the Quaker until he should recover. They were
then provided with a sack of biscuit and a supply of meat, with which
they set out again for Canada. After proceeding a little further they
met a white man, who became helpful to them in escaping the slave
hunters who were then on their trail. This man while working for an
employer who undertook to punish him had used violence and had to run
off. The party, knowing the increasing danger of capture, walked all
night, trying to cover the distance of forty miles. At daybreak they
reached a wayside tavern near Lake Erie and ordered breakfast. While
the meal was in preparation they quickly fell asleep. Just as the
breakfast was ready, however, Henson had the peculiar presentiment
that some danger was near and that he should at once leave the house.
After experiencing some difficulty in persuading the fugitives to
leave the tavern quickly they agreed to follow his orders. They had
hardly left the tavern when they heard the tramping of the horses of
the slave hunters. They hid themselves in some bushes nearby which
overlooked the road. The Lightfoots quickly recognized the slave
hunters and whispered their names to Henson as they passed by. This
was the critical moment of their lives. Had they remained in the house
a few minutes longer they would have been apprehended. Their white
friend proceeded to the door in advance of the landlord and when asked
as to whether he had seen any slaves said that he had, that there were
six of them and that they had gone toward Detroit. The slave-hunters
at once set out in that direction. The fugitives returned to the
house, devoured their breakfast immediately and secured the assistance
of the landlord, who hearing their piteous story agreed to take them
in his boat to Canada. In the language of Henson, "Their bosoms were
swelling with inexpressible joy as they mounted the seats of the boat,
ready, eager, to spring forward, that they might touch the soil of the
freeman. And when they reached the shore, they danced and wept for joy
and kissed the earth on which they first stepped, no longer _slaves_
but _freemen_."[5]

Within a short time thereafter the boy whom they had left in dying
condition on the way reached them on the free soil of Canada in good
health. And Frank Taylor, the master of these fugitives, on recovering
from an attack of insanity which apparently resulted from the loss of
these slaves was persuaded by his friends to free the remaining
members of the Lightfoot family, an act which he finally performed,
enabling them after a few years to join their loved ones beyond the
borders of the land of the slave. In this way Henson became
instrumental in effecting the escape of as many as one hundred and
eighteen slaves.[6]

The next important work was the establishment of the British American
Manual Labor Institute in connection with Reverend Hiram Wilson. After
working out a tentative plan, Wilson wrote James O. Fuller, residing
in the State of New York, and interested him in the free Negroes of
Canada West. On a trip to England Mr. Fuller raised $1,500 for this
purpose. A convention of the leading refugees in Canada West was then
called to decide exactly how this money should be spent. Henson urged
that it be appropriated to the establishment of a manual labor school,
where children could be taught the elements of knowledge which are
usually the courses of a grammar school; and where the boys could be
given, in addition, the practice of some mechanic art and the girls
could be instructed in those domestic arts which are the proper
occupations of their sex. Such a school he though would so equip the
Negro youth as to enable him to take over much of the work then being
done by white teachers. This was then necessary, owing to the
prejudice arising against the coeducation of the whites and blacks and
the stigma attached to teachers of Negroes. For this purpose two
hundred acres of land were bought on the river Sydenham. In 1842 the
school was established at Dawn, to which Henson moved with his family.
Henson traveled in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Maine in
the interest of the institution and obtained many gifts, especially
from Boston, the liberal people of which gave him sufficient funds to
maintain it some time.

In connection with this school there was established a saw-mill, the
building and the equipment of which was secured by Henson also from
philanthropists in Boston. These gentlemen were Rev. Ephraim Peabody,
Amos Lawrence, H. Ingersoll Bowditch, and Samuel Elliot. Henson then
proceeded to have walnut sawed in Canada and shipped to Boston. He
sold his first eighty thousand feet to Jonas Chickering, at forty-five
dollars a thousand. The second cargo was shipped to Boston via the St.
Lawrence and brought Henson a handsome profit. This business not only
became profitable to the persons directly interested in it but proved
to be an asset of the whole section.

In the course of time, however, the institution became heavily
indebted and some means of relief had to be found. At a meeting of the
trustees it was decided to separate the management of the mill from
that of the school. It was easy to find some one to take over the
school, but few dared to think of assuming the management of the mill,
which was indebted to the amount of seven thousand five hundred
dollars. Henson accepted the management of the latter on the condition
that Peter B. Smith would assume an equal share of the responsibility.
Henson then proceeded to England to raise funds to pay the debts of
the mill. Well supplied with letters of recommendation from some of
the most prominent men in the United States, he easily connected with
men of the same class in England. But before he could raise more than
seventeen hundred dollars, an enemy, jealous of his success,
circulated through the press the report that he was an imposter and
was not authorized to solicit funds for any such purpose.[7] This, of
course, frustrated his plans, but the English people were kind to him.
They sent an agent, John Scobell, to Canada to inquire into the
matter, Henson accompanying him. A thorough investigation of the
affairs of the institution was made and the charges were repudiated.
The person who circulated them even denied that he had done so. Upon
returning to England Mr. Scobell informed Henson that should he ever
desire to return to England, he would find in the hands of Amos
Lawrence, of Boston, a draft to cover his expenses. Henson did return
in 1851 and raised sufficient money to cancel the entire indebtedness
of the institution. He was compelled to return to Canada soon after
his arrival, however, on account of the fatal illness of his wife, who
passed away in 1852.

How Father Henson claimed to be the original Uncle Tom of Mrs. Stowe's
immortal story is more than interesting. Laboring in the anti-slavery
cause, Henson traveled in Canada and New England, where he was
welcomed to the pulpits of ministers of all denominations. Once when
he was in the vicinity of Andover, Massachusetts, Mrs. Stowe sent for
him and his traveling companion, Mr. George Clarke, a white gentleman
promoting the abolition of slavery by singing at anti-slavery
meetings. Mrs. Stowe became deeply interested in Henson's story and
had him narrate in detail the many varied experiences of his eventful
life. He told her, moreover, about the life of the slave in several
sections and the peculiarities of many slaveholders. Soon thereafter
appeared "Uncle Tom's Cabin." Henson said that the white slaves,
George and Eliza Harris, were his particular friends. Harris's real
name was Lewis Clark, who traveled and lectured with Henson in New
England. Clark and his wife lived in Canada and finally moved to
Oberlin to educate their children. Furthermore, Henson says there was
on his plantation a clear-minded, sharp Negro girl, Dinah, who was
almost like Mrs. Stowe's Topsy and that a gentleman Mr. St. Clair
lived in his neighborhood. Bryce Litton, who broke Henson's arms and
so maimed him for life that he could never thereafter touch the top of
his head, he thought, would well represent Mrs. Stowe's cruel Legree.
It has been denied that he was this hero.

When Henson was in England he had the good fortune to exhibit at the
World's Fair there some of his beautifully polished walnut lumber,
which Mr. Jonas Chickering sent over for him. The only exhibitor of
color, he attracted attention from many, among whom was Queen
Victoria, who in passing by was saluted by Henson, which salutation
was returned. She inquired as to whether the exhibit he had charge of
was his work. At the close of the exhibition Henson received a large
quarto bound volume describing the exhibits and listing the
exhibitors, among whom was found Josiah Henson. In addition he was
awarded a bronze medal, a beautiful picture of the Queen and royal
family of life size and several other objects of interest.

While in England Henson had the privilege of meeting some of its most
distinguished citizens. He introduced himself to the thinkers of the
country when, upon hearing an eminent man from Pennsylvania tell the
Sabbath-School Union that all classes in the United States
indiscriminately enjoyed religious instruction. Henson demanded a
hearing and successfully refuted the misrepresentation. Having a
standing invitation, he dined alternately with Samuel Morley and
George Hitchcock, Esq., of St. Paul's Church Yard. Upon meeting Lord
Grey, Henson was asked by the gentleman to go to India to introduce
the culture of cotton, promising him an appointment to an office
paying a handsome salary. Through Samuel Guerney, Henson had a long
interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was so impressed with
Henson's bearing and culture that he inquired as to the university
from which he was graduated. Henson replied, _The University of
Adversity_. After listening to Henson's experiences for more than an
hour he followed him to the door and begged him to come to see him
again. He then attended a large picnic of Sabbath-School teachers on
the grounds of Lord John Russell, then Prime Minister of England.
Sitting down to dinner, Henson was given the seat of honor at the head
of the table with such guests as Reverend William Brock, Honorable
Samuel M. Peto and Mr. Bess.

Near the end of his career Henson had many things to trouble him. The
divided management of the British American Manual Labor Institute and
the saw-mill proved a failure. The trustees who got control of it
promised to make something new of it but did not administer the
affairs successfully and they were involved in law suits there with
the Negroes, who endeavored to obtain control of it. It finally
failed, despite the fact that the court of chancery appointed a new
board of trustees and granted a bill to incorporate the institution as
Wilberforce University, which existed a few years.

Henson showed his patriotism in serving as captain to the second Essex
company of colored volunteers in the Canadian Rebellion, going to the
aid of the government which gave them asylum from slavery. His company
held Fort Maiden from Christmas until the following May and also took
the schooner _Ann_ with three hundred arms and two cannons, musketry
and provisions for the rebel troops. They held the fort until they
were relieved by the colonel of the 44th regiment from England. Then
came the Civil War. Henson was too old to go, but his relatives
enlisted. He was charged with having violated the foreign enlistment
act and was arrested and acquitted after some harrowing experiences.

Henson made a third trip to England near the close of his career. Many
of his friends had passed away, but he met his old supporter, Samuel
Morley. He made the acquaintance also of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton
Hart, R. C. L. Bevan, and Professor Fowler. But he was then the hero
of "Uncle Tom's Cabin." The English people had read of him. They then
wanted to see him. He spoke at the Victoria Park Tabernacle and held
in London a farewell meeting in Spurgeon's Tabernacle. The buildings
were thronged to their utmost capacity and eager crowds on the outside
made desperate efforts to see him. He was then called to Scotland that
the people farther north might also see this hero. Just as Henson
reached Edinburgh the crowning honor of his life was to come. He
received a telegram from Queen Victoria inviting him to visit her the
following day. After addressing an unusually large audience, Henson
proceeded immediately to London. The next day he and his wife were
dined by a group of distinguished gentlemen and were then taken to
Windsor Castle, where they were presented to Queen Victoria. Her
majesty informed him that he had known of him ever since she was a
little girl. She expressed her surprise at seeing him look so
different from what she had imagined he would. She briefly discussed
with him the state of affairs in Canada, and in bidding him and his
wife farewell expressed her wish for his continued prosperity, gave
him a token of her respect and esteem, consisting of a full length
cabinet photograph of herself in an elegant easel frame of gold.

On his return to the United States Henson visited the old plantation
in Montgomery County near Rockville, Maryland, finding his old
master's wife still living. He then proceeded to Washington to see
again the old haunts which he frequented when serving as the market
man of his plantation. While in the National Capital he went to the
White House to call on his Excellency President Hayes, who chatted
with him about his trip across the sea while Mrs. Hayes showed
Henson's wife through the executive mansion. When he left the
President extended him a cordial invitation to call to see him again.
This was the last thing of note in his life. He returned to his home
in Canada and resumed the best he could the work he was prosecuting,
but old age and sickness overtook him and he passed away in 1881 in
the ninety-second year of his life.

                                   W. B. HARTGROVE


FOOTNOTES:

[1] On account of ill health Mr. W. B. Hartgrove, who was preparing
this article, had to turn over his unfinished manuscript to the
editor, who completed it. The story is based on the "_Life of Josiah
Henson_," "_Father Henson's Story of His Own Life_" and "_Uncle Tom's
Story of His Life_."--THE EDITOR.

[2] Henson, "_Uncle Tom's Story of his Life_," p. 15.

[3] Henson, "_Uncle Tom's own Story of his Life_," p. 53.

[4] Henson gives this interesting conversation:

"How far is it to Canada?" He gave me a peculiar look, and in a minute
I saw he knew all. "Want to go to Canada? Come along with us, then.
Our captain's a fine fellow. We're going to Buffalo." "Buffalo; how
far is that from Canada?" "Don't you know, man? Just across the
river." I now opened my mind frankly to him, and told him about my
wife and children. "I'll speak to the captain," said he. He did so,
and in a moment the captain took me aside, and said, "The Doctor says
you want to go to Buffalo with your family." "Yes, sir." "Well why not
go with me?" was his frank reply. "Doctor says you've got a family."
"Yes, sir." "Where do you stop?" "About a mile back." "How long have
you been here." "No time," I answered, after a moment's hesitation.
"Come, my good fellow, tell us all about it. You're running away,
ain't you?" Henson saw that he was a friend, and opened his heart to
him. "How long will it take you to get ready?" "Be here in half an
hour, sir." "Well go along and get them." Off I started; but, before I
had run fifty feet, he called me back. "Stop," said he; "you go on
getting the grain in. When we get off, I'll lay to over opposite that
island, and send a boat back. There's a lot of regular nigger-catchers
in the town below, and they might suspect if you brought your party
out of the bush by daylight." I worked away with a will. Soon the two
or three hundred bushels of corn were aboard, the hatches fastened
down, the anchor raised, and the sails hoisted. I watched the vessel
with intense interest as she left her moorings. Away she went before
the free breeze. Already she seemed beyond the spot at which the
captain agreed to lay to, and still she flew along. My heart sank
within me; so near deliverance, and again to have my hopes blasted,
again to be cast on my own resources. I felt that they had been making
a mock of my misery. The sun had sunk to rest, and the purple and gold
of the west were fading away into gray. Suddenly, however, as I gazed
with weary heart the vessel swung round into the wind, the sails
flapped, and she stood motionless. A moment more, and a boat was
lowered from her stern, and with steady stroke made for the point at
which I stood. I felt that my hour of release had come. On she came,
and in ten minutes she rode up handsomely on the beach. My black
friend and two sailors jumped out, and we started on at once for my
wife and children. To my horror, they were gone from the place where I
left them. Overpowered with fear, I supposed they had been found and
carried off. There was no time to lose, and the men told me I would
have to go alone. Just at the point of despair, however, I stumbled on
one of the children. My wife it seemed, alarmed at my long absence,
had given up all for lost, and supposed I had fallen into the hands of
the enemy. When she heard my voice, mingled with those of the others,
she thought my captors were leading me back to make me discover my
family, and in the extremity of her terror she had tried to hide
herself. I had hard work to satisfy her. Our long habits of
concealment and anxiety had rendered her suspicious of every one; and
her agitation was so great that for a time she was incapable of
understanding what I said, and went on in a sort of paroxysm of
distress and fear. This, however, was soon over, and the kindness of
my companions did much to facilitate the matter."--Father Henson's
Story of his own Life, p. 121.

[5] Henson, "_Uncle Tom's Story of his Life_," p. 162.

[6] Years thereafter when taking dinner with a distinguished gentleman
in London the thought of enjoying such privileges while his only
brother was in slavery dawned suddenly and impressed itself so
forcefully upon him that he immediately arose from the table, unable
to eat. He soon returned to America and at once proceeded to devise
means to free his brother. Mr. William Chaplain, of New York, had
repeatedly urged him to flee by way of the underground railroad, but
he was so demoralized and stultified by slavery that he would not make
an effort. Mr. Chaplain made a second effort to induce him to escape
but he still refused. Henson finally arranged to sell the narrative of
his life to secure funds for his liberation. The book sold well in New
England and the requisite four hundred dollars being raised his
brother was freed and enabled to join him in Canada.--Father Henson's
_Story of his own Life_, pp. 209-212.

[7] _Liberator_, April 11, 1851.




ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING AND THE NEGRO


Elizabeth Barrett Browning was a poetic artist who was intensely
concerned with the large human movements of the world and the age into
which she was thrown. Her whole life was one great heart-throb. While
the condition of her health and the nature of her early training were
such as to cultivate her rather bookish and romantic temperament, she
followed with eagerness the great social reforms in England in the
reign of William IV and the early years of Victoria; and _The Cry of
the Children_ and _The Cry of the Human_ indicated what was to be one
of her chief lines of interest. In her later years she threw herself
heart and soul into the cause of Italian independence and unity,
welcoming Napoleon III as a benefactor. Her political judgment was not
always sound: her distinguished husband could not possibly follow her
in her admiration for Napoleon, whom he regarded as to some extent at
least a charlatan, and Cavour simply represented his countrymen in his
amazement and chagrin at the terms of the Peace of Villafranca;
nevertheless the great heart of Elizabeth Barrett Browning was ever
moved by the demands of liberty, whether the immediate impulse was a
child in the sweatshops of England, an Italian wishing to be free of
Austria, or the exiled Victor Hugo, and there was no exaggeration in
the tribute placed on the wall of Casa Guidi after her death:

          Qui scrisse e mori
     Elizabetta Barrett Browning
   che in cuore di donna conciliava
  scienza di dotto e spirito di poeta
   e fece del suo verso aureo anello
       fra Italia e Inghilterra
          pone questa lapide
            Firenze grata
               1861[8]

To such a woman the Negro, held in slavery in a great free republic,
made a ready appeal. The first concrete connection, however, was one
directly affecting the fortunes of the Barrett family. For some years
Mr. Barrett had made his home at a beautiful estate in Herefordshire
known as Hope End. He had inherited from his maternal grandfather a
large estate in Jamaica, where the families of both his parents had
been established for two or three generations. The abolition of
slavery in the British colonies in 1833 inflicted great financial
embarrassment upon him, as a result of which he was forced to sell
Hope End and to remove his family, first to Sidmouth in Devonshire,
and subsequently to London. Elizabeth Barrett foreshadowed this change
of fortunes in a letter to her friend Mrs. Martin dated Sidmouth, May
27, 1833:

     The West Indians are irreparably ruined if the Bill passes. Papa
     says that in the case of its passing, nobody in his senses would
     think of even attempting the culture of sugar, and that they had
     better hang weights to the sides of the island of Jamaica and
     sink it at once.[9]

In September of the same year she wrote from Sidmouth to the same
friend as follows:

     Of course you know that the late Bill has ruined the West
     Indians. That is settled. The consternation here is very great.
     Nevertheless I am glad, and always shall be, that the Negroes
     are--virtually--free.[10]

It is some years before we find another reference so definite. Miss
Barrett in the meantime became Mrs. Browning and under the inspiration
of love and Italy gave herself anew to her work. The feeling for
liberty was constantly with her, as was to be seen from _Casa Guidi
Windows_ and _Poems before Congress_. About 1855, when she was on a
visit to England, through the work of Daniel D. Home, a notorious
American exponent of spiritualism, Mrs. Browning became interested in
the current fad, and gave to it vastly more serious attention than
most other initiates. Browning himself, while patient, was intolerably
irritated with those whom he regarded as imposing on his wife's
credulity, and delivered himself on the subject in _Mr. Sludge, 'the
Medium_.' Spiritualism, however, was a topic of never-failing interest
between Mrs. Browning and her American friend, Harriet Beecher Stowe,
whom she entertained in Italy. _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ made a profound
impression upon her. In 1853 this book was still in the great flush of
its first success. On April 12, 1853, Mrs. Browning wrote from
Florence to Mrs. Jameson as follows:

     Not read Mrs. Stowe's book! _But you must_. Her book is quite a
     sign of the times, and has otherwise and intrinsically
     considerable power. For myself, I rejoice in the success, both as
     a woman and a human being. Oh, and is it possible that you think
     a woman has no business with questions like the question of
     slavery? Then she had better use a pen no more. She had better
     subside into slavery and concubinage herself, I think, as in the
     times of old, shut herself up with the Penelopes in the "women's
     apartment," and take no rank among thinkers and speakers.
     Certainly you are not in earnest in these things. A difficult
     question--yes! All virtue is difficult. England found it
     difficult. France found it difficult. But we did not make
     ourselves an armchair of our sins. As for America, I honor
     America in much; but I would not be an American for the world
     while she wears that shameful scar upon her brow. The address of
     the new president[11] exasperates me. Observe, I am an
     abolitionist, not to the fanatical degree, because I hold that
     compensation should be given by the North to the South, as in
     England. The states should unite in buying off this national
     disgrace.[12]

Under date Florence, December 11, 1854, Mrs. Browning wrote to Miss
Mitford as follows:

     I am reading now Mrs. Stowe's _Sunny Memories_, and like the
     naturalness and simplicity of the book much, in spite of the
     provincialism of the tone of mind and education, and the really
     wretched writing. It's quite wonderful that a woman who has
     written a book to make the world ring should write so
     abominably.[13]

More and more as the Civil War approached was Mrs. Browning depressed
by the thought of the impending conflict. Between June 7, 1860, and
July 25, 1861, she contributed to the recently established
_Independent_ eleven poems, chiefly on subjects of Italian liberty.
Sometimes, however, especially in the letters accompanying her poems,
she touched on themes somewhat closer to the American people. For the
issue of March 21, 1861, she wrote to the editor as follows:

     My partiality for frenzies is not so absorbing, believe me, as to
     exclude very painful consideration on the dissolution of your
     great Union. But my serious fear has been, and is, not for the
     dissolution of the body but the death of the soul--not of a
     rupture of states and civil war, but at reconciliation and peace
     at the expense of a deadly compromise of principle. Nothing will
     destroy the Republic but what corrupts its conscience and
     disturbs its fame--for the stain upon the honor must come off
     upon the flag. _If, on the other hand, the North stands fast on
     the moral ground, no glory will be like your glory_.... What
     surprises me is that the slaves don't rise.

On this great subject Mrs. Browning found her husband in full sympathy
with her. Browning himself declared in a letter to an American,
September 11, 1861:

     I have lost the explanation of American affairs, but I assure you
     of my belief in the justice and my confidence in the triumph of
     the great cause. For the righteousness of the principle I want no
     information. God prosper it and its defenders.[14]

Two poems by Mrs. Browning at least have to do directly with the Negro
and American affairs. One was _A Curse for a Nation_ contributed to
the _Poems before Congress_ volume. The poet begins somewhat
self-consciously:

    I heard an angel speak last night,
            And he said "Write!
    Write a Nation's curse for me,
    And send it over the Western Sea."

She protests her unwillingness to execute such a commission, for, she
says,

    I am bound by gratitude
            By love and blood,
    To brothers of mine across the sea,
    Who stretch out kindly hands to me.

The angel, however, beats down this unwillingness and the curse
follows, the second stanza reading:

    Because yourselves are standing straight
      In the state
    Of Freedom's foremost acolyte,
    Yet keep calm footing all the time
    On writhing bond-slaves,--for this crime
      This is the curse. Write.

At best, however, _A Curse for a Nation_ can hardly help impressing
one as a little forced. In rather higher poetic vein is the other
poem, _The Runaway Slave at Pilgrim's Point_. This was contributed to
_The Liberty Bell_, a publication issued by the Boston Anti-Slavery
Bazar in 1848. Mrs. Browning feared that the poem might be "too
ferocious for the Americans to publish." The composition is
undoubtedly a strong one. It undertakes to give the story of a young
Negro woman who was bound in slavery, whose lover was crushed before
her face, who was forced to submit to personal violation, who killed
her child that so much reminded her of her white master's face, and
who at last at Pilgrim's Point defied her pursuers. With unusual
earnestness the poet has entered sympathetically into the subject. The
following stanzas are typical:

    But _we_ who are dark, we are dark
     Ah God, we have no stars!
    About our souls in care and cark
     Our blackness shuts like prison-bars;
    The poor souls crouch so far behind
    That never a comfort can they find
     By reaching through the prison-bars.

           *       *       *       *       *

    Why, in that single glance I had
     Of my child's face, ... I tell you all,
    I saw a look that made me mad
     The _master's_ look, that used to fall
    On my soul like his lash ... or worse
    And so, to save it from my curse,
     I twisted it round in my shawl.

           *       *       *       *       *

    From the white man's house, and the black man's hut,
     I carried the little body on;
    The forest's arm did round us shut,
     And silence through the trees did run:
    They asked no question as I went,
    They stood too high for astonishment,
     They could see God sit on his throne.

           *       *       *       *       *

    (Man, drop that stone you dared to lift!--)
     I wish you who stand there five abreast,
    Each, for his own wife's joy and gift,
     A little corpse as safely at rest
    As mine in the mangoes: Yes, but _she_
    My keep live babies on her knee,
     And sing the song she likes the best.

In such a review as this of the connections between Mrs. Browning and
the Negro one can not help coming face to face with the question
whether her famous husband was not himself connected by blood with the
Negro race. The strain is hardly so pronounced as in men like
Alexandre Dumas or Leigh Hunt, and as in the case of Alexander
Hamilton, the point still seems to be waiting for final proof. The
assertion is persistent, however, and there can be little doubt that
such is the case. The standard life of Browning,[15] after wrestling
in vain with the problem, dismisses it as follows:

     Dr. Furnivall has originated a theory, and maintains it as a
     conviction, that Mr. Browning's grandmother was more than a
     Creole in the strict sense of the term, that of a person born of
     white parents in the West Indies, and that an unmistakable dash
     of dark blood passed from her to her son and grandson. Such an
     occurrence was, on the face of it, not impossible, and would be
     absolutely unimportant to my mind, and, I think I may add, to
     that of Mr. Browning's sister and son. The poet and his father
     were what we know them, and if Negro blood had any part in their
     composition, it was no worse for them, and so much the better for
     the Negro.

Aside from this last point, from the evidence that has been given,
while this of course has its limitations, we may safely assert that
with her large humanity and her enthusiasm for liberty, Elizabeth
Barrett Browning was one of the sturdiest defenders in England of the
cause of the American Negro at the time of the beginning of the Civil
War. It is to be regretted that she did not live to read the
Emancipation Proclamation and to see the Negro started on an era of
self-reliance and progress.

                                   BENJAMIN BRAWLEY


FOOTNOTES:

[8] For the inscription we are indebted to the Cambridge edition of
the poems of Mrs. Browning, edited by Harriet Waters Preston, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, p. xii. Translation: Here wrote and died Elizabeth
Barrett Browning, who united to a woman's heart the learning of a
savant and the inspiration of a poet, and made her verse a golden link
between Italy and England. This tablet was set by grateful Florence in
1861.

[9] _The Letters of Elizabeth Barrett Browning_, edited by Frederic G.
Kenton, 2 vols., Macmillan, New York and London, 1898. Vol. I, p. 21.

[10] _Letters_, I, 23.

[11] _I. e._, Franklin Pierce.

[12] _Letters_, II, 110.

[13] _Letters_, II, 183.

[14] Quoted from _Browning Society Papers_, Part XII, by Elizabeth
Porter Gould in _The Brownings and America_, p. 55.

[15] Mrs. Sutherland Orr, _Life and Letters of Robert Browning_. 2
vols. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, 1891. Vol. I, p. 8.




PALMARES: THE NEGRO NUMANTIA


One of the most glorious achievements in the history of the Iberian
Peninsula was the long and desperate defence of Numantia against the
Roman legionaries sent to effect the destruction of the city. When the
beleaguered inhabitants could no longer maintain themselves, owing to
the shortage of food supplies, they burned the city, and those who
were not killed in battle with the Romans committed suicide. Scipio
Æmilianus, the Roman leader, entered Numantia to find nothing but
burning embers and piles of corpses.

This incident has an almost exact parallel in the history of
Brazil--only this time the heroes were Negroes, defending the capital
of one of the earliest and one of the strangest Negro republics in the
history of the world. The Portuguese, who were the first to introduce
Negro slavery into Europe, did not long delay in carrying the
institution to their colony of Brazil. It was in 1574 that the first
slave ship reached there. Thereafter, great numbers of Negroes were
brought, especially to northern Brazil, in the equatorial belt, to
work in the profitable sugar fields. No region of the Americas was so
accessible to the slave trade, for the Brazilian coast juts out into
the Atlantic Ocean directly opposite the Gulf of Guinea in Africa,
whence most of the slaves were procured. It is profitless here to go
into the question of the treatment of the slaves by their Portuguese
masters. Some were badly treated, and took the chance of flight to the
interior forest lands, rather than submit any longer. Various causes
prompted yet others to escape from the colonial plantations. Thus many
a _quilombo_, or Negro village of the forest, was formed. By far the
most famous of these was the _quilombo_ of Palmares, whose history is
the subject of this article.

In 1650, forty determined Negroes of the province of Pernambuco, all
of them natives of Guinea, rose against their masters, taking as much
as they could in the way of arms and provisions, and fled to the
neighboring forest. There they founded a _quilombo_ on the site of a
well-known Negro village of earlier days, which the Dutch had
destroyed. The tale of their escape was told throughout the province,
with the result that it was not long before the population of the new
_quilombo_ was greatly increased. Slaves and freemen were eager to
join their brethren in the forest. It seemed prudent, however, to go
farther away from the white settlements, lest the very strength of the
Negro town should invite annihilation or re-enslavement by the
planters. Thus it was that the inland site of Palmares, not far from
present-day Anadia, was chosen. A town was founded, and all seemed
well except for one thing--an essential to permanence was lacking, for
there were no women. A detachment of Negroes was sent on the romantic
mission of procuring wives for the colony. This party marched to the
nearest plantations, and, without stopping to discriminate, took all
the women it could find, black, mulatto, and white. Palmares was now
on a secure footing indeed.

At first, the inhabitants lived by a species of banditry, robbing the
whites whenever they could. Gradually, a more settled type of life
developed. The Negroes began to engage in agriculture, and at length
entered into something approximating peaceful relations with the
Portuguese settlements. Trade took the place of warfare, although fear
of the overgrown _quilombo_ was perhaps as much the motive on the part
of the whites as the desire for profits. A rustic republic of an
admirable type was formed for the maintenance of internal order and
external safety. Combining republican and monarchical features, they
elected a chief, or king, called the _Zombe_, who ruled with absolute
authority during the term of his life. The right of candidacy was
restricted to a group recognized as composing the bravest men of the
community. Any man in the state might aspire to this dignity, provided
he had Negro blood in his veins. There were other officials, both of a
military and of a civil character. In the interests of good order,
the _Zombes_ made laws imposing the death penalty for murder,
adultery, and robbery. Slavery existed, and in this respect there was
a curious custom. Every Negro who had won his freedom from the white
man, by whatever method, as for example by a successful flight to
Palmares, remained a free man. Those who were captured while in a
state of slavery, however, became slaves in Palmares. Thus the reward
of freedom was offered to those who should escape from the planters,
and a punishment was held out to those who would not, or could not, do
so. In course of time, the Negro republic expanded until it included a
number of towns. Palmares alone is said to have had a population of
20,000, and the number of fighting men in the whole republic was some
10,000. The capital city, Palmares, was surrounded by wooden walls,
made of the trunks of large trees. The city was entered by means of
three huge gates, on the tops of which were great platforms, always
well guarded.

For nearly half a century the little republic prospered. It was
perhaps only natural that the Portuguese settlers should wish to
destroy it, for it represented an alien force and an ever present
danger, certainly so far as their profits from the use of slave labor
went. At any rate, in the year 1696, Governor Caetano de Mello of
Pernambuco decided upon an expedition against Palmares. A strong force
was sent, but it was met by the Negroes and totally defeated. A
veritable army of some 7,000 men was now gathered, and placed under
the command of a competent soldier named Bernardo Vieira. This time,
the Portuguese troops were well provided with artillery, with which
the Negro republic could not be expected to cope. Palmares was
reached, but it was in no mood for surrender, and it was necessary to
begin a regular siege of the city. The defence was desperate. After
the Portuguese artillery had breached the walls in three places, their
infantry attacked in force. They entered the city, but had to take it,
foot by foot. At last, the defenders came to the center of Palmares,
where a high cliff impeded further retreat. Death or surrender were
now the only alternatives. Seeing that his cause was lost beyond
repair, the _Zombe_ hurled himself over the cliff, and his action was
followed by the most distinguished of his fighting men. Some prisoners
were indeed taken, but it is perhaps a tribute to Palmares, though a
gruesome one, that they were all put to death; it was not safe to
enslave these men, despite the value of their labor. Thus passed
Palmares, the Negro Numantia, most famous and greatest of the
Brazilian _qui-lombos_.

                                     CHARLES E. CHAPMAN

  ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF HISTORY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.




SLAVERY IN CALIFORNIA


Slavery in California prior to the Mexican War was slavery in the
Spanish possessions. The Spaniards began with the enslavement of
Indians and later at the advice of De las Casas changed to that of
Negroes.[16] This system was first used in the West Indies and later
extended to other colonies. It is said that about the year 1537,
Cortes fitted out at the port of Tehuantepec, several small vessels,
provided with everything required for planting a colony and sailed
north to the head of the Gulf of California, transporting four hundred
Spaniards and three hundred Negro slaves, that he had assembled for
that purpose.[17] This is the first mention of Negro slavery in
California. After the founding of the Mission of San Carlos by the
president, Father Junipero Serra, with a community of twenty-three
friars, we read that the first interment in the cemetery was that of
Ignacio Ramirez, a former mulatto slave from San Antonio, who had
money to purchase his freedom.[18] There were too a number of Negro
slaves brought to California between these periods. They came on
trading ships and with various expeditions, which they usually
deserted after reaching the State. Hittell is wrong, therefore, in
saying that the first slave in California was brought there in 1825
when the wife of Antonio José de Cot, a Spaniard, brought with her a
slave girl named Juana, fourteen years of age, from Lima to San
Francisco. He doubted even that this was the first slave in California
for the lady expressed her intention to avail herself of the first
opportunity to leave.[19]

Spain did not especially bother about Negro slavery in her Pacific
coast territory for nearly two hundred years before the coming of the
Americans. She promised by the treaty of September 30, 1817, to
abolish the slave trade October 31, 1820, in all Spanish territory. In
1821, however, certain of the northern colonies of Spain in America
established their independence as the United States of Mexico.[5]
Three years later the importation of slaves from foreign countries was
prohibited and children of slave parents were declared free.
Notwithstanding this there set in considerable emigration from the
Southern States followed by an agitation for the acquisition of Texas.
In 1827, therefore, Coahuila and Texas were organized as a State with
a law prohibiting slavery. As this, however, did not check the
immigration, President Guerro issued a decree[20] in 1829 abolishing
slavery in Mexico on the occasion of the celebration of the
independence of Mexico and in 1830 ordered a military occupation of
the State to enforce the anti-slavery measure.[4] But the aggressive
southerner ever endeavoring to extend the territory of slavery had all
but won the day in Texas. In 1836 Texas declared itself a republic
with a constitution permitting the introduction of slavery and
forbidding the residence of free Negroes without the consent of its
Congress. Then came the Mexican War resulting in the defeat of Mexico
and the cession to the United States of a vast territory of which
California was the most valuable part.

It is clear, therefore, that at the time the United States government
acquired the territory of California from Mexico, slavery had been
abolished there nearly twenty years. The pro-slavery party, however,
did not consider this action of Mexico a finality in the settlement of
the slavery question in the new possessions. When a bill providing for
the purchase of this territory was laid before the house, David
Wilmot, of Pennsylvania, after consultation with other northern
democrats, offered the following amendment:

     "Provided that an express and fundamental condition to the
     acquisition of any territory from the republic of Mexico by the
     United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated
     between them, and to the use by the executive of the moneys
     herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude
     shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime
     whereof the party shall first be duly convicted."[21]

This proviso was adopted by a vote of 83 to 64. The bill carrying this
proviso was then reported to the Senate where followed a heated debate
which lasted until adjournment, the proviso being killed in the midst
of stormy scenes in Congress.[22] This discussion showed that few
statesmen believed that slavery would be profitable in California.
They were not unlike Daniel Webster who, while speaking on the
admission of the State of Texas, said that slavery was effectually
excluded from California and New Mexico by a law even superior to that
which admits and sanctions it in Texas. He meant the law of nature.
The physiographic conditions of the country would forever exclude
African slavery there; and it needed not the application of a proviso.
If the question was then before the Senate he would not vote "to add a
prohibition--to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor reenact the will
of God."[23]

The coming and going of the Negro in California did not especially
interest any one until the beginning of the immigration of the
forties. The subject of slavery in California was officially called to
the attention of the inhabitants through the issuance of a
proclamation by the Commander in Chief of the District in regard to
the unlawful enslaving of the Indians. He was endeavoring to protect
them, but they were enslaved[24] in spite of his efforts. The
legislature undertook to perpetuate this system by enacting a law
permitting the enslavement of Indians, the only condition upon the
master being a bond of a small sum, that he would not abuse or cruelly
treat the slaves. Under the provision of the same law, Indians could
be arrested as vagrants and sold to the highest bidder within
twenty-four hours after the arrest, and the buyer had the privilege of
the labor for a period not exceeding four months.[25] An Indian
arrested for a violation of a law could demand a jury trial, but could
not testify in his own behalf against a white person. If found guilty
of any crime, he could either be imprisoned or whipped, the whipping
not to exceed twenty-four lashes.[26]

Later there was a steady influx of southerners and their Negro slaves
into the territory of California, after the country was taken over by
the United States. Then came the question as to the enslavement of the
Negro. The situation became serious after the Congress of the United
States appropriated three millions of dollars for the purchase of the
new territory, and still more so after gold was discovered there.
Mexican rule ended with the cession of the territory to the United
States; and yet session after session of Congress adjourned without
giving California a territorial form of government. The question of
slavery in the newly acquired territory divided Congress so that they
could not decide the issue. Southern newspapers were advertising for
slave-owners to send names and the number of slaves they were taking
to California to found a _New Colony_.[27]

The settlers were divided. Some came because they either disliked
slavery, or were too poor to own slaves. They recognized the
possibilities for making California a free State and did not care to
be designated _Poor White Trash_ by masters who were being allowed to
fill the State with Negro slaves to constitute the basis of an
aristocracy like that in the South. There were other inhabitants in
California at the time who, being slave-owners, were southern
sympathizers. They were determined either to have slavery in
California or make a desperate effort before seeing the territory
given up as a free State.[28] It did not require very much
investigation, however, to show that the pro-slavery party was in the
minority. The editor of the _Californian_ said in May, 1848, that he
voiced the sentiments of the people in California in saying that
slavery was neither needed nor desired there. A correspondent of this
paper hoping to hold that section for free labor said: "If white labor
is too high for agriculture, laborers on contract may be brought from
China." Referring to the proposal to make the commonwealth a slave
State Buckelew said: "We have not heard one of our acquaintance in
this country advocate this measure and we are almost certain that
97-100 of the present population are opposed to it." Again it is
remarked in this paper: "We left the slave states because we did not
like to bring up a family in a miserable, can't-help-one's-self
condition," and dearly as he loved the union, he would prefer
California independent to seeing her a slave State.[29]

The lack of law and order and fear of the southern slave-owners with
their herds of Negro slaves finally led to the call of the
Constitutional Convention. The question of slavery there was not so
much debated in that body as was expected. Some excited pro-slavery
leaders were talking of an independent _Pacific Republic_. The
southern faction in the convention was led by a Mr. Gwyn, who
afterwards became a United States Senator from California, and the
northern element was ably represented by a Mr. Broderick, who later
was chosen State Senator.[30] The convention finally drafted their
constitution with a section which provided that "neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crime shall ever be
tolerated in this state."

The pro-slavery faction in the convention was determined to have
slavery somewhere and had managed to have the eastern boundary of
California so designated that it extended as far as the Rocky
Mountains. This would have resulted in rejection by Congress, or a
division of the territory into a Northern and a Southern California,
giving the pro-slavery element a new State. The unwieldy boundary,
however, was discovered in time to have it changed, but not until
after much debate, which almost wrecked the constitution. The
California representatives elected by the convention left for
Washington, where they presented to Congress the constitution and the
petition of the California settlers asking for admission as a State.
There had never been a precedent for their act. Yet the settlers in
California felt perfectly justified, since it was their only safeguard
against the pro-slavery leaders who were bringing their slaves into
the territory.

Leaders at the national capital naturally hesitated, not knowing
whether or not the admission of California under the conditions thus
obtaining would aggravate or improve the national situation.
California, however, cared little about the national situation, as is
attested by the resolutions of 1850 to the effect: "That any attempts
by congress to interfere with the institution of slavery in any of the
territories of the United States would create just grounds of alarm
in many of the States of the union; and that such interference is
unnecessary, inexpedient, and in violation of good faith; since, when
any such territory applies for admission into the union as a state,
the people thereof alone have the right, and should be left free and
unrestrained, to decide such question for themselves." Broderick moved
the insertion of the following: "That opposition to the admission of a
state into the union with a constitution prohibiting slavery, on
account of such prohibition, is a policy wholly unjustifiable and
unstatesmanlike, and in violation of that spirit of concession and
compromise by which alone the federal constitution was adopted, and by
which alone it can be perpetuated." This amendment was adopted.[31]

After a debate of four months Congress admitted California as a free
State as one of five compromises. Jefferson Davis, however, repudiated
the idea of advantage to his section. He said: "Where is the
concession to the South? Is it in the admission, as a state, of
California, from which we have been excluded by congressional
agitation? Is it in the announcement that slavery does not and is not
to exist in the remaining territories of New Mexico and California? Is
it in denying the title of Texas to one half of her territory?" He
held that gold washing and mining was particularly adapted to slave
labor, as was agriculture that depended on irrigation.[32] The day
after the admission certain southern senators sent to that body a
_Protest_ against the injustice of the act of Congress, admitting
California as a free State. The Senate refused the clerk permission
either to read or record it. Whereupon the newspapers began publishing
articles of severe criticism and talked of dividing the Union.
Jefferson Davis went before the United States Senate and, addressing
it, called attention to these comments, adding that so much outside
criticism was doing more to divide the Union than the _Protest_ would
possibly do. Congress finally voted that the _Protest_ be
recorded.[33]

Was this to be a free State in every sense of the word? This was
the day when the slave power "was covertly grasping at the
Spanish-speaking countries beyond the Rio Grande, as it had at the
lands beyond the Sabine."[34] At first, it was not, for a good many
slaves were brought into the State. On April 1, 1850, an advertisement
appeared in the _Jackson Mississippian_ referring to _California, the
Southern Slave Colony_ and inviting citizens of slave-holding States,
wishing to go to California, to send their names, number of slaves,
time of contemplated departure, etc., to the _Southern Slave Colony_,
of Jackson, Mississippi. The design was to settle in the richest parts
of the State and to secure an uninterrupted enjoyment of slave
property. The colony was to comprise about 5,000 white persons and
10,000 slaves.

Another effort to extend slavery in this section came in the
unsuccessful filibustering expedition of the Tennessee lawyer, William
Walker, who undertook to establish to the south in Sonora, a State
with a constitution like that of Louisiana, basing his advocacy of
slavery on the lofty grounds of civilizing the blacks and liberating
the whites from manual labor. To explain the meaning of this
expedition Bancroft considers it sufficient to point out that
Jefferson Davis was Secretary of War at that time and that the Gadsden
purchase was then under consideration.[35] In 1852 Peachy of San
Joaquin introduced a resolution to allow fifty southern families to
immigrate into California with their slaves. Some of them came without
permission but on finding that they could not legally hold their
slaves, they sent a part of them back while others became free.

In 1852 the Legislature passed a rigid Fugitive Slave Law intending to
bar slavery from the State. The mischievous clause of this measure was
that all slaves who had escaped into or were brought to California
previous to the admission of the State to the Union were held to be
fugitives, and were liable to arrest under the law, although many of
them had been in the State several years, during which they had
accumulated considerable property. The pro-slavery element not only
profited by this, but the interpretation of this law by many of the
Judges enabled them to bring their slaves into the State, work them in
the mines, and return to the south and back to slavery with their
Negroes.[36]

If they did not wish the trouble of their return passage they
auctioned them off to the highest bidder. It also enabled them to
make fortunes by selling to the slaves their freedom, charging them
twice and often thrice the price he could have possibly brought on the
other side of the Rocky Mountains.[37] In certain southern counties of
the State it was unpopular to speak in behalf of the slaves. In 1855
Chase and Day, two Abolitionists of Alameda County, were ridden on a
rail, ducked and otherwise maltreated.[38] That same year expired the
Fugitive Slave Law which had been renewed from year to year to enable
slave-owners to reclaim fugitives who had sought refuge in that State
prior to its admission to the Union. Fearing that this might be
followed by other legislation hostile to their class, the Negroes held
a convention in San Francisco that year to discuss their rights, their
treatment by the white people, politics, principles and necessity of
education. The Fugitive Slave Law was not reenacted.

Many slaves, however, asserted their rights. Such was the case of
Archy, a slave brought by one Charles A. Stoval from Mississippi to
California in 1857. After hiring Archy out for some time Stoval
undertook to return him to Mississippi. Archy escaped and was arrested
as a fugitive. Stoval sued out a writ of habeas corpus for his
possession and the case came before the Supreme Court for
adjudication. Peter Burnett, formerly Governor, who had been appointed
justice of that court by Governor Johnson in 1857 and filled the
office until 1858, presided. As Burnett was a southern man, his
decision was foreshadowed. He decided that although Stoval could not
sustain the character of either a transient traveler or a visitor and
under the general law was not entitled to Archy, but he yet held that
there were circumstances connected with the particular case that might
exempt him from the operation of the rules laid down. One of the
circumstances was that Stoval was traveling for his health; another,
that he was short of means upon arrival in California; and still
another, that this was the first case of the kind. He, therefore,
ordered Archy to be turned over to Stoval. Joseph G. Baldwin, who
succeeded Burnett, characterized the decision as "giving the law to
the North and the Negro to the South."[39] After being delivered to
Stoval, Archy was taken to San Francisco, but his friends there sued
out a writ of habeas corpus for his liberation before Judge Thomas W.
Freelon, of the County of San Francisco. While this case was pending,
however, Stoval swore to a new affidavit that Archy escaped from him
in Mississippi and procured a warrant from George Pen Johnston, United
States Commissioner, for his arrest as a fugitive slave from
Mississippi. Archy was then discharged by Judge Freelon. He was
immediately rearrested and taken before George Pen Johnston, who
decided that Archy was in no sense a fugitive from Mississippi and
discharged him.[40]

The tendency to free the Negroes brought there checked the importation
of that class. The rights of the master to his slave, however, were
not easily relinquished and the institution of slavery in California
did not come to an end until 1872. Freedom, however, had to win and
the pro-slavery element had to change its policy. In 1856 and 1857
efforts were made to call a convention to change the constitution so
as to permit the importation of slaves, for with the expiration of the
Fugitive Slave Law in 1855, slave-owners who held minors had to return
them to slave States or let them go free. Since the Negroes brought
into the State could in most cases become free the pro-slavery party
then sought to get rid of the free Negro.

In his message to the legislature in 1850, Governor Burnett
recommended the exclusion of free Negroes. This was always Burnett's
hobby. He incorporated this into the laws of Oregon when he revised
them in 1844. Burnett had been brought up in the South and although he
had ceased to be a slaveholder, he could not think of living with
Negroes as freemen. The exclusion of the blacks too had a sort of
popular appeal in it. The legislature, however, was divided on the
question as to what should be done with the free Negro. A bill in
compliance with the wishes of the Governor was introduced but
defeated. Undaunted by this, however, the enemy of the free Negroes
won a victory in another quarter in enacting a law that no black or
mulatto person or Indian should be permitted to give evidence in any
action to which a white person was a party. The leaders of the Negroes
held another convention in 1856 to protest against this law. Another
bill providing for the prohibition of the immigration of free persons
of color into the State was introduced in 1858 and after much debate
put through both houses, but it never became a law. The black code, of
course, was abrogated after the Civil War.

                                   DELILAH L. BEASLEY


FOOTNOTES:

[16] Bourne, "_Spain in America_," 271.

[17] _California Miscellany_, I, 9.

[18] Bancroft, "_History of California_," I, 175; _Place Notices_, I,
151.

[19] Hittell, "_History of California_," II, 115.

[20] Garrison, "_Westward Extension_," 26.

[21] _Cong. Globe_, 29 Cong., 2 Sess., 509.

[22] Garrison, "_Westward Extension_," 254-268, 284-314. _Cong.
Globe_, 29 Cong., 2d Sess., 178, 453, 455; 30 Cong., 1st Sess., 875,
989, 910, 1002-1005, 1062, 1081; 2d Sess., 216, 381.

[23] Tuthill, "_Hist. of California_," 312, 316.

[24] PROCLAMATION TO THE INHABITANTS OF CALIFORNIA.

It having come to the knowledge of the Commander in Chief of the
District that certain persons have been and still are imprisoning and
holding to service Indians against their will and without any legal
contract for service. It is thereby ordered that all persons so
holding or detaining Indians shall release them, and permit them to
return to their own homes. Unless they can make a contract with them
which shall be binding upon both parties. The Indian population must
not be regarded in the light of slaves, but it is deemed necessary
that the Indians within the settlement shall have employment, with the
right of choosing their own master and employment. Having made such a
choice they must abide by it, unless they can obtain permission in
writing to leave, or the Justice in their complaint shall consider
they have just cause to annull the contract and permit them to obtain
another employee. All Indians must be required to obtain service and
not be permitted to wander about the country in idleness in a
dissolute manner. If found doing so they will be liable to arrest and
punishment by labor on the public works at the direction of the
Magistrate. All officers, Civil or Military under my command are
required to execute the terms of this order and take notice of every
violation thereof.--Given at headquarters in Yerba Buena.--Signed,
John Montgomery. Sept. 15, 1846. Published for the Government of all
concerned. Washington A. Bartlett, Magistrate of San Francisco, Sept.
15, 1846.--_California Star_, Sept. 15, 1846.

[25] California Laws, 1849-50, p. 408.

[26] _Ibid._, p. 408.

[27] Bancroft, "_History of California_," VI, p. 313.

[28] _Ibid._, p. 313.

[29] _The Californian_, March 16 and Nov. 4, 1848.

[30] Bancroft, "_History of California_," p. 287.

[31] _Jour. Cal. Leg._, 1850, 372-373.

[32] _Cong. Globe_, 1849-50, App., pt. I, 149-157.

[33] Tuthill, "_History of California_," p. 320.

[34] Bancroft, "_History of California_," VI, pp. 252-253.

[35] _Ibid._, p. 595.

[36] Many Negroes were returned to slavery by the Courts. An owner of
slaves in Mississippi brought them voluntarily into California before
the adoption of the Constitution by the State. The slaves asserted
their freedom and for some months were engaged in business for
themselves. The owner under the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of
1852 brought them before the Justice of Peace, who allowed the claim
of the owners and ordered them into his custody. The slaves then
petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus which came before the Supreme.
Court and after hearing the case the Court ordered that the writ be
dismissed and the slaves remanded to their owners.--_California
Reports_, II, 424-426.

The case of Alvin Coffey is equally as interesting. This account was
given by a lifelong friend of the subject.

Alvin Coffey was born in 1822, in Saint Louis, Missouri. He came to
California with his sick master, a Mr. Duvall, who landed in San
Francisco, September 1, 1849. They went to Sacramento, October 13,
1849. During the next eight months the slave earned for his master
$5,000, working in the mines, and by washing for the miners and mining
for himself after night, he earned $700 of his own. As the master
continued in poor health he decided to return with Alvin to Missouri
at the expiration of two years. When they reached Kansas City,
Missouri, the master sold Alvin to Nelson Tindle, first taking from
him the $5,000, earned for the master, and also the $700 earned for
himself.

Nelson Tindle took a great liking to Alvin and in a short time made
him overseer over a number of slaves. Alvin, however, longed to return
to California and, in order to earn his freedom, bought his time from
his master and took contracts to build railroads. One day Nelson
Tindle said to Alvin that he was too smart a man to be a slave and
ought to try and purchase his freedom. Whereupon Alvin told him if he
would let him return to California, he could easily earn enough money
to effect the purchase. Alvin was permitted to return to California,
and in a short time sent his master the $1,500 to pay for his freedom.
Alvin then undertook to earn the money to pay for the freedom of his
wife and daughters, who were slaves of Doctor Bassett, of Missouri. He
earned the required sum and returned for his family. After paying for
their freedom, he went with them to Canada, where he left his
daughters to be educated. He and his wife Mahalia came to California.
It cost him for the freedom of himself and family together with the
trips to and from California about $7000. See Bancroft, "_History of
California_," VI, p. 382.

[37] Some of these cases are more than interesting. Daniel Rodgers
came across the plains with his master from Little Rock, Arkansas,
worked in the mines in Sonora, California, during the day for his
master and at night for himself, earning and paying his master $1,100
for his freedom. Soon afterward the master returned with him to Little
Rock and sold him. A number of the leading white gentlemen of Little
Rock raised a sum of money, paid for his freedom and set him free.
William Pollock and wife from North Carolina came to California with
their master who located at Cold Springs, Coloma, California. He paid
$1,000 for himself and $800 for his wife. The money was earned by
washing for the miners at night and making doughnuts. They removed to
Placerville, California, and afterward earned their living as
caterers. In 1849, a slaveholder brought his slave to California. Not
wishing to take the Negro back to his native State, Alabama, he
concluded to sell him by auction. An advertisement was put in the
papers, the boy was purchased for $1,000, by Caleb T. Fay, a strong
abolitionist, who gave the boy his freedom.

A Mississippi slaveholder brought several slaves from that State and
promised to give them their freedom in two years. They all ran away
save one, Charles Bates, when they learned that they were already
free. The owner, finding mining did not pay, started east, taking
Charles with him. On the Isthmus of Panama, Charles was persuaded to
leave his master. He returned to California and to Stockton with his
true friend. On the street one day he was recognized by a party who
had lent money to Charles's master. The debtor got out an attachment
for the former slave as chattel property, and according to the State
law, the Negro was put up and sold at auction. A number of
anti-slavery men bought the boy for $750 and gave him his
freedom.--_California Reports_, I, 424-426.

[38] Bancroft, "_History of California_," VI, p. 716.

[39] Bancroft, "_History of California_," VI, p. 716.

[40] _Ibid._, VI, p. 716.




DOCUMENTS


CALIFORNIA FREEDOM PAPERS[41]

To determine the sources of the Negroes first brought into California
their treatment by the whites and the methods employed to obtain their
freedom no documents are more valuable than the manumission papers
found in the archives of that State. These throw much light also on
the personal history of Negroes, many of whom later became useful
citizens of that State.


     E. H. TAYLOR
         to
     DENNIS AVIERY     SLAVE RELEASE

     TO ALL WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; This is to certify that Dennis Aviery
     has been my Slave in the State of Georgia for about the term of
     eight years but by virtue of money to me in hand paid he is free
     and Liberated from all allegiance to my authority. Coloma
     Eldorado county California Feb. 8, 1851

     Witness GEORGE SOALL


     STATE OF CALIFORNIA     S.S.
     ELDORADO CO.

     On this eight day of February, A.D. 1851 personally appeared
     before me the recorder of said County. E. H. Taylor, satisfactory
     proved to me to be the person discribed in and who executed the
     foregoing instrument of liberating his negro slave by the oath of
     George Scall, a competent witness for that purpose by me duly
     sworn and the said E. H. Taylor acknowledged that he executed the
     same freely and voluntarily for the use and purposes therein
     mentioned. In testimony the thereof, I, John A. Reichart;
     Recorder for the said county have hereunto signed my name, and
     affixed the seal of said office at Coloma this day of year first
     above written

               JOHN A. REICHART _Recorder of Eldorado county_

     Filed for Recording February, 8, 1851 at 9, oclock A.M.
     J. A. REICHART Recorder's office Record Book[42]


                       DEED OF MANUMISSION

     SAMUEL GRANTHAN
         to
     ALECK LONG
     STATE OF CALIFORNIA
     ELDORADO COUNTY

     Know all men by these presents that I Samuel Grantham of the
     county and state aforesaid, acting by power of Attorney vested in
     me by S. Oliver Grantham of St Louis, State of Missouri, acting
     for and in behalf of said S. Oliver Granthan, and in
     consideration of the sum of four hundred dollars to me in hand
     paid the same to receive to the benefit of the said Oliver
     Grantham have this day liberated, set free and fully and
     effectually manumitted, Aleck Long. Heretofore a slave for
     life--the lawful property of the said Thomas Granthan. The
     description of said Aleck Long, being as follows to wit: about
     fifty-seven years old; five feet, ten inches in height, gray hair
     dark complexion with a scar on the inside of the left leg above
     the ankle.--The said Aleck Long to enjoy and possess now and from
     hence forth the full exercise of all rights, benefits and
     privileges of a free man of color free of all or any claim to
     servitude, slavery or service of the said S. A. Granthan, his
     heirs, Executors, and assigns and all other persons claiming or
     to claim forever.

     In Testimony of this seal of Manumission, I have this day signed
     my name and affixed my seal this 2nd day of March 1852.

                                    SAMUEL A. GRANTHAN
                              _Attorney for State of California_


     COUNTY OF ELDORADO.

     Personally appeared before me William Palmer who makes oath and
     says that Samuel Granthan, whose name appears in the accompanying
     Seal of Manumission as a party thereto did freely voluntarily
     and of his own will execute to and subscribe the same for the
     uses and purpose therein contained.

     Witness my hand and seal this day of March, 1852. A.D. at 4. P.M.

     J. A. REICHART
     _Recorder of Eldorado County California_

                                        GAVEN D. HALL (S.S.)
                                        _Judge of Eldorado county_

     Eldorado county Recorder's office, Record Book.[43]

                         A. J. HOUSTIS
                         _County Judge of Humboldt County_[44]


                       FREE PAPERS OF THE SLAVE

     WASHINGTON,-->from FRANKLIN STEWART
       STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF BUTTE--

     Know all men by these presents that Franklin Stewart of the
     County and State aforesaid do, for and in consideration of
     seventeen years of faithful service of my slave Washington,
     rendered by him in the State of Arkansas and Missouri, hereby set
     free and emancipate him the said slave, his age about
     thirty-three years, color slight copper and relinquish all rights
     in the said slave Washington which I might be entitled to in law
     or equity.

     Given under my hand and seal this day 4th of May A.D. 1852
     Eldorado county Recorder's office

     Record Book, "A"


                         EMANCIPATION

     TAYLOR BARTON
         to
     NEGRO BOB
     STATE OF CALIFORNIA
       ELDORADO COUNTY S.S.

     Know all men to whom these presents shall come; That I, Taylor
     Barton lately a citizen of the State of Missouri and owner of
     slaves, do here by this instrument under my hand and seal given
     this ninth day of October, in the year of our Lord eighteen
     hundred and fifty one set free from bondage to me and all men my
     slave Bob, and do declare him forever hereafter his own man
     wherever he may go. Nevertheless I make this condition that the
     said Bob shall remain with me as my slave faithful and obedient
     unto me until the twenty-fifth day of December next, commonly
     known as Christmas.

     Witness my hand and seal on the day and date aforesaid this date.
     TAYLOR BARTON (S.S.)

     WILLIAM F. EMERSON December, 25th 1851

     I do hereby, declare My Slave Bob, to be forever free from and
     after this date. TAYLOR BARTON (S.S.)

     In the presence of I. G. Canfield, _Justice of the Peace_.

     Filed for Record

     January 5th 1852, at 4.p.m.

     JOHN A. REICHART, _Recorder of Eldorado County California_.[45]


     ELDORADO

     STATE OF CALIFORNIA
       COUNTY OF MARIPOSA.

     Know all men to whom these presents shall come that, I Thomas
     Thorn of the State and County aforesaid being the rightful owner
     of the Negro man Peter Green and entitled to his service as a
     slave during his life have this day released and do by these
     presents release him from any further service as a slave. And I
     do by these presents from myself, my heirs, Executors and
     Administrators declare him, the said Peter Green to be free to
     act for himself and no longer under bonds as a slave. Provided
     however that the said Peter Green, shall pay to me the sum of one
     thousand dollars, good lawful money or work for and serve me from
     the present time until one year from and after the first day of
     April next being until the first day of April A.D. 1854

     In Testimony whereof, I have here unto affixed my hand and Scroll
     for Seal at Quartzburge this day 5th of February A.D. one
     thousand eight hundred and fifty three.

                                   THOMAS THORN (Seal)

     In the presence of Benjamine F. Ropp. P. Cadell, jr. Joseph A.
     Tiry I hereby notify that the above obligation has been complied
     with and that Peter Green was legally discharged.

     Given under my hand at Quarzburge this 7th day of August, A.D.
     1855.

                                   JAMES GIVENS
                                   _Justice of the Peace._[46]

     This indenture made and entered into this 14th day August, A.D.
     1860 between A. J. Houstis as county Judge of Humboldt County for
     and in behalf of a certain Indian boy called and known by the
     name of "Smoky" of the first part and Austin Wiley, of the said
     county of the second part. That Whereas the said Austin Wiley had
     in his possession and under his control a certain Indian boy
     named "Smoky" And whereas the said Austin Wiley avers that he
     with the assistance of James Frint obtained said Indian of their
     parents in Mattole valley of this county, by and with their
     consent. And whereas the said Austin Wiley does now apply to me
     as County Judge to bond and apprentice the said boy "Smoky" to
     him according to law to learn the art of household duties about
     his premises and in this respect to hold the relation of an
     apprentice until he shall arrive at the lawful majority, the age
     of twenty-five years, or for the term of seventeen years next
     following this indenture, the boy being now considered eight
     years of age. And whereas it appears to me that the second party
     in this agreement has obtained this boy in a lawful manner
     without fraud or oppression and that the boy "Smoky" therefore
     comes justly under the first provision of the law providing for
     apprenticeship approved April, 8th A.D. 1860.

     Now therefore I, A. J. Houstis, County Judge Aforesaid, in
     consideration of the premises and acting for and on behalf of the
     said Indian boy "Smoky" do by these presents bind and apprentice
     as above stated the said boy "Smoky" to Austin Wiley for and
     during the term of seventeen years next following this indenture
     entitling him according to law to have the care custody, control
     and earnings of said boy during said period and all other
     advantages and responsibilities growing out of this indenture and
     apprenticeship, that the law contemplates. And the said Austin
     Wiley, the second part in his agreement doth hereby agree,
     obligate and bind himself that he will truly and faithfully
     discharge all obligations on his part growing out of this
     indenture according to law. That he will suitably clothe and
     provide the necessaries of life for the said boy during his term
     of indenture. That he will in all respects treat him in a human
     manner. That he will not take him out of this state nor transfer
     him to any party not known in this agreement without the consent
     of legal authorities endorsed thereon and that in all respects
     she will carry out every provision of law that contemplates the
     safety, protection and well being of said boy.

     In witness whereof the parties of this indenture hereunto set
     their hand and seal this date first above written.

                                   A.J.HOUSTIS
                                       _County Judge_
                                           First party
                                   AUSTIN WILEY,
                                       Second party


     STATE OF CALIFORNIA
     HUMBOLDT COUNTY

     And now comes Austin Wiley and deposes as follows:

     The statement made by me in the preamble to this indenture
     refering to the age of the Indian boy "Smoky" and the manner in
     which I obtained him are true to the best of my knowledge and
     belief

                                   AUSTIN WILEY

     Sworn to and subscribed before me on this 14th day of August A.D.
     1860

                                           A. J. HOUSTIS
                              _County Judge of Humboldt County_.


     STATE OF CALIFORNIA,   } ss.
     COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. }

                              Before the Hon. Benjamin Hayes,
                              Judge of the District Court of
                              the 1st Judicial District, State
                              of California, County of Los Angeles.[47]

     In the matter of Hannah and her children, Ann (and Mary, child of
     Ann), Lawrence, Nathaniel, Jane, Charles, Marion, Martha and an
     infant boy two weeks old, and of Biddy and her children Ellen,
     Ann and Harriet, on petition for Habeas Corpus.

     Now on this nineteenth day of January in the year of our Lord,
     one thousand eight hundred and fifty-six, the said persons above
     named are brought before me, in the custody of the Sheriff of
     said County, all except the said Hannah and infant boy two weeks
     old, (who are satisfactorily shown to be too infirm to be brought
     before me,) and except Lawrence (who is necessarily occupied in
     waiting on his said Mother, Hannah) and Charles (who is absent in
     San Bernardino County, but within the said Judicial District:)
     and said Robert Smith, Claimant also appears with his Attorney,
     Alonzo Thomas, Esq. And after hearing and duly considering the
     said petition for Habeas Corpus and the return of said Claimant
     thereto and all the proofs and allegations of the said parties
     and all the proceedings previously had herein, it appearing
     satisfactorily to the judge here, that all the said persons so
     suing in this case, to-wit: Hannah and her said children and
     Biddy and her said Children are persons of color, and that
     Charles, aged now six years, was born in the Territory of Utah of
     the United States, and Marion (aged four years,) Martha (aged two
     years) Mary, daughter of the said Ann and aged two years and the
     said infant boy aged two weeks, were born in the State of
     California and that the said Hannah, Ann, Lawrence, Nathaniel,
     Jane and Charles, as well as the said Biddy, Ellen, Ann and
     Harriet, have resided with the said Robert Smith for more than
     four years and since some time in the year of our Lord one
     thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, in the State of California;
     and it further appearing that the said Robert Smith left and
     removed from the State of Mississippi more than eight years ago
     with the intention of not returning thereto, but of establishing
     himself as a resident in Utah Territory, and more than four years
     ago left and removed from said Utah Territory, with the intention
     of residing and establishing himself in the State of California
     and has so resided in said last mentioned State since some time
     in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one.
     And it further appearing by satisfactory proof to the Judge here,
     that all the said persons of color are entitled to their freedom
     and are free and cannot be held in slavery or involuntary
     servitude, it is therefore adjudged that they are entitled to
     their freedom, and are free forever. And it further appearing to
     the satisfaction of the Judge here that the said Robert Smith
     intends and is about to remove from the state of California,
     where slavery does not exist, to the state of Texas, where
     slavery of Negroes and persons of color does exist and is
     established by the municipal laws, and intends to remove said
     before mentioned persons of color to his own use, without the
     free will and consent of all or any of the said persons of color,
     whereby their liberty will be greatly jeopardized, and there is
     good reason to apprehend and believe that they may be sold into
     slavery or involuntary servitude, and the said Robert Smith is
     persuading and enticing and seducing, said persons of color to go
     out of the State of California and to be taken and removed
     therefrom with the false promise held out to them that they will
     be as free in the State of Texas as in the State of California.
     And it further appearing that none of said persons of color can
     read and write, and are almost entirely ignorant of the laws of
     the State of California, as well as those of the State of Texas,
     and of their rights, and that the said Robert Smith from his past
     relations to them as members of his family, possesses and
     exercises over them an undue influence in respect to the matter
     of their said removal insomuch that they have been in duress and
     not in possession and exercise of their free will so as to give a
     binding consent to any engagement or arrangement with him. And it
     further appearing that the said Hannah, is aged thirty-four
     years, and her daughter, Ann, seventeen years, and all her other
     children, to-wit: Lawrence, (aged from twelve to thirteen years)
     Nathaniel (aged from ten to eleven years), Jane, (aged eight
     years) Charles (aged six years) Marion (aged four years) Martha,
     (aged two years) and said infant boy of Hannah aged two weeks, as
     well as Mary (aged two years), daughter of said Ann, are under
     the age of fourteen years and so under the laws of the State of
     California are not competent to choose a Guardian for themselves;
     and it further appearing that the said Biddy is aged thirty-eight
     years, and the said Ellen is aged seventeen years, and the other
     children of said Biddy, to-wit: Ann (aged from twelve to
     thirteen) and Harriet (aged eight years) are under the age of
     fourteen years, and so by the laws of the State of California are
     not competent to choose a Guardian for themselves. It further
     appearing that the said infant boy two weeks of age of Hannah is
     of tender age and must be kept with his said mother Hannah, the
     same is accordingly ordered, and said infant boy is entrusted to
     his said mother hereby, and is ordered to appear with him before
     the Judge here at the Court House in the City of Los Angeles on
     next Monday January 1, 1856 at 10 o'clock A.M. of said day if
     her health shall so permit and if not, as soon thereafter as may
     be practicable of which the Sheriff of Los Angeles is hereby
     notified to notify her the said Hannah and whereof the said
     Robert Smith, being now in the Court has notice, it appearing
     that she resides in his house and is under his control. And the
     said Mary, child of Ann appearing to be of tender age, is
     entrusted to the said Ann to be brought before the Judge here at
     the time and place aforesaid to be dealt with according to law of
     which the said Ann and the said Robert Smith have notice here,
     and the said Martha being of tender years is entrusted to the
     said Ann, her sister, to be brought before the Judge here at the
     time and place aforesaid to be dealt with according to law of
     which the said Ann and the said Robert Smith here have notice and
     the said Hannah and Ann are appointed Special Guardians
     respectively of the children so hereby entrusted to them, and
     notified that it is their duty to obey all lawful orders of the
     Judge here or of some competent Court touching the premises. And
     the further hearing of this case as to the said Hannah and infant
     boy and her child, Lawrence and her children Charles and Mary and
     Martha is adjourned until said last mentioned time at the Court
     House of the City of Los Angeles, and it is further ordered that
     the said Nathaniel (aged from ten to twelve years) Jane (aged
     eight years) Marion (aged four years) all children of said
     Hannah, and said child Ann (aged from twelve to thirteen years)
     and Harriet (aged eight years) are committed to the custody of
     the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, David W. Alexander, Esq., as
     especial Guardian until the further order of the Judge here or of
     other Judge or Court of competent Jurisdiction to appoint General
     Guardians of aforesaid Children last mentioned, and the said
     Sheriff will leave in full liberty and discharge the said Biddy
     and her child Ellen (aged Seventeen years) and the said Ann only
     being required to obey the said order herinbefore made to appear
     before the Judge here in manner and form as aforesaid. And it
     further appearing that the said Charles is absent in San
     Bernardino County, within said Judicial District. It is ordered
     that Robert Clift, Esq. Sheriff of said County be and he is
     hereby appointed Special Guardian of said Charles and as such
     duly authorized and required to take said Charles in his custody
     and him safely keep in such manner that said Charles shall not be
     removed out of the State of California, but shall abide the
     further order of the Judge here or other Judge or Court of
     competent Jurisdiction touching his Guardianship. And it is
     further ordered and adjudged that all the costs accrued in the
     case up to the present date and in executing the present order of
     the Judge here as to the production of the said Hannah and her
     said infant two weeks old and said Lawrence, Martha and Mary
     before the Judge here as aforesaid shall be paid by the Said
     Robert Smith.

     Given under my hand as Judge of the first Judicial District of
     the State of California on this 19th day of January, A. D. 1856,
     at the City of Los Angeles.

                                   BENJAMIN HAYES,
                                   _District Judge_.

     On this 19th day of January appears the said Robert Smith by his
     attorney, Alonzo Thomas, Esq., and moves the Judge hereto the
     costs in this case which is taken under advisement until Monday
     next at 10 o'clock, A.M.

                                   BENJAMIN HAYES,
                                   _District Judge_.

     On this Monday, January 21st, 1856 the said Smith and the said
     parties so ordered to appear as aforesaid do not appear and this
     cause is continued until tomorrow at 10 o'clock, A.M.

                                   BENJAMIN HAYES,
                                   _District Judge_.


FOOTNOTES:

[41] These Documents were collected by Miss D. L. Beasley and M. N.
Work.

[42] _Miscellany_, p. 35.

[43] _Miscellany_, p. 545.

[44] This paper is from the collection of 105 in the Court House at
Eureka. Austin Wiley, whose name appears in the document, was later
appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs for California; and during
his term of office did much to bring to a satisfactory termination the
trouble then existing between the settlers and the natives.

[45] _Miscellany_, p. 541.

[46] These are freedom papers as recorded in the California County
Court records, and as they have been found by the California
Archivist, Mr. Owen Coy.

[47] This court record was obtained by Mr. W. N. Work.




THOMAS JEFFERSON'S THOUGHTS ON THE NEGRO


I

Jefferson, like a number of liberal-minded men of his time, execrated
the slave trade and as the following extracts will show held it as a
grievance against the British.

     During the regal government we had, at one time, obtained a law
     which imposed such a duty on the importation of slaves as
     amounted nearly in a prohibition, when one inconsiderate
     assembly, placed under a peculiarity of circumstance, repealed
     the law. This repeal met a joyful sanction from the then reigning
     sovereign, and no devices, no expedients which could ever be
     attempted by subsequent assemblies (and they seldom met without
     attempting them) could succeed in getting the royal assent to a
     renewal of the duty. In the very first session held under the
     republican government, the assembly passed a law for the
     perpetual prohibition of the importation of slaves. This will, in
     some measure, stop the increase of this great political and moral
     evil, while the minds of our citizens may be ripening for a
     complete emancipation of human nature.[48]

     The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire
     in those Colonies, where it was, unhappily, introduced in their
     infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves
     we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from
     Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions,
     and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have
     been hitherto defeated by his Majesty's negative: Thus preferring
     the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting
     interests of the American States, and to the rights of human
     nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice.[49]

With the same thought as that of the views expressed above Jefferson
incorporated into the original Declaration of Independence an
indictment of George III as promoting the ruin of the colonies in
encouraging the slave trade. He said:

     He (George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself,
     violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
     persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating
     and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur
     miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical
     warfare, the opprobrium of INFIDEL powers, is the warfare of the
     CHRISTIAN KING of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market
     where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his
     negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or
     to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of
     horrors might want no fact of distinguished dye, he is now
     exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to
     purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering
     the people upon whom he has obtruded them; thus paying off former
     crimes committed against the LIBERTIES of one people, with crimes
     which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.[50]


II

Influenced by the struggle for the rights of man, Jefferson seriously
advocated freeing the Negroes, that they too might work out their own
destiny on foreign soil. He did not think that it would be wise to
leave the freedmen in this country controlled by white men by whom he
believed they should not be assimilated.[51] The first time he had an
opportunity, therefore, he made an effort in this direction. This was
the case of his work in connection with the committee appointed to
revise the laws of Virginia, the report of which he prepared.

Jefferson said:

     The bill reported by the revisers of the whole (Virginia) code
     does not itself contain the proposition to emancipate all slaves
     born after the passing the act; but an amendment containing it
     was prepared, to be offered to the Legislature whenever the bill
     should be taken up, and further directing, that they should
     continue with their parents to a certain age, then to be brought
     up, at the public expense, to tillage, arts or sciences,
     according to their geniuses, till the females should be eighteen,
     and the males twenty-one years of age, when they should be
     colonized to such place as the circumstances of the time should
     render most proper, sending them out with arms, implements of
     household and of the handicraft arts; seeds, pairs of the useful
     domestic animals, &c., to declare them a free and independent
     people, and extend to them our alliance and protection, till they
     shall have acquired strength; and to send vessels at the same
     time to other parts of the world for an equal number of white
     inhabitants; to induce them to migrate hither, proper
     encouragements were to be proposed.[52]

Discussing the serious difficulties of the problem, he compared that
of the Romans with the situation in the colonies:

     This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is
     a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of
     their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of
     human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and
     beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question; "What further
     is to be done with them?" join themselves in opposition with
     those who are actuated by sordid avarice only. Among the Romans
     emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free,
     might mix with, without straining the blood of his master. But
     with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he
     is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.[53]

Writing to John Lynch in 1811, Jeff arson gave his ideas as to the
possibility of successful African colonization.

     You ask my opinion on the proposition of Mrs. Mifflin, to take
     measures for procuring, on the coast of Africa, an establishment
     to which the people of color of these States might, from time to
     time be colonized, under the auspices of different governments.
     Having long ago made up my mind on this subject, I have no
     hesitation in saying that I have ever thought it the most
     desirable measure which could be adopted, for gradually drawing
     off this part of our population, most advantageously for
     themselves as well as for us. Going from a country possessing all
     the useful arts, they might be the means of transplanting them
     among the inhabitants of Africa, and would thus carry back to the
     country of their origin, the seeds of civilization which might
     render their sojournment and sufferings here a blessing in the
     end to that country.[54]

     Nothing is more to be wished than that the United States would
     themselves undertake to make such an establishment on the coast
     of Africa. Exclusive of motives of humanity, the commercial
     advantages to be derived from it might repay all its expenses.
     But for this, the national mind is not yet prepared. It may
     perhaps be doubted whether many of these people would voluntarily
     consent to such an exchange of situation, and very certain that
     few of those advanced to a certain age in habits of slavery,
     would be capable of self-government. This should not, however,
     discourage the experiment, not the early trial of it.[55]

     I received in the first year of my coming into the administration
     of the General Government, a letter from the Governor of Virginia
     (Colonel Monroe), consulting me, at the request of the
     Legislature of the State, on the means of procuring some such
     asylum, to which these people might be occasionally sent. I
     proposed to him the establishment of Sierra Leone, in which a
     private company in England had already colonized a number of
     negroes and particularly the fugitives from these States during
     the Revolutionary War; and at the same time suggested, if this
     could be obtained, some of the Portuguese possessions in South
     America, as next most desirable. The subsequent Legislature
     approving these ideas, I wrote, the ensuing year, 1802, to Mr.
     King, our Minister in London, to endeavor to negotiate with the
     Sierra Leone company a reception of such of these people as might
     be colonized thither. He opened a correspondence with Mr.
     Wedderbourne and Mr. Thornton, secretaries of the company, on the
     subject, and, in 1803, I received through Mr. King the result,
     which was that the colony was going on, but in a languishing
     condition; that the funds of the company were likely to fail, as
     they received no returns of profit to keep them up; that they
     were, therefore, in treaty with their government to take the
     establishment off their hands; but that in no event should they
     be willing to receive more of these people from the United
     States, as it was exactly that portion of their settlers which
     had gone from hence, which, by their idleness and turbulence, had
     kept the settlement in constant danger of dissolution, which
     could not have been prevented but for the aid of the maroon
     negroes from the West Indies, who were more industrious and
     orderly than the others, and supported the authority of the
     government and its laws ... The effort which I made with
     Portugal, to obtain an establishment for them within their claims
     in South America, proved also abortive.[56]

In this extract Jefferson goes a step further in presenting a scheme
for financing the project, giving even the exact amount which he
thought would suffice.

     In the disposition of these unfortunate people, there are two
     rational objects to be distinctly kept in view. First. The
     establishment of a colony on the coast of Africa, which may
     introduce among the aborigines the arts of cultivated life and
     the blessings of civilization and science. By doing this, we may
     make to them some retribution for the long course of injuries we
     have been committing on their population. And considering that
     these blessings will descend to the _nati natorum et qui
     nascentur ab illis_, we shall in the long run have rendered them
     perhaps more good than evil. To fulfil this object, the colony of
     Sierra Leone promises well, and that of Mesurado adds to our
     prospect of success. Under this view the Colonization Society is
     to be considered as a missionary society, having in view,
     however, objects more humane, more justifiable, and less
     aggressive on the peace of other nations than the others of that
     appelation. The second object, and the most interesting to us, as
     coming home to our physical and moral characters, to our
     happiness and safety, is to provide an asylum to which we can, by
     degrees, send the whole of that population from among us, and
     establish them under our patronage and protection, as a separate,
     free and independent people, in some country and climate friendly
     to human life and happiness. That any place on the coast of
     Africa should answer the latter purpose, I have ever deemed
     entirely impossible. And without repeating the other arguments
     which have been urged by others, I will appeal to figures only,
     which admit no controversy.[57]

     There is, I think, a way in which (the removal of the slaves to
     another country) can be done; that is by emancipating the
     after-born, leaving them, on due compensation, with their
     mothers, until their services are worth their maintenance, and
     then putting them to industrious occupations until a proper age
     for deportation. This was the result of my reflections on the
     subject five and forty years ago, and I have never yet been able
     to conceive any other practicable plan. It was sketched in the
     _Notes of Virginia_. The estimated value of the new-born infant
     is so low (say twelve dollars and fifty cents) that it would
     probably be yielded by the owner gratis, and would thus reduce
     the six hundred millions of dollars, the first head of expense,
     to thirty-seven millions and a half; leaving only the expenses of
     nourishment while with the mother, and of transportation.[58]

     From what fund are these expenses to be furnished? Why not from
     that of the lands which have been ceded by the very States now
     needing this relief? And ceded on no consideration, for the most
     part, but that of the general good of the whole. These cessions
     already constitute one-fourth of the States of the Union. It may
     be said that these lands have been sold; are not the property of
     the citizens composing these States; and the money long ago
     received and expended. But an equivalent of lands in the
     territories since acquired may be appropriated to that object, or
     so much, at least, as may be sufficient; and the object, although
     more important to the slave States, is highly so to the others
     also, if they were serious in their arguments on the Missouri
     question. The slave States, too, if more interested, would also
     contribute more by their gratutious liberation, thus taking on
     themselves alone the first and heaviest item of expense.[59]

As the proper place for the colonization of emancipated blacks seemed
quite a problem, almost any seemingly desirable place was recommended.
Santo Domingo proved to be attractive after the bloody scenes of the
revolution had passed away.

     In the plan sketched in the _Notes on Virginia_, no particular
     place of asylum was specified; because it was thought possible
     that in the revolutionary state of America, then commenced,
     events might open to us some one within practicable distance.
     This has now happened. Santo Domingo has become independent, and
     with a population of that color only; and if the public papers
     are to be credited, their Chief offers to pay their passage, to
     receive them as free citizens, and to provide them employment.
     This leaves, then, for the general confederacy, no expense but
     that of nurture with the mother for a few years, and would call,
     of course, for a very moderate appropriation of the vacant
     lands.... In this way no violation of private right is
     proposed.[60]


III.

In his _Notes on Virginia_ Jefferson discusses all of the phases of
slavery as they appeared to him at that time. He took up the
justification of the institution of slavery among the Romans, the
enslavement of the Indian and the Negroes, the cause of the increase
in slaves, and the effects of the same on both the masters and the
enslaved.[61]

     An inhuman practice once prevailed in this country, of making
     slaves of the Indians. This practice commenced with the Spaniards
     with the first discovery of America.[62]

     Under the mild treatment our slaves experience, and their
     wholesome, though coarse food, this blot in our country increase
     as fast, or faster than the whites.[63]

     We know that among the Romans, about the Augustan age especially,
     the condition of their slaves was much more deplorable than that
     of the blacks on the continent of America. The two sexes were
     confined in separate apartments, because to raise a child cost
     the master more than to buy one. Cato, for a very restricted
     indulgence to his slaves in this particular, took from them a
     certain price. But in this country the slaves multiply as fast as
     the free inhabitants.... The same Cato, on a principle of
     economy, always sold his sick and superannuated slaves. He gives
     it as a standing precept to a master visiting his farm, to sell
     his old oxen, old wagons, old tools, old and diseased servants,
     and everything else become useless.... The American slaves cannot
     enumerate this among the injuries and insults they receive. It
     was the common practice to expose in the island Æsculapius, in
     the Tiber, diseased slaves whose cure was likely to become
     tedious. The Emperor Claudius, by an edict, gave freedom to such
     of them as should recover, and first declared that if any person
     chose to kill rather than expose them, it should be deemed
     homicide. The exposing them is a crime of which no instance has
     existed with us; and were it to be followed by death, it would be
     punished capitally. We are told of a certain Vedius Pollio, who,
     in the presence of Augustus, would have given a slave as food to
     his fish for having broken a glass. With the Romans, the regular
     method of taking the evidence of their slaves was under torture.
     Here it has been thought better never to resort to their
     evidence. When a master was murdered, all his slaves, in the same
     house, or within hearing, were condemned to death. Here
     punishment falls on the guilty only, and as precise proof is
     required against his as against a freeman. Yet notwithstanding
     these and other discouraging circumstances among the Romans,
     their slaves were often their rarest artists. They excelled, too,
     in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to their
     master's children. Epictetus, Terence, and Phoedrus, were slaves.
     But they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition
     then, but nature which has produced the distinction. Whether
     further observation will or will not verify the conjecture, that
     nature has been less bountiful to them in the endowments of the
     head, I believe that in those of the heart she will be found to
     have done them justice.[64]

     That disposition to theft with which they have been branded, must
     be ascribed to their situation, and not to any depravity of the
     moral sense. The man in whose favor no laws of property exist,
     probably feels himself less bound to respect those made in favor
     of others. When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a
     fundamental, that laws, to be just, must give a reciprocation of
     right; that, without this, they are mere arbitrary rules of
     conduct, founded in force, and not in conscience; and it is a
     problem which I give to the master to solve, whether the
     religious precepts against the violation of property were not
     framed for him as well as his slave? And whether the slave may
     not as justifiably take a little from one who has taken all from
     him, as he may slay one who would slay him? That a change in the
     relations in which a man is placed should change his ideas of
     moral right or wrong, is neither new, nor peculiar to the color
     of the blacks. Homer tells us it was so two thousand six hundred
     years ago.[65]

     The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual
     exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting
     despotism on the one part, and degrading submissions on the
     other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is
     an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all education in
     him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he
     sees others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his
     philanthropy or his self-love, for restraining the intemperance
     of passion towards his slave, it should always be a sufficient
     one that his child is present. But, generally, it is not
     sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the
     lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of
     smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and thus
     nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be
     stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a
     prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such
     circumstances. And with what execrations should the statesman be
     loaded, who, permitting one-half the citizens thus to trample on
     the rights of the other, transforms those into despots, and these
     into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part, and the _amor
     patriae_ of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this
     world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is
     born to live and labor for another; in which he must lock up the
     faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his
     inhuman race, or entail his own miserable condition on the
     endless generations proceeding from him.[66]

     Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
     removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
     people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they
     are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for
     my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice
     cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and
     natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an
     exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may
     become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no
     attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.[67]

     With the morals of the people, their industry also is destroyed.
     For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make
     another labor for him. This is so true that of the proprietors of
     slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labor.[68]

     It is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject
     through the various considerations of policy, or morals, of
     history, natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they
     will force their way into every one's mind.... The way, I hope,
     is preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total
     emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events,
     to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their
     extirpation.[69]


IV

During the early part of Jefferson's public career he did not have a
good opinion of the Negro and his possibilities. This is his attitude
as expressed in his _Notes on Virginia_ in 1782, whenever he referred
to the Negro. Ignorant of the fact that science shows that no race is
superior to another, Jefferson considered the blacks inferior to the
Indians, believed that they lacked literary ability, the finer senses
of other races and although exhibiting a little aptitude in music were
both physically and mentally inferior to the whites.

     It will probably be asked, why not retain and incorporate the
     blacks into the State, and thus save the expense of supplying by
     importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave?
     Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand
     recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have
     sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature
     has made; and many other circumstances will divide us into
     parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end
     but in the extermination of the one or the other race.[70]

     To these objections, which are political may be added others,
     which are physical and moral. Whether the black of the negro
     resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and
     scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from
     the color of the blood, the color of the bile, or from that of
     some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is
     as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is
     this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a
     greater or less suffusions of color in the one, preferable to
     that eternal monotony, which reign in the countenances, that
     immovable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the
     other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry
     of form, their own judgment in favor of the whites, declared by
     their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of
     the Oranootan for the black woman over those of his own species.
     The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention
     in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic
     animals; why not in that of man? Besides those of color, figure,
     and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a
     difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body.
     They secrete less by the kidneys, and more by the glands of the
     skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor. This
     greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of
     heat, and less of cold than the whites. Perhaps, too, a
     difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late
     ingenious experimentalist (Crawford) has discovered to be the
     principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from
     extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid
     from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with
     more of it.[71]

     They seem to require less sleep. A black, after hard labor
     through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to
     sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out
     with the first dawn of the morning.[72]

     In general, their existence appears to participate more sensation
     than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to
     sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in
     labor. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect,
     must be disposed to sleep of course.[73]

     Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which
     render it doubtful whether Heaven has given life to us in mercy
     or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them.[74]

     Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and
     imagination, it appears to me that in memory they are equal to
     the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could
     scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the
     investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull,
     tasteless, and anomalous. It would be unfair to follow them to
     Africa for this investigation. We will consider them here, on the
     same stage with the whites, and where the facts are not
     apocryphal on which a judgment is to be formed. It will be right
     to make great allowances for the difference of condition, of
     education, of conversation, of the sphere in which they move.
     Many millions of them have been brought to, and born in America.
     Most of them, indeed, have been confined to tillage, to their own
     homes, and their own society; yet many of them have been so
     situated that they might have availed themselves of the
     conversation of their masters; many of them have been brought up
     to the handicraft arts, and from that circumstance have always
     been associated with the whites. Some have been liberally
     educated, and all have lived in countries where the arts and
     sciences are cultivated to a considerable degree, and have had
     before their eyes samples of the best works from abroad. The
     Indians, with no advantages of this kind, will often carve
     figures on their pipes not destitute of design and merit. They
     will crayon out an animal, a plant, or a country, so as to prove
     the existence of a germ in their minds which only wants
     cultivation. They astonish you with strokes of the most sublime
     oratory; such as prove their reason and sentiment strong, their
     imagination glowing and elevated. But never yet could I find that
     a black had uttered a thought above the level of plain narration;
     never saw ever an elementary trait of painting or sculpture.[75]

     In music they are more generally gifted than the whites, with
     accurate ears for tune and time, and they have been found capable
     of imagining a small catch. Whether they will be equal to the
     composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated
     harmony, is yet to be proved.[76]

     Misery is often the parent of the most affecting touches in
     poetry. Among the blacks is misery enough, God knows, but no
     poetry. Their love is ardent, but it kindles the senses only, not
     the imagination. Religion, indeed, has produced a Phyllis
     Wheatley; but it could not produce a poet. The compositions
     published under her name are below the dignity of criticism. The
     heroes of the Dunciad are to her, as Hercules to the author of
     that poem.[77]

     Ignatius Sancho has approached nearer to merit in composition
     (than Phyllis Wheatley); yet his letters do more honor to the
     heart than the head. They breathe the purest effusions of
     friendship and general philanthropy, and show how great a degree
     of the latter may be compounded with strong religious zeal. He is
     often happy in the turn of his compliments, and his style is easy
     and familiar, except when he affects a Shandean fabrication of
     words. But his imagination is wild and extravagant, escapes
     incessantly from every restraint of reason and taste, and, in the
     course of its vagaries, leaves a tract of thought as incoherent
     and eccentric, as is the course of a meteor through the sky. His
     subjects should often have led him to a process of sober
     reasoning; yet we find him always substituting sentiment for
     demonstration. Upon the whole, though we admit him to the first
     place among those of his own color who have presented themselves
     to the public judgment, yet when compare him with the writers of
     the race among whom he lived and particularly with the epistolary
     class in which he has taken his own stand, we are compelled to
     enroll him at the bottom of the column. This criticism supposes
     the letters published under the name to be genuine, and to have
     received amendment from no other hand; points which would not be
     of easy investigation.[78]

     The improvement of the blacks in body and mind, in the first
     instance of their mixture with the whites, has been observed by
     every one, and proves that their inferiority is not the effect
     merely of their condition in life.[79]

     The opinion that they are inferior in the faculties of reason and
     imagination, must be hazarded with great diffidence. To justify a
     general conclusion, requires many observations, even where the
     subject may be submitted to the anatomical knife, to optical
     glasses, to analysis by fire or by solvents. How much more then
     where it is a faculty, not a substance, we are examining; where
     it eludes the research of all the senses; where the conditions of
     its existence are various and variously combined; where the
     effects of those which are present or absent bid defiance to
     calculation; let me all too, as a circumstance of great
     tenderness, where our conclusion would degrade a whole race of
     men from the rank in the scale of beings which their Creator may
     perhaps have given them. To our reproach it must be said, that
     though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the
     races of black and or red men, they have never yet been viewed by
     us as subjects of natural history. I advance it, therefore, as a
     suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct
     race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to
     the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not
     against experience to suppose that different species of the same
     genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different
     qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history, then, one
     who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye
     of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department
     of man as distinct as nature has formed them?[80]

He was impressed, however, with the integrity of the Negroes and paid
them the following tribute:

     Notwithstanding these considerations which must weaken their
     respect for the laws of property, we find among them numerous
     instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their
     better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and
     unshaken fidelity.[81]


V

In later years it seems that Jefferson changed from his position of
certainty as to the inferiority of the Negro to that of doubt. At one
time he believed in the possibilities of the Negro and then again he
receded from that position to take up the argument that the blacks
lack the capacity with which the whites are endowed. Jefferson shows
that he was either ill-informed or insincere. Writing to General
Chastellux in 1785 concerning the future of the Negro Jefferson
remarked:

     I have supposed the black man, in his present state might not be
     in body and mind equal to the white man; but it would be
     hazardous to affirm, that, equally cultivated for a few
     generations, he would not become so.[82]

To Benjamin Banneker, the surveyor and astronomer, who was regarded by
some as his friend, he addressed the following in 1791:

     Nobody wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit,
     that nature has given to our black brethren talents equal to
     those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a
     want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their
     existence, both in Africa and America.... I have taken the
     liberty of sending your Almanac to Monsieur de Condorcet,
     Secretary of the Academy of Sciences at Paris, and member of the
     Philanthropic Society, because I considered it as a document to
     which your color had a right for their justification against the
     doubts which have been entertained of them[83]

Jefferson's letter to the Marquis de Condorcet presented Banneker's
attainments as evidence of the mental capacity of Negroes. He said:

     We have now in the United States a Negro, the son of a black man
     born in Africa and a black woman born in the United States, who
     is a very respectable mathematician. I procured him to be
     employed under one of our chief directors in laying out the new
     Federal City on the Potomac and in the intervals of his leisure,
     while on that work, he made an almanac for the next year, which
     he sent me in his own handwriting, and which I enclose to you. I
     have seen very elegant solutions of geometrical problems by him.
     Add to this that he is a very worthy and respectable member of
     society. He is a free man. I shall be delighted to see these
     instances of moral eminence so multiplied as to prove that the
     want of talents observed in them, is merely the effect of their
     degraded condition, and not proceeding from any difference in the
     structure of the parts on which intellect depends[84]

In a letter to Banneker himself concerning the achievements of this
astronomer and mathematician, Jefferson said:

     Nobody wishes more ardently than I do to see a good system
     commenced for raising the condition both of their body and mind
     to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their
     present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be
     neglected, will admit.[85]

A generation later he had, as this letter indicates, retained the
opinion that the possibilities of the Negroes were not necessarily
limited. To Henri Grégoire who had sent Jefferson a copy of his
_Litterature des Nègres_, he wrote:

     Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do
     to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself
     entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted
     to the negroes by nature, and to find that in this respect they
     are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of
     personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where
     the opportunities for the development of their genius were not
     favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed
     them, therefore, with great hesitation; but whatever be their
     degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir
     Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not
     therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this
     subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and
     hopeful advances are making towards their reestablishment on an
     equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray
     you, therefore, to accept my thanks for the many instances you
     have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that
     race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the
     day of their relief.[86]

Writing to Joel Barlow about the same time Jefferson showed a
different attitude. He said:

     Bishop Grégoire wrote to me on the doubts I had expressed five or
     six and twenty years ago, in the _Notes on Virginia_, as to the
     grade of understanding of the negroes. His credulity has made him
     gather up every story he could find of men of color (without
     distinguishing whether black, or of what degree of mixture),
     however slight the mention, or light the authority on which they
     are quoted. The whole do not amount, in point of evidence, to
     what we know ourselves of Banneker. We know he had spherical
     trigonometry enough to make almanacs, but not without the
     suspicion of aid from Ellicot, who was his neighbor and friend,
     and never missed an opportunity of puffing him. I have a long
     letter from Banneker, which shows him to have had a mind of very
     common stature indeed. As to Bishop Grégoire, I wrote him a very
     soft answer. It was impossible for doubt to have been more
     tenderly or hesitantingly expressed than that was in the _Notes
     on Virginia_, and nothing was or is further from my intentions,
     than to enlist myself as the champion of a fixed opinion, where I
     have only expressed a doubt. St. Domingo will, in time, throw
     light on the question.[87]

He did believe, however, in the industry of the Negroes and thought
that this virtue of theirs would make their colonization possible.
Concerning such a project he wrote Miss Fanny Wright in 1825:

     An opinion is hazarded by some, but proved by none, that moral
     urgencies are not sufficient to induce the negro to labor; that
     nothing can do this but physical coercion. But this a problem
     which the present age alone is prepared to solve by experiment.
     It would be a solecism to suppose a race or animals created,
     without sufficient foresight and energy to preserve their own
     existence. It is disproved, too, by the fact that they exist, and
     have existed through all the ages of history. We are not
     sufficiently acquainted with all the nations of Africa, to say
     that there may not be some in which habits of industry are
     established, and the arts practiced which are necessary to render
     life comfortable. The experiment now in progress in St. Domingo,
     those of Sierra Leone and Cape Mesurado, are but beginning. Your
     proposition has its aspects of promise also; and should it not
     fully answer to calculations in figures, it may yet, in its
     developments, lead to happy results.[88]


VI

Jefferson believed that the emancipation of the slaves could be
effected by legislation. To this end he made several noteworthy
efforts. In 1776 he submitted to the revolutionary convention in
Virginia a constitution in which was incorporated the clause
prohibiting slavery. He undertook also to induce the legislature of
Virginia to take this step in 1783, and as chairman of the committee
of the Congress of the Confederation appointed to draw up an ordinance
for the government of the Northwest Territory, he submitted a plan
providing that after the year 1800 neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude should exist there. These clauses and some comments thereon
follow:

     No person hereafter coming into this country shall be held within
     the same in slavery under any pretext whatever.--Proposed Va.
     Constitution.[89]

     The General Assembly (of Virginia) shall not have power to ...
     permit the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this
     State, or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which
     shall be living on the 31st day of December, 1800; all persons
     born after that day being hereby declared free.[90]--Proposed
     Constitution for Virginia.

     After the year 1800 of the Christian era, there shall be neither
     slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States,
     otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall
     have been duly convicted to have been personally
     guilty.[91]--Proposed Ordinance of 1784.

     "The clause respecting slavery," said he "was lost by an
     individual vote only. Ten States were present. The four Eastern
     States, New York and Pennsylvania, were for the clause. Jersey
     would have been for it, but there were but two members, one of
     whom was sick in his chambers. South Carolina, Maryland, and
     Virginia! voted against it. North Carolina was divided, as would
     have been Virginia, had not one of its delegates been sick in
     bed."[92]

     "I congratulate you" said he to a coworker, "on the law of your
     state (South Carolina) for suspending the importation of slaves,
     and for the glory you have justly acquired by endeavoring to
     prevent it forever."[93]


VII

Jefferson seemed to get further from the idea of immediate
emancipation, looking upon it as a very serious problem. He tended, as
the following extracts will show, to advocate lightening the burden of
the slave, hoping that in the West Indies, where he thought the Negro
would eventually rule absolutely, the blacks might establish
governments to which freedmen gradually emancipated in the United
States might be sent to shape their own destiny.

Writing to Dr. Price concerning his anti-slavery pamphlet, Jefferson
said:

     Southward of the Chesapeake, your pamphlet (against slavery) will
     find but few readers concurring with it in sentiment on the
     subject of slavery. From the mouth to the head of the Chesapeake,
     the bulk of the people will approve it in theory, and it will
     find a respectable minority ready to adopt it in practice; a
     minority which for weight and worth of character preponderates
     against the greater number, who have not the courage to divest
     their families of a property which, however, keeps their
     conscience unquiet. Northward of the Chesapeake, you may find
     here and there an opponent to your doctrine, as you may find here
     and there a robber and murderer; but in no greater number. In
     that part of America, there being but few slaves, they can easily
     disencumber themselves of them; and emancipation is put into such
     a train that in a few years there will be no slaves northward of
     Maryland. In Maryland, I do not find such a disposition to begin
     the redress of this enormity as in Virginia. This is the next
     State to which we may turn our eyes for the interesting spectacle
     of justice in conflict with avarice and oppression; a conflict
     wherein the sacred side is gaining daily recruits from the influx
     into office of young men grown, and growing up. These have sucked
     in the principles of liberty, as it were, with their mother's
     milk; and it is to them I look with anxiety to turn the fate of
     this question. Be not therefore discouraged. What you have
     written will do a great deal of good.[94]

In his report to Congress of a conference with Count Vergennes,
Foreign Minister of France, on commerce, Jefferson wrote:

     The British army, after ravaging the State of Virginia, had sent
     off a very great number of slaves to New York. By the seventh
     article of the treaty of peace, they stipulated not to carry away
     any of these. Notwithstanding this, it was known, when they were
     evacuating New York, that they were carrying away the slaves,
     General Washington made an official demand of Sir Guy Carleton,
     that he should cease to send them away. He answered, that these
     people had come to them under promise of the King's protection,
     and that that promise should be fulfilled in preference to the
     stipulation in the treaty. The State of Virginia, to which nearly
     the whole of these slaves belonged, passed a law to forbid the
     recovery of debts due to British subjects. They declared, at the
     same time, they would repeal the law, if Congress were of opinion
     they ought to do it. But, desirous that their citizens should be
     discharging their debts, they afterwards permitted British
     creditors to prosecute their suits, and to receive their debts in
     seven equal and annual payments for reimbursement.[95]

Jefferson's letter here to M. de Meunier on the passage of the
Ordinance of 1787 shows how he either shifted from his position of
regarding emancipation a serious problem to that of agitating against
slavery or that he varied his correspondence to suit the person
addressed.

     There were ten States present; six voted unanimously for it,
     three against it, and one was divided; and seven votes being
     requisite to decide the proposition affirmatively, it was lost.
     The voice of a single individual of the State which was divided,
     or of one of those which were of the negative, would have
     prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the
     new country. Thus we see the fate of millions unborn hanging on
     the tongue of one man, and heaven was silent in that awful
     moment! But it is to be hoped it will not always be silent, and
     that the friends to the rights of human nature will in the end
     prevail.

     What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! who
     can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, and death itself,
     in vindication of his own liberty, and, the next moment, be deaf
     to all those motives whose power supported him through his
     trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which
     is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in
     rebellion to oppose.[96]

He seemed to regard it later as a problem to be solved only by
miraculous methods.

     We must await with patience the workings of an overruling
     Providence, and hope that that is preparing the deliverance of
     these, our suffering brethren. When the measure of their tears
     shall be full, when their groans shall have involved heaven
     itself in darkness, doubtless a God of justice will awaken to
     their distress, and by diffusing light and liberality among their
     oppressors, or, at length, by His exterminating thunder, manifest
     His attention to the things of this world, and that they are not
     left to the guidance of a blind fatality.[97]

Jefferson, however, seemed to have a kind feeling for the bondmen, as
these extracts will show.

     I observe in your letter ... that the profits of the whole estate
     (of Monticello) would be no more than the hire of the few negroes
     hired out would amount to. Would it be better to hire more where
     good masters could be got? Would it be better to hire plantations
     and all, if proper assurance can be provided for the good usage,
     of everything?[98]

     I am miserable till I shall owe not a shilling. The moment that
     shall be the case, I shall feel myself at liberty to do something
     for the comfort of the slaves.[99]

     The check on the tenants against abusing my slaves was, by the
     former lease, that I might discontinue it on a reference to
     arbitrators. Would it not be well to retain an optional right to
     sue them for ill-usage of the slaves or to discontinue it by
     arbitration, whichever you should choose at the time?[100]

     As far as I can judge from the experiments which have been made
     to give liberty to, or rather, to abandon persons whose habits
     have been formed in slavery is like abandoning children.[101]

     I am decided on my final return to America to try this
     experiment. I shall endeavor to import as many Germans as I have
     grown slaves. I will settle them and my slaves, on farms of fifty
     acres each, intermingled, and place all on the footing of the
     Metayers (Medietaini) of Europe. Their children shall be brought
     up, as others are, in habits of property and foresight, and I
     have no doubt but that they will be good citizens. Some of their
     fathers will be so; others I suppose will need government. With
     these all that can be done is to oblige them to labor as the
     laboring poor of Europe do, and to apply to their comfortable
     subsistence the produce of their labor, retaining such a moderate
     portion of it as may be a just equivalent for the use of the
     lands they labor, and the stocks and other necessary
     advances.[102]

     The inculcation (in your book) on the master of the moral duties
     which he owes to the slave, in return for the benefits of his
     service, that is to say, of food, clothing, care in sickness, and
     maintenance under age and disability, so as to make him in fact
     as comfortable and more secure than the laboring man in most
     parts of the world, ... gives great merit to the work, and will,
     I have no doubt, produce wholesome impressions.[103]

     In the first or second session of the Legislature after I became
     a member, I drew to this subject the attention of Colonel Bland,
     one of the oldest, ablest, and most respected members, and he
     undertook to move for certain moderate extensions of the
     protection of the laws to these people. I seconded his motion
     and, as a young member, was more spared in the debate; but he was
     denounced as an enemy of his country, and was treated with the
     grossest indecorum.[104]

     My opinion has ever been that, until more can be done for them,
     we should endeavor, with those whom fortune has thrown on our
     hands, to feed and clothe them well, protect them from ill usage,
     require such reasonable labor only as is performed voluntarily by
     freemen, and be led by no repugnances to abdicate them, and our
     duties to them. The laws do not permit us to turn them loose, if
     that were for their good; and to commute them for other property
     is to commit them to those whose usage of them we cannot
     control.[105]

Jefferson was opposed to slavery, but he hesitated to take certain
steps against it because of public opinion.

     I am very sensible of the honor you propose to me of becoming a
     member of the society for the abolition of the slave trade. You
     know that nobody wishes more ardently to see an abolition, not
     only of the trade, but of the condition of slavery; and certainly
     nobody will be more willing to encounter every sacrifice for that
     object. But the influence and information of the friends to this
     proposition in France will be far above the need of my
     association. I am here as a public servant, and those whom I
     serve, having never yet been able to give their voice against
     this practice, it is decent for me to avoid too public a
     demonstration of my wishes to see it abolished. Without serving
     the cause here, it might render me less able to serve it beyond
     the water. I trust you will be sensible of the prudence of those
     motives, therefore, which govern my conduct on this
     occasion.[106]

     I have received a letter from Mr. Thomas Brannagan, ...
     Philadelphia, asking my subscription to the work announced in the
     enclosed paper.[107] The cause in which he embarks is so holy,
     the sentiments he expresses in his letter so friendly, that it is
     highly painful to me to hesitate on a compliance which appears so
     small. But that is not its true character, and it would be
     injurious even to his views, for me to commit myself on paper by
     answering his letter. I have most carefully avoided every public
     act of manifestation on that subject. Should an occasion ever
     occur in which I can interpose with decisive effect, I shall
     certainly know and do my duty with promptitude and zeal. But, in
     the meantime, it would only be disarming myself of influence to
     be taking small means. The subscription to a book on this subject
     is one of those little irritating measures, which, without
     advancing its end at all, would, by lessening the confidence and
     good will of a description of friends composing a large body,
     only lessen my powers of doing them good in the other great
     relations in which I stand to the public. Yet, I cannot be easy
     in not answering Mr. Brannagan's letter, unless he can be made
     sensible that it is better I should not answer it; and I do not
     know how to effect this, unless you would have the goodness ...
     to enter into an explanation with him.[108]

     We have received with great satisfaction notification of the
     orders of his Catholic Majesty, not to permit that persons, held
     in slavery within the United States, introduce themselves as free
     persons into the Province of Florida.... As a consequence of the
     same principles of justice and friendship, we trust that your
     Excellency will permit, and aid the recovery of persons of the
     same description, who have heretofore taken refuge within your
     government.[109]

     The governor of East Florida informs me that he has received the
     King's orders, not to permit, under any pretext, that persons
     held in slavery in the United States introduce themselves as
     free, into the province of East Florida. I am happy that this
     grievance, which had been a subject of great complaint from the
     citizens of Georgia, is to be removed.[110]

Jefferson thought that the Negro republics of the West Indies would
become a safety valve for the United States.

     I become daily more convinced that all the West India Islands
     will remain in the hands of the people of color, and a total
     expulsion of the whites sooner or later take place. It is high
     time we should foresee the bloody scenes which our children
     certainly, and possibly ourselves (south of the Potomac), have to
     wade through and try to avert them.[111]

     If something is not done, and soon done, we shall be the
     murderers of our own children. The "_murmura venturos nautis
     prudentia ventos_" has already reached us (from San Domingo); the
     revolutionary storm, now sweeping the globe, will be upon us, and
     happy if we make timely provision to give it an easy passage over
     our land. From the present state of things in Europe and America,
     the day which begins our combustion must be near at hand; and
     only a single spark is wanting to make that day to-morrow. If we
     had begun sooner, we might probably have been allowed a lengthier
     operation to clear ourselves, but every day's delay lessens the
     time we may take for emancipation. Some people derive hope from
     the aid of the confederate States. But this is a delusion. There
     is but one State in the Union which will aid us sincerely, if an
     insurrection begins, and that one may, perhaps, have its own fire
     to quench at the same time.[112]

     As to the mode of emancipation, I am satisfied that that must be
     a matter of compromise between the passions, the prejudices, and
     the real difficulties which will each have its weight in that
     operation. Perhaps the first chapter of this history, which has
     begun in St. Domingo, and the next succeeding ones, will recount
     how all the whites were driven from all the other islands, may
     prepare our minds for a peaceable accommodation between justice,
     policy and necessity; and furnish an answer to the difficult
     question, whither shall the colored emigrants go? and the sooner
     we put some plan under way, the greater hope there is that it may
     be permitted to proceed peaceably to its ultimate effect.[113]

Jefferson finally despaired of seeing his emancipation scheme succeed.

     I have long since given up the expectation of any early provision
     for the extinguishment of slavery among us. There are many
     virtuous men who would make any sacrifices to effect it, many
     equally virtuous who persuade themselves either that the thing is
     not wrong, or that it cannot be remedied, and very many with whom
     interest is morality. The older we grow, the larger we are
     disposed to believe the last party to be. But interest is really
     going over to the side of morality. The value of the slave is
     every day lessening; his burden on his master daily increasing.
     Interest is, therefore, preparing the disposition to be just; and
     this will be goaded from time to time by the insurrectionary
     spirit of the slaves. This is easily quelled in its first
     efforts; but from being local it will become general, and
     whenever it does, it will rise more formidable after every
     defeat, until we shall be forced, after dreadful scenes and
     sufferings, to release them in their own way, which, without such
     sufferings we might now model after our own convenience.[114]


VIII

Because of frequent insurrections in this country and the West Indies
there was much talk of establishing a penal colony to which the
leaders of such uprisings could be sent. With Gabriel's insurrection
in Virginia in 1800 in mind, James Monroe, then Governor of Virginia,
wrote Jefferson, asking him to support such a project, a resolution on
which had already passed the Virginia House of Delegates. Jefferson
wrote him the following:

     Questions would arise whether the establishment of a (negro
     penal) colony within our limits, and to become a part of our
     Union, would be desirable to the State of Virginia itself, or to
     other States--especially those who would be in its vicinity.
     Could we procure lands beyond the limits of the United States to
     form a receptacle for these people? On our northern boundary, the
     country not occupied by British subjects, is the property of
     Indian nations, whose title would have to be extinguished, with
     the consent of Great Britain; and the new settlers would be
     British subjects. It is hardly to be believed that either Great
     Britain or the Indian proprietors have so disinterested a regard
     for us, as to be willing to relieve us, by receiving such a
     colony themselves.... On our western and southern frontiers,
     Spain holds an immense country, the occupancy of which, however,
     is in the Indian natives, except a few insulated spots possessed
     by Spanish subjects. It is very questionable, indeed, whether the
     Indians would sell? whether Spain would be willing to receive
     these people? and nearly certain that she would not alienate the
     sovereignty. The same question to ourselves would recur here
     also, as did in the first case: should we be willing to have such
     a colony in contact with us? However our present interests may
     restrain us within our own limits, it is impossible not to look
     forward to distant times, when our rapid multiplication will
     expand itself beyond those limits, and cover the whole northern,
     if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same
     language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws; nor can
     we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that
     surface. Spain, France, and Portugal hold possessions on the
     southern continent, as to which I am not well enough informed to
     say how far they might meet our views. But either there or in the
     northern continent, should the constituted authorities ties of
     Virginia fix their attention, of preference, I will have the
     dispositions of those powers sounded in the first instance.[115]

Writing to Rufus King in 1802 Jefferson discussed in detail the
feasibility of the plan.

     As the expense of so distant a transportation would be very
     heavy, and might weigh unfavorably in deciding between the modes
     of punishment, it is very desirable that it should be lessened as
     much as is practicable. If the regulations of the place would
     permit these emigrants to dispose of themselves, as the Germans
     and others do who come to this country poor, by giving their
     labor for a certain time to some one who will pay their passage;
     and if the master of the vessel could be permitted to carry
     articles of commerce from this country and take back others from
     that, which might yield him a mercantile profit sufficient to
     cover the expenses of the voyage, a serious difficulty would be
     removed.[116]

     The course of things in the ... West Indies appears to have given
     a considerable impulse to the minds of the slaves in ... the
     United States. A great disposition to insurgency has manifested
     itself among them, which, in one instance, in the State of
     Virginia, broke out into actual insurrection. This was easily
     suppressed; but many of those concerned (between twenty and
     thirty, I believe) fell victims to the law. So extensive an
     execution could not but excite sensibility in the public mind,
     and beget a regret that the laws had not provided for such cases,
     some alternative, combining more mildness with equal efficiency.
     The Legislature of the State ... took the subject into
     consideration, and have communicated to me through the Governor
     of the State, their wish that some place could be provided, out
     of the limits of the United States, to which slaves guilty of
     insurgency might be transported; and they have particularly
     looked to Africa as offering the most desirable receptacle. We
     might, for this purpose, enter into negotiations with the
     natives, on some part of the coast, to obtain a settlement; and,
     by establishing an African company, combine with it commercial
     operations, which might not only reimburse expenses, but procure
     profit also. But there being already such an establishment on
     that coast by the English Sierra Leone Company, made for the
     express purpose of colonizing civilized blacks to that country,
     it would seem better, by incorporating our emigrants with
     theirs, to make one strong, rather than two weak colonies. This
     would be the more desirable because the blacks settled at Sierra
     Leone, having chiefly gone from the States, would often receive
     among those whom we should send, their acquaintances and
     relatives. The object of this letter is to ask ... you to enter
     into conference with such persons, private and public, as would
     be necessary to give us permission to send thither the persons
     under contemplation.... They are not felons, or common
     malefactors, but persons guilty of what the safety of society,
     under actual circumstances, obliges us to treat as a crime, but
     which their feelings may represent in a far different shape. They
     will be a valuable acquisition to the settlement, ... and well
     calculated to cooperate in the plan of civilization.

     ... The consequences of permitting emancipation to become
     extensive, unless a condition of emigration be annexed to them,
     furnish matter of solicitude to the Legislature of Virginia.
     Although provision for the settlement of emancipated negroes
     might perhaps be obtained nearer home than Africa, yet it is
     desirable that we should be free to expatriate this description
     of people also to the colony of Sierra Leone, if considerations
     respecting either themselves or us should render it more
     expedient. I pray you, therefore, to get the same permission
     extended to the reception of these as well as the (insurgents).
     Nor will there be a selection of bad subjects; the emancipations,
     for the most part, being either of the whole slaves of the
     master, or of such individuals as have particularly deserved
     well. The latter are most frequent.[117]


IX

He was firm to the end in his effort to abolish the slave trade.

     Whatever may have been the circumstances which influenced our
     forefathers to permit the introduction of personal bondage into
     any part of these States, and to participate in the wrongs
     committed on an unoffending quarter of the globe, we may rejoice
     that such circumstances, and such a sense of them, exist no
     longer. It is honorable to the nation at large that their
     Legislature availed themselves of the first practicable moment
     for arresting the progress of this great moral and political
     error.[118]

     I congratulate you (Congress) on the approach of the period at
     which you may interpose your authority constitutionally, to
     withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further
     participation in those violations of human rights which have been
     so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, and
     which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our
     country, have long been eager to proscribe. Although no law you
     may pass can take prohibitory effect till the first day of the
     year one thousand eight hundred and eight, yet the intervening
     period is not too long to prevent, by timely notice, expeditions
     which cannot be completed before that day.[119]--Sixth Annual
     Message.


X

In his old age Jefferson became decidedly less radical in his advocacy
of abolition, contenting himself with the utterances of the nature of
an academic deprecation of the evil, expressing the hope that in some
way it might be eradicated, but at the same time despairing of it.
Writing to Edward Coles, he said:

     My sentiment on the subject of slavery of negroes have long since
     been in possession of the public, and time has only served to
     give them stronger root. The love of justice and the love of
     country plead equally the cause of these people, and it is a
     moral reproach to us that they should have pleaded it so long in
     vain, and should have produced not a single effort, nay I fear
     not much serious willingness to relieve them and ourselves from
     our present condition of moral and political reprobation.... I
     had always hoped that the younger generation receiving their
     early impressions after the flame of liberty had been kindled in
     every breast, and had become, as it were, the vital spirit of
     every American, that the generous temperament of youth, analogous
     to the motion of the blood, and above the suggestions of avarice,
     would have sympathized with oppression wherever found, and proved
     their love of liberty beyond their own share of it. But my
     intercourse with them since my return (from Europe) has not been
     sufficient to ascertain that they had made towards this point the
     progress I had hoped.[120]

     The hour of emancipation is advancing, in the march of time. It
     will come; and whether brought on by the generous energy of our
     own minds; or by the bloody process of St. Domingo, excited and
     conducted by the power of our present enemy (England), if once
     stationed permanently within our country, and offering asylum and
     arms to the oppressed, is a leaf of our history not yet turned
     over.[121]

     From those of the former generation who were in the fulness of
     age when I came into public life, which was while our controversy
     with England was on paper only, I soon saw that nothing was to be
     hoped. Nursed and educated in the daily habit of seeing the
     degraded condition, both bodily and mental, of those unfortunate
     beings, not reflecting that that degradation was very much the
     work of themselves and their fathers, few minds have yet doubted
     but that they were as legitimate subjects of property as their
     horses and cattle. The quiet and monotonous course of colonial
     life had been disturbed by no alarm, and little reflection on the
     value of liberty. And when alarm was taken at an enterprise on
     their own, it was not easy to carry them to the whole length of
     the principles which they invoked for themselves.[122]

     As to the method by which this difficult work is to be effected,
     if permitted to be done by ourselves, I have seen no proposition
     so expedient on the whole, as that of emancipation of those born
     after a given day, and of their education and expatriation after
     a given age.[123]

     I hope you will reconcile yourself to your country and its
     unfortunate condition; that you will not lessen its stock of
     sound disposition by withdrawing your portion from the mass;
     that, on the contrary, you will come forward in the public
     councils, become the missionary of this doctrine truly Christian,
     insinuate and inculcate it softly but steadily, through the
     medium of writing and conversation; associate others in your
     labors, and when the phalanx is formed, bring on the press the
     proposition perseveringly until its accomplishment.[124]

Writing to David Barrow in 1815 about the preparation of slaves for
emancipation, Jefferson said:

     Unhappily it is a case for which both parties require long and
     difficult preparation. The mind of the master is to be apprized
     by reflection, and strengthened by the energies of conscience,
     against the obstacles of self interest to an acquiescence in the
     rights of others; that of the slave is to be prepared by
     instruction and habit for self-government, and for the honest
     pursuits of industry and social duty. Both of these courses of
     preparation require time, and the former must precede the latter.
     Some progress is sensibly made in it; yet not so much as I had
     hoped and expected. But it will yield in time to temperate and
     steady pursuit, to the enlargement of the human mind, and its
     advancement in science. We are not in a world ungoverned by the
     laws and the power of a Superior Agent. Our efforts are in His
     hand, and directed by it; and He will give them their effect in
     his own time. Where the disease is most deeply seated, there it
     will be slowest in eradication. In the Northern States it was
     merely superficial, and easily corrected. In the Southern it is
     incorporated with the whole system, and requires time, patience
     and perseverance in the curative process. That it may finally be
     effected, and its process hastened, will be my last and fondest
     prayer.[125]

In a letter to Dr. Thomas Humphreys in 1817, Jefferson expressed fear
about the purchase of slaves by the United States.

     The bare proposition of purchase (of the slaves) by the United
     States generally would excite infinite indignation in all the
     States north of Maryland. The sacrifice must fall on the States
     alone which hold them; and the difficult question will be how to
     lessen this so as to reconcile our fellow citizens to it.
     Personally, I am ready and desirous to make any sacrifice which
     shall ensure their gradual but complete retirement from the
     State, and effectually, at the same time, establish them
     elsewhere in freedom and safety.[126]

     I concur entirely in your leading principles of gradual
     emancipation, of establishment on the coast of Africa, and the
     patronage of our nation until the emigrants shall be able to
     protect themselves.[127]

Jefferson saw in the extension of slavery that which had given the
institution a new aspect in lessening the difficulty by dividing it.

     I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth
     who would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this
     heavy reproach in any _practicable_ way. The cession of that kind
     of property, for so it is misnamed, is a bagatelle which would
     not cost me a second thought, if, in that way, a general
     emancipation and _expatriation_ could be effected; and,
     gradually, and with due sacrifices, I think it might be. But, as
     it is, we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold him,
     nor safely let him go. Justice is in the one scale and
     self-preservation in the other.[128]

     Of one thing I am certain, that as the passage of slaves from one
     State to another, would not make a slave of a single human being
     who would not be so without it, so their diffusion over a greater
     surface would make them individually happier, and proportionally
     facilitate the accomplishment of their emancipation, by dividing
     the burden on a greater number of coadjutors. An abstinence, too,
     from this act of power would remove the jealousy excited by the
     undertaking of Congress to regulate the condition of the
     different descriptions of men composing a State, which nothing in
     the Constitution has taken from them and given to the General
     Government. Could Congress, for example, say that the non-freemen
     of Connecticut shall be freemen, or that they shall not emigrate
     into any other State?[129]

During the closing years of his life he expressed little hope of
seeing his plan of gradual emancipation carried out.

     It was found that the public mind would not bear the proposition
     (gradual emancipation), nor will it bear it even at this day
     (1821). Yet the day is not distant when it must bear and adopt
     it, or worse will follow. Nothing is more certainly written in
     the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is
     it less certain, that the two races, equally free, cannot live in
     the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible
     lines of distinction between them. It is still in our power to
     direct the process of emancipation and deportation, peaceably,
     and in such slow degree, as that the evil will wear off
     insensible, and their place be, _pari passu_, filled up by free
     white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself
     on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up. We should
     in vain look for an example in the Spanish deportation, or
     deletion of the Moors. This precedent would fall far short of our
     case.[130]

            *       *       *       *       *

     In 1769, I became a member of the legislature by the choice of
     the country in which I live (Albemarle), and so continued until
     it was closed by the Revolution. I made one effort in that body
     for the permission of the emancipation of slaves, which was
     rejected; and indeed, during the regal government, nothing
     liberal could expect success. Our minds were circumscribed within
     narrow limits, by an habitual belief that it was our duty to be
     subordinate to the mother country in all matters of government,
     to direct all our labors in subservience to her interests, and
     even to observe a bigoted intolerance for all religions but hers.
     The difficulties with our representatives were of habit and
     despair, not of reflection and conviction. Experience soon proved
     that they could bring their minds to rights on the first summons
     of their attention. But the King's Council, which acted as
     another house of legislature, held their places at will, and were
     in most humble obedience to that will; the Governor, too, who had
     a negative on our laws, held by the same tenure, and with still
     greater devotedness to it; and, last of all, the royal negative
     closed the last door to every hope of
     ameloration.--Autobiography.[131]

     The first establishment (of slavery) in Virginia which became
     permanent, was made in 1607. I have found no mention of negroes
     in the Colony until about 1650. The first brought here as slaves
     were by a Dutch ship; after which the English commenced the
     trade, and continued it until the Revolutionary war. That
     suspended, _ipso facto_, their further importation for the
     present, and the business of the war pressing constantly on the
     legislature, this subject was not acted on finally until the year
     '78, when I brought in a bill to prevent their further
     importation. This passed without opposition, and stopped the
     increase of the evil by importation, leaving to future efforts
     its final eradication.--Autobiography.[132]

     Our only blot is becoming less offensive by the great improvement
     in the condition and civilization of that race, who can now more
     advantageously compare their situation with that of the laborers
     of Europe. Still it is a hideous blot, as well from the
     heteromorph peculiarities of the race, as that, with them,
     physical compulsion to action must be substituted for the moral
     necessity which constrains the free laborers to work equally
     hard. We feel and deplore it morally and politically, and we look
     without entire despair to some redeeming means not yet
     specifically foreseen. I am happy in believing that the
     conviction of the necessity of removing this evil gains ground
     with time. Their emigration to the westward lightens the
     difficulty by dividing it, and renders it more practicable on the
     whole. And the neighborhood of a government of their color
     promises a more accessible asylum than that from whence they
     came.[133]

Showing the difficulty of purchase in case of the adoption of the
policy, Jefferson wrote Jared Sparks in 1824:

     Actual property has been lawfully vested in that form (negroes)
     and who can lawfully take it from the possessors?[134]

     Who would estimate its blessed effects? I leave this to those who
     will live to see their accomplishment, and to enjoy a beatitude
     forbidden to my age. But I leave it with this admonition,--to
     rise and be doing. A million and a half are within our control;
     but six millions (which a majority of those now living will see
     them attain), and one million of these fighting men, will say,
     "we will not go."[135]

     The separation of infants from their mothers would produce some
     scruples of humanity. But this would be straining at a gnat, and
     swallowing a camel.[136]

Jefferson became interested in the schemes of Miss Fanny Wright, who
was endeavoring to promote gradual emancipation through an
Emancipating Labor Society. He wrote her in 1825:

     The abolition of the evil is not impossible; it ought never,
     therefore, to be despaired of. Every plan should be adopted,
     every experiment tried, which may do something towards the
     ultimate object. That which you propose is well worthy of trial.
     It has succeeded with certain portions of our white brethren,
     under the care of a Rapp and an Owen; and why may it not succeed
     with the man of color?

     At the age of eighty-two, with one foot in the grave and the
     other uplifted to follow it, I do not permit myself to take part
     in any new enterprises, even for bettering the condition of man,
     not even in the great one which is the subject of your letter,
     and which has been through life that of my greatest
     anxieties.[137] The march of events has not been such as to
     render its completion practicable within the limits of time
     allotted to me; and I leave its accomplishment as the work of
     another generation.[138]

Although Jefferson lost hope of seeing his plans carried out, this
letter to Edward Everett, written near the close of his career, shows
that he had not changed his attitude.

     On the question of the lawfulness of slavery, that is of the
     right of one man to appropriate to himself the faculties of
     another without his consent, I certainly retain my early
     opinions. On that, however, of third persons to interfere between
     the parties, and the effect of conventional modifications of that
     pretension, we are probably nearer together.[139]


FOOTNOTES:

[48] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 102.

[49] "_Rights of British America_," Ford edition of _Jefferson's
Writings_, I, p. 440.

[50] "This clause," says Jefferson, in his Autobiography (I, p. 19),
"was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had
never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the
contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren, also, I
believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their
people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty
considerable carriers of them to others."

[51] "Their amalgamation with the other color," said he, "produces a
degradation to which no lover of excellence in the human character can
innocently consent."--Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IX, p.
478.

[52] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 243.

[53] _Ibid._, III, p. 250.

[54] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IX, p. 303.

[55] _Ibid._, IX, p. 304.

[56] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IX, p. 303.

[57] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, X, p. 290.

[58] {Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

[59] _Ibid._, X, p. 291.

[60] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, X, p. 292.

[61] To General Chastellux, who had proposed to publish in a French
scientific paper certain extracts from Jefferson's Notes on Virginia,
he wrote the following in 1785:

The strictures on slavery (in the Notes on Virginia) ... I do not wish
to have made public, at least till I know whether their publication
would do most harm or good. It is possible, that in my own country,
these strictures might produce an irritation, which would indispose
the people towards (one of) the two great objects I have in view; that
is, the emancipation of their slaves.--Ford edition of the Writings of
Jefferson, III, p. 71.

[62] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 154.

[63] _Ibid._, III, p. 192.

[64] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, II, p. 247.

[65] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, II, p. 249.

[66] _Ibid._, III, p. 266.

[67] {Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

[68] {Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

[69] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 267.

[70] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 244.

[71] {Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

[72] {Transcriber's Note: Missing footnote text in original.}

[73] _Ibid._, III, p. 245.

[74] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 245.

[75] _Ibid._, III, p. 245.

[76] _Ibid._, III, p. 246.

[77] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 246.

[78] _Ibid._, III, p. 247.

[79] _Ibid._, III, p. 247.

[80] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 249.

[81] _Ibid._, III, p. 249.

[82] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, III, p. 138.

[83] _Ibid._, V, p. 377.

[84] _Ibid._, V, p. 379.

[85] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, V, p. 377.

[86] _Ibid._, IX, p. 246.

[87] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IX, p. 261.

[88] _Ibid._, X, p. 344.

[89] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, II, p. 26.

[90] _Ibid._, III, p. 325.

[91] _Ibid._, III, p. 409.

[92] _Ibid._, III, p. 471.

[93] _Ibid._, IV, p. 410

[94] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IV, p. 82.

[95] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IV, p. 127.

[96] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IV, p. 185.

[97] _Ibid._, IV, pp. 181-185.

[98] _Ibid._, IV, p. 342.

[99] _Ibid._, IV, p. 343.

[100] _Ibid._, V, p. 31.

[101] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, V, p. 66.

[102] _Ibid._, V, p. 67.

[103] _Ibid._, IX, p. 329.

[104] _Ibid._, IX, p. 477.

[105] _Ibid._, IX, p. 479.

[106] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, V, p. 6.

[107] This refers to "Avenia; or, A Tragical Poem on the Oppression of
the Human Species," an antislavery work printed in Philadelphia in
1805.--Note in the Ford edition.

[108] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, VIII, p. 351.

[109] _Ibid._, V, p. 296.

[110] _Ibid._, V, p. 296.

[111] _Ibid._, VI, p. 349.

[112] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, VII, p. 168.

[113] _Ibid._, VII, p. 167.

[114] _Ibid._, VIII, p. 340.

[115] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, VIII, p. 104.

[116] _Ibid._, VIII, p. 162.

[117] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, VIII, pp. 161, 163.

[118] _Ibid._, VIII, p. 119.

[119] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, VIII, p. 492.

[120] _Ibid._, IX, p. 477.

[121] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IX, p. 478.

[122] _Ibid._, IX, p. 477.

[123] _Ibid._, IX, p. 478.

[124] _Ibid._, IX, p. 479.

[125] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, IX, p. 515.

[126] _Ibid._, X, p. 76.

[127] _Ibid._, X, p. 76.

[128] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, X, p. 157.

[129] _Ibid._, X, p. 158.

[130] Jefferson MSS. Rayner, 164.

[131] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, I, p. 5.

[132] _Ibid._, I, p. 51.

[133] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, VII, p. 310.

[134] _Ibid._, X, p. 200.

[135] _Ibid._, X, p. 292.

[136] _Ibid._, X, p. 293.

[137] In 1817 Jefferson had written Thomas Humphreys:

    I have not perceived the growth of this disposition (to emancipate
    the slaves and settle them elsewhere) in the rising generation, of
    which I once had sanguine hopes. No symptoms inform me that it
    will take place in my day. I leave it, therefore, to time, and not
    at all without hope that the day will come, equally desirable and
    welcome to us as to them. Perhaps the proposition now on the
    carpet at Washington to provide an establishment on the coast of
    Africa for voluntary emigrations of people of color may be the
    corner stone of this future edifice.--Ford edition of Jefferson's
    Writings, X, p. 77.

[138] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, X, p. 344.

[139] _Ibid._, X, p. 385.




SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES


A LITTLE SLAVE BOY was intrusted with a card which he was to bear to a
person to whom it was directed and so charmed was he with the
beautiful inscription drawn upon it that he was seized with an
unconquerable desire to learn the mystery it contained. To this end he
persuaded a little boy of his master's to teach him the letters of the
alphabet. He was discovered in the act and whipped. His curiosity,
however, to learn the secret, which was locked up in those mysterious
characters, was only increased, and he was detected in another
attempt, and accordingly chastised. By this time he had so far
penetrated the secret that nothing could deter him from further
effort. A third time he was detected, and whipped almost to death.
Still he persevered; and then to keep the matter secret, if possible,
he crept into a hogshead, which lay in a rather retired place and
leaving just hole enough to let in a little light, he sat there on a
little straw, and thus prosecuted his object. He knew he must be
whipped for being absent; and he often had to lie to conceal the
cause; but such were the strivings of his noble nature, such his
irrepressible longings after the hidden treasures of knowledge, that
nothing could subdue them, and he accomplished his purpose.[140]

EDWARD MITCHELL, a colored man, was brought from the South by
President Brown of Dartmouth College. He soon indicated a desire for
mental culture on being brought within its influence at college. At
first there was some hesitation about admitting him as the children of
southerners sometimes attended Dartmouth and one of them had recently
instructed his son to withdraw should the institution admit a Negro to
his classes. Mitchell was prepared for entering the Freshman class,
was received as a regular student and was promoted through all other
classes to a full honorable graduation. He was uniformly treated with
respect by his fellow students throughout his collegiate career. Upon
graduating in 1828 he was settled as a pastor of a Baptist church in
the State of Vermont, where he rendered creditable service.[141]

LUKE MULBER came to Steubenville, Ohio, in 1802, hired himself to a
carpenter during the summer at ten dollars a month, and went to school
in the winter. This course he pursued for three years, at the
expiration of which he had learned to do rough carpenter work.
Industry and economy crowned his labors with success. In 1837 he was a
contractor hiring four or five journeymen, two of whom were his sons,
having calls for more work than they could do. He lived in a fine
brick house which he had built for himself on Fourth Street, valued at
two thousand five hundred dollars and owned other property in the
city. Persons who came into contact with Mulber found him a quiet,
humble, Christian man, possessing those characteristics expected of a
useful member of society.[142]

SAMUEL MARTIN, a man of color, and the oldest resident of Port Gibson,
Mississippi, emancipated six of his slaves in 1844, bringing them to
Cincinnati where he believed they would have a better opportunity to
start life anew. These were two mulatto women with their four quadroon
children, the color of whom well illustrated the moral condition of
that State, in that each child had a different father and they
retained few marks of their partial African descent. Mr. Martin was
himself a slave until 1829. He purchased his freedom for a large sum
most of which he earned by taking time from sleep for work. Thereafter
he acquired considerable property. He was not a slaveholder in the
southern sense of that word. His purpose was to purchase his fellowmen
in bondage that he might give them an opportunity to become
free.[143]


FOOTNOTES:

[140] _The Philanthropist_, July 28, 1837.

[141] _Ibid._

[142] _The Philanthropist_, June 2, 1837.

[143] _Cincinnati Morning Herald_, June 1, 1844.




BOOK REVIEWS


_Negro Education, A Study of Private and Higher Schools for Colored
People in the United States._ By THOMAS JESSE JONES. United States
Bureau of Education in Cooperation with the Phelps-Stokes Fund. Issued
as Bulletins, 1916, Nos. 38 and 39. Government Printing Office,
Washington, 1917. Vol. I, pp. 700. Vol. II, pp. 700.

This report is the result of a survey of Negro education made during
the past four years under the direction of Dr. Thomas Jesse Jones,
specialist in the education of racial groups, United States Bureau of
Education. This is the most comprehensive and authoritative report
relating to Negro education that has been made. The report covers all
Negro private schools above the elementary grades. The total number of
schools described is 748, of which 635 are private schools, 28 are
state institutions, 68 are public high schools, and 27 are county
training schools. Reports are also made on 43 special institutions
such as hospitals, orphanages and reformatories.

It appears that no form of education for Negroes is satisfactorily
equipped or supported. The striking facts in the study of the
financial support of Negro education are, first, the wide divergencies
in the per capita of public school expenditures for white and Negro
children: $10.06 for each white child and $2.89 for each Negro child,
and second, the extent to which schools for Negroes are dependent upon
private aid. It also appears that the private schools provide the
greater proportion of all educational opportunities above the
elementary grades. They also offer practically all the instruction in
agriculture, medicine and religion.

In the discussion of a program for educational development, it is
pointed out that the public school authorities are responsible for
elementary education and that so long as the elementary school
facilities are insufficient, every phase of education above the
elementary grades is seriously handicapped. With reference to
secondary schools and teacher training, it is suggested that their
chief effort should be to supply trained teachers for the public
elementary schools. More than fifty per cent. of the teachers now in
these schools have an education less than the equivalent of six
elementary grades.

In the discussion of the importance of industrial education, it is
pointed out that in spite of the striking progress made in the
accumulation of property, the Negroes are "still a poor people." The
large percentage of women and children who have to earn a living
indicates the need of elevating their economic status so that more
children may attend school, and the women have a better opportunity to
care for the morals and hygiene of the home. Because three fourths of
the Negroes live in rural districts, instruction along agricultural
lines is one of the most important phases of Negro education.
"Preparation for rural life," says the report, "is the greatest
problem of the white and colored people of the South."

The most radical recommendations made in the report are those relating
to higher education. These recommendations are along the line of
improving the facilities and raising the standards of Negro college
work. The schools teaching subjects of college grade, 33 in number,
are classified according to the amount of college work done, into
three groups: first, colleges; second, those doing secondary and
college work; and third, those schools in which some college work is
offered. "Only three institutions, Howard, Fisk, and Meharry Medical,
have a student body, a teaching force and equipment, and an income
sufficient to warrant the characterization of college. Nearly half of
the college students and practically all of the professional students
are in these three institutions." It is suggested that there should be
concentration on the development for Negroes of two institutions of
university grade. Howard and Fisk are suggested as these two
institutions. It is recommended that three institutions be developed
and maintained as first class colleges. One such institution would be
located at Richmond, Virginia; one at Atlanta, Georgia, and one at
Marshall, Texas. A number of other institutions would be developed
into junior colleges or schools doing two years of college work. In
these junior colleges, large provision would be made for the training
of teachers.

                                   M. N. WORK

       *       *       *       *       *

_Los Negros Esclavos, Estudio Sociologico Y de Derecho Publico._ By
FERNANDO ORTIZ, Professor in the University of Havana. Revista
Bimestere Cubana, Havana, 1916. Pp. 536.

This work, as its title signifies, is a monograph intended to show the
working out of the problems of enslaving the blacks in Cuba. The
study begins with a description of the life of Cuba as conducive to
the introduction of slavery and then that of the blacks themselves.
Although acknowledging the difficulty of making an ethnographic study
of the imported Africans, the author endeavors to trace the origin of
these slaves to their native regions in Africa to determine the traits
which entered into the formation of the character of the Cuban slaves.
He then connects the institution with the sugar industry, which
increased the demand for slaves, gave the institution an economic
aspect and made the slave trade an international concern of great
moment. The movement for the amelioration of the condition of the
slave and the early efforts at abolition are noted only to show that
these efforts proved to be insignificant when the traffic became
universal and the institution reached the economic stage in the sugar
colonies. The atrocities incident to the methods of the victors in the
tribal wars of Africa supplying the traders frequenting the coast are
duly treated. The author even gives in detail the procedure, prices
and numbers.

A considerable portion of the book is concerned with the real life of
the slave. Professor Ortiz believes that the punishments inflicted in
Cuba were not so severe as in some other countries. He discusses the
work done by the men, women and children, their habitations, food,
dress and diversions. The diseases of the slave arising in adjusting
themselves to the new world are also noted. Going further into the
details of the life of the slaves, the author describes the urban
Negroes and distinguishes this class of the bondmen from those of the
plantation. He then discusses the free Negroes, who even from an early
period constituted a considerable element of the black population and
explains why some of them returned to Africa. The rights of all of the
elements of the black population at law are mentioned so as to give
the reader an idea of the black code as enforced in that island. How
these classes thus kept down were moved from time to time to organize
insurrections to secure their freedom, constitutes one of the chapters
of the book.

On the whole it cannot be said that Professor Ortiz has shown that
slavery in Cuba differed widely from what it was in some other large
islands of the West Indies. He has, however, made a contribution to
scholarship in showing exactly how this institution affected the life
and the development of Cuba. The work is well illustrated and has an
appendix of valuable documents bearing on slavery in Cuba.

                                   C. G. WOODSON.

       *       *       *       *       *

_A Social History of the American Family, from Colonial Times to the
Present._ By ARTHUR W. CALHOUN, PH.D. Volume I, Colonial Period. The
Arthur H. Clark Company, Cleveland, U. S. A., 1917. Pp. 348.

This work is a study in genetic sociology to be completed in three
volumes. The purpose of it is to develop an understanding of the
forces that have been operative in the evolution of the family
institution in the United States. The author will endeavor to set
forth the influences that have shaped marriage, controlled fecundity,
determined the respective status of father, mother, child, attracted
relative and servant, influenced sexual morality and governed the
function of the family as an educational, economic, moral, and
spiritual institution as also its relation to state, industry, and
society in general in the matter of social control.

In this first volume of the series the effort is to show that the
American family is a product of European folkways, of the economic
transition to modern capitalism, and of the distinctive environment of
a virgin continent. How European customs brought to America underwent
modification in the new environment and how differences of population
in this country may be traced to geographical differences, constitute
an important part of this treatise. The reader is finally directed to
see the colonial family as a property institution dominated by middle
class standards and operating as an agency of social control in the
midst of the social order governed by the interests of a forceful
aristocracy, which shaped religion, education, politics, and all else
to its own profit.

On the whole this is a valuable work. When one has finished reading
this volume, however, he must get the impression that the life of the
slave attached to the colonial family has not been adequately treated.
Among the early colonists the African slave was connected with the
family after the manner of the bondmen of families in ancient
countries. The slaves, being few in number, maintained this relation
until the industrial revolution throughout the modern world changed
the institution from a patriarchal to an economic one. Prior to this
time the slaves were treated almost as well as the children of the
family. They lived under the same roof, worshipped at the same altar
and in some cases were taught in the same school. Care was taken so to
elevate the slave and keep him above corrupting influences as to make
him not merely a tool for exploitation but a decided asset in the
family economy of life. That the slave of this type had much to do
with the development of the colonial family no one will doubt.

In the chapter on servitude and sexuality in the South, the Negro
slave gets negative mention. The author says that the presence of
African slaves and Indians early gave rise to the problem of
miscegenation. He concedes that it took some time to develop in the
whites the attitude of race integrity and that the intercourse between
men and women of the inferior race was never eliminated. During this
period white women of the indentured servant class often yielded to
miscegenation with the African male slaves and, as the author states,
planters sometimes married white women servants to Negroes in order to
transform the women and their offspring into slaves. The author might
have added that this was especially true of Maryland.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Readjuster Movement in Virginia._ By CHARLES CHILTON PEARSON,
Ph.D., Professor of Political Science in Wake Forest College. Yale
University Press, New Haven, 1917. Pp. 191.

The author undertakes here to describe one of the developments in
Virginia politics during the period between the Civil War and the
first administration of Grover Cleveland. He considers the last fifty
years of the history of Virginia the _Dark Age_ during which there has
been a period of radicalism followed by reaction. The Readjuster
Movement was one of the independent waves of thought which
characterized the reactionary period. It centered around William
Mahone as the leader of an efficient machine endeavoring to readjust
the State debt by compelling its creditors to share in the loss caused
by the expensive internal improvement policy, the misfortunes of the
Civil War and the extravagance of the Reconstruction period. It was in
line with the general effort to readjust the economic and social
policies of the entire country. It appealed to the people for the
reason that unlike radicalism it was not obstructive of "democratic
advance" in that it did not alienate the western section of the state
through its attitude towards the Negro. Native in its origin, the
democracy of the party was primarily intended for the whites, though
the Negroes were accepted as desirable supporters. Such an independent
movement was impossible until the continued defeat of the Republican
party sufficiently removed the fears of the whites as to conduce to
development of independent thinking. Citizens were thereafter more
easily won to the cause of thus elevating the ruined and indebted
classes by transferring to the government their will that the burdens
of the State should be shifted to other shoulders. The author believes
that this party found ready support also for the reason that it was
not only a party but a social code and a state of mind which bound the
whites to united and temperate action. He does not take the position
that the work of the party was accomplished without conflict between
the aristocratic and democratic forces. It required a long time to
remove the differences between the aristocrats composed of the leaders
of the old regime and the "soldier cult" on one hand and, on the
other, the democratic element composed of the westerners and upstarts
whom the Civil War and Reconstruction brought to power in the east,
the poor whites and the freedmen.

It is interesting to note how he accounts for the fate of the Negro
voter. He says that the Negro rising with the tide of democracy was
about to be incorporated into the body politic, but that the habit of
implicit obedience to overseers and a boss proved too strong. "These
results," says he, "seemed to necessitate and to anticipate the
elimination of the Negro as a voter." The decline of the political
power of the Negro in Virginia is unfortunately considered by many as
due to this cause. The author is wrong to leave the reader to infer
that the Negro's incapacity to participate intelligently in the
affairs of the government actually led to his elimination. The demands
of race prejudice impelled all southern States to reduce the Negro to
a lower status just as soon as the North loosed its hold on the
South.




NOTES


The local club of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and
History is now making a serious study of Negro American History under
the direction of Dr. Carter G. Woodson. The work was begun in November
and will be completed in February. The phases of history to be
considered are: _The Negro in Africa_, _The Enslavement of the Negro_,
_Patriarchal Slavery in America_, _Slavery and the Rights of Man_,
_The Reaction against the Negro_, _Slavery as an Economic
Institution_, _The Free Negro in the United States_, _The Abolition
Movement_, _The Colonization Project_, _Slavery and the Constitution_,
_The Negro in the Civil War_, _The Reconstruction of the Southern
States_, _The Negro in Freedom_, _The Negro and Social Justice_.

Dodd, Mead and Company will soon publish for Professor Benjamin G.
Brawley a work entitled _The Genius of the Negro_. The aim of the book
will be to set forth what the Negro has done in literature, art and
the like.

Longmans, Green and Company have published _The Education of the
African Native_. This will throw light on the much mooted question as
to what the Europeans have done to promote the mental development of
the native of the dark continent.

In the seventh volume of the _Documentos para la Historia Argentina_
are found materials bearing on the _Comercio de Indias, Consualdo,
Comercio de Negros y Extranjeros_, 1791-1809.

The June number of the _Political Science Quarterly_ contained an
article _The Negro Vote in Old New York_ by D. E. Fox.




THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. III--APRIL, 1918--NO. 2




BENJAMIN BANNEKER, THE NEGRO MATHEMATICIAN AND ASTRONOMER


The city of Washington very recently celebrated the 125th anniversary
of the completion of the survey and laying out of the Federal
Territory constituting the District of Columbia. This was executed
under the supervision of the famous French civil engineer, Major
Pierre Charles L'Enfant, as the head of a commission appointed by
George Washington, then president of the United States. Serving as one
of the commissioners, sitting in conference with them and performing
an important part in the mathematical calculations involved in the
survey, was the Negro mathematician and astronomer, Benjamin Banneker.
As there did not appear to be during this celebration any disposition
to give proper recognition to the scientific work done by Banneker,
the writer has thought it opportune to present in this form a brief
review of Banneker's life so as to revive an interest in him and point
out some of this useful man's important achievements.

On a previous occasion the writer undertook to collect some data with
the same object in view, and at that time he addressed a letter to the
postmaster at Ellicott City, Maryland, asking to be put in touch with
some one of the Ellicott family, who might furnish reliable data on
the subject. In this way, correspondence was established with the
family of Mrs. Martha Ellicott Tyson, of Baltimore. One of her
descendants, Mrs. Tyson Manly, kindly came over from Baltimore, and,
calling on the writer at the United States Patent Office, presented
him with a copy of the life of Banneker, published in Philadelphia in
1884, and compiled from the papers of Martha Ellicott Tyson, who was
the daughter of George Ellicott, a member of the noted Maryland
family, who established the business that developed the town of
Ellicott City.

Between George Ellicott and Benjamin Banneker, Mrs. Tyson says, there
existed "a special sympathy,"[144] and she further refers to her
father as "the warmest friend of that extraordinary man."[145] Her
father had many of Banneker's manuscripts, from which he intended to
compile a biography of his friend, but his unusually busy commercial
life afforded him no leisure in which to carry out this much cherished
plan. Mrs. Tyson's account, therefore, can be relied upon as coming
directly from those who, personally knowing Banneker, and living in
the same community in frequent contact with him, had preserved
accurate data from which to publish the true record of his life.

On a farm located near the Patapsco Eiver, within about ten miles of
the city of Baltimore, in the State of Maryland, on the 9th day of
November, 1731, Benjamin Banneker was born. Various accounts are given
of his ancestry. One of his biographers states that "there was not a
drop of white blood in his veins," another asserts with positiveness
that his parents and grandparents were all native Africans.[146] In
still another sketch of Banneker's life, read before the Maryland
Historical Society, on May 1, 1845, it is stated that "Banneker's
mother was the child of _natives_ of Africa so that to no admixture of
the blood of the white man was he indebted for his peculiar and
extraordinary abilities."[147] Thomas Jefferson said that Banneker was
the "son of a black man born in Africa and a black woman born in the
United States."[148]

According to Mrs. Tyson's account Banneker's mother and father were
Negroes, but his maternal grandmother was a white woman of English
birth, who had been legally married to a native African. The
antecedent circumstances of this marriage were so unusual as to
justify special mention. Mollie Welsh was an English woman of the
servant class, employed on a cattle farm in England where a part of
her daily duty was the milking of the cows. She was one day charged
with having stolen a pail of milk that had, in fact, been kicked over
by a cow. The charge seems to have been taken as proved, and in lieu
of a severer punishment she was sentenced to be shipped to America.
Being unable to pay for her passage she was sold, on her arrival in
America, to a tobacco planter on the Patapsco Eiver to serve a term of
seven years to pay the cost of her passage from England. At the end of
her period of service, this Mollie Welsh, who is described as "a
person of exceedingly fair complexion and moderate mental powers," was
able to buy a portion of the farm on which she had worked.[149] In
1692, she purchased two African slaves from a ship in the Chesapeake
Bay near Annapolis. One of these slaves named Bannaky, subsequently
Anglicized as Banneker, was the son of an African king, and was stolen
by slave dealers on the coast of Africa.[150] With these two slaves as
her assistants, Mollie Welsh industriously cultivated her farm for a
number of years with such gratifying success that she felt impelled
afterwards to release her two slaves from bondage. The slave Banneker
had gained such favor in the eyes of his owner that she married him
directly after releasing him from bondage, notwithstanding the fact
that his record for sustained industry had not equalled that of his
fellow slave, while serving their owner on her farm--a fact that was
perhaps due to Banneker's natural inclination to indulge his royal
prerogatives. This Banneker is described as "a man of much
intelligence and fine temper, with a very agreeable presence,
dignified manner and contemplative habits."[151]

There were born of this marriage four children of whom the eldest
daughter, Mary, married a native African who had been purchased from a
slave ship by another planter in her neighborhood. This slave was of a
devout nature, and early became a member of the Church of England,
receiving at his baptism the name of Robert. After baptism, Robert's
master set him free. It was, therefore, as a free man that he became
the husband of Mary Banneker, whose surname he adopted for his own.
Four children were born to Robert and Mary Banneker, one boy and three
girls, the eldest being Benjamin, the subject of this sketch.

Robert Banneker had evidently formed some of the habits of thrift
evinced by his mother-in-law, Mollie Welsh, for it is on record that
in 1737 within a few years after receiving his freedom he purchased a
farm of 120 acres from Richard Gist, paying for it 17,000[152] pounds
of tobacco, which in those days served as a legal medium of exchange.
This farm, located on the Patapsco Eiver, within about ten miles of
the town of Baltimore, thus became the Banneker homestead. Here it was
that young Benjamin spent his early years and grew to manhood,
assisting his father with the general work of the farm.

Banneker very early showed signs of precocity, which made him the
special favorite of his maternal grandmother who took delight in
teaching him to the extent of her own limited mental endowment. She
taught him to study the Bible, and had him read it to her at regular
intervals for the purpose of training him along religious lines of
thought. He attended a small school in his neighborhood where a few
white and colored children were taught by the same white schoolmaster.
Until the cotton gin and other mechanical appliances made Negroes too
valuable as tools of exploitation to be allowed anything so dangerous
as education, there were to be found here and there in the South
pioneer educators at the feet of whom even Negroes might sit and
learn.[153]

As a boy at school young Banneker is said to have spent very little,
if any, of his time in the games and frolics that constitute so large
a part of the school life of the average youth. He was unusually fond
of study, devoting by far the larger part of his time to reading, so
that it was said of him that "all his delight was to dive into his
books." His reading, however, did not take a wide range. His limited
resources did not permit him to purchase the many works he desired.
What Banneker lost through the lack of a variety of books, however, he
tried to make up for in being a close observer of everything around
him. He turned everything that he could into a channel of information
and drew upon all possible sources to keep himself posted on the
general activities of his community and beyond. In this way, "he
became gradually possessed of a fund of general knowledge which it was
difficult to find even among those who were far more favored by
opportunity than he was."[154]

Although Banneker had by this time begun to ingratiate himself into
the favor of the very best element in his community solely through his
demonstration of mental superiority, he did not permit his unusual
popularity and his love of study to render him any less helpful to his
father in the cultivation of the farm. He proved himself to be just as
industrious in farming as he was diligent in studying. When his father
died in 1759, leaving to Benjamin and his mother, as joint heirs, the
dwelling in which they lived, together with 72 acres of land,[155]
Benjamin was fully prepared to assume control of affairs on the
estate, and make it yield a comfortable living for him and his mother.
His father had divided the remaining 28 acres of the original farm
among the three daughters who also survived him. His farm was said to
be one of the best kept farms in his neighborhood. It was well
stocked, containing a select assortment of fruit trees, a fine lot of
cattle, and a specially successful apiary.

Young Banneker's diligent reading of the books at his command served
to develop his mental powers rapidly, giving him a retentive memory,
correct forms of speech and a keen power of analysis. This faculty
grew largely out of his special fondness for the study of mathematics,
by which he acquired unusual facility in solving difficult problems.
He early won the reputation of being the smartest mathematician not
only in his immediate neighborhood but for miles around. He was often
seen in the midst of a group of neighbors whom he constantly astounded
by the rapidity and accuracy with which he would solve the
mathematical puzzles put to him. This caused such widespread comment
that he frequently received from scholars in different parts of the
country, desiring to test his capacity, mathematical questions, to
all of which, it is said, he responded promptly and correctly.[156]

His close attention to the study of mathematics led him easily into
the quest of some practical form by which to give tangible expression
to his thought. It is highly probable that this fact can explain the
facility with which he planned and completed at the age of thirty a
clock which stands as one of the wonders of his day.[157] "It is
probable," says one, "that this was the first clock of which every
portion was made in America; it is certain that it was as purely his
own invention as if none had ever been before. He had seen a watch,
but never a clock, such an article not being within fifty miles of
him."[158] He completed this clock with no other tools than a pocket
knife, and using only wood as his material. It stood as a perfect
piece of machinery, and struck the hours with faultless precision for
a period of 20 years.

The successful completion of this clock attracted to Banneker the
attention of his entire community, serving as the starting point of a
more brilliant career. It was this display of mechanical genius which
engaged the attention of the Ellicotts, who had lately moved into his
neighborhood from Pennsylvania. They had already heard of the unusual
accomplishments of this gifted Negro and lost no time in getting in
touch with him, especially since one of the Ellicotts was himself a
mathematician and astronomer of marked ability.[159]

The meeting with the Ellicotts was of signal advantage to Banneker,
and ultimately proved the turning point in his career. They were of
Quaker origin and had gone down to Maryland in 1772 in search of a
desirable location for the establishment of flour mills. They were
evidently persons of foresight. Being progressive, open-minded and
comparatively free from the prejudices that were then mostly native to
the section into which they had moved, they cordially received
Banneker and frankly proclaimed his talents.[160] They did not seem to
permit the differences of race to erect a single barrier between
Banneker and themselves in the ordinary run of their frequent business
intercourse. When the Ellicotts were erecting their mills, the
foundation of Ellicott City, they purchased from Banneker's farm a
large portion of the provisions needed for the workmen. His mother,
Mary Banneker, attended to the marketing, bringing poultry,
vegetables, fruit and honey to the Ellicott workmen.[161]

Banneker's mechanical inclination led him to take unusual interest in
the building of the Ellicott Mills, and to make frequent visits there
to watch the operation of the machinery. In the course of time a store
was built near the mills, and it became the meeting place of nearly
all the wide-awake and worth while people in the community, who would
linger together to talk of the news of the day. This was the ordinary
means of news exchanging in those days when there were no dailies nor
bulletins nor hourly extras. Banneker was always a welcome participant
in these gatherings although he was a man of modest demeanor, never
injecting himself into the conversation in an unseemly manner. When,
however, he permitted himself to be drawn into discussions, he always
expressed his views with such clearness and intelligence that he won
the respect of his hearers.[162]

The friendship between George Ellicott and Banneker grew stronger as
the years went by, and their common interests in mathematics and
natural science led to a fellowship which often brought them together.
This interest led George Ellicott to lend Banneker a number of
mathematical books and instruments. Among these books were Mayer's
_Tables_, Ferguson's _Astronomy_ and Leadbetter's _Lunar Tables_. When
these books and instruments were handed to Banneker it was Ellicott's
intention to remain there a while to give Banneker some personal
instruction in the use of them, but he was prevented by lack of time
from carrying out this intention. On calling again on Banneker shortly
afterward, to offer him this instruction, Ellicott was surprised to
find that Banneker had already discovered for himself the key to the
use of both and was "already absorbed in the contemplation of the new
world which was thus opened to his view."[163] They had literally made
him fix his gaze on the stars, for the study of astronomy thus became
his one absorbing passion.

He had now nearly covered his three score years, and it was no little
tribute to his mental vigor that he should have determined at that age
to master so abstruse a science as astronomy. But by degrees he gave
himself up to its study with unusual zeal. His favorite method of
studying this science was to lie out on the ground at night, gazing up
at the heavens till the early hours of the morning. He then tried to
restore his tired mind and body by sleeping nearly all the next day.
This habit nearly caused him to fall into disrepute among his
neighbors, who, ignorant of his plans, accused him of becoming lazy in
his old days.

In 1789 he had advanced so far with his plan as to project a solar
eclipse, the calculation of which he submitted to his friend George
Ellicott. In the study of these books Banneker detected several errors
of calculation, and, writing to his friend Ellicott, he made mention
of two of them. On one occasion he wrote:

     "It appears to me that the wisest men may at times be in error;
     for instance, Dr. Ferguson informs us that, when the sun is
     within 12° of either node at the time of full, the moon will be
     eclipsed; but I find that, according to his method of projecting
     a lunar eclipse, there will be none by the above elements, and
     yet the sun is within 11° 46' 11" of the moon's ascending node.
     But the moon, being in her apogee, prevents the appearance of
     this eclipse."

And again he wrote Ellicott:

     "Errors that ought to be corrected in my astronomical tables are
     these: 2d vol. Leadbetter, p. 204, when anomaly is 4s 30° the
     equation 3° 30' 4" ought to have been 3° 28' 41". In [Symbol:
     Mars] equation, p. 155, the logarithm of his distance from
     [Symbol: Sun] ought to have been 6 in the second place from the
     index, instead of 7, that is, from the time that its anomaly is
     3s 24° until it is 4s O°."

     [Transcriber's Note: In above paragraph the actual astronomical
     symbols for Mars and the Sun appear. Also, 4s appears as 4
     superscript s, and 3s appears as 3 superscript s.]

Acting upon the suggestion of one of his educated friends, Banneker
now undertook to extend his calculations so as to make an Almanac,
then the most comprehensive medium of scientific information. Banneker
continued the work required to complete his almanac, and finished the
first one to cover the year 1792, when he was sixty-one years old.
This attracted to him a number of prominent men, among whom was Mr.
James McHenry, of Baltimore, a member of John Adams's cabinet. This
gentleman, through his high regard for Banneker's achievements, had
his almanac published by the firm of Goddard and Angell of Baltimore.
In his letter to this firm McHenry paid a fine tribute to the
character of the author, although some of his statements as to
Banneker's parentage do not harmonize with what appears to the writer
as more reliable information from another source. McHenry laid special
stress upon the fact that Banneker's work, in the preparation of his
almanac, "was begun and finished without the least information or
assistance from any person, or from any other books," than those he
had obtained from Mr. Ellicott, "so that whatever merit is attached to
his present performance is exclusively and peculiarly his own."[164]

That Mr. McHenry attached a wider significance to Banneker's
attainments than is implied in a merely personal achievement is shown
in his statement that he considered "this negro as a fresh proof that
the powers of the mind are disconnected with the color of the skin,
or, in other words, a striking contradiction to Mr. Hume's doctrine,
that the negroes are naturally inferior to the whites, and
unsusceptible of attainments in arts and sciences?" "In every
civilized country," said he, "we shall find thousands of whites,
liberally educated and who have enjoyed greater opportunities for
instruction than this negro, (who are) his inferiors in those
intellectual acquirements and capacities that form the most
characteristic features in the human race.[165] But the system that
would assign to these degraded blacks _an origin different from the
whites_, if it is not ready to be deserted by philosophers, must be
relinquished as similar instances multiply; and that such must
frequently happen, cannot be doubted, _should no check impede the
progress of_ _humanity_, which, ameliorating the conditions of
slavery, necessarily leads to its final extinction."[166]

Referring to their attitude, the publishers said in their editorial
notice that "they felt gratified in the opportunity of presenting to
the public, through their press, an accurate Ephemeris for the year
1792, calculated by a sable descendant of Africa." They flatter
themselves "that a philanthropic public, in this enlightened era, will
be induced to give their patronage and support to this work, not only
on account of its intrinsic merit (it having met the approbation of
several of the most distinguished astronomers of America, particularly
the celebrated Mr. Rittenhouse), but from similar motives to those
which induced the editors to give this calculation the preference, the
ardent desire of _drawing modest merit from obscurity_ and
controverting the long established illiberal prejudice against the
blacks."[167]

Banneker had himself not lost sight of the probable effect of his work
in reshaping to some extent the public estimate concerning the
intellectual capacity of his race. And this was the thought that
prompted him to send a manuscript copy of his first almanac to Thomas
Jefferson, then Secretary of State in Washington's cabinet. In his
letter to Jefferson, dated August 19, 1791, Banneker made, with
characteristic modesty, a polite apology for the "liberty" he took in
addressing one of such "distinguished and dignified station," and then
proceeded to make a strong appeal for the exercise of a more liberal
attitude towards his downtrodden race, using his own achievements as a
proof that the "train of absurd and false ideas and opinions which so
generally prevails with respect to the Negro should now be
eradicated."[168]

Thomas Jefferson took note of the moral courage and the loyalty to
race evident throughout the whole of Banneker's remarkable letter and
he honored it with the most courteous reply, under date of August 30,
1791. After thanking Banneker for the letter and the almanac
accompanying it, Jefferson expressed the pleasure it afforded him to
see such proofs "that nature has given to our black brethren talents
equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of
a want of them is owing only to the degraded condition of their
existence both in Africa and America." He also added that he desired
"ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition
both of their body and mind to what it ought to be." The copy sent to
Jefferson was formally transmitted to M. de Condorcet, secretary of
the Academy of Sciences at Paris, and member of the Philanthropic
Society because, as he said, he "considered it a document to which
your whole race had a right for its justification against the doubts
which have been entertained of them." This recognition of Banneker's
merit very naturally added greatly to his rapidly growing reputation
at home, and brought to him hundreds of letters of congratulation from
scholarly men throughout the civilized world.

The most distinguished honor that came to him from his own countrymen
was the invitation to serve with the commission appointed by President
Washington to define the boundary line and lay out the streets of the
Federal Territory, later called the District of Columbia. This
commission, was appointed by Washington, in 1789, and was composed of
David Stuart, Daniel Carroll, Thomas Johnson, Andrew Ellicott and
Major Pierre Charles L'Enfant, a famous French engineer. This
personnel was given in the article on Benjamin Banneker by John R.
Slattery in the _Catholic World_ in 1883,[169] but in the _Washington
Evening Star_ of October 15, 1916, reporting an address by Fred
Woodward, the commission was said to consist of "Major L'Enfant,
Andrew Ellicott, Count de Graff, Isaac Roberdeau, William King,
Nicholas King, and Benjamin Banneker, a free Negro."[170] It is on
record that it was at the suggestion of his friend, Major Andrew
Ellicott, who so thoroughly appreciated the value of his scientific
attainments, that Thomas Jefferson nominated Banneker and Washington
appointed him a member of the commission. In the Georgetown _Weekly
Ledger_, of March 12, 1791, reference is made to the arrival at that
port of Ellicott and L'Enfant, who were accompanied by "Benjamin
Banneker, an Ethiopian whose abilities as surveyor and astronomer
already prove that Mr. Jefferson's concluding that that race of men
were void of mental endowment was without foundation."[171]

Speaking afterwards of his work with this commission, Banneker
referred to the unfailing kindness and courtesy of the distinguished
company in which he found himself. One of his biographers says that
the deportment of the mathematician during this engagement was such as
to secure for him the respect and admiration of the commissioners. His
striking superiority over all other men of his race whom they had met
led them to disregard all prejudices of caste.[172] During the stay of
the commissioners at their official quarters, Banneker was invited, of
course, to eat at the same table with them just as he sat with them
during the conferences. This invitation, however, he declined, and
provision was then, at his request, made for serving his meals at a
separate table but in the same dining room and at the same hour as the
others were served.

The reasons for Banneker's refusal to accept this invitation, however,
are not so clear. Various of his biographers have attributed his
action on this occasion to what they seemed pleased to term his
"native modesty." Judging it at this distance from the time of its
occurrence, it is perhaps difficult to understand fully his motive.
But if we view it in the light of the consistent wisdom and
high-mindedness that seemed to guide his whole life we can hope that
his reasons for the self-imposed coventry on that occasion were
sufficient unto himself, and that they fully excluded every element of
servility.

Banneker's work with this commission was undertaken while he was still
engaged in astronomical investigation, and after his services in
Washington were concluded he returned to his home and resumed his work
on his almanacs, which regularly appeared until 1802. He was now
living alone in the home left him by his parents, and performed for
himself nearly all the domestic services required for his health and
comfort. Still obliged to rely mainly upon his farm for his
livelihood, he tried various expedients with different tenants to rid
himself of the necessity for giving so much of his time to the farm.
In these efforts he was wholly unsuccessful. He finally decided,
therefore, to enter into such an arrangement in the disposition of his
effects as would provide him an annuity, relieving himself of all
anxiety for his maintenance and at the same time affording him the
leisure he wanted for study. This he was enabled to do through a
contract with one of the Ellicotts, by the terms of which his friend
was to take the title to Banneker's property, making the latter an
annual allowance of 12 pounds for a given period of time calculated by
Banneker to be the span of years he could reasonably be expected to
live. Banneker was to continue to occupy and use the property during
his life, after which the possession was to go to Ellicott.[173]
Banneker lived, however, eight years longer than he thought he would,
but Ellicott faithfully lived up to this contract. This miscalculation
is said to have been the only mistake in mathematics Banneker ever
made. With his domestic affairs settled to his satisfaction, and
having now the desired leisure to continue his studies, he gave
himself up wholly to that object.

His active mind now found time also for occasional diversion to other
lines than mathematics. It was about this time that he made the
calculations showing that the locust plague was recurrent in cycles of
17 years each. He also wrote a dissertation on bees which has been
favorably compared with a similar contribution by Pliny on the same
subject written nearly 1800 years earlier. Banneker's nature seemed
tuned also to the softer notes in the song of life. He loved music,
and often, as a relaxation, he would sit beneath a huge chestnut tree
near his house and beguile the hours by playing on his flute or
violin.[174]

The disastrous war waged in 1793 so disturbed Banneker that he devoted
much time to the study of the best methods to promote peace. To this
end he suggested that the United States Government establish a
department in the President's cabinet to be in charge of a Secretary
of Peace. He then made a strong appeal to the authorities of his
government to take a broad stand based on humanity and justice and in
that spirit to formulate a comprehensive plan by which _A Lasting
Peace_[175] might be substituted for the wars that were then
disturbing the world.

During these years his home was frequently visited by people who
sought him because of his intellectual gifts, and who were in no wise
abashed by the fact of his racial connection. To them he was merely an
honored citizen in the field of achievement.[176] "During the whole of
his long life," says Benjamin Ellicott, "he lived respectably and much
esteemed by all who became acquainted with him, but more especially by
those who could fully appreciate his genius and the extent of his
acquirements. Although his mode of life was regular and extremely
retired,--living alone, having never married, cooking his own victuals
and washing his own clothes, and scarcely ever being absent from
home,--yet there was nothing misanthropic in his character; for a
gentleman who knew him thus speaks of him: 'I recollect him well. He
was a brave-looking pleasant man, with something very noble in his
appearance.' His mind was evidently much engrossed in his
calculations; but he was glad to receive the visits which we often
paid him."

Another writes: "When I was a boy I became very much interested in
him, as his manners were those of a perfect gentleman: kind, generous,
hospitable, humane, dignified, and pleasing, abounding in information
on all the various subjects and incidents of the day, very modest and
unassuming, and delighting in society at his own house. I have seen
him frequently. His head was covered with a thick suit of white hair,
which gave him a very dignified and venerable appearance. His dress
was uniformly of superfine broadcloth, made in the old style of a
plain coat, with straight collar and long waistcoat, and a
broad-brimmed hat. His color was not jet-black, but decidedly negro.
In size and personal appearance, the statue of Franklin at the Library
of Philadelphia, as seen from the street, is a perfect likeness of
him. Go to his house when you would, either by day or night, there was
constantly standing in the middle of the floor a large table covered
with books and papers. As he was an eminent mathematician, he was
constantly in correspondence with other mathematicians in this
country, with whom there was an interchange of questions of difficult
solution."[177]

Mrs. Tyson describes the courtliness of his manner when receiving
friendly visits from the ladies of his community, who delighted to
call on him in his neat cottage, to have the pleasure of his rare
conversation. On these occasions he would sometimes allude to his love
of the study of astronomy as quite unsuited to a man of his
class.[178]

In the earlier years of his life Banneker is said to have formed the
"social drink" habit, which we can imagine was all the easier for a
man of his agreeable manners, in an environment where hospitality was
general, and in a day when cordiality usually expressed itself in that
way. But to the credit of his strength of mind and will, it is also
said that he actually overcame that habit by the mere determination
that he would do it, and that on his return from his stay with the
commission at Washington he is said to have declared rather proudly
that he never partook once of the wines that were so freely offered
him.[179]

Banneker was not a professing Christian and not an adherent of any
church, but "he loved the doctrines and mode of worship of the Society
of Friends, and was frequently at their meetings." A contemporary
says: "We have seen Banneker in Elkridge meeting house, where he
always sat on the form nearest the door, his head uncovered. His ample
forehead, white hair and reverent deportment gave him a very venerable
appearance, as he leaned on the long staff (which he always carried
with him) in quiet contemplation."[180]

There was no blemish in the entire record of his singularly active and
useful life. His whole span of years appears to have been spent with a
conscience void of offense, and he approached the end with a
sereneness of mind well befitting the high ideals set before him.
Although his body never wandered far from the place of his birth, his
mind was permitted to soar through all space and to dwell in the
regions of the stars and the planets. We can never know how sorely his
finer spirit grieved over the tribulations that beset his blood
kinsmen in the days of their bondage in this land of their birth, but
we can well believe that in the loftiness of his soul he dreamed the
dream of their ultimate release.

As the shadows gathered about him towards the evening of his life he
abandoned those pursuits that had brought him merited distinction, and
had gained for him the admiration of a host of friends chiefly among
people that the world called superior. One beautiful Sabbath
afternoon, in the month of October, 1806,[181] while quietly resting
in the shade of a tree beside his cottage on the brow of a hill that
overlooked the Patapsco Valley he seemed to hear the voices that
beckoned him to the other world. And as if stirred by some sudden
impulse he rose and made an effort to walk once more along the paths
that had so often been his quiet retreat in the moments of his deep
reflections. He had not gone far, when his strength gave way, and he
sank helpless to the ground. He was assisted back to his home by a
friendly neighbor, but the noon of his day having fully merged into
the evening, the dark shadows of Eternal Night settled over him.

Directly after Banneker's death, in fact, on that very day, his
sisters, Minta Black and Mollie Morton, undertook to carry out his
wishes with respect to the disposition to be made of his personal
effects. Banneker had, a few years before, directed that "all the
articles which had been presented to him by George Ellicott,
consisting of his books and mathematical instruments, and the table on
which he made his calculations should be returned as soon as he should
die."[182] He also requested that "as an acknowledgment of a debt of
gratitude for Ellicott's long-continued kindness he should be given a
volume of the manuscripts containing all his almanacs, his
observations on various subjects, his letter to Thomas Jefferson, and
the reply of that statesman." All the rest that he possessed was left
to the two sisters. It was due to the faithful execution of his wishes
on the very day of his death that his valuable manuscripts were
preserved at all. They were all carried to George Ellicott, and this
circumstance was the first notice that Ellicott received of the
passing away of his friend. "Banneker's funeral took place two days
afterward, and while the ceremonies were in progress at his grave, his
home took fire and burned so rapidly that nothing could be
saved."[183]

Some time before his death Banneker gave to one of his sisters the
feather bed on which he usually slept, and this she preserved as her
only keepsake of him. Years after wards she had occasion to open the
bed and, feeling something hard among the feathers, she discovered
that it was a purse of money. This circumstance shows that Banneker
was not "in the evening of his life overshadowed by extreme
poverty."[184]

In an excellent paper read on April 18, 1916, before the Columbia
Historical Society of Washington, by Mr. P. Lee Phillips, of the
Library of Congress, _Banneker's Almanac_ was compared with Benjamin
Franklin's _Poor Richard's_ Almanac. Mr. Phillips also referred to his
efforts in behalf of peace and to the friendship that existed between
Banneker and such distinguished men of his time as Washington and
Jefferson. He closed his article on Banneker with the broad-minded
declaration that "Maryland should in some manner honor the memory of
this distinguished citizen, who, notwithstanding the race prejudice of
the time, rose to eminence in scientific attainments, the study of
which at that early date was almost unknown."[185] The recognition of
Douglass in Rochester and Boston, Pushkin in Petrograd and Moscow and
Dumas in Paris, affords splendid suggestions of what we hope to see of
Banneker in Baltimore. It is a sad reflection on the people of this
country that practically nothing has been done to honor this
distinguished man.

                                   HENRY E. BAKER

  ASSISTANT EXAMINER, UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.


FOOTNOTES:

[144] _The Leisure Hour_, 1853, II, p. 54.

[145] Tyson, _Banneker, The Afric-American Astronomer_, p. 10.

[146] _The Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 80

[147] In another particular this same sketch differs from several
others, namely, in locating young Banneker at "an obscure and distant
country school" with no mention of the oft-repeated assertion that the
school was one attended by both white and colored children. The author
of the last-mentioned sketch was evidently not sure of these two
statements, and therefore did not include them. In fact, he appears
not to have been quite sure of the propriety of submitting any sketch
at all of this "free man of color" to the distinguished body
constituting the Maryland Historical Society, for there was a clear
note of apology in his opening declaration that "A few words may be
necessary to explain why a memoir of a free man of color, formerly a
resident of Maryland, is deemed of sufficient interest to be presented
to the Historical Society." But he justified his effort on the grounds
that "no questions relating to our country (are) of more interest than
those connected with her colored population"; that that interest had
"acquired an absorbing character"; that the presence of the colored
population in States where slavery existed "modified their
institutions in important particulars," and effected "in a greater or
less degree the character of the dominant race"; and "for this reason
alone," he said, "the memoir of a colored man, who had distinguished
himself in an abstruse science, by birth a Marylander, claims
consideration from those who have associated to collect and preserve
facts and records relating to the men and deeds of the past."--J. H.
B. Latrobe in _Maryland Historical Society Publications_, I, p. 8.

[148] Ford edition of _Jefferson's Writings_, V, p. 379.

[149] In the memoir of Banneker, above mentioned, read before the
Maryland Historical Society in 1845, and in another memoir of
Banneker, read before the same Society by Mr. J. Saurin Norris, in
1854, the estate purchased by Mollie Welsh is referred to as "a small
farm near the present site of Baltimore," and "purchased at a merely
nominal price." See Norris's _Memoir_, p. 3.

[150] Norris _Memoir_, p. 4; Williams's _History of the Negro Race_,
p. 386.

[151] Tyson, _Banneker_, p. 10.

[152] It is elsewhere given as 7,000, but the earlier record seems to
be the correct one.

[153] _Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 81.

[154] Latrobe, _Memoir, Maryland Historical Society Publications_, I,
p. 7.

[155] _Ibid._, I, p. 7.

[156] Banneker would frequently, in answering questions submitted to
him, accompany the answers with questions of his own in rhyme. The
following is an example of such a question submitted by him to another
noted mathematician, his friend and neighbor, Mr. George Ellicott:

    A cooper and Vintner sat down for a talk,
    Both being so groggy, that neither could walk,
    Says Cooper to Vintner, "I'm the first of my trade,
    There's no kind of vessel, but what I have made,
    And of any shape, Sir,--just what you will,--
    And of any size, Sir,--from a ton to a gill!"
    "Then," says the Vintner, "you're the man for me,--
    Make me a vessel, if we can agree.
    The top and the bottom diameter define,
    To bear that proportion as fifteen to nine,
    Thirty-five inches are just what I crave,
    No more and no less, in the depth, will I have;
    Just thirty-nine gallons this vessel must hold,--
    Then I will reward you with silver or gold,--
    Give me your promise, my honest old friend?"
    "I'll make it tomorrow, that you may depend!"
    So the next day the Cooper his work to discharge,
    Soon made the new vessel, but made it too large;--
    He took out some staves, which made it too small,
    And then cursed the vessel, the Vintner and all.
    He beat on his breast, "By the Powers!"--he swore,
    He never would work at his trade any more.
    Now my worthy friend, find out, if you can,
    The vessel's dimensions and comfort the man!

    BENJAMIN BANNEKER.

We are indebted to Benjamin Hallowell, of Alexandria, for the solution
of this problem. The greater diameter of Banneker's tub must be 24.745
inches; the less diameter 14.8476 inches. See _Maryland Historical
Society Publications_, I, p. 20.

[157] _The Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 81.

[158] _The Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 81.

[159] _Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 82.

[160] _Southern Literary Messenger_, XXIII, p. 65.

[161] Tyson's _Banneker_, p. 24.

[162] Tyson, _Banneker_, p. 26.

[163] J. H. B. Latrobe's _Memoir, Maryland Historical Society
Publications_, I, p. 8.

[164] _Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 82.

[165] Tyson, _Banneker_, p. 51.

[166] Mr. McHenry was not only one of the most prominent men of
Baltimore, but was several times honored with positions of trust. He
was Senator from Maryland in 1781; and as one of the Commissioners to
frame the Constitution of the United States, he signed that instrument
in 1787. He was also a member of the cabinet of President John Adams
as Secretary of War in 1797.--Tyson, _Banneker_, pp. 50, 51, 52.

[167] _Maryland Historical Society Publications_, I, 1844-48, I, p.
79.

[168] A copy of Banneker's letter to Thomas Jefferson and the
statesman's reply were published in the JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY, III,
p. 69.

[169] _Catholic World_, XXXVIII, December, 1883.

[170] _Washington Star_, October 15, 1916.

[171] _Georgetown Weekly Ledger_, March 12, 1791.

[172] Tyson, _Banneker_, p. 37.

[173] Tyson, _Banneker_, pp. 70-71.

[174] Tyson, _Banneker_, pp. 35-60.

[175] _Records of the Columbia Historical Society_, XX, pp. 117-119.

[176] _The Atlantic Monthly_, XI, p. 84.

[177] Tyson, _Banneker_, p. 31.

[178] _Ibid._, p. 31.

[179] _Catholic World_, XVIII, p. 354.

[180] Norris's _Memoir, Maryland Historical Society Publications_, II,
p. 75.

[181] _Federal Gazette and Baltimore Daily Advertiser_, October 28,
1806.

[182] Norris's _Memoir, Maryland Historical Society Publications_, II,
p. 64.

[183] _Ibid._, II, p. 73.

[184] Tyson, _Banneker_, p. 72.

[185] _Records of the Columbia Historical Society_, XX, pp. 119-120.




GEORGE LIELE AND ANDREW BRYAN, PIONEER NEGRO BAPTIST PREACHERS


Without any consideration of the merits or demerits of what is called
the exceptional man theory, perhaps no two men stand out more
prominently in the early history of the Negro church than George Liele
and Andrew Bryan. In the days of darkest forebodings and of the
greatest human sufferings these two pioneers of religion went forth to
disseminate ideas and mold sentiments which were to shape the inner
springs of conduct of their fellow-slaves. Sketches of these heroes
must claim the attention of seekers for the truth as to this important
phase of our history.

A letter dated September 15, 1790, from the late Reverend Mr. Joseph
Cook of Euhaw, upper Indian Land, South Carolina, says: "A poor Negro,
commonly called, among his friends, Brother George,[186] has been so
highly favored of God, as to plant the first Baptist Church in
Savannah, and another in Jamaica." This man was George Liele. He was
born in Virginia about 1751. He knew very little of his mother, Nancy,
but was informed by white and black that his father was a very devout
man. The family moved much during the youth of George, but finally
settled in Georgia.

As a youth George Liele had a natural fear of God, holding constantly
in mind His condemnation of sin. Liele was converted through the
preaching of the Reverend Matthew Moore,[188] who later baptized him.
Desiring then to prove the sense of his obligations to God, Liele
began to instruct his own people. Crude but firm in purpose, he soon
showed ministerial gifts and after a trial sermon before a quarterly
meeting of white ministers was licensed as a local preacher. He
practiced preaching on different plantations, and in the church to
which he belonged, on evenings when there was no regular service.
After a short period he began his regular ministerial work, serving
about three years at Brunton Land, and at Yamacraw, where developed a
number of useful communicants.[189]

Among these early members of the Yamacraw church were Reverend David
George, who later labored, with permission from the Governor, in the
ministry at Nova Scotia, with sixty communicants, white and black;
Reverend Amos, who preached with good results at New Providence, one
of the Bahama Islands, to about three hundred members; and Reverend
Jesse Gaulsing, who preached near Augusta, in South Carolina to sixty
members. Preaching later from Chapter III Saint John, and the clause
of verse 7, "Ye must be born again," George Liele moved to repentance
a more useful man, Andrew Bryan, and a noted woman named Hagar.[190]
After Liele organized this influential church at Yamacraw, then a
suburb of Savannah, Mr. Henry Sharp, his master, encouraged this
pioneer by giving him his freedom.

Mr. Sharp was an officer in the war and died from wounds received in
the King's service.[191] Soon after the death of Mr. Sharp there arose
those who were dissatisfied with George's liberation. He was taken and
thrown into prison, but by producing his manumission papers was
released. To extricate himself from this unpleasant situation Liele
became obligated to a Colonel Kirkland. At the evacuation of Savannah
by the British he was partly obliged to come to Jamaica, as an
indentured servant for money he owed Colonel Kirkland, who promised to
be his friend in that country. Upon landing at Kingston he was upon
the recommendation of the Colonel to General Campbell, the Governor
of Jamaica, employed by him two years, and, on leaving the island, the
governor gave Liele a certificate of his good behavior. As soon as
Liele had paid his debt to Colonel Kirkland, he obtained for himself
and family a certificate of freedom from the vestry and governor,
according to the law of this Island.[192] Thus by force of
circumstances George Liele was compelled to leave those among whom he
had labored so effectively and thrown into another field where he had
opportunity for further service.

Liele's work in Jamaica began in September, 1784. He started in
Kingston by preaching in a private house to a small congregation.
Next, he organized a church with four other men who had come from
America. His message had a telling effect especially on the slaves.
The effectiveness of his work is also seen from the fact that
persecutions at baptisms and meetings which were, at first, frequent,
later became a less serious hindrance. Upon frequent petitions,
however, the Jamaica Assembly finally granted free worship of God to
all those desiring it. So successfully did Liele work that in a short
while he had in the country together with well wishers and followers
about fifteen hundred communicants, to whom he preached twice on each
Sunday, in the morning and afternoon, and twice in the week.[193]

The work of the church was extended by a few deacons and elders, and
by teachers of small congregations in the town and country. Thomas
Nichols Swigle became Liele's chief assistant. His particular work was
to regulate church matters, serve as deacon, and also to teach a free
school opened for the instruction of free and slave children. The work
continued to spread through Swigle, who became a minister after the
order of Liele. He said: "About two months ago, I paid my first visit
to a part of our church held at Clinton Mount, Coffee Plantation, in
the Parish of Saint Andrew, about sixteen miles distance from
Kingston, in the High mountains, where we have a chapel and 254
brethren." About his work in general he said: "I preach, baptize,
marry, attend funerals, and go through every work of the ministry
without fee or reward."[194]

It was soon evident that there must be some definite place of worship.
To this end a piece of land about three acres at the east end of
Kingston was purchased for the sum of about 155 pounds and on it a
church building fifty-seven by thirty-seven feet was begun. Because
the congregation was poor and gifts were small, Liele had a struggle
to complete his building. He interested in his cause several gentlemen
of influence, among whom was a Mr. Stephen Cooke, a member of the
Assembly, who in turn asked help of friends in England. By January 12,
1793, he was able to say that not only was the Kingston church
completed but that in Spanish Town also he had purchased land for a
cemetery with a house on it which served as a church building. The
Kingston church, the first of its kind in Jamaica, under the
leadership of Liele had twelve trustees, all of whom were members of
the congregation, whose names were specified in the title recorded in
the office of the secretary of the island.[195]

While establishing the churches at Savannah and at Jamaica, Liele
received nothing for his services. He was on a mission and without
charge preached, baptized, administered the Lord's Supper, and
travelled from one place to another to settle church affairs. He did
this so as not to be misunderstood and not to hinder the progress of
the church of Christ. Mr. Stephen Cooke, in giving his opinion of
Liele, said that he was "a very industrious man, decent and humble in
his manners, and, I think, a good man." His family life was pleasant.
He had a wife and four children, three boys and a girl. Liele followed
farming for a regular occupation, but because of the uncertain seasons
in Jamaica, kept horses and wagons for employment in local
transportation for the government by contract. He was business-like
and kept the good will of the public. Although busy, Liele found time
to read some of the good books which he had in his meager collection
and also to write letters explaining the growth of his work in Jamaica
and inquiring after the progress of the church at Savannah, then
pastored by Andrew Bryan.[196]

In building up the membership of his churches Liele showed great tact.
Unlike the Methodists who were rapidly coming forward at this time, he
would not receive any slaves who had not permission of their owners.
This not only increased the membership of the church but it made
friends for their cause among the masters and overseers. So careful
was Liele to get the confidence of the masters and overseers that he
ordered a bell for his church just a mile and a half out of Spanish
Town in Jamaica, not particularly to give warning to the slaves about
the time of meeting, but to the owners of slaves that they might know
the time when their slaves should return to the plantations. The
church covenant, a collection of certain passages of Scripture, which
was used once a month, was shown to members of the legislature, the
magistrates and justices to secure their approval that they might give
their slaves permission to become members of the congregation.[197]

The effect of the work of Liele is well narrated in a statement of an
overseer who sat at breakfast with Swigle at Clinton Mount, sixteen
miles from Kingston. He said that he did not need an assistant nor did
he make use of the whip, for whether he was at home or away,
everything was conducted as it should have been. The slaves were
industrious, with a plenty of provision in their ground and a plenty
of live stock in their barns; and they, one and all, lived together in
unity, brotherly love and peace. With a mission to serve, this man
then made his way into the hearts of his fellows.

Andrew Bryan, the other pioneer, was born in 1737 at Goose Creek,
South Carolina, about sixteen miles from Charleston. His mother was a
slave and died in the service of her master. His father, also a
slave, became infirm with years, dying at the age of one hundred and
five. Andrew became converted under the preaching of George Liele when
the latter served the church in Savannah. Bryan married a woman named
Hannah about nine years after his conversion. His wife remained a
slave in the service of Jonathan Bryan for a long time after her
marriage, but was finally purchased by her husband.[198]

Andrew Bryan began to preach to congregations of black and a few white
people at Savannah just eight or nine months after Liele's departure
for Jamaica. Edward Davis encouraged Bryan and his followers to erect
a building on his land in Yamacraw for a place of worship, of which
they were later artfully dispossessed. In the beginning of their
worship, frequent interruptions came from the whites. It was at a time
when many Negro slaves had absconded, and some had been taken away by
the British. This was an excuse for the wickedness of the whites, who
then became more cruel in whipping and imprisoning the worshipers,
undertaking to justify their action before the magistrates. When
George Liele was preaching in and near Savannah, he did not suffer
from such molestation, because the British then ruled the country, but
Andrew Bryan began his work under different conditions about the time
when Georgia became independent.

For refusing to discontinue his work Andrew Bryan was twice
imprisoned. Sampson, his brother, who was converted about one year
after Andrew was, remained with him, however, in all of his hard
trials. On one occasion about fifty slaves were severely whipped.
Among these was Andrew, who was cut and bled abundantly. While he was
yet under their lashes, Hambleton says he rejoiced, not only to be
scourged but would freely suffer death for the cause of Jesus Christ.
Jonathan Bryan, their kind master, was much affected and grieved over
their punishment and interceded for them. George Walton said "that
such treatment would be condemned even among barbarians."

They were brought before chief justices Henry Osborne, James Habersham
and David Montague, who released them. Chief Justice Osborne then gave
them liberty to continue their worship "between sunrising and sun
set."[200] Their master told the magistrate that he would give them
the liberty of his own house or barn, at a place called Brampton,
about three miles from town, and that they should not be interrupted
in their worship. They accepted the offer of Jonathan Bryan and
worshipped with little or no interruption at Brampton for about two
years. Many slaves thereafter attended the services held in the barn
at Brampton.

White preachers often visited his congregation. Lorenzo Dow, perhaps
the foremost white itinerant preacher of his time, on one occasion
preached to Bryan's congregation, while he was imprisoned, feeling
that in their hour of trial these Negroes especially needed his
encouragement. The whites to whom Dow preached offered him money, but
he did not take it as he did not wish the wrong construction put upon
his efforts nor to be deemed an impostor. As he was once leaving
Savannah, however, after he had been entertained largely by Negroes,
Andrew Bryan met him and, on shaking hands, gave him eleven and a half
dollars which the Negroes presented him as a donation. By these visits
of Dow and other preachers, Bryan and his followers were greatly
helped.[201] Among others who visited Bryan's church were Abraham
Marshall and Thomas Burton who examined and baptized about sixty in
this connection.

Reverend Mr. Marshall gave this congregation over his signature two
important certificates which follow:

     This is to certify that upon examination into the experiences and
     characters of a number of Ethiopians, and adjacent to Savannah,
     it appears that God has brought them out of darkness into the
     light of the Gospel, and given them fellowship one with the
     other; believing it is the will of Christ, we have constituted
     them a church of Jesus Christ.

On January 19, 1788, he sent Bryan the following:

     This is to certify, that the Ethiopian church of Jesus Christ at
     Savannah, have-called their beloved Andrew to the work of the
     ministry. We have examined into his qualifications, and believing
     it to be the will of the great head of the church, we have
     appointed him to preach the Gospel, and to administer the
     ordinances, as God in his providence may call.[202]

Out of the midst then of great persecutions Andrew Bryan became the
official head of an established church.

The death of Jonathan Bryan, the master of Andrew Bryan, marked an
epoch in the useful career of this pioneer preacher. By consent of the
parties concerned, he purchased his freedom for the sum of fifty
pounds. He then bought a lot in Yamacraw and built on it a residence
near the rough building Sampson Bryan had built some time before. When
the Bryan estate was finally divided, the lot on which Sampson had
been permitted to build became the property of an attorney, who
married a daughter of the deceased Mr. Bryan and received 12 pounds a
year for it. In these readjustments there were no serious
interruptions to the worship of Andrew Bryan's congregation. The seven
hundred members worshiped not only without molestation, but in the
presence, and with the approbation and encouragement of many of the
white people.[203]

With this large membership Bryan needed but did not have a regular
assistant. In his absence his brother Sampson preached for him.
Bryan's plan was to divide his church when the membership became too
large for him to serve it efficiently. This finally had to be done.
This branch of the church was organized as the Second African Baptist
Church of Savannah with Henry Francis, a slave of Colonel Leroy
Hammond, as pastor. Francis showed such remarkable ability that some
white men, who considered him unusual, purchased his freedom that he
might devote all of his time to his chosen work. Not many years
thereafter Bryan's church again reached the stage of having an
unwieldy number and it was further divided by organizing in another
part of the city the Third African Baptist Church.

Bryan exercised the greatest of care in his public and private
obligations and manifested much interest in his family. In 1800 he
wrote Dr. Rippon: "With much pleasure, I inform you, dear Sir, that I
enjoy good health, and am strong in body, at the age of sixty-three
years, and am blessed with a pious wife, whose freedom I have
obtained, and an only daughter and child who is married to a free man,
tho' she, and consequently under our laws, her seven children, five
sons and two daughters, are slaves. By a kind Providence I am well
provided for, as to worldly comforts, (tho' I have had very little
given me as a minister) having a house and lot in this city, besides
the land on which several buildings stand, for which I receive a small
rent, and a fifty-six acre tract of land, with all necessary
buildings, four miles in the country, and eight slaves; for whose
education and happiness, I am enabled thro' mercy to provide."[204]

His church became in the course of time the beacon light in the Negro
religious life of Georgia. From this center went other workers into
the inviting fields of that State, until the Negro preacher became
circumscribed during the thirties and forties by laws intended to
prevent such disturbances as were caused by Nat Turner in starting an
insurrection in Virginia. Andrew Bryan, however, did not live to see
this. He passed away in 1812, respected by all who knew him and loved
by his numerous followers.[205] He was succeeded by his nephew, Andrew
Marshall, who served that church so long that former slaves still
living have a recollection of his work among these people. In keeping
with its loyalty to its ministers, this congregation boasts even today
that in its long history it has had only a few ministers to serve it.

                                   JOHN W. DAVIS.


FOOTNOTES:

[186] He was sometimes called George Sharp.--See Benedict, _History of
the Baptists_, etc., p. 189.

[187] The facts of this article for the most part are taken from
letters written about the work of Liele and Bryan and from
correspondence concerning them published in London in the _Baptist
Annual Register_.

[188] Mr. Moore was an ordained Baptist minister, of Brooke County,
Georgia.

[189] THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY, I, p. 71.

[190] Under the influence of his preaching Liele's wife was converted
and baptized at Brunton Land.

[191] _Ibid._, p. 336.

[192] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1790-93, p. 334.

[193] _The Journal of Negro History_, I, pp. 71-72.

[194] _The Journal of Negro History_, I, p. 72.

[195] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1790-1793, p. 335.

[196] Benedict, _History of the Baptists_, p. 189.

[197] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1798-1801, p. 368.

[198] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1798-1801, p. 366.

[199] Dow, _History of the Cosmopolite_, p. 124.

[200] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1790-1793, p. 339.

[201] Dow, _Experience and Travels_, p. 125.

[202] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1790-1793, p. 340.

[203] _Ibid._, 1798-1800, p. 367.

[204] _The Baptist Annual Register_, 1798-1801, p. 368. _Ibid._,
1790-1793, p. 339.

[205] Benedict, _History of the Baptists_, pp. 790-791.




FIFTY YEARS OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY

PART I[206]


Howard University, in common with nearly all the larger private
institutions of learning in the southern and border States devoted to
the education of the Negro, was founded shortly after the Civil
War.[207] These institutions with a few exceptions were originally
supported by northern philanthropy, and their courses of study were
determined by the zealous missionaries from the North, who
successfully attempted to transplant among the freedmen the pedagogic
traditions of New England. That such a procedure, so vigorously
condemned on many sides when initiated but so gloriously justified in
its results, could have been possible may well prove a cause of wonder
to the student of education a century hence. And indeed, under
ordinary circumstances, the establishment of classical colleges and
schools of law, medicine and theology for a primitive people, unable
to read or write, would seem the height of folly. But the
circumstances were not ordinary. The situation was critical and
unusual remedies were required.

The close of the War of the Rebellion in 1865 witnessed something new
in the field of educational problems. A group numbering nearly four
millions was presented to the American nation for training in the
essentials of manhood and the duties of citizenship. The
apprenticeship which this group had served had been spent under a
system that did little more than acquaint them with the cruder tools
of industry and an imperfect use of a modern language. And while it
is true that many individual slaves acquired considerable skill in
industrial pursuits and a few became artisans of a rather high order,
the great mass of Negroes were laborers of the lowest class, requiring
the exercise of an intelligence but little above that of the beasts of
burden. On the side of the mastery of letters the best that can be
said by even the most generous students of this subject is that, at
the beginning of the year 1861, about ten per cent. of the adult
Negroes in the United States could read and write.[208]

From the standpoint of the white South the liberation of the slaves
had let loose upon the land what they considered a horde of
half-savage blacks, descendants of jungle tribes, inferior in every
respect to the white man and incapable of assimilating the knowledge
of the dominant race or of becoming citizens except in name only. In
addition to this attitude there remained in the South the traditional
idea that education was the peculiar privilege of the favored few of
the white race, and, except in its lowest reaches, a non-essential in
the life of the masses. At the close of the Civil War free public
schools were unknown in that section.[209] When it came to the
question of educating the Negro, all of the teachings and practice of
the South stamped it as a dangerous risk. To offer him the higher
courses of college and university grade was indeed an absurdity.

The North, on the other hand, looked upon the slave as a sufferer
released from an earthly torment and, because of his long period of
involuntary servitude, deserving of recompense of every kind that the
nation could bestow. As to his mental capacity, the North believed
that in order to rise from his degraded state and to take his place
among the races of civilized men the freedman awaited only the same
means of education that the Anglo-Saxon for centuries had enjoyed.
Whatever may be the judgment of history concerning these two
conflicting views, it is clear that the South had neither the
inclination nor the means to enter upon the task of educating the
Negro whereas the North was abundantly supplied with both.

Here, at any rate, was a situation offering the greatest opportunity
for the exercise of philanthropic zeal, both in the way of financial
aid and personal service. And to this call the North responded,
pouring out treasure, labor and love in a way that stamps the whole
movement of educating the Negro in America during the first half
century of his freedom as one of the most heroic examples of true
missionary zeal of all times. Those who took an active part in the
movement, including founders and teachers, seemed imbued with no other
idea than that of giving the best and in the largest measure. They
went to their tasks and took with them their ideals of human equality
and brotherhood. Every effort was bent toward raising the unfortunate
race to the level of their own standards of intellect, of society and
of morals. They, therefore, applied to the solution of the problem the
only educational machinery that they knew. Experiments in education
would not supply the immediate need. No man was to be limited in his
opportunities for intellectual development. Only his own desire and
capacities were to determine his limitations. Besides, such
opportunity was necessary for the training of leaders and must not be
denied. Howard University was a child of this movement and the
greatest embodiment of this idea.

The situation out of which this institution evolved requires some
comment. The abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and
later throughout the South resulted in a large influx of freedmen into
the National Capital until they formed one third of its population,
thus constituting the largest urban group of Negroes in the world. The
educational problem presented by this group was quickly realized by
various freedmen's aid organizations and philanthropic individuals
with the result that day and night schools were immediately
established for persons of all ages, providing instruction in the
elementary studies.[210] In the opinion of many the situation had
been fully met by the establishment of these elementary schools. The
task had been difficult and attended with much opposition and even
open violence. The problem of the future was the maintenance and
extension of such schools at their present grade. Others, on the other
hand, considering the task only half done, believed that their duty
would be fully discharged only when an institution of higher learning
had been established at the capital of the nation, where Negro youth
could be trained for positions of leadership.

"Such an Institution," said one of the founders of Howard University,
"was demanded by the necessities of the great educational movement
which was inaugurated among the freed people at the close of the late
war. When primary, secondary and grammar schools were being opened
throughout the South, for the benefit of a class hitherto wholly
deprived of educational advantages, it became evident that
institutions of a higher grade were needed for the training of the
teachers and ministers who were to labor in this field. It was with a
view of supplying this need that Howard University was founded."[211]
On November 17, 1866, at the Columbia Law Building opposite Judiciary
Square in Washington, was uttered the first word from which the idea
of Howard University evolved. Using this building as a temporary house
of worship, members of the First Congregational Church[212] were on
that date holding a meeting on missions with Dr. C. B. Boynton, the
pastor of the church. After remarks by several persons concerning
various phases of the duty of the country towards the freedmen,
Reverend Benjamin F. Morris, a son of former Senator Thomas A. Morris,
of Ohio, arose to speak. He referred to his surprise and gratification
at the remarkable showing made in theological studies, by half a dozen
young colored men in an examination which he had recently witnessed.
These were students in what was then known as Wayland Institute, which
had at that time only one teacher. In this enthusiasm he expressed the
wish that the Congregational Church might some day establish a
theological school at the capital of the nation.[213]

The seed thus sown found such fruitful soil in the minds of the pastor
and Reverend Danforth B. Nichols that they, with Mr. Morris, resolved
to see the plan carried out at a subsequent meeting to be held at the
residence of Mr. Henry H. Brewster for the purpose of establishing a
New Missionary Society. At this meeting there prevailed the idea that
such a society was not needed for the reason that the American
Missionary Association was already occupying this field. Mr. Morris
thereupon took the floor and advocated the establishment of a
theological school for the preparation of colored men for the ministry
to work in the South and to go as missionaries to Africa. Dr. Boynton
supported the plan and urged immediate action; Dr. Nichols, in
answering objections raised concerning the financing of the project,
suggested the possibility of aid from the Freedmen's Bureau, an idea
which marked the beginning of the relationship of the University with
the Federal Government.

At the next meeting, a committee appointed to bring in a plan of
organization, recommended that a night school be opened at first; that
application be made to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for
quarters, fuel and light for the school; and that three chairs of
instruction be established. These recommendations were adopted and the
first faculty appointed comprised the following: Evidences and
Biblical Interpretation, Reverend E. W. Robinson; Biblical History
and Geography, Reverend D. B. Nichols; Anatomy and Physiology, Dr.
Silas Loomis. Thus was the University born with neither a local
habitation nor a name. It was styled a Theological Institute and its
aim was "the education of the colored youth for the ministry."[214]

The development of plans for this new educational center was rapid.
Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, who had become greatly interested in the
movement, suggested at first an extension of the original idea so as
to include the training of teachers. Later he made a motion that the
doors be thrown open to all who wished to enter. This proposition was
heartily agreed to, and Howard was given the distinction of being the
first University in America to be established without some restriction
based on race, sex, creed or color.[215] At a later meeting held to
consider the charter, it was decided to embrace in that instrument
university privileges and to provide for the departments of theology,
law and medicine.

When the question of a name was reached several were suggested and
rejected. Finally Dr. Nichols proposed that the University bear the
name of "The American Philanthropist, the Commissioner of the
Freedmen's Bureau, the true friend of the downtrodden and oppressed of
every color and nation of the Earth," General Oliver Otis Howard.[216]
This was enthusiastically adopted with but one dissenting vote, that
of General Howard himself, who felt that his usefulness to the new
institution would be greater under another name than his.

The act of incorporation was drawn by Senator Pomeroy, of Kansas, and
presented to the Senate by Henry Wilson, of Massachusetts, afterwards
Vice-President of the United States under Grant. Senator Pomeroy was
one of the incorporators and a member of the first board of trustees.
Senator Wilson had attended several of the organization meetings and
was an enthusiastic supporter of the plan. The bill passed both houses
of Congress and became a law when President Andrew Johnson affixed his
signature, March 2, 1867. The first meeting of the corporation was
held at the residence of Mr. Brewster for the purpose of organizing
the board of trustees. This board was made to include the seventeen
incorporators with the addition of General G. W. Balloch who was
elected treasurer.

The preliminaries disposed of, the University began its work by
opening classes in the Normal and Preparatory Departments united on
the first of the following May. The first student body consisting of
five pupils were altogether young white women, the daughters of
trustees Robinson and Nichols.[217] The recitations were held in a
rented frame building, previously used as a German dance hall and
saloon, which stood on the east side of what is now Georgia Avenue, a
short distance south of W Street.[218] The building and lot were later
purchased by the University but finally sold when the classes were
removed to their permanent home.

The selection of the permanent site for the University is due largely
to the fortunate combination of judgment, persistence and faith
characteristic of General Howard. He, with General E. Whittlesey,
acting as a committee on the selection of a site, wished to procure
the commanding elevation in the northern part of the city where the
University now stands. This was part of the tract of 150 acres known
as _Effingham_ and owned by John A. Smith. On the plea that the
location of a Negro school would depreciate the remainder of his
property, the owner refused to sell any part of it. After much
argument, General Howard asked him to state his price for the whole
farm. The rate given was one thousand dollars an acre, making a total
valuation of $150,000, a staggering sum under the circumstances.
Undaunted, however, General Howard closed the bargain, although the
treasury of the University was without a single dollar. Adjustments
brought the final purchase price for the property down to $147,500,
for which the corporation made itself responsible.[219]

With the exception of about thirty acres, the land was divided into
lots and sold at a price averaging about four times its original
cost.[220] The part reserved consisted of the main campus now
occupied by the academic building, dormitories and residences; the
site of the Medical School and the old Freedmen's Hospital; and a park
between the two covering four city blocks.[221]

The main part of the purchase price for the property was supplied by
the Freedmen's Bureau. The funds from the sale of the property not
needed for University purposes were placed in the treasury to be used
for the construction of buildings.[222] The corporation received
additional grants from the Freedmen's Bureau, bringing the sum
obtained from this source to about $500,000.[223] With these funds
several residences for professors and four large buildings were
erected; namely University Hall, Miner Hall, Clark Hall and the
Medical Building. Clark Hall, the boys' dormitory, was named in honor
of David Clark, of Hartford, Connecticut, who contributed $25,000
toward the support of the University. Miner Hall, the dormitory for
girls, was named in honor of Miss Myrtilla Miner, one of the pioneers
in the education of colored girls in the District of Columbia.[224]

The early financial management of the University soon brought it into
difficulties. The hopeful spirit of the times and the enthusiasm and
faith of those in charge of the enterprise were responsible for the
too rapid expansion of the first few years of the existence of the
institution which resulted in a constantly growing deficit. A
financial statement for the first eight years up to June 30, 1875,
leaving out of account the value of lands and buildings given by the
Government and of borrowed funds, shows receipts of $645,067.30 and
expenditures of $744,914.56, leaving a deficit of nearly $100,000. At
the annual meeting of the trustees, May 31, 1873, it was decided that
a retrenchment of one half the current expenses would be necessary in
order to avert disaster. To effect this the management had to make
radical readjustment in the faculties and in the salary schedule. To
this end every salaried officer in the University resigned upon the
request of the trustees.

In reestablishing the faculties the basis was one of rigid economy and
the only way by which the situation could be saved; for the
nation-wide financial crisis of 1873 and the lean years that followed
precluded the possibility of any increase in the income. The success
of this measure[225] is indicated by the fact that the immediate
expenses of the University were reduced from $57,160.40 in 1872 to
$9,446.19 in 1877. "This heroic treatment," says former President
Patton, "far too long delayed, saved the institution, but it cost it
much in professors, in students and in prestige." The vessel escaped
shipwreck with loss of many of the crew and passengers and a lot of
her cargo. The professional departments were cut off from any support
from the general funds, and remanded to receipts from tuition fees and
special donations. College professorships were reduced from $2,500 to
$1,200 and a residence worth $300; and the salaries of other officers
were similarly reduced. Incidentals were brought down to the lowest
living figure, and finally, with half the main building and a large
part of the dormitories closed, the point was reached at which the
income covered expenses.[226]

                                   DWIGHT O. W. HOLMES.


FOOTNOTES:

[206] The most easily available information concerning the history of
Howard University is contained in a number of short sketches,
speeches, reports, announcements, and the like, in pamphlet form, and
a well-prepared volume of three hundred pages by Dr. Daniel S. Lamb
giving the history of the Medical Department up to 1900. These with
the files and annual catalogs have been freely used in the preparation
of this sketch.

[207] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, 1896.

[208] Woodson, _The Education of the Negro Prior to 1861_, p. 228.

[209] Albert Bushnell Hart, _The Southern South_, pp. 289-291.

[210] Probably the most famous of these early schools was the normal
school for girls opened by Miss Myrtilla Miner, December 3, 1851, and
chartered under the name "Institution for the Education of Colored
Youth," under the Miner Board. In 1879 it was taken over by the public
school system of the District as the Myrtilla Miner Normal School.
From 1871 to 1876 it worked cooperatively with the Normal Department
of Howard University.

[211] _Annual Report of the President of Howard University, September
2, 1869._

[212] The relationship between the First Congregational Church and
Howard University has been very close from the first. Three of its
pastors have become presidents of the University, Doctors Rankin,
Boynton and Newman. The church building at the corner of Tenth and G
Streets has always been available for use for University exercises
when needed. For many years the commencement exercises of various
departments were held regularly in that auditorium.

[213] Danforth B. Nichols, _The Genesis of Howard University_, 1892,
p. 4.

[214] Nichols, _The Genesis of Howard University_, 1892, pp. 5, 6.

[215] Dean Robert Reyburn, _Address at the Inauguration of President
John Gordon_, 1904, p. 9.

[216] "Oliver Otis Howard, the founder of the University, and the one
whose name it bears, and who was president from April 5, 1869, to
December 1, 1873, was born in Leeds, Maine, November 8, 1830. He was
graduated at Bowdoin, 1850, and at West Point in 1854. He was
instructor in mathematics at West Point in 1854 and resigned in 1861
to take command of the Third Maine Regiment in the War of the
Rebellion, in which he served with distinction. For gallantry at the
first battle of Bull Run he was made Brigadier-General, September 3.
He lost his arm at Fair Oaks, June 1, 1862, and was in the battle of
Antietam. In November, 1863, he was made General of Volunteers. He
commanded the Eleventh Corps under General Hooker, served at
Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge,
and was assigned to the Army of the Tennessee. In the march to the sea
he commanded the right wing of Sherman's army, and was brevetted
Major-General in the regular army for gallant conduct in the campaign
of Atlanta. He was Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau from March,
1865, to July, 1864, when he was assigned to the command of the
Department of the Columbia. In 1877 he led the expedition against the
Nez Perces Indians and in 1878 against the Bannocks and Piutes. In
1881-1882 he was Superintendent of the United States Military Academy
at West Point. In 1886 he was commissioned Major-General in the
regular army.

"In 1863 he was made A.M. by Bowdoin College, and LL.D. in 1865 by
Watervelt College. The same degree was given him by Shurtliff College
and Gettysburg University. He was made Chevalier of the Legion of
Honor of France in 1884. He published war articles in the _Century_
and some stories that are partly autobiographical; also _Chief Joseph_
and the _Life of Count Gasparin_. In 1892 he was commander of the
Department of the Atlantic, and the second in command of the United
States Army. Major-General Howard died at Burlington, Vermont, October
26, 1909."--J. E. Rankin, _Presidents of Howard University_, pp.
11-12.

[217] James B. Johnson, _Address at the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of
Howard University_, 1892, p. 18.

[218] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, 1896, p.
30.

[219] The tract as originally purchased may be approximately described
as extending eastward to the Soldiers' Home grounds and including
almost the entire present site of the reservoir (not including the
extreme eastward projection) and running south on its eastern boundary
to V Street. Its southern boundary was an irregular line passing south
of the Medical School building and including a small part of the
ground now occupied by the American League baseball park. Its northern
boundary toward the east extended up to and at one point a little
beyond what is now Hobart Street, tapering toward the west and meeting
Georgia Avenue at Fairmount Street. The western, boundary followed
Georgia Avenue to Howard Place, whence it followed Sixth Street to the
southern boundary.

[220] Daniel S. Lamb, _Howard University Medical Department_, 1900, p.
2.

[221] This park was at one time surrendered to the Federal government
for the remission of back taxes and exemption from further taxation.
Later, when the new Freedmen's Hospital was about to be erected on
that site the ground was transferred back to the University. The
ground is now leased by the government from Howard University for a
rental of one dollar a year.

[222] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, p. 17.

[223] The Freedmen's Bureau was established in 1866 by the Federal
government for the purpose of promoting the general welfare of the
freedmen. General Howard was made commissioner of the organization and
held this office until 1872, when it was discontinued. It was through
this relation with the Freedmen's Bureau that the University became
the creature and ward of the Federal Government, a relation that has
been maintained continuously ever since.

The commissioner of the bureau was granted large powers, including the
control of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from slave
States or from any district or county within the territory embraced in
the operations of the army, under such rules and regulations as might
be prescribed by the head of the bureau and the President.

General Howard during the existence of the bureau disbursed
approximately $13,000,000 in various ways. Much of this was used for
educational purposes, including all grades of work. Among some of the
beneficiaries of this fund were Lincoln University, Wilberforce
University, Berea College, Fisk University, Biddle University,
Straight University and Lincoln Institute. In his efforts to enable
the people of the District of Columbia to share the benefits of this
fund the commissioner offered to erect a building for a certain
denominational institution located in Washington at that time, on the
condition that it become undenominational. The offer was declined,
whereupon the trustees of Howard University immediately made
application to receive this Federal aid. Because of the location of
the proposed institution at the nation's capital the application was
favorably acted upon and liberal appropriations made so that the
institution might stand as a monument to the nation's philanthropy.

As these large expenditures for Howard University with the other
operations of the bureau brought upon General Howard charges of
malfeasance, which led to two investigations, it should be said here
that both of the official investigations, one civil, the other
military, completely exonerated him.--See _Report of Special Committee
of the Trustees of Howard University upon Certain Charges_, etc.,
1873, and _Act of March 3, 1865, establishing the Bureau of Refugees,
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands_.

[224] It is worthy of note that the magnificent new home of the
Myrtilla Miner Normal School of Washington is named in honor of the
same noble woman. It stands on a site formerly owned by the University
and looks upon Miner Hall several hundred yards away across the
campus.

[225] Much credit for the skillful financial management of the
institution during these critical times is due to the secretary and
treasurer, Mr. James B. Johnson, who was a potent factor in the early
struggles of the institution. He was secretary and treasurer for many
years, dying while still in service in 1898.

[226] William M. Patton, _The History of Howard University_, 1896, pp.
21, 22.




MORE ABOUT THE HISTORICAL ERRORS OF JAMES FORD RHODES


In its issue of October, 1917, THE JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY published
an article of which I am the author, pointing out some of the
historical errors made by Mr. Rhodes in his "_History of the United
States from the Compromise of 1850 to the Final Restoration of Home
Rule at the South in 1877_." Since it appears that Mr. Rhodes has no
personal knowledge of the important historical events referred to, he
sent a copy of the journal containing the article to a friend who was
presumed to be better informed along those lines. Mr. Rhodes referred
to him as an expert, with the request that he make a careful
examination of the article and write a reply to the same, or perhaps
to make such comments as would furnish Mr. Rhodes with the information
desired. I have been favored, through a mutual friend, with a copy of
that reply, which is now before me and to which I shall now proceed to
make a reply.

In a labored effort to weaken the force of what I have written, this
expert in his opening generalization made several observations which
may be classed under three different heads: first, if the white men
referred to by me were of such a high character, why should the acts
accredited to them have been of such a low character? second, that I
am influenced in what I write about that period by racial bias and the
fact that I was an active participant in the events referred to;
third, that what I write is based upon my own experience and memory,
much of which is liable to be inaccurate through the treachery of
memory, the same not being fortified by references to other historical
works.

This expert says:

     An obvious general comment on the article is that if the
     Reconstruction period throughout the South and in Mississippi in
     particular was engineered and controlled by men of such high
     character as Mr. Lynch records, why should the acts accredited
     to them have been of such a low character? It is not enough to
     say that there were "mistakes"; the measures were too numerous
     and systematic for this. It is to be noticed that Mr. Lynch does
     not attempt to controvert statements of events in Mississippi,
     with one or two exceptions to be considered below. To attempt to
     review the conclusions to which Mr. Lynch takes exception would
     involve a review of too great a mass of evidence. The web of
     Reconstruction is such a tangled one, that even if one has
     carefully considered a large part of the great bulk of primary
     material on the subject, generalizations on the period must still
     be accepted cautiously. This much may be said: Mr. Rhodes's
     conclusions are in harmony with those of the other trained
     historical students who have devoted time to a careful study of
     this period. Mr. Lynch's racial bias, the fact that he was an
     active participant in the events, and finally that his judgments
     are based on his own experiences and not on a closer study of a
     far wider field of material, make whatever he writes of value as
     source material, but at the same time mitigate against its value
     as an impartial opinion. This is especially evident from the fact
     that he makes no attempt either in the article or in his book to
     substantiate his statements by such references to his authorities
     as modern historiography demands. His authority is of course,
     himself and his recollections, and the recognition of the
     treachery of the memory is a first fundamental in historical
     work.

Referring to my contention that thousands of white men were identified
with the Republican party during the Reconstruction period he further
says:

     A comparison of census and election statistics do not give
     support to this fact; and tho such figures are far from exact,
     they give a basis for generalizing superior to that of any
     personal recollection, or, indeed, of anything short of a general
     agreement of contemporary statements to the contrary. No such
     agreement exists so far as I have been able to search. In
     Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, and to less extent in
     Virginia and Texas, there were a considerable number of white
     Republicans; but in the other southern states in no election
     between 1868 and 1872 did the Republican vote equal the census
     figures for Negroes of voting age in 1870. The nearest approach
     to this was in South Carolina in 1870, when the Republican vote
     for governor was 85,000 and the Negroes of voting age 85,400. In
     Mississippi the nearest approach was in the vote for Grant in
     1872, when there were 82,000 votes against the census figures of
     90,000. The machinery for getting out the Negro vote, and it was
     Republican machinery, was such as to permit the assumption that
     an unusually large percentage of the Negroes voted at the
     elections.

Undertaking to prove that Dent was not a carpet-bagger, he says:

     Tho supported by the Democrats he was nominated by a faction of
     Republicans; moreover, he was a Missourian by birth, had family
     connections in Mississippi, and had, while living in California
     married the daughter of a prominent Mississippian. He was
     scarcely a typical carpet-bagger. That there should have been a
     split in the Republican party of the state so early is not a very
     good argument for the character of the leaders or of the measures
     they endorsed.

     Of the high hopes of such men as Alcorn there can be no doubt;
     but scarcely less doubtful was the failure to realize their
     hopes. Alcorn himself favored Negro disfranchisement in 1890.

Referring to others, the expert continues:

     Judges Peyton was a Republican, Tarbell a carpet-bagger, but
     Simrall is generally classed as a Democrat. He was chairman of
     the state legislative committee that reported in favor of
     rejecting the 14th Amendment. Riley classes him as a Democrat, as
     does Garner, tho Mayes calls him a moderate Republican, of the
     same class as Dent. Tarbell seems to have been a good judge.
     Garner is lukewarm in his appreciation, but Lamar said that "his
     decisions attest his extraordinary ability and industry." All
     commend his uprightness. Tarbell in 1887 called himself a
     conservative carpetbagger, one who found himself in the minority.
     He said that the Republican party in Mississippi collapsed
     through its own weakness; having devised a constitution in which
     "there was much to praise and to be proud of, and little to
     condemn," the party gave birth to legislation of which "the
     criticism is, in a measure, reversed."[227] The judiciary was the
     best department of government under Reconstruction in
     Mississippi.

Taking up the question of ignorant Negro office holders, he says:

     All that I find as to Evans, except Garner's statement of "it was
     alleged," is in an account of Reconstruction in De Soto County,
     written by I. C. Nichols in the publication of the Miss. Hist.
     Soc., XI, 307. He does not say that Evans could not read or
     write, but that his "bondsmen really administered his affairs and
     ran his office." At one time there was a charge of defalcation
     against him, but nothing specific, and Nichols concludes that
     nothing really was wrong. After this some changes were made in
     his bondsmen and "R. R. West was put in charge of the office and
     became Sheriff in all but name." West was, perhaps, one of the
     "honest, efficient, and capable assistants." Evans had been a
     slave. In Washington County there was also a negro sheriff,
     Winslow by name. Mr. Lynch does not mention him, but according to
     the testimony of H. B. Putnam, a carpet-bagger, Winslow was
     "nominally" sheriff, but his bondsmen ran the office; the
     sheriff, tho he could read and write, was "incompetent to take
     charge of his office," which was worth $10,000 or $15,000 a year
     legitimately, and, according to a white Democrat, about $100,000
     by other means.[228] Scott of Issaquena, whom Mr. Lynch mentions,
     testified before the Boutwell committee, and so far as can be
     judged by that testimony he was a man of fair intelligence, tho
     according to the testimony of one of his own race, not endowed
     with rash courage.[229] The testimony of another carpet-bagger,
     with reference to Holmes County, is interesting, tho it does not
     show whether the sheriff-elect was white or black. He was
     probably not Sumner, as this man never served in the office. This
     carpet-bagger said that the sheriff of the county having died and
     this man elected to fill the vacancy the successor arranged to
     have the witness assist in making the bond. "Other gentlemen
     hesitated to go on the bond unless I would go there and be
     responsible for the running of the office." The man was prevented
     from taking office so nothing came of the arrangement. On the
     whole such first-hand material as I have been able to find does
     not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of
     officials, especially as to his footnote statement about their
     dishonesty; neither does it give the impression that they were
     worthy, as a whole, of the important positions they occupied. If
     Evans, as described by Rhodes, following Garner, was not typical,
     neither was Bruce.

     Mr. Lynch gives figures for 1875 and 1907 on financial matters
     and on the basis of these claims that the profligacy of
     Reconstruction finances is not proven. The manifest unfairness of
     taking figures for 1907 may be passed over; but the necessary
     basis of comparison must be wider than this. Nor do his
     conclusions agree with any others that I have seen, nor, which is
     more important, with other statistics. Both those of the census
     or those given annually by Appletons' Annual Cyclopædia lead to
     other conclusions. Just as an illustration of what is said on the
     other side take this statement, which seems to be that of the
     land tax. This was 1 mill in 1869, 5 mills in 1870, 4 mills in
     1871, 8-1/2 mills in 1872, 12-1/2 mills in 1873, 14 mills in
     1874, 9-1/4 mills in 1875, 6-1/2 mills in 1876, 6-1/5 mills in
     1877, 3-1/2 mills in 1878. Another point that should be
     considered is that Mr. Lynch confines his figures to state
     finances; while it is for local finances that the Reconstruction
     government of Mississippi is most severely condemned.

Conceding a point in this case, he says:

     Mr. Lynch is correct in saying that the Mississippi senators at
     the time of the state election of 1875 were Alcorn and Bruce.
     Pease had been succeeded by Bruce on March 4 of that year. Pease
     opposed Ames but he was no longer senator.

     Mr. Lynch, in upholding the Reconstruction policy of Stevens and
     Sumner and what he calls their desire to delay restoration, seems
     to have overlooked the fact that the wisest of all the Civil War
     statesmen desired to get the states back into the Union before
     Congress should meet in December, 1865. Mr. Lynch is right in
     thinking that the 14th Amendment was essentially a correct
     measure, but so also does Mr. Rhodes. The 15th Amendment is quite
     a different proposition, however. Nor does it follow, because
     legislation of some sort might have been necessary to enforce the
     14th Amendment or to take its place when the South refused to
     adopt it, that the Reconstruction Acts were the legitimate
     offspring of that necessity. That the negro soldiers helped to
     win the war is not proof that the war would have failed without
     them, or that the necessary price of their valor was suffrage for
     all the men of their race, the bulk of whom were not capable of
     understanding it; or that such suffrage was necessary to the
     preservation of the Union. Oratory, inside or outside of
     Congress, is not historical proof.

Directing attention to my idea of the undoing of Reconstruction he
maintains:

     Mr. Lynch's statement that the failure of Reconstruction was due
     to unwise judicial interpretation need not be considered. It is
     anachronistic and does not agree with the views now generally
     accepted by historical students. But what he says of the
     infidelity of Waite and Bradley can be refuted directly from the
     Supreme Court Reports. As to the appointment of these justices,
     there is no evidence that it was because of any specially strong
     nationalistic position on their part. Bradley, if chosen for any
     particular views, got the justiceship because of his attitude on
     legal tender; and the conditions under which Waite was appointed
     do not show up any such bias on his part. In U. S. _v._ Reese the
     court stood seven to two; and the dissentients were Clifford, a
     Democrat, and Hunt, appointed by Grant.

     In U. S. _v._ Harris (the Ku Klux decision) Woods delivered the
     decision. Harlan alone dissented and only on the question of
     jurisdiction. The bench at that time held two judges appointed by
     Lincoln, two by Grant, two by Hayes, one by Garfield, and two by
     Arthur. The Civil Rights Cases decision was delivered by Bradley.
     Harlan was the only dissenter. These were the three important
     Reconstruction decisions during the term of Waite and Bradley.
     All of them were delivered after Reconstruction had failed. On
     the other hand, Bradley delivered the opinion in Ex parte
     Siebold, in which the federal election laws were upheld, and
     Field and Clifford were the only ones who disagreed with it.

In the first place, I frankly confess that what I have written and
shall write in defense of the reconstructed governments at the South
has been and will be of very little value if it were conceded that the
acts accredited to the men to whom I have referred were of a low
character. This is the very point upon which the public has been
misinformed, misled and deceived. I do not hesitate to assert that the
Southern Reconstructed Governments were the best governments those
States ever had before or have ever had since, statements and
allegations made by Mr. Rhodes and some other historical writers to
the contrary notwithstanding. It is not claimed that they were
perfect, but they were a decided improvement on those they succeeded
and they were superior in every way to those which are representative
of what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term the restoration of home rule.
They were the first and only governments in that section that were
based upon the consent of the governed. If Mr. Rhodes honestly
believed that what he wrote in condemnation and denunciation of those
governments was based upon authenticated facts, then the most
charitable view that can be taken in his case is that he, like
thousands of others, is simply an innocent victim of a gross
deception.

In the second place, whether or not I am influenced by racial ties or
partisan bias in what I have written and may hereafter write, I am
willing to allow the readers to decide. I am sure that they have not
failed to see from what I have thus far written, that the controlling
purpose with me is to give actual facts, free from racial partiality
or partisan bias. If some of the things I have written appear
otherwise, it is due to the fact that the misrepresentations I am
pointing out and correcting have been in the opposite direction. The
idea that I have endeavored to keep in mind is, that what the readers
and students of American history desire to know is the unbiased truth
about the important events of the period in question and not the
judgment and opinions of the person or persons by whom they are
recorded.

In the third place, the statement that the value of what I have
written is impaired because what is said about the important events of
the period in question is based in the main upon my own knowledge and
experience, must impress the intelligent reader as being strange and
unusual. He discredits what I say too because I do not make reference
to source materials. What this expert himself has to say is, like most
studies of Reconstruction, based on ex-parte evidence which is in
violation of all rules governing modern historical writing. No just
judge would rely altogether on the testimony of one's enemies to
determine the truth.

With reference to the period under consideration, the difference
between what I have written and what has been written by Mr. Rhodes
and some other historical writers is what the lawyers would call the
difference between primary and secondary evidence. The primary is
always considered the best evidence, the secondary to be used only
when the primary can not be obtained. And yet what I have written is
not based wholly upon memory. It is only so with reference to
distinguished persons and important events and tendencies, which are
not likely to be inaccurate through the treachery of memory. The
statistical information I have given is not from memory, but from the
files of the official records which are accessible to the public. But
it appears that Mr. Rhodes and some other historical writers used only
such parts of the official records as answered the purpose they seemed
to have in view, which evidently was to mislead and deceive the
public. This is virtually admitted by Mr. Rhodes's expert, in stating
that "the point Mr. Lynch makes about the defalcation of Hemingway is
an interesting one, and one that is evidently carefully kept in the
background by the local writers." Yes, they not only kept that point
in the background, but all other points that were not in harmony with
the purpose they seemed to have in mind, which was evidently one of
deception and misrepresentation.

The reader will not fail to see that Mr. Rhodes's nameless expert
passed over in silence a number of important points in my article.
Some of those alluded to by him he frankly admitted to be right, as in
the case of Treasurer Hemingway. In the case of Mr. Evans, the Negro
sheriff of De Soto County, he relies upon a statement written by a Mr.
Nichols of that county who was evidently a partisan, who makes an
effort to paint Mr. Evans in as unfavorable a light as possible, and
yet he fails to confirm the allegation that Mr. Evans could neither
read nor write, but concludes his communication with the declaration
"that nothing really was wrong." Judging from what is written by Mr.
Rhodes's expert I conclude that Garner is the one from whom Mr. Rhodes
obtained most of his misinformation. Yet in speaking of the Negro
sheriffs in a general way Mr. Rhodes's expert was frank enough to say:
"On the whole such first-hand material as I have been able to find
does not uphold Garner entirely in his estimate of this class of
officials, especially as to his footnote statement about their
dishonesty." This bears out the statement made by me that if Mr.
Rhodes had desired to be fair and impartial he would have taken all
the colored sheriffs into consideration and would have drawn an
average, which would have shown that in point of intelligence,
capacity and honesty they would have compared favorably with the
whites.

The assertion made by me that the Republican party in the State of
Mississippi included in its membership many of the best and most
substantial white men in that State is disputed because the Republican
vote in the State at the Presidential election of 1872 happened to be
only a few thousand less than the number of Negroes in the State of
voting age, as shown by the census of 1870. It is, therefore, assumed
that very few if any white men voted the Republican ticket at that
election. To ascertain the voting strength of a political party census
figures cannot be relied upon with any degree of certainty, but since
Mr. Rhodes's expert seems to think otherwise I am perfectly willing to
accept them in this instance for what they may be worth. The number of
Negroes of voting age in the State at that time, as shown by the
census of 1870, was 88,850; whites 76,909, colored majority, 11,941,
and yet the Republican majority in 1872 was 34,887. If the voting
strength of the two parties were in proportion to the number of blacks
and whites in the State, as this expert would have the public believe,
and the percentage of blacks and whites who voted were about the same,
which can be safely assumed, the Republican majority in that case
could not have been more than 12,000, whereas it was nearly three
times that number. Assuming that the Republican and Democratic vote
combined comprised the whole number that voted at that election, the
total number of votes polled was 129,463, which was 36,296 less than
the number of voters in the State. Of the 36,296 that did not vote I
estimate that at least 16,000 of them were white men. Subtract the
16,000 from the 76,909 white voters and it will be seen that the
number of white men that voted at that election was 60,909, and yet
the Democratic vote was 47,288, which was 13,621 less than the number
of white men that voted. My own estimate is that of the 82,175
Republican votes, 61,266 were cast by the blacks and 20,909 by the
whites. Of the 47,288 Democratic votes, 40,000 were cast by the whites
and 7,288 by the blacks.

From the above estimate it will be seen that more than one third of
the white men that voted at that election voted the Republican ticket.
This estimate is strengthened when the result of the election in the
different counties is taken into consideration. The Republicans not
only carried every county in which the Negro voters had a majority,
but also a number of counties in which the whites were in the
majority. The majority by which the State was carried by Alcorn in
1869 was about the same as that by which it was carried by Grant in
1872. Alcorn not only carried a number of white counties, but ten of
them elected Republicans to the Legislature, two of them, Lawrence and
Marion, elected each a Negro member. The ten counties were Pike,
Lawrence, Marion, Jackson, Jasper, Clark, Lee, Leak, Lafayette and
Attala. Judge Green C. Chandler, afterwards a judge of the Circuit
Court and later U. S. District Attorney, was elected from Clark. Hon.
H. W. Warren, who succeeded Judge Franklin as Speaker of the House,
was elected from Leak, Judge Jason Niles and Hon. E. Boyd, both able
and brilliant lawyers, were elected from Attala. Judge Niles was
afterwards appointed a Judge of the Circuit Court and later served as
a Republican member of Congress.

In the opinion of this expert Judge Dent, the Democratic candidate for
Governor in 1869, was scarcely a typical carpet-bagger because he was
born in Missouri and had family connections in Mississippi. Still if
he were not a typical carpet-bagger, then we had none in the State,
because the designation included all those that settled in the State
after the war was over. Judge Dent was one of that number. But I may
be able to give Mr. Rhodes what was believed to be the principal
reason that influenced the Democrats to support Judge Dent. He was
President Grant's brother-in-law. Hence it was hoped and believed that
in this case family ties would prove to be stronger than party ties
and that the national administration would support Dent instead of
Alcorn, the Ex-Confederate. But in this case they were mistaken. Grant
had been elected as a Republican, and he could not be induced to throw
the weight of his influence against his own party, even in a State
election, merely to contribute to the realization of the personal
ambition of his wife's brother. It is true that a few men who called
themselves Republicans also supported Judge Dent, but the result of
the election was conclusive evidence that the so-called split in the
party was not at all serious.

Speaking of the three Supreme Court Judges, the expert admits that
Peyton and Tarbell were Republicans, but Simrall, he claims, is
generally classed as a Democrat. In support of this assertion
attention is called to the fact, among others, that he was chairman of
the State legislative committee that reported in favor of rejecting
the 14th Amendment. But that was before the passage of the
Reconstruction Acts and before the Republican party in the State was
organized. Judge Simrall joined the Republican party in 1868 or 1869.
What I asserted and now repeat is that he was a Republican when he was
made a Justice of the State Supreme Court in 1870. Even if he, like
thousands of others, rejoined the Democratic party, that would not
disprove my assertion that he was a Republican while he was on the
bench. But it appears that he was not one of those that rejoined the
Democrats, but remained a Republican to the day of his death. In 1884,
nine years after the _Redemption_, he canvassed the State for Blaine
and Logan, Republican candidates for President and Vice-President. In
1890 the Democrats of Warren County in selecting suitable persons to
represent them in the State Constitutional Convention to be held in
the fall of that year were anxious to have the benefit of the
knowledge, ability and experience of Judge Simrall. They took the
liberty of placing his name on their ticket to which it appears he
made no objection, and in that way he was elected a delegate to that
convention. But did that make him a Democrat? I am sure both Mr.
Rhodes and his expert will allow Judge Sim rail to answer that
question for himself and that they will accept his answer as
conclusive on that point. For his answer to that question they are
respectfully referred to page 704 of the official journal of the
Constitutional Convention of 1890. They will see that the members of
the convention were politically classified. Each member, of course,
furnished the information about his own party affiliations. It will be
seen that Judge Sim rail is classified as a "National Republican."
Ex-Governor Alcorn was also a member of that convention, having been
elected from Coahoma County in the same way. His political
classification is that of a "Conservative." So it seems that neither
Sim rail nor Alcorn rejoined the Democratic party. Instead, therefore,
of Republicans being obliged to utilize Democratic material in the
selection of Judges, as erroneously stated by Mr. Rhodes, it seems
that the Democrats were obliged to utilize Republican talent,
experience and ability to assist them in framing a new constitution. I
am sure the assertion can be safely made that Sim rail and Alcorn were
not among the "lovers of good government" who rejoiced "at the
redemption of Mississippi" through the employment of means that Mr.
Rhodes so much regretted.

"The judiciary," the expert asserts, "was the best department of
government under Reconstruction in Mississippi," and yet the Judges
were all appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate. It goes without saying that if the Governor's
appointees were good, the appointing power was equally as good. The
expert virtually admits that there was no justification for the
declaration that "all lovers of good government must rejoice at the
redemption of Mississippi," when he used the following language: "Mr.
Lynch confines his figures to state finances; while it was for local
finances that the Reconstruction government of Mississippi is most
severely condemned." In other words, there was nothing wrong with the
State administration; it was the local county and municipal
governments that were bad. And yet, a fair and impartial investigation
will reveal the fact that there is no more foundation for this
allegation than for those about the State government. It is admitted
that during the early part of Reconstruction the local tax rate was
high, the reasons for which are fully explained in _The Facts of
Reconstruction_. Such an investigation would show that the charges of
extravagance, recklessness and maladministration so generally made
about the administration of county and municipal affairs were grossly
exaggerated and nearly, if not all of them wholly untrue. In fact, the
expert flatly contradicts himself on this point, because he admits
that the evidence does not support the charge of dishonesty in the
case of the Negro sheriffs, and yet the sheriff is the principal
officer in the administration of the county government.

With reference to the financial affairs of the State the expert makes
no effort to disprove a single statement I have made. He simply makes
the broad statement that my conclusions do not agree with other
statistics, and yet he fails to produce the statistics with which they
do not agree. To illustrate his point he calls attention to the
different _rates_ of taxation covering a period of about ten years,
which if true is of no importance in this connection because the same
has no bearing upon the material point now under consideration. The
tax _rate_ is always determined by the amount of money needed to meet
the obligations of the State, predicated upon the assessed value of
taxable property. Changes in the tax rate, therefore, are liable to be
of frequent occurrence. The material point at issue is the volume of
money paid into the treasury and the disposition made of it. In this
connection a slight amplification of the figures already given will
not be inappropriate. In 1875, the last year of Republican rule and
the year the State was _redeemed_, the total receipts from all sources
amounted to $1,801,129.12. The disbursements, same year, were
$1,430,192.83, or $370,936.29 less than was received. In 1907 the
receipts from all sources amounted to $3,391,127.15. The
disbursements, same year, were $3,730,343.29 or $339,216.14 more than
was received, and $2,300,150.46 more than was paid out in 1875. In
fact, the financial condition of the State during several years was
such that the Legislature was obliged to authorize the issuance of
bonds upon which to borrow money to meet current demands, thus adding
materially to the bonded debt of the State. Can any thing more
inexcusable and indefensible than this be imagined? That any one of
the Reconstructed governments could possibly have been guilty of such
maladministration as this is inconceivable. And yet, this
administration typifies what Mr. Rhodes is pleased to term the
restoration of home rule at the South, for which all lovers of good
government should rejoice.

The expert admits that I am right in what was said about Senators
Alcorn and Bruce, but asserts that Senator Pease, Mr. Brace's
immediate predecessor, was opposed to Ames. This is another assertion
that is not in harmony with the truth. Ames was a United States
Senator when he was elected Governor. When he resigned the Senatorship
to become Governor there remained about fourteen months of his term.
There devolved, therefore, upon the Legislature that was elected in
1873, the same time Senator Ames was elected Governor, the duty of
electing a Senator for the full term and also for the unexpired term.
Bruce, an Ames man, was elected for the full term and Pease, also an
Ames man, was elected for the unexpired term. If Pease had been
opposed to Ames he could not have been elected to the Senate by that
Legislature for that was unquestionably an Ames Legislature. It is
true Pease was defeated for renomination for State Superintendent of
Education by the Convention that nominated Ames, still he loyally
supported the ticket and after the election he was looked upon as one
of the friends and supporters of the Ames Administration. As such and
for that reason he was elected as one of the administration Senators.
I was a member of Congress at that time and, therefore, had occasion
frequently to confer with Senator Pease. If he were opposed to Ames, I
am sure that both Mr. Rhodes and his expert will admit that I would
have known it; and yet I do not hesitate to say that Senator Pease
never did by word, act or deed cause me to entertain the slightest
suspicion that he was not a loyal friend and supporter of the Ames
Administration.

In regard to the decisions of the Supreme Court, the expert simply
makes the declaration that the statement made by me that the failure
of Reconstruction was due to unwise judicial interpretation need not
be considered. In the first place, it is not true that I admitted that
Reconstruction was a failure. On the contrary, those who will
carefully read what I wrote will not fail to see that my contention is
that in its important and essential particulars that policy was a
grand and brilliant success and I instanced the ratification of the
14th and 15th Amendments, neither of which could have otherwise been
ratified, as a vindication of the wisdom of that legislation even if
nothing else had resulted from it. It is admitted that some of the
friends and supporters of the Congressional plan of Reconstruction
have been disappointed because those governments did not and could not
stand the test of time. To this extent and for this reason some
persons claim that the policy was a failure. I am not one of that
number, the reasons for which the readers of the article referred to
will see. But the inability of those governments to stand the test of
time I accounted for under three heads, one of which was several
unfortunate decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, the result, in my
opinion, of two unwise appointments made by President Grant in the
persons of Chief Justice Waite and Associate Justice Bradley. I do not
assert that those two judges, or any others, for that matter, were
appointed with reference to their attitude upon any public question,
still I am satisfied that they were believed to be in accord with the
other leaders and constitutional lawyers in the Republican party in
their construction of the 14th Amendment. The constitutional warrant
for the Civil Rights Bill is the clause which declares that "no state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States." It was therefore held
that any law or ordinance which provided for, recognized or sanctioned
separate facilities for the two races in the exercise and enjoyment of
the rights and privileges that are supposed to be common to all
classes of persons, would be a violation of this provision of the 14th
Amendment; and since Congress was authorized to enforce the Amendment,
affirmative legislation for the enforcement of that provision was held
to be thus warranted. This view was held by such able and brilliant
constitutional lawyers as Edmunds and Conkling in the Senate, and
Butler, George F. and E. Rockwood Hoar, Lyman Tremaine, Garfield and
Wilson in the House. Senator Carpenter was the only Republican lawyer
of any note that took a different view of the matter. While he
believed the whole bill was unconstitutional, the section prohibiting
race discrimination in the selection of jurors in State courts he
believed to be especially obnoxious to the constitution. He declared
that if that section could stand the test of a judicial decision all
the others could and should. And yet the court, through a decision
handed down by Mr. Justice Strong, affirmed the constitutionality of
that section, but in a decision delivered by Mr. Justice Bradley the
section providing for equal accommodations in hotels, inns and places
of amusement was declared unconstitutional except in the District of
Columbia and the territories. In several subsequent decisions, giving
in the main the opinion of Chief Justice Waite, some of the most vital
and important sections of the enforcement acts, especially those
having for their object the protection of individual citizens, through
federal machinery, when necessary, against domestic violence, were
also declared to be unconstitutional and void.

I am of the opinion, shared in by many others, that if men of the type
of Edmunds and Conkling had been appointed Supreme Court Justices
instead of Waite and Bradley, the rulings of the court in the
important cases referred to might have been, and I think would have
been, different. The unfortunate thing about those decisions is the
wide scope of authority thus conceded to the States. In other words,
they amount to a judicial recognition of the dangerous doctrine of
States Rights--a doctrine which has been the source and the cause of
most of our domestic troubles and misfortunes since those decisions
were rendered. But for those unfortunate decisions our country would
not be cursed and disgraced today by lynch law and other forms of
lawlessness and racial proscription and discrimination. But for those
unfortunate decisions lynchings could have been and I am sure would
have been held to be an offense against the peace and dignity of the
United States as well as the State in which the crime is committed.
Consequently, the criminals could be, and in most cases would be,
prosecuted in the United States courts, as was done in the case of
many of the leaders of that secret criminal organization called the Ku
Klux Klan. But this took place before the decisions referred to were
rendered. The court has also decided that a State law providing
separate accommodations for white and colored people on railroad
trains, at least for a passenger whose journey begins and ends in the
same state, is not an abridgment in violation of the constitution,
provided the accommodations for the two races are exactly equal. This
means that the validity even of those laws will not be affirmed
whenever it can be shown that the accommodations are not equal, which
can be very easily done. _Equal_ separate accommodations are both a
physical and a financial impossibility. It is simply impossible for a
railroad company to provide the same accommodations for one colored
passenger that it provides for one hundred whites. If, then, a colored
passenger cannot occupy a seat or a sleeping berth in a car in which
white persons may be passengers, this will not only be an abridgment,
but in some cases, an absolute denial of such accommodations. The
ultimate nullification of such unfair, unjust and unreasonable laws
must necessarily follow.

In spite of the unfavorable rulings of the court, as above noted,
that tribunal, as at present constituted, has rendered several very
important decisions which have given the friends of national supremacy
and equal rights much hope and encouragement, the most important of
which is the one declaring unconstitutional and void the ordinances
providing for the segregation of the races in the purchase and
occupation of property for residential purposes in several cities. The
decision in this case was broad, comprehensive and far-reaching. This
important, fair and equitable decision has given the colored American
new hope and new inspiration. It has strengthened and intensified his
loyalty and devotion to his country, his government, its flag and its
institutions. It makes him feel that with all of its faults and
shortcomings, our _form_ of government is superior to, and better than
that of any other, and that by a few more decisions along the line of
this one, which I hope and believe may be safely anticipated, every
justifiable cause of complaint on the part of the Negro will have been
removed, because the evils resulting from the unfavorable and
unfortunate rulings above noted will have been remedied and cured. Our
type of democracy will then be what it now purports to be, pure and
genuine. It will then be in truth and in fact the land of the free and
the home of the brave. It will then be a typical representative of
that form of democracy under which there can be no slave, no vassal
and no peon, but every one will be an equal before the law in the
exercise and enjoyment of life, liberty and property and in the
exercise and enjoyment of such public rights and privileges as are, or
should be, common to all citizens alike, without distinction or
discrimination based upon differences of race, color, nationality or
religion. These were the aims the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment
had in view when that Amendment was drawn, and from present
indications it seems to be clear that the highest court in the land
will not allow the same to be defeated.

But the most significant point about the segregation decision grows
out of the fact that the fair, reasonable, sound and equitable
principles therein set forth and clearly enunciated received the
approbation and endorsement of a unanimous court consisting of nine
Judges in which conflicting and antagonistic political views are
presumed to be represented. This indicates that the day is not far off
when the so-called race question will cease to be a political factor,
and that all political parties will recognize merit and not race,
fitness and not color, experience and not religion, ability and not
nationality as the tests by which persons must be judged, not only in
the administration of the government but in the industrial field as
well. For the accomplishment of these desirable purposes, men of the
type of James Ford Rhodes should give their support instead of
allowing the same to be used in the interest of that small class of
unpatriotic Americans who seek political distinction and official
recognition at the expense of racial harmony and brotherly love.

                                   JOHN B. LYNCH
  4352 FORESTVILLE AVENUE,
      CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.


FOOTNOTES:

[227] _Mag. of Am. History_, XVIII, 424.

[228] Boutwell, _Report_, 1446, 1470.

[229] _Ibid._, 608.




DOCUMENTS.

LETTERS OF GOVERNOR EDWARD COLES BEARING ON THE STRUGGLE OF FREEDOM
AND SLAVERY IN ILLINOIS[230]


Edward Coles was born of distinguished parentage in Albemarle County,
Virginia, December 15, 1786. He was educated at Hampden-Sidney and
William and Mary College, having as classmates Lieutenant-General
Scott, President John Tyler, Senator William S. Archer and Mr. Justice
Baldwin, of the Supreme Court of the United States. At the age of
twenty-three his father had bequeathed him a large plantation with a
number of slaves. "Of a polished education, fine personal appearance,
good manners and irreproachable character,"[231] he so impressed
President Madison that he made him his private secretary in 1809. In
this position he became well informed in public affairs and useful to
the President.

Early in Coles' college days he discussed with himself the question as
to whether the declaration that "all men are born free and equal"
could be harmonized with slavery. He reached the conclusion that the
institution should not exist in a country claiming to be a democracy.
He, therefore, resolved that he would not hold slaves and would not
live in a slave-holding State.

Enjoying the confidence of Jefferson, Coles took up with him the
important question of emancipating his slaves in the year 1814. The
letter follows:

               EDWARD COLES TO THOMAS JEFFERSON

                                  WASHINGTON, July 31, 1814.

     _Dear Sir_:--I never took up my pen with more hesitation, or felt
     more embarrassment than I now do in addressing you on the
     subject of this letter. The fear of appearing presumptuous
     distresses me, and would deter me from venturing thus to call
     your attention to a subject of such magnitude, and so beset with
     difficulties as that of a general emancipation of the slaves of
     Virginia, had I not the highest opinion of your goodness and
     liberality, in not only excusing me for the liberty I take, but
     in justly appreciating my motives in doing so.

     I will not enter on the _right_ which man has to enslave his
     brother man, nor upon the moral and political effects of slavery
     on individuals or on society; because these things are better
     understood by you than by me. My object is to entreat and beseech
     you to exert your knowledge and influence in devising and getting
     into operation some plan for the gradual emancipation of slavery.
     This difficult task could be less exceptionally and more
     successfully performed by the revered fathers of all our
     political and social blessings than by any succeeding statesmen;
     and would seem to come with peculiar propriety and force from
     those whose valor, wisdom and virtue have done so much in
     ameliorating the condition of mankind. And it is a duty, as I
     conceive, that devolves particularly on you, from your known
     philosophical and enlarged view of subjects, and from the
     principles you have professed and practiced through a long and
     useful life, pre-eminently distinguished as well by being
     foremost in establishing on the broadest basis the rights of man,
     and the liberty and independence of your country, as in being
     throughout honored with the most important trusts of your fellow
     citizens, whose confidence and love you have carried with you
     into the shades of old age and retirement. In the calm of this
     retirement you might, most beneficially to society, and with much
     addition to your own fame, avail yourself of that love and
     confidence to put into complete practice those hallowed
     principles contained in that renowned Declaration, of which you
     were the immortal author, and on which we founded our right to
     resist oppression and establish our freedom and independence.

     I hope the fear of failing, at this time, will have no influence
     in preventing you from employing your pen to eradicate this most
     degrading feature of British Colonial policy, which is still
     permitted to exist, notwithstanding its repugnance as well to the
     principles of our revolution as to our free institutions. For
     however prized and influential your opinions may now be, they
     will still be much more so when you shall have been taken from us
     by the course of nature. If, therefore, your attempt should now
     fail to rectify this unfortunate evil--an evil most injurious
     both to the oppressed and to the oppressor--at some future day
     when your memory will be consecrated by a grateful posterity,
     what influence, irresistible influence will the opinions and
     writings of Thomas Jefferson have in all questions connected with
     the rights of man, and of that policy which will be the creed of
     your disciples. Permit men then, my dear Sir, again to entreat
     your great powers of mind and influence, and to employ some of
     your present leisure, in devising a mode to liberate one-half of
     our fellow beings from an ignominious bondage to the other,
     either by making an immediate attempt to put in train a plan to
     commence this goodly work, or to leave human nature the
     invaluable Testament--which you are so capable of doing--how best
     to establish its rights; so that the weight of your opinion may
     be on the side of emancipation when that question shall be
     agitated, and that it will be sooner or later is most certain.
     That it may be soon is my most ardent prayer--that it will be,
     rests with you.

     I will only add as an excuse for the liberty I take in addressing
     you on this subject which is so particularly interesting to me,
     that from the time I was capable of reflecting on the nature of
     political society, and of the rights appertaining to man, I have
     not only been principled against slavery, but have had feelings
     so repugnant to it as to decide me not to hold them; which
     decision has forced me to leave my native State, and with it all
     my relations and friends. This, I hope, will be deemed by you
     some excuse for the liberty of this intrusion, of which I gladly
     avail myself to assure you of the very great respect and esteem
     with which I am, my dear Sir, your very sincere and devoted
     friend,[232]

                                   EDWARD COLES.

He wrote Jefferson the following concerning the same question about
two months later:


                                   WASHINGTON, Sep. 26th, '14.

     I must be permitted again to trouble you, my dear Sir, to return
     my grateful thanks for the respectful and friendly attention
     shown to my letter in your answer of the 25th ult. Your favorable
     reception of sentiments not generally avowed, if felt, by our
     countrymen, but which have ever been so inseparably interwoven
     with my opinions and feelings as to become, as it were, the
     rudder that shapes my course, even against a strong tide of
     interest and of local partialities, could not but be in the
     highest degree gratifying to me. And your interesting and highly
     prized letter conveying them to me in such flattering terms,
     would have called forth my acknowledgments before this but for
     its having been forwarded to me to the Springs, and from thence
     it was again returned here before I received it, which was only a
     few days since.

     Your indulgent treatment encourages me to add that I feel very
     sensibly the force of your remarks on the impropriety of yielding
     to my repugnancies in abandoning my property in slaves and my
     native State. I certainly should never have been inclined to
     yield to them if I had supposed myself capable of being
     instrumental in bringing about a liberation, or that I could by
     my example ameliorate the condition of these oppressed people. If
     I could be convinced of being in the slightest degree useful in
     doing either, it would afford me very great happiness, and the
     more so as it would enable me to gratify many partialities by
     remaining in Virginia. But never having flattered myself with the
     hope of being able to contribute to either, I have long since
     determined, and should but for my bad health ere this, have
     removed, carrying along with me those who had been my slaves, to
     the country north-west of the river Ohio.

     Your prayers I trust will not only be heard with indulgence in
     Heaven, but with influence on Earth. But I cannot agree with you
     that they are the only weapons of one at your age; nor that the
     difficult work of cleansing the escutcheon of Virginia of the
     foul stain of slavery can best be done by the young. To expect so
     great and difficult an object, great and extensive powers, both
     of mind and influence, are required, which can never be possessed
     in so great a degree by the young as by the old. And among the
     few of the former who might unite the disposition with the
     requisite capacity, they are too often led by ambitious views to
     go with the current of popular feeling rather than to mark out a
     course for themselves, where they might be buffeted by the waves
     of opposition; and indeed it is feared that these waves would in
     this case be too strong to be effectually resisted by any but
     those who had gained by a previous course of useful employment
     the firmest footing in the confidence and attachment of their
     country. It is with them, therefore, I am persuaded, that the
     subject of emancipation must originate; for they are the only
     persons who have it in their power effectually to arouse and
     enlighten the public sentiment, which in matters of this kind
     ought not to be expected to lead, but to be led; nor ought it to
     be wondered at that there should prevail a degree of apathy with
     the general mass of mankind, where a mere passive principle of
     right has to contend against the weighty influence of habit and
     interest. On such a question there will always exist in society a
     kind of _vis inertia_, to arouse and overcome, which requires a
     strong impulse, which can only be given by those who have
     acquired a great weight of character, and on whom there devolves
     in this case a most solemn obligation. It was under these
     impressions that I looked to you, my dear Sir, as the first of
     our aged worthies to awaken our fellow-citizens from their
     infatuation to a proper sense of justice, and to the true
     interest of their country; and by proposing a system for the
     gradual emancipation of our slaves, at once to form a rallying
     point for its friends, who, enlightened by your wisdom and
     experience, and supported and encouraged by your sanction and
     patronage, might look forward to a propitious and happy result.
     Your time of life I had not considered as an obstacle to the
     undertaking. Doctor Franklin, to whom, by the way, Pennsylvania
     owes her early riddance of the evils of slavery, was as actively
     and as usefully employed on as arduous duties after he had past
     your age as he had ever been at any period of his life.

     With apologizing for having given you so much trouble on this
     subject, and again repeating my thanks for the respectful and
     flattering attention you have been pleased to pay to it, I renew
     the assurances of the great respect and regard which makes me
     most sincerely yours

                                   EDWARD COLES.

Coles went west to find a suitable location for settlement but was
delayed in carrying out the enterprise by serving on a special mission
to Russia in 1816. He then moved in 1819 to Edwardsville, Illinois,
where he emancipated his slaves. Arriving in that State just at the
time its citizens were trying to decide whether or not that
commonwealth should be a slave or free State, this anti-slavery man
turned the tide in favor of freedom. He had been in the State only
three years when he was nominated by the anti-slavery party for
governor. He received a minority of the votes cast at the election in
1822; but owing to a split in the pro-slavery party which divided its
votes between two candidates, Coles was elected, although the friends
of slavery elected their candidate for lieutenant-governor and a
majority of the members of both branches of the legislature. There
ensued then a struggle to have a convention called so to change the
constitution as to make Illinois a slave State.

Judge Gillespie, a contemporary, described the situation as follows:

     It was conceded in those days that a State formed out of the
     "North West Territory" could not be _admitted_ into the Union
     contrary to the provisions of the ordinance of 1787, which
     prohibited slavery, but the slavery propagandists contended that
     you could, the next day after being admitted under an
     _anti-slavery_ constitution, change the constitution so as to
     admit slavery, and in that way, "whip the devil around the
     stump." It was likewise contended that slavery existed in
     Illinois beyond Congressional interference, by virtue of the
     treaty (of 1763) between France and England, and that between
     England and the United States at the close of the Revolutionary
     War, in both of which the rights of the French inhabitants were
     guaranteed. One of these rights was that of holding slaves,
     which, it was contended, was protected by treaty stipulation, and
     was equal in binding effect, to the Constitution (of the United
     States) itself. Besides, it was maintained, that by the conquest
     of George Rogers Clark, this country became a part of Virginia,
     and that Congress had no more power to abolish slavery in
     Illinois, than it had in Virginia. The logic of the times was
     that the French inhabitants had the right to hold slaves, and
     that the other inhabitants had equal rights with the
     French--ergo: they all had the right to hold slaves. This was the
     argument of the celebrated constitutional expounder--John
     Grammar, of Union county--in the Legislature in reply to an
     intimation questioning the validity of the title of slaves in
     Illinois. The old gentleman instantly arose and remarked "that
     fittener men" than he was "mout hev been found to defend the
     masters agin the sneakin' ways of the infernal abolitioners; but
     havin' rights on my side, I don't fear, Sir. I will show that are
     proposition is unconstitutionable, inlegal, and fornenst the
     compact. Don't every one know, or leastwise had ought to know,
     that the Congress that sot at _Post Vinsan_, garnisheed to the
     old French inhabitants the right to their niggers, and haint I
     got as much rights as any Frenchman in this State? Answer me
     that, Sir." Notwithstanding this seeming confidence, these men
     were exceedingly desirous of reinforcing their rights. They
     resorted to the indenturing method, by which they got their
     servant to go before some officer and bind himself to serve the
     master, generally for ninety-nine years, for which he was to
     receive a slight equivalent at the end of each year.

     As the "Yankees" increased in numbers, confidence (on the part of
     the pro-slavery men) in the titles to their negroes, diminished,
     and they finally concluded that there was no assurance for them,
     except in changing the constitution so as to sanction
     slaveholding and thus the contest commenced, which for fierceness
     and rancor excelled anything ever before witnessed. The people
     were at the point of going to war with each other. The
     pro-slavery men were, as they have always been ready to resort to
     violence wherever they dared, unwilling to listen to, or
     incapable of comprehending arguments. Their method of overcoming
     opposition was by "buldozing"; but on this occasion they had to
     encounter men of invincible courage, who were eager and willing
     to 'beard the lion in his den,' and defend their rights at all
     hazards. Many of these men had removed to Illinois to get rid of
     the curse of slavery.

This scheme, however, was with much difficulty defeated and the State
was saved for freedom. The intensity of this struggle has been well
described by Governor Reynolds in his _My Own Times_. He says:

     The convention question gave rise to two years of the most
     furious and boisterous excitement and contest that ever was
     visited on Illinois. Men, women and children entered the arena of
     party warfare and strife, and the families and neighborhoods were
     so divided and furious and bitter against one another, that it
     seemed a regular civil war might be the result. Many personal
     combats were indulged in on the question, and the whole country
     seemed, at times, to be ready and willing to resort to physical
     force to decide the contest. All the means known to man to convey
     ideas to one another were resorted to, and practised with energy.
     The press teemed with publications on the subject. The
     stump-orators were invoked, and the pulpit thundered anathemas
     against the introduction of slavery. The religious community
     coupled freedom and Christianity together, which was one of the
     most powerful levers used in the content. At one meeting of the
     friends of freedom in St. Clair county, more than thirty
     preachers of the gospel attended and opposed the introduction of
     slavery into the State.

This contest has been further described by W. H. Brown. He says:

     The struggle which now commenced, and was continued through the
     succeeding eighteen months, was one of no ordinary character. Our
     previous elections had been conducted with warmth and zeal; but
     into this canvass was infused a bitterness and malignity which
     the agitation of the Slavery question only engenders. Why it
     always produces this result, is worthy of the investigation of
     the moralist and philosopher. Other great evils, political or
     moral, are discussed with freedom, and measures for their
     amelioration or prevention meet with no outward opposition; but
     call in question the right of one man to enslave another, or even
     make an effort to confine this gigantic sin to the territory in
     which it exists, and the fiercest passions are aroused in the
     hearts of its advocates, and the lack of power alone, saves their
     opponents from utter destruction.

     In this spirit was the contest of 1823-4 waged. Old friendships
     were sundered, families divided and neighborhoods arrayed in
     opposition to each other. Threats of personal violence were
     frequent, and personal collisions a frequent occurrence. As in
     times of warfare, every man expected an attack, and was prepared
     to meet it. Pistols and dirks were in great demand, and formed a
     part of the personal habiliments of all those conspicuous for
     their opposition to the Convention measure. Even the gentler sex
     came within the vortex of this whirlwind of passion; and many
     were the angry disputations of those whose cares and interests
     were usually confined to their household duties.

It will doubtless be profitable, therefore, to study the following
letters showing Governor Coles' connection with the anti-slavery
movement during the early history of Illinois.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO RICHARD FLOWERS

     _Dear Sir_:--I would have made my acknowledgments to you long
     since for your kind letter of 13th of February, but for my having
     been prevented from writing by the bearer of it, from the haste
     with which he took his departure hence, and for my being much
     harassed by the business attendant on the approaching
     adjournment of the Legislature; and for my having gone soon
     after the adjournment to Edwardsville, where I was detained until
     a few days since by torrents of rain which have deluged the
     country and rendered the streams and roads impassable. The
     perusal of your letter afforded me particular pleasure. It
     breathes the genuine sentiments of a Republican and of a
     philanthropist; and produced an emotion which was "pleasing
     though mournful to the soul." Pleasing that an adopted citizen
     should possess principles so entirely accordant with our free
     institutions; and as it held out encouragement that the people
     would not sanction the late conduct and measures of their
     Representatives--mournful, that if the slave faction should
     succeed, how unpleasant and truly unfortunate the situation of
     many of us, who have removed from a great distance and invested
     our all in property which we shall be compelled to abandon or to
     sacrifice, to seek new homes we know not where; or remain in a
     community whose principles and practice are not only entirely at
     variance with our own, but of a character calculated daily to
     harrow up our feelings in the most painful way. I was born in the
     very bosom of negro slavery; have seen it in all its bearings;
     reflected well upon the nature of it, and having found it
     impossible to reconcile it either with my political or religious
     creed, I abandoned my native State, my aged parents and
     relations, to seek in this State a community whose principles and
     practice I presumed were in unison with my own. Judge, then, of
     my feelings at the efforts which have been made and are now
     making to change this free community of ours into a truly odious
     one, consisting of masters and slaves--and you can judge the
     better as your situation and principles are very similar with
     mine. The great inducement with us both to emigrate to this State
     was the firm belief that we should not be disturbed by the
     clanking of the fetters of Slavery; that tyranny would not be
     given a legal sanction, nor afforded the food on which it could
     prey. But the majority of the people's representatives, having by
     the most violent and unprecedented measure, taken a step with the
     view of breaking down those barriers to oppression, which had
     been erected by the wisdom and virtue of those who framed the
     fundamental law of the State, and which you and many of us
     considered, if not sacred, at least to have been permanently
     settled, it becomes us to be on the alert to defeat a measure,
     which if it should succeed, will not only be ruinous, and in the
     highest degree unjust to many of us who have emigrated here under
     the most solemn assurance that "neither slavery nor involuntary
     servitude" should exist; but it will be of incalculable injury to
     the interest of the State, of the Union, and of the extension and
     advancement of freedom, and the amelioration of the human race.

     You reside in a favorable situation to aid with effect this great
     question. The county just below you forms the dividing line
     between the sections of country in which the free and slave
     parties predominate. It has occurred to me that the friends of
     freedom would give ample support, and that the good cause would
     be greatly promoted by establishing a printing press on the
     Eastern side of the State. And I know of no place where it could
     be established to so much advantage, as at Albion. Besides the
     advantage it has in locality, there are in Albion, and its
     vicinity, many persons who wield chaste and powerful pens, and
     who have the means, and, I trust, the disposition of patronizing
     an establishment of the kind. Pardon me for asking it as a favor
     to me personally, and as a sacrifice to the furtherance of the
     best and most virtuous of causes, that all personal, sectional,
     national, county or town feelings, and all other unkind feelings,
     let them originate from what cause they may, shall be buried, at
     least while the great question is pending. I will write and ask
     the same favor of Mr. Birkbeck. I have but little news. From all
     I can learn a considerable majority of the people of the counties
     situated in the north-west part of the State, as far south as
     Monroe, St. Clair and Washington, are opposed to a call of a
     convention, but great and extraordinary efforts are already
     making to induce the people to vote for it.

     Present my respectful compliments to Mrs. F. and family, and to
     your son and his lady, and be assured of my respect and esteem.

                                   EDWARD COLES.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO NICHOLAS BIDDLE

     _Dear Sir_:--It has been a long time since I either wrote to you
     or heard from you. I made a visit last summer to my relations in
     Virginia, and intended to have extended my tour as far as
     Philadelphia, which I should certainly have done, for I am still
     more attached to Philadelphia than any other city in the Union,
     but for my trip having been delayed by a severe attack of bilious
     fever, and having been prolonged in Virginia beyond the time I
     expected, and the necessity I was under to be back here by the
     meeting of the Legislature, to enter on the duties of the office
     to which I had been recently elected. I assure you, when about to
     leave Washington (where I staid only four or five days) and to
     turn my face to the west, there was a great struggle between a
     sense of duty which dragged me here, and my inclinations and many
     strong attractions which drew me to your charming city. There has
     long existed in this State a strong party in favor of altering
     the constitution and making it a slave-holding State; while there
     is another party in favor of a convention to alter the
     constitution, but deny that Slavery is their object. These two
     parties have finally, by the most unprecedented and unwarrantable
     proceedings (an account of which you have no doubt seen in the
     newspapers), succeeded in passing a resolution requiring the
     sense of the people to be taken at the next general election
     (August, 1824), on the propriety of calling a convention for the
     purpose of altering the constitution. Knowing that this measure
     would be strenuously urged during the late session of the
     Legislature, and that many who professed to be hostile to the
     further introduction of Slavery, would advocate it, and believing
     that it would have a salutary effect to furnish them an
     opportunity of evincing the sincerity of their professions; and
     being also urged by a strong sense of the obligations imposed on
     me, by my principles and feelings, to take notice of the subject,
     I called the attention of the Legislature in a speech I delivered
     on being sworn into office (a printed copy of which I sent you by
     mail) to the existence of Slavery in the State, in violation of
     the great fundamental principles of the ordinance, and
     recommended that just and equitable provision be made for its
     abrogation. As I anticipated, this part of my speech created a
     considerable excitement with those who were openly or secretly in
     favor of making Illinois a slave-holding, rather than making it
     really as well as nominally, a free State--who wished to fill it
     rather than empty it of slaves. Never did I see or hear in
     America of party spirit going to such lengths, as well officially
     as privately, as it did here on this question. Indeed, it seems
     to me that Slavery is so poisonous as to produce a kind of
     delirium in those minds who are excited by it. This question, and
     the manner of carrying it, is exciting great interest throughout
     the State, and has already kindled an extraordinary degree of
     excitement and warmth of feeling, which will no doubt continue to
     increase until the question is decided. I assure you, I never
     before felt so deep an interest in any political question. It
     preys upon me to such a degree, that I shall not be happy or feel
     at ease until it is settled. It is impossible to foresee the
     injurious effects resulting to this State of the unhappy
     consequences which may arise to the Union, from the success of
     the slave party in this State. Many of us who immigrated to this
     State under the solemn assurance that there should exist here
     "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude," will, if the slave
     faction succeeds, be compelled to sacrifice or abandon our
     property and seek new homes, we know not where, or remain in a
     community whose principles we shall disapprove of, and whose
     practice will be abhorrent to our feelings. And already we hear
     disputed the binding effect of the ordinance--the power of
     Congress to restrict a State, etc., etc., from which I fear, if
     the introduction of Slavery should be tolerated here, the
     discussions on the expediency and unconstitutionality of the
     measure will not in all probability be confined to the citizens
     of this State. But this is a part of the question too painful for
     me to dwell on. I trust the good sense and virtue of the citizens
     of Illinois will never sanction a measure so well calculated to
     disturb the harmony of the Union and so injurious to its own
     prosperity and happiness, as well as so directly opposite to the
     progress of those enlightened and liberal principles which do
     honor to the age. But to insure this it is necessary that the
     public mind should be enlightened on the moral and political
     effects of Slavery. You will confer a particular favor on me and
     promote the virtuous cause in which I am enlisted, by giving me
     information, or referring me to the sources from whence I can
     draw it, calculated to elucidate the general character and
     effects of Slavery--its moral, political and social
     effects--facts showing its effects on the price of lands, and
     general improvement and appearance of a country--of labor both as
     it respects agriculture and manufactures, etc., etc. The State of
     Pennsylvania having been long distinguished for its attachment to
     free principles, there is no doubt but what you can procure in
     Philadelphia many valuable pamphlets and publications which would
     throw light on this question. Any which you may have it in your
     power to procure and forward, will be most thankfully received,
     and the amount of the expense repaid as soon as it is known. Your
     old and truly sincere friend,

                                        EDWARD COLES.

     TO NICHOLAS BIDDLE, ESQ.,
       PRESIDENT OF THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES,
          PHILADELPHIA.


               MR. BIDDLE TO GOVERNOR COLES

                              PHILADELPHIA, May 20, 1823.

     _Dear Sir:_ I have just received your friendly letter of the 22nd
     ult., to which I shall take the first moment of leisure to give a
     more detailed answer. In the meantime I can only say that I feel
     most sincerely the embarrassment of your situation, and hope that
     you may be able to triumph in the good cause. That no effort may
     be wanting, you shall have all the assistance which I can give or
     procure. My occupations necessarily absorb so much of my time
     that I can promise you little on my part, personally, but I have
     already engaged two of our most active gentlemen familiar with
     that subject, who will cheerfully and zealously contribute to
     your support. The first fruit of their labor is the pamphlet
     accompanying this letter. I have not had time to read it, as I am
     anxious to forward it without delay, but I understand that it is
     the latest and best work on the subject, and goes directly to the
     question of the superiority of free over slave labor. Mrs. B. and
     Mr. Craig are glad to hear of your prosperity, and desire to be
     particularly remembered to you.

     With great sincerity of regard,
                             yrs.,
                                      N. BIDDLE.

     EDWARD COLES, ESQ.,
       Vandalia.


               MR. BIDDLE TO GOVERNOR COLES

                              PHILADELPHIA, May 26, 1823.

     _My Dear Sir:_ My present occupations necessarily engross so much
     of my time that I can scarcely contribute more than my good
     wishes to the great cause which so naturally and deeply interests
     you. It gives me peculiar satisfaction, therefore, to procure for
     you the correspondence of my friend, Mr. Roberts Vaux, to whom
     this note is intended to serve as an introduction. Mr. Vaux is a
     gentleman of education, talents, fortune, leisure and high
     standing in the community. He feels sensibly all the
     embarrassments of your situation; he perceives the deep
     importance of defeating this first effort to extend to the
     north-western country the misfortunes of the slave population and
     he is disposed to co-operate warmly and zealously with you. I
     know of no individual more calculated to render you the most
     efficient service. He is worthy of all your confidence, and I
     recommend to you to yield it to him implicitly, as I am sure it
     will be repaid by every kindness and every service in his power.

     With great esteem and regard,
                             yrs.,
                                        N. BIDDLE.

     EDWARD COLES, ESQ.,
       Vandalia,
         Illinois.


               MR. BIDDLE TO GOVERNOR COLES

                              PHILADELPHIA, May 26, 1823.

     _My Dear Sir:_ I have put into the hands of my friend, Mr. Vaux,
     a note for you which he will accompany with a communication on
     the subject which now occupies you. Mr. Vaux will be hearty and
     zealous in the cause, and I really deem it a subject of
     congratulation to you, to procure the assistance of one who is
     more able and willing than any individual of my acquaintance to
     assist you. There is one thing which I wish to add. The Abolition
     Society of this city, has been the subject, whether justly or not
     I am unable to determine, of much hostility at a distance, and it
     would be rather injurious than beneficial to have it supposed
     that the society was active in the cause which you are
     supporting. You will therefore understand that neither the
     Abolition Society nor any other society has the least concern in
     this matter. The simple fact is that Mr. Vaux, and two or three
     of his friends, have been so much pleased with your past conduct
     in relation to Slavery, and have so deep a sense of their duty to
     resist the extension of that system, that they mean to volunteer
     in assisting you, without any connections with any set of men,
     and without any motives which the most honorable might not be
     proud to avow.

                   Very sincerely,
                               yrs.,
                                      N. BIDDLE.

     EDWARD COLES, ESQ.,
       Vandalia,
         Illinois.


                              PHILADELPHIA, 5 Mo. 27, 1823.

     TO EDWARD COLES, ESQ.:

     _Esteemed Friend:_--My friend, Nicholas Biddle, has kindly
     furnished me with a note of introduction to thy correspondence,
     which is transmitted by the mail that conveys this letter. I
     have been induced thus to solicit access to thy notice, because
     thy conduct in relation to the emancipation of thy slaves could
     not fail to beget great respect for an individual whose noble,
     and generous example displayed so much practical wisdom, and
     Christian benevolence. Nor has it been less gratifying to be
     informed of thy official efforts to prevent the overthrow of
     those constitutional barriers, which were erected to protect the
     State of Illinois, from the moral, and political evils
     inseparable from domestic slavery.

     It is really astonishing, that any part of the inhabitants of
     your State should wish to introduce a system which is generally
     reprobated where its effects have been longest known, and from
     the dominion of which, such of our fellow citizens of the South
     as are disposed to examine the subject with the gravity which it
     certainly merits, most anxiously desire to be redeemed.

     Notwithstanding, however, the lessons which experience has taught
     in this respect, it is likely that Illinois will be agitated by
     the exertions of unreflecting men, and possibly without timely
     and energetic efforts to counteract their schemes, they may be
     enabled to persuade a majority of her people to violate their
     early vows on this subject, and pollute your soil with the blood
     and tears of slaves.

     Feeling as I do, a deep sympathy for thyself, thus threatened
     with the most unhappy consequences, and desirous that miseries
     and mischiefs, the amount of which no mind can fully calculate,
     may be averted from the extensive and fair region of which
     Illinois forms a part, I would willingly contribute anything in
     my power, and with these views I offer my own, and the services
     of a few of my friends, in this interesting cause.

     We have thought that benefit might result from making judicious
     selections from writers whose purpose is to show the iniquity,
     and impolicy of slavery--these selections to be printed in the
     _Tract form_ (at our own expense) and forwarded to Illinois for
     gratuitous distribution. If this plan should meet thy
     approbation, I should be glad to receive an early intimation to
     that effect, but should thy official station, or duties, render
     it either improper or inconvenient for thee to take an active
     part in this business, perhaps it will be in thy power to select
     a few individuals who may be disposed to aid us, and in that
     event, I shall be obliged by thy introduction of such persons to
     my correspondence.

     Accept the salutation of my respect,
                                        ROBERTS VAUX.


                    EDWARDSVILLE, ILLINOIS, June 27, 1823.

     _Esteemed Friend_:

     Your kind and highly interesting letter of the 27th ult. was
     rec'd by the last mail, and has been perused with very great
     pleasure. The benevolent sentiments you express, and the correct
     views you take of the great question which is now unfortunately
     agitating this State, and the deep interest you evince for the
     prosperity and happiness of Illinois, and the preservation of the
     rights and liberty of its inhabitants, do credit alike to the
     native benevolence of your heart and to those divine and
     political principles which distinguish the real Christian and
     Republican, and cannot fail to present a contrast, which, however
     mortifying it may be to me as an Illinoisan, cannot but be highly
     gratifying to me as a man, to see one so far removed from the
     scene, and without any other interest except that which he feels
     in the general happiness of his species, nobly and generously
     volunteering his services to assist in promoting the cause of
     humanity, whilst there are thousands here strenuously advocating
     the giving a legal sanction to the oppression and abject slavery
     of their fellow-creatures. Such noble, generous, and fervid
     benevolence as yours, is highly honorable even to a _Friend_; and
     is a new and striking proof of that extended philanthropy, and
     pure and heaven-born spirit of Brotherly love, by which that
     denomination of Christians have ever been distinguished, and
     cannot fail to excite the admiration and win the confidence and
     attachment of all--especially of those like myself, who daily
     experience pain and mortification in hearing doctrines advanced
     which are directly in opposition to the great fundamental truths
     of our religious and political creeds.

     In behalf of the friends of freedom in this State, I give you
     sincere and grateful thanks for the offer of your services to
     assist us to enlighten the minds of our fellow citizens, by
     publishing judicious selections and observations on the iniquity
     and impolicy of Slavery, in _tract form_, and distributing them
     gratuitously through the State. It may be proper, however, to
     remark that distant friends should be cautious in the manner of
     making their benevolent exertions, as there is danger that
     designing partisans here may not only paralyze the effort, but
     turn it against the cause it was intended to promote, by
     representing it to be the interference of other States for the
     purpose of influencing the opinion of the people of this. An
     ingenious pen could dress up this subject in a manner to give it
     great effect in this country. Would it not, therefore, be best
     not to state on the face of the publications where they were
     printed? They could be printed in Philadelphia, and sent with the
     goods of some merchant of St. Louis at a much less expense than
     by mail.

     Not being aware of any consideration which should restrain me,
     but on the contrary believing that my present office increases
     the obligations I am under, as a good citizen, to exert myself to
     enlighten the minds of my fellow citizens, and strenuously to
     oppose every measure which I am convinced is unjust in principle
     or injurious in its effects, and believing Slavery to be both
     iniquitous and impolitic, I conceive myself bound, both as a
     citizen and as an officer, to do all in my power to prevent its
     introduction into this State. I will therefore cheerfully render
     you assistance in distributing any publications you may forward,
     or give you any information you may desire.

     The friends of freedom here propose making publication similar to
     those you suggest, but they will not have the same means of doing
     justice to the subject that you will have in Philadelphia. We are
     particularly anxious, not only to present to the people proper
     views of the immoral and anti-christian, unjust and
     anti-republican character of Slavery, but also _facts_ showing
     its impolicy and injurious effects in retarding the settlement
     and prosperity of the State, by checking emigration to it, and
     paralyzing the enterprise and activity of its citizens--that it
     would impede the progress of manufactures, be prejudicial to
     agriculture, and in one word, to the future prosperity, as well
     as to the immediate interest of the State. The great argument
     here in favor of the introduction and toleration of Slavery, is
     that it would have the immediate effect of raising the price of
     lands, and adding to the population and wealth of the country. We
     want _facts_ to disprove these assertions, and also to show that
     Slavery would operate to the injury of the poor or laboring
     classes of society. Strange as it may appear, it is nevertheless
     true, that there are many persons who are in principle opposed to
     Slavery who will yet vote for making this a slaveholding State,
     under the belief that by so doing they will be enabled to make an
     immediate and advantageous sale of their lands, and thus gratify
     that restless and rambling disposition which is so common with
     frontier settlers.

     Pardon this long and hasty letter. Give my regards to our mutual
     friend Biddle, and be assured that your generous benevolence has
     inspired me with great respect and sincere regard for you.

                                   EDWARD COLES.

     ROBERTS VAUX,
       Philadelphia.


                       ROBERTS VAUX TO GOVERNOR COLES

               BIRWOOD LODGE (NEAR PHIL'A), 7 Mo. 24, 1823.

     _Esteemed Friend:_--I cannot delay an immediate acknowledgment of
     thy letter of the 27th ultimo, which reached me at my summer
     residence today.

     It affords me unfeigned satisfaction to learn from it that thee
     approves the plan which I submitted for thy consideration.
     Anticipating a favorable notice of the suggestion, by a mind so
     devoted as thine to the promotion of the great ends of humanity,
     of justice, and of National honor, three pamphlets were prepared,
     which will be immediately printed, and transmitted to thy address
     at St. Louis. One of these tracts is designed to show the
     impolicy and unprofitableness of Slave Labor, etc., and some
     arguments are drawn from the published opinions of several
     distinguished citizens _of the slave-holding States_; among which
     Col. Taylor's are not the least authoritative and cogent. Another
     essay exhibits a succinct account of the cruelties of the Slave
     Trade, derived from authentic sources; and a third pamphlet is
     intended to show that the interminable bondage of any portion of
     the human race is, on the part of the oppressors, a flagrant
     violation of natural and Divine Justice, and utterly inconsistent
     with the doctrines of our Holy Redeemer.

     Aware of the unpopularity of Philadelphia, and especially of
     _Quaker_ sentiments on this particular topic, with all those who
     attempt to justify slavery, it was originally determined to avoid
     giving any complexion whatever to these publications which might
     induce the belief that they proceeded from this State, or that
     individuals of the Society of Friends had any agency in the
     preparation of them. The coincidence of our judgment in regard to
     the manner of treating the subject is worthy of remark.

     If the least benefit results from this humble effort, it will
     administer to my happiness, which will be augmented by the
     reflection, that it owes its origin to thy own emphatic summons
     for aid, in a cause which demands the exercise of every generous
     and patriotic feeling.

     That indulgent Heaven may crown thy labors with success, is the
     sincere desire of thy friend.

                         With great truth and respect,
                                        ROBERTS VAUX.

     To EDWARD COLES, ESQUIRE,
       Governor of Illinois,
         Edwardsville, Illinois.

     P. S.--On my next visit to the city, I intend to communicate thy
     message to our friend Nicholas Biddle.

                                        R. V.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO MR. BIDDLE

                                   EDWARDSVILLE, Sept. 18, 1823.

     _Dear Sir_:--I have been long anxious to return you my thanks for
     your kind letter of May 20th and 26th, and also for the
     acceptable service you rendered me in making me known to Mr.
     Vaux, from whom I have had the pleasure of receiving two letters,
     and a promise of his assistance in preventing our soil from being
     polluted with the foul and disgraceful stain of slavery. The
     disinterested and praiseworthy zeal he evinces is as honorable to
     him, as it is gratifying to me, and is well calculated not only
     to give me an exalted opinion of his character, but to awaken the
     most lively feelings of regard and friendship for him. I wish,
     when you see him, you would tender him my kind regards and thanks
     for his letter of July 24, and say to him, I hope soon to receive
     the packages promised. The propriety of calling a convention, or
     more properly speaking, of making this a slave-holding State, is
     still discussed with considerable warmth, and continues to engage
     the undivided attention of the people, being the constant theme
     of conversation in every circle, and every newspaper teems with
     no other subject. Unfortunately for the friends of freedom, four
     out of five of the newspapers printed in this State are opposed
     to them; and the only press whose editor is in favor of freedom,
     although a pretty smart editor, has rendered himself unpopular
     with many by his foolish and passionate attacks upon many of the
     prominent men on his side of the question. If, however, the
     advocates of Slavery have the advantage of us in printing
     presses, we have greatly the advantage of them in possessing men
     of the most talents, and most able to wield the pen and use the
     press, with effect; and as three out of four of their presses
     have professed a willingness to admit well-written original
     essays on both sides of the question, we shall have not only the
     best of the argument, but be able, I trust, to present it in the
     best dress to the public. I am happy in telling you that the
     advocates of a convention have been losing ground ever since the
     adjournment of the Legislature; and there is no doubt with me if
     the question were now to be decided, that a majority of the
     people would be opposed to it. But what will be the state of the
     parties next August is another question. Many of the people in
     this State are very fickle and credulous, and much can be done by
     designing and unprincipled partisans, and that everything which
     can possibly be done will be done, we cannot but infer from the
     extraordinary and unwarrantable measures resorted to last winter
     in the Legislature in getting up the question, and the great
     anxiety evinced, and exertions which have been made and are still
     making to prevail on the people to sanction it. But as the
     friends of freedom are aware of this, they will watch the
     movements of their opponents, and be on the alert to counteract
     their intrigues and machinations. The object for which a
     convention is wanted is so justly odious, and the conduct of the
     friends of the measure so disgraceful, that I cannot bring myself
     to believe they will succeed. But I regret to state that the
     advocates of Slavery in this State are gaining strength, from the
     indiscretion of the advocates of freedom out of the State.
     Certain leading newspapers in the Atlantic cities have taken a
     stand, and held language which is used here in a way calculated
     to do much mischief. Whether we have the constitutional right to
     make this a slave-holding State, or not, or whether the opponents
     of the extension of Slavery, here or elsewhere, may think proper
     hereafter to call for the interposition of the Federal Gov't to
     restrain the people of this State, it is certainly bad policy at
     this time very strongly to urge it, and especially in what may be
     considered dictatorial language; as it is of all other questions
     the best calculated to arouse the feelings of State pride, and
     State rights, and that natural love of unrestrained liberty and
     independence which is common to our countrymen, and especially to
     our frontier settlers, who of all men in the world have the
     strongest jealousy of authority and aversion to restraint.

     I wish, my friend, you would use your influence to prevail on the
     newspaper writers to let this question alone for the present. If
     they are sincere in their opposition to the further extension of
     Slavery, they will not prematurely urge it, when they are assured
     that by so doing they can do no good, but much harm.

     I shall go to St. Louis in a day or two, when I hope to have the
     pleasure of seeing and congratulating your brother on his late
     marriage, and becoming acquainted with his lady. This has been
     the most cool and agreeable, and by far the most healthful summer
     I have ever seen in this country. The spring was too wet and we
     were apprehensive of an unfavorable season both for health and
     vegetation, but we have been most agreeably disappointed. My
     health was never better. I beg you to present my kind regards to
     Mrs. B., and to Mr. Craig, and to be assured of my sincere
     regard.

                                   EDWARD COLES.

     NICHOLAS BIDDLE, ESQ.,
         President of the Bank of the U. S.--Philadelphia.

     P. S.--Could you or Mr. Vaux furnish me with an assessment of
     lands in the different counties of Pennsylvania? I want to show
     that lands are higher in price in free than slave States.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO ROBERTS VAUX

                              VANDALIA, ILLINOIS, December 11, 1823.

     _Esteemed Friend_:--I received some time since your letter of the
     11th of Oct., and by the last mail yours of the 4th ulto. An
     unusual press of public business prevented my sooner
     acknowledging the former, and will now prevent my making as long
     an answer to the two as I desire. For the last four weeks there
     has been a great crowd of persons here, attending the Circuit and
     Supreme Court of the State, and the U. S. and District Court and
     the sale at auction for taxes of about 7,000 tracts of land,
     belonging to non-resident proprietors. This has necessarily given
     me much to do; but it has at the same time afforded me an
     excellent opportunity of collecting the sense of the people on
     the great question which is now agitating the State. And I am
     happy in assuring you, from the best information I have been able
     to collect from all parts of the State, I am more confirmed in my
     belief that a majority of the people will be opposed to calling a
     convention for the purpose of altering the Constitution so as to
     make this a slave-holding State. But the extraordinary efforts
     that have been made here during the last three or four weeks by
     the friends of Slavery, in organizing their party, and enabling
     its leaders to act with the most concert and effect, convince the
     friends of freedom that their opponents are yet in the field, and
     that they should be on the alert, for fear by some _ruse de
     guerre_, at which their opponents are known from sad experience
     to be great adepts, the advocates of oppression should triumph.
     Nearly all the leading friends of a convention have been
     assembled here, and held caucuses for the purpose of deliberating
     upon the best means of promoting the success of their favorite
     measure; have adopted sundry resolutions, and made many
     arrangements; among others have appointed committees for each
     county in the State, and requested that the county committees
     appoint a committee in each township, for the purpose of
     corresponding with each other, and of influencing by every
     possible means the public opinion.

     With respect to your inquiry whether there is not some more
     expeditious and safe mode of sending out the pamphlets than
     through a commercial house at St. Louis, I can think of no other,
     except to forward them, as pamphlets, by mail to me to this
     place, which is at this season of the year slow and precarious.

     The pamphlet you forwarded me by mail, along with your last
     letter, I received safe; but have been so busy as not yet to have
     had time to read it. Two thousand of each kind, will, I presume,
     be enough, and as many as I shall be able conveniently to
     distribute. There will be for the next six months, so few persons
     visiting this place, that I shall be compelled to rely chiefly on
     the mails, as the means of distributing pamphlets, or other
     information to the public. If possible, I intend to have all the
     pamphlets published in one or more of our weekly newspapers.

     Accompanying this I send you a pamphlet, which has been lately
     published by my old friend Birkbeck, which is by far the best
     publication which has been yet given to the public. After you
     have perused it, you will confer a favor on me to loan it for the
     perusal of our mutual friend Biddle, to whom I beg you to present
     my kind regards.

     With great respect and sincere regards, your friend,

                                   EDWARD COLES.


     TO ROBERTS VAUX,
          Philadelphia.

     We have had the misfortune (two days since) to lose our State
     House by fire. This accident will operate in favor of a
     convention. Many profess to be opposed to slavery but in favor of
     a convention to remove the seat of Government. There is now of
     course less inducement for keeping it here. I still, however,
     hope and believe we shall have no convention.


                         MORRIS BIRKBECK TO GOVERNOR COLES


                                             WANBOROUGH, Dec. 6, 1823.

     _Dear Sir_: * * * * * * * * * *

     I take the liberty by this mail to send you half a dozen; and if,
     on reading a copy, you should think it may be useful to any of
     the unconverted Conventionists, you may put it in their way. I am
     glad you think favorably of the course the question is taking. I
     believe the advocates of a Convention are not so numerous as they
     have been on this side of the State. The leaders do not seem to
     be so sanguine. This may, however, be a _ruse de guerre_
     preparatory to a grand push in the spring. I am rejoiced that you
     have escaped from sickness this summer. My family has enjoyed
     excellent health, and the neighborhood--as heretofore. We should
     be glad to see you amongst us; and a friendly visit from you
     would give _me_ peculiar pleasure. I have not seen Mr. Pell since
     the morning, when I received your letter. I shall deliver your
     message to him, and I beg you to believe me your sincere friend,

                         M. BIRKBECK.
     TO GOVERNOR COLES,
       Vandalia.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO MORRIS BIRKBECK

                                   VANDALIA, January 29, 1824.

     _My Dear Sir_:--I had the pleasure to receive, in due course of
     mail, your letter of the 6th ulto., together with six of your
     pamphlets, which you were so good as to send me, for which I
     return you my thanks. I had previously seen republished in a
     newspaper your pamphlet, and had read it with great pleasure. I
     could not but wish every Conventionist in the State had it and
     was compelled to read it with attention. Our society at
     Edwardsville intends having another and large edition of it
     reprinted for the purpose of having it extensively circulated. I
     took the liberty to send one or two of your pamphlets to some
     distant and particular friends, who take a deep interest in the
     Slave question in this State. By the by, should not the review of
     your pamphlet, which appeared first in the Illinois Gazette, and
     since republished in all the Convention papers of the State, be
     noticed? It is very ingeniously written, but what more
     particularly requires correction is the fabrications and
     misrepresentations of facts. One or two of these were hastily
     noticed and sent to be inserted last week in the paper published
     here; but no paper has since issued from the press.

     During the setting of the Courts, and the sale of the lands of
     non-residents for taxes, we had a considerable number of persons
     assembled here from almost every part of the State; and a pretty
     good opportunity was afforded of collecting the public sentiment
     in relation to the great question which is now convulsing the
     State. The friends of a Convention pretended to be pleased; but
     it was very apparent they were not; and the more honest and
     liberal among them acknowledged that they thought their prospects
     bad. Our friends on the other hand were much pleased, and
     rendered much more sanguine of success from the information they
     received. The friends of Slavery, however, were caucusing nearly
     every night, and made many arrangements for their electioneering
     campaign. Among others, it is said, they have appointed five
     persons in each county, with a request that these five appoint
     three in each election precinct, for the purpose of diffusing
     their doctrines, embodying their forces, and acting with the
     greatest concert and effort. This is well calculated to bring
     their strength to bear in the best possible manner, and should,
     as far as possible, be counteracted. When bad men conspire, good
     men should be watchful.

     The friends of a Convention appear to become more and more bitter
     and virulent in their enmity to me, and seem determined not only
     to injure my standing with the people, but to break down my
     pecuniary resources. A suit has been lately instituted at
     Edwardsville against me for the recovery of the sum of $200 for
     _each_ negro emancipated by me and brought into this State. The
     suit has been brought under a law passed on the 30th of March,
     1819, but which was not printed or promulgated until the October
     following. In the meantime, that is about the first week of May,
     my negroes emigrated to and settled in this State. What is truly
     farcical in this suit is, that a poor worthless fellow, who has
     no property, and of course pays no tax, has been selected to
     institute it, from the fear he has of being taxed to support the
     negroes I emancipated, when they, who are all young and healthy,
     are so prosperous as to possess comfortable livings, and some of
     them pay as much as four dollars a year tax on their property. I
     should indeed, my friend, be unfortunate were I now compelled to
     pay $200 for each of my negroes, big and little, dead and living
     (for the suit goes to this) after the sacrifices I have made, and
     my efforts to befriend and enable them to live comfortably. For I
     not only emancipated all my negroes, which amounted to one-third
     of all the property my father bequeathed me, but I removed them
     out here at an expense of between five and six hundred dollars,
     and then gave each head of a family, and all others who had
     passed the age of 24, one hundred and sixty acres of land each,
     and exerted myself to prevail on them to be honest, industrious
     and correct in their conduct. This they have done in a remarkable
     degree, so much so, with all the prejudice against free negroes,
     there never has been the least ground for charge or censure
     against any one of them. And now, for the first time in my life,
     to be sued for what I thought was generous and praiseworthy
     conduct, creates strange feelings, which, however, cease to give
     me personal mortification, when I reflect on the character and
     motives of those who have instituted it.

     Just about the time this suit was instituted, I had the
     misfortune to lose by fire two-thirds of all the buildings and
     enclosures on my farm, together with about 200 apple trees and as
     many peach trees--several of each kind large enough to bear
     fruit. And soon after, the "State House" having been consumed by
     fire, a project was set on foot to rebuild it by subscription.
     Not liking the plan and arrangements, I declined subscribing, and
     proposed others, which I thought would be more for the interest
     of the State, of the county, and of the town--and which by the
     way are now generally admitted would have been best. This however
     was immediately laid hold of by some of the factious
     Conventionists who being aware that the loss of the State House
     would operate to the injury of their favorite measure in _this
     county_, and being anxious to display great solicitude for the
     interest of the people here, and that too, as much as possible at
     the expense of the anti-Conventionists, they busied themselves in
     misrepresenting to the multitude my reasons and motives for not
     subscribing my name to their paper, and with the aid of large
     potions of whiskey, contrived to get up a real _vandal_ mob, who
     vented their spleen against me, in the most noisy and riotous
     manner, nearly all night, for my opposition to a convention and
     for my refusal as they termed it, to rebuild the State House. All
     this and other instances of defamation and persecution, create in
     my bosom opposite feelings; one of pain, the other of pleasure.
     Pain to see my fellow man so ill-natured and vindictive merely
     because I am the friend of my species, and am opposed to one
     portion oppressing another--pleasure that I should be in a
     situation which enables me to render services to the just and
     good cause in which we are engaged; and so far from repining at
     these indignities and persecutions, I am thankful to Providence
     for placing me in the van of this eventful contest, and giving me
     a temper, zeal, and resolution which I trust will enable me to
     bear with fortitude the peltings which are inseparable from it.
     In conclusion, I pray you to do me the justice to believe, that
     no dread of personal consequences will ever abate my efforts to
     promote the good of the public, much less to abandon the great
     fundamental principles of civil and personal liberty--and to be
     assured of my sincere friendship.

                                   EDWARD COLES.

     MORRIS BIRKBECK, ESQ.,
       Wanborough, Edwards County.


               MR. BIRKBECK TO GOVERNOR COLES

                                   WANBOROUGH, Feb. 19, 1824.

     _My Dear Sir_:--I have just received your letter of January 29,
     and I assure you the receiving of it has given me unfeigned
     pleasure, although its contents, as far as the unworthy conduct
     of the party is productive of vexation to you, I as sincerely
     lament. I am sorry that it should be at your expense; but as it
     tends to expose the badness of the cause and the iniquity of its
     supporters, the friends of liberty and virtue can hardly regret
     that they should have thus displayed their true characters.

     For myself, my private situation screens me in great measure from
     persecution, though I presume, not from the honor of their
     hatred. I am glad, you approve my little pamphlet; if I could
     afford it I would spare the society at Edwardsville the expense
     of republishing, &c. I have the satisfaction of knowing that it
     has done some good, by changing the sentiments of several, who
     through want of reflection or knowledge, had been advocates of
     Slavery. And as there are many up and down in all parts of the
     State, who are in that situation, I trust its general circulation
     will be useful. I am continually plying the Slave party, through
     the Illinois Gazette, with popular discussions and sometimes with
     legal arguments, under the signature of Jonathan Freeman, and
     some others. You will see, if you read that paper, an ironical
     proposal of a plan for raising a fund to colonize the negroes as
     an appendage to limited Slavery, signed J., which I think may
     show the absurdity of that argument. The Edwardsville Spectator
     published about a dozen of those short letters, and I suppose
     that you will see a few more of them shortly. As they present
     the question in various lights, pointing out the wickedness and
     folly of the slave scheme, dissected as it were into distinct
     portions, I imagine they make an impression on some readers more
     effectually than a continued course of argument. I submit, with
     great deference, a thought that some of these would be useful if
     published by way of appendix to the _Appeal_. Perhaps you will
     revert to them, and notice a few more which you will soon see;
     then do as you see good.

     As _publication_ is essential to the binding power of a law, in
     fact to its existence _as law_, you will of course defeat your
     persecutors, and put them to shame, on the principle of _ex post
     facto_. You could not infringe in May a law promulgated in
     October following.

     The fire at Vandalia is rather against the Conventionists in that
     quarter. The idea of re-building the State House by subscription,
     you, as governor, could hardly countenance. What authority have
     individuals to act in this case, even at their own expense? And
     what claim have they on your private purse? I am only sorry for
     your personal vexation under these attacks. They discover the
     weakness and folly of the party, and I am in hopes they are
     losing ground. They have great zeal and activity and no delicacy
     about the means; there is considerable zeal and activity on our
     side; and setting the good principles of our cause against their
     total want of principle, I trust we are a match for them,
     provided we do not relax in our efforts. The attack on my
     pamphlet by Americanus (who is Mr. Webb of Bonpas), seems to the
     Illinois Gazette a short reply to the personalities; further I
     thought needless, and have just written another to the same
     effect, which I shall send to the Vandalia paper. Not being
     presumed to know the author, some severity of retort seems
     allowable.

     You have a circle at Vandalia chiefly, I fear, of the wrong sort
     in regard to the vital question, which circumstance must detract
     from your social enjoyment, where at best it could ill be spared.
     The cause in which you are engaged so heartily is so thoroughly
     good that it will bear you up through many sacrifices and
     privations. Your sentiments on the subject rejoice and encourage
     me, and in return (pedantry as it may seem) I shall give you a
     sentiment from Horace for _your_ encouragement.[233]

         Justum et tenacem propositi virum,
         Non civium ardor prava jubentium,
         Non vultus instantis tyranni,
         Mente quatit solida.

     I remain, with great esteem, yours,
                                        M. BIRKBECK.


     MORRIS BIRKBECK, ESQ.,
         Wanborough.

     I had hoped after the great and decided majority which was given
     at the late election against a Convention, my political enemies
     would have ceased to persecute me. But in this I was mistaken. It
     would seem I must be sacrificed. Nothing short of my entire ruin
     will satisfy my enemies, and they seem determined to effect it
     without regard to the means. Yesterday the suit which has been
     instituted against me for freeing my negroes was called up for
     trial. Judge Reynolds not only decided several points of law
     against me, in opposition to the opinion of several of the best
     lawyers in the State, but he and Mr. Turney rejected _all_ my
     testimony as illegal, and would not permit a solitary word to be
     uttered by a witness of mine. Under such circumstances the jury
     found a verdict of $2,000 against me, which, with the cost, will
     be a difficult sum for me to raise, these hard times. I shall ask
     for a new trial. If this application should share the fate of all
     others I have made, it is to be hoped he will not assume the
     power to prevent my taking an appeal to the Supreme Court.

     In haste, your friend,
                                   ED. COLES.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO ROBERTS VAUX

                                   VANDALIA, Jan'y 21, 1824.

     _My Friend_:--While at Edwardsville a few days since, I received
     a letter from D. B. Smith, notifying me that he had forwarded to
     the care of I. I. Smith & Co., of St. Louis, certain pamphlets;
     previous to which, however, I had been informed by one of that
     company that he expected them, and had requested him to notify me
     so soon as they should be received, and to forward them to me to
     this place by the first safe opportunity. I also had the pleasure
     to receive at Edwardsville the pamphlet you were so good as to
     enclose me by mail. The information contained in this pamphlet in
     relation to the foreign slave trade, is highly interesting. I
     must, however, be allowed to express my regret that it does not
     bear more directly on the question, which is now agitating us
     here, by showing the resemblance between the _foreign_ and
     _domestic_ slave trade, and the inevitable effect of the
     extension of Slavery into new regions, to continue and increase
     this odious traffic. To add to the circulation of this, as well
     as the pamphlet I had previously the pleasure to receive from
     you, I shall, if possible, prevail on some of the editors to
     publish them in their newspapers. But unfortunately for our
     cause, of the five newspapers printed in this State, four are the
     avowed advocates of Slavery (in other words for a Convention) and
     but one of Freedom, and that one not friendly to me and other
     opponents of the Convention. This division among us arises from
     factions, personal and local feelings, and from the circumstance
     that we have many avowed friends of freedom, who are themselves
     the masters of slaves; and who, while they unite with us in
     opposing the means of the further introduction of Slavery, are at
     the same time violently opposed to our efforts to abolish the
     remnant of Slavery which is still allowed to stain our soil.
     There is also another class among us who profess to be opposed to
     Slavery and who rail much against it, but yet who are friendly to
     it, as is fully evinced by their advocating every measure
     calculated to introduce and tolerate it here. The character and
     feelings of these several classes of our citizens were strongly
     exemplified last winter, when, on entering into office, I called
     the attention of the Legislature to the existence of Slavery
     among us, and urged its abolition. As it may be the means of
     throwing some light on the slave question in this State, I will
     send you, accompanying this letter, a printed copy of my speech,
     and a report made by a committee of the Legislature on a part of
     it.

     My remarks and recommendation on the subject of Slavery produced
     a great excitement among those who held slaves, or were desirous
     of holding them, particularly among those advocates of a
     Convention who were professedly the opponents of Slavery, but
     secretly its friends, and who hoped under the fair mask of
     freedom, to deceive the people and to smuggle in the monster
     Slavery. Bringing forward the measure of abolition at the same
     time they brought forward the Convention question, placed these
     professed friends to the rights of man in an awkward situation,
     for it was apparent if they voted agreeable to their
     declarations, they, together with the real and genuine friends of
     freedom, would constitute a majority of the Legislature, and of
     course pass the abolition Bill. This state of things had the
     effect of unmasking their true opinions and views, and of clearly
     exhibiting to the public the real object for which a convention
     was to be called--that of making this a Slave-holding State....

     Having had the good fortune, through every period of my life, to
     live in great harmony with my fellow man, the enmity and
     persecution I have lately had to encounter, have created a new
     state of feeling, and caused me to look into my own conduct to
     see whether it has been correct. In this review I have been
     gratified to find I have not given just cause of offense to any
     one; but I have been grieved to perceive with what virulence I
     have been pelted, when the only complaint against me is, that I
     am a friend to the equal rights of man, and am considered a
     barrier to my opponents acquiring the power of oppressing their
     fellow man. Under this view of my situation, I am gratified that
     Providence has placed me in the van of this great contest; and I
     am truly thankful that my system is so organized as to leave no
     room for doubt, fear or hesitation. My opinions have long since
     been maturely formed, and my course deliberately taken, and is
     not now to be changed by detraction, prosecutions, or threats of
     "_Convention or death_."

     I beg you excuse my troubling you with the perusal of so long a
     letter, and that you will pardon me for having said so much of
     myself, in consideration of its connection with the great
     question now agitating this State, by interesting yourself in
     which you have displayed so signal and praiseworthy an instance
     of your benevolence--for which I pray you to accept the grateful
     thanks of your friend,

                                   EDWARD COLES.

Answering this January 21, 1824, Mr. Vaux said:

     The part which thee has been called to act, privately as well as
     publicly and officially, in regard to the rights of mankind, and
     for the upholding of the principles of justice and mercy toward a
     degraded and oppressed portion of our fellow beings, ought to be
     regarded as a manifestation of Providential power, concerning
     which we must always believe the same Divine interposition will
     be extended in every exigency. I am altogether satisfied that it
     is reserved for thee to witness the triumph of truth and
     beneficence in the struggle to which thee has been exposed; and,
     what is of infinitely greater value, as it respects thyself, to
     reap a plentiful harvest in the most precious of all rewards, the
     approbation of Heaven!

     I feel a deep interest in thy character, and a lively gratitude
     for thy service, and it will always be among the purest
     consolations of my mind to be assured of thy welfare and
     happiness.


               ROBERTS VAUX TO GOVERNOR COLES

     _Esteemed Friend_:--My delay in the acknowledgment of the receipt
     of thy truly interesting letter of Jan'y 21, last, will not, I
     trust, be attributed to any want of respect and kindness, but to
     the real causes, which were, first, an unusual press of business
     relative to several public institutions, which at the season of
     the receipt of that communication demanded my attention; and
     secondly, to the expectation subsequently entertained here, that
     thy presence might be expected at Washington as successor in the
     Senate of the United States to N. Edwards, appointed on a foreign
     mission. The likelihood that the latter event might bring us to a
     _personal_ acquaintance in this city, when the session of
     Congress should terminate, was contemplated with pleasure, since
     a direct interchange of opinion would be preferred to epistolary
     correspondence. Time, however, has served to show that this
     prospect, with many others upon which we dwell with satisfaction,
     failed of realization, and I therefore avail myself of the only
     means which are left to renew the assurance of my remembrance, of
     my undissembled regard, and of my sincere sympathy. The part
     which thee has been called to act privately as well as publicly,
     and officially, in regard to the rights of mankind, and for the
     upholding of the principles of justice, and mercy toward a
     degraded and oppressed portion of our fellow beings, ought to be
     regarded as a manifestation of Providential power, concerning
     which we must always believe the same Divine interposition will
     be extended in every exigency. I am altogether satisfied that it
     is reserved for thee to witness the triumph of truth and
     beneficence in the struggle to which thee has been exposed; and,
     what is of infinitely greater value, as it respects thyself, to
     reap a plenteous harvest in the most precious of all rewards, the
     approbation of Heaven!

     I feel a deep interest in thy character, and a lively gratitude
     for thy services, and it will always be among the purest
     consolations of my mind to be assured of thy welfare and
     happiness; with these impressions I salute thee, and remain
     faithfully,

                              Thy Friend,
                                   ROBERTS VAUX

     To EDWARD COLES,
       Governor of Illinois.

     P. S.--I yesterday passed half and hour with our friend, N.
     Biddle; he is well, but very much occupied with official duties
     at the bank.


               ROBERTS VAUX TO GOVERNOR COLES

     _Dear Friend_: The last intelligence from Philadelphia is, that
     the great question which has so long agitated your State, and
     which had a bearing so important upon the common interests of
     humanity, and justice, has been determined. Happy for your
     commonwealth! Creditable for our country! Slavery will not be
     permitted to overrun Illinois! The result of the conflict is
     truly joyous; you have said to the moral plague, "_Thus far, but
     no farther, shalt thou come._"

     My warmest congratulations are tendered on this great event,
     though I know how inferior all exterior circumstances must be in
     comparison with the heart-solacing reward which is reaped by thy
     devotedness in this noble cause.

     Since I have been at my summer residence, I have received several
     numbers of an Illinois newspaper, and a pamphlet from the same
     quarter, all which contained highly interesting matter relative
     to the question then undecided in your State; I presume I am
     indebted to thy kindness for those documents, for which I feel
     greatly obliged. The letter of Thos. Jefferson addressed to
     thyself, is very interesting, and I have it in contemplation to
     cause it to be printed in a tract form, for general distribution,
     provided such use of it, may be altogether agreeable to thee.

     I have indulged myself with a hope that it may be within the
     range of probability, that thee will make a visit to Philadelphia
     ere long. Not anything would give me more pleasure than thy
     presence in our city, and that gratification would be increased
     by thy making my house thy home. I have much more to communicate
     than I have leisure now to put on paper, as we are today
     preparing to return, on the morrow, to our house in town.

     With sincere regard I remain thy friend,

                                   ROBERTS VAUX.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO ROBERTS VAUX

     _My Dear Sir_:--When I had the happiness to enjoy your society
     last summer in Philadelphia, you were so kind as to express a
     wish to hear from me on my return to this State. I should long
     since have fulfilled the promise then made you to comply with
     this request which I felt was as flattering to me, as it was kind
     in you; but for a mass of business which had accumulated during
     my absence, the preparation for the meeting, and the labor and
     interruption attendant on the session of the Legislature, which
     adjourned a few days since; and the novel and extraordinary
     efforts made by some of my old political opponents to supplant me
     in the office of Governor, by thrusting in my place the
     Lieutenant-Governor a zealous and thorough-going advocate of
     Slavery. I had heard nothing of this intention (for although many
     letters were written to me, it so happened not one ever came to
     hand, or has since been heard of) until I reached Louisville on
     my way home, when I was told by a friend that he had been
     informed by a distinguished opponent of mine that it had been
     determined that I should not be permitted to resume the office of
     Governor. On my arriving in the State, I found that there had
     been several caucuses held in different places, by what are
     called the knowing ones, for the purpose of devising the best
     mode of proceeding, and of organizing their forces to act against
     me. All the Executive officers of the State recognizing me as
     Governor, I found no difficulty in entering at once on the duties
     of the office. The Lieutenant-Governor, however, still remained
     at the seat of Gov't, contending that I had vacated the office by
     my absence from the State, and that he was, under the
     constitution, the acting Governor. On the meeting of the Supreme
     Court, he applied for a mandamus against the Secretary of State.
     The court refused the mandamus on an incidental point, and got
     rid of the main question without deciding it. Soon after this the
     General Assembly met, and efforts were made to induce it to
     recognize the Lieutenant as the acting Governor; but these
     efforts having failed, he made a communication to both Houses,
     setting forth his claims to the office of Governor, and asking to
     be heard by himself or counsel in support of them. Nothing was
     done with this communication, there being only _one_ member in
     _each_ House openly in favor of the Lieutenant-Governor's
     pretensions. There would doubtless have been more if there had
     been any prospect of ousting me. I attribute the unexpected
     unanimity to the circumstance of the question having been stirred
     in time to afford the people an opportunity of making known their
     opinions and feelings to their Representatives previous to their
     leaving home to take their seats in the Legislature. The current
     of public opinion on this question was too strong in my favor to
     be resisted by any but a most desperate antagonist. This effort
     of my opponents has recoiled very much to my advantage, in
     weakening their popularity, and adding to the strength of mine.

     You will recollect my having shown you last summer some
     strictures, which I had been induced to publish on the judge's
     opinion in the malicious suit which had been instituted against
     me for freeing my negroes, in consequence of several
     extraordinary errors of fact, as well as of law, which it
     contained, and the unusual pains taken by the judge to publish
     and circulate these errors to my injury. Two actions have been
     instituted against me for this publication--one by the court--the
     other in the name of the judge as an individual, in which he has
     laid his damages at $5,000. The former is to be tried at
     Edwardsville next month--the latter at this place in April. The
     original suit, or mother of the judge's twin-suits, is still
     pending in our Supreme Court, and is expected will be decided at
     the June term. I trust I shall get rid of all of these suits in
     the course of the spring and summer. I feel the more anxious to
     do so as they are the first suits, that ever were instituted
     against me.

     I have not heard anything of the pamphlets which you were so good
     as to promise to send me. I shall go to St. Louis in about a
     month, when I hope to receive them. I see noticed in the public
     prints a new pamphlet, published by G. and C. Carville, at New
     York, on the emancipation and removal of the slaves of the U. S.
     If you could conveniently lay your hands on this pamphlet, you
     would confer a favor on me by sending it to me by mail. May I ask
     the favor of you to hand to Mr. Fry the enclosed five dollar
     note, and request him to forward the National Gazette to William
     Wilson (Chief Justice of the State), Carmi, White county,
     Illinois.

     I beg you to present my kind regards to Mrs. Vaux, and to accept
     my grateful acknowledgments for your very kind and truly friendly
     attentions to me while in Philadelphia; and permit me again to
     renew to you the assurance of my obligations to you for the
     services rendered to humanity and to Illinois during the late
     vile effort to prostitute their rights and character and to
     repeat that the virtuous and benevolent interest you evinced on
     that occasion will ever endear you to

                                   EDWARD COLES.


               GOVERNOR COLES TO A. COWLES

     _Dear Sir_:--Believing that I should have been able to prove that
     I had not libeled Judge McRoberts, and explain how the Grand Jury
     had been induced to present me for so doing, it was with great
     regret that I heard you had thought proper to dismiss the
     prosecution. Fearing that some malicious person may misrepresent
     this transaction at some future day, when those who now
     understand it may have forgotten many of the details in relation
     to it, or perhaps be dead, or have removed from the country, I
     have determined to ask the favor of you to give me a written
     answer to the following questions:

     Did you summon or request Judge McRoberts to appear before the
     Grand Jury, which presented me for libeling him?

     Did not Judge McRoberts request to see the indictment before it
     was delivered to the Grand Jury, and did he not examine and alter
     it, and if so what were the alterations made by him?

     Did you ask Mr. Blackwell to aid you in the prosecution of me,
     and do you know whether he was employed by Judge McRoberts to do
     so?

     As you have expressed the opinion verbally to several persons,
     that I had not libeled Judge McRoberts, I ask the favor of you to
     give me your opinion in writing, whether the matter contained in
     the indictment was a libel?

     With great respect, I am &c., &c.,
                                   EDWARD COLES.

     A. COWLES, ESQ.,
       Circuit Attorney,
         Edwardsville.

     P. S.--Why was not Judge McRoberts returned as a witness, on the
     back of the indictment?


     EXTRACT FROM A LETTER FROM GOVERNOR COLES TO JOHN
     RUTHERFORD

     I give you many thanks, my dear Sir, for your long and truly
     affectionate letter of February, and assure you, I feel great
     contrition for having so long delayed the expression of them, and
     of saying how much gratified I was at perusing your kind letter,
     and the glad tidings it gave me of the health and happiness of
     our dear Emily and her little ones; and also the pleasure I have
     since derived at finding from the newspapers in what a flattering
     manner your fellow citizens have elected you to represent them in
     the Legislature.

     I am greatly gratified at your election, not only from the regard
     I have for you as a man, etc., and the consequent interest I take
     in, and the pleasure I derive from your success; but I am
     particularly so in seeing men of your principles in relation to
     negro Slavery in the Councils of Virginia, as it cheers me with
     the hope that something will soon be done to repudiate the
     unnatural connection which has there so long existed between the
     freest of the free and the most slavish of slaves.

     Even if it were feasible, from the extraordinary apathy in the
     great mass of the people, and the zeal displayed by many to
     perpetuate the evil, I could not hope for speedy emancipation,
     but I do trust for the honor as well as interest of the State
     that ameliorating laws will be speedily passed, which will
     gradually have the effect of reconciling and habituating the
     masters, and preparing the slaves for a change which, as Mr.
     Jefferson says, must sooner or later take place with or without
     the consent of the masters. It behooves Virginia to move in this
     great question; and it is a solemn duty which her politicians owe
     to their country, to themselves, and to their posterity, to look
     ahead and make provision for the future, and secure the peace,
     prosperity and glory of their country.

     The policy of Virginia for some years past has been most
     unfortunate. So far from acting as if Slavery were an evil which
     ought to be gotten rid of, every measure which could be taken has
     been taken to perpetuate it, as if it were a blessing. Her
     political pilots have acted like the inexperienced navigator,
     who, to get rid of the slight inconvenience of the safety-valves
     have hermetically sealed them, not foreseeing that the inevitable
     consequence will be the bursting of the boiler, and dreadful
     havoc among all on board. No law has been passed under the
     _commonwealth_ to ameliorate the black code of the _colony_ of
     Virginia; on the contrary, new laws have been passed, adding to
     the oppression of the unfortunate negroes, and which have not
     only abridged the rights of humanity, but of the citizen. Such is
     the character of the law which restricts and to a great degree
     prohibits the master from manumitting his slave. The idea should
     be ever present to the politicians of Virginia, that the state of
     Slavery is an unnatural state, and cannot exist forever; it must
     come to an end by consent or by force; and if by consent, it must
     from all experience, as from the nature of things, be preceded by
     ameliorating laws, which will have the effect of gradually and
     imperceptibly loosening the bonds of servitude.

     Nothing is more erroneous than the idea which is entertained by
     many, that ameliorating laws, and especially manumissions, are
     productions of insurrections among the slaves. The history of the
     British and Spanish West Indies shows that in those Islands where
     they have prevailed most, the slaves have behaved best, and
     insurrections have occurred oftenest where the slaves have been
     most oppressed and manumissions most restricted. Indeed, we never
     hear of insurrections in the Spanish Islands, where the slaves
     are most under the protection of the law, and where there are no
     restrictions on manumissions. Virginia should repeal the law
     against emancipation, prohibit the domestic slave-trade--which is
     nearly allied in all its odious features to the African slave
     trade--restrict the power of the master in disposing of his
     slaves, by preventing him from separating the child from its
     parent, the husband from his wife, etc., and if possible, connect
     the slave under proper modifications to the soil, or at least to
     the vicinity of his birth; instruct the slaves especially in the
     duties of Religion; extend to them the protection of the laws,
     and punish severity in the master, and when cruelly exercised by
     him, it should vest the right in the slave to his freedom; or to
     be sold at an assessed valuation. These and many other provisions
     might be adopted which would have a most salutary effect, and
     especially the Spanish provision, which gives the right to the
     slave to buy a portion of his time as soon as he can procure the
     means, either by his own labor or by the bounty of others; thus,
     for instance, suppose a negro worth $600 on paying $100, he is
     entitled to one day in each week, and so on. In connection with
     the emancipation of slaves, I should provide for the removal by
     bounty and otherwise, of free negroes from the country, as the
     natural difference, and unfortunate prejudice existing between
     the whites and blacks would make it the interest of both to be
     separated. This subject, is too big for a letter, and I can only
     add, that if I could see ameliorating laws adopted, if I did not
     live to see the emancipation, I should at least die with the
     happy consolation of believing that measures were in progress for
     the consummation of ultimate justice to the descendants of the
     unfortunate African; and that my country, and the descendants of
     my family, if not my nephews and nieces, would lie down in peace
     and safety, and would not have entailed on them an unnatural and
     odious system, productive of strife, enmity and war, between
     themselves and their domestics. I was in hopes to have been able
     by this time to have informed you and my other friends of the
     result of the malicious suit instituted against me for freeing my
     negroes, and which is pending in our Supreme Court. The case was
     argued last week, but the court has adjourned to the 1st Monday
     of January, next, without deciding it. I was much disappointed in
     not getting a decision; I have however but little fear as to the
     result.


FOOTNOTES:

[230] These letters are taken from E. B. Washburne's _Sketch of Edward
Coles, Second Governor of Illinois, and of the Slavery Struggle of
1823-1824_.

[231] _Ibid._, p. 18.

[232] Jefferson's reply was published in THE JOURNAL OP NEGRO HISTORY,
Vol. III, p. 83.

[233] The last paragraph of Mr. Birkbeck's letter cannot but excite
admiration. The quotation from Horace applied with great force to the
case of Governor Coles:

"Neither the ardor of citizens ordering base things, nor the face of
the threatening tyrant shakes a man just and tenacious of principle
from his firm intentions."




SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES


SOLOMON HUMPHRIES. Traveling through this country in 1833 at the very
time when free Negroes were being denounced as an evil of which this
country should by all means rid itself, C. D. Arfwedson found in
Macon, Georgia a thrifty free Negro named Solomon Humphries, well
known by all classes including local officials and even the governor
of the State. Humphries had by dint of energy acquired his freedom and
had made himself an asset in his community. He was then keeping a
large grocery store and had more credit than many other merchants in
the town, for he had accumulated about $20,000 worth of property. He
had a neat and comfortably furnished home, presided over by his wife,
an intelligent woman of color, who was often seen driving with him in
his own unostentatious carriage. He was sought by the wealthiest
people of the city whom he lavishly entertained at his home, doing
them the honor of waiting on them in person himself, although he had a
number of slaves who could have rendered this service. Making it a
rule to be especially hospitable to strangers, he invited Arfwedson to
be his guest while in the city; but on account of having planned
to go to Columbus that day, Arfwedson could not accept his
invitation.--_Arfwedson's United States and Canada in 1833 and 1834_,
I, p. 425.

       *       *       *       *       *

A NEGRO COLONIZATIONIST. While the American Colonization Society was
being denounced by the free Negroes of the North, many blacks of the
same status in the South had a different attitude toward the movement,
especially during the twenties before it had been discovered that
Liberia was not suitable for a civilized people. One of the Negroes of
the South to be won to this movement was a free man of color named
Creighton, a slave owner of Charleston, South Carolina. He had
accumulated considerable wealth and had begun to feel that it would be
better for him to spend his remaining days in a land of freedom.
Several other free blacks were induced to go with him. In disposing of
his property he offered his slaves, the alternative of being liberated
on the condition of accompanying him on his expedition or of remaining
in this country to be sold as other property. Only one of his slaves
could be prevailed upon to accept freedom on these terms and go with
him to Liberia. Creighton then closed up his business in Charleston,
purchased for the enterprise a schooner _The Calypso_ and set sail for
Africa, October 17, 1821.--_Niles Register_, XXI, p. 163; taken from
_The New York Commercial Advertiser_.

       *       *       *       *       *

A MORALIST. A white cooper called upon a Negro who owned a fine farm
near Cincinnati and expressed a desire to purchase some stave timber
from him. The Negro inquired as to what use the cooper would make of
it. The latter replied that he had a contract to make some whisky
barrels.

"Well, Sir," was the prompt reply, "I have the timber and want the
money, but no man can purchase a single stave or hoop pole, or a
particle of grain from me for that purpose."

The cooper, of course, became unusually angry on receiving such a
stern reproof and contemptuously addressed this man of color, calling
him a "Nigger."

"That is very true," mildly replied the Negro. "I can't help that, but
I _can_ help selling my timber to make whisky barrels, and I mean to
do it."--_The Weekly Herald and Philanthropist_, May 13, 1846.

       *       *       *       *       *

A BENEVOLENT NEGRO. Before the Northwest Territory became disturbed by
the influx of free Negroes and fugitives running away from persecution
in the South, there had been enough trouble with white vagrants to
lead to drastic laws for the protection of certain communities.
Michigan, which did not until 1827 pass a measure dealing especially
with undesirable Negroes, had prior to this time a law providing for
selling idle and dissolute persons at auction. At one of the sales in
1821 a Negro bought a white man and ordered him to follow his master,
and the order was obeyed. But the benevolent black took his servant to
the steamboat, paid his passage and restored him his freedom, making
himself satisfied with sending the white vagrant out of the
territory.--_Niles Register_, XXI, p. 214.




BOOK REVIEWS


_Harvard Studies._ I. _Varia Africana._ I. ORIC BATES, Editor, F. H.
STERNS, Asst. Editor. Introduction by THEODORE ROOSEVELT. The African
Department of the Peabody Museum of Harvard University, Cambridge,
1917. Quarto. Pp. 292.

In the introduction to the Harvard African studies ex-President
Roosevelt describes the enterprise which this volume represents as
"the first serious attempt by Americans to contribute to the real
study of the African." He might have added, with almost equal truth,
that it is the first serious attempt by Americans to study the Negro.

Books have been written by Americans about the black man. Howard
University, Washington, D. C., has a library of such books. There are
other private collections, some of them running into several thousand
volumes. Most of them are written in a controversial spirit. Many of
them are theological, seeking to show, on the basis of scriptural
quotations, that the social status of the black man is pre-ordained
and eternally fixed. Others are pseudo-scientific attempts to solve
the race problem by showing that the black man is not quite human.
Some of them seek to prove, on the basis of anthropological data, that
the Negro has no soul, hence efforts to Christianize him are
hopeless.--Many more are written by Negroes to preserve some record of
their meager history, or to defend the race against the monstrous
attacks upon its humanity.

Such books are interesting and valuable as records of the sentiments
and attitudes which the racial struggle has called forth in the black
man and in the white. The strange distortions of fact and opinion
which they record are significant, not so much for what they tell us
of the Negro, as for what they reveal of the intensity of the racial
conflict, and of the nature of the passions involved. Most books on
the Negro in America published prior to 1900, and some books written
since that time, are mainly valuable as source books for the social
psychologist and the students of human nature. As literature they
represent a melancholy anthology. As records of human nature, under
the strains and stresses of a tragic although peaceful conflict, they
have a new and fascinating interest. It is in this sense that we can
say, spite of all that has been written, that there are no scientific
studies of the American Negro, there are only materials awaiting
scientific interpretation.

It must be regarded as an event of the first importance, therefore,
that an institution of the authority of Harvard University and the
Peabody Museum proposes to publish a series of studies intended to
cover the whole wide range of native African life and to extend these
studies eventually to the descendants of the African peoples in
America. No study of the Negro in America will be complete which does
not take account of the African background of the race. On the other
hand, no attempt to assess the qualities and capacities of the native
African, living in his isolated and primitive environment, will be
adequate which does not take account of the Negro's progress under the
conditions of a civilized environment. As a matter of fact the
Africans are the only contemporaneous primitive people who have
anywhere achieved race consciousness and civilization without losing
their racial identity. As a consequence almost every fundamental
process and stage of civilization, from the most primitive to the most
cosmopolitan man, is somewhere represented in the contemporary life of
the Negro in Africa and America. It is this fact which lends
significance to the present volume, since these studies propose to
cover eventually the whole range of Negro life in Africa and America,
so far as that can be done within the limits of the anthropological
sciences. An editorial note at the end of this first volume describes
the plan and scope of the proposed series of publications.

     The Harvard African Studies is designed to consist of annual
     volumes--under the title of Varia Africana--made up of
     miscellaneous papers, and of occasional monographs presenting the
     results of original field or laboratory research.

     The scope of the volumes may be defined as African anthropology
     in the widest sense. Only original papers are desired, but these
     may be of any length compatible with their presentation in a
     volume which is essentially in the nature of a journal, and may
     deal with any of the following subjects: psychology, archæology,
     ethnography, linguistics, sociology, ethno-geography, religion,
     folklore, or technology. A range so wide must perforce be limited
     in some directions, and the editors have therefore decided upon
     the exclusion of purely historical papers, even when the latter
     embody the political records of native tribes. As an exception to
     this rule, the editors may be willing, under certain
     circumstances, to accept historical material which, by
     establishing the presence of this or that group of people in a
     certain locality, or by throwing light on the nature or date of a
     migration, bears on racial questions and problems of primitive
     culture.

     The series is open to papers of a non-controversial character
     dealing with a topic sadly in need of more scientific
     treatment--we refer to the question of the American Negro. The
     anthropometrist, the sociologist, and the folklorist have in this
     direction a field of research which, if approached with adequate
     knowledge, can be made to yield invaluable results. As these
     results cannot but be of practical importance, the editors are
     particularly anxious to have an opportunity of presenting them.

As a further indication of the method and purpose of these studies the
editors emphasize that an effort will be made not only to add to the
mass of information already extant in the writings of explorers,
traders, and missionaries, but to correlate and organize the
information already existing.

     Travelers, missionaries, administrators, and scientists have
     published a vast amount of valuable information regarding the
     various peoples and regions in Africa. As yet, however, there has
     been comparatively little correlation of this evidence. Now that
     the day of the reconnaissance explorer is essentially past, and
     we begin to receive accurate and detailed studies of single
     tribes, it is highly desirable to have the great mass of
     published material carefully sifted, so that the future student
     and investigator may be able to make his efforts as productive as
     possible.

     From even a few such documents, it might be possible to plot
     cultural areas, as has been done for North America--the areas in
     question being regions of fairly uniform culture, marked off with
     some sharpness from other such areas. It would then appear
     whether the African areas depended on geographic conditions, on
     plant or animal distributions, or on the superior inventive
     genius of certain tribes or races. On the other hand, it might
     appear that the whole culture area hypothesis was untenable, and
     that within any given geographic area, or within any given tribe,
     there would exist elements of culture which were adopted at
     widely differing times and belonged to different culture levels.
     Thus, a true stratification of cultures might be exposed. Yet
     again, it might be found that people living in similar
     environments tended to develop a like culture regardless of any
     contact or close ethnic affinities.

At the present moment the task of correlating existing material in
such a way as to test the validity of current theories and
presuppositions of the anthropological sciences is quite as important
as that of adding to existing collections of information. In this way
only can the mass of information now extant be made available for the
use of students in the secondary social sciences, like sociology and
political science, which are dealing with immediate and practical
problems. It is only in this way, for example, that the knowledge we
have gained of the Negro in Africa will contribute to the solution of
the race problem in America.

Interesting as is the prospect which opens with the first volume of
the African Studies, the untechnical reader will probably be more
impressed with imposing appearance of the volume, with the character
of its illustration and its general typographical appearance than with
its contents. These consist of twelve articles of an average length of
23 pages dealing with the following types: _Siwan customs_, _Oral
surgery in Egypt during the Old Empire_, _Worship of the Dead as
practiced by some African Tribes_, _The Paleoliths of the Eastern
Desert_, _Notes on the Nungu Tribe_, _Nassawara Province_, _A study of
the Ancient Speech of the Canary Islands_, _Benin Antiquities in the
Peabody Museum_, _The Utendi of Mwana Kupon_, _Notes on Egyptian
Saints_, _Dafûr Gourds_, _An Inscription from Gebel Barkal_, and
_Ancient Egyptian Fishing_.

Perhaps the most interesting of these articles, for the sociologist,
is that of R. H. Blanchard entitled _Notes an Egyptian Saints_.
Sainthood, as the author remarks, "is not a difficulty of achievement
in the Islamic world." Every hamlet has its shrine and in the larger
villages there will usually be found two or three such sanctuaries.
Once a year, on his birthday, a festival and religious fair in honor
of the saint is held. The primitive character of these religious
celebrations is attested by the orgiastic and often licentious
performances that accompany them. For example on the occasion of the
festival of el-Hamâl et-Rayah, a purely local celebrity, "the whole
adult male population of the town, in defiance of all orthodox Moslem
sentiment, intoxicated themselves with whatever alcoholic beverages
they could procure. Half a dozen prostitutes, hired for the occasion,
set up their booths or tents in the town, and received all comers.
There was among the revelers a great deal of horseplay of the most
licentious character, particularly in the vicinity of the booths if
the _sharamît_. Drunken men were dragged into the lanes by their
friends, and there left lying, exposed to the village wags and wits.
In 1914 this festival was modified by Government, which suppressed the
more offensive features of the celebration."

One of the most interesting of these saints referred to was "an old
Negro slave well known for his long, harmless, pious life." It is
generally held that the body of a man who has during his life attained
an unusual degree of sanctity is gifted with a supernatural power
which is often exerted on those who carry his bier to the grave. The
supernatural power of this old Negro saint was attested to in the
following peculiar way: "Having died toward evening, he would not, on
any account, have himself buried the same evening, and the bearers, in
spite of all their shouting of _la ilah ill Alllah_ (sic), could not
bring the corpse to the graveyard. It remained therefore, all night in
the house (though the people do not like to keep a corpse at night),
watched by a multitude of people praying. Next morning also it could
not be buried for a long time, the blessed dead compelled the bearers
to go through all the streets of the town, till at last, on the
recommendations of the governor, the higher officials carried the bier
to the grave, even the Turkish soldiers could not accomplish it. The
whole town was in uproar. The Mohammadans say the angels exercise this
coercive power. The Christians believe it is the devil."

It seems probable, as the author suggests, that we have in these
religious festivals in honor of a local celebrity surviving examples
of localized and more primitive type of religious cult which has not
yet been wholly superseded by the religion of Islam, with its wider
outlook and more rational conceptions of life. The notes here recorded
suggest at once questions which can only be answered by further
investigation and by comparison of the materials gathered in this
region with those that are now being brought to light in other fields.
It is the purpose of the Harvard African studies to answer these
questions, so far as they can be answered by a study of African life.

Interesting from other points of view are the reproductions of the
remarkable collection of Benin antiquities at the Peabody Museum, of
the celebrated Vai syllabary, and of an interesting poem of 100 lines
in the Suaheli language said to have been dictated by a dying mother
to her daughter. Transliteration and translation accompany the
reproduction in the original script.

                                   ROBERT E. PARK.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Fifty Years and Other Poems._ By JAMES WELDON JOHNSON. With an
Introduction by BRANDER MATTHEWS. The Cornhill Co., Boston, 1917. Pp.
xiv, 92.

From time to time for the last fifteen years Mr. James Weldon Johnson
has been remarked as one of the literary men of the race. He has now
brought together his verses in a little volume, _Fifty Years and Other
Poems_, an introduction to which has been written by Professor Brander
Matthews, of Columbia University. The task was eminently worth while.

The book falls into two parts. The first is made up of poems in the
commonly accepted forms, though there are one or two examples of
_vers libre_; and the second is entitled _Jingles and Croons_. This
second division consists of dialect verses, especially the songs that
have been set to music, most frequently by the poet's brother, Mr. J.
Rosamond Johnson. Outstanding are the very first lines, _Since you
went away_. It is well that these pieces have been brought together.
For artistic achievement, however, attention will naturally be fixed
upon the first division. _Fifty Years_ was written in honor of the
fiftieth anniversary of the emancipation of the race. Professor
Matthews speaks of it as "one of the noblest commemorative poems yet
written by any American--a poem sonorous in its diction, vigorous in
its workmanship, elevated in its imagination, and sincere in its
emotion." This is high praise, and yet it may reasonably be asked if
there are not in the book at least four pieces of finer poetic
quality. These are, first of all, the two poems that originally
appeared in the Century, _Mother Night_ and _O Black and Unknown
Bards_, and _The White Witch_ and _The Young Warrior_. The first of
these four poems is a sonnet well rounded out. The second gains merit
by reason of its strong first and last two stanzas. _The White Witch_
chooses a delicate and difficult theme, but contains some very strong
stanzas. _The Young Warrior_ is a poem of rugged strength and one that
deserves all the popularity it has achieved with Mr. Burleigh's
musical setting. Mr. Johnson is strongest in the simple, direct, and
sometimes sensuous expression that characterizes these latter poems,
and it is to be hoped that he may have the time and the inclination to
write many more like them.

                                   BENJAMIN BRAWLEY.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Battles and Victories of Allen Allensworth._ By CHARLES ALEXANDER.
Sherman, French and Company, Boston, 1914. Pp. 429.

Here we have the story of a successful Negro born a slave in Kentucky
but who, determined to succeed, rose to the distinction of a teacher
and preacher and finally to that of a chaplain in the United States
army with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. The value of this book to
the historian, however, is not the mere sketch of Colonel Allensworth
but the valuable facts bearing on the history of the Negroes in
various parts of the United States. The philanthropic attitude of the
Quakers toward Negroes, the life of the slave on the Mississippi, the
relations between the poor whites and the slaves, the escape of
fugitives to Canada, and the work of the abolitionists are all
mentioned from page to page.

The larger portion of the book, however, gives details of the life of
Allensworth, which would interest only those who knew him personally.
But his founding a town in California inhabited altogether by Negroes
stamps him as a pioneer whose achievements in this field must engage
the attention of the historian. The detailed accounts of his service
as a chaplain in the United States army in the Spanish-American War
and later in the Philippines add other valuable experiences which the
public should know. The book contains also references to the work of
Frederick Douglass, Judge William Jay and John Brown. The author
mentions also scores of other persons who have in various ways helped
to make the history of the Negro in the United States and especially
those who were effective in bringing about the emancipation of the
race.

The style of this book is decidedly rough. The work does not show
organization. It is written in such a way as to indicate that the
writer recorded his facts as they came to him at random without regard
as to the principles of composition. It was wholly unnecessary for him
to wander astray, discussing in detail the careers of almost every man
of that time influencing the life of the Negro, without showing the
connection between those facts and the life of the subject of this
sketch. The chief value of this work, therefore, is that of a source
book.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Negro Migrant in Pittsburgh, A study in Social Economics._ By
ABRAHAM EPSTEIN. Published under the supervision of the School of
Economics, University of Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh, Pa., 1918.

The movement of the Negroes from the South to the North during the
present world war bids fair to be recorded as the most significant
event of our local history during this decade. In about two years a
million Negroes have gone North to take the places of those immigrants
who annually sought our shores prior to this upheaval. To show the
significance of the exodus a number of writers have sketched it in
newspapers and magazines. Books bearing on the subject are
forthcoming. The first scientific study of the transplanted southern
Negroes to appear in print, however, is Epstein's interesting and
valuable work.

Departing from the newspaper Pullman-palace-car method of studying
social conditions, Mr. Epstein assiduously applied himself to the task
of making a house-to-house investigation of the home life of this
large and typical community of Negroes recently brought to the North.
He learned whence they came, their antecedent circumstances, why they
abandoned their old homes, what they seek in the North and to what
extent they are realizing their dreams. The various factors
contributing to the solution of their local problems in Pittsburgh and
those effective in confusing the situation are well treated.

This work is especially valuable in its portrayal of home conditions.
The author directed his attention to what these migrants do, where
they live, how they spend their earnings and how they amuse
themselves. In this treatment, therefore, appears a discussion of
health, disease and crime as influenced by the presence of these
newcomers from a section in which their condition differed materially
from what they find in the North. Whether or not we agree with him in
his conclusions, therefore, this treatise must claim the attention of
students of present-day problems, desiring to deal with facts rather
than theories.

On the whole, Mr. Epstein does not find the Negro an exception to any
other migrant. Most of the facts which he sets forth are after all
favorable to blacks when one considers that their peculiar
circumstances are due to race prejudice and the proscription of trades
unions. The author did not find them unusually afflicted with disease,
as was predicted, and he saw no evidence of a wave of crime. Most of
the offenses charged to the account of the migrants are of the petty
sort which arise from the stimulus given such by the denizens of vice
tolerated by the community. Students of Negro life and history,
therefore, should read this dissertation.

                                   C. G. WOODSON.




NOTES


Mr. Oswald Garrison Villard who was kind enough to call our attention
to the misprint of Sir Thomas Fowell Buxton Hart, for Sir Thomas
Fowell Buxton, Bart., on page 20 of the January number of THE JOURNAL
OF NEGRO HISTORY, has sent us the following note in William Lloyd
Garrison's own words concerning his relations with this distinguished
friend of the Negro in England:

"On arriving in London I received a polite invitation by letter from
Mr. Buxton to take breakfast with him. Presenting myself at the
appointed time, when my name was announced, instead of coming forward
promptly to take me by the hand, he scrutinized me from head to foot,
and then inquired, somewhat dubiously, 'Have I the pleasure of
addressing Mr. Garrison, of Boston, in the United States?' 'Yes, sir,'
I replied, 'I am he; and I am here in accordance with your
invitation.' Lifting up his hands he exclaimed, 'Why, my dear sir, I
thought you were a black man! And I have consequently invited this
company of ladies and gentlemen to be present to welcome Mr. Garrison,
the black advocate of emancipation from the United States of America!'
I have often said that that is the only compliment I have ever had
paid to me that I care to remember, or to tell of! For Mr. Buxton had
somehow or other supposed that no white American could plead for those
in bondage as I had done, and therefore I must be black!"

"The worthy successor of Wilberforce, our esteemed friend and
coadjutor, Thomas Fowell Buxton," had this picture drawn of him by his
guest (Mr. Garrison) on his return to America:

"Buxton has sufficient fleshly timber to make two or three
Wilberforces. He is six feet and a half in height, though rather
slender than robust. What a formidable leader of the anti-slavery
cause in appearance! We always felt delighted to see him rise in his
seat in Parliament to address the House, for his towering form
literally caused his pro-slavery opponents to 'hide their diminished
heads.' He is a very good speaker, but not an orator: his manner is
dignified, sincere, and conciliating, and his language without
pretence. But he has hardly decision, energy, and boldness enough for
a leader. His benevolent desires for the emancipation of the colonial
slaves led him to accede to a sordid compromise with the planters, and
he advocated the proposition to remunerate these enemies of the human
race, and to buy up wholesale robbery and oppression, in opposition to
the remonstrances of the great body of English abolitionists, and it
furnishes a dangerous precedent in the overthrow of established
iniquity and crime throughout the world. The results of the bargain do
not (January, 1836) reach Mr. Buxton's anticipations.... Still, aside
from this false step, Mr. Buxton deserves universal admiration and
gratitude for his long-continued, able and disinterested efforts,
amidst severe ridicule and malignant opposition, to break every yoke
and set the oppressed free."

       *       *       *       *       *

President Nathan B. Young, of the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical
College, has kindly directed our attention to the following facts
which appeared in an article in the _Tampa Tribune_, showing how
adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment was effected:

"How the vote that made the Federal amendment abolishing slavery was
polled in the house of representatives on January 26, 1863, was told
to a representative of _The Tribune_ yesterday by the reading clerk of
that congress--now a Florida winter resident and nearing ninety years
of age.

"A change of two votes would have defeated the amendment; and urgent
business kept one man from being present to cast his vote against the
measure, so it is seen that history came near being made another way
that memorable day.

"The story was told, with all the vigor and freshness of a man just
from the existing scenes and actions, by E. W. Barber, editor of the
Jackson (Mich.) _Daily Patriot_, now at Crooked Lake, happy in the
summer of Florida's winter. Mr. Barber was reading clerk for the
thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth and fortieth congresses, from December,
1863 to 1869; and he is today the only official of that body who is
living. He will be ninety years old on the third of July, coming, and
is wonderfully preserved, all except his leg. Indeed he laughingly
declared that he would have been a dead tree if he had not been pruned
of a dead limb!


_Tells of Memorable Day_

"On the morning of December 26, 1863, said Mr. Barber, there was a
stillness in the house that betokened doubt even then of the passage
of the amendment, for but four men in the world knew that it was a
matter of accomplishment before the roll was called.

"The senate had already passed the amendment, he said, and the house
had defeated it in the first session of the congress; and there was a
doubt of its passage over in the lower body.

"After its defeat in the house, the party machinery was put in motion
to bring into line sufficient votes to make the necessary
three-fourths required. J. M. Ashley of Toledo and Augustus Frank of
Warsaw, N. Y., were appointed a committee of two to see if votes
enough could be secured at the short session to pass the bill through
the house.

"Edward W. Barber, the reading clerk, and Richard U. Sherman, the
tally clerk, kept a secret rollcall under lock and key in their desk,
and on this was marked the name of every man who had voted against the
amendment. As a man was changed or converted, his name was reported to
these two and his name added to those already secured for the
amendment. One by one the change came, and at last one day when a name
was added--the member from the Gettysburg district--Ashley exclaimed
"There, by God. We've got enough."

"That day in the house Ashley, who had changed his vote to "nay" after
the defeat of the bill earlier so he could move its reconsideration,
and had complied with that parliamentary condition, gave notice that
on January 26 he would call up the bill for a vote.


_Measure Sways in Balance_

"Betting ran high for and against the passage of the amendment, says
Mr. Barber. The odds were that it would not be passed because of the
violent opposition which it had evoked at the former attempt. There
were but four men who knew how the matter would go, and those were E.
W. Barber, reading clerk; Richard U. Sherman, tally clerk; J. M.
Ashley, and Augustus Frank, the committee of two named to get the
proper number of votes for the bill.

"The margin was close, two changes would have defeated it; and one
member opposed to the amendment was absent, so he said afterward,
because a large number of soldiers from his state were at Aquia Creek,
and he felt he must pay them some attention. The name of this member
was not given.

"Mr. Barber is still editing his paper, sending some fourteen
editorials a week to Jackson, Mich., for publication in _The Daily
Patriot_, from his Florida home, five miles south of Lake Wales.

"He has been coming to Florida for forty-five years and, while he has
been delaying his coming until well into December, he said yesterday
that from now on he expects to come early in November and stay until
well into spring.

"He is a most entertaining and interesting speaker and is full of
enthusiasm for his adopted home and his future prospects here."

       *       *       *       *       *

A group of Southern folks have organized a Southern Publicity
Committee to advertise among themselves some of the South's
constructive work in racial matters. They propose to furnish Southern
daily papers with brief and accurate accounts of things actually being
done in definite places by given persons or groups or States in the
South, for or in cooperation with Negroes for Negro betterment, and to
make the South a better place, morally and economically, for both
races to live in.

The chairman of the committee is Dr. J. H. Dillard, director of the
Jeanes and Slater Funds, a Virginian, and an LL.D. of three Southern
universities, including his alma mater, Washington and Lee. The other
members are Dr. Thomas Jesse Jones, specialist of the U. S. Bureau of
Education; Mrs. Percy V. Pennypacker, of the National Federation of
Women's Clubs; the Rt. Rev. Theodore D. Bratton, D.D., of the Diocese
of Mississippi; Messrs. Clark Howell of the Atlanta Constitution;
Arthur B. Krock, of the Louisville Courier-Journal; D. P. Toomey, of
the Dallas News; C. P. J. Mooney of the Memphis Commercial-Appeal; E.
E. Britton, formerly of the Raleigh Observer, private secretary to
Secretary Daniels; Jackson Davis of Richmond, general field agent of
the General Education Board; Walter Parker, general manager of the New
Orleans Association of Commerce; the Rev. J. W. Lee, D.D., of St.
Louis, the well-known Southern Methodist minister, author and
lecturer; Dr. W. S. Currell, president of the South Carolina State
University; Dr. Chas. L. Crow, of the State university of Florida; Dr.
W. D. Weatherford, of Nashville, Tenn., secretary of the International
Y. M. C. A.; and Mrs. John D. Hammond of Georgia, who will act as
secretary for the committee.

The Committee will undertake publicity work in behalf of the best
aspects of our inter-racial relations in no spirit of boastfulness or
of self-satisfaction as Southerners. They are aware of the shadows,
the back eddies, the sinister influences in the lives of both races.
But they believe the good outweighs the evil, and deserves at least as
wide a hearing; and that to give publicity to successful constructive
work done by their own people will encourage others to similar
efforts, and will further the interests of both races. They ask a
hearing from the Southern public for these aspects of Southern life.

       *       *       *       *       *

Dean Benjamin P. Brawley, of Morehouse College, has brought out a new
work entitled _The Negro in Literature and Art_, published by Duffield
and Company, New York City. It was incorrectly reported in our last
issue that this work was to be published by Dodd, Mead and Company.

       *       *       *       *       *

Dean Brawley contributed to the _Sewanee Review_ for January an
article entitled _Richard le Gallienne and the Tradition of Beauty_.
This is a literary study of merit.

       *       *       *       *       *

Dr. James H. Dillard contributed to _School and Society_ an article
entitled _County Machinery for Colored Schools in the South_. It
contains information both helpful and valuable to persons interested
in the education of the Negro.

       *       *       *       *       *

M. M. Ponton's _Life and Times of Henry M. Turner_ has come from the
press of A. B. Caldwell Publishing Company, Atlanta, Georgia.

       *       *       *       *       *

G. P. Putnam's Sons have announced the publication of Ella Loun's
_Reconstruction in Louisiana_.

       *       *       *       *       *

J. E. Semmes has published _John H. B. Latrobe and His Times,
1803-1891_, through the Norman Remington Company, Baltimore.




THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. III--JULY, 1918--NO. 3




SLAVERY IN KENTUCKY

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION


This study is an attempt to give a connected and concise account of
the institution of slavery as it existed in the State of Kentucky from
1792 to 1865. Much has been written of slavery in other States, but
there has not been published a single account which deals adequately
with the institution in Kentucky. A scholarly treatise on _The
Anti-Slavery Movement in Kentucky_, by Professor Asa E. Martin, of
Pennsylvania State College, has appeared but, as this work is limited
to a discussion of the history of the movement to overthrow slavery,
our study parallels and supplements it.

In this study the chief emphasis has been placed upon the legal,
economic and social history of slavery in Kentucky, mention being made
of a few of the interesting anti-slavery incidents when these are
known to have influenced the local status of the slave. We have first
considered the inception of the system as based fundamentally upon the
type of land settlement and tenure, followed by a study of the growth
of the slave population, which brings in the question of the local
economic value of the slave. An attempt has been made to explain the
internal slave trade; and to consider to what extent Kentucky served
as a breeding State for slaves destined to the market in the lower
South.

In the chapter on the legal status of slavery special emphasis has
been placed not only upon the legal position of the institution but
upon the general evolution of the rights of the Negro in servitude.
This section is vitally connected with the anti-slavery movement after
about the year 1835. The problem of the fugitive slave and the general
rights of emancipation and of the freed Negro have been approached
purely from the legal standpoint.

The chapter on the social status of the slave considers the conditions
of slave life that were more or less peculiar to Kentucky. There has
often been made the statement, that in Kentucky Negro servitude was
generally on a higher plane than in the States to the south and the
treatment of slaves was much more humane. Some light has been thrown
on these questions.

As a supplement to the discussion of the legal and social status a
general summary of public opinion regarding emancipation and
colonization has been added. Although for the most part consisting of
previously published material this section has been treated from the
viewpoint of the existing institution and not from the anti-slavery
side which occasioned most of the original publication.

This study has been made from a consideration of the contemporary
evidence as found in newspapers, statements of slaves, and general
evidence of travelers and citizens of Kentucky during the period
before the Civil War. The material for the study of this field is not
only scattered throughout the country but for the most part it is very
meager compared with the records of States like Virginia and Missouri.
All the documents, papers, manuscripts and works known to be of value,
however, have been consulted. The most valuable records for this
treatise are to be found in the Durrett Collection at the University
of Chicago, the extensive files of early Kentucky papers in the
Library of the American Antiquarian Society, and the documents in the
Kentucky State Library at Frankfort.

To Mr. Clarence S. Brigham, of the American Antiquarian Society, Mr.
Edward A. Henry, of the University of Chicago Library, and Mr. Frank
Kavanaugh, of the Kentucky State Library, I am indebted for invaluable
assistance rendered in securing material for this work. The treatment
of the legal status of slavery would have been very meager, were it
not for the valuable aid given by Dr. George E. Wire, of the Worcester
County (Massachusetts) Law Library. To Miss Florence Dillard, of the
Lexington (Kentucky) Public Library, I am indebted for assistance
given throughout the period of my studies. To Prof. George H.
Blakeslee, of Clark University, I owe more than to any one else--for
his inspiration during my three years of study, for his most valuable
aid in the correction of the manuscript, his candid judgment and
judicial reasoning and the many suggestions which have helped to make
this study what it is.

                                   IVAN E. MCDOUGLE

  CLARK UNIVERSITY,
      WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS.




CHAPTER II

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SLAVERY


It is impossible to understand slavery in Kentucky without some
knowledge of the method by which the land was settled in the latter
part of the eighteenth century. Between 1782 and 1802 the seven States
which had interest in western lands ceded their rights to the United
States and all that territory with the exception of Kentucky and the
Connecticut Reserve in Ohio was made a part of the public domain.
Hence, one of the distinguishing features of the settlement of
Kentucky as compared with Ohio was that in the latter State the land
was sold by the Federal Government to settlers coming from all parts
of the country but particularly from the northeastern section. The
result of this was that few citizens of Ohio held more than 640 acres.

Kentucky had been reserved by Virginia and consequently the method of
settlement was purely a matter governed by that State and was separate
and apart from the system which was employed by the United States
Government. Furthermore, Kentucky lands were all given out by 1790,
just one year after the beginning of our national period. The federal
land policy was at that time just beginning. Virginia gave out the
lands in Kentucky by what is known as the patent system, and all the
settlers in Kentucky held their lands by one of three different kinds
of rights.

In the first place there were those who were given tracts in the new
territory as a reward for military services which had been rendered in
the Revolution. This had been provided for by the legislature of
Virginia as early as December, 1778.[234] No land north of the Ohio
River was to be granted out as a military bounty until all the "good
lands" in the Kentucky region had been exhausted. The size of these
tracts was to be governed by the official status of the recipient in
the late war, and the bounties finally granted by Virginia ranged all
the way from one hundred to fifteen thousand acres.[235]

The Virginia legislature of 1779 found it necessary to establish a
second method of settlement in Kentucky in response to the demands of
the large number of people who were migrating to the west of the
Alleghenies. Provision was made for the granting of preemption rights
to new settlers and also for the introduction of a very generous
system of settlement rights. These settlement and preemption rights
were almost inseparable, as the latter was dependent upon the former.
It was provided that four hundred acres of land would be given to
every person or family who had settled in the region before the first
of January, 1778.[236] The word "settlement" was stated to mean either
a residence of one year in the territory or the raising of a crop of
corn. In addition to the above grant every man who had built only a
cabin or made any improvement on the land was entitled to a preemption
of one thousand acres, providing such improvements had been made prior
to January 1, 1778. Preference in the grants was to be given to the
early settlers and even the most famous heroes of the Revolution were
not allowed to interfere with the rights of those who held a
certificate of settlement.

Thus far provision had been made only for those who had settled before
1778. To them was given the best of the land. Thereafter all
settlement and preemption rights ceased and the further distribution
of land in Kentucky was by means of treasury warrants. A person
desiring land in Kentucky would appear at one of the Virginia land
offices and make an entry and pay a fee amounting to about two cents
per acre. The paper he would receive would give the approximate
location of the tract and the recipient would proceed to have the
land surveyed at his pleasure. Within three months after the survey
had been made he was to appear at the land office and have the same
recorded. A copy of this record was to be taken to the assistant
register of the land office in Kentucky and there it was to remain six
months in order to give prior settlers, if any, the right to prove
their claims to the property. No such evidence being produced a final
record of the patent was to be made and a copy given to the original
grantee.[237]

An interesting example of this method of settlement is shown by the
experience of Abraham Lincoln, the grandfather of President Lincoln.
On March 4, 1780, soon after the establishment of the new system, he
appeared at the land office in Richmond, Virginia, and was given three
treasury warrants, each for four hundred acres of land in Kentucky.
The first and third of these warrants were not returned for the final
recording until May 16, 1787, at which time Beverly Randolph, Governor
of Virginia, issued a final deed of 800 acres of land in Lincoln
County, Kentucky, to Abraham Lincoln.[238] The second treasury warrant
was not returned until July 2, 1798, more than a decade after the
death of Abraham Lincoln and six years after Kentucky had become a
State. At that time the warrant was presented with a record of the
survey by Mordecai Lincoln, the eldest son of Abraham. After some
period of investigation the deed for the four hundred acres in
Jefferson County was turned over to Mordecai Lincoln on April 26,
1799.[239]

The result of this method of granting land was that Kentucky was
settled by a comparatively few men who rented their property to
tenants. A large number of the military bounties were never settled by
the original owners but were farmed by the later incoming tenant
class. George Washington had been given five thousand acres and this
land was actually settled by the poorer white element. In the case of
the land warrant property it was true that it was usually granted to
the poorer class of early settlers but as in the instance of the
Lincoln family the land soon passed into the hands of the wealthier
settlers either by purchase or through law suits. It is commonly
stated that Daniel Boone thus became landless and was forced to
migrate to Missouri.[240]

Thus we see that Kentucky was distinctly different from all the other
settlements to the west of the Alleghenies in the original system of
land tenure and she further inherited from her mother State of
Virginia the ancient theory of a landed aristocracy which was based
upon tenantry. The early inhabitants of Kentucky can be easily divided
into three classes, the landed proprietors, their slaves, and the
tenant class of whites. The second and third classes tended to keep
alive the status of the former and led to the perpetuation of the
landed aristocracy. In Kentucky, however, the laws of descent were
always against primogeniture and this resulted in the division of the
lands of the wealthier class with each new generation.

The institution of slavery in Kentucky, as in every other State,
depended for the most part upon the existence of large plantations.
The only reason Kentucky had such large estates was because of the
method by which the land was given out by the mother State.
Economically Kentucky was not adapted to plantation life. The greater
part of the State required then, as it still does, the personal care
and supervision of the owner or tenant. The original distribution of
land made this impossible and there grew up a large class of
landholders who seldom labored with their hands, because of the
traditional system. A large number of inhabitants as early as 1805,
Michaux found, were cultivating their lands themselves, but those who
could do so had all the work done by Negro slaves.[241]

With passing years, while Kentucky maintained slavery, it came to
have a social system not like that in the South but one more like the
typical structure of the middle nineteenth century West. There were
several reasons for this. In the first place, the absence of the
policy of primogeniture in time came to distribute the lands over a
much larger population. In the second place, while all the land in
Kentucky had been granted by the year 1790, the patrician land-holding
element was completely submerged by the flood of so-called plebeians
who came in soon after Kentucky became a State. In 1790 there were
only 61,133 white people in Kentucky, and although all the land had
been granted, the white population in the next decade nearly tripled,
reaching 179,871 in 1800, and this increase, at a slightly smaller
rate, continued down to about 1820. Still further the nature of the
soil made it more profitable for the wealthier landed class to let out
their holdings to the incoming whites who did their own work and in
time came to own the property. "Each year increased this element of
the state at the expense of the larger properties."[242]

POPULATION FROM 1790 TO 1860 WITH RATES OF INCREASE
+=======================================================================+
|    |       |Per   |       |Per   |       |Per   |              |Per   |
|    | White |Cent  |Free   |Cent  |Slave  |Cent  | Total        |Cent  |
|    |       |Incr. |Colored|Incr. |       |Incr. |              |Incr. |
+----+-------+------+-------+------+-------+------+--------------+------+
|1790| 61,133|      |    114|      | 11,830|      |   73,077     |      |
|1800|179,871|194.22|    741|550.00| 40,343|241.02|  220,955     |202.36|
|1810|324,237| 80.26|  1,713|131.17| 80,561| 99.69|  406,511     | 83.98|
|1820|434,644| 34.05|  2,759| 61.06|126,732| 57.31|  564,317[243]| 38.82|
|1830|517,787| 19.12|  4,917| 78.21|165,213| 30.36|  687,917     | 21.09|
|1840|590,253| 13.99|  7,317| 48.81|182,258| 10.31|  779,828     | 13.36|
|1850|761,413| 28.99| 10,011| 36.81|210,981| 15.75|  982,405     | 25.98|
|1860|919,484| 20.76| 10,684|  6.72|225,483|  6.87|1,155,684[244]| 17.64|

A study of the growth of the slave and white population of Kentucky
from 1790 to 1860 is necessary to an adequate understanding of the
slave problem. It will be found advantageous to deal with two sets of
figures--one relating to the slave population within the State and the
other with the slave increase in Kentucky as compared with the
general increase throughout the United States. It would not be of any
value to compare the figures for Kentucky with those of any other
State, for that would involve the discussion of local factors which
are beyond the scope of this investigation.

First of all we shall take the census statistics for the State for all
eight of the enumerations which were taken during the slavery era. The
figures for the year 1790 were originally taken when Kentucky was a
part of the State of Virginia, but they are included, since Kentucky
became a State before the census was published. Furthermore they
furnish an interesting light upon the growth of the slave population
during the first decade of the new commonwealth. The important part of
this table is in the increases, on a percentage basis, in the slave
and white populations. Another viewpoint of the growth of the slave
population may be seen in this little table:

  RATIO OF SLAVES TO THE TOTAL POPULATION

        Per Cent
  1790    16.1
  1800    18.2
  1810    19.18
  1820    22.4
  1830    24.0
  1840    23.3
  1850    21.4
  1860    19.5

Here it will be seen that the proportion of slaves increased down to
1830 and then began to decline. Most authorities are agreed that this
was in a large measure due to the enactment of the law of 1833
forbidding the importation of slaves into Kentucky. But before dealing
with that question it would be well to have before us the figures for
the whole country at the same period.


  FREE NEGRO AND SLAVE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES, 1790 TO 1860,
  WITH RATES OF INCREASE

  ====================================================================
       | Free Negro |Per Cent Increase| Slaves   |Per Cent Increase  |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------
  1790 |    59,557  |                 |  697,624 |                   |
  1800 |   108,435  |       82.1      |  893,602 |        28.1       |
  1810 |   186,446  |       71.9      |1,191,362 |        33.3       |
  1820 |   233,634  |       25.3      |1,538,022 |        29.1       |
  1830 |   319,599  |       36.8      |2,009,043 |        30.6       |
  1840 |   386,293  |       20.9      |2,487,355 |        23.8       |
  1850 |   434,495  |       12.5      |3,204,313 |        28.8       |
  1860 |   488,070  |       12.3      |3,953,760 |        23.4       |
  --------------------------------------------------------------------

The facts seem more significant, if we compare the slave increase in
Kentucky with that of the Negroes in the country as a whole. Bearing
in mind that Kentucky was a comparatively new region when it became a
State and that at that time slavery was firmly established along the
seaboard, we are not surprised to find that the slave increase in
Kentucky was much more rapid for the first three or four decades than
it was in the nation as a whole. After the year 1830 the increase in
the United States, on a percentage basis, was much greater than in
Kentucky. It seems that the institution started in with a boom and
then eventually died down in Kentucky.

There were several reasons for this fact. A glance at the increase of
whites in Kentucky for the last three decades will show that they were
forging ahead while the slaves were relatively declining. This was due
to a large amount of immigration of that class of white people who
were not slaveholding. A second factor was the non-importation act of
1833. About the same time there came to be a conviction among a large
portion of the population that slavery in Kentucky was economically
unprofitable. There is abundant ground for the position that the law
of 1833 was passed because of a firm conviction that there were enough
slaves in the State. The only ones who could profit by any amount of
importation were the slave dealers and beyond a certain point even
their trade would prove unprofitable. If there was ever a single
slaveholder who defended importation on the ground that more slaves
were needed in Kentucky he never spoke out in public and gave his
reasons for such a position.

Unfortunately there are few statistics concerning the number of
slaveholders in Kentucky. Cassius M. Clay in his appeal to the people
in 1845 stated that there were 31,495 owners of slaves in the
State.[245] The same year the auditor's tax books showed that there
were 176,107 slaves in Kentucky.[246] This would mean an average of
5.5 slaves for each owner. The accuracy of these figures is
substantiated by those for the census of 1850 which gave 210,981
slaves held by 38,456 slaveholders or an average of 5.4 to each owner.
These holders were classified according to the number of slaves held
as follows:

  Holders of 1 slave                            9,244
  Holders of over 1 and less than 5 slaves     13,284
  Holders of 5 and under 10 slaves              9,579
  Holders of 10 and under 20 slaves             5,022
  Holders of 20 and under 50 slaves             1,198
  Holders of 50 and under 100 slaves               53
  Holders of 100 and under 200 slaves               5
                                               38,385[247]

This distribution shows that, although the average number of slaves
held may have been 5.4 for each slaveholder, 21,528 or 50 per cent of
them held less than five slaves each, and that 34,129 or 88 per cent
held less than 20 each. Of the 132,920 free families in the State only
28 per cent held any slaves at all. This was somewhat below the
average for the whole South. The total number of families holding
slaves in the United States, by the census of 1850, was 347,525. With
an average of 5.7 persons to each family there were about 2,000,000
persons in the relation of slave owners, or about one third of the
whole white population of the slave States. In South Carolina,
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana about one half of the white
population was thus classified. As stated above, this percentage in
Kentucky was only twenty-eight.

This comparison can be more clearly shown by a table of the slave
States from the census of 1850 showing the number of white people, the
slaveholders, slaves, and the average number of slaves for each
slaveholder.

  ======================================================================
                | Whites | Slave   |Per Cent  | Slaves | Average per   |
                |        | holders |of Whites |        | Holder        |
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------
  Alabama       | 426,514|  29,295 |    6.8   | 342,844|     11.6      |
  Arkansas      | 162,189|   5,999 |    3.7   |  47,100|      7.8      |
  Florida       |  47,203|   3,520 |    7.4   |  39,310|     11.1      |
  Georgia       | 521,572|  38,456 |    7.3   | 381,622|      9.9      |
  Kentucky      | 761,413|  38,385 |    5.0   | 210,981|      5.4      |
  Louisiana     | 255,491|  20,670 |    8.0   | 244,809|     11.4      |
  Maryland      | 417,943|  16,040 |    3.8   |  90,368|      5.6      |
  Mississippi   | 295,718|  23,116 |    7.8   | 309,878|     13.4      |
  Missouri      | 592,004|  19,185 |    3.2   |  87,422|      4.5      |
  North Carolina| 553,028|  28,303 |    5.1   | 288,548|     10.2      |
  South Carolina| 274,563|  25,596 |    9.3   | 384,984|     15.0      |
  Tennessee     | 756,836|  33,864 |    4.4   | 239,459|      7.0      |
  Texas         | 154,034|   7,747 |    5.2   |  58,161|      7.5      |
  Virginia      | 894,800|  55,063 |    6.1   | 472,528|      8.5      |
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Among the fourteen real slaveholding States of the Union Kentucky
stood ninth in the number of slaves in 1850, but was third in the
number of slave owners and with the exception of Missouri had less
slaves for each owner than any other State. From the third column of
this table, however, we are rather surprised to find that not only in
Missouri but in Arkansas, Maryland and Tennessee the number of
slaveholders was smaller in proportion to the total white population
than in Kentucky.


              Value of Slaves at    Value of Real and Personal Property
              $400 per Head               Less the Value of Slaves

  Alabama         $137,137,600              $ 81,066,732
  Arkansas          18,840,000                21,001,025
  Florida           15,724,000                 7,474,734
  Georgia          152,672,800               182,752,914
  Kentucky          84,392,400               217,236,056
  Louisiana         97,923,600               136,075,164
  Maryland          36,147,200               183,070,164
  Mississippi      123,951,200               105,000,000
  Missouri          34,968,800               102,278,907
  North Carolina   115,419,200               111,381,272
  South Carolina   153,993,600               134,264,094
  Tennessee         95,783,600               111,671,104
  Texas             23,264,400                32,097,940
  Virginia         189,011,200               202,634,638

Helper in his _Impending Crisis_ made the following interesting table
from the census figures for 1850. He set a perfectly arbitrary
valuation of $400 on each slave, but, if one takes into account the
infants and the aged unable to work, his general appraisement of the
slave group is fair enough for the time and for a basis of comparison.
It will be seen at a glance that after taking out the value of the
slaves in all the States Kentucky was the richest southern
commonwealth.

From the three preceding tables it is apparent that while the Kentucky
slaveholders represented about 28 per cent of the white population of
the State, on the average they held less slaves than in the other
Southern States. Slave property in Kentucky was a much smaller part of
the wealth of the commonwealth than in the States to the south. The
relatively large number of holders is to be explained by the type of
slavery which existed in the State. Many persons held a few servants
in bondage and those who held many slaves were very few in number.

The question of the sale of slaves from Kentucky into the southern
market presents a much more formidable problem. The chief charge that
the anti-slavery people made against Kentucky was that the State
regularly bred and reared slaves for the market in the lower South.
What was the attitude of the Kentucky slaveholder and the people in
general on the question of the domestic slave trade? There is no doubt
that in the later years of slavery there were sold in the State many
slaves who ultimately found their way into the southern market
notwithstanding the contempt of the average Kentucky slaveholder for
the slave trade. This trend of opinion will be seen as we proceed. If
the sentiment was decidedly against such human commerce how did so
many slaves become victims of the slave trader?

There were five general causes which led to the sale of slaves in
Kentucky: (1) When they became so unruly that the master was forced to
sell; (2) when their sale was necessary to settle an estate; (3) when
the master was reduced to the need of the money value in preference to
the labor; (4) when captured runaways were unclaimed after one year;
and (5) when the profit alone was desired by unscrupulous masters.
Many other reasons have been given, but a careful investigation of
all available material confines practically every known case of sale
to one of the above classifications. Mrs. Stowe in her _Key to Uncle
Tom's Cabin_[249] maintained that the prevalence of the slave trade in
Kentucky was due to the impoverishment of the soil beyond recovery and
the decrease in the economic value of the slave to its owner. This
argument is fallacious, for the very blue-grass region which held most
of the slaves is today the most fertile section of the State.

As long as a slave conducted himself in accordance with the spirit of
the slave code there was little chance of his owner selling him
against his will. The president of the Constitutional Convention of
1849 stated that in the interior of the State, where slaves were the
most numerous, very few Negroes were sold out of the State and that
they were mostly those whose bad and ungovernable disposition was such
that their owners could no longer control them[250]. A true picture of
the average master's attitude has been given us by Prof. N. S. Shaler.
"What negroes there were," said he, "belonged to a good class. The
greater number of them were from families which had been owned by the
ancestors of their masters in Virginia. In my grandfather's household
and those of his children there were some two dozen of these blacks.
They were well cared for; none of them were ever sold, though there
was the common threat that 'if you don't behave, you will be sold
South.' One of the commonest bits of instruction my grandfather gave
me was to remember that my people had in a century never bought or
sold a slave except to keep families together. By that he meant that a
gentleman of his station should not run any risk of appearing as a
'negro trader,' the last word of opprobrium to be slung at a man. So
far as I can remember, this rule was well kept and social ostracism
was likely to be visited on any one who was fairly suspected of buying
or selling slaves for profit. This state of opinion was, I believe,
very general among the better class of slave owners in Kentucky. When
negroes were sold it was because they were vicious and intractable.
Yet there were exceptions to this high-minded humor."[251]

When a master had a bad Negro about the only thing that could be done
for the sake of discipline was to sell him. If the owner kept the
slave, the latter would corrupt his fellows and if he were set free,
the master would reward where he ought to punish. The human interest
which the owner took in his servant when the demands of the
institution necessitated his sale is shown in the case of the Negro
Frank, owned by A. Barnett, of Greensburg. Witness these words of the
master in a runaway advertisement: "His transgressions impelled me,
some years since to take him to New Orleans and sell him, where he
became the property of a Spaniard, who branded him on each cheek thus,
(B), which is plain to be seen when said negro is newly shaved. I went
to New Orleans again last May, where, having my feelings excited by
the tale Frank told me, I purchased him again."[252] After the master
had gone to all this trouble in the interest of the slave the latter
ran away shortly after his return to Kentucky.

     [Transcriber's Note: In the previous paragraph, (B) actually
     appears as the letter B, rotated 90 degrees, counter-clockwise.]

It was often necessary to sell slaves in order to settle an estate. It
was seldom possible for a man to will his property in Negroes without
some divisions becoming necessary at the hands of the executor in the
just interest of the heirs. These public auctions usually took place
on court day, at the courthouse door and were conducted by the master
commissioner of the circuit court. The following advertisement reveals
the necessity and the procedure:

     SALE OF NEGROES

     By virtue of a decree of the Fayette Circuit, the undersigned
     will, as Commissioner to carry into effect said decree, sell to
     the highest bidder, on the public square in the city of
     Lexington, on Monday the 10th of March next, being county court
     day, the following slaves, to wit:

     Keiser, Carr, Sally, Bob, Susan, Sam, Sarah and Ben; belonging to
     the estate of Alexander Culbertson, deceased. The sale to be on a
     credit of three months, the purchaser to give bond with approved
     security. The sale to take place between the hours of 11 o'clock
     in the morning and 3 o'clock in the evening.

     February 26, 1834         JOHN CLARK, _Commissioner_[253]

On the same day the sheriff of the county might appear at the
courthouse door in accordance with a previous announcement and auction
off any unclaimed runaway that had been lodged in the county jail or
hired out under his authority for a period of a year or more. The
slaves thus sold were usually fugitives from the lower South who had
been apprehended on their way to Ohio or Indiana. Although the utmost
publicity would have been given to their capture, in accordance with
the law, few of the planters of the far South seem ever to have
claimed their property. The usual legal code in this matter is shown
by the notice below:

     NOTICE: Agreeably to an act of the General Assembly, passed
     January 11, 1845, I will, on the first Monday of May, 1846,
     before the Court House door, in the city of Louisville, sell to
     the highest bidder, on a credit of six months, the purchaser
     giving bond with good security, having the force and effect of a
     replevin bond, JOHN, a runaway slave, 18 or 19 years of age, 5
     feet 3 or 4 inches high, a rather heavy built, supposed to be the
     property of Daniel McCaleb or Calip, residing on the coast some
     twenty miles below New Orleans.

                         F. S. J. RONALD _Deputy Sheriff_
                  for JAMES HARRISON _Sheriff Jefferson Co_.[254]
     Feb. 25, 1846.

Under the three causes of sale thus far cited the blame would not be
placed upon the master. In the case of the unruly Negro the owner was
according to the ethics of that day not at fault. In the settlement of
an estate the slaveholder was no longer a factor, for his demise alone
had brought the sale. In the case of the runaway the owner was
unknown. Mrs. Stowe probably showed the attitude of the average
Kentucky master when she pictured Uncle Tom as being sold for the
southern market only because of the economic necessities of the owner.
When in such a position the master felt called upon to explain the
necessities of the case. He was very careful not to be cast under the
suspicion of public opinion as a "slave trader," which, as Shaler has
said, was the "last word of opprobrium." Witness a few instances in
evidence:

     NEGROES FOR SALE

     A yellow negro woman of fine constitution, and two children, from
     the country, and sold for no fault but to raise money. Will not
     be sold to go down the river. Her husband, a fine man, can be had
     also. Apply at the store of

                              JARVIS AND TRABUE--3rd & Main[255]

The editor of the _Lexington Reporter_ was very careful not to get
under the ban of his constituents when he was forced to sell a farm
hand and his wife.

     FOR SALE

     A negro man, a first rate farm hand, about 27 years of age; and a
     very likely woman, the wife of the man, about 22 years of age, a
     good house servant. They will not be sold separately, or to any
     person wishing to take them out of the State. Enquire at this
     office.[256]

In 1834 Thomas J. Allen, a citizen of Louisville, desired to exchange
his property in the city for 40 or 50 slaves, but he specifically
stated that they were to be for his own use and that he wanted them to
be "in families."[257] The same attitude appears in the case of a
house servant for sale with the reasons for such specifically stated:

     FOR SALE

     I wish to sell a negro woman, who has been accustomed to house
     work. She is an excellent cook, washes and scours, and is in
     every respect, an active and intelligent servant. I do not
     require her services, which is my only reason for wishing to
     dispose of her.

                                   MASLIN SMITH[258]

The prevalence of statements giving the reasons for and the
restrictions upon these sales should show beyond any reasonable doubt
that public opinion would not tolerate any suspicion of a heartless
traffic in slaves. These sentiments were especially prevalent in the
central portion of the State. The only case known to the writer where
a large number of slaves were sold without any qualification was near
Harrodsburg in August, 1845; but in this instance all the man's
property, including 450 acres of land, was sold at the same time.[259]

There were, naturally, some unscrupulous masters who cared little for
the fate of their slaves when sold. They placed no restrictions upon
the sale, either in destination or in the break-up of family ties. We
will cite only two, one for the earlier and one for the later period,
noticeable chiefly for the lack of regard for Negro family life.

     NEGROES FOR SALE

     The subscriber has for sale a negro man and woman, each about 24
     years of age, both are excellent plantation hands, together with
     two children. They will be sold separately or altogether.

                                   LUIDORES LUCAS[260]

     FOR SALE

     I wish to sell a negro woman and four children. The woman is 22
     years old, of good character, a good cook and washer. The
     children are very likely, from 6 years down to 1-1/2. I will sell
     them together or separately to suit purchasers.

                                   J. T. UNDERWOOD.[261]

The aggregate of all these causes was sufficient to bring about a
supply for the southern market. The question now arises as to how the
demand was met commercially. To what extent were there slave traders
in Kentucky? George Prentice, the famous editor of the _Louisville
Journal_, himself a loyal exponent of slavery, early pointed out that
Kentucky had an ample supply of Negroes and that they were being sent
south in large numbers. He further stated that any one who wanted
slaves could always purchase them by leaving an order in
Louisville.[262] This opinion was expressed at a time when the
non-importation act of 1833 had been in force for sixteen years, which
meant that Kentucky was producing slaves faster than she needed them.
It was only two months after this that Richard Henry Collins in an
editorial in the _Maysville Eagle_ gave a flagrant example of a slave
trader in Kentucky who violated the spirit as well as the letter of
the law. But the sentiment of the people on the slave dealer had been
expressed much earlier. In 1833 a Lexington editor felt exasperated
because of the appearance of a large group of slaves in the streets of
the city on their way to be sold south. When another trader appeared
with his Negro slaves held together with a chain he voiced his wrath
in this fashion:

     "A few weeks ago we gave an account of a company of men, women
     and children, part of them manacled, passing through the streets.
     Last week, a number of slaves were driven through the main street
     of our city, among them were a number manacled together, two
     abreast, all connected by, and supporting, a heavy iron chain,
     which extended the whole length of the line."[263]

About the same time a citizen of Danville sold a Negro woman to a
regular slave trader. The news spread around the town rapidly and to
save himself from the threats of the gathering mob the owner was
compelled for his own safety to follow the slave dealer and repurchase
the woman at a decided increase in price.[264]

It is very difficult to find out how many slave dealers there were in
the State, for few of them ever came out in the open and advertised
their trade. As would be expected from its size and situation
Louisville was the place where the dealer could ply his trade to the
best advantage. It was the central business point and the port from
which most slaves from Kentucky were shipped down the Ohio and
Mississippi. There is no mention in the newspapers of any dealers
there before the year 1845. Thereafter there were several who
advertised for any number of slaves and made no secret of the purpose
of purchase. In the _Journal_ for October 29, 1845, William Kelly
called for all persons who had slaves to sell to see him and offered
them the highest prices. He further stated that he had slaves for
sale. His name does not often appear in succeeding years. During the
next decade there were four regular dealers who apparently did
considerable business: T. Arterburn, J. Arterburn, William F. Talbott,
and Thomas Powell. Later John Mattingly came upon the scene presumably
from St. Louis. In July, 1845, the Arterburn brothers began a series
of advertisements which ran for several years. "We wish to purchase
100 negroes for the Southern market, for which we will pay the highest
prices in cash."[265] Talbott began his publicity in 1848 with these
words: "The subscriber wishes to purchase 100 negroes, for which he
will pay the highest cash prices. Can always be found at the
Louisville Hotel."[266] Two years later he was still advertising, but
had ceased placing any limit on the number to be bought and had moved
his quarters to the Hotel O'Rain.[267] Thomas Powell also began in
1848 with this stock phraseology--"Persons having negroes for sale can
find a purchaser at the highest cash prices by calling on the
subscriber, on Sixth Street, between Main and Market, adjoining H.
Duncan's stable."[268] This advertisement ran continually for a
period of two years. John Mattingly evidently came from Missouri in
the same year, and remained until 1852, when he returned to St. Louis
to ply his trade.[269] While he was in Louisville he ran an
advertisement in the _Journal_ after this fashion: "The undersigned
wishes to purchase 100 negroes both men and women, for which he will
pay the highest cash prices. Those who have negroes for sale would do
well to call on him at the Gait House."[270]

It is noticeable that none of the Louisville directories for this
period mention any slave dealers. This failure may have been due
merely to the fact that there were so few traders in the city and that
they were more or less transient residents. On the other hand, public
opinion apparently never acknowledged that there were any real
citizens of the city engaged in the slave trade. Beginning in 1840 the
_Louisville Journal_ published a weekly paper called _Louisville
Prices Current_. In 1855 this was succeeded by the _Commercial Review
and Louisville Prices Current_, which was published by the Louisville
Chamber of Commerce. These two papers devoted themselves exclusively
to the commercial transactions of the city and gave price quotations
weekly for every conceivable kind of goods in the market together with
the volume of sales. Strange to say, there has not been found a single
issue of either of these papers, which mentions the selling price of
slaves or any transaction in Negroes. If there was a trade in slaves
which was regarded purely as a commercial enterprise, as some would
have us think, then it is very hard to understand why these splendid
trade papers did not contain any account of the business.

There were some Louisville business men who bought and sold slaves as
only one of the branches of their commercial activities. This would
account to some extent for the failure to list traders in the local
directories for it is noticeable that such men never called themselves
slave dealers. As early as the year 1825 John Stickney established
the _Louisville Intelligence Office_ on Main Street, which was a sort
of labor and real estate exchange. He advertised that he sold books;
had money to loan; houses for rent and sale; horses and Negroes for
sale and hire; carriages for sale; conducted a labor exchange, and
recommended the best boarding houses.[271] A year later J. C. Gentry
opened the "Western Horse Market" at the corner of Market and Fourth
Streets. He advertised that he conducted a livery stable, and also
sold on commission, at public or private sale, horses, carriages,
cattle, wagons and slaves; and that he would conduct an auction on
Wednesdays and Saturdays.[272] A similar case was that of A. C. Scott,
who in 1854 opened a real estate and land office but who stated in the
press that he not only bought and sold land and rented houses but that
he would sell and hire slaves.[273] Consequently Scott was listed as a
real estate and land agent in the local directories. It is impossible
to determine how many of these occasional slave dealers there were,
but in so far as available material shows these three were the only
ones to announce their trade publicly.

It would appear from all the evidence at hand that while Kentucky
furnished many slaves for the southern market there was no general
internal slave trade, as a commercial enterprise. There were in
Louisville, however, a few heartless business men who took advantage
of the decreasing value of slave labor in Kentucky and the rising
prices of slaves in the far South. In this respect, Kentucky became a
field of supply for the slave markets of the lower South.

Unfortunately there are no statistics available by which the number of
slaves sent south can be computed. The most comprehensive anti-slavery
publication on the internal slave trade was unable to decide with
certainty what proportion of slaves for the southern market was
furnished by each of the so-called breeding States. The author of
_Slavery and Internal Slave Trade in the United States_ estimated
that 80,000 slaves were annually exported from seven States to the
South. He gave no figures that were not his own estimates. He ranked
the seven States, however, in the order of the number of slaves which
he thought they furnished as follows: Virginia, Maryland, North
Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Delaware.[274]

Martin estimates that Kentucky sent on the average about 5,000 slaves
to the southern market.[275] Again this must be considered purely
conjectural. It is reasonable to suppose that during the last two
decades of the slavery era there were few slaves imported into
Kentucky that were intended for the purely Kentucky market. What
Negroes came into Kentucky were for the most part on their way to the
more profitable southern trade. The average death rate among the
slaves during this period was 1.9 per one hundred and the birth rate
was 3.2, or an excess of births over deaths of 1.1 per hundred. This
would make the annual natural increase among the slave population
about 2,000 per year. Comparing this with the growth of the slave
group from 1840 to 1850 we find that the increase of slaves was much
more. But it was during the next decade that the slave trade reached
its height and here we find that the slave population increased
14,502, whereas the natural increase during that period should have
been 23,190. Hence the slaves failed to reach even their natural
increase by a deficiency of 8,688. Taken literally that would mean
that during the ten-year period that number of slaves were exported
from Kentucky. But it is reasonable to suppose that many more than
that were sent to the South. With the exception of the last decade,
however, the slave population of Kentucky increased faster than the
mere natural increase of the Negroes. The law would not permit of any
importation of slaves intended for Kentucky, so the export of purely
Kentucky slaves appears never to have been prominent except during the
decade from 1850 to 1860.

The selling price of slaves naturally presents itself at this point.
In Kentucky these records are very few because the tax books in
practically all the counties of the State have been destroyed. We have
no accurate statements extant before about the year 1855. The prices
which we have obtained are quotations from the auction of slaves of
estates to settle the interests of the heirs. On January court day, in
1855, there were sold in the settlement of estates in Bourbon,
Fayette, Clark and Franklin Counties Negro men who brought $1,260,
$1,175, $1,070, $1,378, $1,295, $1,015 and $1,505.[276] The county
commissioner of Harrison auctioned the slaves of the deceased George
Kirkpatrick with the following prices received:

     America     40 years of age  }
     Peggy        6 years of age  } all for $1,600
     Eliza        4 years of age  }
     Brown        6 months of age }

     Peter       23 years  of age      $1,290
     Emanuel     24 years  of age         750
     Tom         16 years  of age       1,015
     Ann         14 years  of age         775
     Emma        12 years  of age         865
     Sarah       26 years  of age         350[277]

The county commissioner at Henderson received the following prices for
slaves in the settlement of several estates on January 28, 1858:[278]

     Ruth          33 years of age        $   800
     Willis        59 years of age            475
     George        35 years of age          1,200
     Delphy        80 years of age             75
     Leila         65 years of age            282
     Clarissa      24 years of age          1,131
     Andrew        19 years of age          1,500
     Susan         17 years of age            470
     Jennie        17 years of age          1,100
     Cupid         85 years of age             74
     Eliza         32 years of age            500
     Bell          41 years of age          1,000

This sale is most significant for the cases of "Delphy," 80 years old,
and "Cupid," 85 years of age. It is difficult to account for such a
sale in any discussion of the slave trade, but it does show the
humanitarian side of Kentucky slavery. Negroes at such an age had no
economic value even if they were given away, because the expense of
their maintenance was more than the value of any possible labor they
could perform.

At Georgetown in December of the same year we have this record:[279]

     Griffin      45 years of age     $  640
     Mary         14 years of age      1,060
     Ellen        12 years of age        800
     Elizabeth    11 years of age        406 (one-eyed)
     Sanford       9 years of age        700
     Arabel       10 years of age        690
     Adam         41 years of age        700
     Bettie        3 years of age        260
     Aaron        28 years of age      1,191
     Sam          25 years of age      1,350

The auction of the slaves of the estate of Spencer C. Graves at
Lexington in April, 1859, brought these prices:[280]

     John       18 years of age                 $1,500
     Dick       21 years of age                  1,400
     Jerry      38 years of age                    700
     Major      50 years of age                    480
     Charles    31 years of age                  1,155
     John Jr    18 years of age                  1,140
     Billy      31 years of age                  1,100
     Isabella   40 years, with 3 children, ages
                   11, 5 and 2                   1,610
     Rebecca    30 years, with 3 children, ages
                   11, 6 and 4                   2,410
     Lucy       18 years of age, with infant     1,280
     Davidella  31 years of age                  1,220
     Mary Ann   31 years of age                    835
     Patience   18 years of age                  1,350
     Catharine  15 years of age                  1,130

Such a series of prices would show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
value of slaves was determined entirely by the increasing demand for
slaves in the lower South and was in no way an indication of the value
of slave labor within Kentucky. As was pointed out earlier in this
chapter, the labor value of an agricultural slave in the State
steadily decreased after about the year 1830.

Was slavery profitable to the Kentucky planters? In the many debates
on the slavery question which took place after 1830 no one ever stood
out in the affirmative. The only ones to discuss the economic side of
the issue were those in opposition to slavery. As has often been said
of the Kentucky situation, "the program was to use negroes to raise
corn to feed hogs to feed negroes, who raised more corn to feed more
hogs." Tobacco was the largest crop raised in the State and corn came
next. Neither proved to be peculiarly adapted to slave labor. There
were few large plantations in the State where it could be made
advantageous. What Negro work there was to be done was never confined
to any particular kind of cultivation but was used in the manner of
farm labor today in the State. Squire Turner, of Madison County, in
the Constitutional Convention of 1849 made a careful summary of the
existing economic problems of slavery. "There are," said he, "about
$61,000,000 worth of slave property in the state which produces less
than three per cent profit on the capital invested, or about half as
much as the moneyed capital would yield. There are about 200,000
slaves in Kentucky. Of these about seventy-five per cent are
superannuated, sick, women in unfit condition for labor, and infants
unable to work, who yield no profit. Show me a man that has forty or
fifty slaves on his estate, and if there are ten out of that number
who are available and valuable, it is as much as you can expect. But
my calculation allows you to have seventy-five per cent who are barely
able to maintain themselves, to pay for their own clothing, fuel,
house room and doctor's bills. Is there any gentleman who has a large
number of slaves, who will say that they are any more profitable than
that?"[281]

No one in the convention answered the last question put by Squire
Turner. But regardless of such an economic condition, not a single
piece of remedial legislation was passed and the members of the
Constitutional Convention added a provision to the Bill of Rights
which rooted the slavery system firmer than ever. That most admirable
of all southern characters, and at the same time the most difficult to
understand, the Kentucky master, took little heed of a question of
dollars and cents when it interfered with his moral and humanitarian
sentiments. He had inherited, in most cases, the slaves that were his.
He knew well enough that the system did not pay but supposing that he
should turn his slaves loose, what would become of them? What could
they do for a living? The experience of later years proved that his
apparently obstinate temperament was mixed with a good deal of wisdom,
for once the slaves were set free their status was not to any great
extent ameliorated if they went abroad from the plantation where they
had lived from childhood.

There was a certain amount of profit in the labor of able-bodied
slaves but they only represented a fraction of the Negroes whom the
master was called upon to support. The law compelled the owner to
maintain his old and helpless slaves and this represented the spirit
of the large majority of the slaveholders. Those were rare cases
indeed when an owner was hailed into court for failing to provide for
an infirm member of his slave household. The true Kentuckian never
begrudged the expense that such support incurred. One of the ablest
lawyers of the State, Benjamin Hardin, made the statement that "if it
were not for supporting my slaves, I would never go near a
courthouse."[282]

Rev. Stuart Robinson, speaking before the Kentucky Colonization
Society in 1849, gave another viewpoint of the economic value of the
slave. "The increase of slaves in Kentucky," said he, "has hardly
reached three thousand annually for eighteen years past. The increase
since 1840 has been 27,653--the increase for the year just closed
2,921. In twenty-six counties, embracing one fourth of the slave
population--some of them the largest slave-holding counties--there has
been an actual decrease in the last year of 881 slaves. In twelve
other counties the increase has been only twenty-three. There are ten
counties in the State, which contain one third of all the slave
population of Kentucky; in these ten counties, the increase of slaves
for five years past has been 2,728--an increase of less than one per
cent per annum. Nor is this slow increase of slavery to be attributed
to any stagnation or decline of public prosperity, for in the meantime
the state has been growing in population and wealth as heretofore.
During these five years the taxable property of the Commonwealth has
increased in value more than seventy-six millions. Now this decrease
of slaves while the other property of the commonwealth is increasing
must arise from one of three causes--and in either case the inference
is the same as to the fate of slavery in Kentucky. (1) Is it because
the climate is unhealthy to the African? If so then African labor
cannot continue. (2) Is it owing to emigration? Then something is
wrong in the system of labor, that causes the emigration of our
people--for no finer soil--no more desirable residence can be found in
the world. (3) Or is it owing to the domestic slave trade? Then for
some reason slave labor is less profitable here than elsewhere, and
must soon be given up."[283]

These figures quoted by the speaker on the slave population for year
by year are available in the auditor's tax books for the years 1840 to
1859:[284]

     1840      164,817
     1841      168,853
     1842      171,035
     1843      176,107
     1844      178,837
     1845      182,742
     1846      185,582
     1847      189,549
     1848      192,470
     1849      195,110
     1850      196,847
     1851      196,336
     1852      200,867
     1853      200,015
     1854      200,181
     1855      202,790
     1856      201,160
     1857      201,590
     1858      207,559
     1859      208,625

The very small growth shown here would barely account for the natural
increase among the slaves by virtue of the high birth rate. The
mortality rates were about the same for slaves as for whites. The
relative decline was undoubtedly due to the rising prices for slaves
which were sent to the South and the consequent decreasing value of a
slave's labor to the Kentuckian. He knew beyond a doubt that the time
would eventually come when he would have to part with his slave and
that portion of the holders who were not averse to selling their
chattels did so during this period.


FOOTNOTES:

[234] Hening's Statutes, Vol. X, p. 50.

[235] Hening's Statutes, Vol. XI, p. 309; Treat, P. J., _National Land
System_, p. 235.

[236] _Ibid._, Vol. X, pp. 35-45.

[237] Winterbotham, _An Historical Geographical Commercial and
Topographical View of the United States_, Vol. 3, pp. 156-157.

[238] Kentucky Land Grants, Book 13, p. 59.

[239] _Ibid._, Book 8, p. 228.

[240] Shaler's _Autobiography_, p. 33.

[241] Michaux (Thwaite's Reprint), _Travels to the West of the
Allegheny Mountains_, Vol. 3, p. 237.

[242] Shaler, N. S., _Kentucky_, p. 196.

[243] Includes 182 Indians.

[244] Includes 33 Indians.

[245] Greeley, Horace, _Writings, Speeches and Addresses of Cassius M.
Clay_, p. 177.

[246] _Collected Documents_, 1847, p. 581.

[247] De Bow's _Statistical Review_, p. 95.

[248] Adapted from De Bow's _Statistical Review_, pp. 67, 85, 99.

[249] Stowe, _Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin_, p. 143.

[250] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, October 17, 1849.

[251] Shaler's _Autobiography_, p. 36.

[252] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, December 24, 1829.

[253] _Lexington Observer and Kentucky Reporter_, February 27, 1834.

[254] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, March 4, 1846.

[255] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, September 3, 1845.

[256] _Lexington Observer_ and _Kentucky Reporter_, Jan. 28, 1835.

[257] _Ibid._, July 9, 1834.

[258] _Lexington Observer_ and _Kentucky Reporter_, Jan. 7, 1835.

[259] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, August 6, 1845.

[260] _Bairdstown Candid Review_, June 20, 1809.

[261] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, May 2, 1849.

[262] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, September 26, 1849.

[263] _Lexington Western Luminary_, June 5, 1833.

[264] Blanchard and Rice, _Debates on Slavery_, p. 133.

[265] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, July 30, 1845.

[266] _Ibid._, July 19, 1848.

[267] _Ibid._, August 14, 1850.

[268] _Ibid._, August 2, 1848.

[269] _St. Louis Daily Times_, October 14, 1852.

[270] _Louisville Daily Journal_, November 23, 1848.

[271] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, November 2, 1825.

[272] _Ibid._, September 13, 1826.

[273] _Louisville Daily Times_, March 1, 1854.

[274] _Slavery and Internal Slave Trade in the U. S._, p. 12.

[275] Martin, Asa E., _Anti-Slavery Movement in Kentucky_, p. 89.

[276] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 74.

[277] _Cynthiana News_, January 10, 1858.

[278] _Henderson Weekly Commercial_, January 29, 1858.

[279] _Georgetown Gazette_, December 23, 1858.

[280] _Weekly Free South_ (Newport), April 29, 1859.

[281] Debates of the Convention of 1849, p. 73.

[282] Little, L. P., _Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, p.
544.

[283] _Presbyterian Herald_, April 12, 1849.

[284] _Collected Documents_, 1847, pp. 581-583; 1853, pp. 401-403;
1860, pp. 241-246.




CHAPTER III

THE LEGAL STATUS OF SLAVERY


Slavery in its more economic form naturally spread to the Kentucky
district as the western frontier of Virginia became settled. Of the
293,427 slaves which were held in the State of Virginia in the year
1790, however, only 11,830 were in the district of Kentucky, which at
that time had a total population of 73,077. Few thought, however, of
disputing the rights of the institution in the newly created State.
The final convention which met to form a constitution was held at
Danville, beginning on April 2, 1792, and in the course of its
proceedings it was apparent that there was no fundamental division
among the delegates regarding any of the proposed provisions with the
exception of the one dealing with slavery. Virginia had stipulated in
giving permission for the formation of the new State that slavery as
an established institution should not be disturbed, and this policy
had the support of a majority of the members of the constitutional
convention. George Nichols, a native of the Old Dominion, was the
leader of the assembly and had charge of most of the work which was
done and naturally was most interested in carrying out the wishes of
his native State in the formation of the new document. The only
serious opponent was David Rice, a noted Presbyterian minister, but,
having resigned on April 11, he was not present at the time when the
slavery issue came up for final settlement.

A separate vote was taken on Article IX, the slavery section, which
passed 26 to 19. It was finally provided that

     The legislature shall have no power to pass laws for the
     emancipation of slaves without the consent of their owners, or
     without paying their owners, previous to such emancipation, a
     full equivalent in money, for the slaves emancipated; they shall
     have no power to prevent immigrants to this state, from bringing
     with them such persons as are deemed slaves by the laws of any
     one of the United States, so long as any person of the same age
     or description shall be continued in slavery by the laws of this
     state: that they shall pass laws to permit the owners of slaves
     to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors, and
     preventing them from becoming a charge to the county in which
     they reside; they shall have full power to prevent slaves from
     being brought into this state as merchandise; they shall have
     full power to prevent any slave being brought into this state
     from a foreign country, and to prevent those from being brought
     into this state, who have been since the first of January, 1789,
     or may hereafter be imported into any of the United States from a
     foreign country. And they shall have full power to pass such laws
     as may be necessary to oblige the owners of slaves to treat them
     with humanity, to provide for them necessary clothes and
     provisions, to abstain from all injuries to them extending to
     life or limb, and in case of their neglect or refusal to comply
     with the directions of such laws, to have such slave or slaves
     sold for the benefit of their owner or owners.[285]

In any discussion of the slavery question in Kentucky in its
historical aspects this article of the first constitution is
fundamental. It is evident that even at that early day the difficulty
of the slavery problem was already in the minds of the people in spite
of many other apparently more pressing issues. The article itself
remained practically intact throughout the existence of slavery in the
State. Were there ever in later years gathered within the confines of
the State any body of men who had a better grasp of the future? The
single instance of the recommendation that the legislature should pass
laws permitting the emancipation of slaves only under the provision
that they should be guaranteed from becoming a public charge to the
county shows the comprehension of a difficulty that could not at such
an early date have developed to any great degree, but which in later
decades was a formidable problem. We may well say with John Mason
Brown, however, that "the system of slavery thus contemplated was
designed to be as mild, as human, and as much protected from traffic
evils as possible, but it was to be emphatically perpetual, for no
emancipation could be had without the assent of each particular owner
of each individual slave."[286]

The session of the State assembly which met in November, 1792, only
attempted to carry out the constitutional provision prohibiting
commercial transactions with slaves. No person was permitted to buy
of, or sell to, any slave, any manner of thing whatsoever without a
written permit descriptive of the article under the penalty of four
times the value of the thing bought or sold. The jurisdiction of such
cases was given to the county court, if they concerned values of more
than five pounds. The slave was to receive ten lashes, which by the
standards of those days was a meager punishment for any offense.[287]
Whenever possible the slave was not brought into consideration as an
offender. The theory seems to have been that the slave was better off
when left alone. It was only when some unscrupulous outsider came in
to use the slave either as a victim or as an object of profit that it
was necessary to draw the strings tighter on the Negro, not because of
any inherent tendency to crime so much as to keep the slave from
becoming unruly when in the power of a superior influence.

It was not until the session of 1798 that the legislature drew up the
fundamental slave code which was to carry out all the recommendations
of the constitutional convention and which remained the basis of all
legal action throughout the entire period of slavery. Among the early
acts of the State had been the temporary adoption of the statutes of
Virginia on the treatment of slaves and slavery problems, which were
then in force.[288] These remained as a slave code for Kentucky until
the enactment in 1798 of these new laws, which contained forty-three
articles and involved almost every question that could come up for
legal consideration in connection with the institution. The experience
of six years as a separate State had served to show that many
existing provisions of the Virginia code were not readily adapted to
the rapidly growing State, and then too there was a decided tendency
to ameliorate the condition of the slave as much as possible. In
Kentucky they were not then, at least, confronted with such a large
mass of slaves that they could not meet problems in a much easier
manner than in the Old Dominion.

In the beginning, it was naturally found necessary to place some
restrictions on the slave and his movements. He was not allowed to
leave his master's plantation without written permission and if he did
go away, any person could apprehend the offender and take him before a
justice of the peace, who was empowered to order the infliction of
stripes at his discretion. Furthermore, he was not to wander off to
any other plantation without the written permission of his owner, with
the provision in this instance that he was not to be taken before a
justice of the peace, but before his owner, who was entitled to
inflict ten lashes upon the offender. Should the slave be found
carrying any powder, shot, a gun, club, or any weapon he could be
apprehended by any free person and taken before a justice and a much
severer penalty exacted in the form of thirty-nine lashes, "well laid
on, on the bare back."[289] It is clear that this law was drawn up to
keep the slave from becoming a public menace and not as a sign of
absolute restriction on the servant, for it was further provided in
Section 6 that in case the slave lived in a frontier community he
could go to the local justice of the peace and secure a permit to keep
and use guns, powder, shot and other weapons for either offensive or
defensive purposes. This permission was to be indorsed by any free
Negro, mulatto or Indian and did not necessarily involve the approval
of the owner of the slave.

It was declared unlawful for slaves to engage in riots, unlawful
assemblies, in trespasses or in seditious speech and, if so accused,
they were to be taken before the local justice who was to punish them
at his discretion. But the Negroes themselves were not to be
considered as the only guilty ones. In order to prevent any such
disorderly meetings no owner of slaves was to be allowed to permit any
slave not belonging to him to remain on his plantation for more than
four hours at any one time under a nominal penalty to such owner of
$2; but, if he allowed more than five such slaves to assemble on his
property, he was to be fined more severely. If such a group were
brought together by the written permission of the owner and for
business reasons, however, there was involved no offense
whatever.[290] It was realized that oftentimes the chief leaders in
the unlawful meetings of slaves were free Negroes and sympathetic
whites. Were any such to be found present they were to be arrested and
if found guilty when tried before a justice of the peace, should be
fined 15 shillings, to be paid, not to the court, but to the informer
and if the money was not forthcoming the court was to have twenty
lashes inflicted--no matter whether the convicted be white or black.
Inasmuch as the degree of punishment of the slaves for being present
at such a meeting was not specified it would seem that the legislature
meant that the free persons involved should be treated more severely
than slaves by the court.

The law of 1792 regarding trading with slaves had not proved to be
effective, for in many cases the owner for a stipulated wage paid by
the slave had permitted him to go at large and engage in trade as if
he were a free man. The legislature found that this encouraged the
slaves to commit thefts and engage in various evil practices and
naturally censured the owner. A fine of $50 was to be paid by the
master for each offending slave and no punishment whatever was to be
given the latter. But should the servant go so far as to hire himself
out, he would be imprisoned by order of the court and, at the next
session of the county court, he would be sold. One fourth of the money
thus received was to be applied to the county funds and 5 per cent was
to be given to the sheriff and the owner was to receive the remaining
70 per cent. Here too the slave was not punished and his condition of
servitude was not changed. It was merely a change of owners. Again the
offending owner was the victim and for his carelessness he was
deprived of 30 per cent of the money value of his slave.[291]

The leading Kentucky case bearing on slaves engaged in trade is that
of Bryant _vs._ Sheely (5 Dana, 530). Five of the main points are
worth mentioning here:

     1. To buy or receive any article from a slave, without the
     consent of his master, in writing, specifying the article, is a
     highly penal offense.

     2. A sale made by a slave, without such written consent, is void,
     and does not divest the master of his property; he may sue for,
     and recover it; or he may waive his right to the specific thing,
     affirm the sale, and recover the price or value, if it was not
     paid to the slave.

     3. A general permission to a slave to go at large and trade for
     himself as a free man, is contrary to public policy, and a
     violation of a penal statute. The owner or master of a slave
     could maintain no action for any claim acquired by a slave while
     acting under such illegal license.

     4. But a slave may be permitted by his master to buy or sell
     particular articles, and any form of consent or permission given
     by the master, or his assent after the fact, will give validity
     to the sale--though the purchaser may be liable to the penalty,
     if the consent be not in writing.

     5. A slave, being authorized by his master to sell any particular
     thing, becomes the agent of his master for that purpose; and from
     the authority to sell, an authority to transfer the property, and
     to fix and receive the price must be inferred; but the slave
     cannot exercise or receive an authority to maintain any action in
     relation to it; the right of action for the price belongs to the
     master, and if he sues, that fact itself is sufficient evidence
     that he authorized or approved and confirmed the sale.

Unlike the more southerly States, Kentucky did not leave the slave
helpless in the courts. If a slave were charged with a capital crime
he was brought before the court of quarter sessions, which was
composed of the various county justices of the peace. They were to
constitute a court of oyer and terminer. But they alone were not to
decide the fate of the Negro, for the sheriff was required to empanel
a jury of twelve men from among the bystanders, who were to constitute
the trial jury. It was explicitly stated that legal evidence in such a
case would be the confession of the offender, the oath of one or more
credible witnesses, or such testimony of Negroes, mulattoes, or
Indians as should seem convincing to the court. When a slave was
called upon to testify in such a case, the court, the witness "not
being a Christian," found it necessary to administer the following
charge that he might be under the greater obligation to declare the
truth: "You are brought hither as a witness, and by the direction of
the law I am to tell you, before you give your evidence, that you must
tell the truth and nothing but the truth, and that if it be found
hereafter that you tell a lie, and give false testimony in this
matter, you must, for so doing, receive thirty-nine lashes on your
bare back, well laid on, at the common whipping post."[292]

Section 22 of the law of 1798 provided that the master or owner of any
slave might appear in court at a trial of his servant and "make what
just defense he can for such slave." The only restriction was that
such defense should not interfere with the form of the trial.
Naturally the liberally disposed slaveholders interpreted this to mean
that they could employ counsel to defend their Negroes and it remained
a disputed question down to 1806, when the legislature made the
provisions more specific. By this new law it was provided that it was
not only the privilege but the duty of the owner of a slave who was
being prosecuted to employ an attorney to defend him. The owner
neglecting to do so the court must assign counsel to defend the slave
and the costs thereby incurred were to be charged to the owner. The
fee for defense was not to exceed $200 and if not forthcoming the
court was empowered to recover the amount in the manner of any other
debt of similar amount. It was plainly the intention of the
legislature to provide a just trial for any slave, for they even went
so far as to enact that the lawyer appointed by the court for the
prisoner should "defend such slave as in cases of free persons
prosecuted for felony by the laws of this state."[293]

When the slave was convicted of an offense which was punishable by
death but which was within the benefit of clergy the capital penalty
was not pronounced, but the offender was burnt in the hand or
inflicted with any other corporal penalty at the discretion of the
court. Should the criminal be sentenced to suffer death, thirty days
were to elapse before the execution, except where it was a case of
conspiracy, insurrection or rebellion. When the court had decided to
sentence the slave to the death penalty a valuation of the Negro was
made. This statement was to be turned over to the State auditor of
public accounts who was required to issue a warrant on the treasury
for the amount in favor of the owner of the convicted party. The owner
on his part was to turn over to the treasurer the certificate of the
clerk of the court showing that the slave had been condemned and the
statement of the sheriff that the offender had been executed or had
died before execution.[294]

This matter of the payment to the owner of the value of the executed
slave appears never to have been questioned to any extent even by the
abolitionists in the legislature until the session of 1830 when a bill
was introduced for the repeal of the law. The bill was lost but in the
course of the debate it was stated that while Kentucky contained over
160,000 slaves only about one fifth of the tax-paying whites were
slaveholders and that $68,000 had already been paid out of the State
treasury as indemnity for slaves executed. After the defeat of this
bill there was offered a substitute which proposed that a tax of one
fourth of one per cent should be levied upon the value of all slaves
in the State for the creation of a fund out of which to make such
disbursements, but this was likewise lost.[295]

Until 1811 there were no special enactments on slave crimes and their
punishments. The court had, therefore, more or less range in the
exactment of penalties but the legislature of 1811 passed during the
first fortnight of its session a specific law governing slave crimes.
Only four offenses were to be regarded as punishable by death: (1)
conspiracy and rebellion, (2) administering poison with intent to
kill, (3) voluntary manslaughter and (4) rape of a white woman. If any
slaves were to be found guilty of consulting or advising the murder of
any one, every such consultation was to constitute an offense and be
punishable by any number of stripes not exceeding one hundred.[296]

As time went on the list of capital crimes was increased as a natural
result of the growth of the slave population and their growing state
of unrest after the incoming of the anti-slavery propaganda. By the
close of the slavery era in Kentucky there were eleven offenses for
which slaves should suffer death: (1) murder, (2) arson, (3) rape of a
white woman, (4) robbery, (5) burglary, (6) conspiracy, (7)
administering poison with intent to kill, (8) manslaughter, (9)
attempting to commit rape on a white woman, (10) shooting at a white
person with intent to kill, and (11) wounding a white person with
intent to kill. It will readily be seen that from a practical
standpoint these eleven offenses can be narrowed down to eight. The
severity of the slave code can be shown by comparison of the capital
crimes for white persons at the same time. These were four in number,
(1) murder, (2) carnal abuse of a female under ten years of age, (3)
wilful burning of the penitentiary and (4) being an accessory to the
fact.[297]

Virginia had early enacted that slaves should be considered as real
estate in the settlement of inheritances. But the growing tendency to
look upon the slaves in all things else as personal chattels led to
such legal and popular confusion that the Virginia assembly often
observed that they were "real estate in some respects, personal in
others, and both in others." Regardless of such legal complexity it
was not until 1793 that it was enacted that "all negro and mulatto
slaves in all courts of judicature shall be held and adjudged to be
personal estate."

In drawing up the slave code of 1798 Kentucky disregarded the legal
experience of Virginia and her more recent remedial legislation and
enacted that "all negro, mulatto or Indian slaves, in all courts of
judicature and other places within this commonwealth, shall be held,
taken and adjudged to be real estate, and shall descend to the heirs
and widows of persons departing this life, as lands are directed to
descend." It was further provided, however, that "all such slaves
shall be liable to the payment of debts, and may be taken by execution
for that end, as other chattels, or personal estate may be."[298]

Such a law coupled with the legal precedents of Virginia served to
intensify the mixed property conception of the slave. The confusion,
however, was purely legal, for slaves were held in all other respects
as personalty; but in cases of inheritance and the probation of wills
the Kentucky Court of Appeals was often called upon to define clearly
the legal status of the Negro in bondage. The first important decision
was handed down in 1824 in the case of Chinn and wife _vs._ Respass,
in which it was pointed out that while slaves were by law made real
estate for the purpose of descent and dower, yet they had in law many
of the attributes of personal estate. They would pass by a nuncupative
will, and lands would not; they could be limited, in a grant or devise
no otherwise than personal chattels; and personal actions might be
brought to recover the possession of them. Furthermore "they were in
their nature personal estate, being moveable property, and as such
might attend the person of the proprietor wherever he went; and in
practice they were so considered by the people in general."[299]

Conversely, the court was often called upon to interpret the phrase
"personal estate" in wills and contracts, where it appeared without
any other restrictive expression or provision, and it consistently
held that the term should be construed as embracing slaves.[300]
Gradually the personal property conception began to secure even legal
precedence over that of real estate when the two interpretations came
into close conflict. This was accomplished by placing more stress on
the proviso in the original slave code, which placed slaves in the
hands of the administrator as assets for the payment of debts. This
led to increasing power for the executor who could even defeat the
title of the heirs, though the property may have been specifically
devised. Hence it was not surprising that in the Revised Statutes of
1852 it was provided that slaves should thereafter be deemed and held
as personal estate. Coming after all doubt of the personalty of slaves
had been removed by the decisions of the highest tribunal in the
State, this law meant little more than the repeal of the old statute
making slaves real estate.

The wonder is that Kentucky should have chosen to hold to an
antiquated legal conception for fifty years after Virginia had proved
its fallacy by her experience in the eighteenth century. While it did
little harm, it had few advantages. The existence of the theory was
chiefly noticeable in the frequent legal battles over technicalities
in the settlement of estates. In the popular mind slaves were always
considered personal property, and the spirit of the slave code itself
embodied that conception as regarded all things save the question of
inheritance.

With respect to the liberty of the slaves the code of 1798 clearly
shows that the existing type of slavery was purely rural, for the
restrictions on slaves concerned only the plantation Negroes. Strictly
understood, the slave was not to leave the farm of his owner without a
pass from his master, the main purpose being to keep the Negroes from
congregating on any one farm. Later when emissaries from the North
became unusually active the rights and privileges of the slaves were
further restricted. This change was due to the current belief that
these foreign individuals were bent upon stirring up strife among the
slaves and inciting them to insurrection. Once started such a scheme
would have resulted in anarchy especially in the towns. The real
curbing provisions were not started until along in the thirties when
these outside forces had begun to make their appearance in the urban
communities.[301]

In some parts of the State were instituted mounted patrols, who went
about at night and watched the movement of slaves. They were to
apprehend any servant who was caught away from his home plantation
without a pass from his master.[302] Such an institution was based on
good Negro psychology, for his fear of the spirits of night was well
known. Citizens of that time have told us many tales of the dread
which the slave had of meeting these night raiders whom they termed
"patter-rollers" and how they came to sing of them in true Negro
fashion:

    Over the fence and through the paster,
    Run, nigger, run, oh, run a little faster,
      Run, nigger, run,
    The patter-roller ketch you.

Such a system of county patrols did not prove to be sufficient as the
slave population grew and the towns became larger and more attractive
to the country slave. The legislature of 1834 in drawing up a law
concerning tavern keepers had this problem clearly in mind when they
provided that no person should sell, give or loan any spirituous
liquors to slaves, other than his own, under a penalty of $10 for
each offense. Furthermore, if the offender was a licensed liquor
dealer, he should have his license taken away from him for the term of
two years.[303] That even this measure did not prove effective enough
to curb the evil of Negroes congregating in the towns is shown by the
further provision passed March 6, 1850, to increase the fine to $50
for each offense.[304] A still further extension was that of February
27, 1856, which provided that free Negroes were to be included in the
restriction unless they presented a certificate from "some white
person of respectable character." No slaves or free Negroes were to be
employed in the selling or distribution of liquor nor were they to be
allowed to visit or even loaf around any place where intoxicants were
kept for sale.[305] The session of 1858 made the force of the law more
explicit by defining very clearly the jurisdiction in such cases.[306]

Not only the State authorities but the towns as well were active in
the measures adopted to meet the growing problem. The best available
sample of the many provisions which the town councils drew up is this
one which was passed by the trustees of Henderson in 1840:

     It shall be and is hereby made, the duty of the Town Sergeant or
     either of his assistants, to punish with any number of lashes not
     exceeding ten, all or any negro slave or slaves who may be found
     in any grog shop, grocery or other place where spirituous liquors
     are retailed in said town, or who may be found on the streets of
     said town after ten o'clock at night, unless it shall appear to
     the said Town Sergeant, or assistant, that said negro slave or
     slaves, are acting under the orders of his, her or their master
     or mistress, and it shall further be the duty of the Town
     Sergeant, or either of his assistants, to enter into any grog
     shop, grocery or other place where spirituous liquors are
     retailed, in said town, whenever he shall be informed that any
     negro slave or slaves are collected therein. Provided, said Town
     Sergeant, or assistant, can enter the same peaceably and without
     force.[307]

This town regulation offers perhaps another proof of the oft-repeated
statement regarding the slave laws of Kentucky that while they
appeared severe on the statute books they were always mild in the
enforcement. The regulation of the movement of slaves in the towns was
always subject to the local conditions. Beginning about 1850 there was
a growing feeling in some of the more thickly populated sections of
the State that the type of Negro slave who sought to frequent the
village saloons would sooner or later start an insurrection. But no
such uprising ever occurred and the fear of such seems to have been
due to the current animosity towards the activities of the
abolitionists, which was prevalent throughout the State.

In the course of time it was considered necessary to treat more
seriously also the importation of slaves. The advisability of
preventing the importation of bondmen had been foreseen in Kentucky
from the experience of the mother State of Virginia which had enacted
a stringent law in 1778 imposing a penalty of one thousand pounds and
the forfeiture of the slave upon the importer of any into that
commonwealth. The ninth article of the Kentucky Constitution of 1792
had provided that the legislature "shall have full power to prevent
slaves being brought into this commonwealth as merchandise; they shall
have full power to prevent any slave being brought into this state
from a foreign country, and to prevent those from being brought into
this state, who have been since the first of January, 1789, or may
hereafter be imported into any of the United States from a foreign
country."[308]

The session of the State assembly in 1794 drew up a law concerning the
importation and emancipation of slaves but it was largely a mere
modification of the law of the State of Virginia. It was not until the
adoption of the slave code of 1798 that the question was firmly
settled by a more definite statement. By article 25 of that act it was
provided "that no slave or slaves shall be imported into this state
from any foreign country, nor shall any slave who has been imported
into the United States from any foreign country since the first day of
January, 1789, or may hereafter be imported into the United States
from any foreign country under the penalty of $300."

This was merely carrying out the provisions of the constitution.
Section 26 provided that "no slave or slaves shall be imported into
this state as merchandise, and any person offending herein, shall
forfeit and pay the sum of $300 for each slave so imported, to be
recovered by action of debt or information, in any court having
cognizance of the same, one half to the prosecutor, the other half to
the use of the commonwealth." More significant was the proviso that
"this act shall not extend to prevent any citizen of this state
bringing for his own use, provided, they have not been brought into
the United States from any foreign country since January 1, 1789; nor
shall it be construed to prevent persons emigrating to this state
bringing their slaves with them, but either a citizen of this state or
persons emigrating to this state may bring slaves not prohibited by
this act."[309]

An act of 1814 amended the above by prohibiting the importation of
slaves by any of the emigrants if they did not intend to settle in
Kentucky.[310] An attempt was made by a law of February 8, 1815, to
remedy some of the defects which had been found. The legal penalty for
importation was increased to $600 for each slave imported and a fine
of $200 was added for every person buying or selling such slave. No
indictment was to be subject to a shorter limitation than five years
and once so accused no person was to be discharged or acquitted unless
he could produce evidence to show that within sixty days of his
arrival in Kentucky he had deposited the following oath, duly signed,
in the county clerk's office where he resides: "I, ...., do swear that
my removal to the state of Kentucky was with the intention of
becoming a citizen thereof, and that I have brought no slave or
slaves to this state, with the intention of selling them."[311]

It is evident from all contemporary discussions of the question of
importation that it was the firm conviction that in order to do
justice to the slave and the institution as a whole within the State
it was necessary to prevent the infusion of any foreign slave element.
Once such a policy had been carried out to a successful conclusion,
they would have been confronted only with a purely domestic type of
slavery and its increase. With such an ideal condition, for those
times, the institution eventually would have been easily handled. But
these early lawmakers, while no doubt honest in their intentions, did
not have the wisdom that was tempered with experience, and the
unscrupulous slave traders found further defects in the law and took
advantage of them. A careful examination of the law of 1794, the
codification of 1798, and the amendments of 1814 and 1815 will show
that the whole theory of non-importation is summed up in the word
_intent_. It was the intent with which the slaves were introduced, and
to this alone the penalty attached. They were not to be imported as
merchandise but every citizen could import slaves for his own use.
Once these slaves were within the State there was no penalty provided
if they were sold. There was nothing to prevent a man from selling
what slaves he had imported and later going without the confines of
the State and bringing in more. If he were brought before the court,
he would claim that he had not intended to sell them when they were
brought in, and no one could place a penalty on his intentions. It
seems that there were other violators of the spirit of the law, who
never sold any of the slaves but brought them into the State in large
numbers and then hired them out for such long terms as 99 years.[312]
The fundamental idea of the law had been to place a curb on the
increase of the slave population by importation and these acts were in
direct opposition to the intention of the enactments.

An index of the inefficiency of the existing provisions regarding
importation can be found in the figures on the growth of the slave
population during this period when it is borne in mind that legally
slaves could not be imported, except for personal use, after the year
1794. The slave population in 1790 had been 11,830 and by 1800 had
increased to 40,343 or at the rate of 241.02 per cent; in 1810 there
were 80,561 slaves or an increase of 99.69 per cent; in 1820 there
were 126,732, a gain of 57.31 per cent; and by 1830 they had increased
30.36 per cent to a total of 165,213. During the same period there was
a great increase in the white population but it was always from 20 per
cent to 40 per cent below that of the slaves. It appears that the law
prohibiting importation was not as effective as it should have been.
While none of the statesmen appear to have figured from the
statistical viewpoint there was no end of discussion regarding the
necessity of extending the law to include more than the question of
intent at the time of importation.

The avowed resolution of Kentucky to deal with the slavery question in
the most humane manner and to stop any unscrupulous dealing in slaves
for the mere sake of profit is nowhere more clearly shown than in the
firm action which was taken not only in the court room but in the
legislative halls when it was found that advantage had been taken of
the letter of the law at the expense of its spirit. On February 2,
1833, the legislature passed a law prohibiting all importation of
slaves even for personal use. The only exception provided in this case
was that emigrants were allowed to bring in slaves, if they took the
oath that had been provided in the law of 1815. The evil mentioned
above brought about by hiring slaves for excessively long terms was
prohibited by declaring illegal any contract which extended beyond one
year and exacting a penalty of $600 for each offense. This law of 1833
was destined to be the crux of many a heated argument for the
remainder of the slavery period. Many a candidate for office during
the next thirty years rose to victory or fell in defeat because of
his position with regard to this one statute of the State. It was the
briefest of all the enactments on the slavery question but it was by
far the most important and far-reaching provision that the legislature
ever enacted in connection with the institution.[313]

It is noticeable that this measure was not brought about in any sense
by the activities of the abolitionists, for they had not at that time
made their appearance in the State. It was an honest endeavor on
the part of the native population, slaveholding as well as
non-slaveholding, to carry out the spirit of their State constitution
which had been adopted back in 1792. Thomas F. Marshall, who later was
the leader of the Lexington group which removed Cassius M. Clay's
_True American_ to Cincinnati, has borne testimony to the fact that
the slaveholding element voted for the law of 1833. "At the time of
the passage of this law," said he, "the sect known by the title of
'abolitionists' had not made their appearance. And, as I was sworn
then upon the constitution of my country, by all the obligations of
that oath, I affirm now that I do not believe that the principles and
designs ascribed to that party were in the contemplation of any human
being who voted for the law. I was myself not only never an
abolitionist, but never an emancipationist upon any plan which I ever
heard proposed."[314]

But the question was not settled for all time, for with the coming of
the abolitionist element there was a general tendency throughout the
State to enact stricter laws governing slaves. Many who had voted for
the enactment began to cry for a repeal of the law, but it was not
until the session of 1841 that it was seriously debated in the general
assembly. Then after a long and ardent discussion in the House of
Representatives a vote was taken on the ninth of January--with 34 in
favor of the repeal and 53 against it. Never within the previous
decade had a bill before the House produced such popular
interest.[315] It came up in the Senate at the session of 1843 but
after another warm debate it failed by a vote of 14 to 21. Sentiment
for the repeal continued to grow and in 1849 the law was amended so as
"no longer to prohibit persons from purchasing and bringing into the
State slaves for their own use."[316] This changed the situation back
to what it was before 1833, for it will be recalled that the main
feature of the law of 1833 compared with that of 1815 was the
prohibition of importation even for personal use. It could easily have
been predicted that such an amendment would pass, for the legislature
of 1847 had passed 27 distinct resolutions granting to as many
individuals the right to import slaves for personal use. The session
of 1848 made 24 similar provisions.

This apparently radical swing towards the side of the slave owner in
1849 was more than likely brought about by the very intense campaign
which was carried on by the emancipationists. Such a movement served
to unite the slave forces against any attack upon the institution.
This tendency was shown not only in the halls of the State legislature
but in the constitutional convention which met later in the same year.
Although the abolitionists had looked forward to some advanced
constitutional provisions on emancipation and the inclusion of the law
of 1833 in the organic law of the State they were astounded to be met
with the virtual repeal of that statute by the legislature. On the
other hand the constitutional convention not only rejected bodily all
the reform measures but added to the Bill of Rights this extraordinary
amendment: "The right of property is before and higher than any
constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to such
slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of
the owner of any property whatsoever."

The slave trader once more had the courage to appear in the State.
Richard Henry Collins in an editorial in the _Maysville Eagle_,
November 6, 1849, gives us some vivid evidence of the effect which the
repeal of the law of 1833 had had in a few weeks' time. "A remarkably
forcible and practical argument in favor of incorporating the negro
law of 1833 into the new constitution reached this city in bodily
shape on Sunday, per the steamer _Herman_ from Charleston, Virginia.
Forty-four negroes--men, women and children--of whom seventeen men had
handcuffs on one hand and were chained together, two and two, passed
through this city for the interior of the State, under charge of two
regular traders. We opine that few who saw the spectacle would
hereafter say aught against the readoption of the anti-importation act
of 1833." Such scenes as this were the result of the passage of an
innocent-looking measure which allowed citizens to import slaves for
their own use, but which could really be made to include almost any
influx of slaves.

No further change in the importation laws was made until the crisis
immediately preceding the Civil War, when practically all opposition
was removed and the law of 1833 was abolished in its entirety.[317]
Explanations of the sudden turn of mind are not hard to find for the
enactment was passed amid the turmoil and chaos brought on by an
impending war and the radical slaveholders found it easy to get votes
for their side in a last vain endeavor to save the institution, not so
much from an economic standpoint as from a matter of principle. The
last chapter in the legal history of the importation problem in
Kentucky, however, had not yet been written. After three years of the
armed conflict between the North and the South, Kentucky, which had
remained loyal to the Union and fought against the slave power of the
South, reenacted on February 2, 1864, the old law of 1798 on the
prohibition of the importation of slaves.[318] The wording was
somewhat different, but the essential provisions were the same.
Coming at such a time, it never had any significance in the slavery
problem in the State, but it is interesting as one of the last vain
efforts of the institution before it was mustered out of the State by
an amendment to the federal constitution, which was passed without the
assent of the State legislature of Kentucky.

No less serious than the question of importation was the problem of
the fugitive slave. This has been treated many times and every
discussion of it has involved much of what transpired in Kentucky or
on its borders. It is not the purpose here to repeat any of that story
because it belongs rather to the anti-slavery field, and, furthermore,
has been recently very well treated by A. E. Martin in his
_Anti-slavery Movement in Kentucky_. We are here concerned with the
legal phase of the fugitive problem as it existed in Kentucky
throughout this period, as an internal question; in the relation
between the State and other States; and between the State and the
federal authorities. In so far as it relates to the law within the
State such a discussion naturally divides itself into two
phases--those measures which affected the fugitive slave himself, and
those which were directed towards conspirators who might have brought
about the escape of slaves. The former group of laws were enacted, for
the most part, in the early days of statehood, for a runaway slave was
a natural evil in any condition of servitude. The latter group of
measures were passed in the later days of the institution when the
anti-slavery propagandists came in from the North, for until then
there were no cases of enticement. A large majority of those who were
placed on trial for conspiracy in the history of slavery in Kentucky
proved to be outsiders who had come into the State after 1835. The
citizens of the commonwealth who were opposed to the institution were
satisfied to confine themselves to mere words advocating the
emancipation of slaves.

The State early adopted the slave code of Virginia in regard to the
treatment of runaway slaves just as it did in regard to the general
legal rights of the bonded Negro but provided more drastic regulations
in 1798. Any person who suspected a Negro of being a runaway slave
could take him before a justice of the peace, and swear to his belief
in the guilt of the accused. Being provided with a certificate from
the justice where he found the slave, the apprehender could then take
the fugitive back to the owner and might collect ten shillings as a
reward and an additional shilling for each mile of travel necessary in
bringing the slave to the master. If the money should not be paid, the
person entitled to it could recover the sum in any court of record in
the State upon the production of his certificate of apprehension as
legal evidence.[319]

In many cases the runaway could not be identified as the property of
any particular owner, so provision was made for the commitment of the
offender to the county jail. The keeper was forthwith to post a
bulletin on the courthouse with a complete description of the Negro.
If at the end of two months no claimant appeared the sheriff was to
publish an advertisement in the _Lexington Gazette_ for three
consecutive months so that the news of capture would reach a larger
public. In the meantime the sheriff was authorized to hire out the
fugitive and the wages thus received were to pay for the reward of the
captor and the expenses incurred by the county officials. If the owner
appeared during the period and proved his property, he could have the
slave at once in spite of any labor contract, providing he would pay
any excess of expenses over wages received. But often the master never
appeared and if a year had expired since the last advertisement had
been published in the _Gazette_, the sheriff could sell the slave and
place the proceeds of the sale plus the wages received over the
expenses, in the county treasury. This sum was credited to the unknown
owner, for if he should appear at any future time the county would
reimburse him for his loss, otherwise the fund reverted to the
county.[320]

This legal code for the apprehension of runaway slaves remained
practically unchanged throughout the period of slavery. The only
amendments which were ever made were those for the increase of the
reward to the captor and it is significant that the first of these
changes did not come until more than a generation later in 1835. Then
the compensation was divided into three classes: for those captured in
their own county, $10; in another county, $20; out of the State,
$30.[321] Just three years later it was found necessary to increase
this by the following interesting law: "The compensation for
apprehending fugitive slaves taken without this commonwealth, and in a
State where slavery is not tolerated by law, shall be one hundred
dollars, on the delivery to the owner at his residence within this
commonwealth, and seventy-five dollars if lodged in the jail of any
county in this commonwealth, and the owner be notified so as to be
able to reclaim the slave."[322] There were no more advances until a
law of March 3, 1860, increased the reward to one hundred and fifty
dollars if the slave were caught outside the State and brought back to
the home county; one hundred and twenty-five dollars if caught outside
the State and brought back to any county in Kentucky; and twenty
dollars if caught anywhere in the home county.

The trend of these laws, from the viewpoint of the rewards alone,
shows the increasing importance of the fugitive problem to the
slaveholding group. It is noticeable that from the year 1798 until
1835 there was not sufficient pressure upon the State legislature to
increase the reward to the captor of a runaway. It is further evident
from the scarcity of contemporary advertisements that there were
comparatively few Negroes who ventured forth from the neighborhood of
their masters. But with the rise of the anti-slavery movement in the
North and the growth of abolition sentiment as expressed by the
apostles of Negro freedom who had come from across the Ohio, the
slaves tended to run away in ever-increasing numbers. This was soon
followed by a more rigid policy of apprehension upon the part of the
Kentucky legal authorities, apparent in the increasing reward.

Not all cases of fugitives were to be reached by a mere system of
capture and reward. Barely did a slave make his escape into a free
State without the aid of some one in sympathy with him. Hence the need
for legal machinery to punish those who assisted runaways. From a
chronological point of view the laws governing such cases divide
themselves into two parts; in the early days they refer to those who
would help a slave who had already escaped; in the later period they
were directed towards those who induced slaves to leave their home
plantations.

Whichever of the free States he tried to reach it was necessary for
the Negro to cross the Ohio River to get to his haven of refuge. If
the Kentucky authorities could prevent him from crossing the stream on
the northern and western boundary, they could prevent any slave from
making a successful escape. Consequently the legislature as early as
1823 attempted to solve the problem by passing a law forbidding
masters of vessels and others from employing and removing Negroes out
of the State.[323] This act prevented runaways from securing work on a
steamboat with the specific purpose of leaving once they were on free
soil. But as usual this enactment was not effective, because there was
a loop-hole in it. The State assembly in 1831, therefore, provided
that no ferryman on the Ohio River should transport slaves across from
Kentucky. No other person, not owning or keeping a ferry, was to be
permitted to set slaves over, or to loan them boats or watercraft.
Slaves could only cross the river when they had the written consent of
their masters. Each and every owner of a ferry was required to give
bond in the sum of $3,000 to carry out the spirit of the law; and for
every violation he was subject to a fine of $200.[324]

Not content with their previous efforts the general assembly of 1838
went still further and prohibited slaves from going as passengers on
mail stages or coaches anywhere within the State, except upon the
written request of their owners, or in the master's company. The
liability for the enforcement of the law rested upon the stage
proprietors, who were to be fined $100 for each slave illegally
transported.[325]

No stringent laws were made against the enticement of slaves to run
away until 1830 when the abolitionists first began to appear. Until
that time there seems to have been no need for any legal enactment
regarding the question. The only trouble previously had been with the
whites and free Negroes who aided a slave already on his way to the
North. It was in response to the popular demand that on January 28,
1830, the State legislature provided severe penalties for any person
found guilty of (1) enticing a slave to leave his owner, (2)
furnishing a forged paper of freedom, (3) assisting a slave to escape
out of the State, (4) enticing a slave to run away, or (5) concealing
a runaway slave. Should a person be suspected of any one of these
offenses and not be found guilty, he was to give security for his good
behavior to avoid all accusation in the future.[326]

The most interesting legal case based on this law was that of Delia
Webster, a young lady from Vermont, who was tried in the Fayette
Circuit Court in December, 1844, for the enticement of a Negro slave
boy from Lexington. The details of the trial show that the court was
just and fair in spite of the fact that both Miss Webster and her
copartner, Calvin Fairbank, were not citizens of the State and had
furthermore used all kinds of deceit to accomplish their purpose. For
the sake of aiding one Negro slave boy to reach freedom they went to
the expense and trouble to feign an elopement to Ohio via Maysville,
but the Lexington authorities caught them as they were coming back on
the Lexington Pike near Paris. At the trial it was shown that
Fairbank was in Kentucky for no other reason than to induce slaves to
escape to the North and that Miss Webster had come to Lexington as a
school teacher merely as a cloak for her abolitionist work. The
evidence offered by the prosecution was damaging in the extreme. The
defense put forth no data for her side at all, evidently preferring to
be hailed as a martyr to the cause for which she stood. The jury
brought in a verdict of guilty and she was sentenced to serve two
years in the State penitentiary.[327]

The young accomplice, Calvin Fairbank, proved to be the most
persistent abolitionist the Kentucky authorities ever encountered. He
pleaded guilty to the indictment as charged and was sentenced to serve
15 years in the penitentiary, to which he was taken February 18, 1845.
Evidently convinced that he had been punished sufficiently Governor
John J. Crittenden pardoned him August 23, 1849, on condition that he
leave the State at once.[328] But such an ardent young enthusiast for
the cause of Negro freedom soon found that there were other slaves who
were in need of his aid and on November 3, 1851, he came across from
Jeffersonville to Louisville under the cover of night and "kidnapped"
a young mulatto woman who had been doomed to be sold at auction.[329]
Presumably in the hope of rescuing other slaves he remained in the
vicinity for several days until on the morning of November 9 he was
arrested by the Kentucky authorities. Fairbank was placed in jail
pending his trial, which took place in the following March, when he
was again sentenced to serve 15 years at hard labor in the State
penitentiary. He began his term March 9, 1852.[330] This time he was
not so fortunate in an early release. The chief executives of the
State from time to time refused to pardon him. In April, 1864,
Governor Bramlette was called to Washington by President Lincoln for
a conference and Richard T. Jacobs, the Lieutenant-Governor, became
the acting Governor. This son-in-law of Thomas H. Benton had taken
more or less pity on Fairbank, for he had stated to the prisoner that
if he ever became the chief executive he would release him. The
opportunity thus being presented for the first time, Jacob pardoned
Fairbank on April 15, 1864, after a continuous imprisonment of twelve
years. Such was the experience in Kentucky of an ardent northern
abolitionist who boasted that he had "liberated forty-seven slaves
from hell."[331]

The systematic stealing of slaves from Kentucky had begun about 1841
and at the time of the Webster and Fairbank trial was at its height.
This movement was one of the results growing out of the animosity
created by another legal case which occurred in 1838--that of the Rev.
John B. Mahan of Brown County, Ohio. This Methodist minister, although
living in the State of Ohio, was indicted by the grand jury of Mason
County, Kentucky, for having aided in the escape of certain slaves.
Governor Clark, of Kentucky, then issued a requisition on the Governor
of Ohio for Mahan as a "fugitive from justice." Upon receipt of the
demand, the chief executive of Ohio immediately issued a warrant for
the arrest of the minister. A short time later he became convinced
that this step had been too hasty, because Mahan had never been in
Kentucky. His offense had merely consisted in helping runaways along
the "underground railroad," once they were on free soil.

Hence, Governor Vance sent a special messenger to the chief executive
of Kentucky redemanding the alleged fugitive from justice. Governor
Clark made this very cordial and diplomatic reply:

     The position assumed by you in relation to the fact of Mahan
     having never been within the limits of Kentucky is clearly
     correct, and if upon the legal investigation of the case it be
     found true, he will doubtless be acquitted. I feel great
     solicitude that this citizen of your state, who has been arrested
     and brought to Kentucky, upon my requisition, shall receive
     ample and full justice, and that, if upon legal investigation he
     be found innocent of the crime alleged against him, he shall be
     released and set at liberty. I will, therefore, address a letter
     to the judge and commonwealth attorney of the Mason Circuit,
     communicating to them the substance of your letter, and the
     evidence which you have transmitted to me.[332]

The efforts of the Governor of Ohio were eventually successful, for in
spite of his slaveholding sympathies Governor Clark wrote to the judge
of the Mason Circuit and the latter charged the jury in no uncertain
terms regarding the jurisdiction in the case. After a trial of six
days Mahan was acquitted.

The importance of this case does not rest in the trial and its events
but rather in the reactions which it had upon the Kentucky populace.
No one doubted that Mahan was guilty of aiding slaves; but it was seen
that he had been shrewd enough to confine his activities to the State
of Ohio, where the Kentucky authorities had no jurisdiction. In his
opening message to the State legislature, which met the next month
after the acquittal of Mahan, Governor Clark voiced the sentiment of a
large majority of Kentuckians. Bear in mind that these words came from
the same man who a month before had advised the Circuit judge of the
illegality of the Mahan indictment.

     Some of the abolitionists of an adjoining state, not contented
     with the mere promulgation of opinions and views calculated to
     excite a feeling of disaffection among our slave population, and
     to render this description of property insecure in the hands of
     its proprietors, have extended their operations so far as to
     mingle personally with our slaves, to enter into arrangements
     with them, and to afford them the means and facilities to escape
     from their owners. This flagitious conduct is not to be
     tolerated--it must be checked in its origin by the adoption of
     efficient and energetic measures, or it will, in all human
     probability, lead to results greatly to be deprecated by every
     friend to law and order. This demon-like spirit that rages
     uncontrolled by law, or sense of moral right, must be
     overcome--it must be subdued; its action in the state should be
     prohibited under such penalties as will effectually curb its
     lawlessness and disarm its power.[333]

In pursuance of this and similar recommendations the State legislature
early in 1839 despatched a delegation of members to the general
assembly of Ohio then meeting at Columbus. These men were charged to
secure a law in Ohio for the better security of Kentucky fugitive
slave property. The Kentucky officials had always been confronted with
the problem of recovering runaways captured in Ohio, even when they
personally knew the captive. The old law of 1807 in Ohio was never lax
in the enforcement, but the plea of habeas corpus was habitually used
for the defendant and, furthermore, it often happened that the
necessary proofs of ownership were not in evidence. These facts
coupled with the publicity of the Mahan trial brought about the
peculiar legislative commission from Kentucky.

Here was a delegation from a slave commonwealth sent to a free State
to demand a rigorous fugitive slave law for their own benefit. The
Kentucky committee went even further and suggested the provisions of
the proposed enactment--and the remarkable thing was that they
actually succeeded. Although Ohio was known to be the home of
anti-slavery interests the law passed without any difficulty. By its
provisions a slave owner or his agent could appear before any judge,
justice or mayor, who was authorized to issue a warrant to any sheriff
in Ohio calling upon him to arrest the fugitive and bring him before
any judge in the county where caught. Upon proof of his ownership to
the court the owner was entitled to a certificate for removal. A heavy
fine and imprisonment were the penalty for any interference with the
execution of either the warrant or the removal of the slave. The vote
on this measure in the House of Representatives was 53 to 15. There
has been made an analysis of this roll call, which shows that the
opposition all came from northern Ohio--whereas those in the southern
part of the State voted for it because they were not inclined to allow
any disturbance of the friendly commercial relationship which they had
with their neighbor State to the south. Moreover, they objected to
their locality being used as a place of refuge for unfortunate
Negroes.[334]

Henceforth Ohio became a veritable hunting ground for fugitive slaves,
but the wiser of the Negroes and the abolitionists diverted their
efforts to other fields of escape, especially through Indiana and
Illinois. The legal authorities at this time began to realize that
their hope lay in the enactment of a federal law but no definite steps
were taken until after the affair of Francis Troutman at Marshall,
Michigan, in January, 1847. Troutman came from Kentucky to Michigan to
bring back six runaways that had been located at Marshall. When he had
found them and was about to take them before a magistrate for
identification, a crowd of citizens of the town put in their
appearance and threatened injury to Troutman and his three Kentucky
companions. Although the latter were acting in accordance with the law
the mob would not let them proceed in any manner--not even to appear
before the magistrate--but demanded that they leave town within two
hours. In the meantime they were all four arrested, tried and found
guilty of trespass.[335] When these events were reported back to
Kentucky mass meetings were held throughout the State in protest
against the Michigan action. The State legislature drew up a
resolution calling upon Congress to enact a new fugitive slave
law.[336] The Senate referred the petition to the Committee on
Judiciary and they later reported a new fugitive slave bill which was
read twice and then pigeonholed. The same action was repeated at the
next session in 1849.

The general feeling in Kentucky was intensified just at this time by a
decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Jones _vs._
Van Zandt, which had been pending in various courts for five years. In
April, 1842, John Van Zandt, a former Kentuckian, then living in
Springdale just north of Cincinnati, was caught in the act of aiding
nine fugitive slaves to escape, and one of them got away even from the
slave catchers. Consequently Wharton Jones, the Kentucky owner,
brought suit against Van Zandt in the U. S. Circuit Court under the
federal fugitive slave act of 1793 for $500 for concealing and
harboring a fugitive slave. The jury returned a verdict for the
plaintiff in the sum of $1,200 as damages on two other counts in
addition to the penalty of $500 for concealing and harboring. Salmon
P. Chase was the lawyer for Van Zandt and in a violent attack on the
law 1793 he appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court on the grounds that
this statute was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States
and to the sixth article of the Ordinance of 1787. Van Zandt in the
appeal had the advantage of the services of William H. Seward in
addition to Chase while Jones was represented by Senator Morehead, of
Kentucky. Justice Levi Woodbury in rendering the decision of the court
sustained all the judgments against Van Zandt and denied that the law
of 1793 was opposed to either the Constitution or the Ordinance of
1787.[337]

At last the people of Kentucky had secured a firm ruling from the
highest judicial authority on the force of the existing laws. Cold
reason in the light of that day, apart from all anti-slavery
propaganda, justified them in making these demands. Henceforth, there
was no doubt about the legality of their position--it was a question
merely of the illegal opposition to the return of fugitives from the
States to the North. The Troutman case and many others, however, had
served as an index of northern sentiment in the matter, for the
troubles of the Kentucky slaveholder were just beginning. A year
later, in 1848, a requisition was issued on the Governor of Ohio for
the return of fifteen persons charged with aiding in the escape of
slaves. Imagine the feeling in Kentucky when Governor Bell of Ohio
positively refused to give these persons up, stating that the laws of
Ohio did not recognize man as property. It was apparently a political
move on his part, for there was no question of the property conception
of slavery involved whatsoever. He acted in direct opposition to the
laws of his State enacted in 1839 and to the federal fugitive slave
law of 1793.

After two decades of struggle the abolitionists had come into their
own and it was almost impossible to recover slaves who had run away in
spite of the legal machinery that had been set up. Furthermore, the
more extreme abolitionists had disregarded all law, orders and rights
of private property and had even gone so far as to proclaim that there
was a "higher law than the Constitution." Against such a powerful foe
the forces of all parties in Kentucky united in a firm stand,
demanding more stringent measures. The Supreme Court had decided that
the existing law was sufficient to recover fugitives and to demand and
secure damages for the interference with that right. With the coming
of new conditions, however, it was realized on all sides that new and
most extreme measures were necessary.

The existing circumstances are well shown by the attitude of Henry
Clay, senator from Kentucky as well as author of the Compromise of
1850. Noted for his leanings towards the North, throughout his public
career of more than half a century, and as far back as 1798 the
advocate of gradual emancipation in Kentucky, he felt called upon in
this crisis to express the irritation of his own people:

     I have very little doubt, indeed, that the extent of loss to the
     state of Kentucky, in consequence of the escape of her slaves is
     greater, at least in proportion to the total number of slaves
     that are held within that commonwealth, even than in Virginia. I
     know full well, and so does the honorable senator from Ohio know,
     that it is at the utmost hazard and insecurity to life itself,
     that a Kentuckian can cross the river and go into the interior to
     take back his fugitive slave from whence he fled. Recently an
     example occurred even in the city of Cincinnati in respect to one
     of our most respectable citizens. Not having visited Ohio at all,
     but Covington, on the opposite side of the river, a little slave
     of his escaped over to Cincinnati. He pursued it; he found it in
     the house in which it was concealed; he took it out, and it was
     rescued by the violence and force of a negro mob from his
     possession--the police of the city standing by, and either
     unwilling or unable to afford the assistance which was requisite
     to enable him to recover his property.

     Upon this subject I do think that we have just and serious cause
     of complaint against the free states. I think they fail in
     fulfilling a great obligation, and the failure is precisely upon
     one of those subjects which in its nature is the most irritating
     and inflaming to those who live in the slave states.[338]

The Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 was superseded by that of 1850 by a
sort of political bargaining on the other measures of the Compromise.
The letter of the new law was not much different from the one of
1793--the chief changes being in the exaction of severer penalties and
the transfer of jurisdiction to the federal courts. But even if
members from the North did vote for the new provision there was no
public sentiment in the North back of its enforcement. Everyone in
Kentucky was heartily in favor of it, but that mattered little. The
effectiveness of any fugitive slave law depended upon the spirit in
which it was met in the North, for it was there that the law was to be
applied. It remained for a more or less forgotten decision of the
Supreme Court in 1861 to show the greatest weakness of all laws for
the recovery of runaway slaves in the North.

In October, 1859, the Woodford County (Kentucky) grand jury returned
an indictment against Willis Lago, a free Negro, charging him with the
seduction and enticement of Charlotte, a Negro slave, from her owner,
C. W. Nickols. A copy of this indictment certified and authenticated
according to the federal law was presented to the Governor of Ohio by
the authorized agent of the Governor of Kentucky and the arrest and
delivery of the fugitive from justice demanded. The Governor of Ohio
referred the matter to the Attorney-General of the State and upon his
advice the chief executive refused to deliver up the Negro. The
Supreme Court having original jurisdiction in suits between two
States, the demand for a mandamus to compel the Governor of Ohio to
deliver Lago to the Kentucky authorities was heard by that body in a
suit under the title of Kentucky _vs._ Dennison (the Governor of
Ohio). The decision of the court was rendered by Chief Justice Taney
and it contained five important statements: (1) "It was the duty of
the executive authority of Ohio upon the demand made by the Governor
of Kentucky, and the production of the indictment, duly certified to
cause Lago to be delivered up to the agent of the Governor of
Kentucky, who was appointed to demand and receive him." (2) "The duty
of the Governor of Ohio was merely ministerial, and he had no right to
exercise any discretionary power as to the nature or character of the
crime charged in the indictment." (3) "The word 'duty' in the act of
1793 means the moral obligation of the state to perform the compact,
in the Constitution, when Congress had, by that act, regulated the
mode in which the duty should be performed." (4) "But Congress cannot
coerce a state officer, as such, to perform any duty by act of
Congress. The state officer may perform if he thinks proper, and it
may be a moral duty to perform it. But if he refuses, no law of
Congress can compel him." (5) "The Governor of Ohio cannot, through
the judiciary or any other department of the general government, be
compelled to deliver up Lago; and upon that ground only this motion
for a mandamus is overruled."[339]

This decision came as a fitting climax to the legal history of the
fugitive slave problem as it concerned Kentucky. Such an
interpretation placed by the highest judicial authority upon an act of
Congress which had stood throughout the slavery era in Kentucky showed
beyond any doubt whatever that the legal battle over slavery questions
was at an end. If any solution was to be found in the future it would
not be in the legislative halls nor in the court room.

Emancipation was an important question closely connected with that of
the fugitive. This was one of the problems to be discussed in the
Constitutional Convention of 1792. There were some few members who
were in favor of immediate liberation and others inclined towards a
scheme of gradual release of the Negro from bondage. But, as has been
shown in the early part of this chapter, the group in favor of the
existing institution easily dominated the convention and drew up the
famous article IX, which remained without change throughout the
slavery era as a part of the fundamental constitutional law. It is
significant that it was provided that the legislature should have no
power to pass laws for the emancipation of slaves without the consent
of their owners, or without paying their owners, previous to such
emancipation, a full equivalent in money, for the slaves so
emancipated: that the legislature should not pass laws to permit the
owners of slaves to emancipate them, saving the rights of creditors,
and preventing them from becoming a charge to the counties in which
they resided.

From a purely objective viewpoint it is doubtful if a fairer legal
guide for the institution of slavery in relation to the rights of
emancipation could have been drawn up. On one side, it prevented the
State authorities from depriving a slaveholder of his property without
due compensation. On the other hand, no unscrupulous master was to
free his old and invalid slaves and thereby inflict the burden of
their support upon the community as a whole. But this constitutional
provision had no legal force in itself. It was to serve as a guide for
the enactment of statute laws later.

The State assembly on December 17, 1794, proceeded to the enactment of
the first emancipation law of the State. The contents of Article IX of
the Constitution were carefully followed and the detailed legal code
of emancipation laid down in these words:

     It shall be lawful for any person by his or her last will and
     testament, or by any other instrument in writing, under his or
     her hand and seal, attested and proved in the county court by
     two witnesses, or acknowledged by the party in the court of the
     county where he or she resides, to emancipate or set free his or
     her slave or slaves: who shall thereupon be entirely and fully
     discharged from the performance of any contract entered into
     during servitude, and enjoy as full freedom as if they had been
     born free. And the said court shall have full power to demand
     bond and sufficient security of the emancipator, his or her
     executors or administrators, as the case may be, for the
     maintenance of any slave or slaves that may be aged or infirm,
     either of body or mind, to prevent their becoming chargeable to
     the county. And every slave so emancipated shall have a
     certificate of freedom from the clerk of such court on parchment
     with the county seal affixed thereto, for which the clerk shall
     charge the emancipator five shillings; saving, however, the
     rights of creditors and every person or persons, bodies politic
     and corporate, except the heirs or legal representatives of the
     person so emancipating their slaves.[340]

This law remained throughout the slavery period in Kentucky and the
only changes which were ever made in it were in the minor details to
untangle some legal ambiguities. The law of 1823, however, is
important in showing the discrepancies of the original provisions. By
this amendment it was enacted that when the county courts received
proof or acknowledgment of a deed of emancipation, or of a will
emancipating slaves, they were to note on their record a description
of any such slaves. The certificate of freedom which was given to the
Negro was also to contain this description and no other certificate
was to be issued except on the presentation of proof that the first
one had been lost or when such was required for use as evidence in
some suit. If any slave thus liberated was found to have presented his
certificate to another still held in bondage with a design of freeing
him, the emancipated slave was to suffer severe penalties.[341] These
added provisions apparently came to fill all the gaps in the previous
law and no further amendments of importance were needed to make the
laws of emancipation run smoothly.

Of all the many slavery cases which were brought before the Court of
Appeals in the next thirty years it is interesting to note that nearly
all of them concerned themselves more or less with the question of
freedom. The very fact that they reached the highest court is also
conclusive evidence that the law was not quite as clear as one would
at first suppose. Close study of the findings of the court will show
that the judiciary was always consistent in its interpretation of the
law and that most of the cases were carried up from the lower courts
because of disputes between the heirs of an estate and the
administrator as to their precedence in the matter of slaves. This
part of the controversy concerned itself with the property conception
of the slave, whether he was real or personal estate, which was
discussed earlier in this chapter. The purely emancipation cases
before the Court of Appeals divide themselves into three parts: (1)
those which concerned the interpretation of the statute law, (2) those
suits for freedom which were based on the question of residence and
(3) those which involved persons detained as slaves.

Most of the first class of cases concerned themselves with the
emancipation of slaves by will. The number of slaveholders who freed
their Negroes during their own lifetime seems to have been very small.
On the other hand, from a study of the slave cases in court it appears
to have been a very common thing for an owner to provide for the
freedom of his slaves in his will. The right of a master to dispose of
his own property was beyond dispute, but, as is often the case, the
heirs were seldom satisfied and they brought the will into court on
one or more technical grounds in an attempt to break the document
which freed so much valuable property. The court in every case held
that the right of the owner was absolute and that if by the letter of
his will his slaves were freed, that right was subject to no dispute.
Furthermore, when the Negroes were thus emancipated they did not pass
to the personal representatives of the deceased, as assets. They
passed by will just as land, and the devise took effect at the death
of the testator, whether it be a devise to the slave, of his freedom,
or of the slave, to another. The servant, thus affected, had only to
appear before the county court and establish his emancipation. This
accomplished, it was the duty of the court to give him a certificate
of freedom without the consent of the representatives of the
emancipator.[342] The right of disposal rested with the owner, who
could emancipate by act, or by will, and he who denied the right
or placed any claim against it was compelled to show the
prohibition.[343]

While the owner had absolute powers of disposal of his own slaves he
could not draw up a will of prospective freedom which would hold in
spite of the rights of his heirs. If a master desired to be very
lenient with his servants, he had to make their freedom absolute and
in writing. This was well brought out in the case of an apparently
kind-hearted Kentucky slaveholder who provided in his will that his
slaves were to select their own master without regard to price. They
chose as their future owner a man who did not need them, but who
offered to take them at about half their real value. The court held
that in such a case the executor was not bound to accept the offer,
since the interests of those entitled to the proceeds of the sale, as
well as the desire and comfort of the slaves, were to be
regarded.[344] Another owner had the right idea, but defeated his own
intentions by willing all his forty slaves to the Kentucky
Colonization Society. The court held that such an act by no means
freed the slaves and that by the laws of the State until they were
free they could be hired out and the proceeds considered as a part of
the estate.[345]

As in all border States there were many legal battles for freedom,
which involved the question of residence on free soil. These cases
were largely concerned with the question of the right of a citizen of
Kentucky to pass through a free State on business or pleasure attended
by his slaves or servants without losing his right of ownership over
such slaves. The principle involved was early considered in the
Kentucky Court of Appeals and faithfully carried out in succeeding
generations, viz.: that a "fixed residence" or being domiciled in a
non-slaveholding State would operate to release the slave from the
power of the master; but that the transient passing or sojourning
therein had no such effect. In an early case in 1820 involving a suit
for freedom the court held that a person of color from Kentucky who
was permitted to reside in a free State could prosecute his right to
freedom in any other State. It was held to be a vested right to
freedom, which existed wherever he went.[346] In another instance an
owner permitted his slave to go at large for twenty years, but the
court held that that alone did not give him freedom. Still under this
liberty of movement the slave went off into a free State to reside and
the court held that the Negro was then free because his right grew out
of the law of the free State and not out of that in which the owner
resided.[347] An owner permitted his slave to go to Pennsylvania and
remain there for a longer period than six months, with a knowledge of
the law passed in that State in 1780, and the Kentucky Court of
Appeals held that the slave was entitled to his freedom and that even
if the slave had returned to Kentucky his right could be asserted
there just as well as in Pennsylvania.[348] But should a slave go with
his master to a free State and later return to Kentucky with him,
whatever status he had then was to be determined by the law of
Kentucky and not by the rule of any State where the slave might have
been.[349] The fact that a slave stayed in New York for three months
before his return to Kentucky, his owner knowing he was there, and
making no effort to bring him away, did not give to such slave a right
to freedom.[350] A slaveholder sent one of his servants over into
Illinois to cut some wood for a few weeks and later the latter brought
suit for freedom on the grounds of residence in a free State but the
court denied any such right, since the slave returned to his master in
Kentucky voluntarily.[351]

If an emancipated Negro for any reason was held in slavery and later
established his right to freedom in court, he could not recover
compensation for his services or damages for his detention, unless he
could prove that he was held under full knowledge of his right or with
good reason to believe him free. If pending his suit for freedom he
should be hired out by order of the court, the net hire was to be
awarded to him if he succeeded.[352]

The actual number of manumissions which took place in Kentucky will no
doubt never be known. Among the few statistics are those of the
federal census for 1850 and 1860 and they include only the figures for
the one census year. According to this source in 1850 only 152 slaves
were voluntarily set free in the State or one slave out of every
1,388, a percentage of only .072; and in 1860 there were 170 Negroes
recorded as freed or one out of every 1,281 slaves, a percentage of
only .078. We can easily assume from the accounts which we have from
papers of that time that these numbers were far short of those that
were really set free by their masters. It was the custom of many
owners who were about to free their slaves to take them to Cincinnati
and there have them set free in the Probate Court.

Early in 1859, forty-nine slaves from Fayette County, mostly women and
children, were brought to Cincinnati and set free and later sent to a
colony of emancipated Negroes in Green County, Ohio.[353] In March of
the same year Robert Barnet of Lincoln County, Kentucky appeared with
eighteen slaves--a father, mother, nine children and three
grandchildren and another woman and four boys, who were all
emancipated in the Cincinnati Probate Court. Before crossing the
Ohio, while in Covington, he was offered $20,000 for all of them but
he stated that he would refuse even $50,000.[354] In January, 1860,
William McGinnis, of Bourbon County, appeared with fourteen slaves
before the same probate court and set them all free.[355]

The law of Kentucky plainly provided that no slave was to be
emancipated unless bond were given that he would immediately leave the
State. Hence it was but natural that a master who intended setting his
slaves free should take them as slaves to a free State and there give
them their freedom, thus satisfying his own conscience and at the same
time removing any future legal trouble that might ensue on account of
his former slaves being found in the State of Kentucky. For this
reason it would seem that a large number of the kind-hearted
slaveholders who freed their slaves did so outside the bounds of
Kentucky and thus that State was deprived of the credit for many
emancipations which took place voluntarily at the hands of her own
slaveholders.


FOOTNOTES:

[285] _Littell's Laws_, 1: 32.

[286] Brown, John Mason, _The Political Beginnings of Kentucky_, p.
229.

[287] _Littell's Laws_, 1: 44.

[288] _Ibid._, 1: 161.

[289] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 113.

[290] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 114.

[291] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 116-117.

[292] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 117-118.

[293] _Littell's Laws_, 3: 403.

[294] _Ibid._, 2: 117-118.

[295] _Niles' Register_, February 2, 1830.

[296] _Littell's Laws_, 4: 223-224.

[297] Stroud, _Laws relating to Slavery_, p. 86. Littell & Swigert, 2:
1066-9; 1060-4.

[298] It would perhaps be well to point out here the general
common-law difference between the treatment of real and personal
estate in a will. The title of the personal property of the deceased
is vested in the executor and he holds it for the payment of debts and
distribution according to the will of the testator. On the other hand
the real estate vests in the devisees or heirs and does not go to the
administrator, unless by statute enactment, which was in part true in
Kentucky, in the case above, where the slaves, although real estate,
were held liable for the debts of their master. _Littell's Laws_, 2:
120.

[299] _T. B. Monroe's Report I._, 23.

[300] Beatty _vs._ Judy, 1 Dana, 101. Plumpton _vs._ Cook, 2 A. K.
Marshall, 450.

[301] Rothert, _History of Muhlenburg County_, p. 343.

[302] Young, B. H., _History of Jessamine County_, p. 89.

[303] Session Laws, 1834, p. 726.

[304] _Ibid._, 1850, p. 51.

[305] _Ibid._, 1856, Vol. 1, pp. 42-44.

[306] _Ibid._, 1858, Vol. 1, pp. 47-48.

[307] Starling, p. 290.

[308] _Littell's Laws_, 1: 32.

[309] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 119.

[310] _Ibid._, 5: 293.

[311] _Ibid._, 5: 435-437.

[312] Barre, W. L., _Speeches and Writings of Thomas F. Marshall_, p.
115.

[313] Section 1 of the law 1833 read: "Each and every person or
persons who shall hereafter import into this state any slave or
slaves, or who shall sell or buy, or contract for the sale or
purchase, for a longer term than one year, of the service of any such
slave or slaves, knowing the same to have been imported, shall forfeit
and pay $600 for each slave so imported, sold, or bought, or whose
service has been so contracted for; recoverable by indictment of a
grand jury or any action of debt, in the name of the Commonwealth in
any circuit court, where the offenders may be found." Session Laws,
1833, pp. 258-261.

[314] Barre, W. L., p. 116.

[315] _Niles' Register_, January 23, 1841.

[316] Collins, Vol. 1, p. 83.

[317] Session Laws, 1860, Vol. 1, p. 104.

[318] _Ibid._, 1864, pp. 70-72.

[319] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 5-6.

[320] _Ibid._, 2: 5-6.

[321] Session Laws, 1835, pp. 82-83.

[322] _Ibid._, 1838, p. 158.

[323] Session Laws, 1823, p. 178.

[324] _Ibid._, 1831-2, pp. 54-55.

[325] Session Laws, 1838, p. 155.

[326] _Ibid._, 1830, pp. 173-175.

[327] _Western Law Journal_, 2: 232-235 (best report of the trial).
_Niles' Register_, December 21, 1844. Webster; Delia A., _Kentucky
Jurisprudence_, pp. 1-84.

[328] Fairbank, _How the Way was Prepared_, pp. 53, 57.

[329] _Ibid._, p. 85.

[330] _Ibid._, p. 103.

[331] Fairbank, pp. 144, 149.

[332] _American Anti-slavery Society Report_, 1839, p. 90.

[333] _American Anti-slavery Society Report_, 1839, pp. 93-94.

[334] Chaddock, F. E., _Ohio before 1850_, p. 86.

[335] McMaster, _History of the United States_, Vol. 7: 262-263.

[336] Senate Document No. 19, 30th Congress, 1st Session.

[337] 5 Howard's Reports, 215-232.

[338] Colton, Reed and McKinley, _Works of Henry Clay_, Vol. 3: 329.

[339] 24 Howard's Reports, 109-110.

[340] _Littell's Laws_, 2: 246-247.

[341] Session Laws, 1823, p. 563.

[342] Black _vs._ Meaux, 4 Dana, 189.

[343] Susan _vs._ Ladd, 6 Dana, 30

[344] Hopkins _vs._ Morgan's executor, 3 Dana, 17.

[345] Isaac et al. _vs._ Graves' executor, 16 Ben Monroe, 365.

[346] Rankin _vs._ Lydia, 2 A. K. Marshall, 467.

[347] 15 Ben Monroe, 328.

[348] 14 _Ibid._, 355.

[349] 12 _Ibid._, 542.

[350] 4 Metcalfe, 231.

[351] 11 Ben Monroe, 210.

[352] 4 Dana, 589, 7 Dana, 360.

[353] _American Anti-Slavery Society Report_, 1859, p. 79.

[354] _Weekly Free South_ (Newport), March 4, 1859.

[355] _American Anti-Slavery Society Report_, 1860, p. 44.




CHAPTER IV

THE SOCIAL STATUS OF THE SLAVE


As many of the slave regulations were enacted to deal with extreme
cases and some of them were not generally enforced, it is necessary to
consider also the social status of the blacks to determine exactly
what the institution was in Kentucky. In this commonwealth slavery was
decidedly patriarchal. The slave was not such an unfortunate creature
as some have pictured him. He usually had set apart for himself and
his family a house which was located near the master's mansion. While
this home may have been a rude cabin made of small logs, with a roof
covered with splits and an earthen floor, likely as not the master's
son was attending school a few weeks in the year in a neighboring log
cabin which boasted of no more luxuries than the humble slave
dwelling. The servant and his family were well fed and had plenty of
domestic cloth for all necessary wearing apparel.

The kind of clothing which the Kentucky slave had can be seen best by
a study of the runaway slave advertisements where a description of
apparel was often essential to the apprehension of the Negro. "Billy"
in 1803 ran away from his owner in Lexington and took such a variety
of clothing with him that the master was unable to give a description
of them.[356] "Jack," running away from his owner in Mercer County,
had on when he left and took with him "one pale blue jeans coat, one
gray jeans coat, and an old linsey coat; one pair of cloth pantaloons,
one pair of jeans, and one of linen."[357] "Thenton," when leaving his
master in Warren County, took with him "a new black smooth fur hat, a
yellow woollen jeans frock coat, more than half worn; three shirts,
two of coarse cotton and one entirely new, the third a bleached
domestic and new; one blanket; one pair of pantaloons, of cotton and
flax."[358] "Jarret," from Leitchfield, wore when he left "a smooth
black Russia hat" and took with him "a pair of buckskin saddle bags
... and a great deal of clothing, to wit: one brown jeans frock coat,
and pantaloons of the same; also, a brown jeans overcoat, with large
pockets in the side; a new dark colored overcoat, two pair blue cloth
pantaloons, and an old silver watch."[359] The clothing of "Esau,"
from Meade County, was described as "brown jeans pants, black cassinet
pants, blue cloth pants, three fine shirts, one black silk vest and
one green vest, one brown jeans frock coat, one pale blue coat, velvet
collar; coarse shoes and black hat."[360] "Stewart" left his master in
Bullitt County dressed in typical Negro attire--"a black luster coat,
made sack fashion, and a pair of snuff colored cassinet pantaloons;
also, a black fur hat with low crown and broad brim, and vest with
purple dots on it."[361] "George," living in Marion County, had an
outfit of "Brown jeans frock coat (skirt lined with home-made flannel
dyed with madder), a pair of new black and yellow twilled negro jeans
pantaloons, white socks, factory shirt with linen bosom, and black
wool hat."[362] An owner advertising in 1852 stated that his slave
"Andy" had three suits of clothes with him when he ran away.[363] It
is perfectly evident from the reading of these slave advertisements
that the male Negroes were as substantially clothed as any members of
their race could expect to be at that time even in a state of freedom.
The surplus clothing as described above was all a part of the slave's
own property and not taken from the master's wardrobe. There were many
cases of theft but they need not be considered in this discussion. A
large majority of all runaway slaves were men and even when
advertisements dealt with female fugitives it was only on rare
occasions that the owner attempted to give a description of the
clothing which was worn. Will Morton in 1806 gave a list of "Letty's"
clothing as "two or three white muslin dresses, one of fancy chintz,
salmon colored linsey petticoat, white yarn stockings, and good shoes,
with sundry other clothing of good quality."[364] At such an early
date in the history of Kentucky slavery the apparel of this young
slave woman compares very favorably with that which was worn by the
white people.

In sickness the slaves were cared for by the same physician who looked
after the master and his family and should occasion demand assistance
any member of the owner's household might be found nursing a sick
Negro. There was no limit to the supply of fuel for the winter, for
the slaves had the right to cut timber for their own use anywhere in
the woods of the estate.[365]

As in Virginia, the slave was permitted to have a little "truck-patch"
of half an acre or more, where he could raise any crop that he
desired. In Kentucky these small plots of ground were nearly always
filled with sweet potatoes, tobacco and watermelons. The soil was not
only conducive to their cultivation but they were the three favorite
agricultural products for personal consumption. These particular crops
needed little cultivation once they were planted and such as was
necessary could easily be done on Saturday afternoons, when the slave
was at leisure.

Historians have reminded us that in most of the Southern States there
was a tendency for the more energetic of the slaves to work for pay
during their idle hours and thus eventually secure a sufficient
surplus to buy their own freedom. In Kentucky such cases were very
rare. Most Negroes seem to have been content with their condition in
such bondage as existed in the State. There were many cases in which a
Negro refused to purchase his freedom although he had the necessary
amount of money. George Brown, the famous Negro author of
_Recollections of an Ex-slave_, published in the _Winchester
Democrat_, has given us some experiences which testify to the feeling
existing between master and slave. In 1857 his mistress was offered
$2,100 for George, but when talking the matter over with him she found
that he had serious objections to the prospective purchaser. She
showed an interest in Brown's welfare by refusing to sell him. In
later years when freedom was within his grasp for the asking, Brown
"bought himself" for $1,000 because, as he says in his own words, it
was not honorable for him to "swindle his young mistress out of her
slave." Such was the example of a Kentucky slave who purchased his own
freedom, not for his own benefit, but for that of his mistress.

Another factor entered into this question. In the later years, once a
slave secured his liberty, he was immediately required to leave the
State and if such a one had lived all his life in Kentucky, he would
naturally hesitate to depart into an unknown region. Many of the
slaves did earn considerable money by cobbling shoes, cutting wood,
and making brooms, but most of them showed little tendency to save
their earnings for any future deliverance from bondage. They were more
concerned then--as they often are even yet--with the pleasures of the
day. More often they were to be found wasting their spare change on
whisky, a problem which grew greater for the master with passing
years.

In addition to the regular Saturday afternoon and Sunday off every
week the slaves were given several other holidays throughout the year,
the most extensive being at Christmas time. At Easter they were
allowed two or three days rest and when an election was being held
there was no work done outside of the regular chores. The general
election day in those times was the first Monday in August and it was
the custom for most of the slaves throughout the "penny-royal" and
"bluegrass" to journey to the county seat, where they would all
congregate and have a general frolic in accordance with Negro
standards of a good time. In the later years of slavery the towns had
established sufficient control of the Negroes gathering in their
jurisdiction so that the drink evil was more or less mitigated. The
fear of the law was a great incentive to their proper conduct on those
rare occasions when they had a whole day in town to themselves without
any tasks to perform for their master. As Rothert has well observed,
however, the slave sometimes did have to care for his drunken owner
and take him home. To the student acquainted with Kentucky history and
social conditions such a brief statement suggests a wealth of material
on the local type of slavery.

That ardent abolitionist from across the sea, James Silk Buckingham,
has recorded a characteristic picture of the Kentucky slave at rest
and in gala attire:

     "We remained at Henderson the greater part of the day, it being a
     holiday with the negro slaves on the estate, so that it was
     difficult to get the requisite number of hands to complete the
     landing in a short time. Some of the female slaves were very
     gaily dressed, and many of them in good taste, with white muslin
     gowns, blue and pink waists, ribbons, silk handkerchiefs or
     scarfs, straw bonnets, and a reticule for the pocket handkerchief
     held on the arm. In talking with them, and inquiring the reason
     of the holiday, one said she believed it was Easter, another said
     it was Whitsuntide, and a third thought it was midsummer. They
     were chiefly the household slaves, who are always better treated,
     better dressed, and more indulgent than the field laborers. The
     men who were employed in landing the cargo appeared to be more
     cheerful in their general aspect and behavior than the field
     slaves I have seen at the South: and there is no doubt that in
     Kentucky their condition is very much better than in most other
     states, their work lighter, their food and clothing better, and
     their treatment more kind and humane."[366]

Legally, there were no marriages among the slaves. They were not
citizens, but property. The men were urged to take their "wives" from
among the women of the home estate, if a suitable companion could be
found. But if not they eventually secured one in the neighborhood and
the master usually allowed the slave a pass to see his wife every
night in the week. While such a cohabitation was not exactly a legal
affair most of them were held as sacred as those more legalized unions
among the master class. Many masters paid an unconscious tribute to
these unions. When there ran away a slave who had a wife living in the
neighborhood or even at a great distance the owner would make mention
of the exact locality of the wife in order that people in that region
would be on the lookout for the fugitive. J. C. Bucklin in 1824 did
not give much of a description of David, who had left his master, but
he very carefully stated that he had a "wife and children at William
Shirley's, about 16 miles from this place, on the Westport Road."[367]
An owner in Fayette county after giving a detailed picture of "Arthur"
added that "Capt. Peter Poindexter, eight miles from Lexington owns
his wife, and I expect that he will be in that neighborhood."[368] A
more extreme example was that of "Dick," a Lexington slave who ran
away to New Orleans, the owner thought, because "he has a wife living
in that city, and he has been heard to say frequently that he was
determined to go to New Orleans."[369] Such cases as this were the
logical consequence of the slavery system. They existed in Kentucky
just as in any other slave State, but they were few compared with
those slaves unions that were never broken.

It was to the economic as well as humanitarian interest of the master
to have sympathy with the peace and contentment of his servant. Thus
most of them took care that the family relationships of the slaves
should not be disturbed. Oftentimes when the owner of either a husband
or a wife was on the point of moving out of the county the masters
would get together and make a trade which would obviate any disruption
of the slave family. Under such conditions a man would part with a
servant who otherwise could not have been bought at any price. Such a
situation was possible only in a State where the personal interest in
a slave and his welfare took precedence over merely his economic value
to the owner.[370]

Charles Stewart in _My Life as a Slave_ has given us his own
experiences of home life and marriage among slaves in Kentucky. He
lived in Paris and was engaged in handling race horses. Soon after
coming from Virginia to Kentucky he fell in love with a young mulatto
girl, who was the property of a Mr. Robertson, who gave his consent to
their marriage, promising never to part them by his own free will. In
his own dialect Stewart dictated his story. "So I married her, an' tuk
her to a little house I had fixed up near de stables, an' she
clear-starched an' sewed an' broidered an' wukked wid de hand-loom,
an' made more pretty things dan I could count. She paid her marster,
en course, reg'lar, so much a month fur her hire, but, lor', she neber
touched her airnin's fur dat. I had plenty of money to hire as many
wives as I wanted, but dis one was de onliest one I eber did want, an'
so it was easy enough." After two years his wife became very sick and
died and the grief of the Negro man was touching in the extreme. "She
was jes' as fond o' me as I was of her, an' it did 'pear hard luck to
lose her jes' as I was makin' up my mind to buy her out and out, only
en course, it was a fortunate thing I hadn't bought her, as long as
she had to die, kase den I would ha' lost her an' de money too. Arter
she was in de ground it jes' 'peared to me like eberything was
different; I tuk a dislikement to Paris, an' I didn't feel like goin'
home to Virginny." His master agreed to let him go wherever he liked
if he could find an owner to suit him and finally Stewart went to
Louisiana after an interview with Senator Porter of that State. He was
to stay six months to see how he liked it and then if agreeable he was
to stay there. He must have been a rather unusual Negro, for his
selling price was finally fixed at $3,500.[371]

But life among the slaves of Kentucky was not by any means a path of
roses. Many anti-slavery leaders attested to this fact. The most
trustworthy statement that was ever made on this general subject was
that embodied in the pamphlet of the Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky in
1835 advocating gradual emancipation. The following brief extracts are
most significant:

     "The system produces general licentiousness among the slaves.
     Marriage, as a civil ordinance, they cannot enjoy. Until slavery
     waxeth old, and tendeth to decay, there cannot be any legal
     recognition of the marriage rite, or the enforcement of its
     consequent duties. For, all the regulations on this subject would
     limit the master's absolute right of property in the slaves. In
     his disposal of them he could no longer be at liberty to consult
     merely his own interest ... their present quasi-marriages are
     continually voided (at the master's pleasure).... They are in
     this way brought to consider their matrimonial alliances as
     things not binding, and act accordingly. We are then assured by
     the most unquestionable testimony that licentiousness is the
     necessary result of our system."

One would infer from this observation of apparently fair-minded men
that slave unions were not very sacred affairs and that any disruption
of them would amount to little, but in the same document these
Presbyterian preachers give a back-handed compliment to the stability,
at least in temperament, of the average slave marriage.

     "Brothers and sisters, parents and children, husbands and wives,
     are torn asunder and permitted to see each other no more. These
     acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks and
     agony often witnessed on such occasions proclaim with a trumpet
     tongue, the iniquity of our system. There is not a neighborhood
     where these heartrending scenes are not displayed; there is not a
     village or road that does not behold the sad procession of
     manacled outcasts, whose mournful countenances tell that they are
     exiled by force, from all that their hearts hold dear."

It is strange that these two opposing views should appear in the same
pamphlet, but nevertheless they are both undoubtedly true pictures of
slavery in Kentucky. It is merely a question as to which of the two
represented the majority of cases. Licentiousness there was, but it
was certainly very much less among the slaves of Kentucky than in the
far South. Slave unions were treated with more respect by the masters
of Kentucky than in most slave States. As has been pointed out in a
previous chapter, the very fact that the few instances of inhuman
separation of slave families produced such a storm of public
disapproval shows that it was not a very general practice in the
State.

From the legal standpoint the slave had no rights or privileges in the
attainment of even a meager education. On the other hand Kentucky was
the only slave State, with the exception of Maryland and Tennessee,
which never passed any laws forbidding the instruction of slaves. Thus
no penalty was attached to Negro education, neither was any
encouragement given. Those slaves who learned to read were the
servants of masters who because of conscientious scruples taught them
how to read the Bible. Few slaves ever learned to write, for they
might then be tempted to serve as unofficial dispensers of passes in
the owner's name. The general objection to any reasonable amount of
education was the tendency towards dissatisfaction with the servile
status thereby aroused. If the slave could learn to read well, it was
feared that he would become a victim of the "filthy" abolitionist
literature, which through the resultant effect upon the Negroes would
have produced no end of trouble to the slavery system. Hence, for the
most part, the Kentucky slave remained in blissful ignorance, and well
for him as such and the institution he represented that his learning
was no greater.[372]

Out of a collection of some three hundred and fifty runaway slave
advertisements concerning Kentucky slaves the author has found 71
cases in which mention was made that the Negro could read and 37
instances in which he could write. The latter cases are all included
in the former classification also. On that basis a little over ten
per cent of the slaves could read and write and about twenty per cent
could read but were unable to write. There are, however, two strong
reasons against any such general conclusion. In the first place, the
more a slave learned the more liable he was to become dissatisfied and
run away; and secondly, the careful mention which was made in
advertisements of the Negro's ability to read or write would tend to
show that it was more or less an unusual accomplishment.

Taking up the question of the education of slaves in the State, the
Presbyterian Synod of Kentucky said in 1834 that "Slavery dooms
thousands of human beings to hopeless ignorance ... if slaves are
educated it must involve some outlay upon the part of the master....
It is inconsistent with our knowledge of human nature to suppose that
he will do this for them. The present state of instruction among this
race remains exactly what we might ... naturally anticipate.
Throughout the whole land (State), so far as we can learn, there is
but one school in which, during the week, slaves can be taught. The
light of three or four Sabbath schools is seen glimmering through the
darkness that covers the black population of the whole State. Here and
there a family is found where humanity and religion impel the
master, mistress or children to the laborious task of private
instruction."[373]

It should be added in this connection that the same statement would
hold true of the free Negro population of Kentucky at the same period.
Until long after the Civil War there was no provision made for their
education other than that of individual enterprise. The public
education of the whites was not on a plane comparable to that of any
of the Northern States until after the reconstruction period, and even
then Kentucky lagged behind for years.

The church and its influence for the betterment of society under the
slavery system was more effective than the school. The chief religious
paper of the State was the _Presbyterian Herald_ and one of its most
persistent pleas was that the proper religious instruction of the
Negro servant class would answer most of the objections to the
institution. "The most formidable weapon in the hands of the
abolitionist," said the editor, "is the indifference which he charges
to the Christian slaveholder toward the spiritual welfare of the slave
under his control. Disarm him of this weapon, and you have done much
to render him powerless."[374]

Religious instruction in families of Christian habits of life,
however, was not so sadly neglected. The household servants were
usually brought to the house during the family worship and the
scriptures were not merely read to them but explained. No restrictions
were ever placed on church attendance either by law or by custom. Many
slaves united with the white churches and throughout the State today
one may find any number of old churches whose records still show
several of these Negroes on the church rolls. Most of them are very
kindly remembered for their good moral character and abiding faith.
Such a condition was not so prevalent among the agricultural slaves,
except where they were few in numbers. Even here, however, the
religious instinct was not suppressed in any manner. Their religion at
the most was a very crude imitation of the worship of their masters.
They were not confined to the rear seats of the white churches for
their attendance at Sunday services. They could hold their own
meetings in schoolhouses and vacant church edifices.

It was these distinctively slave gatherings that gave rise to one of
the most interesting of all Negro characters--the preacher. Tradition
and story have related many a charming picture of this quaint
representative of Negro faith, but unfortunately few life stories of
any of them have ever been preserved. In nearly all the county
histories we find mention of several of these Negro exhorters who
seemingly were men of some degree of intelligence. The majority of
them were apparently themselves slaves, subject to the will of their
masters, and while the restrictions on their movements were very lax,
they seldom if ever spoke beyond the borders of their home
county.[375]

One of the famous Negro preachers of the early nineteenth-century
South was Josiah Henson. From 1825 to 1828 he was a slave in Daviess
County, Kentucky, and in his autobiography he has given us a picture
of the circumstances under which he became a slave preacher. "In
Kentucky," said he, "the opportunities of attending on the preaching
of whites, as well as of blacks, were more numerous; and partly
attended by them, and the campmeetings which occurred from time to
time, and partly from studying carefully my own heart, and observing
the developments of character around me, in all the stations of life
which I could watch, I became better acquainted with those religious
feelings which are deeply implanted in the breast of every human
being, and learnt by practice how best to arouse them, and keep them
excited, and in general to produce some good religious impressions on
the ignorant and thoughtless community by which I was surrounded.... I
cannot but derive some satisfaction, too, from the proofs I have had
that my services have been acceptable to those to whom they have been
rendered. In the course of the three years from 1825 to 1828 I availed
myself of all the opportunities of improvement which occurred and was
admitted as a preacher by a conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church."[376]

In Ballard County there was another interesting exhorter. Advertising
for his Negro Jack who had run away in 1850, C. B. Young pointed out
that although he was a slave and the property of the "subscriber" he
was a well-educated Baptist preacher and in the pursuit of his
vocation he was well known by "many of the citizens of Paducah,
McCracken County, and also by citizens of Hickman and Fulton Counties,
and is thought by many to be a free man."[377]

The only credentials which the Negro preacher carried, according to
his own testimony, came directly from the Lord. His education was only
of a sufficient character to enable him to read the Bible and line out
the words of the hymns. His creed was never the creation of any school
of theology. It was usually an original interpretation of supernatural
phenomena varying widely even in one individual from time to time.
Convinced of his supernatural calling, he felt inferior to no one in
the power of exegesis. As long as he held his balance and remained on
terra firma his followers believed in him as he believed in himself.
But as Lucius Little has well said: "Once in a while a colored
preacher lost his influence with his congregation by drinking too
deeply of the Pierian spring. Too much learning raised him out of
their orbit. They fell on stony ground." Strange, yet how true, that
the more ignorant a slave minister was, the more power of influence
for good he had among his fellow human beings.[378]

James Lane Allen has given us a splendid little sketch of three of
these native characters whom he evidently knew in his younger days:

     "One of these negro preachers was allowed by his master to fill a
     distant appointment. Belated once, and returning home after the
     hour forbidden for slaves to be abroad, he was caught by the
     patrol and cruelly whipped. As the blows fell, his words were,
     'Jesus Christ suffered for righteousness' sake; so kin I."

     Another was recommended for deacon's orders and actually
     ordained. When liberty came, he refused to be free, and continued
     to work in his master's family until his death. With considerable
     knowledge of the Bible and a fluent tongue, he would nevertheless
     sometimes grow confused while preaching and lose his train of
     thought. At these embarrassing junctures it was his wont suddenly
     to call out at the top of his voice, "Saul, Saul. Why persecutest
     thou me?" The effect upon his hearers was electrifying:--as none
     but a very highly favored being could be thought worthy of
     enjoying this persecution. He thus converted his loss of mind
     into spiritual reputation.

     A third named Peter Cotton, united the vocations of exhorter and
     wood-chopper. He united them literally, for one moment Peter
     might be seen standing on his log chopping away, and the next
     kneeling down beside it praying. He got his mistress to make him
     a long jeans coat and on the ample tails of it to embroider, by
     his direction, sundry texts of scripture, such as "Come unto Me,
     all ye that are heavy laden." Thus literally clothed with
     righteousness, Peter went from cabin to cabin, preaching the
     Word. Well for him if that other Peter could have seen him."[379]

One of the dominant features of such a type of religion among the
Negroes was the resulting prevalence of superstition. It almost seems
that in their ignorance they adopted every form of supernatural fear
that was ever known among our ancestors. But if it had ended there the
matter would not have been so important socially. In their constant
association with white children they brought their fears of
"ghost-hauntings" and other fantastic ideas into the minds of the very
young. The peculiarity of the Negro slave as compared with the other
superstitious races was his own sinister imaginative productions. They
related none of the valuable tales of ancient mythology, but rather
did they fill the earth with goblins, witches and ghosts--the result
of their own dreams and fancies.[380]

The many stories of this sort which a "mammy" related to a child a
half century ago can be reproduced by the old man of the twentieth
century and the effect of the old ideas of magic is still with him.
The prevalence of superstitious ideas in Kentucky today might easily
be traced back to the associations of slavery times. But such a
weakness may not always have done harm; not every child was so
influenced. The natural play of the Negro instinct was worth much to
his peace and contentment. Here again Shaler has given us a rather
unique observation from his own experience:

     "The only movements of the spirit in the religious field that I
     can remember came from two sources: my mother's singing.... The
     other spiritual influence came from the negroes. A number of them
     used to meet at night to talk religion beneath a shed which lay
     open to the northern sky. One of them, well named "Old Daniel,"
     had a fervid imagination and excellent descriptive powers. He
     would picture the coming of the great angel as if it were before
     his eyes; the path of light shooting down from about the North
     star,--the majesty of his train. Then the rolling of the heavens
     "like a scroll"--I did not know what this process was like, but
     it seemed vaguely fine--and then the burning up of the world. I
     was always greatly moved when hearing these exhortations which
     must indeed have been rather wonderful things, but they made no
     permanent impression upon me. In fact I regarded them as 'nigger
     talk.'"[381]

The patriarchal character of slavery as it existed in Kentucky is best
shown in the relationship which generally existed between the master
and his slave. The pioneers who brought their slaves with them from
Virginia encountered many dangers not only in crossing the mountains
but after they had settled in the new State. Many were the times when
the slave proved himself a hero and even encountered death in order to
protect the master and his family. Tradition and history have handed
down many of these stories to us, but the most famous of all, as well
as the best authenticated, was the experience of Monk Estill, who was
the slave of Colonel James Estill, of Madison County. In a struggle
with the Indians in 1782 in the region where Mount Sterling is now
located Monk cried out to his master in the thick of the fray: "Don't
give way, Marse Jim; there's only twenty-five of the Injuns and you
can whip them." Colonel Estill was killed and Monk was taken prisoner
but he soon managed to escape, and after joining his comrades carried
one of the wounded men twenty-five miles. The young master was so
grateful to Monk that he gave him his freedom and kept him in the best
of comfort the rest of his life. This was the experience of what is
supposed to have been the first slave in the district of
Kentucky.[382]

Not only was the slave on a par with his master when it came to facing
dangers but even in the field of sports he had as pleasant an outing
as his overlord. While the one may have spent the day in fox hunting
or deer driving, when nightfall came the Negro was apt to emerge from
his quarters followed by his faithful dog in search of possum or coon.
While the master may have enjoyed a feast of venison at his table the
Negro was just as well satisfied with the less valuable but savory
game that graced his own meal.

With the exception of the house servants most of the slaves of the
State were employed in agricultural pursuits, but, as we have seen
elsewhere, even here they were not to be found in large droves as in
the States of the South. There were only a few big landed estates
which were cultivated by the owners under their own supervision and in
the large majority of cases the field slaves worked side by side with
the whites. Often an owner's circumstances compelled him to labor in
the fields with his slaves and when doing so he rarely demanded more
of them than he did himself. Such a condition was not only true in the
early days when there were few slaves but it extended throughout the
slavery era.[383] The stories of the mildness of the institution in
Kentucky which reached the North were little accredited by the radical
element, which could never see any virtue in servile labor. Perhaps
the most zealous abolitionist who visited the State was J. W.
Buckingham, who wrote in 1840 that the "condition of the Negroes, as
to food, clothing, and light labor struck me as being better in
Kentucky than in any other State."[384] While traveling in the heart
of the slave section of the State between Frankfort and Louisville he
saw many instances of black and white laborers, slave and free,
working side by side in the same field.[385]

The relation between the owner and the household type of slave was of
a more intimate nature and the master was careful to pick only the
best of the Negroes. In such an environment we see the picture of the
Kentucky gentleman of song and story, and the Negro in all the best
that tradition has related of him. The latter became identified with
the family of the master in sentiment and feeling. Under ordinary
circumstances he had nothing to worry about, and with no cares
pressing upon him, he became as happy as any Negro ever was. If the
crops failed, or the owner became bankrupt he had none of the anxiety
of his master, although he may have displayed the greatest sympathy
with the existing condition. It was his duty to give only his labor to
his master and in return he was sheltered, clothed and supported when
sick or too old to labor; and at last when his earthly toils were
over, he was given a Christian burial. The humble affection which the
slave had for his master in conjunction with the extreme confidence
which he held for the outcome of all pecuniary troubles is shown by
instances in the life history of every slaveholding family. No matter
what might be the circumstances and conditions of the estate the slave
could go on in his daily work without any fears or cares, except for
the one great cloud that in the event of a disruption of the estate
through a legal process he might be sold to satisfy his master's
creditors.

From our present viewpoint the treatment may have been at times rather
harsh but we must be careful to judge it from the general standard of
those times. It has been pointed out that it would bear "favorable
comparison with the treatment of the white sailors in the British and
American navies of the same period."[386] The slave code allowed a
much severer policy than was generally carried out, for it must be
considered that the law was made to fit the worst cases, where such
action was justifiable. Often the attitude of the master appeared
harsher than it was really meant to be. It may have been merely a
display of authority on his part when he reprimanded a servant who
had really committed only a minor indiscretion.[387]

There were naturally other scenes in which the treatment of slaves
would not appear in such a favorable light. The chronically bad
master, however, was at all times and under all circumstances under
the ban of a just public sentiment. Should, by chance, a slave under
such a one secure vengeance on his heartless overlord, the general
feeling of the community was on the side of the slave. Strange to say,
it was very often true that persons who had known little concerning
slavery until they came to Kentucky, as soon as they had accumulated a
sufficient surplus, became the owners of slaves and proved to be the
hardest taskmasters.[388] Much light is thrown on this situation by
Shaler. "There is a common opinion," said he, "that the slaves of the
Southern households were subjected in various ways to brutal
treatment. Such, in my experience, was not the case. Though the custom
of using the whip on white children was common enough, I never saw a
negro deliberately punished in that way until 1862, when, in military
service, I stayed at night at the house of a friend. This old man,
long a widower, had recently married a woman from the state of Maine,
who had been the governess of his children. In the early morning I
heard a tumult in the back yard, and on looking out saw a negro man,
his arms tied up to a limb of a tree, while the vigorous matron was
administering on his back with a cowhide whip. At breakfast I learned
that the man had well deserved the flogging, but it struck me as
curious that in the only instance of the kind that I had known the
punishment was from the hands of a Northern woman."[389] Shaler lived
in Campbell County in the extreme northern section of the State, where
there were only a few slaves and the treatment was milder perhaps than
in any other part of Kentucky.

The general attitude is best shown by the two laws passed in 1816 and
1830. It had always been considered that the slave, being the property
of his owner, it remained for him and for him alone to serve as the
disciplinarian of the Negro. The increasing abuse of this right by
outsiders led to a law in 1815 giving the owners a power of action
against persons abusing their slaves, and in February, 1816, the
provisions were made more specific. If any person should "whip, strike
or otherwise abuse the slave of another" without the owner's consent,
the latter could recover damages in any circuit court in the
commonwealth--regardless of whether or not the punishment so inflicted
injured the ability of the slave to render service to his master.[390]

Some of the contemporary comment would seem to imply that the theory
of the law was based on the property conception of the slave and not
upon humanitarian motives. In other words, it was perfectly proper to
punish any slave as one saw fit as long as one did not interfere with
the property value of the _servant_. Fearon, while visiting the State
in 1818, came across an example of this kind and after telling the
story of the punishment makes this comment: "It appears that this boy
(the one who had been whipped) was the property of a regular
slave-dealer, who was then absent at Natchez with a cargo. Mr. Lawe's
humanity fell lamentably in my estimation when he stated, that
'whipping niggers, if they were his own, was perfectly right, and they
perhaps deserved it; but what made him mad was, that the boy was left
under his care by a friend, and he did not like to have a friend's
property injured.'"[391] The conduct observed by Fearon was clearly in
violation of the law of 1816, unless the absent master had given over
his rights in full to the man Lawe, who administered the punishment.
It may have been the spirit of the laws of Kentucky that Lawe had in
mind when he spoke to Fearon. On the other hand, it could easily be
given the interpretation which Fearon made. The trend of public
opinion was more and more in the interest of justice for the slave as
the law of 1830 shows:

     If any owner of a slave shall treat such slave cruelly, so as in
     the opinion of the jury, to endanger the life or limb of such
     slave, or shall not supply his slave with sufficient food or
     raiment, it shall and may be lawful for any person acquainted
     with the fact or facts, to state and set forth in a petition to
     the Circuit Court, the facts, or any of them aforesaid, of which
     the defendant hath been guilty, and pray that such slave or
     slaves may be taken from the possession of the owner, and sold
     for the benefit of such owner, agreeably to the 7th article of
     the Constitution.[392]

In accordance with this law, if a jury of twelve men were convinced
that a master treated his slave cruelly, or failed to provide him the
proper food and clothing, the slave would be sold into better hands
and the master would have to pay the costs of the suit. Most assuredly
there was no place in the eyes of the law for an inhuman slaveholder.
Not only was such a one a criminal in the eyes of the courts but he
was socially ostracized in the ordinary circles of the community.[393]

Two instances of this kind in Lexington will show the public feeling.
In 1837 Mrs. Turner, the wife of a wealthy Lexington judge, was
accused of inhuman cruelty. Her own husband was the chief complainant,
stating that "that woman has been the cause of the death of six of my
servants by her severities." The trial caused intense excitement among
the people of Lexington, more so perhaps for the reason that the
defendant was a member of a prominent Boston family and her husband
was a former judge of the criminal court in New Orleans. The court
proceedings were brought to an end when the woman was pronounced
insane and placed in the asylum.[394]

Early in 1839 a Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell were tried in Lexington for the
inhuman treatment of a female slave servant. The indignation of the
citizens of Lexington is apparent from the publicity that was given to
the proceedings in the local papers. A Dr. Constant testified that he
saw Mrs. Maxwell whipping the Negro severely, without being particular
whether she struck her in the face or not. The lacerations had brought
blood in considerable quantities for he had found some on the steps.
He had noticed previously that the slave had been thinly clad and was
barefooted even in cold weather. During the previous months he had
noticed several scars on her and at one time she had had one eye tied
up for a week. A Mr. Winters was once passing along the street and saw
one of the boys whipping the slave girl with a cowhide. Whenever she
turned her face to him he would hit her across the face either with
the butt end or small end of the whip to make her turn around square
to the lash, in order that he might get a fair blow at her. A Mr. Say
had noticed several wounds on her person, chiefly bruises. Capt.
Porter, the keeper of the workhouse, thought the injuries on Milly's
person were very bad, some of them appeared to be burns, and some were
bruises or stripes from a cowhide whip. The trial was held amidst a
turmoil of resentment against the defendants and there was apparently
no one in sympathy with them whatever.[395]

Any discussion of the relationships in slavery times would be
incomplete without adding the characterisation of the Kentucky master
as drawn by a celebrated author who was born in the heart of the
bluegrass and was thoroughly familiar with the type:

     "The good in nature is irrepressible. Slavery, evil as it was,
     when looked at from the remoteness of human history as it is to
     be, will be judged an institution that gave development to a
     certain noble type of character.

     "Along with other social forces peculiar to the age, it produced
     in Kentucky a kind of farmer the like of which will never appear
     again. He had the aristocratic virtues: highest notions of
     personal liberty and personal honor, a fine especial scorn of
     anything that was little, mean, cowardly. As an agriculturist he
     was not driving or merciless or grasping; the rapid amassing of
     wealth was not among his passions, the contention of splendid
     living not among his thorns. To a certain carelessness of riches
     he added a certain profuseness of expenditure; and indulgent
     towards his own pleasures, towards others, his equals or
     dependents, he bore himself with a spirit of kindness and
     magnanimity. Intolerant of tyranny, he was no tyrant. To say of
     such a man, as Jefferson said of every slave-holder, that he
     lived in the perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions
     and unremitting despotism, and in the exaction of the most
     degrading submission, was to pronounce judgment hasty and unfair.

     "Rather did Mrs. Stowe, while not blind to his faults, discern
     his virtues when she made him, embarrassed by death, exclaim: "If
     anybody had said to me that I should sell Tom down south to one
     of those rascally traders, I should have said, 'Is thy servant a
     dog that he should do this thing?'"[396]


FOOTNOTES:

[356] _Lexington Gazette_, August 23, 1803.

[357] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, July 10, 1824.

[358] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, October 15, 1845.

[359] _Ibid._, October 22, 1845.

[360] _Ibid._, September 27, 1848.

[361] _Ibid._, May 16, 1849.

[362] _Ibid._, December 10, 1851.

[363] _Ibid._, December 22, 1852.

[364] _Lexington Gazette_, April 12, 1806.

[365] The best contemporary treatment of this subject in general is by
Dr. R. J. Spurr--the sole printed text being in Perrin's _History of
Bourbon County_, pp. 59-60.

[366] Buckingham, _Eastern and Western States_, Vol. 3: 41.

[367] _Louisville Public Advertiser_, August 11, 1824.

[368] _Lexington Gazette_, June 14, 1803.

[369] _Lexington Intelligencer_, July 7, 1838.

[370] Perrin (Bourbon County), p. 60.

[371] _Harper's Magazine_, October, 1884, pp. 730-738.

[372] Clarke, _Sufferings of Lewis and Milton Clarke_, p. 104.
Rothert, _History of Muhlenburg County_, p. 104. Perrin (Bourbon
County), p. 60.

[373] _Address to the People of Kentucky_, p. 8.

[374] _Presbyterian Herald_, April 16, 1846. See especially the
editorial and articles in the issue of October 4, 1849.

[375] Rothert, _History of Muhlenburg County_, p. 340.

[376] Henson, _Life of Josiah Henson_, pp. 26-27.

[377] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, March 27, 1850.

[378] Little, L. P., _Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, pp.
544-545.

[379] Allen, James Lane, _Blue Grass Region of Kentucky_, pp. 77-78.

[380] Robertson's _Autobiography_, pp. 124-125.

[381] Shaler's _Autobiography_, pp. 57-58.

[382] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 2, pp. 634-636.

[383] Cotterill, _History of Pioneer Kentucky_, p. 245. Little, L. P.,
_Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, p. 543.

[384] Buckingham, _Eastern and Western States_, Vol. 3: 7-8.

[385] _Op. cit._, Vol. 3: 8.

[386] Little, L. P., _Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, pp.
541-2.

[387] A typical example of this has been related by one of Kentucky's
distinguished sons:

"In the households where I was intimate the slaves were about on the
same footing as the other members of the family; they were subjected
to sudden explosions of the master's temper much as were his children.
I well remember a frequent scene in my grandfather's house, where it
was the custom that I should go every Sunday afternoon for counsel and
instruction. They were at first somewhat fearsome occasions for a
little lad thus to be alone with an aged and stately grandfather. I
soon won his interest, in some measure by my fears, and came greatly
to enjoy the intercourse, for he knew how to talk to a boy, and we
became, in a way, boys together, in our sense of the funny side of
things. It was the custom, too, for him to divide the session of three
or four hours with a brief nap taken in his chair....

"As his rooms were near the negro quarter he would make ready for his
siesta by sending forth the servantman who waited on him, bidding him
tell the people that they were to keep quiet during the performance. I
can see him now with his pig-tail hanging down behind the back of the
easy chair and a handkerchief over his face as he courted slumber. For
a minute or two it would be still, then the hidden varlets would be as
noisy as before. Then the pig-tail would begin to twitch, and he would
mutter: 'Jim, tell those people they _must_ be still.' Again a minute
of quiet, and once more the jabbering and shouting. Now with a leap he
would clutch his long walking-stick and charge the crowd in the
quarter, laying about him with amazing nimbleness, until all the
offenders were run to their holes. Back he would come from his
excursion and settle himself to sleep. I could see that his rage was
merely on the surface and that he had used it for a corrective, for he
evidently took care not to hurt anyone." Shaler's _Autobiography_, p.
37.

[388] Little, L. P., _Ben Hardin, his Times and Contemporaries_, p.
543.

[389] Shaler's _Autobiography_, pp. 36-37.

[390] _Littell's Laws_, Vol. 5: 578-579.

[391] Fearon, _Sketches in America_, p. 241.

[392] Session Laws, 1830, p. 174.

[393] Blanchard and Rice, _Debate on Slavery_, p. 135.

[394] _American Slavery As It Is_, p. 87.

[395] _Lexington Reporter_, January 15, 1809.

[396] Allen, James Lane, _Blue Grass Region of Kentucky_, pp. 67-68.




CHAPTER V

PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION


Although the facts herein set forth indicate that slavery in Kentucky
was a comparatively mild form of servitude it is not the aim here to
leave the impression that the anti-slavery element found no grounds
for attacking the institution. On the contrary, there were various
elements that devised schemes for exterminating the institution. This
was especially true of the churches, which represented more than any
other one force the sentiment of the State on the subject of
emancipation. The three prominent Protestant denominations of the
State were the Presbyterians, the Baptists, and the Methodists. The
only one of the three which maintained a general continuous policy
throughout the early nineteenth century on the question of slavery was
the Presbyterian.

It was on the eve of the first Constitutional Convention of 1792 that
David Rice, at that time the leader of the Presbyterians in Kentucky,
published a pamphlet under the nom-de-plume of PHILANTHROPOS entitled
_Slavery Inconsistent with Justice and Good Policy_. While the author
went into the general evils of slavery, such as the lack of protection
to female chastity, lack of religious and moral instruction, and the
comparative unproductiveness of slave labor, he was not one of those
violent opponents of the institution, who would abolish the whole
system without any constructive measures. A large part of his treatise
was devoted to the supposed sanction of the scriptures and his own
evidence that the same source was against rather than in favor of the
system then in vogue. It was but natural that Rice should recommend
that the convention should put an end to slavery in Kentucky in view
of his firm opinions in the matter, but he had a clear vision of the
future and he expressed his conviction that "a gradual emancipation
only can be advisable." He summed up his ideas in this sentence: "The
legislature, if they judged it expedient, would prevent the
importation of any more slaves; they would enact that all born after
such a date should be free; be qualified by proper education to make
useful citizens, and be actually freed at a proper age."[397] He put
these ideas forth as a citizen of Kentucky who was interested in its
welfare and as a prospective member of the constitutional convention.
When that body assembled at Danville he did not hesitate to voice his
views again but the forces of slavery were dominant and the majority
enacted the famous article IX, which determined the slave code of the
State until the institution was abolished by the 13th amendment to the
federal constitution. The significance of the attitude of David Rice
lies in the fact that as early as the year 1792 he put forth the idea
of gradual emancipation, a policy far in advance of his age but which
in the course of time was held by a large number of the fair-minded
statesmen of Kentucky.

In 1794 the Transylvania Presbytery, which was the governing body of
that sect at that time for the whole State, passed a resolution asking
that slaves should be instructed to read the Bible, having in view the
sole idea that when freedom did come to them they would be prepared
for it.[398] The same body in 1796 expressed the following fair-minded
attitude in the form of a resolution:

     Although the Presbytery are fully convinced of the great evil of
     slavery, yet they view the final remedy as alone belonging to the
     civil powers; and also do not think that they have sufficient
     authority from the word of God to make it a term of Christian
     communion. They, therefore, leave it to the consciences of the
     brethren to act as they may think proper; earnestly recommending
     to the people under their care to emancipate such of their slaves
     as they may think fit subjects of liberty; and that they also
     take every possible measure, by teaching their young slaves to
     read and give them such other instruction as may be in their
     power, to prepare them for the enjoyment of liberty, an event
     which they contemplate with the greatest pleasure, and which,
     they hope, will be accomplished as soon as the nature of things
     will admit.[399]

In the year 1797 the same organization decided that slavery was a
moral evil but on the question of whether those persons holding slaves
were guilty of a moral evil they decided in the negative. As to what
persons were guilty they were unable to decide and the matter was
postponed for future action.[400]

As early as 1800 the West Lexington Presbytery pointed to the trouble
and division which slavery was likely to cause among the churches, but
they were unable to come to any decision upon the exclusion of
slaveholding members from church privileges and in a letter to the
Synod of Virginia they asked for the judgment of higher ecclesiastical
authorities.[401] In 1802 the same body decided on a policy of
non-interference with the rights of the slaveholding members of the
church.[402]

Beginning in 1823 the Synod of Kentucky advocated the cause of the
American Colonization Society. Their general attitude on the slavery
question was an open one as late as the year 1833 when they adopted a
resolution to the effect that "inasmuch as in the judgment of the
Synod it is inexpedient to come to any decision on the very difficult
and delicate question of slavery as it is within our bounds;
therefore, resolved, that the whole matter be indefinitely
postponed."[403] The vote on this resolution stood 41 to 36.

The enactment of the law of 1833 forbidding the importation of slaves
into Kentucky seems to have induced the Synod to take a step in
advance, for when they next met in 1834 at Danville they adopted by
the decisive vote of 56 to 7 a resolution calling for the appointment
of a committee of ten to draw up a plan for the instruction and future
emancipation of slaves in the State.[404] The following year this
committee published a 64-page pamphlet entitled "An Address to the
Presbyterians of Kentucky proposing a plan for the instruction and
emancipation of their slaves." Many editions of this work were
published throughout the country even as late as 1862 when it was
issued by the United Presbyterian Board of Publication in Pittsburgh.
It was heralded throughout the northern section of the United States
as a very able document and was regarded all the more valuable because
it was published in a slaveholding State. The major portion of the
pamphlet was taken up with the general arguments setting forth the
evils of the slavery system but in the last few pages they set down
their plan for the gradual emancipation of the slaves in Kentucky--the
most able contribution towards a reconstruction of the existing social
system in the State which had been made up to that time.

"The plan, then, which we propose is, for the master to retain during
a limited period, and with regard to the welfare of the slave, that
authority which he before held, in perpetuity, and solely for his own
interest. Let the full liberty of the slave be secured against all
contingencies, by a recorded deed of emancipation, to take effect at a
specified time. In the meanwhile, let the servant be treated with
kindness--let all those things which degrade him be removed--let him
enjoy means of instruction, let his moral and religious improvement be
sought--let his prospects be presented before him, to stimulate him to
acquire those habits of foresight, economy, industry, activity, skill
and integrity, which will fit him for using well the liberty he is
soon to enjoy." The actual plan of potential freedom was stated
briefly in these words: "(1) We would recommend that all slaves now
under 20 years of age, and all those yet to be born in our possession,
be emancipated as they severally reach their 25th year. (2) We
recommend that deeds of emancipation be drawn up, and recorded in our
respective county courts, specifying the slaves whom we are about to
emancipate, and the age at which each is to be free. (3) We recommend
that our slaves be instructed in the common elementary branches of
education. (4) We recommend that strenuous and persevering efforts be
made to induce them to attend upon the ordinary services of religion,
both domestic and public. (5) We recommend that great pains be taken
to teach them the Holy Scriptures; and that, to effect this the
instrumentality of Sabbath Schools, wherever they can be enjoyed, be
united with that of domestic instruction."[405]

This appeal was not to the officials of the State but to the members
of a particular religious body by its governing organization. The
success or failure of the plan depended entirely upon the individual
slaveholder's attitude in the matter. The committee added this
sentence by way of explanation: "These are measures which all ought to
adopt; and we know of no peculiarity of circumstances in the case of
any individual which can free him from culpability if he neglects
them."[406]

The sentiments embodied in this appeal were not, however, any
indication of the feeling among the slaveholding Presbyterians of the
State nor were they expressive of the Synod itself, for that body
never took any action upon the address, it being the work of the
committee of ten entirely.[407] Davidson, writing in 1847, made the
following comment on the sentiment of the church people in Kentucky at
that time. "In the morbid and feverish state of the public mind, it is
not to be concealed, that by some they (the Committee) were considered
as going to an unwarrantable and imprudent length. The northern
abolitionists were waging a hot crusade against slavery, sending out
itinerant lecturers, and loading the mails with inflammatory
publications. Their measures were marked with a fanatical virulence
rarely exhibited, and the people were exasperated beyond forbearance
... the effects were truly disastrous. The prospect of emancipation
was retarded for years. The laws bearing on the slave population were
made more stringent than ever, and their privileges were curtailed.
In Kentucky, the religious meetings of the blacks were broken up or
interrupted and their Sabbath schools dispersed."[408]

When the subject of emancipation was under discussion in the Kentucky
Synod one of the elders arose and stated that he owned one hundred
slaves, nearly all of whom he had inherited. Many of them were so old
that they could not provide for themselves, others were women and
children whom no one was willing to feed and clothe for their labor.
He stated emphatically that he had no desire to hold them in bondage,
but that he was willing to do whatever was best for the slaves
themselves. If he should free them, what would become of the aged and
the women and children? Furthermore, it was a serious matter to give
bond and security for the support of so many slaves of different ages
and character. He could not send them out of the State, for they were
intermarried with the slaves of others; and as to giving them wages,
he could not, for they were eating him up as it was. With a feeling of
intense interest in the slave and anxiety on his own behalf to do the
right, he asked his brethren of the Synod, what he ought to do.[409]
The position of this kind-hearted Kentucky slaveholder shows more
clearly than any other picture we could draw the difficulties of
emancipation in Kentucky even when one was convinced of the evils of
the slavery system.

The final word of the Presbyterian Church on the whole subject of
slavery was sounded at its General Assembly in Cincinnati in 1845,
when a resolution was adopted, as submitted by Nathan L. Rice, of
Kentucky, stating that it was not competent for the church to
legislate where Christ and his apostles had not legislated. This, at
least for the time being, proved acceptable to the churches south of
the Ohio and avoided a breach in the Presbyterians such as had just
taken place among the Methodists and Baptists.

The Baptists as a State organization did not pursue a policy
similar to that of the Presbyterians. After the failure of the
emancipationist campaign in 1792 and again at the constitutional
convention in 1799 a few members of the Baptist Church began a
movement for immediate abolition under the lead of several
ministers--Tarrent, Barrow, Sutton, Holmes and others. The policy
which they advocated was not only one of immediate abolition but of
non-fellowship with the slaveholders within their own denomination.
There was no general governing body for the State, as the Baptists had
several so-called associations which covered only a few counties each.
The trend of opinion throughout the various commonwealth organizations
was apparently against the position held by the emancipationist group,
for the latter in 1807 withdrew from the regular organizations and
established an association of their own which they called the Licking
Locust Association. They were only able to muster the assent of twelve
churches to their newer group and soon died out in importance.[410]
The real sentiment of the Baptists was no doubt much like that of the
Presbyterians, but these early advocates of Negro freedom in their own
organization were entirely too radical even for their own church
membership. Had they followed a course of action and policy more in
keeping with their own constituents they might have accomplished much
good, whereas, as it was, they only stirred up the feeling within
their own denomination to such an extent that thereafter little
progress was made towards a policy of even gradual emancipation of the
slave.

Throughout the slavery era, however, the Baptists in the State were
divided into the "regular" and the "separatists," the former being in
favor of non-interference with the question and the latter
representing the advocates of emancipation in one form or another.
Both agreed that slavery was an evil, but the regular group was
unwilling to make it the cause of the expulsion of a slaveholder from
the church. In May, 1845, a "Southern Baptist Convention" was held at
Augusta, Georgia. The meeting had been hastily called and
representatives were present only from Maryland, South Carolina,
North Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Kentucky, and the
District of Columbia. Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida
were represented only by letters. The convention had been summoned as
a protest against the action of the "Acting Board" of the church in
the country in refusing to consent to the appointment of a slaveholder
to any field of foreign missionary labors.[411] In June of the same
year the Kentucky Baptists for the most part withdrew from the
northern organization and pledged themselves to this newly formed
southern convention. The creed was not changed. It was simply a matter
of rebuke toward the northern section's attitude on the slavery
question.[412]

The Methodists had also struggled to find a peaceful solution of the
problem of harmonizing Christianity with slavery. At the meeting of
the General Conference of the Methodist Church in 1845, several days
were taken up in the debate over the status of Bishop James Osgood
Andrew, of Kentucky. By inheritance and marriage he was a slaveholder.
Finally he was requested by a vote of 110 to 68 "to desist from the
exercise of the office of Bishop while this impediment remained." The
southerners in the convention became unusually indignant, declaring
that the infliction of such a stigma upon Bishop Andrew would make it
impossible for them to maintain the influence of Methodism in the
South.[413] So they withdrew from the convention and in May, 1845,
held a convention of the Methodist churches of the Southern States in
Louisville. After a nineteen-days' session they decided to set up an
organization of their own to be known as the "Methodist Episcopal
Church South" and to have their first meeting at Petersburg, Virginia,
in May, 1846.[414]

The Kentucky Methodist Conference met at Frankfort on September 17,
1845, and the entire attention of the meeting was given over to the
question of whether they would adhere to the general conference or
would pledge themselves to the newly formed southern organization.
Bishop Andrew appeared at Frankfort at the crucial moment and stated
all the facts concerning himself and the action which the Louisville
Conference had taken as a result of the trouble in the previous
General Conference. By a vote of 146 to 5 they then declared that
henceforth they would adhere to the Methodist Episcopal Church South,
and that all proceedings, records and official acts would thereafter
be in the name of the "Kentucky Conference of the Methodist Episcopal
Church South."[415]

At its annual conference in 1858 held in Hopkinsville the Louisville
Conference held a very heated debate over the rules of the church
regarding slaveholders. Finally they voted to expunge from the General
Rules the one which forbade "the buying and selling of men, women and
children, with the intention to enslave them."[416] The regulation
thus repealed, although it was a part of the rules of Methodism, was
just another indication of the sentiment in Kentucky at that time to
resent more and more the encroachments of the North on the slave
system of the South and to hang on to the institution with a grim
determination. But they were not willing to go to unwarrantable
lengths, for at the Kentucky Conference held in Germantown in March,
1860, a proposition submitted by the sister conferences to the South
with a view to further altering the rules on slavery was denied.[417]

The churches of Kentucky for the most part pursued a policy of
benevolent neutrality in the struggle which the slave forces of the
State were having with their neighbors to the North. The Baptists and
Methodists within the commonwealth officially never made any positive
contribution to the forces of either side, and they took no definite
stand until the whole southern division of their general national
organization withdrew from membership in the national conventions and
set up an organization of their own. When this much had been done
both the Methodists and Baptists of Kentucky pledged their allegiance
to their respective newly formed southern conventions. On the other
hand the Presbyterians of the State maintained a policy that was
distinctively their own, separate and apart from any acts of their
national organization. They were the only religious body in Kentucky
to issue officially a constructive plan for the betterment of social
and economic conditions under slavery. When it came to the advocacy of
even gradual emancipation they were careful to state that the plan was
only published for the benefit of the slaveholding members of their
own religious body. The Presbyterians went further in their
interference with the institution of slavery in the State than any
other religious body, but even they were not willing to try to extend
their home missionary field beyond their own membership. On the whole,
the churches in Kentucky merely followed the dictates of public
opinion on the subject of slavery, trying to pursue a policy of
neutrality as long as possible and then when it was no longer
feasible, most of them sided with the slaveholding group. The northern
section of none of these religious bodies, however, was driven out of
the State. There were a good many of the so-called "northern" churches
which remained loyal to the old national organizations.

The summary of the actions of the three principal religious bodies of
the State shows that there was a growing sentiment against the
institution of slavery. Kentucky being a slaveholding State, the
significance of this attitude was very important. While it may be true
that the majority sentiment even among the churches was not in favor
of the elimination of slavery the very fact that even a minority were
coming to the front unmolested by violence and threats and favoring
the gradual elimination of the established institution revealed the
general trend of public opinion among the people of Kentucky. These
measures were taken entirely upon their own initiative and were not
prompted by an outside anti-slavery influence.

Any discussion of the evolution of public opinion in Kentucky on the
subject of emancipation and of slavery in general would be incomplete
without describing the attitude of Henry Clay toward the institution
in Kentucky. During almost the entire period of slavery in Kentucky he
was the foremost citizen of the State and one of the principal
slaveholders. From those two viewpoints alone anything that he had to
say on the local type and problems of slavery is valuable in this
connection.

The general position of Clay on the subject of Negro servitude has
never been very widely understood. Among the radical abolitionists of
the North he was looked upon as a friend of slavery for the sake of
political advancement and among the slaveholders in some parts of the
South he was regarded as almost a member of the Garrisonian group of
the enemies of slavery. To understand Clay's real position we need
only to consider his relation to the institution as it existed in his
native State.

Coming from Virginia to Lexington in 1797, Clay soon found ample
opportunities for a public career. He first came into prominence as a
writer on slavery in the columns of the _Lexington Gazette_ and the
_Kentucky Reporter_. When the constitutional convention of 1799 was
called for a revision of the fundamental law of the State Clay bent
all his efforts towards the adoption of a system of gradual
emancipation for the slaves of Kentucky. It was pointed out that there
were relatively few slaves in the State and that a progressive plan of
liberation would be much easier than at any future time.

The consensus of opinion at the time was that the emancipationists led
by this young man from Virginia would have been successful, had it not
been for the intervening excitement produced by the Alien and Sedition
Laws and the resulting famous Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of
1798. Clay threw himself heart and soul into the newer campaign
against the mistakes of the Federalists and the former enthusiasm for
the gradual freedom of the slaves seems to have died down in his
thought as well as among the Kentucky people in general. Thus the
constitutional convention of 1799 left the conditions of slavery as
they were.

In a speech delivered three decades later before the Kentucky
Colonization Society, Clay said in commenting on his position in 1798:
"More than thirty years ago, an attempt was made, in this
commonwealth, to adopt a system of gradual emancipation, similar to
that which the illustrious Franklin had mainly contributed to
introduce in 1780, in the state founded by the benevolent Penn. And
among the facts of my life which I look back to with most satisfaction
is that of my having cooperated, with other zealous and intelligent
friends, to procure the establishment of that system in this state. We
were overpowered by numbers, but submitted to the decision of the
majority with that grace which the minority in a republic should ever
yield to that decision. I have, nevertheless, never ceased, and shall
never cease, to regret a decision, the effects of which have been to
place us in the rear of our neighbors, who are exempt from slavery, in
the state of agriculture, the progress of manufactures, the advance of
improvements, and the general progress of society."[418] In his famous
speech in the Senate on Abolition in 1839, referring further to his
activities in 1798, Clay stated that "no one was rash enough to
propose or think of immediate abolition. No one was rash enough to
think of throwing loose upon the community, ignorant and unprepared,
the untutored slaves of the state."[419]

Clay's private dealings with the institution were always consistent
with his political principles on the subject of slavery. He bought
many slaves during his lifetime but he never sold any.[420] Clay
believed that the slaves should be freed, but at the same time
considered the difficulties attendant upon instant emancipation. Among
the mass of the slaveholders of the State, Clay was one of the very
few who held a perfectly consistent attitude on gradual emancipation
as was finally shown by his will.[421]

With a more radical policy than that of Henry Clay the Kentucky
Abolition Society had been established as early as 1807, but its
membership was composed largely of Presbyterian and Baptist preachers
who were not in sympathy with the stand taken by the constitutional
convention of 1799. It was not until about 1830 that there began in
the State any real movement which was wide enough in influence to be
taken as an indication of the trend of public opinion. It will be
recalled that it was not until 1835 that the Presbyterian Synod was
able to decide on a plan of gradual emancipation.

It was in 1831 that some 48 slaveholders of Kentucky met and declared
themselves in favor of the gradual liberation of the slaves.[422]
James G. Birney, who was at that time living in Danville, took this
statement of the slave owners rather seriously and sent out an
invitation to the prominent men of the State to attend an
emancipation convention on December 6, 1831. After several months of
determined effort Birney only succeeded in getting together nine men,
all slaveholders. It is evident from the writings of Birney that he
thought these men were all determined to free their slaves and that
whatever plan he should propose would be accepted. But when the nine
slaveholders began to talk about the existing conditions in Kentucky
Birney's eyes were opened. It was pointed out that those who advocated
immediate emancipation were coming more and more to be victims of
social ostracism. Furthermore, Birney learned that there was among the
prominent slaveholders of the State a sort of secret organization
which had been formed to protect the constitutional rights of Kentucky
slaveholders against the encroachments of the people from the North.
James G. Birney was one of the most intelligent of the Kentuckians who
favored emancipation, but the ardent enthusiasm which he had hitherto
held for the future of his cause in Kentucky was decidedly cooled by
this little gathering of nine slaveholders. These men showed him a
point of view about which he had thought very little. Outside of the
new vision which this conference gave to Birney the only result of the
deliberations was that there was formed a society of slaveholders
which advocated the gradual emancipation of the future offspring of
slaves when they reached the age of twenty-one.[423]

Soon after this episode Birney came out in opposition to both gradual
emancipation and colonization. The majority of liberal-minded
Kentuckians were coming more and more to believe in these two
propositions as the ultimate solution of the slave problems of the
State and once Birney came out in opposition to them he was put down
as a radical abolitionist. In July, 1835, the feeling of the people of
Danville was aroused to the highest pitch and his anti-slavery paper
_The Philanthropist_ was forced to suspend publication when the local
printer was bought out.[424] The feeling of the people throughout the
State, however, was well shown by the fact that for the next two
months Birney made personal visits to Lexington, Frankfort and
Louisville in an attempt to get a printer to issue his newspaper. He
was entirely unsuccessful and on September 13 he wrote to Gerrit Smith
that he had determined to move to Cincinnati.[425] While the people of
the State could not agree with Birney's attitude on slavery they were
the first to admire his courage. George D. Prentice, the pro-slavery
editor of the _Louisville Journal_, had this comment to make:

     "He is an enthusiastic, but, in our opinion, a visionary
     philanthropist, whose efforts, though well intended, are likely
     to be of no real service to the cause of humanity. He at least
     shows, however, that he has the courage to reside among the
     people whose institutions he assails. He is not like William
     Lloyd Garrison living in Massachusetts, and opening the battery
     upon the states five hundred or one thousand miles off. He is not
     such a coward or fool as to think of cannonading the South from
     the steeple of a New England meeting house."

The climax of Birney's career in Kentucky had been reached in the
early part of 1835 when he split with the Kentucky Colonization
Society. Judge Underwood in the annual colonization address at
Frankfort had attempted to show that the only way to exterminate
slavery in the State was by African colonization. He advocated the
expenditure of $140,000 annually for the transportation of four
thousand Negroes between the ages of seventeen and twenty. The plan if
followed for fifty years he stated would rid the State of all
slaves.[426] In a letter to Gerrit Smith on January 31, 1835, Birney
voiced his opposition to the plan of Judge Underwood and to any scheme
of colonization. Thus on another point he was to be classed as a
radical abolitionist and his career of usefulness in Kentucky was at
an end. If he had chosen a more middle ground and aided the cause of
colonization, he would no doubt have accomplished much good. As it
was, he was forced to leave the State after many threats and
thereafter he stormed the institution of slavery in his native State
from a safe region north of the Ohio River. From that time on
everything that he uttered in opposition to slavery in Kentucky was
met with a strong current of opposition. Where Birney might have
accomplished much for his native State he really did harm because he
went beyond the point where the people would listen to his advice. In
September, 1834, he visited Henry Clay and that most liberal of all
Kentucky slaveholders pointed out to Birney the error of his ways but
the latter showed no signs of listening to advice and thereafter Clay
and Birney were sworn political antagonists. Had Birney joined with
Clay at this time there might have been a much brighter future in
Kentucky for the cause of emancipation. As it was, Birney never
receded from his position and when the Presbyterian Synod came out
with its plan of gradual emancipation Birney voiced his determined
opposition to the scheme because it did not favor the immediate
liberation of the slaves.[427] With the advent of the abolition
movement most of the Kentucky masters who were in favor of gradual
emancipation receded from their position and held on firmly to the
existing institution.[428]

The series of events from 1831 to 1835, centering around the
activities of Birney, brought the attention of the public to the
slavery question more than ever. As was common in all other movements
of popular interest it became the custom for local gatherings to be
held to discuss the problem. It was always customary at the conclusion
of these meetings to draw up a series of resolutions and it is
noticeable that they all voiced a similarity of sentiment on the
slavery question. A typical set of resolves were those drawn up at a
gathering held in Shelbyville in June, 1835:

     "_Resolved_, that the system of domestic slavery as it now exists
     in this commonwealth, is both a moral and a political evil, and
     in violation of the rights of man.

     "_Resolved_, as the opinion of this meeting, that the additional
     value which would be given to our property, and its products by
     the introduction of free white labor, would in itself be
     sufficient, under a system of gradual emancipation, to transport
     the whole of our colored population.

     "_Resolved_, that no system of emancipation will meet with our
     approbation, unless colonization be inseparably connected with
     it, and that any scheme of emancipation which will leave the
     blacks within our borders, is more to be deprecated than slavery
     itself."[429]

These resolutions were just another indication that the sentiment of
the people of Kentucky during the decade from 1830 to 1840 was in
favor of gradual emancipation of the slaves and their colonization in
Africa. We have seen that this was the plan of the various church
bodies, and also of Kentucky's greatest statesman, Henry Clay. Added
to this we find that the majority of the liberal-minded people of the
State held to the same conviction. But why, one asks, did all this
feeling come to naught. The answer can be better expressed in the
words of a contemporary Kentuckian, Nathaniel Shaler: "From the local
histories the deliberate student will easily become convinced that if
there had been no external pressure against slavery at this time there
would still have been a progressive elimination of the slave element
from the population by emancipation on the soil, by the sale of slaves
to the planters of the Southern States, and by their colonization in
foreign parts."[430]

During the decade from 1840 to 1850 this outside pressure of which
Shaler speaks was at its height. We have seen typical examples of it
within the borders of Kentucky in the discussion of the cases of Delia
Webster, Calvin Fairbank and John B. Mahan. The change in the trend of
popular thought during this period does not show itself much in the
open until 1849, when the third constitutional convention was about to
assemble. It was then that all phases of the problem of slavery were
discussed, in the press, in the pulpit, on the platform and in the
elections. George IX Prentice in an editorial gave the best exposition
of Kentucky sentiment. He said: "The sentiment of Kentucky we believe
to be, that slavery is an evil which must be borne with patience,
simply because there is no known plan for its rapid extinction which
would not produce incalculable sacrifices and appalling risks. At the
same time we think the people of Kentucky are not inclined to increase
the evil, but are inclined to favor its gradual emancipation and
remote termination, by prohibiting the further introduction of slaves
and by some provision tending to encourage voluntary emancipation with
colonization. These measures they believe, taken in connection with
the known tendency in widening circles to substitute free for slave
labor, will hasten the social revolution in question as fast as it can
be carried with safety to the Commonwealth or with benefit to the
colonized negro."[431]

So universal was this feeling that even Cassius M. Clay, the only real
abolitionist left in the State, came out more or less in favor of it.
Under his leadership there was held at Frankfort, April 25, 1849, an
emancipation convention to which all the more radical element were
invited. Clay himself proved to be the most radical member of the
convention but when they came to draw up a series of resolutions the
only ones to pass were those which favored the absolute prohibition of
the importation of any more slaves into Kentucky and the complete
power to enforce and perfect, under the new constitution, whenever the
people desired it, a system of gradual emancipation of the
slaves.[432] Here we are confronted with the unusual fact that the
radical element of the State agreed with the plan of George D.
Prentice, one of the chief pro-slavery men of Kentucky, and with that
of Henry Clay.

While sojourning for his health in New Orleans in February, 1849, Clay
sent Richard Pindell for publication a letter on the gradual
emancipation of slavery in Kentucky, as the State at that time was
about to hold another constitutional convention. This long and able
document constitutes the most constructive program for the progressive
elimination of slavery from the State that was ever drawn up. It
embodied not only the fundamental principles of Clay's attitude on the
Kentucky slavery question but it undoubtedly typified the real
position of the average high-minded Kentucky slaveholder of that day.
Clay frankly admitted that he had little hope of the immediate success
of the plan, but he thought it was his duty to present the facts of
the problem to the people of his own State, at a time when they were
about to alter the existing constitution. The spirit of the plan as
well as its context shows that Clay had thoroughly considered the
emancipation question from all aspects, especially in relation to its
practical operation. The actual plan was based on three principles:
(1) that any gradual emancipation should be slow in its operation, so
as not to disturb the existing habits of society; (2) as an
indispensable condition the liberated slaves were to be sent out of
the State and colonized in Africa; (3) and the expenses of their
transportation and six months subsistence were to be borne by a fund
supplied by the labor of the freed negro.

Regarding the progressive plan of liberation, Clay suggested that a
certain date, January 1, 1855 or 1860, be fixed for the commencement
of the plan. All slaves born after that date were to be free at the
age of twenty-five; but they were liable thereafter to be hired out
under State authority for a period of not more than three years, in
order to raise money to pay for their expenses of transportation to
their colony and their subsistence for the term of six months. It was
suggested that the offspring of those who were to be free at
twenty-five should be free at their birth, but subject to
apprenticeship until they reached their majority and then to be hired
out as in the case of the parent to pay the expenses of transportation
to the colony and their settlement there. In the meanwhile the master
would have the usual legal rights over the slaves and could sell,
devise or remove them out of the State.

Clay considered colonization to be an indispensable part of his scheme
and went so far as to say that he would be "utterly opposed" to any
system of emancipation without it. He firmly believed that the nearly
two hundred thousand blacks along with their descendants "could never
live in peace and harmony and equality with the residue of the
population" if they were free. He thought the expense of colonizing
should be borne by a fund from the labor of the liberated Negro
because he was the individual who secured the most benefit thereby.
The non-slaveholder should not be taxed for any share in the expense
and the slaveholder would have enough sacrifices to make without any
additional financial burdens. Clay figured that the average annual
hire of each slave would be about fifty dollars, or one hundred and
fifty dollars for the whole period of three years. One third of this
sum would be required for the transportation of the Negro to Africa
and the other two thirds would go towards a fund to establish him in
his new country.[433]

The persistence of Clay in his avowed convictions on the subject of
slavery and emancipation in Kentucky was kept up in spite of the fact
that within a few days after the publication of his plan of
emancipation throughout Kentucky the House of Representatives at
Frankfort by the unanimous vote of 93 to 0 declared that "we the
representatives of the people of Kentucky, are opposed to abolition or
emancipation of slavery in any shape or form whatever, except as now
provided by the laws and constitution of the state."[434] This was
their answer to the plea set forth by Clay and strange to say the same
group of men voted unanimously at the same session to return Clay for
six years more to the United States Senate.

A convention of the so-called "Friends of Constitutional Reform" had
been held at the State capital on February 5, 1849, and had drawn up a
series of twelve resolutions on the several questions which were to be
debated in the constitutional convention. They made mention
incidentally of the desired reforms in connection with slavery stating
"that we do not desire or contemplate any change in the relative
condition of master and slave in the new Constitution, and intend a
firm and decided resistance to any such change. We have no objection
to a proper provision for colonizing the present free blacks, and
those who shall hereafter be set free, but protest against abolition
or emancipation without the consent of the owner, unless upon full
compensation and colonization."[435]

This element dominated the convention. The body not only ignored any
plan of emancipation but drew the reins of the existing institution
tighter than ever before by incorporating in the Bill of Rights the
famous phrase that "the right of property is before and higher than
any constitutional sanction, and the right of the owner of a slave to
such slave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right
of the owner of any property whatsoever." Such a statement was,
however, not brought on by the words of Clay, but was a direct
answer to the "higher law than the constitution" plea of the
abolitionists.[436] The convention amended the standard article on
slavery with a section to the effect that the "General Assembly should
pass laws providing that any free negro or mulatto immigrating to,
and any slave thereafter emancipated in, and refusing to leave that
State, should be deemed guilty of a felony, punished by confinement in
the penitentiary."

The obvious purpose of this amendment was to reduce the number of
Negroes in the State. Accordingly every slave emancipated was forced
to leave the State and the Negro population was decreased just so much
every time any slaves were set free. The convention was thus willing
to do something towards eliminating the Negro, but was not in favor of
any scheme of a general gradual liberation of the slaves. The
necessary legislative act for carrying out the provision of the
constitution was enacted March 24, 1851.[437] This law only went half
way in that it only prevented those Negroes who had been freed in
Kentucky from living in the State. It was not until March 3, 1860,
that the prohibition was extended to all free Negro immigration into
the State.[438] An interesting development of this policy was shown in
the enactment of the legislature in 1863 which declared it unlawful
for any Negro or mulatto claiming to be free under the Emancipation
Proclamation to migrate to or remain in the State. Any Negro violating
this law was to be treated as a runaway slave.[439]

The desire of the State authorities to eliminate the free Negro was
accompanied by constructive measures in behalf of the emancipated
slave. On March 3, 1856, the State legislature passed a law
appropriating $5,000 annually to aid the Kentucky Colonization Society
in the transportation of free Negroes to Liberia.[440] The universal
sentiment of the time was that the salvation of the Negro race rested
in their elimination from the State even as free men and their
transportation to their native African soil. Henry Clay of all others
was the most persistent advocate of colonization.

We have seen that the general trend of public opinion from about 1798
had been progressively in favor of gradual emancipation provided it
was coupled with some form of colonization which would remove the
liberated Negroes from the State. Public sentiment, however, received
a serious set-back about 1838 with the beginning of the Underground
Railroad system and the incoming of the abolitionist literature. In a
speech in the Kentucky legislature of 1838 James T. Morehead, one of
the leading anti-slavery statesmen of the State, portrayed the coming
of the newer era in the history of Kentucky slavery when the people
would make more strenuous efforts to hold firmly to the slavery
institution. Morehead pictured the popular mind in these words: "Any
man who desires to see slavery abolished--any friend of emancipation,
gradual or immediate--- who supposes for a moment that now is the time
to carry out this favorite policy, must be blind to the prognostics
that lower from every quarter of the political sky. Sir, the present
is not the period to unmanacle the slave in this or any other state of
the Union. Four years ago you might have had some hope. But the wild
spirit of fanaticism has done much to retard the work of emancipation
and to rivet the fetters of slavery in Kentucky.... The advocates of
abolition--the phrenzied fanatics of the North, neither sleep nor
slumber. Their footsteps are even now to be seen wherever mischief can
be perpetrated--and it may be that while the people of Kentucky are
reposing in the confidence of fancied security, the tocsin of
rebellion may resound through the land--the firebrand of the
incendiary may wrap their dwellings in flames--their towns and cities
may become heaps of ashes before their eyes and their minds drawn off
from all thoughts of reforming the government to consider the means
necessary for their self-preservation--the protection of their
families and all that is dear to men."[441]

Such was the idea of one of the most prominent public men of Kentucky
and such became in time the opinion of the average citizen who had
come to believe in gradual emancipation as the hope and solution of
the Negro problem in the State. The future course of events regarding
slavery in Kentucky is to be explained by this radical change of
mind. Thus did the wise and constructive plans of the gradual
emancipationists come to naught with the incoming of the radical
abolitionist movement which the Kentucky populace thought would bring
about a civil insurrection among the slaves in their own State. The
abolitionists misunderstood the gradual emancipation movement in
Kentucky and really fanned the flame of the pro-slavery sentiment that
came in its place.


FOOTNOTES:

[397] Davidson, _History of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky_, p.
336.

[398] _Minutes of Transylvania Presbytery_, Vol. 1, p. 147.

[399] _Minutes of Transylvania Presbytery_, Vol. 2, pp. 102-3.

[400] _Ibid._, Vol. 2, pp. 163, 224.

[401] _Minutes W. Lexington Presbytery_, Vol. 1, p. 38.

[402] _Ibid._, p. 81.

[403] _Minutes of Kentucky Synod_, Vol. 5, pp. 28, 31.

[404] _Minutes of Kentucky Synod_, Vol. 5, pp. 50-52.

[405] _Address to Presbyterians of Kentucky_, pp. 33-34.

[406] _Ibid._, p. 34.

[407] Davidson, _History of the Presbyterian Church in Kentucky_, p.
340.

[408] _Op. cit._, p. 340.

[409] Blanchard and Rice, _Debate on Slavery_, p. 88.

[410] Spencer, _History of the Baptists in Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 186.

[411] _Niles' Register_, May 24, 1845.

[412] _Ibid._, June 28, 1845.

[413] _Ibid._, June 8, 1844.

[414] _Ibid._, May 17, 24, 31, 1845.

[415] _Niles' Register_, September 27, 1845.

[416] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 81.

[417] _Ibid._, Vol. 1, p. 83.

[418] Schurz, Carl, _Henry Clay_, Vol. 1, p. 31.

[419] Colton, _Works of Clay_, Vol. 6, p. 153.

[420] His attitude was perhaps best shown when, on a visit to
Richmond, Indiana, in the fall of 1846, he was presented with a
petition by a Quaker by the name of Mendenhall asking him to liberate
all the slaves he owned. Clay made a rather lengthy speech to the
gentleman on the general principles of the question and then, came
down to the practical side of the problem:

"Without any knowledge of the relation in which I stand to my slaves,
or their individual condition, you, Mr. Mendenhall, and your
associates, who have been active in getting up this petition, call
upon me forthwith to liberate the whole of them. Now let me tell you,
that some half a dozen of them, from age, decrepitude, or infirmity,
are wholly unable to gain a livelihood for themselves, and are a heavy
charge upon me. Do you think that I should conform to the dictates of
humanity by ridding myself of that charge, and sending them forth into
the world with the boon of liberty, to end a wretched existence in
starvation? Another class is composed of helpless infants, with or
without improvident mothers. Do you believe as a Christian, that I
should perform my duty toward them by abandoning them to their fate?
Then there is another class who would not accept their freedom if I
would give it to them. I have for many years owned a slave that I
wished would leave me, but he would not. What shall I do with that
class?"

"What my treatment of my slaves is you can learn from Charles, who
accompanies me on this journey, and who has traveled with me over the
greater part of the United States, and in both the Canadas, and has
had a thousand opportunities, if he had chosen to embrace them, to
leave me. Excuse me, Mr. Mendenhall, for saying that my slaves are as
well fed and clad, look as sleek and hearty, and are quite as civil
and respectful in their demeanor, and as little disposed to wound the
feelings of any one, as you are."

       *       *       *       *       *

"I shall, Mr. Mendenhall, take your petition into respectful and
deliberate consideration; but before I come to a final decision, I
should like to know what you and your associates are willing to do for
the slaves in my possession, if I should think proper to liberate
them. I own about fifty, who are probably worth about fifteen thousand
dollars. To turn them loose upon society without any means of
subsistence or support would be an act of cruelty. Are you willing to
raise and secure the payment of fifteen thousand dollars for their
benefit, if I should be induced to free them? The security of the
payment of that sum would materially lessen the obstacle in the way of
their emancipation."--Colton, Reed & McKinley, _Works of Henry Clay_,
Vol. 6, pp. 388-390.

This sums up in Clay's own words his treatment of the slaves that were
under his control. It is not to be presumed in any case that general
conditions in the State were like this. There were obvious reasons why
Clay couldn't get one or two of his slaves to accept freedom when he
offered it, for they realized that they were far better off under his
own particular care than they could ever hope to be under an
absolutely free status in society.

[421] So consistent was Clay in deed as well as words in spite of all
that the opposing forces had accomplished in the "State of Kentucky
that when he died he left a will which did for his own slaves just
what he would have had others do in his lifetime. As long as he lived
he refused to emancipate his slaves but when he passed away he left a
written document, the following portion of which forms the eminent
climax to a career of continuous labors for the eventual good of the
Kentucky slave owners as well as the slaves themselves.

"In the sale of any of my slaves, I direct that members of families
shall not be separated without their consent.

"My will is, and I accordingly direct, that the issue of all my female
slaves, which shall be born after the first day of January, 1850,
shall be free at the respective ages, of the males at twenty-eight,
and of the females at twenty-five; and that the three years next
preceding their arrival at the age of freedom, they shall be entitled
to their hire or wages for those years, or of the fair value of their
services, to defray the expense of transporting them to one of the
African colonies and of furnishing them with an outfit on their
arrival there.

"And I further direct, that they be taught to read, to write, and to
cipher, and that they be sent to Africa. I further will and direct,
that the issue of any of the females, who are so to be entitled to
their freedom, at the age of twenty-five, shall be free at their
birth, and that they be bound out as apprentices to learn farming, or
some useful trade, upon the condition also, of being taught to read,
to write, and to cipher. And I direct also, that the age of twenty-one
having been attained, they shall be sent to one of the African
colonies, to raise the necessary funds for which purpose, if they
shall not have previously earned them, they must be hired out for a
sufficient length of time.

"I require and enjoin my executors and descendants to pay particular
attention to the execution of this provision of my will. And if they
should sell any of the females who or whose issue are to be free, I
especially desire them to guard carefully the rights of such issue by
all suitable stipulations and sanctions in the contract of sale. But I
hope that it may not be necessary to sell any such persons who are to
be entitled to their freedom, but that they may be retained in the
possession of some of my descendants."--Colton, Reed & McKinley, Vol.
3, p. 153.

[422] Birney, William, _James G. Birney and his Times_, p. 132.

[423] Birney, William, _James G. Birney and his Times_, p. 133.

[424] _Ibid._, p. 182. The interesting story of Birney and his
troubles with his fellow townsmen does not come within the scope of
this investigation and will be found treated at length in William
Birney's _James G. Birney and His Times_.

[425] Birney, William, _James G. Birney and his Times_, p. 185.

[426] _Ibid._, p. 155.

[427] Birney, William, _James G. Birney and his Times_, p. 156.

[428] Quick to recognize this tendency, Clay referred to it in his
Senate speech of February 7, 1839:

"The proposition in Kentucky for gradual emancipation did not prevail,
but it was sustained by a large and respectable minority. That
minority had increased, and was increasing, until the abolitionists
commenced their operations. The effect has been to dissipate all
prospects whatever, for the present, of any scheme of gradual or other
emancipation. The people of that state have been shocked and alarmed
by these abolition movements, and the number who would now favor a
system even of gradual emancipation is probably less than it was in
the years 1798-9. At the session of the legislature held in 1837-8 the
question of calling a convention was submitted to a consideration of
the people by a law passed in conformity with the Constitution of that
state. Many motives existed for the passage of the law, and among them
that of emancipation had its influence. When the question was passed
upon by the people at their last annual election, only about one
fourth of the whole voters of the state supported a call of a
convention. The apprehension of the danger of abolition was the
leading consideration among the people for opposing the call. But for
that, but for the agitation of the question of abolition in states
whose population had no right, in the opinion of the people of
Kentucky, to interfere in the matter, the vote for a convention would
have been much larger, if it had not been carried.... Prior to the
agitation of this subject of abolition, there was a progressive
melioration in the condition of the slaves--schools of instruction
were opened by humane and religious persons. These are now all
checked, and a spirit of insubordination having shown itself in some
localities, traceable, it is believed, to abolition movements and
exertions, the legislative authority has found it expedient to infuse
fresh vigor into the police and the laws which regulate the conduct of
the slaves."--Colton, Reed & McKinley, _Works of Henry Clay_, Vol. 6,
pp. 153-154.

[429] _Niles' Register_, July 4, 1835.

[430] Shaler, N. S., _Kentucky_, p. 197.

[431] _Louisville Weekly Journal_, September 26, 1849.

[432] _Niles' Register_, May 9, 1849. Clay, Cassius, _Memoirs_, pp.
175-178. Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 59.

[433] Clay endeavored in his plan to be fair to all parties concerned,
not only the Negro but the slave owner as well, as is well evident in
the following paragraph, in which he sought to show the justice of his
scheme to the holders of Negroes in the State:

"That the system, will be attended with some sacrifices on the part of
the slaveholders, which are to be regretted, need not be denied. What
great and beneficent enterprise was ever accomplished without risk and
sacrifice! But these sacrifices are distant, contingent, and
inconsiderable. Assuming the year 1860 for the commencement of the
system, all slaves born prior to that time would remain such during
their lives, and the present loss of the slaveholder would be only the
difference in value of the female slave whose offspring, if she had
any, born after the first day of January, 1860, should be free at the
age of twenty-five or should be slaves for life. In the meantime, if
the right to remove or sell the slave out of the State should be
exercised, that trifling loss would not be incurred. The slaveholder,
after the commencement of the system, would lose the difference
between the value of the slaves for life and slaves until the age of
twenty-five years. He might also incur some inconsiderable expense in
rearing from their birth the issue of those who were to be free at
twenty-five, until they were old enough to be apprenticed out; but as
it is probable that they would be most generally bound to him, he
would receive some indemnity from their services until they attained
their majority."

[434] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 58.

[435] _Niles' Register_, February 21, 1849.

[436] We know how Clay felt about this matter, for he referred to it
at length in his speech in the Senate on February 20, 3850, in the
debate on the Compromise resolutions. Speaking particularly of his
letter of emancipation he declared: "I knew at the moment that I wrote
that letter in New Orleans, as well as I know at this moment, that a
majority of the people of Kentucky would not adopt my scheme, or
probably any project whatever of gradual emancipation. Perfectly well
did I know it; but I was anxious that, if any of my posterity, or any
human being who comes after me, should have occasion to look into my
sentiments, and ascertain what they were on this great institution of
slavery; to put them on record then; and ineffectual as I saw the
project would be, I felt it was a duty which I owed to myself, to
truth, to my country, and to my God, to record my sentiments. The
State of Kentucky has decided as I anticipated she would do. I regret
it; but I acquiesce in her decision." --Colton, Reed & McKinley,
_Works of Henry Clay_, Vol. 3, p. 353

[437] Collins, _History of Kentucky_, Vol. 1, p. 61.

[438] _Ibid._, Vol. 1, p. 83.

[439] Session Laws of 1863, p. 366.

[440] _Ibid._, 1856, Vol. 1, p. 50.

[441] _Maysville Eagle_, April 11, 1838.




BOOK REVIEWS


_The Negro in Literature and Art._ By BENJAMIN BRAWLEY. Duffield and
Company, New York, 1918. Pp. 176. Price $1.25.

This is an effort to put in succinct form an estimate of the Negro's
efforts in the creative world. The style of the book is largely
biographical. The opening chapter deals with Negro genius. Then around
such Negroes as Phyllis Wheatley, Paul Laurence Dunbar, Charles W.
Chestnutt, W. E. B. DuBois, William Stanley Braithwaite, Meta Warrick
Fuller, Henry O. Tanner, Frederick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington
are grouped most of the facts as to the achievements of the Negroes in
art, literature, and science. In the appendix there is a dissertation
on the Negro in American fiction. A helpful bibliography and a short
index are also added.

This book is unique in that it is the first work devoted exclusively
to this aspect of Negro history. It undertakes "to treat somewhat more
thoroughly than has ever before been attempted the achievement of the
Negro in the United States along literary and artistic lines, judging
this by absolute rather than by partial or limited standards." The
work is the result of studies begun by the author years ago and
published in booklet form in 1910 as _The Negro in Literature and
Art_. The substance of this treatise is found also in Professor
Brawley's _A Short History of the American Negro_. Certain articles
included therein have already been published in the _Springfield
Republican_, _The Southern Workman_, and the _Dial_. The appearance of
this work in the new form is justified by the author on the ground
that the constantly increasing material in this field has so changed
his viewpoint that the time seemed ripe for a more intensive review.

The purpose of the author is a lofty one. Here we see the effort to
inform the public that there is among Negroes a growing scholarship
which must be reckoned with in determining the thought of this
country. It is to convince the public that the Negro mind is
functioning along all lines of thought known to other races of
achievement. The purpose, too, is to set forth to Negroes examples of
successful men and women in this field to serve them as an incentive
to contribute to thought. Professor Brawley has, therefore, written an
interesting book which should attract all persons desiring to
understand those forces at work in the Negro mind and the manner in
which they have found expression.

                                   C. G. WOODSON

       *       *       *       *       *

_Negro Folk Songs._ By NATALIE CURTIS BURLIN. Book I. New York and
Boston, G. Schirmer. Pp. 42. Price 50 cents.

The unique features of Natalie Curtis Burlin's notation of Negro
folk-songs, collected in the South, are their complete truth to the
original folk-song, spirit and letter. The spontaneous part-singing of
groups of Negroes is a rare phenomenon in folk-music, for most simple
people sing only a unisono melody. Mrs. Curtis Burlin, unlike most
former collectors, has recorded not only the melody and words, but the
whole _choral_ folk-song, as sung in the South, with all its different
voices. To secure entire accuracy in so difficult a task, a phonograph
was used and the work was mainly accomplished in all its wealth of
octave at Hampton Institute, Virginia, under the auspices of which the
collection was undertaken and for the benefit of which the
publications are made. Not content with a by-ear approximation only of
the folk-song, Mrs. Burlin gave especial care to the notation of every
nuance of Negro singing--organic and rhythmic. The changing nuance
syncopations that give such expressive accent to the different solo
verses sung by the Negro "leader" have all been caught and put upon
paper. Doctor Talcott Williams, of the New York School of Journalism,
says that the example of this reverent and scholarly work marks a new
era in the collecting of Negro folk-music in this country.

The words of the songs--true folk-poems--have been noted in dialect
with the same truth to Negro rendering as the music. Furthermore, the
syllables stressed in the music are stressed in the written poem as
well; for in the mind of the Negro authors, words and music were one
spontaneous creation, and it is the _music_ that gives to the words
the accent, instead of the words forming the basis of the accentuation
of the music, as with us. This reproduction in verse of the original
Negro rhythms which are full of unexpected emphasis and captivating
syncopation forms a new departure in the manner of writing Negro poems
and it is believed that modern poets and writers of vers libre will
find interest in the richness and variety of Negro rhythms here shown.

Each song is prefaced by a few paragraphs of descriptive text and the
dedications of the different records to men who have helped to advance
the Negro summarize, in a sense, the progress of the race since
emancipation.

The recording of Negro folk-songs was prefaced by Mrs. Burlin by a
year's study of the native music of Africa. Doubleday, Page & Co. will
bring out in the autumn her book entitled _Songs From the Dark
Continent_, containing the results of careful study of native
folk-lore and music told and sung by two African boys (one a Zulu and
the other from the Ndan tribe) who had come directly to Hampton
Institute from the Dark Continent. This book plainly proves the
relationship of American Negro music to its parent stem in Africa, and
reveals the poetic as well as musical gifts latent in the black race.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The Black Man's Part in the War._ By SIR H. H. JOHNSTON. Simpkin
Marshall, London, 1917.

Taking into consideration that the United Kingdom now rules 50,000,000
of Africans who are well represented in the battle line by the
thousands of Negroes fighting to make democracy safe in the world of
the white man, from which the blacks are excluded, this sympathetic
writer here endeavors to give these soldiers of color credit for their
unselfish services. The highest tribute which he pays them is that
their loyalty is incontestable. The writer, therefore, makes an appeal
in behalf of safeguarding their interests and reasonably preserving
their independence after the war. Having in mind the new alignments of
trade, he sees the Africans as the producers of the tropical products
which white men will need. Their future loyalty in the competitive
commercial world after the war is also necessary to the salvation of
the English people in the tropics and at home.

The writer believes too that to secure this necessary loyalty the
natives must be given political recognition. The rights of the black
man as a citizen of the empire must be affirmed wherever the
territories have been under British rule long enough to acquire a very
British tone in language, education and ideals. He hopes also that the
present tendency of the natives of the late German possessions to
prefer the rule of the British to that of their former masters may be
further accentuated by the efforts of Englishmen to treat these
natives with more consideration. The writer advocates also a fair
division of land where the two races are brought into contact with
each other as in Rhodesia.

To strengthen the claims he makes for the recognition of the black man
the writer has well illustrated his book with plates showing the
advancement of Negroes to arouse interest in their behalf. The book
is, of necessity, incomplete, as the war has not yet ended; but, on
the whole, students of Negro life and history will find it profitable
to read this broad enlightened working program for changing the white
man's attitude toward a large part of the human family which not only
has done him no great wrong, but has borne his burdens when he has
been about to fall beneath the load.

       *       *       *       *       *

_History of the Civil War._ By JAMES FORD RHODES, LL.D., D.Litt.
McMillan Company, New York. 1861-1865. Pp. 454.

Mr. Rhodes has covered this ground in detail in his _History of the
United States_ in seven volumes. But this work is not an abridgment of
the three volumes of that history dealing with the Civil War. Since
writing his first history he has had access to much new material and
many valuable treatments of certain periods of the Civil War. He has,
therefore, considered it necessary to bring out this new volume that
he may show the bearing of these new facts on his grasp of this period
of our history.

Influenced by the dominant thought of the present war, Mr. Rhodes
treats such conditions as unpreparedness, the privations of the war,
lack of tea and coffee, the lack of bread and meat, the difficulty of
transportation, conscription, high prices, loans, high taxation, and
consequent distress. The Negroes are necessarily mentioned in the
discussion of slavery in the territories, the attempted slavery
compromises, Lincoln's handling of the question, the effect on them of
the movements of the armies, and the efforts at emancipation leading
up to the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. Mention is also
made of the conduct of the slaves who accompanied the Confederates and
of those who followed and fought with the Union army.

Mr. Rhodes is here at his best, that is, when writing on the Civil
War. But this seems to be mere chance. He writes a good history of the
Civil War because he happens to be a Unionist, and no one has yet
proved that the Union cause was wrong. He is after all an
impressionable historian, accepting almost anything he picks up, but
embellishing it so well as to win the American public, whose
scholarship has not yet performed the task of publishing an authentic
history of the Civil War from the viewpoint of treating the records
scientifically. When Rhodes elsewhere takes up the Negro in the
Reconstruction he shows his lack of ability as an historian in
accepting almost everything which he has heard or read about the Negro
and in branding, therefore, as mistakes and failures all of the
efforts to elevate the Negro to the dignity of citizenship and to deal
with him as a human being.




NOTES


William Bernard Hartgrove, one of the five members who participated in
the organization of the Association for the Study of Negro Life and
History in Chicago in 1915, died at Albuquerque, New Mexico, on the
twenty-fourth of April. In his death the Association lost a
substantial supporter and friend. He was an unselfish, wide-awake and
enterprising teacher, endeavoring always to be instrumental in the
uplift of the Negro. During the last ten years of his life he devoted
much of his time and means to the work of the National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People, serving the local branch most of
that period as secretary. When the Association for the Study of Negro
Life and History was organized he was among the first to see its
possibilities and to give it financial as well as moral support. He
made himself useful in assisting the editor in his arduous duties
during the days when the work was in the making. He contributed to the
JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY, moreover, a number of articles, among which
are: _The Story of Maria Louise Moore and Fannie M. Richards_, _The
Negro Soldier in the American Revolution_, and _The Story of Josiah
Henson_.

       *       *       *       *       *

Mention of the slave Archy in Miss Beasley's _Slavery in California_
has called forth from a relative of his the following short sketch:

Archy's mother was named Maria. Maria had four children: Archy,
Candace, Pompey and Quitman. (I am the daughter of Candace.) At the
time Charles A. Stoval took Archy to California, Maria with her other
children were with Simeon Stoval, the father of Chas. A. Stoval.

Chas. A. Stoval had been graduated in medicine and had returned home
to begin practice, but his health having failed him, he went to
California, taking my Uncle Archy with him. My grandmother Maria heard
through the relatives of Stoval of Archy during the time Stoval
remained in California. But near the close of the Civil War, Chas. A.
Stoval returned to Mississippi and remained there until his death a
few years later. After Stoval came back from California, my
grandmother never heard any more of her son Archy, except when she
once heard that he was with the Indians, who were treating him for
some kind of sickness. Whether he died or whether this rumor was put
out to keep the Stovals from trying to steal him and bring him back to
Mississippi I have never been able to learn. My grandmother Maria
continued to search for Archy, by writing several times to San
Francisco, but without success. She died in 1884. Pompey and Quitman
continued to live near Jackson, Miss., where Quitman died some time
ago. Pompey was still alive when I last heard of him.

                                   MRS. R. A. HUNT

       *       *       *       *       *

_German East Africa_, by A. F. Calvert, has been published by Werner
Laurie, London.

Messrs. Routledge, of London, will soon bring out a volume of _Select
Constitutional Documents Illustrating the History of South Africa_.

Dr. H. K. W. Kumm's history of modern missionary work has appeared
with imprint of MacMillan with the title _African Missionary Heroes
and Heroines_.

Doubleday, Page and Company announce the appearance of _Education and
Life_, by Doctor Francis Greenwood Peabody, of Harvard University.
This is a short history of Hampton Institute during the last fifty
years, prepared at the request of the trustees.




THE JOURNAL

OF

NEGRO HISTORY

VOL. III--OCTOBER, 1918--NO. 4




THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MISCEGENATION OF THE WHITES AND BLACKS


Although science has uprooted the theory, a number of writers are
loath to give up the contention that the white race is superior to
others, as it is still hoped that the Caucasian race may be preserved
in its purity, especially so far as it means miscegenation with the
blacks. But there are others who express doubt that the integrity of
the dominant race has been maintained.[442] Scholars have for
centuries differed as to the composition of the mixed breed stock
constituting the Mediterranean race and especially about that in Egypt
and the Barbary States. In that part of the dark continent many
inhabitants have certain characteristics which are more Caucasian than
negroid and have achieved more than investigators have been willing to
consider the civilization of the Negro. It is clear, however, that
although the people of northern Africa cannot be classed as Negroes,
being bounded on the south by the masses of African blacks, they have
so generally mixed their blood with that of the blacks that in many
parts they are no nearer to any white stock than the Negroes of the
United States.

This miscegenation, to be sure, increased toward the south into
central Africa, but it has extended also to the north and east into
Asia and Europe. Traces of Negro blood have been found in the Malay
States, India and Polynesia. In the Arabian Peninsula it has been so
extensive as to constitute a large group there called the Arabised
Negroes. But most significant of all has been the invasion of Europe
by persons of African blood. Professor Sergi leads one to conclude
that the ancient Pelasgii were of African origin or probably the
descendants of the race which settled northern Africa and southern
Europe, and are therefore due credit for the achievements of the early
Greek and Italian civilizations.[443]

There is much evidence of a further extension of this infusion in the
Mediterranean world.

     "Recent discoveries made in the vicinity of the principality of
     Monaco and others in Italy and western France," says MacDonald,
     "would seem to reveal ... the actual fact that many thousand
     years ago a negroid race had penetrated through Italy into
     France, leaving traces at the present day in the physiognomy of
     the peoples of southern Italy, Sicily, Sardinia and western
     France, and even in the western parts of the United Kingdom of
     Great Britain and Ireland. There are even at the present day some
     examples of the Keltiberian peoples of western Scotland, southern
     and western Wales, southern and western Ireland, of distinctly
     negroid aspect, and in whose ancestry there is no indication
     whatever of any connection with the West Indies or with Modern
     Africa. Still more marked is this feature in the peoples of
     southern and western France and of the other parts of the
     Mediterranean already mentioned."[444]

Because of the temperament of the Portugese this infusion of African
blood was still more striking in their country. As the Portugese are a
good-natured people void of race hate they did not dread the
miscegenation of the races. One finds in southern Portugal a "strong
Moorish, North African element" and also an "old intermixture with
those Negroes who were imported thither from Northwest Africa to till
the scantily populated southern provinces."[445] This miscegenation
among the Portugese easily extended to the New World. Then followed
the story of the Caramarii, the descendants of the Portugese, who
after being shipwrecked near Bahia arose to prominence among the
Tupinambo Indians and produced a clan of half-castes by taking to
himself numerous native women.[446] This admixture served as a
stepping stone to the assimilation of the Negroes when they came.

There immigrated later into Brazil other settlers who, mixing eagerly
with the Amerindians, gave rise to a race called Mamelucos who began
to mix maritally with the imported Negro women. The French and Dutch
too in caring for their offspring by native women promoted the same.
"They educated them, set them free, lifted them above servitude, and
raised them socially to the level of the whites"[447] so that today
generally speaking there are no distinctions in society or politics in
Brazil. Commenting on this condition in Brazil, Agassiz said: "This
hybrid class, although more marked here because the Indian is added,
is very numerous in all cities; perhaps, the fact, so honorable to
Brazil, that the free Negro has full access to all privileges of any
free citizen, rather tends to increase than to dimmish that number."
After emancipation in Brazil in 1888, the already marked tendency
toward this fusion of the slave and the master classes gradually
increased.[448]

The Spaniards mixed less freely with the Negroes than did the
Portugese but mixed just the same. At first they seriously considered
the inconveniences which might arise from miscegenation under frontier
conditions and generally refrained from extensive intermingling. But
men are but men and as Spanish women were far too few in the New
World at that time, the other sex of their race soon yielded to the
charms of women of African blood. The rise of the mixed breeds too
further facilitated the movement. Spaniards who refused to intermingle
with the blacks found it convenient to approach the hybrids who showed
less color. In the course of time, therefore, the assimilation of the
blacks was as pronounced in some of the Spanish colonies as in those
which originally exhibited less race antipathy. There are millions of
Hispanicized Negroes in Latin America. Many of the mixed breeds,
however, have Indian rather than Negro blood.[449]

Miscegenation had its best chance among the French. Not being
disinclined to mingle with Negroes, the French early faced the problem
of the half caste, which was given consideration in the most human of
all slave regulations, the _Code Noir_.[450] It provided that free men
who had children from their concubinage with women-slaves (if they
consented to such concubinage) should be punished by a fine of two
thousand pounds of sugar. But if the offender was the master himself,
in addition to the fine, the slave should be taken from him, sold for
the benefit of the hospital and never be allowed to be freed;
excepting, that, if the man was not married to another person at the
time of his concubinage, he was to marry the woman slave, who,
together with her children, should thereby become free. Masters were
forbidden to constrain slaves to marry against their will. Many
Frenchmen like those in Haiti married their Negro mistresses,
producing attractive half caste women who because of their wealth were
sought by gentlemen in preference to their own women without dot.

Among the English the situation was decidedly different. There was not
so much need for the use of Negro women by Englishmen in the New
World, but there was the same tendency to cohabit with them. In the
end, however, the English, unlike the Latins, disowned their offspring
by slave women, leaving these children to follow the condition of
their mother. There was, therefore, not so much less miscegenation
among the English but there remained the natural tendency so to
denounce these unions as eventually to restrict the custom, as it is
today, to the weaker types of both races, the offspring of whom in the
case of slave mothers became a commodity in the commercial world.

There was extensive miscegenation in the English colonies, however,
before the race as a majority could realize the apparent need for
maintaining its integrity. With the development of the industries came
the use of the white servants as well as the slaves. The status of the
one differed from that of the other in that the former at the
expiration of his term of service could become free whereas the latter
was doomed to servitude for life. In the absence of social
distinctions between these two classes of laborers there arose
considerable intermingling growing out of a community of interests. In
the colonies in which the laborers were largely of one class or the
other not so much of this admixture was feared, but in the plantations
having a considerable sprinkling of the two miscegenation usually
ensued.

The following, therefore, was enacted in Maryland in 1661 as a
response to the question of the council to the lower house as to what
it intended should become of such free women of the English or other
Christian nations as married Negroes or other slaves.[451] The
preamble reads: "And forasmuch as divers freeborn _English_ women,
forgetful of their free condition, and to the disgrace of our nation,
do intermarry with negro slaves,[452] by which also divers suits may
arise, touching the issue of such women, and a great damage doth
befall the master of such negroes, for preservation whereof for
deterring such free-born women from such shameful matches, _be it
enacted_: That whatsoever free-born woman shall intermarry with any
slave, from and after the last day of the present assembly, shall
serve the master of such slave during the life of her husband; and
that all the issues of such free-born women, so married, shall be
slaves as their fathers were." "And be it further enacted: That all
the issues of _English_, or other free-born women, that have already
married negroes, shall serve the master of their parents, till they be
thirty years of age and no longer."[453]

According to A. J. Calhoun, however, all planters of Maryland did not
manifest so much ire because of this custom among indentured servants.
"Planters, said he, "sometimes married white women servants to Negroes
in order to transform the Negroes and their offspring into
slaves.[454] This was in violation of the ancient unwritten law that
the children of a free woman, the father being a slave, follow the
status of their mother and are free. The custom gave rise to an
interesting case. "Irish Nell," one of the servants brought to
Maryland by Lord Baltimore, was sold by him to a planter when he
returned to England. Following the custom of other masters who held
white women as servants, he soon married her to a Negro named Butler
to produce slaves. Upon hearing this, Baltimore used his influence to
have the law repealed but the abrogation of it was construed by the
Court of Appeals not to have any effect on the status of her offspring
almost a century later when William and Mary Butler sued for their
freedom on the ground that they descended from this white woman. The
Provincial Court had granted them freedom but in this decision the
Court of Appeals reversed the lower tribunal on the ground that "Irish
Nell" was a slave before the measure repealing the act had been
passed. This case came up again 1787 when Mary, the daughter of
William and Mary Butler, petitioned the State for freedom. Both
tribunals then decided to grant this petition.[455]

The act of repeal of 1681, therefore, is self explanatory. The
preamble reads: "Forasmuch as, divers free-born _English_, or white
women, sometimes by the instigation, procurement or connivance of
their masters, mistresses, or dames, and always to the satisfaction of
their lascivious and lustful desires, and to the disgrace not only of
the _English_, but also of many other Christian nations, do intermarry
with Negroes and slaves, by which means, divers inconveniences,
controversies, and suits may arise, touching the issue or children of
such free-born women aforesaid; for the prevention whereof for the
future, _Be it enacted_: That if the marriage of any woman-servant
with any slave shall take place by the procurement of permission of
the master, such woman and her issue shall be free." It enacted a
penalty by fine on the master or mistress and on the person joining
the parties in marriage.[456]

The effect of this law was merely to prevent masters from prostituting
white women to an economic purpose. It did not prevent the
miscegenation of the two races. McCormac says: "Mingling of the races
in Maryland continued during the eighteenth century, in spite of all
laws against it. Preventing marriages of white servants with slaves
only led to a greater social evil, which caused a reaction of public
sentiment against the servant. Masters and society in general were
burdened with the care of illegitimate mulatto children, and it became
necessary to frame laws compelling the guilty parties to reimburse the
masters for the maintenance of these unfortunate waifs."[457] To
remedy this laws were passed in 1715 and 1717 to reduce to the status
of a servant for seven years any white man or white woman who
cohabited with any Negro, free or slave. Their children were made
servants for thirty-one years, a black thus concerned was reduced to
slavery for life and the maintenance of the bastard children of women
servants was made incumbent upon masters. If the father of an
illegitimate child could be discovered, he would have to support his
offspring. If not this duty fell upon the mother who had to discharge
it by servitude or otherwise.[458]

As what had been done to prevent the admixture was not sufficient, the
Maryland General Assembly took the following action in 1728:

     "Whereas by the act of assembly relating to servants and slaves,
     there is no provision made for the punishment of free mulatto
     women, having bastard children by negroes and other slaves, nor
     is there any provision made in the said act for the punishment of
     free negro women, having bastard children by white men; and
     forasmuch as such copulations are as unnatural and inordinate as
     between white women and negro men, or other slaves.

     "_Be it enacted_, That from and after the end of this present
     session of assembly, that all such free mulatto women, having
     bastard children, either within or after the time of their
     service, (_and their issue_,) shall be subject to the same
     penalties that white women and their issue are, for having
     mulatto bastards, by the act, entitled, An act relating to
     servants and slaves.

     "_And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, by and
     with the advice and consent aforesaid_, that from and after the
     end of this present session of assembly, that all free negro
     women, having bastard children by white men, (_and their issue_,)
     shall be subject to the same penalties that white women are, by
     the act aforesaid, for having bastards by negro men."[459]

Virginia which faced the same problem did not lag far behind Maryland.
In 1630 the Governor and Council in Court ordered Hugh Davis to be
soundly whipped before an assembly of Negroes and others for abusing
himself to the dishonor of God and shame of a Christian by defiling
his body in lying with a Negro, which he was to acknowledge next
Sabbath day. In 1662 the colony imposed double fines for fornication
with a Negro, but did not restrict intermarriage until 1691.[460] The
words of the preamble give the reasons for this action. It says:

     "And for the prevention of that abominable mixture and spurious
     issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by
     negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or
     other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one
     another, _Be it enacted by the authoritie aforesaid, and it is
     hereby enacted_, That for the time to come, whatsoever English or
     other white man or woman being free shall intermarry with a
     negro, mulatto, or Indian man or woman bond or free shall within
     three months after such marriage be banished and removed from
     this dominion forever, and that the justices of each respective
     countie within this dominion make it their perticular care, that
     this act be put in effectuall execution."

If any free English woman should have a bastard child by any Negro or
mulatto, she should pay the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, within one
month after such bastard child should be born, to the church wardens
of the parish where she should be delivered of such child, and in
default of such payment she should be taken into the possession of the
said church wardens and disposed of for five years, and such bastard
child should be bound out as a servant by the church wardens until he
or she should attain the age of thirty years, and in case such English
woman that should have such bastard child be a servant, she should be
sold by the church wardens (after her time is expired that she ought
by law to serve her master) for five years, and the money she should
be sold for divided as before appointed, and the child should serve as
aforesaid.[461]

It was further provided in 1753 that if any woman servant should have
a bastard child by a Negro or mulatto, over and above the year's
service due to her master or owner, she should immediately upon the
expiration of her time, to her then present master, or owner, pay down
to the church wardens of the parish wherein such child should be born
for the use of the said parish, fifteen pounds current money of
Virginia, or be sold for five years to the use aforesaid; and if a
free Christian white woman should have such bastard child by a Negro,
or mulatto, for every such offence, she should within one month after
her delivery of such bastard child, pay to the church wardens for the
time being, of the parish wherein such child should be born, for the
use of the said parish, fifteen pounds current money of Virginia, or
be by them sold for five years to the use aforesaid; and in both the
said cases, the church wardens should bind the said child to be a
servant until it should be of thirty-one years of age.

And for a further prevention of that "abominable mixture, and the
spurious issue, which may hereafter increase in this his majesty's
colony and dominion as well by English, and other white men and women,
intermarrying with Negroes or mulattoes, as by their unlawful coition
with them" it was enacted that whatsoever English, or other white man
or woman, being free, should intermarry with a Negro, or mulatto man
or woman bond or free, should by judgment of the county court, be
committed to prison and there remain during the space of six months,
without bail or main-prize, and should forfeit and pay ten pounds
current money of Virginia, to the use of the parish as aforesaid. It
was further enacted that no minister of the Church of England, or
other minister or person whatsoever, within that colony and dominion,
should thereafter presume to marry a white man with a Negro, or
mulatto woman, or to marry a white woman with a Negro or mulatto man,
upon pain of forfeiting and paying for every such marriage, the sum of
ten thousand pounds of tobacco.[462]

It developed later that these laws did not meet all requirements, for
there were in subsequent years so many illegitimate children born of
such mothers that they became a public charge.[463] Those of Negro
blood were bound out by law. According to Russell, "In 1727 it was
ordered that David James a free negro boy, be bound to Mr. James Isdel
'who is to teach him to read ye bible distinctly also ye trade of a
gunsmith that he carry him to ye Clark's office & take Indenture to
that purpose.' "By the Warwick County court it was 'ordered that
Malacai, a mulatto boy, son of mulatto Betty be, by the Church Wardens
of this Parish bound to Thomas Hobday to learn the art of a planter
according to law.' By order of the Norfolk County court, about 1770, a
free negro was bound out 'to learn the trade of a tanner.'"[464]

In making more stringent regulations for servants and slaves, North
Carolina provided in 1715 that if a white servant woman had a child by
a Negro, mulatto or Indian, she must serve her master two years extra
and should pay to the Church wardens immediately on the expiration of
that time six pounds for the use of the parish or be sold four years
for the use aforesaid.[465] A clergyman found guilty of officiating at
such a marriage should be fined fifty pounds. This law, according to
Bassett, did not succeed in preventing such unions. Two ministers were
indicted within two years for performing such a marriage ceremony. "In
one case the suit was dropped, in the other case the clergyman went
before the Chief Justice and confessed as it seems of his own
accord.... In 1727 a white woman was indicted in the General Court
because she had left her husband and was cohabiting with a negro
slave.... So far as general looseness was concerned this law of 1715
had no force. Brickell, who was a physician, says that white men of
the colony suffered a great deal from a malignant kind of venereal
disease which they took from the slaves."[466]

By the law of 1741 therefore the colony endeavored to prevent what the
General Assembly called "that abominable mixture and spurious issue,
which hereafter may increase in this government, by white men and
women intermarrying with Indians, Negroes, mustees, or mulattoes." It
was enacted that if any man or woman, being free, should intermarry
with an Indian, Negro, mustee or mulatto man or woman, or any person
of mixed blood, to the third generation, bond or free, he should, by
judgment of the county court forfeit and pay the sum of fifty pounds,
proclamation money, to the use of the parish.[467] It was also
provided that if any white servant woman should during the time of her
servitude, be delivered of a child, begotten by any Negro, mulatto or
Indian, such servant, over and above the time she was by this act to
serve her master or owner for such offence, should be sold by the
Church wardens of the parish, for two years, after the time by
indenture or otherwise had expired.[468]

The miscegenation of the whites and blacks extended so widely that it
became a matter of concern to the colonies farther north where the
Negro population was not considerable. Seeking also to prevent this
"spurious mixt issue" Massachusetts enacted in 1705 that a Negro or
mulatto man committing fornication with an "English woman, or a woman
of any other Christian nation," should be sold out of the province."
"An English man, or man of any other Christian nation committing
fornication with a Negro or mulatto woman," should be whipped, and the
woman sold out of the province. None of her Majesty's English or
Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation within that
province should contract matrimony with any Negro or mulatto, under a
penalty imposed on the person joining them in marriage. No master
should unreasonably deny marriage to his Negro with one of the same
nation; any law, usage or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.[469]

There was much social contact between the white servants and the
Negroes in Pennsylvania, where the number of the latter greatly
increased during the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Turner
says a white servant was indicted for this offence in Sussex County in
1677 and a tract of land there bore the name of "Mulatto Hall."[470]
According to the same writer Chester County seemed to have a large
number of these cases and laid down the principle that such admixture
should be prohibited,

     "For that hee," referring to a white man, "Contrary to his
     Masters Consent hath ... got wth child a certaine molato wooman
     Called Swart anna." "David Lewis Constable of Haverford Returned
     a Negro man of his And a white woman for having a Bastard Childe
     ... the Negroe said she Intised him and promised him to marry
     him: she being examined, Confest the same: the Court ordered that
     she shall receive Twenty one lashes on her bare Backe ... and the
     Court ordered the negroe never more to meddle with any white
     woman more uppon paine of his life."[471]

Advertising for Richard Molson in Philadelphia in 1720, his master
said, "He is in company with a white woman named Mary, who is supposed
now goes for his wife"; "and a white man named Garrett Choise, and
Jane his wife, which said white people are servants to some neighbors
of the said Richard Tilghman."[472] In 1722 a woman was punished for
abetting a clandestine marriage between a white woman and a Negro. In
the _Pennsylvania Gazette_, June 1, 1749, appeared the notice of the
departure of Isaac Cromwell, a mulatto, who ran away with an English
servant woman named Anne Greene.[473]

The Assembly, therefore, upon a petition from inhabitants inveighing
against this custom enacted a prohibitory law in 1725. This law
provided that no minister, pastor or magistrate or other person
whatsover who according to the laws of that province usually joined
people in marriage should upon any pretence whatever join in marriage
any Negro with any white person on the penalty of one hundred pounds.
And it was further enacted that if any white man or woman should
cohabit or dwell with any Negro under pretense of being married, such
white man or woman should be put out of service as above directed
until they come to the age of thirty-one years; and if any free Negro
man or woman should intermarry with a white man or woman, such Negro
should become a slave during life to be sold by order of the justice
of the quarter sessions of the respective county; and if any free
Negro man or woman should commit fornication or adultery with any
white man or woman, such Negro or Negroes should be sold as a servant
for seven years and the white man or woman should be punished as the
law directs in cases of adultery or fornication.[474]

This law seemed to have very little effect on the miscegenation of the
races in certain parts. In Chester County, according to the records of
1780, mulattoes constituted one fifth of the Negro population.[475]
Furthermore, that very year when the State of Pennsylvania had grown
sufficiently liberal to provide for gradual emancipation the law
against the mingling of the races was repealed. Mixed marriages
thereafter became common as the white and the blacks in the light of
the American Revolution realized liberty in its full meaning. Thomas
Branagan said:

     "There are many, very many blacks who ... begin to feel
     themselves consequential, ... will not be satisfied unless they
     get white women for wives, and are likewise exceedingly
     impertinent to white people in low circumstances.... I solemnly
     swear, I have seen more white women married to, and deluded
     through the arts of seduction by negroes in one year in
     Philadelphia, than for eight years I was visiting (West Indies
     and the Southern States). I know a black man who seduced a young
     white girl ... who soon after married him, and died with a broken
     heart. On her death he said that he would not disgrace himself to
     have a negro wife and acted accordingly, for he soon after
     married a white woman. ... There are perhaps hundreds of white
     women thus fascinated by black men in this city, and there are
     thousands of black children by them at present."[476]

A reaction thereafter set in against this custom during the first
decade of the nineteenth century, when fugitives in the rough were
rushing to that State, and culminated in an actual campaign against it
by 1820. That year a petition from Greene County said that many
Negroes had settled in Pennsylvania and had been able to seduce into
marriage "the minor children of the white inhabitants."[477] This
county, therefore, asked that these marriages be made an offence
against the laws of the State. Such a marriage was the cause of a riot
in Columbia in 1834 and in 1838 the members of the Constitutional
Convention engaged in a heated discussion of the custom.[478]
Petitions were frequently sent to the legislature asking that this
admixture be penalized by law, but no such action was ever taken.
Relying upon public opinion, however, the advocates of racial
integrity practically succeeded. Marriages of whites and blacks
eventually became so odious that they led to disturbances as in the
case of the riot of 1849, one of the causes of which was that a white
man was living with a Negro wife.[479] This was almost ineffective,
however, in the prevention of race admixture. Clandestine
intermingling went on and tended to increase in enormous proportions.
The conclusive proof of this is that in 1860 mulattoes constituted one
third of the Negro population of Pennsylvania.

Persons who professed seriously to consider the future of slavery,
therefore, saw that miscegenation and especially the general
connection of white men with their female slaves introduced a mulatto
race whose numbers would become dangerous, if the affections of their
white parents were permitted to render them free.[480] The Americans
of the future would thereby become a race of mixed breeds rather than
a white and a black population. As the lust of white persons for those
of color was too strong to prevent this miscegenation, the liberty of
emancipating their mulatto offspring was restricted in the slave
States but that of selling them remained.[481]

These laws eventually, therefore, had their desired effect. They were
never intended to prevent the miscegenation of the races but to debase
to a still lower status the offspring of the blacks who in spite of
public opinion might intermarry with the poor white women and to leave
women of color without protection against white men, who might use
them for convenience, whereas white women and black men would
gradually grow separate and distinct in their social relations.
Although thereafter the offspring of blacks and whites did not
diminish, instead of being gradually assimilated to the type of the
Caucasian they tended to constitute a peculiar class commonly called
people of color having a higher social status than that of the blacks
but finally classified with all other persons of African blood as
Negroes.

While it later became a capital offence in some of the slave States
for a Negro man to cohabit with a white woman, Abdy who toured this
country from 1833 to 1834 doubted that such laws were enforced. "A
man," said he, "was hanged not long ago for this crime at New Orleans.
The partner of his guilt--his master's daughter--endeavored to save
his life, by avowing that she alone was to blame. She died shortly
after his execution."[482] With the white man and the Negro woman the
situation was different. A sister of President Madison once said to
the Reverend George Bourne, then a Presbyterian minister in Virginia:
"We Southern ladies are complimented with the name of wives; but we
are only the mistresses of seraglios." The masters of the female
slaves, however, were not always the only persons of loose morals.
Many women of color were also prostituted to the purposes of
young white men[483] and overseers.[484] Goodell reports a
well-authenticated account of a respectable Christian lady at the
South who kept a handsome mulatto female for the use of her genteel
son, as a method of deterring him, as she said, "from indiscriminate
and vulgar indulgences."[485] Harriet Martineau discovered a young
white man who on visiting a southern lady became insanely enamored of
her intelligent quadroon maid. He sought to purchase her but the owner
refused to sell the slave because of her unusual worth. The young
white man persisted in trying to effect this purchase and finally
informed her owner that he could not live without this attractive
slave. Thereupon the white lady sold the woman of color to satisfy the
lust of her friend.[486]

The accomplishment of this task of reducing the free people of color
to the status of the blacks, however, was not easy. In the first
place, so many persons of color had risen to positions of usefulness
among progressive people and had formed connections with them that an
abrupt separation was both inexpedient and undesirable. Exceptions to
the hard and fast rules of caste were often made to relieve the people
of color. Moreover, the miscegenation of the races in the South and
especially in large cities like Charleston and New Orleans had gone to
the extent that from these centers eventually went, as they do now, a
large number of quadroons and octoroons,[487] who elsewhere crossed
over to the other race.

White men ashamed of the planters who abused helpless black women are
now trying to minimize the prevalence of this custom. Such an effort,
however, means little in the face of the facts that one seventh of the
Negroes in the United States had in their veins any amount of
Caucasian blood in 1860 and according to the last census more than one
fifth of them have this infusion. Furthermore the testimony of
travelers in this country during the slavery period support the
contention that race admixture was common.[488]

So extensive did it become that the most prominent white men in the
country did not escape. Benjamin Franklin seems to have made no secret
of his associations with Negro women.[490] Russell connects many of
these cases with the master class in Virginia.[491] There are now in
Washington Negroes who call themselves the descendants of two
Virginians who attained the presidency of the United States.

The abolitionists made positive statements about the mulatto offspring
of Thomas Jefferson. Goodell lamented the fact that Jefferson in his
will had to entreat the legislature of Virginia to confirm his bequest
of freedom to his own reputed enslaved offspring that they might
remain in the State of their nativity, where their families and
connections were.[492] Writing in 1845, the editor of the _Cleveland
American_ expressed regret that notwithstanding all the services and
sacrifices of Jefferson in the establishment of the freedom of this
country, his own son then living in Ohio was not allowed to vote or
bear witness in a court of justice. The editor of the _Ohio Star_
said: "We are not sure whether this is intended as a statement of
actual fact, or of what might possibly and naturally enough be true."
_The Cincinnati Herald_ inquired: "Is this a fact? If so, it ought to
be known. Perhaps 'the Democracy' might be induced to pass a special
act in his favor." _The Cleveland American_, therefore, added: "We are
credibly informed that a natural son of Jefferson by the celebrated
'Black Sal,' a person of no little renown in the politics of 1800 and
thereafter, is now living in a central county of Ohio. We shall
endeavor to get at the truth of the matter and make public the result
of our inquiries."[493]

A later report of miscegenation of this kind was recorded by Jane Grey
Swisshelm in her _Half a Century_, where she states that a daughter of
President John Tyler "ran away with the man she loved in order that
she might be married, but for this they must reach foreign soil. A
young lady of the White House could not marry the man of her choice in
the United States. The lovers were captured and she was brought to His
Excellency, her father, who sold her to a slave-trader. From that
Washington slave-pen she was taken to New Orleans by a man who
expected to get twenty-five hundred dollars for her on account of her
great beauty.[494]

                                   CARTER G. WOODSON


FOOTNOTES:

[442] MacDonald, _Trade, Politics and Christianity in Africa and the
East_, Chapter on inter-racial marriage, p. 239; and THE JOURNAL OF
NEGRO HISTORY, pp. 329, 334-344.

[443] _Report of First Race Congress_, 1911, p. 330; MacDonald,
_Trade, Politics, and Christianity_, p. 235; and _Contemporary
Review_, August, 1911.

[444] _Report of First Races Congress_, 1911, p. 330.

[445] Johnston, _The Negro in the New World_, p. 98.

[446] _Ibid._, p. 78.

[447] _Ibid._, pp. 98-99.

[448] Authorities consider the Amerindians the most fecund stock in
the country, especially when mixed with an effusion of white or black
blood. Agassiz, _A Journey in Brazil in 1868_.

[449] Johnston, _The Negro in the New World_, p. 135.

[450] _Code Noir._

[451] Brackett, _The Negro in Maryland_, pp. 32-33.

[452] Benjamin Banneker's mother was a white woman who married one of
her own slaves. See Tyson, _Benjamin Banneker_, p. 3.

[453] _Archives of Maryland, Proceedings of the General Assembly_,
1637-1664, pp. 533-534.

[454] Calhoun, _A Social History of the American Family_, p. 94.

[455] Harris and McHenry Reports, I, pp. 374, 376; II, pp. 26, 38,
214, 233.

[456] Hurd, _Law of Freedom and Bondage_, VI, pp. 249-250.

[457] McCormac, _White Servitude in Maryland_, p. 70.

[458] Act of Assembly, Oct., 1727.

[459] Dorsey, _The General Public Statutory Law and Public Local Law
of State of Maryland_, from 1692-1839, p. 79.

[460] Bullagh, _White Servitude in the Colony of Virginia_, pp. 72,
73.

[461] Hening, _The Statutes at Large_, I, pp. 146, 532. II, 170; III,
pp. 86-88, 252.

[462] Hening, _Statutes at Large_, VI, pp. 360-362.

[463] Meade, _Old Churches and Families of Virginia_, I, p. 366.

[464] Russell, _Free Negro in Virginia_, pp. 138-139.

[465] Bassett, _Slavery and Servitude in North Carolina_, p. 83.

[466] _Ibid._, pp. 58-59. See also _Natural History of North
Carolina_, p. 48; and Hawk's _History of North Carolina_, II, pp.
126-127.

[467] Potter, _Revised Laws of North Carolina_, I, p. 130.

[468] _Ibid._, I, p. 157.

[469] _Massachusetts Charters, etc._, p. 747; Hurd, _Law of Freedom
and Bondage_, VI, p. 262.

[470] Turner, _The Negro in Pennsylvania_, pp. 29-30.

[471] _Ibid._, p. 30.

[472] _The American Weekly Mercury_ (Philadelphia), August 20, 1720.

[473] _The Pennsylvania Gazette_, June 1, 1749.

[474] _Statutes at Large_, IV, p. 62.

[475] Turner, _The Negro in Pennsylvania_, p. 31.

[476] Branagan, _Serious Remonstrances_, pp. 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74,
75, 102; _Somerset Whig_, March 12, 1818, and _Union Times_, August
15, 1834.

[477] _Journal of Senate_, 1820-1821, p. 213; and _American Daily
Advertiser_, January 23, 1821.

[478] _Proceedings and Debates of the Convention of 1838_, X, p. 230.

[479] _The Spirit of the Times_, October 10, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, 1849.

[480] Harriet Martineau, _Views of Slavery and Emancipation_, p. 10.

[481] Hart, _Slavery and Abolition_, p. 182; _Censuses of the United
States_.

[482] Abdy, _North America_, I, p. 160.

[483] Child, _Anti-slavery Catechism_, p. 17; 2 _Howard Mississippi
Reports_, p. 837.

[484] Kemble, _Georgian Plantation_, pp. 140, 162, 199, 208-210;
Olmstead, _Seaboard States_, pp. 599-600; Rhodes, _United States_, I,
pp. 341-343.

[485] Goodell, _Slave Code_, pp. 111-112.

[486] Harriet Martineau, _Views of Slavery and Emancipation_, p. 13.

[487] Featherstonaugh, _Excursion_, p. 141; Buckingham, _Slave
States_, I, p. 358.

[488] Writing of conditions in this country prior to the American
Revolution, Anne Grant found only two cases of miscegenation in Albany
before this period but saw it well established later by the British
soldiers. Johann Schoepf--witnessed this situation in Charleston in
1784. J. P. Brissot saw this tendency toward miscegenation as a
striking feature of society among the French in the Ohio Valley in
1788. The Duke of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach was very much impressed with
the numerous quadroons and octoroons of New Orleans in 1825 and
Charles Gayarré portrayed the same conditions there in 1830. Frederika
Bremer frequently met with this class while touring the South in 1850.
See Grant, _Memoirs of An American Lady_, p. 28; Schoepf, _Travels in
the Confederation_, II, p. 382; Brissot, _Travels_, II, p. 61;
Saxe-Weimar, _Travels_, II, p. 69; Grace King, _New Orleans_, pp.
346-349; Frederika Bremer, _Homes of the New World_, I, pp. 325, 326,
382, 385.

[489] _The American Journal of Sociology_, XXII, p. 98.

[490] _Ibid._, XXII, p. 98.

[491] See Russell, _Free Negro in Virginia_, p. 127.

[492] Goodell, _Slave Code_, p. 376.

[493] _The Liberator_, December 19, 1845.

[494] Swisshelm, _Half a Century_, p. 129.




GERRIT SMITH'S EFFORT IN BEHALF OF THE NEGROES IN NEW YORK


During the first half of the nineteenth century, the condition of the
free Negroes in the Southern States became more and more critical. The
doctrine of the rights of man, which had swept over the world in the
latter part of the eighteenth century had had its effect on the
colonists and resulted in the manumission of many slaves. These
freedmen taking advantage of their economic and educational
opportunities became an ever increasing menace to the social
institutions that had no foundation except that of slavery. Ambitious,
often aggressive, they were a constant source of dissatisfaction
because of the unhappy comparison of their lot with that of the
slaves. They, moreover, encouraged the slaves to improve their
condition and to escape to the North. This situation was rendered
still more critical for the reason that the South, considering slavery
indispensable to its economic life, was already being lashed into a
frenzy to gain new slave territory and to strengthen the institution
by every possible method of oppression of the blacks. Measures
inimical to the economic progress of freedmen were enacted.[495] Many
who had been manumitted were seized and again reduced to slavery.
Educational opportunities were restricted or denied. Legally they were
without voice and hence could secure no redress when wronged.[496]

This economic poverty, insecurity of personal liberty, and absolutely
negative political status, impelled the freedmen to find better
conditions in the North. The reaction against plantation life and the
glittering attractions of the large city with the prospect of earning
money less arduously no doubt account for their influx into the
industrial centers.[497] These free blacks migrated in great numbers
especially to New York and Philadelphia. The Colonization Society
attempted to solve the problem by effecting the colonization of the
free Negroes somewhere either within or without the United States.
Many friends of the Negroes and even some of the Negroes themselves
thought favorably of the idea and a few small colonies were formed in
the Western States and in Liberia.[498]

Among the anti-slavery men who at first saw no fault in the aims of
the Colonization Society was Gerrit Smith. The son of a slave owner in
the State of New York, he was acquainted with slavery in the milder
form in which it existed in the North. It was just two years before
his birth that the legislature of New York passed its act of
emancipation providing that all children after the year 1799 should be
free, the males on reaching the age of twenty-eight years and the
female twenty-five. His father, Peter Smith, was a slaveholder and the
owner of extensive lands in the counties of northern New York; and
even before his death the management of these vast properties devolved
upon his son.

He soon became deeply interested in the uplift of the slaves and
endeavored to improve their condition by gradual emancipation looking
forward to colonization. As early as 1834, his diary shows a growing
belief in the universal right to liberty. Years ripened this belief
and also developed his anti-land-monopolist principles, both of which
reached fruition in his act of 1846, by which he gave away thousands
of acres of land. He severed his connection with the Colonization
Society when that body overtly declared that it was not a society for
the abolition of slavery nor for the improvement of the blacks nor for
the suppression of the slave trade, and he threw his energy into the
work of abolition as fervently, if not as drastically, as
Garrison.[499]

Anti-land-monopolist as he was, Gerrit Smith believed that the life of
the small free farmer was calculated to develop thrift and self
respect in the character of the colored freedmen that he saw crowded
in sections of the large cities. For although enjoying greater
security of personal liberty, the mass of colored people in New York
State had not made much economic progress, even to the extent of
possessing property valued at two hundred and fifty dollars, which in
that State would have entitled them to the right to vote.[500] He said
that he had for years indulged the thought that when he had sold
enough land to pay his debts, he would give away the remainder to the
poor. He was an Agrarian, who wanted every man desirous to own a farm
to have one. He, therefore, felt that it was safe to make a beginning
in the work of distributing land to individuals. He had theretofore
given tracts of land to public institutions and a few small parcels to
individuals, but had not entered upon the larger task of making large
donations of land to the poor.

He then planned to transfer three thousand parcels of land of forty to
sixty acres each during the following three years. To whom among the
poor he should make these deeds, was a question he could not hastily
solve. He was sure, however, that, inasmuch as his home and the land
were both in the State of New York, it would be very suitable to
select his beneficiaries from among the people of that State. But for
a long time, he was at a loss to decide, whether to take his
beneficiaries generally from the meritorious poor or only from the
deserving Negroes. He said, "I could not put a bounty on color. I
shrank from the least appearance of doing so, and if I know my heart,
it was equally compassionate toward such white and black men as are
equal sufferers."[501] In the end, however, he concluded to confine
his gifts to Negroes.

He would not have come to this conclusion he said, if the land he had
to give away had been several times as much as it was, nor if the
Negroes, the poorest of the poor, had not been the most deeply wronged
class of the citizens. "That they are so," said he, "is evident, if
only from the fact, that the cruel, killing, Heaven-defying prejudice
of which they are victims, has closed against them the avenues to
riches and respectability--to happiness and usefulness. That they are
so, is also evident from the fact, that, whilst white men in this
State, however destitute of property, are allowed to vote for Civil
Rulers, every colored man in it who does not own landed estate to the
value of two-hundred and fifty dollars, is excluded from the exercise
of this natural and indispensably protective right."[502] He confessed
that he was influenced by the consideration that there was great
encouragement to improve the condition of the Negroes, because every
amelioration in it contributed to loosen the bands of the enslaved
portion of their outraged and afflicted race.

He, therefore, requested Reverend Theodore S. Wright, Reverend Charles
B. Ray, and Dr. J. McCune Smith, three representative Negroes of New
York City, to make out a list of the Negroes who should receive from
him parcels of land. His only restrictions upon them in making this
selection were that they should choose no person younger than
twenty-one and no person older than sixty; that they accept no person
who was in easy circumstances as to property; and no one who was
already the owner of land, and no drunkards.[503] He further promised
to pay all taxes as well as purchase money and interest due to the
State of New York hoping that none of the parcels would be sold for
the nonpayment of taxes.[504] The total number of colonists were to be
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-five, to be distributed as
follows: in the county of Suffolk, 127; Queens, 215; Kings, 197; New
York, 861; Richmond, 832; Rockland, 331; Westchester, 115; Dutchess,
150; Sullivan, 5; Ulster, 106; Orange, 136; and Putnam, 10. Although
this distribution was suggested the actual grants seem to have been
made in the counties of Franklin, Essex, Hamilton, Fulton, Oneida,
Delaware, Madison and Ulster.

On September 9, 1846, he wrote again to three gentlemen of color,
saying that a thousand of the deeds were already in the hands of the
committee for distribution. He had saved them the expense of securing
the certificate of the County Clerk by having the acknowledgment of
the execution taken by a Supreme Court judge. The only expense left
for the beneficiaries to bear was the recording of the deed. The
letter closed with a request that the three gentlemen prepare and send
out a circular among the persons receiving the deeds, making known to
them the conditions and reasons which actuated him in bestowing the
land. This was done and the recipients were exhorted to profit by the
chance to become land owners and thereby secure their right to vote.

These lands, as Smith realized and admitted, were not all arable but
many of them had considerable timber. Such property today would be
considered valuable, but in those days of plentitude it passed as
undesirable. Some of his enemies accused him of making for himself a
reputation for generosity by giving away useless land. There is no
evidence, however, that such accusations were made by the
Negroes.[505] But be that as it may, the experiment was a failure. It
was not successful because of the intractability of the land, the
harshness of the climate, and in a great measure, the inefficiency of
the settlers. They had none of the qualities of farmers. Furthermore,
having been disabled by infirmities and vices they could not as
beneficiaries answer the call of the benefactor. Peterboro, the town
opened to Negroes in this section did maintain a school and served as
a station of the underground railroad but the agricultural results
expected of the enterprise never materialized.[506] The main trouble
in this case was the impossibility of substituting something foreign
for individual enterprise.

The failure of the enterprise did not cause this philanthropist to
cease his activities in behalf of freedom and justice to the Negroes.
He continued a staunch abolitionist, demanding unconditional
emancipation of the slaves and leaving undone nothing which might
effect this change. He was once intimately associated with John Brown,
who at one time left his home and purchased from Smith a farm in the
Negro colony in order to live with the blacks and help them to improve
their economic condition. Smith lived until 1874, long enough to see
the Negroes freed and many of them making elsewhere that economic
progress which was the dream of his earlier years.

                                   ZITA DYSON


FOOTNOTES:

[495] See the session laws of the State Legislatures, and Woodson's
_Education of the Negro Prior to 1861_, pp. 151-178.

[496] Goodell, _Slave Code_, and Hurd, _The Law of Freedom and
Bondage_, II, pp. 1-218.

[497] Woodson, _A Century of Negro Migration_, Chapter II.

[498] The JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY, I, p. 276; II, p. 209.

[499] Frothingham, _Gerrit Smith_, pp. 94-143.

[500] Hurd, _Law of Freedom and Bondage_, II, p. 56.

[501] Frothingham, _Gerrit Smith_, p. 103.

[502] Frothingham, _Gerrit Smith_, 104.

[503] _Letter of Gerrit Smith to Theodore S. Wright, Charles B. Ray,
and J. McCune Smith._

[504] _Ibid._

[505] _Special Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education on the
Schools of the District of Columbia_, 1871, p. 367; _The African
Repository_, X. p. 312.

[506] Frothingham, _Gerrit Smith_, p. 73.




THE BUXTON SETTLEMENT IN CANADA


The Buxton, or Elgin Association Settlement, in Kent county, western
Ontario, was in many respects the most important attempt made before
the Civil War to found a Negro refugee colony in Canada. In
population, material wealth and general organization it was
outstanding, and the firm foundation upon which it was established is
shown by the fact that today, more than half a century after
emancipation, it is still a prosperous and distinctly Negro
settlement.

The western peninsula of Ontario, lying between Lakes Huron and Erie,
was long the Mecca of the fugitive slave. Bounded on the east by the
State of New York, on the west by Michigan, and on the south by Ohio
and northwestern Pennsylvania, this was the part of Canada most easily
reached by the fugitive; and Niagara, Cleveland, Detroit and other
lake ports saw thousands of refugees cross narrow strips of water to
"shake the lion's paw" and find freedom in the British queen's
dominions. During the forties and fifties there was a constant stream
of refugees into Canada. As many as thirty in a day would cross the
Detroit River at Fort Malden alone. Many of these went to the cities
and towns, but others found greater happiness in the separate Negro
communities which grew up here and there.

The history of the Buxton settlement, one of these, is closely linked
with the name of Rev. William King. King was a native of Londonderry,
Ireland, a graduate of Glasgow College, who had emigrated to the
United States and become rector of a college in Louisiana. Later he
returned to Scotland, studied theology in the Free Church College,
Edinburgh, and in 1846 was sent out to Canada as a missionary of the
Free Church of Scotland. While he was living in Louisiana he became,
through marriage, the owner of fifteen slaves of an estimated value
of $9,000. For a time he placed them on a neighboring plantation and
gave them the proceeds of their labor but that did not satisfy his
conscience and in 1848 he brought them to Canada, thereby
automatically giving them their freedom. His effort on their behalf
did not end here. Having brought them to this new country, he felt it
a duty to look after them, to educate and make of them useful
citizens. The same thing, he believed, could be done for others in
like circumstance.

The first effort to secure a tract of land for the refugees was made
by the Rev. Mr. King as the representative of the Presbyterian Church.
This application was before the Executive Council of the Canadian
Government in September, 1848, but was not successful. Steps were at
once taken to organize a non-sectarian body to deal with the
government and this new body took the name of the Elgin Association in
honor of the then governor-general of the Canadas who seems to have
been well disposed toward the refugees. The Elgin Association was
legally incorporated "for the settlement and moral improvement of the
colored population of Canada, for the purpose of purchasing crown or
clergy reserve lands in the township of Raleigh and settling the same
with colored families resident in Canada of approved moral
character."[507] Rev. Dr. Connor was the first president; Rev. Dr.
Willis, of Knox College, Toronto, first vice-president, and Rev.
William King, second vice-president. J. T. Matthews was the secretary,
J. S. Howard, treasurer, while the original directors were E. A. T.
McCord, Walter McFarland, Peter Freland, Charles Bercsy, W. R. Abbott,
John Laidlaw, E. F. Whittesend and James Brown. These are the names
that appear upon the petition to the government for lands, the
original of which is in the Dominion Archives.

There were difficulties in securing the land. Decided opposition to
the whole project made itself manifest in Kent county.[508] In
Chatham, the county town, a meeting of protest was held. The plans of
the Elgin Association were condemned and a resolution was passed
setting forth objections to selling any of the public domain "to
foreigners, the more so when such persons belong to a different branch
of the human family and are black." A vigilance committee was
appointed to watch the operations of the Elgin Association while the
various township councils interested were requested to advance the
necessary funds for carrying on the campaign. That there was some
dissent, however, even in Chatham is shown by the fact that one Henry
Gouins was allowed to speak in favor of the Association. The vigilance
committee soon issued a small pamphlet, made up chiefly of the
speeches and resolutions of the public meeting. The name of Edwin
Larwill, member of Parliament for the county of Kent, appears as one
of those most active in opposition to the settlement plan. Larwill had
a record for hostility to the colored people though at election times
he was accustomed to parade as their friend. In 1856 he introduced in
the House of Assembly a most insulting resolution[509] calling for a
report from the government on "all negro or colored, male or female
quadroon, mulatto, samboes, half breeds or mules, mongrels or
conglomerates" in public institutions. Larwill was at once called to
account for his action and a resolution was introduced calling upon
him to retract.

The opposition of Larwill and his supporters failed to impede the
progress of the Association and a tract of about 9000 acres, lying to
the south of Chatham and within a mile or two of Lake Erie, was
purchased. This was surveyed and divided into small farms of fifty
acres each, roads were cut through the dense forest and the first
settlers began the arduous work of clearing. The colonists were
allowed to take up fifty acres each at a price of $2.50 per acre,
payable in ten annual instalments.[510] Each settler was bound within
a certain period to build a house at least as good as the model house
set up by the Association, to provide himself with necessary
implements and to proceed with the work of clearing land. The model
house after which nearly all the dwellings were copied was 18 by 24
feet, 12 feet in height and with a stoop running the length of the
front. Some of the settlers were ambitious enough to build larger and
better houses but there were none inferior to the model. The tract of
country upon which the settlers were located was an almost unbroken
forest. The ground was level, heavily timbered with oak, hickory,
beech, elm, etc. Part of the soil was a deep rich black loam. Trees
two to four feet in diameter were common and the roads cut through to
open up settlement were hardly more than wide lanes. Rev. Mr. King
thought that one reason for the colony's success was the fact that so
many of the settlers were good axe men. Their industry was remarkable
and some of the more industrious paid for their land in five or six
years and took up more to clear.[511]

There are several contemporary references to the sobriety and morality
of the colonists. The _New York Tribune_ correspondent in 1857 was
able to report that liquor was neither made nor sold in the colony and
that drunkenness was unknown. There was no illegitimacy and there had
been but one arrest for violation of the Canadian laws in the seven
years of the colony's history. Though the Presbyterian church gave
special attention to the Buxton colony this did not hinder the growth
of other sects, Methodists and Baptists both being numerous, though
the best of feeling seems to have prevailed and many who retained
their own connection were fairly regular attendants at Mr. King's
services.

The _Tribune_ article gives an interesting description of the homes.
The cabins, though rough and rude, were covered with vines and
creepers with bright flowers and vegetable gardens round about.
Despite the pioneer conditions there abounded comfort and plenty of
plain homemade furniture. Pork, potatoes and green corn were staple
items of the menu. Of King's former slaves the _Tribune_ reports that
three had died, nine were at Buxton, one was married and living in
Chatham and two others in Detroit were about to return. The _Tribune_
reports on one case as typical of what was being achieved by the
colony. A colored man, fourteen years before a slave in Missouri and
who had been at Buxton six years, reported that he had 24 acres out
of his plot cleared, fenced and under cultivation. On six acres more
the trees were felled. He had paid four installments on his farm,
owned a yoke of oxen, a wagon and a mare and two colts. His
fourteen-year-old boy was at school and was reading Virgil. In the
home, besides bed and bedding, chairs and tables, there was a rocking
chair and a large, new safe. Water was brought to the visitor in a
clean tumbler, set upon a plate. A neighboring cabin had carpet on the
floor and some crude prints on the walls. All the cabins had large
brick fireplaces. Rev. Mr. King's own house, built of logs with high
steep roof, dormer windows and a porch the whole length, was somewhat
larger than the others.[512]

What these people actually accomplished at Buxton amid conditions so
different from what they had known in the past is altogether
remarkable. Some had known little of farm work before coming to the
colony while all of them must have found the Canadian climate
something of a hardship even in the summer. Outside of the farm work
they showed ability as mechanics and tradesmen. One who visited them
in the fifties says:[513]

     "The best country tavern in Kent is kept by Mr. West, at Buxton.
     Mr. T. Stringer is one of the most enterprising tradesmen in the
     county, and he is a Buxtonian, a colored man. I broke my carriage
     near there. The woodwork, as well as the iron, was broken. I
     never had better repairing done to either the woodwork or the
     ironwork of my carriage, I never had better shoeing than was done
     to my horses, in Buxton, in Feb., 1852, by a black man, a native
     of Kentucky--in a word, the work was done after the pattern of
     Charles Peyton Lucas. They are blessed with able mechanics, good
     farmers, enterprising men, and women worthy of them and they are
     training the rising generation to principles such as will give
     them the best places in the esteem and the service of their
     countrymen at some day not far distant."

A few years sufficed to remove most of the prejudice that had shown
itself in the opposition of the Larwill faction at Chatham at the
inception of the colony. When Rev. S. R. Ward visited the colony in
the early fifties he found that instead of lowering land values of
adjoining property as some had predicted would result from
establishing a Negro colony in Kent county, the Buxton settlement had
actually raised the value of adjoining farms. The Buxton settlers were
spoken of by the white people as good farmers, good customers and good
neighbors. There were white children attending the Buxton school and
white people in their Sunday church services.

Perhaps no finer testimony to the success of the whole undertaking is
recorded than that of Dr. Samuel R. Howe who came to Canada for the
Freedmen's Inquiry Committee.

     "Buxton is certainly a very interesting place," he wrote.
     "Sixteen years ago it was a wilderness. Now, good highways are
     laid out in all directions through the forest, and by their side,
     standing back 33 feet from the road, are about 200 cottages, all
     built in the same pattern, all looking neat and comfortable;
     around each one is a cleared place of several acres which is well
     cultivated. The fences are in good order, the barns seem well
     filled, and cattle and horses, and pigs and poultry, abound.
     There are signs of industry and thrift and comfort everywhere;
     signs of intemperance, of idleness, of want nowhere. There is no
     tavern and no groggery; but there is a chapel and a schoolhouse.
     Most interesting of all are the inhabitants. Twenty years ago
     most of them were slaves, who owned nothing, not even their
     children. Now they own themselves; they own their houses and
     farms; and they have their wives and children about them. They
     are enfranchised citizens of a government which protects their
     rights.... The present condition of all these colonists as
     compared with their former one is remarkable.... This settlement
     is a perfect success. Here are men who were bred in slavery, who
     came here and purchased land at the government price, cleared it,
     bought their own implements, built their own houses after a model
     and have supported themselves in all material circumstances and
     now support their schools in part.... I consider that this
     settlement has done as well as a white settlement would have
     done under the same circumstances."[514]

The Buxton settlement had its part in the John Brown affair. A letter
written by John Brown, Jr., from Sandusky, Ohio, August 27, 1859, and
addressed to "Friend Henrie," (Kagi), speaks of men in Hamilton,
Chatham, Buxton, etc., suitable for the enterprise.

     "At Dr. W's house (presumably in Hamilton) we formed an
     association," he says, "the officers consisting of chairman,
     treasurer and corresponding secretary, the business of which is
     to hunt up good workmen and raise the means among themselves to
     send them forward.... No minutes of the organization nor any of
     its proceedings are or will be preserved in writing. I formed
     similar associations in Chat--and also at B-x-t-n."

John Brown, Jr., also speaks of going to Buxton where he found "the
man, the leading spirit in that affair."

     "On Thursday night last" said he, "I went with him on foot 12
     miles; much of the way through mere paths and sought out in the
     bush some of the choicest. Had a meeting after ten o'clock at
     night in his house. His wife is a heroine and he will be on hand
     as soon as his family can be provided for."[515]

Such is the earlier history of the experiment in Canada of taking
bondmen and placing before them the opportunity not alone to make a
living in freedom but also to rise in the social scale. How well these
people took advantage of their opportunity is shown not only by the
material progress they made but by the fact that they gained for
themselves the respect of their white neighbors, a respect that
continues today for their many descendants who still comprise the
Buxton community in Kent county, Ontario.

                                   FRED LANDON

PUBLIC LIBRARIAN, LONDON, CANADA, AND LECTURER IN AMERICAN HISTORY IN
WESTERN UNIVERSITY, LONDON.


FOOTNOTES:

[507] Drew, _A North-Side View of Slavery_, 1856, p. 292.

[508] Documents in Canadian Archives Department.

[509] _Toronto Weekly Globe_, January 1, 1858.

[510] Drew, _A North-Side View of Slavery_, 1856, pp. 292-293.

[511] The slaves who had been freed by Mr. King formed the nucleus of
the colony but others came as soon as the land was thrown open. The
advances made by this colony during the first years of its existence
were remarkable. The third annual report for the year 1852, showed a
population of 75 families or 400 inhabitants, with 350 acres of land
cleared and 204 acres under cultivation. A year later, the fourth
annual report showed 130 families or 520 persons, with 500 acres of
land cleared and 135 partially cleared, 415 acres being under
cultivation in 1853. The live stock was given as 128 cattle, 15
horses, 30 sheep and 250 hogs. The day school had 112 children
enrolled and the Sabbath School 80.

The fifth report, for the year 1854, showed 150 families in the colony
or immediately adjoining it, 726 acres of land cleared, 174 acres
partially cleared and 577 acres under cultivation. In the year there
had been an increase of cleared land amounting to 226 acres and of
land under cultivation of 162 acres. The livestock consisted of 150
cattle and oxen, 38 horses, 25 sheep and 700 hogs. The day school had
147 on the roll and the Sabbath School 120. A second day school was
opened that year.

The sixth annual report (1855) shows 827 acres of land cleared and
fenced and 216 acres chopped and to go under cultivation in 1856.
There were 810 acres cultivated that year while the live stock
consisted of 190 cattle and oxen, 40 horses, 38 sheep and 600 hogs.
The day school had an enrollment of 150. Among the advances of this
year was the erection of a saw and grist mill which supplied the
colony with lumber and with flour and feed. The building of the saw
mill meant added prosperity, for an estimate made in 1854 placed the
value of the standing timber at $127,000.

A representative of the _New York Tribune_ visited the colony in 1857
and his description of what he saw was reprinted in the _Toronto
Globe_ of November 20, 1857. The colony was then seven years old and
had a population of about 200 families or 800 souls. More than 1,000
acres had been completely cleared while on 200 acres more the trees
had been felled and the land would be put under cultivation the next
spring. The acreage under cultivation in the season of 1857 he gives
as follows: corn, 354 acres; wheat, 200 acres; oats, 70 acres;
potatoes, 80 acres; other crops, 120 acres. The live stock consisted
of 200 cows, 80 oxen, 300 hogs, 52 horses and a small number of sheep.
The industries included a steam sawmill, a brickyard, pearl ash
factory, blacksmith, carpenter and shoe shops as well as a good
general store. There were two schools, one male and one female. The
latter, which had been open only about a year, taught plain sewing and
other domestic subjects. The two schools had a combined enrollment of
140 with average attendance of 58. It was being proposed to require a
small payment in order to make the schools self-supporting. The
Sabbath school had an enrollment of 112 and an average attendance of
52.--Drew, _A North-Side View of Slavery_, pp. 293-297.

[512] _The New York Tribune._

[513] Ward, _Autobiography of a Fugitive Negro_, 1855, p. 214.

[514] Howe, _Refugees from Slavery in Canada West_, 1864, pp. 70-71.

[515] _Toronto Weekly Globe_, November 4, 1859.




FIFTY YEARS OF HOWARD UNIVERSITY[516]

PART II


The crisis in the financial affairs of the University, already
mentioned, was the natural result of over confidence in the readiness
of philanthropists to rally to the aid of a needy cause. This
disappointment, however, was a valuable experience, for it became
clear that philanthropists were not inclined to grant very generous
aid to an institution established under the patronage of the Federal
Government, especially in the face of the frequent and insistent
appeals from less fortunate institutions serving the same people. It
was an incorrect assumption, however, that the United States Treasury
was paying the current expenses, for it must be remembered that no
part of the original grants of the Freedmen's Bureau was or could be
invested as permanent endowment or used for salaries, equipment or
maintenance; and that during the first decade of the existence of the
University no public funds were appropriated for these purposes. In
spite of this, its reputation as a ward of the United States
Government was, to its great disadvantage, accepted by philanthropists
as justified.

When, in 1873, the Freedmen's Bureau was abolished, General Howard
resigned from the presidency of the University to enter the army. Not
desiring to accept his resignation immediately, however, the trustees
granted him an indefinite leave of absence.[517] At the same meeting
it was decided to revive the office of Vice-President, which had been
discontinued and John M. Langston, then Dean of the Howard Law School,
was elected to that position. "It had been hoped," says one, "that
the experiment of placing an able colored man in this high position
would stimulate his own race and the minds of white philanthropists to
sustain the institution in its perilous struggles." But the lack of
funds continued. Convinced that a permanent president must be at once
secured, Mr. Langston resigned the vice-presidency in 1875.

An unfortunate combination of conditions that might well baffle the
ablest administrators then obtained. The outlook was so gloomy that it
was difficult to find a person both capable and willing to succeed to
the position left vacant. Upon Mr. Langston's resignation, Reverend
George Whipple, Secretary of the American Missionary Association was
elected president but after due consideration declined the honor. On
December 16, 1875, Edward P. Smith, a trustee of the University and a
member of the Executive Committee, was elected. After serving a few
weeks he departed on an expedition for the American Missionary
Association to the west coast of Africa where he died, June 15, 1875.
Meanwhile Senator Pomeroy acted as chairman of the board of trustees
and Professor Frederick W. Fairfield served efficiently as acting
president, having supervision over matters purely educational. This
was the period of the most rigid retrenchment in expenses.

But Howard was to find a way out of this difficulty and move onward.
The second epoch in the history of the University began when, on April
25, 1876, the Reverend Doctor William W. Patton was elected president.
His administration, lasting over a term of twelve years, was a period
of recovery and consolidation, and an era of good feeling. Dr. Patton
came to his task equipped with just the qualities needed at that time.
He possessed intense sympathy for the ideals for which the University
stands; sufficient business ability to keep its finances safe; and a
personality that inspired respect, confidence and love.

Carefully administering the affairs of the institution, Dr. Patton was
able to restore confidence in the minds of the public and of Congress.
This accomplished, he was justified in arguing for federal aid on the
ground that through this means alone was it possible to make the best
use of the large and expensive plant which the Government had already
provided. The result was that for the year beginning July 1, 1879,
Congress appropriated $10,000 toward current expenses. Since that date
appropriations have been regularly made and have so increased that the
institution now receives from the United States Government an annual
allowance of over $100,000.

It was during the administration of Dr. Patton that Howard University
rounded out its organization and developed as a university.
Previously, however, the various departments particularly had made
interesting history. An active faculty was organized in the Medical
School, June 17, 1867, and the first session opened in November, 1868,
in the same rented building already referred to as housing the first
academic classes of the University.[518] Here lectures were given in
the evening to a class of eight students. The permanent Medical
Building was then in the course of erection. Under an able faculty and
with excellent facilities it is not surprising that the Medical School
has been able to maintain a very high standard of efficiency and that
it now meets fully the requirements of the Association of American
Medical Colleges.

The Law Department was organized October 12, 1868, with Mr. John M.
Langston[519] as professor and dean. In December of the same year, A.
G. Riddle was associated with him on the faculty and the school began
actual instruction on January 6, 1869.[520] During the years of the
financial difficulties of the University, however, the Law School
passed through a distressing experience. The attendance of the
students was uncertain, falling off rapidly when the Freedmen's Bureau
passed out of existence; for many of the students who were employees
serving the Bureau during the day attended lectures at night. These
left in large numbers when the Bureau closed, depriving the Law School
of a part of its estimated income. Losing thus this revenue, this
department was either actually suspended or barely kept open with a
single teacher and a handful of students. Mr. Langston retained his
position as dean under the then trying conditions until 1874, when he
resigned.

The department gradually recovered with the mending fortunes of the
University under President Patton and as a result of the demand in the
District of Columbia for a school of law admitting students without
racial restrictions. In 1881 B. F. Leighton was appointed to the
deanship of this department, a position which he has to the present
time filled with marked success. He took charge of the department when
it was barely existing and brought it to its present position of
usefulness. For many years he had associated with him A. A. Birney one
of the most distinguished members of the District of Columbia bar.
From that reconstruction of the department dates the period of its
real growth. In 1881 these two professors lectured to a class of seven
students, five of whom were graduated at the close of the session.
Since that time the courses have been broadened in keeping with the
advancing standards of legal study, the student body has increased ten
fold and the faculty has been strengthened in accordance with these
demands.

Although the Theological Department was the first in the plan of the
founders of the University, it was not put into operation until
January 6, 1868, when D. B. Nichols and E. W. Robinson, both
clergymen, began without pay, to give theological instruction twice a
week to a number of men already accredited as preachers and others
looking forward to that work. Shortly afterwards, at the request of
the Board of Trustees, a course of study was drawn up and adopted.
Lectures in accordance with this plan were started immediately
thereafter by General Eliphalet Whittlesey.[521] It was not until
1871, however, that the Theological Department was officially
announced by the University as actively in operation. In this
announcement, Dr. John B. Reeve is named as dean, supported by a
faculty of four lecturers and a roster of twelve students. Three years
later in 1874, seven of these twelve students received their
certificates of graduation.

The Theological Department has always been barred from the use of
United States funds for its current expenses and has, therefore,
depended upon scholarships and special contributions made by
individuals and philanthropic organizations. The American Missionary
Association has always been its chief support since the crisis of
1873. Because of the financial stress under which the University was
working at that time, the first act of Dr. Lorenzo Wescott, the new
dean appointed in 1875, was to make arrangements to have the
Presbytery of Washington assume the responsibility of the school. This
appeal was favorably acted upon and a committee of the Presbytery took
charge of the affairs of the department in December, 1875. This step
was rendered necessary because, from 1872 to 1874 the American
Missionary Association, on account of financial embarrassment, was
compelled, temporarily, to withdraw its support. In November, 1877,
this organization was again able to resume part of the responsibility
and the bodies worked in harmony until June, 1887, when the American
Missionary Association was again ready to bear the entire
expense.[522]

Dr. Patton resigned in May, 1889, but consented to continue in office
until the end of the year or until his successor should be elected.
The selection of his successor was made in November and Dr. Patton
retired, hoping to rest and do literary work. He died, however, on the
last day of the year 1889. On November 15, 1889, the trustees elected
the Reverend Doctor Jeremiah E. Rankin[523] to the presidency, taking
him from the pastorate of the First Congregational Church of
Washington. His term of office extended through thirteen years, a
period of slow but steady growth.

Under President Rankin other changes were made in the course of the
development of the University. At the close of the session in 1899 the
University altered its policy with reference to the work of training
teachers. To this end the work of the Normal Department, at first
provided for this purpose, was reorganized as the pedagogical
department of the college under the deanship of Professor Lewis B.
Moore who had come to the faculty five years prior to this time from
the University of Pennsylvania, where he had pursued graduate studies
and obtained the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After several years
of growth the department was designated as the Teachers College and
given academic rank with the College of Arts and Sciences. When the
Normal Department was discontinued the English Department was
established to care for those who wished to pursue the common branches
without professional aim. In 1903, it was merged with the newly
established Commercial Department under Dean George W. Cook.

It was during this administration that with funds obtained as private
donations the permanent residence for the president and the Andrew
Rankin Memorial Chapel were erected, the former costing approximately
$20,000 and the latter $22,000. The chapel is a memorial to the one
whose name it bears, Andrew E. Rankin, the brother of President Rankin
and the deceased husband of Mrs. H. T. Cushman of Boston, a generous
donor toward its erection.

Because of failing health Doctor Rankin resigned in 1903. Reverend
Teunis N. Hamlin, pastor of the Church of the Covenant, Washington,
District of Columbia, and the president of the board of trustees,
served as acting president for a short time pending the selection of a
permanent incumbent. The Reverend Doctor John Gordon, the president of
Tabor College in Iowa was selected for the presidency and was formally
inaugurated in 1904. It was hoped that the incoming president would
infuse new life into the institution, for the occasion demanded a
successful administrator, an efficient educator and a man able to
command increased financial support for the institution. As Doctor
Gordon had none of these qualities, it soon became evident that he
would be able to accomplish little of benefit to the University. He
failed entirely to understand its mission and its ideals. Serious
friction between the president on the one hand and the faculty and
students on the other grew to such proportions that Dr. Gordon, after
a term of office covering a little over two years, resigned.

After an examination of available material in the search for a
suitable man for this position, the trustees were happy in the
selection of the Reverend Doctor Wilbur P. Thirkield[524] who accepted
the offer and took up the duties of president in 1906. He was
inaugurated November 15, 1907, on the occasion of the fortieth
anniversary of the founding of the institution. With this ceremony
began an infusion of new life into Howard University. Advantage of
this occasion was taken to introduce the institution concretely to a
group of notables who had hitherto known of it only in a casual way.
And having once brought the institution to the attention of the world,
President Thirkield never allowed the world to forget it.

With keen insight he realized at the very beginning of his term of
office that the great and basic need of the University was material
expansion. He saw the need of a more extensive plant with modern
equipment and served by a larger faculty. With characteristic energy
he sought to bring the University into a still closer alliance with
the Federal Government. So successfully was the case presented that
during his administration of six years he succeeded in raising the
annual Congressional appropriation for current expenses from less than
$50,000 in 1906 to over $100,000 in 1912. The pressing need for
facilities in the teaching of the sciences was met by the erection in
1910 of a science hall from special appropriations amounting to
$80,000.[525] In 1909, the Carnegie Library was erected. This building
was the gift of Mr. Andrew Carnegie and cost $50,000.

About this time the improvement of the dormitories was begun by the
installation of adequate systems of sanitary plumbing and electric
lights. By arrangement with Freedmen's Hospital the heating and
lighting plant was enlarged at a cost of approximately $100,000 to
such capacity that steam and current were supplied to all the
University buildings. In addition to these improvements in housing and
equipment, the grounds were improved and beautified in accordance with
a definite scheme.[526] To provide for the constantly growing work in
technical and industrial branches the Hall of Applied Sciences was
built in 1913 at a cost of $25,000 thus releasing the old Spaulding
Hall for other purposes. A special department of music under Miss Lulu
Vere Childers was established in 1909 and given a building in 1916.

Possibly the most striking result of the educational awakening under
President Thirkield was the rapid growth of the College Department. In
1876 for example, the roster of the department shows thirty-five
students and four graduates. In 1907, forty years later, the
corresponding figures were, seventy-five and eight, a gain of about
one hundred per cent in forty years or two and a half per cent a year.
In 1911 these figures had grown to two hundred and forty-three, and
thirty-one respectively, a gain during the period of six years covered
by this administration, of about two hundred and forty per cent in
students and nearly three hundred per cent in graduates. This is
approximately a gain per year of forty per cent in enrollment and
forty-eight per cent in graduates. While much of this remarkable
growth is due to the general awakening of the University, yet no small
part of the credit belongs to the inspiration of Professor Kelly
Miller who became Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in 1907
near the beginning of the period under consideration. Through his
efforts and reputation as a writer the claims of the University and
the College of Arts and Sciences were brought to the attention of
aspiring youth throughout the country.[527] Upon the resignation of
Dr. Thirkield to become Bishop of the Methodist Church in 1912, the
Reverend Doctor Stephen M. Newman was chosen as the head of the
university. He has served in that position for five years.[528]

Serviceable as have been many of the educators connected with Howard
University it has had and still has many problems. Its chief
difficulty, however, is a financial one. Although it is impossible to
figure out how the University could have succeeded without the aid of
the United States Government, this connection of the institution has
been in some respects a handicap. National aid seems to have
permanently excluded the institution from the circle of the
beneficiaries of those great philanthropic agencies which have played
such a prominent part in the support of education during the last half
century. With the exception of the Theological Department, which
receives no part whatever of the Congressional appropriation, the
income to the institution from benevolent sources has played but a
minor part in its development. On the other hand, the United States
Government has never appropriated sufficient funds to maintain the
University as a first class institution. The present appropriation of
$100,000 a year falls far short of what the school needs to function
properly. It seems, therefore, that the United States Government,
should adequately support the institution and make its appropriations
legally permanent.[529]

Some remarks about the general policy of Howard University may be
enlightening. The idea of racial representation among the
administrative officers and faculty is indicated by the fact that
membership in a particular race has never been considered a
qualification for any position in the University. For many years the
board of trustees has had persons of both races as members. No colored
man has served a regular term as president, however, unless we include
the short experience of Professor Langston already referred to. The
treasurer has always been white but the office of secretary has been
filled by members of both races. Neither the Theological nor the
Medical School has had a Negro as dean although Dr. Charles B. Purvis
was elected to that office in the latter in 1900 but declined it.

The faculties of all departments are mixed, the proportion of Negroes
growing as available material from which to choose becomes more
abundant. The policy of maintaining mixed faculties, however, is not
dictated entirely by the lack of men and women of color competent to
fill all positions on the faculty; for today the supply of such
material is adequate. It seems that the governing body considers it in
the best interest of the University to preserve the racial mixture in
the offices and faculties in order that the students may receive the
peculiar contribution of both races and that the institution may have
its interests concretely connected with those of the dominant race.

Whether or not Howard has amply justified its existence during its
first half century; whether its ideals have been the best for the race
whose interests it primarily serves; whether its administrative
policies have been wise--these are questions whose answers lie outside
the scope of this sketch. As institutions of learning go, fifty years
is a short time upon which to base conclusions. It is a period of
beginnings. With schools of the character of Howard, with its peculiar
duties to perform and its peculiar problems to solve in a field
entirely new, these fifty years make up a period of experiment.
Whatever the future relative to this educational experiment may be,
Howard has given to America nearly four thousand graduates from its
various departments most of whom are now doing the class of work in
all fields of endeavor which demand trained minds, broad human
sympathy and the spirit of service.

                                   DWIGHT O. W. HOLMES.


FOOTNOTES:

[516] Part I of _Fifty Years of Howard University_ appeared in the
April Number of the JOURNAL OF NEGRO HISTORY.

[517] The resignation was accepted the following year after General
Howard had been appointed to the command of the Department of the
Columbia.

[518] It was realized at the beginning that a hospital in connection
with the department was an absolute necessity. This was provided for
through the relationship established between the Medical School and
Freedmen's Hospital. The Campbell Hospital, as it was formerly called,
was located, at the close of the war, at what is now the northeast
corner of Seventh Street and Florida Avenue. Prior to that time it was
directly connected with the War Department. In 1865, in connection
with the various hospitals and camps for freedmen in the several
States, it was placed under the Freedmen's Bureau. In 1869 it was
moved to buildings expressly erected for it by the Bureau upon ground
belonging to the University on Pomeroy Street, including and adjacent
to the site of the Medical Building. This new home consisted of four
large frame buildings of two stories each to be used as wards; and in
addition the Medical Building itself, a brick structure of four and
one half stories, quite commodious and well arranged with lecture
halls and laboratories for medical instruction. Dr. Robert Reyburn,
who was chief medical officer of the Freedmen's Bureau from 1870 to
1872 was surgeon in chief, from 1868 to 1875. He was followed in order
by Drs. Gideon S. Palmer, Charles B. Purvis, Daniel H. Williams,
Austin M. Curtis and Wm. H. Warfield. Dr. Warfield, the present
incumbent was appointed in 1901 and is the first graduate of the
Howard University Medical School to hold this position. Only the first
two named, however, were white. In 1907 the hospital was moved to its
new home in the reservation lying on the south side of College Street
between Fourth and Sixth Streets, the property of the University.

"The new Freedmen's Hospital was then built at a cost of $600,000. It
has the great advantage of being designed primarily for teaching
purposes, as practically all the patients admitted are utilized freely
for instruction. The hospital has about three hundred beds and
contains two clinical amphitheatres, a pathological laboratory,
clinical laboratory and a room for X-Ray diagnostic work and X-Ray
therapy. The Medical Faculty practically constitutes the Hospital
Staff."--_Howard University Catalog_, 1916-17, p. 163; 1917-18, p.
168.

[519] Mr. Langston was graduated at Oberlin with the degree of A.B. in
1852 and in theology in 1853. He studied law privately and was
admitted to practice in Ohio in 1854. In April, 1867, he was appointed
general inspector of the Freedmen's Bureau, serving for two years,
during which he travelled extensively through the South. From 1877 to
1885 he was Minister to Haiti and from 1885 to 1887 President of the
Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute. He was elected to Congress
from the Fourth District of Virginia and seated, September 23, 1890,
after a contest. He died November 15, 1897, at his home near Howard
University.

[520] For a number of years after its organization the school held its
sessions in the main building of the University. Later a more
convenient location was secured in the building occupied by the Second
National Bank on Seventh Street. After remaining there for a
considerable period, it moved to Lincoln Hall, at Ninth and D Streets,
where it remained until 1887 when the building was destroyed by fire.
The authorities then decided to purchase for the department a
permanent home conveniently located and adequate to its accommodation.
As a result the present Law Building on Fifth Street, opposite the
District Court House, was purchased, and fitted up for school
purposes.

[521] General Eliphalet Whittlesey was Colonel of the 46th United
States Colored Regiment in 1865. He had been on the staff of General
Howard during the last year of the campaign through the South and was
brevetted Brigadier General at the close of the war. He was Assistant
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau and later Adjutant General under
General Howard at Washington. He assisted in the selection of the site
for the University, was the first professor in the College Department
and organized the Department of Theology.

Reverend Danforth B. Nichols, whose name has appeared frequently in
this sketch, was, at the close of the war, engaged in missionary work
among the "contrabands" who tilled the abandoned lands just across the
Potomac from Washington. When Howard University was founded he was one
of the most active and enthusiastic workers for the successful
launching of the venture. Beside being a founder, a trustee and a
professor, he received the degree of M.D. with the first class
graduated by its medical department.

[522] While the Presbytery was in charge the department received a
gift or $5,000 from Mrs. Hannah B. Toland. In 1879 Reverend J. G.
Craighead became dean of the department and filled the position until
his resignation in 1891. During his administration the department
received $5,000 from the estate of Wm. E. Dodge of New York. On
October 1, 1883, the treasurer of the University was authorized to pay
the American Missionary Association $15,000, "out of moneys due from
the United States as compensation for University land taken for the
reservoir," or such part as might be requisite to complete the
endowment of the "Stone Professorship" in the Theological Department.
This amount was added to a fund of $25,000 which came from the estate
of Daniel P. Stone, of Boston, Massachusetts, upon the fulfillment of
the term of the gift.

[523] Dr. Rankin was a writer and poet of note, his most famous
production being the hymn, "God be with you till we meet again."

[524] Dr. Thirkield received his A.M. degree from Ohio Wesleyan in
1879. He studied theology at Boston University, graduating with the
degree of S.T.B. in 1881. He entered the ministry in the M. E. Church
in 1878. As the first president of Gammon Theological Seminary,
Atlanta, Georgia, from 1883 to 1899 he secured endowment for that
institution to the amount of $600,000. He was called to the presidency
of Howard after several years of successful service first as General
Secretary of the Epworth League and later as General Secretary of the
Freedmen's Aid and Southern Educational Society.

[525] This building was dedicated as "Science Hall" but by vote of the
trustees the name was changed to "Thirkield Hall" in honor of
President Thirkield when the latter resigned in 1912.

[526] Much of the credit for the improvements to grounds and buildings
is due to the experience and business acumen of Professor George W.
Cook who became secretary and business manager in 1908. Professor Cook
has enjoyed an extensive and unique connection with the University
from his matriculation in the Preparatory Department in 1873 to the
present. He is a graduate of three departments and holds the degrees
of A.B., A.M., LL.B. and LL.M. He has been dean of the Normal, the
English and the Commercial Departments successively. Since 1908 he has
been secretary and business manager of the University.

[527] Professor Miller is a product of Howard and one of her most
distinguished sons. He was graduated from Preparatory Department in
1882 and from College in 1886 after which he pursued advanced studies
at Johns Hopkins University. He is one of the most conspicuous
publicists of the race, being the author of several books and numerous
pamphlets, beside making frequent contributions to periodicals, both
in America and abroad. His most important books are _Race Adjustment_
and _Out of the House of Bondage. The Disgrace of Democracy_, an open
letter to President Wilson, published in 1917, has been pronounced one
of the most important documents produced by the great war.

[528] Dr. Newman was graduated from Bowdoin College, the alma mater of
General Howard, in 1867, with the A.B. degree, receiving the A.M. in
1870 and D.D. in 1877. He studied theology at Andover, finishing in
1871. He served as pastor in Taunton, Massachusetts, Ripon, Wisconsin
and the First Congregational Church of Washington, District of
Columbia. He was president of Eastern College, Fort Royal, Virginia,
1908-9, and Kee Mar College for Women, Hagerstown, Maryland, 1909-11.
He is a member of a number of learned societies and a distinguished
pulpit orator.

[529] President Taft considered the support of the University a
national obligation. In his address at the commencement exercises, May
26, 1909, he said, in part:

"Everything that I can do as an executive in the way of helping along
the University I expect to do. I expect to do it because I believe it
is a debt of the people of the United States, it is an obligation of
the Government of the United States, and it is money constitutionally
applied to that which shall work out in the end the solution of one of
the greatest problems that God has put upon the people of the United
States."




DOCUMENTS

WHAT THE FRAMERS OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION THOUGHT OF THE NEGRO


The first important discussion in the Convention of 1787 to reflect
the attitude of the framers of the Federal Constitution toward the
Negro, was whether or not slaves should be considered a part of the
population in apportioning representation in Congress on that basis. A
precedent had been set in the Articles of Confederation in the
provision for counting five slaves as three whites to determine the
rate of taxation on the population basis. The free States contended
that only the free inhabitants should be counted, but the slave States
urged the recognition of slaves as a part of the population to secure
to the South the power which it wielded until the Civil War.[530]

Taking up this important question soon after the convention assembled,

     The following resolution was then moved by Mr. Randolph, Resolved
     that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to
     be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number
     of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best
     in different cases.

     It was moved by Mr. Hamilton seconded by Mr. Spaight that the
     resolution be altered so as to read

     Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature
     ought to be proportioned to the number of free inhabitants

     It was moved and seconded that the resolution be postponed--and
     on the question to postpone it passed in the affirmative

     The following resolution was moved by Mr. Randolph seconded by Mr
     Madison Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national
     legislature ought to be proportioned--it was moved and seconded
     to add the words "and not according to the present system"--On
     the question to agree to the amendment it passed in the
     affirmative. (Ayes--7 noes--0.)[531]

     It was then moved and seconded so to alter the resolution that it
     should read

     Resolved that the rights of suffrage in the national legislature
     ought not to be according

     It was then moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of
     the last resolution--And, on the question to postpone, it passed
     in the affirmative The following resolution was then moved by Mr
     Madison seconded by Mr. G Morris.

     Resolved that the equality of suffrage established by the
     articles of confederation ought not to prevail in the national
     legislature and that an equitable ratio of representation ought
     to be substituted.

     It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the
     last resolution.

     (The following Resolution being the 2d. of those proposed by Mr.
     Randolph was taken up. viz--"that the rights of suffrage in the
     National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of
     contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or
     the other rule may seem best in different cases.")

     Mr. M(adison) observing that the words ("_or to the number of_)
     _free inhabitants_." might occasion debates which would divert
     the Committee from the general question whether the principle of
     representation should be changed, moved that they might be struck
     out.

     Mr King observed that the quotas of contribution which would
     alone remain as the measure of representation, would not answer;
     because waving every other view of the matter, the revenue might
     hereafter be so collected by the general Govt. that the sums
     respectively drawn from the States would (not) appear; and would
     besides be continually varying.

     Mr. Madison admitted the propriety of the observation, and that
     some better rule ought to be found.

     Col. Hamilton moved to alter the resolution so as to read "that
     the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought to be
     proportioned to the number of free inhabitants. Mr. Spaight
     2ded. the motion.

     It was then moved that the Resolution be postponed, which was
     agreed to.

     Mr. Randolph and Mr. Madison then moved the following
     resolution--"that the rights of suffrage in the national
     Legislature ought to be proportioned."

     It was moved and 2ded to amend it by adding "and not according to
     the present system"--which was agreed to.

     It was then moved and 2ded. to alter the resolution so as to read
     "that the rights of suffrage in the national Legislature ought
     not to be according to the present system."

     It was then moved & 2ded. to postpone the Resolution moved by Mr.
     Randolph & Mr. Madison, which being agreed to;

     Mr. Madison, moved, in order to get over the difficulties, the
     following resolution--"that the equality of suffrage established
     by the articles of Confederation ought not to prevail in the
     national Legislature, and that an equitable ratio of
     representation ought to be submitted" This was 2ded. by Mr. Govr.
     Morris, (and being generally relished, would have been agreed to
     when,)

     Mr. Reed moved that the whole clause relating to the point of
     Representation be postponed; reminding the Come. that the
     deputies from Delaware were restrained by their commission from
     assenting to any change of the rule of suffrage, and in case a
     change should be fixed on, it might become their duty to retire
     from the Convention.

     Mr. Govr. Morris observed that the valuable assistance of those
     members could not be lost without real concern, and that so early
     a proof of discord in the convention as a secession of a State,
     would add much to the regret; that the change proposed was
     however so fundamental an article in a national Govt. that it
     could not be dispensed with.

     Mr. M(adison) observed that whatever reason might have existed
     for the equality of suffrage when the Union was a federal one
     among sovereign States, it must cease when a national Governt.
     should be put into the place. In the former case, the acts of
     Congs. depended so much for their efficacy on the cooperation of
     the States, that these had a weight both within & without
     Congress, nearly in proportion to their extent and importance. In
     the latter case, as the acts of the Genl. Govt. would take effect
     without the intervention of the State legislatures, a vote from
     a small State wd. have the same efficacy & importance as (a vote)
     from a large one, and there was the same reason for (different
     numbers) of representatives from different States, as from
     Counties of different extents within particular States. He
     suggested as an expedient for at once taking the sense of the
     members on this point and saving the Delaware deputies from
     embarrassment, that the question should be taken in Committee,
     and the clause on report to the House (be postponed without a
     question there). This however did not appear to satisfy Mr. Read.

     By several it was observed that no just construction of the Act
     of Delaware, could require or justify a secession of her
     deputies, even if the resolution were to be carried thro' the
     House as well as the Committee. It was finally agreed however
     that the clause should be postponed: it being understood that in
     the event the proposed change of representation would certainly
     be agreed to, no objection or difficulty being started from any
     other quarter (than from Delaware).

     The motion of Mr. Read to postpone being agreed to

     The Committee then rose. The chairman reported progress, and the
     House having resolved to resume the subject in Committee
     tomorrow,[532]

               (Adjourned to 10 OClock)

       *       *       *       *       *

The next question was on the following resolve:

     In substance that the mode of the present representation was
     unjust--the suffrage ought to be in proportion to number or
     property.

     To this Delaware objected, in consequence of the restrictions in
     their credentials, and moved to have the consideration thereof
     postponed, to which the house agreed.[533]

McHenry records for the thirtieth of May that the Committee then
proceeded to consider the second resolution in Mr. Randolph's paper.

     That the rights of suffrage in the national legislature ought to
     be proportioned to the quotas of contribution or to the number
     of free inhabitants as the one or the other rule may seem best
     in different cases.

     As this gave the large States the most absolute controul over the
     lesser ones it met with opposition which produced an adjournment
     without any determination.[534]

After frequent discussion and the failure to reach an agreement to
safeguard the interests of the small States while giving due weight to
the population of the large the effort to apportion representation in
the national legislature assumed this form in the Committee of the
Whole:

     It was moved by Mr. King, seconded by Mr Rutledge to agree to the
     following resolution, namely:

     Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the
     national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule
     established in the articles of confederation; but according to
     some equitable ratio of representation

     And on the question to agree to the same

     it passed in the affirmative (Ayes--7; noes--3; divided--1.)

     It was then moved by Mr. Rutledge seconded by Mr Butler to add
     the following words to the last resolution

     "namely, according to the quotas of contribution"

     It was moved by Mr Wilson seconded by Mr C. Pinckney to postpone
     the consideration of the last motion in order to introduce the
     following words, after the words "equitable ratio of
     representation" namely.

     "in proportion to the whole number of white and other 'free
     Citizens' and inhabitants of every age, sex and condition,
     'including those bound to servitude for a term of years', and
     three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the
     foregoing description, except Indians, not paying taxes 'in each
     State.'"

     On the question to postpone

     it passed in the affirmative. (Ayes--10; noes--1.)

     On the question to agree to Mr Wilson's motion

     It passed in the affirmative (Ayes--9; noes--2.)

     It was then moved by Mr Wilson seconded by Mr Hamilton to adopt
     the following resolution, namely,

     "resolved that the right of suffrage in the second branch "of the
     national Legislature ought to be according to the rule
     "established for the first"

     On the question to agree to the same it passed in the affirmative
     (Ayes--6; noes--5.)[535]

In the Committee of the Whole on the eleventh of June:

     It was then moved by Mr. Rutlidge 2ded. by Mr. Butler to add to
     the words "equitable ratio of representation" at the end of the
     motion just agreed to, the words "according to the quotas of
     Contribution. On motion of

     _Mr. Wilson_ seconded by Mr. C. Pinckney, this was postponed; in
     order to add, after, after the words "equitable ratio of
     representation" the words following "in proportion to the whole
     number of white & other free Citizens & inhabitants of every age
     sex & condition including those bound to servitude for a term of
     years and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended in
     the foregoing description, except Indians not paying taxes, in
     each State." this being the rule in the Act of Congress agreed to
     by eleven States, for apportioning quotas of revenue on the
     States, and requiring a census only every 5--7, or 10 years.

     Mr. Gerry thought property not the rule of representation. Why
     then shd, the blacks, who were property in the South be in the
     rule of representation more than the cattle & horses of the
     North.

     On the question.

     Mass: Con: N. Y. Pen: Maryd. Virga. N. C. S. C. and Geo: were in
     the affirmative: N. J. & Del: in the negative. (Ayes--9;
     noes--2.) Mr. Sherman moved that a question be taken whether each
     State shall have (one) vote in the 2d. branch. Every thing he
     said depended on this. The smaller States would never agree to
     the plan on any other principle (than an equality of suffrage in
     this branch. Mr. Ellsworth seconded the motion.) On the question
     for allowing each State (one) vote in the 2d. branch.

     Massts, no. Cont, ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay Md. ay.
     Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes--5; noes--6.)

     (Mr. Wilson & Mr. Hamilton moved that the right of suffrage in
     the 2d. branch ought to be according to the same rule as in the
     1st. branch.)

     On this question for making the ratio of representation the same
     in the 2d. as in the 1st. branch (it passed in the affirmative:)
     Massts. ay. Cont. no. N. Y. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md.
     no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes--6; noes--5.)[536]

On the same day

     Mr. Wilson was of opinion, and therefore moved, _that the mode of
     representation of each of the states ought to be from the number
     of its free inhabitants, and of every other description three
     fifths to one free inhabitant_. He supposed that the impost will
     not be the only revenue--the post office he supposes would be
     another substantial source of revenue. He observed further, that
     this mode had already received the approbation of eleven states
     in their acquiescence to the quota made by congress. He admitted
     that this resolve would require further restrictions, for where
     numbers determined the representation a census at different
     periods of 5, 7 or 10 years, ought to be taken.

     Mr. Gerry. The idea of property ought not to be the rule of
     representation. Blacks are property, and are used to the
     southward as horses and cattle to the northward; and why should
     their representation be increased to the southward on account of
     the number of slaves, than horses or oxen to the north?

     Mr. Madison was of opinion at present, to fix the standard of
     representation, and let the detail be the business of a
     sub-committee.

     Mr. Rutledge's motion was postponed.[537]

Discussing whether the apportionment should be according to taxation
or numbers, Wilson considered

     Either Rule good--by Numbers best to ascertain the Right of
     Representn. this agreeably to the Sentiments of 11 States--Impost
     alone will not be sufficient to answer the national
     Exigencies--Revenues arising from Postage--The present Quota not
     a lasting Rule--People to be numbered at fixed Periods--A Rule
     arising from Property and Numbers--

     Gerry. Rule of Taxation not the Rule of Representation--4 might
     then have more Voices than ten--Slaves not to be put upon the
     Footing of freemen--Freemen of Massts. not to be put upon a
     Footing with the Slaves of other States--Horses and Cattle ought
     to have the Right of Representn. Negroes--Whites--[538]

On the thirteenth of June Randolph submitted another resolution agreed
to in the Committee of the Whole.

  Resolved that the right of suffrage in the first branch of the
     national Legislature ought not to be according to the rule
     established in the articles of confederation; but according to
     some equitable ratio of representation--namely in proportion to
     the whole number of whites and other free citizens and
     inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those
     bound to servitude for a term of years and three fifths of all
     other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description,
     except Indians, not paying taxes in each State.[539]

The following propositions from New Jersey moved by Patterson closely
connected the apportionment of requisitions with that of
representation:

     3. Resd. that whenever requisitions shall be necessary, instead
     of the rule for making requisitions mentioned in the articles of
     Confederation, the United States in Congs. be authorized to make
     such requisitions in proportion to the whole number of white &
     other free citizens & inhabitants of every age sex and condition
     including those bound to servitude for a term of years & three
     fifths of all other persons not comprehended in the foregoing
     description, except Indians not paying taxes; that if such
     requisitions be not compiled with, in the time specified therein,
     to direct the collection thereof in the non complying States &
     for that purpose to devise and pass acts directing & authorizing
     the same; provided that none of the powers hereby vested in the
     U. States in Congs. shall be exercised without the consent of at
     least[540]

Again on the fifteenth of June it was suggested that

     3. The rule of apportioning Requis: on the States shall be the
     Whites 3/5 of all others--if the Req. is in arrear in any State,
     Congress shall have authority to devise & pass acts remedial in
     such case.

On the fifth of July the committee considering the question of
representation reported on the 40,000 basis which repeatedly came
before the Convention. It provided:

     That in the first branch of the legislature, each of the states
     now in the union, be allowed one member for every 40,000
     inhabitants, of the description reported in the seventh
     resolution of the committee of the whole house--That each state,
     not containing that number, shall be allowed one member.[541]

Reporting on this question the fifth of July, the Committee of the
Whole decided to submit:

     That the subsequent propositions be recommended to the
     Convention, on condition that both shall be generally adopted.

     1st That in the first branch of the Legislature each of the
     States now in the Union be allowed one Member for every forty
     thousand inhabitants of the description reported in the seventh
     resolution of the Committee of the whole House. That each State
     not containing that number shall be allowed one Member--That all
     Bills for raising or appropriating money and for fixing the
     salaries of the Officers of the Government of the United States,
     shall originate in the first Branch of the Legislature, and shall
     not be altered or amended by the second Branch and that no money
     shall be drawn from the public Treasury but in pursuance of
     appropriations to be originated by the first Branch. 2ndly That
     in the second Branch of the Legislature each State shall have an
     equal Veto.

Discussing this question on the sixth of July:

     Mr. Pinkney saw no good reason for committing. The value of land
     had been found on full investigation to be an impracticable rule.
     The contributions of revenue including imports & exports, must be
     too changeable in their amount; too difficult to be adjusted; and
     too injurious to the non-commercial States. The number of
     inhabitants appeared to him the only just & practicable rule. He
     thought the blacks ought to stand on an equality with whites: But
     wd.--agree to the ratio settled by Congs. He contended that
     Congs. had no right under the articles of Confederation to
     authorize the admission of new States; no such cases having been
     provided for.[542]

On the ninth of July, according to Madison, Mr. Gorham said:

     Some provision of this sort was necessary in the outset. The
     number of blacks & whites with some regard to supposed wealth
     was the general guide. Fractions could not be observed. The
     Legislre. is to make alterations from time to time as justice &
     propriety may require. Two objections prevailed agst. the rate of
     1 member for every 40,000 inhts. The 1st. was that the
     Representation would soon be too numerous: the 2d. that the
     Western States who may have a different interest, might if
     admitted on that principal by degrees, out-vote the Atlantic.
     Both these objections are removed. The number will be small in
     the first instance and maybe continued so, and the Atlantic
     States having ye Govt. in their own hands, may take care of their
     own interest by dealing out the right of Representation in safe
     proportions to the Western States. These were the views of the
     Committee.[543]

On the tenth of July the following interesting comment was made.

     Mr. Dayton observed that the line between the Northn. & Southern
     interest had been improperly drawn: that Pa. was the dividing
     State, there being six on each side of her.

     Genl. Pinkney urged the reduction, dwelt on the superior wealth
     of the Southern States, and insisted on its having its due weight
     in the Government.

     Mr. Govr. Morris regretted the turn of the debate. The States he
     found had many Representatives on the floor. Few he fears were to
     be deemed the Representatives of America. He thought the Southern
     States have by the report more than their share of
     representation. Property ought to have its weight; but not all
     the weight. If the (Southn. States are to) supply money. The
     Northn. States are to spill their blood. Besides, the probable
     Revenue to be expected from the S. States has been greatly
     overrated. He was agst. reducing N. Hampshire.[544]

In connection with determining the basis of representation the
following was offered on the eleventh of July:

     "Resolved That in order to ascertain the alterations that may
     happen in the population and wealth of the several States a
     census shall be taken of the free inhabitants of each State, and
     three fifths of the inhabitants of other description on the first
     year after this form of Government shall have been adopted--and
     afterwards on every term of ____ years; and the Legislature shall
     alter or augment the representation accordingly"

     It was moved and seconded to strike out the words

     "three fifths of"

     which passed in the negative. (Ayes--3; noes--7.)

     It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the
     resolution proposed in order to take up the following namely.

     Resolved That at the end of ____ years from the meeting of the
     Legislature of the United-States and at the expiration of every
     ____ years thereafter the Legislature of the United States be
     required to apportion the representation of the several States
     according to the principles of their wealth and population.

     On the question to postpone, it passed in the negative (Ayes--5;
     noes--5;)

     It was moved and seconded to agree to the first clause of the
     resolution namely.

     "That in order to ascertain the alterations that may happen in
     the population and wealth of the several States a "Census shall
     be taken of each State"

     which passed in the affirmative (Ayes--6; noes--4.)

     (To adjourn. Ayes--1; noes--9.)

     It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause of the
     resolution, namely

     "and three fifths of the inhabitants of other description"

     which passed in the negative. (Ayes--4; noes--6.)

     It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause of the
     resolution, namely

     "On the first year after this form of government shall "have been
     adopted"

     which passed in the affirmative (Ayes--7; noes--3.)

     It was moved and seconded to fill up the blank with the word
     "fifteen" which passed unanimously in the affirmative (Ayes--10;
     noes--0.)

     It was moved and seconded to add after the words fifteen years
     the words "at least"

     which passed in the negative (Ayes--5; noes--5.)

     It was moved and seconded to agree to the following clause of the
     resolution namely

     "and the Legislature shall alter or augment the representation
     accordingly"

     which passed unanimously in the affirmative (Ayes--10; noes--0.)
     On the question to agree to the resolution as amended it passed
     unanimously in the negative. (Ayes--0; noes--10.) and then the
     House adjourned till tomorrow at 11 o'clock A.M.[545]

Taking up the question, Mr. Williamson urged again on the eleventh of
July the counting of five Negroes as three white persons.

     Mr. Williamson was for making it the duty of the Legislature to
     do what was right & not leaving it at liberty to do or not do it.
     He moved that Mr. Randolph's proposition be postponed, in order
     to consider the following "that in order to ascertain the
     alterations that may happen in the population & wealth of the
     several States, a census shall be taken of the free white
     inhabitants and 3/5ths of those of other descriptions on the 1st
     year (after this Government shall have been adopted) and every
     year thereafter; and that the Representation be regulated
     accordingly.[546]

       *       *       *       *       *

     Mr. Butler & Genl. Pinkney insisted that blacks be included in
     the rule of Representation, _equally_ with the whites: (and for
     that purpose moved that the words "three fifths" be struck
     out.)[547]

     Mr. Gerry though that 3/5 of them was to say the least the full
     proportion that could be admitted.

     Mr. Ghorum. This ratio was fixed by Congs. as a rule of taxation.
     Then it was urged by the Delegates representing the States having
     slaves that the blacks were still more inferior to freemen. At
     present when the ratio of representation is to be established, we
     are assured that they are equal to freemen. The arguments on ye.
     former occasion had convinced him that 3/5 was pretty near the
     just proportion and he should vote according to the same opinion
     now.

     Mr. Butler insisted that the labour of a slave in S. Carola. was
     as productive & valuable as that of a freeman in Massts., that as
     wealth was the great means of defence and utility to the Nation
     they are equally valuable to it with freemen; and that
     consequently an equal representation ought to be allowed for them
     in a Government which was instituted principally for the
     protection of property, and was itself to be supported by
     property.

     Mr. Mason could not agree to the motion, notwithstanding it was
     favorable to Virga. because he thought it unjust. It was certain
     that the slaves were valuable, as they raised the value of land,
     increased the exports & imports, and of course the revenue, would
     supply the means of feeding and supporting an army, and might in
     cases of emergency become themselves soldiers. As in these
     important respects they were useful to the community at large,
     they ought not to be excluded from the estimate of
     Representation. He could not, however, regard them as equal to
     freemen and could not vote for them as such. He added as worthy
     of remark, that the Southern States have this peculiar species of
     property over & above the other species of property common to all
     the States.

     Mr. Williamson reminded Mr. Ghorum that if the Southn. States
     contended for the inferiority of blacks to whites when taxation
     was in view, the Eastern States on the same occasion contended
     for their equality. He did (not) however either then or now,
     concur in either extreme, but approved of the ratio of 3/5.

     On Mr. Butlers motion for considering blacks as equal to Whites
     in the apportionment for Representation

     Massts. no. Cont. no. (N. Y. not on floor.) N. J. no. Pa. no.
     Del. ay. Md. No. (Va. no) N. C. no. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes--3;
     noes--7.)

     Mr. Govr. Morris said he had several objections to the
     proposition of Mr. Williamson. 1. It fettered the Legislature too
     much. 2. It would exclude some States altogether who would not
     have a sufficient number to entitle them to a single
     Representative. 3. It will not consist with the Resolution passed
     on Saturday last authorizing the Legislature to adjust the
     Representation from time to time on the principles of population
     & wealth or with the principles of equity. If slaves were to be
     considered as inhabitants, not as wealth, then the sd Resolution
     would not be pursued: If as wealth, then why is no other wealth
     but slaves included? These objections may perhaps be removed by
     amendments. His great objection was that the number of
     inhabitants was not a proper standard of wealth. The amazing
     difference between the comparative numbers & wealth of different
     Countries, renderd all reasoning superfluous on the subject.
     Numbers might with greater propriety be deemed a measure of
     strength, than of wealth, yet the late defence made by G. Britain
     agst. her numerous enemies proved in the clearest manner, that it
     is entirely fallacious even in this respect.

     Mr. King thought there was great force in the objections of Mr.
     Govr. Morris: he would however accede to the proposition for the
     sake of doing something.

     Mr. Rutlidge contended for the admission of wealth in the
     estimate by which Representation should be regulated. The Western
     States will not be able to contribute in proportion to their
     numbers, they shd. not therefore be represented in that
     proportion. The Atlantic States will not concur in such a plan.
     He moved that "at the end of ____ years after the 1st meeting of
     the Legislature, and of every ____ years thereafter, the
     Legislature shall proportion the Representation according to the
     principles of wealth & population"

     Mr. Sherman thought the number of people alone the best rule for
     measuring wealth as well as representation; and that if the
     Legislature were to be governed by wealth, they would be obliged
     to estimate it by numbers. He was at first for leaving the matter
     wholly to the discretion of the Legislature; but he had been
     convinced by the observations of (Mr. Randolph & Mr. Mason) that
     the _periods_ & the _rule_ of revising the Representation ought
     to be fixt by the Constitution

     Mr. Reid thought the Legislature ought not to be too much
     shackled. It would make the Constitution like Religious Creeds,
     embarrassing to those bound to conform to them & more likely to
     produce dissatisfaction and Scism, than harmony and union.

     Mr. Mason objected to Mr. Rutlidge motion, as requiring of the
     Legislature something too indefinite & impracticable, and leaving
     them a pretext for doing nothing.

     Mr. Wilson had himself no objection to leaving the Legislature
     entirely at liberty. But considered wealth as an impracticable
     rule.

     Mr. Ghorum. If the Convention who are comparatively so little
     biased by local views are so much perplexed, How can it be
     expected that the Legislature hereafter under the full biass of
     those views, will be able to settle a standard. He was convinced
     by the argument of others & his own reflections, that the
     Convention ought to fix some standard or other.

     Mr. Govr. Morris. The argts. of others & his own reflections had
     led him to a very different conclusion. If we can't agree on a
     rule that will be just at this time, how can we expect to find
     one that will be just in all times to come. Surely those who come
     after us will judge better of things present, than we can of
     things future. He could not persuade himself that numbers would
     be a just rule at any time. * * * * * * * Another objection with
     him agst admitting the blacks into the census, was that the
     people of Pena. would revolt at the idea of being put on a
     footing with slaves. They would reject any plan that was to have
     such an effect. Two objections had been raised agst. leaving the
     adjustment of the Representation from time to time, to the
     discretion of the Legislature.[548]

The question of counting three-fifths of the Negroes as whites,
however, would not down. According to Madison:

     Mr. King, being much opposed to fixing numbers as the rule of
     representation, was particularly so on account of the blacks. He
     thought the admission of them along with Whites at all, would
     excite great discontents among the States having no slaves. He
     had never said as to any particular point that he would in no
     event acquiesce in & support it; but he wd. say that if in any
     case such a declaration was to be made by him, it would be in
     this. He remarked that in the (temporary) allotment of
     Representatives made by the Committee, the Southern States had
     received more than the number of their white & three fifths of
     their black inhabitants entitled them to.

     Mr. Sherman. S. Carola. had not more beyond her proportion than
     N. York & N. Hampshire, nor either of them more than was
     necessary in order to avoid fractions or reducing them below
     their proportion. Georgia had more; but the rapid growth of that
     State seemed to justify it. In general the allotment might not be
     just, but considering all circumstances, he was satisfied with
     it.

     Mr. Ghorum supported the propriety of establishing numbers as the
     rule. He said that in Massts. estimates had been taken in the
     different towns, and that persons had been curious enough to
     compare these estimates with the respective numbers of people;
     and it had been found even including Boston, that the most exact
     proportion prevailed between numbers and property. He was aware
     that there might be some weight in what had fallen from his
     colleague, as to the umbrage which might be taken by the people
     of the Eastern States. But he recollected that when the
     proposition of Congs for changing the 8th art. of Confedn. was
     before the Legislature of Massts. the only difficulty then was to
     satisfy them that the negroes ought not to have been counted
     equally with whites instead of being counted in the ratio of
     three fifths only.

     Mr. Wilson did not well see on what principle the admission of
     blacks in the proportion of three fifths could be explained. Are
     they admitted as Citizens? Then why are they not admitted on an
     equality with White Citizens? Are they admitted as property, then
     why is not other property admitted into the computation? These
     were difficulties however which he thought must be overruled by
     the necessity of compromise. He had some apprehensions also from
     the tendency of the blending of the blacks with the whites, to
     give disgust to the people of Pena. as had been intimated by his
     colleagues (Mr. Govr. Morris). But he differed from him in
     thinking numbers of inhabts. so incorrect a measure of wealth. He
     had seen the Western settlemts. of Pa. and on a comparison of
     them with the City of Philada. could discover little other
     difference, than that property was more unequally divided among
     individuals here than there. Taking the same number in the
     aggregate in the two situations he believed there could be little
     difference in their wealth and ability to contribute to the
     public wants.

     Mr. Govr. Morris was compelled to declare himself reduced to the
     dilemma of doing injustice to the Southern States or to human
     nature, and he must therefore do it to the former. For he could
     never agree to give such encouragement to the slave trade as
     would be given by allowing them a representation for their
     negroes, and he did not believe those States would ever
     confederate on terms that would deprive them of that trade.

     On question for agreeing to include 3/5 of the blacks Masts, no
     Cont. ay N. J. no. Pa. no Del. no. Mard. no Va. ay. N. C. ay. S.
     C. no. Geo. ay (Ayes--6; noes--4.)[549]

On the twelfth of July the following clause was proposed:

     "Provided always that direct Taxation ought to be proportioned
     according to representation"

     which passed unanimously in the affirmative.

     It was moved and seconded to postpone the consideration of the
     first clause in the report from the first grand Committee

     which passed in the affirmative.

     It was moved and seconded to add the following amendment to the
     last clause adopted by the House namely "and that the rule of
     contribution by direct taxation for the support of the government
     of the United States shall be the number of white inhabitants,
     and three fifths of every other description in the several
     States, until some other rule that shall more accurately
     ascertain the wealth of the several States can be devised and
     adopted by the Legislature[550]

       *       *       *       *       *

     On the motion of Mr. Randolph, the vote of Saturday last (July 7)
     authorizing the Legislre. to adjust from time to time, the
     representation upon the principles of _Wealth_ and numbers of
     inhabitants was (reconsidered by common consent in order to
     strike our "Wealth" and adjust the resolution to that requiring
     periodical revisions according to the number of whites & three
     fifths of the blacks: the motion was in the words following--"But
     as the present situation of the States may probably alter in the
     number of their inhabitants, that the Legislature of the U. S. be
     authorized from time to time to apportion the number of
     representatives: and in case any of the States shall hereafter be
     divided or any two or more States united or new States created
     within the limits of the U. S. shall hereafter be divided or any
     two or more States united or new States created within the limits
     of the U. S. the Legislature of U. S. shall possess authority to
     regulate the number of Representatives in any of the foregoing
     cases, upon the principle of their number of inhabitants;
     according to the provisions hereafter mentioned.")

     Mr. Govr. Morris opposed the alteration as leaving still an
     incoherence. If Negroes were to be viewed as inhabitants, and the
     revision was to proceed on the principle of numbers of inhbts.
     they ought to be added in their entire number, and not in the
     proportion of 3/5. If as property, the word wealth was right, and
     striking it out would produce the very inconsistency which it was
     meant to get rid of.--The train of business & the late turn which
     it had taken, had led him he said, into deep meditation on it,
     and He wd. candidly state the result. A distinction had been set
     up & urged between the Nn. & Southn. States. He had hitherto
     considered this doctrine as heretical. He still thought the
     distinction groundless. He sees however that it is persisted in;
     and that the Southn. Gentleman will not be satisfied unless they
     see the way open to their gaining a majority in the public
     Councils. The consequence of such a transfer of power from the
     maritime to the interior & landed interests will he forsees be
     such an oppression of commerce, that he shall be obliged to vote
     for ye. vicious principle of equality in the 2d. branch in order
     to provide for some defence for the N. States agst. it. But to
     come now more to the point, either this distinction is fictitious
     or real: if fictitious let it be dismissed & let us proceed with
     due confidence. If it be real, instead of attempting to blend
     incompatible things, let us at once take a friendly leave of each
     other. There can be no end of demands for security if every
     particular interest is to be entitled to it. The Eastern States
     may claim it for their fishery, and for other objects, as the
     Southn. States claim it for their peculiar objects. In this
     struggle between the two ends of the Union, what part ought the
     Middle States in point of policy to take; to join their Eastern
     brethren according to his ideas. If the Southn. States get the
     power into their hands, and be joined as they will be the
     interior Country they will inevitably bring on a war with Spain
     for the Mississippi. This language is already held. The interior
     Country having no property nor interest exposed on the sea, will
     be little affected by such a war. He wished to know what security
     the Northn. & middle States will have agst. this danger. It has
     been said that N. C. S. C. and Georgia only will in a little time
     have a majority of the people of America. They must in that case
     include the great interior Country, and every thing was to be
     apprehended from their getting the power into their hands.[551]

The Committee of Detail finally brought forward for the apportionment
of direct taxes and representation in the House a plan for taking the
Negroes into account.

     (Direct Taxation shall always be in Proportion to Representation
     in the House of Representatives.)

     The proportions of direct Taxation shall be regulated by the
     whole Number of white and other free Citizens and Inhabitants, of
     every Age, Sex and Condition, including those bound to Servitude
     for a Term of Years, and three fifths of all other Persons not
     comprehended in the foregoing Description; which Number shall,
     within the Term of every ten Years afterwards, be taken in such
     manner as the said Legislature shall direct.[552]

This, as is shown below, is substantially what Rutledge as Chairman of
the committee to report a constitution reported.

     Sect. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by
     the whole number of white and other free citizens and
     inhabitants, of every age, sex and condition, including those
     bound to servitude for a term of years, and three fifths of all
     other persons not comprehended in the foregoing description,
     (except Indians not paying taxes) which number shall, within six
     years after the first meeting of the Legislature, and within the
     term of every ten years afterwards, be taken in such manner as
     the said Legislature shall direct.[553]

The same appears also in the report of the Committee on Style.

     Sect. 3. The proportions of direct taxation shall be regulated by
     the whole number of free citizens and inhabitants, of every age,
     sex and condition, including those bound to servitude for a term
     of years, and three fifths of all other persons not comprehended
     in the foregoing description, (except Indians not paying taxes)
     which number shall, within three years after the first meeting of
     the Legislature, and within the term of every ten years
     afterwards, be taken in such manner as the said Legislature shall
     direct.

     (b) Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among
     the several states which may be included within this Union,
     according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined
     by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those
     bound to servitude for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
     taxed, three fifths of all other persons. The actual enumeration
     shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the
     Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term
     of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The
     number of representatives shall not exceed one for every forty
     thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative:
     and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of
     New-Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts
     eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantation one, Connecticut
     five, New-York six, New-Jersey, four, Pennsylvania eight,
     Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North-Carolina five,
     South-Carolina five and Georgia three.[554]

What these framers said in explaining their intentions thereafter when
discussing the constitution in ratifying conventions, legislatures and
Congress, is further illuminating. Before the Maryland convention
called to ratify the constitution Luther Martin said:

     S: 2. Slaves ought never to be considered in Representation,
     because they are property. They afford a rule as such in
     Taxation; but are Citizens intrusted in the General Government,
     no more than Cattle, Horses, Mules or Asses: and a Gentleman in
     Debate very pertinently observed that he would as soon enter into
     Compacts, with the Asses Mules, or Horses of the Ancient Dominion
     as with their Slaves--When there is power to raise a revenue by
     direct Taxation, each State ought to pay an equal Ratio; Whereas
     by taxing Commerce some States pay greatly more than others,[555]

Before the South Carolina House of Representatives C. C. Pinckney
said:

     We are at a loss, for some time, for a rule to ascertain the
     proportionate wealth of the states. At last we thought that the
     productive labor of the inhabitants was the best rule for
     ascertaining their wealth. In conformity to this rule, joined to
     a spirit of concession, we determined that representatives should
     be apportioned among the several states, by adding to the whole
     number of free persons three fifths of the slaves. We thus
     obtained a representation for our property; and I confess I did
     not expect that we had conceded too much to the Eastern States,
     when they allowed us a representation for a species of property
     which they have not among them.[556]

In the New York Convention considering the ratification of the
constitution, Hamilton said:

     The first thing objected to is that clause which allows a
     representation for three fifths of the negroes.... The regulation
     complained of was one result of the spirit of accommodation
     which governed the Convention; and without this indulgence no
     union could possibly have been formed.[557]

On July 24, 1788, in the North Carolina convention, Davie said:

     ... The gentleman "does not wish to be represented with negroes."
     This, sir, is an unhappy species of population; but we cannot at
     present alter their situation. The Eastern States had great
     jealousies on this subject. They insisted that their cows and
     horses were equally entitled to representation; that the one was
     property as well as the other. It became our duty, on the other
     hand, to acquire as much weight as possible in the legislation of
     the Union; and, as the Northern States were more populous in
     whites, this only could be done by insisting that a certain
     proportion of our slaves should make a part of the computed
     population. It was attempted to form a rule of representation
     from a compound ratio of wealth and population; but, on
     consideration, it was found impracticable to determine the
     comparative value of lands and other property, in so extensive a
     territory, with any degree of accuracy; and population alone was
     adopted as the only practicable rule or criterion of
     representation. It was urged by the deputies of the Eastern
     States, that a representation would be unequal and
     burdensome--that, in a time of war, slaves rendered a country
     more vulnerable, while its defence devolved upon its free
     inhabitants. On the other hand, we insisted that, in time of
     peace, they contributed by their labor, to the general wealth, as
     well as other members of the community--that, as rational beings,
     they had a right of representation, and, in some instances, might
     be highly useful in war. On these principles the Eastern States
     gave the matter up, and consented to the regulation as it has
     been read. I hope these reasons will appear satisfactory. It is
     the same rule or principle which was proposed some years ago by
     Congress, and assented to by twelve of the States....[558]

In the House of Representatives in 1820 C. C. Pinckney of South
Carolina said:

     Among the reasons which have induced me to rise, one is to
     express my surprise. Surprise, did I say? I ought rather to have
     said, my extreme astonishment, at the assertion I heard made on
     both floors of Congress, that, in forming the Constitution of the
     United States, and particularly that part of it which respects
     the representation on this floor, the Northern and Eastern
     States, or, as they are now called, the non-slaveholding States,
     have made a great concession to the Southern in granting them a
     representation of three-fifths of their slaves; that they saw the
     concession was a very great and important one at the time, but
     that they had no idea it would so soon have proved itself of such
     consequence; that it would so soon have proved itself to be by
     far the most important concession that had been made. They say,
     that it was wrung from them by their affection to the Union, and
     their wish to preserve it from dissolution or disunion; that they
     had, for a long time, lamented they had made it; and that, if it
     was to do over, no earthly consideration should again tempt them
     to agree to so unequal and so ruinous a compromise....

     It was, sir, for the purpose of correcting this great and
     unpardonable error; unpardonable, because it is a wilful one, and
     the error of it is well known to the ablest of those who make it;
     of denying the assertion, and proving that the contrary is the
     fact, and that the concession, on that occasion, was from the
     Southern and the Northern States, that, among others, I have
     risen.

     It is of the greatest consequence that the proof I am about to
     give should be laid before this nation; for, as the inequality of
     representation is the great ground on which the Northern and
     Eastern States have always, and now more particularly and
     forcibly than ever, raised all their complaints on this subject,
     if I can show and prove that they have not even a shadow of right
     to make pretences or complaints; that they are as fully
     represented as they ought to be; while, we, the Southern members,
     are unjustly deprived of any representation for a large and
     important part of our population, more valuable to the Union, as
     can be shown, than any equal number of inhabitants in the
     Northern and Eastern States, can, from their situation, climate,
     and productions, possibly be. If I can prove this, I think I
     shall be able to show most clearly the true motives which have
     given rise to this measure; to strip the thin, the cobweb veil
     from it, as well as the pretended ones of religion, humanity, and
     love of liberty; and to show, to use the soft terms the decorum
     of debate oblige me to use, the extreme want of modesty in those
     who are already as fully represented here as they can be, to go
     the great lengths they do in endeavoring, by every effort in
     their power, public and private, to take from the Southern and
     Western States, which are already so greatly and unjustly
     deprived of an important part of the representation, a still
     greater share; to endeavor to establish the first precedent,
     which extreme rashness and temerity have ever presumed, that
     Congress has a right to touch the question and legislate on
     slavery; thereby shaking the property in them, in the Southern
     and Western States, to its very foundation, and making an attack
     which, if successful, must convince them that the Northern and
     Eastern States are their greatest enemies; that they are
     preparing measures for them which even Great Britain in the heat
     of the Revolutionary War, and when all her passions were roused
     by hatred and revenge to the highest pitch never ventured to
     inflict upon them. Instead of a course like this, they ought, in
     my judgment, sir, to be highly pleased with their present
     situation; that they are fully represented, while we have lost so
     great a share of our representation; they ought sir, to be highly
     pleased at the dexterity and management of their members in the
     Convention, who obtained for them this great advantage; and,
     above all, with the moderation and forbearance with which the
     Southern and Western States have always borne their many bitter
     provocations on this subject, and now bear the open, avowed, and,
     by many of the ablest men among them, undisguised attack on our
     most valuable rights and properties....

            *       *       *       *       *

     Before I proceed to the other parts of this question, I have thus
     endeavored to give a new view of the subject of representation in
     this House; to show how much more the Eastern and Northern States
     are represented than the Southern and Western....

     The supporters of the amendment contend that Congress have the
     right to insist on the prevention of involuntary servitude in
     Missouri; and found the right on the ninth section of the first
     article, which says "the migration or importation of such persons
     as the States now existing may think proper to admit, shall not
     be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax
     or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding ten
     dollars."

     In considering this article, I will detail, as far as at this
     distant period is possible, what was the intention of the
     Convention that formed the Constitution in this article. The
     intention was, to give Congress a power, after the year 1808, to
     prevent the importation of slaves either by land or water from
     other countries. The word _import_, includes both, and applies
     wholly to slaves. Without this limitation Congress might have
     stopped it sooner under their general power to regulate commerce;
     and it was an agreed point, a solemnly understood compact, that,
     on the Southern States consenting to shut their ports against the
     importation of Africans, no power was to be delegated to
     Congress, nor were they ever to be authorized to touch the
     question of slavery; that the property of the Southern States in
     slaves was to be as sacredly preserved, and protected to them, as
     that of land, or any other kind of property in the Eastern States
     were to be to their citizens.

     The term, or word, migration, applies wholly to free whites; in
     its Constitutional sense, as intended by the Convention, it means
     "voluntary change of servitude," from one country to another. The
     reasons of its being adopted and used in the Constitution, as far
     as I can recollect, were these; that the Constitution being a
     frame of government, consisting wholly of delegated powers, all
     power, not expressly delegated, being reserved to the people or
     the States, it was supposed, that, without some express grant to
     them of power on the subject, Congress would not be authorized
     ever to touch the question of migration hither, or emigration to
     this country, however pressing or urgent the necessity for such a
     measure might be; that they could derive no such power from the
     usages of nations, or even the laws of war; that the latter would
     only enable them to make prisoners of alien enemies, which would
     not be sufficient, as spies or other dangerous emigrants, who
     were not alien enemies, might enter the country for treasonable
     purposes, and do great injury; that, as all governments possessed
     this power, it was necessary to give it to our own, which could
     alone exercise it, and where, on other and much greater points,
     we had placed unlimited confidence; it was, therefore, agreed
     that, in the same article, the word migration should be placed;
     and that, from the year 1808, Congress should possess the
     complete power to stop either or both, as they might suppose the
     public interest required; the article, therefore, is a _negative
     pregnant_, restraining for twenty years, and giving the power
     after.

     The reasons for restraining the power to prevent migration hither
     for twenty years, were, to the best of my recollections, these;
     That, as at this time, we had immense and almost immeasurable
     territory, peopled by not more than two millions and a half of
     inhabitants, it was of very great consequence to encourage the
     emigration of able, skilful, and industrious Europeans. The wise
     conduct of William Penn, and the unexampled growth of
     Pennsylvania, were cited. It was said, that the portals of the
     only temple of true freedom now existing on earth should be
     thrown open to all mankind; that all foreigners of industrious
     habits should be welcome, and none more so than men of science,
     and such as may bring to us arts we are unacquainted with, or the
     means of perfecting those in which we are not yet sufficiently
     skilled--capitalists whose wealth may add to our commerce or
     domestic improvements; let the door be ever and most
     affectionately open to illustrious exiles and sufferers in the
     cause of liberty; in short, open it liberally to science, to
     merit, and talents, wherever found, and receive and make them
     your own. That the safest mode would be to pursue the course for
     twenty years, and not, before that period, put it at all into the
     power of Congress to shut it; that, by that time, the Union would
     be so settled, and our population would be so much increased, we
     could proceed on our own stock, without the farther accession of
     foreigners; that as Congress were to be prohibited from stopping
     the importation of slaves to settle the Southern States, as no
     obstacles was to be thrown in the way of their increase and
     settlement for that period, let it be so with the Northern and
     Eastern, to which, particularly New York and Philadelphia it was
     expected most of the emigrants would go from Europe: and it so
     happened, for, previous to the year 1808, more than double as
     many Europeans emigrated to these States, as of Africans were
     imported into the Southern States.

       *       *       *       *       *

Connecting the question of importing slaves with that of counting them
to determine the representation in the national legislature, the
framers engaged in a heated debate as to whether or not the Southern
States would always have a majority in that body by encouraging the
slave trade. Carolina and Georgia, however, stood firm for the right
to import slaves.

     On July 23 General Pinckney reminded the Convention that if the
     Committee should fail to insert some security to the Southern
     States agst. an emancipation of slaves, and taxes on exports, he
     shd. be bound by duty to his State to vote agst. their
     Report--The appt. of a Come. as moved by Mr. Gerry, Agd. to nem.
     con.[559]

The Committee of Detail, therefore, reported:

     2 no prohibitions or (such) (ye) Importations of such inhabitants
     (or people as the sevl. States think proper to admit)

     No Tax or Duty shall be laid by the Legislature, on Articles
     exported from any State; nor on the emigration or importation of
     such Persons as the several States shall think proper to admit;
     nor shall such emigration or importation be prohibited.

     No Capitation Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the
     Census herein before directed to be taken.

The draft of the constitution reported on August 6 carried:[32]

     Sect. 4. No tax or duty shall be laid by the Legislature on
     articles exported from any State; nor on the migration or
     importation of such persons as the several States shall think
     proper to admit; nor shall such migration or importation be
     prohibited.

On the eighth of August, King remarked:[560]

     Mr. King wished to know what influence the vote just passed was
     meant have on the succeeding part of the Report, concerning the
     admission of slaves into the rule of Representation. He could not
     reconcile his mind to the article if it was to prevent objections
     to the latter part. The admission of slaves was a most grating
     circumstance to his mind, & he believed would be so to a great
     part of the people of America. He had not made a strenuous
     opposition to it heretofore because he had hoped that this
     concession would have produced a readiness which had not been
     manifested, to strengthen the Genl. Govt. and to mark a full
     confidence in it. The Report under consideration had by the tenor
     of it, put an end to all these hopes. In two great points the
     hands of the Legislature were absolutely tied. The importation of
     slaves could not be prohibited--exports could not be taxed. Is
     this reasonable? What are the great objects of the Genl. System?
     1. defence agst. foreign invasion. 2 agst. internal sedition.
     Shall all the States then be bound to defend each; & shall each
     be at liberty to introduce a weakness which will render defence
     more difficult? Shall one part of the U. S. be bound to defend
     another part, and that other part be at liberty not only to
     increase its own danger, but to withhold the compensation for the
     burden? If slaves are to be imported shall not the exports
     produced by their labor, supply a revenue the better to enable
     the Genl. Govt. to defend their masters?--There was so much
     inequality & unreasonableness in all this, that the people of the
     N(orthern) States could never be reconciled (to it). No candid
     man could undertake to justify it to them. He had hoped that some
     accommodation wd. have taken place on this subject; that at least
     a time wd. have been limited for the importation of slaves. He
     never could agree to let them be imported without limitation &
     then be represented in the Natl. Legislature. Indeed he could so
     little persuade himself of the rectitude of such a practice, that
     he was not sure he could assent to it under any circumstances. At
     all events, either slaves should not be represented, or exports
     should be taxable.

     Mr. Sherman regarded the slave-trade as iniquitous; but the point
     of representation having been settled after much difficuty &
     deliberation, he did not think himself bound to make opposition;
     especially as the present articles as amended did not preclude
     any arrangement whatever on that point in another place of the
     Report.

     Mr. Govr. Morris moved to insert "free" before the word
     "inhabitants." Much he said would depend on this point. He never
     would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious
     institution--It was the curse of heaven on the States where it
     prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a
     rich & noble cultivation marks the prosperity & happiness of the
     people, with the misery & poverty which overspread the barren
     wastes of Va. Maryd & the other States having slaves. (Travel
     thro' ye whold Continent & you behold the prospect continually
     varying with the appearance and disappearance of slavery. The
     moment you leave ye E Sts. & enter N. York, the effects of the
     institution become visible; Passing thro' the Jerseys and
     entering Pa--every criterion of superior improvement witnesses
     the change. Proceed Southwdly, & every step you take thro' ye
     great regions of slaves, presents a desert increasing with ye
     increasing proportion of these wretched beings.)

     Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in
     the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens & let
     them vote? Are they property? Why then is no other property
     included? The Houses in this City (Philada.) are worth more than
     all the wretched slaves which cover the rice swamps of South
     Carolina. The admission of slaves into the Representation when
     fairly explained comes to this: that inhabitant of Georgia and S.
     C. who goes to the Coast of Africa and in defiance of the most
     sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from
     their dearest connections & dam(n)s them to the most cruel
     bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for
     protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizens of Pa or
     N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a
     practice. He would add that Domestic slavery is the most
     prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed
     Constitution. The vassalage of the poor has ever been the
     favorite offspring of Aristocracy. And What is the proposed
     compensation to the Northern States for a sacrifice of every
     principle of right, of every impulse of humanity. They are to
     bind themselves to march their militia for the defence of the S.
     States; for their defence agst those very slaves of whom they
     complain. They must supply vessels & seamen, in case of foreign
     Attack. The Legislature will have indefinite power to tax them by
     excises, and duties on imports; both of which will fall heavier
     on them than on the Southern inhabitants; for the bohea tea used
     by a Northern freeman, will pay more tax than the whole
     consumption of the miserable slave, which consists of nothing
     more than his physical subsistence and the rag that covers his
     nakedness. On the other side the Southern States are not to be
     restrained from importing fresh supplies of wretched Africans, at
     once to increase the danger of attack, and the difficulty of
     defence; nay they are to be encouraged to it by an assurance of
     having their votes in the Natl Govt increased in proportion, and
     are at the same time to have their exports & their slaves exempt
     from all contributions for the public service. Let it not be said
     that direct taxation is to be proportioned to representation. It
     is idle to suppose that the Genl Govt. can stretch its hand
     directly into the pockets of the people scattered over so vast a
     Country. They can only do it through the medium of exports
     imports & excises. For what then are all these sacrifices to be
     made? He would sooner submit himself to a tax for paying for all
     the Negroes in the U. States, than saddle posterity with such a
     Constitution.

     Mr. Dayton 2ded. the motion. He did it he said that his
     sentiments on the subject might appear whatever might be the fate
     of the amendment.

     Mr. Sherman, did not regard the admission of the Negroes into the
     ratio of representation, as liable to such insuperable
     objections. It was the freemen of the Southn. States who were in
     fact to be represented according to the taxes paid by them, and
     the Negroes are only included in the Estimate of the taxes. This
     was his idea of the matter.

     Mr. Pinkney, considered the fisheries & the Western frontier as
     more burdensome to the U. S. than the slaves--He thought this
     could be demonstrated if the occasion were a proper one.

     Mr Wilson, thought the motion premature--An agreement to the
     clause would be no bar to the object of it.

     Question On Motion to insert "free" before "inhabitants."

     N. H.--no. Mas. no. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. no. Md. no.
     Va. no. S. C. no. N. C. no. Geo. no. (Ayes--1; noes--10.)[561]

            *       *       *       *       *

     Luther Martin (some days thereafter), proposed to vary the sect:
     4. art VII so as to allow a prohibition or tax on the importation
     of slaves,

     1. As five slaves are to be counted as 3 free men in the
     apportionment of Representatives; such a clause wd. leave an
     encouragement to this traffic.

     2. slaves weakened one part of the Union which the other parts
     were bound to protect: the privilege of importing them was
     therefore unreasonable--

     3. it was inconsistent with the principles of the revolution and
     dishonorable to the American character to have such a feature in
     the Constitution.

     Mr Rutlidge did not see how the importation of slaves could be
     encouraged by this section. He was not apprehensive of
     insurrections and would readily exempt the other States from the
     (obligation to protect the Southern against them.).--Religions &
     humanity had nothing to do with this question--Interest alone is
     the governing principle with Nations--The true question at
     present is whether the Southn. States shall or shall not be
     parties to the Union. If the Northern States consult their
     interest, they will not oppose the increase of Slaves which will
     increase the commodities of which they will become the carriers.

     Mr. Ellsworth was for leaving the clause as it stands, let every
     State import what it pleases. The morality or wisdom of slavery
     are considerations belonging to the States themselves--What
     enriches a part enriches the whole, and the States are the best
     judges of their particular interest. The old confederation had
     not meddled with this point, and he did not see any greater
     necessity for bringing it within the policy of the new one:

     Mr Pinkney. South Carolina can never receive the plan if it
     prohibits the slave trade. In every proposed extension of the
     powers of Congress, that State has expressly & watchfully
     excepted that of meddling with the importation of negroes. If the
     States be all left at liberty on this subject, S. Carolina may
     perhaps by degrees do of herself what is wished, as Virginia &
     Maryland have already done.[562]

  Adjourned

     Art. VII sect 4. resumed. Mr. Sherman was for leaving the clause
     as it stands. He disapproved of the slave trade: yet as the
     States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, as the
     public good did not require it to be taken from them, & as it was
     expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed
     scheme of Government, he thought it best to leave the matter as
     we find it.[34] He observed that the abolition of slavery seemed
     to be going on in the U. S. & that the good sense of the several
     States would probably by degrees complete it. He urged on the
     Convention the necessity of despatch(ing its business.)

     Col. Mason. This infernal trafic originated in the avarice of
     British Merchants. The British Govt. constantly checked the
     attempts of Virginia to put a stop to it. The present question
     concerns not the importing States alone but the whole Union. The
     evil of having slaves was experienced during the late war. Had
     slaves been treated as they might have been by the Enemy, they
     would have proved dangerous instruments in their hands. But their
     folly dealt by the slaves, as it did by the Tories. He mentioned
     the dangerous insurrections of the slaves in Greece and Sicily;
     and the instructions given by Cromwell to the Commissioners sent
     to Virginia to arm the servants & slaves, in case other means of
     obtaining its submission should fail. Maryland & Virginia he said
     had already prohibited the importation of slaves expressly. N.
     Carolina had done the same in substance. All this would be in
     vain if S. Carolina & Georgia be at liberty to import. The
     Western people are already calling out for slaves for their new
     lands; and will fill that Country with slaves if they can be got
     thro' S. Carolina & Georgia. Slavery discourages arts &
     manufactures. The poor despise labor when performed by slaves.
     They prevent the immigration of Whites, who really enrich &
     strengthen a Country. They produce the most pernicious effect on
     manners. Every master of slaves is born a petty tyrant. They
     bring the judgment of heaven on a Country. As nations can not be
     rewarded or punished in the next world they must be in this. By
     an inevitable chain of causes & effects providence punishes
     national calamities. He lamented that some of our Eastern
     brethren had from a lust of gain embarked in this nefarious
     traffic. As to the States being in possession of the Right to
     import, this was the case with many other rights, now to be
     properly given up. He held it essential in every point of view,
     that the Genl. Govt. should have power to prevent the increase of
     slavery.

     Mr. Ellsworth. As he had never owned a slave could not judge of
     the effects of slavery on character. He said however that if it
     was to be considered in a moral light we ought to go farther and
     free those already in the Country.--As slaves also multiply so
     fast in Virginia & Maryland that it is cheaper to raise than
     import them, whilst in the sickly rice swamps foreign supplies
     are necessary, if we go no farther than is urged, we shall be
     unjust towards S. Carolina & Georgia--Let us not intermeddle. As
     population increases; poor laborers will be so plenty as to
     render slaves useless. Slavery in time will not be a speck in our
     Country. Provision is already taken place in Connecticut for
     abolishing it. And the abolition has already taken place in
     Massachusetts. As to the danger of insurrection from foreign
     influence, that will become a motive to kind treatment of the
     slaves.

     Mr. Pinkney--If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example
     of the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome & other ancient
     States; the sanction given by France, England, Holland & other
     modern States. In all ages one half of mankind have been slaves.
     If the S. States were let alone they will probably of themselves
     stop importations. He wd. himself as a Citizen of S. Carolina
     vote for it. An attempt to take away the right as proposed will
     produce serious objections to the Constitution which he wished to
     see adopted.

     General Pinkney declared it to be his firm opinion that if
     himself & all his colleagues were to sign the Constitution & use
     their personal influence, it would be of no avail towards
     obtaining the assent of their Constituents. S. Carolina & Georgia
     cannot do without slaves. As to Virginia she will gain by
     stopping the importations. Her slaves will rise in value, & she
     has more than she wants. It would be unequal to require S. C. &
     Georgia to confederate on such unequal terms. He said the Royal
     assent before the Revolution had never been refused to S.
     Carolina as to Virginia. He contended that the importation of
     slaves would be for the interest of the whole Union. The more
     slaves, the more produce to employ the carrying trade; the more
     consumption also, and the more of this, the more of revenue for
     the common treasury. He admitted it to be reasonable that slaves
     should be dutied like other imports, but should consider a
     rejection of the clause as an exclusion of S. Carola from the
     Union.

     Mr. Baldwin had conceived national object alone to be before the
     Convention, not such as like the present were of a local nature.
     Georgia was decided on this point. That State has always hitherto
     supposed a Genl Government to be the pursuit of the central
     States who wished to have a vortex for every thing--that her
     distance would preclude her from equal advantage--& that she
     could not prudently purchase it by yielding national powers. From
     this it might be understood in what light she would view an
     attempt to abridge one of her favorite prerogatives. If left to
     herself, she may probably put a stop to the evil. As one ground
     for this conjecture, he took notice of the sect of which he said
     was a respectable class of people, who carryed their ethics
     beyond the mere _equality of men_, extending their humanity to
     the claims of the whole animal creation.

     Mr. Wilson observed that if S. C. & Georgia were themselves
     disposed to get rid of the importation of slaves in a short time
     as had been suggested, they would never refuse to unite because
     the importation might be prohibited. As the Section now stands
     all articles imported are to be taxed. Slaves alone are exempt.
     This is in fact a bounty on that article.

     Mr. Gerry thought we had nothing to do with the conduct of the
     States as to Slaves, but ought to be careful not to give any
     sanction to it.

     Mr. Dickinson considered it as inadmissible on every principle of
     honor & safety that the importation of slaves should be
     authorized to the States by the Constitution. The true question
     was whether the national happiness would be promoted or impeded
     by the importation, and this question ought to be left to the
     National Govt. not to the States particularly interested. If
     Engd. & France permit slavery, slaves are at the same time
     excluded from both those kingdoms. Greece and Rome were made
     unhappy by their slaves. He could not believe that the Southn.
     States would refuse to confederate on the account apprehended;
     especially as the power was not likely to be immediately
     exercised by the Genl. Government.

     Mr Williamson stated the law of N. Carolina on the subject, to
     wit that it did not directly prohibit the importation of slaves.
     It imposed a duty of £5. on each slave imported from Africa. £10.
     on each from elsewhere, & £50 on each from a State licensing
     manumission. He thought the S. States could not be members of the
     Union if the clause should be rejected, and that it was wrong to
     force any thing down, not absolutely necessary, and which any
     State must disagree to.

     Mr. King thought the subject should be considered in a political
     light only. If two States will not agree to the Constitution as
     stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the
     other, that great & equal opposition would be experienced from
     the other States. He remarked on the exemption of slaves from
     duty whilst every other import was subjected to it, as an
     inequality that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity
     of the Northn. & middle States.

     Mr. Langdon was strenuous for giving the power to the Genl Govt.
     He cd. not with a good conscience leave it with the States who
     could then go on with the traffic, without being restrained by
     the opinions here given that they will themselves cease to import
     slaves.

     Genl. Pinkney thought himself bound to declare candidly that he
     did not think S. Carolina would stop her importations of slaves
     in any short time, but only stop them occasionally as she now
     does. He moved to commit the clause that slaves might be made
     liable to an equal tax with other imports which he thought right
     & wh. wd. remove one difficulty that had been started.

     Mr. Rutlidge. If the Convention thinks that N. C.; S. C. &
     Georgia will ever agree to the plan, unless their right to import
     slaves be untouched, the expectation is vain. The people of those
     States will never be such fools as to give up so important an
     interest. He was strenuous agst. striking out the Section, and
     seconded the motion of Genl. Pinkney for a commitment.

     Mr. Govr. Morris wished the whole subject to be committed
     including the clauses relating to taxes on exports & to a
     navigation act. These things may form a bargain among the
     Northern & Southern States.

     Mr. Butler declared that he never would agree to the power of
     taxing exports.

     Mr. Sherman said it was better to let the S. States import slaves
     than to part with them, if they made that a sine qua non. He was
     opposed to a tax on slaves imported as making the matter worse,
     because it implied they were _property_. He acknowledged that if
     the power of prohibiting the importation should be given to the
     Genl. Government that it would be exercised. He thought it would
     be its duty to exercise the power.

     Mr. Read was for the commitment provided the clause concerning
     taxes on exports should also be committed.

     Mr. Sherman, observed that that clause had been agreed to &
     therefore could not committed.

     Mr. Randolph was for committing in order that some middle ground
     might, if possible, be found. He could never agree to the clause
     as it stands. He wd. sooner risk the constitution--He dwelt on
     the dilemma to which the Convention was exposed. By agreeing to
     the clause, it would revolt the Quakers, the Methodists, and many
     others in the State having no slaves. On the other hand, two
     States might be lost to the Union. Let us then, he said, try the
     chance of a commitment.

     On the question for committing the remaining part of Sect. 4 & 5.
     of art: 7. N. H. no. Mas. abst. Cont. ay N. J. ay Pa. no. Del. no
     Maryd. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay S. C. ay. Geo. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes--7;
     noes--3; absent--1.)

     Mr. Pinkney & Mr. Langdon moved to commit sect. 6. as to
     navigation act (by two thirds of each House.)

     Mr. Gorham did not see the propriety of it. Is it meant to
     require a greater proportion of votes? He desired it to be
     remembered that the Eastern States had no motive to Union but a
     commercial one. They were able to protect themselves. They were
     not afraid of external danger, and did not need the aid of the
     Southn. States.

     Mr. Wilson wished for a commitment in order to reduce the
     proportion of votes required.

     Mr. Ellsworth was for taking the plan as it is. This widening of
     opinions has a threatening aspect. If we do not agree on this
     middle & moderate ground he was afraid we should lose two States,
     with such others as may be disposed to stand aloof, should fly
     into a variety of shapes & directions, and most probably into
     several confederations and not without bloodshed.

     On Question for committing 6 sect. as to navigation Act to a
     member from each State--N. H. ay--Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa.
     ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay.
     (Ayes--9; noes--2;)[563]

McHenry has the following note on slavery for the twenty-second of
August:

     Committed the remainder of the 4 sect. with the 5 and 6.

     The 4 sect promitting the importation of Slaves gave rise to much
     desultory debate.

     Every 5 slaves counted in representation as one elector without
     being equal in point of strength to one _white_ inhabitant.

     This gave the slave States an advantage in representation over
     the others.

     The slaves were moreover exempt from duty on importation.

     They served to render the representation from such States
     aristocratical.

     It was replied--That the population or increase of slaves in
     Virginia exceeded their calls for their services--That a
     prohibition of Slaves into S. Carolina Georgia etc--would be a
     monopoly in their favor. These States could not do without
     Slaves--Virginia etc would make their own terms for such as they
     might sell.

     Such was the situation of the country that it could not exist
     without slaves--That they could confederate on no other
     condition.

     They had enjoyed the right of importing slaves when colonies.

     They enjoyed it as States under the confederation--And if they
     could not enjoy it under the proposed government, they could not
     associate or make a part of it.

     Several additions were reported by the Committee.[564]

Upon taking up the report of the Committee of Eleven on the
twenty-fifth of August

     Genl Pinkney moved to strike out the words "the year eighteen
     hundred" (as the year limiting the importation of slaves,) and to
     insert the words "the year eighteen hundred and eight"

     Mr. Ghorum 2ded the motion

     Mr. Madison. Twenty years will produce all the mischief that can
     be apprehended from the liberty to import slaves. So long a term
     will be more dishonorable to the National character than to say
     nothing about it in the Constitution.

     On the motion; (which passed in the affirmative.) N--H ay. Mas.
     ay--Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. no Del--no. Md. ay. Va. no. N--C. ay.
     S--C. ay. Geo. ay. (Ayes--7; noes--4.)

     Mr. Govr. Morris was for making the clause read at once,
     "importation of slaves into N. Carolina, S--Carolina & Georgia."
     (shall not be prohibited &c.) This he said would be most fair and
     would avoid the abiguity by which, under the power with regard to
     naturalization, the liberty reserved to the States might be
     defeated. He wished it to be known also that this part of the
     Constitution was a compliance with those States. If the change of
     language however should be objected to by the members from those
     States, he should not urge it.

     Col. Mason was not against using the term "slaves" but agst
     naming N--C--S--C. & Georgia, lest it should give offence to the
     people of those States.

     Mr Sherman liked a description better than the terms proposed,
     which had been declined by the old Congs & were not pleasing to
     some people. Mr. Clymer concurred with Mr. Sherman.

     Mr. Williamson said that both in opinion & practice he was,
     against slavery; but thought it more in favor of humanity, from a
     view of all circumstances, to let in S--C & Georgia on those
     terms, than to exclude them from the Union--

     Mr. Govr. Morris withdrew his motion.

     Mr. Dickenson wished the clause to be confined to the States
     which had not themselves prohibited the importation of slaves,
     and for that purpose moved to amend the clause so as to read "The
     importation of slaves into such of the States as shall permit the
     same shall not be prohibited by the Legislature of the
     U--S--until the year 1808".--which was agreed to nem: cont:

     The first part of the report was then agreed to, amended as
     follows. "The migration or importation of such persons as the
     several States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not
     be prohibited by the Legislature prior to the year 1808." N. H.
     Mas. Con. Md. N. C. S. C. Geo: ... ay N. J. Pa. Del Virga ... no.
     (Ayes--7; noes--4).

     Mr. Baldwin in order to restrain & more explicitly define "the
     average duty" moved to strike out of the 2d. part the words
     "average of the duties laid on imports" and insert "common impost
     on articles not enumerated" which was agreed to nem: cont:

     Mr. Sherman was agst. this 2d part, as acknowledging men to be
     property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.

     Mr. King & Mr. Langdon considered this as the price of the 1st
     part.

     Genl. Pinkney admitted that it was so.

     Col. Mason. Not to tax, will be equivalent to a bounty on the
     importation of slaves.

     Mr. Ghorum thought that Mr. Sherman should consider the duty, not
     as implying that slaves are property, but as a discouragement to
     the importation of them.

     Mr. Govr, Morris remarked that as the clause now stands it
     implies that the Legislature may tax freemen imported.

     Mr. Sherman in answer to Mr. Ghorum observed that the smallness
     of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the
     discouragement of the importation.

     Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the
     idea that there could be property in men. The reason of duties
     did not hold, as slaves are not like merchandise, consumed &c.

     Col. Mason (in answr. to Govr. Morris) the provision as it stands
     was necessary for the case of Convicts in order to prevent the
     introduction of them.

     It was finally agreed nem: contrad: to make the clause read "but
     a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not exceeding
     ten dollars for each person", and then the 2d. part as amended
     was agreed to.

     Sect 5--art--VII was agreed to nem: con: as reported.

     Sect 6. art. VII. in the Report was, postponed.

     Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of
     the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
     prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight
     hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such
     Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.[565]

James McHenry said before the Maryland House of Delegates in November
29, 1787:

     Conventions were anxious to procure a perpetual decree against
     the importation of Slaves; but the Southern States could not be
     brought to consent to it--All that could possible be obtained was
     a temporary regulation which the Congress may vary
     hereafter.[566]

     In 1787 James Wilson said before the Convention called in
     Pennsylvania to ratify the constitution:

     With respect to the clause restricting Congress from prohibiting
     the migration or importation of such persons as any of the States
     now existing shall think proper to admit, prior to the year 1808,
     the honorable gentleman says that this clause is not only dark,
     but intended to grant to Congress, for that time, the power to
     admit the importation of slaves. No such thing was intended; but
     I will tell you what was done, and it gives me high pleasure that
     so much was done. Under the present confederation, the States may
     admit the importation of the slaves as long as they please; but
     by this article, after the year 1808, the Congress will have
     power to prohibit such importation, notwithstanding the
     disposition of any State to the contrary. I consider this as
     laying the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country;
     and though the period is more distant than I could wish, yet it
     will produce the same kind, gradual change which was pursued in
     Pennsylvania. It is with much satisfaction I view this power in
     the general government, where by they may lay an interdiction on
     this reproachful trade. But an immediate advantage is also
     obtained for a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation not
     exceeding ten dollars for each person; and this, Sir, operates as
     a partial prohibition. It was all that could be obtained. I am
     sorry it was no more; but from this I think there is reason to
     hope that yet a few years, and it will be prohibited altogether.
     And in the meantime, the new States which are to be formed will
     be under the control of Congress in this particular, and slaves
     will never be introduced amongst them. The gentleman says that it
     is unfortunate in another point of view: it means to prohibit the
     introduction of white people from Europe, as this may deter them
     from coming amongst us. A little impartiality and attention will
     discover the care that the convention took in selecting their
     language. The words are, the _migration or_ IMPORTATION of such
     persons, etc., shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the
     year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such IMPORTATION.
     It is observable here that the term migration is dropped when a
     tax or duty is mentioned, so that Congress have power to impose
     the tax only on those imported.[567]

Referring to George Mason's objections to the Constitution, Oliver
Ellsworth said:

     _The general Legislature is restrained from prohibiting the
     further importation of slaves for twenty odd years_.... His
     objections are ... that such importations render the United
     States weaker, more vulnerable, and less capable of defence. To
     this I readily agree, and all good men wish the entire abolition
     of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the
     public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of
     slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by
     the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be
     imported.[568]

In his "Genuine Information" delivered before the Maryland Legislature
November 29, 1787, Luther Martin said:

     (56) By the _ninth_ section of this article, the importation of
     such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper
     to admit, shall not be prohibited prior to the year one thousand
     eight hundred and eight; but a duty may be imposed on such
     importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

     (57) The design of this clause is to prevent the general
     government from prohibiting the importation of slaves; but the
     same reasons which caused them to strike out the word
     "_national_," and not admit the word "_stamps_," influenced them
     here to guard against the word "_slaves_." They anxiously sought
     to avoid the admission of expressions which might be odious in
     the ears of of Americans, although they were willing to admit
     into their system those _things_ which the _expressions_
     signified. And hence it is, that the clause is so worded, as
     really to authorize the general government to impose a duty of
     ten dollars on every foreigner who comes into a State to become a
     citizen, whether he comes _absolutely_ free, or _qualifiedly_ so,
     as a servant; although this is contrary to the design of the
     framers, and the duty was only meant to extend to the importation
     of _slaves_.

     (58) This clause was the subject of a great diversity of
     sentiment in the convention. As the system was reported by the
     committee of detail, the provision was general, that such
     importation should not be prohibited, without confining it to any
     particular period. This was rejected by eight States,--Georgia,
     South Carolina, and I think North Carolina, voting for it.

     (59) We were then told by the delegates of the two first of
     those States, that their States would never agree to a _system_,
     which put in it the power of the general government to prevent
     the importation of slaves, and that they, as delegates from those
     States, must withhold their assent from such a system.

     (60) A committee of one member from each State was chosen by
     ballot, to take this part of the system under their
     consideration, and to endeavor to agree upon some report, which
     should reconcile those States. To this committee also was
     referred the following proposition, which had been reported by
     the committee of detail, to wit; "No _navigation_ act shall be
     passed without the assent of _two thirds_ of the members present
     in each House;" a proposition which the _staple_ and _commercial
     States_ were solicitous to _retain_, lest their _commerce_ should
     be placed too much under the power of the _eastern_ States; but
     which these last States were as anxious to _reject_. This
     committee, of which also I had the honor to be a member, met and
     took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I
     found the _eastern_ States, notwithstanding their _aversion to
     slavery_, were very willing to indulge the southern States, at
     least with a temporary liberty to prosecute the _slave-trade_,
     provided the southern States would, in their turn, gratify them,
     by laying _no restrictions on navigation acts_; and after a very
     little time the committee, by a great majority agreed on a
     report, by which the general government was to be prohibited from
     preventing the importation of slaves for a limited time, and the
     restrictive clause relative to navigation acts was to be omitted.

     (61) This report was adopted by a majority of the convention but
     not without considerable opposition. It was said, that we had
     just assumed a place among independent nations, in consequence of
     our opposition to the attempts of Great Britain to _enslave us_;
     that this opposition was grounded upon the preservation of _those
     rights_ to which God and nature had entitled _us_, not in
     _particular_, but in _common_ with _all the rest of mankind_;
     that we had _appealed_ to the _Supreme Being_ for his
     _assistance_, as the _God of freedom_, who could not but
     _approve_ our efforts to preserve the _rights_ which he had thus
     _imparted to his creatures_; that, now, when we scarcely had
     risen from our _knees_, from _supplicating_ his _aid_ and
     _protection_, in _forming our government_ over a _free people_, a
     government formed pretendedly on the _principles_ of _liberty_
     and for _its preservation_,--in _that_ government, to have a
     provision not only putting it out of _its_ power to _restrain_
     and _prevent_ the _slave-trade_, but _even encouraging that most
     infamous traffic_, by giving the _States power_ and _influence_
     in the _Union, in proportion_ as _cruelly and wantonly sport with
     the rights of their fellow creatures, ought_ to be considered as
     a _solemn mockery_, of an _insult to that God_ whose protection
     we had then implored, and could not fail to hold us up in
     _detestation_, and render us _contemptible_ to every _true
     friend_ of liberty in the world. It was said, it ought to be
     considered that national _crimes_ can only be, and _frequently
     are punished_ in this world, by national punishments; and that
     the _continuance_ of the slave-trade, and thus giving it a
     _national sanction_ and _encouragement_, ought to be considered
     as _justly exposing_ us to the _displeasure_ and _vengeance_ of
     _Him_, who is equally Lord of all, and who views with equal eye
     the poor _African slave_ and his _American master_.

     (62) It was urged, that, by this system, we were giving the
     general government full and absolute power to regulate commerce,
     under which general power it would have a right to _restrain_, or
     _totally prohibit_, the _slave-trade_; it must, therefore, appear
     to the world absurd and disgraceful to the last degree, that we
     should _except_ from the exercise of that power, the _only
     branch_ of _commerce_ which is _unjustifiable in its nature_, and
     _contrary_ to the rights of _mankind_; that, on the contrary, we
     ought _rather to prohibit expressly_ in our _constitution_, the
     _further importation of slaves_; and to _authorize_ the general
     government, from time to time, to make such regulations as should
     be thought most advantageous for the _gradual abolition of
     slavery_, and the _emancipation_ of the _slaves_ which are
     already in the States: That _slavery_ is _inconsistent_ with the
     _genius_ of _republicanism_, and has a tendency to _destroy_
     those _principles_ on which it is _supported_, as it _lessens_
     the _sense_ of the _equal rights of mankind_, and habituates us
     to _tyranny_ and _oppression_.

     (63) It was further urged that, by this system of government,
     every State is to be protected both from _foreign invasion_ and
     from _domestic insurrections_; that, from this consideration, it
     was of the _utmost importance_ it should have a power to restrain
     the importation of slaves; since in _proportion_ as the number of
     slaves are increased in any State, in the _same_ proportion the
     State is _weakened_, and _exposed_ to foreign invasion or
     domestic insurrection, and _by so much less_ will it be able to
     protect itself against _either_; and, therefore will by so much
     the more want aid from, and be a burden to the Union. It was
     further said, that as, in this system, we were giving the general
     government a power under the idea of national character, or
     national interest, to regulate even our _weights_ and
     _measures_, and have prohibited all possibility of _emitting
     paper money_, and _passing instalment laws_, &c., it must appear
     still more extraordinary, that we should prohibit the government
     from interfering with the slave-trade than which, _nothing_ could
     so _materially affect_ both our _national honor_ and _interest_.
     These reasons influenced me, both on the committee and in
     convention, most decidedly to oppose and vote against the clause
     as it now makes a part of the system.

     (64). You will perceive, Sir, not only that the general
     government is prohibited from interfering in the slave-trade
     _before_ the year eighteen hundred and eight, but that there is
     no provision in the constitution that it shall _afterwards_ be
     prohibited, nor any security that such prohibition will ever take
     place; and I think there is great reason to believe, that, if the
     importation of slaves is permitted until the year eighteen
     hundred and eight, it will not be prohibited afterwards. At _this
     time_, we do not generally hold this commerce in so great
     _abhorrence_ as we have done. When our _own_ liberties were at
     stake, we _warmly_ felt for the _common rights of men_. The
     danger being thought to be past, which threatened ourselves, we
     are daily growing _more insensible_ to those rights. In those
     States which have restrained or prohibited the importation of
     slaves, it is only done by legislative acts, which may be
     repealed. When those States find, that they must, in their
     _national character_ and _connexion_, suffer in the _disgrace_,
     and share in the _inconveniences_ attendant upon that detestable
     and iniquitous traffic, they may be desirous also to share in the
     _benefits_ arising from it; and the odium attending it will be
     greatly effaced by the sanction which is given to it in the
     general government.[569]

In Elliot's Debates we find the following accredited to General
Pinckney.

     ... The general then said he would make a few observations on the
     objections which the gentleman had thrown out on the restrictions
     that might be laid on the African trade after the year 1808. On
     this point your delegates had to contend with the religious and
     political prejudices of the Eastern and Middle States, and with
     the interested and inconsistent opinion of Virginia, who was
     warmly opposed to our importing more slaves. I am of the same
     opinion now as I was two years ago, when I used the expressions
     the gentleman has quoted--that, while there remained one acre of
     swampland uncleared of South Carolina, I would raise my voice
     against restricting the importation of negroes. I am so
     thoroughly convinced as that gentleman is, that the nature of our
     climate, and the flat, swampy situation of our country, obliges
     us to cultivate our lands with negroes, and that without them
     South Carolina would soon be a desert waste.

     You have so frequently heard my sentiments on this subject that I
     need not now repeat them. It was alleged, by some of the members
     who opposed an unlimited importation, that slaves increased the
     weakness of any state who admitted them; that they were a
     dangerous species of property, which an invading enemy could
     easily turn against ourselves and the neighboring states; and
     that, as we were allowed a representation for them in the House
     of Representatives, our influence in government would be
     increased in proportion as we were less able to defend ourselves.
     "Show some period," said the members from the Eastern States,
     "when it may be in our power to put a stop, if we please, to the
     importation of this weakness, and we will endeavor, for your
     convenience, to restrain the religious and political prejudices
     of our people on this subject." The Middle States and Virginia
     made us no such proposition; they were for an immediate and total
     prohibition. We endeavored to obviate the objections that were
     made in the best manner we could, and assigned reasons for our
     insisting on the importation, which there is no occasion to
     repeat, as they must occur to every gentleman in the house; a
     committee of the states was appointed in order to accommodate
     this matter, and, after a great deal of difficulty, it was
     settled on the footing recited in the Constitution.

     By this settlement we have secured an unlimited importation of
     negroes for twenty years. Nor is it declared that the importation
     shall be then stopped; it may be continued. We have a security
     that the general government can never emancipate them, for no
     such authority is granted; and it is admitted, on all hands, that
     the general government has no powers but what are expressly
     granted by the Constitution, and that all rights not expressed
     were reserved by the several states. We have obtained a right to
     recover our slaves in whatever part of America they may take
     refuge, which is a right we had not before. In short, considering
     all circumstances, we have made the best terms for the security
     of this species of property it was in our power to make. We would
     have made better if we could; but, on the whole, I do not think
     them bad.[570]

Mr. Madison said in the Virginia ratifying Convention, June 17, 1787:

     Mr. Chairman--I should conceive this clause to be impolitic, if
     it were one of those things which could be excluded without
     encountering greater evils.--The southern states would not have
     entered into the union of America, without the temporary
     permission of that trade. And if they were excluded from the
     union, the consequences might be dreadful to them and to us. We
     are not in a worse situation than before. That traffic is
     prohibited by our laws, and we may continue the prohibition. The
     union in general is not in a worse situation. Under the articles
     of confederation, it might be continued forever: But by this
     clause an end may be put to it after twenty years. There is
     therefore an amelioration of our circumstances. A tax may be laid
     in the mean time; but it is limited, otherwise congress might lay
     such a tax on slaves as will amount to manumission. Another
     clause secures us that property which we now possess. At present,
     if any slave elopes to any of those states where slaves are free,
     he becomes emancipated by their laws. For the laws of the states
     are uncharitable to one another in this respect. But in this
     constitution, "no person held to service, or labor, in one state,
     under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in
     consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from
     such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the
     party to whom such service or labor may be due."--This clause was
     expressly inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them.
     This is a better security than any that now exists. No power is
     given to the general government to interpose with respect to the
     property in slaves now held by the states. The taxation of this
     state being equal only to its representation, such a tax cannot
     be laid as he supposes. They cannot prevent the importation of
     slaves for twenty years; but after that period they can. The
     gentlemen from South-Carolina and Georgia argued in this
     manner:--"We have now liberty to import this species of property,
     and much of the property now possessed has been purchased, or
     otherwise acquired, in contemplation of improving it by the
     assistance of imported slaves. What would be the consequence of
     hindering us from it? The slaves of Virginia would rise in
     value, and we would be obliged to go to your markets." I need
     not expatiate on this subject. Great as the evil is, a
     dismemberment of the union would be worse. If those states should
     disunite from the other states, for not indulging them in the
     temporary continuance of this traffic, they might solicit and
     obtain aid from foreign powers....

  (_The 2d, 3d, and 4th clauses read._)

     ... Mr. _Madison_ replied, that even the southern states, who
     were most affected, were perfectly satisfied with this provision,
     and dreaded no danger to the property they now hold. It appeared
     to him, that the general government would not intermeddle with
     that property for twenty years, but to lay a tax on every slave
     imported, not exceeding ten dollars; and that after the
     expiration of that period they may prohibit the traffic
     altogether. The census in the constitution was intended to
     introduce equality in the burdens to be laid on the
     community.--No gentleman objected to laying duties, imposts, and
     exercises, uniformly. But uniformity of taxes would be subversive
     of the principles of equality: For that it was not possible to
     select any article which would be easy for one state, but what
     would be heavy for another.--...[571]

In 1789 Madison said:

     I conceive the constitution, in this particular, was formed in
     order that the Government, whilst it was restrained from laying a
     total prohibition, might be able to give some testimony of the
     sense of America with respect to the African trade. We have
     liberty to impose a tax or duty upon the importation of such
     persons, as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
     admit; and this liberty was granted, I presume, upon two
     considerations: The first was, that until the time arrived when
     they might abolish the importation of slaves, they might have an
     opportunity of evidencing their sentiments on the policy and
     humanity of such a trade. The other was, that they might be taxed
     in due proportion with other articles imported; for if the
     possessor will consider them as property, of course they are of
     value, and ought to be paid for.[572]

According to Elliot, Spaight said on July 26, 1787:

     Mr. Spaight answered, that there was a contest between the
     Northern and Southern States; that the Southern States, whose
     principal support depended on the labor of slaves, would not
     consent to the desire of the Northern States to exclude the
     importation of slaves absolutely; that South Carolina and Georgia
     insisted on this clause, as they were now in want of hands to
     cultivate their lands; that in the course of twenty years they
     would be fully supplied; that the trade would be abolished then,
     and that, in the mean time, some tax or duty might be laid on....

     Mr. Spaight further explained the clause. That the limitation of
     this trade to the term of twenty years was a compromise between
     the Eastern States and the Southern States. South Carolina and
     Georgia wished to extend the term. The Eastern States insisted on
     the entire abolition of the trade. That the state of North
     Carolina had not thought proper to pass any law prohibiting the
     importation of slaves, and therefore its delegation in the
     Convention did not think themselves authorized to contend for an
     immediate prohibition of it....[573]

In the House of Representatives on February 12, 1790:

     Mr. Baldwin was sorry the subject had ever been brought before
     Congress, because it was of a delicate nature as it respected
     some of the States. Gentlemen who had been present at the
     formation of the Constitution could not avoid the recollection of
     the pain and difficulty which the subject caused in that body.
     The members from the Southern States were so tender upon this
     point, that they had well nigh broken up without coming to any
     determination; however, from the extreme desire of preserving the
     Union, and obtaining an efficient Government, they were induced
     mutually to concede, and the Constitution jealously guarded what
     they agreed to. If gentlemen look over the footsteps of that
     body, they will find the greatest degree of caution used to
     imprint them, so as not to be easily eradicated; but the moment
     we go to jostle on that ground, I fear we shall feel it tremble
     under our feet. Congress have no power to interfere with the
     importation of slaves beyond what is given in the ninth section
     of the 1st article of the Constitution; everything else is
     interdicted to them in the strongest terms. If we examine the
     constitution, we shall find the expressions relative to this
     subject cautiously expressed, and more punctiliously guarded than
     any other part, "The migration or importation of such persons
     shall not be prohibited by Congress." But lest this should not
     have secured the object sufficiently, it is declared, in the
     same section, "That no capitation or direct tax shall be laid,
     unless in proportion to the census;" this was intended to prevent
     Congress from laying any special tax upon negro slaves, as they
     might, in this way, so burthen the possessors of them as to
     induce a general emancipation. If we go on to the fifth article,
     we shall find the first and fifth clauses of the ninth section of
     the first article restrained from being altered before the year
     1808.[574]

According to George Mason's Account:

     The constn as agreed to till a fortnight before the convention
     rose was such a one as he wd have set his hand & heart to....
     with respect to the importn of slaves it was left to Congress,
     this disturbed the 2 Souther-most states who knew that Congress
     would immediately suppress the importn of slaves, those 2 states
     therefore struck up a bargain with the 3. N. Engld, states, if
     they would join to admit slaves for some years, the 2
     Southernmost states wd join in changing the clause which required
     2/3 of the legislature in any vote. It was done, these articles
     were changed accordingly, & from that moment the two S. states
     and the 3 Northern ones joined Pen. Jers. & Del. & made the
     majority 8. to 3. against us instead of 8. to 3. for us as it had
     been thro' the whole Convention. under this coalition the great
     principles of the Constn were changed in the last days of the
     Convention.[575]

The following debate on this subject took place in the House of
Representatives, June 16-20, 1798:

     Mr. B(aldwin). thought the 9th section, forbidding Congress to
     prohibit the migration, &c., was directly opposed to the
     principles of this bill. He recollected very well that when the
     9th section of the Constitution was under consideration in the
     Convention, the delegates from some of the Southern States
     insisted that the prohibition of the introduction of slaves
     should be left to the State Governments; it was found expedient
     to make this provision in the Constitution; there was an
     objection to the use of the word slaves, as Congress by none of
     their acts had ever acknowledged the existence of such a
     condition. It was at length settled on the words as they now
     stand, "that the migration or importation of such persons as the
     several States shall think proper to admit, should not be
     prohibited till the year 1808." It was observed by some
     gentlemen present that this expression would extend to other
     persons besides slaves, which was not denied, but this did not
     produce any alteration of it....

     Mr. Dayton (the Speaker) commenced his observations with
     declaring that he should not have risen on this occasion, if no
     allusion had been made to the proceedings in the Federal
     Convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, or
     if the representation which was given of what passed in that
     body, had been a perfectly correct and candid one. He expressed
     his surprise at what had fallen from the gentleman from Georgia
     (Mr. Baldwin) relatively to that part of the Constitution, which
     had been selected as the text of opposition to the bill under
     consideration, viz: "The migration or importation of such persons
     as any of the States now existing 'shall think proper to admit,
     shall not be prohibited by Congress, 'prior to the year 1808." He
     could only ascribe either to absolute forgetfulness, or to
     willful misrepresentation, the assertion of the member from
     Georgia, that it was understood and intended by the General
     Convention that the article in question should extend to the
     importation or introduction of citizens from foreign countries.
     As that gentleman and himself were the only two members of the
     House of Representatives who had the honor of a seat in that
     body, he deemed it his indispensable duty to correct the
     misstatement that had thus been made. He did not therefore,
     hesitate to say, in direct contradiction to this novel
     construction of the article (made as it would seem to suit the
     particular purposes of the opponents of the Alien bill) that the
     proposition itself was originally drawn up and moved in the
     Convention, by the deputies from South Carolina, for the express
     purpose of preventing Congress from interfering with the
     introduction of slaves into the United States, within the time
     specified. He recollected also, that in the discussion of its
     merits no question arose, or was agitated respecting the
     admission of foreigners but, on the contrary, that it was
     confined simply to slaves, and was first voted upon and carried
     with that word expressed in it, which was afterwards upon
     reconsideration changed for '_such persons_,' as it now stands,
     upon the suggestion of one of the Deputies from Connecticut. The
     sole reason assigned for changing it was, that it would be better
     not to stain the Constitutional code with such a term, since it
     could be avoided by the introduction of other equally
     intelligible words, as had been done in the former part of the
     same instrument, where the same sense was conveyed by the
     circuitous expression of 'three fifths of all other persons.'
     Mr. Dayton said that at that time he was far from believing, and
     that indeed until the present debate arose, he had never heard,
     that any one member supposed that the simple change of the term
     would enlarge the construction of this prohibitory provision, as
     it was now contended for. If it could have been conceived to be
     really liable to such interpretation, he was convinced that it
     would not have been adopted, for it would then carry with it a
     strong injunction upon Congress to prohibit the introduction of
     foreigners into newly erected States immediately, and into the
     then existing States after the year 1808, as it undoubtedly does,
     that of slaves after that period....

     Mr. Baldwin ... observed that he was yesterday obliged to leave
     the House a little before adjournment, and he had understood
     that, in his absence, the remarks which he had made on that point
     a few days ago, in Committee of the Whole, had been controverted,
     and that it had been done with some degree of harshness and
     personal disrespect. What he had before asserted was, that the
     clause respecting migration and importation was not considered at
     the time when it passed in the Convention as confined entirely to
     the subject of slaves. He spoke with the more confidence on this
     point, as there was scarcely one to which his attention had been
     so particularly called at the time. In making the Federal
     Constitution, when it was determined that it should be a
     Government possessing Legislative powers, the delegates from the
     two Southern States, of which he was one, were so fully persuaded
     that those powers would be used to the destruction of their
     property in slaves, that for some time they thought it would not
     be possible for them to be members of it: to that interesting
     state of the subject he had before alluded. In the progress of
     the business, other obstacles occurring, which he need not
     repeat, it was concluded to give to the delegates of those States
     the offer of preparing a clause to their own minds, to secure
     that species of property. He well remembered that when the clause
     was first prepared, it differed in two respects from the form in
     which it now stands. It used the word "slaves" instead of
     "migration", or "importation," or persons, and instead of "ten
     dollars," it was expressed "five percent ad valorem on their
     importation," which it was supposed would be about the average
     rate of duties under this Government. Several persons had
     objections to the use of the word "slaves, as Congress had
     hitherto avoided the use of it in their acts, and not
     acknowledged the existence of such a condition. It was expressly
     observed at the time, that making use of the form of expression
     as it now stands, instead of the word slaves, would make the
     meaning more general, and include what we now consider as
     included; this did not appear to be denied, but still it was
     preferred in its present form. He had more confidence than common
     in his recollection on this point, for the reasons which he had
     before stated. He gave it as the result of his very clear
     recollection. Any other member of that body was doubtless at
     liberty to say he did not recollect it. Still that would not
     diminish the confidence he felt on this occasion....[576]

In a letter to Robert Walsh November 27, 1817, Madison said:

     Your letter of the 11th was duly recd, and I should have given it
     a less tardy answer, but for a succession of particular demands
     on my attention, and a wish to assist my recollections, by
     consulting both manuscript & printed sources of information on
     the subjects of your enquiry. Of these, however, I have not been
     able to avail myself, but very partially.

     As to the intention of the framers of the Constitution in the
     clause relating to "the migration and importation of persons &c"
     the best key may perhaps be found in the case which produced it.
     The African trade in slaves had long been odious to most of the
     States, and the importation of slaves into them had been
     prohibited. Particular States however continued the importation,
     and were extremely adverse to any restriction on their power to
     do so. In the Convention the former States were anxious, in
     framing a new constitution, to insert a provision for an
     immediate and absolute stop to the trade. The latter were not
     only averse to any interference on the subject; but solemnly
     declared that their constituents would never accede to a
     constitution containing such an article. Out of this conflict
     grew the middle measure providing that Congress should not
     interfere until the year 1808; with an implication, that after
     that date, they might prohibit the importation of slaves into the
     States then existing, & previous thereto, into the States not
     then existing. Such was the tone of opposition in the States of
     S. Carolina & Georgia, & such the desire to gain their
     acquiescence in a prohibitory power, that on a question between
     the epochs of 1800 & 1808, the States of N. Hampshire, Massatts,
     & Connecticut, (all the eastern States in the convention); joined
     in the vote for the latter, influenced by the collateral motive
     of reconciling those particular States to the power over commerce
     & navigation; against which they felt, as did some other States,
     a very strong repugnance. The earnestness of S. Carolina &
     Georgia was further manifested by their insisting on the security
     in the V. article against any amendment to the Constitution
     affecting the right reserved to them, & their uniting with the
     small states who insisted on a like security for their equality
     in the Senate.

     But some of the States were not only anxious for a constitutional
     provision against the introduction of Slaves. They had scruples
     against admitting the term "Slaves" into the Instrument. Hence
     the descriptive phrase "migration or importation of persons"; the
     term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of
     acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view
     _imported_ persons as a species of emigrants, whilst others might
     apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the
     country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might
     have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as
     malefactors.

     But whatever may have been intended by the term "migration" or
     the term "persons", it is most certain, that they referred,
     exclusively, to a migration or importation from other countries
     into the U. States; and not to a removal, voluntary or
     involuntary, of Slaves or freemen, from one to another part of
     the U. States. Nothing appears or is recollected that warrants
     this latter intention. Nothing in the proceedings of the State
     conventions indicate such a construction there. Had such been in
     the construction it is easy to imagine the figure it would have
     made in many of the states, among the objections to the
     constitution, and among the numerous amendments to it proposed by
     the state conventions, not one of which amendments refers to the
     clause in question.... It falls within the scope of your enquiry,
     to state the fact, that there was a proposition in the
     convention, to discriminate between the old and new States, by an
     article in the Constitution declaring that the aggregate number
     of representatives from the states thereafter to be admitted,
     should never exceed that of the states originally adopting the
     Constitution. The proposition happily was rejected. The effect of
     such a descrimination, is sufficiently evident.[577]

Speaking about the meaning of migration, Walter Lowrie of Pennsylvania
said in the United States Senate:

     In the Constitution it is provided that "the migration or
     importation of such persons as any of the States now existing
     shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
     Congress prior to the year 1808, but a tax," etc. In this debate
     it seems generally to be admitted, by gentlemen on the opposite
     side, that these two words are not synonomous; but what their
     meaning is, they are not so well agreed. One gentlemen tells us,
     it was intended to prevent slaves from being brought in by land;
     another gentleman says, it was intended to restrain Congress from
     interfering with emigration from Europe.

     These constructions cannot both be right. The gentlemen who have
     preceded me on the same side, have advanced a number of pertinent
     arguments to settle the proper meaning of these words. I, sir,
     shall not repeat them. Indeed, to me, there is nothing more dry
     and uninteresting, than discussions to explain the meaning of
     single words. In the present case, I will only refer to the
     authority of Mr. Madison and Judge Wilson, who were both members
     of the Convention, and who gave their construction to these
     words, long before this question was agitated. Mr. Madison
     observes, that, to say this clause was intended to prevent
     emigration does not deserve an answer. And Judge Wilson says,
     expressly, it was intended to place the new States under the
     control of Congress, as to the introduction of slaves. The
     opinion of this latter gentleman is entitled to peculiar weight.
     After the Convention had labored for weeks on the subject of
     representation and direct taxes--when those great men were like
     to separate without obtaining their object, Judge Wilson
     submitted the provision on this subject, which now stands as a
     part of your Constitution. Sir, there is no man, from any part of
     the nation, who understood the system of our Government better
     than him; not even excepting Virginia, from whence the gentleman
     from Georgia (Mr. Walker) tells us, we have all our great
     men.[578]

Madison wrote on the same question that year in a letter to Monroe:

     I have been truly astonished at some of the doctrines and
     declarations to which the Missouri question has led; and
     particularly so at the interpretation put on the terms "migration
     or importation &c." Judging from my own impressions I shd. deem
     it impossible that the memory of any one who was a member of the
     Genl. Convention, could favor an opinion that the terms did not
     _exclusively_ refer to migration & importation, _into the_ U. S.
     Had they been understood in that Body in the sense now put on
     them, it is easy to conceive the alienation they would have there
     created in certain States: and no one can decide better than
     yourself the effect they would had in the State conventions, if
     such a meaning had been avowed by the advocates of the
     Constitution. If a suspicion had existed of such a construction,
     it wd. at least have made a conspicuous figure among the
     amendments proposed to the Instrument.[579]

There was very little objection to the provision for the return of
fugitive slaves. On the twenty-ninth of August, it was agreed that:

     "If any Person bound to service or labor in any of the United
     States shall escape into another State, He or She shall not be
     discharged from such services or labor in consequence of any
     regulations subsisting in the State to which they escape; but
     shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their service
     or labor."

     which passed in the affirmative (Ayes--11; noes--0.)

     It was moved and seconded to strike out the two last clauses of
     the 17 article[580]

On the same day when the question came up again:

     Mr. Butler moved to insert after art: XV. "If any person bound to
     service or labor in any of the U--States shall escape into
     another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such
     service or labor, in consequence of any regulation subsisting in
     the State to which they escape, but shall be delivered up to the
     person justly claiming their service or labor," which was agreed
     to nem: con:[581]

The Committee of Style reported:

     No person legally held to service or labour in one state,
     escaping into another, shall in consequence of regulations
     subsisting therein be discharged from such service or labor, but
     shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service
     or labour may be due.[582]

On the thirteenth of September,

     On motion of Mr. Randolph the word "servitude" was struck out,
     and "service" (unanimously) inserted, the former being thought to
     express the condition of slaves, & the latter the obligations of
     free persons.[583]

Two days later:

     Art. IV. sect 2. parag: 3. the term "legally" was struck out, and
     "under the laws thereof" inserted (after the word "State,") in
     compliance with the wish of some who thought the term (legal)
     equivocal, and favoring the idea that slavery was legal in a
     moral view----[584]

The Constitution provided then:

     No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws
     thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law
     of Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,
     but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
     Service or Labour may be due.[585]


FOOTNOTES:

[530] In the preparation of these documents we used the notes and
journals of Yates, McHenry and Madison and the subsequent writings of
the framers of the Federal Constitution, but these extracts of the
actual proceedings are copied from Farrand's _Records of the Federal
Convention_.

[531] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 31-32.

[532] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 35-38.

[533] _Ibid._, I, pp. 39-40.

[534] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, p. 40.

[535] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 152-153.

[536] _Ibid._, I, pp. 200-202.

[537] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 205-206.

[538] _Ibid._, p. 208.

[539] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, p. 227.

[540] _Ibid._, I, p. 243.

[541] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 523, 524.

[542] _Ibid._, I. p. 542.

[543] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 559-560.

[544] _Ibid._, I, p. 567.

[545] _Records of the Federal Convention_, pp. 575-576.

[546] _Ibid._, I, p. 579.

[547] _Ibid._, pp. 580-583.

[548] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 580-583.

[549] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 586-588.

[550] _Records of the Federal Convention_, I, pp. 589-590.

[551] _Records of the Federal Convention_, pp. 603--605.

[552] _Ibid._, II, p. 168.

[553] _Records of the Federal Convention_, pp. 182-183.

[554] Dickenson thought that unless the number of representatives
given the large States was reduced the smaller ones would be
encouraged to import slaves.

Art: VII. sect. 3. resumed.--Mr. Dickenson moved to postpone this in
order to reconsider Art: Iv. sect. 4. and to _limit_ the number of
representatives to be allowed to the large States. Unless this were
done the small States would be reduced to entire insignificancy, and
encouragement given to the importation of slaves. _Records of the
Federal Convention_, II, 356, 570, 590.

[555] _Ibid._, III, p. 253.

[556] _Ibid._, III., pp. 155-156.

[557] _Records of the Federal Convention_, III, p. 333.

[558] _Ibid._, III, pp. 342-343.

[559] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, p. 95.

[560] _Records of the Federal Convention_, p. 183.

[561] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 220-221.

[562] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 364-365.

[563] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 369-375.

[564] _Ibid._, II, p. 378.

[565] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, pp. 415-417.

[566] _Maryland Historical Magazine_, December, 1909.

[567] McMaster and Stone, _Pennsylvania and the Federal Constitution_,
pp. 311-313.

[568] P. L. Ford, _Essay on the Convention_, pp. 161-166.

[569] _Records of the Federal Convention_, III, pp. 210-213.

[570] Elliot, _Debates_, IV, pp. 277-286.

[571] Robertson, _Debates of the Convention of Virginia_, pp. 321-345.

[572] _Annals of Congress_, 1st session, I, pp. 339-340.

[573] Elliot, _Debates_, IX, pp. 72-104.

[574] _Annals of Congress_, 1st session, II, pp. 1200-1201.

[575] _Records of the Federal Convention_, III, p. 367.

[576] _Annals of Congress_, Fifth Cong., 2d Session, II, pp. 1660,
1968-2005.

[577] _Documentary History of the Constitution_, V, pp. 303-306.

[578] _Annals of Congress_, Sixteenth Cong., 1st Session, I, pp,
202-203.

[579] _Documentary History of the Constitution_, V, p. 307.

[580] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, p. 446.

[581] _Ibid._, pp. 453-454.

[582] _Ibid._, pp. 601-602.

[583] _Records of the Federal Convention_, II, p. 607.

[584] _Ibid._, p. 628.

[585] _Ibid._, p. 662.




SOME UNDISTINGUISHED NEGROES


PATRICK SNEAD.--Among the most interesting of all fugitive slaves who
escaped into Canada was Patrick Snead of Savannah, Georgia. He was as
white as his master, but was born a slave. Upon the death of his first
master he fell into the hands of one of the sons who died when Snead
was about fifteen. His next master was a rather reckless man. Snead's
master always promised the slave's mother to give him his freedom as
soon as the boy could take care of himself, but this was never done.
Snead was sent to school a little by his mother so that he could spell
quite well. He had no religious training but was allowed to attend a
Sunday school for colored children. Upon approaching manhood Snead was
put to the cooper's trade, which he learned in five years.

Up to this time Snead had fared well, but at length his master fell
sick and died without freeing the slave according to his promise.
Snead was then sold to pay the fees of his master's physician, who
later sold him to a wholesale merchant for $500. In the service of
this merchant Snead proved to be a much smarter man than many of those
who worked with him. In later years, however, he had to work so hard
as to injure his health to the extent that he suffered considerably.
Moreover, Snead was never allowed any money and was restricted in his
social contact with the people of his group in other parts of the
community.

He was later sold to another master, being given in exchange for a
woman, two children and $100. He was still employed in the cooper's
trade. Required to make only 18 barrels a week and capable of making
more than twice as many, he began to receive an income of his own
under the good treatment of his last master. During this period,
however, his desire for liberty grew stronger and stronger because of
the hardships of his people and then he heard of their opportunities
in the free States and in Liberia. He, therefore, made his escape in
July, 1851, and reached Canada in safety. After remaining two years in
Canada he decided to enter the employ of the proprietor of the
Cataract House on the American side of Niagara Falls. What happened
then is best told in his own language. He says:

"Then a constable of Buffalo came in, on Sunday after dinner, and sent
the barkeeper into the dining-room for me. I went into the hall, and
met the constable,--I had my jacket in my hand, and was going to put
it up. He stepped up to me. 'Here, Watson,' (this was the name I
assumed on escaping,) 'you waited on me, and I'll give you some
change.' His fingers were then in his pocket, and he dropped a quarter
dollar on the floor. I told him, 'I have not waited on you--you must
be mistaken in the man, and I don't want another waiter's money.' He
approached,--I suspected, and stepped back toward the dining-room
door. By that time he made a grab at me, caught me by the collar of my
shirt and vest,--then four more constables, he had brought with him,
sprung on me,--they dragged me to the street door--there was a jamb--I
hung on by the doorway. The head constable shackled my left hand. I
had on a new silk cravat twice around my neck; he hung on to this,
twisting it till my toungue lolled out of my mouth, but he could not
start me through the door. By this time the waiters pushed through the
crowd,--there were three hundred visitors there at the time,--and
Smith and Graves, colored waiters, caught me by the hands,--then the
others came on, and dragged me from the officers by main force. They
dragged me over chairs and everything, down to the ferry way. I got
into the cars, and the waiters were lowering me down, when the
constables came and stopped them, saying, 'Stop that murderer!'--they
called me a _murderer_! Then I was dragged down the steps by the
waiters, and flung into the ferry boat. The boatmen rowed me to within
fifty feet of the Canada shore--into Canada water--when the head
boatman in the other boat gave the word to row back. They did
accordingly,--but they could not land me at the usual place on account
of the waiters. So they had to go down to Suspension Bridge; they
landed me, opened a way through the crowd--shackled me, pushed me into
a carriage, and away we went. The head constable then asked me 'if I
knew any person in Lockport.' I told him 'no,' Then, 'In Buffalo?'
'No.' 'Well then,' said he, 'let's go to Buffalo--Lockport is too
far.' We reached Buffalo at ten o'clock at night, when I was put in
jail. I told the jailer I wished he would be so good as to tell a
lawyer--to come round to the jail. Mr.---- came, and I engaged him for
my lawyer. When the constables saw that pretending to know no one in
Buffalo, I had engaged one of the best lawyers in the place, they were
astonished. I told them that 'as scared as they thought I was, I
wanted them to know that I had my senses about me.' The court was not
opened until nine days; the tenth day my trial commenced. The object
was, to show some evidence as if of murder, so that they could take me
to _Baltimore_. On the eleventh day the claimant was defeated, and I
was cleared at 10 A.M. After I was cleared, and while I was yet in the
court room, a telegraphic despatch came from a Judge in Savannah,
saying that I was no murderer, but a fugitive slave. However, before a
new warrant could be got out, I was in a carriage and on my way. I
crossed over into Canada, and walked thirty miles to the Clifton
House."--Benjamin Drew, _A North-Side View of Slavery_, pp. 102-104.

WHITE WOMEN ENSLAVED.--"A New Hampshire gentleman went down into
Louisiana, many years ago, to take a plantation. He pursued the usual
method; borrowing money largely to begin with, paying high interest,
and clearing off his debt, year by year, as his crops were sold. He
followed another custom there; taking a Quadroon wife: a mistress, in
the eye of the law, since there can be no legal marriage between the
whites and persons of any degree of color: but, in nature and
in reason, the woman he took home was his wife. She was a
well-principled, amiable, well-educated woman; and they lived happily
together for twenty years. She had only the slightest possible tinge
of color. Knowing the law, that the children of slaves are to follow
the fortunes of the mother, she warned her husband that she was not
free, an ancestress having been a slave, and the legal act of
manumission having never been performed. The husband promised to look
to it: but neglected it. At the end of twenty years, one died, and the
other shortly followed, leaving daughters; whether two or three, I
have not been able to ascertain with positive certainty; but I have
reason to believe three, of the ages of fifteen, seventeen, and
eighteen; beautiful girls, with no perceptible mulatto tinge. The
brother of their father came down from New Hampshire to settle the
affairs; and he supposed, as every one else did, that the deceased had
been wealthy. He was pleased with his nieces, and promised to carry
them back with him into New Hampshire, and (as they were to all
appearance perfectly white) to introduce them into the society which
by education they were fitted for. It appeared, however, that their
father had died insolvent. The deficiency was very small: but it was
necessary to make an inventory of the effects, to deliver to the
creditors. This was done by the brother,--the executor. Some of the
creditors called on him, and complained that he had not delivered in
a faithful inventory. He declared he had. No: the number of slaves was
not accurately set down: he had omitted the daughters. The executor
was overwhelmed with horror, and asked time for thought. He went round
among the creditors, appealing to their mercy: but they answered that
these young ladies were 'a first-rate article,' too valuable to be
relinquished. He next offered, (though he had himself six children,
and very little money,) all he had for the redemption of his nieces;
alleging that it was more than they would bring in the market for
house or field labor. This was refused with scorn. It was said that
there were other purposes for which the girls would bring more than
for field or house labor. The uncle was in despair, and felt strongly
tempted to wish their death, rather than their surrender to such a
fate as was before them. He told them, abruptly, what was their
prospect. He declares that he never before beheld human grief; never
before heard the voice of anguish. They never ate, nor slept, nor
separated from each other, till the day when they were taken into the
New Orleans slave market. There they were sold, separately, at high
prices, for the vilest of purposes: and where each is gone, no one
knows. They are for the present, lost. But they will arise to the
light in the day of retribution."--Harriet Martineau, _Views on
Slavery and Emancipation_, pp. 8-9.

THE WHITE SLAVE.--"A slaveholder, living in Virginia, owned a
beautiful slave woman, who was almost white. She became the mother of
a child, a little boy, in whose veins ran the blood of her master, and
the closest observer could not detect in its appearance any trace of
African descent. He grew to be two or three years of age, a most
beautiful child and the idol of his mother's heart, when the master
concluded, for family reasons, to send him away. He placed him in the
care of a friend living in Guilford County, North Carolina, and made
an agreement that he should receive a common-school education, and at
a suitable age be taught some useful trade. Years passed; the child
grew to manhood, and having received a good common-school education,
and learned the shoemaker's trade, he married an estimable young white
woman, and had a family of five or six children. He had not the
slightest knowledge of the taint of African blood in his veins, and no
one in the neighborhood knew that he was the son of an octoroon slave
woman. He made a comfortable living for his family, was a good
citizen, a member of the Methodist Church, and was much respected by
all who knew him. In course of time his father, the Virginian
slaveholder, died, and when the executors came to settle up the
estate, they remembered the little white boy, the son of the slave
woman, and knowing that by law--such law!--he belonged to the estate,
and must be by this time a valuable piece of property, they resolved
to gain possession of him. After much inquiry and search they learned
of his whereabouts, and the heir of the estate, accompanied by an
administrator, went to Guilford County, North Carolina, to claim his
half-brother as a slave. Without making themselves known to him, they
sold him to a negro trader, and gave a bill of sale, preferring to
have a sum in ready money instead of a servant who might prove very
valuable, but who would, without doubt, give them a great deal of
trouble. He had been free all his life, and they knew he would not
readily yield to the yoke of bondage. All this time the victim was
entirely unconscious of the cruel fate in store for him.

"His wife had been prostrated by a fever then prevalent in the
neighborhood, and he had waited upon her and watched by her bedside,
until he was worn out with exhaustion and loss of sleep. Several
neighbor women coming in one evening to watch with the invalid, he
surrendered her to their care, and retired to seek the rest he so much
needed. That night the slave-dealer came with a gang of ruffians,
burst into the house and seized their victim as he lay asleep, bound
him, after heroic struggles on his part, and dragged him away. When he
demanded the cause of his seizure, they showed him the bill of sale
they had received, and informed him that he was a slave. In this rude,
heartless manner the intelligence that he belonged to the African race
was first imparted to him, and the crushing weight of his cruel
destiny came upon him when totally unprepared. His captors hurried him
out of the neighborhood, and took him toward the Southern slave
markets. To get him black enough to sell without question, they washed
his face in tan ooze, and kept him tied in the sun, and to complete
his resemblance to a mulatto, they cut his heir short and seared it
with a hot iron to make it curly. He was sold in Georgia or Alabama,
to a hard master, by whom he was cruelly treated.

"Several months afterward he succeeded in escaping, and made his way
back to Guilford County, North Carolina. Here he learned that his wife
had died a few days after his capture, the shock of that calamity
having hastened her death, and that his children were scattered among
the neighbors. His master, thinking that he would return to his old
home, came in pursuit of him with hounds, and chased him through the
thickets and swamps. He evaded the dogs by wading in a mill-pond, and
climbing a tree, where he remained several days. Dr. George Swain, a
man of much influence in the community, had an interview with him,
and, hearing the particulars of his seizure, said he thought the
proceedings were illegal. He held a consultation with several lawyers,
and instituted proceedings in his behalf. But the unfortunate victim
of man's cruelty did not live to regain his freedom. He had been
exposed and worried so much, trailed by dogs and forced to lie in
swamps and thickets, that his health was broken down and he died
before the next term of court."--Levi Coffin, _Reminiscences_, pp.
29-31.

A SLAVE OF ROYAL BLOOD.--"Among the many persons of color whom I
visited at Philadelphia, was a woman of singular intelligence and good
breeding. A friend was with me. She received us with the courtesy and
easy manners of a gentlewoman. She appeared to be between thirty and
forty years of age--of pure African descent, with a handsome
expressive countenance and a graceful person. Her mother, who had been
stolen from her native land at an early age, was the daughter of a
king, and is now, in her eighty-fifth year, the parent stem of no less
than 182 living branches. When taken by the slavers, she had with her
a piece of gold as an ornament, to denote her rank. Of this she was of
course deprived; and a solid bar of the same metal, which her parent
sent over to America for the purchase of her freedom, shared the same
fate. Christiana Gibbons, who is thus the granddaughter of a prince of
the Ebo tribe, was bought when about fifteen years of age, by a woman
who was struck by her interesting appearance, and emancipated her. Her
benefactress left her, at her death, a legacy of 8,000 dollars. The
whole of this money was lost by the failure of a bank, in which her
legal trustee (a man of the name of James Morrison, since dead) had
placed it in his own name. She had other property, acquired by her own
industry, and affording a rent of 500 dollars a year. Her agent,
however, Colonel Myers, though indebted to her for many attentions and
marks of kindness during sickness, had neglected to remit her the
money from Savannah, in Georgia, where the estate is situated; and,
when I saw her, she was living, with her husband and son, on the
fruits of her labor.

"She had not been long resident in Philadelphia, whither she had come
to escape the numerous impositions and annoyances to which she was
exposed in Georgia. Her husband was owner of a wharf in Savannah,
worth eight or ten thousand dollars. It is much feared that the
greater part of this property will be lost, or not recovered without
great difficulty. I was induced to call upon her, in consequence of a
letter I had received from Mr. Kingsley, of whom I have before spoken.
He had long been acquainted with her, and spoke of her to me in the
highest terms; wishing that I should see what he considered a 'good
specimen of the race.'

"We found her, indeed, a very remarkable woman; though it is probable
that there are many among the despised slaves as amiable and
accomplished as herself. Such, at least, was the account she gave us
of their condition, that we felt convinced of the superiority
possessed by many, in moral worth and intellectual acuteness, above
their oppressors."--E. S. Abdy, _Journal of a Residence and Tour in
the United States of America from April, 1833, to October, 1834_, pp.
346-348.




BOOK REVIEWS


_The Virgin Islands of the United States of America._ By LUTHER K.
ZABRISKIE, Former Vice-Consul of the United States at St. Thomas. G.
P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London, 1918. Pp. 339. Price $4.00.

This is an historical and descriptive work containing facts, figures
and resources about a country ninety per cent of the population of
which belongs to the Negro race. It is a detailed account of
practically every interest of concern to the tourist, the merchant,
the geographer and the historian. It is made still more valuable by
its one hundred and nine illustrations and two maps which clearly
demonstrate what the United States Government has received in return
for the purchase price of $25,000,000.

The first effort of the author is to give a short sketch of the
history of the Virgin Islands. He then takes up the question of
purchasing the islands. In discussing these political and historic
questions, however, the author is too brief and neglectful of
important problems which the student of history would like to know.
The author no doubt carefully avoided these questions for the reasons
that he was then and still is in the diplomatic service of the United
States. The book is chiefly concerned with the actual government of
the group, the occupations of the people, and the place of the islands
in the commerce of the world.

Largely interested, therefore, in those things which generally concern
a consul, Mr. Zabriskie has written a valuable commercial treatise. He
explains such things as steamer service, harbor facilities, banking,
currency, sanitation, transportation, cattle raising, agriculture,
manufactures, imports and exports. The last part of the book is
exclusively devoted to the most recent history of the Virgin Islands.
There is a discussion of the sale negotiations, the convention between
the United States and Denmark, the announcement of the sale, the
formal transfer of the islands, the farewell service and the temporary
government provided. This part of the book is not merely descriptive.
It contains the actual documents as in the case of the convention
between the United States and Denmark, which is given in the English
and Danish languages.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Your Negro Neighbor._ By BENJAMIN BRAWLEY. The Macmillan Company, New
York, 1918. Pp. 100. Price 60 cents.

In this book Dean Brawley does not reach the standard set in some of
his other works, but he has here some facts and suggestions which are
worth while. The book begins with an appeal to the people of the
United States in behalf of the Negroes who, despite their many
grievances, are now fighting to make the world safe for democracy
although their own country is not safe for them. In directing these
remarks to the citizens of this country the author gives in detail the
Negroes' grounds for complaint and shows how because of the unjust
treatment of the blacks in the United States this country has become
an object of suspicion in South America, where the color line is not
known.

The second chapter of the book is a statement of the Negroes' place in
history. This, however, is too brief and unscientific to be of much
value to one in quest of facts of Negro history. It seems unnecessary
here also to devote a special chapter to such isolated facts of
history in writing a book dealing with a social problem.

The chapter bearing on the Negro as an industrial factor contains
interesting material taken from statistical reports. The author
discusses such questions as the reliability of Negro laborers, the
antagonism of the labor unions, housing conditions, and the like.
Taking up the institution of lynching, Dean Brawley goes over old
ground but gives striking facts to portray this blot on the American
civilization. Then without showing any close connection between the
two the author takes up Negro education since the Civil War. Here we
see another failure to treat an important question intensively and
scientifically. He then gives a sketch of Joanna P. Moore, a
missionary of much worth, takes up certain critics and their
fallacies, asserts the possibility of the race and closes with a plea
for a moralist.

This in brief is the work recently produced by a man who is
undertaking to address the American people on almost every phase of
Negro life and history. This work, however, is merely the author's
observations or impressions of the Negroes among the whites. The very
work itself shows that Dean Brawley is undertaking too much. He is
best as a literary critic but in sociology and history his works do
not measure up to standard.

                                   ORVILLE HOLLIDAY.

       *       *       *       *       *

_The American Cavalryman._ By HENRY F. DOWNING. The Neale Publishing
Company, New York, 1917. Pp. 306. Price $1.50.

This is a Liberian romance written by Henry F. Downing, a colored man
who evidently spent some years in Liberia. The diction is good, the
style pleasing, and the story interesting, but it is not a sympathetic
portrayal of African character and customs. It is written from a white
man's point of view and shows a tendency to regard the white man's
civilization of today as the only true standard. He shows, however,
that he does not always approve of the European method of dealing with
the African. While describing an unequal contest between the
cavalryman and natives, he says: "But alas! in war, as in finance and
love, victory does not always smile upon the most deserving. She
usually favors the numerically stronger side; that is, unless the less
numerous party is armed with quick firing guns, dumdum bullet, and
other harmless weapons that Europeans think it criminal to employ
against one another, but cheerfully use to Christianize and civilize
the poor helpless black African."

The chief value of the work lies in its portrayal of native customs,
some of which are beautiful, some wholly barbarous and all more or
less tinctured with superstition. But, when we pause to think how rife
superstition still is among all so-called civilized peoples, we
conclude that it is a belief hard to eradicate from human nature. Even
in our own country people were hanged as witches a little over a
hundred years ago.

While cunning and shrewdness are shown to hold an exalted place in the
native character, still lying and cheating, when discovered, are
severely punished. Loyalty to friends and fidelity to pledges are held
in great esteem. Human life does not seem to be valued very highly
judging from the readiness with which a chief extinguished it by
having all disloyal or disobedient followers beheaded at a moment's
notice. It is evident throughout, however, that human nature is the
same in civilized and uncivilized peoples.

There is no attempt to portray the history of Liberia in these pages,
a thing which in my opinion would have made the work stronger and far
more valuable. It does give a fair picture of Monrovia, the capital
city, and presents, to some extent, the need for wise and just
administration and the necessity of funds to improve the city and
endow it with parks, libraries, and places of amusement. The value of
the American constabulary force is felt and the importance of
increased communications, union and helpfulness between the
government and the tribes are emphasized. Altogether it is a work
worth writing and worth reading, although it does not give enough
prominence to the nobler traits of the native character.

                                   IDA GIBBS HUNT.

       *       *       *       *       *

_Education for Life._ By FRANCIS G. PEABODY, Vice-President of the
Board of Trustees. The Story of Hampton Institute, told in Connection
with the Fiftieth Anniversary of the School. Doubleday, Page and
Company, New York, 1918. Pp. 393. Price $2.50.

This work has for its background a brief account of the Negro during
the Civil War and the Reconstruction, serving as the occasion for the
beginning of the successful career of General Samuel Chapman
Armstrong, the founder of Hampton Institute. The actual history of the
institution appears under such captions as the beginnings of Hampton,
the years of promise, the coming of the Indian, the years of
fulfilment, the end of an era, the coming of Frissell, and the
expansion of Hampton. The author has endeavored also to explain the
relations of Hampton and the South and to forecast the future
possibilities of this school. The work is well printed and beautifully
illustrated.

In the _Springfield Republican_ of July 6, 1918, A. L. Dawes said in
her review of this work:

"Hampton institute has chosen a fitting occasion, the completion of
fifty years of life and work, to issue the history of its achievement.
It comes at the end of one distinct epoch, and the beginning of
another, when it is of much value to consider the results which make a
foundation for new progress. It is a record of wonderful achievement,
and this amazing institution may well be proud of it. We are led from
the huddled camp of contrabands in 1868 to the allied armies in 1918;
from a crowd of men and women without a past and seemingly without a
future--even a possibility only to the eyes of patriotism and
faith--we are led in these pages to the ranks of efficient soldiers
and brilliant officers fighting with southern men whose grandfathers
called their grandfathers slaves!

"Faith has become pride and patriotism has become an individual
possession in a resurrected race. The book might well have been called
by that title--'The Resurrection of a Race'--but its distinguished
author, in calling it 'Education for Life,' has chosen to consider
Hampton's double mission to the race and to the world in connection
with education. This latter aspect of its work makes the book
particularly pertinent at this time of world reconstruction. This
attractive volume will be read with interest and satisfaction by the
many widespread friends of Hampton Institute, and it will also be
sought with eagerness by another audience, the large public, which is
seeking new theories of education for a new world. This group will
find it a clear and compelling statement of a new philosophy of
education worked out there, heretofore neither recognized nor
understood outside, but limited either to manual training or
vocational education.

"Hampton has been fortunate in its biographer. It is a labor of love,
by Rev. Francis G. Peabody, one of the few remaining trustees whose
service covers its three epochs and whose friendship has inspired its
three principals. Perhaps no one else has so entered into the life of
the place. He has made himself one with pupils and faculty and
trustees and public in such friendly fashion that he may rightly say
'we' from any point of view. His many readers will look for noteworthy
diction amounting to a new use of words, grace of speech and charm of
phrase, a startling power of insight, a passion for social service and
the revelation of the spiritual in all human affairs, with the
inspiration which compels. These things Dr. Peabody's readers expect
of him, but it might have been questioned whether he could write a
history. In this book he has shown us that history is the story of
life, and he has used all these abilities to discover and fitly
express the life which has become Hampton Institute. Not the least of
all his skill has appeared in what he has left out--so that the book
is never dull though it is crowded with facts. Everything is here that
is needed to answer the questions of any objector, and what is more
difficult, of any friend. The illustrations are not only interesting,
but valuable footnotes to history, and there are a number of
collections of statistics at the end of the book of incomparable worth
to the student of these subjects; we cannot enough commend their range
and selection.

"Among the rest, we notice a just commendation of the Hampton Club in
this city. All through the book explanation forestalls objection,
while old friends find new information and new reasons for
half-understood methods. Such are the accumulating exposition of the
Hampton idea, and the description of circumstances and resources which
condition all action, and determine the measure of progress. Those who
know and love this wonderful place will be gratified at the stress
laid on the 'Hampton spirit' of service as the explanation of its
success, as well as the constant recognition of the spiritual in the
methods as well as the aims of this hothouse of missionary effort. No
one familiar with the school would have found the record complete
without the stressing of this element at once its motive and its life.
Few could have so well defined that elusive but forceful thing--'the
Hampton spirit.'

"It needed all the writer's ability to set forth fitly the ardent
Armstrong and the able Frissell--witness his success in this
characterization of them:

"'Never were two administrative officers more unlike each other.
Armstrong was impetuous, magnetic, volcanic; Frissell was reserved,
sagacious, prudent. The gifts of the one were those of action; the
strength of the other was in discretion.'

"He has given us all fresh knowledge of both men. By his choice and
collocation of extracts he shows Armstrong not only to have had the
enthusiastic impact on his world known to all men, but also a
forelooking philosophy which guided him to a definite end. He brings
out the long line of unusual circumstances which prepared him for this
work, and in repeating the vision in which like a Hebrew prophet the
young officer was called to teach the Negroes, the writer shows that
work to have been a definite growth. No one who knew Samuel C.
Armstrong can ever forget him, or ever describe him, but not one of
his wide circle ever failed to be moved by any contact with him to put
forth his own powers to their full measure.

"Dr. Peabody does full justice to the help and service of the
Freedmen's Bureau, which from the first linked the institution with
the government, and to the American Missionary Association, which made
its beginning possible. He further shows many missionary and
philanthropic sources upon which it has always drawn. If he halts a
little in enthusiastic justice to Gen. Benjamin F. Butler, who began
this crusade, he has evidently done it best--an unexpected best it
must be said, from a Harvard professor! Samuel Armstrong was moved by
his Christian impulses and missionary inheritance to help these needy
people, but there could hardly have been a more unpromising
opportunity.

"The task which Armstrong took up was greater than the present
generation can imagine. Dr. Peabody has recognized this by a clear and
dispassionate description of the situation in 1868, an analysis of the
greatest value to the present-day reader. Armstrong's high courage
and faith brought him to the day when he saw the race well on the high
road to its place in the sun, before he dropped his mantle on the
shoulders of his successor. It is doubtful, perhaps, whether he saw
clearly how much he had done nor how firmly he had established his
principles of the necessity of work and respect for it. Dr. Peabody
brings out very distinctly this his great achievement, but it is
superfluous to quote from a story which everyone will want to read for
himself.

"Mindful of the fact that education depends upon personal contact,
this book deals largely with the work of the two outstanding
personalities, who have made the institution what it is. Hollis Burke
Frissell, who took up the work of principal when Armstrong left it
twenty-five years ago--'Dr. Frissell' as everyone knew him--proved to
be in some ways one of the great men of his time, certainly so if you
give a high value to education. As one of his close friends has said
of him, 'He invariably grew to the measure of the stature that his
work called for.'

"If Dr. Peabody has failed at all in the hard task of describing one
in whom the full round of qualities blended into the white light of
simplicity it is perhaps in not making his virility sufficiently
evident. The first and last impression Frissell made was of
lovableness, and he was so intent on getting work done that he never
cared to be known as its author. Therefore, even his friends did not
always discover his strength or sometimes his greatness. He carried on
the school to a phenominal success and he developed more than one
beginning to a definite policy.

"In the latter part of Gen. Armstrong's career a simple occurrence
changed the whole character of the school. From it the school
developed into a world institution. When the government asked Gen.
Armstrong to continue the education of seventeen Indians already begun
by Capt. Pratt, the task was undertaken as a civil and Christian duty,
but thus was started a government policy, and an educational
experiment which, carried on and broadened to other races under Dr.
Frissell, has changed the face of our own land and altered the
conditions of backward races the world over. Because of this great
historical fact, Hampton should always keep up its Indian department,
which witnesses to the beginning of its world relation.

"The passing of time after the Civil War and emancipation also made
possible to Dr. Frissell the development of another policy, that of
the unification of the North and the South. This was something very
near his heart, and for it he started the southern education
board--which was his creation more fully than Dr. Peabody
explains--the Jeans board, much of the southern work of the
Rockefeller or general educational board and other well-known agencies
to this end. And to accomplish the reconciliation of the races and the
regions he gave the vital force which finally cost him his life. The
future will render this service its due meed of praise, as the writer
so well sets forth, a service carried on in the midst of
misunderstanding and sharp criticism.

"Dr. Peabody has devoted himself especially on bringing out the growth
of Dr. Frissell's carefully-thought-out educational ideals, whereby he
added the value of work to the necessity of it in a complete
education. Under Frissell, as is so well shown, Hampton entered on its
second stage, its relation to the philosophy of education. Men came
from all over the world to study the question of the training of
native races. Inspired by his work, Frissell saw the possibilities on
every side, and looked far into the future. Thus, as has been said,
his set purpose broadened the school to include Porto Rico, Cuba, the
Philippines, and even Africa, making it what he loved to call it, a
'race laboratory.' That he succeeded appears in the constant stream of
officials, educators and philanthropists from all over the globe
coming to Hampton that they may study and copy its methods. The vision
of the future which was given to Dr. Frissell was not so much a vision
of a new race, as with Armstrong; it was for Frissell a vision of a
new humanity.

"It is this vision of 'Education for life' which Dr. Peabody brings
out so clearly--both its meaning and its value. The oldest friends of
Hampton have hardly understood it before, so well does he explain it,
and so thoroughly does he show that its purpose is to make men and
women. Artisans and skilled workmen come out of it, but its first
purpose is to develop individuals and all its interests tend to this
end. This explains its limitations also, and answers many complaints.
The white teacher who recently left because there was 'no future' for
her own career; the educator who complained of a system which
continued to educate on general lines when some vocational diversion
would be more profitable; those who support the objections of the
'Crisis' that Hampton is not a university--all these critics fail to
understand the new philosophy of Hampton and its dominant human
motive. It would be a great mistake if, as appears to be hinted here,
any concessions should be made to the demand of these last critics,
whose aims would destroy the whole idea of Hampton, and its value as
a world experiment. The author of the book and distinguished student
of social ethics so strongly brings out its claim to a new education,
for a new world that (to repeat) the reader cannot fail to inquire if
this is the solution of the future in our forthcoming new world.

"Dr. Peabody brings us to the beginning of the third era and pays a
deserved tribute to the new principal. Rev. James E. Gregg, who enters
on the task at a critical time. Just now, when the race question is
acute both here and everywhere, and when the new democracy is
demanding a new education, there could hardly be a greater opportunity
for the man or the school.

This inadequate sketch of a most informing and inspiring book may well
be closed with a few paragraphs which sum up the aims of Hampton
Institute:

"'In short, the fundamental issue in all education for life is between
a training to make things and a training to make character. Is a man
to be taught carpentering primarily that a house shall be well built,
or that in the building the man himself shall get intelligence,
self-mastery and skill?'

"'The principle was definitely accepted that these shops and classes
were maintained, not as sources of profit, but as factors in an
education for life. Young men and women were not to be regarded as
satisfactory products of Hampton Institute because each could do one
thing and get good wages for doing it, but because each had been
trained to apply mind and will to the single task, and had made it not
only a way of living, but a way of life.'

"'Trade education as conceived gradually developed and finally
realized at Hampton Institute is a development of the person through
the trade, rather than a development of the trade through the person.
The product is not primarily goods, but goodness; not so much profit
as personality.... These students become delivered from the benumbing
conditions of modern industry by the emancipating and humanizing
effect of the Hampton scheme of industrial training, and those who are
thus initiated in a large view of their small opportunities are likely
to find their way, not only to those occupations, which are still open
at the top, but to those resources of happiness which are discovered
when work has become a vocation, and labor has contributed to life.'"




NOTES


In the introduction to Book II of _Negro Folk-Songs_ the author, Mrs.
Natalie Curtis Burlin, has some interesting paragraphs showing the
connection of this music with certain origins in Africa. She says:

"That Negro folk-song is indeed an offshoot from an African root,
nobody who has heard Africans sing or even beat the drum can deny. The
American Negroes are sprung, of course, from many tribes; but whereas
the native traffic in slaves and captives brought individuals from
widely separated parts of the continent to the coasts and thus to the
European slavers, the great mass of Negroes that filled the slave
ships destined for America probably belonged--according to some
authorities--to the big linguistic stock called Bantu, comprising some
fifty million people south of the equator. The Zulu and Ndau tribes,
whose songs I studied, are of this stock. Yet, as there are over a
hundred million Negroes on the Dark Continent, whose different traits
are probably represented in some form in this country, all statements
as to musical derivations could be made with final authority only by
one who had studied comprehensively the music of many different tribes
_in Africa_. This much, however, one may most emphatically affirm:
though the Negro, transplanted to other lands, absorbed much musically
from a surrounding civilization, yet the characteristics which give to
his music an interest worthy of particular study are precisely those
which differentiate Negro songs from the songs of the neighboring
white man; they are racial traits, and the black man brought them from
the Dark Continent.

"The most obvious point of demarcation between Negro music and
European is found, of course, in the rhythm. The simpler rhythms
natural to the white man (I speak of folk-music, the people's song,
not of the elaborate creations of trained musicians) are usually even
and symmetrical. Throughout western Europe and in English and Latin
countries, the accents fall as a rule on the stressed syllables of the
spoken tongue and on the regular beats of the music. The opposite is
the case in Negro songs: here the rhythms are uneven, jagged, and, at
a first hearing, eccentric, for the accents fall most frequently on
the short notes and on the naturally _unstressed_ beats, producing
what we call 'syncopation' of a very intricate and highly developed
order. The peculiarity of this syncopation is best explained to the
layman by drawing attention to the way in which the natural rhythms of
the English language are distorted to fit the rhythm of Negro music:
where the white man would sing, '_Go down Moses_,' the Negro chants,
'_Go down, Moses_,' while a phrase like '_See my Mother_,' becomes in
the mouth of the colored singer '_See my Mother_.' These identical
accents are found in even the wordless vowel refrains of native
African songs. Rhythmically the Negro folk-song has far more variety
of accent than the European; it captivates the ear and the imagination
with its exciting vitality and with its sense of alertness and
movement. For this reason Negro rhythms and white man imitations of
them popularized as 'rag-time' have spread far and wide and have
conquered the world to-day. The black man has by nature a highly
organized rhythmic sense. A totally uneducated Negro, dancing or
playing the bones, is often a consummate artist in rhythm, performing
with utter abandon and yet with flawless accuracy. My African
informant, Kamba Simango, thought nothing of singing one rhythm,
beating another with his hands and dancing a third--and all at once!

"Melodically as well as rhythmically, American Negro songs possess
distinct characteristics. One of these is a very prevalent use of the
pentatonic or five-tone scale, corresponding to the black keys of the
piano. If one comes upon a group of colored men unconsciously humming
or whistling at work, most often it is the five-tone scale that utters
their musical thoughts. This scale--along with other scales--is heard
in black Africa also, and in the music of many simple peoples in
different parts of the world. Indeed, just as totally unrelated races
at certain stages of culture seem to trace many of the same
rudimentary symbols and designs on pottery and in textiles, so in
music, the archaic simplicity of the five-tone scale would seem almost
a basic human art-instinct. Yet the highly developed civilization and
the carefully defined musical systems of China and other nations of
the farthest East retain the pentatonic scale in wide use, the Chinese
in their philosophical and mystical theories of music, linking the
five-tones symbolically with the heavenly bodies. It is surprising how
much variety can be achieved with those five tones. One of the most
graceful melodies that I know in all music is the popular Chinese
'lily Song' which I recorded from a Chinese actor and which possesses
the sheer beauty of outline and the firm delicacy of a Chinese
drawing. Indeed, the melodic possibilities of the five-tone scale,
containing a charm absolutely peculiar to that scale, instead of being
limited, seem almost endless.

"American Negro music, is however, by no means restricted to this
tonality, for we find a broad indulgence in the major and minor modes
of modern art, and also there are many songs in which occur tones
foreign to those scales most common of which is perhaps the minor, or
flat, seventh. Then, too, there are songs framed in the scale with a
sharp fourth; and we also find, though more rarely in Negro music, the
augmented interval of three semitones. Those of us who have noted
Arabic folk-songs are accustomed to associate this latter interval
with Semitic music; occurring as it does in African music also it
reminds us of the contact between the black population of Africa and
the Semitic peoples in the white north of the continent whose caravan
trade brought them into communication with the more savage interior,
while their ships touched at ports along the coasts and even landed
colonists on the Eastern shores, where Arab trade across the Red Sea
must have existed since early Bible times. As the age-old slave
traffic brought captives from African tribes out from the heart of
black Africa to the north, we can readily see how, since the very dawn
of history, Negro and Semitic cultures must have touched. One of the
Bantu legends in my collection from Portuguese East Africa is probably
of Semitic origin, and the song which it embodies seems also tinged
with foreign color. Without doubt, Semitic tunes and musical intervals
found their way to African ears, while, on the other side, African
Negro drum-beats and syncopations must have influenced Berber, Moorish
and thus perhaps even Spanish rhythms.

"Another characteristic of the Negro, musically, is a harmonic sense
indicating musical intuition of a high order. This instinct for
natural polyphony is made clear in the recording of the Negro songs in
this collection, wherein I have noted the four-part harmony as sung
extemporaneously by colored boys who had had no musical training
whatever. Some of the most beautiful improvisational part-singing that
I ever heard arose from the throats of utterly illiterate black
laborers in a tobacco factory. One has but to attend a colored church,
whether North or South, to hear men and women break naturally into
alto, tenor or bass parts (and even subdivisions of these), to realize
how instinctively the Negro musical mind thinks harmonies. I have
heard players in colored bands perform one part on an instrument and
sing another while all those around him were playing and singing still
different parts. Yet it has been asserted by some people that the
harmonic sense of the Negro is a product of white environment and that
the black man owes his intuitive gift to the slave-holders who sang
hymns, ballads and popular songs in his hearing! With all due
allowance for white influence, which has been great, of course, the
fact remains that in savage Africa, remote from European culture, many
of the most primitive pagan songs are sung in parts with elaborate
interludes on drums tuned to different pitches. Indeed the music of
the Dark Continent is rich in polyphonic as well as rhythmic
suggestions for the European. Perhaps the war may help to prick some
of the vanity of the white race, which, looking down with self-assumed
superiority upon other races, is quick to condemn delinquencies as
native characteristics, and to ascribe to its own influences anything
worthy; whereas the reverse is, alas, all too often the case.
Certainly the art of Africa, of India, of the Orient and of North
America owes to the Anglo-Saxon only corruption and commercialization.
As for American Negro music, those songs that are most like the music
of the white people--and they are not few--are the least interesting;
they are sentimental, tame, and uneventful both in melody and rhythm.
On the other hand, such melodies as 'Go down Moses,' 'Four and Twenty
Eiders on Their Knees,' 'Run, Mary, Run,' these speak from the very
soul of the black race and no white man could have conceived them.
They have a dignity barbaric, aloof and wholly individual which lifts
them cloud-high above any 'White' hymns that the Negro might have
overheard. Austere as Egyptian bas-relief, simple as Congo sculpture,
they are mighty melodies, and they are Negro."

       *       *       *       *       *

D. Appleton and Company have published for Professor Ulrich B.
Phillips of the University of Michigan a volume entitled _American
Negro Slavery_.

_Lincoln, the Politician_, by T. Aaron Levy, and _Latest Lights on
Abraham Lincoln_, and _War Time Memories_, works published by Badger
and Revell respectively, are two important volumes throwing light on
the Civil War.

Among the Washington University Studies has appeared a monograph by C.
S. Boucher entitled _The Secession and Cooperation Movements in South
Carolina, 1848 to 1852_.

       *       *       *       *       *

[Transcriber's Notes:

Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully as
possible, including obsolete and variant spellings and other
inconsistencies. The transcriber made the following changes to the
text to correct obvious errors:

   1. p.  20, "aquaintance" --> "acquaintance"
   2. p.  43, "San Fancisco" --> "San Francisco"
   3. p.  44, "legisalture" --> "legislature"
   4. p.  49, Footnote #46, "Califronia" --> "California"
   5. p.  51, "except Lawrence who is" --> "except Lawrence (who is"
   6. p.  51, "Distrist" -> "District"
   7. p.  52, "ten to eleven years," --> "ten to eleven years),"
   8. p.  53, "San Bernardini" --> "San Bernardino"
   9. p.  54, "Banjamin" --> "Benjamin" (twice)
  10. p.  60, No footnote text for footnote #58.
  11. p.  64, No footnote text for footnote #67.
  12. p.  64, No footnote text for footnote #68.
  13. p.  65, No footnote text for footnote #71.
  14. p.  65, No footnote text for footnote #72.
  15. p.  82, "fellings" --> "feelings"
  16. p.  95, "famlies" --> "families"
  17. p. 107, "instrumnts" --> "instruments"
  18. p. 119, No footnote marker for footnote #187 in original text.
  19. p. 125, No footnote marker for footnote #199 in original text.
  20. p. 173, "cannoit" --> "cannot"
  21. p. 186, "reesmblance" --> "resemblance"
  22. p. 187, "doubt fear" --> "doubt, fear"
  23. p. 194, "passsd" --> "passed"
  24. p. 195, "decendants" --> "descendants"
  25. p. 195, "neices" --> "nieces"
  26. p. 208, "talley" --> "tally"
  27. p. 210, "Sewanee Reivew" --> "Sewanee Review"
  28. p. 222, No footnote marker for footnote #248 in original text.
  29. p. 224, "opprobium" --> "opprobrium"
  30. p. 225, "comsioner" --> "commissioner"
  31. p. 229, "Negreos" --> "Negroes"
  32. p. 254, "frofeit" --> "forfeit"
  33. p. 264, "Jaunary" --> "January"
  34. p. 281, "earthern" --> "earthen"
  35. p. 352, No footnote marker for footnote #489 in original text.
  36. p. 354, "agressive" --> "aggressive"
  37. p. 364, "arest" --> "arrest"
  38. p. 371, Footnote #518, "admited" --> "admitted"
  39. p. 373, Footnote #521, "Univerity" --> "University"
  40. p. 375, "poportions" --> "proportions"
  41. p. 383, "and being generally relished," -->
              "(and being generally relished,"
  42. p. 384, "Adjourned to 10 Oclock)" --> "(Adjourned to 10 Oclock)"
  43. p. 390, "overated" --> "overrated"
  44. p. 391, "(It was moved by Mr. Rutlidge" -->
              "It was moved by Mr. Rutlidge"
  45. p. 391, "(Ayes--6; noes))4.)" --> "(Ayes--6; noes--4.)"
  46. p. 391, "Ayes--5; noes--5.)" -->  "(Ayes--5; noes--5.)"
  47. p. 407, "instituton" --> "institution"
  48. p. 418, "our of this country" --> "out of this country"
  49. p. 423, "gentlman" --> "gentleman"
  50. p. 428, The migration "or importation' -->
              The migration or importation
  51. p. 432, "obtaning" --> "obtaining"
  52. p. 439, "administartor" --> "administrator"
  53. p. 451, "comprehensvely" --> "comprehensively"
  54. Various The footnotes have been re-numbered.

Also, many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes remain
as published.

End of Transcriber's Notes]